Delegates met in Plenary throughout the day to address the annexes
detailing information requirements for listing of chemicals (Annexes D,
E and F), and considered, under measures to reduce or eliminate releases
(Article D): new chemicals; prohibition on the production and use of
certain POPs; and restriction on the production and use of certain POPs.
Plenary also received the IAG's report and briefly discussed technical
assistance (Article J).
CONTACT GROUP REPORTS: Halldor Thorgeirsson (Iceland), Chair of
the contact group on by-products, reported that the group had reached
agreement on, inter alia: the role of the COP to provide
guidelines on best available technologies, and identifying the
implications this has for interim arrangements; and the proposal to use
an EU proposal on Annex C (chemicals subject to reporting and reduction
or elimination requirements) as the basis for further discussions at
INC-5. He said the group would continue to meet to continue work on the
chapeau and on by-product terms.
Peter Hinchcliffe (UK), Chair of the contact group on the management
and disposal of wastes, noted agreement on the majority of text despite
deeply held positions. He said the remaining brackets relate mainly to
technical detail, and can be resolved easily. He introduced the revised
text forwarded by the contact group, which, inter alia, streamlines
stockpiles and wastes into one provision, and, regarding disposal, calls
for consistency with the Basel Convention, where appropriate.
ANNEXES ON INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR LISTING OF SUBSTANCES: The
Secretariat outlined the development of these annexes, noting the high
degree of consensus achieved at previous meetings. He remarked that
Annex F is clean text.
Information Requirements for the Risk Profile (Annex E): Delegates
accepted proposals from POLAND, AUSTRALIA and JAPAN for minor
modifications to the text, resulting in clean text.
Information Requirements and Criteria for the Proposal and Screening
of Proposed POPs (Annex D): On the information requirements that
parties proposing additional POPs are to provide, the EU, supported by
CANADA, specified that this information be "on the properties of
the substance and its transformation products, where relevant." The
US preferred information "on the substance, and its transformation
products, where appropriate," and delegates agreed.
With regard to the criteria for persistence in water, many countries,
including the EU, SWITZERLAND, NORWAY, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, POLAND,
SOUTH AFRICA, INDONESIA, MALAYSIA, PAPUA NEW GUINEA and KUWAIT,
supported a half-life greater than two months, while the US, CANADA,
INDIA, MOLDOVA, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA, JAPAN, AUSTRALIA and others
supported a half-life in water of six months. VENEZUELA remarked that,
in tropical conditions, a two month half-life could be too long. The
options remain bracketed.
On the bioaccumulation criteria, the EU, SWITZERLAND, NORWAY, the
RUSSIAN FEDERATION, POLAND, INDONESIA, MALAYSIA, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, INDIA
and KUWAIT supported a log Kow greater than 4, and the US, CANADA,
MOLDOVA, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA, JAPAN, AUSTRALIA and others opposed,
expressing their support for a log Kow greater than 5. SOUTH AFRICA
suggested a log Kow between 4 and 7, but later supported 4. The text
contains bracketed options for a log Kow greater than 4 or 5.
On the adverse effects criteria, the EU called to specify that
evidence be of adverse effect "on human health and the
environment." SWITZERLAND and CANADA supported this. On whether
parties proposing POPs would need to provide toxicity data and/or other
evidence, the EU and INDONESIA preferred "or," while AUSTRALIA
preferred "and/or." The options remain bracketed. Delegates
agreed to delete text stating that information on adverse effects will
be considered a crucial element for the analysis of environmental and
On criteria for a "criteria summary" which requests parties
proposing POPs to provide a statement of the reasons for concern, the EU
proposed that parties be "encouraged to" submit such a
statement, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA supported "should," and
CANADA, the US, AUSTRALIA and MOLDOVA preferred "shall," with
the understanding that this would be "where possible." Several
countries, including the EU, CANADA, AUSTRALIA and CAMEROON suggested
alternative names for the summary such as a "rational
statement" or ''reasons for concern." JAPAN requested that
such a statement include information on exposure. Some delegates,
including the EU and JAPAN, supported deleting a requirement for the
statement to demonstrate "the need for global control," and
others, including KUWAIT, CANADA and AUSTRALIA, opposed. Chair Buccini
proposed "a short statement indicating the need for global
control," and JAPAN and the EU requested time for consideration.
The RUSSIAN FEDERATION, supported by ARGENTINA and MOLDOVA, noted the
role of volatility in secondary emissions, and stressed its inclusion in
the evaluation of potential for long-range transport. The Secretariat
explained that volatility is addressed as an aspect of environmental
fate properties. Contested text remains in brackets and Article F and
its annexes were submitted to the LDG.
MEASURES TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE RELEASES: New Chemicals: The EU
presented revised text on behalf of AUSTRALIA, CANADA, NORWAY and the
US, which: defines the scope of the article's application as the
production and use of "newly developed pesticides and industrial
chemicals"; limits its application to parties having "a
regulatory and assessment scheme" for such pesticides and
chemicals; and makes reference to specific criteria provisions in Annex
D. The proposal was supported by SWITZERLAND and the CZECH REPUBLIC, as
well as NEPAL and VENEZUELA who proposed including reference to import
and export. On reference to import and export, the US cautioned on the
need for consistency with the rest of the article. The GAMBIA proposed
reference to "consumer" chemicals. On bracketed text on
measures to "avoid," "prevent," and
"regulate" new POPs, VENEZUELA added "prohibit."
Prohibition of the Production and Use of Certain POPs: Regarding
prohibition of production and use, the US presented simplified text on
behalf of the EU, JAPAN, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, SWITZERLAND, CANADA and
NORWAY, which, inter alia, adds reference to taking
administrative and other measures, and moves provisions on import and
export to a bis paragraph addressing destruction of banned
substances. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION, the GAMBIA, IRAN, KUWAIT, URUGUAY,
SAUDI ARABIA, LESOTHO and others advocated retention of import and
export. KUWAIT and THAILAND called for prohibiting "transit."
SAUDI ARABIA preferred "passage."
INDONESIA supported the separate provision on banning export and
import of prohibited substances, but proposed deletion of language on
environmentally sound destruction. JAMAICA expressed concern over a time
lag between prohibition of a chemical and the cessation of import and
export, but supported moving the reference to import and export on
condition that language be amended to resolve this concern. COLOMBIA
supported adding language on the prior authorization of an importing
country. IRAN and KUWAIT supported provision for destruction of
stockpiles, with IRAN calling for language on destruction within a
territory and any area under a party's jurisdiction.
Restrictions on the Production and Use of Certain POPs: Regarding
restriction on production and use, the US, on behalf of the EU, JAPAN,
AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, SWITZERLAND, CANADA and NORWAY presented
identical text as in the provision on prohibition. A contact group,
co-chaired by Henk Bouwman (South Africa) and Charles Auer (US), was
established to address these provisions and, inter alia: the
issues of import, export and transit; the related Annexes A and B; a
South African proposal on DDT; and the issue of destruction.
REPORT OF THE IAG: IAG Chair Cardenas introduced and highlighted
the report of the IAG (UNEP/POPS/ INC.4/L.2/Rev.1). She noted the report’s
division into a general descriptive section on IAG discussions and an
annex containing draft text for technical assistance (Article J) and
financial resources and mechanisms (Article K). On the revised Article
K, she noted two proposed options for a mechanism: one comprised of
three submitted proposals on the use of existing mechanisms; and the
other a proposal for the establishment of a new mechanism. She
emphasized that informal consultations were in progress to integrate the
three proposals within the first option.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (ARTICLE J): Chair Buccini opened discussion
on technical assistance and asked whether brackets could be removed from
a provision detailing the operation of a Capacity Assistance Network.
The EU opposed removing the brackets until further consideration of
related text in Article K.
On the provision requiring parties to cooperate to provide technical
assistance through recognizing the rendering of assistance upon request
is essential to implementing the convention, the US agreed to remove
brackets on such recognition if conditions for financial and technical
assistance attached to other requirements in the convention are removed.
Regarding "upon request," the US preferred "in response
to specific needs." The EU opposed, indicating that the intent of
"upon request" is to provide a "demand led"
approach, and that the US proposal would fail to do this. The US
responded that "in response to" captures this intent. The
RUSSIAN FEDERATION proposed "upon a justified request."
Concerning "cooperate to" provide technical assistance, the
PHILIPPINES called to delete "cooperate to," noting that this,
"upon request," and similar language is designed to allow
developed countries to evade their responsibilities in eliminating POPs.
Chair Buccini postponed further discussions on the article.
BY-PRODUCTS: The contact group focused most of its discussion on
the chapeau and considered two proposals: one which has the aim of
continuing minimization and ultimate elimination; and another which
qualifies elimination with "where feasible." The group focused
on the proposal which calls on parties to take the measures outlined in
the provision’s sub-paragraphs to reduce releases derived from
anthropogenic sources of POPs listed in Annex C with the aim of their
continuing minimization and, where feasible, ultimate elimination. Many
countries agreed that adding a qualifier to elimination was necessary.
Noting lack of clarity on "feasible," one developing country
proposed elimination should be "technically and economically
feasible." Others understood the term to include economic,
technical and practical feasibility. A group of countries proposed
language on reducing "total" releases, which other delegations
opposed, and the reference remains bracketed. Delegates also debated
language on whether the measures should be taken at a minimum. No
agreement was reached on the chapeau language. The group also briefly
discussed the term by-product. One group of countries submitted a
definition on best available techniques and proposed that it be
considered for inclusion in the definitions (Article C).
IN THE CORRIDORS
With concerns mounting over the slow progress of negotiations, a
number of delegates and observers speculated on the possible need for an
INC-6. Several reasons floating around the corridors for the lag in
progress include: divisions within groups; non-customary alliances
between certain developing countries and JUSCANZ; wayward interventions
in Plenary; and low representation of developing countries and countries
with economies in transition in contact group discussions.