Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee
Investigates Alternatives
April 8, 1994
How quickly can the world stop using methyl bromide, the
soil, commodities, and structural fumigant that not only
poisons workers and others exposed to it, but also depletes
the earth's ozone layer? When representatives of the 104
countries that have signed the United Nations Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer meet in
November, 1995, to agree on dates to phase out production of
methyl bromide, they will be basing their decision, at least
in part, on the existence of alternatives to methyl bromide.
A report on those alternatives, compiled by the Methyl
Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) of the Montreal
Protocol, is due to be completed in September, 1994.
With 65 members, the MBTOC is fairly unwieldy. It is also
strongly northern in orientation and composition (57 members
come from or are based in Northern countries), and largely
representative of industry and the private sector (28
members) and government (23 members). Most members represent
entities directly involved with producing or using methyl
bromide and/or other pesticides. Only five MBTOC members
represent non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (accounting
for five of the eight women on the Committee), all from the
North.
This paucity of developing country representation and absence
of developing country NGO representation are of particular
concern because the Montreal Protocol process could lead to a
ten-year extension of production and use of methyl bromide in
developing countries beyond whatever phaseout schedule is set
for industrialized countries. Such an extension would
continue the poisoning of workers; delay adoption of more
sustainable agricultural practices; and expand the southern
ozone hole, exposing southern populations to increasingly
dangerous levels of solar radiation.
Given its composition, MBTOC is not well informed of either
the particular strengths of developing countries (e.g.,
experience with agriculture that is not methyl bromide-
dependent), or their plights (e.g., near total lack of worker
protection). In an attempt to address this gap, the
Pesticide Action Network North and Latin America Regional
Centers sponsored a panel and field trip during the 28
February - 4 March, 1994, meeting of the MBTOC in Santiago,
Chile, marking the first time that developing country NGOs
have been heard by MBTOC. The panel featured three
agronomists and PAN participants (Elsa Nivia, Regional
Coordinator of PAN Latin America, Colombia; Luis Gomero, of
the Action Network for Alternatives to Agrochemicals, Peru;
and Gert Fischer of PAN Brazil) and the director of a
sustainable agriculture demonstration center (Camila
Montecinos of Centro de Educacion y Tecnologia, Santiago,
Chile). The panelists contributed information about the
import and use of methyl bromide in South America, and
alternatives to a wide variety of methyl bromide uses. The
NGO panel also criticized the MBTOC for its lack of
developing country representation, a criticism that was met
with resistance and hostility from many MBTOC members.
In spite of its biases, the overriding importance of the
MBTOC lies in its clear focus on and mandate to document
alternatives to uses of methyl bromide. (Issues related to
the economics of alternatives to methyl bromide are largely
the purview of the parallel Methyl Bromide Economic Options
Committee, whose report is due out in November 1994.) The
task of MBTOC is to describe the ways that people can and are
growing, transporting and storing food and other commodities
without methyl bromide fumigation: non-chemical as well as
chemical alternatives; indigenous agriculture as well as
industrial agriculture; integrated systems as well as single
shot "substitute" products. MBTOC's four main subcommittees
reflect the four major categories of methyl bromide use: on
soils, with perishable commodities, with durable commodities,
and within structures. If even one member of a 20-member
subcommittee brings evidence of a non-chemical alternative
that is being used or seems feasible, the existence of that
alternative is recorded as part of the subcommittee's
chapter. Working within this process, the NGO
representatives and other key MBTOC members have researched
and presented excellent non-chemical alternatives to methyl
bromide, which then become part of the knowledge base upon
which international phaseout deadlines can be made.
Action Alert: Please contact PANNA at address below if you
are aware of instances in which growers, exporters or storage
managers have switched from using methyl bromide to non-
chemical pest control methods. PANNA will convey this
information to the MBTOC.
Source/contact: Mary O'Brien, member of MBTOC and President,
PAN North America Board of Directors, Environmental Studies,
Rankin Hall, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA;
phone: (406) 243-5383; fax: (406) 243-4076; e-mail:
mob@selway.umt.edu
Additional contact: Bill Thomas, MBTOC Secretary, U.S. EPA,
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Stratospheric Protection
Division (6205J), 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C, 20460;
phone: (202) 233-9179; fax: (202) 233-9577; e-mail:
thomas.bill@epamail.epa.gov
=============================================================
The Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) is a
pesticide-related news service posted weekly by the Pesticide
Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA). PANNA is
located at 116 New Montgomery Street, #810, San Francisco, CA
94105. Tel: (415) 541-9140. Fax: (415) 541-9253. To receive a
standard information packet about the Pesticide Action Network
send a short e-mail message to panna-info@igc.apc.org.
=============================================================