Pesticides are unique among chemicals. They are designed to be toxic to living organisms and are intentionally dispersed in the environment. Approximately 1000 chemical pesticide active ingredients are marketed in tens of thousands of combinations, or formulations. The problems created by many pesticides are widely acknowledged: acute poisoning remains a daily hazard to millions of farmers and agricultural workers, especially in developing countries; chronic effects can include cancer, neurological, reproductive and endocrine impacts; and residues or spray drift leave traces in water and the environment, affecting non-target flora and fauna.
Pesticides are a global business, with production centres located largely in Europe and the United States, and a handful of less industrialised countries, notably China, India, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina. Global pesticide traffic is increasing. At the same time, involuntary transport of volatile and persistent pesticides continues to cross national boundaries through air and water currents, and leaves its mark on the global environment.
For these reasons, pesticides require – and in industrial countries receive – more stringent controls than most chemicals. However, developing countries do not have the same regulatory infrastructure or resources. The intrinsic characteristics of the chemicals, and the uneven ability to enforce strict controls, emphasise the importance of a global response.
A raft of new international initiatives have been agreed to address pesticide problems. Never before have so many mechanisms been available to draw on in the efforts to reduce exposure. With increasing global trade, these multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) are a bulwark against the potential harm from unfettered trade. Agricultural liberalisation without protection can follow the opening of borders under World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements. MEAs will need to take priority over trade rules, and have been negotiated to be compatible with these rules.
This guide to the major new legally binding treaties and standard-setting instruments sets the context for more concerted action.
The Rotterdam Convention – information and consent
In February this year, the new early warning system on hazardous pesticides entered into legal force. From 20-24 September 2004, the governments that have ratified the
Convention(1), or become Parties by making it legally binding in their countries, will meet for the first time to establish priorities. The Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent
(PIC)(2) has operated on a voluntary basis since it was agreed in 1998. During its voluntary phase, the Interim Chemical Review Committee identified chemicals for inclusion (see box) and set up operating procedures.
The Rotterdam Convention builds on regulatory decisions that have been made on the basis of consideration of science and an evaluation of risks in the decision-making country. As it addresses chemicals in international trade, there needs to be evidence of trade before inclusion is considered.
The Convention will share information quickly on government bans or severe restrictions on a chemical (industrial chemical or pesticide) for health or environmental reasons. This information is circulated by the Secretariat, which disseminates the latest ‘state of play’ every six months. When a pesticide or other chemical has been banned in accordance with the Convention’s criteria by two countries in two different regions of the world (indicating a global concern) it will consider this chemical for inclusion on a ‘PIC List’. In addition, there is provision to include severely hazardous pesticide formulations that are causing health or environmental problems under conditions of use in developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Once a pesticide is on the PIC List, governments must state whether they prohibit, or give consent to, its import.
Under its information exchange requirements, governments that have banned or severely restricted a chemical must notify exports of these to importing countries on the first export each year (until the chemical is listed in PIC).
The PIC Convention does not have a funding pool for implementation. While some developing countries see this as a problem, it is important to recognise that the treaty itself is a tool for decision-making, and aims to help governments implement their existing national regulation. However Article 16 does call on Parties to cooperate in promoting technical assistance to manage chemicals and implement the Convention.
| Pesticides on the PIC list as at February 2004 Active ingredients aldrin, binapacryl, captafol, chlordane, chlordimeform, chlorobenzilate, DDT, dieldrin, dinoseb and its salts, DNOC and its salts (such as ammonium salt, potassium salt and sodium salt), 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB), ethylene dichloride, ethylene oxide, fluoroacetamide, HCH (mixed isomers), heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, mercury compounds (including inorganic mercury compounds, alkyl mercury compounds and alkyloxyalkyl and aryl mercury compounds), monocrotophos, pentachlorophenol, 2,4,5-T, toxaphene. Pesticide formulations
The PIC ‘waiting list’ |
Stockholm Convention – eliminating persistent pesticides
Concern about the global spread of persistent pesticides arose in the late 1980s. As with the PIC initiative, governments at the 1992 Earth Summit called for a legally binding treaty to deal with the problem of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). The result was the Stockholm
Convention(3), which entered into force in May 2004 when the 50th country ratified it.
POPs are chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of living organisms and are toxic to humans and wildlife. POPs circulate globally and can cause damage wherever they travel. In implementing the Convention, governments will take measures to eliminate or reduce the release of POPs into the environment. The identified POPs include nine pesticides (aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex and toxaphene), one industrial chemical (polychlorinated biphenyls), and two unintentional by-products of industrial processes (dioxins and furans).
The Stockholm Convention is a major achievement. It has set a timetable for reduction and eventual elimination of many of the chemicals. It sets up a system for tackling additional chemicals identified as unacceptably hazardous. In doing so, it explicitly recognises the need for a precautionary approach, although inclusion is based on scientific criteria.
Through the Global Environment Facility, governments have access to funds to draw up National Indicative Plans to implement the POPs Convention. Funds are also targeting the ability to clean up existing stockpiles and dumps of POPs that litter the world’s landscape. Ultimately, it will help to reshape economies to reduce reliance on toxic chemicals.
Basel Convention – halting hazardous waste trade
This Convention was agreed in 1989, and entered into force in May 1992. It has now been ratified by 162 governments. The initial impetus came from the dramatic rise in the cost of hazardous waste disposal in the late 1980s, following tighter environmental regulations in industrialised countries. As disposal costs rose, ‘toxic traders’ looked for cheaper ways to get rid of hazardous wastes, and sent shipments to developing countries and to Eastern Europe.
During its first decade the Convention set up a framework for controlling the movement of hazardous wastes across international frontiers followed by development of criteria for environmentally sound management. The priorities identified for 2000-2010 are to achieve full implementation and enforcement of the commitments, and to minimise the generation of hazardous waste. The guidelines in this period prioritise: cleaner technologies and production methods; further reduction of the movement of hazardous and other wastes; prevention and monitoring of illegal traffic; improving institutional and technical capabilities; and developing regional centres for training and technology transfer.
A central goal of the Basel Convention is to minimise hazardous waste production whenever possible. The alternative is to promote an integrated life-cycle approach, which involves strong controls from the generation of a hazardous waste to its storage, transport, treatment, reuse, recycling, recovery and final disposal. The Secretariats of Rotterdam, Stockholm and Basel are encouraging governments to ratify all three, and recognise the synergies between the three chemical Conventions.
Montreal Protocol – protecting the ozone layer
The effect of certain chemicals on the earth’s ozone layer was first noted in the 1970s, and in 1985 governments agreed to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. The subsequent Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer(4), adopted in 1987, established the framework for phasing out the production and consumption of ozone-depleting chemicals. It covers chlorofluorocarbons and other compounds, and a subsequent amendment added the pesticide methyl bromide. Although 187 countries have ratified the Montreal Protocol, a lower number have ratified subsequent amendments.
The difficulties of obtaining full elimination for chemicals was, however, illustrated in a special meeting of the Protocol held in March 2004. Although the Protocol had scheduled methyl bromide for phase out by 2005, in 33 industrialised countries 11 obtained exemptions for more than 13,400 tonnes (PN64, pp 18-19).
Setting new national standards
The International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of
Pesticides(5) was first agreed in 1985 by governments and overseen by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). It is backed up with detailed technical Guidelines for governments. As a voluntary Code of Conduct, it can be far more wide-ranging than an international legally binding instrument, and provide a guide for national legislation. The PIC procedure was incorporated into the Code of Conduct in 1989, and was removed because of its new status as a legally binding Convention. At the same time, the Code of Conduct was revised and strengthened, taking account of the increased understanding of the adverse health and environmental impacts of pesticides in developing countries.
The Code is addressed primarily to governments and the pesticide industry, and the latter’s representative body, CropLife International, has made it a condition of membership of the association. Now, the revised Code calls on the food industry, including supermarkets, to assist in implementation. Throughout, it establishes tighter guidelines to protect health and the environment, monitor and collect data, phase out the most hazardous pesticides, protect biodiversity, and promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as a priority. It encourages a life cycle approach, dealing with disposal as well as distribution and use. The FAO is actively pursuing a plan for implementation of the revised Code of Conduct, calling on all stakeholders to be involved.
Recommendation – acutely toxic pesticides still causing problems
Innovative ways to advance responses to the problems of hazardous chemicals in international trade are investigated by a Forum established after the 1992 Earth Summit. The Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) brings together governments, public interest groups, research organisations and industry every three years. Though not binding, its recommendations identify major outstanding problems and provide guidance. At Forum IV, Bangkok, in 2003, governments endorsed the need to ratify and implement the PIC Convention and the Code of Conduct, and to ‘promote a culture of compliance and accountability, and effective enforcement and monitoring programmes.’ It noted that the problems of acutely toxic pesticides in developing countries and countries with economies in transition still need action. Its
recommendations(6) addressed policy and regulatory actions. While highlighting the importance of introducing IPM, it also noted priority actions. Better communication, awareness, and access to information is essential.
The Forum noted that, while it was outside the mandate of the Bangkok meeting, the issue of liability and compensation for those affected by pesticide poisonings needs to be considered.
Taking action
PAN promotes a five point plan for eliminating the hazards of pesticides.
The first step to address the problem must be to ensure progress continues under these and other relevant legal processes and standard-setting recommendations. Monitoring implementation is crucial to measure whether they are working. Better information on quantities of pesticides produced and exported is also essential; almost no accurate and comprehensive information is available. Data on production, imports and use are the first precautionary measure to reduce risk for any government. Many developing countries have no information about what is being imported and where it is used.
Knowing what is on the market, however, does not remove the problem. The Stockholm Convention and the Montreal Protocol aim to eliminate the use of certain pesticides. PIC establishes an early warning process, and both the Code of Conduct and the IFCS recommendations recognise problems with acutely toxic pesticides, such as those included in WHO classes Ia and Ib (extremely and highly toxic), and others. Governments must act to prohibit or restrict their availability under poor conditions of use. Industry should follow up its undertakings to withdraw sales of the most toxic pesticides in developing countries. While governments can register prohibitions on imports under PIC, in the case of some of the most hazardous pesticides, governments should also consider implementing an export ban.
The most crucial elements in any plan to combat pesticides are capacity building for governments and pesticide users, particularly in developing countries, and the more ready availability of alternatives, based on IPM or organic production. For this, it is essential to focus on human resources and training. These instruments provide the basis for action. They must now be put to work.
References
1. Guidance: Advocating for the ratification of PIC and POPs Conventions, PAN UK and PAN North America, http://www.panna.org/campaigns/docsPops/pdfsPops_030710/PIC&POPsGuideEng.pdf.
2. Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade www.pic.int
3. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, www.pops.int
4. http://www.unep.org/ozone/index.asp
5. http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpp/pesticid/code/PM_Code.htm
6. http://www.who.int/ifcs/documents/Forum/ForumIV/FIVreport/FIVreport_en.doc, pp. 10-12.[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 65, September 2004, pages 6-8]