Global Chemicals Management: Progress Since Rio and Possibilities for Environment: Johannesburg and Beyond
> BY CLIFTON CURTIS and TINA SKAAR.
Copyright © 2002 by The Earth Times. All rights reserved

We have seen real advancement on toxic chemicals issue since Rio, but many challenges lie ahead. Policy and programmatic initiatives--such as the recently concluded global treaty on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), EU legislative proposals to reform its chemicals policies, the UNEP Governing Council's consideration of a global chemicals strategy, and the Africa Stockpiles Programme (ASP)--are indicative of significant progress these past 10 years and vital components of a more realistic chemicals framework. Yet, the Stockholm Convention and other chemicals-related treaties are not yet in force, there are no internationally recognized tests for the thousands of toxic chemicals in use, and people and wildlife throughout the world are exposed daily to a variety of hazardous synthetic compounds. A more rigorous, coherent, and environmentally sound chemicals management system is needed to protect wildlife and people at local, national, and international levels alike.

The World Summit on Sustainable Development offers the opportunity for governments, industry, and NGOs to work together to ensure responsible action on several important areas, including but not limited to: expedited entry-into-force for international chemicals-related treaties; proper chemical testing; increased funding for research on chemical effects and environmentally sound alternatives; significantly greater access to data and other information as part of citizenís right-to-know; and halting production and use of the most dangerous industrial chemicals and pesticides.

Over the last 50 years, evidence has mounted on the threat of synthetic chemicals to the health and well-being of wildlife and humans alike. Wherever scientists look--in the tropics, marine systems, industrial regions, the Arctic--they find the impact of toxic chemicals. No person, region, or species can escape the reach of these insidious pollutants.

Whether they are pesticides like chlordane, atrazine, and endosolfan, industrial chemicals like PCBs and the phthalates used in plastics, or by-products such as dioxins and furans, chemicals are a part of our lives. Ironically, chemicals that were developed to control disease, increase food production, and improve our standard of living are a threat to biodiversity and human health.

Approximately 80,000 chemicals have been introduced into the environment over the last 50 years, but virtually none have been tested for the full range of reproductive, neurological, or endocrine effects. Research and regulation of synthetic chemicals has historically focused on the dangers of genetic mutation, cancers, and gross birth defects. Increasingly, however, scientists have been investigating a hazard known as "endocrine disruption."

Endocrine disrupting chemicals interfere with the activity of hormones within the body. Many manufactured chemicals mimic natural hormones and send false messages. Other synthetic compounds block the messages and prevent true ones from getting through.

Whatever the mechanism, the bottom line is the same: any chemical that interferes directly or indirectly with hormones can scramble vital messages, derail development, and undermine health.

An extensive body of evidence supports the case against endocrine disrupting chemicals--wildlife studies, lab experiments, and mechanistic investigations at the molecular and cellular level. Many scientists have concluded that synthetic compounds have already damaged many wildlife populations by causing thyroid dysfunction, decreased fertility, decreased hatching success, behavioral abnormalities, feminization and demasculinization in males, and compromised immune systems.

Hormone disrupting contaminants may be hazardous at extremely low doses and pose an even greater danger to the developing fetus in the womb. Because hormones are so important in early development, synthetic chemicals that disrupt such internal messages pose a particular hazard to the unborn. During prenatal life, endocrine disruptors may alter development of the body, including the brain, and undermine the ability to learn, to fight off disease, and to reproduce.

Another dangerous group of chemicals are known as persistent organic pollutants or POPs. These toxic substances are composed of organic (carbon-based) chemical compounds and mixtures. POPs include industrial chemicals like PCBs and pesticides like DDT. They are primarily products and by-products of industrial processes, chemical manufacturing, and the resulting wastes.

Today, POPs are found almost everywhere--in our food, soil, air and water. Wildlife and humans around the world carry amounts in their bodies that are at or near levels that can cause injury. These pollutants are highly stable compounds that can accumulate and remain in the environment or in body tissue for years or decades before breaking down. They can also travel through air and water to regions far from their original source. POPs tend to bioaccumulate, building up in the fatty tissue of organisms and dramatically increasing in concentration as they move up the food chain.

Urgent attention is needed to phase out and ban the most harmful POPs, EDCs, and other toxic chemicals and to put in place safe, affordable, and effective alternatives. Four global treaties, once in force, could contribute enormously to these efforts: the Stockholm POPs Convention; the Rotterdam PIC Convention; the Basel Convention and Ban Amendment; and the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention on ocean dumping. These treaties address the production and use of persistent chemicals; controls on the trade in toxic chemicals and the accumulation of pesticide stockpiles; the trafficking of hazardous wastes; and the dumping of hazardous materials at sea. WSSD provides governments a prime-time opportunity to announce their ratifications of this critical package of treaties or their commitment to doing so within an expedited time frame. (See WWF's Scorecard: Ratification of Key Chemicals-Related Treatiesî for a listing of which countries have ratified these four global treaties.)

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants calls for outright banning and destruction of some of the worldís most dangerous chemicals. The Convention has been signed by 151 countries and regional economic integration organizations since its official entry on the global stage on 22 May 2001. With accelerated ratification activities currently taking place, confidence is growing that the Stockholm Convention may enter into force in record time.

The new Stockholm POPs Convention is designed to eliminate or severely restrict the production and use of 12 POPs (with provisions to include additional POPs in the future); ensure environmentally sound management and chemical transformation of POPs waste; and prevent the emergence of new chemicals with similar characteristics. Key provisions include the embracing of precaution in the face of uncertainty; funding commitments by developed countries to ensure that all nations can participate; an emphasis on preventing new POPs from entering the stream of commerce; and a call for substitute products and processes rather than relying on scrubbers and filters. All of the 12 POPs targeted in the treaty are endocrine disrupting chemicals.

The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade alerts governments as to what chemicals are banned or severely restricted, by which countries, and for what reasons. Adopted in September 1998, the Convention is slated to replace the voluntary prior informed consent (PIC) procedure operated by UNEP and FAO since 1989. Governments have elected to follow the new PIC procedures during this interim period before the Convention enters into force.

The Rotterdam Convention presently covers 31 chemicals including 21 pesticides, five severely hazardous pesticide formulations, and five industrial chemicals. Other chemicals will be added over time. The cornerstone of the treaty, prior informed consent, enables Parties to review basic health and environmental data on specified chemicals and to permit or refuse any incoming shipments of those chemicals. Each Partyís decisions are disseminated widely, allowing those countries with less advanced regulatory systems to benefit from the assessments of those with more sophisticated facilities. Instituting PIC is a critical first step in the process of improving chemical management capacity ñ helping to draw attention to those substances causing the greatest harm, disseminating that information, and facilitating national decision-making on chemical imports.

The Basel Convention and its Basel Ban Amendment emerged from the public outcry following international scandals in the late 1980s involving hazardous waste trafficking and dumping. The Basel Convention aims to control the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, promote their environmentally sound management and disposal, and prevent illegal waste trafficking. Particularly noteworthy are its prohibition on the shipment of hazardous waste to Antarctica and its emphasis on regional centres and programmes. The 1995 Ban Amendment significantly strengthens the Convention by barring the export of hazardous wastes from member states of the OECD and Liechtenstein to all other countries. It is important that nations ratify each of these instruments.

The 1996 Protocol to the 1972 London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and Other Matter aims to control all sources of marine pollution. The London Convention focuses primarily on the dumping at sea of wastes generated on land. It includes a black list of substances for which dumping is prohibited and a gray list for which dumping may be authorised by permit. All other materials can be dumped in the ocean. The 1996 Protocol, when in force, will replace the outmoded 1972 Convention. The revised text embraces strong precautionary language in its general obligations; urges parties to consider the polluter-pays principle; and calls for waste prevention audits to carefully assess alternatives to dumping. Alternatives may include product reformulation, clean production technologies, process modification, and on-site, closed-loop recycling. Rather than permit all but a few instances of ocean dumping, the 1996 Protocol prohibits all dumping unless explicitly allowed, and then only with a permit subject to periodic review. The Protocol bars virtually all dumping of hazardous and radioactive wastes, incineration at sea, and exports of wastes for dumping or incineration.

EU member states, through their collective actions, are currently the most progressive international proponent of environmentally sound chemicals management. The European Commission's Strategy for a Chemicals Policy, which proposes enactment of the "Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals" (REACH), represents a responsible step toward ensuring that the chemical industry provides at least some hazard data on all chemicals produced in quantities over one tonne. Until now this has not been the case. Once REACH is enacted, new and existing chemicals will all be tested and subject to the same regime under 'stepped' timeframe for implementation. To its credit, the REACH proposals begin to shift the burden of proof onto industry and include new processes to phase out certain chemicals in favor of environmentally superior alternatives.

Unfortunately the EC's current proposal to bring substances of very high concern under an authorization scheme only addresses UN POPs-like substances and those that are carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic. Several improvements are needed as legislative proposals are developed during 2002. WWF considers that the range of chemicals included for authorization should be broadened, and that authorizations should only be granted if there is a real need for the chemical and no safer alternatives exist. Even though the proposed EU system suggests that tight controls will be exercised over the worst chemicals, environmental groups still have grave concerns about the bulk of chemicals, where risk assessment will be left up to industry.

The following statement of principles, "The Copenhagen Charter," was adopted in October 2000 by more than 60 environment and consumer groups in Europe.

The Copenhagen Charter: We demand from the EU review of chemicals policy:

The REACH proposals partially deliver on these requirements and go further than current regulatory systems outside the EU, thus potentially serving as a model for the rest of the world. There are, however, some problems with the proposals that must be remedied to ensure a sound, effective system.

At the February 2002 United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Governing Council and Global Ministerial Environment Forum in Cartegena, Colombia governments agreed to develop a "Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management." The Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety's "Bahia Declaration and Priorities for Action Beyond 2002" will serve as a foundation for this new initiative.

In preparing the strategy, governments agreed that targeted steps will be taken to identify relevant actions currently underway or planned as well as gaps in the IFCS Bahia Declaration. The agreement reached in Cartegena underscores the need to promote incorporation of chemical safety issues and specifies several concrete measures for strengthening capacity. It also invites the WSSD to endorse UNEP's further development of the strategic approach and calls upon the international community to take immediate action to implement the identified priority activities.

With the evolving landscape of issue-specific, chemicals-related international agreements and other emerging areas of concern, the development of a comprehensive global chemicals strategy could be extremely helpful in providing an overarching framework for chemicals initiatives. Such an effort provides an opportunity to meld together important elements ranging from monitoring and testing/data development to right-to-know, research and worker safety issues. Last but not least, given UNEP's financial constraints, the development of the global strategy is subject to procurement of extra-budgetary resources, necessitating special contributions by governments. Hopefully such funding has been identified, or will be soon so that this important undertaking can become a reality.

The international community has made significant progress inaddressing toxic chemicals issues, but much more needs to be done to protect life on Earth from these dangerous compounds. The pervasive and global nature of the threats underscores the urgency for environmentally sound chemicals management policies. Rio set the stage for action on a range of chemicals issues, but Johannesburg will hopefully motivate stakeholders around the world take more meaningful, concrete steps to meet the challenge of protecting people and wildlife from toxic chemical threats.

Box: Africa Stockpiles Programme

An innovative, on-the-ground partnership to address threats from obsolete pesticide stockpiles in Africa is gaining momentum. The WWF-initiated Africa Stockpiles Programme (ASP), which is currently being developed, combines the resources and talents of intergovernmental organizations, African countries, international aid agencies, environmental NGOs, and the pesticide industry. Designed to clean up obsolete pesticide stockpiles throughout Africa, combined with capacity building and prevention measures to prevent future recurrence of the problem, the projectís overall cost is estimated at US$250 million over 10-15 years.

Virtually every African country has stockpiles of obsolete pesticides and associated wastes that have accumulated over periods as long as 40 years. At least 50,000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides, as well as tens of thousands of tonnes of contaminated soil, have accumulated in African countries. These pesticides pose serious threats to the health of both rural and urban populations, especially the poorest of the poor, and contribute to land and water degradation. The stockpiles consist of toxic pesticides and associated contaminated materials. An estimated 30 percent of the waste mixtures are believed to be persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

Reasons for stockpile accumulation. Chemical pesticides have contributed to the protection of crop, human, and animal health for over a half century. Because of the potential toxicity of pesticides, their production, trade, and use are tightly regulated and managed in many industrialized nations. In developing countries, however, management of pesticides is often inadequate due to a lack of available resources. Many of these countries suffer from weak import controls, poor storage and stock management, and a lack of training and education on appropriate pesticide use.

Past and current cleanup. In nearly a decade of cleanup activity, less than 5 percent of the estimated stockpiles have been disposed of. Despite the committed efforts of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and others to address this problem, obsolete pesticides continue to accumulate. Efforts on the part of FAO, as well as other intergovernmental organizations, bilateral donors, and NGOs have succeeded in raising awareness and in providing preliminary information on the extent of the problem. In some countries disposal operations have taken place and programmes to improve pesticide controls and promote sustainable alternatives have been implemented. The impact on a regional or global scale of these individual activities is small and it is probable that stockpiles of obsolete pesticides and other pesticide-related problems are growing more quickly than they are being alleviated.

What needs to be done? A special initiative to deal with this problem is urgently needed. Removal of old chemicals rarely receives priority as a development issue. Both recipient countries and donor agencies are often reluctant to divert funds allocated to poverty reduction, food security, or other elements of sustainable development to the issue of waste disposal. The linkage between wastes, health impacts, and poverty issues is not fully recognized. Yet new funds dedicated to pesticides management and disposal would reduce the public health impacts which disproportionately affect the poor, and thereby address a barrier to poverty reduction and sustainable development. Such dedicated funds would also facilitate the capacity building that would prevent recurrence of the current stockpiles situation.

The Africa Stockpiles Programme (ASP) aims to clear all obsolete pesticide stocks from Africa and put in place measures to prevent their recurrence. The concept of a continent-wide stockpiles project grew out of informal discussions between NGOs and several inter-governmental organizations. Since December 2000, the Africa Stockpiles Programme has evolved substantially as a multistakeholder partnership. ASPís objective is to clean up stockpiled pesticides and pesticide-contaminated waste (e.g., containers and equipment) in Africa in an environmentally sound manner; catalyze development of prevention measures; and provide capacity building and institutional strengthening on important chemicals-related issues.

Still in the developmental stage, ASP has a few important hurdles to overcome prior to implementation, including gaining endorsement by the GEF Council, finalizing country preparations such as inventories and workplans, and securing the substantial funding needed for the project to become operational. Technical and operational preparations are underway with a view to enabling an effective ASP start-up during 2003.

The Africa Stockpiles Programme brings together the skills, expertise, and resources of a diverse group of stakeholders, working with national leadership across Africa to carry out country-led activities. This exciting, innovative project offers real on-the-ground solutions to a difficult problem. By reducing and removing long-standing toxic threats throughout Africa, ASP promotes improved public health, poverty reduction, and environmental safetyócritical elements of sustainable development.

BOX: Toxic threats to species.

Four treaties hold great promise for protecting people, wildlife, and the environment from the threat of persistent organic pollutants and other toxic chemicals: (1) the Stockholm POPs Convention; (2) the Rotterdam Convention on prior informed consent, (3) the Basel Convention on transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, together with its 1995 Ban on OECD to non-OECD waste transfers; and (4) the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention on ocean dumping. When in force and fully implemented, these four global instruments will help safeguard wildlife and people from hazardous industrial chemicals and pesticides while also tackling the collateral problems of obsolete stockpiles, hazardous materials dumped at sea, and toxic waste trafficking.

(Editor's Note: Clifton Curtis is Director, WWF Toxics Programme; and Tina Skaar is Communications Officer, WWF Toxics Programme.)