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

Sixth Meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs INC-6)
Geneva, Switzerland   -   17-21 June 2002
Back to homepage

Wednesday, 19 June:

Delegates met in morning and afternoon Plenary sessions and in two contact groups. In the morning Plenary, delegates discussed: preparations for the Conference of the Parties (COP), including settlement of disputes, non-compliance and rules of procedure. In the afternoon Plenary, delegates completed discussions on non-compliance and commenced deliberations on financial resources and mechanisms. The two contact groups met and addressed best available techniques and best environmental practices and the terms of reference for the POPs Review Committee (POPRC). Left: Jim Willis, UNEP Chemicals, works on his laptop during the morning plenary.

Preparation for the Conference of the Parties:
Rules of procedure
Elena Sobakina, UNEP Chemicals, introduced draft rules of procedure of the COP and subsidiary bodies (UNEP/POPS/INC.6/14) on behalf of the Secretariat.

Following the general dicussion, Sobakina summarized points raised and answered questions. Chair Buccini said that specific rules of procedure in question would not be bracketed and all rule-specific comments made in Plenary will be addressed by the LDG. He reassured INC-6 that any policy issues arising in the LDG will be brought back to Plenary for further discussion.

Regarding the rule on voting, the US indicated it was considering three potential decision-making models and said it had produced a paper, to be made available to INC-6, on all references to decision making found in the Stockholm Convention. He noted that rules on decisionmaking are traditionally the most contentious.
The Bahamas responded that several other decision-making models could be relevant, and urged all to keep an open mind on this matter.

Preparation for the Conference of the Parties:
Draft financial rules

Introducing the draft financial rules for the COP (UNEP/POPS/INC.6/15), Sobakina on behalf of the Secretariat explained that: they were based on financial rules of existing environmental agreements; they would be applied in conjunction with UN financial rules; and funding would be based on the UN scale of assessments.

Answering questions from the floor, Sobakina responded that many treaties grant the UNEP Executive Director authority over funds, although some funds are controlled by the UN Secretary-General, and that it would investigate country contributions to and the financial rules of other conventions.

Sobakina and Masa Nagai, UNEP (Nairobi).

Sobakina introduced the document on non-compliance (UNEP/POPS/INC.6.17), which focuses on elements to be included in the non-compliance mechanism and the process of developing such a mechanism in the interim period.

Buccini summarized the first round of deliberations on non-compliance. He noted that delegates repeatedly called for the future mechanism to be non-confrontational and facilitative. The delegates mandated the Secretariat to: collect submissions for the Secretariat's document and other issues relating to non-compliance, conduct a comparative study on the non-compliance mechanisms of other MEA regimes; and provide to INC-7 a document containing both original information and a non-judgemental summary and analysis.

Canada suggested that: the Secretariat draft a model non-compliance mechanism for March 2003, based on written comments by states; a compliance committee be established; and there should be no link between the non-compliance mechanism and the liability. He favored an early start to work on the mechanism, and suggested that work be initiated at INC-6.
Buccini summarized a second round of comments. He highlighted the existance of comparative work that will facilitate the work of the Secretariat. He also addressed the issue of access to Parties' inputs on non-compliance once these have been submitted to the Secretariat.

Financial resources and mechanisms, and interim financial arrangements
John Whitelaw, UNEP Chemicals, on behalf of the Secretariat, introduced documents related to financial resources and mechanisms and interim financial arrangements (UNEP/POPS/INC.6/12, UNEP/POPS/INC.6/13 and UNEP/POPS/INC.6/INF/9).
Avani Vaish, GEF (above left), gave a presentation on the GEF and global conventions and noted two proposed new focal areas: land degradation and POPs. He stressed that the GEF is country driven and assists developing countries and countries with economies in transition in implementing the Convention. He called attention to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the COP and the GEF. Laurent Granier, GEF (right), reviewed its report to the INC (UNEP/POPS/INC.6/INF/9) and stressed that draft elements for an operational programme should be revised before being tabled.
Listen to the GEF presentations

Responding to questions, Vaish explained that as with two other conventions, the GEF and the convention secretariats drafted an MOU together. He described the content of the MOU and stressed that it is not a guidance for the financial mechanism. The Secretariat reiterated that COP-1 has to give guidance to the GEF and take a decision on the final form of the financial mechanism, and that at COP-2 the mechanism's performance will be evaluated.

Miscellaneous Photos
Delegate of Egypt seeks clarification from Willis.
From left to right: John Buccini, Chair of the POPs INC; John
Whitelaw, UNEP Chemicals; and David Ogden, UNEP Chemicals.
View of the contact group on the POPs Review Committee in session.
Vaish and Granier (standing) having a word with Buccini and Whitelaw after the close of the afternoon session.
INC-6 from the point of view of delegates seated at the back of the conference hall.

Jump to: 17 June - 18 June - 19 June - 20 June - 21 June

Back to ENB's POPs-6 homepage

© 2002, IISD. All rights reserved.

To listen to Real Audio files, you will need the free RealAudio player: To view PDF files, you will need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader: