You are viewing our old site. See the new one here

go to IISDnet

Fifth Meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS INC-5)
Johannesburg, South Africa; 4 - 9 December, 2000


Thursday, 7 December

Delegates met in morning and evening Plenary sessions to consider Articles O (Conference of the Parties), K (Financial resources and mechanisms), G (Information exchange), F (Listing of chemicals in Annexes A, B and C), V (Entry into force), W (Reservations), and Annex D (Information requirements and screening criteria). Contact Groups on: Financial Resources and Mechanisms; Byproducts: Prohibition and Restriction; and Wastes also convened during the day.

Status Reports from the Contact Groups:

Part one of the update from the Contact Group on Articles D1 and D2 (Prohibition and Restriction)

Right: Co-Chair Peter Hinchcliffe (UK)

Part two of the update from the Contact Group on Articles D1 and D2 (Prohibition and Restriction)

Right: Co-Chair Luis Almagro (Uruguay)

Update from the Contact Group on Article D3 (Byproducts)

Right: Co-Chair Reiner Arndt (Germany)

ARTICLE K (Finances)
Informal consultations between the US (left) and the Russian Federation (center) before the morning Plenary discussion on Article K
NIGERIA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, highlighted elements of CRP.52 and underscored that it is neutral, meets the needs of developing countries and CEITs, and should be the basis for Article K.

FRANCE, on behalf of the EU, expressed disappointment with the G-77/China's proposal (UNEP/POPS/INC.5/CRP.52). He highlighted its failure to refer to: the GEF; support for CEITs; and previously-agreed text. He expressed concern that the GEF's operational programme would be frozen, and stressed further consideration of both the earlier submission by the EU, JUSCANZ members, CEITs, and others (UNEP/POPS/INC.5/CRP.2/Rev.1) and CRP.52 to achieve an effective, realistic and practical outcome.

CANADA emphasized that CRP.52 omitted: the GEF; CEITs; a coordinated framework; the Capacity Assistance Network; and an interim mechanism.
Many G-77/CHINA countries spoke in support of their proposal and emphasized, inter alia that it: is neutral and balanced; strikes a middle ground; is not new or a change of position; includes the Vevey attributes; borrows from other conventions; is based on an established principle of common but differentiated responsibilities; and does not exclude existing mechanisms or interim arrangements. They stressed their proposal should be the basis for negotiations.
COLOMBIA's explanation of its support for CRP.52
BRAZIL explained that CRP.52 made no reference to countries with economies in transition because they are not members of the G77/China, and thus the Group could not speak on their behalf.
The US, with others supporting CRP.2/Rev.1, underscored working with the elements of both proposals to achieve agreement.

CHINA stressed that CRP.52 used language contained in other conventions

In the afternoon, the Plenary Hall was reconfigured into a more intimate setting for the Open Contact Group on Article K. Chair Buccini agreed to chair the group focusing on CRP.2/Rev.1, CRP.52, and the Chair's text, using the Vevey criteria as background
ENB writers Jonathan Krueger (left) and Richard Campbell (center) in discussion with Jennifer Macmillan from the New Zealand delegation before morning Plenary.

In the corridors...

With less than 48 hours remaining to complete negotiations, speculation mounted on the likelihood of reaching full agreement on convention text. While some delegates have expressed satisfaction with the progress made in certain contact groups, and have voiced confidence that useful compromise will be reached on the key sticking point of the precautionary principle, others continue to voice concern on the likelihood of securing agreement on the financial mechanism. Some participants have speculated on the impact of apparent divisions within the G-77/China on the financial mechanism in facilitating resolution on this issue. A number of commentators have suggested that the recent failure of the climate COP-6 in the Netherlands - brought to the attention of delegates by the display of NGO buttons warning "Don't Repeat the Hague!" - could well be the telling incentive needed to ensure convergence on the remaining contentious issues. Above: This message brought to you by the WWF

<< Back to ENB's POPs-5 main page <<
© 2000, IISD. All rights reserved.