THE CURRENT STATUS OF METHYL BROMIDE
IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
Dr Tom Batchelor and Ms Dörthe Ohm
European Commission - DG Environment
1160 Brussels
BELGIUM
Tom.Batchelor@cec.eu.int; Doerthe.OHM@cec.eu.int
SUMMARY
On 1 January 2001, farmers within the European Community will have available for pest and disease control in agricultural crops only 40% of the methyl bromide (MB) that was available in 1991, based on compliance with the draft
New Ozone Regulation that introduces stricter control measures than those under the Montreal Protocol. A European
Commission survey conducted in 1999 showed that MB was on average about 38% more expensive in 1998 compared to retail costs in 1991. The resultant reduction in MB availability is likely to further increase the price of MB and promote the development and implementation of cost-effective alternatives. Almost 70% of the use of MB in the EC is on just three crops – tomatoes (37%), strawberries (21%) and cucurbits, e.g. melons, cucumbers (11%). The southern
Member States of Italy, Spain, France, Greece and Portugal purchased about 12,500 tonnes, equivalent to 96% of the
MB purchased in the EC in 1998. Alternatives to MB are already in use in the EC. Successful implementation of further alternatives will depend on early identification of those most suitable, targeting crops where significant volumes of MB are used, combining alternatives in an Integrated Pest Management strategy, and having well-coordinated and trained advisory services.
INTRODUCTION
This paper reports on measures in place under the Montreal Protocol and in European regulations on ozone layer protection that will severely restrict the use of methyl bromide (MB), a chemical used to control pests and disease on food crops, in the European Community (EC). It also reports on price increases in various countries, primarily due to restrictions in MB availability, and how these are likely to create favourable market conditions for the further development of cost-effective alternatives. This paper focuses particularly on the southern Mediterranean countries of
Italy and Spain as this is where many of the crops that use MB are grown. Although alternatives are already in place in many countries in Europe, these are not specifically discussed here as they are extensively reported in papers that follow. Finally, we outline the availability of funds in the EC for research and for the implementation of alternatives.
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT AND EUROPEAN COMMUNITY REGULATION
Under the Montreal Protocol, developed countries have agreed to controls on MB that include a freeze in 1995 (based on their 1991 consumption), 25% reduction in 1998, 50% reduction in 2001, 70% reduction in 2003 and complete phase out of all uses except those for quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) by 1 January 2005.
Developing countries have agreed to controls beginning with a freeze in 2002 (based on 1995-1998 average consumption), a review of controls in 2003, a 20% reduction in 2005 and to phase out in 2015, with exemptions for
QPS. Growers in developing countries may agree to an earlier phase out date provided implementation of alternatives is successful. An earlier phase out date would avoid a potential boycott of MB-treated crops by importers in developed countries and create equivalent production costs and hence marketing opportunities for both developed and developing countries.
The new European Community Ozone Regulation calls for, inter alia , slightly faster reductions than those agreed under the Montreal Protocol but the same phase out date for non-QPS uses of MB. There are also controls proposed for QPS, including a freeze on QPS consumption based on 1996-1998 average, mandatory reporting of the volumes of MB used for QPS, and Member States being required to report annually on efforts being undertaken to develop non-MB alternatives for QPS. In addition, MB cannot be sold in the European Community after 31 December 2004 unless technically and economically viable alternatives are unavailable or there is a request from a competent authority to apply not more than 20 tonnes of MB in a 120 day period to control a pest and disease outbreak.
GLOBAL METHYL BROMIDE CONSUMPTION
Based on official data and excluding about 4% of the global MB consumed as industrial feedstock, the 1996 global consumption of MB (including that used for QPS) was estimated as 66,750 tonnes (MBTOC 1998). Approximately
76% of the MB was used for treating soil, 15% for fumigating durable commodities and structures, and 9% for fumigating perishable commodities. In 1998, Israel and the USA produced about 80% of the MB used in agriculture.
METHYL BROMIDE CONSUMPTION IN THE EC
In 1998, approximately 13,619 tonnes of MB were were sold within the EC, based on data reported by importers to the
European Commission (Table 1) (European Commission 1999). Most of the sales were in Italy and Spain due to its use on crops grown in this region.
Based on sales information reported to the European Commission, the Member States most dependent on the use of MB are Italy and Spain which, in 1998, accounted for about 82% of all non-QPS consumption (Table 1). In contrast France,
Greece, UK, Portugal, Belgium, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands purchased about 18% of the MB in the EC and their consumption was considered ‘Not Dependent’ on MB. There were no reported sales of MB in Denmark. Some representatives in agricultural Ministries from the Mediterranean Member States report higher consumption figures for
MB than sales data reported to the Commission.

Table 1: Sales of controlled uses of methyl bromide by Member State in the European Community in 1998
(European Commission Survey 1999)
Country 1998 sales
(tonnes)
As percentage of total EU
Dependency on methyl bromide
Italy
Spain
5,548
5,157 sales
42.573
39.573
DEPENDENT
France
Greece
UK
Portugal
Belgium
Germany
Austria
Netherlands
785
736
319
285
151
49
0.59
1
6.024
5.648
2.448
2.187
1.159
0.376
0.005
0.008
NOT
DEPENDENT
Denmark
TOTAL
0
13,032
0.000
100.000
Almost 70% of the use of MB in the EC is for controlling soil-borne pests in three crops – tomatoes (37%), strawberries
(21%) and cucurbits, e.g. melons and cucumbers (11%) (Table 2).
Table 2: Estimated consumption of methyl bromide by crop in the European Community (European Commission
Report, 1996)
Crops grown with methyl bromide Category Percent consumption of methyl bromide
37
21
High consumption of methyl bromide
Tomatoes
Strawberries
Cucurbits
Flowers, bulbs, ornamentals
Vegetables and salads
Nurseries and potting soil
Fruit trees
Pepper and eggplant
Tobacco seedbeds
11
7
6
5
5
5
1
Low consumption of methyl bromide
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
1
100
Within the EC, 3,660 tonnes of MB were manufactured in 1998 (European Commission 1999) which met about 25% of the of the Community’s consumption requirements for MB. Elf-Atochem in France is the only producer of MB in the
EC. The remaining 75% was sold within EC Member States by six importers, with just two importers selling the majority of the MB imported in 1998. Importers are now supplying 25% less MB than in 1991 in order to comply with the requirements agreed by the EC under the Montreal Protocol. Within 13 months, only 40% of the volume of MB available in 1991 for non-QPS uses will be sold by importers in order to comply with the draft New Ozone Regulation .
METHYL BROMIDE COST IN THE EC
MB was on average 38% more expensive among Member States in 1998 compared with prices paid in 1991 (Table 3).
Since about 75% of the MB is imported from countries outside the European Union, it is possible that some of this increase in price was due to declining foreign exchange rates against the US dollar during this period and therefore not due solely to the demand-supply of MB in the market.
Table 3: Percentage change in the cost of methyl bromide charged by importers for methyl bromide sold in the EC in
1998 compared with 1991 (European Commission 1999).
Country Change in cost (‘98/’91)
Spain
Portugal
Greece
25 – 110% increase
28% increase
24% decrease to 70% increase
France
Italy
7 – 20% increase
77 – 114% increase
Belgium
Germany
Netherlands
16% increase
45% increase
24% decrease
Overall, average price has increased 38% in 1998 compared to 1991
The prices recorded in Italy were the highest within the EC and showed an increase of 77-114% over this 7 year period, possibly because distributors in Italy imported MB from importers located in other Member States and were to a large extent dependent on MB allocations from each importer’s quota (Dr Frederica Fricano, Ministry of Environment – Italy, pers. comm. 1999). For all of the Mediterranean countries in the EC, increased prices for MB will make cost-effective alternatives more attractive and encourage early adoption.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN THE EC TO PROMOTE THE TRANSITION TO ALTERNATIVES
There are a number of programmes within the EC and Member States that provide financial support to farmers wishing to avoid the use of MB by, for example, improving application techniques (e.g. improved tarping of the soil) or avoiding MB use altogether (e.g. solarisation). These programmes were briefly described and included financial support for seminars and workshops; training in Integrated Pest Management; training in Organic Production; one-off grants for improved production systems; and the opportunity for MS, and for regional councils or organisations, to set voluntary levies for research.
NEXT STEPS
Despite the ever pressing regulations that will restrict and eventually ban the use of MB, farmers, researchers and extension workers should note that the UNEP Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) Report to the
Parties under the Montreal Protocol, said:
“...for soil treatments…MBTOC could not identify a single crop that could not be produced successfully without
MB….However, increased investment in research and technology transfer will be necessary to fully implement alternative pest management systems world-wide.”
Further details on the MBTOC 1998 Assessment, as well as other information from other MB reports, are available on www.TEAP.org.
At the workshop in Crete, all participants were encouraged to:

Be creative about finding alternatives to MB;

Think of combinations of treatments as these will be more biologically sustainable in the long term; and

Tap into the expertise of farmers to apply many of the solutions that were once used but have recently been abandoned due to reliance on chemicals for pest and disease control.
Successful implementation of alternatives to methyl bromide will depend on early identification of the technically and economically feasible alternatives, targeted replacement of the largest uses of MB with specific alternatives, combinations of treatments, and well-coordinated and trained advisory services.
REFERENCES
Anon. 1977. Provision of Services with regard to the technical aspects of the implementation of EC legislation on ozone depleting substances. Methyl bromide background. Final Report. Prospect Report: 207pp.
Anon. 1998. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee
(MBTOC) 1998 Assessment of the Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. United Nations Environment
Programme, Nairobi : 354 pp.
European Commission. 1999. Information supplied by Member States on the Production and Consumption of Methyl
Bromide. European Commission database.