INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE FOR AN
  INTERNATIONAL LEGALLY BINDING INSTRUMENT FOR
  IMPLEMENTING INTERNATIONAL ACTION ON
  CERTAIN PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

First session
Montreal, 29 June-3 July 1998

REPORT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE FOR AN
INTERNATIONAL LEGALLY BINDING INSTRUMENT FOR IMPLEMENTING
INTERNATIONAL ACTION ON CERTAIN PERSISTENT ORGANIC
POLLUTANTS ON THE WORK OF ITS FIRST SESSION

Introduction

1. The Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in its decision 18/32 of 25 May 1995, invited the Inter-Organization Programme on the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC), working with the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), with the assistance of an appropriate ad hoc working group, to initiate an expeditious assessment process initially beginning with a shortlist of twelve persistent organic pollutants (POPs).* Based on the results of that process, IFCS was also called upon to develop recommendations and information on international action, to be considered by the Governing Council of UNEP and the World Health Assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO).

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

3. In accordance with the above mandate, the first session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for an International Legally Binding Instrument for Implementing International Action on Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants was held at the headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in Montreal from 29 June to 3 July 1998, at the invitation of the Government of Canada.

I. ORGANIZATION OF THE SESSION

A. Opening of the session

4. The session was opened at 10.15 a.m. on Monday 29 June 1998 by Mr. Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director of UNEP, who thanked the Government of Canada and the Provincial Government of Quebec for hosting the meeting.

5. At the opening session of the meeting, statements were made by Ms. Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment, Canada; Mr. Jacques Yves Therrien, Sous-Ministre de la Métropole, Quebec, Canada; Mr. Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director of UNEP; and Mr. Jim Willis, Director of UNEP Chemicals.

6. Ms. Christine Stewart said that Canada was well aware of the urgent need to eliminate the emissions of POPs, the most dangerous of all toxic substances. Not only did they remain in the environment and make their way up the food chain, they also travelled far from the original point of emission and no single country could effectively deal with them. Thus, because they consumed natural foods as part of their traditional way of life, northern and Arctic communities were most at risk, even though they did not produce POPs. Those communities and others around the world were anxiously watching the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, in the hope that it would respond to the challenge and develop a suitable global strategy.

7. The previous week, at Aarhus in Denmark, countries from Eastern and Western Europe, and Canada and the United States of America had signed a protocol to place controls on the long-range atmospheric transport of POPs. Canada planned to ratify that protocol before the end of the year, having already met its requirements unilaterally through actions under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That was the first step towards a more comprehensive global strategy, but concerted global action was needed. She noted that the global negotiations would not be easy, and she challenged participants to bear in mind the need to protect the environment and the health of future generations, and to succeed in reaching an agreement to eliminate the emission of POPs.

8. Mr. Jacques Yves Therrien welcomed the participants to Montreal on behalf of the Government of Quebec, which was happy to be associated with the first session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, since much of its territory was situated in the northern areas most affected by the concentration of POPs in their environment and their inhabitants. Moreover, some of the earliest research in the matter had been carried out in Quebec and had demonstrated the presence of very high levels of several POPs in the mother's milk of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic region.

9. The globalization of problems required globalized solutions and the Government of Quebec was thus particularly happy that Montreal had been chosen by the United Nations as the starting point for its important and urgent initiative to tackle the problem of POPs at the worldwide level. That choice was indicative not only of the interest shown by the people of Montreal in the protection of natural species and habitats, but also of the city's significance as a host to international events and organizations.

10. Mr. Klaus Töpfer, again thanking the Government of Canada, said that its contribution to hosting the current session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee had been vital, given the absence of a funded budget for the negotiations, and he called on other Governments to host and fund future meetings. He also thanked the Governments of Australia, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States of America and the European Commission for their support of international work on POPs.

11. He stressed that the Committee faced two urgent and difficult tasks: to prepare an international legally binding instrument designed to reduce and eliminate the release of the twelve specified POPs; and to establish an expert group to develop science-based criteria and a procedure for identifying additional POPs as candidates for international action. The need for such actions was clear. Toxic, persistent, easily transported over long distances, and found throughout every region of the world, POPs represented a truly global threat. The adverse impacts of POPs on wildlife had been well-documented, including birth defects, reproductive problems, and immune system dysfunction severe enough to be implicated in large population declines. For humans, evidence indicated that long-term exposure to even low levels of POPs were a cause of birth defects, fertility problems, greater susceptibility to disease, developmental disorders in children and certain cancers, including breast and prostate cancer. Given that information, he called on Governments to act decisively, stating that the ultimate goal must be the elimination of POPs releases, not simply their better management. A global POPs convention had to promote a shift away from the production and use of POPs and the processes that generated them. As such, the chemical industry had to be seen as part of the solution, for it was there that new and safer alternative chemicals, processes, and technologies had to be found. Efforts also had to be made to address problems that some developing countries would have in reducing and eliminating the release of POPs.

12. He concluded that the POPs negotiations presented important opportunities to build upon and forge linkages with other international work to protect the global environment. Work done on POPs and other chemicals by the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities and the International Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), and the work done to formulate the international legally binding instrument on the prior informed consent procedure provided important bases on which to build future action. Much could also be learned from the POPs Protocol to the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, recently signed in Aarhus under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE).

13. Mr. Willis outlined the mandate of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee as contained in Governing Council decision 19/13 C, noting, in particular, paragraphs 8-12 of that decision. He pointed out that paragraph 3 of the decision provided some structural guidance and paragraph 7 listed some of the socio-economic issues to be addressed. In addition, the annex to the decision described possible ways to structure an international legally binding instrument on POPs.

14. He thanked the Government of Canada for providing full financial support for the hosting of the meeting as well as for the participation of representatives from developing countries and countries with economies in transition, and reminded the meeting that paragraph 17 of decision 19/13 C called upon Governments and other actors to provide financial assistance for the full and effective functioning of the Committee. He concluded by recalling that the Government of Sweden had generously offered to host a diplomatic conference to sign an international legally binding instrument on POPs.

B. Attendance

15. The session was attended by representatives of the following countries: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Jordan, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lesotho, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia.

16. The following United Nations bodies and specialized agencies were represented: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), World Health Organization (WHO), Secretariat of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, Secretariat of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

17. The following intergovernmental organizations were represented: Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO), Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), European Commission, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), International Joint Commission (IJC), Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment (ROPME), South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP).

18a The following non-governmental organizations were represented: Action Network for Alternatives to Agrochemicals (RAAA), Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), Canadian Polar Commission (CPC), CEC International Partners, Center for Independent Ecological Expertise (CIEE), Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), Clean Water Action Council of N.E. Wisconsin, Inc. (CWACW), Coalition pour un Magnola Propre (CPMP), College of Medicine, University of the Philippines, Columbia University, Commonweal, Consumers International (CI), Council of Yukon First Nations (CYFN), Defence Pest Management (DPM), Denendeh National Office, Edison Electric Institute, Environmental Justice Networking Forum (EJNF), European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), Federacíon Argentina de Cámaras de la Industria Química y Petroquímica, Friends of the Earth (FOE), German Association for the United Nations, Global Crop Protection Federation (GCPF), Global Environmental Issues (GEI), Great Lakes United (GLU), Greenpeace International, Health and Environment Watch (HEW), Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), International Indian Treaty Council (IITC), Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), Japan Chemical Industry Association (JCIA), McGill University, Mexican Action Network on Pesticides and their Alternatives (RAPAM), Mexican National Institute of Public Health (MNIPH), Mouvement au Courant, Multinationals Resource Center (MRC), Observatorio de Conflictos Ambientales, (RAP-Chile), Pesticide Action Network (PAN), Pesticide Action Network Africa (PAN Africa), Physicians for Social Responsibility, USA, Sierra Club du Canada (SCC), Sierra Legal Defence Fund (SLDF), Simon Fraser University (SFU), Société pour vaincre la pollution (SVP), STOP, Montreal, Teslin Thirgit Council, Université du Québec à Montréal, University of Missouri, W. Alton Jones Foundation, Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO), World Chlorine Council (WCC), World Conservation Union (IUCN), World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA), World Wildlife Fund International.

II. ELECTION OF THE BUREAU

19a The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee elected the following Bureau by acclamation:

Chair: Mr. John Buccini (Canada)

Vice-Chairs: Mr. M.A. Haque (India)

Ms. Maria Cristina Cardenas Fischer (Colombia)

Mr. Ephraim Buti Mathebula (South Africa)

Rapporteur: Ms. Darka Hamel (Croatia)

 

III. ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS

A. Adoption of the rules of procedure

20a The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee adopted its rules of procedure, as contained in document UNEP/POPS/INC.1/2, on 29 June 1998. The rules of procedure are attached to the present report as annex I.

B. Adoption of the agenda

21a The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee adopted the following agenda for the session, as contained in document UNEP/POPS/INC.1/1:

1. Opening of the session.

2. Election of the Bureau.

3. Organizational matters:

(a) Adoption of the rules of procedure;

(b) Adoption of the agenda;

(c) Organization of work.

4. Preparation of an international legally binding instrument for implementing international action on certain persistent organic pollutants.

5. Other matters.

6. Adoption of the report.

7. Closure of the session.

C. Organization of work

22a In the deliberations on the organization of the work of the session, it was decided that discussions of agenda item 4 would commence with general presentations by the representatives.

IV. PREPARATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL LEGALLY BINDING INSTRUMENT

FOR IMPLEMENTING INTERNATIONAL ACTION ON CERTAIN

PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

23a For the list of documents before the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee in its deliberations on the item, see annex IX to the present report.

24a In the general debate, all representatives who took the floor expressed gratitude to the Government of Canada for hosting the meeting, many of them welcoming the financial support to enable them to attend. The extensive preparatory work of UNEP was widely acknowledged, as was the work carried out by the IFCS Expert Group on POPs. A number of representatives expressed their appreciation for the joint UNEP/IFCS regional and subregional workshops on POPs. Many were gratified by the quality of the documentation provided for the session.

25a Many representatives who addressed the issue underlined the global nature of the problem, pointing out that, owing to the mobility and long-range transport of POPs, their negative effects on wildlife, on the environment and on human health could be seen in countries that did not even produce POPs. Many representatives also stressed the fact that POPs caused local risks to human health and the environment. The representatives took note of comments made by non-governmental organizations, which are appended in paragraph 1 of annex VIII to the present report.

26a All representatives who made a statement supported the completion of an international legally binding instrument on POPs by the year 2000. It was stated that the process should be open and transparent, with input from the full range of stakeholders. It was generally considered that the detailed mandate provided to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee in UNEP Governing Council decision 19/13 C should be the mandate for its work. Many representatives noted that, in their countries, several of the substances on the list of POPs that would come under the future international legally binding instrument had already been banned or restricted for certain uses, or alternatives were being identified or were already in use.

27a There was general agreement on the need to establish an expert group to determine criteria and a procedure for identifying additional POPs as candidates for future action. Many representatives stressed the need for the expert group developing criteria for additional POPs to work on a sound scientific basis. Many underlined the need to apply the precautionary principle in the procedure for identifying and controlling POPs. Many representatives said that the expert group should be open-ended, follow a transparent and open process and that it would be appropriate to allow Governments to send more than one representative to the group.

28a In the view of many representatives the recently concluded Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants to the ECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution was a valuable example to be used in the preparation of a global legally binding instrument on POPs. It was also considered that the vast amount of work done in the regional negotiations to develop control measures on the listed twelve POPs and criteria and procedures for the possible inclusion of new POPs could significantly facilitate the task of the future expert group. However, a number of representatives were of the view that not all elements of such a regional protocol would be relevant or applicable to a global-scale instrument. Noting that experiences in the northern hemisphere had spear-headed much of the presently available information on POPs, they said that some countries of the southern hemisphere had demonstrated that, in some instances, levels of POPs found were not a result of transboundary movement, but were due to local emissions.

29a It was suggested that, in the consideration of possible new POPs to come under an international legally binding instrument, the four additional POPs covered under the ECE Protocol (chlordecone, hexabromobiphenyl, hexachlorocyclohexane and polyaromatic hydrocarbons) could be eventual candidates. One representative proposed that they should be considered only after the present twelve had been made the subject of an international legally binding instrument. Some representatives proposed that short-chain chlorinated paraffins and pentachlorophenol should also be included. Many other representatives supported the express language of the negotiating mandate that named twelve POPs to be addressed, believing that priority should first be given to agreeing to the criteria and process for adding new POPs to the international legally binding instrument (see the statement by the Chair in paragraphs 78-82 below).

30a Many representatives underlined the need to provide developing countries and countries with economies in transition with technical and financial assistance to meet the obligations arising from the international legally binding instrument on POPs, in particular with regard to monitoring, compiling inventories, capacity-building, identifying and obtaining alternatives, and destroying or disposing of obsolete stocks in an environmentally sound manner. Several representatives noted the need for technical assistance in specific areas, such as development of national legislation and problems related to inappropriate use. A number of representatives believed that those that had produced or exported POPs should be responsible for the removal and destruction of unused stockpiles in the developing countries. One representative noted the possible need for subsidies in the development of alternatives of POPs.

31a Many representatives believed that the success of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was largely due to its financing mechanism and that a strong and well-defined mechanism would be needed in the future international legally binding instrument. Many representatives expressed the view that existing mechanisms for financial and technical assistance should be identified and more effectively mobilized. A number of representatives said that it was premature to discuss new financial mechanisms.

32a Several representatives said that the international legally binding instrument should regulate the trade in POPs and some considered that the international movement of POPs should be banned, except for the purpose of their destruction.

33a Many representatives said that it was necessary constantly to bear in mind the complementarity of the international legally binding agreement on POPs to other international agreements, especially when they were related to the same substances.

34a Several representatives said that the approaches to POPs should be differentiated, depending on whether the substances were pesticides, industrial chemicals or contaminants, and that the full life-cycle costs should be considered. Many representatives noted that local ecological and economic situations needed to be kept in mind in assessing the life-cycle of individual POPs: for example, the level of dissipation of DDT was dependent on climatic conditions.

35a Several representatives believed that there should be a gradual phase-out of POPs to allow for economically viable alternatives to be identified and to take national priorities into account. The representatives also took note of a comment made by a non-governmental organization which is appended in paragraph 2 of annex VIII to the present report. Representatives said that the elimination of POPs should not in any way compromise public health and safety and, in particular, the struggle against malaria.

36a Observers from United Nations organizations drew attention to their past and recent work on POPs, and underlined their readiness, within available resources, to extend assistance during the negotiations on the international legally binding instrument and in the implementation of the instrument itself.

37a Following the general debate, the representative of the Secretariat introduced the working papers for discussion: a summary of relevant multilateral legal agreements (UNEP/POPS/INC.1/3); proposed possible articles to be considered for inclusion in a possible international legally binding instrument, which were based on other relevant multilateral agreements but were not considered exclusive (UNEP/POPS/INC.1/4); and the final provisions usually included in international legal instruments (UNEP/POPS/INC.1/5). The Committee turned to a discussion of the elements in document UNEP/POPS/INC.1/4. None of the representatives who took the floor was opposed to the inclusion of draft articles based on the elements in that document as a starting point. Suggestions were made regarding possible additional material to be subsumed under each section and concerning possible additional articles (see paragraphs 38-57 below).

A. Preamble

B. Definitions

C. Objectives

38a The Committee decided that the above three sections should be dealt with at a later stage in the negotiations.

D. Measures to reduce and/or eliminate releases

of POPs into the environment

39a Many representatives considered that it would be valuable to list all the types of control measures that had been used in the past and that the recently signed regional ECE protocol on POPs would constitute a useful input. One representative suggested that it would be helpful to have a compilation of information on levels of existing production, use, stockpiles, and release into the environment for each of the twelve POPs identified in the Committee's mandate. Several representatives said that a decision on how POPs should be controlled, reduced or eliminated could be facilitated if they were grouped according to their use category. One representative took issue with the term "release reduction" in the language proposed under this section and in its place suggested the phrase "minimize with the aim of elimination".

40a There was general discussion on whether issues under the section ought to be entrusted to a subsidiary body. Following the discussion, the Committee decided to conduct its discussion on the issues in plenary and to create contact groups as and when it was deemed appropriate.

E. National plans and progress reports

41a Several representatives supported the creation of specific POPs focal points in each country to deal with all reporting requirements. It was, however, also pointed out that such supporting entities were generally developed after the substantive provisions of the international legally binding instrument had been put in place.

F. Process for adding chemicals to the convention

42a Many representatives reiterated the importance of establishing an expert group to develop criteria and a procedure for identifying additional POPs as candidates for future international action. One stated that issues pertaining to the addition of chemicals also could be included in the discussion under section D: "Measures to reduce and/or eliminate releases of POPs into the environment".

G. Management and disposal of POPs stockpiles

43a Many representatives attached importance to the issue of POPs stockpiles, pointing out that developing countries needed to be provided with sufficient financial or technical resources to manage and dispose of POPs stockpiles properly. One representative said that flexible measures were needed that took into account the unique situations of different developing countries. Another representative stated that the issue of stockpiles had to be linked to and included in measures to reduce and/or eliminate releases of POPs into the environment under section D.

H. Information exchange

44a Many representatives noted the importance of developing and exchanging information on current uses of POPs, their impact, and alternatives to their use. Several representatives supported the creation of specific, national POPs focal points to facilitate the exchange of such information, including reporting progress made in the implementation obligations under the agreement. One representative said that it was necessary to clarify the relationship between this section and section E: "National plans and progress reports".

45a Several representatives stressed the importance of tapping existing sources of technical information. Several other representatives said that arrangements should be made for the regional and subregional exchange of relevant information. Another representative said it was essential that as much technical information as possible should be accumulated before the next session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

46a The Committee decided to set up a contact group to report on the issues relating to information exchange which might be required during the negotiations in connection with specific substances or processes.

47a The Chair of the contact group on technical information needs, Mr. Robert Kellam (United States of America), reported to plenary on the deliberations of the group and presented a paper containing the results of its work. He thanked all those who had participated in the work of the group. He noted that the contact group had not agreed on terms of reference for a mechanism to identify and address the needs for technical information arising in the course of the deliberations of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, although it had been recognized that it was important to avoid a situation whereby a lack of such information could hinder the work of the Committee. The suggestion was made that, in order to minimize the number of working groups to be created and to optimize the use of financial resources, the UNEP Secretariat, using external expertise where necessary, should undertake the task of compiling such information on the basis of needs defined by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. The Committee agreed that the specifics of a mechanism to address the needs for technical information would be decided at its next session.

48a The report of the contact group on technical information needs is contained in annex III to the present report.

I. Public information, awareness and education

49a One representative stressed that, without the measures under this section, international rules would have little impact at the local level. Several representatives drew attention to the recently concluded ECE Convention on Public Participation, and suggested that it could serve as a model and support for similar efforts within a global agreement on POPs. One representative advocated public access to information produced by any inventory activities developed through the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee process and/or under the terms of an agreement on POPs.

J. Research, development and monitoring

50a One representative considered that, in addition to providing information on substances, research should also cover current practices and options for disposal. Another said that research should also be undertaken into alternatives for POPs. One representative called for consideration to be given to the transboundary movement of substances needed for research, which was not permitted under the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal.

K. Technical assistance

51a All representatives who spoke stressed the importance of technical assistance to help developing countries and countries with economies in transition meet the obligations under the international legally binding instrument. Some representative said that technical assistance would be needed for the elimination of stockpiles and to develop appropriate and economically viable alternatives. Technical assistance, it was observed, must also be adapted to the different categories of POPs and to the technical capability and needs of the receiver. Several representatives also noted the need for technical assistance in the preparation of national inventories on POPs. One representative said that adequate technical assistance and financial resources were needed to undertake research development and monitoring.

L. Financial resources and mechanisms

52a Many representatives underlined the need for adequate financial resources to be identified for the implementation of the future international legally binding instrument. One representative, noting that financial assistance was necessary to prepare and finalize inventories of POPs, said that, in order to identify financial resources and technology transfer, a clearing-house mechanism should be set up in the form of a multilateral fund. Several representatives considered it important to set up a subsidiary body to deal with technical assistance and financial matters.

M. Compliance

N. Settlement of disputes

O. Institutional arrangements

53a Many representatives believed that issues under the above three sections would be more appropriately considered under a discussion on final provisions.

Proposals for additional issues

54a Several representatives considered that an international legally binding instrument should include a provision on POPs inventory requirements, including public access to such information.

55a Several representatives believed that it was necessary for the international legally binding instrument to include provisions on liability and compensation.

56a Several other representatives considered that the international legally binding instrument should include provisions to address remediation and clean-up of site contamination by POPs.

57a Other areas which, in the opinion of some representatives, should be taken into account in the international legally binding instrument included sales and trade; regional cooperation; and transportation, storage and distribution.

Work to be undertaken by the Secretariat

58a The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare, for submission to the Committee at its second session, a document for discussion containing material for possible inclusion in an international legally binding instrument. In preparing that document, the Secretariat was requested to draw on document UNEP/POPS/INC.1/4 and the text of the conventions to which that document referred, document UNEP/POPS/INC.1/5, and material from other international agreements. Also in that task, the Secretariat was requested to take fully into account the comments made at the current session and written comments to be submitted by Governments to the Secretariat by 1 September 1998.

V. ESTABLISHMENT OF A SUBSIDIARY BODY TO CONSIDER TECHNICAL AND

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND MODALITIES TO ASSIST COUNTRIES TO

IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF AN INTERNATIONAL LEGALLY

BINDING INSTRUMENT FOR IMPLEMENTING INTERNATIONAL

ACTION ON CERTAIN PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

59a There was general agreement concerning the need to provide developing countries and countries with economies in transition with technical and financial assistance to meet the obligations arising from an international legally binding instrument on POPs. Comments made in the debate focused on two broad topics: identifying areas of need that would require technical and financial assistance; and identifying possible existing or future sources of technical and financial assistance. During the discussion, support was expressed for developing methods to identify and provide technical and financial assistance in the following areas: compiling inventories; capacity-building; monitoring the environmental and health impacts of POPs; public education; identifying and obtaining alternatives, including recapturing indigenous knowledge; pilot projects; information exchange; import and export controls; technology transfer; and destroying or disposing of obsolete stocks in an environmentally sound manner. Some representatives expressed support for providing funds on a differentiated basis reflecting the environmental and economic needs of the country, or on a regional or subregional basis. One representative advocated the examination of cost estimates associated with implementing the ECE regional protocol on POPs to the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, as well as cost savings associated with eliminating POPs and their harmful impacts. One representative noted that any provisions for providing technical and financial assistance would require controls to ensure their proper operation and impact.

60a There was general agreement regarding the importance of utilizing all currently available sources of technical and financial assistance and obtaining more information on existing and possibly underutilized sources. Several representatives supported the establishment of a new financial mechanism to implement a future international legally binding instrument on POPs. However, several other representatives considered that discussion of new mechanisms should be deferred until more was known about existing sources and about possible requirements resulting from the future international legally binding instrument on POPs. A number of representatives considered that those that had produced or exported POPs should bear the primary financial responsibility for the removal and destruction of unused stockpiles in the developing countries.

61a The representatives of FAO, GEF, UNIDO and WHO briefly outlined elements of the types and modalities of assistance that their organizations were providing, and could provide, in connection with implementation of the future international legally binding instrument.

62a The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare the following documents for consideration at its second session:

(a) A description of existing global, regional, and bilateral programmes providing technical and financial assistance with regard to the management and elimination of chemicals, including, but not limited to, those of GEF, the World Bank, regional development banks, member organizations of IOMC (UNEP, FAO, WHO, UNIDO, the International Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UMTAR) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)), other intergovernmental organizations, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), UNEP, WHO, and multilateral and bilateral assistance programmes;

(b) A preliminary review of information on possible costs associated with potential areas of technical and financial assistance that could be associated with an international legally binding instrument for implementing international action on POPs. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee noted that the document to be submitted to the Committee at its second session would have a preliminary nature and would be updated as the Secretariat obtained more information;

(c) A description of the content and operations of existing multilateral mechanisms for providing technical and financial assistance, including, but not limited to, those of GEF, of multilateral funds such as the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, and of voluntary trust funds.

63a The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee decided to create a subsidiary body to examine implementation aspects of the future international legally binding instrument on POPs, as noted in paragraphs 59-62 above, including, but not limited to, issues of potential technical and financial assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition. The subsidiary body, to be chaired by Ms. Maria Cristina Cardenas Fischer (Colombia) would begin its work at the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

VI. EXPERT GROUP TO DEVELOP SCIENCE-BASED CRITERIA AND A PROCEDURE

FOR IDENTIFYING ADDITIONAL PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS AS

CANDIDATES FOR FUTURE INTERNATIONAL ACTION

64a The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee decided to set up an open-ended informal contact group, coordinated by Ms. Fatoumata Jallow Ndoye (Gambia), with a mandate to draw up terms of reference for an expert group to develop science-based criteria and a procedure for identifying additional persistent organic pollutants as candidates for future international action. It was agreed that the contact group on criteria would meet concurrently with the plenary session.

65a The chair of the contact group reported to plenary on the work of the group and presented a conference room paper containing draft terms of reference for a Criteria Expert Group for Persistent Organic Pollutants. She described the discussions held and the reasoning behind the content of the group's paper, and concluded by thanking all those who had participated in the work of the contact group.

66a In connection with the participation in meetings of the Criteria Expert Group, the spokesperson for the Asia and Pacific group asked that UNEP be requested to consider funding the participation of at least one expert from each developing country.

67a After a detailed exchange of views on the paper submitted by the contact group, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee at its 6th and 7th plenary meetings, on 2 July 1998, adopted paragraphs 1-13 of the terms of reference for the Criteria Expert Group for Persistent Organic Pollutants, as orally amended. The sections adopted comprised: mandate; participation; meetings; officers; secretariat; proposals and recommendations to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee; administrative and procedural matters; agenda; and reports.

68a After an extensive debate, in which many representatives participated, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, at its 8th plenary meeting, on 3 July 1998, adopted paragraph 14 of the terms of reference of the Criteria Expert Group, dealing with languages to be used at its meetings. The text of the terms of reference is contained in annex II to the present report.

69a The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee noted that, to function most effectively, the Criteria Expert Group should, preferably, be a small-sized body (e.g., with 40-60 participants).

70a The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee further noted that participation in the Criteria Expert Group might be limited by budgetary constraints. A number of representatives requested UNEP to encourage donors to provide supplemental funding for experts from all regions to participate in the meetings. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee noted, however, that it might not be possible for the Secretariat financially to support the participation of one expert from each developing country or country with economy in transition.

Election of officers of the Criteria Expert Group

71a In accordance with paragraph 8 of the terms of reference of the Criteria Expert Group, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee elected, by acclamation, the following officers to serve in the Group:

Co-Chairs: Ms. Fatoumata Jallow Ndoye (Gambia)

Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany)

Rapporteur: Mr. Luiz Fernando de Assis (Brazil)

Next meeting of the Criteria Expert Group

72a The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee noted with pleasure the generous offer of the representative of the United States of America, who said that his country was willing to provide funds to support the first meeting of the Criteria Expert Group if the meeting were held in October 1998.

73a The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee decided to schedule the first meeting of the Criteria Expert Group in October 1998, with the precise dates and location to be finalized by the Bureau, in consultation with the Secretariat.

VII. OTHER MATTERS

74a The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee took note of the position papers submitted by the group of Asian and Pacific countries, the group of African countries, the group of Central and Eastern European countries, and the group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC) and decided that they should be annexed to the report of the meeting (see annexes IV-VII).

75a One representative, stressing the capacity-building needs of developing countries to manage problems posed by POPs, drew attention to the work of the Secretariat of the Basel Convention to produce guidelines for PCB management, the request to UNEP to develop guidelines for PCB identification and an inventory of PCB destruction capacities, and the FAO work on obsolete stocks of pesticides, many of which were POPs. She considered it was necessary to find a way to promote and build upon the work in progress or already completed and to strengthen countries' abilities to apply it.

76a The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee decided to recommend to IFCS that it discuss the matter of safe management of PCBs at the third meeting of its Inter-sessional Group, to be held in Yokohama, Japan, in December 1998, which was scheduled to discuss, inter alia, capacity-building for the sound management of chemicals and other issues.

VIII. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT

77a The present report was adopted at the closing meeting of the session, on 3 July 1998, on the basis of the draft report that had been circulated under the symbols UNEP/POPS/INC.1/L.1 and L.2.

IX. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

78a The Chair said that, during the opening statements by participants in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, he had observed that there was uniform support for implementing decision 19/13 C of the Governing Council of UNEP in order to achieve the development of a global legally binding instrument, i.e., a convention on the twelve specified persistent organic pollutants, by the year 2000.

79a He observed that, during the negotiations, participants had agreed to develop science-based criteria and a procedure for identifying other substances that, following conclusion of the negotiations and the adoption of the text of the convention, would be considered for addition to the convention.

80a The Committee had agreed to the terms of reference for an expert group on criteria, to be called the Criteria Expert Group for Persistent Organic Pollutants, elected the Bureau and agreed to hold the first meeting of the Group in October 1998. There remained the question of the funding for the Group's remaining meetings, and he implored donor countries to examine all possible means of funding the operations of the Group.

81a The Committee had also agreed to establish a subsidiary body to identify provisions for the convention that would address possible measures for its implementation, including such aspects as technical assistance, the transfer of technology, financial aspects and national and regional experience in and strategies for reducing and/or eliminating POPs. The Committee had elected a chairperson for the Group and expected it to begin functioning following a discussion in the plenary at the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee of the issues to be addressed by the Group. Governments should take those facts into consideration when deciding on the composition of their delegations for that session.

82a The Committee had agreed that the Secretariat would develop a draft discussion text of the convention that would build, inter alia, upon documents UNEP/POPS/INC.1/4 and UNEP/POPS/INC.1/5 and take account of the comments and suggestions made at the first session and submissions received from Governments by 1 September 1998. That text would provide the basis for discussions on the main provisions of the convention at the next session.

83a After the customary exchange of courtesies, the Chair declared the session closed at 5 p.m. on Friday, 3 July 1998.

Annex I

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE MEETINGS OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL

NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE FOR AN INTERNATIONAL LEGALLY BINDING

INSTRUMENT FOR IMPLEMENTING INTERNATIONAL ACTION ON

CERTAIN PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

I. PURPOSES

These rules of procedure shall govern the negotiation of an international legally binding instrument for implementing international action on certain persistent organic pollutants.

II. DEFINITIONS

Rule 1

1. "State Party" means a State participating in the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for an International Legally Binding Instrument for Implementing International Action on Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants (hereinafter referred to as the Committee).

2. "Chair" means the Chair elected in accordance with rule 8, paragraph 1, of the present rules of procedure.

3. "Secretariat" means the secretariat provided by the Executive Director required to service the negotiations.

4. "Executive Director" means the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme.

5. "Meeting" means any session convened in accordance with these rules of procedure.

6. "Representatives present and voting" means representatives of State Parties present and casting an affirmative or negative vote. Representatives who abstain from voting are considered as not voting.

III. PLACE AND DATES OF MEETINGS

Rule 2

The venue and dates of the meetings shall be decided by the Committee in consultation with the Secretariat.

IV. AGENDA

Drawing up of the provisional agenda for a meeting

Rule 3

The Executive Director, after approval by the Bureau referred to in paragraph 1 of rule 8 below, shall submit to each meeting the provisional agenda for the following meeting. The provisional agenda shall include all items recommended by the Committee.

Adoption of the agenda

Rule 4

At the beginning of each meeting, the Committee shall adopt the agenda for the meeting on the basis of the provisional agenda.

Revision of the agenda

Rule 5

During a meeting, the Committee may revise the agenda for the meeting by adding, deleting or amending items. Only items which the Committee considers to be urgent and important may be added to its agenda during the meeting.

V. REPRESENTATION

Composition of delegations

Rule 6

The delegation of each State Party shall consist of a head of delegation and such alternate representatives and advisers as may be required.

Alternates and advisers

Rule 7

The head of delegation may designate an alternate representative or an adviser to act as a representative.

VI. OFFICERS

Elections

Rule 8

1. The Committee shall elect from among the representatives of the State Parties a Bureau composed of one Chair and four Vice-Chairs, one of whom shall act as Rapporteur.

2. In electing the officers, the Committee shall have due regard to the principle of equitable geographical representation. Each of the five regional groups shall be represented by one member.

Acting Chair

Rule 9

If the Chair finds it necessary to be absent from a meeting or any part thereof, he or she shall call on a Vice-Chair to take his or her place.

Replacement of the Chair

Rule 10

If the Chair is unable to continue to perform his or her functions, a new Chair shall be elected for the unexpired term, with due regard to rule 8, paragraph 2.

Substitute members

Rule 11

If a Vice-Chair finds it necessary to be absent from a meeting or any part thereof, a new Vice-Chair shall be designated by the same regional group. Such substitution shall not exceed the period of one meeting.

Replacement of a Vice-Chair

Rule 12

If a Vice-Chair resigns or is otherwise unable to complete his or her term of office, a new officer shall be elected for the unexpired term, with due regard to rule 8, paragraph 2.

VII. SECRETARIAT

Rule 13

The Executive Director may designate his or her representative during the meetings.

Rule 14

The Executive Director shall provide and direct the staff of the Secretariat required to service the negotiations, including any subsidiary organs which may be established by the Committee.

Rule 15

The Executive Director, or his or her designated representative, may, subject to rule 19, make oral as well as written statements at the meetings concerning any matter under consideration.

Rule 16

The Executive Director shall be responsible for convening meetings in accordance with rules 2 and 3 and for making all the necessary arrangements for meetings, including the preparation and distribution of documents at least six weeks in advance of the meetings.

Rule 17

The Secretariat shall, in accordance with these rules: interpret speeches made at meetings; receive, translate and circulate the documents of the meetings; publish and circulate reports and relevant documentation to the State Parties; have the custody of the documents in the archives; and generally perform all other work that the Committee may require.

VIII. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS

Quorum

Rule 18

The Chair may declare a meeting open and permit the debate to proceed when at least one third of the State Parties participating in the meeting are present. The presence of a majority of State Parties so participating shall be required for any decision to be taken.

Powers of the Chair

Rule 19

In addition to exercising the powers conferred upon him or her elsewhere by these rules, the Chair shall declare the opening and closing of each meeting, shall direct the discussion, ensure observance of these rules, accord the right to speak, put questions to the vote and announce decisions. The Chair shall rule on points of order and, subject to these rules, shall have control over the proceedings of the meetings and over the maintenance of order at meetings. The Chair may propose to the meeting the limitation of the time to be allowed to speakers, the limitation of the number of times each State Party may speak on any subject, the closure of the list of speakers or the closure of the debate. The Chair may also propose the suspension or the adjournment of the meeting or of the debate on the question under discussion.

Rule 20

The Chair, in the exercise of his or her functions, remains under the authority of the Committee.

Powers of the acting Chair

Rule 21

A Vice-Chair acting as Chair shall have the same powers and duties as the Chair.

The Chair shall not vote

Rule 22

The Chair shall not vote, but may designate another member of his or her delegation to vote in his or her place.

Speeches

Rule 23

No one may address the meeting without having previously obtained the permission of the Chair. Subject to the rules, the Chair shall call upon speakers in the order in which they signify their desire to speak. The Chair shall call a speaker to order if his or her remarks are not relevant to the subject under discussion.

Precedence

Rule 24

The Chair, Vice-Chair or a designated representative of any subsidiary organ which may be established subject to rule 48, may be accorded precedence in speaking for the purpose of explaining the conclusion arrived at by the subsidiary organ concerned and for the purpose of replying to questions.

Points of order

Rule 25

1. During the discussion of any matter, a representative of a State Party may at any time raise a point of order and the point of order shall be immediately decided by the Chair in accordance with the rules of procedure. A representative of a State Party may appeal against the ruling of the Chair. The appeal shall be immediately put to the vote, and the ruling of the Chair shall stand unless overruled by a majority vote of the representatives present and voting.

2. A representative of a State Party raising a point of order may not speak on the substance of the matter under discussion.

Time limit on speeches

Rule 26

The Committee may limit the time allowed to each speaker and the number of times each person may speak on any question, except on procedural questions, when the Chair shall limit each intervention to a maximum of five minutes. When debate is limited and a speaker has spoken for his or her allotted time, the Chair shall call him or her to order without delay.

Closing of list of speakers

Rule 27

During the course of a debate, the Chair may announce the list of speakers and, with the consent of the Committee, declare the list closed. The Chair may, however, accord the right of reply to any State Party if, in his or her opinion, a speech delivered after he or she has declared the list closed renders this justified. When the debate on an item is concluded because there are no other speakers, the Chair, with the consent of the Committee, shall declare the debate closed.

Adjournment of debate

Rule 28

During the discussion of any matter, a representative of a State Party may move the adjournment of the debate on the subject under discussion. In addition to the proposer of the motion, one representative of a State Party may speak in favour of and one against the motion, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote.

Closure of debate

Rule 29

A representative of a State Party may at any time move the closure of the debate on the subject under discussion, whether or not any other representative of a State Party has signified his/her wish to speak. Permission to speak on the closure of the debate shall be accorded only to two representatives of State Parties opposing the closure, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote. If the Committee is in favour of the closure, the Chair shall declare the closure of the debate.

Suspension or adjournment of the meeting

Rule 30

During the discussion of any matter, a representative of a State Party may move the suspension or the adjournment of the meeting. Such motion shall not be debated, but shall immediately be put to the vote.

Order of procedural motions

Rule 31

Subject to rule 25, and regardless of the order in which they are submitted, the following motions shall have precedence, in the following order, over all other proposals or motions before the meeting:

(a) To suspend the meeting;

(b) To adjourn the meeting;

(c) To adjourn the debate on the subject under discussion;

(d) To close the debate on the subject under discussion.

Proposals and amendments

Rule 32

Proposals and amendments shall normally be introduced in writing and submitted to the Secretariat, which shall circulate copies to all representatives of State parties. As a general rule, no proposal shall be discussed or put to the vote at any meeting of the Committee unless copies of it have been circulated in the official languages of the meeting to all representatives of State Parties not later than the day preceding the meeting. Subject to the consent of the Committee, the Chair may, however, permit the discussion and consideration of proposals or amendments which have not been circulated or have only been circulated the same day.

Decisions on competence

Rule 33

Subject to rule 31, any motion calling for a decision on the competence of the Committee to adopt any proposal or any amendment submitted to it shall be put to the vote before a vote is taken on the proposal or amendment in question.

Withdrawal of proposals or motions

Rule 34

A proposal or a motion may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before voting on it has commenced, provided that the proposal or the motion has not been amended. A proposal or motion which has thus been withdrawn may be reintroduced by another representative of a State Party.

Reconsideration of proposals

Rule 35

When a proposal has been adopted or rejected, it may not be reconsidered at the same meeting unless the Committee, by a two-thirds majority of the representatives present and voting, so decide. Permission to speak on a motion to reconsider shall be accorded only to two representatives of State Parties opposing the motion, after which it shall immediately be put to the vote.

Voting rights

Rule 36

Each State Party shall have one vote.

Adoption of decisions

Rule 37

1. The Committee shall make every effort to reach agreement on all matters of substance by consensus. If all efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted and no agreement reached, the decision shall, as a last resort, be taken by a two-thirds majority of the representatives present and voting.

2. Decisions of the Committee on procedural matters shall be taken by a majority of the representatives present and voting.

3. Where there is disagreement as to whether a matter to be voted on is a substantive or procedural matter, that issue shall be decided by a two-thirds majority of the representatives present and voting.

Method of voting

Rule 38

Subject to rule 44, the Committee shall normally vote by show of hands, but any representative of a State Party may request a roll-call, which shall then be taken in the English alphabetical order of the names of the State Parties, beginning with the State Party whose name is drawn by lot by the Chair. If, however, at any time a State Party requests a secret ballot, that shall be the method of voting on the issue in question.

Recording of roll-call

Rule 39

The vote of each State Party participating in a roll-call shall be recorded in the relevant documents of the meeting.

Conduct during voting

Rule 40

After the Chair has announced the beginning of voting, no representative of a State Party shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of the voting. The Chair may permit representatives of State Parties to explain their votes, either before or after the voting, except when the vote is taken by secret ballot. The Chair may limit the time to be allowed for such explanation. The Chair shall not permit the proposer of a proposal or of an amendment to explain his or her vote on his or her own proposal or amendment.

Division of proposals or amendments

Rule 41

A representative of a State Party may move that parts of a proposal or of an amendment shall be voted on separately. If objection is made to the request for division, the motion for division shall be voted upon. Permission to speak on the motion for division shall be given only to two representatives of State Parties in favour and two against. If the motion for division is carried, those parts of the proposal or of the amendment which are subsequently approved shall be put to the vote as a whole. If all operative parts of the proposal or of the amendment have been rejected, the proposal or the amendment shall be considered to have been rejected as a whole.

Voting on amendments

Rule 42

1. When an amendment to a proposal is moved, the amendment shall be voted on first. When two or more amendments to a proposal are moved, the Committee shall vote first on the amendment furthest removed in substance from the original proposal and then on the amendment next furthest therefrom and so on, until all the amendments have been put to the vote. Where, however, the adoption of one amendment necessarily implies the rejection of another amendment, the latter amendment shall not be put to the vote. If one or more amendments are adopted, the amended proposal shall then be voted upon. If no amendments are adopted, the proposal shall be put to the vote in its original form.

2. A motion is considered an amendment to a proposal if it adds to, deletes from or revises part of that proposal.

Voting on proposals

Rule 43

1. If two or more proposals are related to the same question, the Committee shall, unless it decides otherwise, vote on the proposals in the order in which they have been submitted. The Committee may, after each vote on a proposal, decide whether to vote on the next proposal.

2. Any proposals or motions requiring that no decision be taken on the substance of such proposals shall, however, be considered as previous questions and shall be put to the vote before them.

Elections

Rule 44

All elections shall be held by secret ballot unless, in the absence of any objection, the Committee decides to proceed without taking a ballot when there is an agreed candidate.

Rule 45

1. If, when one person or State Party only is to be elected, no candidate obtains, in the first ballot, the majority required, a second ballot shall be taken, restricted to the two candidates obtaining the largest number of votes. If in the second ballot the votes are equally divided, the Chair shall decide between the candidates by drawing lots.

2. In the case of a tie in the first ballot among the candidates obtaining the second largest number of votes, a special ballot shall be held for the purpose of reducing the number of candidates to two. In the case of a tie among three or more candidates obtaining the largest number of votes, a second ballot shall be held. If a tie results among more than two candidates, the number shall be reduced to two by lot and the balloting, restricted to them, shall continue in accordance with the preceding paragraph.

Rule 46

1. When two or more elective places are to be filled at one time under the same conditions, those candidates obtaining the required majority on the first ballot shall be elected.

2. If the number of candidates obtaining such majority is more than the number of places to be filled, those candidates obtaining the largest number of votes shall be elected.

3. If the number of candidates obtaining such majority is less than the number of places to be filled, additional ballots shall be held to fill the remaining places, the voting being restricted to the candidates obtaining the greatest number of votes in the previous ballot, who shall number not more than twice the places remaining to be filled. In the case of a tie between a greater number of unsuccessful candidates, however, a special ballot shall be held for the purpose of reducing the number of candidates to the required number.

4. If three restricted ballots are inconclusive, unrestricted ballots shall follow in which votes may be cast for any eligible person or member. If three such unrestricted ballots are inconclusive, the next three ballots (subject to exception in a case similar to that of the tie mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph of this rule) shall be restricted to the candidates obtaining the greatest number of votes in the third of the unrestricted ballots. The number of such candidates shall be not more than twice the number of places remaining to be filled.

5. The following three ballots thereafter shall be unrestricted and so on, until all the places are filled.

Equally divided votes

Rule 47

If a vote is equally divided on matters other than elections, the proposal shall be regarded as rejected.

IX. SUBSIDIARY ORGANS

Subsidiary organs of the meetings, such as working groups and expert groups

Rule 48

1. The Committee may establish such subsidiary organs as may be necessary for the effective discharge of its functions.

2. Subject to paragraph 2 of rule 8, each subsidiary organ shall elect its own officers. The number of such officers shall be no more than five.

3. The rules of procedure of subsidiary organs shall be those of the Committee, as appropriate, subject to such modifications as the Committee may decide upon in the light of proposals by the subsidiary organs concerned.

X. LANGUAGES AND RECORDS

Languages of the meetings

Rule 49

Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish shall be the languages of the meetings.

Interpretation

Rule 50

1. Speeches made in a language of the meeting shall be interpreted into the other languages.

2. A representative may speak in a language other than a language of the meeting. In this case he or she shall himself or herself provide for interpretation into one of the languages of the meeting, and interpretation into the other languages by the interpreters of the Secretariat may be based on the interpretation given in the first language.

Languages of official documents

Rule 51

Official documents shall be made available in the languages of the meeting.

XI. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MEETINGS

Plenary meetings

Rule 52

The plenary meetings shall be held in public unless the meeting decides otherwise. All decisions taken at a private meeting shall be announced at an early public meeting.

Other meetings

Rule 53

Meetings of subsidiary organs, other than any drafting group that may be set up, shall be held in public unless the organ concerned decides otherwise.

XII. OBSERVERS

Participation of observers

Rule 54

Observers may participate in the work of the meeting in accordance with the established practice of the United Nations General Assembly.

Observers from non-governmental organizations

Rule 55

Relevant non-governmental organizations participating in the meeting as observers may make their contributions to the negotiating process, as appropriate, on the understanding that these organizations shall not have any negotiating role during the process and taking into account decisions 1/1 and 2/1, adopted by the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development at its first and second sessions, concerning the participation of non-governmental organizations.

XIII. SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE

Rule 56

A rule of procedure may be amended or suspended by a decision of the Committee taken by consensus, provided that twenty-four hours notice of the proposal has been given.

Annex II

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE CRITERIA EXPERT GROUP FOR

PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

Mandate

1. The Criteria Expert Group for Persistent Organic Pollutants is an open-ended technical working group established by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for an International Legally Binding Instrument for Implementing International Action on Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), in accordance with UNEP Governing Council decision 19/13 C, paragraph 9, to prepare and present to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee proposals for science-based criteria and a procedure for identifying additional POPs as candidates for future international action.

2. The Criteria Expert Group shall work expeditiously, proceeding concurrently with the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee process, to develop criteria for consideration by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee in the negotiation of a legally binding instrument. The process should incorporate criteria pertaining to persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity and exposure in different regions and should take into account the potential for regional and global transport including dispersion mechanisms for the atmosphere and the hydrosphere, migratory species and the need to reflect possible influences of marine transport and tropical climates.

Objective

3. The Criteria Expert Group shall complete its work on the draft criteria and procedure referred to in paragraph 1 above to be submitted for consideration by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee at or before its fourth session.

Participation

4. Criteria Expert Group meetings shall be fully open to government-designated experts. Governments may designate more than one expert. Representation of all regions should be encouraged. The Criteria Expert Group shall allow for regional representation should the regions so propose.

5. Intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations may participate as observers.

6. Participants should have technical expertise in chemicals assessment and management, and knowledge of socio-economic factors. Regional networking should be encouraged to ensure the input of a broad representation of views and to offset differences in expertise available to countries at varying stages of development.

Meetings

7. The scheduling of meetings of the Criteria Expert Group shall be decided upon by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. Subject to the availability of funds, it is expected that the Criteria Expert Group will meet prior to the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

Officers

8. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee shall elect, from among the Government representatives, officers consisting of two Co-Chairs and a Rapporteur. The officers form the Bureau of the Criteria Expert Group.

Secretariat

9. The Executive Director of UNEP will provide the Secretariat for the Criteria Expert Group.

Proposals and recommendations to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee

10. In accordance with its mandate, the Criteria Expert Group shall make every effort to reach agreement by consensus among participating Governments on recommendations to be submitted to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. If consensus cannot be reached, all proposals by participating Governments shall be reflected in a report to be submitted to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

Administrative and procedural matters

11. The Criteria Expert Group shall apply, mutatis mutandis, the rules of procedure of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

Agenda

12. The Secretariat, in consultation with the officers of the Criteria Expert Group, shall prepare a provisional agenda for each meeting of the Group. The provisional agenda shall be communicated to all participants of the International Negotiating Comittee at least six weeks before the opening of the Criteria Expert Group meeting.

Reports

13. The Criteria Expert Group shall consider and adopt a report at each meeting to inform the International Negotiating Comittee concerning the results of its discussions, including the proposals and recommendations according to paragraph 10 above. The reports will be circulated to all participants in the Criteria Expert Group and the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

Languages

14. Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish shall be the working languages of the Criteria Expert Group.

Annex III

REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS CONTACT GROUP

1. The group was chaired by Mr. Robert Kellam (United States). Participants included representatives of Australia, Austria, Canada, the European Commission, Ghana, Japan, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. Also present were representatives of FAO and several non-governmental organizations, including the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), the Global Crop Protection Foundation (GCPF), Greenpeace, the World Chlorine Council and WWF. Brazil and China attended as observers.

2. The Group agreed that technical information needs requiring timely response will arise in the course of the deliberations of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee and that such needs could be addressed by a number of mechanisms. Those mechanisms could include: tasks undertaken by the Secretariat; the formation of special- purpose contact groups; and, as necessary, technical reports prepared by acknowledged experts in the subject fields.

3. The choice of a particular mechanism could be influenced by, among other factors: the nature of the need; the availability (within the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee) of the necessary technical expertise; and the time available to accomplish the work.

4. Examples of near-term technical information needs suggested by participants included:

(a) Further characterization of dioxin sources, assessment tools, and abatement measures;

(b) Compilation of information on substitutes and alternative management strategies for DDT and PCBs; and

(c) Further elucidation of chlordane use patterns.

5. The Group devoted the greater part of its time to a discussion of the merits of undertaking the work on dioxin and generally agreed that such work would be of considerable value to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. The Group did not, however, discuss the precise mechanism for proceeding but considered that it should be taken up by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee at its second session.

6. Related topics discussed by the Group included work already underway by the Secretariat, mechanisms by which available technical information could be compiled and exchanged among Parties, as well as used to facilitate countries' abilities to evaluate their specific situations.

Annex IV

PROPOSALS BY THE GROUP OF LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES (GRULAC)

FOR THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS ON POPS

1. The group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC), bearing in mind UNEP Governing Council decisions 18/32 and 19/13 C, considers that the negotiation of an international legally binding instrument on POPs should initially be based on the twelve substances identified in those decisions. GRULAC also recognizes the importance of the composition of an expert group to propose scientifically based criteria and procedures for including new POPs in the list, and considers that the expert group must include adequate representation of developing countries and, in particular, from the Latin American and Caribbean region.

2. The international legally binding instrument on POPs should:

(a) Include financing mechanisms aimed at providing adequate and sufficient resources to support developing countries in the implementation of obligations derived from such an instrument;

(b) Guarantee transfer of technologies, exchange and dissemination of information;

(c) Give differentiated treatment to POPs;

(d) Include provisions to make possible the implementation of the agreement in a gradual manner, taking into account the existing capacities and conditions in developing countries;

(e) Ensure that all obligations, criteria and agreed procedures take into account the specific conditions of developing countries, with due regard for their environmental, climatic and socio-economic characteristics; and

(f) Respect the principles established by the 1992 Rio Declaration, especially the precautionary principle.

3. In fulfilling its mandate, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee should:

(a) Ensure the full participation of developing countries; and

(b) Establish the criteria and procedures for identification of additional POPs as candidates for future international action.

4. The Criteria Expert Group will be a subsidiary body of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. Its meetings should take place immediately before the meetings of the IntergovernmentalNegotiating Committee.

5. The subsidiary bodies and other groups established during the negotiating process should:

(a) Be open-ended and have full regional representation;

(b) Have clear and objective mandates, based on previously agreed terms of reference; and

(c) Adopt recommendations based on consensus.

Annex V

VIEWS OF THE GROUP OF ASIAN AND PACIFIC COUNTIES ON POSSIBLE SUBSTANTIVE

ARTICLES OF AN INTERNATIONAL LEGALLY BINDING INSTRUMENT FOR IMPLEMENTING

INTERNATIONAL ACTION ON CERTAIN PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

AS SET OUT IN DOCUMENT UNEP/POPS/INC.1/4

1. There should be inclusion of a provision for designation of a national authority (or authorities) for implementation of the convention/instrument negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

2. A provision may be suitably incorporated into the document for member countries to enter into regional/subregional arrangements for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention, including handling of emergencies.

3. In paragraph 16 of document UNEP/POPS/INC.1/4 there may be additional provision for scientific cooperation with technical assistance and/or technology transfer to developing countries.

4. Provision may suitably be made for transfer of technical know-how and not only financial assistance. Also, privately owned technologies may be transferred directly to recipient countries and financial arrangements may be made by the donor bodies directly, without bringing the recipient countries into the picture.

Annex VI

REGIONAL POSITION PAPER OF THE CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

1. All countries of the region expressed willingness to follow the convention on POPs as it is being developed by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

2. Delegations appreciate the open-minded discussions in plenary sessions. It is believed that the most important issues related to the convention have been identified and that the countries' positions have given a global picture.

3. The Central and Eastern European countries will strongly support the establishment of subsidiary bodies on well-defined issues. The groups of experts on criteria could be approved at this meeting, while others may be formed at the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee or later on.

4. All countries agreed that, in the immediate future, it will be useful to consider new candidates for addition to the existing list of POPs, taking into account the ECE protocol on POPs.

5. All countries agreed that certain assistance will be needed to manage POPs. However, this regional meeting could not specify the type and extent of such assistance due to the considerable differences among the countries of the Central and Eastern European region.

Countries present

Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Georgia, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine

Annex VII

STATEMENT OF THE GROUP OF AFRICAN COUNTRIES ON THE OCCASION OF THE FIRST

SESSION OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE ON PERSISTENT

ORGANIC POLLUTANTS, 29 JUNE-3 JULY 1998

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

2. Recognizing the vulnerability of the African population to the detrimental effects of POPs on human health and the ecosystem, the African group affirms its support for the elimination of the designated twelve POPs.

3. Referring to the results of two awareness-raising workshops on POPs held at Bamako (Mali) and Lusaka (Zambia), the group notes the following obstacles to the effective management of POPs in the African region :

(a) Lack of financial resources for research, capacity-building, monitoring, and management of chemicals in a sustainable manner

(b) Lack of legislation and regulations;

(c) Lack of inventories;

(d) Lack of data on health and environmental impacts;

(e) Inadequate transfer of information from the developed world to the developing world and the necessary assistance in terms of technology and equipment;

(f) Lack of public awareness of the hazards of the handling, use, storage, disposal and release of hazardous chemicals including POPs (often due to a high illiteracy rate);

(g) Inadequate regional forum for information exchange; and

(h) Problems posed by the inadequate storage of obsolete stocks of hazardous chemicals and wastes.

4. Some African countries, notwithstanding limited resources, have initiated measures to address some of the problems created by POPs:

(a) Some countries have adopted legislation controlling the use of POPs;

(b) Many countries have banned the use of certain POPs;

(c) Regional and subregional organizations have been identified which could be involved in POPs issues, such as the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Southern African Development Community (SADC), East African Cooperation (EAC), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the African Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development (AMCEN), and the Interstate Committee to Combat Drought in the Sahel (CILSS), etc., and

(d) A few countries and subregions have issued guidelines on the management and monitoring of chemicals, including pesticides.

5. African countries participate in several international forums concerned with hazardous substances and the management of chemicals, such as the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), the Convention on Prior Informed Consent, the Montreal Protocol, the Basel Convention, the Bamako Convention and others.

6. Based on these experiences in the region, the African group requires that the following concerns be addressed by and contained in the convention:

(a) The transfer of technology and the establishment of a viable financial mechanism and/or a special fund in order to ensure:

(i) Reinforcement of institutional capacity;

(ii) Development of suitable and affordable alternatives to POPs and subsidizing of costly alternatives;

(iii) Development of case studies on most urgent POPs problems;

(iv) Assistance with development of national action plans;

(v) Assistance with compilation of inventories; and

(vi) Information exchange, training.

7. The African Group furthermore supports the inclusion of the following principles in the proposed convention:

(a) Separate, differentiated approaches to action on pesticides, industrial chemicals and unintentionally produced by-products and contaminants;

(b) Phased implementation for specific substances which are essential for public health reasons or generated through processes for which alternatives are not yet available to developing countries;

(c) Liability and compensation for damage caused to health and environment;

(d) Measures to combat illegal production, sales and movement of banned POPs; and

(e) POPs producers should play an active role in their disposal.

8. The African Group recognizes the efforts made by FAO and other relevant agencies in the elimination of obsolete stocks in African countries and calls for the strengthening of cooperation between FAO and UNEP during the negotiations, during the development of alternatives to POPs and in the implementation of the proposed convention.

Annex VIII

STATEMENTS MADE BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS DURING THE GENERAL DEBATE

1. One representative drew particular attention to the significant health impacts of POPs among the peoples which she represented, including the transfer of those chemicals to the younger generation through breast-feeding. Several representatives stressed that, because of the nature of the risks to human health and wildlife and the fact that there was no known safe acceptable level of POPs contamination, the strategy of the future international legally binding instrument should be aimed at the complete elimination of POPs, rather than at risk management. Other representatives stressed various risk management options to reduce the risks of POPs where available, and which should be used depending on the results of a risk-based assessment process and on whether the substance was an industrial product, a pesticide or a by-product.

2. One representative said that the future international legally binding instrument to eliminate POPs had to contain a transition regime that was rapid, orderly and just, designed to minimize economic and social costs and avoid disruption and dislocations.

Annex IX