As the world awaits the end of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conference of Parties scheduled to take place on May 5, 2017 (tomorrow) and the expected decisions thereof, we have to face the inconvenient truth that whereas everybody has made an issue out of the climate change debate, nobody really cares about hazardous chemicals and waste materials. And, many do not know about the BRS COPs.
Hazardous chemicals directly affect our lives today more than ever before and ironically, since chemicals cannot be identified by the untrained and unequipped, we have all become blind men and women in the chemical jungle of today’s world. The harmful ones are in our food, clothes, toys, water, air, soil and domestic products yet to be purchased.
Specifically, the global production of chemicals and their use in agriculture are on the increase. According to a United Nations Environment Programme forecast, global chemical sales will grow by about 3 per cent each year until 2050 and a major part of that increase will take place in Asia, Africa and other developing countries.
Weak regulatory control by governments, lack of education and awareness, lack of access to social services, over-all poverty and disempowerment all contribute to the increased vulnerability of the citizens of developing countries, with regard to exposure to chemicals, which have become a significant part of their daily lives.
I, for one, have noticed a remarkable spread of agro-chemical retail businesses in my community and beyond. I have also taken note of the worrying – yet steadily increasing – dependence of Nigerian rural farmers on these products, without recourse to the hazards.
One clear lesson is that implementing the BRS Conventions helps to reduce harm to human health and the environment and its associated economic burden caused by hazardous pesticides. But I observe that Africa lags behind in the BRS conventions implementations, of which one of them is the eradication of toxic pesticides.
In some parts of Asia, research institutes and farmer-led organisations, such as the Colombian Coffee Growers Federation, have developed practical Integrated Pest Management tools as alternatives to chemical use. Together, they have improved practices and learnt valuable lessons for guiding those farmers still using endosulfan to change to safer alternatives.
Similarly, it is noteworthy that in Nigeria, the United Nations Industrial Organisation has launched an innovative Neem-based pesticide, which has proven to be an effective alternative to chemical-based pesticides. However this innovation is yet to be mainstreamed as a bio-pesticide alternative among indigenous stakeholders.
The way I see it, the best approach to chemical alternatives is political. It must be viewed as a global and developmental issue, not just as isolated agricultural innovation; more or less the same way clean cookstoves and other energy-efficient innovations are accepted across the international, national and sub national milieu as a people-oriented survival kit.
For instance, when the persistent organochlorine insecticide endosulfan was added to the Rotterdam Convention subject to the Prior Informed Consent procedure and the Stockholm Convention targeted to global phase-out, concerns about alternatives to this widely used pesticide were voiced, especially in the coffee and cotton sectors. So, substitution with other chemicals was quickly recognised as an unsatisfactory option, given that many of the possible substitutes are hazardous or even have POPs characteristics.
The international community agreed that ecosystem-based approaches to pest control are the preferred option. Accordingly, Integrated Pest Management innovations were introduced, demonstrating that phasing out of Highly Hazardous Pesticides in favour of safe and cost-effective alternatives is entirely possible – on large estates and small family farms.
Through ecologically based IPM methods, farmers confirm that effective pest control is possible without using endosulfan, across a range of farm sizes, climate zones, coffee production systems, farmer ages and educational levels. Many have been able to avoid, or greatly reduce, the use of Highly Hazardous Pesticides in general.
Furthermore, regarding industrial chemicals, the Stockholm Convention has established the Low POPs Content Levels (certification) which defines the value at which wastes are considered to be POPS wastes and therefore must be “Disposed of in such a way that the persistent organic pollutant content is destroyed or irreversibly transformed”.
It is hoped that the application of strict LPCLs for dioxin, brominated flame retardants contained in e-waste and other POPs will be the only global regulatory tool that can be used to prevent the import and export of these contaminated wastes, in many cases from countries with stricter legislation to countries with weaker legislation or control. If the LPCLs for brominated flame retardants (PBDEs, HBCD and others) are strict enough it can help to stop e-waste transboundary movements.
However, the problem presently is that many so-called industrial recyclers (who for instance source, chop up, meltdown and recombine plastics to make several products) are actually “re-using” hazardous materials for new products manufacturing targeted at unsuspecting citizens of the world. Lots of these plastics contain brominates flame retardants – used in the original products.
OctaBDE and HBCD are banned by the Stockholm Convention because they are very difficult to degrade in the environment and our bodies, and they negatively affect the nervous system and reproductive organs. They are also endocrine disruptors, i.e. compounds disrupting hormonal balance in our bodies.
The sad reality is that they are used in the manufacture of the many children products and toys our children use today, like game puzzle, Rubik’s Cube, rain boots, plastic animals, swimming goggles, plastic pendants and jump ropes, toy guns, baby bibs, etc.
I am of the view that manufacturers of original products, who have shown keenness and capacity to move away from using these hazardous POPs containing substances in their products, should be supported.
This is because there is a life-threatening concern even in the original products made, for instance, with brominated flame retardants. The BFRs became a topic of environmental concern in the early 1990s when it was discovered that some BFRs could form halogenated dioxins and furans under severe thermal stress or when they were burnt in accidental fires or uncontrolled combustion. They were also found to bioaccumulate in organisms (ie., they are persistent organic pollutants).
Today, there are scientific innovations in the manufacturing sector which have introduced halogen-free retardants aimed at totally arresting the hazardous waste concerns. This group covers a diverse range of chemicals which are commonly classified as inorganic; phosphorus based; and nitrogen based.
The inorganic category comprises mainly metal hydroxides like aluminium hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide. Other compounds like zinc borate are used to a much lesser extent. Phosphorus based flame retardants include organic and inorganic phosphates, phosphonates and phosphinates, as well as red phosphorus, thus covering a wide range of phosphorus compounds with different oxidation states. Nitrogen based flame retardants are typically melamine and melamine derivatives (e.g., melamine cyanurate, melamine polyphosphate, melem, melon). They are often used in combination with phosphorus based flame retardants.
These are what I call transition chemicals, because they are leading the industrial world towards a POPs free future, just as renewable energy innovations are leading us to a carbon-free future.
The most important route to survival is the formation of trade alliances and design of sustainability standards. An organisation like the Phosphorus, Inorganic and Nitrogen Flame Retardants Association, a sector group within the European Chemical Industry Council is an example of such platform.
PINFA represents the manufacturers of non-halogenated phosphorus, inorganic and nitrogen flame retardants.
Stakeholders and governments at different levels should support these transition innovations by promoting experiences to national stakeholders through well thought out platforms, as BRS conventions works best when governments collaborate with producer organizations, the private sector and the civil society.
END
Be the first to comment