MONTREAL PROTOCOL 

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE 

THE OZONE LAYER 

UNEP

REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT PANEL

OCTOBER 2005 

EVALUATIONS OF 2005 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL 

BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT

October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report iii

Montreal Protocol 

On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

Report of the 

UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

October 2005 

EVALUATIONS OF 2005 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR 

METHYL BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

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

Co-ordination: Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

Composition and layout of the report: 

Jonathan Banks, Nahum Marban Mendoza, 

Michelle Marcotte and Ian Porter 

Reproduction: UNON Nairobi 

Date: October 2005 

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

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME 

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

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

1438 748844 

This document is also available in portable document format from

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

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

acknowledgement of the source of the material.

ISBN: ********** 
October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report iv

Disclaimer 

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

Assessment Panel (TEAP) cochairs and members, and the Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee (MBTOC) cochairs and members, and the companies and organisations that employ 

them do not endorse the performance, worker safety, or environmental acceptability of any of the 

technical options discussed. Every industrial operation requires consideration of worker safety 

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

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

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

options discussed in this document. 

UNEP, TEAP cochairs and members, and the MBTOC cochairs and members, in furnishing or 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

either express or implied by UNEP, TEAP cochairs and members, and the MBTOC cochairs and 

members or the companies or organisations that employ them.

Acknowledgement 

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

Committee acknowledges with thanks the outstanding contributions from all of the individuals 

and organisations who provided support to Panel and Committee cochairs and members. The 

opinions expressed are those of the Panel and the Committee and do not necessarily reflect the 

reviews of any sponsoring or supporting organisation. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report v

UNEP 

OCTOBER 2005 REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT PANEL

EVALUATIONS OF 2005 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR 

METHYL BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT
vi October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

UNEP 

OCTOBER 2005 REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT PANEL

EVALUATIONS OF 2005 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL 

BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

2.1 Introduction to MBTOC Evaluation of Critical Use Exemptions ...................... 3 

2.1.1 Mandate....................................................................................................... 3 

2.2 Evaluations of CUNs – 2005 round for 2006 and 2007 exemptions .................. 5 

2.3 Critical Use Nominations Review ...................................................................... 6 

2.3.1 Consideration of alternatives ...................................................................... 6 

2.3.2 Period of nominations................................................................................. 7 

2.3.3 Plans to develop, register and deploy alternatives...................................... 7 

2.3.4 Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities.......... 8 

2.3.5 Low permeability barrier films ................................................................. 10 

2.3.6 Adjustments for standard dosage rates ..................................................... 10 

2.3.7 Rate of adoption of alternatives ................................................................ 16 

2.3.8 Fulfilment of Decision IX/6...................................................................... 17 

2.3.9 Sustainable Alternatives............................................................................ 17 

2.3.10 Frequency.................................................................................................. 17 

2.4 Final evaluations of CUNs submitted in 2005.................................................. 18 

2.4.1 Details of evaluations................................................................................ 18 

2.4.2 Minority evaluation................................................................................... 18 

3. Registration and Reregistration of Alternatives........................................................ 67 

3.1 Registration status of soil alternatives .............................................................. 67 

3.2 Registration status of postharvest and structural alternatives........................... 69 

3.3 Reregistration of MB and alternatives .............................................................. 71 

4. MBTOC Work plan for 2006.................................................................................... 73 

4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 73 

4.2 Summary report of the activities carried out in 2005 ....................................... 73 

4.3 Allocation of the Funds under Decision XVI/5 ................................................ 73 

4.4 MBTOC Workplan for 2006 - Details.............................................................. 73 

4.5 Summary Report of the Activities Carried out by MBTOC in 2005................ 76 

4.6 Allocation of the Funds provided under Decision XVI/5................................. 77 

4.7 Management and Personnel Issues ................................................................... 78 

4.8 Proposed changes to standard presumptions..................................................... 79 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report vii

5. References................................................................................................................. 85 

5.1 References for main text ................................................................................... 85 

5.2 Additional references for minority evaluation (Section 2.4.2) ......................... 90 
viii October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Glossary of Acronyms 

1,3-D 1,3-dichloropropene 

A5 Article 5(1) Party 

CUE Critical Use Exemption 

CUN Critical Use Nomination 

EC European Commission 

EMOP Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPPO European Plant Protection Organisation 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

LBP Low Permeability Barrier Film 

MB Methyl bromide 

MBTOC Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

MITC Methyl isothiocyanate 

MOP Meeting of the Parties 

MS Metham sodium 

Pic Chloropicrin 

QPS Quarantine and Pre-shipment 

SF Sulfuryl fluoride 

TEAP Technology and Economics Assessment Panel 

US United States of America 

VIF Virtually Impermeable Film 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 1

1. Scope of this report 

This 2005 final report provides MBTOC/TEAP final evaluations on CUNs submitted by 

Parties in 2005, in accordance with the timetable set out in the Annex I referred to by 

Decision XVI/4. It includes evaluation of one CUN submitted in 2004, which was held 

over until 2005 for evaluation at the request of the nominating Party. 

Additionally, this report contains a chapter on registration status of chemical alternatives 

to methyl bromide (MB) and of MB reregistration, addressing Decisions Ex. I/4(9,i) and 

Ex. I/4(9,j), and a work plan for MBTOC for 2006 as required under the Annex 1 referred 

to in Decision XVI/4. The work plan includes suggested changes to the standard 

presumptions used by MBTOC/TEAP in evaluations of CUNs. 

 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 3

2. Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide 

2.1 Introduction to MBTOC Evaluation of Critical Use Exemptions 

2.1.1 Mandate 

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

production plus imports minus exports) of methyl bromide is to be phased out in Parties 

not operating under Article 5(1) of the Protocol, by 1 January 2005. However, the Parties 

agreed to a provision enabling exemptions for those uses of methyl bromide that qualify 

as critical. Parties established criteria, under Decision IX/6 of the Protocol, which all 

such uses need to meet in order to be granted an exemption. The Decision IX/6 states: 

1. To apply the following criteria and procedure in assessing a critical 

methyl bromide use for the purposes of control measures in Article 2 of the 

Protocol: 

(a) That a use of methyl bromide should qualify as “critical” only if the 

nominating Party determines that: 

(i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl 

bromide for that use would result in a significant market 

disruption; and 

(ii) There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or 

substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the 

standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops 

and circumstances of the nomination; 

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

uses should be permitted only if: 

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

minimise the critical use and any associated emission of methyl 

bromide; 

(ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality 

from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide, also 

bearing in mind the developing countries’ need for methyl bromide; 

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

evaluate, commercialise and secure national regulatory approval 

of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the 

circumstances of the particular nomination and the special needs of 

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

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

demonstrate that research programmes are in place to develop and 

deploy alternatives and substitutes. Article 5 Parties must 

demonstrate that feasible alternatives shall be adopted as soon as 

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

and/or that they have applied to the Multilateral Fund or other 
4 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

sources for assistance in identifying, evaluating, adapting and 

demonstrating such options; 

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

nominations and make recommendations based on the criteria established in 

paragraphs 1 (a) (ii) and 1 (b) of the present decision; 

3. That the present decision will apply to Parties operating under Article 5 

and Parties not so operating only after the phase-out date applicable to those 

Parties. 

Para. 2 of Decision IX/6 does not assign TEAP the responsibility for determining the 

existence of “significant market disruption” specified in paragraph 1(a)(i). 

TEAP assigned its Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) to 

determine whether there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or 

substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment 

and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination, and to 

address the criteria listed in Decision IX/6 1(b). 

All reviews of CUNs made in 2005 are to be in accordance with the ‘Annex I’ referred to in 

Decision XVI/4. This annex also sets out the schedule for the annual review of critical use 

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

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

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

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

for such a decision. Para. 32 emphasises that exemptions must fully comply with Decision 

IX/6 and other relevant decisions, and are intended to be limited to the levels needed for 

critical use exemptions. These are considered as temporary derogations from the phaseout of 

methyl bromide in that they are to apply only until there are technically and economically 

feasible alternatives that otherwise meet the criteria in Decision IX/6, and that MBTOC should 

take a precise and transparent approach to the application of the criteria, having regard, 

especially, to paragraphs 4 and 20 of Annex I. 

Paragraphs 4 and 20 read: 

4. Although the burden of proof remains with the Party to justify a request for a 

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 approach, assumptions and reasoning used in the evaluation of the 

critical-use nominations. When cuts or denials are proposed, the description should 

include citations and also indicate where alternatives are technically and economically 

feasible in circumstances similar to those in the nomination, as described in 

decision Ex.1/5, paragraph 8. 

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

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

should, in its report, explicitly state the central basis for the Party’s economic 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 5

argument and explicitly explain how it addressed that factor, and, in cases in 

which MBTOC recommends a cut; MBTOC should also provide an explanation of 

its economic feasibility. 

2.2 Evaluations of CUNs – 2005 round for 2006 and 2007 exemptions 

MBTOC met 11-15 April 2005 in Buenos Aires, Argentina and for a second time in 

Melbourne, Australia, from 29 August to 2 September, 2005. These meetings were held 

as required by the time schedule for considerations of CUNs given in Annex I referred to 

in Decision XVI/4. 

MBTOC made an initial assessment of the 62 new or additional critical use nominations 

for 2006 and 27 nominations for 2007, totalling 324.68 and 8088.32 metric tonnes 

respectively. Of the 89 new or supplementary CUNs considered during its April 2005 

meeting in Buenos Aires, MBTOC was unable to assess 26 nominations. Some of the 

larger and more complex nominations were in this category. It did not recommend two 

nominations. MBTOC submitted questions relating to those nominations classified as 

‘unable to assess’ in Buenos Aires that would assist their further evaluation during its 

September 2005 meeting in Melbourne. Two Parties made arrangements to meet with 

MBTOC during the Melbourne meeting for discussions with regard to their outstanding 

CUNs, in accordance with paragraph 8 of Annex 1 referred to in Decision XVI/4. 

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

requested that MBTOC explicitly state the central basis for the Party’s economic 

argument relating to CUNs. Table 4 provides this information for each CUN. 

MBTOC has sometimes suggested quantities of MB for 2006 or 2007 different from that 

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

Table 4. The adjustments follow the standard presumptions given in Tables 1 and 2, 

unless indicated otherwise. 

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

alternatives, scale up of alternatives, and economic issues. For the most part technical 

alternatives exist, but often at a less developed state than methyl bromide. MBTOC has 

been unable to identify alternatives, or has inadequate information for the following 

applications: fresh high-moisture dates, some seeds when rapid turn around is required 

for immediate planting, cheese stores, dry cure ham treatment, and unmovable historical 

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

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

effective alternatives. 

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

reference, MBTOC members made an additional disclosure relating specifically to their 

level of national, regional or enterprise involvement in the CUN process. This was 

required to ensure that those with a high level of involvement and interest in developing a 

particular nomination did not bias the process of evaluation through participation in the 
6 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

detailed review. Some MBTOC members were disqualified from review of specific 

nominations as a result of this process. 

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

for soil fumigation, while a post-harvest subcommittee considered the nominations 

relating to the use of MB for fumigation of commodities, structures and objects. Drafts 

arising from the subcommittees were considered in plenary. This report and decisions of 

the committee were by consensus, except for one particular issue on which agreement 

was not reached. A minority evaluation on this issue, relating to some portions of US 

CUNs for 2007 for cucurbits, eggplant, peppers, strawberry fruit and tomatoes, has been 

included below (Sect. 2.4.2). 

As part of internal process of MBTOC, check-list style evaluation forms were generated 

to allow the Committee to assess the large number of nominations efficiently and 

equitably. These evaluation forms include the questions asked in the Handbook on 

Critical Use Exemptions for Methyl Bromide and relevant sections of guidance of the 

Parties, in particular, Decision IX/6. All nominations were treated similarly, independent 

of the size of the exemption requested. Specific circumstances of each nomination were 

taken into account. 

The CUEs approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP for 2005 were used as the baseline data 

when considering CUNs for 2006. For those nominations relating to 2007 use the 

baseline was the most recent approval arising from 2EMOP, 1EMOP and/or 16MOP. 

 

2.3 Critical Use Nominations Review 

In considering the CUNs submitted in 2005, MBTOC applied the standards contained in 

Annex I of 16MOP. In particular MBTOC sought to provide consistent treatment of 

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

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

processes and conclusions. 

2.3.1 Consideration of alternatives 

In considering alternatives to methyl bromide, MBTOC used the guidance given in 

Annex I where ‘alternatives’ were defined as any practice or treatment that can be used in 

place of methyl bromide. ‘Existing alternatives’ are those alternatives in present or past 

use in some regions; and ‘potential alternatives’ are those alternatives in the process of 

investigation or development. MBTOC also used information on the suitability of 

alternatives for a nomination by considering the commercial adoption of alternatives in 

regions nominating for CUNs. Also, adoption in regions with similar climatic zone and 

cropping practices was used as an indication of the feasibility (technical and economic) 

of an alternative in a particular region. For example, 1,3-dichloropropene/chloropicrin 

(1,3-D/Pic), metham sodium alone or in combination with Pic, dazomet, substrates and 

the use of resistant varieties (for solanaceous crops, melons and cucurbits) have been 

adopted to replace MB for several crops and in several regions where MB was once used. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 7

MBTOC is ‘unable to assess’ nominations that do not explain why these major 

alternatives are unsuitable for the circumstances of a nomination. 

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

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

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

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

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

infestation standards in finished product from a mill. Technically feasible alternatives do 

not necessarily provide superior pest control results than are achieved in practice by MB. 

2.3.2 Period of nominations 

CUNs in this report relate to CUEs sought for 2006 and 2007. No nominations in this 

particular round were submitted for longer periods. 

One Party, in bilateral consultations with MBTOC, emphasised the need for CUEs for 

2007 from this round in order to be able to complete their regulatory processes for 

allocations in that year. It also stated that the allocation process for MB use under a CUE 

allowed adjustment of the allocated quantity downwards as a result of developments in 

availability of alternatives subsequent to approval of particular amounts for a CUE by the 

Parties. 

2.3.3 Plans to develop, register and deploy alternatives 

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

“...an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, commercialise and secure national 

regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the 

circumstances of the particular nomination...” and “...must demonstrate that research 

programmes are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes...” 

In many nominations in the 2005 round, as in previous rounds, plans to identify 

alternatives were often not adequate and future plans to phase out MB were not given. 

As with the 2004 round, MBTOC did not use lack of phaseout plans as a basis to ‘not 

recommend’ a nomination. 

 

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

submit a national management strategy for phase-out of critical uses of methyl bromide 

to the Ozone Secretariat before 1 February 2006”. MBTOC awaits these reports. In this 

round of nominations, some Parties identified alternatives and reduced their nominations 

to allow for phase-in of alternatives. MBTOC did not reduce a Party’s requested amount 

for phase-in of alternatives without technical and economic evaluation and suitable 

justification. 

MB is a mature technology and a considerable knowledge base exists for its use. On the 

other hand, many alternatives need continued efforts for correct and efficacious use and 

adaptation to local commercial circumstances. MBTOC incurred difficulties in assessing 
8 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

nominations when there were insufficient published studies on alternatives, proven 

effective in other regions, conducted under local conditions. This leads to difficulties in 

true comparison of the feasibility of alternatives as the newer alternatives and their 

application may not be fully developed, may not have achieved economies of scale, and 

may have fewer years of documented pest control success. Some latitude is needed in 

evaluating the feasibility of alternatives to take this problem into account. 

2.3.4 Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities. 

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

MBTOC/TEAP in assessing this round of CUNs, and both the 2004 and 2005 round of 

CUNs, where continued methyl bromide use is sought. Previous statements of these 

presumptions have been given in TEAP reports of October 2003, June 2004 and October 

2004. 

Proposed changes to these standard presumptions with supporting documentation are 

being provided in conformity with para. 2 of Annex 1 referred to in Decision XVI/ 4 for 

consideration at the 17MOP. The proposed changes are given in summary in the work 

plan for MBTOC for 2006 (Section 4.5). 

The rates and practices adopted by MBTOC are, in general, conservative. For soil 

treatments, the dosage levels of methyl bromide given in these presumptions exceed that 

required in good agricultural practice in all but exceptional circumstances, particularly 

when used in conjunction with low gas permeability barrier films (LBF), such as various 

VIF and metallised barrier films (e.g. CANSLIT). To assist the adoption of lower dosage 

rates, researchers and extension specialists need to continue to build grower confidence in 

the effectiveness of lower dosage levels and optimise the methods for application of low 

permeability barrier films in the field. Practical permeabilities for low permeability 

barrier films are reported by suppliers and offer opportunities for different films with 

differing permeabilities and handling characteristics to suit particular applications whilst 

adequate retention of fumigant to permit lowered MB dosages. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 9

Table 1. Standard presumptions used in assessment of CUNs – soil treatments. 

Comment CUN adjustment Exceptions 

1. Dosage rates Maximum guideline rates for 

MB:Pic 98:2 – 45 g/m2 (cold, 

heavy soils) or 35 g/m2 (sandy 

soils), both with barrier films (VIF 

or equivalent); for MB/Pic 67:33 - 

20g MB/m2, under barrier films. 

Exceptionally, where VIF or 

equivalent is not feasible, 

maximum guideline rates for 

MB:Pic 98:2 – 60 g/m2. 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 
10 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

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

 Comment CUN Adjustment Exception 

Dosage rate - 

structural 

20 g/m3

 Nominations using higher 

dosage rates were reduced 

proportionally 

Where approved label 

rates require higher 

dosage rate or where 

substantiated by the Party 

Dosage rate –

commodities 

EPPO standard for bulk 

commodities as given in 

MBTOC (1994, 1998) 

Nominations using higher 

dosage rates were reduced 

proportionally 

Where approved label 

rates require higher 

dosage rates or where 

substantiated by the Party 

2.3.5 Low permeability barrier films 

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

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

associated emission of methyl bromide’. In its evaluations, MBTOC assessed CUNs 

where possible for reductions in MB application rates and deployment of MB emission 

reduction technologies, such as use of low permeability barrier films, including VIF, or 

other appropriate sealing and emission control techniques. 

Technical discussion on barrier films is given in MBTOC 2002 Assessment Report 

(MBTOC 2002). Results of some field experiments and demonstrations with low 

permeability barrier films are discussed in Section 2.3.6. The observations under field 

conditions with low permeability films, including VIF, support use of reduced dosages of 

methyl bromide compared with those used under normal polyethylene sheeting, without 

loss of effectiveness.

2.3.6 Adjustments for standard dosage rates 

MBTOC assessed CUNs for appropriate MB application rates and deployment of MB 

emission reduction technologies, such as use of low permeability barrier films or 

appropriate sealing techniques. 

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

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

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

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

authorized for critical-use exemptions, the use of emission minimization techniques such 

as virtually impermeable films, barrier film technologies, deep shank injection and/or 

other techniques that promote environmental protection, whenever technically and 

economically feasible.” 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 11

One key transitional strategy has been the adoption of MB:Pic formulations with lower 

concentrations of methyl bromide (e.g. MB:Pic 50:50 or less). These formulations are 

considered to be equally as effective in controlling soilborne pathogens as formulations 

containing higher quantities of methyl bromide (e.g. 98:2, 67:33) (e. g. Porter et al 1997;

Melgarejo et al 2000; Lopez-Aranda et al 2003). Formulations containing high 

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

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

formulations are registered or otherwise permitted. Their use can be achieved with 

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

by use of premixed formulations. 

In the soils sector, some CUNs still involve the use of MB with low or high density 

polyethylene sheeting (tarping). This process is known to lead to high rates of emission 

of MB in the absence of specific measures such as deep injection. MB use and emission 

rates can be reduced substantially through use of less pervious tarping (MBTOC, 2002), 

such as low permeability barrier films (LBF). Low permeability barrier films (e.g. VIF or 

equivalent), allows increased retention of MB, extended effective exposure periods for 

the pests, and effective reduced MB application rates compared with use of conventional 

sheeting. It has been long recognised that the use of low permeability barrier films 

coupled with reduced dosages effectively reduces methyl bromide emissions (e.g. Wang 

et al. 1997). Recent advancements in the cost and technical performance of barrier films 

have extended their suitability for use with methyl bromide and also some of the 

alternatives. The key advantage is that they allow for a substantial reduction in dosage 

rate of methyl bromide compared with the minimum effective rate under polyethylene 

film. Typically the reduction in effective methyl bromide dosage can be 25 – 50%, for 

both 98% methyl bromide and methyl bromide/chloropicrin formulations. 

Table 3 reviews the relative effectiveness of different rates and formulations of methyl 

bromide under barrier films compared to standard commercial treatments under 

polyethylene. The references shown represent studies from 1998 to 2004 where barrier 

films (e.g. VIF) were compared to the standard MB/Pic using standard polyethylene film. 

The trials were conducted under a wide range of situations, but consistently show 

improved performance (reduced dosage and thus emissions) under barrier film without 

loss of effectiveness. The equivalent effectiveness of different dosages of MB under the 

barrier films compared to MB/Pic standard polyethylene treatment from Table 3 is 

plotted in Figure 1. It shows the scatter about the line of 100% relative effectiveness as 

expected from field data from biological/agricultural systems. 

The use of low permeability barrier films, meeting VIF specifications is compulsory in 

the 25 member countries of the European Union (EC Regulation 2037/2000). The State 

of California in the US, however, prohibits the use of VIF (California Code of 

Regulations Title 3 Section 6450(e)) over concerns of possible worker exposure to MB 

when the film is removed or when seedlings are planted, and altered flux rates of MB in 

practice. 
12 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

In 2003 (TEAP 2003), MBTOC/TEAP evaluations of CUNs used conservative maximum 

allowable dosage rates for use with standard films and barrier films. Since then, high 

levels of success have been demonstrated in many countries at lower rates of methyl 

bromide with barrier films. For this reason, new guidelines for reduced effective dosage 

rates with barrier films and standard films are being proposed in this TEAP report of 

October 2005 for consideration by the Parties at the 17MOP, as required by the Decision 

XIV/2. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 13

Table 3. Relative effectiveness of MB/Pic formulations applied in combination with low permeability barrier film

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

Country Region Commodity Barrier Film Type Untreated Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin Mixtures (Product rate per treated area) Notes 

Std film Barrier Film - Relative yield compared to standard polyethylene 

 Yield 

MB/Pic 

Formuln.

Product 

Rate 

Not 

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

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

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

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

Navalmanzano 78 50:50 400 80 

Fusarium, Phytophthora, Pythium, Rhizoctonia and Verticillium 

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

Navalmanzano 34 50:50 400 76 75 

Fusarium, Cladosporium, Rhizoctonia 

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

 Malvinas 50:50 400 99 

1998 Fusarium 

Spain Valencia Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 59 Not Spec 600 94 

 at 10cm & 30cm Bartua

53 Not Spec 600 93 1999 results 

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

Tariquejo 54 67:33 400 106 

Meloidogyne and weeds (unspec.) 

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

Inoculum not specified Lopez

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

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

1999 results, nurseries 

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

2000 results, nurseries 

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

1997-1998 Inoc.unspecified Lopez

72 67:33 400 102 

1998-1999 Inoc. unspecified 

68 67:33 400 109 

1999-2000 Inoc. unspecified 
14 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

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

54 98:2 600 91 

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

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

Inoculum not specified Fritsch 

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

Phytophthora present Horne

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

VIF Plastopil 69 67:33 392 99 present 

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

USA Florida 

Strawb Fruit, 

Cantaloupe 

Barrier - Pliant, 

Metallised 

98:2 

67:33 

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

Nutgrass and pathogens present Noling 

USA California 72 67:33 336 108 

Inoculum not specified Ajwa e

Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 

80 67:33 392 96 

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

Nutgrass and rootknot nematodes Hamill 

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

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

Watsonville, high pathogen pressure 

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

 Unweighted averages (relative % yield) 66 94 99 93 93 102 103 108 104 91 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

MB dosage rate (kg/ha) under barrier film

Relative Yield 

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

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

commercial treatment using standard polyethylene from trials between 1998 and 2004 

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

3. 

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

nominations to a standard rate per treated area. MBTOC considers the maximum MB 

application rate for 98% MB to be either 350 kg/ha (warm sandy soils) or 450 kg/ha 

(heavier cool soils), in conjunction with low barrier permeability films (e.g., VIF or 

equivalent), combined with extended exposure periods, as effective in most 

circumstances when well applied. In cases where use of high chloropicrin-containing 

mixtures (approximately MB:Pic/67:33 or 50:50) were feasible, maximum dosage rates 

of 200kg/ha (260 kg/ha for moderate to severe nutgrass regions) have been previously 

used by MBTOC to assess nominations. As a consequence of new studies with low 

permeability barrier films, reviewed in Table 3, new maximum guideline standards of 

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

reasonable and are being proposed as revised standard presumptions. 

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

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

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

nominations were based on rates lower than these indicative rates. 

Quantities in CUNs were recalculated to conform to these specifications, including use of 

low permeability barrier films (e.g. VIF or equivalent). Reductions were not made if the 
16 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party provided a substantive argument otherwise (e.g. unusually tolerant pests) or there 

were regulatory requirements to use specific rates. 

In applications where broadacre or ‘flat fume’ coverage occurs (e.g. some plant nurseries, 

nematode control in protected floriculture and vegetables, ginger production), MBTOC 

acknowledged that though films and glues are available for most situations, sealing may 

be difficult with barrier films under some particular conditions, and that further work or 

trials may be required in some situations to determine acceptable materials. 

In structures, it is feasible to reduce MB use and emissions by the use of improved 

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

and longer exposure periods. The average dosage rates now quoted in the CUNs, 

typically around 20 g/m3

 for mills and similar structures, are reasonable. 

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

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

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

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

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

2.3.7 Rate of adoption of alternatives 

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

as a reasonable technical argument for lack of availability to the end user sensu Decision 

IX/6. 

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

industry to transition to available alternatives. Some CUNs showed a reduction in 

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

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

to the preceding CUNs. In some cases alternatives at varying stages of readiness for 

adoption were identified in the CUN and in others they were identified by MBTOC. 

There is limited guidance and data available on what is a reasonable rate of transition to 

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

XVI/4 states that “In situations where MBTOC recommends a nomination on grounds 

that it is necessary to have a period for adoption of alternatives, the basis for calculating 

the time period must be explained fully in the TEAP report and take fully into account the 

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

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

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

estimated training time assuming full effort, opportunities for importing alternative 

equipment and expertise if not available locally, and costs involved.” Improved guidance 

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

would assist MBTOC in evaluation of CUNs in future. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 17

2.3.8 Fulfilment of Decision IX/6 

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

requirements of Decision IX/6. When the requirements of Decision IX/6 were met, 

MBTOC recommended the full amount of the request. Where some of the conditions 

were not fully met, MBTOC recommended a decreased amount, depending on its 

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

alternative was considered effective or when the Party had failed to show that it was not 

effective. Where the criteria of Decision IX/6 were not satisfied to a substantial extent, 

MBTOC did not recommend the nomination. In this round of CUNs, MBTOC 

considered answers submitted by Parties in response to questions previously sent, and 

which explained why the nominations had been placed in the ‘unable to assess’ category. 

There is one section of Decision IX/6 that MBTOC did not evaluate, and one MBTOC 

evaluated less stringently. These are use of stockpiles (para. 1 (b) (ii)) and the need for 

the Party to conduct sufficient research on alternatives (para. 1 (b) (iii) in part)). MBTOC 

or the Ozone Secretariat has not collected data on level of stocks or stockpiles present in 

various countries and Parties did not provide such data for individual nominations. Thus, 

MBTOC did not use that element in its evaluation. MBTOC also found some applicants 

did not, themselves, conduct sufficient research to fully meet Decision IX/6. Sometimes 

a Party reviewed and reported on similar or pertinent research in other countries or 

situations. MBTOC also found, in far fewer instances, and generally only where the 

applicant was a small operator, no research was conducted, possibly reflecting inability 

on the part of the applicant to do so because of cost. In those instances, MBTOC relied 

more heavily on its own knowledge of the research and on developments and usages in 

related crops or situations, and evaluated this section of the Decision less stringently. 

2.3.9 Sustainable Alternatives 

In most CUNs, the most currently appropriate alternatives are chemical fumigant 

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

for use. MBTOC urges Parties to consider the long term sustainability of treatments 

adopted as alternatives to MB, to continue to adopt chemical and non-chemical 

alternatives for the short to medium term and to develop sustainable IPM or non-chemical 

approaches for the longer term. 

2.3.10 Frequency 

In the CUN round for 2005, reductions in MB for both preplant soil and postharvest use 

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

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

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

those nominated by other Parties. MBTOC suggests that in these and other instances MB 
18 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

only be required every 2, 3 or 4 years and suggests that Parties further consider 

reductions where appropriate. Alternation of control measures may also help provide or 

extend user confidence and experience in alternatives. New control measures may also 

be good agricultural practice, reducing risk of development of tolerance and providing 

control of a wider spectrum of pests. 

2.4 Final evaluations of CUNs submitted in 2005 

2.4.1 Details of evaluations 

MBTOC/TEAP reassessed the 26 CUNs and placed in the ‘unable to assess’ category in 

the interim report published in May 2005 (TEAP 2005). In most cases, additional 

information was received by MBTOC to contribute to their reassessment. MBTOC 

reassessed these CUNs on the basis of the original application and further information 

provided, taking into account the pertinent decisions. 

Additionally MBTOC reassessed two CUNs that had been evaluated as ‘not 

recommended’ in the May report of TEAP (TEAP 2005) and one CUN, initially for 130 

tonnes, that had been made in 2004 for 2006, but had not been evaluated previously at 

request of the nominating Party. 

An additional total of 404.12 tonnes of MB has been recommended and 98.145 not 

recommended for 2006 use, and a total of 7465.89 tonnes of MB has been recommended 

and 686.703 not recommended for 2007 use. 

Evaluations of each CUN, and of the nominations placed in the unable to assess category 

are given in detail in Table 4. Table 4 also includes all evaluations of CUNs made in the 

interim report on the 2005 round of nominations. No changes were made to these 

evaluations where the outcome had been a recommendation. Thus only CUNs that 

received an ‘unable to assess’ or ‘not recommended’ evaluation in TEAP (2005) have had 

revised evaluations. 

2.4.2 Minority evaluation 

MBTOC did not reach a consensus on several nominations for cucurbits, eggplant, 

pepper, strawberry fruit and tomato submitted by the US for 2007, particularly relating to 

some parts of Florida and southeastern states. When critical use nominations were 

reviewed at the MBTOC meeting in August 2005, 25 members voted to recommend these 

CUNs (with reduced doses of MB), while 3 members voted to classify the CUNs as 

'unable to assess' pending further examination and clarification. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 19

The 16th Meeting of the Parties provided new working procedures for MBTOC (Annex I 

of Decision XVI/4)1

. Annex I states, inter alia, that “Exemptions must comply fully with 

Decision IX/6 and other relevant decisions, and are intended to be limited to the levels 

needed for critical use exemptions, temporary derogations from the phase-out 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. MBTOC should 

take a precise and transparent approach to the application of the criteria...” (para. 32), 

and that “MBTOC should categorize the nomination as ‘unable to assess’ if there is 

insufficient information to make an assessment...” (para. 10).

The minority held that further assessment by MBTOC is needed in order to determine 

which parts (i.e. areas) of the CUNs comply with Decision IX/6. Until further assessment 

occurs, the minority group believes that MBTOC is not in a position to calculate or 

‘recommend’ to the Parties an appropriate tonnage that complies with Decision IX/6. 

The CUNs should therefore be classified as ‘unable to assess’, pending further 

clarification and assessment, in accordance with Annex I procedures. 

Scientific studies conducted over a number of years in the US and other countries have 

demonstrated that certain alternatives provide statistically similar crop yields compared to 

methyl bromide, when applied using appropriate or improved application methods (refer 

to TEAP Progress Report (May 2005) and reference list (Section 5.2) for examples). 

This applies in many situations of high pest pressure from nematodes and fungal 

pathogens and low to moderate nutsedge pressure2

. While the CUNs cited high yield 

losses, high yield losses are not supported by a body of studies, particularly those using 

improved application methods. Commercial use of alternatives on farms has also shown 

that alternatives provide similar yields to MB when they are applied in an appropriate 

manner. 

Alternatives are available for parts of the CUN area. Annex I of Decision XVI/4 says 

“understanding of the concept of ‘availability’ shall be primarily guided by the 

alternative’s market presence in sufficient quantities and accessibility, taking into 

account, among other things, regulatory constraints” (para. 18). Alternatives are used by 

some growers who have the same circumstances as MB users, and sell their products to 

the same markets as MB users. Further clarification is needed to quantify the areas that 

could adopt alternatives prior to, and during, 2007. Areas requiring further assessment 

include sites of low nutsedge pressure on karst topography, and areas of moderate pest 

pressure, for example. More information therefore needs to be examined from the 

applicant and other sources before MBTOC can determine which parts of the CUNs 

comply with Decision IX/6. In addition, MBTOC needs to calculate a feasible rate of 

adoption of alternatives using the factors listed by the Parties in paragraph 35 of Annex 

I

3

. The minority group therefore concluded that the five CUNs should be classified as 

 

1

 ‘Working Procedures of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee relating to the evaluation of 

nominations for critical uses of methyl bromide’ UNEP/OzL.Pro.16/17. Annex I, pp.74 – 79. 

2

 Recent studies indicate that certain alternatives may also address high nutsedge pressure, and this matter 

requires further examination. 

3

 Paragraph 35 of Annex I of Decision XVI/4 says: 
20 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

‘unable to assess’, pending further information and assessment, in accordance with 

Annex I Procedures (1). 

 “ In situations where MBTOC recommends a nomination on grounds that it is necessary to have a period 

for adoption of alternatives, the basis for calculating the time period must be explained fully in the TEAP 

report and take fully into account the information provided by the nominating Party, the supplier, the 

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

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

assuming full effort, opportunities for importing alternative equipment and expertise if not available 

locally, and costs involved.”
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Table 4. Final evaluations of new or supplemental CUNs submitted in 2005 for 2006 or 2007 Symbol ‘

*’ in column 9 denotes a new or changed evaluation subsequent to TEAP May 2005 report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Australia Rice 

(consumer packs) 

6.15 6.15 6.15 6.15 4.92 

* 

MBTOC recommends 4.92 tonnes of MB for packageAustralia for 2007. Although the Party has reduced its rice in the past few years, MBTOC further reduced the nomination to conform to a dosage rate of 20 g/m3. Thconservative interpretation of the EPPO standard for rmethyl bromide fumigated before marketing to ensure (which might otherwise survive processing) will be kirice is received by the customer. 

Australia Strawberry 

runners 

35.75 30 7.5 35.75 35.75 

* 

MBTOC recommends 35.75 tonnes to be approved for nomination. The CUN states that MB is required to mecertification standards (disease tolerance levels), but th

mandatory. The CUN states that plug plants are a techalternative but that the costs associated with this technregarded as too high. New trials are presently being copossible key alternative, 1,3-D/Pic, has been phytotoxcertain circumstances due to the heavy, wet and cold sand recent trials to improve control with herbicides haunsuccessful. High winds and cool conditions have prprevented adoption of LPF barrier films. Trials to reduMB 50:50 in conjunction with new LPF barrier films aconducted. The Party states that these trials will be co2007. Dosage rates of 250kg/ha MB used for this crop MBTOC standards, however the Party has verified thanecessary to meet certification for disease and weed cosoil types. 

Belgium Antique 

structures and furniture 

0.319 0.199 0.199 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.199 tonnes for these 

This application is for the treatment of unmovable histand antique furniture. The Party has reduced the appliconsideration of the partial availability of alternatives. metal components and church location disallows the uSF is not registered. 
22 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Belgium Artefacts 

and structures 

0.59 0.307 0.307 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.307 tonnes for this 

Metal components and church location disallow the usAdditionally this application is for treatment of wood which requires a higher than usual dosage of MB. 

Belgium Asparagus 0.63 0.225 0.225 MBTOC recommends that a CUE of 0.225 tonnes be a

2006 for this use. The MB requested is to be restricted of the total production (seedbeds and open fields) with pest problems, not controllable by other means. Alternalready in use where applicable (99.7 % of the croppinnomination aims only where no alternatives are availatechnical and economical reasons. The need for high pplanting material is recognised, and at present MB is athis specific use (cool conditions, high pathogen incidis characterized by soil grown asparagus with high dissmall size farms and high input from family capital. Msuggests that the Party take steps to help these remainiphase out use of MB by using the available alternative

Belgium Berry fruit 0.621 0.621 MBTOC recommends that a CUE of 0.621 tonnes be a

2006 for this use. The MB requested is for treatment oCrop Replant Disorder in all berry fruit in open fields, strawberries. The Party states that fumigants are used new plantings once every 5 years, and that the key altemetham sodium and 1,3-D, are used on approximately crops, but that growers need MB to ensure that pathogup in soils. Only 8.3% of plantings are treated annuallacknowledges that disease control is difficult as a key chloropicrin, is not registered yet with these alternativmixtures are registered, although further adoption may because Party is concerned about crop damage to adjaMBTOC acknowledges the efforts made by the Membrestrict MB use further by using strip fumigation and Mmixtures. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Belgium Chicory 0.18 0.18 0.18 MBTOC recommends that a CUE of 0.180 tonnes be a

2006 for this use. Alternatives are already in use wher(99.7 % of the cropping area). The nomination aims oalternatives are not available because of technical and reasons. The area is characterized by soil grown chico

disease pressure, small size farms and high input from MBTOC suggests the Party take steps to help these remto phase out use of MB by using the available alternatisubstrates. 

Belgium Churches, 

monuments and ships' quarters 

0.15 0.059 0.059 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.059 t be approved f

Party reduced this year's nomination to 30% of its requreducing dosage and in consideration of the potential talternatives. The applicant has conducted research on this use finding that metal components disallows use oinert gases were unsuccessful in some locations and thrisk to the antiques if heat was used in combination wiattempt to reduce dosage. Good gastightness was repofor further improvement. Sulfuryl fluoride is not regisuse. 

Belgium Chrysanthe

mums 

1.12 0.72 0.0 

* 

 MBTOC does not recommend this nomination. The C

of the crop, when both root knot nematodes and funga(primarily Verticillium) are found in mobile or fixed gsmall-scale operations. The CUN is for contingency punot substantiate the infeasibility of alternatives for the circumstances. Alternatives are used for this crop in sicircumstances, notably cold, wet soils in small greenhofor example, has been adopted on more than 900 ha chin the region (LEI 2004) and is technically and economin the specific circumstances of this nomination (Runi1992, Runia 2000). The use of steam may is impacted requirements for certification of the equipment after it one location to another. The CUN concluded that certalternatives (e.g. MS + 1,3-D or other nematicide) are economically feasible. 
24 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Belgium Cucumber 0.61 0.545 0.545 MBTOC recommends that a CUE of 0.545 tonnes be a

2006 for this use. Alternatives are already in use wherThe nomination is only for uses where, according to thalternatives are not available because of technical and reasons. The area is characterised by soil grown cucumdisease pressure, small size farms and high input from MBTOC suggests that the Party take steps to help thesgrowers to phase out use of MB by using the available particularly substrates and grafting. 

Belgium Cut 

flowers 

4 1.956 1.956 MBTOC recommends 1.956 tonnes for this nominatio

use is required because of restriction imposed by smalmixed number of crops, and restrictions on alternative cool soil temperatures and extended plant back times. appreciates the additional information sent by the Partclarify the nature of this nomination. For future nominParty is encouraged to collect and submit statistical inf

regarding technical and economical validation of altercritical uses involved in this nomination. 

Belgium Electronic 

equipment 

0.1 0.035 0.035 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.035 tonnes for this 

Phosphine cannot be used in this situation and SF not Party reduced the applicant's request to ensure minimauses the MBTOC standard dosage rate. 

Belgium Empty silo 0.05 0.043 0.043 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.043 tonnes for this 

The Party reduced the applicant's request to eliminate poor gastightness. Contact pesticides, heat, cold, and are already in use. SF is not registered. Phosphine canmany facilities since they include corrodible equipmenhas reduced MB use to very low levels and low frequefumigation 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Belgium Endive 1.65 1.65 MBTOC recommends that a CUE of 1.65 tonnes be ap

for this use. The nominated quantity amount is less thused in 2003 (2.08 tonnes). Alternatives are already in the cropping area. The nomination is only for uses whto the nomination, alternatives are not available becaureasons. The endive area is characterized by soil growin areas with high disease pressure, small size farms anfrom family capital. MBTOC suggests that the Party thelp these remaining growers to phase out use of MB. 

Belgium Flour mill 0.072 0.072 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.072 tonnes for this 

The applicant has reduced dosage, emissions and miniby using it during times of high ambient temperature. has reduced MB use and frequency to a very low level

Belgium Flour mills 4.17 4.17 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 4.17 tonnes for this u

Party has reduced dosage to MBTOC standard for strutreatments and in consideration of use of alternatives afumigation, and reduced the applicant's request in conthose mills that need improvement in gastightness. Pameasures to ensure good gastightness through mill impsome mills. SF not registered. 

Belgium Food 

premises 

0.3 0.3 0.03 0.03 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.030 tonnes for this 

This CUN relates to fumigation of 21 premises. Applireduced MB use to very low levels and low frequency 
26 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Belgium Food 

processing premises 

0.03 0.03 0.03 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.030 tonnes for this 

Applicant has reduced MB use to very low levels and of fumigation. 

Belgium Food 

storage (dry) structure 

0.12 0.12 0.12 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.120 tonnes for this 

The applicant has reduced MB use and frequency of fuvery low level. 

Belgium Leek & 

onion seeds 

0.66 0.155 0.155 MBTOC recommends that a CUE of 0.155 tonnes be a

2006 for this use. Alternatives are already in use wher(99.7 % of the cropping area). The nomination is only according to the nomination, alternatives are not availatechnical and economic reasons. The CUN is characteand onion seed crops grown in soils with high disease size farms and high input from family capital. MBTOthe Party take steps to help the remaining growers to pMB by using the available alternatives, particularly su
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Belgium Lettuce 25.19 22.425 0.0 

* 

 MBTOC does not recommend this nomination. The CU

butterhead lettuce grown in soils with high disease prenomination covers about 2% of the heavy butterhead lwhere alternatives are considered infeasible because oeconomic and regulatory constraints, such as the presenematodes and soilborne fungi, cold, wet conditions, sand high input from family capital. The nomination didata that substantiated the infeasibility of alternatives. 

(e.g. dazomet applied uniformly, effective methods of available and are used for this crop in the same conditigeographical region (Runia 2005ab). The CUN also psupporting evidence of the viability of steam, and noteprovides other commercial advantages that are able to higher cost, such as a longer growing period which can additional crop per year. The use of steam is impacted requirements for certification of the equipment after it one location to another. 

Belgium Mills 0.2 0.2 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.2 tonnes for this use 

Party has reduced dosage to MBTOC standard for strutreatments and reduced the applicant's request in consithose mills that need improvement in gastightness, use and frequency of fumigation. Party has taken measuregood gastightness through mill improvements in some registered. 

Belgium Nursery 0.9 0.384 0.384 

* 

 MBTOC recommends 0.384 tonnes for this nominatio

nomination is for production of ‘clean’ planting materinfeasibility of producing the crops involved in this nosubstrates or as “plug plants” has not been substantiateMember State. In spite of this lack of information therproduce nursery stock that meets stringent disease-free Failure to meet these standards poses a risk of encountsubstantial losses. MBTOC urges the Party to provide technical and economic assessment of the alternatives 
28 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Belgium Old 

buildings 

 0.306 0.306 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.306 tonnes for this 

The Party reduced the applicant’s request to ensure emwere improved and to take into consideration use of Mdosage rates and current available alternatives. ApplicMB use is restricted to incidents where IPM has failedregistered. 

Belgium Old 

buildings 

 0.282 0.282 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.282 tonnes for this 

MB use is restricted to where IPM has failed. Phosphused because of risk of damage to old materials. SF is 

Belgium Pepper & 

egg plant 

3 1.35 1.35 MBTOC recommends that a CUE of 1.35 tonnes be ap

for this use. This recommendation is made on the basiissues. Most production of this crop does not rely on mThe remaining production of eggplant and pepper usinbromide is characterised by cropping in soils with high pressure, with small size farms and high input from famMBTOC suggests that the Party help these remaining transition out of MB use, using the available alternativparticularly, substrates. 

Belgium Strawberry 

runners 

3.4 0.9 0.9 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.9 tonnes be approve

2006.The Party is requested to provide a copy of the Fcertification handbook for strawberry runners. The nobased on the grounds that registered alternatives are nothe specific pest combinations and conditions. The Paalternatives are used whenever feasible. MBTOC notethat the Party states that in the last 10 years in Belgium no research on soil fumigation and MB alternatives forunner production. The Party states that plug plants arused, and that possibly in the future there will be a plaplants. MBTOC recognises the substantial MB reductthis sector recently, from 4.0 tonnes in 1998 to 0.9 tonnomination. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Belgium Tomato 

(protected) 

5.7 4.5 4.5 MBTOC recommends that a CUE of 4.5 tonnes be app

for this use. This is similar to the amount of MB used tonnes). This recommendation is made on the basis of issues. Alternatives are already in use where applicabpredominantly soilless culture on 72% of the cropping nomination is only for uses where, according to the noalternatives are not available because of economic conproduction is characterised by growing in soils with hipressure, with small size farms and high input from famMBTOC suggests that the Party help these remaining transition out of MB use using the available alternativ

substrates and grafting. 

Belgium Tree 

nursery 

0.23 0.155 0.155 MBTOC recommends that a CUE of 0.155 tonnes be a

2006 for this use. Clean propagative material is recogimportant in the reduction of need for fumigation of pr

Party is requesting 155 kg to treat 0.5 ha (1% of the treproduction area). This is a reduction of 33% from the approved for 2005. Dosage rates are consistent with Mguideline standards. MBTOC notes that, according to lack of technical and economically feasible alternativevalidated and efforts to find, register and deploy alternbeen insufficient. 

Belgium Woodwork

ing premises 

0.3 0.101 0.101 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.101 tonnes for this 

The Party has reduced the applicant's requested amounstandard dosage rate and availability of alternatives. Tnominated is already reduced to one third of the 2005 
30 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Canada Flour mills (a) 27.8 7.0 30.167 30.167 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 30.167 tonnes for this 

The Party has reduced its MB use over 2006 levels. Cresearch has allowed for a shift to heat treatments whe

IPM improvements and full site heat trials are on goinstandard dosage is used. SF is not registered. 

Canada Strawberry 

runners (PEI) 

(a) 8.666(b) 7.995 7.995 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 7.995 tonnes for this 

This nomination is for strawberry runners for which naregulatory controls are in place in both the nominating Parties that receive shipment of this material. The Pardetermined that the usage covered by this CUN does nQPS. MBTOC acknowledges that the ban of 1,3-D in region is a significant impediment to the Party in the trfrom MB. The Party is urged to consider use of reducwith barrier films as a transition strategy. 

Canada Strawberry 

runners (Quebec) 

(a) 1.826 1.826 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 1.826 tonnes for this 

This nomination is for strawberry runners for which naregulatory controls are in place in both the nominating Parties that receive shipment of this material. The Pardetermined that the usage covered by this CUN does nQPS. The Party is urged to consider use of reduced rabarrier films as a transition strategy. 

Germany Artefacts 0.25 0.1 0.1 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.1 tonnes for this use 

fungi in immovable historical artefacts) in 2006. MBTknow of any technically effective alternatives for this particular circumstances. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Germany Mills and 

Processors 

45 19.35 19.35 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 19.35 tonnes for this 

The Party reduced the applicant's requested amount to consideration that SF is newly registered, balanced by consideration that there is no MRL for fluorine. This only for MB use when neither heat nor phosphine can 

Greece Dried fruit 4.28 3.081 3.081 

* 

 MBTOC recommends 3.081 tonnes of MB for dried fi

for Greece for 2006. National legislation requires treatfigs and raisins when harvested, but treatment during sconducted with phosphine. MB fumigation is required 

treat large volumes of figs and raisins quickly before hmarketing. 

Greece Cucurbits 30 19.2 19.2 MBTOC recommends that a CUE of 19.2 tonnes be ap

for this use. Alternatives are already in use where appof the cropping area). The nomination aims only wheralternatives are available because of economical reasocharacterized by high disease pressure, small size farminput from family capital. MBTOC suggests that the Pto help these remaining growers to phase out use of Mavailable alternatives particularly chemicals, substrate
32 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Greece Cut 

flowers 

14 14 6 6 

* 

 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 6 tonnes for this use i

nomination is for treatment of fungi and nematodes in 

types, carnations (mostly open field), roses and gypsopRequested amounts have been significantly reduced frtonnes from the previous year. The Party did not fully technical and economical infeasibility of alternatives, acknowledges that chloropicrin and mixtures thereof ain Greece for cut flower production, limiting the range available. The Party states that although substrates are feasible they are economically infeasible. Research coGreece has identified substrates as economically feasibflower types (Graffiadellis et al., 2000, Savvas and Pa

Greece Mills and 

Processors 

23 16 15.445 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 15.445 tonnes for this 

The minimum label dosage rate in Greece is higher thastandard dosage rate for fumigation of structures. No adjustments are proposed, but the Party may wish to infumigators to use the minimum dosage rates in the ranlabel to minimise emissions and MB usage. It is suggeParty continue research and development on heat treatwith IPM improvements as a priority. 

Greece Rice and 

legumes 

 2.355 2.355 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 2.355 tonnes of MB f

rice and legumes for 2006. The sector is in transition talternatives phosphine and vacuum packaging. The Mis for the remaining product that will not be able to swalternatives by 2006. The Party uses the EPPO standar
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Greece Tomatoes 156 73.6 73.6 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 73.6 tonnes for this u

Party states the nomination is restricted to where alternavailable because of economic reasons. Alternatives ause on 53-63 % of the cropping area. The area relating nomination is characterised by high disease pressure, wfarms and high input from family capital. MBTOC suParty takes steps to help these remaining growers to phMB using the available alternatives, particularly 1,3 Dand grafting. 

Ireland Mills 0.888 0.888 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.888 tonnes for this 

The Party reduced the applicant's request to adjust to Mstandard dosage rates. Full scale heat treatment trials Difficulty in achieving good pest control results with alarger mills has been observed. 

Italy Mills and 

Processors 

160 130 (c) 65 

* 

 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 65 tonnes of MB for t

2006. The Party reduced its original nomination by 50for and encourage adoption of the newly registered fumfluoride. The Party provided location and number of fatheir volumes, frequency of fumigation and historical Party uses MBTOC standard dosage rate of 20/gm3 Mstructures. 

Japan Chestnuts 7.1 6.5 0.3 6.5 0.3 6.5 MBTOC recommends a supplemental CUE of 0.3 tonn

in 2006 and a CUE of 6.5 tonnes for this use in 2007. not know of any alternatives for disinfestation of fresh shell. Japan is encouraged to continue research into al
34 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Japan Cucumber 88.3 87.6 1.2 72.4 1.2 72.4 MBTOC recommends a supplemental CUE of 1.2 tonn

a CUE of 72.4 tonnes for 2007 for this use. The supplfor 2006 is for areas of crop that did not apply in the pnomination round. This is based on the recognition thcropping system and pathogen (Kyuri Green Mottle Mtargeted by methyl bromide are unique. Methyl bromimultiple cropping within a year while managing risk ocarryover. Several potential alternatives have been trinot performed adequately. Basic practices have been imany years, with farmers using low technology systemapplying MB from small canisters. The latter system hsuperseded in many developed countries on grounds oefficacy. MBTOC acknowledges the effort to transitiouse VIF. However, in spite of rates conforming with Mguidelines, MBTOC urges the Party to consider furthedosage rates, together with a more rapid transition to ba transitional strategy while alternatives are developed
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Japan Ginger - 

field 

119.4 119.4 112.2 109.701 

* 

MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 109.701 tonnfor 2007. This CUN was reevaluated at request of the reduction is based on a decrease in effective dose by 2uptake of low permeability barrier films (LPF) on 9% nominated area by 2007. The nomination is for controspp. (Pythium ultimum var. ultimum, Pythium zingibe(99.5%) is applied using small cans. The Party states tis registered in Japan and that application equipment iuse on farms with small or large production areas. Howclaims that the plantback time for chloropicrin is 40 dadisrupt crop scheduling and result in delays in planting yields compared to MB treatment. In addition, the proxresidential areas limits the use of chloropicrin in some According to the Party, metalaxyl does not control Pytas resistant strains to this fungicide have been reportedthat metalaxyl is effective for 20 days and is restricted to only 3 applications during the 200 day growing cycthis fungicide is not widely used on ginger to control PParty reported that the pathogen is soil borne and the rare pathogen free. They are raised in fumigated fields in fungicide solution (Captan wettable powder). Strip cannot be used because the large root systems grow innon-fumigated soils between beds. MBTOC consideralternatives may provide effective control of Pythium: control with granules, powders or drenches (fenaminopropamocarb, hymexazol, metalaxyl for non resistant furalaxyl), cultural practices (soil drainage, sowing daamendments (Smith et al 1988)) and that there is scope on flat areas that are not in close proximity to residentalso appears to be scope for further reduction in MB aadoption of MB/Pic mixtures in flat areas where mechused. Also, LPF films are technically feasible and avaibe used for at least part of this nomination with associdosage rate and control of emissions. MBTOC notes tLPF films (VIF) have been widely adopted as requiremandatory regulation in Europe and sealing and laying older type films have been overcome. In Japan, VIF afumigation in some vegetables crops (cucurbits and peup to11.7 %) at the same rates as standard films (200 tAt present, VIFs are not used for fumigating soils for gof MB used varies between 250 and 300 kg/ha accordiregion. 
36 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Japan Ginger - 

protected 

22.9 22.9 14.8 14.471 

* 

MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 14.471 tonnefor 2007. This CUN was reevaluated at request of the reduction is based on a decrease in effective dose by 2uptake of low permeability barrier films (LPF) on 9% nominated area by 2007. The nomination is for controspp. (Pythium ultimum var. ultimum, Pythium zingibe(99.5%) is applied using small cans. The Party states tis registered in Japan and that application equipment i

use on farms with small or large production areas. Howclaims that the plantback time for chloropicrin is 40 dadisrupt crop scheduling and result in delays in planting yields compared to MB treatment. In addition, the proxresidential areas limits the use of chloropicrin. Accordmetalaxyl does not control Pythium efficiently, as resithis fungicide have been reported. Party states that meeffective for 20 days and is restricted by regulation to applications during the 200 day growing cycle. Thereffungicide is not widely used on ginger to control Pythireported that the pathogen is soil borne and the rhizompathogen free. They are raised in fumigated fields and fungicide solution (Captan wettable powder). Strip trebe used because the large root systems grow into the infumigated soils between beds. MBTOC considers othmay provide effective control of Pythium: chemical cogranules, powders or drenches (fenaminosulf, etridiazopropamocarb, hymexazol, metalaxyl for non resistant furalaxyl), cultural practices (soil drainage, sowing daamendments (Smith et al 1988)) and that there is scope on flat areas that are not in close proximity to residentalso appears to be scope for further reduction in MB aadoption of MB/Pic mixtures in flat areas where mechused. Also, LPF films are technically feasible and avaibe used for at least part of this nomination with associdosage rate and control of emissions. MBTOC notes tLPF films (VIF) have been widely adopted as requiremandatory regulation in Europe and sealing and laying older type films have been overcome. In Japan, VIF afumigation in some vegetables crops (cucurbits and peup to11.7 %) at the same rates as standard films (200 tAt present, VIFs are not used for fumigating soils for gof MB used varies between 250 and 300 kg/ha accordiregion. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Japan Melon 194.1 171.6 32.3 182.2 32.3 182.2 MBTOC recommends a supplemental CUE for 32.3 to

and a CUE of 182.2 tonnes for 2007 for this use. The CUN for 2006 is for areas of crop that did not apply in nomination round. This is based on the recognition thcropping system and pathogens (Melon necrotic spot vCucumber green mottle mosaic virus) targeted by methunique. Methyl bromide use permits multiple croppinwhile managing risk of disease carryover. Several potalternatives have been trialled, but have not performed Basic practices have been in place for many years, witlow technology systems, including applying MB from The latter system has been superseded in many develoand grounds of safety and efficacy. MBTOC also ack

effort to transition growers to use VIF. However, in spconforming with guideline standards, MBTOC urges tconsider further reductions in dosage rates, together wtransition to VIF or equivalent films, as a transitional salternatives are developed. 
38 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Japan Peppers 

(green and hot) 

187.2 112.3 74.9 13.5 169.4 13.5 156.7 MBTOC recommends that a supplementary CUE for 1

2006 and a reduced CUE of 156.7 tonnes for 2007. Tis based on the stated need to control a particular virus Pepper mild mottle tobamovirus is transmitted by mecinoculation, grafting and contact between plants and bsurvive in crop debris, especially in fumigated soils. Tappears to exist because of continuous cropping with pcontrolled in other countries by appropriate crop rotatisanitation and use of pathogen free seeds. The virus hin many countries. In spite of the high severity of this these countries, MB has never been used or requested MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used foJapan in place for many years. MB treatment is apparto economic health of these growers. MBTOC notes tpractices adopted for pepper production in Japan resulMB for this virus and that no other country is using Mvirus. The Party is urged to demonstrate progress in dstrategies to eradicate the pathogen, particularly from VIF technology is currently being introduced. The Pathe minimum rate of adoption of VIF is 5% per year analthough a higher rate may be possible. Based on the MBTOC sees that by 2007, 15% of the growers will bat a dosage of 200 kg/ha for those currently using high kg/ha. A 7.5 % reduction of the nomination for 2007 recommended. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Japan Watermelon 129.0 60.9 38 94.2 38 94.2 MBTOC recommends a supplemental CUE of 38 tonn

a CUE of 94.2 tonnes for 2007 for this use. The supplfor 2006 is for areas of crop that did not apply in the pnomination round. This is based on the recognition thcropping system and pathogen (Cucumber green mottltargeted by methyl bromide are unique. Methyl bromimultiple cropping within a year while managing risk ocarryover. Several potential alternatives have been trinot performed adequately. Basic practices have been imany years, with farmers are using low technology syapplying MB from small canisters. The latter system hsuperseded in many developed countries on grounds oefficacy. MBTOC acknowledges the effort to transitiouse VIF. However, in spite of rates conforming with sMBTOC urges the Party to consider further reductions rates, together with a more rapid transition to VIF filmtransitional strategy while alternatives are developed. 

Latvia Grains 2.502 2.502 

*

 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 2.502 tonnes for this 

This sector is characterized by older, traditional grain sealing and modern circulation systems, making the usdifficult. The amount recommended by the Party (EC) calculation that reduced frequency of fumigation and d

low rate. The Party is encouraged to ensure technical e

fumigations through the selection of appropriate dosag
40 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Malta Cucumber 0.127 0.127 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.127 tonnes of MB i

use. MBTOC recognises that farmers in Malta intend alternatives as suggested by the Party by 2007 (dazomsodium and solarisation) and that any stocks of methyl be used for any remaining critical uses. 

Malta Eggplant 0.17 0.17 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.170 tonnes of MB i

use. MBTOC recognises that farmers in Malta intend alternatives suggested by the Party by 2007 (dazomet, and solarisation) and that any stocks of methyl bromidfor any remaining critical uses. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

Malta Strawberry 0.212 0.212 MBTOC recommends 0.212 tonnes for 2006 of MB in 

uses for open field and greenhouse. MBTOC recognisin Malta intend to transition to alternatives suggested b2007 (metham sodium combined with resistant cultivasodium + short solarisation and low cost substrates) anstocks of methyl bromide would be used for any remaiuses. 

Malta Tomatoes 0.594 0.594 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.594 tonnes of MB i

use. MBTOC recognises that farmers in Malta intend alternatives suggested by the Party by 2000 (metham scombined with resistant cultivars, metham sodium + sh

and low cost substrates) and that any stocks of methyl be used for any remaining critical uses. 
42 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

 Netherlands Strawberry 

runners - postharvest 

0.12 0.12 0.12 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.120 tonnes for 2006 

(control of bacteria in bare root strawberry plantlets). has stated there are complete MB capture systems in presult there are no MB emissions. To date control has achieved through alternatives. Party is encouraged to research program. 

Poland Coffee, 

cocoa beans 

 2.160 2.160 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 2.160 tonnes for this 

mites in 2006 in imported cocoa and coffee beans). Mrecognises that controlling mites is more difficult than the need for dockside treatment at cold temperatures fucomplicates treatment. The Party has reduced the appto account for lower dosage rates, and the applicant hareduce their dosage rates even further. The Party is encontinue their investigation and/or adoption of rapidly forms of phosphine gas. 

Portugal Cut 

flowers 

50 8.75 8.75 MBTOC recommends that a CUE of 8.75 tonnes of M

this use. MBTOC appreciates the new information sento further clarify the nature of this nomination. For an

submissions MBTOC requests that the Party more exppests and pathogens or environmental conditions that mcritical for the portion of the cropping area where alterbeen difficult to adopt. MBTOC notes that, according (EC), lack of technical and economically feasible alterbeen validated and efforts to find, register and deploy have been insufficient. 

Spain Rice Between 

22 and 50 

 42.065 

*

 MBTOC recommends 42.065 tonnes of MB for packa

Spain in 2006. This sector is in transition to alternativare under construction, but will not be completed by 2correspondence subsequent to the initial CUN, the ParMB nomination as a range, and also later provided the volume treated by MB under vacuum and in atmospherespectively. MBTOC calculated the amount recommeEPPO standard dosage rates (50 g/m3 under vacuum aatmospheric conditions) under these conditions of treathese product volumes. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

UK Cereal 

processing plants 

(a) 8.131 8.131 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 8.131 tonnes for this 

The Party is quickly adopting heat and SF where possinot registered for silos that are integral to the flour milthe structures within this CUN. The applicant should to change logistics to enable emptying of silos before allow for increased use of SF. 

UK Cheese 

stores 

1.6 1.248 1.248 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 1.248 tonnes this use 

cheese stores with cheese in situ) in 2006. MBTOC kalternatives for mites in cheese under these conditionshas made significant efforts in improving gastightness continuing a research programme. 

UK Cut 

flowers 

 7.56 6.05 

*

 MBTOC recommends a reduced CUN of 6.05 tonnes f

2006. The nomination is mainly for stocks, tulips and ground beds under cover and affected by soilborne funpests. Major alternatives, particularly 1,3-D, chloropiccombinations are not registered in the United Kingdom particular use (1,3-D for outdoor use only). The Party alternatives such as steam and substrates as being feasneeded to increase their commercial uptake. MBTOC substrates are now a standard technology for productiolilies in similar regions of the world and did not recom20% of the nomination representing these crops (Tribu2001; Van Bruggen and Duinveld, 1995; Van Os et al2000; Puchooa et al. 1999; Sochaki and Chojnowska, al, 2001). MBTOC notes that whilst some of the problby the Party involve a soil-borne stage (e.g. thrips, Myproven options exist for their efficient management an(Powell and Lindquist, 1997; Van Driesche et al. 2004

MBTOC notes that, according to the Party (EC), lack economically feasible alternatives has not been validatto find, register and deploy alternatives have been insu
44 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

UK Dried 

commodities (rice, fruits and nuts) Whitworths 

2.4 1.256 1.256 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 1.256 tonnes for this 

The Party indicated that VIF in stack fumigation and cused to reduce emissions. The applicant is encouraged changed marketing logistics will allow a higher percentreated with phosphine thereby reducing MB use. MBthat SF is not approved for these commodities. 

UK Herbs and 

spices 

0.035 0.037 0.037 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.037 tonnes for this 

The Party has reduced the applicant's request to encoualternatives and IPM. MBTOC suggests that improvepractices, together with pest management prior to imposo as to reduce the need for MB for this nomination. 

UK Mills 

(NABIM) 

(a) 10.195 10.195 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 10.195 tonnes for this 

The Party has reduced the applicant's request by 60 peencourage faster adoption of alternatives. Given the didentified in the adoption of alternatives, specifically hmills, no further reductions are suggested. 

UK Mills and 

Processors (biscuits) 

2.525 1.787 1.787 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 1.787 tonnes for this 

The Party has reduced the application to account for palternatives. The applicant has also made improvemengastightness, reduced dosage rates to MBTOC standarIPM practices to enable decreased fumigation frequenapplicant also has an active research programme. SF ifor this purpose. 

UK Structures 

(herbs and spices) 

3.0 1.872 1.872 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 1.872 tonnes for this 

The Party has reduced the nomination to account for thcontinue adoption of heat treatment. SF is not registerpurpose. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

UK Structures, 

processors 

and storage (Whitworths) 

1.1 0.880 0.880 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.880 tonnes for this 

The Party is encouraged to develop industry standards heat treatments sufficient to comply with UK food safand to continue to develop alternatives such as appropand phosphine treatment. 
46 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Cucurbits - 

field 

1187.8 747.839 598.927 592.891 

*

MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 592.891 tonnfor 2007. This represents 26.261 tonnes for Michiganfor the SE, 201.330 tonnes for Georgia and 0.941 tonnA minority of MBTOC evaluated the parts of this CUGeorgia and SE as ‘unable to assess’ (see Section 2.4.nomination was adjusted to account for 5% of the nom

using barrier films and MB:Pic (50:50) at 175 kgMB/h

areas with moderate to severe nutsedge and 150 kg/ha control . In Michigan, the key pests are Phytophthora capsici aoxysporum. The Party states that 1,3-D/chloropicrin meffective alternative, but growers will miss the optimawindow due to longer plant back times. According to treatment cannot be applied in autumn when soils are wof climatic conditions and damage by deer and other amulches and irrigation tapes. In SE and Georgia, the key pest is mainly nutsedge anknot nematodes and fungal pathogens. 1,3-Dichloropchloropicrin + herbicides (trifluralin, napropamide, haS-metolachlor) are the most promising alternatives. Klimits the use of alternatives which includes 1,3-D on growing acreage. The Party states that metham sodium 

potassium are promising alternatives but still do not prconsistent control and require further trials, which are Other studies however, have demonstrated the efficacy sodium + chloropicrin in areas with low to moderate npressure for cucurbits and similar crops in the region (2000; Nelson et al 2002, Gilreath et al 2005). MBTOC there will be adoption of this alternative to replace mekarst areas with low nutsedge infestation by 2007. In 

Party states that trials are underway to investigate lowformulations such as 50:50 as there are no regulatory rthe use of these formulations. The Party states that LPF barrier films are still not beinadopted on a commercial scale due to lack of availabiltechnical problems with laying the films. Versions of are being widely tested by several researchers and gropromise. MBTOC believes that LPF barrier films are economically viable for this nomination. All of the tecproblems reported by the Party appear to have been soEuropean countries where the use of VIF barrier films 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Cucurbits – 

field (continued) 

 Grower scale trials have demonstrated the success of a 

in rate with LPF film (Gilreath and Santos 2004, 2005moderate to heavy nutsedge pressure, Santos and Gilreshown that the standard MB/Pic 67:33 at a rate of 350 reduced by 25 % (to 175 kg/ha MB) under LPF film wyields and nutsedge control. In the past year, there has substantial commercial adoption of LPF film in the sou(Bruno Rimini Ltd, pers. comm.). MBTOC has recommreduction in the nomination as shown above to accoundosage rates in areas with low disease pressure from nanticipation of the likely increased implementation of control technologies, including adoption of LPF barrie2007. 

USA Dried 

beans 

 7.07 7.07 

*

 MBTOC recommends a supplemental request for a CU

tonnes for this use in 2006. A nomination for this use with other dry commodities in the 2003 round of CUNbut was omitted from the 2004 round for 2006 use. Beproduced in high quantity and short time in California90% of black eye beans are consumed at New Year feyet they are harvested in October and November. Use would require longer fumigation times, but treatment fcurrently inadequate to handle the high volumes harvetime between harvest and need to market for the holidanext harvest the bean sector will begin trials of cylindeand the newly registered sulfuryl fluoride. 
48 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Dried fruit 

and nuts (walnuts, pistachios, dried fruit and dates and dried beans) 

89.166 80.649 91.299 78.983 

* 

MBTOC recommends a CUE of 78.983 tonnes for the2007. This recommended amount comprises 45.401 towalnuts; 18.234 tonnes for dried fruit; 3.016 tonnes fo

tonnes for pistachios and 7.070 tonnes for beans (garb

eye beans). The amounts of methyl bromide requested by the Party are the same amounts of methyl bromide u2002. MBTOC reduced the amount nominated for wal

dosage rate of 48 g/m3 used in 2006 by the Party, insteg/m3 requested for 2007, in the absence of data justifyan increased dosage rate. Phosphine is the commonly ufor pistachios. There has been considerable adoption ophosphine by the largest Californian processor to redutime for pistachios Fumigation with phosphine takes lo

fumigation with MB and the Party has indicated a need 

quick turn around is demanded and when that demand satisfied by available phosphine-treated pistachios. Beare produced in high quantity and short time in Califor60-90% of black eye beans are consumed at New Year (January), yet they are harvested in October and Novephosphine would require longer fumigation times, but facilities are currently inadequate to handle the high vo

harvested in the short time between harvest and need tholiday. With the next harvest the bean sector will begcylinderized phosphine and the newly registered sulfuMBTOC has ascertained that the dates referred to in thfreshly harvested dry dates. Phosphine is not registere

product and sulfuryl fluoride has only been recently befor this sector. The Party stated that further adoption o2007 will be taken into consideration during its allocarulemaking process. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Dry 

commodities/ structures (cocoa beans) 

61.519 46.139 15.38 64.082 64.082 

*

MBTOC recommends a CUE of 64.082 tonnes for this This nomination has been taken out of the NPMA food facilities CUN and has been dealt with separately. The nominated for cocoa beans represents an increase for 2based on forecasted increase in cocoa bean imports. Mrecommendation is based on cocoa beans being fumigimport and once again immediately before shipment to manufacturers and that cocoa bean warehouses comply 

warehouse quality control program of the Cocoa Mercuses MBTOC’s standard dosage rate or 20g/m3 MB foUnder the circumstances of cocoa bean storage in the Ucannot currently be used because of label restrictions owarehouse during fumigations and because phosphine unacceptably longer fumigation times at the temperatuin the warehouses. Sulfuryl fluoride has only been recregistered for this sector. The Party stated that further alternatives by 2007 will be taken into consideration dallocation public rulemaking process. 

USA Dry 

commodities/ structures (processed foods, herbs and spices, dried milk and cheese processing facilities) NPMA 

83.344 56.253 27.091 83.238 82.771 

*

MBTOC recommends a CUE of 82.771 tonnes for the2007. The original CUN also included cocoa beans, buwith separately. MBTOC recommends 74.884 tonnes processing facilities, 4.891 tonnes for spice and herb pfacilities and 2.996 tonnes for cheese processing facilidoes not recommend the 0.467 tonnes nominated for thcommodity sector of this CUN (the ‘other’ category) btechnically effective alternatives of ethylene oxide gasphosphine and propylene oxide are registered and in bcommercial use for this purpose. These commodities ccontract fumigation or irradiation facilities. The Party’already uses MBTOC standard dosage rates. The Party some progress adapting heat and other fumigants in thSulfuryl fluoride has only recently been registered for Party reduced their applicant’s nomination by about 20levels to take into consideration adoption of alternativstated that further adoption of alternatives by 2007 wilconsideration during its allocation public rulemaking p
50 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Dry cure 

pork products (building and product) 

67.907 40.854 

(c) 

40.854 18.998 

*

MBTOC recommends 18.998 tonnes of MB for US drproducts composed of 18.144 tonnes for American AsMeat Processors; 0.709 tonnes for National Country HAssociation; and 0.145 tonnes for Nahunta Country Potraditional and regionally important food product is prloosely organized small processors. Consequently, the unable to provide historical MB use data. MBTOC’s dMB distributors indicate the likely use of MB in this s18.144 tonnes (40,000 lbs) but the National Country Hand Nahunta Pork Center were able to give specific inproduct volumes and dosage rates. Consequently MBTrecommend specific amounts for those organizations. unable to assess the additional 21.856 tonnes requestesubmission of specific information of the amount of Mrequired by the Party for dry cure pork. MBTOC has nany alternatives for this specific and specialised use, wfumigations of structures are conducted in the presenchams. The nomination did not indicate any research to alternatives. The Party is requested to gather use data nomination and to adjust the quantity nominated for anallocations from previous CUEs. MBTOC has concerof emission controls in this use. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Eggplant - 

field 

76.721 81.253 20.933 96.48 85.363 

*

MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 85.363 tonnethis use. Recommendations comprise 3.799 tonnes for 58.824 tonnes for Florida, 22.307 tonnes for Georgia afor research. A minority of MBTOC evaluated the parrelating to Georgia and Florida as ‘unable to assess’ (s2.4.2). The Parties nomination for Georgia and Florida to account for 5% of the nominated area using barrier MB:Pic (50:50) at 175 kgMB/ha when treating areas wsevere nutsedge. The nominated quantity for Florida wto conform with standard dosages of 260 and 200 kgMchloropicrin for high/moderate and low nutsedge regioIn Michigan, the key pest is Phytophthora capsici. Ththat 1,3-D/chloropicrin is an effective alternative, but will miss the optimal market window due to longer pla(28 days) with this alternative. According to the Party, cannot be applied in autumn because of the bad climatand damage by deer and other animals to the plastic mirrigation tape. In Florida and Georgia, the key pests are nutsedge, roonematodes and some fungal pathogens. Southern bligdamping off and verticillium wilt are also managed witopography limits the use of alternatives containing 1,the growing acreage. The Party states that metham sodpotassium are promising alternatives but still do not prconsistent control under the circumstances of the nomrequire further trialling. In addition, the Party states thunderway to investigate lower MB/Pic formulations, sthere are no regulatory restrictions to the use of these fThe Party shows that 1,3-D/Pic in combination with hepossible effective alternative for non-karst areas with pnutsedge pressure (Cortright and Hausbeck, 2004) and combined with Pic is effective for low to moderate nutin similar crops and regions (e.g. Ajwa et al 2003, 200and Bryan 1998, Johnson and Webster 2001, Gilreath MBTOC acknowledges that longer plant back times fometham may cause loss by missing market windows in Florida but considers uptake of these alternatives is poproportion of future nominations. MBTOC also considmetham combined with Pic is a possible effective alterareas and urges the Party to continue further studies. 
52 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Eggplant – 

field (continued) 

 The Party states that LPF films are still not being wide

commercial scale due to lack of availability, cost and tproblems with laying the films. Versions of metallised films are being tested by several researchers and growpromise. MBTOC believes that LPF barrier films are economically viable for this nomination. All of the tecproblems reported by the Party appear to have been soEuropean countries where the use of VIF barrier film iGrower scale trials have demonstrated the success of a in rate with LPF barrier film (Gilreath and Santos 2004fields with moderate to heavy nutsedge pressure, Santo(2005) have shown that the standard MB/Pic 67:33 at kg/ha can be reduced by 25-50% (to 175 kg/ha MB or barrier film with equivalent yields and nutsedge controthere has been substantial commercial adoption of LPF the southeast of USA (Bruno Rimini Ltd). MBTOC haa reduction in the nomination as shown above to accoudecreased dosage rates in areas with low disease pressnutgrass in anticipation of the likely increased implememission control technologies, including adoption of Lby 2007. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Forest 

nursery seedlings 

192.515 157.694 152.629 122.032 

*

MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 122.032 tonnfor this use for 2007. Regions B (22.279 t) and E (9.63recommended without change, but amounts have been regions A (61.88 t), C (1.820 t), D (8.58 t), F (8.736 t)H (3.12 t) to conform with MBTOC guidelines with usmixtures (i.e. 67:33 – 260 kg/ ha for control of nutgrasfor pests and pathogens other than nutgrass), which this an effective formulation. The CUN is based on econinfeasibility of using substrates and the lack of effectiv

for control of nutsedge and a range of fungal pathogencertified seedling production in 7 forest nursery regionregion in Michigan growing herbaceous perennials. Crequires that seedlings must be pest/pathogen free. Ththat all regions use broadacre fumigation, but with diffand rates of MB/Pic. MBTOC recognizes that the key nutsedge. Research is ongoing to determine if Pic with and /or herbicides can provide acceptable control of msevere levels of nutsedge. To date, metham sodium anin combination showed promising results, but when usplastic sheeting caused severe crop injury. The Party athat this treatment (and others) when covered with plaparticularly LPF barrier films, may provide an effectivalternative and avoid crop injury. MBTOC considers nglues are available for broadacre tarping under most cohowever the Party will need time to trial and scale up tAlthough no further reductions have been made by MBnomination, the Party is urged to consider adoption of films to reduce dosage rates in regions where their use Broadacre use of LPF barrier films exists in other regiMBTOC also considers glyphosate can be used as a prreduce pressure from nutgrass and 1,3-D/Pic + metham glyphosate) should be further evaluated for control of results in trials have been promising (Culpepper and LThe nomination states that containerised plants are not feasible for regions A through G. MBTOC considers an effective technical alternative for most forest nurserunderstands that present costs ($US0.12 vs. $0.04 per this practice economically infeasible at the present tim
54 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Mills and 

Processors 

483 394.843 111.139 401.889 401.889 

*

MBTOC recommends an amount of 401.889 tonnes foUS mills and food processors. MBTOC recommends 2for flour mills; 64.150 tonnes for rice mills; 39.275 tonestablishments, and 23.814 tonnes for bakeries. The reamount includes an increase for bakery sector where a owning several large facilities suffered equipment and damage and pest control failure as a result of failure of specific to the design of the facilities. The Party’s nomuses MBTOC standard dosage rate of 20g/m3 MB for Party has made some progress adopting and adapting hfluoride (where registered), and other fumigants in this Party reduced their applicant’s nomination by 15% ovtake into consideration adoption of alternatives. Furthealternatives by 2007 will be taken into consideration bduring its allocation public rulemaking process. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Nursery 

stock - fruit trees, raspberries, roses 

45.800 64.528 31.014 28.275 

*

MBTOC recommends 28.275 tonnes for this nominatiincluding 2.100 tonnes for roses, 16.279 tonnes for fru1.506 tonnes for research and a reduced amount from tonnes for the raspberry nursery portion of this nominahas reduced the amount nominated for raspberry to conMBTOC’s standard rate of 200 kg/ha and to allow for alternative 1,3-D on 10% of the area in Washington straspberry nurseries the nomination is for certified propmaterial that is not shipped outside the geographical bwas produced. A large proportion, i.e. 60, 99 and 92% roses, and fruit and nut industries respectively, have bunder QPS criteria. Certification is mandatory for Calvoluntary in Washington. The crop has no value if it is MBTOC acknowledges the difficulty in protecting ras1.5m depths. MBTOC acknowledges that MB/Pic forand 50:50 were used in other countries and urges the Pthese alternatives as a transition strategy to reduce MB absence of effective alternatives. Further validation of effectiveness is sought in future nominations. MBTOC studies (McKenry, 1999) which indicate that 1,3-D at (greater than 390 kg/ha) can be effective at controlling killing old perennial roots up to 1.5m deep. Althoughrates are not allowed by regulation in California, it apphigh rates would be allowed in Washington. MBTOC amount of methyl bromide requested by raspberry nuraccount for implementation of use of 1,3-D on 10% of area. In California, the standards require the propagatbe “commercially clean” and only list methyl bromide (Telone II) as preplant soil disinfestation treatments to standard. In Washington, the tolerance is 0.1% incidenematodes and “practically free” for disease. MBTOC to consider LPF barrier films to reduce dosage rates in restrictions permit their use. Broadacre use of LPF bain other regions worldwide. 
56 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Orchard 

replant 

706.176 527.6 300.4 405.4 405.4 

*

MBTOC recommends 405.4 tonnes for this nominatioincludes 1.66 tonnes for research. The CUN is for 3 siOrchard/vineyard replant disorder of unknown aetioloor soils which cannot be dried to a sufficient depth to ethe reduced rates of 1,3-D now allowed in California; which Township caps prevent the use of 1,3-D in somRegulatory restraints (maximum labeled rate) prevent at the rates needed for effective kill of old roots and thpathogens in deeper soil layers for heavier (fine-texturRegulatory restraints further prevent the use of LPF bamethyl bromide in California. MBTOC acknowledges formulations as low as 50:50 were used in other countthe Party to consider these alternatives as a transition sreduce MB dosage in the absence of effective alternativalidation of their effectiveness is sought in any future MBTOC notes that the nominated amount is a 24% redamount approved by the Parties for 2006 and a 43% rethe amount approved by the Parties for 2005. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Ornamentals 154 162.817

(c ) 

149.965 137.835 MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 137.835 tonn

this nomination, being 75.145 tonnes for California anCUE of 58.63 tonnes for Florida, and 4.06 tonnes for aresearch. MBTOC recognises the effort made by the Psubmitting more complete information; this is essentiaunderstanding the specific circumstances of the complUS ornamental industry, particularly the fact that uses disaggregated by region. 52% of this nomination is for corresponds to areas impacted by regulatory issues (toThere are no available in-kind alternatives for these arnomination is for Florida. Of this, 40% is impacted by topography, denying use of 1,3-D and is recommended on the basis of lack of feasible alternatives. It is suggedosage for this part of the nomination be reduced from kg/ha in line with MBTOC presumptions for MB:Pic 6remainder of the Florida nomination (60%) exceptionahigh rate for treatment of soils of very high organic maThere is scope for reduction of the MB used using barprovided the fumigation sheets can be joined satisfactostates that the alternatives are not economically feasibldecline in yields in all nominated regions leads to a sureduction in net revenue. This is based on the assumpquoted reduction in yields is technically realistic. 
58 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Peppers - 

field 

1094.782 806.877 694.497 1151.751 1106.753 

*

MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 1106.753 tonfor this use, being 11.325 tonnes for Michigan, 0 tonnCalifornia, 65.099 tonnes for the Southeast, 176.100 toGeorgia, 851.385 tonnes for Florida and 2.844 tonnes minority of MBTOC evaluated the parts of this CUN Georgia, the Southeast and Florida as ‘unable to asses2.4.2). The Party’s nomination was reduced on 5% of area in Florida, Georgia and the South East Region to use of dosage rates of MB of 175 kg/ha for nutsedge in with low permeability barrier films and further for Flowith dosages of 260 and 200 kgMB/ha with chloropichigh/moderate and low nutsedge regions respectively. acknowledges the reduction by the Party of the nominapprox 7- 9 % for uptake of alternatives by 2007. In Mkey pest is Phytophthora capsici. The Party states tha

D/chloropicrin may be an effective alternative but growthe optimal market window due to longer plant back tito the Party, this treatment cannot be applied in autumclimatic conditions and damage by deer and other animmulches and irrigation tapes. In addition, a fall applicaalternatives is not feasible because, over the autumn anmonths, deer and other animals damage the plastic and In California the key pest is Phytophthora capsici. Towaffect the adoption of alternatives utilizing 1,3-dichlorParty states that 1,3-D is difficult to use on hillsides. A2003 data from the California Dept. of Pesticide Regissodium is used (alone or with other treatments) on neaacres as methyl bromide and therefore is considered a alternative for hillsides and in areas affected by towns2003, Ajwa et al 2003, 2004, Gilreath et al. 2003b, 20and Webster 2001). In Florida and Georgia the key peand purple nutsedge, Phytophthora capsici and root kn

Karst topography limits the use of alternatives have 1,component, though they are the best alternatives for th40% of the growing acreage. The Party states that 1,3-with either herbicides (e.g. clomazone and metolachloby Pic or metham sodium application may be the best outside karst areas. Also metham sodium or metham promising alternatives but still do not provide consistethe circumstances of the nomination and require furtheare underway. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Peppers – 

field (continued) 

 Other studies however, have demonstrated the efficacy 

sodium + chloropicrin in areas with low to moderate nuin pepper and similar crops and the regions of the nomi(Gilreath et al 2003b, 2005b). MBTOC anticipates that adoption of this alternative to replace methyl bromide in with low nutsedge infestation by 2008. In addition, the trials are underway to investigate lower MB/Pic formul50:50 MB/Pic, as there are no regulatory restrictions to formulations. The Party states that LPF films are still noadopted on a commercial scale due to lack of availabilittechnical problems with laying the films. Versions of mfilms are being tested by several researchers and growe

promise. MBTOC believes that LPF films are technical

economically viable for this nomination. All of the techreported by the Party appear to have been solved in Eurwhere the use of LPF film is mandatory. Grower scale repeatedly demonstrated the success of a 50% reduction LPF film (Gilreath and Santos, 2005). In fields with mnutsedge pressure, Santos and Gilreath (2005) have shostandard MB/Pic 67:33 at a rate of 350 kg/Ha can be re% (to 175 kg/ha MB) under LPF film with equivalent ynutsedge control. In the past year, there has been substcommercial adoption of LPF film in the southeast (BrunMBTOC applied a reduction of 5% in the nomination fGeorgia and the South East Region to account for decrerates of 175 kg/ha in anticipation of the likely increased implementation of emission control technologies, incluLPF barrier films by 2007. 
60 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Strawberry 

fruit – field 

2052.846 1523.180 397.597 1733.901 1476.019 

*

MBTOC recommends a CUE of 1476.019 tonnes for tcomprising 1077.88 tonnes for California, 147.531 tonstates, 248.231 tonnes for Florida and 2.377 tonnes for minority of MBTOC evaluated the parts of this CUN Eastern states and Florida as ‘unable to assess’ (see SeThe nomination for California was reduced by 190 tonfor uptake of the key alternatives. A further reduction 1.814 tonnes was applied to conform to MBTOC’s maguideline rates for strip of 260 kg/ha for high nutgrasswere adjusted for 175 kg/ha for 5% of the nomination LPF barrier film. In California, the nomination is basegrounds that township caps limit further adoption of 1terrain prevents the use of drip-applied alternatives. In 

township caps, alternatives that do not contain 1,3-D (EC and Pic + metham applied sequentially) are technicat least part of this area (Ajwa et al 2002, 2003, 2004, 2001, Nelson et al. 2001a,b). As for the nomination in applied the same reduction of 190 tonnes to account fothese alternatives. MBTOC acknowledges that there arconstraints on use of VIF in California at present, so thwas not adjusted for uptake of LPF films. In Eastern Unomination is based on moderate to severe pest pressu(Meloidogyne spp., Pythium, Rhizoctonia, Phytophtho

Cyperus escultentus, C. rotundus, Lolium spp.) affecti

the crop area, and small farm buffer zones on 40% of twhich affects use of 1,3-D formulations. MBTOC conalternatives are available for some part of the buffer zo

not subject to heavy nutsedge pest pressure (e.g. Pic fometham + Pic), and the Party says there is potential foabout 10% of the buffer zone area and this will be purgrowers and extension personnel. MBTOC has accordthe nomination by 6.629 tonnes for adoption of these aa further 10.057 tonnes to conform with MBTOC’s starates of 200 kg/ha for use with strip fumigation and lopressures and 1.521 tonnes to allow for adoption of LPon 5% of the nominated area. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Strawberry 

fruit – field (continued) 

 For Florida, the Party states that at moderate to severe 

(primarily nutsedge on 30-40% of area), protocols for application of alternatives have not been sufficiently dimplemented for the 2007 season. MBTOC considers strategy of using MB/Pic mixtures with lower MB (i.e50:50) can be used for karst areas with low nutgrass. Macknowledges the restriction imposed by karst topograavailability of one alternative, 1,3-D, but considers thaalternatives (Pic EC, metham + Pic) are potentially suikarst areas with low nutgrass pressure (Fennimore et aGilreath et al 2003a, Nelson et al 2002, USDA 2003, A2004) and urges the Party to consider further evaluatioof these alternatives, including in combination with lobarrier films (Gilreath 2005a). No reduction was madalternatives. MBTOC reduced the balance of the nomi45.745 tonnes to conform with MBTOC’s standard gu260 or 200 kg/ha for use with strip fumigation with or nutsedge pressure and 3.761tonnes to allow for adoptibarrier films on 5% of the nominated area. 
62 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Strawberry 

runners 

54.988 56.291 4.483 4.483 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 4.483 tonnes for this 

2.654 tonnes for southeastern states, 1.375 tonnes for Can associated research amount of 0.454 tonnes for 200proportion, 94% of runner production covered by this exempted by the Party from critical use nomination unfuture nominations, a copy of the certification requiremrequested from the Party. In the Southeastern states thbased on the grounds that MB is needed to meet the strequirements for producing pest free nursery stock. Fothe nomination says that the state mandatory certificatstrict requirements for control of disease and nematodamount to near complete control of the key pests. MBrecognizes the need to produce planting stock of high minimise spread of diseases and pests. The Party statealternatives are 1,3-D/Pic, 1,3-D/Pic + metham, and 1,and that dazomet + Pic or 1,3-D is also a possible alterParty notes that these chemicals, in addition to other stas use of high density tarps, may ultimately reduce or rTechnical data provided with the submission indicates alternatives (e.g. metham + Pic) provide effective disefurther trials are required to validate disease tolerance. section for California stated that research trials on metincorporated with a tractor-mounted tillovator providebut most growers do not have this equipment. Iodomeregistration process. Party states that substrates/plug pcurrently being produced and sold in the southeast and limited extent in California, but would require expensithe industry and additional pest control measures. For67:33 MB:Pic are applied broadacre under HDPE in m350 kg/ha in southeastern states and 263 kg/ha in CaliVIF is restricted in California, but low permeability baor equivalent) could potentially be adopted in southeasassociated reduction of dosage. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Tomato - 

field 

2876.046 2222.934 627.552 2334.047 2065.246 

* 

MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 2065.246 tonfor this use, being 10.204 tonnes for Michigan and 204for the Southeast, and 5.501 tonnes for research. The nomination is not recommended. A minority of MBTOthe parts of this CUN relating to the Southeast as ‘una(see Section 2.4.2). The Party’s nomination was reducfor the use of MBTOC’s standard dosage rates on the nutgrass portion of the Florida nomination and a furth(150 kg/ha for pathogens and 175kg/ha of MB for nutthe nomination for uptake of low permeability barrier and Michigan. MBTOC acknowledges the reduction bthe nomination to account for approx 8% uptake of alt2007.In Michigan, the key pests are Phytophthora capFusarium spp. The Party states that 1,3-D/chloropicrin effective alternative, but growers will miss the optimawindow due to longer plant back times. According to treatment cannot be applied in autumn because of climand damage by deer and other animals to plastic mulchirrigation tapes. In California the key pests are Fusariunematodes and Pythium. Township caps affect the adalternatives utilizing 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D). Ththat 1,3-D is difficult to use on hillsides. According to the Californian Department of Pesticide Regulation, mis used on nearly as many acres as methyl bromide and and its combinations with other treatments are considealternative for hillsides and in areas affected by towns

(CDPR 2003, Ajwa et al 2003, 2004, Gilreath et al 200and Webster 2001). In the southeast, the key pests are Fusarium, nematodes and Phytophthora. From the BUMBTOC has calculated that 4968 ha of tomato in karskey pest (nutsedge) pressure. In these circumstances, considers a maximum dosage rate of 200kg/ha as suffipathogens and adjusted the nomination accordingly. Tthat metham sodium or metham potassium are promisibut still do not provide consistent control under the cirthe nomination and require further trials, which are unstudies however, have demonstrated the efficacy of mechloropicrin in areas with low to moderate nutsedge prtomatoes and similar crops in the regions of the nominet al 2000, Nelson et al 2002, Gilreath et al 2005). MBanticipates that there will be adoption of this alternativmethyl bromide in karst areas with low nutsedge infes
64 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Tomato – 

field (continued) 

 The Party states that LPF barrier films are still not bein

adopted on a commercial scale due to lack of availabiltechnical problems with laying the films. Recent trials shown excellent results with new semipermeable barri(metallised films) and substantial commercial adoption Florida (>3000acres) (Bruno Rimini Ltd). MBTOC bebarrier films are technically and economically viable fnomination. All of the technical problems reported by been solved in European countries where the use of LPmandatory. Grower scale trials have repeatedly demonsuccess of a 50% reduction in rate with LPF films (GilSantos, 2004, 2005). In fields with moderate to heavy pressure, Santos and Gilreath (2005) have shown that MB/Pic 67:33 at a rate of 350 kg/ha can be reduced by (to 175 kg/ha MB) under LPF film with equivalent yienutsedge control. MBTOC recommends a reduction in nomination to account for decreased dosage rates in armoderate to severe nutgrass pressure at 175 kg/ha, and nutsedge and areas with pathogens at 150 kg/ha, in antlikely increased implementation of emission control teincluding adoption of LPF barrier films by 2007. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total 

CUEs for 2005 as approved by 1EMOP and 16MOP 

Approved for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect IIA Dec. XVI/2 

Approved (interim) for 2006 by 16 MOP under Sect 111 Dec. XVI/2 

Nominated in 2005 for 2006 

Nominated in 2005 for 2007 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2006 

Recommended by MBTOC for 2007 

MBTOC comments 

USA Turfgrass 206.827 131.6 78.04 78.04 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 78.040 tonnes in 200

including 1.9 tonnes for associated research. The Partthe amount requested to 59% from that recommended 2006. All of this nomination is for production of certimaterial. MBTOC recognises the importance of produpropagative material. Historically the industry has usekg/ha, but has recently reduced the rate to 300 kg/ha oTrials with mixtures of MB with chloropicrin indicate results in pest and pathogen control. MBTOC suggestrate reductions can be achieved with the use of low pebarrier films (VIF or equivalent) and the use of 67:33 MB/Pic formulations. Further validation of their effecsought in future nominations. Although dazomet is usother countries for this use, it has not yet proven effecUSA (Unruh et al. 2002). Trial use of this product witis suggested. New fumigant alternatives, sodium and piodomethane have shown excellent weed control (UnrThese chemicals at present lack registration. 

Footnotes: All quantities given in metric tonnes, unless otherwise stated.  * Evaluation revised since TEAP May 2005 Report (TEAP 2005) (a) No specific CUE quantity approved for this use. Quantity approved included with other uses. (b) CUE includes exemptions for both Quebec and PEI growing regions (c) Categorised as 'unable-to-assess’ in the TEAP Report of October2004.

 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 67

3. Registration and Reregistration of Alternatives 

3.1 Registration status of soil alternatives 

This report on the registration and reregistration status of in-kind methyl bromide 

alternatives is provided in conformity with Decisions Ex. I/4(9,i) and Ex. I/4(9,j). An 

interim report on this topic was provided in TEAP (2005). 

MBTOC has initiated a comprehensive Status of Methyl Bromide and its Alternatives 

Report. The reporting format was drafted and piloted in one country. It was presented to 

MBTOC at the Melbourne meeting and will be revised according to comments received 

by MBTOC members. The report endeavours to provide for both soil fumigation and 

post harvest uses the following information by country, by crop/site and by chemical: 

• Active ingredient and trade name identification; 

• Formulation specifications (% of active ingredient, % of inert ingredients, % of 

other active ingredients in the product); 

• Application rates, and 

• Current label restrictions on the use of the product that could limit the extent to 

which it could be used as an alternative to methyl bromide, where these 

restrictions are significantly greater than restrictions for methyl bromide (e.g. 

some labels state that some pesticides are required to have large buffers around 

occupied structures, prohibition against greenhouses use, restrictions on use in 

areas where groundwater could be contaminated, long plant back restrictions, 

prohibition on use of the product in mixtures, personal protective equipment 

requirements for mixers, loaders and applicators that are significantly greater than 

restrictions for methyl bromide, etc.). 

MBTOC intends to have these revised spreadsheets sent out to Parties by November 2005 

and could have a final report within one year depending on the responsiveness of the 

Parties. 

MBTOC recognizes that registration is a dynamic process. Thus, some information may 

be out of date. MBTOC reports information as provided by the Parties or other reliable 

sources. MBTOC does not speculate on dates registration action may be completed. In 

the interim the following information that is currently available is provided here. 

Table 5 presents available data on the registration status of leading chemical alternatives 

for the control of soilborne pests and diseases. It indicates that metham sodium and 

dazomet are widely registered, and 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) and chloropicrin are also 

registered in a number of countries. Sodium tetrathiocarbonate (Enzone) is registered in 

only a few countries. Registration of mixtures of fumigants (particularly 1,3-D + pic) is 

increasing. In addition to the countries listed in Table 5, 1,3-D/Pic has been registered in 

Article 5(1) countries such as Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba and Morocco, and registration is 

being sought in countries such as Jordan, Argentina and China (Carrera et al. 2004). In 
68 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report

some countries fumigants must be registered as a mixture if they are to be applied 

simultaneously; while in other countries fumigants can be simultaneously applied (coapplied) without the need for additional registration. 

The US EPA has recently registered several products for the control of weeds, including 

Cyperus spp. These include halosulfuron methyl (Sandea) for use in fruiting vegetables 

and cucurbits, trifloxysulfuron sodium (Envoke) for tomato (Norton, 2004) and Smetolachlor for tomatoes. The US EPA also recently registered fosthiazate for tomatoes. 

For the following soil fumigants registration applications have been submitted and are 

currently under review: iodomethane in USA (for peppers, tomatoes, strawberries and 

ornamentals) and dazomet in USA (for strawberries and tomatoes). Soil fumigants under 

consideration are: furfural in USA (for greenhouse-grown cut flowers, greens, transplants 

and propagative material), sodium azide in USA (for turf and golf courses), mixture of 

1,3-D/chloropicrin in Italy, chloropicrin in France, dazomet in Hungary, cyanogen 

(‘ethane dinitrile’) in Australia, and dimethyldisulphide (DMDS) in France. Japan 

cancelled its methyl bromide registrations in 2004 while retaining its CUE registrations 

for MB on melons, watermelons, cucumbers, green peppers, hot peppers, ginger and for 

the control of the chestnut weevil. 

Biological control products normally require registration but are not listed in Table 5 

because they are not normally considered as MB alternatives due to their narrow 

spectrum of activity, although they can play a useful role as adjuncts to alternatives such 

as fumigants, steam or substrates. It should be noted that many non-chemical treatments 

do not require registration under the European Union’s legislation on pesticide products; 

this applies to treatments such as steam, heat, substrates, grafted plants, resistant varieties 

and other cultural practices (Smeets, 2004). Many other countries also do not require 

non-chemical treatments to be registered. However, non-chemical treatments may face 

other difficulties such as requiring other regulatory approval and because commercial 

companies have less incentive to market products that are not protected by patent-like 

property rights. 

 

Table 5. Registration status of chemical soil alternatives 

 This table is compiled from databases on registration and available alternatives submitted by Parties to 

the Ozone Secretariat (European Commission, 2005a), and information provided in critical use 

nominations. Local conditions of use and requirements may render a registered fumigant unavailable for 

specific crops or locations, although registered in general. 

. 

Country Fumigant products Non-fumigant products 

13D Daz MIT

C 

Pic Enz 13D+

pic 

13D+ 

MIT 

Nem Fun Her 

Australia R R R R R R R R 

Belgium R R R R R R R 

Canada (a) R (b) R R R R 

France R R R R R R R 

Greece R R R R (d) R R R R 

Ireland R R R R 

Italy R R R R R R R 

Japan R R R R R R R R R 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 69

Country Fumigant products Non-fumigant products 

13D Daz MIT

C 

Pic Enz 13D+

pic 

13D+ 

MIT 

Nem Fun Her 

Poland R R R R R 

Portugal R R R R (d) R R R 

Spain R R R R R R (d) R R R 

UK R R R R R R R 

USA R (b) R (c) R R R R R R (e) 

NB. In some cases the fumigants are registered for specific crops, while in other cases they are registered 

for soil fumigation in general. (a) Registration information relates to strawberry runners only. (b) not 

permitted in some areas. (c) registered for non-food crops. (d) provisional at present pending finalisation of 

re-registration of fumigants in the EU. (e) for certain types of weeds only. 

R registered 

13D 1,3-dichloropropene 

Daz dazomet 

Met metham sodium and/or metham potassium 

Pic chloropicrin 

Enz sodium tetrathiocarbonate (Enzone) 

MITC methyl isothiocyanate 

Nem various nematicide products, e.g. oxamyl 

Fun various fungicide products – normally specific to certain groups of 

 fungi 

Her various herbicides – normally specific to certain types of weeds. 

3.2 Registration status of postharvest and structural alternatives 

Table 6 (below) presents available data on the registration status of leading chemical 

alternatives for the control of stored product pests in commodities and/or structures. 

Phosphine (solid formulations) is registered in many countries. Registration of gaseous 

forms of phosphine (cylinderised) and sulfuryl fluoride is increasing. The US EPA 

recently registered a gaseous form of phosphine (Ecofume). Some countries registered 

sulfuryl fluoride (SF) a number of years ago for non-food structures such as historic 

buildings in some European countries, or domestic dwellings (replacing a large volume 

of MB) in the USA. More recently sulfuryl fluoride formulations developed for certain 

commodities or empty mills have been registered in USA and parts of Europe. The US 

EPA recently registered sulfuryl fluoride for food processing sites (July 2005). The 

federal registration must now be reviewed by individual state authorities as part of the 

registration process. Sulfuryl fluoride is reported to be in the registration process in 

France, Benelux and Spain (Lange, 2004), and in Canada. 

Apparently MITC is registered in Canada for flour mills, according to a list of registered 

alternatives submitted by Canada to the Ozone Secretariat recently. Iodomethane has 

recently been registered in Japan for broad-spectrum insect control on imported timber 

(UNEP, 2004). Japan has also registered in 2004 a mixture of MITC and sulfuryl 

fluoride dissolved in liquid carbon dioxide (Ecotwin). 
70 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report

Table 6. Registration status of postharvest alternatives 

The table was compiled from databases on registration and available alternatives submitted by Parties to the 

Ozone Secretariat (European Commission, 2005b), information provided in critical use nominations, and 

other sources. 

Country Fumigant products 

EF HCN IM MITC PH3 

solid 

PH3 

gas 

PPO SF 

Australia R R R 

Austria R (b) R R (a) 

Belgium R 

Canada R R R 

Denmark R R 

France R (id) R 

Germany R R R (a b e) 

Greece R 

Ireland R 

Italy R R (b) 

Japan R R R R R 

Poland R 

Spain R R 

Sweden R R (a) 

Switzerland R R R (b) 

UK R R (b) 

USA R R R (f) R (a b c) 

(a) non-food structures, e.g. historic buildings. (b) empty food structures e.g. mills. (c) dried fruits, tree 

nuts, cereal grains. (d) aircraft. . (e) dried fruit: (f) nutmeats, cocoa, spices; PPO mixed with CO2 is 

registered for stored nuts 

R registered 

EF ethyl formate 

HCN hydrogen cyanide, calcium or sodium cyanides 

IM iodomethane 

MITC methyl isothiocyanate 

PH3 solid phosphine (solid formulations) 

PH3 gas gaseous phosphine in carbon dioxide or nitrogen 

 (cylinders) 

PPO propylene oxide 

SF sulfuryl fluoride 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 71

3.3 Reregistration of MB and alternatives 

In the United States and European Union, a number of soil fumigants are undergoing 

reregistration. Metham sodium and chloropicrin, as well as MB, are going through reregistration in the US at present, and decisions are scheduled to be completed in 2007. 

To date, 1,3-D is the only soil fumigant that has completed the re-registration process in 

the USA. The US EPA is utilizing a cluster approach in conducting its re-registration 

assessments on soil fumigants (metham sodium, iodomethane, chloropicrin, 1,3-D, 

dazomet and MB). This cluster approach aims (a) to ensure a level playing field by 

evaluating the soil fumigant alternatives concurrently and consistently and (b) to ensure 

that risk management decisions do not result in risk/benefit tradeoffs that neither improve 

safety nor help agriculture. 

In the European Union, MB is being evaluated for re-registration as part of the EC’s 

general review of pesticides (active ingredients). The reviews include scientific 

assessments of safety and environmental data submitted by applicants. Under the EC 

Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EC) a dossier on MB is being reviewed and a 

decision is due to be taken by the end of 2008 at the latest for pesticide uses that are 

regulated under this Directive. Under the Biocides Directive (98/8/EC) MB has been 

“identified” which means that biocidal products containing MB can only be placed on the 

EU market until 1 September 2006 at the latest, according to Article 4(2) of Regulation 

2032/2003 (Arash, pers. comm. 2005). A review of MB’s toxicity and environmental 

effects is provided in IPCS/WHO (1995). 

Most postharvest fumigants (active ingredients), except for sulfuryl fluoride, are 

undergoing re-registration in the European Union and the US. Phosphine is the only post 

harvest fumigant that has completed re-registration in the USA (1998). 

 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 73

4. MBTOC Work plan for 2006 

4.1 Introduction 

The Parties, at their Sixteenth Meeting, decided to adopt the elements related to 

procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

(MBTOC) related to the evaluation of nominations for critical uses of methyl bromide as 

set out in Annex I to the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties (16MOP) (decision 

XVI/4). 

Paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP states that annual work plan should be 

drawn up by MBTOC (supported by the Ozone Secretariat) in consultation with TEAP 

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

In accordance with paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP, MBTOC has 

prepared its 2006 work plan in consultation with TEAP and with support of the Ozone 

Secretariat. The work plan is contained in Section 4.4 of the current document for 

consideration by the Parties at their Sixteenth Meeting. 

4.2 Summary report of the activities carried out in 2005 

One of the elements specified in paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP is the 

summary report of MBTOC activities over the previous year (paragraph 15(h)). In 

accordance with this requirement, the summary report is provided in section III of the 

current document. 

4.3 Allocation of the Funds under Decision XVI/5 

The Parties, at their Sixteenth Meeting, decided to provide additional financial support to 

MBTOC in recognition of the heavy workload of the MBTOC in assessing nominations 

for critical use exemptions (decision XVI/5). Section 4.6 of the current document 

provides a detailed report on how the budget for implementing decision XVI/5 has been 

allocated to MBTOC. The report on allocation of the funds was prepared in pursuance of 

the fundamental principle adopted by the Parties of ensuring transparency in the process 

of assessing critical use nominations. 

4.4 MBTOC Workplan for 2006 - Details 

Paragraph 1 of Annex I to the report of 16 MOP provides the schedule for the MBTOC 

assessment of critical-use exemptions. In accordance with the schedule, MBTOC 

envisages its activities as set out in Table 7 below. The elements of the work plan as 
74 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report

specified under paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP have been incorporated. 

The schedule of the work to be carried out by the together with activities on the 2006 

assessment and MBTOC composition is also included. The list of current membership of 

MBTOC is contained in Annex II to the current document. 

The work plan also includes an indicative budget which proposes to considerably 

increase funding. Improved funding for non-A5 MBTOC members is strongly 

recommended; most non-A5 members do not have funding to attend meetings. As the 

workload and number of meetings resulting from the CUN process have increased, the 

financial burden on individual members and/or their research institutions has become 

unsustainable. In addition, the requirement for MBTOC reports to more clearly and 

completely reference the reasons for decision making under the circumstances of 

particular nominations strengthens the need for field trips to affected regions, for reports 

summarizing particularly complex issues, and to cover the costs of obtaining reference 

documents. 

Table 7. MBTOC work plan and indicative budget 

Tasks and actions Indicative budget needs 

where applicable 

Indicative 

completion date 

Dates of 

meetings 

Assessment of the CUNs 

1. Parties submit their nominations for critical-use 

exemptions to the Secretariat 

- 24 January 2006 

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

appointed members 

- 7 February 2006 

3. Initial summarization of the nominations US$ 30,000 

4. Nominations in full are assessed by the 

subgroups of appointed members. The initial 

findings of the subgroups, and any requests for 

additional information are forwarded to the 

MBTOC co-chairs for clearance 

Funds for assistance in 

technical analysis, report 

preparation and reference 

docs (throughout the process 

as necessary): 

US$ 20,000 

28 February 2006 

5. MBTOC co-chairs forward the cleared advice 

on initial findings and may request additional 

information on to the nominating Party 

concerned and consult with the Party on the 

possible presumption therein 

- 7 March 2006 

6. Nominating Party develops and submits its 

response to the MBTOC co-chairs 

- 28 March 2006 

7. MBTOC Meeting No 1 to assess nominations, 

including any additional information provided 

by the nominating Party prior to the MBTOC 

meeting under action 5 and any additional 

information provided by nominating Party 

through pre-arranged teleconference, or 

through meetings with national experts, in 

accordance with paragraph 3.4 of the terms of 

reference of TEAP 

Funds for travel of 10 non-A5 

members and co-chairs: US$ 

50,000. 

11 April 2006 3 – 8 April 2006 

Zagreb or 

Dubrovnik, 

Croatia 

8. MBTOC advises the nominating Party of any 

outstanding information regarding the 

 25 April 2006 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 75

Tasks and actions Indicative budget needs 

where applicable 

Indicative 

completion date 

Dates of 

meetings 

information requested under action 5 for those 

critical-use nominations where it was unable 

to assess the nomination 

9. MBTOC provides its draft recommendations 

on the CUNs to TEAP 

3 May 2006 

10. Field missions by selected MBTOC members 

to some key sites where methyl bromide is used 

as per nominations. 

Funds for travel: 

US$ 20,000 

Prior to May 2005 

11. TEAP Meeting: To assess the MBTOC report 

on critical-use nominations and submits the 

finalised interim report on recommendations 

and findings to the Secretariat. 

Funds for travel of 2 non-A5 

co-chairs: US$ 10,000 

[10] May 2006 April 24 – 28 

2006 Beijing 

12. The Secretariat posts the finalised report on its 

web site and circulates it to the Parties 

- [31] May 2006 

13. OEWG Bilateral Discussions: Nominating 

Party has the opportunity to consult with 

MBTOC on a bilateral basis in conjunction 

with the Open-ended Working Group meetings 

Funds for travel of 2 non-A5 

co-chairs: 

US$ 10,000 

early July 2006 Likely late June 

early July 

14. The nominating Party submits further 

clarification for the critical-use nomination in 

the “unable to assess” category or if requested 

to do so by the Open-ended Working Group, 

and provides additional information should it 

wish to appeal against a critical-use nomination 

recommendation by MBTOC/TEAP 

- early August 2006 

15. MBTOC Meeting No 2: 

• reassess only those critical-use nominations in 

the “unable to assess” category, those where 

additional information has been submitted by 

the nominating Party and any critical-use 

nominations for which additional information 

has been requested by the Open-ended Working 

Group 

• finalise the report, including notice of any 

proposed new standard presumptions to be 

applied by MBTOC 

• conduct any bilateral consultations requested 

by Parties 

• draft work plan and budget for MBTOC for 

2007 

Funds for travel of 10 non-A5 

members and co-chairs: 

US$ 50,000. Meeting costs: 

$US 6000. 

late August 2006 28 August – 2 

September 2006, 

Yokohama, Japan

16. MBTOC draft final report considered by 

TEAP, finalised and made available to Parties 

through the Secretariat 

- 10 October 2006 

17. Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties Funds for travel of 2 non-A5 

co-chairs: US$ 10,000 

November 2006 Likely late 

November to 

early December 

Total budget: US$206,000 

MBTOC 2006 assessment 

18. Outline preparation and tasking of inputs (off 

line). Identify chapter editors and member 

contributors to chapters 

 15 November 2005 

19. Preparation and review of the inputs to the 

MBTOC assessment report: 

• Methyl bromide production and consumption 

• Emission control and transitional strategies for 

MB phaseout 

Assessment will add an 

additional 2 days to the 

MBTOC meeting 

April 2006 3 – 11 April 2006 

Zagreb or 

Dubrovnik, 

Croatia 
76 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report

Tasks and actions Indicative budget needs 

where applicable 

Indicative 

completion date 

Dates of 

meetings 

• Assessment of alternatives for soil treatment 

• Assessment of alternatives for postharvest and 

structural treatment 

• QPS issues and alternatives 

• Adoption of alternatives in A5 countries 

• Discuss initial drafts of Assessment report, 

identify areas where additional work is required

20. Compilation of the draft report and review of it 

at the second MBTOC meeting 

Assessment will add an 

additional 2 days to MBTOC 

meeting 

late August 2006 28 August – 5 

September 2006, 

Yokohama, Japan

21. Comments and corrections to the draft and 

circulation of the semi-final draft among the 

MBTOC members 

 1 October 2006 

22. Chapter authors meet to finalise draft 

Assessment Report 

 In conjunction with 

18MOP 

23. MBTOC to submit the final report to TEAP 15 December 2006 

24. TEAP to submit the synthesis report of TEAP 

and final reports of all its TOCs to the 

Secretariat 

 31 December 2006 

25. The Secretariat posts the finalized reports on its 

web site and circulates it to the Parties 

 31 January 2007 

Composition of MBTOC 

26. At the MBTOC meeting on the assessment of 

nominations, MBTOC will also update the list 

of members and their expertise and decide on 

missing expertise. The list and missing 

expertise to be submitted to the Secretariat. 

 3 April 2006 

27. The Secretariat will post on its website the list 

of members and their expertise and update the 

webpage on ‘experts required for TEAP and its 

TOCs’. 

 14 April 2006 

4.5 Summary Report of the Activities Carried out by MBTOC in 2005 

• Initial summarization of the CUNs (establishing the database by the Secretariat) – 

split in two parts (i) the CUNs for ExMOP2 and (ii) CUNs for 25OEWG. 

• Preparation of questions for Parties. 

• First meeting of MBTOC on the assessment of the CUNs – Buenos Aires, 11-15 

April 2005. Interim recommendations and report prepared for the Parties. 

Welcomed new members from Brazil and USA and departure of two delegates 

from USA. 

• Site visits by 12 MBTOC members – 5 day tour of Florida and Georgia 

horticulture (eg. strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, cucurbits) and forestry nurseries 

to review alternatives research and industry issues with these alternatives. 

Progress report drafting for four weeks after the April meeting. 

• TEAP meeting – Lindau, 25-29 April 2005. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 77

• Issuance of the interim report for consideration by the OEWG as part of TEAP 

report and final report on the CUNs for decision by 2EMOP. 

• 25OEWG (Montreal, 27-30 June 2005). Bilateral meetings with Australia, Japan, 

Latvia, Spain, USA, US Food Processing and Agriculture Industry members, and 

ExMOP2 (Montreal, 1 July 2005). Revised Handbook on Critical Use 

Nominations tabled for discussion. 

• Welcomed new MBTOC members as nominated by Brazil, China, Italy, Israel, 

Japan, Lebanon and USA. Resignation of MBTOC members from Germany (1), 

USA (2). 

• Updated Matrix of MB alternatives for soils uses from recent MBTOC 

documents. 

• Second meeting of MBTOC, Melbourne, 29 August-2 Sept 2005. Bilaterals with 

Australia (including Australian food processing industry members), and USA. 

Site visits Australian field agriculture and grain processing. Presentation of the 

preliminary data from the metaanalysis team. 

• Drafted new suggested standard presumptions for in-field agriculture uses of MB 

and concerning low permeability films. 

• Drafted MB alternatives registration report and MB re-registration report for soils 

and post-harvest uses. Reporting format prepared for distribution to Parties by 

Secretariat. 

• Short initial comments received from MBTOC member regarding MB treatment 

of fresh dates. Full report incomplete; funds needed for travel and research from a 

UN implementing agency. 

• Preparation of standardized format for Parties to use when reporting back to 

MBTOC. 

4.6 Allocation of the Funds provided under Decision XVI/5 

Under decision XVI/5, Parties decided to provide MBTOC with financial assistance on 

an exceptional basis for 2005, to cover the costs of expert assistance to MBTOC for the 

maximum sum of $68,300, and travel for a non-Article 5(1) co-chair to three meetings 

related to critical use nominations to the maximum sum of $15,000. 

The funds were allocated as follows: 

Decision XVI/5(1): $15,000: Travel costs for a non-Article 5(1) co-chair US$15,000. 

Decision XVI/5(2): $68,300: Conducting the initial analysis and preparation of the 

reports on the assessment of critical use nominations (US$2,500); reference data base, 

metaanalysis database and model preparation for the metaanalysis of soils alternatives 

US$ 54,000. 

Balance of $14,300 applied to the combined MBTOC meeting in Buenos Aires and site 

visit in Florida (decision XVI/5(5a)): Six non-Article 5 members funded at the cost of 

$20,787.65. 

Travel and DSA for non-Article 5(1) experts in the MBTOC meetings related to 

assessment of critical use nominations (decision XVI/5(4)): Three non-Article 5(1) 
78 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report

members funded at the cost of US$9,281. Total travel costs for non-Article 5(1) 

members: $30,068.65. 

Shortfall: $15,768.75. 

The actual certified expenditure against the allocations will only become available after 

the closing of 2005 accounts in March 2006. This is a provisional report of information 

that has already been recorded in the UN integrated management information system 

(IMIS). 

 

4.7 Management and Personnel Issues 

It is a key need that MBTOC’s current transitional management status be completed 

through the confirmation of an appropriate number of co-chairs, and that the co-chairs 

designate and accept responsibility to achieve the functions and work plan milestones. 

Co-chairs will need sufficient funding to ensure their attendance at meetings and to 

ensure they can fairly share and accomplish MBTOC’s heavy workload in a timely 

manner. 

Annex II lists MBTOC members, country, work affiliation and expertise. MBTOC 

members represent an impressive scope and depth of experience and ability; MBTOC has 

members from twenty-seven countries. More than new members, MBTOC needs to have 

its members funded to attend meetings, and able to commit to contributing to the work of 

MBTOC outside of the meetings. Most members have been appointed by Parties, yet it is 

a constant struggle for many members to obtain sufficient funding to attend all MBTOC 

meetings, and even more so to be funded to spend the time necessary to accomplish the 

heavy workload. 

The response of the Parties to MBTOC’s indicative budget will, more than anything, 

clarify MBTOC’s membership needs. Without funding to attend meetings this year, many 

current non-A5 MBTOC members will be unable to attend. If there is to be no change in 

the funding situation, MBTOC may need to replace up to 30% of its members; the loss of 

that many experienced members would threaten both the best completion of CUN 

decisions and the excellence of the Assessment report. 

MBTOC continues to search for well-qualified members with expertise in: 

 

Chemical and non-chemical control of weeds, nematodes and plant diseases, 

Practical experience in alternatives fumigation and heat treatment of food processing 

facilities, 

Practical experience in chemical and non-chemical control of commodity pests, 

quarantine and non-quarantine, 

Agricultural economics, including in post-harvest applications, 

Wood disinfection specialists, 

Alternatives practitioners, 

Technology cooperation, 

Agricultural extension, 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 79

Recapture and recycling, 

Regulatory processes and registration. 

4.8 Proposed changes to standard presumptions 

Standard presumptions used in the current (2005) and previous rounds of CUNs have 

included a standard dosage of 200 kgMB/ha applied as a mixture with chloropicrin 

(67:33). It is proposed that commencing with CUNs for 2007 use, this presumption be 

altered to be a standard rate of 150 kgMB/ha for pathogen control and 175 kgMB/ha 

where nutgrass must be controlled, both applied as 50:50 MB:Pic mixtures under LPF 

films (e.g. VIF or equivalent). 

Supporting data for the methyl bromide component and dosage is given in Section 2.3.6 

above. 
80 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report

ANNEX I 

Annex I to the Report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Prague, 22–

26 November 2004), paragraph 15. 

(Decision XVI/4. Review of the working procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl Bromide 

Technical Options Committee) 

“15. An annual work plan will enhance the transparency of, and insight in, the operations of 

MBTOC. 

 Such a plan should indicate, among other things: 

(a) Key events for a given year; 

(b) Envisaged meeting dates of MBTOC, including the stage in the 

nomination and evaluation process to which the respective meetings relate; 

(c) Tasks to be accomplished at each meeting, including appropriate 

delegation of such tasks; 

(d) Timing of interim and final reports; 

(e) Clear references to the timelines relating to nominations; 

(f) Information related to financial needs, while noting that financial 

considerations would still be reviewed solely in the context of the review of the 

Secretariat’s budget; 

(g) Changes in the composition of MBTOC, pursuant to the criteria for 

selection; 

(h) Summary report of MBTOC activities over the previous year, 

including matters that MBTOC did not manage to complete, the reasons for this 

and plans to address these unfinished matters; 

(i) Matrix with existing and needed skills and expertise; and 

(j) Any new or revised standards or presumptions that MBTOC seeks 

to apply in its future assessment of critical-use nominations, for approval by the 

Meeting of the Parties. ” 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

ANNEX II 

Current membership of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length 

of service 

Co-Chairs 

 1. Jonathan Banks M Consultant Consultant, postharvest, 

particularly controlled atmospheres, phosphine, recapture (PhD) 

a 

 2. Nahum Marban Mendoza M Universidad Autonoma Chapingo 

(Academia) 

Researcher, soils alternatives, particularly nematode problems (PhD, Prof.) 

c 

Members 

3. Alessandro Amadio M UNIDO International Agency, 

grafting technologies. (PhD) 

 

4. Marten Barel M Consultant Fumigator, particularly 

steam, MB and alternatives use 

d 

5. Chris Bell M Central Science Laboratory 

(Government research) 

Postharvest technologies, particularly phosphine (PhD) 

b 

6. Antonio Bello M Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales 

(Government research) 

Non-chemical alternatives (PhD, Prof) 

a 

 7. Mohamed Besri M Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire 

Hassan II (Acedemia) 

Researcher. Plant Pathology, particularly. ecology of soilborne pathogens and MB and alts in A5s (PhD, Prof) 

b 

8. Cao Aocheng M Chinese Academy of Agricultural 

Sciences (Government research) 

Researcher, soil alternatives, particularly in China context (PhD) 

c 
82 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

9. Peter Caulkins M Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory and 

registration of methyl bromide and alternatives. Soil disinfestation (PhD) 

d 

10. Fabio Chaverri M IRET-Universidad Nacional 

(Academia) 

Researcher and consultant, MB alts., particularly soil disinfestation, incl. solarisation. 

c 

11. Ricardo Deang M Consultant Regulatory and 

registration (PhD) 

b 

12. Patrick Ducom M Ministère de l’Agriculture 

(Government research) 

Postharvest alternatives b 

13 Abraham Gamliel M ARO Volcani Centre Soils alternatives, 

solarisation, engineering, fumigant movement 

d 

14. Saad Hafez M University of Idaho (Academia) Soils alternatives, 

nematologist (PhD, Prof) 

c 

15. Darka Hamel F Department of Environment Regulatory and 

registration. Post-harvest fumigation 

d 

16 George Lazarovits M Agriculture & Agri-food Canada 

(Government research) 

Researcher, Plant pathology particularly beneficials and soil amendments (PhD) 

c 

17. Michelle Marcotte F Consultant, Marcotte Consulting 

LLC 

Consultant, particularly food safety, food processing and irradiation. MBTOC Convenor 

a 

18. Carlos Medeiros M Embrapa (Government Research) Soils alternatives d 19. Cecilia Mercado F UNEP DTIE CAP (International 

organization) 

Implementing agency issues 

b 

20. Melanie Miller F Consultant Consultant in MB 

alternatives use (PhD) 

a 

21. Andrea Minuto M Agroinnova Universita Torino 

(Academia) 

Researcher, MB alts, soilless culture and 

d 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 

alternatives in soils (PhD) 

22. Takashi Misumi M MAFF (Government research) QPS and stored product 

entomology, fumigation 

d 

23. Mokhtarud-Din Bin Husain 

M Department of Agriculture 

(Government research) 

Postharvest, including timber treatment and QPS 

c 

24. Kazufumi Nishi M Nat Institute of Vegetables and Tea 

Science (Government research) 

Nonchemical alts, particularly heat systems for soils (PhD) 

d 

25. David Okioga M Ministry of Environment and Natural 

Resources (Government regulatory) 

Postharvest and QPS MB alts (PhD) 

a 

26. Marta Pizano de Marquez 

F Hortitecnia Ltda (consultant) Consultant, MB alts, 

particularly cut flower production 

b 

27. Ian Porter M Department of Primary Industries 

(Government research) 

Researcher, soils alternatives, IPM, particularly strawberry and ornamentals (PhD). MBTOC Convenor 

b 

28. Christoph Reichmuth M BBAGermany (Government 

research) 

Researcher, MB alts in postharvest/structures, artefacts, especially inert atmospheres (PhD, Prof) 

b 

29. Ariane Saade F Ministry of Economy and Trade 

(Government regulatory) 

Trade and economics d 

30. John Sansone M SCC Products (Fumigator) Fumigator, trainer, 

particular expertise in structures and new processes 

a 

31. Jim Schaub M United States Department of 

Agriculture (Government regulatory) 

Agricultural economist (PhD) 

c 

32 Sally Schneider F United States Department of 

Agriculture (Government research) 

Researcher in soils alts, particularly replant problems and propagative material (PhD) 

c 

34. JL( Stappies) Staphorst M Agricultural Research Council 

Plant Protection Research Institute 

 Soil microbiologist particularly root disease 

b 
84 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report 

(Government research) biocontrol methods 

(PhD) 

35. Akio Tateya M Syngenta Japan KK Application of MB and 

alts, particularly in Japan 

a 

36. Robert Taylor M Associate - Natural Resources 

Institute (Government research) 

Postharvest technology, specifically A5 uses 

a 

37. Alejandro Valeiro M Department of Agriculture 

(Government research) 

Introduction/use of soils alts, including tobacco 

c 

38. Ken Vick M United States Department of 

Agriculture (Government research) 

Research in MB alternatives, incl. QPS (PhD) 

a 

39. Nick Vink M University of Stellenbosch 

(Academia) 

Agricultural economics (PhD, Prof) 

c 

40. Jim Wells M Consultant, Environmental Solutions 

Group LLC 

Registration and regulatory - MB and alts. 

a 

41. Chris Watson M IGROX Ltd (Fumigator) MB and alternatives, 

particularly structures and commodities inc. bulk and container in transit treatments. 

b 

Totals 41 

 M =34 

F =7 

a = 11 

b = 10 

c = 11 

d = 9 

a - >10 years b – 5-10 years c – 2-5 years d - <2 years
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 85

5. References

5.1 References for main text 

Ajwa, H. A., Fennimore, S., Kabir, Z., Martin, F., Dunniway, J., Browne, G., Trout, T., Goodhue, 

R., Guerrero, L. (2003). Strawberry Yield under Reduced Rates of Chloropicrin and 

Inline in Combination with Metam Soduim with VIF. Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2003. 3-6 

Novermber, 2003, San Diego, California, pp 3-1, 3-2. 

Ajwa, H. A., Fennimore, S., Kabir, Z., Martin, F., Dunniway, J., Browne, G., Trout, T., Khan, A., 

Daugovish, O. (2004). Strawberry Yield with Chloropicrin and Inline in Combination 

with Metam Soduim with VIF. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2004. 31 October - 3 November, 2004, 

Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 38-1,2 

Ajwa H.A., Trout T., Fennimore S., Winterbottom C., Martin F., Duniway J., Browne G., 

Westerdahl B., Goodhue R. and Guerrero L. 2002. Strawberry production with 

alternative fumigants applied through drip irrigation systems. Proc. Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. p. 14-

1. 

Anon. 2001. IPM for Floriculture and Nurseries. University of California Davis, CA, USA 422 pp 

Arash, B. 2005. Personal communication. Bobby Arash, DG ENV B4, European Commission, 

Brussels. 

Bartual, R., Cebolla, V., Bustos, J., Giner, A., Lopez-Aranda, J. M. (2002). The Spanish project 

on alternatives to methyl bromide. (2): The case of strawberry in the area of Valencia. 

Acta Horticulturae, 431-434. 

Berg, F.P. 2000. International Substrate Manual. Analysis, Characteristics, Recommendations. 

Elsevier International, The Netherlands, 94 pp. 

Bruno Rimini Ltd. 2005. pers. comm. UK. 

Carrera T, Carrera A and Pedros V. 2004. Use of 1,3-dichloropropene / chloropicrin for the 

production of strawberries in Spain. Proceedings of International Conference on 

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon. Office for Official 

Publications of the European Commission, Luxembourg, pp 53-56. 

CDPR. Pesticide Use Reports (PUR). California Department of Pesticide Registration. Website 

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/ 

Cebolla, V., Bartual, R., Giner, A., Bustos, J. (1999). Two Years Effect on Some Alternatives to 

Methyl Bromide on Strawberry Crops. Annual International Research Conference on 

Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 1999. 1-4 November, 1999, San 

Diego, California, USA, pp. 1-1. 

Cortright, B.D. and M.K. Hausbeck 2004. Evaluation of fumigants for managing Phythopthora 

crown and fruit rot of solanaceous and cucurbit crops, plot two, 2003. Unpublished study 

MI CUE#03-0061. 

Culpepper, A.S and Langston, D.B. 2004b. Potential impact of methyl bromide alternatives on 

Georgia’s pepper industry. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences and Department of 

Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Tifton GA. 

Culpepper, A.S. and Langston. D.B. 2004a. Fumigant/herbicide combinations. Unpublished 

study conducted by researchers at the University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Included in 

US CUE package 2004. 
86 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report

De Cal, A., Melgarejo, P., Martinez-Treceno, A., Salto, T., Martinez-Beringola, M. L., GarciaBaudin, J. M., Garcia-Sinovas, D., Garcia-Mendez, E., Becerril, M., Medina, J. J., LopezAranda, J. M. (2004). Chemical Alternatives to MB for Strawberry Nurseries in Spain. 

2003 Results. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2004. 31 October - 3 November, 2004, Orlando, 

Florida, USA, pp. 17-1. 

Drakes, D, Briercliffe, T, Lightfoot-Brown, S, Arnold, D and Mackay, N. 2001. The use and 

disposal of growing media. ADAS Horticulture. UK. 40 pp 

Duniway, J. M., Xiao, C. L., Gubler, W. D. (1998). Response of Strawberry to Soil Fumigation: 

Microbial Mechanisms and Some Alternatives To Methyl Bromide. Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 1998. 

7-9 December, 1998, Orlando, Florida, pp. 6-1. 

European Commission. 2005a. European Community database of available alternatives to methyl 

bromide – soil sector. Submitted to the Ozone Secretariat by the European Community 

under Decision Ex.I/4 paragraphs 1-2. March 2005. 

European Commission. 2005b. European Community database of available alternatives to methyl 

bromide – postharvest sector. Submitted to the Ozone Secretariat by the European 

Community under Decision Ex.I/4 paragraphs 1-2. March 2005. 

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 Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions. pp. 3-1 to 3-4. 

Fritsch, J. (1998). Strawberry Crops in Fr ance: Different Methods to Apply Methyl Bromide 

and Metam Sodium Open Fields. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

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

Florida, USA, pp. 14-1. 

Gilreath J.P. and Santos B.M. 2005c. Efficacy of methyl bromide alternatives on purple nutsedge 

control (Cyperus rotundus) in tomato and pepper. Weed Technology (in press). 

Gilreath J.P., Motis T.N. and Santos B.M. 2005a. Cyperus spp. control with reduced methyl 

bromide plus chloropicrin doses under virtually impermeable films. Crop Protection 24, 

285-287. 

Gilreath J.P., Santos B.M., Motis T.N., Noling J.W. and Mirusso J.M. 2005d. Methyl bromide 

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

Protection, In press. 

Gilreath, J.P. and Santos, B.M. 2004. Leading methyl bromide alternatives for tomato production 

in the United States of America. Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives 

to Methyl Bromide, September 27-30, Lisbon. Office for Official Publications of the 

European Commission, Luxembourg. 

Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T.N., Norton, J and Noling, JW. 2003a. Results of the IR-4 strawberry 

methyl bromide alternatives program in Florida during 2002. Proc. Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp 48-

1. 

Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T.N., Santos, B.M., Mirusso,J.M., Gilreath, P.R., Noling, J. W., Jones, J.P. 

2005b. Influence of supplementary in-bed chloropicrin application on soilborne pest 

control in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Crop Protection, In press. 

Gilreath, J.P., Noling, J.W. and Santos, B.M. 2004. Methyl bromide alternatives for bell pepper 

(Capsicum annum) and cucumber (Cucumis sativus) rotations. Crop Protection 23:347-

351. 

Gilreath, J.P., Noling, J.W., Motis, T.N., Rosskopf, E. and Santos, B.M. 2003b. Long term effect 

of fumigant and herbicide combinations in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Proc. Annual 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 87

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions, pp 52-1.. 

Gilreath, J.P., Santos, B.M., Busacca, J.D., Eger, Jr. J.E., Mirusso, J.M. Gilreath, P.R. 2005c. 

Validating broadcast application of Telone C-35 complemented with chloropicrin and 

herbicides in commercial tomato farms. Crop Protection, In press. 

Graffiadellis M., Mattas K., Maloupa E., Tzouramani I. and Galanopoulos D. 2000. An economic 

analysis of soilless culture in gerbera production. HortSci. 5:1-44. 

Haar M., Fennimore S. and Ajwa H. 2001. Weed control efficacy of drip irrigation applied 

chloropicrin, metam sodium and 1,3-D. Proc. Annual International Research Conference 

on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp. 90-1 - 90-4. 

Hamill, J. E., Dickson, D. W., T-Ou, L., Allen, L. H., Burelle, N. K., Mendes, M. L. (2004). 

Reduced rates of MBR and C35 under LDPE and VIF for control of soil pests and 

pathogens. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives 

and Emissions Reductions 2004. 31 October - 3 November, 2003, Orlando, Florida, 

USA, pp. 2-1. 

Horner, I. J. (1999). Alternative Soil Fumigant Trials in New Zealand Strawberry Production. 

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 

Emissions Reduction 1999. November, 1999, San Diego, California, pp. 87-1. 

IKAT 1992. Stomen [Steam]. Informatie en Kenniscentrum Akker-en Tuinbouw, Naaldwijk. 

IPCS/WHO. 1995. Environmental Health Criteria 166. Methyl Bromide. International 

Programme on Chemical Safety. World Health Organisation. Geneva. 324pp. 

Johnson, W.C. and Webster, T.M. 2001. A modified power tiller for metham application on 

cucurbit crops transplanted to polyethylene-covered seedbeds. Weed Technology. 15, 

387. 

Lange, H. 2004. Methyl bromide alternatives used in northern Europe and central Europe for the 

disinfestations of structures. Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to 

Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon. Office for Official Publications of the 

European Commission, Luxembourg, pp 205-210.. 

LEI. 2004. Agricultural Statistics. Landbouw (Agricultural) Economics Institute (LEI), The 

Hague. 

Locascio, S.J., Dickson, D.W. and Mitchell, D.J. 2000. Chloropicrin enhancement of metam 

sodium as an alternative to methyl bromide for mulched tomato. Proc. Fla. State Hort. 

Soc.2000, 198-200. MBTOC 1995. 1994 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide 

Technical Options Committee. UNEP, Nairobi. 

Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Medina, J. J., Miranda, L., De Los Santos, B., Dominguez, F., SanchezVidal, M. D., Lopez-Medina, J., Flores, F. (2001b). Agronomic Behaviour of 

Strawberry Coming From Different Types of Soil Fumigation in Nurseries. Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions 2001. 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 38-1. 

Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Medina, J. J., Miranda, L., Dominguez, F. (2000). Three Years of ShortTerm Alternatives To MB on Huelva Strawberries. Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2000. 6-9 

November, 2000, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 10-1. 

Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Miranda, L., Romero, F., De Los Santos, B., Montes, F., Vega, J. M., Paez, 

J. I., Bascon, J., Medina, J. J. (2003). Alternatives to MB for Strawberry Production in 

Huelva (Spain). 2003 Results. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2003. November, 2003, San Diego, 

California, pp. 33-1. 

Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Romero, F., Montes, F., Medina, J. J., Miranda, L., De Los Santos, B., 

Vega, J. M., Paez, J. I., Dominguez, F., Lopez-Medina, J., Flores, F. (2001a). Chemical 

and Non-Chemical Alternatives to MB Fumigation of Soil for Strawberry. 2000-2001 
88 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report

Results. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 

Emissions Reductions 2001. 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 40-

1. 

MBTOC 1998. 1998 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. 

UNEP, Nairobi. 

MBTOC 2002. 2002 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. 

UNEP, Nairobi. 468pp 

McKenry, M.V. 1999. The replant problem and its management. Catalina Publishing, Fresno, 

CA. 

McMillan, R.T. and Bryan, H.H. 1998. Vapam as an alternative to methyl bromide for south 

Florida tomato growers. Proc. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions pp 104 -1- 104 -3. 

McMillan, R.T. and Bryan, H.H. 2000. Effect of metam sodium and methyl bromide on rootknot, 

nutsedge and dampoff on cucumber cv Dasher II. Proc. Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, pp 50 -1, 50-2. 

Melgarejo, P., De Cal, A., Salto, T., Martinez-Beringola, M. L., Martinez-Treceno, A., Bardon, 

E., Palacios, J., Becerril, M., Medina, J. J., Galvez, J., 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 Bromide Alternatives 

and Emissions Reduction 2001. 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California, pp. 93-1. 

Melgarejo, P., Martinez-Treceno, A., De Cal, A., Salto, T., Martinez-Beringola, M. L., GarciaBaudin, J. M., Santin, I., Bardon, E., Palacios, J., Becerril, M., Medina, J. J., LopezAranda, J. M. 2003. Chemical Alternatives To MB For Strawberry Nurseries in Spain. 

2002 Results. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2003. 3-6 November, 2003, San Diego, 

California, pp. 15 -1. 

Nelson M. et al. 2001a. Marketable berry yield cv. Camarosa – Oxnard trial, CA. 2000-01 USDA 

IR-4 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program in Strawberries. 

Nelson M. et al. 2001b. Marketable berry yield cv. Diamante – Salinas trial, CA. 2000-01 USDA 

IR-4 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program in Strawberries. 

Nelson, M., Rodriguez, L., Vander Mey, B., Lepez, G. and Norton, J. (2002). Results from the 

2001-02 USDA IR-4 MBA Field Trials in California Strawberries. Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2002. 

Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 16-1. url: http://ir4.rutgers.edu/ 

Noling, J. W., Gilreath, J. P. 2004. Use of virtually impermeable plastic mulches (VIF) in 

Florida strawberry. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2004. October-November, 2004, Orlando, 

Florida, pp. 1-1. 

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

Research Efforts For Nematode Control in Florida. Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2001. 5-9 

November, 2001, San Diego, California, pp. 14-1. 

Norton J.A., Baron J.J. and Holm R.E. 2004. Industry-government partnership for the rapid 

registration of alternatives to methyl bromide – update of results in the United States. 

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

September 2004. Lisbon. Office for Official Publications of the European Commission, 

Luxembourg, pp 253-256.. 

Norton, J, Gilreath, J and Nelson, M. 2002. Chancey Farm Trial, Dover, FL. 2000-2001 IR-4 

methyl bromide alternatives strawberry trial. Status Report. USDA IR-4 MBA Program 

for Minor Crops. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 89

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.

Powell, C. and Lindquist, R. 1997. Ball pest and disease manual. Ball Publishing, Batavia, IL, 

USA 448 pp. 

Puchooa, D., Ponusawmy, B. and Wan Chow Wah, Y.F. 1999. An investigation of low cost, 

locally available substrates potentially suitable for use in the hardening of tissue-cultured 

plantlets. Science and Technology 4:127 - 143. 

Runia, W.T. (ed.) 2005a. Case study on the use of dazomet for heavy butterhead lettuce 

production. In: Case Studies on Methyl Bromide Alternatives Used in Horticultural 

Production. University of Wageningen, CABI. 

Runia, W.T. (ed.) 2005b. Case study on the use of steam for heavy butterhead lettuce production. 

In: Case Studies on Methyl Bromide Alternatives Used in Horticultural Production. 

University of Wageningen, CABI 

Runia, W.T. (ed.) 2005c. Case study on the use of steam for chrysanthemum production. In: Case 

Studies on Methyl Bromide Alternatives Used in Horticultural Production. University of 

Wageningen, CABI. 

Runia, W.T. 2000. Steaming methods for soils and substrates. Acta Hort. 532:115-123. 

Santos, B.M., Gilreath, J.P. and Motis T.N. 2005. Managing nutsedge and stunt nematode in 

pepper with reduced methyl bromide plus chloropicrin rates under virtually impermeable 

films”. Hortechnology. 15(3): 596-599. 

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

Embryo Publications, Athens. 143-178. 

Smeets, L. 2004. Update on the review of pesticides in the European Union and implications for 

methyl bromide and chemical alternatives. Proceedings of International Conference on 

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon. Office for Official 

Publications of the European Commission, Luxembourg, pp 27-28. 

Smith I.M., Dunez J., Lelliot R.A., Phillips D.H. and Archer S.A.1988. European Handbook of 

Plant Diseases. 583pp. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. pp. 200-202. 

Sochaki, D. and Chojnowska, E. 2005. Quality evaluation of forced tulip flowers depending on 

bulb production environment and forcing. Acta Hort 673: 675-678. 

TEAP 2003. May 2003 Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. UNEP, 

Nairobi. 

TEAP 2005. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. May 2005. Progress 

Report. UNEP, Nairobi. 

Tribulato, A. and Noto, G. 2001. Forcing oriental and asiatic lilies in soilless culture. Acta Hort. 

559: 639-645. 

UNEP 2004. Iodomethane fumigant, a promising methyl bromide alternative (Japan). OzoNews. 

7 December 2004. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme, Paris. 

USDA. 2003. Alternative chemicals for strawberry. A summary of USDA-ARS SCA Project: 

Field scale demonstration/validation studies of alternatives to methyl bromide in plastic 

mulch culture in Florida. Methyl Bromide Alternatives. 9,1. USDA-ARS, Beltsville. pp. 

5-6. 

Van Bruggen, A.S. and Duinveld, T.L.J. 1995. Pythium root rot of forced tulips in various 

substrates. Acta Hort. 382: 197-202 

Van Driesche, R.G., Heinz, K.M. and Parella, M.P. 2004. Biocontrol in protected culture. Ball 

Publishing, Batavia, IL, USA 560 pp. 

Van Os, E.A..1999. Closed soilless systems: a sustainable solution for Dutch greenhouse 

horticulture. Water Science & Technology 39(5): 105 – 112. 
90 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report

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. 

5.2 Additional references for minority evaluation (Section 2.4.2) 

Anon. 2003. Large-scale, field-demonstration trials for strawberry. In: A summary of USDAARS SCA Project: Field scale demonstration/validation studies of alternatives to methyl 

bromide in plastic mulch culture in Florida. Methyl Bromide Alternatives newsletter, 

USDA-ARS, Beltsville. 9,1, pp.3-4. 

Chellemi, D.O. and Mirusso, J. 2003. Innovative approaches for soil fumigation. Florida Tomato 

Institute Proceedings, September 2003. Naples, Florida. pp.34-37. 

Chellemi, D.O. and Mirusso, J. 2004. An apparatus to inject soil fumigants under raised, plasticmulched beds. Methyl Bromide Alternatives newsletter, USDA-ARS, Beltsville. 10,1:8-

12. 

Chellemi, D.O., Mirusso, J, Nance, J, Shuler, K. 2001. Results from field scale 

demonstrations/validation studies of Telone products on the Florida east coast. Proc. 

Florida Tomato Institute. Sept. 5. Naples, FL. pp.51-57. 

Chellemi, D.O., Mirusso and Nance, J. 2004. Evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives on 

commercial vegetable farms. Proc. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.40/1–40/5 

Culpepper, A.S. and Langston, D.B. 2003. Performance of methyl bromide alternatives in pepper. 

In: Kelley, WT (ed.) Proceedings of the 2003 Southeastern Regional Vegetable 

Conference. 10-12 January 2003. Savannah, Georgia. 

Duniway, J.M., Hao, J.J., Dopkins, D.M., Ajwa, H and Browne, G.T. Soil fumigant, plastic 

mulch, and variety effects on verticillium wilt and yield of strawberry. Proc. Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions. pp.126/1-126/2. 

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 Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions. pp.2/1-2/4 

Fennimore, S, Kabir, Z, Ajwa, H, Daugovish, O, Roth, K and Rachuy, J. 2004. Weed response to 

chloropicrin and Inline dose under VIF and standard film. Proc. Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

pp.4/1-4/3. 

Ferguson, L.M., Fernandez, G.E., Brannen, P.M., Louws, 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. Proc. Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions. pp.42/1-42/4 

Gilreath, J.P. 1999. Living without methyl bromide. Adapt now; thrive in 2005. Florida Farmer. 

September. 

Gilreath, J.P. 2005. Results of trials on fresh market tomato, Bradenton, Florida, Spring 2003 – 

Spring 2004. 

Gilreath, J.P. and Santos, B.M. Undated. Weed management with oxyfluorfen and napropamide 

in mulched-strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa). University of Florida, IFAS website. 
 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: Final Report 91

Gilreath, J.P. and Santos, B.M. 2004a. Manejo de Cyperus rotundus (coquille) con alternatives al 

bromuro de metilo, en tomate de mesa. Manejo Integrado de Plagas y Agroecologia. 

71:54:58. 

Gilreath, J.P. and Santos, B.M. 2004b. Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to 

Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon. Office of Official Publications of the 

European Commission, Luxembourg. 

Gilreath, J.P. and Santos, B.M. 2004c. Efficacy of methyl bromide alternatives on purple 

nutsedge control (Cyperus rotundus) in tomato and pepper. Weed Technology 18. 

Gilreath, J.P. and Santos, B.M. 2005. Efficacy of 1,3-dichlorpropene plus chloropicrin in 

combination with herbicides on purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in tomato. 

Weed Technology. 19. 

Gilreath, J.P., Jones, J.P., Motis, T.N., Santos, B.M., Noling, J.W. and Rosskopf, E N. 2003c. 

Evaluation of various chemical treatments for potential as methyl bromide replacements 

for disinfestation of soilborne pests in polyethylene-mulched tomato. Proc. Fla. State 

Hort. Soc. 116:151-158. 

Gilreath, J P , Motis, T, Noling, J and Mertly, J. ca. 2003. Results of the IR-4 strawberry methyl 

bromide alternatives program in Florida in 2002. University of Florida. Powerpoint 

presentation. 

Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T, von Hulten, M. ca. 2004. Retention of 1,3-D and nutsedge control with 

VIF. Powerpoint presentation. University of Florida. Available on University of Florida 

IFAS website. 

Gilreath, J.P., Noling, J, Mirusso, J, Nance, J, Eger, J and Gilreath P. 2001. Telone and 

herbicides: Do’s don’t and maybe’s – a primer for tomorrow’s farmer. FACTS 

Proceedings 2001.pp.37-40. 

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

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

Protection. In press. 

Lacasa, A, Guerrero, M.M., Guirao, P and Ros, C. 2002. Alternatives to methyl bromide in sweet 

pepper crops in Spain. Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl 

Bromide. 5-8 March 2002. Sevilla. Office for Official Publications of the European 

Commission, Luxembourg. 

Legard, D. Commentary from California Strawberry Commission. Issues limiting the use of 

alternative fumigants in California strawberry fruit production. 

Lopez-Aranda J.M., Miranda L., Romero F., de Los Santos B., Soria C., Medine J.J., Montes F., 

Vega J.M., Paez J.I., Bascon J., Martinez-Treceno A., Garcia-Sinovas D., Garcia-Mendez 

E., Becerril M., de Cal A., Salto T., Martinez-Beringola M.L. and Melgarejo P. 2004. 

Main results on trials on methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry fruit and runners 

produced in Spain. Proc. 5th Int.Conf. on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 27-30 

September, Lisbon, Portugal. 

Martin, F.N. 2001. Management of pathogens associated with black root rot of strawberry. Proc. 

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 

Emissions Reductions. pp.46/1-46/4. 

Martin, F.N. 2003a. Alternative fumigants in strawberry production and the use of remote 

sensing. Proc. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.42/1-42/4. 

Martin, F.N. 2003b. Development of alternative strategies for management of soilborne 

pathogens currently controlled with methyl bromide. Annual Review of Phytopathology 

41, 325-350. 

Morales-Payan, J.P., Santos, B.M. and Stall, W.M. 1997. Competitive ability of eggplant 

(Solanum melongena) against purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) as influenced by 
92 October 2005 TEAP Report on 2005 CUNs: final Report

selected plant growth regulators. Proceedings of the Caribbean Food Crops Society. 33, 

430-434. 

Nelson, M., Rodriguez, L., Vander Mey, B., Lepez, G. and Norton, J. 2002. Results from the 

2001-02 USDA IR-4 MBA Field Trials in California Strawberries. Proc. Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reduction. pp.16/1-16/4. 

Noling, J.W. and Gilreath, J.P. 2004. Evaluations of chemical alternatives to methyl bromide for 

nematode control and tomato yield in field microplots. Proc. Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

pp.50/1-50/3. 

Norton, J.A. 2002. Review of potential methyl bromide alternatives (MBA) products under 

evaluation in minor crops by IR-4. Proc. Annual International Research Conference on 

Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.2/1-2/2. 

Norton, J.A. 2004. IR-4 methyl bromide alternatives (MBA) programs review. Proc. Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions. p.25/1-25/2. 

Norton, J, Gilreath, J and Nelson, M. 2002. 2000-01 IR-4 strawberry trial Chancey Farm, Dover. 

Porter I, Mattner S, Gounder R, Mann R, Banks J and Fraser P (2004a) Strawberry fruit 

production: summaries of alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation and trials in 

different geographic regions. Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to 

Methyl Bromide, September 27-30, Lisbon. Office for Official Publications of the 

European Commission, Luxembourg. 

Rabasse, J.M. 2004. Improved techniques for the application of metam sodium. Proceedings of 

International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. 

Lisbon. Office of Official Publications of the European Commission, Luxembourg. 

Rosskopf, E.N, Chellemi, D.O., Kokalis-Burelle, N. and Church, G.T. 2005. Alternatives to 

methyl bromide: A Florida perspective. APSnet. June 2005. American Phytopathological 

Society, St. Paul. 

Stall, W.M. and Gilreath, J.P. 2003. Weed control in tomato. IFAS Extension, University of 

Florida, Gainesville. 

Sydorovych, O, Safley, C.D., Poling, E.B., Ferguson, L.M., Fernandez, G.E., Brannen, P.M. and 

Louws, F.J. 2004. Economic evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry 

production. Proc. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.28/1-28/5 

Trout T. and Damodaran N. 2004. Adoption of methyl bromide alternatives by California 

strawberry growers. Proc. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.35/1-35/3.