Toxic Talk Poisoning Progress on the Monitoring Framework

Jago Wadley, Pesticides Action Network UK

On Friday, critical Contact Group negotiations over the GBF Monitoring Framework immediately turned toxic: stumbling on just one headline indicator - the ‘Aggre-gated Total Applied Toxicity’ (ATAT) indicator recommended by the AHTEG for pesticide risk, under Target 7.

While the majority of Parties expressing views supported its adoption into the Monitoring Framework, a few did not, with some proposing to revert to the ‘Pesticide Environment Concentration’ (PEC) indicator proposed at COP15, which had been referred to the AHTEG because it had no workable methodology. Reasons for rejecting ATAT mainly focused on suggestions that reducing the use of pesticides was the only way to reduce risk under it. But that’s mistaken.

ATAT does not measure the volume of pesticide use. It calculates the ‘total applied toxicity’ by multiplying the volume of each pesticide active ingredient used nationally by their eco-toxicity. Reducing or phasing out use of the most toxic pesticides generates huge risk reductions under ATAT, which, depending on the overall use-mix, can even occur when overall volumes used increase.

It’s not surprising some Parties unwittingly misunderstand ATAT. The powerful pesticide lobby has been actively mischaracterizing it ever since the AHTEG proposed it, following its selection by a group of global experts and CBD Parties convened by the CBD and FAO in early 2024. CropLife International’s comments on ATAT falsely argue that only volume reduction can reduce risk – knowing full well that is not accurate, because they were in the expert group that developed it.

It seems the pesticides lobby has also been spreading poisonous falsehoods about how the CBD Secretariat and FAO ran the process of developing ATAT, characterizing the meeting as inaccessible. That’s also not true.

The CBD invited all Parties to nominate experts in 2023, with a selection process fairly screening technical expertise, resulting in a productive and representative mix of Parties, experts, and industry reps making up the group. Reports detailing the discussions were peer reviewed by expert group members, ensuring the proceedings and methodology were fairly represented. Parties were then given ample opportunity to comment on the methodology, with those inputs being taken into account at all stages. ATAT’s development was procedurally robust. And yet pesticides industry representa-tives have been planting pernicious perceptions that it was not, and these appear to have poisoned its progression in the Contact Group.

But truth and science can still prevail!

Despite some Parties urging the deletion of ATAT, many more have defended it. ATAT now still sits alongside the unusable PEC in the Annex of indicators under negotiation – in square brackets. Parties still have a chance to see beyond the toxic industry talk, adopt the ATAT, and save the Monitoring Framework from years of further delay. Doing so would have conside-rable benefits to CBD Parties, nearly all of which also adopted the Global Framework on Chemicals (GFC) in 2023, and its Target A7 to phase out Highly Hazardous Pesticides in agriculture. ATAT has the co-benefit of reflecting in national risk reduction measures for Target 7, any action Parties take to phase out use of the most toxic pesticides, when delivering on GFC Target A7.

This efficient coherence in the implementation of obligations under various multilateral environment instruments is clearly called for in UNEA Resolution 6/4. Text on Agenda Item 13 (Cooperation) likewise explicitly calls for pathways to ensure implementation of Target 7 on pollution is ‘coherent with the Global Framework on Chemicals’.

ATAT will provide that pathway, if only Parties can resist the toxic talk of the pesticide industry.