BUREAUCRATS at the UN Environment Programme this week stand accused of censoring vital scientific advice to governments on how to save the ozone layer. Angry scientists say that a study on the practicalities of banning methyl bromide, a pesticide that destroys ozone, has been rewritten to present a dishonestly rosy picture of the potential for introducing substitutes.
In a letter sent to UNEP at the beginning of August, 22 members of its methyl bromide technical options committee express 鈥渄eep and serious concerns鈥� that their report, drafted in February, has been 鈥渦nilaterally rewritten鈥� without their consent. Ministers are due to vote at a meeting in Montreal next month on a plan to eliminate the chemical, which is used to fumigate soil and processed foods. It is thought to be responsible for about a tenth of ozone destruction in the stratosphere.
The scientists claim that, following the rewritten advice, UNEP will tell the Montreal meeting that the world could achieve a 75 per cent cut in the use of methyl bromide by 2001. 鈥淭his is totally contrary to everything that has been agreed by the experts in the options committee,鈥� says Colin Smith, a committee member who works for the British pest control company Rentokil. 鈥淭he 75 per cent figure appeared from nowhere,鈥� says Chris Bell of the Central Science Laboratory, in York, an agency of Britain鈥檚 agriculture ministry.
Advertisement
Parts of the report that have been excised include a warning that there is a 鈥渓ack of practical alternatives [for] dried fruits and nuts as well as spices and processed foods鈥�.
Smith resigned from the committee last month in protest. He claims that, under pressure from the US, officials subverted the report in an effort to persuade next month鈥檚 ministerial meeting to agree to an early global ban on methyl bromide.
The US, the world鈥檚 largest user of the fumigant, has passed a law banning it from 2001 and wants to protect its farmers by forcing the rest of the world to follow suit. 鈥淥ur draft report has been rewritten to fit the US Environmental Protection Agency鈥檚 agenda,鈥� says Smith.
鈥淲e are in favour of phasing out methyl bromide,鈥� Smith insists, 鈥渂ut in a sensible way. Right now, trade in some crops would cease without methyl bromide. No grapes could be sold from Chile to the US. The world鈥檚 usable soil would be reduced because nematodes couldn鈥檛 be controlled.鈥�
Maria Nolan from Britain鈥檚 Department of the Environment, who also sits on the committee, denied that the science had been subverted but agreed that 鈥渢he issue is highly controversial and many people believe the agenda has been driven by the US鈥�.
In 1995, governments that signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol to save the ozone layer agreed to ban most uses of methyl bromide in industrial countries by 2010 and to consider tougher rules this year. At a meeting in June, the US proposed a global phaseout by 2001, while the EU backed a 50 per cent cut in 2001 and a phaseout by 2005.
One of the protesters, Ralph Ross, from the US Department of Agriculture, has written to the committee鈥檚 chairman, Jonathan Banks of Australia鈥檚 national research organisation CSIRO, accusing him of making an 鈥渙vert effort . . . to mislead the Parties [to the Protocol]鈥� about the availability of substitutes.
Banks admits that parts of the report were rewritten but denies that committee members have been deceived. He hit back this week with an attack on the industry: 鈥淚 have been horrified and disgusted at the level of political pressure and misinformation circulated by some defenders of the methyl bromide industry,鈥� he told New 杏吧原创.
