| space Press Releases, News Stories |
|
DELEGATES AGREE ON CHEMICALS BAN By Susanna Loof, Associated Press JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, 10 December 2000 -- Proud, but pale and red-eyed after a week of negotiations culminating in all-night talks, U.N. officials announced Sunday that 122 countries have agreed on a treaty banning 12 highly toxic chemicals. Greenpeace called the agreement the "beginning of the end of toxic pollution," and World Wildlife Fund official Clifton Curtis described it as "a real solid foundation for the future." Despite disagreements that kept negotiators awake most of Friday and Saturday nights, all welcomed the final text, said John Buccini, chairman of the summit organized by the U.N. Environment Program. "The treaty enjoyed the broadest possible support," he said. "People not only felt that we have a treaty, but that we have a good treaty." PCBs, dioxins and other chemicals on the "dirty dozen" list are known as persistent organic pollutants or POPs. They break down slowly, travel easily in the environment, and have been linked to cancer, birth defects and other genetic abnormalities. Breast-feeding mothers transmit the poison to their infants. Production and use of nine of the 12 chemicals will be banned as soon as the treaty takes effect, likely four to five years after the signing ceremony, set for May in Stockholm, Sweden. About 25 countries, including South Africa, would be allowed to use one of the 12 chemicals DDT to combat malaria in accordance with World Health Organization guidelines pending development of safer solutions. The treaty calls for reducing releases of dioxins and furans toxic byproducts of waste burning and industrial production "with the goal of their continuing minimization and, where feasible, ultimate elimination," it said. Using electrical equipment containing PCBs would be allowed until 2025, as long as the equipment doesn't leak the chemical, which can cause cancer and harm the immune and reproductive systems. The most contentious issues were provisions for expanding the treaty to include other chemicals and a way for industrialized nations to transfer some $150 million a year to developing countries to offset the costs of using cleaner alternatives. The donor countries wanted to use an existing Global Environment Fund for the transfer, under which they would retain more control over how the money is used. Developing countries wanted a new mechanism likely to give them more control. Eventually, the treaty assigned the GEF as a temporary mechanism, but added conditions as to how the fund must improve its work. No amount has been specified, but James Willis, a U.N. Environment Program chemical expert, estimated it would be about $150 million a year. The European Union wanted "precautionary" language specifying how the treaty can be expanded to include other chemicals to be included throughout the document. The United States wanted it only in the preamble and called for stricter scientific criteria than those preferred by the EU, which argued that lack of scientific proof should not exclude chemicals from being considered for the treaty. According to the treaty, international scientists will put each chemical under consideration for inclusion in the ban through "a rigorous science assessment," Buccini said. "If they decide that this one is just too close to call, maybe it's a POP, maybe it's not; it's sitting on the borderline, then the policy in the convention states that the committee should push this forward" to a higher level, he said. "There's three or four or five different places in this treaty where you can see that we've tried to construct a legal instrument which tends to err on the side of safety." Brooks Yeager, head of the U.S. delegation, said the final precautionary language included a "scientific flavor," thereby fulfilling his country's wishes. EU officials weren't available for comment. Curtis said the treaty's precautionary language was stronger than the WWF had expected. Most of the chemicals have been banned in industrialized countries, and there are alternatives to most of them, Buccini said. The treaty will mean that countries disposing of garbage by open-air burning and some factories will have to find new techniques, he said. That could lead to higher costs, but when the impact on the environment is factored in, the balance would be more fair to all, he said. The treaty must be ratified by 50 countries to take effect. Yeager said he expected the ban to be ratified by the U.S. Congress. "Our environmental NGOs like the treaty. The industry can work with it, and our people from the Great Lakes to Alaska need it," he said.
FAIR USE NOTICE. This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The Basel Action Network is making this article available in our efforts to advance understanding of ecological sustainability and environmental justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a `fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond `fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. More News |