INC9 REPORT.pdf - Rotterdam Convention

UNEP/FAO/PIC/INC.9/21
regulatory action was taken as a consequence of a risk evaluation of the anticipated or likely uses of the
chemical in the notifying country. The Committee agreed that the extent to which notifications and
supporting documentation were found to meet the criteria in Annex II of the Convention would need to be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
71. The Committee recognized the right of any country to take domestic regulation action regarding use
of chemicals and recalled that that action must be notified under the terms of the Convention.
72. The Committee considered the three main scenarios concerning the ability of countries to provide
risk evaluations in support of final regulatory actions. It was stressed that, even when hazard or risk
evaluation information was taken from another country, supporting documentation would be expected to
demonstrate that conditions in that country were similar and comparable to those in the notifying country.
The supporting documentation could include “bridging” information on, among others things, a comparison
of uses, conditions of use, physical and climatic conditions and risk reduction measures. The level of detail
of that information should be sufficient to enable the Interim Chemical Review Committee to judge whether
conditions were comparable. Further, the sufficiency and acceptability of that information would have to be
determined by the Interim Chemical Review Committee on a case-by-case basis.
73. The Committee noted that, in the absence of documentation detailing how the risk evaluation used
from another country related to conditions prevalent in the notifying country, such an action would not be
considered as meeting the criteria of Annex II of the Convention.
74. The Committee requested the Interim Chemical Review Committee to develop guidelines on the
scope of “bridging” information to be contained in the supporting documentation provided by the notifying
country, for review by the Committee at its tenth session.
75. The Committee noted the concern of developing countries with regard to the need to avoid overburdening
developing countries with requirements to provide extensive amounts of information.
2. Issues to consider in ensuring consistency between the scope of reported national regulatory
actions and the inclusion of the chemical in the interim prior informed consent procedure
76. The Committee had before it the documentation prepared for the subject (see annex I). Introducing
the sub-item, Mr. Arndt, Chair of the Interim Chemical Review Committee, pointed to the inconsistent use
of chemical abstract (CAS) numbers and chemical descriptions in Annex III of the Convention. He drew the
Committee’s attention to the Review Committee’s request for guidance on ensuring consistency between the
scope of reported national regulatory actions and the listing of chemicals in the interim PIC procedure, as set
forth in document UNEP/FAO/PIC/INC.9/9.
77. The Committee noted that the scope of the regulatory actions as stated in the notifications submitted
in accordance with Article 5 was the basis for listing a given chemical. The Committee agreed that, in the
case of a chemical such as DNOC, it would be listed as “DNOC and its salts, such as ammonium salt,
potassium salt and sodium salt”, along with the relevant CAS numbers, if included in the interim PIC
procedure.
78. The Committee noted that the specific formulation identified in a proposal submitted in accordance
with Article 6 was the basis for listing a severely hazardous pesticide formulation. The Committee agreed
that formulations containing the active ingredient or ingredients at or above the specified concentrations and
in the same formulation type would also be subject to the interim PIC procedure, if supported by the
technical documentation supporting the proposal. It was agreed that a footnote to that effect could be added,
or some other type of explanatory guidance could be provided.
11