At its first session, held in Montreal from 29 June to 3 July 1998, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for an International Legally Binding Instrument for Implementing International Action on Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants decided, in accordance with the mandate given by the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in paragraph 9 of its decision 19/13 C of 7 February 1997, to establish a small-sized body, to be called the Criteria Expert Group, for the purpose of developing science-based criteria and a procedure for identifying additional persistent organic pollutants (POPs) as candidates for future international action.

At the same session, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee adopted terms of reference for the Criteria Expert Group, which were contained in annex II to the report of the Committee on the work of its first session (UNEP/POPS/INC.1/7).

The first session of the Criteria Expert Group was held at the headquarters of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), in Bangkok, from 26 to 30 October 1998, at the invitation of the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand.

The session was opened at 10.15 a.m. on Monday, 26 October 1998, by Ms. Fatoumata Jallow Ndoye, Co-Chair of the Criteria Expert Group, who thanked the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand for hosting the meeting and the Government of the United States of America for assisting in the funding of the meeting.

Mr. Reiner Arndt, Co-Chair of the Criteria Expert Group, also expressed his thanks to the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand for hosting the meeting. The meeting agreed that the two Co-Chairs would share the responsibility for chairing the meeting and would alternate in the exercise of that duty. In the present report, they are both referred to as "the Co-Chair".

At the opening meeting of the session, statements were made by Mr. Suwit Khunkitti, Minister of Science, Technology and Environment of Thailand, Mr. Suvit Yodmani, Director of the UNEP Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, and Ms. Jallow Ndoye.

Mr. Suwit Khunkitti welcomed the participants on behalf of the Government and the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment of the Kingdom of Thailand. He said that Thailand had identified the problem of chemical hazards as a high priority, since development in science and technology had led to a more widespread use of chemicals in agriculture, industry, household and other sectors. Owing to the lack of appropriate knowledge, however, there was improper and irresponsible use of chemicals and no systematic control mechanisms during their import, production, transport, sale, use, storage and waste disposal.

In November 1996, the Government had adopted a twenty-year plan, which included guidelines for the management of hazardous material and was prepared with all national stakeholders. He said that Thailand was committed to meeting the goals of Agenda 21, as well as its international obligations. He added that Thailand was working with the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) group to raise awareness on chemicals-related problems, both nationally and subregionally. He concluded by wishing the meeting success in its deliberations and thanked all those who had helped in its preparation.

Mr. Suvit Yodmani welcomed the participants to Bangkok and thanked the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand for hosting the meeting. He also thanked the Governments of the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America for their financial assistance.

He said that there was a need to take into account the different types of chemicals included on the initial list of 12 POPs chemicals, which included pesticides, industrial chemicals and by-products. He noted that the problem of the use and disposal of chemicals was small when the infrastructure and tools to control and manage the chemicals were in place. He added that the recommendations that would be made by the Group to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee would determine the direction and how far the future convention would go. He concluded by saying that the problems were complex and the solutions would not be easy to find and he wished the meeting every success.

Ms. Jallow Ndoye welcomed the participants and reminded them of the critical issue of POPs being transported by air and water to sites far removed from their source. She noted that the eight pesticides, two industrial chemicals and two by-products could cause cancer, immunological disorders and behavioural changes. She said that the risks posed by those substances were enormous but that solutions could be found by using alternatives, by conducting awareness-raising campaigns, by minimizing and phasing out the substances, and by enforcing appropriate legislation. She added that there was a need to identify the potential POPs chemicals and to treat them accordingly. She reminded the meeting of the mandate of the Criteria Expert Group and concluded by thanking the Goverment and the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment of the Kingdom of Thailand for their warm welcome.

The session was attended by government-designated experts from the following countries: Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Bhutan, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Denmark, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malawi, Malaysia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe.

The following United Nations bodies and specialized agencies were represented by observers: Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The following intergovernmental organizations were represented by observers: Economic Cooperation Organization and the European Commission.

The following non-governmental organizations were represented by observers: Asian Environmental Society, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, Commonweal, Commonwealth Science Council, European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), Global Crop Protection Federation (GCPF), Greenpeace International, Indian Chemical Manufacturers Association (ICMA), International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL), Pesticide Action Network - Asia and the Pacific, World Chlorine Council (WCC) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

In accordance with paragraph 8 of the terms of reference of the Criteria Expert Group, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee had elected, by acclamation, the officers to serve in the Group.

The list of documents before the Criteria Expert Group in its deliberations on the item is contained in annex V to the present report.

Mr. Bo Wahlström, representative of the secretariat, introduced the item by drawing attention to the notes by the secretariat on, first, the consideration of possible criteria for identifying further POPs as candidates for international action (UNEP/POPS/INC/1/6) and, second, the development of science-based criteria and a procedure for identifying additional POPs as candidates for future international action (UNEP/POPS/CEG/1/2).

Following that presentation, there were a number of expert and observer presentations on approaches used, or proposed, for identifying POPs. There was a discussion of dispersion mechanisms via migratory species, the hydrosphere and the atmosphere, as well as on the multimedia behaviour of POPs.

After a broad discussion on information requirements for the nomination and screening stage and the evaluation stage, a contact group was set up for the further consideration of that information, including the parameters of persistence, bioaccumulation and long-range transport, as well as the reasons for concern. In addition, valuable information on national or regional assessment of risk could be included.

Later in the meeting, a contact group was established to discuss criteria. The reports of the two contact groups were integrated and are attached to the present report in annex I.

A short discussion took place on whether river transport due to contamination should be considered, as it was generally a local or regional issue. If a substance could volatilize into the air from a river or be transported by a river to the oceans and thence into global currents, the impact would then become global.

Following a debate on the issue of the anthropogenic transport of substances, in particular organo-tin compounds, it was decided that it would be appropriate for the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to gather information from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on its activities in that field before further consideration could be given to whether the future POPs convention should encompass tributyl tin.

The Criteria Expert Group identified that a potential remained for the development and introduction of new substances that might exhibit the characteristics of POPs.

Accordingly, the Group recommended that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee might wish to consider developing and enunciating a provision, in accordance with its principles and objectives, which would seek to encourage countries to include, within their national or regional chemicals regulatory and assessment schemes for new substances, criteria and processes that would provide protection against health and environmental risks arising from the long-range environmental transport of substances, or their associated by-products, that exhibit the characteristics of POPs.

A number of experts raised points concerning the availability of test data for the purpose of preparing nominations or more detailed evaluations on substances. Those points were raised with a view to understanding the extent and ease of availability of test data relevant to POPs criteria. Experts from several countries, including Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, India, Japan, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United States of America, expressed interest in determining the availability of such test data on substances, starting with high production volume (HPV) chemicals and pesticides, and providing that evaluation of data availability to the Criteria Expert Group at its second session. Observers from the European Commission and the International Council of Chemicals Associations (ICCA) also expressed interest in participating and others wishing to contribute were encouraged to do so. An expert from the United States of America volunteered to take the lead in that activity.

Turning to the issue of the procedure, the Co-Chair invited views on the two possible options suggested in the note by the secretariat on the issue (UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/1/2, annex), as well as any other options. A contact group was set up for the further consideration of the issue. Its report is attached as annex II to the present report. It was pointed out, with reference to the table in that annex, that the tasks were not listed in any order of priority and that the procedure allowed for the incorporation of additional data at many stages in the process. It was noted that local and regional risk assessment information would allow an appreciation of the local and regional risk, in addition to that of long-range transport.

Following a discussion, the meeting agreed to request the secretariat, in consultation with the Bureau, to draft a more fully elaborated proposal on procedures for consideration by the Criteria Expert Group at its second session, based on the text contained in annex II, and, in that process, to bring the text contained in annex I into line with the proposal.

After a short discussion on definitions, the meeting decided that it was premature to undertake any further work at the current stage and deferred the matter to the next session of the Criteria Expert Group. In the eventual discussions on the definitions to be included in a future convention on POPs, attention should be given to the scope of the terms "organic" and "regional impact".

In the discussion on the risk management aspects of selecting criteria for candidate substances, several experts described current risk management practices in place in their countries and mentioned various socio-economic factors which needed to be considered. One of the principal preoccupations was that assistance should be provided to countries in meeting the requirements for gathering information on the existing POPs, before resources were diverted to the procedures involved in the addition of new POPs. It was suggested that human health should be a priority factor. It was also emphasized that there should be accountability and transparency in the risk management procedure. It was noted that indigenous knowledge and non-chemical alternatives should not be overlooked when making management decisions.

Other major concerns raised by experts with regard to the issue were the disposal of obsolete stocks of pesticides and the illegal entry of banned chemicals. It was noted by some experts that, while many countries had made efforts to ban DDT, the use of alternatives to prevent malaria had proved very costly and ineffective.

The meeting established a contact group to prepare an indicative list of elements of information on socio-economic considerations associated with management measures. The report of the contact group is attached as annex III to the present report.

The experts discussed the proposed work plan for the Criteria Expert Group, attached as annex IV to the present report, and agreed that it might be possible to hold the Group's third session immediately prior to the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

There were no other matters.

The present report was adopted at the final plenary meeting of the session on Friday, 30 October 1998, on the basis of the draft report that had been circulated under the symbols UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/1/L.1, L.1/Add.1, L.2 and L.3, and on the understanding that finalization of the report would be entrusted to the Rapporteur.

Following the customary exchange of courtesies, the Chair declared the session closed at 12.30 p.m. on Friday, 30 October 1998.

The Party or Parties proposing a substance shall provide sufficient information to enable a determination to be made as to whether the substance the substance might warrant consideration by the Parties for inclusion in the Convention. This information, which need not be exhaustive, should include:

Additional information should be provided to the extent possible. It was also recognized that, in developing a proposal, a Party or Parties may draw on technical expertise from any source. This could include additional information which would be considered in the evaluation or management stage.

The nomination information provided shall be reviewed and the numerical criteria listed above shall be applied in a transparent, flexible and integrative fashion to determine whether the substance warrants further evaluation by the parties for inclusion in the convention.

The purpose of this stage is to evaluate whether the substance is likely to lead to significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects as a result of its long-range environmental transport, such that global action is warranted. For this purpose, a risk profile [and relevant socio-economic information] should be developed, which further elaborates on, and evaluates, the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 above and also includes, inter alia, the following types of information:

Information which would be relevant at subsequent stages was considered to be available information on control actions taken, alternatives, and any other risk management information.]

The group noted that there would be a number of issues involved and developed a table outlining each conceptual task in the process, as well as the purpose of each task, and the options for which entity under the convention would be responsible for that task. The group further noted that not all tasks would need to be reflected in the convention text and also that it was probably appropriate to leave some flexibility as to which entity should undertake certain tasks. The group also noted that, at stages in the process where information was insufficient or lacking, there should be the possibility to appeal or resubmit.

In making suggestions regarding these tasks and the responsibility for each, the group agreed that the following principles should be adhered to in developing a procedure for considering additional substances for a future POPs convention:

The group noted that the sequencing of the full risk evaluation and the point at which information regarding control measures would be brought into the process warranted further review. The group believed that there should be some sort of judgement or decision as to whether the risk evaluation information might warrant consideration of control measures.

The group agreed that the final output of a technical review would involve integrating the risk evaluation, the evaluation of control measures and associated socio-economic considerations into a report that would be sent to the Conference of the Parties for a final decision.

The group further considered that opportunities for input and comments should be provided at appropriate stages in the process by the scientific community as well as non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations.