This year has seen significant international activity to address the problems of hazardous pesticides. The first meeting to develop a Convention for the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure was held in Brussels in March. In April, government-designated experts met in Copenhagen and made additional proposals. The pressure for swift action on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which includes nine highly persistent organochlorine pesticides, is mounting. In Canberra in February, government delegates met under the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) programme to discuss this and wider chemical management issues. Where will these initiatives lead, and what progress can be expected?
Negotiating a PIC Convention
The present voluntary PIC, which allows governments to
prohibit the import of certain hazardous pesticides, is unsatisfactory in a
number of respects, and Agenda 21 called for a legally-binding Convention by the
year 2000. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) is the lead organisation(1),
and FAO retains responsibility for pesticides(2). It became clear at the
first meeting of the Inter-governmental Negotiating Committee (INC) that
governments have a strong preference for ‘a clean PIC’, that is minimal
change, negotiated in three meetings and completed in early 1997.
Criteria for PIC
At the end of the INC meetings, there should be better
guidelines for including a chemical in PIC. To date the procedure includes
only 12 pesticides, although an additional 17 are being processed and a further
15 would be included if found to be still in use. Chemicals are candidates
if they are banned, withdrawn or severely restricted by governments for health
or environmental reasons. The INC confirmed that a ban by at least one country
on these grounds is sufficient to become a PIC candidate. But a PIC Convention
will need better criteria for identifying pesticides which are not banned, but
which cause health problems under conditions of use in developing countries.
Another question for the INC to resolve is whether to add a category for
pesticides causing environmental problems under conditions of use as favoured by
NGOs.
The INC must decide on other issues. At present, for example,
it is for governments to decide whether they notify an importing country that
export of a PIC chemical is taking place from its boundaries. More countries
want notification, and governments asked the secretariat to advise on this for
the next session.
How far can PIC go?
The PIC procedure is helpful to importing developing
countries, but it remains only a form of information exchange.
Many—particularly NGOs but also some governments—believe that certain
chemicals are too hazardous to be traded and would like to see an end to their
production and use. Action at this level would imply radical changes to
PIC during the Convention negotiations—something for which governments have
shown no enthusiasm. Alternatively, another mechanism must be developed to deal
with this aspect.
The POPS negotiations
Such a mechanism is underway to cover POPs.
Concern has grown about the impact of these environmentally persistent
chemicals, which cross national boundaries and accumulate in the earth and sea,
particularly in northern regions: the Nordic countries and Canada are leading
calls for timely action. The UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) has
initiated work on POPs(3) , and the UNEP Governing Council(4) invited
the UN and governments to expedite action, starting with the short-list
identified by the UNECE: aldrin, dieldrin, DDT, endrin, chlordane, hexachloro-benzene,
mirex, toxaphene and heptachlor (all pesticides), and PCBs, dioxins and furans
which can arise as by-products of the production process.
All the pesticides which are POPs are included in PIC. While
their use has been severely curtailed compared with the situation 20 years ago,
an FAO/UNEP survey(5) , indicated that most products are used, though at a
minimal level.
Work on POPs is also led by UNEP, but is located under the
IFCS which is implementing the chemical programme highlighted by Agenda 21(6) .
The Canberra IFCS meeting agreed that there is sufficient scientific evidence on
POPs to justify international action. Swift action may follow the next
meeting—in the Philippines in June—which will look at available alternatives
and recommend routes for action. It seems likely that a Convention will be
favoured, recommending to phase out the production and use of at least some POPs.
But governments will want to distinguish between products for which alternatives
are available; products where substitutes are not readily available; and
by-products of a production process, such dioxins, where the solutions may rely
on cleaner technology.
But where next?
The difficulty will arise when identifying further
chemicals for international action. In Copenhagen government delegates
made a distinction between international action which may be taken when local
activities or emissions lead to regional or global exposure, and appropriate
local or regional action for dealing with local problems. The latter might
include capacity building; technology transfer; monitoring and enforcing control
measures; better training; local bans or phase-outs, better information
including export notifications, and import bans based on a PIC decision. But the
Copenhagen meeting also revealed the depth of tension between those with an
environmental agenda, and a number of governments pushing a strong and
liberalised trade agenda, calling for measures which are the least restrictive
on trade and stressing the need for a full cost benefit measures on possible
action.
Agencies are co-ordinating these activities, helped by the
IFCS structure. There is also a clear need for consolidation, and a growing
recognition among some governments that a chemical convention may be needed,
into which PIC, POPs and related issues are embedded. There certainly needs to
be a strong linking process between the PIC and POPs activities.
However, while this international action is positive (if long
overdue), it addresses only a small number of pesticides and in the case of POPs
their use is now very limited. Good criteria for adding to the POPs could partly
meet NGO demands to acknowledge that certain PIC chemicals are too hazardous to
be traded or used, and should be phased out of production. But there is also a
need for a parallel process focusing on pesticides giving rise to serious health
problems.
While agreement is firm on certain widely banned pesticides,
such as carcinogens and persistent organochlorines, getting firm international
action on other pesticides remains a problem. There are, of course financial
implications. Safer alternatives and training are more expensive. More stress
needs to be placed on the health and environmental costs of pesticides,
particularly as some governments stress the financial costs of alternatives. (BD)
|
Detailed
reports of these meetings are available from the Pesticides Trust [now PAN
UK]: |