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 Year14% 200219% 200329% 200420% 200518% 2006

100% Total

Crops where Methyl Bromide is Used

Crops Total Amount (ODS Tons)

Total Area (dunnum)

Number of farmers

Vegetables 316 18000 13020Cut-Flowers 14 717 672Tobacco 24 5569 2418Sub-Total 354 24286 16110Strawberry 84 1868 744Total 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

SOLARISATION

BIOFUMIGATION

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

SOLARISATION

BIOFUMIGATION

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 Best 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

StrawberryDazomet 40 g/m2 (8,951) 0.82 FNF N.A. (4,713) 0.90 FNFDazomet 60 g/m2 5,741 1.11 FF 28.10% 11,793 1.23 FFDazomet 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”

Thank you…