Earth Negotiations Bulletin

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 A Reporting Service for Environment and Development Negotiations

 

PDF Format
 Spanish Version
French Version


Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)

 

Vol. 15 No. 144
Wednesday, 11 October 2006

PIC COP-3 HIGHLIGHTS:

TUESDAY, 10 OCTOBER 2006

The third Conference of the Parties (COP-3) to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade met in plenary throughout the day, addressing nomination of experts to the Chemical Review Committee (CRC), inclusion of chrysotile asbestos, financial mechanisms, technical assistance and election of COP-4 officers. The working group on non-compliance met throughout the day, and the budget contact group met in the morning. A Friends of the Chair Group met at lunchtime and continued discussing chrysotile asbestos in the evening.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION

CRC-2 REPORT: Risk Evaluations under other MEAs: The Secretariat presented UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.3/10. The EU, CANADA, SWITZERLAND, AUSTRALIA and OMAN favored recognizing the reportís recommendations on evaluations of chemicals under the Stockholm Convention and Montreal Protocol. The US emphasized the importance of the CRC running an independent analysis in each case. Delegates agreed to the Secretariatís recommendations in the document.

NOMINATION OF GOVERNMENTS TO DESIGNATE EXPERTS TO CRC: The Secretariat introduced UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.3/6, outlining the need for COP-3 to identify governments that will be invited to nominate experts to replace CRC members whose two-year appointments expire in September 2007. Delegates agreed to consider this in regional groups and report to plenary on Thursday morning.

CONFIRMATION OF CRC EXPERTS: The Secretariat introduced UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.3/5. Delegates agreed to the draft decision confirming the appointment of the Democratic Republic of the Congoís expert, Alain Buluku.

CONSIDERATION OF A CHEMICAL TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONVENTIONíS ANNEX III: Chrysotile asbestos: Delegates continued considering this issue. The Secretariat presented UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.3/11 on the listing of chrysotile asbestos. President Yue asked delegates to consider whether the Conventionís legal and procedural requirements had been met on: notification and listing criteria; the preparation and approval of the decision guidance documents (DGDs); and the submission of the DGDs and recommendation to the COP.

The AFRICAN GROUP excluding Zimbabwe, the EU, NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA, SWITZERLAND, NORWAY, CHILE, the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, ARGENTINA, URUGUAY and OMAN were satisfied that due process had been followed. SUDAN said failing to list chrysotile asbestos would damage the Conventionís credibility.

CANADA emphasized the COP was a body for policy decisions and opposed listing at this time. The UKRAINE, KYRGYZSTAN, IRAN, PERU, INDIA and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION supported Canada, calling for solid scientific evidence on risks. The UKRAINE and IRAN urged deferring listing until sufficient information on asbestos substitutes is available, noting known alternatives are more hazardous. LIBERIA and NORWAY said listing could encourage finding alternatives, and KENYA emphasized listing would provide valuable information on health risks. NEW ZEALAND proposed agreeing to list the chemical, but defer its applicability until concerns had been addressed.

In summarizing, President Yue noted general consensus on due process but highlighted delegatesí political objections and concerns about scientific data and substitutes. He proposed, and COP-3 agreed, to establish a Friends of the Chair Group, chaired by Andrea Repetti (Argentina). Stressing implications for the Conventionís implementation of not listing a substance that has met all the criteria, he mandated the Group to address these implications but, urged by the EU, CHILE and NEW ZEALAND, stressed it should first try to reach consensus.

ISSUES FROM PREVIOUS COPS

FINANCIAL MECHANISMS: The Secretariat introduced the study on possible lasting and sustainable financial mechanisms (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.3/13) to enable developing countries to implement the Convention. SWITZERLAND favored expanding the Global Environment Facility (GEF) POPs focal area and using the SAICM. The EU opposed establishing a financial mechanism under the Convention and, with JAPAN, noted the need to find ways to link the Convention, and improve access, to existing financial instruments. NEW ZEALAND favored using the Montreal Protocolís Multilateral Fund, and suggested developing countries include chemicals issues in their national implementation plans. The AFRICAN GROUP welcomed any financial mechanism that would allow further capacity building and technical assistance. MEXICO, VENEZUELA and ECUADOR highlighted the importance of ensuring availability of resources to fulfill developing countriesí commitments.

NORWAY underscored the need for the Secretariatís further assistance in identifying resources for technical assistance, supported further use of the Conventionís voluntary fund and GEF POPs focal area, and suggested exploring bilateral assistance. The US noted the lack of information on how much funding will be available under the SAICM Quick Start Programme (QSP). CHINA underscored the difficulties in fulfilling the strict financial rules and limited areas of GEF POPs, and advocated increased contributions to the Conventionís voluntary fund. A contact group was established to further discuss the issue.

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL DELIVERY OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: The Secretariat introduced UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.3/14, highlighting the contribution of regional and national delivery of technical assistance to the implementation of the Convention. SWITZERLAND announced financial support for a further two countries under the UNITAR pilot project on developing national plans. Many developing countries and those with economies in transition commended donor countriesí contributions, notably that of Switzerland. ECUADOR and JORDAN reported on benefits derived from participating in the UNITAR pilot project. Several delegates stressed collaboration and cooperation, with BURKINA FASO and TOGO emphasizing the economies of scale created by synergies. TANZANIA and GHANA called for increased support to address poor performance in implementation. Responding to a question from the US, the Secretariat said expansion or formalization of UNEP/FAO regional office assistance is not currently planned and the BASEL CONVENTION urged utilizing regional offices throughout PIC regions. COP-3 took note of the report.

The Secretariat introduced the document on technical assistance (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.3/15). Several developing country delegates including CHAD, BRAZIL, NIGERIA, CHILE, SUDAN and SENEGAL expressed concerns about the pace and/or inclusiveness of the recommended approach. The Secretariat clarified that the approach sought to strengthen and accelerate Convention implementation, by identifying common areas requiring assistance. The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION highlighted the advantages of the proposed programme working through the International Programme on Chemical Safety poisons centers. While not yet endorsing the programmes, the EU announced a range of funding contributions by its members, which was welcomed by developing country delegates. Delegates will continue discussions on Wednesday.

WORKING GROUPS

NON-COMPLIANCE: On a decision-making process, Chair Langlois proposed a two-thirds majority vote if consensus can not be reached, noting that the interests of those supporting consensus are protected by the COPís Rules of Procedure. AUSTRALIA noted the COPís decision-making process had not yet been agreed on and, supported by JAPAN, PAKISTAN, CHINA, JORDAN, the US and INDIA, supported taking decisions only by consensus. The EU, NORWAY, CHILE, ETHIOPIA, NIGERIA, SWITZERLAND, SOUTH AFRICA and JAMAICA supported the Chairís proposal. AUSTRALIA said the COP was not obligated to reach a decision on non-compliance by the end of the week. Noting Article 17 (Non-compliance) stated a decision be made as soon as practicable, CANADA, supported by ETHIOPIA and MALAYSIA, suggested a footnote reflecting that consensus should be reached on suspension of rights and privileges. ARGENTINA, BRAZIL, OMAN and VENEZUELA said the nature of the mechanism must be clear. JAPAN and SWITZERLAND proposed, and delegates agreed, to address possible non-compliance measures before further discussions on a decision-making process.

On measures, the group did not make progress on the bracketed measure recommending a non-compliant party to take steps to remedy the non-compliant situation, such as re-import/re-export of the chemical or safe disposal at the expense of the non-complaint party.

CHINA and AUSTRALIA opposed the measure in its entirety, while many opposed specifying measures. JAPAN and JAMAICA disagreed on partiesí responsibilities to remedy a non-compliant situation, while ETHIOPIA opposed Canadaís proposal to combine paragraphs on the COP providing advice regarding ďpresent and futureĒ compliance. The group rejected Chair Langloisí proposal to delete references to specific measures and remove brackets around the first part on recommending steps to address the situation, agreeing instead to divide the paragraph into two sets of bracketed text.

Regarding measures on issuing a statement of concern and issuing a caution, Chair Langlois proposed language merging the ideas by following the Basel Conventionís model of issuing a cautionary statement. ETHIOPIA, MEXICO, the EU and NORWAY supported the Chairís proposal. AUSTRALIA said issuing a caution was more punitive and, with INDIA, CHINA, CHILE and ARGENTINA, opposed the Chairís proposal.

JAPAN proposed language on issuing a cautionary statement regarding future compliance to assist partiesí implementation of the Convention, and deleting text on a statement of determination on and declaration of non-compliance, which SWITZERLAND and NORWAY opposed. Chair Langlois asked that a drafting group discuss Japanís proposal as alternative text. In the afternoon, JAPAN presented the drafting groupís resulting text, noting its proposal to issue a statement of concern on a partyís non-compliance and then advise it on achieving compliance. He said the group also agreed to delete references to suspension of partiesí rights and privileges, while the EU urged their retention. Highlighting the Emergency Fund on Non-compliance under the Basel Convention, JAMAICA noted the proposed mechanism lacks financial resources to be effective.

AUSTRALIA, CHINA and BRAZIL requested deleting references to a statement on the determination of non-compliance and providing advice to a non-compliant party on how to take steps to remedy the non-compliant situation. The EU proposed replacing the reference to suspension of partiesí rights and privileges to ineligibility of a non-complaint party to serve as COP President or a member of the Bureau. No agreement was reached, and the drafting group, coordinated by Japan and South Africa, reconvened in the evening.

Regarding transparency, Chair Langlois proposed that meetings be closed, unless the committee and the party whose compliance is in question agree otherwise. Maintaining this proposalís essence, TANZANIA, supported by INDIA, CANADA, VENEZUELA, AUSTRALIA, CHINA, JORDAN, ARGENTINA and JAPAN proposed language on closing meetings to the public unless the committee and party decide otherwise. CANADA underscored funding implications for open meetings.

The EU, supported by NORWAY, JAMAICA, ETHIOPIA, CHILE and MALI, proposed meetings be open to the public unless the committee decides otherwise or the party whose compliance is in question requests a closed meeting. Supporting open meetings, SOUTH AFRICA said the party, not the committee, should decide whether the meeting should be open or closed. ETHIOPIA asked that ďpublicĒ be clearly defined. The US said closed compliance meetings were the norm and that they encouraged more candid debate. JAMAICA and ETHIOPIA noted knowledge generation and experience sharing resulted from open meetings. TANZANIA suggested requesting information and comments from the public ahead of sessions. BRAZIL said closed meetings favored openness of the party in question. Chair Langlois said closed compliance meetings were more common and conducive to openness between parties. The EU said the Biosafety and Kyoto Protocols had adopted more open approaches for their compliance committees.

BUDGET: The Secretariat introduced the revised document on the 2007-2008 budget, including the addition of language on options to either maintain the level of the working capital reserve at 15% of the average operational budget (scenario one) or to decrease it to 8.3% (scenario two). Partiesí contributions were reassessed to reflect the two scenarios. Participants discussed the draft budget line-by-line, particularly COP-4 costs and expenditures with consultants and translators. The group will continue discussions on Thursday.

IN THE CORRIDORS

On the second day of COP-3, the looming challenge of finding financial arrangements to assist developing countries and countries with economies in transition to implement the Convention prompted some delegates to recall deep disappointment during COP-2 on this issue. COP-2 grasped the size of the problem, but was unable to solve it. One delegate said he would be happy with any arrangement, either tailor-made or borrowed from other processes, such as GEF POPs focal area, Montreal Protocolís Multilateral Fund or SAICM Quick-Start Programme. The only issue this delegate was fussy about was the arrangementís ability to promote sound chemicals management. His wish may come true since a couple of donors were heard expressing their readiness to commit further funding in plenary.

Rumors are also circulating that a solution may emerge from the Friends of the Chair Group on chrysotile asbestos through agreement on a voluntary procedure encouraging parties to list the chemical under national legislation.
 

This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org> 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. <pam@iisd.org> and the Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. 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 <kimo@iisd.org>, +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 <karen@iisd.org>.