# MONTREAL PROTOCOL

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE

THE OZONE LAYER



# UNEP

R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC 

# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# S EPTEMBER 

# 2009

E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2009 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR 

# M ETHYL


# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT

# ii September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# UNEP

S EPTEMBER 

# 2009 R EPORT OF THE


# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC


# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2009 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR


# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# iii Montreal Protocol On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer



# Report of the UNEP Technology and Econom ic Assessment Panel

September 2009

E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2009 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR


# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



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

Co-ordination: Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee

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

Layout of the report: Ozone Secretariat, UNEP

Reproduction: UNON Nairobi

Date: September 2009

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

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

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

44 1438 748844

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

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

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

# iv September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# Disclaimer

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Co-Chairs and members, and the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) Co-Chairs and members, and the companies and organisations that employ them do not endorse the performance, worker safety , or environmental acceptability of any of the technical options discussed. Every industrial op eration requires consideration of worker safety and proper disposal of contaminants and waste products. Moreover, as work continues - including additional toxicity evaluation - more in formation on health, environmental and safety effects of alternatives and replacements will be come available for use in selecting among the options discussed in this document.

UNEP, TEAP Co-Chairs and members, and the MBTOC Co-Chairs and members, in furnishing or distributing this information, do not make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or utility; nor do they assume any liability of any kind whatsoever resulting from the use or reliance upon any information, material, or procedure contained herein, including but not li mited to any claims regarding health, safety, environmental effect or fate, efficacy, or performance, made by the source of information.

Mention of any company, association, or product in this document is for information purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation of any such company, association, or product, either express or implied by UNEP, TEAP Co -Chairs and members, and the MBTOC Co-Chairs and members or the companies or organisations that employ them.

Acknowledgement

The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee acknowledge with thanks the outstanding contributions fr om all of the individuals and organisations who provided support to Panel an d Committee Co-Chairs and members. Particular appreciation goes to Meg Seki, UNEP Senior Science Officer, for her technical and scientific support and her contribution to the report. The opinions expressed are those of the Panel and the Committee and do not reflect the reviews of any sponsoring or supporting organisation.



# Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee:

MBTOC Soils Co-Chairs : Ian Porter (Australia). Marta Pizano (Colombia), Mohamed Besri (Morocco) Members of MBTOC Soils : Antonio Bello (Spain); Aocheng Cao (China); Peter Caulkins (USA); Abraham Gamliel (Israel); Raquel Ghini (Brazil); George Lazarovits (Canada); Andrea Minuto (Italy); James Schaub (USA); Sa lly Schneider (USA); JL (Stappies) Staphorst (South Africa); Akio Tateya (Japan); Alejandro Valeiro (Argentina); Nick Vink (South Africa); Janny Vos (The Netherlands); Jim We lls (USA); Suat Yilmaz (Turkey)

MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities (QSC) Chair: Michelle Marcotte (Canada) Members of MBTOC QSC Jonathan Banks (Australia); Fred Bergwerff (Netherlands); Chris Bell (UK); Kathy Dalip (Belize); Ricardo Deang (P hilippines); Patrick Ducom (France); Alfredo Gonzalez (Philippines); Ken Glassey (New Zealand); Darka Hamel (Croatia); Takashi Misumi (Japan); David Okioga (Kenya); Christoph Reichm uth (Germany); Jordi Riudavets (Spain); John Sansone (USA); Robert Taylor (UK); Ken Vick (USA); Chris Watson (UK); and Eduardo Willink (Argentina).

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# v 

# S EPTEMBER 

# 2009 R EPORT OF THE


# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC


# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2009 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR


# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT

# vi September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# UNEP

S EPTEMBER 

# 2009 R EPORT OF THE


# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC


# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2009 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR 

# M ETHYL


# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT



# – S EPTEMBER 

# 2009

Common Acronyms

1,3-D 1,3-dichloropropene A5 Article 5 Party CUE Critical Use Exemption

CUN Critical Use Nomination

DOI Disclosure of Interest EC European Community EMOP Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPPO European Plant Protection Organisation

IM Iodomethane IPM Integrated Pest Management

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention ISPM International Standard Phytosanitary Measure LPBF Low Permeability Barrier Film (including VIF films) MB Methyl Bromide MBTOC Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee MBTOC QSC Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee Quarantine, Structures

and Commodities Subcommittee MBTOC S Methyl Bromide Technical Options Soils Subcommittee

MDI Metered Dose Inhalers MITC Methyl isothiocyanate MOP Meeting of the Parties

MS Metham sodium OEWG Open Ended Working Group Pic Chloropicrin QPS Quarantine and Pre-shipment SF Sulfuryl fluoride TEAP Technology and Economics Assessment Panel

USA United States of America VIF Virtually Impermeable Film VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

2.1. M ANDATE



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

2.2. F ULFILMENT OF 

# D ECISION 

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

2.3. C ONSIDERATION OF 

# S TOCKS



# - D ECISION 

# E X 

# .1/4 (9 F 

# )...............................................................4

2.3.1. Stocks ......................................................................................................................... ..........6

2.4. R EPORTING OF 

# MB C ONSUMPTION FOR 

# C RITICAL 

# U SE



# - D ECISION 

# XVII/9 ............................6

2.5 T RENDS IN 

# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE 

# U SE FOR 

# CUE S SINCE 

# 2005.....................................................6

2.6. E VALUATIONS OF 

# CUN S



# – 2009 ROUND FOR 

# 2010 AND 

# 2011 EXEMPTIONS 

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

2.7. D ISCLOSURE OF 

# I NTEREST 

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



# 3. MBTOC SOILS: FINAL EVALUATIONS OF 2009 CRITICAL USE

NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE.................................................................13

3.1 S UMMARY OF OUTCOMES 

# .......................................................................................................13

3.2. I SSUES RELATED TO 

# CUN A SSESSMENT FOR 

# P REPLANT 

# S OIL 

# U SE 

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

3.2.1. Registration of alternatives for preplant uses - Decision Ex I/4 (9i) and (9j).................16

3.2.2. Update on rates of adoption of alternatives for preplant uses - Decision XIX/9 ............17

3.2.3. Sustainable alternatives for prepl ant uses........................................................................18

3.2.4. Frequency of allowed MB use for preplant uses ..............................................................18

3.3. S TANDARD PRESUMPTIONS USED IN ASSESSMENT OF NOMINATED QUANTITIES 

# . ...................19

3.4. A DJUSTMENTS FOR STANDARD DOSAGE RATES USING 

# MB/P IC FORMULATIONS 

# ...................21

3.5. U SE 

# /E MISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES



# - L OW PERMEABILITY BARRIER FILMS AND

DOSAGE REDUCTION 

# ..............................................................................................................................2 2



# 4. FINAL REPORT – ISSUES SPECIFIC TO MBTOC QUARANTINE, STRUCTURES

AND COMMODITIES.......................................................................................................45

Details of evaluations ......................................................................................................... .............46



# 5. REFERENCES....................................................................................................................6 1

6. MBTOC WORK PLAN FOR 2010 ...................................................................................71

6.1 I NTRODUCTION 

# ........................................................................................................................71

6.2 MBTOC W ORKPLAN FOR 

# 2010

- D ETAILS 

# .............................................................................71



# 7. SUMMARY REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY MBTOC

IN 2009 ........................................................................................................................ .........73

ANNEX 1. DECISION IX/6..................................................................................................74

ANNEX II. DECISION XVI/4..............................................................................................75

ANNEX III. RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF MB/PIC FORMULATIONS

APPLIED IN COMBINATION WITH LOW PERMEABILITY BARRIER FILMS (LPBF) COMPARED TO THE COMMERCIAL STANDARD MB/PIC

FORMULATION APPLIED UNDER STANDARD LOW DENSITY POLYETHYLENE FILMS (LDPF)..................................................................................76

ANNEX IV PART A: TREND IN PREPLANT SOIL APPLICATIONS........................79

ANNEX IV– PART B: TRENDS IN POST-HARVEST STRUCTURAL AND

COMMODITY APPLICATIONS ........................................................................................82

ANNEX VII. DISCLOSURE AND MEMBERS OF MBTOC COMMITTEES ..............84

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 1 

# 1. Scope of the Report

This 2009 final report provides evaluations by MBTOC of CUNs submitted for methyl bromide (MB) in 2010 and 2011 by Parties in accordance with Decision IX/6 (Annex I). CUNs were submitted to the Ozone Secretariat by the Parties, in accordance with the timetable set out in the Annex I referred to by Decision XVI/4 (Annex II of this report).

This final report also provides informat ion from Parties on stocks (Decision Ex.1/4 (9f)), an update on registration issues affecti ng availability of altern atives for preplant and post harvest uses (Decision Ex. 1/4 (9i) and (9j)), partial information on actual MB consumption for critical uses (Decis ion XVII/9), apparent adoption rates of alternatives, as evidenced by trend lines on reduction of MB CUNs (Decisions XIX/9, XX/5), and consideration of national, sub national and local regulations and law on the use of MB alternatives (Decision XX/5). It is noted that trend lines on adoption do not necessarily indicate true adoption rates for alternatives, because the use of stocks of MB may be available to the same sector or areas of production may have fallen within the sector due to a range of circumstances.

Standard presumptions used in the 2009 round were the same as those used in the 2008 round. MBTOC Soils (MBTOC S) conducted a review of commercial use rates in countries for preplant soils use in Marc h 2009. This review confirmed that most actual MB rates presently used commercially in sectors conformed with the present standard presumptions, unless CUNs identified regulations which required different rates. MBTOC S has updated references to s ubstantiate its standard presumptions for MB dosage rates (Annex III). These standard presumptions are subject to continual review, however any changes as required in Annex 1, MOP16 are to be notified to the Parties at the MOP preceding the year of assessment .

MBTOC Soils (MBTOC S) has initial res ponsibility for the pre-plant uses and alternatives of methyl bromide. MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities (MBTOC QSC) has initial responsibility for issues concerning methyl bromide uses and alternatives for quarantine, pre-shipme nt, structural and commodity treatments. Evaluations of CUNs for the two categories are reported separately below. Outcomes from deliberations by the two MBTOC subcommittees were discussed and vetted via electronic communication and each member asked to provide consensus on the final recommendation. Recommendations made by MBTOC S were circulated to MBTOC QSC and vice versa, as part of the process of reaching consensus within the whole

committee.

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 3 

# 2. Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide

2.1. Mandate

Under Article 2H of the Montreal Protoc ol the production and consumption (defined as production plus imports minus exports) of MB is to be phased out in Parties not operating under Article 5(1) of the Protocol , by 1 January 2005. However, the Parties agreed to a provision enabling exemptions for those uses of MB that qualify as

critical. Parties establishe d criteria, under Decision IX/6 of the Protocol, which all such uses need to meet in order to be granted an exemption. TEAP and its MBTOC provide guidance to the Parties’ decisions on critical use exemptions in accordance

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

2.2. Fulfilment of Decision IX/6

Decision XVI/2 directed MBTOC to indicate whether all CUNs fully met the requirements of Decision IX/6. When the requirements of Decision IX/6 were met,

MBTOC recommended the full amount of the nomination. Where some of the conditions were not fully met, MBTOC recommended a decreased amount depending

on its technical and economic evaluation. The full text for Decision IX/6 can be

found in Annex I at the end of this document. MBTOC reduced a nomination when a technical alternative was considered effective or, in a few cases, when the Party failed

to show that it was not effective. In this round of CUNs, as in previous rounds, MBTOC considered all information provided by the Parties, including answers to questions requested by MBTOC, up to the date of the assessment.

MBTOC has again encountered difficulty in the assessment of some nominations for MB use on soils when yield losses presented in some nominations differ markedly from those reported in a large number of studies in similar circumstances and are not substantiated by recent references. This is important for economic assessments where several comparisons with alternatives are based on data from studies conducted many years ago, (some on different crops e.g. tomato for eggplant CUNs) and these may not

account for data with the new alternat ives and new application methods for

established alternatives.

Now that technically effective alternatives have been identified for most applications, regulations on the use of these alternatives and comparative information on the economic feasibility/infeasibility of their use compared to MB are critical to the outcomes of present and future CUNs. Without this information, further CUNs may not be assessable, as MBTOC will be unable to analyse the impact of national, subnational and local regulations and law as required in Decision XX/5. In some cases, MBTOC has proposed existing commercially and economically feasible alternatives and potential research and regulatory issues to Parties that could assist the phase out of MB.

In paragraph 20 of Annex 1 referred to in Decision XVI/4, Parties, inter alia, specifically requested that, in cases where a nomination relies on the economic criteria of Decision IX/6, MBTOC’s report should e xplicitly state the central basis for the Parties economic argument relating to CUNs.

# 4 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

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

One criterion for granting a critical use under Decision IX/6 is that methyl bromide for the use “is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide” (para. 1 (b) (ii)). Parties nominating critical use exemptions are requested under decision Ex.I/4(9f) to submit an accounting

framework with the information on stocks. Since the consideration of stocks is an active area of negotiation for the Parties, MBTOC has not made an adjustment to a

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

In accordance with Decision XVIII/13(7), a summary of the data on stocks reported by the Parties from 2006 to 2009 for the preceding year and summarized in Table 2.1 to 2.4 below. Parties may wish to consider this information in the light of Decision IX/6 1(b)(ii).

Efficient functioning of commerce requires a certain level of “pipeline” stocks and additional stocks to respond to emergencie s. Additionally, stocks may be held on behalf of other Parties. It is unclear whether reported stocks below fully cover the stocks held for exempt uses for QPS and feedstocks. The correct or optimal level of stocks for virtually every input to production is not zero.

Table 2.1. Quantities of MB (metric tonnes) ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2005, as reported by Parties in 2007 under Decision XVI/6.

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

authorized by MOP for

2005 Amount on

hand at

start of

2005 Quantity Acquired for

CUEs in 2005 (production +imports) Amount

available

for use in

2005 Quantity

used

for CUEs in

2005 Amount

on hand

at the

end of

2005

Australia 146.6 0 114.912 114.912 114.912 0

Canada 61.792 0 48.858 48.858 45.146 3.712

EC 4 392.812 216.198 2 435.3 19 2 651.517 2 530.099 121.023

Israel 1 089.306 16.358 1 072.35 1 088.708 1 088.708 0 Japan 748 0 594.995 594.995 546.861 48.134

New

Zealand 50 6.9 40.5 47.4 44.58 2.81

USA(a) 9 552.879 7 613 not reported 7 170 443
(a) Additional information on stocks was reported on US EPA website, September 2006: Methyl bromide inventory held by USA companies: 2004 = 12,994 tonnes; 2005 = 9,974 tonnes.

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 5 Table 2.2 Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2006, as reported by Parties in 2007/2008 under Decision XVI/6.

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

authorized by MOP for

2006 Amount on

hand at

start of

2006 Quantity acquired for

CUEs in 2006 (production + imports) Amount

available

for use in

2006 Quantity

used for

CUEs in

2006 Amount

at the end

of 2006

Australia 75.1 0 55.308 55.308 0

Canada 53.897 3.713 41.969 45.682 44.114 1.568

EC 3 536.755 114.953 1 462.7 47 1 577.700 1 558.557 19.114

Israel 880.29 0 840.6 840.6 840.6 0 Japan 741.4 70.735 488.81 559.545 540.207 19.338 USA 8 081.753 9 974(a) 443(b) 6 924 16 898 6 425 8 170(c)

(a) Amount of pre-2005 stock on hand. (b) Amount of stocks at the end of 2005 from production/im ports specifically made for CUEs (acquired in 2005). (c) The sum of 499 tonnes of stocks produced/imported in 2006 specifically for CUEs, plus 7,671 tonnes stocks acquired pre-2005.



# Table 2.3 Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2007, as reported by Parties in 2008 under Decision XVI/6.

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

authorized by MOP for

2007 Amount on

hand at

start of

2007 Quantity Acquired for

CUEs in 2007 (production +imports) Amount

available

for use in

2007 Quantity

used

for CUEs in

2007 Amount

on hand

at the

end of

2007

Australia 48.553 0 45.832 45.832 45.832 0

Canada 52.874 0.897 38.073 38.970 38.622 0.348

EC 689.142 31.635 484.842 516.477 508.031 8.446

Israel 966.465 0 940.675 940.675 750.225 190.45 Japan 636.172 23.417 479.290 502.707 485.113 17.594 USA 6 749 7 671(a) 4 314 11 985 4 269 6 503(b)
(a) Amount of pre-2005 stocks 

# (b) The sum of 45 tonnes of stocks produced/imported in 2007 specifically for CUEs, plus 6,458 tonnes stocks acquired pre-2005.



# Table 2.4 Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2008, as reported by Parties in 2009 under Decision XVI/6.

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

authorized by MOP for

2008 Amount on

hand at

start of

2008 Quantity Acquired for

CUEs in 2008 (production +imports) Amount

available

for use in

2008 Quantity

used

for CUEs in

2008 Amount

on hand

at the

end of

2008

Australia 48.450 0 41.037 41.037 41.037 0

Canada 42.19 0.348 32.937 33.285 31.281 1.997

EC 245.146 6.409 206.146 212.555 212.463 0.092

Israel d 

# 2.112 0 1.700 1.700 1.700 0 Japan 443.775 24.467 392.994 417.461 409.937 7.524

USA 5 336 1 730 6458(a) 3 036 9464 4 083 5381(b) 269(c)
(a) Amount of pre-2005 stocks 

# (b ) Includes the pre-2005 stocks (c). Amount of unused allocation for CUEs which will be reduced from following years production (d) Only post harvest uses were provided in the accounting framework

# 6 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 2.3.1. Stocks

TEAP notes that the amount of MB stocks held by the US is now substantially greater than the total critical use allocation in a gi ven year. In 2006, the US predicted that pre 2005 stocks for preplant soil uses would be exhausted by 2009, yet a major proportion of the pre 2005 stocks are still available. TEAP notes that the US has made

allowances for some of the use of these stocks as critical allowances for CUNs and suggests that Parties may wish to seek clar ification on how the remaining stocks will be apportioned.

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

Decision XVII/9(10) of the 17 th 

# MOP requests TEAP and its MBTOC to “report for 2005 and annually thereafter, for each agreed critical use category, the amount of methyl bromide nominated by a Party, the amount of the agreed critical use and

either:

(a) The amount licensed, permitted or authorised; or (b) The amount used”

Since the start of the CUN reviews in 2003, MBTOC has provided the amounts of MB nominated and agreed for each critical use (Annexes VI and VII). Not all Parties supply data under Table 2 of the accounting framework, set out on p. 65 of the Handbook on Critical Use Nominations (version 6 of December 2007). Data reported here for (a) and (b) abov e is thus incomplete.

Tables and figures in this report (Table 3- 4, Figures 3-1 and 3-2) show the nominated MB amounts and the apparent rate of reduc tion in MB or adoption of alternatives achieved by Parties. It should be noted th at for those countries that have pre-2005 stocks of MB that are being drawn down, the reductions in CUEs from year to year cannot be taken directly as evidence of alternative adoption since pre-2005 stocks may have been sold into the same sectors. Table 14-5 in particular shows the amounts nominated and approved for ‘Critical Use’ in 2009 and 2010.

2.5 Trends in Methyl Bromide Use for CUEs since 2005

As part of the requirements of Decision XVII/9 trends in phase out by Parties are shown below. Since 2005, there has been a progressive trend by all Parties to reduce their nominations for consumption for preplant soil uses and post harvest uses, although this has occurred at different rates. Figs 3.1 and 3.2 show the trends in the reduction in amounts approved/nominated by Parties for ‘Critical Use’ from 2005 to 2011 for some key uses. The complete trends in phase out of MB by country, as indicated by change in CUE, are shown in Annexes V and VI.

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 7 Figure 2.1. Amounts of MB exempted for CUE uses in preplant soil industries from 2005 to 2011. Solid lines indicate th e trend in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indicate quantity of methyl bromide nominated by the Parties in either 2010 or

2011.

Orchard Replant

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Yearmetric tonnes



# France

USA 

# Peppers and Eggplant

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

2005 2006 2007 2008 20 09 2010



# Yearsmetric tonnes 

# Belgium

France

Italy

Japan

Spain

USA Strawberry Fruit

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Yearmetric tonnes 

# Australia

France

Israel

Italy

New Zealand

Spain

UK

USA 

# Tomatoes

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Yearmetric tonnes 

# Belgiu m

Greece

Italy

USA 

# Cucurbits and Melons

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011



# Yearmetric tonnes 

# France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Japan

USA 

# Cutflowers

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011



# Yearmetric tonnes 

# Australia

Belgium

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Portugal

Spain

USA

# 8 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# Figure 2.2. Amounts of MB exempted for CUE uses in mills and food processing facilities from 2005 to 2011. Solid line s indicate trend in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indicate quantity of methyl bromide nominated by the Party in either

2010 or 2011.

Food Processing and M ills

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Yearmetric tonnes 

# Belgium

Canada

France

Germany

Greece

Israel

Italy

UK

USASeptember 2009 TEAP Report on2009 CUNs: Final Report9Table 2.5. Summary of Critical Use Nomination and Exempted Amounts of MB (2005- 2011) Granted by Parties and finalRecommendations for CUEs for 2010 and 2011. (Note: A breakdownof CUN and CUE amounts by sector is given in Annex IV)QUANTITIES NOMINATEDQUANTITIES APPROVEDQuantitiesRecommended inthis RoundPARTY2005 2006 2007 20082009201020112005(1ExMOPand16MOP)2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)2007(17MOP+18MOP)2008(18MOP+19MOP)2009(19MOP)2010(20MOP)2010*2011*Australia 206.950 81.250 52.145 52.900 38.990 37.610 35.450 146.600 75.100 48.517 48.450 37.610 36.440 0 28.710Canada 61.992 53.897 46.745 42.241 39.115 35.080 19.368 61.792 53.897 52.874 36.112 39.020 30.340 3.529 19.368EuropeanCommunity15754.361 4213.47 1239.873 245.00 0 0 0 4392.812 3536.755 689.142 245.146 0 0 0 0Israel 1117.156 1081.506 1236.517 952.845 699.448 383.700 * 1089.306 880.295 966.715 860.580 610.854 * 290.914 *Japan 748.000 741.400 651.700 589.600 508.900 288.500 249.420 748.000 741.400 636.172 443.775 305.380 267.000 239.746NewZealand53.085 53.085 32.573 0 0 0 0 50.000 42.000 18.234 0 0 0 0 0Switzerland 8.700 7.000 0 0 0 0 0 8.700 7.000 0 0 0 0 0 0USA 10753.997 9386.229 7417.999 6415.153 4958.034 3299.4902388.1289552.879 8081.753 6749.060 5355.976 4261.974 3232.856 2.018 2055.200TOTALS 18704.241 15617.837 10677.552 8297.739 6244.487 4044.3802692.366 16050.08913418.200 9160.714 6990.039 5,254.838 3566.636 296.461 2341.533* Not yet available.1Members of the European Community which had CUNs/CUEs included:2005 – Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.2006 – Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.2007 – France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom2008 – Poland, Spain

# 10 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 2.6. Evaluations of CUNs – 2009 round for 2010 and 2011 exemptions

In considering the CUNs submitted in 2009, as previously, both MBTOC subcommittees applied the standards containe d in Annex I of the final report of 16 MOP, and, where relevant, the standard presumptions given below. In particular MBTOC sought to provide consistent treatme nt of CUNs within and between Parties while at the same time taking local circumstances into consideration. The CUN assessment in 2009 was also conducted as required by the time schedule for considerations of CUNs given in Annex I referred to in Decision XVI/4. This Annex contains a work schedule for MBTOC, which envisions up to two meetings per year to

make CUN evaluations. The schedule fu rther allows MBTOC to seek further information from Parties and for Parties to pr ovide further information in response to MBTOCs interim recommendations made during the first meeting.

CUNs assessed in this report re late to CUEs sought for 2010 and 2011. No nominations in this particular round were initially su bmitted for longer periods, however the US Party revised one nomination for preplant soil use after the 29 OEWG and sought an MB exemption for 2010, 2011 and 2012 as part of an action plan developed by the Party for phase out of MB by 2013 for that specific CUN.

In total, two Parties (Israel and Canada) submitted nominations for 2010 and four Parties (Australia, Canada, Japan, and the USA) submitted nominations for 2011. Israel submitted a nomination for preplant soil use of MB for broomrape eradication in polyhouses, which had not been applied for in the previous rounds, but has been applied for in open fields. The total number of nominations submitted has been reduced from 42 nominations submitted by five Parties in the 2008 round to 36 for the present round. During the 29 OEWG, Japan confirmed its intention to phase out all preplant soil uses of MB by 2013.

Owing to the limited number of CUNs requiring reassessment, both subcommittees of

MBTOC conducted their reevaluation of CUNs by email communication from July to September, using new information provided by Parties at the 29 th 

# OEWG and later. The

review of information and the consensus decisions were made in subcommittees. Outcomes from deliberations by the two MBTOC subcommittees were discussed and vetted further via electronic communication. Recommendations made by MBTOC S were circulated to MBTOC QSC and vice versa, as part of the process of reaching

consensus within the whole committee. Unle ss otherwise indicated, the most recent CUE approved by the Parties for a particular CUN was used as baseline for consideration of continuing nominations.

In general, CUNs resulted mainly from the following issues: regulatory restrictions on alternatives, scale-up of alternatives, technica l efficacy of alternatives, economic issues and, to a much smaller degree, the technical unavailability of alternatives. For the most part, technical alternatives exist. Additionally, MBTOC notes that some Parties continue to struggle with the ability to adapt previously identified alternatives to their circumstances, within their definition of economic feasibility.

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 11 2.7. Disclosure of Interest

As in the past, all MBTOC members have prepared disclosure of interest forms relating specifically to their level of national, regional or enterprise involvement for the 2009 CUN process, according to a standardised format developed by TEAP. The Disclosure

of Interest declarations are found in Annex VII at the end of this report. As in previous rounds, some members withdrew from a particular CUN assessment or only provided technical advice on request for those nominati ons where a potential conflict of interest

was declared.

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 13 

# 3. MBTOC Soils: Final Evaluations of 2009 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide

3.1 Summary of outcomes

In the 2009 round, 27 CUNs were submitted for soil uses, 9 for 2010 and 18 for 2011. During its first meeting of the year held in Agadir, Morocco (20-24 April, 2009), Parties requested 382.140 tonnes for 2010 and 2,500.814 tonnes for 2011. At this meeting,

interim recommendations were made on a ll nominations totaling 289.874 tonnes for 2010 and 2,154.467 tonnes for 2011 (Table 3.3).

After the 29 OEWG, two Parties, Australia and USA, requested the subcommittee to consider further information relating to th eir nominations and some recommendations were changed in light of the new or additional information supplied. In its final assessment, MBTOC-S has recommended a further 2.018 tonnes for 2010 and 1.346 tonnes for 2011 for US strawberry runners respectively and 1.490 tonnes for the Australian strawberry runners. No change was made to the interim recommendation for the other 6 CUNs where Parties requeste d reevaluation.(Table 3.1). The final

recommendation for 2010 was 291.892 tonnes and for 2010 was 2157.303 tonnes (Table 3.2).

Table 3.1. Changes occurring to nominated and recommended amounts of MB for preplant soil uses after the May 2008 interim report.

Final MBTOC

recommendation Party CUN Initial

nominati on by

the Party Interim

MBTOC

recommenda

tion Revised

nomination by the Party

after the

29 th 

# OEWG* 2010 2011

Australia Strawberry

runners 29.790 22.350 29.790 23.840

TOTAL 29.790 22.350 29.790 23.840

Cucurbits a 

# 218.032 195.698 218.032 195.698 Eggplant a 

# 21.561 19.725 21.561 19.725

Forest

Nurseries 106.043 93.547 106.043 93.547

Peppers a 

# 212.775 206.234 212.775 206.234 Strawberry

fruit a 

# 1023.471 812.709 1023.471 812.709

Strawberry

runners* 7.381 4.690 7.381 2.018 6.0355 United

States

Tomatoes a 

# 336.191 292.751 336.191 292.751

TOTAL 1925.454 1625.354 1925.454 2.018 1626.700

* At the OEWG, the US delegation presented an action plan for phase out of MB for strawberry runners in the SE Region. The plan described an action plan to phase out by 2013 with the following schedule - 25% reduction of 2.69 t in 2010, 50% reduction in 2011 and 75% in 2012. a 

# - Recommended amounts did not change as dosage rates considered effective for application and conformed to standard presumptions.

# 14 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# In the 2009 round, MBTOC has sometimes suggested quantities of MB for 2010 or 2011 different from those nominated. Grounds used for these changes are given in detail after the relevant CUNs in Table 3.7. The adjustments follow the standard presumptions given in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 below, unless indicated otherwise. MBTOC recommended a greater transition rate for several nominations as it considers alternatives are available and can be adopted for a larger portion of the nomination by 2010 or 2011 than those indicated by the Party. MBTOC acknowledged the reduction schedule put forward in the Japanese Action Plan in 2009, however considered that

further reductions were feasib le and made modest reductions in order to assist Japan meet its phase out by 2013. For some nominations, MBTOC adjusted for revised standard MB dosage rates (as presented at 19 th 

# MOP) for vegetables, strawberries and strawberry runners, where either data from re search trials (often within the CUN) had provided information to support the dose rate or where commercial use rates supported the presumptions. MBTOC S did not accept the high MB dosage rates requested by the Australian runner industry and se veral sectors in the USA and maintained the standard presumptions for dosage rates for use with barrier films and MB/Pic formulations provided to the 19 th 

# MOP.

As in previous assessments, MBTOC evaluation of CUNs for preplant soil use used adoption in regions with similar climatic zone and cropping practices as an indication of the feasibility (technical and economic) for adoption of an alternative to a similar

sector.

Table 3. 2 Summary of MBTOC S final recommendations for 2010 and 2011 by country for CUNs received in 2009 for preplant soil use of MB (tonnes)

CUE approved at 20 th



# MOP CUN submitted for MBTOC-S final

recommendation in

2009 round Country

2009 2010 2010 2011 2010 2011

Australia 29.790 29.790 23.840

Canada 7.462 7.462 5.261

Israel 608.454 382.140 289.874
Japan 261.600 244.070 234.396

USA* 2998.948 2.018 2,222.039 2.018 1,893.806
Total 608.454 3297.800 384.158 2,500.814 291.892 2,157.303
* The number shown is the revised nomination by USA after the 29 th 

# OEWG.

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 15 Table 3.3 Summary of the amounts approved by Parties at 19 th 

# MOP for 2010, and amounts recommended by MBTOC S (in square brackets) for CUE’s for preplant uses of MB (tonnes) by sector for 2010 and 2011 submitted in the 2009 round.

3.2. Issues related to CUN Assessment for Preplant Soil Use

In general, CUNs for preplant soil use of MB resulted mainly from the following issues: regulatory restrictions on one or two specif ic alternatives, adoption times to implement alternatives, and economic infeasibility of some key technical alternatives, such as the use of methods which avoid the need for MB, i.e. use of grafted plants.

Key issues which assisted MB reductions and also affected the need for MB in the 2009 round were i) uptake and commercial adoption of methyl iodide (iodomethane) in the Years Country and Sector 2010 2011

1. Australia

1. Strawberry runners 29.790 [23.840]

2. Canada

1. Strawberry runners 7.462 [5.261]

3. Israel

1. Broomrape protected

2. Cucumber 3. Cut flowers & bulbs protected 4. Cut flowers open field 5. Melon protected & open field 6. Strawberry fruit - Sharon and Gaza

7. Strawberry runners - Sharon and Gaza 8. Sweet potatoes

TOTAL [12.500] [15.973] [63.464] [28.554] [70.000] [57.063] [22.320] [20.000] [289.874] ----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

4. Japan

1. Cucumber 2. Ginger open field 3. Ginger protected

4. Melon 5. Pepper green & hot

6. Watermelon

TOTAL -

-

-

-

-

- 261.600 [27.621] [47.450] [7.036] [73.548] [65.691] [13.050] [234.396]

5. USA

1. Cucurbits 2. Eggplants (field) 3. Forestry nursery 4. Nurseries stock: fruits, nuts & flowers 5. Orchard replant

6. Ornamentals 7. Pepper (field) 8. Strawberry (field) 9. Strawberry runners 10. Sweet potatoes 11. Tomatoes (field)

TOTAL -

-

-

-

-

-

-

- [2.018]

-

- 2,998.948 + [2.018] [195.698] [19.725] [93.547] [7.955] [183.232] [64.307] [206.234] [812.709] [4.690] + [1.346] [11.612] [292.751] [1893.806]

# 16 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# southeast of USA where use with barrier fi lms has improved its performance and cost effectiveness, ii) regulations on key alternatives, particularly 1,3-D township caps and buffer zones on 1,3-D, metham sodium and Pic used alone or in mixtures (iii) restrictions on use of high rates of Pic (greater than 200 kg/ha (20 g/m 2 

# )) in some counties of California, iv) lack of effective alternative controls for nutsedge, and v) lack of studies in specific sectors i.e. orchard replant.

Unusually large buffer zone restrictions on fu migant alternatives, particularly limit their adoption, especially in Israel. MBTOC urges Parties to consider review of these regulations in view of the ability of barrier films to reduce dose rates of MB and

alternatives and associated emissions. As in the previous round, Parties have found alternatives more difficult to adopt for pr opagation materials, such as strawberry runners and nurseries, however the lack of research studies provided with CUNs has

also led to difficulties in assessment. MBTOC considers that several of these do not to fully satisfy the requirements of Decision IX/6 and urges Parties to increase studies in these sectors. The impact of current reviews of VOC emissions in California may also have a major impact on MB use and the us e of alternatives in California. in future nominations. In addition to the recent registration of MI in the USA, commercial registration is being sought in all other countries applying for CUEs for preplant soil of MB (Australia, Japan, Israel), except Canada.

MBTOC notes that a large proportion of MB has been nominated for uses where regulations or legislation prevent reductions of MB dosage. For many uses, the mandatory use of MB has been specified at a high dosage for either treatment of certified propagation material or because bans are imposed on the use of barrier films which otherwise could have reduced the MB dosage rate. Also regulations on the use of alternatives are preventing their uptake fo r a substantial proportion of the remaining CUNs for preplant soil use. MBTOC urges the Parties to align their local policies and regulations with internationally accepted methodologies and to allow use of MB alternatives that lie within the Montreal Protocol’s goals. To this effort, MBTOC acknowledges the granting of a permit in Canada which aligns the 20g/m 2 

# to MBTOCs

recommended rate with barrier films for this use. This enabled Canada to reduce the

2009 nomination.

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

Decision Ex. I/4 (9i) requires MBTOC “ To report annually on the status of reregistration and review of methyl bromide uses for the applications reflected in the critical-use exemptions, including any information on health effects and environmental acceptability” . Further, Decision Ex I/4 (9j) requires MBTOC “ To report annually on the status of registration of alternatives and substitutes for methyl bromide, with particular emphasis on possible regulatory actions that will increase or decrease dependence on methyl bromide”.

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) documents for use of MB, Pic, MS, and dazomet for preplant soil fumigation were completed in the USA on July 15, 2008. As an outcome, new safety measures such as buffer zones to protect bystanders, reduced application rates, health protection measures for workers are required in the RED. The mitigation required in the REDs will be implemented in two stages -- most of the measures not related to buffer zones will be implemented in 2010 with the buffer zones

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 17 being implemented in 2011. 1,3-D, which was included in the fumigant cluster for comparative purposes only, completed reregist ration in the U.S. in 1998, and no further mitigation is expected at this time.

The registration of formulations of a key altern ative, 1,3-D/Pic is uncertain in Israel. MI, a major alternative to MB, is now registered in all but three states in the United States (Registration is still pending in California, Washington and New York). The registration now includes the southeast region and Florida for field-grown ornamentals, peppers, strawberries and tomatoes and was expanded to include other crops in 2009, such as forest nurseries. Trials with MI continue being conducted in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, Morocco, South Africa, Israel, Italy, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Brazil, Mexico and Chile, and the registration process is proceeding in most other countries applying for CUEs beside other stat es in the USA, including Australia, Israel and Japan. To ensure that the mitigation meas ures for MI will be consistent with the measures being required for the other fumigants, the label requirements are presently being reexamined in the USA. 1,3-D/Pic, may be subject to similar provisions when the soil fumigants are evaluated together again in 2013.

The EC has further reported that registration for 1,3-D and other alternatives including chloropicrin, dazomet ande metham, sodium are under review. A grace period for the registration of 1,3-D became due on 20 March 2009, but its future registration is uncertain. Recognising the role of 1,3-D as an alternative to MB, and to achieve the objectives of the Montreal Protocol, this grace period may be extended by a further 18 months, pending a review to assess the concrete impact of its withdrawal on the use of MB. The manufacturer of 1,3-D has compiled a dossier of additional technical information and intends to apply for re-re gistration of 1,3-D under Directive 91/414 (Dow AgroSciences 2007)”. (EC Management Strategy, 2008).

A number of other chemicals which may be al ternatives to MB are being considered for impending registration in specific countries recently, including dimethyl disulphide (DMDS) in Europe and the USA .

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

As of the 2008 round, Decision XIX/9 para. 3 requests: ‘ the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to ensure that recent fi ndings with regard to the adoption rate of alternatives are annually updated and reported to the Parties in its first report of each year and inform the work of the Panel ’.

Technical alternatives exist for almost all uses requesting CUNs, but uptake of alternatives varies between countries, crops and the pest pressure. In general similar alternatives are being adopted by the same sectors throughout a number of countries, although the rate of adoption has varied depending on regulations on their use, differences in registration between countries and other market forces. In this round as in previous rounds of CUNs, MBTOC has reco gnised that time is needed to effect phase-in of alternatives and has accepted this as a reasonable technical argument for lack of availability to the end user sensu Decision IX/6.

Where possible, data is included in this report showing actual rates of adoption in key regions which have phased out MB recently. In particular, recent adoption data from

# 18 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# the EC Management Strategy (2008) has been included to shows rates of transition to alternatives by several sectors in the Member States (Appendix IV). In addition, past adoption rates of alternatives in many countri es is presented in previous Assessment Reports (MBTOC 2007). Figures 3.1 – 3.2 in this report show the apparent reduction rates for MB use achieved by many Parties in a number of key sectors. As noted above, true reduction and adoption rates may vary from the rate of change of CUN/CUE

because of factors such as use of stocks or transfer of approved MB between categories The CUN reviews presented in Table 3.7 also provide detail of some of the key

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

For several major preplant soil uses, adoptio n data from other regions has shown that where industries have previously been heavily dependent on MB, e.g. strawberries, tomatoes and other vegetable crops (e.g. Au stralia, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, New Zealand) almost complete adoption of alternative technologies (especially those requiring similar application te chnologies) has been achieved in a 3 to 4 year period. These regions have similar pests complexes to those requesting CUNs, but may have different regulatory issues. Possible adopti on rates for transition to alternatives for preplant soil uses have also been supplied recently by Japan in their National Action Plan. This plan indicates the expected rates of transition to alternatives to assist complete phase out of MB by 2013.

Further guidance from the Parties, giving expected rates of adoption of alternatives following registration, would assist MBTOC in evaluation of CUNs in future.

3.2.3. Sustainable alternatives for preplant uses

In a large proportion of CUNs, the most currently appropriate alternatives are chemical fumigant alternatives, which themselves, like MB, have issues related to their long term suitability for use. In both the EC and the USA in particular, MB and most other fumigants have been subjected to reviews that could affect future regulations over their use for preplant soil fumigation. For preplant soil uses of MB, the regulatory restrictions on 1,3-D and Pic are preventing further adoption of these products in the USA, particularly California and this is putting pressure on industries to retain MB.

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

and non-chemical alternatives for the short to medium term and to develop sustainable IPM or non-chemical approaches for the longer term. Decision IX/6 1(a)(ii) refers to alternatives that are ‘acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health’. MBTOC has consistently interpreted this to mean alternatives that are registered or allowed by the relevant regulatory authorities in individual CUN regions, without

reference to su stainability.

3.2.4. Frequency of allowed MB use for preplant uses

In the CUN round for 2009, reductions in MB fo r preplant (soil) uses could be achieved in some nominations, where alternatives were effective, by reducing the frequency of MB fumigations. Instead of all fumigation being made with MB, potential exists to reduce frequency by rotation with other methods (i.e. fumigants) in order to reduce MB

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 19 use to every 2 nd 

# or 3 rd 

# year. In some production systems, MB is already used only every

3 rd 

# or 4 th 

# year as a result of uptake of alternative strategies and crop rotations. MBTOC S urges Parties to consider reduced frequenc y of MB use by rotation with alternatives for remaining CUN uses where possible.

3.3. Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities.

The tables below (Tables 3.4 and 3.5) provi de the standard presumptions applied by MBTOC Soils for this round of CUNs. These standard presumptions were first proposed in the MBTOC report of October 2005 and were presented to the Parties at

17 th 

# MOP. Studies and reports to support them appear in Annex III. They were revised for some sectors after consideration by the Parties at the 19 th 

# MOP. The rates and practices adopted by MBTOC as standard presumptions are based on maximum rates considered acceptable by published literature and actual commercial practice. Actual dosage rate of MB in MB/Pic formulations is shown in Table 3.6 below.

As in the evaluations in previous years, MB TOC considered reductions to quantities of MB in particular nominations to a standa rd rate per treated area where technical evidence supported its use (see Annex III). MBTOC considered the maximum MB application rate for 98% MB to be either 250 or 350 kg/ha (25 or 35 g/m 2 

# ), in conjunction with low permeability barrier films (e.g., VIF, or equivalent) and totally impermeable films (TIF) combined with exte nded exposure periods. Several Parties have indicated that 250 kg/ha (25 g/m 2 

# ) of 98:2 were effectively used in standard commercial application for many sectors, especially on sandy soils. MBTOC considers

100% MB or 98:2 MB/Pic formulations on ly necessary for CUE uses where other MB/Pic formulations are not registered or where regulations prescribe their use.

In cases where use of high Pic-containing mixtures of MB/Pic (approximately 67:33 or 50:50 or lower) and barrier films are considered feasible, maximum dosage rates of either 150 or 175 kg MB/ha (15.0-17.5 g/m 2 

# ) where nutsedge is the key pest and 125 or 150 kg/ha (12.5-15.0 g/m 2 

# ) for pathogens were considered for use as the maximum standard presumptions, unless there was a regulatory or technical reason indicated otherwise by the Party (see Table 4.4 below). MBTOC considers these dosage rates to give similar efficacy and yields at a simila r cost to higher dosage rates of MB/Pic with barrier films. As a special case, MBTOC accepted a maximum rate of 200 kg/ ha (20 g/m 2 

# ) with high Pic-containing mixtures with barrier films for certified nursery production, unless regulations prescribed higher rates. However, studies have indicated that rates of 200 kg/ha (20g/m 2 

# ) or less (Annex III) of MB : Pic 50:50 were effective with barrier films for production of ‘certified’ nursery material.

The indicative rates used by MBTOC were maximum guideline rates, for the purpose of calculation only. MBTOC recognises that the actual rate appropriate for a specific use may vary with local circumstances, soil cond itions and the target pest situation. Some

nominations were based on rates lowe r than these indicative rates.

During 2008, the US delegation indicated that they were not able to conform to dosage rates suggested by MBTOC for ve getables and strawberries at present (see Table 3.5) as they did not have enough trial information to confirm their use for specific circumstances. In view of this, MBTOC conducted a review of MB use rates being adopted across all Parties presently applying fo r CUNs including with the use of barrier

# 20 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# films in early 2009. In the case of the US, the growers interviewed in the south east region reported that their present use rates were below the standard presumptions when barrier films were used.(Schneider, pers comm.). Information from one source showed that a use rate of 7.5 g/m 2 

# which is significantly below MBTOC’s standard presumption with barrier film resulted in significant loss. MBTOC agreed this use rate was too low. One US state reported that 20% of the vegetable acres treated with MB in a single state had presently adopted barrier film and 80% of the acreage treated with methyl bromide used standard films. The average commercial use rate when barrier films was used was less than 11.0 g/m 2 

# . This rate is below the new presumptions of 12.5 g/m 2 

# for pathogens and 15 g/m 2 

# for nutsedge. MBTOC expects that there will be 100% adoption of barrier films by 2011 and has calculated CUN amounts based on use of barrier films.

At the 29 th 

# OEWG, the US Party requested a review of the dosage rates applied to

several nominations based on information from a metaanalysis they had conducted during 2009. Upon further consideration of this information, MBTOC did not consider there was sufficient evidence that higher dosage rates of MB were required with barrier films than specified in the standard presumptions for the specific circumstances and thus applied the revised standard presumptions (ie 12.5 g/m 2 

# for pathogens and 15.0 g/m 2 

# for nutsedge) in this round.

Table 3.4. Standard presumptions used in assessment of CUNs for the 2009 round –

soil treatments.

Comment CUN adjustment Exceptions

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

# with barrier films (VIF or equivalent);

for mixtures of MB/Pic are 12.5 to 17.5 g MB/m 2 

# for pathogens and nutsedge respectively, under barrier films depending on the sector. All rates are on a ‘per treated hectare’

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

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

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

reasons

3. MB/Pic

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

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

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

4. MB/Pic

Formulation: Weeds/nutsedge

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

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

5. Strip vs.

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

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

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 21 Table 3.5. Maximum dosage rates for preplant soil use of MB by sector used in the 2009 round (standard presumptions).

Maximum MB Dosage Rate (g/m 2 

# ) in MB/Pic mixtures (67:33, 50:50)

considered effective for: Film Type

Strawberries and Vegetables Nurseries* Orchard Replant Ornamentals

Barrier films -

Pathogens 12.5 15 15 15

Barrier films -

Nutsedge 15.0 17.5 17.5 17.5

No Barrier films – Pathogens 20 20 20 20

No Barrier films - Nut sedge 26 26 26 26



# * Maximum rate for non certified nursery stock



# 3.4. Adjustments for standard dosage rates using MB/Pic formulations

One key transitional strategy to reduce MB dosage has been the adoption of MB/Pic formulations with lower concentrations of MB (e.g. MB/Pic 50:50, 45:55 or less).

These formulations are considered to be e qually as effective in controlling soilborne pathogens as formulations containing higher quantities of MB (e.g. 98:2, 67:33) (e. g.

Porter et al ., 1997; Melgarejo et al ., 2001; López-Aranda et al ., 2003; Santos et al

., 2007; Hamill et al., 2004; Carey and Godbehere, 2004; Gilreath and Santos, 2005;

Hanson et al., 2006; Hanson et al. 2009). Where such formulations are registered or otherwise permitted, non-Article 5 countries have widely adopted formulations containing high proportions of Pic in mixtur es with MB to meet Montreal Protocol restrictions. Their use can be achieved with similar application machinery which allows co-injection of MB and Pic or by use of pr emixed formulations. Consistent performance has been demonstrated with both barrier and non barrier films. Parties are urged to consider even lower dosage rates of MB by modifying MB/Pic mixtures used and adoption of barrier films where regulations pe rmit as the basis for future CUNs. This includes rates as low as 75 kg/ha (7.5 g/m 2 

# ) in 250 kg/ha of 30:70 or 33:67 mixtures or 100 kg/ha (10 g/m 2 

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

barrier films as these have shown similar eff ectiveness to higher rates of MB in 67:33 MB /Pic and 335 to 800 kg/ha (33.5 to 80 g/m 2 

# ) of MB 98% with standard polyethylene.

# 22 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# Table 3.6. Actual dosage rates applied du ring preplant fumigation when different rates and formulations of methyl bromide/ch loropicrin mixtures are applied with and without barrier films. Rates of application reflect standard commercial applications

rates.

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

# ) Commercial application

rates of

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

A. With Standard Polyethylene Films

400 39.2 26.8 20.0 12.0

350 34.3 23.5 17.5 10.5

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

250 24.5 16.8 12.5 7.5

200 19.6 13.4 10.0* 6.0

175 17.2 11.8 8.8 5.3

* Note: Trials from 1996 to 2008 (A nnex III) show that a dosage of 10g/m 2 

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

# using standard PE films



# 3.5. Use/Emission reduction technologi es - Low permeability barrier films and dosage reduction

Decision IX/6 states in part that critical us es should be permitted only if ‘all technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimise the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide’. Decision Ex.II/1 also mentions emission minimization techniques, requesting Parties “...to ensure, wherever methyl bromide is authorized for critical-use exemptions, the use of emission minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable films, barrier film technologies, deep shank injection and/or other techniques that promote environmental protection, whenever technically and economically feasible.”

As in past rounds, MBTOC assessed CUNs where possible for reductions in MB application rates and deployment of MB emis sion reduction technologies, such as use of LPBF, including VIF and totally impermeable films (TIF), or other appropriate sealing and emission control techniques including d eep injection of MB, use of formulations with a lower proportion of MB and/ or reduced frequency of application.

The use of low permeability barrier films or other techniques, ensuring at least the same level of environmental protection, was compulsory in the 27 member countries of the European Union (EC Regulation 2037/2000) for MB before phaseout and currently for the alternative choropicrin in Italy and Spain for preplant soil uses. In other regions, LPBF films are considered technically feasible and large adoption has occurred, e.g. Israel and SE USA. In Florida the reported use of barrier films in vegetable crops has expanded to over 50,000 acres and it is also exclusively used with the alternative MI to assist its effectiveness at low dosage rates (Allan, pers. comm., 2008; Chism, pers.comm, 2009). Barrier films are consistently improving the performance of other alternatives at lower dosage rates. An exception to the adoption of barrier films is in the

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 23 State of California in the USA where a regulation currently prevents use of VIF with MB (California Code of Regulations Title 3 Section 6450(e)), but not with the alternatives. The regulation on MB has been set over concerns of possible worker exposure to MB when the film is removed or when seedlings are planted due to altered

flux rates of MB.24September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportTable 3.7. Final evaluations of CUNs for preplant soil use submitted in 2008 for 2010 or 2011Country Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)Australia Strawberryrunners35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 29.790 - - 29.79023.840MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 23.840 tonnes be approved for 2011. The reduction by MBTOC is based on adoption of thereduced rate for MB of 187.5 kg/ha 18.75 g/m2). The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi (Phytophthora, Pythium, Rhizoctonia, Verticilliumspp.) and weeds (S. arvensis, Agrostis tenuis, Raphanus spp., Poa annua, Cyperus spp). The CUN states that MB:Pic 50:50 at a MB dose of 25 g/m2is required tomeet certification standards. The Party’s request exceeds MBTOC’s standard presumption of 20 g/m2, but this rate continues to remain unregistered. The Partyindicates that the registration authority (APVMA) requires 2 years of trials before approving a reduced rate. The Party has however one years data indicating thatyields with reduced rates under barrier films, LDBF (MB:Pic 50:50 @ 375 kg/ha) provided similar yields to the currently registered standard of MB:Pic 50:50 @ 500kg/ha. The second year’s results will be available in August/September 2009. The Party has indicated that it is possible thatthe registration for the reduced rate ofMB:Pic will occur in time for use in 2011. The Party states that the most promising alternative, MI/Pic has been demonstrated in small scale trials to compare withthe efficacy to MB:Pic. Commercial scale-up trials are in progress and could lead to registration in 2011 or possibly beforehand. If MI:Pic is available, it would allowfor further reduction of the nomination. A key alternative,1,3-D:Pic, is considered ineffective due to phytotoxicity and doubling of plant back times in the heavy andwet soil conditions in the high elevation regions. The Party also indicates that the Victorian Strawberry Certification Authority (VSICA) completed the first year of a2-year development program for soil-less systems for production of foundation stock strawberry runners. Results indicated thatthe productivity of the soil-lesssystem is similar to the current method of production in MB:Pic fumigated soils, and the economics of the soil-less system compares favourably with the currentmethod of production. VSICA plans to establish a commercial facility by 2011 which, if successful, would eliminate VSICA’s need for MB for foundation stock in2011/2012. MBTOC encourages the Party to (1) expedite the registration of MI/PIC and EDN (Mattner et al, 2008) and (2) implement to the greatest extenteconomically feasible the use of soil-less systems for the production of foundation stock strawberry runners. Upon reevaluation, MBTOC took account of the recenttrial information which showed that the reduced dosage of MB/Pic at 17.5 g/m2with standard films was not as effective as higher doses, however notes that thiswas for one cultivar and without barrier films. Other studies show that a rate of 20g/m2 of MB in mixtures of MB (MB/Pic 50:50) at 400 kg/ha is effective fornurseries when barrier films are used and MBTOC has calculated the recommendation on this basis. Even without barrier films, the 20 g/m2dose rate is provingeffective. MBTOC recognizes that a label change or a permit may need to be obtained for use of the lower dosage rates (20g/m2), and has based itsrecommendation on this outcome.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.CUN states that “...the first of atwo year trial that evaluatesthe economic and biological feasibility of production of foundation stock by soil-less systems was completed this year”. It compared productivity with the status quosystem of production in MB:Pic treated soil in insect proof cages. Results confirm the potential of the soil-less system are being used to design the second season’strial to be established in November 08.” They conclude that “The economics of the system compare favourably with the current methods of production.”September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report25Country Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)Canada Strawberryrunners(PEI)6.840 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 7.462 - - 5.261 5.261MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends 5.261 tonnes for this use in 2011. The CUN for 2011 is based on a reduced rate for MB of 20 g/m2and MBTOCacknowledges the Party’s reduction in the absence of formal registration for this dose rate. The Party has attempted to replaceMB with1,3-D, but it was banned foruse in Prince Edward Island in January 2003 due to ground water contamination. PIC 100 has been registered by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency(PMRA) but the PEI authorities have denied a permit for its use until further groundwater testing has been conducted. While MB:PIC 67:33 @ 500 kg/ha is the onlyuse rate registered for strawberry runners, which exceeds MBTOC’s standard presumption of 20 g/m2of MB, the grower has petitioned the PMRA to use a lowerrate with barrier films. PMRA, in the absence of a formal label amendment, has granted permission to use a lower rate, but atthe grower’s own risk and liability. In2008 the grower tested 25% and 30% lower rates under barrier films and results will be available in 2009. The permit for Pic 100 is still pending approval at PEI,even though Canada registered Pic in 2007. No studies on other potential alternative fumigants, such as Pic, DMDS, MI/Pic havetaken place. MBTOC expects thatfuture nominations will also demonstrate significant progress with key alternatives. MBTOC encourages the Party (1) to finalizethe permits necessary for use ofPic100 and (2) consider the adoption of soilless cultures for at least part of the production cycle.MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was not based on economic arguments.No economic arguments or data providedIsrael Broomrape None None 250.000 250.000 125.000 - 12.500 12.500 - -MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends 12.500 tonnes for this use in 2010 for one year only. The nomination for 2010 is for greenhouse use in tomatoesand pepper and is additional to the outdoor field nominations in previous years. MB use for a national broomrape eradication project on outdoor field crops hasbeen approved as a CUN for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009, but the allocated amounts have not been utilized. It is not clear toMBTOC why the allocated MBquantities can not be used to fumigate the 50 ha of green house for broomrape in tomato and pepper production, but have assumedthat this amount is notavailable. MBTOC notes that in 2005 CUN the Party stated it would not apply for additional uses and MBTOC is unclear why this nomination has been submitted.MBTOC acknowledges that a registration for Pic is being considered in Israel and that this would possibly allow for lower dosages of MB to be used forOrobancheand other pathogens as a transition strategy. In the 2008 nomination, the Party reported that results of field trials with 1,3-D in sequence with metham sodium arepromising and that registration is expected in 2009. In the 2009 nomination, the Party confirms that Telon EC is a very good chemical alternative for the control ofO. aegypticathe main species parasitizing tomato. It is not clear from the nomination whether 1,3-D/Pic EC (Telon EC) has been registered.Telon EC suppressesbroomrape when applied under plastic sheets through the drip irrigation system in tunnels or greenhouses. Its efficacy is further enhanced when applied incombination with MS. It is not clear if this fumigant can eradicate the parasitic plant .The Party has also identified some alternatives for controlling low infestations ofOrobanche (e.g. solarization) but they are considered not adequate for controlling severe infestations ofO. aegyptiaca. Field trials were carried out withsulfosulfuron, imazapic, and imazomox (Abangaet al.,2007; Nadalet al.,2008; Milleret al., 2009).MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economicarguments. CUN states that “Biological control of broomrape with either theaid of a parasitic fly or withFusariado not provide economic answers for the broomrape problem” but provides no further supporting evidence.26September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)Israel Cut flowersbulbsprotected303.000 240.000 220.185 114.450 85.431 - 72.266 63.464 - -MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 63.464 tonnes for this use in 2010. The recommended amount is based on a further10%transition rate applied for adoption of substrates (lilium, calla lilies, gerberas, anemones and carnations outside the Ghaza area), and chemical alternatives in thosespecies where the nomination states these are now registered. The nomination is for a variety of cut flowers produced under cover, which are mainly affected byweeds (Cyperusin particular), nematodes (root-knot but also ectoparasites such asLongidorus) and fungi. MBTOC does not consider MB essential for the controlof ectoparasitic nematodes. MBTOC does not recommend the use of 1.75 tonnes for fumigating substrates used in rose production as alternatives, such as steam,are efficient for this use. Overall, there is very little change from nominations submitted in previous years, particularly in2007 and 2008 and progress in phase outis still largely based on transitional measures - LPBF barrier films with reduced rates. In spite of this, registration of certain alternatives, such as metham sodiumand 1,3-D, has now expanded to include additional flower types. Substrate production protocols are now available for many of the flowers presently treated with MB(Bar-Yosefet al, 2001; Gullinoet al, 2003; Savvas and Passan, 2002; Urrestarazu, 2004; Urrestarazu, 2005). MBTOC is aware that carnation cultivars resistant tofusarium wilt are available, commercially used and accepted by international markets (Gullino and Garibaldi, 2007))MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.No economic arguments or data provided.Israel Cut flowersopen field77.000 67.000 74.540 44.750 34.698 - 42.554 28.554 - -MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 28.554 tonnes for this use in 2010. Overall, there is very little change from nominationssubmitted in previous years, particularly in 2007 and 2008. Progress towards phase-out is still based on transitional measures- barrier films with reduced rates ofMB. The nomination is for open field production of cut flowers, which are mainly affected by weeds (Cyperusspp in particular) and nematodes (root-knot but alsoectoparasites such asLongidorus) and fungi. MBTOC does not consider MB necessary for controlling ectoparasitic nematodes. Lack of registration of keyalternatives on flowers such as 1,3-D+Pic, dazomet and metham sodium, continue to be the major constraints affecting substitution of MB at this time. MBformulations with higher Pic content are also not registered. In spite of this, registration of metham sodium and 1,3-D has expanded and now includes additionalflower types. More expansion of registration is expected this year. Solarization has been proven to be an efficient alternativefor some flower types (ref) and is beingsuccessfully used in combination with alternative chemicals such as metham sodium and 1,3-D. In keeping with the 2008 recommendation, a 25% transition ratehas been applied to the nominated amount to allow for adoption of alternatives, including chemicals and solarization, which isbeing adopted successfully. Thereduction has not been applied to the 10.125 t requested for nurseries of geophytes where high health plant material needs to be produced, although no certificationissues are involved.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.No economic arguments or data provided.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report27Country Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)Israel Cucumber None None 25.000 18.750 - - 18.750 15.937 - -MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 15.937 tonnes for this use in 2010. The reduction is based on the adoption of grafted plants,improved sanitation and possible uptake of other alternatives (MS and 1,3-D) on 15% of the nomination. For 2010, the Party requested 18.750 t, which was thesame amount approved by the Party’s at the 18th MOP. The need for MB under the specific conditions of the intensive indoor cucumber cultivation in the centralpart of Israel could be considered as a niche request. The crop was not submitted for CUE in the years 2005 and 2006 since thecrop’s most pathogen controlproblems were resolved commercially at a satisfactory level. Cucumbers are grown in open ended polyhouses in 3 cropping cyclesper annum in the proximity ofthe residential houses of cooperative family and private family farms. A large proportion, 70%, of the critical use is concentrated in one village (Achituv), where thegrowers specialized for years in the cultivation of indoor cucumbers for the domestic market. The reasons for this nomination are the appearance of a new race ofF. oxysporumf. sp.radicis cucumerinum. The pathogen is highly virulent and the infestation level particularly high in the affected location and it can devastate entiregreenhouses in a short period of time. The required MB will be aimed at the eradication of the pathogen. Although MS and1,3-D is an effective alternativeapplication of the mixture in winter at low temperature it may cause crop phytotoxicity and buffer zones limit its use. The Party also states that MS was subject toaccelerated degradation in field studies. MBTOC acknowledges that alternatives, such as MS+1,3-D, 1,3-D/PIC, grafting, sanitation programs; soilless systems(López-Medina et al., 2004; Lieten, 2004; Savvas and Passam, 2002; Mutitu et al., 2006) may be feasible alternatives for part or all of the nomination. It encouragesthe Party to review the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives (grafting, substrates, and grafting + nematicides) and consider a reassessment the bufferzone for other chemical alternatives in use with barrier films and new application in methods in future nominations.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.No economic arguments or data provided.Israel Melon -protectedand field125.650 99.400 105.000 87.500 87.500 - 87.500 70.000 - -MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 70.000 tonnes for this use in 2010. The reduction is based on the adoption of chemical andnon chemical alternatives (Pivoniaet al., 2008) which have been shown to be effective for control ofMonosporascus cannonballus, according to the informationsupplied by the Party, and uptake of grafted plants and other alternatives on 20% of the nomination. Monosporascusis the key pathogen in the Arava Valley. MB isbeing used for spring melon in the Arava because of low temperatures prevailing at planting time and short plant back. Regulatory restrictions do not play a role inthis case. The requested amount at a rate of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of 98:2 MB under barrier films (LDPF) complies with MBTOC ́s standard presumptions. While theParty’s request for MB over the years first showed a reduction tendency due to the adoption of barrier films, during the last three CUN rounds, the request hasstabilized at 87.5 tonnes. MBTOC, on the one hand, understands that the widely used formulations with more Pic (MB/Pic 67:33, 50:50) could be as effective as thecurrently used MB 98:2 formulations and urges the Party to make the necessary efforts to assess this situation under the criteria of Dec.IX/6 and reduce thenominated amounts. MBTOC understands an alternative fungicide has shown effective control of Monosporascus in Israel (Pivonia et. al; 2008; Israel melon CUN).MBTOC understands the transition to the alternatives is already ongoing and applied a transition rate based on other countriesexperience. Another encouraging28September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)alternative is grafted melon which shows potential in the medium-long term. The use of grafted vegetables in Israel is increasing rapidly. Grafted watermelons, forexample, now account for 60 to 70% of the total cultivated area of this crop (Cohen et al, 2007). On melon, however, problems of scion-rootstock compatibility andfruit quality require an additional research effort.MBTOC notes that Pic and MB:Pic mixtures and the fungicide, fludioxonil, are effectively used for Monosporascusin other countries under similar conditions (e.g. Stanghelini et al. 2003; Martyn 2002).MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.CUN states that Basamid is not feasible economically since itsprice has increased considerably, and because of waiting period constraints. CUN also provides data (Section F) showing that the use of Basamid results innegative profit margins despite the fact that the cost of MB per kg is higher. The source of the data is not provided.Israel Strawberryfruit -protected(Sharon andGhaza)196.000 196.000 93.000 105.960 77.750(42.75Sharon)35.00Ghaza- 47.500(Sharon)50.000(Ghaza)32.063(Sharon)25.000(Ghaza)- -MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 32.063 tonnes for Sharon and a reduced amount of 25.000 tonnes for Ghaza totalling 57.062tonnes. The key pests affecting strawberry fruit are fungi (Rhizoctonia solani, Colletotrichum acutatum, Macrophomina phaseolina, Verticillium dahliae, Fusariumspp.), nematodes (Meloidogyne hapla), and weeds (Cyperus rotundus,purple nutsedge). The reduction for Sharon is based on increased uptake of 20% for TelonEC followed by MS which has been shown to be effective. Telone EC has a smaller buffer than 1,3-D/Pic shank applied, i.e. 100m compared to 250 m. The latterregistration has been suspended. MBTOC has adjusted the nomination to the Ghaza Strip to conform with its standard presumptionof 250 kg/ha used with barrierfilms in sandy loam soils. MBTOC urges the Party to (1) complete as soon as possible its reconsideration of buffers for MB alternatives when used under barrierfilms and (2) recommit resources to develop less costly soil-less cultures in suspended pot technology, which had been divertedin the past to other priorities, and(3) pursue the timely testing and registration of MIMBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Regarding Sharon, the CUN provides comparative data on thenet revenue of a range of alternatives to MB, seemingly showing that all alternatives result in higher profit margins. The perkg price of MB is higher than that of allthe alternatives. Regarding Gaza, CUN argues that there are no alternatives to MB, which will mean that the crop can no longerbe grown in the area, leading to “agenuine case of economic disruption.” The argument appears to be based on the political realities of the area.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report29Country Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)Israel Strawberryrunners(Sharon andGhaza)None None 0.000 31.900 28.07515.825(Sharon)12.25(Ghaza)- 13.570(Sharon)17.50(Ghaza)13.570(Sharon)8.75(Ghaza)- -MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends 13.570t for Sharon and a reduced CUE of 8.75 t for Ghaza for this use in 2010. The key pests affecting strawberryrunner production are fungi (Rhizoctonia solani, Verticillium dahliae, Fusarium and Phytophthoraspp., Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Macrophomina phasoeolina), rootknot nematodes and purple nutsedge. The Party stated that MB 98:2 at a rate of 500 kg/ha (50 g/m2) with standard polyethylene films and 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) withbarrier films are necessary to meet certification standards in Ghaza and Sharon respectively. The requested amount for the Ghaza region has been adjusted toMBTOC’s standard presumption of 250 kg/ha for MB use in sandy loam soils. The Party stated that 1,3-D + PIC mixture has been the leading alternative; however,adoption of this alternative is limited by the required 250 m buffer which significantly limits its use in the Sharon strawberry nursery growing area which is heavilypopulated. Hot gas application method is used in the Ghaza Strip growing area because the plots are small, adjacent to houses and there are no injection tools orqualified applicators in the area. MBTOC urges the Party to continue trials with alternatives that meet the pathogen tolerancerequired to meet the certificationstandards. The reduction is based on barrier films being available.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments. No economic data or analysis provided.Israel Strawberryrunners andFruit (Ghazatotals only)28.075 - 67.500 33.75 - -MBTOC comments 2009:Comments are included in text boxes above as the Party consolidated the Israel and Ghaza nominations. MBTOC urges the Party toassist with the availability of barrier films to Ghaza so that MB dosages can be reduced. The reduction is based on barrier films being available.Israel SweetPotatoesNone None None 111.500 95.000 - 20.000 20.000 - -MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends 20.000 tonnes for this use in 2010. The Party states that they expect registration of MB alternatives by 2010andthat adoption of these alternatives was the basis for the reduction from 95 tonnes granted for use in 2009 for production of sweet potato transplants. Data from earlytrials indicate that Telone II + Adochem super at 400 l/ha appears to be an excellent alternative for MB once registration hasbeen obtained. The MB rates stated inthe CUN are consistent with MBTOC’s standard presumptions and the use of barrier films. Trials conducted in the USA with Pic as an alternative indicate that itprovides better yields and returns to growers than MB. Solarization also significantly increased yields and with more effectiveherbicides may also become a MBalternative (Stoddard, 2008)30September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that semi-commercial application of Telon on a totalarea of 100 ha in 2005 lead to unsatisfactory results and economic losses. CUN also provides data showing that Telon 200+MS 400l/ha results in a 79% increasein net revenue compared to MB. The source of the data is not provided.Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 51.450 34.300 30.690 - - 29.120 27.621MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 27.621 tonnes for this use in 2011. The recommended quantity represents a 10% reductionfrom the recommended amount at the 20th MOP approved amount based on uptake of available alternatives, e.g. steam, soil less culture, grafting, pathogen freeseeds,1,3-D and Pic and cultural practices such as rotation, root isolation and sanitation. Japan had made public an action plan to complete phase out of MB forsoil use in 2013 and submitted a revised national management strategy to the Ozone Secretariat in April 2008. MBTOC acknowledges that the Party will phase outMB by using a variety of alternatives in 2013. The nomination is based on the need to control particular viruses of cucumber, since 2005. Globally, such viruses arenot considered as soil borne pathogens but can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integratedprogram including cultural practices e.g. sanitation, rotation with a non-host, removal and destruction of crop debris, cleaning and sanitation of the greenhouse andthe surrounded area, and pathogen free seeds has proven very effective in similar situations around the world. The Party has indicated that rotation to nonsusceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). As atransition strategy, MBTOCurges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for cucumberin Japan which has been in place for many years. However, in many countries cucumber production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions andhas become the most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soil borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) areavailable for this kind of production and are widely used in around the world. (Leoni & Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkayaet.al.Ozkan,2004; Engindeniz, 2004). The Party is encouraged to consider substrate production, which implemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC,2002, 2007; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soilless culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002,Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in substrates there is a critical need for a high degree ofsanitation and for the use ofpathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems in a short period of time as experienced in many MLF projects(TEAP, 2004). The CUN states that the Aichi Agricultural Research Centre(2005) identified the effectiveness of KGMMV control by methyl iodide in pot tests.MBTOC encourages the Party to continue to pursue the registration of methyl iodide for soil uses (methyl iodide was registeredfor imported timber in Japan in2004, under JMAFF registration No. 21407).MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that certain alternatives are being tested fortechnical and economic feasibility. These include inoculation of attenuated virus as vaccine and the bag cultivation system.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report31Country Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)Japan Ginger(Field)119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075 63.056 53.400 - - 47.450 47.450MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends 47.450 tonnes for this use in 2011. MBTOC recognizes that the Party will phase-out all usage of MB by 2013 andthat various regions will reduce their dosage rate as low as 16-20 g/m2under barrier films which are within or lower than MBTOC’s standard presumptive rates.MBTOC recommends that all growing regions aim to reduce their rates to this level by 2011. The nomination is for control ofPythiumspp. (Pythium ultimumvar.ultimum,Pythium zingiberium) in open field cultivated ginger fields using MB (98:2) applied from small cans. MBTOC recognized the difficulties that growers have inadopting some alternatives and the time required to introduce alternatives and new disease management strategies. The CUN states that Cyazofamid controlsPythium efficiently but application rates and methods need to be investigated in more detail. The use of fungicides specific toOomycetes, such as phosphonates,has been tested but data as to efficacy is not provided. This current nomination provides promise that alternative treatments to MB are now applicable to Japaneseproduction systems for ginger.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN shows that hot water treatment is not economicallyfeasible because of high initial and running cost, but provides no further details (i.e. data or sources). CUN also provides detailed data on the net revenue ofalternatives (Dazomet, Metalaxyl) compared to MB, where both result in negative net revenue (in the case of Dazomet because oflower yields, and in the case ofMetalaxyl because gross revenue is zero).Japan Ginger(protected)22.900 22.900 14.471 11.100 8.325 8.300 - - 7.770 7.036MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced rate of 7.036 tonnes for this use in 2011. Currently three of five growing regions have good controlofroot diseases using a rate of 20-21 g /m2under impermeable film. MBTOC recommends that the other two regions adopt a rate of 25 g/m2(Wakayama andMiyazaki). This would reduce the nomination to 7.036 tonnes. The nomination is for control ofPythiumspp. (Pythium ultimumvar.ultimum,Pythium zingiberium) inprotected ginger fields using MB (98:2) applied from small cans. MBTOC recognized the difficulties that growers have in adopting some alternatives and the timerequired to introduce alternatives and new disease management strategies. The CUN states that Cyazofamid controls Pythium efficiently, but application rates andmethods need to be investigated in more detail. The use of fungicides specific to Oomycetes, such as phosphonates has been tested but data as to efficacy is notprovided. Reduced emission technologies, such as low permeability barrier films, are now being used and should allow for much reduced dosage rates (e.g. 25g/m2for 98:2 with LPBF). This current nomination has reduced the quantity by 15.2% from the 2010 application, but it is envisionedthat alternative treatments toMB may be available by 2011 as several are pending registration for Japanese production systems for ginger. MBTOC suggests consideration be given tophosphonate fungicides (AG3) developed in Israel and shown to control Pythium and other Phycomycete induced diseases.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that Pic might cause a decrease in yield either bycutting short the harvest of the previous crop or a delay in planting, resulting in economic loss. CUN also shows that hot water treatment is not economicallyfeasible because of high initial and running cost, but provides no further details (i.e. data or sources). CUN also provides detailed data on the net revenue ofalternatives (dazomet, Metalaxyl) compared to MB, where both result in negative net revenue (in the case of dazomet because oflower yields, and in the case ofMetalaxyl because gross revenue is zero).32September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 136.650 91.100 81.720 - - 77.600 73.548MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 73.548 tonnes for this use in 2011. The recommended quantity represents a 10% reductionfrom the 20thMOP approved amount based on uptake of available alternatives, e.g. steam, soil less culture, grafting, pathogen free seeds,1,3 D+Pic and culturalpractices such as rotation, root isolation and sanitation. Japan had made public of action plan of complete phase out of MB for critical use nomination for soil use in2013 and submitted revised national management strategy to the Ozone Secretariat in April 2008. MBTOC acknowledges that the Party will phase out MB by usinga variety of alternatives in 2013. The nomination is based on the need to control a particular virus of melons. Globally, thisvirus is not considered as a soil-bornepathogen but can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integratedprogram including culturalpractices has been proven to be effective in many other countries. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberriesis an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF whichallow for reducing MB dosesby up to 50%. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for melons in Japan which has been in place for many years. However, in many countries somemelon production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soilborne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production and are widely used in around the world(Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkayaet al.,Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, when implemented correctlycan produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC,2002, 2006; Batchelor2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japansupport soil less cultureas a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in substratesthere is a critical need for ahigh degree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems in a short period of timeas experienced in many MLF projects (TEAP, 2004). Resistant root stocks are now available in Japan. However, according to the party, the root stocks are notresistant to all the pathogen races. High yielding varieties resistant to the virus are available. Steam has also been found tocontrol the virus, particularly in theupper soil layer.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that certain alternatives are being tested fortechnical and economic feasibility. These include inoculation of attenuated virus as vaccine and the bag cultivation system. CUN also shows, based on data fromChosei region, Chiba Prefecture that a resistant cultivar produces only 30.8% in net revenue compared with the conventional cultivar with MB.Japan Pepper(green &hot)187.200 200.700 156.700 121.725 81.149 72.990 - - 68.260 65.691MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 65.691 tonnes for this use in 2011, which represents a 10% reduction from the approvedamount in 2010. The Party nominated an amount which represented 6.49% reduction from the amount nominated for 2010. According to the Party, this reduction isdue to the introduction and deployment of alternative technology, more distribution of low permeable barrier film with the doserate reduction and reduction if thefrequency of MB application to every two years. In comparison to the previous nomination, one region did not apply for 2011, resulting in 5 regions instead of 6.Japan provided a comprehensive National Action Plan detailing step wise phase out by 2013 using a range of alternatives. MBTOCacknowledges the excellentNational Action Plan to phase out MB by 2013. They also provided details of an additional strategy which involves immunisationwith avirulent virus strains, use ofsoil less culture and resistant varieties which the Party believes will be widely accepted in the future. According to the Party, the development of resistant varieties isprogressing well for the control of some viral strains. The Party reported also that soil less culture (bag cultivation, Kaneko2006) using various substrates (diseaseSeptember 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report33Country Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)free soil from mountain, paddy field, peat moss, coconuts shell and timber bark) are being used. Also, resistant varieties (Bagu 1 gou and L4 Miogi) are currentlyavailable to some PMMoV strains, plant vaccination by attenuated virus (Kanda, 2008), grafting on resistant root stocks (Anou 4gou and 5 gou) are feasiblealternatives. Others such as biological control, wrapping the underground part of seedling with easily decomposing paper and soil amendments are underdevelopment.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that certain alternatives are being tested fortechnical and economic feasibility. These include inoculation of attenuated virus as vaccine and the bag cultivation system.Japan Watermelon129.000 98.90094.20032.475 21.650 14.500 - - 13.870 13.050MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 13.050 tonnes for this use in 2011. The recommended quantity represents a 10% reductionfrom approved amount at the 20th MOP based on uptake of available alternatives, e.g. steam, soil less culture, grafting, pathogen free seeds, 1,3-D and Pic andcultural practices such as rotation, root isolation and sanitation. Japan had made public an action plan to complete phase outof MB for MB soil use by 2013 andsubmitted a revised national management strategy to the Ozone Secretariat in April 2008. MBTOC acknowledges that the Party willphase out MB by using varietyalternatives in 2013.The nomination is based on the need to control a particular virus of watermelons. Globally, this virus is not considered as a soil-bornepathogen but can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integratedprogram including culturalpractices has been proven to be effective in many other countries. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberriesis an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF whichallow for reducing MB dosesby up to 50%. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for watermelons in Japan which has been in place for many years.However, in many countriessome watermelon production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the most widely used technique for eliminating a widearray of soil-borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production and are widely used in around theworld (Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkayaet al.,Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, when implementedcorrectly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soil lessculture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in substrates there is a criticalneed for a high degree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems in a shortperiod of time as experienced in many MLF projects (TEAP, 2004). Resistant root stocks are now available in Japan. However, according to the Party, the rootstocks are not resistant to all the pathogen races. High yielding varieties resistant to CGMMV are also available. Steam has also been found to control the virus,particularly in the upper soil layer.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that certain alternatives are being tested fortechnical and economic feasibility. These include inoculation of attenuated virus as vaccine and the bag cultivation system.34September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)UnitedStatesCucurbits 1,187.800 747.839 592.891 486.757 407.091 302.974 - - 218.032 195.698MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 195.698 tonnes for this use in 2011. The reduction is based on adjustment for the standarddosage rates from 150-175kg/ha to 125-150 kg/ha for MB/Pic mixtures with barrier films, which are the highest use rates considered necessary by MBTOC forthese crops. From the recommended amount, 13.095 t are for Georgia squash, 10.087 t for Georgia cucumber; 39.598 t for Georgiamelon; 127.950 t for theSoutheast region, and 4.969 t for Maryland and Delaware. MBTOC acknowledges the reduction made by the Party for transition to a3 way combination of 1,3 D +Pic, followed by Pic alone, followed by metham-sodium, that shows good results against key cucurbit pests in spring season fumigation. MBTOC notes that MI isnot yet registered for use in these crops, but the Party stated cucurbits could likely be added to the label during 2009 (Chism, pers. com. 2009). If this happens,MBTOC expects a considerable impact on future nominations. MBTOC is aware of progress reported on several recent studies showing halosulfuron will effectivelycontrol yellow and purple nutsedge and a number of other weeds common in vegetable production, alone or combined with other herbicides (Macraeet al., 2008;Traderet al., 2008; Brandenbergeret al., 2005) on cucurbits and other related crops (Norsworthy, et al, 2007; Bangarwa, et al., 2008). Also glyphosate appears asa suitable tool for managing nutsedge between spring and autumn crops (Webster et al. 2008). The Party showed references whichsupported use of alternatives incombination with LDPF (Culpepper, 2006). Other studies on possible effective alternatives are available (Ristaino and Johnson,1999, Babadost and Islam 2002,Johnston et al 2002, Driver and Lows 2003). A combination of 1,3-D or metham sodium with Pic + herbicides (Trifluralin, napropamide, halosulfuron, s-metalochlor)is considered as the best alternative strategy in Florida for nutsedge control in several crops. MBTOC stresses the need of considering also non chemical methodswithin an integrated pest management strategy. Hausbeck, Lamour and others (2004) have reported many efficient management strategies to control Phytophthoraon pepper, including crop rotation with non susceptible hosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa), culturalcontrol (water management, plantdensity, soil amendments, protective mulch, raised beds etc.) and the use of registered fungicides (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph, Zoxamide + Mancozeb, Copperhydroxide+dimethomorph). MBTOC notes the use of grafting and resistant varieties are considered as alternatives for long lasting crops in many Mediterraneancountries (Bello, et al., 2001). Yellow nutsedge emergence in transplanted cantaloupe was suppressed by the combined effects ofthin-film mulches and competitivesize differential provided by using cantaloupe transplants (Johnson & Mullinix, 2007). Incorporating Brassica spp. residue to reduce populations of soilborne fungi ofwatermelon was also tested, with interesting results (Njoroge, 2008)]MBTOC comments on economics 2009:According to the CUN, where nutsedgesare severe, metham-sodium used alone is technically and economicallyinfeasible due to planting delays, yield losses and inconsistent efficacy, while 1,3 D + Pic is economically infeasible in someareas due to a 21 day planting delayand yield losses. Economic data to support these arguments as well as the CUN generally are provided for all areas and all alternatives. CUN shows expected yieldlosses of 6 percent in Maryland and Delaware, 29 percent in the Southeastern states and 50% in Georgia. CUN notes these regionsmay experience lower pricesbecause of missed market windows. The UGA-3-WAY research conducted at the University of Georgia is feasible and the CUN was adjusted to reflect thisreduction in southern states in areas that do not face Karst geology issues as a replacement of a MB+ Pic spring time application.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report35Country Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)UnitedStatesEggplant(field)76.721 82.167 85.363 66.018 48.691 32.820 - - 21.561 19.725MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 19.725 tonnes for this use in 2011. The reduction is based on adjustment for the standarddosage rates from 150-175kg/ha to 125-150 kg/ha for MB/Pic mixtures with barrier films, which are the highest use rates considered necessary by MBTOC for thiscrop. The Party has made a 35% reduction in MB use from the amount approved by the Party’s for 2010. Of this amount, 8.745 tare for Georgia and 10.980 t arefor Florida. The Party did not recommend a CUN for Michigan for 2011. US nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are still under extensiveevaluation and pest pressure (nutsedge, nematodes and P. capsici) is high. The Party is projecting rates of 150 kg/ha for pathogens and 175 kg/ha for nutsedge.MBTOC accepted rates nominated by the Party for use with barrier films. The Party states that the treatment, known as the “UGA3-WAY”, consisting of threesuccessive soil fumigations, beginning with 1,3-D + Pic application, followed by a Pic application, followed by a metham-sodiumor metham-potassium application(Culpepper, 2007) is an alternative for MB in spring crops. For summer and fall crops, this system needs further development for use in areas with moderate tohigh nutsedge pressure. In addition, metham sodium and metham potassium in the fall require longer waiting periods for planting than MB. Delays could result inmissed market windows. A further constraint to adoption of the UGA-3 WAY is that 1,3-D is restricted in areas of Karst topography where ground water isvulnerable to leaching from 1,3-D. The Party states that trials with dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) plus Pic are promising, but this combination does not effectivelycontrol certain grasses (MacRae and Culpepper, 2008). Trials will continue with this alternative. An application to registerDMDS is under consideration atUSEPA. MI is not registered for eggplant. The US nomination isonly for those areas where the alternatives are still under extensive evaluation and pest pressure(nutsedge, nematodes and P. capsici) is high.. MBTOC accepted rates nominated by the Party for use with barrier films (1164-165Kg/). MBTOC also accepted theParty’s substantial reductions for uptake of other alternatives. The Party states that a 50:50 formulation (MB/Pic) is widely used in Florida but does not provideinformation about the formulation used in Georgia. MBTOC considers that further reductions in MB amount may be possible with changes to formulations of 30:70used in combination with barrier films commercially feasible. According to the Party, non chemical alternatives such as grafting, soilless culture, are not suitablealternatives. MBTOC considers that the Party should develop these alternatives which are widely used in many countries and regions with similar climate and pest(Besri, 2008). It is important to note that MB is not used in any other non A5 country on eggplant.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination is partly based on economic arguments. CUN notes that thetreatment known as UGA-3-WAY is beingtested, as is another potential alternative, Dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), with promising results. However, further testing of both is required. CUN provides detailedpartial (and provisional) budgets for Georgia and Florida that show that the UGA-3-WAY Spring application may yield equal (Florida) or higher (Georgia) net farmincome than MB but that the Fall application results in negative net farm income in both areas.36September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)UnitedStatesForestrynursery192.515 157.694 122.032 131.208 122.060 117.826 - - 106.043 93.547MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 93.547 tonnes for this nomination in 2011, which includes 53.703 t for Southern ForestNursery, 3.978 t for International Paper, 11.162 t for Weyerhaeuser (SE), 12.304 t for Weyerhaeuser (NW), 8.467 t for NE Forest& Conservation Nursery, and3.933 t for Michigan Seedling Assoc. The nominated amount has been adjusted to 260 kg/ha (26 g/m2) for nutsedge control and 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2) for pathogensto conform to the standard presumption for dosage rate of MB/Pic formulation under HDPE. A 10% reduction has been made to the nominated amount to accountfor adoption of alternatives, particularly but not exclusively MI. MBTOC acknowledges the 15-20% transition to alternatives already put in place by the Party, butconsiders that there are sufficient alternatives to justify the additional reduction recommended for this CUN. Key pests are nutsedge, nematodes and fungi;propagative material requires a very high level of pathogen control in order to avoid their widespread distribution from the nursery to the production fields. The CUNis for nurseries with moderate or high pest pressure where alternatives are not effective. Nutsedge has no effect on certification, but the Party states that it doesaffect yield by 3-5%. MBTOC requests that further nominations clearly show the trend in yield loss caused by nutsedge, nematodes or fungal pathogens over thenumber of seasons following fumigation with MB and alternatives and a breakdown of the economic comparisons to MB treatment. For the Northeast Forest andConservation Nursery, only 40% is for nutsedge control and 60% of the nomination was adjusted to conform to standard presumptions of 20 g/m2. For MichiganSeedlings only 50% is for nutsedge control, so 50% of the nomination was adjusted to 20 g/m2. The nomination is for certified forest seedlings produced in 6 forestnursery regions. The CUN is based on economic infeasibility of use of substrates and the lack of effective alternatives for control of nutsedge and a range of fungalpathogens and nematodes. The key alternatives which have been shown to be as efficient as MB are MI which has been found effective (i.e. Enebak, 2006) andrecently registered; chloropicrin alone (South, 2007; 2008); 1,3-D/Pic (South, 2008) , 1,3-D /Pic/metham sodium (South, 2008);metham sodium + Pic (Cram et al.,2007); and dazomet (Muckennfuss et al., 2005; Enebak et al., 2006). DMDS + Pic has produced encouraging results (Quicke et al,2007) although the former is stillnot registered. Integrated pest management systems have also been shown to be effective (South et al., 2006; Hildebrand et al.,2004). The Party acknowledgedthat Pic and metham when used in conjunction with barrier films (LPBF) may provide an effective technical alternative and avoidcrop injury. Enebak (2007) foundthat with LPBF, use rates of MB can be significantly reduced. The Party states that gluing of LPBF that is necessary for broadacre fumigation of nursery stock is notcommercially available, but progress has been made in this respect.. LPBF will be adopted when the effective gluing technologies are locally and commerciallyavailable, however, MBTOC expects that future nominations will be based on its use. An efficient glue manufactured in California by AC Products was recentlyreported to MBTOC (Product code W669F01, referred by Politiv Ltd, Israel). MBTOC observed a demonstration of an effective heatwelding technique used withbarrier films that was initially described for use with HDPE for solarization trials in Israel (Grinstein and Hetzroni, 1991; Grinstein, 1992). MBTOC considers thatglyphosate can be used as a pre-treatment to reduce pressure from nutsedge. However, this herbicide has been shown to cause phytotoxicity under nurseryconditions. Jacob et al (2009) report effective control of weeds in Iowa Nurseries with different herbicides. MBTOC acknowledges the initiation of large scaledemonstration trials for this sector by the Party now with promising results (Quicke, 2007; Quicke, 2008; Weiland, 2008). A report from this trial on the first year ofthe 5 year trial, indicates that seedling counts similar to MB were achieved by several other treatments, but no indication ofpathogen or weed pressure was given(Quickeet al.,2007). Limited substrate production of these crops is reported as economical for small niche markets; however, MBTOC is awarethat InternationalPaper, one of the applicants within this CUN, produces over 40 million tree seedlings per year insubstrates in their Brazil operation. Frequency of fumigation isonce in two to four years, depending on crop.Rotation and cover crops are not fumigated. Research is on-going to reduce rates from 98:2 MB/Pic commonly used where nutsedgepopulations are severe tousing reduced rates of 67:33 MB/Pic. This transition has already been made in 70 % of the forest nurseries in the south where nutsedge populations are not severe.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report37Country Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination is partly based on economic arguments. CUN shows that MI provides the same yields as MB, but thatfumigation and hand weeding costs increase. This results in a decline in net operating revenue for the Southern Forest NurseryManagement Cooperative of 7%,for Arborgen of 10%, for Weyerhauser of 18%, for Northeastern Forest and Conservation of 14%, and for Michigan Seedling Association of 4%. CUN emphasizesthat these results do not show other possible impacts due to a) a potential loss in efficacy if current studies overestimate yields using MI; b) the cost advantages inthe forest in terms of lower pest pressure (e.g. faster growth, less use of pesticides) when MB is used; c) the fact that MI will have to be accepted by state controlboards as meeting phytosanitary requirements for nursery shipments; d) the fact that fumigation contractors and nurseries do not currently have the equipment tobroadcast MI; and e) lack of clarity as to whether the MI label (MIDAS) allows its use for production of deciduous tree seedlings, which are generally more valuablethan conifer seedlings and have greater pest management requirements.UnitedStatesNurseriesstock (fruit,nut, flower)45.800 64.528 28.275 51.102 25.326 17.363 - - 7.955 7.955MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a total of 7.955 tonnes for this use in 2010. This comprises 0.955 tonnes for roses, and 7.0 tonnes for fruitand nuttrees. This nomination is for propagation materials that need to be certified as free of pests and diseases, even if certification is voluntary in this state. The rates inthe nomination conform to MBTOC’s standard presumptions. MBTOC recognises that propagative material requires a very high levelof soilborne pest andpathogen control in order to avoid their wide spread distribution. MBTOC acknowledges the Party’s adoption of MB:Pic formulations of 67:33 and 50:50 as is usedin other countries. MBTOC acknowledges the federal registration of MI for use in nurseries, but also recognizes that it is notyet registered in California.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination is not based on economic arguments. CUN concludes that 1,3-D+Pic is an economically feasiblealternative to MB in California Rose production where Telone® restrictions do not apply. A similar conclusion is reached with regard to California deciduous fruit andnut nursery trees; however, township restrictions and certification restrictions hinder growers from using Telone® and render it technically infeasible.38September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)UnitedStatesOrchardreplant706.176 527.600 405.400 393.720 292.756 215.800 - - 203.591 183.232MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 183.232 tonnes for this use in 2011. A 10% reduction has been made to the nominatedamounts to account for uptake of alternatives proven to be effective (Browneet al,2007; 2008; McKenry, 2006). The CUN is for orchard/vineyard replant disorder ofunknown etiology; heavy soils or soils which cannot be treated to a sufficient depth to effectively use the reduced rates of 1,3-D now allowed in California.Regulatory constraints (maximum labeled rate) prevent the use of 1,3-D at the rates needed for effective kill of old roots andthe associated pathogens in deepersoil layers for heavier (fine-textured) soils. Three alternatives,1,3-D alone and 1,3-D combined with Pic or metham sodium, areavailable technical alternativesaccording to the CUN for treatmentin light soils. Although a two year fallow was found to beeffective under Mediterranean conditions by Bello,et al., 2004,Schneider,et al., 2004 found that a four year fallow did not sufficiently eliminate the causative nematodes. Recent promising results with a one year fallowcombined with Nemaguard rootstock have been reported by McKenry (2006). The Party confirms that MB/Pic 67:33 formulation is used for California stone fruit,raisin grapes and wine grapes and now as well for almond and walnut at a dose rate of 20g/m2. Commercial adoption of 67:33 formulation and others containinglower amounts of MB (e.g. 50:50) were used predominantly for orchard replant treatment in other countries before switching to alternatives. The recommendedamount is based on application of MBTOC’s standard presumption of 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2) for control of pests and pathogens without the use of LPBF. MBTOCrecognizes that regulatory restraints prevent the use of LPBF barrier films with MB in California but urges the Party to consider continued evaluation of their use toimprove the performance of alternatives.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The CUN states that the use of partial budgeting does not depict the real cost of orchard replant due to the fixed costand the non-bearing years of the orchard. Instead, a cost benefit analysis with a 7% discount rate is used that takes these factors into account.Walnut orchard:The CUN refers back to the partialbudget and mentions that MB results in about$530 more per hectare than a hectare treated with 1,3-D and Pic.However the NPV and IRR (close to 14%) of both alternatives are similar.Almonds:CUN states that the results of walnuts would also apply to almonds grown on heavier soils. Tree mortality has been estimated ashigh as 50% wherealmonds are replanted, with a 25- 40% yield loss with one year fallow and no fumigant treatment and a reduction of 24-35% compared to MB. Accordingly, the CUNargues that the use of MB adds value of $63.3 million annually to California nut productionCalifornia Stone Fruit:CUN states that differences in net operating revenue for even small changes in yield can be substantial. This analysis suggeststhat thebenefits of MB alone are approximately $125/hectare. A decrease of 12% in net operating revenue in the partial budget results,but both alternatives have anegative NPV although MB provides additional benefits.California Grape:In the case of California grapes MB shows no benefit over 1,3-D once a vineyard is in production. However in cases where 1,3 Dcannot be usedbecause of township caps MB results in an additional $270/perhectare compared to metham sodium and an additional cost of $400 compared to no fumigation.However the net present value using MB and 1,3 D results in negative figures which questions the viability of investing in grapes. The CUN concludes that MB andPic contribute about $7.2 million annually to the California economy in area where 1,3D cannot be used.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report39Country Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)UnitedStatesOrnamentals 154.000 148.483 137.835 138.538 107.136 84.617 - - 70.178 64.307MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 64.307 tonnes for this use in 2011. This includes 52.167 t for California and 12.141 t forFlorida. MBTOC acknowledges the substantial reduction in Florida. MBTOC does not recommend the requested usage for New York asalternatives are availablefor replacing this use inAnemone coronariacut flowers i.e. steam and substrates under protected cultivation (Fennimoreet al.,2008; Reaet al., 2008). Thenomination is for a large number of species, mostly grown in the field. In Florida, the main species using MB are gladioli, lilies and snapdragon. Additional speciesusing MB in California include calla lily, delphinium, dianthus, eustoma, freesia, helianthus, hypericum, iris, larkspur, liatris, matthiola, and ranunculus. MB isneeded to control diseases (e.g.,Fusariumspp.,Pythiumspp.,Phytophthoraspp., andRhizoctoniaspp.), plant parasitic nematodes (e.g., root knot, root lesion,stunt and dagger), weeds (e.g.Cyperusspp.Portulacca, Ambrosiaand others), and previous crop propagules. The Party has adjusted dosage rates for all regionsto 20 g/m2which conforms to MBTOC’s standard presumptions. MBTOC considers alternatives available for some flower types in California,for example 1,3-D/Pic,metham sodium and combinations (Klose et al., 2007, Klose, 2008 ) and has reduced the nomination by 10% for phase in of these alternatives. In Florida, MI is nowregistered and other alternatives are available, for example 1,3-D/Pic and solarization sometimes combined with chemicals (McSorleyet al, 2006 ab; McSorleyetal, 2008)MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based oneconomic arguments. A major change in this CUN is the availability of MI in Florida(registered in 2008), but not in California and New York. Its economic impacts as an alternative to MB are relatively small. The partial budget of Florida liliesresulted in a 4% loss as a percentage of net operating revenue. However CUN mentions that loss figures may not be completely accurate since some nurseriesare publicly owned (i.e. subsidized seedling prices and production cost). In addition few long-term trials have been implemented.With regards to substrates some crops (e.g. roses) experience yield gains however for most crops an increase in yield is not enough to offset the increased cost ofproduction. A partial budget was also conducted for California Lily and Ranunculus using 1,3D+pic, Dazomet and Metham Sodium with significant losses (as apercentage of net operating revenue) compared to MB ranging from194-243%. For New York anemonespartial budgeting considered steam sterilization with 0%-10% and 20% yield losses due to the lack of research resulting in the absence of yield loss estimates. Losses (as a percentageof net operating revenue)rangebetween 9.1 to 30%. CUN also mention that some growers have attempted using steam but switched back due to high costs and applications issues.UnitedStatesPeppers(field)1,094.782 1,243.542 1,106.753 756.339 548.984 463.282 - - 212.775 206.234MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 206.234 tonnes for this use in 2011. The reduction is based on adjustment for the standarddosage rates from 150-175kg/ha (15 to 17 g/m2)to 125-150 kg/ha (12.5 to15 g/m2) for MB/Pic mixtures with barrier films, which are the highest use rates considerednecessary by MBTOC for this crop. The Party has made a 53.4% reduction in MB use from the amount approved by the Party’s for 2010. MBTOC acknowledges thesubstantial reduction by the Party for uptake of alternatives. Of this amount, 32.926 t is for Georgia, 164.158 t is for Florida and 9.150 t is for the Southeast. The Partydid not submit a CUN for Michigan for 2011. The Party is projecting rates of 150 kg/ha (15 g/m2) for pathogens and 170 kg/ha g/m2) for nutsedge. In addition, the partstates that the treatment, known as the “UGA 3-WAY”, consisting of three successive soil fumigations, beginning with 1,3-D + Pic application, followed by a Picapplication, followed by a metham-sodium or metham-potassium application (Culpepper, 2007a) is an alternative for MB in springcrops. For summer and fall crops,40September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)this system needs further development for use in areas with moderate to high nutsedge pressure. In addition, 1,3-D is restricted in areas of Karst topography whereground water is vulnerable to leaching from 1,3-D. In addition, metham sodium and metham potassium 1,3-D in the fall require longer waiting periods for planting thanMB. Delays could result in missed market windows. The time limitations on the registration of Midas, a mixture of MI and Pic have been removed and this product hasshown good efficacy against key pepper pests, including nutsedge, in a number of trials with peppers and related vegetables such as tomatoes. Midas has receivedstate-level approval in 47 US states (California, Washington, and New York are the exceptions at this time). However, the Party states that some time will benecessary before Midas achieves a full adoption. Constraints: (1) the cost of MI formulations which is higher than MB, (2) growers and researchers will need time toevaluate MI use in the various local production conditions covered by this nominations, and (3) growers and applicators will need to make some equipmentmodifications to adapt to the lower flow rates typical with less expensive MI application rates and to avoid the corrosion of some metals that can occur with MI (Sumne2005, Nolinget al., 2006).The Party states that trials with dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) plus Pic are promising, but does not effectively control certain grasses. Trials willcontinue with this alternative. An application to register DMDS is under consideration at US EPA. MBTOC considers that further reductions in MB amount is possiblewith changes to formulations of 50:50 MB/Pic or less (e.g. to 30:70) used in combination with barrier films, however the reduction in the nominated amount was notbased on use of these formulations.According to the Party, non chemical alternatives such as grafting soilless culture, are notcommercially feasible. MBTOC considethat the Party should develop these alternatives which are widely used in many countries and regions with similar climate and pest. It is important to note that MB is noused in other country on pepper.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was partly based on economic arguments.CUN describes the economic impact of using MI as beingnegligible; as a result it appears to be technically feasible in all parts of the US where it has been registered. However, growers require time to transition; hence theamount of MB nominated has been adjusted downward. In Georgia, Florida, and the Southeastern U.S., the Georgia 3-Way on springplantings and MI areconsidered technically (and thus economically) feasible alternatives, although some limitations exist. The loss of gross revenue using the Georgia 3-Way isnegligible in Florida and the Southeastern U.S., while gains in gross revenue are expected in Georgia. Although no gains in gross revenue are expected when usingMI, losses in net revenue are negligible. One drawback to the Georgia 3-Way is that yield losses are expected in fall plantings, with studies in Georgia’s applicationshow a 50% yield loss. These losses are not expected when MI is used. The Georgia 3-Way also cannot be used on peppers that aregrown in karst soils since itcontains 1,3-D; however, MI can.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report41Country Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)UnitedStatesStrawberry(field)2,052.846 1,730.828 1,476.019 1,349.575 1,269.321 1007.477 - - 1023.471 812.709MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of812.709 tonnes for this use in 2011. The reduction is based on adjustment for the standard dosage rates from 150-175kg/ha to 125-150 kg/ha for MB/Pic mixtures with barrier films in the Eastern States, which are the highest use rates considered necessary by MBTOC for thiscrop, and greater uptake of alternatives (Pic EC, 1,3-D/Pic) and mixtures of MBPic with lower rates of MB (MB/Pic 50:50 or less) in California The recommendedamounts are 751.596 tonnes for California, 20.009 tonnes for Eastern USA and 41.104 tonnes for Florida. For California, the Party nominated 952.543 t (4,856 haat 196 kg/ha). However the volume that approved by the Party’s for 2010 was 856.598 t on 4,370 ha and hence there is an increase in the area and amountrequested. The nomination is based on township caps limiting further adoption of 1,3-D and county regulations affecting use ofhigh rates of Pic in some counties ona case by case basis.The nomination states that two emerging disease problems in California and the persistence of yellow nutsedge are the main reasons whyfurther adoption of alternatives is unlikely.In California the nomination was reduced to account for uptake of alternatives where township caps have not been exceeded and to account for greater uptake offormulations of MB/Pic 50:50. PUR use data for 2007 show that 98:2 and 67:33 formulations are still being used, and even though that 57:43 was used on 70% ofthe California strawberry area, MBTOC considers that transitionto MB/Pic 50:50 is still possible (2.5% adjustment). The 2007use rates of MB dose in formulationsfor 50:50 mixtures are 170 kg MB/ha (i.e. 170 kg Pic/ha) compared to 57:43 mixtures at 209 kg MB/ha (i.e. 158 kg Pic/ha) respectively. Both dose rates respect therestrictions on use of Pic and should enable 50:50 formulations to be used more widely. The most recent PUR data (2003-2007) showed that alternatives based on1,3-D, Pic and metham have been widely adopted in some counties, but not others, (i.e. good adoption in Ventura but little adoption in Monterey) between 2000-2007. In California, 1,3-D use increased from 2,001 ha (2003) to 4,752 ha (2007) and metham sodium increased from 384 ha (2001)to 745 ha (2007). PUR dataindicate that in Ventura county alone the adoption rate of MB alternatives has been about 800 ha per year, across the years between 2003 and 2007. In Montereyand Santa Cruz, the historical proportional use of MB in this expanding area has been approximately 75% of the production areaand this shows no progress inadoption of MB alternatives. Data on 2009 township caps have shown that there is room for further uptake of alternatives basedon 1,3-D and other alternatives insome counties (Pic EC, Metham and Pic) and MBTOC has calculated a 10% reduction for uptake of alternatives. In the areas affected by township caps, trials withalternatives that do not contain 1,3-D (such as Pic, Pic EC, Pic + metham, Pic + dazomet, often with LPBF) provided yields thatare statistically comparable with MB(Ajwa et al., 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006; Nelson et al., 2001ab; Shem-Tov et al., 2005, 2006ab). Pic EC provided an average 99% yield compared to MB, withlow variance (studies cited in TEAP, 2006). Further clarificationof the restrictions on the useof alternatives is required infuture nominations. VOC regulations mayprovide an opportunity for growers to use barrier films in California, and the Party is urged to to consider their implementation. These films can be used withalternatives and can reduce the dosage rates required for effective pathogen and weed control. In California, weed managementresearch showed that theherbicide oxyfluorfen can be applied safely to strawberry for control of common weed species in annual plasticulture strawberryproduction, thereby reducing timerequired for hand weeding (Daugovishet al., 2008).In Eastern states, the Party reports a transition rate of 52%. MBTOC considers this transition appropriate progress, given thatIM/Pic has been registered in 2008and is technically feasible for the total nomination area, but note that the Party applies a dose rate above the standard presumptions (12.5-15 g/m2). For Florida, theParty reports a transition rate of 53%. Given that technically and economically feasible alternatives are available, MBTOC commends this transition and made nofuther adjustment based on uptake of alternatives, but did adjust dosage rates to conform to the standard presumptions.42September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.CUN states that eastern growers that have access to IMexperience a decline of 1-4% in gross revenue in the first year of use due to increased costs to retrofit application equipment(hoses, nozzles, flow meters) that willallow the use of IM. Southeastern and Florida strawberry growers that use IM are expected to experience no change in yield or quality. For California strawberryproducers, there is no change in impacts from previous year estimates as IM is under registration review but registration is not expected in the near future. The lossto gross revenue for growers using the best alternative to MB is estimated to remain about 14%.UnitedStatesStrawberryrunners54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 7.944 4.690 - 2.018 7.381 6.036MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends 4.690 tonnes for California in 2011, and 2.018 tonnes for SE in 2010 and 1.346 tonnes for south east in 2011.Upon further consideration, MBTOC has accepted the action plan of the Party for 2010 and 2011 for amounts of 2.018 t and 1.346t respectively. MBTOC considersthat MI is technically suitable for strawberry fruit production from runners grown in MI treated soil, but accepts that time isrequired to conduct commercial scale uptrials of MI in fruit fields. MBTOC has not made a decision on 2012 as this will be dependent on current and future trial information.The CUN comprises 4.690 tonnes for California and 2.691 tonnesfor SE. The key pests affectingstrawberry runners are weeds (purple and yellow nutsedge), fungi(RhizoctoniaandPythium sppin SE,Phytophthora,Verticillium in California), nematodes (root-knot, sting in CA). The CUN is for MB use on 28 ha of 2172 ha,however 99% of the hectares are exempted under QPS. MBTOC does not recommend use of MB for North Carolina and Tennesee, as MI/Pic formulations areregistered and are technically feasible (TEAP, 2006). These formulations have beenshown to give similar pathogen control in soils and will meet requirements ofcertification (Kabir et al, 2005; Fennimoreet al2007, 2008; MBAO). MBTOC also believes distribution of MI/Pic across 11 ha should be very rapid and training ispossible within the two year period for total adoption. For California, MBTOC recommends the nomination, but expects that future nominations will show reports oftrials with key alternatives overthe last few years in order to satisfy the criteria of Decision IX/6. The CUN states that MBat a dosage of 26.3 g/m2in CA and 25.5g/m2in SE is required to meet the certification standards for strawberry runners. The Party's request exceeds MBTOC's standard presumption of 200 kg/ha (20g/m2) of MB which is considered effective for production of 'high health' strawberry runners using LPBF and other emission controltechnologies (TEAP 2005);however, California’s certification requirements specify minimum amounts of MB that must be applied. Furthermore, California regulations prohibit the use of LPBFwith MB. The Party indicates that key alternatives include 1,3-D + PIC followed by dazomet, PIC followed by dazomet and MI/Pic,but that these have not beensufficiently tested on a commercial scale. MBTOC encourages the Party to expedite the commercial scale testing of these alternatives as well as the registration ofMI in CA and to consider changes to there certification regulations in CA.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that IM is under registration review in California;however registration is expected to be at least one year in the future. The loss to gross revenue for growers using 1,3-D + Picfollowed by an application of methamsodium at a rate of up to 250 lb ai./ha is estimated to be about 11%. California strawberry nursery growers are not expected tosee any yield or quality impacts with1,3-D + Pic plus metham sodium. Eastern growers that have access to MI are expected to experience a loss of 13% in gross revenue in the first year of use due toincreased costs to retrofit application equipment (hoses, nozzles, flow meters) that will allow the use of MI. Southeastern Strawberry nursery producers that use MIare expected to experience no change in yield or quality.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report43Country Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)UnitedStatesSweetPotatoesslipsNone 0.000 0.000 18.144 18.144 14.515 - - 14.515 11.612MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 11.612 tonnes for this use in 2011. The nomination was based on a rate of 180 kg/ha ofMB. The basis of the nomination is that township caps limit the use of 1,3-D and 1,3-D combinations, however MBTOC notes that fungal pathogens are the keyproblem and not nematodes. MBTOC considers MS and Pic should be considered. The industry sector is now carrying out extensive trials for replacing MB. Arecent trial indicate that Pic is providing transplants that give yields and returns above that of MB and new herbicides can control weeds. Varieties with greatertolerance to nematodes are available. If Pic proves successful in the forthcoming trials, MBTOC considers it can be adopted asa suitable alternative and wouldanticipate substantial adoption by 2011. Telone, the alternative to MB, cannot be used in Dec-Jan and township caps are exceeded in Nov which is the fumigationwindow for slips. MBTOC recognizes the importance of producing pest free seed stock. Test of reduced rates of Telone are beingcarried out as this is the preferredfumigant of growers. Trials by Stoddard (2008) show Pic to be a good alternative and to provide better yields and returns to growers than MB.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN shows trial data that reflect that yield increases by 11%with the use of Pic, resulting in a gain in gross and net operating revenue of 7 and 22% respectively.UnitedStatesTomatoes(field)2,876.046 2,476.365 2,065.246 1,406.484 1,003.876 737.584 - - 336.191 292.751MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 292.751 tonnes for this use in 2011. The reduction is based on adjustment for the standarddosage rates from 150-175kg/ha to 125-150 kg/ha for MB/Pic mixtures with barrier films, which are the highest use rates considered necessary by MBTOC for thiscrop. The Party has made a 54% reduction in MB use from the amount approved by the Party’s for 2010. Of this amount, 19.411 tis for Georgia, 219.240 t is forFlorida and 40.821 t is for the Southeast, 12.914 t is for Virginia and 0.365 t is for Maryland. The Party did not recommend aCUN for Michigan. The Party isprojecting rates of 150 kg/ha for pathogens and 175 kg/ha for nutsedge. The transition rate included in the nomination is based on an estimate of projected use ofthe “UGA 3-WAY”, consisting of three successive soil fumigations, beginning with 1,3-D + Pic application, followed by a Pic application, followed by a methamsodium or metham-potassium application as well as the increased use of MI (Culpepper, 2007). The UGA 3-WAY has been shown tobe effective for tomatoes inGeorgia, but has not yet been successful in other parts of the Southern US and needs further development. In addition, 1,3-D is restricted in areas of Karsttopography where ground water is vulnerable to leaching from 1,3-D. The time limitations on the registration of Midas, a mixture of MI and Pic have been removedand this product has shown good efficacy against key pepper pests, including nutsedge, in a number of trials with peppers and related vegetables such astomatoes. Midas has received state-level approval in 47 US states (California, Washington, and New York are the exceptions atthis time). However, the Partystates that some time will be necessary before Midas achieves a full adoption. Constraints: (1) the cost of MI formulations which is higher than MB, (2) growersand researchers will need time to evaluate MI use in the various local production conditions covered by this nominations, and (3) growers and applicators will needto make some equipment modifications to adapt to the lower flow rates typical with less expensive MI application rates and to avoid the corrosion of some metalsthat can occur with MI(Sumner 2005, Nolinget al. 2006).The Party states that trials with DMDS plus Pic are promising, but DMDS is not registered in the US. Anapplication to register DMDS is under consideration at USEPA (MacRae and Culpepper, 2008). According to the Party, non chemical alternatives such as graftingsoilless culture, are not economically feasible. MBTOC considers that the party should develop these alternatives which are widely used in many countries andregions with similar climate and pest (Besri 2008). It is important to note that MB is not used in other country on tomato.44September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(1ExMOPand16MOPCUE for 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010 (MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtlor new)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (addtl or new)MBTOC comments on economics 2009:The nomination was partially based on economic arguments. CUN concludes that MI would be the economically feasiblealternative for use in Eastern and Florida US tomato production in areas exhibiting karst topographical features, but a transition period is required. In areas wherekarst features are not present it appears that tomato growers can use a combination of three fumigants applied sequentially (1,3-D, Pic, and methamsodium/potassium) and achieve yields that are comparable to those produced by using MB for spring crops only.

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 45 

# 4. Final Report – Issues Speci fic to MBTOC Quarantine,

Structures and Commodities

At the Open Ended Working Group in Geneva in July 2009, MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities (QSC) held bilateral meetings with Australia, Israel, the Russian Federation and the United States. The purpose was to discuss Parties’ views concerning MBTOC’s interim CUN recommendations, receive and provide additional information and discuss outstanding technical and economic questions.

Following the meeting, MBTOC QSC provided letters to the Parties summarizing our understandings, responding to requests for more information and informing Parties that we did not believe we would have sufficient workload to necessitate, nor funding to allow, a second meeting. We indicated we would conduct re-reviews of CUN decisions if Parties’ requested and provided additional information.

The discussion and subsequent letters resulted in the withdrawal of the CUN for postharvest uses from the Russian Federati on. Israel noted in further correspondence

that MBTOC’s interim recommendation for the treatment of dates would be difficult to comply with, but that Israel would try to make the changes recommended. Israel did not ask MBTOC QSC to re-review its CUN for date s. Australia did not ask for a re-review

of its rice CUN. The United States asked MBTOC to re-review its CUN for commodities and provided some additional information concerning processing methods

for dried fruit.

Given this decreased workload and ongoi ng funding difficulties for non A-5 members to attend meetings, we decided not to have a second meeting this year. Accordingly, we devised a new process to conduct the re-revi ew by email and telephone. It proceeded as

follows:

1. All re-review requests and supporti ng documents received from Parties were circulated to all MBTOC (QSC, Soils and Economist) members.

2. MBTOC’s QSC Chair and review team lead er updated the confidential B Form with new information received from Parties and initiated discussion with QSC and economist members. The B Form is used to summarize key technical and economics issues for review, and to compare these issues year over year.

3. Considerable discussion ensued amongst members; all discussion was circulated to all QSC members and economists.

4. The Chair drafted a recommended text box, based on the discussion comments; it was circulated to MBTOC QSC, Soils and Economists.

5. Each member was required to indicate their views and agreement (or not) by email or by phone. In fact, each member agreed to the text box in writing.

6. The text box is included in the final report in exact wording agreed by consensus.

MBTOC QSC is highly communicative and its members have a high degree of interest and involvement. Consequently, although this process took considerable time, we were

# 46 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# able to achieve full discussion leading to eventual consensus on the CUN for US commodities as requested.

Funding Request to Parties

The method of holding a second meeting by email only, while functional for the rereview of one CUN, decreased our time and ability to search for, prepare and review updates on uses of methyl bromide, alternativ es research and registration issues. This report is much thinner in content than us ual! Parties are referred to the May 2009 TEAP report which provides details on the CUN pro cess, pertinent decisions and a detailed new Progress Report.

MBTOC is obligated under Decision XV I/4 Annex 16 to meet twice a year when making CUN recommendations to ensure it has full information and to allow Parties to provide information. In future years, and particularly in 2010 when we will be preparing the Assessment Report and evaluating critical use nominations, we firmly request that UNEP and Party funding of MBTOC members im prove to allow us to meet our meeting obligations and complete our work with credibility. Some MBTOC members are now retired from their research institutes and there seems to be an expectation that they will cover travel costs themselves personally. Other members must try to cover travel costs from their already thin research budgets. Some Non-A5 members report it is a struggle for them to obtain funding in the current economic climate to fund attendance since Parties already contribute to the MLF.

The lack of funding for MBTOC members is not sustainable. Yet, it is not a simple matter of finding new members to substitute for the current unfunded members. All over the world, Parties have closed instit utes of stored product entomology research. Expertise in this subject is very rare; MBTOC is fortunate to have members with decades of experience. Surely funding could be found to support their travel and work

on MBTOC.

MBTOC Membership Issues

MBTOC QSC currently has 19 members from 14 countries. In late 2009 and early 2010, we will re-evaluate membership to ensure best contribution and to ensure best use

of funds from Parties and UNEP.

Details of evaluations

Parties submitted nine CUNs for the use of MB in structures and commodities in 2009. This total does not include the Russian Federation CUN for postharvest uses of methyl bromide which was withdrawn by the Party in July 2009. The total MB volume nominated in 2009 for non-QPS post-harvest uses was 197.802 tonnes.

In this 2009 round, two nominations were for 2010 for a total MB amount of 6.30

tonnes and seven were for 2011 for a total MB amount of 191.502 tonnes.

In its interim report of May 2009, MBTOC provided interim recommendations on all CUNs with the resulting recommendations of 4.569 tonnes for 2010 and, for 2011,

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 47 182.686 tonnes. MBTOC did not recommend 1.731 tonnes for 2010 and 8.816 for

2011.

Subsequent to the publication of the May 2009 TEAP report, the United States requested a re-review of its CUN for dried co mmodities. As a result of that re-review

MBTOC recommended an additional 3.035 tonnes for US commodities over its interim recommendation of 1.965 tonnes. The resulting final recommendation for US commodities is 5.0 tonnes, as explained in the text box below.

The Final totals for CUN recommendations in the 2009 round are 4.569 tonnes for 2010

and 185.721 tonnes for 2011.

Table 4.1 provides the MBTOC QSC final reco mmendations for the CUNs submitted in

2009.48September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportTable 4.1 MBTOC QSC Final Recommendations for CUNs in the 2009 RoundCountry Industry CUE for2005(ExMOP1and MOP16CUE for2006 (MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010(MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtl ornew)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (new)Australia Rice 6.150 6.150 9.205 9.200 7.820 6.650 - - 5.660 4.87MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends 4.87 tonnes, a 14% reduction of the nominated amount for packed rice for Australia in 2011. Australia nominated 5.66 tonnes.In preparing this calculation MBTOC reviewed the actual MB use for packaged rice as reported in the Party’s accounting frameworks for 2006, 2007 and 2008. Using the averageof these three years as a baseline (6.085 tonnes), we then applied a 20% transition rate with the result of 4.87 tonnes. To date, Australia has not adopted any alternatives tomethyl bromide for packaged rice. Other countries are achieving an average of 20% transition to alternatives per year. It is clear that phosphine treatment or controlledatmosphere treatments would provide the necessary pest efficacy for packaged rice and these alternatives are registered for this use in Australia. All other non-A(5) countriesworldwide and many A(5) countries use methyl bromide alternatives for rice.As we have noted in previous years, MBTOC does not find Australia’s continued zero adoption of alternatives to be consistent with Decision IX/6. If it were to recommendthe full 2011 nomination, MBTOC thought would be quite unlikely that there would be any adoption of alternatives, given the region’s water allocation rules and arrangements andthe drought described by the Party in this and previous CUNs. On page 5 of Party correspondence of March 31, the Party said “that the process of fumigating packaged rice is aquality control step, not a disinfestation step per se in order to guarantee a supply of high quality rice that is insect free.The applicant does not fumigate rice prior to processingnor are such facilities available to the applicant.” MBTOC finds that the continued use of MB as a contingency against the possible presence of pests after milling, as opposed tousing MB only in response to a known infestation, is an unacceptable use.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:This CUN is partly based oneconomic arguments. CUN states that two potential technically and economically feasible alternatives, namely sulfuryl fluoride and phosphine, havebeen identified. Sulfuryl fluoride, which requires less significant process changes and investment to implement, was registeredin 2007 and trials commenced in January 2009. Iftrials prove it to be technically and economically feasible, the applicant indicates they may not require methyl bromide beyond2012. On the other hand, phosphine fumigation isconsidered to be the best solution, both technically and economically, even though it would require a considerable change to processing methods and a substantial infrastructureinvestment.It is not clear to MBTOC on what basis the applicant argues that phosphine is ‘the best solution’ in economic terms.The CUN, in fact, relates the difficultiesfaced by the applicant in raising the capital for transition to phosphine.Economic data are presented to show that the treatment costs with phosphine are expected to be15.5 times as large as with methyl bromide, but this would not be the case if phosphine were to be used in the same way as MB for packaged goods,.. CUN statesfurther that the applicant has been unable to finance a transition to phosphine due to continued severe drought conditions in the growing area; hence it is unaffordable to them.MBTOC cannot substantiate this claim based on an analysis of the financial statements of one enterprise. In late 2008, the applicant purchased a majority share in aUS rice processing company. When questioned by MBTOC about the conflicting claim of its stated inability to invest in alternatives with this large investment in afacility, the applicant responded by pointing to the strategic nature of these investments during turbulence in the global rice market.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report49Country Industry CUE for2005(ExMOP1and MOP16CUE for2006 (MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010(MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtl ornew)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (new)Canada Mills 47(includedmills andpasta)34.774 30.167(includedmills only)28.650 26.913 22.878 - - 14.107 14.107MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends the nominated 14.107 tonnes for the treatment of flour mills in 2011. The Party’s nomination for 2011 is 38% less than the amount of MB approved by theParties for 2010. The CUN includes 20 facilities, but the amount nominated only allows for one fumigation per year of 9 or 10 mills. Therefore the Party’s nominated amountrequires about 50% of the flour milling sector to transition to alternatives by 2011.This is accomplished through two means: first, in the past few years the Party has conducted numerous trials and demonstrationsof alternatives which have beenreported to MBTOC. These trials, while not all entirely successful for pest efficacy, have allowed the sector to better understand and improve efficacy and management.Improvements in IPM techniques, including investments in new equipment and facility dust control, have also contributed to thereduced need for methyl bromide.The Party has indicated concern about the difficulty in obtaining successful pest efficacy with alternatives and points out that Canadian mills are located in cold climatezones (defined as “considerable variation in ambient temperatures, including extended periods (4 to 5 months) of cold winter weather”). As a result the Party asserts thatfumigations in wintermonths are essentially impractical. The CUN asserts thatthis heightensthe importance ofpredictable andlasting (20 to 26 weeks) pest population control bychemical fumigation or heat treatment alternatives.The Party has submitted test results indicating that the main mill pests require a higher than originally first considered dosage rate of sulfuryl fluoride to obtain sufficientefficacy. MBTOC acknowledges this and has seen this reported by Bell et al, 1999 and Bell et al, 2003. Reichmuth and Klementz,2008 did examine methods to combinetreatments to overcome the difficulty to obtain pest efficacy with some pest species found in mills during SF fumigations. As noted in MBTOC’s review of flour milling alternatives,best efficacy with SF is seen when mill temperature is maintained throughout the fumigation period at or above 27 ̊C, in all parts of the mill (TEAP, 2008).The second factor allowing the Party’s nominated transition to alternatives is that Canadian regulation now allows those companies which are included in the CUN toshare the MB domestic allocation so that only those mills most in need of MB will receive the allocation. As part of its domestic regulations allowing this transfer of allocation,Government of Canada has further approval and reporting requirements, pursuant to Canada’s Ozone-depleting Substances Regulations (ODSR 1998). 2008 was the first fullcalendar year in which the amended ODSR 1998 were in effect. Therefore, the mills which might be fumigated with MB may changeeach year, but only between the mills withinthe mill sector alreadyincluded in the CUN.The Party and MBTOC acknowledge the higher costs associated with alternative treatments. Additionally, MBTOC acknowledges thatregistration for sulfuryl fluroride inCanada is not yet complete and the lack of MRLs for fluorine residues arising from SF treatment makes the use of SF more difficult for some mills.Differences in regulation between Canada and the US, the only other Party with a CUN for flour milling, only partly explain thedifferences in adoption of alternatives overtime. As reported in TEAP2008, MBTOC is examining sector structural differences to improve its understanding of the prospectsfor adoption of alternatives in the future. Forexample, in the US MBTOC has been told that 42% of mills also produce bakery or cereal mixes. On the other hand, the majority of the Canadian applicant’s member companiesare wheat milling establishments but the CUN also includes oat milling companies. Some of the mill locations participating inCanada’s CUN for the flour milling industry operatebakery mix capacity that is co-located with the primary milling activity. Approximately 25% of mill locations participating inthe CUN have bakery mixcapacity on site. Thisdifference may partly explain how Canada mills have been able to maintain a nearly similar transition rate to US mills even though the regulatory approval for sulfuryl fluoride is50September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(ExMOP1and MOP16CUE for2006 (MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010(MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtl ornew)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (new)different in the two different countries.MBTOC also notes the interconnection between Canadian CUNs for flour mills and pasta facilities. The CUN for flour mills includes four mills that process durum wheatinto semolina used in the manufacture of pasta and one of these is both a durum mill and a pasta facility. Control of pests inthe flour mill will then contribute to the reduction ofpests coming into the pasta facility.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:This CUN is not based solely oneconomic arguments, although economic concerns are indicated. CUNargues that market penetration of the technically most viable alternativesis being hampered by:•Insufficient evidence that SF can be effective under Canada’s typically cold weather conditions.•Lack of full registration of SF•Current market cost of heat treatment technology and services.•Concerns by the milling industry that repeat fumigations using phosphine may have a cumulative effect of corroding conductive metals present in electrical and electronicequipment and controlsCUN also states that, while the amount of sulfuryl fluoride required to fumigate for the exclusive presence of confused flour beetle is comparable in cost and volume to methylbromide, the results of field trials already completed have demonstrated that 2 to 6 times as much SF is actually required to fumigate when red flour beetles are present, whichrepresents a significant increase in cost. CUE notes that the required use of alternatives within a short time period would addan estimated 2 to 4 per cent to manufacturing costsof wheat flour, semolina and other milled grain products. In the current economic climate this added cost cannot be passed on down the supply chain. Furthermore, there are stillno subsidies available to offset these increased costs.MBTOC notes that lack of government financial assistance programs has not been a consideration in assessmentsof economic feasibility.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report51Country Industry CUE for2005(ExMOP1and MOP16CUE for2006 (MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010(MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtl ornew)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (new)Canada Pasta(seeCanadamills)10.457 6.757 6.067 4.74 - 4.740 3.529 - -MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends 3.529 tonnes, a 25.5% reduction of the nominated amount for pasta facilities in 2010. The Party nominated 4.740 tonnes for 2010 which did not show anyadoption of alternatives over the amount granted bythe Parties for 2009. The CUN includes three pasta facilities, each requesting one MB fumigation per year. MBTOC’s reducednomination allows for just two fumigations in this sector, thus necessitating one facility to transition to alternatives.The method for sharing the MB domestic allocation amongst companies included in the CUN in the same sector is allowed under Canadian regulations. As part of itsdomestic regulations allowing this transfer of allocation, Government of Canada has further approval and reporting requirements, pursuant to Canada’s Ozone-depletingSubstances Regulations (ODSR 1998). 2008 was the first full calendar year in which the amended ODSR 1998 were in effect.MBTOC’s recommendation allows for a consistent approach to that taken by the Party for flour milling. Furthermore MBTOC notes that the equivalent CUN from the US,(the reader is referred to MBTOC text box for US NPMA), which is the only other CUN for pasta, has declined significantly eachsuccessive year, including an over 50% reductionin the nomination for 2011.MBTOC acknowledges that registration for sulfuryl fluroride in Canada is not yet complete and the lack of MRLs for fluorine residues arising from SF treatment makes theuse of SF more difficult for some pasta processing facilities. In Canada full registration of SF, including MRLs for fluorine residues in food resulting from SF fumigation of thefacility, is expected in 2009. If that occurs, the Party indicates it will conduct another full site trial.In the meanwhile, the sector conducted one trial using sulfuryl fluoride in 2008, and two trials in parts of facilities in 2007. The result of these trials were submitted toMBTOC (CPMA, 2009). Red flour beetle was the test species and the Party has noted that this species, common in mills and food processing facilities in North America, is moredifficult to kill than other species with SF. MBTOC acknowledgesthis and refers the reader to Canada flour mills text box forreferences. The Party reported tests in three plantsachieved 100% mortality for adults, but egg stage resulted in some survival with egg mortality ranging from 69-94%. Pest rebound occurred faster in SF fumigation than incomparable MB fumigations. Again as noted in MBTOC’s review of flour milling alternatives improved efficacy with SF is seen when mill temperature is maintained throughout thefumigation period at or above 27degrees C, in all parts of the mill (TEAP,2008). The cost of SF treatment was higher than methyl bromide treatment.The CUN page 10 says they can not use heat because heat would damage finished goods. MBTOC believes there are methods of circumventing this problem by, for example,segregating finished goods from the treatment. CUN Page 10 also gives some heat cost estimates, but no supporting evidence is included. MBTOC continues to note that heattreatment is used in pasta facilities in other countries, for example, 13 pasta facilities in Italy use heat treatment to control pests. The CUN indicates concern about the potential ofheat treatment to damage equipment and facilities, but the Party has not substantiated this concern with tests, engineering reports or otherwise. Pasta facilities operate at quitehigh temperatures resulting from the operation of equipment and just a small additional heat increasemight be all that is needed to conduct efficient heat treatment. In addition, ifpasta facilities had understanding of the location of pests and if that understanding indicated that pests were mostly locatedin one type of equipment, spot heat treatment withappropriate additional methods to prevent pest escape might also be used. The requirements for full site and spot heat treatment are reviewed in MBTOC’s flour mill review(TEAP, 2008).52September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(ExMOP1and MOP16CUE for2006 (MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010(MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtl ornew)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (new)MBTOC comments on economics 2009:This CUN is not based on economic arguments.CUN argues that heat treatment remains a costly alternative, estimating that the cost to carry out the heat treatment is twice thecost of doing a methyl bromide treatment. This increases to three or four times when the cost of monitoring (ensure comparableresults) is included.No cost data was suppliedand MBTOC requires substantiation of these cost estimates.Israel Dates 3.444 2.755 2.200 1.800 None 2.100 1.56 1.04MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends a reduced nomination of 1.04 tonnes, about 60% of the nominated amount for dates in 2010. The Party nominated1.56 tonnes and noted that methylbromide is only used for those date varieties for which heat treatment or other alternatives have not been shown to be effective.The basis for the reduction in the nomination was to decrease the dosage rate to 20g m-3from 30g m-3as specified in correspondence. MBTOC had concern about theexcessively high dosage rates reported in the CUN, page 17 which indicated a MBdosage rate of 300g per tonne of dates, however, the CUN also notes that the actual dosagerate used is 20 g m-3, which is the dosage rate recommended by MBTOC as technically effective. Later correspondence indicated a dosage rate of 30g m-3.The CUN gives a packing factor for non-Medjool dates as 400kg m-3; the correspondence indicates 300kg m-3. At 20 g m-3, a reasonable rate, a well constructed productstack should use about 22 g for each 400kg (10% allowance for packing) or 55 g m-3. Based on the reported dosage rate and the packing information examined, we surmise thatthe chambers used must have low load factors (lots of free space), which seems to be an inappropriately inefficient use of MB.MBTOC’s recommendation is based on itsunderstanding of reasonable packing density and dosage rates.MBTOC also notes that in April 2009, VapormateTM, a formulation of ethyl formate and CO2, was registered for disinfestation of dried fruit in Israel. The use of ethyl formate is aneffective disinfestation method for dried fruit, and Israel is currently testing to measure its efficacy on dates.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:This CUN is not based on economicarguments. CUN argues that the economic feasibility of heat treatment is clear because of theexperience with the controlled drying ofMedjool dates:it is critical in maintaining their quality. CUN statesfurther that it is too earlyfor economic feasibility for other (non-heat) alternatives to be evaluated at this stage,but that it is highly possible that this will reveal that one or more of these alternatives are economically feasible.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report53Country Industry CUE for2005(ExMOP1and MOP16CUE for2006 (MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010(MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtl ornew)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (new)Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300 5.800 5.400 - - 5.350 5.35MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends the Party’s nominated amount of 5.350 tonnes for 2011, which is a 1% reduction over the amounts granted by theParties for 2010. Japan tried 14 differentpossible alternatives (reportedin its CUN of 2005, JPN13, 2005)and decided that methyl iodide wastechnically and economically feasible. Now the party is awaiting registrationfor this purpose.In Japan, there are two levels for registration: 1) toxicological assessment of methyl iodide that has been completed; 2) worker safety issues and food sanitation approvalthat still have to be completed by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW). The Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) sent a letter to MHLW todeclare the need for a high priority for setting the corresponding MRLs. On March 6, 2009, the evaluation by MHLW was completed. Now, the release ofthe registration isexpected for 2009. If this occurs, MBTOC expects that the Party will not authorize the full nominated amount of MB for 2011. Onthese grounds, MBTOC expects a significant andquick phase-in of the newly registered alternative.In the instance that registration of MI for this purpose is notachieved, SF also works well to control pests of chestnuts, butJapan is concerned about the lack of fullcontrol of the eggs of the chestnut weevilCurculio sikkimensis(Somaet al, 2005; Kawakami,et al, 2003; Vinghes and Ducom, 2001). Japanese consumers use fresh chestnutsas special gifts and so the consumers might keep product in their homes for a few weeks. Under these circumstances, the presence of live eggs or larvae in chestnuts followingSF treatment would be unacceptable.Chestnut consumption in France and other countries is different in that the chestnuts are consumed directly after purchase. Onthe other hand, transition to SF has justoccurred in France and it is yet unclear if consumers in France may eventually have the same complaints due to surviving eggs and larvae.MBTOC asked about the use of hot water treatment, as used in some countries. But, the skin of hot-water-treated chestnuts becomes dull; as a result consumers mightthink the product is not fresh. CO2under high pressure (20 bar) is used in one location in Portugal for disinfestation of fresh chestnuts with existing pressurechambers, that arealso used for other products. In 2003, Japan tested the efficacy of this method. Despite the sufficient efficacy, the high investment for the chambers (several million € perchamber) - when they would be intended to be used only for this purpose – was considered to be far too costly. This work was not continued because of the high investment costsfor this treatment.In Japan, disinfestations have to take place in numerous wide spread small farm holdings. So, there is a strong logistic argument against having a central facility thatgathers product from several small farms. In the light of the scientific work of the Party and the lack of any alternative other than methyl iodide, the solution for the replacement ofthis difficult application seems to be quickly achievable when registration occurs.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:This CUN is not based oneconomic arguments.54September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(ExMOP1and MOP16CUE for2006 (MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010(MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtl ornew)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (new)UnitedStatesCommodities89.166 87.719 78.983 58.921 45.623 19.242 - - 10.041 5.0MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends 5.0 tonnes of methyl bromide for the commodities included in this CUN in 2011.The Party nominated 10.41 tonnes of MB for this sector, disaggregated tothe following amounts: dates 2.009 tonnes; walnuts 1.17 tonnes; California Dried Plum Board 6.266 tonnes; beans 0.595 tonnes.MBTOC’s final recommendation does notdisaggregate the CUN into commodity sectors. Instead the recommendation is intended to provide MB to any sector member includedin this CUN, but only in the instance ofproven lack of efficacy of, or technically justifiable inability to use, or to complete the transition to, alternatives. In theinstance where sector members have demonstrated a provenlack of efficacy or technically justifiable inability to use alternatives, and if the volume of MB in this recommendation is inadequate, sector members could buy MB from stocks.This sector is rapidly transitioning to alternatives and there are several alternatives that are available (phosphine, sulfurylfluoride, heat, controlled atmospheres, cold andcombination treatments). The USG has not provided adequate information to indicate where, exactly, and under what circumstancesexactly, is the need for MB critical in theprocessing of the commodities included in this CUN. The processing scenarios provided to MBTOC by USG, while helpful to understand potential avenues for infestation and thefumigation interventions, did not indicate which fumigations have already been, are being, and can be transitioned to alternatives. However, the USG has provided new,preliminary, research results showing possibly inadequate efficacy for a commodity pest under some circumstances consistent with harvest conditions (Walse, 2008). MBTOCbelieves it could be mid 2010 before the results of ongoing research and commercial scale-up tests are fully known. MBTOC suggests that USG further reduce thisrecommendation in domestic allocation if, by then, the sector has made or could make more progress in adopting alternatives.The US nomination for dates was for the Deglet-Noor variety harvested in California. In recent years there has been a lack of understanding of the impact of parameterssuch as date variety, conditions at harvest and particularly moisture content of the dates at time of fumigation, and how theseparameters relate to control of pests and fungi indates. Consequently, the US believed that its Deglet-Noor dates at harvest were similar to the Deglet-Noor dates harvested in North African countries. The North African countrieshave indicated considerable concern to Parties that alternatives for their high moisture dates were not currently known. In 2003, MBTOC agreed that it did not, at that time, knowof pest control alternatives to high moisture fresh dates. However, MBTOC has recently gained the understanding that the moisture content of US dates at time of harvest isbetween 17-23%. In the instance of US dates it appears that the length of time needed to achieve date maturity on the tree, also results in considerable drying, while the dates arestill on the tree. Thus, US dates were referred to as ‘fresh’ but the American definition stands in contrast to the Deglet-Noordates of North African countries which are alsoharvested ‘fresh’ at maturity but are at 35-40% moisture content. It is the moisture content and not the freshness of recent picking that impacts the potential for alternatives to beeffective. When dates are at 17-23% moisture content, they are a dried fruit from the viewpoint of regulation allowing the useof alternatives and from the viewpoint of spoilagepotential. In the case of the US, the word ‘fresh’ in this instance is a marketing term. Therefore, heat, phosphine, controlledatmosphere and cold treatment seem likely to beeffective and are registered for use in the US. In addition, sulfuryl fluoride is also registered for treatment of dates and recent trials have indicated efficacy, at least for adults andlarvae of some pests. As noted above, recently submitted preliminary research indicates potential problems with efficacy for egg kill for one pest of dried fruit (Walse, 2008). Itremains to be seen whether this is an actual barrier to adoption of sulfuryl fluoride for dates, or whether manipulation of fumigation parameters such as temperature could resolvethis problem. For further discussion of date infestation and treatment issues, the reader is referred to the review of date treatment elsewhere in May 2009 TEAP/MBTOC ProgressReport . In the instance of a future CUN for dates, MBTOC will expect research reports which indicate the extent of the problem with the target pest, and showing thatmanipulation of fumigation parameters was insufficient to result in adequate efficacy.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report55Country Industry CUE for2005(ExMOP1and MOP16CUE for2006 (MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010(MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtl ornew)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (new)Walnut sector has virtually completed its transition to sulfuryl fluoride and other alternatives for commodity exported to theEU; the remaining small use of MB is to allowfor quick treatment of packaged product when the other treatments would be too slow. MBTOC expects that even this use will quickly diminish as logistics for alternativetreatments are improved. In the instance of a future CUN for walnuts, MBTOC will expect considerable information exactly describing which step in processing or logisticcircumstance critically needs MB, the likely volume of product so affected and indicating practical plans to eliminate even this use. There are numerous alternatives available forwalnuts.The California Dried Plum Board nomination includes dried plums, dried raisins and figs. MBTOC believes that transition to alternatives should be completed for dried plums andraisins by 2011. MB should be used for these commodities only in the instance proven lack of efficacy of, or technically justifiable inability to use, or to complete the transition to,alternatives. Plums are dried using a heat process which also results in disinfestation. Plums can be stored in cool or cold storage without risk of sugar crystallization and if theyare infested after drying they can be treated with phosphine. Figs are infested at harvest and need a treatment before storage, but several alternative treatments are availableand should be used. MBTOC has not been given the volumes of figs treated by alternatives and the volume of figs intended to betreated by MB, but from the MB volumenominated, it seems MB is used for a small portion of the harvest. In the instance of a future CUN for figs, MBTOC will expectconsiderable information exactly describing whichstep in processing or logistic circumstance critically needs MB, the likely volume of product so affected and indicating practical plans to eliminate even this use. Raisin sector canuse phosphine, controlled atmosphere, sulfuryl fluoride or cool storage and should only resort to MB in the instance of provenlack of efficacy of, or technically justifiable inabilityto use, or to complete the transition to, alternatives. Bean sector is currently quickly transitioning to phosphine, but sulfuryl fluoride could also be used to resolve logistical issuescaused by lack of available treatment facilities or options.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:This CUN is not based solely on economic arguments. CUN summarizes economic losses due to use of:•Phosphine. Losses arise from additional production downtimes due to longer fumigation time and from capital expenditures required to adopt an alternative. Economiclosses due to downtime with phosphine are persistent. MBTOC agrees with this analysis.Sulfuryl Fluoride. SF is shown to be a viable alternative to MB; costs per lb are comparable although application rates may behigher. Walnuts have inelastic demand; costincrease can be passed to consumers. Sulfuryl fluoride was found to be technically and economically feasible for walnuts, driedfruit, and dried beans56September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(ExMOP1and MOP16CUE for2006 (MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010(MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtl ornew)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (new)UnitedStatesNPMA foodprocessingstructures(cocoabeansremoved)83.344 69.118 82.771 69.208 54.606 37.778 - - 17.365 17.365MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends the nominated amount of 17.365 tonnes for food processing facilities in 2011. The Party’s nomination reflectsa 54% decrease in MB use in its foodprocessing sector over the amount of MB granted by the Parties for 2010.This CUN includes facilities that prepare processed foods (such as chips, crackers, cookies and pasta), spices and herbs processing facilities, and also cheeseprocessing plants (with cheese present in storage). The food processing sector represents by far the largest portion of the MBnomination in this CUN (14.498 tonnes). Herb andspice blending facilities (1.055 tonnes) and cheese storages (1.812 tonnes) are relatively small.Food processing facilities in the United States have reduced the number of methyl bromide fumigations by incorporating many different techniques to control pests. Themost critical strategy implemented is IPM, especially sanitation, in all areas of a facility. Facilities are now being monitored for pest populations, using visual inspections,pheromone traps, light traps and electrocution traps. When insect pests are found, facilities will attempt to contain the infestation with treatments of low volatility pesticidesapplied to both surfaces and cracks and crevices; spot treatments with heat or phosphine will be used in areas that are suitable. Incoming ingredients are inspected for insectpests and may be treated with phosphine. These techniques contribute to reduced pest pressure and avoid the need for full sitetreatment.MBTOC notes that perhaps especially with herb and spice processing equipment, in the instance of pest infestation centered in aparticular piece of equipment, spot heattreatment with additional measures to prevent pest escape might be effective. MBTOC described a suitable spot heat method in its flour milling review of TEAP, 2008.With this nomination, the Party has moved ahead of its transition plan indicatedin earlier CUNs.The Party’s CUN in 2007 indicated that 16% of the MB use included inits food processing nomination would not be able to transition. But, with the 2009 nomination, the transition to alternatives in food processing sector is now approaching the levelpreviously indicated as unable to transition. MBTOC inquires if the part of the sector previously designated as unable to transition is now considered able to transition toalternatives?Although the other sectors included in this CUN have made very substantive reductions in MB nominated, cheese storage sector has not reduced its nomination.MBTOC acknowledges a lack of knowledge of currently technically effective MB alternatives. The CUN indicates that, “Cheese manufacturers may target their products duringfumigations with methyl bromide when a mite infestation is identified by USDA inspection and a fumigation is ordered.” MBTOC assumes that under these circumstances, recordsof the fumigation must be kept by government inspectors or by the processing facility. Therefore MBTOC requests that as part ofany future CUN, actual MB use figures forcheese processing sector be submitted. MBTOC needs these records to monitor that the amounts it recommends are consistent withthe amounts actually needed. The Party hasreported that the ongoing multi-state research project on mite infestation in cured pork also includes investigations of mitesin cheese. However, MBTOC also encourages theParty to contact EU and Canadian cheese producers to see how they manage pests in cheese storages without MB.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report57Country Industry CUE for2005(ExMOP1and MOP16CUE for2006 (MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010(MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtl ornew)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (new)MBTOC comments on economics 2009:This CUN is not based solely on economic arguments. CUN summarizes economic losses due to use of:•Heat treatment. Heat treatments are technically and economically feasible in some cases. However, in very cold regions, heat iscostly and production time is lost; in oldfacilities, high heat could inflict structural damage; heat is not feasible for treating commercial-scale commodity volumes, asheat is a poor penetrator of packaging, boxes,and commodities; structures with many concrete partitions are not good candidates for heat treatment because heat may not be evenly distributed. Economic losses due todowntime with heat treatment are persistent.MBTOC does not agree that production time is lost, although the treatment cost may be higher.•Phosphine. Although phosphine kills insects, it is corrosive to components of the electronics that run the manufacturing equipment. Phosphine also requires a longerapplication time. Phosphine is not a suitable alternative to methyl bromide when rapid fumigations are needed to meet customertimelines. Resistance has also beenreported for several stored product pests. Furthermore, cheese makers claim that phosphine causes damage to the cheese•Carbon dioxide. Facilities in the United States are not airtight enough for modified atmospheres or carbon dioxide to be effective primarily due to age of the facility;specifically, most facilities are more than 25 years old.Sulfuryl fluoride. A portion of the food processing facilities can economically convert to sulfuryl fluoride. Other facilitiescannot due to economic losses that would result fromhigher treatment costs which arise at lower temperatures. For a small percentage, SF is not technically feasible due to cold temperatures. Adding heat to increase the efficacy ofSF is also not an economically feasible option.MBTOC requires substantiation of these claims.UnitedStatesMills andprocessors483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237 291.418 173.023 - - 135.299 135.299MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends 135.299 tonnes, the nominated amount for 2011. In 2007, the Party implemented an acceptable transition plan for this sector requiring annual decreases of18-20%, depending on the type of facility. This plan continues to be implemented, and sometimes exceeded, by the Party, although not in consistent year over year increments.Thus MBTOC notes that for 2011, the pet food and rice milling sector nominations have not decreased over 2010 levels, perhaps because earlier transitions were higher thanoriginally planned.The CUN indicates that continued lack of regulatory approval for fluorine residues in pet foods and in food mixes that are sometimes present in rice mills is the reason forlack of progress in adopting alternatives in these sectors. However, MBTOC notes that this was also the reason given last yearfor a slowing of the adoption of alternatives in ricemilling and pet food facilities. MBTOC continues to express its concern about the possibility of continued lack of adoption ofalternatives in these sectors if research to overcomethe problem of segregating commodities during SF fumigation of facilities is not conducted.In its text boxes of 2008, MBTOC noted, “Pet food facilities could, however, expand use of full site or spot heat treatment, utilizing appropriate pest barrier methods toprevent pest escape from spot heat treatments.” And, “The three sectors included in this CUN are expected to work to improve treatment logistics that improve productsegregation so that more adoption of alternatives can be accomplished even if regulatory barriers to the use of SF persist. When conducting SF fumigations where food mixes are58September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry CUE for2005(ExMOP1and MOP16CUE for2006 (MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010(MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtl ornew)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (new)present, the applicant could trial tarping off the food under positive pressure or removing food ingredients and mixes to non-fumigated areas or sealing off stored productwarehouses to allow SF treatment of facility while ensuring that food is not exposed (TEAP October 2008)”. Food isolation techniques during SF fumigations are commonlycommercially used in Germany and the UK, for example. In the EU the need to segregate food commodities has not stymied the adoption of SF for food processing facilities andmills. The CUN for 2009 and Party correspondence indicated that this research recommended by MBTOC was not done. MBTOC indicates that without the conduct of suitableresearch to overcome the regulatory problem, it can not continue to recommend MB use in pet food and rice milling, particularlyif there were to be another year of CUN withoutre-implemeting the previous years’ transition rates.In addition to thisconcern, we note that CUNs and Party correspondence indicates there is asegment of the pet food facilitiesand rice milling that will be unable totransition to alternatives, at all. The CUN of 2008 and earlier years indicates about 5 tonnes of MB use in rice milling and 6tonnes in pet foods sector will not be able to adoptalternatives at all. MBTOC has insufficient information to allow it to agree that there is a segment of these two sectors unable to transition at all to alternatives. Without veryconsiderable information and examination of these sectors by the Party and MBTOC, we will assume that a transition of 18-20% ofthe entire sector is achievable. MBTOC notesthat flour milling has continued its transition at acceptable levels and makes no further comment about this sector.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:This CUN is not based solely on economic arguments. CUN summarizes economic losses due to use of:•Heat treatment. Food processing facilities located in cold climates (which are able to convert to heat treatment) may experience economic losses from additionalproduction downtimes associated with heat-up time. Economic losses in cold weather facilities due to downtime with heat treatment are persistent.Sulfuryl Fluoride. A portion of the food processing facilities can economically convert to sulfuryl fluoride. Other facilitiescannot due to economic losses that would result fromhigher treatment costs which arise at lower temperatures. For a small percentage, SF is not technically feasible due to cold temperatures. According to the CUN adding heat toincrease the efficacy of SF is also not an economically feasible option.With regard to pet food, it would be desirable to analyze the cost of isolating product from exposureto sulfuryl fluoride.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report59Country Industry CUE for2005(ExMOP1and MOP16CUE for2006 (MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)CUE for2007(MOP17+MOP18)CUE for2008(MOP18+MOP19)CUE for2009(MOP19+MOP20)CUE for2010(MOP20)CUN for2010MBTOCrec. for2010(addtl ornew)CUN for2011(addtl ornew)MBTOC rec. for2011 (new)UnitedStatesCured pork 67.907 40.854 18.998 19.669 18.998 4.465 - - 3.730 3.73MBTOC comments 2009:MBTOC recommends the Party’s nominated amount of 3.73 tonnes for Southern cured pork in 2011. The Party nominated 16% less MB for 2011 than was granted by the Partiesfor this use in 2010. This reduction was taken on the previous year’s 25% reduction. Formerly, the frequency of fumigation wasup to five times a year, and now fumigation isreported to occur only one time per year.The pork becomes infested withTyrophagus putrescentiae(Ham or cheese mites) andNecrobia rufipes(Redlegged ham beetle) (Phillips et al, 2008). There is currentlyno technically effective and registered alternative for the treatment of these pests of cured pork, but decreases in MB use have resulted from IPM improvements in the processingfacilities, reduced frequency of fumigations, and improvements in reporting historical MB use. This sector is collaborating ina multi-state research program (Phillips et al, 2008).This program has resulted in IPM improvements in the facilities which contributed to a reduced need for fumigation.Additionally, this research program has resulted in an improved understanding of the inter-reaction between ham curing time andthe incidence of pest infestation. Whencured pork is stored longer than 6 months, there is a higher incidence of infestation. So, managing the overall ham process might assist to reduce pest infestation.The use of sulfuryl fluoride as a pest control method was investigated through this program, but it was not effective on mites.Effective treatment was only achieved when3x the allowed label rate was used, and at that point, fluorine residues were unacceptably high (Sekhorn et al, 2008). The researchers are now investigating the potentialeffectiveness of phosphine, or low O2and high CO2. ,but they are concerned that the poorly structured traditional ham storage houses in the US won’t hold the CO2.In its text box of October 2008, MBTOC recommended that the Party test the method used in Spain which involves dipping the hamsin a mixture of oil and lard at 90°C. At the2008 MBAO conference, the researchers informed us that they are planning to investigate these alternative techniques. When theresearchers are ready to start theseinvestigations they intend to contact MBTOC for more specific information.MBTOC comments on economics 2009:This CUN is not based on economic arguments.

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 61 

# 5. References

Abanga, M.A., B. Bayaaa, B. Abu-Irmailehb and A. Yahyaouia (2007). A part icipatory farming system approach for sustainable broomrape (Orobanche spp.) management in the Near East and North

Africa Crop Protection 26(12): 1723 - 1732

Ajwa, A.H., S. Shem-Tov, S. Fennimore, and B. Webe r (2006). Efficacy of two formulations of MIDAS for strawberry production. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, USA, 2006.

Ajwa H.A., S. Fennimore, Z. Kabin, F. Martin, J. Duniway, G. Browne, T. Trout, A. Kahn and O. Daugovish, (2004). Strawberry yield with chloropicrin and inline in combination with metam sodium and VIF. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 3-6 November 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA.

Ajwa, H. A., S. Fennimore, G. Browne, F. Martin, T. Trout, J. Duniway, S. Shem-Tov, and O. Daugovish, (2005). Strawberry yield with various rates of chloropicrin and Inline applied under VIF. Proceedings of Annual International Resear ch Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, USA.

Ajwa, H.A. T. Trout, S. Fennimore, C. Winterbottom, F. Martin, J. Duniway, G. Browne, B. Westerdahl, R. Goodhue and L. Guerrero (2002). Strawberry production with alternative fumigants applied through drip irrigation systems. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 6-8 November 2002, Orlando, Florida, USA.

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

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

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

Allen, M. (2008). Personal communication

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

, (Abstr), 92: 55.

Bangarwa, S.K., J. K. Norsworthy, P. J., and M. Malik (2008). Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) Management in an Organic Production System. Weed Science 56:606–613

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

567: 431-434.

Bar-Yosef, B., T. Markovich, I. Levkovich and Y. Mor, (2001). Gypsophyla paniculata response to leachate recycling in a greenhouse in Israel Acta Horticulturae 554: 193 – 204

Batchelor, T.A. (2002). International and European Community controls on methyl bromide and the status of methyl bromide use and alternatives in the European Community. In: Proc.International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 5-8 March 2002, Sevilla. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg. pp. 35-39.

# 62 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report Batchelor, T.A. (ed.) (2000). Case Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Technologies with Low Environmental Impact. UNEP. Paris. 77pp.

Bello, A., J. López –Pérez, M. Arias, A. Lacasa , C. Ros, M. Herrero and P. Fernández. (2001). Biofumigation and grafting in pepper as alternative to Methyl Bromide. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, USA. Paper 31.

Bello, A., M. Arias, J. López-Perez, A. García-Álvar ez, J. Fresno, M. Escuer, S.C. Arcos, A. Lacasa, R. Sanz, P. Gómez, M.A. Diez-Rojo, A.P. Buena, C. Goitia, J.L. De la Horra and C. Martínez. (2004). Biofumigation, fallow, and nematode management in vineyard replant. Nematropica

, Puerto Rico, 2004, 34 (1) 53-64.

Besri, M. (2008) Cucurbits grafting as alternativ e to Methyl Bromide for cucurbits production in Morocco. In: 2008 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 11 – 14, 2008

Brandenberger, L., R. E. Talbert, R P. Wiedenfe ld, J. W. Shrefler, C.I. Webber and M.S. Malik (2005),Effects of Halosulfuron on Weed Control in Commercial Honeydew Crops. Weed Technology (19): 346–350

Browne, G., B. Lampinen, B. Holtz, S. Upadhyaya, D. Wang, S. Gao, D. Doll, L. Schmidt, B. Hanson, N. Goodell, M. McKenry, and K. Klonsky (2007). Integrated pre-plant alternatives to methyl

bromide for almonds and other stone fruits. In: Proceeding of the Annual International conference on Methyl Bromide alternatives and emissions reductios, October 29-November 1, 2007, San Diego, California, 20-1, 20-5

Browne, G., B. Lampinen, B. Holtz, D. Doll, J. Edstrom, L. Schmidt, S. Upadhyaya, M. Shafii, B. H, D. Wang, S. Gao, N. Goodell and K. Klonsky (2008). Integrated pre=lant alternatives to methyl

bromide for almonds and other stone fruits. In: 2008 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 11 – 14, 2008

Budai, C. (2002) Case Study 1. S ubstrates for greenhouse tomatoes in peppers. In: Batchelor, T. (ed). Case Studies on alternatives to methyl bromide – Vol. 2. UNEP, Paris

Carey, W. and Godbehere, S. (2004). Effects of VI F and solvent carrier on control of nutsedge and on populations of Trichoderma at two nurseries in 2003. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, USA, 2003.

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

Chism, W. (2009) Personal communication 2009 Bilateral meeting US-MBTOC, Agadir, Morocco, April

2009

Cohen, R., Y. Burger and C. Holev (2007) Introduc ing grafted cucurbits to modern agriculture. The Israeli experience. Plant Disease 91(8): 916 – 923

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

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

Science 53(1): 73 - 83

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 63 Culpepper, A.S., T.L. Grey and T.M. Webster. (2006). Purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus ) response to methyl bromide alternatives applied under four types of mulch [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society Annual Meeting, January 22-25, 2006.

Culpepper A. S., P. Sumner, D. Langston, K. Rucker, G. Beard, and J. Mayfield; T. Webster; W. Upchurch , (2007). Can Georgia growers replace methyl bromide? In: Proceeding of the Annual International conference on Methyl Bromide alternatives and emissions reductios, October 29- November 1, 2007, San Diego, California, 20-1, 20-5

Daugovish, O., S.A. Fennimore and M.J. Mochizuki (2008). Integration of Oxyfluorfen into Strawberry (Fragaria3ananassa) Weed Management Programs Weed Technology 22:685–690

Dow Agrosciences, 2007

De Cal, A., Martínez-Terceno, A., López-Aranda, J.M. and Melgarejo P. (2004). Alternatives to methyl bromide in Spanish strawberry nurseries. Plant Disease 88(2): 210-214.

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

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

EC. European Community (2008). European Community Management Strategy for the phase-out of critical uses of Methyl Bromide. July, 2008

Enebak, 2007. Methyl bromide and the Montreal Protocol: An update on the Critical Use Exemption and Quarantine Pre-shipment process. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-50 pp 135 - 141

Enebak, S., T. Starkey, and D. McCraw. (2006). Tree seedling quality and weed control with Basamid, MBR and methyl iodide. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives, Orlando, FL, USA.

Engindeniz, S. (2004). The economic analysis of growing greenhouse cucumber with soilless culture system: the case of Turkey. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 23, 5-19.

Fennimore,S,, H. Ajwa, S. Shem-Tov, K. Subbarao, F. Martin, G. Browne, S. Klose (2007) Facilitating adoption of alternatives to methyl to methyl bromide in California strawberries . In: Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, CA, USA.



# F ennimore, S., A. Spataru and N. Leslie (2008). Steam and heat for soil disinfestations. In: 2008 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 11 – 14, 2008

Fritsch, J. (1998). Strawberries crops in France: different methods to apply methyl bromide and metam sodium in open fields. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 1998. 7-9 December, 1998, Orlando, Florida

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

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

# 64 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report García-Sinovas D. , E. García-Méndez , M.A. Andrade, M. Becerril, A. De Cal , P. Melgarejo, T. Salto , M.L. Martínez-Beringola, C. Redondo, A. Martín ez-Treceño, J.J. Medina, C. Soria, and J.M. López-Aranda (2008). Strawberry nurseries in Spain. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide – 2007 Results. In: 2008 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 11 – 14, 2008

Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T.N. , Santos, B.M. (2005). Cyperus spp. Control with reduced methyl bromide plus chloropicrin doses under virtually impermeable films in pepper. Crop Protection. 24: 285-287.

Grinstein, A. & A. Hetzroni. (1991). The technology of soil solarization. Pp 159 – 170 In: J. Katan & J. E. DeVay (eds.) Soil Solarization. CRC Publications, Boca Raton, FL, USA

Grinstein, A. (1992). Introduction of a new agricultural technology - soil solarization - in Israel. Phytoparasitica 20 (Suppl.):127S-131S.

Gullino, M.L. and A. Garibaldi (2007). Critical aspects in management fo fungal diseases of rnamental plants and directions in research. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 46: 135 – 149

Gullino, M.L., A. Camponogara, G. Gasparrini, V. Rizzo, C. Cini and A. Garibaldi (2003). Replacing methyl bromide for soil disinfestation. The Italian experience and its implications for other

countries. Plant Disease 87 (9): 1012 – 1019.

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

Hanson, B., J. Gerik and S. Schneider (2006). Evaluation of reduced Methyl Bromide rates and alternative fumigants in field grown perennial crop nurseries. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, USA,

2006.

Hanson, B.D., J.S. Gerik, and S.M. Schneider.(2009) . Evaluation of reduced Methyl Bromide rates in field grown perennial crop nurseries. Proceedings Western Society of Weed Science . 62:17

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

Hildebrand, Diane M.; Stone, Jeffrey K.; James, Robert L.; Frankel, Susan J. 2004. Alternatives to preplant soil fumigation for Western forest nurseries. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-608. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p.

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

Jacob, R. 2009. Hardwood weed control: Iowa Department of Natural Resources Forestry, Iowa State Nursery. In: Dumroese, R.K.; Riley, L.E., tech. coords. 2009. National Proceedings: Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations—2008

Johnson, W. C. and B. G. Mullinx (2007). Yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus ) control with methamsodium in transplanted cantaloupe ( Cucumis melo ). Crop Protection 26 (6): 867-871.

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

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

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

1715

Kanda, A. (2008) A plant virus vaccine for prevention of a mosaic disease on green pepper Journal of the Japanese Forestry Society 83, (9): 967-975

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

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

Klose, S. (2008). Weed and disease control in Ca lifornia- grown floricultural crops without Methyl Bromide soil fumigation (Abstr.) In: Proceedings of the 2008 Joint Annual Meeting, 5 – 9

October 2008

Klose, S., J. Gerik, Ajwa, H. and C. Wilen (2007). Pacific area-wide MB alternatives program for cut flower and bulb crops. In: Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, CA, USA.

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

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

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

López-Aranda, J. M., Medina, J. J., Miranda, L., a nd Dominguez, F. (2000). Three Years of Short-Term

Alternatives To MB on Huelva Strawberries. In : Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2000. 6-9 November, 2000, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 10-1.

López-Aranda, J. M., Miranda, L., Romero, F., De Lo s Santos, B., Montes, F., Vega, J. M., Paez, J. I., Bascon, J., Medina, J. J. (2003). Alternatives to MB for Strawberry Production in Huelva (Spain). 2003 Results. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2003. November, 2003, San Diego, California, USA pp. 33-1.

López-Medina, J., A. Peralbo, M.A. Fernández, D. He rnanz, G. Toscano, M.C. Hernández and F. Flores (2004). Substrate systems for production of strawberry fruit in Spain and Mediterranean climates. Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon.

Macrae, A., A. S. Culpepper, R. B. Batts, an d K L. Lewis (2008) Seeded Watermelon and Weed Response to Halosulfuron Applied Preemergence and Postemergence. Weed Technology 22:86–

90

Martyn, R.D. (2002). Monosporascus root rot and vine decline of melons. Plant Disease Lessons. The

Plant Health Instructor . DOI: 10.1094/PHI-I-2002 0612-01. American Phytopathological Society.

Matsuo K. and Y. Suga. (1993) Control effect of soil disinfectant and crop rotation on necrotic spot

disease of melon. Proceedings of the Association of Plant Protection Kyushu 39:43-47

# 66 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report Mattner, S.W., Porter, I.J., Gounder, R.K., Mann, R.C., Williams, E., Milinkovic, M.,Horner, I.J., Bigwood, E., Fraser, P., and S. Coram (2008). Breaking the critical-use barriers preventing Australian horituclure from phasing out methyl bromide. Horticulture Australia Limited, Final Report, Project No. BS04009. Sydney, NSW



# .

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

MBTOC. (2002). 2002 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP, Nairobi. 468pp.

McKenry, M., T. Buzo, and K. Stephanie (2006). Replanting stone fruit orchards without soil fumigation. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL, USA.

McSorley, R., Koon-Hui Wang and E.N. Rosskopf (200 8) Methyl Bromide alternatives for floriculture production in a problem site. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 11 – 14, 2008

McSorley, R., K.H. Wang and N. Kokallis-Burelle. (2006a). Solarization as an alternative to Methyl Bromide in Florida floriculture. In: Annual International Research Conference on MethylBromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 6-9, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA337. 2004.

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

Melgarejo, P., A. De Cal, T. Salto, M. L. Martín ez-Beringola, A. Martínez -Treceno, E. Bardon, J. Palacios, M. Becerril, J.J. Medina, J., Gálvez a nd J.M. López-Aranda, (2001). Three Years of Results on Chemical Alternatives To Methyl Bromide For Strawberry Nurseries in Spain. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2001. 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California, USA pp. 93-1.

Melgarejo, P., A. Martínez-Treceño, A. de Cal, T. Sa lto, M.L Martínez-Beringola, J.M. García-Baudín, I. Santín, E. Bardón, J. Palacios, M. Becerril, J.J. Medina and J.M. López-Aranda (2003). Chemical alternatives to MB for strawberry nurseries in Spain. 2002 Results. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, November 3-6, 2003, San Diego, California, USA.

Muller-Stodie, D. Ver, E. Kohlschmid, and J. Sauerborn. (2009). A novel strain of Fusarium oxysporum from Germany andits potential for biocontrol of Orobanche ramosa. Weed Research . 49, 175–

182.

Muckennfuss, A. (2005). Basamid ® G for weed control in forest tree nurseries. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, San Diego, California, USA.

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

Nadal, S. , M.T. Moreno and B. Roman (2008). Control of Orobanche crenata in Vicia narbonensis by glyphosate, Crop Protection (27) 873–876

Nelson M. et al. (2001a). Marketable berry yield cv. Camarosa – Oxnard trial, CA. 2000-01 USDA IR-4 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program in Strawberries.

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 67 Nelson M. et al. (2001b). Marketable berry yield cv. Diamante – Salinas trial, CA. 2000-01 USDA IR-4 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program in Strawberries.

Njoroge, S.M.C., Riley, M.B., Keinat h, A.P. (2008) Effect of incorporation of Brassica spp. residues on population densities of soilborne microorganisms and on damping-off and fusarium wilt of

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

Noling, J. W. and Gilreath, J. P. (2004). Use of virtually impermeable plastic mulches (VIF) in Florida strawberry. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 3-6, 20 04, Orlando, Florida, USA. pp. 1-1.

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

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

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

Extension.

Norsworthy, J.H., J. Schroeder, S.H. Thomas and L.W. Murray (2007) Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) Management in Direct-Seeded Chile Pepper Using Halosulfuron and Cultivation. Weed Technology 21:636–641

Pivonia, S., R. Levita, A. Maduel and R. Cohen (2008) Chemical Control of the Melon Sudden Wilt Caused by Monosporascus cannonbalus ARO, Neve Ya'ar. Paper sumbmitted with the Israel

Melon CUN 2009

Politiv Ltd, KIBBUTZ EINAT,P.O.B. 3EINAT 49910, ISRAEL

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

USA.

Quicke, M., T. Starkey and S. Enebak (2008) Area-Wide demonstration of alternatives: Forest nurseries in the southern US . In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 11 – 14, 2008

Quicke, M., T. Starkey, and S. Enebak. (2007). Area-wide demonstration of alternatives: forest nurseries in the southern US. In: Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. San Diego, CA, USA

Rea, E., A. Salerno and F. Pierandrei (2008). Effect of substrate and nutrient solution reuse on ranunculus and anemone plant production in a closed soilless system. Acta Horticulturae 779: 541 – 546.

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

Sakuma, H. and Suzuki, K. (1995) Development of energy-saving hydroponics systems without requiring electricity. JIRCAS J. 4: 73-77.

Santos, B., J.P. Gilreath and T.N. Motis (2005). Managing nustedge stunt nematode in peppers with reduced Methyl Bromide plus chloropicrin rates under Virtually Impermeable Films. HortTechnology 15(3): 596 - 599

# 68 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report Santos, B.M. and J.P. Gilreath (2004). Cyperus spp. control with reduced Methyl Bromide rates under VIF in pepper. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, USA, 2004.

Santos, B.M., J.P. Gilreath, J.M. López-Aranda, L. Miranda, C. Soria, and J.J. Medina. (2007). Comparing Methyl Bromide alternatives for strawberry in Florida and Spain. Journal of Agronomy 6(1): 225 - 227

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

. Embryo Publications, Athens, Greece, 242 pp.

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

Shem-Tov, S, H.A. Ajwa, S.A. Fennimore and J. Hunzie. (2006b). Strawberry production and weed control in soils treated with basamid and chloropicrin. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL, USA.

Shem-Tov, S., H.A. Ajwa and S.A. Fennimore. (2005). Effect of alternative tarp and fumigants combinations with metam sodium on strawberry yield. In: Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, CA, United States.

Shem-Tov, S., H.A. Ajwa and S.Fennimore (2006a). Strawberry yield and weed control with alternative fumigants applied in combination with metam under various tarps. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL,

USA.

South DB. 2008. Comments on alternatives to methyl bromide for quarantine purpos es in forest nurseries. In: Dumroese RK, Riley LE, technical coordinators. National Proceedings: Forest and Consevation Nursery Associations 2008.

South 2007. Chloropicrin as a soil fumigant treatment in southern pine nurseries. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 31(1) 2007

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

Forests 31: 253 – 271.

Stoddard (2008). Methyl bromide fumigation alternatives for sweet potato hotbeds in Califronia In: In: Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL, November 11 – 14, 2008, United States.

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

Nairobi.

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

Nairobi.

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

Nairobi.

TEAP (2008) Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, May 2008. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 69 Trader, B. W., H. P. Wilson and T.E. Hines (2008) Control of yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus ) and smooth pigweed ( Amaranthus hybridus ) in summer squash with halosulfuron. Weed Technology

22: 660 - 665

Urrestarazu, M. (2004). Tratado de cultivo sin suelo Mundi Prensa Libros, España, 928 pp. 3a edición.

Urrestarazu, M. (2005) International symposium on soilless culture and hydroponics. Acta Horticulturae 557, 565pp

Webster, T. M., T. L. Grey, et al. (2008). Glyphosate hinders purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus ) and yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus ) tuber production. Weed Science 56 (5): 735-742.

Weiland, J., J. N. Pinkerton, W. Littke, J. Browning , C. Masters, R. Rose, D. Haase, T. Miller, B. Edmonds and A. Leon (2008) Methyl Bromide alternatives in Oregon and Washington forest tree nurseries . In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 11 – 14, 2008

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 71 

# 6. MBTOC Work plan for 2010

6.1 Introduction

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

Paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP states that annual work plan should be drawn up by MBTOC (and supported by the Oz one 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 2010 work plan in consultation with TEAP and with support of the Ozone Secretariat. The timelines for the work plan are contained below for consideration by the Parties at their Twenty First Meeting.

Paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16M OP also specifies that a summary report of MBTOC activities over the previous year (paragraph 15(h)) should also be indicated in the MBTOC plan. In accordance with this requirement, this summary report is provided.

6.2 MBTOC Workplan for 2010 - Details

Paragraph 1 of Annex I to the report of 16 MOP provides the schedule for the MBTOC assessment of critical-use exemptions. In accordance with the schedule, MBTOC envisages its activities in 2010 as set out in Table 6.1 below. The elements of the work plan as specified under paragraph 15 of A nnex I to the report of 16MOP have been incorporated. The schedule of the work to be carried out by MBTOC on the MBTOC composition is also included. The list of current membership of MBTOC and a

declaration of interest for each member is contained in Annex VII.

The work plan also includes an indicative budget for the activities in 2010, which relate to evaluation of CUNs. MBTOC anticipates two meetings in 2010 as per the workplan, since aside from CUNs it is required to complete the 2010 Assessment Report. MBTOC firmly requests improved UNEP and Party funding of MBTOC members and meetings to allow appropriate compliance with meeting obligations and workload with credibility. Some MBTOC members are now retired from their research institutes and there seems to be an expectation that they will cover travel costs from personal funds. Other members must try to cover travel costs from their already thin research budgets. Some Non-A5 members report it is a struggle for them to obtain funding in the current economic climate to fund attendance since Parties already contribute to the MLF.

As mentioned in the previous workplan of MBTOC as well as in the Progress Reports of TEAP, the financial burden on individual members and/or their research institutions has become increasingly unsustainable. Provi sion of some funding for non-Article 5 MBTOC members to attend meetings is strongly recommended.

Annex 1 of Decision XVI/4 outlines a schedule by which up to two MBTOC meetings are envisioned per year to evaluate CUNs. The schedule further allows MBTOC to

# 72 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# seek further information from Parties and in turn for Parties to provide additional information in response to MBTOCs interi m recommendations made during the first meeting.

Table 6.1. MBTOC work plan and indicative budget: 2010

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

Parties submit their nominations for critical-use exemptions to the Secretariat - 24 January 2010

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

members - 7 February 2010

Initial summarization of the nominations -
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

MBTOC co-chairs forward the cleared advice on initial findings and ma y request additional

information on to the nom inating Party concerned and consult with the Party on the possible presumption therein - 21 February 2010

Nominating Party develops and submits its response

to the MBTOC co-chairs - 7 March 2010

MBTOC Meeting No 1

• To assess nominations, including any additional information provided by the nominating Party prior to the MBTOC meeting under action 5 and any additional information provided by nominating Party through pre-arranged teleconference, or through meetings with national experts, in accordance with paragraph 3.4 of the

terms of reference of TEAP

• Bilateral meetings

• Conduct work on the 2010 MBTOC Assessment report Funds for travel of 6 non-A5 members: US$12,,000 Meeting Costs $3,500 Soils Meeting Costs $3,500 QSC April 2010 Antalya, Turkey (Soils Tentative QSC unknown), possibly Turkey)

8. MBTOC provides its draft recommendations

on the CUNs to TEAP End of April, 2010

9- TEAP Meeting: To assess the MBTOC report on

critical-use nominations and submits the finalised interim report on recommendations and findings to

the Secretariat. April 2010 TBD

10. The Secretariat posts the finalised report on its

web site and circulates it to the Parties - May 2010

11. OEWG Bilateral Discussions: Nominating Party has the opportunity to consult with MBTOC

on a bilateral basis in co njunction with the Openended Working Group meetings End June 2010 Bangkok (Tentative)

12. The nominating Party submits further

clarification for the critical-use nomination in the “unable to assess” category or if requested to do so by the Open-ended Working Group, and provides additional information should it wish to appeal against a critical-use nomination recommendation by MBTOC/TEAP - Late June 2010

13. MBTOC Meeting No 2: Reassess only those critical-use nominations in the “unable to assess” categor y, 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 Funds for travel of 5 non-A5 members: US$12,000 Meeting costs: $US 3,500

Soils Meeting costs US$3,500 QSC Mid July 2009 US (California) (Tentative)

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

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

• finalise the report, including notice of any proposed new standard presumptions to be applied by MBTOC

• conduct any bilateral consultations requested by Parties

• progress, to the best extent possible, the MBTOC 2010 Assessment report. Report is due

December 31 st 

# , 2010

14. MBTOC draft final report considered by TEAP, finalised and made available to Parties through the Secretariat - End July, 2010

15. 22th Meeting of the Parties End October

2010. Nairobi (Tentative) Total budget: US $: 38,000

• US$ 24,000 (Travel

of Non Article 5 member)

• Meeting Costs (UNEP) $14,000

Note: If Parties give early indication that they will fund non-A(5) MBTOC members, this budgetary request could be

reduced.



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

2009

• Initial summarization of the CUNs (initial sorting and recording carried out by the Secretariat).

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

• First meeting of MBTOC sub committees on the assessment of the CUNs: MBTOC-S Morocco, and MBTOC QSC, Rotterdam 13-18 April 2009. One A5 economist resigned. Two new A5 members joined the MBTOC S subcommittee. Interim recommendations and report prepared for the Parties. Bilateral meetings were held by MBTOC-S with USA.

• Site visits: MBTOC-S conducted a field trip to observe alternatives adopted by vegetable growers including substrate production and alternative fumigants in Morocco. MBTOC-QSC conducted a site visit to the ports and MB recapture facilities in Netherlands and Belgium.

• Completion of the interim report for consideration by the 29 OEWG as part of 2009 TEAP Progress Report of May 2009.

• 29 OEWG (Geneva, 15-18 July 2009). Bilateral meetings with Australia, Californian Strawberry Commission (USA ), Israel, Japan, Russian Federation

and USA.

• Second round review of CUN nominations from July to September 2009 by email correspondence. Eight members of MBTOC-S who were attending the International Soil Disinfestation Conference met in Leuven Belgium to discuss planning and logistics for the 2010 CUN round and Assessment report.

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

their 20 th 

# Meeting.

# 74 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# ANNEX 1. Decision IX/6

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

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

(i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption; and (ii) There are no tech nically 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 regul atory 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 de monstrate that feasible alternatives shall be adopted as soon as they are confirmed as suitable to the Party’s specific conditions and/or that they have applied to the Multilateral Fund or other sources for assistance in identifying, evaluating, adapting and demonstrating such options;

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

nominations and make recommendations bas ed 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 a cceptable 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).

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 75 

# ANNEX II. Decision XVI/4

Review of the working procedures and t erms of reference of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee

Report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Annex I), Prague, 22–26 November 2004), paragraph 15.



# A. Working procedures of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee relating to the evaluation of nominations for critical uses of methyl bromide

15. An annual work plan will enhance the transparency of, and insight in, the operations of MBTOC. Such a plan should indicate, among other things:

(a) Key events for a given year;

(b) Envisaged meeting dates of MBTOC, including the stage in the nomination and evaluation process to which the respective meetings relate;

(c) Tasks to be accomplished at each meeting, including appropriate delegation of such tasks;

(d) Timing of interim and final reports;

(e) Clear references to the timelines relating to nominations;

(f) Information related to financial needs, while noting that financial considerations would still be reviewed solely in the context of the review of the Secretariat’s budget;

(g) Changes in the composition of MBTOC, pursuant to the criteria for selection;

(h) Summary report of MBTOC activities over the previous year, including matters that MBTOC did not manage to complete, the reasons for this and plans to address these unfinished matters;

(i) Matrix with existing and needed skills and expertise; and

(j) Any new or revised standards or presumptions that MBTOC seeks to apply in its future assessment of critical-use nominations, for approval by the Meeting of the Parties.76September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportANNEX III. Relative effectiveness of MB/Pic formulations applied in combination with low permeability barrierfilms (LPBF) compared to the commercial standard MB/Pic formulation applied under standard low densitypolyethylene films (LDPF).Untreated Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin Mixtures (Product rate per treated area)Std film Barrier Film –Relative yield compared to standard polyethyleneYieldMB/PicFormuln.ProductRateNotSpec 98:2 98:2 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 50:50 33:67CountryRegionCommodityBrand or Type ofBarrier Filmkg/ha 300 400 300 98 196 200 294 336 392 200 200NotesReferenceMB Dosage rate (g/m2)392 294 66 131 134 197 225 263 100 66SpainVinderosStrawb. RunnerVIF - NotSpec7450:5040093De Cal et al 2004Navalmanzano7850:5040080Fusarium,Phytophthora,Pythium,Rhizoctonia andVerticilliumSpainVinderosStrawb. RunnerVIF - Not Spec6850:50400114102Melgarejo et al 2003Navalmanzano3450:504007675Fusarium,Cladosporium,RhizoctoniaSpainAvitorejoStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec50:50400972003 resultsLopez-Aranda et al 2003Malvinas50:50400991998 FusariumSpainValenciaStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec59Not Spec60094At 10cm &30cmBartual et al 200253Not Spec600931999 resultsSpainAvitorejoStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec8067:33400112Lopez-Aranda et al 2001Tariquejo5467:33400106Meloidogyneand weeds(unspec.)SpainMoguer/CartayaStrawb. RunnerVIF - Not Spec50:5039299Inoculum notspecifiedLopez-Aranda et al 2001bSpainCabeza, Nav.Strawb. Runner VIF - Not Spec7467:33400105, 921998 Two sitesMelgarejo et al 2001Arevalo, Nav.8450:50400104, 1041999 results,nurseriesVinaderos, Nav.4950:5040095, 1232000 results,nurseriesSpainHuelvaStrawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec8267:334001011997-1998Inoc.unspecifiedLopez-Aranda et al 20007267:334001021998-1999 Inoc.Unspecified6867:334001091999-2000 Inoc.UnspecifiedSeptember 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report77Untreated Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin Mixtures (Product rate per treated area)Std film Barrier Film –Relative yield compared to standard polyethyleneYieldMB/PicFormuln.ProductRateNotSpec 98:2 98:2 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 50:50 33:67CountryRegionCommodityBrand or Type ofBarrier Filmkg/ha 300 400 300 98 196 200 294 336 392 200 200NotesReferenceMB Dosage rate (g/m2)392 294 66 131 134 197 225 263 100 66SpainMoncadaStrawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec6098:260095Cebolla et al 19995498:2600911998 No majorpathogens butFusarium buried10cm&30cm.FranceDouvilleStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec65Not Spec80099Inoculum notspecifiedFritsch 1998NZHavelock NorthStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec8367:3350098PhytophthorapresentHorner 1999USAFloridaPepperVIF Plastopil6967:3339278NutgrassGilreath and Santos 2005eVIF Plastopil6967:3339299PresentVIF Vikase6967:3339283VIF Vikase6967:3339286USAFloridaStrawb Fruit,CantaloupeBarrier - Pliant,Metallised98:267:33Trials on 18 Commercial Farms between 2000-2004; no increase in disease or weedswhen rates reduced up to 50% under VIF wrt. polyethyleneNutgrass andpathogenspresentNoling and Gilreath 2004USACalifornia7267:33336108Inoculum notspecifiedAjwa et al 2004Strawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec8067:3339296USAFloridaTomatoVIF - Not Spec3167:3339211193114Nutgrass androotknotnematodesHamill et al 2004USACaliforniaStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec7567:33392106Ajwa et al 20038367:333921116567:33392102Watsonville,high pathogenpressureUSAFloridaTomatoVIF - Not Spec67:33392"No significant reduction in yield"Noling et al 2001USACaliforniaStrawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec4567:33364116Duniway et al 1998USAGeorgiaNurseriesVIF – not spec67:33389See referenceCarey and Godbehere,2004USACaliforniaRoses67:3398 ̈2392392See referenceHanson et al, 2006; 2009USAFloridaPepperVIF – not spec67:33392See referenceSantos and Gilreath, 2004USAFloridaPepperVIF – not spec67:33392See referenceSantos et al, 2005USACaliforniaOrnamentalsVIF – not spec67:33392See referenceKlose 2007, 2008Unweighted averages (relative % yield)669499939310210310810491

# 78 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

# Figure 1. Relative yield of crops (str awberries, tomatoes, peppers, cantaloupes) grown under barrier films with different MB/Pic formulations compared to the standard commercial treatment using standard polyethylene from trials between 1998

and 2004

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

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



# ( ▲ MB/Pic 98:2; ● MB/Pic 67:33; ♦ MB/Pic 50:50; ■ MB/Pic 33:67). Data from Table 3.September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report79ANNEX IV Part A: Trend in Preplant Soil ApplicationsList of nominated (2005 – 2011 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2010in part) amounts of MB granted by Parties under the CUE process for each crop orcommodity.Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Australia Cut Flowers – field 40.000 22.35018.375 22.350Australia Cut flowers – protected 20.00010.425Australia Cut flowers, bulbs – protected Vic 7.000 7.000 6.170 6.1507.000 7.000 3.598 3.500Australia Strawberry Fruit 90.00067.000Australia Strawberry runners 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 29.79029.79035.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.79029.790Belgium Asparagus 0.630 0.2250.630 0.225Belgium Chicory 0.600 0.1800.180 0.180Belgium Chrysanthemums 1.800 0.7201.120Belgium Cucumber 0.610 0.5450.610 0.545Belgium Cut flowers – other 6.110 1.9564.000 1.956Belgium Cut flowers – roses 1.640Belgium Endive (sep from lettuce) 1.6501.650Belgium Leek & onion seeds 1.220 0.1550.660Belgium Lettuce(& endive) 42.250 22.42525.190Belgium Nursery Not Predictable 0.3840.900 0.384Belgium Orchard pome & berry 1.350 0.6211.350 0.621Belgium Ornamental plants 5.6600.000Belgium Pepper & egg plant 5.270 1.3503.000 1.350Belgium Strawberry runners 3.400 0.9003.400 0.900Belgium Tomato (protected) 17.170 4.5005.700 4.500Belgium Tree nursery 0.230 0.1550.230 0.155Canada Strawberry runners (PEI) 14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 7.4625.261(a)14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.4627.462Canada Strawberry runners (Quebec) 1.826(a) 1.826 1.826Canada Strawberry runners (Ontario)6.129France Carrots 10.000 8.000 5.0008.000 8.000 1.400France Cucumber 85 revised to 60 60.000 15.00060.000 60.000 12.500France Cut-flowers 75.000 60.250 12.00060.000 52.000 9.600France Forest tree nursery 10.000 10.000 1.50010.000 10.000 1.500France Melon 10.000 10.0007.500 6.000France Nursery: orchard, raspberry 5.000 5.000 2.0005.000 5.000 2.000France Orchard replant 25.000 25.000 7.50025.000 25.000 7.00080September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportParty Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010France Pepper Incl in.tomato cun 27.500 6.00027.500 6.000France Strawberry fruit 90.000 86.000 34.00090.000 86.000France Strawberry runners 40.000 4.000 35.00040.000 40.000 28.000France Tomato (and eggplant for 2005only)150(allsolanaceous)60.500 33.250125.000 48.400France Eggplant 27.500 33.25048.400Greece Cucurbits 30.000 19.20030.000 19.200Greece Cut flowers 14.000 6.00014.000 6.000Greece Tomatoes 180.000 73.600156.000 73.600Israel Broomrape 250.000 250.000 125.00012.500250.000 250.000125.000Israel Cucumber - protected new 2007 25.000 18.75018.75025.000 18.750 -Israel Cut flowers – open field 77.000 67.000 80.755 53.345 42.77742.55477.000 67.000 74.540 44.75034.698Israel Cut flowers – protected 303.000 303.000 321.330 163.400 113.82172.266303.000 240.000 220.185 114.45085.431Israel Fruit tree nurseries 50.000 45.000 10.00050.000 45.000 7.500Israel Melon – protected & field 148.000 142.000 140.000 87.500 87.50087.500125.650 99.400 105.000 87.50087.500Israel Potato 239.000 231.000 137.500 93.750 75.000239.000 165.000 137.500 93.75075.000Israel Seed production 56.000 50.000 22.40056.000 28.000 NRIsrael Strawberries – fruit (Sharon) 196.000 196.000 176.200 64.125 52.25047.500196.000 196.000 93.000 105.96042.750Israel Strawberry runners (Sharon) 35.000 35.000 20 15.80013.57035.000 35.000 28.000 31.90015.825Israel Strawberry runners and fruit Ghaza 87.875 67.50067.50047.250Israel Tomatoes 90.00022.750Israel Sweet potato 95.00020.000111.50095.000Italy Cut flowers (protected) 250.000 250.000 30.000250.000 187.000 30.000Italy Eggplant (protected) 280.000 200.000 15.000194.000 156.000Italy Melon (protected) 180.000 135.000 10.000131.000 131.000 10.000Italy Pepper (protected) 220.000 160.000 67.000160.000 130.000 67.000Italy Strawberry Fruit (Protected) 510.000 400.000 35.000407.000 320.000Italy Strawberry Runners 100.000 120.000 35.000120.000 120.000 35.000Italy Tomato (protected) 1300.000 1030.000 418.000871.000 697.000 80.000Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 68.600 61.400 34.10029.12088.300 88.800 72.400 51.450 34.30030.690Japan Ginger – field 119.400 119.400 112.200 112.100 102.200 53.40047.450119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075 63.05653.400Japan Ginger – protected 22.900 22.900 14.800 14.800 12.900 8.3007.77022.900 22.900 14.471 11.100 8.3258.300Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 182.200 168.000 90.80077.600194.100 203.900 182.200 136.650 91.10081.720Japan Peppers (green and hot) 189.900 200.700 169.400 162.300 134.400 81.10068.260187.200 200.700 156.700 121.725 81.14972.990Japan Watermelon 126.300 96.200 94.200 43.300 23.700 15.40013.870129.000 98.900 94.200 32.475 21.65014.500Malta Cucumber 0.0960.127Malta Eggplant 0.1280.170Malta Strawberry 0.1600.212September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report81Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Malta Tomatoes 0.4750.594New Zealand Nursery material 1.085 1.0850.000New Zealand Strawberry fruit 42.000 42.000 24.78042.000 34.000 12.000New Zealand Strawberry runners 10.000 10.000 5.7208.000 8.000 6.234Poland Strawberry Runners 40.000 40.000 25.000 12.00040.000 40.000 24.500Portugal Cut flowers 130.000 8.75050.000 8.750Spain Cut Flowers – Cadiz 53.000 53.000 35.00053.000 42.000Spain Cut Flowers – Catalonia 20.000 18.600 12.840 17.000(+Andalucia)20.000 15.000 43.490(+Andalucia)Spain Pepper 200.000 155.000 45.000200.000 155.000 45.000Spain Strawberry Fruit 556.000 499.290 80.000556.000 499.290 0.0796Spain Strawberry Runners 230.000 230.000 230.000 215.000230.000 230.000 230.000UK Cut flowers 7.5606.050UK Ornamental tree nursery 12.000 6.0006.000 6.000UK Strawberry (& raspberry in 2005) 80.000 63.60068.000 54.500UK Raspberry nursery 4.4004.400USA Chrys. Cuttings/roses 29.41229.412 0.000USA Cucurbits – field 1187.800 747.839 598.927 588.949 411.757 340.405218.0321187.800 747.839 592.891 486.757 407.091302.974USA Eggplant – field 76.761 101.245 96.480 79.546 62.789 34.73221.56176.721 82.167 85.363 66.018 48.69132.820USA Forest nursery seedlings 192.515 157.694 152.629 133.140 125.758 120.853106.043192.515 157.694 122.032 131.208 122.060117.826USA Ginger 9.2009.200 0.000USA Orchard replant 706.176 827.994 405.415 405.666 314.007 226.021203.591706.176 527.600 405.400 393.720 292.756215.800USA Ornamentals 210.949 162.817 149.965 138.538 137.776 95.20470.178154.000 148.483 137.835 138.538 107.13684.617USA Nursery stock - fruit trees,raspberries, roses45.789 64.528 12.684 51.102 27.663 17.9547.95545.800 64.528 28.275 51.102 25.32617.363USA Peppers – field 1094.782 1498.530 1151.751 919.006 783.821 463.282212.7751094.782 1243.542 1106.753 756.339 548.984463.282USA Strawberry fruit – field 2468.873 1918.400 1733.901 1604.669 1336.754 1103.4221023.4712052.846 1730.828 1476.019 1349.575 1269.3211007.477USA Strawberry runners 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 8.837 7.3817.38154.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 7.9444.690USA Tomato – field 2876.046 2844.985 2334.047 1840.100 1406.484 994.582336.191737.584 2476.365 2065.246 1406.484 1003.876737.584USA Turfgrass 352.194 131.600 78.040 52.189 0131.600 78.04 0USA Sweet potato 224.528 18.144 18.144 18.14414.51518.144 18.14414.51582September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final ReportANNEX IV– Part B: Trends in Post-harvest Structural and Commodity ApplicationsList of nominated (2005 – 2011 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2010 in part) amounts of methyl bromide granted by Parties under the CUE process foreach crop or commodity.Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Australia Almonds 1.900 2.1001.900 2.100Australia Rice consumer packs 12.300 12.300 10.225 9.200+1.89.200 7.8205.6606.150 6.150 9.205 9.200 7.8206.650Belgium Artefacts and structures 0.600 0.3070.590 0.307Belgium Antique structure & furniture 0.750 0.1990.319 0.199Belgium Churches, monuments and ships'quarters0.150 0.0590.150 0.059Belgium Electronic equipment 0.100 0.0350.100 0.035Belgium Empty silo 0.050 0.0430.050 0.043Belgium Flour mill see mills below 0.125 0.072See mills below 0.072Belgium Flour mills 10.000 4.1709.515 4.170Belgium Mills 0.200 0.2000.200 0.200Belgium Food processing facilities 0.300 0.3000.300 0.300Belgium Food Processing premises 0.030 0.0300.030 0.030Belgium Food storage (dry) structure 0.120 0.1200.120 0.000Belgium Old buildings 7.000 0 .3061.150 0.306Belgium Old buildings and objects 0.450 0.2820.000 0.282Belgium Woodworking premises 0.300 0.1010.300 0.101Canada Flour mills 47.200 34.774 30.167 28.650 26.913 22.87814.107(a)47 34.774 30.167 28.650 26.91322.878Canada Pasta manufacturing facilities (a) 10.457 6.757 6.067 4.740 4.7400(a) 10.457 6.757 6.067 4.7400Canada Commodities 0.068France Seeds sold by PLAN-SPG company 0.135 0.135 0.1000.135 0.135 0.096France Mills 55.000 40.000 8.00040.000 35.000 8.000France Rice consumer packs 2.000 2.0002.000 2.000France Chestnuts 2.000 2.000 1.8002.000 2.000 1.800Germany Artefacts 0.250 0.1000.250 0.100Germany Mills and Processors 45.000 19.35045.000 19.350Greece Dried fruit 4.280 3.081 0.9004.280 3.081 0.45Greece Mills and Processors 23.000 16.000 1.34023.000 15.445 1.340Greece Rice and legumes 2.3552.355Ireland Mills 0.888 0.6110.888Israel Artefacts 0.650 0.650 0.6000.650 0.650Israel Dates (post harvest) 3.444 3.444 2.200 1.800 2.1003.444 2.755 2.200 1.800 2.100Israel Flour mills (machinery & storage) 2.140 1.490 1.490 0.800 0.3002.140 1.490 1.040 0.312 0.300September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report83Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Israel Furniture– imported 1.422 1.422 2.0421.422 0.000Italy Artefacts 5.500 5.500 5.0005.225 0.000 5.000Italy Mills and Processors 160.000 130.000 25.000160.000 65.000 25.000Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.500 6.500 6.300 5.800 5.4005.3507.100 6.800 6.500 6.300 5.8005.400Latvia Grains 2.5022.502Netherlands Strawberry runners post harvest 0.120 0.120 0.1200 0.120Poland Medicinal herbs & dried mushroomsas dry commodities4.000 3.560 1.800 0.5004.100 3.560 1.800 1.800Poland Coffee, cocoa beans (a) 2.160 2.000 0.5002.160 1.420 1.420Spain Rice 50.00042.065Switzerland Mills & Processors 8.700 7.0008.700 7.000UK Aircraft 0.1650.165UK Mills and Processors 47.130 10.195 4.50947.130 10.195 4.509UK Cereal processing plants 8.131 3.480(a) 8.131 3.480UK Cheese stores 1.640 1.248 1.2481.640 1.248 1.248UK Dried commodities (rice, fruits andnuts) Whitworths2.400 1.2562.400 1.256UK Herbs and spices 0.035 0.037 0.0300.035 0.037UK Mills and Processors (biscuits) 2.525 1.787 0.4792.525 1.787UK Spices structural equip. 1.7281.728 0.000 0.479UK Spices stored 0.0300.030 0.000UK Structures buildings (herbs andspices)3.000 1.872 0.9083.000 1.872 0.908UK Structures, processors and storage(Whitworths)1.100 0.880 0.2571.100 0.880 0.257UK Tobacco equipment 0.5230.050UK Woven baskets 0.7700.770USA Dried fruit and nuts (walnuts,pistachios, dried fruit and dates anddried beans)89.166 87.719 91.299 67.699 58.912 19.24210.04189.166 87.719 78.983 58.921 45.62319.242USA Dry commodities/ structures (cocoabeans)61.519 61.519 64.028 52.256 51.00261.519 55.367 64.082 53.188USA Dry commodities/ structures(processed foods, herbs and spices,dried milk and cheese processingfacilities) NPMA83.344 83.344 85.801 72.693 66.777 37.77817.36583.344 69.118 82.771 69.208 54.60637.778USA Smokehouse hams (Dry cure porkproducts) (building and product)136.304 135.742 40.854 19.669 19.699 4.4653.73067.907 81.708 18.998 19.699 18.9984.465USA Mills and Processors 536.328505.982 401.889 362.952 291.418 173.023135.299483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237 291.418173.023

# 84 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# ANNEX VII. Disclosure and Me mbers of MBTOC Committees

Committee contact details and Disclosure of Interest To assure public confidence in the objectivity and competence of TEAP, TOC, and TSB members who guide the Montreal Protocol, Par ties to the Protocol have asked that each member to disclose proprietary, financial, and other interests. TEAP members have published such information for several years in the TEAP annual report.

As a result, Decision XVIII/19 was issued during the 18 th 

# Meeting of Parties to the Montreal Protocol held in New Delhi, India from 28 October to 3 November 2006. All MBTOC members are presently required to comp lete a disclosure of interest form and these are presented in summarized form below.



# A – MBTOC Soil subcommitt ee Members - September 2009

Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length of

service Country Article

5 status

Co-Chairs

1. Mohamed

Besri M Institut Agronomique et

Vétérinaire Hassan II (Academia) Professor, researcher, particularly on MB

and alternatives in A5 (PhD) A Morocco A5

2. Marta

Pizano F Consultant Consultant, MB alts, particularly cut flower production A Colombia A5

3. Ian Porter M Department of Primary Industries (Government research) Researcher, soils MB use and alts, particularly fungal pathogens and IPM (PhD) A Australia Non-A5

Members

4. Antonio

Bello M Centro de Ciencias

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

5. Aocheng

Cao M Chinese Academy of Agricultural

Sciences (Government research) Researcher, soil alternatives, particularly in China (A5) context (PhD) B China A5

6. Peter

Caulkins M Associate Director, Special Review & Reregistration

Division US EPA Registration of alternatives, regulatory issues (PhD) C USA Non A-5

7. Abraham

Gamliel M Agricultural

Research Organization,

The Volcani Center, (Government Research) Alternatives for soils, horticulture (PhD) C Israel Non-A5

Racquel Ghini F Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Brazil Researcher in horticulture, Develeoped solar D Brazil A5

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 85 Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length of

service Country Article

5 status

collectors for

treatment of

substrates 9. George

Lazarovits M Agriculture & Agrifood Canada (Government research) Researcher, non

chemical control of soilborne pathogens (PhD) C Canada Non-A5

10 Andrea

Minuto M Centro Regionale di Sperimentazione ed Assistenza Agricola CERSAA (CCIAA Savona) Albenga Researcher, MB

and alternatives in soils (PhD) C Italy Non-A5

11. James D.

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

12. Sally

Schneider F United States Department of Agriculture (Government research) Researcher in soils alts, particularly replant problems and propagative

material nurseries (PhD) B USA Non-A5

13. JL

Staphorst M Plant Protection

Research Institute (Parastatal research) Expert Soil Microbiologist (DSc) A South

Africa A5

14. Akio

Tateya M Syngenta Japan

K.K. Application of MB and alts, particularly in Japan A Japan Non-A5

15 Alejandro

Valeiro M Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (Government research) Introduction/use of soils alts, including

tobacco B Argentina A5

16. Nick Vink M University of

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

Africa A5

17 Janny Vos F CABI, The

Netherlands Plant PathologistIPM D Holland

18. Jim Wells M Environmental Solutions Group, LLC (Consultant) Registration and regulatory - MB and alternatives,

soil uses A USA Non-A5

19. Suat

Yilmaz M West

Mediterranean Agricultural

Research Institute (Government Research) Institute Director, Plant Pathologist

and Alternatives for soils (PhD) D Turkey A5

Totals M

=14

F

=5 A= 6

B= 5

C = 5

D= 3 A5=8

NonA5=11

A - >10 years B – 5-10 C – 2-5 D - <2 year Article 5 countries: 7 (39 %) Non Article ( countries): 11 (61 %)

# 86 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# Co-chairs

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

Rabat

MOROCCO

Prof. Mohamed Besri, is a full time Professo r of Plant Pathology and Integrated Disease Management at the Hassan II Institute of Ag ronomy and Veterinary Medicine, Rabat, Morocco (HII IAVM). The HII IAVM has an interest in th e topics of the Montreal Protocol because it houses specialists in Soil-borne Plant Pathogens and MLF projects (strawberries, bananas, cut flowers). It advises the Ministry of Agriculture on all aspects of alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Prof. Besri has no proprietary in terest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS s . Prof. Besri works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matter s related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither Prof. Besri’s spouse, business partner or dependant children, work for or consult for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do any of them have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitu tes to ODSs, nor do any of them own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or su bstitutes to ODSs or consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Costs associated to travel, communication, and others related to participation in the TEAP, MBTOC, and releva nt Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by

UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat.



# Ms. Marta Pizano Article 5 co-chair

Consultant Bogotá

COLOMBIA

Ms. Marta Pizano is a consultant on methyl brom ide alternatives, particularly for cut flower production, and has actively promoted methyl bromide alternatives am ong growers in many countries. She is a regular consultant for the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund (MLF) and its implementing agencies. In this capacity, she has contributed to MB phase-out programs in nearly twenty Article 5 countries around the world, assisting growers with the adoption of sustainable alternatives and the implementation of IPM programs. She is a frequent speaker at national and international methyl bromide conferences and has authored numerous articles and publications on alternatives to this fumigant . She has been a member of MBTOC since 1998 and a co-chair since 2005. Presently, she is also a co-chair of the methyl bromide QPS task

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



# Dr. Ian Porter

Consultant Victoria, AUSTRALIA

Dr Ian Porter is the Principal Research scie ntist in Plant Pathology with the Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI) but presently conducts MBTOC work on leave from his organisation. DPI has an interest in developing sustainable control measures for plant pathogens and biosecurity. He has been a member of a number of National Committees

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 87 regulating ODS, has led the Australian research program on methyl bromide alternatives for soils and has 29 years experience in researchi ng sustainable methods for soil disinfestation of plant pathogens with over 200 research publicatio ns. He has been a member of MBTOC since 1997, Soils sub committee chair since 2001 and MBTOC Co-chair since 2005. Neither, Ian, his wife or children have any proprietary interest in alternatives or subs titutes to ODSs, nor own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr Porter is presently assisting National research agencies in Australia develop national priorities for IPM and soil health. He has conducted projects for UNEP and UNIDO in developing programmes to assist China, Mexico and CEIT countries to replace methyl bromide. The Victorian DPI has in the past made in-kind contributions to attend MBTOC and UNEP meetings, but provides no present support. The Australian Federal Gove rnment Research Funds and funds obtained through the Ozone Secretariat have provided funds to support travel and expenses for past

MBTOC activities.



# Members of record

Dr. Antonio Bello Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas

Madrid

SPAIN

Dr. Antonio Bello Pérez is a full time Research Professor at the Centre for Environmental Sciences in the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid, Spain. The institute has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of the environmental impact of methyl bromide. Dr Bello Pérez has no proprietar y interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant for UNEP, Implementing Agencies an d Governments, on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by his institution, which in turn receives contributions for this travel from national projects.



# Prof. Cao Aocheng Article 5 Member

Institute for Plant Protection Chinese Academy for Agricultural Sciences Beijing

CHINA

Dr. Aocheng Cao is a Research Pr ofessor at the Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences focusing on research in pesticide sciences. The Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, a non-profit organization, is interested in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because soil pathogens and nematodes are important pests in China and alternatives to methyl bromide are urgently needed. Dr Cao has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in comp anies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. His spouse also works for the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Scie nces, which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol as it conducts research on pest control, but has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor does she own stock in companies producing ODS or

their alternatives or substitutes or perform consultancy for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Expenses related to Dr Cao’s attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by UNEP.

# 88 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# Dr. Peter Caulkins

Associate Director Special Review & Reregistration Division EPA Washington D. C.

UNITED STATES

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



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

ISRAEL

Dr Abraham Gamliel is a full time senior researcher on methods and technologies for pest control and pesticide application at the Mini stry of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Organization, Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel .He is also an adjunct professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel. ARO Volcani Center has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protoc ol because it is the research and development institute for solving the farmer’s problem and for developing environmentally safe crop production. Dr Gamliel has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alte rnatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant for the Government, on matters related to the Mont real Protocol. Neither his spouse nor their children work for or consult for organizations havi ng an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol nor do they have a propr ietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Dr Gamliel’s travel expenses to attend MBTOC meetings are paid by the Ministry of Agriculture of Israel.



# Raquel Ghini Article 5 member Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária

BRAZIL

Dr Raquel Ghini. is a research scientist at Embrapa (“Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária”). She is employed as a full time researcher on non-chemical alternatives for the control of soilborne plant diseases and the impact s of Global Climate Change on plant diseases. She is also a professor at UNESP University, Fa culty of Agronomy, Botucatu, SP, Brazil. Dr. Ghini developed a solar collector for substrate de sinfestation . This equipment has been adopted by the ornamentals growers as part of a UNIDO project to phase out methyl bromide in Brazil. This equipment cannot be patented because it is in public domain. Neith er Dr. Ghini, nor her spouse or their children have any proprietary inte rest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, nor own stock in companies producin g ODSs or their alternatives or substitutes, or consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. She is coordinating a national project aiming to evaluate impacts of Climate Change on plant diseases, pests and weeds in Brazil. Expenses

related to Dr. Ghini’s attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by UNEP

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 89 Dr. George Lazarovits Agriculture & Agri-food Canada London, Ontario CANADA, N5V 4T3.

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

Montreal Protocol

, including evaluation of critical use nominations submitted to them by Canadian growers or Industries seeking exemptions for use of MB under CUE. Such nominations, if approved by EC, are eventual ly adjudicated by members of MBTOC. Dr. Lazarovits’ spouse has no involvement whatsoever with any issues or has any interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol or any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. She does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. They have no dependent children living with them and their children have no in volvement in any businesses dealing with issues that are in any way related to th e Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid for by AACF, and occasionally Environment Canada, from A Base budgets



# Dr. Andrea Minuto Centro Regionale di Sperimentazione ed Assistenza Agricola CERSAA (CCIAA Savona) Regione Rollo n° 98 17031 Albenga (SV)

ITALY

Dr Andrea Minuto is a full time employee at the CERSAA experimental station in Italy. CERSAA has an interest in the topics of pest and disease control including soil disinfestation because of the activities carried out in the frame of regional and national programmes of technology transfer to growers including soilbor ne pests and diseases management issues. Dr. Minuto has no proprietary interest in altern atives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or their alterna tives or substitutes. He does consulting (as CERSAA) for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs and also works occasionally as a consultant for Implementing Agencies and Governments on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. His spouse does not work or consul for organizations which have an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol or organization s seeking phase-out of ODS, nor does she have any proprietary interest in a lternatives or substitutes to ODSs, or own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitu tes. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by Italian Ministry of Environment, Territory and Sea.

# 90 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# Dr. James D. Schaub

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

UNITED STATES

Dr. James D. Schaub is an economist and Director of the Office of Risk Assessment and Costbenefit Analysis, Office of the Chief Economis t, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Dr. Schaub is employed full time wi thin the Office of the Chief Economist, USDA in Washington D.C. The USDA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its interest in environmentally sound agricultura l production systems and the protection stored commodities. Further, USDA is responsible fo r protection of animal and plant health from quarantine pests. Dr. Schaub has no proprietary interests in alternatives or substitute ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to any organization on matters related to th e Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse nor dependant children living at same home work for or consult for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do any of them have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor do any of them own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by Office of the Chief Economist, USDA.



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

USDA ARS Beltsville, Maryland

UNITED STATES

Dr. Sally Schneider is a National Program Le ader at the United States Department of Agriculture. Dr. Schneider is a full time Nati onal Program Leader for Ho rticulture, Pathogens, and Germplasm at the Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A. The Agricultural Research Service has an interest in the topics of the Mont real Protocol because they are the in-house research agency for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dr. Schneider has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr. Schneider does not work, occasionally or otherwise, as a consultant to UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, Governments, companies, etc. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Schneider does not have a spouse, business partner, social partner, or dependant children living in same home. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by United States Department of Agriculture.

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 91 Dr. JL (Stappies) Staphorst Article 5 member Recently retired senior soil microbiologist from the Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI) Agriculture Research Council (ARC)

Pretoria

SOUTH AFRICA

Dr. Staphorst is presently an advisor to the Pl ant Pathology and Microbiology Division of the Institute in Pretoria, South Africa. The Plant Prot ection Research Institute has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it houses the specialist Soil-borne Plant Diseases Unit and forms part of the Public Support Services Division that advises the Department of Agriculture on all aspects of plant diseases, pests and pesticides. Dr Staphorst has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitu tes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does no consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr Staphorst works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. His spouse ha s no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does no consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP with logistical support from the Plant Protection

Research Institute.



# Mr. Akio Tateya

Technical Adviser Syngenta Japan K.K. Tokyo

JAPAN

Mr. Akio Tateya is a Technical Adviser at Synge nta Japan K.K. a pesticide producing company, which does not produce substitutes to methyl brom ide. He also a technical adviser for the Japan Fumigation Technology Association, a non-profit body that is financially supported by the Japanese Government and companies producing methyl bromide and its substitutes. He conducts work for Syngenta Japan K.K. on a cont ract basis for a consultancy fee; he acts as a nominal member and adviser of the Japan Fumiga tion Technology Association, for which he is not paid. He has been a member of the Japanese delegation attending the Meeting of the Parties and Open-ended Working Groups, acting as technica l adviser on matters re lated to the Protocol. He has been occasionally asked to attend panels or meetings at the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. He has no proprietary or any other kind of interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, nor does he own any stocks in companies producing either ODS or their

alternatives or substitutes and does not work for any organization seeking to phase-out ODS. His spouse and children do not work for organizations with an interest in the Montreal Protocol. Travel expenses to enable attendance to MBTO C meetings and other meetings related to the Montreal Protocol are paid by the Japan Fumigation Technology Association. He receives no funding from the Japanese Government.

# 92 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# Mr. Alejandro Valeiro Article 5 member National Project Coordinator National Institute for Agricu lture and Technology (INTA)

Tucumán

ARGENTINA

Mr. Alejandro Valeiro is the National Coordinator of the PROZONO Project (MLF/UNDP project ARG/02/G61) at the National Institute for Agricultural Technology (INTA) of Argentina, based at the Famaillá INTA ́s Ex perimental Station in Tucumán Province, Argentina. The INTA has an interest in the to pics of the Montreal Protocol because it is the national counterpart for implementing MLF me thyl bromide phase-out projects, which are coordinated by the National Ozone Unit. Mr Valeir o has no proprietary inte rest on alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes and does not perform permanent consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant to the MLF, Implementing Agencies, on matters

related to the Montreal Protocol . Mr Valeiro’s spouse consults for UNDP, which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it implements MLF projects in Argentina. Neither Mr Valeiro, nor his spouse or dependant children have proprietary interest in ODS or their alternatives or substitutes, and do not ow n stock in companies producing ODS alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.



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

SOUTH AFRICA

Dr. Nick Vink is Chair of the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. He is a full time Pr ofessor at the University of Stellenbosch. The University has no interest in the topics of th e Montreal Protocol. Dr Vink has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS

or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does no t consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to any organisation on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse or dependant children work for or consult for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do they have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, or own stock in companies producing ODS or

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



# Dr. Janny Vos CABI, Kastanjelaan 5

3833 AN Leusden

THE NETHERLANDS

Dr. Janny Vos, MBTOC-Soil Member is a senior IPM specialist at CAB International (CABI). Dr Vos is a full time senior manager at the CABI Netherlands office. CABI has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it fits with CABI’s mission to improve people’s lives worldwide and focus on solving problems in agriculture and environment. Dr. Vos has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitute s to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does no consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr. Vos works occasionally as a consultant to EC on matters related

to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meeti ngs is paid by the Netherlands government.

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 93 Mr James Wells

President Environmental Solutions Group, LLC Sacramento, California

UNITED STATES

James Wells is the President of Environmental Solutions Group, LLC (ESG), a regulatory consulting firm in Sacramento, California. He was invited to join MBTOC in 1993 primarily because of his experience in pesticide regulatory programs, especially with methyl bromide and methyl bromide alternatives. He worked for the State of California pesticide regulatory program for 27 years and was the Director of th e California Department of Pesticide Regulation from 1991 to 1999. Mr. Wells has no proprietary in terest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. He does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. However, ESG consults with several agricultural organizations seeking Criti cal Use Exemptions for the use of methyl bromide. These organizations are; the California Strawberry Commission (CSC), the California Strawberry Nursery Association (CSNA), the Garden Rose Council (GRC) and the California

Association of Garden and Nurser y Centers (CANGC). Together with his staff he prepares and submits CUEs for the CSNA, GRC and CANGC to the USEPA. His spouse works for the California Department of Justice, which has no inte rest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. She has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult with organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Trav el to MBTOC meetings is paid by ESG.



# Dr Suat Yilmaz

, Article 5 member Director and National Project Coordinator, West Mediterranean Agricultural Research Institute, Antalya,

TURKEY

Dr. Suat Yilmaz is a plant pathologist and National Project Coordinator of the Turkish Methyl Bromide Phase out Project supported by UNIDO. He is employed as the Director of the West Mediterranean Agricultura l Research Institute (BATEM), at the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA). The BATEM has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is the research and development institu te for solving the farmer’s problems and for developing environmentally safe crop production systems for vegetable and cut flower sectors.

Dr. Yilmaz does not work as a consultant to an y organization on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse nor children work for or consult for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do any of them have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor do any of them own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.

# 94 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities SUBCOMMITTEE

Chair

1. Michelle Marcotte F Consultant Consultant, particularly food processing, regulations, structural and commodity

treatments and irradiation A Canada

Non-A5

Members

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

Non-A5

3. Chris Bell M Consultant, formerly Central Science Laboratory (Government research) Postharvest technologies, particularly fumigants, phosphine; sulfuryl fluoride, controlled atmospheres and heat' (PhD) A UK

Non-A5

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

Non-A5

5. Kathy Dalip F CARDI Research entomologist (Ph D) D Belize

A5

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

A5

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

Non-A5

8. Ken Glassey M MAF, New

Zealand Forester, government advisor on MB alternatives in forest products and QPS

treatments D New Zealand

Non-A5

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

A5

10. Darka Hamel F Croatian Institute for Agriculture,

Food and Rural

Affairs - Institute

for Plant Protection (Government) Postharvest and structural treatments, regulations C Croatia

CEIT

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

Non-A5

12. David Okioga M Ministry of

Environment and

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

A5

13. Christoph

Reichmuth M JKIGermany (Government research) Director the Institute for Ecological Chemistry, Plant Analysis and Stored

Product Protection of the Federal Institute for Cultivated Plants, Professor at Humboldt-University Berlin Chemist (PhD) B Germany

Non-A5

14. Jordi Riudavets M IRTA-Department

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

Non-A5

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

structures A US

Non-A5

16. Robert Taylor M Consultant Postharvest technology, specifically A5

uses A UK

Non-A5

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 95 MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities SUBCOMMITTEE

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

Non-A5

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

Non-A5

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

A5

Totals M

=16

F

=3 A= 10

B= 3

C = 8 CEIT &

A5=7

Non-A5=13



# A - >10 years

B – 5-10

C – 2-5



# Co-chair

Ms Michelle Marcotte MBTOC Co-Chair Quarantine, Structures and

Commodities Marcotte Consulting Inc. (Marcotte Consulting Inc is a Canadian corporation; its President, Michelle Marcotte, is

located at:

10104 East Franklin Ave. Glenn Dale, Maryland USA 20769

Ms Michelle Marcotte was a member of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and subsequently a member of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee between 1992 and 2005; she was confirmed as Co-Chair in 2005. Until 1993 she worked for MDS Nordion, a supplier of radiation processing equipment which is an alternative to the use of methyl bromide in some commodity and quarantine situations . Since then, Ms Marcotte, through Marcotte Consulting, has provided consulting services to governments and agri-food companies in eight countries on agri-environmental issues, food technology, regulatory affairs and radiation processing. Marcotte Consulting has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its long time market development work in food irradiation, an alternative to some methyl bromide uses, and because of its interest in food processing, food safety and trade. In the field of methyl bromide alternatives, Ms Marcotte has published case studies for pest control in food processing, for stored commodities, for alternatives for quarantine and for greenhouse use. She is a member of the Canada Industry-Government Methyl Bromide Working Group and the Canada-USA Methyl Bromide Working Group; both organizations work to achieve phase out of methyl bromide in the agri-food sector. Marcotte has consulted to companies, industry associations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and USAID on irradiation as a methyl bromide alternative in food processing, quarantine and trade. She has also prepared consulting reports summarizing research in methyl brom ide alternatives and case studies on food processing for US Environmental Protection Agency . Ms Marcotte has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODS s. Ms Marcotte’s spouse works for United States Department of Agriculture managing research in methyl bromide alternatives and is a member of MBTOC.

# 96 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# He does not have proprietary interest in alte rnatives or substitutes to ODS and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Marcotte receives a consulting contract from Government of Canada, Environment Canada, a Party to the Montreal Protocol that is committed to the phase out of methyl bromide. Ms Marcotte pays for travel to TEAP, MBTOC and Montreal Protocol meetings out of consultancy funds provided by the Canadian government, Environment Canada, to support her work on MBTOC.



# Members

Dr Jonathan Banks, Co-Chair Quarantine Task Force

10 Beltana Road Pialligo

Canberra ACT

AUSTRALIA

Dr. Jonathan Banks, Chair of TEAP’s QPS Task Force, is a private consultant. He was amember of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and from 1993 to 1998 and 2001 to 2005 cochaired the Methyl Bromide TOC. He worked as a Research Scientist with the Australian

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Resear ch Organization (CSIRO) from1972 to 1999 on grain storage technologies, including use of improved use of fumigants. He is coinventor of carbonyl sulfide, an alternative fumigant to meth yl bromide in some app lications. Patent rights have been assigned to his employer, CSIRO. Dr Ba nks has no proprietary inte rest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. He has stock in Brambles Ltd, a company that inter alia leases wooden pallets for freight. The pallets may or may not be treated with methyl br omide or alternatives. His spouse is co-owner of their commercial organic apple orchard. She has no financial interests relating to ozone-depleting substan ces. He has served on some national committees concerned with ODS and their control, and within the last 4 years has received contracts from UNEP, and other institutions and public companie s related to methyl bromide alternatives and grain storage technology--including training in fumigation (methyl bromide and alternatives) and fumigation technology and recapture systems for methyl bromide. In 2005 and 2006 he received some support from UNEP for TEAP and MBTOC activities. Other funding for his MBTOC activities has been through grants or co ntracts from the Department of Environment and Heritage, Australia or from personal contributions.



# Dr Chris Bell Consultant, Formerly Central Science Library

Sand Hutton

York Y041 ILZ

UNITED KINGDOM

Dr. Christopher Hugh Bell, is a Fellow at the Ce ntral Science Laboratory (CSL), Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, at York, UK, where he led research into fumigation technology, including studies on methyl bromide and potential alternatives which were sponsored by UK government agencies and pr ivate companies, until his retirement in 2004. He is also a Regional Editor for the Journal of Stored Products Research for Europe and Africa, an Elsevier journal publishing original research addressing problems encountered in the storage of durable commodities. Dr. Bell has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alte rnatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not represent organizations seeking to phase out ODSs . He works occasionally as a consultant to governments and companies on matters related to methyl bromide use or replacement, or the

Montreal Protocol. Travel and subsistence to a ttend MBTOC meetings has been paid by the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), or by UNEP.

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 97 Fred Bergwerff

CEO

EcO2 BV James Wattstraat 6,

3281 NK Numansdorp, The Netherlands

Mr Fred Bergwerff is the General Manager for ECO2 B.V., a company that provides disinfestation services through controlled atmo spheres technology and equipment, and related consulting services. He is employed in a full time capacity with responsibilities for joint-venture partnerships, technical assistance, training and promotion of good practices in the structural, commodity, quarantine and port disinfestation industries, particularly specialising in QPS and ISPM-15 treatments. ECO2 does not have a commercial relationship with any fumigant or pesticide manufacturers/registrants. ECO2 ha s been involved in research trials on MB alternatives and has assisted companies to a dopt MB alternatives for structures, stored commodities and pre-shipment and quarantine treatme nts. ECO2 has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its expertise in disinfestation and pest control, particularly non-chemical treatments. Other than controlled atmospheres and the company ECO2 BV, Mr Bergwerff and his business partners in ECO2 have no proprietary interest in ODS or other alternatives to ODS, and do not own stock in companies that manufacture ODS or other alternatives to ODS. He carries out consulting work for organizations and companies that are seeking to phaseout ODS. Mr Bergwerff’s wife owns shares in ECO2, has no proprietary

interest in ODS or other alternatives to ODS, and does not own stock in companies manufacturing ODS or other alternatives to ODS. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by ECO2,

which receives no contribution for this trav el from any other company or organisation.



# Dr Kathy M. Dalip Article 5 member Entomologist

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

Belize

Dr. Kathy M Dalip is an Entomologist at the Caribbean Agriculture Research and Development Institute (CARDI), which has headquarters in Trinidad and offices in twelve member countries. Kathy works full-time at the CARDI Belize Un it, Central Farm, Western Highway, Cayo District, Belize, Central America. Between 2000 and 2005, Kathy was stationed at the CARDI Jamaica Unit where she was a member of the Jamaica Methyl Bromide Working Group. Her

work at CARDI is focused in the areas of in tegrated pest management (IPM) and organic agriculture. Hence, her emphasis is on finding non-chemical pest control options to improve production and economic feasibility for farmers. Kathy has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or

substitutes to ODSs and has not done consultin g for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by for by the Ozone Secretariat of UNEP.

# 98 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# Dr Ricardo T Deang Article 5 member

4 Istanbul Street

Merville Park Parañaque, Metro Manila

THE PHILIPPINES

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



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

33883 VILLENAVE D'ORNON CEDEX

Jacques François Patrick Ducom, Agronomy En gineer, is a long standing MBTOC member and head of the Laboratoire National Denrées Stockées (LNDS), Plant Protection Service, Ministry of Agriculture, France. Dr Ducom is a full ti me researcher in fumigation LNDS. He works occasionally as a consultant for Implementing Agencies of the Multilateral Fund on matters

related to the Montreal Protocol. Dr Ducom ha s no proprietary interest on alternatives or substitute to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not engage in c onsulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid from the LNDS budget



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

P.O. Box 2526 Wellington, New Zealand

Ken Glassey is a full time adviser on Phytosanitary Treatments and Treatment Operators at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Head O ffice, Wellington, New Zealand. MAF has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because quarantine and preshipment treatments uses a significant amount of methyl bromide (170 tonnes in 2007). Current responsibilities cover researching, developing and reviewi ng New Zealand’s import standards including operational standards such as treatments for imported and export commodities. This also involves monitoring quality and adequacy, initia ting remedial action as necessary, and the provision of advice on the practical application and implications of such standards. Mr Glassey

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 99 has been involved in QPS inspection and treatment s for 20 years with par ticular expertise with forest produce, and worked in forest management for 11 years prior to that. Mr Glassey has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitu tes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to implementing agencies on

matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr Gl assey’s partner living in same home does not work for or consults for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. She has no proprietary interest alte rnatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Tr avel to TEAP/TOC/TSB meetings is paid by

MAF.



# Mr Alfredo T. Gonzalez Article 5 Member

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

THE PHILIPPINES

Mr Gonzalez is president of Pestcon Pest Mana gement and General Services, a company with

an interest in the Montreal Protocol because it uses methyl bromide in the for Quarantine and pre-shipment treatments as well as ISPM 15 treatments for wood packaging materials. Mr Gonzalez, has no proprietary interest in altern atives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Presently he is the general consultant for the implementation of the Methyl Bromide Phase-out program in the Philippines for the Government of his country, under the Department of Natural ResourcesPhilippine Ozone Desk (DENR-POD) in cooperatio n with the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA), which is directly related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither Mr Gonzalez’s wife or their children have any proprietary interest in alterna tives or substitutes in ODSs. Expenses related to

Mr Gonzalez’s attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by UNEP.



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

CROATIA

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

authorized to do so in accordance with the PPI recommendation. Dr. Hamel has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do es not own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr. Hamel works occasionally as a consultant to the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development or the Ministry for Environmental Protection and Physical Planning regarding legislation on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.

# 100 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

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

JAPAN

Mr. Takashi Misumi, member of MBTOC since 2005 is a senior researcher at the Yokohama Plant Protection Station (YPPS). Mr. Misumi is a full time Researcher at the Quarantine Disinfestation Technology Section, Research Di vision of YPPS. He has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Neither his spouse nor their children work for organizations with has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Expenses related to the attendance of MBTOC meetings are paid by International department of MAFF.



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

PO Box 67839

Nairobi

KENYA

Dr. David Okioga is a founding member of MBTOC, joining in 1992. He was MBTOC co-chair between 1997 and 2002. Dr Okioga was the Director, National Plant Quarantine Services of Kenya for sixteen years. He also served as the Coordinator in Agricultural Botany under the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture on Plant Breeder's Rights, Member of the National Agricu ltural Research Centre, National Horticultural Research Centre, National Potato Research Centre, and the National Committee for the National Genebank. Dr. Okioga has undertaken a number of contracts from the African Unity (then Organization of the African Unity), FAO and UNEP . Some of these consultancies were related to crop protection, where methyl bromide was considered as the chemical of choice for soil fumigation, whereas others were on strengthening the Montreal Protocol policies on ODS phase out in the African region (including methyl bromide). In 1995, Dr. Okioga was appointed Coordinator, of the National Ozone Unit (NOU) of Kenya by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Kenya, in consultation with UNDP, a post that he still holds at present. Dr. Okioga's main responsibility is strengthening the government of Kenya in meeting the requirements of the Montreal Protocol and in phasing out of ODS in the country.Dr. Okioga has no proprietary interests in alternatives for OD S and does not consult for companies seeking to phase out ODS. Travel and expenses related to his attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by

UNEP.



# Dr. Jordi Ruidavets IRTACrop Protection

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

SPAIN

Dr. Jordi Riudavets is a Researcher at the Institute for Agrifood Research and Technology (IRTA) of Spain. He is a full time entomologist at the Crop Protection Division, with experience in the development an d transfer of integrated pest management (IPM) programs for stored products and horticultural crops. The IRTA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because is a state-owned company of the Catalan Government, and its activities are concerned with scientific research and technology transfer in the areas of agriculture,

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 101 aquaculture and the agrifood industry. Dr. Riudave ts has no proprietary in terest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in co mpanies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He occasionally works as a consultant to the Spanish Government, food companies, pest control companies and private companies with interest in matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by th e Spanish Ministry of the Environment.



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

D-14195 Berlin

GERMANY

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

Reichmuth is a full time director of the Institu te for Stored Product Protection of the Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry in Berlin, Germany, of the German Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Germany. The Federal Ministry for Nutrition, Agricultur e and Consumer Protection together with the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Natu re Conservation and Nuclear Safety has a pronounced interest to replace methyl bromide as quickly as possible, due to the strongly expressed political interest and public opinion in Germany. Dr Reichmuth has no proprietary interest, patent for production of phosphine from magnesium phosphide in a generator with the company Degesch Detia, Germany, patent for th e treatment of stored products and organic materials (wood) with inert atmospheres with the company Buse, Germany, patent for pheromone traps for Lepidopteran pests with the Max-Planck-Society, Germany, at present there are no royalties paid from the patents to Dr Reichmuth. He gave and gives advice to private companies in Germany to obtain critical use exemptions for methyl bromide in helping to understand the English forms of UNEP/TEAP, he works occasionally as a consultant to UNIDO, supporting projects or par ties to replace methyl bromide. Travel to MBTOC meetings or related meetings concerning the phaseout of methyl bromide are paid by the German Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Consumer Protection or by the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.



# Mr John Sansone

SCC Products

2641 W. Woodland Anaheim, CA 92801

UNITE D STATES

Mr John Sansone is the President and General Ma nager for SCC Products. He is employed in a full time capacity with responsibilities for sales, training, stewardship and as a consultant for end users in the residential, commodity, quara ntine and port fumigation industries. SCC Products has a commercial relationship with several fumigant/pesticide manufacturers/registrants, some of which offer products which are considered alternatives to MB. SCC Products has been involved in research trials in the food processing and stored

commodities sectors. The firm was instrument al in the transition to alternatives for the residential fumigation marketplace and curren tly is transitioning alternatives into the commodity fumigation market. It is also involved in the implementation of recapture equipment for commodity fumigation companies in California. SCC Products has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its relationship and expertise in many fumigation areas. Mr Sansone has no proprie tary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alte rnatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not

# 102 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to the UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, Government s, companies, etc. on matters related to

the Montreal Protocol. Mr Sansone has no rela tives or business partners that work for or consult for any organization with an interest in th e topics of the Montreal Protocol nor does he have relatives or business partner having a propri etary interests in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, or who own stock in companies producing OD S or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by SCC Products, which receives no contribution for this travel from anyone.



# Mr. Robert Taylor

Consultant

27 Lancet Lane Loose, Maidstone, Kent ME15 9SA

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr Robert Taylor retired from the Natural Reso urces Institute (NRI) of the United Kingdom in 2001. The NRI was a government establishment in volved in biological/agricultural research, development and training, primarily in relation to developing countries. In recent years the NRIhas become part of the University of Greenwich. Crop protection in both the pre- and postharvest stages has always been a major feature of NRI’s research and development programmes. Pest management, including the use of fumigants, has always features strongly in such programmes. Mr Taylor has no proprietary interest in altern atives or substitutes to methyl bromide and does not own stock in companies consulting for organizations seeking to phase out the chemical. He works occasionally as a consultant to UN agencies including UNIDO and UNEP on matters relating to the Montreal Protocol . Mr Taylor has no relatives or business partners who work or consult for organizations which have an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor does he have relatives or business partners having proprietary interests in alternatives or substitutes to methyl brom ide, or who own stock in companies producing alternatives or substitutes to methyl bromide, or who consult for companies seeking to phase out methyl bromide. Travel and subsistence for MBTOC meetings is paid for by the UK government and most recently by the Department for the Environment Farming and Rural

Affairs and UNEP.



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

Beltsville MD 20705 – 5139

UNITED STATES

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

# September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

# 103 commodities and in some quarantine situation. Sh e has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does consult for organi zations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr Vick's

travel to MBTOC and Montreal Protocol meeti ngs is paid by the USDA Agriculture Research

Service.



# Mr Chris Watson

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

UNITED KINGDOM

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



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

4101 Tucumán

ARGENTINA

Mr Eduardo Willink is Director of Special Disciplines and He ad of the Agricultural Zoology Department of the Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombrés Tucumán, Argentina. He is a full time researcher in ento mology who leads a team of researchers working on quarantine treatments, systems approach a nd pest host status, and is a member of the Technical Panel on Phytosanitary Treatments within IPPC, FAO. The organization has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because its mission is to resolve regional agro industrial problems with the least impact on the environment. Mr Willink has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS

or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Neither his spouse or dependant children work for or consult for organizations with an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do they have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes or consult for organi zations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to TOC is paid by UNEP.