communities.setac.net :: View topic - Stockholm Convention

The time now is Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:36 pm
All times are UTC + 0

View posts since last visit
View unanswered posts

Forum index » Open Communities » Blogs and Forums

Stockholm Convention - Blog from POPRC-5

Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]

Author

Message

Crispin Halsall

Joined: 30 Oct 2009
Posts: 1

Stockholm Convention - Blog from POPRC-5
UNEP Stockholm Convention: Scientific observers at the POP-Review Committee 5 (POPRC-5), 11-16 Octob

SETAC was well represented at the latest Stockholm POPs Review Committee meeting held in Geneva in mid-October, with about 10 members from SETAC Europe, Africa, North America, and Latin America participating. POPRC meets annually to review proposals for adding chemicals to the Stockholm Convention; SETAC members have participated since POPRC’s inception, and the 2008 POPRC included a presentation by then SETAC president Derek Muir on the results of the Pellston workshop held earlier that year. The IEAM issue (Oct 09) with papers from the Pellston workshop was distributed to POPRC members and observers at the meeting.

This year, three chemicals were discussed: short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs), endosulfan and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). All three chemicals are at various stages of the Convention process with HBCD being perhaps the least contentious. Because it is at the beginning of the process (i.e. it has been nominated as a possible POP by Norway and the POPRC agreed in consensus that HBCD fulfils the criteria in Annex D of the Convention [Information & Screening Criteria]), the next step will be the preparation of a Draft Risk Profile (DRP) for HBCD. Then, this document will be discussed at the upcoming POPRC (6) meeting in 2010. Dr Gregg Tomy (Dept of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada) presented an overview of HBCD to the Committee during one of the plenary sessions, including a detailed assessment of the current science examining its half-life in water, soil, sediments and air. Although the numerical criteria for HBCD do not meet the criteria for persistence in these matrices as defined under Annex D, Gregg presented evidence from the recent literature to clearly demonstrate that HBCD is sufficiently persistent to justify its consideration; showing evidence of persistence in sediments, its occurrence in remote environments, and bioaccumulation in both temperate and arctic aquatic foodwebs. Jon Arnot made a presentation to the HBCD drafting group emphasizing the need for sound studies particularly of the aquatic toxicity of HBCD.

At previous POPRC meetings consensus on the DRP for SCCP had not been reached, essentially due to a lack of scientific information. However, by the middle of the week the Chair asked for a working group to meet (including Gregg Tomy) to help draft a new document including new data on SCCPs. This was met with broad consensus by the Committee, although additional information to enable an assessment of environmental trends as well as toxicological data is required for POPRC 6 (next year) when the DRP for SCCP will be discussed again.

The most difficult discussion of the week was on endosulfan. A DRP for this insecticide had been prepared from the previous year and was discussed in detail at the current meeting for acceptance under Annex E. In the opening plenary session, Dr Martin Scheringer (ETH-Zurich) presented an overview to the CliMoChem model and global fate modelling of endosulfan (presenting data for the two endosulfan isomers (alpha and beta) and the main metabolite, endosulfan sulfate). Concentrations in air and sea water for different latitudes were presented and compared to observed data. The presentation was well received, but the Committee delegate from India, the world’s largest manufacturer of endosulfan, was skeptical about modelling and criticized what he perceived to be a lack of validation of ClimMoChem for endosulfan. Martin robustly defended the model and clearly demonstrated the past successful use of ClimMoChem for a variety of semi-volatile chemicals including POPs with very similar physical-chemical properties to endosulfan.

A contact group chaired by Ricardo Barra, a Committee member from Chile (and former SETAC Latin America president), met to discuss the DRP for endosulfan with the purpose of amending this document following comments on the Draft from interested parties. Needless to say this was when things really got going! The Contact group comprised of observers from NGOs - including the Pesticide Action Network, scientists from regulatory agencies such as the US-EPA, industrial representatives (e.g. Indian chemical industry), industry consultants, and observer scientists.

An interesting debate ensued regarding the “philosophy” behind Risk Profiles; the Indian delegates arguing that detailing scientific literature that demonstrates that endosulfan has POP-like characteristics is only half the story and the document should also cite literature that states the contrary. This contrasts to other Risk Profiles generated for POPs included in the Convention. Furthermore, as endosulfan is nominated as a POP, then the risk profile document should examine the weight of evidence only. As more interventions were lodged by industry delegates who were unhappy with the draft, the discussion in the Contact Group became more contentious. Dr Crispin Halsall (Lancaster University) had to address repeated questions posed by the Indian delegates and scientists from China over: a) the relevance of ‘tiny’ concentrations observed in the Arctic (yes…there is evidence that endosulfan biomagnifies in Arctic marine food webs); b) how could India be responsible for endosulfan in the Arctic? (Interestingly, the Draft actually doesn’t state that India is responsible, but does demonstrate that endosulfan undergoes long-range transport (LRT)). Crispin also pointed out that, while use had dropped markedly in northern Europe throughout the 1990s, levels of endosulfan measured in arctic air do not show a corresponding decline, indicating that LRT was an important process for this chemical.

During the Contact Group meeting much of the discussion was less focused on science. Eventually, the DRP was altered to incorporate new data on estimates of endosulfan usage from China, LRT prediction from CliMoChem and bioaccumulation data from Arctic marine foodwebs. Undoubtedly, the DRP was improved by this re-drafting carried out by members of the Secretariat as well as observer scientists including Martin and Crispin. The revised document was then subject to further debate in a follow up meeting of the Contact Group. Further alterations were made to the DRP with inclusion of statements such as “…one member is of the view that values X and Y are unrealistic etc etc”. In the end, India expressed continued disagreement with the content of the document (asserting that endosulfan does not fulfill the necessary criteria of Annex E - Information for the Risk Profile), and this was expressed again in the end of the week plenary discussion.

The Chair made a proposal (which was accepted) that would allow endosulfan to proceed to Annex F (Information on Socio-Economic Considerations), under the condition that additional information be provided for the DRP on potential adverse/toxic effects, ready for next year’s meeting. The debate on endosulfan is set to continue!

Crispin Halsall, Martin Scheringer and Gregg Tomy

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:44 pm

Display posts from previous: Sort by:

Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]

Forum index » Open Communities » Blogs and Forums

Jump to:

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Best viewed with: