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
In 1992 the MOP (Copenhagen) established MB as a controlled
ODS. Deadlines for phase-out were agreed separately for
A5 and non-A5 Parties
Non-A5 Parties
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.
– Freeze on production
and use on basis of
average levels for 1995
- 1998
– 20% cut on production
and use according to
1995-98 base line, as of
January 1st 2005.
– Phase-out by January
2015.
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
Controlled uses in Article 5 Parties 2009
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Soils uses 90%, posthavest 10% mostly grain, perishables, some structures.
Total reported consumption for A5 Parties in 2009 was 8,145 tonnes
Source: MBTOC 2010 Assessment Report
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:
–
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
i.
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.
• A high level of toxicity to humans;
• Low cost for fumigation;
• Odourless, difficult to detect;
• Relatively non-corrosive and applied
easily to shipping fumigation facilities,
containers or to bagged, palletised or
bulk commodities ‘under sheets’;
• A significant ODP;
• 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;
• 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/10
2002
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
Africa 475t
application,
providing
a global
useEurope
pattern
Eastern
29t overview, and
(4%)
Latin America
(<1%)
including
potential alternatives for
and Caribbean
772t available information on
(7%)
those uses identified from submitted data
XX/6
2008
Actions by Parties to Requests TEAP to review all relevant, current information on
reduce MB use for
MB uses for QPS and related emissions; to assess trends in
QPS purposes and
the major uses; available alternatives; other mitigation options
Europe
related emissions Westernand
barriers to the adoption of alternatives. An to estimate
and others 2942t
possible replaceable proportion of MB used for QPS
(25%)
XXI/10
2009
QPS uses of MB
Asia 7038t
Requests TEAP to assess (63%)
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
Global production and consumption of MB
for QPS purposes 1999 - 2009
M B (m e tr i c to n n e s )
16000
14000
12000
10000
Production
Consumption
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Production vs. consumption relatively stable at approx
11,000 t per year, with variations, but recentl consumption increase
Controlled vs exempted MB consumption 1999 - 2009
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Source: MBTOC 2010 Assessment Report
Global QPS consumption trends 1999-2009
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.


A5 increases
Non-A5 decreases
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)
M B (m e tr ic to n n e s )
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Source: Ozone Secretariat Access Centre, 2011
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
QPS consumption in A5 Parties
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
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
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
Main categories of MB use for QPS purposes in non A5 Parties
6%
7%
29%
6%
2%
Fruits & veg
Grain
WP M
Wood
Logs
17%
M is c
Soil in s itu
U nalloc ated
3%
30%
QPS uses in A5 Parties
Evaluating the feasibility of alternatives
Parameter
Considerations
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 (ISPM15)
Heat
Many Parties
including A5
Generally acceptable
WPM (ISPM15)
Non-wood
pallets
Some Parties
Acceptable in some countries
WPM (ISPM15)
Alternative
fumigants
None
Not known
Sawn timber
Kiln dried
Most 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 technology
Market
Penetration
Economic feasibility
Phosphine
Acceptable in all
Parties
Acceptable
Controlled atmospheres
Limited mainly to
some non-A5
Parties
Acceptable
Sulfuryl fluoride
Limited mainly to
some non-A5
Parties
Acceptable
Irradiation
Poor
Expensive infrastructure and
logistic difficulties compared
to other alternatives
Examples of alternatives for logs
Principle alternative
technology
Market
Penetration
Economic feasibility
Alternative fumigants
Some Parties including A5
Acceptable
Sawn timber (lumber)
Many Parties including A5
Only where there is
demand for higher value
products without
alternative sources of
supply
Debarking
Some Parties
Acceptable when a
component of an
alternative system
Heat
Some Parties including A5
Only 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 nonauthorized 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 ISPM15 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…
Year
TEAP/MBTOC
Report contained information for
the Parties on ...
Parties
further action
2009
QPS Task Force
Report in
response to
Decision XX/6
(2008)
-
Decision
XXI/10 (2009)
2010
MBTOC-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
2010
MBTOC Ass. Rep
- Chapter 6 provides thorough review of QPS uses
and alternatives. Updates production and
consumption data
2011
?
- Topics to be decided
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 in
2010 deferred
to 31st OEWG
TBD