Methyl Bromide use and emerging applications with implications for international trade

1
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
2
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
• 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 1995 - 1998
• 20 cut on production and use according to
  1995-98 base line, as of January 1st 2005.
• Phase-out by January 2015.

3
Global consumption - controlled uses
4
A-5 consumption by region - controlled uses
Latin America is the only region still using more
MB now than in 1991
5
Controlled uses in Article 5 Parties 2009
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
6
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 (gt1000 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

7
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

8
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

9
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

10
Definition- Quarantine

• 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

11
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".

12
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

13
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 countrys 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.

14
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.

15
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).

16
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 application, providing a global use pattern overview, and including available information on potential alternatives for those uses identified from submitted data
XX/6 2008 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/10 2009 QPS uses of MB Requests 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.
17
Global production and consumption of MB for QPS
purposes 1999 - 2009
Production vs. consumption relatively stable at
approx 11,000 t per year, with variations, but
recentl consumption increase
18
Controlled vs exempted MB consumption 1999 - 2009
Source MBTOC 2010 Assessment Report
19
Global QPS consumption trends 1999-2009

• A5 increases
• Non-A5 decreases

Ozone Secretariat Data Centre October 2010
20
QPS consumption per region
21
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
22
QPS consumption in A5 Parties
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
23
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.

24
QS uses in non-A5 Parties
25
QPS uses in A5 Parties
26
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)
27
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) Heat Many Parties including A5 Generally acceptable
WPM (ISPM-15) Non-wood pallets Some Parties Acceptable in some countries
WPM (ISPM-15) 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
28
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
29
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
30
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 (982, 6733, 5050)

31
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.

32
EU quarantine legislation allows many non-MB
alternatives
33
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 gt1,800 registered heat treatment
  facilities
• Many suppliers of pallets that do not need MB or
  heat treatment plastic pallets, cardboard, other
  materials

34
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) 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)
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 RD 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
2010 MBTOC Ass. Rep Chapter 6 provides thorough review of QPS uses and alternatives. Updates production and consumption data
2011 ? Topics to be decided TBD