July 2003
Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemptions Questions
At the first of a series of methyl bromide CUE conferences to be held around the nation, farmers, registrants, and trade associations criticized the
EPA’s management of this new and politically-charged process. The criticism comes from the fact that of the 16 methyl bromide exemptions requested by the United States last February, the United Nations working group that reviews the exemptions has preliminarily recommended that five be approved, one be reduced, one be denied, and the remainder be supported by additional data.
While the U.N. group continues reviewing the applications, the EPA is trying to develop a procedure for distributing the methyl bromide that has been approved for use. There are currently three scenarios, which are based to some extent on how the agency handles methyl bromide distribution for quarantine and preshipment (QPS) purposes. The U.N. has already approved the use of methyl bromide for QPS in all member countries indefinitely. The first model would allocate methyl bromide allowances to producers and importers who would then sell the fumigant on open markets via distributors. Users would then submit reports to the EPA. Under the second model, allowances would be given to producers, importers, and end-users based on the amount used over the past three to five years. This model would require a tracking system that EPA itself does not believe would be in place by the phaseout date of January, 2005. Under the third model, allowances would be given to producers and importers and an auction would be held so that end-users would have to purchase their methyl bromide at a price determined by the market. Anyone could purchase allowances at the auction but only approved users could actually use the allocation to buy methyl bromide. The drawback of this system is that an end-user would pay twice, once at auction for an allocation and again when they buy the material from the dealer. The money generated from the auction would go into the U.S. Treasury, since EPA does not have the statutory authority to ensure that the money goes anywhere else. Details must still be worked out, as it is unknown whether the U.S. will be given a lump sum of methyl bromide to allocate, or whether this will be done by the U.N. It is also unknown whether trading between users and sectors will be allowed.
It seems a number of people in the audience were not in favor of the auction model. A member of the Florida Tomato Exchange said it was “fundamentally galling” that EPA would propose that farmers pay the government to get access to methyl bromide. Another stakeholder stated that environmental groups could easily buy up all the allocations and prevent any methyl bromide from being distributed. One congressional representative’s aide expressed concern that the auction system was not a workable option. There are also other concerns such as definition of approved user, schedule of availability (early-year plantings versus later-year plantings), and small farmers (being priced out). The bottom line is that somebody must decide who gets the fumigant, since there is a large discrepancy between the amount requested and the amount granted. A director for Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association stressed that the state department of agriculture does not want to get involved in the allocation process, and now the EPA itself is saying it wants the users to decide how to handle it. Ironically, the second round of CUE applications are due on August 6, 2003. (Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, June 23, 2003).
