First Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on 
Persistent Organic Pollutants  -  Issue #5 

EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR 
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD) <http://www.iisd.org>

Written and edited by:

Soledad Aguilar 
Paula Barrios 
Catherine Ganzleben, D.Phil. 
Pia M. Kohler 
Noelle Eckley Selin 

Editor:

Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Director, IISD Reporting Services:

Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Vol. 15 No. 116
Friday, 6 May 2005

Online at http://www.iisd.ca/chemical/pops/cop1/ 

POPs COP-1 HIGHLIGHTS: 

THURSDAY, 5 MAY 2005

In the morning and afternoon, delegates met in a high-level 
segment. The Committee of the Whole (COW) met in an evening 
session. The legal working group and financial mechanism contact 
group met throughout the day and evening.

HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

COP-1 President Mariano Arana (Uruguay) opened the high-level 
segment. Klaus T�pfer, UNEP Executive Director, stressed the 
importance of multilateralism and synergies among environmental 
agreements. Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Inuit Circumpolar Conference, 
presented President Arana with an Inuit carving of a drum dancer, 
symbolizing the connection between North and South. 

Leonard Good, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Global 
Environment Facility (GEF), reiterated GEF's commitment to 
continue improving its procedures to allow for the successful 
implementation of the Convention. 

SECRETARIAT LOCATION: President Arana introduced the issue of the 
location of the Secretariat of the Convention (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/26) 
and a draft decision on voting procedures (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.1). 
ITALY presented its candidature to host the Secretariat in Rome. 
SWITZERLAND presented its candidature to host the Secretariat in 
Geneva. The EU clarified that its Member States would vote 
individually and that the European Community would not vote. 
Plenary adopted the decision on voting procedures. 

ACTIVITIES OF THE SECRETARIAT AND ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET: Legal 
working group Co-Chair Anne Daniel (Canada) presented a note on 
possible arrangements for a joint head of the Secretariats of the 
Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.35), 
responding to the Rotterdam Convention's invitation to co-finance 
the Executive Secretary of both Secretariats in 2006. John 
Buccini, Acting Executive Secretary of the Stockholm Convention, 
requested clarification on whether the proposed language applied 
only to the UNEP portion of the Secretariat, and whether the 
language should indicate that the arrangement should persist 
beyond 2006. FAO clarified that, as well as Parties, UNEP and FAO 
both contributed to the Rotterdam Convention's budget. CANADA 
noted that the Executive Secretary should have all the resources 
needed to implement the Stockholm Convention. The COP asked the 
legal group to prepare a decision establishing the joint head, 
taking the discussion into account.

COUNTRY STATEMENTS: Delegates heard statements from ministers and 
heads of delegations. Key themes addressed are summarized below.

Implementation of the Convention: Several countries noted efforts 
to ratify the Convention, their development of national 
implementation plans (NIPs), and implementation efforts. 
SWITZERLAND committed to continued support for implementation. The 
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION noted the importance of involving the 
health sector in NIP development. CANADA stressed the need for a 
compliance mechanism, and for means for evaluating effectiveness. 

Technical assistance: On regional centers, SOUTH AFRICA supported 
using existing centers to promote synergies in the implementation 
of all multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). SENEGAL said 
the Basel Convention regional centers should be strengthened, and 
supported the development of centers under the Stockholm 
Convention. EGYPT, CANADA, CHINA, CHILE, JORDAN, VENEZUELA and 
others called for technical assistance and capacity building. 
GERMANY and CANADA committed to providing technical assistance. 
KIRIBATI and MAURITIUS emphasized the need to consider the special 
situation of small island developing states (SIDS). 

Financial mechanisms: Many countries thanked the GEF for providing 
support in the development of NIPs. BARBADOS stressed the need for 
clear and transparent accounting. The UK, for the EU, stressed the 
EU's commitment to a sound financial mechanism. 

Synergies between chemicals-related MEAs: The CZECH REPUBLIC, 
GHANA and others stressed the importance of promoting synergies 
among chemicals-related conventions, including Stockholm, 
Rotterdam and Basel. SWITZERLAND, SPAIN, NORWAY and the WORLD BANK 
underscored the importance of the Strategic Approach to 
International Chemicals Management (SAICM). The BASEL SECRETARIAT 
highlighted opportunities for collaboration. 

Domestic issues: Many countries outlined aspects of domestic 
efforts to promote implementation. KIRIBATI called on Parties to 
consider improving BAT/BEP guidelines to capture the needs of 
developing countries, especially SIDS. THAILAND outlined plans to 
initiate projects relating to control of POPs uses, the use of 
alternatives, BAT and BEP, and awareness raising. JAPAN 
highlighted domestic action to dispose of PCBs and to reduce 
dioxin releases. VENEZUELA highlighted efforts to eliminate 
obsolete pesticides. MAURITIUS stressed the risk of illegal trade 
in POPs, and called for a review of this issue. 

The importance of chemicals for economic and social development: 
COTE D'IVOIRE emphasized the role of chemicals in social and 
economic development, while noting they were a growing threat to 
human health and the environment.

Management of POPs Wastes: SAMOA noted that safe disposal and 
cost-effective treatment were regional priorities. SOUTH AFRICA 
highlighted the ongoing elimination of pesticide stockpiles, 
including POPs. BELARUS highlighted the need for safe storage and 
remediation of products containing POPs wastes.

Unintentionally produced POPs: ARGENTINA noted a national 
inventory on dioxins and furans, and AUSTRALIA mentioned the 
recent completion of a comprehensive survey of dioxins. CHILE 
emphasized the need to develop national strategies to control 
sources generating unintentionally produced POPs.  

Additional POPs: Many countries stressed the importance of the 
role of the POPs Review Committee (POPRC). The EU announced plans 
to nominate chlordecone and hexabromobiphenyl, and MEXICO the 
nomination of lindane. NORWAY highlighted their nomination of 
penta-BDE. DENMARK, GERMANY and SPAIN supported the inclusion of 
additional POPs. SWEDEN indicated PFOS as a priority, and 
emphasized the need to prevent the release of new chemicals with 
POPs characteristics. MALAYSIA said caution should be exercised 
before adding new POPs, stressing the need for assistance 
strategies.  

POPs alternatives: SLOVAKIA and MAURITIUS underscored the 
importance of developing and promoting POPs alternatives. KENYA 
called for investment in non-chemical alternatives. MEXICO 
highlighted success with a prevention-based approach to 
eradicating malaria without pesticides. 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE POPRC: Fatoumata Ouane, Secretariat, 
introduced a draft decision establishing the POPRC 
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.13/Rev.1) and outlined a number of minor 
amendments to the text. Delegates adopted the draft decision.

The Secretariat introduced a draft decision on the rules of 
procedure for preventing and dealing with conflicts of interest 
for POPRC activities (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.26), drawn from the 
rules of procedure of the Rotterdam Convention. CANADA proposed 
text requesting governments to transmit the experts' declarations 
of interests to the Secretariat. TANZANIA said the degree of 
expertise should not be confined to chemicals management, and 
proposed broadening it to "relevant fields." The decision was 
adopted with the amendments proposed by Canada and Tanzania.

GUIDELINES ON BAT/BEP: Patrick Finlay (Canada), Co-Chair of the 
contact group on guidelines on BAT/BEP, presented a draft decision 
establishing an expert group to complete work on the guidelines, 
including terms of reference (ToR) (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.28). On 
participation, he noted that Western European and Other States 
would have 14 members in order to retain continuity with the 
original expert group, Africa eight, the Asia/Pacific region 
eight, Central and Eastern European states three, and Latin 
America and the Caribbean five. BRAZIL, supported by URUGUAY, 
objected to the imbalance in representation and called for an 
increase in members from Latin America and the Caribbean. RUSSIA 
called for an increase in representation for Central and Eastern 
Europe. Following informal consultations, delegates agreed to the 
following membership: nine from Africa; nine from the Asia/Pacific 
region; four from Central and Eastern Europe; six from Latin 
America and the Caribbean; and 14 from Western European and Other 
States. The decision was adopted as amended, and the COW agreed to 
reflect countries' concerns over representation in the report of 
the meeting. 

NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: Ouane introduced a draft decision 
on NIPs guidance (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.27), and delegates adopted 
it without amendment. 

EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION: CANADA presented a draft decision, 
together with Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Norway and Iceland, 
recognizing the need to establish an effectiveness evaluation 
panel (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.38). Uruguay, for GRULAC, opposed 
mentioning a global monitoring system, arguing it would divert 
resources from national implementation. CHILE, supported by 
BRAZIL, suggested deleting references to a global coordinating 
group. After consultations, delegates agreed to delete references 
to such a group, and to replace the evaluation panel with an 
evaluation mechanism. They also agreed to request the Secretariat 
to develop a background scoping paper for a global monitoring plan 
for consideration by COP-2, including: assessment of existing 
datasets on human health and environment; assessment of regional 
monitoring programs; and identification of gaps and priorities and 
their costs. The decision was adopted as amended.

BAT/BEP GUIDELINES: KENYA introduced a draft decision with 
Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Senegal and Tanzania, supported by CHINA 
and PAPUA NEW GUINEA, initiating activities to promote guidelines 
on BAT/BEP through awareness raising, training and publicity 
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.21). The draft decision requested the 
allocation of sufficient resources and urged donors to support the 
activities. The EU highlighted the need to consider budget 
implications, and noted that the COP, not the Secretariat, is 
responsible for resource allocation. After informal consultations, 
delegates deleted the reference to resource allocation and 
training and adopted the decision.

MEASURES TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE RELEASES FROM WASTES: The EU 
introduced a draft decision requesting the Secretariat to keep 
Parties informed of the status and content of Basel Convention 
developments on technical guidelines on levels of destruction and 
irreversible transformation (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.21). Delegates 
adopted the decision.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: Guidance on technical assistance: David 
Ogden, Secretariat, introduced a draft decision on guidance on 
technical assistance and the transfer of environmentally sound 
technologies (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.29). After some discussion, 
delegates agreed to remove a reference to countries of origin in 
text on developing and updating a list of technologies available 
to be transferred to developing country Parties and Parties with 
economies in transition. Delegates adopted the decision as 
amended.

Regional and subregional centers: Ogden presented a revised draft 
decision asking the Secretariat to develop ToR for regional and 
subregional centers (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.25). SWITZERLAND asked 
that regional and subregional centers be "based on" rather than 
"linked to" existing regional centers, and suggested requesting 
the Secretariat to prepare a proposal to strengthen existing 
regional centers. VENEZUELA proposed asking the Secretariat to 
provide inputs to define centers' organizational structure, and 
making reference to Basel regional centers specifically. NORWAY 
proposed lending wider relevance to text on the consideration of 
various languages within a given region. NEW ZEALAND suggested 
asking the Secretariat to consult with existing centers' host 
organizations. BRAZIL and YEMEN urged adopting the CRP without 
amendments. After informal consultations, the COW adopted a 
decision including new text on: language; consultation with host 
organizations; providing inputs for decision-making on 
organizational structure; optimization of synergies between 
relevant MEAs; and a proposal for strengthening regional centers.

GUIDANCE TO THE FINANCIAL MECHANISM: Financial mechanism contact 
group Co-Chair Jozef Buys (European Community) said the contact 
group on the financial mechanism had cleared the draft decisions 
on guidance to the financial mechanism (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.30), 
and on the review of the financial mechanism, which adopts ToR for 
the review of the financial mechanism contained in an Annex 
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.39). He said the draft Memorandum of 
Understanding between the GEF Council and the COP was still under 
debate. The COW adopted the draft guidance and the ToR without 
amendment. The draft decision on the MoU will be submitted 
directly to Plenary on Friday. 

REPORT OF THE COW: Delegates adopted the report of the COW 
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CW/L.1 and L.1/Add.1). The session concluded at 
12:25 am.

IN THE CORRIDORS

Delegates looking forward to sipping asti spumante in celebration 
tomorrow are likely to be disappointed, as Italy is said to be 
withdrawing its candidacy to host the Secretariat in Rome. This is 
good news for chocolate lovers: though the Swiss booth at COP-1 
was noticeably chocolateless, and the replacement Swiss-flag 
candies remained relatively untouched, the absence was explained 
as a "transport issue." Delegates should rest assured that there 
is plenty of chocolate left in Geneva.




This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin � <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is 
written and edited by Soledad Aguilar, Paula Barrios, Catherine 
Ganzleben, D.Phil., Pia M. Kohler, and Noelle Eckley Selin. The 
Digital Editor is Diego Noguera. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, 
Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and the Director of IISD Reporting Services 
is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. The Sustaining 
Donors of the Bulletin are the Government of the United States of 
America (through the Department of State Bureau of Oceans and 
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs), the 
Government of Canada (through CIDA), the Swiss Agency for 
Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), the United Kingdom 
(through the Department for International Development - DFID), the 
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Germany 
(through the German Federal Ministry of Environment - BMU, and the 
German Federal Ministry of Development Cooperation - BMZ), the 
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the European 
Commission (DG-ENV). General Support for the Bulletin during 2005 
is provided by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 
the Government of Australia, the Austrian Federal Ministry of 
Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, the 
Ministry of Sustainable Development and the Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs of Sweden, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs of Norway, the Ministry of Environment and the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, Swan International, the 
Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global 
Environmental Strategies - IGES) and the Japanese Ministry of 
Economy, Trade and Industry (through the Global Industrial and 
Social Progress Research Institute - GISPRI), and the Italian 
Ministry of Environment. Funding for translation of the Earth 
Negotiations Bulletin into French has been provided by the 
International Organization of the Francophonie (IOF) and the 
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Funding for the translation of 
the Earth Negotiations Bulletin into Spanish has been provided by 
the Ministry of Environment of Spain. The opinions expressed in 
the Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do 
not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. 
Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in 
non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. 
For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide 
reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting 
Services at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, +1-646-536-7556 or 212 East 47th St. 
#21F, New York, NY 10017, USA. The ENB Team at POPs COP-1 can be 
contacted by e-mail at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

---
You are currently subscribed to enb as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Subscribe to Linkages Update to receive our fortnightly, html-newsletter on 
what's new in the international environment and sustainable development arena: 
http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm
- Archives of Climate-L and Climate-L News are available online at: 
http://www.iisd.ca/email/climate-L.htm
- Archives of Water-L and Water-L News are available online at: 
http://www.iisd.ca/email/water-L.htm

Reply via email to