Countries gather to discuss chemical "blacklist" pesticides * Dan is globally banned

On April 25, local time, the fifth meeting of the Stockholm Convention of the Stockholm Convention was opened in Geneva, Switzerland. During the five-day meeting, the parties will discuss the issue of adding pesticides to the global ban.

Pam Miller of Alaska's “Community Toxic Substance Action” organization is one of the government, non-governmental organizations, and business representatives from all parts of the world gathering in Geneva. These more than 500 people came for a matter: persistent organic pollutants. In this unfamiliar term, pesticides such as ***, Dan, industrial chemicals such as brominated flame retardants, and incineration by-products such as dioxins were brought together.

In the spring of 1988, in the center of the unassuming Canadian Arctic, the researchers were surprised to find that ***, PCBs, and * Dan even crossed the ocean, making the Arctic snow become "brown snow." When talking about this, Pam said, “Many people in the Arctic Circle rely entirely on traditional foods such as fish and marine mammals, and their bodies often accumulate a lot of pollutants. If you do not take global action, the Arctic will always be the world. In the trash can, the residents of the Arctic Circle have nowhere to escape."

These pollutants have several common characteristics: First, they are poisonous and harmful; Second, they are persistent, they are not easily degraded, and they accumulate along the food chain. Third, they can migrate long distances around the world with the atmosphere and ocean currents. This is why Asian sprays of pesticides can contaminate Arctic snow and Inuit foods. Of course, the victims must not only be in the distant Arctic. A survey completed by the World Health Organization in 2009 and involving 23 countries and regions revealed that the content of *** in breastmilk in Hong Kong is higher than in some African countries. It can be said that no one can escape the clutches of persistent organic pollutants. This is a veritable global environmental issue. "Global is like this."

In order to gradually reduce or even eliminate persistent organic pollutants, more than 120 countries, including China, signed the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (hereinafter referred to as the “Stockholm Convention”) in 2001. One of the most important components of this convention is the "black list" in the annex. The chemicals on the list are either banned or restricted and cannot escape the fate of human beings. Every two years, more than 100 representatives of the State party gather to hold the conference of the parties, and the focus of the meeting is often on the expansion of the list. After several meetings, the list has been increased from the first 12 to 21.

No one expected this conference to be smooth. At the Asia-Pacific Regional Meeting held before the start of the morning of the conference, India began to disseminate widely-written position papers. One of them was: “This conference must be adopted by consensus to ban resolutions and cannot vote.” The Stockholm Convention specifies that the conference Every effort should be made to reach consensus. Only after exhausting all possibilities can the vote be passed by a three-quarters majority.

However, the "consensus" is easier said than done. Like all international environmental conventions, the Stockholm Convention stands at the heart of environmental and development and the huge gap between developed and developing countries. On the issue of *dan, India has never concealed its opposition. As the world’s largest producer of Dan, which accounts for 50% of the world’s annual production, India has long been a good economic account: Ban* will mean more than 6,000 jobs and 100 million U.S. dollars in economic losses. As the biggest producer of Dan following India, China’s attitude has also become the focus of attention of all parties. In the hallway of the convention center and on the sofa, everyone is guessing the direction of the Chinese delegation.

However, it may be too early to blame India or China as "problem makers." It should be noted that China began to use *Dan in 1994, and developed countries had used *Dan for nearly 40 years. It can be said that a large number of survivors on this planet* come from the historical emissions of developed countries. Therefore, it is necessary to disable *dan now. Developed and developing countries cannot stand on the same starting line. Therefore, there is a “common but differentiated responsibility” in the “unique contract” in the international environmental law. Most of the principles in the foreword of the international environmental conventions attempt to solve the problem of the starting line.

In the "Stockholm Convention", this principle is embodied in the fact that developing countries can assume the same obligations as developed countries (such as "prohibition"), but the latter must provide financial and technical support. This seemingly simple principle has never been challenged as it is now. The rapid economic rise of China and India has made it increasingly difficult for them to use this principle to strive for "special care for themselves." On the one hand, developed countries hope that India and China will talk more about obligations and talk less about rights; on the other hand, Underdeveloped countries are quite sceptical about the "occupation" of funding resources by large developing countries. How does China, which has just become the world’s second largest economy, gain a foothold in the international environmental politics, and it may be possible to see some clues from the five-day meeting of the parties.

On the other hand, the legal basis for the financial support provided by developed countries to developing countries is not because the latter is “too poor,” but because the former “ows on debt.” This is a point made by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). The officials saw it very clearly: “If (pollution) has a historical accumulation effect, then it would be unfair for developing countries and developed countries to assume the same obligation. UNEP supports 'common but differentiated responsibilities,' but pollution control also No delay.” In this regard, the speech made by the Chinese delegation on the day’s conference was more simple and clear: “Comprehensive compliance, balance of duties and responsibilities.”