PAN International Website

PIC – a tool for change

NGO briefing on the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent

PAN can claim a significant proportion of the credit for initiating the concept of Prior Informed Consent (PIC). PIC was included in the 1989 revision of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. At the 1992 Earth Summit governments agreed that PIC should have the status of an international convention, and the governing councils of UNEP and FAO then initiated the process and PIC has made the transition from a voluntary tool to an international legal instrument. However PAN groups have not capitalised on the opportunities PIC could present.

PAN groups, particularly PAN UK and PAN Asia Pacific, followed the implementation of the voluntary PIC, participating in the expert group and providing evidence of pesticide problems.  Both groups lobbied the negotiations on key issues and text.  Some PAN groups made representations to government negotiators at national level. Other public interest NGOs following PIC have mainly been the International Union of Food and Agricultural Workers, Foundation for the Advancement of Science in Education. More recently WWF has attended meetings, and Consumers International was involved in the early stages. 

The Rotterdam Convention has limitations, but is an important tool for taking action on pesticide hazards and promoting alternatives.  This paper provides a brief outline of how PIC works, positive aspects and weaknesses, and points to some campaign issues.

The framework of the PIC Convention

The Convention was adopted on 10 September 1998 by the Conference of Plenipotentiaries in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The treaty requires 50 ratifications before entering into force. By 31 March 2001 there were 14 ratifications or accessions[1].  The Convention had attracted 73 signatories[2].   Most governments take at least two years to bring in new legislation. The Secretariat hopes there will be 50 ratifications by the date of the Earth Summit III in June 2002, making PIC a ‘showpiece’. 

To participate in PIC governments must appoint a Designated National Authority (DNA) and by December 2000, 164 governments had made an appointment to the voluntary PIC, and a further six appointed a focal point. However, not all these are making import decisions. 

The Convention text indicated that the new provisions should be applied on a voluntary basis with immediate effect.  This means that the pesticides in the voluntary PIC have carried over, and new pesticides (and chemicals) continue to be added. There are a total of 26 pesticides in PIC and five industrial chemicals (see Annex 1). 

The International Negotiating Committee (INC) oversees the Convention until it enters into force and a Conference of the Parties (COP) is established. The Joint Secretariat is FAO for pesticides and UNEP for chemicals. The INC is advised by the Interim Chemical Review Committee (ICRC) (see box). Any decision made by the INC must be confirmed by the COP.

What PIC does

The Rotterdam Convention could substantially improve the flow of information to developing countries warning of health and environmental problems with certain pesticides. Governments can prohibit imports of pesticides included in PIC. The effects of the Convention could be to:

  • circulate more information about health and environmental problems of chemicals

  • prevent unwanted imports of hazardous chemicals in PIC

  • improve regulation of pesticides, especially in developing countries

  • stimulate a search for safer alternatives, including Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

How PIC is operated (see also www.pic.int/)

  • A government must appoint a Designated National Authority (DNA) to perform the administrative functions;

  • the Chemical Review Committee will review PIC notifications and nominations, draft Decision Guidance Documents (DGD) and make recommendations to the COP;  

  • the COP will decide by consensus which chemicals to include in PIC and approve the DGD.  

How PIC includes a banned or severely restricted pesticide  

  • Governments notify that they have banned or severely restricted a chemical;  

  • when a pesticide qualifies for PIC (two bans/SRs that meet the criteria), a DGD is circulated to governments, and they have nine months to transmit their import decision to the Secretariat. The Secretariat can be asked to help in making a decision;  

  • every six months the Joint Secretariat will disseminate each country decision on whether it consents to or prohibits import of PIC chemicals (it is also on the website);  

  • exporting countries will ensure that their exporters comply with importing countries’ decisions.

Severely hazardous pesticide formulations will be identified in a different way (see below), but other conditions will apply.

PIC includes export notification  

  • governments will notify importing countries of exports of banned or severely restricted chemicals for the first export of each year;  

  • export notification will cease when the chemical enters PIC, though importing governments may request continued notification (not specified in Convention).

Adding  PIC pesticides

There are two routes for adding pesticides. Under Article 5, a ban or severe restriction in any two regions triggers PIC if the action is taken for health or environmental reasons, on the basis of an evaluation of risk after considering available scientific data.  INC6 basically adopted FAO regions for the interim period, so PIC regions are: 

Africa (48 countries)                    

Latin America and the Caribbean (33 countries)

Asia (23 countries)                      

Near East (22 countries)

Europe (49 countries) 

North America (2 countries: Canada and US) 
Southwest Pacific (16 countries)

The second route into PIC is set out in Article 6 and addresses ‘severely hazardous pesticide formulations’.  An important change in the Convention from the voluntary procedure was to cover either health or environmental problems caused by pesticides, in developing countries and countries with economies in transition.  To be included information must be compiled on the formulation with a “clear description of incidents related to the problem, including the adverse effects and the way in which the formulation was used” (Annex IV).  This kind of evidence is very difficult to find and will need field studies or good reporting systems. The ICRC has set up a Task Group to help solve this problem, and PAN UK and IUF are both participants.

The Chemical Review Committee

To assist the work of the COP, a Chemical Review Committee will be established made up of government-designated experts, to review PIC notifications and nominations, draft the DGDs, and make recommendations to the COP. An Interim Chemical Review Committee (ICRC) has been formed, with each region entitled to nominate the following number of participants:  

Africa (6):  Cameroon, Ethiopia, Gambia, Mauritius, Morocco, South Africa  
Asia (5):  China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Nepal 
Europe (6):  Finland, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Switzerland 
Latin America and the Caribbean (5):  Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador 
Near East (3):  Egypt, Qatar, Sudan 
North America (2):  Canada, United States 
Southwest Pacific (2):  Australia, Samoa  

Note that the North American region (two countries) has two seats, while Africa (48 countries) and Europe (49 countries) are entitled to only six seats each. The tense negotiations for seats took place at INC6, and agreement was reached only after assurance this would be reviewed in three years or the first meeting of the COP, whichever is sooner.

Observers are entitled to attend. Governments were requested to ‘exercise restraint’ so that observers did not outnumber official representatives.  NGO observers should be balanced between industry NGOs on the one hand and public interest groups and trade unions on the other (guidance to contain to four each).

The ICRC has set up Task Groups to develop procedures and solve problems such as how to gather information on severely hazardous pesticide formulations.  

Positive elements and opportunities

PIC is primarily a system of information exchange and capacity will not, by itself, eliminate any pesticides. But the Convention has positive aspects and there are strategic opportunities. 

EARLY WARNING
PIC has more limited horizons than the POPs Convention in terms of elimination, but a wider horizon in terms of an early warning. Information about government decisions to ban or severely restrict pesticides will be notified to the Secretariat and circulated regularly, making them easily accessible even if the chemical is not included in PIC.

SEVERELY HAZARDOUS PESTICIDE FORMULATIONS
 The inclusions of severely hazardous pesticide formulations is important, particularly as they cover health or environmental problems in developing countries. Potentially, these could include, for example:

  • 81 pesticides classified by the WHO to be extremely or highly hazardous[3] and recommended by FAO not to be used in developing countries.

  • 149 pesticides as ‘dangerous to the environment’[4] by the European Union (US lists?)

The Task Group is looking at how to identify these formulations is open to suggestions. PAN UK has submitted a draft incident report form. The Task Group is interested in ‘piloting’ a form with the PAN Africa/OBEPAB/PAN UK project gathering data on poisonings in West Africa.  We have also submitted a draft incident report form on environmental problems.

CAPACITY BUILDING
PIC can play a central role as part of capacity building initiatives to help governments improve the regulation of chemicals. In poorer countries, with competing demands on scarce resources, chemical regulation is not always an attractive area of investment. The status of an international Convention gives PIC the attention it requires to be effective, and could attract funds for training.

IMPORTANCE OF ALTERNATIVES
In the absence of sound alternatives, governments will have no option but to consent to the import of hazardous and inappropriate pesticides. PIC can be promoted as part of a process of improving the regulation of pesticides, while looking for safer and more appropriate alternatives (organic, IPM, agroecological strategies). Equally, for IPM to flourish, good pesticide regulation needs to be in place to prevent sub-standard and inappropriate pesticides undermining good practice.

TRADE MATTERS
PIC was not made subsidiary to WTO rules (setting the precedent followed in POPs). Although still weak, PIC is one of the first post-WTO Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and should balance trade rules. WTO has a group discussing domestically prohibited goods.

Weaknesses

TWO BANS – TWO REGIONS – TOO MANY
The ‘two region’ requirement for entry into PIC is intended to demonstrate a ‘global’ problem. The FAO regions used as a basis for PIC are profoundly unequal in the country balance:  any number of bans/SR in the European Region (from Finland to Malta and from Portugal to Russia) would not trigger PIC. The EU has indicated that it might reassess its agreement. This should be a target. Regulatory agencies will adopt different measures in response to health and environmental problems and different levels of usage and will set different priorities: the recent US EPA action to restrict the use of chlorpyrifos was not reflected with similar action in Europe.

OLD PESTICIDES – NEW LOOPHOLE?
Many pesticides originally registered in OECD countries are no longer being used there. Often the data gaps are not acceptable under current regulatory procedures, so governments might refuse registration. As newer compounds become available and registered, companies may stop supporting the registration of older products. Sometimes this is a straight and justifiable economic decision, in other cases it is a withdrawal from use because the company cannot provide information showing there are no health concerns, sometimes the reasons are not clear.  When a government decides not to register a pesticide, rather than ban or severely restrict it, PAN should require governments to indicate if this refusal is because of health or environmental concerns, and if so it should be treated as a ‘final regulatory action’ qualifying for PIC. Even if such pesticides are still produced in the US or Europe, but for export only, no evaluation is required. Where should the burden of proof lie?

CHEMICAL-BY-CHEMICAL APPROACHLarge categories of hazardous pesticides, such as organophosphates and carbamates should be dealt with collectively rather than on a chemical-by-chemical basis. For these kinds of problems, governments rarely ban or severely restrict, they rely on label directions or restricting to licensed users. Another category might be endocrine-disrupting pesticides. PIC opted for the severely hazardous pesticide formulations definition rather than go for classes of pesticides.

Outstanding matters

LEGAL AND ILLEGAL TRAFFIC
The level of information on pesticides in international trade is deplorably low.  There exists almost no accurate information on the quantities of pesticides produced, or their shipping destinations. Many countries have no information about pesticides being imported, which is the minimum information for taking measures to reduce risk.  The Convention needs to develop measures to deal with illegal traffic. The same issue will arise in POPs and they are likely to be dealt with in a similar manner. INC7 agreed to investigate Customs Codes for PIC pesticides. This matter is extremely important to developing countries and was taken up in the IFCS meeting in Salvador, which has recommended a working group to investigate and advise.

TRADE STATISTICS
Without statistics on trade in pesticides it is virtually impossible to carry out independent monitoring or to identify where problems might be expected because of volumes imported.

OTHER PESTICIDES IDENTIFIED IN THE VOLUNTARY PIC
A number of pesticides were identified under the voluntary procedure as having been banned or severely restricted in five or more countries. They were only to be included if found to be produced and in trade.  These pesticides should be given the same status as in the voluntary procedure.

Pesticides with 5+ bans: demeton, DBBT, DBCP, endrin, kelevan, lead compounds, leptophos, mirex, schradan, sodium fluoride, strobane, telodrin, thallium sulphate[5].

Fumigants: no satisfactory alternative is known for some fumigants, and a paper was to be prepared on: aluminium phosphine, zinc phosphine[6].

Certain pesticides (specifically methyl bromide) were not included in PIC because they were addressed under other Conventions. However the POPs Convention will include a range of pesticides in PIC, demonstrating an important role for PIC in working with other Conventions in clarifying and informing of government decisions to consent to or prohibit imports.

Consumer chemicals: These are not included in PIC, although the EU argued in favour. Some objections related to the difficulty of identifying these chemicals. However in the long term the issue is not entirely closed, and could be relevant for pesticides. A ban on home and garden pesticides (consumer use) in an OECD country could be relevant for developing countries

CONTAMINANTS IN PESTICIDE FORMULATIONS
Some pesticides are contaminated with a more hazardous compound, as in the case of dioxin in 2,4,5-T.  Depending on the situation, it is not always clear whether action against contamination is a severe restriction (e.g. it can be a manufacturing guideline). This will be discussed at the next ICRC: it is important not to rule out contaminants. Guidance on the ‘acceptable’ level of contamination should warn importing countries with no facilities for laboratory testing: and help governments ensure its imports measure up to international standards.  (Note: technical issue.)

Campaigning points

National / internal issues

  • Check on government progress:  lobby governments to participate and ratify the Convention.  

  • Opportunity for national campaigns in countries where PIC pesticides are being imported: can compare with countries that prohibit imports of these pesticides.

  • Carry out educational work and training with IPEN to draw attention to the benefits of understanding and using PIC to address problem pesticides, which are not characterised as persistent and bio-accumulative.  

General, international campaigns

Two bans / two regions: governments are unlikely to go back to the ‘one ban’ situation of the voluntary PIC, as many developing countries supported ‘two bans’. But the PIC regions are irrational and reflect smaller units, and relate to agronomic, climatic and ecological differences.  

Target PAN’s problem pesticides:  endosulfan, aldicarb, paraquat, for example.

Look for opportunities for dealing with larger numbers of pesticides, rather than chemical-by-chemical:  particularly acutely toxic pesticides, endocrine disrupters, environmentally hazardous (difficult to identify). Note the support for addressing acutely toxic pesticides from the IFCS (see box).

Promote the need for sound regulation, training for implementation, integrated role with POPs, implementation of the FAO Code.

PIC information allows regular documentation of which countries allow the import of any pesticide in PIC. Pesticides in PIC that are widely used are likely to continue to be imported unless satisfactory alternatives are available. We should be careful not to promote phase outs that lead to other problem pesticides being used. This provides opportunity to link to IPM advocacy as an alternative.

The need for transparent trade figures.

PAN needs an updated approach to ‘banning the export of banned’, in the context of government acceptance that PIC is the basis of imports and exports of banned or severely restricted pesticides.

Monitor credentials of the country designated experts in the ICRC: some have industry links (e.g. newly appointed Swiss adviser). Governments picked this up at INC7 and asked for all credentials to be made available and public.

Trade / MEA related issues.

IFCS plan of action

“Poisoning of  pesticide users, especially agricultural workers and small farmers in developing countries and countries with economies in transition, must be prevented. The Rotterdam Convention on PIC will address aspects of this problem. However, in order to more comprehensively address the problem of acutely toxic

 “Requests the IFCS Forum standing Committee to provide initial input on the extent of the problem of acutely toxic pesticides, and provide guidance for sound risk management and reduction, including options for phasing out where appropriate, and report to Forum IV.

“Urges countries to apply the existing mechanisms under the Rotterdam Convention to notify to the PIC Secretariat on severely hazardous pesticide formulations under conditions of use in developing countries and countries with economies in transition, and request the PIC Secretariat to report on progress to IFCS Forum IV.”

Annex 1  
Pesticides covered by the interim PIC procedure, November 2000

Pesticides banned or

severely restricted*  

Severely hazardous

pesticide formulations  

2,4,5-T (dioxin contamination)

aldrin

binapacryl (INC6)

captafol

chlordane

chlordimeform

chlorobenzilate

DDT

dieldrin

dinoseb and dinoseb salts

1,2-dibromoethane (EDB, or ethylene dibromide)

ethylene dichloride (INC7)

ethylene oxide (INC7)

fluoroacetamide

HCH, mixed isomers

heptachlor

hexachlorobenzene

lindane

mercury compounds, including:  

  • mercuric oxide  

  • mercurous chloride, Calomel  

  • other inorganic mercury compounds  

  • alkyl mercury compounds  

  • alkoxyalkyl / aryl mercury compounds

pentachlorophenol

toxaphene (INC6)  

The following formulations are included in PIC

 

monocrotophos  600 g/l (SL) formulation and higher

 

methamidophos  600 g/l (SL) formulation and higher

 

phosphamidon  1000 g/l (SL) formulation and higher

 

methyl parathion   emulsifiable concentrates (EC) with 19.5%, 50%, 50%, 60% active ingredients and dusts containing 1.5%, 2% and 3% active ingredient)

 

parathion  all  formulations – aerosols, dustable powder (DP), emulsifiable concentrate (EC), granules (GR) and wettable powders (WP) of this substance are included, except capsule suspensions (CS)

Industrial chemicals in PIC  
crocidolite  
polybrominated biphenyls (PBB)  
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), except mono-
    and dichlorinated  
polychlorinated terphenyls (PCT)  
tris (2,3 dibromopropyl) phosphate  
*NB The POPs endrin and mirex are not included in the PIC list as there was no evidence of production or trade.

[1] Ratifications or Accessions at 31 March 2001: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Germany, Guinea, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Netherlands, Oman, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Suriname.

[2]  Signatories at September 1999: Albania, Angola,  Republic of Argentina, Armenia,  Republic of Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Republic of Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, China,  People’s Republic of Colombia, Congo, Congo,  Democratic Republic of the, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt,  Arab Republic of El Salvador, European Community, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany,  Federal Republic of Ghana, Guatemala, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia , Iran,  Islamic Republic of Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya,  Republic of Korea,  Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Luxembourg, Madagascar,  Republic of Malawi, Malaysia, Mali,  Republic of Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia,  Republic of Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland,  Republic of Portugal, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles,  Republic of Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan,  Republic of Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Yemen. 

[3] WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard, and Guidelines to Classification 1998-1999, WHO/PCS/98.21, Geneva, 1998.

[4] European Council Directive (67/548/EEC) and subsequent amendments.

[5] Report of the Eighth FAO/UNEP Joint Meeting on PIC, Geneva 6-10 March 1995, pp13-14.

[6] Sixth FAO/UNEP Joint Meeting on PIC, 28 June-2 July 1993, review of decision guidance documents, p.24.

For more information on this article contact 
Barbara Dinham, Programme Director at PAN UK
[First published April 2001 then  online in June 2001]