FSC-STD-30-001 Indicators and thresholds for the identification of ‘highly hazardous’ pesticides (HHP)
At the Board’s 67th meeting in Oaxaca, Mexico in November 2014, the FSC Board of Directors approved the revised standard regarding the identification of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) (FSC-STD-30-001 V1-0). The revised standard will come into effect on the 10th March 2015.
This standard replaces (and therefore makes inactive) the document FSC-GUI-30-001 FSC Pesticides Policy: Guidance on Implementation and Annexes.
The document contains:
• Revised criteria, indicators and thresholds for the identification of HHPs in the FSC system
• Updated list of ‘highly hazardous’ pesticides, prohibited pesticides in FSC-certified forests and plantations.
Certification bodies shall inform their certificate holders of the update of the list of ‘highly hazardous’ pesticides within thirty (30) days.
If a certificate holder identifies the need to use a new listed HHP, they must either discontinue the use within six (6) months or submit an application for derogation.
The main changes in the revised criteria, indicators and thresholds to identify hazardous pesticides (HHP) are:
1. A new user-friendly format.
2. The Global Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals has been applied to five of the criteria, which will strength protection of human health.
3. Bioaccumulation and mobility are combined in one criterion, which means focusing on more toxic pesticides.
4. Bioconcentration factor data now supersede octanol–water partition coefficient data, which means that experimental values of bioaccumulation will have more weight than theoretical values.
5. Pesticides listed in the Rotterdam Convention and the Montreal Protocol are banned.
The HHP list has consequently been updated. The previous version of the list was created by screening the criteria, indicators and thresholds against a limited number of pesticides used in forestry. This led to situations where certificate holders used pesticides that fulfilled the indicators and thresholds, but were not included on the list.
To have an accurate and complete HHP list, the revised indicators and thresholds had to be screened against a global list of marketed pesticides used in forestry. Creating such a list was not feasible because of the high number of countries with FSC forest management certificate-holders, and the frequent changes in pesticide authorizations in each country.
To address this, a global list of marketed pesticides – not only those used in forestry – has been created, compiling the active ingredients from the most comprehensive sources. The revised criteria are now screened against this global list, resulting in a HHP list with 389 active ingredients.
Although the updated list is longer than the previous HHP list, this is due to the global list that has been used as reference and not to the revised C, I and T.
To learn more about the process, main changes and their significance, please see the documents attached:
• Report of the revision of the Criteria, Indicators and Thresholds for the identification of FSC ‘highly hazardous’ pesticides.
• PSU feedback to stakeholders comments during the second public consultation.
FSC-PRO-30-001 Pesticides Derogation Procedure
This document defines the process on how FM certificate holders can apply for a derogation to use ‘highly hazardous’ pesticides on certified lands. Please note that we consulted this procedure in the first round under the old document code FSC-PRO-01-004 more than a year ago.
Main differences between Draft 1 and 2:
We introduced a mechanism for National Offices to set up an experts group and to become involved in the evaluation of derogation applications. This responds a request from the FSC membership expressed in GA Motion 2011:23. We further clarified the use of pesticides in the case of governmental orders and the re-application process. We also had to adjust the fees to cover the administrative costs of managing the derogation process.
We would like to thank everyone who submitted comments on the drafts. The feedback received during the second round of public consultation was analyzed and incorporated to the final draft where applicable.The revised document has now been submitted for approval.