Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to convey my message by telling you my story, if you could just be patient with me for a little while.

Just a day before I left the Philippines to come to this meeting, I had to be in a court hearing on a defamation case filed against me and my journalist daughter by a banana plantation company. We were sued for coming-up with a story that the community adjacent to the plantation was being poisoned by the pesticides used in the plantation. We, the defendants, were supposed to present three of my patients from the community as witnesses.

Our first witness was immediately disqualified by the judge, granting the objection of the company lawyer who said that our witness was not listed in our pre-trial brief, despite the fact that our brief clearly stated that we could present “one or two other witnesses” as needed. We had, in fact, previously identified two other patient-witnessess in our brief, a copy of which we gave to the company lawyer as required by the rules of procedure of the court. Later, however, our patient-witnessess told us they were being harassed, offered benefits and even threatened by what they called “company operatives”. We decided not to present them anymore because we could not provide them any protection.

Our second witness managed to take the stand but was continually interrupted by the objections of the company lawyer and the debates and negotiations among the lawyers and the judge. My patient-witness, looking bewildered, ended up telling probably only 5% of his story. Our third witness was never called to the stand. I think my lawyer forgot we had a third witness. I am not sure whether the apparent lapse of memory was related to the fact that he had suffered a stroke several months before or perhaps because I managed to pay only about one fourth of his usual attorney’s fees.

I apologize for taking your time on this story but I think this is quite relevant to the SAICM drama, and thriller, I would say, that is unfolding before us. I think this story illustrates why SAICM aims to achieve, by 2020, that chemicals are used and produced in ways that minimize their harmful effects on human health and the environment. It also illustrates the uneven power relations among different stakeholders, the company versus the defendants and witnesses, for example. It shows that rules of procedure can in fact obstruct rather than facilitate because it gives undue advantage to the most powerful, suppressing the truth, obstructing progress and showing no sensitivity to the cries of the poor and the powerless.

I think we are all characters in this story. We might be the judge, who refuses to see the evidence and rules arbitrarily. We might be the company lawyer, who blindly follows the dictates and protects the interests of his powerful principals, subverting the democratic process of getting to a just conclusion. We might be the defendants’ lawyer, who, perhaps because of physical and economic infirmity, or because of selfish interests too, is too weak to carry the fight for justice. We might be the witnesses who get confused by all the complex twists and turns of the hearing, and who are never given real chance to tell their stories. We might be the defendants who are in real danger of losing the case, frustrated and angry at the injustice of it all. In the meantime, vulnerable communities out there continue to suffer the consequences of global inaction.

I would like, therefore, to appeal to everybody here to take this historic opportunity to move forward towards fulfilling the declared aim and objectives of SAICM.

I appeal to you, especially to the powerful, to listen to the cries and stories of dis-empowered and poisoned people. Together, we can be the heroes people want us to be!

Thank you very much.