Critical use exemptions
granted during a late March meeting will allow some growers in the
United States to continue using methyl bromide, although on a limited
basis.
Eleven developed nations agreed to delay the implementation of a complete
phase-out of methyl bromide in certain cases during a conference held
March 24-26 in Montreal. Methyl bromide was due to be phased out in
developed nations by Jan. 1, 2005 under the 1987 Montreal Protocol.
But, under the allowed critical use exemptions (CUE’s), 11 developed
nations, including the United States, will be given critical use exemptions
allowing them to use the fumigant at least until the end of 2005.
Developing nations have until 2015 to phase out methyl bromide.
The 11 countries to receive CUE’s were: Australia (160 tons),
Belgium (52), Canada (62), France (449), Greece (205), Italy (2,351),
Japan 313), Portugal (55), Spain (1,167), Britain (142) and the United
States (9,857). In addition, the United States has agreed to limit
its 2005 production levels for methyl bromide to 7,659 tons (equal
to 30 percent of its baseline, as compared with 35 percent for its
exemption). This means that it will supply some of its exemptions
from existing stockpiles.
How the United States, through the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), allocates its allowance of the methyl bromide exemptions is
still undetermined according to a spokesman for EPA.
“My understanding is that right now EPA is in the process of
doing the work that will define how the critical use exemptions are
allocated,” said Dave Deegan, with EPA. “There’s
not an end result yet.”
Tomato growers in Florida are among the hardest to be hit by the phase-out
of methyl bromide.
“Methyl bromide is a critical component to the production system
in Florida and throughout most of Eastern seaboard,” said Reggie
Brown, executive vice president for the Florida Tomato Exchange. “Availability
of methyl bromide in 2005 is a critical factor in the viability of
those enterprises. The lack of economically viable and reliable alternatives
would have put the industry in very serious risk.”
The CUE’s were granted after the developed nations testified
during a United Nations-sponsored meeting. Those in attendance testified
that there is no viable alternative for methyl bromide. The exemptions
were allowed to give farmers and others who use methyl bromide additional
time to examine cost-effective substitutes for the pesticide, which
is used to eliminate pests in such crops as tomatoes, strawberries,
melons, peppers, cucumbers and flowers.
Rodger Wasson, president of the California Strawberry Commission,
attended the meeting in Montreal.
“We went to the meeting in Montreal to make the case to the
parties – and the parties are the nearly 150 countries –
that we are transitioning to alternatives to methyl bromide, but we
can’t transition that fast,” Wasson said. “We made
our case on the floor, and the United States intervened to ask the
technical review committee members what they thought of our concern,
and – to our relief – they agreed with us. They realized
the system they had in place failed to take into account a reasonable
transition time for an industry like ours.”
According to a press release from the Crop Protection Coalition –
which is comprised of more than 40 agricultural organizations –
scientists and economists from the EPA, USDA and universities devoted
more than 20,000 hours to an extensive review of methyl bromide uses
and alternatives in the United States. That review confirmed the need
for methyl bromide for the production of fruits, vegetables, tree
seedlings and flowers, as well as for grain million facilities and
other post-harvest uses.
“This is one of the most important issues for Florida –
and California too,” said Ray Gilmer, director of public affairs
for the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association. “This (methyl
bromide) is one of the things that helps keep us in competition with
Mexico who, under the treaty, has use of methyl bromide for the next
10 years.”
More than 350 participants – representing 114 governments –
attended the Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties (ExMOP) to the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer conference. They
discussed a series of issues relating to methyl bromide that had been
left unresolved at the 15th Meeting of the Parties in November 2003.
According to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, compromise was reached
by adopting a double-cap concept distinguishing between use and production
for critical-use exemptions and by establishing an ad hoc working
group to review the working procedures and terms of reference of the
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. Delegates to the ExMOP
also adopted decisions relating to further specific interim reductions
of methyl bromide for the period beyond 2005 and conditions for granting
and reporting critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide.
“Part of this agreement was that users pull from existing stockpiles
of methyl bromide to meet their needs,” Gilmer said. “That
becomes a little complicated for the companies that produce methyl
bromide – they don’t know how they can keep their plants
up and running if they’re not able to produce more than what
the Montreal Protocol says.
“The Montreal Protocol calls for limiting productions and how
production matches with consumption is a gray area. This agreement
attempts to use up any spare methyl bromide that’s out there
as part of this process.”
Originally, Gilmer said, the United States was seeking a three-year
exemption for using methyl bromide. The one-year exemption means that
those seeking additional exemptions will have to reapply after this
year is over. The recently-granted exemption lasts from Jan. 1, 2005
to Jan. 1, 2006.
“It’s sort of a short-term sigh of relief, but at same
time it is a wake-up call that methyl bromide is not going to be here
very long,” Gilmer said. “We’re going to have to
pay more for what we use and redouble our efforts to find alternatives…
Some of the alternative chemicals actually have more warnings for
workers who use them in the field (than methyl bromide). Our growers
don’t like switching from one chemistry to another that increases
worker risk.”
Wasson said that growers should rest assured that for the areas there
are no viable alternatives, methyl bromide will be available in 2005.
“Also, they have to recognize that there will be a reduced amount
in 2005,” he said. “The pressure is still on the growers
to continue to make themselves familiar with how they can make alternatives
and to make the transition to alternatives where the alternatives
make sense.”
Methyl bromide is being phased out because of its damage to the ozone
layer and to possible dangers to those who come in contact with the
pesticide. The Montreal Protocol allows governments to apply for exemptions
when there are no technically or economically feasible alternatives,
or for health or safety reasons.
“The environmental community would very much like to phase-out
methyl bromide use in the U.S., and that’s unfortunate; that
phase-out would be to the detriment to agricultural producers in this
country,” Brown said. “I would guess they’re not
very happy with the critical use exemptions, and I think you’ll
see that in the press, but they’re not the ones risking their
farms.
“And we certainly are not opposed to the eventual phase-out
of methyl bromide, provided we have a reliable and economically-viable
alternative – but we are not ready to go out of business specifically
over the phase-out of methyl bromide…We have only begun to fight.”
For more information, visit www.unep.org and search for “methyl
bromide,” or visit www.epa.gov/spdpublc/mbr/
