The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) requirement that no methyl bromide emissions are made to the atmosphere from October 2020 onward is the most significant risk facing forest growers over the next 3 years. This and other controls were imposed in the 2010 Methyl Bromide Reassessment Decision. The reassessment of methyl bromide was driven by international climate change treaties and the Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996. Following the decision in 2010 STIMBR (Stakeholders in Methyl Bromide Reduction) was established with the support of Forest Owners Association, log exporters and horticultural interests. A proactive coordinated research programme was commenced to find ways to reduce the use of methyl bromide as an export product (phytosanitary) fumigant, to explore re-capture and destruction technologies and to investigate alternatives.

STIMBR has made good progress in dealing with a very challenging issue and in mobilising forest owners, exporters, fumigators, industry, researchers, EPA and MPI officials. Given the approaching deadline and the implications for the forest growing industry and the New Zealand economy if solutions are not available by October 2020, Forest Owners Association and STIMBR invite you to a meeting of senior industry leaders and officials on this important industry matter.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

• Provide an update on the progress that STIMBR has made in identifying alternatives to methyl bromide
• Provide an update on progress with the only current viable methyl bromide recapture and destruction technology
• Understand the progress with EDN (an alternative to methyl bromide) approval process and efficacy research, the timelines and potential risks for implementation
• Brief attendees on progress with EPA discussions and their position on the 2020 methyl bromide target
• Understand the constraints and limitations of debarking as a phytosanitary treatment
• Consider what needs to be done by the industry with officials and politicians to raise awareness of the risks
• Assess the regulatory and political risks of the various treatment options
• Seek your feedback and agree an industry strategy to manage risk going forward and to ensure alternatives are developed in a timely manner