UNEP-FAO...11-Report-20161020.En.d… · Web viewThe workshop was attended by experts from the following observers: Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association (ACPMA),

ROTTERDAM CONVENTION

Report of the workshop to support the intersessional work on the process of listing chemicals in Annex III to the

Rotterdam Convention

3-5 July 2016Riga, Latvia

I. Attendance1. The workshop was attended by experts from the following Parties to the Rotterdam Convention: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, European Union, Ghana, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Russian Federation, South Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Zambia.

2. In addition, the meeting was attended by experts from two States that were not Parties to the Convention: Egypt and the United States of America.

3. The workshop was attended by experts from the following observers: Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association (ACPMA), Confederation of Employers of Kazakhstan (CEK), CropLife International, Federação dos Trabalhadores da Construção de São Paulo (FETICOM), Instituto Brasileiro do Crisotila (IBC), Instituto Mexicano de Fibroindustria A.C., International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile” (IATUC), International Chrysotile Association (ICA), International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN), Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) and Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF/ROCA).

4. Mr. Andrew McNee (Australia), a representative of the lead Party facilitating the intersessional work on the process of listing chemicals in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention, also attended the workshop. The workshop was moderated by Ms. Silvija Nora Kalnins (Latvia). The list of participants is set out in annex I to the present report.

II. Opening of the workshop5. The workshop was opened by Ms. Kalnins at 2 p.m. on 3 July 2016. On behalf of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development she warmly welcomed the participants and thanked them for attending the workshop. She stated that the sound management of chemicals and wastes was an important means of protecting human health and the environment and it was a pleasure hosting this workshop in Latvia.

6. Mr. McNee, on behalf of the lead Party, then gave opening remarks, highlighting that the outcome of this intersessional work would give effect to a key decision of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention and that he was looking forward to having contributions from experts gathered around the table.

Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention Page | 2

7. Mr. McNee also recalled that following the adoption of Chapter 19 of Agenda 21 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which called for the adoption of a legally binding instrument on the prior informed consent procedure by the year 2000, the Rotterdam Convention was adopted in 1998 and entered into force in 2004. Since the first Conference of the Parties in 2004, whilst progress had been made in achieving the objectives of the Convention, there had been a range of contentious issues around the listing of chemicals in Annex III to the Convention. Mr. McNee expressed his hope that the current workshop would provide a real opportunity to ask broader strategic questions to set up the future of the Convention: For example, how does the Rotterdam Convention move into the future? What value does it offer to Parties? Is it effective in terms of achieving its objectives? Have things changed since 1992? He concluded his remarks by thanking the organizers and donors for making it possible to hold this important workshop and in wishing the experts fruitful deliberations.

8. On behalf of Mr. Rolph Payet, the Executive Secretary of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, and himself, Mr. Bill Murray, the Executive Secretary of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) part of the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention, then welcomed the participants, thanking the Government of Latvia for hosting the workshop and the Governments of Australia and Germany for their generous financial contributions to support the organization of the workshop. He highlighted the important role Australia had as a lead Party in facilitating the intersessional work on the process of listing chemicals in Annex III.

9. Mr. Murray noted that the current work was initiated at the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The origins of this work were garnered by the sense of frustration among some Parties that the Conference of the Parties had been unable to reach a consensus on the addition of a growing number of chemicals to Annex III. Despite its best efforts during the fourth to the sixth meetings of the Conference of the Parties, progress towards resolving the underlying issues had been limited. Mr. Murray expressed his hope that this workshop would provide an opportunity to take a step back from discussions on individual chemicals and to consider options to improve the process of listing chemicals and information flows that support the prior informed consent procedure in the context of the overall objectives of the Convention. He expressed his confidence that all experts would engage in active discussions and make contributions to the success of the workshop, thereby finding ways to ensure that the objectives of the Convention were realized to their fullest extent.

10. Each participant then introduced himself/herself.

III. Objectives and arrangements for the workshop11. The representative of the Secretariat drew attention to decision RC-7/5 by which the Conference of the Parties established the intersessional working group with the following mandates:

(a) To review the cases in which the Conference of the Parties was unable to reach consensus on the listing of a chemical by identifying the reasons for and against listing and, based on that and other information such as the information set out in documents UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.4/12 and UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.4/13, to develop options for improving the effectiveness of the process;

(b) To develop proposals for enabling improved information flows that support the prior informed consent procedure for those chemicals.

12. She explained the process so far including the nomination of experts to serve as members of the group; the identification of Australia as the lead Party to facilitate the


intersessional work; Australia’s subsequent development of a background note, workplan of the group and a thought-starter document in consultation with the intersessional working group; and a synthesis by the Secretariat of comments submitted by the intersessional working group members on the thought-starter document.

13. On the basis of the comments on the thought-starter document, Australia, in close consultation with the President of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention and the Secretariat, developed the programme of the workshop as set out in annex II to the present report.

14. Pointing to the main objective of the workshop which was to ensure an opportunity for input and discussion by all participants, she further explained that the participants would discuss the following four topical clusters in three breakout groups:

(a) Cluster I: Areas of agreement and commonality;

(b) Cluster II: Efficient and effective mechanisms to achieve the objectives of the Convention – balancing resourcing and objectives;

(c) Cluster III: Improving the effectiveness of the process - areas within the scope of the Convention that could be addressed;

(d) Cluster IV: Improving the effectiveness of the process - areas for consideration that are not within the scope of the Convention.

15. Responding to a comment by an expert, the representative of the Secretariat clarified the process by which Australia was identified as lead Party to facilitate the current intersessional work and confirmed that each participant would have an opportunity to participate in the discussions on all four clusters during the workshop.

16. To assist the experts in their deliberations, a video illustrating the process for the listing of chemicals in Annex III to the Convention was presented.

IV. Introduction to the thought-starter document17. Mr. McNee presented the thought-starter document that had been sent to the intersessional working group members for comments in March 2016. The intention of the document was to facilitate an analysis of the problems faced by the Convention and to consider options to improve the functioning of the Convention, including the decision-making process. The thought-starter document contained the following six sections: (i) background and historical context to give perspective on how the Rotterdam Convention currently functions and how this compares with its intended function; (ii) questions for members’ consideration in relation to the function of the Convention; (iii) concerns expressed during COPs with regard to listing; (iv) options set out in documents UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.4/12 and UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.4/13; (v) consideration of cases where consensus could not be reached; and (vi) conclusions and consolidated questions.

18. The representative of the Secretariat then introduced the synthesis of comments on the thought-starter received from 18 experts. One expert thanked Australia for preparing the thought-starter document and for giving an opportunity to provide comments and congratulated the Secretariat for producing the synthesis report, which he felt efficiently captured the responses to the thought-starter document.

V. Discussion clusters19. Taking into account regional and gender balance, the experts were grouped into three breakout groups and a facilitator for each group was identified. The three groups


discussed the four topical clusters and the outcome of the discussions was reported in plenary sessions.

20. Under discussion cluster I on areas of agreement and commonality, the experts discussed what value Parties and others see from the activities of the Convention including the prior informed consent procedure. Many experts said that the Rotterdam Convention was contributing to facilitating information exchange in international trade of certain chemicals. A number of experts recognized that the listing of chemicals in Annex III would trigger the procedures for providing an import response and that it was at the discretion of each sovereign government to decide on whether to allow the import or export of listed chemicals on the basis of domestic action already taken to address the risks from use of the chemical. Several noted that although the Convention in itself does not constitute a ban, it seemed that there was a misconception by some countries and industry associations that chemicals listed in Annex III were no longer to be used or traded. Suggestions were made for developing and implementing a robust awareness-raising and communication strategy to improve understanding of the Convention and its objectives, implications of listing and information on and alternatives to relevant chemicals. With regard to the 90-day limit for submission of a notification of a final regulatory action (FRA) provided in Article 5 of the Convention, many experts were of the opinion that failure to meet this timeframe did not invalidate the notification. It was noted, however, that any formal interpretation of the time limit for submissions would need to come from the Conference of the Parties.

21. Under discussion cluster II on efficient and effective mechanisms to achieve the objectives of the Convention – balancing resourcing and objectives, the experts supported the premise that the objectives of the Convention are still valid and important and that the Convention provided all necessary processes to achieve its objectives. Concerning the significance of listing chemicals in Annex III and making them subject to the prior informed consent procedure, a significant number of experts noted the benefits as it supported Parties, in particular from developing countries that did not have the capacity to conduct risk evaluations, to obtain information on chemicals that require particular international attention and enabled them to take national decisions on the use and trade of those chemicals. Other experts recalled that the first notification of regulatory action for a chemical, which often occurs years before consideration by the Chemical Review Committee, starts an information exchange process that allows developing countries to obtain needed information to take national regulatory decisions. Experts also recalled that decisions on imports must be consistent with domestic control actions already taken, thus emphasizing early information sharing opportunities.

22. Under discussion cluster III on improving the effectiveness of the process - areas within the scope of the Convention that could be addressed, the experts considered what specific action could address concerns and how it might be implemented. The experts reviewed the various steps of the process: the adoption of FRA, the notification of FRA to the Secretariat, the review by the Chemical Review Committee, the consideration by the Conference of the Parties and, in cases where listing was agreed to by the Conference of the Parties, the import response. Experts exchanged views on possible improvements that could take place at each step. Some options were suggested in particular with respect to early and open opportunities for stakeholder comments, the operations of the Chemical Review Committee and on how to enable information exchange in instances where the Conference of the Parties was unable to reach consensus to list a chemical.

23. Under discussion cluster IV on improving the effectiveness of the process - areas for consideration that are not within the scope of the Convention, the experts discussed mechanisms outside the scope of the Convention that could have impact on the effectiveness of the process. A number of experts highlighted the impact of public perception and suggested ways to improve the understanding of the objectives of the


Rotterdam Convention. The experts also mentioned other means to assist decision-making of the Conference of the Parties such as the provision of technical assistance, information on alternatives, further involvement of industry, civil society, and other international bodies, and diplomatic channels.

24. The reports of the breakout group discussions on the four topical clusters are set out in annex III to the present report.

VI. Discussion on elements of convergence/agreement: working towards proposals and options to submit to COP-825. Recalling the objectives of the intersessional working group mandated by decision RC-7/5, the moderator explained that the goal of this agenda item was to develop an itemisation of proposals and options discussed during the workshop. For this purpose, the Secretariat prepared a draft compilation of proposals and options based on the reports of the breakout group discussions. The experts were invited to review the draft compilation and to provide any clarifying comments.

26. In the ensuing discussion, one expert suggested that the compilation should indicate whether the proposals and options fell within or outside the scope of the Convention. Another pointed out that some of the proposals and options were supported by many experts whereas some were not, and she suggested such difference in the weight of opinions be signalled. Supporting her suggestion, another expert recommended that a disclaimer should accompany the proposals and options when submitted to the Conference of the Parties to clarify that they were not agreed by all the workshop participants but were rather a compilation of all opinions provided. The Secretariat was requested to insert a statement to this effect as an introduction to the list of proposals and options discussed during the workshop.

27. The compilation of proposals and options put forward by the experts is set out in annex IV to the present report.

VII. Next steps28. The representative of the Secretariat drew attention to the workplan of the intersessional working group and informed the workshop that a draft report of the proceedings containing the compilation of proposals and options would be sent to all participants towards the end of July for comments. An updated workplan of the intersessional working group would be included in this communication. Following a commenting period by the intersessional working group, the Secretariat would finalise the report of the workshop and circulate it to Parties and others inviting their views on the proposals and options contained therein. The workshop report and the compilation of views received from Parties and others would be submitted to the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties for its consideration.

29. In addition, within available resources, the Secretariat would gather information to assess the causal association between the listing of chemicals in Annex III and any subsequent ban on the use of such chemicals and share the result with the intersessional working group, with the intention to submit such information to the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties for its consideration.


VIII. Closure of workshop30. In closing the workshop, Mr. Rolph Payet, the Executive Secretary of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, gave remarks. He congratulated the experts for making good progress towards the important mandate given by the Conference of the Parties and looked forward to receiving feedback from Parties and observers who were not able to participate in this workshop. He concluded by thanking the host country, Latvia, for its excellent organization and hospitality and Australia for taking the lead in facilitating the intersessional work and in providing financial support, together with Germany.

31. Following the customary exchange of courtesies, the workshop was declared closed at 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 5 July 2016.


Annex I

List of participants

I. PARTIES

Australia

Ms. Sara BroomhallDirectorChemical Management and Standards SectionDepartment of the EnvironmentGPO Box 7872601 CanberraAustraliaTel: +61 2 6274 1702Fax: +61 2 6274 1164Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Mr. Andrew McNeeAssistant SecretaryChemicals and Waste Branch/Environment Standards DivisionDepartment of the EnvironmentGPO Box 7872601 CanberraAustraliaTel: +61 2 6274 1622Fax: +61 2 6274 1164Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Austria

Ms. Anja BartelsSenior ExpertDepartment for Ecotoxicology and Efficiency / Institute for Plant Protection ProductsAustrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES)Spargelfeldstr. 1911220 ViennaAustriaTel: +43 505 553 3452Fax: +43 505 553 3404Email: [email protected]

Belgium

Ms. Mara CurabaAttachéDG 5, Risk Management Desk, EurostationFederal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and EnvironmentPlace Victor Horta 40 bte 101000 BrusselsBelgiumTel: +32 2 524 96 56Fax: +32 2 524 96 03Email: [email protected]

Canada

Mr. Jeffery GoodmanPolicy Advisor for PIC SubstancesChemicals Sector DirectorateEnvironment CanadaPlace Vincent Massey - 11053351 St. Joseph Blvd.K1A 0H3 GatineauCanadaTel: + 1 819 938 4231Fax: +1 819 938 4218Email: [email protected]

China

Ms. Xiaojun WangDeputy DirectorInternational Cooperation DivisionInstitute for the Control of Agrochemicals (ICAMA)Ministry of Agriculture BuildingNo.22, Maizidian Street, Chaoyang District100125 BeijingChinaTel: +86 10 5919 4342Fax: +86 10 6593 7006Email: [email protected] / [email protected]


Colombia

Ms. Angela Patricia Rivera GalvisSegundo Secretario de Relaciones ExterioresDirección de Asuntos Economicos, Sociales y AmbientalesMinisterio de Relaciones ExterioresCalle 10 No.5-51Palacio de San CarlosBogotáColombiaTel: +57 1 381 4125Fax: +57 1 381 47 47 ext. 1639Email: [email protected]

European Union

Mr. Juergen HelbigInternational Chemicals Policy CoordinatorDirectorate-General for the EnvironmentEuropean CommissionUnit B.2 – Sustainable ChemicalsOffice BU 9, 05/0411049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: +32 2 298 8521Fax: +32 2 298 8874Email: [email protected]

Ghana

Mr. Sam Adu-KumiDirectorChemicals Control and Management CentreEnvironmental Protection AgencyStarlet 1991 StreetP.O. Box MB326AccraGhanaTel: +233 302 664697/8Fax: +233 302 662690Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

India

Mr. Manoj Kumar GangeyaDirectorHazardous Substances Management DivisionMinistry of Environment Forest and Climate ChangeRoom No. J-616, 6th Floor, Jal WingJor Bagh Road, Aliganj

110003 New DelhiIndiaTel: +91 11 2469 5337Fax: Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Mr. Mohammad HematyarNational Authority for Chemical ConventionsMinistry of Foreign AffairsIran (Islamic Republic of)Tel: +98(21)61154431Fax: +98(21)66740094Email: [email protected]

Japan

Ms. Mayuka IshidaOfficialGlobal Environment Division / International Cooperation BureauMinistry of Foreign Affairs2-2-1 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku100 8919 TokyoJapanTel: +81 3 5501 8245Fax: +81 3 5501 8244Email: [email protected]

Kenya

Mr. Peter Simon Opiyo OmbajoChief / Executive SecretaryPest Control Products BoardLoresho, Off Waiyaki WayP.O. Box 1379400800 NairobiKenyaTel: +254 20 802 1846/7/8Fax: +254 72 276 7647Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Latvia

Ms. Silvija Nora KalninsSenior ExpertDepartment of Environmental ProtectionMinistry of Environmental Protection and Regional DevelopmentPeldu Iela 25


1494 RigaLatviaTel: +371 6 702 6450Fax: +371 6 782 0442Email: [email protected]

Malaysia

Ms. Lalitha Jaya GeorgeAssistant DirectorApproval Unit / Pesticides Control DivisionDepartment of AgricultureJalan Sultan Salahuddin, Wisma Tani50632 Kuala LumpurMalaysiaTel: +603 20 301 400Fax: +603 26 917 551Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Nigeria

Dr. Oludayo O. DadaDirectorDepartment of Pollution Control and Environmental HealthFederal Ministry of EnvironmentNo. 1 Sannar Street, off Yalinga StreetOff Adetokunbo Ademola Street, Wuse llAbujaNigeriaTel: +234 807 227 7770Fax: Email: [email protected]

Norway

Ms. Christina Charlotte TolfsenSenior AdviserSection for Biocides and Global Chemical ConventionsNorwegian Environment AgencyGrensesvingen 7P.O. Box 62570661 OsloNorwayTel: +47 73 58 05 00Fax: +47 41 54 00 18Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Paraguay

Ms. Alba Luz Maria Domínguez ArbuésLic. en QuímicasDirección de AgroquímicosServicio Nacional de Calidad y Sanidad Vegetal y de Semillas (SENAVE)AsunciónParaguayTel: +595 21 496 491Fax: +595 21 496 174Email: [email protected]

Poland

Ms. Magdalena FrydrychChief SpecialistDepartment of Risk AssessmentBureau for Chemical SubstancesUL Dowborczyków 30/3491019 ŁódźPolandTel: +48 42 253 8413Fax: +48 42 253 8444Email: [email protected]

Russian Federation

Mr. Andrey GuskovDeputy ChiefDepartment Chief of Sanitary InspectionFederal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-beingBld. 18, Vadkovskiy str.127994 MoscowRussian FederationTel: +7 499 973 15 56Fax: Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Mr. Evgeny KovalevskiyDoctorIndustrial aerosolsResearch Institute of Occupational HealthRakhmanovski, 3MoscowRussian FederationTel: +7 985 222 10 73Fax: +7 495 366 05 83Email: [email protected]


South Africa

Mr. Molaudi Gordon KhauoePolicy Analist: International Chemicals and Waste CooperationInternational Chemicals and Waste CooperationDepartment of Environmental AffairsEnvironment House 473, Steve Biko StreetPrivate Bag X4470001 PretoriaSouth AfricaTel: +27 12 399 9851Fax: +27 86 608 5914Email: [email protected]

Switzerland

Mr. Felix WertliHead of Global Affairs SectionInternational Affairs DivisionFederal Office for the Environment3003 BernSwitzerlandTel: +41 58 468 70 11Fax: +41 58 463 03 49Email: [email protected]

United Kingdom

Mr. Richard VincentHead of International Chemicals and NanotechnologiesDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsArea 2A, Nobel House, 17 Smith SquareSW1P 3JR LondonUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandTel: +44 20 8026 3953 Fax: Email: [email protected]

Zambia

Mr. Christopher KanemaSenior InspectorJunction of Church and Suez Roads, LusakaTel: 00 260 1 254023/254059, Fax 00 260 1 254164Cell: 00 260 0977747106Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

II. OBSERVERS

NON-PARTIES

Egypt

Mr. Adel Shafei Mohamed OsmanGeneral DirectorHazardous Chemicals and Waste DepartmentMinistry of Environment30 Misr Helwan RoadP.O. Box 11728CairoEgyptTel: +202 2 525 6452Fax: +202 2 525 6475Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

United States of America

Ms. Amber ArandaAttorneyOffice of General CounselPesticides and Toxics Law Office Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW20460 Washington D.C.United States of AmericaTel: +1 202 564 1737Fax: Email: [email protected]


NGOs

Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers' Association (ACPMA)

Mr. Vivek Chandra Rao SripalleDirectorSafety, Health and EnvironmentAsbestos Cement Products Manufacturers' Association (ACPMA)502 Mansarovar, 90 Nehru Place110 019 New DelhiIndiaTel: +91 94 9016 4707Fax: +91 11 4652 1496Email: [email protected]

Confederation of Employers of Kazakhstan (CEK)

Mr. Nurlan OmarovAdvisorConfederation of Employers of Kazakhstan(CEK)212 Radostovets Street050060 AlmatyKazakhstanTel: +7 727 390 1714Fax: +7 727 395 66 58Email: [email protected]

CropLife International

Mr. Bernhard G. JohnenDirectorInternational Regulatory PolicyCropLife International326 avenue LouiseP.O. Box 351050 BrusselsBelgiumTel: +32 2 541 1668Fax: +32 2 542 0419Email: [email protected]

Federação dos Trabalhadores da Construção de São Paulo (FETICOM)

Mr. Emilio Ferreira JuniorPresidentSINTRACICAP Sindicato dos Trabalhadores da construção Civil Capivari SPRua Barão do Rio Branco n 4313360 000 São PauloBrazilTel: +551 993 491 2229Fax: Email: [email protected]

Instituto Brasileiro do Crisotila (IBC)

Mr. Marcondes Braga de MoraesInternational Affairs CoordinatorInstituto Brasileiro do Crisotila (IBC)Lauricio Pedro Rasmussen Avenue n°2535Vila Morais - Goiania74620 030 GoiasBrazilTel: +55 62 3604 0751Fax: +55 62 3604 0750Email: [email protected]

Instituto Mexicano de Fibroindustria A.C.

Mr. Antonio Galván CarrilesPresidente del Consejo DirectivoInstituto Mexicano de Fibroindustria A.C.Patricio Sanz 405-2, Col. del Valle, Del. Benito Juárez03100 México D.F.MexicoTel: +52 55 5368 9881Fax: Email: [email protected]


International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile”

Mr. Dmitrii SelianinAdviser for International AffairsInternational AffairsInternational Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile”Pobedy Street, 23624261 Asbest CityRussian FederationTel: +3 436 541 404Fax: +3 436 541 001Email: [email protected]

International Chrysotile Association

Mr. Emiliano AlonsoLegal AdviserAlonso & AsociadosAvenue des Arts, 10-11P.O. Box 101210 BrusselsBelgiumTel: +32 2 230 7042Fax: +32 2 231 0822Email: [email protected]

International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN)

Mr. Joseph DigangiSenior Science and Technical AdvisorInternational POPs Elimination Network (IPEN)1962 University Ave, Suite #394704 BerkeleyUnited States of AmericaTel: +1 510 704 1962Fax: +1 510 883 9493Email: [email protected]

Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP)

Ms. Meriel Anne WattsSenior Technical AdvisorPesticidesPesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP)Pulau PinangP.O. Box 117010850 PenangMalaysiaTel: +60 4 657 0271Fax: +60 4 658 3960Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF)

Ms. Alexandra CaterbowSenior Policy AdvisorChemicals and HealthWomen in Europe for a Common Future (WECF)Sankt Jakobs Platz 1080331 MunichGermanyTel: +49 89 232 3938 18Fax: +49 89 232 3938 10Email: [email protected]


Annex II

Workshop programme

Day 1: Sunday 3 July

1:00pm Registration of participants

Afternoon session 2:00pm – 7:00pm

Opening remarks

Representative of Government of Latvia (Welcome)

Representative of Lead Party (Australia)

Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention (Secretariat)

Introduction of the participants Moderator/All participants

Objectives and arrangements for the workshop Secretariat

Coffee break

Introduction to the Thought-starter document Lead Party

Overview of Discussion Clusters Lead Party

Introduction to Discussion Cluster: I. Areas of agreement and

commonalityModerator/Lead Party

Discussion in working groups on Cluster 1 Working Groups/Facilitators

Working group presentation of results Working Groups/Facilitators

Introduction to Discussion Cluster: II. Efficient and effective mechanisms

to achieve the objectives of the Convention – balancing resourcing and objectives

Moderator/Lead Party

Discussion in working groups on Cluster II Working Groups/Facilitators

Wrap-up of Day 1 Moderator

7:30pm Boat trip Organized by Government of Latvia

Day 2: Monday 4 July

Morning session 8:30am – 12:30pm

Recap of Day 1 Moderator

Discussion in working groups on Cluster II (cont.) Working Groups/Facilitators

Coffee break



Introduction to Discussion Cluster: III. Improving the effectiveness of the

process - areas within the scope of the Convention that could be addressed

Moderator/Lead Party

12:30pm – 2:00pm Lunch

Afternoon session 2:00pm – 6:00pm

Discussion in working groups on Cluster III Working Groups/Facilitators

Coffee break

Discussion in working groups (cont.) Working Groups/Facilitators


Wrap-up of Day 2 Moderator

6:30pm Reception Organized by Government of Latvia

Day 3: Tuesday 5 July

Morning session8:30am – 12:30pm

Recap of Day 2 Moderator

Introduction to Discussion Cluster:IV. Improving the effectiveness of the

process - areas for consideration that are not within the scope of the Convention

Working Groups/Facilitators

Coffee break

Discussion in working groups on Cluster IV Working Groups/Facilitators


12:30pm – 2:00pm Lunch

Afternoon session2:00pm – 6:00pm

Discussion on elements of convergence/agreement: working towards proposals and options to submit to COP-8

Moderator/All participants

Coffee break

Next steps Moderator/Lead Party/ Secretariat

Closure of the workshop


Annex III

Report of breakout group discussions on four topical clusters1

1. Discussion cluster I: Areas of agreement and commonality1.1 Guidance to the breakout groups on discussion cluster I

The Convention has upwards of 155 Parties, what value does Parties and others see from the activities of the Convention. How do we identify areas of value and what form does that value take? Are these views broadly held?

Potential elements to begin discussions

1. How do we identify what we value in outcomes from the operation of the Convention and what form can that value take?

2. How do we build a common understanding of procedures under the Convention? What actions would build confidence around the Convention and help it achieve objectives?

3. What is the value of the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure?

The PIC procedure has two main elements:

(a) Information sharing;

(b) A consent process for import (where consent is given or not given to import).

4. Significance of breach of Article 5. What are the legal and other implications of a notification by a Party that falls outside the 90 day limit?

1.2 Outcome of the discussions

1.2.1 Group 1

Function of the Rotterdam Convention

1. The Convention is providing a platform for exchanging information on chemicals (Egypt, Zambia, Ghana, Japan, Australia).

2. The Convention is not to ban use, trade, production, but each Party is to constitute its own domestic legal measures. A number of chemicals listed in Annex III are still in use (Egypt, Zambia, Ghana, Japan, Australia).

3. Facilitation of sound management of hazardous chemicals, increasing efficiency of international trade of chemicals. By knowing what chemicals enter into the country, the country will be able to manage the risk of chemicals (Egypt, Zambia, Ghana, Japan).

4. One of the benefits of listing of chemicals is to avoid problems at customs, so that at the border trade will not be hampered. PIC is facilitating trade in general. The commitment at WTO is serious, which is the value added to facilitating international trade (Belgium, Egypt).

5. Vital part of the Rotterdam Convention is the work of the Chemical Review Committee (CRC). CRC is a body composed of 31 experts. CRC brings experts’ judgement. The Convention provides the mechanism for listing of chemicals. One is CRC, which is before consideration by the Conference of the Parties (COP). A Party can make a proposal for

1 The reports are set out as presented by each working group to plenary during the workshop, as such, they have not been edited.


listing severely hazardous pesticide formulations (SHPF), or submit final regulatory action (FRA) notifications, which will be considered by CRC (UK, ACPMA).

6. Russia is of the opinion that CRC review on one of the chemicals was not in accordance with process. Decision-making by CRC is questionable. The role of CRC fits better under other discussion clusters (Russia).

7. Rotterdam Convention should provide standard information, standard procedures among Parties (IBC).

8. By listing a chemical under the Rotterdam Convention, it triggers exchange of information on identity, risks, alternatives, waste management (Belgium) - life cycle management of chemicals goes beyond trade and the information is vital for it (Ghana).

9. Parties can make an import decision on a temporary basis and can update it anytime. It is flexible (Belgium).

10. Information sharing and consent to import:

(a) Information sharing can be done in different ways e.g. Decision Guidance Document (DGD) drafted by CRC.

(b) Actual consent process is only triggered by listing in Annex III. It is important to recognize that listing is a mechanism for import control.

Decision-making at the national level on trade

1. Each sovereign government, at the national level, can take legal measures on import/export. Every Party is free to legalize the control of chemical. Decisions on whether to ban a chemical or not are taken at the national level (ACPMA, Egypt, Russia).

2. The key feature of the Convention starts by the action of a country (submitting a notification of FRA) (UK).

Perception of listing of chemicals in Annex III

1. The chemicals listed in Annex III are never automatically considered as banned. It is simply a procedure of international trade (Japan).

2. Why then is listing in Annex III considered as a ‘ban’, although the Convention itself does not ban? Misconceptions exist (ACPMA).

3. Although not written formally, it is recognized that listing of a chemical in Annex III means rapid banning of the substance. It is also often seen that the chemicals listed in Annex III are especially hazardous substances and any type of use of these substances represents an unacceptable risk. Such types of substances are publicly considered as chemicals that should not be traded (Russia).

4. Misunderstanding of Rotterdam Convention: the spirit of Rotterdam Convention is to share information; however, not only once listed but also during review by CRC, the chemical may already be considered subject to banning/restriction. Need a correct understanding on Rotterdam Convention (IBC).

5. Support efforts to correct understanding but in practice it will not work. For example, classification of a chemical as a carcinogen will make people (emotionally) consider the chemical is fatal (Russia).

What can be done to improve understanding?

1. Need robust communication strategy to improve understanding of the Convention, implication of listing, and information on chemicals (Zambia).


2. Need communication strategy to bridge the gaps. If information follows the flow provided in the Convention and we have good communication, people will have a common understanding (Zambia, Egypt).

3. Commitment of the governments and Secretariat towards bridging the gaps is essential (Zambia, Egypt).

4. Local/internal communication is also key to building a common understanding and to avoiding misconception. Partnerships with industry, trade department, other authorities. The Secretariat can perhaps create tools to strengthen communication on the trade of chemicals at the local level (Egypt).

5. Through the information required in Annex I for FRA, risk assessment information is provided (UK).

6. Secretariat can provide information on a number of chemicals that are listed in Annex III and are being used or traded (ACPMA).

7. Information sharing through a regional approach, e.g. with EU (Egypt).

Is there any breach in Article 5 when FRA is submitted late?

1. No. The violation of the time frame has no substantive impact on the validity of the FRA (Belgium, Russia, supported by all).

Possible areas of commonalities

1. Rotterdam Convention is facilitating information exchange and international trade. Listing in Annex III triggers procedure for import response.

2. Each sovereign government makes a decision on whether to allow import/export of certain chemicals.

3. Although listing in Annex III of the Convention by itself does not constitute a ban, there is a misconception amongst some countries and industry associations that it does.

4. Need a robust communication strategy to improve understanding of the Convention, implication of listing, and information on chemicals.

5. The time frame provided in Article 5 has no substantial impact.

1.2.2 Group 2

1. Views about the number of responses received to the thought-starter and what commitment there was to the process.

2. Shared understanding about the objectives of the Rotterdam Convention: protection of human health and the environment. The Rotterdam Convention promotes information sharing, and shared responsibility through a global system to control risks associated with some chemicals. In addition, it contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Switzerland). The possible socio and economic impacts of the Rotterdam Convention were probably not foreseen when the Rotterdam Convention was negotiated (Nigeria).

3. Rotterdam Convention as information sharing treaty: experts from Parties saw value in the Rotterdam Convention to know what is entering their country (Canada); particularly helpful to countries that do not have the capacity to do their own assessment of chemicals (Austria, Nigeria). Two observers questioned the value of information exchange under the Rotterdam Convention (ICA, CropLife) particularly whether countries were accessing other information to inform their actions.


4. In some countries and among some observers, there is a misconception about the objective of the Rotterdam Convention: listing means a ban (Kenya, ICA). Annex II of the Rotterdam Convention is self-explanatory in that it refers to “banned or severely restricted chemicals” (ICA). In other countries, the distinction between what the Rotterdam Convention does and any domestic measure taken to ban or restrict the production/use of a chemical is very clear: there is a clear distinction between the PIC procedure and regulatory measures that could be taken at the domestic level (China). General agreement that listing provides an opportunity for Parties to consider taking regulatory measures at the national level. Clear that even if a chemical is listed in Annex III, its export can take place and Parties do still export to Parties that accept imports (Canada).

5. Concern about lack of enforcement provisions within the Rotterdam Convention and lack of establishment of a compliance mechanism (CropLife, Nigeria, Kenya).

6. Other issues: DGDs: need for opportunity to update DGDs over time (ICA) or to have industry provide input into them (CropLife). Perhaps value in having an exercise to evaluate the effectiveness of the Rotterdam Convention (Nigeria).

7. Need to increase understanding of what the Rotterdam Convention is and of its implications (Kenya).

1.2.3 Group 3

How do we identify what we value in outcomes from the operation of the Convention and what form can that value take?

1. One of main benefits is information sharing among Parties, very important (Norway, EU, Poland, Colombia, ROCA).

2. Share responsibility, formally give and take information, enables informed decision-making; also important to remember that national procedures need to be put in place to cover for this (Colombia).

3. Rotterdam Convention provides a lot of background information and tools in particular for developing countries, high value in particular for deciding on future imports (import response). Two additional elements: the requirement to send export notifications to an importing country adds to the exchange of information. It is possible for the importing Party to ask the exporting Party for more information (EU).

4. Importance of function of Secretariat as a clearing house will lead to better protection of health and environment (ROCA).

5. Mechanism for information exchange, sharing responsibility and added value regarding national decision-making. Enables countries to take appropriate measures to minimise risk and protect human health and environment (general understanding).

How do we build a common understanding of procedures under the Convention? What actions would build confidence around the Convention and help it achieve objectives?

1. By doing what we are doing – discussion of procedures, sharing understanding of the Convention and information on implementation at the national level. Secretariat plays a very important role to build a common understanding, provides guidance and tools (e.g. films). Actions: implementation and working together with other Parties on a daily basis (EU).

2. Convention is achieving what it should (Malaysia).

3. What if a country has no legal basis? How to make an import response then? (South Africa)


4. Regarding import responses - all sources of import have to be treated the same way, e.g. if no consent to import is provided this is valid for all potential importers (EU).

5. Secretariat can provide technical assistance to address all needs of Parties.

6. Secretariat and CRC play an important role. Important that CRC continues to work in a transparent manner (Norway).

7. Awareness-raising plays an important role, there is a huge demand. The content of the Convention needs to be communicated to all stakeholders (ROCA).

8. Side-events at COPs are a good opportunity for all actors to obtain and exchange explanations on the Convention (Poland).

9. Side-events at COPs are very important; also webinars are very helpful to understand procedures and other issues (IATUC).

10. If no legislation is in place, Colombia always submits an interim import response until legislation in place. Compliance mechanism would be really good to help implementing the Convention (Colombia).

11. Renewed confidence has to be built up through Parties standing up and speaking out against undermining behaviour, through more notifications, more listings, a compliance mechanism, and through making problems with environment and human health more visible (ROCA).

12. Any possible changes to the rules of procedure to the Convention have to be carefully considered from the legal point of view and should be adopted by Parties by consensus (IATUC).

13. Consensus has to be built during COP meetings, the concerns of each Party have to be addressed, and decisions are to be taken unanimously as it’s a joint effort (India).

14. All actors should act in good faith (EU).

What is the value of the PIC procedure?

1. Parties share information, and prepare their import decisions, provision of best available information with the aim to protect human health and the environment (Poland).

2. Main value is the benefit developing countries have; it is an economic tool for them and does not require highly sophisticated systems. Exporting countries are responsible for ensuring that unwanted imports are not taking place (EU).

3. Significant information sharing and exchange/support opportunities exist in the many layers of process that occur before a listing recommendation from the CRC is considered by the COP, starting with the first notification of a chemical and distribution of the PIC circular, including information in notifications that may not meet the criteria (USA).

Significance of breach of article 5 (1): what are the legal and other implications of a notification by a Party that falls outside the 90 day limit

1. Ministry of Agriculture and Environment have to be both informed before notifications can be submitted to the Secretariat, might take longer than 90 days (Malaysia).

2. Legal opinion exists that notifications remain valid even if submitted after 90 days. Important is that a Party actually takes FRA at a national level and that this is also notified to the Secretariat, even after 90 days (EU).

3. Exceeding the time frame does not mean that the domestic action is invalid, and it does not exclude the possibility that the respective chemical be included in Annex III of the Convention (Colombia).


4. Acting in good faith is very important, sometimes national administrative requirements are very lengthy and 90 days can’t be observed. At time of establishing the 90 days deadline, the practicalities and challenges of this may not have been known. Therefore some flexibility should be applied (EU).


2. Discussion Cluster II: Efficient and effective mechanisms to achieve the objectives of the Convention – balancing resourcing and objectives

2.1 Guidance to the breakout groups on discussion cluster II

Where do the responsibilities for national actions by Parties intersect with their obligations under the Convention? How can we find the balance between achieving the objectives of the Convention and managing the impacts of action?


1. The Convention’s objectives are seen of value, including the PIC procedure – if we were designing the procedure today what would it look like, how would it operate?

(a) Information on what triggers action (Notification)

(b) Assessment and analysis (CRC, Final Regulatory Action, Risk Assessment or risk evaluation)

(c) Listing (what are the implications of listing, what does it mean for Parties)

2. Achieving the Convention’s objectives in a proportionate and balanced way

3. Does the Convention need to operate in a way that can replace a domestic process (e.g. risk-assessment, socio-economic information, etc.)?

4. Is the listing of new chemicals in Annex III significant to fulfilling the objectives of the Convention and what processes under the Convention does it trigger?

5. What does a Final Regulatory Action (FRA) represent and what information is needed for the type of decision required?

6. Where is the appropriate place in the process for each type of consideration and what remains flexible for Parties?


2.2.1 Group 1

Ideas for improving efficiency and effectiveness to achieve the Convention objectives

1. Support by international agreements e.g. under World Trade Organization (WTO). WTO recognizes Rotterdam Convention PIC procedure as a valuable input to international trade (Egypt).

The Convention provides procedures and processes needed to meet objectives

1. The objective of the Convention is still valid and very important (UK, Belgium, Russia, IPEN).

2. The impact of listing and information required to trigger the action has a good balance (Belgium).

3. Key elements in the objectives of Rotterdam Convention: facilitating information exchange, providing for national decision-making processes, disseminating this information to Parties. Information trigger comes from Parties (FRA); there is a process to review it (CRC); there is a process to disseminate the national decisions (Convention provisions) (Australia).

4. The process for removal of chemicals in Annex III is there (Article 9) (ACPMA).


5. Rotterdam Convention provides the Government version of right to know. The Ministry of the Environment is not always the most powerful ministry but is able to receive information that is needed to achieve its mission through the Convention (IPEN).

6. National decisions are taken in a multi-stakeholder approach. Stakeholder engagement is very important e.g. agriculture, health (Ghana).

7. In some countries the Ministry of the Environment is very powerful (Russia).

Rotterdam Convention facilitating information exchange

1. Under the Rotterdam Convention, FRA is a way to signal concerns and share information on such decisions taken at the national level with other countries. If a country has any concern about a particular chemical in the way it is used, it is good to have a means of signalling that concern to other countries (UK, Zambia).

2. If one country has information that could help cure those problems which another country is experiencing, such information should also be made available internationally (UK, Zambia).

3. Developing countries lack the capacity to conduct risk assessment. If risk assessment has been done in one country, that information can be shared. A country can use such information to take a national decision and submit a notification of FRA. There is no point to reinvent the wheel (Zambia, Ghana).

4. Sharing technical information on chemicals (e.g. risk information) among countries is useful for national decision-making (IBC).

5. In developing countries, the conditions of use of SHPF and pesticides are often similar. Therefore, such information is useful to share (IPEN).

Does the Convention need to operate in a way that can replace a domestic process?

1. No (All).

2. The Convention should complement the national process (UK, Egypt).

3. The Convention guides, provides information, and helps countries to take sound decisions (Ghana).

4. It is important to consider what kind of assessment that the Convention can do or should do and what Parties can do or should do at the country level. Because there are varieties of ways to use chemicals in different countries, a global assessment on risk or socio-economic assessment is not something that the Convention can do. Overall risk assessment result may vary among countries. Risk consideration and socio-economic assessment can be done at a national level. If the treaty is to impose risk management measures such as a ban, then risk should be considered rather than only hazard information (Australia, ACPMA).

(a) If decisions are taken at the national level, countries should consider all available information and all possible options for control measures (Russia).

(b) Russia disagrees that risk assessment of each chemical cannot be done globally at the level of the Convention. The risk assessment is crucial for the Convention work (Russia).

(c) CRC cannot do risk assessment. Need to clarify the difference between assessment and evaluation (Australia).


5. Socio-economic assessment can be effectively conducted at the national level or at the level of a group of countries. The outcome of such assessment could be of interest in other countries (UK).

6. The Convention and domestic measures should not contradict each other (Egypt).

7. Global benefit of the Convention should also be emphasized (Egypt).

8. International conventions influence national decision-making. International assessment and decisions can be resources for countries to take their own decisions (Ghana, IPEN).

Significance of listing in chemicals in Annex III

1. Listing in chemicals in Annex III is to make the chemicals subject to PIC procedure. Information on chemicals is shared through the PIC circular. Annex III listing provides chemicals that require particular international attention for sharing information (UK).

2. Listing in chemicals in Annex III is essential for the Rotterdam Convention. The main requirement after listing a chemical in Annex III is to submit import responses. For some Parties, submitting import responses is the only work required after listing. Further, the import decision can be taken on an interim or final basis and can be updated any time. In case regulatory measures are not in place, countries can take decisions on an interim basis, including providing negative import responses based on the precautionary principle. Then they can launch a consultation with industry in order to identify whether they need the chemical and they can manage it in a sound manner, and update the interim decision if needed (Belgium).

3. Even without Annex III, there are information exchange provisions elsewhere in the Convention. The Convention provides the process for submitting FRAs, and the process for bilateral information exchange on international trade. Once chemicals are listed in Annex III, then they will become subject to global information exchange. Annex III is what triggers the multilateralism, and ensures the highest transparency in information sharing (Japan, Australia).

FRA

1. FRA is a decision made by Parties in their own countries and it is informed to others through a notification. CRC reviews FRAs submitted by Parties from at least two different PIC regions and when criteria are met then it recommends listing in Annex III (Zambia).

2. Risk assessment done elsewhere can be used, but it is important to include socio-economic assessment in FRA.

3. According to Annex I paragraph 2 (a) (iv): A reference to the relevant documentation that provides information on risk or hazard evaluation should be provided in FRA, if the FRA was taken on the basis of a risk or hazard evaluation.

4. Hazard evaluation or risk evaluation? The Convention is to disseminate the information that could be useful for other countries e.g. hazard information, risk assessment on a chemical undertaken by some countries. Should consider what information is sufficient for the purpose of the Convention (Australia).

5. Hazard assessment is not sufficient for taking FRA in Russia. The most important is high quality risk assessment (Russia).

6. Is socio-economic and political consideration important for the purpose of the Convention? (Russia) When taking a national decision, socio-economic and political consideration should be taken into account.


7. How to ensure that the notification of FRA is useful to CRC? 90 days limit for submitting the notification is difficult to meet for some countries (IPEN).

Where is the appropriate place in the process for each type of consideration and what remains flexible for Parties?

1. The current approach (Party >> Secretariat >> CRC >> COP) is helpful (Zambia).

2. Credibility of CRC becomes questionable if there is political interest in the body. There should be a clear distinction between scientific and political consideration. Technical and scientific information review is best fit in CRC. The work of the CRC should stay purely scientific by which the scientific consideration should be completed (Zambia).

3. Efficiency of CRC is crucial. CRC is the only scientific panel of the Convention. Communicating the recommendation by CRC to COP is very important. The communication should not create further debate about scientific considerations. Then the political consideration is made at COP level (Egypt).

4. There should be a process of dialogue with all stakeholders including industry, social groups, NGOs, which are going to be affected (UK).

5. The approach should include Party at the end: Party >> Secretariat >> CRC >> COP >> Party.

6. Parties can consider scientific information available at the CRC level to take national decisions (ACPMA).

2.2.2 Group 2

Information on what triggers action (notification)

1. There is a gap between FRAs and the actual number of notifications, this should be addressed (PAN AP).

2. Concern about “old” notifications still being used by the CRC although the COP has not decided to list the chemical. Article 5 of the Rotterdam Convention obliges Parties to re-start the whole listing decision-making process (ICA).

3. The 90 days deadline is meant to encourage Parties to act as soon as possible, and does not have the consequence of nullifying a notification: this would not make sense and has been clarified (Austria, PAN AP).

4. Information to be included in the notification: it is not mandatory to include socio-economic considerations (Austria).

Assessment and analysis

1. Membership of the CRC: should be experts with scientific background, too often in practice experts from developing countries are policy makers (Nigeria, PAN AP).

2. Operations of the CRC: CRC must be transparent (Iran), more inclusive in terms of participation by observers (PAN AP, CropLife) and in terms of the working languages (Kenya, PAN AP). The way the POPRC works could provide lessons learned for the CRC (Canada).

3. Scientific basis for the CRC work:

(a) In practice, a risk assessment is the same as a risk evaluation (CropLife).

(b) A risk assessment is very different from a risk evaluation and this difference should be clear to all (Austria, Iran, PAN AP, ICA).


4. Additional factors to be taken into account: how can scientific factors additional to what the notifying Parties submitted be taken into account and brought into the work of the CRC (PAN AP)? How can socio-economic factors (e.g. availability of alternatives) be more present in the work of the CRC (Iran, Canada, Nigeria)? Note: this may mean changing the mandate of the CRC (Canada). Caution: the CRC has worked well until now we need to be careful about whether such a proposal would actually help with the process (Switzerland).

Listing

1. Need to look at the Convention as a whole: all parts, rights and obligations are related (Iran).

2. Benefit of the Rotterdam Convention is for developing countries that do not have the capacity to make a risk evaluation themselves. Once a chemical is listed, it provides Parties with the opportunity to decide how to proceed, based on their national circumstances (Switzerland). There is a need to have more awareness about the purpose of the listing: it is to have information about whether you want to continue importing it or to use it at all (Nigeria).

3. Consequences of listing should be unambiguous: a Party can restrict imports, it can accept imports, it can ban the chemical (PAN AP). For some Parties, a listing means a ban (Kenya). Some Parties emphasize the link between listing and a ban, which does not help in diffusing the misconception that listing will not automatically lead to a ban. Some Parties are not helping to overcome this misconception as seen in the recent answer from the European Commission to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) equating the Rotterdam Convention to ‘banning’ (ICA). Some chemicals that are banned are still in use, e.g. DDT (Nigeria).

4. The assumption that there is a correlation between the listing and a ban needs to be evidence-based. Worthwhile having a study by the Secretariat to look further into this (Canada, Switzerland). This might include the linkage between listing and the effective impact, including the consequences on trade (perception of ban, use of alternatives) but also to what extent the listing contributes to the effective protection on the human and environmental health (Switzerland).

2.2.3 Group 3

How the Convention operates

1. The Convention requires and encourages information sharing which is based on a “right to know” concept rather than a control purpose – i.e. “right to know” approach is not intended to occupy the control area, it is simply intended to inform decision making of other entities. A domestic decision to address a particular chemical must occur before an import decision is made by a Party; that domestic decision is the control action, not the decision by Parties to list the chemical in Annex III (USA).

2. Domestic decisions to control use or import of a chemical are supported by a risk assessment specific to domestic conditions. A listing decision or the supporting draft or final DGD does not purport to provide all the necessary information for making that domestic decision. There are however numerous opportunities prior to consideration of listing recommendation during which hazard/risk information is shared, such as through notifications, or further information may be sought to assist Parties in taking domestic control actions (USA).


3. The Rotterdam Convention facilitates decision-making and the provisions of the Convention are consistent with this role. A notification is a report on what was done in a country (EU). The Secretariat looks at basic components of whether a notification passes Annex I and Annex II. The Secretariat has received 200+ notifications but just from one PIC region. So a notification is not a proposal to list, it is a report (Secretariat).

4. A notification may have many meanings – it is a report but it is a trigger (proposal) to amend the Convention. Should the same notification be used more than once to trigger an amendment to the Convention (CEK)? At COP 3 it was advised that if a substance is not listed at a COP, the notifications still remain valid (Secretariat).

5. Previously considered notifications may be valid as a source of information, but should lose their procedural effect in triggering an amendment to the Convention. New notification(s) should be required to initiate consideration of the substance in question once again by CRC and COP, as appropriate (CEK).

6. The quality of some old notifications has resulted in a lack of consensus on certain substances during several COP meetings, especially those that were done long ago. New scientific data may have emerged since the initial notifications which should be taken into account (IATUC).

7. Distinction needs to be made between a national trigger/FRA which is a mechanism to inform Parties and the global trigger which relates to the listing of chemicals (Norway).

Does the Convention need to operate in a way that replaces a domestic process?

1. There is no need for the Convention to operate in this way. The purpose of the Convention is to share information – so countries that don’t have possibilities to make risk evaluations can take information from other Parties on certain chemicals and then decide what they want to do in their own country. The Convention may stimulate the domestic process (Poland).

2. The Convention needs to be complimentary to domestic processes. It can’t replace the domestic process (EU).

Is listing significant to fulfilling the objectives of the Convention and what processes under Convention does it trigger?

1. It is important that the prior informed consent procedure is applied to as many chemicals as possible to help developing countries and to control the movement of chemicals. Information sharing through the PIC circular is important (EU, Norway).

2. Once a chemical is under consideration, there is good amount of information about toxicity of the chemical already available to all Parties. But once it is listed in Annex III, there is an alarm bell ringing and this perception may trigger a process to ban the chemical altogether by various Parties in their own jurisdictions. Further, the CRC assessment can’t be the final technical word, as some Parties may have still more important technical information not presented to CRC. That could be one of the reasons of non-acceptance of CRC recommendations by COP (India).

3. Listing under the Rotterdam Convention provides an opportunity for Parties to prepare an import decision. It does not set up Parties to ban usage. There is misunderstanding between rules of the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions. A big effort is needed to understand implications of listing under both Conventions (Poland, ROCA). Listing is key to achieving the goals of the Convention (ROCA).

4. It is important to remember that sooner or later, all substances listed in Annex III are banned (IATUC).

5. The prior informed consent procedure is a formal way to receive and provide information. Industry is concerned in Colombia as the PIC process seen as a trade


barrier. We are clarifying that this is not the case. Some countries establish a prohibition on a substance once listed – this is a national consideration/decision (Colombia). Information exchange may trigger national decision-making processes that may lead to restriction or ban on chemicals. It’s at the Parties’ discretion (EU).

6. There is a need for awareness-raising on the Convention, how it operates and for what listing in Annex III entails and means. We need more information as to whether listing leads to more restrictions in countries. We don’t know whether such restrictions are factual and that restrictions are directly attributable to the Rotterdam Convention (Norway).

What does a FRA represent and what info is needed for the type of decision required?

1. A FRA is action taken by a Party to restrict a chemical. The information needed is the sovereign right of each Party to decide – e.g. risk assessment or hazard criteria/evaluation (EU).


3. Discussion Cluster III: Improving the effectiveness of the process - areas within the scope of the Convention that could be addressed

3.1 Guidance to the breakout groups on discussion cluster III

Reflecting on the issues that have been raised, what mechanisms exist within the scope of the Convention to improve the effectiveness of the Convention. What specific action would address concerns and how would it be implemented? What are the implications of specific actions on Parties and others?


1. Reviewing the mandate of the Conference of the Parties (COP), responsibilities

2. Operation and mandate of the Chemical Review Committee (CRC), role of expert members and observers

3. Definitions and guidance to inform decisions

4. Decision-making and what is needed to support consensus


3.2.1 Group 1

Amending the Convention provisions

1. Do not agree on changing any Convention provisions including criteria for listing chemicals in Annex III (Russia, IBC).

2. Should make the COP, CRC and Convention workable without changing the Convention text (All).

What to do when there is no consensus

1. Should send the chemical back to CRC for more detailed study, assess the impacts and pros and cons of listing (Russia).

(a) What do we do when COP has agreed that all criteria met but there is no consensus on listing? (Australia)

(b) That is why voting should be an option for decision-making (Ghana, Zambia, IPEN).

(c) No need to send the chemical back to CRC because it has completed its role. The views on pros and cons for listing certain chemicals are collected as part of this intersessional work (Belgium).

2. Apply voluntary/temporarily PIC procedure and share information (Belgium), create a new annex that facilitates information sharing on an voluntary basis (UK).

3. For voluntary PIC procedure, there is no need for any decision (Russia).

4. Step back and explore the way to share information before seeking the way for voluntary PIC procedure (IBC).

5. There should be an option to adopt the decision by voting but that requires an amendment to the Convention (UK). Consider voting in decision-making (Ghana, IPEN).

6. Against any type of voting (Russia).

7. Prefers decision-making of listing of a chemical in Annex III by consensus (Russia, Japan, IBC, FETICOM, ACPMA).


8. Legal definition of consensus should be provided. Some countries considers consensus as 100% agreement while others do not (Ghana). On one hand there is a dictionary definition which indicates that consensus is not for everyone. Whilst in the environmental MEAs, the practice had been for everyone. When there is a formal objection, there is no consensus.

9. COP can take a decision inviting Parties to submit import responses for chemicals that COP was unable to reach consensus on listing in Annex III.

Mandate of COP and CRC

1. The mandate of CRC is decided by the COP. The terms of reference is in decision RC-1/6. CRC shall make every effort to achieve consensus in making its recommendation. CRC reviews FRAs and proposals for listing SHPF, develops DGDs and makes recommendations for listing in Annex III (UK, supported by all).

2. Technical consideration should be done by CRC and not COP. Political consideration should be done by COP and not CRC (All).

3. DGD should be revised or updated as necessary (IBC, UK).

4. Observers should also participate in the CRC’s intersessional working group, like POPRC under the Stockholm Convention (IPEN).

5. Measuring the success of the Convention is not the number of chemicals but the amount of information that is shared through the Rotterdam Convention (Russia).

Definition and guidance

1. Providing definition and guidance is very crucial, e.g. what consensus means (Zambia).

2. COP can consider and agree on definitions or interpretation of certain issues. (e.g. risk assessment – evaluation) (All).

3. COP can develop something like the Handbook for CRC to cover unclear issues (not to replace the Handbook but to develop additional material) (Australia).

4. Glossary of terms used under the Rotterdam Convention might help (Egypt, supported by all).

Brainstorming: Which actions can be taken to improve effectiveness, what we think could be done

1. Support for increasing the number of FRAs (Zambia).

2. Engage external communicating experts to help improve public and other stakeholder perception (Australia, Belgium).

3. Promote communication on Rotterdam Convention with other related aspects of BRS (Egypt).

4. Provide for voting system (IPEN).

5. Avoid voting in CRC (Russia).

6. Seek agreement on a compliance mechanism (Egypt).

7. CRC is a bus station for technical examination before the consideration goes to COP. CRC to conduct a high quality technical review (Russia).

8. CRC to avoid political interference and take sound science-based decisions (Zambia). There is a view that CRC is a purely technical body (ACPMA).

9. Proper definition of consensus (ACPMA).


10. Apply voluntary and temporary PIC procedure to chemicals for which COP was unable to reach consensus (Belgium).

11. Develop a glossary of terms used under the Rotterdam Convention (Belgium).

12. Use the list of FRAs more effectively (UK).

13. Take a proactive approach to identify possible substances for taking FRAs on and eventually listing (IPEN).

14. Adopt a new annex listing chemicals which have not been agreed to be included in Annex III (UK).

15. Find a way to achieve the objective of the Convention while addressing the legitimate concern of Parties (Japan).

16. Look at the SDGs related to sound management of chemicals and health and use the link as one of the forces (Egypt).

3.2.2 Group 2

Notification stage

1. Address the gap between FRAs and actual number of notifications to the Secretariat (PAN AP).

CRC

1. Consider ways to increase the transparency of the CRC by having documents and proceedings in the UN languages (Nigeria, PAN AP, CropLife).

2. Consider ways for CRC to also be more inclusive in terms of participation in its work, for instance by inviting comments from any Party and observer on the draft DGD (Canada, PAN AP, CropLife).

3. Nomination of experts by governments for election by COP: remind governments and the COP that members are to be experts in chemicals management (Nigeria, Canada, Switzerland, PAN AP).

COP

1. Awareness-raising: Increase the understanding about the purpose and value of the Rotterdam Convention and of the implications of the listing (Nigeria, PAN AP, Canada, Austria).

2. In order to address the misconception that listing means a ban, request the Secretariat to develop a study on Parties’ actual practice in this respect (Canada, Switzerland).

3. COP to keep in mind the option of developing a new annex or of developing a new legal instrument (Switzerland).

4. COP to keep in mind that if it does not reach consensus on listing a chemical recommended for listing by the CRC for a valid scientific reason, it can decide to request CRC to look at that concern only (PAN AP).

5. Useful for Parties to have a common understanding of what consensus means (Nigeria, Canada, China, PAN AP).

6. COP to initiate work towards clarifying certain terminology under the Rotterdam Convention, e.g. through the development of a glossary (Canada, Austria, Iran, PAN AP, ICA).


7. Parties to consider proposing amending Article 21 to enable voting for the adoption of a decision to amend Annex III. Important to recall that any amendment to the Rotterdam Convention needs to be ratified by Parties and that, subject to the entry into force of the amendment, this would mean two parallel regimes for amending Annex III unless the amendment is ratified by all Parties (Switzerland, Nigeria, Canada, PAN AP).

8. Important for information available to support an import response to be current: potential proposal to review DGDs (CropLife).

9. COP to consider lessons learned from Basel Convention provisions on illegal traffic and consider issues pertaining to the enforcement of the Convention (Nigeria, CropLife).

10. COP to consider establishing a mechanism for the review of the effectiveness of the Rotterdam Convention (Canada, Nigeria).

11. COP to adopt compliance procedures (Nigeria, Canada, CropLife).

12. COP to consider whether and how to include socio-economic factors (e.g. cost of inaction, availability of alternatives, examples of safe use of the chemical recommended for listing) in the process for listing chemicals in Annex III (Iran, Nigeria).

13. Once a chemical is listed, COP could direct the Secretariat to develop information on alternatives for specific uses, for those who wish to have it (PAN AP).

3.2.3 Group 3

Reviewing the mandate of the Conference of the Parties (COP), responsibilities

1. We agreed on the strength of the Convention and its usefulness for countries. But what actions could be taken in order to even improve the Convention and how could they be implemented?

Operation and mandate of the Chemical Review Committee (CRC), role of expert members and observers

1. Mandates of COP and CRC are clear and should not be discussed (Poland, Colombia, EU, IATUC).

2. Operation of the CRC and mandate is clear - difficult to take as an example POPRC because they have a different mandate and different procedure. We need to recognize the work that has been done and is done by the experts in that body. No need to review it (Poland, Colombia, EU).

3. Criteria should be proportionate to the consequences of listing and this is the case. So no need for any changes (EU).

Possible actions/options to improve the effectiveness of the Convention

1. Improved information sharing:

(a) Objective of the Convention is information sharing and import controls. There might be some room for improving information sharing (Poland, Colombia). Maybe countries could choose to insert additional information in their notifications. The relevant task group could include in draft materials the additional information on the chemical notified (USA).

(b) All Parties should be aware of Article 12 related to the submission of export notifications. Also the number of submissions of notifications is important and activities should be undertaken to increase the number of submissions of FRAs (Poland).


(c) Since the notifications of FRAs contain a lot of valuable information, they should be made available fully, not only in summary as is the case with notifications, for which only submission(s) from one PIC region are available (EU).

2. Options related to CRC:

(a) More engagement between Parties and CRC before the COP.

(b) CRC works in a very transparent manner. But translation and interpretation could probably help Parties to follow the meetings better, contribute fully and also share the information in their countries (Norway, Colombia).

(c) The quality of the notifications has to be improved and this could be done by CRC. Notifications that have been discussed but no consensus has been reached and the respective chemical has not been listed should not remain valid. They should not be moved forward unchanged to the next COP but should be removed from further discussions and be reconsidered by CRC (IATUC).

(d) An option to allow the latest scientific data to be taken into account and made available to Parties could, as was discussed at an earlier COP, in exceptional cases, be to update the DGD after listing (Norway).

(e) However, it is not the mandate of the CRC to provide a constantly updated DGD for every substance (EU).

(f) Parties should act in good faith; they should respect the mandate and recommendations of the CRC. No wrong information about the Rotterdam Convention should be promoted (ROCA).

3. Bridge the gap between COP and CRC:

(a) If there are gaps between the CRC and COP they should be addressed (India). What bridging of the gaps can be done between CRC and COP? (Norway)

(b) More robust engagement during each of the stages prior to the COP, among and between Parties/observers and members of the task group or CRC and among and between Parties/observers before the COP could help to resolve issues raised by some Parties (USA).

(c) Task group draft reports are published on the website three weeks before the CRC (EU). Earlier opportunities to comment on task group reports should be encouraged. A draft DGD could be consulted on publically before going to the CRC and more involvement of the public encouraged even before any recommendations are made (USA).

(d) Advantage: Broader consultation done early in the process would achieve a better product and thus more agreement (USA). Disadvantage: it might take more time.

(e) Is there a possibility to have more time to provide comments on the task group reports? Provide comments received from stakeholders to all public, not only to CRC (USA).

(f) What could be the implication on the process if we would do a public consultation on a draft DGD? How would it change the time frame?

(g) Parties are requested to send comments on the DGDs and raise their concerns to the CRC - so it can be dealt with at an early stage, i.e. before the COP (Colombia).

(h) Clear process that allows Parties to engage is already in place and there are options to comment on the DGD, including all stakeholders (Poland, Colombia).


(i) All Parties and observers are able to cooperate and participate actively in the work of the CRC. The work is very inclusive, transparent and comprehensive and takes on board all comments. CRC prepares a rationale to describe how it comes to the conclusion. Observers contribute actively (Norway, EU).

(j) If we can improve preparations before COP that would be better (India).

4. Alternatives:

(a) CRC should better explore alternatives before a substance is recommended to COP because we can only ban the hazardous substances if we have alternatives (South Africa).

(b) But Rotterdam Convention is not banning (Colombia, ROCA).

(c) Considering unintended consequences like e.g. a ban in a country, we need to have alternatives (South Africa).

(d) Are the concerns a perception issue – is that the main concern? Unintentional results of listing?

(e) Alternatives need to be available and affordable (Malaysia).

(f) Provision of additional information, in particular on safety of the alternatives, has been requested during several COPs by some Parties but has not been provided (IATUC).

(g) Request that CRC should look into alternatives and other issues is not covered by the mandate. Nevertheless, the EU is funding several projects to look into alternatives for pesticides that have been discussed at COP but have not been listed (EU).

(h) Alternatives are not mandatory. More information would be required if listing would lead to a ban – but this is not the case, it only triggers a structured information exchange (Colombia, Norway, ROCA).

(i) Info on alternatives if available is included by the Party in the notification and subsequently in the DGD. It would be impossible to expand the mandate of CRC to look further into that (Norway).

(j) Everybody agrees that it is useful if we have knowledge on alternatives. But the Convention doesn’t require the information on alternatives; it is not a prerequisite for listing. Information on alternatives is useful information for Parties and should be made available if it is available (EU).

(k) Question is if that information on alternatives is required before the listing is done or after? Maybe information on alternatives could help Parties to more easily provide import responses so that would be the right time (Norway).

(l) Any time is good to provide information on alternatives but we should not discourage the submission within the FRAs (USA).

(m) Risk assessment of alternatives is of crucial importance and CRC should not abstain from performing it and providing this information if Parties request it (IATUC).

5. Compliance mechanism needed:

(a) A compliance mechanism is needed, and more notifications (ROCA, Colombia).

6. Vote versus consensus:

(a) We should introduce a vote in COP (ROCA).


(b) We should keep the consensus principle during COP meetings as stated in the Convention text. There is no need to change this (IATUC).

7. General:

(a) Secretariat should continue to support Parties upon request with technical assistance (Colombia).

8. Socio-economic impacts:

(a) CRC is not supposed to look at economic impacts because the Rotterdam Convention does not ban (Colombia).

(b) However, knowing about socio-economic impacts, for example that are not a result of specific pesticide production but of agricultural or public health uses, might inform a Party on whether to take a domestic control action or the extent of the action to take (USA).

(c) Some areas are outside the scope of the Convention (e.g. consideration of socio-economic impacts and alternatives) – considering these would lead to a different Convention (Norway).

What implication does the listing of a chemical have?

1. What is the realistic picture of what is happening after the listing of a chemical? Are there bans on a national basis? Do we receive more FRAs for the listed substance? Is listing stimulating alternatives? We could task the Secretariat to look into this.

2. It has to be noted that only a few Parties oppose listing (Colombia).

(a) Colombia explains some of his proposals:

(i) Amending the listing provision – even if a small number objects (voting)?

(ii) Adding another annex to the Convention to allow opting out from the listing for a limited time (temporary)

(iii) Develop national capacity to allow Parties to make FRAs and make import responses

(iv) Taking a standalone decision for listing even if no consensus was reached – would lead to voluntary PIC procedure for those countries that agree until agreement on listing is reached at the next COP

3. In principle in favour of voting; sees the standalone decision as a more realistic option (EU).

4. Breaking the rules of consensus, which is the basis of the UN decision-making process, is not an option. Creating a new annex from a legal point of view would be complicated and would be like a new Convention which would require new ratifications by the Parties (IATUC).

5. Open to discuss all options put forward by Colombia (Norway).


4. Discussion Cluster IV: Improving the effectiveness of the process - areas for consideration that are not within the scope of the Convention

4.1 Guidance to the breakout groups on discussion cluster IV

Reflecting on the issues that have been raised, are there mechanisms outside the Convention that could address the concerns. What specific action would address concerns and how would it be implemented? What are the implications of specific actions on Parties and others?


1. What can the Convention do and not do in relation to addressing issues particularly around listing?

2. What is outside the Convention’s control, e.g.

(a) Trade restrictions as a result of how unrelated bodies choose to reference Annex III chemicals;

(b) Whether a Party chooses to exercise Article 15(4).2


4.2.1 Group 1

Not part of the Convention control

National bans /severe restrictions of substances

1. National bans /severe restrictions of substances that are listed in Annex III. This is not part of the Convention, but any country may take such a decision (IPEN, Russia, Zambia).

Public perception

1. Public perception, power of media. Perception can be formed through media. Explanatory materials are less powerful than media (Russia).

2. Materials from credible sources should be used to correct public perception (Zambia).

3. Side-events and other activities may help improve public perception (ACPMA).

Reference to Annex III made by other bodies

1. It could be useful to develop explanatory materials clarifying the Convention for those organizations or bodies that make reference to Annex III to identify chemicals for their purposes (Australia).

Alternatives

1. Development/availability/affordability/technical or technological feasibility of alternatives (Belgium, Zambia, Russia). A list of readily available alternatives to chemicals that are banned or severely restricted would help countries to make decisions (Zambia). Alternatives should be safer and economical (Russia). See also UNEP Global Chemicals Outlook II for information on alternatives.

2 Article 15(4): Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as restricting the right of the Parties to take action that is more stringently protective of human health and the environment than that called for in this Convention, provided that such action is consistent with the provisions of this Convention and is in accordance with international law.


2. Making information on alternatives available is not part of the scope of the Convention (not required), but it could be encouraged so as to support the Convention (Zambia).

3. Annex I, paragraph 2 (d) (ii) requires other information that may cover: information on alternatives and their relative risks, where available (Russia).

Information on trade

1. Collection of information on trade and demand of chemicals that are listed in Annex III (Egypt). Collection of information on world trade to identify chemicals of concern (UK, IPEN). This could stimulate the Convention process (IPEN).

2. UNEP Global Chemicals Outlook could be one of the useful resources (Japan).

Is there anything in the Convention which gets in the way of its objectives?

Consensus building

1. Agreeing on science by consensus is a challenge (Egypt).

2. Limitation on voting for adoption of amendments to Annex III (IPEN).

3. Differentiate weight of voting if you are using the chemical (ACPMA).

4. To trigger CRC process, FRAs from at least two PIC regions are required. Sometimes one of the two regions lacks capacity to conduct an assessment or provide information as required. Capacity building / technical assistance may help in increasing the number of FRAs (Zambia).

4.2.2 Group 2

1. Value of platform for interaction between all relevant stakeholders (Parties/countries, private sector, IGOs – ILO, WHO, WTO, e.g. SAICM) (Nigeria, CropLife, ICA, Kenya).

2. Use of diplomatic channels to foster consensus: ministerial level conference (China), bilateral talks (Nigeria), Secretariat (Iran, China).

3. Implications of private sector standards (retail, procurement): is there a relation to chemicals’ listing? (CropLife, ICA, Kenya)

4. Is there a role for public consultations (access to information)? (ICA)

5. Importance for each Party to communicate and clarify with its constituencies at national level the consequences of listing (Kenya, Switzerland, Austria).

4.2.3 Group 3

What could be options outside the Convention?

1. A proper framework is already given within the Convention. Looking outside the Convention might send a wrong signal. One could look if countries might take action to control substances after listing (Colombia).

Technical assistance

1. Important is the national process for approval of chemicals and how this is documented. Many countries do not have the capacity to undertake a comprehensive risk evaluation and to document this, so they might not be in a position to make a comprehensive notification of a FRA (EU).

2. How do countries feel about notifications from one region – is it really applicable for other regions? With different conditions of use? Might be a reason why some countries do not agree on listing because they have their unique experience of the use of the


substance. Annex III is perceived as a kind of black list that effects trade issues, socio-economic issues. Perception that these issues are not fully addressed by the CRC (CEK).

3. Supports the feeling about the notifications. Regional peculiarities should be considered (IATUC).

4. Provision of technical assistance would be helpful for countries (South Africa).

5. Parties/observers could work with other Parties to provide access to publicly available hazard and safety information, assessment methodologies and stakeholder public processes for taking control actions, giving as an example discussions with South Africa about public website information (USA).

National level options

1. Mainstreaming of sound management of chemicals and wastes through integration in national policies in all relevant sectors (e.g. agriculture, industry, health, water, etc.). A better understanding of the broad context of chemicals management is needed, including SAICM, SDGs and other instruments such as IOMC toolbox related to chemicals management (EU).

2. Capacity building and technical assistance programmes in order to put in place own systems. SAICM could be a good choice to help with certain substances for which we do not reach consensus (Colombia).

3. If Convention is not able to protect borders by listing, countries might resort to ban substances on a national basis in order to protect their borders. At COP 6, the African Group stated that if the Rotterdam Convention cannot help to protect their borders, then they will need to consider national bans (ROCA).

4. Creation of an early warning system – list with substances that are likely to come up as a notification so countries could start preparing at an early stage (ROCA).

5. Before listing, socio-economical issues should be assessed because listing of substances could lead to unnecessary trade barriers (IATUC).

6. Study to find out before COP what the response of Parties would be at COP (Malaysia).

Private sector

1. Consequences of using substances are paid for by health services, tax payers, etc. We need more incentives to ensure that the cost is not only on the public; we need the internalisation of costs. Polluter pays principle should be applied. A fund for cleaning up damage caused by chemical pollution, capacity building and so on should be available with the industry paying (ROCA).

2. The role of industry is very important; they are often involved in national decision-making processes. Industry should make better use of its innovative capacity and switch to less hazardous substances (EU).

3. Engaging industry is important because industries are also producing the alternatives (Norway).

Others

1. A code of conduct is needed, treating conflicts of interest in a proper way. Parties should clearly address if there is a misinterpretation of the Convention (ROCA).


Annex IV

Compilation of proposals and options

Important note: The following list contains proposals and options for improving the effectiveness of the process of listing chemicals in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention and for enabling improved information flows that support the prior informed consent procedure for those chemicals. The proposals and options are broadly grouped under the main steps towards the listing a chemical in Annex III: I. Party/Final Regulatory Action (FRA) stage; II. Party/Notifications of FRAs stage; III. Chemical Review Committee (CRC) stage; and IV. Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) stage3. The proponents of each option and proposal appear in brackets (in alphabetical order: Party experts, observer experts). The proposals and options are not weighted in any way and the ordering of the list is in no way indicative of any order of preference. This list does not reflect endorsement of any particular proposal or option by the intersessional working group or by individual experts other than their proponent; it is simply an itemization of the proposals and options emerging throughout the workshop discussions.

I. PARTY / FRA STAGE:

1. Take a proactive approach to identify possible substances for which to take FRAs and which may eventually be listed in Annex III (IPEN, ROCA)

2. Develop national capacity to support the development of FRAs (Colombia, Zambia)

II. PARTY / NOTIFICATIONS OF FRA STAGE:

1. Increase the number of notifications of FRAs (Colombia, Poland, ROCA) 2. Address the gap between FRAs and the actual number of notifications submitted to the

Secretariat (PAN AP)3. Voluntary inclusion of additional information in notifications of FRAs by Parties (USA)4. Improve quality of information in notifications of FRAs (All)5. Task group under CRC may collect additional information in the FRA for inclusion in draft

DGD or other resource (USA)6. Make all notifications received by the Secretariat available in their complete form (not just in

a summary) (EU)7. Use the list of FRAs more effectively: publicise the list on its own rather than in the PIC

Circular so as to improve awareness of chemicals of concern (UK)8. Create an early warning system: develop a list with substances that are likely to be notified

so countries can start preparing at an early stage (ROCA)9. Address the issue of previously considered notifications. Should the same notification be

used more than once to trigger an amendment to the Convention? (CEK)

III. CRC STAGE:

A. ALTERNATIVES1. Alternatives need to be easily available and affordable (Malaysia)2. Information on alternatives, if available, is useful and should be shared by Parties whenever

possible (All)

3 No proposals or options were put forward with respect to the last step of the process, namely the decision by individual Parties following the listing of the chemical in Annex III to the Convention.


3. CRC should undertake a risk-assessment of alternatives (before a substance is recommended to COP) (IATUC)

4. Discussion of alternatives after listing (Norway, PAN AP)5. Through the FRA the Convention already provides an opportunity to provide/share

information on alternatives. As part of the FRA process, Parties could be further encouraged to/reminded to submit information on alternatives (Norway)

6. Development/availability/affordability/technical or technological feasibility of alternatives (Russia, Zambia). A list of readily available safer alternatives to chemicals that are banned or severely restricted which are the subject of FRA would help countries to make decisions (Zambia). Alternatives should be safer and economical (Russia)

B. TRANSLATION / INTERPRETATION1. Consider ways to increase the transparency of the CRC by having documents and

proceedings translated/interpreted in the 6 UN languages (Colombia, Nigeria, Norway, Croplife, PAN AP)

C. ADDITIONAL CONSULTATIONS1. Give an earlier opportunity to comment on task group reports before CRC (EU, USA)2. Invite comments from Parties and observers (and publicly?) on draft Decision Guidance

Documents (DGDs) (Canada, UK, USA, Croplife, ICA)3. When the listing proposal of CRC to COP has not been accepted in the past, the gap between

CRC and COP should be addressed by a suitable mechanism that would help in achieving consensus on chemical listing during the COP (India)

4. More robust engagement between Parties and CRC before the COP (Norway, USA)5. Specific national and regional conditions of use should be taken into account during the

consideration of the substance by CRC. Conditions of use may be different in various regions. Parties should have the possibility to send additional information if they believe the national conditions of use in the notifying Party are not the same (CEK)

D. ENSURE CALIBRE OF CRC EXPERTS1. Remind governments and the COP that CRC members are to be experts in chemicals

management (Canada, Nigeria, PAN AP)

E. OBSERVERS1. Observers should also be welcome to participate in the CRC’s intersessional work and task

groups, like the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC) under the Stockholm Convention (ACPMA, IPEN, PAN AP)

IV. COP STAGE:

A. GENERAL1. Conduct a study to find out before COP what the response of Parties would be at COP

(Malaysia)2. Parties should act in good faith; they should respect the mandate and recommendations of

the CRC (ROCA)3. Use of diplomatic channels to foster consensus (China, Nigeria)4. Mainstreaming of sound management of chemicals and wastes through integration in

national policies in all relevant sectors (e.g. agriculture, industry, health, water, etc.). A better understanding of the broad context of chemicals management is needed, including the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), Sustainable


Development Goals (SDGs) and other instruments such as the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) toolbox related to chemicals management (EU)

5. A code of conduct is needed for treating conflicts of interest in a proper way. Parties should clearly address if there is a misinterpretation or undermining of the Convention (ROCA)

B. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS1. COP to consider whether and how to include socio-economic factors (e.g. cost of

action/inaction – for both users and producers, availability and safety of alternatives, examples of safe use of the chemical recommended for listing) in the process of listing chemicals in Annex III (Iran, Nigeria)

C. AWARENESS-RAISING1. Increase the understanding about the purpose and value of the Rotterdam Convention and

of the implications of listing (Austria, Canada, Kenya, Nigeria, Switzerland, PAN AP) 2. Awareness-raising on Article 12 related to the submission of export notifications (Poland)3. COP could develop something like the handbook for CRC to cover unclear issues (not to

replace the handbook) (Australia)4. Engage external communicating experts to help improve public and other stakeholder

perception (Australia, Belgium)5. Promote communication on the Rotterdam Convention with other related aspects of the

BRS Conventions (Colombia, Egypt)6. Look at the SDGs related to the sound management of chemicals and health and use the link

as one of the forces (Egypt, Switzerland)7. Materials from credible sources should be used to correct public perception (Zambia)8. Side-events and other educational activities targeted to specific groups may help improve

public perception (ACPMA) 9. Develop explanatory materials clarifying the Convention for those organizations or bodies

that make reference to Annex III to identify chemicals for their purposes (Australia, Zambia)10. Value of platform for interaction between all relevant stakeholders (Parties/countries,

private sector, IGOs – ILO, WHO, WTO, e.g. SAICM) (Kenya, Nigeria, Croplife, ICA)

D. INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT1. The role of industry is very important, and they are often involved in national decision-

making processes. They should make better use of their innovative capacity and switch to less hazardous substances/alternatives (EU)

2. Engaging industry is important because they are also producing the alternatives (Norway)3. A fund for cleaning up damage caused by chemical pollution, capacity building and so on

should be available with the industry paying (ROCA)

E. PROPOSED STUDY ON IMPACTS OF LISTING1. To include, what is the realistic picture of what is happening after the listing of a chemical?

Are there bans on a national basis? Do we receive more FRAs for the listed substance? Is listing stimulating the development and use of alternatives? (Belgium, Canada, Colombia, EU, India, Japan, Malaysia, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Switzerland, ACPMA, CEK, IATUC, ROCA)

2. Collection of information on trade and demand of chemicals that are listed in Annex III (Egypt). Collection of information on world trade to identify chemicals of concern (Japan, UK, IPEN). This could stimulate the Convention process (IPEN)


3. Investigate knock-on effect of Annex III listing on private sector standards (Kenya, Croplife, ICA)

F. NEW ANNEX OR INSTRUMENT1. Explore options for a new annex to allow opting-out from listing (temporary) (Colombia) 2. To explore how the option of amending the Convention by development of a new legal

instrument could increase the effectiveness of the Rotterdam Convention (Switzerland)3. New annex that facilitates information sharing and PIC on a voluntary basis (UK)

G. APPLICATION OF VOLUNTARY PIC PROCEDURE1. COP decision for a (temporary) voluntary PIC procedure if no consensus regarding listing is

reached (Belgium, Colombia, EU, UK)

H. CONSENSUS1. Useful to have a common understanding of what consensus means (Canada, China, Ghana,

Nigeria, Zambia, ACPMA, IPEN, PAN AP, ROCA)2. In a situation where consensus cannot be reached, other options (e.g. voting) should be

employed (Nigeria)3. Consensus is reached when all member States have agreed to adopt a text of a draft

resolution without taking a vote (Iran)4. Definitions of consensus usually include or imply a requirement for responsibility on the

part of all those involved in the process. So, taking into account Article 1 (shared responsibility and cooperative efforts), a definition of consensus for the Convention might refer to objections needing to be consistent with the Convention: objections that are not consistent with the Convention are not included in the consensus (PAN AP)

I. VOTING1. Amendment to Article 22, paragraph 5 (b) to enable voting for the adoption of a decision to

amend Annex III. Important to recall that any amendment to the Convention needs to be ratified by Parties and that, subject to the entry into force of the amendment, this would mean two parallel regimes for amending Annex III unless the amendment is ratified by all Parties (Canada, Colombia, EU, Ghana, Nigeria, Switzerland, UK, Zambia, IPEN, PAN AP, ROCA)

2. Parties that are not using a certain chemical may be more likely to vote for its inclusion in Annex III; for Parties that are using the chemical for their development/growth, the criteria to vote for or against its inclusion is different. A differentiated weight of voting should be given to those who are using the chemical (ACPMA)

J. CLARIFY TERMINOLOGY1. COP to initiate work towards clarifying certain legal terminology under the Convention, e.g.

through the development of a glossary (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, Iran, Japan, Paraguay, Russia, UK, Zambia, ACPMA, IBC, ICA, IPEN, PAN AP)

K. AVAILABILITY OF LATEST INFORMATION1. After listing, review and update DGDs when additional scientific information becomes

available (COP 5 proposal revisited)2. Import responses are based on updated information (Croplife)


L. ENFORCEMENT 1. COP to consider lessons learned from Basel Convention provisions on illegal traffic, country-

led initiative process under the Basel Convention and consider issues pertaining to the enforcement of the Convention (Iran, Nigeria, CropLife)

M. COMPLIANCE1. COP to adopt compliance procedures (Canada, Colombia, Egypt, Nigeria, Switzerland,

Croplife, ROCA)2. Once a facilitative compliance mechanism is agreed, an effectiveness evaluation of the

Rotterdam Convention could be undertaken (Canada, Colombia, Nigeria) 3. An effectiveness evaluation of the Rotterdam Convention is undertaken (Nigeria)

N. POST-COP ACTION BY CRC1. Proposals not accepted for listing to be sent back to CRC for more detailed study, to assess

the impacts and pros and cons of listing (Russia)2. If there’s a valid scientific reason that prevents listing, that scientific reason alone is

submitted back to the CRC for resolution, then returned to the next COP for reconsideration (Colombia, PAN AP)

O. DISCARD PROPOSALS1. If no consensus is reached on a proposal for listing a substance, the item should be

withdrawn from the agenda of the next COP and the whole decision-making process should be restarted (IATUC)

P. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE1. The Secretariat should continue to support Parties upon request with technical assistance

(Colombia)2. Capacity building and technical assistance programmes are developed in order to put in

place systems. SAICM could be a good choice to help with highly hazardous pesticides for which we do not reach consensus. The UNEP Special Programme should be used in strengthening Parties’ capacity in relation to the Rotterdam Convention (Colombia, Egypt, Zambia)

3. Provide support to countries that do not have the capacity to undertake a risk evaluation and to properly document that evaluation and the national decision-making process, in order to enable them to prepare a more complete notification of a FRA (EU)

4. A fund for cleanup, capacity building and so on should be available, paid for by industry (ROCA)

______________