Implementing Agenda 21

Less is More: Synthetic Chemical Hazards and the Right to Know

by Barbara Rutherford

As the UNCED agenda developed and the "environmentally safe and sound management of toxic chemicals" became a chapter in its own right, several very important global initiatives on synthetic chemical risk reduction were spawned. As a result of the Earth Summit and its preparations, there has been concrete movement towards the elusive goal of "sustainable industrial development." However, we have so much further to go, particularly if we are to achieve the ambitious goals contained in Agenda 21.

Top on the list of crucial events since 1992 are the establishment of the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) and the development by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in conjunction with UNEP, FAO, ILO, WHO and UNIDO, of guidance for governments on pollution prevention and control through the tool internationally called "Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers." In these two initiatives we find adherence to the true spirit of partnership of Agenda 21. AC to find out if it's legally binding.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has been involved in these initiatives since their inception, and in the case of the IFCS, involvement predates UNCED itself. WWF commends the work undertaken to create these two initiatives and considers their establishment and implementation among the best examples of concrete action after UNCED. Moreover, the participatory nature of these intergovernmental fora, and the key role played by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in them, marks the beginning of a new era in international policy making.

What is lacking, however, are resources for implementation at the national level. Also, the continued reluctance to move beyond traditional risk assessment and harmonization and classification of chemicals prevents many actors from using more innovative approaches that involve the most affected stakeholders and communities. Now more than ever we can appreciate the value of pollution prevention based upon the precautionary principle. If the horrific chemical disasters of the 1970s and 1980s were not enough to incite action to reduce risk, a scientific mystery book called Our Stolen Future,1 suggests that we are threatening our fertility, intelligence and survival, as well as the fertility and survival of wildlife, by our indiscriminate use of synthetic chemicals. We must reduce our use of toxics in production and products now.

The "New" Synthetic Chemical Threat: Endocrine Disruptors

Wildlife;and humans;are exposed daily to synthetic chemical compounds, which disrupt development of the reproductive, immune, nervous and endocrine systems by mimicking hormones, blocking their action, or interfering with the endocrine system in other ways. Hormones play a key role in human development, and notably in sexual differentiation.

The main message for those working in the field of toxic threats to biodiversity is this: it is no longer sufficient to approach population and species revitalization passively by providing appropriate habitats and expecting threatened populations to recover. Contamination of habitat may not be visible and may not cause immediate death. Instead, contaminants may cause population-threatening changes in the way an organism functions. For example, endocrine disruption may endanger populations whose immune systems are malfunctioning and who cannot recover from infections. Or, their ability to obtain sufficient food or avoid predators could be affected. There is also evidence that endocrine disruptors cause the loss of parenting instinct in some bird species because of neurotoxicological effects. Abnormal sexual development of anatomy or behaviour because of endocrine disruption means populations may not be able to reproduce in sufficient numbers.

Long-lived species are particularly at risk, even though they may not show overt signs of reproductive impairment. Populations of many long-lived species are declining, some to the verge of extinction, without being noticed. Human beings may be affected by compounds of this nature too. This is not surprising, given that we are at the top of the food chain. Evidence of lowered sperm counts and significant increases in testicular and breast cancer, as well as cases of undescended testes, is heightening this concern.

One of the great difficulties in identifying how chemicals affect wildlife and humans is recognizing that the pattern of effects varies among species and among compounds. Three general conclusions can be drawn about the substances called "endocrine disruptors." First and most important, even one, very low dose of an endocrine disruptor at a crucial stage in the development of an embryo is sufficient to cause irreversible damage. Second, the gap between exposure and effect may be as long as a generation or two, since the damage caused more likely will turn up in the offspring of the exposed organisms. This is because the embryo is the most sensitive life stage for the hazards posed by these chemicals. Third, endocrine disruptor chemicals, like other synthetic chemicals, can have cumulative effects.

Policy Development and Implementation

Designing policy responses is difficult given the wide range of potential and serious effects, implicated substances, and long lag between cause and effect. Policy implementation, as reflected in Chapter 19 of Agenda 21, needs to cover many different actors in civil society, as well as in government. Although there are many appropriate responses, including further research and more stringent regulations, the fundamental response must be to reduce synthetic chemical use. As recognized in Chapter 19, the classic example of risk reduction is to cut back use through substitution of harmless alternatives and alternative methodologies.

As a necessary first step, it is imperative that we gather more relevant data to inform policy decisions on harmful synthetic chemicals released into the environment and allow each affected group and member in society to participate in environmentally safe and sound chemicals management. Contaminants are carried as particulates or gases in the air, surface waters, groundwaters and ocean currents across or between continents, and by animals that travel long distances from the site of contamination. Therefore the contaminant can enter the food chain in areas remote from their site of release. Accordingly, data on synthetic chemical use and production collected must be comparable internationally, and policy solutions must also be international.

Chapter 19 of Agenda 21 calls for the development of guidance for governments on collecting such information by using chemical inventories. Taking up this challenge, the OECD hosted five workshops with the UN International Programme for Chemical (IPCS) on pollutant release and transfers (PRTRs). PRTRs are a system of tracking chemical use, transfer and release, which record chemical-specific and standardized data on emissions of toxic substances to air, water and land (including off-site disposal) from polluting industrial facilities;private, municipal, or state;and chemicals contained in products.

Experiences with publicly-accessible PRTRs have shown them to be powerful tools leading to reductions in the use and release of toxics and the adoption of less-polluting materials and technologies, or so called cleaner production. Many businesses (and governments) do not know which chemicals they use, and what amounts they release into the environment, at different stages in their life cycle (from extraction or manufacture to use and disposal). Public inventories in an increasing number of countries are beginning to stimulate reduction of pollution at source by providing information to anyone who needs it: the company president, a community leader, an investor, a purchasing agent or vendor, a scientist or a government official. The data provided by these multimedia inventories helps to broaden the groups of people involved in choosing the materials we use, and to what extent businesses are moving toward processes and products that avoid putting toxic chemicals into the environment in the first place.

WWF assisted in the design of the OECD PRTR workshops series and participated actively in each of the workshops. These international workshops, held in 1994 and 1995, offered NGOs an unusual opportunity to spur adoption of the right to know about the use and release of toxic chemicals around the world and participate as equal partners in the design of international policy. The OECD has published the final PRTR guidance document and plans regional implementation workshops in the Czech Republic and Australia. In addition, the UN Institute for Training and Research is working with the Czech Republic, Mexico and Egypt to develop proposals for national PRTRs.

The Precautionary Principle

However, apart from improving information, the actual and potential impacts of some synthetic chemicals, including the "endocrine disruptors," are so serious that action is justifiable to eliminate and reduce their use and production. Based upon the "precautionary principle" set out in the Rio Declaration, Principle 15, we must act now to halt further contamination of the environment, ecosystems, wildlife and humans by endocrine disruptors and other toxic chemicals.

In 1987, the North Sea ministers agreed to reduce at source "polluting emission of substances that are persistent, toxic and liable to bioaccumulate...especially when there is reason to assume that certain damage or harmful effects on the living resources of the sea are likely to be caused by such substances, even when there is no scientific evidence to prove a causal link between emission and effects." In 1990 this approach was extended beyond the sea to the environment at large at the Bergen conference. There ministers declared that, "Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation."

Growing International Consensus

Regional seas agreements have been in the forefront of international commitment to reducing toxics. For example, at the second North Sea Conference, held in London in 1987, signatory countries agreed, among other things, to reduce North Sea inputs of substances that are persistent, toxic and liable to bioaccumulate. This was recognized as a small but important first step. At the third ministerial conference in The Hague in March 1990, ministers agreed to "phase out those pesticides which are the most persistent, toxic and liable to bioaccumulate." At the Fourth International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea in 1995, Annex II to the Ministerial Declaration contained a definition of hazardous substances, which include substances that have adverse effects on the function of the endocrine system.

International Action on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 on protection of the oceans specifically calls for states to eliminate and reduce emissions or discharge of organohalogens and other synthetic organic compounds that could accumulate to "dangerous levels" in the marine environment. This call to action has led 109 countries to adopt a Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment, which includes a commitment to develop a global, legally binding instrument to reduce and/or eliminate emissions, discharges, and the manufacture, use and illegal traffic of selected persistent organic pollutants. There is also a parallel regional process under the auspices of the ECE 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution to negotiate a protocol on the elimination and restriction of certain persistent organic pollutants (POPs). The IFCS has also established an ad hoc working group to oversee the work on POPs and report to the UNEP Governing Council on next steps.

Another key objective identified in Chapter 19 is the full participation and implementation of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure on chemicals in international trade. The Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety has also overseen and provided advice to the implementation process, which now includes negotiation for a legally binding instrument.

Prevention and Reduction At Source

The need to phase out the use and production of certain toxic chemicals is urgent and well-founded given growing international consensus. Yet progress remains slow on the implementation of these international commitments.

There are several international fora and institutions that support the use of clean production to eliminate problems from pollution. Increasingly, this concept is framed to include clean agricultural production, which ultimately means no synthetic inputs. As a long-term sustainability goal this is laudable, but in the short and medium term WWF advocates national commitment to pesticide reduction programmes, which will reduce the use of, and reliance on, synthetic chemical pesticides.

Registration and Re-registration at the National Level

In addressing the risks posed by chemicals in the environment, in the past scientists and policy makers focused on a few hundred chemicals and proceeded on a chemical-by-chemical basis. They were guided in large part by concerns over acute toxicity, carcinogenicity, environmental persistence and tendency to bioaccumulate. As a practical matter, a chemical-by-chemical approach is inadequate to effectively or efficiently determine the safety of the roughly 100,000 chemicals already in use and the 200-300 new products entering the market each year. Moreover, this initial focus on acute toxicity, carcinogenicity, environmental persistence and bioaccumulation has missed the endocrine disruption problem.

All chemicals licensed for environmental release should be tested for a minimum of two generations for a wide variety of effects, including reproductive, immunological, endocrinological and neurological endpoints. Chemicals should be assumed guilty of endocrine disruption until proven innocent.

WWF is advocating for the IFCS to take a lead role in designing appropriate policy solutions to the problems posed by endocrine disruption. As the international coordination body responsible for the environmentally safe and sound management of toxic chemicals, it should be providing leadership and guidance for important emerging issues.

Conclusions

The creation of the IFCS has led to better coordination among the international agencies that develop and implement policy on the use and impacts of toxics as part of their mandate. In addition, it has created a platform where governments, international agencies and NGOs;as partners;can address the workplan set out in Chapter 19, share successes and failures, and promote innovative policy responses, such as the PRTR toxics tracking tool and systematic programmes to reduce pesticides. Since the IFCS now functions as a coordination mechanism, it is guiding the process to recommend international action to reduce and eliminate certain persistent organic pollutants, including international legal action.

The IFCS should also be taking the lead on emerging issues, such as endocrine disruption, to collect the best scientific knowledge and make recommendations on how to act prudently to avoid irreversible harm.

International aid agencies should begin to fund the implementation of these innovative policy tools, and coordination of the other work on toxics done under Chapters 14, 18 and 20 should become a priority so that available resources are used as efficiently as possible. Finally, the special role of NGOs in tracking and promoting innovative pollution prevention initiatives should be financially and otherwise supported.

Notes

1. Our Stolen Future is co-authored by WWF-US Senior Scientist Dr. Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanowski and Dr. John Peterson Meyers.