Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

Transcription

1 UNITED NATIONS SC Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Distr.: General 11 December 2014 Original: English Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Seventh meeting Geneva, 4 15 May 2015 Item 5 (a) (ii) of the provisional agenda* Matters related to the implementation of the Convention: measures to reduce or eliminate releases from intentional production and use: DDT Evaluation of the continued need for DDT for disease vector control and promotion of alternatives to DDT Note by the Secretariat I. Introduction 1. Paragraph 6 of part II of Annex B to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants provides that, commencing at its first meeting and at least every three years thereafter, the Conference of the Parties shall, in consultation with the World Health Organization (WHO), evaluate the continued need for DDT for disease vector control on the basis of available scientific, technical, environmental and economic information. 2. Given that its ordinary meetings are held every two years, the Conference of the Parties decided at its third meeting, as indicated in paragraph 2 of the revised process for DDT reporting, assessment and evaluation set out in annex I to decision SC-3/2, that an evaluation of the continued need for DDT for disease vector control would be undertaken at each ordinary meeting thereafter. As part of this process, a DDT expert group was established to assess information relevant to the production and use of DDT and to assist the Conference of the Parties in the evaluation of the continued need for DDT. 3. In paragraph 2 of decision SC-6/1, on DDT, the Conference of the Parties concluded that countries that are relying on DDT for disease vector control may need to continue such use until locally safe, effective, affordable and environmentally sound alternatives are available for a sustainable transition away from DDT. 4. In paragraph 4 of decision SC-6/1, the Conference of the Parties decided to evaluate the continued need for DDT for disease vector control, at its seventh meeting, on the basis of available scientific, technical, environmental and economic information, including that provided by the DDT expert group, with the objective of accelerating the identification and development of locally appropriate, cost-effective and safe alternatives. K * UNEP/POPS/COP.7/1.

2 II. 5. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of decision SC-6/1, the Conference of the Parties requested: (a) The DDT expert group to undertake an assessment of the continued need for DDT for disease vector control on the basis of factual information provided by parties and observers; (b) The Secretariat to take active steps to collect and compile the information necessary to facilitate the work of the DDT expert group in undertaking the assessment. 6. In paragraph 11 of decision SC-6/1, the Conference of the Parties invited the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in consultation with WHO, the DDT expert group and the Secretariat, to prepare a road map for the development of alternatives to DDT, and to present it to the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting. 7. In accordance with paragraph 10 (a) of the revised process for DDT reporting, assessment and evaluation, members of the DDT expert group selected by parties serve four-year terms. The terms of the current members will expire on 1 September At its seventh meeting, the Conference of the Parties will need to select 10 parties, with two from each of the five designated regions, to nominate new members of the expert group. The selected parties should inform the Secretariat of their nominations no later than 30 June The list of current members of the DDT expert group is set out in annex II to the note by the Secretariat on the DDT expert group and its report on the assessment of scientific, technical, environmental and economic information on the production and use of DDT for disease vector control (UNEP/POPS/COP.7/INF/5). Implementation A. Assessment of continued need for DDT for disease vector control by DDT expert group 8. To facilitate the work of the DDT expert group, the Secretariat put in place a consultative process using online communication tools to provide the members of the expert group with an enhanced opportunity to work intersessionally. An initial online meeting of members was convened on 7 May 2014 and a second one on 12 May 2014 to identify key elements of the assessment and possible intersessional activities to be undertaken. In addition, the following webinars were conducted to facilitate the assessment by the DDT expert group: (a) Vector control: saving lives, on 7 and 12 May 2014, by Mr. Robert Sloss, Innovative Vector Control Consortium, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; (b) Situation analysis on production, use and impact of DDT in India, on 17 October 2014, by Mr. Rajander Singh Sharma, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, India. 9. The DDT expert group met from 10 to 12 November 2014 to assess the continued need for DDT for disease vector control. 1 The report of the expert group on the assessment of the production and use of DDT and its alternatives for disease vector control, with recommendations to the Conference of the Parties, is set out in annex I to the note by the Secretariat (UNEP/POPS/COP.7/INF/5). The conclusions of the assessment by the DDT expert group and its recommendations to the Conference of the Parties are reproduced in annex I to the present note. 10. The DDT expert group recognized that there is a continued need for DDT for indoor residual spraying in specific settings for disease vector control where locally safe, effective and affordable alternatives are still lacking. Having recognized the continued need for DDT for disease vector control, it recommended, among other things, that countries using indoor residual spraying for the control of vectors of leishmaniasis should use DDT only if locally available, safe, effective and affordable alternatives to DDT are not available. It also recommended that countries should endeavour to make the targeted application of indoor residual spraying a high priority to ensure the judicious use of resources, including DDT. 11. A report by WHO relating to the evaluation by the Conference of the Parties on the continued need for DDT for disease vector control is set out in document UNEP/POPS/COP.7/INF/8. In addition, WHO continues to monitor the literature on the human health effects of DDT. The next formal evaluation will be of carcinogenicity information by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, scheduled for June The report of the meeting of the DDT expert group is set out in document UNEP/POPS/DDT-EG.5/2.

3 B. Reporting of information on the use of DDT and alternatives for disease vector control 12. To assist parties in making environmentally sound evidence-based decisions in disease vector control and to facilitate assessment of the continued need for DDT, pursuant to paragraph 6 of decision SC-6/1, the Secretariat, in consultation with WHO, developed guidance for the implementation of sound management practices for DDT as recommended by WHO and the promotion of safer alternatives for disease vector control, including non-chemical alternatives. 2 To assist countries in considering the guidance documents in implementing national disease vector control programmes, two regional workshops will be held in 2015, in Asia and in Africa. The above-mentioned activities are being implemented with financial support from France C. Road map for the development of alternatives to DDT 13. In response to the invitation by the Conference of the Parties set out in paragraph 11 of decision SC-6/1, the Chemicals Branch of the UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (UNEP Chemicals), in consultation with WHO, the DDT expert group and the Secretariat, prepared a road map for the development of alternatives to DDT. The key elements of the road map are reproduced in annex II to the present note. 14. Reports by UNEP Chemicals on the road map for the development of alternatives to DDT and on the progress in the implementation of the Global Alliance are presented in documents UNEP/POPS/COP.7/INF/6 and UNEP/POPS/COP.7/INF/7, respectively. 15. The Secretariat has continued to collaborate with UNEP Chemicals on the activities related to DDT. III. Proposed action 16. The Conference of the Parties may wish to adopt a decision along the following lines: The Conference of the Parties 1. Takes note of the report by the DDT expert group on the assessment of the continued need for DDT for disease vector control, including the conclusions and recommendations contained therein; 3 2. Concludes that countries that are relying on indoor residual spraying for disease vector control may need DDT in such uses in specific settings where locally safe, effective and affordable alternatives are still lacking for a sustainable transition away from DDT; 3. Notes the necessity of providing technical, financial and other assistance to developing countries, least developed countries, small island developing States and countries with economies in transition for a transition away from reliance on DDT for disease vector control, with due priority accorded to: (a) Targeted application of indoor residual spraying to ensure the judicious use of resources, including DDT; (b) Ensuring adequate national policy and management capacity for translating international best practices on disease vector control; (c) Identifying and disposing of obsolete DDT stockpiles towards the complete elimination of such stocks; 4. Recognizes that indoor residual spraying for the control of vectors of leishmaniasis should use DDT only if locally available, safe, effective and affordable alternatives to DDT are not available; 5. Decides to evaluate the continued need for DDT for disease vector control on the basis of available scientific, technical, environmental and economic information, including that provided by the DDT expert group, at its eighth meeting, with the objective of accelerating the identification and development of locally appropriate, cost-effective and safe alternatives; See UNEP/POPS/COP.7/INF/5. 3

4 6. Requests the Secretariat to continue to support the process for the reporting on and assessment and evaluation of the continued need for DDT for disease vector control, as set out in annex I to decision SC-3/2, pursuant to paragraph 6 of part II of Annex B to the Convention, and to assist parties to promote locally safe, effective and affordable alternatives for a sustainable transition away from DDT; 7. Welcomes the existing collaboration with the World Health Organization and invites its continued collaboration in the process for the reporting on and assessment and evaluation of the continued need for DDT for disease vector control referred to in paragraph 6 above and in any other manner that may support the Conference of Parties in future evaluations of the continued need for DDT for disease vector control and in promoting suitable alternatives to DDT for disease vector control; 8. Adopts the list of parties to be invited to nominate experts to serve as members of the DDT expert group for terms of office of four years commencing on 1 September 2015, set out in the annex to the present decision; 9. Takes note of the report by the United Nations Environment Programme on the preparation of a road map for the development of alternatives to DDT, 4 endorses the key elements of the road map, set out in annex II to the note by the Secretariat on the evaluation of the continued need for DDT for disease vector control and promotion of alternatives to DDT, 5 invites the United Nations Environment Programme to lead the implementation of the road map in consultation with the World Health Organization, the DDT expert group and the Secretariat, and invites the United Nations Environment Programme to report on progress in the implementation of the road map to the Conference of the Parties at its eighth meeting; 10. Also takes note of the report by the United Nations Environment Programme on the progress in the implementation of the Global Alliance for the Development and Deployment of Products, Methods and Strategies as Alternatives to DDT for Disease Vector Control, 6 and invites the United Nations Environment Programme to report on progress in the implementation of the Global Alliance to the Conference of the Parties at its eighth meeting; 11. Requests the Secretariat to continue to participate in the activities of the Global Alliance; 12. Invites Governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, research institutions, industry bodies and other stakeholders to provide technical and financial resources to support the work of the Global Alliance, including the activities contained in the road map. Annex to decision SC-7/[ ] List of parties identified by the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting to nominate DDT expert group members whose terms of office will commence on 1 September 2015 [To be completed for the African States (2), Asia-Pacific States (2), Central and Eastern European States (2), Latin American and Caribbean States (2) and Western European and other States (2)] 4 See UNEP/POPS/COP.7/INF/ See UNEP/POPS/COP.7/INF/7. 4

5 Annex I Conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the expert group on the assessment of the production and use of DDT and its alternatives for disease vector control 1 Assessment summary 1. There is no clear trend in global DDT production and trade over the past five year period. The decline in production and export recorded from to is likely to be part of a fluctuating production cycle. India is the only producer of DDT and over the past two years it has used more than 97% of annual global production within the country. In India, the use of DDT for malaria control has steadily decreased over the past five years. However, DDT used for visceral leishmaniasis control has increased over the same period, as control of this disease has moved into an elimination stage in India. Also, a few countries use DDT against Aedes mosquito borne diseases outside WHO recommendations of standard guidelines. The management and the generation of an inventory of DDT stockpiles remains a global challenge. Likewise, the disposal of obsolete DDT remains a priority. Poorly managed stockpiles of obsolete DDT may result in misuse of DDT with environmental and human health consequences. However, in the EMRO and PAHO regions comprehensive disposal of obsolete stockpiles of DDT has been undertaken. 2. There are currently a limited number of effective and affordable alternatives to DDT for vector control. A range of potential substitute chemicals and new tools for vector control are under development of which some will be sufficiently developed for policy recommendation in the next two to five years. For many novel products and new paradigms, safety and proof-of-principle has been demonstrated but evidence on impact on disease morbidity in humans (Phase III trials) is currently lacking. Development of the products and methods has been motivated by concerns about insecticide resistance and vector behavioural change. To mitigate these concerns there is a need to sustain investment in research on new tools and strategies for vector control. 3. Many national malaria control programs have inadequate human capacity and infrastructure to sustain control programs. The lack of capacity by programs to monitor and respond to the increasing levels of insecticide resistance and outdoor transmission in malaria vectors is a serious threat to vector control programmes. Coordinated action between the Ministry of Health and other relevant ministries needs to be strengthened to ensure planning of effective disease vector control and drive the elimination agenda. Integration of IVM principles into control programs are progressing slowly. Increased support is required if IVM is to be significantly up-scaled, while more evidence is needed to guide IVM implementation. A stringent focus on insecticide resistance management and the need for implementation of the GPIRM must be stressed. Maintaining all WHOPES approved classes of insecticides in those areas where vectors are still susceptible should be considered as imperative by national malaria control programs. The role of DDT may be limited in the later stages of the elimination continuum. Furthermore, there is a need to ensure that DDT use is restricted to disease vector control where IRS is the appropriate intervention. 4. A significant number of specific training manuals and guidelines have been developed by international organizations of relevance to vector control including IRS, insecticide resistance management and the use of public health pesticides. As per the last survey report of 2010, there is still a lack of in-country human resources capacity to implement international guidelines. Insufficient policies and legal frameworks in relation to national registration of public health pesticides and the enforcement of regulations remains a challenge. The lack of career opportunities for public health entomologists and other key control staff are significantly reducing the monitoring and effectiveness of IRS programs. The lack of a sufficiently developed evidence base on cost-effectiveness on various vector control methods including IRS is hampering the transition from DDT to alternatives. Some of the key challenges in introducing alternatives to transit away from DDT should be addressed by the roadmap for the development of alternatives to DDT by UNEP. 5. A coordinated effort to promote research and development of alternatives to DDT at the international level has been established to ensure effective use of resources. Such efforts increasingly 1 See UNEP/POPS/COP.7/INF/5. The conclusions and recommendations are reproduced as set out in the report, without formal editing. 5

6 need to include the private sector. A number of demonstration projects for the promotion of sustainable alternatives to DDT have been funded and successfully implemented. Conclusions 1. Over the past five year period, there is no clear change in global DDT production and trade. More than 85% of the annual global use has been within India. However, in India, the use of DDT for malaria control has steadily decreased over the past five years while its use for visceral leishmaniasis control has increased over the same period. 2. The management of DDT stockpiles remains a global challenge. However, in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean (EMRO) and the Americas (PAHO) regions comprehensive disposal of obsolete stockpiles of DDT has been undertaken. 3. A range of potential substitute chemicals and new tools for vector control are under development. Some of these alternatives will be sufficiently developed for policy recommendation in the next two to five years. 4. For many novel products and new paradigms, safety and proof-of-principle has been demonstrated but evidence on impact on disease morbidity in humans (Phase III trials) is currently lacking. 5. The lack of capacity by national programs to monitor and respond to the increasing levels of insecticide resistance and outdoor transmission in malaria vectors is a serious threat to vector control programmes. 6. Evidence to ensure effective implementation of Integrated Vector Management (IVM) is inadequate hampering promotion of alternatives to DDT. 7. A stringent focus on insecticide resistance management and the need for implementation of the GPIRM need further support. 8. Some national malaria control programs do not consider DDT for vector control in the later stages of the elimination continuum. 9. Evidence suggests that DDT has been used for disease vector control other than malaria and visceral leishmaniasis. 10. A significant number of specific training manuals and guidelines have been developed by international organizations of relevance to vector control including IRS, insecticide resistance management and the use of public health pesticides. 11. There is still a lack of in-country human resources capacity to implement international guidelines. Insufficient policies and legal frameworks in relation to national registration of public health pesticides and the enforcement of regulations remains a challenge. 12. There is a serious lack of economic evaluations to guide the national vector control programs impeding informed decision making for the transition from DDT to alternatives. 13. The roadmap being prepared by UNEP on the development of alternatives to DDT is expected to catalyse actions to transit away from DDT. 14. A coordinated effort to promote research and development of alternatives to DDT at the international level has been established to ensure effective use of resources. 15. A number of demonstration projects for the promotion of sustainable alternatives to DDT have been funded and successfully implemented. 6

7 Recommendations 1. The DDT expert group recognizes that there is a continued need for DDT for indoor residual spraying (IRS) in specific settings for disease vector control where locally safe, effective and affordable alternatives are still lacking; 2. Countries that use IRS for the control of vectors of leishmaniasis should use DDT only if locally available, safe, effective and affordable alternatives to DDT are not available; 3. WHO is encouraged to provide further clarification to countries considering DDT for the control of vectors of arboviruses; 4. Countries should endeavour to make targeted application of IRS a high priority to ensure the judicious use of resources, including DDT, and undertake comparative economic evaluations of various insecticides recommended for IRS and alternative means of vector control; 5. Funding should be made available to increase the national policy and management capacity for translating international best practices on disease vector control including the implementation of the WHO Global Plan for Insecticide Resistance Management (GPIRM) and quality assurance systems for vector borne diseases; 6. Identifying and disposing of obsolete DDT stockpiles should continue towards complete removal of the stocks; 7. Capacity should be increased for the development and evaluation of novel vector control products and for expeditious reviewing of such products by relevant national and international bodies within the framework of the UNEP Roadmap for the Development of alternatives to DDT; 8. The Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention should continue to facilitate activities on strengthening capacity to transition away from the reliance on DDT for disease vector control. 7

8 Annex II Key elements of the road map for the development of alternatives to DDT 1,2 The road map proposes steps for the development of locally safe, effective, affordable and environmentally sound alternatives for a sustainable transition away from DDT. The elements of the road map are shown below: Activities/Areas of Action Responsible actors Timeline 1 Establish overall roadmap management and reporting procedures 1.1 Coordinate and implement the road map and provide funding Make the provisions for the coordination and implementation of the roadmap; adopt an initial budget for coordination of the road map Develop the terms of reference and nominate members of the coordinating and implementing body and prepare an initial budget for implementation UNEP Chemicals Branch Starting May 2015 UNEP Chemicals Branch in consultation with SC Bureau, WHO, Global Alliance, DDT expert group, BRS Secretariat June September Prepare progress reports to the COP and annual interim reports Coordinating and implementing body September 2015 onwards Generate funding for implementation and coordination of the road map Coordinating and implementing body; parties; donors, GEF 1.2 Prepare assessment reports, monitor developments and evaluate progress (linkages to effectiveness evaluation) Assess and monitor the global situation in terms of production, trade, use (including areas of application and illegal use), stockpiles of DDT (including updating of DDT register), and environmental and human exposures Prepare reports on insecticide resistance, cost-effectiveness of DDT, alternatives and barriers to deployment of alternatives on regular basis Regularly assess the continued need for DDT for disease vector control and report to the COP Evaluate ongoing national and international projects and status of funding and encourage research where necessary Prepare recommendation when locally safe, effective, affordable and environmentally sound alternatives are available DDT expert group; global coordination group of the global monitoring plan; BRS Secretariat; UNEP Chemicals Branch UNEP Chemicals Branch in consultation with WHO, Global Alliance, IVCC, and industry DDT Expert Group, WHO UNEP Chemicals Branch; Global Alliance; GEF; Regional Centres DDT expert group Ongoing Upon existence of sufficient evidence 8 1 The full road map prepared by UNEP for the development of alternatives to DDT is contained in document UNEP/POPS/COP.7/INF/6. 2 Reproduced as submitted, without formal editing.

9 2 Implement the road map Activities/Areas of Action Responsible actors Timeline 2.1 Strengthen the base of knowledge for policy formulation and decision-making Gather, consolidate and where necessary expand or update and translate relevant existing guidance material and training manuals, including economic analyses Develop standardized monitoring and information management tools and strategies to support planning, targeting, management and evaluation of vector control operations; update, enhance and synthesize decision support tools for national vector control programs Establish and coordinate national, regional and global information sharing mechanisms (e.g. on vector resistance mechanisms, best practices in IVM; status of alternatives) Identify countries still using DDT for vector control; undertake country-specific assessments (epidemiological and entomological field data; capacity to introduce alternatives, and implement IVM; motivation and rational for using DDT; opportunities and challenges etc.) Global Alliance; WHO; RBM working group; Regional Centres UNEP Chemicals Branch; WHO; IVCC; industry; RBM working group; academia Global Alliance; parties; academia; Regional Centres, WHO BRS Secretariat; UNEP Chemicals Branch; parties May 2015 May 2017 May 2015 May 2017 January 2016 onwards September 2015 September Strengthen country and local capacities to manage insecticide resistance, develop and implement IVM strategies, assess and deploy alternatives Implement relevant existing national, regional and global GEF projects and report progress GEF implementing agencies; parties; Ongoing and outputs donors Draft and implement national or regional GEF and other projects, featuring among others demonstration projects of chemical and non-chemical alternatives as well as IVM, based on 1.2.1, and 2.1.4; integrate objectives into national action plans within the reviewed/updated NIPs GEF implementing agencies; parties; donors October 2016 onwards Conduct targeted webinars, provided that the technical preconditions are given, and country-level workshops in the language of the respective country based on 2.1.4; disseminate and train relevant staff in the use of the manuals and materials from as well as the tools and strategies from Develop and deploy chemical alternatives to DDT for indoor residual spraying (IRS) Adapt the workplan of the Global Alliance to support the implementation of the roadmap where necessary Implement a tiered process for the selection of new active ingredients and formulations of existing pesticide classes/agrochemicals suitable for vector control and prepare report on first and secondary screening, laboratory studies (WHOPES Phase I), data mining and proof of concept UNEP Chemicals Branch; Global Alliance; BRS Secretariat UNEP Chemicals Branch with Steering Committee of the Global Alliance IVCC; industry; Global Alliance; WHOPES June 2017 June 2020 September 2015 January 2016 Ongoing Product optimisation and development Industry, IVCC Ongoing until Assess new active ingredients and new formulations in terms of i) POPs characteristics, potential hazards to human health and the environment, ii) impact on disease morbidity, iii) cost and cost-effectiveness, and iv) operational acceptability WHOPES; POPRC; industry; civil society, academia; regulatory authorities After first results from and

10 Activities/Areas of Action Responsible actors Timeline UNEP Chemicals Branch; Global Alliance; DDT using parties; WHOPES; IVCC; industry Undertake pilot testing on regional basis; evaluations in small-scale field trials/experimental huts (WHOPES Phase II) and large-scale field trials (WHOPES Phase III) Develop specifications for quality control and international trade; obtain regulatory approval, make available and deploy active ingredients and formulations that are considered safe, affordable and at least as cost-effective as DDT in vector control, as assessed in and Sharing experiences and upscaling the application of non-chemical alternatives Compile lessons learned and good practices from projects and programmes using nonchemicals alternatives for control of malaria and leishmaniasis (and report back to COP-8) WHOPES; national regulatory authorities; industry; donors; parties Parties; Global Alliance; Regional Centres; civil society; academia; UNDP Multisectoral Framework; UN-Habitat Undertake pilot studies where deemed necessary Parties; Global Alliance; Regional Centres; civil society; academia; donors; UNDP Multisectoral Framework; UN-Habitat Undertake activities to scale up the development and deployment of non-chemical alternatives, among others by strengthening institutional structures and supporting multi-sectoral approaches, including as part of and Eliminate DDT stockpiles and waste 3.1 Update national inventories as part of and Parties; GEF implementing agencies; after first results from onwards September 2015 December 2016 June 2017 onwards Global Alliance; private sector; bilateral; 3.2 Collect obsolete stocks as part of and donors 3.3 Repackage and dispose as part of and