Interventions at BRS COP 2023

Intervention on Low POPs Content
Delivered by Jindřich Petrlík, Program Director of the Arnika Toxics and Waste Programme and an IPEN Steering Committee member and expert on dioxin and POPs waste.
May 1, 2023

Thank you Mr. President.

I speak on behalf of IPEN, a network of more than 600 civil society organizations in over 120 countries working for a toxics-free future. We appreciate the work done by SIWG on the update of the Technical Guidelines addressing the POPs wastes, in particular additional information about technologies able to destroy POPs wastes. However, we regret that full information about destruction efficiency of some technologies is often missing or omitted such as in the case of cement kilns or metallurgy.

We also welcome the options for limit values for POPs in wastes developed by the expert group. However weak options for limits for POPs waste set in the Technical Guidelines still lead to recycling of vast amounts of POPs. The most recent study conducted in Kenya revealed the highest ever measured level of dioxin-like PCBs in free range chicken eggs raised close to market with e-waste. Low POPs Content level for dioxin-like PCBs is still missing in the guidelines.

Another global study estimated that we lose the control over approximately 7.5 kg TEQ of polychlorinated dioxins and furans in wastes such as incineration fly ash every year. This amount of dioxins is equal to the tolerable intake for the entire populations of 133 planet Earths. We are losing control over the most toxic chemicals that the Stockholm Convention aimed to eliminate. This is a direct consequence of very weak Low POPs Content levels defended by few countries protecting economic interests. Another consequence of this weakness is the free movement of POPs in wastes across borders because there are no other regulatory barriers than the Low POPs Content Levels.

21 authors looked at data available about contamination of chicken eggs by dioxins in reviewed study. Almost 90% of surveyed areas around the world were not safe for production of free-range eggs which remain an important part of locally grown food at many place worldwide.

A new study is based on analyses of consumer products from 26 countries and indicates the potential of significant human exposures, especially for young children to PBDEs and related harmful chemicals in toys, including brominated dioxins. This calls for strict limit value for PBDEs. This should be established at a level of 50 mg/kg as proposed by the African region.

All these studies are polite wake up calls. Decisions to set Low POPs Content Levels are often political ones, driven only by the criteria of cost minimisation for industry. This approach undermines the objective of the Stockholm Convention which is not about avoiding costs for treatment of wastes but “is to protect human health and the environment from POPs”. The less visible costs of lost health and environmental values must be the priority criterion when setting the limits for POPs in wastes. Potential costs of health damage are many folds higher than those for treatment of POPs waste. It is time to remember the words of indigenous people “When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, we will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that we can’t eat money.”

Thank you.

Siddika Sultana, Executive Director at Environmental and Social Developmental Organization (ESDO)
Intervention on Plastic Waste Guidelines

Thank you President,

We would like to express our appreciation to the small intersessional working group reviewing and updating the Technical Guidelines. While IPEN welcomes the updated guidelines and the much-improved text around waste avoidance, reduction and mechanical recycling of plastic waste we would like to see stronger text on the need for global rather than national controls on plastic waste including limits on plastic production and an emphasis on waste avoidance. We also remain very concerned about the potential inclusion of chemical recycling in the guidelines.

Chemical recycling is not a new technology. It mainly consists of variants of pyrolysis and gasification technologies that all have long and poor commercial and environmental track records, with large carbon footprints and hazardous waste streams. Most of the output of these technologies when processing plastic waste is not polymer feedstock but low grade hydrocarbon fuel.

The US EPA recently noted that emissions from one plastic waste to fuel plant carried a one in four public risk factor for excess lifetime cancers. This is completely unacceptable since the standard acceptable public risk is one in a million.

IPEN is of the view that chemical recycling should not be included in the plastic waste technical guidance as there is no evidence that demonstrates that it meets the minimum standards of Environmentally Sound Management. ESM is an essential criterion for inclusion of technologies in this and other Basel Convention technical guidance documents, and we are concerned that such technologies may be concentrated in the global south bringing unacceptable exposures and major hazardous waste streams to local populations. We would therefore urge parties to remove chemical recycling from the guidelines until there is credible scientific evidence to suggest it meets the most basic standards of ESM.

Lastly on other matters IPEN is concerned that the guidelines do not adequately address the hazardous characteristics or fluoropolymers and cured resins and effectively suggest they are benign when scientific data suggests the opposite. This must be amended to reflect the true hazardous nature of these polymers.

Thank you.

Pea Thitikorn, Ecological Alert and Recovery - Thailand (EARTH)
Intervention in support of a global ban on Dechlorane Plus

Thank you Madam President.

I speak on behalf of IPEN and EARTH Thailand, a member organization of IPEN. 

We appreciate the work of the POPs Review Committee (POPRC) that has clearly shown that Dechlorane Plus is a toxic chemical of global concern.

Today, we released a study from an e-waste recycling site in Thailand. In the study EARTH, Arnika, and IPEN found that Dechlorane Plus was contaminating soil, sediment, dust, as well as in food. This contamination poses serious risks to the health of communities nearby. 

Most concerningly, Dechlorane Plus has been quantified in blood of 85% of the e-waste workers, but is almost absent in the control group. The results clearly link Dechlorane Plus levels in Thai e-waste workers with recycling activities in their communities.

We therefore speak with concern to the health of e-waste and end-of-life vehicle recyclers and their families in Thailand. We call on the parties to the Stockholm Convention to stop the exposure to one of the world's most dangerous chemicals through a complete prohibition of Dechlorane Plus. Recognition of viable alternatives to Dechlorane Plus in POPRC’s Risk Management Evaluation does not justify any exemptions. Several countries have already restricted or banned Dechlorane Plus, indicating that alternatives are in use. 

Any continued use of dechlorane plus will lead to continued poisoning of waste workers in Thailand and around the world.

Therefore, we support the listing of Dechlorane Plus in Annex A of the Stockholm Convention, with no exemptions. 

Thank you.

María Cárcamo, RAPAL Uruguay
Intervention on listing methoxychlor

Gracias, señora presidenta.

 Hablo en nombre de IPEN, una red global de ONG de interés público en más de 125 países en todas las regiones de la ONU, que trabajan por un futuro libre de tóxicos.

Existe evidencia convincente de que el metoxicloro es un contaminante global ubicuo y persistente presente en la leche materna, la sangre, el líquido amniótico y otros tejidos humanos, así como en el medio ambiente en todo el mundo, incluido el Ártico. Está relacionado con varios efectos negativos para la salud, incluidos la genotoxicidad, la reprotoxicidad y la inmunotoxicidad, lo que proporciona una base sólida para el consenso entre las partes para incluir el metoxicloro en el Anexo A para su eliminación mundial  sin exención. 

El metoxicloro es un plaguicida organoclorado que se ha utilizado como un lamentable sustituto del DDT, pero ha sido regulado, eliminado y/o prohibido en muchos países del mundo. Esto demuestra que una prohibición completa es factible e indica que existen alternativas viables y que ya están en uso: Además, no se han identificado usos críticos que requieran exención del metoxicloro.

Finalmente, señora presidenta, distinguidos delegados

IPEN apoya la recomendación del Comité de revisión de los COP sobre el hecho de que una prohibición mundial total de la producción, el uso, la importación y la exportación de metoxicloro es la medida de control más eficaz para proteger la salud humana y el medio ambiente.

La eliminación de la producción y el uso de metoxicloro al incluirlo en el Anexo A sin exenciones contribuiría a reducir significativamente la exposición a esa sustancia química reprotóxica, sus metabolitos, y evitaría daños mayores.

Gracias por considerar nuestro punto de vista.

Sara Brosché, IPEN Science Advisor 
Intervention on effectiveness evaluation

Thank you Madam President,

Effectiveness evaluation is a critical process to assess the impact of the Stockholm Convention over time, and determine whether levels in the environment of listed POPs are actually declining.

Analysis of national reports forms an important contribution to this process. However, the analysis of dioxin releases mentioned earlier, concluded that data submitted was in many cases incomplete, inaccurate or used problematic methodologies to record dioxin inventories, resulting in overestimates or underestimates. A significant number of parties did not submit the required reports; not all groups of dioxin sources were reported consistently, and often only one was reported.

Typically, only air emissions of dioxins are being reported, and no information is provided on dioxin releases in solid waste from large volume waste sources of dioxins, such as incinerator ash. Reporting on implementation of BAT BEP technologies is also unavailable.

As a result, the Expert Group report has determined that it is not possible to conclude that there has been any reduction in releases of dioxins as a result of parties implementing the convention.

The poor reporting of dioxin releases is undermining the effectiveness evaluation process of the convention and must be addressed. More comprehensive reporting must be encouraged and supported. Dioxin is one of the most toxic of the original Dirty Dozen POPs and must be subject to far more rigorous attention if we are to have effective implementation and evaluation of the Stockholm Convention.

Thank you.

Fernando Bejarano, Red de Acción sobre Plaguicidas y Alternativas en México (RAPAM)
Intervention on PFOS

Thank you, Madam President,

More than a decade has passed since PFOS was first listed in Annex B of the Stockholm Convention with a wide range of exemptions and acceptable purposes. While there have been significant improvements since, with most acceptable purposes converted to time limited exemptions, there is high time to also take care of the remaining ones.

The exemptions for Hard-metal plating and Fire-fighting foam should be ended. Countries are transitioning away from these uses, and it is important that producers of safe alternatives are encouraged.

Sulfluramid continues to be a significant source of PFOS release directly into the environment already for its allowed use. In addition, studies have shown that is sold for a range of other consumer uses without any controls, such as for gardening. At the same time, safer alternatives have emerged that should be promoted. We would especially like to highlight that there are successful experiences with agroecological methods of preventative control of cutting ants that use products of natural origin that can be used.

Therefore, the remaining acceptable purpose for sulfluramide should be converted to a time limited exemption only for specified crops of economic importance.

Thank you.

Oleg Pecheniuk, Independent Environmental Impact Assessment, Kyrgyzstan
Intervention on compliance

Thank you very much dear Madam President.

Independent Ecological Expertise (Kyrgyzstan), a member of the international IPEN network, supports the earliest decision on the implementation of compliance mechanisms and asks to expedite the development of the Procedures. When developing procedures, we suggest using the positive experience of other environmental agreements regarding public participation:

Participation in the compliance committee of NGO experts. The nomination can be either from an NGO or from countries.
Opportunity for NGOs to submit documents to the Compliance Committee. This will make the work of the Compliance Committee more efficient.
Compliance data can be a good basis for making decisions to improve country capacity.

Thank you.

Интервенция По Соблюдению (Стокгольмская конвенция)

Большое спасибо уважаемая госпожа председатель.

Независимая экологическая экспертиза (Кыргызстан), член международной сети  IPEN поддерживает скорейшее решение  по внедрению механизмов соблюдения и просит ускорить разработку Процедур. При разработке процедур, предлагаем использовать положительный опыт других природоохранных соглашений, относительно участия общественности:

Участие в комитете по соблюдению экспертов от НПО. Номинация может быть  или от НПО, или от стран.
Возможность НПО подавать документы в Комитет по Соблюдению. Это сделает более эффективным работу Комитета по соблюдению.
Данные по соблюдению, могут быть хорошей основой для принятия решений по повышению потенциала стран.

Спасибо.

Sarra Gharbi, Association de l’Education Environnementale pour les Futures Générations (AEEFG), Tunisia
Intervention on PCB elimination

Thank you Madam President.

PCB elimination is becoming an increasingly urgent task as the majority of global PCB stockpiles still remain to be destroyed. The convention requires parties to end all use of PCBs in equipment and full destruction of their stockpiles by 2025. 

Therefore, attempts to destroy PCBs in combustion technologies such as waste incinerators and cement kilns has not provided the solutions. 

Noting that most of combustion technologies are based in the global north requiring expensive and hazardous long-distance shipping of PCBs from global south countries. 

Even if this can be achieved, burning PCBs in cement kilns and incinerators simply perpetuates the POP contamination cycle by Unintentional POPs (UPOPs) which are listed in Annex C such as dioxin. IPEN has done analyses in many countries on eggs taken from areas surrounding incinerator ash and demonstrated their contamination from dioxins. 

For all the reasons mentioned above, It is time for non-combustion technologies to assist in the destruction of the global PCB cycle. These technologies are available with proven high destruction facilities and far greater mobility than incinerators or cement kilns. Thus, the global south can deploy them locally to destroy PCB stockpiles and avoid the dangerous practice of shipping PCB waste across the globe. 

To conclude, IPEN urges delegates and UN agencies to adopt non-combustion technologies and support their roll out to meet the 2028 deadline for PCB stockpile destruction. 

Thank you. 

Piyush Mohapatra, Toxics Link, India
Intervention on UV-328

Thank you, Madam president.

I am speaking on behalf of IPEN. We appreciate the hard work of the POPs review committee that has clearly shown that UV-328 is a toxic chemical of global concern.

UV-328 is manufactured at annual global production volumes exceeding 1 000 tons. It is used in plastics and cosmetics and is part of several consumer products including coating products, adhesives and sealants, sunscreen, food contact materials, and plastics. Global IPEN studies has also found it in beached and recycled plastic pellets as well as in toys.

There is clear evidence that UV-328 leaches from plastics throughout its lifecycle and that it negatively impacts internal organs including the liver and kidney. It has also been shown to have toxic and endocrine disrupting effects on mammals.

The risk management evaluation shows that there are hundreds of alternative UV stabilizers available on the market, and several countries already have restrictions on UV- 328 in place.

Considering these facts, the chemical must be restricted and listed in Annex A without any exemption.

Thank you, Madam President

Sarra Hechmi, Association de l’Education Environnementale pour les Futures Générations (AEEFG), Tunisia
Intervention on exemptions

Thank you, Madam Chair,

IPEN appreciates the important work of POPRC on the review of specific exemptions for deca-bromo- diphenyl ether (decaBDE) and short chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs). However, we are very concerned about the continuation of exemptions for these substances despite the availability of alternatives.

DecaBDE and SCCPs are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. They negatively affect reproductive health, nervous system and act as endocrine disruptors. Despite this fact, unjustified exemptions were granted, leading to humans and wildlife exposure.

The risk management evaluations on both chemicals concluded that technically feasible alternatives to these chemicals were available in 2017. Although some exceptions are withdrawn or terminated, some are continued without any justification of why the available alternatives are not used. The need for these continued exemptions needs to be properly justified and verified before the exemption is extended.

The lack of alternatives in some regions is sometimes used as an excuse for exemptions. However, Article 12 of the Stockholm Convention states that Parties shall provide technical assistance and promote the transfer of technology to developing Parties and Parties with economies in transition. These provisions need to be fully implemented to ensure the rapid elimination of listed POPs.

IPEN studies identified decaBDE in beaches and recycled pellets, and both DecaBDE and SCCPs in children toys, kitchen equipments, and eggs of free-range chickens of recycling workshops. It makes us ask the question of who else than the industry benefits from continued exemptions when we are presently losing control over POPs listed for global elimination.

To conclude, IPEN urge parties to justify the need for the registration of exemptions. Industries should be required to provide data with full justification of inability to substitute. All unjustified exemptions should be withdrawn.

Thank you.

María Cárcamo, RAPAL Uruguay
Intervention on the proposal to amend articles 7, 10, 11 and 22 of Rotterdam Convention

Thank you, Madam President.

I speak on behalf of both IPEN and the Pesticide Action Network.

After 25 years of existence of the Rotterdam Convention, it is now necessary to support these proposed amendments so that it can fulfil its objective: to promote shared responsibility and transparency in the international trade of certain dangerous chemical products.

As we all know, the Rotterdam Convention does not ban or prohibit the products listed in Annex III but is designed to help Parties make informed decisions about what comes in over their borders.

The continued blocking of the listing of certain pesticides and hazardous chemicals in Annex III by a small number of Parties prevents crucial information sharing and undermines the work done by the Chemical Review Committee. These chemicals proposed for listing has all been evaluated and found to meet the Convention criteria.

We join with the UN human rights experts on toxics, environment and water to call on Parties to adopt the amendment, and agree that we need bold actions that keep our institutions and instruments relevant and fit to address the serious risks and harms that chemicals pose to human rights, human health, and environmental integrity.

Therefore, IPEN and PAN call on all Parties to recover the spirit of cooperation that gave rise to the Rotterdam Convention and to support the amendment.

Thank you, Madam President.

Oleg Pecheniuk, Independent Environmental Impact Assessment, Kyrgyzstan
Intervention on the Rotterdam Convention

Thank you very much, dear chairman.

Independent Ecological Expertise (Kyrgyzstan), member of the IPEN Network, appeals to all Parties

As you know, over the years, under pressure from highly hazardous pesticide manufacturers, a small group of countries have blocked the listing of hazardous chemicals in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, depriving other countries of the opportunity to obtain information needed to make decisions at the national level regarding the import of these substances. As is known, the basis of the Rotterdam Convention is the adoption of decisions on the basis of consensus. As a result, some substances, such as acetochlor, carbosulfan, fenthion, paraquat, etc., could not be included in Annex III for years. This practice undermines the science-based work of the Chemical Review Committee (CRC), which determined that these substances met all the criteria for listing in the convention.

I would like to note that the Convention itself declares that the Parties “being firmly determined to ensure the protection of human health, including the health of consumers and workers, and the environment from the potentially harmful effects of certain chemicals and pesticides in international trade” and is not a prohibition convention . Rotterdam Convention, but only prescribes prior informed consent in international trade. In this case, I would like to recall the precautionary principle declared by everyone. What scares us about providing information?

In order to ensure safety for the life and health of their citizens, countries, in accordance with Article 5 of the Rotterdam Convention, still have every right to take strict regulatory measures that prohibit or severely restrict chemicals, and the proposed amendments will provide countries with more reasoned defense of national interests in ensuring environmental safety in national and international level, share information about hazardous chemicals, continue to do so. Exporters are still asking the countries that are Parties to the Rotterdam Convention and whether there is a ban on the import of this chemical, so that there will be no special technical difficulties.

In general, the proposed amendment, if approved, would:

- Retain Annex III and the consensus decision-making process for listing substances in Annex III. The main objective of the Convention will continue to be to promote the listing of the nominated substance in Annex III. - However, for chemicals that have been determined by the Chemical Review Committee (CRC) to meet the criteria for listing in Annex III but arefor which the Conference of the Parties cannot reach a decision on listing by consensus, a new path is provided. Listing in the new annex (Annex VIII) must be supported by a three-quarters vote of the Parties present at the Conference.

- Chemicals included in the new Annex VIII will also be subject to the prior informed consent procedure, but with a major new change, explicit consent will be required.

- This addendum to the Convention provides a tool for Parties seeking to exchange information on blocked substances. It is not a parallel path, instead it retains Annex III and the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure as the main method for exchanging information, and simply provides a new path for Parties that want to move forward with exchange of information regarding blockedchemical substances.

The explicit consent requirement for listing in Annex VIII is an important new element as it means that the procedures for chemicals listed in the new Annex VIII will be more stringent than in the case of Annex III. This requirement will strengthen the Convention.

We urge the Parties to accept the amendment proposed by Switzerland, Mali and Australia and supported by others. We need bold action to keep our institutions and tools relevant and fit to address the serious risks and harms that chemicals pose to human rights, human health and environmental integrity.

# # #

Большое спасибо, уважаемый председатель.

Независимая экологическая экспертиза (Кыргызстан), член Сети IPEN, обращается ко всем Сторонам

Как вы знаете, на протяжении многих лет небольшие группы стран под давлением производителей особо опасных пестицидов, блокируют включение опасных химических веществ в  Приложение III Роттердамской конвенции о процедуре предварительного обоснованного согласия в  отношении некоторых опасных химических веществ и пестицидов в международной торговле, лишая  другие страны возможности получать информацию, необходимую для принятия решений на  национальном уровне относительно импорта этих веществ. Как известно, в основу Роттердамской  конвенции положено принятие решений на основе консенсуса. В результате некоторые вещества, такие  как, ацетохлор, карбосульфан, фентион, паракват и т.д., годами не могут быть включены в Приложение  III. Такая практика подрывает научно обоснованную работу Комитета по рассмотрению химических  веществ (КРО), который определил, что эти вещества отвечают всем критериям для включения в  перечень конвенции. 

Хотелось бы отметить, что сама Конвенция декларирует, что Стороны «будучи преисполнены  твердой решимости обеспечить охрану здоровья человека, в том числе здоровья потребителей и  рабочих, и окружающей среды от потенциально вредного воздействия отдельных химических веществ  и пестицидов в международной торговле» и не является запретительной конвенцией. Роттердамская  конвенция, а лишь предписывает предварительное информированное согласие при осуществлении  международной торговли. В данном случае хотелось бы напомнить о декларируемым всеми н  «принципом предосторожности. Что нас пугает в предоставлении информации?

Для обеспечения безопасности для жизни и здоровья своих граждан, страны в соответствии со  статьей 5 Роттердамской конвенции и сейчас имеют полное право принимать строгие регулирующие  меры, запрещающие или строго ограничивающие химические вещества, а предлагаемые поправки  обеспечат странам более аргументировано отстаивать национальные интересы по  обеспечению экологической безопасности на национальном и международном уровне, обмениваться информацией об опасных химических веществах,  продолжать это делать.  Экспортеры и сейчас выясняют страны Сторонами Роттердамской конвенции и нет ли запрета на завоз данного химического вещества, так, что особых технических сложностей не будет.

В целом, предложенная поправка, в случае утверждения, позволит: 

- Сохранить Приложение III и консенсусный процесс принятия решений о включении веществ в перечень Приложения III. Основная цель Конвенции, по-прежнему, будет заключаться в содействии включению номинированного вещества в Приложение III.  - Однако для химических веществ, которые, как было установлено Комитетом по рассмотрению химических веществ (КПР), отвечают критериям для включения в Приложение III, но в отношении которых Конференция Сторон не может консенсусом принять решение о включении в перечень, предусмотрен новый путь. Включение в перечень в новое приложение (Приложение VIII) должно получить поддержку в три четверти голосов от присутствующих на Конференции Сторон. 

- В отношении химических веществ, включенных в новое Приложение VIII, также будет применяться процедура предварительного информированного согласия, но с новым важным изменением - потребуется явное согласие. 

- Это дополнение к Конвенции создает инструмент для Сторон, которые стремятся обмениваться информацией о заблокированных веществах. Это не параллельный путь, вместо этого он сохраняет Приложение III и процедуру предварительно обоснованного согласия (ПОС) в качестве основного метода обмена информацией, и просто предоставляет новый путь для Сторон, которые хотят продвинуться в обмене информацией в отношении заблокированных химических веществ. 

Требование явного согласия для включения в Приложение VIII является важным новым  элементом, поскольку оно означает, что процедуры в отношении химических веществ, включенных в  новое Приложение VIII, будут более строгими, чем в случае Приложения III. Это требование укрепит  Конвенцию. 

Мы призываем Стороны принять поправку, предложенную Швейцарией, Мали и Австралией  и поддержанную другими. Нам нужны смелые действия, которые позволят сохранить актуальность  наших институтов и инструментов и сделать их пригодными для устранения серьезных рисков и вреда,  наносимого химическими веществами правам человека, здоровью людей и целостности окружающей среды.

Nicolas Gaulin, CIEL
Intervention for IPEN/CIEL on asbestos

Thank you, Madam President,
I speak on behalf of CIEL and IPEN. My intervention will be in French.
L'amiante chrysotile devrait être inscrite à l'annexe III. Les données scientifiques le prouvent et
ses impacts sur la vie des gens le confirment.

L'amiante est une substance incontestablement toxique. Ses utilisations ont de graves
répercussions sur de nombreuses personnes, qui les privent de leurs droits humains
fondamentaux, notamment le droit à des conditions de travail saines et sûres, le droit au
meilleur état de santé possible et le droit à un logement décent.

Il n'est ni légalement ni moralement justifiable de continuer à faire obstruction à ces listes : les
pays ont l'obligation légale d’assurer l'accès à l'information, et les entreprises ont la
responsabilité de respecter ce droit.

Nous sommes profondément préoccupés par les obstacles persistants à l'inscription de
l'amiante chrysotile, ainsi que d’autres substances, dans le cadre de la Convention de
Rotterdam. Nous exhortons tous les pays à suivre l’expertise scientifique, à maintenir l'objectif
de la Convention qui est de protéger la santé humaine et l'environnement et à inscrire l'amiante
chrysotile à l’annexe III à cette COP. Nous avons tous le droit de savoir quelles substances
toxiques s'infiltrent dans nos lieux de travail, dans nos communautés, et dans nos terres.
Merci.
—
English

Siddika Sultana, Executive Director at Environmental and Social Developmental Organization (ESDO)
Intervention on Illegal Trafficunder the Basel Convention

I speak on behalf of the Environment and Social Development Organization (ESDO) and IPEN. 

The prior informed consent procedure is crucial to ensure that the waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner and that the importing country has the capacity to handle it safely.

The Convention also prohibits the dumping of hazardous wastes in any manner that may result in environmental harm. Such deliberate disposal of hazardous waste is considered a criminal offense under the Convention.The health and environmental effects resulting from the illegal dumping and burning of plastic waste are clearly seen in Asia and Africa.

My country Bangladesh has prohibited the import of any kind of waste into the country. However, the illegal trade of plastic waste is still a problem for us, due to the desire of developed countries to avoid the costs of the sound management of plastic waste in their own countries. 

ESDO has revealed that as much as 1.2 million tonnes of plastic waste were shipped to Bangladesh from the US and the UK between 2017 and 2019, despite the legal ban on importing waste to the country. 

Also, some traders have been illegally importing the waste and using Bangladesh as a transit point to send it to third countries. The waste includes single-use plastic items, medical plastic waste and other used plastic items, which are very toxic and cannot be recycled. They are often dumped in landfills, posing a serious threat to the environment and public health.

The World Bank has estimated that there are over a thousand illegal places handling plastic debris in Dhaka City. The illegal traffic of all types of waste, including plastic waste, must stop.

We call on Parties to fulfill their obligations under the Convention to protect from continued harm to human health and the environment.

Thank you

Tadesse Amera, IPEN Co-Chair
Intervention in Support of Amending the Rotterdam Convention

Thank you Madam President

IPEN, speaking on behalf of civil society organizations in more than 120 countries, fully supports the adoption of the proposal to amend the Rotterdam Convention as described in CRP11. 

This idea for how to amend the Convention is not new, it has been discussed for many years. The need to break the deadlock is clear, and all efforts to find consensus have been exhausted. The time to act is NOW, at THIS COP. 

Workers and communities around the world have the right to a clean, healthy and safe environment. A right to know, Information sharing and transparency measures on toxic chemicals is key to achieve that. 

Thank you Madam President 

Tadesse Amera, IPEN Co-Chair
Closing Intervention 

Thank you Mister President for giving IPEN the floor, and good evening Distinguished Delegates.  

It has been a long day, and I will be brief. 

IPEN, as a global network of public interest civil society organizations, participates to bear witness for the billions of people whose well-being and human rights are affected by the decisions that are being made here. 

We appreciate the hard work of many delegates to reach agreements that truly protect vulnerable communities of women, children, indigenous peoples and workers. The listing of two toxic plastics additives and a pesticide is a very good step forward, despite the exemptions. We look forward to seeing how Parties will implement their obligations under the Convention to identify stockpiles, articles in use and waste containing these POPs.

We also appreciate the acknowledgement that there is no proof of chemical recycling being environmentally sound management.

We want to express our deep appreciation to the Parties that proposed and supported the amendments to reform the Rotterdam Convention. Reform of the Convention remains a necessary step for it to be able to meet its objectives, and we are deeply disappointed that it was not adopted. 

We look forward to work with you all in a constructive and collaborative manner until the next COP. 

Thank you Mr. President.