|
|
PDF Format |
Spanish Version |
French Version |
|
|
|
|
| |
Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development
(IISD)
Vol. 15 No. 146
Friday, 13 October 2006
PIC COP-3
HIGHLIGHTS:
THURSDAY,
12 OCTOBER 2006
The PIC COP-3 met in plenary throughout the day to hear reports from working and
contact groups, and addressed nomination of experts and financial mechanisms. COP-3 adopted decisions on nomination of Chemical
Review Committee (CRC) experts, election of COP-4 officers, technical assistance
and synergies. The
non-compliance working
group met in the morning and convened in a Friends of the Chair Group
and bilateral discussions in the afternoon. The contact groups on financial mechanisms
and the budget met
throughout the day. The Friends of the Chair Group on chrysotile asbestos
met and agreed to a text on the issue.
The Ministerial Segment
convened in the afternoon to hear statements by ministers and high-level
officials.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION
NOMINATION OF CRC EXPERTS: The Secretariat introduced the draft decision on election of
experts for the CRC (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.3/CRP.8). Nominations for experts
from each region for the four-year period from 1 October 2007 are the
following: China, India, Japan and Sri Lanka for Asia and the Pacific; the
Czech Republic for Central and Eastern Europe; Chile and Mexico for Latin
American and the Caribbean Group (GRULAC); Austria, France and Norway for
Western Europe and others Group (WEOG); and Benin, Gabon, Nigeria and
South Africa for the African Group. COP-3
adopted the decision.
ISSUES FROM PREVIOUS COPS
REPORTS FROM THE WORKING GROUP AND CONTACT
GROUPS: Non-compliance working group Chair Denis Langlois reported on
the group’s progress, and, noting outstanding issues remained, asked that
the group’s mandate be extended to Friday.
Financial
mechanism contact group Co-Chair Jozef Buys reported progress on preparing
a draft COP-3
decision but said long-term financing options text remained bracketed. NEW
ZEALAND, supported by NORWAY, urged reaching agreement on consensus text,
maintaining reference to both the GEF and the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund. SOUTH AFRICA urged
not restricting options for long-term financing to the GEF and amending the text to emphasize that the Secretariat should explore new and different sources of
financing. Delegates agreed to continue discussions in the contact
group.
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL DELIVERY OF TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE: The Secretariat introduced the draft decision on regional
and national delivery of technical assistance (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.3/CRP.10),
noting it incorporated some revisions reflecting the EU’s comments in plenary and other minor amendments,
including on references throughout the text to “national action plan,” to
avoid confusion with the Stockholm Convention. COP-3 adopted the decision.
SYNERGIES: Contact group Co-Chair Jan-Karel
Kwisthout presented the draft decision on cooperation and coordination
between the Rotterdam, Basel and Stockholm Conventions (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.3/CRP.13). He
reported on the agreed outcome, which provides that COP-3: agrees to participate in the process specified in
Decision SC-2/15; expects the ad hoc joint working group to report
to COP-4; and recognizes the need to provide support for participation of
developing countries and those with economies in transition in the ad
hoc working group. It also invites observers to submit their views on
the supplementary report (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.3/INF.18). COP-3 adopted the decision without amendment.
ELECTION OF
COP-4 OFFICERS
President Yue
Ruisheng introduced this agenda item, inviting regional groups to nominate
representatives for the Bureau to serve through to COP-4. WEOG requested
more time, GRULAC elected Andrea Repetti (Argentina), the African Group
elected Abdoulaye Traoré (Mali), Asia and Pacific elected Hamoud Darwish
Salim Al-Hasni (Oman), and Central and Eastern Europe elected Daniela
Ioana Florea (Romania).
WORKING GROUP
NON-COMPLIANCE: On membership, AUSTRALIA said his
delegation could accept the UN regional basis for membership. Based on a
15 members compliance committee, delegates debated proportional versus
equal distribution of members per region, with INDIA and other Asian and
African countries supporting four members from Africa and Asia-Pacific
regions, two from GRULAC and Central and Eastern Europe, and three from
WEOG. GRULAC members, the EU and AUSTRALIA supported
three from each region. No agreement was reached.
On examining
systemic issues of general compliance, the group agreed to a compromise
text between the EU and Australia, supported by Japan, stating that the
committee may request relevant information from any reliable sources and
outside experts, in accordance with relevant guidance by the
COP.
Delegates then
discussed whether the committee might be operationalized pending agreement
on some of the committee’s attributes, including decision-making process,
measures, triggers and composition. AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, INDIA and CHINA
suggested the committee could be established in the absence of consensus
on these issues, while the EU, SWITZERLAND, NORWAY and
JAMAICA noted unresolved procedures would prevent the committee from
functioning effectively.
Following
Canada’s suggestion, Chair Langlois established a Friends of the Chair
group, which evolved into bilateral discussions that took place throughout
the afternoon. The working group reconvened briefly, and Chair Langlois
asked if the group could continue in an evening session without
interpretation, but CHINA opposed. In light of this, Chair Langlois
distributed a Chair’s draft text on outstanding issues, and explained that
it would be translated overnight, and discussed in the working group on
Friday morning.
CONTACT GROUPS
FINANCIAL MECHANISMS: In the financial mechanisms
contact group, many developing countries proposed that the Secretariat explore new long-term financing sources and
not limit funding sources to the GEF and the Montreal Protocol. Some developed countries opposed
broadening sources of funding, saying other potential sources were already
identified in the draft decision. One party suggested GEF and Montreal Protocol parties now needed to consider funding
more broadly. A smaller drafting group was established to prepare a
revised text for consideration on Friday.
BUDGET: Looking at budget figures, baselines and
parties’ contributions, delegates discussed UNEP/FAO.RC.COP.3/CRP.6. The
EU asked the Secretariat to point out lines in which savings could be
made. The group also negotiated the budget draft decision line-by-line,
agreeing to, inter alia: a zero increase in budget compared to the
last biennium; asking the Secretariat to produce a format for the 2009–2010
budgets in harmony with the Stockholm and Basel Conventions secretariats; and to set the working
capital reserve at 15% of the average biennial operational budgets.
Delegates also agreed to ask the Secretariat to write to the relevant parties, impressing
upon them the importance of paying their respective arrears for 2005 and
of timely payments for 2006. The only unresolved issue relates to the
compliance committee budget line, contingent on the outcomes of the
non-compliance working group.
MINISTERIAL SEGMENT
President Yue
Ruisheng welcomed ministers, high-level officials and delegates to the COP-3 Ministerial Segment, noting its theme “Towards the
full implementation of the Rotterdam Convention:
challenges and opportunities.”
Shafqat
Kakakhel, UNEP Deputy Executive Director, on behalf of UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner, said national
implementation is key to meeting the objectives of the Convention, stressing the need to adapt existing
legislative and administrative frameworks instead of creating new ones.
Shivaji Pandey,
FAO, on behalf of FAO Director-General Jacques
Diouf, noted the Convention now includes major
chemical producing and exporting countries and that many more chemicals
are candidates for the PIC procedure. Together with many others, he paid
tribute to Niek Van de Graaff’s efforts to promote sound chemicals
management at the international level, as he is retiring.
Many speakers
thanked the Swiss Government for hosting COP-3, UNITAR for providing technical assistance for national
implementation, and UNEP and FAO for continued support to the Convention.
JORDAN
highlighted national activities and called for financial and technical
assistance to achieve the World Summit on Sustainable Development goal of
achieving sound chemicals management by 2020.
Noting that poor
chemicals management continues to pose grave threats in Africa,
BENIN called for financial resources, solidarity and a coordinated
approach. GHANA called for support in strengthening national legislation
and capacity building and, with NIGERIA, drew attention to continued
international traffic in hazardous chemicals. RWANDA highlighted
challenges in the Convention’s implementation,
and underscored research and development, implementation strategies and
synergies among chemicals-related MEAs.
SWITZERLAND
underscored, inter alia, an effective and supportive compliance regime and
synergies for the Convention’s implementation
and emphasized the bad precedent set by COP-3’s
lack of consensus on chrysotile asbestos, citing political and economic
grounds. The EU highlighted its member states’ emphasis on chemicals
management, urged incorporating sustainable chemicals management in
development initiatives and lamented the implications that COP-3’s lack of consensus on chrysotile would have on
the numerous hazardous chemicals on Annex III “waiting list.” Noting that
no new chemicals have been added to Annex III since 2004, GERMANY warned
that failure to list chrysotile asbestos would damage the Convention’s implementation, with the WHO highlighting
health hazards of chrysotile asbestos and existence of safer substitutes.
The EC said the Convention was not working as well as it should, and
said failure to list new chemicals, especially those being traded
internationally, would jeopardize the Convention, highlighting COP-3 decision not to include chrysotile
asbestos.
FINLAND
announced her country would host the ad hoc joint working group on
synergies. Encouraging an integrated approach to implementation in
developing countries, TOGO commended the SAICM Quick
Start Programme, and called for regional, subregional and national
common policies and strategies.
CAMEROON
highlighted national activities in sustainable development of chemical and
agricultural industries, and noted problems in controlling transboundary
movements of hazardous chemicals. LIBERIA highlighted barriers preventing
full implementation, including lack of: chemical and poison control
centers; monitoring and inventory capacity; and a legislative framework.
MAURITANIA stressed the importance of technical assistance for developing
countries in implementing the Convention. THAILAND urged
strengthening cooperation and communication between stakeholders at all
levels for successful implementation of the Convention, and integration with other chemicals
conventions, as well as SAICM.
The UKRAINE
highlighted national activities to implement the Rotterdam Convention and, noting the country’s
pesticides stockpiles, announced its intention to ratify the Stockholm Convention. BULGARIA and ARGENTINA stressed
regional cooperation for sound chemical management. URUGUAY underscored
shared responsibility and joint efforts in protecting the environment and
public health. ITALY highlighted national action plans and strategies,
cross-sectoral approaches and continued cooperation and collaboration
between the MEAs. Highlighting the recent illegal dumping of chemical
waste in Cote d’Ivoire, the BASEL CONVENTION, stressed
coordinated and effective environmental instruments to protect vulnerable
groups and ecosystems from chemicals and their hazards.
IN THE CORRIDORS
As the
non-compliance working group went into closed-door bilaterals for most of
the afternoon, with the Chair reportedly asking delegates what their
bottom line was on outstanding issues, frustrated faces conveyed a lack of
optimism on progress. Some delegates were very concerned that no
resolution would be reached as no one was showing flexibility. Another
said that Thursday was still early for delegates to put all their cards on
the table. As a full day remains to discuss a Chair’s proposal on the
table, a positive outcome may still be possible.
ENB SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS: The Earth
Negotiations Bulletin summary and analysis of the Third Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam
Convention will be available on Monday, 16 October 2006 online at: http://www.iisd.ca/chemical/pic/cop3/
This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin ©
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is written and
edited by Karen Alvarenga, Ph.D., Xenya Cherny, Richard de Ferranti,
Leonie Gordon, and Leila Mead. 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 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, the European Commission (DG-ENV) and the Italian
Ministry for the Environment and Territory General Directorate for
Nature Protection. General Support for the Bulletin during
2006 is provided by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
the Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests
and Landscape (SAEFL), the Government of Australia, the
Austrian Federal Ministry for the Environment, the New Zealand
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 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). 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
PIC
COP-3 can be contacted by e-mail at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | |
