Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development
(IISD)
Vol. 15 No. 22
Tuesday, 07 September 1999
POPS INC-3 HIGHLIGHTS
MONDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 1999
On the first day of the third session of the
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-3) for an International
Legally Binding Instrument for Implementing International Action on
Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), delegates heard opening
statements from Philippe Roch, State Secretary, Director of the Swiss
Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape, and Dr. Klaus Töpfer,
Executive Director of UNEP. Delegates also adopted the provisional
agenda, made general statements and heard a report from the Co-Chairs
of the Criteria Expert Group (CEG).
OPENING PLENARY
Chair John Buccini (Canada) opened INC-3 and
introduced Philippe Roch who welcomed delegates and underscored the
importance of global cooperation to address POPs. He called for
solidarity and a global effort to stop POPs production and to
eliminate existing stocks. Roch also emphasized the need to add other
substances to the convention and to apply pressure on industry to stop
development and production of additional POPs. He underscored that
exceptions for use of POPs should only be permitted in cases where
public interest is served, such as the use of DDT to control malaria.
In closing, he noted Switzerlands offer to fund the first
conference of the parties to be held in a developing country.
Dr. Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director of UNEP,
remarked that the INC is at a critical point in the negotiations and
emphasized that it is time to develop specific control measures and
set deadlines for the 12 POPs. He stressed that no country is immune
to POPs, that no country acting alone can address POPs and that every
country will benefit from participating in global action. While
underscoring the need to reduce and eliminate DDT releases, he
emphasized this should not be at the expense of lives lost to malaria
and called for further development of alternative methods to control
the disease. He commended contributions to the POPs fund and
underscored the need for sustained funding to complete negotiations.
Chair Buccini then introduced and delegates
adopted the provisional agenda (UNEP/POPS/INC.3/1.) He presented the
planned organization of work contained in a Secretariat's Note (UNEP/POPS/INC.3/INF/7)
and indicated his intent to address in Plenary articles on the basic
obligations of the convention, specifically: measures to reduce or
eliminate releases of POPs; national implementation plans; information
exchange; public information, awareness and education; and research,
development and monitoring. He anticipated dividing into the
Negotiation Group and Implementation Group on Wednesday and noted the
establishment of an Implementation Group Bureau comprised of the Czech
Republic, India, Angola and Austria. By the end of INC-3, he expected
to have the abovementioned articles in good shape and a draft text on
the article addressing the process of adding new chemicals to the
convention. Jim Willis, UNEP Chemicals, introduced the meeting
reports, meeting documents and information documents as contained in
UNEP/POPS/INC.3/INF/16. He highlighted two meeting documents prepared
at the request of INC-2: an analysis of selected conventions covering
the ten intentionally produced POPs (UNEP/POPS/INC.3/2); and
definitional issues relating to POPs-disposal, destruction, wastes and
stockpiles (UNEP/POPS/INC.3/3).
On the review of ongoing international activities
relating to the INCs work, Willis reported on the updated master
list of actions on the reduction and/or elimination of the releases of
POPs (UNEP/POPS/INC.3/INF/9). Noting that UNEP had drawn up the list
to avoid duplicated efforts, ensure efficient resource use and
facilitate coordination and cooperation among countries and
organizations, he emphasized the high number of countries responding
to the Secretariats request in 1999 for updated information on
assessment and monitoring, regulatory information and activities
directly addressing POPs. He noted the document was a useful but not
complete list containing information received up to 1 July 1999.
Outlining a new phase of UNEP activities on POPs, he highlighted two
regional workshops held this year, organization of a comprehensive
series of training workshops for late 1999 and 2000, availability of
four new POPs publications and preparations for a new project for
country-based pilot work to identify or address persistent toxic
substances. He also commended the GEFs cooperation in addressing
persistent toxic substances through its water programme.
In response, INDONESIA stressed difficulties in
collecting quantitative data. CAMEROON urged strengthening regional
and subregional cooperation. The GAMBIA noted its current focus on a
PCB case study contingent on UNEP assistance. The FEDERATED STATES OF
MICRONESIA noted specific concerns of Small Island Developing States.
The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO) highlighted a progress report on
the development of the WHO action plan for the reduction of reliance
on DDT use for public health purposes (UNEP/POPS/INC.3/INF/15) and
stressed overcoming the cost of alternatives.
PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY expressed
concern over DDT use for malaria control and, with the US and the WWF,
stressed the need to phase out DDT and redirect attention to the
research and creation of new mechanisms to control malaria. MALI, the
PHILIPPINES, NIGERIA, EGYPT, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, KENYA, SAMOA,
MALAYSIA and IRAN presented their current standings regarding POPs,
including national programmes to eliminate their use. Many countries
requested assistance, including legal, technical and financial
assistance, from governments or organizations. WWF urged donor
governments to assist. The US welcomed the GEFs interest in
considering a range of POPs projects and stressed the need for: more
information on releases; technical and financial assistance for
developing countries; strong policy measures on wastes and by-products
of POPs; meaningful provisions in the treaty; and, with CANADA and
CHINA, global cooperation to eliminate the use of intentionally
produced POPs. CANADA requested an evaluation of whether the
convention is effective as a practical system of global monitoring on
a regional level. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION and IRAN recognized divisions
between developed and developing country positions on POPs issues and
their potential to impede INC work. CHINA stressed common but
differentiated responsibilities and supported a mechanism resembling
the Montreal Protocols multilateral fund. WWF reiterated that
banning DDT should not be at the cost of lives lost to malaria and
withdrew its global DDT phase out target date of 2007, but supported
continued efforts to achieve elimination regardless of the date.
NIGERIA, on behalf of the African countries,
called for a multilateral financial mechanism similar to that of the
Montreal Protocol, means for information exchange and assistance to
developing countries to help implement the convention. She supported a
phase out of DDT as long as cost-effective alternatives are available.
BOTSWANA noted it has provisionally stopped DDT use, and the
PHILIPPINES emphasized that malaria can be reduced without DDT.
THAILAND expressed concern over the reemerging use of DDT, and urged
countries to share practical experiences on malaria reduction without
the use of DDT. ECUADOR said developed countries should stop exporting
POPs to developing countries.
The MALARIA PROJECT introduced an open letter
signed by doctors, scientists and health economists urging that public
health use of DDT be permitted to fight malaria, stressing that health
risks from malaria outweigh those from DDT. He said the convention
should require developed countries to fund costly alternatives if DDT
is to be phased out or eliminated. LESOTHO expressed concern over
conflicting evidence on DDT and called on developed countries to
provide clarification on the issue. ZAMBIA mentioned domestic public
perception that DDT is the most effective method to control malaria.
ARGENTINA supported changing current malaria strategy and called for
an accurate, in-depth cost-benefit analysis on DDT. INDIA called for
technical and financial assistance to help developing countries meet
the convention's objectives. KUWAIT recommended inclusion of an
article on regional and subregional arrangements, as well as a
mechanism to assess and evaluate new chemicals to ensure environmental
safety, suggesting that UNEP could undertake such an assessment. The
REPUBLIC OF KOREA supported use of the precautionary approach when
adding chemicals to the convention.
Criteria Expert Group (CEG) Co-Chairs Reiner
Arndt (Germany) and Fatoumata Jallow Ndoye (The Gambia) reported on
the outcome of CEG-2 (UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/2/3). The report contains some
working definitions and a draft article on the procedure for
identifying additional POPs, including information requirements and
criteria for the proposal and screening of a substance as well as
information requirements for the risk profile and socioeconomic
considerations. Arndt noted that CEG-2 had fulfilled the groups
mandate. He said the CEG agreed organic substances with transformation
products are POPs should be eligible for nomination. He noted the CEG
did not reach agreement on: the half-life in water necessary to meet
the persistence criteria; the log Kow necessary to demonstrate
bioaccumulation; or the definition for the potential for long-range
environmental transport. He also noted the CEG supported reference to
the precautionary principle in the convention.
Jallow Ndoye noted the CEG considered options for
a chemical review committee and preferred establishment of two
chemical review committees to address risk assessment and risk
management. FINLAND, on behalf of the EU, supported the recommended
procedure and noted estimated time and costs for the procedure
contained in UNEP/POPS/INC.3/INF/11. Several countries, including
IRAN, the CZECH REPUBLIC, SWITZERLAND, the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, MALI
and CAMEROON supported adoption of the report as the basis for further
negotiation. WWF highlighted a report prepared in response to the CEG
report. The INTERNATIONAL POPS ELIMINATION NETWORK called for
incorporation of the precautionary principle and a transparent
procedure. Buccini commended the CEG for having completed its work
ahead of schedule and under budget.
Plenary next considered the establishment of and
a mandate for a legal drafting group (LDG). Buccini proposed setting
up an LDG restricted to government representatives, with English as
the working language, which would be mandated to elect a chair,
examine standard procedural articles (Articles L to Z), separate out
policy from non-policy content, avoid any negotiation of policy and
give first priority to agreements on key articles under discussion at
INC-3. Anticipating a heavy workload for the LDG, the EU proposed it
meet in parallel with Plenary and working groups. Opposing, CANADA
said the LDG should be in these groups to gain a proper understanding
of the INCs intentions. COLOMBIA called for appropriate regional
representation within the LDG. POLAND said this was not a critical
factor for the LDG. The EU, with COLOMBIA, supported the presence of a
Secretariat member in the LDG to inform it of substantive
developments. On distinguishing policy from non-policy content, IRAN
stressed the need to clarify the meaning of policy. Delegates agreed
the LDG would meet as an open-ended group, elect a chair and report
back to the Plenary on country representation within the LDG, its
preferred work schedule and its opinion on the policy content of
Articles L-Z.
IN THE CORRIDORS
Tensions in the debate on human health vs. the
environment appeared to flare in the wake of recent media coverage on
the controversial use of DDT to combat malaria. Delegates raised
eyebrows at shifts in positions on deadlines for elimination of DDT
and speculated over implications.
THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY
Delegates will convene in Plenary to begin
discussion on measures to reduce or eliminate releases of POPs into
the environment.
|