Prior Informed Consent – A long haul to gain accountability
In September 1998, governments agreed a new treaty to help governments
prohibit imports of certain hazardous pesticides. The struggle to achieve the
Convention has been long. Peter Hough, author of a new book on the
Global Politics of Pesticides, reports.
The 1998 Rotterdam Convention was a landmark
in the history of international pesticide trade, establishing in international
law the principle of Prior Informed Consent (PIC): the concept that importing
countries should be made aware of and officially sanction the import of certain
banned or severely restricted chemicals. The treaty represented the final
chapter in a bitter international political wrangle dating back over 15 years.
The 1980s witnessed international action to regulate the
growing trade in hazardous pesticides from North to South by multinational
corporations. A combination of moral outrage at a trade in notorious pesticides
such as DDT and dieldrin, which was undoubtedly contributing to poisonings and
fatalities in the Third World, plus self-interest in preventing the residues
returning to developed countries in food imports, prompted an international
response centred on the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) International Code of Conduct on the Use and Distribution of Pesticides.
The Code introduced a range of international standards for
traded pesticides including labelling and safety guidelines, but contention
focused on Article 9 which outlined the responsibilities of exporters under the
title of ‘Information Exchange’. This called on government agencies to
notify importers of the status of the pesticide being traded. The Pesticides
Action Network (PAN) led a campaign to tighten the requirement in the form of
PIC, believing that merely notifying governments was insufficient and that
express approval to import was necessary. The chemical corporations were hostile
to the scheme.
Despite appearing on seven of the eight drafts of the Code,
PIC was removed in the final draft, apparently in the face of strong British and
American persuasion. No national delegation officially requested the deletion
and 30 countries protested at its removal, but it appears that covert pressure
convinced delegates that the Code as a whole would be at risk if a compromise
over Article 9 was not accepted. “The majority expressed deep concern that the
principle of ‘Prior Informed Consent’ no longer appeared in the present
version of the Code ... These members, however recognized the need not to delay
the adoption of the Code.”(1)
Led by PAN and Oxfam, the campaign to incorporate PIC into
Article 9 continued, and focused on the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) London
Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade
(London Guidelines). The American, British and German representatives at a
1987 UNEP Working Group meeting continued to resist the inclusion of PIC.
However, this stubborn resistance had the effect of galvanizing support from
Third World delegates at UNEP’s Governing Council. PAN was instrumental in
mobilizing all representatives from the Group of 77 developing nations,
and the Governing Council passed a pledge to include PIC at its next session.
Hence in 1989 a voluntary PIC procedure was established, and UNEPs provisional
acceptance prompted similar action at the November 1987 FAO Conference, which
agreed to add PIC to the FAO Code in 1989(2). PIC had finally gained
international legitimization as a rule governing international pesticide
trading.
Industry’s apparent ‘U-turn’ on PIC appeared to be a
fear of the alternatives. The drafting of a bill in the US during 1991-2
proposing to introduce export controls for pesticides prompted its chief
representative GIFAP to take the extraordinary step of criticizing the bill on
the grounds that it was contrary to the FAO Code of Conduct. “A major concern
... is the appearance of a draft Bill on pesticide export control in the US
which is very much at variance with PIC in the FAO Code, namely that this draft
legislation is export rather than import control orientated.” GIFAP had
opportunistically interpreted PIC: given a choice between PIC and export
restrictions, they saw PIC as the lesser of two evils.
PIC’s central role in an international pesticide trade
regime was confirmed at UNCED in 1992, which included in Agenda 21
a call for governments to participate in PIC, and for an international
convention by 2000 (Chapter 19). This set in train the negotiations, culminating
in the Rotterdam Convention.
1. Official minutes of the FAO Conference of March 1985. Taken from; PAN, The International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Discussion Paper for 1987 FAO Conference’, p 1.
2. FAO, Resolution 5/87. 1987 Biennial Conference.
Peter Hough is Lecturer in Politics and
International Studies in the School of History and Politics, Middlesex
University.
|
The Global Politics of Pesticides
explores the often conflicting interests involved in the formulation of
international policies on pesticide manufacture and use in relation to
environmental pollution, trade, development, public health, food security,
biotechnology and industrial safety. It explains why some aspects of pesticide
use are subject to strict international guidelines whilst others are not.
The Global Politics of Pesticides:
Forging Consensus from conflicting interests, Peter Hough, Earthscan, London,
1998, £15.95.