# MONTREAL PROTOCOL

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE

THE OZONE LAYER



# UNEP

R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC 

# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# O CTOBER 

# 2010

E VALUATION OF 

# 2010 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR 

# M ETHYL



# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT

# UNEP

O CTOBER 

# 2010 R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC



# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2010 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR



# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# iii Montreal Protocol

On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer



# Report of the

UNEP Technology and Econom ic Assessment Panel

October 2010

E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2010 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR



# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS 

# : F INAL 

# R EPORT

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

Co-ordination: 

# Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee

Composition of the report: MBTOC Soils: Ian Porter, Mohamed Besri

MBTOC SC: Michelle Marcotte

MBTOC QPS: Marta Pizano,

Reproduction: UNON Nairobi

Date: October 2010

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

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

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

This document is also available in portable document format from

http://www.unep.org/ozone/te ap/Reports/TEAP_Reports/

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

acknowledgement of the so urce of the material.



# ISBN: 9966-7319-7-0

# iv October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 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 op eration requires consideration of worker safety

and proper disposal of contaminants and waste products. Moreover, as work continues -

including additional toxicity evaluation - more in formation on health, environmental and safety

effects of alternatives and replacements will be come 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 li mited 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 fr om all of the individuals and

organisations who provided support to Panel an d 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 (S) Co-Chairs : Ian Porter (Australia). Mohamed Besri (Morocco) Members of

MBTOC S : Antonio Bello (Spain); Aocheng Cao (China); Peter Caulkins (USA); Abraham

Gamliel (Israel); Raquel Ghini (Brazil); George Lazarovits (Canada); Andrea Minuto (Italy);

Marta Pizano (Colombia); 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 We lls (USA); Suat Yilmaz (Turkey)

MBTOC Structures and Commodities (SC) Chair: Michelle Marcotte (Canada) Members of

MBTOC SC Fred Bergwerff (Netherlands); Chri s Bell (UK); Ricardo Deang (Philippines);

Patrick Ducom (France); Alfredo Gonzalez (Ph ilippines); Darka Hamel (Croatia); Christoph

Reichmuth (Germany); Jordi Riudavets (Spain); John Sansone (USA); Robert Taylor (UK); Ken

Vick (USA); Chris Watson (UK)

MBTOC Quarantine and Preshipment Chair : Marta Pizano (Colombia), Members of

MBTOC QPS Jonathan Banks (Australia); Tom Batc helor (Belgium); Ken Glassey (New

Zealand); Takashi Misumi (Japan); David Okioga (Kenya); Ian Porter (Australia); Ken Vick

(USA) and Eduardo Willink (Argentina).

MBTOC Economists: Jim Schaub (USA); James Turner (NZ); Nick Vink (South Africa)

# O CTOBER 

# 2010 R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC



# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2010 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR



# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT

# vi October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2010 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR 

# M ETHYL



# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT



# – O CTOBER 

# 2010

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 Stan dard Phytosanitary Measure

LPBF Low Permeability Barrier Film (including VIF films)

MB Methyl Bromide

MBTOC Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee

MBTOC QPS Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, Quarantine and Preshipment

Subcommittee

MBTOC SC Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, Structures and Commodities

Subcommittee

MBTOC S Methyl Bromide Technical Options Soils Subcommittee

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 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# vii 

# UNEP

O CTOBER 

# 2010 R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC



# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2010 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR



# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT



# Table of Contents

1. SCOPE OF THE REPORT.............................................................................................. 1

1.1 D ISCLOSURE OF INTEREST 

# .........................................................................................................1



# 2. CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE ................................... 3

2.1. M ANDATE



# ............................................................................................................................... ..3

2.2. F ULFILMENT OF 

# D ECISION 

# IX/6................................................................................................3

2.3. C ONSIDERATION OF 

# S TOCKS



# - D ECISION 

# E X 

# .1/4 (9 F 

# )...............................................................3

2.4 T RENDS IN 

# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE 

# U SE FOR 

# CUE S SINCE 

# 2005.....................................................4



# 3. FINAL EVALUATION OF CUNS – 2010 ROUND FOR 2011 AND 2012

EXEMPTIONS................................................................................................................ 9

4. MBTOC SOILS: FINAL EVALUATIONS OF 2010 CRITICAL USE

NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE ................. .............................................11

4.1 S UMMARY OF OUTCOMES 

# .......................................................................................................11

4.1.1. Issues related to CUN Assessment for Preplant Soil Use ................................................13

4.1.2 Registration of alternatives for preplant uses - Decision Ex I/4 (9i) and (9j).................13

4.1.3. Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities...............................13



# 5. FINAL CUN REPORT – ISSUES SPE CIFIC TO MBTOC STRUCTURES AND

COMMODITIES ............................................................................................................39

5.1. M EMBERSHIP AND 

# F UNDING 

# I SSUES 

# .......................................................................................39

5.2 D ETAILS OF EVALUATIONS 

# ......................................................................................................40



# 6. MBTOC ACTIVITY REPORT (2010) AND WORKPLAN IN 2011..........................51

6.1. M EMBERSHIP ISSUES 

# ...............................................................................................................51

6.2. A CTIVITY REPORT FOR 

# 2010 ...................................................................................................51

6.3. W ORK PLAN AND INDICATIVE BUDGET FOR 

# 2011...................................................................52



# 7. REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................54

ANNEX 1 - PART A: TREND IN PREPLANT SOIL APPLICATIONS...............................60

ANNEX II - PART B: POST-HARVEST STRUCTURAL AND COMMODITY

APPLICATIONS............................................................................................................64

ANNEX III: MEMBERS OF MBTOC COMMITTEES ........................................................67

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 1 

# 1. Scope of the Report

This 2010 final report provides the final evaluations by MBTOC of CUNs submitted for

methyl bromide (MB) in 2011 and 2012 by Partie s in accordance with Decision IX/6. 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

This final report provides new updated recomm endations for the CUNs for which the Parties

provided further information and requested reassessment, lists the CUNs for which interim

assessments have not changed and provides information on the CUNs from Parties on stocks

(Decision Ex.1/4 (9f)). Partial informatio n on actual MB consump tion for critical uses

(Decision XVII/9) and apparent adoption rates of alternatives, as evidenced by trend lines on

reduction of MB CUNs (Decisions XIX/9, XX/5) are also provided. This condensed report

covers full evaluation of CUNs where Parties requested a review after the 30 th 

# OEWG and

any other CUNs where circumstances have chan ged. The interim May 2010 TEAP report

has further details of assessment in this round.

Standard presumptions used in the final assessment in the 2010 round were the same as those

used previously.

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

methyl bromide. MBTOC Structures and Commodities (MBTOC SC) has initial

responsibility for issues concerning methyl bromide uses and MBTOC Quarantine and

Preshipment (QPS) for issues related to alte rnatives for quarantine and pre-shipment.

Outcomes from deliberations of CUNs by MBTOC S and MBTOC SC were discussed and

vetted via electronic communication and each member was asked to provide consensus on the

final recommendation. Recommendations made by MBTOC S and MBTOC SC were

circulated to all MBTOC as part of the process of reaching consensus within the whole

committee.



# 1.1 Disclosure of interest

As in past reports, all MBTOC members have updated disclosure of interest forms relating

specifically to their level of national, regional or enterprise involvement for the 2010 CUN

process. The Disclosure of Interest decl arations can be found on the internet at

http://ozone.unep.org/Assessme nt_Panels/TEAP/index.shtml and a list of members in Annex

III 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 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 3 

# 2. Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide

2.1. Mandate

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

production plus imports minus exports) of 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 MB 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. TEAP and its MBTOC provide guidance to the Parties’

decisions on critical use exemptions in acco rdance with Decisions IX/6 and Annex I of

Decision XVI/4.



# 2.2. 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

recommended a decreased amount 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 up to the date

of the assessment.

Now that technically effective alternatives have been identified for most applications,

regulations on the use of these alternatives and comparative informa tion on the economic

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

and future CUNs. It is important that Par ties continue to provide updates on regulatory

changes with alternatives and MB and breakdown of the economi c feasibility of alternatives

compared to MB if they are relevant to the nomination. Without this information, further

CUNs may not be assessable, as MBTOC may not be able to analyse the impact of national,

subnational and local regulations and law as required in Decision XX/5. In some cases,

MBTOC has proposed existing commercially and economically feasible alternatives and

potential research and regulatory issues to Parties that could assist the phase out of MB.

In paragraph 20 of Annex 1 referred to in Deci sion XVI/4, Parties, in ter 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 cent ral basis for the Partie s economic argument

relating to CUNs.



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

Under decision Ex.I/4(9f) Parties nominating critical use exemptions are requested to submit

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

an active area of negotiation for the Parties, MB TOC has not made an adjustment to the final

assessment of nominations to account for stocks held and has relied on Parties to make this

adjustment.

In accordance with Decision XVIII/13(7), a summ ary of the data on stocks was reported in

the May TEAP 2010 report. No further information from Parties was required for this report.

# 4 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# Table 2.1 - Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2009, as reported by

Parties in 2010 under Decision XVI/6.

Quantity of MB as reported by Parties (metric tonnes)

Party Critical use

exemptions

authorized

by MOP for

2009 Amount on

hand at

start of

2009 Quantity

Acquired for

CUEs in 2009

(production

+imports) Amount

available

for use in

2009 Quantity

used

for CUEs in

2009 Amount

on hand

at the

end of

2009

Australia 37.61 0 33.278 33.278 33.278 0

Canada 39.1 1.997 28. 279 30.276 23.8 6.38

EC

Israel Not Reported

Japan 305.380 11.882 278.616 290.498 286.532 3.966

USA 2,276 4,273 (a) 2,274 6,547 2,215 3,063 (b)

59(c)

(a) Amount of pre-2005 stocks



# (b ) Includes the pre-2005 stocks which may be used for non CUE uses

(c). Amount of unused allocation for CUEs which will be reduced from following years production



# 2.4 Trends in Methyl Bromide Use for CUEs since 2005

In order to meet part of the requirement of Decision XVII/9 trends in phase out by Parties

were shown in the interim report. Figs 2.1 and 2.2 show the trend in two of the remaining

sectors which have changed amounts of MB requ ested since the interim assessment in April

2010.

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 5 Figure 2.1 - Amounts of MB exempted for CUE uses in the strawberry fruit industryfrom

2005 to 2011. Solid lines indicate the trend in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indicate

quantity of methyl bromide nominated by the Parties in either 2010 or 2011 and the dotted

line the final recommendation by MBTOC.

Strawberry Fruit



# 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Yearmetric tonnes 

# Australia France

Israel Italy

New Zealand Spain

UK USA

# 6 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# Figure 2.2 - Amounts of MB ex empted for CUE uses in mills and food processing facilities

from 2005 to 2011. Solid lines indicate trend in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines

indicate quantity of methyl bromide nominated by the Party in either 2010 or 2011.

Food Processing and M ills

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Yearmetric tonnes 

# Belgium

Canada

France

Germany

Greece

Israel

Italy

UK

USAOctober 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report7Table 2.2 - Summary of Critical Use Nomination (2005 – 2012 in part) and Exemption (2005 – 2011 in part) for Amounts of MB Granted by Partiesunder the CUN/CUE Process. (Note: A breakdown of CUN and CUE amounts by sector is given in Annex I and II)Quantities Nominated Quantities ApprovedFinalRecommendationby MBTOC in 2010round2005 2006 2007 20082009201020112012 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)2007(17MOP+18MOP)2008(18MOP+19MOP)2009(19MOP)2010(20MOP+21MOP)2011(21MOP)20112012Australia206.950 81.250 52.145 52.900 38.990 37.610 35.450+5.9534.660Rev33.443146.600 75.100 48.517 48.450 37.610 36.440 28.7105.95 33.413Canada61.992 53.897 46.745 42.241 39.115 35.080 19.368+3.52916.28161.792 53.897 52.874 42.188 39.115 30.340+3.52919.3682.084 16.281EuropeanCommunity15754.361 4213.47 1239.873 245.00 0 0 004392.812 3536.755 689.142 245.146 0 0 00 0Israel1117.156 1081.506 1236.517 952.845 699.448 383.700232.247 *1089.306 880.295 966.715 860.580 610.854 290.878 *224.497 -Japan748.000 741.400 651.700 589.600 508.900 288.500 249.420221.104748.000 741.400 636.172 443.775 305.380 267.000 239.7460 219.609New Zealand53.085 53.085 32.573 0 0 0 0050.000 42.000 18.234 0 0 0 00 0Switzerland8.700 7.000 0 0 0 0 008.700 7.000 0 0 0 0 00 0USA10753.997 9386.229 7417.999 6415.153 4958.034 3299.490 2388.1281181.779Rev1178.6049552.879 8081.753 6749.060 5355.976 4261.974 3232.856+2.0182055.2000 1022.826TOTALS18704.241 15617.83710677.5528297.739 6244.487 4044.3802928.142Rev2934.0921453.824Rev1449.43216050.089 13418.200 9160.714 6996.115 5254.933 3572.183 2343.024232.531 1292.1291Members of the European Community which had CUNs/CUEs included: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 Kingdom2008 – Poland, Spain

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 9 

# 3. Final evaluation of CUNs – 2010 round for 2011 and 2012

exemptions

The three MBTOC subcommittees met at either Sa n Jose, USA or Zagreb in Croatia to conduct

the prepare the 2010 Assessment report, conduc t final review of CUNs and deal with other

matters as requested by Parties. Key issues incl uded discussing issues related to questions raised

on QPS by the Australian delegation after the 30 th 

# OEWG, registration of alternatives and

conduct of field tours to key remaining users of methyl bromide. One MBTOC economist

attended the meeting in San Jose, the ot her two were available through electronic

communication.

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

Annex I referred to in Decision XVI/4. Consen sus decisions were made in subcommittees, but

all comments made by members were considered in final recommendations. Outcomes from

deliberations by the MBTOC Soils and MBTO C Structures and Commodities subcommittees

were circulated to all members of MBTOC via el ectronic communication as part of the process

of reaching consensus within the whole committee.

In considering the CUNs submitted in 2010, as previously, 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 continued to provide consistent treatment of

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

consideration. The CUN final assessment in 2010 was also conducted as required by the time

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

Annex contains a work schedule for MBTOC, which envisions up to two meetings per year to

make CUN evaluations. The schedule allows MBTOC to seek further information from Parties

and for Parties to provide further inform ation in response to MBTOC’s interim

recommendations made during the first meeting.

CUNs assessed in this report relate to CUEs sought for 2011 and 2012. After the 30 OEWG in

Geneva, MBTOC Soils was requested to review one nomination (the US strawberry fruit

nomination) and MBTOC SC three nominations (Australia rice, US commodities and US

NPMA (cheese stores in particular)). Both subcommittees of MBTOC conducted their

reevaluation of CUNs at face to face meetings in September using new information provided by

Parties at the 30 OEWG and later.

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 11 

# 4. MBTOC Soils: Final Evaluations of 2010 Critical Use

Nominations for Methyl Bromide

4.1 Summary of outcomes

In the interim assessment by MBTOC in Ap ril 2010 recommendations were made on all 27

CUNs submitted for preplant soil uses, 9 for 2011 and 18 for 2012. A further supplementary

CUN for 2011 of 5.95 tonnes was recommended fo r the Australian strawberry runner sector.

The recommended amounts totalled 230.447 tonnes for 2011 and 1164.452 tonnes for 2012

(Table 4.1). At the 30 OEWG, MBTOC held b ilateral meetings with Australia, Canada, the

USA and the Californian Strawberry Commissi on. The US Party advised that further

information would be provided to support a review of the strawberry fruit nomination, however

an official request was not obtained until during the second meeting in San Jose held from 21 to

25 September, 2010.

MBTOC S advises that the relatively late notice for a review of the CUN created difficulties for

evaluation and finalization of the report. Acco rdingly, MBTOC Soils requests Parties to notify

the Ozone Secretariat by 31 July each year of any requests to re-review CUNs.

During the final meeting in San Jose, MBTOC S held a bilateral meeting with the US

delegation and the Californian Strawberry Commissi on, and participated in a field tour of some

of the major CUN users, including strawberry fruit and nursery production, flower production

and other nursery plant producers. After fu rther review of information by MBTOC S, the

recommendation for the US strawberry fruit nom ination was changed in light of the new or

additional information supplie d for Californian. In its final assessment, MBTOC S has

recommended a further 28.656 tonnes for use in Ca lifornia due to regulatory restrictions on use

of key alternatives. No change was made to the interim recommendations for the other 26

nominations. The final recommendation for 2011 was 230.447 tonnes and for 2012 was

1193.108 tonnes (Table 4.1).

MBTOC continues to acknowledge the substantial re ductions made by Israel and USA in this

round and the action plans to phase out MB in Israel by the end of 2011 and for Japan by the

end of 2012.

Table 4.1 - Changes occurring to nominate d and recommended amounts of MB (metric

tonnes) for preplant soil uses after the May 2010 interim report.

Party CUN Initial

nominati

on by the

Party Interim

MBTOC

recommendat

ion Revised

nomination

by the Party

after the 30 th



# OEWG Final MBTOC

recommendation for

2012

USA Strawberry

fruit a 

# 756.515 649.348 753.974 678.004

# 12 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# Table 4.2 - Summary of MBTOC S final recommendations for 2011 and 2012 by country for

CUNs received in 2010 for preplant soil use of MB (tonnes)

CUE approved at 21 st 

# MOP CUN for 2011 and 2012 MBTOC S Final

Recommendation Country

2010 2011 2011 2012 2011 2012

Australia 

# 23.840 5.950 29.790 5.950 29.760

Canada 5.261 5.261 5.261

Israel 290.878 232.247 224.497

Japan 224.451 216.120 216.120

USA 1977.830 1020.478 941.967

Total 290.878 238.197 1271.649 230.447 1193.108



# Table 4.3. Summary of the final recommendations by MBTOC S (in square brackets) for

CUE’s for preplant uses of MB (tonnes) for 2011 and 2012 submitted in the 2010 round.

Years

Country and Sector 2011 2012

1. Australia

1. Strawberry runners [5.95] [29.760]

2. Canada

1. Strawberry runners [5.261]

3. Israel

1. Broomrape protected

2. Cucumber

3. Cut flowers open field

4. Cut flowers& bulbs protected

5. Melon protected & open field

6. Strawberry fruit - Sharon and Gaza

7. Strawberry runners - Sharon and Gaza

8. Sweet potatoes

TOTAL [12.500]

[12.500]

[23.292]

[52.330]

[35.000]

[41.875]

[27.000]

[20.000]

[224.497]

4. Japan

1. Cucumber

2. Ginger open field

3. Ginger protected

4. Melon

5. Pepper green & hot

6. Watermelon

TOTAL [26.162]

[42.235]

[6.558]

[67.936]

[61.154]

[12.075]

[216.120]

5. USA

1. Cucurbits

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 [59.500]

[6.904]

[34.230]

[1.591]

[18.324]

[48.164]

[28.366]

[678.004]

[3.752]

[8.709]

[54.423]

[941.967]

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 13 

# 4.1.1. Issues related to CUN Assessment for Preplant Soil Use

Key issues which influenced assessment and the need for MB for preplant use of MB in the

2010 round were:

i) Increased adoption and registration of methyl iodide (MI or iodomethane) with barrier

films in most states of the USA (not Ca lifornia) that use MB in mid 2008 which has

led to commercial adoption on large sale area s in the US and substantial reduction in

the US nominations in SE US and Florida.

ii) Continued and progressive acceptance of a 3 way fumigant strategy (1,3-

dichloropropene, metham sodium, Pic) as being effective for nutsedge and pathogen

control in USA.

iii) Changing regulations on key alternatives, par ticularly 1,3-D township caps and buffer

zones on 1,3-D, metham sodium and Pic used alone or in mixtures.

iv) Introduction of a new formulation of 1,3-D/Pic (‘Pic chlor 60’) in the USA which

increases the area that may be treated with 1,3-D in regions affected by township caps.

v) Effect of restrictions on use of high rates of Pic (greater than 200 kg/ha (20 g/m 2 

# )) in

some counties of California.

vi) Lack of acceptance in specific sectors that alternatives exist, e.g. orchard replant in

heavy soils, and nursery industries.

MBTOC notes that further progress in reduction of use of MB for many sectors in some regions

of USA is limited by regulations on the use of a lternatives which are used in most other states

of the USA. MBTOC urges the Party to consider review of these regulations in the light of new

technology. The key issues which affect reductions of MB include;

- regulations preventing the use of barrier films with methyl bromide, thus preventing

lower dose rates of at least 30% of MB for similar efficacy.

- Higher township cap emission factors for use of shank applied 1,3-D/Pic which is a key

alternative for the strawberry sector in many regions of the world. The high emission

factor of 1.8 compared to 1.1 for Telone In Line is preventing adoption and

development of 1,3-D/Pic mixtures and is leading to use of a less effective alternative.

This alternative appears to be failing in some areas.

MBTOC urges the Parties to align their local po licies and regulations with internationally

accepted methodologies and to allow use of MB alternatives that lie within the Montreal

Protocol’s goals.



# 4.1.2 Registration of alternatives for preplant uses - Decision Ex I/4 (9i)

and (9j)

The potential registration of methyl iodide in California is still subject to extensive review. The

EC has further reported that registration for 1,3-D and other alternatives including chloropicrin,

dazomet and metham sodium are under review. A grace period for the registration of 1,3-D

became due on 20 March 2009 and was extended, but its future registration is uncertain.

A number of other chemicals which may be a lternatives to MB are being considered for

impending registration in specific countries recently, including di methyl disulphide (DMDS) in

Europe and the USA and MI in Australia respectively.



# 4.1.3. Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities.

The tables below (Tables 4.4) provide the standard presumptions applied by MBTOC Soils for

the final assessment of this round of CUNs. 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 spec ific use may vary with local ci rcumstances, soil conditions and

# 14 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# the target pest situation. Some nominations we re based on rates lower than these indicative

rates.

Table 4.4 - Standard presumptions used in assessment of CUNs for the 2010 round – soil

treatments.

Comment CUN adjustment Exceptions

1. Dosage rates Maximum guideline rates for

MB:Pic 98:2 are 25 to 35 g/m 2



# with barrier films (VIF or

equivalent); for mixtures of

MB/Pic are 12.5 to 17.5 g

MB/m 2 

# for pathogens and

nutsedge respectively, under

barrier films depending on the

sector. All rates are 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, TIF) 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 Pic is

not available at higher

concentrations

4. MB/Pic

Formulation:

Weeds/nutsedge

ass 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 Pic or Piccontaining 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

materialOctober 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report15Table 4.5 - Final evaluation of the preplant soil use CUNs requested to be reviewed for 2012 by the United States after the 30thOEWGCountryIndustryCUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUE for20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011 (addtlor new)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011 (addtlor new)MBTOC rec.for 2012(new)Strawberry(field)2052.846 1,730.828 1,476.019 1,349.575 1,269.32 1,007.477 812.709-(756.515)Rev753.974- Interim649.348Final 678.004UnitedStatesMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 678.004 t for this use in 2012. This comprises a reduced amount of 673.085 t for California and therequested amount of 1.647 t for Eastern USA and 3.272 t for Florida.California recommendationDuring its second meeting in USA in September 2010, the Party requested MBTOC to review the interim assessment for the Strawberry Fruit nomination from Californiabased on updated information from the Californian Strawberry Commission (CSC). The US nominated 752.230 t in January 2010 andsubsequently revised the CUN to749.055 t after the April MBTOC meeting. In the interim May TEAP report, MBTOC recommended a reduced amount of 644.429 t basedon reductions for uptake of MB/Picformulations, 1,3-D/Pic and Pic alone in areas where township caps and restrictions allowed for use of the alternatives. At itssecond meeting in USA, MBTOC reviewedfurther information provided by the CSC and accepted the need for MB in areas where restrictions affected uptake of alternatives, but did not accept the need for the fullamount of MB requested for some counties where alternatives had been adopted.California nomination in relation to current use of MBFor California, the Party nominated 751.596 t (4421 ha at 170 kg/ha). This nominated amount was 100% of the previous CUE for California in 2011.California Strawberry Commission informationAt the second MBTOC meeting, the CSC provided evidence that PUR data need to be inflated by a percentage equivalent to the acreage that is unaccounted for in theinformation obtained for the PUR, but is identified by recent CSC surveys. The CSC indicated that by 2012, 1,3-D and Pic will be restricted in 2104 ha in Monterey countyalone, due to township caps on 1,3-D and other regulations that restrict use of Pic. CSC also indicated that in the other counties, 20% of the area that was Pic-fumigated in2008 will be in criticalneed of MB in 2012.Current transition to MB alternatives in CaliforniaIn California, the three major strawberry producing districts for which MB is nominated are Oxnard, Watsonville/Salinas and Santa Maria, which report in 2010 strawberryfruit production areas of, respectively, almost 5000 ha, 5800 ha and almost 4000 ha (CSC survey). The most recent PUR data (2003-2008) show that alternatives, namely1,3-D, Pic and metham have been widely adopted in two of these production districts (i.e. excellent transition has occurred inOxnard and some transition inWatsonville/Salinas). In California, 1,3-D use has more than doubled from 2,001 ha (2003) to 4,408 ha (2008). In addition, there is a sizeable organic production acreage(over 700 ha in 2010). In Ventura county, MB alternatives are implemented in areas with township caps.Restrictions to transition in CaliforniaIn Ventura, the production season is significantly shorter than that of Monterey county where drip application of 1,3-D and Pic, an alternative adopted in southern counties,results in incomplete protection against soil-borne diseases over the long production season. MBTOC suggests shank injection of1,3-D/Pic would result in improved16October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportCountryIndustryCUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUE for20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011 (addtlor new)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011 (addtlor new)MBTOC rec.for 2012(new)disease control, however township cap regulations impose a penalty on shank injection. MBTOC urges the Party to reconsider theevidence that led to this regulation. PURuse data for 2008 indicate that MB:Pic 57:43 formulations are used on 78% of the MB fumigated acreage, and that 50:50 formulations are used on 5% of the California usearea. The Party has adopted a dose rate of 196 kg MB/ha in itsCUN for 2012 and MBTOC has accepted this, although MBTOC encourages wider use of 50:50formulations, which still allow for complying with regulatory restrictions on Pic use. Regulations in California prohibit theuse of VIF films with MB application, and thereforediscourage reduction of MB dose rates as well as emission control through use of VIF. MB stocks are still available, and can beused on any crop. The registration progressof MI/Pic in California is on going, however it is not expected to become available before 2012-2013. MBTOC urges the Party todevelop an action plan for California,particularly addressing the restrictions on the use of alternatives adopted elsewhere in the USA, and showing stepwise reductions to effectively progress the transition toMB alternatives.Eastern States recommendationFor Eastern states the Party nominated 1,647 t (11 ha @ 150 kg/ha). This is a transition of 92% from 20 t as per the CUE in 2011. MBTOC commends this progress, whichis realistic given that MI/Pic has been registered in 2008 and is technically feasible for the total nomination area.Florida recommendationFor Florida, the Party nominated 3,272 t (22 ha @ 150 kg/ha). This is a transition of 92% from 41 t as per the CUE in 2011. Given that technically and economicallyfeasible alternatives are available, MBTOC considers this transition realistic.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)•Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction: Yes in Florida and Eastern states, with use of VIF; No in California where VIF is not used;•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program:Yes, there is an ongoing research program, which the CUN refers to;•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate efforts:Yes in Florida and Eastern states; while in California there is varying effort in the different production districts.October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report17Table 4.6 - Final evaluations of CUNs which did not change after the interim assessment (after 30thOEWG) for pre plant soil use for 2011 or 2012Country Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Strawberry runners 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 29.790 23.840 5.95 29.790 5.95 29.760AustraliaMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends the supplementary nomination of 5.95 tonnes of MB for use in 2011. The second year of a 2-year study showed that the reduced rate of 18.75 g/m2did notadequately control root and crown rot on the Festival variety and currently could not be used as it is not registered. Therefore the requested amount from the Party was accepted forthe 2011 nomination.MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 29.760 tonnes for use in 2012. The reduction by MBTOC is based on adoption of the soilless production system for the foundationgeneration. The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi (Phytophthora, Pythium, Rhizoctonia, Verticilliumspp.) and weeds (S. arvensis, Agrostis tenuis, Raphanusspp., Poa annua, Cyperus spp). The CUN states that MB:Pic 50:50 at an MB dose of 25 g/m2is required to meet certification standards. The Party’s request exceeds MBTOC’sstandard presumption of 20 g/m2, but this rate continues to remain unregistered. The Party’s first 2-year effort using a reduced rate of 18.75 g/m2resulted in unsatisfactory results inthe second year of testing. The Party has indicated, however, that it is initiating a second 2-year trial using the reduced rate of 20 g/m2which should be completed in September 2011.The Party states that the most promising alternative, MI/Pic has been demonstrated in commercial scale field trials to comparewith the efficacy to MB:Pic. The registrant has indicatedthat additional data has been requested by the national registration authority (APVMA) which will be submitted this year and should lead to registration in 2011. If MI:Pic is available, itwould allow for further reduction of the nomination. A key alternative,1,3-D:Pic, is considered ineffective due to phytotoxicity and doubling of plant back times in the heavy and wet soilconditions in the high elevation regions. The Party also indicates that the Victorian Strawberry Certification Authority (VSICA) completed the second year of a 2-year developmentprogram for soil-less systems for production of foundation stock strawberry runners. Results indicated that the productivity of the soil-less system is similar to the current method ofproduction in MB:Pic fumigated soils, and the economics of the soil-less system compares favourably with the current method ofproduction. VSICA plans to establish a commercialfacility by 2011 which, if successful, would eliminate VSICA’sneed for MB for foundation stock in 2011/2012. MBTOC suggests the following actions by the Party: (1) Report the firstyear’s results with reduced rates of 20 g/m2of MB with its next CUN submission and report to MBTOC the tentative second year results by August 2011; (2) Provide a comprehensiveupdate of the registration status of MI and ethane dinitrile (3) Provide the results from the new trials using recaptured MB and Pic as well as a comprehensive plan forcommercialization, and (4) Since the production of 60,000 foundation generation plants has been found to be economically feasible, the Party needs to provide the economic analysisthat supports their assertion that any further expansion in future generations is not economically feasible, (5) consider othermethods (new barrier films, potassium thiosulphateabsorbant, etc.) for emission controls.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The nomination states “The second part of a two year trial thatevaluated the economic and biological feasibility of productionof foundation stock by a soil-less system is nowcomplete. It compared productivity with the status quo system of production in MB:Pic treated soil in insect proof cages. Results confirm the biological and economic feasibility ofadopting the soil-less system for production of the foundation generation of runners (A1).” The CUN further states “The economics of the system compare favourably with the currentmethods of production.”Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)•Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission control: No, barrier films are not being used and the regulations require higher MB rates of use than the standard presumptions. Standard LDPEfilms are still used because they are reported to perform the same as barrier films in the cold temperatures and heavy wet soils typical for strawberry runner production andthe Party states that barrier films provide no further effectiveness.18October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program: Yes, ongoing research is being conducted in (a) supporting reduced application rates of MB:Pic, (b) supporting the registration of MI;unknown for EDN; (c) use of recaptured MB.•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort: The nomination demonstrates a research effort with a number of key alternatives, but commercialization of any alternative confronted withsignificant regulatory obstaclesStrawberry runners(PEI)6.840 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 7.462 5.261-5.261 - 5.261CanadaMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 5.261 tonnes for this use in 2012. The CUN for 2012 is based on a reduced rate for MB of 20 g/m2, and MBTOC acknowledges the Party’s reduction in theabsence of formal registration for this dosage rate. The Party has attempted to replace MB with 1,3-D, but 1,3-D was banned for use in Prince Edward Island in January 2003 due toground water contamination. Chloropicrin (PIC 100) has been registered by PMRA, but the PEI authorities have denied a permit for its use until further ground water testing has beenconducted. MI registrant has not applied for registration in Canada. The company has also been testing organic production from2006 - 2009 with different varieties. Reduced yieldsresulted (yield reductions ranged from 40% - 70%). One variety using the organic production system compared favourably to conventional production. Organic trials continued in2009. While MB:Pic 67:33 @ 500 kg/ha is the only use rate registered for strawberry runners, which exceeds MBTOC’s standard presumption of 200 kg/ha, the grower petitionedPMRA to use a lower rate under barrier films. PMRA, in the absence of a formal label amendment, granted permission to use a lower rate, but at the grower’s own risk and liability. In2008 the grower tested two plots totalling 2.4 ha using 25% & 30% lower rates under barrier films and expanded the area testedin 2009. The results were comparable using thereduced rates with barrier films. The CUN for 2012 is based entirely on a reduced rate for MB of 200 kg/ha for the entire areato be fumigated. For future submissions, MBTOCsuggests actions for the Party to (1) complete the necessary ground water studies to obtain the PIC 100 permit and (2) test theadoption of soilless cultures for at least part of theproduction cycle, (3) consider MI.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)•Dec. IX/6 b(i)Emission reduction: Yes, uses barrier films with reduced application rate of MB conforming to MBTOC’s presumptions•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program: Yes, focus has been on organic production testing, but trials with MI not being conducted.•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort: The Party demonstrates an active research program and is seeking registration of PIC100Broomrape None None 250.000 250.000 125.000 12.500-12.500 12.500IsraelMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 12.500 tonnes for this use in 2011. The nomination is for a specific species of broomrape (O. aegyptica), and greenhouse use in tomatoes and peppers and isadditional to the outdoor field nominations in previous years. MB use for a national broomrape eradication on outdoor field crops has been approved as a CUN for the years 2007,2008, 2009 and 2010, however the allocated amounts have not been utilized. It is MBTOC’s understanding is that previous MB approved for broomrape control has not beenproduced, and therefore is unavailable for this nomination. In the 2010 nomination, the Party confirms that Telone EC is a verygood chemical alternative for the control ofO.aegyptica,the main species parasitizing tomato, however the registration is unclear and use may not be resolved for all species of brommrape. Telone EC as a stand alone applicationor in sequential application with MS suppresses broomrape when applied under plastic sheets through the drip irrigation systemin tunnels or greenhouses. The Party has alsoOctober 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report19Country Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)identified some alternatives for controlling low infestations of Orobanche (e.g. solarization). In addition to Telone EC aloneor with MS, MBTOC has identified other alternatives, suchas Sulfonylurea, imazapic, and imazomox (Eizenberg et al, 2004), (Abangaet al.,2007; Nadalet al.,2008; Milleret al., 2009). Barrier films are used to reduce rates by 50% and alsoemissions. The Party discusses an on-going research program in the nominations however no results are reported.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The nomination states that since an eradication program is being proposed, the standard format of an economic evaluation is notappropriate. The CUN also states, without supportingevidence, that biological control of broomrape with either the aid of a parasitic fly or withFusariado not provide economic answers for the broomrape problem. MBTOC takes note ofthese statements in light of the fact that the nomination is not based on economic arguments.Comments requested in Decision XXI/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 b(i)- Emission Reduction:Yes, the Party is using barrier films and standard rates.Dec. IX/6 b(iii)- Research Program:No, the research is supposedly on-going, but is not reported in the nomination.Dec. IX/6 b(iii)- Appropriate Effort:Israel has indicated that it will no longer be applying for CUE’s after 2011.Cut flowers-bulbsprotected303.000 240.000 220.185 114.450 85.431 63.464-52.955 52.330IsraelMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 52.330 tonnes for this use in 2011. MBTOC does not recommend use for MB on substrates being 0.625 t. MBTOC recognizes that in 2012the Party will totally phase out MB uses. There is very little change from nominations submittedin previous years, particularly in 2009 and 2010. Phase-out efforts are still based ontransitional measures – high barrier films with reduced rates. Inspite of this, registration of certain alternatives such as metham sodium and 1,3-D has now expanded to additionalflower types. More expansion of registration is expected this year. Substrate production protocols are now available for manyof the flowers for which they claim they are yet to bedeveloped ("artificial" production is not critically impacted by local conditions and this makes experiences from other countries valid). MBTOC notes the Party has adjusted MBdosages used for carnations grown in Ghaza to 25 g/m2. MBTOC is aware that carnation cultivars resistant to fusarium wilt are available and commercially used and accepted byinternational markets.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:No economic arguments are provided in the nomination.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction:Yes, barrier films are currently used in protected flowers and rates conform with MBTOC’s standard presumptions.Dec IX/6 b(iii) Research program:No. Poor to no research have been conducted on alternatives. This appears to be an orphan sector in the alternatives tomethyl bromide program and is dependent on research from other sectors.Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort:Israel has indicated that it will no longer be applying for CUEs after 2011.20October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Cut flowers-openfield77.000 67.000 74.540 44.750 34.698 28.554-23.292 - 23.292 -IsraelMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends the nominated amount of 23.292 tonnes for this use in 2011. The nominated amount was an 18% reduction over theapproved amount for 2010. MBTOCrecognizes that in 2012 the Party will totally phase out MB uses. Overall, due tothe MB phase out stated by the Party, thereis very little change from nominations submitted inprevious years, particularly in 2009 and 2010. Phase-out efforts are still based on transitional measures - barrier films withreduced rates of methyl bromide. The nomination is for openfield production of cut flowers, which are mainly affected by weeds (Cyperusspp in particular) and nematodes (root-knot, but also ectoparasites such asLongidorus) and fungi.MBTOC does not consider MB necessary for controlling ectoparasitic nematodes in these cropping systems. Lack of registration ofkey alternatives on flowers such as 1,3-D+Pic,dazomet and metham sodium, continue to be the major constraints affecting substitution of MB at this time, in spite of successful trials. MB formulationswith higher chloropicrincontent are also not registered. In spite of this, registration of metham sodium and 1,3-D has expanded and now includes additional flower types. More expansion of registrations ofpotential alternatves are expected this year. Solarisation has been proven to be an efficient alternative for some flower types(Yakabe and MacDonald, 2010) and is being successfullyused in combination with alternative chemicals such as metham sodium and 1,3-D.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:No economic arguments are provided in the nomination.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction:Yes, barrier filmsare currently used in open field flowers and rates conform with MBTOC’s standard presumptions.Dec IX/6 b(iii) Research program:No. Poor to no research has been conducted on alternatives. This appears to be an orphan sector in the alternatives to methylbromide program and is dependent on research from other sectors.Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort:Israel has indicated that it will no longer be applying for CUE’s after 2011.Cucumber None None 25.000 18.750 - 15.937-12.500 - 12.500 -IsraelMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 12.500 tonnes for this use in 2011. The recommended quantity represents a 21.6% reduction from the 21thMOP approved amount based on uptake of availablealternatives, such as grafted plants, improved sanitation and possible uptake of other alternatives (MS and 1,3-D). The need for MB under the specific conditions of the intensiveindoor cucumber cultivation in the central part of Israel could be considered as a niche request. The crop was not submitted for CUE in the years 2005 and 2006 since the crop’s keypathogen problems were resolved commercially at a satisfactory level. Cucumbers are grown in open ended polyhouses in 3 cropping cycles per annum in the proximity of theresidential houses of cooperative family and private family farms. A large proportion, 70%, of the critical use is concentratedin one village (Achituv), where the growers specialized foryears in the cultivation of indoor cucumbers for the domestic market. The reasons for this nomination are the appearance of a new race ofF. oxysporumf. sp.radicis cucumerinum.The pathogen is highly virulent and the infestation level particularly high in the affected location and it can devastate entire greenhouses in a short period of time. The required MB willbe aimed at the eradication of the pathogen. Although MS combinedwith,3-D is an effective alternative application of the mixture in winter at low temperature it may cause cropphytotoxicity and buffer zones limit its use. The Party also states that MS was subject to accelerated degradation in field studies. MBTOC acknowledges that alternatives, such asMS+1,3-D, 1,3-D/PIC, grafting, sanitation programs; soilless systems (López-Medina et al., 2004; Lieten, 2004; Savvas and Passam, 2002; Mutitu et al., 2006) may be feasiblealternatives for part or all of the nomination. It encourages the Party to review the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives (grafting, substrates, and grafting + nematicides)and consider a reassessment the buffer zone for other chemical alternatives in use with barrier films and reduce the nominationfurther.October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report21Country Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)MBTOC comments on economics 2010:No economic arguments are provided in the nomination.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)•Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction:Yes, barrier films and dosage rates conform to the standard presumptions.•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program:Limited reporting of any research, but have used information from other sectors.•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort:Efforts in IPM technology, promotion of grafted seedlings. Israel has indicated thatit will no longer be applying for CUE’s after 2011.Israel Melon - protectedand field125.650 99.400 105.000 87.500 87.500 70.000-35.000 - 35.000 -MBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 35.000 tonnes for this use in 2011. The request is reduced to half of last year’s nomination (down to 35 tonnes) due to the adoption ofa pesticide through drip systems which uses new application technology, eg. Azoxystrobin.Monosporascus cannonballusis the key pathogen in the Arava Valley. MB is being used forspring melon in the Arava because of low temperatures prevailing at planting time and short plant back. The requested amount ata rate of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of 98:2 MB underbarrier films (LDPF) complies with MBTOC ́s standard presumptions. Additionally, MBTOC understands some alternative fungicidesshow very effective control ofMonosporascusandare now available to the growers (Pivonia et. al; 2008; Israel melon CUN, Pivonia et al 2009). MBTOC notes that Pic and MB/Picmixtures and the fungicide, fludioxonil, are effectivelyused for Monosporascus in other countries under similar conditions, but fludioxonil has not been shown effective in Israel (e.g. Stanghelini et al. 2003; Martyn 2002, Pivonia et al2009). MBTOC understands the transition to the alternatives is already ongoing and applied a transition rate based on other countries experience. Another encouraging alternative isgrafted melon (Cohen et al, 2007). On melon, however, problems of scion-rootstock compatibility and fruit quality require an additional research effort. Furthermore, new diseases,such as crown rot of melons and cucumbers need to be addressed, as the pathogen has already invaded the relevant area. MBTOC suggests the following actions by the Party: (1) toconsider further expansion of the adoption of Azoxystrobin and (2) consider formulations with more chloropicrin (MB/Pic 67:33,50:50) as they are effective and (3) non chemicalalternatives, such as grafting.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The nomination states that granular Basamid, is similar in mode ofaction to MS, however is not feasible economically because of a dramatic increase in the prices of Basamid andwaiting period constraints. CUN provides the results of a financial comparison between the use of MB and different formulationsof Basamid that show significant losses when thealternatives are not used, with the closest comparator being Basamid 60, which shows losses of net revenue in the order of 30-50%. MBTOC is not able to verify the accuracy of thesedata. MBTOC notes that the nomination is not based on economic arguments.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction:Yes, barrier films are is used and MB dosage rates conform with standard presumptionsDec. IX/6 b(iii): Research program:Yes, current trials have validated previous research.Dec. IX/6 b(iii): Appropriate effort:Active research program reviewing pesticide application and fumigant registration. Israel has indicated that it will no longerbe applyingfor CUE’s after 2011.22October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Strawberry fruit -protected (Sharonand Ghaza)196.000196.00093.000105.96077.750(42.75Sharon,35.00 Ghaza57.063(32.063Sharon,25.00Ghaza)-28.500(Sharon)20.50(Ghaza)21.375(Sharon)20.50(Ghaza)IsraelMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 21.375 tonnes for Sharon for this use in 2011 and 20.500 tonnes for Ghaza making a total of 41.875 t for thisuse in 2011. In Sharon, the Party reduced theamount by 11% and MBTOC has reduced by a further 14% based on increased uptake of MS followed by Telon EC which has been shownto be effective. The key pests affectingstrawberry fruit are fungi (Rhizoctonia solani, Colletotrichum acutatum, Macrophomina phaseolina, Verticillium dahliae, Fusariumspp.), nematodes (Meloidogyne hapla), and weeds(Cyperus rotundus,purple nutsedge). The Party is concerned particularly about Macrophomina control, although recent trials showed good resultswith metham sodium formulations.Previous research has also shown that Telon EC followed by MS was effective. Telone EC has a smaller buffer than 1,3-D/Pic shank applied, i.e. 100 m compared to 250 m, howeverthe registration is unclear. Bromopic is registered, but past results with application have prevented further studies until recently when trials are evaluating it under barrier films.MBTOC acknowledges the Party for indicating an intention to not submit CUNs in 2011 for 2012.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The nomination shows that the gross and net revenue of all considered alternatives (Telopic, Bazamid and Telodrip) are higher than for MB. However, these are not feasible due toregistration and buffer zone issues.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction:Yes, however further dosage reduction would be possible if useof Bromopic with barrier films was not prevented because of highbufferzonesDec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program:Yes, however trials on key alternatives as shown above do not appear to be being conducted as they are not reportedDec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort:The nomination indicates limited information on progress withalternatives, but that the Party will not be seeking nominations for MB usein 2012.October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report23Country Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Strawberry runners(Sharon andGhaza)NoneNone - 31.900 28.07515.825(Sharon)12.250(Ghaza)22.320 -13.500(Sharon)13.500(Ghaza)13.500(Sharon)13.500(Ghaza)IsraelMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 13.5 t for Sharon and 13.5 t for Ghaza for this use in 2011. The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi (Rhizoctonia solani, Verticilliumdahliae, Fusarium and Phytophthoraspp., Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Macrophomina phasoeolina), root knot nematodes and purple nutsedge. The Party stated that MB 98:2 at a rate of500 kg/ha (50 g/m2) with standard polyethylene films and 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) with barrier films are necessary to meet certification standards in Ghaza and Sharon respectively. TheParty stated that 1,3-D + PIC mixture has been the leading alternative; however, adoption of this alternative is limited by therequired 250 m buffer which significantly limits its use inthe Sharon strawberry nursery growing area which is heavily populated. Hot gas application method is used in the Ghaza Strip growing area because the plots are small, adjacent tohouses and there are no injection tools or qualified applicators in the area. MBTOC urges the Party to continue trials with alternatives that meet the pathogen tolerance required tomeet the certification standards. The reduction is based on barrier films being available.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:No economic arguments are provided in the nomination.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction:Yes for Sharon and No for Ghaza as MBTOC is unclear on the availability of barrier films. Further dosage reduction would be possible ifuse of Bromopic with barrier films was not prevented because of high buffer zonesDec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program:Yes, however trials on key alternatives as shown above do not appear to be being conducted as they are not reportedDec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort:The nomination indicates limited information on progress with alternatives, but that the Party has indicted an intention to phase out MBby the end of 2011.Sweet Potatoes None None None 111.500 95.000 20.000-20.000 20.000IsraelMBTOC comments on 2010:MBTOC recommends 20.000 tonnes for 2011 (compared to 95 t used in 2009 and 20 t in 2010) for production of sweet potato transplants. The previous nomination in 2009included use for field grown crops, but now the nomination is only for seedbeds and clean propagation material. MBTOC recognizes the need for clean propagation material. In thelight sandy soils root-knot nematodes-Meloidogyne spp.the scab pathogenStreptomyces ipomoeaandPythiumspp. are the disease issues on the plants used for propagationpurposes. The applicant states that they expect registration of MB alternatives (eg. Telone II) by 2010, but this has not yet been approved. Root knot nematode resistant cultivarsare available, but they are not commercially desirable in Israel. No data is presented from trials since 2006, although that data suggested that Telone II + metham sodium(Adochem super) 400 l /ha was an excellent alternative for MB and registration was sought. The Party has not provided further evidence of research conducted from that date. TheMB rates stated in the CUN are consistent with MBTOC’s standard presumptions and barrier films are being used. Trials conductedin the USA with Pic as an alternative indicatethat it provides better yields and returns to growers than MB. Solarization also significantly increased yields and with more effective herbicides may also become a MB alternative(Reference:http://mbao.org/2008/027Stoddard.pdf).MBTOC expects that if any disease control products are registered prior to 2011 that the quantity of MB nominated will be24October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)adjusted downward to reflect the availability of the alternative(s). In the absence of this, MBTOC expects data on the suitability of the use of alternative varieties resistant tonematodes which are used effectively in other countries.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The Party states that “the semi-commercial application of Telon on a total area of 100 ha in 2005 led to unsatisfactory resultsand economic losses”. CUN also shows that applicationof Telon 200+MS 400 l/ha results in higher gross and net revenue than MB 350 kg/ha.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 (i) Emission reduction:Yes, barrier films and rates comply with MBTOC presumptions are being followed.Dec. IX/6 (iii) Research program:No, has not been updated since 2006, but the Party has identified alternatives that are in the registration process.Dec. IX/6 (iii) Appropriate effort:The Party has identified an intention to phase out MB by the end of 2011..Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 51.450 34.300 30.690 27.621-26.162 - 26.162JapanMBTOC comments on 2010:MBTOC recommends 26.162 tonnes for this use in 2012. The recommended amount is based on the reduction that the Party has made on the melon combination which has the samepathogen problems as the cucumber. Japan had made public an action plan to complete phase out of methyl bromide for soil use in2013 and submitted revised national managementstrategy for critical use nomination of methyl bromide to the Ozone Secretariat in April 2008. MBTOC acknowledges that the Party will phase out MB by usinga number of alternativesin 2013.The nomination is based on the need to control particular viruses of cucumber, since 2005. Globally, such viruses are not considered as soil borne pathogens but can survive in cropdebris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated program including cultural practices e.g. sanitation, rotation with a non-host, removaland destruction of crop debris, cleaning and sanitation of the greenhouse and the surrounded area, and pathogen free seeds hasproven very effective in similar situations around theworld. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way toreduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). As atransition strategy, MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. MBTOCrecognises the unique farming system used forcucumber in Japan which has been in place for many years. However, in many countries cucumber production has already shifted tosubstrates in greenhouse conditions and hasbecome the most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soil borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind ofproduction and are widely used in around the world. (Leoni & Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan,2004; Engindeniz, 2004). The Party isencouraged to consider substrate production, which implemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006;Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soilless culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growingin substrates there is a critical need for a high degree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems ina short period of time as experienced in many MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004). The CUN states that the Aichi Agricultural Research Centre (2005) identified the effectiveness ofKGMMV control by methyl iodide in pot tests. MBTOC encourages the Party to continue to pursue the registration of methyl iodidefor soil uses (methyl iodide was registered forimported timber in Japan in 2004, under JMAFF registration No. 21407).MBTOC comments on economics 2010:No economic arguments are provided in the nomination prior to testing for technically feasible alternatives.October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report25Country Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction:Yes, barrier films are used in part of applications and rates in the nomination conform to the standard presumptions.Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program:Yes, a certain trials are now energetically undertaken now to find alternative technology to control KGMMV such as plant debrishumusacceleration by input of wheat bran as the material for the microbe reproduction, use of bag culture with fertigation of the mixture of vermiculite, wooden bark manure, peatmoss, rice bran and mountain soil and use of bio-decomposition pot for avoiding contact of seedling root with the virus contaminated soil. And seedling dipping in extract ofLentinus edodesmycelia just before planting has been tested.Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort:Party has identified an action plan thatwill phase out MB by the end of 2012.Ginger (Field) 119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075 63.056 53.400 47.450-42.235 - 42.235JapanMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends the requested rate of42.235 tfor 2012 (a reduction of 5.215 t or 11.5% from 2011). This was mostly achieved by reductions of acreage and some reduction indosage rates. Fields are now fumigated on alternative years rather than yearly. Several regions now use dosage rates as low as16-20 g/m2under LBPF which are within or lowerthan MBTOC’s standard presumptive rates. The nomination is for control ofPythiumspp. (P. ultimum var. ultimum, P. zingiberium) in open field cultivated ginger fields using MB (98:2)applied from small cans. The party has provided MBTOC with a list of studies that indicate highly promising results for the implementation of alternatives by 2013, the date for completephase out of MB in Japan.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The nomination states that hot water treatment can possibly be considered as a technically feasible alternative under specifictopographical and soil conditions, but that initial andrunning costs are high, hence it is not economically feasible. No data are provided to support this argument. CUN provides datathat shows that net revenues when using alternativessuch as dazomet or Metalaxyl are lower that for MB. MBTOC is not able to verify the accuracy of these data.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX-6 (i) Emission reduction:Yes,barrier films and rates complying with MBTOC presumptions are being followed except that the products in 98:2 in small cans.Dec. IX-6 (iii) Research program:Yes, the research program has been updated and the party has identified alternatives that are in the registration process.Dec. IX-6 (iii) Appropriate effort:The Party has identified an action plan thatwill phase out MB by the end of 2012.Ginger (protected) 22.900 22.900 14.471 11.100 8.325 8.300 7.036-6.558 - 6.558JapanMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends the total requested amount of 6.558 tonnes for 2012. This representsa reduction of 6.8% reduction from 2011 year amount approved 2012 under LBPF. Thenomination is for control ofPythium spp. (P. ultimum var. ultimum, P. zingiberium) in protected ginger fields using MB (98:2) applied from small cans. Several regions now use dosagerates as low as 16-20 g/m2under LBPF which are within or lower than MBTOC’s standard presumptive rates. MBTOC has now been provided by the Party with the results ofnumerous studies which have highly promising results for the implementation of alternatives by 2013, the date for complete phase out of MB in Japan.26October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)MBTOC comments on economics 2010:Substantially as aboveComments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX-6 (i) Emission reduction:Yes, barrier films and rates complying with MBTOC presumptions are being followed except that the products in 98:2 in small cans.Dec. IX-6 (iii) Research program: Yes, the research program has been updated and the party has identified alternatives that are in the registration process.Dec. IX-6 (iii)Appropriate effort:The Party has identified an action plan that will phase out MB by the end of 2012.Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 136.650 91.100 81.720 73.548-67.936 - 67.936JapanMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 67.936 tonnes for this use in 2012. The recommended quantity represents a 12.5 % reduction from the 21thMOP approved amount based on uptake of available alternatives,e.g. steam, soil less culture, grafting, pathogen free seeds, 1,3 D+Pic and cultural practices such as rotation, rootisolation and sanitation. Japan has an action plan to completephase out of methyl bromide for critical use nomination for soil use in 2013 and submitted revised national managementstrategy to the Ozone Secretariat in April 2008. MBTOC acknowledges that the Party will phase out MB by using a variety of alternatives in 2013 and lead to a reduction of 10 % byadoption of alternatives and low permeable barrier film with thedose rate reduction in 2011. The nomination is based on the need to control a particular virus of melons. Globally, thisvirus is not considered as a soil-borne pathogen but can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated programincluding cultural practices has been proven to be effective in many other countries. The Party has indicated that rotation tonon-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberriesis an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF whichallow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%.MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for melons in Japan which has been in place for many years. However, in many countries some melon production has alreadyshifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soil-borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simplesystems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production and are widely used in around the world (Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002;Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, when implemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvasand Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soil less culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma andSuzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that evenwhen growing in substrates there is a critical need for a high degree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to usesubstrates systems in a short period of time as experienced in many MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004). Resistant root stocks are now available in Japan. However, according to theparty, the root stocks are not resistant to all the pathogen races. High yielding varieties resistant to the virus are available. Steam has also been found to control the virus, particularlyin the upper soil layer.MBTOC notes that Pic and MB/Pic mixtures and the fungicide, fludioxonil, are effectively used for Monosporascus in other countries under similar conditions (e.g. Stanghelini et al.2003; Martyn 2002).MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The nomination argues that no alternatives are technically or economically feasible, while the economic (and technical) feasibility of the inoculation of the attenuated virus is beingtrialled at present. The nomination argues that there is an important market window for melons in Japan, while virus-resistantvarieties fetch lower prices in the market. Thesestatements are supported by budget data. MBTOC is not able to verify the accuracy of these data.October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report27Country Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction:Yes,barrier films and rates conform to the standard presumptions.Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program:Yes,several control technologies are now checked whether they are adaptable to each specific production region with the completereplacement of methyl bromide. Those are appropriate use of the mixture of chloropicrin and 1,3 D to control MNSV without any phytotoxicity, methyl iodide use, selection ofresistant variety in the respective production regions, effectiveness on the rotation by tomato.Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort:Party has identified an action plan that will phase out MB by the end of 2012.Pepper (green &hot)187.200200.700156.700121.72581.14972.99065.691-61.154- 61.154JapanMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 61.154 tonnes for this use in 2012. The Party nominated an amount representing 7% reduction from the amount approved for 2011 (2012: 61.154 t, 2011:68.260 t) and has indicated it will not apply for further nominations under their action plan. According to the Party, this reduction is due to the introduction and deployment ofalternatives, more distribution of low permeable barrier film with the dose rate reduction and reduction of the frequency of MBapplication to every two years. Five regions applied forMB: Miyazaki: 72.9 ha (20.717 t), Kagoshima: 32.6 ha (6..006 t), Ibaraki: 116.3 ha ha (25.593 t), Kochi 31.9 ha (7.020 t), Wakayama: 4.5 ha (1.818 t). The total area nominated is258.2 ha, 61.101 t, The average MB rate is 236 kg/ha. However, the MB rates vary from one region to another (184kg/ha to 400 Kg/ha) according to the pest pressure:Japanprovided a comprehensive National Action Plan detailing step wisephase out by 2013 using a range of non chemical alternatives:( Bag culture with fertigation, Inoculation ofattenuated virus as vaccine, development of the bio-decomposed pot for the seedling, resistant varieties, hydroponics, solarization) and chemical alternatives (dazomet, metamsodium, chloropicrin and chloropicrin capsule) .The Party believes that all these alternatives will be widely accepted in the future. The development of resistant varieties is progressingwell for the control of some viral strains. Soil less culture (bag cultivation, Kaneko 2006) using various substrates (diseasefree soil from mountain, paddy field, peat moss, coconutsshell and timber bark) are being used. Also, resistant varieties (Bagu 1 gou and L4 Miogi) are currently available to some PMMoV strains, plant vaccination by attenuated virus(Kanda, 2008), grafting on resistant root stocks (Anou 4 gou and 5 gou) are feasible alternatives. Others such as biological control, wrapping the underground part of seedling witheasily decomposing paper and soil amendments are under development.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:No economic arguments are provided in the nomination.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 b(i)- Emission reduction:No, but the use of barrier films varies from region to region with some regions not using barrier films. The Party’s nomination howeverconforms to MBTOC’s standard presumptions.Dec. IX/6 b(iii)- Research program:Yes, a detailed research program is on-going.Dec. IX/6 b(iii)- Appropriate effort:The Party has presented a detailed research program in place, in accordance with Decision IX/6. MBTOC believes that the Partywill beable to phase out MB completely by 2013 in alignment with their National Management Plan.28October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Watermelon 129.000 98.900 94.200 32.475 21.650 14.500 13.050-12.075 -12.075JapanMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 12.075 tonnes for this use in 2012. This represents a 9.25% reduction of the approved 13.05 tonnes by the Parties at the 21st MOP.The recommended quantity represents a 10% reduction from the 20thMOP approved amount based on uptake of available alternatives, e.g. steam, soil less culture, grafting,pathogen free seeds, 1,3 D+Pic and cultural practices such as rotation, root isolation and sanitation. Japan had made public of action plan of complete phase out of methyl bromidefor critical use nomination for soil use in 2013 and submitted revised national management strategy for critical use nominationof methyl bromide to the Ozone Secretariat in April 2008.MBTOC acknowledges that the Party will phaseout MB by using variety alternatives in 2013 and lead to a reduction of 10 % by adoption of alternatives and low permeable barrier filmwith the dose rate reduction in 2011.The nomination is based on the need to control a particular virus of watermelons. Globally, this virus is not considered as a soil-borne pathogen but can survive in crop debris forseveral years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated program including cultural practices has been proven to be effective in many other countries.The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reducevirus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOCurges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for watermelons in Japan whichhas been in place for many years. However, in many countries some watermelon production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the mostwidely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soil-borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production and arewidely used in around the world (Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz,2004). Substrate production, when implementedcorrectly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soil less culture as afeasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in substrates thereis a critical need for a high degree ofsanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems in ashort period of time as experienced in many MLFprojects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004). Resistant root stocks are now available in Japan. However, according to the Party, the root stocksare not resistant to all the pathogen races. Highyielding varieties resistant to CGMMV are also available. Steam has also been found to control the virus, particularly in the upper soil layer.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:No economic arguments are provided in the nomination.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction:No, barrier films are used for part of the nomination, but rates conform to the standard presumptions with barrier filmsDec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program:Yes, research effort have been conducted on key fumigant and non chemical alternatives.Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort:Extensive action plan showing research efforts for phase out by 2013.October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report29Country Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Cucurbits1,187.800 747.839 592.891 486.757 407.091 302.974 195.698 - 59.500 - 59.500UnitedStatesMBTOC recommendation for 2010:MBTOC recommends 59.500 tonnes for this use in 2012. From thisamount, 4.076 t are for Georgia squash, 3.285 t for Georgia cucumber; 12.073 t for Georgia melon; 38.321 t for theSoutheast region and 1.739 t for MarDel.MBTOC recognizes the reduction made by the Party of 70% down from 2011 recommendation for transition to a 3 way combination of1,3 D+ chloropicrin, followed by chloropicrin alone, followed by metam-sodium, that shows good results against key cucurbit pests inspring season fumigation.MBTOC recognizes the for cucurbit growers who can only use either 1,3-D + chloropicrin or metam-sodium+chloropicrin in fall-season fumigations to control nutsedge and nematodepests, the yield loss estimates used in last year’s nomination continue to be applicable. While one study in 2006 showed good efficacy of a combination of 1,3 D + chloropicrin and theherbicides napropamide + halosulfuron or metolachlor + trifloxysulfuron in small plots of Florida tomatoes (Santos et al. 2006), these results are not applicable to cucurbits becauseneither metolachlor or trifloxysulfuron are registered in the US for cucurbits, and halosulfuron can have phytotoxic effects oncucurbitsMBTOC stresses the need of considering also non chemical methods within an integrated pest management strategy.Hausbeck, Lamour and others (2004) have reported many efficient management strategies to control Phytophthora on pepper, including crop rotation with non susceptible hosts(carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa), culturalcontrol (water management, plant density, soil amendments, protective mulch, raised beds etc.) and the use ofregistered fungicides (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph, Zoxamide + Mancozeb, Copper hydroxide+dimethomorph). MBTOC notes the use of grafting and resistant varieties are consideredas alternatives for long lasting crops in many Mediterranean countries (Bello, et al., 2001). Yellow nutsedge emergence in transplanted cantaloupe was suppressed by the combinedeffects of thin-film mulches and competitive size differential provided by using cantaloupe transplants (Johnson & Mullinix, 2007). Incorporating Brassica spp. residue to reducepopulations of soilborne fungi of watermelon was also tested, with interesting results (Njoroge, 2008).MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The nomination notes that the treatment known as UGA-3-WAY is being tested, as is another potential alternative, Dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), with promising results. However, furthertesting of both is required. CUN provides detailed partial (and provisional) budgets for Georgia and Florida that show that theUGA-3-WAY Spring application may yield equal (Florida)or higher (Georgia) net farm income than MB but that the Fall application results in negative net farm income in both areas.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)•Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction: Yes, barrier films used in all of the applications.•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program: Yes, studies were conducted in other crops such as tomatoes, which are relevant also to cucurbits. Studies specific to cucurbits (Hausbeckand Cortright (2007), showed that cucurbit plant vigor was measured to determine fumigant/mulch performance under either LPDE or barrier films plastic mulch for the control ofFusarium oxysporum. Of the fumigants used in the study, the MB and MI treatments resulted in cantaloupe plants with the highest vigour. In general, treatments under LPDEhad higher plant vigor when compared with plants grown under barrier films. Research continues to also be conducted to identifyFusariumresistant watermelon stock that canbe grafted on a commercially feasible basis. Other studies were also given in the CUN for these crops.•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort:30October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Eggplant 76.721 82.167 85.363 66.018 48.691 32.820 19.725-6.904 - 6.904UnitedStatesMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 6.904 tonnes which is the total requested amount by the Party. The Party has made a 65 % reduction in MB use from the amount approved by the Party’s for 2011(19.725 t). MBTOC acknowledges the substantial reduction by the Party for uptake of alternatives, particularly the use of the 3way system. Of this amount, 3.061 t are for Georgia and3.843 t are for Florida. US nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are still under extensive evaluation andpest pressure (nutsedge, nematodes and P. capsici) is high.The Party is projecting rates of 125 kg/ha both for pathogens and for nutsedge. The Party states that the treatment, known asthe “UGA 3-WAY”, consisting of three successive soilfumigations, beginning with 1,3-D + Pic application, followed by a Pic application, followed by a metham-sodium or metham-potassium application (Culpepper, 2007) is an alternative forMB in spring crops. For summer and fall crops, this system needs further development for use in areas with moderate to high nutsedge pressure. In addition, metham sodium andmetham potassium in the fall require longer waiting periods for planting than MB. Delays could result in missed market windows.A further constraint to adoption of the UGA-3 WAY is tha1,3-D is restricted in areas of Karst topography where ground water is vulnerable to leaching from 1,3-D. This research is on-going, however specific studies conducted or in progresssince the last nomination were not cited in the CUN. The Party states that trials with dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) plus Pic arepromising, but this combination does not effectively controlcertain grasses (MacRae and Culpepper, 2008). Trials will continue with this alternative. An application to register DMDS isunder consideration at USEPA. MI is not registered foreggplant. The US nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are still under extensive evaluation and pest pressure (nutsedge, nematodes and P. capsici) is high..The Partystates that a 50:50 formulation (MB/Pic) is widely used in Florida but does not provide information about the formulation usedin Georgia. MBTOC considers that further reductions in MBamount may be possible with changes to formulations of 30:70 usedin combination with barrier films commercially feasible. MBTOC considers that the Party should develop non chemicalternatives e.g. grafting, biofumigation, soil less culture... which are widely used in many countries and regions with similarclimate and pest (Besri, 2008). It is important to note that MBnot used in any other non A5 country on eggplant. There is no indication in the nomination that research in these areas is continuing.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The nomination notes that the treatment known as UGA-3-WAY is being tested, as is another potential alternative, Dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), with promising results. However, furthertesting of both is required. CUN provides detailed partial (and provisional) budgets for Georgia and Florida that show that theUGA-3-WAY Spring application may yield equal (Florida)or higher (Georgia) net farm income than MB but that the Fall application results in negative net farm income in both areas.Comments requested in Decision XXI/11 (Para 9)Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction:No, there is no information in the nomination about the use of VIF or equivalent film, however, the rates (125 kg/ha) are consistent with theuse of barrier films and MBTOC’s standard presumptionsDec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program:Yes, equivalent research is on-going in similar sectors, however specific studies conducted or in progress since the last nomination werenot cited in the CUNDec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort:The Party is increasing uptake based on adoption of alternatives such as the Georgia 3-Way and Methyl Iodide. More effort to implementgrafting, resistant root stocks, etc. may facilitate the phase out of MB in areas where regulatory constraints prevent the useof some of the chemical alternatives.October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report31Country Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Forestnursery192.515 157.694 122.032 131.208 122.060 117.826 93.547 - 34.230 - 34.230UnitedStatesMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends an amount of 34.230 tonnes for this nomination in 2012. MBTOC recognizes a reduction in the nominated amount with respect to last years’ approved amount,but was informed by the Party that some of this amount was moved into QPS MB. Despite requests from the Party it is unclear what proportion of this amount has been moved intoQPS. The nomination indicates 100% reduction by three groups and 48% for the remaining three groups (the Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative, the MichiganSeedling Growers, and the Northeastern Forest and Conservation Nursery Association. Key pests are nutsedge, nematodes and fungi. MBTOC recognises that propagative materialrequires a very high level of soilborne pest and pathogen control in order to avoid their wide spread distribution. The CUN isfor nurseries with moderate or high pest pressure wherealternatives are not effective. Nutsedge has no effect on certification, but the Party states that it does affect yield by 3-5%. MBTOC requests that further nominations clearly show thetrend in yield loss caused by nutsedge, nematodes or fungal pathogens over the number of seasons following fumigation with MB and alternatives and a breakdown of the economiccomparisons to MB treatment. The nomination is for certified forest seedlings produced in 3 forest nursery regions. CUN is based on economic infeasibility of use of substrates andthe lack of effective alternatives for control of nutsedge and arange of fungal pathogens and nematodes. The key alternativeswhich have been shown to be as efficient as MB are MIwhich has been found effective (i.e. Enebak, 2006) and recently registered; chloropicrin alone (South, 2007; 2008); 1,3-D/Pic (South, 2008) 1,3-D /Pic/metham sodium (South, 2008);metham sodium + Pic (Cram et al., 2007); and dazomet (Muckennfusset al., 2005; Enebak et al., 2006). DMDS + Pic has produced encouraging results (Quicke et al, 2007) althoughthe former is still not registered. Integrated pest management systems have also been shown to be effective (South et al., 2006; Hildebrand et al., 2004). The Party acknowledged thatPic and metham when used in conjunction with barrier films (LPBF) may provide an effective technical alternative and avoid cropinjury. Enebak (2007) found that with LPBF, use ratesof MB can be significantly reduced. Gluing of LPBF remains a challenge (Quicke et al., 2009; Walters et al., 2009). The Partystates that gluing of LPBF that is necessary forbroadacre fumigation of nursery stock is not commercially available, but progress hasbeen made in this respect. LPBF will be adopted when the effective gluing technologies arelocally and commercially available, however, MBTOC expects that future nominations will be based on its use. MBTOC considers that glyphosate can be used as a pre-treatment toreduce pressure from nutsedge. However, this herbicide has been shown to cause phytotoxicity under nursery conditions. Jacob et al. (2009) report effective control of weeds in IowaNurseries with different herbicides. MBTOC acknowledges the initiation of large scale, 5-year demonstration trials for this sector by the Party now with promising results (Quicke,2007; Quicke, 2008; Weiland, 2008). Recent findings confirm the promising results of MI, MI/Pic, DMDS, DMDS/Pic, but no indication of pathogen or weed pressure was given(Quicke, 2009; Weiland, 2009). Limited substrate production of these crops is reported as economical for small niche markets;however MBTOC is aware that International Paperproduces over 40 million tree seedlings per year in substrates intheir Brazil operation. MBTOC encourages additional effort on use of substrates, better methods for gluing barrierfilms, and use of MI.MBTOC comments on Economics 2010:The Party states that estimated costs of fumigation per hectare for northeastern nurseries average $8,300 for iodomethane (98:2), $10,500 for iodomethane (50:50), and $4,820 formethyl bromide (98:2). CUN notes that there are no yield losses with the use of iodomethane, hence if these cost differences are maintained the industry would find iodomethane to beeconomically infeasible. However, CUN shows losses in net operating revenue of 7% (Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative) and 14% (Northeastern Forest andConservation) respectively.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 b (i) Emission reduction:No. Barrier films are not used, but rates conform to the standard presumptions without barrier films. Inability to glue effectively and thelack of commercial availability of gluing LPBF have restricted the ability to use barrier films.32October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Dec. IX/6 b (iii) Research program:Yes. Research effort has been conducted on alternatives.Dec. IX/6 b (iii) Appropriate effort:The reduction and research indicates appropriate efforts.Nurseries stock(fruit, nut, flower)45.800 64.528 28.275 51.102 25.326 17.363 7.955-1.591 - 1.591UnitedStatesMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends a total of 1.591 tonnes for this use in 2012. This comprises 0.191 tonnes for roses, and 1.400 tonnes for theCalifornia Assoc. of Nursery and Garden Center. MBTnotes the large reduction in this nomination, which is 80% lessthan last year’s approved amount. The rates conform to MBTOC’sstandard presumptions. This nomination is for propagamaterials that need to be certified as free of pests and diseases (CDFA,2009; USDA-APHIS,2007). The amount of MB is specified in certification requirements, regardless of the formulat(CDFA, 2009). The California Dept of Food and Agriculture has approved the use of 1,3-dichloropropene as a certified nursery stock soil treatment for certain crops under specific conditiand recently added methyl iodide (MI), if and when it is registered for use in California (CDFA, 2009). MBTOC recognises thatpropagative material requires a very high level of soilborneand pathogen control in order to avoid their wide spread distribution. Research trials indicate some materials (such as MI) and some combinations (such as 1,3-D /Pic) show promise asalternatives for specific circumstances, although effective rates may be higher than those needed in annual crops and use of aneffective barrier film is necessary (Schneider et. al, 2008;Schneider et. al, 2009a; Schneider et. al, 2009b; Walters et. al,2009). Other materials (such as metham sodium and chloropicrin) were not adequate for certified nursery standards (Schet. al, 2009b). Advances using alternatives are being made (Hanson et al., 2007; Hanson et al., 2007; Hanson et al., 2009). Few effective herbicides are available to nursery managers iCalifornia (Shrestha et al., 2008).An alternate approach to the use of soil treatments is the use of containerized, or soil-less substrate, production systems where this approach is econofeasible and is able to produce a product, i.e, root system, of acceptable size and quality to the marketplace. MBTOC encourages continued research on chemical and non-chemicalalternatives and on high barrier films in hope (anticipation?) of the future approval for use in California.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The nomination concludes that 1,3-D+Chloropicrin is an economically feasible alternative to MB in California Rose production where Telone® restrictions do not apply. A similarconclusion is reached with regard to California deciduous fruit and nut nursery trees; however, township restrictions and certification restrictions hinder growers from using Telone®and render it technically infeasible.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction:Yes. Barrier films cannot be used for this nomination in California, but rates conform to the standard presumptions.Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program:Yes, An area wide program is evaluating the key alternatives, including methyl iodide/Pic and spot treatment of Pic.Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate efforts:A range of alternatives are being considered and commercialised.October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report33Country Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Orchard replant 706.176 527.600 405.400 393.720 292.756 215.800 183.232-18.324 - 18.324UnitedStatesMBTOC Comments for 2010:MBTOC recommends a CUE of 18.324 tonnes be approved for this use in 2012. This includes 12.700 t for stone fruit, 0.626 t forraisons, 1.844 t forwalnuts, 1.660 t for almond and 1.494 t for wine grapes. MBTOC acknowledges that the CUN is a 90% reduction from the previously approved amount. The CUN is fororchard/vineyard replant disorder of unknown etiology for a portion of replant sites in California where alternatives are not suitable, either because of regulatory restrictions or physicalcharacteristics such as unacceptable soil type, moisture or topography. The CUN is for heavy soils or soils which cannot be treated to a sufficient depth to kill of old roots and theassociated pathogens in deeper soil. Regulatory constraints (maximum labelled rated) prevent the use of 1,3-D at the rates needed for effective. The best alternatives for orchardreplant that have been identified are 1,3-D or 1,3-D with chloropicrin, chloropicrin alone, and/or metam-sodium, especially incoarse-textured soils (Caprile and McKenry, 2006; Wanget al., 2009; Browne et al., 2007; Browne et al., 2008; Beede et al., 2008). Under certain soil and moisture conditions (lessthan 12% to 1.5 meters) 1,3-D is an effective managementtool for replant problems and is currently used to replant the majority of orchard and vineyard sites. Although a two year fallow was found to be effective under Mediterraneanconditions by Bello,et al., 2004, Schneider,et al.,2004 found that a four year fallow did not sufficiently eliminate the causative nematodes. Recent promising results with rootstockssuch as Nemaguard, Viking, Krymsk1, and Flordaguard have been reported by McKenry (2006). Additional alternatives proven to beeffective include IM or 1,3-D and spot treatmentsapplied through GPS-controlled shanks or through a spot drip application system (Browneet al, 2007; 2008). The Party confirms that MB/Pic 67:33 formulation is used for Californiastone fruit raisin grapes and wine grapes and now as well for almond and walnut at a dose rate of 20g/m2.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:Walnut and almond orchards: The CUN refers back to the partial budget and mentions that MB results in about $530 more per hectare than a hectare treated with 1,3-D/Pic. Howeverthe NPV and IRR (close to 14%) of both alternatives are similar. MBTOC notes that there is an error in Table 1 of the CUN. Losses with almonds are expected to be higher because ofhigher tree mortality rates. California Stone Fruit: CUN states that differences in net operating revenue for even small changes in yield can be substantial. This analysis suggests thatthe benefits of methyl bromide alone are approximately $125/hectare. The result is a decrease of 12% in net operating revenue,but both alternatives have a negative NPV althoughMB provides additional benefits.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction –Yes. Barrier films cannot be used for this nomination in California, but rates conform to the standard presumptions.Dec IX/6 b(iii) Research program -Yes, an area wide program is evaluating the key alternatives, including methyl iodide/Pic, spot treatment of Pic.Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate efforts -A range of alternatives are being considered and commercialised.34October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)UnitedStatesOrnamentals 154.000 148.483 137.835 138.538 107.136 84.617 64.307-48.164 - 48.164MBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends the requested amount of 48.164 tonnes for this use in 2012. This includes 46.950 t for California and 1.214 tfor Florida. MBTOC acknowledges the 25%reduction in the nominated amount compared to the previous amount approved, including a significant reduction of 90% in Florida. This rate of adoption would support a 4 yeartransition to available alternatives. In Florida, methyl iodide (MI) is now registered and other alternatives are available, for example 1,3-D/Pic and solarization alone or in combinationwith chemicals (McSorley et al, 2006; McSorley et al, 2008). The nomination is for a large number of species, mostly grown inthe field. In Florida, the main species using MB aregladioli, lilies and snapdragon. Additional species using MB in California include calla lily, delphinium, dianthus, eustoma, freesia, helianthus, hypericum, iris, larkspur, liatris, matthiola,and ranunculus. MB is needed to control diseases (e.g., Fusarium spp., Pythium spp., Phytophthora spp., and Rhizoctonia spp.),plant parasitic nematodes (e.g., root knot, root lesion,stunt and dagger), weeds (e.g. Cyperus spp. Portulaca, Ambrosia and others), and previous crop propagules. The Party has adjusted dosage rates for all regions to 20 g/m2, whichconforms to MBTOC’s standard presumptions. MBTOC considers alternatives available for some flower types in California, for example 1,3-D/Pic, metham sodium and combinations(Klose et al., 2007, Klose, 2008). Steaming systems and application methods are being evaluated in California, in an effort toidentify the most feasible approach to this technique(Gilbert et al, 2009). MBTOC recognizes the potential for phytotoxicity issues for MI on ornamentals. MBTOC encourages the Party to conduct appropriate trials to facilitate thetransition to MI/Pic if and when registration is received. MBTOC also encourages continued research on non-chemical and chemical alternatives.MBTOC comments on Economics 2010:A major change in this CUN is the availability of iodomethane in Florida (registered in 2008), but not in California. Its economic impacts as an alternative to methyl bromide arerelatively small. The partial budget of Florida lilies resultedin a 4% loss as a percentage of net operating revenue. In California the alternatives to methyl bromide imply a significantnegative economic impact on growers; however, the data show that growers incur a loss even when using MB.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission reduction:Yes, for part of the nomination.Barrier filmsare currently used in Florida. Barrier films cannot be used in California due toregulatory constraints. Rates conform to the standard presumptions with barrier films.Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program:Yes, research efforts have been conducted on alternatives.Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate efforts:The nomination indicates significant efforts have been made to switch to alternatives. Substantial reduction indicatesappropriate efforts particularly in Florida. In California, efforts have been made within the constraints imposed by regulations.October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report35Country Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Peppers (field) 1094.782 1,243.542 1,106.753 756.339 548.984 463.282 206.234-28.366 - 28.366UnitedStatesMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends the total requested amount of 28.366 tonnes for 2012. The Party has made a 86.2 % reduction in MB use from theamount approved by the Party’s for 2011.MBTOC acknowledges the substantial reduction by the Party for uptake of alternatives. Of this amount, 0.947 t is for Georgia, 27.077 t is for Florida and 0.341 t is for the Southeast.The Party did not again submit a CUN for Michigan for 2012. The Party is projecting rates of 125 kg/ha (12.5 g/m2) for both pathogens and nutsedge.In addition, the party states that the treatment, known as the “UGA 3-WAY”, consisting of three successive soil fumigations, beginning with 1,3-D + Pic application, followed by a Picapplication, followed by a metham-sodium or metham-potassium application (Culpepper, 2007a) is an alternative for MB in springcrops. For Georgia fall crops, this system needsfurther development for use in areas with moderate to high nutsedge pressure. 1,3-D is restricted in areas of Karst topographywhere ground water is vulnerable to leaching from 1,3-D. In addition, metham sodium and 1,3-D in the fall require longer waiting periods for planting than MB. Delays could result in missed market windows. Midas, a mixture of MI and Pic,has received state-level approval in 47 US states (California, Washington, and New York are the exceptions at this time). However, the Party states that some time will be necessarybefore Midas achieves a full adoption. The main constraints to the widely use of MI are : (1) the cost of MI formulations which is higher than MB, (2) growers and researchers willneed time to evaluate MI use in the various local production conditions covered by this nominations, and (3) growers and applicators will need to make someequipment modificationsto adapt to the lower flow rates typical with less expensive MI application rates and to avoid the corrosion of some metals that can occur with MI (Sumner 2005, Nolinget al., 2006).MBTOC considers that further reductions in MB amount is possible with changes to formulations of 50:50 MB/Pic or less (e.g. to30:70) used in combination with barrier films, MBTOCconsiders that the Party should also develop some non chemical alternatives e.g. grafting, biofumigation, soil less etc. whichare widely used in many countries and regions with similarclimate and pest. It is important to note that MB is not used in other non Article 5 countries on pepper. There is no indication in the nomination that research in these areas iscontinuing.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The nomination describes the economic impact of using iodomethaneas being negligible; as a result it appears to be technicallyfeasible in all parts of the US where it has beenregistered. However, growers require time to transition; hence the amount of MB nominated has been adjusted downward. In Georgia, Florida, and the Southeastern U.S., the Georgia3-Way on spring plantings and iodomethane are considered technically(and thus economically) feasible alternatives, although some limitations exist. The loss of gross revenue usingthe Georgia 3-Way is negligible in Florida and the Southeastern U.S., while gains in gross revenue are expected in Georgia. Although no gains in gross revenue are expected whenusing iodomethane, losses in net revenue are negligible. One drawback to the Georgia 3-Way is that yield losses are expected infall plantings, with studies in Georgia’s applicationshow a 50% yield loss. These losses are not expected when iodomethane is used. The Georgia 3-Way also cannot be used on peppersthat are grown in karst soils since it contains1,3-D; however, iodomethane can be.Comments requested in Decision XXI/11 (para 9)•Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission Reduction:No, there is no information in the nomination about the use of VIF or equivalent film, however, the rates (125 kg/ha) are consistent withthe use of barrier films and MBTOC’s standard presumptions•Dec. IX/6 b(ii) Research Program:Yes, equivalent research is on-going in similar sectors, howeverspecific studies conducted or in progress since the last nominationwere not cited in the CUN•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate Efforts:It appears that the Party is making an appropriate effort to replace MB with alternatives such as the Georgia 3-Way and MethylIodide.More effort to implement grafting, resistant root stocks, etc. may facilitate the phase out of MB in areas where regulatory constraints prevent the use of some of the chemicalalternatives.36October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Strawberry runners 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 7.944 4.690+2.0186.036-3.752 - 3.752UnitedStatesMBTOC comments for 2010:MBTOC recommends 3.752 tonnes for California in 2012, but does not accept use in the south eastern States as a suitable alternative is available. In the previous round, MBTOCaccepted the action plan of the Party for 2010 and 2011 for amounts of 2.018 t and 1.346 t respectively in the south east. MBTOC considers that MI is technically suitable forstrawberry fruit production from runners grown in MI treated soil, and accepted that time was required to conduct commercial scale up trials of MI in fruit fields. The submissionshowed no evidence that these commercial scale up trials were ineffective so MBTOC does not consider further need for MB in these regions.The CUN does not specify regions for use and applies generally for 3.752 tonnes, however 99% of the hectares are exempted underQPS. The key pests previously stated as affectingstrawberry runners are weeds (purple and yellow nutsedge), fungi (RhizoctoniaandPythium sppin SE,Phytophthora,Verticillium in California), nematodes (root-knot, sting in CA).Alternatives s that have been evaluated in research trials over the past several years are 1,3-D/chloropicrin, 1,3-D/chloropicrin + metam-sodium, 1,3-D and metam-sodium, anddazomet as a follow-up application to 1,3-D/chloropicrin or chloropicrin (Fennimoreet al., 2008b) the latter proving very effective.These formulations have been shown to give similar pathogen control in soils and will meet requirements of certification (Kabiret al, 2005; Fennimoreet al2007, 2008; MBAO). [ForCalifornia, MBTOC recommends the nomination, but expects that future nominations will show reports of trials with key alternatives over the last few years in order to satisfy the criteriaof Decision IX/6. The Party's request is based on MBTOC's standard presumption of 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2) of MB which is considered effective for production of 'high health' strawberryrunners using LPBF and other emission control technologies (TEAP 2005). California regulations prohibit the use of LPBF with MB. The Party did not provide further information oncommercial scale up trials requested in the 2009 round.MBTOC comments on Economics:The nomination states that iodomethane is under registration review in California; however registration is not expected in thenear future. California strawberry nursery growers areexpected to see a yield decrease of 10% with 1,3-D + chloropicrin. Net revenue declines from more than $12000/ha to a loss of almost $8000/ha.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)•Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission control: No, regulations prevent the use of barrier films with MB but barrier films can be used with alternatives. Rates conform to standardpresumptions.•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program: Yes, ongoing research is being conducted showing that MI/Picespecially is effective, but it is not yet registered in California.•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort: MI has qualified for certification use by CFDA, however it is not yet registeredOctober 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report37Country Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)Sweet Potato slips None 0.000 0.000 180144 18.144 14.515 11.612-8.709 - 8.709UnitedStatesMBTOC comments for 2010:MBTOC recommends 8.709 t for this use in 2012. Two years of trials indicate that Pic combined with herbicides provide transplants that give yields and returns above that of MB.MBTOC recognizes that this is a 25 % reduction from the 2011 year application. The pathogens of concern are a complex of Pythium diseases, roots rots, Pox (Streptomyces ipomea);Scurf (Monilochaetesinfuscans); Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum); Black rot (Ceratocystis fimbriata),root knot caused by nematodes, and the infestation of various weed species.The basis of the nomination is that township caps limit the use of 1,3-D and 1,3-D combinations the preferred MB alternative treatments. The industry sector is now carrying outextensive trials for replacing MB. Telone, the alternative to MB, cannot be used in Dec-Jan and township caps are exceeded in Nov which is the fumigation window for slips. MBTOCrecognizes the importance of producing pest free seed stock. Trialsby Stoddard (2008) indicate that Pic combined with herbicides has provided transplants that give yields and returnsabove that of MB. Second year trials carried out by Stoddard et al. (2009) confirmed result obtained in 2008 that showed that Piic is a good alternative to MB. Solarization alsosignificantly increased yield and with more effective herbicides may also become a MB alternative. No VIF is used as it is notpermitted in California. Nematode resistant cultivars areavailable worldwide and should be considred for any nematode issues. The applicant will be conducting the third year of trialsin 2010 and in 2011 replicated trial will be done in 6 to 8locations. If results comparable to 2008-09 are obtained with the alternatives are verified from these tests MBTOC expects complete phase out for this sector by 2013.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The nominationshows trial data that reflect that yield increases by 11% with the use of chloropicrin, resulting in a gain in gross and net operating revenue of 7 and 22% respectively.Comments requested in Dec. XX1/11 (para 9)•Dec. IX/6 b(i) Emission control:No, barrier films are not used in California as legislation prohibits this. Rates comply with MBTOC presumptions.•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program:Yes, A very active research program is in place to find alternatives and the party has indentified alternatives that are now beingimplemented.•Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate Effort:The Party has identified an action plan thatwill phase out MB as soon as alternativetechnologies have been proven effective.Tomatoes (field) 2876.046 2,476.365 2,065.246 1,406.4841,003.876 737.584 292.751-54.423 - 54.423UnitedStatesMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 54.423 tonnes the total requested amount by the Party. The Party has made a 81.4 % reduction in MB use from the amount approved by the Party’s for 2011(292.751 tonnes). Of this amount, 0.073 t is for Maryland, 0.646 t for Virginia, 8.164 t for SE, 3.882 t for Georgia, and 41. 657 t for Florida. MBTOC acknowledges the substantial reductioby the Party for uptake of alternatives, particularly the use of the “UGA 3-WAY”, consisting of three successive soil fumigations, beginning with 1,3-D + Pic application, followed by a Picapplication, followed by a metham-sodium or metham-potassium application as well as the increased use of MI (Culpepper, 2007).The UGA 3-WAY has been shown to be effective fortomatoes in Georgia, but has not yet been successful in other parts of the Southern US and needs further development. In addition, 1,3-D is restricted in areas of Karst topography wherground water is vulnerable to leaching from 1,3-D. The time limitations on the registration of Midas, a mixture of MI and Pichave been removed and this product has shown good efficacagainst key tomato pests, including nutsedge, in a number of trials with tomatoes. Midas has received state-level approval in47 US states (California, Washington, and New York are theexceptions at this time). However, the Party states that some time will be necessary before Midas achieves a full adoption. Constraints: (1) the cost of MIformulations which is higherthan MB, (2) growers and researchers will need time to evaluateMI use in the various local production conditions covered by this nominations, and (3) growers and applicators will need38October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for20051CUE for20062CUE for20073CUEfor20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtlor new)MBTOCrec. for2012 (new)to make some equipment modifications to adapt to the lower flow rates typical with less expensive MI application rates and to avoid the corrosion of some metals that can occur with MI(Sumner 2005, Nolinget al. 2006).The Party states that trials with DMDS plus Pic are promising, but DMDS is not registered in the US. An application toregister DMDS is underconsideration at USEPA (MacRae and Culpepper, 2008). According to the Party, non chemical alternatives such as grafting soilless culture, are not economically feasible. MBTOCconsiders that the party should develop these alternatives which are widely used in many countries and regions with similar climate and pest (Besri 2008). Lows (2009), Bausher (2009)provides evidence that ‘Big Power’, ‘Beaufort’, and ‘Maxifort’rootstock can be utilized to manage soil borne pathogens. .Freeman et al (2009) reported that although grafted plants addsignificantly to input costs at current prices, the net economicresult is often positive wheninfestations are high. There isno indication in the nomination that research in these areas iscontinuing. Therefore, MBTOC considers that more research is necessary to demonstrate appropriate effort to replace MB under decision IX/6. It is important to note that MB is not usedany more in developed countries on tomato.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:CUN concludes that iodomethane would be the economically feasible alternative for use in Eastern and Florida US tomato production in areas exhibiting karst topographical features,but a transition period is required. In areas where karst features are not present it appears that tomato growers can use a combination of three fumigants applied sequentially (1,3-D,chloropicrin, and metam-sodium/potassium) and achieve yields that are comparable to those produced by using methyl bromide forspring crops only.Comments requested in Decision XXI/11•Dec. IX/6 b(i)- Emission Reduction:No, thereis no information in the nomination about the use of VIF or equivalent film, however, the rates (125 kg/ha) are consistent withthe use of barrier films•Dec. IX/6-b(iii)-Research Program:Yes,the research is on-going, however specific studies conducted orin progress since the last nomination were not cited in thenomination•Dec. IX/6-b(iii)-Appropriate Efforts:The Party made large reductions recently. Consideration of grafting, resistant root stocks, etc. may facilitate the phase outof MB inareas where regulatory constraints prevent the use of some of the chemical alternatives.11ExMOP and 16MOP216MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP3MOP17+MOP184MOP18+MOP195MOP19+MOP206MOP207MOP21

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 39 

# 5. Final CUN Report – Issues Specific to MBTO C Structures and

Commodities

At the Open Ended Working Group in Geneva in July 2010, MBTOC Structures and

Commodities (SC) held bilateral meetings with Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States.

The purpose was to discuss Parties’ views concerning MBTOC SC’s interim CUN

recommendations, receive and provide additional information and discuss outstanding technical

and economic questions. We indicated we would c onduct re-reviews of CUN decisions if Parties

requested and provided additiona l information. Additionally, Cana da provided some corrections

to MBTOC SC’s reporting of its accounting framework.

Following the meeting, MBTOC SC, via the Ozon e Secretariat sent letters to the Parties

summarizing MBTOC SC’s understanding of the nominations and the possibility of a re-review,

if this was seen as ne cessary. Additionally, we responded to requests for information. MBTOC

SC informed UNEP of corrections to the tables re lating to Canada’s meth yl bromide accounting.

Australia and the United States requested re-reviews of three CUNs in late August and midSeptember. MBTOC SC met in Zagreb Croatia 14-17 September 2010 to finalize the critical use

nominations for Australia rice, US commoditi es and one element of the US NPMA CUN,

concerning pest control in cheese stores an d, to work on the Assessment Report.

MBTOC SC advises that the relatively late notice by these Parties requesting re-reviews of CUNs

created attendance difficulties for its members. Accordingly, MBTOC SC requests Parties to

notify the Ozone Secretariat by 31 July each year of any requests to re-review CUNs.

MBTOC wishes to thank Government of Croatia, Ministry of Environment and the National

Ozone Unit for meeting with MBTOC SC and for the interesting discussion of progress being

made in Croatia towards an accelerated phase out of ozone depleting substances. MBTOC notes

that Croatia has phased out the use of methyl bromide including MB used for QPS (except that

remaining QPS MB stocks will be used).



# 5.1. Membership and Funding Issues

MBTOC has indicated 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 seeking CUEs to provide

information after MBTOCs first review . Parties can request a re-review if they disagree with

MBTOC’s first-review recommendations, and by providing additional information supporting

their CUN. When MBTOC is not preparing an Assessment report each four years and when

Parties re-reviews are minimal, MBTOC has only occasionally met once per year.

Typically the number of meetings per year is limited largely by the availability of funds for

members’ travel and subsistence. Constraints on the available of funds for non-A5 MBTOC

members, which have been discussed in several previous interim and final reports, now seriously

affect the ability of MBTOC SC to work. Some MBTOC members are now retired from their

research institutes. In some cases there has been an expectation that they will personally finance

their own travel and subsistence, or carry over debt for lengthy periods pending repayment from

Governments. Other members try to cover travel costs from their diminished research budgets.

One Non-A5 member reports inab ility to obtain funding for atte ndance at meetings since the

member’s Party notes it already contributes to the MLF.

# 40 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# MBTOC SC has fewer members (12 members from 9 countries) since MBTOC QSC was divided

into SC and QPS in 2009. Additionally, two former members of MBTOC QSC who were

transferred to MBTOC QPS remain corresponding members of MBTOC SC.

MBTOC SC members have expressed concern that quarantine issues, for which they have

considerable expertise, and which have always been handled by the MBTOC SC members, have

been removed from this group, leaving essentially no opportunity for input or contribution by

MBTOC SC members. Of 12 MBTOC SC members, 6 attended the Zagreb meeting, and one of

those members was a corresponding member from the MBTOC QPS.

Due to these difficulties in funding for meetings , MBTOC intends to meet only once in 2011.



# 5.2 Details of evaluations

Parties have submitted eight CUNs for the use of MB in structures and commodities in 2010. The

total MB volume nominated in 2010 for non-QPS post-harvest uses was 185.704 tonnes.

In the 2010 first nomination submission, one go vernment nomination was for 2011 for a total MB

amount of 3.529 tonnes (Canada Pasta). In the 2010 second nomination submission, seven

nominations from governments for 2012 totaled 182.175 tonnes of methyl bromide.

MBTOC SC published its interim recommendations on the CUN nominations in the Volume 2 of

the TEAP May 2010 Report.

Subsequently, Australia requested that MBTOC re-review the interim recommendation and

provided a new phase-out plan for the use of MB to disinfest Australian rice. The phase out plan

provided for a 25% decreased CUN for 2012 over the Party’s earlier nomination for 2012, plus

significant reductions in 2013 and 2014. The Party said it would ensure these decreases took

place even in times of low harvest. The Party indicated that it would not nominate for rice in

2015. On this basis, MBTOC was able to increase its recommendation for the Australia rice

CUN.

The United States requested MBTOC to re-review its Commodities CUN which includes dried

fruit, walnuts and dates. The US provided additional technical information and conducted a

bilateral meeting in a conference call. Upon cons ideration of the concerns of the efficacy of an

alternative for pest control in in-shell wal nuts, MBTOC was able to increase its final

recommendation for walnuts, but not for dried fruit.

The US also requested that MBTOC re-review th e part of the NPMA CUN which pertained to

cheese infested while in storage in manufacturing facilities (referred to as ‘cheese stores’). In

May 2010, MBTOC had not recommended any of the sectors included in the NPMA CUN,

however, upon receipt of the inspection information from the US, and after doing a calculation of

the amount of MB which might be required, MB TOC was able to recommend a small amount of

MB for cheese stores. MBTOC still did not recommend methyl bromide for other sectors in the

US NPMA nomination.

MBTOC recommended 2.084 tonnes for 2011 and 101.105 tonnes for 2012. MBTOC did not

recommend 84.599 tonnes. Table 5.1 provides the MBTOC SC final recommendations for the

nominations submitted in 2010.October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report41Table 5.1 - Final evaluations of CUNs for structures and commodities submitted in 2010 for 2011 or 2012Industry CUE for20051CUEfor20062CUEfor20073CUE for20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(Addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtl or new)MBTOCrec. for2012(new)Rice 6.1506.150.2059.2007.8206.6504.87-4.8703.653AustraliaMBTOC comments 2010:See also Australia Rice CUN text box in TEAP May 2010.MBTOC recommends 3.653 tonnes for Australia rice for 2012, on the basis of the revised CUN in which the Government of Australiastated it would phase out theuse of MB for rice by the end of 2014. The revised CUN provided for additional significant step-downs in 2013 and 2014; Australia indicated it would not nominate for2015 and would ensure that phase out is maintained regardlessof rice harvest yields, including during poor harvests. MBTOC notes that the recommended amountfor 2012 is 25% lower than the amount of MB granted by the Parties for 2011.Rice harvest volumes are unpredictable. For at least seven years, rice harvests have been considerably lower than the long-termaverage due to drought and waterallocation issues in the growing region.There are several technically effective and registered alternatives available for this application and in common commercial useworldwide for this purpose.Emission Reduction: Yes. The applicant now intends to send all MB-fumigated ricethrough MB recapture equipment. The applicant previously recaptured amajority percentage of the MB used.Research Program. Unable to assess. A research project in 2009 was interrupted due to the unfortunate death of the scientist in charge. For several years theapplicant has indicated that they have chosen phosphine as their alternative; MBTOC does not believe there is a need for further research on phosphine. Theapplicant is now considering sulfuryl fluoride and so should conduct further research on this fumigant as proposed in recent correspondence.Appropriate effort.Insufficient. The CUE in 2011 shows a reduction of only 21% during 6 years (a reduction of about 3.5% per year on average). As with allpostharvest registration issues, neither the applicant nor the Party mandated with Montreal Protocol nominations has control over pesticide registration. Thisapplicant, however, has not made appropriate efforts to adopt alternatives, since no alternatives have been adopted in spite orregistration of technically effectiveand affordable alternatives being available. Economists needpartial budget analysis to allow an economic assessmentMBTOC comments on economics 2010:This CUN is partly based on economic arguments. CUN states that two potential technically and economically feasible alternatives, namely sulfuryl fluoride andphosphine, have been identified. Sulfuryl fluoride, which requires less significant process changes and investment to implement, was registered in November 2007and SunRice commenced trials in January 2009. The Party notes the need to generate supporting data. Phosphine fumigation is considered by the Party to be thebest solution, both technically and economically, although the applicant requires that the introduction of phosphine also include a considerable change toprocessing methods and a substantial infrastructure investment. The CUN suggests that projected operating costs with the phosphine system would be 15 timesthat for methyl bromide. The CUN relates the difficulties faced by the applicant in raising the capital for transition to phosphine. CUN states further that theapplicant has been unable to finance a transition to phosphinedue to continued severe drought conditions in the growing area;hence it is unaffordable to them.MBTOC recognizes that the phosphine system contemplated by the applicant is a significant different process than the current MBbased process. However, it isunclear that construction of one or more pilot silos, or other fumigation structures and incremental implementation of a phosphine system is unaffordable. Thecompany indicates it has returned to normal profitability.42October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportIndustry CUE for20051CUEfor20062CUEfor20073CUE for20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(Addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtl or new)MBTOCrec. for2012(new)Mills 47(includedmills andpasta)34.774 30.167 28.650 26.913 22.878 14.107-11.020 - 11.020CanadaMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends the nominated amount of 11.020 tonnes for Canada flour mills in 2012. The party’s nomination was a reduction of 22% over the amount of MBgranted by the Parties for 2011. In 2012 there will be 19 mills included in the application, onefewer than in 2011. The applicant has reduced its nomination by abouthalf since 2010, due to the results of a multi-year research program and the advent of the new regulation which allows sharingof the MB allocation by companieswithin the CUN. The amount of MB recommended for 2012 will only fumigate 7-8 mills.With this and other CUNs MBTOC remarks that heat treatments (in combination with DE) should also be used, when possible. The reason for this is that there maybe ongoing problems with achieving the full registration of sulfuryl fluoride. In a recent letter, the Government of Canada explained that availability of heaters islimited during weekends traditionally used to conduct pest control treatments. MBTOC recommends that efforts to overcome this logistical problem be intensified.Concerning heat treatments for mills, MBTOC notes that research shows practical/logistical challenges and possible insufficientefficacy for heat treatment with mills>40,000 m3. MBTOC also notes that in large mills that have concrete basements it might be difficult or economically infeasible to heat the mill sufficiently to allow thesame degree of control of pest control as can be achieved with a gas fumigant (depending on the weather at time of treatment).With a concrete basement acting asa heat sink and refuge for the pests, the pest population rebounds faster. However, there is also evidence that heat treatmentcan be optimized and effective once itis learned how exactly to conduct the heat treatment in each individual mill. There is a long learning curve to achieve optimization because whole site treatment isusually only done once per year, so it might take several years to really optimize the treatment method for that particular mill. It would be good to have heattreatment experience and therefore a choice of effective treatments.MBTOC does recognize the need to ensure the optimization of effective heat treatment or fumigation in the context of increasingrequirements for food hygiene.We note, with concern, that this use could be ongoing for several years unless there is regulatory change or greater adoption of heat treatment. The applicantsreport they are awaiting the full registration for SF which would allow contact of SF on commodities. MBTOC notes that it is possible that the full registration of SFwill never occur. Therefore the Party is requested to provide a management plan which will allow for phase out of MB in this sector in the eventuality that fullregistration of SF is not achieved.Emission control.Mills are now not treated annually, which reduces emissions.Ongoing research– Excellent research multi-mill, multi-stakeholder research program in past with several full reports submitted to MBTOC (SF,heat and DE, SFand elevated temperature, phosphine + CO2, etc). Research has not been reported in past two years; MBTOC is not convinced thatfurther research in this field isabsolutely necessary. When mills are not MB fumigated, theyare being heat treated and all are now in enhanced IPM.Appropriate effort in the CUN? Full registration of SF has not been achieved; there is still no food tolerance for F residues from SF treatment of mills. This actionhas been delayed for several years and hinders ability to fully adopt SF as an alternative treatment. Neither the millers nor the Party can affect fumigant registration.In spite of delay in achieving full registration, the mills are continuing to make progress.October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report43Industry CUE for20051CUEfor20062CUEfor20073CUE for20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(Addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtl or new)MBTOCrec. for2012(new)MBTOC comments on economics 2010:This CUN is not based solely on economic arguments, although economic concerns are indicated. CUN argues that market penetration of the technically most viablealternatives is being hampered by:•Insufficient evidence that SF can be effective under Canada’s typically cold weather conditions.•Lack of full registration of SF•Current market cost of heat treatment technology and services.•Concerns by the milling industry that repeat fumigations using phosphine may have a cumulative effect of corroding conductivemetals present in electricaland electronic equipment and controls.The Party has stated in the past that operating margins in this industry are small. This CUN suggests that the required use ofalternatives within a short time periodwould add an estimated 2 to 4 per cent to manufacturing costs of wheat flour, semolina and other milled grain products. The competitive conditions faced by flourmills make it unlikely a substantial portion of these added costs could be passed on down the supply chain. Regarding the observation that there are nogovernment subsidies available to offset these increased costs, MBTOC notes that lack of government financial assistance programs has not been a considerationin assessments of economic feasibility. The Party has indicatedconcerns that SF has been shown to have significant global warming potential and this could resultin future constraints on its use, which adds another factor which might slow adoption of SF.Pasta (seeCanadamills)10.457 6.757 6.067 4.740 3.529- 3.529- 2.084CanadaMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 2.084 tonnes for Canada pasta facilities in 2011. This is a 41% decrease of the amount granted by the Partiesfor this use in 2010. The Partynominated 3.529 tonnes for 2011, which is the same amount granted by the Parties for 2010. There are three facilities, each requesting one fumigation per facility.Concerning the nominated amounts, MBTOC notes that given the facility volumes, the MB nominated is only sufficient for partialfacility fumigation, in two of thepasta facilities.All facilities are making IPM improvements. Facility #1 of theCUN reports poor gas-tightness and we cannot recommend the use of MB in a facility of poor gastightness any longer. We note that facility #2reporting medium gas-tightness will have tomake facility improvements to show good gas-tightness to be consideredfor any future CUN.In the CUN for the 2009 round, MBTOC recommended that one facility conduct a trial with an alternative and report the results to MBTOC and to the othercompanies in the sector. Although the facilities have said they conducted SF trials in the sections where food products would not be contacted, reports documentingthose trials were not submitted to MBTOC. No research reports have been submitted this year.The applicants report they are awaiting the full registration for SF which would allow contact of SF on commodities. MBTOC notes that it is possible that the fullregistration of SF will never occur. Therefore the Party is requested to provide a management plan which will allow for phase out of MB in this sector in theeventuality that full registration of SF is not achieved.It has been reported that other pasta facilities in Canada and the US use heat alone or SF and elevated temperature for pest control. For several years MBTOC hasrecommended that heat treatments be conducted in Canadian pastafacilities. These applicants however, have not reported to MBTOC the results of any heattreatments in their facilities, or elsewhere. The applicants indicate concerns about using heat, but in spite of repeated requests have not submitted any evidence tosupport this concern.44October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportIndustry CUE for20051CUEfor20062CUEfor20073CUE for20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(Addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtl or new)MBTOCrec. for2012(new)Heat treatments are successfully conducted at other pasta manufacturers. Heat and IPM have been used for a number of years in pasta facilities in North America,including large pasta facilities comprising mills, interior silos and processing lines (Gyovai, 2009). Europe has more than 180pasta facilities; this sector completedthe MB phase-out several years ago even in countries that have not registered SF (Buckley 2008). Heat and IPM are used for pasta in cold northern Europeancountries in which SF is not registered (European Community, 2008). There is ample evidence that heat treatment can be optimized and effective once it is learnedhow exactly to conduct the heat treatmentin each individual facility. There is alsoample evidence worldwide that the concernsmentioned by the applicant can beaddressed by service providers when they conduct heat treatments. Spot heat treatment of infested equipment is also a likely alternative. There is a long learningcurve to achieve optimization of full site heat because such treatment is usually only done once per year, so it might take several years to fully optimize the treatmentmethod for that particular facility. There is a much shorter learning curve to conduct spot heat treatments; spot heat treatments of infested equipment are used inseveral food processing companies. It would be good to have heat treatment experience and therefore a choice of effective treatments, particularly because fullregistration of SF may not be achieved soon.SF can be used for empty structures only and not for food products in Canada. There are some rooms in the pasta plants which contain food ingredients andproducts which must be sealed off at the time of fumigation. Full registration of SF, including establishment of MRLs for cereal grains and milled grain products istaking longer than expected and as of April 2010 it has not occurred. However, MBTOC notes that it is not an adequate phase outplan to continue to request MBwhile awaiting a registration change that continues to be delayed and considering that other methods are being used in similarsituations. The other methods includeheat alone (either full site or spot heat), SF treatment of non-food facility rooms, and avoidance of full site treatments through other means.Emissions reduction.MBTOC has not recommended MB use in the one facility reporting poor gas-tightness. Another facility reporting medium gas-tightness isworking to improve but will have to achieve good gas-tightness to even be considered for a CUN in future rounds.Research effort. Insufficient. Full reports of research and trials of alternatives are required in the types of facilities included in the CUN.Appropriate effort.As with all post harvest registration issues, neither the applicant nor the Party mandated with Montreal Protocol nominationshas control overpesticide registration. Many similar companies have switched toalternatives. As indicated, inadequate effort has been made toensure MBTOC receives sufficientinformation about this sector and to supply actual data, research reports and partial budget analysis.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:This CUN is not based on economic arguments. The current CUN adds no economic information. It restates earlier assertions thatheat treatment remains a costlyalternative with technical concerns about damage to building and equipment.The CUN states that cost data on alternatives for pasta manufacturing facilities will be provided“as it becomes available.” MBTOC cannot conclude there is aneconomic basis for this CUN absent substantiation of the costs of alternatives..October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report45Industry CUE for20051CUEfor20062CUEfor20073CUE for20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(Addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtl or new)MBTOCrec. for2012(new)Chestnuts 7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300 5.800 5.400 5.35-4.984 - 3.489JapanMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 3.489 tonnes for 2012 which is a 30% reduction over the Party’s nominated 4.984 tonnes for Japan fresh chestnuts for 2012. The Partynominated a 7% reduction for this year over the 2011 amount; thereduction was to be achieved by logistical changes in on-farmfumigation.To date there has been no adoption of alternatives in this commodity, but methyl iodide (MI) was registered for fresh chestnutsin Japan in 2009. The Government ofJapan says market supply cannot be achieved until 2011. MBTOC notes that since MI has been registered and will be available in2011, it is therefore expected thatJapan will begin adoption of MI as of the September-October harvest in 2011. In 2011, which MBTOC views as the first year of adoption, a 15% market penetrationof MI should be achievable, with a resulting reduction in MB use. MBTOC also believes that a further 15% market penetration should be achievable in 2012.Japan says they must take time to train farmers in safe use of the new fumigant, but this necessary training can and should begin to take place with the 2010 harvest(September – October of 2010). MBTOC sees the need for training in the use of MI. Japan has informed MBTOC that a firm phase out plan for MB use on chestnutswill be submitted later. (Japan NMS has indicated an intention to phase out of soil use of MB by 2013.) There is no need to change fumigation infrastructure in theswitch between MB and MI, but in consideration of the need for on-farm training, MBTOC believes that a 30% reduction in 2012 isboth responsible and achievable.The Party notes that the price of MI is currently 4x higher than MB, but MBTOC notes that the cost of fumigation is a very small (and possibly insignificant)percentage of the price of this high value commodity. Therefore, even at current MI price, we do not find the cost of MI fumigation to be significant against the highvalue of chestnuts. Furthermore, the MI manufacturer is planning to do some research trials to investigate the use of a lower dosage rate (~50%) which will thereforelower costs.Emission reductionTo date regular reductions in MB use through logistical improvements.Research program in past 12 months. Extensive research program has been completed, no further research needed other than to see if reduced dosage of MIcan be achieved, and that is optional. There is established efficacy of MI for this purpose in Japan and it has been registered.Appropriate effort?Registration for methyl iodide proceeded as per normal and was registered after appropriate review.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:CUN states that an economic assessment has not been conducted because methyl iodide, registered in 2009, is scheduled to be sold after two years, in 2011, butthat the price of methyl iodide is expected to be four times higher than MB.46October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportIndustry CUE for20051CUEfor20062CUEfor20073CUE for20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(Addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtl or new)MBTOCrec. for2012(new)Commodities 89.166 87.719 78.983 58.921 45.623 19.242 5.000-4.907 - 2.419UnitedStatesMBTOC comments 2010:See also US Commodities CUN text box in TEAP May 2010.MBTOC recommends 2.419 tonnes for US commodities in 2012. This isa 49% reduction over the amount nominated, based on 75% reduction in the dried fruitnomination (0. 829 t recommended), 0% reduction in walnuts (0.527 t recommended) and 0% reduction in dates (1.063 t recommended). The Party nominated 4.907t for commodity use in 2012. The commodities included in the CUN are dried fruit (3.317 t) (dried plums, figs and raisins), walnuts (0.527 t) and dates (1.063 t).The May 2010 interim CUN report recommended a reduced CUN for walnuts, and indicated some methods which MBTOC believed would assist this sector tocircumvent pest problems. The USG viewed that some of these methods were technically and economically infeasible, provided further information to MBTOC inadvance of its September meeting and held a conference call with USG officials, sector members and MBTOC.The sector is rapidly adopting alternatives, but this rapid adoption is of concern to some sector members because there has been inadequate time to judge theefficacy of treatments throughout the marketing channel at such large-scale. Unless MBTOC receives data to justify this concernthis aspect is unlikely to beconsidered favorably in any future CUN.MBTOC received clarification on the pest issues, and concerns about treatment efficacy at the temperatures observed at harvesttimes for walnuts. MBTOCconsidered more time may be needed to finalize the treatments for walnuts against the eggs of some pests of in-shell walnuts.Dried fruit and nut sector members indicated a need to use MB when rapid treatments are needed in advance of immediate demandsfor domestic shipments.MBTOC believed that this was more likely a problem for in-shell walnut sector versus dried fruit sector. Controlled atmospherestorage is used in other countries todisinfest dried fruits and nuts and might assist to resolve some of the concerns the sector has with phosphine when commodity is located in processing facilities. Thesector is encouraged to more rapidly improve the logistics oftreatment when rapid shipment is required, as has been done in similar situations in other fruit and nutproducing regions.Emissions reduction. This sector has very considerably reduced use of MB, and therefore emissions. Fumigation takes place in chambers or suitableenclosures.Research effort.Research on dates is excellent thus far but more remains to be done, for example, to optimize SF treatment by elevating temperature. MBTOCneeds detailed and complete reports on research conducted on the other commodities included in this CUN.Appropriate effort. The CUE for 2011 shows a reduction of 94% during 6 years (a reduction of 16% per year on average). The CUN nominated for 2012 showedan intended reduction of only 2% per year. Several alternatives are already registered.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The same economic arguments are provided as in the previous year. CUN is not based on economic (in) feasibility.October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report47Industry CUE for20051CUEfor20062CUEfor20073CUE for20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(Addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtl or new)MBTOCrec. for2012(new)NPMA foodprocessingstructures(cocoa beansremoved)83.344 69.118 82.771 69.208 54.606 37.778 17.365-17.365 - 0.2UnitedStatesMBTOC comments 2010:See also US NPMA CUN text box in TEAP May 2010.MBTOC recommends 0.200 tonnes to fumigate cheese storages when holding cheese infested with mites in 2012. The other sectors included in this CUN are notrecommended for the reasons outlined in US NPMA CUN text box in TEAP May 2010.The Party nominated 17.365 tonnes for food processing facilities in 2012. Of that total nomination, 1.812 tonnes was nominatedfor cheese stores. In May 2010, theinterim CUN report did not recommend any component of the food processing facilities included in this CUN. At that time MBTOC noted that the nomination wasinadequately justified, and that no actual MB use data was submitted to justify the nomination for cheese stores. At the same time we recognized that infestation ofcheese stores by mites is reported to occur occasionally, and there is no registered alternative to disinfest cheese infested with mites. MBTOC requested furtherinformation.The Party provided further information in advance of the September 2010 MBTOC meeting and then held a conference call with USGofficials and MBTOC membersto discuss the information. In its written response, USG was able to clarify government inspection requirements for cheese stores and provide regulations showingthat infested cheese is considered adulterated and cannot enter commerce until the mites are removed. But, during the conference call the USG was unable toprovide data to support its nominated volume of MB. Under these circumstances, MBTOC estimated the MB requirements to fumigateone or two cheese stores ofmedium size against mites, once per year. We determined that 200 kg would be adequate and recommended accordingly.Emissions reduction.The sector has considerably reduced MB use and therefore reduction but we have not been provided with information about the gastightness in the facilities included in the CUNResearch effort.Insufficient. Full reports of research and trials of alternatives are required in all the types of facilities included in the CUN.Appropriate effort.The CUE for 2011 shows a reduction of 79% during 6 years (a reduction of 13% per year on average) As with all postharvest registrationissues, neither the applicant nor the Party mandated with Montreal Protocol nominations has control over pesticide registration. Many of the companies formerlyassociated with this CUN have switched to alternatives and/or decreased their use of MB to only once every few years. As indicated, inadequate effort has beenmade to ensure MBTOC receives sufficient information about this sector and to supply actual data, research reports and partialbudget analysis.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The same economic arguments are provided as in the previous year. CUN is not based on economic (in) feasibility.48October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportIndustry CUE for20051CUEfor20062CUEfor20073CUE for20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(Addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtl or new)MBTOCrec. for2012(new)Mills andprocessors483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237 291.418 291.418 173.023 -135.299- 74.510UnitedStatesMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 74.510 tonnes, for US food processing structures in 2012. Compared to 2011, this represents a 50% decrease inflour milling, a 50%decrease for rice milling and a zero decrease for pet food facilities from the amounts nominated by the Party. The Party has nominated 135.299 tonnes for the foodprocessing structures included in this CUN. This was the same amount granted by the Parties for 2011. The Party nominated flourmilling (107.066 t), riceprocessing (14.511 t), and pet food manufacturing (13.722 t), but MBTOC recommends for flour milling (53.533 t), rice processing (7.255 t) and pet foodmanufacturing (13.722 t).As in previous years, MBTOC comments that substantiation for this CUN is very thin. In fact, although one flour mill study by researchers at Kansas State Universitywas presented, no studies in rice mills or pet food establishments have been submitted. There have been several North Americanflour mill studies including a heattreatment study by Kansas State University and those by Canadian companies in association with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, but these were not included orconsidered by the applicant.Furthermore, the applicant’s interpretation of the success of the one Kansas State University flour mill study submitted is notin agreement with the study’s authors.The study authors concluded that, “Both MB treatments killed 100% of all stages in the boxes except for large larvae in a few locations. In these locations, themortality of large larvae ranged from 96-98%. SF treatments killed 100% of all stages except eggs. In the May treatment with SF, egg mortality ranged from 44-100% with only two boxes showing 100% mortality, because of under-dosing. Under-dosing occurred because the mill temperature was assumed to be greater than27oC when it was actually below 27oC. In the second SF trial, only three boxes had egg mortalities that were less than 100%. However, data from the tworeplications showed that the mean mortalities of eggs and large larvae between MB and SF were not significantly different fromeach other.” (Hartzer et al, KansasState University, 2010 in press)In response to MBTOC’s request in correspondence, short summary paragraphs were sent in letters from USG about trials in rice mills and pet food facilities. This isinsufficient information and does not adequately support the CUN.According to the USG, there has been much progress in the alternatives of methyl bromide. Alternatives are not only sulfuryl fluoride, but also heat andmicrosanitation. The use of fogging, space, and crack and crevice treatments has greatly decreased the number of times structures are fumigated. However theParty reports that many companies desire toretain the ability to utilize methyl bromide in the event of a difficult infestation. MBTOC notes that MB use on acontingency basis is not a critical use and that an emergency use provision still exists under the Montreal Protocol for such events.The applicants for US food structures CUN indicate that trials are conducted but the information is proprietary and will not besubmitted to MBTOC; since thesesame organizations withholding the results of trials are also the applicant requesting MB, MBTOC finds this situation to be aninherent conflict of interest. Theapplicant is assured that proprietary information would be handledconfidentially within MBTOC, in addition, company names neednot be sent to MBTOC.The Party reports that, “a vast majority of pet food facilities have transitioned away from use of methyl bromide as part of their routine pest management program.Companies that have completed the transition away from methyl bromide either view their pest management programs as proprietaryor as a competitive advantage,so we are unable to share specifics on those alternative programs. We can suppose that such programs utilize techniques such asmicrosanitation, spot heattreatment, insect growth inhibitors, and fumigation treatment with Vapona ULV fogging, phosphine and ProFume.”October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report49Industry CUE for20051CUEfor20062CUEfor20073CUE for20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(Addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtl or new)MBTOCrec. for2012(new)The CUN indicates that lack of adequate registration negatively impacts the ability of pet food facilities to use sulfuryl fluoride because the SF label does not includepet food and the applicant says that the pet food cannot be moved out of the establishment before fumigation with SF.The pet food facility applicants in particular report they are awaiting label extensions for SF which would allow contact of SFon commodities. MBTOC notes that it ispossible that this will never occur. Therefore the Party is requested to provide a management plan which will allow for phase out of MB in this sector in theeventuality that label extensions for SF are not achieved.In flour and rice milling, a different problem is presented with the use of SF. The GWP of SF has been reported by TEAP and elsewhere to be approximately 4000times that of carbon dioxide (refer to Progress Report for more details). Furthermore more SF is used to fumigate a facility than MB (the amount varies from 1.5 to 4xmore depending on temperature at time of fumigation). No actual evidence in the form of letters or policy positions of retailers or other industrial customers werepresented to MBTOC. In response to MBTOC correspondence, USG said that Walmart is pressuring millers to reduce their carbon footprint and the applicants saythis is preventing their use of SF.No new economic data has been presented in this year’s CUN for structures. SF requires elevated temperature in combination andwhen this is done the combinedtreatment is technically comparable to MB. The cost of SF treatment is higher (with or without additional heat). However, Parties to the Montreal Protocol have notindicated that a higher cost is a sufficient reason to avoid using an alternative.MBTOC economists are adopting a standard that a 15-20% decrease innet revenue is still an economically feasible alternative. For pet foods, reviewing Table 5 ofCUN, the Party indicates 0.8% loss on gross revenue for the worst case scenario of having to heat a cold manufacturing facilityof 4 ̊C to 54.4 ̊C. (MBTOC notes thatonly the most dire and completely unlikely circumstance would see the temperature of an entire pet food establishment fall thislow.) This table also indicates that0.06% loss of gross revenue on an elevated temperature-plus-SF treatment when the treatment is required to raise the temperature from 4.4 ̊C to 29.4 ̊C plus SFtreatment. (Again it is completely unlikely that an entire pet food establishment temperature would be this low.). In the instance of a SF treatment there would beadditional costs of moving the pet food out of the building. Therefore, according to MBTOC’s economic’s standard, both heat treatment alone and elevatedtemperature plus SF treatment are economically feasible. The comparable data for rice and flour milling were not provided to MBTOC.For several years, MBTOC has asked for partial budget analysis for all the sectors included in this CUN, including the flour and rice milling sectors, but these havenot been received. In the absence of gross revenue data, we assume the fumigation costs for flour and rice milling sectors area comparable percentage to pet foodmanufacturing.Emission reduction. There is still work to be done to improve the sealing of mills and facilities. Improved sealing would allow the use of lowerdosages which woulddecrease emissions.Research effort: Insufficient. Full reports of research and trials of alternatives are required in all the types of facilities included in theCUN.Appropriate effort.As with all postharvest registration issues, neither the applicant nor the Party mandated with Montreal Protocol nominationshas control overpesticide registration. Many of the companies formerly associatedwith this CUN have switched to alternatives and/or decreasedtheir use of MB to only once everyfew years. As indicated, inadequate effort has been made to ensure MBTOC receives sufficient information about this sector andto supply actual data, researchreports and partial budget analysis.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:The same economic arguments are provided as in the previous year. CUN is not based on economic (in)feasibility.50October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportIndustry CUE for20051CUEfor20062CUEfor20073CUE for20084CUE for20095CUE for20106CUE for20117CUN for2011(Addtl ornew)CUN for2012MBTOCrec. for2011(addtl or new)MBTOCrec. for2012(new)Cured pork 67.907 40.854 18.998 19.669 18.998 4.465 3.73- 3.730- 3.730UnitedStatesMBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 3.730 tonnes for cured pork products in 2012. The Party nominated 3.730 tonnes for cured pork products for 2012 the same amountnominated for 2011. Some decrease in the MB nomination has been achieved over the years resulting from IPM, emissions controlsand treatment improvements.There is no alternative registered for this use. There is a multi-state, multi-university research program ongoing which is testing several alternative treatments,increasing knowledge of pest and dose response to potential alternatives. Initial work on phosphine showed efficacy but also showed changes in odor of the pork.Earlier work by this group using SF indicated lack of efficacy. (Shilling, 2009a, 2009 b). MBTOC notes that mites are one of the key pests of cured pork and thatmites will not be controlled by the phosphine treatment. Additionally, phosphine is not registered for this purpose in the US.MBTOC encourages registration ofeffective fumigants, once identified. Full reports of this research has been sent to MBTOC, and communicated to the industry sector. MBTOC has been able toobserve and confirm the conditions and processing of the cured pork at various sites included in this CUN.Emissions reduction. Over the years the applicants have made facility improvements to improve gastighness, but this is a traditional meat curing process andsome of the facilities are older and unusual. The research program continues to work with the applicants to improve gas tightness, IPM and other processimprovements which reduce the need for fumigation and result in decreased use of MB. This work needs to continue.Research effort. Excellent research effort to date but more needs to be done. A multi-state, multi-university research program is ongoing andfull reports of researchhave been made available to MBTOC.Appropriate effort.As with all postharvest registration issues, neither the applicant nor the Party mandated with Montreal Protocol nominations has control overpesticide registration. There are no alternatives registeredfor the treatment of pests in meat at this time.MBTOC comments on economics 2010:CUN states that no economic analysis was done due to the lack of technically feasible alternatives11ExMOP and 16MOP216MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP3MOP17+MOP184MOP18+MOP195MOP19+MOP206MOP207MOP21

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 51 

# 6. MBTOC Activity Report (2010) and Workplan in 2011

6.1. Membership issues

• In response to Decision XXI/10, TEAP disbanded the QPS Task Force that was in place

since 2009 and reorganised MBTOC into three subcommittees: S (soils), QPS

(quarantine and pre-shipment) and SC (s tructures and commodities). The QPS subcommittee is now composed of members of th e QPSTF, some of which were previously

members of MBTOC-SC.

• One new economist joined MBTOC in 2010.



# 6.2. Activity report for 2010

• Initial summarization of the CUNs (initial so rting and recording carried out by the

Secretariat).

• Preparation of questions for Parties. Assessme nt of responses received from Parties.

• First meeting of MBTOC sub committees in April 2010 on the assessment of the

CUNs: MBTOC met in full (all three sub-committees) in Chipiona, Spain.

• Interim recommendations and report prepared for the Parties by May 2010. Bilateral

meetings were held by MBTOC-S and MBTOC SC with USA.

• MBTOC- QPS worked on the issues requested through Decision XXI/10 and published

its report in the TEAP Progress Report of May 2010

• Site visits: MBTOC-S conducted a field trip to observe alternatives adopted by fruit,

vegetable and flower growers in the Chipiona region of Spain. MBTOC-SC conducted

a site visit to rice processing facilities in Is la Mayor Spain (near Sevilla) where rice is

disinfested with flow-through phosphine.

• Completion of the interim report for consideration by the 30 OEWG as part of 2010

TEAP Progress Report of May 2010.

• 30 OEWG (Geneva, 14-19 June 2010). Bilate ral meetings with Australia, California

Strawberry Commission (USA), Canada, Israel, Japan and USA.

• MBTOC-S and MBTOC-QPS met September 20- 24 in San Jose, California, USA. A

bilateral was held with the California Stra wberry Commission and the USG. The US

Government requested MBTOC to review the strawberry fruit CUN in the light of new

information submitted. Field trips were organized for MBTOC-S to strawberry and

flower farms and for MBTOC-QPS to the Parlier USDA research laboratories

• MBTOC-SC received requests to re-review three CUNs: Australia rice, USA

Commodities and one element of the USA NPMA CUN. MBTOC–SC met in Zagreb,

Croatia from 13-17 September. MBTOC SC met with the Ministry of Environment of

Croatia and the Croatian Ozone Unit for inte resting discussions. A bilateral was held

with the USA and members of its dried fruit and nut commodities sector. Three CUNs

were re-reviewed the final report was drafted and agreed by consensus.

• MBTOC-S and MBTOC-SC prepared the final re port on the CUNs for consideration by

the Parties at their 21st Meeting.

• MBTOC-QPS received questions from Australia on the TEAP 2010 May Report and on

the 2009 final QPSTF report. These were addressed during the San Jose meeting and a

response prepared to be submitted as an addendum to the TEAP report

• All three subcommittees continued work on the MBTOC 2010 Assessment Report

during their respective meetings of September 2010

# 52 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 6.3. Work plan and indicative budget for 2011

Table 6.1 - MBTOC work plan and indicative budget: 2011

Tasks and actions Indicative budget needs

where applicable Indicative

completion date Dates of

meetings

1. Parties submit their nomi nations for critical-use

exemptions to the Secretariat - 24 January 2011

2. The nominations are forwarded to MBTOC cochairs for distribution to the subgroups of appointed

members - 7 February 2011

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 2011

6. Nominating Party develops and submits its

response to the MBTOC co-chairs - 7 March 2011

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

• First of the 2011 assessment report Funds for travel of 1 non-A5

members: US$3,000

Meeting Costs $3,000 March 2011 Antalya, Turkey

(tentative)

8. MBTOC provides its draft recommendations

on the CUNs to TEAP April, 2011

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. April 4-8 2011

(tentative) Montreal

(tentative)

10. The Secretariat posts the finalised report on its

web site and circulates it to the Parties - May 2011

11. OEWG Bilateral Discussions: Nominating

Party has the opportunity to consult with MBTOC

on a bilateral basis in conjunction with the Openended Working Group meetings June 2011

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 Open-ended Working Group, and provides

additional information shou ld it wish to appeal

against a critical-use nomination recommendation

by MBTOC/TEAP -

Late June 2011

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 53 Tasks and actions Indicative budget needs

where applicable Indicative

completion date Dates of

meetings

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

Open-ended Working Group

• finalise the report, in cluding 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

2012 Funds for travel of 1 non-A5

members: US$3,000

Meeting costs: $US 3,000 If necessary ?

14. MBTOC draft final report considered by

TEAP, finalised and made available to Parties

through the Secretariat - End July, 2010

15. 22 nd 

# Meeting of the Parties November 2011

Total budget: US $: 12,000

• US$ 6,000 (Travel

of Non Article 5

member)

• Meeting Costs

$6,000

# 54 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 7. References

Abanga, M.A., B. Bayaaa, B. Abu-Irmailehb and A. Yahyaouia (2007). A participatory farming system

approach for sustainable broomrape ( Orobanche spp.) management in the Near East and North

Africa. Crop Protection 26, 1723 - 1732

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.

Batchelor, T.A. (ed.) (2000). Case Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Technologies with Low

Environmental Impact. UNEP. Paris. 77pp.

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.

Bausher M.G., 2009. Tomato rootstock performance to natural populations of root-knot nematode .

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions

Reduction , Nov 10 – 13, San Diego, CA ,MBAO, 44-1

Beede, R.H. and D.A. Kluepfel (2008). Examination of Preplant Methyl Bromide Alternatives in a

Walnut Tree Replant Site. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions : Orlando, Florida, USA. 2008

Bello, A., M. Arias, J. López-Perez, A. García-Álvar ez, 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, 34 (1), 53-64.

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 Altern atives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego,

California, USA. Paper 31.

Besri, M. (2008) Cucurbits grafting as alternative to Methyl Bromide for cucurbits production in

Morocco. In: 2008 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives

and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 11 – 14,.

Browne, G., B. Lampinen, B. Holtz, D. Doll, J. Edstrom, L. Schmidt, S. Upadyaya, M. Shafii, B. Hanson,

D. Wang, S. Gao, N. Goodell, and K. Klonsky (2008). Integrated preplant alternatives to methyl

bromide for almonds and other stone fruits. In: 2008 Annual International Research Conference

on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 11 –

14, 2008. http://www.mbao.org/2008/Proceedings/012BrowneGmbao2008fin.pdf

Browne, G., B. Lampinen, B. Holtz, S. Upadyaya, D. Wang, S. Gao, D. Doll, L. Schmidt, B. Hanson, N.

Goodell, M. McKenry, and K. Klonsky (2007). Integrated preplant alternatives to methyl

bromide for almonds and other stone fruits. In: 2008 Annual International Research Conference

on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, San Diego, 2007.

http://www.mbao.org/2007/Proceedings/008BrowneGmbao2007.pdf

Buckley, S. (2008) Adoption of profume in Europe after the phase out of methyl bromide. Annual

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions,

paper 85.

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 55 Budai, C. (2002) Case Study 1. Substrates for gree nhouse tomatoes in peppers. In: Batchelor, T. (ed).

Case Studies on alternatives to methyl bromide – Vol. 2. UNEP, Paris

CDFA (2009). California Department of Food and Agriculture.

www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PE/Nursery/pdfs/NIPM 7.pdf

Cohen, R., Y. Burger and C. Holev (2007) Introducing grafted cucurbits to modern agriculture. The

Israeli experience. Plant Disease 91, 916 – 923

Cram, M., S.A. Enebak, S.W. Fraedrich, L.D. Dwinell , S.J. Zarnoch. (2007) Evaluation of fumigants,

EPTC herbicide and Paenibacilus macerans in the production of loblolly pine seedlings. Forest

Science 53, 73 – 83.

Culpepper, A.S., T.L. Grey, 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.

Culpepper A. S., P. Sumner, D. Langston, K. Rucker, G. Beard, and J. Mayfield; T. Webster; W.

Upchurch , (2007). Can Georgia growers replace methyl bromide? In: Proceeding of the Annual

International conference on Methyl Bromide alternatives and emissions reductios, October 29-

November 1, San Diego, California, 20-1, 20-5

Eizenberg, H., Y. Goldwasser, S.Golan , Plakhine Dina, Hershenhorn, J, 2004 Egyptian Broomrape

( Orobanche aegyptiaca) Control in Tomato with Sulfonylurea Herbicides-Greenhouse Studies.

Weed Technology, (18) 490-496.

Enebak, 2007. Methyl bromide and the Montreal Protocol: An update on the Critical Use Exemption and

Quarantine Pre-shipment process. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-50 pp 135 - 141

Enebak, S., T. Starkey, 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.

European Community (2008) Information on the use of methyl bromide and alternatives in mills in the

European Community. Information provided by the EC to MBTOC-QSC, April 2008.

Fennimore,S,, H. Ajwa, S. Shem-Tov, K. Subbarao, F. Martin, G. Browne, S. Klose (2007) Facilitating

adoption of alternatives to methyl to methyl brom ide in California strawberries . In: Proceedings

of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions

Reductions, San Diego, CA, USA.

Fennimore, S., Goodhue, R. 2009. Estimated costs to disinfest soil with steam. Annual International

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alte rnatives and Emissions Reductions (2009).

http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/003FennimoreSMBAOAbstractSteambusiness.pdf

Fennimore, S., A. Spataru, N. Leslie (2008). Steam and heat for soil disinfestations. In: 2008 Annual

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions,

Orlando, Florida, November 11 – 14, 2008

Freeman J., S. Rideout, A. Wimer. 2009. Performa nce of grafted tomato seedlings in open field

production . Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and

Emissions Reduction , Nov 10 – 13, San Diego, CA ,MBAO 45-1; 45-2

# 56 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report Fukuda, N., 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

Gilbert, C., S. Fennimore, S. Krishna. Hanson, B., Rainbolt, C., R. Goodhue, B. Weber, J. Samtani

(2009). Systems to disinfest soil with heat for strawberry and flower production. In: Annual

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions,

San Diego, California, Nov. 10 – 13.

Gyovai (2009) Pasta industry perspective. Heat Tr eatment Workshop, Kansas State University, May 13-

5.

Hanson, B.D., J.S. Gerik, S.M. Schneider.(2009). Evaluation of reduced Methyl Bromide rates in field

grown perennial crop nurseries. Proceedings Western Society of Weed Science . 62:17.

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.

Hartzer, M., B. Subramanyam, W. Chayaprasert, D.E. Maier, S. Savoldelli, J.F. Campbell, P.W. Flinn.

Methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride effectiveness against red flour beetle life stages. 2010 (IN

PRESS)

Hausbeck M.K, K.H. Lamour. (2004). Phytophthora capsici on vegetable crops: Research progress and

management. Plant Disease 88, 1992-1303.

Hildebrand, Diane M.; Stone, Jeffrey K.; James, Robe rt L.; Frankel, Susan J. 2004. Alternatives to

preplant soil fumigation for Western forest nurseries. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-608. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 27 p.

Jacob, R. 2009. Hardwood weed control: Iowa Department of Natural Resources Forestry, Iowa State

Nursery. In: R.K. Dumroese, L.E. Riley, (tech. coords). 2009. National Proceedings: Forest and

Conservation Nursery Associations—2008.

Johnson, W. C., B. G. Mullinx (2007). Yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus ) control with methamsodium in transplanted cantaloupe ( Cucumis melo ). Crop Protection 26 , 867-871.

Kabir et al (2005). Alternatives to MB for strawberry runner plant production. HortScience 40:1709-

1715

Kanda A (2008). Plant virus vaccine for prevention of a mosaic disease on green pepper Journal of the

Japanese Forestry Society 83, 967-975.

Kaneko, Y. (2006) Development of Polyethylene Bag Tomato Cultivation System with Simple Setup and

Low Cost. Res.Bull.Aichi Agric.Res.Ctr .38: 45-50

Klose, S. (2008). Weed and disease control in Ca lifornia- 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 limitazion i 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.

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 57 Lieten, F. (2004). Substrates as an alternative to methyl bromide for strawberry fruit production in

Northern Europe in both protected and field production. Proceedings of International Conference

on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 27-30 September, Lisbon, Portugal.

López-Medina, J., A. Peralbo, M.A. Fernández, D. He rnanz, G. Toscano, M.C. Hernández and F. Flores

(2004). Substrate systems for production of strawberry fruit in Spain and Mediterranean

climates. Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30

September. Lisbon.

Louws ,F..(2009). Grafting tomato with interspecific rootstocks provides effective management for

southern blight and root knot nematodes. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction , Nov. 10 – 13, San Diego, CA , 40.

MaCrae, A., A. S. Culpepper, R. B. Batts, and K L. Lewis (2008) Seeded Watermelon and Weed

Response to Halosulfuron Applied Preemergence and Postemergence. Weed Technology 22, 86–

90.

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. (2002). 2002 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee.

UNEP, Nairobi. 468pp.

MBTOC, (2007). 2006 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP,

Nairobi 482 pp.

McKenry, M., T. Buzo, K. Stephanie (2006a). Replanting stone fruit orchards without soil fumigation.

Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and

Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL, USA.

McSorley, R., K.H. Wang, N. Kokallis-Burelle. (2006b). 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. (2006c). Can solarization match methyl bromide fumigation in

sites colonized by fungi? Phytopathology 96(6), suppl., p. S187

McSorley, R., Koon-Hui Wang and E.N. Rosskopf (2008) Methyl Bromide alternatives for floriculture

production in a problem site. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, Nov. 11 – 14, 2008

Muller-Stodie, D. Ver, E. Kohlschmid, and J. Sauerborn. (2009). A novel strain of Fusarium oxysporum

from Germany andits potential for biocontrol of Orobanche ramosa

. Weed Research . 49, 175–

182.

Muckennfuss, A. (2005). Basamid ® G for weed control in forest tree nurseries. In: Annual International

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, San Diego,

California, USA.

Mutitu, E., R. Waswa, N. Musembi, J. Chepsoi, J. Mutero, 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.

# 58 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report Nadal, S. , M.T. Moreno, B. Roman (2008). Control of Orobanche crenata in Vicia narbonensis by

glyphosate, Crop Protection (27) 873–876

Njoroge, S.M.C., Riley, M.B., Keinath, A. P. (2008) Effect of incorporation of Brassica spp. residues on

population densities of soilborne microorganisms and on damping-off and fusarium wilt of

watermelon. Plant Disease (92) 2, 287-294

Noling, J.W., J.P. Gilreath, 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.

Pivonia, S., R. Levita, A. Maduel, R. Cohen (2008) Chemical Control of the Melon Sudden Wilt Caused

by Monosporascus cannonbalus ARO, Neve Ya'ar. Paper submitted with the Israel Melon CUN

2009

PUR Data. CDPR. (2010) Pesticide Use Report for 2003 - 2008. California Department of Pesticide

Regulation, USA. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm

Quicke, M., T. Starkey, 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

Quicke, M., T. Starkey S. Enebak (2008) Area-Wide demonstration of alternatives: Forest nurseries in the

southern US . Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and

Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 11 – 14, 2008.

Quicke, M. T. Starkey, S. Enebak (2009). 2009 Meth yl bromide alternatives in Alabama forest tree

seedling nurseries. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives

and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, November 10 – 13, 2009.

Sakuma, H., Suzuki, K. (1995) Development of energy-saving hydroponics systems without requiring

electricity. JIRCAS J. 4, 73-77.

Santos, B. M. (2009). Drip-applied metham potassium and herbicides as methyl bromide alternatives for

Cyperus control in tomato. Crop Protection 28, 68–71.

Savvas D., H. Passam (Eds) (2002). Hydroponic Production of Vegetables and Ornamentals

. Embryo

Publications, Athens, Greece, 242 pp.

Schneider , S.M., H.A. Ajwa, T.T. Trout, S. Gao (2008). Nematode control from shank and drip applied

fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide. HortScience 43, 1826 - 1832

Schneider, S. M., B. D. Hanson. (2009a). Effects of fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide on pest

control in open field nursery production of perennial fruit and nut plants. HortTechnology 19,

526-532.

Schneider, S. M., B.D. Hanson, J.S. Gerik, A. Shrest ha, T.J. Trout, S. Gao. (2009b). Comparison of

Shank- and Drip-Applied Methyl Bromide Alternatives in Perennial Crop Field Nurseries.

HortTechnology 19, 331-339.

Schneider, S., Trout, T., Browne, G. and Ajwa, H. (2004). Vineyard replant - performance of methyl

bromide alternatives over time. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl bromide

Alternatives, Orlando, Florida, USA , 8-1 - 8-5.

Shillings, W (2009a). Chemical composition of dry cure hams fumigated with CO2. International

Research Conference in MB Alternatives. San Diego. Nov 10, 2009

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 59 Shillings, W (2009b). Chemical composition of dry cure hams fumigated with phosphine. International

Research Conference in MB Alternatives. San Diego. Nov 10, 2009

Shrestha, A., G. T. Browne, B. D. Lampinen, S. M. Schneider, L. Simon, T. J. Trout (2008) Perennial

crop nurseries treated with methyl bromide and alternative fumigants: Effects on weed seed

viability, weed densities, and time required for hand weeding. Weed Technology 22, 267-274.

South, D. , S. Enebak (2006). Integrated pest management practices in southern pine nurseries. New

Forests 31, 253 – 271.

South (2007). Chloropicrin as a soil fumigant treatment in southern pine nurseries. Southern Journal of

Applied Forestry 31,(1) 2007

South D. B. (2008). Comments on alternatives to methyl bromide for quarantine purposes in forest

nurseries. In: Dumroese RK, Riley LE (Tech. Coord.). National Proceedings: Forest and

Conservation Nursery Associations.

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, 1176 – 1178.

Stoddard (2008). Methyl bromide fumigation alternatives for sweet potato hotbeds in Califronia

Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and

Emissions Reductions , Orlando, FL, Nov. 11 – 14, 2008, United States.

Stoddard, C.S., M. Davis, A. Ploeg, J. Stapleton. (2009). Methyl bromide fumigation alternatives for

sweet potato hotbeds in California year 2. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions , San Diego, California, USA.

Sumner, P.E. and S. Culpepper (205) Shelf life study of eggplant and bell pepper using various Mtehyl

Bromide alternative weed control tactics 2005 University of Georgia Cooperative Extension

Report

http://www.tifton.uga.edu/veg/Publications/Extension%20Report%202005/SumnerShelfLife.pdf

TEAP (2004). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, Oct. 2004. Montreal Protocol

on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

TEAP (2005). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, Oct. 2005. Montreal Protocol

on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

Walters, T., M. Particka, I. Zasada, J.N. Pinkerton. (2009). Methyl bromide alternatives for raspberry

nurseries. Proc. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives

and Emissions Reductions . San Diego, California

Wang, G. McGiffen, M. E. Ogbuchiekwe, E. J. Butler, L (2009). Economic return of purple and yellow

nutsedge management in vegetable production of southern California. Crop Protection 28, 319–

326

Weiland, J., J. N. Pinkerton, W. Littke, J. Browning, C. Masters, R. Rose, D. Haase, T. Miller, B.

Edmonds, A. Leon (2008). Methyl Bromide alternatives in Oregon and Washington forest tree

nurseries . Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and

Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 11 – 14, 2008

Yakabe, L. E., J.D. MacDonald (2010). Soil treatments for the potential elimination of Phytophthora

ramorum in ornamental nursery beds. Plant Disease 94: 320-324.60October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportAnnex 1 - Part A:Trend in PreplantSoil ApplicationsList of nominated (2005 – 2012 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2011in part) amounts of MB granted by Parties under the CUE process for each crop orcommodity.Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE Quantities2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Australia Cut Flowers – field 40.000 22.35018.375 22.350Australia Cut flowers – protected 20.00010.425Australia Cut flowers, bulbs – protected Vic 7.000 7.000 6.170 6.1507.000 7.000 3.598 3.500Australia Strawberry Fruit 90.00067.000Australia Strawberry runners 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 29.790 29.79029.79035.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 29.79023.840Belgium Asparagus 0.630 0.2250.630 0.225Belgium Chicory 0.600 0.1800.180 0.180Belgium Chrysanthemums 1.800 0.7201.120Belgium Cucumber 0.610 0.5450.610 0.545Belgium Cut flowers – other 6.110 1.9564.000 1.956Belgium Cut flowers – roses 1.640Belgium Endive (sep from lettuce) 1.6501.650Belgium Leek & onion seeds 1.220 0.1550.660Belgium Lettuce(& endive) 42.250 22.42525.190Belgium Nursery NotPredictable0.3840.900 0.384Belgium Orchard pome & berry 1.350 0.6211.350 0.621Belgium Ornamental plants 5.6600.000Belgium Pepper & egg plant 5.270 1.3503.000 1.350Belgium Strawberry runners 3.400 0.9003.400 0.900Belgium Tomato (protected) 17.170 4.5005.700 4.500Belgium Tree nursery 0.230 0.1550.230 0.155Canada Strawberry runners (PEI) 14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 7.462 5.2615.261(a)14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 7.4625.261Canada Strawberry runners (Quebec) 1.826 1.826(a) 1.826 1.826Canada Strawberry runners (Ontario) 6.1296.129France Carrots 10.000 8.000 5.0008.000 8.000 1.400France Cucumber 85 revised 60.000 15.00060.000 60.000 12.500October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report61Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE Quantities2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011to 60France Cut-flowers 75.000 60.250 12.00060.000 52.000 9.600France Forest tree nursery 10.000 10.000 1.50010.000 10.000 1.500France Melon 10.000 10.0007.500 6.000France Nursery: orchard, raspberry 5.000 5.000 2.0005.000 5.000 2.000France Orchard replant 25.000 25.000 7.50025.000 25.000 7.000France Pepper Inclin.tomatocun27.500 6.00027.500 6.000France Strawberry fruit 90.000 86.000 34.00090.000 86.000France Strawberry runners 40.000 4.000 35.00040.000 40.000 28.000France Tomato (and eggplant for 2005only)150(allsolanaceous)60.500 33.250125.000 48.400France Eggplant 27.500 33.25048.400Greece Cucurbits 30.000 19.20030.000 19.200Greece Cut flowers 14.000 6.00014.000 6.000Greece Tomatoes 180.000 73.600156.000 73.600Israel Broomrape 250.000 250.000 125.000 12.50012.500250.000 250.000 125.00012.500Israel Cucumber - protected new 2007 25.000 18.750 18.75012.50025.000 18.750 -15.937Israel Cut flowers – open field 77.000 67.000 80.755 53.345 42.777 42.55423.29277.000 67.000 74.540 44.750 34.69828.554Israel Cut flowers – protected 303.000 303.000 321.330 163.400 113.821 72.26652.955303.000 240.000 220.185 114.450 85.43163.464Israel Fruit tree nurseries 50.000 45.000 10.00050.000 45.000 7.500Israel Melon – protected & field 148.000 142.000 140.000 87.500 87.500 87.50035.000125.650 99.400 105.000 87.500 87.50070.000Israel Potato 239.000 231.000 137.500 93.750 75.000239.000 165.000 137.500 93.750 75.000Israel Seed production 56.000 50.000 22.40056.000 28.000 NRIsrael Strawberries – fruit (Sharon) 196.000 196.000 176.200 64.125 52.250 47.50028.500196.000 196.000 93.000 105.960 42.750Israel Strawberries – fruit (Sharon &Ghaza)57.063Israel Strawberry runners (Sharon) 35.000 35.000 20 15.800 13.57013.50035.000 35.000 28.000 31.900 15.825Israel Strawberry runners and fruit Ghaza 87.875 67.500 67.50034.00047.250Israel Strawberry runners (Sharon &Ghaza)22.320Israel Tomatoes 90.00022.750Israel Sweet potato 95.000 20.00020.000111.500 95.000 20,000Italy Cut flowers (protected) 250.000 250.000 30.000250.000 187.000 30.00062October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportParty Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE Quantities2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Italy Eggplant (protected) 280.000 200.000 15.000194.000 156.000Italy Melon (protected) 180.000 135.000 10.000131.000 131.000 10.000Italy Pepper (protected) 220.000 160.000 67.000160.000 130.000 67.000Italy Strawberry Fruit (Protected) 510.000 400.000 35.000407.000 320.000Italy Strawberry Runners 100.000 120.000 35.000120.000 120.000 35.000Italy Tomato (protected) 1300.000 1030.000 418.000871.000 697.000 80.000Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 68.600 61.400 34.100 29.12026.16288.300 88.800 72.400 51.450 34.300 30.69027.621Japan Ginger – field 119.400 119.400 112.200 112.100 102.200 53.400 47.45042.235119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075 63.056 53.40047.450Japan Ginger – protected 22.900 22.900 14.800 14.800 12.900 8.300 7.7706.55822.900 22.900 14.471 11.100 8.325 8.3007.036Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 182.200 168.000 90.800 77.60067.936194.100 203.900 182.200 136.650 91.100 81.72073.548Japan Peppers (green and hot) 189.900 200.700 169.400 162.300 134.400 81.100 68.26061.101187.200 200.700 156.700 121.725 81.149 72.99065.691Japan Watermelon 126.300 96.200 94.200 43.300 23.700 15.400 13.87012.075129.000 98.900 94.200 32.475 21.650 14.50013.050Malta Cucumber 0.0960.127Malta Eggplant 0.1280.170Malta Strawberry 0.1600.212Malta Tomatoes 0.4750.594New Zealand Nursery material 1.085 1.0850.000New Zealand Strawberry fruit 42.000 42.000 24.78042.000 34.000 12.000New Zealand Strawberry runners 10.000 10.000 5.7208.000 8.000 6.234Poland Strawberry Runners 40.000 40.000 25.000 12.00040.000 40.000 24.500Portugal Cut flowers 130.000 8.75050.000 8.750Spain Cut Flowers – Cadiz 53.000 53.000 35.00053.000 42.000Spain 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 45.000200.000 155.000 45.000Spain Strawberry Fruit 556.000 499.290 80.000556.000 499.290 0.0796Spain Strawberry Runners 230.000 230.000 230.000 215.000230.000 230.000 230.000UK Cut flowers 7.5606.050UK Ornamental tree nursery 12.000 6.0006.000 6.000UK Strawberry (& raspberry in 2005) 80.000 63.60068.000 54.500UK Raspberry nursery 4.4004.400 54.500USA Chrys. Cuttings/roses 29.41229.412 0.000USA Cucurbits – field 1187.800 747.839 598.927 588.949 411.757 340.405 218.03259.5001187.800 747.839 592.891 486.757 407.091 302.974195.698USA Eggplant – field 76.761 101.245 96.480 79.546 62.789 34.732 21.5616.90476.721 82.167 85.363 66.018 48.691 32.82019.725October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report63Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE Quantities2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011USA Forest nursery seedlings 192.515 157.694 152.629 133.140 125.758 120.853 106.04334.230192.515 157.694 122.032 131.208 122.060 117.82693.547USA Ginger 9.200 9.200 0.000USA Orchard replant 706.176 827.994 405.415 405.666 314.007 226.021 203.59118.324706.176 527.600 405.400 393.720 292.756 215.800183.232USA Ornamentals 210.949 162.817 149.965 138.538 137.776 95.204 70.17848.164154.000 148.483 137.835 138.538 107.136 84.61764.307USA Nursery stock - fruit trees,raspberries, roses45.789 64.528 12.684 51.102 27.663 17.954 7.9551.59145.800 64.528 28.275 51.102 25.326 17.3637.955USA Peppers – field 1094.782 1498.530 1151.751 919.006 783.821 463.282 212.77528.3661094.782 1243.542 1106.753 756.339 548.984 463.282206.234USA Strawberry fruit – field 2468.873 1918.400 1733.901 1604.669 1336.754 1103.422 1023.471753.9742052.846 1730.828 1476.019 1349.575 1269.321 1007.477812.709USA Strawberry runners 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 8.837 7.381 7.3813.75254.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 7.944 4.690 +2.0186.036USA Tomato – field 2876.046 2844.985 2334.047 1840.100 1406.484 994.582 336.19154.423737.584 2476.365 2065.246 1406.484 1003.876 737.584292.751USA Turfgrass 352.194 131.600 78.040 52.189 0 131.600 78.04 0USA Sweet potato 224.528 18.144 18.144 18.144 14.5158.70918.144 18.144 14.51511.61264October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportANNEX II – Part B: Post-harvest Structuraland Commodity ApplicationsList of nominated (2005 – 2012 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2011in part) amounts of MB granted by Parties under the CUE process for each crop orcommodity.Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Australia Almonds 1.900 2.1001.900 2.100Australia Rice consumer packs 12.300 12.300 10.225 9.200+1.89.200 7.820 5.6603.6536.150 6.150 9.205 9.200 7.820 6.6504.870Belgium Artefacts and structures 0.600 0.307 0.590 0.307Belgium Antique structure & furniture 0.750 0.199 0.319 0.199Belgium Churches, monuments and ships'quarters0.150 0.059 0.150 0.059Belgium Electronic equipment 0.100 0.035 0.100 0.035Belgium Empty silo 0.050 0.043 0.050 0.043Belgium Flour mill see mills below 0.125 0.072 See millsbelow0.072Belgium Flour mills 10.000 4.170 9.515 4.170Belgium Mills 0.200 0.2000.200 0.200Belgium Food processing facilities 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300Belgium Food Processing premises 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030Belgium Food storage (dry) structure 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.000Belgium Old buildings 7.000 0 .306 1.150 0.306Belgium Old buildings and objects 0.450 0.282 0.000 0.282Belgium Woodworking premises 0.300 0.101 0.300 0.101Canada Flour mills 47.20034.774 30.167 28.65026.913 22.878 14.10711.020(a)47 34.774 30.167 28.650 26.913 22.87814.107Canada Pasta manufacturing facilities (a) 10.457 6.757 6.067 4.740 4.74002.084(a) 10.457 6.757 6.067 4.74003.529Canada Commodities 0.068France Seeds sold by PLAN-SPG company 0.135 0.135 0.1000.135 0.135 0.096France Mills 55.000 40.000 8.00040.000 35.000 8.000France Rice consumer packs 2.000 2.0002.000 2.000France Chestnuts 2.000 2.000 1.8002.000 2.000 1.800Germany Artefacts 0.250 0.1000.250 0.100Germany Mills and Processors 45.000 19.35045.000 19.350Greece Dried fruit 4.280 3.081 0.9004.280 3.081 0.45Greece Mills and Processors 23.000 16.000 1.34023.000 15.445 1.340Greece Rice and legumes 2.3552.355October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report65Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Ireland Mills 0.888 0.6110.888Israel Artefacts 0.650 0.650 0.6000.650 0.650Israel Dates (post harvest) 3.444 3.444 2.200 1.800 2.1003.444 2.755 2.200 1.800 2.1001.04Israel Flour mills (machinery &storage) 2.140 1.490 1.490 0.800 0.3002.140 1.490 1.040 0.312 0.300Israel Furniture– imported 1.422 1.422 2.0421.422 0.000Italy Artefacts 5.500 5.500 5.0005.225 0.000 5.000Italy Mills and Processors160.000 130.000 25.000160.000 65.000 25.000Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.500 6.500 6.300 5.800 5.400 5.3503.4897.100 6.800 6.500 6.300 5.800 5.4005.350Latvia Grains 2.5022.502Netherlands Strawberry runners post harvest 0.120 0.120 0.1200 0.120Poland Medicinal herbs & dried mushroomsas dry commodities4.000 3.560 1.800 0.5004.100 3.560 1.800 1.800Poland Coffee, cocoa beans (a) 2.160 2.000 0.5002.160 1.420 1.420Spain Rice 50.00042.065Switzerland Mills & Processors 8.700 7.0008.700 7.000UK Aircraft 0.1650.165UK Mills and Processors 47.130 10.195 4.50947.130 10.195 4.509UK Cereal processing plants 8.131 3.480(a) 8.131UK Cheese stores 1.640 1.248 1.2481.640 1.248 1.248UK Dried commodities (rice, fruits andnuts) Whitworths2.400 1.2562.400 1.256UK Herbs and spices 0.035 0.037 0.0300.035 0.037UK Mills and Processors (biscuits) 2.525 1.787 0.4792.525 1.787UK Spices structural equip. 1.7281.728 0.000 0.479UK Spices stored 0.0300.030 0.000UK Structures buildings (herbs andspices)3.000 1.872 0.9083.000 1.872 0.908UK Structures, processors and storage(Whitworths)1.100 0.880 0.2571.100 0.880 0.257UK Tobacco equipment 0.5230.050UK Woven baskets 0.7700.770USA Dried fruit and nuts (walnuts,pistachios, dried fruit and dates anddried beans)89.166 87.719 91.299 67.699 58.912 19.242 10.0412.41989.166 87.719 78.983 58.921 45.623 19.2425.000USA Dry commodities/ structures (cocoabeans)61.519 61.519 64.028 52.256 51.00261.519 55.367 64.082 53.188USA Dry commodities/ structures(processed foods, herbs and spices,83.344 83.344 85.801 72.693 66.777 37.778 17.3650.283.344 69.118 82.771 69.208 54.606 37.77817.36566October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final ReportParty Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011dried milk and cheese processingfacilities) NPMAUSA Smokehouse hams (Dry cure porkproducts) (building and product)136.304 135.742 40.854 19.669 19.699 4.465 3.7303.73067.907 81.708 18.998 19.699 18.998 4.4653.730USA Mills and Processors 536.328 505.982 401.889 362.952 291.418 173.023 135.29974.510483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237 291.418 173.023135.299

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 67 

# ANNEX III: Members of MBTOC Committees

Committee contact details

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 and this information can now be found

at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels /TEAP/toc-members-disclosures.shtml .



# A – MBTOC Soil subcommitt ee Members - September 2009

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) A Morocco A5

2. Ian Porter M Consultant and

Department of Victorian

Primary Industries

Dept.(Government

research) Researcher, soils MB

use and alts, particularly

fungal pathogens and

IPM (PhD) A Australia Non-A5

Members

3. Antonio Bello M Centro de Ciencias

Medioambientales

(Government research) Non-chemical

alternatives (PhD, Prof.) A Spain Non-A5

4 Aocheng Cao M Chinese Academy of

Agricultural Sciences

(Government research) Researcher, soil

alternatives, particularly

in China (A5) context

(PhD) B China A5

5. Peter Caulkins M Associate Director,

Special Review &

Reregistration Division

US EPA Registration of

alternatives, regulatory

issues (PhD) C USA Non A-5

6. Abraham

Gamliel M Agricultural Research

Organization,

The Volcani Center,

(Government Research) Alternatives for soils,

horticulture (PhD) C Israel Non-A5

7. Racquel Ghini F Empresa Brasileira de

Pesquisa Agropecuária,

Brazil Researcher in

horticulture, Develeoped

solar collectors for

treatment of substrates D Brazil A5

8. George

Lazarovits M Agriculture & Agri-food

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

11. James D.

Schaub M United States

Department of

Agriculture

(Government regulatory) Agricultural economist

(PhD) B USA Non-A5

10. Marta Pizano F Consultant Consultant, MB alts,

particularly cut flower

production A Colombia A5

11. 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

12. JL Staphorst M Plant Protection

Research Institute

(Parastatal research) Expert Soil

Microbiologist (DSc) A South Africa A5

# 68 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length of

service Country Article 5

status

Co-Chairs

13. Akio Tateya M Syngenta Japan K.K. Application of MB and

alts, particularly in Japan A Japan Non-A5

14 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

15 Janny Vos F CABI, The Netherlands Plant Pathologist-IPM D Holland

16 Jim Wells M Environmental Solutions

Group, LLC

(Consultant) Registration and

regulatory - MB and

alternatives, soil uses A USA Non-A5

17. Suat Yilmaz M West Mediterranean

Agricultural Research

Institute (Government

Research) Institute Director, Plant

Pathologist and

Alternatives for soils

(PhD) D Turkey A5



# A - >10 years

B – 5-10

C – 1-5

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 69 

# B – MBTOC SC Members - October 2010

MBTOC Structures and Commodities Subcommittee

Chair

1. Michelle Marcotte F Consultant Consultant, particularly food

processing, regulations, structural

and commodity treatments and

irradiation, particularly for

quarantine A Canada

Non-A5

Members

2. Chris Bell M Consultant, retired

from Central

Science Laboratory

(Government

research) Postharvest technologies,

particularly fumigants,

phosphine; sulfuryl fluoride,

controlled atmospheres and heat'

(PhD) A UK

Non-A5

3. Fred Bergwerff M Eco2, Netherlands Fumigator, specialist in non-MB

systems, including CA and heat. B Netherlands

Non-A5

4. Ricardo Deang M Consultant Regulatory and registration.

Entomologist (PhD) A Philippines

A5

5. Patrick Ducom M Consultant, retired

from Ministère de

l’Agriculture

(Government

research) Postharvest and structural

alternatives A France

Non-A5

6. Alfredo Gonzalez M Fumigator Phosphine, QPS and non-QPS

treatments. Structures,

commodities. B Philippines

A5

7. Darka Hamel F Croatian Institute

for Agriculture,

Food and Rural

Affairs - Institute

for Plant Protection

(Government) Postharvest and structural

treatments, regulations C Croatia

CEIT

8. Christoph

Reichmuth M In transition to

Professor at

Humboldt

University Berlin.

Retired from JKI

Germany

(Government

research) (October

2010) Phosphine, heat, QPS, MB

recapture and emissions, stored

product pest control. Formerly

Director the Institute for

Ecological Chemistry, Plant

Analysis and Stored Product

Protection of the Federal Institute

for Cultivated Plants. Chemist

(PhD) C Germany

Non-A5

9. Jordi Riudavets M IRTA-Department

of Plant Protection.

(Government

Research) IPM for stored products and

horticultural crops (PhD) C Spain

Non-A5

10. John Sansone M SCC Products

(Fumigator) Fumigator, particular expertise in

structures A US

Non-A5

11. Robert Taylor M Consultant, retired

from UK research

institute Postharvest technology,

specifically A5 uses A UK

Non-A5

12. Chris Watson M Consultant, retired

from 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



# MBTOC QSC assigned to MBTOC QPS and now acting as MBTOC SC Corresponding members

1. Ken Glassey M MAF, New

Zealand Forester, government advisor on

MB alternatives in forest

products and QPS treatments B New Zealand

Non-A5

2. Ken Vick M United States

Department of

Agriculture

(Government

research) Research in MB alternatives, for

soil, structures and commodities

including QPS. Entomologist

(PhD) A US

Non-A5

# 70 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# C – MBTOC QPS subcommittee Members - October 2010

Names Affiliation Expertise Length of

service Country Article 5

status

Co-Chairs

1. Marta Pizano F Consultant Consultant, MB

alternatives, particularly

horticulture A Colombia A5

Members

2. Jonathan Banks M Consultant QPS, stored grains,

fumigation technologies,

recapture systems (PhD) A Australia Non A5

3. Tom Batchelor M Touchdown

Consulting Sound knowledge of

technical issues on QPS

(PhD) C (A)* Belgium Non A5

4. Ken Glassey M MAF, New Zealand

(Government

research) Phytosanitary quarantine

treatments, biosecurity C New

Zealand Non A5

5. Takashi Misumi M MAFF (Government

research) Quarantine Disinfestation

Technologies B Japan Non A5

6. David Okioga M Kenya Ozone Office

(Government) Plant quarantine services,

MB alts (PhD) A Kenya A5

7. Ian Porter M Consultant and

Department of

Victorian Primary

Industries

Dept.(Government

research) Researcher, soils MB use

and alts, particularly fungal

pathogens and IPM (PhD) A Australia Non-A5

8. Ken Vick M USDA (Government

research) Research in MB

alternatives, for soil,

structures and commodities

including QPS.

Entomologist (PhD) A USA Non A5

9. Eduardo

Willink M Estación Experimental

Agroindustrial Obispo

Colombrés

(Government

research) Quarantine treatments,

systems approach and pest

host status C Argentina A5

TOTALS F 1

M 8 A5 = 3

Non A5 = 6



# *Dr Batchelor was a member of MBTOC between 1992 and 2002. He joined MBTOC again in 2009



# A - >10 years

B – 5-10

C – 1-5

# October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

# 71 

# D – MBTOC Economis ts - October 2010

Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length of

service Country Article 5

status

1. James D.

Schaub M United States

Department of

Agriculture

(Government regulatory) Agricultural economist

(PhD) B USA Non-A5

2 James Turner M A Non- A5

3. Nick Vink M University of

Stellenbosch (Academia) Agricultural economics

(PhD, Prof.) C South Africa A5