Methyl bromide exemptions flout rules of Montreal Protocol  

From January 2005, all imports and manufacture of methyl bromide were scheduled to cease in industrialised countries, except for quarantine and official pre-shipment treatments. David Buffin summarises the outcome of a recent Montreal Protocol meeting which approved large exemptions. 

Although methyl bromide (MB) is scheduled to be phased out by 2005 in 33 industrialised countries, 11 countries have been granted exemptions amounting to more than 13,400 tonnes of MB for 2005. The exemptions are for specific crops such as strawberries, tomatoes, cucumber, peppers and melons, for mills and food factories, and for stored products such as nuts, dried fruit, spices and rice. Exempted uses vary from country to country (see PN63 p18, Table 1). This first batch of exemptions was approved at a special meeting of the Montreal Protocol in March. Additional exemptions for 2005 are due to be approved by another Montreal Protocol meeting in November, bringing total exemptions to about 15,000 or 16,000 tonnes (details in Table A below).
    Figure B shows the large reductions in MB consumption achieved in the US, European Union and Japan from 1991 to 2003, compared with the anticipated level of exemptions for 2005. The US used more than 25,500 tonnes of MB in 1991 (the baseline year for the Protocol) and reduced this to 5,085 tonnes in 2002, about 20% of baseline. The expected exemptions for 2005 would enable the US to use about 9,400 tonnes in 2005 (37% of baseline) – almost twice the quantity consumed in 2002. Israel, Canada, Australia and some European countries also expect exemptions for a large percentage of their national baseline level (Table A). However, if Protocol rules had been followed, exemptions would have been limited to about 5% of baseline, because alternatives exist for almost all MB uses. But the aggressive lobbying efforts of MB distributors and fumigation companies led some governments to request huge exemptions.
    The issue was so contentious that delegates were unable to agree on exemptions at a previous Protocol meeting in November 2003 (Pesticides News 63 page 18). 
    In the March meeting, the US delegation adopted a belligerent stance, demanding national exemptions amounting to 37% in 2005, 35% in 2006 and 33% in 2007. The European Union also took a detrimental position, supporting excessive exemptions up to 30% of Baseline. The meeting eventually agreed 35% for the US for 2005, although this may be increased to 37% at the next meeting. NGOs pointed out that multi-year exemptions demanded by the US would amount to a blank cheque for the indefinite use of MB. On this point the EU took a constructive step by insisting that approvals be made for one year at a time. In contrast, Finland’s representative surprised NGOs by strongly supporting the US demand for large exemptions for a three-year period.

Rules for exemptions
Under the Protocol’s rules, exemptions can be granted only if they meet four criteria, including the requirement that there are ‘no technically and economically feasible alternatives’ available to users (Decision IX/6). NGOs have pointed out that the exemptions approved by the March Protocol meeting clearly flouted these rules. Technically and economically feasible alternatives are available for the vast majority of MB uses, and are used by many farmers and pest control companies. Large numbers of MB users have successfully switched to other methods of pest control, and some countries have phased out all uses of MB already (with the exception of certain types of quarantine treatments).
The recent Protocol decisions on exemptions were largely based on recommendations from its technical advisory committee, the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC). MBTOC’s remit was to assess whether the exemption requests met the four criteria of the Protocol. However, MBTOC failed to apply the required criteria, and failed to make an independent technical assessment. The committee report admits that it gave the benefit of doubt to applicants and made a liberal review(1). As a result, MBTOC recommended approval of most exemption requests.
    Countries that wanted large exemptions appreciated the liberal approach taken by MBTOC. However, some European and developing countries expressed concern that MBTOC had failed to assess exemptions according to the criteria required by the Protocol. They had called for new terms of reference to be endorsed by the March meeting, so that MBTOC would be obliged to make a proper assessment of the next batch of exemption requests for 2006. However, urgent reform was blocked by several countries, including Finland who insisted that the restructuring of MBTOC should be delayed. As a result, MBTOC is expected to recommend further large exemptions for 2006.

Figure B. Historical MB consumption (tonnes) in USA, European Union and Japan (1991-2003) and anticipated consumption in 2005 for exemptions(3)

In 1991 the USA, EU and Japan consumed about 80% of global MB. Industrialised countries in total have reduced MB consumption from about 56,100 tonnes in 1991 to less than 14,800 in 2003.

Implications for developing countries
The Protocol requires developing countries to phase out MB by 2015, yet it is clear that faster progress can be achieved. Although MB consumption increased greatly in developing countries during the 1990s, use has now peaked, and they have made substantial progress in reducing reliance (Figure C). Use of MB is due to continue falling as a result of MB phase out projects, funded by the Protocol, which assist farmers to adopt alternatives by providing training and other assistance. Last year, the Protocol meeting planned to add more MB reduction steps to the phase out schedule for developing countries. But a decision was postponed because developing countries said it was difficult to persuade their MB users to accelerate phase out while some industrialised countries aim actually to increase their use in 2005. The March meeting discussed the issue again, but developing countries refused to agree further controls on MB until they were clearer about the impact that American and European exemptions might have on developing regions.
    NGOs pointed out that large exemptions will unravel the commitments that a number of developing countries had made on early MB phase out. They also noted that stockpiling and dumping of MB in developing countries was increasing. They urged the Protocol to set up a system for tracking stocks and preventing potential illegal trade and dumping of MB. NGOs also reminded delegates that MB is highly toxic and has been identified as a carcinogen in large epidemiological studies of people who work with pesticides(2).

Figure C. Historical MB consumption (tonnes) in developing countries (1991-2002)(3)

Developing countries have reduced MB consumption from the peak of more than 17,600 tonnes to about 12,830 tonnes in 2002.

Substitution policy of European ozone regulation
Following approval by the Montreal Protocol, exemptions will have to undergo further screening at European level, so the exempted tonnage in Europe will remain uncertain until the end of this year. The European regulation on ozone depleting substances (EC 2037/2000) contains stricter criteria for exemptions than the Protocol. Article 3,2(ii) of the regulation says that MB can be manufactured/imported for exemptions only if there are ‘no adequate alternatives’ or MB stocks available from any country. An EC briefing noted that dictionary definitions of ‘adequate’ include ‘satisfactory’ and ‘barely sufficient’. The European Union will have to assess exemptions against these criteria this year, before it can licence any exemptions. If the regulation criteria are followed as stated, the tonnage could be substantially reduced during the review process. However, given the position taken by the EU at the Montreal Protocol meetings, NGOs have expressed concern that the regulation’s criteria may also be flouted or not fully applied, due to aggressive lobbying by European MB distributors and fumigation companies.

References
1. The TEAP / MBTOC report (Critical Use Nominations – 2004 Supplementary Report, February 2004) is available at www.unep.org/ozone
2. Use of agricultural pesticides and prostate cancer risk in the agricultural health study cohort. Alavanja MCR et al. American Journal of Epidemiology 157(9): 800-814, 2003. 
3. Consumption of MB uses controlled by the Protocol, ie. quarantine and pre-shipment excluded. Source of historical data: Proceedings of XVth International Plant Protection Congress.11-15 May 2004, Beijing.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 64, June 2004, pages 18-19]