1. Developments at the PIC INC9

In opening the meeting, Louise Fresco, assistant director general of FAO, pointed to increased pressure on food production and the intensification of production. This is leading to greater use of agrochemicals, making ratification and implementation of the  PIC Convention more urgent.

Key decisions

Governments meeting in Bonn took a number of significant decisions:

NEW ACTIVE INGREDIENTS ADDED

1.       The active ingredient monocrotophos was added to the PIC List.  Certain formulations of monocrotophos were already included because of concerns over ‘conditions of use’ in developing countries. Now the active ingredient will be covered. Monocrotophos is applied in many developing countries, particularly in Asia, to control insects and spider mites on cotton, citrus, rice, maize and other crops. It is actively traded and is manufactured by more than a dozen firms, almost all in Asia.

2.       DNOC and its salts were added to the PIC List.

NEW PESTICIDE FORMULATIONS

3.       Two pesticide formulations, Granox and Spinox (formulations of carbofuran, thiram and benomyl) which have been responsible for deaths and poisonings in Senegal were found to meet the criteria for PIC as formulations, and the INC asked the interim chemical review committee to go ahead and prepare a Decision Guidance Document.  

A PREVENTIVE BAN CAN BE TAKEN

4.       Governments agreed that a ‘preventative’ regulatory action to protect human health or the environment would meet the definition of a banned chemical, if the steps taken were in line with the criteria in the Convention.  

THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AFTER RATIFICATIONS

5.       Governments achieved more clarity on a transitional phase when the convention receives 50 ratifications and will enter into force. With the need for at least one INC after the 50 ratifications to prepare for a Conference of the Parties, and a possible 12-month delay between these events, a two-year transitional period will give governments space to join the ‘PIC Club’. Nevertheless it is important that all governments aim to ratify as soon as possible.

MORE TRAINING SOUGHT – BUT PACE QUICKENS

6.       PIC was acknowledged as a key tool to provide information on regulatory decisions taken by governments to ban or severely restrict a pesticide and to help stop unwanted trade. However many participants feel the complexity of PIC is delaying ratification. The regional training sessions are getting more financial backing and this should help. A recent meeting took place in the Caribbean; Iran and Ukraine will host workshops shortly for their regions. Egypt, China and Argentina offered to host workshops. Malaysia requested a regional workshop. Governments seeking assistance in implementation can approach the Secretariat, and many governments in industrialised countries are interested in ‘pairing’ to assist in implementation. 

Notifications of bans received

A key part of PIC is good information on government bans and severe restrictions on pesticides, and governments must inform the Secretariat of their final control actions. But the rate of notifications is low. On the positive side, the new notifications are meeting the Convention requirements. A consolidated list to June 2002 indicates that 94 notifications have been verified to meet the criteria in the Convention. However these come from only 13 countries or regional authorities: Armenia, Australia, Canada, European Union, Hungary, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Peru, Thailand.

The list of notifications covers pesticides and industrial chemicals already in PIC. Two bans or severe restrictions from different regions of the world are required to trigger PIC.

One of the obligations of ratification is to notify the PIC secretariat of any ban or severe restriction not already notified under the voluntary PIC, and to inform of new ban or severe restriction within 90 days of taking such action.  NGOs might like to check whether their government has informed the secretariat of all its regulatory actions.

Import decisions

Although many governments have signalled their decisions to allow or prohibit imports of the first wave of pesticides included in the voluntary PIC, the decisions for more recent PIC list pesticides are lagging.

While training sessions may assist, a useful role for NGOs in developing countries would be to discuss with their regulators why these import decisions are not forthcoming.

2. Form to report on poisoning incidents – request to NGOs

The secretariat has now made available forms for documenting incidents of poisoning. The Severely Hazardous Pesticide Formulation Report Form comes with instructions on completion, and encourages not only government Designated National Authorities, but also intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, bilateral and multilateral aid agencies to begin using the form to report incidents of poisoning.

The report form for environmental incidents will be available shortly.

3. NEW  Information Brochure on the Rotterdam Convention 

The Secretariat has developed an excellent guide to the Convention and its relationship to the POPs and Basle Conventions.  Copies are available in English, French and Spanish are available from the Secretariat.  

4. Illegal trade 

Developing countries remain highly concerned about the scale of illegal trade in pesticides, and the need for an international body to tackle the issue. The Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety, which will meet in Thailand in November 2003, has set up a group to consider this matter.

5. PIC Secretariat

Website www.pic.int. All information is available in English, French and Spanish.
The secretariat can be emailed at:FAO Niek.vandergraaff@fao.org , UNEP chemicals@unep.ch.

For more information on this article contact 
Barbara Dinham, Programme Director at PAN UK

[First published online in October 2002]