As specified in chapter 5, the activities of GTZ to substitute MB are based on the MP and Agenda 21. The integrated pest and post-harvest management strategy developed by GTZ aims generally to reduce the use of synthetic pesticides through better prevention. With regard to export crops and products and large stocks, the use of less toxic and environmentally friendly methods has high priority. Therefore, GTZ encourages the rapid substitution of MB in developing countries.
The editors of this publication are strongly convinced that the efforts in this direction will not adversely affect any future export earnings, national revenues or jobs in the agricultural sector of developing countries. On the contrary, lessons learned from phasing out CFCs show that MB users who plan now to substitute this fumigant can expect less impact on their revenues than those who do not (Environment Australia, 1997). MB alternatives represent even new economic opportunities including job creation in the manufacturing of products and the supply of consultancy services (Miller, 1996). Taking this into account, some countries such as Botswana and Mexico have already made plans to go beyond the MP (Schafer, 1997). In order to facilitate the process of rapid MB substitution, GTZ recommends the following:
In some countries, MB is not registered because of a lack of respective laws or regulations. In others, the pesticide lists are not up to date. In either case, work on pesticide legislation and registration should take account of the global banning of MB and alternative treatments should be made mandatory. It is advisable to refrain from new registration of MB as treatments with this product are a dead end technology.
The ten-year grace period for developing countries decided by the parties to the MP (after the ban in industrialised countries is imposed in 2005) should be used to introduce alternatives as soon as possible. In industrialised countries, it is highly probable that consumers will reject foodstuff produced with MB along with its substitution. Every MB fumigation leaves residues so that exporters who still treat food with this gas risk losing many of their markets. Developing countries that go beyond the stipulations of the MP will stand to gain within a short period of time.
Some producers of MB have increased their markets in developing countries since the 1995 freeze decision in order to compensate for sales losses elsewhere. Developing countries thus may once again become dumping sites for a chemical that would be obsolete in industrialised countries. Good indicators for this tendency are the increasing net sales figures for MB in Africa (20 % annually between 1984 and 1992) and in other A5 countries and also the increase of MB consumption in the Maghreb (cf. chapter 2). Governments of the countries involved should therefore control and restrict imports.
Indirect subsidies such as import duty and sales tax exemptions should be removed. Instead, governments of developing countries could introduce a special tax on the importation of MB. Above all, this tax would make alternative treatment economically attractive. In this case, the amount of the tax should be oriented towards the targeted reduction of MB use. Tax revenues may be used for support of MB users to introduce non-chemical alternatives. GTZ is aware of the fact that such a tax would not be popular with producers, wholesalers and consumers but it can contribute to implement economically viable alternatives more rapidly, thus saving money in the medium and long term. The Australian Government has introduced fees for import licences and handling (Environment Australia, (1997).
Taxes on products produced with MB would require a certification process and a close follow-up of the production. Therefore their introduction in A5 countries is not recommended.
Governments are requested to raise awareness and create positive framework conditions for substituting MB. Possible measures could include:
Germany is the third biggest contributor to the MF and fulfils its obligations timely. There is a strong political will to support A5 countries in the substitution of MB. The German Government has decided to increase the proportion of bilateral cooperation financed through the MF and invites the governments of A5 countries to submit project proposals for the substitution of MB that are focused on the non-investment sector with a priority on training activities.
Economic considerations (fumigation using MB is comparatively cheap) and fumigation requirements set by some major importers (such as the USA) appear to be the biggest obstacles to rapidly substituting MB in fumigating soil and commodities in developing countries. Contrary to widespread opinion, technical aspects are in most cases not a major problem. Changes in practice are needed, with which not all parties may be in agreement, especially when the alternatives involve more expensive treatments that lead to higher prices for the consumers. Importers are particularly reluctant to introduce more expensive changes so that a considerable amount of promotion through awareness campaigns is required. In order to facilitate the change process, the following is recommended:
International companies such as big plantations, traders or pest control companies play a major role in international agro-business. These companies are requested to introduce or develop alternatives without delay as they are closely involved in MB use and all issues concerning its substitution. There are already examples of supermarket chains which specify in their contracts with vegetable providers production without the use of MB. Consumer groups in the UK and the USA have already launched campaigns to label produce grown without the use of MB (Prospect Consulting, 1997).
Because of lower labour and other costs, some international companies are gradually shifting the production of certain vegetables and fruit from countries like the EC or the USA to Africa, CIS countries or Mexico. In such cases, GTZ recommends strongly to adhere to the same principles of sustainable and environmentally sound crop production as in industrialised countries and to adopt a policy towards the substitution of MB that does not counteract progress made in industrialised countries.
Certain importers such as the USA and Kenya require obligatory MB fumigation for certain products from particular countries of origin, irrespective of whether the products have been attacked by pests. This practice should be abandoned in favour of more specific requirements such as treatment if pests have been detected during inspection.
Any quarantine treatment which uses MB and for which no alternatives currently exist should be conducted under conditions which allow recovery and recycling of the gas. The cost involved in recovery and recycling is supposed to make alternative treatments more attractive from the economic point of view and to speed up their introduction. Technically, recovery and recycling are feasible for smaller quantities of products with reasonable cost. In the longer term, quarantine treatments of large quantities should be carried out with alternative products.
As major importing countries for commodities fumigated with this gas, industrialised countries have an obligation to assist developing countries phasing it out. They also possess the financial means and technical know-how to assist in this process. The MF of the MP, for example, offers countries the possibility of using up to 20 % of their contributions for bilateral activities.
This applies above all to using alternative methods in the non-investment sector (e.g. training and extension). Adequate programmes should be designed without delay in cooperation with the governments of the respective developing countries. Preconditions are a thorough analysis of MB use patterns and the setting up of management plans in the respective countries.
Developing countries frequently adopt policies that provide incentives for the use of synthetic pesticides including MB. In order to promote more sustainable and environmentally safe solutions, donors are requested to assist the governments of A5 countries to adopt regulations and introduce instruments that limit the use of pesticides and facilitate the implementation of sustainable IPM strategies.
An important part of international cooperation is to coordinate all actors such as producers, traders and governmental bodies in exporting and importing countries, research institutes and consumer associations within the framework of international programmes. The interests of the different actors are certainly diverse to some extent, but all actors are requested to participate in order to phase out MB as soon as possible and conserve natural resources.
Donors are invited to support research activities in national research institutions of A5 countries according to the stipulations of Agenda 21 concerning the know-how transfer. National institutions have often highly qualified scientists who are familiar with local soil conditions, crop varieties, cultivation methods and other topics of importance for the development of locally adapted IPM schemes.
As described in chapters 5 to 7, Germany, and in particular GTZ, take the lead in following the recommendations made here and in supporting developing countries in rapid MB phase-out.
