MONTREAL PROTOCOL 

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE 

THE OZONE LAYER 

UNEP

REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT PANEL

OCTOBER 2010 

EVALUATION OF 2010 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL 

BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT
UNEP 

OCTOBER 2010 REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT PANEL

EVALUATIONS OF 2010 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR 

METHYL BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT
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 Economic Assessment Panel 

October 2010 

EVALUATIONS OF 2010 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR 

METHYL BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS: FINAL REPORT

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/teap/Reports/TEAP_Reports/

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

acknowledgement of the source of the material.

ISBN: 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 operation requires consideration of worker safety 

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

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

effects of alternatives and replacements will become available for use in selecting among the 

options discussed in this document. 

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

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

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

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

procedure contained herein, including but not limited to any claims regarding health, safety, 

environmental effect or fate, efficacy, or performance, made by the source of information. 

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

only and does not constitute a recommendation of any such company, association, or product, 

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

and members or the companies or organisations that employ them. 

Acknowledgement 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee: 

MBTOC Soils (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 Wells (USA); Suat Yilmaz (Turkey) 

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

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

Patrick Ducom (France); Alfredo Gonzalez (Philippines); 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 Batchelor (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)
OCTOBER 2010 REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT PANEL

EVALUATIONS OF 2010 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR 

METHYL BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT
vi October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

EVALUATIONS OF 2010 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL 

BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT – OCTOBER 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 Standard 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 

OCTOBER 2010 REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT PANEL

EVALUATIONS OF 2010 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR 

METHYL BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT

Table of Contents 

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

1.1 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST.........................................................................................................1

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

2.1. MANDATE .................................................................................................................................3

2.2. FULFILMENT OF DECISION IX/6................................................................................................3

2.3. CONSIDERATION OF STOCKS - DECISION EX.1/4 (9F)...............................................................3

2.4 TRENDS IN METHYL BROMIDE USE FOR CUES 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 SUMMARY 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 SPECIFIC TO MBTOC STRUCTURES AND 

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

5.1. MEMBERSHIP AND FUNDING ISSUES.......................................................................................39

5.2 DETAILS OF EVALUATIONS......................................................................................................40

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

6.1. MEMBERSHIP ISSUES...............................................................................................................51

6.2. ACTIVITY REPORT FOR 2010 ...................................................................................................51

6.3. WORK 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 Parties 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 recommendations 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 information on actual MB consumption for critical uses 

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

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

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

any other CUNs where circumstances have changed. 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 alternatives 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 declarations can be found on the internet at 

http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_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 accordance 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 information 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 Parties continue to provide updates on regulatory 

changes with alternatives and MB and breakdown of the economic 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 Decision XVI/4, Parties, inter alia, specifically 

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

MBTOC’s report should explicitly state the central basis for the Parties 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, MBTOC 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 summary 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 requested 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

Year

metric 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 exempted 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 Mills

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

metric tonnes

Belgium

Canada

France

Germany

Greece

Israel

Italy

UK

USA
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Table 2.2 - Summary of Critical Use Nomination (2005 – 2012 in part) and Exemption (2005 – 2011 in part) for Amounts of MB under the CUN/CUE Process. (Note: A breakdown of CUN and CUE amounts by sector is given in Annex I and II) 

 Quantities Nominated Quantities Approved  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 

(1ExMOP 

and 

16MOP) 

2006 

(16MOP+ 

2ExMOP+ 

17MOP) 

2007 

(17MOP 

+ 

18MOP) 

2008 

(18MOP 

+ 

19MOP)

2009 

(19MOP) 

Australia 206.950 81.250 52.145 52.900 38.990 37.610 35.450 

+5.95 

34.660 

Rev 

33.443 

146.600 75.100 48.517 48.450 37.610 

Canada 61.992 53.897 46.745 42.241 39.115 35.080 19.368 

+3.529 

16.281 61.792 53.897 52.874 42.188 39.115 

European Community1

5754.361 4213.47 1239.873 245.00 0 0 0 0 4392.812 3536.755 689.142 245.146 0 

Israel 1117.156 1081.506 1236.517 952.845 699.448 383.700 232.247 * 1089.306 880.295 966.715 860.580 610.854 Japan 748.000 741.400 651.700 589.600 508.900 288.500 249.420 221.104 748.000 741.400 636.172 443.775 305.380 New Zealand 53.085 53.085 32.573 0 0 0 0 0 50.000 42.000 18.234 0 0 Switzerland 8.700 7.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.700 7.000 0 0 0 USA 10753.997 9386.229 7417.999 6415.153 4958.034 3299.490 2388.128 1181.779 

Rev 

1178.604 

9552.879 8081.753 6749.060 5355.976 4261.974 

TOTALS 18704.241 15617.837 10677.552 8297.739 6244.487 4044.380 2928.142 

Rev 

2934.092 

1453.824 

Rev 

1449.432 

16050.089 13418.200 9160.714 6996.115 5254.933 

1 Members 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 Kingdom 2008 – 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 San Jose, USA or Zagreb in Croatia to conduct 

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

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

on QPS by the Australian delegation after the 30th 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 other 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. Consensus decisions were made in subcommittees, but 

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

deliberations by the MBTOC Soils and MBTOC Structures and Commodities subcommittees 

were circulated to all members of MBTOC via electronic 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 information 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 April 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 for 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 bilateral meetings with Australia, Canada, the 

USA and the Californian Strawberry Commission. 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. Accordingly, 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 Commission, 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 further review of information by MBTOC S, the 

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

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

recommended a further 28.656 tonnes for use in California 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 reductions 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 nominated 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 30th

OEWG 

Final MBTOC 

recommendation for 

2012 

USA Strawberry 

fruita

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 21st 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 California) that use MB in mid 2008 which has 

led to commercial adoption on large sale areas 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, particularly 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/m2

)) 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 alternatives 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 policies 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 alternatives to MB are being considered for 

impending registration in specific countries recently, including dimethyl 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 specific use may vary with local circumstances, soil conditions and 
14 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

the target pest situation. Some nominations were 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/m2 

with barrier films (VIF or 

equivalent); for mixtures of 

MB/Pic are 12.5 to 17.5 g 

MB/m2

 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 

material 
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Table 4.5 - Final evaluation of the preplant soil use CUNs requested to be reviewed for 2012 by the United States after the 30th O

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 (addtl 

or new) 

CUN for 

2012 

Strawberry (field) 

2052.846 1,730.828 1,476.019 1,349.575 1,269.32 1,007.477 812.709 - (756.515) 

Rev 

753.974

United States 

MBTOC comments 2010: MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 678.004 t for this use in 2012. This comprises a reduced amount of 67requested amount of 1.647 t for Eastern USA and 3.272 t for Florida. California recommendation During its second meeting in USA in September 2010, the Party requested MBTOC to review the interim assessment for the Strawberry Frbased on updated information from the Californian Strawberry Commission (CSC). The US nominated 752.230 t in January 2010 and subs749.055 t after the April MBTOC meeting. In the interim May TEAP report, MBTOC recommended a reduced amount of 644.429 t based on formulations, 1,3-D/Pic and Pic alone in areas where township caps and restrictions allowed for use of the alternatives. At its second meetifurther information provided by the CSC and accepted the need for MB in areas where restrictions affected uptake of alternatives, but did namount of MB requested for some counties where alternatives had been adopted. California nomination in relation to current use of MB

For California, the Party nominated 751.596 t (4421 ha at 170 kg/ha). This nominated amount was 100% of the previous CUE for California California Strawberry Commission information

At the second MBTOC meeting, the CSC provided evidence that PUR data need to be inflated by a percentage equivalent to the acreage tinformation 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 

alone, 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 th2008 will be in critical need of MB in 2012. Current transition to MB alternatives in California

In California, the three major strawberry producing districts for which MB is nominated are Oxnard, Watsonville/Salinas and Santa Maria, w

fruit production areas of, respectively, almost 5000 ha, 5800 ha and almost 4000 ha (CSC survey). The most recent PUR data (2003-2008) 1,3-D, Pic and metham have been widely adopted in two of these production districts (i.e. excellent transition has occurred in Oxnard and Watsonville/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 sizeab(over 700 ha in 2010). In Ventura county, MB alternatives are implemented in areas with township caps. Restrictions to transition in California

In Ventura, the production season is significantly shorter than that of Monterey county where drip application of 1,3-D and Pic, an alternativresults in incomplete protection against soil-borne diseases over the long production season. MBTOC suggests shank injection of 1,3-D/Pic 
16 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 (addtl 

or new) 

CUN for 

2012 

disease control, however township cap regulations impose a penalty on shank injection. MBTOC urges the Party to reconsider the evidencuse 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 u

area. The Party has adopted a dose rate of 196 kg MB/ha in its CUN for 2012 and MBTOC has accepted this, although MBTOC encourage

formulations, which still allow for complying with regulatory restrictions on Pic use. Regulations in California prohibit the use of VIF films wi

discourage reduction of MB dose rates as well as emission control through use of VIF. MB stocks are still available, and can be used on anof MI/Pic in California is on going, however it is not expected to become available before 2012-2013. MBTOC urges the Party to develop an particularly addressing the restrictions on the use of alternatives adopted elsewhere in the USA, and showing stepwise reductions to effectMB alternatives. Eastern States recommendation For 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 is realistic given that MI/Pic has been registered in 2008 and is technically feasible for the total nomination area. Florida recommendation For 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 techfeasible 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 p
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Table 4.6 - Final evaluations of CUNs which did not change after the interim assessment (after 30th OEWG) for pre plant soil us

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

Australia Strawberry runners 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 29.790 23.840 5.95 

MBTOC 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 tha

adequately control root and crown rot on the Festival variety and currently could not be used as it is not registered. Therefore the requestethe 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 progeneration. The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi (Phytophthora, Pythium, Rhizoctonia, Verticillium spp.) and weespp., Poa annua, Cyperus spp). The CUN states that MB:Pic 50:50 at an MB dose of 25 g/m2 is required to meet certification standards. T

standard presumption of 20 g/m2, but this rate continues to remain unregistered. The Party’s first 2-year effort using a reduced rate of 18.7

the 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/m2 whi

The Party states that the most promising alternative, MI/Pic has been demonstrated in commercial scale field trials to compare with the effithat additional data has been requested by the national registration authority (APVMA) which will be submitted this year and should lead to would allow for further reduction of the nomination. A key alternative,1,3-D:Pic, is considered ineffective due to phytotoxicity and doubling oconditions in the high elevation regions. The Party also indicates that the Victorian Strawberry Certification Authority (VSICA) completed thprogram for soil-less systems for production of foundation stock strawberry runners. Results indicated that the productivity of the soil-less sproduction in MB:Pic fumigated soils, and the economics of the soil-less system compares favourably with the current method of production

facility by 2011 which, if successful, would eliminate VSICA’s need for MB for foundation stock in 2011/2012. MBTOC suggests the followiyear’s results with reduced rates of 20 g/m2 of MB with its next CUN submission and report to MBTOC the tentative second year results by 

update 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 commercialization, and (4) Since the production of 60,000 foundation generation plants has been found to be economically feasible, the Pathat supports their assertion that any further expansion in future generations is not economically feasible, (5) consider other methods (new 

absorbant, etc.) for emission controls. MBTOC comments on economics 2010: The nomination states “The second part of a two year trial that evaluated the economic and biological feasibility of production of foundation 

complete. It compared productivity with the status quo system of production in MB:Pic treated soil in insect proof cages. Results confirm thadopting the soil-less system for production of the foundation generation of runners (A1).” The CUN further states “The economics of the smethods 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 

films are still used because they are reported to perform the same as barrier films in the cold temperatures and heavy wet soils tythe Party states that barrier films provide no further effectiveness. 
18 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

• Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program: Yes, ongoing research is being conducted in (a) supporting reduced application rates of MB:

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 comme

significant regulatory obstacles 

Strawberry runners (PEI) 

Canada 6.840 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 7.462 5.261 - 

MBTOC 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 ackabsence 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 Priground water contamination. Chloropicrin (PIC 100) has been registered by PMRA, but the PEI authorities have denied a permit for its use conducted. MI registrant has not applied for registration in Canada. The company has also been testing organic production from 2006 - 20resulted (yield reductions ranged from 40% - 70%). One variety using the organic production system compared favourably to conventional 

2009. While MB:Pic 67:33 @ 500 kg/ha is the only use rate registered for strawberry runners, which exceeds MBTOC’s standard presumptPMRA to use a lower rate under barrier films. PMRA, in the absence of a formal label amendment, granted permission to use a lower rate2008 the grower tested two plots totalling 2.4 ha using 25% & 30% lower rates under barrier films and expanded the area tested in 2009. Treduced rates with barrier films. The CUN for 2012 is based entirely on a reduced rate for MB of 200 kg/ha for the entire area to be fumigatsuggests actions for the Party to (1) complete the necessary ground water studies to obtain the PIC 100 permit and (2) test the adoption of production 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 presump

• 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 PIC100 

Israel Broomrape None None 250.000 250.000 125.000 12.500 - 12.500 

MBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends 12.500 tonnes for this use in 2011. The nomination is for a specific species of broomrape (O. aegyptica), and greenh

additional to the outdoor field nominations in previous years. MB use for a national broomrape eradication on outdoor field crops has been 2008, 2009 and 2010, however the allocated amounts have not been utilized. It is MBTOC’s understanding is that previous MB approved fproduced, and therefore is unavailable for this nomination. In the 2010 nomination, the Party confirms that Telone EC is a very good chemi

aegyptica, the main species parasitizing tomato, however the registration is unclear and use may not be resolved for all species of brommror in sequential application with MS suppresses broomrape when applied under plastic sheets through the drip irrigation system in tunnels 
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

identified some alternatives for controlling low infestations of Orobanche (e.g. solarization). In addition to Telone EC alone or with MS, MBTas Sulfonylurea, imazapic, and imazomox (Eizenberg et al, 2004), (Abanga et al., 2007; Nadal et al.,2008; Miller et al., 2009). Barrier films 

emissions. 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 not appropria

evidence, that biological control of broomrape with either the aid of a parasitic fly or with Fusaria do not provide economic answers for the b

these 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-bulbsprotected Israel 303.000 240.000 220.185 114.450 85.431 63.464 - 52.955 MBTOC 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 bethe Party will totally phase out MB uses. There is very little change from nominations submitted in previous years, particularly in 2009 an

transitional measures – high barrier films with reduced rates. In spite of this, registration of certain alternatives such as metham sodium 

flower types. More expansion of registration is expected this year. Substrate production protocols are now available for many of the flodeveloped ("artificial" production is not critically impacted by local conditions and this makes experiences from other countries valid). dosages used for carnations grown in Ghaza to 25 g/m2. MBTOC is aware that carnation cultivars resistant to fusarium wilt are availab

international 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 s

 Dec IX/6 b(iii) Research program: No. Poor to no research have been conducted on alternatives. This appears to be an orpha

methyl 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. 
20 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

Cut flowers-open field 

Israel 77.000 67.000 74.540 44.750 34.698 28.554 - 23.292 

MBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends the nominated amount of 23.292 tonnes for this use in 2011. The nominated amount was an 18% reduction over the recognizes that in 2012 the Party will totally phase out MB uses. Overall, due to the MB phase out stated by the Party, there is very little chprevious years, particularly in 2009 and 2010. Phase-out efforts are still based on transitional measures - barrier films with reduced rates o

field production of cut flowers, which are mainly affected by weeds (Cyperus spp in particular) and nematodes (root-knot, but also ectopara

MBTOC does not consider MB necessary for controlling ectoparasitic nematodes in these cropping systems. Lack of registration of key altedazomet and metham sodium, continue to be the major constraints affecting substitution of MB at this time, in spite of successful trials. MB 

content are also not registered. In spite of this, registration of metham sodium and 1,3-D has expanded and now includes additional flower potential alternatves are expected this year. Solarisation has been proven to be an efficient alternative for some flower types (Yakabe and used 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 films are currently used in open field flowers and rates conform with MBTOC’s st

 Dec IX/6 b(iii) Research program: No. Poor to no research has been conducted on alternatives. This appears to be an orphan 

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 CUE’s after 2011. 

Israel Cucumber None None 25.000 18.750 - 15.937 - 12.500 

MBTOC comments 2010: MBTOC recommends 12.500 tonnes for this use in 2011. The recommended quantity represents a 21.6% reduction from the 21th MOP app

alternatives, such as grafted plants, improved sanitation and possible uptake of other alternatives (MS and 1,3-D). The need for MB under indoor cucumber cultivation in the central part of Israel could be considered as a niche request. The crop was not submitted for CUE in the pathogen problems were resolved commercially at a satisfactory level. Cucumbers are grown in open ended polyhouses in 3 cropping cyclresidential houses of cooperative family and private family farms. A large proportion, 70%, of the critical use is concentrated in one village (

years in the cultivation of indoor cucumbers for the domestic market. The reasons for this nomination are the appearance of a new race of The pathogen is highly virulent and the infestation level particularly high in the affected location and it can devastate entire greenhouses in be aimed at the eradication of the pathogen. Although MS combined with,3-D is an effective alternative application of the mixture in winter 

phytotoxicity and buffer zones limit its use. The Party also states that MS was subject to accelerated degradation in field studies. MBTOC aMS+1,3-D, 1,3-D/PIC, grafting, sanitation programs; soilless systems (López-Medina et al., 2004; Lieten, 2004; Savvas and Passam, 2002

alternatives for part or all of the nomination. It encourages the Party to review the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives (graftingand consider a reassessment the buffer zone for other chemical alternatives in use with barrier films and reduce the nomination further. 
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

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 that it will no lo

Israel Melon - protected 

and field 

125.650 99.400 105.000 87.500 87.500 70.000 - 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 nominatio

a pesticide through drip systems which uses new application technology, eg. Azoxystrobin. Monosporascus cannonballus is the key pathog

spring melon in the Arava because of low temperatures prevailing at planting time and short plant back. The requested amount at a rate of 

barrier films (LDPF) complies with MBTOC ́s standard presumptions. Additionally, MBTOC understands some alternative fungicides show 

are now available to the growers (Pivonia et. al; 2008; Israel melon CUN, Pivonia et al 2009). MBTOC notes that Pic and MB/Pic mixtures aused for Monosporascus in other countries under similar conditions, but fludioxonil has not been shown effective in Israel (e.g. Stanghelini 

2009). MBTOC understands the transition to the alternatives is already ongoing and applied a transition rate based on other countries expegrafted melon (Cohen et al, 2007). On melon, however, problems of scion-rootstock compatibility and fruit quality require an additional resesuch as crown rot of melons and cucumbers need to be addressed, as the pathogen has already invaded the relevant area. MBTOC suggconsider further expansion of the adoption of Azoxystrobin and (2) consider formulations with more chloropicrin (MB/Pic 67:33, 50:50) as th

alternatives, such as grafting. MBTOC comments on economics 2010: The nomination states that granular Basamid, is similar in mode of action to MS, however is not feasible economically because of a dramatwaiting period constraints. CUN provides the results of a financial comparison between the use of MB and different formulations of Basamialternatives are not used, with the closest comparator being Basamid 60, which shows losses of net revenue in the order of 30-50%. MBTOdata. 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 presumptions

 Dec. 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 

for CUE’s after 2011.
22 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

Strawberry fruit - protected (Sharon and Ghaza) 

 196.000 196.000 93.000 105.960 77.750 

(42.75 

Sharon, 

35.00 Ghaza 

57.063 

(32.063 

Sharon, 

25.00 

Ghaza) 

 - 28.500 

(Sharon) 

20.50 

(Ghaza)

Israel 

MBTOC 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 this use in amount by 11% and MBTOC has reduced by a further 14% based on increased uptake of MS followed by Telon EC which has been shown strawberry fruit are fungi (Rhizoctonia solani, Colletotrichum acutatum, Macrophomina phaseolina, Verticillium dahliae, Fusarium spp.), nem

(Cyperus rotundus, purple nutsedge). The Party is concerned particularly about Macrophomina control, although recent trials showed good 

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 applthe registration is unclear. Bromopic is registered, but past results with application have prevented further studies until recently when trials 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

registration 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 use of Bromopic with barrier film

zones 

 Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program: Yes, however trials on key alternatives as shown above do not appear to be being conducte

 Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort: The nomination indicates limited information on progress with alternatives, but that the Party 

in 2012. 
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

Strawberry runners (Sharon and Ghaza) 

None None - 31.900 28.075 

15.825 

(Sharon) 

12.250 

(Ghaza) 

22.320 - 13.500 

(Sharon) 

13.500 

(Ghaza) 

Israel 

MBTOC 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 dahliae, Fusarium and Phytophthora spp., Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Macrophomina phasoeolina), root knot nematodes and purple nutsedge500 kg/ha (50 g/m2) with standard polyethylene films and 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) with barrier films are necessary to meet certification standard

Party stated that 1,3-D + PIC mixture has been the leading alternative; however, adoption of this alternative is limited by the required 250 m the Sharon strawberry nursery growing area which is heavily populated. Hot gas application method is used in the Ghaza Strip growing arehouses and there are no injection tools or qualified applicators in the area. MBTOC urges the Party to continue trials with alternatives that mmeet 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. Fu

use of Bromopic with barrier films was not prevented because of high buffer zones 

 Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program: Yes, however trials on key alternatives as shown above do not appear to be being conducte Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort: The nomination indicates limited information on progress with alternatives, but that the Party 

by the end of 2011. 

Israel Sweet Potatoes None None None 111.500 95.000 20.000 - 20.000 

MBTOC 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. included use for field grown crops, but now the nomination is only for seedbeds and clean propagation material. MBTOC recognizes the ne

light sandy soils root-knot nematodes- Meloidogyne spp. the scab pathogen Streptomyces ipomoea and Pythium spp. are the disease issu

purposes. The applicant states that they expect registration of MB alternatives (eg. Telone II) by 2010, but this has not yet been approved. are available, but they are not commercially desirable in Israel. No data is presented from trials since 2006, although that data suggested th(Adochem super) 400 l /ha was an excellent alternative for MB and registration was sought. The Party has not provided further evidence of MB rates stated in the CUN are consistent with MBTOC’s standard presumptions and barrier films are being used. Trials conducted in the Uthat it provides better yields and returns to growers than MB. Solarization also significantly increased yields and with more effective herbicid(Reference: http://mbao.org/2008/027Stoddard.pdf). MBTOC expects that if any disease control products are registered prior to 2011 that t
24 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

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 onematodes 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 results and economiof 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 r Dec. IX/6 (iii) Appropriate effort: The Party has identified an intention to phase out MB by the end of 2011..

Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 51.450 34.300 30.690 27.621 - 

MBTOC 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 pathogen problems as the cucumber. Japan had made public an action plan to complete phase out of methyl bromide for soil use in 2013 astrategy for critical use nomination of methyl bromide to the Ozone Secretariat in April 2008. MBTOC acknowledges that the Party will phas

in 2013. The nomination is based on the need to control particular viruses of cucumber, since 2005. Globally, such viruses are not considered as sodebris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated program including cultural practices e.g. sand destruction of crop debris, cleaning and sanitation of the greenhouse and the surrounded area, and pathogen free seeds has proven vworld. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus transition strategy, MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. MBTOC recogcucumber in Japan which has been in place for many years. However, in many countries cucumber production has already shifted to substbecome the most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soil borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckeproduction and are widely used in around the world. (Leoni & Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004encouraged to consider substrate production, which implemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batch2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soilless culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBT

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 a short period of time as experienced in many MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004). The CUN states that the Aichi Agricultural Research CenKGMMV control by methyl iodide in pot tests. MBTOC encourages the Party to continue to pursue the registration of methyl iodide for soil uimported 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 Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

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 

 Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program: Yes, a certain trials are now energetically undertaken now to find alternative technology to co

acceleration by input of wheat bran as the material for the microbe reproduction, use of bag culture with fertigation of the mixture moss, rice bran and mountain soil and use of bio-decomposition pot for avoiding contact of seedling root with the virus contaminaLentinus edodes mycelia just before planting has been tested.

 Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort: Party has identified an action plan that will phase out MB by the end of 2012.

Japan Ginger (Field) 119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075 63.056 53.400 47.450 - 

MBTOC comments 2010: MBTOC recommends the requested rate of 42.235 t for 2012 (a reduction of 5.215 t or 11.5% from 2011). This was mostly achieved by reddosage rates. Fields are now fumigated on alternative years rather than yearly. Several regions now use dosage rates as low as 16-20 g/ m

than MBTOC’s standard presumptive rates. The nomination is for control of Pythium spp. (P. ultimum var. ultimum, P. zingiberium) in open 

applied from small cans. The party has provided MBTOC with a list of studies that indicate highly promising results for the implementation ophase 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 specific topographica

running costs are high, hence it is not economically feasible. No data are provided to support this argument. CUN provides data that shows such 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 th

 Dec. IX-6 (iii) Research program: Yes, the research program has been updated and the party has identified alternatives that are 

 Dec. IX-6 (iii) Appropriate effort: The Party has identified an action plan that will phase out MB by the end of 2012.

Japan Ginger (protected) 22.900 22.900 14.471 11.100 8.325 8.300 7.036 - 

MBTOC comments 2010: MBTOC recommends the total requested amount of 6.558 tonnes for 2012. This represents a reduction of 6.8% reduction from 2011 year nomination is for control of Pythium spp. (P. ultimum var. ultimum, P. zingiberium) in protected ginger fields using MB (98:2) applied from s

rates as low as 16-20 g/ m2 under LBPF which are within or lower than MBTOC’s standard presumptive rates. MBTOC has now been provi

numerous studies which have highly promising results for the implementation of alternatives by 2013, the date for complete phase out of M
26 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

MBTOC comments on economics 2010: Substantially as above 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 th

 Dec. IX-6 (iii) Research program: Yes, the research program has been updated and the party has identified alternatives that are  Dec. IX-6 (iii) Appropriate effort: The Party has identified an action plan that will phase out MB by the end of 2012. 

Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 136.650 91.100 81.720 73.548 - 

MBTOC comments 2010: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 67.936 tonnes for this use in 2012. The recommended quantity rep

MOP approved amount based on uptake of available alternatives, e.g. steam, soil less culture, grafting, pathogen free seeds, 1,3 D+Pic anisolation and sanitation. Japan has an action plan to complete phase out of methyl bromide for critical use nomination for soil use in 2013 astrategy to the Ozone Secretariat in April 2008. MBTOC acknowledges that the Party will phase out MB by using a variety of alternatives in adoption of alternatives and low permeable barrier film with the dose rate reduction in 2011. The nomination is based on the need to contrvirus is not considered as a soil-borne pathogen but can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuou

including cultural practices has been proven to be effective in many other countries. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptiblis an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for melons in Japan which has been in place for many years. However, in many countshifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soil-borne psystems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production and are widely used in around the world (Leoni and Ledda, 2004; BudAkkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, when implemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOCand Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soil less culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuwhen growing in substrates there is a critical need for a high degree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbsubstrates systems in a short period of time as experienced in many MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004). Resistant root stocks are now avaparty, the root stocks are not resistant to all the pathogen races. High yielding varieties resistant to the virus are available. Steam has also in 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 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 inotrialled at present. The nomination argues that there is an important market window for melons in Japan, while virus-resistant varieties fetch statements are supported by budget data. MBTOC is not able to verify the accuracy of these data. 
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

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 spe

replacement of methyl bromide. Those are appropriate use of the mixture of chloropicrin and 1,3 D to control MNSV without any presistant 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) 

Japan 187.200 200.700 156.700 121.725 81.149 72.990 65.691 - 

MBTOC comments 2010: MBTOC recommends 61.154 tonnes for this use in 2012. The Party nominated an amount representing 7% reduction from the amount app68.260 t) and has indicated it will not apply for further nominations under their action plan. According to the Party, this reduction is due to thalternatives, more distribution of low permeable barrier film with the dose rate reduction and reduction of the frequency of MB application to MB: 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 h258.2 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) acc

provided a comprehensive National Action Plan detailing step wise phase out by 2013 using a range of non chemical alternatives:( Bag cul

attenuated virus as vaccine, development of the bio-decomposed pot for the seedling, resistant varieties, hydroponics, solarization) and chsodium, chloropicrin and chloropicrin capsule) .The Party believes that all these alternatives will be widely accepted in the future. The devewell for the control of some viral strains. Soil less culture (bag cultivation, Kaneko 2006) using various substrates (disease free soil from moshell and timber bark) are being used. Also, resistant varieties (Bagu 1 gou and L4 Miogi) are currently available to some PMMoV strains, (Kanda, 2008), grafting on resistant root stocks (Anou 4 gou and 5 gou) are feasible alternatives. Others such as biological control, wrappineasily 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 barr

conforms 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 

able to phase out MB completely by 2013 in alignment with their National Management Plan. 
28 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

Watermelon 129.000 98.900 94.200 32.475 21.650 14.500 13.050 - 

Japan 

MBTOC comments 2010: MBTOC recommends 12.075 tonnes for this use in 2012. This represents a 9.25% reduction of the approved 13

The recommended quantity represents a 10% reduction from the 20th MOP approved amount based on uptake of available alternatives, e.

pathogen free seeds, 1,3 D+Pic and cultural practices such as rotation, root isolation and sanitation. Japan had made public of action plan 

for critical use nomination for soil use in 2013 and submitted revised national management strategy for critical use nomination of methyl broMBTOC acknowledges that the Party will phase out MB by using variety alternatives in 2013 and lead to a reduction of 10 % by adoption o

with 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 path

several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated program including cultural practices has been prove

The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incideurges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. MBTOC recognises the unique farming syshas been in place for many years. However, in many countries some watermelon production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouswidely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soil-borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are widely used in around the world (Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 200correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted ifeasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in substrates there is sanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems in a short perioprojects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004). Resistant root stocks are now available in Japan. However, according to the Party, the root stocks are not reyielding 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 presu

 Dec. 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 Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

United Cucurbits 1,187.800 747.839 592.891 486.757 407.091 302.974 195.698 - States 

MBTOC recommendation for 2010: MBTOC recommends 59.500 tonnes for this use in 2012. From this amount, 4.076 t are for Georgia squash, 3.285 t for Georgia cucumberSoutheast region and 1.739 t for MarDel. MBTOC recognizes the reduction made by the Party of 70% down from 2011 recommendation fo

+ chloropicrin, followed by chloropicrin alone, followed by metam-sodium, that shows good results against key cucurbit pests in spring seas

MBTOC recognizes the for cucurbit growers who can only use either 1,3-D + chloropicrin or metam-sodium+chloropicrin in fall-season fumpests, the yield loss estimates used in last year’s nomination continue to be applicable. While one study in 2006 showed good efficacy of a herbicides napropamide + halosulfuron or metolachlor + trifloxysulfuron in small plots of Florida tomatoes (Santos et al. 2006), these resultneither metolachlor or trifloxysulfuron are registered in the US for cucurbits, and halosulfuron can have phytotoxic effects on cucurbits MBTOC 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 cr(carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa), cultural control (water management, plant density, soil amendments, protective mul

registered fungicides (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph, Zoxamide + Mancozeb, Copper hydroxide+dimethomorph). MBTOC notes the use of gras alternatives for long lasting crops in many Mediterranean countries (Bello, et al., 2001). Yellow nutsedge emergence in transplanted caneffects of thin-film mulches and competitive size differential provided by using cantaloupe transplants (Johnson & Mullinix, 2007). Incorporapopulations 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 (DMDtesting of both is required. CUN provides detailed partial (and provisional) budgets for Georgia and Florida that show that the UGA-3-WAY 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 cucurb

and Cortright (2007), showed that cucurbit plant vigor was measured to determine fumigant/mulch performance under either LPDE or Fusarium oxysporum. Of the fumigants used in the study, the MB and MI treatments resulted in cantaloupe plants with the highest vi

had higher plant vigor when compared with plants grown under barrier films. Research continues to also be conducted to identify Fus

be grafted on a commercially feasible basis. Other studies were also given in the CUN for these crops. 

• Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort: 
30 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

United Eggplant 76.721 82.167 85.363 66.018 48.691 32.820 19.725 - States 

MBTOC 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 (19.725 t). MBTOC acknowledges the substantial reduction by the Party for uptake of alternatives, particularly the use of the 3 way system3.843 t are for Florida. US nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are still under extensive evaluation and pest pressure (The Party is projecting rates of 125 kg/ha both for pathogens and for nutsedge. The Party states that the treatment, known as the “UGA 3-fumigations, beginning with 1,3-D + Pic application, followed by a Pic application, followed by a metham-sodium or metham-potassium appMB in spring crops. For summer and fall crops, this system needs further development for use in areas with moderate to high nutsedge premetham potassium in the fall require longer waiting periods for planting than MB. Delays could result in missed market windows. A further 1,3-D is restricted in areas of Karst topography where ground water is vulnerable to leaching from 1,3-D. This research is on-going, howevsince the last nomination were not cited in the CUN. The Party states that trials with dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) plus Pic are promising, but certain grasses (MacRae and Culpepper, 2008). Trials will continue with this alternative. An application to register DMDS is under consideeggplant. The US nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are still under extensive evaluation and pest pressure (nutsedgstates that a 50:50 formulation (MB/Pic) is widely used in Florida but does not provide information about the formulation used in Georgia. Mamount may be possible with changes to formulations of 30:70 used in combination with barrier films commercially feasible. MBTOC consalternatives e.g. grafting, biofumigation, soil less culture... which are widely used in many countries and regions with similar climate and penot 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 (DMDtesting of both is required. CUN provides detailed partial (and provisional) budgets for Georgia and Florida that show that the UGA-3-WAY 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, howev

use of barrier films and MBTOC’s standard presumptions 

 Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program: Yes, equivalent research is on-going in similar sectors, however specific studies conducted o

not cited in the CUN 

 Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort: The Party is increasing uptake based on adoption of alternatives such as the Georgia 3-Way 

grafting, resistant root stocks, etc. may facilitate the phase out of MB in areas where regulatory constraints prevent the use of som
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

Forest nursery 

United 192.515 157.694 122.032 131.208 122.060 117.826 93.547 - States 

MBTOC comments 2010:MBTOC recommends an amount of 34.230 tonnes for this nomination in 2012. MBTOC recognizes a reduction in the nominated amount wbut was informed by the Party that some of this amount was moved into QPS MB. Despite requests from the Party it is unclear what propoQPS. The nomination indicates 100% reduction by three groups and 48% for the remaining three groups (the Southern Forest Nursery MaSeedling Growers, and the Northeastern Forest and Conservation Nursery Association. Key pests are nutsedge, nematodes and fungi. Mrequires a very high level of soilborne pest and pathogen control in order to avoid their wide spread distribution. The CUN is for nurseries walternatives are not effective. Nutsedge has no effect on certification, but the Party states that it does affect yield by 3-5%. MBTOC requestrend in yield loss caused by nutsedge, nematodes or fungal pathogens over the number of seasons following fumigation with MB and altercomparisons to MB treatment. The nomination is for certified forest seedlings produced in 3 forest nursery regions. CUN is based on econthe lack of effective alternatives for control of nutsedge and a range of fungal pathogens and nematodes. The key alternatives which have which has been found effective (i.e. Enebak, 2006) and recently registered; chloropicrin alone (South, 2007; 2008); 1,3-D/Pic (South, 2008metham sodium + Pic (Cram et al., 2007); and dazomet (Muckennfuss et al., 2005; Enebak et al., 2006). DMDS + Pic has produced encouthe former is still not registered. Integrated pest management systems have also been shown to be effective (South et al., 2006; Hildebrand Pic and metham when used in conjunction with barrier films (LPBF) may provide an effective technical alternative and avoid crop injury. Enof MB can be significantly reduced. Gluing of LPBF remains a challenge (Quicke et al., 2009; Walters et al., 2009). The Party states that gbroadacre fumigation of nursery stock is not commercially available, but progress has been made in this respect. LPBF will be adopted whe

locally and commercially available, however, MBTOC expects that future nominations will be based on its use. MBTOC considers that glypreduce pressure from nutsedge. However, this herbicide has been shown to cause phytotoxicity under nursery conditions. Jacob et al. (20Nurseries with different herbicides. MBTOC acknowledges the initiation of large scale, 5-year demonstration trials for this sector by the Pa

2007; Quicke, 2008; Weiland, 2008). Recent findings confirm the promising results of MI, MI/Pic, DMDS, DMDS/Pic, but no indication of pa(Quicke, 2009; Weiland, 2009). Limited substrate production of these crops is reported as economical for small niche markets; however Mproduces over 40 million tree seedlings per year in substrates in their Brazil operation. MBTOC encourages additional effort on use of sub

films, 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), $10,5methyl bromide (98:2). CUN notes that there are no yield losses with the use of iodomethane, hence if these cost differences are maintaineeconomically infeasible. However, CUN shows losses in net operating revenue of 7% (Southern Forest Nursery Management CoopeConservation) 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 barri

lack of commercial availability of gluing LPBF have restricted the ability to use barrier films.
32 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

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) 

United 45.800 64.528 28.275 51.102 25.326 17.363 7.955 - States 

MBTOC 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 the Californnotes the large reduction in this nomination, which is 80% less than last year’s approved amount. The rates conform to MBTOC’s standard materials that need to be certified as free of pests and diseases (CDFA,2009; USDA-APHIS,2007). The amount of MB is specified in certifi(CDFA, 2009). The California Dept of Food and Agriculture has approved the use of 1,3-dichloropropene as a certified nursery stock soil treand recently added methyl iodide (MI), if and when it is registered for use in California (CDFA, 2009). MBTOC recognises that propagative and pathogen control in order to avoid their wide spread distribution. Research trials indicate some materials (such as MI) and some combalternatives for specific circumstances, although effective rates may be higher than those needed in annual crops and use of an effective bSchneider et. al, 2009a; Schneider et. al, 2009b; Walters et. al, 2009). Other materials (such as metham sodium and chloropicrin) were noet. al, 2009b). Advances using alternatives are being made (Hanson et al., 2007; Hanson et al., 2007; Hanson et al., 2009). Few effective California (Shrestha et al., 2008). An alternate approach to the use of soil treatments is the use of containerized, or soil-less substrate, profeasible and is able to produce a product, i.e, root system, of acceptable size and quality to the marketplace. MBTOC encourages continuealternatives 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 Telonconclusion is reached with regard to California deciduous fruit and nut nursery trees; however, township restrictions and certification restricand 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 st

 Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program: Yes, An area wide program is evaluating the key alternatives, including methyl iodide/Pic an

 Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate efforts: A range of alternatives are being considered and commercialised. 
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

United Orchard replant 706.176 527.600 405.400 393.720 292.756 215.800 183.232 - States 

MBTOC Comments for 2010: MBTOC recommends a CUE of 18.324 tonnes be approved for this use in 2012. This includes 12.700 t for s

walnuts, 1.660 t for almond and 1.494 t for wine grapes. MBTOC acknowledges that the CUN is a 90% reduction from the previously approorchard/vineyard replant disorder of unknown etiology for a portion of replant sites in California where alternatives are not suitable, either bcharacteristics such as unacceptable soil type, moisture or topography. The CUN is for heavy soils or soils which cannot be treated to a su

associated pathogens in deeper soil. Regulatory constraints (maximum labelled rated) prevent the use of 1,3-D at the rates needed for effereplant that have been identified are 1,3-D or 1,3-D with chloropicrin, chloropicrin alone, and/or metam-sodium, especially in coarse-textureet al., 2009; Browne et al., 2007; Browne et al., 2008; Beede et al., 2008). Under certain soil and moisture conditions (less than 12% to 1.5 tool for replant problems and is currently used to replant the majority of orchard and vineyard sites. Although a two year fallow was found tconditions by Bello, et al., 2004, Schneider, et al., 2004 found that a four year fallow did not sufficiently eliminate the causative nematodes. 

such as Nemaguard, Viking, Krymsk1, and Flordaguard have been reported by McKenry (2006). Additional alternatives proven to be effecapplied through GPS-controlled shanks or through a spot drip application system (Browne et al, 2007; 2008). The Party confirms that MB/P

stone 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 thathe 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 alhigher tree mortality rates. California Stone Fruit: CUN states that differences in net operating revenue for even small changes in yield cathe benefits of methyl bromide alone are approximately $125/hectare. The result is a decrease of 12% in net operating revenue, but both MB 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 s

 Dec IX/6 b(iii) Research program - Yes, an area wide program is evaluating the key alternatives, including methyl iodide/Pic, sp

 Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate efforts - A range of alternatives are being considered and commercialised. 
34 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

United States 

Ornamentals 154.000 148.483 137.835 138.538 107.136 84.617 64.307 - 

MBTOC 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 t for Florreduction in the nominated amount compared to the previous amount approved, including a significant reduction of 90% in Florida. This ratransition to available alternatives. In Florida, methyl iodide (MI) is now registered and other alternatives are available, for example 1,3-D/Pwith chemicals (McSorley et al, 2006; McSorley et al, 2008). The nomination is for a large number of species, mostly grown in the field. In gladioli, lilies and snapdragon. Additional species using MB in California include calla lily, delphinium, dianthus, eustoma, freesia, helianthuand ranunculus. MB is needed to control diseases (e.g., Fusarium spp., Pythium spp., Phytophthora spp., and Rhizoctonia spp.), plant parstunt and dagger), weeds (e.g. Cyperus spp. Portulaca, Ambrosia and others), and previous crop propagules. The Party has adjusted dosa

conforms to MBTOC’s standard presumptions. MBTOC considers alternatives available for some flower types in California, for example 1,3(Klose et al., 2007, Klose, 2008). Steaming systems and application methods are being evaluated in California, in an effort to identify the m(Gilbert et al, 2009). MBTOC recognizes the potential for phytotoxicity issues for MI on ornamentals. MBTOC encourages the Party to contransition to MI/Pic if and when registration is received. MBTOC also encourages continued research on non-chemical and chemical alternMBTOC 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 relatively small. The partial budget of Florida lilies resulted in a 4% loss as a percentage of net operating revenue. In California the alternatnegative 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 films are currently used in Florida. Barrier films canno

regulatory 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. Subs

appropriate efforts particularly in Florida. In California, efforts have been made within the constraints imposed by regulations. 
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

United Peppers (field) 1094.782 1,243.542 1,106.753 756.339 548.984 463.282 206.234 - States MBTOC 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 the aMBTOC acknowledges the substantial reduction by the Party for uptake of alternatives. Of this amount, 0.947 t is for Georgia, 27.077 t is foThe 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 

In addition, the party states that the treatment, known as the “UGA 3-WAY”, consisting of three successive soil fumigations, beginning with application, followed by a metham-sodium or metham-potassium application (Culpepper, 2007a) is an alternative for MB in spring crops. F

further development for use in areas with moderate to high nutsedge pressure. 1,3-D is restricted in areas of Karst topography where grounD. In addition, metham sodium and 1,3-D in the fall require longer waiting periods for planting than MB. Delays could result in missed markhas received state-level approval in 47 US states (California, Washington, and New York are the exceptions at this time). However, the Pabefore Midas achieves a full adoption. The main constraints to the widely use of MI are : (1) the cost of MI formulations which is higher thaneed time to evaluate MI use in the various local production conditions covered by this nominations, and (3) growers and applicators will ne

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 wi

MBTOC considers that further reductions in MB amount is possible with changes to formulations of 50:50 MB/Pic or less (e.g. to 30:70) useconsiders that the Party should also develop some non chemical alternatives e.g. grafting, biofumigation, soil less etc. which are widely useclimate 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 nominacontinuing. MBTOC comments on economics 2010: The nomination describes the economic impact of using iodomethane as being negligible; as a result it appears to be technically feasible in registered. However, growers require time to transition; hence the amount of MB nominated has been adjusted downward. In Georgia, Flor3-Way on spring plantings and iodomethane are considered technically (and thus economically) feasible alternatives, although some limitathe Georgia 3-Way is negligible in Florida and the Southeastern U.S., while gains in gross revenue are expected in Georgia. Although no gusing iodomethane, losses in net revenue are negligible. One drawback to the Georgia 3-Way is that yield losses are expected in fall plantishow a 50% yield loss. These losses are not expected when iodomethane is used. The Georgia 3-Way also cannot be used on peppers th1,3-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, howe

the 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, however specific studies conducted o

were 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 

More effort to implement grafting, resistant root stocks, etc. may facilitate the phase out of MB in areas where regulatory constrain

alternatives. 
36 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

Strawberry runners 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 7.944 4.690+ 

2.018 

United 6.036 - States 

MBTOC 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 aaccepted 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 considerstrawberry fruit production from runners grown in MI treated soil, and accepted that time was required to conduct commercial scale up trials showed no evidence that these commercial scale up trials were ineffective so MBTOC does not consider further need for MB in these regio

The CUN does not specify regions for use and applies generally for 3.752 tonnes, however 99% of the hectares are exempted under QPS. strawberry runners are weeds (purple and yellow nutsedge), fungi (Rhizoctonia and Pythium spp in SE, Phytophthora, Verticillium in Califo

Alternatives s that have been evaluated in research trials over the past several years are 1,3-D/chloropicrin, 1,3-D/chloropicrin + metam-so

dazomet as a follow-up application to 1,3-D/chloropicrin or chloropicrin (Fennimore et 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 (Kabir et al, 2005; 

California, MBTOC recommends the nomination, but expects that future nominations will show reports of trials with key alternatives over thof 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 effecti

runners using LPBF and other emission control technologies (TEAP 2005). California regulations prohibit the use of LPBF with MB. The Pa

commercial 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 the near future. Cexpected 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 $80Comments 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 altern

presumptions. 

• Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program: Yes, ongoing research is being conducted showing that MI/Pic especially is effective, but it is 

• Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate effort: MI has qualified for certification use by CFDA, however it is not yet registered 
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

United Sweet Potato slips None 0.000 0.000 180144 18.144 14.515 11.612 - States 

MBTOC 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 giv

MBTOC recognizes that this is a 25 % reduction from the 2011 year application. The pathogens of concern are a complex of Pythium disea

Scurf (Monilochaetes infuscans); Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum); Black rot (Ceratocystis fimbriata), root knot caused by nematodes, a

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. Thextensive trials for replacing MB. Telone, the alternative to MB, cannot be used in Dec-Jan and township caps are exceeded in Nov which recognizes the importance of producing pest free seed stock. Trials by Stoddard (2008) indicate that Pic combined with herbicides has provabove 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 significantly increased yield and with more effective herbicides may also become a MB alternative. No VIF is used as it is not permitted in Cavailable worldwide and should be considred for any nematode issues. The applicant will be conducting the third year of trials in 2010 and 

locations. If results comparable to 2008-09 are obtained with the alternatives are verified from these tests MBTOC expects complete phase MBTOC comments on economics 2010: The nomination shows trial data that reflect that yield increases by 11% with the use of chloropicrin, resulting in a gain in gross and net opeComments 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 MBTO

• Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Research program: Yes, A very active research program is in place to find alternatives and the party has indentif

implemented. 

• Dec. IX/6 b(iii) Appropriate Effort: The Party has identified an action plan that will phase out MB as soon as alternative technolo

Tomatoes (field) 2876.046 2,476.365 2,065.246 1,406.4

84 

United 1,003.876 737.584 292.751 - States 

MBTOC 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 (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. by the Party for uptake of alternatives, particularly the use of the “UGA 3-WAY”, consisting of three successive soil fumigations, beginning wapplication, followed by a metham-sodium or metham-potassium application as well as the increased use of MI (Culpepper, 2007). The UGtomatoes in Georgia, but has not yet been successful in other parts of the Southern US and needs further development. In addition, 1,3-D ground water is vulnerable to leaching from 1,3-D. The time limitations on the registration of Midas, a mixture of MI and Pic have been remagainst key tomato pests, including nutsedge, in a number of trials with tomatoes. Midas has received state-level approval in 47 US states exceptions at this time). However, the Party states that some time will be necessary before Midas achieves a full adoption. Constraints: (1

than MB, (2) growers and researchers will need time to evaluate MI use in the various local production conditions covered by this nominati
38 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 

20062

CUE for 

20073

CUE 

for 

20084

CUE for 

20095

CUE for 

20106

CUE for 

20117 

CUN for 

2011 

(addtl or 

new) 

to make some equipment modifications to adapt to the lower flow rates typical with less expensive MI application rates and to avoid the cor

(Sumner 2005, Noling et al. 2006).The Party states that trials with DMDS plus Pic are promising, but DMDS is not registered in the US. An 

consideration at USEPA (MacRae and Culpepper, 2008). According to the Party, non chemical alternatives such as grafting soilless culturconsiders that the party should develop these alternatives which are widely used in many countries and regions with similar climate and peprovides evidence that ‘Big Power’, ‘Beaufort’, and ‘Maxifort’ rootstock can be utilized to manage soil borne pathogens. .Freeman et al (200

significantly to input costs at current prices, the net economic result is often positive when infestations are high. There is no indication in the continuing. Therefore, MBTOC considers that more research is necessary to demonstrate appropriate effort to replace MB under decision 

any 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 arbut a transition period is required. In areas where karst features are not present it appears that tomato growers can use a combination of thchloropicrin, and metam-sodium/potassium) and achieve yields that are comparable to those produced by using methyl bromide for spring Comments requested in Decision XXI/11

• Dec. IX/6 b(i)- Emission Reduction: No, there is no information in the nomination about the use of VIF or equivalent film, howev

the use of barrier films 

• Dec. IX/6-b(iii)-Research Program: Yes, the research is on-going, however specific studies conducted or in progress since the 

nomination 

• Dec. IX/6-b(iii)-Appropriate Efforts: The Party made large reductions recently. Consideration of grafting, resistant root stocks, 

areas where regulatory constraints prevent the use of some of the chemical alternatives. 

11ExMOP and 16MOP 216MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP 3MOP17+MOP18 4MOP18+MOP19 5MOP19+MOP20 6MOP20 7MOP21
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 39

5. Final CUN Report – Issues Specific to MBTOC 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 conduct re-reviews of CUN decisions if Parties 

requested and provided additional information. Additionally, Canada provided some corrections 

to MBTOC SC’s reporting of its accounting framework. 

Following the meeting, MBTOC SC, via the Ozone 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 necessary. Additionally, we responded to requests for information. MBTOC 

SC informed UNEP of corrections to the tables relating to Canada’s methyl 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 commodities and one element of the US NPMA CUN, 

concerning pest control in cheese stores and, 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 inability to obtain funding for attendance 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 government 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 consideration of the concerns of the efficacy of an 

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

recommendation for walnuts, but not for dried fruit. 

The US also requested that MBTOC re-review the 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, MBTOC 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 Report 

Table 5.1 - Final evaluations of CUNs for structures and commodities submitted in 2010 for 2011 or 2012

Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 20062

CUE for 20073

CUE for 20084

CUE for 20095

CUE for 20106

CUE for 20117

CUN for 2011 (Addtl or new) 

CUN for 2012 

Australia Rice 6.150 6.150 .205 9.200 7.820 6.650 4.87 - 4.870 

MBTOC 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 Australia statuse of MB for rice by the end of 2014. The revised CUN provided for additional significant step-downs in 2013 and 2014; Australia indicat2015 and would ensure that phase out is maintained regardless of rice harvest yields, including during poor harvests. MBTOC notes that 

for 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-term averagallocation issues in the growing region. There are several technically effective and registered alternatives available for this application and in common commercial use worldwide Emission Reduction: Yes. The applicant now intends to send all MB-fumigated rice through MB recapture equipment. The applicant pre

majority 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 chargeapplicant has indicated that they have chosen phosphine as their alternative; MBTOC does not believe there is a need for further researcapplicant is now considering sulfuryl fluoride and so should conduct further research on this fumigant as proposed in recent correspondeAppropriate effort. Insufficient. The CUE in 2011 shows a reduction of only 21% during 6 years (a reduction of about 3.5% per year on postharvest registration issues, neither the applicant nor the Party mandated with Montreal Protocol nominations has control over pesticidapplicant, however, has not made appropriate efforts to adopt alternatives, since no alternatives have been adopted in spite or registratio

and affordable alternatives being available. Economists need partial 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, namephosphine, have been identified. Sulfuryl fluoride, which requires less significant process changes and investment to implement, was reg

and SunRice commenced trials in January 2009. The Party notes the need to generate supporting data. Phosphine fumigation is considebest solution, both technically and economically, although the applicant requires that the introduction of phosphine also include a consideprocessing methods and a substantial infrastructure investment. The CUN suggests that projected operating costs with the phosphine sythat for methyl bromide. The CUN relates the difficulties faced by the applicant in raising the capital for transition to phosphine. CUN staapplicant has been unable to finance a transition to phosphine due to continued severe drought conditions in the growing area; hence it i

MBTOC recognizes that the phosphine system contemplated by the applicant is a significant different process than the current MB based unclear that construction of one or more pilot silos, or other fumigation structures and incremental implementation of a phosphine system company indicates it has returned to normal profitability. 
42 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 20062

CUE for 20073

CUE for 20084

CUE for 20095

CUE for 20106

CUE for 20117

CUN for 2011 (Addtl or new) 

CUN for 2012 

Mills 47 

(included 

mills and 

pasta) 

Canada 34.774 30.167 28.650 26.913 22.878 14.107 - 11.020 

MBTOC 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 granted by the Parties for 2011. In 2012 there will be 19 mills included in the application, one fewer than in 2011. The applicant has reduc

half since 2010, due to the results of a multi-year research program and the advent of the new regulation which allows sharing of the MB within 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 reasobe ongoing problems with achieving the full registration of sulfuryl fluoride. In a recent letter, the Government of Canada explained that avlimited during weekends traditionally used to conduct pest control treatments. MBTOC recommends that efforts to overcome this logistica

Concerning heat treatments for mills, MBTOC notes that research shows practical/logistical challenges and possible insufficient efficacy f

>40,000 m3. MBTOC also notes that in large mills that have concrete basements it might be difficult or economically infeasible to heat the 

same degree of control of pest control as can be achieved with a gas fumigant (depending on the weather at time of treatment). With a coa heat sink and refuge for the pests, the pest population rebounds faster. However, there is also evidence that heat treatment can be optis learned how exactly to conduct the heat treatment in each individual mill. There is a long learning curve to achieve optimization becaususually only done once per year, so it might take several years to really optimize the treatment method for that particular mill. It would be treatment 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 increasing requiremWe note, with concern, that this use could be ongoing for several years unless there is regulatory change or greater adoption of heat treareport they are awaiting the full registration for SF which would allow contact of SF on commodities. MBTOC notes that it is possible that 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 the registration 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 MBT

and elevated temperature, phosphine + CO2, etc). Research has not been reported in past two years; MBTOC is not convinced that furthabsolutely necessary. When mills are not MB fumigated, they are 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 trea

has been delayed for several years and hinders ability to fully adopt SF as an alternative treatment. Neither the millers nor the Party can 

In spite of delay in achieving full registration, the mills are continuing to make progress. 
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 20062

CUE for 20073

CUE for 20084

CUE for 20095

CUE for 20106

CUE for 20117

CUN for 2011 (Addtl or new) 

CUN for 2012 

MBTOC comments on economics 2010: This CUN is not based solely on economic arguments, although economic concerns are indicated. CUN argues that market penetration o

alternatives 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 conductive 

and 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 of alternativewould add an estimated 2 to 4 per cent to manufacturing costs of wheat flour, semolina and other milled grain products. The competitive mills make it unlikely a substantial portion of these added costs could be passed on down the supply chain. Regarding the observation thgovernment subsidies available to offset these increased costs, MBTOC notes that lack of government financial assistance programs has in assessments of economic feasibility. The Party has indicated concerns that SF has been shown to have significant global warming po

in future constraints on its use, which adds another factor which might slow adoption of SF. 

Pasta (see 

Canada 

mills) 

Canada 10.457 6.757 6.067 4.740 3.529 - 3.529 - 

MBTOC comments 2010: MBTOC recommends 2.084 tonnes for Canada pasta facilities in 2011. This is a 41% decrease of the amount granted by the Parties for tnominated 3.529 tonnes for 2011, which is the same amount granted by the Parties for 2010. There are three facilities, each requesting oConcerning the nominated amounts, MBTOC notes that given the facility volumes, the MB nominated is only sufficient for partial facility fupasta facilities. All facilities are making IPM improvements. Facility #1 of the CUN reports poor gas-tightness and we cannot recommend the use of MB itightness any longer. We note that facility #2 reporting medium gas-tightness will have to make facility improvements to show good gas-t

for 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 companies in the sector. Although the facilities have said they conducted SF trials in the sections where food products would not be cont

those 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 registration of SF will never occur. Therefore the Party is requested to provide a management plan which will allow for phase out of MB in eventuality 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 recommended that heat treatments be conducted in Canadian pasta facilities. These applicants however, have not reported to MBTOC th

treatments in their facilities, or elsewhere. The applicants indicate concerns about using heat, but in spite of repeated requests have not s

support this concern. 
44 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 20062

CUE for 20073

CUE for 20084

CUE for 20095

CUE for 20106

CUE for 20117

CUN for 2011 (Addtl or new) 

CUN for 2012 

Heat treatments are successfully conducted at other pasta manufacturers. Heat and IPM have been used for a number of years in pasta including large pasta facilities comprising mills, interior silos and processing lines (Gyovai, 2009). Europe has more than 180 pasta facilitthe MB phase-out several years ago even in countries that have not registered SF (Buckley 2008). Heat and IPM are used for pasta in ccountries in which SF is not registered (European Community, 2008). There is ample evidence that heat treatment can be optimized anhow exactly to conduct the heat treatment in each individual facility. There is also ample evidence worldwide that the concerns mentioned 

addressed by service providers when they conduct heat treatments. Spot heat treatment of infested equipment is also a likely alternativecurve to achieve optimization of full site heat because such treatment is usually only done once per year, so it might take several years to method for that particular facility. There is a much shorter learning curve to conduct spot heat treatments; spot heat treatments of infested 

several food processing companies. It would be good to have heat treatment experience and therefore a choice of effective treatments, pregistration 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 fproducts which must be sealed off at the time of fumigation. Full registration of SF, including establishment of MRLs for cereal grains and taking longer than expected and as of April 2010 it has not occurred. However, MBTOC notes that it is not an adequate phase out plan to while awaiting a registration change that continues to be delayed and considering that other methods are being used in similar situationsheat alone (either full site or spot heat), SF treatment of non-food facility rooms, and avoidance of full site treatments through other meanEmissions reduction. MBTOC has not recommended MB use in the one facility reporting poor gas-tightness. Another facility reporting m

working 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 nom

pesticide registration. Many similar companies have switched to alternatives. As indicated, inadequate effort has been made to ensure Minformation 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 that heat alternative 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 canno

economic basis for this CUN absent substantiation of the costs of alternatives.. 
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 20062

CUE for 20073

CUE for 20084

CUE for 20095

CUE for 20106

CUE for 20117

CUN for 2011 (Addtl or new) 

CUN for 2012 

Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300 5.800 5.400 5.35 - 4.984 

MBTOC 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 chestnutnominated a 7% reduction for this year over the 2011 amount; the reduction was to be achieved by logistical changes in on-farm fumigati

To date there has been no adoption of alternatives in this commodity, but methyl iodide (MI) was registered for fresh chestnuts in Japan iJapan says market supply cannot be achieved until 2011. MBTOC notes that since MI has been registered and will be available in 2011, 

Japan will begin adoption of MI as of the September-October harvest in 2011. In 2011, which MBTOC views as the first year of adoption, of MI should be achievable, with a resulting reduction in MB use. MBTOC also believes that a further 15% market penetration should be aJapan 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 (September – October of 2010). MBTOC sees the need for training in the use of MI. Japan has informed MBTOC that a firm phase out plwill 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 fumigswitch between MB and MI, but in consideration of the need for on-farm training, MBTOC believes that a 30% reduction in 2012 is both reThe 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 posspercentage 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 svalue of chestnuts. Furthermore, the MI manufacturer is planning to do some research trials to investigate the use of a lower dosage rate lower costs. Emission reduction To 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 can 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 aftthat the price of methyl iodide is expected to be four times higher than MB. 
46 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 20062

CUE for 20073

CUE for 20084

CUE for 20095

CUE for 20106

CUE for 20117

CUN for 2011 (Addtl or new) 

CUN for 2012 

United Commodities 89.166 87.719 78.983 58.921 45.623 19.242 5.000 - 4.907 

States MBTOC comments 2010: 

See also US Commodities CUN text box in TEAP May 2010. MBTOC recommends 2.419 tonnes for US commodities in 2012. This is a 49% reduction over the amount nominated, based on 75% red

nomination (0. 829 t recommended), 0% reduction in walnuts (0.527 t recommended) and 0% reduction in dates (1.063 t recommended). t 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 The May 2010 interim CUN report recommended a reduced CUN for walnuts, and indicated some methods which MBTOC believed woulcircumvent pest problems. The USG viewed that some of these methods were technically and economically infeasible, provided further 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 inadeq

efficacy of treatments throughout the marketing channel at such large-scale. Unless MBTOC receives data to justify this concern this aspconsidered favorably in any future CUN. MBTOC received clarification on the pest issues, and concerns about treatment efficacy at the temperatures observed at harvest times foconsidered 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 demands for MBTOC believed that this was more likely a problem for in-shell walnut sector versus dried fruit sector. Controlled atmosphere storage is disinfest dried fruits and nuts and might assist to resolve some of the concerns the sector has with phosphine when commodity is located sector is encouraged to more rapidly improve the logistics of treatment when rapid shipment is required, as has been done in similar situaproducing regions. Emissions reduction. This sector has very considerably reduced use of MB, and therefore emissions. Fumigation takes place in chambResearch effort. Research on dates is excellent thus far but more remains to be done, for example, to optimize SF treatment by elevatinneeds 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 no

an 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 Report 

Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 20062

CUE for 20073

CUE for 20084

CUE for 20095

CUE for 20106

CUE for 20117

CUN for 2011 (Addtl or new) 

CUN for 2012 

NPMA food 

processing 

structures 

(cocoa beans 

removed) 

United 83.344 69.118 82.771 69.208 54.606 37.778 17.365 - 17.365 

States 

MBTOC 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 increcommended 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 nominated for cheeinterim CUN report did not recommend any component of the food processing facilities included in this CUN. At that time MBTOC noted tinadequately justified, and that no actual MB use data was submitted to justify the nomination for cheese stores. At the same time we reccheese stores by mites is reported to occur occasionally, and there is no registered alternative to disinfest cheese infested with mites. MBinformation. The Party provided further information in advance of the September 2010 MBTOC meeting and then held a conference call with USG offto discuss the information. In its written response, USG was able to clarify government inspection requirements for cheese stores and prothat infested cheese is considered adulterated and cannot enter commerce until the mites are removed. But, during the conference call thprovide data to support its nominated volume of MB. Under these circumstances, MBTOC estimated the MB requirements to fumigate onmedium 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 informa

tightness in the facilities included in the CUN Research effort. Insufficient. Full reports of research and trials of alternatives are required in all the types of facilities included in the CUNAppropriate effort. The CUE for 2011 shows a reduction of 79% during 6 years (a reduction of 13% per year on average) As with all p

issues, neither the applicant nor the Party mandated with Montreal Protocol nominations has control over pesticide registration. Many of tassociated with this CUN have switched to alternatives and/or decreased their use of MB to only once every few years. As indicated, inadmade to ensure MBTOC receives sufficient information about this sector and to supply actual data, research reports and partial budget aMBTOC comments on economics 2010: The same economic arguments are provided as in the previous year. CUN is not based on economic (in) feasibility. 
48 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 20062

CUE for 20073

CUE for 20084

CUE for 20095

CUE for 20106

CUE for 20117

CUN for 2011 (Addtl or new) 

CUN for 2012 

Mills and 

processors 

United 483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237 291.418 291.418 173.023 - 135.299 

States 

MBTOC comments 2010: MBTOC recommends 74.510 tonnes, for US food processing structures in 2012. Compared to 2011, this represents a 50% decrease in fdecrease for rice milling and a zero decrease for pet food facilities from the amounts nominated by the Party. The Party has nominated 1processing structures included in this CUN. This was the same amount granted by the Parties for 2011. The Party nominated flour milling processing (14.511 t), and pet food manufacturing (13.722 t), but MBTOC recommends for flour milling (53.533 t), rice processing (7.255 manufacturing (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 was presented, no studies in rice mills or pet food establishments have been submitted. There have been several North American flour mtreatment study by Kansas State University and those by Canadian companies in association with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, buconsidered by the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant’s interpretation of the success of the one Kansas State University flour mill study submitted is not in agreemenThe study authors concluded that, “Both MB treatments killed 100% of all stages in the boxes except for large larvae in a few locations. Imortality of large larvae ranged from 96-98%. SF treatments killed 100% of all stages except eggs. In the May treatment with SF, egg m100% with only two boxes showing 100% mortality, because of under-dosing. Under-dosing occurred because the mill temperature was a27oC when it was actually below 27oC. In the second SF trial, only three boxes had egg mortalities that were less than 100%. However, d

replications showed that the mean mortalities of eggs and large larvae between MB and SF were not significantly different from each otheState 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 ainsufficient 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, bumicrosanitation. The use of fogging, space, and crack and crevice treatments has greatly decreased the number of times structures are Party reports that many companies desire to retain the ability to utilize methyl bromide in the event of a difficult infestation. MBTOC notes contingency 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 be submitted to same organizations withholding the results of trials are also the applicant requesting MB, MBTOC finds this situation to be an inherent coapplicant is assured that proprietary information would be handled confidentially within MBTOC, in addition, company names need not be 

The Party reports that, “a vast majority of pet food facilities have transitioned away from use of methyl bromide as part of their routine pesCompanies that have completed the transition away from methyl bromide either view their pest management programs as proprietary or so we are unable to share specifics on those alternative programs. We can suppose that such programs utilize techniques such as microtreatment, insect growth inhibitors, and fumigation treatment with Vapona ULV fogging, phosphine and ProFume.” 
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 20062

CUE for 20073

CUE for 20084

CUE for 20095

CUE for 20106

CUE for 20117

CUN for 2011 (Addtl or new) 

CUN for 2012 

The CUN indicates that lack of adequate registration negatively impacts the ability of pet food facilities to use sulfuryl fluoride because thpet 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 SF on commodipossible that this will never occur. Therefore the Party is requested to provide a management plan which will allow for phase out of MB in eventuality 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 t

times that of carbon dioxide (refer to Progress Report for more details). Furthermore more SF is used to fumigate a facility than MB (the amore depending on temperature at time of fumigation). No actual evidence in the form of letters or policy positions of retailers or other indpresented to MBTOC. In response to MBTOC correspondence, USG said that Walmart is pressuring millers to reduce their carbon footprthis 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 and when treatment is technically comparable to MB. The cost of SF treatment is higher (with or without additional heat). However, Parties to the M

indicated that a higher cost is a sufficient reason to avoid using an alternative. 

MBTOC economists are adopting a standard that a 15-20% decrease in net revenue is still an economically feasible alternative. For pet f

CUN, the Party indicates 0.8% loss on gross revenue for the worst case scenario of having to heat a cold manufacturing facility of 4 ̊C to 

only the most dire and completely unlikely circumstance would see the temperature of an entire pet food establishment fall this low.) This 0.06% loss of gross revenue on an elevated temperature-plus-SF treatment when the treatment is required to raise the temperature from 

treatment. (Again it is completely unlikely that an entire pet food establishment temperature would be this low.). In the instance of a SF tradditional costs of moving the pet food out of the building. Therefore, according to MBTOC’s economic’s standard, both heat treatment atemperature 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 millinnot been received. In the absence of gross revenue data, we assume the fumigation costs for flour and rice milling sectors are a comparamanufacturing. Emission reduction. There is still work to be done to improve the sealing of mills and facilities. Improved sealing would allow the use of 

decrease emissions. Research effort: Insufficient. Full reports of research and trials of alternatives are required in all the types of facilities included in the CUN

Appropriate effort. As with all postharvest registration issues, neither the applicant nor the Party mandated with Montreal Protocol nompesticide registration. Many of the companies formerly associated with this CUN have switched to alternatives and/or decreased their use few years. As indicated, inadequate effort has been made to ensure MBTOC receives sufficient information about this sector and to suppreports 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. 
50 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Industry CUE for 

20051

CUE for 20062

CUE for 20073

CUE for 20084

CUE for 20095

CUE for 20106

CUE for 20117

CUN for 2011 (Addtl or new) 

CUN for 2012 

United Cured pork 67.907 40.854 18.998 19.669 18.998 4.465 3.73 - 3.730 

States MBTOC 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 nominated for 2011. Some decrease in the MB nomination has been achieved over the years resulting from IPM, emissions controls and There is no alternative registered for this use. There is a multi-state, multi-university research program ongoing which is testing several aincreasing knowledge of pest and dose response to potential alternatives. Initial work on phosphine showed efficacy but also showed chaEarlier work by this group using SF indicated lack of efficacy. (Shilling, 2009a, 2009 b). MBTOC notes that mites are one of the key pests mites will not be controlled by the phosphine treatment. Additionally, phosphine is not registered for this purpose in the US. MBTOC enco

effective fumigants, once identified. Full reports of this research has been sent to MBTOC, and communicated to the industry sector. MBTobserve 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 me

some of the facilities are older and unusual. The research program continues to work with the applicants to improve gas tightness, IPM aimprovements 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 

have been made available to MBTOC. Appropriate effort. As with all postharvest registration issues, neither the applicant nor the Party mandated with Montreal Protocol nomipesticide registration. There are no alternatives registered for 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 alternatives 

11ExMOP and 16MOP 216MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP 3MOP17+MOP18 4MOP18+MOP19 5MOP19+MOP20 6MOP20 7MOP21 
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 (structures and commodities). The QPS subcommittee is now composed of members of the 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 sorting and recording carried out by the 

Secretariat). 

• Preparation of questions for Parties. Assessment 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 Isla 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). Bilateral 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 Strawberry 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 interesting 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 report 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 nominations 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 should 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, including notice of any 

proposed new standard presumptions to be applied 

by MBTOC 

• conduct any bilateral consultations requested 

by Parties 

• draft work plan and budget for MBTOC for 

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. 22nd 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-Álvarez, J. Fresno, M. Escuer, S.C. Arcos, A. Lacasa, R. 

Sanz, P. Gómez, M.A. Diez-Rojo, A.P. Buena, C. Goitia, J.L. De la Horra and C. Martínez. 

(2004). Biofumigation, fallow, and nematode management in vineyard replant. Nematropica, 

Puerto Rico, 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 Alternatives 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 greenhouse 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 bromide 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 Alternatives 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. Performance 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 Treatment 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, Robert 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 California- grown floricultural crops without Methyl 

Bromide soil fumigation (Abstr.) In: Proceedings of the 2008 Joint Annual Meeting, 5 – 9 

October 2008 

Klose, S., J. Gerik, Ajwa, H. and C. Wilen (2007). Pacific area-wide MB alternatives program for cut 

flower and bulb crops. In: Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

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

Leoni, S and Ledda, L. (2004). Influenza delle limitazioni nell'uso del bromuro di metilo sull'ortcoltura in 

serra della Sardegna. Workshop Internazionale: La Produzione in Serra dopo l'era del Bromuro 

di Metile. April 1-3, 2004, Comiso, 253-263. 
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. Hernanz, 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 Methyl 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. Shrestha, 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. 
60 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Annex 1 - Part A: Trend in Preplant Soil Applications List of nominated (2005 – 2012 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2011 in part) amounts of MB granted by Parties under the CUE pcommodity. Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE Quantities  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 20Australia Cut Flowers – field 40.000 22.350 18.375 22.350 Australia Cut flowers – protected 20.000 10.425 Australia Cut flowers, bulbs – protected Vic 7.000 7.000 6.170 6.150 7.000 7.000 3.598 3.Australia Strawberry Fruit 90.000 67.000 Australia Strawberry runners 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 29.790 29.790 29.790 35.750 37.500 35.750 35Belgium Asparagus 0.630 0.225 0.630 0.225 Belgium Chicory 0.600 0.180 0.180 0.180 Belgium Chrysanthemums 1.800 0.720 1.120 Belgium Cucumber 0.610 0.545 0.610 0.545 Belgium Cut flowers – other 6.110 1.956 4.000 1.956 Belgium Cut flowers – roses 1.640 Belgium Endive (sep from lettuce) 1.650 1.650 Belgium Leek & onion seeds 1.220 0.155 0.660 Belgium Lettuce(& endive) 42.250 22.425 25.190 Belgium Nursery Not 

Predictable 

0.384 0.900 0.384 

Belgium Orchard pome & berry 1.350 0.621 1.350 0.621 Belgium Ornamental plants 5.660 0.000 Belgium Pepper & egg plant 5.270 1.350 3.000 1.350 Belgium Strawberry runners 3.400 0.900 3.400 0.900 Belgium Tomato (protected) 17.170 4.500 5.700 4.500 Belgium Tree nursery 0.230 0.155 0.230 0.155 Canada Strawberry runners (PEI) 14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 7.462 5.261 5.261 (a)14.792 6.840 7.995 7.Canada Strawberry runners (Quebec) 1.826 1.826 (a) 1.826 1.826 Canada Strawberry runners (Ontario) 6.129 6.129 France Carrots 10.000 8.000 5.000 8.000 8.000 1.400 France Cucumber 85 revised 60.000 15.000 60.000 60.000 12.500 
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE Quantities  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 20

to 60 

France Cut-flowers 75.000 60.250 12.000 60.000 52.000 9.600 France Forest tree nursery 10.000 10.000 1.500 10.000 10.000 1.500 France Melon 10.000 10.000 7.500 6.000 France Nursery: orchard, raspberry 5.000 5.000 2.000 5.000 5.000 2.000 France Orchard replant 25.000 25.000 7.500 25.000 25.000 7.000 France Pepper Incl 

in.tomato cun 

27.500 6.000 27.500 6.000 

France Strawberry fruit 90.000 86.000 34.000 90.000 86.000 France Strawberry runners 40.000 4.000 35.000 40.000 40.000 28.000 France Tomato (and eggplant for 2005 

only) 

150(all solanaceous) 

60.500 33.250 125.000 48.400 

France Eggplant 27.500 33.250 48.400 Greece Cucurbits 30.000 19.200 30.000 19.200 Greece Cut flowers 14.000 6.000 14.000 6.000 Greece Tomatoes 180.000 73.600 156.000 73.600 Israel Broomrape 250.000 250.000 125.000 12.500 12.500 250.000 25Israel Cucumber - protected new 2007 25.000 18.750 18.750 12.500 25.000 18Israel Cut flowers – open field 77.000 67.000 80.755 53.345 42.777 42.554 23.292 77.000 67.000 74.540 44Israel Cut flowers – protected 303.000 303.000 321.330 163.400 113.821 72.266 52.955 303.000 240.000 220.185 11Israel Fruit tree nurseries 50.000 45.000 10.000 50.000 45.000 7.500 Israel Melon – protected & field 148.000 142.000 140.000 87.500 87.500 87.500 35.000 125.650 99.400 105.000 87Israel Potato 239.000 231.000 137.500 93.750 75.000 239.000 165.000 137.500 93Israel Seed production 56.000 50.000 22.400 56.000 28.000 Israel Strawberries – fruit (Sharon) 196.000 196.000 176.200 64.125 52.250 47.500 28.500 196.000 196.000 93.000 10Israel Strawberries – fruit (Sharon & 

Ghaza) 

Israel Strawberry runners (Sharon) 35.000 35.000 20 15.800 13.570 13.500 35.000 35.000 28.000 31Israel Strawberry runners and fruit Ghaza 87.875 67.500 67.500 34.000 Israel Strawberry runners (Sharon & 

Ghaza) 

Israel Tomatoes 90.000 22.750 Israel Sweet potato 95.000 20.000 20.000 11Italy Cut flowers (protected) 250.000 250.000 30.000 250.000 187.000 30.000 
62 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE Quantities  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 20Italy Eggplant (protected) 280.000 200.000 15.000 194.000 156.000 Italy Melon (protected) 180.000 135.000 10.000 131.000 131.000 10.000 Italy Pepper (protected) 220.000 160.000 67.000 160.000 130.000 67.000 Italy Strawberry Fruit (Protected) 510.000 400.000 35.000 407.000 320.000 Italy Strawberry Runners 100.000 120.000 35.000 120.000 120.000 35.000 Italy Tomato (protected) 1300.000 1030.000 418.000 871.000 697.000 80.000 Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 68.600 61.400 34.100 29.120 26.162 88.300 88.800 72.400 51Japan Ginger – field 119.400 119.400 112.200 112.100 102.200 53.400 47.450 42.235 119.400 119.400 109.701 84Japan Ginger – protected 22.900 22.900 14.800 14.800 12.900 8.300 7.770 6.558 22.900 22.900 14.471 11Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 182.200 168.000 90.800 77.600 67.936 194.100 203.900 182.200 13Japan Peppers (green and hot) 189.900 200.700 169.400 162.300 134.400 81.100 68.260 61.101 187.200 200.700 156.700 12Japan Watermelon 126.300 96.200 94.200 43.300 23.700 15.400 13.870 12.075 129.000 98.900 94.200 32Malta Cucumber 0.096 0.127 Malta Eggplant 0.128 0.170 Malta Strawberry 0.160 0.212 Malta Tomatoes 0.475 0.594 New Zealand Nursery material 1.085 1.085 0.000 New Zealand Strawberry fruit 42.000 42.000 24.780 42.000 34.000 12.000 New Zealand Strawberry runners 10.000 10.000 5.720 8.000 8.000 6.234 Poland Strawberry Runners 40.000 40.000 25.000 12.000 40.000 40.000 24.500 Portugal Cut flowers 130.000 8.750 50.000 8.750 Spain Cut Flowers – Cadiz 53.000 53.000 35.000 53.000 42.000 Spain Cut Flowers – Catalonia 20.000 18.600 12.840 17.000 

(+Andalucia) 

 20.000 15.000 43.490 

(+Andalucia) 

Spain Pepper 200.000 155.000 45.000 200.000 155.000 45.000 Spain Strawberry Fruit 556.000 499.290 80.000 556.000 499.290 0.0796 Spain Strawberry Runners 230.000 230.000 230.000 215.000 230.000 230.000 230.000 UK Cut flowers 7.560 6.050 UK Ornamental tree nursery 12.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 UK Strawberry (& raspberry in 2005) 80.000 63.600 68.000 54.500 UK Raspberry nursery 4.400 4.400 54.500 USA Chrys. Cuttings/roses 29.412 29.412 0.000 USA Cucurbits – field 1187.800 747.839 598.927 588.949 411.757 340.405 218.032 59.500 1187.800 747.839 592.891 48USA Eggplant – field 76.761 101.245 96.480 79.546 62.789 34.732 21.561 6.904 76.721 82.167 85.363 66
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE Quantities  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 20USA Forest nursery seedlings 192.515 157.694 152.629 133.140 125.758 120.853 106.043 34.230 192.515 157.694 122.032 13USA Ginger 9.200 9.200 0.000 USA Orchard replant 706.176 827.994 405.415 405.666 314.007 226.021 203.591 18.324 706.176 527.600 405.400 39USA Ornamentals 210.949 162.817 149.965 138.538 137.776 95.204 70.178 48.164 154.000 148.483 137.835 13USA Nursery stock - fruit trees, 

raspberries, roses 

45.789 64.528 12.684 51.102 27.663 17.954 7.955 1.591 45.800 64.528 28.275 51

USA Peppers – field 1094.782 1498.530 1151.751 919.006 783.821 463.282 212.775 28.366 1094.782 1243.542 1106.753 75USA Strawberry fruit – field 2468.873 1918.400 1733.901 1604.669 1336.754 1103.422 1023.471 753.974 2052.846 1730.828 1476.019 13USA Strawberry runners 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 8.837 7.381 7.381 3.752 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.USA Tomato – field 2876.046 2844.985 2334.047 1840.100 1406.484 994.582 336.191 54.423 737.584 2476.365 2065.246 14USA Turfgrass 352.194 131.600 78.040 52.189 0 131.600 78.04 0 USA Sweet potato 224.528 18.144 18.144 18.144 14.515 8.709 18
64 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

ANNEX II – Part B: Post-harvest Structural and Commodity Applications List of nominated (2005 – 2012 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2011 in part) amounts of MB granted by Parties under the CUE pcommodity. Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 Australia Almonds 1.900 2.100 1.900 2.100 Australia Rice consumer packs 12.300 12.300 10.225 9.200 

+1.8 

9.200 7.820 5.660 3.653 6.150 6.150 9.205 

Belgium Artefacts and structures 0.600 0.307 0.590 0.307 Belgium Antique structure & furniture 0.750 0.199 0.319 0.199 Belgium Churches, monuments and ships' 

quarters 

0.150 0.059 0.150 0.059 

Belgium Electronic equipment 0.100 0.035 0.100 0.035 Belgium Empty silo 0.050 0.043 0.050 0.043 Belgium Flour mill see mills below 0.125 0.072 See mills 

below 

0.072 

Belgium Flour mills 10.000 4.170 9.515 4.170 Belgium Mills 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 Belgium Food processing facilities 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 Belgium Food Processing premises 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 Belgium Food storage (dry) structure 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.000 Belgium Old buildings 7.000 0 .306 1.150 0.306 Belgium Old buildings and objects 0.450 0.282 0.000 0.282 Belgium Woodworking premises 0.300 0.101 0.300 0.101 Canada Flour mills 47.200 34.774 30.167 28.650 26.913 22.878 14.107 11.020 (a)47 34.774 30.167 Canada Pasta manufacturing facilities (a) 10.457 6.757 6.067 4.740 4.7400 2.084 (a) 10.457 6.757 Canada Commodities 0.068 France Seeds sold by PLAN-SPG company 0.135 0.135 0.100 0.135 0.135 0.096 France Mills 55.000 40.000 8.000 40.000 35.000 8.000 France Rice consumer packs 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 France Chestnuts 2.000 2.000 1.800 2.000 2.000 1.800 Germany Artefacts 0.250 0.100 0.250 0.100 Germany Mills and Processors 45.000 19.350 45.000 19.350 Greece Dried fruit 4.280 3.081 0.900 4.280 3.081 0.45 Greece Mills and Processors 23.000 16.000 1.340 23.000 15.445 1.340 Greece Rice and legumes 2.355 2.355 
October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 Ireland Mills 0.888 0.611 0.888 Israel Artefacts 0.650 0.650 0.600 0.650 0.650 Israel Dates (post harvest) 3.444 3.444 2.200 1.800 2.100 3.444 2.755 2.200 Israel Flour mills (machinery & storage) 2.140 1.490 1.490 0.800 0.300 2.140 1.490 1.040 Israel Furniture– imported 1.422 1.422 2.042 1.422 0.000 Italy Artefacts 5.500 5.500 5.000 5.225 0.000 5.000 Italy Mills and Processors 160.000 130.000 25.000 160.000 65.000 25.000 Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.500 6.500 6.300 5.800 5.400 5.350 3.489 7.100 6.800 6.500 Latvia Grains 2.502 2.502 Netherlands Strawberry runners post harvest 0.120 0.120 0.120 0 0.120 Poland Medicinal herbs & dried mushrooms 

as dry commodities 

4.000 3.560 1.800 0.500 4.100 3.560 1.800 

Poland Coffee, cocoa beans (a) 2.160 2.000 0.500 2.160 1.420 Spain Rice 50.000 42.065 Switzerland Mills & Processors 8.700 7.000 8.700 7.000 UK Aircraft 0.165 0.165 UK Mills and Processors 47.130 10.195 4.509 47.130 10.195 4.509 UK Cereal processing plants 8.131 3.480 (a) 8.131 UK Cheese stores 1.640 1.248 1.248 1.640 1.248 1.248 UK Dried commodities (rice, fruits and 

nuts) Whitworths 

2.400 1.256 2.400 1.256 

UK Herbs and spices 0.035 0.037 0.030 0.035 0.037 UK Mills and Processors (biscuits) 2.525 1.787 0.479 2.525 1.787 UK Spices structural equip. 1.728 1.728 0.000 0.479 UK Spices stored 0.030 0.030 0.000 UK Structures buildings (herbs and 

spices) 

3.000 1.872 0.908 3.000 1.872 0.908 

UK Structures, processors and storage 

(Whitworths) 

1.100 0.880 0.257 1.100 0.880 0.257 

UK Tobacco equipment 0.523 0.050 UK Woven baskets 0.770 0.770 USA Dried fruit and nuts (walnuts, 

pistachios, dried fruit and dates and dried beans) 

89.166 87.719 91.299 67.699 58.912 19.242 10.041 2.419 89.166 87.719 78.983 

USA Dry commodities/ structures (cocoa 

beans) 

61.519 61.519 64.028 52.256 51.002 61.519 55.367 64.082 

USA Dry commodities/ structures 

(processed foods, herbs and spices, 

83.344 83.344 85.801 72.693 66.777 37.778 17.365 0.2 83.344 69.118 82.771 
66 October 2010 TEAP Report on 2010 CUNs: Final Report

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 

dried milk and cheese processing facilities) NPMA 

USA Smokehouse hams (Dry cure pork 

products) (building and product) 

136.304 135.742 40.854 19.669 19.699 4.465 3.730 3.730 67.907 81.708 18.998 

USA Mills and Processors 536.328 505.982 401.889 362.952 291.418 173.023 135.299 74.510 483.000 461.758 401.88
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 subcommittee 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 Economists - 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