Skip to main content

Decision XVI/3: Duration of critical-use nominations of methyl bromide

The Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XVI/3:

Mindful that decision Ex.I/4, under paragraph 9 (e), requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review critical-use nominations on an annual basis and to apply the criteria set forth in decision IX/6 and of other relevant criteria agreed by the Parties,

Recognizing that decision Ex.I/3, under paragraph 6, asked the Parties to take note of the proposal by the United States of America on multi-year exemptions, and to consider the elaboration of criteria and a methodology for authorizing multi-year exemptions,

  1. To agree that the basis for extending the duration of critical-use nominations and exemptions of methyl bromide to periods greater than one year requires further attention;
  2. To elaborate, as far as possible, at the Seventeenth Meeting of Parties a framework for spreading a critical-use exemption over more than one year and to agree that the following elements, among others, should be taken into account:
    1. Annual reporting on:
      1. Status of re-registration and review of methyl bromide;
      2. Status of registration of alternatives and substitutes for methyl bromide;
      3. Efforts to evaluate, commercialize and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes;
    2. Assessment of requests to reconsider approved critical-use exemptions in the case of exceptional circumstances;
    3. Review of downward trends for different instances;
    4. Assessments of nominations in the light of the alternatives database referred to in paragraph 1 of decision Ex.I/4, and comparisons with management strategies;
    5. Applicability of existing decisions to methyl bromide critical-use exemptions longer than one year;
    6. Additional conditions applicable to critical-use exemptions longer than one year;
  3. To consider the technical justifications for spreading a critical-use exemption over more than one year, taking into account, among others, the following instances:
    1. Where the use patterns of methyl bromide are not regular on an annual or seasonal basis;
    2. Where, for a specific use, no alternatives or emerging solutions are anticipated for several years;
    3. Where a plan of implementation of an alternative stretches over several years;
    4. Where management strategies include a complete time-bound phase-out for a nomination or sector or use.