Rotterdam Convention failed to reach consensus on listing paraquat

The Ordinary and Extraordinary Meetings of the COPs to the Basel Convention (BC), Rotterdam Convention (RC) and Stockholm Convention (SC) convened for an eleventh day from  April 28th to May 10th 2013.

More than 120 government parties to the Rotterdam Convention supported the listing of paraquat (20%) as a severely hazardous pesticide formulation in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention, but finally there was no consensus on listing paraquat.

On May 7th, the Secretariat introduced the documents (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.6/11, Add.1 and Add.2) on the inclusion in Annex III of liquid formulations (emulsifiable concentrate and soluble concentrate) containing paraquat, and its consideration as a severely hazardous pesticide formulation (SHPF).

Among others, Kenya for the AFRICAN GROUP, BAHRAIN, MALAYSIA, AUSTRALIA, QATAR, VENEZUELA, LAO PDR, the PHILIPPINES, SWITZERLAND, ECUADOR, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, BELIZE, SRI LANKA, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, NEW ZEALAND, EL SALVADOR, NORWAY, PESTICIDES ACTION NETWORK and IPEN supported listing paraquat in Annex III of the Convention.

GABON called for discussions on listing paraquat at all concentrations and the US suggested that the CRC revise, and the COP consider additional, guidance on paraquat.

Many countries praised Burkina Faso for initiating the proposal and their work on documenting its adverse effects on human health and the environment.

JAMAICA and the EU noted that listing in Annex III does not denote a ban of the use of a substance.

INDIA, GUATEMALA and HONDURAS opposed the listing, with INDIA and HONDURAS requesting further evaluation.

CROPLIFE INTERNATIONAL suggested the COP put aside the listing proposal, and direct the CRC to develop better guidelines and criteria on its listing.

IRAN called for a contact group to discuss the challenges posed by listing of paraquat.

KUWAIT and LEBANON detailed their countries’ bans on paraquat. FAO offered to provide technical support on sustainable and feasible alternatives.

On May 9th, the Joint Secretariat introduced UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.6/CRP.6. Co-Chair Al-Easa reported that the drafting group agreed that the Convention’s procedural and technical aspects were met, but there was no consensus on listing.

Zambia, on behalf of the AFRICAN GROUP, and supported by SWITZERLAND, CUBA and MALAYSIA, requested the contact group to reconvene to deliberate further. NORWAY and IPEN agreed and said that discussions were disturbed by the “misconduct” of one person who “misrepresented himself” on behalf of a party. INDIA disagreed that the criteria to list were met because there was no information regarding alternatives.

Parties discussed the issue in a contact group, and during the evening Co-Chair Hansen reported that the group had failed to reach consensus on listing paraquat.

Delegates then “virtually” adopted the draft decision to further consider at COP7 the inclusion of paraquat under Annex III of the Convention (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.6/CRP.6).