GHS STOCKTAKING WORKSHOP FOR SOUTHEAST, EAST, AND CENTRAL ASIA Siang –Hee Tan Executive Director Beijing, Sept th 2010

A Regional Network representing the plant science industry Australia New Zealand Indonesia Malaysia Bangladesh Pakistan India Sri Lanka Thailand Korea Japan Philippines Taiwan China 15 National Associations 2 Vietnam 2 Associate Companies 7 Member Companies

Part of a Global Federation of regional and national associations in 91 countries 2 Asia Regional Associations America Latin America Africa Middle East Europe Japan Asia

Content BackgroundCurrent Labelling Requirements CropLife’s Views on GHS Implementation Conclusion

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 and applicable 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 Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 4 th FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management Guidelines on Good Labelling Practice for Pesticides (revised) 3 rd Draft (10 th 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 use CountryChinaIndiaThailandIndonesiaPhilippinesBangladeshPakistan million

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 THANK YOU

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