Twinning PIC and POPs
Governments take global action

‘We must put a stop to the use of poisons which threaten plants, animals and the environment in which we live,’ said Swedish prime minister Goran Persson, to the representatives from 122 countries who came to seal agreement on the new international Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). 

The Convention will set in motion action to eliminate or minimise the use of 12 toxic chemicals. Nine of the POPs are pesticides. Nearly three years ago in the Netherlands, governments signed a ‘twin’ Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC). These two Conventions could provide powerful tools to clean up environmentally hazardous pesticides and alert governments to pesticides which cause health or environmental harm. 
    The POPs pesticides are spread by winds and ocean currents, and are found everywhere from Antarctica to Alaska. They accumulate in fatty tissue, and evidence links these chemicals to cancer and endocrine defects in animals and humans. Of the 12 POPs, nine are pesticides (see table). The production of many has already ceased, but old stocks remain in stores, sometimes in use, and continue to pose a threat. 
    With the main exception of DDT – where it was agreed that use should continue until other means of controlling mosquito vectors of diseases such as malaria were viable – elimination is the goal. Of the non-pesticides, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) will pose the biggest clean-up challenge. The dioxins and furans included are by-products of industrial processes and incineration, and cleaner production is the solution.
    A major task ahead for the POPs Convention will be the identification of new chemicals that persist in the environment and pose global threats. 

PIC moves ahead
The PIC Convention, by contrast, aims to give better information to developing countries about bans and severe restrictions on pesticides in countries with the resources to evaluate the risks. Additionally, the Convention requires governments to indicate whether they prohibit or consent to the import of PIC-listed chemicals.
    Like the POPs Convention, PIC will only enter into force when ratified by 50 governments. By May 2001, this action had been taken by 14 countries, though many more have started to change national laws. UNEP Chemicals and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), acting as the joint secretariat for PIC, hope that 50 governments will ratify by June 2002 for the World Summit on Sustainable Environment and Development. 

Monocrotophos bans
In the meantime, PIC implementation continues on a voluntary basis. Four new pesticides have been added in the last two years (see table). An interim Chemical Review Committee (ICRC) has been established to review new chemicals, and develop systems for a fast and responsive procedure.
    The government-designated experts from 29 countries who make up the ICRC met in March 2001 for the second time. They were presented with the first new candidate, monocrotophos, which has now been banned in two countries in different continents: experts from Australia and Hungary made presentations, and the ICRC concluded that the requirements of the Convention had been met. This makes monocrotophos the first ‘new’ pesticide to go forward for PIC entry (though some formulations are already included under ‘conditions of use’). The final decision must be taken by governments at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee – or when the Convention is ratified, at a Conference of the Parties.

Pilot studies to find problem pesticides
More ambitiously, the PIC Convention aims to help identify the ‘severely hazardous pesticide formulations’ causing health or environmental problems in developing countries and in the so-called ‘countries with economies in transition’, like Eastern Europe. 
    This is a monumental task, which requires field-level identification of problems in countries where the majority of pesticide use takes place far from any hazard reporting centre, and where many confounding factors are present. For example, different pesticides will be used at the same time, or the symptoms experienced can be confused with illness. The detailed investigations carried out in Benin (see pages 12-14) are rare and difficult to organise. However the ICRC has developed a draft ‘health effect’ form for field-testing: studies will be carried out by a number of institutions and NGOs, including PAN Africa and OBEPAB. The ultimate aim is to make a form widely available in countries, in appropriate languages, and to encourage reporting to a central point. The responsibility for notifying these pesticides, however, will rest with governments.

Knowing ‘what’s banned where’
Probably the most frequent question about a pesticide is ‘has it been banned?’ At present there is no global record of all government bans or severe restrictions. But PIC requires governments to notify the secretariat of such regulatory actions within 90 days. Not all bans or severe restrictions will meet the Convention criteria, but it will be possible to build up a more accurate picture of national actions against pesticides and the reasons for taking action. PAN UK will be collating this information.

New resources
PAN UK has written a briefing for NGOs and others interested on PIC setting out how it works, benefits, weaknesses, outstanding matters and campaigning points – now available on our website www.pan-uk.org. Full details of PIC and POPs developments can be found on www.pic.int and www.irptc.unep.ch/pops/ (BD)

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 52, June 2001, page 15]