Plenary - 21 Sep 2022 - Photo

The Committee continued its technical work - Photo courtesy of José Pinto-Bazurco

On Wednesday, the 18th meeting of the Chemical Review Committee (CRC-18) adopted a decision and decision guidance document (DGD) recommending the listing of the pesticide terbufos under Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention providing for the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure. 

The Committee agreed that two final regulatory action (FRA) notifications on the pesticides paraquat and methyl bromide meet Convention criteria, so DGDs for each should be drafted for consideration by CRC-19. The CRC also reviewed FRAs on the pesticides methyl parathion, mirex, and amitrole, and late afternoon and evening contact groups edited draft rationales for why the Committee will use certain FRAs on the pesticides chlorfenvinphos and thiodicarb in future DGDs.

The session reviewed a revised draft DGD on terbufos recommending the addition of the pesticide to Annex III, updated to include new data and references provided by the US. Delegates decided to forward the DGD, together with the related tabular summary of comments, to the Convention’s Conference of the Parties (COP) for its consideration.

Upon hearing from a Tuesday contact group that the FRA from Mozambique on paraquat meets all Convention criteria, the Committee agreed to draft rationales for using FRAs from Malaysia and Mozambique in a future DGD, and to begin work on drafting a DGD on paraquat for consideration at CRC-19.

The Committee reviewed FRAs from Colombia and Indonesia on the fumigant methyl bromide and concluded that the former met all Convention criteria and the latter did not. 

On methyl parathion, a task group reported that FRAs from China and Indonesia did not meet all criteria, while the FRA from Uruguay met most criteria, but task group members differed regarding criterion c(iv) — evidence of ongoing international trade in the chemical. In plenary discussion, several CRC members criticized Uruguay’s use of Environmental Impact Quotients (EIQ) in their notification, with one participant stating that this method “sacrifices accuracy for specificity.” Because of this issue the Committee decided that the criterion for b(iii)—that the FRA is based on a risk evaluation involving prevailing conditions within the party taking the action—was not met. Since none of the three FRAs met all criteria, the Committee will take no further action on this chemical at this time.

Regarding amitrole, which already has an FRA from the European Union meeting Convention criteria, the Committee decided that another FRA from Ecuador does not meet all criteria. No further action on this chemical is possible until another FRA from a non-European country meets Convention criteria.

On mirex, the Committee examined FRAs from Ecuador and Indonesia and decided that neither meet all Convention criteria, so no further work on this chemical will be done at this time.

To receive free coverage of global environmental events delivered to your inbox, subscribe to the ENB Update newsletter.