John Buccini, Acting Executive
Secretary of the Stockholm Convention, opened COP-1 on Monday, 2 May 2005,
and welcomed delegates to the meeting. Reinaldo Gargano, Uruguay’s Minister
of Foreign Affairs, highlighted Uruguay’s efforts to address persistent
organic pollutants under the Stockholm Convention, and stressed the
importance of implementation.
Delegates then elected Mariano
Arana, Uruguay’s Minister of Housing, Territorial Planning, and Environment,
as President of COP-1, and nine other bureau members: Therese Yarde
(Barbados); Dimitry Zorin (Belarus); Marin Kocov (Macedonia); J.K.B.H.
Kwisthout (Netherlands); Nik Kiddle (New Zealand); Stella Mojekwu (Nigeria);
Said Ali Alzedjal (Oman); Demetrio L. Ignacio, Jr. (Philippines); and
Ibrahima Sow (Senegal). Delegates then adopted the agenda
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/1), as amended by Canada adding an agenda item on
cooperation between the World Trade Organization and the Convention under
Delegates agreed to create a
Committee of the Whole (COW), chaired by Mark Hyman (Australia), with a
mandate to address substantive agenda items for consideration by the COP,
and a legal and administrative working group, co-chaired by Haddad El
Gottary (Egypt) and Anne Daniel (Canada).
The COW met from Monday afternoon
until Wednesday afternoon, with an evening session held on Thursday.
Delegates also convened in plenary sessions and in contact groups on
financial mechanisms, on the terms of reference of the POPs Review Committee
(POPRC), and on guidelines for Best Available Techniques (BAT) and Best
Environmental Practices (BEP). This report is organized according to the
ADOPTION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE
FOR THE COP AND ITS SUBSIDIARY BODIES
In plenary on Monday, Buccini
introduced the draft rules of procedure for the COP and its subsidiary
bodies (UNEP/POPS/ COP.1/25). He highlighted unresolved issues related to
notifying Parties of observer participation, decision making and voting, and
the size of the Bureau. On the size of the Bureau, the Latin American and
Caribbean Group (GRULAC) and the African Group endorsed a 10-member Bureau,
with two representatives from each region. The COP agreed and adopted the
rule pertaining to Bureau size. Since delegates were unable to reach
agreement on the remaining outstanding rules, they agreed to apply the rules
during COP-1 on a provisional basis, and referred the completion of the
rules to the legal working group. On Tuesday, the legal working group agreed
on the application of the rules of procedure to subsidiary bodies and on the
staggering of bureau terms. Regarding decision making, delegates agreed to
seek to resolve all issues by consensus and to leave brackets on the voting
procedures for substantive issues.
On Wednesday, the legal working
group finalized the rules of procedure, agreeing to include in the
Conference’s report concerns on the prompt inclusion on the Secretariat’s
web site of requests for observer status and on due process when voting on
On Friday in plenary, Co-Chair
Daniel reported on the results of the group’s deliberations and delegates
adopted the rules of procedure.
The final decision adopts the rules of procedure, which apply to the COP
and, mutatis mutandis, to its subsidiary bodies
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.23). The decision establishes a 10-person bureau
composed of one President and nine Vice-Presidents representing the five UN
regional groups, and staggering the terms of the President and
Vice-Presidents to ensure that countries that host a COP also preside over
it. Decision making will be made by consensus on substantive matters.
Brackets remain on the rule that lays out the possibility for voting. A vote
by simple majority can be taken on procedural matters. Non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and other organizations who request observer status
will be allowed to attend meetings unless one-third of the Parties present
at a meeting object.
REPORT ON THE CREDENTIALS OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO COP-1
On Friday in plenary, Stella Mojekwu
(Nigeria) spoke on behalf of the Bureau and indicated that credentials had
been received from 72 Parties.
REPORT ON THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE FOR AN INTERNATIONAL LEGALLY BINDING
INSTRUMENT FOR IMPLEMENTING INTERNATIONAL ACTION ON CERTAIN PERSISTENT
On Monday, Buccini reported on the
initiatives undertaken and results achieved by the Intergovernmental
Negotiating Committee (INC). Delegates commended the INC for its work.
MEASURES TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE
RELEASE FROM INTENTIONAL PRODUCTION AND USE
On Monday in the COW, Jacob Williams, World Health Organization (WHO),
introduced documents on the DDT register (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/3), evaluation of
the continued need for DDT (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/4), and responses from
governments on the DDT reporting format and questionnaire (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/
INF.5). He noted that decisions were required on three main points: the DDT
Register and notification form; reporting by Parties using DDT, including a
questionnaire; and evaluation of the continued need for DDT.
Many countries supported adoption of
the DDT Register, the notification form, and the reporting questionnaire.
Australia, China, the Philippines and Tanzania called for simplifying the
South Africa, Papua New Guinea and
Kenya supported the recommendations of the evaluation of the continued need
for DDT for disease vector control. While some countries provided examples
of success with alternatives, others highlighted difficulties in putting an
immediate end to DDT use due to the urgent need to control malarial vectors.
The UK, on behalf of the European Union (EU), and Lebanon supported the
long-term goal of eliminating production and use of DDT.
Williams presented a draft decision
to the COW on Tuesday. Delegates proposed a number of additions to the
decision, including reference to: "non-Parties" to encourage all countries
to submit data; cost estimates; integrated vector control, non-chemical
alternatives and adequate public health measures as Global Environment
Facility (GEF) supported activities; and deployment of cost-effective
A revised draft decision was
presented to the COW on Wednesday. Following agreement on the proposal, the
decision was submitted to the legal drafting group for editorial
improvements. A revised decision was adopted by the plenary on Friday.
The decision on DDT (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/ CRP.9/Rev.4) adopts the format of the
DDT Register, approves the notification form for production and use of DDT,
and reminds Parties of their obligation to notify the Secretariat of their
intention to produce or use DDT for disease vector control. It adopts the
format and questionnaire for reporting production and use, and requests the
Secretariat, in cooperation with the WHO, to review the adequacy of
submitted information. The decision reminds Parties to provide information
to the Secretariat on the amount used, conditions of use, and relevance to
disease management strategy, as well as on production, use, export, import
and stocks of DDT.
The decision concludes that
countries currently using DDT for disease vector control may need to
continue such use until locally appropriate and cost-effective alternatives
are available, and recommends that the financial mechanism support
activities to strengthen capacities to implement, monitor and evaluate the
use of DDT and its alternatives. The decision requests the Secretariat, in
cooperation with WHO to further elaborate the reporting and evaluation
process and prepare cost estimates for consideration by COP-2, and to
provide an overview of alternatives and their effectiveness. The decision
allocates adequate resources for 2006 to support the preparation of Parties
for reporting on DDT and for the future evaluation of continued need, and
invites countries to provide resources. It requests the financial mechanism
and other institutions to support the development of global partnerships to
develop and deploy alternatives, with leadership from the Secretariat and
WHO. Finally, the decision invites non-Parties to participate.
SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS AND RELATED
ISSUES: On Tuesday in the COW, Elena
Sobakina, Secretariat, introduced documents on the register of specific
exemptions (UNEP/POPS/ COP.1/5), case studies (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/7), and the
review process for entries (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/6).
The COW requested the Secretariat to
draft a decision adopting the register format with an amendment proposed by
Australia on column content, and a decision deferring case studies.
On the review process for specific
exemptions, Norway, Australia and Canada, opposed by the EU, supported
review by the POPRC. The EU, Brazil and Switzerland opposed establishing an
expert group to perform the review. The COW requested the Secretariat to
draft a decision adopting the exemption request form, and deferring a
decision on whether an expert group should conduct the review.
Sobakina introduced a Secretariat
note on Party notification on articles in use and site-limited intermediates
(UNEP/POPs/COP.1/ INF/6), and delegates agreed to elevate the status of the
information document to an agenda paper for consideration by COP-2.
On Friday in plenary, COW Chair
Hyman introduced draft decisions on the review process for entries in the
Register of Specific Exemptions, and on the format for the Register. The
decisions were adopted by plenary without amendment.
The decision on the review process (UNEP/ POPS/COP.1/CRP.11/Rev.1) adopts
the review process for entries in the Register of Specific Exemptions and
endorses the request form, both of which are included as annexes. The review
process requires submission of an extension request by Parties 12 months
before the COP prior to the expiry of that exemption. Text remains bracketed
on whether a group of experts should review exemption requests and develop
recommendations to the COP.
The decision on format for the
Register (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/ CRP.12/Rev.1) adopts the format for the Register
and endorses the form for submission of registrations of specific
exemptions, with both contained in annexes.
MEASURES TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE
RELEASES FROM UNINTENTIONAL PRODUCTION
GUIDELINES ON BAT/BEP:
On Tuesday in the COW, David Ogden, Secretariat, drew attention to the
Co-Chairs’ report of the expert group (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/8) and the draft
guidelines on BAT and provisional guidance on BEP (UNEP/POPS/ COP.1/INF/7).
Several countries supported immediate adoption of the draft guidelines, and
called for the establishment of a time-limited, open-ended working group to
continue work on the guidelines. Developing countries noted that they did
not have the resources for immediate implementation, emphasizing the need
for the guidelines to take into account economic feasibility and to address
the specific circumstances of developing countries, including social and
A contact group was formed,
co-chaired by Sergio Vives Pusch (Chile) and Patrick Finlay (Canada), to
develop a draft decision acknowledging the guidelines, establishing an
expert group to continue work, and defining terms of reference (ToR) for the
group. The contact group convened on Tuesday evening, and met throughout
Wednesday. On Tuesday, participants considered elements of the ToR,
including: timeframes, substantive tasks, participation, membership and
funding. Discussions in Wednesday’s contact group focused on whether the
type and number of observers with access to meetings of the expert group
should be limited, and whether support should be made available to members,
and invited experts from developing countries and countries with economies
in transition. Discussions also focused on participation, with delegates
disagreeing over whether to base membership on equitable representation from
the five UN regions to facilitate adoption of the guidelines at COP-3; or
the structure of the previous BAT/BEP expert group, in order to ensure
continuity and retain expertise. A compromise option was proposed that
builds on the expertise and experience of the previous group, but adds
experts from Africa, the Asia/Pacific region and Central and Eastern Europe
to achieve the same representation for these regions as in the POPRC, but
retaining 14 experts from the Western European and other States.
A draft decision reflecting this
compromise was presented to the COW on Thursday. Brazil, Uruguay and Russia
objected to the imbalance in representation from different regions.
Following informal consultations, delegates agreed to amend the draft
decision to increase the representation from Africa, Asia/Pacific, Central
and Eastern Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean. The COW approved
the amendment, and agreed to reflect countries’ concerns over representation
in COP-1’s report.
On Friday, the plenary adopted a
revised draft decision, and elected Bo Wallström (Sweden) and Gang Yu
(China) as Co-Chairs of the expert group. The five regional groups nominated
the following countries to represent them as members of the expert group:
Latin America and the Caribbean:
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela;
Western European and other States:
Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, New
Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK;
Central and Eastern Europe:
Armenia, Czech Republic, Latvia and Moldova;
Africa: Benin, Botswana, Djibouti,
Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Rwanda and Tunisia; and
Asia and Pacific States: China,
Fiji, Japan, Mongolia, Oman, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Thailand,
The decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.28/ Rev.1) recognizes the usefulness of
the draft guidelines on BAT and provisional guidelines on BEP, as well as
the importance of awareness-raising activities and case studies in
connection with ongoing work on the issue. It encourages Parties to take the
draft guidelines and provisional guidance into account, where practicable
and feasible, in the development of action plans, noting the need for
further work to enhance or strengthen the guidelines to allow for adoption
at COP-3. It establishes an expert group, and invites comments on the
guidelines by 31 August 2005. The ToR of the expert group are set out in an
annex and include its mandate, tasks, participation, funding, decision
making, outputs and housekeeping matters. On participation, the ToR specify
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, and notes Parties
are to nominate their designated experts by 1 July 2005. The ToR provide for
support to members and invite experts from developing countries and
countries with economies in transition, and open meetings of the expert
group to observers.
AWARENESS RAISING ON BAT/BEP
GUIDELINES: On Thursday in the COW, Kenya
introduced a draft decision with Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Senegal and
Tanzania, supported by China and Papua New Guinea, requesting the allocation
of sufficient resources and urging donors to support activities to promote
guidelines on BAT/BEP through awareness raising, training and publicity
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.21). The EU highlighted the need to consider budget
implications. After informal consultations, delegates deleted the reference
to resource allocation and training. A revised decision was adopted by
plenary on Friday.
The decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.21/ Rev.1) requests the Secretariat to
initiate activities to promote the BAT/BEP guidelines through awareness
raising, information dissemination and publicity at regional, subregional
and national levels, subject to funding, and urges Parties and non-Parties
to support these activities.
IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF
RELEASES: On Tuesday in the COW, Heidelore
Fiedler, Secretariat, introduced the standardized toolkit for identifying
and quantifying dioxin and furan releases (UNEP/POPs/COP.1/9), a second
edition of the toolkit (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/INF/8), a compilation of comments
from governments and NGOs (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/ INF/9), and information from
UNEP Chemicals on the incorporation of comments and other information
received on the toolkit’s second edition (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/INF/10). Several
countries supported adoption of the toolkit, while Nigeria and the Gambia
stressed the need to consider the specific circumstances of developing
countries. The plenary decided to defer a decision on the toolkit to COP-3
due to a lack of time to consider the issue.
MEASURES TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE
RELEASES FROM WASTES: TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND
MANAGEMENT OF PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS
On Wednesday in the COW,
Matthew Gubb, Secretariat, introduced the Secretariat’s report on the
application of the Basel Convention’s technical guidelines for the
environmentally sound management of POPs wastes (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/11), and
referred delegates to the Basel Convention’s technical guidelines for their
environmentally sound management (UNEP/POPS/ COP.1/INF/12 and
INF/12/Corr.1). Many countries expressed their support for the guidelines.
The EU introduced a draft decision
reminding Parties of their obligation under the Stockholm Convention to take
the guidelines into account and 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. Delegates proposed amending language to recognize the
provisional nature of the guidelines.
On Thursday in the COW, the EU
introduced a revised decision and delegates agreed on its content. The
decision was adopted in plenary on Friday without amendment.
The decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.5/ Rev.2) reminds Parties to take into
account the Basel Convention’s technical guidelines for the environmentally
sound management of POPs wastes, in particular the provisionally-defined
"low POP content" levels of destruction and irreversible transformation, and
methods considered to constitute environmentally sound disposal of wastes
consisting of, or contaminated with POPs. It welcomes the continued work of
the Basel Convention in developing the above methodologies, and encourages
Parties to participate in this work. The decision requests the Secretariat
to further strengthen synergies with the Secretariat of the Basel
Convention, and to keep Parties informed of the status of the technical
guidelines, with a view to future consideration of a decision on the issue
by the COP.
On Wednesday in the COW, Fatoumata
Ouane, Secretariat, introduced documents on: development of guidance to
assist countries in preparing national implementation plans (NIPs) (UNEP/
POPS/COP.1/12); interim guidance for developing NIPs (UNEP/
POPS/COP.1/INF/13); possible text for inclusion in the interim guidance
relevant to the Rotterdam Convention (UNEP/POPS/ COP.1/INF/13/Add.1); a
compilation of comments received on the guidance (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/INF/14);
and the review and updating of NIPs (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/13). Several countries
expressed support for adopting the guidance.
On Thursday in the COW, Ouane
introduced a draft decision on NIPs guidance, and delegates agreed on the
proposal. Delegates adopted the draft decision in plenary on Friday, with
minor editorial amendments.
The decision on NIPs (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/ CRP.27/Rev.1) adopts the guidance on
the preparation of NIPs, with the addition of specific considerations
relevant to the Rotterdam Convention. It encourages governments to use the
guidance, and requests then to provide comments to the Secretariat on their
experience to allow for updating. The decision further requests the
Secretariat to develop a roster of experts, and to develop additional
guidance on socioeconomic assessment and calculation of action plan costs,
including incremental and total costs. The decision adopts the guidance for
the review and updating of NIPs, and requests the Secretariat to further
elaborate this process. The decision concludes by requesting the financial
mechanism to support regular review and updating of NIPs. Guidelines for the
review and updating of national are included in an annex to the decision.
TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE PERSISTENT
ORGANIC POLLUTANTS REVIEW COMMITTEE
On Monday, Fatoumata Ouane,
Secretariat, presented revised and annotated draft ToR for the POPRC
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/14), referred delegates to the comments received on the ToR
(UNEP/ POPS/COP.1/INF/15), and highlighted an overview of the regional
distribution of countries under the UN and the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/INF/16). She also introduced a review of
existing approaches on conflict of interest procedures (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/23),
noting the Rotterdam Convention has the most comprehensive and compatible
In discussing the draft ToR, several
countries called for looking to the model of the Rotterdam Convention’s
Chemical Review Committee (CRC). Delegates agreed to create a contact group
on the POPRC, to be chaired by Ibrahima Sow (Senegal).
After some discussion on the POPRC’s
size and membership and acknowledging the lengthy negotiations that led to
resolution on the CRC, delegates in the contact group on Monday agreed to
use the CRC’s size and geographic distribution. Participants also opted to
follow the CRC model on the rotation of experts. Noting that the POPRC would
be a subsidiary body, several countries stressed the need to respect the
Stockholm Convention’s rules of procedure and conduct all POPRC proceedings
in the six UN languages. Others disagreed, noting budgetary and efficiency
implications. On Tuesday in the contact group, delegates continued to rely
on the CRC model, and agreement was reached on outstanding issues, including
attendance by invited experts and observers. Participants also agreed on the
procedure for COP-1’s election of the POPRC Chair. Disagreement remained
only on the working languages of the Committee.
On Wednesday in the COW, Chair Sow
introduced a draft decision establishing the POPRC and detailing, in its
annex, the Committee’s ToR. Many developing countries asked that the POPRC
conduct its work in the six UN languages. Canada supported the use of the
six languages and suggested that the number of meetings be limited to
control interpretation costs. The EU, with Japan, underscored the efficacy
of discussing technical issues in a single working language. Delegates
agreed to create a small group to continue deliberations, which reported
back to the COW Wednesday afternoon with compromise text allowing for
simultaneous interpretation at POPRC meetings. The EU asked that this
compromise not set a precedent.
On Thursday in the COW, Ouane
introduced a draft decision establishing the POPRC and outlined a number of
minor amendments to the text. Delegates adopted the draft decision.
Delegates also adopted a draft decision on the rules of procedure for
preventing and dealing with conflicts of interest for POPRC activities, with
amendments relating to the transmission of experts' declarations of
interests to the Secretariat and to relevant fields of expertise. Delegates
approved the decision.
On Friday in plenary, COW Chair
Hyman announced the countries that will be submitting expert nominations to
the POPRC, and delegates adopted the decisions. COP-1 elected, by consensus,
Reiner Arndt (Germany) as POPRC Chair.
The final decision on the POPRC (UNEP/ POPS/COP.1/CRP.13/Rev.1) decides to
establish a 31-member POPRC, with eight members from the African States,
eight members from the Asian and Pacific States, three members from the
Central and Eastern European States, five members from the Latin American
and Caribbean States and seven members from the Western European and other
States. The annex to the decision details the POPRC ToR. Appendix I to the
decision specifies the distribution of countries across the five regional
groups, and Appendix II lists the Parties identified to nominate members to
African States: Chad, Côte
d’Ivoire, Ethiopia and Mauritania (for two years); Burkina Faso, Morocco,
Sierra Leone and South Africa (for four years);
Asian and Pacific States: Fiji,
the Philippines, Qatar and Yemen (for two years); China, Japan, Jordan and
Thailand (for four years);
Central and Eastern European
States: Slovenia (for two years); Armenia and Czech Republic (for four
Latin America and Caribbean
States: Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay (for two years); Brazil, Ecuador
and Mexico (for four years);
Western European and other States:
Norway, Spain, and the UK (for two years); Australia, Canada, Germany and
Sweden (for four years).
According to the decision,
participating governments must provide their nominations to the Secretariat
by 1 August 2005. The decision also makes provisions to ensure that the
membership rotates every two years by specifying that half the initial
nominations are for two years only. The POPRC shall meet at least once a
year, subject to availability of funds and work requirements. The POPRC is
open to observers and up to 30 experts, invited by the Committee with due
consideration to the balance between developed and developing countries and
according to criteria established by the POPRC. The decision also provides
for the creation of a roster of experts to which Parties can designate
experts. On the POPRC’s working languages, the decision: provides for
simultaneous interpretation at POPRC meetings; states that only the major
resource documents shall be translated into the six UN languages; and
requires that meetings of the POPRC take place at the seat of the
Secretariat, unless otherwise agreed by the COP.
The final decision on rules of
procedure for preventing and dealing with conflicts of interests relating to
POPRC activities (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.26/Rev.1) decides that POPRC members
shall disclose activities, including business or financial interests, which
might call into question their ability to discharge their duties and
responsibilities. The annex to the decision contains a form for experts to
declare conflicts of interests.
Delegates agreed to forward the
issue of information exchange and the clearing-house mechanism
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/15) for consideration at COP-2.
GUIDANCE ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:
On Wednesday in the COW, Maria Cristina Cardenas, Secretariat, introduced a
note on technical assistance, which included draft guidance on the issue
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/16), as well as a compilation of comments from governments
on technical assistance related issues identified when developing their NIPs
(UNEP/ POPS/COP.1/INF/17). Togo and Morocco stressed the need for training
in effectiveness evaluation. China proposed the inclusion of a list of
technologies to be transferred from developed countries and other Parties.
Switzerland called for the promotion of synergies with other international
organizations, institutions and processes.
On Thursday in the COW, Ogden
introduced a revised draft decision on guidance on technical assistance and
the transfer of environmentally sound technologies. 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.
Delegates agreed to the decision as amended. On Friday in plenary, delegates
adopted the decision.
The decision on technical assistance (UNEP/ POPS/COP.1/CRP.29/Rev.1) adopts
guidance on technical assistance and transfer of environmentally sound
technologies. It further requests the Secretariat to submit the guidance to
Parties and others, and to report on progress in the application of the
guidance to each COP. The guidance, contained in the annex, identifies as
possible sources of assistance: IGOs; developed countries through their
bilateral cooperation agencies; NGOs and civil society; and research
institutions and universities. It also:
establishes eligibility criteria
for the provision of technical assistance;
sets out policy and guidance for
the rendering of such assistance;
identifies areas of technical
assistance and technology transfer needs and priorities; and
requests the COP to review the
effectiveness of the guidance on a regular basis, and update and
prioritize it, as appropriate.
REGIONAL AND SUBREGIONAL CENTERS:
On Wednesday in the COW, Paul Whylie, Secretariat, presented notes on: a
feasibility study on regional and subregional centers for capacity building
and technology transfer (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/ 27); a summary of the results of
four case studies on such centers (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/30); the full report of
those results (UNEP/ POPS/COP.1/INF/26); and results of a survey of
institutions identified as potential centers (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/INF/27).
Uruguay introduced a proposal from the Latin American and Caribbean Group on
regional centers. Norway proposed a draft decision with Australia, Iceland,
South Africa and Switzerland, supported by New Zealand and Canada,
requesting the Secretariat to develop ToR for regional and subregional
centers, based on existing regional centers or institutions. The EU and
Canada preferred allowing all Parties to propose candidate institutions,
under the assumption that regional and subregional centers will have similar
technical assistance functions. Kenya and others recommended strengthening
On Thursday, the COW considered a
revised draft decision asking the Secretariat to develop ToR for regional
and subregional centers. After informal consultations, the COW adopted a
revised decision incorporating comments by Parties. On Friday in plenary,
the Secretariat introduced the draft decision agreed upon by the COW.
Senegal and Nigeria stressed the need to emphasize synergies between the
chemicals-related conventions, and proposed text making explicit reference
to the Basel Convention’s regional centers. Morocco said this might close
the door to the creation of other centers and, with Brazil, Tunisia, the EU
and Yemen, supported the adoption of the decision without amendment. A small
group of interested Parties met and drafted new text requesting the
Secretariat to "pursue cooperation" with Basel Convention regional centers
and other relevant institutions for the implementation of the Stockholm
Convention. Stating that this reduced the possibility of opening new
centers, Morocco said it could accept the text if a reference to the
continuing process of targeting the creation of specific centers was added.
The proposal by the small group was adopted, as amended by Morocco.
The decision on regional and subregional centers
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.25/Rev.1) requests the Secretariat to develop ToR for
regional and subregional centers and criteria for evaluating their
performance. Guidelines to be followed by the Secretariat include:
consultation with the Convention’s
focal points and existing regional and subregional centers providing
technical assistance in the area of chemicals and wastes;
consideration of regional and
subregional centers in the framework of existing regional centers, while
providing scope for creation of new centers;
access by the centers to resources
of the Convention’s financial mechanism; and
collaboration and synergies in advancing activities which assist Parties
in fulfilling their obligations under the Convention and other MEAs.
The decision requests the
Secretariat to submit the draft ToR and the criteria for evaluating their
performance for consideration by COP-2.
FINANCIAL RESOURCES, MECHANISMS AND
RELATED FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
GUIDANCE TO THE FINANCIAL MECHANISM:
On Tuesday in the COW, Cardenas introduced a draft guidance to the financial
mechanism (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/17) and comments received on the initial draft
guidance (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/INF/ 18). Several developed country delegates
supported the draft guidance, with the EU proposing amendments to enhance
consistency with the Convention text and the GEF’s operational modalities.
GEF-eligible countries in the Asia-Pacific Group supported a fast-track
mechanism, and noted the need for a shorter budget cycle. Canada, Norway and
Uruguay said the GEF should become the permanent financial mechanism.
Delegates agreed to establish a contact group on the financial mechanism,
co-chaired by Jozef Buys (European Community) and Luis Almagro (Uruguay).
On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday
the contact group discussed the issue. A major point of contention was
whether there should be explicit references to the GEF in the draft
decision. Some developing country participants wanted to avoid such
references, which they felt might predetermine the future role of the GEF in
financing the implementation of the Convention. Several developed country
participants expressed the wish to establish the GEF as the core financial
mechanism of the Convention, but agreed to refer to its "interim" nature.
On Thursday in the COW, delegates
agreed to a revised decision on guidance to the financial mechanism
submitted by the contact group, which was adopted on Friday in plenary
The decision on guidance to the financial mechanism
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.30/Rev.1) adopts guidance to assist the "entity or
entities" entrusted with the operation of the financial mechanism of the
Stockholm Convention to fulfill its role. Among others, it provides criteria
for: country and project eligibility; policy and strategy for covering the
full incremental costs of implementation incurred by eligible Parties;
programme priorities; and periodic assessment of funding needs by the COP.
The decision refers to the GEF as the principal entity entrusted with
operation of the Convention’s financial mechanism on an interim basis.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING:
On Tuesday in the COW, Cardenas introduced a document on the Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) between the GEF Council and the COP
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/19), and Laurent Granier, GEF, introduced the GEF’s report
to COP-1 (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/INF.11). The EU supported the draft MoU, with a
minor amendment recognizing countries with economies in transition as
eligible recipients. Iran and Egypt said the COP’s authority to question
decisions on project eligibility taken by the GEF was too limited. China
objected that while the Convention text refers to the GEF as the "interim"
financial mechanism, the MoU refers to it as the financial mechanism. The
topic was referred to the financial mechanisms contact group. On Wednesday,
Thursday and Friday, the contact group focused on revising the draft MoU.
On Friday in plenary, Co-Chair
Almagro introduced the draft decision on a MoU between GEF and the COP,
which had been finalized by the contact group. The decision was adopted with
editorial corrections, with the understanding that a number of the concerns
of developing countries that participated in the contact group will be
reflected in COP-1’s final report, and addressed at COP-2. These concerns
include a "fast-track mechanism" for POPs project approval, and the
provision of funding following criteria established by the COP alone.
The decision on the MoU (UNEP/POPS/ COP.1/CRP.31/Rev.1) adopts the MoU
between the Stockholm Convention’s COP and the GEF Council. The MoU seeks to
give effect to various paragraphs of Article 13 (Financial Resources and
Mechanisms) and Article 14 (Interim Financial Arrangements) of the
Convention. It states, inter alia, that the COP will provide guidance
to the GEF as the entity entrusted with the operation of the financial
mechanism on an interim basis, and the GEF Council will ensure the effective
operation of the GEF in conformity with the COP’s guidance. Other elements
include: the submission of regular reports to the COP; a review of the
effectiveness of the financial mechanism, and of the GEF’s performance as
interim financial mechanism; and cooperation among the Stockholm Convention
and GEF Secretariats.
REVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL MECHANISM:
On Tuesday in the COW, Cardenas introduced the draft terms of reference
(ToR) for review of the financial mechanism (UNEP/POPS/ COP.1/18), noting
the need to adopt the ToR to allow for its review by COP-2, as stipulated in
the Convention. Switzerland, the EU and Kenya suggested postponing the
mandate for review, while several developing countries opposed this
The issue was referred to the
financial mechanism contact group. On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, the
contact group’s discussion focused on whether the review should be
"generic," referring to the Convention’s financial mechanism or mechanisms,
or explicitly directed to assessing the GEF’s performance. In the end,
participants agreed that a specific review for GEF would be more fruitful,
considering that lessons learned in the review process could lead to an
improvement of the ToR for subsequent review. Accordingly, participants
agreed to refer to the review as "first." On Thursday in the COW, delegates
approved without amendment the draft decision submitted by the contact group
on the review of the financial mechanism.
On Friday, in plenary, the decision
was adopted with a small editorial amendment.
The decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.39/ Rev.1) adopts the ToR for the first
review of the financial mechanism, recognizes that the first review of the
financial mechanism will take place at COP-2 and will cover activities from
the date on which the Convention was opened for signature. It provides for
the inclusion of an analysis of:
the mechanism’s ability to address
the needs of developing countries and countries with economies in
its ability to incorporate policy
guidance from the COP;
the level of funding; and
the effectiveness of its
The review will take into account,
inter alia: information provided by Parties and other governments;
reports submitted to the COP and other reports by the entity entrusted with
the financial mechanism; and relevant information provided by other entities
providing assistance. Performance criteria include, inter alia:
transparency and timeliness of
simplicity, flexibility and
expeditiousness of procedures for accessing funds;
adequacy and sustainability of
country ownership; and
level of stakeholder involvement.
On Tuesday in the COW, Cardenas
introduced documents on Party reporting, format and timing
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/20) and the results of field testing of the draft model
format for Party reporting (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/INF/21). Parties supported the
suggested periodicity and timing of reporting, and made several editorial
suggestions to the reporting format. The EU asked the Secretariat to develop
a detailed reporting format for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) for
consideration at COP-2. On Wednesday in the COW, Cardenas introduced a
revised draft decision on party reporting, timing and format incorporating
the suggested revisions, and a revised format model for reporting. Papua New
Guinea and China said the deadline for submitting the first report was too
ambitious, with China highlighting contradictions between the obligations of
Parties to submit their NIPs within two years of ratification, and the first
report by 31 December 2006. The COW accepted the decision without amendment,
with China’s and Papua New Guinea’s concerns to be reflected in COP-1’s
report. On Friday in plenary, delegates adopted these draft decisions
The decision on Party reporting, timing and format
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.14/Rev.1) requests each Party to submit its first
report by 31 December 2006, for consideration by COP-3, and to submit
subsequent reports every four years thereafter. The decision also adopts the
revised format for reporting, and requests the Secretariat to: distribute
the format to Parties; prepare a cost estimate for developing an electronic
system for reporting for consideration by COP-2; and develop a draft format
for reporting on PCBs for consideration by COP-2.
The draft model format for reporting
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/ CRP.15) requires Parties to indicate whether they have
exported any of the chemicals listed in Annexes A (Elimination) and B
(Restriction) of the Convention, and whether they have destroyed wastes in
an environmentally sound manner or in such a way that the POP content is
destroyed or irreversibly transformed so that they do not exhibit
characteristics of POPs.
On Tuesday in the COW, Fiedler
introduced documents on the Convention’s effectiveness evaluation, including
arrangements to provide the COP with comparable monitoring data on the
presence of POPs (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/21), and guidance for a global POPs
monitoring programme (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/INF/23). The EU said evaluation should
be cost-effective and, supported by Canada, Norway and New Zealand, proposed
using existing national and regional programmes to obtain comparable data.
Egypt suggested using regional and subregional centers for evaluating
effectiveness. Noting it was premature to create a subsidiary body for
evaluation, the US suggested creating an ad hoc expert working group.
New Zealand suggested cost information be provided for the various
proposals. On Wednesday in the COW, GRULAC called for using existing
monitoring networks. Uruguay and Egypt said extending the existing network
would divert resources away from meeting the Convention’s main goals.
On Thursday in the COW, Canada
presented a draft decision together with Japan, New Zealand, Australia,
Norway and Iceland recognizing the need to establish an effectiveness
evaluation panel. GRULAC opposed references to a "global monitoring system."
In informal 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 programmes; and identification of gaps and priorities
and their costs. The COW agreed to the decision as amended.
On Friday, the plenary adopted the
draft decision on effectiveness evaluation without amendment.
Recognizing, among others, the need for a strategic and cost-effective
approach building on existing human health and environmental monitoring
programmes to the extent possible, the decision on effectiveness evaluation
(UNEP/POPs/ COP.1/CRP.38/Rev.1) agrees to initiate arrangements to obtain
comparable monitoring data to perform effectiveness evaluation. The decision
also: requests the Secretariat to use existing monitoring programmes and
databases where possible, field test the arrangements, develop a background
scoping paper for a global monitoring plan for consideration by COP-2; and
invites relevant organizations to collaborate in such arrangements.
In plenary on Monday, delegates
agreed to address the issue of non-compliance in the legal working group. On
Tuesday, the legal working group discussed non-compliance and the procedure
for addressing this issue intersessionally (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/22). Some
delegates mentioned the need to establish a compliance committee as soon as
possible, and others discussed whether experts in the committee should
participate in their personal capacities or as government representatives.
Some delegates said the issue of compliance should draw from the Basel
Convention’s compliance mechanism, while others alluded to that of the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Participants agreed to convene an
open-ended working group to meet immediately prior to COP-2 to address this
On Wednesday, the legal working
group considered a draft decision convening an open-ended working group on
non-compliance, and agreed the group would report on its work to COP-2. On
Friday in plenary, Co-Chair Daniel introduced the draft decision from the
legal working group, and the plenary adopted it without amendment.
The decision on non-compliance (UNEP/ POPS/COP.1/CRP.22) establishes an
open-ended ad hoc working group to meet immediately prior to COP-2 to
consider procedures and institutional mechanisms on compliance, and invites
all governments to submit their views on this issue. It further requests the
Secretariat to prepare a draft for consideration by this group based on
opinions received and compliance mechanisms in other MEAs.
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES: RULES ON
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
In plenary on Monday, delegates
agreed to address the issue of dispute settlement in the legal working
group. On Tuesday, the legal working group considered the sole outstanding
issue in the dispute settlement procedures (UNEP/COP/POPS/COP.1/29),
referring to the status of arbitral tribunal decisions on interim measures
of protection. Delegates agreed that the arbitral tribunals would be able to
"indicate" interim measures of protection leaving the binding or non-binding
nature of their decisions purposely undetermined.
On Friday in plenary, Co-Chair
Daniel introduced a draft decision that was adopted without amendment.
The decision adopts arbitration and conciliation procedures to be
incorporated as Annex G to the Convention (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.16).
FINANCIAL RULES FOR THE CONFERENCE
OF THE PARTIES AND ANY SUBSIDIARY BODIES, AS WELL AS THE FINANCIAL
PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SECRETARIAT
In plenary on Monday, delegates
agreed to address the issue of financial rules in the legal working group.
On Tuesday, the legal working group considered the financial rules
(UNEP/COP/POPS/ COP.1/28) and agreed on: the financial period; the
establishment of the general trust fund and its objectives; and support by
non-Parties of the Convention’s activities. On Wednesday, the legal group
agreed on the use of the UN scale of assessed contributions and on Thursday,
it agreed on the contributions by non-Parties and finalized the text of the
On Friday, plenary adopted the
financial rules without amendment. GRULAC stated that the adopted UN scale
of assessed contributions does not address the socioeconomic realities or
the capacity to pay of developing countries, and will divert resources that
would otherwise be spent in implementing the Convention. Delegates agreed to
convey these concerns via a note from the Executive Secretary to the UN
The financial rules (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/ CRP.33) establish an operational
budget, a general trust fund to support operations of the Convention, and a
special trust fund to support technical assistance, training and capacity
building, participation by representatives of developing country Parties,
and other activities. Assessed contributions to the budget will be made
according to the UN scale, adjusted so that no country pays less than 0.01%,
no least developed country pays more than 0.01% and no country pays more
On Thursday in plenary, 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.
Italy presented its candidature to
host the Secretariat in Rome, and Switzerland presented its candidature to
host the Secretariat in Geneva. Delegates adopted the decision on voting
On Friday in plenary, Italy withdrew
its candidacy and delegates then unanimously agreed to locate the
Secretariat in Geneva.
The final decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/ CRP.41) accepts the offer from
Switzerland to host the Convention’s Secretariat in Geneva, and invites UNEP
to begin making practical arrangements.
LIABILITY AND REDRESS
On Friday, in plenary, Switzerland
submitted a draft decision providing that COP would discuss the matter of
liability and redress concerning the use and intentional introduction of
POPs into the environment at a future meeting, with a view to deciding which
action should be taken (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.20). Delegates agreed to make
reference to the issue in COP-1’s final report.
ACTIVITIES OF THE SECRETARIAT AND
ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET
On Monday, the plenary decided to
refer the budget to the legal working group. On Wednesday, the legal working
group worked on the budget for 2006-07 (UNEP/COP/POPS/COP.1/2). Delegates
agreed to use the UN scale of assessed contributions, but responding to
concerns by some developing countries, decided to convey their concerns
about the scale to the UN General Assembly. They also discussed how to share
an Executive Secretary with the Rotterdam Convention, considering the
Rotterdam Convention Secretariat is located in both Rome and Geneva, and how
to incorporate financial contributions by non-Parties.
On Thursday, the COW considered 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, said the proposed language applied only to the
UNEP portion of the Secretariat. On Thursday, the legal working group
considered the issue and decided to address the Rotterdam Convention
Secretariat as one entity, rather than as two separate parts. The group then
discussed the detailed components of the different budgetary lines,
incorporating new meetings decided by the COW, and produced a draft decision
and annexes for consideration by the plenary.
On Friday, plenary adopted the
budget without amendments.
The budget for the biennium 2006-2007 (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.24 and Corr.1)
includes a decision and four tables including: the operational budget for
2006 and indicative operational budget for 2007; the scale of assessments
for apportionment of contributions; the staffing table and the funding
estimate for activities under the Special Trust Fund.
COOPERATION WITH THE WTO:
On Monday in plenary, Canada asked the COP to consider as part of its agenda
a proposed note on cooperation with the WTO. On Friday in plenary, Canada
withdrew its proposal and indicated that it would raise the issue again at
SYNERGIES BETWEEN CHEMICALS-RELATED
CONVENTIONS: On Monday in plenary,
Switzerland introduced a draft decision submitted with Norway and France on
elements to enhance synergies between chemicals and wastes-related
conventions. After informal consultations, Switzerland introduced a revised
draft decision in plenary on Friday. Delegates adopted the decision without
The decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.4/ Rev.1*) requests the Secretariat to
prepare a study on how cooperation between the Basel, Stockholm, and
Rotterdam Conventions could be improved.
On Friday in plenary, China introduced a draft decision
(UNEP/POPS/COP.1/CRP.40), together with Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, the
Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela and
Yemen, on the need to determine the financial resources required for
implementing the Convention over the 2006-2010 period. The decision requests
the Secretariat to prepare an estimate of financial resource needs of
developing countries for implementation, and to communicate this result to
the GEF Council no later than the third negotiating meeting for the GEF’s
fourth replenishment. The UK, Latvia, France, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Japan, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Austria,
the European Community, Portugal, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Canada and
Norway opposed the proposal, noting the difficulty of conducting such a
study, the lack of budgetary provision in 2005 to conduct a study, and the
lack of modalities and ToR for the proposed study. Brazil indicated the
Group of 77 and China’s support for the proposal. After informal
consultations, the EU read out a compromise decision, which was adopted by
plenary without amendment.
The decision, entitled "Preparation of draft ToR for work on modalities on
the needs assessment for Parties that are developing countries or countries
with economies in transition to implement the provisions of the Convention
over the period 2006-2010," reads, "The COP invites the Secretariat to
develop draft ToR for work on modalities for COP-2."