PRESS CONFERENCE ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

Press Briefing

PRESS CONFERENCE ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

Toxic chemicals moving freely across the globe and causing sustained damage to all forms of life would be the subject of international negotiations next week, correspondents were told by representatives of industry, government and non-governmental organizations Tuesday morning, at a press conference sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Introducing the speakers, UNEP's Jim Sniffen said that to create a convention to minimize releases of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), governments, the chemical industry and non-governmental organizations would meet at UNEP headquarters in Nairobi from 25-29 January. The UNEP had been asked by governments to coordinate the negotiations, building on its work on environmental law and on chemicals, which had culminated in the adoption last September, in Rotterdam, of an international convention on prior informed consent on international chemicals.

John Buccini, Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee and Director of the Commercial Chemicals Evaluation Branch of Environment Canada, explained that POPs were carbon-based compounds that remained intact for years and even decades. They became widely distributed in the environment as a result of natural processes involving air, soil and water. Toxic to humans and the environment, POPs accumulated in the fat of living organisms. As a result of human activity, some POPS were spread throughout the planet. Even if no more POPs were released as of today, it would take years before they fell to acceptable levels.

Twelve POPs had been identified in three categories: pesticides (the largest category); industrial chemicals (including polychlorinated biphenyls - - PCBs); and industrial byproducts, such as dioxins and furan, he said. At the UNEP governing council meeting in February 1997 and at the World Health Organization's World Health Assembly in May 1997, governments had agreed to develop a binding international agreement to reduce POP emissions and, where appropriate, eliminate their production and use. The first of five expected negotiation sessions for that convention had been held in Montreal on 29 June 1998.

He hoped that during the negotiations next week, discussions would be initiated on measures needed to implement the convention. Implementation was of particular interest to developing countries; it included issues such as technology transfer and financial assistance.

The five negotiation sessions, to be concluded in the next two years, would be followed by a diplomatic meeting hosted by Sweden, he said. Depending on the number of countries required for the treaty to enter into force -- which had not yet been determined -- the convention would be operational around 2003-2004. Already, however, 35 countries had signed a

protocol on POPs. Canada, Mexico and the United States were working to implement continental action plans on three of the 12 POPs. Brazil had ceased using the agricultural pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) in its anti-malaria programme, while Mexico had dramatically reduced its use. The momentum to eliminate POPs since 1995 was due in large part to the involvement of non-governmental organizations, he stressed.

Clifton Curtis, Director of the Global Toxics Initiatives of the World Wildlife Fund of the United States, representing the international POPs Elimination Network, said that contamination from POPs was a global problem requiring a global solution. "Hand me down poisons" severely impacted wildlife and humans. Evidence of POPs' detrimental effects included dramatic levels of marine mammal abnormalities and die-offs. In humans, exposure to POPs impaired immune systems, resulted in learning problems and created reproductive problems in males. One study comparing the cognitive ability of children from areas using high risk pesticides with children from areas using traditional pesticides showed striking differences.

The POPs Elimination Network was a broad coalition of more than 150 environmental and public interest non-governmental organizations, he said. Their core message was that the production, use, release and transfer of POPs must stop. In particular, the World Wildlife Fund believed DDT must be phased out and banned by the year 2007 and, in the interim, it should be treated as a pesticide of last resort in light of its devastating effects.

Michael Walls, Senior Counsel, Chemical Manufacturers Association, representing the International Council of Chemical Associations, said next week's negotiations provided a historic opportunity to develop rules on POPs. The international chemical industry fully supported that process, even though a new treaty would mean additional obligations for governments and industry. Chemical manufacturers were committed to assessing the risks posed by POPs. The industry was committed to promoting the safe production and use of its products, as framed in its responsible care programme -- a voluntary effort for improving health, safety and environmental protection now implemented in 40 countries.

Only a small percentage of commerce still involved POPs, he said. Some persistent pollutants no longer had commercial value; others had necessary uses but no viable alternative; and the risks of others could be managed. Decisions on whether to list chemicals as POPs should be based on risk assessments in which the hazards, exposures, substitutes and measures to control the substances were evaluated. Although governments, public interest groups and the industry might have different opinions on aspects of POPs, all agreed that the chemicals merited priority attention, he said.

Njoki Njehu, Director of the 50 Years Is Enough Campaign and Special Advisor to Kenya's Greenbelt Movement, stressed that it was urgent that POPs

UNEP Press Conference - 3 - 20 January 1999

be eliminated because of their impact on human health, wildlife and environment. The environment and human health must be protected at the local level and around the world. Using POPs in the tropics effected the arctic region.

Developing nations required technical and financial support to be able to employ alternatives, she said. For example, the need to control malaria was urgent and immediate, but pesticides other than DDT must be employed. Bilateral programmes and multilateral entities such as the World Bank, must provide assistance. Another important issue was the responsibility of chemical manufacturers. She stressed that POPs could not be managed or regulated but must instead be eliminated.

A correspondent asked for internet sites for more information on the upcoming conference. The Earth Negotiation Bulletin website was "www.iisd.ca/linkages/chemical", Mr. Buccini said. Mr. Curtis drew attention to other sites listed in the press kit.

Asked why only 12 chemicals were under review, Mr. Buccini said that to get the process started governments had decided to focus on those chemicals on which there was agreement. The negotiations would address the issue of how to add new chemicals to the list.

What kind of enforcement provisions were envisioned? a correspondent asked. While the goal was cessation of production and use of commercial products, it was likely that a black market would emerge, since POPs were off patent and relatively inexpensive to manufacture, Mr. Buccini said. Enforcement would then fall to governments. Those matters would be addressed in the upcoming round of negotiations.

Consumers -- if properly informed -- could help send messages to manufacturers that would help in enforcement of the convention, Mr. Curtis said. There was a growing coalition of groups with environmental, public health, indigenous peoples, consumer and labour orientations coming together around the issue.

Asked what other issues might prove difficult during the negotiations, Mr. Buccini said that DDT would be addressed separately because of its life- saving anti-malarial use. Other pesticides would be taken up as a group with discussion focusing on phasing out production and use. Industrial products, primarily PCBs, were another matter. Many industrialized countries continued to have large stocks of them, and they were big-money items. Another focus of discussions would be substances released through industrial processes. Practical implementation issues would be another heated item.

How did the chemical industry view the idea that all POPs should be eliminated? a correspondent asked. Mr. Walls stressed that the industry would

UNEP Press Conference - 4 - 20 January 1999

like to see full assessment of the risks and hazards of those chemicals and would then make a decision on what steps were appropriate.

Mr. Curtis said that groups with an environmental focus deemed it essential that the overarching framework be the elimination of POPs.

Mr. Buccini said there was a problem with obsolete pesticides. For example, PCBs had been widely used in electrical equipment including high- voltage transformers and 20-year-old refrigerators. Disposing of such materials was to be taken up at the negotiations. Regarding byproducts and contamination, the main focus would be on the release of dioxins and furans from industrial and combustion processes, such as municipal and hospital waste disposal. Surface garbage dumps used by some countries to dispose of waste had almost continuously smouldering fires working through them. Surprisingly high levels of dioxins and furans were released from such uncontrolled burning. Changes in behaviour were needed, he stressed.

* *** *