|
| |
End for methyl bromide
In September 1997, the Montreal Protocol on
substances that deplete the ozone layer was revised and signed by 160 countries.
Governments agreed to phase out the use of methyl bromide early in the next
century.
At the recent meeting of the Montreal
Protocol, developed countries agreed to phase-out the use of the ozone-depleting
methyl bromide by 2005, with intermediate cuts of 25% by 1999, 50% by 2001 and
70% by 2003. Developing countries have a ten-year grace period, phasing out use
by 2115, with a freeze on use in 2002 and a 20% reduction by 2005.
Ozone
depletion continues to be a serious global environmental problem. In 1995, 226
of the world's leading atmospheric scientists reported that eliminating methyl
bromide use is the most significant way to reduce future ozone loss. Ozone
depletion is linked to rising rates of skin cancers, eye cataracts and damage to
key ecosystems.
NGO reaction
A coalition of 25 environmental
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) attended the meeting from 16 countries.
They had originally called for a ban of most uses of methyl bromide in
industrialised countries by 1999, with a complete ban by 2001, and a ban in
developing countries by 2006.
Lack of leadership
US environmentalists were concerned about the
US government's position. Anne Schonfield of the Pesticides Action Network
(PAN) North America said: "NGOs were particularly disappointed by the lack of
international leadership shown by the industrialised countries, especially the
US." She reckoned behind the scenes, the US did not push for a rapid global
ban, despite having a national phase-out set for 2001 (see also below).
European NGOs
at the meeting were disappointed that many European countries have not decided
to phase-out methyl bromide earlier than 2005. David Buffin, who attended the
meeting for the Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK] said: "There are cost effective alternatives
to methyl bromide-such as with pepper production in Spain. Therefore concerns
raised by Southern European countries that North African countries will have a
market advantage (phasing out methyl bromide use in 2115 instead of 2005) are
misguided because agricultural production can be sustained without methyl
bromide use."
Developing countries
Developing countries used more than 14,500
tonnes of methyl bromide in 1992, about 18% of the world total. Use is growing
rapidly in some regions despite international controls, largely due to
aggressive marketing in developing countries by manufacturers.
A Friends of
the Earth (FoE) International investigation during the Montreal Protocol meeting
revealed how a small group of powerful methyl bromide producers were
aggressively acting to subvert any agreement for a phase-out date in developing
countries.
US to delay phase-out?
Since the Protocol meeting, top Clinton
administration officials have signalled that the US Congress may
need to relax its plans to phase-out the pesticide methyl bromide in 2001, under
a Clean Air Act deadline.
US officials
want the authority to grant exemptions to the ban, such as in cases where viable
pest control alternatives have not been identified. The Protocol allows
some exemptions, but US law does not.
Legislation
has been introduced in the US Congress to make US law conform with
deadlines in the Montreal Protocol. But simply moving the US deadline up to 2005
is unacceptable to the Clinton administration.
Environmental
advocates were outraged that US officials would suggest anything other than full
enforcement of the Clean Air Act. "US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is
bound to uphold the laws of the United States, not argue for their revision to
protect the agro-chemical industry," said Corinna Gilfillan, of FoE's Ozone
Protection Campaign. She disputed the notion that alternatives to methyl bromide
do not exist. "The United Nations has found that alternatives exist for 90
percent of the current uses. And yet, USDA officials persist in claiming that
there are not adequate alternatives, rather than coordinating education efforts
of farmers in safer production methods."
Several
participants at the International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives in San Diego, California, complained that the US deadline might
render American farmers uncompetitive globally.
However, Bill
Thomas of the US Environmental Protection Agency's Methyl Bromide Program
noted: "More and more people are realising that methyl bromide indeed will be
phased out, and that the way to control pests that effect yield is not one
single chemical but a whole range of pest-control and agronomic methods."
Thomas said
that several non-chemical alternatives appear to be promising, including
bio-control and disease-resistant compost.
Conclusion
The agreement at the Montreal Protocol, from
an environmental perspective, represented the best of the worst expectations. At
least a deal was made. However, the phase out dates were not as good as hoped
for by environmentalists and there is serious concern that the US's apparent
tough stance is slipping. (DB)
The future in our hands
A personal view of the Montreal meeting from
John Gummer MP, former UK Secretary of State for Environment
and Agriculture Minister
Of all the ozone-depleting substances,
methyl bromide is perhaps the most pernicious. Much of the concentration has
been about the effect of CFCs which are used in refrigeration and in propellants
for everything from hairsprays to metered doses in inhalers. The serious effect
of these in enlarging the hole in the ozone layer has been taken on board and
many of the uses have already been stopped with others firmly on the way. Methyl
bromide has escaped the same critical concern. It is widely used for fumigation
of agricultural products and is also injected in the soil directly to kill all
the organisms which might otherwise affect crops like strawberries and tomatoes.
Every year
we pump 76,000 tonnes into farms worldwide, 43% of that in North America and 24%
in Europe. It is not an acceptable agricultural practice leave alone its effect
on the ozone layer. Killing all the organisms in the soil is precisely what we
have sought to avoid as we move towards precision agriculture. This kind of
blanket attack is no longer tolerable and it gives the rest of the chemical
industry a bad name. Nevertheless the manufacturers have continued to push their
products, even though they know them to be so damaging. In Kenya, for example,
there is a growing use despite the fact that I offered to pay for the phase-out
when I represented Britain at the Vienna conference on the ozone issue.
The US has
been in the forefront of the attack on methyl bromide but there are now signs
that the Congress will seek to resile from their phase-out date of 2001 because
other countries have been tardy. That would be a disaster and we need instead to
get Europe and the developing countries on one side. At Montreal we moved a bit
further but not enough. On this occasion the EU did not distinguish itself. The
real problem is Spain which uses huge amounts in its strawberry production which
it fears will become uncompetitive with those from Morocco if it signs up to any
tougher conditions. The real answer is, of course, to put Morocco in as well.
That is quite possible because she relies significantly upon the Magreb
agreements which allow entry of her produce into the EU.
Beyond the
use of this kind of governmental pressure there is the very considerable
consumer power which needs to be brought into play. If the public realised that
the beans and soft fruit were affected by this very toxic substance they would
soon insist that it should be phased out and that in the meantime that products
should be marked to indicate methyl bromide use. The big supermarket chains have
enough buying power to make a real difference here. That would bring about the
kind of consumer pressure that even the corrupt regime in Kenya would not be
able to withstand. In that sense we all have our future in our own hands.
|
Additional material from Janet Byron.
[This
article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 38,
December 1997, page 9]
|
