A group of 172 nations is scheduled to meet in April to take a final decision on declaring endosulfan, a chemical that is used widely in India as an insecticide, as a persistent organic pollutant (PCP).
The countries have come together under the banner of Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants to act against chemicals that pose a risk to human health and environment. If a chemical is declared a pollutant, it faces ban the world over.
But India, which is opposed to such a ban, has alleged that the committee that is to take a decision on declaring endosulfan a POP has committed irregularities and procedural lapses.
Already, 60 nations have banned the use of endosulfan.
Of the signatories, 27 are European Union members and 21 African nations that are dependant on Europe to market their farm products.
But India is convinced that the ban has been imposed due trade compulsions.
India's share in the global endosulfan market is over 70 per cent with an annual production of 12 million litres valued at Rs 4,500 crore.
Exports of the chemical are valued at Rs 180 crore.
The Indian industry claims that endosulfan is soft on pollinators such as honeybees and beneficial pests such as ladybird beetle while killing harmful ones and, therefore, there is need for a ban.
Justification
“At a review committee meeting in October last in Geneva, a recommendation was made to ban endosulfan on the grounds that lack of full scientific data should not prevent a chemical from being considered for listing (ban).
All decisions by the review committee have to be taken with consensus; but in the case of endosulfan it has not happened and recommendations have been made by voting,” said Mr R. Hariharan, Chairman of International Stewardship Centre, at a press conference here.
Scientific data
The International Stewardship Centre is a non-profit corporation with roots in the early 1990s, which was created for the purpose of educating, promoting and encouraging safety in the manufacture, transport, distribution, storage, use and disposal of chemical substances.
India is for continuing the use of endosulfan in view of gaps in scientific data for blacklisting the chemical. Besides India, China and Argentina have opposed the decision through voting at the Stockholm Convention and are insisting on a consensus.
“There are serious procedural lapses since the conventions articles, rules and text were not followed.
The process has not been transparent, and there is a conflict of interest as the European Union, which is the notifying party, has also prepared the risk profile that lacks scientific data.
India's protests and dissent notes have been ignored and votes taken despite objection from India, China and Argentina,” Mr Hariharan said.
Where are the notes?
During the fourth review meeting, the EU representative sought postponement of discussions, saying problems made it difficult to release necessary information for the decision making.
This was after the delegates found the EU data lacking vital information.
In soil
At the next meeting, the EU representative said endosulfan presence was found for over six months in soils and, therefore, there was justification in seeking its ban.
However, Mr Hariharan said, the reality is under tropical conditions endosulfan degrades faster in the soil and its presence is not felt for more than 20 days.
“The point is the presence of endosulfan in soils differs from one country to another and one climate to another,” Mr Hariharan, who has been a witness to the committee proceedings, said.
“The other issue of banning endosulfan is that its substitute neo nicotinoids is three times costlier and has been found to harmful to pollinators,” said Mr Anil J. Kakkar, Director of Crop Care Foundation of India. Currently, endosulfan costs Rs 250 a litre.
Motives
The Indian pesticide industry says that Europe is inspiring the ban as companies in the continent have decided to stop marketing the compound.
For over 55 years, European firms marketed endosulfan and no problem was found then.