NEWS >REPORTS
NATIONAL TOXICS NETWORK.
"a community network working for pollution reduction"
47 Eugenia Street Rivett
ACT Australia 2611
ABN 61 118 160 280
Phone/Fax (Int) 612 62885881
http://www.oztoxics.org
Email: biomap@oztoxics.org
Peter Heywood
Assistant Secretary
Environment Branch
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Barton, ACT 0221
Australia
Submission in Support of the Ratification of
· the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001) and
· the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (1998).
Dear Peter,
The undersigned organisations believe there are important benefits for Australia in the ratification of both the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions. These benefits arise through greater protection of human health and consumers, as well as the protection of the environment through the improved chemical management both domestically, and in the region.
Benefits of ratifying the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001)
Australia is well placed to ratify the Stockholm Convention. Measures taken to date by the Australian Government to address the threat from POPs include:
 a ban on the production, sale and use of nine of the ten intentionally produced POPs;
developing national plans for the management and disposal of stockpiled waste, including POPs such as HCB, PCBs and some organochlorine pesticides; and
the commencement of the National Dioxins Program.
A major benefit of ratifying the Stockholm Convention will be the reduction in the levels of highly toxic and persistent chemicals, which can currently enter Australia through imported food. Through the complete removal of toxic POPs pesticides from local and international markets, the risk of exposure to these chemicals is ultimately eliminated.
The Stockholm Convention provision for technical assistance to developing countries will help improve their ability to manage POPs chemicals specifically, and hazardous chemicals in general. This and other actions to deal with stockpiles and environmental sinks, as well as practical information on POPs alternatives, will help reduce transboundary movements of POPs from neighbouring countries.
The control and eventual elimination of the transboundary movements of persistent organic pollutants through the atmosphere and ocean currents from neighbouring countries, should provide strong motivation for the ratification and speedy implementation of the Stockholm Convention.
Although Australia has in place measures to address some POPs, the ratification of the Stockholm Convention will enhance domestic measures for controlling and eliminating persistent organic pollutants. Not only will it provide additional transparency, accountability and public information, it has the potential to also lead to considerable commercial 'spin offs' for Australian waste technology both here and overseas.
Ratification will help to protect and reinforce Australia's enviable reputation as a 'clean and green' producer of agri-products. With exports of agricultural commodities totalling $8.1 billion in '99-00, it is demonstrably in Australia's interest to implement measures such as ratifying the Stockholm Convention that will support Australia's 'clean and green' reputation. Conversely, failure to ratify may jeopardise Australia's export markets through an inability to substantiate claims in support of the 'clean and green' image of our agricultural exports.
There is a distinct advantaged for Australia and interested stakeholders to be involved in the decision making processes within the convention, for example, the byproduct guidelines, the POPs Review Committee and the process for listing new POPs. Such involvement could provide valuable information on future trends and regulatory action, placing Australia in a more opportune proactive position.
Benefits of ratifying the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (1998)
The rapid growth in world trade in chemicals has bought a need for global safeguards like the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent. For Australia, the ratification of this convention has many advantages. The full implementation of the Rotterdam Convention has the potential to control, reduce or even eliminate the importation of hazardous chemicals and severely hazardous pesticide formulations into the region.
Many of the smaller developing countries particular the small island developing states in our region are unlikely to be able to take unilateral action to either stop imports or once in their country, safely use and manage these hazardous chemicals. At the very least, information exchange and the enforcement of safe use labelling requirements under the Rotterdam Convention introduces a level of improved chemical management and usage that can benefit all countries and their neighbours.
Through their enhanced domestic capacity in chemical management, some of the flow on benefits to Australia would be seen in a reduction of contaminants in produce emanating from these countries and a reduction in the aid required for the region, to deal with stockpiles of unwanted hazardous substances.
The core benefit of the Rotterdam Convention is information exchange to inform decision making processes in chemical management. By requiring signatory countries to advise of exports of potentially hazardous chemicals, particularly those that are banned or severely restricted within their country, a valuable source of information about hazardous chemicals and their use is compiled. This information allows for a more informed prioritisation of global or regional action on hazardous substances.
Australia has been an active and positive participant in the interim PIC arrangements and has shown its intention by signing the Convention in July 1999. While, currently only a limited number of chemicals (17 pesticides, 5 severely hazardous pesticide formulations and five industrial chemicals) are included, additional chemicals have been added to an Annex and need to be confirmed as soon as possible. There is an urgent need for rapid entry into force to ensure that notifications of these dangerous substances are incorporated into the PIC procedures.
While the anticipation by some that there will be hundreds of chemicals subject to the Rotterdam Convention once the operational procedures are fully implemented, it is in Australia's best interest to be a party at the first Conference of Parties (COP) to ensure active participation in the decision making processes in the Convention.
The Rotterdam Convention fosters a broader product stewardship approach with participation in the convention ensuring a 'holistic' approach to addressing the hazards of banned and restricted chemicals whether they are pesticides or industrial chemicals. This will reduce duplication in chemical registration and ensure that all departments involved in chemical regulation are kept informed of changes in registration status and scientific assessment of hazardous chemicals.
Conclusion
As is evident in the data collected for the UNEP/GEF Project on Regionally Based Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances, the impacts of inadequate chemical management are clearly transboundary and are felt well beyond national borders. The speedy entry into force of the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the Rotterdam Convention on PIC will help address chemical management and contamination problems that individual countries cannot manage alone.
The transboundary and intergenerational characteristics of many of the persistent toxic chemicals can only be addressed by the signatories of the two Conventions working cooperatively, and providing valuable information to inform priorities and action for effective chemical management.
We urge the Australian government to ratify both Convention is as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Mariann Lloyd-Smith
Coordinator, NTN
John Connor
Australian Conservation Foundation
Rex Warren
Australian Chemical Trauma Alliance
Cam Walker
Friends of the Earth (FOE) Australia
Dorothy Bowes
Allergies, Sensitivities and Environmental Health Association Qld Inc
Kathy Ridge
NSW Nature Conservation Council
Anne Stanton
Chemical Awareness in Schools, ACT
Ben Cole
Total Environment Centre
Lee Bell
Contaminated Sites Alliance
Jane Bremmer
Alliance for a Cleaner Environment
Kirsten Blair and Mark Wakeham
Coordinators
Environment Centre of the Northern Territory
Keith Loveridge
Croydon Conservation Society Inc, Victoria
Peter Coxhead
Derby Atrazine Monitoring Network
David Gilmour
Illawarra Residents Against Toxic Environments Inc
Deb Foskey
WTO WATCH ACT
Brenda Rosser
Waratah-Wynyard Residents Against Chemical Trespass
Moderator, TasCleanWaterNetwork
|
