Feed the Poor and Afflicted

Celebrate Life!

Protect the Earth

THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

WHAT IS THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ? Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that regulates the phase out of all ozone depleting substances (not only methyl bromide) CURRENT PHASE OUT SHEDULE for METHYL BROMIDE.  Montreal Protocol

Article 2 countriesMontreal ProtocolArticle 5 countries

EC Directive 20372000

January 1, 1995 Freeze on level of1991 (=baseline)

Freeze on baseline1991 + 10%

January 1, 1999 Reduction to 75% ofbaseline 1991 1991 + 15%

Reduction to 75% ofbaseline 1991

January 1, 2001 Reduction to 50% ofbaseline 1991 1991 + 15%

Reduction to 40% ofbaseline 1991

January 1, 2002

January 1, 2003 Reduction to 30% ofbaseline 1991

Reduction to 25% ofbaseline 1991

January 1, 2005 Phase out CU and QPS still allowed

Reduction to 80% of baselineof average 95-98

Phase out CU and QPS still allowed

January 1, 2015 Phase out CU and QPS still allowed

Phase out

CU and QPS still allowed

Phase out CU and QPS still allowed

Article 2 countries = developed countries according to the Montreal ProtocolArticle 5 countries = developing countries according to the Montreal Protocol

Montreal Protocol phase out does not include amounts for quarantine, pre-shipment AND critical uses

What is QPS & CUE? (Quarantine & Pre-shipment; Critical Use Exemption)

Quarantine applications with methyl bromide are needed to prevent the migration of pests when importing or exporting different products.(quarantine fumigation of containers shipped to Australia to prevent infestation of Syrex wasp in Australia).

Pre Shipment application is use of methyl bromide to sanitize goods before export (rice, grain, nuts etc.)

Growers can apply for CRITICAL USES (CUE)_ when no alternative is effective or the alternative is economically not feasible. (Only after 2015 for most A5 countries)

The Montreal Protocol does NOT Limit QPS Use

WHAT IS ODP VALUE OF METHYL BROMIDE ?

ODP means Ozone Depleting Potential (Standard is R11 with ODP = 1)

 ODP from Methyl Bromide 1992 = 0.71994 = 0.61998 = 0.4 – 0.22001 = 0.2 – 0.0

See also

• Some considerations on Methyl Bromide published by Prof. Casanova : page 6

• The Methyl Bromide Fact Sheet: page 17

• Methyl Bromide impact on ozone layer: page 19

Science

The Effect of Methyl Bromide on The Ozone is Much Lower Than originally Estimated.

Science

• Discovery of additional natural sources•Salt marshes•brassica plants•rice paddies

0.70.6

0.4

1991 1994 2001 ?

Ozone depletion potential of methyl bromide

Reality

• +/- 30% of natural sources of methyl bromide remain unidentified

• Total global phase out by 2004 = <1% improvement in ozone recovery by 2050

Freezing the phase out at current levels for an additional 10 years will have no adverse effect on ozone recovery.

Original Assumptions vs Current Assumptions

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

An

nu

al E

mis

sio

ns

,OD

P M

T

With phase-out schedule adopted in Vienna, 1995

With phase-out schedule adopted in Montreal, 1997, and ODP change to 0.4

10,000 M.T.s

The ODP Re-calculation Reduced Emissions More Than Any “Control” Measure

Science

Sources Sinks =Absorption

Ocean: 56 (5-130) Oceans: 77 (37-133)

Soil fumigation: 26.5 (16-48) OH and radiation: 86 (65-107)

Fumigation of durables: 6.6 (4.8-8.4) Soils: 46.8 (32-154)

Fumigation of perishables: 5.7 (5.4-6.0) Plants: unknown

Fumigation of structures: 2 (2-2)

Petrol: 5 (0-10)

Burning: 20 (10-40)

Wetlands: 4.6

Marshes: 14 (7-29)

Rapeseed: 6.6 (4.8-8.4)

Paddyfields: 1.5 (0.5-2.5)

Fungi: 1.7 (0.5-5.2)

TOTAL Sources= 151 Gg/year, with an interval of variation between 56 and 190 Gg/year

TOTAL Sinks= 210 Gg/year, with an interval of variation between 134 and 394 Gg/year.

Science

Is There Really an Emissions Problem?

Source Prof Casanove Paper

METHYL BROMIDE SOURCES

natural sources83%

agricultural sources

17%

agricultural sources

natural sources

• Unlike every other ODS, most methyl bromide comes from natural sources.

• According to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), farming and other uses emit about 27,000 metric tons of methyl bromide a year. (17 % of the total).

• But the oceans emit more than twice that amount – 56,000 metric tons – and wetlands and rapeseed plants together emit another 11,000 metric tons

• Another 60,000-70,000 metric tons of naturally produced methyl bromide comes from unknown source

Science

Do you believe that controlling 17% of all the methyl bromide

produced will save the ozone?

Do you believe that controlling 17% of all the methyl bromide

produced will save the ozone?

ScienceA Short History of the Ozone Hole

ScienceAnother Year to Year Comparison

The Ozone Hole 1979- 2003

What is Happening Here ?

Science

Could there be other factors affecting the Ozone layer?

“We were able to show, for instance that when El Chichon went off in 1981 and then Pinatubo in the 1990s, both had significant effects on the ups and downs of ozone depletion. Pinatubo, in particular, had a measurable effect in the northern mid-latitude depletion via chlorine chemistry on the volcanic particle surfaces in the stratosphere. That was a pretty major finding and really helped to explain why, at that time of history, the ozone in our latitudes looked the way it did.”– Dr Susan Solomon, Science Watch 2001

Some Ozone Depletion is Caused by Nature

Science

Earth's ozone depletion is finally slowing

 30 July 03 NewScientist.com news serviceAlmost 30 years after it was first reported that pollutants were destroying the Earth's protective ozone layer, there is clear evidence that the global CFC ban has had an impact. For the first time, it has been shown that the rate of ozone depletion in the upper stratosphere - 35 to 45 kilometres up - is slowing down. "This is the beginning of a recovery of the ozone layer," says Michael Newchurch, at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who led the new research.

Journal reference: Journal of Geophysical Research (DOI:10.1029/2003JD003471)

Science

The Ozone “Problem” is Getting Better

Overview of the Science• The ODP for methyl bromide continues to go down (and probably will

go down even further)

• The ozone layer appears to be “improving” (much of the science remains to be clarified)

• The lowering of the ODP for methyl bromide may have made the need for further reductions unnecessary.

• There is a growing evidence that man-made methyl bromide does NOT significantly impact the ozone layer

In light of these findings why rush the Phase-out?

Are We Protecting The Environment?

Are We Protecting the Environment?

• Is safe drinking water important?

• Is protecting the health of workers important?

• Is it sound environmental policy to put more land into production?

• Is a clean, safe supply of food important?

Do the proposed “alternatives” to methyl bromide meet these criteria?

Environment

= No concern = Problem area= Uncertain

Groundwater issues limit the use of 1,3-D in the U.S. e.g., the product cannot be used in southern Florida because of this problem.

The full impact of the alternatives on the environment has not been well documented or discussed.

Only 1,3-D, Metam Sodium, and Sulfuryl Fluoride are currently registered and available for use.

The non-chemical alternatives have not been widely tested in real production agriculture.

The “Alternatives" Have Problems of Their Own

AlternativeMethyl Bromide1,3-DMetam SodiumIodomethaneSulfuryl FluorideSolarizationSolarization + ManureBiofumigationFurfurylAgrizide

Environment

• EPA identified fluoride as the major toxicological endpoint of concern for exposure to Sulfuryl fluoride. In its Risk Assessment, which served as the basis for approval, EPA made an unprecedented decision to allow an acceptable dosage for infants (0.571 mg/kg bodyweight/day) which is five times higher than for adults (0.114 mg/kg/day).

• Workers are at risk not only from the acute toxicity of Sulfuryl fluoride but also the potential for brain, lung, kidney, and bone effects.

Fluoride Action Network March 29, 2004

Groups challenge EPA's approval of Dow's Sulfuryl fluoride:EPA allows 5 times higher levels for Infants than Adults

Environment

What Will You Do If an Alternative “Goes Away”?

European Community Establishes a Tolerance of 1 ppm for Fluoride Residue in Wine

excerpt from: Federal Register: July 6, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 130)Rules and Regulations Page 41594-41601From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

ACTION: Final rule.

... III. Emergency Exemption for Tebufenozide on Grapes and FFDCA Tolerances

Grapes are California's number one ranked crop in dollar value, accounting for over 90% of the grapes grown in the United States. The European export market for California wines accounts for well over $250 million. The Grape Leaf folder causes injury in the larval stages by rolling and feeding on the leaves, reducing photosynthetic function. The Omnivorous leaf roller directly reduces grape yields by injuring the flowers and developing berries it feeds on. The Omnivorous leaf roller also allows entry of bunch rot organisms that damage entire clusters which may result in rejection at the winery.Cryolite is the registered alternative most often used to control both Grape Leaf folders and Omnivorous leaf rollers. However, for the 2000 crop year, nearly all major California wineries with export markets have advised their growers that they will not accept grapes which have been treated with cryolite or any other product which would affect the level of fluorides in wine. The European Community recently established strict tolerance levels of 1 ppm with respect to fluoride residues.

How Might This Affect Trade with The E.U.?

Environment

Economically, and Environmentally, Methyl Bromide is the Right Choice

Methyl Bromide is;

NOT a carcinogen (magazine articles are not studies)

NOT a mutagen

NOT a groundwater pollutant

NOT persistent in the soil or environment

NOT the ozone depleter it was once thought to be

Environment

• Critical Use Exemptions for 2005

• QPS use in A5 and A2

• Country issues with the Protocol

Update on Status of Methyl Bromide

We Need to Feed The World

The E.U. will have 4,126 M.T. (9M pounds) as Critical Use Exemptions

The U.S. will have 19M pounds (8,961 M.T.’s) as Critical Use Exemptions

The E.U. will have approximately (1,012M.T.) for use as QPS.

The U.S. will have approximately 1-2M pounds for use as QPS.

Article 5 (Developing nations) will use approximately 4 M pounds for use as QPS.

Methyl Bromide Won’t Be Phased Out In 2005

Methyl Bromide Usage in 2005:

Methyl Bromide will Continue to be Used In 2005

CRITICAL USES in EU for 2005TOTAL APPROVED VOLUME

Approved, EMOP, March 2004

Recommended by MBTOC, June 2004

Total approved and recommended

MEMBER STATE for 2005 for 2005 for 2005

Belgium 43.57 11.67 55.24France 407.00 7.64 414.64Germany 0.00 45.25 45.25Greece 186.00 0.00 186.00Italy 2133.00 0.00 2133.00Netherlands 0.00 0.00 0.00Poland 0.00 40.00 40.00Portugal 50.00 0.00 50.00Spain 1059.00 0.00 1059.00Switzerland 0.00 8.70 8.70United Kingdom 128.08 6.33 134.41

Grand Total 4006.65 119.58 4126.23

Approved and recommended volume for CUE = 4126 = 21,47% of the EU baseline 1991

CUE is 21% of Baseline

2003 Application EPA EMOP

EPA Category 2005 Nomination Approval

Commodity Storage Total 280,500 193,255 193,255

Cucurbits Total 2,950,780 2,618,624 2,618,624

Eggplants Total 116,613 162,259 162,259

Forest tree seedlings Total 799,036 424,419 424,419

Ginger Total 20,282 20,282 20,282

Orchard nurseries Total 3,432,036 1,657,782 1,657,806

Ornamental Nurseries Total 498,449 64,842 64,842

Peppers Total 4,379,398 2,392,652 2,392,652

Post harvest/food processing Total 1,912,757 1,182,389 1,064,822

Strawberry nurseries Total 1,061,250 121,227 121,231

Sweet Potato Total 494,994 494,994 178,198

Tobacco Total 46,270 0 0

Tomatoes Total 10,642,860 6,316,840 6,316,840

Turfgrass Total 1,500,000 776,447 455,977

Grand Total 34,152,723 21,868,889 19,714,113

% of Baseline 60.7% 38.9% 35.0%

CRITICAL USES in U.S for 2005TOTAL APPROVED VOLUME

CUE is 35% of Baseline

Other Issues With The Protocol

There are 11-15 Developing Nations (A5) who are currently “out of compliance” with the Montreal Protocol.

A proposal has been put forward to the meeting of the Parties in Prague to grant “flexibility” when dealing with A5 phase-out dates.

Some A5 countries are having difficulty meeting phase-out schedules due to the ineffectiveness, or lack of alternatives

You May Have Read or Heard About Some “Issues” A5 Countries are Having with the Protocol

Is the Protocol Helping These Countries?

This should have been expected, instead of “pushing” to get countries in compliance, UNEP should take the time necessary to completely and fairly address each countries specific problem.

Overview of Phase-Out QPS is not limited by the Protocol

The Scientific evidence against methyl bromide is not unequivocal.

There is no drop-in replacement for methyl bromide.

Alternatives are either not available or are not efficacious. Alternatives have their own serious flaws.

Some A5 countries are currently “out of compliance” with the Protocol

Some A5 countries are having difficulties implementing their accelerated phase-out schedules.

A2 countries will have CUE in 2005

Why Not “Go Slow”?

ECONOMIC IMPACT

CountryTotal by

Country (000’s)

  Pakistan 69,669

  Philippines 79,903

  Malaysia 121,344

  Thailand 411,252

  Viet Nam 554,319

  India 616,120

  Sri Lanka 755,027

  Indonesia 1,080,715

Total 3,688,349

Economic Impact

Export Value of Selected Commodities That Use Methyl Bromide

3.7 BILLION DOLLARS!

Why should You risk so much?

Source FAO

Economic Impact

Value (in 000 of U.S.$) of Ten Commodities Imported into The U.S. in 2003

Country Tobac.Raw

CoffeeCocoa Beans

Fresh Veg.

Fresh Fruit

Tree Nuts

Roast Coffee Spices

Logs and

Chips

Hard wood

LumberTotal By Country

Sri Lanka 525 0 0 89 911 212 6,254 0 0 7,991

Taiwan 0 0 0 630 5,312 644 44 936 0 1,542 9,108

Malaysia 0 0 0 0 7 40 419 3,935 83 15,709 20,193

Phillippines 6,607 15 0 182 181 36,709 1,830 241 0 2,691 48,456

Thailand 23,062 2,019 0 667 7,151 8,013 603 3,597 90 4,255 49,457

New Zealand 682 504 0 1,506 65,819 116 12 19 1,416 130 70,204

Indonesia 12,028 78,127 193,595 54 0 2,182 12,882 119,525 79 8,116 426,588

  42,904 80,665 193,595 3,039 78,559 48,615 16,002 134,507 1,668 32,443 631,997

$631,000,000 in Exports Why Take a Chance?

Economic Impact

CountryTotal Nuts

Total Cassava

Total Coffee

&Cocoa

Tobacco &

Durables

Total Citrus & Kiwi

Total Spices

Total Dried Fruit

Total Rice

Total Fresh Fruit

Total Vegs.

Total By Country

  India 297,897 0 9,582 285,609 574 76,802 30,270 64 71 217 701,086

  Indonesia 235 5,044 49,707 1,094,688 51,731 4,654 2,934 29,561 529 1,611 1,240,694

  Malaysia 3,002 16,318 164,338 362,245 32,063 12,121 12,603 4,723 6,359 17,063 630,835

  Pakistan 1,645 370 1,305 261,618 0 11,529 8,862 134 0 837 286,300

  Philippines 384 8,734 47,094 343,431 5,084 1,214 182 101 7 506 406,737

  Sri Lanka 108 1,393 1,531 66,115 2,853 353 2,106 406 12 151 75,028

  Thailand 160 50 35,759 856,529 560 3,883 511 14 25 2,915 900,406

  Viet Nam 0 0 1,584 283,012 0 4,651 40 0 0 69 289,356

Total 303,431 31,909 310,900 3,553,247 92,865 115,207 57,508 35,003 7,003 23,369 4,530,442

Value of Selected Imports

(Values in 000’s of U.S.Dollars)

$4,530,442,000 =Value of Your Imports

Source FAO

Economic Impact

Total Nuts

Total Cassava

Total Coffee

&Cocoa

Tobacco &

Durables

Total Citrus & Kiwi

Total Spices

Total Dried Fruit

Total Rice

Total Fresh Fruit

Total Vegs.

303,431 31,909 310,900 3,553,247 92,865 115,207 57,508 35,003 7,003 23,369

5% 0% 10% 3% 10% 5% 10% 5% 50% 40%

15,172 0 31,090 106,597 9,287 5,760 5,751 1,750 3,502 9,348

Estimated Fumigation of Imported Goods

Based on estimated U.S.D.A. fumigations by sector

Est. USDA % Treated

Dollar Value of Commodity

This totals$188,255,860 of Imports which are fumigated

Why Take the Risk?

Economic ImpactEstimated Fumigation of Imported Goods

Based on estimated U.S.D.A. fumigations by sector

What is the Minimum Impact Potential?

• If 2% of total imports and exports are fumigated. The total value of those fumigated products is $162,000,000

• If only 0.05% of total imports and exports are fumigated with methyl bromide the total value of these products is $41,000,000

Why Is Safe Food, The Environment, and the Economy Being Jeopardized?

Total Imports & Exports for the Region are

approximately

$8.1Billion Dollars

2% of Total Fumigated

Review of the Issues The science is unclear and doesn’t support any further phase-out.

The emissions goals of the protocol have already been achieved.

The ozone layer is recovering faster than expected.

90% of the methyl bromide (or more) produced is produced naturally!

The economy of your country may be very adversely impacted by any further phase-out of methyl bromide!

Alternatives are not as effective, or have other problems

Why Would You Consider Phasing Out QPS?

If You Expect Change..You Must Act

What Actions Can You Take? Continue to use methyl bromide for QPS uses

Contact your Ag Ministries, and the Ministry of Environment, to let them know that you need methyl bromide to remain competitive.

Propose that for Article 5 nations consumption be frozen at the current levels until technically and economically feasible alternatives are available.

Propose that for Article 5 nations there be no CUE but rather a freeze at the current levels of consumption until alternatives are available.

Make that the phase-out is not used by the E.U.as a barrier to trade for Article 5 nations (this must not be allowed).

Don’t endanger your countries trade and economy without some guarantees.