CONSSO OCT 97/2/....
Committee of North Sea Senior Officials
Oslo: 16-17 October 1997
_______________________________________
Implementing § 17:
Political Commitment vs. Product Stewardship
Regulatory vs. Market-orientated Approach*
submitted by the
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
CONSSO is invited to take note of the attached discussion paper when considering the need
for additional action to implement §17, in particular with regard to the relationship and
interdependence between legal enforcement and voluntary measures.
* This document is an amended summary of keypoints from WWF's contribution to the 2nd European
Seas at Risk Conference, Bremen 24-25 April 1997
-1-
World Wide Fund
For Nature
WWF International
North-East Atlantic Programme
Implementing § 17:
vs. Product Stewardship
Political Commitment
Regulatory vs. Market-orientated
Approach
- A Discussion Paper 1. Product Stewardship
From the point of view of marine pollution prevention, in particular with regard to § 17 of the
Esbjerg Declaration, the term "product stewardship" is understood as the relevant industries'
willingness and voluntary approach to eliminate hazardous substances, including endocrine
disruptors from the entire life cycle of their products (cradle-to-grave).
2. Buying in to § 17
On the one hand, it is highly welcomed that the UK Government has revised its position with
regard to the practicability of implementing the aims of § 17 Esbjerg Declaration (OSPAR
Meeting, 2 September 1997). On the other hand, it has never been documented quite clearly
whether and to what extent responsible industries are maintaining a reservation similar to the
one that had been inserted into the Esbjerg Declaration by the UK as a footnote. Such
industrial reluctance, however, would be a major stumbling block for any voluntary follow up
to § 17.
-2-
3. Key political commitments and strategies
In the context of this paper, the 4th Ministerial North Sea Declaration (Esbjerg 1995), the
draft OSPAR Objective with regard to Hazardous Substances as included in the draft OSPAR
Ministerial Declaration (to be adopted in Lisbon, 1998) and the draft Strategy to Implement
OSPAR's Objective with Regard to Hazardous Substances (to be adopted in Lisbon, 1998)
serve as key documents for the definition and selection of hazardous substances which are
detected in the marine environment or could reach the marine environment.
Moreover, Annex 2 of the Esbjerg Declaration and the OSPAR strategy are regarded as
crucial documents in order to make § 17 operational.
4. Indicators for the usefulness of a market-orientated approach
In order to identify a suitable niche for effective implementation of § 17 via Product
Stewardship within industrial community and the economic sector, one has to scrutinise the
following indicators:
• Which NSC / OSPAR commitments are relevant with regard to Product Stewardship?
• Which type/level/sector of industry shows repercussions of § 17: primary, secondary and
tertiary industries, federations, individual companies? Where are the major obstacles
during implementation to be observed?
• Are the relevant industries willing to accept the approach of Pollutant Release and Transfer
Registers (PRTR)? Are they inclined to submit data into PRTR schemes in the future?
-3-
• Does industrial community properly respond to new aspects of hazardous substances eg.
the threats from endocrine disrupting chemicals?
•
Does voluntary action come before legal enforcement or the other way round?
5. Manufacturers' attitude
In the framework of the intergovernmental fora mentioned above, at least the umbrella
federations of relevant industries and in particular those of the chemical and chlorine industry
have repeatedly shown very late response to political commitments instead of pushing clean
production programmes in their own proactive way. As far as voluntary measures were taken,
this has mainly happened in reaction to pending legal measures concerning the phase out of
hazardous substances (eg short chlorinated paraffins) whereas industry's own initiatives to
establish substitution schemes at an earlier stage have been extremely rare.
6. § 17 in the light of other §§ of the Esbjerg Declaration
Since 1995, federations of chemical industries have rather stressed the importance of § 18
Esbjerg Declaration (risk assessment) than of § 17. This might be understood as an attempt to
detract attention from those §§ of the Esbjerg Declaration which contain provisions and
proposals for industrial steps towards clean production and which clearly put obligations on
the industrial community:
§ 24 iii) gives "priority to environmentally sound products taking into account the whole life
cycle of substances or products".
§ 25 ii) addresses "economic instruments and effective voluntary agreements".
§ 24 iii)
§ 25 ii)
§ 17
?
§ 18
Annex 2
§ 2.2.1
§ 26
-4-
§ 26 anticipates that industry welcomes the objectives of the Esbjerg Declaration and is
willing to pursue them.
Last but not least, Annex 2 § 2.2.1 claims that in industrial companies "a more proactive
stance is required and the integration of environmental considerations in corporate policy is
essential. Companies must continuously improve their enviromental performances."
Esbjerg
Declaration
1995
§
24 iii)
...further agree to take the necessary actions to fulfil the
objective (see §17) including: ... to give priority to the
development of environmentally sound products taking
into account the whole life cycle of substances or product .
§
25 ii)
...agree on the need to make the best use of the choice
between legal instruments and economic instruments and
effective voluntary agreements
The Ministers...
§
26
A.2 §
2.2.1
...note with pleasure that the representatives of
industry ,
agriculture and other sectors welcome the objectives and
are willing to pursue at the national and international
level agreement on instruments and tools for achieving
these objectives between such sectors and authorities,
involving the environmental NGO community
...recognize that a policy focused on environmentally sound
production which poses new challenges is already
spreading in the environmental management of
companies. But still a more proactive stance is required
and the integration of environmental considerations in
corporate policy is essential. Companies must
continuously improve their environmental performances.
7. Transparency - the starting point
In line with this, the latest version of the draft OSPAR Strategy to Implement OSPAR's
Objective with Regard to Hazardous Substances (5 September 1997) encourages producer
responsibility, the development of environmentally sound products and the involvement of
cleaner technologies.
In particular, it is stated that " the Commission and Contracting Parties, individually or jointly
will endeavour to maintain and develop further a constructive dialogue on the reduction of
hazardous substances with all parties concerned, including producers, manufacturers, user
groups, authorities and environmental NGOs. This should ensure that all relevant information,
such as reliable data on production volumes, use patterns, emission scenarios, exposure
concentrations and on properties of substances, is available for the work of the Commission in
connection with this strategy."
8. Gaps in the implementation of previous commitments
So far, there is a sharp discrepancy between the OSPAR 1992 Ministerial commitment
regarding the elimination of organohalogens and the continued production, release and
-5-
bioaccumulation of organohalogens such as chlorinated paraffins, brominated flame retardants
(CP & PBFR, see § 4.1 viii Annex 2 Esbjerg Declaration) and halogenated pesticides in the
marine environment.
The OSPAR 1992 commitment was only partially reiterated in § 22 of the Esbjerg Declaration
where Ministers confirmed the goal of "...reducing by the year 2000, discharges and emissions
of substances which are toxic, persistent and liable to bioaccumulate (especially
organohalogen substances) and which could reach the marine environment to levels that are
not harmful to man or nature with the aim of their elimination."
Status Quo - Discrepancy
PBFR
CP
marine
mammals
& seabirds
>20.000
fish
zooplankton
-benthos
phytoplankton
-benthos
water, sediment
PBFR
CP
PBFR
CP
PBFR
CP
PBFR
CP
"... discharges and emissions of substances
which are toxic, persistent and liable to
bioaccumulate, in particular organohalogen
substances, and which could reach the
marine environment should, ..., be reduced,
by the year 2000, to levels that are not
harmful to man or nature with the aim of
their elimination; ... to supplement
reduction measures with programmes to
phase out the use of such substances.
"
(OSPAR Ministerial Declaration 1992)
-6-
In spite of this discrepancy in the field, the primary industries concerned eg. manufacturers of
the specific compounds mentioned have not yet committed themselves to voluntary phasing
out and/or substitution policies. With some very few exceptions, they still appear to be
tempted to postpone legal enforcement of phasing-out measures although one would have
expected a quicker industrial response in the light of §§ 24, 25, 26 Esbjerg Declaration and/or
§ 2.2.1 Annex 2 Esbjerg Declaration (see above).
9. Endocrine disrupting chemicals - a challenge on top
Since Esbjerg 1995, endocrine disrupting chemicals have been recognised by the North Sea
states as a serious additional impact on the marine environment (see § 1 Annex 2 Esbjerg
Declaration). Therefore, any measures relating to these compounds have to be regarded in
conjunction with § 17 and its follow up.
From § 4.1 xiii Annex 2 Esbjerg Declaration, it is obvious that the scope of the political
agenda of the NSC goes beyond mere research into the problem of endocrine disruption ("...to
invite OSPAR...to adopt the necessary measures").
However, instead of offering or publicly considering pilot agreements on a voluntary
reduction of the production and release of hormon mimicking substances, relevant industries
have so far only started spending a tremendous amount of money on further research into
and/or risk assessment of the compounds concerned.
Challenges: their "Stolen Future"
- Endocrine Disruptors PCB
etc
dioxin
various
pesticides
TBT
APEOs,
Nonylphenol
phthalates
Furthermore, pending OSPAR decisions concerning the phasing-out of nonylphenols and
alkylphenolethoxylates (see § 4.1 viii Annex 2 Esbjerg Declaration) have been torpedoed by
the manufacturers although such compounds are (suspected to be) endocrine disruptors. In a
similar way, manufacturer associations have so far successfully prevented a serious discussion
-7-
about measures with regard to PVC processing industry, soft PVC as a product and phthalates
which represent the most important group of endocrine disrupting additives in soft PVC.
-8-
There are clear signs to be seen at the horizon that secondary industries such as food,
packaging, toy, textile and furniture industry etc. may play a more decisive role at the
forefront of precautionary measures against (potential) endocrine disruptors than the primary
manufacturers of the chemicals concerned. This is simply due to the importance attached to
human health concerns whereas the need for marine ecosystem health and the rationale behind
§ 17 have been poorly communicated within the industrial community.
10. Test cases for a market-orientated approach
Notwithstanding the overwhelming majority of negative observations, there are some
promising examples of Product Stewardship concerning substances that have been identified
as priority substances by the NSC.
Market-orientated case studies such as the ÖKOPOL report Polybrominated Flame
Retardants - A Case for Phase Out (commissioned by WWF in 1996) have revealed that
certain processing industries and user companies are inclined to work towards a cessation of
emissions and a voluntary substitution of hazardous substances: a considerable number of
voluntary steps from all over Europe are referred to in this study such as bans, negative lists
and limit values for the use of PBFR in computer products, casings and circuit boards as well
as complete company guidelines for halogen-free flame retardants.
Brominated Flame Retardants (1)
1-889 ng PBDE
320-1799 pg PBDF
diffuse emission from
running device / 3 days
--> 1800 ng/g lipid
0,001 - 3 µg/l PBBin effluent;
TBBA x 10,
TBBA-derivative x 70
downstream production site
PBDE, PBB
--> 2100 ng/g
lipid weight
-9-
Brominated Flame Retardants (2)
E-NGO interventions
Esbjerg Declaration Annex 2
OSPAR
Action Plan
1993-1995
Draft Decision
on Phasing Out
of Decabromobiphenyl etc.
???
1995/6
1997/8
CEFIC& French interventions
Brominated Flame
Retardants (3)
Polybrominated
Flame Retardants
A Case for
Phase Out
1996
Voluntary substitution activities:
• EU wide voluntary agreement on PBB
other than Decabromobiphenyl
• "Blauer Engel", TCO, milieukeur label:
PBDE, PBB free personal computers
• ZVEI list of substitutes
• EACEM limit of 10 ppm PBB/PBDE
• PBDE on PHILIPS negative list
• SIEMENS & BMW internal ban
• German TELEKOM guidelines:
halogen-free flame retardants
• Swedish Institute of Production,
Engineering & Research: halogen-free
printed circuit boards
Note: in the light of this, WWF-Germany is currently building a pilot project to cooperate
with industries that feel committed to the voluntary implementation of § 17 of the Esbjerg
Declaration. A scoring process to scrutinise and to rank the different industries according to
their relevance, willingness and transparency has resulted in the conclusion that the plastic
processing, electronic, carpet, furniture and detergent/surfactants industries may be the most
promising sectors. Except the last one, these sectors are secondary and/or tertiary industries.
- 10 -
- 11 -
11. Product Stewardship within a pronounced regulatory framework
In conclusion, it can be stated that addressing primary manufacturers with a view to building
up a § 17 related Product Stewardship may end up in loss of effort and time. This type of
business has to be governed stringently by legal enforcement of § 17 eg through mandatory
phasing-out schemes and obligations to substitute hazardous substances by less hazardous or
non-hazardous alternatives within a given time frame.
At the same time, it seems likely that secondary and tertiary industry and in particular
individual pilot companies may push the primary manufacturers of raw chemicals, plastics,
detergents, biocides etc. towards cleaner production by going ahead with voluntary measures.
For such pilot sectors and/or companies, it is important to receive positive signals and support
from a public debate on § 17 via market needs, consumer concerns and economic incentives.
A Niche for Product Stewardship
legal
enforcement
Regulatory/legal
frameworks
OSPAR, EU, NSC,
national legislation
Primary producers
eg. chemical industry
federation level
impact
Consumer
awareness,
economic
incentives,
market needs
Secondary producers
processing industry
manufacturers
company level
- 12 -
Public debate
facilitated by
environmental
NGOs etc