NEWS >REPORTS
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM/GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FUND
Regionally Based Assessment of persistent toxic substances, Manila August 2002
by Mariann Lloyd Smith
The meeting was well attended by the 12 countries who make up Region 8. While some countries were represented by government regulators, others sent academics specialising in the environmental sciences and related health and environment NGOs.
However, the priority setting meeting highlighted a number of worrying issues:
1. There remains significant datagaps regarding chemical use and pollution in the southern hemisphere. While the region 8 team had sourced a reasonable amount of information on the POPs pesticides and PCBs, there was little if any information on the transport and occurrence of dioxin and furans other than the extensive work on dioxin contamination in Vietnam resulting from Agent Orange applications, 40 years ago.
2. There was no information on the transport, occurrence, use or even background of other priority toxins like brominated flame retardants, pthalates and nonylphenols for the region. Similarly while the organo metals were acknowledged as a major health hazard, limited information existed only for lead and organotins.
3. While chemicals like ENDOSULFAN and ATRAZINE rated highly in the priority listing, there was little regional information provided to support this view. Interestingly, while HCH had a wealth of information supporting its wide distribution and contamination within the region, it did not receive the priority focus that the data suggested it should. Overall, many of the priority defining decisions were based on information vacuums, which the NGOs worked hard to address.
4. What was also apparent was that there was not a clear understanding of the use to which the regional assessment would be put. It is an important role for NGOs to clearly articulate where this program sits within the wider framework of the Stockholm Convention and the need for any other international instruments. Perhaps with a better understanding of why countries were going through the process, their activities and decisions would be more focused and useful to an overall goal of the reduction of global contamination.
5. The structure of the reports, which was provided internationally did not always sit comfortably with the needs of the region. For example, the needs & recommendations of the region should flow from the results of the data trawl, acknowledging what wasn't known and should reflect a practical and useful way forward, both for the global report and for the individual region's needs.
From the perspective of IPEN and its participating NGOs, the regionally based assessment can provide both useful data and underpin the political will needed for the implementation of IPEN's mission. From the regional countries perspective, the project may foster a more cooperative exchange of the data and information as well assisting countries to clearly identify and articulate their needs for improved chemical management and pollution mitigation.
Regards
Mariann
Mariann Lloyd-Smith, Coordinator
National Toxics Network Inc.
47 Eugenia St.,
Rivett ACT 2611
AUSTRALIA
biomap@oztoxics.org
http://www.oztoxics.org
Ph: Int+(612)62885881
Fax:Int+(612)62885881
Mobile 0413 621557
|
