Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union with regard to proposals for amendments of Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, dangerous substance, export (EU), import (EU), international convention, international trade, revision of an agreement













EUR-Lex - 52014PC0746 - EN











|



52014PC0746

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union with regard to proposals for amendments of Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention /* COM/2014/0746 final - 2014/0356 (NLE) */









EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
Under the auspices of the Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), negotiations for a Convention for the application of the prior informed
consent (PIC) procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in
international trade were concluded in March 1998.
The Convention was opened for signature at
a Ministerial Diplomatic Conference held in September 1998 in Rotterdam. It was
signed by the Community on 11 September 1998. The Rotterdam Convention
represents a major step forward in the international regulation of certain
hazardous chemicals, including pesticides. Its objective is to promote shared
responsibility and co-operative efforts among the Parties in the international
trade of such chemicals in order to protect human health and the environment
from potential harm and to contribute to their environmentally sound use. 
The Union has implemented the Convention
through Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 4 July 2012 concerning the export and import of hazardous chemicals[1]. By its Decision 2006/730/EC of 25 September 2006[2], the Council decided to approve the Convention on behalf of the
European Community.
The Convention entered into force on 24
February 2004. The seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP7) will
take place in Geneva from 4 to 15 May 2015. In addition to the Union, 27 of its Member States are Parties to the Convention.
On the basis of recommendations from the
Chemical Review Committee (CRC), a subsidiary body under the authority of the
Conference of the Parties (COP), COP is expected to take decisions on the
inclusion of further chemicals in Annex III to the Convention, making them subject
to the PIC procedure. 
The chemicals recommended by the CRC for
inclusion in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention, namely chrysotile asbestos,
methamidophos, trichlorfon, fenthion (ultra low volume (ULV) formulations at or
above 640 g active ingredient/L) and liquid formulations (emulsifiable
concentrate and soluble concentrate) containing paraquat dichloride at or above
276 g/L, corresponding to paraquat ion at or above 200 g/L, are already subject
to restrictions on export under Union law, that are similar to those under the
Convention. The Commission, therefore, is proposing to the Council a decision
to support, on behalf of the Union, the amendments of Annex III to the
Convention at COP7.
2014/0356 (NLE)
Proposal for a
COUNCIL DECISION
establishing the position to be adopted on
behalf of the European Union with regard to proposals for amendments of Annex
III to the Rotterdam Convention
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1) and Article
207, in conjunction with Article 218(9), thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the
European Commission,
Whereas:
(1)       The European Union has
ratified the Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent procedure for
certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade (the
'Rotterdam Convention')[3].
(2)       Regulation (EU) No 649/2012
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July
2012 concerning the export and import of hazardous chemicals[4] implements the Rotterdam Convention in the Union.
(3)       In order to ensure that
importing countries benefit from the protection offered by the Rotterdam
Convention, it is necessary and appropriate to support the recommendation from
the Chemical Review Committee as regards the inclusion in Annex III to the
Rotterdam Convention of chrysotile asbestos, methamidophos, trichlorfon,
fenthion (ultra low volume (ULV) formulations at or above 640 g active
ingredient/L) and liquid formulations (emulsifiable concentrate and soluble
concentrate) containing paraquat dichloride at or above 276 g/L, corresponding
to paraquat ion at or above 200 g/L. These substances are already banned or
severely restricted in the Union and are therefore subject to export
requirements which go beyond what is required under the Rotterdam Convention.
(4)       The seventh meeting of the
Conference of the Parties (COP7) of the Rotterdam Convention is expected to
take decisions on the proposed amendments to Annex III. The Union should
support these amendments.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: 
Sole Article
At the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
Rotterdam Convention, the Union shall support the adoption of the amendments to
add chrysotile asbestos, methamidophos, trichlorfon, fenthion (ultra low volume
(ULV) formulations at or above 640 g active ingredient/L) and liquid
formulations (emulsifiable concentrate and soluble concentrate) containing
paraquat dichloride at or above 276 g/L, corresponding to paraquat ion at or
above 200 g/L, to Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention. Minor changes to the draft Decision of the Conference of the Parties may be agreed to by the representatives of the Union in the meeting without further decision of the Council.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 60.
[2]               OJ L 299, 28.10.2006, p. 23.
[3]               OJ L 299, 28.10.2006, p. 23.
[4]               OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 60.