In the methyl bromide issue, we've arrived at the point where "the rubber meets the road!" The time for real, workable solutions is now.

At the 1997 Montreal Protocol meeting, industrialized nations of the world agreed to phase out methyl bromide in 2005, with interim reductions of 25 percent in 1999, 50 percent in 2001, and 70 percent in 2003. The interim 70-percent reduction in 2003 is a de facto ban. Meanwhile, the developing nations have committed only to freezing the use of methyl bromide at their average use between 1995 and 1998. They'll reduce use from that level by 20 percent in 2005 and phase out use in 2015.

So our major competitors have virtually unlimited access to methyl bromide well into the next century. This regulatory inconsistency makes the economic viability of alternatives more questionable. What may be economically viable if everyone loses methyl bromide may not be viable if only some producers lose it.

American farmers are still facing the complete loss of methyl bromide in 2001 under the Clean Air Act. Under terms of the Montreal Protocol treaty, we would also be required to reduce the use of methyl bromide 25 percent in 1999. Even if there is some legislative adjustment to the Clean Air Act, we don't know just how far Congress may go in resolving this inequity. Regardless, time is very short.

Obviously, the phaseout schedule we face adds greater urgency to your work. We need real solutions in the short term and improved solutions over time. But we must accept that time is short: 1999, 2001, 2003 are real dates and they're real close. These dates bring real consequences for farmers, farm workers, and communities if we're not successful.

We would like to make the following recommendations for researchers:

• Put a high priority on reaching out to the industries involved in your research.


• Get to know farmers and trade groups and develop relationships relevant to crops being researched.


• Get to know economic, environmental, and regulatory issues that must be considered for growers of those crops to remain viable. When considering an alternative, think of how it will work and what will be necessary to make it work.


• Frame research and findings in the context of field situations. Even the most basic research should have field-level relevance, and highly theoretical research can yield useful, short-term, practical knowledge, data, and recommendations.


• Develop a matrix to identify crops that rely on methyl bromide; pathogens to be controlled; and suggested or likely alternatives with their development stage, advantages, and disadvantages, known economic and production consequences, and implementation restraints. Such a matrix would better define priorities and identify research most likely to end up as technology that farmers can use.

It is clear that special-use exemptions may be a part of the regulatory future of methyl bromide. Realistic data on production and efficiency loss, ancillary impacts, and real tradeoffs of potential alternatives will all be very important in any special-use exemption process. Research will be vital in that process.

As scientists, farmers of crops you are researching will challenge you for results they can act on in the short term. They'll press you to collaborate with other researchers in other institutions and disciplines. Farmers not yet involved in research on alternatives may come to you in July 2000 and ask what you're going to do to save them over the next 6 months. Again, urgency is the message of the day. As you look at your research agenda, ask yourself, "By the time I develop a solution, will the farmer still be around to use it?"

A few thoughts on perspective: We expect technology that we can readily implement from your research. Our goal is not to change the face of farming. The Crop Protection Coalition has repeatedly asserted that the most likely alternatives to methyl bromide are those which evolve farming practices rather than those which call for radical changes.

It was during the Civil War that Abraham Lincoln founded the USDA and the nation's Land Grant University System—both to educate citizens and to help American farmers solve farming problems through research and education. The result of Lincoln's foresight is an American agriculture that is the envy of the world.

The impending loss of methyl bromide is yet another important test of this system. It presents not only a great challenge, but also a great opportunity to show the power of agricultural research. We in the Crop Protection Coalition look forward to doing our part.