| SAICM falling short of vital achievements |
| 16 May 2009 |
|
(Geneva, Switzerland) After one weeks of negotiations the 2nd International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM2) concluded on 15 May in Geneva, with some progress to show for, but still far away from the stated SAICM objective of minimized adverse impacts of chemicals on the environment and human health by 2020.
Key points for the ICCM2 were to evaluate SAICM implementation so far, consider long-term financing of SAICM and address so-called emerging policy issues (nanotechnology, chemicals in articles, lead in paint and electronic waste). Although some steps forward were made, the final decisions on the emerging policy issues all fell short of expectations.
On a positive note, all delegates at ICCM2 agreed that an adequate, accessible, long-term sustainable financial mechanism is critical to achieving chemical safety. Delegates focused on development aid but one even larger potential source of financing is the global chemical industry which generates more than USD $3 trillion turnover annually.
However in spite of its resources, the chemical industry repeatedly refused at ICCM2 to contribute money directly to SAICM to help countries manage its products.
In spite of its massive turn-over and size, industry does not seem to feel obliged to contribute to the mitigation of harm from the products they produce, says Anne-Sofie Andersson, ChemSec Director. These products have a considerable toxic impact, and we all pay the price for this. However the industry that is responsible in first instance does not step up and truly shoulder their responsibility.
The policy area information on chemicals in products focused on the need for information throughout the supply-chin, including end-users and consumers. Proponents advocated increased information on chemicals in consumer products in answer to public concerns in many countries. Calls were made for a working group to report on possible systems for improving the information flow on chemicals in products. However representatives of the chemicals industry together with the US narrowed the scope to pre-existing information about databases, regulations, and industry initiatives.
Anne-Sofie Andersson, ChemSec Director: What is needed is the development of structures and systems providing the information to companies and consumers alike, to give them the information requires to make informed choices and protect themselves from adverse affects from chemicals in products. This outcome does not provide for this.
At the SAICM side event on Information on Chemicals in Products, ChemSec was represented in the panel. In his presentation, ChemSec Senior Policy Advisor Nardono Nimpuno described the often haphazard situation that most companies in the supply-chain find themselves when attempting to find out about what chemicals are found in the material and products they handle. There are many good companies out there trying to make the right, sustainable choices, such as the companies like Skanska, Sony Ericsson and Boots represented in the ChemSec Business Group, according to Nardono Nimpuno. However, often each individual actor is attempting to work out their own system, which is a cumbersome and expensive exercise. Rather, information must be made available upstream, in order to guarantee chemicals safety downstream. ChemSec applauds this important SACM initiative to reach overarching information-systems, which is vital in order to ensure upstream phase-out of toxic material.
In order to stem the flow of electronic waste in developing countries around the world, 53 countries of the African region along with Peru proposed a collaborative program of work to address producer responsibility and prevent near end of life electrical equipment from becoming dumped as toxic waste. However, the final outcome of the ICCM2 was the decision to organise a workshop to identify and assess the lifecycle of electronic products and make recommendations to ICCM3 in 2012.
In the words of Professor Jamidu Katima, IPEN Co-Chair: Instead of aggressive collaborative action between source and recipient countries, ICCM2 gave us a single workshop. While delegates are planning this single workshop, millions of tons of toxic electronic products will be arriving on our shores.
Although international consensus has been expressed at previous of occasions on the emerging concerns on nano-technology, the outcome at ICCM2 was a step back. In September 2008, 71 governments agreed on a resolution recommending precaution and labelling consumer products that contain manufactured nanomaterials. However in Geneva, largely under pressure from the US, the actions points from the Conference merely focused on limited areas such as information sharing.
On the emerging policy issue lead in paint, delegates approved the NGO proposal to eliminate lead in paint globally. The aim is that this goal within is to be reached within three years.
The modest achievements in Geneva do not place SAICM on the high road to achieving its 2020 goal. ICCM2 moved the process forward, but implementation is slow and uneven. Delegates did not convince in terms of political will to ensure that SAICM lives up to its true potential. This will, supported by adequate structures and funding, is key to making progress in the field of international chemicals magagemnt.
|