government &
policy POPs targeted for action under the treaty being negotiated did not exist," says Klaus Topfer, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program. "Now they are in the air, water, [and] soil around the planet—and in us all—and they last for generations." These substances enter people's bodies primarily through the food they eat. The chemicals fall into three categories. One covers pesticides, including DDT and chlordane, that are still used in the developing world. Another class of POPs includes industrial chemicals The Dec. 4-9 meeting is thefifthand such as polychlorinated biphenyls. The final round of talks on a United Nations third category is unintentionally created treaty to control POPs. The sessions are by-products, notably dioxins and furans, formed in combustion and expected to be through some industrial prolong and intense cesses such as paper bleaching. Under the draft treaty, nearly all intentional production of these chemicals would be banned. Last year, negotiators agreed that DDT should be phased out over the long run, but that developing nations could continue to use this organochlorine pesticide for controlling mosquitoes that transmit malaria. Uses of DDT for agriculture, however, would be prohibited. Although industrialMcGinn (left) ized countries banned DDT and Walls years ago, farmers in some debecause negotiators are under the gun. veloping countries still use this relativeWhat gets hammered out at this meet- ly inexpensive chemical to control ining will get forwarded to a signing cere- sect pests in their fields. An issue that negotiators have mony for high-level officials scheduled for May 2001 in Stockholm. Those hashed over at each of the previous four high-level officials have the option of rounds of POPs talks but have yet to remaking minor changes to the pact, but solve is whether the treaty will set as its they will not do in-the-trenches negoti- ultimate goal complete elimination of ation. That work must be completed in the chemicals it controls. The U.S. government, supported by chemical compaJohannesburg. nies, does not believe that elimination is Dozen chemicals targeted realistic, especially for dioxins and Deciding to get rid of the 12 POPs furans. The U.S. wants the treaty to call initially targeted under the treaty was for reduction of these substances as much as possible. Meanwhile, the Eurofairly easy. "Only decades ago, most of the 12 pean Union (EU), backed by environ-
TOXICS PACT DOWN TO THE WIRE Governments still have major sticking points on eliminating persistent organic pollutants Cheiyl Hogue C&EN Washington
P
ersistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as DDT and dioxins have to go, governments around the world agree. Still undecided is whether this means total elimination of these substances or reducing production of them as much as possible. Negotiators hammering out a new POPs treaty will meet next week in Johannesburg, South Africa, where they have this and several other thorny issues to resolve. They have yet to settle on criteria for adding more chemicals to the so-called dirty dozen covered initially by a new treaty. They must decide whether industry will be allowed to create trace amounts of POPs in its operations or whether companies may intentionally manufacture any of these 12 substances for use as chemical intermediates. Financial aid to help developing nations get rid of POPs, including several pesticides used in agriculture, will be a key feature of the pact. But exactly how this funding will work and how much money will be involved remain up in the air. "It's probably the most significant environmental negotiation in the early years of this decade," says Michael Walls, attorney for the American Chemistry Council (ACC, formerly the Chemical Manufacturers Association). The Johannesburg meeting will set the tone for future environmental talks and will test the ability of government to address priority risks to health and the environment, he tells C&EN. Anne Piatt McGinn, a senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute, a policy think tank in Washington, D.C., says the new POPs treaty "will lay the groundwork for rethinking the role of synthetic toxics in our lives."
Twelve chemicals initially covered by persistent organic pollutants treaty Aldrin—insecticide Chlordane—insecticide DDT—insecticide Dieldrin—insecticide Dioxins—industrial by-products Eldrin—insecticide, rodenticide Furans—industrial by-products
Heptachlor—insecticide Hexachlorobenzene—-ftingicide, industrial by-product Mirex—insecticide, fire retardant Polychlorinated biphenyls—electrical insulators, other commercial uses Toxaphene—insecticide NOVEMBER 27,2000 C&EN
15
g o v e r n m e n t & policy mental activists, wants the treaty to have elimination as its central goal, even if it cannot immediately be achieved (C&EN, April 3, page 13). A State Department official tells C&EN that the U.S. would be willing to commit to elimination of POPs if this could be achieved. But because dioxins are formed in the burning of biomass, such as wood used for cooking and heatingfires,this is not realistic, according to the official, who spoke on the condition that his name not be used. Walls says elimination of dioxins and furan production "as a practical matter is impossible." The State Department official says the U.S. is working with developing countries to come up with national plans for addressing sources of dioxins and furans. One aim is to ensure that emission control equipment is installed on new facilities that are major sources of these substances, such as medical incinerators, he says.
Precautionary principle The precautionary principle also looms large at the Johannesburg talks. In part, it figures into how new substances will be added to the initial list of 12 POPs controlled under the agreement. The EU has proposed precautionary principle language for the treaty, saying the lack of scientific certainty about a chemical's health and environmental effects should not stop consideration of its being listed as a POP. 'We think that this European proposal is inappropriate," Walls says. A minimal amount of information should be available for a substance before governments decide whether it gets added to the treaty, he says. Establishing such a standard does not amount to requiring scientific certainty before actions to address POPs are taken, he says. The State Department official says the treaty itself is an embodiment of precaution because it does not require scientific certainty before POPs are controlled. Walls of ACC agrees: 'This is a precautionary instrument by nature." "If the treaty is precautionary, why not say it?" counters Rick A Hind, legislative director of Greenpeace's Toxics Campaign. The precautionary principle should hold sway, especially when chemicals are added to the pact in the future, he says. 16
NOVEMBER 27,2000 C&EN
ments should not be bound to control the chemical until they get legislative approval, the State Department official says. This type of procedure is known as "explicit opt-in." In contrast, the EU wants governments automatically bound to regulate a chemical once it is added to the pact—unless they notify other treaty partners within a specified period of time, perhaps within six months of the chemical's listing, that they will not do so. Under the explicit opt-in procedure, the U.S. Senate would have to agree to adding more chemicals to the POPs treaty. Aides for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have told Topfer (above) negotiators that senators want to and Hind review any additions to the pact, sition of wanting the precautionary prin- the State Department official says. The U.S. government also argues ciple to be the basis for adding more substances to the accord. This would that explicit opt-in is particularly importrigger action under the treaty when lit- tant for developing countries that may tle or no scientific information exists on not know the extent of a chemical's use within their nations and whether viable a chemical, he argues. But according to Hind, if a substance alternatives to that compound exist, the meets the various criteria for being con- State Department official says. sidered a POP, such as persistence in the environment, governments should Funding for disposal, control Halting production of POPs is only act to prevent the use of the chemical even if direct evidence of human harm part of the treaty. Existing stocks of is lacking. Decisions on listing com- these chemicals must be disposed of in pounds under the treaty should be ways that keep them from entering the based on this precautionary approach food chain. Tons of these substances rather than risk assessment or cost-ben- are located in the developing world. The U.S. goal for the Johannesburg efit analysis, Hind says. Risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis can be meeting is to get developing countries used "to justify a minimum level of poi- to agree to a POPs control regime that is soning," he says, whereas the precau- strong and doable, the State Departtionary principle creates a drive toward ment official says. The emphasis is on developing countries, he explains, bethe use of less toxic material. "Adopting the precautionary princi- cause many industrialized countries are ple is a way to take out an insurance pol- already controlling many POPs under a icy against our own ignorance," says regional pact—the Convention on LongMcGinn, who is the author of a new pa- Range Transboundary Air Pollution, for per on using a precautionary approach example. Western and Eastern Europe, regarding the use of synthetic chemi- the U.S., and Canada are partners to cals. 'The precautionary principle shifts that accord. Developing countries want the industhe burden of proof to the industry" by requiring companies to prove that the trialized world to provide funds to them risks their products pose are not unrea- for disposing of old pesticides and PCBs and for technological improvements to sonable, she says. prevent formation and release of dioxins Explicit opt-in? and furans. The demands of poor counMeanwhile, the EU and the U.S. go tries forfinancialassistance to carry out to Johannesburg with different stances the terms of the treaty are a big sticking on international procedure after chemi- point in the POPs talks, just as they cals are added to the POPs convention. have been in negotiations of most reThe U.S. believes that, after a substance cent environmental agreements. Without provision of funds, the POPs is added to the pact, national govern-
The State Department official says that adding substances in the treaty should be based on scientific knowledge, not just public concern about a chemical. He criticizes the EU po-
treaty will not succeed, Hind says. "The first-world countries need to belly up to the bar—and put their money where their mouth is." Walls says financial and technical assistance will color negotiations on all other issues at the Johannesburg talks. And developing countries have ensured that the money issue will be front and center at the meeting. In the draft treaty hammered out in four previous rounds of negotiations, the developing world has inserted qualifying words such as "to the extentfinancesare available" in nearly every section. The State Department official says the U.S. recognizes funding as a legitimate issue for poor nations because they have many needs that are more acute than POPs, such as ensuring that their people get enough food or addressing AIDS and other health issues. But although the industrialized world may provide money to help poor nations cover costs that are directly related to their obligations under the new treaty, developing countries will also have to take some action on their own to protect their citizens from exposure to POPs, he says.
exemptions to the ban on POPs if these exemptions are approved on an individual basis and include an expiration date. Hind of Greenpeace says the only "intellectually defensible" general exemption is for production of POPs for scientific research, but he is doubtful about such a need. He calls general exemptions "a UN amnesty for polluters." The State Department official says the U.S. is seeking three types of general exemptions to the treaty. One is for POPs found in items already in use. Examples are telephone poles and railroad ties treated with chlordane to protect against termite damage, he says. A second is for de minimis, or trace, contaminants, such as small amounts of DDT that are formed in the manufacture of diTreaty exemptions chlorophenol. The third kind of exempWhether to allow exemptions to the tion would allow a POP to be intentionaltreaty—and, if so, what kind should be ly manufactured as a site-limited, allowed—has environmental activists closed-system intermediate in a process pitted against many industries, includ- that creates and transforms the chemiing chemical manufacturers. Environ- cal. Walls says an example of this is promental groups arefightinghard against duction of DDT that is transformed "general" exemptions, sought by indus- through further reactions into another try, which would allow some production pesticide. or use of POPs to continue worldwide. Walls says a de minimis general exEnvironmental activists acknowledge emption is needed to ensure that policythe possible need for country-specific makers focus their attention on highest priority risks from POPs rather than on small risks from trace amounts. Hind opposes a de minimis exemption, saying it would raise a tough question: How much of a POP is safe? Governments would Funding to help developing countries dispose of obsolete pesticides Is a major Issue.
also have to decide whether to set an overall amount of the chemical that could be created worldwide—then divvy up allowances for producing the substance—or to establish limits for sources of POPs, he says. If decisionmakers select the latter option, they may find that environmental levels of POPs will increase as more sources come on-line, just as air pollution benefits gained through tough tailpipe emissions are erased by people driving more and having more cars on the road. Clifton Curtis, director of the World Wildlife Federation's global toxic chemicals initiative, opposes creation of any general exemptions, at least for now. "My hope is that the U.S. government will support only country-specific exemptions for [chemical] intermediates," Curtis tells C&EN. The State Department official says any country that seeks an exemption allowing it to continue producing a POP pesticide should have to provide some assurances that it will use and dispose of the material in an environmentally sound manner.
Role of new U.S. President Although the Clinton Administration is carrying out the negotiation of the POPs treaty for the U.S., appointees of the president-elect will play key roles regarding the pact's future, Hind notes. The new Administration will decide whether to sign the completed convention at the Stockholm meeting next spring. Hind says this will be a test of the new Administration on environmental issues and the precautionary approach. If the U.S. signs the agreement, the new Administration will have to decide whether or when to send the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. The accord would not become binding on the U.S. until after the Senate agrees to ratification by a twothirds majority. Key to such a vote will be Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C). Hind says Helms, who opposes abortion, should in theory support the agreement because it would "protect the unborn" by preventing POPs from being transferred to the next generation in the womb and through breast-feeding.^ NOVEMBER 27,2000 C&EN
17
