Maquette MeBr corrig e der · It is now a well-established fact that some widely used man- made...

Methyl Bromidegetting ready for the phase out

United Nations Environment Programme, Industry and Environment (UNEP IE)OzonAction Programme39–43 quai André Citröen, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France

Methyl Bromide: getting ready for the phase out ● 1

Methyl Bromidegetting ready for the phase out

Acknowledgements

This booklet was prepared by the OzonAction Programme of the United NationsEnvironment Programme Industry and Environment centre (UNEP IE).

This project was managed by the following UNEP IE staff:Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel, Director, UNEP IERajendra Shende, Coordinator, UNEP IE OzonAction ProgrammeCecilia Mercado, UNEP IE Information OfficerEileen Lesaulnier, UNEP IE Information AssistantCorinna Gilfillan, Consultant, UNEP IE OzonAction Programme

This document was reviewed by Dr. Tom Batchelor (Cochair MBTOC),Dr. Melanie Miller (MBTOC), Bill Thomas (MBTOC)

Editor: Geoffrey BirdDesign and layout: Thalia Stanley

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educa-tional or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder,provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receivinga copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial pur-pose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from UNEP.

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication donot imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United NationsEnvironment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city orarea or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stat-ed policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing the tradenames or commercial processes constitute endorsement.

© 1998 UNEP

Contents

❆❆❆

2

2

4

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Ozone depletion Ð the background . . . . . . . . . 4• What is ozone?

• What is the ozone layer?

• Why do we need to protect the ozone layer?

• What are the effects of too much UV-B?

• Have we reduced the ozone layer?

• Which chemicals deplete the ozone layer?

• How does methyl bromide destroy ozone?

• How have countries acted to protect the ozone layer?

• What are quarantine and preshipment (QPS) uses of methyl bromide?

Uses of methyl bromide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10• Why and how is methyl bromide used?

Soil treatmentsFumigation of commoditiesFumigation of buildings and vehicles

• How much methyl bromide is being used and where?

Alternatives to methyl bromide . . . . . . . . . . . 15• Can methyl bromide be replaced?

Alternative treatments for soilAlternative treatments for durable commoditiesAlternative treatments for perishable commoditiesAlternative treatments for structures and vehicles

• Are there ways to reduce emissions of methyl bromide?

• Are there special problems of replacement for developing countries?

• How can developing countries obtain financial and technical assistance in

implementing alternatives to methyl bromide?

Contacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29• Where can I find out more about alternatives to methyl bromide?

• Who can assist?

I t is now a well-established fact that some widely used man-made chemicals are destroying the stratospheric ozone layer

which shields the Earth from dangerous ultraviolet radiation fromthe Sun. Depletion of this vital shield will have grave consequencesfor human health, for our food production systems, and ultimatelyfor the entire Earth ecosystem.

Fortunately, a strong international consensus on protection of theozone layer has developed and has been given form in the Mon-treal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. TheMontreal Protocol, which came into force in January 1989, providesa legal basis for the worldwide effort to safeguard the ozone layer.Under the terms of the Protocol, the signatory countries (called Partiesfor the purposes of the Protocol) agree to phase out production anduse of identified ozone-depleting substances (ODS) according totime scales fixed by the Parties. Methyl bromide has been identifiedas one of the chemicals depleting the ozone layer. First brought

under the Montreal Protocol by the Copenhagen Amendment of1992, its phase out is now considered a very important step.

Although methyl bromide is hardly a household word, it is widelyused in some countries to control pests which could reduce cropyields, and infest our food, buildings and transport vehicles. Around97 per cent of all of the methyl bromide produced and sold is usedas a fumigant for pest control. It is this use which is covered by thisbooklet.

Since methyl bromide is used to control a wide range of pests, thereis no single substance which can replace it in every case. This is notto say that alternatives do not exist. In fact, UNEP’s Methyl BromideTechnical Options Committee has identified alternatives for the vastmajority of uses of methyl bromide, often combining several treat-ments to control the same range of pests as methyl bromide. Furthermore,it is worth bearing in mind that virtually every type of crop is beingproduced commercially somewhere in the world without methylbromide.

This question-and-answer booklet explains the general backgroundto ozone depletion, examines current uses of methyl bromide anddescribes effective alternatives. A final section gives information onfinancial and technical assistance available to developing countriesto help them further develop and adopt alternatives.

2 ● Methyl Bromide: getting ready for the phase out Methyl Bromide: getting ready for the phase out ● 3

Introduction

ForewordThis brochure has been produced by the UNEP IE’s OzonAction Programmeas part of its enabling activities to assist developing countries under theMultilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Depletethe Ozone Layer. Along with this brochure, UNEP has developed aposter, a public service announcement and several other publicationsto assist governments in countries operating under Article 5 of the Mon-treal Protocol (i.e. developing countries), to raise awareness aboutmethyl bromide’s role in ozone depletion and to promote the adoptionof effective alternatives.

Although the brochure’s main intended audience is national ozone units,UNEP hopes that the information presented will provide a useful intro-duction to the subject for other stakeholders such as non-governmentalorganizations, industry associations, companies, and others who wishto initiate awareness-raising activities on methyl bromide and ozonedepletion.

Stratosphere:the region of the

atmosphere between about

15 and 55 kilometres

above the Earth’ssurface

What is Ozone?Most of the oxygen in the atmosphere is in the form of moleculescontaining two oxygen atoms, known by the familiar chemical sym-bol O2. However, in certain circumstances, three atoms of oxygencan bond together to form the substance we know as ozone, withits chemical symbol O3.

Ozone is formed in the stratosphere by the action of high-energy ra-diation from the Sun. This splits O2 molecules into two free oxygenatoms (O + O) which then bond with some of the surrounding O2molecules to form ozone.

Although some ozone is found in the lower atmosphere, more than90 per cent of it is in the stratosphere.

What is the ozone layer?In the stratosphere, ozone is continually being formed, broken downand formed again in a cycle which has achieved a delicate balance.The conditions which are most favourable for this breakdown-formation cycle occur at an altitude of around 30 kilometres. It istherefore in this region that ozone is most abundant, and this is whatwe know as the ozone layer.

Why do we need to protect the ozone layer?When a molecule is broken down by radiation from the Sun, the ra-diation is absorbed and is thus prevented from penetrating furthertowards the Earth. The wavelengths of radiation blocked by an in-tact ozone shield are in the 280 to 315 nanometre band. Radiationin this band, known as UV-B, can be harmful to almost all forms oflife on Earth. In the process of blocking radiation, ozone moleculesare broken down. However, the products of this breakdown are suchthat ozone is quickly reformed. This natural cycle of ozone creationand breakdown protects us from the effects of harmful UV-B, and itis this cycle that has been disrupted by man-made chemicals.

What are the effects of too much UV-B?Exposure to high levels of UV-B radiation is extremely dangerous. Inhumans and animals it can cause skin cancers, damage eyes, and

suppress the immune system. There is already evidence of increasedincidence of skin cancer. UNEP’s Environmental Effects Panel hasconcluded that ozone depletion will cause a steady rise in non-melanoma skin cancers in the mid northern latitudes, with incidencebecoming 25 per cent higher than at present by 2050. The Amer-ican Skin Cancer Foundation has also found that the risk ofdeveloping malignant melanoma is increasing in the US.In 1930 the risk of developing the disease was one in1,500. By 1996 this had risen to one in 87. If thistrend continues, by the year 2000 an estimatedone in 75 Americans will risk developing thispotentially deadly disease. Damage to theskin by UV-B can also reduce resistanceto certain allergies and infectious dis-eases. In parts of the world where in-fectious diseases are already a majorproblem, the added stress from in-creased UV-B could be significant.This is especially true for leish-maniasis (a group of diseases caus-ed by protozoal parasites), ma-laria and herpes, against whichthe body’s first line of defense isin the skin.

Many species of plants are sen-sitive to UV-B. Significantly higherlevels at the Earth’s surface couldtherefore result in crop damage aswell as severe disruption of terres-trial and marine ecosystems. De-gradation of some man-made mate-rials, especially paints and plastics, isalso accelerated by increased exposureto UV-B.

NASA, which monitors ozone depletion, hasfound evidence of increases in UV radiation re-sulting from depletion of the ozone shield in boththe northern and southern hemispheres. The greatestincreases are found in the middle and high latitudes, the


Ozone depletion Ð the background

▲The ozone holeover the Antarctic

areas of the world where mostpeople live and most farmingoccurs. NASA has reported UVincreases of 6.8 per cent per de-cade over Britain and Scandina-via, 10 per cent per decade oversouthern Chile and Argentina, and 4 per cent per decade over theUS-Canadian border.

By absorbing harmful radiationand preventing it from reachingthe Earth’s surface, the stratos-

pheric ozone layer provides a vital shield for life on the planet. But itis a delicate shield. Even where it is most abundant, ozone is only pre-sent at around 10 parts per million, and its continued presence re-quires maintaining the balance between its break up and formation.Ozone is the main atmospheric constituent that absorbs UV-B; loss ofits protective action would have grave consequences for us all.

Have we reduced the ozone layer?Early in the 1970s, scientists began to suspect that certain widely usedchemicals were upsetting the natural ozone cycle in the stratosphere.This theory was supported by the findings of subsequent research,and it was established that chlorine and bromine from complex man-made substances were lowering stratospheric ozone levels.

Extensive measurements since the late 1970s have confirmed thatozone levels are falling over almost every area of the world. In the1979-1994 period, ozone over the mid-latitudes was depleted at anaverage rate of 4-5 per cent per decade. Levels fell faster in the 1980sthan in the 1970s, suggesting that depletion was accelerating.

Much greater depletion is observed above Antarctica in Septemberand October (the Antarctic spring) than anywhere else on the globe.This phenomenon, termed the “ozone hole,” is due to a combinationof factors occurring at that time of year. By October 1984, averageOctober ozone concentration levels above Antarctica were found tobe almost 40 per cent lower than October averages for the 1960s.Further observations revealed that the Antarctic “hole” was growingyear by year. In recent years the Antarctic hole has grown to be

greater than the size of the North American Continent, with almosttotal destruction of ozone in some areas.

Which chemicals deplete the ozone layer?A number of man-made chemicals destroy stratospheric ozone. Theyall have two common properties: they are stable in the lower at-mosphere, and they contain the elements chlorine or bromine. Theirstability allows such substances to diffuse gradually through the at-mosphere. Eventually they can reach the stratosphere where they en-counter solar radiation at the right wavelength to break them up. Thisreleases the chlorine or bromine which are the ozone-depleting agents.

The most widely used ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are thechlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the source of ozone-depleting chlorine.Vast quantities of these substances have been used since their in-troduction in the 1930s: as the refrigerant in domestic and indus-trial refrigerators and air conditioners, as a propellant in aerosols,or for industrial purposes such as blowing agent in the manufactureof foam rubbers and cleaning agent for printed circuit boards.

The main bromine-containing chemicals destroying ozone are thebromofluorocarbons (BFCs), mainly used in fire extinguishers, andmethyl bromide, the subject of this booklet, used widely for pestcontrol in agriculture and elsewhere.

How does methyl bromide destroy ozone?When methyl bromide is broken up by high-energy solar radiation inthe stratosphere it frees a bromine radical — bromine in a highly react-ive state. It is this bromine radical which “attacks” ozone by attractingone of the oxygen atoms away from it to form bromine monoxide andmolecular oxygen. This is followed by a complex series of reactions


UV radiation breaks down methyl bromide molecule

series of reactions

CH3Br in stratospherebromine

monoxide

bromine radical which can

destroy ozone

free bromine radical which destroys more

ozoneoxygenmolecule

(O2)ozone(O3)

in stratosphere

+

CH3

Effects of methyl bromide on stratospheric ozone

In the words of the Protocol

itself, the Partiesdeclare that

they are “determined toprotect humanhealth and the

environmentagainst adverseeffects resulting

from modifictionof the ozone

layer.”

the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol in 1992.Since then the necessity for faster action on phase out has beenrecognized.

The Parties to the Montreal Protocol recognize that developing coun-tries should be given additional time to phase out methyl bromide,given the special circumstances they face. A grace period of tenyears for implementation of the measures required by the Protocolwas therefore generally agreed for developing (Article 5) countries.

After the latest amendments and adjustments, introduced into theProtocol under the Montreal Amendment of 1997, the phase outschedule for methyl bromide is as shown below:

What are quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS)uses of methyl bromide?Under the Protocol quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bro-mide, which comprise an estimated 22 per cent of global methyl bro-mide use, are exempt from control. The aim of quarantine regula-tions is to avoid inadvertently transporting pests, along with commodities,to places where they are not already present or where they are al-ready being officially controlled. Pre-shipment treatment is applieddirectly prior to exporting of commodities, to meet official pest-controlregulations applying in either the importing or exporting country. Forexample the United States requires fumigation of all grapes fromChile. Similarly, Japan requires that all cherries and apples from theUSA be treated with methyl bromide as a condition of import.Banning of approved quarantine treatments before alternatives arecommercially available could severely curtail international trade,and therefore such uses are granted exemption under the Protocol.

Methyl Bromide: getting ready for the phase out ● 98 ● Methyl Bromide: getting ready for the phase out

Phase out of methyl bromide under the Montreal Protocol Ð 1997

Developed countries Developing countries

• 25% reduction by 1999 • Freeze by 2002 at average 1995-1998 • 50% reduction by 2001 base level• 70% reduction by 2003 •Review of reduction schedule in 2003• Phaseout by 2005 except for critical •20% reduction by 2005use exemptions • Phaseout by 2015 except for critical

use exemptions

Note: Preshipment and quarantine uses (about 22% of global methyl bromide use)are exempt from these controls.

Met

hyl b

rom

ide

The brominefrom methylbromide is

about 60 timesmore effectiveat destroyingozone, on an

atom for atombasis, than

the chlorinefrom CFCs.

from which the bromine emerges to destroy another ozone molecule.This process disrupts the natural creation-break-up cycle of ozone inthe stratosphere causing ozone to be destroyed more quickly than itcan be replaced and thus depleting the ozone shield.

Although far less methyl bromide has been used than CFCs, bromineis far more damaging to the ozone layer.

The very high proportion of methyl bromide used for fumigation makesthis process the most significant global source of man-made emissionsto the atmosphere. Depending on the process and methods employed,emission can vary from 30 to 95 per cent of the methyl bromide used.In 1994, the UNEP Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee(MBTOC) estimated that the average emission for all types of fumi-gation processes using methyl bromide was 64 per cent worldwide. Emissions occur mainly at three stages in the fumigation process:

● During treatment, due to leaks.● Immediately after treatment, when fumigation spaces are vented

or plastic sheeting is removed from soils.● Following treatment, when methyl bromide absorbed by soil par-

ticles or by commodities and structures is gradually released.

How have countries acted to protect the ozone layer?The spearhead of the international effort to protect the ozone layeris the Montreal Protocol. The Protocol came into force in January1989. By 1998 it had been ratified by more than160 countries.Ratification means that the signatory countries agree to be legallybound by the Protocol’s requirements.

Protocol Parties (governments) discuss and agree on commitments tolimit production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances,known as “controlled substances” for the purposes of the Protocol.Originally, control measures were introduced on eight substances:five CFCs and three halons. However, as scientific investigations pro-gressed, further ozone-depleting substances were identified. It be-came clear that if protection of the ozone layer was to be effective,substances depleting it would have to be phased out altogether.

Methyl bromide was officially listed as a controlled substance under

Article 5 countries aredevelopingcountries whichconsume less than0.3 kg per capitaper annum ofcontrolledsubstances. Theyare so calledbecause theirstatus is definedin Article 5 of the MontrealProtocol.

Why and how is methyl bromide used?Methyl bromide is used because it is an efficient fumigant effectiveagainst a wide range of pests. At ambient temperature and pressure,methyl bromide is a gas. It can therefore penetrate into soils and dif-fuse through commodity fumigation facilities, buildings and vehicles,reaching pests which would otherwise be difficult to eliminate. It isalso effective in killing insects and other organisms at relatively lowconcentrations. Methyl bromide can, of course, affect humans too. Di-rect exposure to it can cause eye and skin irritations, nervous systemdamage, and even death. The US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) classifies methyl bromide as a “Category I Acute Toxin”.

Soil treatmentsBy far the greatest proportion of methyl bromide consumed worldwideis used to fumigate soil for horticultural crops including tomatoes,strawberries, melons, cucumbers, peppers, tobacco and cut flowers.Soil fumigation is carried out prior to planting where crop producti-vity may be compromised by soilborne pests such as plant-pathogenicfungi, bacteria, nematodes, soil insects or weeds. Figure 1 illustratesthe proportions of methyl bromide used worldwide per crop.

To fumigate soils methyl bromide is applied either to the soil surfaceor by mechanized injection. For surface application, the area to betreated is covered with plastic sheeting and the methyl bromide,vaporized in a heat exchanger, is released into the space betweenthe soil surface and the sheets. This is the most widely used methodand is virtually the only one used for fumigation of greenhouse soils.

In many countries, the method is also used for outdoor “stripfumigation”, for crops such as tomatoes and peppers which

are grown in rows. In this case, the methyl bromide is appliedin fields to mulched strips about 1 metre wide.

Mechanized injection involves injecting the methyl bromideinto the soil to a depth of around 25 cm. This method is

usually employed for fumigation of broad areas which arecovered with plastic sheets glued together. It is sometimesused for fumigation of smaller strips.

Deep placement is another mechanized injection method.For this type of application, the soil is not covered withplastic sheets and the methyl bromide is injected to a depthof around 80 cm. Deep placement is mainly used prior to plant-ing and replanting in deciduous orchards, vineyards and otherplantations, for plants with deep roots.

When the plastic sheets are removed methyl bromide which has notbeen used up in reactions in the soil is released into the atmosphere.Depending on the type of application and on local soil conditions,about 35 to 80 per cent of the methyl bromide used can be releasedto the atmosphere.

Fumigation of commoditiesCommodities in storage or in transport must be protected againstpests to prevent their loss or damage prior to use and to prevent thespread of pests.

Durable commodities such as cereals, oilseeds, dried fruit and nuts,that can be stored for long periods due to their low moisture content,may be infested with pests when harvested or may become infestedwith them during transport and storage.

Perishable commodities – fresh fruit and vegetables, cut flowers,ornamental plants or fresh root crops and bulbs, etc. may also beinfested at harvest or become so later. They are sometimes fumi-gated with methyl bromide to meet quarantine and phytosanitaryrequirements for export.

To fumigate commodities, methyl bro-mide is usually released directly from itscontainer into a fumigation chamberor into sealed stacks of bags. Theamount of methyl bromide intro-duced is calculated accordingto label, contractual or legislativerequirements.

The degree of containment of methylbromide achieved during fumigationcan vary widely. Some commodities are


Uses of Methyl Bromide

10 ● Methyl Bromide: getting ready for the phase out

▼ Carpenter Ant

▲ Nematode(barely visible tothe naked eye)

▲ Furniture Beetle

▼ Brown Rat

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

Consu

mption

(met

ric

tonnes

)

PreplantDurable

PerishableStructural

Chem. int.

Developedcountries

Article 5countries

Figure 2 shows the proportions of methyl bromide used for differentend uses by developed and developing countries.

About 70 per cent of methyl bromide consumed annually is usedfor soil fumigation prior to planting of crops. Around 50,000 tonnesper year are used for this purpose, with about 80 per cent of thisbeing consumed in developed countries. The largest consumersare the United States, Italy, Japan, Israel and Spain. Developingcountries with the largest annual consumption include Brazil,China, Korean Republic, Mexico, Morocco, South Africa, Turkeyand Zimbabwe. Other developing countries with significantpre-plant methyl bromide usage include Argentina, Chile, CostaRica, Egypt, Kenya, Syria and Thailand. In developing countriesmethyl bromide is used to fumigate soils for high-value cash cropssuch as tobacco, cut flowers, strawberries and vegetables. It is rarely,if ever, used in production of staple foodstuffs. Figure 3 shows thebreakdown of use of methyl bromide for this purpose by country.

Fumigation of commodities accounts for around 20 per cent of methylbromide usage worldwide. Of this, more than 10,000 tonnes areused for postharvest applications in developed countries. About3,000 tonnes are consumed for this purpose in developing coun-tries. The largest developed country users for postharvest applica-tions are the United States, Italy, Israel, Japan, Australia. Developingcountries consuming significant amounts of methyl bromide for such

Flowers5%

Replant5%Tobacco

5%Peppers5%Nursery

crops 6%

Curcubits7%

Other produce

12%

Strawberries13%

Other18%

Tomatoes23%

Sweet potatoes

1%

Figure 1Worldwide soil use of methyl bromide

by crop (1996)

fumigated in gastight, purpose-built fumigation chambers whileothers are treated in very poorlysealed bagged stacks. Betweenthese two extremes there areships’ holds (sometimes very gas-tight but not always), freightcontainers (often not very gas-tight) and well sealed baggedstacks (which can be very gas-tight). For durables fumigatedin enclosed spaces betweenaround 50 and 90 per cent ofmethyl bromide applied can bereleased to the atmosphere. Forperishables, more than 90 percent may be released.

Fumigation of buildings and vehiclesBuildings and vehicles can be infested by all kinds of pests, from themicroscopic, infesting wood and other materials, to rodents.

The variety of structures and vehicles fumigated means that, as forcommodities, widely differing degrees of containment are obtained.For instance, some aircraft and modern buildings can be very gas-tight whereas many older structures can at best be only partiallysealed. Over 90 per cent of the methyl bromide used in these oper-ations eventually reaches the atmosphere.

How much methyl bromide is being used andwhere?About 71,500 tonnes of methyl bromide are used annually world-wide. Some 3 per cent of this is used by the chemical industry asfeedstock (i.e. for synthesizing other products). The remaining 97per cent is used for fumigation. Of this about 75 per cent is used indeveloped countries. North America is the largest user of methylbromide, consuming some 43 per cent. This is followed by Europe,

using approximately 24 per cent, then Asia, Israel andthe Middle East, also consuming an estimated 24 percent. South America and Africa use the least, withcombined consumption of about 9 per cent.


About 70 per cent ofmethyl bromideconsumedannually is usedfor soil fumigationprior to plantingof crops.

Methyl bromide isused for treatmentof ships andfreight containers (empty or not)

Figure 2Worldwide methyl bromide consumption

by end use (1996)

Source: EPA website, 1998


Timber29%

Nuts1%

Grains28% Dried fruits

1%

Perishables41%

Figure 4Usage of methyl bromide for postharvest

applications worldwide (1996)

Non-chemicalalternatives includecultural practices,biological control,physical methodssuch as soilsolarization


Turkey2%

Brazil3%France

3%Spain6%Other

18%

Israel6%

Italy13% Zimbabwe

2%Japan13%

Mexico2%

United States32%

Figure 3Usage of methyl bromide for pre-plant

soil applications by country

Can methyl bromide be replaced?Alternatives have been identified for virtually all uses of methyl bro-mide, and many of them are in use in different places around theworld. However, there is no single substance that can replace methylbromide in all of its applications. Alternatives will have to be de-signed to meet local farming conditions. Some alternatives use otherchemicals, others use non-chemical techniques, and it is sometimespossible to take a different approach preventing the build-up ofpests and thus avoiding having to use methyl bromide at all.

Given methyl bromide’s ability to control a broad spectrum ofpests, many of the viable alternatives consist of a combination of prac-tices and techniques necessary to achieve satisfactory pest control.Such an approach is known as Integrated Pest Management (IPM).

The following sections provide an overview of the techniques thatcan replace methyl bromide. They emphasize non-chemical alter-natives as these are more likely to prove environmentally benignand sustainable, and are normally safer to apply.

Alternative treatments for soilSoil fumigation is the largest single use of methyl bromide. Effectivereplacement can be found in some cases by adapting methods andtechniques that have been available for years to suit local require-ments. In most cases an IPM approach will be necessary if soilbornepest control is to be effective, sustainable and environmentally be-nign. Each individual technique in an IPM strategy may well haveconstraints, but a package of methods can usually be tailored to pro-vide effective pest management for specific sites and situations.

A number of non-chemical alternatives are currently in use for soiltreatment, and other potential alternatives are under investigation.Examples of techniques which have been used with success are:

■ Cultural practicesCrop rotation: used effectively in many parts of the world. Forexample, oilseed rape produces methyl isothiocyanate and relatedmustard oils which kill fungi and nematodes.


applications include China, Egypt, Indonesia, Korea, Thailand, andVietnam. Figure 4 shows the breakdown of this use per commoditycategory.

Annual use of methyl bromide for structural applications representsaround 5 per cent of total world usage. Over 3,000 tonnes are usedfor this purpose in developed countries and approximately 700tonnes in developing countries. The major proportion of methyl bro-mide consumed for structural applications is used to treat wood-destroying pests in dwellings and non-wood destroying pests in flourmills. Small amounts are sometimes used to treat aircraft and moder-ate amounts for ships.

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide



The technique canbe used in coolerclimates usingclosed plasticgreenhouses. This has beendone in northernItaly and in Japan wheresolarization hasbeen used onover 2,200hectares ofstrawberries,eggplants,tomatoes andcucumbers.

Cover crops: used in Florida where summer crops such as sorghum, su-dan grass, American jointvetch or hairy indigo have reduced damageto winter vegetables from nematodes and other soilborne pathogens.

Fertilization and plant nutrition, if properly managed, can do muchto reduce disease. For instance, pod rot in peanut crops can be re-duced by enhanced calcium nutrition by application of lime or land-plaster (calcium sulphate) to the soil.

Natural or artificial plant growth substrates (soil replacements): suchas rock wool, tuff stone, clay granules, waste grain hulls, forestryand industry waste, and many other substances can be used to pro-vide clean soil substitutes allowing nutrients and water to be ab-sorbed by plant roots. Specialized farming systems using these sub-strates operate without the use of methyl bromide in greenhousesand, in some countries (e.g. Spain, Italy), in fields.

Plant breeding and grafting can produce crop species that are re-sistant to nematodes and some pathogenic fungi. Breeding techniquescan be used to develop cultivars resistant to specific pest problems.

■ Organic amendments and biological controlA wide variety of materials have been used as soil amendments tocontrol nematodes, fungi and weeds. These include livestock manures,waste products from paper and forest industries, materials from sea-food and fisheries operations (such as shells from shrimp and othershell fish), sewage and other municipal wastes as well as numerousby-products from agricultural, food and other industries.

An example of biological control is the introduction into the soil ofrhizobacteria (i.e. bacteria that develop in and around plant roots),either applied directly or as a seed coat. Rhizobacteria are antag-onistic to plant pathogens and develop along with the seedling rootsto form a biological shield around the roots, protecting the plant inits critical early growth stages.

■ Physical methodsSteam, under appropriate conditions, can be as effective as methylbromide. In the Netherlands, which banned the use of methyl bromidein 1992, this technique has successfully replaced methyl bromidefumigation.

Solarization consists in trapping solarheat under thin, transparent plastic sheetsfor prolonged periods. This raises soiltemperatures to levels that are lethal tosoilborne pests. Solarization does notsterilize the soil (i.e. kill all microorgan-

isms). In fact, there is evidence that itstimulates beneficial microorganisms and

the technique has given significantly higheryields in some cases. Solarization is most success-

ful in dry climates with low numbers of cloudy days and intense solarheat. It is used by farmers in Jordan, Israel, Italy, Spain and in otherplaces with similar Mediterranean climates. At present, solarizationrequires treatment periods of 4-8 weeks, but its combination withother alternatives, such as organic amendments (see Biofumigationbelow) and pesticides, can reduce this time and increase the rangeof pests controlled.

Biofumigation is the amendment of soil with organic matter that re-leases gases which kill or control pests. This technique may be com-bined with, for example, covering the soil with plastic to trap solarenergy and raise the temperature. An example of biofumigation isthe incorporation into soil of residues of some brassicas and Com-positae (large family of flowering plants). These give off volatile chemi-cals, such as methyl isothiocyanate and phenethyl isothyocianatewhich have herbicidal, fungicidal and/or nematocidal properties.This is a low-technology solution which may prove particularly ap-propriate for developing countries.

Other techniques either in use or under develop-ment include deep ploughing, flooding/watermanagement, leaving land fallow, living mulcheswhich outcompete weeds, hot water treatments,and wavelength-selective plastic mulches.

■ Chemical alternativesChemical alternatives for soil treatmentinclude a number of available and po-tential replacement fumigants such asmetam sodium, methylisocyanate (MITC)and compounds which generate MITC. Mixtures


Residues ofsome brassicashaveherbicidal,fungicidal ornematocidalproperties

of soil fumigants and selected treatments can control a range of pestssimilar to those controlled by methyl bromide. Efficiency of controlof certain soilborne pests approximating that of methyl bromide maybe achieved, in some cases, by a combination of non-fumigant mater-ials (e.g. nematocides, fungicides, herbicides and insecticides).However, the environmental and health considerations limiting theuse of any chemical will have to be considered when selecting al-ternatives. In particular, chemical alternatives, and notably thosethat leave residues in water or products, may not be acceptable toconsumers or regulatory authorities. Extensive trials and safety regu-lation are normally necessary before chemical alternatives can beused.

Table 1 gives selected examples of use and shows the current statusof replacement techniques for a variety of crops in some developingcountries.

Alternative treatments for durable commoditiesSome economically important industries including dried fruit andnuts, cereal grains, and export of unsawn timber use methyl bro-mide as a principal means of pest control. Alternatives are alreadyin use for certain classes of durables.

■ Physical control methodsHeat treatment technologies form one of the few alternatives whichare as rapid as methyl bromide fumigation. Commodities are heat-ed to temperatures of 50-70° C and then cooled rapidly where neces-sary to avoid damage to heat-sensitive products. At around 65° Cdisinfestation from stored-product insects can be achieved in lessthan one minute.

Irradiation is a potential method of pest control applicable to avariety of durables. However, there are concerns about consumeracceptance of irradiated foods and the process is costly.

Sanitation and preventative practices (physical removal) includesimple operations which form a normal part of management of dur-ables in storage. These include cleaning, and removal of food debristo prevent pests multiplying, to reduce their abundance or eliminatethe need for fumigation.


Table 1 Use of alternatives on soil-borne pests in Article 5 countries

Crops Alternatives Countries Comments

Broccoli cultural practices and pesticides Guatemala widely used

Cumin solarization India limited use due to cost anddegradation of plastic sheeting

Cumin soil amendments India widely used for soil improvement

Cucurbits grafting Morocco recently introduced for melon

Cucurbits resistant varieties Morocco widely used for melon

Cucurbits solarization Jordan limited use

Cut flowers compost and steam Colombia cost effective

Cut flower seed beds steam Brazil limited use because of cost issues

Snow peas cultural practices and pesticides Guatemala widely used

Strawberries straw and solarization Philippines widely used

Strawberries cultural practices and pesticides Guatemala widely used

Strawberries soil amendments Zimbabwe limited use, but accepted by growers

Tobacco seed beds substrate: pine bark, rice hulls, Brazil recently introduced, use expected tovermiculite and manure increase

Tobacco seed beds selected cover crops Zimbabwe widely used

Tomatoes soil and agricultural material, Morocco for control of fusarium andsolarization verticillium wilt and Didymella stem

canker

Tomatoes cultural practices and pesticides Guatemala widely used

Tomatoes resistant cultivars Mexico widely used

Source: Adapted from UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Report, April 1997, Volume 1.

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

■ Biological methodsInsect pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, nematodes andfungi can be used to control pests. Some of these are registered asstored product protectants, but many are still undergoing field tests.

Pheromones are chemicals released by insects which influence thebehaviour of insects of the same species. Synthesized versions ofthese chemicals are commercially available for many of the mostimportant pest species. Pheromones may be used to disrupt their be-haviour, especially mating.

■ Fumigants and other gasesControlled and modified atmospheres based on carbon dioxide ornitrogen can effectively control pests in bulk or bagged grain. Longperiods, often more than two weeks, are required for satisfactorypest control. However, the technique can successfully replace fumi-gation with methyl bromide when adequate treatment periods arecommercially feasible. The technique is widely used in Indonesiafor long-term storage of bagged stocks of milled rice.

Alternative fumigants and gases: phosphine is widely used in devel-oped and developing countries. Other alternatives suited to differentuses include ethyl formate, carbon bisulphide and carbonyl sulphide.

■ Contact insecticidesContact insecticides can provide lasting protec-tion. However they can leave chemical residueson treated commodities and their use is thereforeexcluded for processed products. Pests also tendto develop resistance to contact insecticides.

Inert dusts can provide effective, inexpensive,non-toxic and long-term control of pests in grain stores. The maindisadvantages are visible residues, decreased flowability of grainand problems of dust in the work place, but these can be overcomein practice.

Organophosphorous (OPS) compounds are widely used as grainprotectants. The speed at which they degrade (and thereforecease to give protection) is highly dependent on temperatureand moisture.

Synthetic pyrethroids can give effective and stable protection ofgrain for up to two years.

Botanicals are pesticidal substances extracted from plants. Manyare already used in developing countries.

Insect growth regulators can be used to protect agricultural com-modities. They act by interfering with the life cycle of pests and arenot, therefore, able to protect against adult pests. Their persistenceon foodstuffs can also limit their use.

Table 2 shows some alternatives already in use for commodities indeveloping countries.


Contact insecticides

can leave chemical

residues on treated

commodities

Table 2 Use of Alternatives on Durable Commodities in Article 5 Countries

Crops Alternatives Countries Comments

Black pepper phosphine Malaysia registered for use and widely used – storage

Coffee phosphine Vietnam registered for use and widely used

Grain (rice) carbon dioxide Indonesia, currently being introducedPhilippines, Vietnam

Grain controlled China adopted and use expected atmosphere to increase

Grain hermetic Philippines (rice), technology available forsealing/storage Cyprus (barley) adoption

Rice nitrogen gas Thailand commercial experimental use

Timber heat China limited use

Timber sulphuryl fluoride China use increasing, but trials still needed

Wheat carbon dioxide Kenya experimental in silos


Alternative treatments for perishablecommodities

Methyl bromide is the most widely used treatment for disinfestationof perishable commodities. The majority of the amount consumed isused for disinfestation of fruit for quarantine purposes, which areexempt from the Montreal Protocol.

The majority of treatments are carried out on arrival in an importingcountry to intercept pests and, if pests are found, to prevent theirspread. Sometimes an importing country will require treatment tobe carried out prior to export if it deems a pest to be a serious threatto its agricultural security.

A constraint on the development of alternatives for treatment ofperishables prior to export is that they need to be suited to the com-bination of pests and commodities found in each country. This canmake transfers of technology between countries difficult. Costly andlengthy research is often needed to demonstrate the effectiveness ofalternatives to satisfy quarantine authorities.

There are currently very few treatments that can replace methyl bro-mide for treatment of commodities on arrival. Since this is a majorquarantine use of methyl bromide, further research is needed in thisarea.

In spite of the difficulties mentioned above, the 1997 report fromUNEP’s Technology and Economic Assessment Panel states that thereare now more than 97 examples of alternatives which have beenapproved and implemented by various countries. Alternatives canbe divided into those applied before harvesting and those appliedafter it.

■ Pre-harvest alternativesA systems approach can be adopted; this consists of reducing pestpopulations at each stage of commodity production and packing.

Cultural practices, such as planting genetically-modified specieswhich are not the preferred host of a pest, harvesting when pestsare not active, and adding biological or microbial agents to controlpests, can be used. In the latter case, the presence of these agentsmay cause problems of compliance with quarantine requirements.

Growing in pest-free zones and periods is accepted by some coun-tries as adequate treatment. Certification of pest-free zones requiresconstant monitoring, reporting and enforcement. The system is oper-ated in parts of the United States, Japan and New Zealand.

■ Post-harvest alternativesInspection and certification is a way of avoiding treatment altogether.Samples of produce are inspected prior to shipment and each consign-ment is certified based on finding no pests of quarantine importance.This is a labour-intensive method but is suitable for some high-valuecommodities or for those of lower value where labour cost is not abarrier.

Cold treatment in which the temperature is reduced to between -1° C and +2° C can eliminate tropical pests infesting fruit.

Heat treatment can be used to control pests found in tropical andsub-tropical commodities. The temperature is raised to 40-50° C bymoist or dry hot air or by immersion in hot water. However, this treat-ment is unsuitable for most perishables and requires considerableenergy input.

Controlled atmosphere (CA) treatment uses a lack of oxygen to killpests. Carbon dioxide and nitrogen are used to replace the normalatmosphere for a period of several weeks or even months. The longtreatment period means that this method is only suited to perishablesthat store well, such as apples and pears. There are four existingexamples of CA used commercially to control pests for quarantinepurposes.

Irradiation is approved by many countries for foodstuffs such as freshfruit and vegetables. However, its wider adoption is still dependenton further consumer, industry and regulatory acceptance.

Modified atmospheres, microwave control and physical removalare techniques which are currently being developed.

■ Chemical alternativesChemical alternatives to methyl bromide are becoming increasing-ly unacceptable to the consuming public and from an environmen-tal point of view, as they have to be disposed of safely. Furthermore,


❆❆❆

✈¥Methyl Bromide: getting ready for the phase out ● 25

Alternative treatments for structures and vehiclesFumigation of structures is used when pests in a building or otherstructure are so widespread that localized treatments are not effect-ive or when pests are in the walls or in other inaccessible areas.Methyl bromide is currently used as a structural fumigant in threetypes of facilities: food production and storage (mills, food process-ing, distribution warehouses), non food facilities (dwellings, mu-seums) and transport vehicles (trucks, ships, aircraft, railcars). Targetpests include: stored product pests such as mites, beetles, moths,cockroaches, silverfish, psocids, flies, spiders; wood destroying in-sects (termites, beetles); and rodents.

For buildings, as for other applications, there are several fumigantswhich could replace methyl bromide for disinfestation of structures.Phosphine can be a substitute in certain situations. Sulphuryl fluorideis used as a replacement to eradicate wood-destroying insects insome countries. Non-fumigant pesticides and non-chemical methodscan also be used as local treatments.

Heat is currently in use commercially in the USA and some othercountries for insect control in food production facilities. In some casesit is combined with a mixture of phosphine and carbon dioxide.

Heat and humidity combined are currently undergoing commercialfield trials for the treatment of wood boring insects in Germany andUK.

Cold is being used in parts of Canada and other countries with suit-able climates. It is very effective where temperatures can be reducedby using ambient conditions to a level low enough to eradicate in-festation. In other circumstances liquid nitrogen is used to generatesub-zero temperatures. This technique has been in use in the USAfor several years, primarily to eliminate drywood termites.

Modified atmospheres consisting of low oxygen (less than 1 percent) or high carbon dioxide (over 60 per cent) have undergonefield trials in buildings in Germany and the Netherlands.

Chemical alternatives either in use or undergoing trials include phos-phine, alone or in combination with carbon dioxide, nitrogen orsulphuryl fluoride.


they are often difficult to apply, have a narrow spectrum of activity,can damage commodities, and are not approved for use in somecountries. The existing alternatives are:

Fumigation using sulphur dioxide, hydrogen cyanide, methyl andethyl formate and pyrethroids. Given the safety concerns associat-ed with them, the registration of new fumigants is a long and costlyprocess.

Chemical dips: are very dilute pesticide solutions into which thecommodities are dipped. Their disposal can pose environmentalproblems.

Table 3 shows alternative quarantine techniques for fresh fruit, vege-tables and cut flowers with examples of their approval

Table 3

Treatment Examples of approved quarantine applications

Cold Grapes and kiwifruit from Chile to Japan.

Citrus from Israel, South Africa, Florida (USA) to Japan.

Heat Mangoes from Taiwan to Japan.

Papaya from USA to Japan.

Certified pest-free zones or pest-free periods Squash from Tasmania to Japan.

Cucurbits from Japan to USA.

Nectarines from USA to New Zealand.

Systems Approach Immature bananas to Japan.

Avocado from Mexico to the USA.

Preshipment inspection and certification Apples from Chile and New Zealand to the USA.

Nectarines from New Zealand to Australia.

Certain cut flowers from the Netherlands to Japan.

Controlled atmosphere Apples from Canada to California.


Target pestsincludecockroachesand flies

Economic andtechnical restraints

have meant thatfew such

techniques havebeen put into

commercial useto date. The

main techniquesare absorptiononto activated

carbon or ontozeolites and

condensationand recovery.

countries often need financial and technical assistance to identifyand adopt the alternatives which are appropriate to their local condi-tions. It is in the areas of adaptation, development, farmer trainingand education that developing countries will require bilateral andmultilateral aid. Financial and other assistance is required to pro-vide developing countries with access to appropriate alternativesand to avoid the risk of disruption of their trade.

Moreover, the phase out of methyl bromide could provide develop-ing countries with opportunities to modernize their pest-control ap-proaches and to develop new industries to meet regional and in-ternational demands for methyl bromide alternatives. In addition,commercial pressure to move away from methyl bromide is begin-ning to emerge with some supermarkets and traders selecting pro-duce grown without it. A developing country, or indeed any coun-try, that persists in the use of methyl bromide may lose export marketsas a result of commercial pressures.

How can developing countries obtain financialand technical assistance in implementingalternatives to methyl bromide?At their 1990 meeting in London, the Parties to the Protocol createdthe Multilateral Fund to provide financial and technical assistanceto developing countries in establishing and implementing projectsand programmes for phase out of ozone-depleting substances.An additional point, of great importance, is that financial aid forsubstances covered by a particular amendment to the Protocol isonly available from the Multilateral Fund to those countries whichhave ratified that amendment. Therefore, for countries to receivefinancial assistance to implement methyl bromide alternatives, theymust first ratify the Copenhagen Amendment.

The Multilateral Fund is managed by an Executive Committee, madeup of representatives of 14 Parties to the Montreal Protocol, withequal representation from developed and developing countries.Four organizations have been designated as Implementing Agenciesfor the Multilateral Fund:

● The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) assists Partiesin investment project planning and preparation, country programmesand institutional strengthening, and runs training and demonstrationprojects.


A small proportion of the methyl bromide produced is used for pestmanagement in transport vehicles. This is necessary to protect thesensitive equipment they often contain and for quarantine purposes.In the Nordic countries methyl bromide will no longer be used forfumigation of ships and aircraft from 1998 including for quaran-tine. In these countries, methyl bromide will be replaced by tradi-tional control techniques or, in extreme situations, by a fumigantsuch as sulphuryl fluoride.

Are there ways to reduce emissions of methylbromide?Better sealing of enclosures and the use of less permeable sheetinghave been identified as ways of reducing emissions from fumiga-tion of soils, structures and durables. Where perishables are concern-ed, although there is room for improvement, many of the facilitiesused for fumigation have high standards of gastightness. The larg-est potential for improvement is in the area of durables where bettersealing would be useful for any fumigant.

There is some current interest in the development of techniques torecover and recycle methyl bromide after treatment. Efforts towardrecovering and recycling are mostly focused on the enclosures usedfor fumigation of structures and commodities.

All of the recovery and recycling techniques are relatively complexin nature and are likely to be expensive to install. In some instancesthe cost of installation may even exceed that of the fumigation in-stallation itself. Moreover, regulations may not permit recycled methylbromide to be applied to food commodities, because of contamin-ants in it. Recovery and recycling may have their role to play in limit-ing emissions from essential uses of methyl bromide. However, asamendments to the Montreal Protocol now specify precise schedulesfor reduction and phase-out, there are many advantages in movingstraight to viable methyl bromide alternatives rather than trying torecover, reclaim or recycle the material.

Are there special problems of replacement fordeveloping countries?As this booklet and other publications have shown, there are safe,effective alternatives to methyl bromide which are not harmful to theozone layer. Many of these are now available and are in use, inboth developed and developing countries. However, developing



● The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), through theUNEP IE OzonAction Programme, collects data, provides an infor-mation clearinghouse, assists low-volume consuming countries inthe preparation of country programmes and institutional strengthen-ing projects, and offers training and networking assistance.

● The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)runs small- to medium-scale investment projects and country pro-grammes, and offers technical assistance and training for individualfacilities.

● The World Bank develops and implements investment projects andassists in the preparation of country programmes.

Financial and technical assistance will be especially important todeveloping countries where the phase out of methyl bromide is con-cerned. As we have seen, alternatives to methyl bromide exist, butthey will need to be demonstrated in local farming conditions if tech-nology transfer is to be successful. Programmes giving informationto farmers and providing them with education, training and on-farmtechnical assistance will be necessary. Development of such pro-grammes will require financial and technical resources from theFund, from bilateral agencies and from other agriculture and de-velopment sources.

Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of the need to phase out methylbromide, the 1997 Amendments to the Montreal Protocol broughtforward the date for its elimination in developed countries to 2005.Some developing countries may well need help if they are to be ableto adopt alternatives in time to be ready for possible rejection ofproducts treated with methyl bromide by supermarkets and consum-ers in developed countries when methyl bromide is no longer avail-able in industrialized regions.

And finally, regarding Amendments, the Montreal Protocol statesthat Amendments come into force only for those Parties which haveratified them. This also means – and the point has already beenmade but is worth repeating – that if countries are to qualifyfor financial assistance to replace methyl bromide, they must ratifythe Copenhagen Amendment.


ContactsWhere can I find out more about alternativesto methyl bromide?The following publications provide information about alternativesto methyl bromide and provide examples of alternatives in use orbeing developed.

Banks, H. J. (Editor). 1995. Agricultural Production without Methyl Bromide– Four Case Studies. CSIRO, Australia.

EPA 1995, 1996, 1997. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide – Volume One,Two and Three. Ten Case Studies; Soil, Commodity and Structural Use.United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air andRadiation, Washington, DC.

Fields, P, Dowdy, A., and Marcotte, M. 1997. Structural Pest Control: TheUse of an Enhanced Diatomaceous Earth Product Combined with Heat Treat-ment for the Control of Insect Pests in Food Processing Facilities. Agricul-ture and Agri-Food Canada, 25 p.

GTZ. 1998. Methyl Bromide Substitution in Agriculture. Objective and Ac-tivities of Republic of Germany Concerning the Support to Article 5 Coun-tries of the Montreal Protocol. GTZ Proklima Project. Eschborn, Germany,159 p.

Miller, M (Editor). 1996. The Technical and Economic Feasibility of Replac-ing Methyl Bromide in Developing Countries. Friends of the Earth, Washington,173 p.

Muller, J.J.V. (Editor) 1997. Proceedings from the 1st Brazilian Meeting onAlternatives to Methyl Bromide in Developing Countries. Florianopolis,Santa Catarina, Brazil.

Proceedings from the Annual International Conference on Methyl BromideAlternatives and Emissions Reductions. San Diego, California, United States,3-5 November 1997.

Schonfield, A.L., Wamukonya, and L, Glendening, S. 1995. Under AfricanSkies – Methyl Bromide Use and Alternatives in Sub-Saharan Africa. Pesti-cide Action Network, San Francisco.

TEAP 1997. April 1997 TEAP Report, Volume I, Technology and EconomicAssessment Panel, Nairobi, 221 p.

UNEP 1994, 1997. Reports of the Methyl Bromide Technical OptionsCommittee. UNEP, Nairobi.

Who can assist?The organizations and people listed below will be able to providehelp and guidance about activities and projects to help phaseout methyl bromide.

■ UNEP IE OzonAction Programme (UNEP IE)39-43 Quai Andre Citroen75739 Paris Cedex 15FranceTel: +33 1 44 37 14 50Fax: +33 1 44 37 14 74E-mail: [email protected]://www.unepie.org/ozonaction.html

■ United Nations Environment Programme Ozone SecretariatMr. K. M. SarmaExecutive SecretaryPO Box 30552 NairobiKenyaTel: +254 2 623 885Fax: +254 2 623 913E-mail: [email protected] http://une.unep.org/unep/secretar/ozone/home.htm

■ UNEP Regional Office for Asia and Pacific (ROAP)UN Building, Radjamnern Avenue10200 Bangkok, ThailandTel: +66 2 280 60 88Fax: +66 2 280 38 29

■ UNEP Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (ROLAC)155, Boulevard de los Virreyes Col LomasVirreyes – 11000 Mexico DFTel: +52 5 202 4841Fax: +52 5 202 0950

■ UNEP Regional Office for West Asia (ROWA)PO Box 10880Manama BahrainTel: +973 266072Fax: +973 266075

Methyl Bromide: getting ready for the phase out ● 3130 ● Methyl Bromide: getting ready for the phase out

■ United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)1 United Nations PlazaNew York, NY 10017United StatesTel: +1 212 906 5042Fax: +1 212 906 6947E-mail: [email protected]

■ World Bank1818 H St., NWWashington, DC 20433United StatesTel: +1 202 477 1234Fax: +1 202 522 3256E-mail: [email protected]

■ United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)PO Box 300A-1400 ViennaAustriaTel: +43 1 211 31 3782Fax: +43 1 230 7449E-mail: [email protected]

■ Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol1800 McGill College Avenue 27th FloorMontreal, Quebec H3A 3J6CanadaTel: +1 514 282 1122Fax: +1 514 282 0068E-mail: [email protected]

■ Pesticide Action Network AfricaAbou ThiamBP 15938Dakar Fann, DakarSenegalTel and Fax: +221-25-4914E-mail: [email protected]

UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION

ISBN: 92-807-1716-2

39-43, QUAI ANDRE CITROEN75739 PARIS CEDEX 15 - FRANCETEL : (33) 01 44 37 14 50FAX : (33) 01 44 37 14 74E-MAIL : [email protected]://www.unepie.org/home.html

UNEP

INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENT

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

Date post:	08-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Maquette MeBr corrig e der · It is now a well-established fact that some widely used man- made...

Documents