See more coverage of this event on the main IISD ENB website

We have launched a new website to better share our reports of global environmental negotiations.

As well as current coverage of new negotiations, you can find our original reports from this event by clicking here.

18th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (MOP-18)
30 October-3 November 2006 | New Delhi, India
Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB)
Daily Web
Curtain Raiser
31 Oct
3 Nov &

The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC)

Highlights from Tuesday, 31 October

In morning and evening sessions on Tuesday, delegates focused on methyl bromide-related matters and issues arising out of the TEAP's 2006 reports. During the afternoon, contact and informal groups convened to address a wide range of issues, including: draft terms of reference for case studies on the environmentally sound destruction of ODS; stockpiled ODS relative to compliance; disclosure of interest guidelines; the report of the experts' meeting on the reports of the TEAP and the IPCC; difficulties faced by some Article 5 parties manufacturing CFC-based MDIs; CUNs and other methyl bromide-related matters; and key challenges to be faced in protecting the ozone layer over the next decade. In the evening, the budget committee met, as did the contact group on difficulties faced by Article 5 parties and a group on cooperation with the International Plant Protection Convention.


Jonathan Banks, Chair of the TEAP Task Force on uses of methyl bromide as QPS, Australia (left), described MBTOC's interim report in response to Decision XVII/9 (evaluation of effectiveness of methyl bromide for fumigation for quarantine pests on living plant material), and its work on Decision XVII/11 (recycling and destruction technologies for methyl bromide use), noting that MBTOC's findings are included in the TEAP's 2006 reports.

MBTOC Co-Chair Ian Porter, Australia (center), provided an overview of CUEs for pre-plant soil use, highlighting the fact that the standard presumptions used by MBTOC had not changed.

MBTOC Co-Chair Michelle Marcotte, Canada (right), discussed post-harvest CUN applications. Marcotte noted the downward trend of CUEs and CUNs for post-harvest food processing, and said that political challenges exist for certain applications of methyl bromide alternatives.


Marta Pizano, Co-Chair of MBTOC, Colombia (left), reported on MBTOC's work plan and timetable for consideration of CUNs for 2007, and noted the submission of seven national management strategies (NMSs) concerning future needs for CUEs.

MBTOC Co-Chair Mohammed Besri, Morocco (center), introduced the MBTOC report and emphasized the need for new Article 5 members, as well as the importance of funding Article 5 participation. He discussed trends in methyl bromide consumption, and CUNs and MBTOC recommendations for 2007 and 2008.

MOP-18 Co-Chair Nadzri Yahaya, Malaysia (right)


Laurence Graff, European Commission (left); the EC noted its unease with US stockpiles. Co-Chair Tom Land and Ozone Executive Secretary Marco González (right)


David Doniger, Natural Resource Defense Council (left), voiced concern over US stockpiles, and questioned the sale of methyl bromide stocks to users that do not hold CUEs in the US. On review of CUNs, Dan Reifsnyder, US (right), emphasized the importance of a decision on stockpiles, said that MBTOC had not adequately responded to its request for information, and noted its concern with MBTOC's recommendations.


Delegates from the Russian Federation

Pierre Pinault, Canada (left); Regarding the possible need for CUEs over the next few years, Canada explained the “flat trajectory” nature of its NMS forecasts, which are affected by uncertainty as to future methyl bromide alternatives.


Industry NGO participants in the Plenary

On review of CUNs, Blaise Horisberger, Switzerland (left), said it was necessary for the parties to take a stance on the justified magnitude of stocks, and that the situation was different to that of CFCs for MDIs.

Ghazi Al Odat, Jordan (right) noted that MBTOC's questionnaires on methyl bromide use needed to be distributed promptly in order to provide parties with adequate time to respond.

Alain Wilmart and Josef Buys, Belgium (left); and Sophia Mylona and Alice Gaustad, Norway (right)
Australian delegation; On review of CUNs, Australia noted it is illegal to use methyl bromide for non-critical uses in Australia and highlighted the need to share information relied upon by MBTOC in making its recommendations.

On the report on activities related to the sources of discrepancies between emissions determined from bottom-up methods and atmospheric measurement, Lambert Kuijpers, TEAP Co-Chair, Netherlands (left), discussed the mandate contained in Decision XVII/10, noted that the TEAP had completed its relevant assessments for CFCs and HCFCs, discussed the methodology used for assessing emissions, and noted that top-down emissions were susceptible to uncertainty regarding the accuracy of observations and the ability to assess global changes and removal rates. TEAP Co-Chair Paul Ashford, UK (right), discussed the TEAP's analysis of top-down information and atmospheric uncertainties, and comparisons between estimates derived from top-down versus bottom-up information.

Contact Groups
Sophia Mylona, Norway, chaired the TEAP/IPCC contact group, and Satender Singh, Canada (right) consulting with participants
Delegates during the contact group on TEAP/IPCC
Pierre Pinault, Canada, chaired the contact group on methyl bromide; during the contact group, participants questioned MBTOC on the basis of its CUN recommendations, including how transition rates and use rates were chosen, whether nominations were considered on a case-by-case basis, and how economic feasibility was considered.
Husamuddin Ahmadzai, Sweden, and Blaise Horisberger, Switzerland (left); and NGOs waiting for a decision on whether they would be allowed access to the contact group on basic domestic needs
Maas Goote, Netherlands, chaired the contact group on stockpiled ODS relative to compliance
Philippe Chemouny, Canada, and Marcia Levaggi, Argentina, Co-Chaired the contact group on the future of the Protocol
Participants emphasized the timeliness of launching a review process on the future of the Montreal Protocol and its institutions. They registered broad agreement on several categories to be explored, in particular: the future of the Multilateral Fund; HCFCs; methyl bromide; compliance; synergies with other MEAs; administrative aspects; and stockpile destruction.
Disclosure of interest contact group chair Paul Krajnik, Austria (left) with Stephen Andersen and Lambert Kuijpers, TEAP
Related links

Digimarc and the Digimarc logo are registered trademarks of Digimarc Corporation.  The "Digimarc Digital Watermarking" Web Button is a trademark of Digimarc Corporation, used with permission.

! Please e-mail the Digital Editor should you have any questions regarding the content of this page.

| Back to IISD RS "Linkages" home | Visit IISDnet | Send e-mail to ENB |
© 2006, IISD. All rights reserved.