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

Thursday, 20 June:

On the fourth day of INC-6, delegates met in morning and afternoon Plenary sessions, in two morning contact groups and one evening contact group. In the morning Plenary, delegates completed deliberations on financial resources and mechanisms, interim financial arrangements, measures to reduce or eliminate releases from intentional production and use and register of specific exemptions, and measures to reduce or eliminate releases from stockpiles and wastes. In the afternoon, delegates discussed information exchange, technical assistance, and effectiveness evaluation. The two morning contact groups on the POPs Review Committee (POPRC) and best available techniques (BAT) and best environmental practices (BEP) finalized their work and presented reports to Plenary in the afternoon. The evening contact group finalized four decisions related to technical assistance and capacity building.


Financial resources and mechanism, and interim financial arrangements

 

Following up on Wednesday's discussion regarding the Memorandum of Understanding with and guidance to the GEF, the GEF Secretariat indicated it would consider INC-6 proposals at its October 2002 Assembly.

Review of the financial mechanism's effectiveness
The EU stressed that the terms of reference of the review should not be GEF-specific, and proposed inviting country submissions to this end. She suggested, and delegates agreed, to postpone discussion on the institutional structure for the final financial mechanism.
John Whitelaw, UNEP Chemicals (center), on behalf of the Secretariat, introduced the document on review of effectiveness of the financial mechanism (UNEP/POPS/INC.6/12, paragraph 4, points b and c). He said it would be useful for the financial mechanism to know the terms of any review to be undertaken in the future.
 
Chair Buccini summarized the debate, noting that INC-7 will define the terms of reference for the review.

Collection of information from relevant funding institutions
Whitelaw introduced UNEP/POPS/INC.6/5, which urges the INC to provide advice to the Secretariat on the types of information to be collected and the funding institutions to contact.
 
Poland suggested the COP undertake the review of these activities by 2004.
Canada proposed a database and stressed the private sector's role
 
Spain, on behalf of the EU, highlighted overlap of activities with those of the capacity assistance network (CAN). He said that a database should not be a priority given current budgetary constraints, and invited participation of the private sector.
 
Whitelaw and Buccini then summarized the discussion, noting that delegates asked the Secretariat to present INC-7 with a draft report on this issue.

Clearing-House Mechanism
David Ogden, UNEP Chemicals, introduced (UNEP/POPS/INC.6/INF/7), regarding possible functions of the clearing-house mechanism (CHM) . He noted that there are now 78 national focal points for the Stockholm Convention.

Following the debate, Ogden responded to questions from the floor, including one on perceived budget discrepancies.


CRP.12
Jim Willis, Director of UNEP Chemicals, introduced UNEP/POPS/INC.6/CRP/12, a set of four draft decisions on: guidance on technical assistance, a feasibility study on regional and sub-regional centers, a pilot project on regional centers, and on the pacaity assistance network (CAN). He noted that some disagreement still exists, espcially on the CAN proposal.
After the discussion, Buccini described the mandate of the contact group which was to discuss the possible decisions on technical assistance.

Contact Group Reports
POPRC contact group Co-Chairs, Fatoumata Jallow Ndoye (The Gambia) and Reiner Arndt (Germany) reported that participants agreed: to the task and size of the committee; that work will be based on scientific evaluation followed by risk management evaluation; and that meetings would be held in English. Participants also agreed the Rotterdam Convention model was a good starting point on how to resolve issues of conflict of interest. Participants failed to agree on the POPRC composition, on an expert nomination procedure, and on funding issues.
Co-Chair Sergio Vives (Chile) presented the draft terms of reference for the Expert Group on BAT/BEP explaining that: its first meeting will be held prior to INC-7; the INC shall identify two interim co-chairs; the Expert Group will have balanced representation among developed countries, developing countries and countries with economies in transition (CEITs), as well as representation from intergovernmental organizations, and environmental and industry organizations; and participants should have expertise in technical issues and/or relevant environmental policy and/or the functioning of the Stockholm Convention.

Evaluation of Effectiveness
Bo Wahlstrom, UNEP Chemicals, presented the note on two existing UNEP Chemicals monitoring programmes (UNEP/POPS/INC.6/10).

Miscellaneous
Members of the G-77/China consulting with each other before the start of the afternoon Plenary.
 

INC-6 participants gathered in the exhibit area to watch a segment of a video produced by UNEP, UNDP and the Earth Council on the effects of POPs. The video will be shown around the world in the weeks prior to WSSD.

 

Chris Corbain (Saint Lucia) and Jozef Buys (Belgium), Co-Chairs of the contact group on technical assistance. The group worked well into the night.
 
Bird's-eye view of the lobby of the Centre International de Congrès de Genève. Note the exhibition area, at the back.

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: