Promoting and Monitoring Synergy Between Trade and Environment in Lebanon’s
Agricultural Products Where Methyl Bromide is Used
Promoting and Monitoring Synergy Between Trade and Environment in
Lebanon
Funded by the UNEP- UNCTAD Capacity Building Task Force on Trade, Development, and Environment
Managed by UNDP Executed by the Ministry of Environment
Criteria for Selecting the Sector
Socio-economic importance (GDP, Labor) Impact on environment Impact on Natural Resources Trade liberalization impact
Agricultural Sector Socio-economic importance
12% of GDP 9.4% of labor Balanced development
Impact on the environment Water pollution from agrochemicals Soil pollution from agrochemicals Ozone depletion (ODS from methyl bromide)
Impact on natural resources Largest consumer of water resources
Impact of trade liberalization on the agriculture sector Negative impact: prices increase for net importer of agriculture
products Positive impact: little subsidies on export crops
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Projects
Funded by: Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol
Managed by:UNDP, UNIDO Executed by:Ministry of Environment Objective:: Phasing out “Methyl Bromide”“Methyl Bromide”
in Lebanon by 2007 by proposing environmentally safe alternatives
Trade and Environment Project Sector-Specific Objectives
The basic objectives of the project:
Perform an EIA of Alternatives Perform a CBA of Alternatives Study the impact of trade liberalization on
the environment in the Agricultural sector where Methyl Bromide is used
Stakeholders
Public Sector Ministry of Environment Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Economy and Trade Lebanese Agriculture Research Institution (LARI) LIBNOR Export Plus Program (export subsidy) Chamber of Commerce
Private Sector Farmers Exporters
International Organizations and NGOs
Lebanon’s Obligations towards Phasing Out of Methyl Bromide
Percentage Decrease Year
14% 2002
19% 2003
29% 2004
20% 2005
18% 2006
100% Total
Crops where Methyl Bromide is Used
Crops Total Amount (ODS Tons)
Total Area (dunnum)
Number of farmers
Vegetables 316 18000 13020
Cut-Flowers 14 717 672
Tobacco 24 5569 2418
Sub-Total 354 24286 16110
Strawberry 84 1868 744
Total 438 26,154 16,854
Environmental Impact Assessment
Chemical alternatives: Dazomet, Cadusafos 1-3 Dichloropropene Oxamyl
Non-Chemical Alternatives: Soil Solarization Bio Fumigation Grafted Plants Steaming: Negative pressure steaming and sheet steaming
The EIA of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide
Issue DAZOMET CADUSAFOS DICHLOROPROPENE OXAMYL SOIL
SOLARISATI
ON
BIOFUMIGATI
ON GRAFTED
PLANTS SHEET
STEAMING
HEALTH AND
SAFETY
Storage & Handling
-3 -4 -5 -5 0 0 0 0
Occupational Hazard
-3 -4 -5 -5 0 -1 -1 -2
Public Health & Safety
-3 -4 -5 -5 0 -1 0 -1
Pollution Soil/Crop 0 -3 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 Surface Water -1 -2 -3 -3 -1 -1 0 0 Ground Water 0 -2 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 Biodiversity -2 -3 -4 -4 0 0 0 0 Air and Dust -2 0 -3 0 0 0 0 -1 Noise 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2
The EIA of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide
Issue DAZOMET CADUSAFOS DICHLOROPROPENE OXAMYL SOIL
SOLARISATI
ON
BIOFUMIGATI
ON GRAFTED
PLANTS SHEET
STEAMING
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Water -2 -3 -3 -2 -3 -3 -2 -3 Hydrocarbons 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -2 WASTE
GENERATION
Liquid waste -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 Solid waste -2 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Oil & Grease 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 Recycling -2 0 0 0 +1 +1 +1 +1 SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Employment 0 0 0 +1 0 0 0 +2 Training +2 +2 +2 +2 0 0 +1 +2 TOTALS -19 -24 -31 -28 -5 -7 -3 -10
Net Revenue Per Unit for MBr and its Alternatives
Chemical Non-chemical Mixed Best Financial Remarks on Be st
Net Revenue Net Revenue Net Revenue Alternative Financial Crop Alternative
($/Kg) Alternative
($/Kg) Alternative
($/Kg) Alternative
Solarization 0.070 Solarization + 1,3-D 0.027 High Cost of
Bio-Fumigation (SG) 0.065 Solarization + Oxa 0.030 Input Product Tomato MeBr 0.037
Grafting 0.097
Grafting
MeBr 0.017
Dazomet 60 (0.017) Solarization (0.381)
Cadusafos 0.074
1,3-D Covered 0.013
Bio-Fumigation (OR) 0.048
1,3- D Uncov (0.003)
Cucumber
Oxamyl 0.067
Bio-Fumigation (SG) (0.979)
Cadusafos High Cost of Water
Bio-Fumigation (OR) 0.113 Bio-fumigation High Cost of
Bio-Fumigation (SG) 0.118 with Equipment and Eggplant MeBr 0.058
Bio-Fumigation + Ch 0.124 Chitinase Materials
MeBr 0.352
Dazomet 40 0.02
Dazomet 60 0.267
Strawberry
Dazomet 80 0.238
Solarization 0.315
Solarization _
Cost Benefit Analysis
The CBA was done on a one dunnum basis over a period of 20 years.
The 10% discount rate reflects an average between government and private bank credit interest rates.
CBA was tested under two scenarios: Scenario1: average product prices (2000-2001) Scenario2: 20% increase product prices
Cost Benefit AnalysisChemical alternatives: Dazomet, Cadusafos 1-3 Dichloropropene OxamylNon Chemical Alternatives Soil Solarization Bio Fumigation Grafted Plants Steaming: Negative pressure steaming and sheet steamingMixed Alternatives Solarization +1-3 Dichloropropene Solarization + Oxamyl
Summary of the Findings of the CBA for the Selected Crops
NPV BCR Feasibility IRR NPV BCR FeasibilityCucumber
Dazomet 60 g/m2 (10,951) 0.57 FNF N.A. (9,614) 0.62 FNFCadusafos (3,141) 0.86 FNF N.A. (1,356) 0.94 FNF1,3-Dichloropropene (covered) (8,809) 0.64 FNF N.A. (7,323) 0.70 FNF1,3-Dichloropropene (uncovered) (9,989) 0.58 FNF N.A. (8,708) 0.63 FNFOxamyl (4,304) 0.80 FNF N.A. (2,679) 0.88 FNFSoil Solarization (16,898) 0.21 FNF N.A. (16,530) 0.22 FNFBio-fumigation (Oil Radish) (5,995) 0.73 FNF N.A. (4,451) 0.80 FNFBio-fumigation (Sudan Grass) (19,090) 0.12 FNF N.A. (18,902) 0.12 FNFMethyl Bromide (8,874) 0.66 FNF N.A. - - -
EggplantBio-fumigation (Oil Radish) 1,140 1.05 FF 13.45% 3,612 1.16 FFBio-fumigation (Oil Radish+Chitinase) 3,687 1.16 FF 21.10% 6,461 1.28 FFBio-fumigation (Sudan Grass) 2,092 1.09 FF 16.35% 4,672 1.21 FFMethyl Bromide (5,312) 0.80 FNF N.A. - - -
Scenario 2 2 Scenario 11 Fumigation Technique
Summary of the Findings of the CBA for the Selected Crops
Strawberry
Dazomet 40 g/m2 (8,951) 0.82 FNF N.A. (4,713) 0.90 FNF
Dazomet 60 g/m2 5,741 1.11 FF 28.10% 11,793 1.23 FF
Dazomet 80 g/m2 (37) 0.99 FNF N.A. 5,484 1.23 FFSoil Solarization (10,393) 0.78 FNF N.A. (6,571) 0.86 FNFMethyl Bromide 13,736 1.26 FF 56.50% - - -
TomatoSoil Solarization (2,496) 0.90 FNF N.A. 46 1.00 FFBio-fumigation (Sudan Grass) (3,083) 0.88 FNF N.A. (558) 0.98 FNFGrafting 3,638 1.13 FF 21.36% 7,031 1.26 FFSolarization + 1,3-Dichloropropene (7,264) 0.75 FNF N.A. (4,968) 0.83 FNFSolarization + Oxamyl (4,886) 0.81 FNF N.A. (5,317) 0.79 FNFMethyl Bromide (6,324) 0.79 FNF N.A. - - -1 Scenario 1: Using average product prices of years 2000 - 20012 Scenario 2: 20% increase in product prices
Impact of Trade Liberalization on the Agricultural Sector
Positive impacts:Potential new export markets (esp. Europe) Increased marketable volumes Increased exports Increased farm incomePotential decrease rural migration
Impact of Trade Liberalization on the Agricultural Sector
Negative impactsOver exploitation of land and resourcesChemical alternatives:
Possible soil and underground water contamination Increased cost of cleaning the environment
Obstacles
Commercial: Archaic Channels of distribution, exploitation of the middle men.
Logistics: Lack of coordination Trade
Lack of knowledge about Demand, Standards Fierce competition from other countries (high subsidies low cost
of production) Financial: Lack of credit facilities, low prices of products Infrastructure: irrigation problems Human: Rural migration
Policies and Plan of Implementation
Emphasize competition based on “Quality” differentiation rather than a price based one: Due to the high cost of production and high subsidies in regional
countries the best alternative is to focus on quality differentiation rather than price driven competition.
Build on the Euro-Med agreement and the facilities it offers the agriculture products to promote exports to Europe (higher prices are accepted but European standards are required) Inform stakeholders about European demand in terms of crops, SPS
and TBT Train stakeholders on standards required in terms of produce,
packaging and labeling Establish a network system for exports
Policies and Plan of Implementation
Design and implement a cooperation and coordination mechanism between stakeholders to increase efficiency. (public and private)
Propose schemes to improve quality and effectiveness of sectors related to packaging and transport
Design logistics to test products and grant “Ecolabels” Enhance producers’ awareness on health, safety and
environmental issues related to the “Process and Production Methods”