GHS STOCKTAKING WORKSHOP FOR SOUTHEAST, EAST, AND CENTRAL ASIA Siang –Hee Tan

Executive Director

Beijing, Sept 15-17th 2010

A Regional Networkrepresenting the plant science industry

Australia

New Zealand

Indonesia

Malaysia

BangladeshPakistan

India

Sri Lanka

Thailand

KoreaJapan

Philippines

Taiwan

China

15 National Associations 2

Vietnam

2 Associate Companies

7 Member Companies

Part of a Global Federationof regional and national associations in 91 countries

2

AsiaRegional Associations

• America• Latin America • Africa Middle East • Europe • Japan • Asia

Con

ten

t

Background

• Agricultural chemicals are highly regulated

• Agricultural chemicals are subject to stringent national and international regulatory requirements

Current Labelling Requirements

• Align with other guidelines such as FAO International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides

• Country- Regulatory guidelines for labelling of agricultural chemicals

• Label wording must be consistent, clear andapplicable to local use

How will GHS be implemented?

• Countries with no existing classification systems are likely to adopt all elements of GHS

• Countries with existing systems will tend to implement GHS in a manner which minimizes the required changes to their existing legislation or regulation on:– Pesticide labelling– Classification and labelling for chemicals– Transport

• By incorporation into international agreements, e.g.– FAO pesticide labelling guideline– Alignment of WHO classification with GHS

• FAO / WHO New Guidelines– A lot of gaps from the first draft– Discussions started– New draft October 2010– Final version not expected before 2011

Timing

Food and AgricultureOrganizationof the United Nations

4th FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management

Guidelines on Good Labelling Practicefor Pesticides

(revised)3rd Draft (10th Sept 2010)

Agenda Item no. 10b

CropLife’s Views on GHS Implementation

•The use of the “Building block approach” is essential to prevent the hazard based approach of the GHS from undermining the risk based instructions provided on labels

– The “building block approach” allows the selection of hazard classes and categories to design a label that combine appropriate hazard and risk communication

– It will also help to avoid overloading labels with contradictory messages

•Governments in neighbouring countries should work together so as not to impede trade

GHS : How it’ll look like

Petrol Station in New Zealand

CropLife’s Views on GHS Implementation

• Although GHS provides opportunity for globally harmonized hazard communication, CPP labels must– remain the primary communication tool with

the farmer on safe and effective handling– provide clear and transparent messages on

health and safety– be consistent, clear and applicable to local

useCountry

China India Thailand

Indonesia

Philippines

Bangladesh Pakistan

million

888 630 43 112 32 74 71

Conclusion

• GHS could be a positive step forward in globalization of regulations but must not undermine extensive risk assessment process by which agricultural chemicals are already regulated

• Both hazards and risks need to be evaluated and communicated clearly and appropriately to the user, without contradictions.

• Where GHS is implemented, national authorities should make use of the flexibility provided to avoid undermining established CPP risk assessment processes and to facilitate appropriate risk communication to the end user

• Appropriate transition arrangements are essential to avoid market disruption.

Croplife Asia Growing Food / Creating Renewables / Supplying Sustainably Growing Food / Creating Renewables / Supplying Sustainably

Croplife Asia Growing Food / Creating Renewables / Supplying Sustainably Growing Food / Creating Renewables / Supplying Sustainably

THANK THANK YOUYOU

THANK THANK YOUYOU

GHS – how will it fit?

• GHS provides an opportunity for harmonization of certain essential components of ALL chemical labels

• Will require the review of current labels and rationalization of requirements