MONTREAL PROTOCOL 

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE 

THE OZONE LAYER 

UNEP

REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT PANEL

OCTOBER 2008 

EVALUATIONS OF 2008 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL 

BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT
ii October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

UNEP 

OCTOBER 2008 REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT PANEL

EVALUATIONS OF 2008 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR 

METHYL BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT
October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report iii

Montreal Protocol 

On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

Report of the 

UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

October 2008 

EVALUATIONS OF 2008 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: MBTOC Soils: Marta Pizano, Ian Porter, Mohamed Besri 

 MBTOC QSC: Michelle Marcotte, Jonathan Banks 

Layout of the report: Ozone Secretariat, UNEP 

Reproduction: UNON Nairobi 

Date: October 2008 

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 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 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.

Acknowledgement 

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 Science 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 reflect the reviews of any sponsoring or supporting organisation. 

Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee: 

MBTOC Soils Co-Chairs: Mohamed Besri (Morocco); Marta Pizano (Colombia); Ian Porter 

(Australia). Members of MBTOC Soils: Antonio Bello (Spain); Aocheng Cao (China); Peter 

Caulkins (USA); Abraham Gamliel (Israel); George Lazarovits (Canada); Andrea Minuto (Italy); 

Ariane Saade (Lebanon); James Schaub (USA); Sally Schneider (USA); JL (Stappies) Staphorst 

(South Africa); Akio Tateya (Japan); Alejandro Valeiro (Argentina); Nick Vink (South Africa); 

Janny Vos (The Netherlands); Jim Wells (USA) 

MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities (QSC) Chair: Michelle Marcotte (Canada) 

Members of MBTOC QSC Jonathan Banks (Australia); Fred Bergwerff (Netherlands); Chris 

Bell (UK); Kathy Dalip (Belize); Ricardo Deang (Philippines); Patrick Ducom (France); Alfredo 

Gonzalez (Philippines); Ken Glassey (New Zealand); Darka Hamel (Croatia); Takashi Misumi 

(Japan); David Okioga (Kenya); Christoph Reichmuth (Germany); Jordi Riudavets (Spain); John 

Sansone (USA); Robert Taylor (UK); Ken Vick (USA); Chris Watson (UK); and Eduardo Willink 

(Argentina). 

MBTOC Quarantine Task Force (QTF) Chair: Jonathan Banks (Australia). Fred Bergwerff 

(Netherlands); Kathy Dalip (Belize); Ken Glassey (New Zealand); Darka Hamel (Croatia); 

Takashi Misumi (Japan); David Okioga (Kenya); Ken Vick (USA); and Eduardo Willink 

(Argentina). 
October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report v

OCTOBER 2008 REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT PANEL

EVALUATIONS OF 2008 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR 

METHYL BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT
vi October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

UNEP 

OCTOBER 2008 REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT PANEL

EVALUATIONS OF 2008 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL 

BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT – OCTOBER 2008 

Common Acronyms 

1,3-D 1,3-dichloropropene 

A5 Article 5 Party 

CUE Critical Use Exemption 

CUN Critical Use Nomination 

DOI Disclosure of Interest 

EC European Community 

EMOP Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPPO European Plant Protection Organisation 

IM Iodomethane 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention 

ISPM International Standard Phytosanitary Measure 

LPBF Low Permeability Barrier Film (including VIF films) 

MB Methyl Bromide 

MBTOC Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

MBTOC QSC Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee Quarantine, Structures 

and Commodities Subcommittee 

MBTOC S Methyl Bromide Technical Options Soils Subcommittee 

MDI Metered Dose Inhalers 

MITC Methyl isothiocyanate 

MOP Meeting of the Parties 

MS Metham sodium 

OEWG Open Ended Working Group 

Pic Chloropicrin 

QPS Quarantine and Pre-shipment 

SF Sulfuryl fluoride 

TEAP Technology and Economics Assessment Panel 

USA United States of America 

VIF Virtually Impermeable Film 

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. SCOPE OF THE REPORT 1

2. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION BY PARTIES: 3

3. CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE 5

3.1 MANDATE 5

3.2 FULFILMENT OF DECISION IX/6 5

3.3 CONSIDERATION OF STOCKS - DECISION EX.1/4 (9F) 5

3.4. REPORTING OF MB CONSUMPTION FOR CRITICAL USE - DECISION XVII/9 7

3.5 TRENDS IN METHYL BROMIDE USE FOR CUES SINCE 2005 7

3.6 EVALUATIONS OF CUNS – 2008 ROUND FOR 2009 AND 2010 EXEMPTIONS 11

3.7. CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS REVIEW 13

3.8 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST 14

4. MBTOC SOILS: FINAL EVALUATIONS OF 2008 CRITICAL USE 

NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE 15

4.1 SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES 15

4.2. ISSUES RELATED TO CUN ASSESSMENT FOR PREPLANT SOIL USE 16

4.2.1. Registration of alternatives for preplant uses - Decision Ex I/4 (9i) and (9j) 17

4.2.2. Update on rates of adoption of alternatives for preplant uses - Decision XIX/9 18

4.2.3. Sustainable alternatives for preplant uses 19

4.2.4. Frequency of allowed MB use for preplant uses 20

4.3. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF IODOMETHANE (IM) 20

4.4. STANDARD PRESUMPTIONS USED IN ASSESSMENT OF NOMINATED QUANTITIES. 21

4.5. ADJUSTMENTS FOR STANDARD DOSAGE RATES USING MB/PIC FORMULATIONS 24

4.6. USE/EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES - LOW PERMEABILITY BARRIER FILMS AND 

DOSAGE REDUCTION 25

4.7. USE OF DISPOSABLE CANISTERS OF MB 25

4.8. METAANALYSIS UPDATE 26

5. MBTOC QSC: FINAL EVALUATIONS OF 2008 CRITICAL USE 

NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE 52

5.1. QUARANTINE ISSUES 52

5.2. REGULATORY AND NEWS UPDATE CONCERNING MB ALTERNATIVES FOR POSTHARVEST 

USES 53

5.3. DETAILS OF EVALUATIONS 55

6. REFERENCES 63

7. MBTOC WORK PLAN FOR 2009 73

7.1 INTRODUCTION 73

7.2 MBTOC WORKPLAN FOR 2009 - DETAILS 73

8. SUMMARY REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY 

MBTOC IN 2008 77

ANNEX I: DECISION IX/6 78

ANNEX II: DECISION XVI/4 79

ANNEX III: RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF MB/PIC FORMULATIONS 

APPLIED IN COMBINATION WITH LOW PERMEABILITY BARRIER 

FILMS (LPBF) COMPARED TO THE COMMERCIAL STANDARD 

MB/PIC FORMULATION APPLIED UNDER STANDARD LOW 

DENSITY POLYETHYLENE FILMS (LDPF). 80

ANNEX IV: METHYL BROMIDE REDUCTION TRENDS, BASED ON 

HISTORICAL RATES OF ADOPTION IN THE EC 83

ANNEX V– PART A: TREND IN PREPLANT SOIL APPLICATIONS 86

ANNEX VI– PART B: POST-HARVEST STRUCTURAL AND COMMODITY 

APPLICATIONS 89

ANNEX VII: DISCLOSURE AND MEMBERS OF MBTOC COMMITTEES 91

October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 1

1. Scope of the Report 

This 2008 final report provides evaluations by MBTOC of CUNs submitted for 

methyl bromide (MB) in 2009 and 2010 by Parties in accordance with Decision IX/6 

(Annex I). CUNs were submitted to the Ozone Secretariat by the Parties, in 

accordance with the timetable set out in the Annex I referred to by Decision XVI/4 

(Annex II of this report). 

This final report also provides information from Parties on stocks (Decision Ex.1/4 

(9f)), an update on registration issues affecting availability of alternatives for preplant 

and postharvest uses (Decision Ex. 1/4 (9i) and (9j)), partial information on actual 

MB consumption for critical uses (Decision XVII/9) and apparent adoption rates of 

alternatives, as evidenced by trend lines on reduction of MB CUNs as required under 

Decision XIX/9. It is noted that these trend lines do not necessarily indicate true 

adoption rates, but may include allowance for use of stocks and changes in procedure, 

such as altered MB dosage rates and/or frequency of treatment. 

A revision of the standard presumptions for some preplant uses of MB, as agreed by 

Parties at the 19th MOP, is also shown. MBTOC has updated references to 

substantiate its standard presumptions for MB dosage rates (Annex III). These 

standard presumptions will be thoroughly reviewed and further substantiated before 

the next round of evaluations. 

MBTOC Soils (MBTOC S) has initial responsibility for the pre-plant uses and 

alternatives of methyl bromide. MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities 

(MBTOC QSC) has initial responsibility for issues concerning methyl bromide uses 

and alternatives for quarantine, pre-shipment, structural and commodity treatments. 

Evaluations of CUNs for the two categories are reported separately below. Outcomes 

from deliberations by the two MBTOC subcommittees were discussed and vetted via 

electronic communication. Recommendations made by MBTOC S were circulated to 

MBTOC QSC and vice versa, as part of the process of reaching consensus within the 

whole committee. 

October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 3

2. Issues for Consideration by Parties: 

At the 28th OEWG the following issues were brought forward by TEAP. 

Issue No 1. 

In evaluating Critical use Nominations, Decision IX/6(1)(b)(iii) instructs: 

“(1)(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, 

commercialize 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. NonArticle 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;” 

TEAP considers that some nominations are not demonstrating appropriate effort to 

evaluate, commercialise and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and 

substitutes, as required by Decision IX/6. In relation to this Decision, TEAP 

considers required effort to include: 

• conduct and report on trials, and report efforts to commercialise and secure 

national regulatory approval within the preceding year of the nomination, as 

well as prior years. 

TEAP suggests Parties may wish to give further guidance on this matter or ask 

MBTOC to clarify specific criteria that would meet the requirements of Decision IX/6 

and instruct MBTOC to interpret Decision IX/6 according to these criteria, when 

conducting evaluations of CUNs. 

Issue No 2. 

Several instances have come to the notice of TEAP and MBTOC where particular 

treatments have been classified as QPS treatments by some Parties, but under some 

interpretations of Decisions VI/11, VII/5 and XI/12 may not be so. 

TEAP has discussed the possible limitations to the QPS classification in its previous 

reports (e.g. TEAP 1999). The leaflet entitled ‘Methyl Bromide: Quarantine and 

Preshipment Uses’, copublished by UNEP and IPPC also discussed this issue (UNEP 

2007). 
4 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Parties that exempt particular treatments as QPS from phase out schedules may wish 

to review this classification and take appropriate action (e.g. nominate for critical use, 

incorporate the use as part of a phase out project) if the use is found not to be a QPS 

treatment after review. 

Issue No 3. 

Technically, feasible alternatives are available for almost all the nominated uses 

(MBTOC 2006) and most Parties are transitioning to alternatives rapidly, often within 

3 years of local availability. In many sectors complete phase out is now possible, but 

transition rates are slowed by specific regulatory and commercial barriers (registration 

and associated data gathering, commercial constraints to registration for minor uses, 

certification regulations, buffer zones, lack of MRLs for food commodities) and slow 

registration of key alternatives preventing transition. It is recognized that legitimate 

environmental and public health concerns contribute to regulatory limits on 

alternatives and are a matter of national sovereignty. In some instances, governments 

and registrants have not made registration of new alternatives a priority, particularly 

when the alternatives cost more than methyl bromide. 

Like the phaseout of Essential Use Exemptions for MDIs, Parties may wish to require 

Action Plans that describe the steps necessary to achieve a declared final phaseout. A 

date-certain phaseout date would be an incentive to users and a reward for firms 

offering environmentally superior and the next best legal (registered and not 

constrained by regulation) alternatives to MB. An example of such a plan, with step 

wise phase out schedules for MB identified, has been developed by Japan in this 

round to phase out all critical uses for soil uses by 2013. 
October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 5

3. Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide 

3.1 Mandate 

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

as production plus imports minus exports) of MB 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. MBTOC 

provides guidance to the Parties’ decisions on critical use exemptions in accordance 

with Decisions IX/6 and Annex I of Decision XVI/4. Refer to Annexes I and II of this 

report for copies of these Decisions. 

3.2 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 were met, 

MBTOC recommended the full amount of the nomination. Where some of the 

conditions were not fully met, MBTOC did not recommend or recommended a 

decreased amount, or was unable to assess, depending on its technical and economic 

evaluation. The full text for Decision IX/6 can be found in Annex I at the end of this 

document. 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 this round of CUNs, as in previous rounds, MBTOC considered all 

information provided by the Parties, including answers to questions requested by 

MBTOC, up to the date of the assessment. 

MBTOC has again encountered difficulty in assessment of some nominations for 

methyl bromide use on soils when yield losses presented in some nominations differ 

markedly from those reported in a large number of studies in similar circumstances 

and are not substantiated by recent references. 

Now that alternatives have been identified for most applications, regulations on the 

use of these alternatives and comparative information on the economic 

feasibility/infeasibility of their use compared to MB are critical to the outcomes of 

present and future CUNs. Without this information, further CUNs may not be 

assessable. In some cases, MBTOC has proposed potential research and regulatory 

issues to Parties that could assist the phase out of MB. 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. 

3.3 Consideration of Stocks - Decision Ex.1/4 (9f) 

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)). Parties nominating critical use 

exemptions are requested under decision Ex.I/4(9f) to submit an accounting 
6 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

framework with the information on stocks. Since the consideration of stocks is an 

active area of negotiation for the Parties, MBTOC has not made an adjustment to a 

nomination to account for stocks held and has relied on Parties to make this 

adjustment. 

In accordance with Decision XVIII/13(7), a summary of the data on stocks reported 

by the Parties in 2007 for 2006 and 2008 for 2007 has been summarized in Table 3.1 

below. Parties may wish to consider this information in the light of Decision IX/6 

1(b)(ii). Tables 3. 1 –3. 3 show the stock data that have been reported by the Parties 

in 2006, 2007 and 2008. 

Efficient functioning of commerce requires a certain level of “pipeline” stocks and 

additional stocks to respond to emergencies. Additionally, stocks may be held on 

behalf of other Parties or for exempt uses (feedstock and QPS uses). The correct or 

optimal level of stocks for virtually every input to production is not zero. 

Table 3.1. Quantities of MB (metric tonnes) ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 

2005, as reported by Parties in 2007 under Decision XVI/6. 

Quantity of MB as reported by Parties (metric tonnes) 

Party Critical use 

exemptions 

authorized 

by MOP for 

2005 

Amount on 

hand at 

start of 

2005 

Quantity 

Acquired for 

CUEs in 2005 

(production 

+imports) 

Amount 

available 

for use in 

2005 

Quantity 

used 

for CUEs in 

2005 

Amount 

on hand 

at the 

end of 

2005 

Australia 146.6 0 114.912 114.912 114.912 0 

Canada 61.792 0 48.858 48.858 45.146 3.712 

EC 4 392.812 216.198 2 435.319 2 651.517 2 530.099 121.023 

Israel 1 089.306 16.358 1 072.35 1 088.708 1 088.708 0 

Japan 748 0 594.995 594.995 546.861 48.134 

New 

Zealand 

50 6.9 40.5 47.4 44.58 2.81 

USA(a) 9 552.879 7 613 not reported 7 170 443 

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

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

Table 3.2 Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2006, as reported 

by Parties in 2007/2008 under Decision XVI/6. 

Quantity of MB as reported by Parties (metric tonnes) 

Party Critical use 

exemptions 

authorized 

by MOP for 

2006 

Amount on 

hand at 

start of 

2006 

Quantity 

acquired for 

CUEs in 2006 

(production + 

imports)

Amount 

available 

for use in 

2006 

Quantity 

used for 

CUEs in 

2006 

Amount 

at the end 

of 2006 

Australia 75.1 0 55.308 55.308 0 

Canada 53.897 3.713 41.969 45.682 44.114 1.568 

EC 3 536.755 114.953 1 462.747 1 577.700 1 558.557 19.114 

Israel 880.29 0 840.6 840.6 840.6 0 

Japan 741.4 70.735 488.81 559.545 540.207 19.338 

USA 8 081.753 9 974(a) 

443(b) 

6 924 16 898 6 425 8 170(c) 

(a) Amount of pre-2005 stock on hand. 

(b) Amount of stocks at the end of 2005 from production/imports specifically made for CUEs (acquired in 2005). 

(c) The sum of 499 tonnes of stocks produced/imported in 2006 specifically for CUEs, plus 7,671 tonnes stocks 

acquired pre-2005. 
October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 7

Table 3.3 Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2007, as reported 

by Parties in 2008 under Decision XVI/6. 

Quantity of MB as reported by Parties (metric tonnes) 

Party Critical use 

exemptions 

authorized 

by MOP for 

2007 

Amount on 

hand at 

start of 

2007 

Quantity 

Acquired for 

CUEs in 2007 

(production 

+imports) 

Amount 

available 

for use in 

2007 

Quantity 

used 

for CUEs in 

2007 

Amount 

on hand 

at the 

end of 

2007 

Australia 48.553 0 45.832 45.832 45.832 0 

Canada 52.874 0.897 38.073 38.970 38.622 0.348 

EC 689.142 31.635 484.842 516.477 508.031 8.446 

Israel 966.465 0 940.675 940.675 750.225 190.45 

Japan 636.172 23.417 479.290 502.707 485.113 17.594 

USA 6 749 7 671(a) 4 314 11 985 4 269 6 503(b) 

(a) Amount of pre-2005 stocks 

(b) The sum of 45 tonnes of stocks produced/imported in 2007 specifically for CUEs, plus 6,458 tonnes stocks 

acquired pre-2005. 

3.4. Reporting of MB Consumption for Critical Use - Decision XVII/9 

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 authorised; or 

(b) The amount used” 

Since the start of the CUN reviews in 2003, MBTOC has provided the amounts of 

MB nominated and agreed for each critical use (Annexes VI and VII). Not all Parties 

supply data under Table 2 of the accounting framework, set out on p. 65 of the 

Handbook on Critical Use Nominations (version 6 of December 2007). Data reported 

here for (a) and (b) above is thus incomplete. 

 

Tables and figures in this report (Table 3.4, Figures 3.1 - 3.2) show the nominated 

MB amounts and the apparent rate of reduction in MB or adoption of alternatives 

achieved by Parties. It should be noted that for those countries that have pre-2005 

stocks of MB that are being drawn down, the reductions in CUEs from year to year 

cannot be taken directly as evidence of alternative adoption since pre-2005 stocks will 

have been sold into the same sectors. 

Table 3.4 in particular shows the amounts nominated and approved for ‘Critical Use’ 

in 2009 and 2010. 

3.5 Trends in Methyl Bromide Use for CUEs since 2005 

As part of the requirements of Decision XVII/9 trends in phase out by Parties are 

shown below. Since 2005, there has been a progressive trend by all Parties to reduce 

their nominations for consumption for preplant soil uses and post harvest uses, 

although this has occurred at different rates. Figs 3.1 and 3.2 show the trends in the 

reduction in amounts approved/nominated by Parties for ‘Critical Use’ from 2005 to 

2010 for some key uses. The complete trends in phase out of MB by country, as 

indicated by change in CUE, are shown in Annexes V and VI. 
8 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Figure 3.1. Amounts of MB exempted for CUE uses in preplant soil industries 

from 2005 to 2009. Solid lines indicate the trend in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed 

lines indicate quantity of methyl bromide nominated by the Parties for either 2009 

or 2010. 

 

Cucurbits and Melons

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

metric tonnes

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Japan

USA

 

Cutflowers

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

metric tonnes

Australia

Belgium

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Portugal

Spain

USA

Orchard Replant

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

metric tonnes

France

USA

 

Peppers and Eggplant

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2005200620072008

2009

2010

Years

metric tonnes

Belgium

France

Italy

Japan

Spain

USA

Strawberry Fruit

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

metric tonnes

Australia

France

Israel

Italy

New Zealand

Spain

UK

USA

 

Tomatoes

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

metric tonnes

Belgium

Greece

Italy

USA

 
October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 9

Figure 3.2. Amounts of MB exempted for CUE uses in mills and food processing 

facilities from 2005 to 2009. Solid lines indicate trend in CUE methyl bromide. 

Dashed lines indicate quantity of methyl bromide nominated by the Party for either 

2009 or 2010. 

All Food Processing and Milling

(Not Commodities)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

metric tonnes

Belgium

Canada

France

Germany

Greece

Israel

Italy

UK

USA
10 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Table 3.4. Summary of Critical Use Nomination (2005 – 2010 in part) and Exemption (2005 – 2009 in 

Parties under the CUN/CUE Process. (Note: A breakdown of CUN and CUE amounts by sector is given in 

QUANTITIES NOMINATED 

QUANTITIES APPRO

PARTY 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 

(1ExMOP 

and 

16MOP) 

2006 

(16MOP+ 

2ExMOP+ 

17MOP) 

2007 

(17MOP 

+ 

18MOP) 

Australia 206.950 81.250 52.145 52.900 38.990 37.610 146.600 75.100 48.517 Canada 61.992 53.897 46.745 42.241 39.115 30.340 61.792 53.897 52.874 European Community1

5754.361 4213.47 1239.873 245.00 0 0 4392.812 3536.755 689.142 

Israel 1117.156 1081.506 1236.517 952.845 699.448 * 1089.306 880.295 966.715 Japan 748.000 741.400 651.700 589.600 508.900 288.500 748.000 741.400 636.172 New Zealand 53.085 53.085 32.573 0 0 0 50.000 42.000 18.234 Switzerland 8.700 7.000 0 0 0 0 8.700 7.000 0 USA 10753.997 9386.229 7417.999 6415.153 4958.034 3399.490 9552.879 8081.753 6749.060 TOTALS 18704.241 15617.837 10677.552 8297.739 6244.187 3755.940 16050.089 13418.200 9160.714 * Not yet available. 1 Members of the European Community having CUNs/CUEs include: 

2005 – Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. 

2006 – Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. 

2007 – France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom 2008 – Poland, Spain 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 11

3.6 Evaluations of CUNs – 2008 round for 2009 and 2010 exemptions 

MBTOC met separately in subcommittees in September to conduct further review of 

CUNs as requested by Parties, to update reports, discuss issues of registration of 

alternatives and other matters. The meetings were held as required by the time schedule 

for considerations of CUNs given in Annex I referred to in Decision XVI/4. Consensus 

decisions were made in subcommittees. Outcomes from deliberations by the two 

MBTOC subcommittees were discussed and vetted via electronic communication. 

Recommendations made by MBTOC S were circulated to MBTOC QSC and vice versa, 

as part of the process of reaching consensus within the whole committee. 

During its first meeting of the year held in Tel Aviv, Israel (13 – 18 April, 2008) 

MBTOC S found information by the Parties sufficient to make recommendations for all 

nominations submitted. Two Parties however, the USA and Japan, requested the 

subcommittee to consider further or new information relating to their nominations, and 

this justified a second meeting, which took place in Alassio, Italy, from 31 August to 2 

September, 2008. Some recommendations were changed in light of the new or 

additional information supplied as specified in Tables 3.5 and 4.5. 

MBTOC QSC met in Chengdu, China on 21 September 2008 to consider again Critical 

Use Nominations for which Parties had submitted further information subsequent to the 

initial evaluations given in TEAP 2008 and those evaluated as unable to assess in that 

report. The meeting was attended by 9 of the 19 MBTOC-QSC members, including 2 

UNEP-supported A5 members, and one from MBTOC-S. Several MBTOC QSC 

members could not attend the Chengdu meeting. Not all members of MBTOC-QSC 

were financed to attend a one-day meeting by the organizations that sponsor their 

membership. Arrangements were made for some members to contribute to the meeting 

by teleconference, with subsequent circulation of drafts by email. 

Annex 1 of Decision XVI/4 contains a work schedule for MBTOC, which envisions 

two meetings per year to make CUN evaluations. The schedule further allows MBTOC 

to seek further information from Parties and for Parties to provide further information in 

response to MBTOCs interim recommendations made during the first meeting. UNEP 

and Party funding of MBTOC members would thus allow the committee to conduct its 

tasks appropriately and complete its work. 

At the OEWG meeting, bilateral meetings were held with Australia, Canada, Japan and 

the United States. The United States met with MBTOC-S during the Alassio meeting 

for discussions with regard to their CUNs, and communicated with MBTOC QSC at the 

meeting in Chengdu, China via prearranged teleconference, both in accordance with 

paragraph 8 of Annex 1 of the 16th MOP. 

CUNs in this report relate to CUEs sought for 2009 and 2010. No nominations in this 

particular round were submitted for longer periods. 

Two Parties (Israel and Canada) submitted nominations for the 2009 round and four 

Parties (Australia, Canada, Japan, and the USA) submitted nominations for 2010. 

These Parties have submitted nominations in previous CUN rounds. Israel submitted a 

nomination for preplant soil use of MB for seed production, which had not been applied 

for in the 2006 and 2007, but was submitted in 2003 and 2004. The total number of 
12 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

nominations has been reduced from about 58 nominations submitted by seven countries 

in the last round. The EC has submitted no nominations in this round for 2009 and 

advised that they will no longer be submitting nominations for CUEs. Japan indicated 

in correspondence and during the OEWG in Bangkok, Thailand, that it plans to phase 

out all preplant soil uses of MB by 2013. 

Changes made to nominated amounts and MBTOC recommendations with respect to 

the interim report of May 2008 can be found in Table 3.5 and 3.6 below and are 

described in detail in textboxes included in Table 4.5 and 5.1. 

Table 3.5. Changes occurring to nominated and recommended amounts of MB for 

soils preplant uses after the May 2008 interim report. 

Party CUN Initial 

nomination 

by the Party 

Interim 

MBTOC 

recommenda

tion 

Revised 

nomination 

by the Party 

after the 

28th OEWG* 

Final MBTOC 

recommend 

ation 

Cucumber 34.10 23.00 34.10 30.69 

Peppers 81.10 54.37 81.10 72.99 

Melons 90.80 61.00 90.80 81.72 

Japan 

Watermelons 15.40 14.50 15.40 14.50 

TOTAL 221.40 152.87 221.40 199.90 

Cucurbits ** 340.405 266.199 340.405 302.974 

Peppers 658.952 457.299 463.282 463.282 

Ornamentals 111.391 92.912 95.204 84.617 

Strawberry fruit 1191.815 998.063 1103.422 1007.477 

United 

States 

Tomatoes 994.582 704.715 737.584 737.584 

TOTAL 3297.145 2519.188 2739.897 2595.934 

* Nominated amounts for Japan did not change 

** Revised nominated amounts for US cucurbits did not change since iodomethane is not 

registered for this crop 

Table 3.6. Changes occurring to nominated and recommended MB for postharvest 

uses after the May 2008 interim report (tonnes) 

Party CUN Initial 

nomination 

by the Party 

Interim 

MBTOC 

recommendati

on 

Revised 

nomination by 

the Party after 

the 28th

OEWG* 

Final 

MBTOC 

recommend 

ation 

Australia Rice 7.82 NR 7.82 6.65 

Canada Pasta 6.067 1.9 4.74 4.74 

Canada Flour 22.878 U 22.878 22.878 

Mills * 191.993 187.534 173.023 173.023 

United 

States 

Commodities 43.007 1.9 U, NR 19.242 19.242 

* Amounts changed for USA Mills and Processors corrected errors, not re-evaluation. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 13

MBTOC has sometimes recommended quantities of MB for 2009 or 2010 which are 

different from those nominated. Grounds used for these recommendations are given in 

detail after the relevant CUNs in Tables 5.1 and 4.5. The adjustments for preplant soils 

use follow the presumptions given in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. 

In paragraph 20 of Annex 1 referred to in Decision XVI/4, Parties, among other things, 

specifically requested that MBTOC explicitly state the specific basis for the Party’s 

economic statement relating to CUNs. Tables 5.1 and 4.5 provide this information for 

each CUN. This information was prepared by MBTOC economists. 

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

alternatives, scale-up of alternatives, economic issues and, to a much smaller degree, 

the technical unavailability of alternatives. This was as in the previous two years of 

CUNs. For the most part, technical alternatives exist. Additionally, MBTOC notes 

that some Parties continue to struggle with the ability to adapt previously identified 

alternatives to their circumstances, within their definition of economic feasibility. 

3.7. Critical Use Nominations Review 

In considering the CUNs submitted in 2008, as previously, both MBTOC 

subcommittees applied the standards contained in Annex I of the final report of 16 

MOP, and, where relevant, the standard presumptions given below. In particular 

MBTOC sought to provide consistent treatment of CUNs within and between Parties 

while at the same time taking local circumstances into consideration. 

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

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

continued production of that crop to existing market standards. 

MBTOC evaluation of CUNs for preplant soil use relating to production of 

strawberries, tomatoes and some other crops was assisted by information provided by a 

large number of published studies on MB alternatives and by a meta-analysis of over 

100 potential alternatives (Porter, 2006). The published studies assisted in providing 

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

XV/4. MBTOC also used information on the suitability of alternatives for a nomination 

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

Further, 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 for preplant soil uses of MB, 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. 

For commodity and structural applications, it was assumed that technically and 

economically feasible alternatives 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, while ensuring the costs were economically feasible in the context of that 

nomination, to the extent that could be determined. 
14 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Unless otherwise indicated, the most recent CUE approved by the Parties for a 

particular CUN was used as baseline for consideration of continuing nominations. 

The standard presumptions, used by MBTOC to assess nominations, are given in the 

chapters ahead. 

3.8 Disclosure of Interest 

As in the past, all MBTOC members have prepared disclosure of interest forms relating 

specifically to their level of national, regional or enterprise involvement for the 2008 

CUN process, according to a standardised format developed by TEAP. The Disclosure 

of Interest declarations are found in Annex VII at the end of this report. 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. 

 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 15

4. MBTOC Soils: Final Evaluations of 2008 Critical Use 

Nominations for Methyl Bromide

4.1 Summary of outcomes 

In the 2008 round, 31 CUNs were submitted for soil uses, 12 for 2009 and 19 for 2010. 

Interim recommendations were made on all nominations of 697.048 tonnes for 2009 

and 3318.559 tonnes for 2010. Two Parties, however, after consideration of 

information in its interim recommendations and information from bilateral discussions 

at the OEWG, requested further review of their nominations and provided further 

information to MBTOC-S. The United States revised total nominated amounts for soil 

uses from 3722.230 tonnes to 3164.982, by reducing the nominations for four sectors: 

tomatoes, strawberries, ornamentals and peppers. These nominations took account of 

the reregistration of IM in 45 States, including the recent registration in Florida. This 

reduced the total nominated amount by Parties for soil uses by 673.948 tonnes in 2010. 

Similarly, after the OEWG Japan sent new information that required a reassessment of 

four CUNs - cucumbers, peppers, melons and watermelons. 

In its final assessment, MBTOC-S has recommended a total of 608.454 tonnes for 2009 

and a revised total amount of 3297.800 tonnes for 2010. After the revised nominations 

or new information were received from the USA and Japan, an amount of 88.594 tonnes 

was not recommended for 2009 for Israel, and 187.534 tonnes not recommended for 

2010 for USA and Japanese nominations. 

MBTOC accepted the MB dosage rates submitted by the USA delegation and did not 

apply new standard presumptions for use with barrier films and MB/Pic formulations in 

this round for the USA nominations. Additionally, Japan submitted information to 

substantiate a potential rate of transition to alternatives that was considerably less than 

what MBTOC originally recommended. Although this does not appear to change the 

intention of Japan to complete phase out by 2013, MBTOC is recommending a greater 

transition rate as it considers alternatives are available and can be adopted for a larger 

portion of the nomination by 2010 than those indicated by Japan. 

Table 4. 1a Summary of MBTOC S final recommendations for 2009 and 2010 by 

country for CUNs received in 2008 for preplant soil use of methyl bromide (tonnes)

CUE approved at 

MOP 19 

CUN for 2009 and 2010 MBTOC-S Final 

Recommendation 

Country 

2008 2009 2009 2010 2009 2010 

Australia 29.790 29.790 29.790 

Canada 7.462 7.462 7.462 

EC 244.146 

Israel 858.560 697.048 608.454 

Japan 299.580 283.100 261.6 

USA 3851.329 3164.982* 2998.948 

Total 1102.706 4188.161 697.048 3485.298 608.454 3297.8 

* The number shown is the revised nomination by USA after the 28th OEWG. 
16 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Table 4.1b Summary of the amounts approved by Parties at 17th MOP for 2009, 

and MBTOC S recommendations (in square brackets) for CUE’s for preplant uses of 

MB (tonnes) for 2009 and 2010 submitted in the 2008 round. 

Years 

Country and Sector 2009 2010 

1. Australia 

1. Strawberry runners 29.790 [29.790] 

2. Canada 

1. Strawberry runners 7.462 [7.462] 

3. Israel 

1. Broomrape 

2. Cut flowers & bulbs protected 

3. Cut flowers open field 

4. Melon protected & open field 

5. Potato 

6. Strawberry fruit protected 

7. Strawberry runners 

8. Sweet potatoes 

TOTAL 

[125.000] 

[85.431] 

[34.698] 

[87.500] 

[75.500] 

[77.750] 

[28.075] 

[95.000] 

[608.454] 

---------- 

---------- 

---------- 

---------- 

---------- 

---------- 

---------- 

---------- 

---------- 

4. Japan 

1. Cucumber 

2. Ginger open field 

3. Ginger protected 

4. Melon 

5. Pepper green & hot 

6. Watermelon 

TOTAL 

34.300 

63.056 

 8.325 

91.100 

81.149 

21.650 

299.580 

[30.690] 

[53.400] 

 [8.300] 

[81.720] 

[72.990] 

[14.500] 

[261.600] 

5. USA 

1. Curcubits 

2. Eggplants (field) 

3. Forestry nursery 

4. Nurseries stock: fruits, nuts & flowers 

5. Orchard replant 

6. Ornamentals 

7. Pepper (field) 

8. Strawberry (field) 

9. Strawberry runners 

 10. Sweet potatoes 

 11. Tomatoes (field) 

TOTAL 

407.091 

 48.691 

122.060 

 25.326 

 292.756 

 107.136 

 548.984 

1,269.321 

 7.944 

 18.144 

1,003.876 

3,851.329 

[302.974] 

 [32.820] 

[117.826] 

 [17.363] 

[215.800] 

 [84.617] 

 [463.282] 

[1,007.477] 

 [4.690] 

 [14.515] 

 [737.584] 

[2,998.948] 

4.2. Issues related to CUN Assessment for Preplant Soil Use 

In general, CUNs for preplant soil use of MB resulted mainly from the following issues: 

regulatory restrictions on one or two specific alternatives, adoption times to implement 

alternatives, and economic infeasibility of some key technical alternatives, such as the 

use of methods which avoid the need for MB, i.e. use of grafted plants. 

Key issues which assisted MB reductions and also affected the need for MB in the 2008 

round were i) a new registration of iodomethane (= methyl iodide) in the USA, which 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 17

has now been extended to the state of Florida ii) regulations on key alternatives, 

particularly 1,3-D township caps and buffer zones on 1,3-D, metham sodium and Pic 

used alone or in mixtures (iii) restrictions on use of high rates of Pic (greater than 200 

kg/ha (20 g/m2

)) in some counties of California, iv) lack of effective alternative controls 

for nutsedge, and v) lack of studies in specific sectors i.e. orchard replant, and nursery 

industries. 

Unusually large buffer zone restrictions on fumigant alternatives, particularly limit their 

adoption, especially in Israel. MBTOC urges Parties to consider review of these 

regulations in view of the ability of barrier films to reduce dose rates of MB and 

alternatives and associated emissions. As in the previous round, Parties have found 

alternatives more difficult to adopt for propagation materials, such as strawberry 

runners and nurseries, however the lack or research studies provided with CUNs has 

also led to difficulties in assessment as these CUNs. MBTOC considers that several of 

these do not to fully satisfy the requirements of Decision IX/6. The impact of current 

reviews of VOC emissions in California may also have a major impact on MB use and 

the use of alternatives in California in future nominations. The registration of a key 

alternative, 1,3-D/Pic is uncertain in Israel. In addition to the recent registration of IM 

in the USA, recent permits for IM use for commercial scale trials in Australia look 

promising for its uptake and commercial registration in this country and all other 

countries apply for CUEs for preplant soil of MB (Japan, Israel), except Canada. 

MBTOC also notes that a large proportion of MB has been nominated for uses where 

regulations or legislation prevent reductions of MB dosage. For many uses, the 

mandatory use of MB is specified at a high dosage for either treatment of certified 

propagation material or because bans are imposed on the use of barrier films which 

otherwise could have reduced the MB dosage rate. Also regulations on the use of 

alternatives are preventing their uptake for a substantial proportion of the remaining 

CUNs for preplant soil use. MBTOC urges the Parties to align their local policies and 

regulations with internationally accepted methodologies and to allow use of MB 

alternatives that lie within the Montreal Protocol’s goals. 

In this round, MBTOC has sometimes suggested quantities of MB for 2009 or 2010 

different from those nominated. Grounds used for these changes are given in detail 

after the relevant CUNs in Table 4.5. The adjustments follow the standard 

presumptions given in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 below, unless indicated otherwise. 

4.2.1. Registration of alternatives for preplant uses - Decision Ex I/4 (9i) and (9j) 

Decision Ex. I/4 (9i) requires MBTOC “To report annually on the status of reregistration and review of methyl bromide uses for the applications reflected in the 

critical-use exemptions, including any information on health effects and environmental 

acceptability”. Further, Decision Ex I/4 (9j) requires MBTOC “To report annually on 

the status of registration of alternatives and substitutes for methyl bromide, with 

particular emphasis on possible regulatory actions that will increase or decrease 

dependence on methyl bromide”.

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) documents for use of MB, Pic, MS, and 

dazomet for preplant soil fumigation were completed in the USA on July 15, 2008, with 
18 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

a comment period allowed until 30 October. Final decisions are scheduled to be 

available in 2009. New safety measures such as buffer zones to protect bystanders, 

reduced application rates, health protection measures for workers are required in the 

RED. 1,3-D, which was included in the fumigant cluster for comparative purposes 

only, completed reregistration in the U.S. in 1998, and no further mitigation is expected 

at this time. 

Iodomethane (IM), a major alternative to MB, has recently been registered in 45 states 

in the United States including Florida for field-grown ornamentals, peppers, 

strawberries and tomatoes. Trials with IM continue being conducted in Japan, Australia, 

New Zealand, Turkey, Morocco, South Africa, Israel, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Brazil, 

Mexico and Chile and the registration process is proceeding in most other countries 

applying for CUEs beside other states in the USA including Australia, Israel and Japan. 

To ensure that the mitigation measures for IM will be consistent with the measures 

being required for the other fumigants, the label requirements are presently being 

reexamined in the USA. 1,3-dichloropropene, may be subject to similar provisions 

when the soil fumigants are evaluated together again in 2013. 

The EC has further reported that, “decisions are expected in 2008 for MB, metham 

sodium and dazomet. 1,3-D was reviewed on an earlier timetable in the EC. It will be 

excluded from Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, which lists active substances 

authorised for incorporation in plant protection products. Member States may grant a 

period of grace, which shall expire by 20 March 2009. Recognising the role of 1,3-D as 

an alternative to MB, and to achieve the objectives of the Montreal Protocol, this grace 

period may be extended by a further 18 months, pending a review to assess the concrete 

impact of its withdrawal on the use of MB. The manufacturer of 1,3-D has compiled a 

dossier of additional technical information and intends to apply for re-registration of 

1,3-D under Directive 91/414 (Dow AgroSciences 2007)”. (EC Management Strategy, 

2008) 

A number of other chemicals which may be alternatives to MB are now in the 

registration process in specific countries, including dimethyl disulphide (DMDS) in 

Europe and the USA (for cantaloupe, cucumber, squash, other cucurbits, peppers, 

strawberry, tomato) and ethane dinitrile (EDN) in Australia, dazomet in the USA (for 

strawberry and tomato), and various herbicides. 

4.2.2. Update on rates of adoption of alternatives for preplant uses - Decision XIX/9 

As of the 2008 round, Decision XIX/9 para. 3 requests: ‘ the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel to ensure that recent findings with regard to the adoption rate of 

alternatives are annually updated and reported to the Parties in its first report of each 

year and inform the work of the Panel’. 

Technical alternatives exist for almost all uses requesting CUNs, but uptake of 

alternatives varies between countries, crops and the pest pressure. In general similar 

alternatives are being adopted by the same sectors throughout a number of countries, 

although the rate of adoption has varied depending on regulations on their use, 

differences in registration between countries and other market forces. In this round as 

in previous rounds of CUNs, MBTOC has recognised that time is needed to effect 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 19

phase-in of alternatives and has accepted this as a reasonable technical argument for 

lack of availability to the end user sensu Decision IX/6. 

Where possible, data is included in this report showing actual rates of adoption in key 

regions which have phased out MB recently. In particular, recent adoption data from 

the EC Management Strategy (2008) has been included to shows rates of transition to 

alternatives by several sectors in the Member States (Appendix IV). In addition, past 

adoption rates of alternatives in many countries is presented in previous Assessment 

Reports (MBTOC 2007). Figures 3.1 – 3.2 in this report show the apparent reduction 

rates for MB use achieved by many Parties in a number of key sectors. As noted above, 

true reduction and adoption rates may vary from the rate of change of CUN/CUE 

because of factors such as use of stocks or transfer of approved MB between categories 

The CUN reviews presented in Table 4.5 also provide detail of some of the key 

alternatives that Parties have and should consider to further replace MB for the 

remaining uses. 

For several major preplant soil uses, adoption data from other regions has shown that 

where industries have previously been heavily dependent on MB, e.g. strawberries, 

tomatoes and other vegetable crops (e.g. Australia, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, 

New Zealand) almost complete adoption of alternative technologies (especially those 

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

For instance, a full list of adoption rates obtained within the EC is shown in Annex IV. 

These regions have similar pests complexes to those requesting CUNs, but may have 

different regulatory issues. Possible adoption rates for transition to alternatives for 

preplant soil uses have also been supplied recently by Japan in their National Action 

Plan. This plan indicates the expected rates of transition to alternatives to assist 

complete phase out of MB by 2013. 

Further guidance from the Parties, giving expected rates of adoption of alternatives 

following registration, would assist MBTOC in evaluation of CUNs in future. 

4.2.3. Sustainable alternatives for preplant uses 

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 the USA in particular, MB and most other 

fumigants have been subjected to reviews that could affect future regulations over their 

use for preplant soil fumigation. For preplant soil uses of MB, the regulatory 

restrictions on 1,3-dichloropropene and chloropicrin are preventing further adoption of 

these products in the USA, particularly California and this is putting pressure on 

industries to retain MB. 

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

alternatives to MB, to continue to adopt environmentally sustainable and safe 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 
20 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

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

regions, without reference to sustainability. 

4.2.4. Frequency of allowed MB use for preplant uses 

In the CUN round for 2008, reductions in MB for preplant (soil) uses could be achieved 

in some nominations, where effective alternatives were identified, by reducing the 

frequency of MB fumigations. Instead of all fumigation being made with MB, potential 

exists to reduce frequency by rotation with other methods (i.e. fumigants) in order to 

reduce MB use to every 2nd or 3rd year. In some production systems, MB is already 

used only every 3rd or 4th year as a result of uptake of alternative strategies and crop 

rotations. 

Noting this effort, MBTOC has not automatically concluded that episodes when MB is 

not used mean a fully successful adoption of alternatives. There is no instruction from 

Parties as to how to consider renewed CUNs in the future that result from a potential 

need for MB in the years where reduced frequency of fumigation is to take place. 

4.3. Economic feasibility of iodomethane (IM) 

During the 2008 round of evaluations, IM received a federal registration in 45 states of 

the USA and awaits registration in just a few States, notably California. Commercial 

adoption of IM has begun in the USA and the registration process is underway in 

several other countries. 

MBTOC considered the economic feasibility of IM in a partial budgeting analysis 

framework and determined that for many crops and locations, IM is an economically 

feasible alternative for preplant uses of MB. The cost for fumigant compounds is 

typically a relatively small share of total costs and variable production costs. It is 

assumed that IM will exhibit equivalent economic efficacy to MB and no other costs 

will change. Equivalent economic efficacy means gross revenues (yield times price) 

remain the same. The key measures for assessing economic feasibility become the 

difference in per hectare fumigant material cost between IM and MB and the impact of 

this cost change on net revenues per hectare. 

The increased cost reduces net revenue but generally by a small percentage, reflecting 

the fumigants’ small shares of operating costs, the small absolute cost for fumigant 

material, and the magnitude of net revenues per hectare seen with most crops currently 

using MB. After adjusting for dose rates expected to provide equivalent yields, IM/MB 

price ratios of 1.4 to 2.0 result in percentage changes in net revenue which can be very 

small (<2%) at high net revenues. At per hectare revenue incomes of $10,000, $50,000 

and $100,000 the differences in variable cost for fumigant price differences between IM 

and MB (based on a fumigant price difference of $900/ha) are approximately 10%, 2% 

and 1% respectively. As the crop revenue per hectare price increases, the significance 

of the change in fumigant price decreases. Fig. 4.1 below illustrates this relationship 

through an economic model (based on ‘synthetic data’): 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 21

Fig. 4.1. Economic feasibility of iodomethane (IM) based on net revenue impact 

Economic feasibility of IM

based on net revenue impact

Net Revenue per ha with MB

% Decrease in Net Revenue

Increasing per ha cost 

difference between MI and MB

Economically feasible

Not Economically feasible

The percent decrease in net returns when adopting the more costly fumigant (IM) will 

generally be small, but there is a percentage change in net returns at which IM will not 

be considered an economically feasible alternative. However, MBTOC has not 

received any guidance regarding this percentage and there is no consensus on the level 

of economic impact that is considered the threshold between economically feasible and 

not economically feasible. The threshold is represented by the horizontal line above the 

X axis. The chart further illustrates that, (a) The impact from the increase in fumigation 

costs from switching to IM is less important when the crop being produced has large net 

returns per hectare when using MB (b) As the absolute difference in fumigation cost 

between IM and MB increases, the percentage decrease in net returns becomes more 

important (this is illustrated by moving outward from one curve to another), (c) There 

are some cases where IM may not be economically feasible. This can result from large 

absolute cost differences between IM and MB or a starting point of low net revenues so 

that the business cannot absorb the higher costs, and (d) Application of IM via drip 

application may be cheaper than application of MB via injection equipment and this 

would make the treatment more likely to be adopted at all net revenues. 

4.4. Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities. 

The tables below (Tables 4.2 and 4.3) provide the standard presumptions applied by 

MBTOC Soils for this round of CUNs. These standard presumptions were first 

proposed in the MBTOC report of October 2005 and were presented to the Parties at 

17th MOP. Studies and reports to support them appear in Annex III. They were revised 

for some sectors after consideration by the Parties at the 19th MOP. The rates and 

practices adopted by MBTOC as standard presumptions are based on maximum rates 
22 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

considered acceptable by published literature and actual commercial practice. Actual 

dosage rate of MB in MB/Pic formulations is shown in Table 4.4 below. 

As in the evaluations in previous years, MBTOC considered reductions to quantities of 

MB in particular nominations to a standard rate per treated area where technical 

evidence supported its use (see Annex III). MBTOC considered the maximum MB 

application rate for 98% MB to be either 250 or 350 kg/ha (25 or 35 g/m2

), in 

conjunction with low barrier permeability films (e.g., VIF or equivalent), combined 

with extended exposure periods. One Party has indicated that 250 kg/ha (25g/m2

) of 

98:2 were effectively used in standard commercial application, especially on sandy 

soils. MBTOC considers 98:2 formulations only necessary for CUE uses where other 

MB/Pic formulations are not registered or where regulations prescribe its use. 

In cases where use of high chloropicrin-containing mixtures (approximately MB:Pic 

67:33 or 50:50 or lower) are considered feasible and barrier films, maximum dosage 

rates of either 150 or 175 kg MB/ha (15.0 - 17.5 g/m2

) where nutsedge is the key pest 

and 125 or 150 kg/ha (12.5 - 15 g/m2

) for pathogens were considered for use as the 

maximum standard presumptions, unless there was a regulatory or technical reason 

indicated otherwise by the Party (see Table 4.2 below). 

As a special case, MBTOC accepted a maximum rate of 200 kg/ ha (20 g/m2

) with 

barrier films for certified nursery production, unless regulations prescribed higher rates. 

However, Parties have indicated that rates of 200 kg/ha (20g/m2

) or less (Annex III) of 

MB: Pic 50:50 were effective with barrier films for production of ‘certified’ nursery 

material. 

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. 

During the bilateral meeting held in Alassio, the United States delegation indicated that 

they were not able to conform to dosage rates suggested by MBTOC for vegetables and 

strawberries at present (see Table 4.3 below) as they did not have enough trial 

information to confirm their use for specific circumstances. In view of the fact that the 

USA did not consider experiences from other countries and sectors valid for 

extrapolation to USA circumstances, MBTOC considers it necessary to conduct a 

thorough review of research and experiences available in the United States in relation to 

effective dosage rates of MB. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 23

Table 4.2. Standard presumptions used in assessment of CUNs for the 2008 round – 

soil treatments. 

Comment CUN adjustment Exceptions 

1. Dosage rates Maximum guideline rates for 

MB:Pic 98:2 25 to 35 g/m2 with 

barrier films (VIF or equivalent); 

for mixtures of MB/Pic 12.5 to 

17.5 g MB/m2

 for pathogens and 

nutsedge respectively, under barrier 

films depending on the sector. 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, emission 

regulations on MB, or 

open field production 

of high health 

propagative material 

Table 4.3. Maximum dosage rates for preplant soil use of MB by sector used in the 

2008 round (standard presumptions).

Maximum MB Dosage Rate (g/m2) in MB/Pic mixtures considered 

Film Type effective for:

Strawberries and 

Vegetables 

Nurseries* Orchard Replant Ornamentals 

Barrier films - 

Pathogens 

12.5 15 15 15 

Barrier films - 

Nutsedge 

15.0 17.5 17.5 17.5 

No Barrier films 

– Pathogens 

20 20 20 20 

No Barrier films - 

Nut sedge 

26 26 26 26 

* Maximum rate unless certification specifies otherwise 
24 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

4.5. 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). 

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., 2001; Lopez-Aranda et al., 2003; 

Santos et al., 2007; Hamill et al., 2004; Carey and Godbehere, 2004; Gilreath and 

Santos, 2005e; Hanson et al., 2006). Where such formulations are registered or 

otherwise permitted, non Article 5 countries have widely adopted formulations 

containing high proportions of Pic in mixtures with MB to meet Montreal Protocol 

restrictions 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 barrier and non barrier films. 

Parties are urged to consider even lower dosage rates of MB by modifying MB/Pic 

mixtures used and adoption of barrier films where regulations permit as the basis for 

future CUNs. This includes rates as low as 75 kg/ha (75 g/m2

) in 250 kg/ha of 30:70 or 

33:67 mixtures or 100 kg/ha (10 g/m2

) of MB in 250 kg/ha of 50:50 MB/Pic mixtures in 

conjunction with barrier films as these have shown similar effectiveness of higher rates 

of MB in 67:33 MB /Pic and much higher rates of 335 to 800 kg/ha of MB 98% with 

standard polyethylene. 

Table 4.4. 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. 

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 16.8 12.5 7.5 

200 19.6 13.4 10.0* 6.0 

175 17.2 11.8 8.8 5.3 

* Note: Trials from 1996 to 2007 (Annex III) show that a dosage of 10g/m2 (e.g. 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 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 25

4.6. 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.” 

As in past rounds, MBTOC assessed CUNs where possible for reductions in MB 

application rates and deployment of MB emission reduction technologies, such as use 

of LPBF, including VIF, or other appropriate sealing and emission control techniques 

including deep injection of MB, use of formulations with a lower proportion of MB 

and/ or reduced frequency of application. 

The use of low permeability barrier films (i.e. VIF) or other techniques ensuring at least 

the same level of environmental protection is compulsory in the 27 member countries of 

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

considered technically feasible and large adoption has occurred, e.g. Israel and SE 

USA. In Florida the reported use of barrier films in vegetable crops has expanded to 

over 50,000 acres in 07/08 (Allen, pers. comm., 2008). An exception to the use of 

barrier films is the State of California in the USA where a regulation currently prevents 

use of VIF with MB (California Code of Regulations Title 3 Section 6450(e)), but not 

with the alternatives. This regulation has been set over concerns of possible worker 

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

flux rates of MB. 

4.7. Use of disposable canisters of MB 

One non Article 5 Party is still using small disposable canisters (i.e. 500 to 750g 

canisters) for application of MB for preplant soil use under plastic films under strict 

worker health guidelines. Canister applications have been eliminated for soil use in all 

other non Article 5 countries as this application is considered to be less efficient for the 

control of soilborne pathogens than other methods. This treatment is considered to be 

more dangerous to workers than injection methods, because trained contractors are not 

generally involved in its application. This practice is not considered as effective for 

pathogen control as use of MB/Pic mixtures and also can lead to high emissions of 

methyl bromide as the MB gas is released immediately beneath the plastic sheets. 

According to the Party, canisters are used because they provide small-scale farmers 

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 this case, farmers are 

reported to use strict controls.
26 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

4.8. Metaanalysis update 

In response to Decision XVI/5, which provided financial support to MBTOC for expert 

assistance with the assessment of the critical-use nominations, a statistical analysis or 

metaanalysis study was conducted to analyse methyl bromide alternatives for pre-plant 

fumigation (Porter et al, 2006). 

This report provides the Parties with a technical overview of results from published 

research from 1995 till 2005. It provided the statistical best estimate of the relative 

effectiveness of the major chemical alternatives to methyl bromide as determined by 

analysis of information across a large number of studies in different regions and under 

different pathogen pressures. Effectiveness was assessed by comparing relative yield of 

the alternative to the respective methyl bromide/chloropicrin (MB/Pic) treatment. The 

study took account of both registered and unregistered products and concentrated on 

two major crops, strawberry fruit and tomatoes. Interpretation of the use of alternatives 

for other crops such as peppers, melons and other cucurbits, and eggplants can be made 

with much of the information, particularly in the case of tomatoes where the target 

pathogens and weeds were relevant to the outcomes for these other crops. The 

metaanalysis also includes a detailed assessment of the effect of alternatives for 

nutsedge under different inoculum level (or pest pressure) and the influence of low 

permeability barrier films across a range of regions and crops. 

Analyses from strawberry fruit trials showed that a large number of alternatives used 

alone or in various combinations had mean estimated yields which were within 5% of 

the estimated yield of the standard MB treatment (MB/Pic 67:33). Of these, a number 

of alternatives and MB/Pic formulations (50:50, 30:70) led to results that were similar 

to MB/Pic 67:33. These included PicEC (chloropicrin, Emulsifiable Concentrate), 

TC35EC (Telone C35 or 1,3-dichloropropene/chloropicrin), TC35 and TC35ECMNa 

(TC35 EC combined with metham sodium) and IM/Pic formulations 

(iodomethane/chloropicrin), which are undergoing registration in several countries. 

Analyses from tomato trials showed that a range of alternative treatments used alone or 

in various combinations had mean estimated yields which were within 5% of the 

estimated yield of the standard methyl bromide treatment (MB/Pic 67:33). While some 

of these treatments contained pebulate, a herbicide which is not commercially available 

anymore, most treatments did not contain this particular product. Several treatments, 

PicMNa (chloropicrin combined with metham sodium), 1,3D/Pic in combination with a 

range of herbicides and MI60 (iodomethane/chloropicrin), provided results similar to 

MB/Pic 67:33. 

Decision XIX/9 required MBTOC to report to the 28th OEWG an explanation of ”how 

its uses the metaanalysis in its work and to disclose to the Parties a written explanation 

of any significant changes or deviations it intends to make to that methodology before it 

undertakes any such change or deviation”. 

In response, MBTOC has included a response in the interim report for 2008 and the 

following information for this final report. MBTOC uses the metaanalysis report as a 

guide to the relative effectiveness of many alternatives, together with many others 

obtained from scientific journals, conference proceedings, published reports and others, 

to substantiate and support its recommendations. No change to this approach has been 

made in this round. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 27

In response to specific requests from the USA in 2006 and 2007, MBTOC supplied 

further information to support the report, including clarification of the process used in 

the metaanalysis and the international biometrical standards used and a full set of 

information detailing which alternatives had been used and from what studies. In 2008, 

after further requests were made during the 28th OEWG, a teleconference was organised 

on 8 August 2008 with the biometricians conducting the metaanalysis, MBTOC 

members and USA delegates to clarify questions on statistical methods used and 

conclusions of the study. Details of this teleconference were provided to MBTOC 

members and TEAP co-chairs for information. Further discussions and requests were 

made by the USA during the bilateral meeting held in Alassio in September 2008. 
28 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Table 4.5. Final evaluations of CUNs for preplant soil use submitted in 2008 for 2009 or 2010 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

Australia Strawberry 

runners 

35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 None 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends 29.790 tonnes for this use in 2010. The key pests affecting strawbe

(Phytophthora, Pythium, Rhizoctonia, Verticillium) and weeds (S. arvensis, Agrostis tenuis, Raphanus spp, Poa annu

MB/Pic 50:50 at a MB dose of 25 g/m2 is required to meet certification standards. The Parties request exceeds MBTO

this rate is not currently registered. The Party is conducting field scale testing to confirm earlier small scale plot trials 

efficacy at a MB rate of 12.5 g/m2. If successful, adoption could occur in 2010. The Party states that the most promis

has been demonstrated in small scale trials to compare with the efficacy to MB/Pic. Commercial scale-up trials are in 

2009/2010. MBTOC encourages the Party to (1) expedite the registration and use of the MB/Pic 50:50 formulation wi

and (2) to expedite the registration of the iodomethane/Pic (MI/Pic), and (3) to continue the pilot testing of soilless prorunners with commercial adoption possible in 2011.

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic s

states that the Victoria Strawberry Industry Certification Authority is developing a two-year research program to invesproduction of foundation generation runners, but notes that, while this may be feasible for the tens of thousands of ru

not be feasible for the scaled up production of millions of certified runners required for the industry as a whole. Resea

continuing. No economic arguments or data are provided.

Canada Strawberry 

runners (PEI) 

6.840 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 None 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a CUE of 7.462 tonnes for 2010. The nomination states that MB/Pi

is required to meet the certification standards for strawberry runners, which exceeds MBTOC’s standard presumption 

lower rate is not currently registered. PMRA requires data that demonstrates that the reduced rate is efficacious with 

MBTOC notes that no progress has been made in more than three years on testing with LPBF and expects that futur

order to satisfy the criteria of Decision IX/6. The Party has attempted to replace MB with 1,3-D, but 1,3-D was banned 

contamination. The permit for Chloropicrin 100 is still pending approval at PEI, even though Canada registered Pic in 

alternative fumigants, such as Pic, DMDS, MI/Pic have taken place . MBTOC expects that future nominations will also 

key alternatives. MBTOC encourages the Party (1) to finalize the permits necessary for use of chloropicrin and dazom

are currently used worldwide and (3) in the absence of an effective alternative becoming available, conduct the neces

rate of MB to conform with MBTOC’s standard presumption, (4) provide assessment on the suitability of soilless cultu

cycle.

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: No economic arguments or data provided
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

Israel Broomrape None None 250.000 250.000 None 250.000 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends 125 tonnes for 2009, which represents 50% of the requested amou

the project for 2010 has been reduced by 50% (from 1000 ha to 500 ha). The Party reports that results of field trials w

sodium are promising and that registration is expected in 2009. If 1,3-D is registered, MBTOC anticipates that there w

appropriate reduction in the use of MB. The nomination is eradication of broomrape and land rehabilitation of 500 ha 

CUE is based on a dose of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of MB:Pic 98:2 using LPBF. MB will be used only once in this region 

weed population below the disease threshold allowing for adoption of other alternatives. The Party has identified som

infestations of Orobanche (e.g. solarization) but they are considered not adequate for controlling severe infestations o

were carried out with sulfosulfuron, imazapic, and imazomox. MBTOC acknowledges that a registration for chloropicr

this would possibly allow for lower dosages of MB to be used for Orobanche in the absence of other effective alternat

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic state

that broomrape infestation is being aggravated by the phase out of MB, as all crop-specific registered MB alternatives 

lower crop-specific efficacy than MB. This is also true for agrotechnical means and long-term fallow cropping which in cope with the long-term vitality of broomrape seeds and their gradual germination mechanism. CUN also states that b

the aid of a parasitic fly or with Fusaria do not provide economic answers for the problem. No economic data are prov

Israel Cut flowersbulbsprotected 303.000 240.000 220.185 114.450 None 113.821 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 85.431 tonnes for this use in 2009.The nomin

produced under cover, which are mainly affected by weeds (Cyperus in particular), nematodes (root-knot but also ect

MBTOC does not consider MB essential for the control of ectoparasitic nematodes. MBTOC does not recommend the 

used in rose production as alternatives such as steam are efficient for this use. Overall, there is very little change fro

years, particularly in 2007. Phase-out efforts are still based on transitional measures - LPBF barrier films with reduced 

certain alternatives, such as metham sodium and 1,3-D, has now expanded to include additional flower types. More e

year. Substrate production protocols are now available for many of the flowers presently treated with MB (Bar-Yosef e

and Passan, 2002; Urrestarazu, 2004; Urrestarazu, 2005). The recommended amount is based on a 25% transition r

alternatives in those species where the nomination states these are now registered. In keeping with the 2007 recomm

been applied to those flowers where substrate production is possible (lilium, calla lilies, gerberas and carnations outs

has adjusted MB dosages used for carnations grown in Ghaza (from the requested 50 g/m2 to the standard presumpt

carnation cultivars resistant to fusarium wilt are available, commercially used and accepted by international markets (

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: CUN argues that nutsedge causes heavy economic losses not only under 

well, despite the fact that shade reduces its activity. No economic data are provided.
30 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

Israel Cut flowersopen field 77.000 67.000 74.540 44.750 None 42.777 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 34.698 tonnes for this use in 2009. Overall, th

submitted in previous years, particularly in 2007. Phase-out efforts are still based on transitional measures - barrier fi

nomination is for open field production of cut flowers, which are mainly affected by weeds (Cyperus spp in particular) 

ectoparasites such as Longidorus) and fungi. MBTOC does not consider MB necessary for controlling ectoparasitic n

alternatives on flowers such as 1,3-D+Pic, dazomet and metham sodium, continue to be the major constraints affectin

formulations with higher chloropicrin content are also not registered. In spite of this, registration of metham sodium an

additional flower types. More expansion of registration is expected this year. In keeping with the 2007 recommendatio

to the nominated amount to allow for adoption of alternatives, including chemicals and solarization, which is being ad

been applied to the 10.462 t requested for nurseries of geophytes where high health plant material needs to be produ

involved.

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: CUN states that nutsedge is a major problem of the flower industry on out

It causes heavy economic losses under outdoor conditions. CUN also argues that MB substitution and phase out bro

minor pests e.g. the free-living nematode Longidorus spp. became a major economic problem of Aster, Solidago and 

Israel Melon - 

protected and field 

125.650 99.400 105.000 87.500 None 87.500 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends 87.5 tonnes for this use in 2009. Monosporascus cannonballus is th

requested amount at a rate of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of 98:2 MB under barrier films (LDPF) complies with MBTOC ́s sta

notes that 70:30 MB/PIC mixtures are registered for strawberry, potatoes, cucumber, eggplant, peppers, tomatoes, ge

not for melon. MBTOC understands that formulations with more chloropicrin (MB/Pic 67:33, 50:50) could be as effectParty to make the necessary efforts to assess this situation under the criteria of Dec.IX/6. 

MBTOC notes that alternatives are already used for 100% of the fall melons grown in the Arava valley including Telod

solarization, Formaldehyde+MS, Telopic (only in the southern Arava). The CUN is solely for the spring crop as the alt

plant back time is short (2-4 weeks). MBTOC visited the area and was shown experiments testing a strategy based o

summer before the fall crop, followed by sanitation with MS at the end of fall crop. The third component is repeated a

(still not registered) as a soil drench during the spring crop. Results are promising so far. Another material tested to pin soil is the application of the fungicide prochloras. The Party is requested to submit information regarding progress i

MBTOC notes that Pic and MB/Pic mixtures and the fungicide, fludioxonil, are effectively used for Monosporascus in (e.g. Stanghelini et al. 2003; Martyn 2002). 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: CUN concludes that presently Basamid is not feasible economically becau

and because of waiting period constraints. Economic data provided show that the price of Basamid is lower than that 

Basamid 300kg and Basamid 1200 kg is negative, while for Basamid 600 kg it is significantly lower. CUN also points out that a new approach for inoculum reduction of Monosporascus was developed in the area. It con

end to kill off the roots of the harvested fall melons and subsequently the resting structures of Monosporascus. This p

up to 20% and became a routine practice applied on the harvested fall crop prior to the spring crop. It is cost effective 

return high.

Israel Potato 239.000 165.000 137.500 93.750 None 75.000 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a CUE for 75 tonnes for this use in 2009. Potatoes are produced in 

in the Negev regions. The nomination is only in the Sharon (10% of total cultivated area) where tuber yield and quality 

Verticillium dahliae, Streptomyces scabies (common scab), Spongospora subterranea (powdery scab), Orobanche sp

(purple nutsedge), and volunteer plants that carry viral diseases (PVY). The Party has made a 20% reduction with res

for 2008. The dosage rate of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of MB 98:2 is in accordance with the standard presumptions for hot 

Party identified that 300 of 15,000 ha are located in highly populated areas where winter production occurs and patho

are in place for feasible alternatives such as 1,3-D + Pic (61:35) which as a result of buffer zones prohibit their use. T

alternatives are in development for the pest complexes and that they are transitioning to these. The CUN indicates th

is underway in the Sharon. MBTOC notes that there are effective alternatives but that their use is affected by buffer z

countries. MBTOC urges that Party to consider review of these buffers in the light of use with barrier films. 

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: CUN argues that, because the registered alternatives do not cover the bro

the high pathogen populations of the area, their application would require the addition of complementary compounds, 

economic implications. No economic data are provided
32 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

Israel Seed 

Production 

56.000 28.000 None None None 22.400 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC does not recommend any MB for this use in 2009. The application is similar to the 

2005 for 2005 and 2006 use: same area, same constraints and almost the same requested quantity in 2009 (22.4t) a

progress has been made during these last 4 years. The same experiments and results are presented. In the 2004 no

a task force to draw up a new strategy for the industry. No results have been obtained by this task force. The Party s

standards but many specified pathogens which are the targets of MB fumigation are not carried on seeds (e.g. Vertic

Due to lack of a research program, the Party has not provided an explanation for the lack of control with chemical alte

formalin or MITC generating compounds or non chemical alternatives e.g. grafting (which is considered by the Party 

other countries for other vegetables particularly tomato), resistant varieties and steam. In addition, soil less culture is 

alternative and is in use for 20% of the crop. The Party considers soilless culture economically feasible only for solan

given as to why. No information is given on the acreages covered by the solanaceous crops and also on the areas fu

reports that the quantitative crop losses caused by soil-borne pests are not the main problem, but the seed quality is results on the seed health have been reported. The Party identifies economic constraints as the barrier to adoption o

economic analysis is provided. In all other Mediterranean countries with similar climate, vegetable seeds are producee.g. Holland, some seed companies are producing vegetable seeds without MB by the adoption of alternatives. 

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: CUN argues that growing vegetable seeds requires that the seeds be com

in the case of strawberry runners. CUN argues that this is a declining industry in Israel because of lower costs of labo

but does not state whether MB is used in those countries for this purpose. CUN argues that moving to soilless culture 

economic data are provided
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

Israel Strawberry 

fruit - protected (Sharon and Ghaza) 

196.000 196.000 93.000 105.960 None 52.250 

(Sharon 

only) 

(Sh

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 42.75 tonnes for Sharon and a reduced amount tonnes for these uses in 2009. MBTOC has adjusted the nomination for Sharon based on information from the Party t

ha) is grown on new land (not requiring MB) and an additional 30% (i.e. 114 ha) of the cultivated area is expected to a

for MB use totalling 42.75 t. MBTOC has adjusted the nomination to the Ghaza strip to conform with its standard pre

with barrier films. The key pests affecting strawberry fruit in Israel are fungi (Rhizoctonia solani, Colletotrichum acuta

Verticillium dahliae, Fusarium spp.), nematodes (Meloidogyne hapla), and weeds (Cyperus rotundus, purple nutsedg

(250 m) restrict the use of key alternatives 1,3-D/Pic and MB/PIC 70:30. The Party confirmed that the existing buffers 

100 m for metam sodium. MBTOC urges the Party to consider whether the widespread use of LPBF might reduce the 

would also like to see data on the technical feasibility of MI/Pic and DMDS on strawberries. MBTOC also urges the P

alternatives to MB (metham sodium 1,3-D) as well as other formulations of MB/Pic (e.g. 50:50) to assist further reduc

that metham sodium showed promising results in the control of Macrophomina phaseolina, but these trials did not lea

strawberries. Substrates have been used on a small area in this CUN, but the Party states that further uptake is limitare expected in 2010. Detailed economic information on the suitability of such systems is necessary. MBTOC enco

evaluation and adoption of low-cost substrate systems which are used in similar circumstances in other regions, inclu

Vos and Bridge, 2006; MBTOC, 2007; Sonneveld, 2004; Lieten, 2004). 

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: CUN states that Dazomet is not registered, and that Telone is not availabl

the market. CUN provides a Table that shows that these alternatives deliver a higher net farm income than MB.
34 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

Israel Strawberry 

runners (Sharon and Ghaza) 

None None 0.000 31.900 None 15.800 

(Sharon 

only) 

(Sh

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 28.075 tonnes for this use in 2009 (12.25 t for G

Israel). The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi (Rhizotonia solani, Verticillium dahliae, Fusariu

sclerotiorum, Macrophomina phasoeolina), root knot nematodes and purple nutsedge. The Party stated that MB 98:2 

standard polyethylene films and 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) with barrier films are necessary to meet certification standards. T

region has been adjusted to MBTOC’s standard presumption of 35 g/m2 for 98:2 MB. The Party stated that 1,3-D + P

alternative; however, adoption of this alternative is limited by the required 250 m buffer which significantly limits its us

growing area, which is heavily populated. Hot gas application method is used in the Ghaza Strip growing area becaus

and there are no injection tools or qualified applicators in the area. 10% of the treated area in the Ghaza strip will be t

application rate. MBTOC encourages faster adoption of LPBF in the Ghaza Strip. 100% of the treated area in Sharon 

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: No economic data provided

Israel Strawberry 

runners and Fruit (Ghaza only) 

 67.500 

(Ghaza only) 

ref

MBTOC comments 2008: Comments included in text boxes above as the Party consolidated the Israel and Gaza noMBTOC comments on economics 2008: CUN argues that the availability of MB for strawberry industry of the Ghaz

be able to grow the crop and might lose their main source of income, which, it is argued, constitutes ‘a genuine case 

data are provided, as there are insufficient data on the use of MB alternatives in Ghaza.
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

Israel Sweet 

Potatoes 

None none None 111.500 None 95.000 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends 95 tonnes for this use in 2009. Sweet potato is a new crop in Israe

area. The pest complexes are just being identified and studies to identify alternatives have just commenced. The apponly registered chemical for sweet potato production in Israel. The Party however, also states that the expected prima

and that adoption of these alternatives by 2009 was the basis for the reduced quantity applied for in 2009. Although n

1,3-D/Pic and 1,3-D + metham sodium were effective control alternatives, but registration of 1,3-D has been discontin

alternatives are not likely to materialize. Formalin, which is registered for control of common scab on potatoes, is bein

other chemicals for scab on sweet potatoes. Once efficacy trials are completed registration for formalin will be pursue

of nurseries and on not more than 25% of the production area, viz. 300 ha. The MB rates stated in the CUN are cons

presumptions and barrier film use. MBTOC recommends that the Party explore the use of nematode resistant varieti

and widely used in countries where nematodes are the primary pest problem.

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: Semi-commercial application of 1,3-D on a total area of 100 ha in the Cen

unsatisfactory results and economic losses. Party suggests that Cadusafos is not a front-line nematicide in Israel and 

inflicted by root-knot nematodes in the Sharon region. CUN argues that the use of 1,3-D 200+MS 400 l/ha will increase the farmers’ net margin by 53%, but 1,3-D is not yet 
36 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 51.450 34.300 None 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 30.69 tonnes for this use in 2010. For 2010, th

similar to the amount approved by the Parties at the 19th MOP.The recommended quantity represents a 10% reductiuptake of available alternatives, e.g. steam, soil less culture, grafting, pathogen free seeds , 1,3 D+Pic and cultural pr

and sanitation. MBTOC's interim recommendation was 23.00 t, however at the 28th OEWG, Japan requested a reviereduction by MBTOC for adoption of alternatives could not be achieved by 2010. In response, Japan provided a com

step wise phase out by 2013 using a range of alternatives. They also provided details of an additional strategy which strains, which the Party believes will be widely accepted in the future. MBTOC acknowledges the excellent national a

beginning with a reduction of 10 % in 2011. MBTOC, however, considers that the 10 % reduction is feasible for 2010 recommendation from a 33 % reduction to a 10% reduction for 2010. The nomination is based on the need to control particular viruses of cucumber, since 2005. Globally, such viruses are 

but can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrat

e.g. sanitation, rotation with a non-host, removal and destruction of crop debris, cleaning and sanitation of the greenh

pathogen free seeds has proven very effective in similar situations around the world. The Party has indicated that rota

tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). As a transition stra

adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system u

been in place for many years. However, in many countries cucumber production has already shifted to substrates in gthe most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soil borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple sy

for this kind of production and are widely used in around the world. (Leoni & Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and P

Engindeniz, 2004). The Party is encouraged to consider substrate production, which implemented correctly can produ

2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soilless culture as a fea

Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in substrates there is a critical need for a 

of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems in a short period of 

projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004). The CUN states that the Aichi Agricultural Research Centre (2005) identified the effect

iodide in pot tests. MBTOC encourages the Party to continue to pursue the registration of methyl iodide for soil uses (

timber in Japan in 2004, under JMAFF registration No. 21407).

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The Party states that the nominated amount is nearly half the nominated a

below the amount recommended by MBTOC and approved by MOP 19. Further key information provided by the Part

feasible alternative technology has not been developed yet.” “For economic feasibility evaluation, it is prerequisite tha

existed. In fact there is no technically feasible alternative, and accordingly economic evaluation has not been carried 

information as CUN for peppers and watermelon. A reference (45) compares costs of soilless systems to MB treatme
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

Japan Ginger 

(Field) 

119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075 63.056 None - 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends 53.4 tonnes for this use in 2010. The nomination is for control of PyPythium zingiberium) in open field cultivated ginger fields using MB (98:2) applied from small cans. MBTOC recogniz

adopting some alternatives and the time required to introduce alternatives and new disease management strategies. 

cyazofamid, controls Pythium efficiently but application rates and methods need to be investigated in more detail. The 

such as phosphonates, has been tested but data as to efficacy is not provided. Reduced emission technologies such 

should allow for much reduced dosage rates (e.g. 250 kg/ha (25g/m2) for 98:2 with LPBF). This current nomination pr

MB are now applicable to Japanese production systems for ginger.

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: Iodomethane is not registered and there are concerns about phytotoxicity. 

economically feasible alternative technology to methyl bromide at present, but reduction and phase-out shall be targe

techniques and developing a reduction program for each region.” Economic section compared MB system with untreated, Dazomet, and Metalaxyl. Negative revenues result in the cas

Japan Ginger 

(protected) 

22.900 22.900 14.471 11.100 8.325 None 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends 8.3 tonnes for this use in 2010. The nomination is for control of Pyt

Pythium zingiberium) in protected ginger fields using MB (98:2) applied from small cans. MBTOC recognized the diffic

some alternatives and the time required to introduce alternatives and new disease management strategies. The CUN 

efficiently but application rates and methods need to be investigated in more detail. The use of fungicides specific to O

been tested but data as to efficacy is not provided. Reduced emission technologies such as LPBF films are now bein

reduced dosage rates (e.g. 25g/m2 for 98:2 with LPBF). This current nomination provides hope that alternative treatm

Japanese production systems for ginger. 

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: Iodomethane is not registered and there are concerns about phytotoxicity. 

with untreated, 1,3-D-Pic, and hot water treatment. Negative revenues result from untreated and 1,3-D-Pic. Hot water 

revenue is 25% of that for MB. This is the same finding as last year. This net revenue decrease demonstrates hot wa
38 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 136.650 91.100 None - 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 81.72 tonnes for thi

requested 90.80 t, which was similar to the amount approved by the Parties at the 19th MOP. The recommended qua

CUN amount based on uptake of available alternatives, e.g. steam, soil less culture, grafting, pathogen free seeds, 1

rotation, root isolation and sanitation. MBTOC's interim recommendation was 61.00 t, however at the 28th OEWG, Ja

because the substantial reduction by MBTOC for adoption of alternatives could not be achieved by 2010. In responsNational Action Plan detailing step wise phase out by 2013 using a range of alternatives. They also provided details oimmunisation with avirulent virus strains, which the Party believes will be widely accepted in the future. MBTOC acknPlan to phase out MB by 2013, beginning with a reduction of 10 % in 2011. MBTOC, however, considers that the 10 % 

revised its interim recommendation from a 33 % reduction to a 10% reduction for 2010. The nomination is based on t

melons. Globally, this virus is not considered as a soil-borne pathogen but can survive in crop debris for several years

continuous monoculture. An integrated program including cultural practices has been proven to be effective in many o

that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incidence 

urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. MBTOC recognises t

melons in Japan which has been in place for many years. However, in many countries some melon production has al

conditions and has become the most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soil-borne plant pathogens

(buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production and are widely used in around the world (Leoni and Ledd

Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, when implemented correctly can pro

2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soil less culture a2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in substrates there is a critical nee

the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems in a short p

MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004). Resistant root stocks are now available in Japan. However, according to the party

the pathogen races. High yielding varieties resistant to the virus are Cavailable. Steam has also been found to contro

layer.

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: Iodomethane is not registered and there are concerns about phytotoxicity 

Some success has been achieved with resistant varieties. Economic information is brief. Shows significantly lower gr

than with MB. “According to the data of Chiba Chosei district, melon resistant variety to MNSV shows only 73.8% for 

compared with those treated with MB. As mentioned above, fruits of resistant melon to MNSV are not in favor of mark

shape. Furthermore, its yield is not necessarily competitive to the yield of product treated with methyl bromide. So me

feasible to replace methyl bromide treatment.” Furthermore the CUN shows that the market price of the resistant varie

than the conventional variety.
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

Japan Pepper 

(green & hot) 

187.200 200.700 156.700 121.725 81.149 None - 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 72.99 tonnes for this use in 2010. For 2010, the 

similar to the amount approved by the Parties at the 19th MOP. The recommended quantity represents a 10% reduct

uptake of available alternatives, e.g. steam, soil less culture, grafting, pathogen free seeds, 1,3 D+Pic and cultural pra

sanitation. MBTOC's interim recommendation was 54.37 t, however at the 28th OEWG, Japan requested a review of 

reduction by MBTOC for adoption of alternatives could not be achieved by 2010. In response, Japan provided a com

step wise phase out by 2013 using a range of alternatives. They also provided details of an additional strategy which 

strains, which the Party believes will be widely accepted in the future. MBTOC acknowledges the excellent National A

beginning with a reduction of 10 % in 2011. MBTOC, however, considers that the 10 % reduction is feasible for 2010 

recommendation from a 33 % reduction to a 10% reduction for 2010. The nomination is based on the need to control a particular virus of peppers (PMMoV). Globally, this virus is not cons

survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. Avoidance is the be

been tested and determined to be free of the virus should be planted. Infected seed can be treated with heat, acid, or certified or treated seeds, follow rigid sanitation procedures. All workers that handle the plants, especially smokers, s

forearms thoroughly with 70% alcohol or strong soap before handling plants.(Demski 1981, Watter 1984). Some cultiv

does not affect tomato, eggplant or tobacco, which are in the same family (Solanaceae). Therefore these plants can b

practices, resistant varieties, biological control with attenuated virus, soil less culture, soil disinfection by hot water or 

material (Tsuda 2006) should be included in an IPM program. This integrated program has been proven to be effectiv

Watter 1984, Tsuda 2006). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses pepper production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the most widely used 

soil-borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of produc

world (Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). S

correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002)

less culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). Resistant root stocks are now 

the party, the root stocks are not resistant to all the pathogen races. 
40 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The CUN states that there are no technically feasible alternatives and thus See page 9: “For economic feasibility evaluation, it is a prerequisite that technically feasible alternatives exist. In fact and accordingly economic evaluation has not been carried out at all.” The CUN notes (page 4 under iii): “Technically technology has not been developed yet. However, farmers might take into consideration the change to another crop. 

volume of methyl bromide critical use nomination for 2010 is shown less than for 2009.” CUN notes on page 5 that su

construction and difficulty mastering cultivation skill. Economic and technical potential for hydroponic cultivation of se

CUN refers to Reference 45, a MAFF document on economics of soilless culture. Reference 45 compares the annua

system) to a threshold limit based on the Agricultural Economics Task Force calculation of $14.4/kg of MB. Assuming 

converting to yen, results in a limit of 68,008 yen for any alternative to compete with MB. The annual cost for a soilles

AETF value placed on the MB to be replaced (68,008 yen) is far lower than the cost of the alternative soilless facility. 

value that A5 governments were willing to accept to phase out MB use in MLF projects. The 550,000 yen for soilless 

growers in non-A5 countries to remain in production without MB. Reference 45 goes on to present a budget table co

production. The conclusion is that net revenue with soilless production is about 80% less than MB net revenue. If the 

anywhere near the assumed 5,500,000 yen, the impact on grower net revenue will be so large that the soilless altern

feasible. Note—Reference 45 conducts similar analyses for soilless production of cucumber and watermelon.

Japan Watermelon 129.000 98.900 94.200 32.475 21.650 None 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 14.50 tonnes for thirecommendation was 14.50 t, however at the 28th OEWG, Japan requested a review of this decision because the suadoption of alternatives could not be achieved by 2010 for most sectors. In response, Japan provided a comprehenswise phase out by 2013 using a range of alternatives. They also provided details of an additional strategy which involstrains, which the Party believes will be widely accepted in the future. MBTOC acknowledges the excellent National Athat the Party made a substantial reduction to the nomination in 2010 (29%), however MBTOC maintains that a furthealternatives (6%) is still possible by 2010. The nomination is based on the need to control a particular virus of watermconsidered as a soil-borne pathogen but can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from program including cultural practices has been proven to be effective in many other countries. The Party has indicated such as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC uLPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for wateplace for many years. However, in many countries some watermelon production has already shifted to substrates in gthe most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soil-borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple syfor this kind of production and are widely used in around the world (Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, when implemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soil less culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 200notes however that even when growing in substrates there is a critical need for a high degree of sanitation and for the numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems in a short period of time as experienced in many MLF proot stocks are now available in Japan. However, according to the Party, the root stocks are not resistant to all the paresistant to CGMMV are also available. Steam has also been found to control the virus, particularly in the upper soil la
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: Key information Page 3: “Technically and economically feasible alternative 

Page 8: “For economic feasibility evaluation, it is a prerequisite that technically feasible alternatives exist. In fact there 

accordingly economic evaluation has not been carried out at all.” This CUN shares the same information as CUN for to Reference 45 where costs of soilless systems are compared to MB system.

United States 

Curcurbits 1,187.800 747.839 592.891 486.757 407.091 None MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 302.974 tonnes for this use in 2010. After consid

since bilateral discussions at the 28th OEWG, MBTOC accepted rates nominated by the Party for use with barrier film

nutsedge) based on the circumstances of this nomination, pending further review. From this amount,104.771 t are fo

Southeast region, 6.862 t for Maryland and Delaware, and 16.650 t for Michigan. MBTOC acknowledged the reductio

alternatives, however further reductions made in MBTOC's interim recommedation for adoption of alternatives of 25% 

Southeast region, 2.44% for Georgia squash and 4.92% for Georgia melons have been maintained. No reductions weCucumber. MBTOC notes that iodomethane is not yet registered for use in these crops. The Party is urged to conside

commercial use in melon and watermelon. MBTOC urges the Party to disaggregate this nomination by major types of watermelons, cucumbers and squash) specifying the key pests in each case; submitting specific updated technical re

stating the limitations to the adoption of MB alternatives in each case; and indicating specific R&D efforts, in a similar 

example, the economic information in the CUN. In future nominations, MBTOC may be unable to assess the specific 

alternatives in each of the crops, when separate data for each different sector is not provided. Since the key pest in th

future nominations the Party is requested to provide up to date information on recent trials of fumigants and herbicide

crop included in the nomination in order to satify the requirements of Decision IX/6. MBTOC considers that trial data f

be considered as showing suitability of alternatives for cucurbits, and thus feasible alternatives appear to be available Georgia (Noling et al 2006; Rosskopf et al, 2005; Gilreath and Santos 2004a; Gilreath et al 2003a, 2005a; Gilreath 19

2004; Chellemi 2006) and can be adopted at least on areas of moderate pest pressure. The Party showed references 

combination with LDPF (Culpepper, 2006). Other studies on possible effective alternatives are available (Ristaino and 

2002, Johnston et al 2002, Driver and Lows 2003). A combination of 1,3-D or metham sodium with chloropicrin + herb

halosulfuron, s-metalochlor) is considered as the best alternative strategy in Florida for nutsedge control in several cr

conducted at the University of Georgia examined the use of a 3 way combination of alternative fumigants, 1,3-D follow

sodium and this combination was effective. Hausbeck, Lamour and others (2004) have reported many efficient mana

on pepper, including crop rotation with non susceptible hosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa), c

density, soil amendments, protective mulch, raised beds etc.) and the use of registered fungicides (Mefonoxan, DimeCopper hydroxide+dimethomorph). MBTOC notes the use of grafting and resistant varieties are considered as altern

Mediterranean countries (Bello, et al., 2001).
42 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The nomination is based on economic arguments. Economic statement

next best alternative in all regions is 1,3-D with chloropicrin with expected yield losses of 6% in Michigan, Maryland a

States and Georgia. CUN states 1,3-D with chloropicrin is considered technically feasible in Michigan. However, CUN 

yield loss, delayed planting and harvest with the alternatives results in lower average price received from missed marremaining regions yield losses significantly reduce net revenues. CUN notes other regions may also experience lowe

windows. The 3 way research conducted at the University of Georgia is feasible and the CUN was adjusted to reflect that do not face Karst geology issues as a replacement of a MB+ Pic spring time application.

United States 

Eggplant (field) 

76.721 82.167 85.363 66.018 48.691 None 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends 32.820 tonnes for this use in 2010. From this amount 11.235 t is for 

for Michigan. After consideration of the Party’s responses received since bilateral discussions at the 28th OEWG, MB

Party for use with barrier films (150 kg/ha for pathogens 175 kg/ha for nutsedge) based on the circumstances of this n

Overall the Party’s request of 34.732 t represents a reduction of 29% from the amount approved by the Parties in 200

alternatives in Florida which is acknowledged by MBTOC. MBTOC considers alternatives are still available for 14.89

MBTOC notes that iodomethane is not yet registered for use in these crops. In Michigan, the key pests are Phytophth

Parties statement that 1,3-D/Pic may be an effective alternative, but growers will miss the optimal market window due 

alternative. According to the Party, this treatment cannot be applied in autumn because of climatic conditions. In addibecause over the fall and winter months deer and other animals damage the plastic and irrigation tape. In Florida, the 

nutsedge, Phytophthora, nematodes, Pythium and Sclerotinia. In Georgia the key pests are yellow and purple nutsed

blight, Pythium and Sclerotinia. Karst topography limits the use of alternatives which include 1,3- D that are the best a

growing acreage in Florida and 8% of the acreage in Georgia. A soil treatment recently developed by the University o

alternative to methyl bromide for Georgia’s solanaceous spring crops, although not for the summer or fall crops. This 

consists of three successive soil fumigations, beginning with a 1,3-D (Telone II) application, followed by a chloropicrin 

application. Hausbeck and Lamour (2004) and others have reported many other efficient management strategies to c

Michigan including 3-4 years crop rotation with non susceptible hosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, 

management, plant density, soil amendments, protective mulch and raised beds) and use of registered fungicides in 

Zoxamide + Mancozeb). The use of grafting is considered an alternative in many Mediterranean countries (Bello et a

not used in other country on eggplant.
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The nomination is based on economic arguments. Economic statementas UGA-3-WAY, consists of three successive soil fumigations, beginning with a1,3-D (Telone II) application, followed a metham application. Further small plot and large-scale, on-farm research on various aspects is underway. In additioalternative, including the cost and durability of films and the modification of fumigation equipment, still needs to be woalternative in all regions is 1,3-D with chloropicrin with expected yield losses of 6% in Michigan and 29% in Georgia achloropicrin is considered technically feasible in Michigan. In Michigan, since the fall crop is dependent upon timely pcost growers half the harvest season, thereby missing the higher market windows.

United States 

Forestry nursery 

192.515 157.694 122.032 131.208 122.060 None 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 117.826 tonnes for this use in 2010, which inc

4.94 t for International Paper, 13.78 t for Weyerhauser (SE), 15.19 t for Weyerhauser (NW), 12.096 t for NE Forest & 

Michigan Seedling Assoc. The nominated amount has been adjusted to 260 kg/ha (26 g/m2) for nutsedge control and conform to the standard presumption for dosage rate of MB/Pic formulation under HDPE. The key pests are nutsedge

that propagative material requires a very high level of pathogen control in order to avoid their widespread distribution The CUN is for nurseries with moderate or high pest pressure where alternatives are not effective. Nutsedge has no e

that it does affect yield by 3-5%. MBTOC requests that further nominations clearly show the trend in yield loss caused 

pathogens over the number of seasons following fumigation with MB and alternatives, and a breakdown of the econo

Northeast Forest and Conservation Nursery, 40% is for nutsedge control and 60% of the nomination for pathogens. F

nutsedge control and 50% for pathogens. The nomination is for certified forest seedlings produced in 6 forest nursery 

infeasibility of use of substrates and the lack of effective alternatives for control of nutsedge and a range of fungal pat

alternatives are 1,3-D/Pic, 1,3-D /Pic/metham sodium and metham sodium +Pic. The Party acknowledged that Pic an

LPBF, may provide an effective technical alternative and avoid crop injury. Enebak et al. (2006) found that with LPBF

reduced. The Party claims that gluing of LPBF for broadacre fumigation is not commercially available in the region, bu

other countries (eg. Israel). MBTOC observed a demonstration of an effective heat welding technique used with LPB

HDPE for solarization trials in Israel (Grinstein and Hetzroni, 1991; Grinstein, 1992). MBTOC urges the Party to eval

update in future nominations. MBTOC considers that glyphosate can be used as a pre-treatment to reduce pressure 

may cause phytotoxicity under nursery conditions. MBTOC acknowledges the initiation of large scale demonstration t

from this trial on the first year of the 5 year trial, indicates that seedling counts similar to MB were achieved by severa

pathogen or weed pressure was given (Quicke et al., 2007). MBTOC is aware that iodomethane is now registered at 

however its status as an acceptable treatment for certified forest nurseries is not yet known and an update ius require

requests that in future nominations, information the status of iodomethane for certified nursery use and the number of 

each state where iodomethane/pic is registered and accepted for certification be included. MBTOC encourages grow

for their crops under their conditions. MBTOC further recommends that growers use appropriate caution until they be

due to some isolated reports of phytotoxicity in other perennial crops (Schneider et al, 2006). Limited substrate produsmall niche markets. Frequency of fumigation is once in two to four years, depending on the crop. Rotation and cover 

going to reduce rates from 98:2 MB/Pic commonly used where nutsedge populations are severe to using reduced rat

already been made in 70 % of the forest nurseries in the South where nutsedge populations are not severe.
44 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The nomination is based on economic arguments. Economic statement

5% decrease in yield and higher costs resulting in estimated decreases in net revenue that varied from 11 percent to 

CUN states numerical analysis does not include additional impact of quality losses and indirect yield losses resulting 

While direct yield losses, in terms of seedlings/hectare, may not be large on average, intensive seedling production re

meet quality, as well as yield, goals. Converting the large volume of seedlings to containerized production would require significant investment and much 

and for end users planting the seedlings. Economic issues such as increased application costs (e.g., costs associated with application of metam-sodium and a have an impact on overall feasibility of these alternatives for the forest seedlings sector.

United States 

Nurseries stock (fruit, nut, flower) 

45.800 64.528 28.275 51.102 25.326 None 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a total of 17.363 tonnes for this use in 2010. This comprises 9.408 

t for fruit and nut trees. This nomination is for propagation materials that need to be certified as free of pests and dise

this state. MBTOC accepted the rates of 191 kg/ha (19.1 g/m2) for rose nursery and 196 kg/ha (19.6 g/m2) for raspbe

kg/ha (20.0 g/m2) for fruit and nut tree nursery to conform to MBTOC’s standard presumptions. MBTOC recognises t

high level of soilborne pest and pathogen control in order to avoid their wide spread distribution and notes the difficult

depth. MBTOC acknowledges the Party’s adoption of MB/Pic formulations of 67:33 and 50:50 as is used in other couregistration of iodomethane for use in nurseries, but also recognizes that it is not yet registered in California and Was

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: No economic data or alternatives given
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

United States 

Orchard replant 

706.176 527.600 405.400 393.720 292.756 None 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 215.800 tonnes for this use in 2010. This incl

stone fruit, 7.400 t for raisins, 21.800 t for walnuts, 18.600 t for almond and 17.600 t for wine grapes. The CUN is for ounknown etiology; heavy soils or soils which cannot be treated to a sufficient depth to effectively use the reduced rate

Regulatory constraints (maximum labeled rate) prevent the use of 1,3-D at the rates needed for effective kill of old roo

deeper soil layers for heavier (fine-textured) soils. Three alternatives, 1,3-D alone and 1,3-D combined with chloropic

technical alternatives according to the CUN for treatment in light soils. Although a two year fallow was found to be ef

Bello, et al, 2004, Schneider, et al. 2004 found that a four year fallow did not sufficiently eliminate the causative nemaone year fallow combined with non-Nemaguard rootstock have been reported by McKenry (2006). The Party confirms 

California Stone fruit, Raisin grapes and Wine grapes and now as well for Almond and Walnut. Commercial adoption 

containing lower amounts of MB (eg 50:50) were used predominantly for orchard replant treatment in other countries 

recommended reduced amount is based on application of MBTOC’s standard presumption of 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2) for 

the use of LPBF. This represents a reduction of 10.221 tonnes or 4.5% of the nominated amount. MBTOC recogniz

use of LPBF barrier films with methyl bromide in California but urges the Party to consider continued evaluation of thealternatives. MBTOC acknowledges the federal registration of iodomethane for use in orchard replant, but also recoCalifornia. 

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic state

experimental plots, spot treatments (individual holes) rates of 0.2 to 0.5 kg chloropicrin per hole were at least as effec

remain with individual treatments including high labor costs. An economic analysis was not done for this sector becauquantified. Factors that contribute to losses include delayed planting, fallow, additional use of herbicides, tree loss, re

trees replanted, yield loss of fruit or nuts, delayed achievement of full yield potential, earlier loss of productivity of who

in some cases tree losses are likely to be greater than 20 %. An economic assessment for 1,3-dichloropropene, 1,3-d

dichloropropene + metam-sodium, which were alternatives that were assessed as conditionally technically feasible, w

feasibility for pre-plant uses of methyl bromide, such as for orchard replant, included an evaluation of economic losse

losses, referring to reductions in the quantity produced, (2) quality losses, which generally affect the price received focosts, which may be due to the higher-cost of using an alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/or result

practices. In response to further MBTOC questions, the Party responded: “The lowest cost alternative to methyl brom

from a savings of US$8 to US$1,700/ha, including the cost of application. We assumed that this alternative is associa

replacement rate since it provides narrower control than when it is used in conjunction with chloropicrin or metam-sod

arise primarily from higher establishment costs caused by the necessity of replacing trees that succumb to the replan

the delay in establishing the orchard and in yield losses suffered by trees that are weakened, but not killed, by the pe

problem. Despite reductions in fumigation costs, economic losses over the life span of the orchards could range from 

US$7,000/ha in stone fruit and represent between 15 and 93 percent of value of the orchard.”
46 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

United States 

Ornamentals 154.000 148.483 137.835 138.538 107.136 None MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 84.617 tonnes for this use in 2010. This includ

Michigan, 0.074 t for New York and 24.281 t for Florida. The nomination is for a large number of species, mostly grow

species using MB are gladioli, lilies and snapdragon. Additional species using MB in California include calla lily, delphhelianthus, hypericum, iris, larkspur, liatris, matthiola, and ranunculus. In Michigan, flower crops needing methyl brom

from seed or root divisions. A new application was submitted for production of Anemone coronaria cut flowers in New 

(e.g., Fusarium spp., Pythium spp., Phytophthora spp., and Rhizoctonia spp.), plant parasitic nematodes (e.g., root kn

(e.g. Cyperus spp. Portulacca, Ambrosia and others), and previous crop propagules. MBTOC adjusted the California 

(21.1 g/m2) to standard dosage rates of 200kg/ha (20 g/m2) with standard polyethylene films. Similarly, the Florida anhave been adjusted from 224 kg/ha (22.4 g/m2) and 734 kg/ha (73.4 g/m2) respectively to the standard dosage rate o

alternatives available for some flower types in California, for example 1,3-D/Pic, metahm sodium and combinations (K

reduced the nomination by 10% for phase in of these alternatives. In Florida, iodomethane is now registered and othe

1,3-D/Pic and solarisation sometimes combined with chemicals (McSorley et al, 2006 ab). The Party has submitted a 

of a 40% adoption rate for iodomethane in this state. In Michigan, the recommended amount includes a 15% reductio

which has been shown to be effective (i.e. Uhlig et al., 2007). Other registered and validated options include 1,3-D, P

(Uhlig et al, 2007; Little et al, 2006). MBTOC considers alternatives are available and are in use for anemone cut flow

et al, 2008). In future nominations MBTOC requires specific information as to areas that cannot be treated with MB us

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic argum

economic analysis shows decreases in yield in California of 20% to 25% result in negative net revenues. In Florida nebecause of yield losses with alternatives. In Michigan herbaceous perennials, yield losses of 25% lead to net revenue 

production may be possible in higher value cut flower crops, it is not generally feasible, especially for deeper rooted c

systems are not a feasible alternative for the crops in the nomination due to high costs and the risks involved. High fu

feasibility of steam sterilization. In New York, there are additional costs due to a state requirement for an on-site oper

Generally, for most crops, there isn't an offsetting yield or quality increase to defer the costs associated with substrate 

increase in inputs, capital expenditures for the systems coupled with high costs of potting mix or substrates, plus the 

Alternatives generally require more labor, which is often unavailable.
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

United States 

Peppers (field) 

1,094.782 1,243.542 1,106.753 756.339 548.984 None 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends 463.282 tonnes for the revised nomination submitted by the Party. A

responses received since bilateral discussions at the 28th OEWG, MBTOC accepted rates nominated by the Party fo

g/m2) for pathogens 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2) for nutsedge) based on the circumstances of this nomination, pending fur

Party's reductions for uptake of iodomethane. This represents 21.579 t for the SE, 75.510 t for Georgia, 359.995 t for 

acknowledged the substantial reductions made by the Party in the resubmission. The revised nominated amounts refthe amount approved by the Parties in 2007. The key pests of peppers in Michigan are Phytophthora capsici and in th

Florida and Georgia, nutsedge and P. capsici. 1,3-D/ Pic may be an effective alternative but the Party states growers 

According to the Party, this treatment cannot be applied in autumn because of climatic conditions. In Florida and Geo

exist for karst (iodomethane) and non-karst topography (in addition to iodomethane, alternatives include 1,3-D) .The P

metham potassium are promising alternatives. MBTOC also considers that alternatives are available for both karst an

(Noling et al 2006; Rosskopf et al, 2005; Gilreath and Santos 2004a; Gilreath et al 2003a, 2005a; Gilreath 1999, Sant

Chellemi 2006) and can be adopted at least on areas of moderate pest pressure. The Party showed references which 

combination with LDPF (Culpepper, 2006). Other studies on possible effective alternatives are available (Ristaino and 

2002, Johnston et al 2002, Driver and Lows 2003). A combination of 1,3-D or metham sodium with chloropicrin + herb

halosulfuron, s-metalochlor) and a 3 way combination of alternative fumigants, 1,3-D followed by chloropicrin followed 

alternative strategies in Florida for the nutsedge control. The Party reported that research conducted at the University 

Hausbeck and Lamour (2004) and others have reported many efficient management strategies to control Phytophtho

non susceptible hosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa), cultural control (water management, pla

mulch, raised beds etc.) and use of registered fungicides (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph, Zoxamide + Mancozeb, Coppe

treatment with Mephenoxan or metalaxyl control Phytophthora during seed germination. MBTOC notes that uptake of 

similar pests has occurred within 4 years or less in many countries e.g. Spain, Italy, Australia (Leoni and Leda, 2004; Minuto et al, 2003). The use of grafting and resistant varieties are considered as alternatives for long lasting crops (at countries (Bello et al, 2001).

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The nomination was based on economic arguments. Economic argumen

best alternative in all regions is 1,3-D with chloropicrin with expected yield losses of 6 percent in Michigan and Califor

states 1,3-D with chloropicrin is considered technically feasible in Michigan. In Michigan, delayed planting and harves

average price (7.5%) received from missed market windows, and negative net revenue. In remaining regions yield los

southern states USG has reduced the request for MB to reflect the apparent feasibility of a 3 way combination (1,3 D 

metam-sodium) as a replacement for spring time application of MB and pic in the non-karst geographical areas. A tra

estimate of yield losses and feasibility associated with likely methyl bromide alternatives and use of high barrier films 

and economists.
48 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

United States 

Strawberry (field) 

2,052.846 1,730.828 1,476.019 1,349.575 1,269.321 None 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 1007.477 tonnes for this use in 2010. The reco

from the Party since the interim recommendation. This comprises 856.598 t for California, 47.862 t for Eastern USA a

acknowledges the substantial transition of 44.01% and 36.11% for Eastern and Florida, but maintains that further ado

California. The Party revised its nomination for 2010 from 1,191.815 to 1,103.422 t after bilateral discussions at the 2

Party’s responses received since bilateral discussions at the 28th OEWG, MBTOC accepted rates nominated by the 

15 g/m2) for pathogens 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2) for nutsedge, based on the circumstances of this nomination, pending 

the Party's reductions for uptake of iodomethane. The nomination for California of 952.543 t did not change and was 

limit further adoption of 1,3-D and county regulations affect use of high rates of Pic in some counties. The Party assu

the nomination showed that specific alternative treatments provide equal or higher yields compared to MB. Alternativ

injected with or without metham sodium have been adopted. In the areas affected by township caps, trials with alterna

Pic, Pic EC, Pic + metham, often with LPBF) provide yields that are statistically comparable with MB (Ajwa et al., 200

2001ab; Shem-Tov et al., 2005, 2006ab). Pic EC provided an average 99% yield compared to MB, with low variance 

recommend a 10% reduction for adoption of these alternatives, increased adoption of 50:50 MB/Pic instead of 67:33 

Cal DPR data) and for full uptake of 1,3-D/Pic to township cap limits in all counties. MBTOC recognises that regulato

alternatives at effective rates (eg. 1,3-D/Pic, Pic EC and shank injected, LPBF, etc) and that full adoption of alternativ

cannot be used with MB in California, but can be used with alternatives and may reduce the dosage rates required foMBTOC acknowledge that iodomethane is not yet registered. MBTOC encourages the Party to consider regulations w

other techniques that result in improved efficacy at lower application rates and/or reduced emissions that would resul

township cap, VOC regulations and county commissioner constraints on Pic. For Eastern and Florida, the nomination

pressure (Meloidogyne spp., Pythium spp., Rhizoctonia spp., Phytophthora cactorum, Cyperus esculentus, C. rotund

area, and small farm buffer zones on 40% of the area which affects use of 1,3-D formulations. MBTOC acknowledges 

its nomination to 47.862 t and 103.017 tonnes based on a significant adoption for uptake of iodomethane/Pic and othbuffer areas, including combinations of 1,3-D/ Pic and/or metham and/or herbicides, and LPBF as studies provide evi

similar to MB (Ferguson et al., 2001; Norton et al. 2002; Ajwa et al. 2003, 2004, 2005,2006; Gilreath et al. 2003bc; Sy2005; López-Aranda et al. 2005; and studies in Porter, 2006). After further information provided by the Party, MBTOC 

MB use supplied by the Party (ie. 160 kg/ha or 16 g/m2) pending further review. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic commcosts for three next best alternatives for California, Florida, and Eastern United States. 1,3-D with chloropicrin were re

resulting in lower production leading to losses in net revenue. Planting and harvesting delays with alternatives are rep

received in all regions, but are only shown in the revenue analysis for California. In the eastern U.S. strawberry produ

films should be feasible also, although possibly at a slower rate compared to Florida, primarily due to economic issue

In addition, according to the California Strawberry Commission, the limitation in use of the primary alternative, 1,3-D/c

production costs due to longer production timeline for drip-applied fumigation. Economic analysis using the partial bud

alternatives to methyl bromide are economically feasible in SE US, however the performance of the alternatives is no

(Sydorovych, et al., 2006). The net returns of alternatives (eg. Pic) were much higher in the piedmont and coastal pla

difference in average marketable yields.

United States 

Strawberry runners 

54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 7.944 None 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends 4.69 tonnes for California, but does not recommend amounts for the 

tonnes for California and 2.691 tonnes for SE. The key pests affecting strawberry runners are weeds (purple and yello

Pythium spp in SE, Phytophthora, Verticillium in California), nematodes (root-knot, sting in CA). The CUN is for MB u

proportion of hectares are exempted under QPS. MBTOC does not recommend use of MB for North Carolina and Te

registered and are technically suitable (TEAP, 2006). MBTOC believes distribution of MI/Pic across 11 ha should be 

the two year period for total adoption. For California, MBTOC recommends the nomination, but expects that future no

key over the last few years in order to satisfy the criteria of Decision IX/6. In addition, MBTOC requests that locations nomination. The CUN states that MB at a dosage of 26.3 g/m2 in CA and 25.5 g/m2 in SE is required to meet the cerunners. The Party's request exceeds MBTOC's standard presumption of 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2) of MB which is conside

health' strawberry runners using LPBF and other emission control technologies (TEAP 2005); however, California’s c

amounts of MB that must be applied. Furthermore, California regulations prohibit the use of LPBF with MB. The Part

1,3-D + PIC followed by dazomet, PIC followed by dazomet and MI/Pic, but that these have not been sufficiently teste

encourages the Party to expedite the commercial scale testing of these alternatives as well as the registration of MI in 

certification regulations in CA.
50 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic state

1,3-D with chloropicrin as the next best alternative with a 10-percent yield loss in California and the Southeastern Sta

chloropicrin are marginally higher in the Southeast and marginally lower in California. In both regions the alternative is 

decrease in net revenues. Certification requirements for strawberry nurseries (e.g., CDFA, 2003; TDA, 1999; NCDA, 

states are strict—zero tolerance for any damaging diseases and plant-parasitic nematodes. Since there are no marke

certification standards, losses up to 100% are possible when inadequate pest control occurs. Failure to adequately m

the viability of the transplant and fruit production industries in the U.S., as well as the viability of fruit production in cou

Canada, Mexico, Spain, countries in South America, and others).

United States 

Sweet Potatoes slips 

None 0.000 0.000 18.144 18.144 None 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 14.515 tonnes for this use in 2010. 1,3-D, the 

Jan and township caps are exceeded in Nov which is the fumigation window for slips. MBTOC recognizes the importa

Test of reduced rates of 1,3-D are being carried out as this is the preferred fumigant of growers. Growers also will havresistant cultivar (Bienville) that will be available in California over the next two years should be useful in managing ne

by growers and new alternatives such as non host cover crops followed by application of registered nematicides (etho

expected to reduce the quantity of MB use and thus MBTOC recommends a reduced quantity for MB for 2010. 

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. No economic dat

contribute to losses include delayed planting due to use of alternatives; fallow; additional use of herbicides; losses duresulting in smaller, less attractive produce (quality loss).
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

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

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBrec-ati200(ador n

United States 

Tomatoes (field) 

2,876.046 2,476.365 2,065.246 1,406.484 1,003.876 None 

MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 737.584 tonnes for this use in 2010. This repr

Maryland, 134.070 t for SE, 48.088 t for Georgia and 545.570 t for Florida. MBTOC acknowledged the reductions ma

the Party’s responses received since bilateral discussions at the 28th OEWG, MBTOC accepted rates nominated by 

kg/ha (15 g/m2) for pathogens 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2) for nutsedge) based on the circumstances of this nomination, p

accepted the Party's substantial reductions for uptake of iodomethane. The key pest of tomatoes in the southeastern 

Georgia are nutsedge, nematodes and P. capsici. In Florida and Georgia, karst topography limits the use of 1,3-dichl

the best alternatives for these pests, on 55% of the growing acreage in Florida, 11% in Georgia and 6% of the acreag

sodium and metham potassium are promising alternatives. MBTOC considers that alternatives are available for both 

and Georgia which can be adopted at least in areas of moderate pest pressure (Noling et al. 2006; Santos et al. 2006

Santos 2004bc; Gilreath et al. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005bc, 2006; Rosskopf et al, 2005; Chellemi and Browne, 2006; MRich and Olson 2003). The Party provided references which supported use of alternatives in combination with LPBF 

possible effective alternatives are available (Ristaino and Johnson (1999), Babadost and Islam (2002), Johnston et a

combination of 1,3-D or metham sodium with chloropicrin + herbicides (Trifluralin, Devrinol, napropamide, halosulfuro

best alternative strategy in Florida. Hausbeck and Lamour (2004) and others have reported many efficient managem

vegetables, including crop rotation with non susceptible hosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa) 

plant density, soil amendments, protective mulch, raised beds etc.) and use of registered fungicides (Mefonoxan, Dim

Copper hydroxide+dimethomorph) and seed treatment with Mephenoxan or metalaxyl. MBTOC considers that furthe

with changes to formulations of 50:50 MB/Pic or less (e.g. to 30:70) used in combination with barrier films, however th

not based on use of these formulations. The use of grafting and resistant varieties are considered as alternatives in m

al., 2001).

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The nomination was based on economic arguments. Economic statemen

yield losses for 1,3-D with chloropicrin as the next best alternative ranging from 1.75% to 6%. Net revenue declines re

control costs are less than 4 percent of total variable costs so have little impact on economic measures. Missed markreason. Recent research by Gilreath and Santos (2008) has demonstrated that metam sodium fumigant system resul

stands, and an increase in tomato yield. Assuming that a herbicide is used that is as effective as pebulate, growers u

mixture may suffer an average of 0 to 27% yield losses (Santos et al, 2006; Chellemi et al., 2006). As the United Stat

in that a 20% yield loss will force growers to no longer produce a crop. However, in areas of low to moderate pest pre

time frame for the transition. The assessment of need was adjusted to account for this. In areas where karst features 

growers can use a combination of three pesticides applied sequentially (1,3-D, pic, and metam) and achieve yields th

using methyl bromide for spring crops only.
52 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

5. MBTOC QSC: Final Evaluations of 2008 Critical Use 

Nominations for Methyl Bromide 

MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities met September 21 and intermittently 

through the week, in Chengdu China, in association with the Conference on Controlled 

Atmosphere and Fumigation. The meeting was attended by 9 of the 19 MBTOC-QSC 

members and one from MBTOC-S. An additional member attended the meeting 

through electronic voice line. 

Several MBTOC QSC members were unable to attend the Chengdu meeting. MBTOCQSC members who did not attend the meeting were contacted by email for input and 

discussion. Draft evaluations were circulated to MBTOC-QSC and MBTOC-S for 

vetting subsequent to the meeting. 

MBTOC is obligated under Decision XV I/4 Annex 16 to meet twice a year when 

making CUN recommendations to ensure it has full information and to allow Parties to 

provide information. For this meeting, email discussion was held with members who 

were not present to obtain consensus. 

MBTOC’s meeting was in association with the quadrennial meeting of the conference 

in Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products (CAF) in Chengdu. We 

appreciated the assistance of CAF conference organizers in making meeting 

arrangements. Holding the MBTOC meeting in association with this conference 

allowed MBTOC members to reduce time and travel costs since several members were 

presenting papers at the conference. 

At the meeting, MBTOC completed its further evaluation of CUNs from Australia, 

Canada and the United States. The CUNs re-reviewed were: Australia rice and Canada 

pasta manufacturing. Additionally, MBTOC completed its re-evaluation of previously 

‘unable to assess’ CUNs for Canada flour mills, and some USA commodities. MBTOC 

corrected an error it made in the CUN for USA structures. 

The Parties supplied additional information about the nominations following the 

publication of the TEAP May 2008 Progress Report, during bilateral meetings with 

MBTOC during the Open Ended Working Group meeting in Bangkok, Thailand and in 

writing following the OEWG. 

5.1. Quarantine issues 

Following the OEWG meeting, the International Plant Protection Convention released 

an updated draft ISPM 15 concerning the use of methyl bromide and heat treatments 

against wood pests (IPPC, 2008). Since the draft was distributed to encourage public 

comment, and given MBTOC’s technical expertise in this field, discussion by MBTOC 

members resulted in comments from those members to their own Parties. The technical 

aspects of this draft were further discussed in China. Parties are encouraged to expand 

research which might lead to the approval of alternatives for MB quarantine use. 

MBTOC members remain open to assisting Parties with issues surrounding MB 

quarantine use. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 53

5.2. Regulatory and News Update Concerning MB Alternatives for Postharvest 

Uses 

Decision Ex. I/4 (9i) requires MBTOC “To report annually on the status of reregistration and review of methyl bromide uses for the applications reflected in the 

critical-use exemptions, including any information on health effects and environmental 

acceptability”. Further, Decision Ex I/4 (9j) requires MBTOC “To report annually on 

the status of registration of alternatives and substitutes for methyl bromide, with 

particular emphasis on possible regulatory actions that will increase or decrease 

dependence on methyl bromide”.

News is presented alphabetically by country. MBTOC QSC would welcome the 

submission of regulatory, research and other news of adoption of MB alternatives from 

Parties and others. 

Australia - Sulphuryl fluoride fumigant is now registered in Australia for control of 

insects pests in a variety of situations including timber, and food handling and 

processing facilities, storage facilities and warehouses. Commodity storage structures 

containing cereal grains (including wheat and polished rice), dried fruit and nuts (tree 

nuts and peanuts), and baled hay and pet food may be treated at a ct-product of up to 

1500 g h m-3. Several of the situations for which sulphuryl fluoride is now registered in 

Australia currently use methyl bromide, usually under QPS exemption. 

Full scale demonstration trials are planned with carbonyl sulphide (COS), a potential 

methyl bromide replacement for disinfestation of stored grain and similar commodities, 

under an Experimental Use Permit, as part of progress to full registration. 

An updated Australian standard for general fumigation was recently published. This 

standard includes procedures for use of MB. 

A standard for heat treatments for insect control was published in 2008 by the 

Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS, 2008) 

(http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/734424/atf-heat-treatstandard.pdf). Heat treatments can replace methyl bromide use in some circumstances, 

particularly for treatment of wood and wooden packing material, such as specified in 

ISPM 15. 

Australia also has a new public, electronic database listing MB alternatives; it is 

available on the AQIS website. 

Canada: - Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) published a note 

with requirements for mitigation measures to be added to site-specific fumigation 

management plans for the use of aluminum and magnesium phosphide. Similar sitespecific plans will be required for SF use. PMRA has changed sulfuryl fluoride’s 

registration status from experimental to permanent registration and added new pests and 

uses to the label. PMRA indicated an expectation to publish a decision on MRLs for 

fluoride residue in specific commodities by end of 2008. 

China: China’s government grain storage capacity ranges between 1.5 – 2 hundred 

million tonnes, and in addition on farm grain storage allows for an additional 2.5 – 3 
54 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

hundred million tonnes. Phosphine fumigation, alone and in concert with CO2 were the 

most important contributors to the phase out of the use of MB in grain stores which 

China has accomplished (Zhu Changguo, Chinese Cereals and Oils Association 

(CCOA), CAF 2008). Several researchers and managers of grain storage facilities 

reported at the 8th International Conference on Controlled Atmospheres and Fumigation 

in Stored Products, considerable uptake of the use of controlled and modified 

atmospheres for grain storage, sometimes as substitutes for methyl bromide treatment. 

At the conference, Director Zhu of CCOA indicated that in the future, China intends to 

direct more of its grain pest control focus on low temperature and quasi-low 

temperature storage as well as controlled atmosphere techniques. In addition, sulfuryl 

fluoride was registered for grain disinfestation in China in 2008. As a consequence of 

that approval there has been several commercial scale trials and some adoption, 

substituting for methyl bromide. Methyl bromide use on stored grain in China was 

discontinued in 2007. 

European Union: In September, EU regulation (EU 149/2008) reduced bromide food 

residue tolerances and added fluorine tolerances. These changes allowed exporting 

countries such as the United States to reduce methyl bromide use on exported 

commodities. Also in 2008, the European Commission published harmonized MRL for 

fluoride residue arising from sulfuryl fluoride fumigation (Directive 396/2005/EC) 

(Official Journal of the European Union, 2008). 

France: In September 2008, France began using sulfuryl fluoride on commercial scale 

for its fresh chestnut harvest. The use of this alternative replaces methyl bromide for the 

seasonal fresh chestnut crop. 

New Zealand - is continuing PH3 trials for treatment of export logs and sawn timber. 

The use of MB is being reassessed by the NZ Environmental Risk Management 

Authority. 

United States – The sulfuryl fluoride label currently reads, "The raw agricultural and 

processed food commodities that may be fumigated with Profume include: almond, 

barley, beech nut, dried beef, brazil nut, butternut, cashew, cheese, chestnut, 

chinquapin, cocoa bean postharvest, coconut, coffee bean postharvest, date (dried), 

eggs(dried), fig (dried), filbert, ginger roots postharvest, raisin, herbs & spices (dried) 

hickory nut, ham, legume vegetable (dried), macadamia nut, milk, millet, oat, other 

dried fruits (eg. apricots), peanut, pecan, pinenut, pistachio, pop corn, prunes (dried), 

rice, polished rice, rice bran, rice flour, rice hulls, sorghum, triticale, walnut, wheat, 

wheat bran, wheat flour, wheat germ, wheat milled byproducts, wheat shorts, wild rice. 

ProFume can be used to fumigate sites containing seeds of commodities listed above...” 

This use of SF is currently being challenged in ongoing litigation. The litigation appears 

to concern differences in opinion about the safety of the allowable levels of fluoride 

residues resulting from sulfuryl fluoride treatment of commodities and in structures that 

conduct food processing. The outcome of this litigation may have future implications of 

the use of SF as an alternative treatment. 

The US Environmental Protection Agency has reported that it anticipates publishing its 

response to comments and any modifications to its reregistration decisions for methyl 

bromide commodity treatments and methyl bromide soil treatments in January 2009. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 55

The USA has published a proposed regulation (7 CFR Part 319) which would allow the 

use of a systems approach which would avoid the need for grapes from Chile to be 

fumigated with methyl bromide (Federal Register, Aug 27, 2008, pp 50577). 

5.3. Details of evaluations 

Parties have submitted ten CUNs in 2008 for the use of MB in structures and 

commodities with a the total MB for non-QPS post-harvest uses of 321.808 tonnes 

when first submitted and of 277.746 as subsequently revised by the nominating Parties. 

In the 2008 round, three nominations were for 2009 for a total MB amount of 7.14 

tonnes and seven were for 2010 for a total MB amount of 270.606 tonnes, after 

revisions by Parties. 

Of nominations for 2009, MBTOC recommended 7.14 tonnes. Of the nominations for 

2010, MBTOC recommended 269. 436 tonnes. MBTOC did not recommend 1.17 tones. 

Table 5.1 provides the MBTOC QSC final recommendations for the CUNs submitted in 

2008. 
56 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Table 5.1 Final evaluations of CUNs for commodity or structural treatments, submitted in 2008 for 2009 or 2010 

Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBTOC recommendation for 2009 (additional or new) 

Qunofo(ne

Australia Rice 

6.150 6.150 9.205 9.200 7.820 None - 7.8

MBTOC recommends a reduced nomination of 6.65 tonnes for 2010. This is a 15% reduction of the Party’s nominated amount of 7.8

Decision IX/6 Australia should make progress in adopting alternatives. Numerous alternatives to MB are technically and economical

many other countries for this product. In spite of availability, there has been no adoption of any alternatives in this sector. The Party 

an economic assessment report, showing it can not afford to adopt alternatives under the current drought and resulting low rice harv

drought and poor harvests have left this applicant unable to make any investment or to receive bank loans. MBTOC continues to hav

input and processing assumptions that resulted in the economic conclusions. The economic assessment is based on the stated nee

before phosphine can be adopted as an alternative. But the Party also indicates that a warehouse of 4,500 m2 could also be used, w

would cost much less. MBTOC suggests that, especially if there is poor harvest in 2009 and 2010, that phosphine treatment could b

tent capacity which is currently used for MB treatment. This approach would allow some adoption of phosphine in tents in the yard w

with the construction of new silos. The Party is encouraged to use different approaches to resolve the seemingly ongoing economic 

adoption of alternatives. Australia’s transition plan does not include any adoption of alternatives until such time as harvest volume of 

achieved. Even if the Party were to continue to achieve harvest of >1 MT the current transition plan will still result in MB use beyond 

MBTOC comments on economics: CUN states drought has made it impossible to undertake investment in phosphine facilities. Estim

silos would be $Aus47 million. CUN states it would involve three years of transition, potentially complete in 2013. The economic ana

by ACIL Tasman (2008), ably illustrates the difficulties that SunRice faces in funding these costs. However, CUN does not provide th

expenditure, nor does it provide for any phasing of the construction costs. Even if borrowing or raising external capital is not feasible

annual cost have to be based on the amortised capital cost over the economic life of the investment 

CUN describes trials of alternatives, two of which, namely cold disinfestation and ‘packaging alteration with oxygen scavenging’ are 

infeasible. In the former case, party expects costs to exceed $Aus100 million plus an unknown cost for electricity. In the latter case, 

costs increase from $Aus34 per tonne to over $Aus119 per ton. ACIL Tasman, 2008. An Analysis of SunRice’s Capacity to Invest in Phosphine Fumigation Infrastructure: in particular their ability to 

Methyl Bromide. Confidential report prepared for the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBTOC recommendation for 2009 (additional or new) 

Qunofo(ne

CanadaMills 

47 (included mills and pasta) 

34.774 30.167 

(included mills only) 

28.650 26.913 None - 22

MBTOC recommends the nominated amount of 22.878 tonnes for treatment of particular flour mills in Canada in 2010. The amount 

15.3% decrease over the amount granted by the Parties in 2009. In its Interim CUN report (TEAP Spring report 2008), MBTOC was 

nomination because it was unclear about the amount of MB needed per mill and because MBTOC believed that only an amount equ

fumigation per mill per year was justified. Infestation is managed, both in Canada and elsewhere, by IPM approaches and other trea

need for additional fumigations. MBTOC notes, however, that sulfuryl fluoride, a key alternative treatment for this sector, is not regist

Canada. In spite of regulatory restrictions on the use of sulfuryl fluoride, the Party has an extensive commercial-scale research progParty has since documented that the nominated amount provides for less MB than is required for one fumigation per mill, per year. T

regulatory procedures to ensure that MB use is managed through a sector-only transfer mechanism which ensures MB use is design

mills and that alternatives are adopted in the sector. The Party may wish to review the MBTOC special review of efficacy, costs and 

flour mills in the TEAP Spring Report (MBTOC, 2008). 

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: CUN states the use of alternatives and associated building modifications would add 2 to 4 p

costs that would be passed to Canadian consumers whose use accounts for 80% of annual shipments of milled grain products. Also program for government financial assistance to millers (Canadian National Millers, 2007). MBTOC notes that lack of government finhas not been a consideration in assessments of economic feasibility. CUN did not provide detailed data on estimation of the 2%-4% 

of exact amount, the CUN suggests milled grain product market relationships are such that added costs would be borne in large par

suggests that if technical and regulatory barriers to adoption of alternatives can be overcome, the Party will have no basis to then as

Canada Pasta 

(see Canada mills) 

10.457 6.757 6.067 None 4. 74 4.74 

MBTOC recommends the Party’s revised nomination of 4.74 tonnes for pasta mills in Canada for 2009. This provision is to allow par

pasta mills in this CUN with methyl bromide, as part of orderly transition to alternatives. MBTOC anticipates that the Party will contin

trials of alternatives in each facility included in the pasta mill sector. MBTOC believes that continued commercial scale trials of altern

replace the need for annual full site MB fumigations. If the trials are successful, the full MB amount recommended should not be req

same time, MBTOC acknowledges that Canada has not established maximum residue levels for fluorine resulting from sulfuryl fluori

and lack of MRLs makes use of sulfuryl fluoride difficult. Canada has indicated it will reduce domestic allocation based on the results 
58 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBTOC recommendation for 2009 (additional or new) 

Qunofo(ne

scale trials and if registration status of potential alternatives changes before 2009. Interim reports submitted concerning SF trials don

demonstrated some effectiveness in these facilities and trials were also conducted in 2008, but results are not yet available. It is cleawith this fumigant is required in these premises to optimise efficacy. It may be that moderate supplemental heating will be required to the SF treatments against the egg stage of pests. Heat treatments, either as full site or spot heat treatments may also be considered 

their IPM program (TEAP, Spring Progress Report, 2008). Heat has proven technically feasible in pasta facilities elsewhere (e.g. Ital

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The Economic feasibility section is marked N/A. Elsewhere it is asserted that heat is roughIsrael Dates 

3.444 2.755 2.200 1.800 None 2.100 2.100 

MBTOC recommends a CUE of 2.1 tonnes for dates in 2009 associated with rapid treatment of fresh dates at time of harvest. This r

tonnes over the amount of MB granted by the Parties for 2008. The increase in methyl bromide is due to projected increase in harveheat or other treatments have not yet been developed. Israel continues an active research programme to resolve technical, logistica

and adapt heat treatment for the non-Medjool varieties. If upcoming research on either heat or ethyl formate and carbon dioxide res

Israel may consider reducing the amount granted in domestic allocation process. 

MBTOC comments on economics: CUN argues that heat treatment is economically feasible for Medjool dates, but that in depth feas

carried out to determine the efficacy of thermal treatment on other varieties. No economic data is provided. 

Israel Flour mills 

2.140 1.490 1.040 0.312 None 0.300 0.300 

MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.3 tonnes for flour mills in 2009 as a one year transition to spot heat treatment or expanded use of a decrease of 0.012 tonnes over the amount of MB granted by the Parties for 2008. Mills in Israel are not considered suitable for full 

and condition. Spot heat treatment has been determined to be effective for older mills in Israel. Techniques have been developed to heat equipment has been purchased by a pest control operator and is in commercial use in the circumstances of this nomination. Mo

been ordered for import. For this reason MBTOC sees a need for one year to transition to heat. Additionally, phosphine is in use in m

be expanded. Improvements in IPM and sanitation would improve pest control in Israel mills. MBTOC sees no reason for continued after the transition to heat or phosphine is made by 2010. The Party is referred to the flour milling review report published in the 200Progress Report for technical information on the conduct of spot heat treatments and recommendations to improve technical efficacy 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBTOC recommendation for 2009 (additional or new) 

Qunofo(ne

MBTOC comments on economics: CUN argues that the alternative used in North America and Northern Europe of heating the entire feasible in Israel because most of the mills are more than 20 years old, with poor structural upkeep of the mills and so thermal insula

Furthermore, heating equipment is not available because of the small size of the market. However, the CUN argues that new spot h

available from Canada, and that these are economically feasible. No economic data is provided. 

Japan Chestnuts 

7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300 5.800 None - 5.4

MBTOC recommends a CUE of 5.4 tonnes, the amount nominated for fresh chestnuts for 2010. This represents a 0.4 tonne decreas

amount granted by the Parties for 2009. An extensive research program has resulted in the finding that methyl iodide treatment is te

use, and registration has been applied for. The registration process is progressing appropriately. Japan has set an acceptable daily 0.0034 mg/kg body weight. Progress has been made in improving the logistics of treatment to ensure the use of MB is minimised wh

results. MBTOC knows of no other effective alternative treatment for fresh chestnuts. 

MBTOC comments on economics: The CUN states that, for economic feasibility evaluation, it is prerequisite for economic evaluation alternative exists. In fact there is no technically feasible alternative, and accordingly economic evaluation has not been carried out. United States Commodities 

89.166 87.719 78.983 58.921 45.623 None - 19

MBTOC recommends the Party’s revised nomination of 19.242 tonnes for treatment of dry commodities as described by sub-sector. 

recommends the Party’s revised nomination of 5.85 tonnes. MBTOC recommends 2.009 tonnes for dates. For dried fruit, MBTOC re

revised nomination of 9.399 tonnes; the Party reduced its nomination by 40% following the MBTOC Interim CUN report and an updarequirements. MBTOC recommends 1.984 tonnes for dried beans. USG revised its walnut nomination in response to newly publishe

149/2008 as of September 2008) reducing bromide tolerances and adding fluorine tolerances. Following its assessment of the EU rewalnuts, the USG reduced its walnut nomination by 75%. The remaining amount will allow the US to quickly transition walnut treatmewhich is the EU. For dates, MBTOC recommends 2.009 tonnes. Since MBTOC’s interim recommendation, the US has provided exte

information on this sector and on the date commodity as grown and harvested in the US. The CUN refers to treatment of California d

harvest is reported to be 99% Deglet-Nour variety of 30% moisture content, harvested fully ripe with mostly reducing sugar content. information, MBTOC’s is now of the understanding that the California date situation is similar to that of the North African Deglet-Nouconducted sulfuryl fluoride trials on date disinfestation but the results are not yet known. Given this new understanding of the date coMBTOC encourages the Party to significantly expand its research effort to resolve the date pest and storage problem. MBTOC recomnomination of 9.399 tonnes for dried fruit, a sector that includes raisins, figs and dried plums. Although phosphine is the main fumiga
60 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBTOC recommendation for 2009 (additional or new) 

Qunofo(ne

indicates that MB is needed for some fumigations before processing when cool weather would unacceptably lengthen the phosphine of dried plum treatments, the initial processing (drying) involves exposure to temperatures (>60°C) sufficient to achieve disinfestationinfested subsequently during storage and handling. In the absence of need for very rapid disinfestations, this reinfestation (mainly of 

by currently available systems, particularly phosphine fumigation. Controlled atmosphere storage and treatment is used by many EU 

dried fruit commodities included in this CUN. Furthermore, the use of phosphine in cooler weather could be accomplished by increastemperature in chamber fumigations before processing. Before reviewing any future dried fruit nomination, MBTOC will need a clear

harvest-to-shipment channel for each commodity and how it impacts on fumigation requirements. USG has indicated that fumigation 

months strains phosphine fumigation capacity and is difficult to conduct due to commodity temperature problems. Therefore we will volumes by month, available chamber capacity and bulk commodity temperature during the cool months. In addition, MBTOC will reassessment on the costs of increasing the temperature of dried fruit since USG reports that the applicant finds the cost of heating th

phosphine treatment in the cool months is unacceptable. MBTOC, however, has calculated initial estimated energy costs of 8 kw/ton

dried fruit by 7 ̊C. This initial estimation leads MBTOC to question whether the sector would indeed be economically constrained by commodity temperature to allow the use of phosphine. Phosphine treatment of dried fruit in cooler months may require additional fum

especially given the additional time to increase temperature. If inadequate chamber capacity is a constraint, any future nomination s

analysis of the costs to provide the necessary chamber capacity. Additionally, the USG has indicated a potential problem if California volatile organic compound emissions impact the use of phosphine and therefore result in the need to use methyl bromide. If this wer

future nomination, MBTOC will need considerable further information on this matter. MBTOC recommends a CUE of 1.984 tonnes f

of this nomination relating to pest control treatment of dried beans directly after harvest. Concerning beans, there are no alternatives 

rapid disinfestation of dried beans under the circumstances of the nomination, specifically the current treatment logistics. Fumigation 

registered and effective, requires a treatment time that is too long to meet current shipping and handling schedules; and sulfuryl fluo

registration. There appears to be scope for further reduction in this component of the nomination through adoption of phosphine fum

logistics which MBTOC recommends be incorporated in any future CUN. 

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: CUN provides economic data on alternatives for walnuts and dried fruit other than dates. Phmore because it takes longer to accomplish, leading to increased labor costs, it corrodes equipment and its use means sellers do no

export market window. CUN states walnuts and dried fruit all require substantial additional treatment time and subsequent lost reven

Net revenues for alternatives are negative. CUN states that profit margin decreases from 13.3% to –7.5% for walnuts and from 5% teconomic analysis was not done for dates. In the case of dried beans, response to MBTOC question states that cost of an additionaunit, but annual costs were not provided. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBTOC recommendation for 2009 (additional or new) 

Qunofo(ne

United States NPMA food processing structures (cocoa beans removed) 

83.344 69.118 82.771 69.208 54.606 None - 37

MBTOC recommends a CUE of 37.778 tonnes, the amount nominated for food processing facilities in 2010. This nomination represe

(excluding cocoa beans) over the amount granted by the Parties for 2009. The CUN now includes three sectors, after cocoa bean se

alternatives in 2009. (1) MBTOC recommends 1.812 tonnes, the nominated amount, for cheese in storage. Cheese stores are only finspectors find mites in the cheese. If cheese stores were held at 7 ̊C instead of 10 ̊C, mites would not develop, but it is unknown whtemperature would have on cheese maturation and quality. MBTOC knows of no effective chemical alternative for this use, but we nresearch on the effect of sulfuryl fluoride on mites in cheese. (2) MBTOC recommends 2.439 tonnes, the nominated amount for herb facilities. According to the CUN, 2010 is the final year of a four year transition in herb and spice processing sector. Spot heat treatme

with additional use of barrier methods to prevent pest escape would seem to be a good alternative for this sector. (3) MBTOC recom

amount nominated for the processed food sector. This nomination represents a 45% reduction over the amount granted by the PartiCUN 2010 is the last year of a 4 year transition to alternatives in processed foods sector. This sector is expecting a registration of m

packaging materials which will assist in achieving post-processing pest control. 

MBTOC comments on economics 2008: An economic analysis was not conducted because the CUN reports the sector did not have 

For food-processing facilities listed in the NPMA CUN, economic feasibility of such alternatives was not assessed due to the lack of 

is necessary to quantify the economic impacts to food-processing facilities. There is a major change to this 2010 nomination from NPfound that sulfuryl fluoride is economically feasible for cocoa beans (Adam 2007). Therefore NPMA has not requested methyl bromfor 2010. Sulfuryl fluoride is not always economically feasible in all food processing facilities (Adam 2007), therefore that portion of NAdam (2007) conducted a cost comparison of methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride in the fumigation of cocoa beans. It is an econom

which estimates of costs that “typical” firms would face under different scenarios (Adam 2007). Adam (2007) found that with regards 

methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride are the same price per pound, then a sulfuryl fluoride fumigation costs 1% less than a methyl brmore economical than methyl bromide for cocoa beans, primarily because less sulfuryl fluoride is needed (Adam 2007). Sulfuryl fluoride is highly dependent upon temperature, so should a facility need fumigation during cooler temperatures, it may not be 

because of increased heating costs. Also sulfuryl fluoride requires higher dosages for egg kill, and in many facilities killing eggs is p

lead to higher costs. Cheese does not have a technically and economically feasible alternative to methyl bromide at this time. 
62 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

Quantity approved for 2009 (MOP19) 

Quantity nominated for 2009 (additional or new) 

MBTOC recommendation for 2009 (additional or new) 

Qunofo(ne

United States Mills and processors 

483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237 291.418 None - 17

MBTOC recommends 173.023 tonnes for US mills and processors in 2010. MBTOC recommended this CUN in its interim report (TE

Report), but the USG pointed out an arithmetical error in the report. In the final tally, MBTOC double- counted the amount recommen

the figure in the text box was correct. To clarify, for this sector, MBTOC recommends the following: Flour milling (144.790); Rice mill

facilities (13.722). 

MBTOC comments on economics: The CUN reports heat will cost 1.5 times and sulfuryl fluoride costs 1.3 times the cost of MB treat

reported to result in lost operating days and thus lower throughput and gross revenues. Where sulfuryl fluoride is technically feasible 

revenue of 57% (rice millers), but only 4% (bakeries) and 2% (pet food manufacturers and North American Millers Association). Prof

economic assessment. Sulfuryl fluoride is highly dependent upon temperature, so should a facility need fumigation during cold tempproduct of choice because of the increase in costs. Also sulfuryl fluoride requires higher dosages for egg kill, but in some facilities kagain contributing to higher costs. The CUN cites a new study that compares methyl bromide structural fumigation to an alternative. 

economic-engineering approach to estimate costs that “typical” firms would incur under alternative scenarios, as opposed to specific 

2007). 

United States Cured pork 

67.907 40.854 18.998 19.669 18.998 None - 4.4

MBTOC recommends a CUE of 4.465 tonnes for specific cured (air-dried) pork products in 2010. This CUN has decreased by 14.53granted by the Parties for 2009. The USG is in the second of a three year multi-disciplinary research program to try to find non-MB m

this traditional cured pork product and associated storage houses. No chemical alternatives are registered for pest control in these pdoes not know of methods that have been published as effective for this situation. In the interest of contributing to research ideas, w

controlled atmosphere; or dipping the hams in oil and lard at 90oC as practised in Spain with a similar product. 

MBTOC comments on economics: No economic data given. This is a minor use and there is little economic incentive to develop alte
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 63

6. References 

ACIL Tasman (2008). An Analysis of SunRice’s Capacity to Invest in Phosphine 

FumigationInfrastructure: in particular their ability to fund the phasing out of Methyl Bromide. 

Confidential report prepared for the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 

Adam. B. 2008. Cost comparison of methyl bromide and ProFume for fumigating a food processing 

facility. A report to National Pest Management Association and Dow AgroSciences. Economic 

Consulting LLC. 

Ajwa H.A., S. Fennimore, Z. Kabin, F. Martin, J. Duniway, G. Browne, T. Trout, A. Kahn and O. 

Daugovish, (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., S. Fennimore, G. Browne, F. Martin, T. Trout, J. Duniway, S. Shem-Tov, and O. 

Daugovish, (2005). Strawberry yield with various rates of chloropicrin and Inline applied under 

VIF. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives 

and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, USA. 

Ajwa, H.A. T. Trout, S. Fennimore, C. Winterbottom, F. Martin, J. Duniway, G. Browne, B. Westerdahl, 

R. Goodhue and L. Guerrero (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. 

Ajwa, H.A., S. Fennimore, Z. Kabir, F. Martin, J. Duniway, G. Browne, T. Trout, R. Goodhue, and L. 

Guerrero. (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. 

Akkaya, F., A. Ozturk, A. Deviren, A. Ozcelik and B. Ozkan. (2004). An economic analysis of 

alternatives to use of Methyl Bromide for greenhouse vegetables (Tomatoes, Cucumbers) and 

cut flowers (Carnation). Acta Horticulturae 638, 479-485. 

Allen, M. (2007). Personal communication. Arystal lifesciences Inc. 

AQIS (Australian Quarantine Inspection Service). (2008). Heat Treatment Standard. May 26 

(http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/734424/atf-heat-treat-standard.pdf). 

Babadost M. and S.Z. Islam (2002). Bell peppers resistant to Phytophthora blight . Phytopathology, 

(Abstr), 92: 55. 

Bartual, R., Cebolla, V., Bustos, J., Giner, A., 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. 

Bar-Yosef, B., T. Markovich, I. Levkovich and Y. Mor, (2001). Gypsophyla paniculata response to 

leachate recycling in a greenhouse in Israel Acta Horticulturae 554: 193 – 204 

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. 
64 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Batchelor, T.A. (ed.) (2000). Case Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Technologies with Low 

Environmental Impact. UNEP. Paris. 77pp. 

Bello, A., J. López –Pérez, M. Arias, A. Lacasa, C. Ros, M. Herrero and P. Fernández. (2001). 

Biofumigation and grafting in pepper as alternative to Methyl Bromide. In: Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, 

California, USA. Paper 31. 

Bello, A., M. Arias, J. López-Perez, A. García-Álvarez, J. Fresno, M. Escuer, S.C. Arcos, A. Lacasa, R. 

Sanz, P. Gómez, M.A. Diez-Rojo, A.P. Buena, C. Goitia, J.L. De la Horra and C. Martínez. 

(2004). Biofumigation, fallow, and nematode management in vineyard replant. Nematropica, 

Puerto Rico, 2004, 34 (1) 53-64.

Browne, G., J. Duniway, B. Westerdahl, F. Martin, H. Ajwa, and S. Fennimore. 2005. Effects of VIF 

and chloropicrin and Inline rates on survival of nematodes and pathogens in soil. 

Budai, C. (2002) Case Study 1. Substrates for greenhouse tomatoes in peppers. In: Batchelor, T. (ed). 

Case Studies on alternatives to methyl bromide – Vol. 2. UNEP, Paris 

CAF (2008) Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation 

in Stored Products. Eds: Guo Daolin, Navarro S., Yang Jian, Tao Cheng, Jin Zuxun, Li Yue, and 

Wang Haipeng. September 21-26, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. Sichuan Publishing Group: 

Chengdu. 738 pp. 

Canadian National Millers Association (2007). Comparative evaluation of integrated pest management, 

heat treatments and fumigations as alternatives to methyl bromide for control of stored product 

pests in Canadian flour mills. pp 48. March, 2007 

Carey, W. and Godbehere, S. (2004). Effects of VIF and solvent carrier on control of nutsedge and on 

populations of Trichoderma at two nurseries in 2003. In: Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, 

USA, 2003. 

CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture). 2003. Summary of 

California Laws and Regulations Pertaining to Nursery Stock. 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PE/Nursery/NIPM.html; 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov//phpps/PE/Nursery/pdfs/nipm_3_regs_nsy_sees_insp.pdf

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. 

Chellemi, D.O and G.T. Browne (2006). Area wide pest management project for methyl bromide 

alternatives. South Atlantic component. Proceedings of Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL, USA. 

Chellemi, D.O. (2006). Effect of urban plant debris and soil management practices on plant parasitic 

nematodes, Phytophthora blight and Pythium root rot of bell pepper. Crop Protection 25: 1109-

1116. 

Chellemi, D.O., J. Mirusso and J. Nance. (2004). Evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives on 

commercial vegetable farms. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on 

Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL, USA. 

Culpepper, A.S., T.L. Grey and T.M. Webster. (2006). Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) response to 

methyl bromide alternatives applied under four types of mulch [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 

Southern Weed Science Society Annual Meeting, January 22-25, 2006. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 65

De Cal, A., Martínez-Terceno, A., López-Aranda, J.M. and Melgarejo P. (2004). Alternatives to methyl 

bromide in Spanish strawberry nurseries. Plant Disease 88(2): 210-214. 

Demski, J.W. (1981). Tobacco mosaic virus is seedborne in pimiento peppers. Plant Disease 65: 723-

724. 

Driver J.G. and F. Lows, (2003). Management of Phytophthora crown and root rot in peppers (Abstr), 

Phytopathology, 93, S22 

Driver, J.G., P. Brannen, M. Seitz, C. Schiemann, R.M. Welker and F.J. Louws. (2005). On-farm 

fumigant trials for strawberries in the southeast. Proceedings of Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, CA, USA. 

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. 

EC, European Community, (2006). European Community Management Strategy for the phase-out of the 

critical uses of Methyl Bromide. May 2006. European Community, Brussels. 

EC. European Community (2008). European Community Management Strategy for the phase-out of 

critical uses of Methyl Bromide. July, 2008 

Enebak, S., T. Starkey, and D. McCraw. (2006). Tree seedling quality and weed control with Basamid, 

MBR and methyl iodide. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives, Orlando, FL, USA. 

Engindeniz, S. (2004). The economic analysis of growing greenhouse cucumber with soilless culture 

system: the case of Turkey. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 23, 5-19. 

Federal Register (2008) Importation of grapes from Chile under a systems approach. 7 CFR Part 319. pp 

50577 Aug 27, 2008 

Ferguson, L.M., G.E. Fernandez, P.M. Brannen, J.M. Louws, E.B. Poling, O.B. Sydorovych, C.D. Safley, 

D.W. Monks, Z. Pesic-Van Esbroeck, D.C. Sanders and J.P. Smith. (2001). Alternative soil 

treatments for strawberry in the southeastern United States. In: Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, 

USA. 

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 

Fukuda, N. and Y. Anami. (2002) Substrate and nutrient level: effects on the growth and yield of melon 

`Cucumis melo' in soilless culture. Acta Horticulturae 588: 111-117 

Gilreath J.P., B. M. Santos, P.R. Gilreath, J.P. Jones and J.W. Noling (2005). Efficacy of 1,3 D + 

Cloropicrin application methods in combination with pebulate and napromide in tomato. Crop 

Protection 23:1187-1191 

Gilreath J.P., B.M.Santos, P.R.Gilreath, J.D. Busacca, J.E. Eger and J.M.Mirusso, (2006). Validation of a 

methyl Bromide alternative program for fresh market tomato, 2006, Journal of Agronomy, 5(2) 

332-335 
66 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Gilreath J.P., J.M. Mirusso, J.W.Noling, J.P.Jones and P.R.Gilreath, (2002). Effectiveness of broadcast 

application of Telone C35 and Tilam+Devrinol in Tomato. Proceedings of the Florida 

Horticultural Society., 115,276-280 

Gilreath J.P.and B.M. Santos (2004a) Efficacy of 1,3 D plus chloropicrine in combination with hebicides 

on purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in tomato. Weed Technol., 19, 137-140. 

Gilreath, J. (1999). Living without methyl bromide. Adapt now; thrive in 2005. Florida Farmer: 

September 1999. 

Gilreath, J.P. and B.M. Santos (2004b). 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. and B.M. Santos (2004c). Manejo de Cyperus rotundus (coquillo) con alternativas al 

bromuro de metilo, en tomate de mesa. Manejo Integrado de Plagas y Agroecología 71: 54-58. 

Gilreath, J.P. and B.M. Santos. (2008). Managing weeds and nematodes with combinations of methyl 

bromide alternatives in tomato. Crop Protection 27: 648-652. 

Gilreath, J.P., B.M. Santos, M. Siham and J.W. Noling. (2005c). Effect of VIF on nutsedge control with 

metam, chloropicrin and 1,3-D, alone and in combination. Proceedings of Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. San Diego, 

CA, USA

Gilreath, J.P., B.M. Santos, T.N. Motis, J.W. Noling and J.M. Mirusso. (2005b). Methyl bromide 

alternatives for nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Crop 

Protection 24: 903-908. 

Gilreath, J.P., B.M. Santos, T.N. Motis, J.W. Noling, and J.M. Mirusso. (2005a). Methyl bromide 

alternatives for nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Crop 

Protection. 24: 903-908. 

Gilreath, J.P., J. W. Noling, T.N. Motis, E. Rosskopf and B.M. Santos (2003a). Long term effect of 

fumigant and herbicide combinations in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Proceedings of Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 

San Diego, CA, USA 

Gilreath, J.P., Mirusso, J.M., Jones, J.P., Rosskopf, E.N., Noling, J.W. and Gilreath, P.R. (2002b). 

Efficacy of broadcast Telone C-35 in tomato. Proceedings of Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL, USA. 

Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T.N., Santos, B.M. (2005e). Cyperus spp. Control with reduced methyl bromide 

plus chloropicrin doses under virtually impermeable films in pepper. Crop Protection. 24: 285-

287. 

Gilreath, J.P., T. N. Motis, B.M. Santos, J.M. Mirusso, J.P. Gilreath, J.W. Noling and J.P. Jones. (2005b). 

Influence of supplementary in-bed chloropicrin application on soilborne pest control in tomato 

(Lycopersicon esculentum). Crop Protection. 24: 779-784. 

Gilreath, J.P., T.N. Motis, B.M. Santos and J.W. Noling (2003b). 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., T.N. Motis, J.W. Noling and J. Mertly (2003c). Results of the IR-4 strawberry methyl 

bromide alternatives program in Florida in 2002. University of Florida, Gainseville, FL, USA. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 67

Gilreath, JP, T.N. Motis, J. Norton and J. W. Noling. (2003d). Results of the IR-4 strawberry methyl 

bromide alternatives program in Florida during 2002. Proceedings of Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, 

CA, USA. 

Grinstein, A. & A. Hetzroni. (1991). The technology of soil solarization. Pp 159 – 170 In: J. Katan & J. 

E. DeVay (eds.) Soil Solarization. CRC Publications, Boca Raton, FL, USA 

Grinstein, A. (1992). Introduction of a new agricultural technology - soil solarization - in Israel. 

Phytoparasitica 20 (Suppl.):127S-131S. 

Gullino, M.L. and A. Garibaldi (2007). Critical aspects in management fo fungal diseases of rnamental 

plants and directions in research. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 46: 135 – 149 

Gullino, M.L., A. Camponogara, G. Gasparrini, V. Rizzo, C. Cini and A. Garibaldi (2003). Replacing 

methyl bromide for soil disinfestation. The Italian experience and its implications for other 

countries. Plant Disease 87 (9): 1012 – 1019. 

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 

31 October - 3 November, 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 2-1. 

Hanson, B., J. Gerik and S. Schneider (2006). Evaluation of reduced Methyl Bromide rates and 

alternative fumigants in field grown perennial crop nurseries. In: Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, USA, 

2006. 

Hausbeck M.K and Lamour K.H., (2004). Phytophthora capsici on vegetable crops: Research progress 

and management. Plant Disease 88(12):1992-1303 

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 

IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention) (2008). Member consultation (regular process) - June 

2008. Draft 1/7. International standards for phytosanitary measures. Revision of ISPM No. 15. 

Regulating wood packaging material in international trade. 

Johnston S.A., Kleinn W.L. ,Fogg M.L., and Zimmerman M.D, (2002). Varietal resistance evaluation for 

control of Phytophthora blight of pepper (Abstr). Phytopathology, 92, S40 

Klose, S. (2008). Weed and disease control in California- grown floricultural crops without Methyl 

Bromide soil fumigation (Abstr.) In: Proceedings of the 2008 Joint Annual Meeting, 5 – 9 

October 2008 

Klose, S., J. Gerik, Ajwa, H. and C. Wilen (2007). Pacific area-wide MB alternatives program for cut 

flower and bulb crops. In: Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, CA, USA. 

Leoni, S and Ledda, L. (2004). Influenza delle limitazioni nell'uso del bromuro di metilo sull'ortcoltura in 

serra della Sardegna. Workshop Internazionale: La Produzione in Serra dopo l'era del Bromuro 

di Metile. April 1-3, 2004, Comiso, 253-263. 

Lieten, F. 2004. (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. 
68 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Little, D.A., M.W. Marshall, B.H. Zandstra and R.J. Richardson (2006). Herbicide alternatives to Methyl 

Bromide in herbaceous perennial production. In: Proceedings of Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL, USA 

López-Aranda, J. M., Miranda, L., Romero, F., De Los Santos, B., Montes, F., Vega, J. M., Paez, J. I., 

Bascon, J., Medina, J. J. (2003). Alternatives to MB for Strawberry Production in Huelva 

(Spain). 2003 Results. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2003. November, 2003, San Diego, California, USA 

pp. 33-1. 

López-Aranda, J.M., B.M. Santos, J.P. Gilreath, L. Miranda, C. Soria and J.J. Medina. (2005). Evaluation 

of methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry in Florida and Spain. Proceedings of Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 

San Diego, California, USA. 

Martyn, R.D. (2002). Monosporascus root rot and vine decline of melons. Plant Disease Lessons. The 

Plant Health Instructor. DOI: 10.1094/PHI-I-2002 0612-01. American Phytopathological 

Society. 

 Matsuo K. and Y. Suga. (1993) Control effect of soil disinfectant and crop rotation on necrotic spot 

disease of melon. Proceedings of the Association of Plant Protection Kyushu 39:43-47 

MBTOC (1994). 1994 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP, 

Nairobi. 

MBTOC (1998). 1998 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP, 

Nairobi. 

MBTOC (2008). Current Status of Technical Efficacy, Costs and Adoption of Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives in Flour Mills. In: TEAP Progress Report, May, 2008, UNEP, Nairobi. 

MBTOC, (2007). 2006 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP, 

Nairobi 482 pp. 

MBTOC. (2002). 2002 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. 

UNEP, Nairobi. 468pp. 

McKenry, M. T. (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, CA, USA. 

McKenry, M., T. Buzo, and K. Stephanie (2006). Replanting stone fruit orchards without soil fumigation. 

Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 

Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL, USA. 

McMillan, R.T. and H.H. Bryan. (1998). Vapam as an alternative to methyl bromide for south Florida 

tomato growers. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, USA. 

McMillan, R.T. and H.H. Bryan. (1999). Effect of metam sodium and methyl bromide on root-knot, 

weeds and yield in Florida tomato. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on 

Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

McMillan, R.T. and H.H. Bryan. (2002). Efficacy of Vapam and Kpam fumigation for Florida tomatoes. 

Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 

Emissions Reductions Orlando, Florida, USA. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 69

McSorley, R., K.H. Wang and N. Kokallis-Burelle. (2006a). Solarization as an alternative to Methyl 

Bromide in Florida floriculture. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 6-9, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA337. 2004. 

McSorley, R., K-H. Wang and S.K. Saha. (2006b). Can solarization match methyl bromide fumigation in 

sites colonized by fungi? Phytopathology 96(6), suppl., p. S187 

Melgarejo, P., A. De Cal, T. Salto, M. L. Martínez-Beringola, A. Martínez-Treceno, E. Bardon, J. 

Palacios, M. Becerril, J.J. Medina, J., Gálvez and J.M. López-Aranda, (2001). Three Years of 

Results on Chemical Alternatives To Methyl Bromide For Strawberry Nurseries in Spain. 

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reduction 2001. 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California, USA pp. 93-1. 

Melgarejo, P., A. Martínez-Treceño, A. de Cal, T. Salto, M.L Martínez-Beringola, J.M. García-Baudín, I. 

Santín, E. Bardón, J. Palacios, M. Becerril, J.J. Medina and J.M. López-Aranda (2003). 

Chemical alternatives to MB for strawberry nurseries in Spain. 2002 Results. In: Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, 

November 3-6, 2003, San Diego, California, USA. 

Minuto, A., A. Garibaldi and M.L. 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. 

Mutitu, E., R. Waswa, N. Musembi, J. Chepsoi, J. Mutero and M. Barel (2006). Use of methyl bromide 

alternatives in small scale vegetable sector in Kenya. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Project – 

Kenya. GOK-GTZ-UNDP project. Nairobi, Kenya. 

NCDA (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services), (1985). 

Nursery Regulations, Nursery Certification. 

http://www.ncagr.com/plantind/Regs/48a1200.htm 

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. (2004a). 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. 

Noling, J.W., J.P. Gilreath and D.A. Botts. (2006). Chapter 23. Alternatives to methyl bromide soil 

fumigation for Florida vegetable production. In: Olson, SM. et al. 2006. Vegetable Production 

Handbook for Florida. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) 

Extension. 

Noling, JW and Gilreath, JP. (2004b). Evaluations of chemical alternatives to methyl bromide for 

nematode control and tomato yield in field microplots. Proceedings of Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, orlando, 

Florida, USA. 
70 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Nomisma. (2006). Pest Control in the Italian food industry: Selected case studies. 

Norton, J., J. P. Gilreath and M. Nelson. (2002). 2000-2001 IR-4 MBA strawberry trial. Chancey Farm, 

Dover / Plant City, FL. USDA IR-4 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program for Minor Crops. 

Official Journal of the European Union (2008). Amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European 

Parliament and of the Council by establishing Annexes II, III and IV setting maximum residue 

levels for products covered by Annex I thereto. March 1, 2008. (EU 149/2008 of January 29, 

2008) 

Porter, I., R. Brett B. Wiseman and J. Rae. (1997). Methyl bromide for preplant soil disinfestation in 

temperate horticultural crops in Australia in perspective. Annual International Conference on 

Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-5 November, San Diego, California 

USA. 

Porter, I.J., L. Trinder and D. Partington. (2006). Special Report Validating the Yield Performance of 

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Preplant fumigation. TEAP/MBTOC Special Report, UNEP 

Nairobi, May 2006 97pp. 

Quicke, M., T. Starkey, and S. Enebak. (2007). Area-wide demonstration of alternatives: forest nurseries 

in the southern US. In: Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conf. on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. San Diego, CA, USA 

Rea, E., A. Salerno and F. Pierandrei (2008). Effect of substrate and nutrient solution reuse on ranunculus 

and anemone plant production in a closed soilless system. Acta Horticulturae 779: 541 – 546. 

Rich, J.R. and S.M. Olson (2003). Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide in North Florida U.S.A 

tomato production. Nematropica. 33, 157-163. 

Ristaino J.B. and S.A. Johnston. (1999). Ecologically based approaches to management of Phytophthora 

blight on bell pepper. Plant Disease, 83, 1080-1089 

Rosskopf, E.N., D.O. Chellemi, N. Kokalis-Burelle and G.T. Church. (2005). Alternatives to methyl 

bromide: A Florida perspective. APSnet Feature, June 2005. 

Sakuma, H. and Suzuki, K. (1995) Development of energy-saving hydroponics systems without requiring 

electricity. JIRCAS J. 4: 73-77. 

Santos, B., J.P. Gilreath and T.N. Motis (2005). Managing nustedge stunt nematode in peppers with 

reduced Methyl Bromide plus chloropicrin rates under Virtually Impermeable Films. 

HortTechnology 15(3): 596 - 599 

Santos, B.M. and J.P. Gilreath (2004). Cyperus spp. control with reduced Methyl Bromide rates under 

VIF in pepper. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives 

and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, USA, 2004. 

Santos, B.M., J.P. Gilreath, J.M. López-Aranda, L. Miranda, C. Soria, and J.J. Medina. (2007). 

Comparing Methyl Bromide alternatives for strawberry in Florida and Spain. Journal of 

Agronomy 6(1): 225 - 227 

Santos, B.M., J.P. Gilreath, T.N. Motis, J.W. Noling, J.P. Jones and J.A. Norton. (2006). Comparing 

methyl bromide alternatives for soilborne disease, nematode and weed management in fresh 

market tomato. Crop Protection 25: 690-695. 

Savvas D., and H. Passam (eds) (2001). Hydroponic Production of Vegetables and Ornamentals. Embryo 

Publications, Athens, Greece, 242 pp. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 71

Schneider, S., Trout, T., Browne, G. and Ajwa, H. (2004). Vineyard replant - performance of methyl 

bromide alternatives over time. Pp 8-1 - 8-5 In: Annual International Research Conference on 

Methyl bromide Alternatives, Orlando, Florida, USA 

Shem-Tov, S, H.A. Ajwa, S.A. Fennimore and J. Hunzie. (2006b). Strawberry production and weed 

control in soils treated with basamid and chloropicrin. In: Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL, USA. 

Shem-Tov, S., H.A. Ajwa and S.A. Fennimore. (2005). Effect of alternative tarp and fumigants 

combinations with metam sodium on strawberry yield. In: Proceedings of Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, 

CA, United States. 

Shem-Tov, S., H.A. Ajwa and S.Fennimore (2006a). Strawberry yield and weed control with alternative 

fumigants applied in combination with metam under various tarps. In: Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL, 

USA. 

Sonneveld, (2002). Composition of nutritional solution. In: Savvas D., and H. Passam (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. Proceedings of International Conference on 

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon. 

Stanghellini, M.E., D. M. Ferrin, D. H. Kim, M. M. Waugh, K. C. Radewald, J. J. Sims, and H. D. Ohr 

(2003). Application of preplant fumigants via drip irrigation systems for the management of root 

rot of melons caused by Monosporascus cannonballus Plant Disease 87(10): 1176 - 1178 

Sydorovych, O., C. D. Safley, L. M. Ferguson, E. B. Poling, G. E. Fernandez, P. M. Brannen, D. M 

Monks and F. J. Louws, (2006), Economic evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for the 

production of strawberries in the Southeastern United States. HortTechnology 16(1): 118- 128 

Sydorovych, O., Safley, C.D., Poling, E.B., Ferguson, L.M., Fernandez, G.E., Brannen, P.M. and Louws, 

F.J. (2004). Economic evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry production. 

Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 

Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL, USA. 

TDA (Tennessee Department of Agriculture and Plant Industries). 1999. Rules of 

Tennessee Department of Agriculture and Plant Industries. Regulations 

Governing Strawberry Plant Growers and Dealers. Chapter 0080-6-2. 

http://state.tn.us/sos/rules/0080/0080-06/0080-06-02.pdf 

TEAP (1999). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, April 1999. Montreal 

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, 

Nairobi. 

TEAP (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. 

TEAP (2006) Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, October 2006. Montreal 

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, 

Nairobi. 
72 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

TEAP (2008) Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, May 2008. Montreal Protocol 

on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. 

Tostovrsnik, N.S., A.L. Shanks, I.J. Porter, S.W, Mattner and R.W. Brett (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 Nov, San Diego California USA. 

Tsuda, S. (2006) An Approach for Development of Environment-Friendly Techniques to Control SoilBorne Viral Diseases. Proceedings of Vegetable and Tea Science. No.3. Final Issue: 29-34 

Uhlig, R.E., G. Bird, R. J. Richardson and B. H. Zandstra (2007). Soil fumigants to replace methyl 

bromide for weed control in ornamentals. HortTechnology 17: 111 – 114. 

UNEP (2007). Methyl Bromide quarantine and pre-shipment uses. United Nations Environment 

Programme, Nairobi, Kenya 15 pp. http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/UNEP-OzoneSecretariat-MP-Brochure.pdf 

Urrestarazu, M. (2004). Tratado de cultivo sin suelo Mundi Prensa Libros, España, 928 pp. 3a edición. 

Urrestarazu, M. (2005) International symposium on soilless culture and hydroponics. Acta Horticulturae

557, 565pp 

Vos, J and Bridge, J. (ed.) (2006). Cases of methyl bromide alternatives used in commercial practice. 

CAB International. 

Wetter, C. (1984). Serological identification of four tobamovirues infecting pepper. Plant Disease 68: 

597-599. 

Zhu, C (2008). Current situation and development tendency of controlled atmosphere and fumigation 

technology in Chinese grain storage. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on 

Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products. Chengdu China, September 22-27, 

2008. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 73

7. MBTOC Work plan for 2009

7.1 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 

MB 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 annual work plan should 

be drawn up by MBTOC (and 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 2008 work plan in consultation with TEAP and with support of the Ozone 

Secretariat. The timelines for the work plan are contained below for consideration by 

the Parties at their Twentieth 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, this summary 

report is provided. 

7.2 MBTOC Workplan for 2009 - 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 2009 as set out in Table 7.1 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 VII. 

The work plan also includes an indicative budget for the activities in 2009, which 

relate to evaluation of CUNs. Parties had indicated in the 2006 approved budget that 

2006 is the last year for providing supplemental funding to MBTOC and for 2007 and 

2008, no supplemental funding was provided for MBTOC. MBTOC would like to 

bring to the attention of the Parties that such financial assistance is needed to ensure 

the effective operation of MBTOC in continuing to carry out the evaluation of CUNs. 

In particular, provision of some funding for non-Article 5 MBTOC members to attend 

meetings is strongly recommended. 

 

TEAP co-chairs authorised only two of MBTOC QSC Article 5 members and five 

MBTOC S Article 5 members to attend their second meetings of the year. 

Additionally, several non Article 5 members of MBTOC QSC were not funded by the 

organizations that sponsor their participation. 

Annex 1 of Decision XVI/4 outlines a schedule by which two MBTOC meetings are 

envisioned per year to evaluate CUNs. The schedule further allows MBTOC to seek 
74 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

further information from Parties and in turn for Parties to provide additional 

information in response to MBTOCs interim recommendations made during the first 

meeting. UNEP and Party funding of MBTOC members would allow the committee 

to conduct its tasks appropriately and complete its work. 

Although most non Article 5 members are funded by their governments or other 

sponsors, some members (particularly in the QSC sub-committee) do not have 

funding to attend meetings. Some non Article 5 members presently use personal funds 

or funds from research programs to attend MBTOC meetings. As mentioned in the 

previous workplan of MBTOC as well as in the Progress Reports of TEAP, the 

financial burden on individual members and/or their research institutions has become 

increasingly unsustainable. 

In 2008, MBTOC still required two 'face-to-face' meetings owing to (i) review of a 

large number of CUNs, (ii) more clearly and completely reference the reasons for 

decision making in reports, (iii) to conduct field trips to understand the circumstances 

of particular nominations; (iv) and time to prepare responses to specific requests by 

Parties. 

As a result of lack of funding only local site visits were conducted in those places 

where MBTOC meetings took place, for example Israel. Further, it was necessary to 

conduct a number of important tasks off -line. This represents extra effort and 

difficulties and often required MBTOC members to work extensively outside regular 

office hours.

Table 7.1. MBTOC work plan and indicative budget: 2009

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 2009 

2. The nominations are forwarded to MBTOC co-chairs 

for distribution to the subgroups of appointed members 

- 7 February 2009 

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 

 

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 2009 

6. Nominating Party develops and submits its response to 

the MBTOC co-chairs 

- 7 March 2009 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 75

Tasks and actions Indicative budget needs 

where applicable 

Indicative 

completion date 

Dates of 

meetings 

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 

• Bilateral meetings 

Funds for travel of 3 

non-A5 QSC members: 

US$10,000 

(Meeting Costs can be 

covered under the 

normal Ozone Secretariat 

budget) 

March-April 2009 Tentative: Soils: 

Morocco (Agadir 

or Rabat); QSC: 

USA (California), 

Netherlands or 

Philippines 

8. MBTOC provides its draft recommendations on the 

CUNs to TEAP 

 End of April, 2009 

9. TEAP Meeting: To assess the MBTOC report on 

critical-use nominations and submits the finalised 

interim report on recommendations and findings to the 

Secretariat. 

 End April, 2009 To be determined 

10. The Secretariat posts the finalised report on its web site 

and circulates it to the Parties 

- May 2009 

11. OEWG Bilateral Discussions: Nominating Party has 

the opportunity to consult with MBTOC on a bilateral basis 

in conjunction with the Open-ended Working Group 

meetings 

 July 2009 Geneva, 

Switzerland 

12. 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 OEWG, and 

provides additional information should it wish to appeal 

against a critical-use nomination recommendation by 

MBTOC/TEAP 

- 

August 2009 

13. 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 OEWG 

• 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 QSC members 

US $8,500 

Meeting costs: $US 

6000. 

September 2009 Tentative: Soils: 

US (California); 

QSC: USA 

(California), 

Netherlands or 

Philippines 

14. MBTOC draft final report considered by TEAP, 

finalised and made available to Parties through the 

Secretariat 

- End September, 2009 

15. 21st Meeting of the Parties November, 2009 Tentative: Egypt 

Total budget: US$ 24,500 

Composition of MBTOC 

16. At MBTOC meetings (Alassio: August 30-September 

2; Chengdu, Sept 26), MBTOC has updated the list of 

members and their expertise. 

Updated list attached 

separately 

............. 

17. The Secretariat provides an update on its website of 

this list of members and expertise required for TEAP and its 

TOCs’. 

 ............... 

October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 77

8. Summary Report of the Activities Carried out by MBTOC in 

2008 

• Initial summarization of the CUNs (initial sorting and recording carried out by 

the Secretariat). 

• Preparation of questions for Parties. Assessment of responses received. 

• First meeting of MBTOC on the assessment of the CUNs - Tel Aviv, 14-18 

April 2008. One non A5 member resigned and one non A5 member joined the 

committee. Interim recommendations and report prepared for the Parties. 

Bilateral meetings were held with USA. 

• Site visits: MBTOC-S conducted a field trip to observe alternatives adopted by 

vegetable and flower growers including substrate production and alternative 

fumigants. MBTOC-QSC conducted a site visit to a flour mill in Tel Aviv 

• TEAP meeting - Vienna, 21-25 April 2008. 

• Completion of the interim report for consideration by the 28 OEWG as part of 

2008 TEAP Progress Report of April 2008. 

• Completion of the special review on Current Status on Efficacy, Costs and 

Adoption of Alternatives in Flour Mills published in Spring TEAP report. 

• 28 OEWG (Bangkok, 7- 11 July 2008). Bilateral meetings with Australia, 

Canada, Japan and USA. 

• MBTOC-S reorganization: Two non A5 members and two A5 members were 

retired from the committee. 

• Metaanalysis biometricians in Australia held a teleconference with a large US 

delegation to discuss further procedural issues related to the metaanalysis. 

Owing to requests by the Parties and new information submitted, the sub committees 

required a second meeting to review new information from Parties. To assist 

logistics, meetings were held in conjunction with major international conferences that 

were attended by many MBTOC members. 

• MBTOC-S met in Alassio from 30 Aug - 2 Sept. 2008. A bilateral discussion 

was held with the USA. 

• MBTOC-QSC met in Chengdu on 21 September, 2008 and intermittently 

during the week during the meeting on Controlled Atmosphere and 

Fumigation.. 

• Preparation of the final report on the CUNs for consideration by the Parties at 

their 20th Meeting. 
78 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

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).
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 79

ANNEX II: Decision XVI/4 

Review of the working procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl Bromide 

Technical Options Committee

Report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Annex I), Prague, 22–26 

November 2004), paragraph 15. 

A. Working procedures of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

relating to the evaluation of nominations for critical uses of methyl bromide 

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. 
80 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

ANNEX III: Relative effectiveness of MB/Pic formulations applied in combination wit

films (LPBF) compared to the commercial standard MB/Pic formulation applied under polyethylene films (LDPF).

 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 

Navalmanzano 78 50:50 400 80 

FusariumPhytophPythiumRhizoctoVerticilli

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

Navalmanzano 34 50:50 400 76 75 

FusariumCladospRhizocto

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

 Malvinas 50:50 400 99 

1998 Fu

Spain Valencia Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 59 Not Spec 600 94 

 At 10cm 30cm 

53 Not Spec 600 93 1999 res

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

Tariquejo 54 67:33 400 106 

Meloidoand wee(unspec

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

Inoculum specified 

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

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

1999 resnurserie

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

2000 resnurserie

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

1997-19Inoc.uns

72 67:33 400 102 

1998-19Unspeci

68 67:33 400 109 

1999-20Unspeci
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

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

54 98:2 600 91 

1998 No pathogeFusarium 10cm&3

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

Inoculum specified 

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

Phytophpresent 

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

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 

Nutgraspathogepresent 

USA California 72 67:33 336 108 

Inoculum specified 

Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 

80 67:33 392 96 

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

Nutgrasrootknot nematod

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

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

Watsonvhigh patpressure 

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 

 USA Georgia Nurseries VIF – not spec 67:33 389 See reference 

USA California Roses 

67:33 

98 ̈2 

392 392 See reference 

USA Florida Pepper VIF – not spec 67:33 392 See reference USA Florida Pepper VIF – not spec 67:33 392 See reference USA California Ornamentals VIF – not spec 67:33 392 See reference 

 Unweighted averages (relative % yield) 66 94 99 93 93 102 103 108 104 91 
82 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

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 

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 

(▲MB/Pic 98:2; ● MB/Pic 67:33; ♦ MB/Pic 50:50; ■ MB/Pic 33:67). Data from Table 3. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

ANNEX IV: Methyl bromide reduction trends, based on historical rates of adoption in (EC National Management Strategy, 2008. CUNA = Critical Use Nomination Assessment; MS = Member State of 

Major MB 

CUEs 

in 2006 

1991 

MB use 

estimate2

(tonnes) 

(ha) 

(No. MSs) 

2005 

MB use3

(tonnes) 

(ha) 

(No. MSs) 

2008 

MB quota 

allocation 

(tonnes) 

(ha) 

(No. MSs) 

Short-listed existing MB 

alternatives4

Historical rates of ad

in individual M

from Table 4.3, Ann

(ha/year per M

Fumigants: 1,3-D, PIC, Metham Sodium, Dazomet 

up to 1193 ha/year/MS 

Grafting on resistant root stock up to 1000 ha/year/MS 

Tomato > 4980 t 

> 7000 ha > 12 MS 

733 t 2423 ha 4 MS 

0 t 0 ha 0 MS 

Substrates up to 1570 ha/year/MS 

Fumigants: 1,3-D, PIC, Metham Sodium 

up to 2090 ha/year/MS 

Substrates up to 80 ha / year/MS 

Strawberry fruit 

~ 3420 t ~ 5200 ha (>8000 ha in yr 2000) > 12 MS 

497 t 3879 ha 4 MS 

0 t5

0 ha 0 MS 

Resistant varieties no data 

2 Refer to Section 3 for data. 3 MB use data from EC Accounting Framework Report. Hectares calculated on doses stated in CUNs and CUNAs. If not stated, 

for this use (tomato: 300 kg/ha; strawberry runners: 300 – 470 kg/ha; strawberry fruit: 100 – 300 kg/ha; cutflowers: 200 – 500 food processors: 20 g/m3) 4 Further details and alternatives in Annex 4.C. 

5 Excluding 151 kg for research on strawberry fruit and peppers in Spain in 2008. 
84 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Major MB 

CUEs 

in 2006 

1991 

MB use 

estimate2

(tonnes) 

(ha) 

(No. MSs) 

2005 

MB use3

(tonnes) 

(ha) 

(No. MSs) 

2008 

MB quota 

allocation 

(tonnes) 

(ha) 

(No. MSs) 

Short-listed existing MB 

alternatives4

Historical rates of ad

in individual M

from Table 4.3, Ann

(ha/year per M

Fumigants: 1,3-D, PIC, Metham Sodium, Dazomet 

up to 313 ha/year/MS 

Substrates up to 60 ha/year/MS Steam up to 917 ha/year/MS 

Cut flowers ~ 1610 t 

~ 1,800 ha > 12 MS 

259 t 855 ha 6 MS 

0 t6

0 ha 0 MS 

Resistant varieties ?? 

Fumigants: 1,3-D, Metham Sodium, Dazomet 

Peppers ~ 2410 t up to 667 ha/year/MS 

~ 3,000 ha > 11 MS 

250 t 1336 ha 3 MS 

0 t7

0 ha 0 MS 

Substrates 175 ha / year/MS 

Fumigants: 1,3-D, PIC, Metham Sodium 

Strawberry up to 94 ha/year/MS runners 

~ 740 t ~ 930 ha ~ 5 MS 

346 t ~ 1500 ha 4 MS 

212 t 1364 ha 2 MS 

Plug plants ?? 

Mills and 640t 150 t 0 t Heat + IPM up to 3,500,000 – 4,60

6 Excluding 25 kg for research on cut flowers in Spain in 2008.. 7 Excluding 151 kg for research on strawberry fruit and peppers in Spain in 2008. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Major MB 

CUEs 

in 2006 

1991 

MB use 

estimate2

(tonnes) 

(ha) 

(No. MSs) 

2005 

MB use3

(tonnes) 

(ha) 

(No. MSs) 

2008 

MB quota 

allocation 

(tonnes) 

(ha) 

(No. MSs) 

Short-listed existing MB 

alternatives4

Historical rates of ad

in individual M

from Table 4.3, Ann

(ha/year per M

Sulfuryl fluoride (+ heat) m3 / year/ MS Phosphine (+ heat) ?? 

food processing structures 

12,800,000 m3 8 

~ 15 MS 

~7,500,000 m3 9

5 MS 

0 m3

0 MS Modified atmosphere 

(structures) 

200.000 m3 / year 

Phosphine solid formulations + heat if necessary 

?? 

Phosphine gas generation ?? Vacuum-hermetic treatments, low pressure 

?? 

Controlled atmosphere + heat if necessary 

?? 

Coffee beans 

Modest use. No data 

< 1.6 t <172,800 m3

1 MS 

0.5 t 54,000 m3

1 MS 

High pressure + CO2 46,400 m3/year 

8 Assuming average dosage was about 50 g/m3 in 1991. 9 Assuming dosage of about 20 g/m3
86 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

ANNEX V– Part A: Trend in Preplant Soil Applications List of nominated (2005 – 2010 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2009 in part) amounts of methyl bromide granted by P

each crop or commodity. 

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 2007 

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 Australia Strawberry Fruit 90.000 67.000 Australia Strawberry runners 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 29.790 35.750 37.500 35.750 Belgium Asparagus 0.630 0.225 0.630 0.225 Belgium Chicory 0.600 0.180 0.180 0.180 Belgium Chrysanthemums 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 7.462 7.462 (a)14.792 6.840 7.995 Canada Strawberry runners (Quebec) 1.826 (a) 1.826 1.826 Canada Strawberry runners (Ontario) 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 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 2007 

France Strawberry fruit 90.000 86.000 34.000 90.000 86.000 France Strawberry runners 40.000 4.000 35.000 40.000 40.000 28.000 France Tomato (and eggplant for 2005 only) 150(all 

solanaceous) 

60.500 33.250 125.000 48.400 

France Eggplant 27.500 33.250 48.400 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 250.000 250.000 125.000 250.000 Israel Cucumber - protected new 2007 18.750 25.000 Israel Cut flowers – open field 77.000 67.000 80.755 53.345 42.777 77.000 67.000 74.540 Israel Cut flowers – protected 303.000 303.000 321.330 163.400 113.821 303.000 240.000 220.185 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 87.500 87.500 125.650 99.400 105.000 Israel Potato 239.000 231.000 137.500 93.750 75.000 239.000 165.000 137.500 Israel Seed production 56.000 50.000 22.400 56.000 28.000 Israel Strawberries – fruit 196.000 196.000 176.200 64.125 52.250 196.000 196.000 93.000 Israel Strawberry runners 35.000 35.000 20 15.800 35.000 35.000 28.000 Israel Strawberry runners and fruit Ghaza 87.875 67.500 Israel Tomatoes 90.000 22.750 Israel Sweet potato 95.000 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 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 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 61.400 34.100 88.300 88.800 72.4 Japan Ginger – field 119.400 119.400 112.200 112.100 102.200 53.400 119.400 119.400 109.701 Japan Ginger – protected 22.900 22.900 14.800 14.800 12.900 8.300 22.900 22.900 14.471 Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 182.200 168.000 90.800 194.100 203.900 182.2 Japan Peppers (green and hot) 189.900 200.700 169.400 162.300 134.400 81.100 187.200 200.700 156.700 Japan Watermelon 126.300 96.200 94.200 43.300 23.700 15.400 129.000 98.900 94.2 Malta Cucumber 0.096 0.127 Malta Eggplant 0.128 0.170 Malta Strawberry 0.160 0.212 Malta Tomatoes 0.475 0.594 
88 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 2007 

New Zealand Nursery material 1.085 1.085 0.000 New Zealand Strawberry fruit 42.000 42.000 24.780 42.000 34.000 12.000 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 12.000 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 Spain Cut Flowers – Catalonia 20.000 18.600 12.840 17.000 

(+Andalucia) 

 20.000 15.000 43.490 

(+Andalucia) 

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 230.000 230.000 230.000 215.000 230.000 230.000 230.000 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/roses 29.412 29.412 0.000 USA Cucurbits – field 1187.800 747.839 598.927 588.949 411.765 340.405 1187.800 747.839 592.891 USA Eggplant – field 76.761 101.245 96.480 79.546 62.789 34.732 76.721 82.167 85.363 USA Forest nursery seedlings 192.515 157.694 152.629 133.140 125.758 120.853 192.515 157.694 122.032 USA Ginger 9.200 9.200 0.000 USA Orchard replant 706.176 827.994 405.415 405.666 314.007 226.021 706.176 527.600 405.400 USA Ornamentals 210.949 162.817 149.965 138.538 137.776 95.204 154.000 148.483 137.835 USA Nursery stock - fruit trees, 

raspberries, roses 

45.789 64.528 12.684 51.102 25.326 17.954 45.800 64.528 28.275 

USA Peppers – field 1094.782 1498.530 1151.751 919.006 783.821 463.282 1094.782 1243.542 1106.753 USA Strawberry fruit – field 2468.873 1918.400 1733.901 1604.669 1336.754 1103.422 2052.846 1730.828 1476.019 USA Strawberry runners 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 8.837 7.381 54.988 56.291 4.483 USA Tomato – field 2876.046 2844.985 2334.047 1840.100 1245.249 994.582 737.584 2476.365 2065.246 USA Turfgrass 352.194 131.600 78.040 52.189 0 131.600 78.04 USA Sweet potato 224.528 18.144 18.144 18.144 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

ANNEX VI– Part B: Post-harvest Structural and Commodity Applications List of nominated (2005 – 2010 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2009 in part) amounts of methyl bromide granted by P

each structural or commodity treatment. 

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 

Australia Almonds 1.900 2.100 1.900 2.100 Australia Rice consumer packs 12.300 12.300 10.225 9.200 

+1.8 

9.200 7.820 6.150 6.150 

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 26.913 22.878 (a)47 34.774 Canada Pasta manufacturing facilities (a) 10.457 6.757 6.067 4.740 (a) 10.457 Canada Commodities 0.068 France Seeds sold by PLAN-SPG company 0.135 0.135 0.100 0.135 0.135 France Mills 55.000 40.000 8.000 40.000 35.000 France Rice consumer packs 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 France Chestnuts 2.000 2.000 1.800 2.000 2.000 Germany Artefacts 0.250 0.100 0.250 0.100 Germany Mills and Processors 45.000 19.350 45.000 19.350 Greece Dried fruit 4.280 3.081 0.900 4.280 3.081 Greece Mills and Processors 23.000 16.000 1.340 23.000 15.445 Greece Rice and legumes 2.355 2.355 Ireland Mills 0.888 0.611 0.888 Israel Artefacts 0.650 0.650 0.600 0.650 0.650 Israel Dates (post harvest) 3.444 3.444 2.200 1.800 2.100 3.444 2.755 
90 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 

Israel Flour mills (machinery & storage) 2.140 1.490 1.490 0.800 0.300 2.140 1.490 Israel Furniture– imported 1.422 1.422 2.042 1.422 0.000 Italy Artefacts 5.500 5.500 5.000 5.225 0.000 Italy Mills and Processors 160.000 130.000 25.000 160.000 65.000 Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.500 6.500 6.300 5.800 5.400 7.100 6.800 Latvia Grains 2.502 2.502 Netherlands Strawberry runners post harvest 0.120 0.120 0.120 0 Poland Medicinal herbs & dried mushrooms 

as dry commodities 

4.000 3.560 1.800 0.500 4.100 3.560 

Poland Coffee, cocoa beans (a) 2.160 2.000 0.500 2.160 Spain Rice 50.000 42.065 Switzerland Mills & Processors 8.700 7.000 8.700 7.000 UK Aircraft 0.165 UK Mills and Processors 47.130 10.195 4.509 47.130 10.195 UK Cereal processing plants 8.131 3.480 (a) 8.131 UK Cheese stores 1.640 1.248 1.248 1.640 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 UK Mills and Processors (biscuits) 2.525 1.787 0.479 2.525 1.787 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 

UK Structures, processors and storage 

(Whitworths) 

1.100 0.880 0.257 1.100 0.880 

UK Tobacco equipment 0.523 0.050 UK Woven baskets 0.770 0.770 USA Dried fruit and nuts (walnuts, 

pistachios, dried fruit and dates and dried beans) 

89.166 87.719 91.299 67.699 58.912 19.242 89.166 87.719 

USA Dry commodities/ structures (cocoa 

beans) 

61.519 61.519 64.028 52.256 51.002 61.519 55.367 

USA Dry commodities/ structures 

(processed foods, herbs and spices, dried milk and cheese processing facilities) NPMA 

83.344 83.344 85.801 72.693 66.777 37.778 83.344 69.118 

USA Smokehouse hams (Dry cure pork 

products) (building and product) 

136.304 135.742 40.854 19.669 19.699 4.465 67.907 81.708 

USA Mills and Processors 536.328 505.982 401.889 362.952 291.418 173.023 483.000 461.758 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 91

ANNEX VII: Disclosure and Members of MBTOC Committees 

Committee contact details and Disclosure of Interest 

To assure public confidence in the objectivity and competence of TEAP, TOC, and TSB 

members who guide the Montreal Protocol, Parties to the Protocol have asked that each 

member to disclose proprietary, financial, and other interests. TEAP members have 

published such information for several years in the TEAP annual report. 

As a result, Decision XVIII/19 was issued during the 18th Meeting of Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol held in New Delhi, India from 28 October to 3 November 2006. All 

MBTOC members are presently required to complete a disclosure of interest form and 

these are presented in summarized form below. 

A – MBTOC Soil subcommittee Members - September 2008 

Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length of 

service 

Country Article 

5 status 

Co-Chairs 

1. Mohamed 

Besri 

M Institut 

Agronomique et 

Vétérinaire Hassan 

II (Academia) 

Professor, 

researcher, 

particularly on MB 

and alternatives in 

A5 (PhD) 

B Morocco A5 

2. Marta 

Pizano 

F Consultant Consultant, MB 

alts, particularly cut 

flower production 

B Colombia A5 

3. Ian Porter M Department of 

Primary Industries 

(Government 

research) 

Researcher, soils 

MB use and alts, 

particularly fungal 

pathogens and IPM 

(PhD) 

A Australia Non-A5 

Members 

4. Antonio 

Bello 

M Centro de Ciencias 

Medioambientales 

(Government 

research) 

Non-chemical 

alternatives (PhD, 

Prof.) 

A Spain Non-A5 

5. Aocheng 

Cao 

M Chinese Academy 

of Agricultural 

Sciences 

(Government 

research) 

Researcher, soil 

alternatives, 

particularly in 

China (A5) context 

(PhD) 

B China A5 

6. Peter 

Caulkins 

M Associate Director, 

Special Review & 

Reregistration 

Division US EPA 

Registration of 

alternatives, 

regulatory issues 

(PhD) 

C USA Non A-5 

7. Abraham 

Gamliel 

M Agricultural 

Research 

Organization, 

The Volcani 

Center, 

(Government 

Research) 

Alternatives for 

soils, horticulture 

(PhD) 

C Israel Non-A5 
92 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length of 

service 

Country Article 

5 status 

Co-Chairs 

8. George 

Lazarovits 

M Agriculture & Agrifood Canada 

(Government 

research) 

Researcher, non 

chemical control of 

soilborne pathogens 

(PhD) 

C Canada Non-A5 

9 Andrea 

Minuto 

M Centro Regionale di 

Sperimentazione ed 

Assistenza Agricola 

CERSAA (CCIAA 

Savona) Albenga 

Researcher, MB 

and alternatives in 

soils (PhD) 

C Italy Non-A5 

10 Ariane 

Saade 

F Tolken Lebanon Economics and 

trade 

C Lebanon A5 

11. James D. 

Schaub 

M United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

(Government 

regulatory) 

Agricultural 

economist (PhD) 

B USA Non-A5 

12. Sally 

Schneider 

F United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

(Government 

research) 

Researcher in soils 

alts, particularly 

replant problems 

and propagative 

material nurseries 

(PhD) 

B USA Non-A5 

13. JL 

Staphorst 

M Plant Protection 

Research Institute 

(Parastatal 

research) 

Expert Soil 

Microbiologist 

(DSc) 

A South 

Africa 

A5 

14. Akio 

Tateya 

M Syngenta Japan 

K.K. 

Application of MB 

and alts, 

particularly in 

Japan 

A Japan Non-A5 

15 Alejandro 

Valeiro 

M Instituto Nacional 

de Tecnología 

Agropecuaria 

(Government 

research) 

Introduction/use of 

soils alts, including 

tobacco 

B Argentina A5 

16. Nick Vink M University of 

Stellenbosch 

(Academia) 

Agricultural 

economics (PhD, 

Prof.) 

C South 

Africa 

A5 

17 Janny Vos F CABI, The 

Netherlands 

Plant PathologistIPM D Holland 

18. Jim Wells M Environmental 

Solutions Group, 

LLC (Consultant) 

Registration and 

regulatory - MB 

and alternatives, 

soil uses 

A USA Non-A5 

 

Totals M 

=14 

F 

=4 

 A= 5 

B= 6 

 C = 6 

 D= 1 

 A5=7 

NonA5=11 

A - >10 years 

B – 5-10 

C – 2-5 

D - <2 year 

Article 5 countries: 7 (39 %) 

Non Article ( countries): 11 (61 %) 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 93

Co-chairs 

Professor Mohamed Besri Article 5 co-chair 

Department of Plant Pathology 

Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II 

Rabat 

MOROCCO 

Prof. Mohamed Besri, is a full time Professor of Plant Pathology and Integrated Disease 

Management at the Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, Rabat, Morocco 

(HII IAVM). The HII IAVM has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it 

houses specialists in Soil-borne Plant Pathogens and MLF projects (strawberries, bananas, cut 

flowers). It advises the Ministry of Agriculture on all aspects of alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 

Prof. Besri has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock 

in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs . Prof. Besri works 

occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither Prof. 

Besri’s spouse, business partner or dependant children, work for or consult for any organization 

which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do any of them have any 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor do any of them own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or consult for organizations 

seeking to phaseout ODSs. Costs associated to travel, communication, and others related to 

participation in the TEAP, MBTOC, and relevant Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by 

UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. 

Ms. Marta Pizano Article 5 co-chair 

Consultant 

Bogotá 

COLOMBIA 

Ms. Marta Pizano is a consultant on methyl bromide alternatives, particularly for cut flower 

production, and has actively promoted methyl bromide alternatives among growers in many 

countries. She is a regular consultant for the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund (MLF) and its 

implementing agencies. In this capacity, she has contributed to MB phase-out programs in 

nearly twenty Article 5 countries around the world, assisting growers with the adoption of 

sustainable alternatives and the implementation of IPM programs. She is a frequent speaker at 

national and international methyl bromide conferences and has authored numerous articles and 

publications on alternatives to this fumigant. She has been a member of MBTOC since 1998 

and a co-chair since 2005. Neither Ms Pizano nor her husband or their children own stock or 

have proprietary interest in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Costs 

associated to travel, communication, and others related to participation in the TEAP, MBTOC, 

and relevant Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. 

Dr. Ian Porter 

Consultant 

Victoria, AUSTRALIA 

Dr Ian Porter is the Principal Research scientist in Plant Pathology with the Victorian 

Department of Primary Industries (DPI) but presently conducts MBTOC work on leave from his 

organisation. DPI has an interest in developing sustainable control measures for plant pathogens 

and biosecurity. He is a member of a number of National Committees regulating ODS, has led 

the Australian research program on methyl bromide alternatives for soils and has 28 years 
94 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

experience in researching sustainable methods for soil disinfestation of plant pathogens with 

over 200 research publications. He has been a member of MBTOC since 1997, Soils sub 

committee chair since 2001 and MBTOC Co-chair since 2005. Neither, Dr. Ian Porter, his wife 

or children have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr Porter is presently 

assisting National research agencies in Australia develop national priorities for IPM and soil 

health. He has conducted projects for UNEP and UNIDO in developing programmes to assist 

China, Mexico and CEIT countries to replace methyl bromide. The Victorian DPI has in the 

past made in-kind contributions to attend MBTOC and UNEP meetings, but provides no present 

support. The Australian Federal Government Research Funds and funds obtained through the 

Ozone Secretariat have provided funds to support travel and expenses for past MBTOC 

activities. 

Members of record 

Dr. Antonio Bello 

Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas 

Madrid 

SPAIN 

Dr. Antonio Bello Pérez is a full time Research Professor at the Centre for Environmental 

Sciences in the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid, Spain. The institute 

has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of the environmental impact of 

methyl bromide. Dr Bello Pérez has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, 

does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and 

does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He works occasionally as a 

consultant for UNEP, Implementing Agencies and Governments, on matters related to the 

Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by his institution, which in turn receives 

contributions for this travel from national projects. 

 

Prof. Cao Aocheng Article 5 Member

Institute for Plant Protection 

Chinese Academy for Agricultural Sciences 

Beijing 

CHINA 

Dr. Aocheng Cao is a Research Professor at the Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy 

of Agricultural Sciences focusing on research in pesticide sciences. The Chinese Academy of 

Agricultural Sciences, a non-profit organization, is interested in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol because soil pathogens and nematodes are important pests in China and alternatives to 

methyl bromide are urgently needed. Dr Cao has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or 

substitutes and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. His spouse also 

works for the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, which has an interest in the topics of 

the Montreal Protocol as it conducts research on pest control, but has no proprietary interest in 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor does she own stock in companies producing ODS or 

their alternatives or substitutes or perform consultancy for organizations seeking to phase out 

ODSs. Expenses related to Dr Cao’s attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by UNEP. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 95

Dr. Peter Caulkins 

Associate Director 

Special Review & Reregistration Division EPA 

Washington D. C. 

UNITED STATES 

Dr Peter Caulkins is the Associate Director in the Special Review and Reregistration Division 

in the Office of Pesticide Programs in the U.S.EPA. The U.S. EPA has sole authority for the 

regulation of all pesticide use in the U.S. and therefore has a strong interest in the Montreal 

Protocol’s phase-out of methyl bromide. Neither Dr Caulkins nor his wife or their son have any 

proprietary interests in ODSs or their alternatives, own no stock in either ODS companies or 

companies providing alternatives and do not do any consulting for organizations seeking to 

phase-out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid for by EPA. 

Ms. Ariane Elmas Article 5 member 

Tokten Lebanon, UNDP 

LEBANON 

Ms. Ariane Elmas was formerly the project manager of a “Trade and Environment” project 

funded by UNEP, managed by UNDP and implemented by the Ministry of Environment in 

Lebanon. This project published a report on the effects of trade liberalization in Lebanon with 

special focus on products where methyl bromide is used and includes an annual profitability 

analysis and a cost benefit analysis comparing the Methyl Bromide alternatives used for each 

crop. Ms. Elmas, is an economist and is currently the Project Manager at the UNDP in Lebanon. 

The UNDP has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is one of its 

implementing agencies and as such manages the MB phase out project implemented in Lebanon 

under the coordination of the Ministry of the Environment. Neither Ms Elmas, nor her spouse 

or their dependant children have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, 

own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes or consult for 

organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Expenses related to Ms Elmas’ attendance to 

MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP. 

Dr. Abraham Gamliel 

Agricultural Research Organization, 

The Volcani Center, 

Bet Dagan 

ISRAEL 

Dr Abraham Gamliel is a full time senior researcher on methods and technologies for pest 

control and pesticide application at the Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Organization, Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel .He is also an adjunct professor at the Hebrew 

University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel. ARO Volcani Center has an 

interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is the research and development 

institute for solving the farmer’s problem and for developing environmentally safe crop 

production. Dr Gamliel has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not 

own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not 

consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant for 

the Government, on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse nor their 

children work for or consult for organizations having an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol nor do they have a proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, own stock 

in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Dr Gamliel’s travel expenses 

to attend MBTOC meetings are paid by the Ministry of Agriculture of Israel. 
96 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Dr. George Lazarovits 

Agriculture & Agri-food Canada 

London, Ontario 

CANADA, N5V 4T3. 

Dr. George Lazarovits is a research scientist at the Southern Crop Protection and Food Research 

Center of Agriculture and Agrifood Canada (AAFC). He is employed as a fulltime research 

scientist to investigate aspects of plant pathology involved with management of soilborne plant 

pathogens. AAFC has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because Canada has a 

vested interest in eliminating ozone- depleting substances such as methyl bromide, which are 

still being used by Canadian growers and Industries. AAFC, in collaboration with Environment 

Canada, is charged with overseeing the phase-out of ozone depleting products. Dr. Lazarovits 

has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in 

companies producing ODS or those manufacturing alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does 

not act as consultant for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs, other than non profit 

government agencies charged with enforcing the regulations of the Montreal Protocol. He is 

involved in advising as a consultant to Environment Canada (EC) on matters related to the 

Montreal Protocol, including evaluation of critical use nominations submitted to them by 

Canadian growers or Industries seeking exemptions for use of MB under CUE. Such 

nominations, if approved by EC, are eventually adjudicated by members of MBTOC. Dr. 

Lazarovits’ spouse has no involvement whatsoever with any issues or has any interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol or any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. 

She does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and 

does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. They have no dependent children 

living with them and their children have no involvement in any businesses dealing with issues 

that are in any way related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid for by 

AACF, and occasionally Environment Canada, from A Base budgets 

Dr. Andrea Minuto 

Centro Regionale di Sperimentazione ed Assistenza Agricola CERSAA 

(CCIAA Savona) 

Regione Rollo n° 98 17031 

Albenga (SV) 

ITALY 

Dr Andrea Minuto is a full time employee at the CERSAA experimental station in Italy. 

CERSAA has an interest in the topics of pest and disease control including soil disinfestation 

because of the activities carried out in the frame of regional and national programmes of 

technology transfer to growers including soilborne pests and diseases management issues. Dr. 

Minuto has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. He does consulting (as 

CERSAA) for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs and also works occasionally as a 

consultant for Implementing Agencies and Governments on matters related to the Montreal 

Protocol. His spouse does not work or consul for organizations which have an interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol or organizations seeking phase-out of ODS, nor does she have 

any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, or own stock in companies 

producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by 

Italian Ministry of Environment, Territory and Sea.
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 97

Dr. James D. Schaub 

Office of the Chief Economist 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Washington 

UNITED STATES 

Dr. James D. Schaub is an economist and Director of the Office of Risk Assessment and Costbenefit Analysis, Office of the Chief Economist, United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA). Dr. Schaub is employed full time within the Office of the Chief Economist, USDA in 

Washington D.C. The USDA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of 

its interest in environmentally sound agricultural production systems and the protection stored 

commodities. Further, USDA is responsible for protection of animal and plant health from 

quarantine pests. Dr. Schaub has no proprietary interests in alternatives or substitute ODSs, 

does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and 

does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He does not work as a consultant 

to any organization on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse nor 

dependant children living at same home work for or consult for any organization which has an 

interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do any of them have any proprietary interest 

in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor do any of them own stock in companies producing 

ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or consult for organizations seeking to phaseout 

ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by Office of the Chief Economist, USDA. 

Dr. Sally Schneider 

National Program Leader – Horticulture, Pathogens & Germplasm 

USDA ARS 

Beltsville, Maryland 

UNITED STATES 

Dr. Sally Schneider is a National Program Leader at the United States Department of 

Agriculture. Dr. Schneider is a full time National Program Leader for Horticulture, Pathogens, 

and Germplasm at the Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A. The 

Agricultural Research Service has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because 

they are the in-house research agency for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dr. Schneider 

has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for 

organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr. Schneider does not work, occasionally or 

otherwise, as a consultant to UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, Governments, 

companies, etc. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Schneider does not have a 

spouse, business partner, social partner, or dependant children living in same home. Travel to 

MBTOC meetings is paid by United States Department of Agriculture.
98 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Dr. JL (Stappies) Staphorst Article 5 member 

Recently retired senior soil microbiologist from the Plant Protection Research Institute 

(PPRI) 

Agriculture Research Council (ARC) 

Pretoria 

SOUTH AFRICA 

Dr. Staphorst is presently an advisor to the Plant Pathology and Microbiology Division of the 

Institute in Pretoria, South Africa. The Plant Protection Research Institute has an interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol because it houses the specialist Soil-borne Plant Diseases Unit 

and forms part of the Public Support Services Division that advises the Department of 

Agriculture on all aspects of plant diseases, pests and pesticides. Dr Staphorst has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does no consulting for organizations 

seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr Staphorst works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matters 

related to the Montreal Protocol. His spouse has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs and does no consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel 

to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP with logistical support from the Plant Protection 

Research Institute. 

Mr. Akio Tateya 

Technical Adviser 

Syngenta Japan K.K. 

Tokyo 

JAPAN 

Mr. Akio Tateya is a Technical Adviser at Syngenta Japan K.K. a pesticide producing company, 

which does not produce substitutes to methyl bromide. He also a technical adviser for the Japan 

Fumigation Technology Association, a non-profit body that is financially supported by the 

Japanese Government and companies producing methyl bromide and its substitutes. He 

conducts work for Syngenta Japan K.K. on a contract basis for a consultancy fee; he acts as a 

nominal member and adviser of the Japan Fumigation Technology Association, for which he is 

not paid. He is also a member of the Japanese delegation attending the Meeting of the Parties 

and Open-ended Working Groups, acting as technical adviser on matters related to the Protocol. 

He has been occasionally asked to attend panels or meetings at the Ministry of Agriculture, 

Forestry and Fisheries. He has no proprietary or any other kind of interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODS, nor does he own any stocks in companies producing either ODS or their 

alternatives or substitutes and does not work for any organization seeking to phase-out ODS. 

His spouse and children do not work for organizations with an interest in the Montreal Protocol. 

Travel expenses to enable attendance to MBTOC meetings and other meetings related to the 

Montreal Protocol are paid by the Japan Fumigation Technology Association. He receives no 

funding from the Japanese Government. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 99

Mr. Alejandro Valeiro Article 5 

member

National Project Coordinator 

National Institute for Agriculture and Technology (INTA) 

Tucumán 

ARGENTINA 

Mr. Alejandro Valeiro is the National Coordinator of the PROZONO Project (MLF/UNDP 

project ARG/02/G61) at the National Institute for Agricultural Technology (INTA) of 

Argentina, based at the Famaillá INTA ́s Experimental Station in Tucumán Province, 

Argentina. The INTA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is the 

national counterpart for implementing MLF methyl bromide phase-out projects, which are 

coordinated by the National Ozone Unit. Mr Valeiro has no proprietary interest on alternatives 

or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or 

substitutes and does not perform permanent consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout 

ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant to the MLF, Implementing Agencies, on matters 

related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr Valeiro’s spouse consults for UNDP, which has an interest 

in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it implements MLF projects in Argentina. 

Neither Mr Valeiro, nor his spouse or dependant children have proprietary interest in ODS or 

their alternatives or substitutes, and do not own stock in companies producing ODS alternatives 

or substitutes to ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP. 

Prof Nick Vink Article 5 member 

University of Stellenbosch 

Department of Agricultural Economics 

SOUTH AFRICA 

Dr. Nick Vink is Chair of the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of 

Stellenbosch, South Africa. He is a full time Professor at the University of Stellenbosch. The 

University has no interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Dr Vink has no proprietary 

interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS 

or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout 

ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to any organisation on matters related to the Montreal 

Protocol. Neither his spouse or dependant children work for or consult for any organization 

which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do they have any proprietary 

interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, or own stock in companies producing ODS or 

their alternatives or substitutes. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP. 

Dr. Janny Vos 

CABI, Kastanjelaan 5 

3833 AN Leusden 

THE NETHERLANDS

Dr. Janny Vos, MBTOC-Soil Member is a senior IPM specialist at CAB International (CABI). 

Dr Vos is a full time senior manager at the CABI Netherlands office. CABI has an interest in 

the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it fits with CABI’s mission to improve people’s 

lives worldwide and focus on solving problems in agriculture and environment. Dr. Vos has no 

proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does no consulting for organizations 

seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr. Vos works occasionally as a consultant to EC on matters related 

to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by the Netherlands government. 
100 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Mr James Wells 

President 

Environmental Solutions Group, LLC 

Sacramento, California 

UNITED STATES 

James Wells is the President of Environmental Solutions Group, LLC (ESG), a regulatory 

consulting firm in Sacramento, California. He was invited to join MBTOC in 1993 primarily 

because of his experience in pesticide regulatory programs, especially with methyl bromide and 

methyl bromide alternatives. He worked for the State of California pesticide regulatory 

program for 27 years and was the Director of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation 

from 1991 to 1999. Mr. Wells has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs 

and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. He 

does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. However, ESG consults with 

several agricultural organizations seeking Critical Use Exemptions for the use of methyl 

bromide. These organizations are; the California Strawberry Commission (CSC), the California 

Strawberry Nursery Association (CSNA), the Garden Rose Council (GRC) and the California 

Association of Garden and Nursery Centers (CANGC). Together with his staff he prepares and 

submits CUEs for the CSNA, GRC and CANGC to the USEPA. His spouse works for the 

California Department of Justice, which has no interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. 

She has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult with 

organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by ESG. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 101

B – MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities Subcommittee 

MBTOC QSC SUBCOMMITTEE 

Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length of 

service 

Country 

Co-Chairs 

1. Michelle 

Marcotte 

F Consultant Consultant, 

particularly food 

processing, 

regulations, 

structural and 

commodity 

treatments and 

irradiation 

A Canada 

Non-A5 

Members 

2. Jonathan 

Banks (CoChair 

Quarantine 

Task Force) 

M Consultant Consultant, 

postharvest, 

particularly nonchemical and gas 

technologies 

(fumigants, CA) 

and QPS uses of 

MB. Entomologist 

(PhD) 

A Australia 

Non-A5 

 3. Chris Bell M Consultant, 

formerly 

Central 

Science 

Laboratory 

(Government 

research) 

Postharvest 

technologies, 

particularly 

fumigants, 

phosphine; sulfuryl 

fluoride, controlled 

atmospheres and 

heat' (PhD) 

A UK 

Non-A5 

4. Fred 

Bergwerff 

M Eco2, 

Netherlands 

Fumigator, 

specialist in nonMB systems, 

including heat. 

D Netherlands 

Non-A5 

5. Kathy Dalip F CARI Research 

entomologist (Ph 

D) 

D Belize 

A5 

6. Ricardo 

Deang 

M Consultant Regulatory and 

registration. 

Entomologist (PhD) 

A Philippines 

A5 

7. Patrick 

Ducom 

M Ministère de 

l’Agriculture 

(Government 

research) 

Postharvest and 

structural 

alternatives 

A France 

Non-A5 

8. Ken Glassey M MAFF, New 

Zealand 

Forester, 

government advisor 

on MB alternatives 

in forest products 

and QPS treatments 

D New Zealand 

Non-A5 

9. Alfredo 

Gonzalez 

M Fumigator Phosphine, QPS 

and non-QPS 

treatments. 

Structures, 

commodities. 

D Philippines 

A5 
102 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

MBTOC QSC SUBCOMMITTEE 

Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length of 

service 

Country 

10. Darka 

Hamel 

F Institute for 

Plant 

Protection in 

Agriculture 

and Forestry 

(Government) 

Postharvest and 

structural 

treatments, 

regulations 

C Croatia 

CEIT 

11. Takashi 

Misumi 

 M MAFF 

(Government 

research) 

QPS expert D Japan 

Non-A5 

12. David 

Okioga 

M Ministry of 

Environment 

and Natural 

Resources 

(Government 

regulatory) 

Postharvest and 

QPS MB 

alternatives (PhD) 

A Kenya 

A5 

13. Christoph 

Reichmuth 

M JKLGermany 

(Government 

research) 

Director Institute for 

Ecochemistry, Plant 

Analysis and Stored 

Product Protection 

(PhD) 

B Germany 

Non-A5 

14. Jordi 

Riudavets 

M IRTADepartment of 

Plant 

Protection. 

(Government 

Research) 

IPM for stored 

products and 

horticultural crops 

(PhD) 

C Spain 

Non-A5 

15. John 

Sansone 

M SCC Products 

(Fumigator) 

Fumigator, 

particular expertise 

in structures 

A USA 

Non-A5 

16. Robert 

Taylor 

M Consultant Postharvest 

technology, 

specifically A5 uses 

A UK 

Non-A5 

17. Ken Vick M United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

(Government 

research) 

Research in MB 

alternatives, incl. 

QPS. Entomologist 

(PhD) 

A USA 

Non-A5 

18. Chris 

Watson 

M IGROX Ltd 

(Fumigator) 

Practical use of MB 

and alternatives 

including the use of 

phosphine, Sulfuryl 

Fluoride,CO2 and 

Heat Treatments for 

commodities(inc 

timber) and 

structures 

A UK 

Non-A5 

19. Eduardo 

Willink 

M Ministry of 

Agriculture 

Quarantine 

entomologist 

(Ph D) 

D Argentina 

A5 

Totals M =16 

F =3 

 A= 8 

B= 3 

 C = 2 

 D= 6 

 CEIT & 

A5=7 

Non-A5=12 

A - >10 years 

B – 5-10 

C – 2-5 

D - <2 year 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 103

Co-chair 

Ms Michelle Marcotte MBTOC Co-Chair Quarantine, Structures and 

Commodities 

Marcotte Consulting Inc. 

(Marcotte Consulting Inc is a Canadian corporation; its President, Michelle Marcotte, is 

located at: 

10104 East Franklin Ave. 

Glenn Dale, Maryland USA 20769 

Ms Michelle Marcotte was a member of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and 

subsequently a member of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee between 1992 

and 2005; she was confirmed as Co-Chair in 2005. Until 1993 she worked for MDS Nordion, a 

supplier of radiation processing equipment which is an alternative to the use of methyl bromide 

in some commodity and quarantine situations. Since then, Ms Marcotte, through Marcotte 

Consulting, has provided consulting services to governments and agri-food companies in eight 

countries on agri-environmental issues, food technology, regulatory affairs and radiation 

processing. Marcotte Consulting has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because 

of its long time market development work in food irradiation, an alternative to some methyl 

bromide uses, and because of its interest in food processing, food safety and trade. In the field 

of methyl bromide alternatives, Ms Marcotte has published case studies for pest control in food 

processing, for stored commodities, for alternatives for quarantine and for greenhouse use. She 

is a member of the Canada Industry-Government Methyl Bromide Working Group and the 

Canada-USA Methyl Bromide Working Group; both organizations work to achieve phase out of 

methyl bromide in the agri-food sector. Marcotte has consulted to companies, industry 

associations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and USAID on irradiation as a methyl 

bromide alternative in food processing, quarantine and trade. She has also prepared consulting 

reports summarizing research in methyl bromide alternatives and case studies on food 

processing for US Environmental Protection Agency. Ms Marcotte has no proprietary interest in 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Ms Marcotte’s spouse works for United States Department 

of Agriculture managing research in methyl bromide alternatives and is a member of MBTOC. 

He does not have proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS and does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Marcotte receives a 

consulting contract from Government of Canada, Environment Canada, a Party to the Montreal 

Protocol that is committed to the phase out of methyl bromide. Ms Marcotte pays for travel to 

TEAP, MBTOC and Montreal Protocol meetings out of consultancy funds provided by the 

Canadian government, Environment Canada, to support her work on MBTOC. 

Members 

Dr Jonathan Banks, Co-Chair Quarantine Task Force 

10 Beltana Road 

Pialligo 

Canberra ACT 

AUSTRALIA 

Dr. Jonathan Banks, Chair of TEAP’s QPS Task Force, is a private consultant. He was a 

member of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and from 1993 to 1998 and 2001 to 2005 cochaired the Methyl Bromide TOC. He worked as a Research Scientist with the Australian 

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) from1972 to 1999 on 
104 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

grain storage technologies, including use of improved use of fumigants. He is coinventor of 

carbonyl sulfide, an alternative fumigant to methyl bromide in some applications. Patent rights 

have been assigned to his employer, CSIRO. Dr Banks has no proprietary interest in alternatives 

or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs. He has stock in Brambles Ltd, a company that inter alia leases wooden 

pallets for freight. The pallets may or may not be treated with methyl bromide or alternatives. 

His spouse is co-owner of their commercial organic apple orchard. She has no financial interests 

relating to ozone-depleting substances. He has served on some national committees concerned 

with ODS and their control, and within the last 4 years has received contracts from UNEP, and 

other institutions and public companies related to methyl bromide alternatives and grain storage 

technology--including training in fumigation (methyl bromide and alternatives) and fumigation 

technology and recapture systems for methyl bromide. In 2005 and 2006 he received some 

support from UNEP for TEAP and MBTOC activities. Other funding for his MBTOC activities 

has been through grants or contracts from the Department of Environment and Heritage, 

Australia or from personal contributions. 

Dr Chris Bell 

Consultant, Formerly Central Science Library 

Sand Hutton 

York Y041 ILZ 

UNITED KINGDOM 

Dr. Christopher Hugh Bell, is a Fellow at the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), Department of 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, at York, UK, where he led research into fumigation 

technology, including studies on methyl bromide and potential alternatives which were sponsored 

by UK government agencies and private companies, until his retirement in 2004. He is also a 

Regional Editor for the Journal of Stored Products Research for Europe and Africa, an Elsevier 

journal publishing original research addressing problems encountered in the storage of durable 

commodities. Dr. Bell has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not 

own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not 

represent organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant to 

governments and companies on matters related to methyl bromide use or replacement, or the 

Montreal Protocol. Travel and subsistence to attend MBTOC meetings has been paid by the UK 

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), or by UNEP. 

Fred Bergweff 

CEO 

EcO2 BV 

James Wattstraat 6, 

3281 NK 

Numansdorp, The Netherlands 

Mr Fred Bergwerff is the General Manager for ECO2 B.V., a company that provides 

disinfestation services through controlled atmospheres technology and equipment, and related 

consulting services. He is employed in a full time capacity with responsibilities for joint-venture 

partnerships, technical assistance, training and promotion of good practices in the structural, 

commodity, quarantine and port disinfestation industries, particularly specialising in QPS and 

ISPM-15 treatments. ECO2 does not have a commercial relationship with any fumigant or 

pesticide manufacturers/registrants. ECO2 has been involved in research trials on MB 

alternatives and has assisted companies to adopt MB alternatives for structures, stored 

commodities and pre-shipment and quarantine treatments. ECO2 has an interest in the topics of 

the Montreal Protocol because of its expertise in disinfestation and pest control, particularly 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 105

non-chemical treatments. Other than controlled atmospheres and the company ECO2 BV, Mr 

Bergwerff and his business partners in ECO2 have no proprietary interest in ODS or other 

alternatives to ODS, and do not own stock in companies that manufacture ODS or other 

alternatives to ODS. He carries out consulting work for organizations and companies that are 

seeking to phaseout ODS. Mr Bergwerff’s wife owns shares in ECO2, has no proprietary 

interest in ODS or other alternatives to ODS, and does not own stock in companies 

manufacturing ODS or other alternatives to ODS. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by ECO2, 

which receives no contribution for this travel from any other company or organisation. 

Dr Kathy M. Dalip Article 5 member 

Entomologist 

CARDI Belize 

Central Farm, Western Highway 

Cayo District 

Belize, Central America 

Mailing address: P.O. Box 2. Belmopan City 

Belize 

Dr. Kathy M Dalip is an Entomologist at the Caribbean Agriculture Research and Development 

Institute (CARDI), which has headquarters in Trinidad and offices in twelve member countries. 

Kathy works full-time at the CARDI Belize Unit, Central Farm, Western Highway, Cayo 

District, Belize, Central America. Between 2000 and 2005, Kathy was stationed at the CARDI 

Jamaica Unit where she was a member of the Jamaica Methyl Bromide Working Group. Her 

work at CARDI is focused in the areas of integrated pest management (IPM) and organic 

agriculture. Hence, her emphasis is on finding non-chemical pest control options to improve 

production and economic feasibility for farmers. Kathy has no proprietary interest alternatives 

or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs and has not done consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. 

Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by for by the Ozone Secretariat of UNEP. 

Dr Ricardo T Deang Article 5 member

4 Istanbul Street 

Merville Park 

Parañaque, Metro Manila 

THE PHILIPPINES 

Dr Ricardo Deang is a retired Deputy Administrator for Pesticides of the Fertilizer and Pesticide 

Authority (FPA) – a government regulatory office for fertilizers and pesticides – since April 

1996. He was responsible for registration, restriction, and banning of pesticides when imminent 

hazards are posed; and certification of pesticide applicators and fumigators. FPA has an interest 

in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because the Philippines is a signatory to the Montreal 

Protocol and the office restricts/monitors methyl bromide importation and use. Prior to this 

position Mr. Deang worked as a research entomologist on biological control. Currently Mr 

Deang is Chairman of the Board of a consultancy firm, Management and Executive Network, 

Inc. He has no proprietary interest on alternatives or substitute to ODSs, does not own stock in 

companies producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not engage in 

consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. His wife and their children have no 

proprietary interest on alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies 

producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not engage in consulting for 

organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. They have no interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP. 
106 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Dr. Patrick Ducom 

Ministère de l’Agriculture 

LNDS - QUALIS 

71, avenue Edouard Bourleau - BP 71 

33883 VILLENAVE D'ORNON CEDEX 

Jacques François Patrick Ducom, Agronomy Engineer, is a long standing MBTOC member and 

head of the Laboratoire National Denrées Stockées (LNDS), Plant Protection Service, Ministry 

of Agriculture, France. Dr Ducom is a full time researcher in fumigation LNDS. He works 

occasionally as a consultant for Implementing Agencies of the Multilateral Fund on matters 

related to the Montreal Protocol. Dr Ducom has no proprietary interest on alternatives or 

substitute to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs and does not engage in consulting for organizations seeking to phase out 

ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid from the LNDS budget 

Mr Kenneth Glassey 

Senior Advisor Operational Standards Biosecurity New Zealand 

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 

Pastoral House, 24 The Terrace 

P.O. Box 2526 

Wellington, New Zealand 

Mr Kenneth Logan Glassey is a Senior Biosecurity Adviser at the Ministry of Agriculture and 

Forestry (MAF). Ken Glassey is a full time adviser on Phytosanitary Treatments and Treatment 

Operators at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Head Office, Wellington, New Zealand. 

MAF has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because quarantine and preshipment 

treatments uses a significant amount of methyl bromide (218 tonnes in 2004). Current 

responsibilities cover researching, developing and reviewing New Zealand’s import standards 

including operational standards such as treatments for imported commodities. This also 

involves monitoring quality and adequacy, initiating remedial action as necessary, and the 

provision of advice on the practical application and implications of such standards. Mr Glassey 

has been involved in QPS inspection and treatments for 20 years with particular expertise with 

forest produce, and worked in forest management for 11 years prior to that. Mr Glassey has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations 

seeking to phaseout ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to implementing agencies on 

matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr Glassey’s partner living in same home does not 

work for or consults for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol. She has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult 

for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to TEAP/TOC/TSB meetings is paid by 

MAF. 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 107

Mr Alfredo T. Gonzalez Article 5 Member 

President 

Pestcon Pest Management and General Services 

33 Evening News, West Triangle 

Quezon City 

THE PHILIPPINES 

Mr Gonzalez is president of Pestcon Pest Management and General Services, a company with 

an interest in the Montreal Protocol because it uses methyl bromide in the for Quarantine and 

pre-shipment treatments as well as ISPM 15 treatments for wood packaging materials. Mr 

Gonzalez, has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Presently he is the 

general consultant for the implementation of the Methyl Bromide Phase-out program in the 

Philippines for the Government of his country, under the Department of Natural ResourcesPhilippine Ozone Desk (DENR-POD) in cooperation with the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority 

(FPA), which is directly related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither Mr Gonzalez’s wife or their 

children have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes in ODSs. Expenses related to 

Mr Gonzalez’s attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by UNEP. 

Dr Darka Hamel Article 5 member 

Institute for Plant Protection in Agriculture and Forestry of Republic Croatia 

Rim 98, 10000 Zagreb 

CROATIA 

 

Dr. Darka Hamel is an entomologist responsible the protection of stored products. Dr Hamel is 

a full time executive manager at the Institute for Plant Protection in Agriculture and Forestry of 

the Republic Croatia (PPI). The PPI has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol 

because companies using methyl bromide for treatment in accordance with ISPM 15 are 

authorized to do so in accordance with the PPI recommendation. Dr. Hamel has no proprietary 

interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for organizations seeking to 

phaseout ODSs. Dr. Hamel works occasionally as a consultant to the Croatian Ministry of 

Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development or the Ministry for Environmental Protection and 

Physical Planning regarding legislation on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to 

MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP. 
108 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

Mr Takashi Misumi

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries MAFF, Japan 

1-16-10 Shin-yamashita, maka-ku 

Yokohama, 231-0801 

JAPAN 

Mr. Takashi Misumi, member of MBTOC since 2005 is a senior researcher at the Yokohama 

Plant Protection Station (YPPS). Mr. Misumi is a full time Researcher at the Quarantine 

Disinfestation Technology Section, Research Division of YPPS. He has no proprietary interest 

in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout 

ODSs. Neither his spouse nor their children work for organizations with has an interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol. Expenses related to the attendance of MBTOC meetings are 

paid by International department of MAFF. 

Dr David M Okioga Article 5 member

Coordinator, Kenya Ozone Office, National Environment Management Office 

Ministry of the Environment and National Resources 

PO Box 67839 

Nairobi 

KENYA 

Dr. David Okioga is a founding member of MBTOC, joining in 1992. He was MBTOC co-chair 

between 1997 and 2002. Dr Okioga was the Director, National Plant Quarantine Services of 

Kenya for sixteen years. He also served as the Coordinator in Agricultural Botany under the 

Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture on Plant 

Breeder's Rights, Member of the National Agricultural Research Centre, National Horticultural 

Research Centre, National Potato Research Centre, and the National Committee for the National 

Genebank. Dr. Okioga has undertaken a number of contracts from the African Unity (then 

Organization of the African Unity), FAO and UNEP. Some of these consultancies were related 

to crop protection, where methyl bromide was considered as the chemical of choice for soil 

fumigation, whereas others were on strengthening the Montreal Protocol policies on ODS phase 

out in the African region (including methyl bromide). In 1995, Dr. Okioga was appointed 

Coordinator, of the National Ozone Unit (NOU) of Kenya by the Ministry of Environment and 

Natural Resources, Kenya, in consultation with UNDP, a post that he still holds at present. Dr. 

Okioga's main responsibility is strengthening the government of Kenya in meeting the 

requirements of the Montreal Protocol and in phasing out of ODS in the country.Dr. Okioga has 

no proprietary interests in alternatives for ODS and does not consult for companies seeking to 

phase out ODS. Travel and expenses related to his attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by 

UNEP. 

Dr. Jordi Ruidavets 

IRTACrop Protection 

Carretera a Cabrils Km. 2 

E-08348 Cabrils (Barcelona) 

SPAIN 

Dr. Jordi Riudavets is a Researcher at the Institute for Agrifood Research and Technology 

(IRTA) of Spain. He is a full time entomologist at the Crop Protection Division, with 

experience in the development and transfer of integrated pest management (IPM) programs for 

stored products and horticultural crops. The IRTA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol because is a state-owned company of the Catalan Government, and its activities are 

concerned with scientific research and technology transfer in the areas of agriculture, 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 109

aquaculture and the agrifood industry. Dr. Riudavets has no proprietary interest alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He 

occasionally works as a consultant to the Spanish Government, food companies, pest control 

companies and private companies with interest in matters related to the Montreal Protocol. 

Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by the Spanish Ministry of the Environment. 

Prof. Dr. Christoph Reichmuth 

Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry 

Institute for Stored product Protection 

Koenigin-Luise-St.19 

D-14195 Berlin 

GERMANY 

Prof. Dr. Christoph Reichmuth is chemist and responsible for stored product protection. Dr 

Reichmuth is a full time director of the Institute for Stored Product Protection of the Federal 

Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry in Berlin, Germany, of the German 

Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Germany. 

The Federal Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Consumer Protection together with the 

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety has a 

pronounced interest to replace methyl bromide as quickly as possible, due to the strongly 

expressed political interest and public opinion in Germany. Dr Reichmuth has no proprietary 

interest, patent for production of phosphine from magnesium phosphide in a generator with the 

company Degesch Detia, Germany, patent for the treatment of stored products and organic 

materials (wood) with inert atmospheres with the company Buse, Germany, patent for 

pheromone traps for Lepidopteran pests with the Max-Planck-Society, Germany, at present 

there are no royalties paid from the patents to Dr Reichmuth. He gave and gives advice to 

private companies in Germany to obtain critical use exemptions for methyl bromide in helping 

to understand the English forms of UNEP/TEAP, he works occasionally as a consultant to 

UNIDO, supporting projects or parties to replace methyl bromide. Travel to MBTOC meetings 

or related meetings concerning the phaseout of methyl bromide are paid by the German 

Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Consumer Protection or by the German Ministry for the 

Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. 

Mr John Sansone 

SCC Products 

2641 W. Woodland 

Anaheim, CA 92801 

UNITE D STATES 

Mr John Sansone is the President and General Manager for SCC Products. He is employed in a 

full time capacity with responsibilities for sales, training, stewardship and as a consultant for 

end users in the residential, commodity, quarantine and port fumigation industries. SCC 

Products has a commercial relationship with several fumigant/pesticide 

manufacturers/registrants, some of which offer products which are considered alternatives to 

MB. SCC Products has been involved in research trials in the food processing and stored 

commodities sectors. The firm was instrumental in the transition to alternatives for the 

residential fumigation marketplace and currently is transitioning alternatives into the 

commodity fumigation market. It is also involved in the implementation of recapture 

equipment for commodity fumigation companies in California. SCC Products has an interest in 

the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its relationship and expertise in many fumigation 

areas. Mr Sansone has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not 

own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not 
110 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to the 

UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, Governments, companies, etc. on matters related to 

the Montreal Protocol. Mr Sansone has no relatives or business partners that work for or 

consult for any organization with an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol nor does he 

have relatives or business partner having a proprietary interests in alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, or who own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or 

consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by 

SCC Products, which receives no contribution for this travel from anyone. 

Mr. Robert Taylor 

Consultant 

27 Lancet Lane 

Loose, Maidstone, Kent ME15 9SA 

UNITED KINGDOM 

Mr Robert Taylor retired from the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) of the United Kingdom in 

2001. The NRI was a government establishment involved in biological/agricultural research, 

development and training, primarily in relation to developing countries. In recent years the NRI 

has become part of the University of Greenwich. Crop protection in both the pre- and postharvest stages has always been a major feature of NRI’s research and development 

programmes. Pest management, including the use of fumigants, has always features strongly in 

such programmes. Mr Taylor has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to methyl 

bromide and does not own stock in companies consulting for organizations seeking to phase out 

the chemical. He works occasionally as a consultant to UN agencies including UNIDO and 

UNEP on matters relating to the Montreal Protocol. Mr Taylor has no relatives or business 

partners who work or consult for organizations which have an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol, nor does he have relatives or business partners having proprietary interests 

in alternatives or substitutes to methyl bromide, or who own stock in companies producing 

alternatives or substitutes to methyl bromide, or who consult for companies seeking to phase out 

methyl bromide. Travel and subsistence for MBTOC meetings is paid for by the UK 

government and most recently by the Department for the Environment Farming and Rural 

Affairs and UNEP. 

Dr Ken Vick 

Department of Agriculture 

Agricultural Research Service/ National Program Staff 

5601 Sunnyside Ave 

Beltsville MD 20705 – 5139 

UNITED STATES 

Dr Kenneth W. Vick is a Senior National Program Leader for methyl bromide alternatives 

research at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA). As National Program Leader he helps lead the almost $20 million ARS research 

program to develop alternatives to the use of methyl bromide for soil and post-harvest 

applications. ARS has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it was assigned 

lead responsibility for developing alternatives as the primary research arm of the USDA and 

because it was deemed to be of high priority by the United States Government. Dr Vick has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for any organization. 

His spouse, a MBTOC co-chair, consults for governments, NGOs and companies that have an 

interest in the phase out of methyl bromide because they are Parties to the Protocol or because 

they are investigating or developing food irradiation a methyl bromide alternative for some 
October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 111

commodities and in some quarantine situation. She has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs and does consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr Vick's 

travel to MBTOC and Montreal Protocol meetings is paid by the USDA Agriculture Research 

Service. 

Mr Chris Watson 

IGROX Ltd 

White Hall, Worlingworth 

Woolbridge, Suffolk, IP13 7HW 

UNITED KINGDOM 

Mr.Christopher Russell Watson is a MBTOC member since 1992. He works for Igrox Ltd in the 

UK as Chairman a part-time position since he is presently semi-retired. Mr Watson has been 

involved in the fumigation industry using both methyl bromide and other fumigants for 40 

years. Together with his wife he formed Igrox Ltd in 1976, which is now one of the largest 

fumigation and pest control servicing companies in the UK. For the past 20 years he has been 

involved in working closely with government agencies in the UK to develop safe and efficient 

fumigation practices and procedures. Igrox Ltd has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol because it supplies services and products that are alternatives to methyl bromide, as 

well as continuing to provide services using methyl bromide in situations where it is still 

necessary. Mr Watson owns stock in Igrox Ltd, and occasionally carries out consultancy work 

for agencies seeking to phase out ODS's which have included the UK government agencies as 

well as private companies. His spouse doesn’t not own stocks in Igrox Ltd and has no 

proprietary interests in alternatives or substitutes for ODS's and does not consult for companies 

seeking to phase out ODS's. Travel to MBTOC meetings was subsidised by Igrox Ltd and the 

British Pest Control Association until 2005. Presently, Mr Watson covers travel expenses from 

his own personal funds with some assistance from the UK Government(DEFRA) 

Mr Eduardo Willink Article 5 member 

Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombrés 

William Cross 3150, Las Talitas, 

4101 Tucumán 

ARGENTINA 

Mr Eduardo Willink is Director of Special Disciplines and Head of the Agricultural Zoology 

Department of the Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombrés Tucumán, 

Argentina. He is a full time researcher in entomology who leads a team of researchers working 

on quarantine treatments, systems approach and pest host status, and is a member of the 

Technical Panel on Phytosanitary Treatments within IPPC, FAO. The organization has an 

interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because its mission is to resolve regional agro 

industrial problems with the least impact on the environment. Mr Willink has no proprietary 

interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS 

or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for organizations seeking to 

phaseout ODSs. Neither his spouse or dependant children work for or consult for organizations 

with an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do they have any proprietary interest 

in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, own stock in companies producing ODS or their 

alternatives or substitutes or consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to 

TOC is paid by UNEP.