The National Consultation on the Development of National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Rotterdam Convention* was organized in Bangkok, Thailand between 2-5 April 2007 with assistance from the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention and the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific under the Technical Assistance Programme of the Rotterdam Convention.
The objectives of the workshop were to (1) facilitate a national dialogue involving relevant stakeholders on the Rotterdam Convention as a basis for a national action plan or strategy on the implementation of the Convention in Thailand; (2) understand the obligations and benefits of the Convention; identify the current status of implementation, the challenges and how they might be addressed in order to fully benefit from the Convention; and (3) exchange information and experiences between relevant stakeholders.
The workshop began with the opening remarks by Dr Supat Wangwongwatana, the Director General of the Pollution Control Department, Dr Yun Zhou, representative of the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention and Mr Hiroyuki Konuma, Deputy Regional Representative of the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. The workshop operated in a series of presentations by the Secretariat and participants, plenary discussions, breakout group sessions, a session to consolidate breakout group tables, drafting and adopting of the executive summary.
The participants comprised 36 representatives from designated national authorities, government departments and related agencies which are involved in the implementation of the Convention, including the members of the National Sub-committee for the Rotterdam Convention which included the Chair and expert group, representatives from the Department of Agriculture, Department of Industrial Works, Food and Drug Administration, Department of International Organizations, Customs Department, Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, Department of Foreign Trade, Department of European Affairs, Port Authority of Thailand, the Federation of Thai Industries, and Chemical Business Association. Representatives from the national focal points of the Stockholm Convention, Basel Convention and SAICM also participated in the workshop.
Thailand has been active through out the development of Rotterdam Convention and become a party on 19 February 2002 by accession. Three Designated National Authorities (DNAs) have been designated for the implementation of the Rotterdam Convention, namely, the Department of Agriculture (DOA) as a DNA for pesticides, the Department of Industrial Works (DIW) as a DNA for industrial chemicals and the Pollution Control Department (PCD) as a DNA and the official focal point. The National Sub-committee has also been established under the National Environmental Board to provide support for the effective operation of the Rotterdam Convention.
With respect to regulatory and control measures relating to the implementation of the Rotterdam Convention, Thailand regulates pesticides and industrial chemicals under the Hazardous Substances Act B.E. 2535 (1992) in all activities including the production, import, export, or having in possession. This Act has classified chemicals into 4 types:
Others regulations include ministerial notifications, decree, and ordinance under this Act.
The key operational elements of the Convention and issues discussed at the meeting included:
There was a common understanding on the operational procedure and the obligations of a Party under the Convention and the responsibilities at the national level.
The outcomes of the working groups are reflected in Appendix I of this report, which has been reviewed at the plenary and can be summarized as follows:
Current status:
| a) | There are national infrastructure and administrative procedure regarding import response (see Table 1) for the implementation of the Convention in Thailand. Import Responses have been submitted for all chemicals in the PIC list. |
| b) | Regarding notification of final regulatory action for banned or severely restricted chemicals (see Table 2), Thailand has fulfilled this key operational procedure under the Rotterdam Convention, of which notifications of banned/severely restricted chemicals have been submitted. The Final Regulatory Actions (FRAs) taken to ban or severely restricted chemicals within the country are generally based on hazard review and risk evaluation (ref. the guideline for risk analysis of the Chemical Hazard Screening Sub-committee under the Hazardous Substances Committee). The criteria taken into consideration include human health and environmental monitoring. Alternatives, costs/benefits and/or supporting information from other reliable sources are also taken into consideration by relevant agencies. However, the levels of risk evaluation vary from chemicals to chemicals. |
| c) | Regarding export notifications (see Table 3), Thailand has fulfilled the key operational procedure of the Rotterdam Convention on acknowledging export notifications and utilizes the information of export notifications in the national regulation process. |
| d) | Regarding proposal for SHPFs (see Table 4), there are available infrastructures within the country for reporting pesticide-poisoning incidents, including poison centres, occupational health clinics as well as mandate for community hospitals to report pesticide-poisoning incidents. However, Thailand has never submitted a proposal for severely hazardous pesticide formulations, as the types of data collected are insufficient to fulfill the criteria set out in the Convention. |
Recommendations for follow-up actions:
| a) | PIC procedure and import response
|
| b) | Notification of final regulatory actions
|
| c) | Export notifications
|
| d) | Proposal of SHPFs
|
In conclusion, the current implementation of the Rotterdam Convention in Thailand is in line with the obligations of the Convention. All chemicals listed in the Annex III of the Convention are controlled under the Hazardous Substances Act B.E. 2535 (1992) and import responses have been submitted for those chemicals. The existing national law regulates hazardous chemicals in all activities including production, import, export and having in possession. However there is a need to strengthen law enforcement and raise awareness of those who are unable to access to the information, e.g. non-member of industrial associations and so on. A grace period is needed for industries and trade companies to clear the stockpiles of chemicals being banned. The work of a review process should be reflected in preparation of notification of Final Regulatory Actions. The information published in the PIC Circular should be made available to the public through the DNAs' websites. Thailand does not need to send export notification since exports of banned chemicals are prohibited. Regarding SHPFs, a consultation is recommended in order to introduce the context and purposes of the SHPF report.
After finalizing the report, PCD will forward the NAP to relevant agencies to facilitate future work on the implementation of the Rotterdam Convention. The participants agreed to take actions in relation to the obligations of the Convention and set out on the tables in Appendix I of this report. It was agreed that the NAP will be reviewed and updated once a year with a follow-up seminar on the implementation of the Rotterdam Convention.
Status of implementation of the Rotterdam Convention in Thailand, opportunities of the Rotterdam Convention in improving import and export regulation of pesticides and chemicals in Thailand1
A. Government administrative structure responsible for implementation of Rotterdam Convention
Thailand designated three Designated National Authorities (DNAs) to be responsible for the implementation of Rotterdam Convention, namely, the Department of Agriculture (DOA) as a DNA for pesticides, the Department of Industrial Works as a DNA for industrial chemicals and the Pollution Control Department (PCD) as a DNA for other chemicals.
The mandate of DOA is mainly research on crops concerning various aspects including regulating agricultural materials, i.e., plant breeds, agri-chemicals, fertilizers, etc. The implementation of Rotterdam Convention has been assigned to Pesticide Regulatory Sub-Division since voluntary scheme of PIC procedure. This Sub-Division is mainly responsible for pesticide registration and licensing.
B. Implementation history
In 1989, the Department of Agriculture (DOA) was designated to be a national authority for pesticide of Thailand under PIC procedure and voluntarily implemented PIC procedure under FAO/UNEP Joint Programme on the Implementation of PIC since 1991. Representative of DOA participated in all sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC). Thailand submitted the document for ratification to the convention on 19 February 2002.
On 20 January 1992, DOA submitted the Importing Country Response forms of 6 pesticides comprising aldrin, dieldrin, dinoseb, fluoroacetamide and HCH (mixed isomers) and submitted the Notification of Control Actions to Banned or Severely Restricted Chemical forms of 23 pesticides comprising chlordimeform, leptophos, BHC, endrin, sodium arsenite, MEMC, DDT, camphechlor, 2, 4, 5-T, TEPP, EDB, sodium chlorate, dinoseb, captafol, fluoroacetamide, sodium fluoroacetate, cyhexatin, parathion, dieldrin, aldrin, heptachlor, daminocide, and binapacryl.
On 15 February 1993, DOA submitted the Importing Country Response forms of 6 pesticides comprising chlordane, chlordimeform, cyhexatin, EDB, heptachlor and mercury compounds (MEMC).
On 9 September 1993, DOA responded to the Export Notification form of the European Community to inform that importation of alkaloxyalkyl and amyl mercury compounds were prohibited for agricultural use while their industrial use was still permitted.
On 4 October 1993, DOA responded to the Export Notification form of the European Community to inform that importation of ethylene dichloride was prohibited.
On 23 November 1993, DOA responded to the Export Notification form of the European Community to inform that importation of mercury chloride was prohibited for agricultural use.
On 30 September 1994, DOA responded to the Export Notification form of the European Community to inform that importation of mercury compounds for agricultural use was prohibited while their industrial use was still permitted.
On 8 April 1995, DOA submitted the Importing Country Response forms of 6 pesticides comprise of captafol, chlorobenzilate, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, pentachloro-phenol and 2, 4, 5-T.
On 25 April 1995, DOA responded to the Export Notification form of the European Community to permit importation of ethylene oxide with the condition that registration was required.
On 12 July 1996, DOA submitted an updated inventory of 32 banned and severely restricted pesticides in Thailand, under the Hazardous Substance Act B.E. 2535 (1992). They included aminocarb, BHC, binapacryl, aldrin, 2, 4, 5-T, TEPP, sodium fluoroacetate, sodium chlorate, sodium arsenite, pentachlorophenol and pentachlorophenate sodium, parathion, nitrofen, mercury compounds, leptophos, heptachlor, fluoroacetamide, fentin, ethylene dichloride, ethylene dibromide, endrin, dinoseb, dieldrin, demeton, DDT, daminozide, cyhexatin, chlordimeform, captafol, camphechlor, bromophos-ethyl and bromophos. These 32 pesticides have been banned in all use categories.
On 13 October 1997, DOA submitted the notification of control actions to ban or severely restrict heptachlor and binapacryl, to confirm that these pesticides were banned for all use. DOA also submitted the Importing Country Responses of 5 pesticides comprising methamidophos, monocrotophos, parathion, parathion-methyl and phosphamidon.
On 13 March 2001, DOA submitted the notification of control actions to ban or severely restrict 28 pesticides comprising aramite, chlordecone, chlorophenols, 2, 4, 5-TP, MCPA-thioethyl, MCPB, mecoprop, DBCP, azinphos-ethyl, mevinphos, phosphamidon, azinphos-methyl, calcium arsenate, chlorthiophos, cycloheximide, demephion, dimefox, dinoterb, disulfoton, DNOC, fensulfothion, fonofos, mephospholan, paris green, phorate, prothoate, schradan and sulfotep.
On 4 June 2004, DOA submitted the notification of control actions to ban or severely restrict 20 pesticides comprising amitrole, beta-HCH, cadmium and cadmium compounds, carbon tetrachloride, chlordane, chlorobenzilate, copper arsenate hydroxide, MGK Repellent 11, ethylene oxide, ethyl hexyleneglycol, hexachlorobenzene, lead arsenate, lindane, methamidophos, mirex, monocrotophos, polychloroterpenes, pyrinuron, safrole, TDE (DDD) and thallium sulfate.
On 17 January 2005, DOA submitted the notification of control actions to ban or severely restrict 2 pesticides comprising endosulfan and parathion-methyl.
On 29 April 2005, DOA submitted the Importing Country Response forms of 10 pesticides comprising of chlordane, chlorobenzilate, DNOC and its salts, ethylene dichloride, ethylene oxide, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, methamidophos, parathion-methyl and phosphamidon.
Representative of DOA has been appointed to be a member of a Chemical Review Committee for 4 years (2004-2007).
C. Regulation of pesticides
Thailand regulated pesticides under the Poisonous Article Act B.E. 2510 (1967) which was later replaced by the Hazardous Substance Act B.E. 2535 (1992). The regulation covers of 3 main activities including:
| (1) | Registration – a procedure to select safe and effective pesticides for use in the country. Almost all pesticide registration procedures are adopted and harmonized, taking into consideration FAO Guidelines on Registration and Control of Pesticides. |
| (2) | Licensing – a procedure to give permission for import, manufacturing, export or having in possession (for sale, storage, transportation and service). Term of each license is 1 year. |
| (3) | Monitoring – a procedure to control quality of products in the market after registration. |
Registration is a process of risk/benefit assessment to approve the use of a pesticide. Risk Assessment is a process of weighing the hazard from the application rate, methods of application, number of applications and residues after harvest. The hazard is known by evaluating toxicological data submitted by registrant and the expected amount of pesticide exposed to human. Benefit Assessment is done by conducting efficacy tests on crops for pest control, types of crops to be used and importance of pests.
For all pesticides used in agriculture, the registration procedure has been divided into 3 phases as follows:
| (1) | Trials clearance:the first step to import or produce a small amount of pesticide samples for conducting local efficacy trials or residue trials. This step requires only the acute toxicological data. |
| (2) | Provisional or demonstration clearance: the second step to import or produce a certain amount of pesticide sample for the demonstration of the product usage in the field. This step requires sub-chronic toxicological data, chronic toxicological data (except two-year feeding study), residue data and environmental data. |
| (3) | Full registration: the decision-making step to allow the product to be used in the country on the basis of risk/benefit assessment. This step requires the results of efficacy test from the Trials Clearance (if any) and a full package of toxicological data including the two-year feeding study. |
Registration of pesticide is approved by the Sub-Committee for Consideration of Pesticide Registration appointed by the Hazardous Substances Committee. At present, the pesticide registration is valid permanently. In the near future, it will be valid for only 10 years.
License can be obtained after a pesticide is registered. The pesticide license is valid for one year.
Monitoring is mainly done for quality control. Pesticide is monitored by collecting samples from formulators and/or selling shops for analysis. The concentration and formulation of a pesticide product for sale must conform to the registered product.
D. Control measures taken to ban or restrict use of pesticides
The Sub-Committee for Consideration of Pesticide Registration has agreed to the following criteria for banning pesticides:
| (1) | Chronic toxicity to human and animals e.g. carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, mutagenicity, and adverse effect on reproduction; |
| (2) | High acute toxicity; |
| (3) | Residues often found on crops which might affect human health; |
| (4) | Bioaccumulation and transferability through food chain; |
| (5) | Being persistent in the environment; |
| (6) | Being toxic to beneficial insects, fish and other aquatic organisms; |
| (7) | Toxic impurities, i.e. DDT, DDT-related compounds, and dioxin; |
| (8) | Being banned in developed countries; and |
| (9) | Existence of other safer pesticides or technology for alternative(s). |
The Sub-Committee appointed the Working Group (WG) for Pesticide Surveillance to observe pesticides registered for use. Using the above criteria including pesticides that cause pest resurgence, there are 11 pesticides under surveillance scheme namely, aldicarb, blasticidin-S, carbofuran, dicrotophos, endosulfan (CS formulation), EPN, ethoprofos, formetanate, methidathion, methomyl and oxamyl. The WG assesses these pesticides every 3 years. To gather information, the WG invited importers/producers to provide information required for assessment. In case the WG concludes that the risk is greater than the benefit, such pesticide will be proposed to the Sub-committee for Consideration of Pesticide Registration for approval and then DOA will propose to the Hazardous Substances Committee to ban or restrict. The information to be submitted includes the following:
(1) |
Common name of pesticide; |
(2) |
Kind(s) of crop and pest(s), to which the pesticide will be applied; |
(3) |
Import data of the past 3 years; |
(4) |
Kind(s) of alternatives and cost per specific area (Rai); |
(5) |
Toxicity of the pesticide and alternative(s); |
(6) |
Effects on health or environment; |
(7) |
Information on residue(s); |
(8) |
Information on exposure; |
(9) |
Control action(s) of developed countries; and |
(10) |
Other information, e.g. whether it is a chemical under any international convention. |
The Hazardous Substances Committee makes a decision to ban or restrict a pesticide and subsequently publish it in the royal gazette.
E. Opportunities of the Rotterdam Convention in improving import and export regulation of pesticides
Decision Guidance Documents (DGDs) provides information that DOA uses to ban pesticides, such as chlorobenzilate, lindane, mevinphos, monocrotophos, etc.
At present, all pesticides in appear Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention have been banned in Thailand. This means that their import, export, production, having in possession or use is prohibited. The notification of control actions to ban or severely restrict all the banned and restricted pesticides has been submitted to the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention.
The export notification sent to Thailand automatically indicates that such a chemical has been banned in the sending country. The information and reasons for banning are attached. This information is useful for the Surveillance Working Group because "being banned in the developed country" is one of the criteria. The export notification also gives DOA an opportunity to consent or not consent to import such a pesticide. In general, if a pesticide is registered for use in the country, it represents a consent to import.
The export notification of nonylphenol ethoxylate which is used as emulsifier in pesticide formulation indicates that this chemical has an impact on the environment. DOA informs the importer to seek other chemicals to substitute it.
Thailand doesn't need to send any export notification because the exports of banned pesticides are not allowed.
F. Problems/constraints in the implementation of Rotterdam Convention
At the moment, pesticide registration is valid permanently but can be discontinued by revoking and banning. Revoking is applied to pesticides proved to be ineffective and/or causes unavoidable hazard. Registration and banning of pesticides in Thailand are under different authorities. Registration is under the responsibility of DOA while banning is under the Hazardous Substance Committee chaired by Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Industry. Banning process takes very long time. However, Thailand has a system that both registration and licensing are required for production, import, export and having in possession. If any pesticide is concluded to be banned and the banning is still under the process, the license could be discontinued in order to cease its use.
Banning pesticide is based on available information such as DGDs, IARC publications, IPCS publications, etc. Most pesticide bannings are not based on risk evaluation involving prevailing conditions within the country, except endosulfan. As a result, most notifications of the final regulatory action submitted by Thailand do not meet criteria b (iii) of Annex II to the convention.
Thailand needs assistance to conduct risk evaluation involving prevailing conditions within the country before banning a pesticide.
G. Conclusion
Exchange of information under the Rotterdam Convention is very useful to an importing country like Thailand that lacks expertise and resources to conduct experiments on pesticides, to find out their toxicology, persistency, residue limits, impact on human and environment. In the past, control measure, especially banning, is mostly based on PIC information. The information provided under the Convention is advantageous not only to the government but also to the agrochemical business.
Table 1: Import response (Article 10)
Scope: Annex III chemicals
Channel of communication: between Parties and Secretariat; within a Party
Current legal infrastructure/admin procedure |
What has been done? |
What needs to be done? |
Who is responsible/involved and how to do? |
|
|
|
|
Table 2: Notification of final regulatory actions for banned or severely restricted Chemicals (Article 5)
Scope: All chemicals that are banned or severely restricted in your country
Channel of communication: between Parties and Secretariat
Current legal infrastructure/admin procedure |
What has been done? |
What needs to be done? |
Who is responsible/involved and how to do? |
|
|
|
|
|
* Criteria for pesticide evaluation: (1) Chronic toxicity to human and animals, e.g. carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, mutagenicity, adverse effect or reproduction etc.; (2) high acute toxicity; (3) Residues often found on crops which might affect human health; (4) Bioaccumuation and transferable through food chain; (5) Being persistent in the environment; (6) Being toxic to beneficial insects, fish and other aquatic organisms; (7) Toxic impurities; (8) Being banned in developed countries; and (9) Existence of other safer pesticides or technology for alternatives. | |||
Table 3: Export notification (Article 12)
Scope: chemicals banned or restricted in the exporting party.
Channel of communication: between Parties
Current practice |
What has been done? |
What needs to be done? |
Who is responsible involved and how to do? |
|
|
|
|
Table 4: Proposals for SHPF (Article 6)
Scope: Any pesticide formulation that causes severe health or environmental problem under the condition of use in your country.
Channel of communication: within a Party; between Parties and Secretariat.
Available infrastructure for pesticides poisoning report |
What has been done? |
What could be done in the future |
Who is responsible/ involved and how to do? |
|
|
|
|
Environmental Engineering Mrs Pranee Pantumsinchai Pollution Control Department Dr Supat Wangwongwatana Dr Jarupong Boon-Long Ms Pornpimon Chareonsong Ms Teeraporn Wiriwuttikorn Ms Nuchida Rungthawornwong Ms Pattanan Tarin Ms Makara Tappoon Department of Industrial Works Mrs Bongkoch Kittisompun |
Mr Sittichai Ruengrotviriya Ms Nuntaporn Kaewchimpre Ministry of Agriculture Mr Sookwat Chandrapranik Mrs Supanon Sirichuaychoo Food and Drug Administration Ms Duangthip Hongsamoot Ms Doolalai Sethajintanin The Federation of Thai Industries Mr Chaveng Chao |
Mr Phromphron Isarankura Na Ayutthaya Mr Jirawatr Jirajiariyavech Port Authority of Thailand Mrs Aunporn Poopetch Mrs Patcharee Pratumrach Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr Somsak Triamjangarun Ms Nareeta Supradist Ms Chavanast Thangsumphant Ms Natsuparng Poshyananda Mr Krai Mahasandana |
Ms Patcharamon Siriwatana Chemical Business Association Mr Chai Tandhanskul Mr Bancha Techasakul Other Organizations: Laboratory Centre for Food and Dr Nuansri Tayaputch Department of Pharmacology Dr Palarp Sinhaseni Department of Foreign Trade Dr Chakarin Komolsiri The Customs Department Mr Somchai Suwankitwat |
Food and Agriculture Organization of the Dr Yun Zhou |
Food and Agriculture Organization of the Mr Hiroyuki Konuma Mr Yongfan Piao |
* The consultation was organized by Pollution Control Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment in collaboration with the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention.
1 Paper prepared and presented by Supanon Sirichuaychoo, Agricultural Scientist 8, Pesticide Regulatory Sub-Division, Licensing and Registration Division, Office of Agricultural Regulation, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.
