Large exemptions hinder methyl bromide phase-out

Under pressure from manufacturers of methyl bromide and fumigation companies, some governments have requested excessively large exemptions from the Montreal Protocol’s phase-out schedule for this ozone depleting fumigant. David Buffin summarises the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) report.

Methyl bromide (MB) was officially controlled as an ozone depleting substance in 1992. In industrialised countries, all imports and manufacture of MB are due to cease by January 2005, with the exception of MB for quarantine and official pre-shipment treatments. The Montreal Protocol permits limited exemptions to the phase-out if specific MB uses are agreed to be ‘critical’, ie. if they conform to a list of criteria laid down in the Protocol (Decision IX/6).
    Many technical reports, papers and case studies have documented the fact that alternatives exist for the majority of MB uses. MB is mainly used for the control of soil-borne pests in strawberry, melons, tomato, peppers, flowers, tobacco, fruit trees and nurseries; and control of insect pests in stored grains, nuts, dried fruit, other dry goods, timber, flour mills and food factories.
    By 2003, industrialised countries had eliminated more than 70% of the MB that they used in 1991. The European Union had eliminated 75% by that date. About 10 industrialised countries that formerly used MB have reported zero consumption in recent years. The Netherlands, for example, used about 3,000 tonnes MB in the past, but phased out all soil uses a decade ago. Denmark phased out all uses of MB by 1998. However, some countries have requested large exemptions from the Protocol’s phase-out, claiming alternatives are not feasible. The two main reasons for these requests are as follows:

• Some countries were extremely slow/late in investigating the alternative options and, where necessary, getting alternative products registered. MB was listed officially as an ozone depleting substance in 1992, so users have had a decade in which to switch to alternatives, but some made little or late effort.

• Some MB manufacturers and fumigation companies have carried out a substantial political lobby, telling farmers to do nothing but wait for lobbyists to achieve a postponement of the MB phase-out. They have spent large sums of money, sending lobbyists regularly to visit ministries of agriculture, government delegates that attend the Montreal Protocol meetings, farmers associations and MB users in North America, Europe and many developing countries.

In total about 36 industrialised countries still use MB and could in theory have requested exemptions. More than half of these countries did not apply for exemptions and adopted alternatives in a timely manner to comply with the Montreal Protocol requirements. However, about 17 countries have applied for exemptions (see table).
    At the last Protocol meeting in November 2003, the representative of Argentina expressed grave concern at the size of the requested exemptions, and described them as a ‘phase-in’ of MB, rather than ‘phase-out’ required by the Protocol. At the last Protocol meeting, the US demanded exemptions amounting to 39% of its Baseline (1991 consumption). The US was strongly supported by Australia, Canada and New Zealand, as well as the MB manufacturers and fumigation industry. The European Union took the position that any exemptions should not exceed 30% of national Baseline and that strict conditions should be placed upon exemptions. The EU position was a compromise between Member States that want large exemptions (Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, France, Belgium and UK) and those who want exemptions to be limited to the minimum, as the Protocol requires. The latter group pointed out that the starting point is zero, since the Protocol legal text clearly requires phase-out, and exemptions are a privilege, not a right.
    The US is actually requesting more MB than they used in the past. US consumption of MB was limited to 7,660 tons in 2003 and 2004, and is supposed to go down to zero in 2005. Yet the US has requested more than 9920 tonnes for 2005. It is claimed that alternatives are not feasible for crops such as strawberry in California and tomatoes in Florida. However, there is documented evidence that effective alternatives are available for the vast majority of these specific crops/states, and moreover that farmers are using alternatives successfully.
    The Protocol meeting in November 2003 was unable to reach a decision on how to deal with most of the exemption requests, and asked an advisory body to assess them again. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) published a report on this in February 2004, incorporating the work of its sub-committee, the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC). TEAP recommended large exemptions amounting to almost 13,000 tonnes MB, and is due to review additional requests in March, which will add to the total. (To put this in perspective, in 1991 the EU consumption of MB was 19,217 tons.)
    Table 1 shows the quantity of MB requested by countries by February 2004, and the quantity recommended by TEAP to date. Additional requests for exemptions are expected at the end of February from Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand and others listed in table 1, so the total requests will be well above the quantity shown in the table.
    The governments that have already made the effort, and achieved MB phase-out, have expressed strong concern that the review process of TEAP did not follow the criteria for exemptions laid down in Decision IX/6 of the Protocol. It failed to examine two of the four criteria for exemptions, and did not fully examine the other two criteria. TEAP and MBTOC were intended to be independent technical committees, but were subject to considerable political pressure from countries/groups that want large exemptions. The TEAP report itself admits that it made a ‘liberal review’. The TEAP report took the information from applicants at face value, giving them ‘the benefit of doubt’ .
    The report indicated that TEAP will take a different approach next year: ‘in future, TEAP and MBTOC will strictly evaluate nominations [ie. applications] with the burden on the nominating Party to substantiate that the nomination satisfies the criteria of Decision IX/6’. However, in the meantime, the advisory committees have recommended excessive volumes of MB that do not meet the legal criteria in the Protocol.
    TEAP itself notes some of the negative consequences of its approach, such as:

• Authorisation of large exemptions will diminish the market incentives for adoption of existing alternatives

• Large exemptions may stimulate copycat requests in the future, even from countries that have already successfully adopted alternatives

• Developing countries that are phasing out MB with assistance from the Montreal Protocol Fund could delay or abandon these efforts.

The TEAP recommendations will be considered at a special meeting of the Montreal Protocol, scheduled for 24-26 March in Montreal.
    It is expected that the debate will follow similar lines as the Protocol meeting last November. The level of disagreement is so high that it might not be feasible to reach a decision in March. The undesirably high level of industry lobbying on this topic is dragging the Montreal Protocol backwards. Seasoned international legal experts have commented that this seriously undermines a Protocol that has commonly been viewed as the leading international environmental agreement.

The TEAP report (Critical Use Nominations – 2004 Supplementary Report, February 2004) is available at www.unep.org/ozone

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 63, March 2004, page 18-19]