Working Group Report

Working Group Industrial Chemicals and Contaminants

1. The group agreed that PCBs, dioxins and furans are the major POPs industrial chemicals and contaminants that are used, generated or released in the sub-region.

2. The group identified the following as major actual or potential sources of releases of the chemicals:

-- incineration of hospital wastes, especially when proper performance standards are not met;

-- emissions from transportation vehicles;

-- contamination from disposal of municipal and industrial wastes;

-- combustion of wood and coal as sources of energy;

-- pulp and paper manufacturing industries that employ elemental chlorine in bleaching processes;

-- solvents used in dry-cleaning operations;

-- releases from refineries and petroleum operations;

-- disposal of PCBs;

-- grass fires and the burning of fields prior to harvesting sugar cane;

-- pharmaceutical production;

-- PCBs contained in electrical and hydraulic equipment in power distribution systems and underground mines;

-- releases from smelting of iron, steel, aluminium and copper and other metals; and

-- contaminants in dye chemicals used in textile industries.

3. The group agreed that, with very few exceptions, there is little or no existing information on POPs and extremely limited or no analytical capacity or capability in the region to document the sources and quantities related to releases of POPs. The group, observed that while PCBs are being phased out in some countries (Botswana, Mauritius, Zambia, Republic of South Africa) and attempts have been made in others (Malawi, Seychelles), no further efforts have been made to phase out PCBs in other countries of the sub-region.. Some countries in the subregion are collecting PCB wastes for export to the UK for disposal by incineration. The group further noted the involvement of PCBs in incidents of human poisoning in Tanzania.

4. Due to the lack of capacity and capabilities in the subregion, no attempts have been made to estimate releases nor to monitor PCBs or industrial contaminants; as a consequence, no trend data were known to exist.

5. The group identified the industrial POPs chemicals to be of great significance as a source of pollution of the sub-regional environment and a threat to the health of the inhabitants of the region. The development of inventories on PCBs and industrial contaminants is crucial in the understanding the scope of the problem in the sub-region.

6. The major barriers were identified as follows:

-- lack of information on handling, treatment and disposal of PCBs;

-- lack of financial and technical resources for PCB disposal;

-- lack of reliable, accurate inventories and scientific information in the subregion as a basis for making an attempt to phase out chemicals;

-- lack of financial resources for researchers;

-- lack of adequate co-operation and co-ordination locally, sub-regionally, regionally and internationally to address the chemicals;

-- lack of both national and subregional legislation and regulations;

-- lack of exchange fora in which to share each country’s contributions;

-- lack of political awareness and commitment;

- lack of adequately trained personnel to tackle the industrial chemicals and contaminants;

-- inadequate information from the developed world to the developing world and the necessary assistance in terms of technology and equipment;

-- lack of public awareness on the hazards of handling, use, storage and release of hazardous chemicals including POPs;

-- lack of involvement of stakeholders from all sectors of society; and

-- fragmentation of regulations and inadequate communication and co-ordination between responsible government departments or ministries.

7. Discussion from Session 1 was seen as a good basis for the work of Session 2. After a lot of suggestions and discussions, the group came to the consensus on the responses detailed below.

8. The first question was what kinds of immediate actions could be taken at the national and sub-national levels to assess and address POPs problems. The group’s response was: to establish an independent body comprised of all stakeholders such as university researchers, government agencies, manufacturing industries, the community, etc. which will look into the following:

1. development a national action plan;
2. identifying which agencies will do an inventory of POPs releases;
3. financial resources; and
4. development of guidelines and legislation.

9. The second question was what are the possible ways and means to implement actions identified above? The group’s response was:

a. There is no need to re-invent the wheel. In order to ensure rapid progress the most important thing is to look at different approaches from other countries which have already developed their action plans.

b. Then co-ordinate and communicate with agencies at national, regional and international levels for exchange of information on a lot of research work done on POPs chemicals.

10. How do we re-access the information? Answer:

1. through Internet systems;
2. through contact persons; and
3. through information agencies such as EPA and UNEP

11. First the group identified the common problems that exist in their respective countries in order to see how to proceed in solving them. Two major obstacles were identified:

1. financial resources: and
2. lack of legislation (enforceable).

12. In order to formulate a collaborative co-operation for the exchange of information, the group concluded that it is necessary to take stock of respective experts regionally so as to forge capacity building within the region and recommended that each country should have an inter-ministerial committee at the national level to co-ordinate information research to raise awareness among the nations on POPs issues.

13. The POPs-related problems that are common to a number of countries in the subregion include:

1. transboundary movement of chemical waste from one country to another;
2. illegal trafficing of chemical waste;
3. illegal and indiscriminate dumping of chemical waste, within and outside the region;
4. lack of harmony of legislation in the area;
5. lack of harmonised quality standards; and
6. lack of scientific data due to lack scientific.

14. For problems identified in the region, harmonisation of legislation would be useful to address them. The region should also attempt to have standardisation in countries data collection methods. Existing protocols, such as SADC, which have subcommittees dealing with environmental issues should include POPs as a "red list" in their committees.

15. The regional or subregional fora identified which could be involved in POPs issues include:

1. South Africa Development Co-operation (SADC);
2. East African Community (EAC);
3. Organisation for African Unity (OAU);
4. AMCED; and
5. IGAD.

16. In response to the question of how to get information to influence national decision-makers, the group recommended that:

1. UNEP write a recommendation on behalf of the group participants to ensure rapid progress; and

1. information be communicated through the contact person in their respective countries.

17. The group identified the following opportunities to build partnerships to address POPs problems in the subregion:

1. joint permanent technical committees, like those that already exist in Botswana and South Africa;
2. Nile River Technical Co-operation;
3. African Development Bank; and
4. bilateral committees, e.g., OKACOM.

18. In discussing the sources and releases of the POP pesticides it was clear that these are used in most countries. The major POP in use is DDT for malaria vector control. It was also used in the Zambezi valley for tsetse fly control. The quantities of POPs used are not well documented , but information could be obtained from the authorities where there is a registration system in operation. Most countries have some legislation controlling the use of POP pesticides but the degree of sophistication varies. One country pointed out that customs officials are not familiar with POPs and it is possible that POPs could enter unnoticed. Actual monitoring and/or estimation of releases are either limited or non-existent.

19. Knowledge about the levels of various POP pesticides in different media has been hampered by a lack of analytical equipment and the absence of monitoring programmes. Furthermore, there is a shortage of suitably trained staff to do the monitoring. Some systematic monitoring data are available in South Africa (e.g., food products) and Zimbabwe (e.g., DDT in Lake Kariba). It was clear that countries were not capable to monitor all the pesticides residues and the establishment of regional laboratories needs to be considered. It was not possible to make any detailed assessment of trends due to the haphazard nature of the existing analyses.

20. From the existing data the most significant POP appeared to be DDT which was used for indoor spraying according to WHO guidelines. Most countries have a ban on other uses of DDT but unauthorised uses have not been ruled out. Dieldrin and aldrin have been used mostly for termite control but this has been phased out and banned. Although not a POP chemical, it was noted that methylbromide will be phased out under the Montreal Protocol. Obsolete chemicals remain a problem in all countries and dealing with it is extremely costly. There are no suitable incinerators in full-time operation in the region to dispose of these.

21. In discussing further information needs, the shortage of suitable analytical facilities was again emphasised. The problem of easily identifying POPs through suitable labelling was mentioned and ongoing work under the IFCS in harmonising the classification and labelling was noted. Information on risk assessment and exposure to POPs was needed by most countries and it was agreed that networks must be expanded throughout the region.

22. The major barriers are lack of funding and human capacity.

23. The theme of the discussion was centred around possible actions and strategies to address relevant issues. It was agreed that the immediate actions should incorporate those suggested in the guidance questions, i.e., to develop inventories of pesticide releases and unwanted pesticide stockpiles, to establish a network of experts and information exchange dealing with hazards and risks, and to look at the introduction of alternatives and more efficient disposal technologies and techniques.

24. The discussion reiterated the need of obtaining adequate information and the involvement of all stake holders. Political backing was also identified as essential for actions to move forward. The high cost of once only disposals of stockpiles of pesticides did not justify erection of incineration facilities but such facilities should nevertheless be established to increase capacity and be utilised for other, non-POPs, wastes.

25. The group also examined problems of storage, where small amounts of POPs wastes could be kept until sufficient quantities could be accumulated for eventual cost-effective disposal. It was agreed that long-term or indeterminate storage was unacceptable because of potential danger to humans and the environment, especially when there are accidents, such as fires.

26. There was agreement that all action plans and strategies should have a preventative approach with emphasis on waste minimisation and avoidance.

27. The ways and means of implementing actions will depend on successful dissemination of information to all stakeholders, and participation of the concerned public (local people) must be encouraged. Guidelines should be tailor-made for the local conditions. Provision should be made to strengthen enforcement where specific requirements must be met.

28. The development of national action plans must include full public participation and publicity in the media should be part of it. The action plan must spell out specific responsibilities and there is a primary role for industry. Co-ordination should, however, lie with governments.

29. The POPs information clearinghouse will be an important source of information, but it will depend on individual countries to provide the information.

30. In preparation of national positions at the forthcoming convention negotiations, countries should first co-ordinate among different government ministries or departments to deal, among other things, with the scattered information and approaches, and second liaise with all other stakeholders. The best way would be to establish or expand existing inter-departmental and multi-stakeholder committees

31. The discussion of regional co-operation started by looking at existing regional co-operation in terms of registration of pesticides where regional meetings have been held in Lusaka and Harare. Countries involved stretch from Uganda in the north to South Africa in the south. Dissemination and sharing of information on the POPs pesticides should be on the agenda of the next meeting scheduled for Pretoria, where a common strategy could be formulated.

32. The need was also expressed to make POPs awareness an item on the agenda at even higher level meetings such as SADC, PTA and OAU; at this level the necessary political will can be generated. It was agreed that the utilisation of existing structures have advantages and there is already good co-operation on certain research areas within SADC. Other existing structures that could be considered are Cleaner Technology Centres which are already present in Zimbabwe and Tanzania. A regional training centre under the auspices of the Basel Convention is due to be established in the near future. Wastes originating from POPs chemicals will naturally form part of the activities of the centre, which is aiming at capacity building, technology transfer and information dissemination.

33. The following common POPs-related problems were identified by the group:

1. lack of knowledge of alternatives;
2. illegal imports;
3. lack of capacity to store and to destroy;
4. lack of enforcement; and
5. inappropriate donations of pesticides.

Regional co-operation could contribute to improving the first two of the above problems. The others are probably of a more local nature, excepting the future possibility of developing a regional disposal facility.

34. Regional co-operation would also contribute to getting information of POPs releases of mutual (e.g., transboundary) interests and the establishment of Regional Analytic Laboratories as discussed earlier. Various manuals and guidelines, including storage of pesticides, are available from the FAO as well as industry.

35. Preparation of the region for the forthcoming negotiations is of great importance. Governments should expedite the nomination of focal points as soon as possible and focal points should liaise with each other. Assistance can be obtained from UNEP Chemicals on request. The opportunities are there.