# MONTREAL PROTOCOL

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE

THE OZONE LAYER



# UNEP

R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC 

# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# A UGUST 

# 2007

E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2007 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR 

# M ETHYL



# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# iii Montreal Protocol

On Substances that De plete the Ozone Layer



# Report of the UNEP Technology and Econom ic Assessment Panel

August 2007

E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2007 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR



# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



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

Co-ordination: Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee

Composition of the report: MBTOC QSC: Michelle Marcotte, Jonathan Banks MBTOC Soils: Ian Porter, Marta Pizano, Mohamed Besri

Layout of the report: Ozone Secretariat, UNEP

Reproduction: UNON Nairobi

Date: August 2007

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

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME Ozone Secretariat, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya

Normally from SMI Distribution Servi ce Ltd., Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK,

fax: + 44 1438 748844

This document is also available in portable document format from http://www.unep.org/ozone/teap /Reports/ TEAP_Reports /

No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, with acknowledgement of the source of the material.

ISBN: **********

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# iv 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 memb ers, 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 di sposal of contaminants and waste products. Moreover, as work continues - including additi onal 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 resulti ng from the use or reliance upon any information, material, or procedure contained herein, incl uding 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 CoChairs and members or the companies or organisations that employ them.

Acknowledgement

The Technology and Economic Assessment Pane l 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 re port. 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 Quarantine, Structures and Commodities (QSC) Co-Chair: Michelle Marcotte (Canada) and Quarantine Task Force Co-Chair : Jonathan Banks (Australia). Members of MBTOC QSC and Quarantine Task Force: Fred Bergwerff (Netherlands); Chris Bell (UK); Kathy Dalip (Belize); Ricardo Deang (Phili ppines); Patrick Ducom (France); Alfredo Gonzalez (Philippines); Ken Glassey (New Z ealand); Darka Hamel (Croatia); Takashi Misumi (Japan); David Okioga (Kenya); Ch ristoph Reichmuth (Germany); Jordi Riudavets (Spain); John Sansone (USA); Robert Taylor (UK); Ken Vick (USA); Chris Watson (UK); Eduardo Willink (Argentina).

MBTOC Soils Co-Chairs : Mohamed Besri (Morocco); Marta Pizano (Colombia); Ian Porter (Australia). Members of MBTOC Soils : Marten Barel (Netherlands); Antonio Bello (Spain); Aocheng Cao (China); Peter Caulkins (USA); Fabio Chaverri (Costa Rica); Abraham Gamliel (Israel); Saad Hafez (USA); George Lazarovits (Canada); Nahum Marban Mendoza (Mexico); Melanie Miller (Belgium); Andrea Minut o (Italy); Kazufumi Nishi (Japan); Ariane Saade (Lebanon); James Schaub (USA); Sally Schneider (USA); JL (Stappies) Staphorst (South Africa); Akio Tateya (Japan); Alej andro Valeiro (Argentina); Nick Vink (South Africa); Jim Wells (USA)

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# v 

# A UGUST 

# 2007 R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC



# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2007 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR



# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# vi 

# UNEP

A UGUST 

# 2007 R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC



# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2007 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR 

# M ETHYL



# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT



# – A UGUST 

# 2007

Glossary of Acronyms

1,3-D 1,3-dichloropropene A5 Article 5 Party

CEIT Countries with Economies in Transition CUE Critical Use Exemption

CUN Critical Use Nomination EC European Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency IPM Integrated Pest Management

IPPC International Pl ant Protection Convention

ISPM International Sta ndard Phytosanitary Measure LPBF Low Permeability Barrier Film MB Methyl bromide MBTOC Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee MBTOC QSC Methyl Bromide Technical Op tions Committee Quarantine, Structures

and Commodities Subcommittee MBTOC S Methyl Bromide Techni cal Options Soils Subcommittee MOP Meeting of the Parties

MRL Maximum Residue Level

MS Metham sodium NPMA National Pest Management Association OEWG Open Ended Working Group Pic Chloropicrin PMRA Pest Management Re gulatory Agency (of Canada) QPS Quarantine and Pre-shipment SF Sulfuryl fluoride TEAP Technology and Economics Assessment Panel VIF Virtually Impermeable Film

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SCOPE OF THIS REPORT 1

2. CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE 3

2.1 M ANDATE 

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

2.2 F ULFILMENT OF 

# D ECISION 

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

2.3 C ONSIDERATION OF 

# S TOCKS 

# ................................................................................. 4

2.4 D ISCLOSURE OF 

# I NTEREST 

# ..................................................................................... 5

3. EVALUATIONS OF CUNS – 2007 ROUND FOR 2008 AND 2009

EXEMPTIONS 7

3.1 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS 

# R EVIEW 

# .................................................................. 8

3.1.1 Consideration of alternatives...................................................................... 8

3.2 R ATE OF ADOPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

# .................................................................. 9

3.3 S USTAINABLE 

# A LTERNATIVES 

# ............................................................................ 10

3.4 F REQUENCY OF ALLOWED 

# MB USE 

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

3.5 U SE OF DISPOSABLE CANISTERS OF 

# MB .............................................................. 11

3.6 T RENDS IN 

# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE 

# U SE FOR 

# CUE S SINCE 

# 2005 ................................ 11

4. MBTOC QSC: EVALUATIO NS OF 2007 CRITICAL USE

NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE: JULY 2007 15

4.1 I NTRODUCTION 

# ................................................................................................... 15

4.2 ISPM D RAFT 

# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE 

# S TRATEGY 

# ...................................................... 15 4.3 Q UARANTINE 

# I SSUES 

# ........................................................................................... 15

4.4 R EGULATORY UPDATE 

# ........................................................................................ 15

4.5 S TANDARD PRESUMPTIONS USED IN A SSESSMENT OF NOMINATED QUANTITIES 

# ... 16

4.6 D ETAILS OF EVALUATIONS 

# .................................................................................. 16

5. MBTOC SOILS: EVALUATIONS OF 2007 CRITICAL USE

NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE: JULY 2007 25

5.1 S UMMARY OF OUTCOMES 

# .................................................................................... 25

5.2 I SSUES RELATED TO 

# CUN A SSESSMENT FOR 

# P REPLANT 

# S OIL 

# U SE 

# ...................... 25

5.3 S TANDARD PRESUMPTIONS USED IN A SSESSMENT OF NOMINATED QUANTITIES 

# ... 26

5.4 U SE 

# /E MISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES



# - L OW PERMEABILITY BARRIER

FILMS AND DOSAGE REDUCTION 

# .......................................................................... 29

5.5 A DJUSTMENTS FOR STANDARD DOSAGE RATES USING 

# MB/P IC FORMULATIONS 

# . 30

6. MBTOC WORK PLAN FOR 2008 57

6.1 I NTRODUCTION 

# ................................................................................................... 57

6.2 MBTOC W ORKPLAN FOR 

# 2008

- D ETAILS 

# ......................................................... 57

7. SUMMARY REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY

MBTOC IN 2007 61

8. MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL ISSUES 63

9. PROPOSED CHANGES TO ST ANDARD PRESUMPTIONS FOR

PREPLANT SOIL USE OF MB 65

10. REFERENCES 66

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# viii ANNEX I: DECISION IX/6 74

ANNEX II: ANNEX I REFERRED TO BY DECISION XVI/4 75

ANNEX III RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF MB/PIC FORMULATIONS

APPLIED IN COMBINATION WITH LPBF 76

ANNEX IV: RELATIVE YIELD OF CROPS GROWN UNDER BARRIER

FILMS WITH DIFFERENT MB/PIC FORMULATIONS COMPARED

TO THE STANDARD POLYETHY LENE FROM TRIALS 1998 - 2004



# . 78

ANNEX V: DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST 79

ANNEX VI: LIST OF NOMINATED AND EXEMPTED AMOUNTS OF MB

GRANTED BY PARTIES UNDE R THE CUE PROCESS. 98

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 1 

# 1. Scope of this Report

This 2007 final report provides final evaluations of MBTOC/TEAP on CUNs submitted for methyl bromide use by Parties in 2007, in accordance with Decision IX/6 (refer Annex 1 of this report). CUNs were submitted to the Ozone Secretariat by the Parties in January 2007 and have been assessed following the timetable set out in the Annex 1 referred to by Decision XVI/4 (Annex II). The condensed timetable for preparation of this report was necessary in or der to meet the revised schedule this year

for the 20 th 

# anniversary meeting of the Montreal Protocol.

During the past year, MBTOC has provided an interim CUN Report, Progress Report (TEAP, 2007) and an Assessment Repor t (MBTOC, 2007) which report on MB production and consumption fi gures, case studies on altern atives, an update of new information on the performance of alternatives and an estimate of the trends in global emissions of methyl bromide.

This progress report provides the Parties with recommendations of Critical Use Nominations submitted by Parties in 2007 for us e of methyl bromide in either 2008 or 2009. The report also provides tables and fi gures of trend lines in critical use exemptions and the criteria by which CUNs are assessed. A revision of the standard presumptions for some preplant uses of MB is included for consideration at the 19 th



# MOP. This information is submitted in or der to meet the requirements to review management strategies submitted by Parties pursuant to Decision Ex.I/4(9d) and to report on the amount of methyl bromide nomi nated for critical us e by the Parties as per Decision XVII/9(10).

In late 2006, TEAP Co-Chairs announced a reorganization of MBTOC, separating it formally into two independent sub-comm ittees, recognizing the differing expertise required for the two main groupings of CU Ns, those relating to postharvest and

structural uses and those involved wi th soil fumigation. MBTOC Quarantine,

Structures and Commodities (MBTOC QSC) has responsibility for issues concerning methyl bromide uses and alternatives for quarantine, pre-shipment, structural and commodities. Additionally, MBTOC QSC has ab sorbed the membership of the former Quarantine Task Force. MBTOC Soils has re sponsibility for the pre-plant uses and alternatives of methyl br omide. Evaluations of CUNs for the two categories are reported separately below.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 3 

# 2. Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide

2.1 Mandate

Under Article 2H of the Montreal Protoc ol the production and consumption (defined as production plus imports minus exports) of methyl bromide is to be phased out in Parties not operating under Article 5(1) of the Protocol, by 1 January 2005. However, the Parties agreed to a pr ovision enabling exemptions fo r those uses of methyl bromide that qualify as critical. Parties es tablished criteria, under Decision IX/6 of the Protocol, which all such uses need to meet in order to be granted an exemption. MBTOC provides guidance to the Parties’ d ecisions on critical use exemptions in

accordance with Decisions IX/6 and Annex I of Decision XVI/4. Refer to Annexes I and II of this report for copies of these Decisions.

2.2 Fulfilment of Decision IX/6

Decision XVI/2 directed MBTOC to indi cate 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, or was unable to assess, dependi ng on its technical and economic evaluation. MBTOC reduced a nomination when a technical alternative was considered effective or, in a few cases, when the Party failed to show that it was not effectiv e. In this round of CUNs, as in previous rounds, MBTOC c onsidered all information provided by the Parties, including to answers to questions requested by MBTOC, up to the date of the

final assessment. .

In the past two years, with accumulation of experience, MBTOC has become firmer in judging merits of CUNs in the light of the requirements of Decision IX/6. Applicants and Parties are expected to conduc t research and/or ev aluate the research conducted by others in the circumstances of their nomination, to document that effort

and submit the documents to MBTOC. Docume nts should take the form of reports of

field trials and commercial s cale up trials, directly pertin ent to the circumstances of that particular nomination. MBTOC has encountered diffi culty in assessment when yield losses presented in some nominations differ markedly from those reported in a large number of studies in similar circ umstances and are not substantiated by references. In post-harvest where resear ch based economics data is less often available, we are asking Parties to substantiate costs estimates.

Now that alternatives have been identifie d for most applicatio ns, regulations on the use of these alternatives and comp arative information on the economic feasibility/infeasibility of their use compared to MB are critical to the outcomes of present and future CUNs. Without this information, further CUNs may not be assessable. In some cases, MBTOC has pr oposed potential res earch 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 economi c criteria of Decision IX/6, MBTOC’s report should explicitly stat e the central basis for the Party’s economic argument

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 4 relating to CUNs. Tables 4 and 8 provide this information for each CUN that relied

on economic criteria.

2.3 Consideration of Stocks

One criterion for granting a cr itical use under Decision IX/6 is that methyl bromide for the use “is not available in sufficient qua ntity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide” (para. 1 (b) (ii)). Parties no minating critical use exemptions are requested under decision Ex.I/4(9f) to submit an accounting

framework to the information on stocks. Sin ce the consideration of stocks is an active area of negotiation for the Part ies, and given that the information received from the Parties is incomplete, MBTOC has not made an adjustment to a nomination to

account for stocks held and has relied on Pa rties to make this adjustment.

In accordance with Decision XVIII/13(7), a su mmary of the data on stocks reported by the Parties in 2007 for 2006 has been summarized in Table 2 below. Parties may wish to consider this information in the light of Decision IX/6 1(b)(ii). Tables 1 and 2

show the stock data that have been reported by the Parties in 2006 and 2007.

Table 1. Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2005, as reported by Parties in 2006 under Decision XVI/6.

Quantity of MB as reported by Parties (metric tonnes) Party Critical use exemptions

authorized by MOP for

2005 Amount on

hand at start

of 2005 Quantity acquired for

CUEs in 2005 (production +imports) Amount

available for

use in 2005 Quantity

used

for CUEs in

2005 Amount

on hand

at the

end of

2005

Australia 146.600 0 114.912 114.912 114.912 0

Canada 61.792 0 48. 858 48.858 45.146 3.712

EC 4,392.812 216.198 2,435. 319 2,651.517 2,530.099 121.023 Israel 1,089.306 16.358 1, 072.350 1,088.708 1,088.708 0 Japan 748.000 0 546.861 546.861 546.861 0

New

Zealand 50.000 6.900 40.500 47.400 44.580 2.810

USA(a) 9,552.879 7,613.000 not reported 7,170.000 443.000

(a) Additional information on stocks was reported on US EPA website, September 2006: Methyl bromide inventory held by US companies: 2004 = 12,994 tonnes; 2005 = 9,974 tonnes.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 5 Table 2. Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2006, as reported by Parties in 2007 under Decision XVI/6.

Quantity of MB as reported by Parties (metric tonnes) Party Critical use exemptions

authorized by MOP for

2006 Amount on

hand at start

of 2006 Quantity acquired for

CUEs in 2006 (production +

imports) Amount

available for

use in 2006 Quantity used

for CUEs in

2006 Amount at

the end of

2006

Australia 75.100 0 55.308 55.308 0 Canada 53.897 3.7 41.967 54.667 Not yet

available Not yet

available

EC 3,527.030 114.953 1,472.781 1,587. 734 [1,519.184](a) [68.550](a)

Israel 880.295 - - - - - Japan 741.400 70.735 488. 810 559.545 540.207 19.338 USA 8,081.753 9,974.000(b) 443.000(c) 6,924.000 16,898.000(d) 443.000 (c) 7,168.000(e) 8,210.000(f) 443.000 (c)

(a) Preliminary data subject to update. (b) Amount of pre-2005 stock on hand. (c) Amount of stocks at the end of 2005 from production/imports specifically made for CUEs (acquired in 2005). (d) The sum of 9,974 of pre-2005 stocks + 6,924 tonnes produced/imported in 2006 for CUEs. (e) The sum of 6,384 tonnes of production/imports fo r CUEs plus 784 tonnes used from stocks. (f) The sum of 539 tonnes of stocks produced/imported in 2006 specifically for CUEs, plus 7,671 tonnes stocks acquired pre-2005.



# 2.4 Disclosure of Interest

All MBTOC members have prepared disclosure of interest forms relating specifically to their level of national, regional or enterprise involvement for the 2007 CUN process, according to a standardised form at developed by TEAP. This was required to

ensure that those with a high level of involvement a nd interest in developing a particular nomination did not bias the process of evalua tion through participation in

the detailed review. The Disclosure of Inte rest declarations are found in Annex V. As in previous rounds, some members withdrew from a particular CUN assessment or only provided technical advice on request fo r those nominations where a potential

conflict of interest was declared.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 7 

# 3. Evaluations of CUNs – 2007 Round for 2008 and 2009 Exemptions

Each MBTOC sub-committee held two mee tings in 2007 to assess the CUNs. The first meeting of each sub-committee was held concurrently in Alassio, Italy March 19 – 23 to prepare the interim recommendati ons. Following further clarification from the Parties of issues arising from th e initial assessment of the CUNs, each subcommittee required a second meeting to finalise assessments. MBTOC QSC met in College Park, Maryland, June 30 – July 3 and MBTOC Soils in San Jose Costa Rica from July 10-13. These meetings were he ld earlier than usual in order to meet the report schedule required for the 19 MOP in Canada in September of 2007.

In total, 5 Parties (7 countries - Austra lia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Poland, Spain and USA), who had previously received CU Es for specific MB uses, submitted 58 nominations in this round, compared to 60 submitted in the previous round in 2006. Nominations were no longer submitted from New Zealand or the EC for the following countries - France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands and United Kingdom. CUNs in this report relate to CUEs sought for 2008 and 2009. Nominations from Spain, Poland were for 2008, Australia, Ca nada, Japan and USA for 2009 and Israel for both 2008 and 2009. No nominations in this particular round were submitted for longer periods.

For post-harvest uses of MB, Parties submitted 15 CUNs for the use of MB in

structures and commodities in 2007. Of th e 2007 nominations, 7 were for 2008 for a

total of 11.535 tonnes. Of nominations for 2008, MBTOC QSC recommended 9.179 tonnes. This figure does not include a r ecommendation for Australia rice 2008. The Australia rice evaluation for 2008, and the Meeting report of the 27 OWEG, para 128, explain the declaration of the Government of Australia on this matter. MBTOC did

not recommend one CUN.

Of the 2007 post-harvest nominations 8 were for 2009 for a total of 478.719 tonnes. TEAP report of April 2007 re port noted this figure as 529.721tonnes. However, since that report, the USA has withdrawn the cocoa segment of the NPMA CUN (51.002 tonnes). Of the nominations for 2009, MBTOC QSC recommended a total of 451.178

tonnes.

For soil uses, Parties submitted 43 CUNs in total, 15 nominations for 2008 and 28

nominations for 2009. These totall ed 1123.146 and 5575.242 metric tonnes respectively. Nominations from Spain a nd Poland were for 2008, Australia, Canada, Japan and the US for 2009 and Israel for both 2008 and 2009. No nominations in this particular round were submitted for longer periods. A use previously nominated by USA (sweet potato production, including production of nurse ry stock) was presented for the first time by Israel. The nomin ation was explained as arising from unprecedented expansion in the sector and is envisaged for 2 years only, whilst a

feasible alternative becomes registered.

The US delegation made arrangements to meet with MBTOC Soils during the Alassio and San Jose meetings for discussions with regard to their CUNs, in accordance with paragraph 8 of Annex 1 refe rred to in Decision XVI/4.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 8 For the 2007 round, MBTOC Soils has recommended a total of 5291.867 tonnes, being 1102.706 tonnes for 2008 and 4189.161 t onnes for 2009. An amount of 91.69 tonnes was not recommended for 2008, a nd 536.286 tonnes not recommended for

2009. An amount of 848.795 tonnes for 2009 of the Israeli CUNs remained unable to assess pending further information (Table 5)

.

3.1 Critical Use Nominations Review

A soil subcommittee in MBTOC considered the nominations rela ting to the use of MB for soil fumigation, while MBTOC QSC co nsidered the nominations relating to the use of MB for fumigation of commodities, structures and objects. This report and decisions of the committee were by consensus, recognizing that diffe rent perspectives exist within the committee on certain aspects.

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

was used as a benchmark for considerati on of continuing nominations. In some instances, this benchmark differed from th at used by the nominating Party.

In considering the CUNs submitted in 2007, both MBTOC sub-committees applied

the standards contained in Annex I of 16MOP, and, where relevant the standard presumptions given at the start of each sub committee report (Sections 4 and 5). In particular, MBTOC sought to provide cons istent treatment of CUNs within and

between Parties while at the same time taki ng local circumstances into consideration for specific crops and situati ons, and to provide transpar ency in its processes and

conclusions.

3.1.1 Consideration of Alternatives

As in previous years, MBTOC used the gui dance given in the Annex I referred to in

Decision XVI/4 where ‘alternatives’ were de fined as any practice or treatment that can be used in place of methyl bromide. ‘Existing alternatives’ are those alternatives in present or past use in some regions ; and ‘potential alternatives’ are those alternatives in the process of investigation or development.

MBTOC also used information on the suitab ility of alternatives for a nomination by considering the commercial adoption of alte rnatives in regions nominated for CUNs. Also, adoption in regions with similar clim atic zone and cropping practices was used as an indication of the feasibility (techni cal and economic) of an alternative in a similar region. For example for preplant soil uses of MB, 1,3- dichloropropene/chloropicrin (1,3-D/Pic), metham sodium alone or in combination with Pic, dazomet, substrates and the use of resistant varieties a nd grafted plants (for solanaceous crops, melons and other cucurbit s) have been adopted to replace MB for a range of crops in industries applying fo r CUNs and in many regions where MB was

once used.

MBTOC evaluation of CUNs relating to pr oduction of strawberries, tomatoes and some other crops was assisted by info rmation provided by a large number of published studies on MB alternatives a nd by a meta-analysis (TEAP 2006). The published studies provided additional transparency to MBTOC evaluations, as requested by the Par ties in Decision XV/4.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 9 Rate of change in commercial adoption, pa rtly as a result of rapidly changing regulation, challenges MBTOC’s ability to make diligent recommendations in the use of alternatives for post-harvest applicati ons, especially when recommendations are considered for one or two years in the fu ture. In post-harvest applications, where research is minimal, but commercial adoption trials are more common, MBTOC

needs Parties and the affected industries to release the results of commercial trials, using group reporting methods when data is judged to be proprietary.

For commodity and structural applicati ons, it was assumed th at technically and economically feasible alternatives would provi de disinfestation to a level that met the objectives of a MB treatment, e.g. meeting infestation standards in finished product from a mill, while ensuring the costs were ec onomically feasible in the context of that nomination, to the extent that could be determined.

Technically feasible alternatives do not necessarily provide superior pest control

results than are achieved in practice by MB; economically fe asible alternatives do not necessarily cost the same as MB.

MBTOC has to be knowledgeable about regu latory advances, but in post-harvest applications domestic, import and export regu lations all play a role that complicates adoption of alternatives. Seve ral post-harvest CUNs indicate that if importing Parties

were to set maximum residue levels for fluor ide in foods, then the use of alternatives, for both food and structural applications by exporting countries, would improve. This year, as MBTOC was making its final re commendations, some Parties published

maximum residue levels for fluoride in seve ral foods, or only in imported foods as in

the case of Canada. Given the newness of these announcements, the impact of these publications on actual MB use for 2007 a nd 2008 was difficult to predict.

3.2 Rate of Adoption of Alternatives

MBTOC recognizes that time is needed to e ffect phase-in of alte rnatives and accepts this as a reasonable technical argument fo r lack of availability to the user sensu Decision IX/6.

Some CUNs in the 2007 round argued that tim e was required to allow the relevant industry to transition to available effec tive alternatives. Most CUNs showed a reduction in nominated quantity requested fr om that of the preceding year, reflecting progressive adoption of alternat ives; while others had the sa me or similar quantities of MB nominated to the preceding CUNs. Some CUNs showed comparatively slow rates of adoption, and also indicated that the Party expected th at only part of the sector might be able to transition. As a result, MBTOC informs Parties that without change, some CUNs may be submitted for the next 5-8 years.

In some cases, alternatives at varying stages of readiness for adoption, were identified by the Party in the CUN and, in others, th ey were identified by MBTOC. MBTOC

reviewed the technical information on alte rnatives and the commercial adoption of alternatives by Parties previ ously using MB in similar sectors to those where CUNs had been sought, i.e. the ability and rate of phase out MB (see Figures 1 and 2) in

order to make an assessment. In some cases, MBTOC made adjustments for adoption

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 10 rates of alternatives based on the specific circumstances of the nomination. In most instances the adoption rates varied from no adoption up to 25% adoption.

For many CUNs in the soils sector, seve ral industries which have been heavily dependent on MB, e.g. strawberries, tomato es and other vegeta ble crops (e.g. Italy, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and other countries of the EC, Australia, New Zealand) have completely adopted altern ative technologies (especia lly those requiring similar application technologies) within a 3 to 4 year period. MBTOC took account of this during assessments.

There is limited guidance from the Parties a nd data available on what is a reasonable rate of transition to existing and availabl e alternatives, though para. 35 of Annex I

referred to in Decision XVI/4 states that “in situations where MBTOC recommends a nomination on grounds that it is necessa ry to have a period for adoption of alternatives, the basis for calculating the time period” is required to be “fully in the TEAP report. It is also necessary to take fully into account the information provided by the nominating Party, the supplier, the distributor or the ma nufacturer. For this reason it is important that th e Party provide this informati on as required in para. 35 of

Annex 1 on relevant factors for such a calculation including; the number of enterprises that need to transition, e.g., the number of fumigation and pest control companies, estimated training time assumi ng full effort, opportunities for importing alternative equipment and expe rtise if not available locally, and costs involved.”

As most Parties did not provide all the information required under Annex 1 of Decision XIV/4, MBTOC used information on ef fectiveness of alternatives compared

to MB from trials and commercial transition rates for other Parties to assist determination of suitable adoption rates in order to provide specific recommendations in this report.

3.3 Sustainable Alternatives

In a large proportion of CUNs, the most currently appropriate alternatives are chemical fumigant alternatives, which them selves, like MB, have issues related to their long term suitability for use. In both the EC and US, MB and most other fumigants are involved in rigor ous reviews that could aff ect future regulations over their use for preplant soil fumigation. MB TOC has been informed that the US government has received a petition to stay (i.e. remove regulatory approval) the pesticide tolerances for SF. Sulfuryl fluoride is a recently approved, important, methyl bromide alternative for several post- harvest applications. A stay or other action that removes the pesticide tolera nce for SF would increase significantly pressure to revert to MB in structural and commodity fumigation. For preplant soil uses of MB, the regulatory restrictions on 1,3-dichloropr opene and chloropicrin are preventing further adoption of these products and putting pressure on industries to

retain MB.

MBTOC urges Parties to consider the long term sustainability of treatments adopted as alternatives to MB, to continue to adopt environmen tally sustainable and safe

chemical and non-chemical alternatives for the short to medium term and to develop sustainable IPM or non-chemical approaches for the longer term . Decision IX/6 1(a)(ii) refers to alternatives that are ‘acceptable from the sta ndpoint of environment

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 11 and health’. MBTOC has consistently interp reted this to mean alternatives that are registered or allowed by the relevant regulatory authoritie s in individual CUN regions.

3.4 Frequency of Allowed MB Use

In the CUN round for 2007, reductions in MB for both preplant soil and post harvest

uses could be achieved in some nominati ons, where effective alternatives were identified, by reducing the frequency of MB fumigations. In some countries, present regulations already restrict the frequency of use of MB (e.g. to every second year) on similar crops and circumstances to thos e nominated by other Parties. MBTOC suggests that in these, and other instances , MB may only be required every 2, 3 or 4 years and suggests that Parties further consider reductions where appropriate. Alternation of pest control measures may al so help provide or extend user confidence and experience in alternatives. New pe st control measures may also be good agricultural practice, reducing risk of development of resistance and providing control of a wider spectrum of pests.

3.5 Use of Disposable Canisters of MB

One Party still used small disposable canisters (i.e. 500 to 750g canisters) for application of MB for preplant soil use under plastic films. Th is practice is not considered as effective for pathogen control as use of MB/Pic mixt ures and also leads to high emissions of methyl bromide. Use of small canisters has been eliminated in

most non-Article 5 countries as it is consid ered a dangerous practi ce. According to the Party, canisters are used because they provide small-scale farmers with an easy application method and the ability to appl y targeted amounts of MB to small areas where injection machinery may be difficult to use.

3.6 Trends in Methyl Bromide Use for CUEs since 2005

Since 2005, there has been a progressive trend by all Parties to reduce their consumption and CUN nominations for prepla nt soil use, although this has occurred at very different rates. In this round, the phase out of MB for several major uses has slowed. Figs 1 and 2 show the trends in the reduction in amounts approved/nominated by Parties for ‘Critical Use’ from 2005 to 2009 for some key uses in 2008 and 2009. The trends in phase out of MB by country are shown in Table 3.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 12 Figure 1. Amounts of MB exempted for CUE uses in preplant soil industries from 2005 to 2009. Solid lines indicate trend in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indicate quantity of methyl bromide nominated by the party in either 2008 or 2009.

Cucurbits and Melons

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearmetric tonnes 

# France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Japan

USA Cutflowers

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearmetric tonnes 

# Australia

Belgium

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Portugal

Spain

USA



# Orchard Replant

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearmetric tonnes



# France

USA 

# Peppers and Eggplant

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearsmetric tonnes 

# Belgium



# France



# Italy



# Japan



# Spain



# USA Strawberry Fruit

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearmetric tonnes 

# Australia

France

Israel

Italy

New Zealand

Spain

UK

USA 

# Tomatoes

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearmetric tonnes 

# Belgiu m

Greece

Italy

USA

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 13 Figure 2. Amounts of MB exempted for CUE uses in mills and food processing facilities from 2005 to 2009. Solid li nes indicate trend in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indicate quan tity of methyl bromide nominated by the Party in either 2007 or 2008.

All Food Processing and Milling (Not Commodities)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

2005 2006 2007 2008

Yearmetric tonnes 

# Belgium

Canada

France

Germany

Greece

Israel

Italy

UK

USAAugust 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report14Table 3. Summary of Critical Use Nomination (2005 – 2009 in part)and Exemption (2005 – 2008 in part) Amounts of MB Granted byParties under the CUN/CUE Process. (Note: A breakdown ofCUN and CUE amounts by sectoris given in Annex VI)QUANTITIES NOMINATEDQUANTITIES APPROVEDPARTYTotalNominationFor 2005TotalNominationFor 2006Totalnominationsfor 2007Nominationfor 2008Nominationfor 20092005(1ExMOPand16MOP)2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)2007(17MOP +18MOP)2008(18MOP)Australia 206.950 81.250 52.145 52.900 38.990 146.600 75.100 48.517 48.45Canada 61.992 53.897 46.745 42.241 34.375 61.792 53.897 52.874 36.112European Community15754.361 4213.47 1239.873 245.00 * 4392.812 3536.755 689.142 *Israel 1117.156 1081.506 1236.517 952.845 851.395 1089.306 880.295 966.715 *Japan 748.000 738.700 651.700 589.600 508.90 748.000 741.400 636.172 443.775New Zealand 53.085 53.085 32.573 0 0 50.000 42.000 18.234 0Switzerland 8.700 7.000 0 0 0 8.700 7.000 0 0USA 10753.997 9386.229 7417.999 6415.153 4942.227 9552.879 8081.753 6749.060 5355.456TOTALS 18704.24 15615.135 10677.55 8297.739 6375.955 16050.089 13418.200 9160.714 5883.793* Not yet available.:1Members of the European Community having CUNs/CUEs include:2005 – Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.2006 – Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.2007 – France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom2008 – Poland, Spain

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 15 

# 4. MBTOC QSC: Evaluations of 2007 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide: July 2007

4.1 Introduction

MBTOC Quarantine, Structur es and Commodities met in June 2007 in College Park, Maryland, USA to re-review CUNs as reque sted by Australia a nd Canada. The CUNs re-reviewed were: Australia rice 2009; Ca nada pasta manufacturing 2008 and Canada

rodenticides and molluscicides 2008. The Parties supplied additional information about the nominations following the pub lication of the TEAP May 2007 Progress Report, and during bilateral meetings w ith MBTOC during the Open Ended Working Group meeting in Nairobi, Kenya.

The USA informed MBTOC that researc h, commercial trials and an economic assessment of the use of sulfuryl fluoride for cocoa beans, resulted in regulatory change that will allow this sector to fu lly transition away from methyl bromide by 2009. Consequently, the USA has withdrawn th e cocoa bean sector of the nomination by the National Pest Management Association.

With the assistance of the USA, MBTOC conduct ed a field trip to visit processors of Southern dry cure ham (the subject of a cr itical use nomination), and meet with North Carolina State University Extension and othe r research scientists who are part of a multi-state research team trying to solve the pest control problem with this commodity.

4.2 ISPM Draft Methyl Bromide Strategy

MBTOC noted the availability of a draft st andard for comment by Parties to the IPPC. The standard provides guidance to Nationa l Plant Protection Or ganizations (NPPOs) and Regional Plant Protection Organizatio ns (RPPOs) in the development of a strategy to reduce or replace the use of methyl bromide as a phytosanitary measure, in order to reduce emissions of methyl bromide.

4.3 Quarantine Issues

MBTOC draws the Parties’ attention to the potential for economic impact, particularly in Article 5 countries, which may deve lop when imports of commodities and associated packaging materials are reject ed following treatment against quarantine pests with methyl bromide. Methyl bromid e quarantine use may be increasing, in part in response to concerns about the consequen ces of importing quarant ine pests. Parties may wish to charge TEAP with further investigation of th ese matters.

4.4 Regulatory Update

In Australia, the review of the registra tion application for su lfuryl fluoride for structural, quarantine and commodity use is ongoing.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 16 In Canada, the website of the Pest Ma nagement Regulatory Agency (PMRA) has published an interim re-eva luation for aluminium phosphide, and requested more information from registrants. 1,3-D is sti ll under re-evaluation; more information has been requested from registrants. Heal th Canada has approved import MRLs for sulfuryl fluoride on imported foods. PMRA is also reviewing new sulfuryl fluoride submissions, and submissions for the use of CO 2 

# , heat and phosphine as a combination process. PMRA has determined that there are no regulatory barriers to

the use of irradiation on rodenticides and molluscicides; however, ethylene oxide is not registered for this use.

The TEAP 2007 May Progress Report (MBTOC chapter) reviews registration issues

in the EU.

In Japan, registration review of methyl iodide for both pos t-harvest and pre-plant uses is continuing and reviewers on the Food Sa fety Committee have requested additional

information from manufacturers.

The USA has confirmed that the legal challe nge to the use of sulfuryl fluoride is ongoing and that there may be future implica tions for use of SF as an alternative treatment. There is a new USA registrant of SF, which has resulted in two suppliers of the alternative for post-harvest uses. The re-r egistration review of methyl bromide and several other fumigants used for post-harv est and pre-plant is in public comment period. Decisions on buffer zones based on risk mitigation measures have not yet been

made.

4.5 Standard Presumptions Used in Assessment of Nominated Quantities.

These have not changed since presenta tion to the Parties at 17 MOP.

4.6 Details of Evaluations

Parties submitted 15 CUNs for the use of MB in structures and commodities in 2007.

Of the 2007 nominations, 7 were for 2008 for a total of 11.535 tonnes. Of nominations for 2008, MBTOC QSC recomm ended 9.179 tonnes. This figure does

not include a recommendation for Australia rice for 2008. Th e text associated with Australia rice for 2008 (Table 4), and th e Meeting report of the 27 OWEG, para 128, explain the declaration of Australia on this matter. MBTOC did not recommend one

CUN.

Of the 2007 nominations 8 were for 2009 for a total of 478.719 tonnes. TEAP April 2007 progress Report noted this figure as 529.721 tonnes. Howe ver, since that report, the USA has withdrawn the cocoa segmen t of the NPMA CUN (51.002 tonnes). Of the nominations for 2009, MBTOC QSC r ecommended a total of 451.178 tonnes.

Table 4 below provides the MBTOC QSC final recommendations for the CUNs

submitted in 2007.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report17Table 4. Final evaluations for QSC CUNs submitted in 2007 for 2008 or 2009CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)Rice6.1506.1509.2057.4001.8009.2007.82MBTOC comments: On 2008 CUN:MBTOC’s interim report recommended an additional 0.84 tonnes tothe 7.4 tonnes of MB already granted by the Parties forrice treatment in 2008. The recommendation was based on the Party’s documents indicating it would have a paddy harvest of 261.300 tonnes, milled to 209,000tonnes and fumigated at 20g/m3 giving a total MB usage of 8.24 tonnes. (Parties had already approved 7.4 tonnes for 2008 at MOP18.) However, at the 27thMeeting of the OEWG, Australia indicated that the “amount of rice to be treated was 261,300 tonnes and thatthe full amount ofthe 1.8 tonnes approved by theParties at the 18thMOP would be required. MBTOC confirmed it had received thisclarification.” (27th OEWG Meeting report, para 128)On 2009 CUN:MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 7.82 tonnes for this nominationin 2009. This represents a 15%reduction to the amount of MBnominated bythe Party, to encourage the beginning ofadoption of alternatives, as required by Decision IX/6. The Party has indicated it would begin to adopt alternatives after threeyears of consecutive high harvests, but harvests have been low. MBTOC, however, findsit reasonable to expect some adoption ofalternatives, even in difficulteconomic times. The applicant has invested in recapture equipmenton its largest treatment site with quoted savings of about 45% of MB emissions. There areseveral technically effective and available alternatives in useworldwide for packaged rice. MBTOC’s previous CUN evaluations and reports have discussed thesealternatives at length. The Party has indicated a preference for phosphine as an alternative, but indicates quite high costs oftransition. CUN documents anddiscussions with the Party have indicated that the pest of concern isSitophilus spp., particularlyS. oryzae. This species does not show high levels of resistance tophosphine although it is a species of high natural tolerance.However, the Party has based its economic analysis on an unnecessarily long treatment time of threeweeks, which would only apply at temperatures below 15oC. The unnecessarily long treatment time increases thenumber of silos to be built, and strongly contributesto the very high economic impact cited by the Party. Researchpapers submitted by the Party and from other sources, including the quarantine procedure forphosphine published by the European Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO Bulletin 23, 212-214 (1993), shows effective phosphinetreatment ofSitophilusspp.canbe achieved within 12 days at temperatures above 20oC and 4 days above 30oC, under well-sealed conditionsat a dose of about 700ppm.AustraliaMBTOC comments on economics:The CUN states: drought has made it impossible to undertake investment in phosphine facilities. Estimated costs for up to 100silos would be Aus $40 million. CUN states it would involve threeyears of transition, potentiallycomplete in 2012. However,CUN does not provide annual cost ofthis capital expenditure. Even if borrowing or raising externalcapital is not feasible, the calculations of the annual cost have to be based on the amortised capital costover the economic life of theinvestment. CUN Tables 3, 4, and 5 compare costs of phosphine and MB treatment on an annual basis. MBTOC analysis concludes thatphosphine would costs $19.02 per ton for each of the first 10 years.For a 1-kilo retail package this amounts to $0.019, or about 2 cents. With any elasticity ofdemand and with any branding value, some of this could be ispassed on to consumers. Further, per capita domestic use (broadlydefined and may include use forbeer, pet food, seed and residual) is about 9 kg per person. Thissuggests an annual cost to consumers if higher fumigation costs were passed fully of about 20cents per year per person. Some distributional issues remain as certain ethnic groups have much higher than average per capitaconsumption.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report18CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)Mills47 (includedmills andpasta)34.77430.167(included millsonly)28.65026.91326.913MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 26.913 tonnes for flour mill fumigation in 2009with the understanding that Canadian flour millers continue their rigorousresearch program and complete reports in 2007. Industry-government commercial scale trials of heat treatment, sulfuryl fluorideand heat, phosphine and carbondioxide combination, are ongoing. Sulfuryl fluoride is only allowed under conditional registration and can only be used in empty flour mills. Nomaximum residuelevels for fluoride resulting from SF fumigations have been established in Canada. Furthermore, itis unknown if any use limitswill be placed on the use of sulfurylfluoride by Provincial governments. The nomination for 2009 represents a decrease of about 5% relative to 2008 levels. MBTOC would expect a considerabledecrease in any further nomination if the trials currently being conducted show economic feasibility and technical efficacy inCanadian climate conditions. MBTOCnotes that a growing body of research and practical experience indicates that best results in SF fumigations are obtained whenfacility temperatures of approximately30 ̊C are achieved. MBTOC awaits the resultsof Canadian testing to determine if this result is also observed in Canada.CanadaMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: It appears that heat remains verycostly and has not provided comparable efficacy. Lack of trials makes adoptionof alternatives unlikely. Technical feasibility issues and lackof registration still exist. This nomination does not rely oneconomic arguments.Pasta(see Canadamills)10.4576.7576.0676.067MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 6.067 tonnes for Canada pasta in 2008, with theunderstanding that commercial trials of alternatives scheduledfor thisseason will be conducted. MBTOC will not be able to recommend anyfurther exemption for this sector without reports of commercial trials of alternative treatments inpasta facilities, detailing effects on pest control and facilitiesin the Canadian circumstances. The Party may consider a reduced allocation for thissector if trials aresuccessful.CanadaMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: that heat treatment remains a very costly alternative. In general,the pest control service provider estimates thecost to carry out the heat treatment at twice the cost of doinga methyl bromide treatment. Thecost of a heat treatment increased to three or four times the cost ofmethyl bromide when the costs of monitoring to ensure comparable results to a methyl bromide fumigation are included.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report19CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)Commodities0.0000.0000.0000.0000.068NRMBTOC comments:MBTOC does not recommend a CUE for this specific nomination in2008. The critical need for methyl bromide has not been demonstrated.There are no data indicating that mould would develop in baitfor rodents or molluscs if manufacturing methods were improved and standard good manufacturingpractices were used. The applicant states that product may become mouldy while held inthe open at room temperatures, awaitingfinal processing and packagingwithout any effort made to cool or aerate the product. If the product was dried during processing to less than 75% equilibriumrelative humidity theAspergillusspp,said to be of concern, should not proliferate. Similarly, if the product was stored using standard grain handling techniques ofair circulation, aeration, and/or airconditioning in the storage room, mould would also not grow. Theapplicant has indicated a MB use of approximately 2.7 kg (6 lbs) MB per truckload; the Partyindicated 17 – 20 pallets per truck. However, the Party indicates an annual production of 1150 pallets (approx 430 – 540 kg perpallet), and has nominated 68 kg MB.The MB dosage rate (6.8 kg/100m3) is unlikely to control mould growth. Furthermore, most fumigation occurs in winter in an unheated vault, which would furtherreduce effectiveness, or result in an unnecessarily high requirementfor methyl bromide. Irradiation is a technically effectiveand available alternative, althoughtreatment costs plus shipping were estimated at considerablyhigher cost than MB treatment. Costs supplied by the Party showedwide variation in shipping andtreatment costs, suggesting that lower costs could be obtained by ensuring the irradiation dosage rate has been properly selected for the purpose intended and thateconomies of scale might lower shipping costs. MBTOC is notaware of any other Party using MB for this purpose.CanadaMBTOC comments on economics:The cost of post-manufacture sterilization of the rodenticides and molluscicides by irradiation was estimated to costapproximately $280 CDN to $380 CDN per pallet of product (shipping included). Trucking costs were suggested to be between $150and $170 (returned) per palletof material and the cost of goods to be treated was $120 to $200(depending on the strength (interpret as ‘dose’) required) perpallet of material and the companyalso included $10 per pallet for their extra handling. The current cost for the post-manufacture sterilization of the productwith methyl bromide is $8.18 CDN perpallet.Dates3.4442.7552.2001.8001.8MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 1.8 tonnes for dates in 2008. Israel’s researchprogramme combined with technology transfer to rural packing houseshas allowed the successful adoption of heattreatment by packers of Medjool dates, the main variety. The Party has continued its 20% decrease for the third year.However, heat treatment has notbeen successful, thus far, for other date varieties. Work continues on this prospective treatment. Controlled atmosphere treatmentmay provide a technically effective alternative. A heat and carbondioxide combination treatmenthas been found to be technically effective for one variety. The‘cocoon’ method of vacuum in flexible container has worked for some varieties but requires packing houses to invest and adapt to a non-fumigation technology. Atleast one date variety is harmed by this method, but the applicantis encouraged to make the investments and shift in thinkingto this and other alternatives wheretechnically feasible and where product quality is not harmed. Phosphine is not feasible from the viewpoint of product quality.Sulfuryl fluoride and ethyl formate,although they have proven successful in the treatment of other dried fruit,are not registered.IsraelMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: Alternative 3 (Cold) is not technically suitable, alternative 1 (Heat ) is being carried out in part for Medjool onlywhile alternative 2 (CO2), 4 (vacuum) and 5 (Heat + CO2) require further studies to reveal whether they are economically feasible or not. Otherwise CUN providesno economic data.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report20CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)Flour mills2.1401.4901.0400.8000.312MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 0.312 tonnes for Israel flour mills in 2008, a61% reduction in the nominated amount of 0.8 tonnes. Adoption of arigorous IPM program combined with heat treatment seems a likely avenue for success inthe circumstances of this nomination. The MB recommended will allow theapplicant to complete transition to alternatives. The applicant indicates spot treatment with MB is used in the case of infestation, but in this circumstance spottreatment by heat seems quite possible, especially given the generally high ambienttemperature. Although the applicant indicates an intended future reliance onsulfuryl fluoride, it seems unlikely to resolve their infestation problems in the short or middle term since there has not evenbeen an application for registrationsubmitted yet. The applicant indicates it uses 35 g m-3of MB based on the poor penetration of MB throughflour residues. Flour residues should be cleaned outbefore fumigation as a standard sanitation practice and anormal part of IPM. The MBTOC standard dosage rate is 20g m-3. This dosage rate is sufficient for full sitetreatments and would be more than sufficient for spot treatment.The amount of MB recommended was based on the following considerations. Five mills werereported to need to fumigate mills and equipment totalling 15,600m3. When MBTOC standard dosage rate of 20g m-3is used, the result is 0.312 tonnes of MBneeded.IsraelMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: that heat treatment isnot economically feasible. Suitable equipment might overcome that problem. OtherwiseCUN provides no economic analysis.Chestnuts7.1006.8006.5006.3005.8005.800MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 5.8 tonnes for Japan chestnuts in 2009. The Partyhas decreased the request for MB use in this sector by 8% byrequiring growers and packing houses to amalgamate fumigation loads. The Party is encouraged tocontinue these improvements andto reduce dosage byincreasing fumigation time. The Party has a rigorous research program that, in preliminary results, has identified some effective alternatives. Unfortunately many ofthe alternatives tested are either ineffective disinfestants or harms this fresh product. More encouraging research results indicate efficacy for methyl iodide which isnot yet registered in Japan.JapanMBTOC comments on economics:CUN provides no economic analysisAugust 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report21CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)Coffee &Cocoa BeansSeeMedicinalHerbs2.1601.4200.5000.500MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 0.5 tonnes for this use in 2008, a reduction of64.3% for this sector over lastyear’s nomination. In recentyears the Partyhas significantly reduced its requirement for MB by the reuseof recaptured MB. Additionally,the Party is adopting phosphine as an alternative. Registration of fastgenerated forms of phosphine is anticipatedthis year and will increase the rate oftransition. If there are delays or ineffectiveness discovered in this plannedtreatment, another avenue is the use of heat and low oxygen asa combination controlled atmosphere treatment. This treatment, already in use in several ports,would control the mite infestation in anapproximate treatment time of 5 days.PolandMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: that phosphine (which is notregistered, inter alia because of the expected small market) is 30% more expensive,largely as a result of additional costs associated with fumigation time of 12 days; high cost of speed boxes and phosphine generators. These additional costs makethe fumigation treatments with phosphine more expensive by 50 Europer tonne. CUN states that irradiation is expensive becauseof the high cost of transportation tothe facility.Medicinalherbs andmushrooms4.1003.5601.8000.5000.500MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 0.5 tonnes for this use in 2008, a reduction of 81.5% for this sector over lastyear’s nomination. In recent years the Partysignificantly reduced MB use in this sector by moving commoditiesto alternatives as technologies and treatments became available. The CUN this year representsthe last remaining uses which are moving to use of carbon dioxide/high pressure.PolandMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: that phosphine (which is not registered, inter alia because of the expected small market) is more expensive,largely as a result of additional costs associated with fumigation time of 12 days; high cost of speed boxes and phosphine generators. These additional costs makethe fumigation treatments with phosphine moreexpensive. CUN states that irradiation isexpensive because of the high cost of transportation to the facility.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report22CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)Commodities89.16687.71978.98358.921 inc.0.021 forresearch58.91245.623 inc.0.020 forresearchMBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 45.623 tonnes for US commodities in 2009. Thisamount includes 20 kilograms for research. The Party had requested58.921 tonnes for 2009, which included 21 kilograms for research purposes, but which included no transition to alternatives over the amount granted by the Partiesfor 2008. MBTOC’s recommendation represents a 20% decrease in thenomination for walnuts, dried fruit and dates to allow for transition to alternatives. In the caseof dried beans, we did not recommend a 20% reductionthis year but reduced the dosage rate from 44g m-3to 20g m-3. Therefore, on a sectoral basis the tonnesrecommended are: walnuts (28.088); dried fruit (13.928); beans (1.980); dates (1.607). There are several alternatives availablefor use by this sector. Phosphine is inwidespread use, but its slower action sometimes makes it logistically impractical for meeting holiday market windows. Phosphineis registered for treatment of beansin California, but is not registered if the beans are stated to be infested with cowpea weevils. Trials using phosphine and sulfuryl fluoride have been conducted withdates. Sulfuryl fluoride is technically effective and available;MRLs have recently been established in Germany, one of the largest importers of US walnuts. Someimporting countries, however, have not yet established MRLs for fluoride residues, which limits its use in some cases. Controlled atmosphere treatment would also beeffective and the technology is available on a lease basis.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:CUN provides economic data on alternatives for walnuts and dried fruit other than dates. CUN states: that phosphine fumigantcosts are higher because it takes longer to accomplish so sellersdon’t reach December holiday export market window; its use leading to increased labour costs, andit corrodes equipment. CUN states walnuts and dried fruit all experience substantial additional downtime and subsequent lost revenues if phosphine is used. Netrevenues for alternatives are negative. CUN states that profit margin decreases from13.3% to –7.5% for Walnuts and from 5% to-16.8% for dried fruits. Aneconomic analysis was not done for dates and dried beans.Cocoa beans -NPMA subset61.51955.36764.08253.18851.002CUNWithdrawn byUSAMBTOC comments:The United States has informed MBTOC that research, commercial trials and an economic analysis conducted by cocoa bean fumigators and asupplier of sulfuryl fluoride, followed by regulatory change, will allow this applicant to fully transition to alternatives by2009. As a consequence, the USA haswithdrawn the cocoa bean segment ofthe critical use nomination by the National Pest Management Association.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report23CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)NPMA foodprocessingstructures(cocoa beansremoved)83.34469.11882.77169.20866.777 cocoabeansremoved54.606MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 54.606 tonnes for processed food facilities in 2009. Cocoa beans had been disaggregated from this CUN but thenomination for this sector was later withdrawn by USA, as reported elsewhere. The Party has requested 66.777 tonnes for these sectors, cocoa removed. The Partyindicates it can achieve a five-year transition at 17% per yearof 84% of its facilities in thissector. The constant reductionin absolute tonnes annually of 84% of thetotal of this CUN is 13.871 tonnes (cocoa and cheese not included). 2009 will be the second year of this transition plan. MBTOChas not included a reduction forcheese stores because no alternatives have been registered, but the Party has reducedits MB nomination in this sector throughvarious improvements. The totaltonnage recommended is composed of the following sectoral amounts: processed foods (49.103);herbs and spice facilities (3.238); cheese (2.265). The Party isrequested to ensure the recommendation for herb and spice facilities is used only for the facilities and not the commodity, especially not if intended for QPS. Thereare alternatives for herb and spice commodity in widespread commercial use in the US, and QPS uses cannot be included in critical uses.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: For commodities listed in the NPMA CUN, an economicanalysis was not conducted because this sector did nothave an alternative registered. The commentabout alternative registration is incorrect.. For food-processing facilities listed in the NPMA CUN, economic feasibility ofsuch alternatives was not assessed due to the lack of revenue information which is necessary to quantify the economic impacts to food-processing facilities.Mills andprocessors483.000461.758401.889348.237291.418291.418MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 291.418 tonnes for US mills and structures in2009. Overall this is a 16.3%decrease for the entire sector. This decreaseis distributed over each sector as follows: rice mills 26.7%,bakeries 41.8%, pet food 17.7% andflour millers 11.9%. The Parties granted 348.231 tonnes of MB forthis use in 2008. The overall decrease in MB use is also similar to transition estimates by suppliers of alternative products and technologies. The total tonnages ofMB recommended can be broken down into sectors as follows: ricemills (48.804); bakeries (8.308); pet food (21.955); and flourmills (212.352). US bakeries aremaking the fastest transition to alternatives and seem to have resolved earlier facility design problems that resulted in difficulties transitioning to heat. Gastightnessshould continue to be improved and numerous techniques are available to do so. MB should not be used in facilities that are ofpoor or very poor gastightness. Thesesituations are especially prevalent in rice and flour mills. Transition to adoptionof heat treatments should be encouraged, especially where gastightness is poor.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:The CUN states: that heat will cost 1.5 times and sulfuryl fluoride costs 1.3 times the cost of MB treatment. Heat treatment isreported to result in lost operating days and thus lower throughput and gross revenues. Where sulfuryl fluoride is technicallyfeasible it results in loss of net revenueof 57% (rice millers), but only 4% (bakeries) and 2% (pet foodmanufacturers and North AmericanMillers Association). Profit margins were added to the economicassessment.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report24CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)Cured pork67.90740.85418.99819.66919.69918.998MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 18.998 tonnes for 2009. This amount was also grantedby the Parties for this use in 2007, but represents a decreasefrom the amount granted by the Parties in2008 of 19.669 tonnes and renominated for2009. There are no registered alternativesfor the treatment of insects andmites on pork hanging in curing houses. Reliable historical use volumes for the largest group of producers in this sector are still not available due to the large numberof small units. Thereforethere is no justification for increase in use in this sector. A multi-stateresearch project has begun and has released preliminary results. Theresearch will identify potential for improvements in IPM, facility gastightness, processing methods and efficacy of alternatives which may result in decrease in MB useand eventual transition to alternatives. The Party is encouraged toinvestigate efficacy of non-chemical alternatives for thiscommodity, which would then allow forfaster transition away from MB in this sector. Controlled atmosphere at increased temperature may be effective. An additional avenue for investigation might be dipsin hot oil as is done in European countries for similar pork products. (Schillings W. 2006. Methyl Bromide use to combat miteinfestation in dry cured ham duringproduction. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 3 –6, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA.).UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:No economic data given. The CUN states this is a minor use and there is little economic incentive to develop alternatives* This figure does not include a recommendation for Australia rice2008. The Australia rice evaluation for 2008, and the Meeting report of the 27thOWEG, para 128, explain the declaration of theGovernment of Australia on this matter.** TEAP/MBTOC April 2007 report noted this figure as 529.721, however since that report, Government of the United States has withdrawn the cocoa segment of the NPMA CUN (51.002 tonnes).

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 25 

# 5. MBTOC Soils: Evaluations of 2007 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide: July 2007

5.1 Summary of Outcomes

Of the 43 CUNs submitted for soil uses, recommendations were made on all 2008 and 2009 recommendations, except for 10 nominations from Israel for 2009 which

remained unable to assess. MBTOC consider ed that changes to registration of a key alternative 1,3-D, a review of buffer zone regulations on alternatives and new

economic information on substrate use were required before these nominations could be fully assessed.

After the two rounds of the 2007 assessment, MBTOC Soils has recommended a total of 5294.204 tonnes, being 1102.706 tonnes for 2008 and 4191.498 tonnes for 2009.

An amount of 91.69 tonnes was not r ecommended for 2008, and 536.286 tonnes not

recommended for 2009. An amount of 858.96 tonnes for 2009 of the Israeli CUNs remained unable to assess pendi ng further information (Table 5)

.

Table 5. Summary of MBTOC Soils recommendations for 2008 and 2009 by country for CUNs received in 2007 fo r preplant soil use of methyl bromide (tonnes)

MBTOC-S

Recommendation Country CUE

Granted at

MOP 18 Additional

2008 CUN Request 2009 CUN Request

2008 2009

Australia 

# 35.75 29.790 29.790

Canada 14.124 7.462 7.462



# EC (Poland, Spain) 689.142 244.151 244.146 -

Israel 933.315 950.245 813.045 858.96 Unable{a}

Japan 443.775 502.600 299.580

USA 4806.723 4472.563 3854.666

Total 6922.829 1194.396 5825.460 1102.706 4191.498

(a) Unable to assess 848.795 tonnes for 2009 of the Israeli CUNs pending further information.



# 5.2 Issues Related to CUN Assessment for Preplant Soil Use

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

alternatives varies between countries, crops and the pest pressure. In general, CUNs for preplant soil use of MB resulted mainly from the following issues: regulatory restrictions on one or two specific alte rnatives, adoption times to implement alternatives, and economic infeas ibility of some key technical alternatives, such as the

use of methods which avoid the need for MB such as the use of grafted plants.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 26 Two key issues which affect the need for CUNs in the 2007 round were i) regulations on key alternatives, particularly 1,3-D/Pic a nd, chloropicrin used alone or in mixtures at rates greater than 200 kg/ha (20 g/m 2 

# ), ii) lack of controls for nutsedge, and iii) lack of studies in specific sectors i.e. orch ard replant, and nursery industries.

Unusually large buffer zone restrictions on fumigant alternatives, particularly limit their adoption, especially in Israel. MBTOC urges Partie s to consider review of these regulations in view of the ability of ba rrier films to reduce dose rates of MB and

alternatives and associated emissions. As in the previous round, Parties have found alternatives for propagation materials such as strawberry runners and nurseries more difficult to adopt, however the lack or resear ch studies provided with CUNs has also

led to difficulties in assessment as these C UNs do not fully satisfy the requirements of Decision IX/6. The impact of current revi ews of VOC emissions in California may also have a major impact on MB use and the us e of alternatives in California in future nominations. Registration of key alternatives such as 1,3-D/Pic and fludioxonil in Israel and the recent permits for methyl iodi de use in Australia and USA are expected to impact on the number of future nominations, and the basis of several CUNs is expected to become economic rather than technical.

MBTOC also notes that a larg e proportion of MB has been nominated for uses where regulations or legislation prevent reductions of MB dos e e.g. the mandatory use of MB at a specified dose for certified propaga tion material or bans are imposed on the

use of barrier films which can reduce MB dos e. Also regulations on alternatives are preventing their uptake for a substantia l proportion of the remaining CUNs for preplant soil use. MBTOC urges the Pa rties to align their local policies and regulations with internationally accepted me thodologies and MB alternatives that lie

within the Montreal Protocol’s goals.

In this round, MBTOC has sometimes s uggested quantities of MB for 2008 or 2009

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

after the relevant CUNs in Table 8. The adjustments follow the standard presumptions given in Tables 6 and 7 below, unless indicated otherwise.

A number of recommendations by MBTO C Soils on CUNs in the 2006 round were not accepted by the 18th MOP, and this led to the full or partial restoration of the original CUN amount requested. As MBTO C in most cases uses the technical information from the previous years CUE as the basis for its calculations of future nominations, it was difficult in this round fo r MBTOC to make accurate assessment of the US nominations this year as the Party did not provide the t echnical calculations for adjustments made at the 18 th 

# MOP.

5.3 Standard Presumptions Used in Assessment of Nominated Quantities.

The tables below (Tables 6 and 7) provide the standard presumptions applied by

MBTOC Soils for this round of CUNs. Thes e standard presumptions were first proposed in the MBTOC report of October 2005 and were presented to the Parties at

17 th 

# MOP. The rates and pract ices adopted by MBTOC as st andard presumptions are based on maximum rates considered accepta ble by published literature and actual commercial practice. A copy of the actual dos age rate of MB in MB/Pic formulations

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 27 is shown in Table 7 below. A revision to these presumptions is proposed for

consideration at the 19 th 

# MOP (Section 9) to more accurately reflect effective maximum feasible doses with methyl br omide/chloropicrin combinations.

As in the evaluations in previous years, MBTOC considered reductions to quantities of MB in particular nominations to a sta ndard rate per treate d area where technical evidence supported its use (See Annex III and IV). MBTOC considered the maximum MB application rate for 98% MB to be either 250 or 

# 350 kg/ha (25 to 35 g/m 2 

# ), in conjunction with low barrier perm eability films (e.g., VIF or equivalent), combined with extended exposure periods. Several Parties indi cated that 250 kg/ha (25g/m 2 

# ) of 98:2 were effectively used in st andard commercial application. In cases where use of high chloropicr in-containing mixtures (approximately MB: Pic 67:33 or 50:50 or lower) is considered feasible, maximum dosage rates of 175 kg MB/ha (17.5 g/m 2 

# ) where nutgrass is the key pest and 150 kg/ha (15 g/m 2 

# ) for pathogens were used as the maximum standard presumptions unl ess there was a regulatory or technical reason indicated otherwise by the Party.

As a special case, MBTOC accepted a maximum rate of 200 kg/ ha (20 g/m 2 

# ) for certified strawberry runner production in the abse nce of data that showed certification

standards could be met in the circumstan ces of particular nominations. However,

several Parties indicated th at rates of 200 kg/ha (20g/m 2 

# ) or less (Annex III) of MB:

Pic 50:50 were effective with barrier f ilms for production of ‘certified’ nursery

material.

The indicative rates used by MBTOC were maximum guideline rates, for the purpose of calculation only. MBTOC rec ognises that the actual rate appropriate for a specific use may vary with local circumstances, so il conditions and the ta rget pest situation.

Some nominations were ba sed on rates lower than these indicative rates.

Lower effective dose rates of MB in MB /Pic formulations of 125 kg MB/ha (12.5 g/m2) for pathogens and 150 kg MB/ha (15.0 g/m2) are proposed for specific crops (eg. strawberry fruit and vegetables) and 200 kg MB/ha (20.0 g/m2) for nursery crops unless otherwise specified by the Party.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 28 Table 6. Standard presumptions used in assessment of CUNs for the 2007

round – soil treatments.

Comment CUN adjustment Exceptions

1. Dosage rates Maximum guidelin e rates for MB:Pic 98:2 25 to 35 g/m 2 

# with barrier films (VIF or equivalent); for MB/Pic 67:33 - 15g or 17.5g

MB/m 2 

# for pathogens and nutsedge respectively, unde r barrier films. All rates on a ‘per treated hectare’

basis. Amount adjusted to maximum guideline rates. Maximum rates set dependent on formulation and soil type and film availability. Higher rates accepted if specified under national legislation or where the Party had justified otherwise.

2. Barrier films All treatments to be carried out under low permeability barrier film (e.g. VIF) Nomination reduced proportionately to conform to

barrier film use. Where barrier film prohibited or restricted by legislative or regulatory

reasons

3. MB/Pic

Formulation: Pathogen control Unless otherwise specified, MB/Pic 50:50 (or similar) was considered

to be the standard effective formulation for pathogen control, as a transitional strategy to replace

MB/Pic 98:2. Nominated amount adjusted for use with MB/Pic 50:50 (or similar). Where MB/Pic 50:50 is not registered, or chloropicrin (Pic) is not registered

4. MB/Pic

Formulation: Weeds/nutgrass

control Unless otherwise specified, MB/Pic 67:33 (or similar) was used as the

standard effective formulation for control of resistant (tolerant) weeds, as a transitional strategy to replace MB/Pic 98:2. Nominated amount adjusted for use with MB/Pic 67:33 (or similar). Where chloropicrin or chloropicrin-containing mixtures are not registered

5. Strip vs.

Broadacre Fumigation with MB and mixtures to be carried out under strip Where rates were shown in broadacre hectares, the CUN was adjusted to the MB rate relative to strip treatment (i.e. treated area). If not specified, the area under strip treatment was considered to represent 67%

of the total area. Where strip treatment was not feasible e.g. some protected cultivation or open field production of high health propagative material

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 29 Table 7. Actual dosage rates applied duri ng preplant fumigation when different rates and formulations of methyl bromide/chloropicrin mixtures are applied with and without barrier film s. Rates of application reflect standard commercial applications rates.

MB/Pic formulation (dose of MB in g/m 2 

# ) Commercial application rates of formulation

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

A. With Standard Polyethylene Films

400 39.2 26.8 20.0 12.0

350 34.3 23.5 17.5 10.5

300 29.4 20.1 15.0 9.0 B. With Low Permeability Barrier Films (LPBF)

250 24.5 16.8 12.5 7.5

200 19.6 13.4 10.0* 6.0

175 17.2 11.8 8.8 5.3 * Note: Trials from 1996 to 2007 (A nnex III) show that a dosage of 10g/m 2 

# (e.g. MB/Pic 50:50 at 200kg/ha with LP Barrier Films) is t echnically feasible for many situations and equivalent to the standard dosage of >20g/m 2 

# using standard films



# 5.4 Use/Emission Reduction Technologi es - Low Permeability Barrier Films and Dosage Reduction

Decision IX/6 states in part that critic al uses should be permitted only if ‘all technically and economically feasible steps ha ve been taken to minimise the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide’. Decision Ex.II/1 also mentions emission minimization techniques, requesting Parties “...to ensure, wherever methyl

bromide is authorized for critical-use ex emptions, the use of emission minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable f ilms, barrier film technologies, deep shank injection and/or other techniques that pr omote environmental protection, whenever technically and economically feasible.”

As in past rounds, MBTOC assessed CUNs where possible for reductions in MB application rates and deployment of MB em ission reduction technologies, such as use of LPBF, including VIF, or other appropriate sealing and emission control techniques including deep injection of MB, use of formulations with a lower proportion of MB and/ or reduced frequency of application (Annex III).

The use of low permeability barrier films (VIF or equivalent) is compulsory in the 25 member countries of the European Un ion (EC Regulation 2037/2000). In other regions LPBF films are considered tec hnically feasible and large adoption has occurred, e.g. Israel and SE USA. In Flor ida the reported use of barrier films in vegetable crops has expanded from 3 000 acres 2005/06 to 30,000 acres in 06/07 (Allen, pers. comm.). The exception to th e use of barrier films is the State of California in the US where a regulation cu rrently prevents use of VIF with MB (California Code of Regulations Title 3 Sec tion 6450(e) but not the alternatives. This regulation has been set over concerns of possible worker exposure to MB when the film is removed or when seedlings are pl anted due to altered flux rates of MB.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 30 5.5 Adjustments for Standard Dosage Rates Using MB/Pic Formulations

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

formulations with lower concentrations of methyl bromide (e.g. MB:Pic 50:50 or less). These formulations are considered to be equally as effective in controlling soilborne pathogens as formulations cont aining higher quantities of methyl bromide (e.g. 98:2, 67:33) (e. g. Porter et al ., 1997; Melgarejo et al ., 2000; Lopez-Aranda et

al ., 2003; Santos et al ., 2007). Formulations cont aining high proportions of chloropicrin in mixtures with methyl bromide have been adopted widely by nonArticle 5 countries to meet Montreal Protocol restrictions where such formulations are registered or otherwise permitted. Their us e can be achieved with similar application machinery which allows co-injection of met hyl bromide and chloropicrin or by use of premixed formulations. Consistent perfor mance has been demonstrated with both barrier (Annex III and IV) and non barrier films. Parties ar e urged to consider lower dosage rates, i.e. as low as 75 kg/ha of 30:70 or 100 kg/ha of 50:50 MB/Pic in conjunction with barrier films as these have shown similar effectiveness to rates of 335 to 800 kg/ha of MB 98% using st andard polyethylene (Annex IV).August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report31Table 8. Final evaluations ofCUNs for preplant soil use submitted in 2007 for 2008 or 2009CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)AustraliaStrawberryrunners35.75037.50035.75035.750Nonenone29.79029.790MBTOC recommends 29.79 tonnes for this use in 2009. The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi (Phytophthora, Pythium, Rhizoctonia,Verticillium) and weeds (S. arvensis, Agrostis tenuis, Raphanusspp, Poa annua, Cyperusspp). The CUN states that MB/Pic 50:50 at a dose of 50 g/m2isrequired to meet certification standards. The Party’srequest exceeds MBTOC’s standard presumption of 20 g/m2but this rate is not currently registered. TheParty is currently examining the efficacy of a rate of 125 kg/ha (12.5 g/m2) of MB using LDPE films. The Party statesthat the most promising alternative, 1,3-D/Pic, is reported to have beenphytotoxic due to the heavy and wet soil in coldclimate growing conditions. The CUN provided recent data from specific local trialswhich indicated phytotoxicity in runners that resulted in a doubling of the time required before planting compared to MB, problems with weed control andinconsistent results [up to a 30% decreasein runner yields]. Other alternativestested included MS, dazomet, PIC, steam, hotwater and solarization. The Partyreported that plug plants are possibly a technically feasible alternative,but that the costs associated with this technology are too high and they result in 10% loweryields than bare-rooted runners. Barrier film (VIF) initially reduced emissions 10-fold when compared with standard LDPE films, but off gassing issues when liftingtarps after 4 days posed a potential risk to workers and bystanders.The Party notes that two currently unregistered alternatives appear promising – methyl iodideand cyanogen, and that methyl iodide has been granted a commercialscale up permit for 2007 to 2009. MBTOC encourages the Partyto (1) expedite the use ofthe MB/Pic 50:50 formulation at 25 g/m2 with barrier films and (2)to expedite the registration ofthe two alternatives as quickly as possible.MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN is based onassertion of lack of technically feasiblealternatives in circumstances in Australia.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report32CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)CanadaStrawberryrunners (PEI)6.8406.8407.9957.4627.4627.462MBTOC recommends 7.462 tonnes for this use in 2009. The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are weeds and nematodes. The nomination statesthat MB/Pic 67:33 at a dose of 500kg/ha (50 g/m2) is required to meet the certificationstandards for strawberry runners. MBTOC’s standard presumption is 200kg/ha (20 g/m2) with low permeability barrier films (LPBF) for propagative materials. The Party’s request exceeds MBTOC’s standard presumption; however, ratesthat conform to MBTOC’s standardpresumption are not currently registered and therefore cannot be used commercially to treat soils. The Party has indicatedthat in order to register the MBTOC recommended rate of 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2) withLPBF, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency would require thecooperation of the registrant and testing to demonstrate that the rate wouldbe effective. The Party has attempted to replaceMB with 1,3-D, but 1,3-D wasbanned in January 2003 due to groundwater contamination. Chloropicrin has recently been provisionally registered in Canada, buthas yet to receive a permitfrom Prince Edward Island. The sector applying for the nomination has not yet trialled this alternative. Nor has the sector trialled low permeability barrier films(LPBF). MBTOC encourages the Party (1) to finalize the permits necessary for use of chloropicrin and dazomet, (2) implement the use of LPBF which arecurrently used worldwide and (3) in the absence of an effectivealternative becoming available, conduct the necessary trials tosupport a lower application rate ofMB to conform with MBTOC’s standard presumption.MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The nominationprovides no economic data. CUN is basedon technical feasibility reasons.IsraelBroomrapeNonenone250.000250.000250.000250.000U2008 CUN:MBTOC recommends 250 tonnes for this use in 2008 and is unable toassess the nomination for 2009.MBTOC acknowledges that the CUE amountgranted by the Party was not used or produced for this use in 2007 because of exceptional circumstances and that this amount recommended for 2008 is stillrequired. The use is for broomrape eradication and land rehabilitation of 1000 ha in the Upper Galilee and the Golan Heights. Alarge area, 5700 ha is severelyinfested with this parasitic plant making it impossible to produce tomatoes in these regions. The recommended CUE is based ona dose of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) ofMB:Pic 98:2 using LPBF. MB will be used only once in each region and the treatment is expectedto bring the pathogen population below the disease thresholdallowing for adoption of other alternatives. The Party has identified some alternatives for controlling low infestations ofOrobanche(e.g. sulfosulfuron, solarization)but they are considered not adequate for controlling severe infestations ofO. aegyptiaca. Additionally, the Party expects some alternatives (1,3-D/Pic, sequentialapplication of 1,3-D and metham sodium) tobe registered and/or available in 2007or 2008 and these could impact on future nominations. MBTOC acknowledgesthat a registration for chloropicrin is being considered in Israel and that this would possibly allow for lower dosages of MB to be used forOrobanchein theabsence of other effective alternatives.2009 CUN:The nomination for 2009 remains unable to assess as key informationabout the efficacy of alternatives, especially updated information on alternativefumigants and herbicides may alter the suitability of alternatives for this use.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report33CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN states thatbroomrape infestation is aggravated by the phase out of MB, as registered alternativesdo not prevent area-wide infestation with the parasitic weed. The same istrue for agro technical means, long-term fallow cropping and biological control, which in practice and in economic terms do notcope with the long-term vitality ofbroomrape seeds and their gradual germination mechanism. CUN also states that prospects for theregistration of Imazapic are low and the manufacturer ishaving doubts about the cost-effectiveness ofits registration, might refrain fromits further development. Further, soil solarization, usually applied on intensivevegetable crops, is too expensive for extensive outdoor crops.IsraelCucumber –protectedNonenone25.00018.75018.7506.250U2008 CUN:MBTOC recommends 18.750 tonnes for this use in 2008. Cucumbers are grown in open ended polyhouses in 3 cropping cycles per annum in theproximity of the residential houses of cooperative family andprivate family farms. A large proportion, 70%, of the critical use is concentrated in one village(Achituv), where the growers specialized for years in the cultivation of indoor cucumbers for the domestic market. For two outof the three cropping cycles,solutions were found despite the monoculture production pattern,which reflects the specialization of the growers but narrow rotations enhances the pressure fromsoil-borne pathogens. Additional reasons for this nomination are the appearance of a new race of a fungus,F. oxysporum f. sp. radicis cucumerinum,and bufferzone limitations on the use of the MS+1,3-Dmixtures. The pathogen is highly virulentand the infestation level particularly high in the affected location and it coulddevastate entire greenhouses in a short period of time. MBTOCrequested whether this was a contingency use for this pathogen, but no response has beenreceived by the Party. MBTOC encourages the Party to considerthe technical and economical feasibility of non-chemical alternatives (steam, substrates, heat,crop rotation) already in use in many parts of the world for this crop. The nominated amount isbased on a dosage of 250 kg/ha(25 g/m2) of 98:2 MB/Pic inconjunction with use/ emission reduction technologies. MBTOC further encourages the Party to revise buffer zone regulations inlight of the current generalizeduse of VIF films. The Party isrequested to conduct a thorough review of the technically feasible use and economic cost of lowcost substrate systems for futurenominations.2009 CUN:The nomination for 2009 remains unable to assess as key information about the cost of cheaper substrate systems and buffer zone impacts may alterthe suitability of alternatives for this use.MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not basedon economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN states thatthe costs of grafted seedlings are a limiting factor because the technology in cucumbers is in its infancy in Israel. Furthermore, the CUN statesthat dazomet isnot economically feasible due to its high prices and its low efficacy in the winter in Israel when prevailing soil temperaturesare too low for its use.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report34CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)IsraelCut flowers -bulbs -protected303.000240.000220.185163.400114.450155.200U2008 CUN:MBTOC recommends 114.45 tonnes for this use in 2008. The nomination is for a variety of cut flowers produced under cover, which are mainlyaffected by weeds (Cyperusin particular) and nematodes (root-knotbut also ectoparasites such asLongidorus)and fungi.MBTOC does not recommend the useof 1.8 tonnes for fumigating substrates used in rose production as alternatives such as steam are efficient for this use. MBTOChas adjusted the amountrequested for carnations grown in Ghazato conform to the standard presumptionsof 350 kg/ha (35 g/m2) of MB/Pic 98:2.Fusarium oxysporum f.sp.dianthiis thekey pest affecting carnations in the Ghaza region. Lack of registration of key alternatives and chloropicrin mixtures continuesto be the majorfactor restrictingadoption of alternatives, which have been identified as technically feasible. MBTOC considers that adoptionof substrate production is possible for lilium, callalilies, gerberas and carnations outside the Ghaza area. A 25% transition rate has been applied for adoption of this alternative in the 104 ha grown with thesecrops. Steam is a technically feasible alternative for other flower types but the Party statesthat it is economically unfeasible (economic information provided ishowever insufficient). 1,3-D and metham sodium are also available and a further 25% reduction was applied for phase-in of thesealternatives in those flowers notsuited for substrate production. MBTOC encourages the Party to seek registration of alternatives that have been identified as promising through research such as1,3-D/Pic and to explore different steam application methods and equipment which have proven to be economically feasible in other countries. MBTOC requeststhe Party to submit a new nomination for 2009 as the envisagedregistration of key alternativescould impact this nomination.2009 CUN:The nomination for 2009 remains unable to assess as key information about the cost of cheaper substrate systems and buffer zone impacts may alterthe suitability of alternatives for this use.MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not basedon economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN providespartial budgets for MB and the next best alternatives. The net revenue for the next best alternatives is negative in all cases.CUN also states that soil steamingand solarisation is not cost effective. Some netrevenue analysis was reported in 2006 round of CUNs.IsraelCut flowers -open field77.00067.00074.54053.34544.75053.345U2008 CUN:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 44.75 tonnes for this nomination in 2008. The dose of MB proposed by the Party (250 kg/haor 25 g/m2 of98:2 formulation) conforms to MBTOC's standard presumptions. Thenomination is for open field production of cut flowers which are mainly affected by weeds(Cyperusin particular) and nematodes (root-knot but also ectoparasites such asLongidorus) and fungi. Lack of registration of key alternatives on flowers such as1,3-D+Pic, dazomet and metham sodium, continue to be the major constraints affecting substitution ofMB at this time. MB formulations with higher chloropicrincontent are also not registered. However MBTOC estimates that,solarisation, plate steaming, substrates and the few chemical alternatives registered allow for25% reduction in the amount nominated. This reduction is notapplied to the 18.95 t requested for nurseries of geophytes wherehigh health plant material needsto be produced, although no certification issues are involved. MBTOC encourages the Party to seek registration of alternativesidentified as suitable throughresearch. MBTOC requests the Party to submit a new nomination for 2009 as possible registration of alternatives could impact this nomination.2009 CUN:The nomination for 2009 remains unable to assess as key information about the cost of cheaper substrate systems and buffer zone impacts may alterthe suitability of alternatives for this use.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report35CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN states thatsteaming and solarization are not cost effective while the economic assessment refersthe reader to the indoor flowers CUN. However the information provided inthe CUN 2006 for indoor flowers is insufficient.IsraelMelon -protectedand field125.65099.400105.00087.50087.50087.500U2008 CUN:MBTOC recommends 87.5 tonnes for this use for 2008 and is unable to assess the nomination for 2009.Monosporascus cannonballusis the keypathogen in the Arava Valley.Fusarium oxysporumf.sp.melonisand root-knot nematodes, mainlyM. javanica,also cause problems. The requested amount at arate of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of 98:2 MB underbarrier films (LDPF) complies with MBTOC's standard presumptions. MBTOC notes thatalternatives are alreadyused for 100% of the fall melons grown in the Arava valley andincluding metham sodium, dazomet, solarization, Formaldehyde + metham and 1,3-D/Pic (only inthe southern Arava). The CUN is solely for the winter crop as the alternatives do not control the key pathogens and the plant back time is too short. Thenominated amount has been reduced by 12% by the Party, with respect to the 2007 amount approved.MBTOC considers alternatives,such as substrates,grafting and the use of formalin + metham to be effective alternatives and notes recent studieswhich may assist transition toalternatives (Pivoniaet al2002,2004). MBTOC notes that Pic and MB/Picmixtures are effectively used forMonosporascusin other countries under similar conditions (eg. Stanghelliniet al.2003; Martyn, 2002). The Party is requested to conduct a thorough review of the technically feasibleuse and economic cost of low cost substrate systems forfuture nominations. Information received by MBTOC after the recommendation indicates that a fungicide, with the active ingredient fludioxonil, is used andeffective for suppression of vine decline in cantaloupes (the soil-borne fungusMonosporascus cannonballus) and already registered in several countries (US,Canada, Australia, Japan, EU). In 2007 itis being tested for the first year of the two necessary for registration in Israel.Fludioxonil is a broad-spectrum fungicide,and is classified by the US EPA as a “reduced risk pesticide” due to its good toxicological profile. MBTOC expects that in a short term this product would becommercially available for Israeli growers for control ofM. cannonballus. The Party is requested to submit information regarding progress in future nominations.2009 CUN:The nomination for 2009 remains unable to assess as key information about the cost of cheaper substrate systems and buffer zoneimpacts mayalter the suitability of alternatives for this use.MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not basedon economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN providespartial budgets for the next best alternatives. The net revenue for the next bestalternatives is negative.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report36CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)IsraelPotato239.000165.000137.50093.75093.75075.000U2008 CUN:MBTOC recommends 93.75 tonnes of MB for this use in 2008. Potatoes are produced in a small cultivable area of the Sharon and Ghaza regionswhere intensive cropping of groundnuts and potato occur in the same year and infestation with fungal and bacterial pathogens, nematodes, parasitic andperennial weeds take place, some of them common to the two predominant crops:Rhizoctonia solani, Verticillium dahliae, root knot nematodes, mainlyMeloidogyne javanica, common scab (Streptomyces scabies), deep scab- (Streptomycesspp.), powdery scab (Spongospora subterranea),Orobanchespp. andnutsedge. Volunteer potato plantsin the succeeding crop may carry PVY type viruses. The Party has made a 31.8% reduction withrespect to the amountapproved by the MOP for 2007. The dosage rate of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of MB 98:2 conforms to MBTOC's standard presumptions. Thenomination however is forboth seed potatoes subjected to high healthstandards and regular crop production which is normally achieved without MB worldwide in locations where all thepest complexes exist. The applicant identified that 550 of 15,000 haare located in highly populated areas where winter production occurs, pathogens are high,and regulatory constraints are in place for feasible alternatives such as 1,3 D + Pic(61:35) which as a result of buffer zonesprohibit their use. The party indicatesthat effective control alternatives are in development for the pest complexes andthat they are transitioning to these. The CUN indicates that new technologies areallowing increased use of alternatives such as metham sodiumand formaldehyde. MBTOC notes thatthere are effective alternatives but that their use is affectedby buffer zones, which are larger than in other countries (for1,3-D stated as 250m compared to 31m in USA for example). MBTOCurges the Party to considerreview of these buffers in the light ofuse with barrier films. The continuing reduction of requested amounts of methyl bromide is an indication that this strategy issuccessful.2009 CUN:The nomination for 2009 remains unable to assess as key information about the cost of cheaper substrate systems and buffer zone impacts may alterthe suitability of alternatives for this use.MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN provides noeconomic analysisIsraelStrawberryfruit –protected(Sharon andGhaza)196.000196.00093.000none64.125+ 71.250for Ghaza57 + 48.96 forGhaza57.000+ 67.500for GhazaU2008 CUN:MBTOCrecommendsa reduced CUE of57 tonnes for Sharon and 48.96 tonnes for Ghaza, totalling 105.96 tonnes for 2008. MBTOC has adjustedthe nomination to the Sharon nomination for 20% adoption of 1,3-D/Pic and the Ghaza nomination to conform to rates used with barrier films but has not adjustedthis part of the nomination for adoption ofalternatives in 2008. The Party states that buffer zones restrict the use of alternatives, especiallythat of a keyalternative, 1,3-D/Pic. MBTOC, however,considers low cost substrates to be a potential alternative and urges the Party to consider the feasibility of open fieldsubstrate systems for future nominations. Detailed economic information on the suitability of such systems is required. MBTOCurges the Party to considerregistration of other alternatives to MB aswell as other formulations of MB/Pic (e.g. 67:33 and 50:50) to assist further reductions in the use of MB. To date, theParty has not provided information, as required under Decision IX/6,1(b)(iii), to demonstrate that an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate andcommercialise alternatives, and that research programmes are inplace to develop and deploy alternatives. The CUN points out that relativelylittle work has beenAugust 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report37CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)done on alternatives since about 2004, and 1,3-D/Pic is the onlyalternative fumigant that has been registered to date. The national management strategy doesnot present relevant plans to develop and deploy alternatives in strawberry fruit. MBTOC requests the Party to provide information about plans for transitioning toalternatives, including plans for alternativechemicals, low-cost substrates, combinations of resistant cultivars, registered nematicides and fungicides, culturalpractices or other relevant techniques. The key pests affecting strawberry fruit in Israel are fungi (Rhizoctonia solani, Colletotrichum acutatum, Macrophominaphaseolina, Verticillium dahliae, Fusariumspp.), nematodes (Meloidogyne hapla), and weeds (Cyperus rotundus,purple nutsedge). TheCUN states that 1,3-D/Pic is effective and used on part of the crop but further adoption is limited to 20%of the Sharon area and 0% in Ghaza due to buffer zones. However, theestimated impact of buffer zones has not been substantiated by any quantitative data to date for Sharon, despite being requested. MBTOC considers that soillesssystems are a possible, technically-feasible alternative (López-Medinaet al.,2004; Lieten, 2004; Savvas and Passam, 2002; Mutituet al., 2006). Substrates havebeen used on a small area in this CUN, but the Party states that further uptake is limited by cost. MBTOC is requesting information on the economics of low-costsubstrate systems and current MB prices. MBTOC encourages the applicant to consider evaluation andadoption of low-cost substrate systems which are used insimilar circumstances in other regions, including warm climates (Mutituet al.2006; Vos and Bridge, 2006; MBTOC, 2007; Sonneveld, 2004; Lieten, 2004).Substrates have been adopted at the rate of up to 80 ha/year for protected strawberry in Mediterranean climates in several EC countries (EC 2006). MBTOC hasnot adjusted this nomination for 2008 for adoption of substrates due to economic uncertainty associated with low cost substrates but urges the Part to considerthe feasibility of open field substrate systems for future nominations.MBTOC has reduced the MB dose on the Ghaza nomination to conform to standardpresumptions for 100% adoption of VIF andthe Sharon nomination for 20% adoption of 1,3-D/Pic. MBTOC recommends that the Partyregister other alternativesto MB as well as other formulations of MB/PIC (e.g. 67:33 and 50:50).2009 CUN:The nomination for 2009 remains unable to assess as key information about the cost of cheaper substrate systems and buffer zoneimpacts mayalter the suitability of alternatives for this use.MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements providedin CUN: CUN shows that thenet revenue using MB is lower than for the alternatives. Dazomet and 1,3 D/pic provided net revenues that were 70% and 53% higher than MB at 2005 prices.CUN states that the registered chemical alternatives carry environmental costs [althoughthis also applies to MB]. CUN also states that soilless cultures are apossibility, but not before 2010 due tothe high costs of the capital-intensive versions considered in the CUNAugust 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report38CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)IsraelStrawberryrunners(Sharon andGhaza)Nonenone0.00036.62531.90035.75UCUN 2008:MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 31.9 tonnes for 2008 (11.9 t for Ghaza Strip and 20 t for Sharon,Israel). The key pests affecting strawberryrunner production are fungi (Rhizotonia solani, Verticillium dahliae, Fusarium, Phytophthora, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Macrophomina phasoeolina), root knotnematodes and purple nutsedge. TheParty stated that MB 98:2 at arate of 500 kg/ha (50 g/m2) with PE and 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) with barrier films are necessaryto meet certification standards. The requested amount for the Ghaza region has been adjusted to MBTOC’s standard presumption of35 g/m2 for 98:2 MB. TheParty stated that 1,3-D + PIC mixture has been the leading alternative; however, adoption of this alternative is limited by therequired 250 m buffer whichsignificantly limits its use in the Sharonstrawberry nursery growing area which isheavily populated. Hot gas application method is used in the Ghaza Stripgrowing area because the plots are small, adjacent to houses and there are no injection tools or qualified applicators in the area. 10% of the treated area in theGhaza strip will be tested with barrier films with a reduced application rate. MBTOC encourages faster adoption of LPBF in theGhaza Strip. 100%of the treatedarea in Sharon uses barrier films (VIF).2009 CUN:The nomination for 2009 remains unable to assess as key information about the cost of cheaper substrate systems and buffer zoneimpacts mayalter the suitability of alternatives for this use.MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: This CUN is based inregulatory restrictions and lack oftechnically feasible alternatives.IsraelSweetPotatoesNonenoneNone111.5111.561.25U2008 CUN:MBTOC recommends 111.5 tonnes of MB for 2008. This is a newnomination comprising both seed potato requiring high health and regular cropproduction. The key pests affecting sweet potatoes are root-knot nematodes, sweet potato scab (Streptomyces ipomoea) andPythiumspp. The applicantidentified that MB is the only registered chemical for use for sweet potatoproduction in Israel. The rates to be used in the CUN are consistent with MBTOC’sstandard presumptions under VIF. The party indicates that the only effective control alternative to MB is 1,3-D/Pic (Telopic) but this product is not currentlyregistered for sweet potato. It is expected to receive registration by 2008. The applicant indicates that a 50% transition tothis alternative by 2009 is possible andMBTOC recognizes that this is an effective rate of uptake of analternative. MBTOC notes thereare numerous nematode resistantvarieties of sweet potatoavailable and these are widely used in countries where nematodesare the primary pest problem (Bello A., pers. comm.). MBTOC suggests that the applicability ofthese varieties in Israel be investigated.2009 CUN:The nomination for 2009 remains unable to assess as key information about the cost of cheaper substrate systems and buffer zoneimpacts mayalter the suitability of alternatives for this use.MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: Trial data shows thatthere may be economically feasible alternatives but these need to be verified.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report39CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)JapanCucumber88.30088.80072.40051.450nonenone61.40034.30MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 34.30tonnes for 2009. The recommended quantity represents a 33% reduction from the CUE amount for 2008approved at the 18thMOP. MBTOC has considered this nomination, which is based onthe need to control particular viruses of cucumber, since 2005. Globally,such viruses are not considered as soilborne pathogens but can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture.An integrated program including cultural practices e.g. sanitation, rotation with a non-host, removal and destruction of crop debris, cleaning and sanitation of thegreenhouse and the surrounded area, and pathogen free seeds has proven very effective in similar situations around the world. The Party has indicated thatrotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). As a transitionstrategy, MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. Since the last nomination the 1,3-D/Pic mixturehas become registered, however, farmers fear possible phytotoxicity. MBTOC thus urges the Party to conduct trials on the correct use of this mixture in somecucumber production. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for cucumber in Japan which has been in place for many years. However, in manycountries cucumber production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the most widely used technique for eliminating a widearray of soilborne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production and are widely used in aroundthe world. (Leoni & Ledda, 2004; Budai,2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan,2004; Engindeniz, 2004). The Party is encouraged to considersubstrate production, which implemented correctly can produce higher yields thanMB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002).Studies conducted in Japan support soilless culture as a feasibleoption (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOCnotes however that evenwhen growing in substrates there is a critical need for a high degree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can betrained to use substrates systems in a short period of time asexperienced in many MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004). The CUN states that the Aichi AgriculturalResearch Centre (2005) identified the effectiveness of KGMMV control by methyl iodidein pot tests. MBTOC encourages the Partyto continue to pursue theregistration of methyl iodide for soil uses(methyl iodide was registered for imported timber in Japan in 2004, under JMAFF registration No. 21407).MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements providedin CUN: The economic evidenceprovided shows a reduction in net revenue of more than 90% in capital-intensive soilless systems.As a result capital-intensivesoilless culture systems are noteconomically feasible.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report40CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)JapanGinger(field)119.400119.400109.70184.075102.20063.056MBTOC recommends 63.056 tonnes for this use in 2009. The recommended amount has been reduced 25%from the CUE approved amount for 2008 at the 18thMOP in 2008 as alternatives are considered available.The nomination is for control of Pythium spp. (Pythium ultimumvar.ultimum, Pythium zingiberium) inginger fields using MB (98:2) applied from small cans. Thisnomination has been submitted several times with no change in production and cultural practices tominimize disease. MBTOC conducted a field visit to Japaneseopen field ginger production sites in August 2006 and recognized the difficulties that growers havein adopting some alternatives, however dazomet is considered aneffective alternative which is economically feasible. Difficulties in applying dazomet occur duringwet and cold weather, which sometimes cause phytotoxicity, unacceptable plant back times and reduced crop yields. Chloropicrinis registered in Japan but theParty states that the plant back time for chloropicrin is 40 days which could disrupt crop scheduling and result in delays in planting and lower yields compared toMB treatment. MBTOC urges the Party to encourage adoption of LPBFfilms and MB formulations with a higher proportion of pic, which would allow for reducedrates of MB. Further, metham sodium and dazomet can be used moreefficiently if drip irrigation is adopted. The Party indicatesthat metalaxyl combined withdazomet is highly effective for managing Pythium diseases but doesnot refer to cultural practices such as soil drainage, sowing date, organic amendments (Smithet al 1988) or fungicides specific to Oomycetes, such asphosphonates. MBTOC kindly requests that updated information relatingto trials with alternatives and adetailed prospect for relevant fumigant\pesticide registrationduring 2007-2009 are submitted with any future nominations.MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN states that thenet revenue for the next best alternative (dazomet) is negative, because of a 58% declinein yield. As a result dazomet is noteconomically feasible.JapanGinger(protected)22.90022.90014.47111.10012.9008.325MBTOC recommends 9.675 tonnes for this use in 2009. The recommended amount has been reduced 25% from the CUE approved amount for 2008 at the 18thMOP as alternatives are considered available. The nomination is for control ofPythiumspp. (Pythium ultimum var. ultimum, Pythium zingiberium) in ginger fieldsusing MB (98:2) applied from small cans. This nomination has been submitted several times with no change in production and cultural practices to minimizedisease. MBTOC conducted a field visit to Japanese open field ginger production sites in August 2006 and recognized the difficulties that growers have inadopting some alternatives, however dazomet is considered an effective alternative which is economically feasible. Under protected production conditions,difficulties arising with dazomet during wet, cold conditions canbe overcome as moisture and temperature can be controlled inprotected environments. Thiswould make plant back times more reasonable. MBTOC therefore considers that protected ginger canimplement the use of dazomet much more quickly.Chloropicrin is registered in Japan but the Party states that the plant back time forchloropicrin is 40 days which could disrupt crop scheduling and result in delaysin planting and lower yields compared to MB treatment. MBTOCurges the Party to encourage adoption of LPBF films and MB formulations with a higherproportion of Pic that allow for reduced rates of MB. The CUN states that metalaxyl doesnot control Pythium efficiently as resistant strains to this fungicide havebeen reported. The Party indicates that metalaxyl combined withdazomet is highly effective for managing Pythium diseases but does not refer to culturalpractices such as soil drainage, sowing date, organic amendments (Smith et al 1988) or fungicides specific to Oomycetes, such as phosphonates. MBTOC kindlyrequests that updated information relating to trials with alternatives and a detailed prospect for relevant fumigant\pesticideregistration during 2007-2009 aresubmitted with future nominations.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report41CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)MBTOC comments on economics 2007: The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN statesthat the net revenue for the next best alternative (Hot water treatment) is positivebut 75% less then the net revenue for MB.As a result hot water treatment isnot economically feasible.JapanMelon194.100203.900182.200136.650168.00091.1MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 91.1 tonnes for 2009. Therecommended quantity represents a 33% reduction from the CUE approved amount for2008 at the 18thMOP as alternatives are considered available. MBTOC has considered this nomination, which isbased on the need to control a particular virus ofmelon, since 2005. Globally, such viruses are not considered assoilborne pathogens but can survive in crop debris for severalyears. The problem mainly arisesfrom continuous monoculture. An integrated program including cultural practices e.g. sanitation, rotation with a non-host, removal and destruction of crop debris,cleaning and sanitation of the greenhouse and the surrounded area,and pathogen free seeds has proven very effective in similarsituations around the world. TheParty has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts suchas tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga,1993). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. Since the last nomination the 1,3-D/Pic mixturehas become registered, however, farmers fear possible phytotoxicity. MBTOC thus urges the Party to conduct demonstration trialson the correct use of thismixture in melon production. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for melon in Japan which has been in place for many years. However, in manycountries some melon production has already shifted to substratesin greenhouse conditions and has become the most widely usedtechnique for eliminating awide array of soilborne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags,etc.) are available for this kind of production and are widely used inaround the world. (Leoni and Ledda, 2004;Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya& Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, whenimplemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japansupport soilless culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in substratesthere is a critical need for a high degree of sanitation andfor the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substratessystems in a short period of time as experienced in many MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004).MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements providedin CUN: The economic evidenceprovided states that resistant varieties (used alone) result in a 70% decreasein net revenue. The yield of the soilless culture is higher, however the unit price ofthe product is lower because of problems of appearance and uniformity of the fruit. As a result the gross income for this system of soilless culture is lower. Inaddition costs of capital-intensive soillessculture are higher hence net income is lower. As a result resistant varieties andcapital-intensive soilless culture are noteconomically feasible.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report42CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)JapanPepper(green &hot)187.200190.700156.700121.723134.400(including0.010 t forresearch)81.149Includes 0.010for researchMBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 81.149 tonnes for 2009. Therecommended quantity represents a 33% reduction from the CUE approved amount for2008 at the 18thMOP as alternatives are considered available. MBTOC has considered this nomination, which isbased on the need to control particular viruses ofpeppers, since 2005. Globally, such viruses are not considered assoilborne pathogens but can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainlyarises from continuous monoculture. An integrated program including cultural practices e.g. sanitation, rotation with a non-host, removal and destruction of cropdebris, cleaning and sanitation of the greenhouse and the surrounded area, and pathogen free seeds has proven very effective insimilar situations around theworld. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way toreduce virus incidence (Matsuo andSuga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. Since the lastnomination the 1,3-D/Picmixture has become registered, however, farmers fear possible phytotoxicity. MBTOC thus urges the Party to conduct demonstration trials on the correct use ofthis mixture in pepper production. MBTOC recognises the uniquefarming system used for peppers in Japan which has been in placefor many years. However, inmany countries some pepper production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the most widelyused technique foreliminating a wide array of soilborne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production and arewidely used in around the world. (Leoniand Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz,2004). Substrateproduction, when implemented correctly can produce higher yieldsthan MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studiesconducted in Japan support soilless cultureas a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even whengrowing in substrates there is a critical need for a high degree of sanitation and for the useof pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can betrained to use substrates systems in a short period of time as experienced in many MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004)MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements providedin CUN: The economic evidenceprovided shows that the higher cost of soilless culture is largely due to the highercost of seeds, fertilizers, depreciation and miscellaneous, and is only partlyoffset by lower costs of pesticides and insurance in capital-intensive systems. Given these data,the net revenue for capital-intensive soilless culture is negativeand hence is not economically feasible.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report43CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)JapanWatermelon129.00098.90094.20032.47523.70021.65MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 21.65tonnes for 2009. The nomination has been reduced over the CUE amount accepted by Parties at the 18 MOP.MBTOC acknowledges that the Party has made a substantial reduction since the previous nominationand this reflects a marked transition to alternatives. Thenomination is based on the need to controlparticular viruses of watermelon, since 2005. Globally, such viruses are not considered as soilborne pathogens but cansurvive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated program including cultural practices e.g.sanitation, rotation with a non-host, removal and destruction ofcrop debris, cleaning and sanitation of the greenhouse and thesurrounded area, and pathogenfree seeds has proven very effective in similar situations around the world. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes andstrawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoptionof LPBF which allow forreducing MB doses by up to 50%. Since thelast nomination the 1,3-D/picmixture has become registered, however, farmers fear possible phytotoxicity. MBTOCthus urges the Party to conduct trials on the correct use of this mixture in watermelon production. MBTOC recognises the uniquefarming system used forcucumber in Japan which has been in place for many years. However, in many countries watermelon production has already shiftedto substrates in greenhouseconditions and has become the most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soilborne plant pathogens. Inexpensiveand simple systems (buckets,bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production and arewidely used in around the world. (Leoni & Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002;Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, when implemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006;Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conductedin Japan support soilless culture as a feasible option (Fukudaand Anami 2002). Sakumaand Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing insubstrates there is a criticalneed for a high degree of sanitation and for the use of pathogenfree transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems ina short period of time as experienced in many MLF projects(UNEP/TEAP, 2004)MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economicarguments. The economic evidence provided shows a reduction in net revenueof more than 50%. As a result soillessculture is not economically feasible.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report44CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)PolandStrawberryrunners40.00040.00024.50012.00011.995MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 11.995tonnes for this nomination in 2008. The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi (Verticilliumdahliae, Phytophthora cactorum, P.fragariae, Fusarium oxysporum),and nematodes(Globodera rostochiensis).The nomination states that a dosage of 98:2 MBof 400 kg/ha with barrier films are needed tomeet the certification standards for strawberry runners. The Party’s CUN for 2008is less than 50% of what MBTOCrecommended for 2007 (24.5 t). The requested amount has been adjusted to account for the Party’s inclusion of the entire amountof the formulation in theirnomination instead of the MB portion only (392 kg/ha (39.2 g/m2)). The Party’s request exceeds MBTOC’s standard presumption of20 g/m2 MB for propagationmaterials, however formulations enabling the use of these ratesare currently not registered. The Party tested a reduced rate [MB/Pic 300 kg/ha (30 g/m2) underVIF], but results indicated that plant vigour, productivity andweed control were too low in the low soil temperatures prevailing during autumn fumigation.Potentially effective alternatives such as 1,3-D & Pic and Pic alone are not currently registered. While dazomet and metham sodium are registered, their slowdecomposition and long plant back time in the early spring has precluded expanded use due to production timing using currentlyavailable application equipment.Poland has recently acquired (July 2006) improved application equipment such as rotary spader machines which enhance efficiencyof metham sodium anddazomet (Runia and Molendijk, 2006; Runiaet al. 2007). MBTOC encourages the Party to expedite the adoption of this new application equipment andencourage the registration of Picand other fumigants if needed.MBTOC comments on economics 2007:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements providedin CUN: The EconomicAnalysis (page 17-18) shows 11 percent yield loss with dazomet and80 percent loss with metham sodium when applied by traditional methods. The revenueanalysis shows net revenue decrease of 54% in year 1, then 10% lossin year 2, and an increase of 7 % over MB in year 3. The increases in net revenue are dueto adverse weather conditions in the first year, and is expected that Dazomet will be economically feasible in 3 years.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report45CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)SpainCut flowers(AndaluciaandCatalonia)53 + 2042 + 1543.49017.00017.000MBTOC recommends 17 tonnes for this use in 2008 (12t for Andalusia and 5t for Catalonia). This request represents a 60% reduction over the amount approvedfor 2007. The key pests are weeds, particularlyCyperusspp., nematodes such asMeloidogynespp. and in the case of carnations which make up an importantproportion of the nomination,Fusarium oxysporumf.sp.dianthi.The Party states that in spiteof longer plantback times being necessary when using 1,3-D/Pic andother difficulties encountered when using alternatives (e.g. higher costs and technical requirements when using substrates), full phaseout of MB will be achievedby the end of 2008.MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements providedin CUN: CUN states that 1,3-D,presents economic disadvantages because ofthe longer waiting period, longer application period and changes required in drip irrigation systems to preventcorrosion , while 1,3-D + Chloropicrin leads to a loss of yield and steam has economic disadvantages. CUN argues that capital-intensive substrates are noteconomically feasible because of the cost. CUN states that substrates require high investment and increases the costs of the crop. Adoption needs a gradualprocess of farm modernization, and is expensive. CUN cites data that show that an investment of270,455 € is necessary on an area of 5,000 m2, and theenterprise is unprofitable for the first five years. CUN also states that the transformation costfor the industry in Cataloniais estimated at more than 108 million € ifthey adopted capital-intensive soilless systems.SpainStrawberryrunners230.000230.000230.000215.000215.000MBTOC recommends 215 tonnes for this use in 2008. The keypests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi (Phytophthora, Rhizoctonia, Verticillium)and weeds (Chenopodium, Portulacca oleracea, Senecio, Solanum, Cynodon dactylon). The Party states that MB (MB: Pic 50:50 at a dose of300 kg/ha (30 g/m2)is required to meet the EU Nursery PlantCertification and Control Regulations. The coldclimate growing conditions of high elevation nurseries in Spainsubstantially limit thefeasibility of alternatives (1,3-D/PIC, dazomet, MS, DMDS) to control target pests in order to meet certification standards. The Party claimsthat there is no technically feasible alternative available at this time. The Party’sstrategy to minimize MB use is to implement a stepwise reduction program.MBTOC encourages the Party to expedite the next steps in theirapplication rate reduction program using lower MB/Pic application rates and lower MB ratio in theformulation in conjunction with LPBF and continue topursue the registration of additional alternatives.MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN provides dataon the costs and net revenue of alternativesto MB, but not that of MB itself. CUN statesthat yields of alternatives are 14% to 16.7%% lower.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report46CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)SpainStrawberryand PepperNonenone0.0800.0800.1510.151MBTOC recommends 0.151 tonnes for research purposes in 2008. TheCUN states that MB is needed asthe reference treatment in theMB Alternatives NationalProject. In particular, studies on the environmental effects of some fumigants applied to soils are being conducted in Spain. Spain has not submitted requests forMB for pepper and strawberry fruit production in 2008. The 29.6 kgare specifically requested for strawberry research trials, 70.56 kg for pepper research trialsand 50 kg will be used in studying the environmental effects of chemical soil fumigants in soil (strawberry cultivation). Thesetrials are part of a new triennialproject to optimise use and adoption of alternatives to MB in strawberries and pepper that was approved by the party last yearfor the period 2006-2008.MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not basedon economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN provides noeconomic information, as it does not applyto the particular nature of the nomination.UnitedStatesCucurbits1187.800747.839592.891486.757411.765Includes0.941 t forresearch)407.091 t(Includes0.941 t forresearch)MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 407.091 tonnes for this usein 2009. This comprises 22.5 tonnes for Michigan, a reduced amount of 4.55 tonnes forMaryland and Delaware, 239.8 tonnes for the South East cucurbits,28.6 tonnes for Georgia squash,21.9 tonnes for Georgia cucumbers and 88.8 tonnes forGeorgia melons and 0.941 t for research. MBTOC does not recommend4.55 tonnes of MB for watermelons in Maryland and Delaware astechnical alternativesexist (e.g. grafting and resistant varieties). This request is75 tonnes less than the amount nominated for 2008 and indicatesthe Party’s effort to phase out MB forthis industry. The nominated amounts conformto the standard presumptions for dosage rateof MB/Pic formulations of 17.5 g/m2 for nutsedge and 15 g/m2 forpathogens with adoption of LPBF and formulationchanges of MB/Pic to achieve the reductions. TheParty was requested to disaggregate this nomination bymajor types of cucurbits comprised (i.e. melons, watermelons), submitting specific information for each. MBTOC notes the effortof the Party in gathering detailedinformation and understands that “not everystate/cucurbit type variety could be disaggregated, because there is limited information available to the USA.However, for MBTOC it is really difficult to understand and assess the specific circumstances that prevent the use of MB alternatives when separate data is notprovided.Some of the cucurbits which are included in the nomination, e.g.Cucurbita maxima, have recognized alternatives thatare used in other countries andeven in the US. The Party is urged to further adopt grafting for commercial use in melon and watermelon. If future CUNs are submitted, MBTOC urges the Partyto disaggregate the various cucurbits with reference to theirkey pest and limitation to the adoption of MB alternatives.In Michigan, the key pests arePhytophthora capsiciandFusarium. MBTOC recognizes the Party’s statement that1,3-D + Pic may be an effective alternative butgrowers will miss the optimal market window due to longer plant back times. According to the Party, this treatment cannot be applied in autumn because of thebad climatic conditions. In addition, a fall application of fumigant alternatives is not feasible because, over the fall and winter months deer and other animalsdamage the plastic and irrigation tape. In SE and Georgia, the keypest is nutsedge. Karst topography limits affects the use of alternatives, which include 1,3-D,which are the best alternatives for these pests. The Party states that metham sodium ormetham potassium are also promising alternatives but still do not provideconsistent control under the circumstancesof the nomination and require further trialing.In addition, the Party states that trials are underway to investigate lowerMB/Pic formulations such as 50:50 as there are no regulatory restrictions to the use of these formulations. Since the key pestin the SE and Georgia is nutsedge,in future nominations the Party is requested to provide up todate from recent trials of fumigants and herbicides trialled fornutsedge control for each specific cropincluded in the nomination to indicate that an effort is beingmade to uptake and commercialise alternatives as required in Decision IX/6.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report47CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)MBTOC comments on economics:Part of the nomination for Michigan, Marylandand Delaware were based on economic arguments.Economic statementsprovided in CUN: The CUN states next best alternative in allregions is 1,3-D with chloropicrin with expected yield losses of 6 percent in Michigan, Maryland andDelaware and 29 percent in Southeastern States and Georgia. CUN states 1,3-D with chloropicrin is considered technically feasible in Michigan. However, CUNnoted that for Michigan in addition to the yield loss, delayed planting and harvest with the alternatives results in lower average price received from missed marketwindows and negative net revenue. In remaining regions yield losses significantly reduce net revenues. In Maryland and Delaware, 1,3-D with chloropicrin isconsidered technically feasible but use is constrained by water table concerns, land low soil temperatures leading to reduced yields and missed market windows.CUN notes other regions may also experience lower prices because of missed market windows.UnitedStatesEggplant(field)76.71281.16285.36366.01862.789(Includes0.433 t forresearch)48.691(Includes 0.433 tfor research)MBTOC recommends 48.691tonnes for this use in Georgia, Florida and Michigan in 2009 which includes 0.433 tonnes for research. The Party has stated that itbased its nomination on MBTOCs standard maximum dosage rates of MB/Pic formulations of 175 kg/ha(17.5 g/m2) for nutsedge and 150 kg/ha (15 g/m2) forpathogens with adoption of LPBF and also made an adjustment forstrip fumigation based on 0.58 ofthe area treated. The Partystates that registration of a keyalternative (eg. methyl iodide) is pending. In Michigan, the key pests arePhytophthora capsiciandfusarium. According to the Party,P.capsicihas been found inthe irrigation water in Michigan and occurred after soil treatmentwith Telone C35 and metham sodium, however MBTOC considers reinfestation can occur withany fumigants, including methyl bromide. MBTOC recognizes the Party’s statement that 1,3-D/chloropicrin may be an effective alternative, but growers will missthe optimal market window due to longer plant back times with thisalternative. According to the Party, this treatment cannotbe applied in autumn because ofclimatic conditions. In addition, a fall application of methyl bromide is not feasible because over the fall and winter monthsdeer and other animals damage theplastic and irrigation tape. MBTOC considers that their are alternatives in other countries that should be considered for use in this region including grafted plants,resistant varieties and modifications to theapplication of 1,3-D/Pic with and withoutmetham sodium may reduce plant back times. In Florida, the key pests areyellow and purple nutsedge,Phytophthora, nematodes,PythiumandSclerotinia. In Georgia the key pests are yellow and purple nutsedge, Phytophthora,nematodes, southern blight and Pythium and sclerotinia. Karst topography limits the use ofalternatives which include 1,3-dichloropropene, which are the bestalternatives for these pests on 40% of thegrowing acreage in Florida and 8% of the acreage in Georgia. The Party claims that research on alternatives forpeppers could be adopted for eggplant. The Party proposed a 7% transition in 2009 for Florida and Georgia and no transition forMichigan, and stated it will takemore than 7 years to transition the full amount. MBTOC, however, considers that alternatives are available for both karst and non-karst areas in Florida andGeorgia (1,3-D/Pic, Pic alone, metham with or without herbicides (napropamide, trifluralin) (Nolinget al2006; Chellemiet al.2006; Simonneet al.2006) for areasof moderate pest pressure at least. MBTOChas adjusted the nomination for these regionsby 25%, which is in line with the 26% transition suggested by the Partyin 2006. MBTOC requests that the Party provide further information to substantiate thelack of feasibility of some key alternatives used for eggplants in othercountries, such as grafted plants and the keychemical alternatives. MBTOC notes that uptake of alternatives for this crop in regions with similar pests hasoccurred within 4 years or less in many countries e.g. Spain,Italy, Australia. (Leoni and Leda, 2004; Spotti, 2004; Tostovrsnik et al 2005; Minuto et al, 2003;Thanassoulopoulos, 2006). MBTOC also notes that Ristaino and Johnson (1999), Babadost and Islam (2002), Johnston et al (2002),Driver and Lows (2003) ,Hausbeck and Lamour (2004) and others have reported many efficientmanagement strategies to control Phytophthora on pepper in Michigan including 3-4 yearscrop rotation with non susceptible hosts (carrots, beans, onions,asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa , cultural control (water management, plant density, soilamendments, protective mulch and raised beds) and use of registered fungicides in Michigan (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph (Acrobat),Zoxamide + Mancozeb,August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report48CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)Copper hydroxide+Acrobat). Seed treatment with Mephenoxan or metalaxyl control Phytophthora during seed germination. In tomatotrials conducted in Floridaon a key pest, nutsedge, 1,3-D/pic 65:35 withand without VIF and MNa/Pic provided similaryields as MB/Pic 67:33 in 3 trials over the spring and fall of 2003 andspring of 2004 (Santos,et al, 2005) even with moderate to severe nutsedge infestations. Recentstudies continue to confirm the benefits of LPBF, (e.g. VIFandmetalized films) as a means to reduce emissions and dose rate ofMB (Ou et al 2006). MBTOC considers that further reductions inMB amount is also possiblewith changes to formulations of 50:50 MB/Pic or less (e.g. to 30:70) used in combination with barrier films.MBTOC comments on economics:Part of the nomination for Michigan was based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: TheCUN states next best alternative in all regions is 1,3-D with chloropicrin with expected yield losses of 6 percent in Michiganand 29 percent in Georgia and Florida.CUN states 1,3-D with chloropicrin is considered technically feasible in Michigan. However, CUN noted that for Michigan in addition to the yield loss, delayedplanting and harvest with the alternatives results lower averageprice received from missed market windows and negative net revenue. In Florida and Georgiayield losses significantly reduce net revenues. CUN notes Florida and Georgia producers may also experience lower prices because of missed market windowsUnitedStatesForestnursery192.515157.694122.032131.208125.758122.06MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 122.06 tonnes for this nomination in 2009. The nominated amount has been adjusted to conform to the adjusted rateof 26 g/m2 for nutsedge control and 20g/m2for pathogen to conform to the standard presumption for dosage rate of MB/Pic formulation under HDPE. MBTOCnotes that key pests are nutsedge,nematodes and fungi and that propagative materialrequires a very high level of pathogen control in order to avoid theirwidespread distribution from the nursery to the production fields. Nutsedge however, has no effect on certification but the Party states that it does affect yield by3-5%. MBTOC requests that further nominations clearly show the trend in yield loss caused by nutsedge, nematodes or fungal pathogens over the number ofseasons following fumigation with MB and alternatives and a breakdown of the economic comparisons to methyl bromide treatment.For the Northeast Forest andConservation Nursery, only 40% is for nutsedge control and 60%of the nomination was adjusted to conform to standards for certified material of 20 g/m2. ForMichigan Seedlings only 50% is for nutsedge control,so 50% of the nomination was adjusted to 20 g/m2. This nomination is for certified forest seedlings and for2% of the total forest nursery cropping area. The CUN is based on economic infeasibility of use of substrates and the lack of effective alternatives for control ofnutsedge and a range of fungal pathogens and nematodes in this remaining 2 %. It covers certified seedling production in 6 forest nursery regions. The keyalternatives are 1,3-D/Pic,1,3-D/Pic/metham sodium and metham sodium +Pic.The Party acknowledged that Pic and metham when used in conjunction withLPBF, may provide an effective technical alternative and avoid crop injury. MBTOC recognizes thatthe Party stated in the 'Summary of Significant Changes' thattechnical problems still exist when gluing LPBF for broadcastapplications. MBTOC also considers glyphosate can be used as a pre-treatment to reduce pressurefrom nutsedge. However, this herbicide has been shown to causephytotoxicity under nursery conditions. MBTOC considers that alternatives are available andthat time for transition may be required. MBTOC acknowledges the initiation of large-scale demonstration trials for this sector by the Party. Limited substrateproduction of these crops is economical for small niche markets.Frequency of fumigation is once in two to four years, depending on crop. Rotation and covercrops are not fumigated. Research is on-going to reduce rates from 98:2 MB/Pic commonly used where nutsedge populations are severe to using reduced ratesof 67:33 MB/Pic. This transition has already been made in 70 % ofthe forest nurseries in theSouth where nutsedge populationsare not severe. LBPF films havebeen adopted on a broadacre basis in Europe for many years and technology should be available to the USA. LPBF will be adoptedwhen the effective gluingtechnologies are locally, commercially available.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report49CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not basedon economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: Partial budgets areprovided for major alternatives in six regions: 1,3-D/Pic, dazomet, and metham sodiumwith Pic. The CUN reports yield losses of 3 to 5 percent with higheroperating costs. Reported net revenue declineswith these alternatives ranged from 8% to 53%. The CUN cites an analysis of the costs of containerizedproduction that demonstrates large scale containerized production is not economically feasible.UnitedStatesNurseriesstock (fruit,nut, flower)45.80064.52828.27528.27525.326(Includes1.506 t forresearch)25.326(Includes 1.506 tfor research)MBTOC recommends a total of 25.326 tonnes forthis use in 2009. This comprises 8.615tonnes for raspberries, 1.579 tonnesfor roses, 13.626 tonnes for fruitand nut trees, and 1.506 tonnes for research. The Party changed the nominated amount for raspberry from 28.571 to 8.615 tonnesand also advised that theamount nominated for raspberry nurseries in 2009 is to be used on47ha for 4 nurseries in Washington only and not partly in California as previously advised. Thisnomination is for propagation materials that need to be certified as free of pests and diseases,even if certification is voluntary in this state. MBTOC accepted therates of 24.4 g/m2 for rose nursery, 31.9g/m2 for fruit and nut tree nursery and 20 g/m2 for raspberry nursery. MBTOC recognises that propagative materialrequires a very high level of soilborne pest and pathogen control in order to avoid their wide spread distribution and notes the difficulty in protecting raspberryroots to a 1.5 m depth. MBTOC acknowledges that MB/Pic formulations 67:33 and 50:50 were used in other countries and urges theParty to consider thesealternatives as a transition strategy.MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in the CUN:CUN states aneconomic analysis was not done because the alternatives are not technically feasible, particularly for certification needs andso no economic analysis were done.CUN also reports large scale use of substrates is not economically feasible.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report50CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)UnitedStatesOrchardreplant706.176527.600405.400393.720314.007(Includes1.658 t forresearch)292.756(Includes 1.658 tfor research)MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 292.756tonnes for this use in 2009. This includes 205.265 tonnes for stone fruit, a reduced amount of 9.992 tonnesfor raisins, 35.147 tonnes for walnuts, 18.256 tonnes for almond, a reduced amount of 22.438 tonnes for grapes, and 1.658 tonnes for research. The CUN is fororchard/vineyard replant disorder of unknown aetiology; heavy soils or soils which cannot be treated to a sufficient depth to effectively use the reduced rates of1,3-D now allowed in California. Regulatory constraints (maximum labelled rate) prevent the useof 1,3-D at the rates needed for effective kill of old roots and theassociated pathogens in deeper soil layers for heavier (fine-textured) soils. Three alternatives, 1,3-D alone and 1,3-D combined with chloropicrin or methamsodium, are available technical alternatives according to theCUN for treatment in light soils. Although a two year fallow was found to be effective underMediterranean conditions by Bello,et al, 2004, Schneider,et al, 2004 found that a four year fallow did not sufficiently eliminate the causative nematodes. MBTOCnotes the large disparity between the application rates of MB used for California Stonefruit (204 kg/ha or 20.4 g/m2), Raisingrapes (310 kg/ha or 31 g/m2), Winegrapes (350 kg/ha or 35 g/m2), Walnut (140 kg/ha or 14 g/m2) and Almonds (123 kg/ha or12.3 g/m2). The Party has indicated thatthis is due to averaging theapplication over the acreage treated by strip/broad acre fumigation and ‘by the hole’ spot treatments. The Party confirms thatMB/Pic 67:33 formulation is used forCalifornia Stone fruit, Raisin grapes and Wine grapes but MB/Pic 98:2 for Almond and Walnut. Commercial adoption of 67:33 formulation and others containinglower amounts of MB (eg 50:50) were used predominantly for orchard replant treatment in other countries before switching to alternatives. The recommendedreduced amount is based on the use of MB/Pic67:33 formulation for California Table,Raisin and Wine grapes at 204kg/ha (20.4 g/m2). MB active ingredientwhich is considered effective by the Party for Almond, Walnutand Stone fruit. This represents areduction of 21.251 tonnes or6.76% of the nominated amount.MBTOC recognizes that regulatory restraintsprevent the use of LPBF barrier films withmethyl bromide in California but urges the Party to continue evaluatingtheir use to improve the performance of alternatives.MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not basedon economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:An economic analysiswas not done for this sector because mostof the losses cannot be quantified. Factors that contribute to losses include delayed planting, fallow, additional use ofherbicides, tree loss, replant costs to replace tree losses, loss of trees replanted,yield loss of fruit or nuts, delayed achievement of full yield potential, earlier lossof productivity of whole orchard. McKenry1999 suggests that in some cases tree losses are likely to be greater than 20 % if replant disorders are not controlled.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report51CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)UnitedStatesOrnamentals154.000148.483137.835138.538137.776(Includes4.06 t forresearch)107.136(Includes 4.06 tfor research)MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 107.136tonnes for this use in 2009. This includes 64.404 tonnes for California, 2.539 tonnes for Michigan, a reducedamount of 36.133 tonnes for Florida, and 4.060 tonnes for research. The nominationis for a large number of species, mostly grown in the field. In Florida, themain species using MB are gladioli, lilies and snapdragon. Additional species using MB in California include calla lily, delphinium, dianthus, eustoma, freesia,helianthus, hypericum, iris, larkspur, liatris,matthiola, and ranunculus. In Michigan, flower crops needing methyl bromide are herbaceous perennials grown fromseed or root divisions.MB is needed to control diseases (e.g.,Fusariumspp.,Pythiumspp.,Phytophthoraspp., andRhizoctoniaspp.), plant parasitic nematodes(e.g., root knot, root lesion, stunt and dagger), weeds (e.g.Cyperusspp. and others), and previous crop propagules.MBTOC adjusted the California portion of thenomination to standard dosage rates from 211 kg/ha (21.1 g/m2)to 200kg/ha (20 g/m2) with standard polyethylene films. Previousnominations justified high ratesof 35g/m2 MB (350 kg/ha) in Florida on thebasis of the nominated area being largelycomposed of muck soils. However, the Partyhas clarified that thisassumption was not correct and that nutsedge pressure is not high in flower production areas in this state. The nomination hasthus been adjusted to a standarddosage rate of 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2). MBTOC considers that technical alternatives are available for several flower species: for example, lilies, dianthus and callalilies are grown successfully in substrates in many countries around the world. Also, soils grown with comparatively shallow rooted, short cycle flowers likesnapdragons, larkspur and delphinium can be successfully treated with solarization, sometimes combined with reduced dose chemicals (metham sodium) withexcellent results. Research conducted bythe Party confirms this (McSorleyet al.,a,b). Although the Party has provideda management strategy it does notinclude specific actions to transition to alternatives.MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:The economic analysisshow decreases in yield in California of 20% to 25% result innegative net revenues. In Florida net revenues decrease 65% to 81% because of yield losses withalternatives. In Michigan herbaceous perennials, yield losses of 25% lead to net revenue declines of 37%.UnitedStatesPeppers(field)1094.7821243.5421106.753756.339783.821(Includes2.844 t forresearch)548.984(Includes 2.844 tfor research)MBTOC recommends 548.984 t for this use in SE, Georgia, Floridaand Michigan in 2009 but does not recommend use in California in 2009. The amountrecommended includes 2.844 t for research. MBTOC has reduced theamounts in SE, Georgia, Floridaby 25% from the amount approved for 2008 to allow foradoption of alternatives and further rate reduction by adoption of formulations of MB/Pic with lower ratios of MB in conjunction with barrier films. According to theavailable information, MBTOC has determined that the amounts for each region are 47.754 t for the SE, 84.072 t for Georgia, 404.137 t for Florida, 10.177 t forMichigan. The Party has stated thatit based its nomination on MBTOCs standard maximum dosage rates of MB/Pic formulations of 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2) fornutsedge and 150 kg/ha (15 g/m2) for pathogens with adoption of LPBF and also made an adjustmentfor strip fumigation based on0.58 of the area treated. Anadjustment was also made for dosage rate for Michigan suitable for pathogens of 150 kg/ha (15 g/m2). MBTOC noted that thearea of land using MB hasincreased by approx 10% compared to 2008. In California, methyl bromide is requested for the control of crown and root rots caused byPhytophthora capsici;August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report52CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)Rhizoctonia, Verticillium, andPythium, root knot (Meloidogynespp). According to the Party, metham sodiumis used on nearly as many acres as MB and hasbeen considered a viable alternative for hillsides and in areasaffected by township caps, however is possibly becoming less effective because of enhanceddegradation, but this is not supported by studies within the region. The Party also did not provide evidence to support infeasibility of alternatives especiallymetham sodium and chloropicrin and Telone. Telone/Pic is also considered an effective alternative.The key pest of peppers in Michigan isPhytophthora capsiciand in the Southeastern United States, including Florida and Georgia, nutsedge andP. capsici. InMichigan,P. capsicihas been found in the irrigation water in Michigan and occurredafter soil treatment with Telone C35 and metham sodium. However MBTOCconsiders reinfestation can occur with any fumigants, includingmethyl bromide. 1,3-D/chloropicrin may be an effective alternative but the Party states growers willmiss the optimal market window. According to the Party, thistreatment cannot be applied in autumn because of climatic conditions. In Florida and Georgia karsttopography limits the use of alternatives which include 1,3-dichloropropene, whichare considered the best alternatives for these pests on 40% of the growingacreage in Florida and 8% of the acreage in Georgia. The Party inthe past has stated that methamsodium or metham potassium ispromising alternatives but nofurther data has been provided on their performance. MBTOC, however, considers that alternatives are available for both karst and non-karst areas in SE, Floridaand Georgia (Nolinget al2006; Rosskopfet al, 2005; Gilreath and Santos 2004a; Gilreathet al2003a, 2005a; Gilreath 1999, Santoset al2006; Chellemiet al2004; Chellemi 2006) and can be adopted on areasof moderate pest pressure at least, and has adjusted the nomination for theseregions by 25%, which is in linewith the 26 % transition suggested by the Party in 2006. The Party indicated that 42% transition to alternatives was possible in these regions over a seven yearperiod. MBTOC considered a 25% reduction possible in this yearby further rate reductions of MBusing formulations of MB/Pic with lower ratios of MB inconjunction with barrier films, and adoption of alternatives. Ithas based this reduction on the amount approved at the 18 MOP. (This amount reflected a further18% transition over the Parties suggested 7%transition for 2009). The Party showed references which supported use of alternatives in combination with LDPF(Culpepper, 2006). Other studies on possible effective alternatives are available (Ristaino and Johnson (1999), Babadost and Islam (2002), Johnston et al (2002),Driver and Lows (2003). A combination of1,3-D or metham sodium with chloropicrin + herbicides (Trifluralin, napropamide, halosulfuron, s-metalochlor) isconsidered as the best alternative strategy in Florida. No future indication for the use of this combination was given by the Party. Hausbeck and Lamour (2004)and others have reported many efficient management strategies tocontrol Phytophthora on pepper, including crop rotation with non susceptible hosts (carrots,beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa , cultural control (water management, plant density, soil amendments, protective mulch, raised beds etc....) and useof registered fungicides (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph (Acrobat), Zoxamide + Mancozeb, Copper hydroxide+Acrobat). Seed treatment with Mephenoxan ormetalaxyl control Phytophthora during seed germination. MBTOC notesthat uptake of alternatives for this crop in regions with similar pests has occurred within 4years or less in many countries e.g. Spain, Italy, Australia. (Leoni and Leda, 2004; Spotti, 2004; Tostovrsniket al2005;Minutoet al, 2003). In 2007 the Partyindicated that 42% transition toalternatives was possible in these regions overa seven year period. The Party showed references which supported use ofalternatives in combination with LDPF (Culpepper, 2006). Otherstudies on possible effective alternatives are available (Ristaino and Johnson (1999), Babadostand Islam (2002), Johnstonet al(2002), Driver and Lows (2003). A combination of 1,3-D ormetham sodium with chloropicrin + herbicides (Clomazone, smetalochlor) is considered as the best alternative strategy in Florida. No future indication for the use of this combination was given by the Party. Hausbeck andLamour (2004) and others have reported many efficient management strategies to control Phytophthora on pepper, including crop rotation with non susceptiblehosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa , cultural control (water management, plant density, soil amendments, protective mulch, raised beds)and use of registered fungicides(Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph (Acrobat), Zoxamide + Mancozebe, Copper hydroxide+Acrobat). Seed treatment with Mephenoxanor metalaxyl control Phytophthora during seed germination.. MBTOC notes that uptake ofalternatives for this crop in regions with similar pests has occurredwithin 4 years or less in many countries e.g. Spain, Italy, Australia. (Leoni and Leda, 2004; Spotti, 2004; Tostovrsniket al, 2005;Minutoet al, 2003). MBTOCconsiders that further reductions in MBamount is possible with changes to formulations of 50:50 MB/Pic or less (e.g. to 30:70)used in combination with barrierfilms.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report53CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)MBTOC comments on economics:Part of the nomination for Michigan was based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:TheCUN states next best alternative in all regions is 1,3-D with chloropicrin with expected yield losses of 6 percent in Michiganand California and 29 percent in otherregions. CUN states 1,3-D with chloropicrin is considered technically feasible Michigan. In Michigan delayed planting and harvest with the alternatives results inlower average price (7.5%) received from missed market windows,and negative net revenue. In remaining regions yield losses significantly reduce net revenues.UnitedStatesStrawberry(field)2052.8461730.7781476.0191349.5751336.754(Includes2.377 t forresearch)1,269.321(Includes 2.377 tfor research)MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 1,269.321 tonnes for this use in 2009. This comprises 1,064.556 tonnes for California, 70.088tonnes for Eastern USA,132.300 tonnes for Florida and 2.377 tonnes for research. ForCalifornia the Party nominated 1,064.556 tonnes for 2009 (5452 haat 195 kg/ha (19.5 g/m2)). Thenomination is based on the grounds that township caps and county restrictions limitfurther adoption of 1,3-D and Pic. Additional information provided by the Partyconfirmed the regulatory restrictions ofthe township caps (1,3-D) and county commissioners restrictions on the use of Pic. Thenominated area for MB inCalifornia is for 5,452 hectares. Based on the generalised data available, MBTOC estimated that the area needing MB due to restrictions on alternative fumigantscould range from approximately 6,532 hectares assuming a 1x cap inall townships, to approximately 3,981 hectares assuming a 2xcap, based on CSCanticipated crop growth of 4% per year. Further clarification of the restrictions on the use of alternatives is required in future nominations. LPBF cannot be usedwith MB in California, but these films can be used with alternatives and can reduce the dosage rates required for effective pathogen and weed control. MBTOCencourages the Party to continue research on the use of LPBF and other techniques that result in improved efficacy at lower application rates and/or reducedemissions that would result in more useof alternatives under township cap and county commissioner constraints. For Eastern states the Party nominated 93.488tonnes (534 ha @ 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2)). The nomination is based on moderate to severe pest pressure (Meloidogynespp.,Pythium, Rhizoctonia, Phytophthoracactorum, Cyperus escultentus, C. rotundus,Loliumspp.) affecting 33% of the crop area, and small farmbuffer zones on 40% of the area which affects use of1,3-D formulations. MBTOC considers that alternatives are available for part of the CUN area (on both buffer and non buffer areas) by use of combinations of 1,3-D, Pic, metham with herbicides and/or (Fergusonet al. 2001; Sydorovychet al. 2004; Driveret al. 2005; López-Arandaet al. 2005; Nortonet al. 2002; Gilreathetal. 2003c; studies cited in TEAP 2006). MBTOC accordingly reducedthe nomination by 23.372 tonnes(about 25%) to allow for transition to alternatives and MBdose adjustment to 150 kg/ha (15 g/m2) forthe areas of low nutsedge pressure affected by buffer zones (allowing 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2)) for the high pestpressure areas). However MBTOC notes thatthe Eastern states planned toimplement MB/Pic mixtures with lower dosage rate formulations of MB/Pic incombination with LPBF in the previous nomination (US CUN 06).For Florida the Party nominated 176.333 tonnes (1008 ha @ 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2)). Thenomination is based on the grounds that currently available alternatives are not able to control moderate-severe nutsedge (33%of area), 1,3-D is restricted inkarst/seepage areas (56%), and economic issues. MBTOC considersthat alternatives are available for part of the CUN area on both karst and non karst areasby use of combinations of 1,3-D, pic, metham with herbicides and/or LPBF as studiesprovide evidence for yields that are statistically similar to MB (Gilreathet al.2003bc; Nortonet al. 2002; Ajwaet al. 2003, 2004, 2005; López-Arandaet al. 2005; studies in TEAP 2006). Accordingly the nomination was reduced by 44.083tonnes to allow for transition to alternatives and dose adjustments to 150 kg/ha on areas of low nutsedge pressure on karst (allowing 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2) forhigh pest pressure areas).August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report54CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not basedon economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:CUN reports costs forthree next best alternatives for California,Florida, and Eastern United States. 1,3-Dwith chloropicrin isreported to reduceyield by 10 to 14 percent. Resultinglower production leads to large losses of net revenue. Plantingand harvesting delays with alternatives are reported to lead tolower average prices received in allregions, but are only shown in the revenue analysis for California.UnitedStatesStrawberryrunners54.98856.2914.4838.8388.837(Includes0.454 t forresearch)7.944(Includes 0.454 tfor research)MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 7.944 tonnes for this use in2009. This comprises 4.69 tonnes for CA, 2.8 tonnes for SE and 0.454 tonnes forresearch. The key pests affecting strawberry runners are weeds (purple and yellow nutsedge), fungi (RhizoctoniaandPythiumin SE,Phytophthora, Verticillium),nematodes (root-knot, sting in CA). The CUNstates that MB at a dosageof 26.3 g/m2 in CA and 35.0 g/m2 in SE is required to meet the certification standardsfor strawberry runners. The Party's request exceeds MBTOC's standard presumption of 200 kg/ha (20g/m2) of MB which is considered effective for production of'high health' strawberry runners using LPBF and other emissioncontrol technologies (TEAP October 2005); however, California’scertification requirementsspecify minimum amounts of MB that must beapplied. Furthermore, California regulations prohibit the use of LPBF with MB. Thereduction is for the SE toconform to MBTOC presumptions. The Party indicates that key alternatives include 1,3-D + PIC followed by dazomet, PIC followedby dazomet and MI + PIC butthat these have not been sufficiently tested on a commercial scale.Furthermore, MI is not currently registered. MBTOC encourages the Party to expedite thecommercial scale testing of these alternativesas well as the registration of MI.MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:CUN identifies 1,3-Dwith chloropicrin as the next best alternative with a 10-percent yield loss in California and the south eastern States. Operating costs with 1,3-D plus chloropicrinare marginally higher in the Southeast and marginally lower inCalifornia. In both regions the alternative is predicted to result in a 46 percent decrease in netrevenues.UnitedStatesSweetpotato slipsNone80.8300.00018.14418.144(Includes2.377 t forresearch)18.144(Includes 2.377 tfor research)MBTOC recommends 18.144 MB for this use in 2009. The key pests affecting production of sweet potato slips are nematodes (Meloidogyne incognita), fungi(Streptomyces ipomea, Monilochaetes infuscans, Fusarium oxysporum,Ceratocystis fimbriata), weeds (Chenopodiumspp.,Digitariaspp.) and insects (Scarabidbeetles,Limoniusspp). The Party identifies that Telone effectively controls the key pests of sweet potatoes in California. However, Telone cannot be used in DecJan as township caps are exceeded by November which is the fumigation window for slips. The party requests MB for use only in slips where high quality seed isproduced. The rates stated in the CUN are consistent with MBTOC’sstandard presumptions. However,MBTOC notes that desirable nematode resistant cultivarsare widely available elsewhere in the world and may be useful inmanaging nematode pests. The nomination does state that resistant varieties were to be testedin California from 2001 to 2003 but no results are provided.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report55CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)MBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:No economic data onalternatives given. Factors that contribute to losses include delayed plantingdue to use of alternatives; fallow; additional use of herbicides; losses due to weeds,insects and diseases resulting in smaller,less attractive produce (quality loss).UnitedStatesTomatoes(field)2876.0462476.3642065.2461406.4841245.249(Includes5.501 t forresearch)1003.876(Includes 5.501 tfor research)MBTOC recommends 1003.876 t for this use in SE, Georgia, Florida and Michigan in 2009. The amount recommended includes 5.501 tonnes for research. Anew nominated amount has been requested for Maryland a region whichthe Party has stated previously used MB from stocks. A reduction was made in the SE,Georgia, Florida by 25% from the amount approved for 2008 to allow for adoptionof alternatives and toaccount for further ratereduction by adoption offormulations of MB/Pic with lower ratios ofMB in conjunction with barrier films. According to the available information, MBTOChas determined that the amountsfor each region are 230.919 t for the SE, 55.747 t for Georgia, 685.789 t for Florida, 24.90 t for Michigan and 1.02 t for Maryland. The Party has stated that itbased its nomination on MBTOC’s standard maximum dosage rates ofMB/Pic formulations of 175 kg/ha for nutsedge and 150 kg/ha for pathogens with adoptionof LPBF and also made an adjustment for strip fumigation basedon 0.58 of the area treated. Anadjustment was also made for dosage rate for Michigan suitablefor pathogens of 150 kg/ha (15 g/m2.) No information was provided on the key pests in Maryland andan assumption was made that pests were similar to the otherregions in the SE. MBTOC has assumed this region was not included in the “region SE and middle Atlantic, US”. If this assumption is not correct the party isrequested to provide the appropriate information.The key pest of tomatoes in the south eastern United States, including Florida and Georgia are nutsedge, nematodes and P. capsici. In Florida and Georgiakarst topography limits the use of alternatives which include 1,3-dichloropropene, which are considered the best alternatives for these pests on 54% of thegrowing acreage in Florida, 11% in Georgiaand 6% of the acreage in Georgia. The Party in the past has stated that metham sodium or metham potassium ispromising alternatives but no further datahas been provided on their performance. MBTOC,however, considers that alternativesare available for both karst andnon-karst areas in SE, Florida and Georgia (Nolinget al. 2006; Santos et al. 2006; Noling and Gilreath 2004; Gilreathand Santos 2004bc; Gilreathet al. 2002,2003, 2004, 2005bc, 2006; Rosskopfet al, 2005; Chellemi and Browne, 2006; McMillan and Bryan 1998, 1999, 2002; Rich and Olson 2003) which can beadopted on areas of moderate pest pressure at least. MBTOC has adjusted the nomination for these regions by 25%, which is in line with the 26 % transitionsuggested by the Party in 2006. The Party indicated that 42% transition to alternatives was possible in these regions over a seven year period. MBTOCconsidered a 25% reduction possible in this year by further ratereductions of MB using formulations of MB/Pic with lower ratios of MB in conjunction with barrierfilms, and adoption of alternatives. It has based this reduction on the amount approved at the18 MOP. (This amount reflecteda further 18% transition over theParties suggested 7% transition for 2009). The Party showed references which supported use of alternatives in combination withLDPF (Culpepper, 2006). Otherstudies on possible effective alternatives are available (Ristaino and Johnson (1999), Babadost and Islam (2002), Johnstonet al(2002), Driver and Lows (2003).A combination of 1,3-D or metham sodium with chloropicrin + herbicides (Trifluralin, Devrinol, napropamide, halosulfuron, s-metalochlor) is considered as the bestalternative strategy in Florida. No future indication for the use of this combination was given by the Party. Husbeck and Lamour (2004) and others have reportedmany efficient management strategies to control Phytophthoraon vegetables, including crop rotation with non susceptible hosts(carrots, beans, onions,asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa , cultural control (water management,plant density, soil amendments, protective mulch, raised beds etc....) and use of registeredfungicides (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph (Acrobat),Zoxamide + Mancozeb, Copper hydroxide+Acrobat). Seed treatment with Mephenoxan or metalaxyl controlAugust 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report56CountryIndustryQuantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapproved for2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendationfor 2009 (new)Phytophthora during seed germination. MBTOC notes that uptake of alternatives for thiscrop in regions with similar pests has occurred within 4 years or less inmany countries e.g. Spain, Italy, Australia. (Leoni and Ledda,2004; Spotti, 2004; Tostovrsnik etal 2005;Minuto et al, 2003; Vos and Bridge 2006; EC 2006).MBTOC considers that further reductions inMB amount is possible withchanges to formulations of 50:50 MB/Pic or less (e.g. to 30:70) used in combination withbarrier films. The Party states thatregistration of a key alternative (eg. methyl iodide) is pending.MBTOC comments on economics: Part of the nomination for Michigan was based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:TheCUN reports yield losses for 1,3-D with chloropicrin as the nextbest alternative ranging from 1.75% to 6%. Net revenue declines reported for all regions. Changesin pest control costs are less than 4 percentof total variable costs so have little impact on economic measures. Missed marketwindow in Michigan cited as mainreason.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 57 

# 6. MBTOC Work plan for 2008

6.1 Introduction

The Parties, at their Sixtee nth Meeting, decided to adopt the elements related to procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) related to the evaluation of nominations for critical uses of methyl bromide as set out in Annex I to th e report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties (16MOP) (decision XVI/4).

Paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP states that annual work plan should be drawn up by MBTOC (supported by the Ozone Secretariat) in consultation with

TEAP and that MBTOC should submit it to th e Meeting of the Parties each year.

In accordance with paragraph 15 of Anne x I to the report of 16MOP, MBTOC has prepared its 2008 work plan in consultati on with TEAP and with support of the Ozone Secretariat. The timelines for the work pl an are contained below for consideration by

the Parties at their Nineteenth Meeting.

Paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP also specifies that a summary report

of MBTOC activities over the previous year (par agraph 15(h)) should also be indicated in the MBTOC plan. In accordan ce with this requirement, this summary report is provided.

6.2 MBTOC Workplan for 2008 - Details

Paragraph 1 of Annex I to the report of 16 MOP provides the schedule for the MBTOC assessment of critical-use exemp tions. In accordance with the schedule, MBTOC envisages its activities in 2008 as set out in Table 9 below. The elements of the work plan as specified under paragra ph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP have been incorporated. The schedule of the work to be carried out by MBTOC on the MBTOC composition is also included. The list of current membership of

MBTOC is contained in Annex I.

The work plan also includes an indicativ e budget for the activiti es in 2008 which are

related to evaluation of CUNs. Parties ha d indicated in the 2006 approved budget that 2006 is the last year for providing suppl emental funding to MBTOC and for 2007, no supplemental funding was provided for MBTOC. MBTOC would like to bring to the

attention of the Parties that such financial assistance is needed to ensure the effective operation of MBTOC in continuing to ca rry out the evaluatio n of CUNs. In particular, provision of so me funding for non-Article 5 MBTOC members and cochairs is strongly recommended. Some non- Article 5 members do not have funding to attend meetings; some members are funded by their Parties, although funding is not always consistently in place. Some non- Article 5 members presently use personal funds or funds from research programs to attend MBTOC meetings. As mentioned in the previous workplan of MBTOC as well as in the Progress Reports of TEAP, the

financial burden on individual members and/or their research inst itutions has become increasingly unsustainable.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 58 Although decreasing work load for the sec ond meeting of the year as a result of reduced numbers of CUNs and experience with the remaining ones, may lead to reevaluating the necessity for two 'face-to-face' meetings a year, additional workload and costs include: (i) the requirement fo r MBTOC reports to more clearly and completely reference the reasons for d ecision making, thus additional costs of obtaining reference documents; (ii) field trips to understand th e circumstances of particular nominations; (iii) time necessary to prepare reports that summarize particularly complex issues.

As a result of lack of funding only local site visits were cond ucted in those places where MBTOC meetings took place.. Furthe r, it was necessary to conduct a number of important tasks off line, including the finalisation of the MBTOC 2006 Assessment Report and the revision of Handbook for Criti cal Use Nominations. This represented

extra effort and difficulties and often re quired MBTOC members to work extensively outside regular office hours.

Table 9. MBTOC work plan and indicative budget for 2008

Tasks and actions Indicative supplemental budget needs where applicable Indicative completion date Dates of meetings



# Assessment of the CUNs

1. Parties submit their nominations for criticaluse exemptions to the Secretariat - 24 January 2008

2. The nominations are forwarded to MBTOC co-chairs for distribution to the subgroups of appointed members - 7 February 2008

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 - 28 February 2008

5. MBTOC co-chairs forward the cleared

advice on initial fi ndings and may request additional information on to the nominating Party concerned and consult with the Party on the possible presumption therein - 7 March 2008

6. Nominating Party develops and submits its response to the MBTOC co-chairs - 25 March 2008

7. MBTOC Meeting No.1 to assess nominations, including any additional information provided by the nominating Party prior to the MBTOC meeting under action 5 and any additional information provided by nominating Party through pre-arranged teleconference, or through meetings with national experts, in accordance with paragraph 3.4 of the terms of

reference of TEAP Funds for a specialist in nutsedge control to

attend MBTOC S meeting to assist analysis

of CUNs 1 

# : $7250

Funds for travel of one

non A5 Co chair and two

non A5 members: US$

14,250 3 

# :

Meeting costs US$4,000($2000 for each subcommittee)** Tentative MBTOC-S April 7-11, Rehovot,

Israel

MBTOC- QSC

Tentative: The Philippines

8. Field missions by MBTOC members to some key sites where methyl bromide is used as per

nominations. Funds for travel to field

sites to observe and discuss important issues In conjunction

with MBTOC mtg No.1

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 59 Tasks and actions Indicative supplemental budget needs where applicable Indicative completion date Dates of meetings

related to CUNs: US$

6,000 4



# 9. TEAP Meeting: To assess the MBTOC report

on critical-use nomina tions and submits the finalised interim report on recommendations and findings to the Secretariat. Funds for travel of 1nonA5 co-chair: US$ 4750 2 

# April 14 – 18,

Morocco

10. The Secretariat pos ts the finalised report on

its web site and circulates it to the Parties - Mid May

11. OEWG Bilatera l Discussions: Nominating Party has the opportunity to consult with MBTOCon a bilateral basis in conjunction with the Openended Working Group meetings Funds for travel of 1nonA5 co-chair: US$ 4750 2 

# Early July

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 - Mid August 2008

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 cr itical-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 c onsultations requested by Parties

• draft work plan and budget for MBTOC for

2007 Funds for travel of one

non-A5 co-chair and 2

non-A5 members: US$14,250 2,3 

# :

Meeting costs: $US 4000($2000 for each subcommittee) **. Early September,

2008

14. MBTOC draft final report considered by TEAP, finalised and made available to Parties through the Secretariat - September 2008

15. Twentieth Meeting of the Parties Funds for travel of 1

non-A5 co-chair: US$

4750 2 

# Early October

2008 Nov/Dec 2008

Total budget sought: US$56,000

. * Cost calculated on basis of one round trip airfare in discount economy plus taxe s and 1 week accommodation. ** Meeting costs covered separately by the Ozone Secretariat and not considered in total.



# Composition of MBTOC

16. At the MBTOC meeting on the assessment of nominations, MBTOC will al so update the list of members and their expertise and decide on missing expertise. The list and missing expertise

to be submitted to the Secretariat. In conjunction

with MBTOC meeting No.1 and

2

17. The Secretariat will update on its website the list of members and their expertise as well as the information on ‘experts required for TEAP and its

TOCs’. In conjunction

with MBTOC meetings No.1

and 2 as

necessary



# Explanation of the budget: Funds are requested to support:

1. Funds are requested to support a resource specialis t on nutsedge control, to the first meeting in 2008. Purple and yellow nutsedge are a key target pest for over 50% of the remaining CUNs and

further information is critical to ensure MBTO C provides accurate assessment of Critical Use

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 60 Nominations for preplant soil use. The budget of $7250 is requested for a discount economy airfare and expenses to cover costs for one person for 4 days (including days of travel).

2. Five trips (@4750/trip) for a non A5 Co-chair or Task Force Chair to attend MBTOC meetings x2, TEAP meetings, the OEWG and the MOP.

3. Two trips in the year (@ $4750/trip) are requ ested to support the a ttendance of one non A5 member of each sub committee to ensure relevant expertise is present at meetings to be able to assess nominations effectively. The request is on ly for members who rely on their own personal funds to attend MBTOC meetings. These members are long standing members of MBTOC, have specialist expertise and are critical to the assessmen t of the CUNs. Over the past 2 years, between 10 and 15% of MBTOC-S members have been unable to attend the MBTOC meetings due to lack of funding.

4. Two field trips (@3,000/trip) are being planned in 2008 to review the situation with alternatives and methyl bromide use for industries that are ap plying for CUNs. These visits are an essential part of gaining information to accu rately assess CUN nominations.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 61 

# 7. Summary Report of the Activiti es Carried out by MBTOC in

2007

• Initial summarization of the CUNs (initi al sorting and reco rding carried out by the Secretariat).

• Preparation of questions for Parties. Assessment of responses received.

• Finalisation of the MBTOC 2006 Assessm ent Report which was published in

March 2007

• First meeting of MBTOC on the asse ssment of the CUNs – Alassio, 19-23

March 2007. Interim recommendations a nd report prepared for the Parties. MBTOC QSC welcomed new members from Argentina, Belize, The Netherlands, New Zealand, and The Philippines. Some were members of the former QPS taskforce which was incorporated into this subcommittee. Departure of one MBTOC-S member from Brazil. Bilateral meetings were

held with USA.

• Site visits: MBTOC-S conducte d a field trip to observe alternatives adopted by basil and flower growers including subs trate production, steam and alternative fumigants. MBTOC-QSC conducted a site visit to a speciality flour mill in Southern France at the request of the milling company.

• TEAP meeting – Rome, 26-30 March 2007.

• Issuance of the interim report for cons ideration by the 27 OEWG as part of 2007 TEAP Progress Report of April 2007.

• 27 OEWG (Nairobi, 4 – 7 June 2007). B ilateral meetings with Australia, Canada, and USA.

• Preparation of second round of questions to the Parties.

In accordance with TEAP reorganisation of MBTOC, the two subcommittees met separately for the second round of deliberations:

• Second meeting of MBTOC-Soils, San Jo se, Costa Rica, 10-13 July 2007. A

bilateral discussion was held with th e USA. A site visit was conducted to observe alternatives adopted by flower growers participating in the UNDP project to phase-out MB. Resignation of one MBTOC- S member from Japan.

• Revision of the Handbook on Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide

• Revision of the standard presumpti ons used by MBTOC-S when evaluating

CUNs

• Second Meeting of MBTOC-QSC, Washington DC, USA, June 30 - July 3 2007 Bilateral meeting with USA.

• Site visit: MBTOC QSC conduc ted a field trip to proce ssors of Southern cure

ham and to North Carolina State Universi ty the coordination site for a multistate research projec t on this MB use.

• Preparation of the final report on the C UNs for consideration by the Parties at

their 19 th 

# Meeting.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 63 

# 8. Management and Personnel Issues

Annex V lists MBTOC members, country, work affiliation and expertise. MBTOC members represent an impressive scope and depth of experience and ability; MBTOC

has members from 25 countries. MBTOC needs to have its members funded to attend meetings, and able to commit to contributi ng to the work of MBTOC outside of the meetings. Most members have been appointed by Parties, yet it is a constant struggle for many members to obtain sufficient f unding to attend all MBTOC meetings, and even more so to be funded to spend th e time necessary to accomplish the heavy

workload.

Most importantly, improvements in fundi ng by Parties for MBTOC members who are citizens of the Party, and secondly, the respons e of the Parties to MBTOC’s indicative budget will, more than anything, clarify MBTOC’s membership needs. Without funding to attend meetings, many current non-Article 5 MBTO C members will be unable to attend. In the past year, 23% of members in the soil committee have had funding problems and missed at least one meeti ng. If there is to be no change in the funding situation, MBTOC may lose specialist expertise and this would threaten both the outcome of CUN decisions and the ability to provide complete progress reports.

MBTOC continues to search fo r well-qualified members, pa rticularly from Article 5

countries and countries with economies in transition (CEIT), with expertise in:

- Weeds, specifically Cyperus spp (nutsedge)

- Replant problems

As stated above, nutsedge is a target pest for over 50% of the remaining CUNs and MBTOC presently requires speci alist expertise to address effective controls for specific regions, such as the s outh eastern USA and Israel.

Additionally, if Parties expa nd MBTOC’s workload in the area of quarantine uses of methyl bromide, additional members with quarantine regulation expertise may be required.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 65 

# 9. Proposed Changes to Standard Presumptions for Preplant Soil

Use of MB

Standard presumptions used in the curre nt round of CUN are s hown in Section 5.3. These have included a maximum dosage rate of 15 g/m 2 

# (150 kg MB/ha) for pathogen control and 17.5 g/m 2 

# (175 kg MB/ha) where nutgrass must be controlled, both under LPBF films (e.g. VIF or equivalent). Un less otherwise specified, 50:50 MB/Pic or nearest equivalent formulation is consider ed effective for pat hogen control and 67:33 for nutsedge control and should be used to lower MB dose. For strawberry runner crops and other nursery crops, MBTOC al so considered a maximum of 20.0 g/m 2 

# (200 kg MB/ha) applicable to meet certification standards for pathogens in the absence of data from the Party which stated th at a different rate was necessary.

It is proposed that commencing with the CUN of 2008, that maximum dosage rates be revised to 12.5 kg/ha for pathogens and 15.0 kg/ha for specific preplant soil uses where trials and commercial adoption has proven that lower rates are effective.

Supporting data for the methyl bromide co mponent and dosage is given in Appendix

V.

Table 10. Proposed changes to maximum dos age rates for prepla nt soil use of MB.

Maximum MB Dosage Rate (g/m 2 

# ) in MB/Pic mixtures considered

effective for: Film Type

Strawberries and Vegetables Nurseries* Orchard Replant Ornamentals

Barrier films -

Pathogens 12.5 15 15 15

Barrier films -

Nutsedge 15.0 17.5 17.5 17.5

No Barrier films - Pathogens 20 20 20 20

No Barrier films - Nut sedge 26 26 26 26



# * Maximum rate unless certi fication specifies otherwise

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 66 

# 10. References

Ajwa H.A., Fennimore, S., Kabin, Z., Martin, F., Du niway, J., Browne, G., Trout, T., Kahn, A. and Daugovish, O. (2004). Strawberry yield with chloropicrin and inline in combination with

metam sodium and VIF. In: Annual Interna tional Research Conferen ce on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 3-6 November 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA.

Ajwa, H.A. S. Fennimore, Z. Kabir, F. Martin, J. Duniway, G. Browne, T. Trout, R. Goodhue, and L. Guerrero. (2003). Strawberry yield under reduced application rates of chloropicrin and InLine

in combination with metam sodium and VIF. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-6 November 2003, San Diego, California, USA.

Ajwa, HA, Fennimore, S, Browne, G, Martin, F, Trout, T, Duniway, J, Shem-Tov, S and Daugovish, O. (2005). Strawberry yield with various rates of chloropicrin and Inline applied under VIF. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives

and Emissions Reductions.

Akkaya, F., Ozturk, A., Deviren, A., Ozcelik, A. and Ozkan, B. (2004). An economic analysis of alternatives to use of Methyl Bromide for greenhouse vegetables (Tomatoes, Cucumbers) and cut flowers (Carnation). Acta Horticulturae 638, 479-485.

Allen, M. (2007). Personal communication, Victoria, Australia

Babadost M and Islam S.Z., (2002). Bell peppers resistant to Phytophthora blight . Phytopathology

, (Abstr), 92, 55

Bartual, R., Cebolla, V., Bustos, J., Giner, A., Lo pez-Aranda, J. M. (2002). The Spanish project on alternatives to methyl bromide. (2): The case of strawberry in th e area of Valencia. Acta Hort.

567: 431-434.

Batchelor, T.A. (2002). International and European Community controls on methyl bromide and the status of methyl bromide use and alternatives in the European Community. In:

Proc.International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 5-8 March 2002, Sevilla. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg. pp. 35-39.

Batchelor, T.A. (ed.) (2000). Case Studies on Altern atives to Methyl Bromide. Technologies with Low Environmental Impact. UNEP. Paris. 77pp.

Bello A., (2007). Pers. comm., MBTOC member, Madrid, Spain

Bello, A., Arias, M., Lopez-Perez, J., A., Garcia-A lvarez, A., Fresno, J., Escuer, M., Arcos, S. C., Lacasa, A., Sanz, R., Gomez, P., Diez-Rojo, M. A., Buena, A. P., Goitia , C., De la Horra, J. L.and Martinez, C. (2004). Biofumigation, fallow, and nematode management in vineyard replant. Nematropica, Puerto Rico, 2004, 34 (1) 53-64.

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

Cebolla, V., Bartual, R., Giner, A and. Bustos, J. (1999). Two years effect on some alternatives to Methyl Bromide on strawberry crops. In: An nual International Re search Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 1999. 1-4 November, 1999, San Diego, California, USA.

CDPR. Pesticide Use Report (PUR Data). California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data (2005), Use by chemical; 2006. www.cdpr.ca.gov

Chellemi, D.O. 2006. Effect of urban plant debris and soil management practices on plant parasitic nematodes, Phytophthora blight and Pythium root rot of bell pepper. Crop Protection 25,

1109-1116.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 67 Chellemi, D.O and Browne, GT. 2006. Area wide pest management project for methyl bromide alternatives. South Atlantic component. Pro ceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Powerpoint presentation.

Chellemi, D.O, Mirusso, J, and Nance, J. 2004. Evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives on commercial vegetable farms. Proceedings of An nual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Chellemi, DO, Rosskopf, EN and Kokalis-Burelle, N. 2006. Telone TM 

# C-35 demonstration trial in eggplant. Proceedings of Annual Internationa l Research Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Culpepper, A.S., Grey, T.L., Webster, T.M. 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 An nual Meeting, January 22-25, 2006.

De Cal, A., Martínez-Terceno, A., López-Aranda, J. M. and Melgarejo P. (2004). Alternatives to methyl bromide in Spanish strawberry nurseries. Plant Disease 88(2): 210-214. De Miguel, A. 2004. Use of grafted cucurbits in the Mediterra nean region as an alternative to Methyl

Bromide. Fifth International Conference On Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 26-30 September, 2004, Lisbon, Portugal Sept 2004.

Driver J.G. and Lows , (2003). Management of Phytophthora crown and root rot in peppers (Abstr), Phytopathology , 93, S22

Driver, JG, Brannen, P, Seitz, M, Schiemann, C, Welker, RM and Louws, FJ. (2005). On-farm fumigant trials for strawberries in the southeas t. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Br omide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Duniway, J. M., Xiao, C. L. and Gubler, W. D. (1998) Response of strawberry to soil fumigation: Microbial mechanisms and some alternatives to Methyl Bromide. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alte rnatives and Emissions Reduction 1998. 7-9 December, 1998, Orlando, Florida, USA pp. 6-1.

EC, European Community, (2006). European Community Management Strategy for the phase-out of the critical uses of Methyl Bromide. May 2006. European Community, Brussels.

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.

Fennimore, S, Kabir, Z, Ajwa, H, Daugovish, O, Roth, K and Valdez, J. (2003). Chloropicrin and Inline dose-response under VIF and HDPE film: weed control results. Proc. Annual

International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.2/1-2/4

Ferguson, L.M., Fernandez, G.E., Brannen, P.M., Lo uws, F.J., Poling, E.B., Sydorovych, O.B., Safley, C.D., Monks, D.W., Pesic-Van Esbroeck, Z., Sanders, D.C. and Smith, J.P. (2001). Alternative soil treatments for strawberry in the southeastern United States. In: Annual

International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, USA.

Fery, R.L. and Dukes, P. (1996). The inheritance of resistance to the southern root knot nematode in "Carolina Hot" cayenne pepper. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 121, 1024-1027.

Fraedrich S.W, L.D. Dwinell, and M.M. Cram, (2003). Broadcast Applications of Glyphosate Control Nutsedge at a South Georgia Forest Tree Nursery. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 27(3):

176-179

Fraser, P, Coram, S., Dunse, B. Macfarling-Meure and Derek, N. (2006). Methyl bromide emissions through barrier films. CSIRO Report to Department of Primary Industries Victoria, August,

2006

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 68 Fritsch, J. (1998). Strawberries crops in France: different methods to apply methyl bromide and metam sodium in open fields. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 1998 . 7-9 December, 1998, Orlando, Florida

Fritsch, J. (2002). The curr ent status of alternatives to methyl bromide in vegetable crops in France.

International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. March 5-8 2002. Seville, 193-

195.

Fukuda, N. and Anami, Y. (2002) Substrate and nutrient level: effects on the growth and yield of

melon `Cucumis melo' in soilless culture. Acta Horticulturae 588: 111-117

Gilreath, J. 1999. Living without methyl bromid e. Adapt now; thrive in 2005. Florida Farmer. September 1999.

Gilreath J.P., BM.Santos, P.R.Gilreat h, J.D. Busacca, J.E. Eger and J. M.Mirusso, (2006). Validation of a methyl Bromide alternative program for fresh market tomato, 2006, Journal of Agronomy, 5(2) 332-335

Gilreath J.P., BM.Santos, P.R.G ilreath, J.P. Jones and J.W.Nolin g (2005). Efficacy of 1,3 D + Cloropicrin application methods in combination with pebulate and napromide in Tomato. Crop Protection 23:1187-1191

Gilreath J.P., J.M. Mirusso, J. W.Noling, J.P.Jones and P.R.Gilreath, (2002a). Effectiveness of broadcast application of Telone C35 and Tilam+Devrinol in Tomato. Proceedings of the FloridaHorticultural Society ., 115,276-280

Gilreath, J.P., Mirusso, J.M., Jones, J.P., Rosskop f, E.N., Noling, J.W. and Gilreath, P.R. (2002b). Efficacy of broadcast Telone C- 35 in tomato. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Br omide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Gilreath, J.P., Santos, B.M., Motis, T.N., Noling, J. W. and Mirusso, J.M. (2005a). Methyl bromide

alternatives for nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper ( Capsicum annuum ). Crop Protection. 24, 903-908. Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T.N., Santos, B.M., Mirusso, J. M., Gilreath, P.R., Noling, J.W. and Jones, J.P. (2005b). Influence of supplementary in-bed chloropicrin application on soilborne pest control in tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum ). Crop Protection. 24, 779-784. Gilreath, J.P., Santos, B.M., Siham, M. and Noling, J.W. 2005c. Effect of VIF on nutsedge control with metam, chloropicrin and 1,3- D, alone and in combinatio n. Proceedings of Annual

International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Powerpoint presentation.

Gilreath J.P.,and B.M. Santos (2 005d). Efficacy of 1,3 D plus clor opicrin and herbicides on purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus ) control in tomato. Weed Tecnol.,19-101-104’

Gilreath J.P.and B.M. Santos (2004a) Efficacy of 1,3 D plus chloropicrine in combination with hebicides on purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus ) control in tomato. Weed Technol., 19, 137-

140.

Gilreath, JP and Santos, BM. 2004b. Herbicide dose and incorporation depth in combination with 1,3- dichloropropene plus chloropicrin for Cyperus rotundus control in tomato and pepper. Crop Protection. 23, 205-210.

Gilreath, JP and Santos, BM. 2004c. Manejo de Cyperus rotundus (coquillo) con alternativas al bromuro de metilo, en tomate de mesa. Manejo Integrade de Plagas y Agroecología. 71, 54-

58.

Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T. N., Santos, B. M. and Noling, J.W. (2003b). Retention of 1,3-dichloropropene and nutsedge control with Virtually Impermeable Film. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions Nov 3-6, 2003, San Diego, California USA.

Gilreath, J.P., Santos, B.M., Motis, T.N., Noling, J.W., Mirusso, J.M. (2005b). Methyl bromide

alternatives for nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper ( Capsicum annuum ). Crop

Protection 24: 903-908.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 69 Gilreath, JP, Noling, JW, Motis, TN, Rosskopf, E and Santos, BM. 2003a. Long term effect of fumigant and herbicide combinations in bell pepper ( Capsicum annuum ). Proceedings of

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromid e Alternatives and Emissions

Reductions.

Gilreath, JP, Motis, TN, Norton, J and Noling. JW. (2003b). Results of the IR-4 strawberry methyl bromide alternatives program in Florida during 2002. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Gilreath, JP, Motis, T, Noling, J and Mertly, J. 2003c . Results of the IR-4 strawberry methyl bromide alternatives program in Florida in 2002. Powerpoint presentation. University of Florida. Glireath, JP, Noling, JW, Jones, JP, Overman, AJ and Santos, BM. 2003d. Experiencias iniciales con alternativas al bromuro de metilo en tomate. Manejo Integrade de Plagas y Agroecología. 69,

81-84.

Haar, M., Fennimore, S. and Ajwa , H. (2001). Weed control effi cacy of drip irrigation applied chloropicrin, metam sodium and 1,3-D. Proc. 2001 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California. Paper 90.

Hamill, J. E., Dickson, D. W., T-Ou, L., Allen, L. H., Burelle, N. K. and Mendes, M. L. (2004). Reduced rates of MBR and C35 under LDPE and VIF for control of soil pests and pathogens. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 31 October - 3 November, 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 2-1.

Hausbeck M.K and Lamour K.H., (2004). Phytophthora capsici on vegetable crops: Research progress and management. Plant Disease 88(12):1992-1303

Horner, I.J. (1999). Alternative so il fumigant trials in New Zealand strawberry production. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, San Diego, California, USA

Johnston S.A., Kleinn W.L. ,Fogg M.L., and Zimmer man M.D, (2002). Varietal resistance evaluation for control of Phytophthora blight of pepper (Abstr). Phytopathology , 92, S40

Kah, E.M. (2005).Effect of grafting on growth, performance and yield of aubergine ( Solanum melongea L.) in the field and greenhouse. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 3(3&4): 92-94

Lampinen, B., Browne, G., Schneider, S., Shrestha, A., Holtz, B. and Simon, L. (2006). Alternative pre-plant soil fumigation treatments for deciduous tree crops. Pp 39-1 – 39-5 In: Annual

International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 3-6 Orlando, Florida, USA paper 39

Leoni, S and Ledda, L. (2004). Influenza delle limitazioni nell'uso del bromuro di metilo sull'ortcoltura in serra della Sardegna. Workshop Internaziona le: La Produzione in Serra dopo l'era del Bromuro di Metile. April 1-3, 2004, Comiso, 253-263.

Lieten, 2004. F. (2004). Substrates as an alternative to methyl bromide for strawberry fruit production in Northern Europe in both pr otected and field production. In : Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004, Lisbon, Portugal.

López-Aranda, J. M., Romero, F., Montes, F., Medina , J. J., Miranda, L., De Los Santos, B., Vega, J.M., Paez, J. I., Dominguez, F., Lopez-Medina, J., and Flores, F. (2001a). Chemical and NonChemical Alternativesto MB Fumigation of Soil for Strawberry. 2000-2001 Results. In:

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromid e Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2001. 5-9 November, 2001,San Diego, California, USA, pp. 40-1.

López-Aranda, J. M., Medina, J. J., Miranda, L., De Los Santos, B., Dominguez, F., Sanchez-Vidal, M. D., Lopez-Medina, J., Flores, F. (2001b). Agronomic Behaviour of Strawberry Coming From Different Types of Soil Fumigation in Nurs eries. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2001. 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 38-1.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 70 López-Aranda, J. M., Miranda, L., Romero, F., De Lo s Santos, B., Montes, F., Vega, J. M., Paez, J. I., Bascon, J., Medina, J. J. (2003). Alternativ es to MB for Strawberry Production in Huelva (Spain). 2003 Results. Annual Internatio nal Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2003. November, 2003, San Diego, California, pp.

33-1.

López-Aranda, JM, Santos, BM, Gilreath, JP, Miranda, L, Soria, C and Medina J.J. (2005). Evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry in Florida and Spain. Proceedings of Annual

International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, USA.

López-Medina, J., Peralbo, A. and Flores, F. (2004). Closed soil-less growing system: A sustainable solution for strawberry crop in Huelva, (Spain). Acta Horticulturae . 649:213-216

Loumakis, N. (2004). Protected vegetable production in Mediterranean regions without the use of Methyl Bromide. Proceedings of International Co nference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon.

Mann, R.C., S.W. Mattner, R.K. Gounder, R.W. Bre tt and I.J. Porter (2005). Evaluating novel soil fumigants for Australian horticulture. Pp 34-1 – 34-4 In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, Oct 31 -Nov. 3, San Diego, California.

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 Suga Y. (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 (1998). 1998 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP, Nairobi.

MBTOC. (2002). 2002 Assessment Report of th e Methyl Bromide Techni cal Options Committee. UNEP, Nairobi. 468pp.

MBTOC, (2007). 2006 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP, Nairobi 482 pp.

McMillan, R.T. and Bryan, H.H. (1998). Vapam as an alternative to methyl bromide for south Florida tomato growers. Proceedings of Annual Inte rnational Research Conference on Methyl

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

McMillan, R.T. and Bryan, H.H. (1999). Effect of metam sodium and methyl bromide on root-knot, weeds and yield in Florida tomato. Proceedings of Annual Internationa l Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

McMillan, R.T. and Bryan, H.H. (2002). Effi cacy of Vapam and Kpam fumigation for Florida tomatoes. Proceedings of Annual Internationa l Research Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

McSorley, R., K.H. Wang and N. K okallis-Burelle. (2006a). Solarization as an alternative to Methyl

Bromide in Florida floriculture. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 6-9, 2006 Orlando, Florida,

USA-337. 2004.

McSorley, R., Wang, K-H., and Saha, S.K. (2006b). Can solarization match methyl bromide fumigation in sites colonized by fungi? Phytopathology 96(6), suppl., p. S187

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 71 Melgarejo, P., De Cal, A., Salto, T., Martinez-B eringola, M. L., Martinez-Treceno, A., Bardon, E., Palacios, J., Becerril, M., Medina, J. J., Galvez, J., Lopez-Aranda, J. M. (2001). Three Years of Results on Chemical Alternatives To Methyl Bromide For Strawberry Nurseries in Spain.

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromid e Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2001. 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California, pp. 93-1.

Minuto, A., Garibaldi, A. and Gullino, M.L. (2003). Ch emical alternatives to Methyl Bromide in Italy: an update. Pp. 22-1 – 22-4 In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, November 3-6, 2003, San Diego, California, USA.

Mutitu, E, Waswa, R, Musembi, N, Chepsoi, J, Mute ro, J and Barel, M. (2006). Use of methyl bromide alternatives in small scale vegetable sector in Kenya. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Project – Kenya. GOK-GTZ-UNDP project. Nairobi.

Noling, J. W. and Gilreath, J. P. (2004a). Use of virtually impermeable plastic mulches (VIF) in Florida strawberry. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 3-6, 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA. pp. 1-1.

Noling, JW and Gilreath, JP. (2004b). Evaluations of chemical alternatives to methyl bromide for nematode control and tomato yield in field microplots. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Noling, J.W., Gilreath, J.P. and Botts, D.A.(2006). Chapter 23. Alternatives to methyl bromide soil fumigation for Florida vegetable production. In: Olson, SM. et al. 2006. Vegetable Production Handbook for Florida. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) Extension.

Noling, J. W., Gilreath, J. P. and Rosskopf, E. R. (2001). Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Field

Research Efforts For Nematode Control in Fl orida. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions , 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California, USA. pp. 14-1.

Norton, J, Gilreath, J, Nelson, M. (2002). 2000-2001 IR-4 MBA strawberry trial. Chancey Farm, Dover / Plant City, FL. USDA IR-4 Methyl Bromid e Alternatives Program for Minor Crops.

Ou, L.T., Thomas, J.E., Allen, L.J., Vu, J.C. and Di ckson, D.W. (2007). Emissions and distribution of methyl bromide in field beds applied at two rates and covered with two types of plastic

mulches. Environmental Science 42(1): 15 – 20.

Pivonia, S., Cohen, R., Kigel, J. and Katan, J. (2002). Effect of soil temperature on disease development in melon plants infected by Monosporascus cannonballus. Plant Pathology 51 (4), 472–479.

Pivonia, S., Cohen, S. Cohen, S., Kigel, J., Levita, R and Katan, J. (2004). Effect of irrigation regimes on disease expression in melon plants infected with M onosporascus cannonballus. European Journal of Plant Pathology 110(2) :

Porter I.J, Mattner, S., Gounder, R., Mann, R., Bank s, J. and Fraser, P. (2004). Strawberry fruit production: summaries of alternatives to meth yl bromide fumigation and trials in different geographic regions. Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon.

Porter, I., Brett, R., Wiseman, B., and Rae, J. (1997 ). Methyl bromide for preplant soil disinfestation in temperate horticultural crops in Australia in perspective. Annual International Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-5 November, San Diego,

California USA.

Porter, I.J., L. Trinder and D. Partington. (2006). Special Report Validating the Yield Performance of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Prepla nt fumigation. TEAP/MBTOC Special Report, UNEP Nairobi, May 2006 97pp.

Rich, J.R. and Olson, S.M. (2003). Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide in North Florida U.S.A tomato production. Nematropica. 33, 157-163.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 72 Rosskopf, E.N., Chellemi, D.O., Kokalis-Burelle, N. and Church, G.T. (2005). Alternatives to methyl bromide: A Florida perspective. APSnet Feature, June 2005.

Ristaino J.B. and Johnston S.A . (1999). Ecologically based approaches to management of Phytophthora blight on bell pepper. Plant Disease , 83, 1080-1089

Runia, W.T. and Molendijk, L.P.G. (2006). Improved efficacy of metam sodium by rotary spading injection. Wageningen University an d Research Center, Lelystad. 16pp.

Runia, W.T., Molendijk, L.P.G. and Evenhuis, B. (2007). Desk study on efficacy of alternatives to methyl bromide against soliborne fungi and plant parasitic nematodes in strawberry runners. Applied Plant Research, Wagening en, The Netherlands, 47 pp.

Sakuma, H. and Suzuki, K. (1995) Development of energy-saving hydroponics systems without requiring electricity. JIRCAS J. 4: 73-77.Gerik, J.S. (2005c). Drip-applied soil fumigation for freesia production. HortTechnology, 15 (4): 820-824

Santos, B.M., J.P. Gilreath and T.N. Motis (2005). Managing nutsedge and stunt nematode in pepper with reduced methyl bromide plus chloropicrin rates under virtually impermeable films. HortTechnology 15(3): 596-599.

Santos, BM, Gilreath, JP, Motis, TN, Noling, JW, Jone s, JP and Norton, JA. (2006). Comparing methyl bromide alternatives for soilborne disease, nematode and weed management in fresh market tomato. Crop Protection. 25, 690-695.

Savvas D and Passam H (eds) (2002). Hydroponic Production of Vegetables and Ornamentals. Embryo Publications, Athens.

Schneider, S., Trout, T., Browne, G. and Ajwa, H. (2004). Vineyard replant - performance of methyl bromide alternatives over time. Pp 8-1 - 8-5 In : Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 3-6 November 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA.

Simonne, EH, Stall, WM, Pernezny, KL, Webb, SE, Taylor, TG. and Smith, SA. 2006. Chapter 28. Eggplant Production in Florida. In: Olsen et al. Handbook of Vegetable Production in Florida. IFAS Extension, Univ ersity of Florida.

Smith, I.W., J. Dunez, R.A. Lelliot, D.H. Phillips and S.A. Ar cher (1988). Pp 200 – 202 In: European

Handbook of Plant Diseases. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK.South, D.B. 2007. Chloropicrin as a Soil Fumigation Treatment in Southern Pine Nurseries. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 31(1): 47 - 51

Sonneveld, (2002). Composition of nutritional solu tion. In: Savvas D and Passam H (eds) (2002). Hydroponic Production of Vegetables and Ornamentals

. Embryo Publications, Athens pp 179

- 210.

Spotti, C. (2004). The use of fumigants and grafted plants as alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the production of tomatoes and vegetables in Ital y. Proceedings of Inte rnational Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon.

Stanghellini, M.E., D. M. Ferrin, D. H. Kim, M. M. Waugh, K. C. Radewald, J. J. Sims, and H. D. Ohr (2003). Application of preplant fumigants via drip irrigation systems for the management of root rot of melons caused by Monosporascus cannonballus Plant Disease 87(10): 1176 - 1178

Sydorovych, O., Safley, C.D., Polin g, E.B., Ferguson, L.M., Fernandez, G.E., Brannen, P.M. and Louws, F.J. (2004). Economic evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry production. Proceedings of An nual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

TEAP (2004). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, October 2004. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 73 TEAP (2005). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, October 2005. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

TEAP (2006) Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, October 2005. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

TEAP (2007) Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, April 2007. Progress ReportMontreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

Thanassoulopoulos, C.C., Bletsos, F.A., Moustafa, A.M. (2006) Development of an empirical model to predict losses in eggplant (Solanum melonge na L.) production cause d by Verticillium wilt. Crop Protection

Tognoni F., Incorcci L., and.Pardossi, A. (2004). Use of substrates for intensive production of vegetables in Europe and Mediterranean regions . Proceedings of fifth International conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, Lisbon, 27-30 September, 2004, 177-181.

Tostovrsnik, N.S., A.L. Shanks, I.J. Porter, S.W, Mattner and R.W. Brett (2005). Facilitating the adoption of alternatives to methyl bromide in Australian horticulture. Pp 13-1 – 13/4 In:

Trout, T. and Damodaran, N. (2004). Adoption of methyl bromide alternatives by California strawberry growers. Proceedings of Annual Internationa l Research Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Vos, J and Bridge, J. (ed.) 2006. Cases of methyl bromide alternatives used in commercial practice.

CAB International.

Wang D., Yates S.R., Ernst F.F., Gan J. and Jury W.A. (1997). Reducing methyl bromide emission with a high barrier plastic film and reduced dosage. Environmental Science and Technology 31, 3686-3691.

Wang, D. (2005). Emission and soil distribution of fumigants in forest tree nurseries. Pp 42-1 – 42-4 In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, Oct 31 - Nov. 3, San Diego, California

Wang, D., S. W. Fraedrich, J. Juzwik, K. Spokas, Y. Zhang, W.C. Koskinen, (2006). Fumigant distribution in forest nursery soils under water seal and plastic film after application of dazomet, metam-sodium and chloropicrin. Crop Science

.

Yates, S.R. (2005). Reducing bystander exposure by emission reduction. Annual International Research Conference on MB Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Oct 31 - Nov 3, 2005. San Diego, California, USA

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 74 

# ANNEX I: Decision IX/6

1. To apply the following criteria and procedure in assessing a critical methyl bromide use for the purposes of control measures in Article 2 of the

Protocol:

(a) That a use of methyl bromide s hould qualify as “critical” only if the nominating Party determines that:

(i) The specific use is critical b ecause the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use woul d result in a significant market disruption; and (ii) There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives

or substitutes available to the us er that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination; (b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if:

(i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken

to minimise the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide; (ii) Methyl bromide is not av ailable in suffi cient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide, also bearing in mi nd the developing countries’ need for methyl bromide; (iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, commercialise and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into

consideration the circumstances of the particular nomination and the special needs of Article 5 Parties, including lack of financial and expert resources, institutional capacity, and information. Non-Article 5 Pa rties must demonstrate that research programmes are in place to develop and deploy

alternatives and substitutes. Arti cle 5 Parties must demonstrate that feasible alternatives shall be adopted as soon as they are confirmed as suitable to the Pa rty’s specific conditions and/or that they have applied to the Mult ilateral Fund or other sources for assistance in identifying, evaluating, adapting and demonstrating such options;

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review

nominations and make recommendations based on the criteria established in paragraphs 1 (a) (ii) and 1 (b) of the present decision;

3. That the present decision will apply to Parties operating under Article 5 and Parties not so operating only afte r the phase-out da te applicable to

those Parties.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 75 

# ANNEX II: ANNEX I Referred to by Decision XVI/4

All reviews of CUNs made in 2007 are to be in accordance with the ‘Annex I’ referred to

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

review of critical use nominations. In additi on to the criteria for the evaluation provided in Decision IX/6, the Parties have given further guidance for the review of CUNs in Annex 1 of 16 MOP meeting report. Inter alia, this requires that TEAP and MBTOC provide a clear description of why any part of a nomination is not recomme nded, including references to

the relevant studies used as the basis for such a decision. Para. 32 emphasises that exemptions must fully comply with Decision IX/6 and other relevant decisions, and are intended to be limited to the levels needed for critical use exemptions. These are considered as temporary derogations from the phaseout of methyl bromide in that they are to apply only until there are technically and economically feasible alternatives that

otherwise meet the criteria in Decision IX /6. The assessment by MBTOC should take a precise and transparent approach to the applica tion of the criteria, havi ng regard, especially, to paragraphs 4 and 20 of Annex I.

Paragraphs 4 and 20 read: 4. Although the burden of proof remains with the Party to justify a request for a critical-use exemption, MBTOC will provide in its report a clear explanation of its operation with respect to the process of making determinations for its recommendations, and clearly state the approac h, assumptions and reasoning used in the evaluation of the critical-use nominati ons. When cuts or denials are proposed, the description should include citations and also indicate where alternatives are technically and economically fe asible in circumstances similar to those in the

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

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

nomination which relies on the economi c criteria of decision IX/6, MBTOC should, in its report, explicitly state the central basis for the Party’s economic argument and explicitly explain how it addr essed that factor, and, in cases in which MBTOC recommends a cut; MBTOC should also provide an explanation of its economic feasibility.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report76ANNEX III:Relative Effectiveness of MB/Pic Formulations Applied in Combination with LPBFTable 11. Relative effectiveness of MB/Pic formulations applied in combination with low permeability barrier films(LPBF)compared to thecommercial standard MB/Pic formulation applied under standard low density polyethylene films.A large number of studies under field conditions in a number of regions, together withthe large scale adoption of barrier films support the use ofthese films as a means to reduce MB dosage rates. Researchand development on low permeability barrier films has been summarised in the1998, 2002 and 2006 MBTOC Assessment Reports and previous CUN reports.Typically, equivalent effectiveness is achieved with 25–50%lower methyl bromide dosage applied under LPBF compared with normal polyethylene containment films (See Table 6 and Table 11).Recentadvancements in the cost and technical performance of barrier films, especially metallised polyethylene films have reduced costand extendedtheir suitability for use with methyl bromide and also some of the alternatives.Untreated Methyl Bromide/ChloropicrinMixtures (Product rateper treated area)Std film Barrier Film -Relative yield compared to standard polyethyleneYieldMB/PicFormuln.ProductRateNotSpec 98:2 98:2 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 50:50 33:67CountryRegionCommodityBrand or Type ofBarrier Filmkg/ha 300 400 300 98 196 200 294 336 392 200 200NotesReferenceMB Dosage rate (g/m2)392 294 66 131 134 197 225 263 100 66SpainVinderosStrawb. RunnerVIF - NotSpec7450:5040093De Cal et al 2004Navalmanzano7850:5040080Fusarium, Phytophthora,Pythium, Rhizoctonia andVerticilliumSpainVinderosStrawb. RunnerVIF - Not Spec6850:50400114102Melgarejo et al 2003Navalmanzano3450:504007675Fusarium, Cladosporium,RhizoctoniaSpainAvitorejoStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec50:50400972003 resultsLopez-Aranda et al 2003Malvinas50:50400991998 FusariumSpainValenciaStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec59Not Spec60094At 10cm & 30cmBartual et al 200253Not Spec600931999 resultsSpainAvitorejoStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec8067:33400112Lopez-Aranda et al 2001aTariquejo5467:33400106Meloidogyne and weeds(unspec.)August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report77SpainMoguer/CartayaStrawb. RunnerVIF - Not Spec50:5039299Inoculum not specifiedLopez-Aranda et al 2001bSpainCabeza, Nav.Strawb. Runner VIF - Not Spec7467:33400105, 921998 Two sitesMelgarejo et al 2000Arevalo, Nav.8450:50400104, 1041999 results, nurseriesVinaderos, Nav.4950:5040095, 1232000 results, nurseriesSpainHuelvaStrawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec8267:334001011997-1998 Inoc.unspecifiedLopez-Aranda et al 20007267:334001021998-1999 Inoc. Unspecified6867:334001091999-2000 Inoc. UnspecifiedSpainMoncadaStrawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec6098:260095Cebolla et al 19995498:2600911998 No major pathogens butFusarium buried 10cm&30cm.FranceDouvilleStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec65Not Spec80099Inoculum not specifiedFritsch 1998NZHavelock NorthStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec8367:3350098Phytophthora presentHorner 1999USAFloridaPepperVIF Plastopil6967:3339278NutgrassGilreath et al 2005VIF Plastopil6967:3339299PresentVIF Vikase6967:3339283VIF Vikase6967:3339286USAFloridaStrawb Fruit,CantaloupeBarrier - Pliant,Metallised98:267:33Trials on 18 Commercial Farms between 2000-2004; no increase in disease or weedswhen rates reduced up to 50% under VIF wrt. polyethylene Nutgrass and pathogens presentNoling and Gilreath 2004USACalifornia7267:33336108Inoculum not specifiedAjwa et al 2004Strawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec8067:3339296USAFloridaTomatoVIF - Not Spec3167:3339211193114Nutgrass and rootknotnematodesHamill et al 2004USACaliforniaStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec7567:33392106Ajwa et al 20038367:333921116567:33392102Watsonville, high pathogenpressureUSAFloridaTomatoVIF - Not Spec67:33392"No significant reduction in yield"Noling et al 2001USACaliforniaStrawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec4567:33364116Duniway et al 1998USAFloridaVIF – not spec392/ 196Ouet al., 2007Unweighted averages (relative % yield)669499939310210310810491

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 78 

# ANNEX IV: Relative Yield of Crops Gr own Under Barrier Films With

Different MB/Pic Formulations Compared to the Standard Polyethylene from Tri als Between 1998 and 2004.

Figure 3. Relative yield of crops (strawberri es, tomatoes, peppers, cantaloupes) grown under barrier films with different MB /Pic formulations compared to the standard commercial treatment using standard polyethylene from trials

between 1998 and 2004.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

MB dosage rate (kg/ha) under barrier filmRelative Yield



# ( ▲ MB/Pic 98:2; ● MB/Pic 67:33; ♦ MB/Pic 50:50; ■ MB/Pic 33:67). Data from ANNEX III.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 79 

# ANNEX V: Disclosure of Interest

MBTOC QSC SUBCOMMITTEE

Co-Chairs 1. Michelle Marcotte F Consultant Consultant, particularly food processing, regulations, structural and commodity treatments and irradiation A Canada

Non-A5

Members

2. Jonathan Banks (Co-Chair Quarantine Task Force) M Consultant Consultant, postharvest, particularly non-chemical and gas technologies (fumigants, CA) and QPS uses of MB. Entomologist (PhD) A Australia

Non-A5

3. Chris Bell M Consultant, formerly

Central Science Laboratory (Government research) Postharvest technologies, particularly fumigants, phosphine; sulfuryl fluoride, controlled atmospheres and heat' (PhD) A UK

Non-A5

4. Fred Bergwerff M Eco2, Netherlands Fumigator, specialist in non-MB systems, including heat. D Netherlands

Non-A5 5. Kathy Dalip F CABI Quarantine entomologist (Ph D) D Jamaica

A5 6. Ricardo Deang M Consultant Regulatory and registration. Entomologist (PhD) A Philippines

A5

7. Patrick Ducom M Ministère de l’Agriculture (Government research) Postharvest and structural alternatives A France

Non-A5

8. Ken Glassey M MAFF, New Zealand Forester, government advisor on MB alternatives in forest products D New Zealand

Non-A5 9. Alfredo Gonzalez M Fumigator Phosphine, QPS and non-QPS treatments. Structures, commodities. D Philippines

A5

10. Darka Hamel F Institute for Plant Protection in Agriculture and Forestry (Government) Postharvest and structural treatments, regulations D Croatia

CEIT

11. Takashi Misumi M MAFF (Government research) QPS expert D Japan

Non-A5 12. David Okioga M Ministry of Environment

and Natural Resources (Government regulatory) Postharvest and QPS MB alternatives (PhD) A Kenya

A5

13. Christoph

Reichmuth M BBAGermany (Government research) Researcher, MB alternatives in postharvest/structures (PhD) B Germany

A5 14. Jordi Riudavets M IRTA-Department of

Plant Protection. (Government Research) IPM for stored products and horticultural crops (PhD) D Spain

Non-A5

15. John Sansone M SCC Products (Fumigator) Fumigator, particular expertise in

structures A US

Non-A5 16. Robert Taylor M Consultant Po stharvest technology, specifically

A5 uses A UK

Non-A5

17. Ken Vick M United States Department of Agriculture (Government research) Research in MB al ternatives, incl. QPS. Entomologist (PhD) A US

Non-A5

18. Chris Watson M IGROX Ltd (Fumigator) Practical use of MB and alternatives including the use of phosphine, Sulfuryl Fluoride,CO2 and Heat Treatments for commodities(inc timber) and structures A UK

Non-A5

19. Eduardo Willink M Ministry of Agri culture Quarantine entomologist (Ph D) D Argentina

A5

Totals M = 16

F =3 A = 8

B = 3

C = 0

D = 8 CEIT & A5=7

Non-A5=12



# A - >10 years; B – 5-10; C – 2-5; D - <2 year

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 80 

# Co-chair

Ms Michelle Marcotte Marcotte Consulting Inc. (Marcotte Consulting Inc is a Canadian corpora tion; its President, Mi chelle Marcotte, is

located at:

10104 East Franklin Ave. Maryland USA 20769

Ms Michelle Marcotte was a member of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and subsequently a member of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee between 1992 and 2005; she was

confirmed as Co-Chair in 2005. Until 1993 she wo rked for MDS Nordion, a supplier of radiation processing equipment which is an alternative to th e use of methyl bromide in some commodity and quarantine situations. Since then, Ms Marcotte, th rough Marcotte Consulting, has provided consulting services to governments and agri-food companies in eight countries on agri-environmental issues, food technology, regulatory affairs and radiation pr ocessing. Marcotte Consulting has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its long time market development work in food irradiation, an alternative to some methyl bromid e uses, and because of its interest in food processing, food safety and trade. In the field of methyl br omide alternatives, Ms Marcotte has published case studies for pest control in food processing, for stor ed commodities, for alternatives for quarantine and for greenhouse use. She is a member of the Cana da Industry-Government Methyl Bromide Working Group and the Canada-US Methyl Bromide Working Group; both organizations work to achieve phase out of methyl bromide in the agri-food sector. Marcotte has consulted to companies, industry associations, the International Atomic Energy Agen cy and US AID on irradiation as a methyl bromide alternative in food processing, quarantine and trad e. She has also prepared consulting reports summarizing research in methyl bromide alte rnatives and case studies on food processing for US Environmental Protection Agency. Ms Marcotte h as no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in compani es producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Ms Marcotte’s spouse works for United Stat es Department of Agriculture managing research in methyl bromide alternatives and is a member of MBTOC. He does not have proprietary interest in

alternatives or substitutes to ODS and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Marcotte r eceives a consulting contract from Government of Canada, Environment Canada, a Party to the Montreal Protocol that is committed to the phase out of methyl bromide. Ms Marcotte pays for travel to TEAP, MBTOC and Montreal Protocol meetings out of consultancy funds provided by the Canadian government, Environment Canada, to support her

work on MBTOC.



# Members

Dr Jonathan Banks, Co-Chair Quarantine Task Force

10 Beltana Road Pialligo

Canberra ACT

AUSTRALIA

Dr. Jonathan Banks, Chair of TEAP’s QPS Task Force, is a private consultant. He was a member of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and from 1993 to 1998 and 2001 to 2005 co-chaired the Methyl Bromide TOC. He worked as a Research Scientist with the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organizati on (CSIRO) from1972 to 1999 on grain storage technologies, including use of improved use of fumigants. He is coinventor of carbonyl sulfide, an alternative fumigant to methyl bromide in some a pplications. Patent rights have been assigned to his employer, CSIRO. Dr Banks has no proprietary inte rest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or altern atives or substitutes to ODSs. He has stock in

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 81 Brambles Ltd, a company that inter alia leases wooden pallets for freight. The pallets may or may not be treated with methyl bromide or alternatives. His spouse is co-owner of their commercial organic apple orchard. She has no financial interests relati ng to ozone-depleting substances. He has served on

some national committees concerned with ODS and th eir control, and within the last 4 years has received contracts from UNEP, and other institutions and public companies related to methyl bromide alternatives and grain storage technology--includi ng training in fumigation (methyl bromide and alternatives) and fumigation technology and recaptu re systems for methyl bromide. In 2005 and 2006 he received some support from UNEP for TEAP and MBTOC activities. Other funding for his MBTOC activities has been through grants or cont racts from the Department of Environment and Heritage, Australia or fro m personal contributions.



# Dr Chris Bell Consultant, Formerly Central Science Library

Sand Hutton

York Y041 ILZ

UNITED KINGDOM

Dr. Christopher Hugh Bell, is a Fellow at the Ce ntral Science Laboratory (CSL), Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, at York, UK, where he led research into fumigation technology, including studies on methyl bromide and potentia l alternatives which were sponsored by UK government agencies and private companies, until his re tirement in 2004. He is also a Regional Editor

for the Journal of Stored Products Research for Eu rope and Africa, an Elsevier journal publishing original research addressing problems encountered in the storage of durable commodities. Dr. Bell has no proprietary interest in alternatives or subs titutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to OD Ss, and does not represent organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He works occasionally as a consu ltant to governments and companies on matters related to methyl bromide use or replacement, or the Montreal Protocol. Travel and subsistence to attend MBTOC meetings has been paid by the UK Depart ment of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), or by UNEP.



# Fred Bergweff

CEO

EcO2 BV James Wattstraat 6,

3281 NK Numansdorp, The Netherlands

Mr Fred Bergwerff is the General Manager for EC O2 B.V., a company that provides disinfestation services through controlled atmospheres technology a nd equipment, and related consulting services. He is employed in a full time capacity with r esponsibilities for joint-venture partnerships, technical assistance, training and promotion of good practices in the structural, commodity, quarantine and port disinfestation industries, particularly specialisi ng in QPS and ISPM-15 treatments. ECO2 does not have a commercial relationship with any fumigant or pesticide manufacturers/registrants. ECO2 has

been involved in research trials on MB altern atives and has assisted companies to adopt MB alternatives for structures, stored commodities and pre-shipment and quarantine treatments. ECO2 has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its expertise in disinfestation and pest control, particularly non-chemical treatments. Ot her than controlled atmospheres and the company ECO2 BV, Mr Bergwerff and his business partners in ECO2 have no proprietary interest in ODS or other alternatives to ODS, and do not own stock in companies that manufacture ODS or other alternatives to ODS. He carries out consulting work for organizations and companies that are seeking to phaseout ODS. Mr Bergwerff’s wife owns shares in ECO2, has no proprietary interest in ODS or other alternatives to ODS, and does not own stock in companies manufacturing ODS or other

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 82 alternatives to ODS. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by ECO2, which receives no contribution for this travel from any other company or organisation.



# Dr Kathy M. Dalip Article 5 member Entomologist

CARDI Belize Central Farm, Western Highway Cayo District Belize, Central America Mailing address: P.O. Box 2. Belmopan City

Belize

Dr. Kathy M Dalip is an Entomologist at the Caribbean Agriculture Research and Development Institute (CARDI), which has headquarters in Trin idad and offices in twelve member countries. Kathy works full-time at the CARDI Belize Unit, Central Farm, Western Highway, Cayo District, Belize, Central America. Between 2000 and 2005, Kathy was stationed at the CARDI Jamaica Unit

where she was a member of the Jamaica Methyl Bromide Working Group. Her work at CARDI is focused in the areas of integrated pest manage ment (IPM) and organic agriculture. Hence, her emphasis is on finding non-chemical pest cont rol options to improve production and economic feasibility for farmers. Kathy has no proprietary inte rest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or altern atives or substitutes to ODSs and has not done consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by for by

the Ozone Secretariat of UNEP.



# Dr Ricardo T Deang Article 5 member

4 Istanbul Street

Merville Park Parañaque, Metro Manila

THE PHILIPPINES

Dr Ricardo Deang is a retired Deputy Administrato r for Pesticides of the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) – a government regulatory office for fertilizers and pesticides – since April 1996. He was responsible for registration, restriction, a nd banning of pesticides when imminent hazards are posed; and certification of pesticide applicators and fumigators. FPA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because the Philippines is a si gnatory to the Montreal Protocol and the office restricts/monitors methyl bromide importation and use. Prior to this position Mr. Deang worked as a research entomologist on biological control. Currently Mr Deang is Chairman of the Board of a consultancy firm, Management a nd Executive Network, Inc. He has no proprietary interest on alternatives or substitute to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not engage in consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. His wife and their children have no proprietar y interest on alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not engage in consulting for organizations seeking to ph ase out ODSs. They have no interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 83 Dr. Patrick Ducom Ministère de l’Agriculture LNDS - QUALIS 71, avenue Edouard Bourleau - BP 71

33883 VILLENAVE D'ORNON CEDEX

Jacques François Patrick Ducom, Agronomy Engineer, is a long standing MBTOC member and head of the Laboratoire National Denrées Stockées (LNDS), Plant Protection Service, Ministry of Agriculture, France. Dr Ducom is a full time resear cher in fumigation LNDS. He works occasionally as a consultant for Implementing Agencies of the Mu ltilateral Fund on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Dr Ducom has no proprietary interest on alternatives or substitute to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not engage in consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid from the LNDS budget



# Mr Kenneth Glassey Senior Advisor Operational Sta ndards Biosecurity New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Pastoral House, 24 the Terrace

P.O. Box 2526 Wellington, NEW ZEALAND

Mr Kenneth Logan Glassey is a Senior Biosecurity Adviser at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). Ken Glassey is a full time adviser on Phytosanitary Treatments and Treatment Operators at the Ministry of Agriculture and For estry Head Office, Wellington, New Zealand. MAF has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Pr otocol because quarantine and preshipment treatments uses a significant amount of methyl bromide ( 218 tonnes in 2004). Current responsibilities cover researching, developing and reviewing New Ze aland’s import standards including operational standards such as treatments for imported commod ities. This also involves monitoring quality and adequacy, initiating remedial action as necessary, and the provision of advice on the practical application and implications of such standards. Mr Glassey has been involved in QPS inspection and treatments for 20 years with particular experti se with forest produce, and worked in forest management for 11 years prior to that. Mr Glassey has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in compani es producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to implementing agencies on matters re lated to the Montreal Protocol. Mr Glassey’s partner living in same home does not work for or co nsults for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. She has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseo ut ODSs. Travel to TEAP/TOC/TSB meetings is paid by MAF.



# Mr Alfredo T. Gonzalez Article 5 Member

President Pestcon Pest Management and General Services 33 Evening News, West Triangle Quezon City

THE PHILIPPINES

Mr Gonzalez is president of Pestcon Pest Manage ment and General Services, a company with an

interest in the Montreal Protocol because it u ses methyl bromide in the for Quarantine and preshipment treatments as well as ISPM 15 treatments for wood packaging materi als. Mr Gonzalez, has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitu tes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 84 producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Presently he is the general consultant for the implementation of the Methyl Bromide Phase-out pr ogram in the Philippines for the Government of his country, under the Department of Natural R esources- Philippine Ozone Desk (DENR-POD) in cooperation with the Fertilizer and Pesticide Author ity (FPA), which is directly related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither Mr Gonzalez’s wife or their children have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes in ODSs. Expenses re lated to Mr Gonzalez’s attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by UNEP.



# Dr Darka Hamel Article 5 member Institute for Plant Protection in Agricultu re and Forestry of Republic Croatia Rim 98, 10000 Zagreb

CROATIA

Dr. Darka Hamel is an entomologist responsible the protection of stored products. Dr Hamel is a full time executive manager at the Institute for Plant Protection in Agriculture and Forestry of the Republic Croatia (PPI). The PPI has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because companies using methyl bromide for treatment in acc ordance with ISPM 15 are authorized to do so in

accordance with the PPI recommendation. Dr. Hame l has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in compani es producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr. Hamel works occasionally as a consultant to the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management or the Ministry for Environmental Protection and Physical Planning regarding legislation on matters

related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.



# Mr Takashi Misumi Ministry of Agriculture, Fore stry and Fisheries MAFF, Japan 1-16-10 Shin-yamashita, maka-ku Yokohama, 231-0801

JAPAN

Mr. Takashi Misumi, member of MBTOC since 2005 is a senior researcher at the Yokohama Plant Protection Station (YPPS). Mr. Misumi is a full tim e Researcher at the Quarantine Disinfestation Technology Section, Research Division of YPPS. He has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companie s producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Neither his spouse nor their children work for organizations with has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Expenses related to the attendance of MBTOC meetings ar e paid by International department of MAFF.



# Dr David M Okioga Article 5 member Coordinator, Kenya Ozone Office, Na tional Environment Management Office Ministry of the Environment and National Resources

PO Box 67839

Nairobi

KENYA

Dr. David Okioga is a founding member of MBTO C, joining in 1992. He was MBTOC co-chair between 1997 and 2002. Dr Okioga was the Direct or, National Plant Quarantine Services of Kenya for sixteen years. He also served as the Coor dinator in Agricultural Botany under the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Secretary to the Mi nistry of Agriculture on Plant Breeder's Rights, Member of the National Agricultural Research Centre, National Horticultural Research Centre, National Potato Research Centre, and the National Committee for the National Genebank. Dr. Okioga has undertaken a number of contracts from the African Unity (then Organization of the African Unity), FAO and UNEP. Some of these consultancies were related to crop protection, where methyl

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 85 bromide was considered as the chemical of c hoice for soil fumigation, whereas others were on strengthening the Montreal Protocol policies on ODS phase out in the African region (including methyl bromide). In 1995, Dr. Okioga was a ppointed Coordinator, of the National Ozone Unit (NOU) of Kenya by the Ministry of Environment a nd Natural Resources, Kenya, in consultation with UNDP, a post that he still holds at present. Dr. Ok ioga's main responsibility is strengthening the government of Kenya in meeting the requirements of the Montreal Protocol and in phasing out of ODS in the country.Dr. Okioga has no proprietary interests in alternatives for ODS and does not consult for companies seeking to phase out ODS. Tr avel and expenses related to his attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by UNEP.



# Dr. Jordi Ruidavets IRTACrop Protection

Carretera a Cabrils Km. 2 E-08348 Cabrils (Barcelona)

SPAIN

Dr. Jordi Riudavets is a Researcher at the Institute for Agrifood Research and Technology (IRTA) of Spain. He is a full time entomologist at the Crop Protection Division, with experience in the development and transfer of integrated pest ma nagement (IPM) programs for stored products and horticultural crops. The IRTA has an interest in th e topics of the Montreal Protocol because is a stateowned company of the Catalan Government, and its activities are concerned with scientific research and technology transfer in the areas of agricultu re, aquaculture and the agrifood industry. Dr. Riudavets has no proprietary interest alternativ es or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He occasi onally works as a consultant to the Spanish Government, food companies, pest control companies and private companies with interest in matters

related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by the Spanish Ministry of the

Environment.



# Prof. Dr. Christoph Reichmuth Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry Institute for Stored product Protection Koenigin-Luise-St.19

D-14195 Berlin

GERMANY

Prof. Dr. Christoph Reichmuth is chemist and r esponsible for stored product protection. Dr

Reichmuth is a full time director of the Institu te for Stored Product Protection of the Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forest ry in Berlin, Germany, of the German Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Germany. The Federal Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture a nd Consumer Protection together with the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety has a pronounced interest to replace methyl bromide as quickly as possible, due to the strongly expressed political interest and public opinion in Germany. Dr Reichmuth has no proprietary interest, patent for production of phosphine from magnesium phosphide in a generato r with the company Degesch Detia, Germany, patent for the treatment of stored products and or ganic materials (wood) with inert atmospheres with the company Buse, Germany, patent for pherom one traps for Lepidopteran pests with the MaxPlanck-Society, Germany, at present there are no roya lties paid from the patents to Dr Reichmuth. He gave and gives advice to private companies in Germ any to obtain critical use exemptions for methyl bromide in helping to understand the English forms of UNEP/TEAP, he works occasionally as a consultant to UNIDO, supporting projects or parti es to replace methyl bromide. Travel to MBTOC meetings or related meetings concerning the phase out of methyl bromide are paid by the German

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 86 Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Consumer Protection or by the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.



# Mr John Sansone

SCC Products

2641 W. Woodland Anaheim, CA 92801

UNITED STATES

Mr John Sansone is the President and General Manager for SCC Produc ts. He is employed in a full time capacity with responsibilities for sales, training, stewardship and as a consultant for end users in the residential, commodity, quarantine and port fumigation industries. SCC Products has a commercial relationship with several fumigant/pes ticide manufacturers/registrants, some of which offer products which are considered alternatives to MB. SCC Products has been involved in research trials in the food processing and stored commoditi es sectors. The firm was instrumental in the

transition to alternatives for the residential fumi gation marketplace and currently is transitioning alternatives into the commodity fumigation market. It is also involved in the implementation of recapture equipment for commodity fumigation compan ies in California. SCC Products has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its relationship and expertise in many fumigation areas. Mr Sansone has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to the UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, Governments, companies, etc. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr Sansone has no relatives or business partners that work for or consult for any organization with an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol nor does he have relatives or business partner having a proprietary interests in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, or who own stock in companies producing

ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or c onsult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by SCC Produc ts, which receives no contribution for this travel from anyone.



# Mr. Robert Taylor

Consultant

27 Lancet Lane Loose, Maidstone, Kent ME15 9SA

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr Robert Taylor retired from the Natural Resource s Institute (NRI) of the United Kingdom in 2001. The NRI was a government establishment involved in biological/agricultural research, development and training, primarily in relation to developing countries. In recent years the NRI has become part of the University of Greenwich. Crop protection in both the pre- and post-harvest stages has always been a major feature of NRI’s research and development programmes. Pest management, including the use of fumigants, has always features strongly in such programmes. Mr Taylor has no proprietary

interest in alternatives or substitutes to meth yl bromide and does not own stock in companies consulting for organizations seeking to phase out the chemical. He works occasionally as a consultant to UN agencies including UNIDO and UNEP on matters re lating to the Montreal Protocol. Mr Taylor has no relatives or business partners who work or cons ult for organizations whic h have an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor does he ha ve relatives or business part ners having proprietary

interests in alternatives or subs titutes to methyl bromide, or who own stock in companies producing alternatives or substitutes to methyl bromide, or who consult for companies seeking to phase out methyl bromide. Travel and subsistence for MBTO C meetings is paid for by the UK government and most recently by the Department for the E nvironment Farming and Rural Affairs and UNEP.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 87 Dr Ken Vick Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Serv ice/ National Program Staff 5601 Sunnyside Ave

Beltsville MD 20705 – 5139

UNITED STATES

Dr Kenneth W. Vick is a Senior National Program L eader for methyl bromide alternatives research at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). As National Program Leader he helps lead the al most $20 million ARS research program to develop alternatives to the use of methyl bromide for soil an d post-harvest applications. ARS has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it was assigned lead responsibility for developing alternatives as the primary research arm of the USDA and because it was deemed to be of high priority by the United States Government. Dr Vick has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in compani es producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for any organization. His spouse, a MBTOC co-chair, consults for governments, NGOs and companies that have an inte rest in the phase out of methyl bromide because they are Parties to the Protocol or because they are investigating or developing food irradiation a methyl bromide alternative for some commodities and in some quarantine situation. She has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing

ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do es consult for organizations seeking to phaseout

ODSs. Dr Vick's travel to MBTOC and Montreal Pr otocol meetings is paid by the USDA Agriculture

Research Service.



# Mr Chris Watson

IGROX Ltd White Hall, Worlingworth Woolbridge, Suffolk, IP13 7HW

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr.Christopher Russell Watson is a MBTOC member since 1992. He works for Igrox Ltd in the UK as Chairman a part-time position since he is presen tly semi-retired. Mr Watson has been involved in the fumigation industry using both methyl bromide and other fumigants for 40 years. Together with his wife he formed Igrox Ltd in 1976, which is now one of the largest fumigation and pest control servicing companies in the UK. For the past 20 year s he has been involved in working closely with government agencies in the UK to develop safe a nd efficient fumigation practices and procedures. Igrox Ltd has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it supplies services and products that are alternatives to methyl bromid e, as well as continuing to provide services using methyl bromide in situations where it is still necess ary. Mr Watson owns stock in Igrox Ltd, and occasionally carries out consultancy work for ag encies seeking to phase out ODS's which have included the UK government agencies as well as pr ivate companies. His spouse doesn’t not own stocks in Igrox Ltd and has no proprietary interest s in alternatives or substitutes for ODS's and does not consult for companies seeking to phase out ODS's . Travel to MBTOC meetings was subsidised by Igrox Ltd and the British Pest Control Associati on until 2005. Presently, Mr Watson covers travel expenses from his own personal funds with so me assistance from the UK Government(DEFRA)

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 88 Mr Eduardo Willink Article 5 member Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombrés William Cross 3150, Las Talitas,

4101 Tucumán

ARGENTINA

Mr Eduardo Willink is Director of Special Disciplines and Head of the Agricultural Zoology Department of the Estación Experimental Agroindu strial Obispo Colombrés Tucumán, Argentina. He is a full time researcher in entomology who l eads a team of researchers working on quarantine treatments, systems approach and pest host status, and is a member of the Technical Panel on Phytosanitary Treatments within IPPC, FAO. The or ganization has an interest in the topics of the

Montreal Protocol because its mission is to resolve regional agro industrial problems with the least impact on the environment. Mr Willink has no propri etary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for organizations seeking to ph aseout ODSs. Neither his spouse or dependant children work for or consult for organizations with an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do they have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or su bstitutes or consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to TOC is paid by UNEP.



# MBTOC – SOILS SUBCOMMITTEE

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 MB alts for vegetables. Pathologist (PhD) B Morocco A5

2. Marta

Pizano F Consultant Consultant, MB alts, particularly cut flower production and IPM. Pathologist (MSc) B Colombia A5

3. Ian Porter M Consultant Researcher, specialist in soil disinfestation, chemical and non chemical alternatives, solarisation, biocontrol and IPM. Pathologist (PhD) B Australia Non-A5

Members

4. Marten

Barel M Consultant Consultant, , specialist on soil fumigation, Substrates,Hydroponics, Steaming, Biofumigation and Solarization D Netherland

s Non-A5

5. Antonio

Bello M Centro de Ciencias

Medioambientales (Government research) Professor, non-chemical alternatives. Pathologist. (PhD, Prof.) A Spain Non-A5

6. Aocheng

Cao M Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Government research) Researcher, soil alternatives, particularly in China (A5) context. Pathologist. (PhD) C China A5

7. Peter

Caulkins M Associate Director,Special Review & Reregistration Division

US EPA Registration of alternatives, regulatory issues (PhD) D US Non A-5

8. Ariane

Elmas F Totken Lebanon – consulting Economics and trade D Lebanon A5

9. Fabio

Chaverri M IRET-Universidad Nacional (Academia) Researcher, soil alternatives, including solarisation. Microbiologist. C Costa Rica A5

10. Abraham

Gamliel M Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, (Government Research) Alternatives for soils, horticulture. Pathologist (PhD) D Israel Non-A5

11. Saad Hafez M University of Idaho (Academia) Soils alternatives, nematologist (PhD, Prof.) C US Non-A5

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 89 12. George

Lazarovits M Agriculture & Agrifood Canada (Government research) Researcher, non chemical control of soilborne pathogens (PhD) C Canada Non-A5

13. Nahum

Marbán

Mendoza M Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo (Academia) Researcher, soils alternatives, particularly nematode problems (PhD, Prof.) C Mexico A5

14. Melanie

Miller F Consultant Consultant in MB alternatives use and policy (PhD) A Belgium Non-A5

15. Andrea

Minuto M Agroinnova Universita Torino (Academia) Researcher, MB and alternatives in soils. Pathologist (PhD) D Italy Non-A5

16. Kazufumi

Nishi M Nat Institute of Vegetables and Tea Science (Government research) Nonchemical alts, particularly heat systems for soils (PhD) D Japan Non-A5

17. James D.

Schaub M United States Department of Agriculture (Government regulatory) Agricultural economist (PhD) C US Non-A5

18. Sally

Schneider F United States Department of Agriculture (Government research) Researcher in soils alts, particularly replant problems and propagative nursery material . Nematologist. PhD) C US Non-A5

19. JL Staphorst M Plant Protection

Research Institute (Parastatal research) Soil Microbiologist (DSc) B South

Africa A5

20. Akio Tateya M Syngenta Japan K.K. Application of MB and alts, particularly in Japan A Japan Non-A5

21. Alejandro

Baleiro M Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (Government research) Introduction/use of soils alts, including tobacco. Agronomist (MSc). C Argentina A5

22. Nick Vink M University of

Stellenbosch (Academia) Agricultural economics (PhD, Prof.) C South

Africa A5

23. Jim Wells M Environmental Solutions Group, LLC (Consultant) Registration and regulatory - MB and alternatives, soil uses A US Non-A5

TOTALS 19 M

4 F 4A

4B

9C

6D 14 non-A5

9 A5



# A - >10 years; B – 5-10; C – 2-5; D - <2 year



# Co-chairs

Professor Mohamed Besri Article 5 co-chair Department of Plant Pathology Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II

Rabat

MOROCCO

Prof. Mohamed Besri, is a full time Professor of Pl ant Pathology and Integrated Disease Management at the Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veteri nary Medicine, Rabat, Morocco (HII IAVM). The HII IAVM has an interest in the topics of the M ontreal Protocol because it houses specialists in Soilborne Plant Pathogens and MLF projects (strawberries , bananas, cut flowers). It advises the Ministry of Agriculture on all aspects of alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Dr Besri has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs . Dr Besri works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither Dr Besri’s spouse, business partner or dependant children living at same home work for or consults for any organiza tion which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do any of them have any prop rietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor do any of them own stock in compani es producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Costs asso ciated to travel,

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 90 communication, and others related to participati on in the TEAP, MBTOC, and relevant Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat.



# Ms Marta Pizano Article 5 co-chair

Consultant Bogotá

COLOMBIA

Ms Marta Pizano is a consultant on methyl brom ide alternatives, particularly for cut flower production, and has actively promoted methyl brom ide alternatives among growers in many countries. She is a regular consultant for the Montreal Pr otocol Multilateral Fund (MLF) and its implementing agencies. In this capacity, she has contributed to the methyl bromide phase-out programs in nearly twenty Article 5 countries around the world, assisting growers with the adoption of sustainable alternatives and the implementation of IPM program s. She is a frequent speaker at national and international methyl bromide conferences and h as authored numerous articles and publications on alternatives to this fumigant. She has been a member of MBTOC since 1998 and a co-chair since

2005. Neither Ms Pizano nor her husband or their chil dren own stock or have proprietary interest in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Costs associated to travel, communication, and others related to participati on in the TEAP, MBTOC, and relevant Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat.



# Dr Ian Porter Principle Researcher, Plant Pathology Department of Primary Industries, Victoria

AUSTRALIA

Dr Ian Porter is the Principle Researcher in Plant Pathology with the Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI). DPI has an interest in developi ng sustainable control measures for plant pathogens and biosecurity. He is a member of a number of National Committees regulating ODS, has led the Australian research program on methyl bromide alte rnatives for soils and has 27 years experience in researching sustainable methods for soil disinfest ation of plant pathogens with over 200 research publications. He has been a member of MBTO C since 1997, Soils sub committee chair since 2001 and MBTOC Co-chair since 2005. Neither, Dr Ian Po rter, wife or children have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr Porter is presently assisting National research agencies in Australia develop national priorities for IPM and soil health. He has acted occasionally as a key consultant for UNEP and UNIDO in developing progr ammes to assist China, Mexico and CEIT countries to replace methyl bromide. The Victorian DP I has in the past made in-kind contributions to attend MBTOC and UNEP meetings, but provid es no present support. The Australian Federal

Government Research Funds and funds obtained th rough the Ozone Secretariat have provided funds to support travel and expenses for MBTOC activities.



# Members of Record

Mr Marten Barel

Consultant

THE NETHERLANDS

Marten Barel, a member of MBTOC since 2002, is a consultant. He has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Since 1999 he has worked as a consultant and trainer in MLF methyl bromide projects for GTZ, UNDP and UNIDO. For more than 30 years he has provided growers, fumigators and companies with specialis t technical advice and training in methods of

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 91 controlling soilborne pests and soil pasteurisati on/ disinfestation techniques in nurseries and horticultural crop production. For 40 years (until 1999) he owned a fumigation / soil disinfestation company that used methyl bromide until it was phase d-out in the early 1980s, and then developed alternatives to methyl bromide e.g. negative pressu re steaming techniques. His social partner and children do not work for organisations which have an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, and have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitu tes to ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is currently funded by the Ministry of VROM in the Netherlands.



# Prof. Antonio Bello

Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales/ CSIC

Madrid

SPAIN

Dr Antonio Bello Pérez is a full time Research Professor at the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Madrid, Spain. The ins titute has an interest in the topi cs of the Montreal Protocol because of the environmental impact of methyl bromide. Dr Bello Pérez has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in comp anies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seek ing to phaseout ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant for UNEP, Implementing Agencies and G overnments, on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by hi s institution, which in turn receives contributions for this travel from national projects.



# Prof. Cao Aocheng Article 5 Member

Institute of Plant Protection Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences Beijing

CHINA

Dr. Aocheng Cao is a Research Professor at the In stitute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences focusing on research in p esticide sciences. The Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, a non-profit organization, is interested in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because soil pathogens and nematodes are important pests in China and alternatives to methyl bromide are urgently needed. Dr Cao has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. His spouse also works for the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, which has an inte rest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol as it conducts research on pest control, but has no propri etary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor does she own stock in companies producin g ODS or their alternatives or substitutes or perform consultancy for organiza tions seeking to phase out ODSs. Expenses related to Dr Cao’s attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by UNEP.



# Dr. Peter Caulkins Associate Director, Special Revi ew & Reregistration Division EPA Washington D. C.

UNITED STATES

Dr Peter Caulkins is the Associate Director in th e Special Review and Reregistration Division in the Office of Pesticide Programs in the U.S.EPA. The U. S. EPA has sole authority for the regulation of all pesticide use in the U.S. and therefore has a str ong interest in the Montreal Protocol’s phase-out of methyl bromide. Neither Dr Caulkins nor his wife or their son have any proprietary interests in ODSs or their alternatives, own no stock in either ODS companies or companies providing alternatives and do not do any consulting for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid for by EPA.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 92 Prof. Fabio Chaverri Article 5 member Instituto Regional de Estudi os en Sustancias Tóxicas

Universidad Nacional

Heredia

COSTA RICA

Mr Fabio Chaverri is a professor at the Univ ersidad Nacional de Costa Rica where he works as a full time researcher on pesticide alternat ives at the IRET (Centr al American Research Centre on Toxic Substances). The IRET has an inte rest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol since its main objective is to implement altern atives for toxic substances with a strong environmental or human health impact, such as ODSs. Mr Chaverri has no proprietary

interest on alternatives or substitutes to ODS s, does not own stock in companies producing

ODS or their alternatives or substitutes and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He occasionally works as a consultant for UNDP and UNEP, governments and companies on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. His spouse does not work for or consult for any organization with has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol and has no proprietary interest on alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor does she own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes or cons ult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs . Mr Chaverri’s tr avel expenses to cover attendance to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.

Ms Ariane Elmas Article 5 member

Tokten Lebanon

LEBANON

Ms Ariane Elmas was formerly the project manager of a “Trade and Environment” project funded by UNEP, managed by UNDP and implemented by the Ministry of Environment in Lebanon. This project published a report on the effects of trade liberalization in Lebanon with special focus on products where methyl bromide is used and includes an annual profitability analysis and a cost benefit analysis comparing the Methyl Bromide alternativ es used for each crop. Ms Elmas, is an economist and is currently the Project Manager at the UNDP in Lebanon. The UNDP has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is one of its implementing agencies and as such manages the MB phase out project implemented in Lebanon un der the coordination of the Ministry of the Environment. Neither Ms Elmas, nor her spouse or their dependant children have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes or consult for organizati ons seeking to phaseout ODSs. Expenses related to Ms Elmas’ attendance to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.



# Dr. Abraham Gamliel Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan

ISRAEL

Dr Abraham Gamliel is a full time senior researcher on methods and technologies for pest control and pesticide application at the Ministry of Agricu lture, Agricultural Research Organization, Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel .He is also an adjunct professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel. ARO Volcani Center has an interest in the topics of the

Montreal Protocol because it is the research and development institute fo r solving the farmer’s problem and for developing environmentally safe crop production. Dr Gamliel has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 93 alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not c onsult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant for the G overnment, on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse nor their children work for or consult for organizations having an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol nor do they have a proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Dr Gamliel’s travel expenses to attend MBTOC meetings are paid by the Ministry of Agriculture of

Israel.



# Prof Saad Hafez Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences

Univ. of Idaho

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Dr. Saad L. Hafez is a full Professor of Nematology at the University of Idaho, working at the Parma Research and Extension Center. The University of Id aho has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol as it conducts research on methyl bromide alternatives for nematode control. Dr Hafez has no proprietary interest in alternatives or subs titutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr. Hafez occasionally works as a consultant for UNDP, UNEP, and UNIDO, Governments, companies and others on projects rela ting to Methyl Bromide alternatives. Dr. Hafez’s spouse children do not work for or consult for any or ganization with an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. His spouse and their dependant chil dren have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in compan ies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult for organiza tions seeking to phaseout ODSs. Costs of travel to enable Dr Hafez to attend MBTOC meetings are paid by the University of Idaho.



# Dr George Lazarovits Agriculture & Agri-food Canada, London, Ontario

CANADA

Dr George Lazarovits is a research scientist at the Southern Crop Protection and Food Research Center of Agriculture and Agrifood Canada (AAFC) . He is employed as a fulltime research scientist to investigate aspects of plant pathology involved with management of soilborne plant pathogens. AAFC has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because Canada has a vested interest in eliminating ozone- depleting substances such as methyl bromide, which are still being used by Canadian growers and Industries. AAFC, in collabor ation with Environment Canada, is charged with overseeing the phase-out of ozone depleting products. Dr Lazarovits has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not ow n stock in companies producing ODS or those manufacturing alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not act as consultant for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs, other than non profit government agencies charged with enforcing the regulations of the Montreal Protocol. He is involved in advising as a consultant to Environment Canada (EC) on matters relate d to the Montreal Protocol

, including evaluation of critical use nominations submitted to them by Canadian grower s or Industries seeking exemptions for use of MB under CUE. Such nominations, if approved by EC , are eventually adjudicated by members of MBTOC. Dr Lazarovits’ spouse has no involvement what soever with any issues or has any interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol or any propriet ary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. She does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out OD Ss. They have no depende nt children living with them and their children have no involvement in any businesses dealing with issu es that are in any way

related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTO C meetings is paid for by AACF, and occasionally Environment Canada, from A Base budgets.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 94 Dr Nahum Marbán-Mendoza Article 5 member Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo

MEXICO

Dr Nahum Marbán-Mendoza is a full-time professor of Integrated Pest Management and Plant Nematology at the Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo in the graduate programme of crop protection. He has over 25 years experience in the research and development of non-chemical alternatives to control plant parasitic nematodes as sociated with different crops in Central America

and Mexico. Dr Marbán-Mendoza was MBTOC co-cha ir from 2002 to 2005. He has also assisted implementing agencies of the Montreal Protocol (UNEP, UNIDO) with methyl bromide phase-out programs in Mexico and Guatemala; occasionally he receives funds for wages and travel. Neither Dr Marbán nor his spouse or their daughter have ever had proprietary inte rest or owned stocks in a company producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes, nor have they ever consulted for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs Costs rela ted to Dr Marbán’s participation in MBTOC activities are paid by UNEP.



# Dr Melanie K Miller

Consultant La Hulpe

BELGIUM

Dr Melanie Miller, a member of MBTOC since 1993, is a consultant on methyl bromide and alternative technologies. She has no proprietary inte rest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or a lternatives. She has authored a large number of papers and publications about methyl bromide alternatives for UNEP and other government bodies. She is a reviewer of project proposals for MLF a nd GEF methyl bromide projects, and has provided technical assistance to many methyl bromide projects in Article 5 countries. She was a sector expert in the World Bank’s Ozone Operations Review Group (OORG) from 1999, member/adviser of the TEAP Economic Options Committee (EOC) Task Fo rce on Methyl Bromide in 1996-1998, and analysed data for the TEAP Task Force reports on MLF replenishment in 2002 and 2005. Her spouse is an international expert on technical and legal aspects of the Montreal Protocol and currently works as a consultant. Her spouse has no proprietary inter est in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alterna tives. The cost of travel to MBTOC meetings is paid from her own personal funds and sometimes by UNEP, at least in part.



# Dr. Andrea Minuto Ass. Prof. University of Torino

ITALY

Dr Andrea Minuto is a full time assistant professor at the University of Torino (c/o Agroinnova) in Italy. Agroinnova has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of the research conducted on soilborne pest and disease management. Dr Minuto has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. He does consulting (as Agroinnova) for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs and also works occasionally as a consultant for Implementing Agencies and Governments on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. His spou se does not work or consul for organizations which have an interest in the topics of the Montreal Pr otocol or organizations seeking phase-out of ODS, nor does she have any proprietary interest in altern atives or substitutes to ODSs, or own stock in companies producing ODS or their a lternatives or substitutes. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by Agroinnova, which receives contributions from the It alian Ministry of Environment, Territory and

Sea.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 95 Dr Kazufumi Nishi National Agriculture and Food Re search Organization (NARO)

JAPAN

Dr Kazufumi Nishi is a Chief Res earcher at the National Institute of Vegetable and Tea Science of Japan (NIVTS). He conducts research on plant disease control techniques, particularly physical control methods. Dr. Nishi has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alterna tives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by the International Department at MAFF.



# Dr. James D. Schaub

Office of the Chief Economist U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington

UNITED STATES

Dr. James D. Schaub is an economist and Director of the Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-benefit Analysis, Office of the Chief Economist, United St ates Department of Agriculture (USDA). Dr. Schaub is employed full time within the Office of the Chief Economist, USDA in Washington D.C. The USDA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its interest in environmentally sound agricultural production sy stems and the protection stored commodities. Further, USDA is responsible for protection of anim al and plant health from quarantine pests. Dr. Schaub has no proprietary interests in alterna tives or substitute ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to any organization on

matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse nor dependant children living at same home work for or consult for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do any of them have any proprietary in terest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor do any of them own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Tr avel to MBTOC meetings is paid by Office of the Chief Economist, USDA.



# Dr. Sally Schneider National Program Leader – Horticulture, Pathogens & Germplasm

USDA ARS Beltsville, MD

UNITED STATES

Dr Sally Schneider is a National Program Lead er at the United States Department of Agriculture. Dr. Schneider is a full time National Program Leader for Horticulture, Pathogens, and Germplasm at the Agricultura l Research Service, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A. The Agricultural Research Service has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because they are the in-house rese arch agency for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dr. Schneider has no proprietary in terest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or s ubstitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr. Schneider does not work, occasionally or otherwise, as a consultant to UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, Governments, companies, etc. on matters relate d to the Montreal Prot ocol. Dr. Schneider does not have a spouse, business partner, social partner, or dependant children living in same home. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by United States Department of Agriculture.

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 96 Dr. JL (Stappies) Staphorst Article 5 member

Senior Scientist Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI) Agriculture Research Council (ARC)

Pretoria

SOUTH AFRICA

Dr JL (Stappies) Staphorst is a soil microbiologist at the Plant Protection Research Institute of the Agricultural Research Council of South Africa. Dr Staphorst is a full time senior researcher, advisor and mentor in the Plant Pathology and Microbiolo gy Division of the Institute in Pretoria, South

Africa. The Plant Protection Research Institute has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it houses the specialist Soil-borne Plant Dise ases Unit and forms part of the Public Support Services Division that advises the Department of Agriculture on all aspects of plant diseases, pests and pesticides. Dr Staphorst has no proprietary inter est in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alterna tives or substitutes to ODSs and does no consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr Staphorst works occasionally as a consultant to

UNEP on matters related to the Montreal Protoc ol. His spouse has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does no consulting for or ganizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP with logistical support from the Plant Protection Research

Institute.



# Mr. Akio Tateya

Technical Adviser Syngenta Japan K.K. Tokyo

JAPAN

Mr. Akio Tateya is a Technical Adviser at Syngenta Japan K.K. a pesticide producing company, which does not produce substitutes to methyl bromid e. He also a technical adviser for the Japan Fumigation Technology Association, a non-profit b ody that is financially supported by the Japanese Government and companies producing methyl brom ide and its substitutes. He conducts work for Syngenta Japan K.K. on a contract basis for a consultancy fee; he acts as a nominal member and adviser of the Japan Fumigation Technology Associati on, for which he is not paid. He is also a member of the Japanese delegation attending the Meeting of the Parties and Open-ended Working Groups, acting as technical adviser on matters related to the Protocol. He has been occasionally asked to attend panels or meetings at the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. He has no proprietary or any other kind of interest in a lternatives or substitutes to ODS, nor does he own any stocks in companies producing either ODS or thei r alternatives or substitutes and does not work for any organization seeking to phase-out ODS. His spou se and children do not work for organizations

with an interest in the Montreal Protocol. Travel expenses to enable attendance to MBTOC meetings and other meetings related to the Montreal Prot ocol are paid by the Japan Fumigation Technology Association. He receives no funding from the Japanese Government.



# Alejandro Valeiro Article 5 member National Project Coordinator National Institute for Agriculture and Technology

Tucumán

ARGENTINA

Mr Alejandro Valeiro is the National Coordinator of the PROZONO Project (MLF/UNDP project ARG/02/G61) at the National Institute for Agricultu ral Technology (INTA) of Argentina, based at the Famaillá INTA ́s Experimental Station in Tucumán Provi nce, Argentina. The INTA has an interest in

# August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report 

# 97 the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is the national counterpart for implementing MLF methyl bromide phase-out projects, which are coor dinated by the National Ozone Unit. Mr Valeiro has no proprietary interest on alternatives or subs titutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitut es and does not perform permanent consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He wo rks occasionally as a consultant to the MLF, Implementing Agencies, on matters related to the Mont real Protocol. Mr Valeiro’s spouse consults for UNDP, which has an interest in the topics of th e Montreal Protocol because it implements MLF projects in Argentina. Neither Mr Valeiro, nor his spouse or dependant children have proprietary

interest in ODS or their alternatives or substitut es, and do not own stock in companies producing ODS

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.



# Prof Nick Vink Article 5 member University of Stellenbosch Department of Agricultural Economics

SOUTH AFRICA

Dr Nick Vink is Chair of the Department of Agricu ltural Economics at the University of Stellenbosch,

South Africa. He is a full time Professor at the University of Stellenbosch. The University has no interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Dr Vink has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in compani es producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to any organisation on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse or dependant children work for or consult for any orga nization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do they have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, or own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.



# Mr James Wells

President Environmental Solutions Group, LLC Sacramento, CA

UNITED STATES

James Wells is the President of Environmental So lutions Group, LLC (ESG), a regulatory consulting firm in Sacramento, California. He was invited to join MBTOC in 1993 primarily because of his experience in pesticide regulatory programs, especially with methyl bromide and methyl bromide

alternatives. He worked for the State of Califor nia pesticide regulatory program for 27 years and was the Director of the California Department of P esticide Regulation from 1991 to 1999. Dr. Wells has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitu tes to ODSs and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS s. He does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. However, ESG consults with several agricultural organizations seeking Critical Use Exemptions for the use of methyl bromide. These organizations are; the California Strawberry Commission (CSC), the California Strawberry Nu rsery Association (CSNA), the Garden Rose Council (GRC) and the California Association of Ga rden and Nursery Centers (CANGC). Together with his staff he prepares and submits CUEs for the CSNA, GRC and CANGC to the USEPA. His spouse works for the California Department of Jus tice, which has no interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. She has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alterna tives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult with organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Tr avel to MBTOC meetings is paid by ESG.August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report98ANNEX VI: List of nominated and exempted amounts of MB granted by Parties under the CUEprocess.Table 12. List of nominated (2005 – 2009 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2008 in part) amounts of methyl bromide granted by Partiesunder the CUE process for each crop or commodity..Part A: Preplant Soil ApplicationsTotal CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008Australia Cut Flowers – field 40.000 22.350 18.375 22.350Australia Cut flowers – protected 20.000 10.425Australia Cut flowers, bulbs – protectedVic 7.000 7.000 6.170 6.150 7.000 7.000 3.598 3.500Australia Strawberry Fruit 90.000 67.000Australia Strawberry runners 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750Belgium Asparagus 0.630 0.225 0.630 0.225Belgium Chicory 0.600 0.180 0.180 0.180Belgium Chrysanthemums 1.800 0.720 1.120Belgium Cucumber 0.610 0.545 0.610 0.545Belgium Cut flowers – other 6.110 1.956 4.000 1.956Belgium Cut flowers – roses 1.640Belgium Endive (sep from lettuce) 1.650 1.650Belgium Leek & onion seeds 1.220 0.155 0.660Belgium Lettuce(& endive) 42.250 22.425 25.190Belgium Nursery Not Predictable 0.384 0.900 0.384Belgium Orchard pome & berry 1.350 0.621 1.350 0.621Belgium Ornamental plants 5.660 0.000Belgium Pepper & egg plant 5.270 1.350 3.000 1.350Belgium Strawberry runners 3.400 0.900 3.400 0.900Belgium Tomato (protected) 17.170 4.500 5.700 4.500Belgium Tree nursery 0.230 0.155 0.230 0.155Canada Strawberry runners (PEI) 14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 (a)14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462Canada Strawberry runners (Quebec) 1.826 1.826 (a) 1.826 1.826Canada Strawberry runners (Ontario) 6.129 6.129France Carrots 10.000 8.000 5.000 8.000 8.000 1.400France Cucumber 85 revised to 60 60.000 15.000 60.000 60.000 12.500France Cut-flowers 75.000 60.250 12.000 60.000 52.000 9.600France Forest tree nursery 10.000 10.000 1.500 10.000 10.000 1.500August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report99Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008France Melon 10.000 10.000 7.500 6.000France Nursery: orchard, raspberry 5.000 5.000 2.000 5.000 5.000 2.000France Orchard replant 25.000 25.000 7.500 25.000 25.000 7.000France Pepper Incl in.tomato cun 27.500 6.000 27.500 6.000France Strawberry fruit 90.000 86.000 34.000 90.000 86.000France Strawberry runners 40.000 4.000 35.000 40.000 40.000 28.000France Tomato (and eggplant for 2005 only) 150(allsolanaceous)60.500 33.250 125.000 48.400France Eggplant 27.500 33.250 48.400Greece Cucurbits 30.000 19.200 30.000 19.200Greece Cut flowers 14.000 6.000 14.000 6.000Greece Tomatoes 180.000 73.600 156.000 73.600Israel Broomrape 250.000 250.000 250.000 250.000Israel Cucumber - protected new 2007 25.000 18.750 6.250 25.000Israel Cut flowers – open field 77.000 67.000 80.755 53.345 53.345 77.000 67.000 74.540Israel Cut flowers – protected 303.000 303.000 321.330 163.400 155.200 303.000 240.000 220.185Israel Fruit tree nurseries 50.000 45.000 10.000 50.000 45.000 7.500Israel Melon – protected & field 148.000 142.000 140.000 87.500 87.500 125.650 99.400 105.000Israel Potato 239.000 231.000 137.500 93.750 93.750 239.000 165.000 137.500Israel Seed production 56.000 50.000 56.000 28.000Israel Strawberries – fruit 196.000 196.000 176.200 64.125 57.000 196.000 196.000 93.000Israel Strawberry runners 35.000 35.000 20 20 35.000 35.000 28.000Israel Strawberry runners andfruit Ghaza 87.875 83.250Israel Tomatoes 90.000 22.750Israel Sweet potato 111.500 61.250Italy Cut flowers (protected) 250.000 250.000 30.000 250.000 187.000 30.000Italy Eggplant (protected) 280.000 200.000 15.000 194.000 156.000Italy Melon (protected) 180.000 135.000 10.000 131.000 131.000 10.000Italy Pepper (protected) 220.000 160.000 67.000 160.000 130.000 67.000Italy Strawberry Fruit (Protected) 510.000 400.000 35.000 407.000 320.000Italy Strawberry Runners 100.000 120.000 35.000 120.000 120.000 35.000Italy Tomato (protected) 1300.000 1030.000 418.000 871.000 697.000 80.000Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 68.600 61.400 88.300 88.800 72.4 51.450Japan Ginger – field 119.400 119.400 112.200 112.100 102.200 119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075Japan Ginger – protected 22.900 22.900 14.800 14.800 12.900 22.900 22.900 14.471 11.100Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 182.200 168.000 194.100 203.900 182.2 136.650Japan Peppers (green and hot) 189.900 200.700 169.400 162.300 134.400 187.200 200.700 156.700 121.725Japan Watermelon 126.300 96.200 94.200 43.300 23.700 129.000 98.900 94.2 32.475August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report100Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008Malta Cucumber 0.096 0.127Malta Eggplant 0.128 0.170Malta Strawberry 0.160 0.212Malta Tomatoes 0.475 0.594New Zealand Nursery material 1.085 1.085 0.000New Zealand Strawberry fruit 42.000 42.000 24.780 42.000 34.000 12.000New Zealand Strawberry runners 10.000 10.000 5.720 8.000 8.000 6.234Poland Strawberry Runners 40.000 40.000 25.000 12.000 40.000 40.000 24.500Portugal Cut flowers 130.000 8.750 50.000 8.750Spain Cut Flowers – Cadiz 53.000 53.000 35.000 53.000 42.000Spain Cut Flowers – Catalonia 20.000 18.600 12.840 17.000(+Andalucia)20.000 15.000 43.490(+Andalucia)Spain Pepper 200.000 155.000 45.000 200.000 155.000 45.000Spain Strawberry Fruit 556.000 499.290 80.000 556.000 499.290 0.0796Spain Strawberry Runners 230.000 230.000 230.000 215.000 230.000 230.000 230.000Spain Peppers and Strawberries 0.151UK Cut flowers 7.560 6.050UK Ornamental tree nursery 12.000 6.000 6.000 6.000UK Strawberry (& raspberry in 2005) 80.000 63.600 68.000 54.500UK Raspberry nursery 4.400 4.400USA Chrys. Cuttings/roses 29.412 29.412 0.000USA Cucurbits – field 1187.800 747.839 598.927 588.949 411.765 1187.800 747.839 592.891 486.757USA Eggplant – field 76.761 101.245 96.480 79.546 62.789 76.721 82.167 85.363 66.018USA Forest nursery seedlings 192.515 157.694 152.629 133.140 125.758 192.515 157.694 122.032 131.208USA Ginger 9.200 9.200 0.000USA Orchard replant 706.176 827.994 405.415 405.666 314.007 706.176 527.600 405.400 393.720USA Ornamentals 210.949 162.817 149.965 138.538 137.776 154.000 148.483 137.835 138.538USA Nursery stock - fruit trees,raspberries, roses45.789 64.528 12.684 51.102 27.663 45.800 64.528 28.275 51.102USA Peppers – field 1094.782 1498.530 1151.751 919.006 783.821 1094.782 1243.542 1106.753 756.339USA Strawberry fruit – field 2468.873 1918.400 1733.901 1604.669 1336.754 2052.846 1730.828 1476.019 1349.575USA Strawberry runners 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 8.837 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838USA Tomato – field 2876.046 2844.985 2334.047 1840.100 1245.249 2876.046 2476.365 2065.246 1406.484USA Turfgrass 352.194 131.600 78.040 52.189 0 206.827 131.600 78.04 0USA Sweet potato 224.528 18.144 18.144 18.144August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report101Table 12 (cont’). List of nominated (2005– 2008 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2008 inpart) amounts of methyl bromide grantedbyParties under the CUE process for each crop or commodityPart B: Post-harvest Structuraland Commodity ApplicationsTotal CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008Australia Almonds 1.900 2.100 1.900 2.100Australia Rice consumer packs 12.300 12.300 10.225 9.200+1.89.200 6.150 6.150 9.205 7.400Belgium Artefacts and structures 0.600 0.307 0.590 0.307Belgium Antique structure & furniture 0.750 0.199 0.319 0.199Belgium Churches, monuments and ships'quarters0.150 0.059 0.150 0.059Belgium Electronic equipment 0.100 0.035 0.100 0.035Belgium Empty silo 0.050 0.043 0.050 0.043Belgium Flour mill see mills below 0.125 0.072 See millsbelow0.072Belgium Flour mills 10.0004.170 9.515 4.170Belgium Mills 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200Belgium Food processing facilities 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300Belgium Food Processing premises 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030Belgium Food storage (dry) structure 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.000Belgium Old buildings 7.000 0 .306 1.150 0.306Belgium Old buildings and objects 0.450 0.282 0.000 0.282Belgium Woodworking premises 0.300 0.101 0.300 0.101Canada Flour mills47.200 34.774 30.167 28.650 26.913 (a)4734.774 30.167 28.650Canada Pasta manufacturing facilities(a) 10.457 6.757 6.067(a) 10.457 6.757Canada Commodities 0.068France Seeds sold by PLAN-SPG company 0.135 0.135 0.100 0.135 0.135 0.096France Mills 55.000 40.000 8.000 40.000 35.000 8.000France Rice consumer packs 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000France Chestnuts 2.000 2.000 1.800 2.000 2.000 1.800Germany Artefacts 0.250 0.100 0.250 0.100Germany Mills and Processors45.000 19.350 45.000 19.350Greece Dried fruit 4.280 3.0810.900 4.280 3.081 0.45Greece Mills and Processors 23.000 16.000 1.34023.000 15.445 1.340Greece Rice and legumes 2.355 2.355Ireland Mills 0.888 0.611 0.888Israel Artefacts 0.650 0.650 0.600 0.650 0.650Israel Dates (post harvest) 3.444 3.444 2.200 1.800 3.444 2.755 2.200August 2007 TEAP Report on 2007 CUNs: Final Report102Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008Israel Flour mills (machinery & storage) 2.140 1.490 1.490 0.800 2.140 1.490 1.040Israel Furniture– imported 1.422 1.422 2.042 1.422 0.000Italy Artefacts 5.500 5.500 5.000 5.225 0.000 5.000Italy Mills and Processors 160.000 130.000 25.000160.000 65.000 25.000Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.500 6.500 6.300 5.800 7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300Latvia Grains 2.502 2.502Netherlands Strawberry runners post harvest 0.120 0.120 0Poland Medicinal herbs & dried mushroomsas dry commodities4.000 3.560 1.800 0.500 4.100 3.560 1.800 1.800Poland Coffee, cocoa beans (a) 2.160 2.000 0.500 2.160 1.420 1.420Spain Rice 50.000 42.065Switzerland Mills & Processors8.700 7.000 8.700 7.000UK Aircraft 0.165 0.165UK Mills and Processors 47.13010.195 4.509 47.130 10.195 4.509UK Cereal processing plants 8.131 3.480 (a) 8.131 3.480UK Cheese stores 1.640 1.248 1.248 1.640 1.248 1.248UK Dried commodities (rice, fruits andnuts) Whitworths2.400 1.256 2.400 1.256UK Herbs and spices 0.035 0.037 0.030 0.035 0.037UK Mills and Processors (biscuits) 2.525 1.787 0.4792.525 1.787UK Spices structural equip. 1.728 1.728 0.000 0.479UK Spices stored 0.030 0.030 0.000UK Structures buildings (herbs andspices)3.000 1.872 0.908 3.000 1.872 0.908UK Structures, processors and storage(Whitworths)1.100 0.880 0.257 1.100 0.880 0.257UK Tobacco equipment 0.523 0.050UK Woven baskets 0.770 0.770USA Dried fruit and nuts (walnuts,pistachios, dried fruit and dates anddried beans)89.166 87.719 91.299 67.699 58.912 89.166 87.719 78.983 58.921USA Dry commodities/ structures (cocoabeans)61.519 61.519 64.028 52.256 51.002 61.519 55.367 64.082 53.188USA Dry commodities/ structures(processed foods, herbs and spices,dried milk and cheese processingfacilities) NPMA83.344 83.344 85.801 72.693 66.777 83.344 69.118 82.771 69.208USA Smokehouse hams (Dry cure porkproducts) (building and product)136.304 135.742 40.854 19.669 19.699 67.907 81.708 18.998 19.699USA Mills and Processors 536.328 505.982 401.889 362.952 291.418 483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237