Developing innovative phytosanitary treatment options for control of quarantine plant pests

Problem statement

Plant pests, including insects, pathogens and weeds, are responsible for diminished yields and market access issues that contribute to economic losses for Canadian producers and other businesses along agriculture and forestry supply chains. Safeguarding plant health is imperative to maintaining food security, environmental sustainability and public health, and to support continued economic growth.

There is a need to leverage existing theoretical knowledge to develop cost-effective pest risk mitigation approaches that are comparable to the desirable properties of methyl bromide, but with fewer negative impacts, to support plant health stakeholders in meeting phytosanitary requirements.

Methyl bromide is a highly effective broad-spectrum treatment that can be applied to cargo, commodities, soil, and other plant and non-plant products to manage a range of pests and meet international phytosanitary requirements. However, it is currently undergoing phase-out worldwide due to its ozone-depleting properties. Research has led to the identification and development of promising methyl bromide alternatives, including chemical (e.g. fumigants, systemic pesticides, etc.) and non-chemical (e.g. physical processes — heat, cold, radiation, irradiation, controlled atmosphere etc.), but there remains a need to transfer that knowledge into a practical solution that can be successfully used in real-life applications.

While some alternatives have been adopted for specific uses, no single methyl bromide alternative offers a technically comparable broad spectrum of activity, high level of efficacy, and rapid mode of action. Many alternatives also exhibit harmful effects on the environment and human health, or have led to the development of resistance in certain pests. Additionally, several alternatives demonstrate comparable efficacy in theory, but novel tools are required to enable these solutions to work in practice. The innovative solution must be feasible for implementation based on economic and technical considerations.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

Proposed solutions must:

1. Have the capacity to kill one or more pests that are regulated and/or of quarantine significance in Canada and/or in other countries (e.g. including, but not limited to pests that could be spread via trade pathways, such as those associated with various traded plant commodities, and "hitchhikers" found on cargo and containers like Asian gypsy moth)
2. Kill pest(s) of concern to Canada and/or other countries with efficacy that is comparable to, or greater than, that of the current gold standard fumigant (i.e. methyl bromide) for the same usage; for example, applicants could demonstrate comparable or improved efficacy against a target pest relative to methyl bromide efficacy for that specific usage via comparison to concentration-time products, lethal dose (e.g. LD99), percent mortality, and/or time to mortality
3. Not be a substance subject to phase-out of production and consumption under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
4. Offer a technically and economically feasible solution that is comparable to, or more effective than, the current gold standard fumigant methyl bromide in situations where it has historically been, and is currently used, as a treatment option, as described in the remaining Essential Outcomes
5. Be feasible and practical for one or more phytosanitary applications, such as quarantine treatment of insects on imported products or pre-shipment treatment of exports to meet requirements of the importing country.
6. Meet requirements to become commercially available for use in Canada (i.e. be eligible for product registration through expected compliance with applicable legislation such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and pest control products acts and regulations administered by Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency)

Additional outcomes

The innovation should:

1. Preferably not be a chemical fumigant
2. Be at least 40% less persistent in the environment than current solutions (i.e. methyl bromide has a lifetime of 0.8 years across atmospheric, oceanic and soil sinks)
3. Not cause visible signs of phytotoxicity, including browning, if applied to live commodities that are susceptible to injury from methyl bromide fumigation (e.g. nursery stock, fruit or vegetables)

Background and context

Plant protection in Canada

In Canada, crop industries generate over $35 billion per year in exports and the forest industry contributes $24.6 billion to the GDP. The federal government is targeting an increase to agri-food exports to $75 billion per year by 2025. However, plant pests, including insects, pathogens and weeds, are responsible for the loss of up to 40% of global food crops annually, and for trade losses exceeding USD $220 billion in agriculture products per year. Stakeholders and governments work together in Canada to protect plant resources from pests. Pest risk mitigation practices implemented by stakeholders and governments are critical for protecting plant resources from pests, which in turn ensures food security and facilitates trade in support of Canada's continued economic growth.

In Canada, stakeholders work with governments to uphold the Plant Protection Act, which aims to protect plant life, and the agricultural and forestry sectors of Canada's economy, through prevention of the importation, exportation and spread of pests by appropriate pest control and eradication. Those responsible for protecting Canada's plant resources are facing new challenges as risks to plant health rise in complexity due to factors like climate change, increasing travel and movement across borders, and changing trade patterns. Agricultural and forestry production systems, urban ecosystems and natural biodiversity are at heightened risk due to the increasing introduction and spread of known and emerging pests under these evolving conditions.

In support of its mandate and as Canada's National Plant Protection Organization, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) enforces regulatory measures to prevent the introduction and spread of pests in Canada. These efforts support the economy by protecting Canada's plant resources from avoidable losses, and by facilitating market access and trade. For example, CFIA issues phytosanitary certificates to compliant parties as confirmation that plants and plant products do not contain quarantine pests and meet the importing country's requirements.

Methyl bromide as a phytosanitary treatment

Methyl bromide is a highly effective treatment against a broad range of pest species — it can be applied to cargo, postharvest commodities, plant products, soil, conveyances, and other plant and non-plant materials, and it eradicates pests within hours to days. Due to its wide range of applications and broad spectrum of pesticide activity, methyl bromide can be found listed as a treatment option on phytosanitary directives for certain commodities to meet regulatory requirements confirming pest-free status. While extremely effective, methyl bromide is classified as an ozone-depleting substance. Canada, along with other Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, agreed to the reduction and phase-out of methyl bromide use in 1992. In 2005, the agreement was updated to include a ban on methyl bromide manufacture, import and export, except for critical use exemptions such as quarantine and pre-shipment fumigation. According to the International Plant Protection Convention, the need for the fumigant methyl bromide is still necessary as a phytosanitary measure to reduce the risk of movement of quarantine pests, until equivalent substitutes have been developed. The CFIA encourages the use of alternative treatments in cases where methyl bromide is listed as an approved option to meet phytosanitary requirements. For example, in cases where there are multiple treatment options including methyl bromide, the non-methyl bromide option should be selected where feasible. In situations where methyl bromide treatment is required, exporting countries are encouraged to submit data supporting the efficacy of alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation to the importing country's national plant protection organization for review (e.g. IPPC signatories including CFIA must adhere to guidelines for the determination and recognition of equivalence of phytosanitary measures as outlined in IPPC International Standard of Phytosanitary Measures 24). This is particularly important for exporters from countries that have completely banned the use of methyl bromide, such as those in the European Union, but wish to export products to Canada. An EU Exporter Guide was established to aid in the development and submission of methyl bromide alternatives to the CFIA.

Regarding critical use exemptions, Environment and Climate Change Canada has stated that the following conditions must be met for methyl bromide use to be considered "critical": a) the lack of availability for that use would result in a significant market disruption; b) there are no technically or economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environmental and human health, and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination. In the nearly three decades since Montreal Protocol Parties agreed to phase out methyl bromide, a limited number of alternatives have been developed that yield comparable results for pest management (i.e. meeting criteria for technical and economic feasibility) without the environmental and health hazards associated with methyl bromide. These existing alternatives can be difficult to obtain (e.g. emergency registration is required for sulfuryl fluoride) and/or lack capacity for application in various situations (e.g. lack the physical capacity to steam large pipes on a port) and therefore have not replaced methyl bromide in all contexts (e.g. quarantine and pre-shipment applications). Recent research outcomes and existing alternatives could be leveraged to develop novel tools with improved practicality and likelihood for wider adoption. The international implications of this issue additionally highlight the global need for a new and effective treatment method.

Existing methyl bromide alternatives and considerations for development of innovative solutions

In 2017, the International Plant Protection Convention published its recommendation, R-03 2017, on the replacement or reduction of the use of methyl bromide as a phytosanitary measure. As recommended, many countries have focused efforts on reducing the methyl bromide usage and decreasing emissions, for example by using recapture technology. Chemical and non-chemical alternatives have been developed, but methyl bromide is still used as the primary treatment to meet phytosanitary requirements in pre-shipment and quarantine contexts. Development of an alternative that is comparable to the efficacy of the general biocide methyl bromide with its broad spectrum of activity, but without the associated negative environmental and human health impacts, presents a challenge. Some chemical alternatives may exhibit narrower spectra of activities that render them less effective against various pests, but broad-spectrum replacements are often considerably hazardous to human and/or environmental health and are therefore not ideal alternatives, such as the fumigants sulfuryl fluoride, phosphine and ethanedinitrile. There is also increasing evidence of insects developing resistance to phosphine. Physical processes that directly control pests have also shown promise as effective alternatives for specific contexts, including: heat treatment, cold treatment, steam sterilization, electrocution, modified atmospheres, radiation, electromagnetic energy and gamma irradiation. However, while many alternatives demonstrate comparable efficacy in theory, novel tools are needed to enable these alternatives to work in practice. Additionally, these phytosanitary treatments need to be evaluated for efficacy on various pests of concern. Implementing integrated pest management (IPM) into the production system has also been proposed to reduce the need for methyl bromide treatment and help support plant health overall, but such approaches do not necessarily offer solutions for pest eradication or address the need for effective treatment within short timeframes. Phytotoxicity and damage by chemical and non-chemical alternatives, respectively, should also be considered, since an important application of methyl bromide (and therefore for a comparable substitute) is for treatment of live plant material, like perishable commodities and fruit tree nursery stock.

Potential solutions and impacts

To address this challenge, potential solutions may consider a combination of treatments and/or practices to yield a comprehensive approach with a broad spectrum of activity. An innovative approach that meets criteria for methyl bromide replacement will have the potential to positively impact industry stakeholders and nations that are Parties to the Montreal Protocol and/or signatories to the International Plant Protection Convention, while reducing negative impacts of the fumigant methyl bromide on human health and the environment. The development of innovative tools that comply with relevant legislation to enable commercial availability, such as PMRA-administered plant protection acts and regulations, will allow industry to avoid market disruption by readily meeting phytosanitary requirements, and support overall plant health risk mitigation. Industry will additionally benefit from a technically feasible, commercially available and practical replacement that reduces the need for critical use exemptions; less effort will be placed on obtaining methyl bromide, reducing usage volume, and employing recapture technology.

Multiple grants could result from this Challenge.

The maximum funding available for any Phase 1 Grant resulting from this Challenge is $150,000.00 CAD for up to 6 months.

Estimated number of Phase 1 grants: 2

The maximum funding available for any Phase 2 Grant resulting from this Challenge is $500,000.00 CAD for up to 18 months. Only eligible businesses that have completed Phase 1 could be considered for Phase 2.

Estimated number of Phase 2 grants: 1

This disclosure is made in good faith and does not commit Canada to award any grant for the total approximate funding. Final decisions on the number of Phase 1 and Phase 2 awards will be made by Canada on the basis of factors such as evaluation results, departmental priorities and availability of funds. Canada reserves the right to make partial awards and to negotiate project scope changes.

Travel

No travel requirements are anticipated for this challenge. All meetings can be conducted via videoconference or teleconference.

Solution proposals can only be submitted by a small business that meets all of the following criteria:

• for profit
• incorporated in Canada (federally or provincially)
• 499 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) employees^{Footnote *}
• research and development activities that take place in Canada
• 50% or more of its annual wages, salaries and fees are currently paid to employees and contractors who spend the majority of their time working in Canada^{Footnote *}
• 50% or more of its FTE employees have Canada as their ordinary place of work^{Footnote *}
• 50% or more of its senior executives (Vice President and above) have Canada as their principal residence^{Footnote *}

The applicant must complete the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form with a degree of information sufficient to enable Canada's assessment of the proposal against the criteria and the Evaluation Schema. The information must demonstrate how the proposal meets the criterion.

Part 1: Mandatory Criteria

Proposals must meet all mandatory criteria identified by achieving a "Pass" in order to proceed to Part 2. Proposals that do not meet all mandatory criteria will be deemed non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Mandatory Criteria

(Applicant's proposal must address)

Part 2: Point-Rated Criteria

Proposals must meet the overall minimum pass mark of 50% to be deemed responsive. Proposals that do not achieve the minimum pass mark will be declared non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Point-Rated Criteria

(Applicant's proposal to address)

All incoming questions regarding this specific challenge should be addressed to solutions@canada.ca.

All enquiries must be submitted in writing no later than ten calendar days before the Challenge Notice closing date. Enquiries received after that time may not be answered.

You can also consult the Frequently asked questions about the Innovative Solutions Canada Program.

A glossary is also available.