OTHER NECESSARY MEASURES FOR CONTROLLING METHYL BROMIDE USE AND PRODUCTION

In addition to early phase out schedules, Greenpeace calls for the following measures to control the use and production of methyl bromide:

Trade measures: Prohibition against trading methyl bromide, or products produced with, treated with or containing methyl bromide, between countries that are Party to the Montreal Protocol and non-Parties.

Consumer awareness through product labeling: The establishment of a mandatory product labeling program, to clearly identify products which have been produced, stored and transported free of methyl bromide, would enable consumers to exercise their choice based on their concerns for environmental protection.

Methyl bromide producers tax: The corporate producers of methyl bromide should provide revenues to the Multilateral Fund for the adoption of environmentally sound alternatives to methyl bromide. This revenue could be in the form of an Environmental Excise Tax on methyl bromide.

Adjusting existing agricultural programs: Many governments already provide farmers with a variety of agricultural subsidies and technical support. Such programs should be re-oriented to provide farmers with training and technical assistance, transferring successful, sound alternatives from one region to another. Governments should examine existing agricultural programs to make sure they do not encourage the use of methyl bromide.

Replenishment of the multilateral fund: To support the phasing out of methyl bromide in developing countries the financial well being of the Multilateral Fund must be secured. Developing countries need adequate financial and technical support to switch to environmentally sound alternatives. The Multilateral Fund's reserves must be adequately replenished by Article 2 countries. In addition, Greenpeace supports increases in bilateral agreements between Article 2 and Article 5 countries, aimed at timely phase out of methyl bromide.

Critical agricultural uses and other exemptions: Common sense dictates that essential use exemptions are of course justified where it can be demonstrated that there are no alternatives. However, it is important that exemptions are not used simply to perpetuate a market for methyl bromide. The exemption criteria and process must not permit loopholes or continued use of ODSs where effective alternatives exist. Any exemption process or criteria decided at this meeting must reflect this.

The Protocol needs to avoid perpetuating loopholes. For example, some alternatives exist for quarantine and pre-shipment applications of methyl bromide. There is therefore no technical justification for a continued blanket exemption for quarantine and preshipment but rather, such exemptions should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

It is premature to decide specific exemptions for critical uses of methyl bromide until close to the phase out date. Exempting uses at this stage would remove any incentive to examine alternatives. Experience in other ODSs technologies indicate that the rapid development of environmentally safer alternatives is feasible where the need exists.

There is no justification for deviating from the exact wording and definitions established for essential use for all other controlled ODSs, at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties, under Decision IV/25. The aspect of concern to many countries - economics - is already included in these criteria.