TL: GLOBAL BAN ON PERSISTENT TOXIC CHEMICALS SO: Clif Curtis, Greenpeace International, (GP) DT: September 5, 1995 Keywords: environment greenpeace un agreements conferences toxics oceans / BRIEFING PAPER PREPARED BY GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL FOR UNEP INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE ON PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT FROM LAND-BASED ACTIVITIES WASHINGTON DC, OCTOBER 23 - NOVEMBER 3, 1995 The health of the world's people is tied to the health of its water - the oceans, seas, lakes and rivers. Many of the persistent toxic pollutants that are now found in the world's oceans and waterways are also found in the bodies of virtually all peoples and animals of the world. These pollutants have contaminated humans and wildlife either directly or indirectly from polluted water. Because of this threat, up to 100 governments from around the world are expected to assemble in the United States in late October 1995 for a 2-week meeting to examine ways to eliminate human-made pollution that is rapidly degrading the world's oceans. As part of the implementation of the Earth Summit Agenda 21 (Rio de Janeiro, June 1992), an Intergovernmental Meeting for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities will take place in Washington DC from October 23rd to November 3rd 1995, hosted by the US Government. Delegates will review and adopt a 'Programme of Action' which principally addresses land-based sources of marine pollution at global, regional and national levels. Action is needed in a number of areas in Washington. The most far reaching centres around a proposal by certain governments for a global, legally binding agreement to ban 'persistent organic pollutants' - usually abbreviated to 'POPs'. --------------------[start of side panel text]------------------ OTHER MAJOR ISSUES AT THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE In addition to POPs a number of other issues will be considered at Washington, three of which are likely to attract considerable attention. These are funding and assistance mechanisms for developing countries; waste-water treatment and management; and the possible adoption of a Ministerial Declaration. FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE MECHANISMS ================================= Technology transfer and financial assistance are essential for developing nations. In addition, the follow-up of the Washington Conference will require a new institutional mechanism to monitor progress and target future priorities. For these reasons the following initiatives have been proposed: Clean Production networking --------------------------- This would provide decision makers with up-to-date information on clean production techniques (from bodies such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) International Cleaner Production Information Clearing-house), as well as stimulating co-operation, research, development and application work. It should be a central component of any "Clearing House" mechanism that it is established as part of the Global Programme of Action at the Washington Conference. Financial actions ----------------- Lack of finance may delay environmental action, especially in developing countries. It is essential that countries can stop land-based sources of pollution without depriving other essential national programmes. The Washington Conference must commit to establishing these financial assistance mechanisms. International institutional framework ------------------------------------- An international institutional mechanism will be needed to monitor, amend and update the tasks agreed at Washington UNEP in conjunction with other international agencies that have an oceans mandate. While no new institution is being proposed, serious consideration is being given to the periodic convening (e.g. every 2-3 years) of a special intergovernmental meeting or forum. The purpose would be to ensure political oversight and accountability regarding the implementation of the Programme of Action. It is also possible that the UK's proposal regarding a new "Intergovernmental Panel on the Oceans (IPO)" could be incorporated in such an intergovernmental forum as well in the context of the 1996 "oceans" review by the UN's Commission on Sustainable Development. WASTE-WATER TREATMENT AND MANAGEMENT ==================================== Agenda 21 emphasised the serious health problems, and degradation of coastal ecosystems, resulting from discharges of polluted wastewater from urban and industrial sources. This affects many areas, and is of great concern for many developing countries. Sewage can be an important farming resource, but it must not be contaminated by industrial pollution - often the case at present. Low or no-water sewage treatment methods are also important, as is the use of methods to destroy pathogens that do not create harmful disinfection byproducts. All countries have agreed that additional resources should be channelled to developing countries. At the Washington Conference it will be a test of good faith for industrialised as well as developing nations to ensure that resources are forthcoming, rather than again put off with the excuse that further study and evaluation is required. MINISTERIAL DECLARATION ======================= The Programme of Action will be a long, technical document. Elsewhere, such as the North Sea Conference and the 1992 Ministerial Meeting of the Oslo and Paris Conventions for the North-East Atlantic, shorter political statements of goals and aspirations have also proved valuable. Such Ministerial Declarations provide an important opportunity for a far-reaching political statement of purpose, and allow the resolution of political differences. For the Washington Conference, the high level Minsterial segment scheduled for 31 October and 1 November will focus on POPs and other priority actions, with the Declaration hopefully to inspire and lead the way forward. ------------------[end of side paneltext]------------------ WHAT ARE POPs? ============== POPs are a group of mainly synthetic chemicals that are known to have a wide range of harmful effects on ecosystems and human health. The other defining, and extremely worrying, characteristic of POPs is that they cannot easily be broken down by natural processes - in other words they are persistent. In some cases when breakdown does occur, it creates chemicals that are even more hazardous than the original substances. POPs include some naturally occurring substances such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), but whose inputs to the biosphere have dramatically increased, as a result of human activities including oil and gas extraction, the combustion of fuel (including vehicles) and from the steel and non-ferrous metal industries. However the group of POPs that have attracted the greatest attention are synthetic organohalogens, i.e. carbon-based chemicals also containing chlorine, bromine, fluorine or iodine. Of these the majority are organochlorines. It is estimated that a staggering 11,000 organochlorines are now in use around the world. They include pesticides such as DDT, toxaphene, chlordane, heptachlor and the drins; solvents such as perchlorethylene, chemicals with multiple uses, such as PCBs (see table 'World Uses of Chlorine'). There are also organochlorine by-products such as hexachlorobenzene, dioxins and furans. Most of the organochlorines listed here have already been targeted for action by the UN in the context of the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP). ---------------------------------------------------------- TABLE: WORLD USES OF CHLORINE The world's largest chlorine producers include the chemical giants Akzo, Bayer, Dow, Enichem, Hoechst, ICI, Norsk Hydro, Occidental, Olin, PPG and Solvey. ---------------------------------------------------------- Sector percentage of total ========================================================== CHLORINE GAS 15 ========================================================== Pulp and paper 10 Wastewater 4 Drinking water 1 ========================================================== PLASTICS 50 ========================================================== PVC 34 Polyurethane 11 Epoxy resins 2 Neoprene 1 Other plastics 2 ========================================================== ORGANIC CHEMICALS 20 ========================================================== Solvents 9 Refrigerants 2 Pesticides 2 Pharmaceuticals 0.5 Detergents 0.5 Other chemicals 6 ========================================================== INORGANIC CHEMICALS 15 ========================================================== Hydrochloric acid 6 Hypochlorites 4 Titanium dioxide 2 Other inorganics 3 ---------------------------------------------------------- CAUSE FOR CONCERN ================= Some of the hazards of POPs have been known for many years, although our understanding of the threat they pose has increased with time (See box 'Organohalogens: The Scientific Concerns'). POPs have been shown to cause serious immune and metabolic effects, neurological defects, reproductive anomalies and cancer in both humans and wildlife. Recent studies suggest that they have even more far-reaching effects than previously envisaged. POPs can have deadly consequences for people who work in close proximity to these chemicals, such as agricultural workers, subsistence farmers, people in manufacturing industries, as well as those who depend on food from areas contaminated by POPs, including lakes and high latitude seas. More recently evidence has been increasing which indicates that POPs may be causing widespread and insidious harm to entire populations. This occurs as a result of their effects, at very low levels, on the endocrine system, for example by affecting fertility. POPs have also been shown to be responsible for similar adverse effects on marine life, and are causing particular concern for animals at the top of the marine food chain, including fish, seabirds, and marine and arctic mammals. Because of their persistent nature, POPs are a global problem. They can be transported long distances by ocean currents. For example toxaphene, used as a pesticide on cotton in the Caribbean and Central America, is conveyed all the way across the Atlantic by the Gulf Stream, to appear in significant amounts in the northern North Sea. We now also know that POPs are carried by the atmosphere towards polar environments where, in the cold conditions, they condense and are deposited. This mechanism is now believed to account for the surprisingly high concentrations of POPs present in arctic environments, and in the indigenous people who live there. Inuit women of northern Quebec carry in their breast milk some of the highest levels of organochlorines ever found in people. From arctic regions POPs can be returned by ocean currents to lower latitudes. As a result, local or regional action to control POPs will not solve the problem. Moreover, in an era of free trade agreements like GATT and NAFTA, binding international agreements to protect health and environment have become essential. Single countries, or even regions, are finding it increasingly difficult to phase out sources of POPs when such trade agreements inhibit necessary measures. Dirty industries may respond not by cleaning up, but by relocating elsewhere and then demanding the right to import the product. Companies which have accepted prohibitions or restrictions in some countries continue to market deadly products elsewhere, with little or no control. This is why the global action being considered for the Washington Conference is of such critical importance. VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO POPs =========================== Many industrialised countries are formally committed to reducing the amount and toxicity of pesticides, and to increasing the proportion of organic farming. The conversion to organic farming can proceed far faster than at present without, as claimed by the agrochemical industry, causing insoluble problems. For developing countries, too, it has advantages, not just with the elimination of POPs, but also as a contribution to reducing other problems, such as eutrophication and soil loss. Real market opportunities exist for clean, organic, food. Greater research and development effort for organic farming would pay dividends for industrialised and developing countries alike. PCBs, used in electrical transformers, as well as for other purposes, are an example of a problem that should have been resolved long ago. Many alternatives are available. Similarly, there is ample evidence that the use of POPs as solvents is unnecessary, and there are also alternatives to chlorinated plastics such as PVC. Nor is there any need for chlorine bleaching of paper and fibres. If priority is given to the use and development of existing alternatives, many experts have shown that the majority of POPs could be phased out relatively rapidly by alternatives that are economically viable, create less environmental damage, and provide numerous job opportunities. =========================================================== SOME ALTERNATIVES TO CHLORINE USE Chemical or use Alternatives ---------------------------------------------------------- Pulp, paper & no bleaching; fabric bleaching oxygen or hydrogen peroxide bleaching. Wastewater & segregation of waste drinking water water and drinking water; emphasise physical & biological treatment. PVC numerous, depending on application. Includes wood, paper/card, metal, other plastics. Solvents numerous, depending on (including application. Includes drycleaning) process changes that avoid the need for solvents; water-based solvents or soaps; wet-wash (drycleaning). Refrigerants building designed for passive air conditioning; water evaporation; hydrocarbon coolants & foaming agents e.g. pentane. Pesticides Organic farming; natural biological controls and preventive measures rather than hazardous chemical solutions to health care. ---------------------------------------------------------- WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR? ========================= The obligation to take global action on POPs stems from the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. While there are global treaties to regulate deliberate dumping at sea (the London Convention 1972) and the operational discharge of wastes from shipping (the MARPOL 73/78 Convention), these source of pollution represent less than 20% of total marine pollution. The vast majority of marine pollution comes from land-based sources (LBS), for which only a limited number of regional regulatory agreements exist. There is no global convention or mechanism to regulate land-based sources, to harmonise different approaches, and to share experiences effectively. Such land-based sources are understood to include point-source liquid discharges of wastes into riverine systems, estuaries and coastal waters; diffuse sources of pollution, such as from pesticides, fertilisers and stormwater; and atmospheric emissions from both point and diffuse sources. To deal with this glaring omission, governments agreed at Rio to invite the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to convene, as soon as practicable, an intergovernmental meeting on the protection of the marine environment from land-based activities (paragraph 17.26 of Agenda 21). The Washington Conference is the result of this commitment, and two preparatory meetings have already been held, at Montreal (June 1994) and Reykjavik (March 1995). Some industries and governments have maintained that land-based sources of pollution are too broad a problem to be addressed globally. Others, including Greenpeace, argue that - precisely because of the broad and overwhelming nature of the problem -only global action will be effective. Such action will encourage the growth of clean production, and the phasing out world-wide of the dirtiest, most hazardous, industrial practices. Specifically, the Rio Summit brought about the current discussion on POPs. Commitments were made with regard to 'eliminating the emissions and discharge of organohalogen compounds that threaten to accumulate to dangerous levels in the marine environment' and 'reducing the emission or discharge of other synthetic compounds that threaten to accumulate to dangerous levels in the marine environment' (Agenda 21 paragraph 17.28 (d) and (e)). The Washington Conference is the place where these good words must be put into effective action. At UNEP's Governing Council in May 1995 a resolution (Decision 18/32) was agreed regarding the assessment of POPs and their alternatives. It asks the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), to lead this assessment, and to report its conclusions to the next session of UNEP's Governing Council, scheduled for January 1997. Those efforts, as well as others at the regional and national levels, should make a significant contribution to the continuing development, marketing and use of cost-effective alternatives to POPs. However this important assessment process should not be used as an excuse to delay actions that are already justified, and which should be agreed at the Washington Conference. Bilateral and Regional Agreements --------------------------------- Outside of the global UN setting, a growing number of governments have agreed measures for the phasing out of POPs - although these will be of limited effectiveness unless a global agreement can be reached. In North America the joint US - Canadian Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) has an explicit goal for the elimination of all persistent toxic substances. The Great Lakes have the misfortune to be one of the earliest and most highly contaminated areas in the world. The rest of the world awaits their fate unless action is taken. The GLWQA IJC (International Joint Commission) recently concluded: ' . . . persistent toxic substances have caused widespread injury to the environment and to human health. As a society we can no longer afford to tolerate their presence in our environment and in our bodies. . . . Hence, if a chemical or group of chemicals is persistent, toxic or bioaccumulative, we should immediately begin a process to eliminate it. Since it seems impossible to eliminate discharges of these chemicals through other means, a policy of banning or sunsetting their manufacture, distribution, storage, use and disposal seems to be the only alternative'. ' . . . In practice, the mix and exact nature of [organochlorine] compounds cannot be precisely predicted or controlled in production processes. Thus it is prudent, sensible and indeed necessary to treat these substances as a class rather than as a series of isolated, individual chemicals. . . . We know that when chlorine is used as a feedstock in a manufacturing process, one cannot necessarily predict or control which chlorinated organics will result, and in what quantity. Accordingly the Commission concludes that the use of chlorine and its compounds should be avoided in the manufacturing process' (IJC Sixth Biennial Report 1992). The rest of the world should not wait before taking similar action. The IJC's conclusions are indeed influencing wider North American policy. In 1993 the US Clinton Administration undertook a special commitment to search for ways to reduce and eliminate the use of chlorine and chlorinated products. In Europe, similar conclusions to those of the IJC have resulted in major policy initiatives. The Helsinki Convention (Baltic), the Paris Convention (NE Atlantic) and Barcelona Convention (Mediterranean) all have taken an increasingly restrictive attitude towards organohalogens. For example in 1992 the Ministerial Declaration of the Oslo and Paris Commissions dealing with the prevention of marine pollution in the NE Atlantic stated that : ' as a matter of principle for the whole Convention area, discharges and emissions of substances which are toxic, persistent and liable to bioaccumulate, in particular organohalogen substances, and which could reach the marine environment should, regardless of their anthropogenic source, be reduced, by the year 2000, to levels that are not harmful to man or nature with the aim of their elimination.' The most recent, and extremely significant, development came in June 1995 at the International Ministerial North Sea Conference. There, in the Ministerial Declaration, eight countries (plus the European Commission) re-oriented their guiding policy such that: 'the objective is to ensure a sustainable, sound and healthy North Sea ecosystem. The guiding principle for achieving this objective is the precautionary principle.' 'This implies the prevention of pollution of the North Sea by continuously reducing discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances thereby moving towards the target of their cessation within one generation (25 years) with the ultimate aim of concentrations in the environment near background levels for naturally occurring substances and close to zero concentrations for man-made synthetic substances' (Ministerial Declaration, Paragraph 17).' The Declaration states that priority should be given to the development of environmentally sound products taking into account the whole life cycle of substances or products; to substitute the use of hazardous substances by less- or preferably non-hazardous substances; to pursue the development and use of clean technology for production processes; and to employ usage and practices that avoid losses of hazardous substances to the marine environment. It also requires the development and use of treatment technology, which will be important for dealing with historic sources of pollution. In effect, this represents the adoption of the principle of 'clean production', which has also been endorsed by UNEP's Governing Council, and which has received growing recognition in a wide range of international forums, including the Basel Convention. Zero-discharge, a key objective framed in the 4th North Sea Ministerial Declaration, can and must be reached well within the 25 year timeframe. This commitment to a total cessation of environmental contamination represents an important advance. The North Sea Conference 'within 25 years' goal for the cessation of all discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substance has been singled out as a formula permitting industry to implement alternatives effectively and in an orderly manner. Within this overall goal it was made clear that significant action, for example on organochlorines, is required in the next few years. It is important to adopt such goals at a global scale, at the Washington Conference, because otherwise there is a real risk that dirty industries will move from highly regulated regions to less-regulated areas of the world, instead of developing clean production processes. ACTION PROPOSED FOR THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ============================================= Globally, the commitment to urgent action regarding organohalogens and other synthetic compounds already has been made, in the Rio Summit's Agenda 21. The purpose of the Washington Conference is to establish the means by which this commitment will be achieved. The lead on developing an action programme to meet this commitment has been taken by four Nordic States (Iceland, Denmark, Finland and Norway), supported by other countries, especially from the South Pacific and Africa. As a result the preparatory committee for the Washington Conference agreed to address organohalogen compounds and other organic contaminants under the broad heading of persistent organic pollutants, POPs. It has become apparent that many States consider the establishment of a legally binding instrument, to prohibit the use and production of POPs known or suspected of creating harm, as an essential goal for the Washington Conference. However, some other States - which appear to be a minority, albeit an active and important one - have expressed doubts, and even outright opposition in a few instances, to the establishment of a legally binding instrument. The Final Meeting of the Preparatory Committee at Reykjavik adopted the draft Programme of Action which contains a key text (para. 85) reflecting such agreements and disagreements (the latter between square brackets). The most important passage states that: 'There is agreement that international action is needed to initiate a expeditious [International Negotiating Committee] process for [considering] the development of a global, legally binding instrument for the reduction and/or elimination of emissions and discharges of certain POPs [e.g., PCBs, and such others as may be agreed] about which there is sufficient scientific knowledge [taking into account the precautionary principle].' From this it is clear that, depending on the fate of the text in square brackets, the outcome on this critical issue could range from an important advance to a major failure. THE POLITICAL DYNAMIC ===================== What cannot be seen from the draft text is the underlying political dynamic which leads countries to take a particular stance. Briefly summarised, those countries urging action on POPs are convinced that we already know or suspect enough to require urgent action, and that viable alternatives either already exist or must and can be developed. Moreover, given a poor track record of implementing previous agreements, a legally binding commitment is essential to galvanise action. Those delegations opposing such measures have a variety of motives. In part it may be a belief that alternatives are not available. Some are concerned about domestic industries involved in the production and use of POPs. Some are concerned about the financial arrangements for technology transfer. There is also, amongst some of the delegates, a bureaucratic desire for an easy life, so that any global agreement should not go further, or depart from, national policy and legislation. And in some cases the technical experts either fail to comprehend the political necessity for rapid action or, at worst, actually subvert their government's stated policies. During the Conference, and its attendant media briefings, it is certain that much time will be spent by some delegations arguing that much more research is needed on the effects of POPs before action can be contemplated. But this hides the real argument, as insiders on both sides are well aware. We already know or suspect a great deal about the effects of POPs. If viable alternatives exist or can be developed, there is no reason not to take precautionary action now. The real battle hinges upon groups in the shadows, such as the chlorine industry, who know that they are fighting a rearguard action for their very existence. Their only chance of survival is to dupe governments and public alike into believing that the industry's interests are identical to the public and global good, and to try and downplay both the risks and the alternatives. In the past they have been remarkably successful. Their performance and tactics have been compared to those used by the tobacco industry since the 1950s. But now their power is waning. At Washington, they must be stopped. As is clear from the draft text, some governments are still in their pocket, but they must not be allowed to again pospone action and stall the process. The time for action on POPs is long overdue. Failure would be a disaster for UNEP; for the US Government as host; as well as for other governments when they return home to face a critical public. Most important of all, it would be a disaster for public health, the oceans and the environment in general. However, there is a very real prospect that the Conference will mark a global turning point, finally consolidating some remarkable regional agreements within a global framework. It will not be the end of the pollution story, but will mark the beginning of the end - the date when the world's political leaders finally state, loud and clear, what is obvious to most people: that it is neither sensible or necessary to release persistent toxic pollutants into the environment. For all the above reasons, Ministers and other government officials from around the world need to commit to and agree on clear and decisive action on POPS at the Washington Conference in both the Ministerial Declaration, and the detailed Programme of Action. To achieve this objective, governments must agree to: 1) commit resources to the adoption of a global, legally binding instrument on POPs 2) commit to such a process now, rather than waiting for the conclusion of the UNEP assessment, which will not be ready until 1996. <> ************************************************************** ORGANOHALOGENS: THE SCIENTIFIC CONCERNS <<>> ======================================= The environmental hazards of organohalogen compounds have been established through research efforts stretching back many years. As early as 1972, the threat that they posed to the environment was recognised internationally and such compounds were placed on the "black list" of the London Convention listing substances which should not be dumped at sea. Initially, concerns centred around the effects of organochlorine pesticides and PCBs which were identified as the cause of catastrophic declines in populations of predatory birds. In the highly contaminated Baltic Sea, deformities and reproductive failure occurred in seal populations. These chemicals had in common the following three properties: their toxicity, their persistence in the environment and their tendency to bioaccumulate in marine and terrestrial food chains. Subsequently, organohalogen compounds have come to dominate lists of chemicals which have been compiled by international fora seeking to regulate the discharge of dangerous chemicals into the environment as exemplified by Annex ID of the 1990 North Sea Ministerial Declaration. Overall, it has been estimated that some 4,500 of the 50,000 substances in common use in the EU alone could attract EU "blacklist" designation. Research continues on this group of chemicals. Only 15% of the organic chlorine compounds present in sediments or the body fat of animals can be assigned to the known chlorinated pesticides and the PCBs. Some 170 organochlorines have been isolated from human tissues. Together with the PCBs, the chlorinated dioxins (PCDDs) and dibenzofurans (PCDFs) have now been identified as universal environmental contaminants. Periodically, new organochlorines are isolated from animal tissues. The latest, reported only this year, was isolated from wildlife in the Baltic: Bis (4- chlorphenyl) sulfone (BCPS) is used in polymer manufacture and reactive dyes. Hand-in-hand with research on the occurrence of these chemicals, some of the more subtle effects have become clear. Many organochlorines are known or suspected carcinogens. Organochlorine chemicals have been firmly implicated in suppression of the immune system. They have been shown to be responsible for impaired development of the unborn child leading to low birth weights and impaired intellectual development in early life. Some of these chemicals have also been shown to mimic oestrogen and therefore to disrupt hormone systems. Hence, they are prime suspects in the decline in male sperm density in European countries observed over several decades. These findings constitute evidence that persistent organic compounds in general and organohalogens in particular pose a threat to the very fabric of life on the planet. A GLOBAL ISSUE: COLD CONDENSATION AND ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION The Nordic countries and other States have argued that POPs require special effort. In part this stems from a growing recognition that control measures at national level have improved some local conditions but that on a global scale these have failed to work. Many persistent organochlorine pesticides are still manufactured and used on a large scale. In some cases the registration status could not be determined by a comprehensive survey. Other work has shown that while levels of persistent organochlorines are declining in terrestrial ecosystems where inputs have been reduced only slow declines are taking place in semi-enclosed seas. Levels in open ocean waters appear to be steady. The North East Atlantic waters are regarded as the single biggest environmental reservoir of the PCBs. Levels are still increasing in tropical regions, reflecting the continued, and in some cases, increased use of persistent organochlorine pesticides. A surprising aspect is the increase in concentrations of organohalogens now being recorded in high latitude ecosystems. These areas are remote from industrial sources and this finding has also contributed to the recognition of the need to regulate these chemicals on a global, legally binding basis. Once released into the environment, POPs can enter the atmosphere from sediments and soils since they are semi-volatile. In fact the Great Lakes sediments are now acting as a source of PCBs into the atmosphere despite the restrictions placed on their use and discharge nearly two decades ago. The quantity of PCBs deposited annually in Sweden from the atmosphere now has to be measured in tonnes. Atmospheric circulation is a global process and once these compounds are released they will circulate with the atmospheric currents. The effect, in the northern hemisphere, is to transport these compounds northwards. Here air temperatures fall and these chemicals condense onto the surface of small particles or are carried in rain and snow to the ground. The transport of these chemicals towards polar regions is a stepwise process of deposition and volatilisation. The most volatile are carried to higher latitudes. Hence the pesticide lindane remains largely in the atmosphere whereas the PCBs and chlorinated dioxins will progressively enter terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. This transport process is confirmed by data gathered from Arctic regions. If the trend towards increased use and production of POPs in the Southern Hemisphere continues, contamination of Antarctic ecosystems, including the highly productive Southern Ocean will inevitably increase as the same processes will begin to transport POPs to this immensely important global ecosystem. Ultimately ocean resources will be seriously, possibly fatally, compromised as POPs enter the food chains and human diets. What is particularly worrying is the way that regulation to date signally has failed to check the insidious increase in global concentrations of these chemicals. It must be recognised that levels will not decline unless strict regulations instituting bans and phase outs are enforced. Voluntary production bans by manufacturers and restrictions on use does not anticipate the global dimension of the problem and it would be folly to rely on such voluntary arrangements to control POPs in the environment. ========================================= <> WHAT YOU CAN DO =============== A positive outcome will only happen if governments are aware that failure carries an unacceptable political cost. If the politicians are certain that there is widespread public concern, then they will deliver the goods. Therefore: WRITE to your Environment Minister, and ask him/her to: * commit resources to the adoption of a legally binding instrument on POPs within the context of the Washington Conference, and * commit their government to such a process now, rather than waiting for the conclusion of the UNEP assessment which will not be ready until 1996. WRITE to Al Gore, US Vice-President (White House Offfice for Environmental Policy, Washington, DC 20501/fax +1 202 456-9140), with the same message, so that he hears the strength of expectations for the Conference before it convenes. Similarly, WRITE to Elizabeth Dowdeswell, the Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya/fax +254 2 226895). In addition, ask her to urge Governments to achieve consensus in Washington, on the global POPs regime. Also CONTACT local environment groups, and ask them to join this campaign, to spread the word, and press for a ban of POPs at the Washington Conference. For further unformation please contact: Greenpeace International, Keizersgracht 176, 1016 DW Amsterdam, Netherlands, Phone 31 (20) 23 6555 Your nearest Greenpeace Office ************************************************