GHS STOCKTAKING WORKSHOP FOR SOUTHEAST, EAST, AND CENTRAL ASIA

1. GHS STOCKTAKING WORKSHOP FOR SOUTHEAST, EAST, AND CENTRAL ASIA Siang –Hee Tan Executive Director Beijing, Sept 15-17th 2010

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

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

4. Content

5. Background • Agricultural chemicals are highly regulated • Agricultural chemicals are subject to stringent national and international regulatory requirements

6. 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

7. 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 legislationor 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

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

9. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Agenda Item no. 10b 4th FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management Guidelines on Good Labelling Practice for Pesticides (revised) 3rd Draft (10th Sept 2010)

10. 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

11. GHS : How it’ll look like Petrol Station in New Zealand

13. 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 farmeron safe and effective handling • provide clear and transparent messageson health and safety • be consistent, clear and applicable to local use

14. 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.

15. THANK YOU Croplife Asia Growing Food / Creating Renewables / Supplying Sustainably

16. 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