To download this document (in MS-Word format):

1a In its decision 19/13 C of 7 February 1997, the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) requested the Executive Director of UNEP, together with relevant international organizations, to prepare for and convene, by early 1998, an intergovernmental negotiating committee with a mandate to prepare an international legally binding instrument for implementing international action on certain persistent organic pollutants (POPs), initially beginning with 12 specified POPs. / The first session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee was also requested to establish an expert group for the development of science-based criteria and a procedure for identifying additional POPs as candidates for future international action.

2a In accordance with the above mandate, the first session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for an International Legally Binding Instrument for Implementing International Action on Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants was held in Montreal from 29 June to 3 July 1998. The report of the meeting is contained in document UNEP/POPS/INC.1/7. The first session of the Criteria Expert Group, which was established by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee at its first session, was held in Bangkok from 26 to 30 October 1998. The report of that meeting is contained in document UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/1/3.

3a The second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee was held at UNEP headquarters in Nairobi, from 25 to 29 January 1999.

4a The session was opened at 10.15 a.m. on Monday, 25 January 1999, by Mr. Shafqat Kakakhel, Deputy Executive Director of UNEP, who outlined the dangers to public health and the environment posed by POPs. He noted that, at its first session, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee had made a swift start, reaching early consensus on the need for global action to reduce and perhaps eliminate environmental releases of POPs. The first meeting of the Criteria Expert Group had also surpassed expectations, making significant steps toward developing global consensus on criteria and procedures for identifying additional POPs and placing them in the framework of a future instrument.

5a He noted the great challenges that lay ahead of the delegates and urged them to act quickly and decisively during the current important meeting.

6a He also expressed the appreciation of UNEP to Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America for their contributions of financial and personnel resources to support the negotiations and other UNEP action on POPs. Those and other countries, as well as non-governmental organizations, would be recognized with the first certificates given for donations to the POPs Club, the creative financing mechanism set up to support the negotiations. Further financial assistance was needed, however, to ensure that the negotiations continued in a timely fashion.

7a The session was attended by representatives of the following countries: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

8a The following United Nations bodies and specialized agencies were represented: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), World Health Organization (WHO), Global Environment Facility (GEF), secretariat of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal.

9a The following intergovernmental organizations were represented: European Commission, Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), Inter-State Ecological Council, Southern African Development Community (SADC), South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP).

10a The following non-governmental organizations and other bodies were represented: African Academy of Sciences, Agenda for Environment and Responsible Development, Centre for Independent Ecological Expertise (CIEE), Centro para la Defensa del Consumidor (CDC), Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), Climate and Development Initiatives (CDI), Climate and Development Action Network Kenya (CEDAN), Consumers International, Desert Flow, Ecoterra International, Environmental Justice Network Forum - South Africa, Environmental Protection and Community Development, European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Global Renewable Energy and Environmental Conservation Network - Africa, Green Belt Movement, Greenpeace International, Havard School of Public Health, Health and Environment Watch, ICF Kaiser Consulting Group, Indian Chemical Manufacturers Association (ICMA), Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL), International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), International Pesticide Elimination Network (IPEN), International POPs Elimination Network, Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Japan Chemical Industry Association (JCIA), Japan Crop Protection Association, Kenya Medical Workers and Physicians for Social Responsibility (KMWPSR), Kenya Medical Research Institute, Livaningo, Maendeleo Ya Wanawake Organization (MYWO), NAPCC, Overseas Environmental Planning Division, Pesticide Action Network Africa (PAN Africa), Pesticides and Agricultural Resource Centre, Physicians and Medical Workers for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Social Responsibility USA, Satellite Healthnet Kenya, Seoul National University, Suez Canal University, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, University of Cape Town Medical School, Tropical Pesticides Research Institute (TPRI), University of Juba, Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO), World Chlorine Council (WCC), World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA), World Wide Fund for Nature International, Youth Federation for World Peace (YFWP).

11a The elected members of the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee continued in office. Owing, however, to the inability of Mr. Mohammed Asrarul Haque (India), to complete his term of office as a vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, the Committee, acting in accordance with rule 12 of its rules of procedure, elected, by acclamation, Mr. Mir Jafar Ghaemieh (Islamic Republic of Iran), to serve as Vice-Chair of the Committee. With that election, the Bureau was constituted as follows:

12a The Chair of the Committee recalled that, at its first session in Montreal, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee had decided to create a subsidiary body, under the chairmanship of Ms. Maria Cristina Cardenas Fischer (Colombia), to examine implementation aspects of the future international legally binding instrument on POPs, including, but not limited to, issues of potential technical and financial assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition (UNEP/POPS/INC.1/7, paragraph 63).

13a In accordance with the rules of procedure, the subsidiary body, the Implementation Aspects Group, elected, by acclamation, the following members of its Bureau:

14a The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee adopted the following agenda for the session, as contained in document UNEP/POPS/INC.2/1:

15a In the deliberations on the organization of the work of the session, it was decided that discussions of agenda item 5 would commence with general presentations by the representatives regarding the use of document UNEP/POPS/INC.2/2 as a starting point in their discussions. If the document was deemed to be useful, then representatives would offer general comments on the draft articles D, E, G, H and I as contained in the document, in order to explore potential areas of agreement and disagreement, as well as to provide guidance to the subsidiary body established to examine implementation aspects including, but not limited to, financial and technical assistance, (UNEP/POPS/INC.1/7, paragraph 63). Following additional general comments on individual draft articles, the Committee would then begin negotiations on specific text for each of the draft articles.

requested by the committee

16a The secretariat drew the Committee's attention to a number of documents that it had prepared in response to specific requests by the Committee at its first session. In response to the Committee's request for a document containing material for possible inclusion in an international legally binding instrument (UNEP/POPS/INC.1/7, paragraph 58), the secretariat had prepared a draft expanded outline of an international legally binding instrument for implementing international action on certain POPs, contained in the appendix to its note UNEP/POPS/INC.2/2, and had also compiled documents UNEP/POPS/INC.2/INF/1 and Add.1, containing submissions by Governments, and UNEP/POPS/INC.2/INF/2, containing submissions by non-governmental organizations.

17a In response to the Committee's request for a document describing existing global, regional and bilateral programmes that provided technical and financial assistance with regard to the management and elimination of chemicals (UNEP/POPS/INC.1/7, paragraph 62 (a)), the secretariat had prepared documents UNEP/POPS/INC.2/INF/5, providing information on the second survey conducted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of development assistance activities for capacity-building; UNEP/POPS/INC.2/INF/6, reporting on relevant activities by the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC); UNEP/POPS/INC.2/INF/7, reviewing other available information on existing programmes of international financial institutions with regard to the management and elimination of chemicals, and UNEP/POPS/INC.2/5, summarizing and synthesizing the detailed information found in the other three documents.

18a The secretariat had also prepared, in response to the Committee's requests (UNEP/POPS/INC.1/7, subparagraphs 62 (b) and (c)), the detailed document UNEP/POPS/INC.2/INF/3, on possible capacity-building activities and their associated costs under the international legally binding instrument for implementing international action on certain POPs, which information was also summarized in document UNEP/POPS/INC.2/3; and UNEP/POPS/INC.2/INF/4, on existing mechanisms for providing technical and financial assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition for environmental projects, as well as a summary of that information, contained in document UNEP/POPS/INC.2/4.

19a As well as responding to those specific requests, the secretariat had been engaged in several other relevant activities. Those included initiating the development of a master list of national and international actions on the reduction and/or elimination of the release of POPs; developing an inventory of global PCB destruction capacity; developing a global POPs database; and initiating work with GEF to develop and implement POPs-related projects.

TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE

20a The representative of the secretariat noted that many countries and organizations were actively involved in activities dealing with POPs. To avoid duplication of efforts and to ensure efficient use of resources, as well as to facilitate coordination and cooperation between and among activities at the national, regional and international levels in countries and organizations, UNEP had considered it valuable to draw up a master list of actions on the reduction and/or elimination of the release of POPs. A description of such a list was contained in document UNEP/POPS/INC.2/INF/8, compiled on the basis of letters and questionnaires addressed to Governments and organizations. Its annex 1 contained a preliminary listing of information received up to 1 January 1999 and its annex 2 contained a proposed format for reporting back for the master list. Regular requests for further and updated information would be sent out between sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, in order to produce an up-to-date list prior to each session of the Committee.

21a The representative of the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) reported on the deliberations of the third meeting of the Intersessional Group of IFCS, held in Yokohama, Japan, from 1 to 4 December 1998. The meeting had brought together representatives of Governments, as well as from intergovernmental organizations, industry, the trade unions, and scientific, consumer and environmental non-governmental organizations. The meeting had comprised three thematic sessions - on international assessment of chemical risks; on obsolete chemicals and pesticides, especially polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and on partnerships and innovative approaches to the strengthening of national capabilities and capacities for management of chemicals. Discussions had also been held on the harmonization of classification and labelling. Under emerging issues, the meeting had discussed POPs, as well as the issue of endocrine disrupters. The problem of computer failure in the year 2000 had also been discussed.

22a The representative of GEF expressed the support of the Chief Executive Officer of GEF, Mr. Mohammed El-Ashry, for the current negotiations. GEF was committed to addressing the threats from persistent toxic substances. Its operational strategy, approved by its governing body in 1995, specifically included measures to address those substances under the contaminant-based operational programme in the focal area of international waters. The GEF portfolio on persistent toxic substances had expanded over 1998. Several project proposals had been put forward and project preparation funds had already been granted for activities. With UNEP, GEF was also undertaking a regionally based assessment of persistent toxic substances.

23a GEF had the competence and experience to serve the needs of countries seeking assistance to implement the provisions of the future instrument. Its experience as the financial mechanism for the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change rendered it ideally equipped to assist countries to operationalize, through field activities, the objectives of global environmental agreements. GEF had taken note of the views that a financial mechanism should be identified to assist developing countries and countries with economies in transition in relation to their obligations under the instrument. GEF wished to confirm that it stood ready to serve as the financial mechanism of the future legal instrument, should that be the decision of the Governments negotiating the agreement. GEF was continuing its current activities in the area of POPs by providing assistance within its present mandate to developing countries and countries with economies in transition, but it should be noted that, for GEF to go beyond those demonstration efforts and enabling activities, additional resources would be required to assist countries to address the full scope of obligations that might emerge under the future legal instrument.

24a The two Co-Chairs of the Criteria Expert Group, Ms. Fatoumata Jallow Ndoye (Gambia) and Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany), reported on the work of the first session of the Criteria Expert Group, held in Bangkok from 26 to 30 October 1998.

25a Mr. Arndt drew attention to the report on the work of the first session, contained in document UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG.1/3. He thanked the Government of Thailand for hosting the meeting and all donors who had helped to fund it. The information requirements and criteria for the nomination and screening stage and the evaluation stage, as prepared by the respective contact groups, were contained in annex I of the report of the Criteria Expert Group.

26a The Group wished to refer two issues to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for its consideration. First, it had decided to request the Committee to gather information from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on its work with regard to tributyl tin (UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG.1/3, paragraph 25). Second, it recommended that the Committee might wish to consider enunciating a provision, within its principles and objectives, to encourage countries to include, within their national or regional chemicals regulatory and assessment schemes for new substances, criteria and processes that would provide protection against health and environmental risks arising from the long-range environmental transport of substances, or their associated by-products, that exhibited the characteristics of POPs (UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG.1/3, paragraph 27).

27a Ms. Jallow Ndoye drew attention to the tables in annex II of the Criteria Expert Group's report, listing the tasks to be carried out by various bodies under the Conference of the Parties. The Group had agreed to request the secretariat, in consultation with the Bureau, to draft a more fully elaborated proposal on procedure, based on the text in annex II, for consideration by the Group at its second session, also bringing the text contained in annex I into line with that proposal.

28a The findings of the contact group on socio-economic considerations were contained in annex III to the report. In addition, the Group had discussed a proposed plan for its future work, contained in annex IV to its report. On the subject of the availability of test data for the purpose of preparing nominations or more detailed evaluations of substances, she was gratified to report that experts from a number of countries had expressed an interest in providing an evaluation of test data availability to the Criteria Expert Group at its second session.

29a The representative of the secretariat noted that contact had been established with IMO. Several documents on the issue of tributyl tin and the plans to phase out its use had been received and a short information document on the issue was distributed.

30a During the discussion on the report of the Criteria Expert Group, representatives stressed the importance of applying the precautionary approach with regard to substances coming under the procedure and supported the move to obtain more information on organo-tin compounds. The wish was also expressed that that session should be held before July 1999.

31a Other points raised in the discussion, in which a number of representatives participated, included: the important need for the Criteria Expert Group to highlight social and economic factors; the need for greater consideration of possible trade aspects of new candidates for POPs listing; the need to consider how alternatives could be made available to the developing countries; and the need for the criteria and the procedure to be flexible and science-based.

32a It was agreed that the request passed to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee by the Criteria Expert Group with respect to new chemicals (as contained in paragraph 27 of document UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG.1/3) could be raised under the discussion of agenda item 5.

33a Finally, Governments were invited to submit contributions for consideration by the Criteria Expert Group at its next session. Such contributions were to be sent, in writing, to the secretariat by 31 March 1999.

FOR IMPLEMENTING INTERNATIONAL ACTION ON CERTAIN

PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

34a The secretariat introduced document UNEP/POPS/INC.2/2, containing a draft expanded outline of an international legally binding instrument for implementing international action on certain POPs. In preparing that draft, the secretariat had taken into account the relevant provisions contained in a number of existing environmental conventions and other instruments, in particular: the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer; the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer; the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal; the Convention on Biological Diversity; the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa; the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade; and the Protocol to the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants, prepared under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE).

35a All the representatives taking the floor supported the use of document UNEP/POPS/INC.2/2 as the starting point in their deliberations and thanked the secretariat for the work done preparing the extensive documentation for the session.

36a Many representatives expressed support for the inclusion of articles which focused on the issues of liability and compensation, clean-up and destruction, capacity and storage, transport and distribution, as reflected in the statement made by the group of African countries during the first session of the Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee, and some stressed the need to clarify the exact scope of those articles. A number of representatives noted the need for a provision on exemptions, for example, for research purposes, for meeting critical needs, for products and articles in use before the entry into force of the future instrument, and for health emergencies.

37a Many representatives supported banning trade in prohibited chemicals except for the purposes of destruction. They considered that those and related provisions, such as that relating to stockpiles, also had to be made fully compatible with the provisions of the Rotterdam and Basel conventions. A number of representatives believed that a discussion on the possible use of trade measures was premature. Attention was also drawn to the need to give very careful thought to the issue of inventories, in particular for by-products.

38a Many representatives emphasized the need to distinguish, for the purposes of possible control measures, between countries in different regions with different levels of development, agricultural needs, public health concerns, and social and economic circumstances and instrument capacity. Several emphasized that the preamble and specific elements of the articles of the future instrument must incorporate the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities found in other environmental conventions. Some questioned the applicability of that principle to the future instrument. One representative noted that the concept of shared responsibility reflected in the Rotterdam Convention was more appropriate to the instrument. Some also expressed support for the "polluter pays" principle.

39a A number of representatives stressed the need to make the future instrument dynamic in nature, whether through a process of amendments, as was the practice of the Montreal Protocol, or by following the more flexible IMO practice, through the adoption of resolutions which could have a formal status under the future instrument. Furthermore, it was suggested that a subsidiary technical and economic assessment body would be required, as in the Montreal Protocol.

40a Many representatives noted the importance of including provisions for financial and technical assistance to developing countries, while several expressed specific support for establishing a mechanism similar to the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Some representatives noted that the use of existing mechanisms for financial and technical assistance, including GEF, should be further considered.

41a Some countries had the technological capacity necessary for such tasks as monitoring and controlling pesticide use, or establishing baseline levels, but lacked the necessary finances for such measures. Some believed that it would be necessary to link the provisions of such assistance to the acceptance of commitments by developing countries. One representative supported the development of regional capacity-building and training through a system of regional centres, as established under the Basel Convention.

42a Several representatives drew attention to the issue of DDT, which, it was argued, should be eliminated by a gradual process, taking into account the needs of individual countries.

43a One representative urged the need for the Committee to work in close contact with industry groups and research centres, whose input would be very valuable.

44a Many representatives noted the need for consideration of non-chemical alternatives.

45a Following the general debate, the Committee turned to a discussion of the draft articles in document UNEP/POPS/INC.2/2. The main issues raised in discussions in plenary in relation to the draft articles are summarized in paragraphs 46-107 below.

46. It was agreed that the preamble would be developed later in the intergovernmental negotiating process.

47. It was agreed that the article would be developed later in the intergovernmental negotiating process.

48. It was agreed that the article would be developed later in the intergovernmental negotiating process.

of POPs into the environment

49. It was suggested by some representatives that certain structural changes needed to be made to the format of the article and that the headings should be reviewed after obligation language had been more fully developed. Many representatives felt that it was necessary to modify the format of the annexes in this section, in particular, by reducing their number. Others noted the need to make reference to alternatives and non-chemical substitutes.

50. Many representatives felt that it was necessary to include a reference to import and export under these sections, as import could still occur even if use and production were prohibited. A number of representatives believed that a discussion on the possible use of trade measures was premature.

51. Several representatives said that a gradual and differentiated phase-out period should be included, to take into account the different substances and the different social and economic development levels of countries. One representative suggested that a reference to measures to be taken against illegal entry should be included. One representative noted the importance of drafting these sections to avoid unwanted products entering countries in the guise of vector control or for research.

52. The Committee decided to set up a contact group to examine aspects of the article and its related annexes and to report back to the Committee on the results of its work. The group's report is contained in annex II to the present report.

53. Several representatives suggested that, given the obligations placed on Parties in the implementation of measures to reduce or eliminate releases of POPs into the environment, there should be a link between this article and technical and financial assistance, as well as the provisions on identification of alternatives.

54. One representative added that it would be necessary to identify the best available technologies for release elimination. Other representatives noted, inter alia, that measures to reduce releases should be connected with release inventories and that exemptions should be strictly defined. One representative expressed the view that PCBs should, for example, be allowed in existing electric transformers, so long as they were destroyed in an environmentally sound manner. It was noted that the difficulty in measuring by-products could make compliance with this section very difficult. One representative suggested reduction goals for by-products.

55. In subsequent discussions of the issue, many representatives supported the inclusion of measures on emissions in the instrument. Many also stated that the expressed aim of those controls must be to eliminate such POPs. Other representatives expressed doubts concerning the technical feasibility of eliminating POPs produced as by-products. One representative urged the need for further reflection on whether or not a timetable for emission reduction was technically achievable.

56. The Committee agreed that, when continuing its discussions under this section of the article, it would be necessary to undertake further work on related technical issues including, but not limited to: the identification of emission sources; the pathways of dispersion; and the methodologies for estimating and reporting emissions.

57. Several representatives reiterated the need to take into account the provisions of the Basel, Rotterdam and other conventions dealing with issues related to POPs when determining issues to be covered under this section. Many representatives proposed that transboundary transport could be allowed for the environmentally sound destruction of stockpiles using the best available techniques.

58. The meeting noted that the 12 POPs were covered by a number of different instruments, such as the Basel, London and Rotterdam conventions, and requested the secretariat to prepare a paper, related in particular to paragraph 4 of the article, comprising an analysis of those conventions. The paper should include a flow-chart and matrix, showing how each of the 10 intentionally produced POPs might be covered by those conventions at various stages, such as domestic restriction on production; export notification; listing under Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention; and the stockpile-destruction phases. The analysis should also clearly distinguish between national and international action and, for each instrument covered, should indicate the current state of signature and ratification.

59. Some representatives said that a reference to assistance for the elimination of stockpiles from countries having that expertise should be included. It was also noted that the 1991 Bamako Convention on the Ban on the Import of Hazardous Wastes into Africa and on the Control of their Transboundary Movements within Africa should be taken into account when discussing disposal issues. In order to reflect reality, such issues as the identification of all stockpiles should not be made mandatory, so that compliance would be possible for countries with limited resources. Efforts should also be made to prevent new stockpiles from accumulating.

60. In the Committee's subsequent discussions of the issue, many representatives supported strengthening the paragraphs by deleting the bracketed text "endeavour to". Others favoured retaining that wording. Several representatives expressed support for qualifying the obligations in this section of the article with respect to the different technical and financial capacities that parties possessed in this area. Many representatives expressed support for strengthening provisions for technical and financial assistance in the article. Many other representatives expressed concern regarding the inclusion of such language in this article, rather than in articles J and K. One representative drew attention to the position of the group of African countries, which raised the issue of the cleaning up of contaminated sites, and said that the matter must be addressed either in this article or in a new article.

61. The Committee agreed that more analytical work needed to be done with respect to the article. The distinction between destruction and disposal needed to be explored, as well as the definitions and the relationships between wastes and stockpiles. The secretariat was requested to consult with the secretariat of the Basel Convention and other relevant sources concerning those issues.

62. There was wide support for the development of national plans for the implementation of the provisions of the future instrument, which needed to be consistent with, and as stringent as, those provisions were themselves. Many representatives noted that developing countries and countries with economies in transition would require technical and financial assistance in carrying out an assessment of the status of POPs in their countries, in order to obtain a baseline for the preparation of a national strategy or plan, as well as to prepare the national implementation plans themselves. One representative said that, for that purpose, a financial mechanism should be set up. Another representative said that there was a need for countries to set up teams to ensure coordinated implementation at the national level.

63. Many representatives considered that the provisions of the future instrument should not be too prescriptive with regard to implementation plans and should take into account the differing levels of preparedness and the realities in different countries and regions. One representative was of the opinion, however, that all Parties should follow the same timetable for the development and submission of national implementation plans, which should not be tied to implementation dates for other obligations, since those might be different for developing and developed countries. One representative considered that the Conference of the Parties, and not the text of the future instrument, should determine specific details of the format and scheduling of national implementation plans.

64. The view was expressed that, because of particular local circumstances, it might be appropriate for certain countries to adopt a subregional or regional approach in drawing up plans to implement the provisions of the future instrument, although it was also suggested that regional implementation planning should not be made mandatory for countries. Regional plans should include implementation plans for each country in the region.

65. One representative said that implementation plans should not focus solely on the use of chemical alternatives to POPs, but should also promote indigenous knowledge and integrated pest management.

66. Some representatives strongly expressed the view that the development of national plans should be consistent with a country's capacities and also be subject to the availability of technical and financial assistance.

67. It was agreed that the article would be developed by the Criteria Expert Group.

68. All the representatives who took the floor expressed support for including an article on information exchange. One representative suggested that information exchange should be an obligation of the Parties to the future instrument and many representatives said that the article should include the broadest possible scope of information exchange on POPs.

69. Many representatives underscored the importance of specifying the mechanisms for information exchange at both national and international levels, which might take the form of national focal points or regional and subregional networks or a formal body, such as a centre of excellence, which could be the secretariat of the future instrument or a separate - but already existing - body.

70. One representative suggested that, when discussing such options in detail, it would be useful for the secretariat to report on existing models of information exchange. Several representatives stated that, regardless of the mechanism selected, all information must be made available to all countries on a free, fair, equal and easily accessible basis.

71. Many representatives noted that the draft article was connected to the potential content of other articles or to practices already in place under other conventions. Many representatives expressed concern that, for developing countries, the capability to gather, exchange and utilize the information under discussion was itself dependent on the receipt of adequate financial and technical assistance.

72. There was a diversity of opinion regarding the intent and inclusion of the phrase, "in a manner consistent with their laws, regulations and practices". Many representatives believed that such a provision was unnecessary and that all relevant information should be freely exchanged. Others believed that, consistent with other multilateral environmental agreements covering chemicals, such a provision would preserve necessary national flexibility or that it was necessitated by commercial confidentiality or national security considerations. It was suggested that existing international agreements should be studied, with a view to determining the most appropriate ways to reflect those concerns.

73. All the representatives who took the floor supported the draft article as a key element in the future instrument and one that would require the provision of technical and financial assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Many representatives said that the article should target all stakeholders, including policy and decision makers, local government authorities and industry, as well as the general public. It was also suggested that UNEP might hold regional or subregional meetings on public awareness of POPs. Many representatives considered that the issue should be specifically referenced in national action plans.

74. Some representatives suggested that the article should be divided into two parts, such that subparagraph (b), pertaining to capacity-building, would be a separate article. One representative added that it should be specified that regions with stronger capacities should assist those less well-equipped. Some representatives noted that the mechanisms for undertaking the awareness-raising measures covered by the article remained to be more clearly defined. The following additional issues were suggested for inclusion in the article: integrated pest management; integrated crop management; substance identification and disposal; comparability, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of alternatives; knowledge of indigenous alternatives; training regarding the negative effects of POPs; increasing opportunities for public input regarding the implementation of the future instrument at the national level; increasing the quantity, quality, and accessibility of information on POPs, their impacts, and alternatives to their use.

75. There was general support for the article. Many representatives expressed reservations about the strength of the article, which they considered should have a more mandatory nature, particulary with respect to monitoring. Many also believed that distinctions were necessary regarding the different capacities which countries possessed to perform those tasks. A number of representatives stressed the need for regional and subregional cooperation, including networking, which was seen as particularly important for developing countries which lacked the necessary capacity.

76. Several representatives stressed the need for the harmonization of the procedures involved, to ensure comparability of data. Many representatives suggested that national focal points, comparable to the ozone units under the Montreal Protocol, should be established and some considered that a formal body, like the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel under the Protocol, would be required to oversee such work. A number drew additional attention to the Montreal Protocol and the Protocol to the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, in particular the latter's monitoring and evaluation programme, as useful models for further development of the article.

77. The view was expressed that monitoring was particularly important and should perhaps be separated from research and development and situated in its own article. Other representatives suggested additional aspects to be included in the research component of the article, such as biological control methods, integrated pest and integrated crop management, indigenous practices and socio-economic assessments of the impact of alternatives and the impact of failing to reduce and eliminate POPs. One believed that the phrase "best available techniques and practices" needed to be more carefully defined here as well as in other articles. Several expressed the view that the results of research and development under the article should be freely and fairly available to all Parties. Several noted their concerns regarding a reference to financing in the article, stating that this matter would be best placed in other articles.

resources and mechanism

78. Articles J and K were taken up by the Implementation Aspects Group. Ms. Maria Cristina Cardenas Fischer (Colombia), Chair of the Implementation Aspects Group, reported that the Group would rely upon its mandate to examine implementation aspects of an international legally binding instrument on POPs and, in particular, issues of potential technical and financial assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition to assist them to meet their obligations under such an instrument, as set out in the report of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee at its first session (UNEP/POPS/INC.1/7, paragraphs 59-63). To that end, the Group had begun to proceed sequentially through three areas of discussion: first, identifying areas of need that could require technical assistance; second, examining potential costs associated with such assistance; and third, identifying possible existing or future sources of technical and financial assistance. The Group recognized that final resolution of the details in each area would depend on the specific obligations contained in the instrument but that the Group needed to explore those issues and to prepare the fullest possible set of recommendations in the time allotted. In doing so, the Committee employed, as one resource for its work, relevant documents prepared by the secretariat.

79. The Group based its initial discussion on documents UNEP/POPS/INC.2/3 and UNEP/POPS/INC.2/INF/3 on possible capacity-building activities and their associated costs. The Group agreed that the list of activity areas outlined in table 1 in UNEP/POPS/INC.2/INF/3 provided a starting point for suitable activities in this area and the types of technical activities that could require assistance. It was recognized that different countries would have different needs for technical assistance in those areas. The underlying premise of all such assistance, however, would be to help build capacity within the country, so that it could perform the necessary activities itself, rather than rely indefinitely on outside actors.

80. The Group noted that conducting inventories would be an essential step in implementing an international instrument on POPs and that technical assistance would be needed for many developing countries to prepare such inventories. The difficulties of conducting inventories on POPs were explored. The Group noted that inventories would not be a one-off exercise but one in which significant learning would take place within and between countries, subregions, regions and the international community. Thus, it might become appropriate to examine the possibility of conducting preliminary inventories and then formulating plans for additional monitoring and inventory measures. It might also be necessary to explore further the differences among the three categories of POPs with regard to inventories. Representatives identified relevant variations in the difficulty, need, methodology and levels of assistance needed in conducting accurate inventories. Some countries already possessed significant and others possessed at least preliminary information regarding registered pesticides. Far more work needed to be done, however, regarding POPs used as industrial chemicals or POPs which moved through illegal or unregistered channels. In a brief discussion, it was noted that little information was available regarding POPs produced as by-products. The Group agreed that it might be useful for the secretariat to gather information from Governments regarding inventories.

81. The Group noted that the development of action plans was an important component of implementing an international legally binding instrument on POPs and that technical assistance might be needed for some countries to develop such a plan. The list of specific activities in table 1 was a helpful, indicative starting point in delineating both the steps in such a process, and possible areas of technical assistance. Refinements were needed in both areas, however. In particular, the Group recognized the need for development of action plans that include assessments of the institutional, policy and regulatory infrastructure. Special mention was also given by some representatives to identifying and conducting risk assessments and epidemiological studies for populations in developing countries exposed to POPs, as well as the provision of appropriate medical attention. Representatives recalled national experiences in developing action plans for other issues, as well as initial national and regional work done for POPs. Many representatives pointed out that useful information could be obtained by looking at the scope, content and development of national action plans created under the auspices of existing multilateral conventions, such as the Montreal Protocol, as well as the technical and financial assistance provided to individual countries as part of that process.

82. The Group discussed the relative merits of a trans-sectoral group, unit or coordinating committee as a focal point in each country. It would need a clear organizational structure, with the appropriate participation of government bodies, implementing agencies and others, in order to ensure the appropriate implementation of activities to help countries meet their commitments under the instrument, to channel technical and other assistance to the country, and as a conduit for information. The focal unit could also carry out the vital task of providing feedback on the status of implementation of the instrument. It would also be possible for national focal units to link up into regional networks to pool information and activities.

83. The amount and type of possible assistance required for such focal units depended on what entities were already in place in a country. For example, some had already set up bodies to deal with issues of pesticides, and those could be expanded to become national umbrella committees for all POPs issues. It was observed that, once the POPs instrument was in force, it would be possible to get a better picture of the operations of such focal units and of the activities that might be undertaken and funded. It was also noted that a POPs focal unit would need to be in existence for as long as there was work for it to do.

84. The Group noted the need to differentiate between countries which might need assistance to create a regulatory framework for POPs from scratch, and those which already had in place laws to regulate specific POPs, but where assistance could focus on supplementing legislation to bring it into line with the requirements of the instrument. In that connection, the importance of access to viable, safe and economic alternatives to POPs was stressed, since, without such alternatives, countries faced a problem in introducing laws to prohibit substances which they greatly needed. It was suggested that some countries could assist others by providing advice and samples of their already formulated POPs legislation to serve as a model. It was also observed that regulations from one country could be extended to create a common system to cover a number of countries in a subregion.

85. The Group discussed the fact that for many countries the greatest problems lay not in formulating the legislation itself, but in ensuring that it was implemented and properly enforced in practice. Countries expressed the need to have the technical capacities to regulate POPs; to be given information and the means to enhance public awareness, so as to ensure that people abided by the regulations; and, to combat the problem of illegal cross-border traffic, to have access to viable and economic alternatives and substitutes, including through technology transfer, as well as training for customs and other enforcement officials.

86. Technology transfer was noted by many representatives to be a key element of the instrument, providing the means to phase out POPs through the introduction of safe, economic and environmentally friendly alternatives. There was a need for innovative new approaches in such transfers: workshops and meetings for technology exchange were deemed insufficient. A transferred technology might not involve chemical production (e.g., substitution of pesticides by integrated pest management techniques). Nor did it need to be the most sophisticated technology available, but simply the most suitable to the specific circumstances of a country or region - which could also involve developing or enhancing indigenous capacities and techniques. One representative said that it was important to define the terms under which access to technology would be granted; to define the term "transfer of technology", which included transfer of material, equipment and know-how; and to identify the constraints that countries were encountering in obtaining and accessing the appropriate technology. It was pointed out that resources might be needed to cover the possibly higher costs of some potential alternatives, or that efforts must be made to ensure that they were made accessible. In that connection, multilateral and bilateral arrangements could be considered, as well as input from the private sector. One country made a presentation of ongoing research on cost issues related to DDT alternatives.

87. Representatives noted that the types of specific activities identified in document UNEP/POPS/INC.2/INF/3 might also be useful with regard to the development, implementation, and enforcement of regulatory controls. It was also noted that specific activities within that area should attempt to create the infrastructure necessary to utilize the most appropriate alternative methods and technologies, including non-chemical alternatives, for dealing with a particular POP in a particular country.

88. The Group agreed that this was a vital activity that would influence the success or failure of efforts in a number of activity areas already discussed. Efforts would have to be made to develop programmes within the context of specific national, subregional and regional circumstances. One representative highlighted such a programme within the country.

89. Three additional activity areas were identified to be taken into account in the assessment of possible technical and financial assistance needs. It was noted that the survey and treatment of populations exposed to POPs should be factored into the preparation of national implementation plans. It was noted that risk assessment activities, which also played an important role in educating people and raising awareness, also needed to be a part of national plans. It was also noted that consideration of the social and economic implications of the introduction and application of alternatives to POPs was vital in determining their negative and, equally important, their beneficial impacts on health and the environment, and in deciding whether they were economic, effective and accessible. It was further noted that a social and economic assessment should form part of the preparation of a country's national implementation plan but, as a cross-cutting issue, it also needed to be considered, alongside risk assessment, under technology transfer activities and under activities for the enhancement of local infrastructure.

90. The estimation of costs in the note by the secretariat (UNEP/POPS/INC.2/INF/3) was not evaluated by the Group. It was pointed out that the nature of the instrument on POPs and the determination of the differing needs and problems of individual countries demanded a new approach to the provision of technical assistance, in a manner that was financially possible. Costs could be saved in ways that pooled resources, for example: by organizing centralized training of trainers, who would then carry skills back to their countries; by countries passing on their experiences to others which had not yet faced the same tasks; and by developing common advertizing and documentation campaigns among groups of countries, using the expertise and infrastructures of developing countries. Costs could also be held down by accessing information through the clearing-house mechanisms of other conventions and bodies, particularly those with ongoing activities of relevance to the POPs instrument. Concerning traditionally cost-intensive assistance, costs could be reduced by identifying research and development facilities in the developing countries and giving them the task and funding, with a view to sharing the resulting fruits; and by sharing expensive destruction facilities among a number of countries. One representative noted that, if necessary, an expensive technology for a POPs alternative could be bought outright and distributed free to those needing it.

91. It was observed that it was crucial to ensure that, no matter what form assistance might take, it needed to be available. The view was expressed that the onus should not be on the countries themselves to strive to find bilateral or multilateral donors to assist them to meet their commitments under the instrument. The secretariat could be the conduit for sourcing and assigning technical assistance. Some representatives considered it useful if the secretariat could assist Parties in identifying sources of technical assistance and of bilateral and multilateral support.

92. The Group agreed to commence its consideration of the item with a brief general discussion.

93. With regard to the provision of technical and financial assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition, to enable them to meet their commitments under the future instrument, referred to in paragraph 59 of the Committee's report on the work of its first session (UNEP/POPS/INC.1/7), a number of representatives believed that much work still remained to be done before an accurate assessment could be made of the extent of the assistance and of the resources required.

94. Some representatives considered that the existing sources of funding and financial mechanisms could be used, since many of them were already providing resources for POPs-related activities. By prioritizing their activities, reassigning funds, looking at new approaches and seeking ways to avoid duplication, countries could find existing sources adequate to their needs.

95. Other representatives were of the view that existing sources and mechanisms were insufficient to meet the specific technical assistance needs under the POPs instrument. They believed that a strong financial mechanism was of central importance to the instrument and that a new financial mechanism should be established, along the lines of the provisions of the Montreal Protocol.

96. The Group requested the secretariat to compile, as appropriate, the following information for its consideration at its next meeting:

97. Representatives expressed support for an article on reporting, believing that such an article was important to the success of the instrument. One representative suggested that the article should be broadened to encourage reporting of additional technical information. Another representative signalled the importance of determining the overall objectives of the instrument before the article could be discussed.

98. Many representatives expressed strong support for developing procedures and institutional mechanisms for determining non-compliance and for the treatment of Parties found to be in non-compliance, including possible provisions for assisting Parties to come into compliance. Many noted that such provisions should take into account experiences gained in other environmental conventions. It was noted that the article was closely tied to the articles on the substantive provisions and reporting and that the issue would need to be revisited by the Committee once the obligations under the instrument and its scope had been more clearly determined.

99. Many representatives expressed support for an article on settlement of disputes, noting that it should take into account experiences gained in other environmental conventions. Several representatives reserved their judgement until the substantive issues under the instrument had become clearer. One representative noted that provisions would have to be made within the article for Parties that were regional economic integration organizations. Another representative expressed the view that, if disputes arose between Parties regarding the future instrument, it would be incumbent upon those Parties to inform the secretariat or an executive body.

100. Some representatives noted that, as the Committee clarified the terms of the instrument, it might be necessary to review and perhaps expand the enumerated functions of the Conference of Parties. One representative pointed out that the current article did not contain a reference to the supremacy of the Conference of Parties relative to other bodies of the instrument, as was found in many environmental conventions.

101. While there was general support for the article, many representatives noted that more clarity regarding the details of the instrument was necessary before the precise structure and functions of a secretariat could be defined.

102. One representative expressed strong concern regarding the article, which he found to be unbalanced, and had reservations concerning paragraph 3. Another felt that there was a potential conflict between that paragraph and paragraph 1.

103. During the debate on the article, support was expressed for the establishment of a legal drafting group, which would commence its work at the Committee's next session. The Committee agreed to forward draft articles M, N, O and P, as amended, to that legal drafting group, on the understanding that the Committee would take up the articles again at a later date and that all policy issues with regard to the article were still open for discussion.

on the adoption and amendment of annexes

104. The Committee agreed to consider draft articles Q and R together. Several representatives noted that significant policy issues included the threshold for an amendment entering into force, the selection of which types of issues would be subject to which article, the interrelationship between the articles, as well as with article F, and the overall level of flexibility and dynamism in processes chosen with regard to altering the future instrument.

105. In addition, it was also agreed to consider, at a later stage, other complementary models, such as the role of resolutions within the future instrument, with a view, in particular, to dealing with the complex issue of by-products.

106. Owing to time constraints, the Committee agreed to forward the draft articles to the future legal drafting group, on the understanding that the Committee would take up the articles again at a later date. The Committee recognized that representatives would wish to explore specific policy issues in many of the articles, some but not all of which had been designated with brackets in the forwarded text.

107. Owing to time constraints and the technical nature of many of the articles, the Committee agreed to forward draft articles S-Z to the future legal drafting group, on the understanding that it would take them up at a later date. The Committee recognized that representatives would wish to explore specific policy issues in many of the articles, some but not all of which had been designated with brackets in the forwarded text.

108. Following its debate, the Committee agreed to request the secretariat to compile the draft articles, incorporating suggestions submitted by delegations and with the insertion, where appropriate, of bracketed text, for further consideration by the Committee at its third session. The revised draft articles are contained in annex I to the present report.

109. No other matters were raised for discussion at the session.

110. The Committee adopted the report on the work of its second session on Friday, 29 January 1999, on the basis of documents UNEP/POPS/INC.2/L.1, L1/Add.1 and L.1/Add.2.

111. In his closing statement, Mr. Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director of UNEP, stressed the importance of the negotiations on the problem of POPs, and, in particular, the "dirty dozen", which had already caused massive harm to indigenous populations, and hoped that a properly global solution would be found to this global problem, preferably by the year 2000. Noting the very extensive support for the second session by Governments and non-governmental organizations, he was pleased to see that their deliberations had proved very productive, resulting in an agreed draft text for future negotiations, and that their statements had sounded a call for environmentally sound strategies. In conclusion, he thanked all participants for their contributions and the Chair for his stewardship of the negotiations and, in particular, commended the work of the UNEP Chemicals programme.

112. In his closing statement, the Chair said that the inclusion of major group statements as annexes to the report on the work of the session should not be considered as a precedent and that future sessions of the Committee might agree to alternative approaches.

113. After the customary exchange of courtesies, the meeting was declared closed at 8 p.m. on Friday, 29 January 1999.

of POPs into the environment

1. The contact group established for the purpose of examining the annexes in document UNEP/POPS/INC.2/2 against the 10 pesticide and industrial POPs consisted of at least 20 countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Republic of Tanzania, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America), and was also attended by observers from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Commission.

2. The procedure used to structure the discussion comprised the following stages:

3. The group wishes to make the following caveats regarding the outcome of its work:

4. With regard to Annex A listings, no reservations were expressed for production and use prohibitions for the following POPs:

5. For the following POPs, either reservations were expressed for production and/or use prohibitions, or there was no consensus for listing in Annex A or B:

6. There was fairly good progress and much was learned. Confusion remained, however, on the scope and numerous other aspects of the annexes and of the ongoing discussions.

7. In all, four of the chemicals were identified as candidates for an Annex A prohibition on production and use. It was difficult to fit several of the other chemicals into the annexes as currently structured.

8. Several alternative approaches were identified, including setting up elimination and reduction annexes; annexes for known elimination, future elimination, and restriction; use of a single annex; use of an exemption column in the current Annex A, etc.

9. There were several cases where specific dates for elimination could not be identified by the contact group.

10. There was some general discussion of the proposal in the plenary by China for differentiated annexes as well as specific cases where developing country representatives identified specific exemptions needed. The need for additional plenary discussion of this issue was identified.

11. The topic of general exemptions was briefly considered and the group voiced general support for the concept of general exemptions such as scientific research, closed system intermediates, trace contaminants in products and presence in articles.

12. Chemical-specific exemptions should be specific for specific chemicals and countries, and should be drawn no broader than necessary.

13. The group discussed the distinction between exemptions for emergency public health uses and ongoing exemptions for vector control or to meet other needs.

14. The contact group agreed to use the following concepts for purposes of their discussions:

15. The group discussed the exemptions noted below, and agreed that these needed to be reflected somewhere in the future instrument or its annexes, and developed the understandings indicated in the following subsection.

16. This was considered to include laboratory-scale research or use as a reference standard. The exemption includes monitoring studies to detect the presence of listed substances in the environment.

17. The following points were developed by the contact group.

18. There was no agreement as to whether this should appear as a general exemption or only as a specific exemption.

19. The group identified the need to consider a means for verification of intermediate use.

20. Several possible ways of expressing the general exemption were identified: "site-limited" intermediate, "closed system" intermediate, or "site-limited closed system" intermediate. One distinction noted during the discussion was that "site-limited intermediate" does not refer to possible controls on the process whereas "closed system intermediate" refers to manufacture and use under a tightly controlled process.

21. The contact group identified a difference of opinion on the role in transport (e.g., between sites in a country or for export) within this general exemption.

22. The group recognized the value of a general exemption for unintentional trace contaminants, but identified a possible need to clarify or define the term "trace."

date of entry into force

23. There was no agreement as to whether this should appear as a general exemption or only as a specific exemption under the control annex(es). The term "article" may need clarification; however, as used by the contact group, "article" would include, e.g., clothing treated with mirex as a flame retardant, but would not include a container (e.g., a transformer containing PCBs).

24. The group identified a variety of issues concerning substances in use at the time of entry into force, e.g., chlordane in previously treated soil or containers of the substance in the possession of the end user (e.g., pesticide containers on the farm of the user). Additional discussion is needed.

25. The contact group identified the need to consider public health emergencies. Some countries discussed the need to consider agricultural emergencies under such an exemption.

26. Within the contact group, a preference was indicated for using specific exemptions (i.e. within the annexes), with some support for a general exemption.

27. The contact group considered a variety of approaches to structuring the annexes and, after an excellent exchange, developed the approaches which are attached (see appendix I below). The group considered the approaches of a single integrated annex for elimination/restriction and a double annex, with one for elimination and the second for restriction. In doing its work, the group considered the approaches found in the secretariat paper UNEP/POPS/INC.2/2, the United States of America's proposal for a single annex UNEP/POPS/INC.2/CRP.1, and the proposal of Switzerland found in UNEP/POPS/INC.2/INF/1/Add.1.

28. Regarding the footnote on "date of review", the contact group clarified that this reference to review was intended to be open-ended and did not imply any particular type of review.

in the annexes

29. The contact group had a brief discussion of approaches to reflecting differentiated responsibilities in the annexes and developed the approaches which are attached (see appendix II below). The group developed the alternatives of inserting this aspect into the control measures column and inserting this aspect into the specific exemptions column.

1. The group of African countries, on the occasion of the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for an International Legally Binding Instrument for Implementing International Action on Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants, reaffirms its support for UNEP Governing Council decision 19/13 C calling on UNEP to prepare for and convene the sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee and further to support the mandate given to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to focus initially on a list of 12 POPs.

2. Recognizing the vulnerability of the African population and the world at large to the detrimental effects of POPs, the group of African countries reaffirms its support for the elimination of the initial 12 POPs.

3. Referring to the results of the two awareness-raising workshops on POPs held in Bamako, Mali, and Lusaka, Zambia, and of the first session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, the group notes the following obstacles to the effective phasing out of POPs in the African region:

4. Notwithstanding limited resources, some African countries have initiated measures to address some of the problems created by POPs, such as the adoption of legislation controlling the use of certain hazardous chemicals including POPs; banning the use of certain POPs; and the issuance of guidelines on the management of chemicals such as pesticides.

5. Based on these experiences in the region, the group of African countries requires that the following concerns be addressed and contained in the Convention:

6. The group of African countries furthermore supports that the following principles be contained in the proposed convention:

ON IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES

1. The group of Latin American and Caribbean countries prioritizes the need for the formulation of national plans as a fundamental instrument to eliminate and to reduce POPs.

2. To that end, the Parties should give, inter alia, particular attention to:

LEGALLY BINDING INSTRUMENT ON POPS

1. While a good beginning has been made by starting negotiations on the basis of document UNEP/POPs/INC.2/2, the members of the Group of 77 and China have established their common position on some crucial issues. We believe that, in order to have a universal and effective convention on the elimination and reduction of POPs, the following common concerns should be fully addressed.

2. The Group of 77 and China believe that it is necessary to have a section in the convention entitled "Principles", which would provide the guiding principles for the convention and its future evolution. This section should include internationally recognized principles, namely: common but differentiated responsibilities; the right to development; the primacy of the protection of human health and the environment; the special situation and needs of the developing countries; the "polluter pays" principle; and the principle that measures to implement the convention should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination in international trade.

3. Given the fact that each country has its own specific capacities, there should be a distinction between the obligations of developed and developing countries in terms of measures that should be taken for the elimination and reduction of POPs. We would like to have a clear and concise provision stipulating the direct linkage between the implementation of the convention by the developing countries and the provision of related technology, know-how, equipment and financial resources by the developed countries.

4. With regard to national plans, the Group is of the view that there should be flexibility for developing countries in terms of the content, format and reporting of national plans, with provision for regional and international cooperation.

5. Exchange of information in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner will constitute an essential feature of the convention and should be suitably emphasized in a distinct article.

6. On the financial aspects of the convention, it is essential for effective and speedy implementation of the convention that financial resources be provided by the developed country parties. Existing financial bodies like the Global Environment Facility (GEF) do not have sufficient resources even for their own activities. Furthermore, the GEF Instrument does not include POPs as one of its areas of finance. There is a need to establish a new and additional financial mechanism, which could be based on the Montreal Protocol.

7. The transfer of equipment, know-how and material to the developing countries on a non-discriminatory and concessional basis is a basic requirement for the implementation of the convention by the developing countries. Similar provisions will have to be included for capacity-building, the destruction of existing stockpiles and the cleaning up of chemically contaminated sites.

8. When phasing out POPs, it is essential that alternatives which are efficient, environmentally friendly and economically viable and accessible are identified and made available to the developing countries. The application of, and research on, indigenous alternatives in developing countries should be supported as an additional effort by the developed countries.

9. On the issue of the time-frame for phasing out POPs, the Group believes that the time-frame should be set according to the socio-economic conditions of developing and developed countries. The provision of the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto Protocol should be followed.

10. When identifying new POPs, it is vital that the Criteria Expert Group give as much weight to the social and economic effects of their reduction or elimination as it gives to their scientific evaluation.

1. During the general debate, representatives of a number of non-governmental organizations took the floor, drawing attention to, inter alia, the following points: the aim of the future instrument should be the total elimination of POPs and there should be no permitted production or use; stockpiles should be destroyed, in an environmentally sound manner; financial and technical assistance was needed for developing countries; UNEP should be responsible for monitoring compliance with the instrument; information should not be subject to confidentiality restrictions; the future instrument should be based on sound science; inventories of by-products should be maintained; the provisions of article G, on information, should include integrated pest management. Attention was also drawn to the importance of the issue of DDT, including the serious environmental and health effects associated with its use, and its replacement by effective and affordable alternatives, as well as to the issue of exemptions, and clarification was sought on the issue of transit for the purposes of disposal.

2. One representative cited Governing Council decision 19/13 C, which referred to the need to reduce and/or eliminate emissions and discharges of POPs, as an indication that elimination should not be the sole aim or objective in the text of the legally binding instrument. He also emphasized the need for the future instrument to support the import and export of POPs for the purpose of their environmentally sound destruction.

3. Several representatives stressed the particular hazard posed by POPs to indigenous populations, threatening their traditional life-styles, and it was urged that the current negotiations and the future instrument should serve as a wake-up call to the world on the dangers of POPs.