BACKGROUND

At their November 1992 meeting, the parties to the Montreal Protocol listed methyl bromide as a stratospheric ozone depletor and agreed to freeze production levels for developed countries at 1991 levels in 1995, except for quarantine and some postharvest preshipment uses. Since then, they have agreed to phase out methyl bromide, except for the exceptions noted above, in developed countries by the year 2005.

The listing of methyl bromide by the Montreal Protocol set in motion provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act, which require the phase out within seven years of any material listed as an ozone depletor by the Montreal Protocol. Consequently, on November 30, 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule under the Clean Air Act that froze production at 1991 levels in 1994, and eliminated production and importation of methyl bromide by January 1, 2001. Because there is no practical way to stockpile methyl bromide for use after that date, this rule effectively bans methyl bromide use in the United States. In addition to requiring an earlier phase out than mandated by the Montreal Protocol, the Clean Air Act made no provision for exceptions to the ban for quarantine, preshipment, or emergency uses, all of which are expected to be exempt from regulation by the Montreal Protocol. Also, the Clean Air Act did not allow temporary or permanent exemptions for critical uses for which alternatives had not been identified. The Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 budget, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, changed the Clean Air Act to bring it into agreement with present provisions of the Montreal Protocol. Although this change in the Clean Air Act extended the phase-out date to 2005, it also requires implementation of the Montreal Protocol-mandated interim reductions of 25% in 1999; 25% in 2001; and 20% in 2003 for all uses except quarantine and preshipment.

Methyl bromide is a highly efficacious fumigant used on more than 100 crops, in forest and ornamental nurseries, and on wood products to control insects, nematodes, weeds, and pathogens, and thus, is critical to important segments of U.S. agriculture. It is used for soil fumigation, postharvest protection, and quarantine treatments. Soil fumigation and postharvest commodity, including structural fumigation, uses approximately 80% and 19% respectively, of the methyl bromide consumed in the United States.  In addition, a small amount of methyl bromide is used in the manufacture of other chemicals.  Methyl bromide is critical to maintaining many export markets for U.S. produced commodities where quarantine issues prevent shipment of commodity without methyl bromide fumigation. Methyl bromide is used extensively at ports-of-entry to disinfest commodities that are found on inspection to be infested with exotic pests, the introduction of which might cause irreparable harm to U.S. agriculture.

Substitution of a single alternative chemical fumigant for methyl bromide is unlikely. An array of alternative control measures will be required to substitute for the many essential uses of methyl bromide. Such measures include combinations of fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides; possible replacement fumigants for some applications; and non-chemical alternatives, including cultural changes in cropping systems, development of resistant crops, biological control, and integrated pest management to prevent buildup of nematodes, weeds, and insect pests. Irradiation and heat treatments are effective for some quarantine and export applications.

It is clear that unless viable alternatives to methyl bromide are found, U.S. agriculture will be at a competitive disadvantage in domestic and international markets. Developing countries will receive up to a 10-year grace period for use of methyl bromide after the 2005 ban for developed countries. U.S. farmers are already having difficulty competing with developing countries. If practical and effective alternatives to methyl bromide are not identified, developed, and where necessary registered, the competitive position of U.S. farmers’ will be further degraded by the continued use of methyl bromide in developing countries. The goal of the Methyl Bromide Alternatives National Program is to make available to the U.S. agriculture community environmentally acceptable, practical, economically feasible, and sustainable alternatives to methyl bromide.

USDA has vigorously responded to the methyl bromide challenge. It has brought together agricultural and forestry leaders from private industry, academia, state governments, and the federal government to assess the problem, formulate priorities, and implement research directed at providing solutions to the problems predicted by the methyl bromide phase-out. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has taken the lead in this process and has emphasized the importance of research on alternatives to methyl bromide by redirecting funds from other programs to this area, and by implementing new research projects funded by additional Congressional appropriations.

Even prior to the Montreal Protocol, research was underway at ARS that had applicability to the development of alternatives to methyl bromide. The banning of ethylene dibromide in the mid-1980’s for postharvest treatments left U.S. agriculture with only two postharvest fumigants: methyl bromide and phosphine. Methyl bromide is the only fumigant certified for certain quarantine and pre-shipment trade uses. Thus, it was prudent to carry on a continuing program of research that would lead to possible alternatives to the approved fumigants as a critical safeguard for U.S. trade in a number of commodity areas. In some cases, methyl bromide, while effective for quarantine security, caused loss of product quality, such as surface burn on citrus. Some commodities, such as mangoes, papayas, guavas, and other tropical products, could not be marketed in the United States because of quarantine restrictions and unacceptable product damage caused by treatment with methyl bromide. Thus, development of alternative, non-damaging quarantine treatments was on-going. In contrast, preplant soil fumigation with methyl bromide was highly effective, and there was no immediate need for alternatives. Thus, in FY 1993, about 75% of the ARS research program for methyl bromide replacement was targeted to developing alternatives to methyl bromide for postharvest commodity treatment. This imbalance in funding was addressed by ARS by allocating 75% of all new alternatives to methyl bromide funds to preplant soil fumigation alternative research issues. Current ARS funding for methyl bromide alternatives research is split about equally between preplant and postharvest research.

In FY 1999, ARS allocated about $14.4 million toward research to develop alternatives to methyl bromide. ARS also provided in FY 1999, $254,000 in extramural funds to the University of California and the California Strawberry Commission, and $244,000 in extramural funds to the University of Florida, to conduct research on alternatives to methyl bromide.

In 1995, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the U.S. EPA formed the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Working Group to track and facilitate adoption of alternatives to methyl bromide.  This group, co-chaired by an ARS employee, works to remove regulatory and other restrictions impeding the full availability to farmers and other methyl bromide users of promising alternatives.  USDA representatives participate in a variety of significant national and international forums that provide a venue for interactions with growers and private industry on issues related to methyl bromide. For example, a USDA employee sits on the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, an international committee that was formed under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and which includes representation from U.S. industry groups, such as the California Strawberry Advisory Board. The USDA also cooperates with the Crop Protection Coalition, which includes both grower and industry representation. Moreover, the USDA has co-sponsored, with the Crop Protection Coalition and the EPA, annual comprehensive conferences on methyl bromide alternatives and emissions reduction. These conferences provide an opportunity for technical exchange and interactions among USDA, growers, and private industry on significant issues related to methyl bromide research. In addition, ARS has published a quarterly Methyl Bromide Alternatives Newsletter since October 1995, as a link between researchers and agricultural producers, marketers, and consumers.  NP 308 is comprised of two components:

• Preplant Soil Fumigation Alternatives 
• Commodity Treatment Postharvest (Including Structural)

VISION STATEMENT

Replacement of methyl bromide by January 1, 2005, with effective, economical, and practical alternatives

MISSION STATEMENT

Develop environmentally compatible and economically feasible alternatives to the use of methyl bromide as a soil and postharvest commodity treatment.

PLANNING PROCESS/PLAN DEVELOPMENT

The Methyl Bromide Alternatives National Program was reviewed at two meetings: Orlando, Florida, on December 10-11, 1998, which included meetings with several grower operations, and Monterey, California, on April 20-21, 1999, with visits to farm sites on April 22-23, 1999. At the Florida review, participants included ARS researchers and National Program Staff, University of Florida scientists, representatives of the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, and strawberry and vegetable producers from throughout the state of Florida. ARS scientists presented summaries of their research on methyl bromide alternatives. Dr. Joe Noling, University of Florida, presented an overview of ARS funded research on methyl bromide alternatives at the University of Florida. Dan Botts, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, presented a summary of the industry perspective on methyl bromide alternatives. This was followed by a discussion of industry priorities and concerns.

At the California meeting, participants included ARS researchers and National Program Staff, representatives from the U.S. and California EPA, the Economic Research Service, the Forest Service, APHIS, University of California scientists, California Department of Food and Agriculture officials, representatives of the California Apple Commission, the California Association of Nurserymen, the California Citrus Research Board, the California Cut Flower Commission, the California Strawberry Commission, the California Table Grape and Tree Fruit League, the California Tree Fruit Agreement, the California Walnut Commission, nursery operators, fruit and vegetable producers, and processors from throughout the state of California. Written summaries of research on methyl bromide alternatives by ARS scientists were provided to all participants. Scientific and industry perspectives on the status of research on methyl bromide alternatives were presented for strawberries, forestry nurseries, perennials, floriculture, and postharvest commodities. Current status of regulatory aspects of the methyl bromide phase out and of registration of alternative technologies were presented by representatives of the U.S. and California EPA. The presentations were followed by four concurrent break-out sessions, one session for each commodity group, to discuss status, efficacy, and practicality of methyl bromide alternatives, regulatory issues related to alternatives, and research needs. Summaries of the results of the break-out sessions were presented at a final session of all participants. The expected outcome of the workshop was to develop action lists of research needs and regulatory issues.