# MONTREAL PROTOCOL

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE

THE OZONE LAYER



# UNEP

R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC 

# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# A PRIL 

# 2007

P ROGRESS 

# R EPORT

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## iii 

# UNEP

A PRIL 

# 2007 R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC


# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# P ROGRESS 

# R EPORTApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## iv Montreal Protocol

On Substances that De plete the Ozone Layer



# Report of the UNEP Technology and Econom ic Assessment Panel

April 2007

P ROGRESS 

# R EPORT

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

Co-ordination: Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

Composition of the report: Lambert Kuijpers

Layout: Meg Seki, Ozone Secretariat, UNEP

Reproduction: UNON Nairobi Date: April 2007

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

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

This document is also available in portable document format from the UNEP

Ozone Secretariat's website:

http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/ TEAP/Reports/TEAP_Re ports/index.shtml



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



## ISBN: 978-92-807-2829-3

Job No: OZO/0955/NA

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## v Disclaimer

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Co-chairs and members, the Technical Options Committees Co-chairs and member s, the TEAP Task Forces 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 an d safety effects of alternatives and replacements will become available fo r use in selecting among the options

discussed in this document.

UNEP, the TEAP Co-chairs and member s, the Technical Options Committees Co-chairs and members, and the Tec hnology and Economic Assessment Panel Task Forces 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, co mpleteness, or utility; nor do they assume any liability of any kind whatsoever r esulting from the use or reliance upon any information, material, or procedure cont ained 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 c onstitute a recommendation of any such company, association, or product, either express or implied by UNEP, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Co-chairs or members, the Technical and Economic Options Committee chairs, Co-chairs or members, the TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs or members or the companies or organisations that employ them.

Acknowledgements

The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, its Technical Options

Committees and the Task Forces Co-cha irs and members acknowledges with thanks the outstanding contributions from a ll of the individuals and organisations that provided support to Panel, Committees and Task Forces Co-chairs and members. The opinions expressed are th ose of the Panel, the Committees and Task Forces and do not necessarily reflect the reviews of any sponsoring or supporting organisation.

The TEAP thanks the FAO, Rome, for hosting the TEAP meeting, 26-30 March 2007, where this report was composed and re viewed, and thanks in particular its co-chair Lambert Kuijpers, for making all necessary arrangements for the meeting.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## vi 

# Foreword

In April 2007, The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel submitted two reports to the Montreal

Protocol Parties:



## 1. April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

The annual TEAP Progress Report reports on and response s to various requests of the Parties. It also contains separate progress reports by the Technical Options Committees and a TEAP progress report on TEAP and TOC organisation (chapter 11).

Chapter 1 considers the essential use nominations by Parties, specifically by the European Community,

the Russian Federation and the United States and recommends essential use CFC quantities for MDIs for the years 2008 and 2009. Chapter 2 contains the response by the MTOC to Decision XVIII/16 on the difficulties faced by some Article 5 Parties ma nufacturing MDIs using CFCs . It also contains information on the progress and the difficulties in the transition out of CFCs in separate Article 5 countries. Chapters 3 to 8 contain the progress reports by the Medical, Chemicals, Foams, Halons, Refrigeration and Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committees. The Progress Report by the CTOC (chapter 4) contains responses to Decision XVII/6, 7 and 8 on process agents; to Decision XVIII/8 on the essential use for CFC-113 by the Russian Federation; to Decision XVIII/11 on the update information for nPB; to Decision XVIII/10 on sources of CTC emissions and reduction options; and to Decision XVII/10 on laboratory an d analytical uses for methyl br omide. Chapter 9 evaluates the Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nominations submitted in 2007 for the years 2008 and/or 2009. After the presentation of general issues, the TEAP progress report contains interim reports on the evaluations of the 2007 submissions presented by (1) the MBTOC Soils Subcommittee and (2) the MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities Subcommittee. Chapter 10 contains a description of how TEAP and its Task Force plan to respond to the re quests made by Parties in Decision XVIII/12: “Future work following the Ozone Secretariat Workshop on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/ Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Special Report”.

Three annexes give TEAP and TOC member information: (i) Annex I contains the TEAP member biographies (and Disclosure of In terest statements), (ii) Annex II lists the TEAP and TOC membership as of March 2007 and (iii) Annex III contains Disclo sure of Interest statements by all TOC co-chairs and members, as requested by Parties.



## 2. Task Force Report on th e Continuing TEAP Legacy

This report was produced by a Task Force which was formed on the occasion of the Twentieth Anniversary of the signing of the Montreal Protocol, to consolidate records of TEAP, its TOCs and Subsidiary Bodies such as Task Forces. It summa rizes the history of TEAP assessments, assembles a comprehensive list of the publications, documents th e membership over the years and reflects on how TEAP responded to the requests of the Parties.



## The UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel:

Stephen O. Andersen, co-chair USA Thomas Morehouse USA Jose I. Pons, co-chair VEN Marta Pizano COL Lambert Kuijpers, co-chair NL Ian Porter AUS Radhey Agarwal IND Miguel Quintero COL Paul Ashford UK Ian Rae AUS

Jonathan Banks AUS K. Madhava Sarma IND Jiang Biao PRC Helen Tope AUS

Mohamed Besri MOR Dan Verdonik USA David Catchpole UK Ashley Woodcock UK

Michelle Marcotte CDN Masaaki Yamabe JPN Shiqiu Zhang PRC

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## vii A PRIL 

## 2007 TEAP P ROGRESS 

## R EPORT



### TABLE OF CO NTENTS.............................................................................................................. .......PAGE

1 ESSENTIA L USES ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 E XECUTIVE 

### S UMMARY 

### ..............................................................................................................1

1.2 E SSENTIAL 

### U SE 

### N OMINATIONS FOR 

### M ETERED 

### D OSE 

### I NHALERS 

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

1.2.1 Criteria for Review of Essentia l Use Nominations for MDIs....................................................2

1.2.2 Review of Nominations .......................................................................................................... ...2

1.2.3 Summary of Parties’ Essential Use Nominations and Quantities for 2008 and 2009 (in tonnes) ............................................................................................................... .........2

1.2.4 Observations ................................................................................................................... ..........3

1.2.5 Committee Evaluation an d Recommen dations ..........................................................................4

2 DECISION XVIII/16: DIFFICULTIES FACED BY SOME ARTICLE 5

PARTIES MANUFACTURING M ETERED-DOSE IN HALERS WHICH

USE CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS....................................................................................9

2.1 B ACKGROUND TO 

### D ECISION 

### XVIII/16.......................................................................................9

2.2 P ROGRESS IN TRANSITION IN 

### A RTICLE 

### 5 P ARTIES 

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

2.2.1 Argentina ...................................................................................................................... ..........10

2.2.2 Bangladesh..................................................................................................................... .........10

2.2.3 Brazil......................................................................................................................... ..............10

2.2.4 China.......................................................................................................................... .............11

2.2.5 Colombia....................................................................................................................... ..........11

2.2.6 Croatia........................................................................................................................ ............11

2.2.7 India.......................................................................................................................... ..............11

2.2.8 Indonesia...................................................................................................................... ...........11

2.2.9 Iran ........................................................................................................................... ..............11

2.2.10 Mexico......................................................................................................................... ............12

2.2.11 Pakist an ....................................................................................................................... ...........12

2.3 D IFFICULTIES IN THE TRANSITION IN 

### A RTICLE 

### 5 COUNTRIES 

### ...................................................12

2.3.1 Technology transfer and product development.......................................................................13

2.3.2 Case Studies in Transition ..................................................................................................... .14

2.4 CFC REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPLY 

### MDI S IN 

### 2010 AND BEYOND 

### .................................................14

2.4.1 Technical Option Appraisal – Annual Pr oduction of CFCs in 2010 and beyond...................16

2.4.2 Technical Option Appraisal – Final Campaign Production of CFCs in 2009 for

use in 2010 and beyond......................................................................................................... ..17

2.4.3 Information needed to define quantities for a final campaign production of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs in 2009......................................................................................18

2.4.4 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .........19

3 MEDICAL TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE (MTOC) PROGRESS

REPORT......................................................................................................................... .......21

3.1 T RANSITION TO ALTERNATIVES TO 

### CFC MDI S 

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

3.2 G LOBAL 

### U SE OF 

### CFC S FOR 

### MDI S 

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

3.3 T RANSITION STRATEGIES 

### .........................................................................................................23

3.3.1 Progress reports on tr ansition stra tegies................................................................................23

3.4 G LOBAL DATABASE 

### .................................................................................................................24

4 CHEMICALS TECHNICAL OP TIONS COMMITTEE (CTOC)

PROGRESS REPORT .........................................................................................................25

4.1 E XECUTIVE 

### S UMMARY 

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

4.1.1 Process Agents (XVII/6, 7 and 8)............................................................................................25

4.1.2 EUN of CFC-113 by Russian Federation (XVIII/8)................................................................26

4.1.3 Normal-Propyl Bromide (n-PB) Update (XVIII/11) ...............................................................26

4.1.4 Sources of carbon tetrachloride emissions and opportunities for reductions (XVIII/10)..................................................................................................................... ...........26

4.1.5 Laboratory and analytic al uses of methyl bromide (XVII/10..................................................27

4.2 I NTRODUCTION 

### ........................................................................................................................27

4.3 P ROCESS 

### A GENTS 

### ....................................................................................................................27

4.3.1 The CTOC review of Tabl e A (decision XVII/6(7)).................................................................27April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## viii 4.3.2 The CTOC review of interim t able A-bis (decision XVII/8) ...................................................32

4.3.3 Case Studies of the continui ng process agen t operations .......................................................34

4.3.4 A potential list of process agent applications from China ......................................................36

4.3.5 Case studies for the chemical reactions in Table 4.3..............................................................38

4.3.6 ODS emissions and make-up quan tities reported by Parties ..................................................41

4.4 E SSENTIAL 

### U SE 

### N OMINATION OF 

### CFC-113 BY THE 

### R USSIAN 

### F EDERATION 

### (XVIII/8)...................................................................................................................... ...........42

4.4.1 Introduc tion ................................................................................................................... .........42

4.4.2 Decision XVIII/8: Essential-use exem ption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace applications in the Russian Federatio n for 2007...................................................43

4.4.3 Document from the Ru ssian Federation .................................................................................44

4.4.4 Comments on supply of CFC-113 to the Russian Federation from foreign

sources ........................................................................................................................ ............47

4.4.5 Document from th e United States ..........................................................................................47

4.4.6 The 2007 EUN from the Russian Fede ration..........................................................................48

4.4.7 Concluding remarks............................................................................................................. ...48

4.5 N 

### -P ROPYL 

### B ROMIDE 

### U PDATE 

### (XVIII/11, XIII/7) ....................................................................49

4.5.1 Introduc tion ................................................................................................................... .........49

4.5.2 Updated information on n-PB.................................................................................................50

4.5.3 Recent Toxicity Data and Prop osed Regulato ry Actions ........................................................50

4.5.4 Latitude-specific ODP of n-PB ...............................................................................................51

4.5.5 Global Warming Po tential (GWP)..........................................................................................51

4.5.6 Concluding remarks............................................................................................................. ...51

4.6 S OURCES OF CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 

### (CTC) EMISSIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES

FOR REDUCTIONS 

### (XVIII/10)...................................................................................................52

4.6.1 Introduc tion ................................................................................................................... .........52

4.6.2 Information from the Scie nce Assessment Panel.....................................................................52

4.6.3 Can Landfill emissions of CTC ac count for the di screpancy?................................................52

4.6.4 Conclusions on CTC emi ssions from landfills ........................................................................53

4.6.5 References..................................................................................................................... ..........54

4.7 L ABORATORY AND ANALYTICAL USES OF METHYL BROMIDE 

### (XVII/10) .................................54

5 FOAMS TECHNICAL OPTION S COMMITTEE (FTOC).............................................55

5.1 C OMPREHENSIVE 

### E NVIRONMENTAL 

### A SSESSMENT OF 

### A LTERNATIVES 

### .....................................55

5.2 V OLUNTARY 

### C ARBON 

### P ROJECTS 

### .............................................................................................55

5.3 G LOBAL 

### W ARMING 

### P OTENTIALS OF NON



### - METHANE HYDROCARBONS 

### .....................................55

6 HALONS TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE (HTOC) PROGRESS

REPORT......................................................................................................................... .......57

6.1 U PDATE ON 

### D ECISION 

### XV/11 ..................................................................................................57

6.2 I MPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES IN 

### A RTICLE 

### 5 COUNTRIES 

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

6.3 H ALON 

### -2402 P HASE



### - OUT 

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

6.4 H ALON 

### -1211 B ANK 

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

7 REFRIEGERATION, AIR CONDITIONING AND HEAT PUMPS TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE (R TOC) PROGRESS REPORT....................59

8 METHYL BROMIDE TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE (MBTOC)

PROGRESS REPORT .........................................................................................................61

8.1 MBTOC S OILS 

### P ROGRESS 

### R EPORT 

### .........................................................................................61

8.1.1 Scope of th e Report ............................................................................................................ .....61

8.1.2 Chemical alternatives for soil fumigation...............................................................................61

8.1.3 Update on registration status of MB and chemical alternatives............................................62

8.1.4 Emissions reduction of ch emical alte rnatives.........................................................................62

8.1.5 Non chemical alternatives in the so il sector ...........................................................................63

8.1.6 References..................................................................................................................... ..........63

8.2 MBTOC Q UARANTINE 

### S TRUCTURES AND 

### C OMMODITIES 

### P ROGRESS 

### R EPORT 

### ........................65

8.2.1 Introduc tion ................................................................................................................... .........65

8.2.2 Registration Status of Methyl Bromide Alte rnatives used for QSC Applications....................65

8.2.3 Update on Alternatives for Post-h arvest and Structural Treatments......................................67

8.2.4 Methyl Bromide Recapture Technologies Update...................................................................70

8.2.5 References..................................................................................................................... ..........71

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## ix 9 2007 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS ............................................................................73

9.1 E VALUATION OF 

### 2007 C RITICAL 

### U SE 

### N OMINATIONS FOR 

### M ETHYL 

### B ROMIDE AND



### R ELATED 

### M ATTERS 

### ; G ENERAL 

### C ONSIDERATIONS AND 

### S COPE OF THE 

### R EPORT 

### .......................73

9.2 C RITICAL 

### U SE 

### N OMINATIONS FOR 

### M ETHYL 

### B ROMIDE 

### ............................................................73

9.2.1 Mandate ........................................................................................................................ ..........73

9.2.2 Evaluations of CUNs – 2006 round for 2007 and 20 08 exemptions.......................................74

9.2.3 Disclosure of Interest......................................................................................................... .....75

9.2.4 MBTOC Process .................................................................................................................. ...75

9.2.5 Critical Use Nomina tions Review ...........................................................................................76

9.2.6 Plans to Develop, Register and Deploy Alternatives ..............................................................76

9.2.7 Fulfilment of D ecision IX/6.................................................................................................... .76

9.2.8 Consideration of Stocks ........................................................................................................ ..77

9.2.9 Decisions Ex.I/4 (9d) and Decision XVII/9(10) ......................................................................79

9.2.10 Rates of Adoption.............................................................................................................. ......79

9.3 E VALUATION OF 

### 2007 C RITICAL 

### U SE 

### N OMINATIONS FOR 

### M ETHYL 

### B ROMIDE AND



### R ELATED 

### M ATTERS 

### ; MBTOC S OILS 

### I NTERIM 

### R EPORT



### – M ARCH 

### 2007 (MBTOCS)............................................................................................................................. ................82

9.3.1 Scope of the MBTOC - S Report .............................................................................................82

9.3.2 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide .......................................................................82

9.3.3 Decisions Ex.I/4 (9d) and Decision XVII/9 (10) .....................................................................91

9.3.4 Interim evaluations of CUNs subm itted in 2007 for 2008 or 2009 .........................................93

9.3.5 References..................................................................................................................... ........116

9.4 E VALUATION OF 

### 2007 C RITICAL 

### U SE 

### N OMINATIONS FOR 

### M ETHYL 

### B ROMIDE AND



### R ELATED 

### M ATTERS 

### ; MBTOC Q UARANTINE



### , S TRUCTURES AND 

### C OMMODITIES



### I NTERIM 

### R EPORT



### – M ARCH 

### 2007 (MBTOC-QSC)................................................................125

9.4.1 Standard presumptions used in asse ssment of nomina ted quantitie s....................................125

APPENDIX I TO CHAPTER 9........................................................................................................ ..134

APPENDIX II TO CHAPTER 9 ....................................................................................................... .135

APPENDIX III TO CHAPTER 9...................................................................................................... .136

APPENDIX IV TO CHAPTER 9 – PART A: PREPLANT SOIL APPLICATIONS........................137

APPENDIX IV TO CHAPTER 9 – PART B: POST-HARVEST STRUCTURAL AND

COMMODITY APPLICATIONS ...............................................................................140

APPENDIX V TO CHAPTE R 9........................................................................................................ 143

10 DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESPONSE TO DECISION XVIII/12..............................145

11 TEAP/TOC ORGANISATI ON ISSUES...........................................................................149

11.1 B UDGET



### ............................................................................................................................... ..149

11.2 M ETHYL 

### B ROMIDE 

### T ECHNICAL 

### O PTIONS 

### C OMMITTEE 

### A DJUSTMENTS 

### ..................................149

11.3 C HANGE OF 

### E MPLOYMENT FOR 

### F OAMS 

### T ECHNICAL 

### O PTIONS 

### C OMMITTEE


### A RTICLE 

### 5 C O 

### -C HAIR 

### ............................................................................................................150

11.4 N OTICE OF 

### P OSITIONS 

### A VAILABLE ON THE 

### TEAP AND ITS 

### TOC S 

### .........................................151

11.5 C ONFLICT OF 

### I NTEREST 

### .........................................................................................................151

ANNEX I: TEAP MEMBER BI OGRAPHIES ...................................................................................153

ANNEX II: TEAP-TOC MEMBERSHIP LISTS STATUS MARCH 2007 .......................................164

ANNEX III: TOC MEMBERS – DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST, STATUS MARCH

2007 ........................................................................................................................... ...........169

AIII.1 D ISCLOSURE OF 

### I NTEREST 

### D ECLARATIONS 

### MTOC ..............................................................169

AIII.2 D ISCLOSURE OF 

### I NTEREST 

### D ECLARATIONS 

### CTOC ...............................................................174

AIII.3 D ISCLOSURE OF 

### I NTEREST 

### D ECLARATIONS 

### FTOC................................................................177

AIII.4 D ISCLOSURE OF 

### I NTEREST 

### D ECLARATIONS 

### HTOC ...............................................................179

AIII.5 D ISCLOSURE OF 

### I NTEREST 

### D ECLARATIONS 

### RTOC ...............................................................186

AIII.6 A 

### D ISCLOSURE OF 

### I NTEREST 

### D ECLARATIONS 

### MBTOC

- S OILS 

### ...............................................193

AIII.6 B 

### D ISCLOSURE OF 

### I NTEREST 

### D ECLARATIONS 

### MBTOC

- QSC.................................................197

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 1 

# 1 Essential Uses

1.1 Executive Summary

The following table summarises the recommendations of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and its Medical Technical Options Committee (MTOC) on nominations for essential use production exemp tions for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for metered dose inhalers (MDIs).

Table ES-1: Recommendations for essential use nominations European Community Russian Federation United States

2008 Recommend exemption for

CFCs for MDIs for316 tonnes (not for singlemoiety salbutamol to be sold

within Member States of the EC). Recommend exemption for

CFCs for MDIs for212 tonnes (for singlemoiety salbutamol to be

sold within the Russian Federation).



### 2009 Recommend exemption for

CFCs for MDIs for282 tonnes (not for singlemoiety salbutamol).



### The quantities requested by the European Commun ity for 2008 are similar to those allocated in 2006 and 2007. It is not clear from the nomination how final phase-out of CFC use within the European Community will be achieved, nor how the European Community intends to reduce its production to zero.

The Russian Federation states that it will not make a nomination for 2009. However, MTOC is uncertain that a complete phase-out will be feasible within the timeframe stated in the nomination. It is important that measures be considered to avoid jeopardizing patient health due to an overall shortfall in inhaled therapy.

The United States’ nomination shows a decrease in requested quantities compared to 2008. The active moieties for which these quantities are requested will shortly be subject to a US FDA rule-making process that may be completed in 2008. The recommendation by MTOC is made under the assumption that all the active moieties remain essential under US FDA rules

in 2009. In order to better inform the Par ties’ essential use decision, the United States could clarify its stockpile status by the Meeting of Parties in 2007. Transfer of stocks between companies could more than offset the need for manufacture of CFCs. Companies producing MDIs other than single-moiety salbutamol may not have access to stockpiles held by other companies.

While MTOC recommends approval of these nominations, Parties may wish to consider the following issues in making its essential use decisions.

MTOC notes that the timelines for drug development and approval in non-Article 5 countries mean that any formulation that is going to be available by 1 January 2010 will already have to be a final commercial formulation in phase 3 regulatory studies in 2007 (assuming phase 3 studies take 18-24 months and regul atory approval 12 months). This means that several of the drugs, which are included in CFC quantities re quested in the current nominations, will not

be reformulated within this timeline. This raises the question for the nominations for 2008 and 2009, whether the quantities requested for cer tain active ingredients could be considered essential. Parties may wish to consider reducing the quantities approved for essential useApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 2 contingent on receiving further information from nominating Parties confirming the absence of active research and development on these moieties. Parties may also wish to consider not allocating CFCs to companies without a final CFC-free formulation in phase 3 studies.

For combination products for which the sep arate moieties are av ailable as CFC-free alternatives, MTOC believes that these combinati on products continue to be used for patient

convenience and commercial consider ations. Patients will not come to any harm by using the drugs in separate inhalers. The combination in halers cannot therefore be considered to be essential under Decision IV/25. Parties may wish to consider a decision not to allocate CFCs for these combination products.

MTOC emphasises that the management of stoc kpiles will be extremely important to avoid unnecessary production of CFCs and the potential need for excessive destruction. MTOC believes that complete accounting frameworks of CFC stockpiles, including pre-1996 stocks, should be provided. Parties may wish to consider the advantages of requiring that plans for use or disposal of stockpiles be included in future nominations.



## 1.2 Essential Use Nominations for Metered Dose Inhalers

1.2.1 Criteria for Review of Essential Use Nominations for MDIs

Decision IV/25 of the 4th Meeting and subseque nt Decisions V/18, VII/28, VIII/9, VIII/10, XII/2, XIV/5, XV/5, XVI/12, XVII/5, and XVIII/7 have set the criteria and the process for the assessment of essential use nominations for metered dose inhalers (MDIs).

1.2.2 Review of Nominations

The review of essential use nominations by the Medical Technical Options Committee (MTOC) was conducted as follows.

Three members of the MTOC independently reviewed each nomination, each preparing an assessment. Further information was requested where necessary. The MTOC considered the assessments, made recommendation decisions a nd prepared a consensus report. Where appropriate, members declared a potential conflict of interest ahead of the discussion.

Nominations were assessed according to the gui delines for essential use contained within the

Handbook on Essential Use Nominations (TEAP, 2005) and subsequent Decisions of the

Parties.

Concurrent with the evaluation undertaken by the MTOC, copies of all nominations are provided to the Technology and Economic As sessment Panel (TEAP). The TEAP and its TOCs can consult with other individuals or organi sations to assist in the review and to prepare

TEAP recommendations for the Parties.

1.2.3 Summary of Parties’ Essential Use Nominations and Quantities for 2008 and 2009 (in tonnes)

European Community Russian

Federation United States

2008 316 212 -

2009 - - 282

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 3 1.2.4 Observations

Three essential use nominations were submitted for consideration in 2007: the European Community for 2008, the Russian Federation for 2008, and the United States for 2009.

Accounting frameworks for 2006 were not recei ved from the Japan and Ukraine, which had previously reported end of year stock for 2005 of 13.68 and 47.4 tonnes respectively. MTOC understands that Japan has destroyed its stock, but has no information about the Ukraine.

Decision VIII/10 (1) states “ That Parties not operating under Article 5 will request companies applying for MDI essential-use exe mptions to demonstrate ongoing research and development of alternatives to CFC MDIs with all due diligence and/or collaborate with other companies in such efforts and, with each future request, to report in confidence to the nominating Party whether and to what extent resources are deployed to this end and progress is being made on such research and development, and what licence applications if any have been submitted to health authorities for non-CFC alternatives ”. Decision XVIII/7 reiterated a similar request.

The nominations for the European Community and the United States state that they have requested information on on-going research a nd development from individual companies, which remains confidential and is not provi ded for review by MTOC. While MTOC is confident nominating Parties received info rmation regarding levels of research and development activity towards reformulation, MTOC believes that both nominations contain quantities for companies that could not be cons idered to be actively conducting research and development. For example, the European Co mmunity states “Companies targeting the export of generic type of CFC MDI to developing c ountries tend not to pursue very active research and development activities to develop alternative products. This is a remaining issue to be dealt with consistently with the phase-ou t of CFC MDI in Article 5 Parties.”

MTOC notes that the timelines for drug development and approval in non-Article 5 countries mean that any formulation that is going to be available by 1 January 2010 will already have to be a final commercial formulation in phase 3 regulatory studies in 2007 (assuming phase 3 studies take 18-24 months and regul atory approval 12 months). This means that several of the drugs, which are included in chlorofluoro carbon (CFC) quantities requested in the current nominations, will not be reformulated within th is timeline. This raises the question for the nominations for 2008 and 2009, whether the quantities requested for certain active ingredients could be considered essential. Parties may wish to consider reducing the quantities approved for essential use contingent on receiving fu rther information from nominating Parties confirming the absence of active research and development on these moieties. Parties may also wish to consider not allocating CFCs to companies without a final CFC-free formulation in phase 3 studies.

For combination products for which the sep arate moieties are av ailable as CFC-free alternatives, MTOC believes that these combinati on products continue to be used for patient

convenience and commercial consider ations. Patients will not come to any harm by using the drugs in separate inhalers. The combination in halers cannot therefore be considered to be essential under Decision IV/25. Parties may wish to consider a decision not to allocate CFCs for these combination products.

MTOC notes that both the European Community and the United States have now reported pre-1996 stockpiles. MTOC emphasises that the management of stockpiles at this final stage of the phase-out will be extremely importan t to avoid unnecessary production of CFCs andApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 4 the potential need for excessive destruction. Parties may wish to remind CFC MDI manufacturers that any CFCs obtained under essentia l use exemptions must be used for this essential use (including through a transfer), tr ansferred to an Article 5 country for basic domestic needs, or destroyed. In addition, Decision IV/25 ( Report of the TEAP, May 2005, Progress Report , section 1.1.4.1, pg 35) requires companies that hold pre-1996 stocks to use them first before using newly produced CFCs.

MTOC believes that complete accounting frameworks of CFC stockpiles, including pre-1996 stocks, should be provided. Parties may wish to consider the advantages of requiring that plans for use or disposal of stockpiles be included in future nominations.

1.2.5 Committee Evaluation and Recommendations

Quantities are expressed in metric tonnes.

1.2.5.1 European Community

Year Quantity

2008 316 tonnes



### Specific Use: MDIs for asthma and COPD

Active ingredients and intended market s for which the European Community nomination applies

Active Ingredients Intended market

Salbutamol Central and South America

Beclomethasone European Commun ity, Asia-Pacific, Central and

South America

Budesonide Africa, Central and South America

Cromoglicic acid European Community, United States, Central and

South America

Nedocromil United States

Salbutamol+Ipratropium bromide (combination) European Community, New Zealand, Asia-Pacific, Middle-East, Mexico, Africa

Salbutamol+Flunisolide (combination) European Community

Salbutamol+Beclomethasone dipropionate (combination) European Community, Central and South America*

Isoproterenol HCl+Fenilefrina HCl (combination) European Community



### *MTOC understands this combination produc t is also exported to the Middle East

Recommendation: Exemption for CFCs for MDIs – 316 tonnes (not for singlemoiety salbutamol to be sold within Member States of the European Community).

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 5 Comments

While MTOC accepts the European Community nomination and recommends its approval, there are several concerns noted by MTOC in addition to those

discussed above.

MTOC notes that within the European Community the transition had proceeded well in the past, but now seems to have stalled. The quantities requested by the European Community for 2008 are similar to those allocated in 2006 and 2007. It is not clear from the nomination how final phase-out of CFC use within the European Community will be achieved, nor how the European Community intends to reduce its production to zero. An explanation of the final phase-out plan for the European Community is n eeded, especially for amounts requested for export to Article 5 countries and for products for which a CFC-free alternative

will not become available.

MTOC notes that the requested quan tities for use within the European Community appear to be primarily for combination products, the majority of which are separately available as single ingr edient alternatives. MTOC also notes a significant proportion of the request is intended for export. While much of this export is to Article 5 countries, particul arly for salbutamol for Central and South America (98 tonnes), it is not clear how this export will be handled into the future. Specifically, it would be helpful to understand better the details of these exports and the plans to assure availab ility of essential products as the transition is completed globally.

The reported stockpiles are low and appear reasonable. While significant pre1996 stocks (~172 tonnes) have been recently reported, it is not clear these would be available to the companies still producing CFC MDIs. Transfer of stocks between companies could offset the need for manufacture of CFCs.

1.2.5.2 Russian Federation

Year Quantity

2008 212 tonnes



### Specific Usage: MDIs for asthma and COPD, for active ingredient salbutamol for use solely within the Russian Federation

Recommendation: Exemption for CFCs for MDIs – 212 tonnes (for single-moiety salbutamol to be sold within the Russian Federation)

Comments

The Russian Federation has made progress in reducing the annually nominated amounts for essential use, and states that it will not make a nomination for 2009. The current nomination for 2008 is for 212 tonnes; the exempted amounts for 2006 and 2007 were 400 and 243 tonnes, r espectively. The nominated CFCs are for use only for salbutamol MDI, and for use solely wi thin the Russian Federation. Finished MDIs (CFC-containing and CFC-free) are also imported. The market share of these imported products was 50 per cent in 2006. There is no CFC production in the Russian Federation. CFC is imported from Korea,April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 6 India and China and is purified in the Russian Federation before use in MDI

manufacture.

MTOC estimates that there may be a sufficient supply of CFCs from stockpile and exempted/nominated quantities to continue manufacture of salbutamol MDIs through to phase-out by 2009 assuming current levels of utilization. However, it is uncertain that a complete phase-out will be feasible within the timeframe stated

in the nomination. Domestic alternatives are still in early stages of development. Furthermore, relying on the importation of CFC-free MDIs to avert a potential domestic shortfall may not be feasible due to the higher price of imported products. It is important that measur es be considered to avoid jeopardizing patient health due to an overa ll shortfall in inhaled therapy.

MTOC recommends that the Russian Federation establishes educational programs as it embarks on the final phase of the transition.

1.2.5.3 United States

Year Quantity

2009 282 tonnes



### Specific Use: MDIs for asthma and COPD, for the following active ingredients for use solely within the United States: cromolyn, epinephrine, ipratropium/salbutamol (combination), ne docromil, pirbuterol, triamcinolone.

Recommendation: Exemption for CFCs for MDIs – 282 tonnes (not for singlemoiety salbutamol).

Comments

The nomination was completed in accordance with the Handbook on Essential

Use Nominations (TEAP, 2005). It shows a decrease in requested quantities compared to 2008. The active moieties for which these quantities are requested will shortly be subject to a US FDA rule-making process that may be completed in 2008. The recommendation by MTOC for the nominated 282 tonnes is made under the assumption that all the active moieties remain essential under US FDA rules in 2009. In the opinion of MTOC, comparable alternative therapies already

exist in the United States market for all of these moieties. If it is determined by the US FDA that any of these moieties is no longer essential under United States’ law, depending on the timing of rulemaking, the CFC quantities for that moiety should be removed from the nomination, or not be allocated. The United States could provide in 2008 a revised nominat ion for 2009, based on the outcome of this rule-making.

The aggregate stock reported in the accounting framework at end of year 2006 is 2,466 tonnes. The proposed United States allocation of CFCs to MDI manufacturers for 2007 is about 1,000 t onnes less than its approved essential use quantity for this year, which means that the stockpile may be reduced accordingly by the end of 2007. While the remaining stock still appears to be in excess of the amount of CFCs needed for MDI manufacture (1,283 tonnes in 2006), MTOC

does not know how much of this will be readily available to companies that are expecting to manufacture CFC MDIs in 2009, nor how the mix of different CFCs

in stock matches the mix needed in 2009. Companies producing MDIs other than

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 7 single-moiety salbutamol may not have access to stockpiles held by other companies. The size of the stockpile will also be affected by the speed of phaseout of salbutamol CFC MDIs over the course of 2007 and 2008. Approval of the 2009 quantities assures availability of CFCs for MDIs other than single-moiety salbutamol if the CFC stockpile proves to be inaccessible due to business considerations. At the end of ph ase-out, the United States could hold a substantial stockpile of CFC, wh ich may require destruction.

In order to better inform the Parties’ essential use decision, the United States could clarify its stockpile status by the Meeting of Parties in 2007. Transfer of stocks between companies could more than offset the need for manufacture of

CFCs.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 9 

# 2 Decision XVIII/16: Difficulties fa ced by some Article 5 Parties manufacturing metered-dose inhalers which use

chlorofluorocarbons

2.1 Background to Decision XVIII/16

At the Seventeenth Meeting, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol discussed the difficulties faced by some Article 5 Parties with respect to the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in the manufacture of metered dose inhalers (MDIs). In Decision XVII/14 the Parties expressed their concern that Article 5 Parties that manufacture CFC MDIs might find it difficult to phase out these substances without in curring economic losses to their countries. There was the further risk that, for some Artic le 5 Parties, consumption levels in 2007 of CFCs for MDIs might exceed the amounts allo wed for all CFC uses under the Protocol.

The Parties considered the issue again at their Eighteenth Meeting and took Decision XVIII/16. Paragraph 12 of this Decision requests:

“... TEAP to assess and report on progress at the tw enty-seventh meeting o f the Openended Working Group and to report to the NineteenthMeeting of the Parties on the need for, feasibility of, optimal timing of, and recommended qua ntities for a limited campaign production of chlorofluorocarbons exclusively for metered-dose inhalers in both Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5. ”

In responding to the Parties’ request under D ecision XVIII/16, the Medical Technical Options Committee (MTOC) considered informa tion from an Executive Committee report, Options for Addressing the Situation of Countries Re ferred to in Decision XVII/14 of the 17 th 

### Meeting of the Parties (Follow-up to Decision 49/33) 1 

### . This included data from a questionnaire distributed to 138 Article 5 Parties, nationa l phase-out plans under current implementation, and reports submitted by Article 5 Parties to the Ozone Secretariat pursuant to Decision

XIV/5. MTOC also considered other sources of information on the MDI sub-sector in Article 5 Parties, including the May 2006 Progress Report of the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel , and industry sources.



## 2.2 Progress in transition in Article 5 Parties

It is clear from the experience in non-Article 5 countries that a successful transition strategy must have a clear, final date by which time th e country expects no longer to need CFC MDIs for its patients with asthma and COPD. The deta ils of a strategy required for a country to successfully meet that date, while protecting patie nt’s health, vary by the circumstances of the country, its health system and whether it impor ts or locally produces CFC MDIs. Elements that must be considered include the following:

• Date for completion;

• Measures to assure the timely introduc tion of CFC-free alternatives into the market through technology developm ent/transfer (for producers) and regulatory approval (for both producers and importers);

1 

### UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/51/39 , http://www.multilateralfund.org/files/51/5139.pdf

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 10 • Phase-out plan for CFC MDIs when acce ptable alternatives are available;

• Promotion of discussions between envir onmental and health authorities, and efforts to inform practitioners a nd patients about the transition.

Many countries have not yet submitted trans ition strategies. MTOC recommends that any country producing or importing CFC MDIs consider developing a transition strategy as a matter of urgency, taking into account the above considerations. Their timely development will help assure patient access to adequate i nhaled therapies as the final phase-out date approaches. In particular, it is critical th at all CFC MDI producing countries now implement a transition strategy.

The following section outlines information on the current status of transition in some countries that manufacture MDIs. Unfortunately, this does not represent a complete picture, with information missing for some countries with domestic production of CFC MDIs, such as Algeria and South Africa. Most of the data are derived from the Executive Committee

report 2



### .

2.2.1 Argentina

CFC consumption for the production of MDIs in Argentina increased from 86 tonnes to 188

tonnes between 2003 and 2005. The Government of Argentina has indicated that the maximum allowable level of CFCs for all uses for each year from 2007 to 2009 is 704.6 ODP tonnes for consumption and 686.0 ODP tonnes for production. As the total CFC production will be entirely for domestic consumption, Argentina could import a maximum of only 18.6 ODP tonnes of CFCs each year for use in the MDI sector, which is much lower than the 188 ODP tonnes used for MDI production in 2005. Given those circumstances, Argentina may not be able to meet the demand for pharmaceuti cal-grade CFCs. However, Argentina has also reported that hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) MDIs have been produced there since 2005.

2.2.2 Bangladesh

There are 4 companies manufacturing CFC MDIs in Bangladesh (one a multi-national company with 18 per cent local ownership); all production lines were established after July 1995. CFC consumption for the production of MDIs has increased from 39 to 62 tonnes between 2003 and 2005, and to an estimated 76 tonnes in 2006. During 2006, one company announced the introduction of the country’s firs t HFC salbutamol and beclomethasone MDIs, but that it will not cease its current production of CFC salbutamol and beclomethasone MDIs.

2.2.3 Brazil

Brazil has identified two national MDI manufact uring plants, as well as two multi-national companies manufacturing CFC MDIs, that used 134.5 ODP tonnes of CFCs in 2006 for the production of CFC MDIs for local use and for export to other Parties.

The locally owned manufacturers of MDIs were recently estimated to consume about

10 ODP tonnes of CFCs.

2 

### UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/51/39 , http://www.multilateralfund.org/files/51/5139.pdf

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 11 2.2.4 China

Approximately 15 million CFC MDIs are locally manufactured in China, multi-national companies sell about 2.5 million MDIs each year, and a small quantity of HFC MDIs has been imported since 2004.

Some locally owned companies have develope d and patented new technology for CFC-free MDIs (clinical trials are ongoing). Adequate bulk pharmaceutical-grade HFC is readily available from three multi-national producers and will likely be available from one local producer. China is committed to cease CFC manufacture for MDIs by the end of 2009.

2.2.5 Colombia

Colombia has reported that all CFC MDIs were imported into the country and that no CFC

MDIs were manufactured in Colombia. The Government of Colombia and the health

authorities were concerned about the MDI sub-sector and requested funding for the development of an MDI transition strategy th at would establish a clear schedule for import substitution of CFC MDIs. However, one local company has recently been reported to be producing CFC MDIs in Colombia since 2003, although CFC quantities are small, estimated at 2 tonnes annually.

2.2.6 Croatia

One local company (Pliva Hrvatska) has been producing CFC MDIs in Croatia since 1975. By the end of 2004, the company had ceased production of CFC MDIs, and started manufacturing salbutamol HFC MDIs (128,190 units). By 2005, about 378,700 HFC MDI units were produced. This Croatian company h as successfully effected a complete transition to CFC-free MDIs without external financial support.

2.2.7 India

There are 19 different MDIs currently produced in India by 7 manufacturing enterprises (less than 2 per cent of total production is by multi-national companies). The total CFC consumption for the production of MDIs increased from 635.5 tonnes to 748.3 tonnes

between 2003 and 2005. India has a substan tial number of affordable dry powder inhaler (DPI) alternatives and one company has ha d under-used HFC MDI production capacity for several years. MTOC understands that India should be able to phase out CFCs from MDIs by

the end of 2009.

2.2.8 Indonesia

Indonesia indicated that some 30 ODP tonnes were used for the production of MDIs and other aerosol pharmaceutical products by several local (Daya Varia and Konimex) and multinational companies (AstraZeneca, Boehringer Inge lheim, GlaxoSmithKline) (it would appear that a large portion of the 30 ODP tonnes of CFCs reported in the phase-out plan is used for the manufacturing of pharmaceutical aerosols).

2.2.9 Iran

One locally owned company (Sina-Darou) has produced CFC MDIs in Iran since April 1993. Iran previously reported that some 50 tonnes of CFCs were used for manufacturing MDIs. MTOC understands that approximately 90 tonnes of CFC was used to make MDIs in 2006.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 12 2.2.10 Mexico

According to a recent report, CFC MDIs have been produced in Mexico since 1999 by a locally owned company and by a multi-national company that requested imports of some 20 tonnes of CFC-114 for 2007. The national phase-out plan stated “the Government of Mexico will manage to phase out the MDI usage of CFCs without any assistance from the Multilateral

Fund”.

2.2.11 Pakistan

There are two MDI manufacturing companies in Pa kistan. One is a joint venture between a multi-national company and a local company (w ith 21 per cent ownership), which started production of MDIs in 1983; the other company started production of CFC MDIs in 2005. The number of MDIs imported into the country increased from about 450,000 units in 2003 to about 1,000,000 units in 2005. Of the total MDIs imported in 2005, about 500,000 units were imported for the first time, from one MDI manufacturing company in China.



## 2.3 Difficulties in the transition in Article 5 countries

In most developing countries there is limited inhaler use compared to developed countries, as a result of many factors, some of which are cost, prescribing practices, and patient and physician awareness. Further, transition to CFC-free MDIs has not been a high priority among many healthcare providers, who are generally the main point of contact with patients. Educational efforts and marketing by pharmaceuti cal companies have, for the most part, been the driving force in the uptake of CFC-free alternatives.

Based on the experience in non-Article 5 countri es, Article 5 countries that do not have an MDI manufacturing plant, or where MDIs are locally manufactured but predominantly by multi-national companies, national transition appr oaches may not have a large impact in the absence of support for transition to CFC-free alternatives from the multi-national MDI manufacturers or importers

All countries need a national CFC MDI transition plan involving all stakeholders, Government regulatory authorities, medical socie ties, and industry. As pharmaceutical-grade CFCs become less available, multi-national comp anies will need to rapidly introduce already developed CFC-free alternatives in Article 5 Pa rties. Prompt government regulatory support actions to approve new alternative products ar e important to assure seamless availability of inhaled therapy. Such transition strategies shoul d ensure adequate supplies of inhaled therapy throughout the transition period, including ade quate supplies of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs to complete the transition as well as CFC-free alternatives.

For Article 5 countries with current local CFC MDIs manufacture, there are three choices for

transition to CFC-free alternatives:

Option 1 – Complete redevelopm ent and conversion of plant; Option 2 – Use of a third party to deliver a turnkey operation (as in Cuba); Option 3 – Cease local production and rely on importing CFC-free alternatives (HFC MDIs and DPIs)

Transition will require an individualised solu tion. Some companies in Article 5 countries have the technical knowledge for transition without the need for external technology transfer, or financial support. Only a few countries that do not have access to modern aerosol/pharmaceutical technologies will need advice and support.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 13 2.3.1 Technology transfer and product development

While technology transfer would often appear most expedient to effect transition, as opposed to a wholly independent effort, there may be so me challenges to the transfer of technology for

some Article 5 countries. Some of these challenges are discussed below:

2.3.1.1 Finance

Some companies may have significant barriers to financing the development and implementation of new inhaler manufacturing capacity. A delay in seeking such funding, where needed, can introduce significant delays into the development whilst such funding is sought, obtained and negotiated.

2.3.1.2 Knowledge

Innovator pharmaceutical companies may be reluctant to transfer knowledge around formulations or processes to local co mpanies since this may lead to direct competition for their markets in the region. While there are generic companiesprepared to offer a turnkey solution, this can prove very expensive and timeconsuming. Nevertheless, this is a faster option than a local company starting now to develop this knowledge autonomously.

2.3.1.3 Equipment

In most Article 5 countries producing MDIs, orders are yet to be placed for the manufacturing equipment likely to be needed to produce HFC MDIs. This equipment may take significant time to obtain, and will impact on the ability of these countries to effect transition by 2010. There may also be lead times associated with the sourcing of valv es and canisters suitable for new HFC formulations. In this context, singl e-dose dry powder inhalers may be an excellent alternative in Article 5 countries. The technology needed for production is simple and cheap, allowing the set up of manufacturing units even in the smaller and traditionally non-producing countries.

2.3.1.4 Regulatory approvals

Not all countries have yet developed gui delines on the content of the regulatory submission for an HFC MDI or for a DPI product approval. In particular, the regulatory authorities in several Article 5 countries have not yet set a standard specification for pharmaceutical-grade HFC propellant and, therefore no standard samples exist. It would be useful if these authorities could also consider an expedited approval process; an example of such a process exists in Japan where products were approved within 3 months. At present, this is causing delay to the development and approval of substitute products.

2.3.1.5 Price

There has been concern about the potential price of CFC-free alternative MDIs. However, as transition has occurred and HFC MDI component prices have fallen, competition has kept prices comparable to those of CFC MDIs. If there is a disincentive to treatment due to price, governments could consider actions to lower the cost to the patients. An affo rdable supply of CFC-free MDIs may also

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 14 be available from the Asthma Drug Facilit y of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (IUATLD) (http://www.iuatld.org/index_en.phtml).

2.3.1.6 Patient acceptance

This has not been an impediment to tr ansition. Transition has been relatively seamless because replacement MDIs are very similar to the CFC product. Nevertheless, patient and professional organi sations need to r espond to individual patient questions that may arise.

2.3.2 Case Studies in Transition

The following three examples show the varied experiences of Article countries in transition converting CFC MDI manufacture to CFC-free alternatives.

2.3.2.1 Cuba

Cuba received a turnkey solution (as in Option 2 above). After a difficult process to procure technology, Cuba has now manufactured pilot batches with the assistance of a product development company, who are also assisting in registration and manufacturing installation

2.3.2.2 Uruguay

In Uruguay, the local manufacturer had a laboratory with experienced staff, so they were able to develop the CFC-free alternative products without the need for a technology provider. Funding from the MLF covered the other costs of conversion. Other enterprises and dist ributors of MDIs have entered into voluntary agreements with the Government on “a plan for transition to CFC-free MDIs”, which must be in accordance with the national MDI transition strategy.

HFC MDIs should be available from this manufacturer in 2007.

2.3.2.3 Croatia and Tunisia

MTOC understands that local manufactu rers in Croatia and Tunisia have

transitioned to CFC-free MDI manufacture without any external financial support for technology transfer.



## 2.4 CFC requirements to supply MDIs in 2010 and beyond

Table 2.1 summarizes MTOC’s analysis of CF C consumption for MDI manufacture in Article

5 countries.

For Article 5 countries, MTOC estimated CFC needs for those countries with local production

of CFC MDIs. Calculations were based on information prepared by the MLF for the 51 st


### meeting of the Executive Committee UNEP/OZl.Pro/ExCom/51/39 3 

### , Table 1. MTOC made additional assumptions regarding modest increases in annual consumption in line with general economic growth, along with estimated timing of full transition to local production of HFC

3 

### UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/51/39 , http://www.multilateralfund.org/files/51/5139.pdf

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 15 MDI alternatives. This was based on informa tion available regarding potential projects and existing availability of locally produced HFC MD Is. Some of the data have been adjusted

based on the local information available to MT OC: for example, the inclusion of Syria and new data for the Islamic Republic of Iran. MTOC is aware of local CFC MDI manufacturing in certain other Article 5 countries, for example South Africa and Algeria, but has insufficient information to include them in this analysis. Other countries, like Croatia and Tunisia, have already successfully converted domestic producti on of CFC MDIs to CFC-free alternatives.

The information in the table only presents CF C use for MDIs up to and including 2010. However, given the current status of trans ition and technology development a few countries may require continuing production of CFC MDIs beyond 2010, which MTOC estimates

should not exceed about 300 tonnes. Estimates in Table 2.1 show continued growth until the phase-out date for each country. Although th is is an unlikely scenario for countries implementing transition, it was chosen to pr ovide an upper estimate of CFC requirements.

Table 2.1 Estimated CFC requirements fo r Article 5 countries with local CFC MDI production*

*For 2006-2010 estimates do not include consumption by multi-national companies



### Although for 2005 the table shows about 400 tonnes of CFCs used by multinationals operating in Article 5 countries, it has been assu med that this use will decrease to zero in 2009. It should be noted, however, that the to tal quantities given for the years 2006 – 2010 do not include these quantities. MTOC believes that in some cases, the data in the column for total CFC consumption for MDIs in 2005 may be over-estimated due to uncertainties about whether they include quantities for imports or local production by multinational companies.

There may be a need for continued production of CFC MDIs beyond 2009 to supply the needs of Article 5 country patients for a limited period. This supply of MDIs to Article 5 countries from either local manufacture or imported produc ts would require a supply of pharmaceuticalgrade CFCs. This would need to be produced under a mechanism under the Montreal

Protocol.

Based on this analysis, Parties may wish to c onsider whether the CFCs needed in 2010, and for any year beyond that, should be supplied either by:

• Continued annual production of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs; or

• A final campaign production in 2009. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Nationally-owned Nationally - owned Projected Consumption

Countries with an a pp roved p ro j ect for the com p lete p hase-out of CFCs for MDIs

Cuba 109.00 109.00 114.45 120.17 126.18 Egypt 159.50 159.50 163.00 171.15 179.71 188.69 198.13 Uruguay 10.00 10.00 10.50 11.03 11.58

Subtotal 278.50 278.50 287.95 302.35 317.46 188.69 198.13 Countries without an approved project for the complete phase-out of CFCs for MDIs Argentina 187.70 130.90 143.99 158.39 174.23 191.65 210.82 Bangladesh 61.80 51.40 76.00 83.60 91.96 101.16 111.27

Brazil 156.90 10.00 11.00 12.10 13.31 14.64

China 418.50 369.00 405.90 446.49 491.14 540.25

Colombia 2.10 2.10 2.31 2.54 2.80 3.07

India 748.30 703.40 773.74 851.11 936.23 1,029.85

Indonesia 30.10 30.10 33.11 36.42 40.06 44.07 48.48

Iran 68.20 68.20 96.40 106.04 116.64 128.31 141.14

Mexico 47.50 47.50 52.25 57.48 63.22 69.54 76.50

Pakistan 85.80 1.96 2.16 2.37 2.61 2.87 Syria 20.00 20.00 22.00 24.20 26.62 29.28 32.21

Subtotal 1,826.90 1,434.56 1,618.86 1,780.74 1,958.82 2,154.70 588.20
Total 2,105.40 1,713.06 1,906.81 2,083.09 2,276.28 2,343.39 786.33 CFC consum p tion for MDI ( 2005 )

Countr y

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 16 2.4.1 Technical Option Appraisal – Annual Production of CFCs in 2010 and beyond

Bulk pharmaceutical-grade CFCs could theore tically be produced after 2009 by a number of current CFC producers in both non-Article 5 and Article 5 countries (Spain, the United States, India, China, Republic of Korea) through oper ating specific campaigns. However, a number of constraints limit the feasibility of this option.

• There is a certain minimum production quantity (estimated by one company as 200 tonnes) for a single CFC (CFC 11, 12 or 114) necessary for the efficient manufacture of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs. Given the projected quantities, it is likely that several small or ders would need to be aggregated to meet this minimum production level. This would give rise to uncertainty as to the timing of any production and therefore also availability.

• Orders made by CFC MDI manufacturers for CFCs can only be placed with those suppliers for which regulatory approval has been obtained for a specific drug formulation. As CFC producers st op production through rationalisation, regulatory approval for a new supplier coul d take so long as to be impractical. This could further constrain the ability of the CFC producer to aggregate

orders.

• Producers have indicated that firm or ders for pharmaceutical-grade CFCs would need to be placed at least 3 months in advance to allow planning of any campaign to a certain timeline. CFC producing companies would require up-front, legally binding orders for prod uction. This process needs to take

into account commercial issues such as anti-competitive practices. The liability for future destruction of unsold CFCs would remain with the CFC MDI manufacturing company. The requirements of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal would need to be considered.

• Even where quantities exceed 200 tonnes, the production of pharmaceuticalgrade CFCs would generate 25-50 pe r cent of non-pharmaceutical-grade CFCs as a by-product. After 2009, these non-pharmaceutical-grade CFCs would have to be destroyed since there would be no basic domestic use in the subsequent years. Destruction costs of $3 - $5/kg would need to be built into the cost of production of pharmaceutic al-grade CFCs, leading to an increase in price and making them comparable to HFCs. It is also important to notethat the smaller the production run the higher the proportion of nonpharmaceutical-grade CFCs that would need to be destroyed and the higher the price of the final product.

• Due to current laws and regulations , companies within the European Community and the United States cannot produce CFCs after 31 December 2009 unless the CFCs are designated as production for “essential use.” Therefore if CFC production is required beyond 2009 for the manufacture of MDIs in Article 5 countries, and in the absence of regulatory change, production by CFC producers in the United States or the European Community would need to be designate d by the Parties as being for essential

uses.

If annual CFC production to manufacture MDIs in Article 5 countries is considered, a mechanism very similar to that used curre ntly for the essential use nominations by non-

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 17 Article 5 countries would be required. This mech anism would need to be put into effect by the Parties in 2007 to allow for the evaluation of nominations in 2008 so that production under this process could begin in or before 2010.

MTOC notes that this option would allow CFC manufacture to take place beyond the final CFC phase-out date for Article 5 Parties of 31 December 2009. MTOC believes that if an annual production process is developed, Parties may wish to set a future date beyond which any such annual production is no longer allowed. This date could be chosen to allow the Article 5 countries to complete transition but wo uld make clear the firm outer limits of all CFC production under the Montreal Protocol. In the final period of any annual process, as quantities decrease, a final campaign will still be necessary in order to avoid an abrupt cessation of adequate product availability.

2.4.2 Technical Option Appraisal – Final Campaign Production of CFCs in 2009 for use in 2010 and beyond

A second option would be to allow the production of sufficient CFCs in 2009 to cover the manufacture of CFC MDIs needed to complete the transition in Article 5 countries. While some CFC MDIs may need to be manufacture d in Article 5 countries in 2010 and beyond,

MTOC believes that CFCs for these MDIs can a ll be manufactured before the end of 2009.

These CFCs could be manufactured in a final campaign production together with CFCs that are required for use in 2009.

MTOC has provided an estimate of CFC needs for 2009 and 2010 in Table 3.1. CFC requirements for years beyond 2010 are currently difficult to estimate due to uncertainties in the rate of transition but are likely to be sm all. MTOC estimates that the total quantities required in such a campaign are modest (possibly 4,000 tonnes for Article 5 and non-Article 5 countries) and would not exceed current CFC production capacity. However, in order to assure patient health, and to avoid excess productio n of CFCs (that would later need to be destroyed), these estimates would need to be mo re precisely defined during 2008, to allow a final campaign production in 2009.

It also would be necessary for the orders to be received by the CFC manufacturers sufficiently in advance to allow them to take these qua ntities into account for their 2009 production schedules. CFC manufacturers would need firm orders early in 2009.

From a CFC manufacturing point of view, it would be considerably easier to produce CFCs during a final campaign in 2009 rather than manufacturing CFCs annually for "essential uses". A final CFC campaign could be an ex tension of a normal CFC production run; this would minimise the production of non-pharm aceutical-grade CFCs (which in 2009 and thereafter could not be used for basic domestic needs and therefore would require destruction).

The major concern for a final campaign would be ensuring that adequate high-quality storage facilities were available, together with careful consideration of location, management and

distribution. MDI manufacturers would also n eed to pay upfront for the pharmaceutical-grade

CFCs.

Any campaign post-2010 to produce pharmaceuti cal-grade CFCs would have a number of disadvantages. In particular, smaller produc tion runs would result in relatively larger quantities of non-pharmaceutical-grade CFCs post-2010 that would require destruction and add to costs. Another disadvantage would be the timing of such a production run. It would be necessary for a CFC producer to collect suffici ent orders for pharmaceutical-grade CFCs to

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 18 make a production run viable, with the result that it would be difficult to guarantee a date for production. Alternatively, a producer could announce a date for production, but then the minimum quantity required to initiate a produc tion run may still not be achieved by the announced date. Either way, potential s upply and delivery problems to the MDI

manufacturers could result.

MDI manufacturers in Article 5 countries would also need to consider liability issues for destruction of any remaining unused CFCs, including consideration of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal

.

A final campaign in 2009 would require Article 5 Parties to have deve loped and implemented CFC MDI phase-out strategies that define the quan tities of CFCs required. It would also be necessary to consider the specific situation of each country requiring CFCs to manufacture MDIs. For instance, in a final campaign so me countries may have overall requirements for

CFCs for MDI manufacture that in 2009 woul d place them in potential non-compliance with the phase-out schedule for Article 5 countries under the Montreal Protocol.

2.4.3 Information needed to define quan tities for a final campaign production of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs in 2009

Any Party (Article 5 and non-Article 5 c ountries) that might require CFCs for MDI manufacture for use in an Article 5 country for 2010 and beyond would need to provide specific information in early 2008, in order for Parties to make a decision at their meeting in late 2008 and authorise production in 2009. Fo r non-Article 5 Parties, the existing essential use process could be used to consider quantities for a final campaign. However for Article 5 Parties a process is needed to assess and gr ant quantities of CFCs for a final campaign production.

In order to calculate the quantities to be produced in a final campaign, the following information will need to be taken into account on a country-by-country basis:

• Country transition strategy for CFC MDIs, including a phase-out date for CFC MDI production

• Quantity required for each year (2009 and beyond), and historical 3 year consumption data

• Within the Party, a summary of conversion projects for CFC MDI manufacturing plants, including: timelines; availability of manufacturing equipment, delivery and commissioning dates;

• Availability of CFC-free alternatives from local manufacture and from import, status of CFC-free MDI de velopment and approval, timing of introduction, relative pricing of imports compared with locally manufactured products and whether this presents a barrier to transition

• Information on storage capacity, facilities and capabilities, access to

destruction facilities and considerati on of Basel Convention requirements

• The date CFC MDI production commenced (to avoid start-up in 2009)

• Access to stockpile

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 19 An annual accounting process may also be needed to track the quantities of CFCs: produced for MDI manufacture; used in MDI manufact ure; within exported finished product; stockpiled; and destroyed.

The Technology Economic Assessment Panel ( TEAP) and its MTOC can assist Parties at their request in their assessment of this information in 2008.

There may be other mechanisms to source an affordable supply of CFC-free MDIs, for example the Asthma Drug Facility of the Intern ational Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (IUATLD) (http://www.iuatld.org/index_en. phtml). Article 5 countries may also wish to consider stopping the import of CFC MDIs after a certain date.

2.4.4 Conclusions

MTOC believes that there should be no need for new manufacture of CFCs for MDIs beyond

2009 for non-Article 5 countries for use within those countries.

CFC MDI production for Article 5 countries may need to continue for some limited period beyond 2010. However, MTOC be lieves that it will be possible to complete a global phaseout of the manufacture of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs (for MDI manufacture) by the end of 2009. This may require a final campaign in 2009 of up to 4,000 tonnes of CFCs for MDIs to include requirements for 2009, and requiremen ts for all CFC MDI production for 2010 and beyond for Article 5 and non-Article 5 countries.

On the current assessment, India is likely to be the single largest global user of CFCs for MDIs in 2008. A final campaign quantity of 4,000 tonnes assumes a complete phase-out of CFC MDI manufacture in India by the end of 2009. If, for example, India were to transition sooner, the final campaign could be substantially smaller. Another variable is the potential

transfer of stocks from non-Article 5 countries to Article 5 countries as the former complete phase-out around 2009. If significant stockpile were available and transferred from nonArticle 5, the final campaign would also be smaller.

MTOC has serious concerns about the security of supply of diminishing quantities of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs if the option of annual production of CF Cs for 2009, 2010 and beyond was chosen.

MTOC believes that a final campaign production in 2009 is technically feasible without harm to patient health. The success of final campaign production is contingent on:

• India and China completing the transitio n for which they will have adequate alternatives and industrial capacity;

• The remaining few countries phase out CFC MDI manufacture;

• A Decision being taken in 2007 to undertake final campaign, with CFC quantities accurately defined in 2008 based on information submitted by Parties. This process would allow CF C production orders to be placed in early 2009.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 21 

# 3 Medical Technical Option s Committee (MTOC) Progress Report

3.1 Transition to alternatives to CFC MDIs

The Medical Technical Options Committee (MTOC) provided an extensive review of the use of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) metered dose inhale rs (MDIs) and alternatives for inhalation therapy in its Assessment Report 2006 (see http://ozone.unep.org/teap/Reports/MTO C/MTOC_Assessment_Report_2006.pdf).



## 3.2 Global Use of CFCs for MDIs

The global use of CFCs to manufacture MDIs in 2006 is estimated to be over 4,000 tonnes, of which about 50 per cent is used in Article 5 Parties.

Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1 show the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for the manufacture of metered dose inhalers (MDIs) for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

in non-Article 5 countries.

In 2006, 2,107 tonnes of CFCs were used by non-Article 5 countries in MDI manufacture under essential use exemptions, as reported throu gh accounting frameworks. This represents a 23 per cent reduction in use compared to 2005, and a 76 per cent reduction in use compared with the year of maximum use in 1997 (8,905 tonnes). The nominated/exempted amount for 2008 is 913 tonnes of CFCs. Approximately 200 tonnes of the nominated essential use quantities for 2008 are for export from the Eur opean Community to Article 5 Parties.

Figure 3.1 Quantities of CFCs for MDI manufacture in non-Article 5(1) countries

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Yea r

Nominated or exempted Used Stock

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 22 Table 3.1 Quantities (in tonnes) of CFCs for MDI manufacture in non-Article 5 countries

Year of

Essential Use Amount Exempted/ Nominated for year

of Essential Use Used for Essential

Use On Hand End of

Year

1996 12,987.20 8,241.13 7,129.59

1997 13,548.00 8,904.99 8,515.24

1998 11,720.18 8,013.60 7,656.63

1999 9,442.13 7,906.35 5,653.95

2000 8,364.95 6,062.75 5,433.32

2001 6,126.53 6,121.62 4,402.59

2002 6,714.75 4,751.92 4,133.71

2003 6,641.55 4,261.91 3,570.27

2004 5,443.12 2,840.82 2,460.10

2005 3,321.10 2,735.40 3,671.01 *

2006 2,039.00 2,107.10** 2,957.37 *

2007 1,778.00 - -

2008 913.00 - -

2009 282.00 - -

*Includes newly repor ted pre-1996 stock **Includes material approved in 2005 but used in 2006 in the Russian Federation



### Technically satisfactory alternatives to CFC MD Is are available for short-acting beta-agonists and a wide array of other therapeutic categori es for asthma and COPD. The availability of CFC stocks coupled with these alternatives assures patient safety during the transition.

The management of stockpiles at this final st age of the phase-out will be extremely important to avoid unnecessary production of CFCs and th e need for large quantities to be destroyed after the phase-out date. To ensure transp arency, any pre-1996 stocks should be accounted for in the Reporting Accounting Framework for Essential Uses. In addition, Decision IV/25 ( Report of the TEAP, May 2005, Progress Report , section 1.1.4.1, pg 35) requires companies that hold pre-1996 stocks to use them first before using newly produced CFCs.

Table 3.2 shows the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for the manufacture of MDIs for asthma and COPD in many Article 5 countries. Unfortunately, this does not represent a complete picture, with information missi ng for some countries with known domestic production of CFC MDIs, such as Algeria and South Africa.

In 2005, Article 5 countries used about 2,100 tonnes of CFCs for MDI manufacture in those

countries for which data are available. About 81 per cent of this was by locally owned companies manufacturing CFC MDIs; multi-na tionals operating in Article 5 countries account for the remaining 19 per cent of CFC u se for MDIs. With increasing use of CFCs for MDIs in Article 5 countries, it is likely that CF C use for the manufacture of MDIs in Article 5

countries will exceed that in non-Article 5 countries in 2007.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 23 Table 3.2 Quantities (in tonnes) of CFCs fo r MDI manufacture in Article 5 countries*

* 

### Data taken from sources including UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/51/39, http://www.multilateralfund.org/files/51/5139.pdf



## 3.3 Transition strategies

Transition strategies from 6 Parties are listed on the Ozone Secretariat’s web site. Pursuant toDecision XV/5(4), plans of action regarding the phase-out of the domestic use of CFCcontaining MDIs from the European Community, the Russian Federation and the United

States are also listed on the Ozone Secretariat’s web site.

According to Executive Co mmittee Decision 45/54, Low Volume Countries (LVCs) submitting Terminal Phase-Out Management Pl ans (TPMPs) can obtain up to US$30,000 for MDI transition strategies upon provision of basic data demonstrating the need for such a strategy. However, there is the additional issue of whether funding can be extended to

countries that have either submitted their TPMPs before the 45 th 

### Meeting of the Executive Committee or are not LVCs. Furthermore, according to the Executive Committee report, Options for Addressing the Situation of Countries Referred to in Decision XVII/14 of the 17 th


### Meeting of the Parties (Follow-up to Decision 49/33) 4 

### , a number of Article 5 countries with major manufacture of CFC MDIs are still in th e process of preparing transition strategies.

3.3.1 Progress reports on transition strategies

Under Decision XII/2, Parties are required to repor t to the Secretariat by 31 January each year on progress made in transition to CFC-free MDIs . In 2007, a report was received from the People’s Republic of China on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR).

In 2002, the Government of the HKSAR submittedits strategy to facilitate transition to CFCfree MDIs. All MDIs in the HKSAR are impor ted products. Major registered substitutes available on the market include dry powder i nhalers (DPIs) and hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) MDIs. In 2005, the percentages of consum ption of CFC-free MDIs, CFC MDIs and DPIs were 81, 16 and 3 per cent respectively.

4 

### (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/51/39, http://www. multilateralfund.org/files/51/5139.pdf) 

### Total Nationally-owned Argentina 187.70 130.90 Bangladesh 61.80 51.40

Brazil 156.90 10.00

China 418.50 369.00

Colombia 2.10 2.10

Cuba 109.00 109.00 Egypt 159.50 159.50

India 748.30 703.40

Indonesia 30.10 30.10

Iran 68.20 68.20

Mexico 47.50 47.50

Pakistan 85.80 1.96 Syria 20.00 20.00 Uruguay 10.00 10.00

Total 2095.40 1703.06 Countr y CFC consum p tion for MDIs ( 2005 )

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 24 3.4 Global database

Under Decision XIV/5, Parties are requested to submit information on CFC and CFC-free alternatives to the Secretariat by 28 February each year. In 2007, reports were only received from Australia, Bulgaria, Eur opean Community, and Uruguay. Twenty-two Article 5 Parties have submitted data pursuant to Decision XIV/ 5 since its inception. These are Argentina, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Chin a, Croatia, Cuba, Eritrea, Georgia, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Macedonia, Ma laysia, Mauritius, Moldova, Namibia, Oman, Romania, Sri Lanka, and Uruguay 5



### .

5 

### (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/51/39, http://www. multilateralfund.org/files/51/5139.pdf)

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 25 

# 4 Chemicals Technical Options Committee (CTOC) Progress Report

4.1 Executive Summary

4.1.1 Process Agents (XVII/6, 7 and 8)

The CTOC examined the process agents listed in table A of decision XVII/7 and recommends that the thirty nine process agents can be grouped in ways that will be helpful for the Parties in their decision-making.

In the first group the CTOC places eighteen process agents which meet the technical criteria set out in Decision X/14 and which are still in active use, and for which there are no identified alternatives. The process agents in this group are #1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 31, 35, 38 and 39. India has advised that two of the process agents listed above, #4 and #6, will be phased out by the end of 2007. The CTOC reco mmends that they remain in Table A until the processes are no longer active.

In the second group are five process agents that me et the technical criteria but are no longer in active use. These process agents that could thus be removed from Table A are #9, 16, 17, 18 and 29. China advised that #29 overlapped to #30. The CT OC finds that this is thus a duplicate entry

and recommends that it be removed from Table A.

Thirdly, there are twelve process agents that the CTOC believes could be replaced by no- or low- ODP alternatives, including not-in-ki nd substitutes. In each case, some process development would be required, and expenditure would be required for this development and possibly for new items of manufacturing plant. Th e process agents that could be replaced are #3, 5, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 36.

Finally, there is a group of process agents about which no information was received in response to the call for information arising from Decisi on XVII/6(2). These four process agents in this group (#32, 33, 34 and 37), although having initially been judged to meet the technical criteria of Decision X/14, must be classified as ‘unable to assess’.

The 29 new process agent applications listed in table A-bis in decision XVIII/8 were reviewed and the CTOC recommends that 11 applications (#40, 44, 46, 51, 53, 54, 56 59, 60, 67 and 68) meet the technical criteria for process agent uses but the other 18 applications do not meet the criteria (10 (#41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 55 , 58 and 62) because the process is no longer operated, and 7 (#49, 57, 61, 63, 64, 65 and 66) because they are feedstock applications). One case (#42) was unable to assess due to no information received.

Besides the tables A and A-bis mentioned a bove, another list of potential process agent applications with 29 cases has been submitted by Ch ina to the CTOC for its considerations. The CTOC made preliminary studies of those cases and c oncluded that 18 applications (#2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 (one of the two plants), 14, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29) meet the technical criteria of process agents and could be listed by Parties as process agent uses, once complete information is provided as required by the pro cess agent criteria. Until that information is received, the CTOC is ‘unable to assess’.

Limited information about emissions and make -up quantities of ODS used on process agents

was available.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 26 4.1.2 EUN of CFC-113 by Russian Federation (XVIII/8)

The documents submitted by Russian Federati on have been reviewed by the TEAP/CTOC. They disclose the selection measures and the major applications of CFC-113 as cleaning and degreasing solvent and unsuccessful results of resear ch to find alternatives to CFC-113. They also disclose a willingness to import CFC-113 for this purpose. The Russian Federation cannot make the planned transition to non-ODS in their aerospace program any sooner than is proposed, and therefore the CTOC recommends the EUE for 2008 and 2009. If suitable supplies of CFC-113 can be obtained from foreign sources, it will not be necessary to use newly

manufactured CFC-113.

The CTOC will collaborate with rocket and aeros pace experts to provide technical supports to the Russian Federation during the interim pe riod. The useful experiences in the space technology in USA, Kazakhstan a nd Poland gained by the solvent experts in the CTOC will able to provide the advice for selecting alternative solvents to CFC-113 as well as improvements on containment systems through the collaboration in order to realize the time schedule of reducing the CFC-113 use planned by Russian Federation by 2010.

4.1.3 Normal-Propyl Bromide (n-PB) Update (XVIII/11)

n-PB is available in most regions, including As ia, with local productions in China, France, Israel, Jordan and the USA. The global consumpti on, as a solvent, increased at a growing rate of 15-20% per year. It reached a plateau in 2005 but since then it seems to be declining in Europe and Japan. The global n-PB emission is estimated to be 5,000 to 10,000 metric tonnes per year. In Europe, n-PB use has been progressively phased out due to various la belling reclassifications

as well as the 1999 VOC-Directive.

The use of n-PB is promoted by its vendo rs as a substitute for trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, HCFC-141b and ozone depl eting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in many applications. Thus its continuing use is s upported by industry bodies, because it offers an effective replacement for solvents with higher ODP and chlorocarbons.

Based on recent findings and until more toxicological test data becomes available, the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH ), for example, has recommended exposure guidelines for n-PB containing solvent to be limited to 10 ppm. So far only one of the n-PB vendors has reduced their recommended exposure guidelines to 10 ppm.

4.1.4 Sources of carbon tetrachloride emissions and opportunities for reductions (XVIII/10)

The CTOC study on this issue is still in progress and not yet complete, but can report the following results on the potential emissions of CTC from landfills. The levels of CTC resulting

from emissions from landfills could be of the order of a few hundred tonnes per annum in

OECD countries. These calculations indicate that there is insufficient concentration of CTC in landfill gas to account for the discrepancy between estimated industrial emissions of CTC and concentrations measured in the atmosphere. Ot her potential sources could include release from historical chemical dumps and emissions from groundwater contaminated with CTC but it is unlikely that such sources could provide sufficient sustained releases to account for the apparent discrepancy.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 27 4.1.5 Laboratory and analytical uses of methyl bromide (XVII/10 )

The CTOC considered this matter early in 2007 but was unable to provide any new information. It continues to review this issue, with a vi ew to providing relevant information in future Progress Reports.



## 4.2 Introduction

The CTOC was mindful of the need for a limited report following its contribution to the TEAP 2006 Assessment Report, and also of the request to consider the appropriateness of limited or less frequent meetings so as to ease pressu re on the meetings budget. The Committee approached the task of preparing its 2007 Progr ess Report by allocating particular tasks to subgroups.

A sub-group consisting of approxima tely half of the membership of the CTOC met in Singapore on 13-16 February, 2007. That subgroup include d co-chairs: Ian Rae, Masaaki Yamabe and Jiang Biao; members: D.D. Arora, Steven Bernhardt, Jianxin Hu, Abid Merchant, Claudia Paratori, Hans Porre and Nee Sun Choong Kwet Yive (Robert). Work was undertaken in accordance with decisions XVII/6, XVII/7, XVII/ 8, and XVIII/8 to review the process agent applications in Table A and Table A-bis, and al so to form a response to the request by the Russian Federation for an Essential Use Exempti on for the use of CFC-113 in 2008-2010. The meeting also discussed a list of potential process agents submitted by China. The TEAP and the CTOC highly appreciate the Sino Chem. Corporation and the Asahi Glass Singapore Chemicals Pte for the support of the meeting expenses and for the arrangement of accommodations, respectively.

Responses to decisions XVIII/11 (n-propyl bromide), XVIII/10 (CTC) and XVII/10 (laboratory and analytical uses of methyl bromide) we re developed mainly by e-mail correspondenceamong CTOC members led by the corresponding lead authors, with information flowing to cochairs for incorporation in the 2007 Progress Report.



## 4.3 Process Agents

4.3.1 The CTOC review of Table A (decision XVII/6(7))

Decision XVII/6(7) taken at the Dakar MOP in 2005 included the following:

To request the Technology and economic Asse ssment Panel to review the information

submitted in accordance with this decisi on and to report and make recommendations to

the Parties at their Twentieth Meeti ng in 2008, and every other year thereafter, on process-agent use exemptions; on insignificant emission associated with a use, and process-agent uses that could be added or de leted from table A of the decision X/14;

Table A in decision XVII/7 was adopted as a revised table A for decision X/14 and subsequent revision through decisions at later Meetings of th e Parties, and all the 39 applications have been recognized as process agent uses. The CTOC ma de an interim study for its report in 2008 on whether the process referred to in each case was still in operation or no longer operated by the information sought from Parties’ reporting. The r esults of the review of each of the 39 process agents are shown in Table 4.1.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 28 Table 4.1 Current status of the process agent applications in table A

No. Process agent application Substance Party References Parties Reporting Current Status on Operation

1. Elimination of NCl3 in the production of

chlorine and caustic CTC USA

Other A(5) and non-A(5)

countries 1997 and

2001 PATF (Case Study #1) Not all Parties practising it. USA, EU, Brazil,

Israel and Mexico reported Process still operated

2. Recovery of chlorine in tail gas from production of chlorine CTC USA

Other A(5) and non-A(5)

countries 1997 and

2001 PATF (Case Study #2) Not all Parties practising it.

USA and EU reported. Process still operated

3. Manufacture of

chlorinated rubber CTC China, India, EU(Italy, Germany ) 1997 and

2001 PATF (Case Study #3) EU and China still practising it.

India converted it

in 2005 Process still operated in EU and

China Could be replaced by non-ODS

4. Manufacture of endosulphan (insecticide) CTC India 1997 and

2001 PATF (Case Study #4) India converting it by December 2007 Process still operated

5. Manufacture of isobutyl acetophenone (ibuprofen – analgesic) CTC India

EU 1997 and

2001 PATF (Case Study #5) India converted it

in 2000. EU still practising

it Process still operated in EU Could be replaced by non-ODS

6. Manufacture of 1-1, bis (4-chlorophenyl) 2,2,2- trichloroethanol (dicofol insecticide) CTC India 1997 and

2001 PATF (Case Study #6) India converting it by 2007. Process still operated

7. Manufacture of chlorosulphonated polyolefin (CSM) CTC China,

USA 1997 PATF

and 2001

PATF Case Study #7) China and USA still practising it. Process still operated

8. Manufacture of polyphenylene-terephtalAmide CTC EU (Netherla nds) 1997 and

2001PATF (Case Study #8) EU still practising

it Process still operated

9. Manufacture of fluoropolymer resins CFC-113 USA,

China 1997 and

2001 PATF (Case Study #9) Both USA and China stopped to

use it. No longer operated

10. Manufacture of fine synthetic polyolefin

fiber sheet CFC-11 USA,

EU 1997 and

2001 PATF (Case Study #10) USA and EU still practising it Process still operated

11. Manufacture of styrene butadiene

rubber CTC Brazil, Republic

of

Korea 2001 PATF (Case Study #11) Both Brazil and Republic of Korea no longer in operation. No longer operated

12. Manufacture of chlorinated paraffin CTC China,

India 2001 PATF (Case Study #12) China still practising it? India stopped operation

in 2005. Process still operated in China?

No use in India.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 29 No. Process agent application Substance Party References Parties Reporting Current Status on Operation

13. Photochemical synthesis of perfluoropolyetherpol yperoxide precursors

of Zperfluoropolyethers

and difunctional

derivatives CFC-12 EU 2002 TEAP

2001PATF (Case Study #14) EU still practising

it Process still operated

14. Reduction of perfluoropolyetherpol yperoxide

intermediate for production of perfluoropolyether

diesters CFC-113 EU 2002 TEAP

2001PATF (Case Study #15) EU still practising

it Process still operated

15. Preparation of perfluoropolyether diols with high functionality CFC-113 EU 2002 TEAP

2001PATF (Case Study #16) EU still practising

it Process still operated

16. Bromohexine hydrochloride CTC India 2001 PATF (Case Study #19) India converted it

in 2000. No longer operated

17. Diclofenac sodium CTC India 2001 PATF (Case Study

#20 India converted it

in 2000 No longer operated

18. Phenyl glycine CTC India 2001 PATF (Case Study #22) India converted it

in 2000. No longer operated

19. Production of Cyclodime CTC EU,

China 2002 TEAP

2001 PATF (Case Study #26) EU and China still practising it Process still operated Could be replaced by non-ODS

20. Production of

chlorinated polypropene CTC China 2002 TEAP Progress Report Chapter 9 (No.34) China still practising it Process still operated

21. Production of

chlorinated EVA CTC China 2002 TEAP (No.35) China still practising it Process still operated

22. Production of methyl isocyanate

derivatives CTC China 2002 TEAP (No.36) China still practising it Process still operated Could be replaced by non-ODS

23. Production of 3- phenoxy benzaldehyde CTC China 2002 TEAP (No.37) China still practising it Process still operated Could be replaced by non-ODS

24. Production of 2-

chloro-5- methylpyridine CTC China 2002 TEAP (No.38) China still practising it Process still operated Could be replaced by non-ODS

25. Production of Imidacloprid CTC China 2002 TEAP (No.39) China still practising it Process still operated Could be replaced by non-ODS

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 30 No. Process agent application Substance Party References Parties Reporting Current

Status on Operation

26. Production of Buprofenzin CTC China 2002 TEAP (No.40) China still practicing it Process still operated

Could be replaced by

non-ODS

27. Production of

Oxadiazon CTC China 2002 TEAP (No.41) China still practising it Process still operated

Could be replaced by

non-ODS

28. Production of

chloradized Nmethylaniline CTC China 2002 TEAP (No.42) China still practising it Process still operated

Could be replaced by

non-ODS

29. Production of

Mefenacet CTC China 2002 TEAP (No.43) China still practising it only in the production of its intermediate, DCBT.(See #30) Recommend

to delete

30. Production of DCBT (1,3-

dichlorobenzothiazole ) CTC China 2002 TEAP (No.44) China still practising it Process still operated

Could be replaced by

non-ODS

31. Bromination of a styrenic polymer BCM USA 2002 TEAP (No.45) USA still practising it Process still operated

32. Synthesis of ascorbic

acid CTC DPR

Korea 2004 PATF Waiting for

information from

DPR Korea No

information

33. Synthesis of ciprofloxacin CTC DPR

Korea 2004 PATF Waiting for

information from

DPR Korea No

information

34. Synthesis of

norfloxacin CTC DPR

Korea 2004 PATF Waiting for

information from

DPR Korea No

information

35. Synthesis of 2,4D (2,4- dichlorophenoxyaceti c acid) CTC Romania 2004 PATF (2006 TEAP) Romania still practising it Process still operated

36. Synthesis of DHEPC (di (2-ethylhexyl) peroxydicarbonate ) CTC Romania 2004 PATF (2006 TEAP) Romania still practising it Process still operated

Could be replaced by

non-ODS

37. Production of sodium dichloroisocyanurate CTC DPR

Korea 2004 PATF Waiting for

information from

DPR Korea No

information

38. Production of radiolabelled cyanocobalamin CTC EU (UK) 2004 PATF EU still practising

it Process still operated

39. Production of high modulus polyethylene

fiber CFC-113 USA 2004 PATF USA still practising it Process still operated

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 31 The thirty nine process agents can be grouped in wa ys that will be helpful for the Parties in their decision-making.

In the first group the CTOC places eighteen process agents which meet the technical criteria set out in Decision X/14 and which are still in active use, and for which there are no obvious alternatives. The process agents in this group are:

#1 CTC in elimination of NCl 3 

### in production of chlorine and caustic #2 CTC in recovery of chorine in tail gas from production of chlorine #4 CTC in manufacture of endosulphan (insecticide)* #6 CTC in manufacture of 1,1-bis(4-chloro phenyl)2,2,2-trichloroethanol (docofol, insecticide)* #7 CTC in manufacture of chlorosulfonated polyolefin CSM) #8 CTC in manufacture of polyphenylene terephthalamide #10 CFC-113 in manufacture of fine synthetic polyolefin sheet #11 CTC in manufacture of styrene butadiene rubber #12 CTC in manufacture of chlorinated paraffin#13 CFC-12 in photochemical synthesis of perfluorpolyetherpolyperoxide precursors of Zperfluoropolyethers and difunctional derivatives #14 CFC-113 in reduction of perfluoropolyetherpol yperoxide intermediate for production of perfluoropolyether diesters #15 CFC-113 in production of perfluoropolye therdiols with high functionality #20 CTC in production of chlorinated polypropylene #21 CTC in production of chlorinated EVA #31 BCM in bromination of styrenic polymer #35 CTC in production of 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid #38 CTC in production of radio-labeled cyanocobalamin #39 CFC-113 in production of high modulus polyethylene fibre

* India has advised that two of the pro cess agents listed above, #4 and #6, will be phased out by the end of 2007. The CTOC r ecommends that they remain in table A until the processes are no longer active.

In the second group are five process agents that me et the technical criteria but are no longer in active use. These process agents could be removed from table A:

#9 CFC-113 in manufacture of fluoropolymer resins #16 CTC in manufacture of bromohexine hydrochloride

#17 CTC in manufacture of dicofenac sodium #18 CTC in manufacture of phenyl glycine #29 CTC in production of mefanacet*

* China advises that the last of these process agents (#29) relates to the production of DCBT (1,3-dichlorobenzothiazole, #30). The CTOC finds that this is thus a duplicate entry and recommends that it be removed from table A.

Thirdly, there are twelve process agents th at the CTOC believes could be replaced by

alternatives that are low-ODP or no-ODP subs tances and processes. In each case, some process development would be required, and expenditure would be required for this development and possibly for new items of manufacturing plant. Th e process agents that could be replaced are:

#3 CTC in manufacture of chlorinated rubber #5 CTC in manufacture of isobutyl acetophenone (ibuprofen, analgesic) #19 CTC in production of cyclodime

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 32 #22 CTC in production of methyl isocyanate derivatives #23 CTC in production of 3-phenoxy benzaldehyde #24 CTC in production of 2-chloro-5-methylpyridine #25 CTC in production of imidocloprid #26 CTC in production of buprofenzin #27 CTC in production of oxadiazon #28 CTC in production of chloradized N-methylaniline #30 CTC in production of DCBT (1,3-dichlorobenzothiazole) #36 CTC in production of di-(2-ethylhexyl)peroxydicarbonate

Finally, there is a group of process agents about which no information was received in response to the call for information in decision XVII/6(2). These four process agents in this group, while having initially been judged to meet the technical criteria of Decision X/14, must be classified

as ‘unable to assess’.

#32 CTC in synthesis of ascorbic acid #33 CTC in synthesis of ciprofloxacin #34 CTC in synthesis of norfloxacin #37 CTC in production of sodium dichloroisocyanurate

Updated information will be expected from th e relevant Parties by 31 December 2007 for the rest of 34 applications for the further assessment in 2008.

4.3.2 The CTOC review of interim table A-bis (decision XVII/8)

At the Dakar meeting of the Parties, 29 new a pplications were received for process agents as

shown in the interim table A bis of decision XV II/8. The TEAP/CTOC was requested to review those applications and advise if they could incl ude in a reassessed table A for decision X/14 and report in 2007 to MOP-19.

Since the applications listed in interim table A-bis had not previously been reviewed by the TEAP/CTOC, it was necessary to seek informati on on the nature of the processes, scale of production, the ODS involved, emissions or make- up quantities, and dates of the start-up for the process. Information was not available about any efforts that had been made to replace the ODS with other chemicals and/or to minimize emissions except for #50. The list of applications together with relevant data and comments from the CTOC is included in Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2 Table A-bis annotated by CTOC

No. Process agent application (in China except #42) Substance Annual capacity

in 2005 (MT/Y) Date of
start-up Make-up Quantities (MT) in

2005 2007 CTOC

Comments

40 Production of 2-( p -Bromomethylphenyl) prop ionic acid (mistranslated as p

bromobenzaldehyde) (intermediate) CTC 60 2000 33 Meet process agent

technical criteria

41 Production of Fenvalerate (pesticide) CTC No longer in operation

42 Manufacture of Losartan potassium BCM (Argentina) Unable to assess due

to no information

received

43 Production of 1,2-Choro-1,4- naphthoquinone (pharmaceutical) CTC No longer in operation

44 Production of Prallethrin (pesticide) CTC 250 1997 71.20 Meet process agent

technical criteria

45 Production of 2-Methoxybenzoyl chloride (pharmaceutical) CTC No longer in operation

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 33 No. Process agent application (in China except #42) Substance Annual capacity

in 2005 (MT/Y) Date of
start-up Make-up Quantities (MT) in

2005 2007 CTOC

Comments

180 1989

200 1995

50 1991 46 Production of o-Nitrobenzaldehyde (dyes) (4 production lines) CTC

30 1986 235.47 (in total 4 plants) Meet process agent

technical criteria

47 Production of Salimusk (perfume) CTC No longer in operation

48 Production of Epoxyconazole (pesticide) CTC No longer in operation

49 Production of Benzophenone (chemical) CTC Feedstock application

50 Production of Picloram; Lontrel (pesticide) CTC Converted to nonODS process in 2006

in China

51 Production of 3-Methyl-2- Thiophenecarboxaldehyde CTC 15 1994 0.94 Meet process agent

technical criteria
52 Production of Difenoconazole (pesticide) CTC No longer in operation

53 Production of 2- Thiophenecarboxaldehyde (intermediate) CTC 135 1993 9.66 Meet process agent

technical criteria

54 Production of 2-Thiophene ethanol (pharmaceutical) CTC 240 1997 91.50 Meet process agent

technical criteria

55 Production of 5-Ami no-1,2,3-thiadiazol CTC N/A 2003 N/A No longer in operation

56 Production of Levofloxacin (pharmaceutical) CTC 1999 (after 1 July) Meet process agent

technical criteria

57 Production of cinnamic acid (intermediate) CTC Feedstock application

58 Production of Ertaczo (pharmaceutical) CTC No longer in operation

36 1992
59 Production of 3,5-Dinitrobenzoyl chloride (3,5-DNBC) (intermediate) (2 production lines) CTC 10 2004 20.20 (in total 2 plants) Meet process agent

technical criteria

30 2004
60 Production of Fipronil (pesticide) (2 production lines) CTC 30 2005 20.00 (in total 2 plants) Meet process agent

technical criteria

61 Processing of aluminum and uranium CTC, CFC Feedstock application

62 Production of Furfural (volume chemical) CTC No longer in operation

63 Production of 3,3,3-Trifluoropropene (volume chemical) CTC Feedstock application

64 Production of Triphenylmethylchloride (intermediate) CTC Feedstock application

65 Production of Tetrachlorodimehylmethane (volume chemical) CTC Feedstock application

66 Production of 4,4'-difluorodiphenyl ketone (intermediate) CTC Feedstock application

200 2004

280 2004 181.41 (in total 2 plants)

400 2003 67 Production of 4- trifluoromethoxybenzenamine (4 production lines) CTC

50 2002 N/A Meet process agent

technical criteria (Two different processes are used for the synthesis of this substance; one process as process agent and

the other as feedstock.)

68 Production of 1,2-benzisothiazol-3-ketone CTC 500 1999 (before 1 July) 389.06 Meet process agent

technical criteria (regarded as PA as

well as Feedstock application)

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 34 All but one of the applications are from China a nd have been included in the Sector Plan for Phaseout of ODS Process Agents in that Party. The exception is #42, use of bromochloromethane (BCM) in the production of Losartan potassium. The Process Agents Task Force (2004) had conducted a preliminary review of this application from another Party, but it

was withdrawn and since no further informati on was received, it does not merit process agent

status.

Information was received that some cases of th e processes listed in table A-bis are not process agents, but may be feedstock uses. The intens ive examination by the CTOC of the submitted

data confirmed that this was the case for seven of the applications, #49, 57, 61, 63, 64, 65, and 66. Furthermore, each of the applications #67 and 68 concerned two processes for production of the same product, one process employing the ODS as process agent and the other as feedstock.

Information was also received that nine of th e submitted applications ( #41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 52, 55, 58, and 62) had ceased operation. In addition, the methods of production of Picloram and Lontrel pesticides (#50) had been converted to non-ODS process in 2006 so that ODS (originally CTC) was no longer involved.

Furthermore, for four of the submitted applications (#40, 56, 60, and 67) it is noticed that their start-up dates are after 1 July 1999.

With these clarifications of the listed applicati ons, the eleven continuing operations (#40 44, 46, 51, 53, 54, 56 59, 60, 67 and 68) are provided in the form of a case study.

4.3.3 Case Studies of the con tinuing process agent operations

3⁄4 Table A-bis #40: Production of 2-( p -Bromomethylphenyl) propionic acid (intermediate) CTC is used as process agent in the brom ination of 1-methylphenyl) propionic acid.

CO 2 

### H

+ Br 2 

### CTC CO 2 

### H

Br +HBr



### 3⁄4 Table A-bis #44: Production of Prallethrin (pesticide) CTC is used as process agent for extracting the unreacted feedstock from the crude Prallethrin in the refining process.

3⁄4 Table A-bis #46: Production of o -Nitrobenzaldehyde (for dyes) CTC is used as process agent in bromination reaction of o -nitrotoluene and bromine. The brominated compound is subsequently converted to o-nitrobenzaldehyde.

+ Br 2 

### CTC Br

+ HBr NO 2 

### NO 2



### 3⁄4 Table A-bis #51: Production of 3-Methyl-2-thiophene carboxyaldehyde CTC is used as process agent for extracting 3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxyaldehyde from the crude product in the refining process.

3⁄4 Table A-bis #53: 2-Thiophenecarboxyaldehyde (intermediate) CTC is used as process agent for extracting 2- thiophenecarboxaldehyde from the crude product in the refining process.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 35 3⁄4 Table A-bis #54: Production of 2-Thiophene ethanol (pharmaceutical) CTC is used as process agent for extracting 2-th iophene ethanol from the crude product in the refining process.

3⁄4 Table A-bis #56: Production of Levofloxacin (pharmaceutical) CTC is used as process agent for the reaction of ethanol with magnesium to form ethoxy magnesium, which will be reacted with diethy l malonate, the key intermediate for the production of Levofloxacin.

Mg CTC CH 3 2 OH CH CTC Recycled



### magnesium-alcohol reaction condensation reaction

Diethyl Malonate Following reactiong



### 3⁄4 Table A-bis #59: Production of 3,5-Dinitrobenzoyl chloride (3,5-DNBC) (intermediate) CTC is used as process agent for refining the crude 3,5-dinitrobenzoyl chloride.

3⁄4 Table A-bis #60: Production of Fipronil (pesticide) CTC is used as process agent in the chlorination reaction of N,N-dimethyl 2-chloro-4- trifloromethylaniline for preparation of 2,6- dichloro-4-trifloromethylaniline, the key intermediate for manufacturing Fipronil.

CF 3



### Cl

N CF 3



### Cl

N SO 2 

### Cl 2 

### + CTC SO 2 

### Cl 2 

### CF 3



### Cl

NH 2 

### Cl Cl



### 3⁄4 Table A-bis #67: Production of 4-Trifluoro-methoxy-benzeneamine CTC is used as process agent in chlorination r eaction of methoxybenzene and chlorine gas. Several further steps are required to convert this first product into 4-trifluoromethoxy-benzeneamine.

OCH 3 

### + Cl 2 

### CTC/PCl 3 

### OCCl 3



### + 3HCl AIBN



### 3⁄4 Table A-bis #68: Production of 1,2-benzisothiazol-3-ketone CTC is used as process agent in chlorination reaction of this production process. In the last step (not shown here), this chlori nated product is converted to 1,2-benzisothiazol-3-

ketone.

CO 2 

### H

S

S

HO 2 

### C COCl

S

S

ClOC COCl

SCl CTC

SO 2 

### Cl 2 

### CTC

Cl 2 

### 2

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 36 4.3.4 A potential list of process age nt applications from China

The People’s Republic of China has submitted a further list of twenty nine possible process agent applications for consideration by the TEAP/CTOC, and these are shown in Table 4.3, which also includes information provided by th e Party in response to requests by the CTOC: nature of the process and identity of the ODS involved, annual capacity, emissions or make-up quantities, and start-up date for the process, as well as the CTOC comments. Information was not provided about investigations of alternatives to the use of ODS and/or changes made to processes to minimize emissions.

Table 4.3 Comments of CTOC on the potential list of process agent applications from China

No. Applications Number of production

lines Annual capacity in

2005 Date of

startup In

continuous operation Comments of CTOC

CTC is used in all cases. (MT/y)

1 2-( p -Bromomethylphenyl) propionic acid 1 60 2000 Yes Same as #40 in

table A-bis

2 2-chloro-5- (trifluoromethyl) pyridine 1 150 2005 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

3 2-methoxy-3-methyl pyrazine 2 2 2002 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

15 2005 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

4 2-Methyl-3- tetrahydrofuranthiol 1 0.1 2002 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

5 4-Bromoanisole 1 100 2005 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

6 4-Chloro-2- Trichloromethyl pyridine 1 150 2005 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

7 Acryl amide (N-(1,1- dimethyl-3- oxobutyl) ( DAAM ) 1 300 2004 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

8 Chlorfluazuron 1 75 N/A No Could be process agent, but no longer operated

9 Chloromethane-sulfonic

ester 1 N/A 2005 No Meets process agent

technical criteria

10 Dope 2 250 2004 Yes Unable to assess. (Feedstock application?)

N/A N/A N/A Unable to assess. (Feedstock application?)

11 Doxofylline 1 20 2005 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

12 Ethyl-4-Chloroaceto acetate 2 N/A N/A N/A Unable to assess. More

information needed

180 2004 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

13 GCLE 1 360 2003 No Unable to assess. More

information needed

14 m -Nitrobenzaldehyde 2 240 1991 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

140 1995 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 37 No. Applications Number of production

lines Annual capacity in

2005 Date of

startup In

continuous operation Comments of CTOC

15 Ozagrel 1 N/A N/A Yes Unable to assess. More

information needed.

16 PVDF 1 500 1982 Yes Could be

process agent More information

needed

17 Tetrafluorobenzoylethyl

acetate 1 250 1992 Yes Could be process agent

More information needed

on the role of CTC

18 Tichlopidine 1 50 1998 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria
19 Using as G.I. 1 N/A N/A Yes Unable to assess.

20 β -Bromopropionic acid 1 N/A N/A Yes Unable to assess.

21 3-Nitrophthalic anhydride 1 120 2000 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

22 4-Bromophenol 1 80 1998 Yes Could be process agent

More information needed

23 4-Nitrophthalic anhydride 1 36 2002 No Meets process agent

technical criteria

24 Chlorophenyl-triapentanol 1 200 2005 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

25 4-Bromo-methyl dimethylbenzeneacetate 1 120 2005 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

26 Initiator for produce oNitrobenzaldehyde 1 300 2002 Yes Same as #46 in table Abis

27 m -Hydroxybenzaldehyde 1 60 2005 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

28 p -Nitro benzyl alcohol 1 96 1989 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria

29 Tolclofos Methyl 1 200 1994 Yes Meets process agent

technical criteria



### For two applications (#19 and 20), considera tions of commercial confidentiality prevented

submission of relevant data and so the CTOC is unable to assess them. One application (#10) appeared to be a feedstock application, not pro cess agent. Three applications (#12 (one of the two plants), 13 and 15) are also unable to assess due to no information reported. The #8 application is considered as a process agent use, but was no longer operated. The other three applications (#16, 17 and 22) could meet the process agent technical criteria but more

information would be needed for the further assessment.

Two applications (#1 and 26) are already included in the table A-bis (#40 and 46, respectively). The remaining 18 applications (#2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 (one of the two plants), 14, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29) could be qualified as pr ocess agents, even though a number of the applications have start-up dates later than 30 June 1999.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 38 4.3.5 Case studies for the chemical reactions in Table 4.3

1. 2-( p -Bromomethylphenyl) propionic acid CTC is used as process agent in bromination r eaction of 1-methylphenyl) propionic acid and

bromine.

CO 2 

### H

+ Br 2 

### CTC CO 2 

### H

Br +HBr



### 2. 2-Chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)pyridine CTC is used as process agent in chlorination reaction of 2-chloro -5-methylpyridine and chlorine gas to yield 2-chloro-5-(trichloromethyl)p yridine, the precursor of 2-Chloro-5- (trifluoromethyl) pyridine.

N + 3Cl 2 

### CTC

N CCl 3



### + 3HCl

Cl Cl



### 3. 2-Methoxy-3-methylpyrazine CTC is used as process agent in chlorination reaction of 2-methylpyrazine and chlorine gas for synthesis of 2-chloro-3-methylpyrazine, the in termediate of 2-methoxy-3-methylpyrazine.

N N



### + Cl 2 

### CTC

N N 

### CH 3



### + HCl



### Cl



### 4. 2-Methyl-3-tetrahydrofuranthiol CTC is used as process agent in brominati on reaction of dihydrofuran and bromine.

O Br 2 

### +
O B r Br CTC



### 5. 4-Bromoanisole CTC is used as process agent in the bromination reaction of anisole.

+ Br 2 CTC OCH 3

+ HBr OCH 3

Br



### 6. 4-Chloro-2-trichloromethyl pyridine CTC is used as process agent in the chlorination reaction of 4-chloro-2-methyl pyridine to produce 4-chloro-2-trichloromethyl pyridine.

N + 3Cl 2 

### CTC

N + 3HCl

H 3 

### C Cl 3 

### C Cl Cl



### 7. Diacetone acrylamide CTC is used as process agent for refining crude diacetone acrylamide in this production process.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 39 8. Chlorfluazuron CTC used as process agent in chlorination reaction of 2-chloro-5-methylpyridine with chlorine

gas.

N + 3Cl 2 

### CTC

N CCl 3



### + 3HCl

Cl Cl



### 9. Chloromethylsulfonic ester CTC used as process agent in esterification reaction of methanal (formaldehyde) and

chlorosulfonic acid.

CH 2 

### O + ClSO 3 

### H ClCH 2 

### SO 3 

### H CTC



### 10. Dope CTC is added in dope to improving its performance, such as fireproofing performance.

11. Doxofylline CTC is used as process agent in the brominati on reaction which is one step in the doxofylline production process.

O O

O O Br

+ HBr + Br 2



### 12. Ethyl-4-chloroacetoacetate CTC is used as process agent in chlorination reaction of ethyl-4-chloroacetoacetate production

process.

+ Cl 2 

### CTC

O O Cl O

Cl O

O O

Cl O EtOH



### 13. GCLE CTC is used as extraction agent for refini ng crude GCLE in GCLE production process. (GCLE is an abbreviation of 7-phenylacetamide-3-chloromethyl-3-cepham-4-carboxylic acid p

methoxybenzyl ester.)

14. m -Nitrobenzaldehyde CTC is used as process agent for refining the crude product in this production process.

15. Ozagrel The enterprise refused to provide any informati on in view of technology secret and so CTOC was unable to assess this application.

16. PVDF CTC is used as dispersant in py rolysis of chlorodifluoroethane to produce vinylidene fluoride monomer. (PVDF is an abbreviation of poly(vinylidene fluoride).

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 40 17. Tetrafluorobenzoyl ethyl acetate CTC is used as process agent in reaction of powdered magnesium and ethanol.

Mg + CH 3 

### CH 2 

### OH CTC CH 3 

### CH 2 

### OMgCH(CO 2 

### Et) 2 

### (CH 3 

### CH 2 

### O) 2 

### Mg CH 2 

### (CO 2 

### Et) 2



### This application is the same as that in #56 of the table A-bis, although the use to which product is put (synthesis of a final product) is different.

18. Tichlopidine CTC is used as process agent in bromina tion reaction in this production process.

S Br 2 

### + CTC

S Br + HBr



### 19. Using as G.I. The enterprise refused to provide any informati on because the technology is secret. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the application is poten tial process agent application since CTOC is

unable to assess it.

20. β -Bromopropionic acid The enterprise refused to provide any informati on because the technology is secret. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the application is poten tial process agent application since CTOC is

unable to assess it.

21. 3-Nitrophthalic anhydride CTC is used for crystallization of product in this production process.

22. 4-Bromophenol CTC is used as process agent for refining the product in this production process.

23. 4-Nitrophthalic anhydride CTC is used for crystallization of the product in this production process.

24. Chlorophenyl-triapentanol CTC is used as process agent for the addition reaction in this production process.

O

Cl N H N N

+

Cl OH N

N N

CTC



### 25. 4-Bromodimethylbenzeneacetate CTC is used as process agent in bromina tion reaction in this production process.

CO 2 

### H CO 2 

### H

B r Br 2 

### + + HBr

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 41 26. Initiator for production of o -nitrobenzaldehyde CTC is added in initiator for produce o -nitrobenzaldehyde as thinner to keep stabilization of initiator and prevent it from exploding. This a pplication is listed as #46 in table A-bis.

27. m -Hydroxybenzaldehyde CTC is used as process agent in the chlorination reaction of this production process.

Cl 2 

### +

O A c O A c CHCl 2



### + HCl CTC



### 28. p -Nitrobenzyl alcohol CTC is used as process agent in the bromin ation reaction in this production process.

Br 2 

### + CH 2 

### Br

+ HBr CTC

NO 2 

### NO 2



### 29. Tolclofos methyl CTC is used as process agent in the chlorination reaction of this production process.

Cl 2 

### +

Cl + HCl CTC

OH OH Cl



### 4.3.6 ODS emissions and make-up quantities reported by Parties

Decision XVIII/6 taken at the Dakar MOP in 2005 included the following:

6. To request the Technology and Econom ic Assessment Panel and the Executive Committee to report to the Open-ended Working Gro up at its twenty-seventh meeting in 2007, and every other year thereafter unless the Parties d ecide otherwise, on the progress made in reducing emissions of controlle d substances from process-agent uses; the associated make-up quantity of controlled substances; on the implementation and development of emissionsreduction techniques and alternative pro cesses and products not using ozone-depleting substances;

In the time available, the CTOC has not been ab le to coordinate its work with that of the Executive Committee, but in gathering informa tion about the continuing relevance of the process agents listed in table A, the CTOC received the following information on ODS for process agent uses from Parties.

Party Emission (MT) Make Up (MT) EC < Table B figure (2005)

Israel 3.3/2005

Mexico 40.99/2006

Romania 173.0/Ave 2000-2002

USA 46* 1626*/2005 * ODP-weighted quantity

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 42 In addition, China has provided information rega rding those uses in table A-bis. For the entries that are judged by the CTOC to meet the re quirements for acceptance as process agents, the total make up quantity is 819.03 MT.



## 4.4 Essential Use Nomination of CFC-113 by the Russian Federation (XVIII/8)

4.4.1 Introduction

The ozone depleting substance CFC-113 (1,1,2-trich loro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane) is used in the civilian space program of the Russian Federation. A late request from the Russian Federation for an Essential Use Exemption shown in the table below in respect of this use was received in 2006 and a brief comment was made in the May 2006 report of the TEAP, as follows:

2006 EUN by Russian Federation Year Quantity (tonnes)

2007 150

2008 140

2009 130

2010 120



### Specific Usage: Solvent cleaning with CFC-113 for the manufacture of fine mechanical devices for the Russian Federal Space Agency.

Recommendation: TEAP: Unable to recommend because its nomination was received by UNEP after the submission deadline. CTOC: Prepared to review the nomination for 2007. Parties may wish to consider a one-year essential use ex emption while TEAP a nd its TOCs properly evaluate the nomination and seek sources of stockpiled CFC-113.

Comments:
The Ozone Secretariat received this nomination on 19 April 2006, just before the TEAP met to complete the 2006 Progress Report. The nomination documented in detail diminishing uses of CFC-113 and the adoption of alternatives. Until 2006, CFC-113 was available from stockpiles, which have been depleted. In 2001 use of CFC-113 was 241 metric tonnes, but since then several alternative solvents and techniques have been implemented. TEAP notes that 65% of the quantity used is released to the atmosphere. W ith more time the CTOC could explore in detail

whether other alternatives have been identifie d by other Space Agencies or whether they face similar problems.

Leading up to decision XVIII/8 (see below) at MO P-18 to grant an Essential Use Exemption for use of 150 metric tonnes of CFC-113 in 2007, the Russian Federation provided two documents, and the US government made available a 1995 report on the use of non-ODP alternative substances in their domestic space program. Ther e was insufficient time to incorporate the

information contained in these documents in the 2006 CTOC/TEAP report and so that information is presented here. As well as exam ining documents, TEAP co-chair Dr. Andersen

and CTOC co-chairs Dr. Yamabe and Dr. Rae held extensive discussions during 2006 with delegates from the Russian Federation.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 43 4.4.2 Decision XVIII/8: Essential-use exemp tion for chlorofluoroca rbon-113 for aerospace applications in the Russian Federation for 2007

Decision XVIII/8 states as follows:

Recalling that the Russian Federation has subm itted a nomination for an essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace applications in the Russian Federation,

Noting that the nomination by the Russian Federation was submitted on 15 April 2006, several weeks after the deadline required fo r the essential use exemption process set out in decision IV/25,

Regretting that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee were not provided sufficient time to review that nomination in detail and report to the Parties three months ahead of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties in accordance with the time schedule prescribed,

Recalling that consultations took place betw een the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel and the Russian Federati on during the twenty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and thereafter and that, following such consultations, the Technology and Economic Assess ment Panel stated in its May 2006 progress report that Parties might wish to consider granting the Russian Federation a one-year essential use exemption,

Taking into account the information already made available by the Russian Federation

in relation to its nomination for an essentia l use exemption for aerospace applications, which contains data on the anticipated gra dual reduction of the Party’s expected needs until 2010, Recalling that the Russian Federation has indicated that the amount of ozone-depleting substances being used for aerospace applica tions has been constantly decreasing owing

to research into and transition to alternat ive ozone-safe substances and technologies and that the amount of chlorofluorocarbon-113 being used has been reduced from 241 metric tonnes in 2001 to 160 metric tonnes in 2006,

1. To permit the Russian Federation a leve l of production and consumption of 150

metric tonnes of chlorofluorocarbon-113 fo r its essential use in the aerospace industry of the Russian Federation in 2007;

2. To request the Technology and Econom ic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee to complete a comprehensive assessment of the

information made available in the nominati on submitted by the Russian Federation and, on the basis of any additional information that may be required from the Russian Federation, to conclude its analysis taking into account that the information underlying such analysis should address comprehensivel y the reason why existing alternatives to CFC-113 would not be applied for the use concerned;

3. To call upon the Russian Federation to continue to cooperate closely with the Technology and Economic Assessment Pane l and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee further to the present decision and to submit, in accordance with the requirements of the Technology and Econom ic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee, the additiona l detailed technical information mentioned

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 44 in paragraph 2 on the use of chlorofluorocarbon-113 that may be required until the completion of the assessment;

4. To request the Technology and Econom ic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee to review all the information provided, as specified in paragraphs 2 and 3, and present the results of that review to the Open-Ended Working Group at its twenty-seventh meeting, in 2007;

5. To call upon the Russian Federation: (a) To consider further the use of foreig n sources of chlorofluorocarbon-113 stockpiles identified by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee as a contri bution for addressing the needs mentioned under paragraph 1 or any possible future needs; (b) To consider further the possibility of, and a timetable for, introducing the use of any

new alternatives to chlorofluorocarbon-113 that become available and to continue its research and development activities with a view to finding new alternatives;

6. To further call upon the Russian Federation to provide in due time to the Technology

and Economic Assessment Panel and its Ch emicals Technical Options Committee, for the purpose of any future nomination of th at Party for essential-use exemptions for

chlorofluorocarbon-113 in relation to aerospace applications, comprehensive information in accordance with the conditions set out in decision IV/25;

7. To take into consideration the outcome of the continued consul tations mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 4 between the Russian Fe deration and the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Te chnical Options Committee on the amount authorized for essential uses in 2007, in re viewing any possible additional nomination by the Russian Federation for aerospace applications for 2008.

4.4.3 Document from the Russian Federation

Following the inclusion in the May 2006 report of the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) (UNEP/OzL.pro.WG.1/26/L.1/Add.2) of comments relating to their request (see Appendix 2 to this paper), the Russian Federation provided an unofficial translation of a paper entitled ‘Complementary Materials to Russian Fe deration Application for Exemption Regarding Principal Uses of CFC-113 in 2007-2010 ’. A summary of this paper follows.

1. Use of ozone-depleting CFCs and halo ns controlled by the Montreal Protocol in Space Industry.

A number of CFCs and halons had been wi dely used in the industry before the

introduction of the Montreal Protocol. In particular, CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-13 were used in heat transfer and cooling app lications. CFC-113 is used in cleaning and degreasing processes and also in strength and leak tests of parts and assembly units for space rocket hardware. Alternatives have b een found for all these substances except the most critical one, CFC-113. Because of its universal solvent properties and excellent technical and consumer properties, its app lications cover fuel tanks, pipeline fittings, precision gyro units and accelerometers of control systems, and other fine mechanical instruments and systems.

2. Technical issues of the use and possible options for substitution of CFC-113.

2.1 List of components, parts, and assembl y units using CFC-113 in cleaning and degreasing processes. Materi als used in manufacture of these components, parts and

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 45 assembly units. 2.1.1 has a number of sub-sections in which the components, parts and

assemblies are listed. 2.1.2 lists the metals and alloys and the non-metal materials (synthetic polymers).

2.2 Russian industry standards governing the use of solvents for cleaning and degreasing of components, parts and assembl y units (including electronic ones) of space rocket hardware. 2.2.1 notes that CFC-113 production is governed by State Standard 23844-79. 2.2.2 lists a number of Industry Standards and Guidelines for the cleaning and testing operations, including tw o relating to detergent water solutions.

2.3 Comparative data on purification efficiency of CFC-113 and alternative solvents used in cleaning and degreasing of components, parts and assemblies. Key data are presented in Table 1.

Test Description Solvent

CFC-113 HCFC-122 HCFC-141b 1 Degreasing and cleaning effect (kauri butanol value), units 31 86 56

2 Contaminant solution rate (interdiffusion coefficient), cm 2 

### /s 3.3 x 10 -6 

### 3.9 x 10 -6 

### 5.4 x 10 -6



### 3 Cleanliness achieved in surface processing/removal of mechanical impurities (surface residual impurity), mg/m 2 

### Within 20-5 Within 15-5 Within 15-5



### It can be seen that HCFC-122 and HCFC-141b have better characteristics in the first two tests, but there is little difference on the third. Such solvents as methylene chloride and BR-1 solvent (Nefras C2-80/120) consis ting of pre-treated through distillation and rectification benzene proved to have a strengt h equal to that of CFC-113, as applied to cleaning and degreasing processes.'

2.4 Description of existing alternative substances. Grounds for unsuitability of alternatives for cleaning and degreasing structural materials, components, parts and assemblies of space rocket hardware. Performed and ongoing researches to find new

alternatives. Ozone-safe organic solvents such as benzene, alcohols and ethers can match the solvent power of CFC-113 in most applications. However, these solvents present explosion and fire hazards. Ozone-safe organic chlorine solvents can have even better solvent power than CFC-113 but this can be a disadvantage with some non-metal materials. Also, they cannot match CFC-113 fo r chemical stability (stabilizers have to be added), toxicity and explosion and fire safety. The HCFCs are suitable for most applications but, because of their solvent power, not those involving non-metals. Also, residual hydrocarbons cannot be detected in their presence (presumably infrared analysis, for which CFC-113 is suitable). The document points the way to the establishment of production facilities for HC FCs 122, 122a and 141b, and development of appropriate procedures for their use. The use of detergent water solutions was explored but these were not found to reduce surface contamination below 50 mg/m 2 

### and there were special difficulties with contamination in places like slot gaps and blind spaces. With open surfaces, performance comp arable with that of CFC-113 has been achieved and such procedures are used r outinely now. Satisfactory performance has been demonstrated for mixtures involving such components as FOL-62, Novec HFE7100 and R-4062 (highly fluorinated) and research continues with them.

3. List of activities on gradual reduction of the use of CFC-113

. Table 2, reproduced below, gives the schedule.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 46 Item Action description Date 1 Further work on reviewing the possibility for the use of approved ozone-friendly and ozone-safe CFC-113 alternatives (HCFC-122, HCFC-122a, HCFC-141b ....) for processing of components, parts, and assembly units of space rocket hardware. 2007

2 Development and testing of new technologies designed to minimize the use of CFC-113 and other volatile solvents in cleaning, degreasing, washing, and testing of parts and assembly units of space rocket hardware. 2007

3 Adaptation and testing of the equipment operated by industry enterprises for cleaning, degreasing, washing, and testing of parts and assembly units of space rocket hardware with ozone-safe and ozone-friendly solvents. 2008

4 Development, manufacture, and testing of technological equipment that provides economical consumption of volatile solvents. 2008

5 Research, tests, and approval of new and more efficient ozone-safe and ozone-friendly solvents alterna tive to CFC-113 in space rocket production. 2009

6 Development of engineering documentation for standard designs of new technological equipment for cl eaning, degreasing, and washingof parts and assembly units for space rocket hardware with ozonesafe and ozone-friendly solvents. 2009

7 Manufacture and operational development of prototype models of new technological equipment for cl eaning, degreasing, and washingof parts and assembly units of space rocket hardware with ozonesafe and ozone-friendly solvents. 2010

8 In-production testing of t echnological processes for cleaning, degreasing and washing of parts and assembly units of space rocket hardware with new types of ozone-safe and ozone-friendly solvents and new technological equipment. 2010

9 Resolving or organizational issues with Russian ministries and agencies in order to create and operate capabilities for production of ozone-safe freons including HCFC-122, HCFC-122a, HCFC-141b

and other solvents alternative to CFC-113. 2006-

2008



### 4. Substantiation of inexpediency of acquisition and use of CFC-113 from foreign sources. In the Russian federation CFC-113 is produced as an end product ofthe polymer plant of B.P. Konstantinov Chemical Production Complex in KirovoChepets and the Khimprom public corporati on in Volgograd until December 2001. It is governed by the State Standard mentioned a bove. The State Standard is summarized in Table 3, below.

# Characteristics GOST 23844-79 spec1 Physical state Clear, colorless fluid 2 Mass content of trichlorotrifluoroethane (main substance), %, min. 99.96 3 Mass content of dichlorotetrafluoroethane, %, max. 0.01 4 Mass content of tetrachlorodifluoroethane, %, max. 0.01 5 Mass content of other impurities defined by chromatographic method, % each, max. 0.01

6 Mass content of fixed residues, %, max. 0.001 7 Mass content of free chlorine, %, max. 0 8 Mass content of water, %, max 0.003

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 47 The content of fluorescent soluble impurities, in particular mineral oils, fats and other organic compounds, in domestic CFC-113 did not exceed 10-15 mg/l (0.0001%). There are particularly strict requirements for these substances and water and acidity, so additional purification by distillation is used to ensure this. Samples of CFC-113 from two foreign sources, China and India, were obtained and their purity was checked. The results are reported in Table 4 (below).

# Characteristics GOST

23844-79

specs Actual

characteristics of foreign samples

1 Mass content of trichlorotrifluoroethane (main substance) % >99.96 96.0 – 98.0

2 Mass content of fixed residue, % <0.001 0.005 – 0.008 3 Mass content of water, % <0.003 0.01 – 0.015



### In addition, the fat content of the fore ign samples was 30-60 mg/L, far above the Russian industry standard. It was felt that import of CFC-113 from industrially developed countries would be difficult given the lack of mutually agreed standards. In addition, the Russian federation did not wish to be 'dependent on foreign suppliers and international economical and political situation'.

4.4.4 Comments on supply of CFC-113 to th e Russian Federation from foreign sources

In discussions with delegates of the Russian Fede ration, the case was put that the US held stocks of CFC-113 that were of good quality – likely to meet the requirements of the State Standard discussed above – and that these could be made available. The gain for the US would be that

cost of destruction of this material would be avoided, and the world gain would be that there would be no need to produce CFC-113 for this use in the Russian Federation. It should be noted that CFC-113 is produced in a number of countries as a feedstock in the production of the monomer chlorotrifluoroethylene which is used to produce valuable polymers.

4.4.5 Document from the United States

This document, entitled 'Handbook of Solid Ro cket Motor Manufacturing within the United States. Eliminating Use of Ozone Depleting Su bstances in Solid Rocket Motor Manufacturing', dated February 1995, was available in hard copy only.

The document explains the basic steps in the ma nufacture of solid rocket motors, the uses to which ozone depleting substances (ODS) were put , the identification of alternatives and the testing of rocket motors produced using these alternatives. The main ODS used were TCA (1,1,1-trichloroethane, methyl chloroform) a nd CFC-113, which were phased out by 2002 and 1997 respectively.

Three types of action facilitated the phase outs:

• 

### managerial – point of use inventory cont rol and management, manufacturing method changes (elimination of greasing and co nsequent degreasing), and manufacturing specification changes;

• 

### solvent capture and recycling; and

• 

### substitution of ODS with aqueous cleaners in mechanical washers, and with semiaqueous cleaners in which the orga nic component was usually terpene.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 48 The report also includes comments on the disa dvantages brought about by the phase out of ODS. 'ODS substitutes may increase the number a nd duration of manufacturing steps and often increase the volume of liquid handled and dis posed. For example, substituting an aqueous cleaner for TCA results in increasing liquid handled from 55 gallons TCA evaporated during use to 500 gallons of water and aqueous cleaning so lution that must be treated prior to disposal.'

4.4.6 The 2007 EUN from the Russian Federation



## On 24 January 2007 the Ozone Secretariat received a request from the Russian Federation submitting a request, in accordance w ith decision XVIII/8, for a EUN for use of CFC-113 in their aerospace industry. The Russian federation also sought advice from the Secretariat on the procedures for obtaining samples of CFC-113 that might be available for 'purchase from foreign ODS banks identified by TE AP and its TOC and the conformity of this

CFC-113 with the Russian standard and branch norms'.

The request from the Russian Federation included much of the information set out in their

document described above in Section 3.3 of th is report. The EUN covers the years 2008 and 2009, as follows:

Ozone Depleting Substance 2008 MT 2009 MT

CFC-113 140.0 130.0

Total 140.0 130.0



### The consumption by the Russian Federation in pr evious years (metric tonnes) was reported as

follows:

ODS 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

CFC-113 241.0 189.0 190.0 175.0 173.0 160.0 150.0



## Other important information provided in the Russian Federation EUN concerned the fate of the CFC-113 used in the aerospace program.

ODS % Contained

in Product % Released in

Manufacture or Use % Destroyed or Recycled Total

CFC-113 0 70 30 100

4.4.7 Concluding remarks

The solvent experts in CTOC discussed this case and their advice is as follows:
3⁄4 Use of HCFCs as alternatives to CFC-113 is only a temporary solution as cleaning agents. These HCFCs (122, 122a, 123, 141b and 22 5) are ozone depleters which will be phased out of use in the future. Only in the interim period, HCFC-225 could be a substitute of CFC-113 due to its excellent performance already experienced in cleaning of oxygen systems etc. Further, serious toxicity concerns need to be addr essed to properly handle HCFC-122 and 122a. The CTOC recommends exploring commercially availa ble alternatives with zero ozone depletion potential such as HFCs, HFEs and blends, as well as not-in-kind alternatives as long term replacements.

3⁄4 In 2000 a group of experts in the field of precision cleaning visited one of the Russian torpedo manufacturing sites in Kazakhstan. The fo cus of the visit was to share information and technical know-how on precision-engineered inst rument and oxygen system cleaning with nonODS solvents. Samples of alternatives were provi ded for evaluation. A similar visit was also made to Poland’s navy, which was using the Russian-made equipment that required CFC-113

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 49 for cleaning oxygen systems. These sites had agreed to submit their evaluations of alternatives for cleaning oxygen systems to the then- STOC, but no information was received.

3⁄4 In addition to replacement of CFC-113 by other solvents, there are opportunities to reduce use of CFC-113 through improved containment systems in the equipment used in the cleaning operations. In other jurisdictions, quantities of CFC-113 required for particular operations can be reduced by up to 80% through such engineering changes. The replacement of equipment is somewhat more expensive, but information about upgrading the existing equipment could also be available. A deci sion would be made on cost-effectiveness grounds, taking into account direct costs and such factors as down-time involved in upgrading.

As experience in the United States has shown, th e replacement of ozone depleting substances in almost all applications in the domestic space program is possible, but that even with extraordinary efforts some essential uses remain today. The Russian Federation timetable is a measured one, with testing of alternatives to be followed by construction and testing of necessary equipment in which th e alternatives would be used , and finally implementation sometime after 2010. Along with these scientific and engineering steps, there needs to be change in government regulations and esta blishment of new standards for purity and

effectiveness of alternative substances.

It might be expected, then, that complete phase out of CFC-113 could only take place after 2010 but should proceed quickly then, as new pr actices are adopted. In the meantime, the

foreshadowed CUNs of the Russian Federation are presumably based on more effective usage of CFC-113, including recycling, so that total usage declines slowly.

It is not possible for the CTOC to suggest a f aster timetable for the phase out of CFC-113, given the magnitude of the task facing the Russian Fede ration and the relatively late beginning of the replacement program, and therefore the CTOC recommends acceptance of the EUN proposed

for 2008 and 2009.

However, there seem to be good prospects that CFC-113 of sufficient purity to meet the

standards and norms of the Russian Federation c ould be obtained from banks maintained in one or more foreign countries that are Parties to the Montreal Protocol and would have an interest in (a) minimizing production of this ODS during th e period when it is replaced by alternatives in the aerospace program of the Russian Federation, and (b) avoiding the cost of storage and destruction of this stockpiled material.



## 4.5 n-Propyl Bromide Update (XVIII/11, XIII/7)

4.5.1 Introduction

The TEAP/CTOC has reported the updates of normal-propyl bromide (n-PB) under decision XIII/7 with general informati on on production, consumption and emissions, as well as toxicity data and regulatory actions in the 2005 and 2006 TEAP Progress Reports. In view of the fact that this is not a controlled substance, no accurate production and emissions estimates are available because there is no yearly reporting by the Parties.

With these backgrounds, the decision XVIII/11 has requested the TEAP to continue its assessment of global emissions of n-PB by obt aining more complete data on its production and uses and by providing further information on the technological and economical availability of alternatives, to report at the 27 th 

### OEWG for the consideration of MOP-19.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 50 Some information has been provided by two ma nufacturers of n-PB. For commercial reasons, production volumes are not disclosed. It is also known that n-PB is produced by other companies but no comprehensive data set is available.

4.5.2 Updated information on n-PB

Use of n-PB continues due to its good solvency and relatively low cost, in spite of toxicity concerns and pending proposals to reduce exposur e guidelines. At this point n-PB is still a virtually unregulated chemical.

The use of n-PB as an intermediate for the synthesis of pharmaceuticals and other organic compounds was known for a long time. In the last few years, its uses have grown as a solvent for industrial cleaning for degreasing, metal processing and finishing, electronic defluxing and other cleaning applications in aerospace and aviation, and the manufacture of medical and optical devices. It has also successfully captured some applications in aerosol formulation and as a carrier solvent for adhesives, inks and coatings . The use of n-PB is also promoted by the its vendors as a substitute for trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, HCFC-141b and ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in many applications.

It is marketed as n-propyl bromide or 1-bromo propane as well as under many trade names such as Leksol, Ensolve, Solvon, Abzol, VDS-3000, Hype rsolve, and Lenium. This is not a complete

list of all trade names under which n-PB and its blends are sold.

The suggested exposure guidelines have been lo wered by most manufacturers and blenders to 10-25 ppm (except that at least one vendor has kept it as high as 100 ppm).

n-PB is available in most regions, including As ia, with local productions in China, France, Israel, Jordan and the USA. World production capacity for the manufacture of n-PB has continued to increase, resulting in a lowering of bulk prices to a level comparable to the upper range of chlorinated solvents. The global annua l production capacity is estimated to exceed 20,000 metric tonnes, of which about 5,000 metr ic tonnes are probably used as a pharmaceutical intermediate or process agent. The consumption, as a solvent, increased at a growing rate of 15- 20% per year in USA (5, 000 metric tonnes in 2005), Japan (1,400 metric tonnes in 2005) and other Asian countries. In Japan it reached a plat eau in 2005 and then has declined to 1,310 metric tonnes in 2006. In Europe, n-PB use has increased rapidly in metal and precision cleaning until 2005 to reach a plateau around 2,000 metric tonnes; since then it is being progressively phased out. The global n-PB consum ption is estimated to be 10,000 to 20,000 metric tonnes per year and the corresponding n-PB emissions are calculated to be 5,000 to 10,000 metric tonnes per year, when 50% of th e consumption could be emitted as suggested by IPCC/TEAP Special Report (2005).

4.5.3 Recent Toxicity Data and Proposed Regulatory Actions

Long term (chronic) testing of n-PB in animals has shown toxicity to the reproductive systems of both male and female. In males, it affects sperm counts and motility, testicles and prostrate. In females it damages ovaries and results in sterilization. Based on the reproductive toxicity data, the Commission of the European Communiti es has proposed to add n-PB to the list of dangerous chemicals that can cause cancer, ha ve mutagenic properties or be toxic to reproduction. The Environmental Protection Agency of the USA (US-EPA) has suggested exposure guidelines of 25 ppm (www.epa. gov/ozone/snap/regs/68fr33284.pdf).

n-PB also has significant neurotoxicty to an imals and humans. The animal study showed significant neurological effects on animals at various dose levels. A recent case study involved five workers whose job involved gluing foam cushion with glue containing the solvent n-PB.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 51 Due to the extremely high exposure in excess of 500ppm they developed serious neurological symptoms, some of which appear to be permanent.

Based on these recent findings and until more toxico logical test data becomes available, the American Conference of Industrial Hygienis ts (ACGIH) has recommended that exposure guidelines for n-PB containing solvent be limite d to 10 ppm. Hazard Evaluation System and Information Services (HESIS) of California Depa rtment of Health Services have gone a step further and have suggested limiting worker exposure to about 1 ppm. Also the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (O EHHA) of California announced on Nov 8, 2004 its intention to add n-PB to the Proposition 65 list as a chemical known to the State to cause reproductive toxicity. So far only one of the n-PB vendors has reduced their recommended exposure guidelines to 10 ppm, In Europe, n-PB use has been progressively phased out; its labelling reclassification

• 

### R 11 Highly flammable.

• 

### R 36/37/38 Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skin.

• 

### R 48/20 Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation.

• 

### R 60 May impair fertility.

• 

### R 63 Possible risk of harm to the unborn child.

• 

### R 67 Vapors may cause drowsiness and dizziness. Substitution is not only due to this classifica tion but also to the 1999 VOC-Directive which forces the reduction of emissions of volatile organic compounds.

4.5.4 Latitude-specific ODP of n-PB

The Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP) 2006 Asse ssment Report includes the latest estimates of the latitude-specific ODPs. The Ozone Depletion Potentials of n-propyl bromide are 0.1 for tropical emissions and 0.02-0.03 for emissions restricted to northern mid-latitudes, unchanged from the previous assessment. The ODP for n-PB , when used and emitted in the tropics is comparable to the ODPs of other substances already controlled by the Montreal Protocol.

While no consensus has been reach ed in the scientific community over appropriate models for estimating the ODP of short-lived substances such as n-PB, most estimates put the top of the range near 0.1, while estimates of the mi nimum figure range from 0.0033 to approximately

0.02. It is understood that Professor D. Wuebbl es is undertaking an industry-funded study, using

a new three-dimensional model of its behaviour in the atmosphere. This study is expected to be completed by May 2007.

4.5.5 Global Warming Potential (GWP)

The 100-year GWP for n-PB is estimated to be 0.31 (Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., 1995). To put this figure into context, typical figures for other ODS are: CFC-113, 6000; HCFC-141b, 700; chloroform (not a controlled substance), 140.

4.5.6 Concluding remarks

The continuing use of n-PB is supported by industry bodies, because it offers an effective replacement for solvents with higher ODP and chlorocarbons. However, it is recognised that occupational health and safety (OHS) consider ations and its ozone depleting potential are important factors in dictating the handling of n-PB, specifically the minimisation of worker exposure and prevention of release to the e nvironment. Nonetheless, its use in some jurisdictions is growing. In other regions, as a result of concern over toxicity and ozone depletion, n-PB is being phased out.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 52 4.6 Sources of carbon tetrachloride (CTC) emissions and opportunities for reductions (XVIII/10)

4.6.1 Introduction

Following the detailed analyses carried out by TEA P and included in its 2006 report, the Parties in Decision XVIII/10 requested TEAP to:

3. continue its assessment of global emissions of carbon tetrachloride, as set out in

Decision XVI/14 and other related decisi ons such as Decision XVII/19, paragraph 6, paying particular attention to

4. obtaining better data for industrial emissions such as those from HCFC-22 production to enable resolution of the significant discrepancy with atmospheric

measurements;

5. further investigating issues related to pr oduction of carbon tetrachloride (including its production as a by-product and subsequent use, storage, recycling or destruction;

6. estimating emissions from other sources such as landfills.

7. Prepare a final report on the assessment re ferred to above in time for the twentyseventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group for the consideration of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties in 2007.

The CTOC can report that this task is not ye t complete, partly due to the shortened intersessional period and partly due to difficulties in accessing relevant information. The following text is a report of work in progress.

4.6.2 Information from the Science Assessment Panel

The Science Assessment Panel in its 2006 Report carried out a thorough analysis of the atmospheric concentrations of carbon tetrachloride and concluded that “For CTC the only detectable current emissions were from China, but the amount was only a relatively small fraction (31%) of the inferred global emissi ons for a 26 year lifetime. Unfortunately, only limited data are available from regions such as Korea and India, which might be responsible for significant emissions. There are indications that India in particular is still a source of CTC emitted from solvent use and from process agent applications. For example, air from India observed at a background site in the Indian Ocean has been found to contain elevated concentrations of CTC (Lobert and Harris, 2002). Furthermore, a study in Mumbai (India) fond concentrations of CTC those were noticeably above the background (Srivastava et al., 2006).” (Science Assessment 2006, Section 1.3.1) Furthermore it noted, “Overall the budget of CTC remains poorly understood” and it recommended to make “no change from the lifetime of 26 years given in WMO 2002.”

India has made substantial efforts to replace CT C, and all process agent applications of CTC will have been phased out by the end of 2007 under the Sector Plan.

4.6.3 Can Landfill emissions of CTC account for the discrepancy?

A number of recent publications provide relevant information, although emissions of CTC were

not the main focus of these works.

A thorough review of the literature of emissions from landfills and the effects of soil cover was carried out by Charlotte Scheutz in 2002. This demonstrated that fully substituted hydrocarbons (such as tetrachloromethane (CTC)) were not degraded under oxidative conditions.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 53 Furthermore, she noted that “ higher chlorinated compounds such as CFCs and CTC were found degradable in the anaerobic zone (of landfill soil covers) ” Thus, although indicating that CTC could be destroyed in landfills or their soil cove rs, Scheutz's review did reveal the extent to which this might occur and did not provide data on emissions from landfills or CTC concentrations in nearby air.

An analysis by Allen et al. of halocarbon emissions from seven landfill sites in the UK indicated CTC levels of between 2 and 21 mg m -3 

### in the sites, whilst work by Emerson on Californian

landfills indicated that mean concentrations of CTC were comparable, being between 8.0 – 12.8 ppb (22 detections out of 558 samples).

In order better to understand the potential emissions of CTC from landfills, the following

estimate was carried out:

The Report by IPCC, SRES quotes the release of methane from landfill as 23 million tonnes/yr for OECD90 in 1990 and 60 million tonnes/yr globally. Landfill gas, according to the UK Environment Agency, is 65% methane by volume, with the rest predominantly CO 2 

### . So the total landfill gas releases become 57 and 149 million tonnes/yr.

Estimations by Emerson from California show a m ean range up to 12.8 ppb (volume) from only
4% of the landfill sites. Allen et al. 's results are much higher at 2 mg/m 3 

### , or just under 2 ppm weight from 43% of the sites studied.

Therefore, if it is assumed that all OECD sites release CTC, the product of less than 2 ppm and

57 million tonnes is 98 tonnes. This would rise to 255 tonnes for global landfill. It is likely to arise from seepage of historically dumped chem ical and not from material generated within landfills. When CTC use was low, there would be correspondingly less CTC in landfills, for example in many Article 5 countries.

These calculations would indicate that there is in sufficient concentration of CTC in landfill gas to account for the discrepancy between estimated industrial emissions of CTC and concentrations measured in the atmosphere.

Other potential sources could include release from historical chemical dumps and groundwater emissions but it is unlikely that such sources could provide su fficient sustained releases to account for the discrepancy. The CTOC has collected some data on groundwater contaminated with CTC and is seeking evidence of emission to air of CTC contaminated groundwater. It should be noted that CTC has water solubility 0.8 g/L at 20 o 

### C and so could be present as dilute solutions but may also be transported with groundwater as a separate liquid phase.

4.6.4 Conclusions on CTC emissions from landfills

Although it is not possible to draw concrete conc lusions from an analysis of the recent literature,

the indications are that the levels of CTC resu lting from emissions from landfills could be of the order of a few hundred tonnes per annum in OECD countries. It is highly unlikely that

emissions from landfills in Article 5 countries would greatly exceed these levels given the considerably lower levels of historical CTC u se. Our analysis does not determine whether CTC emissions are significant from non-landfill solvent disposal sites.

Furthermore, recent atmospheric measurements by Chan et al. over 45 Chinese cities, in the Pearl River Delta, one of the most important manufacturing centres of South China, have
indicated levels of CTC source 20% above tho se of the background. This could indicate that Chinese/SE Asian emission levels could be higher than previously calculated/measured. It should be noted that the papers of Chan et al . report the situation in 2001. It is not known

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 54 whether or not a similar situation arises for othe r regions. However, it should be noted that CTC

levels in the United States have been “virtually undetectable in the regional studies.” (Science Assessment 2006, Section 1.3.1) whilst, as reporte d in 2005, for East Asia (China, Japan and Korea), emissions of 21.5 million tonnes/year were found.

This analysis assists in bridging the gap between measured atmospheric levels of CTC and those calculated from current and past emissive uses. Atmospheric levels, according to the Science Assessment Panel are declining at a rate of about 1% per year.

4.6.5 References

Allen, M.R., Braithwaite, A., Hills, C.C., Environ.Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 1054-61 Barlette, B., Meinardi, S., Simpson, I.J., Sherwo od Rowland, F., Chan, C-Y., Wang, X., Zou, S., Chan, L.Y., Blake, D.R., Atm. Env. 2006, 40, 7706-7719 Chan, C.Y., Tang, J.H., Li, Y.S., Chan, L.Y., Atm. Env. 2006, 40, 7331-7345 Emerson, C.W., Environ. Mgement;, 1999, 57, 155-164 Scheutz, C, Ph.D Thesis, September 2002, Technical University, Denmark



## 4.7 Laboratory and analytical uses of methyl bromide (XVII/10)

Extensive information on laboratory and analyti cal uses of ODS and especially methyl bromide (MB) was provided in the 2006 TEAP Report (Section 6.4, pages 69-73), following which decision XVIII/15 clarified the permitted laboratory and analytical uses of methyl bromide.

Since decision XVII/10(8) asked the TEAP to report in 2007 and every other year thereafter on the development and availability of laboratory an d analytical procedures that can be performed without using the controlled substances in Annex E of the Protocol, the CTOC considered this matter early in 2007 but was unable to provide any new information. The possibilities for and actualities of such replacements are kept under review by the CTOC, with a view to providing relevant information in future Progress Reports.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 55 

# 5 Foams Technical Options Committee (FTOC)

The 2006 Foam Assessment Report has provided an important overview of the progress made in ODS management and phase-out over the last four year period and has reflected the status

in the areas of:

• Transition from ODSs to non-ODS alternatives in many developed countries

• Transitions from CFCs to non-CFC alternatives in developing countries

• Barriers to transition in both instances

• Analysis and validation of banked blowing agent quantities and a review of current end-of-life practices

Leading on from this overview, a number of i ssues covered in that report have grown in relevance since the Foams Assessment Report’s publication. These are addressed briefly in sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 below.



## 5.1 Comprehensive Environmental Assessment of Alternatives

As the focus of the evaluation of alternatives has broadened to include other environmental impacts, factors such as life cycle climate performance (LCCP) are being proposed as means of assessing alternative technologies. Whilst this is a legitimate approach, care needs to be taken in applying such analysis to foams, si nce the LCCP for a foam or, indeed, any other thermal insulation type is much more relate d to its specific application than to the characteristics of the product itself. Other factors also need to be consid ered, such as the basis for comparison (e.g. constant thermal perform ance vs. constant thickness) and end-of-life management assumptions.

The Foams TOC would therefore caution against the use of LCCP as a way of delineating alternatives when the specific applications are not described.



## 5.2 Voluntary Carbon Projects

Chapter 3 of the Foam Assessment Report contained a short section (pages 63-64) on the possible role of voluntary carbon projects in facilitating the recovery of banked ODS from installed foams at end-of-life. This agenda is continuing to develop and the approach would alleviate the problems in trying to legislate for the recovery and destruction of blowing agents from foams in buildings where some foams would be technically unrecoverable, while others might be technically recoverable but the processes to do so might be uneconomic.

Recent interest from a number of reputable volun tary carbon project developers (e.g. Climate Care) has only served to clarify the need for appropriate protocols to assess and verify the ODS and climate benefits of recovery projects. This matter is likely to be addressed further in the response to Decision XVIII/12.



## 5.3 Global Warming Potentials of non-methane hydrocarbons

As part of the overall environmental assessment of alternatives, there is a continuing need to identify referenced sources of information on the global warming potentials (GWPs) of commonly used blowing agents. These include cy clo-pentane, iso-butane, n-pentane and isopentane. Although some data on radiative fo rcing exists, the Foams Technical Options Committee continues to work with experts on th e Science Assessment Panel and elsewhere to select atmospheric lifetimes that are appropriate for the estimation of representative GWPs.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 56 This issue is becoming particularly pertinen t because several “green building” schemes are using the GWP of blowing agents as an asse ssment criterion for products, rather than adopting the more comprehensive life cycle climate performance (LCCP) approach.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 57 

# 6 Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Progress Report

The HTOC does not plan to meet in 2007 unless tasks arise from the OEWG-27 or MOP-19.



## 6.1 Update on Decision XV/11

As reported at MOP-18, serious delays in the joint HTOC/International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) action plan occurred becau se of the retirement of the ICAO focal point. This resulted in the planned ICAO State letter - inviting States to require, where possible, the use of proven alternatives to halons in new airc raft designs - not being issued in 2006 and also stalled the plan for the ICAO Secretariat to introduce an ICAO/HT OC working paper on halon phase-out at the 36th ICAO Assembly Session in 2007. At the request of the Parties, and in cooperation with the HTOC, the Oz one Executive Secretary met with the ICAO Secretary General in March 2007, and recei ved assurances that the ICAO/HTOC working paper would be introduced at the 36th ICAO Assembly Session in September, 2007 during the agenda item for Other Technical Matters. ICAO will provide the format for the working paper, which the HTOC has now been tasked with preparing.



## 6.2 Implementation challenges in Article 5 countries

The South African Halon Bank has reported pr oblems in getting access to the regional halon recycling machine provided by a UNDP regiona l project. The Bank operators would like to move the machine to an approved site and begin recycling accumulated halon.



## 6.3 Halon-2402 Phase-out

India continues to report difficulties in obtaining halon-2402 for the servicing of critical equipment.



## 6.4 Halon-1211 Bank

HTOC members continue to report that large qua ntities of halon-1211 that can no longer be

used in China are accu mulating within China.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 59 

# 7 Refriegeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee (RTOC) Progress Report

The authors of the various chapters of the RTOC have not issued detailed reports on technical progress following the information that was re ported in the 2006 RTOC Assessment Report just two months ago, although developments ar e continuing in increasing energy efficiency and reducing refrigerant consum ption in many sub-sectors. New low-GWP refrigerants have

been announced.

Generally speaking, the change from CFCs to non-CFCs in refrigeration AC and heat pumps has virtually been completed globally. Howeve r, servicing with CFCs still remains an issue of importance in Article 5 countries. Whils t the use of HCFC-22 for new equipment was halted in the EU several years ago and will be halted in the USA shortly, the use of HCFC-22 for new air conditioning and refrigeration (in pa rticular commercial refrigeration) equipment is growing rapidly in many Article 5 countries.

Rapid development of low-GWP responses to the EU F-Gas directive for MACs is proceeding. Designations were recommended fo r five new refrigerant blends to replace HFC134a in January 2007. To meet the EU F-g as directive for MACs, at least one additional manufacturer has begun focused research on low-GWP replacements for HFC-134a in automotive use and potentially for stationary air conditioning and refrigeration as well. At the end of March, two refrigerant manufacturers announced a global joint development agreement to accelerate the development and commercialis ation of a next generation, low global warming refrigerant (GWP<150, ITH 100 years) for the automotive air conditioning industry (which are assumed to be more energy efficient than CO 2 

### based air conditioning systems, particularly at high ambient air temperature conditions). Refrigerant manufacturing companies have announced to work closely w ith the automotive industry to qualify a low GWP alternative by mid-2007. Announcements so far have not indicated whether the new low-GWP refrigerants are also suitable to re place HFC-134a or other HFC-134a based blends in different refrigeration and air conditioning applications.

The initiatives underway will have significant im pacts and will reduce current uncertainty as to which solution will emerge as the ultimate choice for HFC-134a. This may impact not only the automotive sector but all stationa ry refrigeration and AC sectors as well.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 61 

# 8 Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) Progress Report

8.1 MBTOC Soils Progress Report

8.1.1 Scope of the Report

The MBTOC 2006 Assessment Report has been recently published and is accessible at the Ozone Secretariat website (www.unep.org/ozone). The Assessment contains a thorough analysis on the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives to replace methyl bromide, on the commercial adoption of alternatives and pot ential alternative treatments to MB as a soil fumigant. It also shows trends in methyl br omide production and consumption in both Article 5 and non-Article 5 Parties; est imated levels of emissions of MB to the atmosphere, and strategies to reduce those emissions. In addition, the report describes critical uses of MB that have been approved by the Parties for 2005 onwar ds and a review of economic issues relating to MB phase-out.

In light of the above, this progress report gives a short update of research findings, registration and adoption of alternatives occurring after publication of the MBTOC 2006 Assessment Report.

8.1.2 Chemical alternatives for soil fumigation

The major alternatives, such as 1,3-D/Pic (Tel one C35), chloropicrin (Pic) and metham sodium (MS), used alone or in combination w ith other alternatives continue to be widely adopted as key alternatives in most preplant so il applications. Recent research publications confirm that the crop yields and level of control achieved for target pests is comparable to that of MB, for example:

• Recent trials in Florida and Spain compari ng three key alternatives in strawberry fruit crops for example, have shown that 1,3-D/Pic, Pic alone and di-methyl disulphide (DMDS) combined with Pic gave yields that did not differ from MB/Pic (Santos et al

, 2007). Large scale validation trials with 1,3-D/Pic in conjunction with herbicides (e.g. trifluralin) confirmed that this combination is as effective in tomatoes as MB/Pic (67:33) for controlling Cyperus (nutsedge) and nematodes (Gilreath et al ., 2006). In late 2006 a

review article on alternatives research in SE USA, concluded that specific combinations of treatments (1,3-D, Pic, metham, dazomet, herbicides or LPBF, also methyl iodide, DMDS) provided effective control against most soil-borne diseases and nematodes, assuming that correct application methods and rates are used. However, in situations

where Cyperus infestations are severe, alternativ e fumigants could be combined with

herbicides to minimize weed interfe rence (Santos and Gilreath, 2006).

• In studies on forest nursery production of pine seedlings, chloropicrin and metham sodium/chloropicrin are proving effective a lternatives to methyl bromide for reducing soil-borne fungi and nematodes, but the effectiv eness of chloropicrin for nutsedge control may be affected by soil type (Cram et al , 2007, South 2007).

• In Calla lily soils, propagules of nutsedge were controlled by a range of alternatives, some previously considered ineffective against nut sedge. These included Pic, 1,3-D/Pic, 1,3-D alone, Chloropicrin, furfural and metham sodium (Gerik, 2006).

• Trials on cucurbit rotations in SE USA have s hown that combinations of chisel injected fumigants (MB, 1,3-D, metham sodium and chloropicrin) on a first crop followed by drip irrigation (MS, 1,3-D and Pic) on the second crop, with and without a nematicide treatment (oxamyl), provided good nematode control and increased yields to the same level as MB (Desaeger and Csinos, 2006)

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 62 • The University of Florida extensi on service, USA has recently developed recommendations for growers on MB alternative treatments for strawberry, tomato, eggplant and pepper, based on TC35 + VIF + herbicides (Noling et al ., 2006)

• Transition strategies based on the use of formulations of MB/Pic with lower concentrations of MB (i.e. 50:50 or 30:70) continue to provide an effective means to reduce dosage rates, especially in co mbination with barrier films (Gilreath et al ., 2006,

Santos et al ., 2006).

8.1.3 Update on registration status of MB and chemical alternatives

• MB, Pic, 1,3-D and many other pesticides are under review in the USA and EC. A technical assessment of MB’s toxicological ch aracteristics for the EC review found that MB did not meet many of the critiera n ecessary for approval as a pesticide in plant protection products under EC Directive 91/ 414/EEC (EFSA, 2006), and as a result it is expected that MB will be taken off the market in the EC next year or soon afterwards. Concern still exists about the future registrati on status in the US and EC of several key alternatives, Pic and 1,3-D which have help ed to replace MB in specific regions and sectors, such as strawberry fruit in California, USA, and Spain.

• A permit for use of methyl iodide, a major pot ential alternatives to MB, has recently been approved in the United States and Aust ralia and registration is pending.

• A number of other chemicals are now in the registration process in specific countries, including dimethyl disulphide (DMDS) in Europe and US (for cantaloupe, cucumber, squash, other cucurbits, peppers, strawberry, tomato) and Europe, ethane dinitrile (EDN) in Australia, dazomet in the US (for strawbe rry and tomato), and various herbicides.

8.1.4 Emissions reduction of chemical alternatives

• Recent studies by Ou et al ., 2007, have confirmed that barrier films can dramatically reduce emissions from strip treated beds. Th e reduction is dependent on application rate, injection depth of MB and bed temperature a nd was greatest with the higher rate of MB applied at 396 kg/ha (39.9 g/m 2 

### ) than when applied at 196 kg/ha (19.6 g/m 2 

### ).

• Metham sodium efficacy could be improve d by replacing standard LDPE films with barrier films (Ou et al ., 2006).

• Fumigant emissions of MITC and Pic in forest soils are considered to be more efficiently controlled by use of plastic tarps, than wa ter seals although both are effective methods to reduce emissions and consequently improve effectiveness of the fumigants (Wang et al

., 2005, 2006).

• Barrier films in combination with lower MB/P ic formulations (eg 50:50) are improving the efficacy of weed control, including Cyperus . Studies are also indicating their use for effective dosage reduction of alternativ es, such as 1,3D and Pic (Austerweil et al., 2006;

Ou et al ., 2006, MBTOC 2007). This is important because dosage reduction may increase the potential application area where pr esent restrictions exist (e.g. township caps in the US) and possibly reduce the buffer z one requirements in some countries where fumigant emission studies have been conducted pr eviously without films or with standard fumigation films.

• In the absence of available alternatives, full im plementation of barrier films (VIF or semi permeable LPBF) is the quickest means to re duce use and emissions of MB in the soils sector for the remaining uses of MB in both non A5 and A5 countries. MBTOC estimates that complete use of barrier films on the re maining preplant uses of MB worldwide has the potential to reduce dosage rates of MB a nd subsequent emissions of methyl bromide by approximately 6,000 ODP tonnes compared to the current practice using standard polyethylene films.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 63 8.1.5 Non chemical alternatives in the soil sector

Chemical fumigant alternatives in general, lik e MB, have issues related to their long-term suitability for use. As mentioned above, in th e EC and US, MB and most other fumigants are subject to a rigorous review that could affect future regulations over their use. Thus, consideration of sustainable, long –term a lternatives and IPM programs which include nonchemical options is particularly important. Methods which avoid the use of MB, such as substrate production, grafting and resistant vari eties, have gained wider adoption in the horticulture sector in particular. Recent research on these topics is available, for example:

• New resistant varieties against nematodes ( Meloidogyne sp.) and resistant rootstocks for grafting peppers and tomatoes which may assist offset use of fumigants have been found in studies in Spain (Piedra Buena et al ., 2006, Lopez-Perez et al ., 2006).

• The use of grafted plants (combined with ot her relevant treatments) has continued to increase as a MB alternative in tomato, eggpl ant, melon, zucchini and other vegetable crops in Mediterranean countries, for exam ple in Italy (Morra and Bilotto, 2005).

• The use of low-cost substrates for protected vegetables, strawberries and flowers has increased in both A5 and non-A5 countries, and also for open field crops in certain situations (e.g. Mutitu et al. 2006ab, Mukunya et al. 2006, Vos and Bridge, 2006,

• The combination of solarisation and Trichoderma significantly reduced soil populations

of Phytophthora cactorum in strawberry fields and h as been successful in areas never subjected to MB fumigation before (Porras et al ., 2007).

• Solarisation is also being used as a promis ing alternative for treatment of fungal pathogens in flower crops in the US (McSorley et al , 2006).

• Advances in other non-chemical techniques continue to be made and need to be considered in any integrated program to control soilborne diseases. A recent study by

Runia et al. , (2007), for example, presents an integrated program that has proven effective for managing fungi and nematodes affecting strawberry runners in The Netherlands.

8.1.6 References

Austerweil M., Steiner B., Gamliel A. (2006) Permeation of soil fumigants through agricultural plastic

films. Phytoparasitica , 34 (5), 491-501. Cram, M.M., Enebak, S.A., Fraedrich, S. W., Dwine ll, L.W. and Zarnoch, S.J. (2007). Evaluation of Fumigants, EPTC Herbicide, and Paenibacillu s macerans in the Production of Loblolly Pine Seedlings. Forest Science 53(1):73– 83. EFSA 2006. DAR Assessment Report. Initial Risk Assessment Provided by the Member State Rapporteur for the Existing Active Substance Methyl Bromide of the Third Stage (part A) of the Review Programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC, following quality review by the EFSA Pesticides Risk Assessment Peer Review (PRAPeR). Volumes 1 – 3(B1-B9). European Food Safety Authority. Gerik, J.S., Greene, I.D., Beckman, P. and Elmore, C.L. (2006). Preplant drip-applied fumigation for calla lily rhizome nursery. HorTechnology 16(2): 297 – 300 Gilreath, J.P., Santos, B.M., Busacca, J.B., Eger. J.B., Mirusso, J.B. and Gilreath, P. (2006). Validating broadcast application ofTelone C-35 complemented with hloropicrin and herbicides in commercial tomato farms. Crop Protection 25: 79–82 Desaeger J. A. and Csinos A. S. (2006). Root-knot nematode management in double-cropped plasticulture vegetables. Journal of Nematology 38(1): 59 - 67 López-Pérez, J.A.,Le Strange, M., Kaloshian, I., Ploe g, A.T. (2006). Differential response of Mi generesistant tomato rootstocks to root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne incognita) Crop

Protection 25: 382–388 MBTOC, 2007. (2006) Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP, Nairobi 482 pp. McSorley, R., K.H. Wang and N. Kokallis-Burelle. (2006). Solarization as an alternative to Methyl

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

USA

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 64 Morra, L. and Bilotto, M. (200 5) Innesto erbaceo in orticoltu ra,espansione a due velocità. L’Informatore Agrario . 45: 33-37 Mukunya, D.M., Mutitu, E.W., Musembi, N., Waswa, R. and Mutero, J. (2006). Viable alternatives to methyl bromide that have been promoted for use in Kenya for cut flower and vegetable cultivation. Stakeholders Workshop, 21 February 2006 . GOK-GTZ-UNDP MB Alternatives Project, Nairobi. Mutitu, E., Waswa, R., Musembi, N., Chepsoi, J., Mutero, J. and Barel, M. (2006a). Use of methyl bromide alternatives in small scale vegetable sector in Kenya. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Project – Kenya. GOK-GTZ-UNDP project. Nairobi Mutitu, E., Waswa, R., Musembi, N., and Barel, M. (2006b). Substrates for vegetable production in Kenya. Noling, J.W., Gilreath, J.P. and Botts, D.A. (2006). Chapter 23 In: Alternatives to methyl bromide soil fumigation for Florida vegetable production. In: Olson, SM. et al. 2006. Vegetable

Production Handbook for Florida. Univers ity of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) Extension. Piedra Buena, A., López-Pérez, J.A., Bello, A., Dí ez-Rojo, M.A., Robertson, L., Escuer, M. and de León, L. (2006). Screening of cuarentino pepper ( Capsiucum capsicumannuum L.) for

resistance to Meloidogybe incognita

. Nematropica 36(1): 13 – 24. Porras, M., C. Barrau, F.T. Arroyo, B. Santos, C. Blanco, and F. Romero. (2007). Reduction of Phytophthora cactorum in strawberry fields by Trichoderma spp. and soil solarization.

Plant Disease 91:142-146. Runia, W.T., Molendijk, L.P.G. and Evenhuis, B. (2007). Desk study on efficacy of alternatives to methyl bromide against soliborne fungi and plant parasitic nematodes in strawberry runners. Applied Plant Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 47 pp. Santos, B.M. and Gilreath, J.P. (2006). Chemical a lternatives to methyl br omide for vegetable crop production in Florida, United States CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 2006 1, No. 057 Santos, B.M., Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T.N., von Hulten, M. and Siham1, M.N. (2006). Effects of mulch types and concentrations of 1,3-Dichloropropene plus chloropicrin on fumigant retention and nutsedge control. HorTechnology 16(4):1-4 Santos,B.M., Gilreath, J.P., López-Aranda, J.M., Mi randa, L., Soria, C. Nad Medina, J.J. (2007). Comparing Methyl Bromide alternatives for strawberry in Florida and Spain. Journal of Agronomy 6)1: 225 - 227 South, D. (2007). Chloropicrin as a Soil Fumigation Treatment in Southern Pine Nurseries. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 31(1): 47 – 51 Vos, J, and Bridge, J. (eds.) (2006). Cases of methyl bromide alternatives used in commercial practice.

CAB International. Wang, D, Juzwik, J, Fraedrich, SW, Spokas, K, Zhang, Y and Koskinen, WC. (2005). Atmospheric emissions of methyl isothiocyanate and chloropicrin following soil fumigation and

surface containment treatment in bare-root forest nurseries. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 35: 1202–1212 Wang, D., Fraedrich, S.W., Juzwik, J., Spokas, K., Zhang, Y. and Koskinen, W.C. (2006). Fumigant distribution in forest nursery soils under water seal and plastic film after application of dazomet, metam-sodium and chloropicrin. Pest Management Science 62(3): 263 - 273

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 65 8.2 MBTOC Quarantine Structures and Commodities Progress Report

8.2.1 Introduction

The MBTOC 2006 Assessment Report was placed on the web in March 2007. Since that extensive report included most of the info rmation normally included in a MBTOC Progress Report, this year the Progress Report will only discusses new matters or important highlights.

The reader is referred to the MBTOC 2006 A ssessment Report for further information on methyl bromide and alternatives, including Qu arantine and Pre-shipment (QPS) uses (UNEP, 2007).

8.2.2 Registration Status of Methyl Bromid e Alternatives used for QSC Applications

The registration news for alternatives for quaran tine, structural and commodity alternatives is mixed. Several countries are reviewing the use of methyl bromide as part of its registration or re-registration processes. For example, both the Eu ropean Union and the US are in process of reviewing registration of MB. The proposed regul ations indicate additional restrictions on its use, beyond the production and consumption restric tions of the Montreal Protocol. In the US, there is a draft regulatory proposal available for public comment on the website of the US Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/methyl_bromide/index.htm).

While progress is being made on the registrati on of some alternatives, in other cases, the deregistration of alternatives may increase pressu re to retain the continued use of methyl bromide or even revert to methyl bromide. It is for this reason that MBTOC QSC encourages Parties and CUN applicants to consider the long term sustainability of the alternatives adopted.

For quarantine, where the use of MB has increas ed in some sectors, particularly in the treatment of timber and wood packaging, some progress has been made on alternatives. In Japan, sulfuryl fluoride (SF) plus methyl isothioscyanate (MITC) and methyl iodide (MI) have been registered for the treatment of timber and packaging materials for products intended for import to Japan. The Japanese government submitted these treatments for consideration for inclusion in ISPM 15 (IPPC 2006) standard for quarantine treatments of wooden packaging materials. This standard is currently a major impetus for increasing consumption of QPS methyl bromide.

In the US, a generic dose for the use of irradi ation as a quarantine treatment is now allowed for any fruit and vegetable infested with class Insecta but not if infested with pupae or adults

of Lepidoptera . The broad approval of the irradiation treatment for all fruits and vegetables represents a paradigm shift in the approval of quarantine treatments, since normally quarantine treatments are approved only on a specific product and pest basis. Countries wishing to use this treatment have to est ablish framework equivalency and inspection agreements with the US. Several countries are developing these agreements to allow greater expansion of their exports into the US.

In the European Union, following support by the Czech Republic, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) continues to be permitted for biocide use. HC N has been used in Singapore and several EU countries for the treatment of pests on aircraft and ships. HCN continues to be used as a disinfestant for both perishable and durable co mmodities in New Zealand, Japan and several

other Asian countries

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 66 In the European Community, MB is include d in review programmes under two major pieces of legislation (EC Directives) relating to the authorisation of pesticides in plant protection products and biocidal products available in the 27 countries of the EC.

(a) The EC Plant Protection Products Directive (PPPD, 91/414/EEC) covers MB used in pesticide products which aim to protect pl ants, mainly for soil fumigation and postharvest treatments of plant products. A dossier covering MB’s toxicological characteristics and risks has undergone a tec hnical assessment according to the PPPD criteria (EFSA 2006). The technical assessment noted that MB is highly toxic and mutagenic and identified a number of areas where MB does not meet the requirements for approval under Directive 91/414/EEC. The report calculated that the operator exposure level (Acceptable Air Concentration, 7 hour repeated) should be 0.08ppm instead of the current level of about 1ppm. The assessmen t estimated that consumers could exceed (by 7-30 times) the Acceptable Daily Intake of methyl bromide residue in food, and

considered that the consumer risks were un acceptable. It noted that MB residues were expected to exceed the EC regulatory limit on residues in drinking water (<0.1 μg/l) and that fish mortalities had occurred in drainage water following MB soil fumigation. The report also listed areas where necessary technical data had not been provided by the registrants (EFSA 2006). The technical asse ssment has undergone several stages of review to date and is in the pipeline for regulatory decision-making, which may take place

in 2007. Since the technical assessment f ound that MB did not meet the criteria under 91/414/EEC, the expected end result is that plant protection products containing MB will be taken off the market in all EC countries in the next year or so.

(b) The EC Biocides Directive (98/8/EC) covers MB’s use as a biocide product in processed food facilities, stores of cheese, meat and other non-plant products, use of MB as a rodenticide for public health purposes, and othe r uses that are not related to the protection of plants. MB was officially ‘identified’ as a biocidal active substance under Regulation 2032/2003 and as a result biocidal products containing MB had to be taken off the market in all EC countries by 1 September 2006. Also from 1 September 2006 any stockpiles of MB biocide products were not allowed to be so ld or stored but must be disposed of (HSE 2006). Several requests were made for speci fic ‘essential use’ ex emptions from this biocide product phase-out date (as perm itted under Regulation 2032/2003) but no exemptions have been approved by the regulatory authorities to date.

The EC pesticide legislation and the ODS legisla tion exist side by side, so any restrictions on MB made under either piece of legislation have to be respected under EC law. Consequently, for example, the use of MB for cheese stores in the UK was not permitted after 1 September 2006 under the Biocides Directive, even though a Critical Use Exemption was authorised for cheese stores in the UK under the Montreal Protocol and EC ODS legislation (Arash 2005). Likewise, any future Critical Use Exemptions authorised under the EC ODS legislation can only be used until the date that MB is taken o ff the market under the Plant Protection Products

Directive.

For the registration of structural alternativ es, sulfuryl fluoride has achieved conditional registration for empty mills and food processing f acilities in Canada. This registration allows for government supervised full site trials as a m eans to generate efficacy data. Additionally, a supplier of SF, has applied for SF registration in Thailand for commodities.

In the EU, new maximum residue limit of 0. 01 ppm for dichlorvos have been announced. This will essentially remove the use of di chlorvos for mill and commodity treatment, including rapid disinfestations of grain at time of shipment. Use of dichlorvos, where permitted by regulation, resistance status and market preference, presents a potential alternative to methyl bromide for rapid disinf estation of bulk grain at time of export.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 67For commodity treatment, progress continues on the registration and deployment of fasteracting, cylinderised gas or generated forms of phosphine. Phosphine is the most widely used alternative treatment for commodities, but its slow er action against pests limits its use in some specific circumstances. Most solid phosphin e-generating formulations require time for evolution of the gas, but gas supplied in cylinde rs or by generators can reduce the time for treatment somewhat, with actual savings depe nding on environmental conditions, commodity and pest species. Additionally, some solid ph osphine-generating formulations may also generate ammonia, which has limited its use fo r some commodities, particularly perishables. Registration for cylinderised phosphine has been applied for in Philippines and is in place in

several other Article 5 countries.

Use of the organophosphate insecticide, pirimi phos-methyl, for commodity treatment is under

review in the EU. It was used on its own or as a component of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) treatment of commodity and surface treatment in grain storage and for structural treatment in some food processing areas.

8.2.3 Update on Alternatives for Post-harvest and Structural Treatments

IPM practices are a necessary part of any modern pest control system that intends to reduce chemical use, including use of methyl bromide, and particularly toxic residues in foodstuffs. A possible biological antagonist or biocontrol ag ent has been identified for nearly all insect pest species infesting durable stored products (e.g. stored grains). Agents include various parasitic wasps, various insect predators a nd even microbiological pathogens. Intensive research has been carried out on the biology and orientation of the antagonists and their suitability for use instead of chemical products. Lepidopterous pests, such as Indianmeal moth ( Plodia interpunctella) and the moths of the Ephestia group, can be controlled very effectively by use of parasitic wasps that att ack eggs, larvae or pupae. Control of weevils and other beetles is more difficult, but strategies are being developed for these pests as well, and some are already in place. Certainly, biological control methods do not fully replace all chemicals in all situations but there are many appropriate circumstances where they do. Many suitable agents, e.g. Bracon hebator , are now available commercially in some countries. Similar considerations apply for physical c ontrol. Heat, cold, controlled atmosphere,

irradiation and mechanical shock have been established as alternative approaches in various niches of the protection of stored and perish able products and these methods are slowly gaining more economic importance. The successful disinfestation of empty structures such as mills and food processing facilities with heat of about 55°C for 24 h represents a good example of the growing adoption of physical processes.

8.2.3.1 Update on Quarantine Issues

Within the last year, potato cyst nematode h as been discovered in Idaho, US, a major potatogrowing region. Work by state and Federal offi cials is in process of defining the geographical limits of this quarantined pest. The pest appear s to be localized to a small area and relatively few potato fields. An eradication program is under consideration, based at least in part on use of MB fumigation over a period of several years (Vick, K. pers. comm.)

Timber Fumigation

There is little data available on the relative performance of various approved and potential alternatives for methyl bromide for ISPM 15. Se veral are currently under consideration. Ren (2006 and pers. comm.) found that sulphuryl fluoride, cyanogen, phosphine and carbonyl sulphide all had superior penetration to meth yl bromide along the grain of dry pine timber (Table 8.1).

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 68 Table 8.1 Relative penetration of potential alt ernatives to methyl bromide through dry pine (along the grain) (Ren, Y. L., pers. comm.)

Sample

Location (distance from ends) Exposure time Concentration x time ( ct ) products (g h m -3 

### ) relative to methyl

bromide

(cm) (hours) MB PH3 SF C2N2 COS

Headspace 8

24 273

700 1.5

1.7 1.3

1.5 0.8

0.8 0.9

0.8

5 8

24 109

405 3.2

2.7 2.2

1.9 1.7

1.3 1.1

1.1

10 8

24 60

283 5

3.5 3

2.7 2.9

1.8 1.1

1.0

15 8

24 14

76 18

13 10

9 12

6.7 2.9

3.2

Test wood: ‘Oregon’, 10cm × 10cm × 30cm, moisture content 7.8%, temperature 25C, initial dosages 50

g m -3 

### , except phosphine (1 g m -3 

### ). Figures in italics scaled to methyl bromide values.



### Controlled Atmospheres

Since MBTOC’s Assessment report in 2002, kn owledge about and co mmercial adoption of controlled atmosphere treatmen t has grown considerably.

Bell and Conyers (2003) noted that modified at mospheres have the potential to kill all pests but require supplementary measures to increase their speed of action. Raised pressure or temperature can each shorten treatment times to those used in methyl bromide container fumigations. Their work concluded that t ests at raised temperatures on a range of commodities have shown no unacceptable quality or shelf life effects from exposures up to 6 days at temperatures up to 45 to 55 o 

### C. One of the more suscep tible commodities to heating was dried apricots, but even for these a temperature limit of 45 o 

### C was identified over a 4-day exposure in a low oxygen atmosphere. Rice was unaffected by exposure at 55 o 

### C for 6 days.

Neven (2006) and Mitcham (2006) summarized many years of research done to develop controlled atmosphere temperature treatment system (CATTS) and adjusting CA equipment for the development of CA treatments for apples and cherries. Collaborating with Guy Hallman USDA – Agriculture Research Service in Weslaco Texas, they developed treatments for codling moth, oriental fruit moth, plum curc ulio and western fruit fly, and learned how to avoid product quality problems that were associat ed with both the high temperature and high

CO 2 

### conditions needed for pest control. Treat ments were developed for cherries, apples, pears, peaches, nectarines, apricots. Neven repor ted that fruit quality is better than when MB fumigation is used. The methods developed for apples and pears were approved for quarantine treatment by USDA APHIS and will be raised at bilateral meetings with importers.

However, it must be noted that the developmen t of CA treatments for perishable foods is difficult and the work in this field is not fully conclusive. Brown (2006), working in Tasmania reported the development of quarantine treatment s for stored apples for shipment to Japan. Their treatment which involves temperature te mpering of the cold-stored fruit before the CATTS treatment, while technically effective, was still reported to require improvements to decrease the incidence of product browning and to improve economic viability.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 69 An improved understanding of the combination of temperature with controlled atmosphere on pest efficacy and product quality contribute d to development of commercial systems with faster heat-up times and improved methods for th e generation of the controlled atmospheres. Controlled atmosphere (CA) treatments are far more competitive than a few years ago. Barriers of treatment time, price, usability and availability have been lowered. A Netherlands based company has installed controlled atmo sphere chambers, operated on a product lease basis, in several locations in the world. Th ere are treatment centres in The Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom, Turkey, Greece, Vietnam and India (Vroom, 2006). Controlled atmosphere treatments, sometimes combined with supplementary heating, are in use for pest control for a wide variety of durable comm odities, including spices, grains and cereals, pulses, dried fruit, seeds and cocoa beans. On e company has installed capacity for CA treatments exceeding 400,000 tonnes of commodity annually (Bergweff, F. pers. comm.)

Irradiation

Following the publication of a generic approach to using irradiation as a quarantine disinfestation treatment for fruits and vegetabl es, the US announced an irradiation treatment agreement to allow the import of irradiated Indian mango that have been treated at a minimum dose of 400 Gy, have a phytosanitary certificate, and following inspection of the fruit and orchards at time of harvest. Fruit found to be infected by fungi or bacteria of medium risk quarantine concern will also be treat ed with anti-fungal dips (Federal Register, March 12, 2007)

Systems Approach

Systems approaches involve numerous measures to reduce or eliminate pests or pest pressure, throughout growing, harvest, packing shipping, etc, with the result that pest control can be assured without treatment, or through the use of less damaging treatments. Systems approaches are among the most difficult quaran tine treatments to achieve, because they are specific to one particular region; each step in the system must be quantified and the end result of the extent of quarantine security is the same as with fumigation. A systems approach requires a much deeper knowledge of the pest(s), its conditions for growth and development,

the local environmental conditions and how to mitigate pests usually without post-harvest fumigation. Several systems approaches are in place as quarantine measures; the two reviewed below have newly co me to MBTOC’s attention.

Johnson (2006), working with one of the most important perishable crops exported to Japan, fresh cherries, reported on a project resulting from the finding of cherries infested with codling moth by Japanese inspectors. Codling moth is a quarantine pest whose presence or possible presence results in fumigation by several importing countries. Johnson’s work involved the harvesting of 10,000 cherries from each of 10 cherry orchards located near orchards of apple and pear (known to be good hosts for codling moth). Following inspection of the harvested cherries, Johnson concluded th at cherries are not a host of codling moth, and a systems approach that included monitoring and the use of pheromone traps should provide sufficient control. The system approach is now being negotiated with Japan for possible use on cherry exports to Japan. Japan has previously negotiated a systems approach for cherries

for New Zealand.

Leach (2006) outlined how systems approaches are used in combination with irradiation as a quarantine treatment for fruit from Queensland to New Zealand. When a systems approach is used to ensure that peach mo th does not infest the fruit in the field, a lower dosage rate treatment of irradiation (150 Gy) can be u sed for quarantine with resulting savings and improved fruit quality.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 70 8.2.3.2 New Potential Alternatives for Difficult MB Use Situations

In its reports, MBTOC has noted that alterna tives to control pests of cheese in storage and

ham in ham houses have not been found. There are two main difficulties in obtaining effective alternatives for these uses: the pests of concern are mites, which are more difficult to control; because the pests infest the food itself it is di fficult to obtain registration for treatments. However, recently two papers have been submitted for publication proposing possible

alternatives for control of mites in cheese and ham.

Sanchez-Ramos and Castanera (in press), have examined mite development at low temperatures finding that 7  ̊ C stops development of mites and does not adversely affect the cheese. Cheese is typically stored at just slightly higher temperatures (around 10  ̊ C), and therefore lowering cheese storage temperature may be a good mite control option.

Mites are also the main, but not the only, pest of concern in the production of cured pork in the US. It is a regional product, referred to as ’Southern Cured Ham’. In Spain, the production of cured ham is also very important and hams ma de in Spain are also subject to infestation by mites. Species of concern include: Tyrophagus putrescentiae

, T. longior

, T. casei and

Blattisocius dentriticus . MBTOC has obtained unpublished information that indicates the treatment against mites in ham is to dip the prod uct into melted lard and oil at 90oC for a short time (Roca, pers comm. 2007). Cured ham fac ilities in Spain are reportedly sprayed with insecticides such as phenothrin, and/or tetramet hrin with or without piperonyl butoxide synergist. MBTOC has no basis for comparison of these pork products, or to know if the mite species of concern are the same. However, give n the difficulty in finding effective and safe methods, and in light of the US multi-state r esearch program on this problem, MBTOC offers this information as a possible avenue for investigation.

8.2.4 Methyl Bromide Recapture Technologies Update

The RAZEM methyl bromide recapture and recycling system has been under test in 2006 (Spruyt et al . 2006). In one test series, 80% of methyl bromide added to an empty freight container was recovered in 30 minutes, with 99.98 % recovery in 4 hours. A pre-series version was tested in July 2007 by the Belg ian authorities. About 100 kg of methyl bromide has been recaptured and recycled during the last 7 months, representing a 50% saving on normal methyl bromide use. The Belgian Federal Authority is reported to support the use of QPS methyl bromide with recovery until an equi valently effective, and more ecological gas, for quarantine has been found (Williame, E. 2007. pers comm.). It was also said that a replacement gas would also need to be recovera ble. A decision has been made to build the first 8 commercial RAZEM units with capability of recovering methyl bromide from up to 200 containers per day in the port of Antwerp, by July 1, 2007 (Williame, E. 2007. pers comm.).

In the US, Value Recovery’s Methyl Bromid e Scrubbing System has become commercially

available and has made further technical adva nces (Joyce, P. 2007. pers. comm.). The process uses liquid scrubbing with ammonium thiosulphate solution. A modification has been introduced that integrates the scrubber with car bon adsorption allowing for the recapture and destruction of methyl bromide vented from la rge systems at rates that will not interrupt current operations, e.g. from QPS chambers of 5,700 m 3 

### , and structural fumigations of 28,000 m 3 

### . In trials, the scrubber achieved 91% MB destruction with one pass. Value Recovery will guarantee 99% recovery and destru ction, but with increased capital cost, by adding a secondary carbon adsorption unit onto the exhaust from the liquid system (Joyce, P. 2007. pers. comm.).

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 71 8.2.5 References

Arash B. 2005. Personal communication, Mr B. Arash, European Commission, Brussels. Bergweff, F. CEO EcO2 BV. Numansdorp, The Netherlands. Pers. comm. Brown, G. 2006. Maintaining apple fruit quality with CATTS disinfestation treatment. In: Annual

International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 3 – 6, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA. Paper 89. Conyers, S. T. and C.H. Bell. 2003. The effect of modified atmosphere s on the survival of the eggs of four storage mite species. Experimental and Applied Acarology 31, 115-130. EFSA 2006. DAR Assessment Report. Initial Risk Assessment Provided by the Member State Rapporteur for the Existing Active Substance Methyl Bromide of the Third Stage (part A) of the Review Programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC, following quality review by the EFSA Pesticides Risk Assessment Peer Review (PRAPeR). Volumes 1 – 3(B1-B9). European Food Safety Authority. Federal Register. 2007. Importation of mangoes from India, APHIS 7CFR Parts 305-319. March 12, 2007. Vol 72.# 47, pp 10902-10907 HSE 2006. Biocides Fact Sheet. Issue No. 26. June 2006. Health and Safey Executive, UK. Johnson, J. A., and J.D. Hansen. 2006. Development of a systems approach for US cherries exported to Japan. In: Annual International Research Co nference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 3 – 6, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA. Paper 72. Joyce, P. 2007. Value Recovery Systems. Pers comm. IPPC. 2006. ISPM No. 15. Guidelines for regulating wood packaging material in international trade (2002) with modifications to Annex 1 (2006). IPPC: Rome. 11pp. Leach, P. 2006. Non-chemical treat ments for controlled of fruit fly in tropical fruit. In: Annual

International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 3 – 6, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA. Paper 91. Mitcham, E. 2006. Controlled atmosphere/temperature treatments to control codling moths in Bartlett pears. In: Annual Inte rnational Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 3 – 6, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA. Paper 88. Neven, L. 2006. Controlled atmosphere temperature treatment system (CATTS): A history and summary of treatments for apples and stone fruits. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 3 – 6, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA. Paper 86. Ren Y. L. and Mahon D. 2006. Penetration of methyl bromide, phosphine, sulfuryl fluoride and ethanedinitrile through a timber block. Proc. Post Harvest Timber Forum. 28 –29 November 2006, Canberra, Australia. Paper 11. Roca, J. Roca Defisan SL. Barcelona Spai n. www.rocadefisan.com., pers comm.. Sanchez-Ramos, I. and P. Castanera. in press. Ef fect of temperature on re productive parameters and longevity of Acarus farris (A cari: Acaridae). Journal of Stored Products Research. Spruyt M., Bormans R. and Goelen E. 2006. Performance of the RAZEM –technology to recover methyl bromide in fumigation processes. Work performed under contract with Declean (sic) Belgium N.V. Contract number. 061217. 2006/MIM/R/115. August 2006. 33pp. Vick, K. USDA Agriculture Research Se rvice. Beltsville Maryland. Pers. Comm. UNEP. 2007. 2006 Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. 2006 Assessment.

UNEP: Nairobi. Vroom, N., 2006. Improved treatment times for controlled atmospheres in stored product pest control.

Presented to: Annual International Resear ch Conference on MB Alternatives and Emissions Reduction. Methyl Bromide A lternatives Outreach. Nov 2006 Orlando

Florida. Williame, E. 2007. Razem Technologies. Pers comm

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 73 

# 9 2007 Critical Use Nominations

9.1 Evaluation of 2007 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide and Related Matters; General Considerat ions and Scope of the Report

This 2007 interim report provides initial eval uations by MBTOC of CUNs submitted for methyl bromide by Parties in 2007 in accordan ce 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). MBTOC is reporting following a temporary schedule to ensure reports are pr epared early enough to meet the meeting scheduled by Parties in this year of the 20 th 

### anniversary of the Montreal Protocol.

In late 2006, TEAP Co-Chairs announced a reorga nization of MBTOC, separating it into two independent sub-committees, recognizing the diffe ring expertise required for the two main groupings of CUNs, those relating to postharvest and structural uses and those involved with soil fumigation. MBTOC Soils (MBTOC S) has responsibility for the pre-plant uses and alternatives of methyl bromide. MBTOC Quar antine, Structures and Commodities (MBTOC QSC) has responsibility for issues concerning methyl bromide uses and alternatives for quarantine, pre-shipment, structural and co mmodities. Evaluations of CUNs for the two categories are reported separately below.



## 9.2 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide

9.2.1 Mandate

Under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol the production and consumption (defined as production plus imports minus expor ts) of methyl bromide is to be phased out in Parties not operating under Article 5(1) of the Protocol, by 1 January 2005. However, the Parties agreed to a provision enabling exemptions for those u ses of methyl bromide that qualify as critical. Parties established criteria, under Decision IX/6 of the Protocol, which all such uses need to meet in order to be granted an exemption. Refer to Annex 1 for a copy of Decision IX/6.

All reviews of CUNs made in 2007 are to be in accordance with the ‘Annex I’ referred to in Decision XVI/4. This annex also sets out the pro cedure and timetable for the annual review of

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

studies used as the basis for such a decision. Para. 32 emphasizes that exemptions must fully comply with Decision IX/6 and other relevant d ecisions, and are intended to be limited to the levels needed for critical use exemptions. These are considered as temporary derogations from the phaseout of methyl bromide in that they are to apply only until there are technically and economically feasible alternatives that m eet the criteria in Decision IX/6, and that MBTOC should take a precise and transparent appr oach to the application of the criteria, having regard, especially, to para graphs 4 and 20 of Annex I.

Paragraphs 4 and 20 read:

4. Although the burden of proof remains w ith the Party to justify a request for a critical-use exemption, MBTOC will provid e in its report a clear explanation of its operation with respect to the pro cess of making determinations for its recommendations, and clearly state the approach, assumptions and reasoning used in the evaluation of the critical-use nominations. When cuts or denials are proposed, the description should include citations and also indicate where

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 74 alternatives are technically and economically feasible in circumstances similar to
those in the nomination, as describe d in decision Ex.1/5, paragraph 8.

20. In line with paragraph 4 above, in any case in which a Party makes a nomination which relies on the economic criteria of decision IX/6, MBTOC should, in its report, explicitly state the central basis for the Party’s economic argument and explicitly explain how it add ressed that factor, and, in cases in
which MBTOC recommends a cut; MBTOC should also provide an explanation of its economic feasibility.

9.2.2 Evaluations of CUNs – 2006 round for 2007 and 2008 exemptions

MBTOC S and MBTOC QSC subcommittees met c oncurrently19-23 March 2007 in Alassio, Italy. This meeting was held as required by the time schedule for considerations of CUNs given in Annex I referred to in Decision XVI/4 and in light of the advanced dates resulting from an earlier MOP this year in celebration of the 20 th 

### anniversary of the Montreal Protocol. If required, further meetings to consider furthe r input from nominating Parties on their various CUNs will be held separately by each MBTOC sub committee in July, 2007. These meetings will produce a final report on this ro und of CUNs in August, 2007.

CUNs in this report relate to CUEs sought for 2008 and 2009. No nominations in this particular round were submitted for longer pe riods. Some nominations were for both 2008

and 2009.

MBTOC Soils made an initial assessment of th e 14 critical use nominations for 2008 and 29 nominations for 2009. These totalled 1194.396 and 5843.066 metric tonnes respectively. At this time for these nominations, MBTOC has b een able to recommend a total of 3183.407 tonnes, being 996.746 tonnes for 2008 and 2186.660 tonnes for 2009.

MBTOC QSC made an initial assessment of the seven new or additional critical use

nominations for 2008 and nine nominations fo r 2009, totalling 11.535 and 529.721 metric tonnes respectively. At this time for these nom inations, MBTOC has been able to recommend

3.952 tonnes for 2008 and 476.017 tonnes for 2009.

All Parties submitting nominations had done so in previous CUN rounds. The total number of nominations and nominating Parties has been reduced from about 90 nominations submitted by 14 countries in the last round, to 59 in this round with 10 being for two years. Three Parties that had CUEs in the previous round did not submit further nominations in the final

round for 2008 and others submitted nominati ons for a reduced number of sectors. Two Parties submitted new requests (for sweet potato production and for fumigation of rodenticides/molluscicides) which had not been a pplied for previously by that Party. Some CUNs were for increased acreages of crop under methyl bromide treatment.

One Party met with MBTOC during the Alassio m eeting for discussions with regard to their CUNs, in accordance with paragraph 8 of Annex 1 referred to in Decision XVI/4.

MBTOC has sometimes recommended quantities of MB for 2008 or 2009 different from that

nominated. Grounds used for these recommendations are given in detail after the relevant CUNs in Tables 9.9 and 9.11. The adjustments follow the standard presumptions given in Tables 9.4, 9.5 and 9.10.

Some nominations were placed in the ‘una ble to assess’ category where MBTOC found information insufficient as required under para graph 10 of Annex 1 of the final report of MOP-16. Additionally, some no minations were placed in the ‘unable to assess’ category where reports were not submitted to substantiate commercial trials of alternatives; this allows

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 75 Parties additional time to conduct the trials and/or send the reports. One nomination was placed in the ‘unable to assess’ category awaiti ng cost data substan tiating the inability to begin to adopt alternatives at some level. In some nominations, more information was required where a more specific characterisation of the crop varieties and system was needed, where clarification of cropping areas impacted by regulatory control (e.g. township) was necessary or when justification as to why chemi cal or non chemical alternatives, or MB/Pic formulations with lower amounts of MB (e.g. 50:50, 33:67), could not be used under the

circumstances of the nomination.

In paragraph 20 of Annex 1 referred to in Decision XVI/4, Parties, among other things, specifically requested that MBTOC explicitly st ate the central basis fo r the Party’s economic argument relating to CUNs. Tables 9.9 and 9.11 provide this information for each CUN. This information was prepared by MBTOC economists.

In general, CUNs resulted mainly from the following issues: regulatory restrictions on alternatives, scale-up of alternatives, economic issues and to a much smaller degree, the technical unavailability of alternatives. For the mo st part technical alternatives exist, but they may be less commercially adopted than methyl bromide. Additionally, MBTOC notes that some Parties continue to struggle with the abilit y to adapt previously identified alternatives to their circumstances, within their definition of economic feasibility.

As in 2006, MBTOC has been unable to identify a lternatives, or has inadequate information, for CUNs relating to treatment of some cheese in storage and for dry cure pork, during curing.

9.2.3 Disclosure of Interest

MBTOC members have prepared disclosure of in terest forms relating specifically to their level of national, regional or enterprise invol vement for the 2007 CUN process, according to a standardised format developed by TEAP. This was required to ensure that those with a high

level of involvement and interest in devel oping a particular nomination did not bias the process of evaluation through participation in th e detailed review. The Disclosure of Interest

statements are found in the Annex III to this TEAP Progress 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 poten tial conflict of interest was declared.

9.2.4 MBTOC Process

Following a restructuring or refocusing of MBTOC by TEAP, the MBTOC QSC

subcommittee considered the nominations rela ting to the use of MB for fumigation of

structures and commodities. The MBTOC Soils subcommittee considered the nominations relating to the use of MB for soil fumigation. Consensus decisions were made in

subcommittees. Outcomes from deliberations by the two MBTOC subcommittees were presented in plenary to allow comments from members of either subcommittees to be submitted in writing, in event of disagreement with findings of the other subcommittee, for

later consideration.

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 some instances, this quantity differed from that used as a baseline by the nominating Party. Assessments were independent of the size of the nominated quantity. Specific circumstances

of each nomination were taken into account.

Standard presumptions were used by MBTOC to assess nominations and are given in the

sections below.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 76 9.2.5 Critical Use Nominations Review

In considering the CUNs submitted in 2007, as previously, both MBTOC subcommittees applied the standards contained in Annex I of the final report of MOP-16, and, where relevant, the standard presumptions given below in Tables 9.4, 9.5 and 9.10. In particular MBTOC sought to provide consistent treatment of CUNs within and between Parties while at the same time taking local circumstances into c onsideration, and also to provide transparency in its processes and conclusions.

In evaluating the CUNs for soil treatments, MBTOC assumed that a technically feasible alternative to MB would need to provide suffi cient pest and/or weed control for continued production of that crop to existing market standards.

For commodity and structural applications, it was assumed that technically and economically feasible alternatives would provide disinfestati on to a level that met the objectives of a MB treatment, e.g. meeting infestation standards in finished product from a mill, while ensuring the costs were economically feasible in the context of that nomination, to the extent that could

be determined.

Technically feasible alternatives do not necessarily provide superior pest control results than are achieved in practice by MB; economically f easible alternatives do not necessarily cost the

same as MB.

9.2.6 Plans to Develop, Register and Deploy Alternatives

To qualify for a CUE, Decision IX/6 in part st ates that Parties must demonstrate that “...an appropriate effort is being ma de to evaluate, commercialise and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the circumstances of the particular nomination...” and “...must demonstrate that research programmes are in place to develop and deploy alte rnatives and substitutes...”

In many nominations in the 2007 round, plans to identify alternatives were often not adequate in MBTOC’s opinion and future plans to phase outMB were not given. As with the 2004, 2005 and 2006 rounds, MBTOC did not use lack of phaseout plans as a basis to ‘not recommend’ a nomination. Appendix V summarizes the National Management Plans

submitted to the Ozone Secretariat.

Several Parties did however, identify feasible a lternatives and reduced their nominations to allow for phase-in of these alternatives. MBTOC did not reduce a Party’s requested amount for phase-in of alternatives without technical and economic evaluation and suitable justification.

9.2.7 Fulfilment of Decision IX/6

Decision XVI/2 directed MBTOC to indicate whether all CUNs fully met the requirements of Decision IX/6. When the requirements of Decision IX/6 were met, MBTOC recommended the full amount of the request. Where some of the conditions were not fully met, MBTOC recommended a decreased amount, or was unable to assess, depending on its technical and

economic evaluation. MBTOC reduced a nomin ation when a technical alternative was considered effective or, in a few cases, when th e Party failed to show that it was not effective. In this round of CUNs, as in previous rounds, MBTOC considered answers submitted by Parties in response to questions previously sent.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 77 MBTOC’s interpretation of fulfilment of Decision IX/6, in respect to evaluating alternatives,

has become more definite as time has made more information a bout alternatives known. Decision XVI/6 (b, iii) requires Parties to

(iii) It is demonstrated that an appropr iate 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 alterna tives and substitutes.

Article 5 Parties must demonstrate that f easible alternatives shall be adopted as soon as they are confirmed as suitable to the Part y’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;

In the past, MBTOC has found that some applicants had conducted no research and/or no

commercial trials and/or did not document an effo rt made to evaluate alternatives. In earlier years, these applicants tended to be small ope rators, where research costs would have been prohibitive. MBTOC QSC has not required all a pplicants to conduct their own research where that would duplicate work done elsewhere. In earlier years, MBTOC QSC relied on its own knowledge to determine if altern atives would have been effectiv e in the circumstances of the

nomination.

However, as time has passed and since know ledge of alternatives is better known to applicants and Parties, MBTOC has become firmer on this aspect of Decision IX/6. Applicants and Parties are expected to c onduct research and/or evaluate the research conducted by others in the circumstances of th eir nomination, to document that effort and

submit the documents to MBTOC. Now that a lternatives have been identified for most applications, the documents should take the form of reports of field trials and commercial scale up trials, directly pertinent to the circumstances of that particular nomination.

Nominations were classed as ‘unable to assess’ where Parties did not conduct commercial trials, substantiated by reports, unless the alternative was not registered.

Economic feasibility of alternatives is also being more definitely requested. MBTOC has encountered difficulty in assessment when yiel d losses presented in some nominations differ markedly from those reported in a large number of studies in similar circumstances and are not substantiated by references. This further ensures that aspects of Decision IX/6 are met.

In some cases, MBTOC has proposed to Parties potential research and regulatory issues that could assist research on alternatives and phase out of MB.

9.2.8 Consideration of Stocks

One criterion for granting a critical use under Decisi on IX/6 is that methyl bromide for the use “is not available in sufficient quantity and qualit y from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide” (para 1 (b) (ii)). Parties nom inating critical use exemptions are requested under decision Ex.I/4(9f) to submit an accounti ng framework, which provide the information on stocks. By the end of March 2007, accounting frameworks (incomplete in some cases) had been received from the following nominating Parties: Australia, Canada, European Community, Japan and the United States of America.

Parties holding stocks of MB can use these stocks for multiple purposes, not only for the purpose of critical use exemptions. Hence, determination by MBTOC of whether or not existing stocks held by a Party is ‘sufficient’ for critical uses is a difficult task. MBTOC has requested information from relevant Parties on the use of their stocks. However, the

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 78 information received from the Parties in this regard did not enable MBTOC to adjust the

nominations to take account of reported stocks.

In accordance with decision XVIII/13(7), a summar y of the data on stocks reported by the

Parties in 2007 for 2006 has been summarised in Table 9.2 below. Parties may wish to consider this information in light of Decision IX /6 1(b)(ii). Table 9.1 shows the stocks data that were reported by the Parties in 2006 for 2005.

Table 9.1 Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2005, as reported by

Parties in 2006 under Decision XVI/6.

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

authorized by MOP for

2005 Amount on

hand at

start of

2005 Quantity Acquired for

CUEs in 2005 (production +imports) Amount

available

for use in

2005 Quantity used

for CUEs in

2005 Amount on

hand at the

end of 2005

Australia 146.600 0 114.912 114.912 114.912 0

Canada 61.792 0 48.858 48.858 45.146 3.712
EC 4,392.812 216.198 2,435.319 2,651.517 2,530.099 121.023 Israel 1,089.306 16.358 1,072.350 1,088.708 1,088.708 0 Japan 748.000 0 546.861 546.861 546.861 0

New

Zealand 50.000 6.900 40.500 47.400 44.580 2.810

USA(a) 9,552.879 7,613.000 not reported 7,170.000 443.000
(a) Additional information on stoc ks was reported on US EPA website , September 2006: Methyl bromide inventory held by US companies: 2004 = 12,994 tonnes; 2005 = 9,974 tonnes.



### Table 9.2 Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2006, as reported by

Parties in 2007 under Decision XVI/6.

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

authorized by MOP for

2006 Amount on

hand at

start of

2006 Quantity acquired for

CUEs in 2006 (production + imports) Amount

available

for use in

2006 Quantity used

for CUEs in

2006 Amount at

the end of

2006

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

available Not yet

available EC 3,527.030 114.953 1,472.781 1,587.734 [1,519.184](a) [68.550](a)

Israel 880.295 - - - - - Japan 741.400 70.735 488.810 559.545 540.207 19.338 USA 8,081.753 9,974.000(b) 443.000(c) 6,924.000 16,898.000 7,168.000(d) 7,671.000(e) 539.000(f)
(a) Preliminary data subject to update. (b) Amount of pre-2005 stock on hand. (c) Amount of stocks at the end of 2005 from production/impor ts specifically made fo r CUEs (acquired in 2005). (d) The sum of 6,384 tonnes of production/imports for CUEs plus 784 tonne s used from stocks. (e) Amount of pre-2005 stocks remaining at the end of 2006. (f) Amount of stocks at the end of 2006 remaining fr om production/imports specifically made for CUEs (acquired in 2006).

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 79 9.2.9 Decisions Ex.I/4 (9d) and Decision XVII/9(10)

Decision XVII/9(10) of MOP-17 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 2005, there has been a progressive trend by all Parties to reduce their consumption and CUN nominations, although this has occurred at different rates. Table 9.3 below shows the amounts nominated and exempted for ‘Critical Use’ fopr each Party in 2008 and 2009. Appendix III shows the trends since 2005 fo r each nomination. The amounts licensed, authorized, permitted or used for each cate gory of critical use are not available.

9.2.10 Rates of Adoption

In previous rounds of CUNs, the Parties have r ecognised that time is needed to effect phase-in of alternatives and has accepted this as a reasona ble technical argument for lack of availability

to the end user sensu Decision IX/6. MBTOC has used this approach in making evaluations of

this round of CUNs.

Some CUNs in the 2007 round argued that time w as required to allow the relevant industry to transition to available alternatives. They s howed a reduction in nominated quantity requested from that of the preceding year, reflecting progr essive adoption of alternatives; while others had the same or similar quantities of MB nominated to the preceding CUNs.

In several of the CUNs adoption rates were low. In some cases, alternatives at varying stages of readiness for adoption were identified in the CUN and in others they were identified by MBTOC. In cases where adoption rates indicated by the Party were considered too slow

because alternatives were available and had been adopted by users in the nominated region and similar industries elsewhere, MBTOC made an assessment for uptake of such

alternatives.

Data on the commercial use of soil alternatives s hows that substantial adoption of alternatives in regions with similar pests and climates to those seeking CUNs has occurred within 4 years or less (e.g. many countries within the EC , Australia, USA with specific regions e.g. California).

Adoption of structural and commodity alterna tives has not been linear; early adoption rates were low, in part because of the then recent regi stration of alternatives. In the past two years however, adoption of alternatives for commodity and structural uses has ranged from 5 – 40%, depending on the situation; the use of MB for some commodities has been completely phased out. In many countries there has been time for fumigator training, logistical changes, the building of appropriate fumigation chambers etc, and so MBTOC has expected phase-out rates in the higher ranges, unless there are registra tion restrictions or other issues specific to a Party’s particular circumstances.

There is limited guidance and data available on what is a reasonable rate of transition to existing and available alternatives, though para graph 35 of Annex I referred to in Decision

XVI/4 states that “In situations where MB TOC recommends a nomination on grounds that it is necessary to have a period for adoption of alternatives, the basis for calculating the time period must be explained fully in the TEAP re port and take fully into account the information provided by the nominating Party, the supplier, the distributor or the manufacturer. Relevant

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 80 factors for such a calculation include the number of enterprises that need to transition, e.g., the number of fumigation and pest control companies, estimated training time assuming full effort, opportunities for importing alternative equi pment and expertise if not available locally,

and costs involved.”

In the past, where several indus tries have been heavily dependent on MB, e.g. strawberries, tomatoes and other vegetable crops (eg. Italy, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and other countries of the EC, Australia) almost complete adoptio n of alternative technologies (especially those requiring similar application technologies) has b een achieved in a 3 to 4 year period. Theses regions have similar pests complexes to t hose requesting CUNs but may have different regulatory issues.

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

In the MBTOC QSC nominations one Party has indicated that its harvest quantities of a commodity, for which a CUE is sought, have been diminished over several years as a result of global warming; as a result it has reported an inability to invest in methyl bromide

alternatives.

A key transitional strategy for treatment of st ructures has been the u se of alternatives in rotation with methyl bromide. For some CUNs re lated to structural treatments, reductions in MB could have been achieved, where effective alternatives were identified, by reducing the frequency of MB use. Some structural meth yl bromide users have reduced frequency of fumigation by substituting alternatives for some or most of the MB fumigations. This strategy is at an early stage of trial and understanding. MBTOC QSC suggests that in these and other instances MB may only be required every 2, 3 or 4 years at most and suggests that Parties

consider further reductions in MB nominated where appropriate. Accepting alternative use as part of a strategy to reduce MB fumigation ma y also help provide or extend user confidence and experience in alternatives.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report81Table 9.3 Summary of Critical Use Nomination (2005 – 2009 in part)and Exemption (2005 – 2008 inpart) amounts of MB granted by Parties under theCUN/CUE process. (Note: A breakdown of CUN and CUE amounts by commodity is given in the ANNEX after 9.3)QUANTITIES NOMINATEDQUANTITIES APPROVEDPARTYTotalNominationFor 2005TotalNominationFor 2006Totalnominationsfor 2007Nomination for2008Nomination for20092005(1ExMOP and16MOP)2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)2007(17MOP +18MOP)2008(18MOP)Australia 206.950 81.250 52.145 52.900 38.990 146.600 75.100 48.517 48.45Canada 61.992 53.897 46.745 42.241 34.443 61.792 53.897 52.874 36.112EuropeanCommunity65754.361 4213.47 1239.873 245.000 * 4392.812 3536.755 689.142 0Israel 1117.156 1081.506 1236.517 952.845 851.395 1089.306 880.295 966.715 0Japan 748.000 738.700 651.700 589.600 508.900 748.000 741.400 636.172 443.775NewZealand53.085 53.085 32.573 0 0 50.000 42.000 18.234 0Switzerland 8.700 7.000 0 0 0 8.700 7.000 0 0USA 10753.997 9386.229 7417.999 6415.153 4942.227 9552.879 8081.753 6749.060 5884.283TOTALS 18704.24 15615.135 10677.558297.739 6375.955 16050.089 13418.200 9160.714 5884.283* Not yet available.1Members of the European Community having CUNs/CUEs in 2005 – 2007include: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and theUnited Kingdom.6Members of the European Community having CUNs/CUEs include:2005 – Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.2006 – Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.2007 – France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom2008 – Poland, Spain

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 82 9.3 Evaluation of 2007 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide and Related Matters; MBTOC Soils In terim Report – March 2007 (MBTOCS)

9.3.1 Scope of the MBTOC - S Report

This 2007 MBTOC Soils interim report provi des initial evaluations of MBTOC/TEAP on CUNs submitted by Parties in 2007, in accordan ce with the timetable set out in the Annex I referred to by Decision XVI/4. MBTOC has provided MB consumption figures in the 2006 Assessment Report and also provided updated tables and figures of trend lines for previous critical use exemptions in this report. This information has been reviewed in the light of management strategies previously submitted by Parties pursuant to Decision Ex.I/4 (9d).

9.3.2 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide

9.3.2.1 Evaluations of CUNs – 200 6 round for 2007 and 2008 exemptions

MBTOC- Soils met 19-23 March 2007 in Alassio, Italy. If required a further meeting to consider further input from nominating Parti es on their various CUNs, particularly those 'unable-to-assess' in this report, is scheduled for 9-13 July 2007 in Costa Rica. This latter meeting will produce a final report on this round of CUNs.

For pre-plant soil uses, seven Parties submitte d 14 critical use nominations for 2008 and 29 nominations for 2009. These totalled 1194.396 and 5843.066 metric tonnes respectively. These Parties had submitted nominations in pr evious CUN rounds. The total number of nominations and nominating Parties has been reduced from about 70 nominations submitted by 14 countries in the last round, to 43 in this round with 10 being for two years. Three Parties that had CUEs in the previous round did not submit further nominations in the final

round for 2008 and others subm itted nominations for a reduced number of sectors. One Party submitted a new request for sweet potatoes which had not been applied for before in that

country.

One Party made arrangements to meet with MBTOC Soils during the Alassio meeting for discussions with regard to their CUNs, in accord ance with paragraph 8 of Annex 1 referred to

in Decision XVI/4.

9.3.2.2 Consideration of alternatives

As in previous years, MBTOC used the guidan ce given in Annex I where ‘alternatives’ were defined as any practice or treatment that can be used in place of methyl bromide. ‘Existing alternatives’ are those alternatives in present or past use in some regions; and ‘potential alternatives’ are those alternatives in the pr ocess of investigation or development. MBTOC also used information on the suitability of a lternatives for a nomination by considering the commercial adoption of alternatives in regions nominated for CUNs. Also, adoption in regions with similar climatic zone and cropping practices was used as an indication of the feasibility (technical and economic) of an alternative in a similar region. For example, 1,3- dichloropropene/chloropicrin (1,3-D/Pic), metham sodium alone or in combination with Pic, dazomet, substrates and the use of resistant varieties and grafted plants (for solanaceous crops, melons and other cucurbits) have been a dopted to replace MB for a range of crops in industries applying for CUNs and in many regions where MB was once used. MBTOC was

‘unable to assess’ several nominations that did not explain or provide sufficient evidence why these major alternatives were unsuitable for th e specific circumstances of a nomination.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 83 In evaluating the CUNs for soil treatments, MBTOC assumed that a technically feasible alternative to MB would need to provide suffi cient pest and/or weed control for continued production of that crop to existing market standards.

MBTOC evaluation of CUNs relating to production of strawberries, tomatoes and some other crops was assisted by information provided by a large number of published studies on MB alternatives and by a meta-analysis (TEAP 2006, Porter et al ., 2006). The published studies provided additional transparency to MBTOC ev aluations, as requested by the Parties in

Decision 15/4.

In paragraph 20 of Annex 1 referred to in D ecision 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 centr al basis for the Party’s economic argument relating to CUNs. Tables 9.9 provides this information for each CUN that relied on economic

criteria.

9.3.2.3 Period of nominations

CUNs in this report relate to CUEs sought for 2008 and 2009. No nominations in this particular round were submitted for years fo llowing 2009. One Party, Israel, submitted nominations for both 2008 and 2009, for several crops.

9.3.2.4 Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities.

The tables below (Tables 9.4, 9.5) provide statements of standard presumptions applied by MBTOC/TEAP in assessing this round of CUNs where continued methyl bromide use is sought. These standard presumptions were firs t proposed in the MBTOC report of October 2005 and were presented to the Parties at MOP-17.

Presently the rates and practices adopted by MBTOC as standard presumptions are based on maximum rates considered acceptable by publishe d literature. For soil treatments, the dosage levels of methyl bromide given in these presu mptions are considered the maximum dose for almost all instances and may exceed those requi red for good agricultural practice in all but exceptional circumstances, particularly when used in conjunction with low gas permeability barrier films (LPBF), such as various VIF and metallised barrier films. A copy of the actual dosage rate of MB in MB/Pic formulations a nd those used as standard presumptions is shown in Tables 9.4 and 9.5. MBTOC is presently reviewing these guidelines to more accurately reflect feasible doses with methyl bromide/ch loropicrin combinations and will present a revised set of presumptions to the MOP-19.

As in the evaluations in previous years, MBTO C considered reductions to quantities of MB in particular nominations to a standard rate pe r treated area where tec hnical evidence supported its use. Although 250 kg/ ha (25g/m 2 

### ) is often used, MBTOC considers the maximum MB application rate for 98% MB to be 350 kg/ha (35 g/ m 2 

### ), in conjunction with low barrier permeability films (e.g., VIF or equivalent), combined with extended exposure periods, as

effective in most circumstances when corr ectly applied. In cases where use of high chloropicrin-containing mixtures (approximately MB:Pic 67:33 or 50:50) is considered feasible, maximum dosage rates of 175 kg MB/ha (17.5 g/ m 2 

### ) where nutgrass is the key pest and 150 kg/ha for pathogens are regarded as reasonable and were used as the maximum standard presumptions unless there was a regulatory or technical reason indicated otherwise by the Party.

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

### ) for certified strawberry runner production in the absence of da ta that showed certification standards could

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 84 be met in the circumstances of particular nomin ations. However, several Parties indicated that rates of 200 kg/ha (20g/m 2 

### ) or less (Table 9.6) of MB:Pic 50:50 were effective with barrier films for production of ‘certified’ strawbe rry runners and may be suitable for other propagation material. Several Parties indicated that 250 kg/ha (25g/m 2 

### ) of 98:2 were effectively used in standard commercial application.

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.

Table 9.4 Standard presumptions used in assess ment of CUNs for the 2007 round – soil

treatments.

Comment CUN adjustment Exceptions

1. Dosage rates Maximum guidelin e rates for MB:Pic 98:2 35 g/m 2 with barrier films (VIF or equivalent); for MB/Pic 67:33 - 15g or 17.5g

MB/m 2 for pathogens and nutsedge respectively, unde r barrier films. All rates on a ‘per treated hectare’

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

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

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

reasons
3. MB/Pic

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

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

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

4. MB/Pic

Formulation: Weeds/nutgrass

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

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

5. Strip vs.

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

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

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 85 Table 9.5 Actual dosage rates applied during pre-plant fumigation when different rates and formulations of methyl bromide/ch loropicrin mixtures are applied with and without barrier films. Rates of application reflect standard commercial applications rates

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

### ) Commercial application rates of formulation

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

A. With Standard Polyethylene Films

400 39.2 26.8 20.0 12.0

350 34.3 23.5 17.5 10.5

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

250 24.5 16.8 12.5 7.5

200 19.6 13.4 10.0* 6.0

175 17.2 11.8 8.8 5.3 * Note: Trials from 1996 to 2007 (Table 9.6) show that a dosage of 10g/m 2 

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

### using standard films



### 9.3.2.5 Use/Emission reduction technologi es - 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 minimisation techniques, requesting Parties “...to ensure, wh erever methyl bromide is authorised for critical-use exemptions, the use of emission minimisation 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.”

In this round, MBTOC assessed CUNs where po ssible for reductions in MB application rates and deployment of MB emission reduction tec hnologies, such as use of LPBF, including VIF, or other appropriate sealing and emission contro l techniques including deep injection of MB, use of formulations with a lower proportion of MB and/ or reduced frequency of application.

A large number of studies under field conditions in a number of regions (Table 9.6), together with the large scale adoption of barrier films in Europe (e.g. VIF), support the use of these films as a means to reduce MB dosage rates. Controlled studies have also shown substantial

reductions in MB emissions (Wang 1997, Yates 2005, Fraser et al., 2006, Ou et al. , 2007). Research and development on low permeability ba rrier films (LPBF) has been summarised in the previous MBTOC Assessment Reports (MBTOC 1998, 2002, 2006). Typically, equivalent effectiveness is achieved with 25 –50% lower methyl bromide dosage applied under LPBF compared with normal polyethylene containment films (See Tables 9.5 and 9.6).

Recent advancements in the cost and technical performance of barrier films, especially metallised polyethylene films have reduced cost and extended their suitability for use with methyl bromide and also some of the altern atives. Previous difficulties with sealing and gluing barrier films are no longer seen as a tec hnical impediment to implementation of barrier films as new application technologies (i.e. glu es, polyethylene edges and perforated films) have solved earlier problems.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 86 The use of low permeability barrier films (VIF or equivalent) is compulsory in the 25 member countries of the European Union (EC Regulation 2037/2000). In other regions LPBF films are considered technically feasible and large adoptio n has occurred, e.g. Israel and SE USA. In Florida the reported use of barrier films in vegetable crops has expanded from 3000 acres 2005/06 to 30,000 acres in 06/07 (Allen, pers. comm.). The exception is the State of California in the US however, where a regulati on currently prevents use of VIF with MB (California Code of Regulations Title 3 Secti on 6450(e). This regulation 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.

In 2003 and 2004 (TEAP 2003, 2004), MBTO C/TEAP evaluations of CUNs used conservative maximum allowable dosage rates for use with standard films and barrier films. Since then, high levels of success have been dem onstrated in many countries at lower rates of methyl bromide with barrier films (Table 9.6) . This information was used to set revised standard presumptions for dose rates of MB/Pic fo rmulations that are effective in conjunction

with use of barrier films.

To assist the adoption of lower dosage rates, res earchers, extension specialists, fumigators and

farmers need to continue to build confidence in the effectiveness of lower dosage levels and optimise the methods based on range of pests a nd pest pressure and type of low permeability barrier films used in the field. Practical pe rmeabilities for barrier films are identified by suppliers and offer MB users a wider rang e of opportunities for lowering MB dosages.

9.3.2.6 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 meth yl bromide (e.g. MB:Pic 50:50 or less). These formulations are considered to be equally as effective in controlling soilborne pathogens as formulations containing higher quantities of methyl bromide (e.g. 98:2, 67:33) (e. g. Porter et
al ., 1997; Melgarejo et al ., 2000; Lopez-Aranda et al ., 2003; Santos et al ., 2007). Formulations containing high proportions of chloropicrin in mixtures with methyl bromide have been adopted widely by non-Article 5 count ries to meet Montreal Protocol restrictions where such formulations are registered or ot herwise permitted. Their use can be achieved with similar application machinery which allows co-injection of methyl bromide and chloropicrin or by use of premixed form ulations. Consistent performance has been demonstrated with both barrier (Table 9.6, Fig. 9.1) and non barrier films. Parties are urged to consider lower dosage rates, i.e., as low as 75 kg/ha of 30:70 or 100 kg/ha of 50:50 MB/Pic in conjunction with barrier films as these have shown similar effectiveness to rates of 335 to 800 kg/ha of MB 98% using standa rd polyethylene (Fig 9.1).

9.3.2.7 Use of disposable canisters of MB

One Party still used small disposable canisters (i.e. 500 to 750g canisters) for application of MB under plastic films. This practice is not considered as effective for pathogen control as use of MB/Pic mixtures and also leads to high emissions of methyl bromide. Canisters have

been eliminated in most non- Article 5 c ountries as they were considered dangerous. According to the Party, canisters are used b ecause they provide small-scale farmers with an easy application method and the ability to apply targeted amounts of MB to small areas where injection machinery may be difficu lt to use in these circumstances.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report87Table 9.6 Relative effectiveness of MB/Pic formulations applied incombination with low permeability barrier films compared tothe commercial standardMB/Pic formulation applied under standard low density polyethylene filmsUntreated Methyl Bromide/ChloropicrinMixtures (Product rateper treated area)Std film Barrier Film -Relative yield compared to standard polyethyleneYieldMB/PicFormuln.ProductRateNotSpec 98:2 98:2 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 50:50 33:67CountryRegionCommodityBrand or Type ofBarrier Filmkg/ha 300 400 300 98 196 200 294 336 392 200 200NotesReferenceMB Dosage rate (g/m2)392 294 66 131 134 197 225 263 100 66SpainVinderosStrawb. RunnerVIF - NotSpec7450:5040093De Cal et al 2004Navalmanzano7850:5040080Fusarium,Phytophthora,Pythium,Rhizoctonia andVerticilliumSpainVinderosStrawb. RunnerVIF - Not Spec6850:50400114102Melgarejo et al 2003Navalmanzano3450:504007675Fusarium,Cladosporium,RhizoctoniaSpainAvitorejoStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec50:50400972003 resultsLopez-Aranda et al 2003Malvinas50:50400991998 FusariumSpainValenciaStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec59Not Spec60094At 10cm &30cmBartual et al 200253Not Spec600931999 resultsSpainAvitorejoStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec8067:33400112Lopez-Aranda et al 2001aTariquejo5467:33400106Meloidogyneand weeds(unspec.)SpainMoguer/CartayaStrawb. RunnerVIF - Not Spec50:5039299Inoculum notspecifiedLopez-Aranda et al 2001bSpainCabeza, Nav.Strawb. Runner VIF - Not Spec7467:33400105, 921998 Two sitesMelgarejo et al 2000Arevalo, Nav.8450:50400104, 1041999 results,nurseriesVinaderos, Nav.4950:5040095, 1232000 results,nurseriesSpainHuelvaStrawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec8267:334001011997-1998Inoc.unspecifiedLopez-Aranda et al 20007267:334001021998-1999 Inoc.UnspecifiedApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report886867:334001091999-2000 Inoc.UnspecifiedSpainMoncadaStrawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec6098:260095Cebolla et al 19995498:2600911998 No majorpathogens butFusarium buried10cm&30cm.FranceDouvilleStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec65Not Spec80099Inoculum notspecifiedFritsch 1998NZHavelock NorthStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec8367:3350098PhytophthorapresentHorner 1999USAFloridaPepperVIF Plastopil6967:3339278NutgrassGilreath et al 2005VIF Plastopil6967:3339299PresentVIF Vikase6967:3339283VIF Vikase6967:3339286USAFloridaStrawb Fruit,CantaloupeBarrier - Pliant,Metallised98:267:33Trials on 18 Commercial Farms between 2000-2004; no increase in disease or weedswhen rates reduced up to 50% under VIF wrt. PolyethyleneNutgrass andpathogenspresentNoling and Gilreath 2004USACalifornia7267:33336108Inoculum notspecifiedAjwa et al 2004Strawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec8067:3339296USAFloridaTomatoVIF - Not Spec3167:3339211193114Nutgrass androotknotnematodesHamill et al 2004USACaliforniaStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec7567:33392106Ajwa et al 20038367:333921116567:33392102Watsonville,high pathogenpressureUSAFloridaTomatoVIF - Not Spec67:33392"No significant reduction in yield"Noling et al 2001USACaliforniaStrawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec4567:33364116Duniway et al 1998USAFloridaVIF – not spec392/ 196Ouet al., 2007Unweighted averages (relative % yield)669499939310210310810491

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 89 Figure 9.1 Relative yield of crops (strawberri es, tomatoes, peppers, cantaloupes) grown under barrier films with different MB/Pic formulations compared to the standard commercial treatment using st andard polyethylene from trials

between 1998 and 2004

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

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



### ( ▲ MB/Pic 98:2; ● MB/Pic 67:33; ♦ MB/Pic 50:50; ■ MB/Pic 33:67). Data from Table 9.6.

9.3.2.8 Rate of adoption of alternatives

MBTOC recognises that time is needed to effect phase-in of alternatives and accepts this as a reasonable technical argument for l ack of availability to the user sensu Decision IX/6. Some CUNs in the 2007 round argued that time w as required to allow the relevant industry to

transition to available effective alternatives. Some CUNs showed a reduction in nominated quantity requested from that of the preceding year, reflecting progressive adoption of alternatives; while others had the same or ev en slightly increased quantities of MB nominated to the preceding CUNs. Some CUNs showed sl ow rates of adoption. In some cases, alternatives at varying stages of readiness fo r adoption were identified in the CUN and in others they were identified by MBTOC. In cases where adoption rates indicated by the Party

were considered too slow because alternatives we re available and had been adopted by users in the nominated region and similar industries elsewhere, MBTOC made an assessment for uptake of such alternatives. Data on the co mmercial use of soil alternatives shows that substantial adoption of alternatives in regions with similar pests and climates to those seeking CUNs has occurred within 4 years or less (e.g . many countries within the EC, Australia, USA with specific regions e.g. California).

There is limited guidance and data available on what is a reasonable rate of transition to existing and available alternatives, though para graph 35 of Annex I referred to in Decision

XVI/4 states that “In situations where MB TOC recommends a nomination on grounds that it is necessary to have a period for adoption of alternatives, the basis for calculating the time period must be explained fully in the TEAP re port and take fully into account the information provided by the nominating Party, the supplier, the distributor or the manufacturer. Relevant

factors for such a calculation include the number of enterprises that need to transition, e.g., the number of fumigation and pest control companies, estimated training time assuming full effort, opportunities for importing alternative equi pment and expertise if not available locally, and costs involved.” Since 2004, MBTOC has requested nominating Parties to provide the

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 90 information listed in paragraph 35, for releva nt CUNs, however no detailed information has

been received.

In the past, where several indus tries have been heavily dependent on MB, e.g. strawberries, tomatoes and other vegetable crops (e.g. Italy, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and other countries of the EC, Australia) almost complete adoptio n of alternative technologies (especially those requiring similar application technologies) has b een achieved in a 3 to 4 year period. Theses regions have similar pests complexes to t hose requesting CUNs but may have different regulatory issues. Improved guidance from the Part ies, giving expected rates of adoption of alternatives following registration, would assist MBTOC in evaluation of CUNs in future. Rates of adoption for various uses and alterna tives have been considered by the European Commission in February 2006 as part of its Na tional Management Plan. The report states that alternative fumigants were adopted at the ra te of up to 2000 ha/year in sectors such as strawberry fruit (EC 2006). Adoption was achieved in periods of about 4 years for industries that were previously dependent on MB, for exam ple the Italian and French tomato industries, or the strawberry fruit sectors of Italy, Spai n and France. A new use (sweet potato production including nurseries) was presented by Israel; the nomination was explained as arising from unprecedented expansion in the sector and is e nvisaged for 2 years only, whilst a feasible alternative becomes registered.

9.3.2.9 Sustainable Alternatives

In a large proportion of the remaining CUNs, th e most currently appropriate alternatives are chemical fumigant alternatives, which themselv es, like MB, have issues related to their long term suitability for use. In both the EC and USA, MB and most other fumigants are involved in rigorous a review that could affect future regulations over their use. MBTOC urges Parties to consider the long term sustainability of treatments adopted as alternatives to MB, to continue to adopt chemical and non-chemical al ternatives for the short to medium term and to develop sustainable IPM or non-chemical approaches for the longer term. In Europe most of the sectors that had CUNs have now adopted a wide range of both chemical and non-chemical alternatives, with the exception of several sector s (e.g. strawberry fruit in Spain which has adopted primarily chemical alternatives to da te). Further work to develop non-chemical options, as well as additional chemical options, is continuing in Europe and elsewhere. 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.



## 9.3.2.10 Frequency

In the CUN round for 2007, reductions in MB for pre-plant soil use could be achieved in some nominations, where effective alternatives were identified, by reducing the frequency of MB fumigations. In some countries, present regulations already restrict the frequency of use of MB (e.g. to every second year) on similar crops and circumstances to those nominated by other Parties. MBTOC suggests that in these and other instances MB only be required every 2, 3 or 4 years and suggests that Parties fu rther consider reductions where appropriate. Alternation of pest control measures may also help provide or extend user confidence and experience in alternatives. New pest control me asures may also be good agricultural practice, reducing risk of development of resistance and providing control of a wider spectrum of pests.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 91 9.3.3 Decisions Ex.I/4 (9d) and Decision XVII/9 (10)

In response to Decision XVII/9 (10) of the MOP-17, MBTOC-S has reviewed, where possible, for each agreed critical use category, the amount of methyl bromide nominated by a Party, the amount of the agreed critical use and either:

Since 2005, there has been a progressive trend by all Parties to reduce their consumption and CUN nominations for pre-plant soil use, although this has occurred at different rates. Fig. 9.2 shows the trends in the reduction in amounts approved/nominated by Parties for ‘Critical Use’

from 2005 to 2009 in 2008 and 2009.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 92 Figure 9.2(a-f ) Amounts of MB exempted fo r CUE uses in pre-plant soil industries from 2005 to 2009. Solid lines indicate trend in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indicate quantity of methyl bromide nominated by the party in either 2008 or 2009.

Cucurbits and Melons

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearmetric tonnes France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Japan

USA Cutflow ers

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearmetric tonnes Australia

Belgium

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Portugal

Spain

USA

Orchard replant

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearmetric tonnes

France

USA Peppers and Eggplant

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearsmetric tonnes Belgium

France

Italy

Japan

Spain

USA Straw berry Fruit

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearmetric tonnes Australia

France

Israel

Italy

New Zealand

Spain

United Kingdom

USA Cutflow ers

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearmetric tonnes Australia

Belgium

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Portugal

Spain

USA

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 93 9.3.4 Interim evaluations of CUNs submitted in 2007 for 2008 or 2009

9.3.4.1 Details of evaluations

MBTOC/TEAP assessed the 43 CUNs for soils and recommended 28, with 15 placed in the ‘unable to assess’ category. Details of the C UN submitted and recommendations are shown in Table 9.7 – 9.9. Two CUNs were only pa rtially recommended with portions remaining

‘unable to assess’.

A total of 3183.406 tonnes of MB has been recommended, 996.746 for 2008 and 2186.660 for

2009.

Tables 9.7 and 9.8 below provide further info rmation on nominations received for 2008 and 2009, including the number of nominations fo r each industry or sector, nominating Parties, amounts nominated and preliminary recommendations.

In general, CUNs resulted mainly from the follo wing issues: regulatory restrictions on one or two specific alternatives, scale up of alterna tives, and economic issues. Unusually large buffer zone restrictions on fumigant alternatives particularly limit their adoption in one Party, Israel. For the most part technical alternatives exist, but uptake of alternatives varies between countries, crops and pest pressure. As in the pr evious round, Parties have found alternatives for propagation materials such as strawberry ru nners and nurseries more difficult to adopt.

MBTOC has sometimes suggested quantities of MB for 2008 or 2009 different from those nominated. Grounds used for these changes are gi ven in detail after the relevant CUNs in Table 9.9. The adjustments follow the standard presumptions given in Tables 9.4 and 9.5,

unless indicated otherwise.

Registration of key alternatives such as 1,3-D/Pi c in Israel and the recent permits for methyl iodide use in Australia and USA are expected to impact the number of future nominations and their basis may become economic rather than technical.

A number of recommendations on CUNs were not accepted by MOP-18, and this led to the full or partial restoration of the original CUN amount requested in the 2006 round. As

MBTOC in most cases uses the technical info rmation from the previous years CUE as the basis for its calculations of future nominations, it is important that Parties clearly present all technical calculations used to make adjustment s to any nominations otherwise CUNs may be

not assessable.

Nominations were placed in the ‘unable to assess’ category where MBTOC found information insufficient as required under paragraph 10 of Annex 1 of the final report of MOP-16. For example, more information was required where a more specific characterisation of the cropping system and species was needed, where clarification of cropping areas impacted by regulatory control (e.g. township) was necessary or when justification as to why chemical or non chemical alternatives, or MB/Pic formula tions with lower amounts of MB (e.g. 50:50, 33:67), cannot be used under the circumstances of the nomination.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 94 Table 9.7 Overview of CUNs received in 2007 for pre-plant soil use of Methyl Bromide (tonnes) and preliminary recommendations

MBTOC-S Recommendation Country CUE Granted

at MOP-18 2008 CUN Request 2009 CUN Request

2008 2009

Australia 35.75 29.790 29.790

Canada 14.124 7.462 7.462

EC (Poland, Spain) 689.142 244.151 244.146 -

Israel 933.315 950.245 848.795 752.6 (a) Unable to

Assess Japan 443.775 502.600 299.580 USA 4806.723 4454.419 1849.828 (a) (a) a portion of the nominated amount is also classified as unable to assess pending further information.



### Table 9.8 General Crops/Uses for MB as p er CUNs submitted in 2007 for 2008 and 2009

Nominated (tonnes) Sector Key Target No of CUNs and

Parties 2008 2009
Strawberry Fruit Fungi,Nematode (Nutsedge) 2 (US and Israel) 135.4 1461.3

Strawberry Runners Fungi, Weeds 6 (AUS, Canada, Israel, USA, Poland, Spain) 263.7 46.1

Tomato Nutsedge, Fungi,

Nematode 1 (USA) 1246.0

Peppers Nutsedge, Fungi,

Nematode 2 (Japan, USA) 918.2

Cucurbits Nutsedge, Fungi,

Nematode 6 (Japan, Israel, USA) 106.3 758.6

Orchard Replant Fungi, Nematode,

Bacteria 1 (USA) 314.0

Sweet potatoes/potatoes (including nurseries) Fungi, Nematode 3 (Israel, USA) 205.2 154.4

Broomrape Parasitic Plant 1 (Israel) 250 250 Propagative Material Fungi, Nematode 2 (USA forest nurseries, flower) 153.4

Cut Flowers Fungi, Nematode Nutgrass (Israel) 4 (USA, Spain, Israel) 233.7 346.3

Ginger Fungi (Pythium) 2 (Japan) 115.1 Eggplant Nutsedge, Fungi,

Nematode 1 (USA) 62.8

Research Trials evaluating comparisons with MB 12 (1 Spain, I Japan, 11 US) 0.151 22



### Table 9.9 includes all evaluations of CUNs made in the interim report on the 2007 round of

nominations.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report95Table 9.9 Interim evaluations of CUNs for pre-plant soil use submitted in 2007 for 2008 or 2009CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Strawberryrunners35.75037.50035.75035.750Nonenone29.79029.790MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 29.79 tonnes for this use in 2009. The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi (Phytophthora, Pythium,Rhizoctonia, Verticillium) and weeds (S. arvensis, Agrostis tenuis,Raphanus, Poa annus, Cyperus). The CUN states that MB/Pic 50:50 at a dose of 50 g/m2is required tomeet certification standards. The Party’s request exceeds MBTOC’s standard presumption of 20 g/m2 but this rate is not currently registered. The Party is currentlyexamining the efficacy of arate of 125 kg/ha (12.5 g/m2) of MB using LDPE films. The Party states that the most promising alternative, 1,3-D/Pic,is reported to have beenphytotoxic due to the heavy and wet soil in cold climate growing conditions. The CUN provided recent data from specific local trials which indicated phytotoxicity in runnersthat resulted in a doubling of the time required before planting compared to MB, problems with weed control and inconsistent results [up to a 30% decrease in runneryields]. Other alternatives tested included MS, dazomet, PIC,steam, hot water and solarization. The Party reported that plug plants are possibly a technically feasiblealternative, but that the costs associatedwith this technology are too high and they result in 10% lower yields than bare-rooted runners. Barrier film (VIF) initially reducedemissions 10-fold when compared with standard LDPE films, but off gassing issues when lifting tarps after 4 days posed a potential risk to workers and bystanders. TheParty notes that two currently unregistered alternatives appearpromising – methyl iodide and ethane dinitrile, and that methyliodide has been granted a commercial scaleup permit for 2007 to 2009. MBTOC encourages the Party to (1) expedite the use of the MB/Pic 50:50 formulation at 25 g/m2 withbarrier films and (2) to expedite theregistration of the two alternatives as quickly as possible.AustraliaMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not basedon economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN is based on assertionof lack of technically feasible alternatives in circumstances in Australia.Strawberryrunners (PEI)6.8406.8407.9957.4627.4627.462MBTOC recommends 7.462 tonnes for this use in 2009. The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are weeds and nematodes. The nomination states thatMB/Pic 67:33 at a dose of 500 kg/ha (50 g/m2) is required to meet the certification standards for strawberry runners. MBTOC’sstandard presumption is 200 kg/ha (20g/m2) with low permeability barrier films (LPBF) for propagative materials. The Party’s request exceeds MBTOC’s standard presumption; however, rates that conform withMBTOC’s standard presumption are not currentlyregistered and therefore cannot be used commercially to treat soils. The Partyhas indicated that in order to register theMBTOC recommended rate of 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2) with LPBF, the PestManagement Regulatory Agency would require the cooperation ofthe registrant and testing todemonstrate that the rate would be effective.The Party has attempted to replace MBwith 1,3-D, but 1,3-D was banned in January 2003 due to groundwatercontamination. Chloropicrin has recently been provisionally registered in Canada, but has yet to receive a permit from Prince Edward Island. The sector applying for thenomination has not yet trialled this alternative. Nor has thesector trialled low permeability barrier films (LPBF). MBTOC encourages the Party (1) to finalize the permitsnecessary for use of chloropicrin and dazomet, (2) implement theuse of LPBF which are currently used worldwide and (3) in theabsence of an effective alternativebecoming available, conduct the necessary trials to support a lower application rate of MB to conform with MBTOC’s standard presumption.CanadaMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The nomination provides noeconomic data. CUN is based on technical feasibility reasons.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report96CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)BroomrapeNonenone250.000250.000250.000250.000UMBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 250 tonnes for this use in 2008 and is unableto assess the nomination for 2009. The use is for broomrape eradication andland rehabilitation of 1000 ha in the Upper Galilee and the GolanHeights. A large area, 5700 ha are severely infested with this parasitic plant making it impossible toproduce tomatoes in these regions. The recommended CUE is based ona dose of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2)of MB/Pic 98:2 using LPBF. MB will be used only once in eachregion and the treatment is expected tobring the pathogen population below the disease threshold allowing for adoption of other alternatives. The Party has identifiedsome alternatives for controlling low infestations oforobanche(e.g. sulfosulfuron, solarization) but they are considered not adequate for controlling severe infestations ofO. aegyptiaca. Additionally, the Party expects some alternatives (1,3-D/Pic, sequential application of 1,3-D and metham sodium) to be registered and/or available in2007or 2008 and these could impact on future nominations. MBTOC acknowledges that a registration for chloropicrin is being considered in Israel and that this wouldpossibly allow for lower dosages of MB to be used for orobanche in the absence of other effective alternatives.IsraelMBTOC comments on economics 2007:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN states thatbroomrape infestation is aggravated by the phase out of MB, as registered alternativesdo not prevent area-wide infestation with the parasitic weed. The same is true foragrotechnical means, long-term fallow cropping and biological control, which in practice and in economic terms do not cope withthe long-term vitality of broomrape seedsand their gradual germination mechanism. CUN also states that prospects for the registration of Imazapic are low and the manufacturer is having doubts about the costeffectiveness of its registration, might refrain from its further development. Further, soil solarization, usually applied on intensive vegetable crops, is too expensive forextensive outdoor crops.Cucumber –protectednonenone25.00018.75018.7506.250UMBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 18.750 tonnes for 2008 and is unable to assess this nomination for 2009. Cucumbers are grown in open ended polyhouses in3 cropping cycles per annum in the proximity of the residential housesof cooperative family and private family farms. A largeproportion, 70%, of the critical use isconcentrated in one village (Achituv), where the growers specialized for years in the cultivation of indoor cucumbers for the domestic market. For two out of the threecropping cycles, solutions were found despite the monoculture production pattern, which reflects the specialization of the growers but narrow rotations enhances thepressure from soil-borne pathogens. Additional reasons for this nomination are the appearanceof a new race of a fungus,F. oxysporum f. sp. radicis cucumerinum,andbuffer zone limitations on the use of the MS+1,3-D mixtures. The pathogen is highly virulent andthe infestation level particularly high in the affected location and it coulddevastate entire greenhouses in a short period of time. MBTOCrequested whether this was a contingency use for this pathogen, but no response has been received bythe Party. MBTOC encourages the Party to consider the technical and economical feasibility of non-chemical alternatives (steam,substrates, heat, crop rotation) alreadyin use in many parts of the world for this crop. The nominatedamount is based on a dosage of250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of 98:2 MB/Pic in conjunction with use/ emissionreduction technologies. MBTOC further encourages the Party to revise buffer zone regulations in light of the current generalized use of VIF films. The Party is requestedto conduct a thorough review of the technically feasible use andeconomic cost of low cost substrate systems for future nominations.IsraelMBTOC comments on economics 2007:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN states that thecosts of grafted seedlings are a limiting factor because the technology in cucumbers isin its infancy in Israel. Furthermore,the CUN states that dazomet is noteconomically feasible due to its high prices and its low efficacyin the winter in Israel whenprevailing soil temperatures aretoo low for its use.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report97CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)cutflowers -bulbs -protected303.000240.000220.185163.400114.450155.200UMBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 114.45 tonnes for this use in 2008 and is unableto assess for 2009. The nomination is for a variety of cut flowers producedunder cover, which are mainly affected by weeds (Cyperusin particular) and nematodes (root-knotbut also ectoparasites such asLongidorus)and fungi.MBTOC doesnot recommend the use of 1.8 tonnes for fumigating substrates used in rose production asalternatives such as steam are efficient for this use. MBTOC has adjusted theamount requested for carnations grown inGhaza to conform to the standard presumptions of 350 kg/ha (35 g/m2) of MB/Pic 98:2.Fusarium oxysporum f.sp.dianthi is thekey pest affecting carnations in the Ghaza region. Lack of registration of key alternatives and chloropicrin mixtures continuesto be the major factor restricting adoption ofalternatives, which have been identified astechnically feasible. MBTOC considers thatadoption of substrate production is possible for lilium, calla lilies, gerberas andcarnations outside the Ghaza area. A 25% transition rate has been applied for adoption ofthis alternative in the 104 ha grownwith these crops. Steam is a technicallyfeasible alternative for other flower types but the Party statesthat it is economically unfeasible (economic information provided is however insufficient). 1,3-D and methamsodium are also available and a further 25% reduction was appliedfor phase-in of these alternatives in those flowers not suited for substrate production. MBTOCencourages the Party to seek registration of alternatives thathave been identified as promising through research such as 1,3-D/Pic and to explore different steamapplication methods and equipment which haveproven to be economically feasible in other countries. MBTOC requests the Party tosubmit a new nomination for 2009 asthe envisaged registration of key alternatives could impact this nomination.IsraelMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not basedon economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN provides partialbudgets for MB and the next best alternatives. The net revenue forthe next best alternatives isnegative in all cases. CUN also states that soil steaming and solarisation isnot cost effective. Some net revenue analysis was reported in 2006 round of CUNs.Cutflowers -open field77.00067.00074.54053.34544.75053.345UMBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 44.75 tonnes for this nomination in 2008 and is unable to assess for 2009. The dose of MBproposed bythe Party (250 kg/ha or 25 g/m2 of 98:2 formulation) conformswith MBTOC's standard presumptions. The nomination is for open field production of cut flowers which aremainly affected by weeds (Cyperusin particular) and nematodes (root-knot but also ectoparasitessuch as Longidorus) and fungi. Lack of registration of key alternativeson flowers such as 1,3-D+Pic, dazomet and metham sodium, continueto be the major constraints affecting substitution of MB at this time. MB formulations with higherchloropicrin content are also not registered. However MBTOC estimates that, solarisation, plate steaming, substrates and the few chemical alternatives registered allowfor 25% reduction in the amount nominated.This reduction is not applied to the 18.95t requested for nurseries of geophytes where high health plant material needs to beproduced, although no certification issues are involved. MBTOC encourages the Partyto seek registration of alternatives identified as suitable through research. MBTOCrequests the Party to submit a new nomination for 2009 as possible registration of alternatives could impact this nomination.IsraelMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN states that steamingand solarization are not cost effective while the economic assessment refers the reader to theindoor flowers CUN. However theinformation provided in the CUN 2006 forindoor flowers is insufficient.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report98CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Melon -protected andfield125.65099.400105.00087.50087.50087.500UMBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends a CUE for 87.5 tonnes for this use for 2008 and is unable to assess the nomination for 2009.Monosporascus cannonballusisthe key pathogen in the Arava Valley.Fusarium oxysporumf.sp.melonisand root-knot nematodes, mainlyM. javanica, also cause problems. The requested amount at arate of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of 98:2 MB under barrier films (LDPF) complies with MBTOC's standard presumptions. MBTOC notes that alternatives are already used for100% of the fall melons grown in the Arava valley and including metham sodium, dazomet, solarization, Formaldehyde+MS and 1,3-D/Pic (only in the southern Arava).The CUN is solely for the winter crop as the alternatives do notcontrol the key pathogens and the plant back time is too short. The nominated amount has been reducedby 12% by the Party, with respect to the 2007 amount approved.MBTOC considers alternatives, such as substrates, grafting and the use of formalin + MS to be effectivealternatives and notes recent studies which may assist transition to alternatives (Pivonia et al 2002, 2004). MBTOC notes thatPic and MB/Pic mixtures are effectivelyused forMonosporascusin other countries under similar conditions (eg. Stanghelliniet al. 2003; Martyn 2002). The Party is requested to conduct athorough review ofthe technically feasible use and economic cost of low cost substrate systems for future nominations.IsraelMBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not basedon economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN provides partialbudgets for the next best alternatives. The net revenue for the next best alternatives is negative.Potato239.000165.000137.50093.75093.75075.000UMBTOC recommends 93.75 tonnes of MB for this use in 2008 andis unable to assess the nomination for 2009. Potatoes are producedin a small cultivable area of theSharon and Ghaza regions where intensive cropping of groundnuts and potato occur in the same yearand infestation with fungal and bacterial pathogens, nematodes,parasitic and perennial weeds take place, someof them common to the two predominant crops:Rhizoctonia solani, Verticillium dahliae, root knot nematodes, mainlyMeloidogyne javanica, common scab (Streptomyces scabies), deep scab- (Streptomycesspp.), powdery scab (Spongospora subterranea),Orobanchespp. andnutsedge. Volunteer potato plantsin the succeeding crop may carry PVY type viruses.The Party has made a 31.8% reduction with respect to the amount approved by theMOP for 2007. The dosage rate of 250 kg/ha (25g/m2) of MB 98:2 conforms to MBTOC'sstandard presumptions. The nomination however is for both seed potatoessubjected to high health standards and regular crop production which is normally achieved without MB worldwide in locations where all the pest complexes exist. Theapplicant identified that 550 of 15,000 ha are located in highly populated areas where winter production occurs, pathogens arehigh, and regulatory constraints are inplace for feasible alternatives such as 1,3 D + Pic (61:35) which as a result of buffer zones prohibit their use. The party indicates that effective control alternatives are indevelopment for the pest complexes and that they are transitioning tothese. The CUN indicates that new technologies are allowing increased use of alternatives such asmetham sodium and formaldehyde. MBTOC notesthat there are effective alternatives butthat their use is affected by buffer zones, which are larger than in othercountries (for 1,3-D statedas 250m compared to 31m in USA for example). MBTOC urges the Party to consider review of these buffers in the light of use with barrierfilms. The continuing reduction of requested amounts of methyl bromide is an indication that this strategy is successful.IsraelMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:The CUN provides no economicanalysisApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report99CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Strawberry fruit– protected(Sharon andGhaza)196.000196.00093.000none64.125+ 71.250 forGhazaU57.000+ 67.500 forGhazaUMBTOC comments:MBTOC is unable to assess the nomination, pending further information from the Party. The key pests affecting strawberry fruit are fungi(Rhizoctonia solani, Colletotrichum acutatum, Macrophomina phaseolina, Verticillium dahliae, Fusariumspp.), nematodes (Meloidogyne hapla), and weeds (Cyperusrotundus,purple nutsedge). In 2004 a fungal disease,Macrophomina phaseolinawas newly reported in the area and is considered a major concern for the industry. TheCUN states that 1,3-D/Pic is registered and has been used on part of the crop but further adoption is limited to 20% of the Sharon area by buffer zones. The Party isrequested to provide technical data to quantify the impact of buffer zones. The bufferzones for 1,3-D/pic are unusually large(250m compared to 31m normally in theUSA, for example), and it is desirable forthese buffer zones to be examined in the lightof LPBF or VIF. No other fumigant alternatives have been registered. MBTOCconsiders that soilless systems are effective ingreenhouses, tunnels or plastic cloches (López-Medinaet al.,2004; Lieten, 2004; Savvas and Passam, 2002; Mutituet al.,2006). Substrates have been used on a small area in this CUN, butthe Party states that furtheruptake is limited by cost although adoption of substrates is the mainstrategic goal of this sector for the future after 2010. The CUN used old data on MBprices, so MBTOC requests updated information on economics, including low-costsubstrate systems. MBTOC encourages the applicant to continue adopting low-cost substrate systems which are used in similar circumstances in other regions (Mutituetal.2006; Vos and Bridge, 2006; MBTOC, 2007;Sonneveld, 2004; Lieten, 2004). Substrateshave been adopted at the rate of up to 80ha/year for protected strawberry inMediterranean climates (EC 2006). MBTOC considers that the transitionto alternatives will be assisted by reducing the infection (fromMacrophominaand otherdiseases) arising from nursery runner production, improved cultural practices to reduce pathogen pressure, and greater use of available resistant varieties. If dazomet issubmitted for re-registration, dazomet + barrier film and dazomet + short solarisationare effective for the major pests affecting strawberry fruit in Israel, providing yieldsthat are 92 - 108% of yields obtained with MB (Ausher, 2004;Lopez-Aranda 2001, 2003, 2004; Pietr,2002; IR-4 2000; Yücel, 2002; TEAP 2006b). MBTOC requests theParty to provide information about plans for registering alternative chemicals and transitioning to alternatives such as low-cost substrates and combinations of resistantcultivars, registered nematicides and fungicides, cultural practices or other relevant techniques.IsraelMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements providedin CUN: CUN shows that the netrevenue using MB is lower than for the alternatives. Dazomet and 1,3 D/pic provided net revenues that were 70% and 53% higher than MB at 2005 prices. CUN statesthat the registered chemical alternatives carry environmental costs [although thisalso applies to MB]. CUN also states that soilless cultures are a possibility, but not before2010 due to the high costs of the capital-intensive versions considered in the CUN.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report100CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Strawberryrunners(Sharon andGhaza)Nonenone0.00036.62531.90035.75UMBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 31.9 tonnes for 2008 (11.9 tfor Ghaza Strip and 20 t for Sharon, Israel) and unable to assess thenomination for 2009.. The key pests affectingstrawberry runner production are fungi (Rhizotonia solani, Verticillium dahliae, Fusarium, Phytophthora, Sclerotiniasclerotiorum, Macrophomina phasoeolina), root knot nematodes, purple nutsedge. TheParty stated that MB 98:2 at a rate of500 kg/ha (50 g/m2) with PE and 250 kg/ha(25 g/m2) with barrier films are necessaryto meet certification standards. The requested amount for theGhaza region has beenadjusted to MBTOC’s standardpresumption of 35 g/m2 for 98:2 MB. TheParty stated that 1,3-D + PIC mixture has been the leadingalternative; however, adoption of this alternative is limited by therequired 250 m buffer which significantly limits its use in the Sharon strawberry nursery growing area which is heavily populated. Hot gas application method is used inthe Ghaza Strip growing area because the plots are small, adjacent to houses andthere are no injection tools or qualified applicators in the area.10% of the treated areain the Ghaza strip will be tested with barrier films with a reduced application rate. MBTOC encourages faster adoption of LPBFin the Ghaza Strip.100% of the treatedarea in Sharon uses barrier films (VIF).IsraelMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: This CUN is based in regulatoryrestrictions and lack of technically feasible alternatives.Sweet PotatoesNonenonenone111.5111.561.25UMBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 111.5 tonnes of MB for 2008 and is unable to assess this nomination for 2009. This is a new nomination comprising both seedpotato requiring high health and regular crop production. The key pests affecting sweetpotatoes are root-knot nematodes, sweetpotato scab (Streptomyces ipomoea)andPythiumspp. The applicant identified that MB is the only registered chemical for use for sweet potato production in Israel. The ratesto be used in the CUN areconsistent with MBTOC’s standard presumptionsunder VIF. The party indicates that theonly effective control alternative to MBis 1,3-D/Pic (Telopic) but this product isnot currently registered for sweet potato.It is expected to receive registration by 2008. The applicant indicates that a 50%transition to this alternative by 2009 is possibleand MBTOC recognizes that this is an effective rate of uptake ofan alternative. MBTOC notes there are numerous nematode resistant varieties of sweet potato availableand these are widely used in countries where nematodes are the primary pest problem (Bello A., pers. comm.). MBTOC suggests that the applicability of these varieties inIsrael be investigated.IsraelMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: Trial data shows that there maybe economically feasible alternatives but these need to be verified.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report101CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Cucumber88.30088.80072.40051.450nonenone61.40034.30MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 34.30 tonnes for 2009 as atransition amount making part of a 3 yr program for complete phaseout by2011. The recommended quantity represents a 33% reduction fromthe CUE amount for 2008 approvedat MOP-18. MBTOC has consideredthis nomination, which isbased on the need to control particular viruses of cucumber, since 2005. Globally, such viruses are not considered as soilbornepathogens but can survive in crop debrisfor several years. The problem mainly arises from continuousmonoculture. An integrated program including cultural practices e.g. sanitation, rotation with a non-host,removal and destruction of crop debris, cleaning and sanitationof the greenhouse and the surrounded area, and pathogen free seeds has proven very effective in similarsituations around the world. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incidence(Matsuo and Suga, 1993). As a transition strategy, MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducingMB doses by up to 50%. Since the lastnomination the 1,3-D/Pic mixture has becomeregistered, however, farmers fear possiblephytotoxicity. MBTOC thus urges the Party to conduct trials on the correct use ofthis mixture in some cucumber production. MBTOC recognises theunique farming system used for cucumber in Japan which has beenin place for many years. However,in many countries cucumber production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the most widelyused technique for eliminating a widearray of soilborne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production and are widely used in around the world.(Leoni & Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya& Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). The Party is encouraged toconsider substrate production,which implemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006;Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japansupport soilless culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in substrates there is acritical need for a high degree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems in a shortperiod of time as experienced in many MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP,2004). The CUN states that the Aichi Agricultural Research Center (2005) identified the effectivenessof KGMMV control by methyl iodide in pot tests. MBTOC encouragesthe Party to continue to pursue the registration of methyl iodide for soil uses (methyl iodide wasregistered for imported timber in Japan in2004, under JMAFF registration No. 21407).JapanMBTOC comments on economics 2007:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements providedin CUN: The economic evidenceprovided shows a reduction in net revenue of more than 90% in capital-intensive soilless systems.As a result capital-intensivesoilless culture systems are noteconomically feasible.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report102CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Ginger (field)119.400119.400109.70184.075102.20063.056MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 63.056 tonnes for this use in 2009 as a transition amount making part of a 4 yr program for complete phaseoutby 2012. Therecommended amount has been reduced 25% from the CUE approved amountfor 2008 at MOP18 in 2008 as alternatives are considered available. The nomination is forcontrol of Pythium spp. (Pythium ultimum var. ultimum, Pythium zingiberium) in ginger fields using MB (98:2) applied from small cans. This nomination has been submittedseveral times with no change in production and cultural practices to minimize disease. MBTOC conducted a field visit to Japanese open field ginger production sites inAugust 2006 and recognized the difficulties that growers have inadopting some alternatives, however dazomet is considered an effective alternative which iseconomically feasible. Difficulties in applying dazomet occurduring wet and cold weather which sometimes cause phytotoxicity,unacceptable plant back times andreduced crop yields. Chloropicrin is registered in Japan but the Party states that the plant back time for chloropicrin is 40 days which could disrupt crop scheduling andresult in delays in planting and lower yields compared to MBtreatment. MBTOC urges the Party to encourage adoption of LPBF films and MB formulations with a higherproportion of pic which would allow for reduced rates of MB. Further, metham sodium and dazomet can be used more efficiently ifdrip irrigation is adopted. The Partyindicates that metalaxyl combined with dazomet is highly effective for managing Pythium diseases but does not refer to culturalpractices such as soil drainage, sowingdate, organic amendments (Smith et al 1988)or fungicides specific to Oomycetes, such as phosphonates. MBTOC kindly requests that updated information relating totrials with alternatives and a detailed prospect for relevantfumigant\pesticide registration during 2007-2009 be submitted with any future nominations.JapanMBTOC comments on economics 2007: The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN states that thenet revenue for the next best alternative (dazomet) is negative, because of a 58% declinein yield. As a result dazomet is noteconomically feasible.Ginger(protected)22.90022.90014.47111.10012.9008.325MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 9.675 tonnes for this use in 2009 as a transition amount making part of a 4 yr program for complete phaseoutby 2012. Therecommended amount has been reduced 25% from the CUE approved amountfor 2008 at MOP-18 as alternatives are considered available. The nomination is for controlofPythiumspp. (Pythium ultimum var. ultimum, Pythium zingiberium) in ginger fields using MB (98:2) applied fromsmall cans. This nomination has been submittedseveral times with no change in production and cultural practices to minimize disease. MBTOC conducted a field visit to Japanese open field ginger production sites inAugust 2006 and recognized the difficulties that growers have inadopting some alternatives, however dazomet (Basamid) is considered an effective alternative which iseconomically feasible. Under protected production conditions, difficulties arising with dazomet during wet, cold conditions canbe overcome as moisture and temperaturecan be controlled in protected environments.This would make plant back times more reasonable. MBTOC therefore considers that protected ginger can implement theuse of dazomet much more quickly. Chloropicrin is registered inJapan but the Party states that the plant back time for chloropicrin is 40 days which could disrupt cropscheduling and result in delays in planting and lower yields compared to MB treatment. MBTOC urges the Party to encourage adoption of LPBF films and MB formulationswith a higher proportion of Pic that allow for reduced rates ofMB.The CUN states that metalaxyl does not control Pythium efficiently as resistant strains to this fungicidehave been reported. The Party indicates that metalaxyl combined with dazomet is highly effective for managing Pythium diseasesbut does not refer to cultural practicessuch as soil drainage, sowing date, organic amendments (Smith etal 1988) or fungicides specific to Oomycetes, such as phosphonates. MBTOC kindly requests thatupdated information relating to trials with alternatives and adetailed prospect for relevant fumigant\pesticide registration during 2007-2009 be submitted with futurenominations.JapanMBTOC comments on economics 2007: The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN states that thenet revenue for the next best alternative (Hot water treatment)is positive but 75% less then the net revenue for MB. As a result hot water treatment is not economicallyfeasible.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report103CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Melon194.100203.900182.200136.650168.00091.1MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 91.1 tonnes for 2009 as a transition amount making part of a 3 yr program for complete phaseout by2011. The recommended quantity represents a 33% reduction fromthe CUE approved amount for 2008 atMOP-18. MBTOC has consideredthis nomination, which isbased on the need to control a particular virus of melon, since2005. Globally, such viruses are not considered as soilborne pathogens but can survive in crop debris forseveral years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated program including cultural practices e.g. sanitation, rotation with a non-host,removal and destruction of crop debris, cleaning and sanitationof the greenhouse and the surrounded area, and pathogen free seeds has proven very effective in similarsituations around the world. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incidence(Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. Since the last nomination the 1,3-D/Picmixture has become registered, however, farmers fear possible phytotoxicity. MBTOC thusurges the Party to conduct demonstration trials on the correct use of thismixture in melon production. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for melon in Japan which has been in place for many years. However, in many countriessome melon production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the most widely used techniquefor eliminating a wide array ofsoilborne plant pathogens. Inexpensive andsimple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production and are widely used in around the world. (Leoniand Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, when implemented correctly can producehigher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002;Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soilless culture as a feasible option(Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes howeverthat even when growing in substrates there is a critical need for a high degree of sanitationand for the use of pathogen free transplants.Large numbers of growers can be trained touse substrates systems in a short period of time as experienced in many MLFprojects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004).JapanMBTOC comments on economics 2007:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements providedin CUN: The economic evidenceprovided states that resistant varieties (used alone) result in a 70% decreasein net revenue. The yield of the soilless culture is higher, however the unit price of theproduct is lower because of problems of appearance and uniformityof the fruit. As a result the gross income for this system ofsoilless culture is lower. In addition costs ofcapital-intensive soilless culture are higher hence net income islower. As a result resistant varieties and capital-intensivesoilless culture are not economically feasible.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report104CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Pepper (green& hot)187.200190.700156.700121.723134.400(inc.0.010 t forresearch)81.149(Inc.0.010 forresearch)MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 81.149 tonnes for 2009 asa transition amount making part of a 3 yr program for completephaseout by2011. The recommended quantity represents a 33% reduction fromthe CUE approved amount for 2008 atMOP-18. MBTOC has consideredthis nomination, which isbased on the need to control particular viruses of peppers, since2005. Globally, such viruses are not considered as soilbornepathogens but can survive in crop debris forseveral years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated program including cultural practices e.g. sanitation, rotation with a non-host,removal and destruction of crop debris, cleaning and sanitationof the greenhouse and the surrounded area, and pathogen free seeds has proven very effective in similarsituations around the world. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incidence(Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. Since the last nomination the 1,3-D/Picmixture has become registered, however, farmers fear possible phytotoxicity. MBTOC thus urges the Party to conduct demonstration trials on the correct use of thismixture in pepper production. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for peppers in Japan which has been in place formany years. However, in manycountries some pepper production has already shifted to substratesin greenhouse conditions and has become the most widely usedtechnique for eliminating a widearray of soilborne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production and are widely used in around the world.(Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, when implemented correctly canproduce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000,2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soilless culture as a feasibleoption (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995 ). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in substrates there is a critical need for a high degree ofsanitation and for the use of pathogen freetransplants. Large numbers of growers can betrained to use substrates systems ina short period of time as experienced inmany MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004)JapanMBTOC comments on economics 2007:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements providedin CUN: The economic evidenceprovided shows that the higher cost of soilless culture is largely due to the highercost of seeds, fertilizers, depreciation and miscellaneous, and is only partly offset bylower costs of pesticides and insurance in capital-intensive systems. Given these data, the net revenue for capital-intensive soilless culture is negative and hence is noteconomically feasible.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report105CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Watermelon129.00098.90094.20032.47523.70021.65MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 21.65 tonnes for 2009. Thenomination has been reduced over the CUE amount accepted by Parties atMOP-18 to allow for a 3 year transition to alternatives. MBTOCacknowledges that the Party hasmade a substantial reduction since the previous nomination and thisreflects a marked transition to alternatives. The nomination isbased on the need to control particular viruses of watermelon,since 2005. Globally, such viruses are notconsidered as soilborne pathogens but can survive in crop debris for several years. Theproblem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated programincluding cultural practices e.g. sanitation, rotation witha non-host, removal and destruction of crop debris, cleaning and sanitation of the greenhouse and the surroundedarea, and pathogen free seeds has proven very effective in similar situations around the world.The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such astomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virusincidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow forreducing MB doses by up to 50%. Since thelast nomination the 1,3-D/picmixture has become registered, however, farmers fear possible phytotoxicity. MBTOC thusurges the Party to conduct trials on the correct use of this mixture in watermelon production. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for cucumber in Japanwhich has been in place for many years. However, in many countries watermelon production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has becomethe most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array ofsoilborne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kindof production and are widely used in around the world. (Leoni& Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004).Substrate production, when implemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB(MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studiesconducted in Japan support soilless culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, , Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC noteshowever that even when growing insubstrates there is a critical need for a high degree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substratessystems in a short period of time as experienced in many MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004)JapanMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments. The economic evidence provided shows a reduction in net revenue of morethan 50%. As a result soilless culture is not economically feasible.Strawberryrunners40.00040.00024.50012.00011.995nonenoneMBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 11.995 tonnes for this nomination in 2008. The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi(Verticillium dahliae, Phytophthora cactorum, P. fragariae, Fusarium oxysporum),and nematodes(Globodera rostochiensis).The nomination statesthat a dosage of 98:2MB of 400 kg/ha with barrier films are needed to meet the certification standards for strawberry runners. The Party’s CUN for 2008 is less than 50% of what MBTOCrecommended for 2007 (24.5 t). The requested amount has been adjusted to account for the Party’s inclusion of the entire amountof the formulation in their nominationinstead of the MB portion only (392 kh/ha(39.2 g/m2)). The Party’s request exceedsMBTOC’s standard presumption of 20 g/m2 MBfor propagation materials, howeverformulations enabling the use of these rates are currently notregistered. The Party tested a reduced rate [MB/Pic 300 kg/ha (30 g/m2) under VIF], but results indicatedthat plant vigor, productivity and weed control were too low inthe low soil temperatures prevailing during autumn fumigation.Potentially effective alternatives such as 1,3-D & Pic and Pic alone are not currently registered. While dazometand metham sodium are registered, their slow decomposition and long plant back time in the earlyspring has precluded expanded use due to production timing using currently available application equipment. Poland has recently acquired (July 2006) improvedapplication equipment such as rotary spader machines which enhance efficiency of metam sodium and dazomet (Runia and Molendijk,2006; Runiaet al. 2007). MBTOCencourages the Party to expedite the adoption of this new application equipment and encourage the registration of Pic and otherfumigants if needed. .PolandMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was notbased on economic arguments.Economic statements providedin CUN: The Economic Analysis (page17-18) shows 11 percent yield loss with dazomet and 80 percent losswith metam sodium when applied by traditional methods. Therevenue analysis shows net revenuedecrease of 54% in year 1, then 10% loss in year 2, and an increaseof 7 % over MB in year 3.The increases in net revenue aredue to adverse weather conditions in thefirst year, and is expected that Dazomet will be economically feasible in 3 years.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report106CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Cut flowers(Andalucia andCatalonia)53 + 2042 + 1543.49017.00017.000nonenoneMBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 17 t for this use in 2008 (12t for Andalusia and 5t for Catalonia). This request represents a 60% reduction over the amountapproved for 2007. The key pests are weeds, particularlyCyperusspp., nematodes such asMeloidogynespp and in the case of carnations which make up an importantproportion of the nomination,Fusarium oxysporumf.sp.dianthi.The Party states that in spite oflonger plantback times being necessary when using 1,3-D/Pic and otherdifficulties encountered when using alternatives (e.g. higher costs and technical requirements when using substrates), full phaseout of MB will be achieved by the end of2008.SpainMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements providedin CUN: CUN states that 1,3-D, Telonepresents economic disadvantages because ofthe longer waiting period, longer application period and changes required in drip irrigation systems to prevent corrosion ,while 1,3-D + Chloropicrin leads to a loss of yield and steam haseconomic disadvantages. CUN argues that capital-intensive substrates are not economically feasiblebecause of the cost. CUN states that substrates require high investment and increases the costsof the crop. Adoption needs a gradual process of farm modernization,and is expensive. CUN cites data that showthat an investment of 270,455 € is necessary on an area of 5,000 m2, and the enterprise is unprofitable for the first five years.CUN also states that the transformation costfor the industry in Catalonia is estimated at more than 108 million € if they adopted capital-intensive soilless systems.Strawberryrunners230.000230.000230.000215.000215.000nonenoneMBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends the 215 tonnes be approved for this use in 2008.The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi(Phytophthora, Rhizoctonia, Verticillium) and weeds (Chenopodium, Portulacca oleracea, Senecio, Solanum, Cynodon dactylon). The Party states that MB (MB:Pic 50:50at a dose of 300 kg/ha (30 g/m2) is required to meet the EU Nursery PlantCertification and Control Regulations. The cold climate growing conditions of high elevationnurseries in Spain substantially limit thefeasibility of alternatives (1,3-D/PIC, dazomet, MS, DMDS) to control target pests in order to meet certification standards. TheParty claims that there is no technically feasible alternative available at this time.The Party’s strategy to minimize MB useis to implement a stepwise reduction program.MBTOC encourages the Party to expedite the next steps in theirapplication rate reduction program using lower MB/Pic application rates and lower MB ratio in theformulation in conjunction with LPBF and continue topursue the registration of additional alternatives.SpainMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN provides data on thecosts and net revenue of alternatives to MB,but not that of MB itself.CUN states that yields of alternatives are 14% to 16.7%% lower.Strawberry andPepperNonenone0.0800.0800.1510.151noneNoneMBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 0.151 tonnes for research purposes. The CUN statesthat MB is needed as the reference treatment in the MB AlternativesNational Project. In particular, studies on the environnmental effects of some fumigants applied to soils are being conducted in Spain. Spain has not submitted requestsfor MB for pepper and strawberry fruit production in 2008. The 29.6kg are specifically requested for strawberry research trials, 70.56 kg for pepper research trials and 50kg will be used in studying the environmental effects of chemical soil fumigants in soil (strawberry cultivation). These trialsare part of a new triennial project to optimiseuse and adoption of alternatives to MB in strawberries and pepper that was approved by the partylast year for the period 2006-2008.SpainMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not basedon economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:The CUN provides no economicinformation as it does not applyto theparticular nature of the nomination.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report107CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Cucurbits1187.800747.839592.891486.757411.765Inc. 0.941 t forresearch)UMBTOC comments:MBTOC is unable to assess this nomination for use in 2009. Thenomination refers to all cucurbitcrops together, but at this point MBTOC requeststhe Party to disaggregate the nomination by crop (eg watermelon, melon, cucumber, zucchini,etc.). The reason is that whilst they may have common key pests, theydiffer in the perspective of management options. In Michigan,the key pests are Phytophthora capsici and Fusarium. MBTOC notesthe Party’s statement that 1,3-D + Picmay be an effective alternative but growers will miss the optimalmarket window due to longer plant back times. According to the Party, this treatment cannot be applied inautumn because of the bad climaticconditions. In addition, a fall application of amethyl bromide is not feasible because, over the fall and winter months deer and otheranimals damage the plastic and irrigation tape. In SE and Georgia,the key pest is nutsedge. Karst topography limits affects the use of alternatives which include 1,3-Dichloropropene, which are the best alternatives for these pests. The Party states that metam sodiumor metam potassium are also promising alternatives but still do notprovide consistent control under the circumstances of the nomination and require further trialling. In addition, the Party states that trials are underway to investigate lowerMB/Pic formulations such as 50:50 as there are no regulatory restrictions to the use of these formulations. The main reasons for the nomination are soil borne fungi, andnutsedge. 1,3-D/chloropicrin may be an effective alternative but growers will miss the optimal market window (only in Michigan). The adoption of LPBF and formulationchanges of MB/Pic to achieve the reductions of MB dosage were stated by the party in the past, butwere not clearly demonstrated in the current CUN. Furthermore, theParty states yield losses for alternativeswhich do not conform with published literature. Modifications of formulations, for example of MB/Pic 50:50 are available andversions of LPBF, (eg.VIF and metalized films) have been widely tested since 2000 in the US and have shown equivalent effectiveness to MB at approximately 50% ofthe commercial dosage rate. The Party statesthat trials are underway to investigatelower MB/Pic formulations such as 50:50 asthere are no regulatory restrictions to theuse of these formulations. However, theparty did not provide data regarding the adoption of these formulations or LPBF filmson a commercial scale. The Party statesthat metam sodium or metam potassium are also promising alternatives but still do not provide consistent control under the circumstances of the nomination and requirefurther trialling. In addition, the nomination for 2009 is lower that of 2008, but still is high tomeet the scale of phaseout.As some answers to key questions had not beenreceived from the Party prior to this assessment is was not assessable. Further assessment will be conducted once these have been received.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:Part of the nomination for Michigan, Marylandand Delaware were based on economic arguments.Economic statements providedin CUN: The CUN states next best alternative in all regions is 1,3-D with chloropicrin withexpected yield losses of 6 percent in Michigan, Maryland and Delaware and 29percent in South Eastern Statesand Georgia. CUN states 1,3-D withchloropicrin is considered technically feasible in Michigan.However, CUN noted that for Michigan inaddition to the yield loss, delayed planting and harvest with the alternatives results in lower average price received from missed market windows and negative netrevenue. In remaining regions yield losses significantly reducenet revenues. In Maryland and Delaware, 1,3-D with chloropicrinis considered technically feasible but useis constrained by water table concerns, land low soil temperatures leading to reduced yields and missed market windows. CUN notes other regions may also experiencelower prices because of missed market windows.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report108CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Eggplant (field)76.71281.16285.36366.01862.789(Inc. 0.433 t forresearch)48.691(Inc. 0.433 t forresearch)MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 48.691tonnes for this use in Georgia, Floridaand Michigan in 2009 which includes 0.433 tonnes for research.The Party hasstated that it based its nomination on MBTOCs standard maximum dosage rates ofMB/Pic formulations of 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2) fornutsedge and 150 kg/ha (15 g/m2)for pathogens with adoption of LPBF and also made an adjustmentfor strip fumigation based on 0.58 of the area treated. The Party states that registration of a keyalternative (eg. methyl iodide) is pending. In Michigan, the key pests arePhytophthora capsiciandfusarium. According to the Party,P.capsicihas been found in theirrigation water in Michigan and occurred after soil treatment withTelone C35 and metham sodium, however MBTOC considers reinfestation can occur with anyfumigants, including methyl bromide. MBTOC recognizes the Party’s statement that 1,3-D/chloropicrin may be an effective alternative, but growers will miss the optimalmarket window due to longer plant back times with this alternative. According to the Party,this treatment cannot be applied in autumn because of climatic conditions. Inaddition, a fall application of methyl bromide is not feasible because over the falland winter months deer and other animals damage the plastic and irrigation tape.MBTOC considers that their are alternativesin other countries that should be considered for use in this region including grafted plants, resistant varieties andmodifications to the application of 1,3-D/Pic with and without metham sodium may reduce plant back times. In Florida, the keypests are yellow and purple nutsedge,Phytophthora, nematodes,PythiumandSclerotinia. In Georgia the key pests are yellow and purple nutsedge, Phytophthora, nematodes, southern blight and Pythium andsclerotinia. Karst topography limits the useof alternatives which include 1,3-dichloropropene, which are the best alternativesfor these pests on 40% of the growingacreage in Florida and 8% of the acreage in Georgia. The Party claims that research on alternatives for peppers could be adopted for eggplant. The Party proposed a 7%transition in 2009 for Florida and Georgiaand no transition for Michigan, and stated itwill take more than 7 years to transition the full amount. MBTOC, however,considers that alternatives are available for both karst and non-karst areas in Florida and Georgia (1,3-D/Pic, Pic alone, metham with or without herbicides (napropamide,trifluralin) (Nolinget al2006; Chellemiet al.2006; Simonneet al.2006) for areas of moderate pest pressure at least. MBTOC has adjusted the nomination for theseregions by 25%, which is in line with the 26% transition suggested by the Party in 2006. MBTOCrequests that the Party providefurther information to substantiate the lackof feasibility of some key alternativesused for eggplants in other countries, suchas grafted plants and the key chemical alternatives. MBTOC notesthat uptake ofalternatives for this crop in regions with similar pests has occurred within 4 years or less in many countries e.g Spain, Italy, Australia. (Leoni and Leda, 2004; Spotti, 2004;Tostovrsnik et al 2005; Minuto et al, 2003; Thanassoulopoulos,2006). MBTOC also notes that Ristaino and Johnson (1999), Babadost and Islam (2002), Johnston et al(2002), Driver and Lows (2003) , Hausbeck and Lamour (2004) and others have reported many efficient management strategies to control Phytophthora on pepper inMichigan including 3-4 years crop rotation with non susceptiblehosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa , cultural control (water management, plantdensity, soil amendments, protective mulch and raised beds) and use of registered fungicides in Michigan (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph (Acrobat), Zoxamide + Mancozebe,Copper hydroxide+Acrobat). Seed treatment with Mephenoxan or metalaxyl control Phytophthora during seed germination. In tomatotrials conducted in Florida on a keypest, nutsedge, 1,3-D/pic 65:35 with and without VIF and MNa/Pic provided similar yieldsas MB/Pic 67:33 in 3 trials over the spring and fall of 2003 and spring of 2004(Santos,et al, 2005) even with moderate to severe nutsedge infestations. Recentstudies continue to confirm the benefits of LPBF, (eg.VIF and metalized films) as ameans to reduce emissions and dose rate of MB (Ou et al 2006). MBTOC considers that further reductions in MB amount is also possible with changes to formulations of50:50 MB/Pic or less (e.g. to 30:70) used in combination with barrier films.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:Part of the nomination for Michigan was based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: The CUN statesnext best alternative in all regions is 1,3-D with chloropicrinwith expected yield losses of 6 percent in Michigan and 29 percent in Georgia and Florida. CUN states 1,3-Dwith chloropicrin is considered technically feasible in Michigan. However, CUN noted that for Michigan in addition to the yieldloss, delayed planting and harvest with thealternatives results lower average price received from missed market windows and negative net revenue. In Florida and Georgia yield losses significantly reduce netrevenues. CUN notes Florida and Georgiaproducers mayalso experience lowerprices because of missed market windows.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report109CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Forest nursery192.515157.694122.032131.208125.758UMBTOC comments:MBTOC is unable to assess this nomination for this use in 2009.MBTOC requires further clarification from the Party as to whyalternatives in recentstudies are not considered effective treatments and whether thesecan be used under the certification rules. In the absence ofeffective alternatives, MBTOC considersformulations of MB/Pic 67:33 suitable for the whole of the nomination in conjunction with barrier films and is requesting whether this combination satisfies certificationrequirements if required. MBTOC also considers that time is available to overcome the issuesof gluing sheets. MBTOC recognizes that propagative material requires avery high level of soilborne pest and pathogen control in order toavoid widespread distribution of pests and pathogens from the nursery to the production fields. Thisnomination is for certified forest seedlings. This nomination is for 2% of the total forest nursery crop area. The CUN is basedon economic infeasibility of use of substratesand the lack of effective alternatives forcontrol of nutsedge and a range of fungalpathogens and nematodes. It covers certified seedling production in 6 forest nurseryregions. The key alternatives are 1,3-D/Pic, 1,3-D/Pic/metam sodium, metham sodium and Pic,and dazomet as a follow-up application to 1,3-D/Pic or Pic alone. MBTOCnotes that recent studies show that Pic,and metham sodium and chloropicrin have given equivalent performance to methyl bromidefor pathogen control (Cramet al,2007, South 2007), however dazomet has resulted in reduced seedling growth compared to MB (Enebaket al., 2006 (MBAO). The Party acknowledged that Pic and MSwhen used in conjunction with LPBF, may provide an effective technical alternative and avoid crop injury. MBTOC recognizes that the Party stated in the 'Summary ofSignificant Changes' that technical problems still exist whengluing VIF for broadcast applications, however MBTOC considers that this issue should be able to beovercome. MBTOC also considers glyphosate can be used as a pre-treatment to reduce pressure from nutgrass and 1,3-D + metham sodium (or glyphosate) should befurther evaluated for control of nutsedge asresults in trials have been promising (Culpepper and Langston, 2004). MBTOC considers that alternatives are available andthat time for transition may be required.Limited substrate production of these crops iseconomical for small niche markets.Frequency of fumigation is once in two to fouryears, depending on crop. Rotation and cover crops are not fumigated. Research is on-going to reduce rates from 98:2 MB/Pic commonly used where nutsedgepopulations are severe to using reduced rates of 67:33 MB/Pic.LBPF films have been conducted on a broadacre basis in Europe for many years and technology shouldbe available to the USA. LPBF will be adopted when the effective gluing technologies are locally, commercially available.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not basedon economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN: Partial budgets are provided formajor alternatives in six regions: 1,3-D/Pic, dazomet, and metham sodium with Pic. The CUN reports yield losses of 3 to 5 percent with higher operating costs. Reportednet revenue declines with these alternatives ranged from 8% to53%. The CUN cites an analysis ofthe costs of containerized production that demonstrates large scalecontainerized production is not economically feasible.Nurseries stock(fruit, nut, flower)45.80064.52828.27551.10227.663(Inc. 1.506 t forresearch)16,711 and U(Inc. 1.506 t forresearch)MBTOC comments:MBTOC is unable to assess the portion ofthe CUN that refers to raspberries. MBTOCrecommends 16.711 t for the other sectors,comprising 1.579t for roses, 13.626 t for fruit trees and 1.506 t for research. The Party has clarified that the amount nominated for raspberrynurseries in 2009 is for 10,952 kg to be usedon 47ha however, MBTOC requires information on the proportion of the raspberry nomination that isgrown in Washington State andin California in order to assess thisportion of the nomination. Previously, MBTOC understood that all raspberry productionwas in Washington and not subject to thesame constraints on use of 1,3-D andMB with VIF that are present in California. It is essential toestablish the percentage of theraspberry nursery production that can use 1,3-D and VIF. The nomination is forcertified propagation material, which is mandatory for Californiaand voluntary in Washington (butwithout certification the crop has little value andthe grower risks 100%loss of the crop if nematodes orpathogens are found). 1,3-D isan approved certified nursery treatment under specific crop andsoil conditions but use of this fumigant islimited by regulatory restrictions (Township Caps in CA). Limited substrate production of these crops is economical for smallniche markets. Large scale use ofcontainerization is not economical.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not basedon economic arguments.Economic statements provided in the CUN:CUN states an economicanalysis was not done because the alternatives are not technicallyfeasible, particularly for certification needs and so no economic analysis were done. CUN also reportslarge scale use of substratesis not economically feasible.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report110CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Orchard replant706.176527.600405.400393.720314.007(Inc 1.658 t forresearch)U(Inc. 1.658 t forresearch)MBTOC comments:MBTOC is unable to assess this renomination at this time. TheCUN is for 3 situations: Orchard/vineyard replant disorder of unknown aetiology;heavy soils or soils which cannot be dried to a sufficient depthto effectively use the reduced rates of 1,3-D now allowed in California; and areas in which Township capsprevent the use of 1,3-D. Regulatory restraints (maximum label rate) prevent the use of 1,3-D at the rates needed for effective kill of old roots and the associatedpathogens in deeper soil layers for heavier (fine-textured) soils. Three alternatives,1,3-D alone and 1,3-D combined with chloropicrin or metham sodium, are availabletechnical for treatment in light soils. Although a two year fallow was found to be effective under Mediterranean conditions byBello,et al(2004), Schneider,et al(2004)found that a three year fallow did not sufficiently eliminate the causative nematodes. MBTOC notes and questions the large disparity between the application rates ofMB/Pic 98:2 used for California Stone fruit of 204 kg/ha (20.4 g/m2), Raisin grapes 310 kg/ha (31g/m2), Wine grapes 350 kg/ha(35 g/m2), Walnut 140 kg/ha (14 g/m2)and Almonds 123 kg/ha (12.3 g/m2) and requestan explanation of this extreme spread.MBTOC considers the MB/Pic 67:33 formulation effective against both fungalpathogens and nematodes. Commercial adoption of this formulation and others containinglower amounts of MB (eg. 50:50) were used predominantly for orchard replanttreatment in other countries before switching to alternatives. Results obtained with MI/Pic 50:50 mixtures (Lampinenet al, 2006) in California lends additional support tothe efficacy of 67:33 MB/Pic (and MB/Pic 50:50 mixture) as MB and MI are quite similar. MBTOC requests the Party to provide data on the suitability of using MB/Pic67:33 for replant disorder of Stone fruit, Raisin grapes and Wine grapes. MBTOC acknowledges that according to the renomination, low rates of MB are effective forWalnut and Almonds and requests information why these rates are deemed not effective for Stone fruit, Raisin grapes and Wine grapes.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics 2007:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:An economic analysis wasnot done for this sector because most of the losses cannot bequantified. Factors that contribute to losses include delayed planting, fallow, additional use of herbicides,tree loss, replant costs to replace tree losses, loss of trees replanted, yield loss of fruit ornuts, delayed achievement of full yield potential, earlierloss of productivity ofwhole orchard. McKenry 1999, suggests that in some cases treelosses are likely to be greater than 20 % if replant disorders are not controlled.Ornamentals154.000148.483137.835138.538137.776(Inc. 4.06 t forresearch)U(Inc. 4.06 t forresearch)MBTOC comments:MBTOC is unable to assess this nomination at this time. The Party is requested to specify, tothe best extent possible, the flower types and products(e.g. cut flowers, cut foliage,bulbs, cuttings, etc) needing MB, the amounts needed and the circumstances making this need critical. Further information previouslyrequested is essential in order to fullyassess the nomination. Also, the nomination needs to be disaggregated by protected andfield production for each region wherepossible. MBTOC would also appreciate receiving an indication ofthe proportion of the crops already using MB and alternativesand a strategy or plan to transition toalternatives, particularly for those flower types where researchhas indicated that promising alternatives exist (e.g Elmore etal., 2003; Gerik, 2005 a,b,c; Gerik andGreene, 2004; McSorley et al, 2006 a,b; Gerik et al, 2006; McSorley and Wang, 2004, and others). Reasons to justify why MB:Picformulations such as 67:33 or 50:50 arenot being used (or only to a low proportionof the nominated area) are also sought.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics 2007:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:The economic analysisshow decreases in yield in California of 20% to 25% result innegative net revenues. In Florida net revenues decrease 65% to 81% because of yield losses withalternatives. In Michigan herbaceousperennials,yield losses of 25% lead to net revenue declines of 37%.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report111CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Peppers (field)1094.7821243.5421106.753756.339783.821(Inc. 2.844 t forresearch)548.984(Inc. 2.844 t forresearch)UnitedStatesMBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 548.984 t for this use in SE, Georgia, Florida and Michigan in 2009 but does not recommend use in Californiain 2009. Theamount recommended includes 2.844 t for research. MBTOC has reducedthe amounts in SE, Georgia,Florida by 25% from the amountapproved for 2008 to allow foradoption of alternatives and further rate reduction by adoption of formulations of MB/Pic with lower ratios of MB in conjunction with barrier films. According to the availableinformation, MBTOC has determined that the amounts for each region are 47.754 t for the SE, 84.072 t for Georgia, 404.137 t forFlorida, 10.177 t for Michigan. The Partyhas stated that it based its nomination on MBTOCs standard maximum dosage ratesof MB/Pic formulations of 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2) for nutsedge and 150 kg/ha (15g/m2) for pathogens with adoption of LPBFand also made an adjustmentfor strip fumigation based on 0.58 of the area treated. An adjustment was also made for dosagerate for Michigan suitable for pathogens of 150 kg/ha (15 g/m2). MBTOC noted that the area ofland using MB has increased by approx 10% compared to 2008. InCalifornia, methyl bromide is requested for the control of crown and root rots caused byPhytophthora capsici; Rhizoctonia, Verticillium, andPythium, root knot(Meloidogynespp). According to the Party, metam sodium is used on nearlyas many acres as MB and has been considered a viable alternativefor hillsides and in areasaffected by township caps, however is possibly becoming less effective because of enhanced degradation, but this is not supported by studies within the region. TheParty also did not provide evidence to support infeasibility of alternatives especially metham sodium and chloropicrin and Telone. Telone/Pic is also considered aneffective alternative. The key pest of peppers in Michigan isPhytophthora capsiciand in the Southeastern United States,including Florida and Georgia, nutsedge andP.capsici. In Michigan,P. capsicihas been found in the irrigation water in Michigan and occurredafter soil treatment with Telone C35 and metham sodium. HoweverMBTOC considers reinfestation can occur with any fumigants, including methyl bromide. 1,3-D/chloropicrin may be an effective alternative but the Party states growerswill miss the optimal market window. According to the Party, thistreatment cannot be applied inautumn because of climatic conditions. In Florida and Georgia karsttopography limits the use of alternatives which include 1,3-dichloropropene, whichare considered the best alternatives for these pests on 40% of the growing acreage inFlorida and 8% of the acreage in Georgia.The Party in the past has stated that metamsodium or metam potassium is promising alternatives but no further data has beenprovided on their performance. MBTOC, however, considers that alternatives are available for both karst and non-karst areas inSE, Florida and Georgia ((Noling et al2006; Rosskopf et al, 2005; Gilreath and Santos 2004a; Gilreath et al 2003a, 2005a; Gilreath 1999, Santos et al 2006; Chellemiet al 2004; Chellemi 2006) and can beadopted on areas of moderate pest pressure at least, and has adjusted the nomination for these regions by 25%. The Party indicated that 42% transition to alternativeswas possible in these regions over a seven year period. MBTOCconsidered a 25% reduction possible in this year by further ratereductions of MB using formulations ofMB/Pic with lower ratios of MB in conjunction with barrier films, and adoption of alternatives. It has based this reduction onthe amount approved at MOP-18. (Thisamount reflected a further 18% transition over the Parties suggested 7% transition for2009). The Party showed references whichsupported use of alternatives incombination with LDPF (Culpepper, 2006). Other studies on possible effective alternatives are avilable (Ristaino and Johnson (1999), Babadost and Islam (2002),Johnston et al (2002), Driver and Lows (2003). A combinaton of 1,3-D or metham sodium with chloropicrin + herbicides (Trifluralin, napropamide, halosulfuron, smetalochlor) is considered as the best alternative strategy in Florida. No future indication for the use of this combination was given by the Party. Hausbeck and Lamour(2004) and others have reported many efficient management strategies to control Phytophthora on pepper, including crop rotationwith non susceptible hosts (carrots,beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa , cultural control (water management, plant density, soil amendments, protective mulch, raised beds etc....) and use ofregistered fungicides (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph(Acrobat), Zoxamide + Mancozebe, Copperhydroxide+Acrobat). Seed treatment withMephenoxan or metalaxyl controlPhytophthora during seed germination.. MBTOC notes that uptake of alternatives for thiscrop in regions with similar pests hasoccurred within 4 years or less in manycountries e.g Spain, Italy, Australia. (Leoni and Leda, 2004;Spotti, 2004; Tostovrsnik et al 2005;Minuto et al, 2003). MBTOCconsiders that further reductions in MBamount are possible due to changes to formulations of 50:50 MB/Picor less (e.g. to 30:70) used in combination with barrier films. The Party states that registration of akey alternative (eg. methyl iodide) is pending. MBTOC has adjusted the nomination for these regions by 25%. In 2007 the Partyindicated that 42% transition toalternatives was possible in these regions over a seven year period. MBTOC considered a 25% reduction possible in this year byfurther rate reductions of MB usingformulations of MB/Pic with lower ratios of MB in conjunctionwith barrier films, and adoption of alternatives. It has based this reduction on the amount approved at theApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report112CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)MOP-18. (This amount reflecteda further 18% transition over the Parties suggested 7% transition for 2009). The Party showed references which supported use ofalternatives in combination with LDPF (Culpepper, 2006). Otherstudies on possible effective alternatives are avilable (Ristaino and Johnson (1999), Babadost and Islam(2002), Johnston et al (2002), Driver and Lows (2003). A combinaton of 1,3-D or metham sodium with chloropicrin + herbicides (Clomazone, s-metalochlor) is consideredas the best alternative strategy in Florida.No future indication for the use of this combination was given by the Party. Hausbeck and Lamour (2004) and others havereported many efficient management strategies to control Phytophthora on pepper, including crop rotation with non susceptible hosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus,soybeans, alfalfa , cultural control (water management, plantdensity, soil amendments, protectivemulch, raised beds) and useof registered fungicides (Mefonoxan,Dimethomorph (Acrobat), Zoxamide +Mancozebe, Copper hydroxide+Acrobat). Seed treatment with Mephenoxan or metalaxyl control Phytophthora during seedgermination.. MBTOC notes that uptake of alternatives for this crop in regions with similar pests has occurred within 4 years or less in many countries e.g Spain, Italy,Australia. (Leoni and Leda, 2004; Spotti, 2004; Tostovrsnik et al 2005;Minuto et al, 2003). MBTOC considers that further reductions in MB amount is possible changes toformulations of 50:50 MB/Pic or less (e.g. to30:70) used in combination with barrier films. The Party states that registrationof a key alternative (eg. methyl iodide) ispending.MBTOC comments on economics:Part of the nomination for Michigan was based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:The CUNstates next best alternative in all regions is 1,3-D with chloropicrin with expected yield losses of 6 percent in Michigan andCalifornia and 29 percent in other regions. CUNstates 1,3-D with chloropicrin is considered technically feasible Michigan. In Michigan delayed planting and harvest with thealternatives results in lower average price(7.5%) received from missed market windows, and negative net revenue. In remaining regions yield losses significantly reduce net revenues.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report113CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Strawberry(field)2052.8461730.7781476.0191349.5751336.754(Inc. 2.377 t forresearch)204.765 forSE and U forCA(Inc. 2.377 tfor research)MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 70.088 tonnes for Eastern USA and 132.300 tonnesfor Florida and 2.377 tonnes for research, but is unable tofully assessthe amount for California. MBTOC is awaiting clarification of feasible rates ofadoption of alternativesand updated economicinformation. The BUNNIE assumed a yieldloss of 14% which is not explained in the CUN and appears to contradict the quantitative data presented in the CUN (which indicated that specific alternative treatmentsprovide equal or higher yields compared to MB). For California the Party nominated 1,064,556 kg for 2009 (5452 ha at 195 kg/ha(19.5 g/m2)). The nomination is based onthe grounds that township caps and county restrictions limit further adoption of 1,3-D and pic,hilly terrain prevents the useof drip-applied alternatives, and economicissues result from longer set-up or treatment times. In the caseof township caps, alternatives that do not contain 1,3-D (suchas Pic, Pic EC, Pic + metham, Pic +dazomet, often with LPBF) provide yields that are statistically comparable with MB(Ajwa et al. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005; Nelsonet al. 2001ab; Shem-Tov et al. 2005,2006ab). Pic EC provided an average 99% yield compared to MB,with low variance (studies cited in TEAP 2006). Alternatives based on 1,3-D, pic and metam werecommercially adopted on about 5000 ha by 2004, and the annual adoptionrate was 860ha/year in 2003-4. MBTOC considers hilly terrain can use pressure-compensateddrip systems or injection in some cases and alternatives can beadopted on areas that are not restricted by limits on 1,3-D andpic. The Party is requested to quantify theregions that can and cannot use1,3-D and pic to assist in determining whetherthe regulatory ceiling has been reached. MBTOC plans to adjust the remaining portion for50:50 formulations (90% broadacre @ 193 kg/ha (19.3 g/m2; 10% strip @ 143 kg/ha (14.3 g/m2)). LPBF cannot be used with MB inCalifornia. For Eastern states theParty nominated 93,488 kg (534 ha @ 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2)). The nomination is based on moderate to severe pest pressure (Meloidogynespp.,Pythium, Rhizoctonia,Phytophthora cactorum, Cyperus escultentus, C. rotundus,Loliumspp.) affecting 33% of the crop area, and small farmbuffer zones on 40% of the area which affects useof 1,3-D formulations. MBTOC considers that alternatives areavailable for part of the CUN area (on both buffer and non bufferareas) by use of combinations of 1,3-D,pic, metham with herbicides and/or (Ferguson et al. 2001; Sydorovych et al. 2004; Driver et al. 2005; López-Aranda et al. 2005;Norton et al. 2002; Gilreath et al. 2003c;studies cited in TEAP 2006). MBTOC accordingly reduced the nomination by 23.372 tonnes (about 25%) to allow for transition toalternatives and MB dose adjustment to150 kg/ha for the areas of low nutsedge pressure affected by buffer zones (allowing 175 kg/ha for the high pest pressure areas). However MBTOC notes that the Easternstates planned to implement MB/Pic mixtures with lower dosage rateformulations of MB/Pic in combination with LPBF in the previous nomination (US CUN 06). ForFlorida the Party nominated 176,333kg (1008 ha @ 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2)). The nomination is based on the grounds that currently available alternatives are not able tocontrol moderate-severe nutsedge (33% of area), 1,3-D is restricted in karst/seepage areas (56%), and economic issues. MBTOC considers that alternatives areavailable for part of the CUN area on both karst and non karst areasby use of combinations of 1,3-D, pic, metham with herbicides and/or LPBF as studies provideevidence for yields that are statisticallysimilar to MB (Gilreath et al. 2003bc; Norton et al. 2002; Ajwa et al. 2003, 2004, 2005; López-Aranda et al. 2005; studies in TEAP2006). Accordingly the nomination was reduced by 44.083 tonnes toallow for transition to alternatives and dose adjustments to150 kg/ha on areas of low nutsedgepressure on karst (allowing 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2) for high pest pressure areas).UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not basedon economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:CUN reports costs for threenext best alternatives for California, Florida, and Eastern United States. 1,3-D with chloropicrin is reported to reduce yieldby 10 to 14 percent. Resulting lower productionleads to large losses of net revenue. Planting and harvesting delays with alternatives are reported to lead to lower average prices received in all regions, but are onlyshown in the revenue analysis for California.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report114CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Strawberryrunners54.98856.2914.4838.8388.837(Includes0.454 t forresearch)7.944(Includes0.454 t forresearch)MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 7.944 tonnes for this usein 2009. This comprises 4.69 tonnes for CA, 2.8 tonnes for SE and 0.454tonnes for research. The key pests affecting strawberryrunners are weeds (purple and yellow nutsedge), fungi (RhizoctoniaandPythiumin SE,Phytophthora,Verticillium), nematodes (root-knot, sting in CA). TheCUN states that MB at a dosage of 26.3 g/m2 in CA and 35.0 g/m2 in SE is required tomeet the certificationstandards for strawberry runners. The Party's request exceeds MBTOC's standard presumption of 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2) of MB which is considered effective for productionof 'high health' strawberry runners using LPBF and other emission control technologies (TEAP October 2005); however, California’s certification requirements specifyminimum amounts of MB that must be applied.Furthermore, California regulations prohibit the use of LPBF with MB. The reduction is for the SE to conform to MBTOCpresumptions. The Party indicates that key alternatives include 1,3-D + PIC followed by dazomet, PIC followed by dazomet and MI+ PIC but that these have not beensufficiently tested on a commercial scale. Furthermore, MI is not currently registered. MBTOC encourages the Party to expedite the commercial scale testing of thesealternatives as well as the registration of MI.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:CUN identifies 1,3-D withchloropicrin as the next best alternativewith a 10-percent yield loss in Californiaand the Southeastern States. Operating costs with 1,3-D plus chloropicrin are marginallyhigher in the Southeast and marginally lower in California. In both regions the alternative is predicted to result in a 46 percent decrease in net revenues.Sweet potatoslipsNone80.8300.00018.14418.144(Inc. 2.377 t forresearch)18.144(Inc. 2.377 t forresearch)MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends a CUE of 18.144 MB for 2009 for this use.The key pests affecting production of sweet potato slips are nematodes(Meloidogyne incognita), fungi (Streptomyces ipomea, Monilochaetes infuscans, Fusarium oxysporum,Ceratocystis fimbriata), weeds (Chenopodiumspp.,Digitariaspp.)and insects (Scarabid beetles,Limoniusspp). The Party identifies that Telone effectively controls the key pests of sweet potatoes in California. However, Telone cannotbe used in Dec-Jan as township caps are exceeded by November which is the fumigation window for slips. The party requests MB for use only in slips where high qualityseed is produced. The rates stated in the CUNare consistent with MBTOC’s standard presumptions. However, MBTOC notes that desirable nematode resistant cultivarsare widely available elsewhere in the world and may be useful inmanaging nematode pests. The nomination does state that resistant varieties were to be tested inCalifornia from 2001 to 2003 but no results are provided.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:No economic data onalternatives given. Factors that contribute to losses include delayed plantingdue to use of alternatives; fallow; additional use of herbicides; losses due to weeds, insectsand diseases resulting in smaller, less attractive produce (quality loss).April 2007 TEAP Progress Report115CountryIndustryQuantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1 andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007 (MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008 (MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additional ornew)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009 (new)Tomatoes(field)2876.0462476.3642065.2461406.4841245.249(Inc. 5.501 t forresearch)1004.589(Incl. 5.501 t forresearch)MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 1004.589 t for this use in SE, Georgia, Florida and Michigan in 2009. The amount recommended includes 5.501tonnes forresearch. A new nominated amount has been requested for Maryland a region which the Party has stated previously used MB from stocks. A reduction was made in theSE, Georgia, Florida by 25% from the amount approved for 2008 to allow for adoption ofalternatives and to account for furtherrate reduction by adoption of formulationsof MB/Pic with lower ratios of MB in conjunction with barrierfilms. According to the available information, MBTOC has determined that the amounts for each region are231.085 t for the SE, 55.786 t for Georgia,686.280 t for Florida, 24.915 t for Michigan and 1.022 t for Maryland. The Party has stated that it based its nomination onMBTOCs standard maximum dosage rates of MB/Pic formulations of 175 kg/ha for nutsedgeand 150 kg/ha for pathogens with adoptionof LPBF and also made anadjustment for strip fumigation based on 0.58of the area treated. An adjustment was also made for dosage rate for Michigan suitable for pathogens of 150 kg/ha (15g/m2.) No information was provided on the key pests in Maryland and anassumption was made that pests were similar to the other regions in the SE. MBTOC hasassumed this region was not included in the “region SE and middleAtlantic, US”. If this assumption is not correct the party is requested to provide the appropriateinformation. The key pest of tomatoes in the south eastern United States, including Florida andGeorgia are nutsedge, nematodesand P. capsici. In Florida and Georgiakarst topography limits the use of alternatives which include 1,3-dichloropropene, which are considered the best alternatives for these pests on 54% of the growingacreage in Florida, 11% in Georgia and 6% of the acreage in Georgia. The Party in the past has stated that metham sodium or metham potassium is promisingalternatives but no further data has been provided on their performance. MBTOC, however,considers that alternatives are available for both karst and non-karst areas inSE, Florida and Georgia (Noling et al. 2006;Santos et al. 2006; Noling and Gilreath2004; Gilreath and Santos 2004bc; Gilreathet al. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005bc, 2006;Rosskopf et al, 2005; Chellemi and Browne, 2006; McMillan and Bryan 1998, 1999, 2002; Rich and Olson 2003) which can be adoptedon areas of moderate pestpressure at least. MBTOC has adjusted the nomination for these regions by 25%. The Party indicated that 42% transition to alternatives was possible in these regionsover a seven year period. MBTOC considered a 25% reduction possible in this year by further ratereductions of MB using formulations of MB/Pic with lower ratios of MBin conjunction with barrier films, and adoption of alternatives. It has based thisreduction on the amount approved at MOP-18(This amount reflects a further 18%transition over the Parties suggested 7% transition for 2009). The Party showed references which supported use of alternativesin combination with LDPF (Culpepper,2006). Other studies on possible effective alternatives are available (Ristaino and Johnson (1999), Babadost and Islam (2002),Johnston et al (2002), Driver and Lows(2003). A combination of 1,3-D or metham sodium with chloropicrin + herbicides (Trifluralin, Devrinol, napropamide, halosulfuron, s-metalochlor) is considered as the bestalternative strategy in Florida. No future indication for the use of this combination was given by the Party. Husbeck and Lamour (2004) and others have reported manyefficient management strategies to control Phytophthora on vegetables, including crop rotation with non susceptible hosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans,alfalfa , cultural control (water management, plant density, soil amendments, protective mulch, raised beds etc....) and use of registered fungicides (Mefonoxan,Dimethomorph (Acrobat), Zoxamide +Mancozebe, Copper hydroxide+Acrobat). Seed treatment with Mephenoxan or metalaxyl control Phytophthora during seedgermination. MBTOC notes that uptake of alternatives for this crop in regions with similar pests has occurred within 4 years orless in many countries e.g Spain, Italy,Australia. (Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Spotti,2004; Tostovrsnik et al 2005;Minuto et al,2003; Vos and Bridge 2006; EC 2006). MBTOC considers that further reductions inMB amount is possible changes to formulations of 50:50 MB/Pic orless (e.g. to 30:70) used in combination with barrier films. The Party states that registration of a keyalternative (eg. methyl iodide) is pending.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics 2007: Part of the nomination for Michigan was based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:TheCUNreports yield losses for 1,3-D with chloropicrin as the next best alternative ranging from 1.75% to 6%. Net revenue declines reported for all regions. Changes in pestcontrol costs are less than 4 percent of total variable costs so have little impact on economic measures. Missed market windowin Michigan cited as main reason.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 116 9.3.5 References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and Emissions Reductions.

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

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

Ausher, R. (2004). Personal communication. Rehovot, Israel

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

, (Abstr), 92, 55

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

567: 431-434.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

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

1109-1116.

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

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

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

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

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Cram, M.M., Enebak, S.A., Fraedrich, S. W., Dwine ll, L.W. and Zarnoch, S.J. (2007). Evaluation of Fumigants, EPTC Herbicide, and Paenibacillus macerans in the Production of Loblolly Pine Seedlings. Forest Science 53(1):73– 83.

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

Culpepper S. And D. Langston (2004). Fumigant/ herbicide combinations. Unpublished study conducted by researchers at th e University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Included in US CUE package 2004.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elmore, C., Roncoroni, J. and Tjosvold, S. (2003) . Treatment combinations to improve efficacy in field- grown flowers. In: Annual Internati onal Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. November 3 – 6, 2003, San Diego, California, USA. p. 112-1.

Enebak, S., Starkey, T. and McCraw , D. (2006). Tree seedling quality and weed control with basamid, MBr and methyl iodide. In: Annual Internati onal Research Conferen ce on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. November 3 – 6, 2006, Orlando, Florida, 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, Kabir, Z, Ajwa, H, Daugovish, O, Roth, K and Valdez, J. (2003). Chloropicrin and Inline dose-response under VIF and HDPE film: weed control results. Proc. Annual

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

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

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

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

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

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

176-179

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

2006

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

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

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

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

195.

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

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

Gerik, J.S. (2005a). Evaluation of soil fumigants applied by drip irrigation for Liatris production. Plant

Disease 89: 883-887.

Gerik, J.S. (2005b). Drip applied soil fumigants fo r floriculture production. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Altern atives and Emissions Reductions 31 Oct – 3 Nov San Diego, California, 105-1 - 105-4

Gerik, J.S. and I.D. Greene (2004). Drip a pplied soil fumigants for calla lily production Phytopathology 94(6):

Gerik, J.S., Greene, I.D., Beckman, P. and Elmore, C.L. (2006). Preplant drip-applied fumigation for calla lily rhizome nursery. HorTechnology 16(2): 297 – 300

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

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

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

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

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

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

alternatives for nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper ( Capsicum annuum ). Crop Protection. 24, 903-908.

Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T.N., Santos, B.M., Mirusso, J. M., Gilreath, P.R., Noling, J.W. and Jones, J.P. (2005b). Influence of supplementary in-bed chloropicrin application on soilborne pest control in tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum ). Crop Protection. 24, 779-784.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 119 Gilreath, J.P., Santos, B.M., Siham, M. and Noling, J.W. 2005c. Effect of VIF on nutsedge control with metam, chloropicrin and 1,3- D, alone and in combinatio n. Proceedings of Annual

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

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

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

140.

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

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

58.

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

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

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

Protection 24: 903-908.

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

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromid e Alternatives and Emissions

Reductions.

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

Gilreath, JP, Motis, T, Noling, J and Mertly, J. 2003c . Results of the IR-4 strawberry methyl bromide alternatives program in Florida in 2002. Powerpoint presentation. University of Florida.

Glireath, JP, Noling, JW, Jones, JP, Overman, AJ and Santos, BM. 2003d. Experiencias iniciales con alternativas al bromuro de metilo en tomate. Manejo Integrade de Plagas y Agroecología. 69,

81-84.

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

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

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

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

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

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

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

33-1.

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

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

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

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

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

Martyn, R.D. (2002). Monosporascus root rot and vine decline of melons. Plant Disease Lessons. The Plant Health Instructor. DOI: 10.1094/PHI-I-2002 0612-01. American Phytopathological Society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

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

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

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

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

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

McSorley, R; Wang, K-H (2004). Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for managing nematodes and weeds in snapdragon. Proeedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 117:334-337.

2004.

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

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

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

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

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

Nelson M. et al. (2001a). Marketab le berry yield cv. Camarosa – Oxnard trial, CA. 2000-01 USDA IR4 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program in Strawberries.

Nelson M. et al. (2001b). Marketable berry yield cv. Diamante – Salinas trial, CA. 2000-01 USDA IR4 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program in Strawberries.

Nelson, M., Rodriguez, L., Vander Mey, B., Lepez, G. and Norton, J. (2002). Results from the 2001-02

USDA IR-4 MBA Field Trials in California Strawberries. Proc. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alte rnatives and Emissions Reduction. pp.16/1-

16/4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 122 Pietr, S.J., Slusarski, C. and Lewi cka, T. (2002). Methyl bromide alte rnatives evaluated in strawberry production in UNEP’s regional demonstration project in central and eastern Europe. In: Proceedings of th Internationa l Conference on Altern atives to Methyl Br omide, March 5-8, 2002, Seville, Spain.

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

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

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

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

California USA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shem-Tov, S, Ajwa, HA and Fennimore, S. (2006a). Strawberry yield and weed control with alternative fumigants applied in combination with metam under various tarps. Proceedings of

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromid e Alternatives and Emissions

Reductions.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 123 Shem-Tov, S, Ajwa, HA and Fennimore, SA. (2005). Effect of alternative tarp and fumigants combinations with metam sodium on strawberry yield. In: Proceedings of Annual

International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, Califonia, United States.

Shem-Tov, S, Ajwa, HA, Fennimore, SA and Hunzie, J. (2006b). Strawberry production and weed

control in soils treated with basamid and chlo ropicrin. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

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

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

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

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

. Embryo Publications, Athens pp 179

- 210.

South, D. (2007). Chloropicrin as a Soil Fumigation Treatment in Southern Pine Nurseries. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 31(1): 47 - 51

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

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

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

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

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

CAB International.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

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

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

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

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

Yücel, I.H., Elekçio ğ lu, A. and Uluda ğ , A. (2002). Solarization and its combinations: the first year results of ademonstration project. In: Procee dings of the International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 5 – 8 March, 2002, Seville, Spain.

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 125 9.4 Evaluation of 2007 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide and Related Matters; MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities Interim Report – March 2007 (MBTOC-QSC)

9.4.1 Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities

Table 9.10 below states the standard presumptions applied by MBTOC QSC in assessing this round of CUNs where continued methyl bromid e use is sought. These have not changed since presentation to the Parties at MOP-17.

Table 9.10 Standard presumptions used in assessment of CUNs – Structures and

Commodities

Comment CUN Adjustment Exception

Dosage rate -

structural 20 gm -3 

### Nominations using higher dosage rates were reduced proportionally Where approved label rates require higher dosage rate or where substantiated by the Party

Dosage rate –

commodities EPPO standard for bulk commodities as given in MBTOC (1994, 1998) Nominations using higher dosage rates were reduced proportionally Where approved label rates require higher dosage rates or where substantiated by the Party



### MBTOC recognises that the actual rate appropria te for a specific use may vary with local circumstances, soil conditions and the target p est situation. Some nominations were based on

rates lower than these indicative rates.

9.4.1.1 Adjustments for standard dosage rates

MBTOC assessed CUNs for appropriate MB dosage rates and deployment of MB emission/use reduction technologies, such as appropriate sealing techniques.

Decision IX/6 requires that critical uses shoul d 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 minimisation techniques, requesting Parties “...to ensure, wh erever methyl bromide is authorised for critical-use exemptions, the use of emissi on minimisation techniques that improve gastightness or the use equipmen t that captures, destroys and/or reuses the methyl bromide and other techniques that promote environmen tal protection, whenever technically and economically feasible.”

In structures, it is feasible to reduce MB use and emissions by the use of improved sealing techniques, with monitoring to ensure only the minimum effective dosage is used. The average dosage rates now quoted in the CUNs, typically around 20 g m -3 

### for mills and similar structures, are reasonable.

In commodities, methyl bromide dosage rates vary with commodity temperature and by commodity sorption rates. Accordingly, MB TOC uses the dosage rates published by the European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO ) and found in annexes to the MBTOC 2006 Assessment Report (MBTOC, 2007) Parties are en couraged to use the lowest possible dosage rate appropriate for the circumstances and as allo wed by the label. Where possible, the use of

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 126 lower dosages, combined with longer exposure pe riods, can reduce MB use while maintaining efficacy. (MBTOC. 2007. 2006 Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee; 2006 Assessment Report.)

9.4.1.2 Details of evaluations

Parties have submitted 16 CUNs for the use of MB in structures and commodities in 2007.

Of the 2007 nominations, 7 were for 2008 for a total of 11.535 tonnes. Of nominations for 2008, MBTOC QSC recommended 5, with 2 recommended at less than the full amount nominated, for a total of 3.952 tonnes. MBTO C was unable to assess one nomination for 2008

and did not recommend one CUN.

Of the 2007 nominations 9 were for 2009 for a total of 529.721 tonnes. Of the nominations for 2009, MBTOC QSC recommended 8, with 4 recommended at less than the full amount nominated , for a total of 476.017 tonnes. MBTOC QSC was unable to assess one nomination.

Table 9.11 provides the MBTOC QSC interim recommendations for the CUNs submitted in

2007.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report127Table 9.11 MBTOC QSC Interim Recommendations for the CUNs Submitted in 2007Country Industry Quantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)Rice 6.150 6.150 9.205 7.400 1.800 0.840 9.200 UMBTOC comments:On 2008 CUN:MBTOC recommends an additional 0.84 tonnes to the 7.4 tonnes of MBalready granted by the Parties for rice treatment in 2008. The Party hadsubmitted a supplemental nomination of 1.8 tonnes for 2008. MBTOC's recommendationfor this reduced amount was based on the following calculation: a paddyharvest of 261.300 tonnes, milled to 209,000tonnes and fumigated at 20g/m3 giving a total MB usage of 8.24 tonnes. Parties already approved 7.4 tonnes.On 2009 CUN:MBTOC is unable to assess the nomination of9.2 tonnes for 2009. MBTOC recommends thatthis nomination be reviewed again when the Partyprovides further information on costs of moving at least some production to alternatives by 2009. Technically effective and registered alternatives are available and inuse in most rice producing countries, but they have not been adopted in Australia. The Party indicates that the applicants cannot afford any investment in alternativesbecause for several years, drought, caused by global warming, hasseverely decreased rice harvests. Government of Australia hasindicated its intention to continueuse of MB until at least three years ofnon-drought conditions enable sufficient investment. Should there be an easing of drought conditions and a return to normalcrop sizes, Government of Australia has indicated phase out could begin in 2009 with the resulting complete phase out expectedin 2012. The applicant has investedin recapture equipment on its largest treatment site with quotedsavings of about 45% of MB emissions. Pest control treatmentsfor milled rice, and methods thatavoid the need for pest control in milled rice are available andin use world wide. For example, reasonably-costed controlled atmosphere treatments are commerciallyavailable on a lease basis (per tonne of commodity) and in usein other countries. This method would avoid investments in additional silos. Phosphine is registeredand would be effective to treat rice either before or after processing. The applicant has suggested that it can not adopt phosphine because doing so would requireinvestment of A$40 million to build 100 silos and that phosphine would cost 58 times thecost of methyl bromide. The Party’s stated technical need for the 100 silosrequires further clarification. Rice isstored as paddy without fumigation, and thenmilled in an orderly fashion as needed. MBTOC believes that the additional numberof treatment facilities for non-QPS rice would be considerably fewer given that theapplicant would only require sufficient silos for 7-10 days treatment time withphosphine and not the 28 days suggested by the applicant. A 7-day treatment time is acceptable for milled rice with phosphine according to the label rate. A 7-10 daytreatment time would allow for fumigation to occur immediatelyafter production and keep pace with milling with fewer additional silos. The applicant has indicated itcan not afford to change its packaging method. Improved packagingwould prevent re-infestation and would be an effective measure. Packaging methods thatprevent new infestation are in use in numerous rice producing countries. In 2006, Parties granted10.3 tonnes of methyl bromide, of which 6.745 tonnes was actuallyused in 2006 on rice, according to the accounting framework of the Government of AustraliaAustraliaMBTOC comments on economics:The CUN states: drought has made it impossible to undertake investment in phosphine facilities. Estimated costs for up to 100silos would be Aus $40 million. CUN states it would involve threeyears of transition, potentiallycomplete in 2012. However,CUN does not provide annual cost ofthis capital expenditure. Even if borrowing or raising externalcapital is not feasible, the calculations of the annual cost have to be based on the amortised capital costover the economic life of theinvestment. CUN Tables 3, 4, and 5 compare costs of phosphine and MB treatment on an annual basis. MBTOC analysis concludes thatphosphine would costs $19.02 per ton for each of the first 10 years.For a 1-kilo retail package this amounts to $0.19, or about 2 cents. With any elasticity ofdemand and with any branding value, some of this could be ispassed on to consumers. Further, per capita domestic use (broadlydefined and may include use forbeer, pet food, seed and residual) is about 9 kg per person. Thissuggests an annual cost to consumers if higher fumigation costs were passed fully of about 20cents per year per person. Some distributional issues remain as certain ethnic groups have much higher than average per capitaconsumption.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report128Country Industry Quantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)Mills 47 (includedmills andpasta)34.774 30.167(included millsonly)28.650 26.913 26.913MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 26.913 tonnes for flour mill fumigation in 2009with the understanding that Canadian flour millers continue their rigorousresearch program and complete reports in 2007. Industry-government commercial scale trials of heat treatment, sulfuryl fluorideand heat, phosphine and carbondioxide combination, are ongoing. Sulfuryl fluoride is only allowed under conditional registration and can only be used in empty flour mills. Nomaximum residuelevels for fluoride resulting from SF fumigations have been established in Canada. Furthermore, itis unknown if any use limitswill be placed on the use of sulfurylfluoride by Provincial governments. The nomination for 2009 represents a decrease of about 5% relative to 2008 levels. MBTOC would expect a considerabledecrease in any further nomination if the trials currently being conducted show economic feasibility and technical efficacy inCanadian climate conditions. MBTOCnotes that a growing body of research and practical experience indicates that best results in SF fumigations are obtained whenfacility temperatures of approximately30 ̊C are achieved. MBTOC awaits the resultsof Canadian testing to determine if this result is also observed in Canada.CanadaMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: It appears that heat remains verycostly and has not provided comparable efficacy. Lack of trials makes adoptionof alternatives unlikely. Technical feasibility issues and lackof registration still exist. This nomination does not rely oneconomic arguments.Pasta (see Canadamills)10.457 6.757 6.067 UMBTOC comments:MBTOC is unable to assess the nomination for use in pasta manufacturing facilities in 2008. MBTOC will be able to reassess thisnominationwhen the Party supplies reports detailing theresults of trials, concrete plans for trials (such as contracts), or explains whytrials can not be conducted in the availabletime frame. The applicant indicates that trials to test and adoptheat and sulfuryl fluoride will be made in 2007. Previous CUNs have also indicated this intent but trialshave not yet been reported. In Oct 2006 in response to this CUN MBTOC wrote, ‘For any future CUN, MBTOC hopes to receive extensive, detailed research orcommercial trial data evaluating the technical effectiveness and economic feasibility of alternatives used in other countries and why these alternatives are notapplicable in the circumstances of Canada. Specifically, (1) effectiveness of improvements in IPM, including a pest audit, cleaning, facility improvements, monitoringand inspection, (2) facility heat treatments, and (3) sulfuryl fluoride when applicable.” MBTOC acknowledges that sulfuryl fluoride, a possible alternative, is onlyconditionally registered in Canada and there are no maximum residue levels for fluorine in foods in Canada. Pasta manufacturershave accomplished some of theimprovements in IPM that seem needed. The2008 nominated amount is 10.2% less than the2007 CUE granted by the Parties. There are non-MB techniquesavailable for pest control use in pasta mills that are used in other countries. Successful heat treatment in a North Americanpasta mill has been detailed bySubramanyam (2006). Pasta facilities consist of two areas (production and warehousing) with potentially different avenues foradoption of alternatives for each. Itseems likely that the production facility should be able to adoptheat treatments, given thatthe operation of production equipment results in elevated temperatures inthe processing facility. Increasing the mill temperature to the lethal point of 55 ̊C would be effective and seems achievable.In warehousing, where heat can not beused on finished product, rigorous modern IPM including contact pesticide applications may succeed. If Canada’s intended trialsfail and MB treatment is viewed asnecessary in the short term, for warehousing, it should be possible to considerably reduce MB nominations by treating only thewarehouse and not the full facility.(Subramanyam., B., Kashyap S.., Ruby, C., and X. Hou. 2006. Summaryof a heat treatmentconducted at New World Pasta. Presentedto Methyl BromideAlternatives Organization annual conference. Orlando Nov 2006.Full report presented to New World Pasta Oct 2006, full report submitted to Government ofCanada.).CanadaMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: that heat treatment remains a very costly alternative. In general,the pest control service provider estimates thecost to carry out the heat treatment at twice the cost of doinga methyl bromide treatment. Thecost of a heat treatment increased to three or four times the cost ofmethyl bromide when the cost of monitoring to ensure comparable results to a methyl bromide fumigation are included.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report129Country Industry Quantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)Commodities 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.068 NRMBTOC comments:MBTOC does not recommend the use of methyl bromide for rodenticides and molluscicides in 2008. The critical need for methyl bromide hasnot been demonstrated. Data has not been submitted substantiating thatmould would develop in bait for rodents or molluscs if manufacturing methods wereimproved and standard good manufacturing practices were used. The applicant indicatesthat product may become subject to moulddevelopment while it is sittingopen at room temperatures, awaiting final processing and packaging without any effort made to cool or aerate the product. If the product was dried during processingto less than 75% equilibrium relative humidity theAspergillusspp, said to be of concern, should not proliferate. Similarly if the product was stored using standardgrain handling techniques of air circulation, aeration, and/or air conditioning in the storage room, mould would also not grow.If final processing occurred before theproduct was subjected to a long mid-process storage time, mouldgrowth would not occur. The applicant has not established thatethylene oxide and irradiation usedworldwide for the production of sterile lab animal feed would notbe acceptable and available in this circumstance. The Party has not substantiated that thecircumstances of this nomination are different than those of bait-food producers in other countries who do not use MB for thispurpose.CanadaMBTOC comments on economics:CUN based on technical reasons. No economic data provided for alternativesDates 3.444 2.755 2.200 1.800 1.8MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 1.8 tonnes for dates in 2008. Israel’s researchprogramme combined with technology transfer to rural packing houseshas allowed the successful adoption of heattreatment by packers of Medjool dates, the main variety. The Party has continued its 20% decrease for the third year.However, heat treatment has notbeen successful, thus far, for other date varieties. Work continues on this prospective treatment. Controlled atmosphere treatmentmay provide a technically effective alternative. A heat and carbondioxide combination treatmenthas been found to be technically effective for one variety. The‘cocoon’ method of vacuum in flexible container has worked for some varieties but requires packing houses to invest and adapt to a non-fumigation technology. Atleast one date variety is harmed by this method, but the applicantis encouraged to make the investments and shift in thinkingto this and other alternatives wheretechnically feasible and where product quality is not harmed. Phosphine is not feasible from the viewpoint of product quality.Sulfuryl fluoride and ethyl formate,although they have proven successful in the treatment of other dried fruit,are not registered.IsraelMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: Alternative 3 (Cold) is not technically suitable, alternative 1 (Heat ) is being carried out in part for Medjool onlywhile alternative 2 (CO2), 4 (vacuum) and 5 (Heat + CO2) require further studies to reveal whether they are economically feasible or not. Otherwise CUN providesno economic data.Flour mills 2.140 1.490 1.040 0.800 0.312MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 0.312 tonnes for Israel flour mills in 2008, a61% reduction in the nominated amount of 0.8 tonnes. Adoption of arigorous IPM program combined with heat treatment seems a likely avenue for success inthe circumstances of this nomination. The MB recommended will allow theapplicant to complete transition to alternatives. The applicant indicates spot treatment with MB is used in the case of infestation, but in this circumstance spottreatment by heat seems quite possible, especially given the generally high ambienttemperature. Although the applicant indicates an intended future reliance onsulfuryl fluoride, it seems unlikely to resolve their infestation problems in the short or middle term since there has not evenbeen an application for registrationsubmitted yet. The applicant indicates it uses 35 g m-3of MB based on the poor penetration of MB throughflour residues. Flour residues should be cleaned outbefore fumigation as a standard sanitation practice and anormal part of IPM. The MBTOC standard dosage rate is 20g m-3. This dosage rate is sufficient for full sitetreatments and would be more than sufficient for spot treatment.The amount of MB recommended was based on the following considerations. Five mills werereported to need to fumigate mills and equipment totalling 15,600m3. When MBTOC standard dosage rate of 20g m-3is used, the result is 0.312 tonnes of MBneeded.IsraelMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: that heat treatment isnot economically feasible. Suitable equipment might overcome that problem. OtherwiseCUN provides no economic analysis.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report130Country Industry Quantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)Chestnuts 7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300 5.800 5.800MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 5.8 tonnes for Japan chestnuts in 2009. The Partyhas decreased the request for MB use in this sector by 8% byrequiring growers and packing houses to amalgamate fumigation loads. The Party is encouraged tocontinue these improvements andto reduce dosage byincreasing fumigation time. The Party has a rigorous research program that, in preliminary results, has identified some effective alternatives. Unfortunately many ofthe alternatives tested are either ineffective disinfestants or harms this fresh product. More encouraging research results indicate efficacy for methyl iodide which isnot yet registered in Japan.JapanMBTOC comments on economics:CUN provides no economic analysisCoffee &Cocoa BeansSeeMedicinalHerbs2.160 1.420 0.500 0.500MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 0.5 tonnes for this use in 2008, a reduction of64.3% for this sector over lastyear’s nomination. In recentyears the Partyhas significantly reduced its requirement for MB by the reuseof recaptured MB. Additionally,the Party is adopting phosphine as an alternative. Registration of fastgenerated forms of phosphine is anticipatedthis year and will increase the rate oftransition. If there are delays or ineffectiveness discovered in this plannedtreatment, another avenue is the use of heat and low oxygen asa combination controlled atmosphere treatment. This treatment, already in use in several ports,would control the mite infestation in anapproximate treatment time of 5 days.PolandMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: that phosphine (which is notregistered, inter alia because of the expected small market) is 30% more expensive,largely as a result of additional costs associated with fumigation time of 12 days; high cost of speed boxes and phosphine generators. These additional costs makethe fumigation treatments with phosphine more expensive by 50 Europer tonne. CUN states that irradiation is expensive becauseof the high cost of transportation tothe facility.medicinalherbs andmushrooms4.100 3.560 1.800 0.500 0.500MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 0.5 tonnes for this use in 2008, a reduction of 81.5% for this sector over lastyear’s nomination. In recent years the Partysignificantly reduced MB use in this sector by moving commoditiesto alternatives as technologies and treatments became available. The CUN this year representsthe last remaining uses which are moving to use of carbon dioxide/high pressure.PolandMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: that phosphine (which is not registered, inter alia because of the expected small market) is more expensive,largely as a result of additional costs associated with fumigation time of 12 days; high cost of speed boxes and phosphine generators. These additional costs makethe fumigation treatments with phosphine moreexpensive. CUN states that irradiation isexpensive because of the high cost of transportation to the facility.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report131Country Industry Quantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)Commodities 89.166 87.719 78.983 58.921inc.0.021 forresearch58.912 45.623inc. 0.020for researchMBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 45.623 tonnes for US commodities in 2009. Thisamount includes 20 kilograms for research. The Party had requested58.921 tonnes for 2009, which included 21 kilograms for research purposes, but which included no transition to alternatives over the amount granted by the Partiesfor 2008. MBTOC’s recommendation represents a 20% decrease in thenomination for walnuts, dried fruit and dates to allow for transition to alternatives. In the caseof dried beans, we did not recommend a 20% reductionthis year but reduced the dosage rate from 44g m-3to 20g m-3. Therefore, on a sectoral basis the tonnesrecommended are: walnuts (28.088); dried fruit (13.928); beans (1.980); dates (1.607). There are several alternatives availablefor use by this sector. Phosphine is inwidespread use, but its slower action sometimes makes it logistically impractical for meeting holiday market windows. Phosphineis registered for treatment of beansin California, but is not registered if the beans are stated to be infested with cowpea weevils. Trials using phosphine and sulfuryl fluoride have been conducted withdates. Sulfuryl fluoride is technically effective and available;MRLs have recently been established in Germany, one of the largest importers of US walnuts. Someimporting countries, however, have not yet established MRLs for fluoride residues, which limits its use in some cases. Controlled atmosphere treatment would also beeffective and the technology is available on a lease basis.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:CUN provides economic data on alternatives for walnuts and dried fruit other than dates. CUN states: that phosphine fumigantcosts are higher because it takes longer to accomplish so sellersdon’t reach December holiday export market window; its use leading to increased labour costs, andit corrodes equipment. CUN states walnuts and dried fruit all experience substantial additional downtime and subsequent lost revenues if phosphine is used. Netrevenues for alternatives are negative. CUN states that profit margin decreases from13.3% to –7.5% for Walnuts and from 5% to-16.8% for dried fruits. Aneconomic analysis was not done for dates and dried beans.Cocoa beans -NPMA subset61.519 55.367 64.082 53.188 51.002 32.659MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 32.659 tonnes of methyl bromide for cocoa beansin 2009. Cocoa beans are included in the US NPMA CUN, butMBTOC disaggregates it. Although the Party had indicated they could achieve a 4.2% reduction in MB use over 2008, MBTOC notesthe potential for commercialadoption in this sector for some of the commodity. Bookout (2006) reported a successful commercial trial with sulfuryl fluoridefor over 200,000 bags of cocoa duringthe summer months. The amount of MB recommended was based on thefollowing considerations. Sulfuryl fluoride is registered foruse on cocoa beans butpermitted residue limits make it available for only one fumigation.Concerns about possible egg survival in the instance of high infestation combined with concerns ofcold bean temperature means that sulfuryl fluoride is more suitable for the second fumigation just before shipment to chocolatemanufacturers. Sulfuryl fluorideshould have its highest effectiveness in the warmer parts of theyear. Since cocoa bean imports vary annually, MBTOC calculateda five year average of historicaluse of MB for cocoa beans, then reduced it by 25% to allow for adoption of sulfuryl fluoride during the warm half of the year for the second fumigation immediatelybefore shipment to chocolate manufacturers. (A five-year average of historical MB use is 43.545 tonnes, minus 25% = 32.659 tonnes.) MBTOC notes further that,during the coldest months, not all cocoa is given the second fumigation, according to fumigator reports, makingthis reductionin MB use more easily accomplished. Infuture years, there are opportunities to replace chemical treatments with controlled atmosphere treatments or storage. (Bookout, A. (2006). Commercial use ofProFume on stored cocoa beans. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 3 to 6, 2006,Orlando, Florida, USA, Paper 105).UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: that for commodities listed inthe NPMA CUN, an economic analysis was not conducted because this sector didnot have an alternative registered. The comment about alternative registration is incorrect. For food-processing facilities listed in the NPMA CUN, economicfeasibility of such alternatives was not assessed due to the lack of revenue information, which is necessary to quantify the economic impacts to food-processingfacilities.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report132Country Industry Quantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)NPMA foodprocessingstructures(cocoa beansremoved)83.344 69.118 82.771 69.208 66.777 cocoabeansremoved54.606MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 54.606 tonnes for processed food facilities in 2009. Cocoa beans has been disaggregated from this CUN and reportedelsewhere. The Party has requested 66.777 tonnes for these sectors, cocoa removed. The Party indicates it can achieve a five-year transition at 17% per year of84% of its facilities in this sector. The constant reduction inabsolute tonnes annually of 84% of the total of this CUN is 13.871 tonnes (cocoa and cheese notincluded). 2009 will be the second year ofthis transition plan. MBTOC has not included a reduction for cheese stores because no alternatives have been registered,but the Party has reduced its MB nomination in this sector through various improvements. The total tonnage recommended is composed of the following sectoralamounts: processed foods (49.103); herbs andspice facilities (3.238); cheese (2.265).The Party is requested to ensure the recommendation for herb and spicefacilities is used only for the facilities and not the commodity,especially not if intended for QPS. There are alternatives for herb and spice commodity in widespreadcommercial use in the US, and QPS usescannot be included in critical uses.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:CUN states: For commodities listed in the NPMA CUN, an economicanalysis was not conducted because this sector did nothave an alternative registered. The commentabout alternative registration is incorrect.. For food-processing facilities listed in the NPMA CUN, economic feasibility ofsuch alternatives was not assessed due to the lack of revenue information which is necessary to quantify the economic impacts to food-processing facilities.Mills andprocessors483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237 291.418 291.418MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 291.418 tonnes for US mills and structures in2009. Overall this is a 16.3%decrease for the entire sector. This decreaseis distributed over each sector as follows: rice mills 26.7%,bakeries 41.8%, pet food 17.7% andflour millers 11.9%. The Parties granted 348.231 tonnes of MB forthis use in 2008. The overall decrease in MB use is also similar to transition estimates by suppliers of alternative products and technologies. The total tonnages ofMB recommended can be broken down into sectors as follows: ricemills (48.804); bakeries (8.308); pet food (21.955); and flourmills (212.352). US bakeries aremaking the fastest transition to alternatives and seem to have resolved earlier facility design problems that resulted in difficulties transitioning to heat. Gastightnessshould continue to be improved and numerous techniques are available to do so. MB should not be used in facilities that are ofpoor or very poor gastightness. Thesesituations are especially prevalent in rice and flour mills. Transition to adoptionof heat treatments should be encouraged, especially where gastightness is poor.UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:The CUN states: that heat will cost 1.5 times and sulfuryl fluoride costs 1.3 times the cost of MB treatment. Heat treatment isreported to result in lost operating days and thus lower throughput and gross revenues. Where sulfuryl fluoride is technicallyfeasible it results in loss of net revenueof 57% (rice millers), but only 4% (bakeries) and 2% (pet foodmanufacturers and North AmericanMillers Association). Profit margins were added to the economicassessment.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report133Country Industry Quantityapproved for2005(ExMOP1andMOP16)Quantityapproved for2006(MOP16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapproved for2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapproved for2008(MOP18)Quantitynominatedfor 2008(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2008(additional ornew)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(new)MBTOCrecommendation for 2009(new)Cured pork 67.907 40.854 18.998 19.669 19.699 18.998MBTOC comments:MBTOC recommends 18.998 tonnes for 2009. This amount was also grantedby the Parties for this use in 2007, but represents a decreasefrom the amount granted by the Parties in2008 of 19.669 tonnes and renominated for2009. There are no registered alternativesfor the treatment of insects andmites on pork hanging in curing houses. Reliable historical use volumes for the largest group of producers in this sector are still not available due to the large numberof small units. Thereforethere is no justification for increase in use in this sector. A multi-stateresearch project has begun and has released preliminary results. Theresearch will identify potential for improvements in IPM, facility gastightness, processing methods and efficacy of alternatives which may result in decrease in MB useand eventual transition to alternatives. The Party is encouraged toinvestigate efficacy of non-chemical alternatives for thiscommodity, which would then allow forfaster transition away from MB in this sector. Controlled atmosphere at increased temperature may be effective. An additional avenue for investigation might be dipsin hot oil as is done in European countries for similar pork products. (Schillings W. 2006. Methyl Bromide use to combat miteinfestation in dry cured ham duringproduction. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 3 –6, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA.).UnitedStatesMBTOC comments on economics:No economic data given. This is a minor use and there is little economic incentive to develop alternativesSUMMARYTotal post harvest CUN amounts Total recommended amounts200811.535 3.9522009529.721 476.017

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 134 

# APPENDIX I to Chapter 9

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 Commission

EMOP Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPPO European Plant Protection Organisation

IPM Integrated Pest Management

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

MITC Methyl isothiocyanate

MOP Meeting of the Parties

MS Metham sodium

Pic Chloropicrin

QPS Quarantine and Pre-shipment

SF Sulfuryl fluoride

TEAP Technology and Economics Assessment Panel

US United States of America

VIF Virtually Impermeable Film

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 135 

# APPENDIX II to Chapter 9

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 accept able 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 me thyl bromide, also bearing in mind the developing countries’ ne ed 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, institu tional capacity, and information. NonArticle 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).

### April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 136 

# APPENDIX III to Chapter 9

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

(Decision XVI/4. Review of the working proce dures and terms of reference of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee)

“15. An annual work plan will enhance the tran sparency 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, wh ile noting that financial considerations would still be reviewed solely in the contex t 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 r easons 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 presumpti ons that MBTOC seeks to apply in its

future assessment of critical-use nominations , for approval by the Meeting of the

Parties. ”April 2007 TEAP Progress Report137APPENDIX IV to Chapter 9 – PartA: Preplant Soil ApplicationsList of nominated (2005 – 2009 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2008 in part) amounts of methyl bromide granted by Parties under the CUE process foreach crop or commodity.Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008Australia Cut Flowers – field 40.000 22.350 18.375 22.350Australia Cut flowers – protected 20.000 10.425Australia Cut flowers, bulbs – protectedVic 7.000 7.000 6.170 6.150 7.000 7.000 3.598 3.500Australia Strawberry Fruit 90.000 67.000Australia Strawberry runners 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750Belgium Asparagus 0.630 0.225 0.630 0.225Belgium Chicory 0.600 0.180 0.180 0.180Belgium Chrysanthemums 1.800 0.720 1.120Belgium Cucumber 0.610 0.545 0.610 0.545Belgium Cut flowers – other 6.110 1.956 4.000 1.956Belgium Cut flowers – roses 1.640Belgium Endive (sep from lettuce) 1.650 1.650Belgium Leek & onion seeds 1.220 0.155 0.660Belgium Lettuce(& endive) 42.250 22.425 25.190Belgium Nursery Not Predictable 0.384 0.900 0.384Belgium Orchard pome & berry 1.350 0.621 1.350 0.621Belgium Ornamental plants 5.660 0.000Belgium Pepper & egg plant 5.270 1.350 3.000 1.350Belgium Strawberry runners 3.400 0.900 3.400 0.900Belgium Tomato (protected) 17.170 4.500 5.700 4.500Belgium Tree nursery 0.230 0.155 0.230 0.155Canada Strawberry runners (PEI) 14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 (a)14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462Canada Strawberry runners (Quebec) 1.826 1.826 (a) 1.826 1.826Canada Strawberry runners (Ontario) 6.129 6.129France Carrots 10.000 8.000 5.000 8.000 8.000 1.400France Cucumber 85 revised to 60 60.000 15.000 60.000 60.000 12.500France Cut-flowers 75.000 60.250 12.000 60.000 52.000 9.600France Forest tree nursery 10.000 10.000 1.500 10.000 10.000 1.500France Melon 10.000 10.000 7.500 6.000France Nursery: orchard, raspberry 5.000 5.000 2.000 5.000 5.000 2.000April 2007 TEAP Progress Report138Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008France Orchard replant 25.000 25.000 7.500 25.000 25.000 7.000France Pepper Incl in.tomato cun 27.500 6.000 27.500 6.000France Strawberry fruit 90.000 86.000 34.000 90.000 86.000France Strawberry runners 40.000 4.000 35.000 40.000 40.000 28.000France Tomato (and eggplant for 2005 only) 150(allsolanaceous)60.500 33.250 125.000 48.400France Eggplant 27.500 33.250 48.400Greece Cucurbits 30.000 19.200 30.000 19.200Greece Cut flowers 14.000 6.000 14.000 6.000Greece Tomatoes 180.000 73.600 156.000 73.600Israel Broomrape 250.000 250.000 250.000 250.000Israel Cucumber - protected new 2007 25.000 18.750 6.250 25.000Israel Cut flowers – open field 77.000 67.000 80.755 53.345 53.345 77.000 67.000 74.540Israel Cut flowers – protected 303.000 303.000 321.330 163.400 155.200 303.000 240.000 220.185Israel Fruit tree nurseries 50.000 45.000 10.000 50.000 45.000 7.500Israel Melon – protected & field 148.000 142.000 140.000 87.500 87.500 125.650 99.400 105.000Israel Potato 239.000 231.000 137.500 93.750 93.750 239.000 165.000 137.500Israel Seed production 56.000 50.000 56.000 28.000Israel Strawberries – fruit 196.000 196.000 176.200 64.125 57.000 196.000 196.000 93.000Israel Strawberry runners 35.000 35.000 20 20 35.000 35.000 28.000Israel Strawberry runners andfruit Ghaza 87.875 83.250Israel Tomatoes 90.000 22.750Israel Sweet potato 111.500 61.250Italy Cut flowers (protected) 250.000 250.000 30.000 250.000 187.000 30.000Italy Eggplant (protected) 280.000 200.000 15.000 194.000 156.000Italy Melon (protected) 180.000 135.000 10.000 131.000 131.000 10.000Italy Pepper (protected) 220.000 160.000 67.000 160.000 130.000 67.000Italy Strawberry Fruit (Protected) 510.000 400.000 35.000 407.000 320.000Italy Strawberry Runners 100.000 120.000 35.000 120.000 120.000 35.000Italy Tomato (protected) 1300.000 1030.000 418.000 871.000 697.000 80.000Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 68.600 61.400 88.300 88.800 72.4 51.450Japan Ginger – field 119.400 119.400 112.200 112.100 102.200 119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075Japan Ginger – protected 22.900 22.900 14.800 14.800 12.900 22.900 22.900 14.471 11.100Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 182.200 168.000 194.100 203.900 182.2 136.650Japan Peppers (green and hot) 189.900 200.700 169.400 162.300 134.400 187.200 200.700 156.700 121.725Japan Watermelon 126.300 96.200 94.200 43.300 23.700 129.000 98.900 94.2 32.475Malta Cucumber 0.096 0.127April 2007 TEAP Progress Report139Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008Malta Eggplant 0.128 0.170Malta Strawberry 0.160 0.212Malta Tomatoes 0.475 0.594New Zealand Nursery material 1.085 1.085 0.000New Zealand Strawberry fruit 42.000 42.000 24.780 42.000 34.000 12.000New Zealand Strawberry runners 10.000 10.000 5.720 8.000 8.000 6.234Poland Strawberry Runners 40.000 40.000 25.000 12.000 40.000 40.000 24.500Portugal Cut flowers 130.000 8.750 50.000 8.750Spain Cut Flowers – Cadiz 53.000 53.000 35.000 53.000 42.000Spain Cut Flowers – Catalonia 20.000 18.600 12.840 17.000(+Andalucia)20.000 15.000 43.490(+Andalucia)Spain Pepper 200.000 155.000 45.000 200.000 155.000 45.000Spain Strawberry Fruit 556.000 499.290 80.000 556.000 499.290 0.0796Spain Strawberry Runners 230.000 230.000 230.000 215.000 230.000 230.000 230.000Spain Peppers and Strawberries 0.151UK Cut flowers 7.560 6.050UK Ornamental tree nursery 12.000 6.000 6.000 6.000UK Strawberry (& raspberry in 2005) 80.000 63.600 68.000 54.500UK Raspberry nursery 4.400 4.400USA Chrys. Cuttings/roses 29.412 29.412 0.000USA Cucurbits – field 1187.800 747.839 598.927 588.949 411.765 1187.800 747.839 592.891 486.757USA Eggplant – field 76.761 101.245 96.480 79.546 62.789 76.721 82.167 85.363 66.018USA Forest nursery seedlings 192.515 157.694 152.629 133.140 125.758 192.515 157.694 122.032 131.208USA Ginger 9.200 9.200 0.000USA Orchard replant 706.176 827.994 405.415 405.666 314.007 706.176 527.600 405.400 393.720USA Ornamentals 210.949 162.817 149.965 138.538 137.776 154.000 148.483 137.835 138.538USA Nursery stock - fruit trees,raspberries, roses45.789 64.528 12.684 51.102 27.663 45.800 64.528 28.275 51.102USA Peppers – field 1094.782 1498.530 1151.751 919.006 783.821 1094.782 1243.542 1106.753 756.339USA Strawberry fruit – field 2468.873 1918.400 1733.901 1604.669 1336.754 2052.846 1730.828 1476.019 1349.575USA Strawberry runners 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 8.837 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838USA Tomato – field 2876.046 2844.985 2334.047 1840.100 1245.249 2876.046 2476.365 2065.246 1406.484USA Turfgrass 352.194 131.600 78.040 52.189 0 206.827 131.600 78.04 0USA Sweet potato 224.528 18.144 18.144 18.144April 2007 TEAP Progress Report140APPENDIX IV to Chapter 9 – Part B: Post-harvest Structural and Commodity ApplicationsList of nominated (2005 – 2008 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2008 in part) amounts of methyl bromide granted by Parties under the CUE process foreach crop or commodity.Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008Australia Almonds 1.900 2.100 1.900 2.100Australia Rice consumer packs 12.300 12.300 10.225 9.200+1.89.200 6.150 6.150 9.205 7.400Belgium Artefacts and structures 0.600 0.307 0.590 0.307Belgium Antique structure & furniture 0.750 0.199 0.319 0.199Belgium Churches, monuments and ships'quarters0.150 0.059 0.150 0.059Belgium Electronic equipment 0.100 0.035 0.100 0.035Belgium Empty silo 0.050 0.043 0.050 0.043Belgium Flour mill see mills below 0.125 0.072 See millsbelow0.072Belgium Flour mills 10.0004.170 9.515 4.170Belgium Mills 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200Belgium Food processing facilities 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300Belgium Food Processing premises 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030Belgium Food storage (dry) structure 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.000Belgium Old buildings 7.000 0 .306 1.150 0.306Belgium Old buildings and objects 0.450 0.282 0.000 0.282Belgium Woodworking premises 0.300 0.101 0.300 0.101Canada Flour mills47.200 34.774 30.167 28.650 26.913 (a)4734.774 30.167 28.650Canada Pasta manufacturing facilities(a) 10.457 6.757 6.067(a) 10.457 6.757Canada Commodities 0.068France Seeds sold by PLAN-SPG company 0.135 0.135 0.100 0.135 0.135 0.096France Mills 55.000 40.000 8.000 40.000 35.000 8.000France Rice consumer packs 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000France Chestnuts 2.000 2.000 1.800 2.000 2.000 1.800Germany Artefacts 0.250 0.100 0.250 0.100Germany Mills and Processors45.000 19.350 45.000 19.350Greece Dried fruit 4.280 3.0810.900 4.280 3.081 0.45Greece Mills and Processors 23.000 16.000 1.34023.000 15.445 1.340April 2007 TEAP Progress Report141Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008Greece Rice and legumes 2.355 2.355Ireland Mills 0.888 0.611 0.888Israel Artefacts 0.650 0.650 0.600 0.650 0.650Israel Dates (post harvest) 3.444 3.444 2.200 1.800 3.444 2.755 2.200Israel Flour mills (machinery & storage) 2.140 1.490 1.490 0.800 2.140 1.490 1.040Israel Furniture– imported 1.422 1.422 2.042 1.422 0.000Italy Artefacts 5.500 5.500 5.000 5.225 0.000 5.000Italy Mills and Processors 160.000 130.000 25.000160.000 65.000 25.000Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.500 6.500 6.300 5.800 7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300Latvia Grains 2.502 2.502Netherlands Strawberry runners post harvest 0.120 0.120 0Poland Medicinal herbs & dried mushroomsas dry commodities4.000 3.560 1.800 0.500 4.100 3.560 1.800 1.800Poland Coffee, cocoa beans (a) 2.160 2.000 0.500 2.160 1.420 1.420Spain Rice 50.000 42.065Switzerland Mills & Processors8.700 7.000 8.700 7.000UK Aircraft 0.165 0.165UK Mills and Processors 47.13010.195 4.509 47.130 10.195 4.509UK Cereal processing plants 8.131 3.480 (a) 8.131 3.480UK Cheese stores 1.640 1.248 1.248 1.640 1.248 1.248UK Dried commodities (rice, fruits andnuts) Whitworths2.400 1.256 2.400 1.256UK Herbs and spices 0.035 0.037 0.030 0.035 0.037UK Mills and Processors (biscuits) 2.525 1.787 0.4792.525 1.787UK Spices structural equip. 1.728 1.728 0.000 0.479UK Spices stored 0.030 0.030 0.000UK Structures buildings (herbs andspices)3.000 1.872 0.908 3.000 1.872 0.908UK Structures, processors and storage(Whitworths)1.100 0.880 0.257 1.100 0.880 0.257UK Tobacco equipment 0.523 0.050UK Woven baskets 0.770 0.770USA Dried fruit and nuts (walnuts,pistachios, dried fruit and dates anddried beans)89.166 87.719 91.299 67.699 58.912 89.166 87.719 78.983 58.921USA Dry commodities/ structures (cocoabeans)61.519 61.519 64.028 52.256 51.002 61.519 55.367 64.082 53.188April 2007 TEAP Progress Report142Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008USA Dry commodities/ structures(processed foods, herbs and spices,dried milk and cheese processingfacilities) NPMA83.344 83.344 85.801 72.693 66.777 83.344 69.118 82.771 69.208USA Smokehouse hams (Dry cure porkproducts) (building and product)136.304 135.742 40.854 19.669 19.699 67.907 81.708 18.998 19.699USA Mills and Processors 536.328 505.982 401.889 362.952 291.418 483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237April 2007 TEAP Progress Report143APPENDIX V to Chapter 9Summary of CUE trends and information provided in National Management Strategies for phase-out of critical-use exemptions.Party CUE industry2007/2008)CUEs approved by MOP(tonnes)CUNs(tonnes)Expected or planned schedulefor MB phase-out for CriticalUsesConstraints to Phase Out and progresswith evaluation of alternatives2005 2006 2007 2007(new)2008Australia Rice, strawberry,protected flowers146.6 75.1 40.88 10.25 51.1 Reduce the imports of methylbromide to zero by 2010 orearlier.CUE holders to identify andtransition to alternatives before2010.Turf growers and flour mills havebeen using stocks from before2005 and have not requestedCUEs so far.Demonstrating technical and economic feasibility for VIF (LPBF) barrierfilms will require the Australian industry to overcome some barriers thatcurrently prevent widespread adoption.A national programme tested more than 20 alternatives. A number of nonfumigant treatments (bio-fumigants, steam, hot water and solarisation)have also been tested. Telone C 35, methyl iodide and cyanogen areconsidered to be the prospective inthe short term. However all requirefurther trials and/or registration.Telone C 35 (a 1,3- dichloropropene/chloropicrin mixture) has beenidentified and registered for the fruit industry, but not yet for thestrawberry runner industry.Canada Mills, strawberryrunners61.79 53.90 39.99 12.87 36.11 As fast as possible followingtransition strategy principles tophaseout. No figures provided.Potential alternatives have been identified for the relevant industries.The government is committed to a priority review of thetechnology/substances identified and submitted (by the technology owner)as alternatives to methyl bromide.The Canadian National Millers Association (CNMA) has completed onecollaborative project toevaluate alternatives with the support of AAFCand is currently managing a second two-year (2005-2006) initiative toassist companies and pest controlsservice providers in evaluatingalternatives. Results of the evaluationswill be published by CNMA by thefirst quarter of 2007.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report144Party CUE industry2007/2008)CUEs approved by MOP(tonnes)CUNs(tonnes)Expected or planned schedulefor MB phase-out for CriticalUsesConstraints to Phase Out and progresswith evaluation of alternatives2005 2006 2007 2007(new)2008Japan Chestnuts, cucumber,ginger, pepper,melons, watermelons748 741.4 636.172 0 589.6Will ensure the reduction ofcritical uses nominationsuccessively. No figures providedNMS to promote the phase-out ofuses of methyl bromide as soon astechnically and economicallyfeasible.Difficult to suggest standardreduction level in general.Experimental research plan for thedevelopment of pest control for cropdiseases and virus (in e.g. peppers); development of alternativetechnologies ongoing. Prospective alternatives(tests done):•methyl iodide fumigation and storage under low temperature and highhumidity to control chestnut weevil•control of melon necrotic spot virus (MNSV) with the use of resistantstock - demonstration field test on the efficacy•green pepper resistant variety with L4 gene against peppertobamovirus.NewZealandStrawberry fruit,strawberry runners50 42 0 30.50 - Government has determined that2007 will be the last nominationsthat will besupported for thecritical use of methyl bromide bythe strawberry industry.The most likely alternative is Telone C35. It is recognised there areongoing difficulties with the effectiveness of this product, especially insub-optimal weather conditions. Currentresearch into alternatives will notbe completed until September 2007.USA Dried commodities,mills and processors,ham, cucurbits,eggplant, forestseedlings, nurseries,orchard replant,ornamentals, peppers,strawberry fruit,strawberry nurseries,tomatoes, turfgrass,sweet potato9552.879 8081.753 6749.0600 15105.78Manage CUEs in accordance withthe policies, procedures andregulations that are in place toaddress the elements in Ex.I/4(3)(i.e. avoid increases except underunforeseen circumstances;encourage use of alternatives;provide information on thepotential market penetration ofalternatives; promote emissionsreductions measures; provide adescription of phase-in of feasiblealternatives)Sector-by-sector description of the status of alternatives is provided.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 145 

# 10 Development of the Resp onse to Decision XVIII/12

Since 1998, TEAP has progressively published its own special reports on the interrelationship of the technologies to protect stratospheric oz one and the technologies to protect climate. Early in 2005, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) publis hed the Special Report “Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and Global Climate System” (S ROC). That report provided information relevant to decision-making in regard to the fact that some alternatives and substitutes to ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) are themsel ves potent greenhouse gases, included in the basket of chemicals controlled by the Kyoto Prot ocol. It also highlighted the significance of banked ODSs in respect of their future climate impacts. In November 2005, TEAP responded to an additional request from Parties and published “The Supplement to the IPCC/TEAP Report” to further elaborate the ozone depleti on implications of the issues raised in the IPCC/TEAP Special Report and in particular to translate the “Mitigation” and “Business as

Usual” scenarios contained within the SROC in to ozone-specific units in order to highlight the potential benefits to the ozone layer. In accordance with decision XVII/19, the Ozone Secretariat convened an experts’ workshop on 7 July 2006 to identify practical measures for reducing emissions of ODSs; it subsequently published a report of that workshop.

At MOP-18 in New Delhi, Parties took another decision asking TEAP to further assess measures deemed as practical in the report of the 7 July 2006 workshop, with a particular focus on the timing, feasibility and environmen tal benefits of HCFC control schedules for

Article 5 Parties.

Decision XVIII/12 requests TEAP to address the following:

... to further assess the measures listed in th e report of Ozone Secretariat workshop on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climat e Change/Technology and Economic Assessment Panel special report, in the light of current and expected trends of ozone-depleting substance production and consumption and w ith a focus on hydrochlorofluorocarbons, taking into account timing, feasibility and environmental benefits in Parties operating under Article 5 and Parties not operating under Article 5 of the Protocol;

... to provide information on current and future demand for, and supply of, hydrochlorofluoro-carbons, giving full cons ideration to the influence of the Clean Development Mechanism on hydrochlorofluor ocarbon-22 production, as well as on the availability of alternatives to hydrochloro fluorocarbons; while requesting the Ozone Secretariat

...to facilitate consultations, as appropriate, by the Technology an d Economic Assessment Panel with relevant organizations, namely, th e United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Executive Board of Clean Development Mec hanism of the Kyoto Protocol, and the secretariat of the Multilateral Fund, to e nable the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to draw on the work already carried out under these organizations, including any work relating to hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22, and consider, in cooperation with the Scientific Assessment Panel, the implicati ons of these findings for the recovery of the ozone layer;

In preparing its response to this Decision at its Rome meeting, TEAP has nominated the following TEAP members and invited other experts to form a Task Force. TEAP may need to supplement the Task Force membership if the nominated and invited experts are unable to serve or if the work of the Task Force ultimately requires additional expertise.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 146 Radhey Agarwal (India) - Co-chair Paul Ashford (UK) - Co-chair Lambert Kuijpers (Netherlands) - Co-ordinator

TEAP Other Invited Experts (not yet confirmed) Stephen O. Andersen (United States) Denis Clodic (France) Biao Jiang (China) Sukumar Devotta (India) Jose Pons (Venezuela) Jean Lupinacci (United States) Miguel Quintero (Colombia) Roberto Peixoto (Brazil) Helen Tope (Australia) Guus Velders (Netherlands) Dan Verdonik (United States) Masaaki Yamabe (Japan) Shiqiu Zhang (China)

TEAP’s evaluations in response to this Decision will be based on a series of scenarios which will assess the impacts in both magnitude and timing of various external factors on supply,

demand and emissions of ODSs and their altern atives. TEAP is likely to use the same basecase scenario for future HCFC emissions as presented by the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP) in the 2006 Assessment Report, which assumes full compliance with existing control measures, business-as-usual growth rates prior to the freeze in production and consumption by Article 5 Parties, and then production and consumption at the allowable limits into the future until scheduled phaseout in 2040.

In responding to paragraph 1 of the Decision, the Task Force is intending to group by ‘type of

measure’ the 31 measures that were identified as practical at the Montreal Workshop in July 2006. These groupings will then form the basis of the Task Force’s analysis which will cover impacts on both stratospheric ozone and climat e, taking into account timing, feasibility and environmental benefits to Parties operating u nder Article 5 and Parties not operating under

Article 5 of the Protocol for each of the meas ures considered. Particular emphasis will be placed on issues affecting HCFCs. The following matrix illustrates the intended approach:



## Grouping by ‘Type of Measure’

Dom Refrig

Emission reduction in use phase

Earlier transition from ODS

Design issues & material selection

End-of-life Management Com Refrig Trans Refrig Stat

A/C Mob

A/C Foam Halon

4

1 3,5 6

10 8

9 11

12

13

14 15

17 18,19,20

18 19 21

22,27 23,24

25

26 28

29,30

31

Early retirement of equipment 2 7 16



### The interaction of the Clean Development Mech anism (CDM) as it relates to HFC-23 projects with supply/demand for HCFC-22 will be the fo cus of TEAP’s response to the subject matter of the second operative paragraph of the Decisi on. Work has already begun in assessing the scenarios currently under consideration by the Executive Board of the CDM. In these newApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 147 scenarios, TEAP will assess the sensitivity of HCFC production, consumption, and emissions estimates, prior to the cap for Article 5 Parties to the price of HCFC-22, where the latter may vary as a consequence of the incentives to cap ture profits from HFC-23 emissions mitigation under the CDM and other public and private greenhou se gas emissions trading schemes.

An interim Task Force Report covering both operative paragraphs will be presented at

OEWG-27 and will take the form of a PowerPoi nt presentation, giving preliminary results of the above analyses and suggesting other findings that can be developed by TEAP prior to MOP-19. This interim report will be follow ed by a final written report, which will be

circulated ahead of MOP-19 and will take full consideration of any comments received during

discussions at OEWG-27 in Nairobi.

To support the response to Decision XVIII/12, the Ozone Secretariat has already been in

contact with the Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism and the Secretariat

of the Multilateral Fund. The Chief Officer of the Secretariat also attended the TEAP meeting in Rome as an observer in order to present th e findings of the recently completed HCFC Surveys and to assist the TEAP in its delibera tions. Informal discussions continue between

the TEAP and the UNFCCC secretariat as well as with members of the Science Assessment

Panel.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 149 

# 11 TEAP/TOC Organisation Issues

11.1 Budget

TEAP is grateful for the continuing support of those national governments, the European Commission, associations and companies that finance the time and expenses of the participation of experts in the TEAP, TOCs a nd Task Forces. However, TEAP and its TOCs are facing the continued loss of some of their most experienced members, who are critical to the quality, objectivity, and timeliness of TEAP fi ndings. While it is often the case that some experts committed to the Montreal Protocol may work without payment for their working time, it is much less feasible to work without re imbursement of actual costs relating to travel and subsistence. In 2006, some TEAP members were forced to pay thousands of dollars in travel out of pocket, and to take unpaid leav es-of-absence for participating in TEAP and TOC meetings, while others had to cash in frequent-fl yer miles for travel to TEAP meetings. These extraordinary actions and sacrifices are unsustainable.

It is fortunate that the costs relating to travel are paid by the Ozone Secretariat for Article 5 participants, but it is unfortunate and unfair that some self-employed developing country experts working as consultants have been unable to find funding to compensate the considerable time spent working for TEAP and the TOCs.

Therefore, TEAP renews its request for emergency funding of up to 26 travels per year for

2007 and 2008 to cover travel for non-Artic le 5 members of TEAP and TOCs. If direct funding out of the Ozone Trust Fund through the Secretariat is not possible, TEAP respectfully requests that assignments to TEAP be paid on time and a cost basis from the Ozone Secretariat, the Multilateral Fund or other appropriate sources.

Mindful that Parties have repeatedly rejected requests for financing, individual TEAP and

related TOC members will continue to seek adequate funding from governments, associations, and companies, while TEAP itsel f will investigate funding from foundations. Parties may also wish to consider other opti ons such as fees per application for essential and critical uses. Another option Parties could c onsider is financing from the Multilateral Fund for studies such as the Multilateral Fund Replen ishment Assessment on topics such as process agents where a MOP commissions a stud y from the TEAP and the MLF Executive Committee commissions it from the MLF Secretariat, which is a duplication of effort. TEAP

notes that if a lack of travel funds for MBTO C members results in resignations, and if these resignations all come from only one or two re gions, MBTOC’s ability to ensure that CUNs are reviewed by experts not in conflict of interest will be jeopardised. The MBTOC QSC subcommittee currently has several members fro m the EU with no funding; resignations of these experts would jeopardise the management me thod used to ensure CUNs are reviewed by experts without any conflict of interest.



## 11.2 Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee Adjustments

At MOP-18 in New Delhi, Parties decided not to finance extraordinary travel of TEAP and TOC members and not to finance the budget put forward in the MBTOC Workplan. Parties also decided to hold MOP-19 during the week of 17-21 September 2007, which is earlier than

usual. The accelerated schedule for consid eration of methyl bromide Critical Use Nominations (CUNs) made it necessary for the MB TOC to meet 19-23 March 2007, just days before the TEAP meeting, which t ook place 26-30 March 2007 in Rome.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 150 After consultation among all TEAP members in cluding MBTOC Co-Chairs, TEAP adjusted the MBTOC operations to accommodate the challe nges of inadequate funding and the early date in September 2007 when the 19th M eeting of the Parties will be held.

TEAP is pleased to report that MBTOC Co-Chairs agree that the recent subcommittee strengthening has improved the links be tween topics and experts; populated each subcommittee with the best experts; improved the efficiency of meetings, which may reduce the length of future meetings; and simplified the process of coming to consensus. TEAP anticipates that the new structure will be even more successful in 2008 with the experience gained. The strengthening and revitalizing process has not yet finished and will continue in the coming months.

MBTOC has always been divided into two s ubcommittees, which are now designated as the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committ ee Soils Sub-Committee (MBTOC-S) and the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee Quarantine, Structures and Commodities SubCommittee (MBTOC-QSC). Mindful of the increasing importance of QPS uses of methyl

bromide and in order to economise costs of operations, TEAP’s Quarantine and Preshipment Task Force (QPS Task Force) members have been integrated into the MBTOC QSC

subcommittee for 2007. Each subcommittee has specific exper tise necessary for the competent assessment of relevant CUNs. The ope ration is consistent with the old format and

ensures that members who form consensus on the CUNs are present at all the discussions during the meetings.

TEAP has instructed MBTOC and all TOCs that , when consensus cannot be reached, experts not in agreement with the technical and economic findings of the majority are to be invited to submit signed minority reports substantiating th e technical or economical basis of their judgement.

In 2006, MBTOC had four Co-Chairs approved by Parties (Dr. Mohamed Besri, Ms. Michelle Marcotte, Ms. Marta Pizano, and Dr. Ian Porter) and each MBTOC Co-Chair also serves as a

Co-Chair of one of the two Subcommittees. Each MBTOC subcommittee Co-Chair has the same authority as other Co-Chairs and no Co-Chair has diminished or reduced authority. As Chair of the 2006 Methyl Bromide QPS Task Force, Dr. Jonathan Banks was a member of TEAP, but not considered a Co-Chair of MBTOC. TEAP Task Forces are ‘Temporary Subsidiary Bodies’ that normally conduct their work within a year, but because Parties had not submitted information required to complete the work of the QPS Task Force, Parties asked the QPS Task Force to c ontinue its work in 2007.

TEAP had moved Dr. Jonathan Banks from the pos ition of Chair of the QPS Task Force to a position of Temporary Co-Chair of the MBTOC- QSC. However, after one Party questioned this decision, TEAP realised that its Terms- of-Reference can be interpreted to allow a temporary appointment only to replace a depar ting Co-Chair and therefore suspended the temporary appointment of Dr. Jonathan Ba nks to the position of MBTOC Co-Chair. However, Dr. Banks remains as a member of TEAP in 2007 through his position as Task

Force Co-Chair.



## 11.3 Change of Employment for Foams Technical Options Committee Article

5 Co-Chair

Dr. Miguel Quintero Guzman, Article 5 Co-Chair of the Foams TOC, has recently moved from employment as a university professor in Colombia to a senior position at Dow Europe in Switzerland, although his will keep a position as visiting professor at the university for at least the next year. Dow Europe has agreed to pay the cost of time and travel for his future participation in TEAP and Foams TOC activities.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 151 It is already the case that Jose Pons serves as Co-Chair of the TEAP and Co-Chair of the MTOC while owning and operating an Article 5 national company that manufactures ODS (HCFC) aerosol products and ozone-safe alternatives to ODS aerosol products. However, Dr. Quintero would be the first TOC Co-Chair and TEAP member to be employed by a non-A5 mu ltinational company manufacturing ODS products and alternatives.

TEAP has confidence that Dr. Quintero can continue to be an objective and valuable member and recommends that Parties confirm his continuing position as Co-Chair of the FTOC and member of TEAP. However, in view of his likely continuing residence and employment in Switzerland, TEAP will ask the Ozone Secretariat to advertise the position of an additional Article 5 FTOC Co-Chair and will present relevant candidates for consideration and approval at MOP-19.



## 11.4 Notice of Positions Available on the TEAP and its TOCs

TEAP welcomes nominations of experts for all committees at any time. Currently, TEAP is particularly seeking:

• Article 5 Co-Chair for the Foams Technical Options Committee

• Article 5 Co-Chair for the Halons Technical Options Committee

• Article 5 and non-Article 5 Experts in QPS for the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC-QSC Subcommittee)

• Expert in nutsedge control for the Me thyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC-S Subcommittee)

• Experts in aviation fire protection for the Halons Technical Options Committee

• Article 5 experts in the manufacture of ODS MDIs and ODS-free alternatives



## 11.5 Conflict of Interest

In response to decisions at MOP-18, TEAP and its TOCs have expanded the scope and detail of disclosure reporting and are publishing available summaries in this report. Eventually, TEAP hopes to comply with the decision by maintaining the latest

information on the Ozone Secretariat web site.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 153 

# ANNEX I: TEAP Member Biographies

The following contains the background information for all TEAP members as at April 2007.

Dr. Radhey S. Agarwal (Refrigeration TOC Co-chair) Professor of Mechanical Engineering Mechanical Engineering Department Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

India- New Delhi – 110016 Telephone: 91 11 2659 1120 (O), 2658 2160 (R)

Fax: 91 11 2652 6645 E-Mail: rsarwal@mech.iitd.ernet.in or agarwalrs@gmail.com

Dr. Radhey S. Agarwal, Co-chair of the Re frigeration, Air-conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee, is the Professo r of Mechanical Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IIT Delhi). He co-chaired the 2003 HCFC Task Force and the 2004 Chiller Task Force. IIT Delhi has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol since it is one of the academic institutes of higher l earning in India. Dr. Agarwal holds a M. Tech. and a Ph.D. from IIT Delhi. Dr. Agarwal has be en actively pursuing research in the area of refrigeration & air-conditioning. He has guided a number of Ph.D. and M. Tech. theses and published research papers in the field of refrigeration and air-conditioning. Dr. Agarwal has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own any stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives/substitu tes to ODSs. Dr. Agarwal’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Dr. Agarwal occasionally takes consultancies and advisory roles operated through IIT Delhi from the engineering industry, UNEP, GTZ and INFRAS for research & development, technical advice, developing technical manuals and training materials etc. IIT Delhi makes in-kin d contribution for wages. Cost of travel and other expenses related to participation in the TEAP and the RTOC are paid by UNEP’s Ozone

Secretariat.



### Dr. Stephen O. Andersen (Panel Co-chair) Director of Strategic Climate Projects Climate Protection Partnerships Division United States Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building

Mail Code 6202J 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

U.S.A. Telephone: 1 202 343 9069

Fax: 1 202 343 2379 E-Mail: andersen.stephen@epa.gov

Stephen O. Andersen, Co-chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel since 1989, is Director of Strategic Climate Projects in the Climate Protection Partnerships Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He chaired and co-chaired the Solvents TOC from 1989 to 1995, chaired the 1999 HFC and PFC Task Force, and co-chaired several Task Forces. He served on the Steering Co mmittee to the “IPCC/ TEAP Special Report Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons” and he participated in the Science Assessment Panel in 2006. He currently co-chairs the Ta sk Force on the TEAP Legacy. Dr. Andersen’s spouse works for the U.S. EPA Office of Pes ticide Programs and Toxic Substances in a division that registers bio-pesticides, including potential substitutes for methyl bromide. The U.S. EPA makes in-kind contributions of wages, travel, communication, and other expenses and some travel is sponsored by the U.S. DoD. With approval of its government ethics officer, EPA allows expenses to be paid by other governments and organisations such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 154 Mr. Paul Ashford (Foams TOC Co-chair) Principal Consultant Caleb Management Services The Old Dairy, Woodend Farm Cromhall, Wotton-under-Edge Gloucestershire, GL12 8AA United Kingdom Telephone: 44 1454 269330

Fax: 44 1454 269197

Mobile: 44 7774 110 814 E-Mail: Paul@Calebgroup.net

Paul Ashford, Co-chair of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee since 1998 is the owner and managing director of Caleb Management Services Ltd., a consulting company working in the chemical regulatory and sustainability arenas. He co-chaired the TEAP Task Force on the Supplement Re port to the “IPCC/TEAP Special Report: Safeguarding the ozone layer and the glob al climate system: issues related to hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons” (2005) and the Task Force on Emissions Discrepancies in 2006. Until 1994, he worked for BP Chemicals in the division that developed licensed foam technology using ODS and was responsible for the adoption of

alternatives. He has over 25 years direct experience of foam related technical issues and has

conducted numerous studies to characterise the foam sector and inform future policy development. His funding for TEAP activities, which includes some sponsorship of time, is provided jointly under contract by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Department of Environment, Fo od and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the UK. Much of his recent work on banks, emissions and foam end-of-life management, performed to inform both IPCC and TEAP processes has been supported by the US EPA. There is increasing overlap with IPCC and UNFCCC objectives in support of greenhouse gas emissions reporting by Governments. Other related non-TEAP work is covered under separate contracts from relevant commissioning organisations including international agencies (e.g. UNEP DTIE), governments, industry associations and corporate clients. A considerable portion of the work with private clients relates to the lifecycle assessment of products based on ODS alternatives and advice on carbon management strategies.



### Dr. Jonathan Banks (QPS Taskforce Chair) Grainsmith Pty Ltd

10 Beltana Rd Pialligo ACT 2609

Australia Telephone: 61 2 6248 9228

Fax: 61 2 6248 9228 E-Mail: apples3@bigpond.com

Dr. Jonathan Banks, Chair of TEAP’s QPS Task Force, is a private consultant. He was a member of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and from 1993 to 1998 and 2001 to 2005 co-chaired the Methyl Bromide TOC. He worked as a Research Scientist with the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) from1972 to 1999 on grain storage technologies, including use of improved use of fumigants. He is co-inventor 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 thei r 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 contro l, and within the last 4 years has received contracts from UNEP, 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 an d 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.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 155 Prof. Mohamed Besri (MBTOC Co-chair) Department of Plant Pathology Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II

BP 6202-Instituts Rabat, Morocco Telephone: 212 37 778 364 (office); 212 37 710 148 (home)

Fax: 212 37 778 364 Email: m.besri@iav.ac.ma

Prof. Mohamed Besri, is a full time Professor of Plant Path ology 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 Plan t Pathogens and MLF projects (strawberries, bananas, cut flowers). It advises the Ministry of Agriculture on all aspects of alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Dr Besri, his spouse, his business partner and dependant children have no 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. Dr Besri works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matt ers related to the Mont real Protocol. 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.



### Mr. David Catchpole (Halons TOC Co-chair)

Technical Consultant

Petrotechnical Resources Alaska Anchorage Alaska, U.S.A. Telephone

And fax: 1 907 868 3911

E-Mail: 

## dcatchpole@gci.net

Mr. David V. Catchpole, Co-Chair of the Halons Technical Options Committee and Member of the Technology and Economics Assessment Panel since 2005, works part time for Petrotechnical Resources Alaska (PRA), an Anch orage, Alaska based company that provides consulting services to oil companies in Alaska. From 1991 to 2004 he was a member of the HTOC. From 1970 until 1999, he was an employee of the BP group of companies, most recently BP Exploration Alaska, where he wo rked for nine years in the environmental department on alternatives to halon and on halon banking. Mr. Catchpole advises BP Exploration Alaska on fire protection and halon issues as his main activity for PRA. BP Exploration Alaska has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protoc ol because it uses halon 1301 for explosion prevention and fire suppression in its enclosed oil and gas processing modules on the North Slope of Alaska. Mr. Catchpole has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, however his retirement portfolio contains stock in BP plc. Mr. Catchpole’s spouse does not work for or consult for any organisation that has an interest in the topics of 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 not consult for organisations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Catchpole typically receives funding to support salary and travel to TEAP/TOC meetings from the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Department of Defense; and the Halon Recycling Corpora tion and the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation, which are no t-for-profit industry coalitions that in turn receive contributions for this funding from members. Contributors are: BP Exploration Alaska, ConocoPhillips Alaska, DuPont, Chemtura, American Paci fic, Firetrace, Halon Banking Systems, Westco and Remtec.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 156 Prof. Dr. Biao Jiang (Chemicals TOC Co-chair) Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry (SIOC), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) 354 Fenglin Road Shanghai 200032 The People’s Republic of China Telephone: 86 21 54925201

Fax: 81 21 64166128

E-Mail: 

## jiangb@mail.sioc.ac.cn

Dr Biao Jiang, Co-chair of the Chemical s Technical Options Co mmittee since 2005, is Professor of Chemistry of Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry, Chinese Academy Of Sciences and a member of editorial advisory board of Chemical Communication, Royal Society of Chemistry, United Kingdom. Prof essor Jiang involves in the research and the development of new methodology of organic synthesis, medicinal chemistry, fluorine chemistry as well as organic process research and development of clean chemistry. Dr Jiang has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor does he own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Costs of travel, communication, and other expenses related to pa rticipation in the TEAP, its Chemicals TOC, and relevant Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat.



### Dr. Lambert Kuijpers (Panel Co-chair, Refrigeration TOC Co-chair) Technical University Pav B24

P.O. Box 513

NL – 5600 MB Eindhoven

The Netherlands Telephone: 31 49 247 6371 / 31 40 247 4463

Home: 31 77 354 6742

Fax: 31 40 246 6627 E-Mail: lambermp@wxs.nl, lambermp@planet.nl

Lambert Kuijpers, Co-chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel since 1992 and Co-chair of the Refrigeration, Air-conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee since 1989, wo rks on a part-time basis for the Department “Technology for Sustainable Development” at th e Technical University Eindhoven , The Netherlands. He is a

member of the Task Force on th e TEAP legacy; he co-chaired the Replenishment Task Forces

between 1996 and 2005. He served on the Steering Committee to the “IPCC/TEAP Special Report “Safeguarding the ozone layer and the global climate system: issues related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons”, he co-chaired the 2005 Task Force for the TEAP Supplementary Report to the IPCC/TEAP Speci al Report and the 2006 Task Force on Emissions Discrepancies. He was a member of the Science Assessment Panel in 2005-2006. Until 1993, he worked for Philips in the development of refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat pump systems to use alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. He is financially supported (through the UNEP Oz one Secretariat) by the Europe an Commission (and in certain years by some EU member state governments) for his activities related to the TEAP and the Refrigeration TOC. The general lack of adequate funding and also the high variability of available funding per year imply that, in many recent years, Dr. Kuijpers had to add significant voluntary contributions from private funds. Dr. Kuijpers has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS and does not own stock in companies producing

ODS or alternatives or substitute s to ODS. He occasionally is a consultant to governmental and non-governmental organisations, such as the World Bank, UNEP DTIE and the Multilateral Fund (e.g. for the 2006 Expert Meeti ng). Dr. Kuijpers is also an advisor to the Re/genT Company, Netherlands, which he co -founded in 1993 and where he still has a minority interest (R&D of components and equi pment for refrigeration, air-conditioning and heating).April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 157 Ms. Michelle Marcotte Marcotte Consulting (Marcotte Consulting is located in Canada)

home address:

10104 East Franklin Ave Glenn Dale, Maryland 20769

USA Telephone: (301) 262-9866 E-mail: marcotteconsulting@comcast.net www.marcotteconsulting.com

Ms Michelle Marcotte was a member of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and subsequently a member of the Methyl Brom ide 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 developm ent work in food irradiation, an alternative to some methyl bromide uses, and because of its interest in food proce ssing, food safety and trade. In the field of methyl bromide altern atives, Ms Marcotte has published case studies in pest control in food processing, in stored co mmodities, in alternatives for quarantine and in greenhouse use. She is a member of the Canada Industry-Government Methyl Bromide Working Group and the Canada-US Methyl Bromide Working Group; both organisations work to achieve the phase-out of methyl bromide in the agri-food sector. Marcotte has consulted to companies, industry associations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and US AID on irradiation as a methyl bromide alternative in food processing, quarantine and trade. She has also prepared consulting reports summarising research in methyl bromide alternatives and case studies on food processing for the U.S. 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 Depa rtment of Agriculture managing research in methyl bromide alternatives and is a member of MBTOC. He does not have proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS and does not own stock in companies producing

ODS or alternatives or substitute s to ODSs. Ms Marcotte recei ves a consulting contract from the Government of Canada, Environment Canada. The funds for Ms Marcotte for travel to TEAP, MBTOC and Montreal Protocol meetings and to support her work on the MBTOC are provided by the the Government of Canada, Environment Canada.



### Mr. E. Thomas Morehouse (Senior Expert Member) Institute for Defense Analyses 4850, Mark Center Drive Alexandria, VA 22311

U.S.A. Telephone: 1 703 750 6840

Fax: 1 703 750 6835 E-Mail: tom.morehouse@verizon.net

Thomas Morehouse, Senior Expert Member for Military Issues since 1997, is a Research Adjunct at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), Washington D.C., USA. From 1989

until 1996 he co-chaired the Halons TOC. From 1986 to 1989 he was an officer in the United States Air Force responsible for developing alternatives to halon. From 1989 until 1994 his responsibilities as an Air Force officer incl uded broader environmental and energy policy issues for the U.S. Department of Defense. Mr. Morehouse’s spouse works for the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in a position that plans long term spending for NOAA, including res earch and operations af fecting stratospheric

ozone and climate. IDA makes in-kind contributions of communications and miscellaneous expenses. Funding for wages and travel is provided by grants from the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency. IDA is a not-for-profit Federally Funded Research Center (FFRDC) that undertakes work exclusively for the US Department of Defense. He also occasionally consults in dependently to corporate clients, national laboratories and other government agencies on environmental and energy related issues. MrApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 158 Morehouse –and his spouse- have no proprietar y interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor do they own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to

ODSs.



### Ms. Marta Pizano (MBTOC Co-chair)

Consultant

Calle 85 No. 20 – 25 Of 202B Bogotá, Colombia Telephone: 57 1 6348020 or 5302036

Fax: 57 1 2362554 E-mail: mpizano@unete.com

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 th e Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund (MLF) andits implementing agencies. In this capacity, she has contributed to the methyl bromide phaseout programs in nearly twenty Article 5 countr ies around the world, assisting growers with the adoption of sustainable alternatives and th e 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. 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.



### Mr. Jose Pons Pons (Panel Co-chair, Medical TOC Co-chair) Spray Quimica Urb.Ind.Soco, Calle Sur #14 La Victoria 2121, Edo Aragua

Venezuela Telephone: 58 244 3223297 or 3214079 or 3223891

Fax: 58 244 3220192 E-Mail: joseipons@telcel.net.ve

Jose Pons, Co-chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Medical Technical Options Committee and Member of the 2007 Task Force on the TEAP Legacy, is President of Spray Química C.A. Jose Pons is a full time manager/engineer at the Spray Química aerosol filling plant in La Victoria, Venezuela. Spray Química has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it us ed, and still uses, ODS in some of its aerosol products for industrial maintenance. Mr Pons ha s no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of essential use nominations, and does not consult for organisations seeking to phase out ODS. Mr Pons’s spouse has no interest in matters before the Protocol; she is also a manager/engineer at Spray Química. Mr Pons has worked occasionally as a consultant to MLF on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. The Task Force worked by e-mail and there was no travel or other expenses paid by any organisations to participate in this activity. Travel related to participation in the TEAP and MTOC, and relevant Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. Spray Química makes in-kind contributions of wage, and miscellaneous and communication

expenses.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 159 Dr. Ian J. Porter (MBTOC Co-chair) Principal Researcher, Plant Pathology Primary Industries Research Victoria Department of Primary Industries Private Bag 15, Ferntree Gully Delivery Centre 3156, Victoria, Australia. Telephone: 61 3 9210 9222

Fax: 61 3 9800 3521 Mobile: 61 (0)417 544 080 Email: ian.j.porter@dpi.vic.gov.au

Dr Ian Porter is the Statewide Leader of Plant Pathology with the Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI). DP I has an interest in developing sustainable control measures for plant pathogens and biosecurity. He is a member of a number of National Committees regulating ODS, has led the Australian research program on methyl bromide alternatives for soils and has 26 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 Dr Ian Porter, wife or children have any proprietary interest in altern atives or substitutes to ODSs, nor own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr Porter i s presently assisting national research agencies in Au stralia develop national priorities for IPM and soil health. He has acted occasionally as a key consultant 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 support at present. In 2007, Dr Porter funds his own participation. The Australian Federal Government Research Fund and funds obtained through the Ozone Secret ariat have provided support to finance travel and expenses for MBTOC activities.



### Prof. Miguel W. Quintero (Foams TOC Co-chair) P.U. R&D Development Leader Dow Europe GmbH

Wolleraustrasse 15-17

CH-8807 Freienbach

Switzerland Telephone: +41 55 416 87 00

Fax: +41 55 416 87 01 E-Mail: mwquintero@dow.com

Prof. Miguel W. Quintero, Co-chair of the Foams Technical Options Committee since 2002, has been a professor at the Chemical Engineering Department at Universidad de los Andes in Bogota, Colombia, in the areas of polymer processing and transport phenomena during 2000- 2006, where he is now a visiting professor. Prof. Quintero worked during 21 years (until 2000) for Dow Chemi cal at the Research & Development and Technical Service & Development Departments in the area of rigid polyurethane foam. In January 2007, he returned to Dow Europe as Development Leader for Polyurethane Product Research, located in Freienbach, Switzer land. He owns stock in companies that now or previouslymanufactured ozone-depleting substances and products made with or containing ozonedepleting substances and their substitutes and alternatives. He has been a regular consultant for the Montreal Protocol’s implementing agenci es. The participation of Prof. Quintero in TEAP and FTOC related activities is funded by Dow Chemical.



### Dr. Ian D. Rae (Chemicals TOC Co-Chair)

16 Bates Drive Williamstown, Vic 3016

Australia Telephone: 61 3 9397 3794

Fax: 61 3 9397 3794 E-mail: idrae@unimelb.edu.au

Dr. Rae, Co-chair of the Chemicals Technica l Options Committee since 2005, is a Honorary

Professorial Fellow at the Univ ersity of Melbourne, Australia, and a member of advisory bodies for several Australian government agen cies dealing with chemical issues and inApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 160 particular the Stockholm Convention. He co-chaired the 2001 and 2004 Process Agent Task

Forces. He is a member of the POPs Review Committee for the Stockholm Convention. On occasions, he acts as consultant to government agencies and to universities and companies andhe has been an expert witness in a case involving alleged patent infringement involving HFC134a and its lubricants. He contributes the time for his own participation in TEAP activities. The Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources finances

the cost of travel and accommodation for Dr. Rae’s attendance at meetings of the CTOC, TEAP, OEWG and MOP.



### Mr. K. Madhava Sarma (Senior Expert Member) AB50, Anna Nagar,

Chennai 600 040

India Telephone: 91 44 2626 8924

Fax: 91 44 4217 0932 E-mail: sarma_madhava@yahoo.com

K. Madhava Sarma, Senior Expert Member since 2001, and member of the Task Force on the TEAP Legacy, retired in 2000, after nine years as Executive Secretary, Ozone Secretariat, UNEP. Earlier, he was a senior official in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF), Government of India and held various senior pos itions in a state government in India. He works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP an d is an unpaid member of the Technical and Finance Committee of the Ozone Cell, MOEF, Government of India. He is working on a research and writing project on technology transfer and change for the protection of the ozone layer financed by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). Neither he or his spouse own stock in any company connected to ODS or alternatives or substitutes. Costs of travel, communication, and other expenses related to participation in the TEAP and relevant Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat



### .

Ms. Kristen Taddonio (Task Force on Legacy co-chair) Strategic Climate Projects Manager Climate Protection Partnerships Division United States Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building

Mail Code 6202J 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

U.S.A. Fax: 1 202 343 2379 E-Mail: taddonio.kristen@epa.gov

Kristen Taddonio is Co-chair of the Task For ce on TEAP Legacy in 2007. The Task Force worked via the internet and never met as a group. A student from the University of California, Ms. Liu Liu, assisted with developing and proofing the extensive TEAP membership database that is one analytical basis of the report. In conjunction with other meetings, Ms. Taddonio met with the TEAP to complete the report. The U.S. EPA makes in-kind contributions of wages, communication and other expenses. Ms. Taddonio and her immediate family have no priority interest in alternatives and substitutes to ODS, do not own stocks in companies producing ODS or alternatives and do not consult for organisations seeking to phase out ODS.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 161 Dr. Helen Tope (Medical TOC Co-chair) Senior Policy Officer – Global Issues Atmosphere and Noise Unit

EPA Victoria GPO Box 4395QQ Melbourne, Victoria 3001

Australia Telephone: 61 3 9695 2637

Fax: 61 3 9695 2578 E-Mail: helen.tope @epa.vic.gov.au

Helen Tope, Co-chair Medical Technical Options Committee since 1995, Member of the 2007 Task Force on the TEAP Legacy, is Principal Consultant of Energy International Australia (since 2006) and also Director of Planet Futures (since 2 007) with whom she is an independent consultant providing strategic, policy and technical advice and facilitation services to government, industry and other non-governmental organisations on climate change, ozone-depleting substances, and other environmental issues. Dr Tope’s business has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because her potential clients are also interested in these topics. Dr Tope has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of essential use nominations, and does not currently consult for organisations seeking to phase out ODS. Dr Tope’s spouse has no interest in

matters before the Protocol. The Ozone Secretariat provides a grant for travel, communication, and other expenses of the Medical Technical Options Committee from funds granted to the Secretariat unconditionally by the International Ph armaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC). IPAC is a non-profit corporation.



### Dr. Daniel P. Verdonik (Halons TOC Co-chair) Hughes Associates 3610 Commerce Drive, STE 817 Baltimore, MD 21227-1652

U. S. A. Telephone: 1 443 253 7587

Fax: 1 410 737 8688

E-Mail: 

## danv@haifire.com

Dr. Daniel P. Verdonik, Co-Chair, Halons Technical Options Committee and Member, Technology and Economic Assessment Panel is the Director, Environmental Programs, Hughes Associates, Inc. Dr. Verdonik is a full time, salaried employee at Hughes Associates, Inc., in Baltimore, MD and Arlington, VA providing consulting services in fire protection and environmental management. Hughes Associates, Inc. has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it provides a wide range of fire protection research, design and consulting services to government and corporate clients, including work related to halons and halon alternatives. Dr. Verdonik has no propriet ary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producin g ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and through Hughes Associates, Inc. provides consulting services for organisations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Verdonik is a partner in Hughes Associates, Inc., which does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr. Verdonik currently provides consulting services through H ughes Associates, Inc, for the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy on matters related to the Montreal Protocol and has previously provided services through Hughes Associates Inc. for Implementing Agencies, U. S. EPA, U.S. Air Force and Chemtura. Dr. Verdonik’s spouse works for the U.S. Army, which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is trying to phase-out halons but in the interim, continues to rely on halons for purposes of national security. Dr. Verdonik’s spouse and dependant child have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not consult for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Hugh es Associates, Inc. typically receives funding to support Dr. Verdonik’s salary and travel to TEAP/HTOC/TSB meetings from MLF, UNEP, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. EPA, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Halon Recycling Corpora tion, and the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation, who in-turn curr ently receives funding to support these efforts from theApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 162 following sponsors: BP Exploration, Alaska, ConocoPhillips, Alaska; DuPont; Chemtura; American Pacific; Firetrace; Ha lon Banking Systems; Wesco; Re mtec. From time-to-time, Hughes Associates, Inc may also provide support for labor and travel.



### Prof. Ashley Woodcock (Medical TOC Co-chair) North West Lung Centre South Manchester University Hospital Trust

Manchester M23 9LT United Kingdom Telephone: 44 161 291 2398

Fax: 44 161 291 5020 E-Mail: Ashley.A.Woodcock@manchester.ac.uk

Prof. Ashley Woodcock, Co-chair of the Me dical Technical Options Committee and Member of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, is a Respiratory physician at the South Manchester University Teaching Hospital. Prof. Woodcock is a full time physician and academic at the North West Lung Centre Ma nchester United Kingdom. The Hospital and University have no direct interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Prof. Woodcock has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to OD S, does not have an interest in the outcome of essential use nominations. Prof. Woodcock carries out unrelated consulting and educational lectures for pharm aceutical companies, some of wh ich have continued to produce CFC MDIs, and some of which have sought to accelerate phase out of CFC MDIs. He regularly advises companies on study design for new drugs, some of which have been ODS replacements. Prof. Woodcock’s spouse has no inte rest in matters before the Protocol. Prof.

Woodcock does not work as a consultant to the UN, UNEP, MLF or Im plementing Agencies. In the past, he has responded to requests for technical information on CFC MDI phase-out from the European Community and the United Kingdom Government. Travel and subsistence for meetings of TEAP, MTOC, OEWG, MOP meetings is paid by the UK Department of Environment, and Prof. W oodcock’s employer allows leave of absence.



### Dr. Masaaki Yamabe (Chemicals TOC Co-chair)

National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) 1-1-1 Umezono, Tsukuba

Ibaraki 305-8568 Japan Telephone: 81 29 862 6032

Fax: 81 29 862 6048

E-Mail: 

## m-yamabe@aist.go.jp

Dr. Masaaki Yamabe, Co-Chair of the Chemical Technical Options Committee since 2005, is research coordinator (Environment and Energy) at the AIST. He is a member of the Task Force on the TEAP Legacy and he co-chaired the 2004 Process Agent Ta sk Force. He was a member of the Solvents TOC during 1990-1996. Until 1999, Dr. Yamabe was Director of Central Research for Asahi Glass Company, which previously produced CFCs, methyl chloroform, and carbon tetrachl oride, and currently produces and distributes HCFC, carbon tetrachloride, and HFCs. He is the co-inventor of HCFC-225, which is controlled under the Montreal Protocol as a transitional substance in the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances and is a substitute for CFC-113 in solvent and process agent applications. He owns stock in Asahi Glass Company that produces ozone-depleting substances and their substitutes. He also works for the Japan Industrial Conference for Ozone Layer and Climate Protection (JICOP) as a senior advisor. AIST generally pays wages, travelling and other expenses, except in some cases where JICOP sponsors travel.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 163 Prof. Shiqiu Zhang (Senior Expert Member) College for Environmental Sciences Peking University Beijing 100871 The People’s Republic of China Telephone: 86 10-627-64974

Fax: 86 10-627-60755

Email: 

## zhangshq@pku.edu.cn

Dr. Shiqiu Zhang, Senior Expert Member for economic issues of the TEAP since 1997, is a Professor on Environmental Economics and Policy at the College for Environmental Sciences of Peking University. She is a member of th e Task Force on the TEAP Legacy and co-chaired the 2002 and 2005 Replenishment Task Forces. She is involved in the work to help the Chinese government to develop the country program for the phase-out of ODS, and in studies of related relevant policies. She occasiona lly consults for UNEP. Dr. Zhang has no proprietary interest in alternatives or su bstitutes to ODSs, nor does she own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Costs of travel, communication, and other expenses related to participation in the TEAP and relevant Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 164 

# ANNEX II: TEAP-TOC Members hip Lists Status March 2007

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP)

Co-chairs Affiliation Country Stephen O. Andersen Environmental Protection Agency USA Lambert Kuijpers Technical Univ ersity Eindhoven Netherlands Jose Pons Pons Spray Quimica Venezuela

Senior Expert Members Affiliation Country

Thomas Morehouse Institute for Defense Analyses USA

K. Madhava Sarma Consultant India Shiqiu Zhang Center of Environmental Sciences, Peking University China

TOC Chairs Affiliation Country Radhey S. Agarwal Indian Institute of Technology Delhi India Paul Ashford Caleb Management Services UK

Jonathan Banks Consultant Australia Mohamed Besri Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II Morocco Biao Jiang Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry China David Catchpole Petrotechnical Resources Alaska UK Michelle Marcotte Marcotte Consulting LLC and Marcotte Consulting Inc Canada

Marta Pizano Consultant Colombia Ian Porter Department of Primary Industries Australia Miguel Quintero Universidad de los Andes Colombia Ian Rae University of Melbourne Australia Helen Tope EPA, Victoria Australia Ashley Woodcock Wythenshawe Hospital UK Daniel Verdonik Hughes Associates USA

Masaaki Yamabe National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology Japan



### TEAP Chemicals Technical Options Committee (CTOC)

Co-chairs Affiliation Country Biao Jiang Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry China Ian Rae University of Melbourne Australia

Masaaki Yamabe National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology Japan

Members Affiliation Country D. D. Arora The Energy Research Institute India Steven Bernhardt Honeywell USA Olga Blinova Russian Scientific Center “Applied Chemistry” Russia Nick Campbell Arkema Group France

Bruno Costes Airbus Industries France Jianxin Hu Center of Environmental Sciences, Peking University China A.A. Khan Indian Institute of Chemical Technology India Michael Kishimba University of Dar-es-Salaam Tanzania

Abid Merchant Consultant USA

Koichi Mizuno National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology Japan

Claudia Paratori Environmental Consultant Chile Hans Porre Teijin Twaron Netherlands Shuniti Samejima Asahi Glass Foundation Japan

John Stemniski Consultant USA Fatima Al-Shatti Kuwait Petroleum Corporation Kuwait Peter Verge Boeing Manufacturing USA Nee Sun Choong Kwet Yive (Robert) University of Mauritius MauritiusApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 165 TEAP Flexible and Rigid Foams Technical Options Committee (FTOC)

Co-chairs Affiliation Country Paul Ashford Caleb Management Services UK Miguel Quintero Dow Europe GmbH / Universidad de Los Andes Switzerland

Members Affiliation Country Kyoshi Hara JUFA Japan Mike Hayslett Maytag/AHAM USA

Mike Jeffs ISOPA Bel g iu m Shigeru Wakana Dow Japan

Suzie Kocchi Environmenta l Protection Agency USA

Candido Lomba ABRIPUR Brazil Yehia Lotfi Technocom Egypt

Kirsten Makel Arkema USA Christoph Meurer Solvay Germany Mudumbai Sarangapani Polyurethane Council of India India Ulrich Schmidt Haltermann/Dow Germany

Bert Veenendaal RAPPA USA

Mark Weick Dow USA Dave Williams Honeywell USA Jinhuang Wu Huntsman USA Qiang Xu Shanghai Haohai Chemical Corporation China Allen Zhang Owens Corning China



### TEAP Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC)

Co-chairs Affiliation Country David V. Catchpole Petrotechnical Resources Alaska UK Daniel P. Verdonik Hughes Associates USA Members Affiliation Country Ahmad AL-Khatib Ministry of Environment Jordan Geok Kwang Boo Civil Defence Force Singapore

Fareed Bushehri UNEP Bahrain Seunghwan (Charles) Choi Hanju Chemical Co., Ltd. South Korea

Michelle Collins Consultant USA Andrew Greig Protection Projects Inc. South Africa Matsuo Ishiyama Halon Recycling & Support Committee Japan H.S. Kaprwan Consultant India Nikolai P. Kopylov All Russian Research Institute for Fire Protection Russia

Barbara KucnerowiczPolak State Fire Services Headquarters Poland

David Liddy Ministry of Defence UK

Bella Maranion US EPA USA John O’Sullivan, MBE British Airways UK

Erik Pedersen World Bank Denmark

Donald Thomson MOPIA Canada

Robert Wickham Wickham Associates USA

Kaixuan Zhou CAAC-AAD China Consulting Experts Affiliation Country

Tom Cortina HARC USA Sergey Kopylov All Russian Research Institute for Fire Protection Russia Steve McCormick United States Army USA

Jawad Rida National Concorde Est. Jordan

Mark Robin DuPont USA Joseph Senecal Kidde-Fenwal USA Ronald S. Sheinson Naval Research Laboratory – Department of the Navy USA Ronald Sibley Defense Supply Center, Richmond USA Mitsuro Yagi Fire and Environment Protection Network JapanApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 166 TEAP Medical Technical Options Committee (MTOC)

Co-chairs Affiliation Country Jose Pons Pons Spray Quimica Venezuela Helen Tope Energy International Australia Australia Ashley Woodcock University Hospital of South Manchester UK

Members Affiliation Country Emmanual Addo-Yobo Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Ghana Paul Atkins Oriel Therapeutics Inc. USA Sidney Braman Rhode Island Hospital USA Yingyun Cai Zhongshan Hospital China Nick Campbell Arkema SA France Hisbello Campos Centro de Referencia Prof . Helio Fraga, Ministry of Health Brazil Jorge Caneva Favaloro Foundation Argentina Christer Carling Private Consultant Sweden Mike Devoy Bayer Schering Pharma AG Germany Antoine Haddad Chiesi Farmaceutici Italy

Charles Hancock Charles O. Hancock Associates USA Eamonn Hoxey Johnson & Johnson UK Javaid Khan The Aga Khan University Pakistan Nasser Mazhari Sina Darou Laboratories Company Iran Robert Meyer Food and Drug Administration USA Hideo Mori Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company Japan Tunde Otulana Aradigm Corporation USA

John Pritchard AstraZeneca UK Raj Singh The Chest Centre India Roland Stechert Boehringer In gelheim (Schweiz) Switzerland Adam Wanner University of Miami USA

Kristine Whorlow National Asthma Council Australia Australia You Yizhong Journal of Aerosol Communication ChinaApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 167 TEAP Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC)

Co-chairs Affiliation Country Mohamed Besri Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II Morocco Michelle Marcotte Marcotte Consulting Canada

Marta Pizano Consultant Colombia Ian Porter Department of Primary Industries Australia

Members Affiliation Country Alessandro Amadio UNIDO Italy

Marten Barel Consultant Netherlands

Jonathan Banks Consultant Australia Chris Bell Central Science Laboratory UK Antonio Bello Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales Spain Aocheng Cao Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences China Peter Caulkins US Environmental Protection Agency USA

Fabio Chaverri IRET-Universidad Nacional Costa Rica Ricardo Deang Consultant Philippines

Patrick Ducom Ministère de l’Agriculture France Abraham Gamliel Agricultural Re search Organisation Israel Darka Hamel Inst. For Plant Protection in Ag. And Forestry Croatia Saad Hafez University of Idaho USA Mokhtarud-Din Bin Husain Department of Agriculture Malaysia George Lazarovits Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada Nahum Marbán Mendoza Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo México

Carlos Medeiros EMBRAPA Brazil Melanie Miller Consultant Belgium Andrea Minuto Agroinnova Universitá di Torino Italy Takashi Misumi MAFF Japan Kazufumi Nishi Nat Institute of Vegetables and Tea Science Japan David Okioga Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Kenya Christoph Reichmuth BBAGermany Germany Jordi Riudavets IRTA – Department of Plant Protection Spain

Ariane Elmas Saade UNDP Lebanon

John Sansone SCC Products USA Jim Schaub US Department of Agriculture USA Sally Schneider US Department of Agriculture USA JL Staphorst Plant Protection Research Institute South Africa Akio Tateya Japan Fumigation Technology Association Japan Robert Taylor Consultant UK Alejandro Valeiro Department of Agriculture Argentina Ken Vick United States Depa rtment of Agriculture USA Nick Vink University of Stellenbosch South Africa

Chris Watson IGROX UK Jim Wells Environmental Solutions Group USAApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 168 TEAP Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee (RTOC)

Co-chair Affiliation Country Radhey S. Agarwal Indian Institute of Technology Delhi India Lambert Kuijpers Technical Univ ersity Eindhoven Netherlands

Members Affiliation Country James A. Baker Delphi Automotive Systems USA Julius Banks Environmental Protection Agency USA Dariusz Butrymowicz Institute of Fluid Flow Machinery Poland James M. Calm Engineering Consultant USA Guangming Chen Inst. Refrigeration and Cryogenic Eng., Shanghai China

Denis Clodic Ecole des Mines France

Daniel Colbourne Consultant UK

Jim Crawford Trane /A merican Standard USA Sukumar Devotta National Env. Eng. Research Institute (NEERI) India

Kenneth E. Hickman York – Consultant USA Takuo Hirahara (temp.) Mitsubushi Electric Corp. Japan Martien Janssen Re/gent Netherlands Makoto Kaibara Matsushita Electric Industrial Corporation Japan

Ftouh Kallel Sofrifac Tunisia

Michael Kauffeld Fachhochs chule Karlsruhe Germany Fred Keller Carrier Corporation USA Jürgen Köhler University of Braunschweig Germany Holger König Jaeggi / Guentner Germany Edward J. McInerney Consultant USA Petter Nekså SINTEF Energy Research Norway Hezekiah B. Okeyo Ministry of Industrial Development Kenya Andy Pearson Star Refrigeration UK Per Henrik Pedersen Danish Technological Institute Denmark Roberto de A. Peixoto IMT, Maua Technological Institute Brazil Frederique Sauer Dehon Service France Adam M. Sebbit Makerere University Uganda Arnon Simakulthorn Thai Compressor Manufacturing Thailand Aryadi Suwono Thermodynamic Research Lab Bandung University Indonesia Peter Tomlein Slovak Refrigeration Association Slovakia Pham Van Tho Ministry of Fisheries Vietnam Vassily Tselikov ICP "Ozone" Russia

Paulo Vodianitskaia Multibras Electrodomesticos Brazil Jianjun Zhang Zhejian Lantian Env Protection Hi-Tech Co China Attila Zoltan Refrigeration Association HungaryApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 169 

# ANNEX III: TOC Members – Disclo sure of Interest, status March

2007

AIII.1 Disclosure of Int erest Declarations MTOC

Emmanuel Addo-Yobo Ghana (A5) Emmanuel Addo-Yobo, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 2005, is a full time Specialist Paediatrician and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Child Health, Kwame Nkrumah University Sciences and Technology, and the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana, with a special interest in paedia tric pulmonology. Dr Addo-Yobo is the physician in charge of paediatric asthma in the hospital and has been involve d in several research activities on childhood asthma epidemiology in Ghana as Prin cipal or Co-Investigator, some of which have been sponsored partly or full y by pharmaceutical co mpanies. Dr Addo-Yobo has attended an American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) meeting sponsored by a pharmaceutical company in 1999. Dr Addo-Yobo does not receive any form of remuneration from any drug companies. The UNEP’s Ozone Secretaria t funds his travels for MTOC meetings. Dr Addo-Yobo’s spouse is a business secretary work ing with a local fina ncial institution.

Paul J.Atkins USA (Non-A5) Dr Paul Atkins, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 1993, is the full time Chief Executive Officer of Oriel Therapeutics Inc, a privately held pulmonary drug delivery company based in Research Triangle Park, USA. Oriel Therapeutics Inc. has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is developing active dry powder inhalers. Dr Atkins has a proprietary interest in developing alternatives to ODS-based MDIs a nd owns stock in Oriel Therapeutics, Inc. Dr Atkins has an ex tensive background in both MDI and DPI product development and commercialisation and is an inte rnationally recognised expert in this area. Previously Dr Atkins was employed by GlaxoSm ithKline, a leading provide r of inhaled medicines including CFC based MDIs, and his spouse is cu rrently a GlaxoSmithKlin e employee and owns stock in that company. Dr Atkins has worked occasionally as a consultant for both MLF and UNDP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MTOC meetings has been paid by either his employer or out of his personal funds.

Sidney Stuart Braman USA (Non-A5) Dr Sidney Braman, member of the Medical T echnical Options Committee since 2005, is a

Professor of Medicine at Brown Medical School a nd Director of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Brown University and the Rhode Island Hospital. These organizations have no direct interest or business relating to the topics of the Montreal Pr otocol. Dr Braman has no proprietary interest to alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of essential use nominations and does consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODS but does not consult on these products. He has received research grant s upport and been a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies relating to research on new drug development. Dr Braman has not received any consultancy fees fo r work related to or associated with the M ontreal Protocol. Dr Braman’s spouse has no interest in matters before the Protocol. Dr Braman does not work as a

consultant on matters relates to th e Montreal Protocol. Travel to the MTOC meetings is provided by the American Thoracic Society.

Prof. Yingyun Cai China (A5) Prof. Yingyun Cai, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 2005, is a professor of Shanghai Medical College of Fudan Un iversity. Yingyun Cai is a full time physician in Zhongshan Hospital affiliated to Fudan Universi ty as the vice-director of the Institute of Respiratory Diseases and the director of the Department of Geriatrics, mainly engaging in asthma and COPD. Yingyun Cai has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternativ es or substitutes to ODS, does not have an

interest in the outcome of essential use nominatio ns, and does not consult fo r organizations seeking to phase out ODS. Yingyun Cai’s s pouse, a retired physician, also ha s no interest in matters before

the Montreal Protocol. UNEP’s Ozone Secretaria t pays for travel to MTOC meetings.

Nick Campbell France (A5) Dr. Nick Campbell has been a member of th is Technical Options Committee since 1991. Dr Campbell has spent 19 years working primarily on the ozone layer issue and climate change. Dr Campbell works for ARKEMA SA, based in Paris, as the Environment Manager for the

Fluorinated Products Division. ARKEMA SA is a producer of CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs. ARKEMA SA supports his participation and travel on MTOC. Dr Campbell has stock options in ARKEMA SA. He is Chairman of the Europ ean Fluorocarbon Technical Committee (EFCTC) thatApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 170 represents the producers of fluorocarbons in th e European Union and the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) Working Party on Climate Change. Dr Campbell is also the Chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce (I CC) Working Party on Climate Change and the Chairman of the BusinessEurope Climate Change Working group, representing European Union Employers’ federations. Dr Campbell has been a member of the World Bank’s Ozone Operations Resource Group. Nick was a Coordinating Lead Author for the IPCC/TEAP joint Report on HFCs and PFCs (April, 2005). Dr Campbell was awarde d a 1997 United States EPA Stratospheric Ozone Protection Award for his role in the phase-out of ODS.

Hisbello Campos Brazil (A5) Dr. Hisbello S. Campos, member of the Medica l Technical Options Committee since 1997, is a medical physician (pulmonologist) who works for Brazil ́s Ministry of Health at Centro de Referencia Prof. Helio Fraga. Dr Campos is a full time physician at the Centro de Referencia Prof. Helio Fraga and gives medical consu ltations at his private office. The Centro de Referencia Prof. Helio Fraga has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is the government department responsible for proposing guidelines for respiratory diseases control. Dr Campos has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of essential use nominations, and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODS. Dr Campos’s spouse has no interest in matters before the Protocol. Dr Campos works occasionally as

a consultant to the Brazil ian Government on matter s related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to TOC meetings is paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat.

Jorge Osvaldo Cáneva Argentina (A5) Dr. Jorge Osvaldo Cáneva is member of the MTOC since 2007. His full-time job is as Chief of the Pulmonary Section of the Cardiovascular Institu te at the Favaloro Foundation (Buenos Aires, Argentina), since it was established in 1992. Cu rrently Dr Cáneva states as President of the Argentine Association of Respiratory Medicine (A sociación Argentina de Medicina Respiratoria), main association in pulmonary medicine in Argen tina. Dr Cáneva has been involved in severe respiratory diseases, pulmonary va scular diseases and lung tran splantation programmes. During

2003 and 2004 Dr Cáneva has been involved in c onsultation for AstraZeneca Argentina about dry powder inhalers. Since 1993 to th e present, Dr Cáneva has served as independent consultant on Long-Term Oxygen Therapy for Air Liquide Argentin a. Furthermore, he serves as independent

consultant about inhaled (nebulized) therapy for the treatment of pulmonary vascular diseases. Dr Cáneva does not own stock in comp anies producing ODS or alternativ es or substitut es to ODS; he does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODS. Dr Cáneva’s spouse has no relationship with any pharmaceutical company. Dr Cáneva has not yet travelled to any MTOC meeting since he has only recently been named as a member of the MTOC.

Christer Carling Sweden (Non-A5) Christer Carling, member of the Medical Techni cal Options Committee, is, since about two years, retired from a position as Director Global Licensing at the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. Mr Carling is at present an independent cons ultant in the pharmaceutical area. His ongoing consultancy activities do not involve services to any organization with an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Mr Carling has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not

have an interest in the outcome of essential use nominations, and do es not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODS. His spouse has no interest in matters before the Protocol. Mr Carling’s travel to MTOC meetings is paid entirely out of his own pocket.

Mike Devoy Germany (Non-A5) Dr. Mike Devoy, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 2003, is a physician working in a pharmaceutical industry. Dr Devoy has wide experience in drug development including inhaled medicines. He works for Sc hering AG as head of Global Medical Affairs and Pharmacovigilance. His current employer has no interest commercially in the areas of respiratory

medicine and metered dose inhalers . His employer sponsors travel expenses in relation to Dr. Devoy’s Montréal Protocol activities. Dr Devoy is a minor shareholder in a range of companies concluding GlaxoSmithKline. His wife is a physic ian working as a consulta nt anaesthologist, with

no conflict of interest associated with the Montreal Protocol.

Antoine Haddad Italy (Non-A5) Antoine Haddad, MTOC member since 2007, is a fu ll time Area Manager Mi ddle East at Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A. located in Parma, Italy. The company has interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol as a producer and licensor of MDIs and have proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS. Mr Haddad does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of essential useApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 171 nominations, and does not consu lt for organizations seeking to phase out ODS. Mr Haddad’s family members and parents have no di rect or indirect interest in matters relative to the Protocol.

He does not work as a consultant on matters related to the Montre al Protocol. Travel to MTOC meetings is paid by Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A., which do not receive contributions for this travel. Mr Haddad has significant experience with more than 20 years of activity in the specific field, in licensing, technology and know-how transfer, for local production in many Middle East countries.

Charles Hancock USA (Non-A5) Charles O. Hancock, is a private medical device sterilization consultant with Charles O. Hancock Associates, Inc. Mr Hancock has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because he is actively engaged in the safe and effective delivery of sterilization processes for medical devices in healthcare applications. Mr Hancock has proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, owns stock in a company producing alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in

the outcome of essential use nomin ations, and does provide consulti ng for organizations seeking to phase out ODS. Mr Hancock’s spous e has no interest in matters be fore the Protocol. Mr Hancock works frequently as a consultant to governments, companies, and he althcare institutions on matters

related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MTOC meetings is pa id by Mr Hancock.

Eamonn Hoxey UK (Non-A5) Dr. Eamonn Hoxey, member of the Medical T echnical Options Committe e since 1996, is an Executive Director for Quality an d Compliance for Johnson & Johnson. Dr Hoxey is a full time employee based in the UK. Johnson & Johnson has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol as a manufacturer of healthcare products, including sterile products, and utilize in-house and external sterilization facilities that do not employ ODS. Dr Hoxey is chairman of the European standards committee on sterilization of medical devices. Dr Hoxey has no stock in companies involved in ODS, with the possible exception of st ock held in portfolio accounts where he has no control over purchase or sale. Dr Hoxey’s partner ha s no interest in matters before the Protocol.

Johnson & Johnson makes in-kind contributions of wage and mis cellaneous expenses.

Javaid Khan Pakistan (A5) Prof. Javaid Khan, member of the Medical Techni cal Options Committee sinc e 1999, is a Professor and Head Section of Pulmonology a nd Critical Care Medicine at th e Aga Khan University, Karachi Pakistan. UNEP funds Dr Khan’s travel expenses to attend the meetings of MTOC. No conflict of interest exists for himself or his spouse in relatio n to his MTOC work. Dr Khan has attended Chest Conferences, such as ATS, sponsored by pharmaceu tical companies. Dr Khan takes an active role in educating doctors and the public on asthma and COPD. Pharmaceutical companies have sponsored some of these meetings. Dr Kh an has never received any honorarium from pharmaceutical companies for his lectures. He is also a member of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) assembly and Head of the Tobacco Prevention Section of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases.

Nasser Mazhari Motlagh Iran (A5) Dr. Nasser Mazhari Motlagh, new member of the Medical Technical Option Committee, is a pharmacist at the Sina Darou Laboratories Company plc. Nasser Mazhari is a full time Quality Assurance Manager and Executive Deputy at the Sina Darou pharmaceutical and hygienic manufacturing plant, Tehran. Nasser Mazhari hol ds a doctorate in pha rmacy and has about 40 years experience in pharmaceutical industry (manuf acturing), and the last decade in MDIs. The Sina Darou Laboratories Co. plc has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is manufacturing CFC MDIs and it is in the pro cess to phase-out CFCs. Nasser Mazhari has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not owns stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of essential use nominations, and do es consulting and working for Si na Darou to phase-out CFCs.

Nasser Mazhari is a minor stock holder of Sina Da rou Labs Co. plc. Nasser Mazhari's spouse has

no interest in matters before the Protocol. Travel expenses to MTOC meetings are paid by UNEP’s

Ozone Secretariat.

Robert Meyer USA .(Non-A5) Dr. Robert J. Meyer, MD, a member of the Medical Technical Options Committee (MTOC), is a Director of an Office of Drug Evaluation at the U.S. Food and Drug Administ ration. Dr Meyer is a full time clinician/physician at the FDA's Headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. The FDA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it regulat es all drugs sold in the United States, including the asthma and COPD mete red-dose inhalers containing CFCs. Dr Meyer has no proprietary interest in alternatives or s ubstitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to OD S, does not have a financial interest in the

outcome of essential use nominati ons, and does not consult for orga nizations seeking to phase out ODS. Dr. Meyer's spouse also has no financial or ot her interests in matters before the Protocol. Dr. Meyer works occasionally as a subject matter expert in consultation with other US governmentApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 172 agencies involved in matters related to ozone protection on matters related to the Montreal Protocol, but does not directly pa rticipate in the U.S. delegation to the Meetings of the Parties or the Open-Ended Working Group meetings. Dr Meyer' s travel to the MTOC meeting is paid by

U.S. FDA.

Hideo Mori Japan (Non-A5) Hideo Mori, member of the Medical Technica l Options Committee sinc e 1999, is a chemist employed at Otsuka Pharmaceutical, based in To kushima Japan. He is engaged in strategic regulatory work and scientific do cumentation of new drugs including MDIs and DPIs. Mr Mori is

the chair of the CFC Committee of the Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Association of Japan, which was organized to accomplish phase-out of CFCs in MDIs and smooth transition to the alternatives. The CFC Committee provides a grant for travel to attend MTOC and MOP/OEWG meetings. Otsuka Pharmaceutical provides other expenses for work relating to ozone layer protection. His spouse has no activity related to the matters before the Protocol.

Tunde Otulana USA (Non-A5) Dr Tunde Otulana, member of the Medical Tech nical Options Committee since 1995, is a Senior Vice President, Development at Aradigm Corporation. Dr Otulana is a full time executive at the Aradigm Corporation in Hayward, California. Ar adigm has an interest in the topics of the

Montreal Protocol be cause it operates in the general field of respiratory diseases. Dr Otulana has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of essential use nomination, and does no consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODS. Dr

Otulana’s wife has no interest in matters before the Protocol. Dr Otulana’s travel to MTOC meetings is paid by Aradigm Corporation.

Jose Pons Pons (co-chair) Venezuela (A5) Jose Pons, Co-chair of the Technology and Econ omic Assessment Panel and the Medical Technical Options Committee and Member of the 2007 Task Force on the TEAP Legacy, is President of Spray Química C.A. Jose Pons is a full time manager/engineer at the Spray Química aerosol filling plant in La Victoria, Venezuela. Spray Química has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it used, and s till uses, ODS in some of its aerosol products for industrial maintenance. Mr Pons has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternativ es or substitutes to ODS, does not have an

interest in the outcome of essential use nominatio ns, and does not consult fo r organizations seeking to phase out ODS. Mr Pons ’s spouse has no interest in matters before the Protocol; she is also a manager/engineer at Spray Química. Mr Pons has worked occasiona lly as a consultant to MLF on

matters related to the Montreal Pr otocol. The Task Force worked by e-mail and there was no travel or other expenses paid by any organizations to participate in this activity. Travel related to participation in the TEAP and MTOC, and relevant Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. Spray Química makes in-kind co ntributions of wage, and miscellaneous and communication expenses.

John Pritchard UK (Non-A5) Dr. John Pritchard, member of the Medical Tech nical Options Committee since February 2006, is currently Strategic Technology Director for Pharmaceutical and Analytical R&D in AstraZeneca, having previously held a variety of roles wi thin 3M, GlaxoSmithKline and AEA Technology (formerly UK Atomic Energy Authority). He ha s published extensively in the field of aerosol science and is a past President of The Aerosol Society, a past member of the UK Government

Committee on the Medical Effects of Airborne Pollutants and has served as editor on a number of journals. Participation in MTOC is supporte d by AstraZeneca, which develop and supply medicinal products, including inhalable drugs in a range of dosage forms, some of which are

MDIs. Mr Pritchard is also a minor share holder in a range of companies, including

GlaxoSmithKline.

Raj Bright Singh India (A5) Dr Raj B Singh is a clinical respiratory physician engaged in private practice in Chennai, South India. Nearly 90 per cent of his work concerns clinical respiratory medicine, with out-patients at the Chest Centre and in-patient facilities at the Apollo Hospital, Chennai where he is a senior

consultant. He is the founder of the Chest Foundation of India and its Managing Trustee. Dr Singh has been a member of the Executive Committee of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA)

since 2003 and a member of MTOC since 2005. UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat funds his travel expenses for participation on MTOC.

Roland Stechert Switzerland (Non-A5) Dr. Roland Stechert, member of the Medica l Technical Options Co mmittee since 2000, is a Medical Director for Boehringer Ingelheim in Switzerla nd. As an expert of respiratory research heApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 173 was involved in the development of CFC-free MD Is with Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Stechert headed the German regional International Phar maceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC) Group until

2002. Since he took over his recent role in 2003 in Switzerland Dr Stechert is no longer a member of IPAC. Participation costs are all borne by the affiliate in Switzerland.

Helen Tope (co-chair) Australia (A5) Helen Tope, Co-chair Medical Technical Options Committee since 1995, Member of the 2007 Task Force on the TEAP Legacy, is Principal Consultant of Energy Internati onal Australia (since 2006) a nd also Director of Planet Futures (since 2007) with w hom she is an independent consultant providi ng strategic, policy and technical advice and facilitation services to governme nt, industry and other non-governmental organisations on climate change, ozone-depleting substances, and other envir onmental issues. Dr Tope’s business has an interest in the topics of the

Montreal Protocol because her potential clients are also interested in these topics. Dr Tope has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not ow n stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of essential use nominations, and does not currently consult for organizations seek ing to phase out ODS. Dr Tope’s spouse has no interest in matters before the

Protocol. The Ozone Secret ariat provides a grant for travel, communica tion, and other expenses of the Medical Technical Options Committee from f unds granted to the Secretariat un conditionally by the International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC). IPAC is a non-profit corporation.

Adam Wanner USA (Non-A5) Dr. Adam Wanner, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 1995 has had a long-standing interest in aerosol therapy for obstructive lung disease, both as a researcher and clinician. On occasion, the American Lung Association has sponsored his travel to MTOC meetings. Dr Wanner has received academic grants (unrelated to the CFC phase-out) from several phar maceutical companies. Dr Wanner and his spouse have

no financial interests relevant to his work on MTOC.

Kristine Whorlow Australia (Non-A5) Kristine Whorlow, member of the Me dical Technical Op tions Committee since 2006, is the CEO of the National

Asthma Council Australia. The National As thma Council Australia has an intere st in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it led the phase-out of CFC-containing inhalers for respir atory disease in partnership with the Australian Department of the Environment in Australia. Ms Whorlow has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies pr oducing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does

not have an interest in the outcome of essential use nom inations, and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODS. Ms Whorlow’s partner ha s no interest in matters before the Protocol. Ms Whorlow pays her own travel to MTOC meetings.

Ashley Woodcock (co-chai r) UK (Non-A5) Prof. Ashley Woodcock, Co-chair of the Medical Tech nical Options Committee and Member of the Technology

and Economic Assessment Panel, is a Respiratory physician at the South Manchester University Teaching Hospital. Prof. Woodcock is a full time physician and academic at the North West Lung Centre Manchester United Kingdom. The Hospital and University have no direct in terest in the topics of th e Montreal Protocol. Prof. Woodcock has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of essential use

nominations. Prof. Woodcock carries out unrelated consulting and educ ational lectures for pharmaceutical companies, some of which have continued to produce CFC MDIs, and some of whic h have sought to accelerate phase out of CFC MDIs. He regularl y advises companies on study design for new drugs, some of which have been ODS replacements. Prof . Woodcock’s spouse has no interest in matters before the Protocol. Prof. Woodcock does not work as a consultant to UN, UNEP, MLF, and Impl ementing Agencies. In the past, he has responded to requests for technical informatio n on CFC MDI phase-out from the European Community and the United Kingdom Government. Travel and subsistence for meetings of TEAP, MTOC, OEWG, MOP meetings is paid by the UK Department of Environment, and Prof. W oodcock’s employer allows leave of absence.

You Yizhong China (A5) Dr. You Yizhong, member of the Me dical Technical Op tions Committee since 1997, is a chief pharmacist and associate chief physician. Dr You has been devoted to pr omoting the wide use of inhalation therapy in China for 35 years and to phasing out CFCs from aerosols for 15 ye ars. Dr You developed some anti-asthmatic drugs including MDI, tablet, syrup and suppository. Dr You re ceives his salary from The First People’s Hospital of Changzhou and has no interest or econom ic relationship w ith pharmaceutical companies, and does not receive any

fees for work associated with MTOC . UNEP's Ozone Secretariat funds his travel expenses to attend MTOC meetings.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 174 AIII.2 Disclosure of Int erest Declarations CTOC

D.D. Arora India (A5)

Mr. DD Arora has been a member of the CTOC member since 2005 after having served as an ATOC member since mid 1990s, and is currently working as an independent consultant for (a) The Ener gy and Resources Institute in the field of energy, environment and global warming, (b) UNDP for preparation and implementation of Aerosols projects to phase out ODS usage and (c) INFRAS, Zurich for formulation of a CDM project in India under Kyoto protocol. He has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and he does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. None of his family members have interest in

matters before the Protocol. His travel to TOC meetings is paid by UNEP only.

Steven H. Bernhardt USA (Non-A5)

Dr. Steven H. Bernhardt has been a member of the CTOC since 2005. He is the Global Director Regulatory Affairs for Honeywell Specialty Products at their Morristown, Ne w Jersey global headquarters . He has earned Bachelors, Masters and Doctor of Philosophy degr ees in Chemical Engineering. He wa s previously a Member of the UNEP Process Agents Task Force since 1997 and has participated in Meetings of the Parties si nce 1996. He owns stock in Honeywell who is a producer of CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs and who has a pr ocess agent exemption. He is a Board Member of the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Polic y and the International Climate Change Partnership. Travel expenses for TOC meetings ar e paid by Honeywell International.

Olga Blinova Russian Fed. (Non-A5) Olga Blinova has been a member of the CTOC since 2005 after having served as an ATOC member for a long time, and is currently working at Federal State Unitary En terprise “Russian Scientific Center “Applied Chemistry” (RSC “Applied Chemistry”) as a full-time Main Research Fellow at its Fluorochemica l Research Center. The RSC “Applied Chemistry” has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is engaged in ODS phaseout

in Russian industrial sector. She is a ch emist (Ph.D. in Ch emistry, 1989), currently engaged in research in the field of fluorine chemistry. She has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and she does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or s ubstitutes to ODSs. None of her family members have

interest in matters before the Protocol. Dr. Blinova occa sionally works as a consulta nt to Russian Government, implementing agencies or companies on matters related to the Montreal Protocol, mo stly to ODS phaseout in

Russian industrial sectors. Her travel to TOC meetings is paid by UNEP only.

Nick Campbell France (Non-A5) Dr. Nick Campbell has been a member of the CTOC sin ce 2005. Nick has spent 19 years working primarily on the ozone layer issue and climate change. He works for ARKE MA SA, based in Paris, as the Environment Manager

for the Fluorinated Products Division. ARKEMA SA is a producer of CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs. ARKEMA SA supports his participation on CTOC. Nick has stock options in ARKEMA SA. He is Chairman of the European Fluorocarbon Technical Committee (EFCTC ) that represents the producers of fluorocarbons in the European Union and the European Chemical Industry Council (CEF IC) Working Party on Climate Change. He is also the Chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce (I CC) Working Party on Climate Change and the Chairman of the UNICE Climate Change Work ing group, representing European Un ion Employers’ federations. Dr Campbell has been a member of the World Bank’s Ozone Operations Resource Group. He was a Chapter/ Coordinating Lead Author for the IPCC/TEAP joint Repor t on HFCs and PFCs (April 2005). Dr Campbell was

awarded a 1997 United States EPA Strato spheric Ozone Protection Award for his role in the phase-out of ODS.

Bruno Costes France (Non-A5)

Dr. Bruno Costes has been a member of the CTOC since 2005 after having served as a member of the SOC for more than ten years. He is a Director in Environmenta l Affairs at Airbus Company. The Airbus Company has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its intensive effo rts for replacing ODS solvents used in producing various parts of airplanes to non-ODS alternatives. Dr. Costes has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies produ cing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for organizations s eeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to TOC meetings is paid by Airbus Company.

Jianxin Hu China (A5)

Prof. Jianxin Hu has been a member of the CTOC since 2005. He is Director of Environmental Process Division, College of Environmental Sciences in Peking University. He has spent 12 years working on the ozone layer issue and persistent organic pollutants. He is a member of the POPs Review Committee for the Stockholm Convention. He was one of Lead Authors for the IPCC/TEAP joint Report on HFCs and PFCs (April, 2005). He was the team leader to draft many sector phase-out plans for ODS phase-out in China, the Strategy for the Long Term Management of HCFCs in China and to draft the National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in China. As one of the key team member, he was awar ded the 2004 “Special Gold Award of Ozone Layer Protection contribution Award of China” by the Chinese Government; and was awarded USEPA Stratospheric Ozone Protection Awards for Leadership in ODS Phaseout in Developing Countries in 2005. His travel to TOC meetings is paid by UNEP only.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 175 Biao Jiang China (A5) Dr. Biao Jiang, Co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Op tions Committee since 2005, is Professor of Chemistry of Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences and a member of editorial advisory board of Chemical Communication, Royal So ciety of Chemistry, Un ited Kingdom. Professor Jiang involves in the research and development of new methodology in organic synthesis, medicinal chemis try, fluorine chemistry as well as organic process and green chemistry. He has no propr ietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and he does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternativ es or substitutes to ODS s. None of his family

members have interest in matters befo re the Protocol. Cost of travel, comm unication and other expenses related to participation in the TEAP, CTOC, and relevant Mont real protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP only.

Asad A. Khan India (A5)

Dr. A.A.Khan has been a member of the CTOC since 2005 after having served as a STOC member for more than ten years. He is a chemical engineer. He was at the Indian Inst itute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, India and retired in 2001 as a full time Head, Chem ical Engineering Division. He continue d as an 'Emeritus Scientist' for 5 years after retirement. The Indian Institute of Chemical Te chnology has an interest in the topics of the Montreal

Protocol because it is a cons tituent institution of the Council of Scientif ic and Industrial Research (CSIR) and has proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr. Khan does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not have an interest in the outcome of EUN or CUNs, and does consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. His spouse has no intere st in matters before the Protocol. Dr. Khan works occasionally as a consultant to UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, Governments, companies, etc. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to TOC meetings is paid by UNEP, which

receives contributions for this travel from member organizations, if relevant.

Michael Kishimba Tanzania (A5)

Prof. M.A. Kishimba has been a member of the CTOC member since 2006. He is an Associate Professor of Chemistry at the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM), Tanzania, where he teaches, researches and supervises under- and postgraduate students in environmental and organic chemistry. UDSM has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because as an esteemed tertiary e ducational and research institution in the region, it has to be in the forefront in the knowledge search, confirmation and dissemination of topica l environmental issues, one

of which is the Montreal Protocol. Prof. Kishimba has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies pr oducing ODS or alternatives or substitu tes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. However, he teaches the chemis try behind the Montreal Protocol to MSc students and leads a research group on environmental aspe cts of pesticides. Travel to CTOC meetings is paid by UNEP, which receives contributions fo r this travel from UN Member countries

Abid Merchant USA (Non-A5)

Mr. Abid Merchant has been a member of the CTOC sin ce 2005 after having served as an STOC member since 1997, and is currently working as an independent cons ultant for DuPont and UNDP to assist with solvent replacement projects to phas e out ODS usage. Until 2001, Mr. Merchant worked for DuPont as a research and product development engineer to develop alternatives to ODS solvents. DuPont, previously produced CFCs, and currently produces and distributes HFCs and HCFCs. He is an inventor or co-inventor for many applications patents for HFC solvent alternatives for CFC-113 in solv ent and process agent applic ations He does own DuPont stock. None of his family members have interest in matters before th e Protocol. He was a Lead Author for the solvent section of the IPCC/TEAP Special Report on HFCs and PFCs (April, 2005). His travel to CTOC meetings is paid by DuPont..

Koichi Mizuno Japan (Non-A5) Dr. Koichi Mizuno, a member of the CTOC since 2005, is principal reviewer (Environment and Energy) at the AIST. He was a member of the Destruction Technology Sub Committee in 1991-1995, of the Task Force Destruction Technology in 2001-2003, and co-chair of th e F-TOC Task Force on Foam End-of-Life Issue in 2004-

2005. He was also a Lead Author of IPCC-TEAP Special report on “Safegua rding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocar bons (April 2005).” He invented two processes using inductively-coupled radi o-frequency plasma and solid catalys is for destruction of fluorinated compounds such as CFCs, HCFCs, HF Cs, and PFCs. He is a member of Science Advisory Board of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chem ical Weapons. Dr. Mizuno has no propr ietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. AIST pays wages, travel ling and other expenses.

Claudia Paratori Chile (A5) Ms. Claudia Paratori, Ch emist, has been a member of the CTOC sinc e 2005. She is an Environmental Consultant

to UNEP and Governments on chemicals and POPs management. Ms. Claudia is a full time Coordinator of the Ozone Programme at the Department of Pollution Cont rol in the National Commission for the Environment – CONAMA. This institution has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is the National Focal Point. Ms. Claudia has no proprietary interest in alte rnatives or substitutes to ODSs substances, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. She worked as a consultant to UNIDO on matters related to theApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 176 Montreal Protocol solvents in Venezuela. Travel to CTOC meetin gs have been paid only by UNEP, which

receives contributions for this travel from the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol.

Hans Porre Netherlands (Non-A5) Dr. J.G.W. (Hans) Porre has been involved in the Proce ss Agent Task Force activities since 1998. He has joined in the CTOC since 2005. He is an analyt ical/technical chemis t and has been active since 1983 in chemical industry (lead industry, precious metal industry, organic polyme r industry and laboratory and environmental management. He is expertised in CTC adsorption, emissions and destruction technology. He is a member of Eurochlor and the Society of the Dutch Chemical Industry. Dr. Porre is an Environmenta l Coordinator at the Teijin Twaron. He works a full time job at the Teijin Twaron site in Delfzi jl, Netherlands. Teijin Twaron has an interest in the topics

of the Montreal Protocol because in th e plant of Delfzijl CTC is used as a process agent and Teijin Twaron wants to give a contribution to sustainable development in ODS uses by an active participation of Dr. Porre in the CTOC activities. 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 a nd does not consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to TOC meetings is paid by Teijin Twaron.

Ian D. Rae Australia (Non-A5) Dr. Ian Rae, Co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Opti ons Committee since 2005, is H onorary Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne, Aust ralia, and a member of advisory bodies for several Australian government agencies, including on implementation i ssues for the Montreal Protocol a nd the Stockholm Convention. He also co-chaired the 2001 and 2004 Process Agent Task Forces. He and his spouse do not own stock in a company that

distributes ODSs and ODS alternativ es. He is a member of the POPs Review Committee for the Stockholm Convention. On occasions, he acts as consultant to govern ment agencies and to universities and companies and he has been an expert witness in a case involving alleged pa tent infringement involving HFC-134a and its lubricants. He contributes the time for his own pa rticipation in TEAP activities. The Australian Government Department of the Environment and heritage finances the cost of travel and accommodation fo r Dr. Rae’s attendance at meetings of CTOC, TEAP OEWG and MOP.

Shunichi Samejima Japan (Non-A5) Mr. Shunichi Samejima has been a member of the CTOC since 2005, after having served as a member of the

STOC from 1998. He is Head of Secr etariat and Director of Commendati on at the Asahi Glass Foundation. The Asahi Glass Foundation recognizes ac tivities in global environmental pr oblems including the topics of the

Montreal Protocol and commends such by awarding the Blue Planet Prize, and also conducts other environmentrelated activities. Mr. Samejima has extensive research ex perience in organic fluori ne chemistry and developed alternative to ODSs and had marketing experience in pr ecision cleaning area whil e being employed by Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. which produces alternat ives or substitutes to ODSs. He is an inventor or co-inventor for many applications patents for solv ent alternatives for CFC-113 in solvent and precision cleaning appl ications. He does

own Asahi Glass stock. He does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. His travel to TOC meetings is paid by Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.

Fatima Al-Shatti Kuwait (A5) Dr. Fatima Al-Shatti has been a member of the CTOC since 2005. She has 21 years of experience in the area of environment, with a degree in environm ental science, and PhD form Salford University in England 2003. She is a member of the Kuwait Society of environment, and Institute of Environment Management & Assessment. She worked for 10 years with Public Aut hority of Environment, as the manage r of waste management. Dr. Al-Shatti involved in the incinerators work for a Kuwait hospital during working with KEPA. She used to represent Kuwait in Basel Convention, worked with Br itish team as supervisor in removing contaminated soil with PCB, worked with all international, regional and national environmen tal policies, rules and regulations, to help solving the environmental problems in the country. She worked closely for more than 4 years with The US Army troops – especially how to handle their hazardous waste according to the Basel Convention and all other environmental issues. In 1996, she worked with Petr ochemicals Industry as a plant envir onmental engineer, and established the environmental system as the first comp any in Kuwait with HSEMS. In 1999-2001, she worked for KEPA as a consultant for waste management. Dr. Al-Shatti worked with KEPA and United Nation team in the environmental strategy and also worked to review the Kuwait envi ronmental regulations. From 1998 to 2004, she worked as a consultant for the KPC, with HSE committee, to develop an environmental policy a nd the HSE reporting system.

Since 1 st of July 2004 she works for KPC. She is a member of the ozone committee with KEPA. Travel to TOC meetings is paid by UNEP, which receives contributions for this travel from member organizations, if relevant.

John R. Stemniski USA (Non-A5)

Dr. John R Stemniski is a member of the CTOC since 2005 after having served a STOC member since 1990. He was retired from MIT/Draper Laboratory where he was a Principal Member Technical Staff for 47 years. He maintains a part time position at MIT/Draper as Mentor to Junior Staff Members. As a consultant, Dr. Stemniski has interests in the topics of the Montr eal protocol because of his continuing inte rest in searching for alternatives to ODS solvents for the US Navy, US Air Force and space craft applications. He has no proprietary interest in

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. He does have an interest in the outcome of EUN or CUN and does consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODS s – AGC Chemicals, America Inc. His spouse has no interest in mattesApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 177 before the Protocol. Dr. Stemniski works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP, MIT/Draper Laboratory, US Navy, US Air Force, US EPA and AGC Chemicals America, Inc. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to CTOC meetings is paid by AGC Chemicals Amer ica, Inc. Dr. Stemniski holds a BS in chemistry and a PhD in synthetic organic chemistry.

Peter Verge USA (Non-A5) Dr. Peter Verge is a member of the CTOC since 2005 after ha ving served as a member of the STOC for more than 10 years. He is a chemical engineer and works for the Bo eing Company. The Boeing Company has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Pr otocol because of its intensive efforts for replacing ODS solvents used in producing various parts of airplanes to non-ODS alternatives. Dr. Verg e 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 phase out ODSs. Travel to CTOC meetings is paid by the Boeing Company.

Masaaki Yamabe Japan (Non-A5) Mr. Masaaki Yamabe, Co-Chair of the Chemicals Te chnical Options Committee since 2005, is research coordinator (Environment and Energy) at the AIST. He al so co-chaired the 2004 Process Agent Task Force. He was a member of the Solvents TOC during 1990-1996. Until 1999, Mr. Yamabe was Direct or of Central Research for Asahi Glass Company, which previously produced CF Cs, methyl chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride, and currently produces and distributes HCFC , carbon tetrachloride, and HFCs. He is the co-inventor of HCFC-225,

which is controlled under the Montreal Protocol as a tr ansitional substance in the phase-out of ozone-depleting

substances and is a substitute for CFC-113 in solvent and process agent a pplications. He owns stock in Asahi Glass Company that produces ozone-depleting substances and their substitutes. Mr. Yamabe was a Coordinating Lead Author for the IPCC/TEAP joint Report on HFCs and PFCs (April, 2005). He also works for the Japan Industrial Conference for Ozone Layer and Climate Protection (JICOP) as a senior advisor. AIST pays wages, travelling and other expenses.

Nee Sun Choong Kwet Yive Mauritius (A5) Dr Choong Kwet Yive, who has been a member of the CTOC si nce 2006, is senior lecturer of analytical / physical chemistry at the University of Mauritius. Dr. Choong Kwet Yive is currently doing research on inorganic (heavy metals) and organic pollutants (PAHs and pesticides) in the environment. Trav el to CTOC meetings is paid by

UNEP.



## AIII.3 Disclosure of Int erest Declarations FTOC

Kiyoshi Hara Japan (Non-A5) Kiyoshi Hara is working as a consultant in Japan Polyur ethane Industries Institute. He has been a member of FTOC since 1999 and participated in the Task Force on Fo am E-o-L issues as an expe rt in the polyurethane and phenolic Foam industries in Japan. He was a member of a national project “Investigation of CFC recovery from the construction” sponsored by METI. Previously, Mr. Hara was Secretary General of Japan Industrial Conference for Ozone Layer Protection (JICOP) fro m 1994 to 2002, seconded from Asahi Glass. He had 40 years experience in Fluorocarbon applications, 35 years in Chlorinated Solv ent applications and 30 years in Polyurethane Foam technologies. He worked in Asahi Glass from 1961 to 2002. He received 1997 Stratospheric Ozone Layer Protection Award by US-EPA. His participation in FTOC ac tivities is funded by the Japan Polyurethane Industries

Institute.

Michael S. Hayslett USA (Non-A5) Mike Hayslett is a Le ader for material deve lopment for Whirlpool Corporation. He has been a member of Appliance Research Consortium (ARC) Insulation Technical Advisory Committee (ITAC) since 1995. He has worked in the appliance industry since 1994. His particip ation in FTOC activities is funded by the Appliance

Research Consortium.

Mike Jeffs Belgium (Non-A5) Mike Jeffs is the Secretary General of ISOPA, the Europe an Diisocyanates and Polyols Association. He has been

in this role since 2002 and is seconded from Huntsman. The members of ISOPA are Bayer, Dow, Elastogran (BASF), Huntsman, Lyondell, Repsol an d Shell. He has been employed by ICI and Huntsman for more than 39 years and has been involved in the polyurethane industry since 1975. ISOPA funds his current work in support of

the Montreal Protocol. He has been e member of the Fo ams TOC since 1990 and lead author on rigid foams since 1993. He has been a contributor to both the TEAP Special Re port on the Implica tions to the Montre al Protocol of the Inclusion of HFCs and PFCs in the Kyoto Protoc ol (1999) and the IPCC/TEAP Report on Safeguarding the ozone layer and the global climate syst em: issues related to hydrofluoroc arbons and perfluorocarbons (2005). He was a member of The World Bank Ozone Operations Res ource Group (OORG) where he covered all foam issues relating to the World Bank’s activities for the Multilater al Fund from its setting up in 1992 to the OORG’s

disbandment in 2006. This included res ponsibilities for project review. His curr ent role includes engagement with

EU institutions on chemicals issues includi ng the regulations on fluorinated gases.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 178 Candido Souza Lomba Neto Brazil (A5) Candido Souza Lomba Neto, Foam TOC Member since 1997, is an Economist working at the trade association ABRIPUR as Executive Secretary. His responsibilities include le gal issues, financial issues, marketing issues, technical support to the industry for Environmental Pr ograms, Quality Assurance Programs, Export Programs, Participation in National and International Exhibitions a nd any other activity to improve the business of ABRIPUR members. Relating to Montreal Protocol his most relevant activities have been as collaborator in the Brazilian Ozone Layer Programme (1993-94) a nd in-country consulting for various Implementing Ag encies under the Montreal Protocol (1994 to present). His work has assi sted more than 200 companies to phase-out CFCs as blowing agents for foam processes. Candido’s time for pa rticipation in FTOC activities is funded by ABRIPUR, whilst his travel costs and other expenses ar e supported through the Ozone Secretariat.

Yehia Lotfy Egypt (A5) Yehia Lotfy has been a member of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee (TOC) since 1990.

He is the managing director and owner of Technocom for Commercial Agencies, a consulting and trading company covering the needs of the different industries and sectors where polyurethanes, solvents, blowing agents and refrigerants are used (materials, equipments and know how). He previously worked for ICI from 1980 to 2000 in charge of the t echnical services fo r polyurethane products ; solvents, refrigerants and related equipment in

d ifferent sectors (appliances, constructions, transport, furniture

, automotive, foot wear, coating,...etc). From 1989 to 2002, he worked as th e local consultant for UNDP and UNIDO to assist the Egyptian government and the local enterprises to implement the Montreal Protocol Projects for the (ODS) phasing out in the Foam and Refrigeration sectors. Mr. Yehia Lotfy has been involved over the last 27 years in the consultation and the start up of many projects in the different Polyuretha ne applications in Egypt and other Arab countries. His time commitment to FTOC activities is covered by Technoc om, whilst his travel costs and ot her expenses are supported through the

Ozone Secretariat.

Kirsten Makel USA (Non-A5) Kirsten Makel, a member of the Foam Technical Options Committee since 2006, is the Global Business Director responsible for the Foams, Solvents a nd Aerosols market sector at Arkema Inc. Makel joined Arkema (formerly ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc.) in 1990 and has been involved in the Fluorochemica ls business for the past 11 years. Promoted to Business Director in 2006, Ma kel is responsible for the strategic leadership and financial results of the global business. This position establis hes and implements the short-term an d long-term strategi c business plans, which includes all R&D programs and unde rstanding the implications of globa l environmental regulations. As HCFC blowing agents are being phased out under the Montre al Protocol, she has been intimately invol ved with the commercialization of next generation fo am technologies for the PUR, PIR an d XPS industries. In her previous roles as Business Manager North America (2004-2006) and Global New Bu siness Development Manager (2001- 2004), Makel lead the Fluorochemical di vision’s global efforts to develop an d commercialize next generation foam technologies to replace HCFCs. Her participation in the FTOC is funded by Arkema Inc.

Christoph Meurer Germany (Non-A5) Christoph Meurer joined Solvay in 1996 and held several pos itions in the field of technical service for HFCs in their various applications. In 2005 he became Technical Se rvice Manager for all HF C applications (blowing agents, refrigerants, feedstock, aerosols). In this func tion he works with the foam i ndustry in the development and optimisation of foam formulations ba sed on non-ODS substitutes. As of 1 st of April 2007 Christoph has taken over new responsibilities as Global Techni cal Marketing Manager for blowing ag ents, feedstock and solvents. . Christoph joined the Foams TOC in 2005. His participatio n in FTOC activities is fully funded by Solvay.

Mudumbai Saragapani India (A5) Mr Sarangapani is the Secretary Genera l of the Polyurethane Council of Indi a and has served as a member of the Foams Technical Options Committee since its inception. Tr avel costs and other related expenses incurred while participating in FTOC activities are covered by the Ozone Secretariat.

Ulrich Schmidt Germany (Non-A5) Ulrich Schmidt joined Haltermann in 1986 as R&D Ma nager for hydrocarbons. Since the early 1990’s he was involved in the implementation of pentan es as blowing agents for PU foams as a CFC replacement. His activities were initially concentrated in Europe but have since been extended to cover overseas areas as well. Following the purchase of Haltermann by The Dow Chemical Company in 200 2, Ulrich has maintained this function. Ulrich has

been a member of the Foams TOC since 2001 and his co ntinued involvement is funded in full by The Dow Chemical Company.

Bert Veenendaal USA (Non-A5) Bert Veenendaal is sp ecialized in environmental comp liance, environmental remedia tion and sustainable industrial process technologies. He has 35 years experience in th e handling of chemicals in a sustainable way in a true international setting. Since January 1992 he has worked as an independent consultant through his own company, Rappa, Inc, primarily as a contractor to UNDP on projec ts supported under the Multilater al Fund of the Montreal

Protocol. Some of his ac tivities include engineeri ng assistance, industry-wide emission studies, technical assessments, project and process assist ance for more than 300 projects in about 30 countries worldwide, workshops and demonstration programs for foams and in refrigeration, desi gn, preparation and implementation ofApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 179 study missions, chemical safety traini ng for foam and appliance manufacture rs, air permit acquisitions in the USA for PU foam manufacturers, petitions and other submi ssions to the USEPA. Before, Mr. Veenendaal had managing positions in the PU foam industry in the USA and Germany. He has been a member of the UNEP Foams Technical Options Committee since 1989. Rappa Inc f unds Mr. Veenendaal’s participation in the FTOC.

Shigeru Wakana Japan (Non-A5) Shigeru Wakana is a technical committee member of Extruded Polystyrene Foam Association in Japan, and also has 23 years technical experience in extruded polystyre ne foam business with Dow Kakoh K.K. He is now

R&D/TS&D Leader for Dow Kakoh. K.K. He has been a member of Foams TOC since 2004 and was a member of a project “Investigation of CFC recovery from the construction” sponsored by METI. His participation in FTOC activities is full funded by The Dow Chemical Company.

Mark Weick USA (Non-A5) Mark Weick has 25 years technical experience in plastic foams business and technology with The Dow Chemical Company. He has served in a variety of research, technical service, management, and business leadership roles with Dow dealing with styrenic, ethyle nic, and urethane foam products. He currently serves as the Environment, Health and Safety Global Product Stewardship Leader for Dow’s Building Solutions business unit. He has been a member of the UNEP Rigid and Flexible Foams Tech nical Options Committee since 2003, and assumed Lead Author responsibilities for the polystyrene foams sector in 2006. Mark’s participation in FTOC related activities is funded by The Dow Chemical Company.

David J. Williams USA (Non-A5)

Mr. David J. Williams has been a member of the Foams Technical Options Committee since 1996. Since 1994, Mr. Williams has worked at Honeywell’s Buffalo Resear ch Laboratory in Buffalo New York in the fluorocarbon blowing agent technology group and since 1998 has been the ma nager of this group. In this role, Mr. Williams is responsible for the development and technical support of Honeywell’s fluor ocarbon blowing agents used in the production of rigid polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and ph enolic foams and in extrude d thermoplastic foams. Prior to this, Mr. Williams worked for 20 years for The Dow Chemical Company/The Upjohn Company in various roles related to the development and technical support for polyuretha ne, polyisocyanurate, and extruded polystyrene foams or foam systems. He owns stock in companies that now or previously manufactured ozonedepleting substances and produc ts made with or containing ozone-depl eting substances and their substitutes and alternatives. Participation of Mr. Williams in FTOC related activities is funded by Honeywell.

Jinhuang Wu USA (Non-A5) Dr. Jinhuang Wu has been a member of the Foams Techni cal Options Committee since 2000. He was also a lead author of the “IPCC/TEAP Special Report: Safeguarding the ozone layer and the global climate system: issues related to hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons.” From 1997 to 2005, Jinhuang worked for Arkema Inc. (formerly known as ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. and Elf Atochem N.A.), where he was responsible for application development of blowing agents in rigi d insulating foams including polyurethane and extruded polystyrene. He is currently an employee of Huntsman. His current responsibilities include rese arch and development of polyurethane based technologies. He owns stocks in companies th at produce chemicals for foam and refrigerant applications. Jinhuang Wu’s continued participatio n in FTOC activities is funded by the Huntsman Corporation.

Qiang Xu China (A5) Mr. Xu is currently R&D Director for Shanghai Haohai Chemical Corporation,Ltd. He has worked in the Chinese polyurethanes industry for over 20 years and is a member of the China Polyurethane Industry Association. He joined the FTOC in 2005 and his travel costs and associat ed expenses are covered by the Ozone Secretariat.

Allen Zhang China (A5) Allen Zhang has 10 years technical a nd management experience in extrud ed polystyrene foam technology and business with Owen Corning. He has served in a va riety of production technical , operation management, and business leadership roles with Owens Corning dealing with XPS and fibreglass insulations operations. He currently serves as insulation manufactur ing leader to be account able for five plants operations for Owens Corning

Asia Pacific. He has been a member of ISO/TC61 since 2002 and lead author of China national XPS product standard. He is very familiar with China foam industry. He has been a member of the UNEP Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee sinc e 2005. His participation is directly funded by Owens Corning with travel and other expenses eligible fo r cover by the Ozone Secretariat.



## AIII.4 Disclosure of Int erest Declarations HTOC

Ahmad AL-Khatib Jordan (A5) Mr. Ahmad AL-Khatib, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, works as a technical consultant for the Ministry Of Environment / Ozone Unit of ODSs Phase out Project / JORDAN and has no conflicts of interest, does not consult for any othe r organisation, and does not have his own trade or firm. Mr. Ahmad ALKhatib is committed as a member of the HTOC not to di sclose any information to any organization in either aApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 180 direct or indirect way. Mr. Ahmad AL-Khatib’s trav el to HTOC meetings is paid for by UNEP’s Ozone

Secretariat.

Geok Kwang Boo Singapore (A5) Mr. Geok Kwang Boo, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is the Director of Fire Safety & Shelter Department (FSSD) of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF). He is a full time Engineering Profession Officer at the Headquarters of the SCDF, wh ich is located at 91 Ubi Avenue 4, Singapore 408827. The FSSD is the regulatory arm of the SCDF, administering and enforcing fire safety regulations in all buildings in the Republic of Singapore; that includes the regulating of fi xed fire protection systems and portable fire extinguishers using halons. Mr. Geok Kwang Boo has no proprietary inte rest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, owns no stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or s ubstitutes to ODSs, and does not provide consultation to companies seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Geok Kwang Boo has no person related to him, being his spouse, children or social partner, who works for or consults for an y organization that has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Geok Kwang Boo’s travel to HT OC meetings is paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat.

Fareed I. Bushehri UNEP (Bahrain) (A5) Fareed I. Bushehri, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is employed by the United Nations Environment Programme. Mr. Bushehri is a full time Programme Officer at the Regional Office for West Asia. The United Nations Environment Progr amme has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is one of the implementing agencies under the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Bushehri 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 phase-out ODSs. Mr. Bushehri works full time as an employee of UNEP on matters related to the Montreal Pr otocol. Mr. Bushehri’s spouse and dependant children living at same home have no proprietary interest in a lternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Bushehri’s travel to HTOC meeti ngs is paid for by the United Nations Environment Programme.

David V. Catchpole UK (Non-A5) Mr. David V. Catchpole, Co-Chair of the Halons Tech nical Options Committee and Member of the Technology

and Economics Assess ment Panel since 2005, works part time for Pe trotechnical Resources Alaska (PRA), an Anchorage, Alaska based company that provides consultin g services to oil companie s in Alaska. From 1991 to 2004 he was a member of the HTOC. From 1970 until 1999, he was an employee of the BP group of companies, most recently BP Exploration Alaska, where he worked for nine years in the environmental department on alternatives to halon and on halon banking. Mr. Catchpol e advises BP Exploration Alaska on fire protection and halon issues as his main activity for PRA. BP Exploration Alaska has an inte rest in the topics of the Montreal

Protocol because it uses halon 1301 for explosion prevention and fire suppr ession in its enclosed oil and gas processing modules on the North Slope of Alaska. Mr. Catchpole has no proprieta ry interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies pr oducing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, however his retirement portfolio contains stock in BP pl c. Mr. Catchpole’s spouse does not work for or consult for any organization that has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. His spouse has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own st ock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizati ons seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Catchpole typically receives funding to support salary and travel to TEAP /TOC meetings from the Unit ed States Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Department of Defense; and the Halon Recycling Corporation and the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation, which are no t-for-profit industry coalitio ns that in turn receive contributions for this funding from members. Contributor s are: BP Exploration Alaska, ConocoPhillips Alaska, DuPont, Chemtura, American Pacific, Firetrace, Halon Banking Systems, Wesco and Remtec.

Seunghwan (Charles) Choi Rep. Of Korea (A5) Mr. Charles (Seunghwan) Choi, Hal ons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is a CEO and Representative Director at the Hanju Chemical Co. (“Hanj u”). Mr. Choi has a full tim e management job at Hanju in 326-79 Songjeong-ri, Whasung city, Kyunggi-do, Korea. The Ha nju has an interest in th e topics of the Montreal Protocol because it produces halon 1301 and halon 1211 products in accordance with the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Choi owns stock in companies producing ODS but does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out

ODSs. Mr. Choi does not work as a consultant on matters related to the Montreal Prot ocol. Mr. Choi’s spouse and dependant children living at same home do not work for or c onsult for any organization that has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Choi’s spouse a nd dependant children have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not consult for organizati ons seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. C hoi’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat.

Michelle M. Collins USA (Non-A5) Dr. Michelle M. Collins, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is the President of EECO International and a former full-time research engineer for the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (from 1990-2005). Dr. Collins is a full time consultant at the offices of EECO International, 3600 Travis Place, Titusville, Florida, 32780, U.S.A. Dr. Collins continues to report to NASA on the HTOC throughApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 181 EECO International in an unofficial capacity. The company ha s an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of NASA’s needs. Dr. Collins 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 perform consulting for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Collin s may work occasionally as a consultant to NASA (U.S. government) on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Collins’ s pouse works for NASA in an unrelated field, and Dr. Collins’ dependant children living at same home do not work for or consult for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Collins’ spouse and their children have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult fo r organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Collins’ travel to HTOC meetings is paid by EECO Internationa l, which may receive contributions for this travel from NASA, if relevant.

Andrew Greig South Africa (A5) Mr. Andrew Greig, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is a Principal Engineer at Protection Projects, a consulting fire engineering company located in Johannesburg, South Afri ca. He is in full time employment with Protection Pr ojects. Mr. Greig is also a joint manage r of the Halon Bank of Southern Africa, which organisation is operated on behalf of the Sout h African Government’s Depa rtment of Environmental Affairs. The Halon Bank of SA is a non-profit organisation, established in terms of the Montreal Protocol and Amendments; to manage the reduction of existing stocks of halo n, facilitate the disposal of halons, assist in locating halons to keep critical syst ems running, and to provide quality a ssurance services relating to these objectives. The Halon Bank thus has an interest in the topi cs of the Montreal Protocol in order to carry out the obligations of the South Afri can Government as a Signatory. Services ar e rendered on behalf of the Bank on an asrequired basis by two joint managers, fo r industry-standard time-related fees. Mr. Greig has no proprietary interest

in alternatives or substitu tes to ODSs, does not own shares in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does occasional consulting for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Greig’s spouse and dependant children have no pr oprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Greig’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid by Protection Projects, which receives contributions

for this travel from the UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat.

Matsuo Ishiyama Japan (Non-A5) Mr. Matsuo Ishiyama, Halons Technica l Options Committee (HTOC) Member si nce 1996, is Corporate Advisor of Nohmi Bosai Ltd., a leading Japanese fire protection company, manufac turing, sales and contracting for installation of fire detection-alarm sy stems and all kinds of fire extinguishi ng systems. He has been appointed as Advisor of the Japan Fire Extinguishing Systems Manufactur er’s Association, and Boar d Auditor of the Fire and Environment Protection Network (National Halon Bank of Ja pan). Nohmi Bosai Ltd. provides his ordinary salary

and the Fire and Environment Protec tion Network pays for travel expe nses for attending HTOC meetings.

Zhou Kaixuan China (A5) Mr. Zhou Kaixuan, Halons Technica l Options Committee (HTOC) Member si nce 2006, is the Deputy Director

General of Aircraft Airworthiness Certification of General Administration of Civil Aviation of China. Mr. Zhon has been in the Civil Aviation area for more than 20 years. He participated in Rule-making for most of the Civil Aviation Regulations of China and Type Certific ations on Civil Aircraft of China such as

Y12/Y7/MA60/Y8/LE500/Z9/Z11. Mr. Zhou previously worked for Macau Civi l Aviation Authority of Macau for 3 years (from 1995 to 1998). He has been the Deputy Direct or of Standard Division, Director of Aircraft Supervision Division and Director of Liaison Division in Aircraft Airw orthiness Departme nt of General

Administration of Civil Aviation of China (CAAC) for many years. In 2000, he was appointed as the Deputy

Director General of Aircraft Airworthiness Certificati on Department of CAAC. Mr. Zhou has no interest or economic relationship with halon production companies or any aviation industry company, and does not receive any fees for work associated with HTOC. Mr. Zhou’s travel expenses to attend HTOC meeting are paid for the

UNEP's Ozone Secretariat.

H. S. Kaprwan India (A5) Mr. H. S. Kaprwan, Halons Technica l Options Committee (HTOC) Member, re tired as Add. Director from the Defense Institute of Fire Research, Mini stry of Defense, Government of India, in July 2004. Since then he has been a free lancer fire protection consu ltant in India associat ed with various government and semi-government organizations. He has been assisting them with inform ation sharing on various fire protection technologies including halon alternatives and technology transfers unde r financial and tec hnical assistance of the MLF of the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Kaprwan is not employed by any government or private company in India or abroad on the subject of fire protection technologies or halon replac ement technologies. Mr. Kaprwan also provides free and voluntary advice to various Indian government and privat e organizations on fire pr otection related subjects, including the Ministry of Environmen t Ozone Cell, Indian Military organi zations, and the aviation sector. Mr. Kaprwan is not employed by and does not receive an y financial assistance of any kind from commercial companies in India or abroad where he would have any c onflict of interest of any kind regarding halon or halon

alternative related matters. Mr. Kaprwan’s spouse and sons are not invol ved in subjects relate d to the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Kaprwan’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by the UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 182 Nikolai Kopylov Russian Fed. (Non-A5) Dr. Nikolay Kopylov is the Head of the All-Russian Scie ntific Research Institute for Fire Protection (VNIIPO). VNIIPO has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol as a body responsible for technical control of

Montreal Protocol related issues in Russia. VNIIPO has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own or own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Kopylov works as a consultant to the Russian government on matters related to the im plementation of the Montreal Protocol . Dr. Kopylov's spouse and son have no proprietary interest in alternativ es or substitutes to ODSs, do not own or own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Kopylov's travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat.

Barbara Kucnerowicz-Polak Poland (Non-A5) Dr. Barbara Kucnerowicz-Polak, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is the Senior Adviser to the Head of the Polish Fire Service and Civil Protection at the National Headquarters of the State Fire Service. Dr. Kucnerowicz-Polak is responsible for international co-operation on chemical safety, incl uding implementation of the European Union directives and OE CD recommendations regarding chemical safety programs, as well as the

Montreal Protocol related i ssues. Dr. Kucnerowicz-Polak has extensive experience in combustion science and fire protection research and was head of the Extinguishi ng media department under th e National Certification Authority for almost 15 years. Since 1994 when she beca me a member of the HTOC, Dr. Kucnerowicz-Polak has served as the national expert on probl ems related to halon phase-out for the Polish Government and fire protection community. She developed Poland's national strategy for pha sing out halons, including a set of guidelines for the fire protection community that provide step by step technical approaches to implementing the Montreal Protocol decisions. Over the last ten years she has also served as a member of the Ozone Operation Resource Group, consulting to the World Bank for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. The National Headquarters of the State Fire Service has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own or own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr. Kucnerowicz-Polak's sons do not work for or consult for any organization or companies and have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own or own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult for organizations seek ing to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Kucnerowicz-Pola k travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by the National Headquarters of the Stat e Fire Service and she does not receiv e contributions for this travel from any other sources.

David Liddy UK (Non-A5) Dr. David Liddy, Halons Technical Options Committee (H TOC) Member, is an employee of the UK government. Dr. Liddy has a Ph.D. in chemistry and works full time on environmental policy issues for the UK Ministry of Defence (UK MOD) in London. The UK M OD has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it continues to use some ODSs in equipment and facilities. Dr. Liddy has no proprietary interest in any alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies pr oducing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for any other organizati ons seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr. Li ddy’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by UK MOD.

Bella Maranion USA (Non-A5) Ms. Bella Maranion, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is a Program Analyst at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USE PA). Ms. Maranion is a full time industry sector analyst and project manager in the USEPA's Stratospheric Protection Division, Washington, DC. The USEPA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because the Agency is responsible for implementing national regulations and policies to meet the US commi tments under the Protocol. Ms. Maranion has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Ms. Marani on's spouse and dependant children have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or compan ies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult for organizations seek ing to phase-out ODSs. Ms. Maranion’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by the USEPA.

John J. O’Sullivan UK (Non-A5) Mr. John J. O’Sullivan, Halons Technical Options Comm ittee (HTOC) Member since 1992, has worked as a full time aviation fire protection expert for British Airways and adviser to the In ternational Air Transport Association (IATA) for 40 years. Mr. O’Sullivan recently took early retirement from British Airways and is now employed by Bureau Veriitas, one of the leading environmental companie s in the world, as their Fire Consultant and is still acting as adviser to IATA. Acknowledged as one of the leading fire protection specialists in the world, in 1998 Mr. O’Sullivan was, on the recommendation of Tony Blair, Prime Minister UK, awarded the MBE by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for services to Aviation and the Envi ronment. In 1996 he was aw arded the United States Environment Award for his role in the phase out of ODS and 1994 awarded the Ben Franklin Medal for work with Fire Services. Mr. O’Sullivan has no financial interest in any company or organisation that benefits from him being a member of the HTOC. Mr. O’Sullivan’s spouse does not work for any company and is now retired. Mr. O’Sullivan’s two children are not involved with any company that would benefit from his membership of HTOC. His attendance at meetings has been funded by hi s employer or paid for out of his personal funds.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 183 Erik Pedersen Denmark (Non-A5) Mr. Erik Pedersen, Halons Technical Options Committee (H TOC) Member, is a consultant to the World Bank for the Implementation of the Montreal Pr otocol. The World Bank has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol as one of the four implementing agencies unde r the Multilateral Fund of th e Montreal Protocol, and working with developing countries for the implementation of the Montre al Protocol. Mr. Pedersen 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 phase-out ODSs. Mr. Erik

Pedersen works as a consultant to The World Bank on ma tters related to the implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Pedersen's spouse does not work for or c onsult for any organization or company. Mr. Pedersen’s children have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult for organizati ons seeking to phase-out

ODSs. Mr. Pedersen’s travel to HTOC meetings is partly paid by the Wo rld Bank and from his own funds. He

does not receive contributions for this travel from other sources.

Donald Thomson Canada (Non-A5) Mr. Donald Thomson, Halons Techni cal Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is the Past Chairperson of the Manitoba Ozone Protection Industry A ssociation (MOPIA) board of directors and the Chairperson of their Halon Section. MOPIA is a partnership between industry, the public and government committed to successfully protecting the stratospheric ozone laye r through the control, reduction and even tual elimination of emissions of ozone depleting and c limate changing substanc es to the atmosphere

. MOPIA, a non-exclusionary association, is the primary conduit for liaison between the various ozone depleting substan ces industry associations, Manitoba Environment and any other interested stakeholders. Mr. T homson has a full time position as the Fire Marshal for Manitoba Hydro responsible for their fire prevention and protection programs. Manitoba Hydro is a public utility having an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of their use of halon as a fire suppressant and the use of other ODS in AC/Chillers systems. In addition Mr. Thomson is looking to the future for the elimination and disposal of halons for the stakeholders of Manitoba. Mr. Thomson has no proprietary in terest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies produ cing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not do any consulting for organizations seeking to pha se-out ODSs. Mr. Thomson has worked as a consultant to UNEP through the Canadian Government on matters related to halon manage ment for the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Thomson's social partner works for or consults for Manitoba Hydro and is also a Past Chairperson of MOPIA, which has an interest in the topics of the Mont real Protocol for the same reason as Mr. Thomson. Mr. Thomson's social partner 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 do consulting for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Travel to HTOC meetings is paid in part by MOPIA and wages are maintained by Manitoba Hydro.

Daniel P. Verdonik USA (Non-A5) Dr. Daniel P. Verdonik, Co-Chair, Halons Technical Options Committee and Member, Technology and Economic Assessment Panel is the Director, Envi ronmental Programs, Hughes Associates, Inc. Dr. Verdonik is a full time, salaried employee at Hughes Associat es, Inc., in Baltimore, MD and Arlingt on, VA providing consulting services in fire protection and environmental ma nagement. Hughes Associat es, Inc. has an interest in the topics of the

Montreal Protocol becau se it provides a wide range of fire protection research, de sign and consulting services to government and corporate clients, including work related to halons and halon alternatives. Dr. Verdonik 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 through Hughe s Associates, Inc. provide s consulting services for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Verdonik is a partner in Hughes Associates, Inc., which does not own stock in companies producing ODS, or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr. Verdonik currently provides consulting services through Hughes Asso ciates, Inc, for the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy on matters related to the Montreal Protocol and has previously provided servic es through Hughes Associat es Inc. for Implementing Agencies, U.S. EPA, U.S. Air Force a nd Chemtura. Dr. Verdonik’s spouse works for the U.S. Army, which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is trying to phase- out halons but in th e interim, continues to rely on halons for purposes of national security. Dr . Verdonik’s spouse and dependant child have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not ow n stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not consult for organizations seekin g to phase-out ODSs. Hughes Associates, Inc. typically receives funding to support Dr . Verdonik’s salary and travel to TEAP/HTOC/TSB meetings from MLF, UNEP, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. EPA, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Halon Recycling Corporation, and the Halon Alternativ es Research Corporation, who in-turn currently receives funding to support these efforts from th e following sponsors: BP Explorati on, Alaska, ConocoPhillips, Alaska; DuPont; Chemtura; American Pacific; Firetrace; Halon Banking Systems; Wesco; Remtec. From time-to-time, Hughes Associates, Inc may also provi de support for labour and travel.

Robert T. Wickham USA (Non-A5) Mr. Robert T. Wickham, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is the principal of Wickham Associates, a consulting engineering firm located in Stratham, New Hampshire, U.S.A. Mr. Wickham is an engineering graduate of the University of Wisconsin and is a registered professional engi neer in several states. Mr.

Wickham has had and cont inues to have a long term interest in assu ring that only environmentally sound and safe alternatives to halons are employed, views that are consistent with the interests of the Montreal Protocol. Mr.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 184 Wickham has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes for ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes for ODSs and does not consult for organiza tions seeking to phase-out ODSs. While Mr. Wickham has at times performed cons ulting services for the World Bank and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the area of alternatives to halons, he currently has no assignments of this type nor is seeking any. In addition to his work on the HTOC , Mr. Wickham has been a memb er of the U.S. delegation to the International Maritime Organization’s Fire Protection Sub-committee for the past 12 years, the head of the U.S. delegation to ISO TC 21/SC 8, the Chair of the NFPA Aerosol Extinguishing Technology committee, a

member of the NFPA technical comm ittee on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems, a Board Member of the

International Water Mist Association and a Lead Au thor for the IPCC/TEAP joint Report on HFCs and PFCs (April, 2005). Further, Mr. Wickham is one of only tw o people to earn both the U.S. EPA Stratospheric Ozone Protection Award (1999) and the U.S. EPA Climate Protection Award (2002) for his work in the field of halon replacements. Mr. Wickham’s spouse and children have no interest in the to pics of the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Wickham’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by Wickham Associates from general company funds.

Consulting Experts

Thomas Cortina USA (Non-A5) Mr. Thomas Cortina, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Consulting Expert, is a partner at Alcalde & Fay Inc., 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Arlingt on, VA, USA. Mr. Cortina serves as Executive Director of the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation (HARC) and the Ha lon Recycling Corporation (HRC). HARC and HRC have an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because they are non-profit associations focused on issues related to halon recycling and replacem ent. Mr. Cortina has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alterna tives or substitutes to ODSs but may do consulting for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Cortina’s s pouse and children living in the same household have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Mr. Cortina works occasionally as a consultant on matters related to the

Montreal Protocol. Travel to HT OC meetings is paid by HARC.

Sergey Kopylov Russian Fed. (Non-A5) Dr. Sergey Kopylov is the Head of the Department of Fire Extinguishing tools & media of the All-Russian

Scientific Research Institute for Fire Protection (VNIIPO). VNIIPO has an inte rest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol as a body responsible for technical control of Montreal Protocol related i ssues in Russia. VNIIPO has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own or own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr. Kopylov wo rks as a technical expert to the Russian government on matters related to the implementation of the Montreal Prot ocol. Dr. Kopylov's spouse does not work for or consult for any organization or company. Dr. Kopylov's spouse and chil dren have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own or own stock in companie s producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult for organizations seek ing to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Kopylov's travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat.

Steve McCormick USA (Non-A5) Mr. Steve McCormick, Halons Tec hnical Options Committee (HTOC) Consulting Expert since 1996, is a survivability team leader at the US Army Tank-Automo tive Command. He is a full time researcher at the TankAutomotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) in Warren, MI. TARDEC has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because the vehicles it supports rely on halons and their replacements for fire protection. For more than 20 years, Mr. McCormick has de veloped fire protection system s to protect soldiers and their equipment and has led Ar my efforts to replace halons in ground vehicles. Mr. McCormick 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 organizati ons seeking to phase out ODSs. Mr. McCormick’s spouse and child do not work for or consult for any organization that has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. They have no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs a nd do not consult for organiza tions seeking to phase out ODSs. Mr. McCormick’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by TARDEC.

Jawad Rida Jordan (A5) Mr. Jawad Rida, Halon Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Consulting Expert, is the Managing Director at the

National Concorde Establishment. Mr. Rida is a full time Director at the Head Office in Jordan. The National

Concorde Establishment has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Pr otocol because it provided technical support to Jordan’s National Halon Management Project. Mr. Rida ha s no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seek ing to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Rida works occa sionally as a consultant to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Rida’s spouse and dependant children living at the same home have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Rida’s tr avel to HTOC meetings is paid for by UNEP’s Ozone

Secretariat.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 185 Mark L. Robin USA (Non-A5) Dr. Mark L. Robin, Halons Technical Options Committe e (HTOC) Consulting Expert, is a Senior Technical

Consultant at DuPont Fluor oproducts in Wilmington, Dela ware, U.S.A. Dr. Robin has over 20 years experience in the synthesis and applications of specialty organofluor ine compounds, including HCFCs and HFCs in propellant foam blowing, solvent, refrigeration and fire suppression a pplications. DuPont Fluoropr oducts has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because they are a major manufacturer of ODSs and substitutes to ODSs. Dr. Robin has no proprietary interest in alternatives or s ubstitutes to ODSs, but he owns stock in companies producing ODS, alternatives and substitutes to ODSs (DuPont). Dr. R obin does not serve as a consultant for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs

. Dr. Robin’s spouse and dependant children living at same home do not work for or consult for any organizations that have an interest in the topics of the M ontreal Protocol. Dr. Robin's spouse and dependant children have no proprietary interest in altern atives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Robin’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid by DuPont Fluoroproducts.

Joseph A. Senecal USA (Non-A5) Dr. Joseph A. Senecal, Halons Techni cal Options Committee (HTOC) Consulting Expert, is employ ed full-time as the manager of the Combustion Research Center of Kidde -Fenwal Inc., Holliston, Massachusetts, USA, a United Technologies Corporation (UTC) company. United Technolog ies has an interest in th e topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is a supplier of fire extinguishing and refrigeration pr oducts that formerly employed ozone depleting substances. Dr. Senecal has no proprietary intere st in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alte rnatives or substitutes to ODSs, except as may be held by mutual funds in which he owns shares, and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Senecal does not act as a consultant to UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agenci es, Governments, companies, etc. on matters related

to the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Senecal’ s spouse has no connection with any orga nization that has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, does not have a proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or subs titutes to ODSs, and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Senecal’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by his employer, UTC.

Ronald S. Sheinson USA (Non-A5) Dr. Ronald S. Sheinson, Halons Tec hnical Options Committee (H TOC) Consulting Expert, is a research chemist (Head, Combustion Dynamics) at the US Naval Research La boratory (NRL). Dr. Sheinson is a full time employee at the NRL, located in Washington, DC, USA. The Navy ha s an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its need for fire protection, and its co mmitment supporting the minimization of employing ozone depleting substances. Dr. Sheinson has no proprietary intere st in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or s ubstitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs, outside of e fforts consistent with Navy efforts. An y such information exchange is of a

technical nature and not for remunera tion. Dr. Sheinson's spouse and dependant child living at same home do not work for or consult for any entity that has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. They have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult fo r organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Sheinson’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by NRL.

Ronald Sibley USA (Non-A5) Mr. Ronald Sibley, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Consulting Expert since 1994, is currently a contract consultant to the US Depa rtment of Defense ODS Reserve Program Office in Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Sibley retired in January 2007 from US Government employme nt where he served for the most recent fifteen years as the US Government Program Manager for the US Depa rtment of Defense Military Inventory for halon/CFCs. The US Department of Defense has intere st in all aspects of the Montreal Protocol given it s global operations with bases in many different nations. Additionally, the US military has led in the development and implementation of many halon reclaiming and storage procedures and techni ques which have been adopted worldwide. Mr. Sibley continues to receive funding for travel and HTOC partic ipation from the US military. Mr. Sibley and his spouse

have no financial interest relevant to alternatives or substitutes and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase out halon/ODSs.

Mitsuru Yagi Japan (Non-A5) Mr. Mitsuru Yagi, Halons Technical Options Committee (H TOC) Consulting Expert si nce 2006, is a mechanical engineer working for a leading Japane se fire protection equipment manufac turer, Nohmi Bosai Ltd., based in Tokyo. He has been engaged in designing fire fighting e quipment using water, foam, dr y chemical and gas for 20 years. He is also a manager of the Japanese nationa l Halon Bank (Fire and Environment Protection Network), which was organized to contribute to protect the ozone layer and to prevent global warming by controlling all kinds of gaseous fire extinguishing agents, including halons, restrainin g unnecessary emission of agents and promoting reclamation of agents that can be recycled. The Network provides the expenses for travel to attend HTOC meetings and other expenses for work relating to ozone layer protection and global warming prevention. Nohmi Bosai provides his ordinary salary.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 186 AIII.5 Disclosure of Int erest Declarations RTOC

R.S. Agarwal India (A5) Dr. Radhey S. Agarwal, Co-chair of the Refrigerati on, Air-conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee, is the Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IIT Delhi).

He co-chaired the 2003 HCFC Task Force and the 2004 Chiller Ta sk Force. IIT Delhi has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol being one of the academic institutes of higher learning in India. Dr. Agarwal holds a M. Tech. and a Ph.D. from IIT Delhi. Dr. Agarwal has been actively pursuing research in the area of refrigeration & air-conditioning. He has guided a number of Ph.D. and M. Te ch. theses and published research papers in the field of refrigeration and air-conditioning. Dr . Agarwal has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own any stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives/substitutes to ODSs. Dr. Agarwal’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protoc ol. Dr. Agarwal occasionall y takes consultancies and advisory roles operated through IIT Delhi from the engi neering industry, UNEP, GTZ, INFRAS for research & development, technical advice , developing technical manuals and training materials etc. IIT Delhi makes in-kind contribution for wages. Cost of travel and other expenses related to partic ipation in TEAP and the RTOC are paid by the Ozone Secretariat.

James A. Baker USA (Non-A5) James A. Baker, member of the RTOC, is a full-time seni or staff research scientist at Delphi Corporation’s Lockport Technical Center in Lo ckport, NY (USA). Delphi ha s an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because Delphi makes air conditioning systems for vehicles to provide passenger comfort. James A. Baker has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not provide c onsulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Neither James, nor his wife, Marianne A. Baker, have any material interest in matters related to the Protocol beyond philosophical support of its goa ls and objectives. James works oc casionally as a consultant to UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, Governments, companies, et c. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. James A. Baker holds a B.A. in Chemistry (1970) and an M.S. in Physical Chemistry (1975) from Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. James has been employed by Delphi (formerly as GM) for 33 years as a materials engineer and refrigerant systems expert. James was awarded the 1990 and 1997 US EPA Stratospheric Ozone Protection Awards for his contribution to pioneer ing the technology to recycle refrigerant.

Julius Banks USA (Non-A5) Julius Banks, member of the RTOC, is the team lead on refrigerant recycling and emi ssions reduction at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Julius Banks is a full time environmental engine er at the Washington, DC Headquarters office of USEPA. The US EPA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because as a signatory to the Protocol the U.S. government has an inte rest in making certain that assistance is provided to parties to the Protocol, spec ifically A5 signatories. Julius 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, does not provide consulting services to organisa tions seeking to phase out ODSs. Julius Bank’s spouse/partner/significant other has no in terest in matters related to the Prot ocol. Julius Banks works as regulation writer at USEPA and occasionally c onsults on issues related to UN , UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, governments, companies, et c. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol.

Dariusz J. Butrymowicz Poland (Non-A5) Dr. Dariusz J. Butrymowicz, member of the RTOC, is an expert at the National Refrigeration Forum, Poland. Dariusz J. Butrymowicz is a full time associate professo r at the Institute of Fluid-Flow Machinery of Polish Academy of Sciences in Gdansk, Poland as well as a full time associate professor at the Bialystok Technical University in Bialystok, Poland. The National Refrigeration Forum, Poland has an interest in the topics of the

Montreal Protocol be cause the activity of this organisation deal s with usage and consumption of ODSs for refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump applications in Poland. Dariusz J. Butrymowicz has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not ow n stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does consulting for the National Refrigeration Forum, Poland seeking to phase out ODSs. Dariusz J. Butrymowicz’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Pr otocol. Dariusz J. Butrymowicz works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP, and the National Refrigeration Forum, Poland on matters related to the

Montreal Protocol.

James M. Calm USA (Non-A5) James M. Calm, member of the RTOC and CLA for Refrigerants in prior assessments, is an independent engineering consultant. Mr. Ca lm specialises in heating, air-conditioning, and refrigerating systems. His services include performance, environmental, and safety analyses as well as feasibility studies, assessments, research, and strategic planning. His clients freque ntly have included manufacturers (i ncluding but not limited to those producing refrigerants, equipment utilis ing them, components for them, and anci llary safety devices such as leak detection devices), engineering and architectural firms, building owners , and research organisations and occasionally have included utilities, trade associations (including those directly involved in refrigerant and related equipment manufacture), and governmental agencies. Mr. Calm also has consulted for clients regarding ODS alternative selections for processes other than refrigeration, such as for devices for medical and cosmetic treatments. The clients are primarily the United States, but sometimes also in Canada, Asia, Europe, and theApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 187 Middle East; the majority are in non-Ar ticle 5 countries, but some are in Ar ticle 5 countries. The topics of the Montreal Protocol and RTOC assessment are germane to aspects of Mr. Calm’s work addressing refrigerant management, transition planni ng, performance analyses, and evaluation of environmental and safety impacts. Mr. Calm has no proprietary interest in alternatives or s ubstitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own a proprietary interest or stock in companies engaged in processes for ODSs, alternatives, or substitutes.

Guangmin Chen China (A5) Prof. Guangming Chen, member of the RTOC, is a professo r at Zhejiang University, China. Guangming Chen is a full time professor at the Institute of Refrigeration and Cr yogenics of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. The University has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because there are some professors and students who are doing the researches related to the alternatives to ODS refrigerants. Guangm ing Chen has no proprietary

interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own any stock in compan ies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consult for any organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Guangming Chen’s wife has no interest in matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Guangming Chen works occasionally as a consultant to

UNEP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol.

Denis Clodic France (Non-A5) Dr. Denis Clodic, member of the RTOC, is a Research Direct or at the Ecole des Mines de Paris. Denis Clodic is a full time research director and deputy-director at the Center for Energy and Processes of Ecole des Mines de Paris

in Paris. Denis Clodic mana ges a laboratory of 65 persons among them 36 Ph.D. students. The laboratory is deeply involved in improvement of energy efficiency of refrigerating systems, air conditioning, and industrial processes as well as high efficiency in buildings. More over he has developed with hi s team efficient methods of measurements of leak flow rates of refrigerating systems. The Ecole des Mines de Paris has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its research policy on substitution of refrigerants. Denis Clodic has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Denis Clodic works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, governments, companies, etc. on

matters related to the Montreal Protocol.

Daniel Colbourne UK (Non-A5) Daniel Colbourne, member of the RTOC, is an independe nt consultant, belonging to no organisation. Daniel

Colbourne is a full time consultant at his home-based office in Stratf ord-upon-Avon, UK. Daniel Colbourne consultant has an interest in the topi cs of the Montreal Protocol because of his personal experience within the related subjects, and a pers onal concern over the balance of outputs from the RTOC, and is funded by the UK Government for attendance at meetings. Daniel Colbourne 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 consulting for organisations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Daniel Colbourne’s partner has no interest in matters related to the Protocol, except for those related to envi ronmental issues in general. Daniel Colbourne works occasionally as a consultant to GTZ (Germany) and DEFRA (UK) on matters related to the Montreal Protocol, and otherwise is involved with various private companies in technical adaptation of their refrigeration systems to use various alternative refrigerants. No further details thought important.

James G Crawford USA (Non-A5) James G Crawford [Jim], member of the RTOC, is the Director of Regulatory Affairs of The Trane Company, a division of American Standard Inc. Mr. Crawford is a full time employee at the Trane Company’s facility in Tyler, Texas. The Trane Company has an interest in th e topics of the Montreal Pr otocol because Trane is a leading manufacturer of heating and air conditioning equi pment. Mr. Crawford 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 organisations seekin g to phase out ODSs. Mr. Crawford’s spouse has no

interest in matters related to the Protocol. Mr. Crawford works occasionally as an unpaid advisor to UN agencies and US government agencies on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr . Crawford holds a Bachelor’s degree in Physics from Temple University [Summa cum Laude with Distinction in Physics] and a Master’s degree in System Science from Polytechnic Institut e of New York, and is a graduate ofGeneral Electric’s three-year postgraduate Advanced Engineering Program. He has been i nvolved in various aspects of environmental systems and environmental studies for over 45 years, and has b een an NGO participant in the Montreal Protocol, the

Framework Convention on Clim ate Change and the Kyoto Protocol since 1993.

Sukumar Devotta India (A5) Dr. Sukumar Devotta, member of the RT OC, is the Director at the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI). Dr. De votta is a full time Director at the NEERI, Nagpur, India. NEERI has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of NEERI’s mandate to provide service in the area of environmental engineering and science. Dr. Devotta , holds a M. Tech. (1973) Ph.D. (1978) in chemical engineering from the University of Madras and M.Sc. (1984) from the University of Salford, UK in heat energy recycling. Dr. Devotta also has research interest in the broad areas of refrigerat ion, A/c and heat pumps and ha s been working for the last 25 years or so. Dr. Devotta has published many research papers in peer reviewed journals and international conferences. He has also guided many post-graduate an d Ph.D. students in this area. Dr. Devotta has noApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 188 proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consult for or ganisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr. S. Devotta’s spouse has no interest in matters relate d to the Protocol. Dr. Devotta has not worked as a consultant to any organisation on matters related to the Montreal Protocol for the last four years or so.

Kenneth Hickman USA (Non-A5) Dr. Kenneth Hickman is a part-time c onsultant at Johnson Controls Building Efficiency Group in York Pa, USA, formerly York International Corp. He retired as Vice President of Engineering at York and continues as a consultant to the Advanced Technolog y Engineering Department. JCI-York has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because the company manufactures a wi de range of HVACR products that are sold world-wide. These products in many cases use refrigerants that are regulated by the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Hickman has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS (except perhaps as part of diversified mutual funds). He does not consult for organisati ons other than JCI-York. Dr. Hickman’s spouse has no interest in matters relating to the Protocol.

Takuho Hirahara (temporary) Japan (Non-A5) Mr. Takuho Hirahara, applying member of the RTOC, is Managing Director at Living Environment System Laboratory of Mitsubishi Electric Corpor ation. He is a full time manager at the office of Living Environment System Laboratory located at Kamakura-ci ty in Japan. He graduated Physic al Mechanical Engineering of Tokyo Institute of Technology and got Master Degree of Engineering at Purdue University. He has over 30 years experience of technical and quality issues related to hermetic compressors and refrigeration cycles. He has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consulti ng for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs.

Martien Janssen Netherlands (Non-A5) Martien Janssen, member of the RTOC, is a full-time director of Re/genT b.v., located in Helmond, The Netherlands. Re/genT BV has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol beca use it works on R&D topics related to Refrigeration, AC and Heat Pump systems, which may involve substi tutes and alternativ es to substances regulated by the Montreal Protocol. Martien Janssen has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or al ternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and occasionally consults for organisations se eking to phase out ODSs. Martien Janssen’ s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Martien Janssen works occasionally as a consultant to Implementing Agencies on matters related

to the Montreal Protocol.

Maikoto Kaibara Japan (Non-A5) Mr. Makoto Kaibara, member of the RTOC, is a Re search & Technology Manager of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning & Heating Business Group of Matsushita Home Appliances Company of Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. He participat ed as a member of RTOC for 2002 Re port and 2006 Report since 1999. He also participated as a review editor to the “IPCC/TEAP Sp ecial Report Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System:Issues Related to Hydr ofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons”. He is a full time engineer at the office of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning & Heating Busi ness Group of Matsushita Elec tric Industrial Co., Ltd located in Shiga Japan. He graduated Mechanical Engineer ing of Osaka University in Japan, and he has over 30 years experience of technical issues related to air-conditioning and refrigeration. He is Managing Director of JASRAE Japan Society of Refrigera ting and Air Conditioning Engineers and chairs the Technical Planning Committee. He also chaired the Residential Air Conditioner Technical committee in JRAIA the Japan Refrigeration and Air conditioning Industry Association. He has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consulting for organisations s eeking to phase out ODSs.

Ftouh Kallel Tunisia (A5) Dr. Ftouh Kallel, member of the RTOC, is a president at the SOFRIFAC SA company. Dr. Ftouh Kallel is a full time manager at the head office as well as at the factory located at Radès / Ben Arous City. The company has an interest in the topics of the Montr eal Protocol because actually our proc ess is using HCFC 141 b as a blowing agent when making air conditioning in jected polyurethane ducts. Dr. Ft ouh Kallel has proprie tary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, owns stock in comp anies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, ensuring consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs (such as ANPE-TUNISIA, Public Environment Agency). Dr. Ftouh Kallel works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matters related to the

Montreal Protocol.

Michael Kauffeld Germany (Non-A5) Prof. Dr. Michael Kauffeld, member of the RTOC, is a prof essor at the Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences. Michael Kauffeld is a full time professor at the Ins titute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Environmental Engineering. The Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of environmental awareness. Michael Kauffeld has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or al ternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Michael Kauffeld’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Michael Kauffeld works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP, Governments, companies, etc. onApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 189 matters related to the Montreal Protoc ol. Michael Kauffeld’s wo rk time is funded by the Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences, travel costs related to participation in the RTOC are f unded by the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conser vation and Nuclear Safety.

Fred J. Keller USA (Non-A5) Fred J. Keller, member of the RTOC, is the Vice Presid ent Engineering for Carrier Co rporation’s Residential and Light Commercial Systems business unit. Fred holds a B achelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Purdue University and is a License d Professional Engineer. Fred has 37 years design experience in air conditioning and refrigeration systems. He is a full time Executive at Carrier’s Residential Light Commercial Systems engineering center located in I ndianapolis, Indiana USA. Carrier Corpor ation has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because their products utilise ODS substances as refrigerants. Fred J. Keller has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does no consulting fo r organisations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Fred’s spouse, Laura L. Hintz-Keller, has no interest in matters related to the Protocol.

Juergen Koehler Germany ( Non-A5) Juergen Koehler, member of the RTOC, is a full professor at the Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany. Juergen Koehler has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, doe s not consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Juergen Koehler’s spouse has no interest in matter s related to the Protocol. Juergen Koehler has about 20 years of work experience in the mobile air conditi oning and refrigeration industry. He has investigated theoretically and experimentally alternative refrigerant s and refrigeration processes (compression and absorption). Since 1998 he has been a professor in the field of thermal sciences with special research interests in sustainable

residential and mobile a/ c and heat pump systems.

Holger König Germany (Non-A5) Holger König, member of the RTOC, is a CTO at the Jaeggi/Guentner (Switzerland) AG, and a full-time technical director at the departme nt in Trimbach, Switzerland. The Jaeggi/Guentner AG has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because the compan y is manufacturing products as compone nts for environmen tally friendly or natural refrigerants and technologies. Holger König has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companie s producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not consult for organisations seeking to ph ase out ODSs. Holger König’s partner has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Holger König occasionally works as a c onsultant to UNEP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. He has received his diploma in engineering at the University of Hannover, Germany, in 1990, worked for different companies in research and development areas as well as for technical applications. He ha s published more than 20 technical papers dealing with the phase- out possibilities of ODS subs tances as well as new technologies to reduce energy consumption of refrigerati on equipment. Since 1994 Holger König is spokesman of the German Research Council for Refrigeration.

Lambert Kuijpers Netherlands (Non-A5) Lambert Kuijpers, Co-chair of the Technology and Econom ic Assessment Panel since 1992 and Co-chair of the Refrigeration, Air-conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee since 1989, works on a part-time basis for the Department “Technology for Sustainable Development” at th e Technical Univer sity Eindhoven, The

Netherlands. He is a member of the Task Force on th e TEAP legacy; he co-chaired the Replenishment Task

Forces between 1996 and 2005. He served on the Steering Committee to the “IPCC/TEAP Special Report “Safeguarding the ozone layer and the global climat e system: issues related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons”, he co-chaired the 2005 Task Force for the TEAP Supplementary Report to the IPCC/TEAP Special Report and the 2006 Task Force on Emissions Di screpancies. He was a member of the Science Assessment Panel in 2005-2006. Until 1993, he worked fo r Philips in the development of refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat pump systems to use alternatives to ozone-depleting subs tances. He is fi nancially supported (through the UNEP Ozone Secretariat) by the European Commission (and in certain years by some EU member state governments) for his activities rela ted to the TEAP and the Refrigeration TO C. The general lack of adequate funding and also the high variability of available funding pe r year imply that, in many recent years, Dr. Kuijpers had to add significant voluntary contributions from privat e funds. Dr. Kuijpers has no proprietary interest in

alternatives or substitutes to ODS and does not own st ock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS. He occasionally is a consultant to governmental and non-governmental organisations, such as the World Bank, UNEP DTIE and the Multilateral Fund (e.g . for the 2006 Expert Meeting). Dr. Kuijpers is also an advisor to the Re/genT Company, Netherlands, whic h he co-founded in 1993 and where he still has a minority interest (R&D of components and equipment fo r refrigeration, air-conditioning and heating).

Ed McInerney USA (Non-A5) Edward J. McInerney, member of the RTOC, retired Ja nuary 1, 2007 from his position as the Chief Engineer for GE Consumer & Industrial Business (GE C&I). Chief Engi neer, GE C&I is a full tim e engineering management position in the GE C&I Business, Technology Division, Office of Chief Engineer , a global business with headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky, U.S.A. GE C&I includes GE’s Home Applian ce, Lighting and Industrial businesses. The Industrial business segment includes th e motors, appliance controls , electrical switchgear,

electrical distribution and controls busin esses. GE C&I has an interest in the topics of the Montreal ProtocolApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 190 because it manufactures and/or markets products which contained and/or used in their manufacture ODSs at the time the Montreal Protocol was defined and ratified; for example, domestic refrigerators, room air conditioners and electronic board assemblies. Mr. McInerney has no proprieta ry 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 organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Mr. McInerne y’s spouse is a housewife who does not work outside the home and has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. In the future, Mr. McInerney plans to work occasionally as a consultant to government and non-gove rnment organisations on matters, which could include

those related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr. McInerney received his BS and MS in chemical engineering and has more than 42 years experience as an engineering techni cal contributor and engineering manager on broad topics, including those directly related to the application and use of ODSs.

Petter Nekså Norway (Non-A5) Petter Nekså, member of the RTOC, is a Senior Research Scientist at SINTEF Energy Research (Energiforskning).

Petter Nekså is a full time researcher at the department of Energy Processe s, with offices located in Trondheim, Norway. Nekså holds an PhD and is the Group Manager of a group concentrating on refrigeration technology. SINTEF Energy Research has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol b ecause SINTEF does contract research within the field of refrigeration, partly with spec ial emphasis to alternatives to fluorocarbon refrigerants. Petter Nekså is co-inventor to some patents, thus has propr ietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alte rnatives or substitutes to ODSs, does consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Petter Nekså’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Petter Nekså works frequently as a consul tant to companies, etc. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol.

Hezekiah B. Okeyo Kenya (A5) Hezekiah B. Okeyo, Assistant Director of Industries, is a fu ll time employee of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Government of the Republic of Kenya. His offices are located on the 22 nd floor of Telposta Towers along Kenyatta Avenue in the City of Nairobi. Mr Okeyo has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Chemistry from the University of Nairobi, Kenya (1989) and Masters of Environmental Science and Techno logy from UNESCO-IHE Delft, The Netherlands. At the Ministry of Trade and Industry, wh ere he has works since 1990 he is responsible undertaking environmental audits, analysis, assessment, monitori ng and evaluation of environmental impacts of industrial production technologies and systems. He also gives recommendations for policy fo rmulation; and advisory

services to industries to enable th em establish programs a nd strategies for pollution prevention, energy conservation and efficiency, and wa ste minimization through clean produc tion technologies. He has been a member of The Ministry of Trade and Industry has an intere st in the Montreal Protocol because of its mandate of promoting commerce, trade, industry a nd investment. The ozone de pleting substances are us ed in the industrial and commercial sectors as refrigerants, fi re extinguishers, foam blowing agents , aerosol propellants, and solvents. Mr Okeyo has been a member of the Kenya National Sub-Committee on ODS (NACODs) co-ordinated by the National Ozone Unit/Kenya Ozone Office for ten years and has served in the RTOC since 1996. He has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not own stock in companies producing or consuming ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. He does not consult for organisations seeking to phase-out ODSs. He has undertaken the following consultancies for th e Multilateral Fund of the Protocol for the phase-out of ODS in Kenya.

Andy Pearson UK (Non-A5) Dr Andy Pearson, member of the RTOC, is a director of Star Refrigeration Ltd. Dr Pearson is a full time Managing Director at the head office of Star Refrigeration in Glasgow, UK. Star Refrigeration has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it provides design and construction services to the industrial refrigeration market in the United Kingdom. Dr Pearson has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companie s producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr Pearson’s wife has no interest in matters related to the

Protocol. Dr Pearson is chairman of the Technical Comm ittee of the Institute of Refrigeration and is a member of

the board of directors of the Internatio nal Institute of A mmonia Refrigeration.

Per H. Pedersen Denmark (Non-A5) Per Henrik Pedersen, member of the RTOC, is a senior cons ultant at the Danish Technol ogical Institute (DTI). Per Henrik Pedersen is a full time project manager at th e DTI in Taastrup outside Copenhagen. The DTI has an interest in the topics of the Montr eal Protocol because it is helping gove rnments and industry to phase out ODS. Per Henrik Pedersen has no proprietary interest in al ternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Per Henrik Pedersen works frequently as a consultant to Governments and companies on matters

related to the Montreal Protocol.

Roberto de Aguiar Peixoto Brazil (A5) Prof. Dr. Roberto de Aguiar Peixoto, member of the RT OC, is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the Instituto Maua de Tecnologia – IMT (M aua Institute of Technology). Roberto de Aguiar Peixoto is a full time professor at the IMT campus in Sao Caetano do Sul, SP, Brazil. The IMT has an interest in the topics of the

Montreal Protocol becau se it has undergraduate and gra duate courses and research act ivities on refrigeration and air conditioning technologies, thermal sciences and energy and environmen t areas. Roberto de Aguiar Peixoto hasApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 191 no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consulting fo r organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Roberto’s spouse has no interest in matters relate d to the Protocol. Roberto de Agui ar Peixoto works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP, and UNDP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Roberto A. Peixoto received a

Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in Naval E ngineering from the University of Sao Paulo and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and Thermal Sciences from the Univer sity of Sao Paulo, Brazil. He is presently Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Maua Technological Institute (SP- Brazil), wh ere he is teaching and co-ordinating studies and research in energy and environment ar ea, and consultant to in ternational institutions.

Frédérique Sauer France (Non-A5) Frédérique Sauer, member of the RTOC, is a Mark eting and Communication Manager at the Balas Group. Frédérique Sauer is a full time responsible for Mark eting and Communication at th e BALAS office in St-Ouen (Paris area). The Balas Group has an interest in the topi cs of the Montreal Protocol because it installs and services Refrigeration systems, Heat Pumps and AC sy stems. Frédérique Sauer ha s no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not do consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Frédérique Sauer’s relatives have

no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Frédéri que Sauer works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP and AFCE (Alliance Froid Climatisation Environnement) on matters related to the Montreal Protocol.

Adam M. Sebbit Uganda (A5) Dr. Adam M Sebbit, member of the RTOC, is a Senior Le cturer at the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Makerere University. Dr. Adam M Sebbit is a full time lect urer at the Department of Mechanical Engineering, at the main campus, Kampala, Uganda. The Makerere University has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it trains students and carry our res earch in refrigeration and air conditioning, which use chemical that has effect on ozone layer. Dr. Sebbit has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or altern atives or substitutes to OD Ss, does not consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr Sebbit’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. She works as an account clerk in Kibuli Secondary School in Kampala.

Jongmin Shin Rep. of Korea (A5) Dr. Jongmin Shin, a member of the RTOC, is a Vice President at the Digital Appliance Company of LG Electronics. Dr. Jongmin Shin is a full time Refr igeration R&D manager at the Refrigerator Group, DAC Laboratory, LG Electronics, 391-2, Changwon, Kyoungnam, Korea. The Digital Appliance Company of LG Electronics has an interest in the topi cs of the Montreal Protocol because it produces refrigera tors, air-conditioners, and compressors, which use refrigerants. Dr. Jongmin Shin ha s no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or al ternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr. Jongmin Shin’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Dr. Jongmin Shin works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matters related to the Montreal

Protocol.

Arnon Simakulthorn Thailand (A5) Mr. Arnon Simakulthorn, member of the RTOC, is an Ex ecutive Chairman at Thai Compressor Manufacturing Co., Ltd (THACOM). Mr. Arnon Simakulthorn is a full tim e Executive Chairman at factory No. 33/3 Moo 21, Chachoengsao, 24000 Thailand. THACOM Ltd has an interest in the topics of the M ontreal Protocol because THACOM cares for the environment and expects to have gr een environment products fo r its new generation. Mr. Arnon Simakulthorn has no proprietary interest in altern atives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Mr. Simakulthorn' s pa rtner has no interest in matters that are related to the Protocol. Mr. Arnon Simakulthorn occasionally works as a c onsultant to Government on matters related to the M ontreal Protocol.

Aryadi Suwono Indonesia (A5) Aryadi Suwono, DSc. Ir., is a Professor of Mechanical En gineering at the Bandung Institute of Technology. Prof. Aryadi Suwono is a full time professo r and Head of Energy Conversion Divi sion at the Faculty of Industrial Technology at the Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia. The Bandung Institute of Technology has interest in the topic of Montreal Protocol because was asked to assist the Indonesian Government via the State Ministry of Environment after ratification of the Protoc ol. Prof Aryadi Suwono has no proprietary interest on

alternatives or substitute to ODSs, does not own stock in companies pr oducing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, however does consulting fo r organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Prof. Aryadi Suwono works occasionally as consultant to UNEP, Implementing Agencies and Governments and companies on matters related

to the Montreal Protocol.

Peter Tomlein Slovakia (Non-A5) Peter Tomlein, member of the RTOC, is a secretary of Association for RAC, SZ CHKT, university teacher and

member of committee for substitution of ODPs substances in Slovakia and responsible for certification of persons competent to break in to cooling circuits. SZ CHKT has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is responsible for implem enting of the substitutions of ODP and GWP substances. Peter Tomlein has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS orApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 192 alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consult for or ganisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Peter Tomlein’s spouse/partner has no interest in matters related to the Pr otocol. Peter Tomlein works occasionally as a consultant for Implementing Agencies, governments, companies, etc. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol.

Vassily N. Tselikov Russian Fed. (Non-A5) Vassily N. Tselikov, a member of the Refrigeration, Air-conditioning, and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee (RTOC) since 1997, is Ge neral Director of the Investment Centre of ODS Consumption and Production Phase-out Projects (ICP “Ozone”). ICP “Ozone” is a non-profit organisation. At present time he is a

short-term consultant to the Worl d Bank and Gazprom Export Company. In 1995 – 2004 he acted as a Project Manager for the projects “Russian Federation. GEF ODS Consumption Phase-out Project” # TF 028314-RU and “Russian Federation. Special In itiative for ODS Production Closur e” # TF 020131-RU. As a Project Implementation Unit (PIU) for the above mentioned Worl d Bank’s projects in the Russian Federation, ICP “Ozone” has dealt with the topics of the Montreal Protocol and in this capacity provided preparation of national plans, analytical and national reports in the field of ozone layer protection and environmental safety as delegated by the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation (MNR of Russia). Vassily has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. He is frequently e ngaged as consultant to MNR of Russia, the Russian Space Agency and its

entities on matters related to the M ontreal Protocol. Also he provides consulting support for Russian companies seeking to phase-out ODSs in metere d dose inhalers production. His spous e/partner/significant other has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Vassily N. Tselikov is a Laureate of the Prize of the Government of the Russian Federation in the field of science and technolog y (2002) and holds the title “Honorary specialist on nature protection of Russia” (2005). He has more than 30 publicat ions and 1 certificate of invention in the field of environment protection. From 1998 to 1999 he was President of the Bureau of the Vienna Convention and

President of the Bureau of the Montreal Protocol. Fr om 1999 to 2000 he was a Deputy Chairman of the InterAgency Commission for the Ozone Layer Protection (Russian Federation). Since April 2004 he is a full member of the International Academy of Refrigeration.

Pham Van Tho Viet Nam (A5) Dr. Pham Van Tho, member of the RTOC, is a Deputy Ge neral of Department of Sc ience and Technology at the Ministry of Fisheries, Vietnam. Tho is a full time offici al at the Ministry of Fisheries at Hanoi, Vietnam. The Ministry of Fisheries has an interest in the topics of th e Montreal Protocol because th ere have been more than 400 exported seafood processing factorie s which use many technical equipm ents producing ODSs, therefore the Ministry of Fisheries have the demand to upgrade knowledge and experience on how to avoid the bad impact of ODSs on environment. Tho has no proprietary interest in al ternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Tho's spouse/partner has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Tho works frequently as a consultant to UN, UNEP, Implementing Agencies, Governments and companies on matters related to the Montreal

Protocol.

Paulo Vodianitskaia Brazil (A5) Paulo Vodianitskaia is the EHS Advisor for Whirlpool S.A. Paulo Vodianitskaia is a full time executive at the office located in Joinville, Braz il. Whirlpool S.A. has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because is a leading appliance manufacturer. Paulo Vodianitskaia has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companie s producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not do consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Paulo Vodianitskaia’s spouse has no interest in matters

related to the Protocol. Paulo Vodian itskaia does not work as a consultant on matters related to the Montreal

Protocol.

William F. Walter USA (Non-A5) William F. Walter, member of the RTOC, is the Manager, I ndustry Relations at Carrier Corporation. William F. Walter is a full time manager with Carri er’s Government and International Relations office in Syracuse, NY, USA. Carrier Corporation has an interest in the topics of th e Montreal Protocol because it manufacturers heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. William F. Walter has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies produ cing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consult for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Willia m F. Walter’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. William F. Walter has a B.S. and M.S. in Chemistry from the State University of New York and an MBA from Syracuse University. He has worked for Carrier Corporation since 1980.

Jianjun Zhang China (A5) Jianjun Zhang, member of the RTOC, is a vice chief e ngineer at the Zhejiang Lan tian Environmental Protection Hi-tech. Co., Ltd. Jianjun Zhang is a full time manage r of R&D department at Zh ejiang Lantian Environmental Protection Hi-tech. Co., Ltd, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. Zhejiang Lantia n Environmental Protection Hi-tech. Co., Ltd has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Pr otocol because the company is a main manufacture of ODS alternatives in China. Jianjun Zhang has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or s ubstitutes to ODSs, does not consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Jianjun Zhang’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Jianjun Zhang works occasionally as a consulta nt to MLF and Chinese governments on matters related to the MontrealApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 193 Protocol. Jianjun Zhang has engaged on research and development of ODS alte rnatives for more than seventeen years. Jianjun Zhang received a ma ster degree in 1991 and is now a pr ofessorial engineer in Chemical engineering. Jianjun Zhang had also experience studying and working in Hokkaido University, Japan and the Technology University of Delft, The Netherlands.

Attila Zoltan Hungary (Non-A5) Mr. Attila Zoltan, member of the RTOC, is a Secretary General of the Hungarian Refrigeration and Airconditioning Association (HRACA) since more than two years. Mr. Attila Zoltan is now a full time Secretary General at the HRACA Central Office, Budapest, Hungary, earlier he has been the President of the HRACA for 9 years. The HRACA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because as the unique trade organisation in Hungary for refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump field since 1993 –as a partner of the Hungarian Ministry of Environment– one of it’s main tasks to ensure , to spread the “good practice”, the closed circuit service technology to handle and phase out ODSs (and newl y the fluorine based GHGs too) through its member companies and certified personnel. HRACA is a member of the Air-conditioning and Refrigeration European Association (AREA) in order to gain the knowledge to fulfil its aims on the highest level. Mr. Attila Zoltan has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, but does consulting fo r organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Mr. Attila Zoltan’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol.



## AIII.6a Disclosure of Interest Declarations MBTOC - Soils

Marten Barel Netherlands (Non-A5) Mr. Marten Barel, a member of MBTOC since 2002, is a cons ultant. He has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in compan ies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Since 1999 he has worked as a consultant and trainer in MLF methyl bromide projects for GTZ, UNDP and UNIDO. For more than 30 years he has provided grow ers, fumigators and companies with specialist technical advice and training in methods of controlling soilborne pe sts and soil pasteurisation/ disinfestation techniques in nurseries and horticultural crop production. For 40 years (until 1999) he owned a fumi gation / soil disinfestation company that used methyl bromide until it was phased-out in the early 1980s, and then developed alternatives to methyl bromide e.g. negative pressure steaming techniques. His social pa rtner and children do not work for organisations which have an interest in the topics of th e Montreal Protocol, and have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not own st ock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is currently funded by the Ministry of VROM in the

Netherlands.

Antonio Bello Spain (Non-A5)

Dr Antonio Bello Pérez is a full time Research Professor at the Cons ejo Superior de Invest igaciones Cientificas, Madrid, Spain. The institute has an interest in the topi cs of the Montreal Protocol because of the environmental impact of methyl bromide. Dr Bello Pérez has no proprieta ry 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 phase out ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant for UNEP, Implementing Agencies and Governments, on matters re lated to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by his institution, which in turn receives contributi ons for this travel from national projects.

Mohamed Besri (co-chair) Morocco (A5) Prof. Mohamed Besri, is a full time Professor of Plant Pathology and Inte grated Disease Management at the Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Ve terinary Medicine, Raba t, 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 flow ers). It advises the Ministry of Agricu lture on all aspects of alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Dr Besri has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs . Dr Besri works occasionally as a consultant to

UNEP on matters related to the Montr eal Protocol. Neither Dr Besri’s s pouse, business part ner or dependant children living at same home work for or consults 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 substitute s to ODSs or consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Costs associat ed to travel, communication, and others related to participation in the TEAP, MBTOC, and relevant Montreal Protocol me etings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone

Secretariat.

Aocheng Cao China (A5) Prof. Dr. Aocheng Cao is a Research Professor at th e 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 or ganizations 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 MontrealApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 194 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.

Peter Caulkins USA (Non-A5) Dr Peter Caulkins is the Associate Director in the Speci al 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 ha ve 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 MBTO C meetings is paid for by EPA.

Fabio Chaverri Costa Rica (A5) Mr Fabio Chaverri is a professor at the Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica where he works as a full time researcher on pesticide alternatives at the IRET (Central American Research Centre on Toxic Substances). The IRET has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol since its main objective is to implement alternatives for toxic substances with a strong environmental or huma n health impact, such as ODSs. Mr Chaverri 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 consult for or ganizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He occasionally works as a consultant for UNDP and UNEP, governments and companies on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. His spouse does not work for or consult for any or ganization with has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol and has no proprietary interest on alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor does she own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitu tes or consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs . Mr Chaverri’s travel expenses to cover attendance to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.

Ariane Elmas Lebanon (A5) Ms Ariane Elmas was formerly the project manager of a “T rade and Environment” project funded by UNEP, managed by UNDP and implemented by the Ministry of Environment in Lebanon. This project published a report on the effects of trade liberalization in Lebanon with spec ial focus on products where me thyl bromide is used and includes an annual profitability analysis and a cost be nefit analysis comparing the Methyl Bromide alternatives used for each crop. Ms Elmas, is an economist and is currently the Project Manager at the UNDP in Lebanon. The UNDP has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is one of its implementing agencies and as such manages the MB phase out projec t implemented in Lebanon under the c oordination of the Ministry of the Environment. Neither Ms Elmas, nor her spouse or their dependant childre n have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, own stock in companie s producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes or consult for organizations s eeking to phase out ODSs. Expenses related to Ms Elmas’ attendance to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.

Abraham Gamliel Israel (Non-A5)

Dr Abraham Gamliel is a full time se nior researcher on methods and technol ogies for pest control and pesticide application at the Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Re search Organization, Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel .He is also an adjunct professor at the Hebrew Universi ty 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 phase out ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant for the Government, on ma tters related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse nor their children work for or consult fo r organizations having an inte rest 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 subs titutes. Dr Gamliel’s travel expenses to attend MBTOC meetings are paid by the Ministry of Agriculture of Israel.

Saad Hafez USA (Non-A5)

Prof. Dr. Saad L. Hafez is a full Pr ofessor of Nematology at the Universi ty of Idaho, working at the Parma Research and Extension Center. The University of Idaho has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol as it conducts research on methyl bromide alternatives for nemato de control. Dr Hafez 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. Dr. Hafez occasionally works as a consultant for UNDP, UNEP, and UNIDO, Governments, comp anies and others on projects relating to Methyl

Bromide alternatives. Dr . Hafez’s spouse children do not work for or consult for any organization with an interest in the topics of the Montre al Protocol. His spouse and their dependant children have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Costs of travel to enable Dr Hafez to attend MBTOC meetings are paid by the University of Idaho.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 195 George Lazarovits Canada (Non-A5) 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. AAF C has an interest in the topics of the

Montreal Protocol because Canada has a vested interest in eliminatin g ozone- depleting substances such as methyl bromide, which are still bei ng used by Canadian growers and Industries . AAFC, in collaboration with Environment Canada, is charged with overs eeing the phase-out of ozone depleting pr oducts. 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 fo r organizations se eking to phase out ODSs, other than non profit government agencies ch arged 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 alte rnatives 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, a nd occasionally Environment Ca nada, from A Base budgets.

Nahum Marbán-Mendoza Mexico (A5) Dr Nahum Marbán-Mendoza is a full-time professor of Inte grated Pest Management and Plant Nematology at the Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo in the graduate progr amme of crop protection. He has over 25 years experience in the research and development of non-chemical alternatives to control plant parasitic nematodes associated with different crops in Central America and Mexico. Dr Marbán-Mendoza was MBTOC co-chair from 2002 to 2005. He has also assisted implementing agencies of the Montreal Protocol (UNEP, UNIDO) with methyl bromide phase-out programs in Mexico and Guatemala; occasionally he re ceives funds for wages and travel. Neither Dr Marbán nor his spouse or their daughter have ever had proprietary interest or owned stocks in a company producing ODS or their alternativ es or substitutes, nor have they ever consulted for orga nizations seeking to phase out ODSs Costs related to Dr Marbán’s participation in MBTOC activities are paid by UNEP.

Melanie K. Miller Belgium (Non-A5) Dr Melanie Miller, a member of MB TOC since 1993, is a consultant on methyl bromide and alternative technologies. She has no proprietary interest in altern atives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives. She has aut hored a large number of pape rs and publications about methyl bromide alternatives for UNEP and other government bodies. She is a reviewer of project proposals for MLF and GEF methyl bromide projects, a nd has provided technical a ssistance to many methyl bromide projects in Article 5 countries. She was a sector expert in the World Bank’s Ozone Operations Review Group (OORG) from 1999, member/adviser of the TEAP Economic Options Committee (EOC) Task Force on Methyl Bromide in 1996- 1998, and analysed data for the TEAP Task Force repor ts on MLF replenishment in 2002 and 2005. Her spouse is an international expert on technical and legal aspects of the Montreal Protocol and currently works as a consultant. Her spouse has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives. The cost of travel to MBTOC meetings is paid from her own personal funds and sometimes by UNEP, at least in part.

Andrea Minuto Italy (Non-A5)

Dr Andrea Minuto is a full time assist ant professor at the University of Torino (c/o Agroinnova) in Italy. Agroinnova has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of the research conducted on soilborne pest and disease management. Dr Minuto has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. He does consulting (as Agroinnova) for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs and also works occasional ly as a consultant for Implementing Agencies and G overnments on matters related to the Mont real Protocol. His spouse does not work or consul for organizations which have an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protoc ol or organizations seeking phase-out of ODS, nor does she have any proprietary intere st in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, or own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Travel to MBTO C meetings is paid by Agroinnova, which receives contributions from the Ital ian Ministry of Environment, Territory and Sea.

Kazufumi Nishi Japan (Non-A5)

Dr Kazufumi Nishi is a Chief Researcher at the National Institute of Vegetable and Te a Science of Japan (NIVTS). He conducts research on plant disease control techniques, particularly ph ysical control methods. Dr. Nishi 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 phase out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by the International Department at MAFF.

Marta Pizano (co-chair) Colombia (A5)

Ms Marta Pizano is a consultant on me thyl bromide alternatives, particular ly for cut flower production, and has actively promoted methyl brom ide alternatives among growers in many c ountries. She is a regu lar consultant forApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 196 the Montreal Protocol Multilatera l Fund (MLF) and its impl ementing agencies. In this capacity, she has contributed to the methyl bromide phase-out programs in nearly twenty Article 5 countries around the world, assisting growers with the adoption of sustainable alternatives and the implementa tion of IPM programs. She is a frequent speaker at nati onal and international methyl bromide conferen ces 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. Neither Ms Pizano nor her husband or their children ow n stock or have proprietary interest in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Costs a ssociated to travel, communication, and others related to participation in the TEAP, MBTOC, and relevant Montreal Protocol me etings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone

Secretariat.

Ian Porter (co-chair) Australia (Non-A5)

Dr Ian Porter is the Statewide Leader of Plant Pathol ogy with the Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI). DPI has an interest in developi ng sustainable control measures for plan t pathogens and biosecurity. He is a member of a number of National Committees regulating ODS, has led the Australian research program on methyl

bromide alternatives for soils and has 26 years experience in researching su stainable methods for soil disinfestation of plant pathogens with over 200 rese arch publications. He has been a me mber of MBTOC since 1997, Soils sub

committee chair since 2001 and MBTOC Co -chair since 2005. Neither Dr Ian Porter, wife or children have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr Porter is presently assisting national research agencies in Australia develop national priorities for IPM and soil health. He has acted occasionally as a key cons ultant for UNEP and UNIDO in developing programmes to assist China, Mexico and CEIT countries to re place methyl bromide. The Victorian DPI has in the past made in-kind contri butions to attend MBTOC and UNEP me etings, but provides no support at present. In 2007, Dr Porter funds his own participation. The Australian Federal Government Research Fund and funds obtained through the Ozone Secretariat have provide d support to finance travel and expenses for MBTOC

activities.

James D. Schaub USA (Non-A5) Dr. James D. Schaub is an economist and Director of the Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-benefit Analysis, Office of the Chief Economist, United St ates Department of Agriculture (US DA). 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 in terests in alternatives or substitute ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or s ubstitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He does not work as a c onsultant to any organizati on 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 M ontreal Protocol, nor do any of them have any proprietary

interest in alternatives or substitu tes to ODSs, nor do any of them own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by Office of the Chief Economist, USDA.

Sally Schneider USA (Non-A5) 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 becau se 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 phase out ODSs. Dr. Schneider does not work, occasionally or otherwise, as a consulta nt to UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, Governments, companies, etc. on ma tters related to the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Schneider does not have a spouse, business partner, social partner, or dependant childre n living in same hom e. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by United States Department of Agriculture.

Dr. J.L. (Stappies) Staphorst South Africa (A5) Dr. J.L. (Stappies) Staphorst is a soil microbiologist at the Plant Protection Re search Institute of the Agricultural

Research Council of South Africa. Dr St aphorst is a full time senior resear cher, advisor and mentor in the Plant Pathology and Microbiology Di vision of the Institute in Pretoria, Sout h 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 Departme nt of Agriculture on all aspects of plant diseases, pests and pesticides. Dr Staphorst has no proprietary in terest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies produ cing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does no consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr Staphorst works occasionally as a consultant

to UNEP on matters related to the Mont real Protocol. His spouse has no proprie tary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies produ cing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does no consulting for organizations s eeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP with logistical support from the Plan t Protection Research Institute.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 197 Akio Tateya Japan (Non-A5) Mr. Akio Tateya is a Technical Advi ser at Syngenta Japan K.K. a pesticide producing company, which does not produce substitutes to methyl bromide. He also a t echnical adviser for the Ja pan Fumigation Technology Association, a non-profit body that is financially supporte d 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 advi ser of the Japan Fumigation Te chnology Association, for which he is not paid. He is also a member of the Ja panese delegation attending th e Meeting of the Parties and Open-ended Working Groups, acting as te chnical adviser on matters relate d 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 alternativ es or substitutes to ODS, nor does he own any stocks in companies producing either ODS or their alternatives or substitutes and does not work for any organization seeking to phase out ODS. His spouse and children do not work for organizations with an interest in the Montreal Protocol. Travel expenses to enable attendance to MBTO C meetings and other meetings related to the Montreal Protocol are paid by the Japan Fumigation Technology Association. He receives no funding from the Japanese

Government.

Alejandro Valeiro Argentina (A5) Mr Alejandro Valeiro is the National Coordinator of the PROZONO Project (MLF/UNDP project ARG/02/G61) at the National Institute for Agricultu ral Technology (INTA) of Argentina, based at the Famaillá INTA ́s Experimental Station in Tucumán Provinc e, Argentina. The INTA has an inte rest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is the national counterpart for im plementing MLF methyl bromid e 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 th eir alternatives or substitutes and does not perform permanent consulting for organizations se eking to phase out 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.

Nick Vink South Africa (A5) Prof. Dr. Nick Vink is Chair of the Department of Agricu ltural Economics at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. He is a full time Professor at the University of St ellenbosch. 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 s ubstitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He does not work as a c onsultant to any organisatio n on matters related to the

Montreal Protocol. Neither hi s spouse or dependant children work for or consult for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montr eal Protocol, nor do they have any propr ietary 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.

James Wells USA (Non-A5)

Mr. James Wells is the President of Environmental Solu tions Group, LLC (ESG), a regulatory consulting firm in Sacramento, California. He was invited to join MBTOC in 1993 primaril y because of his experience in pesticide regulatory programs, espe cially with methyl bromide and methyl bromid e 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. Dr. Wells has no propr ietary 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 s eeking to phase out ODSs. However, ES G consults with several agricultural organizations seeking Critical Use Exem ptions for the use of methyl bromid e. 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 Ce nters (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, whic h 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 wi th organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by ESG.



## AIII.6b Disclosure of Interest Declarations MBTOC - QSC

Jonathan Banks, Australia (Non-A5) Dr. Jonathan Banks, Chair of TEAP’s QPS Task Force, is a private consultant. He was a member of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and from 1993 to 1998 and 2001 to 2005 co-chaired the Methyl Bromide TOC. He

worked as a Research Scientist w ith the Australian Commonwealth Sc ientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) from1972 to 1999 on grain storag e technologies, including use of improved use of fumigants. He is co-inventor of carbonyl sulfide, an alte rnative fumigant to methyl bromide in some applications. Patent rights have been assigned to hi s employer, CSIRO. Dr Banks has no propr ietary interest in alternatives orApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 198 substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies produ cing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. He has stock in Brambles Ltd, a company that inter alia leas es wooden pallets for freight. The pallets may or may not be treated with methyl bromide or al ternatives. His spouse is co-owner of their commercial organic apple orchard. She has no financial interests relating to ozone-depletin g substances. He has served on some national committees concerned with ODS and their control, and within the la st 4 years has received contracts from UNEP, and other institutions and public companies relate d to methyl bromide alternatives and grain storage technology--including training in fumigation (methyl brom ide 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 Depart ment of Environment and Heritage, Australia or from personal contributions.

Chris Bell UK (Non-A5) Dr. Christopher Hugh Bell, is a Fellow at the Central Science Laboratory (C SL), Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, at York, UK, where he led research into fumiga tion technology, including studies on methyl bromide and potential altern atives which were sponsored by UK government agencies and private companies, until his retirement in 2004. He is also a Regional Editor for th e Journal of Stored Products Research for Europe and Africa, an Elsevier journal publishing or iginal 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 o ccasionally 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 be en paid by the UK Department of Envi ronment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), or by UNEP.

Fred Bergweff Netherlands (Non-A5) Mr Fred Bergwerff is the General Manager for ECO2 B. V., a company that provide s disinfestation services through controlled atmospheres technolog y and equipment, and related consultin g services. He is employed in a full time capacity with responsibilities for joint-venture pa rtnerships, technical assist ance, training and promotion of good practices in the structural, commodity, quaranti ne and port disinfestation industries, particularly specialising in QPS and ISPM-15 treatments. ECO2 does not have a commercial relations hip with any fumigant or pesticide manufacturers/registrants. ECO2 has been involved in research trials on MB al ternatives 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 M ontreal Protocol because of it s expertise in disinfestation and pest control, particularly non-che mical 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 ar e seeking to phase out 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.

Kathy M. Dalip Belize (A5) Dr. Kathy M Dalip is an Entomologist at the Caribbean Agriculture Research and Development Institute (CARDI), which has headquarters in Trinidad an d offices in twelve member countries. Kathy works full-time at the CARDI Belize Unit, Central Farm, Western Highway, Cayo Dist rict, Belize, Central Amer ica. 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 ar eas of integrated pest ma nagement (IPM) and organic agriculture. Hence, her emphasis is on finding non-chemical pest contro l 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 phase out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by for by the Ozone Secretariat of

UNEP.

Ricardo T Deang Philippines (A5) Dr Ricardo Deang is a retired Deputy Administrator for Pest icides 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 in terest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because the Philippines is a signatory to the Montreal Protocol an d 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 produc ing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not engage in consulting for organiza tions 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 intere st in the topics of the Montreal Pr otocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 199 Patrick Ducom France (non-A5) Dr. 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

Kenneth Glassey New Zealand (Non-A5) Mr Kenneth Logan Glassey is a Senior Biosecurity Advise r at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). Ken Glassey is a full time adviser on Phytosanitary Treatments and Treatment Operators at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Head Office, Wellington, New Zealand. MAF has an interest in the topics of the

Montreal Protocol becau se quarantine and preshipment treatments uses a significan t amount of methyl bromide (218 tonnes in 2004). Current responsibilities cover resear ching, developing and reviewing New Zealand’s import standards including operational standards such as treat ments for imported commodities. This also involves monitoring quality and adequacy, init iating remedial action as necessary, and the provision of advice on the practical application and impl ications of such standards. Mr Glasse y has been involved in QPS inspection and treatments for 20 years with particul ar expertise with forest produce, an d 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 s ubstitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He does not work as a consul tant to implementing agencies on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr Glassey’s partne r living in same home does not work fo r 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 produ cing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seek ing to phase out ODSs. Travel to TEAP/TOC/TSB meetings is paid by

MAF.

Mr Alfredo T. Gonzalez Philippines (A5) Mr Gonzalez is president of Pestcon Pest Management and General Services, a company with an interest in the

Montreal Protocol becau se it uses methyl bromide in the for Quaran tine and pre-shipment treatments as well as ISPM 15 treatments for wood packaging materials. Mr Gonz alez, has no proprietary inte rest 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 implemen tation of the Methyl Bromide Phase-out program in the Philippines for the Government of his country, under th e Department of Natural Re sources- Philippine 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 relate d to Mr Gonzalez’s attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by UNEP.

Darka Hamel Croatia (A5) Dr. Darka Hamel is an entomologist responsible the pr otection of stored products. Dr Hamel is a full time executive manager at the Institute for Plant Protection in Ag riculture 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 authorised to do so in accordance with the PPI recommendation. Dr. Hamel has no proprietary interest alternatives or subs titutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing

ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr. Hamel works occasionally as a consultant to the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management or the Ministry for Envi ronmental Protection and Ph ysical Planning regardin g legislation on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.

Michelle Marcotte (co-chair) Canada (Non-A5) Ms Michelle Marcotte was a member of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and subs equently 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 radi ation processing equipment which is an alternative to the use of methyl bromide in some commodity and qua rantine situations. Since then, Ms Marcotte, through Marcotte Consulting, has provided c onsulting 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, an d 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 Bromid e Working Group and the Canada-US Methyl Bromide Working Group; both organizations work to achieve phase out of methyl bromid e in the agri-food sector. Marcotte has consulted to companies, industry associations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and US AID on irradiation as a methyl bromide alternative in food processing, quarantine and trade. She has also prepared consulting reports summarising research in methyl brom ide alternatives and case studies on food processing forApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 200 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 al ternatives 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. He does not have proprietary in terest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or s ubstitutes to ODSs. Ms Marc otte receives a consulting

contract from the Government of Cana da, Environment Canada. The funds for Ms Marcotte for travel to TEAP, MBTOC and Montreal Protocol meetings and to support her work on the MBTOC are provided by the Government of Canada, Environment Canada.

Takashi Misumi Japan (Non-A5) Mr. Takashi Misumi, member of MB TOC 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 s ubstitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Neither his spouse nor their child ren work for organizations with has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Expe nses related to the attendance of MBTOC meetings are paid by International department of MAFF.

David M Okioga Kenya (A5) Dr. David Okioga is a founding member of MBTOC, jo ining in 1992. He was MBTOC co-chair between 1997 and 2002. Dr Okioga was the Director, National Plant Quaran tine Services of Kenya fo r 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 Africa n Unity (then Organization of the African Unity), FAO and UNEP. Some of these consulta ncies 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 pha se out in the African region (incl uding methyl bromide). In 1995, Dr. Okioga was appointed Coordinator, of the National Ozon e 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 m eeting the requirements of the Montreal Protocol and in phasing out of ODS in the country. Travel and expenses related to his attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by UNEP.

Jordi Ruidavets Spain (Non-A5)

Dr. Jordi Riudavets is a Researcher at the Institute for Agrifood Research a nd 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) progr ams for stored products and horticultur al crops. The IRTA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Prot ocol because is a state-owned compan y of the Catalan Government, and its

activities are concerned with sc ientific research and technology transfer in the areas of agriculture, 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 s ubstitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out 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.

Christoph Reichmuth Germany (Non-A5) Prof. Dr. Christoph Reichmuth is chem ist and responsible for stored product protection. Dr Re ichmuth is a full

time director of the Institute for Stored Product Prot ection of the Federal Biologi cal 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 Conser vation and Nuclear Safety has a pronounced interest to replace methyl bromide as quickly as possible, due to the strongly expressed political inte rest and public opinion in Germany. Dr Reichmuth has no proprietary intere st, patent for production of phosphine from magnesium phosphide in a generator with the comp any Degesch Detia, Germany, patent for the treatment of stored products and organic materials (wood) with in ert atmospheres with the company Bu se, Germany, pate nt 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 proj ects or parties to replace methyl bromide. Travel to MBTOC meetings or related meetings concerning the phase-out of methyl br omide 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.

John Sansone USA (Non-A5) 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,April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 201 quarantine and port fumigation indus tries. SCC Products has a comme rcial relationship with several fumigant/pesticide manufacturers/registrants, some of wh ich offer products which are c onsidered 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 alternativ es 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 expertis e in many fumigation area s. Mr Sansone has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult fo r organizations seeking to phase out 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 subs titutes to ODSs, or who own stock in companies producing

ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or consult fo r organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by SCC Pr oducts, which receives no contribu tion for this travel from anyone.

Robert Taylor UK (Non-A5) Mr Robert Taylor retired from the Natural Resources In stitute (NRI) of the United Kingdom in 2001. The NRI was a government establishment involved in biological/agricultural research, development and tr aining, primarily in relation to developing countries. In recent years the NR I has become part of the University of Greenwich. Crop protection in both the pre- and post-harvest stages ha s always been a major feature of NRI’s research and development programmes. Pest management, including th e 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 or ganizations seeking to phase out the ch emical. He works occasionally as a consultant to UN agencies including UNIDO and UNEP on ma tters relating to the Montreal Protocol. Mr Taylor has no relatives or business partners who work or consult fo r organizations, which have an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor does he have relatives or business partners having pr oprietary interests in alternatives or substitutes to methyl bromide, or who own stock in comp anies 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 rece ntly by the Department for the Environment Farming and

Rural Affairs and UNEP.

Ken Vick USA (Non-A5) Dr Kenneth W. Vick is a Senior National Program Lead er for methyl bromide alternatives research at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), United States Depa rtment 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 applica tions. ARS has an interest in the topi cs of the Montreal Protocol because it was assigned lead responsibility for developing altern atives 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 st ock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for any organi zation. 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 commodities and in some quarantine situ ation. She has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies pr oducing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr Vick's travel to MBTOC and Montreal Protocol meetings is paid by the USDA Agriculture Research Service.

Chris Watson UK (Non-A5) 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 pres ently 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 cont rol servicing companies in the UK. For the past 20 years he has been involved in working closely with governm ent agencies in the UK to develop safe and efficient fumigation practices and procedures. Igrox Ltd has an intere st in the topics of the M ontreal Protocol because it supplies services and products that are alternatives to meth yl bromide, as well as co ntinuing to provide services using methyl bromide in situations where it is still necessary. Mr Wa tson 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 priv ate 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 wa s subsidised by Igrox Ltd and the Br itish Pest Control Association until 2005. Presently, Mr Watson covers trav el expenses from his own personal f unds with some assistance from the UK Government (DEFRA).April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

## 202 Mr Eduardo Willink Argentina (A5) 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, syst ems 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 th e Montreal Protocol beca use 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 produ cing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for organizations s eeking to phase out ODSs. Neither his spouse or dependant children work for or consult for organizations with an interest in the topics of the M ontreal 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 fo r organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to TOC meetings is paid by UNEP.April 2007 TEAP Progress Report203MBTOC – SUBCOMMITTEE SOILSNames Gender Affiliation Expertise LengthofserviceCountry Article 5statusCo-Chairs1. Mohamed Besri M Institut Agronomique et VétérinaireHassan II (Academia)Researcher, particularly MB alts forvegetables. Pathologist (PhD)B Morocco A52. Marta Pizano F Consultant Consultant, MB alts, particularly cutflower production and IPM.Pathologist (MSc)B Colombia A53. Ian Porter M Department of Primary Industries(Government research)Researcher, soils MB use and alts,particularly fungal pathogens andIPM. Pathologist (PhD)B Australia Non-A5Members4. Marten Barel M ConsultantConsultant, , specialist on soilfumigation, Substrates, Hydroponics,Steaming, Bio-fumigation andSolarizationD Netherlands Non-A55. Antonio Bello M Centro deCiencias Medioambientales(Government research)Non-chemical alternatives.Pathologist. (PhD, Prof.)A Spain Non-A56. Aocheng Cao M Chinese Academy of AgriculturalSciences (Government research)Researcher, soil alternatives,particularly in China (A5) context.Pathologist. (PhD)C China A57. Peter Caulkins M Associate Director, Special Review &Re-registration Division US EPARegistration of alternatives,regulatory issues (PhD)D US Non-A58. Ariane Elmas F Totken Lebanon – consulting Economics and trade D Lebanon A59. Fabio Chaverri M IRET-Universidad Nacional(Academia)Researcher, soil alternatives,including solarisation.Microbiologist.C Costa Rica A510. Abraham Gamliel M Agricultural Research Organization,The Volcani Center, (GovernmentResearch)Alternatives for soils, horticulture.Pathologist (PhD)D Israel Non-A511. Saad Hafez M University of Idaho (Academia) Soils alternatives, nematologist(PhD, Prof.)C US Non-A5April 2007 TEAP Progress Report20412. George Lazarovits M Agriculture & Agri-food Canada(Government research)Researcher, non chemical control ofsoilborne pathogens (PhD)C Canada Non-A513. Nahum MarbánMendozaM Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo(Academia)Researcher, soils alternatives,particularly nematode problems(PhD, Prof.)C Mexico A514. Melanie Miller F Consultant Consultant in MB alternatives useand policy (PhD)A Belgium Non-A515. Andrea Minuto M Agroinnova Universita Torino(Academia)Researcher, MB and alternatives insoils. Pathologist (PhD)D Italy Non-A516. Kazufumi Nishi M Nat Institute of Vegetables and TeaScience (Government research)Nonchemical alts, particularly heatsystems for soils (PhD)D Japan Non-A517. James D. Schaub M United States Department ofAgriculture (Government regulatory)Agricultural economist (PhD) C US Non-A518. Sally Schneider F United States Department ofAgriculture (Government research)Researcher in soils alts, particularlyreplant problems and propagativenursery material . Nematologist.PhD)C US Non-A519. JL Staphorst M Plant Protection Research Institute(Parastatal research)Soil Microbiologist (DSc) B SouthAfricaA520. Akio Tateya M Syngenta Japan K.K.Application of MB and alts,particularly in JapanA Japan Non-A521. Alejandro Valeiro M Instituto Nacional de TecnologíaAgropecuaria (Government research)Introduction/use of soils alts,including tobacco. Agronomist(MSc).C Argentina A522. Nick Vink M University of Stellenbosch(Academia)Agricultural economics (PhD, Prof.) C SouthAfricaA523. Jim Wells M Environmental Solutions Group, LLC(Consultant)Registration and regulatory – MBand alternatives, soil usesA US Non-A5TOTALS 19 M4 F4A4B9C6D14 nonA59 A5A >10 years, B 5-10, C 2-5, D <2 years membershipApril 2007 TEAP Progress Report205MBTOC SUBCOMMITTEE QUARANTINE, STRUCTURES AND COMMODITIES (QSC)Co-Chairs1. Michelle Marcotte F Consultant Consultant, particularly food processing,regulations, structural and commoditytreatments and irradiationA Canada Non-A5Members2. Jonathan Banks(Co-Chair Quarantine TaskForce)M Consultant Consultant, postharvest, particularly nonchemical and gas technologies (fumigants,CA) and QPS uses of MB. Entomologist(Ph. D.)A Australia Non-A53. Chris Bell M Consultant, formerly CentralScience Laboratory(Government research)Postharvest technologies, particularlyfumigants, phosphine; sulfuryl fluoride,controlled atmospheres and heat (Ph.D.)B UK Non-A54. Fred Bergwerff M Eco2, Netherlands Fumigator, specialistin non-MB systems,including heat.D Netherlands Non-A55. Kathy Dalip F CABI Quarantine entomologist (Ph. D.) D Jamaica A56. Ricardo Deang M Consultant Regulatory and registration. Entomologist(Ph. D.)A Philippines A57. Patrick Ducom M Ministère de l’Agriculture(Government research)Postharvest and structural alternatives B France Non-A58. Ken Glassey M MAFF, New ZealandForester, government advisor on MBalternatives in forest productsD New Zealand Non-A59. Eduardo Gonzalez M Fumigator Phosphine, QPS and non-QPS treatments.Structures, commodities.D Philippines A510. Darka Hamel F Institute for Plant Protectionin Agriculture and Forestry(Government)Postharvest and structural treatments,regulationsD Croatia A511. Takashi MisumiM MAFF (Governmentresearch)QPS expert D Japan Non-A512. David Okioga M Ministry of Environment andNatural Resources(Government regulatory)Postharvest and QPS MB alternatives (Ph.D.)A Kenya A513. Christoph ReichmuthM BBAGermany (Governmentresearch)Researcher, MB alternatives inpostharvest/structures (Ph. D.)B Germany A5April 2007 TEAP Progress Report20614. Jordi Riudavets M IRTA-Department of PlantProtection. (GovernmentResearch)IPM for stored products and horticulturalcrops (Ph. D.)D Spain Non-A515. John Sansone M SCC Products (Fumigator) Fumigator, particular expertise in structures A US Non-A516. Robert Taylor M Consultant Postharvest technology, specifically A5 uses A UK Non-A517. Ken Vick M United States Department ofAgriculture (Governmentresearch)Research in MB alternatives, incl. QPS.Entomologist (Ph. D.)A US Non-A518. Chris Watson M IGROX Ltd (Fumigator)Practical use of MB and alternativesincluding the use of phosphine, SulfurylFluoride,CO2 and Heat Treatments forcommodities(inc timber) and structuresA UK Non-A519. Eduardo Willink M Ministry of Agriculture Quarantine entomologist (Ph. D.) D Argentina A5TOTALS M=16F =3A= 8B = 3C = 0D = 8CEIT & A5=7 Non-A5=12A >10 years, B 5-10, C 2-5, D <2 years membership