Sections

The Montreal Protocol

Decisions

Annexes

Rules of Procedure

Sources of Further Information

General Index

Previous

Next

Further guidance on the criteria for the evaluation of nominations for critical uses of methyl bromide

---

[Source: Annex I of the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties]

1. On the availability of technically and economically feasible alternatives, and economic feasibility

17. Pending further consideration by the Meeting of the Parties, MBTOC shall continue to define:
1. “Alternatives” as any practice or treatment that can be used in place of methyl bromide;
2. “Existing alternatives” as those alternatives in present or past use in some regions; and
3. “Potential alternatives” as those alternatives in the process of investigation or development.
18. Understanding of the concept of “availability” shall be primarily guided by the alternative’s market presence in sufficient quantities and accessibility, taking into account, among other things, regulatory constraints.
19. To the factors already listed in annex I, part B, paragraph 4 of the report of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties, with regard to paragraphs 6 and 9 (c) of decision Ex.I/4, the following are added:
1. The difference in purchasing costs between methyl bromide and the alternatives per treated areas, mass, or volume, and related costs such as new equipment, labour costs and losses resulting from closing the fumigated object for an extended period of time;
2. Difference in yield per hectare, including its quality, and harvest time, between the alternative and methyl bromide;
3. Percentage change in net revenue if alternatives are used.
20. In line with paragraph 4 above, in any case in which a Party makes a nomination which relies on the economic criteria of decision IX/6, MBTOC should, in its report, explicitly state the central basis for the Party’s economic argument and explicitly explain how it addressed that factor, and, in cases in which MBTOC recommends a cut; MBTOC should also provide an explanation of its economic feasibility.
21. As regards significant market disruption, it is recalled that paragraph 1 (a) (i) of decision IX/6 provides that a use of methyl bromide should qualify as “critical” only if the nominating Party determines that the specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption. Parties are invited to include in their nominations, information on their determination referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (i) of decision IX/6.

2. On the duration of critical-use nomination of methyl bromide

22. It is recalled that the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties adopted decision XVI/3, related to the duration of critical-use nominations of methyl bromide.

3. On aggregation of nominations

23. It is reaffirmed that applications shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. In that context, MBTOC shall continue its current approach as regards the level of aggregation or disaggregation.

4. On individual circumstances of nominations

24. In the interest of fair and equal treatment, nominations should be assessed in the light of compliance with the criteria of decision IX/6 and other relevant decisions, irrespective of the size or number of tonnes in the nomination. MBTOC is invited to propose a streamlined method for assessing small nominations to the degree that the method is consistent with the principle stated above.
25. If a particular product is not registered or subject to national or local regulatory restrictions, or if it becomes de-registered, MBTOC should recommend a critical-use exemption, provided there are no other feasible alternatives according to decision IX/6 for the specific situation. MBTOC should request written advice from the nominating Party, which may include advice from the manufacturer of an alternative.
26. In cases where alternatives are currently in the registration process, MBTOC should note this fact. It is acknowledged that a Party does not always have the capability to influence the registration of alternatives. A nominating Party should inform MBTOC when registration occurs and MBTOC should take this kind of information into account when recommending critical-use exemptions, as is already requested by the Parties in decision IX/6, paragraph 1 (b) (iii).

5. On the handbook on critical use nominations for methyl bromide

27. The handbook is a general reference for all those involved in the critical-use exemption process, in part owing to the convenience of using the handbook as a general reference volume for methyl bromide decisions, as well as the critical-use nomination procedure. Therefore, the handbook should be reframed to become a comprehensive “one-stop shop” that includes information on methyl bromide decisions, working procedures and terms of reference of MBTOC, the critical-use nomination process, agreed standard presumptions and other related topics. The text should be taken as far as possible, however, directly from decisions of the Meeting of the Parties or other language that has been approved by the Parties.
28. The onus remains on the nominating Party to provide sufficient information in order for MBTOC to be able to assess whether critical-use nominations comply fully with decision IX/6. The handbook should inform Parties which information requirements are needed.
29. TEAP and its MBTOC should be responsible for updating the handbook. TEAP and its MBTOC should not put any new proposals in the handbook which do not have a basis in a decision of the Meeting of the Parties. Factual updates of the handbook incorporating the specific language of the decisions of the Parties do not require prior approval from the Parties. Otherwise, updates require approval from the Parties.

6. On approach, assumptions and reasoning to be used in the evaluation

30. Decision IX/6 is the basis for the assessment of critical-use exemptions by MBTOC.
31. While the burden of proof remains with the nominating Party to justify the request for a critical-use exemption, MBTOC, in its report, should indicate whether the nominating Party has provided the information in order for MBTOC to determine that the Party has met the applicable criteria set out in decision IX/6 and related decisions.
32. Exemptions must fully comply with decision IX/6 and other relevant decisions, and are intended to be limited to the levels needed for critical-use exemptions, temporary derogations from the phase-out of methyl bromide in that they are to apply only until there are technically and economically feasible alternatives that otherwise meet the criteria in decision IX/6. MBTOC should take a precise and transparent approach to the application of the criteria, having regard, especially, to paragraphs 4 and 20 above.

7. On similar circumstances

33. When MBTOC makes differentiated recommendations on nominations that cover the same use, it should clearly explain why one country’s nomination is being treated differently than the nominations of other countries or the nominations of the same country, based on more information and citations of feasible alternatives relevant to these nominations, thus eliminating unjustified inconsistencies in assessments and ensuring equal treatment of nominations.

8. On market penetration of alternatives

34. When considering the market penetration of an alternative in a nominating Party, MBTOC should evaluate the critical-use nominations based on information provided by the Parties and other information, in accordance with the terms of reference of TEAP, and in the light of likely implementation time in the circumstances of the nomination, and provide recommendations. In evaluating, MBTOC should request written advice from the nominating Party, which may include further information from the manufacturer of an alternative.
35. In situations where MBTOC recommends a nomination on grounds that it is necessary to have a period for adoption of alternatives, the basis for calculating the time period must be explained fully in the TEAP report and take fully into account the information provided by the nominating Party, the supplier, the distributor or the manufacturer. Relevant factors for such a calculation include the number of enterprises that need to transition, e.g., the number of fumigation and pest control companies, estimated training time assuming full effort, opportunities for importing alternative equipment and expertise if not available locally, and costs involved.
36. A case-by-case approach by MBTOC for each specific nomination (on the basis of information provided according to paragraph 35 above) is necessary above a one-size-fits-all approach when considering penetration of alternatives and transition times.

9. On conflict of interest

37. The members of MBTOC should be required to declare any interest that they may have on the basis of a declaration, to be agreed by the Parties, and subject to any conditions attached to it.
38. It is recognized that the topic of conflict of interest, including the format of the declaration referred to in paragraph 37 above, needs further deliberations, taking fully into account the experience gained in this regard, the issue of confidentiality and the existing code of conduct contained in paragraph 5 of the terms of reference of TEAP.

Previous

Next

Sections

The Montreal Protocol

Decisions

Annexes

Rules of Procedure

Sources of Further Information

General Index