Methyl Bromide use and emerging applications with implications for international trade Marta Pizano, Consultant MBTOC co-chair TEAP co-chair Meeting of the English Speaking Caribbean Ozone Officers Antigua and Barbuda, March 1-3, 2011

Methyl Bromide under the Montreal Protocol Non-A5 Parties –25% cut on production and consumption by 1st January, 1999 according to 1991 baseline –50% cut on 1at January 2001 –70% cut on 1st January 2003 –Phase-out by 1st January 2005 with provision for CUE. A5 Parties –Freeze on production and use on basis of average levels for –20% cut on production and use according to base line, as of January 1st –Phase-out by January In 1992 the MOP (Copenhagen) established MB as a controlled ODS. Deadlines for phase-out were agreed separately for A5 and non-A5 Parties

Global consumption - controlled uses

A-5 consumption by region - controlled uses Latin America is the only region still using more MB now than in 1991

Soils uses 90%, posthavest 10% mostly grain, perishables, some structures. Total reported consumption for A5 Parties in 2009 was 8,145 tonnes S ource: MBTOC 2010 Assessment Report Controlled uses in Article 5 Parties 2009

Controlled consumption in Latin America 2009 Six countries account for 97% of the regional controlled consumption: Mexico, Guatemala Honduras Argentina Costa Rica and Chile. The main sectors using MB are cucurbits, strawberries and tomatoes. All countries are in compliance with MP obligations. Brazil a large user in the past (>1000 tonnes) now phased out. Cuba, the Dominican Republic and other previous mid to large users have also phased-out. All Caribbean countries are LVC or report zero consumption

Impact of MB phase-out The Montreal Protocol has brought changes in agricultural practices in both developed and developing countries Technically feasible alternatives to MB exist for virtually all previous uses. Combination of practices/ alternatives has been shown as the best way forward - the long term benefits of wide spectrum fumigation are questionable. Implementation of new options for soil pest management may require changes in attitude/ strategies but is not necessarily difficult, and often proves cheaper over time. Technology often comes from developed countries but adaptation and successful adoption have proven possible

Agriculture, particularly horticulture is undergoing significant changes As shipping methods to distant markets improve, production increasingly shifts to the tropics and subtropics. Climate allows for year-round production without wide cost variation, plus labor is available and comparatively cheap. However, challenges are brought by –Lower land availability - land costs more, soil is “tired” or too infested after continuous monoculture!! - Control measures are required –Fewer chemicals are available, particularly MB, but others not registered or undergoing review –Concerns have reached consumers who now demand high quality products grown within an environment-friendly framework. This may include not using MB for soil fumigation

The QPS exemption for MB Article 2H of the Protocol (Copenhagen, 1992) specifically excluded QPS from control measures, since at that time no alternatives to MB for a diverse range of treatments carried out for QPS were available. Although QPS was about 10% of global MB consumption at the time, this was still significant in allowing inter- and intra-country trade in commodities treated with MB in the absence of site-specific alternatives. Parties are nevertheless urged to use alternatives to MB for QPS and to reduce emissions and use of MB whenever possible

Definition- Quarantine a)Quarantine applications, with respect to methyl bromide, are treatments to prevent the introduction, establishment and/or spread of quarantine pests (including diseases), or to ensure their official control, where: – i. Official control is that performed by, or authorized by, a national plant, animal or environmental protection or health authority; – ii.Quarantine pests are pests of potential importance to the areas endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled

Definition - Pre-shipment (b) "Pre-shipment applications" are those treatments applied directly preceding and in relation to export, to meet the phytosanitary or sanitary requirements of the importing country or existing phytosanitary or sanitary requirements of the exporting country;  The definition of 'Pre-shipment' is unique to the Montreal Protocol. (Decisions VII/5 and XI/12). Decision XI/12 declares that pre-shipment applications are "those non-quarantine applications applied within 21 days prior to export to meet the official requirements of the importing country or existing official requirements of the exporting country”.  Official requirements are those, which are “performed by, or authorized by a national plant, animal, environmental, health or stored product authority".

Reasons for using MB for QPS Use of MB for QPS for commodity treatments is mostly associated with international trade where regulations are imposed by the importing country on the exporting country. Some countries prefer to treat products upon arrival (at import) MB is used in response to either pests found during inspection and/or needed for a phytosanitary certificate, which requires the commodity to be free from quarantine pests. The driving force for what treatments are required, allowed or not allowed, are those of the importing country

Examples of QPS treatments Fumigation of cut flowers of fresh produce found to be infested on arrival in the importing country with quarantine pests (quarantine treatment); Fumigation of fruit before export to meet the official phytosanitary requirements of the importing country for mandatory fumigation of an officially-listed quarantine pest (quarantine treatment); Fumigation of grain before export to meet the importing country’s existing import regulations that require fumigation of all export grain consignments (pre-shipment treatment); Fumigation of log exports either prior to shipment or on arrival against official quarantine pests.

Pros and cons of MB as a QPS treatment Rapid speed of treatment. Low cost for fumigation; Relatively non-corrosive and applied easily to shipping fumigation facilities, containers or to bagged, palletised or bulk commodities ‘under sheets’; A long history of recognition by quarantine authorities; Broad registration for use; Good ability to penetrate into the commodity where pests might be located; Rapid release of gas from the commodity after exposure; A high level of toxicity to humans; Odourless, difficult to detect; A significant ODP; Adverse effects on some commodities, i.e. loss of viability, quality reduction, reduced shelf life and taint; Slow desorption from some commodities and at low temperatures, leading to hazardous concentrations of MB in storage and transport; Excessive bromide residues retained in some product.

Key issues regarding MB use for QPS In 2009 QPS consumption was 46% higher than non-QPS consumption. This is the first time that exempted uses exceed controlled uses. QPS has become “the largest unregulated emissive use of all ODS”. Increased use of MB for QPS is offsetting gains made by reductions in controlled uses for soils, structures and commodities. On the basis of use appraisals and currently available technologies to replace MB for QPS, TEAP estimated that about 31% of global consumption of MB for QPS reported in 2008 was immediately replaceable. Some Parties have stopped all uses of MB including QPS (e.g. the EU) and others have announced their intention to stop QPS use in the near future (e.g. Brazil).

Recent QPS Decisions XVI/ Reporting of information relating to QPS uses of MB Requests Parties to submit information on QPS uses of MB. Requires TEAP to report on such data by commodity and application, providing a global use pattern overview, and including available information on potential alternatives for those uses identified from submitted data XX/ Actions by Parties to reduce MB use for QPS purposes and related emissions Requests TEAP to review all relevant, current information on MB uses for QPS and related emissions; to assess trends in the major uses; available alternatives; other mitigation options and barriers to the adoption of alternatives. An to estimate possible replaceable proportion of MB used for QPS XXI/ QPS uses of MBRequests TEAP to assess technical and economic feasibility of alternatives for sawn timber and WPM (ISPM 15); grains and similar foodstuffs; pre-plant soil use; logs. Current availability and market penetration rate; regulatory requirements for the implementation of alternatives; update estimated replaceable quantities of MB used for QPS purposes for A5 and non-A5 parties; and describe of a draft methodology for assessing the technical and economical feasibility of alternatives, the impact of their implementation and the impacts of restricting the quantities of MB produced and consumed for QPS.

Global production and consumption of MB for QPS purposes Production vs. consumption relatively stable at approx 11,000 t per year, with variations, but recentl consumption increase

Controlled vs exempted MB consumption Source: MBTOC 2010 Assessment Report

A5 increases Non-A5 decreases Global QPS consumption trends Ozone Secretariat Data Centre October 2010

QPS consumption per region

QPS consumption Latin America Consumption is increasing in some countries (Mexico, El Salvador, Uruguay, Nicaragua) and decreasing in others (Brazil, Chile), but overall consumption is rising Only three countries in the sub-region report QPS consumption (Jamaica, Trinidad and Barbados, all under 2t) Source: Ozone Secretariat Access Centre, 2011

Nine A5 Parties accounted for 89% of the total A5 QPS consumption in 2009.China consumption variable, trending upwards and significantly larger than other A5 Parties QPS consumption in A5 Parties Ozone Secretariat Data Centre May 2010

Main QPS uses In response to Dec XX/6 TEAP determined that four uses consumed more than 70% by weight of the methyl bromide used for QPS in 2008: 1) Sawn timber and wood packaging material (ISPM-15) 2) Grains and similar foodstuffs 3) Pre-plant soils use and 4) Logs. On the basis of these estimates, TEAP calculated that 31 to 47% of MB consumed for QPS in these four categories were replaceable globally with immediately available technologies. This represents about 31% of total global use.

QS uses in non-A5 Parties

QPS uses in A5 Parties

Evaluating the feasibility of alternatives ParameterConsiderations Technical feasibility of alternative Supported by data and research Logistically feasible Does not reduce marketability of treated product Does not have adverse effects on environment, off-target organisms, animal or human health (or these can be adequately addressed) Economic feasibility Net returns determined relative to MB Can be implemented without market disruption Other issues Regulatory barriers to adoption of alternatives International approval (ie IPPC recognizes heat for ISPM-15) Likely times for negotiating bilateral agreements Domestic infrastructure and legislation that might enhance or reduce prospects for alternatives. Experience from countries that have phased out Methods to reduce emissions of MB Options more readily available to reduce MB use (best practices, dosage rates, frequency of fumigation)

Examples and feasibility of alternatives for sawn timber and wood packaging material (ISPM-15) QPS category Principle alternative technology Market Penetration Economic feasibility WPM (ISPM- 15) HeatMany Parties including A5 Generally acceptable WPM (ISPM- 15) Non-wood pallets Some PartiesAcceptable in some countries WPM (ISPM- 15) Alternative fumigants NoneNot known Sawn timberKiln driedMost Parties including A5 Acceptable, but some countries prefer green timber e.g., low grade construction wood Source: TEAP Report, May 2010

Examples of alternatives for grains and similar foodstuffs (pre-shipment) Principle alternative technologyMarket Penetration Economic feasibility PhosphineAcceptable in all Parties Acceptable Controlled atmospheresLimited mainly to some non-A5 Parties Acceptable Sulfuryl fluorideLimited mainly to some non-A5 Parties Acceptable IrradiationPoorExpensive infrastructure and logistic difficulties compared to other alternatives

Examples of alternatives for logs Principle alternative technology Market Penetration Economic feasibility Alternative fumigantsSome Parties including A5Acceptable Sawn timber (lumber)Many Parties including A5Only where there is demand for higher value products without alternative sources of supply DebarkingSome PartiesAcceptable when a component of an alternative system HeatSome Parties including A5Only for high-grade logs

Tracking QPS use It is often difficult to track the actual use of MB after import There is always a risk for QPS MB to end in a non- authorized controlled use. Tracking systems are in place in many countries. QPS treatment performed under official control Some countries have registered different formulations for QPS (100% MB) and controlled uses (98:2, 67:33, 50:50)

WTO and MB use WTO rules do not allow a country to require MB where another treatment gives adequate phytosanitary protection. Countries have the right to adopt measures for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health provided that the measures are applied only to the extent necessary, based on scientific principles and risk assessment. Members may adopt measures that give a higher level of protection than international standards if there is scientific justification or as a result of rigorous risk assessments Measures must be applied consistently across all their trading partners and even within their own territory. Parties to the WTO agree to recognize and accept treatments which shown to meet the required level of quarantine security. Countries may also choose to apply any available treatment that is approved.

EU quarantine legislation allows many non-MB alternatives

Example of activities: ISPM-15 in the EU In 2002/3 TEAP and USDA highlighted risk of large increase in MB use due to ISPM-15 Several EU companies set up facilities for heat treatments, NL provided seed funding The European Commission distributed paper about ISPM- 15 alternatives, held discussions with wood pallet industry. Wood pallet industry agreed to reduce MB Presently >1,800 registered heat treatment facilities Many suppliers of pallets that do not need MB or heat treatment: plastic pallets, cardboard, other materials

Past and future work on QPS… YearTEAP/MBTOCReport contained information for the Parties on... Parties further action 2009QPS Task Force Report in response to Decision XX/6 (2008) -Quantities of MB used per category -Alternatives; Recovery and recycling -Regulations that affect MB-QPS -Barriers to alternatives -Opportunities for reduction -Unusual uses of MB-QPS -Where more information is needed Decision XXI/10 (2009) 2010MBTOC-QPS Report in response to Decision XXI/10 (2009) -Technical and economical feasibility, availability and market penetration of alternatives in four major categories -R&D on alternatives -Estimate of MB replaceable globally for the 4 categories (by A5/non-A5; by Q/PS) -Methods that could be used to assess the impact of a restriction on MB-QPS Decision in 2010 deferred to 31st OEWG 2010MBTOC Ass. Rep-Chapter 6 provides thorough review of QPS uses and alternatives. Updates production and consumption data 2011 ?-Topics to be decidedTBD