MONTREAL PROTOCOL 

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE 

THE OZONE LAYER 

UNEP

REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT PANEL

SEPTEMBER 2009 

EVALUATIONS OF 2009 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL 

BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT
ii September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

UNEP 

SEPTEMBER 2009 REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT PANEL

EVALUATIONS OF 2009 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR 

METHYL BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT
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 Economic Assessment Panel 

September 2009 

EVALUATIONS OF 2009 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR 

METHYL BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

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

Co-ordination: Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

Composition 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 operation requires consideration of worker safety 

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

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

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

options discussed in this document. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and members or the companies or organisations that employ them.

Acknowledgement 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee: 

MBTOC Soils 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); Sally Schneider (USA); JL (Stappies) Staphorst 

(South Africa); Akio Tateya (Japan); Alejandro Valeiro (Argentina); Nick Vink (South Africa); 

Janny Vos (The Netherlands); Jim Wells (USA); Suat Yilmaz (Turkey) 

MBTOC 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 (Philippines); Patrick Ducom (France); Alfredo 

Gonzalez (Philippines); Ken Glassey (New Zealand); Darka Hamel (Croatia); Takashi Misumi 

(Japan); David Okioga (Kenya); Christoph Reichmuth (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

SEPTEMBER 2009 REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT PANEL

EVALUATIONS OF 2009 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR 

METHYL BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT
vi September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

UNEP 

SEPTEMBER 2009 REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT PANEL

EVALUATIONS OF 2009 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL 

BROMIDE AND RELATED MATTERS

FINAL REPORT – SEPTEMBER 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. MANDATE .................................................................................................................................3

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

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

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

2.4. REPORTING OF MB CONSUMPTION FOR CRITICAL USE - DECISION XVII/9 ............................6

2.5 TRENDS IN METHYL BROMIDE USE FOR CUES SINCE 2005.....................................................6

2.6. EVALUATIONS OF CUNS – 2009 ROUND FOR 2010 AND 2011 EXEMPTIONS ..........................10

2.7. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST ......................................................................................................11

3.MBTOC SOILS: FINAL EVALUATIONS OF 2009 CRITICAL USE 

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

3.1 SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES .......................................................................................................13

3.2. ISSUES RELATED TO CUN ASSESSMENT FOR PREPLANT SOIL USE ........................................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 preplant uses........................................................................18

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

3.3. STANDARD PRESUMPTIONS USED IN ASSESSMENT OF NOMINATED QUANTITIES. ...................19

3.4. ADJUSTMENTS FOR STANDARD DOSAGE RATES USING MB/PIC FORMULATIONS ...................21

3.5. USE/EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES - LOW PERMEABILITY BARRIER FILMS AND 

DOSAGE REDUCTION ..............................................................................................................................22

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

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

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

5.REFERENCES....................................................................................................................61

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

6.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................71

6.2 MBTOC WORKPLAN FOR 2010 - DETAILS.............................................................................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 information from Parties on stocks (Decision Ex.1/4 

(9f)), an update on registration issues affecting availability of alternatives for preplant 

and post harvest uses (Decision Ex. 1/4 (9i) and (9j)), partial information on actual 

MB consumption for critical uses (Decision 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 March 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 substantiate 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 responsibility 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-shipment, 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 Protocol the production and consumption (defined 

as production plus imports minus exports) of MB is to be phased out in Parties not 

operating under Article 5(1) of the Protocol, by 1 January 2005. However, the Parties 

agreed to a provision enabling exemptions for those uses of MB that qualify as 

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

such uses need to meet in order to be granted an exemption. TEAP and its MBTOC 

provide guidance to the Parties’ decisions on critical use exemptions in accordance 

with Decisions IX/6 and Annex I of Decision XVI/4. 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 alternatives 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 explicitly 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 emergencies. 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 2 435.319 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 1 462.747 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/imports 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 

Israeld 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 given 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 clarification 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 17th 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) above 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 reduction in MB or adoption of alternatives 

achieved by Parties. It should be noted that 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 the 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

Year

metric tonnes

France

USA

 

Peppers and Eggplant

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

20052006200720082009

2010

Years

metric tonnes

Belgium

France

Italy

Japan

Spain

USA

Strawberry Fruit

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

metric 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

Year

metric tonnes

Belgium

Greece

Italy

USA

 

 

Cucurbits and Melons

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

metric tonnes

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Japan

USA

 

Cutflowers

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

metric 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 lines indicate trend in CUE methyl bromide. 

Dashed lines indicate quantity of methyl bromide nominated by the Party in either 

2010 or 2011. 

 Food Processing and Mills

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

metric tonnes

Belgium

Canada

France

Germany

Greece

Israel

Italy

UK

USA
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

Table 2.5. Summary of Critical Use Nomination and Exempted Amounts of MB (2005- 2011) Granted by Parties aRecommendations for CUEs for 2010 and 2011. (Note: A breakdown of CUN and CUE amounts by sector is given in 

QUANTITIES NOMINATED QUANTITIES APPROVED 

PARTY 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 

(1ExMOP 

and 

16MOP) 

2006 

(16MOP+ 

2ExMOP+ 

17MOP) 

2007 

(17MOP 

+ 

18MOP) 

2008 

(18MOP 

+ 

19MOP)

2009 

(19MOP) 

Australia 206.950 81.250 52.145 52.900 38.990 37.610 35.450 146.600 75.100 48.517 48.450 37.610 Canada 61.992 53.897 46.745 42.241 39.115 35.080 19.368 61.792 53.897 52.874 36.112 39.020 European Community1

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

Israel 1117.156 1081.506 1236.517 952.845 699.448 383.700 * 1089.306 880.295 966.715 860.580 610.854 Japan 748.000 741.400 651.700 589.600 508.900 288.500 249.420 748.000 741.400 636.172 443.775 305.380 New Zealand 

53.085 53.085 32.573 0 0 0 0 50.000 42.000 18.234 0 0 

Switzerland 8.700 7.000 0 0 0 0 0 8.700 7.000 0 0 0 USA 10753.997 9386.229 7417.999 6415.153 4958.034 3299.490 2388.128 9552.879 8081.753 6749.060 5355.976 4261.974 TOTALS 18704.241 15617.837 10677.552 8297.739 6244.487 4044.380 2692.366 16050.089 13418.200 9160.714 6990.039 5,254.838 * Not yet available. 1 Members of the European Community which had CUNs/CUEs included: 

2005 – Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. 2006 – Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. 2007 – France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom 2008 – Poland, Spain 
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 contained 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 treatment 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 further allows MBTOC to seek further 

information from Parties and for Parties to provide further information in response to 

MBTOCs interim recommendations made during the first meeting. 

CUNs assessed in this report relate to CUEs sought for 2010 and 2011. No nominations 

in this particular round were initially submitted 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 29th 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. Unless 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, technical 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 nominations 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 all 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 their 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 requested 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 

29th OEWG* 

2010 2011 

Australia Strawberry 

runners 

29.790 22.350 29.790 23.840

TOTAL 29.790 22.350 29.790 23.840

Cucurbitsa 218.032 195.698 218.032 195.698

Eggplanta 21.561 19.725 21.561 19.725

Forest 

Nurseries 

106.043 93.547 106.043 93.547

Peppersa 212.775 206.234 212.775 206.234

Strawberry 

fruita

1023.471 812.709 1023.471 812.709

Strawberry 

runners* 

7.381 4.690 7.381 2.018 6.0355

United 

States 

Tomatoesa

 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 feasible 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 19th MOP) for vegetables, strawberries and 

strawberry runners, where either data from research 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 several sectors in the USA and maintained the standard 

presumptions for dosage rates for use with barrier films and MB/Pic formulations 

provided to the 19th 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 20th

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 29th OEWG. 
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 15

Table 3.3 Summary of the amounts approved by Parties at 19th 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 specific 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 films 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/m2

)) 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 fumigant 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 propagation 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 use 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 for 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/m2

 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 reregistration in the U.S. in 1998, and no further 

mitigation is expected at this time. 

The registration of formulations of a key alternative, 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 states in the USA, including Australia, Israel 

and Japan. To ensure that the mitigation measures 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-registration of 1,3-D under Directive 91/414 

(Dow AgroSciences 2007)”. (EC Management Strategy, 2008). 

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

impending registration in specific countries recently, including dimethyl disulphide 

(DMDS) in Europe and the USA . 

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 findings 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 recognised 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 countries 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, adoption 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. Australia, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, 

New Zealand) almost complete adoption of alternative technologies (especially those 

requiring similar application technologies) 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 adoption 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 environmentally 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 sustainability. 

3.2.4. Frequency of allowed MB use for preplant uses 

In the CUN round for 2009, reductions in MB for 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 2nd or 3rd year. In some production systems, MB is already used only every 

3rd or 4th year as a result of uptake of alternative strategies and crop rotations. MBTOC 

S urges Parties to consider reduced frequency 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) provide 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 

17th MOP. Studies and reports to support them appear in Annex III. They were revised 

for some sectors after consideration by the Parties at the 19th 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, MBTOC considered reductions to quantities of 

MB in particular nominations to a standard 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/m2

), in 

conjunction with low permeability barrier films (e.g., VIF, or equivalent) and totally 

impermeable films (TIF) combined with extended exposure periods. Several Parties 

have indicated that 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2

) 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 only 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/m2

) where nutsedge is the key pest and 125 or 

150 kg/ha (12.5-15.0 g/m2

) 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 similar 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/m2

) 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/m2

) 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 conditions and the target pest situation. Some 

nominations were based on rates lower than these indicative rates. 

During 2008, the US delegation indicated that they were not able to conform to dosage 

rates suggested by MBTOC for vegetables 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 for 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/m2

 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/m2

. This rate is below the new presumptions of 12.5 g/m2 for pathogens 

and 15 g/m2

 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 29th 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/m2

 for pathogens and 15.0 

g/m2

 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/m2 with 

barrier films (VIF or equivalent); 

for mixtures of MB/Pic are 12.5 to 

17.5 g MB/m2

 for pathogens and 

nutsedge respectively, under barrier 

films depending on the sector. All 

rates are on a ‘per treated hectare’ 

basis. 

Amount adjusted to maximum 

guideline rates. Maximum rates 

set dependent on formulation 

and soil type and film 

availability. 

Higher rates accepted if 

specified under national 

legislation or where the Party 

had justified otherwise. 

2. Barrier films All treatments to be carried out 

under low permeability barrier film 

(e.g. VIF, TIF) 

Nomination reduced 

proportionately to conform to 

barrier film use. 

Where barrier film 

prohibited or restricted by 

legislative or regulatory 

reasons 

3. MB/Pic 

Formulation: 

Pathogen control 

Unless otherwise specified, MB/Pic 

50:50 (or similar) was considered 

to be the standard effective 

formulation for pathogen control, 

as a transitional strategy to replace 

MB/Pic 98:2. 

Nominated amount adjusted for 

use with MB/Pic 50:50 (or 

similar). 

Where MB/Pic 50:50 is not 

registered, or Pic (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/m2) in MB/Pic mixtures (67:33, 50:50) 

Film Type considered effective for:

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 equally 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 mixtures 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 premixed 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 permit as the basis for future CUNs. This 

includes rates as low as 75 kg/ha (7.5 g/m2

) in 250 kg/ha of 30:70 or 33:67 mixtures or 

100 kg/ha (10 g/m2

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

barrier films as these have shown similar effectiveness to higher rates of MB in 67:33 

MB /Pic and 335 to 800 kg/ha (33.5 to 80 g/m2

) of MB 98% with standard 

polyethylene. 
22 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Table 3.6. Actual dosage rates applied during preplant fumigation when different 

rates and formulations of methyl bromide/chloropicrin mixtures are applied with and 

without barrier films. Rates of application reflect standard commercial applications 

rates. 

MB/Pic formulation (dose of MB in g/m2

) 

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 (Annex III) show that a dosage of 10g/m2 (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/m2 using standard PE films 

3.5. Use/Emission reduction technologies - Low permeability barrier films and 

dosage reduction 

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

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

associated emission of methyl bromide’. 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 emission reduction technologies, such as use of 

LPBF, including VIF and totally impermeable films (TIF), or other appropriate sealing 

and emission control techniques including deep injection of MB, use of formulations 

with a lower proportion of MB and/ or reduced frequency of application. 

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. 
24 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Table 3.7. Final evaluations of CUNs for preplant soil use submitted in 2008 for 2010 or 2011 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

Australia Strawberry 

runners 

35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 29.790 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 23.840 tonnes be approved for 2011. The reduction by MBTOreduced rate for MB of 187.5 kg/ha 18.75 g/m2). The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi (Phytophthora, Py

spp.) and weeds (S. arvensis, Agrostis tenuis, Raphanus spp., Poa annua, Cyperus spp). The CUN states that MB:Pic 50:50 at a 

meet certification standards. The Party’s request exceeds MBTOC’s standard presumption of 20 g/m2, but this rate continues to re

indicates that the registration authority (APVMA) requires 2 years of trials before approving a reduced rate. The Party has howeveyields with reduced rates under barrier films, LDBF (MB:Pic 50:50 @ 375 kg/ha) provided similar yields to the currently registered kg/ha. The second year’s results will be available in August/September 2009. The Party has indicated that it is possible that the reMB:Pic will occur in time for use in 2011. The Party states that the most promising alternative, MI/Pic has been demonstrated in smthe efficacy to MB:Pic. Commercial scale-up trials are in progress and could lead to registration in 2011 or possibly beforehand. If for further reduction of the nomination. A key alternative,1,3-D:Pic, is considered ineffective due to phytotoxicity and doubling of plawet soil conditions in the high elevation regions. The Party also indicates that the Victorian Strawberry Certification Authority (VSIC2-year development program for soil-less systems for production of foundation stock strawberry runners. Results indicated that thsystem is similar to the current method of production in MB:Pic fumigated soils, and the economics of the soil-less system compar

method of production. VSICA plans to establish a commercial facility by 2011 which, if successful, would eliminate VSICA’s need 2011/2012. MBTOC encourages the Party to (1) expedite the registration of MI/PIC and EDN (Mattner et al, 2008) and (2) implemeconomically feasible the use of soil-less systems for the production of foundation stock strawberry runners. Upon reevaluation, Mtrial information which showed that the reduced dosage of MB/Pic at 17.5 g/m2 with standard films was not as effective as higher d

was 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 nurseries when barrier films are used and MBTOC has calculated the recommendation on this basis. Even without barrier films, th

effective. MBTOC recognizes that a label change or a permit may need to be obtained for use of the lower dosage rates (20g/m2)

recommendation on this outcome.

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that “...the first of 

the economic and biological feasibility of production of foundation stock by soil-less systems was completed this year”. It compared system of production in MB:Pic treated soil in insect proof cages. Results confirm the potential of the soil-less system are being ustrial to be established in November 08.” They conclude that “The economics of the system compare favourably with the current me
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

Canada Strawberry 

runners (PEI) 

6.840 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 7.462 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends 5.261 tonnes for this use in 2011. The CUN for 2011 is based on a reduced rate 

acknowledges the Party’s reduction in the absence of formal registration for this dose rate. The Party has attempted to replace MB use in Prince Edward Island in January 2003 due to ground water contamination. PIC 100 has been registered by the Pest Manag(PMRA) but the PEI authorities have denied a permit for its use until further groundwater testing has been conducted. While MB:Puse rate registered for strawberry runners, which exceeds MBTOC’s standard presumption of 20 g/m2 of MB, the grower has petiti

rate with barrier films. PMRA, in the absence of a formal label amendment, has granted permission to use a lower rate, but at the 2008 the grower tested 25% and 30% lower rates under barrier films and results will be available in 2009. The permit for Pic 100 ieven though Canada registered Pic in 2007. No studies on other potential alternative fumigants, such as Pic, DMDS, MI/Pic have tfuture nominations will also demonstrate significant progress with key alternatives. MBTOC encourages the Party (1) to finalize the Pic100 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 da

Israel 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 

and pepper and is additional to the outdoor field nominations in previous years. MB use for a national broomrape eradication projebeen approved as a CUN for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009, but the allocated amounts have not been utilized. It is not clear to Mquantities can not be used to fumigate the 50 ha of green house for broomrape in tomato and pepper production, but have assumeavailable. MBTOC notes that in 2005 CUN the Party stated it would not apply for additional uses and MBTOC is unclear why this n

MBTOC acknowledges that a registration for Pic is being considered in Israel and that this would possibly allow for lower dosages 

and other pathogens as a transition strategy. In the 2008 nomination, the Party reported that results of field trials with 1,3-D in seqpromising and that registration is expected in 2009. In the 2009 nomination, the Party confirms that Telon EC is a very good chemO. aegyptica the main species parasitizing tomato. It is not clear from the nomination whether 1,3-D/Pic EC (Telon EC) has been r

broomrape when applied under plastic sheets through the drip irrigation system in tunnels or greenhouses. Its efficacy is further encombination with MS. It is not clear if this fumigant can eradicate the parasitic plant .The Party has also identified some alternativeOrobanche (e.g. solarization) but they are considered not adequate for controlling severe infestations of O. aegyptiaca. Field trials 

sulfosulfuron, imazapic, and imazomox (Abanga et al., 2007; Nadal et al.,2008; Miller et al., 2009). 

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that “Biological co

aid of a parasitic fly or with Fusaria do not provide economic answers for the broomrape problem” but provides no further supportin
26 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

Israel Cut flowersbulbsprotected 303.000 240.000 220.185 114.450 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 amotransition rate applied for adoption of substrates (lilium, calla lilies, gerberas, anemones and carnations outside the Ghaza area), aspecies where the nomination states these are now registered. The nomination is for a variety of cut flowers produced under coverweeds (Cyperus in particular), nematodes (root-knot but also ectoparasites such as Longidorus) and fungi. MBTOC does not cons

of ectoparasitic nematodes. MBTOC does not recommend the use of 1.75 tonnes for fumigating substrates used in rose productioare efficient for this use. Overall, there is very little change from nominations submitted in previous years, particularly in 2007 and is still largely based on transitional measures - LPBF barrier films with reduced rates. In spite of this, registration of certain alternatand 1,3-D, has now expanded to include additional flower types. Substrate production protocols are now available for many of the (Bar-Yosef et al, 2001; Gullino et al, 2003; Savvas and Passan, 2002; Urrestarazu, 2004; Urrestarazu, 2005). MBTOC is aware tha

fusarium 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 d

Israel Cut flowersopen field 77.000 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 littsubmitted in previous years, particularly in 2007 and 2008. Progress towards phase-out is still based on transitional measures - baMB. The nomination is for open field production of cut flowers, which are mainly affected by weeds (Cyperus spp in particular) and 

ectoparasites such as Longidorus) and fungi. MBTOC does not consider MB necessary for controlling ectoparasitic nematodes. Laalternatives on flowers such as 1,3-D+Pic, dazomet and metham sodium, continue to be the major constraints affecting substitutioformulations with higher Pic content are also not registered. In spite of this, registration of metham sodium and 1,3-D has expandeflower types. More expansion of registration is expected this year. Solarization has been proven to be an efficient alternative for sosuccessfully used in combination with alternative chemicals such as metham sodium and 1,3-D. In keeping with the 2008 recommhas been applied to the nominated amount to allow for adoption of alternatives, including chemicals and solarization, which is beinreduction has not been applied to the 10.125 t requested for nurseries of geophytes where high health plant material needs to be pissues are involved.

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. No economic arguments or d
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (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 

improved sanitation and possible uptake of other alternatives (MS and 1,3-D) on 15% of the nomination. For 2010, the Party requsame amount approved by the Party’s at the 18th MOP. The need for MB under the specific conditions of the intensive indoor cucupart of Israel could be considered as a niche request. The crop was not submitted for CUE in the years 2005 and 2006 since the cproblems were resolved commercially at a satisfactory level. Cucumbers are grown in open ended polyhouses in 3 cropping cycles the residential houses of cooperative family and private family farms. A large proportion, 70%, of the critical use is concentrated in growers specialized for years in the cultivation of indoor cucumbers for the domestic market. The reasons for this nomination are tF. oxysporum f. sp. radicis cucumerinum. The pathogen is highly virulent and the infestation level particularly high in the affected lo

greenhouses in a short period of time. The required MB will be aimed at the eradication of the pathogen. Although MS and1,3-D is application of the mixture in winter at low temperature it may cause crop phytotoxicity and buffer zones limit its use. The Party also accelerated degradation in field studies. MBTOC acknowledges that alternatives, such as MS+1,3-D, 1,3-D/PIC, grafting, sanitatio(López-Medina et al., 2004; Lieten, 2004; Savvas and Passam, 2002; Mutitu et al., 2006) may be feasible alternatives for part or athe Party to review the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives (grafting, substrates, and grafting + nematicides) and conszone 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 d

Israel Melon - 

protected and field 

125.650 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 

non chemical alternatives (Pivonia et al., 2008) which have been shown to be effective for control of Monosporascus cannonballussupplied by the Party, and uptake of grafted plants and other alternatives on 20% of the nomination. Monosporascus is the key pa

being used for spring melon in the Arava because of low temperatures prevailing at planting time and short plant back. Regulatory this 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 s

Party’s request for MB over the years first showed a reduction tendency due to the adoption of barrier films, during the last three Cstabilized at 87.5 tonnes. MBTOC, on the one hand, understands that the widely used formulations with more Pic (MB/Pic 67:33, 5currently used MB 98:2 formulations and urges the Party to make the necessary efforts to assess this situation under the criteria onominated amounts. MBTOC understands an alternative fungicide has shown effective control of Monosporascus in Israel (Pivonia MBTOC understands the transition to the alternatives is already ongoing and applied a transition rate based on other countries exp
28 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

alternative is grafted melon which shows potential in the medium-long term. The use of grafted vegetables in Israel is increasing raexample, now account for 60 to 70% of the total cultivated area of this crop (Cohen et al, 2007). On melon, however, problems of sfruit quality require an additional research effort. MBTOC notes that Pic and MB:Pic mixtures and the fungicide, fludioxonil, are eff

in 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 n

price has increased considerably, and because of waiting period constraints. CUN also provides data (Section F) showing that the negative profit margins despite the fact that the cost of MB per kg is higher. The source of the data is not provided.

Israel Strawberry 

fruit - protected (Sharon and Ghaza) 

196.000 196.000 93.000 105.960 77.750 

(42.75 

Sharon) 

35.00 

Ghaza 

- 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 totonnes. The key pests affecting strawberry fruit are fungi (Rhizoctonia solani, Colletotrichum acutatum, Macrophomina phaseolina

spp.), nematodes (Meloidogyne hapla), and weeds (Cyperus rotundus, purple nutsedge). The reduction for Sharon is based on in

EC 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. 100 m 

registration has been suspended. MBTOC has adjusted the nomination to the Ghaza Strip to conform with its standard presumptiofilms in sandy loam soils. MBTOC urges the Party to (1) complete as soon as possible its reconsideration of buffers for MB alternafilms and (2) recommit resources to develop less costly soil-less cultures in suspended pot technology, which had been diverted in (3) pursue the timely testing and registration of MI

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Regarding Sharon, the CUN p

net revenue of a range of alternatives to MB, seemingly showing that all alternatives result in higher profit margins. The per kg pricthe alternatives. Regarding Gaza, CUN argues that there are no alternatives to MB, which will mean that the crop can no longer be genuine 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 Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

Israel Strawberry 

runners (Sharon and Ghaza) 

None None 0.000 31.900 28.075 

15.825 

(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. T

runner production are fungi (Rhizoctonia solani, Verticillium dahliae, Fusarium and Phytophthora spp., Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Maknot nematodes and purple nutsedge. The Party stated that MB 98:2 at a rate of 500 kg/ha (50 g/m2) with standard polyethylene fi

barrier films are necessary to meet certification standards in Ghaza and Sharon respectively. The requested amount for the Ghaza MBTOC’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 adoption of this alternative is limited by the required 250 m buffer which significantly limits its use in the Sharon strawberry nursery populated. Hot gas application method is used in the Ghaza Strip growing area because the plots are small, adjacent to houses anqualified applicators in the area. MBTOC urges the Party to continue trials with alternatives that meet the pathogen tolerance requstandards. 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 

Israel Strawberry 

runners and Fruit (Ghaza totals 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 nomination

assist with the availability of barrier films to Ghaza so that MB dosages can be reduced. The reduction is based on barrier films be

Israel Sweet 

Potatoes 

None 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 

that adoption of these alternatives was the basis for the reduction from 95 tonnes granted for use in 2009 for production of sweet ptrials indicate that Telone II + Adochem super at 400 l/ha appears to be an excellent alternative for MB once registration has been the CUN are consistent with MBTOC’s standard presumptions and the use of barrier films. Trials conducted in the USA with Pic aprovides better yields and returns to growers than MB. Solarization also significantly increased yields and with more effective herbalternative (Stoddard, 2008)
30 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that semi-commerarea of 100 ha in 2005 lead to unsatisfactory results and economic losses. CUN also provides data showing that Telon 200+MS 40in 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 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 27.621 tonnes for this use in 2011. The recommended qua

from the recommended amount at the 20th MOP approved amount based on uptake of available alternatives, e.g. steam, soil less seeds,1,3-D and Pic and cultural practices such as rotation, root isolation and sanitation. Japan had made public an action plan to soil use in 2013 and submitted a revised national management strategy to the Ozone Secretariat in April 2008. MBTOC acknowledMB by using a variety of alternatives in 2013. The nomination is based on the need to control particular viruses of cucumber, since not considered as soil borne pathogens but can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuouprogram including cultural practices e.g. sanitation, rotation with a non-host, removal and destruction of crop debris, cleaning and sthe surrounded area, and pathogen free seeds has proven very effective in similar situations around the world. The Party has indicsusceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). As a urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. MBTOC recognises the unique fain Japan which has been in place for many years. However, in many countries cucumber production has already shifted to substrahas become the most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soil borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple sysavailable for this kind of production and are widely used in around the world. (Leoni & Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Pass

2004; Engindeniz, 2004). The Party is encouraged to consider substrate production, which implemented correctly can produce hig2002, 2007; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soilless culture as a feasible oSakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in substrates there is a critical need for a high degree pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems in a short period of time as experie(TEAP, 2004). The CUN states that the Aichi Agricultural Research Centre (2005) identified the effectiveness of KGMMV control b

MBTOC encourages the Party to continue to pursue the registration of methyl iodide for soil uses (methyl iodide was registered for 2004, under JMAFF registration No. 21407). 

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that certain altern

technical and economic feasibility. These include inoculation of attenuated virus as vaccine and the bag cultivation system.
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

Japan Ginger 

(Field) 

119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075 63.056 53.400 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends 47.450 tonnes for this use in 2011. MBTOC recognizes that the Party will phasethat various regions will reduce their dosage rate as low as 16-20 g/m2 under barrier films which are within or lower than MBTOC’s 

MBTOC recommends that all growing regions aim to reduce their rates to this level by 2011. The nomination is for control of Pythiu

ultimum, Pythium zingiberium) in open field cultivated ginger fields using MB (98:2) applied from small cans. MBTOC recognized th

adopting some alternatives and the time required to introduce alternatives and new disease management strategies. The CUN staPythium efficiently but application rates and methods need to be investigated in more detail. The use of fungicides specific to Oomhas been tested but data as to efficacy is not provided. This current nomination provides promise that alternative treatments to MB production systems for ginger.

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN shows that hot water trea

feasible because of high initial and running cost, but provides no further details (i.e. data or sources). CUN also provides detailed d

alternatives (Dazomet, Metalaxyl) compared to MB, where both result in negative net revenue (in the case of Dazomet because of 

Metalaxyl because gross revenue is zero).

Japan Ginger 

(protected) 

22.900 22.900 14.471 11.100 8.325 8.300 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced rate of 7.036 tonnes for this use in 2011. Currently three of five growin

root diseases using a rate of 20-21 g /m2 under impermeable film. MBTOC recommends that the other two regions adopt a rate of 

Miyazaki). This would reduce the nomination to 7.036 tonnes. The nomination is for control of Pythium spp. (Pythium ultimum var. 

protected ginger fields using MB (98:2) applied from small cans. MBTOC recognized the difficulties that growers have in adopting required to introduce alternatives and new disease management strategies. The CUN states that Cyazofamid controls Pythium effmethods need to be investigated in more detail. The use of fungicides specific to Oomycetes, such as phosphonates has been tesprovided. Reduced emission technologies, such as low permeability barrier films, are now being used and should allow for much reg/m2 for 98:2 with LPBF). This current nomination has reduced the quantity by 15.2% from the 2010 application, but it is envisione

MB may be available by 2011 as several are pending registration for Japanese production systems for ginger. MBTOC suggests cphosphonate 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 cau

cutting short the harvest of the previous crop or a delay in planting, resulting in economic loss. CUN also shows that hot water trea

feasible because of high initial and running cost, but provides no further details (i.e. data or sources). CUN also provides detailed dalternatives (dazomet, Metalaxyl) compared to MB, where both result in negative net revenue (in the case of dazomet because of Metalaxyl because gross revenue is zero).
32 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 136.650 91.100 81.720 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 73.548 tonnes for this use in 2011. The recommended quafrom the 20th MOP approved amount based on uptake of available alternatives, e.g. steam, soil less culture, grafting, pathogen fre

practices such as rotation, root isolation and sanitation. Japan had made public of action plan of complete phase out of MB for crit2013 and submitted revised national management strategy to the Ozone Secretariat in April 2008. MBTOC acknowledges that the a variety of alternatives in 2013. The nomination is based on the need to control a particular virus of melons. Globally, this virus is pathogen but can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated practices has been proven to be effective in many other countries. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts sis an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF whicby up to 50%. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for melons in Japan which has been in place for many years. Hmelon production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the most widely used technique for borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production and are wide(Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya et al.,Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate produc

can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in 

as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in subshigh degree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates as experienced in many MLF projects (TEAP, 2004). Resistant root stocks are now available in Japan. However, according to the resistant to all the pathogen races. High yielding varieties resistant to the virus are available. Steam has also been found to controupper soil layer.

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that certain altern

technical and economic feasibility. These include inoculation of attenuated virus as vaccine and the bag cultivation system. CUN a

Chosei region, Chiba Prefecture that a resistant cultivar produces only 30.8% in net revenue compared with the conventional cultiv

Japan Pepper 

(green & hot) 

187.200 200.700 156.700 121.725 81.149 72.990 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 65.691 tonnes for this use in 2011, which represents a 10% 

amount in 2010. The Party nominated an amount which represented 6.49% reduction from the amount nominated for 2010. Accord

due to the introduction and deployment of alternative technology, more distribution of low permeable barrier film with the dose rate frequency of MB application to every two years. In comparison to the previous nomination, one region did not apply for 2011, resuJapan provided a comprehensive National Action Plan detailing step wise phase out by 2013 using a range of alternatives. MBTOC National Action Plan to phase out MB by 2013. They also provided details of an additional strategy which involves immunisation wsoil less culture and resistant varieties which the Party believes will be widely accepted in the future. According to the Party, the deprogressing well for the control of some viral strains. The Party reported also that soil less culture (bag cultivation, Kaneko 2006) u
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

free soil from mountain, paddy field, peat moss, coconuts shell and timber bark) are being used. Also, resistant varieties (Bagu 1 gavailable to some PMMoV strains, plant vaccination by attenuated virus (Kanda, 2008), grafting on resistant root stocks (Anou 4 goalternatives. Others such as biological control, wrapping the underground part of seedling with easily decomposing paper and soil development. 

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that certain altern

technical and economic feasibility. These include inoculation of attenuated virus as vaccine and the bag cultivation system.

Japan Watermelon 129.000 98.900 94.200 32.475 21.650 14.500 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 13.050 tonnes for this use in 2011. The recommended quafrom approved amount at the 20th MOP based on uptake of available alternatives, e.g. steam, soil less culture, grafting, pathogen cultural practices such as rotation, root isolation and sanitation. Japan had made public an action plan to complete phase out of Msubmitted a revised national management strategy to the Ozone Secretariat in April 2008. MBTOC acknowledges that the Party walternatives in 2013. The nomination is based on the need to control a particular virus of watermelons. Globally, this virus is not copathogen but can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated practices has been proven to be effective in many other countries. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts sis an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF whicby up to 50%. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for watermelons in Japan which has been in place for many yesome watermelon production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the most widely used tearray of soil-borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production world (Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya et al., Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conculture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing need for a high degree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use period of time as experienced in many MLF projects (TEAP, 2004). Resistant root stocks are now available in Japan. However, acstocks are not resistant to all the pathogen races. High yielding varieties resistant to CGMMV are also available. Steam has also bparticularly in the upper soil layer.

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that certain altern

technical and economic feasibility. These include inoculation of attenuated virus as vaccine and the bag cultivation system.
34 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

United States 

Cucurbits 1,187.800 747.839 592.891 486.757 407.091 302.974 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 195.698 tonnes for this use in 2011. The reduction is based dosage rates from 150-175kg/ha to 125-150 kg/ha for MB/Pic mixtures with barrier films, which are the highest use rates considerethese crops. From the recommended amount, 13.095 t are for Georgia squash, 10.087 t for Georgia cucumber; 39.598 t for GeorgSoutheast region, and 4.969 t for Maryland and Delaware. MBTOC acknowledges the reduction made by the Party for transition to Pic, followed by Pic alone, followed by metham-sodium, that shows good results against key cucurbit pests in spring season fumignot yet registered for use in these crops, but the Party stated cucurbits could likely be added to the label during 2009 (Chism, persMBTOC expects a considerable impact on future nominations. MBTOC is aware of progress reported on several recent studies shcontrol yellow and purple nutsedge and a number of other weeds common in vegetable production, alone or combined with other hTrader et al., 2008; Brandenberger et al., 2005) on cucurbits and other related crops (Norsworthy, et al, 2007; Bangarwa, et al., 20

a suitable tool for managing nutsedge between spring and autumn crops (Webster et al. 2008). The Party showed references whiccombination with LDPF (Culpepper, 2006). Other studies on possible effective alternatives are available (Ristaino and Johnson, 19Johnston et al 2002, Driver and Lows 2003). A combination of 1,3-D or metham sodium with Pic + herbicides (Trifluralin, napropamis considered as the best alternative strategy in Florida for nutsedge control in several crops. MBTOC stresses the need of considwithin an integrated pest management strategy. Hausbeck, Lamour and others (2004) have reported many efficient management son pepper, including crop rotation with non susceptible hosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa), cultural controdensity, soil amendments, protective mulch, raised beds etc.) and the use of registered fungicides (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph, Zohydroxide+dimethomorph). MBTOC notes the use of grafting and resistant varieties are considered as alternatives for long lasting countries (Bello, et al., 2001). Yellow nutsedge emergence in transplanted cantaloupe was suppressed by the combined effects of size differential provided by using cantaloupe transplants (Johnson & Mullinix, 2007). Incorporating Brassica spp. residue to reducwatermelon was also tested, with interesting results (Njoroge, 2008)] 

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: According to the CUN, where nutsedges are severe, metham-sodium used alone is tec

infeasible due to planting delays, yield losses and inconsistent efficacy, while 1,3 D + Pic is economically infeasible in some areas and yield losses. Economic data to support these arguments as well as the CUN generally are provided for all areas and all alternalosses of 6 percent in Maryland and Delaware, 29 percent in the Southeastern states and 50% in Georgia. CUN notes these regionbecause of missed market windows. The UGA-3-WAY research conducted at the University of Georgia is feasible and the CUN wa

reduction 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 Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

United States 

Eggplant (field) 

76.721 82.167 85.363 66.018 48.691 32.820 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 19.725 tonnes for this use in 2011. The reduction is based 

dosage rates from 150-175kg/ha to 125-150 kg/ha for MB/Pic mixtures with barrier films, which are the highest use rates considerecrop. 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 t for Florida. The Party did not recommend a CUN for Michigan for 2011. US nomination is only for those areas where the alternativevaluation and pest pressure (nutsedge, nematodes and P. capsici) is high. The Party is projecting rates of 150 kg/ha for pathogenMBTOC accepted rates nominated by the Party for use with barrier films. The Party states that the treatment, known as the “UGA successive soil fumigations, beginning with 1,3-D + Pic application, followed by a Pic application, followed by a metham-sodium or (Culpepper, 2007) is an alternative for MB in spring crops. For summer and fall crops, this system needs further development for uhigh nutsedge pressure. In addition, metham sodium and metham potassium in the fall require longer waiting periods for planting missed market windows. A further constraint to adoption of the UGA-3 WAY is that 1,3-D is restricted in areas of Karst topography vulnerable to leaching from 1,3-D. The Party states that trials with dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) plus Pic are promising, but this comcontrol certain grasses (MacRae and Culpepper, 2008). Trials will continue with this alternative. An application to register DMDS USEPA. MI is not registered for eggplant. The US nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are still under extensiv(nutsedge, nematodes and P. capsici) is high.. MBTOC accepted rates nominated by the Party for use with barrier films (1164-165 Party’s substantial reductions for uptake of other alternatives. The Party states that a 50:50 formulation (MB/Pic) is widely used in information about the formulation used in Georgia. MBTOC considers that further reductions in MB amount may be possible with cused in combination with barrier films commercially feasible. According to the Party, non chemical alternatives such as grafting, soalternatives. MBTOC considers that the Party should develop these alternatives which are widely used in many countries and reg(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 the treatment tested, as is another potential alternative, Dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), with promising results. However, further testing of both is reqpartial (and provisional) budgets for Georgia and Florida that show that the UGA-3-WAY Spring application may yield equal (Floridincome than MB but that the Fall application results in negative net farm income in both areas. 
36 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

United States 

Forestry nursery 

192.515 157.694 122.032 131.208 122.060 117.826 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 93.547 tonnes for this nomination in 2011, which includes 5

Nursery, 3.978 t for International Paper, 11.162 t for Weyerhaeuser (SE), 12.304 t for Weyerhaeuser (NW), 8.467 t for NE Forest & 3.933 t for Michigan Seedling Assoc. The nominated amount has been adjusted to 260 kg/ha (26 g/m2) for nutsedge control and 20

to conform to the standard presumption for dosage rate of MB/Pic formulation under HDPE. A 10% reduction has been made to thfor adoption of alternatives, particularly but not exclusively MI. MBTOC acknowledges the 15-20% transition to alternatives already considers that there are sufficient alternatives to justify the additional reduction recommended for this CUN. Key pests are nutsedgpropagative material requires a very high level of pathogen control in order to avoid their widespread distribution from the nursery tis for nurseries with moderate or high pest pressure where alternatives are not effective. Nutsedge has no effect on certification, buaffect yield by 3-5%. MBTOC requests that further nominations clearly show the trend in yield loss caused by nutsedge, nematodenumber of seasons following fumigation with MB and alternatives and a breakdown of the economic comparisons to MB treatmentConservation Nursery, only 40% is for nutsedge control and 60% of the nomination was adjusted to conform to standard presumpt

Seedlings only 50% is for nutsedge control, so 50% of the nomination was adjusted to 20 g/m2. The nomination is for certified fore

nursery regions. The CUN is based on economic infeasibility of use of substrates and the lack of effective alternatives for control opathogens and nematodes. The key alternatives which have been shown to be as efficient as MB are MI which has been found effrecently registered; chloropicrin alone (South, 2007; 2008); 1,3-D/Pic (South, 2008) , 1,3-D /Pic/metham sodium (South, 2008); me2007); and dazomet (Muckennfuss et al., 2005; Enebak et al., 2006). DMDS + Pic has produced encouraging results (Quicke et alnot registered. Integrated pest management systems have also been shown to be effective (South et al., 2006; Hildebrand et al., 2that Pic and metham when used in conjunction with barrier films (LPBF) may provide an effective technical alternative and avoid cthat with LPBF, use rates of MB can be significantly reduced. The Party states that gluing of LPBF that is necessary for broadacre commercially available, but progress has been made in this respect.. LPBF will be adopted when the effective gluing technologies available, however, MBTOC expects that future nominations will be based on its use. An efficient glue manufactured in California breported to MBTOC (Product code W669F01, referred by Politiv Ltd, Israel). MBTOC observed a demonstration of an effective heabarrier films that was initially described for use with HDPE for solarization trials in Israel (Grinstein and Hetzroni, 1991; Grinstein, 1glyphosate can be used as a pre-treatment to reduce pressure from nutsedge. However, this herbicide has been shown to cause pconditions. Jacob et al (2009) report effective control of weeds in Iowa Nurseries with different herbicides. MBTOC acknowledges demonstration trials for this sector by the Party now with promising results (Quicke, 2007; Quicke, 2008; Weiland, 2008). A report fthe 5 year trial, indicates that seedling counts similar to MB were achieved by several other treatments, but no indication of pathog(Quicke et al., 2007). Limited substrate production of these crops is reported as economical for small niche markets; however, MBT

Paper, one of the applicants within this CUN, produces over 40 million tree seedlings per year in substrates in their Brazil operatio

once 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 nutsedusing reduced rates of 67:33 MB/Pic. This transition has already been made in 70 % of the forest nurseries in the south where nut
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination is partly based on economic arguments. CUN shows that MI provides the fumigation and hand weeding costs increase. This results in a decline in net operating revenue for the Southern Forest Nursery Mafor Arborgen of 10%, for Weyerhauser of 18%, for Northeastern Forest and Conservation of 14%, and for Michigan Seedling Assothat these results do not show other possible impacts due to a) a potential loss in efficacy if current studies overestimate yields usithe 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 boards as meeting phytosanitary requirements for nursery shipments; d) the fact that fumigation contractors and nurseries do not cbroadcast MI; and e) lack of clarity as to whether the MI label (MIDAS) allows its use for production of deciduous tree seedlings, wthan conifer seedlings and have greater pest management requirements. 

United States 

Nurseries stock (fruit, nut, flower) 

45.800 64.528 28.275 51.102 25.326 17.363 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a total of 7.955 tonnes for this use in 2010. This comprises 0.955 tonnes for rose

trees. This nomination is for propagation materials that need to be certified as free of pests and diseases, even if certification is vothe nomination conform to MBTOC’s standard presumptions. MBTOC recognises that propagative material requires a very high lepathogen control in order to avoid their wide spread distribution. MBTOC acknowledges the Party’s adoption of MB:Pic formulationin other countries. MBTOC acknowledges the federal registration of MI for use in nurseries, but also recognizes that it is not yet re

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination is not based on economic arguments. CUN concludes that 1,3-D+Pic is 

alternative to MB in California Rose production where Telone® restrictions do not apply. A similar conclusion is reached with regar

nut nursery trees; however, township restrictions and certification restrictions hinder growers from using Telone® and render it tech
38 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

United States 

Orchard replant 

706.176 527.600 405.400 393.720 292.756 215.800 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 183.232 tonnes for this use in 2011. A 10% reduction has amounts to account for uptake of alternatives proven to be effective (Browne et al, 2007; 2008; McKenry, 2006). The CUN is for or

unknown etiology; heavy soils or soils which cannot be treated to a sufficient depth to effectively use the reduced rates of 1,3-D noRegulatory constraints (maximum labeled rate) prevent the use of 1,3-D at the rates needed for effective kill of old roots and the assoil layers for heavier (fine-textured) soils. Three alternatives,1,3-D alone and 1,3-D combined with Pic or metham sodium, are avaaccording to the CUN for treatment in light soils. Although a two year fallow was found to be effective under Mediterranean condit

Schneider, et al., 2004 found that a four year fallow did not sufficiently eliminate the causative nematodes. Recent promising resultcombined with Nemaguard rootstock have been reported by McKenry (2006). The Party confirms that MB/Pic 67:33 formulation is 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 form

lower amounts of MB (e.g. 50:50) were used predominantly for orchard replant treatment in other countries before switching to alteamount is based on application of MBTOC’s standard presumption of 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2) for control of pests and pathogens witho

recognizes that regulatory restraints prevent the use of LPBF barrier films with MB in California but urges the Party to consider conimprove 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 orc

and the non-bearing years of the orchard. Instead, a cost benefit analysis with a 7% discount rate is used that takes these factors 

Walnut orchard: The CUN refers back to the partial budget and mentions that MB results in about $530 more per hectare than a h

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 

almonds are replanted, with a 25- 40% yield loss with one year fallow and no fumigant treatment and a reduction of 24-35% comp

argues that the use of MB adds value of $63.3 million annually to California nut production California Stone Fruit: CUN states that differences in net operating revenue for even small changes in yield can be substantia

benefits of MB alone are approximately $125/hectare. A decrease of 12% in net operating revenue in the partial budget resu

negative 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 ca

because of township caps MB results in an additional $270/perhectare compared to metham sodium and an additional cost of $40However the net present value using MB and 1,3 D results in negative figures which questions the viability of investing in grapes. TPic 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 Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

United States 

Ornamentals 154.000 148.483 137.835 138.538 107.136 84.617 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 64.307 tonnes for this use in 2011. This includes 52.167 t f

Florida. MBTOC acknowledges the substantial reduction in Florida. MBTOC does not recommend the requested usage for New Yfor replacing this use in Anemone coronaria cut flowers i.e. steam and substrates under protected cultivation (Fennimore et al., 20

nomination is for a large number of species, mostly grown in the field. In Florida, the main species using MB are gladioli, lilies and using MB in California include calla lily, delphinium, dianthus, eustoma, freesia, helianthus, hypericum, iris, larkspur, liatris, matthioneeded to control diseases (e.g., Fusarium spp., Pythium spp., Phytophthora spp., and Rhizoctonia spp.), plant parasitic nematode

stunt and dagger), weeds (e.g. Cyperus spp. Portulacca, Ambrosia and others), and previous crop propagules. The Party has adju

to 20 g/m2 which conforms to MBTOC’s standard presumptions. MBTOC considers alternatives available for some flower types in 

metham sodium and combinations (Klose et al., 2007, Klose, 2008 ) and has reduced the nomination by 10% for phase in of these registered and other alternatives are available, for example 1,3-D/Pic and solarization sometimes combined with chemicals (McSo

al, 2008)

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. A major change in this CUN 

(registered in 2008), but not in California and New York. Its economic impacts as an alternative to MB are relatively small. Tresulted in a 4% loss as a percentage of net operating revenue. However CUN mentions that loss figures may not be completeare 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 enouproduction. A partial budget was also conducted for California Lily and Ranunculus using 1,3D+pic, Dazomet and Metham Sodium percentage of net operating revenue) compared to MB ranging from 194-243%. For New York anemones partial budgeting conside

10% and 20% yield losses due to the lack of research resulting in the absence of yield loss estimates. Losses (as a percentage of 

between 9.1 to 30%. CUN also mention that some growers have attempted using steam but switched back due to high costs and a

United States 

Peppers (field) 

1,094.782 1,243.542 1,106.753 756.339 548.984 463.282 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 206.234 tonnes for this use in 2011. The reduction is based 

dosage 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 

necessary by MBTOC for this crop. The Party has made a 53.4% reduction in MB use from the amount approved by the Party’s fosubstantial reduction by the Party for uptake of alternatives. Of this amount, 32.926 t is for Georgia, 164.158 t is for Florida and 9.1

did 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/m2states that the treatment, known as the “UGA 3-WAY”, consisting of three successive soil fumigations, beginning with 1,3-D + Pic aapplication, followed by a metham-sodium or metham-potassium application (Culpepper, 2007a) is an alternative for MB in spring 
40 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (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 ground water is vulnerable to leaching from 1,3-D. In addition, metham sodium and metham potassium 1,3-D in the fall require lonMB. Delays could result in missed market windows. The time limitations on the registration of Midas, a mixture of MI and Pic have shown good efficacy against key pepper pests, including nutsedge, in a number of trials with peppers and related vegetables such state-level approval in 47 US states (California, Washington, and New York are the exceptions at this time). However, the Party stnecessary before Midas achieves a full adoption. Constraints: (1) the cost of MI formulations which is higher than MB, (2) growers evaluate MI use in the various local production conditions covered by this nominations, and (3) growers and applicators will need tmodifications to adapt to the lower flow rates typical with less expensive MI application rates and to avoid the corrosion of some m2005, Noling et al., 2006).The Party states that trials with dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) plus Pic are promising, but does not effectivelcontinue with this alternative. An application to register DMDS is under consideration at US EPA. MBTOC considers that further rwith changes to formulations of 50:50 MB/Pic or less (e.g. to 30:70) used in combination with barrier films, however the reduction ibased on use of these formulations.According to the Party, non chemical alternatives such as grafting soilless culture, are not comthat the Party should develop these alternatives which are widely used in many countries and regions with similar climate and pestused in other country on pepper.

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was partly based on economic arguments. CUN describes the econom

negligible; as a result it appears to be technically feasible in all parts of the US where it has been registered. However, growers reqamount of MB nominated has been adjusted downward. In Georgia, Florida, and the Southeastern U.S., the Georgia 3-Way on spconsidered technically (and thus economically) feasible alternatives, although some limitations exist. The loss of gross revenue usnegligible in Florida and the Southeastern U.S., while gains in gross revenue are expected in Georgia. Although no gains in gross MI, losses in net revenue are negligible. One drawback to the Georgia 3-Way is that yield losses are expected in fall plantings, with show a 50% yield loss. These losses are not expected when MI is used. The Georgia 3-Way also cannot be used on peppers that contains 1,3-D; however, MI can.
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

United States 

Strawberry (field) 

2,052.846 1,730.828 1,476.019 1,349.575 1,269.321 1007.477 - - 

MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 812.709 tonnes for this use in 2011. The reduction is based on adjustment for the stan

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 

crop, 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 amounts are 751.596 tonnes for California, 20.009 tonnes for Eastern USA and 41.104 tonnes for Florida. For California, the Party at 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 increas

requested. The nomination is based on township caps limiting further adoption of 1,3-D and county regulations affecting use of higa case by case basis. The nomination states that two emerging disease problems in California and the persistence of yellow nutsefurther 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 

formulations 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 the California strawberry area, MBTOC considers that transition to MB/Pic 50:50 is still possible (2.5% adjustment). The 2007 use 

for 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) respectirestrictions on use of Pic and should enable 50:50 formulations to be used more widely. The most recent PUR data (2003-2007) s1,3-D, Pic and metham have been widely adopted in some counties, but not others, (i.e. good adoption in Ventura but little adoptio2007. In California, 1,3-D use increased from 2,001 ha (2003) to 4,752 ha (2007) and metham sodium increased from 384 ha (200

indicate that in Ventura county alone the adoption rate of MB alternatives has been about 800 ha per year, across the years betweand Santa Cruz, the historical proportional use of MB in this expanding area has been approximately 75% of the production area aadoption of MB alternatives. Data on 2009 township caps have shown that there is room for further uptake of alternatives based osome counties (Pic EC, Metham and Pic) and MBTOC has calculated a 10% reduction for uptake of alternatives. In the areas affecalternatives that do not contain 1,3-D (such as Pic, Pic EC, Pic + metham, Pic + dazomet, often with LPBF) provided yields that ar(Ajwa et al., 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006; Nelson et al., 2001ab; Shem-Tov et al., 2005, 2006ab). Pic EC provided an average 9low variance (studies cited in TEAP, 2006). Further clarification of the restrictions on the use of alternatives is required in future no

provide an opportunity for growers to use barrier films in California, and the Party is urged to to consider their implementation. Thealternatives and can reduce the dosage rates required for effective pathogen and weed control. In California, weed management herbicide oxyfluorfen can be applied safely to strawberry for control of common weed species in annual plasticulture strawberry prrequired for hand weeding (Daugovish et al., 2008). 

In Eastern states, the Party reports a transition rate of 52%. MBTOC considers this transition appropriate progress, given that IM/Pand is technically feasible for the total nomination area, but note that the Party applies a dose rate above the standard presumption

Party reports a transition rate of 53%. Given that technically and economically feasible alternatives are available, MBTOC commefuther adjustment based on uptake of alternatives, but did adjust dosage rates to conform to the standard presumptions. 
42 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN states that eastern growexperience a decline of 1-4% in gross revenue in the first year of use due to increased costs to retrofit application equipment (hoseallow the use of IM. Southeastern and Florida strawberry growers that use IM are expected to experience no change in yield or quproducers, there is no change in impacts from previous year estimates as IM is under registration review but registration is not expto gross revenue for growers using the best alternative to MB is estimated to remain about 14%. 

United States 

Strawberry runners 

54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 7.944 4.690 - 2.018 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends 4.690 tonnes for California in 2011, and 2.018 tonnes for SE in 2010 and 1.346 

Upon further consideration, MBTOC has accepted the action plan of the Party for 2010 and 2011 for amounts of 2.018 t and 1.346 that MI is technically suitable for strawberry fruit production from runners grown in MI treated soil, but accepts that time is required trials of MI in fruit fields. MBTOC has not made a decision on 2012 as this will be dependent on current and future trial informationThe CUN comprises 4.690 tonnes for California and 2.691 tonnes for SE. The key pests affecting strawberry runners are weeds (p(Rhizoctonia and Pythium spp in SE, Phytophthora, Verticillium in California), nematodes (root-knot, sting in CA). The CUN is for Mhowever 99% of the hectares are exempted under QPS. MBTOC does not recommend use of MB for North Carolina and Tenneseregistered and are technically feasible (TEAP, 2006). These formulations have been shown to give similar pathogen control in soi

certification (Kabir et al, 2005; Fennimore et al 2007, 2008; MBAO). MBTOC also believes distribution of MI/Pic across 11 ha shou

possible within the two year period for total adoption. For California, MBTOC recommends the nomination, but expects that future 

trials with key alternatives over the last few years in order to satisfy the criteria of Decision IX/6. The CUN states that MB at a dosa

g/m2 in SE is required to meet the certification standards for strawberry runners. The Party's request exceeds MBTOC's standard p

g/m2) of MB which is considered effective for production of 'high health' strawberry runners using LPBF and other emission control 

however, California’s certification requirements specify minimum amounts of MB that must be applied. Furthermore, California regwith MB. The Party indicates that key alternatives include 1,3-D + PIC followed by dazomet, PIC followed by dazomet and MI/Pic, sufficiently tested on a commercial scale. MBTOC encourages the Party to expedite the commercial scale testing of these alternaMI 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 re

however registration is expected to be at least one year in the future. The loss to gross revenue for growers using 1,3-D + Pic follo

sodium at a rate of up to 250 lb ai./ha is estimated to be about 11%. California strawberry nursery growers are not expected to see 1,3-D + Pic plus metham sodium. Eastern growers that have access to MI are expected to experience a loss of 13% in gross reven

increased costs to retrofit application equipment (hoses, nozzles, flow meters) that will allow the use of MI. Southeastern Strawberare expected to experience no change in yield or quality.
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

United States 

Sweet Potatoes slips 

None 0.000 0.000 18.144 18.144 14.515 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 11.612 tonnes for this use in 2011. The nomination was baMB. 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 problem and not nematodes. MBTOC considers MS and Pic should be considered. The industry sector is now carrying out extensirecent trial indicate that Pic is providing transplants that give yields and returns above that of MB and new herbicides can control wtolerance to nematodes are available. If Pic proves successful in the forthcoming trials, MBTOC considers it can be adopted as a santicipate substantial adoption by 2011. Telone, the alternative to MB, cannot be used in Dec-Jan and township caps are exceedewindow for slips. MBTOC recognizes the importance of producing pest free seed stock. Test of reduced rates of Telone are being fumigant of growers. Trials by Stoddard (2008) show Pic to be a good alternative and to provide better yields and returns to growe

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. CUN shows trial data that refle

with the use of Pic, resulting in a gain in gross and net operating revenue of 7 and 22% respectively.

United States 

Tomatoes (field) 

2,876.046 2,476.365 2,065.246 1,406.484 1,003.876 737.584 - - 

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 292.751 tonnes for this use in 2011. The reduction is based 

dosage rates from 150-175kg/ha to 125-150 kg/ha for MB/Pic mixtures with barrier films, which are the highest use rates considerecrop. 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 

Florida 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 a CUN projecting rates of 150 kg/ha for pathogens and 175 kg/ha for nutsedge. The transition rate included in the nomination is based on the “UGA 3-WAY”, consisting of three successive soil fumigations, beginning with 1,3-D + Pic application, followed by a Pic applicasodium or metham-potassium application as well as the increased use of MI (Culpepper, 2007). The UGA 3-WAY has been show

Georgia, but has not yet been successful in other parts of the Southern US and needs further development. In addition, 1,3-D is retopography where ground water is vulnerable to leaching from 1,3-D. The time limitations on the registration of Midas, a mixture oand this product has shown good efficacy against key pepper pests, including nutsedge, in a number of trials with peppers and relatomatoes. Midas has received state-level approval in 47 US states (California, Washington, and New York are the exceptions at thstates that some time will be necessary before Midas achieves a full adoption. Constraints: (1) the cost of MI formulations which is and researchers will need time to evaluate MI use in the various local production conditions covered by this nominations, and (3) gto make some equipment modifications to adapt to the lower flow rates typical with less expensive MI application rates and to avoithat can occur with MI (Sumner 2005, Noling et al. 2006).The Party states that trials with DMDS plus Pic are promising, but DMDS 

application to register DMDS is under consideration at USEPA (MacRae and Culpepper, 2008). According to the Party, non chem

soilless culture, are not economically feasible. MBTOC considers that the party should develop these alternatives which are widelregions with similar climate and pest (Besri 2008). It is important to note that MB is not used in other country on tomato.
44 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP 

CUE for 2006 (16MOP +2ExMOP+17MOP) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+ MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: The nomination was partially based on economic arguments. CUN concludes that MI walternative for use in Eastern and Florida US tomato production in areas exhibiting karst topographical features, but a transition pekarst features are not present it appears that tomato growers can use a combination of three fumigants applied sequentially (1,3-Dsodium/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 Specific 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 Federation. 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 dates. 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 ongoing 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-review by email and telephone. It proceeded as 

follows: 

1. All re-review requests and supporting documents received from Parties were 

circulated to all MBTOC (QSC, Soils and Economist) members. 

2. MBTOC’s QSC Chair and review team leader 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, alternatives research and registration issues. This 

report is much thinner in content than usual! Parties are referred to the May 2009 TEAP 

report which provides details on the CUN process, 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 improve 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 institutes 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 commodities. 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 recommendations for the CUNs submitted in 

2009. 
48 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Table 4.1 MBTOC QSC Final Recommendations for CUNs in the 2009 Round 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

CUE for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

C20(ane

Australia Rice 6.150 6.150 9.205 9.200 7.820 6.650 - - 5.MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends 4.87 tonnes, a 14% reduction of the nominated amount for packed rice for Australia in 2011. Aus

In preparing this calculation MBTOC reviewed the actual MB use for packaged rice as reported in the Party’s accounting frameworks for 2006, 200of 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 admethyl bromide for packaged rice. Other countries are achieving an average of 20% transition to alternatives per year. It is clear that phosphine treatmosphere treatments would provide the necessary pest efficacy for packaged rice and these alternatives are registered for this use in Australia. Aworldwide 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 Decisio

the full 2011 nomination, MBTOC thought would be quite unlikely that there would be any adoption of alternatives, given the region’s water allocatiothe 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 quality 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 fumnor are such facilities available to the applicant.” MBTOC finds that the continued use of MB as a contingency against the possible presence of pesusing MB only in response to a known infestation, is an unacceptable use. 

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: This CUN is partly based on economic arguments. CUN states that two potential technically and economically feasible alternatives, namely sulfuryl been identified. Sulfuryl fluoride, which requires less significant process changes and investment to implement, was registered in 2007 and trials cotrials prove it to be technically and economically feasible, the applicant indicates they may not require methyl bromide beyond 2012. On the other hconsidered to be the best solution, both technically and economically, even though it would require a considerable change to processing methods ainvestment. It is not clear to MBTOC on what basis the applicant argues that phosphine is ‘the best solution’ in economic terms. The CUNfaced by the applicant in raising the capital for transition to phosphine. Economic data are presented to show that the treatment costs with pho

15.5 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 packa

further that the applicant has been unable to finance a transition to phosphine due to continued severe drought conditions in the growing area; hencMBTOC cannot substantiate this claim based on an analysis of the financial statements of one enterprise. In late 2008, the applicant purcUS rice processing company. When questioned by MBTOC about the conflicting claim of its stated inability to invest in alternatives with facility, 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 Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

CUE for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

C20(ane

Canada Mills 47 

(included mills and pasta) 

34.774 30.167 

(included mills only) 

28.650 26.913 22.878 - - 14

MBTOC 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 amParties 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 Prequires 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 demonstrations of altern

reported to MBTOC. These trials, while not all entirely successful for pest efficacy, have allowed the sector to better understand and improve efficaImprovements in IPM techniques, including investments in new equipment and facility dust control, have also contributed to the reduced need for m

The Party has indicated concern about the difficulty in obtaining successful pest efficacy with alternatives and points out that Canadian mi

zones (defined as “considerable variation in ambient temperatures, including extended periods (4 to 5 months) of cold winter weather”). As a result fumigations in winter months are essentially impractical. The CUN asserts that this heightens the importance of predictable and lasting (20 to 26 we

chemical 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 sulfu

efficacy. MBTOC acknowledges this and has seen this reported by Bell et al, 1999 and Bell et al, 2003. Reichmuth and Klementz, 2008 did examintreatments to overcome the difficulty to obtain pest efficacy with some pest species found in mills during SF fumigations. As noted in MBTOC’s revibest 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, 

The second factor allowing the Party’s nominated transition to alternatives is that Canadian regulation now allows those companies which 

share 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 Government of Canada has further approval and reporting requirements, pursuant to Canada’s Ozone-depleting Substances Regulations (ODSR 1calendar year in which the amended ODSR 1998 were in effect. Therefore, the mills which might be fumigated with MB may change each year, buthe mill sector already included in the CUN. 

The Party and MBTOC acknowledge the higher costs associated with alternative treatments. Additionally, MBTOC acknowledges that reg

Canada 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 the differences 

time. As reported in TEAP 2008, MBTOC is examining sector structural differences to improve its understanding of the prospects for adoption of alt

example, 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 aare wheat milling establishments but the CUN also includes oat milling companies. Some of the mill locations participating in Canada’s CUN for the bakery mix capacity that is co-located with the primary milling activity. Approximately 25% of mill locations participating in the CUN have bakery mdifference may partly explain how Canada mills have been able to maintain a nearly similar transition rate to US mills even though the regulatory ap
50 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

CUE for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

C20(ane

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 m

into semolina used in the manufacture of pasta and one of these is both a durum mill and a pasta facility. Control of pests in the flour mill will then cpests coming into the pasta facility. MBTOC comments on economics 2009: This CUN is not based solely on economic arguments, although economic concerns are indicated. CUN argues that market penetration of the tech

is being hampered by: 

• Insufficient evidence that SF can be effective under Canada’s typically cold weather conditions. • Lack of full registration of SF • Current market cost of heat treatment technology and services. • Concerns by the milling industry that repeat fumigations using phosphine may have a cumulative effect of corroding conductive metals pre

equipment and controls 

CUN also states that, while the amount of sulfuryl fluoride required to fumigate for the exclusive presence of confused flour beetle is comparable in 

bromide, the results of field trials already completed have demonstrated that 2 to 6 times as much SF is actually required to fumigate when red flourepresents a significant increase in cost. CUE notes that the required use of alternatives within a short time period would add an estimated 2 to 4 pof wheat flour, semolina and other milled grain products. In the current economic climate this added cost cannot be passed on down the supply chano subsidies available to offset these increased costs. MBTOC notes that lack of government financial assistance programs has not been a cof economic feasibility.
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

CUE for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

C20(ane

Canada Pasta (see 

Canada mills) 

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 adoption of alternatives over the amount granted by the Parties for 2009. The CUN includes three pasta facilities, each requesting one MB fumigati

nomination 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 Canadia

domestic regulations allowing this transfer of allocation, Government of Canada has further approval and reporting requirements, pursuant to CanaSubstances 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 

(the reader is referred to MBTOC text box for US NPMA), which is the only other CUN for pasta, has declined significantly each successive year, inin 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 arisin

use of SF more difficult for some pasta processing facilities. In Canada full registration of SF, including MRLs for fluorine residues in food resulting facility, 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 the

MBTOC (CPMA, 2009). Red flour beetle was the test species and the Party has noted that this species, common in mills and food processing facilidifficult to kill than other species with SF. MBTOC acknowledges this and refers the reader to Canada flour mills text box for references. The Party 

achieved 100% mortality for adults, but egg stage resulted in some survival with egg mortality ranging from 69-94%. Pest rebound occurred faster icomparable MB fumigations. Again as noted in MBTOC’s review of flour milling alternatives improved efficacy with SF is seen when mill temperatufumigation period at or above 27degrees C, in all parts of the mill (TEAP,2008). The cost of SF treatment was higher than methyl bromide treatmenThe CUN page 10 says they can not use heat because heat would damage finished goods. MBTOC believes there are methods of circumventing tsegregating finished goods from the treatment. CUN Page 10 also gives some heat cost estimates, but no supporting evidence is included. MBTOC treatment is used in pasta facilities in other countries, for example, 13 pasta facilities in Italy use heat treatment to control pests. The CUN indicates heat treatment to damage equipment and facilities, but the Party has not substantiated this concern with tests, engineering reports or otherwise. Pahigh temperatures resulting from the operation of equipment and just a small additional heat increase might be all that is needed to conduct efficienpasta facilities had understanding of the location of pests and if that understanding indicated that pests were mostly located in one type of equipmeappropriate additional methods to prevent pest escape might also be used. The requirements for full site and spot heat treatment are reviewed in M(TEAP, 2008). 
52 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

CUE for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

C20(ane

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 t

cost of doing a methyl bromide treatment. This increases to three or four times when the cost of monitoring (ensure comparable results) is included

and MBTOC requires substantiation of these cost estimates.Israel Dates 3.444 2.755 2.200 1.800 None 2.100 1.56 1.04 MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends a reduced nomination of 1.04 tonnes, about 60% of the nominated amount for dates in 2010. The Party nominated 1.56 tonnbromide 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-3 from 30g m-3 as specified in correspondence. M

excessively high dosage rates reported in the CUN, page 17 which indicated a MB dosage rate of 300g per tonne of dates, however, the CUN also 

rate used is 20 g m-3, which is the dosage rate recommended by MBTOC as technically effective. Later correspondence indicated a dosage rate of 

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 

stack 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 informati

the chambers used must have low load factors (lots of free space), which seems to be an inappropriately inefficient use of MB. MBTOC’s recommeunderstanding 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. 

effective 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 economic arguments. CUN argues that the economic feasibility of heat treatment is clear because of the experience with 

Medjool dates: it is critical in maintaining their quality. CUN states further that it is too early for economic feasibility for other (non-heat) alternatives 

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 Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

CUE for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

C20(ane

Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300 5.800 5.400 - - 5.MBTOC 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 the Parties for possible alternatives (reported in its CUN of 2005, JPN13, 2005) and decided that methyl iodide was technically and economically feasible. Now th

for this purpose. 

In Japan, there are two levels for registration: 1) toxicological assessment of methyl iodide that has been completed; 2) worker safety issu

that still have to be completed by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW). The Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) sdeclare the need for a high priority for setting the corresponding MRLs. On March 6, 2009, the evaluation by MHLW was completed. Now, the releaexpected for 2009. If this occurs, MBTOC expects that the Party will not authorize the full nominated amount of MB for 2011. On these grounds, MBquick phase-in of the newly registered alternative. 

In the instance that registration of MI for this purpose is not achieved, SF also works well to control pests of chestnuts, but Japan is conce

control of the eggs of the chestnut weevil Curculio sikkimensis (Soma et al, 2005; Kawakami, et al, 2003; Vinghes and Ducom, 2001). Japanese co

as 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 SF treatment would be unacceptable. 

Chestnut consumption in France and other countries is different in that the chestnuts are consumed directly after purchase. On the other h

occurred 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

think the product is not fresh. CO2 under high pressure (20 bar) is used in one location in Portugal for disinfestation of fresh chestnuts with existing 

also used for other products. In 2003, Japan tested the efficacy of this method. Despite the sufficient efficacy, the high investment for the chambers chamber) - when they would be intended to be used only for this purpose – was considered to be far too costly. This work was not continued becaufor this treatment. 

In Japan, disinfestations have to take place in numerous wide spread small farm holdings. So, there is a strong logistic argument against h

gathers 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 this difficult application seems to be quickly achievable when registration occurs. 

MBTOC comments on economics 2009: This CUN is not based on economic arguments.
54 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

CUE for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

C20(ane

United States 

Commodities 89.166 87.719 78.983 58.921 45.623 19.242 - - 10

MBTOC 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 fothe following amounts: dates 2.009 tonnes; walnuts 1.17 tonnes; California Dried Plum Board 6.266 tonnes; beans 0.595 tonnes. MBTOC’s final redisaggregate the CUN into commodity sectors. Instead the recommendation is intended to provide MB to any sector member included in this CUN, proven lack of efficacy of, or technically justifiable inability to use, or to complete the transition to, alternatives. In the instance where sector membelack of efficacy or technically justifiable inability to use alternatives, and if the volume of MB in this recommendation is inadequate, sector members This sector is rapidly transitioning to alternatives and there are several alternatives that are available (phosphine, sulfuryl fluoride, heat, controlled acombination treatments). The USG has not provided adequate information to indicate where, exactly, and under what circumstances exactly, is the processing of the commodities included in this CUN. The processing scenarios provided to MBTOC by USG, while helpful to understand potential afumigation interventions, did not indicate which fumigations have already been, are being, and can be transitioned to alternatives. However, the USpreliminary, research results showing possibly inadequate efficacy for a commodity pest under some circumstances consistent with harvest conditiobelieves it could be mid 2010 before the results of ongoing research and commercial scale-up tests are fully known. MBTOC suggests that USG furecommendation 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 understandi

such as date variety, conditions at harvest and particularly moisture content of the dates at time of fumigation, and how these parameters relate to dates. Consequently, the US believed that its Deglet-Noor dates at harvest were similar to the Deglet-Noor dates harvested in North African countrhave indicated considerable concern to Parties that alternatives for their high moisture dates were not currently known. In 2003, MBTOC agreed thof pest control alternatives to high moisture fresh dates. However, MBTOC has recently gained the understanding that the moisture content of US dbetween 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 considerstill on the tree. Thus, US dates were referred to as ‘fresh’ but the American definition stands in contrast to the Deglet-Noor dates of North African charvested ‘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 effective. When dates are at 17-23% moisture content, they are a dried fruit from the viewpoint of regulation allowing the use of alternatives and fropotential. In the case of the US, the word ‘fresh’ in this instance is a marketing term. Therefore, heat, phosphine, controlled atmosphere and cold treffective and are registered for use in the US. In addition, sulfuryl fluoride is also registered for treatment of dates and recent trials have indicated elarvae of some pests. As noted above, recently submitted preliminary research indicates potential problems with efficacy for egg kill for one pest of remains to be seen whether this is an actual barrier to adoption of sulfuryl fluoride for dates, or whether manipulation of fumigation parameters such this problem. For further discussion of date infestation and treatment issues, the reader is referred to the review of date treatment elsewhere in May Report . In the instance of a future CUN for dates, MBTOC will expect research reports which indicate the extent of the problem with the target pesmanipulation of fumigation parameters was insufficient to result in adequate efficacy. 
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

CUE for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

C20(ane

Walnut sector has virtually completed its transition to sulfuryl fluoride and other alternatives for commodity exported to the EU; the remain

for quick treatment of packaged product when the other treatments would be too slow. MBTOC expects that even this use will quickly diminish as lotreatments are improved. In the instance of a future CUN for walnuts, MBTOC will expect considerable information exactly describing which step in circumstance critically needs MB, the likely volume of product so affected and indicating practical plans to eliminate even this use. There are numewalnuts. The California Dried Plum Board nomination includes dried plums, dried raisins and figs. MBTOC believes that transition to alternatives should be craisins by 2011. MB should be used for these commodities only in the instance proven lack of efficacy of, or technically justifiable inability to use, oalternatives. Plums are dried using a heat process which also results in disinfestation. Plums can be stored in cool or cold storage without risk of sare infested after drying they can be treated with phosphine. Figs are infested at harvest and need a treatment before storage, but several alternatand should be used. MBTOC has not been given the volumes of figs treated by alternatives and the volume of figs intended to be treated by MB, bnominated, it seems MB is used for a small portion of the harvest. In the instance of a future CUN for figs, MBTOC will expect considerable informastep in processing or logistic circumstance critically needs MB, the likely volume of product so affected and indicating practical plans to eliminate evuse phosphine, controlled atmosphere, sulfuryl fluoride or cool storage and should only resort to MB in the instance of proven lack of efficacy of, or to use, or to complete the transition to, alternatives. Bean sector is currently quickly transitioning to phosphine, but sulfuryl fluoride could also be uscaused 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 

losses 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 be higher. Walnuts have 

increase can be passed to consumers. Sulfuryl fluoride was found to be technically and economically feasible for walnuts, dried fruit, and dried bea
56 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

CUE for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

C20(ane

United States 

NPMA food processing structures (cocoa beans removed) 

83.344 69.118 82.771 69.208 54.606 37.778 - - 17

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends the nominated amount of 17.365 tonnes for food processing facilities in 2011. The Party’s nomination reflects a 54% decreasprocessing 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 facil

processing plants (with cheese present in storage). The food processing sector represents by far the largest portion of the MB nomination in this CUspice 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 tec

most critical strategy implemented is IPM, especially sanitation, in all areas of a facility. Facilities are now being monitored for pest populations, usipheromone traps, light traps and electrocution traps. When insect pests are found, facilities will attempt to contain the infestation with treatments oapplied to both surfaces and cracks and crevices; spot treatments with heat or phosphine will be used in areas that are suitable. Incoming ingrediepests and may be treated with phosphine. These techniques contribute to reduced pest pressure and avoid the need for full site treatment. 

MBTOC notes that perhaps especially with herb and spice processing equipment, in the instance of pest infestation centered in a particula

treatment with additional measures to prevent pest escape might be effective. MBTOC described a suitable spot heat method in its flour milling rev

With this nomination, the Party has moved ahead of its transition plan indicated in earlier CUNs. The Party’s CUN in 2007 indicated that 1

its food processing nomination would not be able to transition. But, with the 2009 nomination, the transition to alternatives in food processing sectopreviously indicated as unable to transition. MBTOC inquires if the part of the sector previously designated as unable to transition is now considerealternatives? 

Although the other sectors included in this CUN have made very substantive reductions in MB nominated, cheese storage sector has not 

MBTOC acknowledges a lack of knowledge of currently technically effective MB alternatives. The CUN indicates that, “Cheese manufacturers may fumigations with methyl bromide when a mite infestation is identified by USDA inspection and a fumigation is ordered.” MBTOC assumes that undeof the fumigation must be kept by government inspectors or by the processing facility. Therefore MBTOC requests that as part of any future CUN, acheese processing sector be submitted. MBTOC needs these records to monitor that the amounts it recommends are consistent with the amounts reported that the ongoing multi-state research project on mite infestation in cured pork also includes investigations of mites in cheese. However, MBParty 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 Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

CUE for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

C20(ane

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 is costly an

facilities, high heat could inflict structural damage; heat is not feasible for treating commercial-scale commodity volumes, as heat is a poor and commodities; structures with many concrete partitions are not good candidates for heat treatment because heat may not be evenly distrdowntime with heat treatment are persistent. MBTOC does not agree that production time is lost, although the treatment cost may be 

• Phosphine. Although phosphine kills insects, it is corrosive to components of the electronics that run the manufacturing equipment. Phosphi

application time. Phosphine is not a suitable alternative to methyl bromide when rapid fumigations are needed to meet customer timelines. Rreported 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 du

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 facilities cannot due to economic loss

higher treatment costs which arise at lower temperatures. For a small percentage, SF is not technically feasible due to cold temperatures. Adding hSF is also not an economically feasible option. MBTOC requires substantiation of these claims.

United States 

Mills and processors 

483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237 291.418 173.023 - - 13

MBTOC comments 2009: MBTOC recommends 135.299 tonnes, the nominated amount for 2011. In 2007, the Party implemented an acceptable transition plan for this secto18-20%, depending on the type of facility. This plan continues to be implemented, and sometimes exceeded, by the Party, although not in consisteThus MBTOC notes that for 2011, the pet food and rice milling sector nominations have not decreased over 2010 levels, perhaps because earlier toriginally planned. 

The CUN indicates that continued lack of regulatory approval for fluorine residues in pet foods and in food mixes that are sometimes prese

lack of progress in adopting alternatives in these sectors. However, MBTOC notes that this was also the reason given last year for a slowing of the milling and pet food facilities. MBTOC continues to express its concern about the possibility of continued lack of adoption of alternatives in these sethe 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 appropr

prevent pest escape from spot heat treatments.” And, “The three sectors included in this CUN are expected to work to improve treatment logistics segregation so that more adoption of alternatives can be accomplished even if regulatory barriers to the use of SF persist. When conducting SF fum
58 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

CUE for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

C20(ane

present, the applicant could trial tarping off the food under positive pressure or removing food ingredients and mixes to non-fumigated areas or seawarehouses to allow SF treatment of facility while ensuring that food is not exposed (TEAP October 2008)”. Food isolation techniques during SF fucommercially 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 mills. The CUN for 2009 and Party correspondence indicated that this research recommended by MBTOC was not done. MBTOC indicates that witresearch to overcome the regulatory problem, it can not continue to recommend MB use in pet food and rice milling, particularly if there were to be 

re-implemeting the previous years’ transition rates. 

In addition to this concern, we note that CUNs and Party correspondence indicates there is a segment of the pet food facilities and rice mi

transition to alternatives, at all. The CUN of 2008 and earlier years indicates about 5 tonnes of MB use in rice milling and 6 tonnes in pet foods sectalternatives 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 aconsiderable information and examination of these sectors by the Party and MBTOC, we will assume that a transition of 18-20% of the entire sectothat 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 ec

production downtimes associated with heat-up time. Economic losses in cold weather facilities due to downtime with heat treatment are pers

Sulfuryl Fluoride. A portion of the food processing facilities can economically convert to sulfuryl fluoride. Other facilities cannot due to economic loshigher treatment costs which arise at lower temperatures. For a small percentage, SF is not technically feasible due to cold temperatures. Accordinincrease 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 isoto sulfuryl fluoride.
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

Country Industry CUE for 

2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16 

CUE for 2006 (MOP 16 +ExMOP2+MOP17) 

CUE for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

CUE for 2008 (MOP18+ MOP19) 

CUE for 2009 (MOP19+MOP20) 

CUE for 2010 (MOP20) 

CUN for 2010 

MBTOC rec. for 2010 (addtl or new) 

C20(ane

United States 

Cured pork 67.907 40.854 18.998 19.669 18.998 4.465 - - 3.

MBTOC 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 tfor this use in 2010. This reduction was taken on the previous year’s 25% reduction. Formerly, the frequency of fumigation was up to five times a yereported to occur only one time per year. 

The pork becomes infested with Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Ham or cheese mites) and Necrobia rufipes (Redlegged ham beetle) (Phillips 

no technically effective and registered alternative for the treatment of these pests of cured pork, but decreases in MB use have resulted from IPM imfacilities, reduced frequency of fumigations, and improvements in reporting historical MB use. This sector is collaborating in a multi-state research pThis 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 and the incid

cured pork is stored longer than 6 months, there is a higher incidence of infestation. So, managing the overall ham process might assist to reduce p

The use of sulfuryl fluoride as a pest control method was investigated through this program, but it was not effective on mites. Effective trea

3x the allowed label rate was used, and at that point, fluorine residues were unacceptably high (Sekhorn et al, 2008). The researchers are now inveeffectiveness of phosphine, or low O2 and high CO2. ,but they are concerned that the poorly structured traditional ham storage houses in the US wo

In its text box of October 2008, MBTOC recommended that the Party test the method used in Spain which involves dipping the hams in a mixture o2008 MBAO conference, the researchers informed us that they are planning to investigate these alternative techniques. When the researchers are investigations 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 participatory 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. Weber (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 Research 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 greenhouse 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-Álvarez, J. Fresno, M. Escuer, S.C. Arcos, A. Lacasa, R. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brandenberger, L., R. E. Talbert, R P. Wiedenfeld, 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. Substrates 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 VIF 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) Introducing grafted cucurbits to modern agriculture. The 

Israeli experience. Plant Disease 91(8): 916 – 923 

Cram, M., S.A. Enebak, S.W. Fraedrich, 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. 

Fennimore, 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. Martínez-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, Orlando, 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 California- grown floricultural crops without Methyl 

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

October 2008 

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

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

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

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

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

di Metile. April 1-3, 2004, Comiso, 253-263. 

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., and 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 Los Santos, B., Montes, F., Vega, J. M., Paez, J. I., 

Bascon, J., Medina, J. J. (2003). Alternatives to MB for Strawberry Production in Huelva 

(Spain). 2003 Results. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2003. November, 2003, San Diego, California, USA 

pp. 33-1. 

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

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

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

September 2004. Lisbon. 

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

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

90 

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

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

Society. 

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

disease of melon. Proceedings of the Association of Plant Protection Kyushu 39:43-47 
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 (2008) 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 Methyl 

Bromide 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. Martínez-Beringola, A. Martínez-Treceno, E. Bardon, J. 

Palacios, M. Becerril, J.J. Medina, J., Gálvez and 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. Salto, 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., Keinath, A.P. (2008) Effect of incorporation of Brassica spp. residues on 

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

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

Noling, J. W. 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, 2004, 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, Institute of Food and Agricultural 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 purposes 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 report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the 

Parties (16MOP) (decision XVI/4). 

Paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP states that annual work plan should be 

drawn up by MBTOC (and supported by the Ozone Secretariat) in consultation with 

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

In accordance with paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP, MBTOC has 

prepared its 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 16MOP 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 Annex I to the report of 16MOP have been 

incorporated. The schedule of the work to be carried out by MBTOC on the MBTOC 

composition is also included. The list of current membership of MBTOC 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. Provision 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 interim 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 may request additional 

information on to the nominating 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 conjunction 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” category, those where additional 

information has been submitted by the nominating 

Party and any critical-use nominations for which 

additional information has been requested by the 

Open-ended Working Group 

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 31st, 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 20th 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 technically and economically feasible alternatives or 

substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint 

of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and 

circumstances of the nomination; 

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

should be permitted only if: 

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

minimise the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide; 

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

existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide, also bearing in 

mind the developing countries’ need for methyl bromide; 

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

commercialise and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives 

and substitutes, taking into consideration the circumstances of the 

particular nomination and the special needs of Article 5 Parties, 

including lack of financial and expert resources, institutional capacity, 

and information. Non-Article 5 Parties must demonstrate that research 

programmes are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and 

substitutes. Article 5 Parties must demonstrate that feasible alternatives 

shall be adopted as soon as they are confirmed as suitable to the Party’s 

specific conditions and/or that they have applied to the Multilateral Fund 

or other sources for assistance in identifying, evaluating, adapting and 

demonstrating such options; 

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

nominations and make recommendations based on the criteria established in 

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

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

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

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

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

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

determine whether there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or 

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

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

address the criteria listed in Decision IX/6 1(b).
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 75

ANNEX II. Decision XVI/4 

Review of the working procedures and terms 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. 
76 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

ANNEX III. Relative effectiveness of MB/Pic formulations applied in combination with low permfilms (LPBF) compared to the commercial standard MB/Pic formulation applied under standard 

polyethylene films (LDPF).

 Untreated Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin Mixtures (Product rate per treated area) 

Std film Barrier Film – Relative yield compared to standard polyethylene 

Yield 

MB/Pic 

Formuln.

Product 

Rate 

Not 

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

Country Region Commodity Brand or Type of 

Barrier Film 

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

Notes Re

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

Spain Vinderos Strawb. Runner VIF - NotSpec 74 50:50 400 93 De Cal et a

Navalmanzano 78 50:50 400 80 

Fusarium, Phytophthora, Pythium, Rhizoctonia and Verticillium 

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

Navalmanzano 34 50:50 400 76 75 

Fusarium, Cladosporium, Rhizoctonia 

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

 Malvinas 50:50 400 99 

1998 Fusarium 

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

 At 10cm & 30cm Bartual et a

53 Not Spec 600 93 1999 results 

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

Tariquejo 54 67:33 400 106 

Meloidogyne and weeds (unspec.) 

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

Inoculum not specified Lopez-Aran

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

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

1999 results, nurseries 

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

2000 results, nurseries 

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

1997-1998 Inoc.unspecified Lopez-Aran

72 67:33 400 102 

1998-1999 Inoc. Unspecified 

68 67:33 400 109 

1999-2000 Inoc. Unspecified 
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

 Untreated Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin Mixtures (Product rate per treated area) 

Std film Barrier Film – Relative yield compared to standard polyethylene 

Yield 

MB/Pic 

Formuln.

Product 

Rate 

Not 

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

Country Region Commodity Brand or Type of 

Barrier Film 

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

Notes Re

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

Spain Moncada Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 60 98:2 600 95 Cebolla et a

54 98:2 600 91 

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

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

Inoculum not specified Fritsch 199

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

Phytophthora present Horner 199

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

VIF Plastopil 69 67:33 392 99 Present 

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

USA Florida 

Strawb Fruit, 

Cantaloupe 

Barrier - Pliant, 

Metallised 

98:2 

67:33 

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

Nutgrass and pathogens present Noling and 

USA California 72 67:33 336 108 

Inoculum not specified Ajwa et al 2

Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 

80 67:33 392 96 

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

Nutgrass and rootknot nematodes Hamill et al 

USA California Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 75 67:33 392 106 Ajwa et al 2

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

Watsonville, high pathogen pressure 

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

 USA Georgia Nurseries VIF – not spec 67:33 389 See reference 

Carey an

2

USA California Roses 

67:33 

98 ̈2 

392 392 See reference Hanson et 

USA Florida Pepper VIF – not spec 67:33 392 See reference Santos and USA Florida Pepper VIF – not spec 67:33 392 See reference Santos USA California Ornamentals VIF – not spec 67:33 392 See reference Klose 2

 Unweighted averages (relative % yield) 66 94 99 93 93 102 103 108 104 91 
78 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report

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

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

standard commercial treatment using standard polyethylene from trials between 1998 

and 2004 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

MB dosage rate (kg/ha) under barrier film

Relative Yield 

(▲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 Report 

ANNEX IV Part A: Trend in Preplant Soil Applications List of nominated (2005 – 2011 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2010 in part) amounts of MB granted by Parties under the CUE pcommodity. Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 Australia Cut Flowers – field 40.000 22.350 18.375 22.350 Australia Cut flowers – protected 20.000 10.425 Australia Cut flowers, bulbs – protected Vic 7.000 7.000 6.170 6.150 7.000 7.000 3.598 3.500 Australia Strawberry Fruit 90.000 67.000 Australia Strawberry runners 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 29.790 29.790 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 Belgium Asparagus 0.630 0.225 0.630 0.225 Belgium Chicory 0.600 0.180 0.180 0.180 Belgium Chrysanthemums 1.800 0.720 1.120 Belgium Cucumber 0.610 0.545 0.610 0.545 Belgium Cut flowers – other 6.110 1.956 4.000 1.956 Belgium Cut flowers – roses 1.640 Belgium Endive (sep from lettuce) 1.650 1.650 Belgium Leek & onion seeds 1.220 0.155 0.660 Belgium Lettuce(& endive) 42.250 22.425 25.190 Belgium Nursery Not Predictable 0.384 0.900 0.384 Belgium Orchard pome & berry 1.350 0.621 1.350 0.621 Belgium Ornamental plants 5.660 0.000 Belgium Pepper & egg plant 5.270 1.350 3.000 1.350 Belgium Strawberry runners 3.400 0.900 3.400 0.900 Belgium Tomato (protected) 17.170 4.500 5.700 4.500 Belgium Tree nursery 0.230 0.155 0.230 0.155 Canada Strawberry runners (PEI) 14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 7.462 5.261 (a)14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462 Canada Strawberry runners (Quebec) 1.826 (a) 1.826 1.826 Canada Strawberry runners (Ontario) 6.129 France Carrots 10.000 8.000 5.000 8.000 8.000 1.400 France Cucumber 85 revised to 60 60.000 15.000 60.000 60.000 12.500 France Cut-flowers 75.000 60.250 12.000 60.000 52.000 9.600 France Forest tree nursery 10.000 10.000 1.500 10.000 10.000 1.500 France Melon 10.000 10.000 7.500 6.000 France Nursery: orchard, raspberry 5.000 5.000 2.000 5.000 5.000 2.000 France Orchard replant 25.000 25.000 7.500 25.000 25.000 7.000 
80 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 France Pepper Incl in.tomato cun 27.500 6.000 27.500 6.000 France Strawberry fruit 90.000 86.000 34.000 90.000 86.000 France Strawberry runners 40.000 4.000 35.000 40.000 40.000 28.000 France Tomato (and eggplant for 2005 

only) 

150(all solanaceous) 

60.500 33.250 125.000 48.400 

France Eggplant 27.500 33.250 48.400 Greece Cucurbits 30.000 19.200 30.000 19.200 Greece Cut flowers 14.000 6.000 14.000 6.000 Greece Tomatoes 180.000 73.600 156.000 73.600 Israel Broomrape 250.000 250.000 125.000 12.500 250.000 250.00Israel Cucumber - protected new 2007 25.000 18.750 18.750 25.000 18.750 Israel Cut flowers – open field 77.000 67.000 80.755 53.345 42.777 42.554 77.000 67.000 74.540 44.750 Israel Cut flowers – protected 303.000 303.000 321.330 163.400 113.821 72.266 303.000 240.000 220.185 114.45Israel Fruit tree nurseries 50.000 45.000 10.000 50.000 45.000 7.500 Israel Melon – protected & field 148.000 142.000 140.000 87.500 87.500 87.500 125.650 99.400 105.000 87.500 Israel Potato 239.000 231.000 137.500 93.750 75.000 239.000 165.000 137.500 93.750 Israel Seed production 56.000 50.000 22.400 56.000 28.000 Israel Strawberries – fruit (Sharon) 196.000 196.000 176.200 64.125 52.250 47.500 196.000 196.000 93.000 105.96Israel Strawberry runners (Sharon) 35.000 35.000 20 15.800 13.570 35.000 35.000 28.000 31.900 Israel Strawberry runners and fruit Ghaza 87.875 67.500 67.500 Israel Tomatoes 90.000 22.750 Israel Sweet potato 95.000 20.000 111.50Italy Cut flowers (protected) 250.000 250.000 30.000 250.000 187.000 30.000 Italy Eggplant (protected) 280.000 200.000 15.000 194.000 156.000 Italy Melon (protected) 180.000 135.000 10.000 131.000 131.000 10.000 Italy Pepper (protected) 220.000 160.000 67.000 160.000 130.000 67.000 Italy Strawberry Fruit (Protected) 510.000 400.000 35.000 407.000 320.000 Italy Strawberry Runners 100.000 120.000 35.000 120.000 120.000 35.000 Italy Tomato (protected) 1300.000 1030.000 418.000 871.000 697.000 80.000 Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 68.600 61.400 34.100 29.120 88.300 88.800 72.400 51.450 Japan Ginger – field 119.400 119.400 112.200 112.100 102.200 53.400 47.450 119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075 Japan Ginger – protected 22.900 22.900 14.800 14.800 12.900 8.300 7.770 22.900 22.900 14.471 11.100 Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 182.200 168.000 90.800 77.600 194.100 203.900 182.200 136.65Japan Peppers (green and hot) 189.900 200.700 169.400 162.300 134.400 81.100 68.260 187.200 200.700 156.700 121.72Japan Watermelon 126.300 96.200 94.200 43.300 23.700 15.400 13.870 129.000 98.900 94.200 32.475 Malta Cucumber 0.096 0.127 Malta Eggplant 0.128 0.170 Malta Strawberry 0.160 0.212 
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 Malta Tomatoes 0.475 0.594 New Zealand Nursery material 1.085 1.085 0.000 New Zealand Strawberry fruit 42.000 42.000 24.780 42.000 34.000 12.000 New Zealand Strawberry runners 10.000 10.000 5.720 8.000 8.000 6.234 Poland Strawberry Runners 40.000 40.000 25.000 12.000 40.000 40.000 24.500 Portugal Cut flowers 130.000 8.750 50.000 8.750 Spain Cut Flowers – Cadiz 53.000 53.000 35.000 53.000 42.000 Spain Cut Flowers – Catalonia 20.000 18.600 12.840 17.000 

(+Andalucia) 

20.000 15.000 43.490 

(+Andalucia) 

Spain Pepper 200.000 155.000 45.000 200.000 155.000 45.000 Spain Strawberry Fruit 556.000 499.290 80.000 556.000 499.290 0.0796 Spain Strawberry Runners 230.000 230.000 230.000 215.000 230.000 230.000 230.000 UK Cut flowers 7.560 6.050 UK Ornamental tree nursery 12.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 UK Strawberry (& raspberry in 2005) 80.000 63.600 68.000 54.500 UK Raspberry nursery 4.400 4.400 USA Chrys. Cuttings/roses 29.412 29.412 0.000 USA Cucurbits – field 1187.800 747.839 598.927 588.949 411.757 340.405 218.032 1187.800 747.839 592.891 486.75USA Eggplant – field 76.761 101.245 96.480 79.546 62.789 34.732 21.561 76.721 82.167 85.363 66.018 USA Forest nursery seedlings 192.515 157.694 152.629 133.140 125.758 120.853 106.043 192.515 157.694 122.032 131.20USA Ginger 9.200 9.200 0.000 USA Orchard replant 706.176 827.994 405.415 405.666 314.007 226.021 203.591 706.176 527.600 405.400 393.72USA Ornamentals 210.949 162.817 149.965 138.538 137.776 95.204 70.178 154.000 148.483 137.835 138.53USA Nursery stock - fruit trees, 

raspberries, roses 

45.789 64.528 12.684 51.102 27.663 17.954 7.955 45.800 64.528 28.275 51.102 

USA Peppers – field 1094.782 1498.530 1151.751 919.006 783.821 463.282 212.775 1094.782 1243.542 1106.753 756.33USA Strawberry fruit – field 2468.873 1918.400 1733.901 1604.669 1336.754 1103.422 1023.471 2052.846 1730.828 1476.019 1349.5USA Strawberry runners 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 8.837 7.381 7.381 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 USA Tomato – field 2876.046 2844.985 2334.047 1840.100 1406.484 994.582 336.191 737.584 2476.365 2065.246 1406.4USA Turfgrass 352.194 131.600 78.040 52.189 0 131.600 78.04 0 USA Sweet potato 224.528 18.144 18.144 18.144 14.515 18.144 
82 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

ANNEX IV– Part B: Trends in Post-harvest Structural and Commodity Applications List of nominated (2005 – 2011 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2010 in part) amounts of methyl bromide granted by Parties undeeach crop or commodity. Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 200Australia Almonds 1.900 2.100 1.900 2.100 Australia Rice consumer packs 12.300 12.300 10.225 9.200 

+1.8 

9.200 7.820 5.660 6.150 6.150 9.2

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

quarters 

0.150 0.059 0.150 0.059 

Belgium Electronic equipment 0.100 0.035 0.100 0.035 Belgium Empty silo 0.050 0.043 0.050 0.043 Belgium Flour mill see mills below 0.125 0.072 See mills below 0.072 Belgium Flour mills 10.000 4.170 9.515 4.170 Belgium Mills 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 Belgium Food processing facilities 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 Belgium Food Processing premises 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 Belgium Food storage (dry) structure 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.000 Belgium Old buildings 7.000 0 .306 1.150 0.306 Belgium Old buildings and objects 0.450 0.282 0.000 0.282 Belgium Woodworking premises 0.300 0.101 0.300 0.101 Canada Flour mills 47.200 34.774 30.167 28.650 26.913 22.878 14.107 (a)47 34.774 30.Canada Pasta manufacturing facilities (a) 10.457 6.757 6.067 4.740 4.7400 (a) 10.457 6.7Canada Commodities 0.068 France Seeds sold by PLAN-SPG company 0.135 0.135 0.100 0.135 0.135 0.0France Mills 55.000 40.000 8.000 40.000 35.000 8.0France Rice consumer packs 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 France Chestnuts 2.000 2.000 1.800 2.000 2.000 1.8Germany Artefacts 0.250 0.100 0.250 0.100 Germany Mills and Processors 45.000 19.350 45.000 19.350 Greece Dried fruit 4.280 3.081 0.900 4.280 3.081 0.4Greece Mills and Processors 23.000 16.000 1.340 23.000 15.445 1.3Greece Rice and legumes 2.355 2.355 Ireland Mills 0.888 0.611 0.888 Israel Artefacts 0.650 0.650 0.600 0.650 0.650 Israel Dates (post harvest) 3.444 3.444 2.200 1.800 2.100 3.444 2.755 2.2Israel Flour mills (machinery & storage) 2.140 1.490 1.490 0.800 0.300 2.140 1.490 1.0
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quantities  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 200Israel Furniture– imported 1.422 1.422 2.042 1.422 0.000 Italy Artefacts 5.500 5.500 5.000 5.225 0.000 5.0Italy Mills and Processors 160.000 130.000 25.000 160.000 65.000 25.Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.500 6.500 6.300 5.800 5.400 5.350 7.100 6.800 6.5Latvia Grains 2.502 2.502 Netherlands Strawberry runners post harvest 0.120 0.120 0.120 0 0.1Poland Medicinal herbs & dried mushrooms 

as dry commodities 

4.000 3.560 1.800 0.500 4.100 3.560 1.8

Poland Coffee, cocoa beans (a) 2.160 2.000 0.500 2.160 1.4Spain Rice 50.000 42.065 Switzerland Mills & Processors 8.700 7.000 8.700 7.000 UK Aircraft 0.165 0.1UK Mills and Processors 47.130 10.195 4.509 47.130 10.195 4.5UK Cereal processing plants 8.131 3.480 (a) 8.131 3.4UK Cheese stores 1.640 1.248 1.248 1.640 1.248 1.2UK Dried commodities (rice, fruits and 

nuts) Whitworths 

2.400 1.256 2.400 1.256 

UK Herbs and spices 0.035 0.037 0.030 0.035 0.037 UK Mills and Processors (biscuits) 2.525 1.787 0.479 2.525 1.787 UK Spices structural equip. 1.728 1.728 0.000 0.4UK Spices stored 0.030 0.030 0.000 UK Structures buildings (herbs and 

spices) 

3.000 1.872 0.908 3.000 1.872 0.9

UK Structures, processors and storage 

(Whitworths) 

1.100 0.880 0.257 1.100 0.880 0.2

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

pistachios, dried fruit and dates and dried beans) 

89.166 87.719 91.299 67.699 58.912 19.242 10.041 89.166 87.719 78.

USA Dry commodities/ structures (cocoa 

beans) 

61.519 61.519 64.028 52.256 51.002 61.519 55.367 64.

USA Dry commodities/ structures 

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

83.344 83.344 85.801 72.693 66.777 37.778 17.365 83.344 69.118 82.

USA Smokehouse hams (Dry cure pork 

products) (building and product) 

136.304 135.742 40.854 19.669 19.699 4.465 3.730 67.907 81.708 18.

USA Mills and Processors 536.328 505.982 401.889 362.952 291.418 173.023 135.299 483.000 461.758 401
84 September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report

ANNEX VII. Disclosure and Members 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, Parties to the Protocol have asked that each 

member to disclose proprietary, financial, and other interests. TEAP members have 

published such information for several years in the TEAP annual report. 

As a result, Decision XVIII/19 was issued during the 18th 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 complete a disclosure of interest form and 

these are presented in summarized form below. 

A – MBTOC Soil subcommittee Members - September 2009 

Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length of 

service 

Country Article 

5 status 

Co-Chairs 

1. Mohamed 

Besri 

M Institut 

Agronomique et 

Vétérinaire Hassan 

II (Academia) 

Professor, 

researcher, 

particularly on MB 

and alternatives in 

A5 (PhD) 

A Morocco A5 

2. 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 Professor of Plant Pathology and Integrated Disease 

Management at the Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, Rabat, Morocco 

(HII IAVM). The HII IAVM has an interest in the 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 interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock 

in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs . Prof. Besri works 

occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matters 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 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. 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. 

Ms. Marta Pizano Article 5 co-chair 

Consultant 

Bogotá 

COLOMBIA 

Ms. Marta Pizano is a consultant on methyl bromide alternatives, particularly for cut flower 

production, and has actively promoted methyl bromide alternatives among 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 their 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 scientist 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 researching sustainable methods for soil disinfestation of 

plant pathogens with over 200 research publications. 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 substitutes to ODSs, nor own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr Porter is 

presently assisting National research agencies in Australia develop national priorities for IPM 

and soil health. He has 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 Government 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 proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, 

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

does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He works occasionally as a 

consultant for UNEP, Implementing Agencies and 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 Professor 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 companies producing ODS or their alternatives or 

substitutes and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. His spouse also 

works for the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, which has an 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 alternatives, own no stock in either ODS companies or 

companies providing alternatives and do not do any consulting for organizations seeking to 

phase-out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid for by EPA. 

Dr. Abraham Gamliel 

Agricultural Research Organization, 

The Volcani Center, 

Bet Dagan 

ISRAEL 

Dr Abraham Gamliel is a full time senior researcher on methods and technologies for pest 

control and pesticide application at the Ministry of 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 Protocol 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 alternatives 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 Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse nor their 

children work for or consult for organizations having an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol nor do they have a proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, own stock 

in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Dr Gamliel’s travel expenses 

to attend MBTOC meetings are paid by the Ministry of Agriculture of Israel. 

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 impacts of Global Climate Change on plant diseases. 

She is also a professor at UNESP University, Faculty of Agronomy, Botucatu, SP, Brazil. Dr. 

Ghini developed a solar collector for substrate desinfestation . 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. Neither Dr. Ghini, nor her 

spouse or their children have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, nor 

own stock in companies producing 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 eventually 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 involvement in any businesses dealing with issues 

that are in any way related to the 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 soilborne pests and diseases management issues. Dr. 

Minuto has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. He does consulting (as 

CERSAA) for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs and also works occasionally as a 

consultant for Implementing Agencies and Governments on matters related to the Montreal 

Protocol. His spouse does not work or consul for organizations which have an interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol or organizations seeking phase-out of ODS, nor does she 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 

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 Economist, United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA). Dr. Schaub is employed full time within the Office of the Chief Economist, USDA in 

Washington D.C. The USDA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of 

its interest in environmentally sound agricultural production systems and the protection stored 

commodities. Further, USDA is responsible for 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 the Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse nor 

dependant children living at same home work for or consult for any organization which has an 

interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do any of them have any proprietary 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 Leader at the United States Department of 

Agriculture. Dr. Schneider is a full time National Program Leader for Horticulture, 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 Montreal 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 Plant Pathology and Microbiology Division of the 

Institute in Pretoria, South Africa. The Plant Protection Research Institute has an interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol because it houses the specialist Soil-borne Plant 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 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. Dr Staphorst works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matters 

related to the Montreal Protocol. His spouse has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

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

substitutes to ODSs and does no consulting for 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 Syngenta Japan K.K. a pesticide producing company, 

which does not produce substitutes to methyl bromide. 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 contract basis for a consultancy fee; he acts as a 

nominal member and adviser of the Japan Fumigation 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 technical adviser on matters related to the Protocol. 

He has been occasionally asked to attend panels or meetings at the Ministry of Agriculture, 

Forestry and Fisheries. He has no proprietary or any other kind of interest in 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 MBTOC 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 Agriculture 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 Experimental Station in Tucumán Province, 

Argentina. The INTA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is the 

national counterpart for implementing MLF methyl bromide phase-out projects, which are 

coordinated by the National Ozone Unit. Mr Valeiro has no proprietary interest 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 own stock in companies producing ODS alternatives 

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

Prof Nick Vink Article 5 member 

University of Stellenbosch 

Department of Agricultural Economics 

SOUTH AFRICA 

Dr. Nick Vink is Chair of the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of 

Stellenbosch, South Africa. He is a full time Professor at the University of Stellenbosch. The 

University has no interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Dr Vink has no proprietary 

interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in 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 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 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. Dr. Vos works occasionally as a consultant to EC on matters related 

to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings 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 the California Department of Pesticide Regulation 

from 1991 to 1999. Mr. Wells has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs 

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

He does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. However, ESG consults with 

several agricultural organizations seeking Critical Use Exemptions for the use of methyl 

bromide. These organizations are; the California Strawberry Commission (CSC), the California 

Strawberry Nursery Association (CSNA), the Garden Rose Council (GRC) and the California 

Association of Garden and Nursery Centers (CANGC). Together with his staff he prepares and 

submits CUEs for the CSNA, GRC and CANGC to the USEPA. His spouse works for the 

California Department of Justice, which has no interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. 

She has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult with 

organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel 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 Agricultural 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 institute 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 any 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 bromide 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 ODSs. 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 alternatives 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 a 

member 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 Research 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 methyl bromide in some applications. Patent rights 

have been assigned to his employer, CSIRO. Dr Banks has no proprietary interest 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 bromide or alternatives. 

His spouse is co-owner of their commercial organic apple orchard. She has no financial 

interests relating to ozone-depleting substances. 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 companies 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 contracts 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 Central 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 private 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 alternatives 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 attend 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 atmospheres 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 has been involved in research trials on MB 

alternatives and has assisted companies to adopt MB alternatives for structures, stored 

commodities and pre-shipment and quarantine treatments. ECO2 has an interest in the topics of 

the Montreal Protocol because of its expertise in disinfestation and pest control, particularly 

non-chemical treatments. 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 travel from any other company or organisation. 

Dr Kathy M. Dalip Article 5 member 

Entomologist 

CARDI Belize 

Central Farm, Western Highway 

Cayo District 

Belize, Central America 

Mailing address: P.O. Box 2. Belmopan City 

Belize 

Dr. Kathy M Dalip is an Entomologist at the Caribbean Agriculture Research and Development 

Institute (CARDI), which has headquarters in Trinidad and offices in twelve member countries. 

Kathy works full-time at the CARDI Belize Unit, Central Farm, Western Highway, Cayo 

District, Belize, Central America. Between 2000 and 2005, Kathy was stationed at the CARDI 

Jamaica Unit where she was a member of the Jamaica Methyl Bromide Working Group. Her 

work at CARDI is focused in the areas of integrated pest 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 consulting 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 Deputy 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 consultancy firm, Management and Executive Network, 

Inc. He has no proprietary interest on alternatives or substitute to ODSs, does not own stock in 

companies producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not engage in 

consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. His wife and their children have no 

proprietary interest on alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies 

producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not engage in consulting for 

organizations seeking to 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 Engineer, is a long standing MBTOC member and 

head of the Laboratoire National Denrées Stockées (LNDS), Plant Protection Service, Ministry 

of Agriculture, France. Dr Ducom is a full time 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 has no proprietary interest on alternatives or 

substitute to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs and does not engage in consulting for organizations seeking to phase out 

ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid from the LNDS budget 

Mr Kenneth Glassey 

Senior Advisor Operational 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 Office, 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 reviewing New Zealand’s import standards including 

operational standards such as treatments for imported and export commodities. This also 

involves monitoring quality and adequacy, initiating remedial action as necessary, and the 

provision of advice on the practical application and implications of such standards. Mr Glassey 
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 99

has been involved in QPS inspection and treatments for 20 years with particular expertise with 

forest produce, and worked in forest management for 11 years prior to that. Mr Glassey has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in 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 Glassey’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 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. Travel to TEAP/TOC/TSB meetings is paid by 

MAF. 

Mr Alfredo T. Gonzalez Article 5 Member 

President 

Pestcon Pest Management and General Services 

33 Evening News, West Triangle 

Quezon City 

THE PHILIPPINES 

Mr Gonzalez is president of Pestcon Pest Management 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 alternatives 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 cooperation 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 alternatives 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 interest 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, does 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, Forestry 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 Division 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 Agricultural Research Centre, National Horticultural 

Research Centre, National Potato Research Centre, and the National Committee for the National 

Genebank. Dr. Okioga has undertaken a number of contracts from the African Unity (then 

Organization of the African Unity), FAO and UNEP. Some of these consultancies were related 

to crop protection, where methyl 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 ODS 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 and 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. Riudavets has no proprietary interest alternatives or 

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

substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to 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 the Spanish Ministry of the Environment. 

Prof. Dr. Christoph Reichmuth 

Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry 

Institute for Stored product Protection 

Koenigin-Luise-St.19 

D-14195 Berlin 

GERMANY 

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

Reichmuth is a full time director of the Institute 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, Agriculture and Consumer Protection together with the 

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety has a 

pronounced interest to replace methyl bromide as quickly as possible, due to the strongly 

expressed political interest and public opinion in Germany. Dr Reichmuth has no proprietary 

interest, patent for production of phosphine from magnesium phosphide in a generator with the 

company Degesch Detia, Germany, patent for the 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 parties 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 Manager 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, quarantine 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 instrumental in the transition to alternatives for the 

residential fumigation marketplace and currently 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 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 
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, Governments, companies, etc. on matters related to 

the Montreal Protocol. Mr Sansone has no relatives or business partners that work for or 

consult for any organization with an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol nor does he 

have relatives or business partner having a proprietary interests in alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, or who own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or 

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 Resources Institute (NRI) of the United Kingdom in 

2001. The NRI was a government establishment involved in biological/agricultural research, 

development and training, primarily in relation to developing countries. In recent years the NRI 

has become part of the University of Greenwich. Crop protection in both the pre- and 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 alternatives 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 bromide, or who own stock in companies producing 

alternatives or substitutes to methyl bromide, or who consult for companies seeking to phase 

out methyl bromide. Travel and subsistence for 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 helps 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 substitutes 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 because they are Parties to the Protocol or because 

they are investigating or developing food irradiation a methyl bromide alternative for some 
September 2009 TEAP Report on 2009 CUNs: Final Report 103

commodities and in some quarantine situation. She has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

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

substitutes to ODSs and does consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr Vick's 

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

Service. 

Mr Chris Watson 

IGROX Ltd 

White Hall, Worlingworth 

Woolbridge, Suffolk, IP13 7HW 

UNITED KINGDOM 

Mr.Christopher Russell Watson is a MBTOC member since 1992. He works for Igrox Ltd in the 

UK as Chairman a part-time position since he is 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 Igrox 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 has 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 substitutes for ODS's and does not consult for companies 

seeking to phase out ODS's. Travel to MBTOC meetings was subsidised by Igrox Ltd and the 

British Pest Control Association until 2005. Presently, Mr Watson covers travel expenses from 

his own personal funds with some assistance 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 Head of the Agricultural Zoology 

Department of the Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombrés Tucumán, 

Argentina. He is a full time researcher in entomology who leads a team of researchers working 

on quarantine treatments, systems approach and pest host status, and is a member of the 

Technical Panel on Phytosanitary Treatments within IPPC, FAO. The 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 organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to 

TOC is paid by UNEP.