MEPs have withheld their assent to the
proposed addition of 15 chemicals (7 of which are pesticides—see box) to
Regulation 2455/92 concerning the export and import of certain dangerous
chemicals, while seeking agreement from the Commission to consider a new
approach for the next century(1). Adding these chemicals—which have been
banned or severely restricted in the European Union because of their effect on
health or the environment—to Annex 1 of this Regulation would ensure that
importing governments receive notification of their export from the EU.
Environment Commissioner Ioannis Paleokrassis has
acknowledged the MEPs case, and agreed to call a conference inviting all
concerned parties, including the relevant UN agencies (FAO and UNEP),
representatives of developing countries and NGOs. No date has been set,
and MEPs say they will continue to block the amendment to until they receive
firm assurances of a commitment to overhaul export policies.
Among the amendments suggested by MEPs are that the Prior
Informed Consent (PIC) procedure is used for all substances which could be
dangerous, and an acknowledgement that PIC should be regarded as the least the
EU can do to protect Third World populations. They also want a Convention
making export controls legally binding internationally(2).
Other points which the MEPS want included in the export
Regulation:
Carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic (CMT) substances are restricted under Directive 76/769 and should be notifiable.
Substances whose effects are known to be irreversible, cause burns or eye damage or other serious health impacts, impair fertility, liberate toxic gases in contact with water, are toxic to aquatic organisms or dangerous to the ozone should be notifiable.
If a notifiable chemical is exported repeatedly, notification must be renewed every three years, and not only on first export to each country. (The Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK] would wish to see annual notifications as a minimum.)
An overhaul of EU export legislation would be an important step in preventing hazardous trade. There is scope for many improvements, with the legislation still not as far reaching as that of the US.
In the meantime, the effect of the MEPs action is to block notification of a number of new substances. Although, as substances as banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons they should be eligible for inclusion in the Prior Informed Consent procedure.
| Banned pesticides to add to EU Export Regulations |
| Ethylene oxide |
| Dinoseb, its acetate and salts |
| Binapacryl |
| Captafol |
| Dicofol containing <78% p,p-dicofol or >1g/kg of DDT and DDT related compounds |
| Maleic hydrazide and its salts, other than its choline, potassium and sodium salts |
| Choline, potassium and sodium salts of maleic hydrazide containing more than 1mg/kg of free hydrazine expressed on the basis of the acid equivalent |
| Quintozene containing more than 1g/kg of hexachlorobenzene or >10g/kg of pentachlorobenzene |
Decisions on first PIC pesticides now
legally binding
The EU is the first group of countries to make the PIC
procedure legally binding, and from 11 February 1994 exporters in Member States
must comply with importing countries' decisions relating to six PIC pesticides:
aldrin, dieldrin, DDT, dinoseb, fluoroacetamide and HCH (mixed isomers).
The remaining PIC pesticides and chemicals are subject to voluntary compliance.
But no automatic ban on CMTs
In an unrelated move, the Environment Committee has
forced the Commission to back-track on proposals to which would have led to an
automatic ban—regardless of risk assessment results—on marketing to the
public of any substance reclassified in future as a CMT. These would now
become part of normal legislative procedures. But substances already
classified CMT will be banned once the directive enters into force. (BD)