The rights of Children,theEnvironment and the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) Conventions on Hazardous Chemicals and Wastes

Response to the Call for Submissions by the Special Rapporteur on the Implications for Human Rights of the Environmentally Sound Management and Disposal of Hazardous Substances and Wastes, Mr. Baskut Tuncak, on 1st June 2016, in view of the Day of General Discussion, United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, on “Children’s Rights and the Environment”, 23 September 2016.

[1]Authors: Malika Amélie Taoufiq-Cailliau, Legal Officer[2]

Manon Simon, Legal intern[3]

Secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions

Table of Content

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….…………...2

I/ Why and How the BRS Conventions are Linked to Children’s Rights: the Impact of Hazardous Chemicals and Wastes on the Rights of the Child………………………………………………………….3

  1. Which Rights? The Children’s Rights affected by Hazardous Chemicals and Wastes……....3

1/ Rights to Life, to Health, to a Healthy Environment, to Development, to Food Security, to Clean Drinking Water and Sanitation, and to an Adequate Standard of Living………………3

2/ Right to Freedom from Economic Exploitation and Right to Education…………………...4

  1. How the BRS Conventions Address the Economic, Social and Cultural Adverse Conditions on Certain Specific Groups…………………………...... ………………………….....5

1/ Children from Indigenous Communities…………………………………………………...6

2/ Children from Extremely Poor Communities………………………………………………6

II/ The Role of Children as Agents of Change in the Environmental and the BRS Conventions’ Context...... 7

  1. Access to Information, Education and Understanding...... 7
  2. Children’s Right to Participation and Skills to Respond to Environmental/BRS Conventions’ Issues...... 8

III/ The Role of Parties as Agents of Change, as per the Obligations set out under the BRS Conventions regarding the Rights of the Child to a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment...... 8

  1. Content of Obligations: to Monitor the Transboundary Impacts of and to Eliminate or Restrict or Phase-out or Regulate or Dispose Hazardous Chemicals and Wastes, in an Environmentally Sound Manner……………………………………………………………....8
  2. Consideration of Children’s Rights in Applicable Policies………………………………...... 10

IV/ The Role of the Business Sector and of other Stakeholders such as the Civil Society, under the BRS Conventions, and the rights of children...... 11

Annex – Suggested Recommendations……………………………………………………………………12

The rights of Children, the Environment and the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) Conventions on Hazardous Chemicals and Wastes

Response, by the Secretariat of the BRS Conventions, to the Call for Submissions by the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, Mr. Baskut Tuncak, on 1st June 2016.

Introduction

The United Nations(UN) Resolution 1994/65 of the High Commissioner for Human Rightssets forth: “the promotion of an environmentally healthy world contributes to the protection of the human rights to life and health of everyone”.Environmental quality is thus one general condition which can affect the lives of “everyone” and more especially those of children, being considered as anextremely vulnerable group. Therefore, some MultilateralEnvironmental Agreements (MEAs)have taken into account the specific condition of children, recognising their being affected to a greater extent by environmental harm, in their life, health, education etc.

In that respect, all three BRS Conventions, by sharing the common fundamental objectives of protecting human health and the environment against the harmful effects of hazardous chemicals and wastes are linked to human rights. These include children’s rights, thereby the rights guaranteed under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), by effectively having to take children’s specific vulnerability into consideration in their provisions and implementation. Indeed, it is important to note such inter-linkage between these international legal instruments, as the Committee on the Rights of Child recalled, in its General comment No. 16 (2013)[4]: “Childhood is a unique period of physical, mental, emotional and spiritual development and violations of children’s rights, such as exposure to violence, child labour or unsafe products or environmental hazards may have lifelong, irreversible and even transgenerational consequences”.

The BRS Conventions respectively address: i) the “Control of Transboundary Movement ofHazardous Wastes and their Disposal” (hereinafter referred to as the “Basel Convention” or “BC”), ii) the production and use of chemicals that are POPs (hereinafter referred to as the “Stockholm Convention” or “SC”), including industrial chemicals and pesticides, and iii) the “Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade”(hereinafter referred to as the “Rotterdam Convention” or “RC”). These three international treaties, grouped together, follow a cradle-to-grave approach by covering the life-cycle of certain hazardous chemicals and most of hazardous wastes, from their production until their disposal, including their use or trade. As many sound-science based studies have shown, these chemicals and wastesmay have harmful effects on environment but also on human health, especially for children[5]. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), for instance, has even explicitly recognised such vulnerable condition, and embodies provisions or calls for the implementation of programmes aiming at better protecting them against the adverse affects of POPs.

The BRS Conventions have played a role in achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), by reducing poverty and child mortality as well as in improving maternal health and environmental sustainability among others. Presently, with the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, and looking ahead at the 2030 Agenda, this development role is even more significant, as asserted recently at the second session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-2) held in May 2016 in Nairobi, Kenya.

On 13 June 2016, the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which administers the BRS Conventions, has set the tone by adopting a “Policy Guidance on Environment, Human Rights, and Addressing Inequalities – Integrating Human Rights in UNEP Organisational Structure and Programme”. According to this policy, UNEP divisions as well as UNEP-administered MEAs, such as the BRS Conventions, need to integrate human rights - and a fortiori children’s rights - in their organisation and activities, focusing on the main following angles: i) corporate, to uphold the values ii) normative, to strengthen the linkages iii) operational, to apply the principles and iv) partnerships for “catalysing transformation”. Yet, prior to the adoption of these UNEP policy guidelines on environment and human rights, a human-rights based approach to the sound management of chemicals has been discussed on several occasions, at UNEP and BRS Convention-related events[6].

The present submission therefore intend to showhow the BRS Conventions may contribute in protecting the condition and thus the rights of children - the right to life, the right to health, the right to a healthy environment, for the main ones - as a result of exposure to hazardous chemicals and wastes.

I/ Why and How the BRS Conventionsare Linked to Children’s Rights: the Impact of Hazardous Chemicals and Wastes on the Rights of the Child

  1. Which Rights? The Children’s Rights affected by Hazardous Chemicals and Wastes

It is clearly and scientifically evidenced, nowadays, thatin-utero and early-life exposure to toxic wastes and chemicals can cause a vast array of diseases to a greater extent to vulnerable groups such as children i.e.: respiratory diseases (such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, and lung cancer), impaired neurodevelopment, neurobehavioral disorders (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, etc.), mild mental disability, obesity and type 2 diabetes as well as childhood cancer and allergies[7]. Children are at higher risk from environmental hazards compared to adults, not only because they are exposed to risks of higher exposure during critical periods of development, but also because they are unable to protect themselves and their immune systems handle these exposures differently[8].

1/ Rights to Life, to Health,to a Healthy Environment, to Development, to Food Security, to Clean Drinking Water and Sanitation, and toan Adequate Standard of Living

The present section explains how hazardous chemicals and wastes under the BRS Conventions are linked to, and impact on the following fundamental human rights: i) the right to life, ii) the right to health, iii) the right to a healthy environment, iv) the right to development, v) the right to food security, vi) the right to clean drinking water and sanitation, and vii) the right to an adequate standard of living.

In its General Comment No. 16 (2013)[9], the CRC Committee asserted, concerning Article 6 of the CRC on the right to life, that “environmental degradation and contamination arising from business activities can compromise children’s rights to health, food security and access to safe drinking water and sanitation.”Scientific research has demonstrated that thechemicals and wastes falling within the scope of the BRS Conventions could, if not managed in an environmentally sound manner,result in more pervasive adverse effects on foetuses, babies, children and teenagersthan onadults.

During pregnancy, the exposure to certain hazardous chemicals, such as the POPsunder the scope of the Stockholm Convention, can affect the development of foetuses and the health of infants. The maternaldiet directly influences the fetal body burden[10] of POPs, which can increase the risks for the child to suffer from impaired growth and endocrine disruption. In that respect, the persistence of pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) - i.e. POPs falling under the scope of the Stockholm Convention – in mothers' bodies has serious long-term consequences; for instance, children born up to seven years after an incident of PCB-contaminated rice oil in the late 1970s showed developmental delays and behavioural problems (please see the SC website for more information). At its sixth meeting, the Conference of Parties (COP) to the Stockholm Convention concluded from the first phase of the human milk survey as follows: “Several human studies indicate that effects arising from exposure to POPs via lactation appear to be minor, if at all, when compared with the in utero situation[11].”Moreover, a 2012 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, Mr. Calin Georgescu at that time,[12] warned that “Bioaccumulation of methylmercury in fish consumed by pregnant women could lead to neurodevelopmental problems in the developing foetus (…).Trans-placental exposure to such substances is the most dangerous, as the foetal brain is very sensitive. Neurological symptoms include mental retardation, seizures, vision and hearing loss, delayed development, language disorders, reduced IQ and memory loss”. Indeed, mercury wastes and certain mercury compounds are included, respectively, under the scope of the Basel and Rotterdam Conventions. Yet, a specific global treaty, the Minamata Convention, was signed in 2013 aiming at protecting human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury.

The waycontamination ofair, soil, food and water, by hazardous chemicals and wastes falling within the scope of the BRS Conventions,interfereswith children’s health raises the most concerns. Such chemicals and wastes can have harmful effects on human health and in particular that of children, not only through acute exposure but also through low-dose long-term exposure. Pesticides used by farmers to spray crops and treat livestock remain in food as residues, which are one of the most important sources of exposure[13]. Pesticides mayalso contaminate water used for drinking and washing, to result in further elevating exposures in children. Certain pesticides, presentingPOPs characteristics, bioaccumulate in fatty tissues, biomagnify up the food chain, and are notably found in fish that can be consumed by children.Children are more vulnerable to this type of exposuresas they drink more water and consume more food per body weight than adults.Apart from ingestion,exposure through dermal absorption and inhalation arealso of critical.A 2012 Report of the Special Rapporteur Calin Georgescu[14]reveals that “In one country, over 400 children under the age of five reportedly died due to lead poisoning associated with gold miners grinding lead-containing rock at home in order to extract the gold, and leaving lead dust on the floors where children crawl.”The preliminary findings of an assessment conducted in West Africa (the Greater Accra Region) also demonstrated that informal e-waste recycling activities, including burning cables to recover copper, and plastics to reduce volume on dumpsite, pose serious risks for the health, especially of mothers and children[15].More specifically, many examples also show that children are exposed to chemicals and wastes through bathing in water ponds contaminated by untreated effluents stemming from facilities like tanneries. Lastly, children’s risk to be exposed to pesticides in dust and soils isgreater as they are likely to play close to the ground and engage in hand-to-mouth activities.

2/ Right to Freedom from Economic Exploitation and Right to Education

According to international and United Nations human rights legal instruments and standards, child labour should be abolished so as to allow children to get a proper education, to develop properly, to grow without premature health issues and therefore, to protect their lives essentially, all the more since the work is hazardous. Article 3(d) of the International Labour Organization (ILO)’sWorst Forms of Child Labour Convention No. 182 (1999) prohibits hazardous work for children and defines it as “work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children”.However, according to the ILO, 115 million child labourers worldwide are engaged in hazardous work[16]. Unfortunately, in fact, many industries, like footwear and fireworks companies, employ children to undertake work that exposes them to hazardous chemicals and their correlated risks. The BRS Conventions regulate many chemicals used among the most dangerous work sectors, including agriculture, mining and waste management. In the agricultural sector, the high usage of pesticides, defoliants and fertilizers is known to cause acute occupational pesticide-related illnesses in children. Children,who are less experienced and less trained, are also often less aware of the dangers to which they are exposed and do notquestion the tasks assigned to them.Among the most dangerous industrial sectors, mining and quarrying activities involve chemicals or wastes falling within the scope of the BRS Conventions or the Minamata Convention on mercuryand also are very hazardous for the health of children:“One fifth of the children covered by an ILO survey[17] reported having a health problem since they took up gold mining, primarily aches in limbs and backbone, kidney and urinary tract diseases and exhaustion.”[18]In general, MEAs lack preventive measures to protect workers, particularly young workers. Children are not provided with personal protecting equipment of their size and, due to the remoteness of the places where these activities take place, medical care is usually unavailable and labour inspections difficult to conduct.

The scope of the Basel Convention also covers waste management activities such as shipbreaking[19] and recycling of electronic and electrical wastes (e-waste)[20]. These waste disposal operations, if not undertaken in an environmentally sound manner, have been recognized as being, responsible for atmospheric pollution and contamination of the surrounding areas. In some developing countries, children work on waste disposal, often within the informal sector that does not manage wastes in an environmentally sound manner, exposing the children directly or indirectly to hazardous wastes and chemicals that they inhale or absorb through for example dust and fumes from open burning. This may cause, as a result of exposure during pregnancy, birth defectsand child mortality, alteration of thyroid, cellular or lung functions, mental health outcomesamong others.As young labourers cannot successfully fulfil their curriculum, especially when exposed to chemicals affecting their mental development and learning abilities[21], hazardous works affect the right of children to access education. Children usually have no choice to work in these hazardous conditions in order to support their families’ and own survival. The Special Rapporteur has observed that “unaccompanied minors are more likely to be exposed to harmful substances for want of parental protection in already exploitative environments[22].”

  1. How the BRS Conventions Address the Economic, Social and Cultural Adverse Conditions on Certain Specific Groups

After analyzing how hazardous wastes and chemicals may jeopardize the basic rights of children and the factors determining their special vulnerability, the focus is, under the present section, on how the BRS Conventions take into consideration and attempt to address issues faced by particular groups and theirspecific conditions, in particular as to children’s vulnerabilityThis is one of the goals pursued by the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities recognized in 1992 by the UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, and reflected under the BRS Conventions.. Although this may not explicitly be referred to in the convention texts themselves, it may be addressed in the way Parties implement the Conventions, as well as the decisions adopted by their governing bodies.It is important to note in this regard, the BRS Secretariat is currently implementing a technical assistance programme with the aim of raising awareness ofchild labour in agriculture and hazardous exposure of children and women in developing countries.

1/Children from Indigenous Communities

It is explicitlyrecognized under the Stockholm Convention thatPOPsaffectin particular Arctic ecosystems and indigenous communities[23].This is because amongst other reasonstheir ways of life, especially traditional food, expose them to more hazards.The reasons underlying this include firstly, that POPs are carried via long-range transport and are retained in cold climate ecosystems; thus, their concentration is more important in the polesdespite having few direct sources of their release. Secondly, POPs accumulate in fatty tissues and since animals from cold areas need thicker layers of fat for natural insulation, their concentration of POPs is higher. The diet of Arctic indigenous communities is heavy in fatty foods and these populations are without many alternatives available; therefore, their children are more vulnerable to POPs contamination. Then,Arctic industrial development, such as extracting operations, has contributed to increase even furtherthe level of pollution in these areas and potential for population exposures. The Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention, in partnership with the Arctic Monitoring Assessment Programme,carried outstudies to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures taken to lower the impact of POPs pollution on the health of these populations[24]. Because of their traditional ways of life,certainindigenous communities, who relyon natural resources like fish and marine mammals for their survival, are more subject to contamination from certain types of chemicals. To this extent,one may consider that hazardous substances affect indigenous rights, and among others, the right of children to participate freely in cultural life, as recognized under article 31 of the CRC.