TOXICS

Background Paper: The UN's Strategic Approach to Chemicals Management

The Strategic Approach to Chemicals Management (SAICM) is a UN program to create an interna-tional chemicals regulatory body, which will globalize many features of the European Union's REACH Directive. At a recent roundtable in Washington D.C., organized by the American Legisla-tive Exchange Council (ALEC), conservative legislators from the European Union highlighted the deeply damaging effects that REACH will have on the globalized chemicals industry.

One of the most contentious parts of SAICM is the acceptance and international application of pre-cautionary principle styled legislation, as opposed to the currently-accepted risk-based approach, which uses sound science as its base.

The U.S. State Department has not yet made a decision on whether or not this Administration will support SAICM. The final preparatory meeting on SAICM is scheduled September 19-24 in Vienna, in anticipation of a high-level ministerial declaration supporting SAICM during the International Conference on Chemicals Management in Dubai, February 4-6, 2006.

Meanwhile, ALEC and other organizations are strongly urging the Bush-Administration against the SAICM. They suggest to take a principled stand against international protocols based upon the precautionary principle, rather than sound scientific assessments. For them, SAICM, the Kyoto Protocol and other likeminded international treaties are a type of government intervention threat-ening global economic development, especially in poverty stricken nations.

According to ALEC, economic growth and a healthy environment go hand in hand. "There is a plethora of evidence that environmental progress correlates strongly to the expansion of free mar-kets. Therefore, public policy should be oriented toward a risk-based management paradigm that is grounded in sound, peer reviewed science."

SAICM's overarching policy strategy clearly advocates the application of precautionary measures "even where there is a lack of full scientific certainty as to a chemical's environmental or health ef-fects," (SAICM/PRECOM.3/3, page 5). As well, ALEC sees "the trend to make donor aid avail-ability dependent the adoption of hazard-based legislation unacceptable. Developing nations need technology and financial resources that will assist their poverty stricken populations to achieve a healthy quality of life that the US and the nation states within the EU provide for their own citi-zens."

"Elected officials and public policymakers should strive to ensure that our nation's efforts and limited resources are focused on the highest priority issues with the largest potential public health benefits. With this in mind, one of the consequences of poverty such as poor public health secon-dary to vector borne diseases should be a priority over the attempts of international governments' management of chemicals."

Former U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, recently wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Jour-nal, "My concern-as a pediatric surgeon, as a former health official and as a father and grandfather - goes far beyond this important but far too commonplace battle over the safety of certain chemicals. This ceaseless obsession with ousting the frequently nonexistent bogeymen from our chemical cor-nucopia does quite a lot to strengthen the ranks of consumer groups but very little to actually im-prove the health and quality of our lives. And while it provides television newsmagazines with a well-worn story line, it ultimately diverts our attention from real opportunities to enhance life and longevity. In short, what an incredible waste of time, resources and human potential!"

ALEC further finds the Draft Global Plan of Action represents a significant encroachment upon the national sovereignty of individual countries. For example, we strongly object to the clause: "de-velopment of liability and compensation schemes in relation to damage to human health and the environment caused by the production and use of chemicals," (SAICM/PREPCOM.3/4, page 3).

ALEC believes "that the ensuing 'concrete measures' that this entails - the establishment of inter-national corporate liability and compensation instruments - interfere with the sovereignty of the nation states that have differing systems that are site and situation specific to their own regions and cultural norms. Here in the United States, we believe the individual fifty states have primary author-ity over these issues. To have an international treaty establish new bodies and levels of jurisdiction in this area is a gross threat to our right of self-determination and the Tenth Amendment to our Con-stitution."

"Equally, if our borders are under threat from the 'illegal international traffic in hazardous sub-stances,' then that is a matter of our domestic jurisdiction. The dangerous trafficking of drugs, hu-mans and other such things are being addressed in a number of ways by the individual states, the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration. We find it difficult to imagine that SAICM presents a significant addition to that fight."

The financial considerations outlined in the document are vague and lack accountability. Under the request for governments allocate "new and additional financial resources," (SAICM / PREP-COM.3/3, page 8), and to further allocate fresh funds to a Global Partnership Fund for developing countries is another attempt to redistribute wealth with no mechanism to ensure that the monies are obtaining measurable results in terms of lifting developing nations out of poverty.

The threats to business should not be underestimated. While the clause: "To ensure confidentiality of commercial and industrial knowledge and information given on chemicals where such confidenti-ality is protected by law in order to protect legitimate economic interests of the chemicals industry," (SAICM/PREPCOM.3.3, page 6) is to be supported, there are great concerns that several other clauses contradict this statement. The protection of intellectual property rights is fast becoming the major international issue and the tone of the overarching policy strategy does not give enough rec-ognition to private sector proprietary rights. This document lacks consistency in principle and pro-cedure in the adherence to a free market approach to addressing international concerns.

Environmental regulation should focus on flexibility, an understanding of market incentives that promote environmental protection, achieving tangible results, and minimizing impacts on individual citizen's freedom.

Thus, SAICM uses the issue of chemicals management merely for political purposes and will cre-ate spurious and expensive programs with little or no environmental benefit. This document pays but mere lip-service to the good that chemicals have contributed to public health and economic de-velopment. If the concept of the precautionary principle is made a new international standard, fur-ther technology development is put at risk and will squander any effort at enhancing human and environmental health and global well being.

September 8, 2005