MONTREAL PROTOCOL 

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE 

THE OZONE LAYER 

UNEP

REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT PANEL

SEPTEMBER 2006 

EVALUATIONS OF 2006 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE AND 

RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT

September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report iii

Montreal Protocol 

On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

Report of the 

UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

September 2006 

EVALUATIONS OF 2006 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR 

METHYL BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

The text of this report is composed in Times New Roman. 

Co-ordination: Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

Composition of the report: Ian Porter, Marta Pizano, Michelle Marcotte, Mohammed Besri 

Layout of the report: Meg Seki, Ozone Secretariat, UNEP 

Reproduction: UNON Nairobi 

Date: September 2006 

Under certain conditions, printed copies of this report are available from: 

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME 

Ozone Secretariat, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya 

Normally from SMI Distribution Service Ltd., Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK, fax: + 44 1438 

748844 

This document is also available in portable document format from

http://www.unep.org/ozone/teap/Reports/TEAP_Reports/

No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, with 

acknowledgement of the source of the material.

ISBN: ********** 
iv September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Disclaimer 

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Technology and Economic Assessment 

Panel (TEAP) Co-Chairs and members, and the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

(MBTOC) Co-Chairs and members, and the companies and organisations that employ them do not 

endorse the performance, worker safety, or environmental acceptability of any of the technical options 

discussed. Every industrial operation requires consideration of worker safety and proper disposal of 

contaminants and waste products. Moreover, as work continues - including additional toxicity 

evaluation - more information on health, environmental and safety effects of alternatives and 

replacements will become available for use in selecting among the options discussed in this document. 

UNEP, TEAP Co-Chairs and members, and the MBTOC Co-Chairs and members, in furnishing or 

distributing this information, do not make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, 

with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or utility; nor do they assume any liability of any kind 

whatsoever resulting from the use or reliance upon any information, material, or procedure contained 

herein, including but not limited to any claims regarding health, safety, environmental effect or fate, 

efficacy, or performance, made by the source of information. 

Mention of any company, association, or product in this document is for information purposes only and 

does not constitute a recommendation of any such company, association, or product, either express or 

implied by UNEP, TEAP Co-Chairs and members, and the MBTOC Co-Chairs and members or the 

companies or organisations that employ them.

Acknowledgements 

The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee acknowledge with thanks the outstanding contributions from all of the individuals and 

organisations who provided support to Panel and Committee Co-Chairs and members. Particular 

appreciation goes to Meg Seki, UNEP Senior Scientific Affairs Officer, for her technical and scientific 

support and her contribution to the report. The opinions expressed are those of the Panel and the 

Committee and do not necessarily reflect the reviews of any sponsoring or supporting organisation. 

Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee: 

Co-Chairs: Mohammed Besri (Morocco); Michelle Marcotte (Canada); Marta Pizano (Colombia); Ian 

Porter (Australia) 

Members: Marten Barel (Netherlands); Jonathan Banks (Australia); Antonio Bello (Spain); Chris Bell 

(UK); Aocheng Cao (China); Peter Caulkins (USA); Fabio Chaverri (Costa Rica); Ricardo Deang 

(Philippines); Patrick Ducom (France); Abraham Gamliel (Israel); Darka Hamel (Croatia); Saad Hafez 

(USA); George Lazarovits (Canada); Nahum Marban Mendoza (Mexico); Carlos Medeiros (Brazil); 

Melanie Miller (Belgium); Andrea Minuto (Italy); Takashi Misumi (Japan); Kazufumi Nishi (Japan); 

David Okioga (Kenya); Christoph Reichmuth (Germany); Jordi Riudavets (Spain); Ariane Saade 

(Lebanon); John Sansone (USA); James Schaub (USA); Sally Schneider (USA); JL (Stappies) 

Staphorst (South Africa); Akio Tateya (Japan); Robert Taylor (UK); Alejandro Valeiro (Argentina); 

Ken Vick (USA); Nick Vink (South Africa); Jim Wells (USA); Chris Watson (UK) 
Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report v

UNEP 

SEPTEMBER 2006 REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT PANEL

EVALUATIONS OF 2006 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR 

METHYL BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT
vi September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

UNEP 

SEPTEMBER 2006 REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT PANEL

EVALUATIONS OF 2006 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR

METHYL BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Scope of this report .........................................................................................1 

2. Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide ..............................................3 

2.1 Mandate...........................................................................................................3 

2.2 Evaluations of CUNs – 2006 round for 2007 and 2008 exemptions ..............3 

2.3 Disclosure of Interest ......................................................................................4 

2.4 MBTOC Process .............................................................................................5 

2.5 Critical Use Nominations Review ..................................................................5 

2.5.1 Consideration of alternatives ....................................................................5 

2.5.2 Period of nominations...............................................................................6 

2.5.3 Plans to develop, register and deploy alternatives....................................6 

2.5.4 Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities........7 

2.5.5 Use/Emission reduction technologies - Low permeability barrier 

films and dosage reduction .......................................................................9 

2.5.6 Adjustments for standard dosage rates using MB/Pic formulations.......11 

2.5.7 Use of canisters of MB ...........................................................................11 

2.5.8 Rate of adoption of alternatives ..............................................................15 

2.5.9 Fulfilment of Decision IX/6....................................................................16 

2.5.10 Sustainable Alternatives..........................................................................17 

2.5.11 Frequency of allowed MB use ................................................................17 

2.5.12 Consideration of Stocks ..........................................................................18 

2.5.13 Use of MB for Research .........................................................................18 

2.6 Decisions Ex.I/4(9d) and Decision XVII/9(10)............................................18 

2.7 Final Evaluations of CUNs submitted in 2006 for 2007 or 2008. ................27 

2.7.1 Details of evaluations..............................................................................27 

2.7.2 Minority statement..................................................................................27 

2.8 References.....................................................................................................87 

3. MBTOC Work plan 2006, Budget 2007.......................................................95 

3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................95 

3.2 Allocation of the Funds under Decision XVI/5 ............................................95 

3.3 MBTOC Work plan for 2007 - Details.........................................................95 

3.4 Summary Report of the Activities Carried out by MBTOC in 2006............97 

3.5 Allocation of the Funds provided under the 2006 budget approved at the 

Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties...............................................................98 

3.6 Management and Personnel Issues ...............................................................98 

4. Recapture of methyl bromide – information provided under Decision 

XVII/11....................................................................................................101 

4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................101 

4.2 Background and definitions ........................................................................101 

4.3 Submissions under XVII/11........................................................................103 
Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report vii

4.3.1 Summary of submissions ......................................................................103 

4.3.2 Comment on recapture and destruction performance ...........................103 

4.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................104 

4.5 References...................................................................................................104 

Appendix I to Chapter 4: Submission of Australia under Decision XVII/11.........105 

Appendix II to Chapter 4: Submission of the United States of America under 

Decision XVII/11.....................................................................................109 

ANNEX I ................................................................................................................119 

ANNEX II...............................................................................................................120 

ANNEX III..............................................................................................................121 

ANNEX IV .............................................................................................................127 
viii September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

EVALUATIONS OF 2006 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL 

BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT – SEPTEMBER 2006 

Glossary of Acronyms 

1,3-D 1,3-dichloropropene 

A5 Article 5(1) Party 

CUE Critical Use Exemption 

CUN Critical Use Nomination 

EC European Commission 

EMOP Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPPO European Plant Protection Organisation 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

LPBF Low Permeability Barrier Film 

MB Methyl bromide 

MBTOC Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

MITC Methyl isothiocyanate 

MOP Meeting of the Parties 

MS Metham sodium 

Pic Chloropicrin 

QPS Quarantine and Pre-shipment 

SF Sulfuryl fluoride 

TEAP Technology and Economics Assessment Panel 

US United States of America 

VIF Virtually Impermeable Film 
Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 1

1. Scope of this report 

This 2006 final report provides final evaluations of MBTOC/TEAP on CUNs submitted by 

Parties in 2006, in accordance with the timetable set out in the Annex I referred to by 

Decision XVI/4. The report also provides an updated summary of National Management 

Plans provided by seven parties showing the status of future MB critical use. MBTOC has 

provided MB consumption figures in the progress report in May 2006 and also provided 

tables and figures of trend lines in critical use exemptions in this report. This information is 

submitted in order to meet the requirements to review management strategies submitted by 

Parties pursuant to Decision Ex.I/4 (9d) and to report on the amount of methyl bromide 

nominated for critical use by the Parties as per Decision XVII/9 (10). 

Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 3

2. Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide 

2.1 Mandate 

Under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol the production and consumption (defined as 

production plus imports minus exports) of methyl bromide is to be phased out in Parties not 

operating under Article 5(1) of the Protocol, by 1 January 2005. However, the Parties agreed 

to a provision enabling exemptions for those uses of methyl bromide that qualify as critical. 

Parties established criteria, under Decision IX/6 of the Protocol, which all such uses need to 

meet in order to be granted an exemption. Refer to Annex 2 for a copy of Decision IX/6. 

All reviews of CUNs made in 2006 are to be in accordance with the ‘Annex I’ referred to in 

Decision XVI/4. This annex also sets out the procedure and timetable for the annual review of 

critical use nominations. In addition to the criteria for the evaluation provided in Decision IX/6, the 

Parties have given further guidance for the review of CUNs in Annex 1 of 16 MOP meeting report. 

Inter alia, this requires that TEAP and MBTOC provide a clear description of why any part of a 

nomination is not recommended, including references to the relevant studies used as the basis for 

such a decision. Para. 32 emphasises that exemptions must fully comply with Decision IX/6 and 

other relevant decisions, and are intended to be limited to the levels needed for critical use 

exemptions. These are considered as temporary derogations from the phaseout of methyl bromide 

in that they are to apply only until there are technically and economically feasible alternatives that 

otherwise meet the criteria in Decision IX/6. The assessment by MBTOC should take a precise and 

transparent approach to the application of the criteria, having regard, especially, to paragraphs 4 and 

20 of Annex I. 

Paragraphs 4 and 20 read: 

4. Although the burden of proof remains with the Party to justify a request for a criticaluse exemption, MBTOC will provide in its report a clear explanation of its operation with 

respect to the process of making determinations for its recommendations, and clearly state the 

approach, assumptions and reasoning used in the evaluation of the critical-use nominations. 

When cuts or denials are proposed, the description should include citations and also indicate 

where alternatives are technically and economically feasible in circumstances similar to those 

in the nomination, as described in decision Ex.1/5, paragraph 8. 

20. In line with paragraph 4 above, in any case in which a Party makes a 

nomination which relies on the economic criteria of decision IX/6, MBTOC should, in 

its report, explicitly state the central basis for the Party’s economic argument and 

explicitly explain how it addressed that factor, and, in cases in which MBTOC 

recommends a cut; MBTOC should also provide an explanation of its economic 

feasibility. 

2.2 Evaluations of CUNs – 2006 round for 2007 and 2008 exemptions 

MBTOC has held two meetings in 2006 to assess the CUNs. Meetings were held 3-9 April 

2006 in Dubrovnik, Croatia and 28 August - 2 September 2006 in Yokohama, Japan. These 

meetings were held as required by the time schedule for considerations of CUNs given in 

Annex I referred to in Decision XVI/4. 

Fourteen Parties submitted 60 critical use nominations for 2007 and 30 nominations for 2008. 

These totalled 2557.106 and 7098.094 metric tonnes respectively. These Parties had 

submitted nominations in previous CUN rounds. The total number of nominations and 

nominating Parties has been reduced from the 2005 round. Four Parties that had CUEs in 
4 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

previous years did not submit further nominations in the final round for 2007. During the 

final assessment in Yokohama, thirty six CUNs, which MBTOC was unable to assess in the 

first round, were reassessed. Nine CUNs were also reassessed at the request of the respective 

Party and one was withdrawn (Ireland Mills). 

One Party, the United States, made arrangements to meet with MBTOC during the Yokohama 

meeting for discussions with regard to their CUNs, in accordance with paragraph 8 of Annex 

1 referred to in Decision XVI/4. In addition, field trips in Japan were held with Japanese 

government scientists and industry representatives to assist MBTOC to improve its 

understanding of Japanese agricultural systems. MBTOC members present at the Open Ended 

Working Group also attended a field trip to improve understanding of issues concerning pest 

control in pasta manufacturing. 

In paragraph 20 of Annex 1 referred to in Decision XVI/4, Parties, inter alia, specifically 

requested that, in cases where a nomination relies on the economic criteria of Decision IX/6, 

MBTOC’s report should explicitly state the central basis for the Party’s economic argument 

relating to CUNs. Table 9 provides this information for each CUN that relied on economic 

criteria. 

MBTOC has sometimes suggested quantities of MB for 2007 or 2008 different from the 

amounts nominated. Grounds used for these changes are given in detail after the relevant 

CUNs in Table 9. The adjustments follow the standard presumptions given in Tables 1 and 2, 

unless indicated otherwise. 

In general, CUNs resulted mainly from the following issues: regulatory restrictions on one or 

two specific alternatives, time required to transition to alternatives, including application 

issues, and economic issues. For the most part technical alternatives exist, but there is often 

less experience with alternatives than with methyl bromide. Lack of experience with 

alternatives has resulted in some application errors, and sometimes reluctance to adopt 

otherwise technically effective alternatives. Additionally, inadequate economic studies, in 

terms of number of studies, conduct of the studies and utility of results to pertinent industries 

has hampered decisions to adopt alternatives. 

As in the previous round, MBTOC has been unable to identify alternatives, or has inadequate 

information for the following applications: fresh high-moisture dates, some seeds infested 

with nematodes, infested cheese in cheese stores, infested dry cure ham, and unmovable 

historical artefacts especially where fungi are of concern. The Parties are requested to 

consider focusing some research on these applications to adapt and, where required, register 

effective alternatives. 

2.3 Disclosure of Interest 

Further to the normal Disclosure of Interest required under the TEAP/TOC terms of reference, 

MBTOC members made an additional disclosure to the MBTOC Co-Chairs relating 

specifically to their level of national, regional or enterprise involvement for the 2006 CUN 

process. This was required to ensure that those with a high level of involvement and interest 

in developing a particular nomination did not bias the process of evaluation through 

participation in the detailed review. The Disclosure of Interest form is an internal MBTOC 

document. The DOI used in previous rounds was used for the 2006 round. As in previous 

rounds, some members withdrew from a particular CUN assessment or only provided 

technical advice on request for those nominations where a potential conflict of interest was 

declared. 
Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 5

2.4 MBTOC Process 

A soil subcommittee in MBTOC considered the nominations relating to the use of MB for soil 

fumigation, while a post-harvest subcommittee considered the nominations relating to the use 

of MB for fumigation of commodities, structures and objects. Drafts arising from the 

subcommittees were considered in plenary. MBTOC, by consensus, was unable to assess one 

nomination (Australia rice 2008). 

This report and decisions of the committee were by consensus, recognizing that different 

perspectives exist within the committee on certain aspects. In its final meeting, MBTOC 

reviewed 90 nominations and achieved full consensus on all but four of these nominations. 

The four nominations where consensus was not achieved were from the US and the lack of 

consensus was due to different views on the rate of adoption of alternatives. Four out of thirty 

one MBTOC members present decided to prepare a minority report on these CUNs. That 

report can be found in Section 2.7.2. 

All nominations received consistent treatment, however specific circumstances of each 

nomination were taken into account. Assessments were independent of the size of the 

exemption requested. 

In general, the most recent CUE approved by the Parties for a particular application was used 

as a benchmark for consideration of continuing nominations. In some instances, this 

benchmark differed from that used by the nominating Party. In 2008, changes to the format 

of US CUNs for soil uses, meant that MBTOC was required to use the 2008 figures as the 

basis for calculating recommendations. 

2.5 Critical Use Nominations Review 

In considering the CUNs submitted in 2006, MBTOC applied the standards contained in 

Annex I of 16MOP, and, where relevant the standard presumptions given below. The process 

was similar to that in 2005. In particular MBTOC sought to provide consistent treatment of 

CUNs within and between Parties while at the same time taking local circumstances into 

consideration for specific crops and situations, and to provide transparency in its processes 

and conclusions. 

2.5.1 Consideration of alternatives 

As in previous years, MBTOC used the guidance given in Annex I where ‘alternatives’ were 

defined as any practice or treatment that can be used in place of methyl bromide. ‘Existing 

alternatives’ are those alternatives in present or past use in some regions; and ‘potential 

alternatives’ are those alternatives in the process of investigation or development. 

MBTOC also used information on the suitability of alternatives for a nomination by 

considering the commercial adoption of alternatives in regions nominated for CUNs. Also, 

adoption in regions with similar climatic zone and cropping practices was used as an 

indication of the feasibility (technical and economic) of an alternative in a similar region. For 

example, 1,3-dichloropropene/chloropicrin (1,3-D/Pic), metham sodium alone or in 

combination with Pic, dazomet, substrates and the use of resistant varieties and grafted plants 

(for solanaceous crops, melons and other cucurbits) have been adopted to replace MB for a 

range of crops in industries applying for CUNs and in many regions where MB was once 

used. 

Rate of change in commercial adoption, partly as a result of rapidly changing regulation, 

challenges MBTOC’s ability to make diligent recommendations in the use of alternatives for 
6 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

post-harvest applications, especially when recommendations are considered for one or two 

years in the future. In post-harvest applications, where research is minimal, but commercial 

adoption trials are more common, MBTOC needs Parties and the affected industries to release 

the results of commercial trials, using group reporting methods when data is judged to be 

proprietary. 

MBTOC has to be knowledgeable about regulatory advances, but in post-harvest applications 

domestic, import and export regulations all play a role that complicates adoption of 

alternatives. Several post-harvest CUNs indicate that if importing Parties were to set 

maximum residue levels for fluoride in foods, then the use of alternatives, for both food and 

structural applications by exporting countries, would improve. This year, as MBTOC was 

making its final recommendations, both CODEX and Germany published maximum residue 

levels for fluoride in several foods. Given the newness of these announcements, the impact of 

these publications on actual MB use for 2007 and 2008 was difficult to predict. 

In evaluating the CUNs for soil treatments, MBTOC assumed that a technically feasible 

alternative to MB would need to provide sufficient pest and weed control for continued 

production of that crop to existing market standards. For commodity and structural 

applications, it was assumed that a technically feasible alternative would provide 

disinfestation to a level that met the objectives of a MB treatment, e.g. meeting infestation 

standards in finished product from a mill. Technically feasible alternatives do not necessarily 

provide superior pest control results than are achieved in practice by MB. Yet, a detailed 

understanding and agreement on the comparative effectiveness of key alternatives, in 

particular for structural pest control, is incomplete. Scientific and industry consensus has not 

been achieved since alternatives may work differently and agreement of necessary end points 

seems to be a difference of opinion. 

MBTOC evaluation of CUNs relating to production of strawberries, tomatoes and some 

related crops was assisted by information provided by a large number of published studies on 

MB alternatives. Many of these studies had been subjected to a statistical analysis (refer 

Special Report TEAP May 2006, Porter et al, 2006). The published studies assisted in 

providing additional transparency to MBTOC evaluations, as requested by the Parties in 

Decision XI/4. 

2.5.2 Period of nominations 

CUNs in this report relate to CUEs sought for 2007 and 2008. No nominations in this 

particular round were submitted for years after 2008. One Party, Australia, submitted 

nominations for both 2007 and 2008, for cut flowers and rice. 

2.5.3 Plans to develop, register and deploy alternatives 

To qualify for a CUE, Decision IX/6 in part states that Parties must demonstrate that “...an 

appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, commercialise and secure national regulatory 

approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the circumstances of the 

particular nomination...” and “...must demonstrate that research programmes are in place to 

develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes...” 

In many nominations in the 2006 round, as in previous rounds, plans to phase out methyl 

bromide and adopt alternatives were often not adequate to allow complete and fast transition. 

As with the 2004 and 2005 rounds, MBTOC did not use lack of effective phase-out plans as a 

basis to ‘not recommend’ a nomination. 

 
Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 7

Decision Ex. I/4 requires Parties that make “a critical-use nomination after 2005 to submit a 

national management strategy for phase-out of critical uses of methyl bromide to the Ozone 

Secretariat before 1 February 2006”. A summary of these plans is shown in 

Tables 6 and 7. 

Several Parties did however, identify feasible alternatives and reduced their nominations to 

account for phase-in of these alternatives. In some instances, even though alternatives were 

considered effective by the Party and MBTOC, the reported phase in of these alternatives was 

considered low by MBTOC (less than 4-7 % adoption of the total nomination). In these 

instances, in its majority report, MBTOC used information on adoption rates used by other 

Parties to assess likely adoption whilst giving due consideration to the specific circumstances 

of the nomination. MBTOC did not reduce a Party’s requested amount for phase-in of 

alternatives without technical and economic evaluation and suitable justification. 

2.5.4 Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities. 

The tables below (Tables 1, 2) provide statements of standard presumptions applied by 

MBTOC/TEAP in assessing this round of CUNs where continued methyl bromide use is 

sought. These standard presumptions were proposed in the MBTOC report of October 2005 

and were presented to the Parties at the 17th MOP. 

Presently, as reported by MBTOC in previous reports (UNEP/TEAP 2005a, b, c, 2006) the 

rates and practices adopted by MBTOC as standard presumptions for soils uses are, in 

general, conservative. For soil treatments, the dosage levels of methyl bromide given in these 

presumptions generally exceed that required to provide effective control of pathogens and 

weeds when also using emission control technologies in all but exceptional circumstances, 

particularly when used in conjunction with low gas permeability barrier films (LPBF), such as 

various VIF and metallised barrier films (eg. Canslit). In some specific circumstances, the 

dosage levels of methyl bromide given in these presumptions may not be sufficient to provide 

effective control of pathogens and weeds. A copy of the actual dosage rate of MB in MB/Pic 

formulations and those used as standard presumptions is shown in Table 1 and 3. MBTOC 

could not reach consensus on new maximum dosage rates for soil uses and thus will maintain 

the current presumptions. 

As in the evaluations in previous years, MBTOC reduced quantities of MB in particular 

nominations to a standard rate per treated area or volume of commodity. 

MBTOC’s standard dosage rate for structural fumigation has become the industry standard. 

Therefore, MBTOC only occasionally needs to reduce quantities of MB recommended to 

bring planned commodity fumigation into line with MBTOC’s standard presumptions for 

commodity treatment, which are consistent with EPPO standards. 

MBTOC considers the maximum MB application rate for 98% MB to be either 350 kg/ha 

(warm sandy soils) or 450 kg/ha (heavier cool soils), in conjunction with low barrier 

permeability films (e.g., VIF or equivalent), combined with extended exposure periods, as 

effective in most circumstances when well applied. In cases where use of high chloropicrincontaining mixtures (approximately MB:Pic 67:33 or 50:50) were feasible, maximum dosage 

rates of 175 kg MB/ha where nutgrass is the key pest and 150 kg/ha for pathogens are 

regarded as reasonable and were used as the maximum standard presumptions unless there 

was a regulatory or technical reason indicated otherwise by the Party. 

As a special case, MBTOC accepted a maximum rate of 200 kg/ha of MB (i.e. 20g /m2) for 

mixtures of MB/Pic for certified strawberry runner production in the absence of data that 

showed certification standards could be met in the circumstances of particular nominations. 

However, several Parties indicated that rates of 20g/m2 of MB or less (Table 4) of MB:Pic 
8 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

50:50 were effective with barrier films for production of ‘certified’ strawberry runners and 

may be suitable for other propagative material. 

Several Parties also indicated that 25g/m2 of 98:2 were effectively used in standard 

commercial application, and several Parties had regulations, which required higher rates of up 

to 50g/m2. In these situations, MBTOC has suggested to Parties that lower rates may be 

technically effective. 

The indicative rates used by MBTOC were maximum guideline rates, for the purpose of 

calculation only. MBTOC recognises that the actual rate appropriate for a specific use may 

vary with local circumstances, soil conditions and the target pest situation. Some nominations 

were based on rates lower than these indicative rates. 

Table 1. Standard presumptions used in assessment of CUNs for the 2006 round – soil treatments. 

Comment CUN adjustment Exceptions 

1. Dosage rates Maximum guideline rates for 

MB:Pic 98:2 – 45 g/m2

 (cold, 

heavy soils) or 35 g/m2 (sandy 

soils), both with barrier films 

(VIF or equivalent); for 

MB/Pic 67:33 - 15g or 17.5g 

MB/m2

 for pathogens and 

nutsedge respectively, under 

barrier films. All rates on a 

‘per treated hectare’ basis. 

Amount adjusted to maximum 

guideline rates. Maximum rates 

set dependent on formulation and 

soil type and film availability. 

Higher rates accepted if 

specified under national 

legislation or where the Party 

had justified otherwise. 

2. Barrier films All treatments to be carried out 

under low permeability barrier 

film (e.g. VIF) 

Nomination reduced 

proportionately to conform to 

barrier film use. 

Where barrier film prohibited 

or restricted by legislative or 

regulatory reasons 

3. MB/Pic Formulation: 

Pathogen control 

Unless otherwise specified, 

MB/Pic 50:50 (or similar) was 

considered to be the standard 

effective formulation for 

pathogen control, as a 

transitional strategy to replace 

MB/Pic 98:2. 

Nominated amount adjusted for 

use with MB/Pic 50:50 (or 

similar). 

Where MB/Pic 50:50 is not 

registered, or chloropicrin 

(Pic) is not registered 

4. MB/Pic Formulation: 

Weeds/nutgrass control 

Unless otherwise specified, 

MB/Pic 67:33 (or similar) was 

used as the standard effective 

formulation for control of 

resistant (tolerant) weeds, as a 

transitional strategy to replace 

MB/Pic 98:2. 

Nominated amount adjusted for 

use with MB/Pic 67:33 (or 

similar). 

Where chloropicrin or 

chloropicrin-containing 

mixtures are not registered 

5. Strip vs. Broadacre Fumigation with MB and 

mixtures to be carried out 

under strip 

Where rates were shown in 

broadacre hectares, the CUN was 

adjusted to the MB rate relative 

to strip treatment (i.e. treated 

area). If not specified, the area 

under strip treatment was 

considered to represent 67% of 

the total area. 

Where strip treatment 

was not feasible e.g. 

some protected 

cultivation or open field 

production of high 

health propagative 

material 
Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 9

Table 2 Standard presumptions used in assessment of CUNs – post-harvest treatments 

 Comment CUN Adjustment Exception 

Dosage rate - 

structural 

20 g/m3 Nominations using higher 

dosage rates were reduced 

proportionally 

Where approved label rates 

require higher dosage rate or 

where substantiated by the 

Party 

Dosage rate –

commodities 

EPPO standard for bulk 

commodities as given in 

MBTOC (1994, 1998) 

Nominations using higher 

dosage rates were reduced 

proportionally 

Where approved label rates 

require higher dosage rates 

or where substantiated by the 

Party 

Table 3. Actual dosage rates applied during preplant fumigation when different rates and 

formulations of methyl bromide/chloropicrin mixtures are applied with and without barrier films. 

Rates of application reflect standard commercial applications rates. 

* Note: Trials from 1996 to 2006 (Table 4) show that a dosage of 10g/m2 (eg. MB/Pic 50:50 at 

200kg/ha with LP Barrier Films) is technically feasible for many situations and equivalent to the 

standard dosage of >20g/m2 using standard films 

2.5.5 Use/Emission reduction technologies - Low permeability barrier films and 

dosage reduction 

Decision IX/6 states in part that critical uses should be permitted only if ‘all technically and 

economically feasible steps have been taken to minimise the critical use and any associated 

emission of methyl bromide’. Decision Ex.II/1 also mentions emission minimization 

techniques, requesting Parties “...to ensure, wherever methyl bromide is authorized for 

critical-use exemptions, the use of emission minimization techniques such as virtually 

impermeable films, barrier film technologies, deep shank injection and/or other techniques 

that promote environmental protection, whenever technically and economically feasible.” 

Where possible in this round, MBTOC assessed CUNs for reductions in MB application rates 

and deployment of MB emission reduction technologies, such as use of low permeability 

barrier films, including VIFs or semipermeable films, or other appropriate sealing and 

MB/Pic formulation (dose of MB in g/m2 Commercial ) 

application rates 

of formulation 

98:2 67:33 50:50 30:70 

A. With Standard Polyethylene Films 

400 39.2 26.8 20.0 12.0 

350 34.3 23.5 17.5 10.5 

300 29.4 20.1 15.0 9.0 

B. With Low Permeability Barrier Films (LPBF) 

250 24.5 16.75 12.5 7.5 

200 19.6 13.4 10.0* 6.0 

175 17.2 11.8 8.8 5.3 
10 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

emission control techniques including deep injection of MB, use of formulations with a lower 

proportion of MB and/ or reduced frequency of application. 

A large number of studies under field conditions in a number of regions (Table 4), together 

with the large scale adoption of low permeability barrier films in Europe (eg. VIF), support 

the use of these films as a means to reduce MB dosage rates. Controlled studies have also 

shown substantial reductions in MB emissions (Wang 1997, Yates 2004, Yates 1996 a,b). 

Research and development on low permeability barrier films has been summarised in the 

1998 and 2002 MBTOC Assessment Reports (MBTOC 1998, 2002). Typically equivalent 

effectiveness is achieved with 25 –50% less methyl bromide dosage applied under LPBF 

compared with normal polyethylene containment films (See Table 3). Recent advancements 

in the cost and technical performance of barrier films, especially metallised polyethylene 

films have reduced cost and extended their suitability for use with methyl bromide and also 

some of the alternatives. Previous difficulties with sealing and gluing barrier films are no 

longer seen as a technical barrier to implementation of barrier films under most climatic 

conditions as new application technologies (ie. glues, polyethylene edges and perforated 

films) have solved earlier problems. MBTOC acknowledges that there is a need for growers 

to obtain confidence in new sealing methods and new films and that modifications to sealing 

techniques may be required in new areas where uptake of barrier films is expanding (eg., in 

the US). 

The use of low permeability barrier films (VIF or equivalent) is compulsory in the 25 member 

countries of the European Union (EC Regulation 2037/2000). In other regions LPBF films are 

considered technically feasible except for the State of California in the US, however, which 

has a regulation which currently prevents implementation of VIF (California Code of 

Regulations Title 3 Section 6450(e)). This regulation resulted from concerns of possible 

worker exposure to MB when the film is removed or when seedlings are planted due to 

altered flux rates of MB. 

In 2003, 2004 and 2005 (UNEP/TEAP 2003, 2004, 2005c, 2006), MBTOC/TEAP evaluations 

of CUNs used maximum allowable dosage rates for use with standard films and barrier films. 

Since then, high levels of success have been demonstrated in many countries at lower rates of 

methyl bromide with barrier films (Table 4). These presumptions were first reported in the 

October TEAP 2005 report and again in the TEAP Progress Report May 2006 CUN report. 

Studies show these standard presumptions for MB dosages (150-175 kg/ha) in MB/Pic 

formulations with barrier films as conservative. Dosage rates as low as 100 kg/ha of 30:70 or 

50:50 MB/Pic have shown similar effectiveness to rates of 335 to 800 kg/ha using standard 

polyethylene (Table 4, Fig 1.). Since the first reports, further trials and commercial adoption 

of barrier films with MB/Pic 50:50 has occurred at rates of 200 kg/ha (<10g/m2 MB) using 

MB/Pic 50:50 or MB 33:67 (or 30:70) for open field crops. 

 

To assist the adoption of lower dosage rates, researchers, extension specialists and fumigators 

need to continue to build grower confidence in the use of barrier films, and sealing methods to 

ensure maximum effectiveness of lower dose applications of MB. Practical permeabilities for 

barrier films are identified by suppliers and offer MB users a wider range of opportunities for 

lowering MB dosages. 

In structures, it is feasible to reduce MB use and emissions through improved sealing 

techniques, with monitoring to ensure only the minimum effective dosage is used, and longer 

exposure periods. In post-harvest applications, improving gas tightness of the treatment 

facility has the effect of reducing methyl bromide use during that fumigation and possibly 

improving effectiveness, which can reduce fumigation frequency as well. Improving gas 

tightness in traditional structures has been reported to be difficult, costly and/or impossible. 

Reliable economic cost data is virtually unavailable, so this remains a difficult area for 

MBTOC and the Parties to rectify. 
Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 11

Several types of commodity fumigations take place in well-sealed structures. Due to local 

regulations a few companies have added methyl bromide recapture equipment to these sealed 

structures in order to minimize methyl bromide emissions. The amount of methyl bromide 

that can be recaptured will vary depending on the type of enclosure, gas tightness and the 

commodity being treated. 

2.5.6 Adjustments for standard dosage rates using MB/Pic formulations 

One key transitional strategy to reduce MB dosage has been the adoption of MB:Pic 

formulations with lower concentrations of methyl bromide (e.g. MB:Pic 50:50 or less). In 

open field crops, these formulations are considered to be equally as effective in controlling 

soilborne pathogens as formulations containing higher quantities of methyl bromide (e.g. 

98:2, 67:33) (e. g. Porter et al 1997;Melgarejo et al 2000; Lopez-Aranda et al 2003, 2006; De 

Cal, 2005; De Cal, 2004a, b; Gilreath et al, 2005 a,b). Formulations containing high 

proportions of chloropicrin in mixtures with methyl bromide have been adopted widely by 

non-Article 5 countries to meet Montreal Protocol restrictions where such formulations are 

registered or otherwise permitted. Their use can be achieved with similar application 

machinery which allows co-injection of methyl bromide and chloropicrin or by use of 

premixed formulations. Consistent performance has been demonstrated with both LPBF 

(Table 4, Fig 1) and standard polyethylene films. 

In commodities, methyl bromide dosage rates vary with commodity temperature and by 

commodity sorption rates. Accordingly, MBTOC uses the dosage rates published by the 

European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) and found in annexes to the MBTOC 

Assessment Reports published in 1995, 1998 and 2002. Parties are encouraged to use the 

lowest possible dosage rate appropriate for the circumstances and as allowed by the label. 

2.5.7 Use of canisters of MB 

One Party submitting CUN’s in this round, still uses canisters (i.e. small 500 to 750g 

canisters) for application of MB under thick polyethylene films. This practice is not 

considered as effective for pathogen control as use of MB/Pic mixtures and also leads to high 

emissions of methyl bromide if used without barrier films. If canisters are used it is important 

that proper techniques are followed to ensure maximum diffusion of MB under tarps to ensure 

consistent treatment of soils. Also it is important that reduced dosages of MB (less than 25g 

MB/m2) are used with barrier films and that films be kept in place as long as practical, up to 4 

weeks, to reduce the chance of off gassing and worker exposure. Canisters have been 

eliminated in most countries (most recently in Greece and Chile) as they were considered 

dangerous. Canisters are used because they provide small land holders with an easy 

application method and the ability to apply targeted amounts of MB to small areas where 

injection machinery may be difficult to use in these circumstances. MBTOC notes that 

dazomet is an alternative that has been used successfully in many small scale areas where 

machinery use is difficult. 
12 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

MB dosage rate (kg/ha) under barrier film

Relative Yield 

Figure 1. Relative yield of crops (strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, cantaloupes) grown under 

barrier films with different MB/Pic formulations compared to the standard commercial treatment 

using standard polyethylene from trials between 1998 and 2004 (▲MB/Pic 98:2; ● MB/Pic 67:33; 

♦ MB/Pic 50:50; ■ MB/Pic 33:67). Data have been taken from Table 4. 
Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Table 4. Relative effectiveness of MB/Pic formulations applied in combination with low permeability barrier films co

MB/Pic formulation applied under standard low density polyethylene films.

 Untreated Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin Mixtures (Product rate per treated area) 

Std film Barrier Film - Relative yield compared to standard polyethylene 

Yield 

MB/Pic 

Formuln. 

Product 

Rate 

Not 

Spec 98:2 98:2 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 50:50 33:67

Country Region Commodity Brand or Type of 

Barrier Film 

 kg/ha 300 400 300 98 196 200 294 336 392 200 200 

Notes 

MB Dosage rate (g/m2) 392 294 66 131 134 197 225 263 100 66 

Spain Vinderos Strawb. Runner VIF - NotSpec 74 50:50 400 93 

 2

Navalmanzano 78 50:50 400 80 

Fusarium, Phytophthora, Pythium, Rhizoctonia and Verticillium 

Spain Vinderos Strawb. Runner VIF - Not Spec 68 50:50 400 114 102 

Navalmanzano 34 50:50 400 76 75 

Fusarium, Cladosporium, Rhizoctonia 

Spain Avitorejo Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 50:50 400 97 2003 results 

 2

 Malvinas 50:50 400 99 

1998 Fusarium 

Spain Valencia Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 59 Not Spec 600 94 At 10cm & 30cm 

53 Not Spec 600 93 1999 results 

Spain Avitorejo Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 80 67:33 400 112 

Tariquejo 54 67:33 400 106 

Meloidogyne and weeds (unspec.) 

Spain Moguer/Cartaya Strawb. Runner VIF - Not Spec 50:50 392 99 

Inoculum not specified 

Spain Cabeza, Nav. Strawb. Runner VIF - Not Spec 74 67:33 400 105, 92 1998 Two sites 

Arevalo, Nav. 84 50:50 400 104, 104 

1999 results, nurseries 

Vinaderos, Nav. 49 50:50 400 95, 123 

2000 results, nurseries 

Spain Huelva Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 82 67:33 400 101 

1997-1998 Inoc.unspecified 

 2

72 67:33 400 102 

1998-1999 Inoc. Unspecified 

68 67:33 400 109 

1999-2000 Inoc. Unspecified 
14 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Spain Moncada Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 60 98:2 600 95 

54 98:2 600 91 

1998 No major pathogens but Fusarium buried 10cm&30cm. 

France Douville Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 65 Not Spec 800 99 

Inoculum not specified 

NZ Havelock North Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 83 67:33 500 98 

Phytophthora present 

USA Florida Pepper VIF Plastopil 69 67:33 392 78 Nutgrass 

VIF Plastopil 69 67:33 392 99 Present 

VIF Vikase 69 67:33 392 83 VIF Vikase 69 67:33 392 86 

USA Florida 

Strawb Fruit, 

Cantaloupe 

Barrier - Pliant, 

Metallised 

98:2 

67:33 

 Trials on 18 Commercial Farms between 2000-2004; no increase in disease or weeds when rates reduced up to 50% under VIF wrt. polyethylene 

Nutgrass and pathogens present 

USA California 72 67:33 336 108 

Inoculum not specified 

Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 

80 67:33 392 96 

USA Florida Tomato VIF - Not Spec 31 67:33 392 111 93 114 

Nutgrass and rootknot nematodes 

USA California Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 75 67:33 392 106 

83 67:33 392 111 65 67:33 392 102 

Watsonville, high pathogen pressure 

USA Florida Tomato VIF - Not Spec 67:33 392 "No significant reduction in yield" USA California Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 45 67:33 364 116 

 Unweighted averages (relative % yield) 66 94 99 93 93 99 102 100 103 108 104 91 
Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 15

2.5.8 Rate of adoption of alternatives 

MBTOC recognizes that time is needed to effect phase-in of alternatives and accepts this as a 

reasonable technical argument for lack of availability to the user sensu Decision IX/6. 

Some CUNs in the 2006 round argued that time was required to allow the relevant industry to 

transition to available effective alternatives. Most CUNs showed a reduction in nominated 

quantity requested from that of the preceding year, reflecting progressive adoption of 

alternatives; while others had the same or similar quantities of MB nominated to the 

preceding CUNs. Some CUNs showed comparatively slow rates of adoption. In some cases, 

alternatives at varying stages of readiness for adoption, were identified in the CUN and, in 

others, they were identified by MBTOC. MBTOC reviewed the technical information on 

alternatives and the commercial adoption of alternatives by Parties previously using MB in 

similar sectors to those where CUNs had been sought (see Figure 4.) in order to make an 

assessment. In some cases, MBTOC made adjustments for adoption ratesof alternatives 

based on the specific circumstances of the nomination. In most instances the adoption rates 

varied between 10 and 25%. At the Yokohama meeting where evaluations of these CUNs 

were finalized, 4 MBTOC members (13% of those present) disagreed with the majority 

position given in Table 9 for US eggplant, peppers, tomatoes and the SE region for strawberry 

fruit. See section 2.7 for the minority statement on these CUNs. 

MBTOC notes that data on the commercial adoption of alternatives for preplant soil use for 

similar sectors as those where consensus could not be reached shows that substantial adoption 

in many regions has occurred within 4 years or less. 

MBTOC also notes that some countries achieved relatively fast adoption because regulations 

were imposed (eg. EC licensed MB amounts in 2006) and in others because growers 

voluntarily accepted alternatives and moved away from MB as they had concerns over the 

environment and human health. Also in several countries, CUNs were not sought for some of 

those sectors where consensus could not be reached. For instance, the tomato and vegetable 

crops (eg. peppers, cucurbits and eggplants) were previously large MB user crops in Australia 

and Spain and complete phase-out for these sectors was accompanied by uptake of a range of 

alternatives before 2005, and industries did not apply for a CUN. Italy has also reduced 

consumption by over 95% in 2007 (assisted recently by EC licensing) for tomatoes. 

Substantial reduction or complete phase out of MB has also occurred for strawberry fruit 

crops in Australia, France, Italy, Spain and the UK (Table 4). Phase out of MB by the end of 

2006 has occurred in many countries. For tomatoes: Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, 

Spain, UK. For strawberry fruit: Belgium, Greece, Japan, Portugal. For peppers: Australia, 

Greece, Israel, Malta, New Zealand, UK. For eggplant: Belgium, Greece, Israel, Japan, New 

Zealand, Spain, UK. 

In contrast to this, Israel has found transition more difficult in these sectors above mainly 

because of restrictions on the use of a key alternative, chloropicrin and MBTOC came to 

consensus on the slower adoption rates. Regulatory restrictions in the US have also restricted 

uptake of a key alternative, 1,3-D. 

Phase-out has also occurred in other sectors previously using MB, eg. Australian open field 

cut flowers, UK cut flowers and ornamental trees and for all sectors previously seeking CUNs 

in Belgium, Malta and Portugal. 

There is limited guidance from the Parties and data available on what is a reasonable rate of 

transition to existing and available alternatives, though para. 35 of Annex I referred to in 

Decision XVI/4 states that “in situations where MBTOC recommends a nomination on 

grounds that it is necessary to have a period for adoption of alternatives, the basis for 
16 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

calculating the time period” is required to be “fully in the TEAP report and take fully into 

account the information provided by the nominating Party, the supplier, the distributor or the 

manufacturer. Relevant factors for such a calculation include the number of enterprises that 

need to transition, e.g., the number of fumigation and pest control companies, estimated 

training time assuming full effort, opportunities for importing alternative equipment and 

expertise if not available locally, and costs involved.” 

As most Parties did not provide all the information required under Annex 1 of Decision 

XIV/4, MBTOC used transition rates from other Parties to assist determination of suitable 

adoption rates in order to provide specific recommendations in this report. In discussion on 

adoption rates for uptake of alternative technologies in CUNs, MBTOC noted several 

examples. In the past, where several industries have been heavily reliant on MB, eg. 

strawberry fruit, tomatoes and vegetable crops (eg. several countries of the EC (e.g. Spain, 

Italy and Australia), almost complete adoption of alternative technologies (especially those 

requiring similar application technologies) has been achieved in a 3 to 4 year period. In some 

cases, these regions have similar climates and pests complexes to those requesting CUNs, but 

may have different production, marketing and regulatory systems. Improved guidance from 

the Parties, giving expected rates of adoption of alternatives following registration, would 

assist MBTOC in evaluation of CUNs in future. Rapid rates of adoption for various uses and 

alternatives have been considered by the European Commission as part of its National 

Management Plan submitted in 2006 (see Table 7). Adoption was achieved in periods of 

about 4 years, sometimes through the use of regulatory requirements or licensing measures 

that assisted final transition to alternatives. 

2.5.9 Fulfilment of Decision IX/6 

Decision XVI/2 directed MBTOC to indicate whether all CUNs fully met the requirements of 

Decision IX/6. When the requirements of Decision IX/6 1(a)(ii) were substantially met, 

MBTOC recommended the full amount of the request. Where some parts of a CUN did not 

meet Decision IX/6 1(a)(ii) MBTOC recommended a decreased amount, depending on its 

technical and economic evaluation. MBTOC reduced a nomination when a technical 

alternative was considered effective or, in a few cases, when the Party failed to show that it 

was not effective. In cases where Decision IX/6 1(a)(ii) was not satisfied to a substantial 

extent, MBTOC did not recommend the nomination. In this round of CUNs, as in previous 

rounds, MBTOC considered answers submitted by Parties in response to questions previously 

sent and given during bilateral meetings with Parties. 

MBTOC’s interpretation of fulfilment of Decision IX/6, in the aspect of evaluating 

alternatives, has become firmer as time has made more information about alternatives known 

to applicants and Parties. Decision IX/6 b (iii) requires, 

(b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses 

should be permitted only if: [...] 

(iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made to 

evaluate, commercialise and secure national regulatory approval of 

alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the 

circumstances of the particular nomination and the special needs of 

Article 5 Parties, including lack of financial and expert resources, 

institutional capacity, and information. Non-Article 5 Parties must 

demonstrate that research programmes are in place to develop and 

deploy alternatives and substitutes. Article 5 Parties must 

demonstrate that feasible alternatives shall be adopted as soon as 

they are confirmed as suitable to the Party’s specific conditions 

and/or that they have applied to the Multilateral Fund or other 
Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 17

sources for assistance in identifying, evaluating, adapting and 

demonstrating such options; 

As in past years, some CUN documents indicated that some applicants did not conduct 

research, evaluate the research of others for adaptation to their circumstance, and/or did not 

send documents showing their effort to conduct research and evaluate alternatives. In some 

cases, these were small-operator applicants, or where costs would have been prohibitive. In its 

evaluations, MBTOC has not required all applicants to conduct research where reasons for the 

nomination were similar to other crops or commodities, but did require technical justification 

where CUNs were based on specific issues for that crop or commodity. In some cases, 

MBTOC relied on its own knowledge to determine if alternatives would have been effective 

in the circumstances of the nomination. 

As applicants and Parties have become more familiar with alternatives, MBTOC has become 

firmer in asking applicants and Parties to conduct research, evaluate research conducted by 

others in the circumstances of their nomination and submit the results of research or 

commercial trials to MBTOC. The information can take the form of research reports, trials in 

field or in commercial applications, consulting reports etc, but should be directly pertinent to 

the circumstances of that particular nomination. This further ensures that aspects of Decision 

IX/6 are met. 

In other instances, MBTOC has observed that some applicants have conducted research and 

made efforts to adapt alternatives without success. There are some difficult challenges for 

some applicants. In some cases, MBTOC has used its knowledge and made suggestions to 

Parties about potentially more rewarding research in the hope that these avenues of 

investigation may assist Parties to evaluate and adopt suitable alternatives. 

2.5.10 Sustainable Alternatives 

In a large proportion of CUNs, the most currently appropriate alternatives are chemical 

fumigant alternatives, which themselves, like MB, have issues related to their long term 

suitability for use. In both the EC and US, MB and most other fumigants are involved in a 

rigorous review that could affect future regulations over their use for preplant soil fumigation. 

MBTOC has been informed that the US government has received a petition to stay (ie. 

remove regulatory approval) the pesticide tolerances for SF. Sulfuryl fluoride is a recently 

approved, important, methyl bromide alternative for several post-harvest applications. A stay 

or other action that removes the pesticide tolerance for SF would increase significantly 

pressure to revert to MB in structural and commodity fumigation. 

MBTOC urges Parties to consider the long term sustainability of treatments adopted as 

alternatives to MB, to continue to adopt chemical and non-chemical alternatives for the short 

to medium term and to develop sustainable IPM or non-chemical approaches for the longer 

term. Decision IX/6 1(a)(ii) refers to alternatives that are ‘acceptable from the standpoint of 

environment and health’. MBTOC has consistently interpreted this to mean alternatives that 

are registered or allowed by the relevant regulatory authorities in individual CUN regions. 

2.5.11 Frequency of allowed MB use 

In past and future CUN rounds, reductions in MB for both preplant soil and postharvest use 

could be achieved in some nominations, where effective alternatives were identified, by 

reducing the frequency of MB fumigations. In some countries, present regulations already 

restrict the frequency of use of MB (e.g. to every second year) on similar crops and 

circumstances to those nominated by other Parties. MBTOC suggests that in these and other 

instances MB may only be required every 2, 3 or 4 years and suggests that Parties further 

consider reductions where appropriate. Using alternating pest control measures may also help 
18 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

provide or extend user confidence and experience in alternatives. New pest control measures 

may also be good agricultural practice, reducing risk of development of tolerance and 

providing control of a wider spectrum of pests. 

2.5.12 Consideration of Stocks 

MBTOC did not evaluate and/or did not take into account the use of stockpiles when making 

recommendations. However one criterion for granting a critical use under Decision IX/6 is 

that methyl bromide for the use “is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from 

existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide” (para. 1 (b) (ii)). 

MBTOC has not systematically collected data on level of stocks or stockpiles present in 

various countries and most Parties submitting CUNs did not specifically account for stocks. 

However most Parties have submitted MB Accounting Frameworks for 2005 to the Ozone 

Secretariat as required by Decision XVI/6. 

A summary of the quantity of MB held ‘in hand’ at the end of 2005, as reported by several 

Parties, is summarised in Table 5. MBTOC has not adjusted nominations to take account of 

reported stocks; the Parties may wish to consider stocks as stated in Decision IX/6 1(b)(ii) 

Table 5. Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2005, as reported by Parties under 

Decision XVI/6. 

Quantity of MB as reported by Parties (metric tonnes) 

Party Amount on 

hand at start of 

2005 

Quantity 

acquired for 

CUEs in 2005 

(production + 

imports)

Quantity used 

for CUEs in 

2005 

Amount at the 

end of 2005# 

Australia 0.0 114.9 114.9 0.0

Canada 48.86 0.0

EC 216.2 2430.8 2530.0 116.5

Israel 16.358 1,072.35 1,088.708 0

Japan 0.0 546.8 546.8 0.0

New Zealand 6.9 40.5 44.58 2.8

USA(a) 7,613 7,170 443

(a) - Additional information on stocks as reported by US EPA website, September 2006: Methyl bromide 

inventory held by US companies: 2004 = 12,994 tonnes; 2005 = 9,974 tonnes 

2.5.13 Use of MB for Research 

Decision XVII/9(7), on critical uses authorised for 2006 and 2007, requested Parties to 

endeavour to use stocks, where available, to meet any demand for MB for research. 

In Table 9, MBTOC has indicated separately the quantities recommended for research, for 

consideration by the Parties. A total of 15.571 tonnes were requested for this purpose in 10 

CUNs in 2006. 

2.6 Decisions Ex.I/4(9d) and Decision XVII/9(10) 

Decision XVII/9(10) of the 17th MOP requests TEAP and its MBTOC to “report for 2005 

and annually thereafter, for each agreed critical use category, the amount of methyl bromide 

nominated by a Party, the amount of the agreed critical use and either: 

(a) The amount licensed, permitted or authorized; or 

(b) The amount used 
Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 19

Decision Ex.I/4 requested MBTOC to “submit a report to the Open-ended Working Group at 

its twenty-sixth session on the possible need for methyl bromide critical uses over the next 

few years, based on a review of the management strategies submitted by Parties pursuant to 

paragraph 3 of the present decision. At the twenty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Group, an 

initial summarization of the national management strategies that were available to MBTOC at 

that time was presented. At the suggestion of MBTOC, the Parties agreed that MBTOC 

would provide an update to the Parties at their Eighteenth Meeting. The following sections 

address those tasks. 

Decision Ex.I/4 (3) required the Parties making a critical-use nomination after 2005 to submit 

a national management strategy for the phase out of the critical use of MB. As requested by 

the Parties in decision Ex.I/4 (9d), TEAP through its MBTOC reviewed the management 

strategies to prepare a report to the twenty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group 

on the possible need for methyl bromide critical uses over the next few years. 

All the seven relevant Parties have submitted their management strategies. One Party, the 

European Community, covers the strategy of its member states that have critical uses. A 

summary of the seven management strategies is given in Table 6 below. 

Table 7 provides the estimated annual CUE quantities for the next few years, i.e. 2008-2010. 

Trends in nominated and exempted amounts of methyl bromide granted by the Parties 

contained in Table 7 have also been used to in the estimation of the future needs. MBTOC 

estimates that the CUE quantities will continue to decrease over the next few years, but 

information provided by Parties is not sufficient to predict amounts beyond this period. The 

estimated annual quantity of MB required for controlled uses in non A5 countries as CUEs is 

6234 for 2008; 5920 for 2009 and 2010, however these amounts will be influenced by 

outcomes of the 18th MOP (Table 7). 
20 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Table 6. Summary of CUE trends and information provided in National Management Strategies for phase-out of critica

CUE industry 2007/2008) 

CUEs approved by MOP 

(tonnes) 

CUNs 

(tonnes) 

Expected or planned schedule 

for MB phase-out for Critical 

Uses 

Constrain

 2005 2006 2007 2007 

(new) 

2008 

Australia Rice, strawberry, 

protected flowers 

146.6 75.1 40.88 10.25 51.1 Reduce the imports of methyl 

bromide to zero by 2010 or earlier. CUE holders to identify and transition to alternatives before 2010. Turf growers and flourmills have been using stocks from before 2005 and have not requested CUEs so far. 

Demonstratin(LPBF) barriIndustry to owidespread aA national prnumber of nowater and somethyl iodidprospective iand/or registTelone C 35 been identififor the straw

Canada Mills, strawberry 

runners 

61.79 53.90 39.99 12.87 36.11 As fast as possible following 

transition strategy principles to phase-out. No figures provided. 

Potential alteindustries. The governmtechnology/stechnology oThe Canadiacompleted onthe support oyear (2005-2service provievaluations w2007. 

European Community* 

Chestnuts, mills, seeds, carrots, cucumbers, cutflowers and bulbs, eggplant, nurseries, orchard replant, pepper, strawberry (fruit and runners), tomato, dried fruit, processors, artefacts, melon, coffee and cocoa beans, herbs and 

4392.812 3536.755 0 1280.09 0 Expected rates of adoption of 

alternatives are provided for the main categories of critical uses. Phase out is expected for most major uses within one year except for strawberry runners which is predicted at two years. The total CUE amounts actually used for each category of critical use are provided. 

Information is provided iregistration/cefforts need disseminatiotransfer , reghave been taadoption rate
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

CUE industry 2007/2008) 

CUEs approved by MOP 

(tonnes) 

CUNs 

(tonnes) 

Expected or planned schedule 

for MB phase-out for Critical 

Uses 

Constrain

 2005 2006 2007 2007 

(new) 

2008 

mushrooms, aircraft, cheese, spices, structures 

Information on the EC directives on MB critical use nomination and use criteria are provided. 

Israel Dates, flour mills, 

furniture, museums. Broomrape, cucumber, cutflowers fruit tree nurseries, melon, potato, strawberry fruit and runners, tomato 

1089.306 880.295 0 1147.112 - The situations and the CUE phaseout strategy for each critical use 

category are provided together with estimated year for the adoption of the alternatives. 

The constrainsectors is expthe adoption strawberry fr

Japan Chestnuts, cucumber, 

ginger, pepper, melons, watermelons 

748 741.4 636.172 0 589.6 Will ensure the reduction of 

critical uses nomination successively. No figures provided NMS to promote the phase-out of uses of methyl bromide as soon as technically and economically feasible. Difficult to suggest standard reduction level in general. 

Experimentafor crop disealternative tedone): 

1. methyl 

temper

2. contro

of resis

3. green p

tobamo

New Zealand Strawberry fruit, 

strawberry runners 

50 42 0 30.50 - Government has determined that 

2007 will be the last nominations that will be supported for the critical use of methyl bromide by the strawberry industry. 

The most likare ongoing especially in into alternati

USA Dried commodities, 

mills and processors, ham, cucurbits, eggplant, forest seedlings, nurseries, orchard replant, ornamentals, peppers, strawberry fruit, strawberry nurseries, tomatoes, turfgrass, sweet potato 

9552.879 8081.753 6749.060 0 6415.153 Manage CUEs in accordance with 

the policies, procedures and regulations that are in place to address the elements in Ex.I/4(3) (i.e. avoid increases except under unforeseen circumstances; encourage use of alternatives; provide information on the potential market penetration of alternatives; promote emissions reductions measures; provide a description of phase-in of feasible alternatives) 

Sector-by-seprovided. 

* Member states of the European Community (EC) requesting CUEs for 2007 include France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland

Other EC members states that have requested CUNs after 2005 include – Belgium, Germany, Latvia, Malta, and Portugal. 
22 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Table 7. Summary of estimated trends in Future Need for Methyl Bromide in Non A5 countries as determined from the estimations from information provided in the National Management Plans in 2006 (Figures are in metric tonnes) as req

CUE’s recommended by MBTOC for 2007 and 2008 have been included. 

Quantities approved 

or recommended by MBTOC 

Estimated Future Need for MB as Indicat

CUE’s and National Management Plan

Party 

2005 

(1ExMOP and 

16MOP) 

2006 

(16MOP+ 

2ExMOP+ 

17MOP) 

2007 

(17MOP + MBTOC 

recom for 

MOP18) 

2008 (MBTOC recom for MOP18) 

2008 2009 2010 

Australia 146.600 75.100 [46.728] [39.25] [39] {39} {3Canada 61.792 53.897 46.745 [42.241] [42.241] {42} 4European Community 

4392.812 3536.755 [689.142] NA {320} 0 0 

Israel 1089.306 880.295 [933.315] NA {1050} {1050} {10Japan 748.000 741.400 636.172 [443.775] [443.775] {443} {44New Zealand 50.000 42.000 [6.234] NA {6} {6} {6USA 9552.879 8081.753 6749.06 [4339.41] [4339.41] [4339} {43TOTALS 16050.089 13418.200 [9098.348] [4852.176] [6234] {5920} {59NA - No CUN application yet. [ ] - Depenedent on 18th MOP outcome. { } - Estimated amounts only which are not reduced for stocks/inventory 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 23

Figure 4. Amounts of MB exempted for CUE/CUN (figure on left)and relative reduction in 

nominated amounts for CUNs by Party (figures on the right) for preplant soil uses in industries from 

2005 to 2008. Solid lines indicate trends in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indicate quantity of 

methyl bromide nominated by the Party in 2006 for either 2007 or 2008. 

 

 

Reduction in MB Use (%)in 2007 cf. 1998 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Australia France Greece Italy Spain USA

Parties

Tomatoes

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

metric tonnes

Belgium

Greece

Italy

USA

Strawberry Fruit

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

metric tonnes

Australia

France

Israel

Italy

New Zealand

Spain

United Kingdom

USA

Reduction in MB Use (%) in 2007 cf. 1998

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Australia

France

Israel

Italy

New Zealand

Spain

UK

USA

Parties
24 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Figure 4 (Cont.). Amounts of MB exempted for CUE/CUN for preplant soil uses in industries from 

2005 to 2008. Solid lines indicate trends in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indicate quantity of 

methyl bromide nominated (CUN) by the Party in 2006 for either 2007 or 2008. 

Orchard replant

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

metric tonnes

France

USA

 

Peppers and Eggplant

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2005 2006 2007 2008

Years

metric tonnes

Belgium

France

Italy

Japan

Spain

USA

Cucurbits and Melons

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

metric tonnes

Belgium

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Japan

USA

 

C utflow ers

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

metric tonnes

Australia

Belgium

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Portugal

Spain

USA
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 25

Figure 5. Amounts of MB exempted for CUE uses in mills and food processing facilities from 2005 

to 2008. Solid lines indicate trend in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indicate quantity of methyl 

bromide nominated by the party in either 2007 or 2008. 

All Food Processing and Milling

(Not Commodities)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

metric tonnes

Belgium

Canada

France

Germany

Greece

Israel

Italy

UK

USA
26 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Table 8. List of nominated (2005 – 2008 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2007 in part) amounts of 

methyl bromide granted by Parties under the CUN/CUE process. (Note: A breakdown of CUN and 

CUE amounts by commodity is given in ANNEX IV) 

FINAL NOMINATIONS SUBMITTED 

BY THE PARTIES 

QUANTITIES APPROVED BY THE PARTIES 

Party (agreed critical use categories) 

Total 

Nominatio

n 

2005 

Total 

Nominatio

n 

2006 

Total 

Nominatio

n 

For 2007 

Nominatio

n for 2008 

made in 

2006 

2005 

(1ExMOP 

and 

16MOP) 

2006 

(16MOP+ 

2ExMOP+ 

17MOP) 

2007 

(17MOP + 

MBTOC 

recom for 

MOP18) 

2008 

(MBTOC 

recom for 

MOP18) 

Australia 206.95 81.25 52.145 51.100 146.6 75.1 [46.728] [39.25] 

Canada 61.992 53.897 46.745 42.241 61.792 53.897 [46.745] [42.241] 

European 

Community1

5754.361 4213.47 1239.873 0 4392.812 3536.755 [689.142] NA 

Israel 1117.156 1081.506 1236.517 0 1089.306 880.295 [933.315 

Japan 748 738.7 651.7 589.600 748 741.4 636.172 [443.775] 

New Zealand 53.085 53.085 32.573 50 42 [6.234] NA 

Switzerland 8.7 7 0 0 8.7 7 0 NA 

USA 10753.997 9386.229 7417.999 6415.153 9552.879 8081.753 6749.06 [4339.41] 

TOTALS 18704.24 15615.135 10677.552 [7098.094] 16050.089 13418.200 [9107.396] [4864.676] 

NA – Not available yet; [ ] Final amounts not yet known 

1 Members of the European Community having CUNs/CUEs in 2005 – 2007 include: Belgium, France, Germany, 

Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 27

2.7 Final Evaluations of CUNs submitted in 2006 for 2007 or 2008. 

2.7.1 Details of evaluations 

MBTOC/TEAP assessed the 90 CUNs and recommended 47 in the interim report in May, 

with 36 placed in the ‘unable to assess’ category. 11 CUNs were not recommended. 

 

During its second meeting in Yokohama at the end of August, MBTOC/TEAP reassessed 35 

CUNs that had been placed in the ‘unable to assess’ category (one CUN was withdrawn). 

Nine CUNs were reassessed at the request of the Parties (Australia, Japan, Italy and the US) 

and one CUN was withdrawn (Ireland mills). Four CUNs were not recommended. 

In 2006, a total amount of 6498.765 tonnes of MB has been recommended, 1634.089 tonnes 

for 2007 and 4864.676 tonnes for 2008. A total of 858.590 tonnes were not recommended for 

2007 and 2226.661 tonnes for 2008 for a total of 3085.251 tonnes of MB not recommended in 

this round of CUNs. 

Table 9 includes all evaluations of CUNs made in the final report on the 2006 round of 

nominations. The evaluations given in Table 9 are by consensus of MBTOC, with exceptions 

for the evaluations relating to CUNs from the US for 2008 for eggplant, peppers, tomatoes 

and the SE region for strawberry fruit. 

2.7.2 Minority statement 

TEAP Comment: 

Under the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Terms of Reference, reports 

are developed by consensus and must reflect any minority views appropriately. 

In almost twenty years of reports by TEAP, TOCs, and Temporary Subsidiary Bodies (TSBs), 

there have been fewer than five minority statements. However, two of these previous minority 

statements involved issues related to methyl bromide. 

This MBTOC report includes the third such minority statement regarding methyl bromide 

critical use exemption recommendations submitted by four experts from one country who 

asked that their names not be listed. 

After consultation with the MBTOC Co-Chairs, the TEAP Co-Chairs honoured this request 

for anonymity, with reservation. On this matter, TEAP seeks guidance of the Parties on 

whether future minority statements, if any, can be submitted anonymously. 

Stephen O. Andersen, Lambert Kuijpers and Jose Pons, TEAP Co-Chairs 

In a show of hands at the Yokohama meeting where evaluations of these CUNs were 

finalised, 4 MBTOC members (13% of those present) disagreed with the majority position 

given in Table 9 to CUNs from the US for 2008 for eggplant, peppers, tomatoes and the SE 

region for strawberry fruit. 

The minority provided the following statement: 

“MBTOC did not reach consensus on nominations from the United States for tomato, pepper, 

eggplant, and strawberry fruit in the SouthEast. Among the MBTOC members present, 13% 

identified themselves as in agreement with a minority position, while the remaining 87% 
28 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

either agreed with the majority position or did not indicate a position. This minority of 

members finds that in deciding MBTOC’s recommendation for these US CUNs MBTOC did 

not fully consider the specific circumstances of these four nominations. 

The minority position is that MBTOC should defer to transition times submitted by Parties 

and not impose different transition times. In the case of the CUNs for US tomatoes, peppers, 

eggplant and strawberry fruit in the South East Region, the Party has provided data on the 

amount of production that currently relies on methyl bromide which can transition to 

technically and economically feasible alternatives over time and provides a transition rate, 

either as an annual rate or as a multi-year timeline. We believe MBTOC should show 

deference to that information, unless MBTOC can document evidence supporting a different 

transition rate in the specific circumstances of the nomination. In these cases, the minority did 

not believe the evidence submitted was valid in the circumstances of these nominations. 

The majority has recommended reducing the four nominations named above based on a 25% 

transition rate citing experience in Spain, Italy, and Australia, despite information from the 

Party which contained specific transition information, different from 25% in 2008. We note 

that although transition experiences in Spain, Italy, and Australia are cited as the basis for 

MBTOC’s decision, Italy submitted nominations for 2007 for eggplant, pepper, strawberry, 

tomato, and melon and Spain submitted nominations for pepper and strawberry for 2007. 

Furthermore, the majority do not make clear that the transition rate in some other countries 

cannot be attributed entirely to commercial acceptance of methyl bromide alternatives, but 

rather to regulatory regimes that limited the availability of methyl bromide. Thus, the 

proposed transition rate of 25 percent in 2008 for the four commodities in the United States 

does not consider the specific circumstances existing in the United States. Other Parties have 

been able to impose regulatory or licensing limits on use of methyl bromide, decreasing 

methyl bromide allocations to less than critical uses granted under the Montreal Protocol. In 

the United States, domestic regulation allocates methyl bromide in accordance with the 

quantity of methyl bromide approved by the Parties for critical uses, unless local regulatory 

and industry circumstances allow for more transition to alternatives. Within the limits of the 

amounts approved under the Montreal Protocol, and within the limitation of domestic 

regulatory approval of alternatives, technical and economic feasibility determines transition to 

alternatives, using research, education and extension efforts as a basis. 

The minority holds that unless MBTOC has compelling evidence fully applicable to the 

circumstances of the nominations, MBTOC should rely on the Party’s determination of 

feasible transition timelines. The minority finds the cited experiences in Australia, Italy, and 

Spain are not sufficiently convincing and that the specific circumstances of the four US 

nominations were not fully considered.” 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Table 9. Final evaluations of CUNs submitted in 2006 for 2007 or 2008 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (16MOP+ 2ExMOP+ 17MOP) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17) 

Quantity nominated for 2007 (additional or new) 

Quantity nominated for 2008 

MBTOC recommendation for 2007 

MBTOC recommendation for 2008 

MBTOC comments 

Australia cutflowers 

- bulbs - protected 

7.000 7.000 none 6.170 6.150 3.598 3.5 MBTOC recommends a red

tonnes for this CUN for 20The CUN states that MB is soilborne fungi and weeds flowers and bulbs grown unamount has been reduced to standard presumptions of 3use/emission control technoconducted research showineffective under LPBF and cmaterial is underway (Man

states that although some flbeing produced in substrateeconomically feasible in ceSteam is not feasible due to techniques like plate steamD+ Pic and MB formulatiocontent cannot be used in cPlantback times with other but trials are underway to sParty has also identified thaalternative to MB, but is no2005). 
30 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

Australia Rice 6.150 6.150 5.130 4.075 2.250 MBTOC recommends 2.25 

amount of methyl bromide 44.4% of the nominated amrequested by the Party. The granted 5.13 tonnes of MB grant this supplemental recAustralia will receive 7.38 total. With its supplementathe amount already granted tonnes), the Party requested 2007 (a total of 9.205 tonntonnes), for a crop that is elarger than in 2006. The Pasupplemental amount for tha resulting higher non-QPS fumigation for 2007. Althobetween requirements for nof high and low harvest is stherefore MBTOC may not justification, MBTOC only increase over 2006 levels, cincrease in expected harvesas rice for consumption in AIn reviewing this CUN, MBreconcile an apparent differthe CUN has indicated nondomestic consumption), witonnes in 2007, according treferences (Australia Commdomestic consumption doehigh. MBTOC has no consbut in 2005 domestic consuimports and excluding procOver the previous 5 years, changed little and was not harvest. Domestic consumpper year over that period of CUN and taking note of thestatistics, MBTOC decided tonnes supplemental for 20documents. However, if the indeed only about 160,000 Australia may wish to cons
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

of the supplemental amounMBTOC. Then, the total Mthe same amount granted btonnes) for essentially the sQPS fumigated rice. Additiconcerned that the Party hatransition to alternatives sinavailability of effective treaThese treatments, howeverParty has indicated it can nexperienced several years o

Australia Rice 9.200 U MBTOC is unable to asses

Since the 2008 rice harvest and treatment would not be drying, milling and packagParty to re-nominate for thibromide is still critically nerequested from the Party ththe time of MBTOC’s 2006 MBTOC is not convinced aneed, for MB for post-milliconfines of Decision IX/6. the applicant may be requeagainst possible complaints fumigations are ineffective methods allow re-infestationeeds to resolve the differe

consumption requirements non-QPS rice that is fumigfacilities would allow phoseffectively fumigate paddy surviving Sitophilus eggs wso would require investmen

costs the applicant may wisbubble and tunnel systems in other countries and if theaffordable, report economiphosphine fumigations wersealed structures only a maremaining Sitophilus eggs w

survive milling (depending 

milling) (Lucas and Riudavand Vinghes, 2001). Resea

indicates that ethyl formate 
32 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

is effective to control those 

MBTOC requests data subs(proper phosphine fumigatipackages) can not be implecould resolve any potential 

remaining after milling. (4) that the applicant needs to protection methods and pacprevent post-packaging insapplicant is requested to gijustification if these packagbe made. Please explain whinsect-proof packaging sincprocess insect infestation. Crice packages are fumigatebromide is an inappropriate packaging infestation. Postcontamination possibly occpunches holes in the packapackaging method used by question the justification foThe applicant is encourageplan based on effective use and other control methods reliance on methyl bromide

Australia Strawberry 

runners 

35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 35.750 MBTOC recommends that 

approved for this use in 20exceeds MBTOC's standarMB which is considered ef'high health' strawberry runemission control technolog2005); however, rates of usMBTOC's standard presumregistered and therefore canto treat soils. The CUN stat

meet certification standardD/Pic, is used in a portion ouptake is limited by phytotwet soil conditions during provided recent data from a indicated that phytotoxicity doubling of the time requirto MB. Although 1,3-D/Pito MB in strawberry runner 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

effects of this alternative on plants produced and the cocontrol measures required aThe CUN states that plug pfeasible alternative but that this technology are too highexamining the efficacy of 3reduce this rate. MBTOC ctechnologies are available tThe Party notes that two cualternatives appear promisiethane dinitrile (Mann et alThe Party is requested in fudemonstrate that alternativepathogen and pest tolerancrequirements 

Canada Mills 47 (included 

mills and pasta) 

34.774 30.167 

(included mills only) 

none 28.650 28.650 MBTOC recommends 28.6

use. This amount representCUE for 2006, and a furtheover 2007 CUE. The Party trials of various alternativeand sulfuryl fluoride. Sulfuregistration that only allowParty has indicated it will rpermitted for use should cinomination change. If new commercially registered, anunder the Canadian circumtrials with heat (alone or in insecticidal treatments) alloshould be possible to reducbromide allowed. 

Canada Pasta (see Canada 

mills) 

10.457 none 6.757 6.757 MBTOC recommends 6.75

2007. This corresponds to 35% over the amount grantMBTOC notes that sulfuryfor empty facilities and it is facilities completely of fini

there is currently no MRL foods in Canada. While headisinfest production areas oused for facilities containinMBTOC notes industry effsuch as cleaning and struct
34 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

the level of insect infestatioof IPM such as obtaining a monitoring should improve pests better with non-MB tfrequency of MB fumigatioresult in reduced requiremeyears. MBTOC further notto use heat in the productioapplicant to investigate the production part of the facilstorage area to facilitate adMBTOC agrees with the apstructural features of facilitprevent infestations and eninvestigate structural changharbourages to reduce need fumigation. For any future receive extensive, detailed data evaluating the techniceconomic feasibility of altecountries and why these altin the circumstances of Caneffectiveness of improvemeaudit, cleaning, facility impinspection, (2) facility heat fluoride when applicable. 

Canada Strawberry 

runners (Ontario) 

none none none 6.129 6.129 MBTOC recommends that 

approved for this use in 20exceeds MBTOC's standarof MB which is considered 'high health' strawberry run

other emission control techOctober 2005); however, fowith MBTOC's standard prregistered in Canada and thcommercially to treat soils. 

required to meet certificatiothat still lower rates are effMB for the first 2 years of cycle. In the 3rd year the Pcompost with kelp seaweed suppress soil pathogens and the plants. The Party states weather 1,3-D + PIC has a 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

compared to MB. Currentlmixture formulation is regi

Canada Strawberry 

runners (PEI) 

6.840 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 MBTOC recommends that 

approved for this use in 20exceeds MBTOC's standarMB which is considered ef'high health' strawberry run

other emission control techOctober 2005); however, fowith MBTOC's standard prregistered in Canada and thcommercially to treat soils. is required to meet certificahas attempted to replace Mbanned in January 2003 ducontamination. The Party hdetermine the feasibility of Currently only the 67:33 Mis registered in Canada. Chbeen provisionally registerehas not yet had the opportualternative. 

France Chestnuts 2.000 2.000 none 1.800 1.800 MBTOC recommends 1.80

2007. The CUN relates parchestnuts, which impacts th

alternative treatments, comprocessing. Although the Ptrials on many potential altregistered alternatives that marketability of fresh mark

nuts which are durable comhigh moisture, semi-perishharvested one day, fumigat

consumers the next day or France are subject to pests treatment time than are fresother countries (Cydia sple

Curculio elephas (Gyllenhamarketing channel allows t

consistent with the need to The Party has conducted suefficacy tests with ethyl forallow an organic certificati
36 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

adoption of maximum residcompleted. 

France Mills 40.000 35.000 none 8.000 8.000 MBTOC recommends 8 ton

2007. Sulfuryl fluoride was this application (March 200adoption rate has been propto efficiently transition to arelatively low amount of Mthe face of numerous mills control, the Party might nestrategies that reserve MB layout and design, age and/

most difficult. MBTOC’s kfluoride and heat treatmentrequired to develop effectivlarger, more complex mills temperatures because sometreatment is required. 

France Seeds 0.135 0.135 none 0.100 0.096 MBTOC recommends 0.09

2007. This amount is for 0.nematodes for alfalfa seeds bruchids insects in beans an

in August 2006, the Party snominated MB volumes, a original nomination. MBTOtreatment to control nematocontrol in seeds, the Party jmethyl bromide as a busine

company maintains that its delivery of seeds that only the high dosage rates needetreatment, will satisfy their registered and effective and However, PH3 requires sevagainst bruchids. For the fuencouraged to test fast metwhich may be effective and 

maintaining germination, oor inert atmospheres. Additinformation identifying the involved and substantiating present in clean seeds. 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

France Carrots 8.000 8.000 none 5.000 1.400 MBTOC recommends a red

this use in 2007. This is foha with use/ emission reducto MBTOCs standard presukg/ha. MBTOC notes some CUN and answers submittequestions particularly in relCarrots are grown worldwithe EC has recognized the for this crop and disease cosoil borne pathogens (FusaPythium, Heterodera) and registered in France and daunder certain climatic cond

France Cucumbers 60.000 60.000 none 15.000 12.500 MBTOC recommends a red

of MB for this use in 2007. nomination is based on the 175 kg per Ha under LPBF reduction technologies. Thproduction area. Although standard pathogen control r

Phomopsis sclelotioides is control and requires the hignutsedge control. Limited aFrance, as chloropicrin or mwith other chemicals are noproportion of cucumber prosoilless culture (75%), but in the remaining cropping auneconomic by the Party. registration of chloropicrinimprove disease control anculture will further reduce 

in the near future (Fritsch, methyl bromide recommenuse of MB since 1997. 

France Cut 

flowers and bulbs 

60.000 52.000 none 12.000 9.600 MBTOC recommends 9.6 t 

party reduced the Member no information on whether to reductions in rate, changbarrier films or transition to averaged a transition reducnominated of 20% per year interval. In light of availab
38 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

alternatives, MBTOC adjusamount to account for 20% 2008. MBTOC did not adjstandard presumptions due setting a minimum rate of 5for soilborne fungi, nematodifferent kinds of flowers gunder cover. The party has rotation between growers, gerbera), metam sodium, ananemone, ranunculus) coulareas. MBTOC considers thsituations include metham methods, metham+ short pmetham+1,3-D (Sachs et alMolendijk, 2006; Barel, 202002; Reuven et al. 2002; Gare commercially available gerbera, carnation, gypsophanthurium, tulip, freesia, lilal. 2001; Savvas and PassaTognoni and Pardossi, 200Minuto et al. 2002; Kipp et substates are too expensivesubstrates are commercially flower crops (Mutitu et al. UNIDO, 2004). If future nclarification on rates, formustrategies, and adoption rateconomic analyses, will be able to evaluate the nominaregistration of chloropicrin MBTOC notes that efforts party to amend the regulatipermit lower doses of MB formulations of MB, especconsidered important as flousing MB in the world use 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

France Eggplant 125 

(eggplant pepper and tomato) 

22.000 none 33,25 

including tomato 

 0 NR MBTOC does not recomm

for soilborne pathogens affVerticillium dahliae, for whare technically and economwidely used to control V.da

in some European countriethe 17 ha heavily infested s

nomination. Very good rooV.dahliae are now availablgrafting is widely used in mclimate and cropping systeRegistration of chloropicrin soon thereafter of mixtures chemicals, such as 1,3D+P

combined with grafting wiloptions for the nominated aSpotti, 2004; Tognoni et alha) of the eggplant area is n

this technique can be expannominated area (Spotti, 200

Leoni et al,2004). 

France Forest 

nurseries 

10.000 10.000 none 1.500 1.500 MBTOC recommends 1.5 t

MBTOC recognizes that pra very high level of soilborcontrol in order to avoid wpests and pathogens. Regisexpected for 2006 and soon this material with other chebut these are not yet availabconsidered uneconomical atraditional production in sohas been provided. Dazomeffective to provide a plant 

methyl bromide (using metenhanced 50% relative to M

size, shape, and diameter o

France Orchard & 

raspberry nurseries 

5.000 5.000 none 2.000 2.000 MBTOC recommends 2 ton

The CUN states that MB is production area where popusoil fungi, especially Phytois for the same quantity licerecognises that propagative high level of soilborne pest order to avoid widespread d
40 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

pathogens into the fruiting chloropicrin is expected in not yet commercially availeffective alternative for areare low to moderate, but is when disease pressure is hiPhythophthora is present. 1instances when nematodes provides results of new stuand combinations of these further encourages the Partinformation, if nominations pathogen levels on plants (those pathogens subject to well as comparative measuof methyl bromide allowed MBTOC notes that efforts Party to amend the regulatipermit lower doses of MB formulations of MB, espec

France Orchard 

replant 

25.000 25.000 7.500 7.000 MBTOC recommends a red

for this CUN for 2007. The orchard replant complex. Mthere may be regulatory resdosage allowed in France, brecommendation on the use treatment which constitutes This dosage conforms to Mpresumption of 350 k/ha of possible alternatives exist fproblems, these are based ochloropicrin with other chenot yet registered in Francearea (80%) is not treated wpresently subjected to crop Dazomet or otherwise subjthat help reduce pathogen iconstraint to the adoption o

to clearly identify the causa

The Party is encouraged to 

testing to confirm the neces
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

France Pepper (see 

eggplant) 

27.500 none 6.000 6.000 MBTOC recommends a CU

in 2007. The CUN is for co

capsici. Chloropicrin, a suexpected to become registeavailable. Although MBTOinclude a dosage rate of 35 registered doses are higher are required for P. capsici, 

pests and 40 g/m2 for nema

alternatives are technically for this use: Steam is wideland other pathogens in som(Barel, 2004) and its use coha of heavily infested soils 

Grafting is also an alternatirecognises that its use in peRegistration of chloropicrin 

options of control, when uswith other chemicals or wit(15 ha) of the pepper area iand this technique can be e

the nominated area. MBTObeing made by that the Partno. AGRG 0000311 V to pand register lower formulat50:50.

France Strawberry 

fruit - protected and open field 

90.000 86.000 none 34.000 0 NR MBTOC does not recomm

nomination requests MB mstrawberries that carry “terrPerigord. The party states tadopted on more than 300 h“terroir” areas because the in soil. MBTOC requested standards but did not receivMBTOC considers that sevavailable in France and thato MB, for example metam equipment, combinations oLPBF and resistant varietie

2000; Pommier, 1999; Hag2004: Ferguson, 2001; Lop2004; Runia and Molendijk studies in Special Report: Tapplied by drip irrigation w
42 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

adopted on about 100 ha th

France Strawberry 

runners 

40.000 40.000 28.000 28.000 MBTOC recommends a CU

states that MB is required tstandards for strawberry ruused in areas of low diseas(98:2) is used on the remainsecond year - ie 60 ha. MBParty has a reduced range obecause chloropicrin is not research and testing prograpotentially feasible alternatie. 1,3-D + PIC combinatioof PIC], DMDS [registratioand methyl iodide [awaitinMBTOC notes that efforts Party to amend the regulatipermit lower doses of MB formulations of MB, especconsidered important as othgrowing regions in the worMB. The Party is requested demonstrate that alternativepathogen and pest tolerancrequirements. 

France Tomatoes 48.400 included in 

eggplant above 

 0 NR MBTOC does not recomm

longer used for tomatoes in (Besri, 2004; Garcia-Alvar

According to the CUN, soithe option for controlling cview of the fact that chloro

Although MBTOC's standadosage rate of 35 g/m2 of Mare higher in France, where 

capsici, 50 g/m2 for other s

40 g/m2 for nematodes. Preare technically and economSteam is widely used to co
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

pathogens in some Europeaand its use could be expandinfested soils reported in thwidely used in France (30 % grafted, De Miguel, 2004; Beven though resistance to crobust, and registration of cmixtures in combination wexpand the scope of efficieForty per cent of fresh tompresently produced in soil lalternative may be further eSpotti, 2004; Tognoni et al

Greece Dried Fruit 4.280 3.081 none 0.900 0.45 MBTOC recommends 0.45

2007. This is a 50% reductnominated by the Party. Thconsistent downward trend dried fruit. In March 2006 report, MBTOC requested to enable detailed review o

meeting of 2006, no inform

previous years for CUNs fofor dried fruit in other counrecognized a need for a relamethyl bromide when rapid marketing is urgent. Lackinfrom the Party on volume ofumigation, MBTOC was otonnes. 

Greece Mills & 

Processors 

23.000 15.445 none 1.340 1.340 MBTOC recommends a CU

use for 2007. The Party's Mhas shown a steep decline sdoes not give details of the proposed for use. MBTOC standard dosage rate for mi

MBTOC would wish to encheat disinfestation and IPM replacement of MB. (Doslarelatively low amount of Mthe face of the 20 mills that the Party might need to conthat reserve MB for those mdesign, age and/or location difficult. 
44 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

Ireland Mills none 0.888 none 0.611 0.000 MBTOC did not assess this 

withdrawn at the request of 

Israel Dates 3.444 2.755 none 2.200 2.200 MBTOC recommends 2.2 t

The Party has continued its The Party has recently madresearch and commercial aunder difficult circumstanchouses. The remaining MB transition the most difficult developed in Israel. 

Israel Flour mills 2.140 1.490 none 1.490 1.040 MBTOC recommends 1.04 

for mills in 2007. This repr

the originally nominated amParty. Millers are starting omanagement programs with"Integrated Pest Managemeindicates the use of heat disdeveloped according to the planning a step-wise phasewhich will be completed in 

Israel Furniture 1.442 0.000 none 1.442 0 NR MBTOC does not recomm

not justify the use of MB foalternatives such as CO2, Ncan be used for this purposprovided no research data oeconomics of alternatives ato show that alternatives ar
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

Israel Museums none none none 0.600 0 NR MBTOC does not recomm

such as CO2, N2, vacuum, c

effective for moveable arteParty may wish to resubmiindication proposing only icontaminated with fungi or infested books, or if the Pathat shows why technically not suitable in their circumParty may provide informameets the requirements of Dthe volume of product to be the conditions of treatment

Israel Broomrape none none none 250.000 250.000 MBTOC recommends 250 

for 2007. The CUN is for bland rehabilitation of 1000 the Golan Heights. A total with this weed, making it imtomatoes in these regions. based on a dosage of 250 kemission reduction technolformulations with higher pregistered in Israel. MB wiregion and it is expected to population below the damaother alternatives to be adoexpects that in 2007-2008, combinations such as 1,3-Dof 1,3-D+ metham sodium 

become registered or availaidentified other alternatives 

of Orobanche (e.g. Sulfosu
46 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

Israel Cucumber none none none 25.000 25.000 MBTOC recommends 25.0 

for 2007. The CUN states topen ended polyhouses in 3 in the proximity of the resicooperative family and privthe need for MB is concentthe growers specialized for 

indoor cucumbers for the dfor MB could be considerenot submitted previously sipathogen control problems at the commercial level. Focropping cycles, solutions wmonoculture production paspecialization of the groweenhances the pressure from two additional reasons for trequest for MB are the appsp. radicis cucumerinum fo

recommended control meanlimitations on the use of thpathogen is highly virulent particularly high in the affedevastate entire greenhouseFurthermore, low soil tempfumigation season of Decemadoption of MB alternativebased on a dosage of 250 kconjunction with use/ emisChloropicrin or MB formuproportion of Pic are not rethat trials on alternatives ar

Israel cutflowers 

- bulbs - protected 

303.000 240.000 none 321.330 220.185 MBTOC recommends a red

tonnes for this use in 2007. recommend use of 5 t of MMBTOC has adjusted the aconform to the standard preof 35 g/m2 of 98:2 with adhas also adjusted the nomin25% adoption of alternativamount of MB is higher thato new flower types being g

fumigated soils. Lack of reand chloropicrin mixtures f
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

major factor affecting subs

Israel Cutflowers 

- open field 

77.000 67.000 none 80.755 74.540 MBTOC recommends a red

tonnes of MB for this use irequest is higher than that oexpansion of the cropping aparticularly proteas (300+ ngeophytes (30 new Ha). Laalternatives on flowers, whcrops in Israel, such as 1,3-metham sodium, are the masubstitution of MB at this thigher chloropicrin content Solarisation and metham sotime only in gladioli) and sidentified by the Party as feproportion of this nominatiand a 25% transition rate hproportion for adoption of MBTOC encourages the Paregister alternatives, particuchloropicrin, and promote t

Israel Fruit tree 

nurseries 

50.000 45.000 none 10.000 7.500 MBTOC recommends 7.5 t 

MBTOC recognizes that pra very high level of soilborcontrol in order to avoid wpests and pathogens into thadjusted their requested am98:2 which is below the Madjusted their nomination tnominated for treatment of reach approximately 65% aproduction of tree seedling

Israel Melon - 

protected and field 

125.650 99.400 none 140.000 99.500 MBTOC recommends a red

for a CUN for this use in 2

cannonballus is the key patproduction of melons in the oxysporum f.sp. melonis an

mainly M. javanica are als

notes that MB has been fulfor fall production of melonmetham sodium, dazomet, formaldehyde+MS, and 1,3
48 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

Arava. The long plant back during the winter and the laconditions for solarisation munfeasible in the winter. Thbeen calculated based on a conjunction with use/ emisIn the absence of alternativParty, if possible, is urged MB formulations with a hig(eg. 50:50, 30:70) to allow the future. 

Israel Potato 239.000 165.000 none 137.500 137.500 MBTOC recommends 137

for 2007. There are 15,000 Israel and alternatives to Mfor management of key pesregions. The applicant iden

do not work in 550 ha in hiwinter production occurs, iregulatory constraints are in alternatives such as 1,3D+ prohibited near residential acreage in this region. The mechanical injection mach

the application of metham which will help decrease thcontamination caused by ththem toxicologically accepconditions of the densely panticpated these alternativeIn the absence of complete the Party, if possible, is urgMB formulations with highorder to further reduce MB 

Israel Strawberry 

runners 

35.000 35.000 none 28.000 28.000 MBTOC recommends 28 t

in 2007 [80 ha x 350 kg/haD + Pic has been the leadinfurther adoption is limited which significantly limits istrawberry growing regionStrip. The CUN states that Macrophomina phaseolina strawberry runner growing standard presumption for 9with LPBF (eg.VIF). In or
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

IX/6, the Party is requested trials, and to demonstrate thachieve the pathogen and pcertification requirements isubmitted.. 

Israel Strawberry 

fruit 

196.000 196.000 none 148.200 65.100 MBTOC recommends a red

for this use in 2007. The Ceffective and used on part oadoption is limited by buff

production regions. The pa

impact of buffer zones. MBalternatives such as dazomdazomet + short solarisatiofor the major pests affectinand provide yields about 92 

with MB (Ausher, 2004; L2004; Pietr, 2002; IR-4 2002006b). The CUN’s econothat dazomet and 1,3-D/pic and 53% higher than MB asystems are used, but the puptake is limited by cost. Mapplicants to continue adopsystems which have been asimilar circumstances in ot2004; Lieten, 2004), as welidentified above. MBTOC will also be assisted by redrunner production, improvereduce pathogen pressure, aresistant varieties. MBTOC could achieve full adoption 

coming year. 

Israel tomato none none none 90.000 22.750 MBTOC recommends a red

tonnes for this use in 2007. adjusting the application rastandard presumptions of 3

combination with use/ emisThe nomination is for the eintroduced soilborne fungu2. The CUN states that this and no further requests are 
50 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

Italy Artifacts 5.225 5.225 none 5.000 5.000 MBTOC recommends 5 to

pests and fungi in historica

building components, but oprocedures whereby MB trthe recommendation by govofficials. Other EU membethese purposes, but SF is noon historical buildings and 

buildings are both insects anot know of a technically etreatment for control of funand components. Italy is enresearch program to test the atmospheres and approve asulfuryl fluoride which wouAdditionally, treatment of wbuilding components could fumigation with carbon diowhich still allows use of th1992) . 

Italy Mills and 

processors 

160.000 65.000 none 25.000 25.000 MBTOC recommends 25 t

The recommended amount 50% reduction compared to registered SF in 2004, but rhave been fully trained to dadapt heat treatments to mihave been conducted. Italy this transition and methyl bin 2008. 

Italy Cut 

flowers, bulbs - protected 

250.000 187.000 none 30.000 30.000 MBTOC recommends 30 t

as requested. The Party has reduced the requested amou(from 250t in 2005, to 187 transitioning to alternativesefforts made by the Party in conform to MBTOC standause/ emission reduction tec

registration of key alternatiThe CUN states that substrwater supply is insufficient cause unacceptable contammany parts of the world siminexpensive systems are in be re-circulated and cleane
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

problems (Savvas and PassPizano, 2005). The Party is evaluate the acceptability o

Italy Eggplant - 

protected 

194.000 156.000 none 15.000 0 NR MBTOC does not recomm

MBTOC recognises the effreducing the nomination frrequested for 2007 howeveThe CUN states that eggplaconcentrated in Southern It

climatic conditions make sfungi, weeds and nematodepathogens are Verticillium Sclerotium rolfsii, Rhizoctospp, for which different altand technically feasible. Ch

Italy and sequential applica

possible and effective (Louresistant root stock is now technology and many nursegrafted eggplant plants (Sp

Substrates are also widely uand economically feasible 

climates and also in the nomTognoni et al, 2004; Leoni 

Italy Melon - 

protected 

131.000 131.000 none 10.000 10.000 MBTOC recommends 10 t

2007. The key pests are Fu

oxysporum f.sp. melonis, Mcannonballus, Sclerotinia sspp. and Verticillium spp. 

application of 1,3 D and Pireduction from previous CU38 t and further to the currerapid transition of a large palternatives is recognised, athere will not be a future nofor this crop. 

Italy Pepper - 

protected 

160.000 130.000 none 67.000 67.000 MBTOC recommends an a

for this CUN. The CUN starestricted to areas where albecause of economic and teAlternatives however, are c

(Loumakis, 2004; Tognonihowever further time is reqproduction is mostly conce
52 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

where, due to local soil and occurrence of high level of nematodes is very commonbeen registered in Italy alloapplications with other proother chemicals are not yet technically feasible alternaonly been recently introducneeded to expand its uptakeinclude steaming and soil l

Italy Strawberry 

fruit 

407.000 320.000 35.000 0 NR MBTOC does not recomm

nomination is based primarwhich newly registered alteavailable. MB is applied ev1,3-D EC and Pic EC were respectively and have been Italy; 1,3-D traditional formused from earlier years. Sevin Italy provide yields that MB, such as 1,3-D and Pic metam+ pic, metam drip ap(Spotti, 2004; Ajwa et al., 2al.,2001; Nelson et al., 2002000). The recent annual a

in strawberry fruit in Italy i2006), while the CUN is fono different or specific circof the alternatives in the re

Italy Strawberry 

runners 

120.000 120.000 35.000 35.000 MBTOC recommends an a

use for 2007. The CUN stameet certification of 100% runners and this is not techcurrently registered alterna

dosage of MB:PIC (e.g. 50but only the 98:2 formulatiThe Party is requested in fudemonstrate that alternativepathogen and pest tolerancrequirements. Also, in the aalternatives the Party if pos

registration of lower MB foMB dosage rate. 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

Italy Tomatoes - 

protected 

871.000 697.000 none 418.000 80.000 MBTOC recommends 80t 

transition amount for one ycircumstances of Southern curl virus, soils etc). The cr6% of the cropping area. Fohopes to receive extensive, commercial trial data evalueffectiveness and economic 

and why alternatives are nocircumstances of Italy. The alternatives are available fo

borne pathogens. The rema6% of the total cropping arfungal diseases (VerticilliuSclerotinia, Phytophthora sregistered as single chemicalternative for the control oand if nematodes are presenwith 1,3-D is now possible Spotti, 2004; Loumakis, 20varieties and root stocks to now available and grafting 

now a well validated and aPresently, many nurseries itomato plants (Besri, 2003, 2004a, b). Substrates are altechnically and economicalwith similar climates and e(Besri, 2003; Spotti, 2004; et al, 2004). Combined altechemicals, grafting + solaribe used (Loumakis, 2004; S2004). 

Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300 6.300 MBTOC recommends 6.3 t

The CUN relates particularwhich impacts the technicatreatments, compared for cAlthough the Party has conmany potential alternativesalternatives that do not harm marketability of fresh marknuts which are durable comhigh moisture, semi-perishharvested one day, fumigat
54 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

moved to marketing channstorage facilities. The pest requirement to kill eggs anbefore marketing has impatreatment time for this prodconducted satisfactory efficbut the necessary registraticompleted. 

Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 68.600 51.450 MBTOC recommends a red

of MB for this use in 2008. reduced from 68.6 tonnes bof rates under barrier films LPBF) and increased uptakinclude increased use of su

The nomination is based on specific virus, KGMMV, otransmitted by mechanical contact between plants and crop debris for several yearbecause of continuous crop

disease is managed in all owithout MB by using techncrop sanitation and pathogevisited the production sites farming system used for cubeen in place for many yeacountries cucumbers produsubstrates in greenhouse cothe most widely used techn

array of soilborne plant patsystems (buckets, bags, etcof production and are used countries, and by small groHungary, Greece and other

Budai, 2002; Savvas and POzkan, 2004; Engindeniz, when implemented correctlthan MB (MBTOC, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). can be trained to use substrperiod of time as experienc(UNEP/TEAP, 2004). A hitechnology for cucumbers pvarious countries (EC, 200
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

expanding simple substratein the specific Japanese cirsubstrates are available and strawberry production in Jaobserved that such substratJapan for the crops that are diseases for which MB is ceven in substrates there is a degree of sanitation and for transplants. Japanese greenusing electronic controlled delivering nutrients with thallows for exact delivery oby the crops. No references possible occurrence of phyprovided by the Party, and acknowledge this could be 

Japan Ginger 

(field) 

119.400 119.400 109.701 112.100 84.075 MBTOC recommends a red

for this use in 2008. The suon the use of 25 g/m2 dose application. Also, it is antialternatives like dazomet windicate that they can use thnomination is for control oultimum var. ultimum, Pythfields using MB (98:2) appMBTOC members made a field ginger production siterecognized the difficulties tadopting some alternativesindicate that they are using effective alternative to MB expensive. The limitation w

climatic conditions such as its application. This results phytotoxicity and subseque

back times and reduced croregistered in Japan but the back time for chloropicrin disrupt crop scheduling and and lower yields compared addition, the proximity of ruse of chloropicrin in some metalaxyl does not control 
56 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

resistant strains to this fungHowever the party states thdazomet is highly effective diseases. This needs to be iThe CUN does not indicate as soil drainage, sowing da(Smith et al 1988) or fungisuch as phosphonates, have appears to be scope for furtamount by adoption of MBwhere mechanization can btechnologies, such as LPBF and should allow for much 25g/m2 for 98:2 with LBPFbeen submitted several timproduction and cultural praalthough seed sanitation is submission was reduced badose under LPBF with impexpanded of alternatives likindicate that they can use thsodium can be applied und(reduced disease pressures, conditions) if drip irrigation acknowledges that drip syscrops in Japan and indicatebe available for ginger prodimplementing drip would hdazomet and thereby reducreductions are based on low(25 g /m2), improved methfumigants and greater use o

Japan Ginger 

(protected) 

22.900 22.900 14.471 14.800 11.100 MBTOC recommends a red

for this use in 2008. The rerates of MB under LBPF (2methods of application of fdazomet. The nomination i(Pythium ultimum var. ultiin protected ginger fields u

from small cans. MBTOC Japanese open field ginger 

greenhouse production siterecognized the difficulties tadopting some alternatives
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

fields are using dazomet wallow and this is an effectivalso less expensive. The limoccurs when climatic condweather limit its applicatioproduction conditions, dazoapplied much more frequentemperature can be controlback times more reasonablconsiders that protected ginof dazomet much more quimetalaxyl does not control resistant strains to this fungHowever the Party states thdazomet is highly effective diseases. This needs to be iThe CUN does not indicate as soil drainage, sowing da(Smith et al 1988) or fungisuch as phosphonates, have emission technologies such being used and should allow rates (e.g.25g m2 for 98:2 wnomination has been submchange in production and cminimize disease although improved. The growers inddazomet every other year. Mapplied under some circumpressures, and certain weatirrigation is adopted. Drip spepper production indicatinavailable in Japan. In additwould help activate dazomback time. 

Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 182.200 136.650 MBTOC recommends a red

tonnes of MB for this in 20reduced from 162.3 tonnes rates under barrier films (2the increased use of substra

nomination is based on the particular virus of melons. mechanical inoculation; graplants and by seeds, and ca
58 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

several years. The problem continuous cropping with mmanaged in all other countrMB by using techniques susanitation and pathogen freproduction sites and recognsystem used for melon in Jplace for many years. Howmelon production has alreagreenhouse conditions and used technique for eliminatsoilborne plant pathogens. (buckets, bags, etc.) are avaproduction and are used in and by small growers in ItaGreece and others (Leoni & Savvas and Passam 2002; AEngindeniz, 2004). Substraimplemented correctly can MB (MBTOC, 2002; Batchand Passam 2002). Large ntrained to use substrates sytime as experienced in man(UNEP/TEAP, 2004). A hitechnology for cucumbers pvarious countries (EC, 200expanding simple substratein the specific Japanese cirsubstrates are available and strawberry production in Jaobserved that such substratJapan for the crops that are diseases for which MB is ceven in substrates there is a degree of sanitation and for transplants. Japanese greenusing electronic controlled delivering nutrients with thallows for exact delivery oby the crops. No references possible occurrence of phyprovided by the Party, and acknowledge this could be 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

Japan Pepper 

(green & hot) 

187.200 190.700 156.700 162.300 121.725 MBTOC recommends a red

tonnes of MB for this use ireduction of 25% from the tonnes. The nomination is bcontrol a particular virus of transmitted by mechanical contact between plants and crop debris for several yearbecause of continuous cropdisease is managed in all owithout MB by using techncrop sanitation and pathogevisited the production sites 

farming system used for pebeen in place for many yeacountries pepper productiosubstrates in greenhouse cothe most widely used techn

array of soilborne plant patsystems (buckets, bags, etcof production and are used countries, and by small groHungary, Greece and other

Savvas and Passam 2002; A

Engindeniz, 2004). Substraimplemented correctly can MB (MBTOC, 2002; Batchand Passam 2002). Large ntrained to use substrates sytime as experienced in man(UNEP/TEAP, 2004). A hitechnology for cucumbers pvarious countries (EC, 200expanding simple substratein the specific Japanese cirsubstrates are available and strawberry production in Jaobserved that such substratJapan for the crops that are diseases for which MB is c

even in substrates there is a 

degree of sanitation and for transplants. Japanese greenusing electronic controlled 
60 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

delivering nutrients with thallows for exact delivery oby the crops. No references possible occurrence of phyprovided by the Party, and acknowledge this could be is reduced by 25% based obarrier films (25g with LPBincreased use of substrates 

Japan Watermelo

n 

129.000 98.900 94.200 43.300 32.475 MBTOC recommends a red

tonnes of MB for this use ireduction of 25% from the tonnes. The nomination is bcontrol a particular virus of transmitted by mechanical contact between plants and crop debris for several yearbecause of continuous crop

disease is managed in all owithout MB by using techncrop sanitation and pathogenomination is reduced by 2rates under barrier films (298:2) and the utilization of 

Netherlands Strawberry 

Runners 

0.120 0.120 none 0.120 0.120 MBTOC recommends a CU

for this use. The Party stateto complete trials on severaprogress. MBTOC notes thfumigations are carried out recapture systems. 

New Zealand Strawberry 

fruit 

42.000 34.000 none 24.780 0 NR MBTOC does not recomm

party indicates that MB is usome years leads to a long D/Pic, which cannot be acccycle at present. The main cactorum. Pic alone and Pithis pathogen (Porter et al. 2004; Ferguson et al. 2001May 2006b). The current aNew Zealand gives poor defumigants in soil. The Partapplication methods would distributed and MBTOC stalternative. Improved appl
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

continue to be sought for apThere are at least 2 months planting, providing sufficiePhosphorous acid treatmenbeneficial in reducing Phytvarieties used in New Zeala2005). The transition woulmore resistant varieties and Phytophthora infestation in 

New Zealand Strawberry 

runners 

8.000 8.000 none 7.793 6.234 MBTOC recommends 6.23

2007. The CUN states that certification standards for sParty states that the 25 g/mtheir heavy soils. The PartMBTOC's standard presumof MB is effective for prodstrawberry runners using L

emission control technolog

2005). The Party's claim theconomically feasible is bafilm costs. MBTOC's asseLPBF costs is typically offamount of MB:PIC requireD + PIC is the most promisbut does not control disease and does not have acceptabsoil retention and resulting states that the most promisiis MI. MBTOC recognizes registered a MB:PIC 30:70 MB use and emissions. 

Poland Coffee & 

Cocoa Beans 

See Medicinal Herbs 

2.160 none 2.000 1.420 MBTOC recommends a rev

tonnes of MB specifically fcoffee imports infested witdifficult to control with the phosphine, requiring either dosing. The latter is unduly import situation. The Party products that are purchasedinfestations are likely to reof those products. Mites arcontamination of the produ
62 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

the mite infestation needs tplanning of alternative conbromide requirement could moisture content products wfungal and mycotoxin contalso be alleviated. The dosafumigations, 50-60 g m3, fo

are higher than necessary adosage rate of 30 g/m3 in li

coffee treatment, with allowThe CUN recommendation standardise the dosage rate has been made for the treatunder recapture and recyclimethyl bromide leads to an usage of 8 g m3. The CUN 

basis of volume figures giv

Poland medicinal 

herbs and mushrooms 

4.100 3.560 none 1.800 1.800 MBTOC recommends 1.80

2007. These products are cinsects and pathogens. The chamber treatments which dosage rates for a portion oin considerable decrease in treatments for these commophosphine and CO2, are not 

The Party is encouraged to and irradiation in use in othare effective against insects is actively trying to encoursulfuryl fluoride as part of although its effectiveness afurther investigation. 

Poland Strawberry 

runners 

40.000 40.000 none 25.000 24.500 MBTOC recommends a red

for this CUN for 2007. The account for the Party includformulation in their nominainstead of the MB portion ostates that MB is needed to standards for strawberry rualternatives such as 1,3-D + currently registered, nor are higher proportions of chlorMS are registered, their sloplant back time in the early 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

use due to production timinapplication equipment. Polimproved application equiprotating-spading injection einstalled in Poland under a comm.). The CUN stated tusing modern application efor larger uptake of alternaafter. 

Spain Cut 

flowers (Andalucia and Catalonia) 

73.000 57.000 none 47.840 43.490 MBTOC recommends a red

Andalucia and the full amofor 2007. The reduction is bconforming to MBTOC's sg/m2) in combination with 

technologies for situation wnutsedge exist. Fusarium wknot nematodes are also repCUN. Dosage rates for Andto conform to MBTOC stanMBTOC recognises the effreducing the requested amoof last year. In future nomiis required to substantiate teconomically unfeasible foparticularly for some floweand bulbs. A key and effici(Peguero, 2004, Melero-Va

become registered for carnlarge proportion of this nomis considered possible. . 

Spain Peppers 200.000 155.000 none 45.000 45.000 MBTOC recommends 45 t

MBTOC recognises the effsubstantially reducing the acrop going from 150T in 20nomination. The CUN staterestricted to where alternatbecause of economic and teproduction is mostly conceValencia where, due to loc
64 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

conditions, the occurrence of fungi and nematodes is vcapsici, Meloidogyne incogmain key pests. The recomconsidered necessary for fiand it is expected that this ithis Party for this use. Alteavailable for pepper produc1,3 D, steaming, soil less c2004; Tognoni et al, 2004; is now developing for this other Mediterranean countrSubstrates are used in abouit is expected that this acreafuture. 

Spain Strawberry 

fruit 

556.000 499.290 none 80.000 0,0796 for 

research 

 MBTOC recommends 79.6 

research but does not recomstrawberry fruit use in 2007the Parties decided that MB taken from stocks (Decisiogrounds of the nomination on-going EC review of pesperiod when using alternatiMBTOC recognizes that sefor example, 1,3-D/Pic, Pic 

technically feasible alternapresented in the nomination carried out in Spain (De Caet al., 2002, 2003, 2004, 20adopted for strawberry fruiannual rate of at least 1627 according to data in the nomManagement Strategy (200

to 1627 –2000 ha/year. The 800 ha which represents 8% The impact of the longer plthe Party is not substantiatenor trials in similar productcountries for this crop. 

Spain Strawberry 

runners 

230.000 230.000 none 230.000 230.000 MBTOC recommends 230 

The difficult growing condnurseries in Spain substantalternatives to control targecertification standards of st
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

CUN states that there are nalternatives available at thiindicated that a key potentiiodide) has been withdrawn registration at this time. Thuse of rates of 20g/m2 or leMBTOC considers are appstandards for this crop. 

United Kingdom 

Aircraft none none none 0.165 0.165 MBTOC recommends 0.16

2007. The CUN requested in large aircraft. The two alneighbouring countries witCO2 and HCN, are not regi

CO2, when used to kill rode

is fast and the applicant is eregistration. However, efficaerations will require the udevices, similar to that requfumigations as indicated in asked to submit its cited repCO2 for aircraft to assist Mof the TEAP expressed conin aircraft where flight safeMB deteriorates materials uParties using MB on aircraaircraft manufacturers and verify whether such MB us

United Kingdom 

Cereal Processing Plants 

16.384 8.131 none 3.480 3.480 MBTOC recommends 3.48

amount represents a 57% re2006. The CUN includes 5 the trade association for whprocessing. The Party is asmeasurement of gastightnefluoride, the intended altern

these cereal food processorSeveral trials are in progresmethod for cereal processocontinue this transition pro
66 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

United Kingdom 

Cheese 1.640 1.248 none 1.248 1.248 MBTOC recommends 1.24

2007. The applicant has invearth which was unsuccesstaint. Work is continuing oMBTOC knows of no alterof mites in cheese stores w

Further avenues of investigmight include peer-industry reviews of pertinent literatutemperature manipulation aapproach and sanitation thauntil the cheese can be remthere may be a lengthy requin cheese stores and since tthe Party may wish to consequipment to reduce emiss

United Kingdom 

Commodities (Herbs & Spices) 

0.035 0.037 none 0.030 0 NR MBTOC does not recomm

of the occasional infestatioamount of spice and food pCUN the Party is encouragas freezing, steam treatmenmodified atmosphere treatm

United Kingdom 

Mills (consolidation of 13 mill CUNs) 

30.750 10.195 none 4.509 none 4.509 MBTOC recommends 4.50

2007. The Party provided 1

specific information for the this consolidated response. submit its cited document otreatment to assist MBTOCtransition to sulfuryl fluorid

registered for two years. Thin extensive lab and field reefficacy of sulfuryl fluoride temperate and cool climatehave developed new appliccombined heat and sulfuryl has not yet been completed 

Although a rapid adoption 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

some time is needed to effialternatives. Given the relarequested by the Party, in tthat will require pest controconsider allocation strategimills whose size, layout anlocation make transition mknowledge of sulfuryl fluorindicate that more time is rstrategies to treat larger, mlocations with cooler tempecombination processes are 

United Kingdom 

Mills,Food Processing (Biscuits) 

2.525 1.787 none 0.479 0.479 MBTOC recommends 0.47

amount represents approxim2006 use levels. The CUN manufacturer of rye bread cthe intended alternative, wafood processors in Decembprogress to adapt the treatmprocessors and time is needtransition process. 

United Kingdom 

Structures (Herbs & Spices) 

4.728 1.872 none 0.908 0.908 MBTOC recommends 0.90

amount represents a 50% reThe CUN includes several association of spice procesintended alternative, was reprocessing facilities in Dechave begun using heat and treatments and improved IPprogress to adapt sulfuryl ffor spice processors and tim

transition process. 

United Kingdom 

Structures (Whitworth) 

1.1 0.880 none 0.257 0.257 MBTOC recommends 0.25

CUN includes the facility o

and stores numerous food cmaterials. The nearly 70% over the amount granted by reflects that this company ucontrol and to avoid infestacontinue the advancements continue to avoid infestatio

requirement for MB in the 
68 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

United States Commoditi

es 

89.166 87.719 78.983 67.699 58.921 

inc. 0.021 for research 

This CUN includes walnutdates. MBTOC recommendto support alternatives reseMBTOC recommends 35.12008, a 20% reduction from 43.888 tonnes. MBTOC betransition at least 20% of ituse for walnuts to sulfuryl 2008 (September to Novemconducting its final assessm

published MRLs for fluoridGermany, one of the major shell walnuts, approved the which included the MRLs fParty, in correspondence thand German announcemenminimum residue levels for published by CODEX and would allow for future tran

Although there are difficulcountry to which they will already making efforts to trfumigations can be conducas methyl bromide, an imppressing need for fast fumito reach the holiday market 

notwithstanding, the difficuby importing countries and with switching the huge ha

registered alternative will rthe dried fruit sector plans over 2007 use levels, MBTtonnes for dried fruit for 20fluoride may also allow grefruit, although the extent or be quantified at this time. beans and dates and the likwalnuts, MBTOC finds the dried fruit to be inexplicabl

ensure that Decision IX/6 iensuring dried fruit sector oturn around or immediate tmarketing is required and wnot be used. Beans and dat
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

reductions greater than 30% levels. Accordingly, MBTOtonnes for beans and 2.009 sector has investigated usinfinding it useful for producconsuming for the immediabefore holiday marketing. Tpart of its domestic regulatbromide allocation includewhen more is known about alternatives such as sulfuryrecent news, the Party may concerning adoption rates wdomestic methyl bromide afuture CUN, MBTOC hopedetailed research or commethe technical effectiveness alternatives and why alternthe circumstances of the Ufluoride, (2) decreased MB logistics improvements thavacuum treatment or reductreatment, (3) improvemenlogistics to allow greater adpropylene oxide, and (4) an for dried fruit. 

United States Cocoa 

beans (NPMA subset) 

61.519 55.367 64.082 none 53.256 53.188 MBTOC recommends 53.1

2008. The CUN for cocoa bCUN titled NPMA, but MBThe Party has indicated it cdecrease over the amount guse in 2007 (resulting in 53Party indicates a need for tthe cocoa beans: the first fusecond fumigation immedichocolate manufacturers. H

for sulfuryl fluoride and renot cause end product qualtechnical effectiveness of oleads MBTOC to believe it replace the second fumigatchocolate manufacturers. Fchanged logistics or buildinincreased use of phosphine
70 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

phosphine conducted at timcountries may be useful in first fumigation (Watson et fumigation, cylinderized phtimed for weekend fumigateither as a complete disinfeembryonic treatment; egg krequirement if the chocolatthe cocoa beans shipped to product temperature (< 20°deterrent to sulfuryl fluoridreasonable to expect use of summer months. In the casbeans at chocolate manufacin their storage bins would free status. Propylene oxide cocoa beans, although suitabe installed. Carbon dioxidin other countries. IPM impenhanced cocoa inspection could be investigated to defirst or second fumigation cduring winter and possibly any future CUN, MBTOC detailed research or commethe technical effectiveness alternatives used in other calternatives are not applicathe US. Specifically, (1) phformulations, (2) sulfuryl fmethods described above, (and inspection, (4) in-transin container, (5) fumigation temperature manipulationscarbon dioxide at high presof several of these. 

United States NPMA 

food processing structures (cocoa beans removed) 

83.344 69.118 82.771 none 71.690 69.208 MBTOC recommends 69.2

processing facilities includ

originally included cocoa bdisaggregated the CUN and 

in another section. The amodetermined based on the Paachieve a 17% transition in However, MBTOC’s recom
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

17% reduction from the amfor 2007 for processed foodand spice facilities (4.059 tapply the transition rate to because MBTOC knows of mites in cheese stores when CUN reports that the absenresidue levels (MRL) for flUnion restricts the wider adby this Party’s food procesMBTOC recommends 4.05facilities, MBTOC does noherb and spice commodity Decision IX/6 since severaand in widespread commerrequested to ensure herb anincluded in facility fumigatstores are only treated with inspectors from United StaAgriculture in response to pthe requirements of Decisioshould conduct research to methods to reduce infestatiuse MB. Further avenues ostores might include peer-inexchange, reviews of pertinthrough temperature manipin IPM and sanitation that wthe cheese can be removed may be a lengthy requiremcheese stores and since the the Party is encouraged to cequipment to reduce emissFor any future CUN, MBTextensive, detailed research evaluating the technical efffeasibility of alternatives anapplicable in the circumsta(1) heat treatments both fulsulfuryl fluoride, (3) improinspection leading to compdecreased frequency of fumphosphine combination trecombination of several of t
72 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

United States Mills and 

processors 

483.000 461.758 401.889 none 362.952 348.237 MBTOC recommends 348

2008. This CUN includes qfollowing disaggregated sepet foods and flour mills. Fis recommended for 2008. based on the amount of MB this sector in 2007 (64.150 determined by US governmin their error in 2007 (17 totonnes) was then decreased for the likely adoption to alUSG. For flour milling, MBtonnes MB for 2008. This areduction over 2007 levels, downward trend in MB userecommends 14.269 tonnesapproximate 40% decrease the Parties in 2007, reflectialternatives and resolution highlighted in the 2007 CUrecommends 26.660 tonnes over the 2007 MB amount Sulfuryl fluoride was registof heat and phosphine treatresulted in a decrease in M

Party. In spite of these succcurrently, 25% of pet food 

42% of wheat mills and 10able to transition to alternayears. The Party is encourastrengthen its research prog

adaptation of alternatives to 

Decision IX/6 are fully methis CUN and to avoid thesMB. The Party has indicatequantity of MB to be permregulation if the circumstanchange. For example, as mwith sulfuryl fluoride and hpossible to decrease the nee

milling to allow these sectodecreases made in pet foodfuture CUN, MBTOC hopedetailed research or comme
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

the technical effectiveness alternatives and why alternthe circumstances of the Utreatments both full site and fluoride, (3) improvements leading to complete avoidafrequency of fumigation, (4combination treatments, anseveral of these. 

United States Smokehou

se ham 

67.907 40.854 18.998 none 19.669 19.669 MBTOC recommends the r

tonnes for this use in 2008. this use are unknown to MBParty to ensure use of methmuch as possible. The Partfacility gastightness in this 

gastightness is a major conby two of the applicants inc

However, two other applica

improved facilities that redexpects that facilities operaAmerican Meat AssociatioHam Association will be regastightness as a condition MBTOC notes that USDA enable the industry to initiaincluding investigating the 

fluoride and IPM, to controencouraged to conduct reseemissions by improving garequirements of Decision IXrecommends research to ininfestation and processing by phosphine. 

United States Cucurbits 

(field) 

1187.800 747.839 592.891 588.949 473.211 

inc. 0.941 for research 

MBTOC recommends 4732008. This comprises 19.8452.380 tonnes for the Sou0.941 tonnes for research. nominated amounts conforpresumptions for dosage raof 17.5 g/m2 for nutsedge awith adoption of LPBF and 

MB/Pic to achieve the reduformulations, for example oavailable and versions of L
74 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

films) have been widely tesshown equivalent effectiveapproximately 50% of the cMichigan, the key pests are Fusarium. MBTOC recognthat 1,3-D + Pic may be an growers will miss the optimlonger plant back times. Actreatment cannot be applied bad climatic conditions. In of a methyl bromide is not fall and winter months deer the plastic and irrigation takey pest is nutsedge. Karst the use of alternatives whicDichloropropene, which arthese pests. The Party statemetam potassium are also pstill do not provide consistecircumstances of the nomintrialling. In addition, the Paunderway to investigate lowsuch as 50:50 as there are nthe use of these formulationthat 32.5 to 34% of the nomalternatives. The Party prop2008 and have stated it wiltransition the full amount. submitted, MBTOC urges tdata from trials on cucurbitof suitable alternatives. 

United States Eggplant 

(field) 

76.712 81.162 85.363 79.546 47.582 

inc. 0.444 for research 

MBTOC recommends a redtonnes for this use in 2008. tonnes for Michigan, 44.25Florida and 0.444 tonnes fothe nominated amounts conpresumptions for dosage raof 17.5 g/m2 for nutsedge awith adoption of LPBF and 

MB/Pic and has been adjusModifications of formulatioMB/Pic are available and vand metalized films) have b

2000 and have shown equiv
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

at approximately 50% of thIn addition, the Party states investigate lower MB/Pic fas there are no regulatory rthese formulations. In MicPhytophthora capsici and furecognizes the Party’s stateD/chloropicrin may be an egrowers will miss the optimlonger plant back times witAccording to the party, this applied in autumn because addition, a fall application feasible because over the faand other animals damage tape. In Florida, the key penutsedge, Phytophthora, nesclerotinia. In Georgia the purple nutsedge, Phytophthblight and Pythium and scllimits the use of alternativeDichloropropene, which arthese pests on 40% of the gand 8% of the acreage in Gmetam sodium or metam palternatives but still do not under the circumstances of further trialing. For Floridof MBTOC (87% of memb25% transition can occur bnomination accordingly. A this transition rate was inapacknowledged that (26%) obe transitioned to alternativproposes a 4% transition in take more than 7 years to trMBTOC considers several nomination, and that uptakin regions with similar pestwithin 4 years or less (eg S(Leoni and Leda, 2004; Sp2005;Minuto et al, 2003). there are technical alternatikarst areas in Florida, Geor
76 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

tomato trials conducted in Fnutsedge, 1,3-D/pic 65:35 wMNa/Pic provided similar ytrials over the spring and fa2004 (Santos, et al, 2005) enutsedge infestations. In ocommercial scale fields, simsimilar yields have been re

United States Forest 

nursery 

192.515 157.694 122.032 133.140 96.829 MBTOC recommends a red

for this use in 2008. MBTOa uniform rate of 20 g/m2 tpresumptions for dosage rawith adoption of LPBF and MB/Pic to achieve the reduavailable to glue LPBF film(IPM Technologies, Riminrecognizes that propagative high level of soilborne pest order to avoid widespread dpathogens. The Party has areduction in the amount nosince 2006 nomination. Baadjusted the recommended adoption of alternatives in economic infeasibility of uof effective alternatives for range of fungal pathogens. production in 7 forest nurseongoing to determine if Pic D alone or in combination can provide acceptable conlevels of nutsedge (Mucken2006). To date, metham socombination showed promiwithout plastic sheeting cauParty acknowledged that thwhen used in conjunction wmay provide an effective teavoid crop injury. MBTOC can be used as a pretreatmenutgrass and 1,3-D/Pic + mglyphosate) should be furthnutsedge as results in trials (Fraedrich, 2005; Culpeppe
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 
78 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

United States Nursery 

stock (fruit, nut, flower) 

45.800 64.528 28.275 51.102 23.253 

inc. 1.506 for research 

MBTOC recommends 23.2This represents 1.998 t for trees, 8.46 t for raspberriesMBTOC has adjusted the rMBTOC’s standard rate of material to conform to the dosage rate of MB/Pic formLPBFand formulation chanreductions. LPBF cannot bCalifornia. MBTOC recogmaterial requires a very higand pathogen control in ord

distribution of pests and pa

for propagation materials thfree of pests and diseases. Cfor California and is voluntcrop has no value if it is noacknowledges the difficulty roots to 1.5m depths. MBTMB/Pic formulations 67:33 other countries and urges thalternatives as a transition 

dosage in the absence of efvalidation of their effectivenominations. MBTOC has (McKenry, 1999) which inrates (greater than 390 kg/hcontrolling pests and killin

1.5m deep. Although, thesby regulation in California, rates would be allowed in Wtherefore reduced the amourequested by raspberry nurimplementation of use of 1nominated area. 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

United States Orchard 

replant 

706.176 527.600 405.400 405.666 365.094 MBTOC recommends a red

tonnes for this use in 2008. reduction of the nominated adoption of the MB/Pic 67/MBTOC understand the limthis nomination. MBTOC effective against both fungCommercial adoption of th

containing lower amounts opredominantly for orchard countries before they switc

on the Party response to quformulations with a higher 

67:33) is an option where freplant disorder. Accordinchloropicrin has been founsome replant syndrome in oproduct is now used routinreplant situations. 

United States Ornamenta

ls 

154.000 148.483 137.835 138.538 123.333 

inc. 4.060 for research 

MBTOC recommends a redfor this use in 2008. This iCalifornia, 2.213 t for Michand 4.060 t for research. MMichigan portion to conforpresumptions for dosage rawith adoption of use/emiss

such as LPBF and formulatachieve the reductions and dosage rates of 200kg/ha wfilms. The Party states that necessary for controlling tusoils in Florida and MBTOdemonstrating that lower d

adequate control. The party reduction in the amount nosince 2006 nomination. Baadjusted the nominated amadoption of alternatives in essentially 100% field growand Florida and Michigan nissues for California and Flbulbs and tubers left from phas identified 1,3 -D/Pic + as potential alternatives (G
80 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

al. 2003; Gilreath et al., 20the nomination accounts fothan once per year where aCUN, MBTOC hopes to reresearch or commercial triatechnical effectiveness and alternatives and why alternthe circumstances of this n

United States Peppers 

(field) 

1094.782 1243.542 1106.753 919.006 551.045 

inc. 2.844 for research 

MBTOC recommends a redtonnes for this nomination comprises 10.62 t for MichSoutheast, 105.446 t for Geand 2.844 tonnes for researReductions in the nominatestandard presumptions for formulations of 17.5 g/m2 for pathogens with adoptiochanges of MB/Pic and has fumigation. Modifications example of e.g. 50:50 MBversions of LPBF, (eg.VIF 

been widely tested since 20equivalent effectiveness to of the commercial dosage rstates that trials are underw

MB/Pic formulations such regulatory restrictions to thIn Michigan, the key pests and fusarium. MBTOC recstatement that 1,3-D/chloroalternative but growers wilwindow due to longer planalternative. According to tcannot be applied in autumconditions. In addition, a fabromide is not feasible becmonths deer and other animirrigation tape. Phytophthoregions by foliar sprays and key pests are yellow and puPhytophthora, nematodes, PGeorgia the key pests are yPhytophthora, nematodes, and sclerotinia. In the sout
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

yellow and purple nutsedgeand plant parasitic nematodthe use of alternatives whicDichloropropene, which arthese pests. The Party statemetam potassium are promnot provide consistent contof the nomination and requSoutheast, Florida and GeoMBTOC (87% of members 25% transition can occur bnomination accordingly. A this transition rate was inapacknowledged that 32% of transitioned to alternatives proposes a 4.6% transition will take more than 7 years amount. MBTOC consideravailable for the nominatioalternatives for this crop in and climate has occurred wSpain, Italy, Australia) (Sp2005;Minuto et al, 2003). there are technical alternatikarst areas in Florida, Geortomato trials conducted in Fnutsedge, 1,3-D/pic 65:35 wMNa/Pic provided similar ytrials over the spring and fa2004 (Gilreath et al, 2004; with moderate to severe nuother studies involving comcontrol of pests and similar (Locascio et al, 2000, NelsSantos, 2004; Gilreath et alGilreath et al, 2006). 

United States Strawberry 

(field) 

2052.846 1730.778 1476.019 1604.669 1025.388 

inc. 2.377 for research 

MBTOC recommends a redtonnes for this nomination 897.917 t for California, 11for Eastern states and 2.377 nomination for California i

constraints (township caps terrain preventing the use omissed market windows du
82 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

treatment times, and lack oapplication of alternatives. have shown that alternativePic+metam, Pic and Pic+Lto MB in strawberry fruit p2003, 2004, Haar et al. 200et al. 2001a,b; studies cited Report). By 2005 almost hCalifornian strawberry fruialternatives. The average ahas been 12% of the crop a1400 ha/year), and the CaliCommision stated the curreOver a longer timeframe, swas 181 tonnes reduction phas calculated that this rate without exceeding the townon fumigants, and has therenomination to reflect this. to adopt alternatives despitMB are available, with the been adopted by about 50% terrain, injection or pressurcan be used in a number of allowed for MB in Californdid not apply further reducstates the nomination requeprotocols for alternatives, mpressure affecting part of thbuffer zones which limit usMBTOC considers that alteareas of moderate pest presPic+LPBF), and for buffer metham + Pic) (Ajwa et al. 2005ab). For the Southeas(87% of members present) transition can occur by 200nomination accordingly. A this transition rate was inapacknowledged that 33% of transitioned to alternatives estimates it may take 7 yeaadoption rates for alternativgreater in comparable straw
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

MBTOC reduced the nomialternatives on part of the apressure. The standard doswere used to calculate the aarea. The nomination requelack of protocols for comm2008 for moderate to severnutsedge) which affects 37parts of the CUN experiencpressure (on karst) where apic+LPBF) provide yields tto MB (Fennimore et al. 20Nelson et al 2002, Ajwa et 2005a, studies cited in TEAReport), therefore MBTOC allow for uptake of alternatlow-moderate pest pressurearea has been adjusted to thdoses (17.5 and 15 g/m2). economics of alternatives fCalifornia and southeastern revenues from certain alterbelow MB levels, and in soprovide greater net revenueFennimore; Sydorovych et 2005) 

United States Strawberry 

runners 

54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 7.944 inc. 

0.454 for research 

MBTOC recommends 7.942008. This comprises 4.69 for SE and 0.454 tonnes fothat MB is required to meefor strawberry runners. The MBTOC's standard presumwhich is considered effectihealth' strawberry runners uemission control technolog2005); however, Californiaspecify minimum amounts Furthermore, California regLPBF. The Party indicates include 1,3-D + PIC, 1,3-D MS and Daz + Pic but that sufficiently developed to p

nematode control throughodeep). In future nomination
84 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

provide supporting data to on the disease levels observfor MB and alternatives. 

United States Sweet 

potato slips 

0.000 80.830 0.000 18.144 0 NR MBTOC does not recomm

MBTOC agrees with the Pfor a contingency use of mgrower preferred alternativdue to township caps. 

United States Tomatoes 

(field) 

2876.046 2476.364 2065.246 1840.100 1076.508 

inc. 2.844 for research 

MBTOC recommends a redtonnes for this use in 2008. tonnes for Michigan, 87.74 the SE, 681.449 for Florida research. Reductions in the conform to the standard preof MB/Pic formulations of 

15 g/m2 for pathogens with LPBF, and formulation cha

been adjusted for strip fumformulations, for example 

and versions of LPBF, (eg.have been widely tested sin

equivalent effectiveness to 

of the commercial dosage rstates that trials are underw

MB/Pic formulations such regulatory restrictions to thIn Michigan, the key pests and fusarium. MBTOC recstatement that 1,3-D/chloroalternative but growers wilwindow due to longer planalternative. According to tcannot be applied in autumconditions. In addition, a fabromide is not feasible becmonths deer and other animirrigation tape. Phytophthoregions by foliar sprays and 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

key pests are yellow and puPhytophthora, nematodes, PGeorgia the key pests are yPhytophthora, nematodes, and sclerotinia. In the soutyellow and purple nutsedgeand plant parasitic nematodthe use of alternatives whicDichloropropene, which arthese pests. The Party statemetam potassium are promnot provide consistent contof the nomination and requSoutheast, Florida and GeoMBTOC (87% of members 25% transition can occur bnomination accordingly. A this transition rate was inapacknowledged that 57% of transitioned to alternatives proposes a 8.1% transition will take more than 7 years amount. MBTOC consideravailable for the nominatioalternatives for this crop in and climate has occurred wSpain, Italy, Australia) (Sp2005;Minuto et al, 2003). there are technical alternatikarst areas in Florida, Geortomato trials conducted in Fnutsedge, 1,3-D/pic 65:35, MNa/Pic provided similar ytrials over the spring and fa2004 (Santos, et al, 2005) enutsedge infestations. In ocommercial scale fields, simsimilar yields have been reNelson et al, 2002, Gilreath et al., 2005; Lacasa, 2006). 
86 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry 2005 

approved 

2006 approved 

2007 approved 

2007 new nomination 

2008 nomination 

2007 recommendation 

2008 recommendation 

MBTOC comments 

United States Turfgrass 206.827 131.600 78.040 52.189 0 NR MBTOC does not recomm

production. Effective altern99% of all turf production significantly reduced the nouse from 207 t in 2005 to 7such as dazomet provide eqgrasses and slightly better cwhen compared to MB, (U1,3-D + Chloropicrin can b

primary pest, or possibly in 

or metam-sodium. Metam-provided comparable contrgrasses and nutsedge (e.g.Unruh et al., 2002). 
 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 87

2.8 References 

Ajwa H.A., Fennimore, S., Kabin, Z., Martin, F., Duniway, J., Browne, G., Trout, T., Kahn, A. and Daugovish, O. 

(2004). Strawberry yield with chloropicrin and inline in combination with metam sodium and VIF. In: 

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 

3-6 November 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA. 

Ajwa, H.A.,. Fennimore, S, Kabin, Z., Martin, F., Duniway, J., Browne, G., Trout, Goodhue T R., and Guerrero L. 

(2003). Strawberry yield under reduced application rates of chloropicrin and InLine in combination with 

metam sodium and VIF. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives 

and Emissions Reductions, 3-6 November 2003, San Diego, California, USA. 

Ajwa, H.A. Trout, T., Fennimore, S., Winterbottom, C., Martin, F., Duniway, J., Browne, G., Westerdahl, B., 

Goodhue, R. and Guerrero L. (2002). Strawberry production with alternative fumigants applied through 

drip irrigation systems. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives 

and Emissions Reductions 6-8 November 2002, Orlando, Florida, USA. 

Akkaya, F., Ozturk, A. and Ozkan, B. (2004). An economic analysis of alternatives to use of methyl bromide for 

greenhouse vegetables (tomatoes, cucumbers) and cut flowers (carnation). Acta Hort. 638: 479 - 485. 

Ausher, R. (2004). Personal communication. Rehovot, Israel 

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Australian Commodity Statistics- Rural Commodities. Summary of 

Australian Statistics for Rice. Page 198 www.abareconomics.com/interactive/ACS_2005/pdf/acsruralcomm.pdf 

Barel, M. (2006). Personal communication, The Netherlands. 

Barel, M. (2004). Improved techniques for the cost effective application of steam as an alternative to methyl 

bromide. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 

Lisbon, 27- 30 September, 2004. 

Barel, M. (2003). Steam training course manual, UNDP, New York. 

Bartual, R., Cebolla, V., Bustos, J., Giner, A. and Lopez-Aranda, J. M. (2002). The Spanish project on alternatives 

to methyl bromide. (2): The case of strawberry in the area of Valencia. Acta Hort. 567: 431-434. 

Batchelor, T.A. (2002). International and European Community controls on methyl bromide and the status of 

methyl bromide use and alternatives in the European Community. In: Proc.International Conference on 

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 5-8 March 2002, Sevilla. Office for Official Publications of the 

European Communities: Luxembourg. pp. 35-39. 

Batchelor, T.A. (ed.) (2000). Case Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Technologies with Low 

Environmental Impact. UNEP. Paris. 77pp. 

Besri, M. (2004). Leading Methyl Bromide alternatives in commercial use for tomato production in different 

geographic regions except the United States. In: Fifth International Conference On Alternatives to 

Methyl Bromide, 26-30 September, 2004, Lisbon, Portugal Sept 2004. 

Besri, M. (2003). Tomato grafting as an alternative to Mtehyl Bromide in Morocco. In: Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-6 November 2003, 

San Diego, California, USA. Pp. 12.1-4 

Carrera, T, Carrera, A and Pedros, A. (2004). Use of 1,3-dichloropropene / chloropicrin for the production of 

strawberries in Spain. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 

27-30 September 2004. Lisbon. 

Cebolla, V., Bartual, R., Giner, A and. Bustos, J. (1999). Two years effect on some alternatives to Methyl 

Bromide on strawberry crops. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 1999. 1-4 November, 1999, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 1-

1. 

Culpepper S. and Langston, D. (2004). Fumigant/ herbicide combinations. Unpublished study conducted by 

researchers at the University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Included in US CUE package 2004. 

De Cal, A., Martinez-Treceño, A., Salto, T., López-Aranda, L.M. and Melgarejo, P. (2005). Effect of chemical 

fumigation on soil fungal communities in Spanish strawberry nurseries. Appl. Soil Ecol. 28: 47 – 56. 

De Cal, A., Martínez-Terceno, A., López-Aranda, J.M. and Melgarejo P. (2004a) Alternatives to methyl bromide 

in Spanish strawberry nurseries. Plant Disease 88(2): 210-214. 
88 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

De Cal, A., Melgarejo, P., Martinez-Treceno, A., Salto, T., Martinez-Beringola, M. L., Garcia-Baudin, J. M., 

Garcia-Sinovas, D., Garcia-Mendez, E., Becerril, M., Medina, J. J. and Lopez-Aranda, J. M. (2004b) 

Chemical alternatives to MB for strawberry nurseries in Spain. 2003 Results. In: Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2004. 31 October - 3 

November, 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 17-1. 

De Miguel, A. (2004a). Use of grafted cucurbits in the Mediterranean region as an alternative to Methyl Bromide. 

In: Fifth International Conference On Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 26 -30 September, 2004, Lisbon, 

Portugal. 

De Miguel, A. (2004b). Use of grafted plants and IPM methods for the production of tomatoes in the 

Mediterranean region. In: Fifth International Conference On Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 26- 

30 September, 2004, Lisbon, Portugal. 

Dosland O., Subramanjam B., Sheppard K. and Mahroof, R. (2006). Temperature modification for insect control. 

In: Insect management for food storage and processing. Heaps J.W. (ed) American Association of Cereal 

Chemists. St. Paul Minnesota. USA 3340 Pilot Knob Rd. St. Paul Minnesota USA 55121 

Drakes, D, Briercliffe, T, Lightfoot-Brown, S, Arnold, D and Mackay, N. (2001). The use and disposal of growing 

media. ADAS Horticulture. UK. 40 pp 

Ducom-Gallerne, V. and Vinghes, C. (2001). Rice milling as an alternative to methyl bromide for the control of 

the rice weevil. In: Donahaye, E. J., Navarro, S., and Leesch, J. (eds), Proceedings of the International 

Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products, Fresno, California, October 

2000, Vol. II, 765-770. 

Duniway, J. M., Xiao, C. L. and Gubler, W. D. (1998) Response of strawberry to soil fumigation: Microbial 

mechanisms and some alternatives to Methyl Bromide. In: Annual International Research Conference 

on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 1998. 7-9 December, 1998, Orlando, Florida, 

USA pp. 6-1. 

Elmore, C., Roncoroni, J. and Tjosvold, S. (2003). Treatment combinations to improve efficacy in field- grown 

flowers. In: Proc. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 

Emissions Reductions. November 3 – 6, 2003, San Diego, California, USA. p. 112-1. 

Engindeniz, S. (2004) Economic analysis of growing greenhouse cucumber with soilless culture system: the case 

of Turkey. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 23, 5-19. 

European Community, (2006). European Community Management Strategy for the phase-out of the critical uses of 

Methyl Bromide. 65 pp 

Fennimore, S, Kabir, Z, Ajwa, H, Daugovish, O, Roth, K and Valdez, J. (2003). Chloropicrin and Inline doseresponse under VIF and HDPE film: weed control results. In: Proc. Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions November 3 – 6, 2003, San 

Diego, California, USA. p. 112-1.. pp.2/1-2/4 

Ferguson, L.M., Fernandez, G.E., Brannen, P.M., Louws, F.J., Poling, E.B., Sydorovych, O., Safley, C. D., 

Monks, D.M., Pesic-Van Esbroeck, Sanders, and Smith. (2001). Alternative Soil Treatments for 

Strawberry in the Southeastern United States, In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 5 – 9, 2001, San Diego, California, USA. 

Fraedrich S.W, Dwinell, L.D., and Cram, M.M. (2003). Broadcast Applications of Glyphosate Control Nutsedge at 

a South Georgia Forest Tree Nursery. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 27(3): 176-179 

Fritsch, J. (2002). The current status of alternatives to methyl bromide in vegetable crops in France. In: 

International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. March 5-8 2002. Seville, 193-195. 

Fritsch, J. (1998). Strawberries crops in France: different methods to apply methyl bromide and metam sodium in 

open fields. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 

Emissions Reduction 1998. 7-9 December, 1998, Orlando, Florida 

Gerik, J.S. (2005). Drip applied soil fumigants for floriculture production. Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 31 Oct – 3 Nov. 2005, San 

Diego, California, 105-1-4 

Gerik, J.S., Greene, I.D., Beckman, P. and Elmore, C. (2006). Pre-plant drip-applied fumigation for Calla lily 

rhizome nursery. HortTechnology 16(2): 297 – 300 

Gilreath J.P., Santos, B.M., Motis T.N., Noling, J.W. and Mirusso, J.M. (2006). Methyl bromide alternatives for 

nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Crop Protection 25 (in press) 

Gilreath, J.P., Noling, J.W., Motis, T.N., Rosskopf, E. and Santos, B.M. (2003) Long term effect of fumigant and 

herbicide combinations in bell pepper. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-6 November 2003, San Diego, California, USA. 
 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 89

Gilreath J.P., Motis T.N. and Santos B.M. (2005a). Cyperus spp. control with reduced methyl bromide plus 

chloropicrin doses under virtually impermeable films. Crop Protection 24, 285-287. 

Gilreath, J.P., Santos, B.M., Motis, T.N., Noling, J.W. and Mirusso, J.M. (2005b). Methyl bromide alternatives for 

nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Crop Protection 24: 903-908 

Gilreath, J.P., McSorley, R. and McGovern, R. (2005c). Soil fumigant and herbicide combinations for caladium. 

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 

31 Oct – 3 Nov., 2005 San Diego, California 

Gilreath, J.P. and Santos, B.M. (2004a). Herbicide dose and incorporation depth in combination with 1,3-

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin for Cyperus rotundus control in tomato and pepper. Crop Protection 

23: 205 – 210. 

Gilreath, J.P., Noling, J.W. and Santos, B.M. (2004b). Methyl Bromide alternatives for bell pepper (Capsicum 

annuum) and cucumber (Cucumis sativus) rotations. Crop Protection 23: 347 – 351. 

Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T. N., Santos, B. M. and Noling, J.W. (2003). Retention of 1,3-dichloropropene and nutsedge 

control with Virtually Impermeable Film. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions Nov 3-6, 2003, San Diego, California USA. 

Gilreath, J.P., McSorley, R. and McGovern, R.J. (1999). Soil fumigant and herbicide combinations for soilborne 

pest control in caladiums. Proc. Fla. State. Hort. Soc. 112: 285 - 290 

Goodhue, R.E., Fennimore, S.A. and Ajwa, H.A. (2005). The economic importance of methyl bromide: does the 

California strawberry industry qualify for a critical use exemption from the methyl bromide ban? Review 

of agricultural economics. 2005 27(2): 198-211 

Gullino, M.L., Camponogara, A., Gasparrini, G.,Rizzo, V., Cini, C. and Garibaldi, A. (2003). Replacing Methyl 

Bromide for soil disinfestation. The Italian experience and its implicatons for other countries. Plant 

Disease 87 (9): 1012 – 1019. 

Haar, M., Fennimore, S. and Ajwa, H. (2001). Weed control efficacy of drip irrigation applied chloropicrin, metam 

sodium and 1,3-D. In: Proc. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives 

and Emissions Reductions, November 5 – 9, 2002, San Diego, California, USA. Paper 90. 

Haglund W. A. (1999). Metam sodium a potential alternative to methyl bromide. In: Proc. Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, 

USA. Paper 23. 

Hamill, J. E., Dickson, D. W., T-Ou, L., Allen, L. H., Burelle, N. K. and Mendes, M. L. (2004). Reduced rates of 

MBR and C35 under LDPE and VIF for control of soil pests and pathogens. In: Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2004. 31 October - 3 

November, 2003, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 2-1. 

Horner, I.J. (1999). Alternative soil fumigant trials in New Zealand strawberry production. In: Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, San 

Diego, California, USA 

Horner, I .J. and Jensen E .H. (2005). Effectiveness of phosphorous acid for Phytopthora control in the New 

Zealand strawberry industry. Final report for Strawberry Growers New Zealand Inc. 

Kah, E.M. (2005).Effect of grafting on growth, performance and yield of aubergine (Solanum melongea L.) in the 

field and greenhouse. J. of Food Agric. and Environ. 3(3&4): 92-94 

Kipp, J.A., Wever, G. and de Kreij, C. (2000). International Substrate Manual. Research Station for Floriculture 

and Glasshouse Vegetables, Aalsmeer, the Netherlands. Elsevier International, Doetinchem, The 

Netherlands, 94 pp. 

Lacasa, A. (2006). Applications of 1,3-Dichloropropene in vegetable crops in South East of Spain. Polytechnic 

University of Cartagena, Spain. 

Leoni, S and Ledda, L. (2004). Influenza delle limitazioni nell'uso del bromuro di metilo sull'ortcoltura in serra 

della Sardegna. In: Workshop Internazionale: La Produzione in Serra dopo l'era del Bromuro di Metile. 

April 1-3, 2004, Comiso, 253-263. 

Lieten, F. (2004). Substrates as an alternative to methyl bromide for strawberry fruit production in Northern 

Europe in both protected and field production. In: Proceedings of International Conference on 

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004, Lisbon, Portugal. 

Locascio, S.J., Dickson, D.W. and Mitchell, D.J. (2000). Chloropicrin enhancement of metam sodium as an 

alternative to methyl bromide for mulched tomato. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc.2000, 198-200. 
90 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

López-Aranda, J.M., Miranda, L., Romero, F., De Los Santos, B., Soria, C. Medina, J.J. Montes, F. , Vega, J. M., 

Páez, J.I., Bascón, J. Talavera, M. Pérez R. and Zea, T. (2006). Alternativas químicas al bromuro de 

metilo en fresa. Trabajos realizados en España sobre alternativas al bromuro de metilo en fresa: Resumen 

de resultados (Research undertaken in Spain on alternatives to methyl bromide: summary of results). In: 

International Workshop on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for strawberries and flowers, Auggust 22 – 

23, 2006 Ixtapan de la Sal, Mexico. 

López-Aranda, J.M., Santos, .M., Gilreath, J.P., Miranda, L., Soria, C. and Medina, J.J. (2005). Evaluation of 

methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry in Florida and Spain. In: Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction, Oct 31 - November 3, 2005, San 

Diego California, USA. 

Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Miranda, L., Romero, F., De Los Santos, B., Montes, F., Vega, J. M., Paez, J. I., Bascon, J., 

and Medina, J. J. (2003). Alternatives to MB for Strawberry Production in Huelva (Spain). 2003 

Results. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions 2003. November, 2003, San Diego, California, USA pp. 33-1. 

Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Romero, F., Montes, F., Medina, J. J., Miranda, L., De Los Santos, B., Vega, J. M., Paez, J. 

I., Dominguez, F., Lopez-Medina, J., and Flores, F. (2001a). Chemical and Non-Chemical Alternatives 

to MB Fumigation of Soil for Strawberry. 2000-2001 Results. In: Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2001. 5-9 November, 2001, 

San Diego, California, USA, pp. 40-1. 

Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Medina, J. J., Miranda, L., De Los Santos, B., Dominguez, F., Sanchez-Vidal, M. D., LopezMedina, J., and Flores, F. (2001b). Agronomic Behaviour of Strawberry Coming From Different Types 

of Soil Fumigation in Nurseries. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2001. 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 

38-1. 

Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Medina, J. J., Miranda, L., and Dominguez, F. (2000). Three Years of Short-Term 

Alternatives To MB on Huelva Strawberries. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2000. 6-9 November, 2000, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 

10-1. 

Loumakis, N. (2004). Protected vegetable production in Mediterranean regions without the use of Methyl 

Bromide. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 

September 2004, Lisbon, Portugal. 

Lucas E. and J. Ruidavets. (2000). Lethal and sub-lethal effects of rice polishing process on Sitophilus oryzae

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 93(6) 1837 – 1841. 

Mann, R.C., Mattner, S.W., Gounder, R.K., Brett R.K. and Porter I.J. (2005). Evaluating novel soil fumigants for 

Australian horticulture. Pp 34-1 – 34-4 In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, Oct 31 - Nov. 3 2005, San Diego, California, USA. 

Mattner, S.W., Gregorio, R., Ren Y.L., Hyland T.W., Gounder, R.K., Sarwar, M. and Porter, I.J. (2003). 

Application techniques influence the efficacy of ethanedinitrile (C2N2) for soil disinfestation. Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, Nov. 3-6, 

2003, San Diego, California, USA. pp. 127.1-127.4. 

MBTOC. (2002). 2002 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP, 

Nairobi. 468pp. 

MBTOC (1998). 1998 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP, Nairobi. 

MBTOC (1994). 1994 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP, Nairobi. 

McKenry, M.V., Buzo, T., Kaku, S. and Ashcroft, R. (1999). First-year nematode control and tree growth using 

treatments appropriate for buffer zones. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, USA. Paper 42. 

Melero-Vara, J.M., López-Herrera, C.J., Basallote-Ureba, M.J., Navas, J.A., López, M., Vela, M.D., González, L., 

Moraza, R. and Prados-Ligero, A.M. (2005). Physical and chemical methods of controlling fusarium wilt 

of carnation as alternatives to methyl bromide treatments. Acta Hort 698: 175 – 180.

Melgarejo, P., De Cal, A., Salto, T., Martinez-Beringola, M. L., Martinez-Treceno, A., Bardon, E., Palacios, J., 

Becerril, M., Medina, J. J., Galvez, J., and Lopez-Aranda, J. M. (2001). Three Years of Results on 

Chemical Alternatives To Methyl Bromide For Strawberry Nurseries in Spain. In: Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2001. November 5 - 9, 

2001, San Diego, California, USA. pp. 93-1. 

Minuto, A., Garibaldi, A. and Gullino, M.L. (2003). Chemical alternatives to Methyl Bromide in Italy: an update. 

Pp. 22-1 – 22-4 In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 

Emission Reductions, November 3-6, 2003, San Diego, California, USA. 
 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 91

Muckenfuss, A. (2005). Basamid G for weed control in forest tree nurseries. In: Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, Oct 31 - Nov. 3 2005, San 

Diego, California, USA. Pp 43-1 – 43-4 

Mutitu, E and Barel, M. (2003). Examples of MB alternatives used in commercial practice. Stakeholders 

Workshop on Methyl bromide, February 2003. Nairobi, Kenya. 

Navas Becerra, J.A., Melero-Vara, J.M. and Prados- Ligero, A.M. (2002). Methyl bromide alternatives for cutflowers production in Chipiona. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl 

Bromide. March 5-8 2002, Sevilla, Spain 

Navarro. S., Finkelman S., Rinder M. and R. Dias. (2005). Heat treatment for disinfestations of Nitidulid beetles 

from dates. Department of Food Science, Agricultural Research Organization, the Volcani Center, P. O. 

Box 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel 

Nelson, M., Rodriguez, L., Vander Mey, B., Lepez, G. and Norton, J. (2002). Results from the 2001-02 USDA IR4 MBA Field Trials in California Strawberries. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Nov. 3 – 6, 2003 Orlando, Florida, USA.. pp.16/1-

16/4. 

Nelson M. et al. (2001a). Marketable berry yield cv. Camarosa – Oxnard trial, CA. 2000-01 USDA IR-4 Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives Program in Strawberries. 

Nelson M. et al. (2001b). Marketable berry yield cv. Diamante – Salinas trial, CA. 2000-01 USDA IR-4 Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives Program in Strawberries. 

Noling, J. W. and Gilreath, J. P. (2004). Use of virtually impermeable plastic mulches (VIF) in Florida 

strawberry. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 

Emissions Reductions, November 3-6, 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA. pp. 1-1. 

Noling, J. W., Gilreath, J. P. and Rosskopf, E. R. (2001). Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Field Research Efforts 

For Nematode Control in Florida. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions , 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California, USA. pp. 14-1. 

Norman, C.S. (2005). Potential impacts of imposing methyl bromide phaseout on US strawberry growers: a case 

study of a nomination for a critical use exemption under the Montreal Protocol. J. Environm. Mgmt. 75: 

167-176 

Peguero, A. (2004). Use of Agrocelhone in cut flower production in southern Spain. In: Proceedings of 

International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon, Portugal. 

Pietr, S.J., Slusarski, C. and Lewicka, T. (2002). Methyl bromide alternatives evaluated in strawberry production in 

UNEP’s regional demonstration project in central and eastern Europe. In: Proceedings of th International 

Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, March 5-8, 2002, Seville, Spain. 

Pizano, M. 2005. Worldwide trends in substrate use. FloraCulture International, March 2005, p. 20 – 21. 

Porter, I.J., Trinder, L. and Partington, D. (2006). Special Report Validating the Yield Performance of Alternatives 

to Methyl Bromide for Preplant fumigation. TEAP/MBTOC Special Report, UNEP Nairobi, May 2006 

97pp. 

Porter I.J, Mattner, S., Gounder, R., Mann, R., Banks, J. and Fraser, P. (2004). Strawberry fruit production: 

summaries of alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation and trials in different geographic regions. In: 

Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. 

Lisbon, Portugal. 

Porter, I., Brett, R., Wiseman, B., and Rae, J. (1997). Methyl bromide for preplant soil disinfestation in temperate 

horticultural crops in Australia in perspective. In: Annual International Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-5 November, 1997, San Diego, California USA. 

Rabasse, J.M. (2004). Improved techniques for the application of metham sodium. In: Proceedings of International 

Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon, Portugal. 

Reuven, M., Ben-Yephet, Y., Sznulewich, Y., Kolesnik, I. Gamliel, A. Zilberg, V. Mor, M and Cahlon, Y. (2002). 

Control of Fusarium and root-knot nematodes in carnations using steam and chemicals. In: International 

Workshop on Methyl Bromide Compliance Assistance. Dec 8 - 13, 2002, Israel. 

Reuven, M., Szmulewich, Y. Kolesnik, I. Gamliel, A. Zilberg, V. Mor, M. Cahlon, Y. and Ben-Yephet, Y. (2005). 

Methyl bromide alternatives for controlling fusarium wilt and root knot nematodes in carnations. Acta 

Hort 698: 99 – 104 

Runia, W.T. and Molendijk, L.P.G. (2006). Improved efficacy of metam sodium by rotary spading injection. 

Wageningen University and Research Center, Lelystad. 16pp. 
92 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Sachs Y. (2002). Vegetable industry: Recommendations for use of Methyl Bromide alternatives and gaps in knowhow. In: International Methyl Bromide Compliance workshop, Israel, December 8-13, 2002, p. 51. 

Santos, B.M., Gilreath, J.P. and Motis, T.N. (2005). Managing nutsedge and stunt nematode in pepper with 

reduced methyl bromide plus chloropicrin rates under virtually impermeable films. HortTechnology. 

15(3): 596-599. 

Savvas, D. and Passam, H. (eds) (2002). Hydroponic Production of Vegetables and Ornamentals. Embryo 

Publications, Athens. 

Savvas, D. (2003). Hydroponics: A modern technology supporting the application of integrated crop management 

in greenhouse. Food, Agriculture and Environment 1 (1): 80 – 86. 

Smith, I.W., Dunez, J., Lelliot, R.A., Phillips, D.H. and Archer, S.A. (1998). In: European Handbook of Plant 

Diseases. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK. Pp 200 – 202 

Sonneveld, (2002). Composition of nutritional solution. In: Savvas D and Passam H (eds) 2002. Hydroponic 

Production of Vegetables and Ornamentals. Embryo Publications, Athens pp 179 - 210. 

Spotti, C. (2004). The use of fumigants and grafted plants as alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the production of 

tomatoes and vegetables in Italy. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl 

Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon, Portugal. 

Sydorovych, O., Safley, C.D., Ferguson, L.M., Poling, E.B., Fernandez, G.E., Brannen, P.M., Monks, D.M. and 

Louws, F.J. (2006) Economic evaluation fo methyl bromide alternatives for the production of 

strawberries in the Southeastern United States. HortTechnology 16, 118-128. 

Sydorovych, O., Safley, C.D., Poling, E.B., Ferguson, L. M. , Fernandez, G.E., Brannen, P.M. and Lows, F.J. 

(2004). Economic evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry production. In: Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 3-6 

November 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA. 

Tognoni F, Incorcci, L., and Pardossi, A. (2004). Use of substrates for intensive production of vegetables in 

Europe and Mediterranean regions. In: Proceedings of fifth International conference on Alternatives to 

Methyl Bromide, 27-30 September, 2004, Lisbon, Portugal pp.177-181. 

Tostovrsnik, N.S., Shanks, A.L. Porter, I.J. Mattner, S.W, and Brett, R.W. (2005). Facilitating the adoption of 

alternatives to methyl bromide in Australian horticulture. Pp 13-1 – 13/4 In: Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 31 Oct -3 November 

2005, San Diego, California, USA. 

Tribulato, A. and Noto, G. (2001). Forcing oriental and asiatic lilies in soilless culture. Acta Hort. 559: 639-645. 

Trout, T., Schneider, S., Ajwa,, H. and Gartung, J. (2003). Fumigation and fallowing effects on replant problems in 

California.In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions, 3-6 November, 2003, San Diego, California, USA. 

Unger, W., Reichmuth, Ch. Unger, A. and Detrmers, H.B.. (1992). Zur Bekämpfung des Echten Hausschwamms 

(Serpula lacrymans [WULF.: FR.] SCHROET.) in Kulturgütern mit Brommethan [Contol of Serpula 

lacrymans in artefacts with methyl bromide]. Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung 6,

244-259. 

Unruh, J.B., Brecke, J.B. Dusky, J.A. and Godehere, J.S. (2002). Fumigant alternatives for methyl bromide prior 

to turfgrass establishment. Weed Technology 16: 379 – 387. 

Unruh, J.B. and Brecke, B.J. (2001). Seeking alternatives for methyl bromide. Golf Course Management 69(3): 65 

– 72. 

Urrestarazu, M. (2004). Tratado de cultivo sin suelo Mundi Prensa Libros, España, 928 pp. 3 Ed. 

UNEP (2003). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, October 2003. Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. 

UNEP (2004). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, October 2004. Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. 

UNEP (2005a). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, May 2005. Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. 

UNEP (2005b). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, May 2005 Interim Report (Section 

III). Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment 

Programme, Nairobi. 

UNEP (2005c) Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, October 2005. Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. 
 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 93

UNEP (2006). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, May, 2006. Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. 

Wang D., Yates S.R., Ernst F.F., Gan J. and Jury W.A. (1997). Reducing methyl bromide emission with a high 

barrier plastic film and reduced dosage. Environmental Science and Technology 31, 3686-3691. 

Watson, C. W., Szemjonneck, W., Pruthi, N., Bureau, D. and Varnava, A. (2002). New developments in the 

fumigation of bulk and bagged goods in-transit. In: Donahaye, E. J., Navarro, S., Leesch, J. (eds), 

Proceedings of the International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored 

Products, Fresno, California, October 2000, Vol. I, 439-453. 

Yates, S.R. (2004). Reducing bystander exposure by emission reduction. In: Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Nov 3 – 6, 2004, Orlando, 

Florida, USA. 

Yates, S.R,, Gan, F. and Ernst, E.F. (1996a). Methyl bromide emissions from a covered field: I. Experimental 

conditions and degradation in soil. J. Environment. Qual. 25(1): 184 – 192 

Yates, S.R,, Gan, F. and Ernst, E.F. (1996b). Methyl bromide emissions from a covered field: I. Volatilization. J. 

Environment. Qual. 25(1): 192 - 202 

Yücel, I.H., Elekçioğlu, A. and Uludağ, A. (2002). Solarization and its combinations: the first year results of a 

demonstration project. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl 

Bromide, 5 – 8 March, 2002, Seville, Spain. 

 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 95

3. MBTOC Work plan 2006, Budget 2007 

3.1 Introduction 

The Parties, at their Sixteenth Meeting, decided to adopt the elements related to procedures 

and terms of reference of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) 

related to the evaluation of nominations for critical uses of methyl bromide as set out in 

Annex I to the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties (16MOP) (Decision XVI/4). 

Paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP states that an annual work plan should be 

drawn up by MBTOC (supported by the Ozone Secretariat) in consultation with TEAP and 

that MBTOC should submit it to the Meeting of the Parties each year. 

In accordance with paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP, MBTOC has prepared 

its 2007 work plan in consultation with TEAP and with support of the Ozone Secretariat. The 

work plan is contained in section 3 of the current document for consideration by the Parties at 

their Eighteenth Meeting. 

Paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP also specifies that a summary report of 

MBTOC activities over the previous year (paragraph 15(h)) should also be indicated in the 

MBTOC plan. In accordance with this requirement, the summary report is provided in 

section 4 of the current document. 

3.2 Allocation of the Funds under Decision XVI/5 

The Parties, at their Seventeenth Meeting, included in the approved Secretariat budget for 

2006 a maximum amount of US$34,150, on an exceptional basis, to cover the costs of expert 

assistance to MBTOC as supplemental funding. Section 5 of the current document provides a 

detailed report on how the supplemental funds were allocated to MBTOC activities. The 

report on allocation of the funds was prepared in pursuance of the fundamental principle 

adopted by the Parties of ensuring transparency in the process of assessing critical use 

nominations. 

3.3 MBTOC Work plan for 2007 - Details 

Paragraph 1 of Annex I to the report of 16 MOP provides the schedule for the MBTOC 

assessment of critical-use exemptions. In accordance with the schedule, MBTOC envisages 

its activities in 2007 as set out in Table 1 below. The elements of the work plan as specified 

under paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP have been incorporated. The schedule 

of the work to be carried out by MBTOC on the MBTOC composition is also included. The 

list of current membership of MBTOC is contained in Annex I to the current document. 

The work plan also includes an indicative budget for the activities in 2007, which are related 

to evaluation of CUNs. Although Parties had indicated in the 2006 approved budget that 2006 

is the last year for providing supplemental funding to MBTOC, such financial assistance is 

needed to ensure the effective operation of MBTOC in continuing to carry out the evaluation 

of CUNs. In particular, some funding for non-Article 5 MBTOC members is strongly 

recommended; most non-Article 5 members do not have funding to attend meetings. As 

mentioned in the 2006 work plan of MBTOC contained in the Final CUN report of last year 

(Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, October 2005: Evaluation of 

2005 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide and Related Matters, Final Report) the 

financial burden on individual members and/or their research institutions has become 

unsustainable due to the increased workload and number of meetings resulting from the CUN 
96 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

process. In addition, the requirement for MBTOC reports to more clearly and completely 

reference the reasons for decision making under the circumstances of particular nominations 

strengthens the need for field trips to affected regions, for occasional consultation with 

experts on particular topics, for reports summarizing particularly complex issues, and to cover 

the costs of obtaining reference documents. The Parties may wish to consider these issues. 

Table 10. MBTOC work plan and indicative budget 

Tasks and actions Indicative budget needs 

where applicable 

Indicative 

completion date 

Dates of 

meetings 

Assessment of the CUNs 

1. Parties submit their nominations for critical-use 

exemptions to the Secretariat 

- 24 January 2007 

2. The nominations are forwarded to MBTOC cochairs for distribution to the subgroups of appointed 

members 

- 7 February 2007 

3. Initial summarization of the nominations - 

4. Nominations in full are assessed by the 

subgroups of appointed members. The initial 

findings of the subgroups, and any requests for 

additional information are forwarded to the MBTOC 

co-chairs for clearance 

Funds for assistance in 

technical analysis, report 

preparation, field tours and 

reference docs (throughout 

the process as necessary): 

US$ 10,000 

 

5. MBTOC co-chairs forward the cleared advice 

on initial findings and may request additional 

information on to the nominating Party concerned 

and consult with the Party on the possible 

presumption therein 

- 21 February 2007 

6. Nominating Party develops and submits its 

response to the MBTOC co-chairs 

- 7 March 

7. MBTOC Meeting No 1 to assess nominations, 

including any additional information provided by the 

nominating Party prior to the MBTOC meeting 

under action 5 and any additional information 

provided by nominating Party through pre-arranged 

teleconference, or through meetings with national 

experts, in accordance with paragraph 3.4 of the 

terms of reference of TEAP 

Funds for travel of 3 non-A5 

members: US$10,000* 

Meeting Costs $6,000 

(Non A5 Co-chairs funded 

separately)* 

19-23 March 19 – 23 March, 

2007, Torino, 

Italy 

8. Field missions by selected MBTOC members 

to some key sites where methyl bromide is used as 

per nominations. 

Funds for travel: 

US$6,000 

18 or 24 March, 2007 

9. MBTOC provides its draft recommendations 

on the CUNs to TEAP 

 27 March, 2007 

10. TEAP Meeting: To assess the MBTOC report 

on critical-use nominations and submits the finalised 

interim report on recommendations and findings to 

the Secretariat. 

Funds for travel of 1 non-A5 

member: US$ 5,000* 

(Non A5 Co-Chairs funded 

separately)* 

 27 – 30 March, 

2007, Rome, Italy

11. The Secretariat posts the finalised report on its 

web site and circulates it to the Parties 

- 23 April, 2007 

12. OEWG Bilateral Discussions: Nominating 

Party has the opportunity to consult with MBTOC 

on a bilateral basis in conjunction with the Openended Working Group meetings 

 4-8 June 2007 

13. The nominating Party submits further 

clarification for the critical-use nomination in the 

“unable to assess” category or if requested to do so 

by the Open-ended Working Group, and provides 

additional information should it wish to appeal 

against a critical-use nomination recommendation 

by MBTOC/TEAP 

- 

Early July 2007 
 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 97

Tasks and actions Indicative budget needs 

where applicable 

Indicative 

completion date 

Dates of 

meetings 

14. MBTOC Meeting No 2: 

• reassess only those critical-use nominations in 

the “unable to assess” category, those where 

additional information has been submitted by the 

nominating Party and any critical-use nominations 

for which additional information has been requested 

by the Open-ended Working Group 

• finalise the report, including notice of any 

proposed new standard presumptions to be applied 

by MBTOC 

• conduct any bilateral consultations requested 

by Parties 

• draft work plan and budget for MBTOC for 

2007 

Funds for travel of 3 non-A5 

members: US$12,000 

Meeting costs: $US 6000. 

(Non A5 Co-Chairs funded 

separately)* 

Mid July 2007 Tentative: 16 – 

20 July, 2006, 

possible venue 

Brazil 

15. MBTOC draft final report considered by 

TEAP, finalised and made available to Parties 

through the Secretariat 

- End July, 2007 

16. Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties 17-21 September 

2007 

Total budget: US$47,000. 

Meeting Costs $12,000 

covered separately 

 

Composition of MBTOC 

17. At the MBTOC meeting on the assessment of 

nominations, MBTOC will also update the list of 

members and their expertise and decide on missing 

expertise. The list and missing expertise to be 

submitted to the Secretariat. 

Updated list attached 

separately 

............. 

18. The Secretariat will update on its website the 

list of members and their expertise as well as the 

information on ‘experts required for TEAP and its 

TOCs’. 

 ............... 

• The costs of the 2 non-Article 5 Co-Chairs are expected to be covered by support of Canada and the European 

Commission. 

3.4 Summary Report of the Activities Carried out by MBTOC in 2006 

• Initial summarization of the CUNs (initial sorting and recording carried out by 

the Secretariat). 

• Preparation of questions for Parties. 

• First meeting of MBTOC on the assessment of the CUNs – Dubrovnik, Croatia 3-

8 April 2006. Interim recommendations and report prepared for the Parties. 

• Welcomed new member from Spain, and departures of members from the 

Philippines, from Malaysia and from Italy 

• Progress report drafting after the April meeting. 

• TEAP meeting – Beijing, 23-28 April 2005. 

• Issuance of the interim report for consideration by the OEWG as part of 2006 

TEAP Progress report. 

• Completion of the meta-analysis report and its review and endorsement by TEAP. 

Issuance of the report as a special report of TEAP. 

• 26OEWG (Montreal, 3 – 6 July 2006). Bilateral meetings with Australia, Japan, 

European Commission, Spain, Poland, Italy, USA, US Food Processing and 

Agriculture Industry members. 

• Second MBTOC meeting for evaluation of CUNs that had been classified as 

“Unable to assess” at previous meeting and preparation of MBTOC Assessment 

Report – Yokohama, Japan August 28 – September 2, 2006. 
98 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

• Visit by 6 MBTOC members to Canadian pasta manufacturing facility to review 

pest control issues. 

• Visits by 9 MBTOC members to Kumamoto ginger production sites on August 

27 and by all MBTOC members to Ibaragi and Chiba strawberry and pepper 

production sites on August 30. To review the current production characteristics 

including alternatives, research and industry issues with these alternatives. 

• Updated Matrix of MB alternatives for soils 

• Preparation of the first draft of the MBTOC 2006 Assessment Report in 

accordance with decision XV/53 and pursuant to Article 6 of the Montreal 

Protocol. The report will be finalised by December 31st, 2006 

3.5 Allocation of the Funds provided under the 2006 budget approved at 

the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties 

Parties decided to provide MBTOC with financial assistance on an exceptional basis for 2006 

as supplemental funds for the maximum sum of $34,150. The funds were allocated for 

activities related to evaluation of critical use nominations as follows: 

• Further work on the referencing, and presentation of data from the TEAP Special 

Report : US$16,000 

• Yokohama meeting (MBTOC second meeting) organization: US$1,600 

• Bus transport for the field trips in Japan (Ibaragi, Chiba and Kumamoto): 

US$2,000 

• Dubrovnik meeting costs $5,977.50 (Funds supplied by UNEP) 

• Financial support for 2 non-Article 5 experts for the Dubrovnik meeting (first 

MBTOC meeting): US $6,871 

• Financial support for 2 non-Article 5 experts for the Yokohama field trip: US 

$2,533. 

• Financial support for one non A5 MBTOC member to attend the Yokohama 

meeting: US $5,094. 

TOTAL: US $34,098 

Note: Field missions to food processing sites in the US were cancelled due to lack of funds. 

The actual certified expenditure against the allocations will only become available after the 

closing of 2006 accounts in March 2007. This is a provisional report of information that has 

already been recorded in the UN integrated management information system (IMIS). 

 

3.6 Management and Personnel Issues 

Annex II lists MBTOC members, country, work affiliation and expertise. MBTOC members 

represent an impressive scope and depth of experience and ability; MBTOC has members 

from 24 countries. More than new members, MBTOC needs to have its members funded to 

attend meetings, and able to commit to contributing to the work of MBTOC outside of the 

meetings. Most members have been appointed by Parties, yet it is a constant struggle for 

many members to obtain sufficient funding to attend all MBTOC meetings, and even more so 

to be funded to spend the time necessary to accomplish the heavy workload. 

The response of the Parties to MBTOC’s indicative budget will, more than anything, clarify 

MBTOC’s membership needs. Without funding to attend meetings, many current non-A5 

MBTOC members will be unable to attend. If there is to be no change in the funding 

situation, MBTOC may need to replace several of its members; the loss of that many 

experienced members would threaten both the best completion of CUN decisions and the 

excellence of the Assessment report. 
 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 99

MBTOC continues to search for well-qualified members, particularly from Article 5 countries 

and countries with economies in transition (CEIT), with expertise in: 

 

- Weed control, in crops that generate critical use nominations 

- Replant disease 

September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 101

4. Recapture of methyl bromide – information provided under 

Decision XVII/11. 

4.1 Introduction 

The text of Decision XVII/11 reads: 

“1. To encourage Parties who have deployed in the past, currently deploy or plan to 

deploy technologies to recapture/recycle/destroy or reduce methyl bromide emissions 

from fixed facilities or sea container fumigation applications to submit to the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel details of efficacy, including destruction 

and removal efficiency (DRE), logistical issues and the economic feasibility of such 

fumigations, by 1 April 2006; 

2. To encourage Parties to report on any harmful by-products created using such 

technologies; 

3. To adopt the form annexed to this decision for the purpose of submitting data; 

4. To include the findings of data submitted in the 2006 progress report of the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and summarize Parties’ positive and 

negative past experiences of recovery and destruction technologies;”. 

Two Parties, Australia and the US, provided details of methyl bromide recapture and 

destruction systems in response to Decision XVII/11. The form referred to in Decision 

XVII/11(3) was used as requested to provide a summary of the data. The submissions are 

given in Annex 1 and 2 below. 

Two other Parties, Belgium and Poland, gave information to MBTOC on recapture system 

under development. However, these were not in response to Decision XVII/11 and were not 

in a form suitable for inclusion in this report. Recapture, recycling and destruction systems 

will be specifically discussed in the MBTOC 2006 Assessment Report. 

4.2 Background and definitions 

Methyl bromide, a short-lived and potent ozone-depleting substance, is used in fumigations as 

a biocide. While it is subject to controls on production and consumption in Article 5(1) 

countries and has been subject to 100% phaseout in non-Article 5 countries since 2005, there 

continue to be some uses of the fumigant. These are the remaining uses in Article 5(1) 

countries, critical uses in non-Article 5 countries under Decision IX/6, and uses falling within 

the category of ‘Quarantine and Pre-Shipment’ (QPS) that are exempt from phaseout under 

Article 2H. 

Most QPS and other postharvest uses are, or should be, carried out in well-sealed enclosures. 

At present, it is common practice to vent the residual methyl bromide to atmosphere. The 

proportion of the initial fumigant charge of methyl bromide remaining as methyl bromide 

varies widely with circumstances, environmental effects and the fumigated commodity. The 

Task force on Collection, Recovery and Storage (TEAP 2002) estimated that emissions of 

9,300 – 11,535 tonnes of methyl bromide could be prevented, on the basis of 70% of methyl 

bromide being available for recapture on average from QPS and other commodity 

fumigations, based on 1998 data. The present situation with regard to amount of MB that is 

available to be captured and destroyed is not clear. MB use for post-harvest has declined 

significantly over the last few years in non A5 countries, but increased trade and quarantine 
102 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

officials’ emphasis on stopping the spread of exotic wood-destroying insect pests, such as 

ISPM 15, may have led to increased use of MB for QPS. The situation will only become 

clear when accurate numbers for QPS use are known. 

For QPS treatments, Decisions VII/5(c) and XI/13(7) urge Parties to minimize use and 

emissions of methyl bromide through containment and recovery and recycling methodologies 

to the extent possible. At this point, there has been very limited adoption of recovery 

technologies for methyl bromide. Initially, recapture systems were installed in response to 

local air quality ordinances. In the absence of regulations, companies reported they would not 

invest in the systems, because their competitors would then have a cost advantage. Lately, 

some regions have begun requiring the use of recapture systems as a means of ozone 

protection as well as local air quality. 

Technically, the recapture and destruction of methyl bromide from fumigations has 

similarities with the recapture and destruction of CFCs from foams. Both are dilute sources. 

Both suffer losses between their application or discharge from the concentrated supply to the 

time where recapture may be carried out in practice. In one key aspect recapture of used 

methyl bromide is much less difficult than recapture from used foams. Used methyl bromide 

is held in the sealed fumigation chamber ready for convenient recapture; used foams have to 

be gathered and transported to a recapture or destruction facility. 

The efficiency of recapture/destruction can be described in several ways. For dilute methyl 

bromide sources, the same general concepts may be applied as for dilute CFC sources. These 

are the overall Destruction Efficiency (DE), the Recovery and Destruction Efficiency (RDE) 

and the Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE). Decision XVII/11 specifically requests 

information on DRE. These various measures of efficiency of destruction, and thus ozone 

protection, are defined (TEAP 2002, 2005) thus: 

• Destruction Efficiency (DE) is determined by subtracting from the mass of a chemical 

fed into a destruction system during a specific period of time the mass of that 

chemical that is released in stack gases, fly ash, scrubber water, bottom ash, and any 

other system residues and expressing that difference as a percentage of the mass of 

the chemical fed into the system. 

• Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) has traditionally been determined by 

subtracting from the mass of a chemical fed into a destruction system during a 

specific period of time the mass of that chemical alone that is released in stack gases, 

and expressing that difference as a percentage of the mass of that chemical fed into 

the system. 

• Recovery and Destruction Efficiency (RDE) is given by the quantity of the chemical 

destroyed in the destruction system as a percentage of that present in situ prior to the 

start of the destruction system. This measure includes losses in segregation, 

decommissioning, mechanical recovery and incineration or other destruction process. 

With specific regard to methyl bromide from fumigation, the DRE is a measure of the 

recapture/destruction process itself, while the DE is a measure of the complete process. The 

DE includes losses from leakage and reaction on the commodity, as well as inefficiencies in 

removing the substance (methyl bromide) from the fumigation enclosure for input to the 

recapture/destruction system. Leakage losses will be emissions to the atmosphere and thus 

ODS emissions not controlled by a destruction process. These are typically regulated by best 

fumigation practice, including good sealing of the enclosure, good dosing procedures and 

minimizing recirculation pressures induced by recirculation fans.
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 103

4.3 Submissions under XVII/11 

4.3.1 Summary of submissions 

Two submissions were received under Decision XVII/11 – from Australia and from the US. 

Reformatted versions of these submissions are given in Annex 1 and 2 respectively. 

The submission from Australia described commercial operation of a recapture/destruction 

system based on sorption on to activated carbon, followed by destruction of the sorbed methyl 

bromide using an aqueous thiosulphate wash. The submission from the US gave data for three 

systems: a carbon-based absorption system, a wet scrubber using thiosulphate and a zeolitebased sorption system. The carbon-based destruction system is in commercial use. After use 

at the fumigation site, the methyl bromide-loaded carbon is transported to a central site for 

incineration. The wet scrubbing destruction system is still under development, while the 

zeolite system is no longer in use, though several full-scale prototypes were constructed and 

tested. The zeolite system was specifically designed to allow recycling of recaptured methyl 

bromide – all others are destruction systems only, though in principle the carbon-based 

systems could be adapted to release sorbed methyl bromide for reuse. 

A summary of the submissions is given in Table 1. Values as given or calculated from the 

submissions. 

Table 11. Operating efficiencies and costs per kg of methyl bromide destroyed for systems submitted 

under Decision XVII/11 – summary. 

Party System Operating 

principle 

DRE 

(%) 

DE 

(%) 

Cost 

($US/kg 

destroyed) 

Projected cost 

($US/kg destroyed) 

(a) 

Australia Nordiko 

Chamber 

Carbon 

absorption (b) 

>99.9 71-

77 

21-24 11-12 

Australia Nordiko Clip 

on 

Carbon 

absorption (b) 

>99.9 61-

69 

28-30 15-17 

Australia Nordiko 

Under Tarp 

Carbon 

absorption (b) 

>99.8 58-

75 

5.8-7.6 3.2-4.2 

USA MBECp Carbon 

absorption (c) 

95 94 31.84 - 

USA Value 

Recovery 

Thiosulphate 

scrubbing 

88 87 - - 

(a) Likely costs given for widespread adoption 

(b) Subsequent MB destruction by thiosulphate wash with regeneration of the carbon 

(c) Subsequent destruction by combustion of the MB-loaded carbon. 

4.3.2 Comment on recapture and destruction performance 

The DRE figures given in the submissions are all quite high (>88%). However the DREs for 

the carbon-based systems, at least, are based on the assumption that the destruction system 

used, thiosulphate washing or incineration, is 100% efficient and that there are no inadvertent 

losses during the destruction process. Measurements in support of this assumption were not 

supplied. 

In the Australian system the calculated DE values are quite low, on average suggesting losses 

of about 30% of the methyl bromide prior to entry into the recapture/destruction system. The 

losses appear to be independent of the commodity treated and enclosure used, suggesting a 

systematic cause of this loss. This may need investigation to achieve overall better recapture 
104 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

of applied methyl bromide, but does not influence the DRE of the recapture/destruction 

system itself. 

None of the submissions described any toxic byproducts arising from the destruction 

processes. 

4.4 Conclusion 

The carbon-based recapture/destruction systems, described herein, have similar DREs, >95%, 

to the destruction processes for the only dilute source so far approved by the Parties. These 

are municipal waste incineration and rotary kiln incineration for CFCs from foams (Annex II, 

Report of 15MOP). 

Subject to the constraints on good housekeeping and emissions set out in Annex III and IV of 

the Report of 15MOP, appropriately amended to take into account the special chemical and 

use features of methyl bromide, Parties may wish to consider adding carbon-based recapture/ 

destruction systems (thiosulphate washing or incineration) to the list of Approved Destruction 

Processes. A stipulation that the processes must achieve a DRE of >95% would be consistent 

with restrictions on Approved Destruction Processes for dilute ODS sources from foams. 

Thiosulphate-based wet scrubbing is still under development and it may be appropriate to 

consider the process for Approved Destruction Processes status when it is routinely capable of 

giving a DRE of >95%. 

4.5 References 

TEAP 2002. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. April 2002. Vol. 3. Report of 

the Task Force on Collection, Recovery and Storage and the Report of the Task Force on 

Destruction Technologies. UNEP: Nairobi. 

TEAP 2005. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. May 2005. Vol. 2. Report of 

the Task force on Foam End-of –Life Issues. UNEP: Nairobi. 

TEAP 2006. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. May 2006. Progress Report. 

UNEP: Nairobi. 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 105

Appendix I to Chapter 4: Submission of Australia under Decision XVII/11. 

Introduction 

Australia has employed methyl bromide recapture and destruction technologies at several 

locations in Australia. 

The use of methyl bromide recapture and destruction technologies has been implemented 

because of occupational health and safety concerns associated with methyl bromide 

fumigation. As occupational health and safety is substantially regulated by Australia's States 

and Territories, the precise nature of control varies across Australia. 

Two Australian States (Victoria and Tasmania) have mandated the use of methyl bromide 

recapture technology in some circumstances (particularly for container fumigations in 

dockyards) on occupational health and safety grounds. 

This technology used in Australia gives significant productivity and economic benefits to 

users as it permits imported shipping containers to be turned around after fumigation much 

faster than would occur if the container was withheld to permit the methyl bromide to 

naturally dissipate to the atmosphere. 

In Victoria, containers must be allowed to air for 24 hours after fumigation to ensure that the 

methyl bromide used to fumigate the container has time to dissipate to safe levels. In New 

South Wales, the requirement is for containers to be aired for six hours. Other Australian 

States and Territories generally require about six to 12 hours airing until fumigated containers 

may be handled. In contrast, extracting and destroying methyl bromide from containers after 

fumigation significantly reduces this time to around one hour. 

The reduced turn around time means that importers can access their goods on the same day 

that the fumigation is concluded. It also means that fumigators can use the fumigation pad for 

a subsequent treatment much sooner when compared to a site that has a container airing. 

Recapture technology also avoids the problem of fumigant pooling around containers well 

after a fumigation has been conducted. Incidences like this can have significant occupational 

health and safety impacts on dock workers. 

These benefits provide an economic incentive for importers and fumigators to use recapture 

technology in preference to traditional fumigation where the methyl bromide is permitted to 

vent to the atmosphere. 

The attached papers contain detailed information on the cost and amount of methyl bromide 

recaptured from fumigations using recapture and destruction technology.
106 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Submission Form for Methyl Bromide Recapture

Date of test January 2006 20 February 2006 21 February 2006 

A Recapture or destruction system used: Nordiko Chamber Nordiko Chamber Nordiko Chamber B Location: Raymond Terrace, NSW Raymond Terrace, 

NSW 

Raymond Terrace, NS

C Submitting body Nordiko Nordiko Nordiko D Commodity Treated Timber Timber Timber E Fumigation contents and volume: 3.3 m3 3.4 m3 3.06 m3 F Chamber or tent volume: 38.2 m3 38.2 m3 38.2 m3 G Percentage loading of chamber: 9% 9.00% 8.00% H Gas quantity retained by the recapture or 

destruction system: 

1870.93 g 1772.1 g 1827.76 g 

I Quantity lost during the fumigation by 

leakage or reaction: 

629 g 727.5 g 671.5 g 

J Residual free gas left in the enclosure after 

extraction of methyl bromide into the recapture system: 

0.5 ppm 2.6 ppm 5 ppm 

K Remaining sorbed gas (taking into account 

any gas naturally present prior to fumigation): 

0.5 ppm 2.6 ppm 5 ppm 

L Quantity of gas transiting the 

recapture/destruction system and lost by leaks in the system: 

Negligible leaks Negligible leaks Negligible leaks 

M Measurement of gas exhausted after 

recapture stopped: 

0.07 g 0.39 g 0.74 g 

N Total gas present in the fumigated system at 

start of recapture: 

1871 g 1772.5 g 1828.5 g 

O Net efficiency of recapture: 99.99% 99.97% 99.95% P Cost per kg recaptured/destroyed (US$): See 

note below 

(a) $22.52 (b) 11.26 

(a) 21.99 (b) $10.99 

(a) 23.06 (b) 11.53 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

Date of test 13 January 2006 16 January 2006 

A Recapture or destruction system used: Nordiko Clip on Nordiko Clip on B Location: Tasmania Tasmania C Submitting body Nordiko Nordiko D Commodity Treated Yarn Yarn E Fumigation contents and volume: 30 m3 30 m3 F Chamber or tent volume: 33 m3 33 m3 G Percentage loading of chamber: 90% 9.00% H Gas quantity retained by the recapture or destruction 

system: 

1199.49 g 1249.23 g 

I Quantity lost during the fumigation by leakage or 

reaction: 

600 g 550 g 

J Residual free gas left in the enclosure after extraction 

of methyl bromide into the recapture system: 

4 ppm 6 ppm 

K Remaining sorbed gas (taking into account any gas 

naturally present prior to fumigation): 

4 ppm 6 ppm 

L Quantity of gas transiting the recapture/destruction 

system and lost by leaks in the system: 

Negligible leaks Negligible leaks 

M Measurement of gas exhausted after recapture stopped: 0.51 g 0.77 g N Total gas present in the fumigated system at start of 

recapture: 

1200 g 1250 g 

O Net efficiency of recapture: 99.95% 99.93% P Cost per kg recaptured/destroyed (US$): See note 

below 

(a) 27.77 (b) 15.27 

(a) 26.66 (b)14.67 
108 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Note: (a) = Actual present usage; (b) = Full utilization N = Gas concentration (end of fumigation) x F M=J x F H=N – M - L I = Gas injected - N 0= H x 100%/ N K=J

Date of test 2 January 2006 3 January 2006 4 January 2006 

A Recapture or destruction system used: Nordiko Under Tarp Nordiko Under Tarp Nordiko Under Tarp B Location: Tasmania Tasmania Tasmania C Submitting body Nordiko Nordiko Nordiko D Commodity Treated Hydro Equipment Hydro Equipment Hydro Equipment E Fumigation contents and volume: 120 m3 120 m3 120 m3 F Chamber or tent volume: 134 m3 134 m3 134 m3 G Percentage loading of chamber: 89% 89% 89% H Gas quantity retained by the recapture or 

destruction system: 

4993.74 g 4595.83 g 5794.79 g 

I Quantity lost during the fumigation by leakage or 

reaction: 

3000 g 3400 g 2200 g 

J Residual free gas left in the enclosure after 

extraction of methyl bromide into the recapture system: 

12 ppm 8 ppm 10 ppm 

K Remaining sorbed gas (taking into account any 

gas naturally present prior to fumigation): 

12 ppm 8 ppm 10 ppm 

L Quantity of gas transiting the 

recapture/destruction system and lost by leaks in the system: 

Negligible leaks Negligible leaks Negligible leaks 

M Measurement of gas exhausted after recapture 

stopped: 

6.26 g 4.17 g 5.21 g 

N Total gas present in the fumigated system at start 

of recapture: 

5000 g 4600 g 5800 g 

O Net efficiency of recapture: 99.87% 99.90% 99.91% P Cost per kg recaptured/destroyed (US$): See note 

below 

(a) 6.96 (b) 3.83 

(a) 7.56 (b) 4.16 

(a) 6.00 (b) 3.30 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 109

Appendix II to Chapter 4: Submission of the United States of America under 

Decision XVII/11.

Voluntary submission of information on the efficacy, logistical issues, and the economic 

feasibility of technologies to recapture, recycle, destroy, or reduce methyl bromide emissions 

from fixed facilities or sea container fumigation applications. 

Introduction 

The United States is aware of three technologies that have been used to 

recapture/recycle/destroy methyl bromide from structural fumigations domestically. The first 

technology is currently used in a commercial setting and the second has undergone recent 

commercial-scale tests. The third technology is no longer in use. Best available data on the 

efficiency and cost of these technologies, as requested by Decision XVII/II of the 17th MOP, 

are only provided for commercially available technologies. 

• .Methyl Bromide Emission Control Process (MBECp) - developed by USDAARS, GFK Consulting, and Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, this methyl bromide 

recovery system is currently commercially available from Great Lakes, but is in 

limited use, 

• .Phase Transfer Catalysis - this recovery and destruction system is being developed by Value Recovery, Inc. and is not yet commercially available. 

• Bromosorb® - this recovery and recycling system was developed by Knowzone 

Solution, Inc and Cryo-Line Supplies, Inc. and is no longer commercially available. 

Decision XVII/11 forms 

Table I. Methyl Bromide Emission Control Process: 

These performance data were originally reported at the 2005 Annual International Research Conference 

on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

Information Requested 

A Recapture or destruction system used Methyl Bromide Emission Control process (MBECp) 

B Location Installed at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport in Texas, 

Well-Pict Berries in Watsonville, California, and 

Bush International Airport in Houston, Texas 

C Submitting body. 

(please provide name and e-mail address of 

individual to be contacted in the event of a 

query) 

D Commodity treated Dallas/Fort Worth Airport: acorns, bell peppers, 

wood crates, herbs, flowers, pinecones, and ceramic 

tiles 

Well-Pict Berries : several varieties of berries 

fumigated 

E Fumigation contents and volume 20.2m3 a

F Chamber or tent volume 161.8m3 a

G Percentage loading of the chamber 12% 

 Units Percentage of Total Quantity 

Applied (Where Appropriate) 

H Gas quantity retained by the recapture or 

destruction system 

2.14 kg 94% 

I Quantity lost during the fumigation by leakage 

or reaction 

0.04 kg 2% 

J Residual free gas left in the enclosure after 

extraction of methyl bromide into the 

recapture system 

0.06 kg 3% 
110 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

K Remaining sorbed gas (taking into account 

any gas naturally present prior to fumigation) 

0.04 kg b 2% b

L Quantity of methyl bromide transiting the 

recapture/destruction system and lost by leaks 

in the system 

2.13 kg 95% 

M Measurement of gas exhausted after recapture 

stopped 

~ 500 ppm c

N Total gas present in the fumigated system at 

start of recapture 

2.20 kg 98% 

O Net efficiency of recapture 95% 

P Cost per kg recaptured/destroyed $US31.84 per kg recovered 

a

 Knapp (2005) only reported the volume of free space surrounding 40,000 lbs of contents (141.6 m3). The bulk 

density of 40,000 lbs of strawberries (900 kg/m3

) was used to estimate the content's volume, chamber volume, 

and "Percentage Loading of Chamber." Please note that these values are dependant upon the bulk density of the 

commodity. b

 It was assumed that the commodity absorbs 2 % of the methyl bromide introduced into the chamber during 

fumigation (Knapp, 2005). c

 Once the methyl bromide concentration reaches ~500 ppm, the MBECp system is bypassed and methyl bromide 

is released directly into the atmosphere. The chamber is aerated until the concentration reaches ~5 ppm. This 

results in the atmospheric release of 0.06 kg of methyl bromide, if 2.24 kg is applied during fumigation. d

 It is assumed that the quantity of methyl bromide absorbed by the commodity is not released into the atmosphere. 

Table 2. Phase Transfer Catalysis: 

These performance data were provided by Value Recovery. Comments clarifying how each value was 

estimated are presented in Attachment B. 

The testing conducted by Value Recovery involved the fumigation of solid wood packaging with 4.745 

kg of methyl bromide introduced into a 76.46 m3

 chamber. As shown, the Value Recovery system is 

able to absorb and recapture 4.141 kg of the 4.745 kg of methyl bromide initially introduced into the 

chamber (about 87%). Approximately 0.577 kg of the methyl bromide applied is released into the 

atmosphere (about 12%) through leaks in the fumigation and recapture systems and venting of any 

residual gas left. in the fumigation chamber after recapture stops. The net efficiency of recapture is 

estimated to be 88%, where net efficiency is equal to the amount of methyl bromide captured by the 

MBECp system divided by the total amount of methyl bromide remaining in the fumigation system at 

the start of recapture. 

Although the purveyor of this scrubber system was able to share cost estimates with the U.S., the Party 

had no means to verify this information as the technology is not yet commercially available. 

Information Requested 

A Recapture or destruction system used Methyl Bromide Scrubber System 

B Location Value Recovery, Inc. is located in 

Bridgeport, NJ 

C Submitting body. 

(please provide name and e-mail address of 

individual to be contacted in the event of a query) 

D Commodity treated Solid Wood Packaging 

E Fumigation contents and volume 22.94m3 

F Chamber or tent volume 76.46 m3 

G Percentage loading of the chamber 30% 

 Units Percentage of Total 

Quantity Applied 

(Where Appropriate) 

H Gas quantity retained by the recapture or 

destruction system 

4.141 kg 874% 

I Quantity lost during the fumigation by leakage or 

reaction 

0.046 kg 1% 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 111

J Residual free gas left in the enclosure after 

extraction of methyl bromide into the recapture 

system 

0.106 Kg 2% 

K Remaining sorbed gas (taking into account any 

gas naturally present prior to fumigation) 

0.027 kg a 1% a

L Quantity of methyl bromide transiting the 

recapture/destruction system and lost by leaks in 

the system 

4.566 kg 96% 

M Measurement of gas exhausted after recapture 

stopped 

240 ppm 

N Total gas present in the fumigated system at start 

of recapture 

4.566 kg 98% 

O Net efficiency of recapture 88% b

P Cost per kg recaptured/destroyed Not yet in commercial use 

a It is assumed that the quantity of methyl bromide absorbed by the commodity is not released into the 

atmosphere. 

b. This estimate of net efficiency is calculated by dividing the total amount of methyl bromide retained by the 

MBECp system by the total amount of methyl bromide remaining in the fumigation system at the start of 

recapture. Two different interpretations of net efficiency were provided by Value Recovery, Inc., and are 

presented in Table 3 of Attachment B. 

Background on the Technologies 

Methyl Bromide Emission Control Process (MBECp) 

The Methyl Bromide Emission Control process (MBECp) was developed and tested under a 

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with USDA-ARS) Great Lakes Chemical 

Corporation) and GFK Consulting, and is currently commercially available. The system uses 

coconut-based activated carbon) which can be loaded with I pound of methyl bromide per 5-

10 pounds of carbon) to remove methyl bromide during the end-of-treatment venting from 

commodity fumigations (ARS, 2001). 

During fumigation, a container holding the commodity is placed in the fumigation chamber 

and covered with a tarp. Methyl bromide is then introduced into the chamber to eliminate 

pests. After the fumigation period, the methyl bromide recovery process begins by aerating 

the chamber and directing the chamber's air through the MBECp system to collect the methyl 

bromide. The system continues to operate until the concentration of methyl bromide in tile 

chamber is reduced to ~500 ppm. At this concentration, the system is less efficient at 

absorbing methyl bromide, thus the air in the chamber is directly vented into the atmosphere 

until it reaches -5ppm methyl bromide (Knapp, 2005). 

Once the activated carbon can no longer absorb additional methyl bromide, it must be 

transported to a carbon regeneration facility where the absorbed methyl bromide is recovered 

and the carbon is reactivated. The recovered methyl bromide is then decomposed into 

elemental bromide (Br2) (Knapp, 2005). 

A series of tests have been conducted to determine the efficiency and feasibility of the 

MBECp system. These tests were held at the ports of San Pedro, CA, Newark, NJ, 

Philadelphia, P A, and Wilmington, DE and at the processing plant of Well-Pict Berries in 

WatsonvilIe, CA. Fumigated commodities included kiwis, brassware, botanicals, lemons, 

yams, and strawberries (Knapp et al, 1998). In these tests, initial methyl bromide 

concentration ranged between 7,000 ppm and 12,000 ppm. With the MBECp systems in 

place, the concentration of methyl bromide that was discharged directly to the atmosphere 

was reduced to 500 ppm. Thus, use of the MBECp system reduced the maximum methyl 

bromide mass emission rate by 93-96%, thereby decreasing the environmental concentration 

of methyl bromide in the vicinity of the fumigation site. fu addition to the mass emission rate, 

the overall amount of methyl bromide entering the environment was also reduced 

significantly (Knapp, McCallister, and Leesch 1998). 
112 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

The first operational MBECp system was installed at the International Perishable Treatment 

Center in the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) Airport in Dallas, Texas, to improve the rate of cargo 

traffic for South American import products, such as cut flowers (ARS, 2001 and Great Lakes 

Corporation, 1999). Local air regulations prohibit the release of more than 1.11bs of methyl 

bromide per hour, so a system was needed to recapture methyl bromide released during 

fumigation. The DFW system is designed to recover methyl bromide from an enclosure of up 

to 4,500 ft3

 in 30 minutes (Great Lakes Corporation, 1999). 

Since the installation at DFW Airport, the MBECp system has been installed at a Well-Pict 

Berries facility in Watsonville, California, and at Bush International, Airport in Houston, 

Texas. Well-Pict Berries uses the system to recover methyl bromide after the fumigation of 

berries; their installation is a relatively simple version of the MBECp systems-it consists of an 

adsorber and a suction fan that keeps the whole system under a slight negative pressure for 

safety reasons, The system installed in Bush International Airport is part of a new state-ofthe-art treatment facility, and includes many additional features, such as redundant adsorbers, 

redundant blowers, continuous methyl bromide monitors, plus a data acquisition system 

(Knapp 2005). This system was installed in 2005 for applications similar to the facility at 

DFW, but has not yet begun methyl bromide recovery operations (McCallister, 2006 and 

Russell, 2006). 

Phase Transfer Catalysis 

Under a Phase I Small Business Innovative Research grant from the USDA, awarded in 2005, 

Value Recovery, Inc. is currently developing a methyl bromide recovery and destruction 

technology called Phase Transfer Catalysis.(PTC). This scrubbing system is able to convert 

(and thus destroy) methyl bromide (and other alkyl and acyl halides) into a benign salt using 

ammonium thiosulfate. The process takes place at low temperatures (~50°C), which prevent 

the formation of ozone depleting free radicals that can be associated with high temperature 

incineration processes (Value Recovery, Inc., 2006). 

Figure 2 in Attachment C shows a visual depiction of the PTC process for recovery and 

destruction of methyl bromide. The portable scrubbing system consists of a forced air blower 

and a scrubber tank. During the recovery/destruction process, a ventilation fan directs fresh 

air into the fumigation chamber, which the forced air blower then redirects through the 

scrubber tank. In the scrubber tank, methyl bromide is destroyed, using ammonium thiosulfate 

to transform methyl bromide into ammonium methylthiosulfate (a benign salt) and 

ammonium bromide. The system uses infra-red analyzers to closely monitor inlet and outlet 

concentrations of methyl bromide (Value Recovery, Inc., 2006). 

Testing data collected thus far indicate that the scrubber system can remove more than 85% of 

the methyl bromide in a single pass and more than 99% when a modified, multiple pass 

system is used. However, there may be practical and logistical constraints to the multiple pass 

system. A successful commercial-scale demonstration at the Port of Wilmington, Delaware 

recently took place using the single pass through method. In that demonstration, 87% of the 

methyl bromide that would have been vented into the atmosphere was destroyed (Value 

Recovery, Inc., 2005a). This company is investigating methods to recover more than 95% of 

the methyl bromide in a single pass and is also examining the potential to recover methyl 

bromide from soil fumigations using their scrubber system (Value Recovery, Inc., 2005b). 

In addition to developing the recovery/destruction system, Value Recovery has conducted 

research on converting dilute aqueous waste into useful commercial products (Bielski and 

Joyce, 2003). In particular, testing undertaken by Value Recovery has shown that reacting 

methyl bromide with sodium phenolate can produce a 95% yield of anisole. Therefore, if 

destroyed methyl bromide can be converted to a valuable end- product, such as anisole, there 

may be an economic incentive associated with the use of the PTC technology to recover 

methyl bromide (Value Recovery, Inc. 2006). 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 113

Bromosorb® 

Bromosorb® was originally developed Knowzone, Inc. and Cryo-Line Supplies, Inc., but is 

no longer commercially available (Cryo-Line Supplies, Inc., 2006). The system used an 

absorbent material called Halozite®, which removed methyl bromide as air circulated through 

the unit. Since Halozite® has a greater absorbent capacity than carbon, the system was able to 

recover methyl bromide at concentrations below 500 ppm. The Bromosorb® system was able 

to recapture approximately 95% of the methyl bromide normally released into the atmosphere 

after fumigation. In addition, the unique chemical properties of Halozite® allowed recovered 

methyl bromide to be recycled for future fumigations (ARS, 1997). 

Initial tests on the efficiency of the Bromosorb® system were conducted in a Chilean fruit 

processing plant (ARS, 1997). This testing included four empty chamber fumigations and a 

single fumigation with a pallet of fruit. In the four empty chamber test runs, Bromosorb® was 

able to reduce the concentration of methyl bromide in the chamber by 95.5%. In a fifth run, 

the methyl bromide concentration was reduced by 94%. The tests were conducted in a 

chamber with one pallet of fruit, which did not generate sufficient water vapor or volatile 

compounds to determine whether the methyl bromide recovered contained unacceptable 

contaminants. During each run, there was a loss of around 1..6 kg of methyl bromide, which 

was most likely due to leaks in the connection between the chamber and recovery unit (ARS, 

1997). 

Additional testing was conducted by Metbro Technologies and Cryo-Line Supplies at a ship 

hold at a port facility in Canada. The ship hold's concentration of methyl bromide was 

reduced from 22,000 ppm to 390 ppm (99.99% reduction). When the methyl bromide 

concentration reached 390 ppm, methyl bromide was detected in the systems exhaust, 

indicating that collectors were full (Weightman, 1999). 

In the early 1990s, Halozone installed a Bromosorb® system in the Port of San Diego, 

California, in response to public health concerns about the concentration of methyl bromide in 

neighborhoods adjacent to the fumigation facility (Allen, 1994). The system was later 

removed because the methyl bromide recovered by the system and recycled could not meet 

purity standards (Cryo-Line Supplies, Inc., 2006). In addition, the system experienced 

technical problems. The recycled gas was highly corrosive due to the introduction of water 

vapor which reacted with the methyl bromide to produce hydrobromic acid in the recycled 

material (Sansone, 2006). In 1997, the Port of San Diego stopped fumigating with methyl 

bromide entirely, at least in part as a result of public pressure stemming from concerns about 

local air quality (Ross and Walker, 1998; NRDC, 2004; Rowe, 2002). 

Bromosorb® is no longer commercially available; however, the same technology is used to 

recover refrigerants. It is unlikely that Bromosorb® will be commercially available in the 

United States in the future, since no companies are currently involved in its distribution or 

future development. In addition, apart from Cryo-Line Supplies, the other companies that 

were initially involved with the development and distribution of the system are no longer in 

operation (Cryo-Line Supplies, Inc., 2006). 

References 

Agricultural Research Service (2001). MeBr recapture system up and running. Available online at: 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/jul01/recap.htm. 

Agricultural Research Service (1997). A new patented process contains, recaptures, and recycles methyl bromide. 

Available online at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/april97/bromo.htm. 

Bielski, R and PJ Joyce (2003). Conversion of pollutants in dilute aqueous waste streams to useful products: a 

potential method based on phase-transfer catalysis. Organic Process Research & Development. 7:551-

552. 
114 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Cryo-line Supplies, Inc. (2006). Telephone conversation between Aaron Niman of ICF Consulting and a 

representative of Cryo-Line Supplies. Inc. January 31. 2006. 

DFW (2006). Email correspondence between Aaron Niman of ICF Consulting and Kris Russell of DFW on 

February 27, 2006. 

Great Lakes Corporation (1999). First methyl bromide recapture unit installed. Initiatives. Vol. 5, Iss. 1, 

Hettenbach, K, et aI. (2002). Development and scale-up of an aqueous ethanolamine scrubber for methyl bromide. 

Organic Process Research & Development. 6:407-415. 

Joyce, PJ and R, Bielski (2006). Data provided by Peter Joyce and Roman Bielski of Value Recovery, Inc. to 

Aaron Niman of ICF Consulting through e-mail correspondence. February, 13,2006. 

Knapp, OF (2005). Proceedings from the 2005 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions: Methyl Bromide Recovery. Operational Methyl Bromide 

Recapture Systems. November 2,2005. 

Knapp, GF, DL, McAllister, and JG, Leesch (1998). Proceedings from the 1998 Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions: Methyl Bromide Recovery. 

Available online at: httg://mbao.org/1998airc/058knapp.pdf. 

McCallister, D (2006). Telephone conversation between Aaron Niman ofICF Consulting and David McCallister of 

Great Lakes Chemical Corporation. January 31, 2006. 

NRDC (2004). "Hidden Danger: Environmental Health Threats in the Latino Community." Natural Resources 

Defense Council. October 2004. Available online at: 

http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/latino/english/latino_en.pdf 

Ross, Z, and B Walker (1998). "An ill Wind: Methyl Bromide Use Near California Schools (1998)," 

Environmental Working Group. Available online at: 

http://www.ewg.org/reports_content/an_ill_wind/illwind.pdf. 

Rowe, Peter (2002). "Air Clearing Too Slowly in the Barrio." San Diego Union-Tribune. April 2, 2002. 

Russell, K (2006). Telephone conversation between Aaron Niman of ICF Consulting and Kris Russell of 

Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, Inc. January 31, 2006. 

Sansone. John (2006). Telephone conversation between Burleson Smith of USDA and John Sansone, June 16, 

2006. 

Value Recovery, Inc. (2006). Value Recover, Inc. Company Website. Available at: www.ptcvalue.com. 

Value Recovery, Inc. Press Release (2005a). Value Recovery Awarded USDA Grant to Reduce Ozone Depleting 

Emissions of Methyl Bromide. June 28,2005. 

Value Recovery, Inc. (2005b). Methyl Bromide Scrubbing for Elimination of Soil Emissions: Proceedings from 

the 2005 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions. 

Value Recovery, Inc. (2004). Methyl Bromide Scrubbing Technology Development: Proceedings from the 2004 

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

Value Recovery (2006). Email correspondence between Aaron Niman of ICF Consulting and Peter Joyce of Value 

Recovery, Inc. on April 3, 2006. 

Weightman, M (1999). Proceedings from the 1999 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions: Recover and recycle using Bromosorb technologies. Availible 

online at: http://mbao.org/I999airc/60weight.pdf. 

Willis, E (1998). Proceedings from the 1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions: New design for zeolite-based recapture. Available online at: 

http://mbao.org/1998airc/059willis.pdf. 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 115

Attachment A: Interpretation of the Information Requested by Decision XVII/II 

Table 1: Interpretation of Information Requested by Decision XVII/l1 of the 17th MOP 

 Data requested by 17th MOP Interpretation 

A Recapture or destruction system used Name of system 

B Location Location of installed systems or vendor 

C Submitting body. 

(please provide name and e-mail address of individual 

to be contacted in the event of a query) 

Point of Contact 

Party 

D Commodity treated Commodity treated in fumigation chamber 

E Fumigation contents and volume Volume of commodity treated in fumigation 

chamber 

F Chamber or tent volume Volume of fumigation chamber 

G Percentage loading of the chamber Volume of Commodity as a percent of the 

Volume of the fumigation Chamber 

H Gas quantity retained by the recapture or destruction 

system 

Methyl bromide recaptured/destroyed by 

system 

I Quantity lost during the fumigation by leakage or 

reaction 

Methyl bromide lost during fumigation from 

the fumigation chamber 

J Residual free gas left in the enclosure after extraction 

of methyl bromide into the recapture system 

Methyl bromide left in fumigation chamber 

at the end of the recapture/destruction period 

K Remaining sorbed gas (taking into account any gas 

naturally present prior to fumigation) 

Methyl bromide absorbed by the commodity 

being fumigated 

L Quantity of methyl bromide transiting the 

recapture/destruction system and lost by leaks in the 

system 

Methyl bromide recaptured/destroyed plus 

methyl bromide lost by leaks in the 

recapture/destruction system 

M Measurement of gas exhausted after recapture 

stopped 

Concentration of methyl bromide in 

fumigation chamber after the 

recapture/destruction period 

N Total gas present in the fumigated system at start of 

recapture 

Quantity of methyl bromide in fumigation 

chamber after fumigation, but before 

recapture/destruction (i.e., amount of methyl 

bromide initially introduced to fumigation 

chamber minus amount absorbed by the 

commodity minus quantity lost during the 

fumigation by leakage or reaction) 

O Net efficiency of recapture Methyl bromide retained by recapture 

system divided by methyl bromide present in 

the fumigated system at start of recapture 

P Cost per kg recaptured/destroyed Cost of recapturing or destroying methyl 

bromide per kg 
116 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Attachment B: Performance Data and Schematic of the MBECp Methyl 

Bromide Recovery System 

Table 2: Performance Data for the MBECp System 

Volume of Enclosure Containing Commodity 141.5 m3

Mass of Methyl bromide Applied During Fumigation 

 Mass Absorbed by MBECp System 

 Mass retained by Commodity 

 Mass Released into Atmosphere 

 Leakage through Tarp 

 Bypass through System at end of MB Recovery

9.1 kg 

7.0 

0.2 

1.9 

0.5 

1.5 

MB Concentration of System Exhaust at End of MB Recovery 500 ppm 

Final MB Concentration in Enclosure after MB Recovery and Aeration 5 ppm 

Source: Knapp, 2005 

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

Figure 1: MBECp System Schematic 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 117

Attachment C: Performance Data and Schematic of the Value Recovery, Inc. 

Methyl Bromide Scrubber 

Table 3: Performance Date on the Methyl Bromide Scrubber and Comments Provided by Value 

Recovery, Inc. 

Data Requested by 17th MOP Value Recovery, Inc. Answer Comments 

Commodity treated Solid Wood Packaging Machinery export under 

ISPM-15 

Fumigation contents and volume 22.94 m3 Assumed contents inside 

container 

Chamber or tent volume 76.46 m3 Total container volume 

Percentage loading of the 

chamber 

30% Assumed volume 

displacement of contents 

Gas quantity retained by the 

recapture or destruction system 

4.141 kg Total amount destroyed 

in scrubber 

Quantity lost during the 

fumigation by leakage or reaction 

0.046kg Estimated 1% Loss due 

to leakage. Zero ppm 

measured at 10m, 50m 

and 100m distance from 

the equipment. 

Residual free gas left in the 

enclosure after extraction of 

methyl bromide into the 

recapture system 

0.106 kg Derived from 

concentration profile and 

exhaust gas rate = 

Volumetric flow rate x 

concentration 

Remaining sorbed gas (taking 

into account any gas naturally 

present prior to fumigation) 

0.027 kg Estimate based on free 

concentrations 

Quantity of methyl bromide 

transiting the 

recapture/destruction system and 

lost by leaks in the system 

4.566 kg Total amount of methyl 

bromide removed from 

container 

Measurement of gas exhausted 

after recapture stopped 

240 ppm Measured concentration 

at end of scrubbing cycle 

Total gas present in the 

fumigated system at start of 

recapture 

4.745 kg Transiting plus sorbed 

plus residual plus lost 

87.3% Total Destroyed/ Total 

Present 

Net efficiency of recapture 

Scrubber Efficiency 

90.7% Total Destroyed/ Total 

through VR System 

Cost per kg recaptured/destroyed 

(US$) 

 Operating Cost plus 

Capital Cost (Operating 

Cost includes waste 

disposal cost obtained 

from vendor quotation) 

Source: Joyce and Bielski, 2006 
118 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

Figure 2: System Schematic of the Value Recovery Methyl Bromide Scrubber 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 119

ANNEX I 

Decision IX/6 

1. To apply the following criteria and procedure in assessing a critical methyl bromide use for 

the purposes of control measures in Article 2 of the Protocol: 

(a) That a use of methyl bromide should qualify as “critical” only if the nominating Party 

determines that: 

(i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that 

use would result in a significant market disruption; and 

(ii) There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes 

available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and 

health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination; 

(b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should be 

permitted only if: 

(i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimise the 

critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide; 

(ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks 

of banked or recycled methyl bromide, also bearing in mind the developing countries’ 

need for methyl bromide; 

(iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, 

commercialise and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and 

substitutes, taking into consideration the circumstances of the particular nomination 

and the special needs of Article 5 Parties, including lack of financial and expert 

resources, institutional capacity, and information. Non-Article 5 Parties must 

demonstrate that research programmes are in place to develop and deploy 

alternatives and substitutes. Article 5 Parties must demonstrate that feasible 

alternatives shall be adopted as soon as they are confirmed as suitable to the Party’s 

specific conditions and/or that they have applied to the Multilateral Fund or other 

sources for assistance in identifying, evaluating, adapting and demonstrating such 

options; 

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review nominations and make 

recommendations based on the criteria established in paragraphs 1 (a) (ii) and 1 (b) of the present 

decision; 

3. That the present decision will apply to Parties operating under Article 5 and Parties not so 

operating only after the phase-out date applicable to those Parties. 

Para. 2 of Decision IX/6 does not assign TEAP the responsibility for determining the existence of “significant 

market disruption” specified in paragraph 1(a)(i). 

TEAP assigned its Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) to determine whether there are no 

technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the 

standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination, and to 

address the criteria listed in Decision IX/6 1(b). 
120 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

ANNEX II

Report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Annex I), Prague, 22–26 November 

2004), paragraph 15. 

(Decision XVI/4. Review of the working procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl Bromide Technical 

Options Committee) 

“15. An annual work plan will enhance the transparency of, and insight in, the operations of 

MBTOC. Such a plan should indicate, among other things: 

(a) Key events for a given year; 

(b) Envisaged meeting dates of MBTOC, including the stage in the nomination and 

evaluation process to which the respective meetings relate; 

(c) Tasks to be accomplished at each meeting, including appropriate delegation of such 

tasks; 

(d) Timing of interim and final reports; 

(e) Clear references to the timelines relating to nominations; 

(f) Information related to financial needs, while noting that financial considerations 

would still be reviewed solely in the context of the review of the Secretariat’s 

budget; 

(g) Changes in the composition of MBTOC, pursuant to the criteria for selection; 

(h) Summary report of MBTOC activities over the previous year, including matters that 

MBTOC did not manage to complete, the reasons for this and plans to address these 

unfinished matters; 

(i) Matrix with existing and needed skills and expertise; and 

(j) Any new or revised standards or presumptions that MBTOC seeks to apply in its 

future assessment of critical-use nominations, for approval by the Meeting of the 

Parties. ” 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 121

ANNEX III: List of methyl bromide critical uses for soils or 

commodities: amounts nominated (2005 – 2008) and exempted by 

Parties or recommended for exemption by TEAP/MBTOC (2005 – 

2008). 

A. Preplant Soils Applications 

TOTAL CUN MB Nominated Total CUE MB Approved or Recommended by 

TEAP/MBTOC 

Party Industry 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008

Australia Cut Flowers 

field 

40.000 22.350 18.375 22.350 

Australia Cut flowers - 

protected 

20.000 10.425 

Australia Cut flowers, 

bulbs – 

protected Vic 

7.000 7.000 6.170 6.150 7.000 7.000 3.598 3.500

Australia Strawberry 

Fruit 

90.000 67.000 

Australia Strawberry 

runners 

35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 35.750 37.500 35.75

Belgium Asparagus 0.630 0.225 0.630 0.225 

Belgium Chicory 0.600 0.180 0.180 0.180 

Belgium Chrysanthem

ums 

1.800 0.720 1.120 

Belgium Cucumber 0.610 0.545 0.610 0.545 

Belgium Cut flowers - 

other 

6.110 1.956 4.000 1.956 

Belgium Cut flowers - 

roses 

1.640 

Belgium Endive sep.from 

lettuce 

1.650 1.650 

Belgium Leek & onion 

seeds 

1.220 0.155 0.660 

Belgium Lettuce(& 

endive) 

42.250 22.425 25.190 

Belgium Nursery Not 

Predictable 

0.384 0.900 0.384 

Belgium Orchard 

pome & berry 

1.350 0.621 1.350 0.621 

Belgium Ornamental 

plants 

5.660 0.000 

Belgium Pepper & egg 

plant 

5.270 1.350 3.000 1.350 

Belgium Strawberry 

runners 

3.400 0.900 3.400 0.900 

Belgium Tomato 

(protected) 

17.170 4.500 5.700 4.500 

Belgium Tree nursery 0.230 0.155 0.230 0.155 

Canada Strawberry 

runners (PEI) 

14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462 (a)14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462

Canada Strawberry runners 

(Quebec) 

1.826 1.826 (a) 1.826 1.826

Canada Strawberry runners (Ontario) 6.129 6.129

France Carrots 10.000 8.000 5.000 8.000 8.000 1.400

France Cucumber 85 revised 

to 60 

60.000 15.000 60.000 60.000 12.500

France Cut-flowers 75.000 60.250 12.000 60.000 52.000 9.600

France Forest tree 

nursery 

10.000 10.000 1.500 10.000 10.000 1.500

France Melon 10.000 10.000 7.500 6.000 

France Nursery: 

orchard, 

raspberry 

5.000 5.000 2.000 5.000 5.000 2.000

France Orchard 

replant 

25.000 25.000 7.500 25.000 25.000 7.000

France Pepper Incl 

in.tomato 

cun 

27.500 6.000 27.500 6.000
122 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

France Strawberry 

fruit 

90.000 86.000 34.000 90.000 86.000 0

France Strawberry 

runners 

40.000 4.000 35.000 40.000 40.000 28.000

France Tomato (and 

eggplant for 

2005 only) 

150(all 

solanaceou

s) 

60.500 33.250

Includes 

eggplants

125.000 48.400 0

France Eggplant 27.500 48.400 0

Greece Cucurbits 30.000 19.200 30.000 19.200 

Greece Cut flowers 14.000 6.000 14.000 6.000 

Greece Tomatoes 180.000 73.600 156.000 73.600 

Israel Broomrape 250.000 250.000

Israel Cucumber - protected new 2007 25.000 25.000

Israel Cut flowers – 

open field 

77.000 67.000 80.755 77.000 67.000 74.500

Israel Cut flowers - 

protected 

303.000 303.000 321.330 303.000 240.000 220.185

Israel Fruit tree 

nurseries 

50.000 45.000 10.000 50.000 45.000 7.500

Israel Melon – 

protected & 

field 

148.000 142.000 140.000 125.650 99.400 99.500

Israel Potato 239.000 231.000 137.500 239.000 165.000 137.500

Israel Seed 

production 

56.000 50.000 56.000 28.000 

Israel Strawberries 

– fruit 

196.000 196.000 176.200 196.000 196.000 65.100

Israel Strawberry 

runners 

35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 28.000

Israel Tomatoes 90.000 22.750

Italy Cut flowers 

(protected) 

250.000 250.000 30.000 250.000 187.000 30.000

Italy Eggplant 

(protected) 

280.000 200.000 15.000 194.000 156.000 0

Italy Melon 

(protected) 

180.000 135.000 10.000 131.000 131.000 10.000

Italy Pepper 

(protected) 

220.000 160.000 67.000 160.000 130.000 67.000

Italy Strawberry 

Fruit 

(Protected) 

510.000 400.000 35.000 407.000 320.000 0

Italy Strawberry 

Runners 

100.000 120.000 35.000 120.000 120.000 35.000

Italy Tomato 

(protected) 

1300.000 1030.000 418.000 871.000 697.000 80.000

Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 68.600 88.300 88.800 72.4 51.450

Japan Ginger - field 119.400 119.400 112.200 112.100 119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075

Japan Ginger - 

protected 

22.900 22.900 14.800 14.800 22.900 22.900 14.471 11.100

Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 182.200 194.100 203.900 182.2 136.65

Japan Peppers 

(green and 

hot) 

189.900 200.700 169.400 162.300 187.200 200.700 156.700 121.725

Japan Watermelon 126.300 96.200 94.200 43.300 129.000 98.900 94.2 32.475

Malta Cucumber 0.096 0.127 

Malta Eggplant 0.128 0.170 

Malta Strawberry 0.160 0.212 

Malta Tomatoes 0.475 0.594 

New Zealand Nursery 

material 

1.085 1.085 0.000 

New Zealand Strawberry 

fruit 

42.000 42.000 24.780 42.000 34.000 0
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 123

New Zealand Strawberry 

runners 

10.000 10.000 5.720 8.000 8.000 6.234

Poland Strawberry 

Runners 

40.000 40.000 25.000 40.000 40.000 24.500

Portugal Cut flowers 130.000 8.750 50.000 8.750 

Spain Cut Flowers - 

Cadiz 

53.000 53.000 35.000 53.000 42.000 43.490

Spain Cut Flowers - 

Catalonia 

20.000 18.600 12.840 20.000 15.000 Included 

above

Spain Pepper 200.000 155.000 45.000 200.000 155.000 45.000

Spain Strawberry 

Fruit 

556.000 499.290 80.000 556.000 499.290 0.0796

Spain Strawberry 

Runners 

230.000 230.000 230.000 230.000 230.000 230.000

UK Cut flowers 7.560 6.050 

UK Ornamental 

tree nursery 

12.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 

UK Strawberry (& 

raspberry in 

2005) 

80.000 63.600 68.000 54.500 

UK Raspberry nursery 4.400 4.400 

USA Chrys. 

Cuttings/rose

s 

29.412 29.412 0.000 

USA Cucurbits - 

field 

1187.800 747.839 598.927 588.949 1187.800 747.839 592.891 473.211

USA Eggplant - 

field 

76.761 101.245 96.480 79.546 76.721 82.167 85.363 47.582

USA Forest 

nursery 

seedlings 

192.515 157.694 152.629 133.140 192.515 157.694 122.032 96.829

USA Ginger 9.200 9.200 0.000 

USA Orchard 

replant 

706.176 827.994 405.415 405.666 706.176 527.600 405.4 365.094

USA Ornamentals 210.949 162.817 149.965 138.538 154.000 148.483 137.835 123.333

USA Nursery stock 

- fruit trees, 

raspberries, 

roses 

45.789 64.528 12.684 51.102 45.800 64.528 28.275 23.253

USA Peppers - 

field 

1094.782 1498.530 1151.751 919.006 1094.782 1243.542 1106.753 551.045

USA Strawberry 

fruit – field 

2468.873 1918.400 1733.901 1604.669 2052.846 1730.828 1476.019 1025.388

USA Strawberry 

runners 

54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 54.988 56.291 4.483 7.944

USA Tomato - field 2876.046 2844.985 2334.047 1840.100 2876.046 2476.365 2065.246 1076.508

USA Turfgrass 352.194 131.600 78.040 52.189 206.827 131.600 78.04 0

USA Sweet potato 224.528 18.144 0
124 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

ANNEX III (Cont’): List of methyl bromide critical uses for soils or 

commodities: amounts nominated (2005 – 2008) and exempted by 

Parties or recommended for exemption by TEAP/MBTOC (2005 – 

2008). 

B. Commodity Applications 

TOTAL CUN MB Nominated Total CUE MB Approved or recommended by 

TEAP/MBTOC 

Party Industry 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008

Australia Almonds 1.900 2.100 1.900 2.100 

Australia Rice 

consumer 

packs 

12.300 12.300 14.300 9.200 6.150 6.150 7.380 

Belgium Artefacts and 

structures 

0.600 0.307 0.590 0.307 

Belgium Antique 

structure & 

furniture 

0.750 0.199 0.319 0.199 

Belgium Churches, 

monuments 

and ships’ 

quarters 

0.150 0.059 0.150 0.059 

Belgium Electronic 

equipment 

0.100 0.035 0.100 0.035 

Belgium Empty silo 0.050 0.043 0.050 0.043 

Belgium Flour mill see 

mills below 

0.125 0.072 See mills 

below 

0.072 

Belgium Flour mills 10.000 4.170 9.515 4.170 

Belgium Mills 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 

Belgium Food 

processing 

facilities 

0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 

Belgium Food 

Processing 

premises 

0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 

Belgium Food storage 

(dry) structure 

0.120 0.120 0.120 0.000 

Belgium Old buildings 7.000 0 .306 1.150 0.306 

Belgium Old buildings 

and objects 

0.450 0.282 0.000 0.282 

Belgium Woodworking 

premises 

0.300 0.101 0.300 0.101 

Canada Flour mills 47.200 34.774 30.167 28.650 (a)47 34.774 30.167 28.650

Canada Pasta 

manufacturing 

facilities 

(a) 10.457 6.757 (a) 10.457 6.757 

France Seeds sold by 

PLAN-SPG 

company 

0.135 0.135 0.100 0.135 0.135 0.096 

France Mills 55.000 40.000 8.000 40.000 35.000 8.000 

France Rice 

consumer 

packs 

2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 

France Chestnuts 2.000 2.000 1.800 2.000 2.000 1.800 

Germany Artefacts 0.250 0.100 0.250 0.100

Germany Mills and Processors 45.000 19.350 45.000

Greece Dried fruit 4.280 3.081 0.900 4.280 3.081 0.450 

Greece Mills and 

Processors 

23.000 16.000 1.340 23.000 15.445 1.340 
September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 125

Greece Rice and 

legumes 

 2.355 2.355 

Ireland Mills 0.888 0.611 0.888 0 

Israel Artefacts 0.650 0.650 0.600 0.650 0.650 

Israel Dates (post 

harvest) 

3.444 3.444 2.200 3.444 2.755 2.200 

Israel Flour mills 

(machinery & 

storage) 

2.140 1.490 1.490 2.140 1.490 1.040 

Israel Furniture– 

imported 

1.422 1.422 2.042 1.422 0.000 0 

Italy Artefacts 5.500 5.500 5.000 5.225 0.000 5.000 

Italy Mills and 

Processors 

160.000 130.000 25.000 160.000 65.000 25.000 

Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.500 6.500 6.300 7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300

Latvia Grains 2.502 2.502 

The 

Netherlands 

Runners post 

harvest 

 0.120 0.120 0.120 0 0.12 

Poland Medicinal 

herbs & dried 

mushrooms 

as dry 

commodities 

4.000 3.560 1.800 4.100 3.560 1.800 

Poland Coffee, cocoa 

beans 

(a) 2.160 2.000 2.160 1.420 

Spain Rice 50.000 42.065 

Switzerland Mills & 

Processors 

8.700 7.000 8.700 7.000 

UK Aircraft 0.165 0.165 

UK Mills and 

Processors 

47.130 10.195 4.509 47.130 10.195 4.509 

UK Cereal 

processing 

plants 

 8.131 3.480 (a) 8.131 3.480 

UK Cheese 

stores 

1.640 1.248 1.248 1.640 1.248 1.248 

UK Dried 

commodities 

(rice, fruits 

and nuts) 

Whitworths 

2.400 1.256 2.400 1.256 

UK Herbs and 

spices 

0.035 0.037 0.030 0.035 0.037 0 

UK Mills and 

Processors 

(biscuits) 

2.525 1.787 0.479 2.525 1.787 0.479 

UK Spices 

structural 

equip. 

1.728 1.728 0.000 

UK Spices stored 0.030 0.030 0.000 

UK Structures 

buildings 

(herbs and 

spices) 

3.000 1.872 0.908 3.000 1.872 0.908 

UK Structures, 

processors 

and storage 

(Whitworths) 

1.100 0.880 0.257 1.100 0.880 0.257 

UK Tobacco 0.523 0.050 0.000 

UK Woven 

baskets 

0.770 0.770 0.000 

USA Dried fruit and 

nuts (walnuts, 

pistachios, 

dried fruit and 

dates and 

dried beans) 

89.166 87.719 91.299 67.699 89.166 87.719 78.983 58.912
126 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

USA Dry 

commodities/ 

structures 

(cocoa beans) 

61.519 61.519 64.028 52.256 61.519 55.367 64.082 53.188

USA - NPMA Dry 

commodities/ 

structures 

(processed 

foods, herbs 

and spices, 

dried milk and 

cheese 

processing 

facilities) 

NPMA 

83.344 83.344 85.801 72.693 83.344 69.118 82.771 69.208

USA Smokehouse 

hams (Dry 

cure pork 

products) 

(building and 

product) 

136.304 135.742 40.854 19.669 67.907 81.708 18.998 19.669

USA Mills and 

Processors 

536.328 505.982 401.889 362.952 483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237
 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

ANNEX IV: Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee Members– September 2006 

Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length 

of service 

Co-Chairs 1. Mohamed Besri M Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan 

II (Academia) 

Researcher, particularly MB and alts in A5 (PhD) 

B 

2. Michelle Marcotte F Consultant Consultant, particularly food 

processing, regulations and irradiation 

A 

3. Marta Pizano F Consultant Consultant, MB alts, 

particularly cut flower production 

B 

4. Ian Porter M Department of Primary Industries 

(Government research) 

Researcher, soils MB use and alts, particularly fungal pathogens and IPM (PhD) 

B 

Members 5. Marten Barel M Consultant Consultant, , specialist on soil 

disinfections, Soiless Hydroponics, Steaming, Biofumigation and Solarization 

D 

 6. Jonathan Banks M Consultant Consultant, postharvest, 

particularly nonchemical and gas technologies (fumigants, CA) (PhD) 

A 

 7. Chris Bell M Consultant, formerly Central Science 

Laboratory (Government research) 

Postharvest technologies, particularly fumigants, phosphine; sulfuryl fluoride, controlled atmospheres and heat' (PhD) 

B 

 8. Antonio Bello M Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales 

(Government research) 

Non-chemical alternatives (PhD, Prof.) 

A 

 9. Aocheng Cao M Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences 

(Government research) 

Researcher, soil alternatives, particularly in China (A5) context (PhD) 

C 

10. Peter Caulkins M Associate Director, Special Review & 

Reregistration Division US EPA 

Registration of alternatives, regulatory issues (PhD) 

D 
128 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report

 11. Fabio Chaverri M IRET-Universidad Nacional (Academia) Researcher, soil alternatives, 

including solarisation 

C 

12. Ricardo Deang M Consultant Regulatory and registration. 

Entomologist (PhD) 

A 

13. Patrick Ducom M Ministère de l’Agriculture (Government 

research) 

Postharvest and structural alternatives 

B 

14. Abraham Gamliel M Agricultural Research Organization, 

The Volcani Center, (Government Research) 

Alternatives for soils, horticulture (PhD) 

D 

15. Darka Hamel F Institute for Plant Protection in Agriculture 

and Forestry (Government) 

Postharvest and structural treatments, regulations 

D 

16. Saad Hafez M University of Idaho (Academia) Soils alternatives, 

nematologist (PhD, Prof.) 

C 

17. George Lazarovits M Agriculture & Agri-food Canada 

(Government research) 

Researcher, non chemical control of soilborne pathogens (PhD) 

C 

18. Nahum Marbán Mendoza M Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo 

(Academia) 

Researcher, soils alternatives, particularly nematode problems (PhD, Prof.) 

C 

19. Carlos Medeiros M EMBRAPA (Government research) Alternatives for tobacco, 

horticulture 

D 

20. Melanie Miller F Consultant Consultant in MB alternatives 

use (PhD) 

A 

21. Andrea Minuto M Agroinnova Universita Torino (Academia) Researcher, MB and 

alternatives in soils (PhD) 

D 

22. Takashi Misumi M MAFF (Government research) QPS expert D 23. Kazufumi Nishi M Nat Institute of Vegetables and Tea Science 

(Government research) 

Nonchemical alts, particularly heat systems for soils (PhD) 

D 

24. David Okioga M Ministry of Environment and Natural 

Resources (Government regulatory) 

Postharvest and QPS MB alts (PhD) 

A 

25. Christoph Reichmuth M BBAGermany (Government research) Researcher, MB alts in 

postharvest/structures (PhD) 

B 

26. Jordi Riudavets M IRTA-Departament of Plant Protection. 

(Government Research) 

IPM for stored products and horticultural crops (PhD) 

D 

27. Ariane Saade F Totken Lebanon Economics and trade D 28. John Sansone M SCC Products (Fumigator) Fumigator, particular expertise 

in structures 

A 

29. James D. Schaub M United States Department of Agriculture 

(Government regulatory) 

Agricultural economist (PhD) C 

30. Sally Schneider F United States Department of Agriculture Researcher in soils alts, C 
 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

(Government research) particularly replant problems 

and propagative material nurseries (PhD) 

31. JL Staphorst M Plant Protection Research Institute 

(Parastatal research) 

Expert Soil Microbiologist (DSc) 

B 

32. Akio Tateya M Syngenta Japan K.K. Application of MB and alts, 

particularly in Japan 

A 

33. Robert Taylor M Consultant Postharvest technology, 

specifically A5 uses 

A 

34. Alejandro Valeiro M Instituto Nacional de Tecnología 

Agropecuaria (Government research) 

Introduction/use of soils alts, including tobacco 

C 

35. Ken Vick M United States Department of Agriculture 

(Government research) 

Research in MB alternatives, incl. QPS (PhD) 

A 

36. Nick Vink M University of Stellenbosch (Academia) Agricultural economics (PhD, 

Prof.) 

C 

37. Jim Wells M Environmental Solutions Group, LLC 

(Consultant) 

Registration and regulatory - MB and alternatives, soil uses 

A 

38. Chris Watson M IGROX Ltd (Fumigator) Practical use of MB and 

alternatives including the use of PH3, SF,CO2 and Heat Treatments for commodoties(inc timber) and structures 

A 

Totals M =32 

F =6 

 A= 10 

B= 8 

 C = 10 

 D= 10 

A - >10 years B – 5-10 C – 2-5 D - <2 year