The meeting recommended that exporting countries should adhere strictly to the guidelines on labelling under the FAO Code of Conduct.

The meeting concluded that improved labelling requirements.....

Some participants suggested that WHO with the support of FAO develop a programme of research on viable alternative to DDT ......

... and technology cooperation.

... governments to make their own decisions regarding alternatives with which to replace POPs.

... can be managed in ways that avoid ....

Some delegates noted that this needed to be developed.......

The meeting recommended that national, regional, and/or international action be...

The transfer from developed to the developing world of information related.....

... and noted ....

1. At the May 1995 meeting of the UNEP Governing Council (GC), Decision 18/32 was adopted on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). This Decision invited the Inter-Organization Programme for 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 ad hoc working group, to initiate an expeditious assessment process, beginning with an initial short-list of twelve POPs (i.e., PCBs, dioxins, furans, aldrin, dieldrin, DDT, endrin, chlordane, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, toxaphene and heptachlor).

2. As specified in the following text taken from Decision 18/32, this process should, taking into account the circumstances of developing countries and countries with economies in transition:

3. Based on the results of this process, together with the outcome of the UNEP Intergovernmental Conference to Adopt a Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (Washington, D.C., October 23 - November 3, 1995), the IFCS was invited to develop recommendations and information on international action, including any information that would be needed for a possible decision on an appropriate international legal mechanism on POPs, to be considered at the 1997 sessions of the UNEP GC (January) and the World Health Assembly (WHA, May).

4. In response to Decision 18/32, an IOMC ad hoc working group (Working Group) was established by UNEP on behalf of the IOMC on October 28, 1995 (Washington, D.C.). The Working Group was supported in its efforts by UNEP and the IFCS Secretariat.

5. The Working Group developed a work plan, identified resource needs to implement the requirements of Decision 18/32, and took note of the outcome of the UNEP Intergovernmental Conference to Adopt a Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (Washington, D.C., October 23 - November 3, 1995), wherein governments called for a global legally binding instrument on POPs. Agreement was secured on the proposed work plan at the second meeting of the Inter-Sessional Group of the IFCS (ISG-2, Canberra, Australia, March 5-8, 1996). At ISG-2, the Working Group was adopted as an IFCS ad hoc Working Group on POPs to continue the assessment process and develop recommendations and information on international action, including any information that would be needed for a possible decision on an appropriate international legal mechanism on POPs.

6. The following paraphrases some relevant outcomes of the ISG-2 meeting:

7. At the March 9 meeting of the Working Group, the following Program Committee was created to assist the Chair (Canada) in making preparations for the two meetings in Manila: Sweden, Estonia, Mali, Brazil, Philippines, Greenpeace, International Council of Chemical Associations, UNEP, IFCS Secretariat, and the Co-Chairs of the experts meeting from Canada and the Philippines. The program and a Theme Paper entitled Persistent Organic Pollutants: Socio-economic Considerations for Global Action (IFCS/EXP.POPs.2) were developed and distributed in advance of the meeting to assist participants to the experts meeting in preparing for the discussions. In addition, experts from Mexico, Germany, Sweden, Philippines and UNEP were invited to present papers in the opening plenary session of the meeting and several other papers were also provided by experts at the meeting. A full list of meeting documents is attached to this report (Annex 1).

8. The IFCS experts meeting held in Manila on June 17-19, 1996, was co-sponsored by Canada and the Republic of the Philippines and co-chaired by Ms. Marinela Castillo (Dept. of Agriculture, Philippines) and Dr. H. Lerer (Dept. of Environment, Canada). The opening plenary session of the meeting was called to order by Ms. J. Demeterio (Dept. of Agriculture, Philippines) and participants were formally greeted by Mr. J. D. Gerochi (Undersecretary of Agriculture, Philippines), Canadian Ambassador Mr. H. Heeney and Dr. J. Buccini (Chair of the IFCS ad hoc Working Group on POPs). A list of participants is given in Annex 2.

9. Ms. Castillo summarized the background of the POPs issue and the UNEP mandate which led to the decision at ISG-2 to convene the experts meeting, drawing on the information in sections one to three of the Meeting Theme Paper.

10. Dr. R. Sanchez (Mexico) presented a paper (IFCS/EXP.POPs.11) describing the recent malaria control programs in Mexico which have resulted in significant decreases in the annual consumption of DDT in recent years. These reductions were achieved through a combination of intensive training programs for sanitary workers and continued surveillance of both mosquito vectors and humans to minimize the use of pesticides by targeting applications to problem areas. Mexico recently set a national goal to reduce the current consumption of DDT (630 tonnes in 1995) by 80% by the year 2000 and will evaluate the impacts on the incidence of malaria to see if DDT use could be eliminated completely in the future. Some illegal imports of DDT have been observed. During the question period, support was given for the involvement of communities in anti-malaria programs and Costa Rica voiced support for the use of non-pesticidal approaches to control malaria. In response to a concern expressed about Mexican exports of DDT, Dr. Sanchez clarified that exports are made under carefully controlled conditions, in response to the expressed needs of governments of importing countries, and only for use in disease vector control programs.

11. Dr. J. Lebsanft (Germany) presented a paper (IFCS/EXP.POPs.6) on recent experiences in Germany in reducing the releases of chlorinated dioxins and furans from chemical products and industrial sources. Releases were reduced by addressing such sources as chemical products, incinerators and industrial processes. Chemicals were the largest contributors to overall releases and significant reductions were achieved by bans, phase-outs and restrictions on such chemicals as PCBs and pentachlorophenol. Measures were also taken to decrease releases from municipal incinerators. Other significant sources were sinter plants (metallurgical treatment of iron), aluminum remelting and copper recovery. Pesticides were not viewed as significant sources in Germany due to strict regulation. Surveys of diet and human breast milk have shown reduced levels of dioxins and furans following implementation of measures to reduce emissions. It was pointed out that developing countries could benefit from the work carried out by developed countries in identifying major sources of dioxins and furans and measures that prove effective in reducing releases from these sources. In response to a question concerning the dioxin content of exported pesticides, an industry representative commented that the same specifications were applied for both domestic and exported pesticides; one expert from a developing country proposed that this approach be followed by all developed countries that export pesticides to developing countries.

12. Mr. J. Willis (UNEP) presented a paper (IFCS/EXP.POPs.3) on the results of recent efforts to collect information on the manufacture, import, export and release of the POPs specified in Decision 18/32. One effort was based on a survey for the PIC procedure and included reports from 61 countries which were analyzed by region. No data were received on mirex and only a few national estimates were available on releases of dioxins and furans. The available data were acknowledged to be of questionable quality and, while they do not provide a complete picture, they do show that significant production, import or export may be continuing in nine of the POPs. All regions reported some activity concerning POPs, occasionally in large quantities. Aldrin and DDT were reported in all regions; however, no conclusions could be drawn on inter-regional trade due to deficiencies in the data. In subsequent discussion it was observed that one factor affecting data quality may be the use of customs data that was not substance specific and could lead to inaccuracies or misreporting. It was also observed that improved data would be desirable to define the baselines for international action and to monitor trends in production, import, etc. in future years.

13. Dr. N. Maramba (Philippines) presented a paper (IFCS/EXP.POPs.7) on a developing country's perspectives on POPs. The Philippines was characterized as a predominantly agricultural country, with women and children providing a significant amount of farm labour. The pesticide industry comprises about 200 private firms, including many large transnational corporations. Pesticides use increased in the 1970's and grew markedly in the 1980's, due in part at least to aggressive promotion of products by industry and to weak infrastructure, regulatory controls and enforcement potential. In recent years, some reduction in use occurred due to government promotion of integrated pest management practices starting in 1990. Health and environmental concerns have been aggravated by inadequate knowledge of hazards and poor personal protection resulting in disposal problems for waste containers, exposure of women and children during and after pesticide application, and contamination of clothing, homes and irrigation canals. The Philippines has decided to implement a "paradigm shift" and give priority to health and environmental protection in its national programs. The Philippines has also concluded that: global action is needed and should be implemented with a global legally binding instrument; and international action should have as its ultimate goal a complete ban on production and use of all POPs, including the 12 specified in Decision 18/32 as well as others that are of serious concern to developing countries. Internationally agreed phase-out periods should be set based on consideration of developing country circumstances and the availability of viable, and preferably non-chemical, alternatives. A management plan will be needed to address disposal of unwanted stockpiles and it was proposed that industry accept some responsibility for disposal.

14. Mr. A. Jonsson (Sweden) presented a summary of a recent review (IFCS/EXP.POPs.4.CMPL) conducted by Sweden that addressed the technical, toxicological and other issues related to the use of products and processes that could serve as alternatives to the 12 specified POPs. The study noted that production rates have declined for intentionally produced POPs and, in some cases, no evidence was found for current production; however, some uses still remain for several of these POPs and there are some reports of obsolete stocks of some POPs pesticides. It was also concluded that a wide range of alternatives currently exists for all intentionally produced POPs but that the suitability of specific alternatives would have to be evaluated in light of national or regional capabilities and circumstances. With regard to dioxins and furans, incineration was identified as a major source and it was suggested that newer technologies could result in an order of magnitude decrease in the releases from this source. During discussion, it was pointed out that there are non-incineration technologies available for POPs disposal, it was suggested that consideration should be given to industry support for the disposal of obsolete stocks, and FAO reported on an ongoing project to deal with the disposal of obsolete pesticide stocks in Africa and the Near East. One expert expressed the view that there is a need to ensure the transfer of clean technologies and processes to developing countries.

15. Dr. Lerer reviewed the purpose and expectations for the outcome of the experts meeting and the way in which the meeting report would be used as input to the open meeting of the IFCS ad hoc Working Group on POPs that would take place on June 21-22 1996. He indicated that the task for the meeting was to provide guidance to the Working Group concerning tasks "c" and "d" of Decision 18/32. This guidance would assist in formulating recommendations, for submission to UNEP Governing Council, on international action which would be effective and reflect available knowledge and circumstances of countries in the various regions of the world. He proposed that the experts be divided into four working groups; two groups would emphasize pesticides issues and two would emphasize issues on industrial chemicals and unintended by-products. Each group would address tasks "c" and "d", paying special attention to the circumstances of developing countries and countries with economies in transition. The results of these discussions would be combined by a writing team, comprising the meeting working groups' Chairs and Rapporteurs, meeting Co-chairs and Chair of the ad hoc Working Group, to produce a single report of the experts meeting. This draft report would be discussed and finalized in plenary on June 19 to produce a report for consideration by the ad hoc Working Group. The final report would be available in English, French and Spanish on June 20. The meeting agreed to this approach to the work.

16. Dr. Lerer then proposed the following experts who were willing to lead the discussions in the working groups: Group 1 (Pesticides) - I. Coleman (Chair, Australia) and J. Willis (Rapporteur, UNEP); Group 2 (Pesticides) - P. Corcoran (Chair, UK) and A. Ordas (Rapporteur, Philippines); Group 3 (Industrial/contaminants) - I. Fuller (Chair, USA) and N. Cromnier (Rapporteur, Sweden), Group 4 (Industrial/contaminants) - W. Scott (Chair, South Africa) and D. Stone (Rapporteur, UN ECE). This was accepted by the meeting and the plenary session was adjourned to allow the experts to join their respective working groups to pursue discussions.

17. In reviewing the results of the working group sessions in fulfilling tasks Ac@ and Ad@, the writing team observed that, while noting some common observations and conclusions, the information and conclusions are best presented separately for pesticides, industrial chemicals and unintentionally produced by-products.

18. The meeting concluded that, in the framework of overarching objectives and in the implementation of an international programme of action, separate consideration should be given to pesticides, industrial chemicals and unintentionally produced by-products and recommended that the Working Group take this into consideration in formulating its report and recommendations to the UNEP Governing Council.

19. The meeting also concluded that in implementing an international programme of action, flexibility is needed bearing in mind different regional conditions and circumstances. International, regional and sub-regional networking could play an important role in assisting developing countries to address the various issues of POPs.

20. The meeting recommended that more accurate information on the production and use of the pesticide POPs, especially those still in production, should be obtained to better understand the magnitude of the problem, to establish a baseline with which to measure future progress, and to ensure selected response measures are appropriate. The collection of data should not delay action on the initial list of POPs.

21. The meeting concluded that adequate information on sources and uses of POPs is essential to enable appropriate actions and responses to be undertaken that would lead to productive and meaningful environmental and health actions.

22. Some participants recommended that governments and/or intergovernmental agencies should take priority action to accurately determine all production facilities in the world which continue to produce POPs pesticides. Some participants suggested that measures should be taken to rapidly phase-out remaining production as alternatives are made available for the small number of remaining recognized uses.

23. The meeting concluded that it was reasonable to assume that, based on current information, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, and toxaphene were no longer produced and did not warrant efforts to gain more production and use information . Information on hexachlorobenzene and mirex was ambiguous, but they also appeared to be out of production as pesticides. DDT, chlordane, and heptachlor are still in production.

24. The value of the PIC procedure in providing information on the regulatory status of POPs pesticides banned or severely restricted for serious health and environment reasons was recognized. The meeting recommended that the UNEP/FAO PIC database continue to be regularly updated.

25. A number of participants recommended that better monitoring of imports and exports may be achieved via unique customs codes or similar unique identifiers or by national regulations for the imports and exports of POPs chemicals.

26. The meeting recommended that exporting countries should adher strictly to the FAO Code of Conduct on labelling. Illegal export of POPs should be categorically stopped.

27. The meeting concluded that labelling requirements would help countries without their own labelling legislation to identify active ingredients and help in gathering more accurate information on imports. Labelling can also communicate the hazards associated with the particular product. The FAO Guidelines on Labelling provide a suitable model for countries without labelling requirements, recognizing the activities on global harmonization of classification criteria being conducted by IOMC.

28. It was determined that the known ongoing uses of the pesticide POPs were as follows: heptachlor and chlordane are used for ant and termite control. Mirex is still used in small quantities for ant and termite control. It was noted that a product called AMirex S@, which does not contain mirex, was reported to have been used in some Latin American countries. DDT is used for disease vector control although it is also misused for other purposes.

29. While some delegates expressed the view that alternatives exist for all uses of DDT, the WHO and some other delegates maintain that DDT still has a role in indoor disease vector control (Ref: Chairman's Report, KEMI, Solna, May 20-22, 1996, para 10-13: IFCS/EXP.POPs.5, June 1996). Some participants suggested the development of a joint WHO/FAO programme for the promotion of research on viable alternatives to DDT for the control of malaria and other vector-borne diseases. This should include Integrated Pest Management ( IPM) approaches, biological controls and technology transfer.

30. It was considered unnecessary to characterize uses of out of production POPs.

31. It was determined that hazard assessment information on the initial list of pesticide POPs is sufficient, but the information, expertise, and resources necessary for risk assessments of POPs and alternatives is often not available in developing countries or countries with economies in transition.

32. The meeting observed that, where applicable, it would be best to shift to approaches that reduce reliance on chemical pesticides, consistent with the principles of Agenda 21. It was noted that many countries may not have sufficient financial and other resources to gain access to and develop alternative solutions. (Note: "alternatives" includes substitute products, alternative technologies and other approaches.) Assistance should be provided to developing countries that have embarked on research on viable alternatives.

33. The meeting concluded that there are alternatives for all of the pesticide POPs, although at present the applicability of these alternatives for some uses may be limited in some parts of the world or in some situations. The meeting recommended that the availability of information and expertise on alternatives to POPs should be improved through information exchange and education programmes, including: the further development of the UNEP information clearinghouse on POPs and alternatives, strengthened regional networks concerning POPs and alternatives, production of case studies on alternatives, and use of the global information network on chemicals (GINC) to enable governments to make their own decisions on replacing POPs with alternatives.

34. The meeting noted that there are information gaps concerning pesticides alternatives. Some of these gaps may include data in such areas as chemical impurities, costs (including life cycle costs where applicable), efficacy under the range of conditions encountered in different regions and climates, and exposure scenarios (where relevant) that may be encountered in different regions and climates, and in particular, in developing countries and countries with economies in transition. There are also information gaps on the adverse impacts of pesticides alternatives on endangered species and biodiversity.

35. The meeting recommended that guidance on the selection of replacements for POPs pesticides should be developed. The guidance should cover non-chemical as well as chemical alternatives and include advice on the factors to be considered in choosing alternatives and sources of information. Existing regional networks should be used to establish procedures for exchanging information and experiences in replacing POP chemicals and the risks involved in their use.

36. In establishing guidance, criteria should be developed to determine whether or not a proposed alternative product or method is appropriate for a particular locale. A proposed alternative should be considered inappropriate by national or regional authorities if conditions in the country or region make it unlikely that the alternative can be managed inways that avoid significant injury to workers, local communities or the local environment.

37. The meeting concluded that substantial efforts were required to establish relevant infrastructures in order to evaluate and move to alternatives. Such efforts would be assisted by regional co-operation and twinning arrangements between developed and developing countries. Regional co-operation and harmonization of regulations among countries at appropriately high levels of health and environmental protection would facilitate the evaluation of, and move to alternatives.

38. It was noted that the process of developing national profiles on chemical safety management, including national miniprofiles, is a useful step toward building country infrastructures, networking, and identifying priority issues.

39. The meeting concluded that participation of developing countries in responding to international action on POPs is essential. The appropriate international and regional mechanisms should be developed or better used in order to assist in meeting their needs, including:

40. The meeting concluded that there is not sufficient information to determine the exact quantities of existing stocks of the pesticide POPs. It was further noted that information on stocks of unwanted pesticide POPs was scant from several regions and that it would be useful to have better current and continuing information on the amounts of these stocks. FAO survey work and pilot disposal operations in Africa and the Near East can serve as a model which could be extended to other regions and types of chemical. For many developing countries, disposal of POPs cannot be separated from disposal of other types of obsolete and out-dated pesticides.

41. Available information suggested that the volume of stocks of unwanted POPs pesticides was very large and needed urgent attention. There are also severe constraints on the ability of many countries in implementing disposal measures. Consequently, technical assistance/capacity and funding to address the problem were of practical consideration. Manufacturers and exporting and importing countries should work together to solve the problem on a priority basis. (see also paras. 52 and 72).

42. The meeting noted the need for expedient development of criteria for new POPs taking into consideration the needs of developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Some delegates noted that this be developed within the process agreed to in Canberra while others would wish that such a process be amended to proceed more speedily. It was also noted that the United Kingdom has developed a discussion paper on the development of criteria which will be discussed in the Ad Hoc Working Group Meeting as a result of decisions taken at the Canberra ISG-2 Meeting.

43. There are limited sources of PCBs and HCB. No current manufacture of PCBs or HCB could be identified, but governments should confirm that there is no deliberate production of PCBs or HCB. Inadvertent production of PCBs or HCB as a byproduct does exist, but steps taken to reduce other inadvertent POP byproducts would be expected to apply also to these PCB and HCB releases.

44. The meeting concluded that there is a need to phase out, over time, PCBs on a global scale. In the meantime there is a need for managing remaining use, storage and disposal of PCBs.

45. The meeting recommended that national, regional or international action be taken in order to ensure environmentally sound handling and disposal of PCBs, which should include:

46. In this context, the expert meeting found that there is a need for information exchange in order to facilitate the identification process. It was recognized that several countries have identified PCB sources and made inventories of PCB sources within their respective countries. This knowledge could be useful in assisting other countries in identifying their PCB sources, and should be made available through the UNEP Clearinghouse on POPs.

47. The meeting recommended that a check list or simple guidelines for how to identify PCB-containing materials would be useful for countries who have not yet made such an identification, especially developing countries. It was noted that the setting up of such a check list or guidelines should not in any way hinder or delay the dissemination of information or ongoing national inventories.

48. In order to facilitate national inventories as well as setting priorities of actions for PCBs the group recognized the need for information exchange, e.g. through the UNEP Clearinghouse on POPs. The meeting also noted that it might be useful in the future to have a global inventory of PCBs as a means to monitor the decrease of global quantities of PCBs.

49. The meeting concluded that the major sources of waste PCBs originate from electrical equipment requiring dielectric fluids, with a number of lesser sources including hydraulic fluids and sealants. The substitutes for PCBs are well known and readily available.

50. High temperature destruction is the method most commonly used for destruction of PCBs. Other technologies exist and are in use in some countries.

51. The meeting recommended that all available destruction technologies should be investigated to determine the practicality and cost effectiveness of their use in developing countries.

52. The meeting concluded that it is clear that the regional availability of destruction facilities is a key component in the development of an acceptable strategy for dealing with PCBs. The suitability, in some cases, of regional strategies (such as that being developed for Canada, Mexico and the United States of America) was recognized. The meeting noted the risks involved with storage and transport and the inadequate infrastructure or capacity of disposal and storage facilities in developing countries. Some or all of these considerations justify a need for shipment of PCBs for disposal in other countries with plants of high technical and environmental standard and/or the use of proven portable destruction facilities. When considering shipment of waste the principle of proximity should be taken into account, as well as consideration of existing international instruments and their adequacy. There may also be considerable public concern regarding the treatment of other countries' waste at existing facilities, which must also be considered when discussing shipment of waste.

53. The meeting also noted the important issue of shipment of obsolete equipment containing PCBs from developed to developing countries, which needs further consideration.

54. The meeting recommended that an inventory be made of available destruction capacity for PCBs world-wide in order to get a better understanding of regional availability and the need, if any, for increasing the capacity in the coming years. There is a rapid advance in technology for destroying PCBs. This reinforces the need for countries to determine first the location of their sources of PCBs before deciding on destruction strategies and technologies. The potential for portable destruction facilities was identified as a way of reducing problems associated with transport of PCBs; some parties noted the potential need to ensure that movements of such equipment are in compliance with provisions of international instruments (e.g. Basle Convention, BAMAKO).

55. The meeting concluded that a key component in management of PCBs is capacity building and noted the supporting role of UNIDO and UNEP in this context. The group identified the following elements which should be included in building capacity in developing countries:

56. The meeting concluded that knowledge on the general characteristics of releases of dioxins/furans on a world-wide scale would be useful in negotiating and implementing a global agreement on POPs to focus realistic actions to reduce and/or eliminate releases of these substances and to evaluate the effectiveness in the future of those actions.

57. There is wide geographic diversity in the degree of knowledge concerning releases. Many developed countries such as Canada, the United States, Japan, and most in Western Europe have fairly comprehensive inventories with considerable resolution on the release of these substances between various potential source sectors. However, most developing countries have little or no information. The most developed international inventories are those produced in support of the POP actions specified in the Convention on the North East Atlantic Ocean and the Helsinki Convention for the Baltic, and being developed for the LRTAP Convention.

58. There is substantial variation in dioxin/furan emission profiles between different countries, both within developed and developing countries and between these two categories. In many developed countries the sources of unintentional byproducts as well as the magnitude of releases are reasonably well known. It is likely that initial estimates of sources and magnitude of releases in the developing countries could be extrapolated from the data bases of developed countries. In this respect, industrial processes as well as any incineration or thermal process involving the presence of chlorinated compounds should be considered as potential sources of dioxins/furans. There may however be some additional sources in developing countries because of varying national conditions such as dioxins as contaminants in DDT and different industrial waste management practices.

59. The meeting recommended that countries identify national sources of dioxin/furan releases, using as guidance the sources already identified by developed countries.

60. The major source is the aggregate of thermal processes which include combustion, metallurgical processes and PCB destruction. The full role of accidental fires, including building and forest/bush fires, to the global emission inventory has yet to be quantified. In some developed countries that have a significant incidence of forest/bush fires, inventory information is available to show that forest/bush fires are not insignificant sources.

61. Several appropriate ways to identify sources were identified. In many cases, the way the source is identified suggests the action to be taken. The following list gives a general outline of available measures, which may be implemented either separately or in combination:

62. Poorly controlled waste incineration and industrial sources are the major causes of dioxin releases in developed countries. In many such cases, process based controls may be the preferred method. Most developed countries utilize this approach for waste incineration. Good emission baseline data may be needed to make process controls effective.

63. In some cases, an alternative materials policy is most appropriate. For example, eliminating the use of halogenated additives from gasoline or inputs of PVC plastic materials to poorly controlled crematoria may be the best course of action to control dioxin/furan emissions from these sources. In such cases, the material itself may be considered the potential source, and the alternative to that material may be considered the alternative to the dioxin source.

64. Some studies suggest that there is very little relationship between inputs of anthropogenic halogenated materials to incinerators and dioxin/furan releases; however, other studies suggest the contrary. Further investigation of the practicality of a materials based approach to reducing dioxin/furan releases from incinerators is needed. There may also be important regional differences in determining an appropriate approach.

65. The meeting recommended that all the above approaches should be considered and may be used in combination, taking into account characteristics associated with the specific dioxin source as well as national or regional conditions. With respect to developing countries, the group identified a need for technology cooperation and capacity building.

66. The meeting concluded that there are no stocks of dioxins/furans, but there are materials which may contain dioxins/furans as micro-contaminants. Other chlorine containing compounds may be a potential source of release to the environment through their improper combustion and/or disposal. Soils and sediments in certain highly contaminated sites may also be significant.

67. There are no direct benefits associated with dioxins/furans. However, many materials which play a major role in modern society are associated with dioxin release during their manufacture under certain conditions (e.g. certain metallurgical processes) or during their improper destruction (e.g. certain chlorinated chemicals). The appropriate issues relative to global management are therefore:

68. A range of regulatory standards exist internationally to protect human health and the environment. This reflects the ongoing debate on the degree of risk from dioxin/furan exposure to humans relative to the cost-benefit decisions involved in risk management and risk reduction activities. Strategies for some specific actions require good information to quantify sources. The benefit of a well planned risk reduction programme has been demonstrated in the German experience presented which has been associated with corresponding significant reductions in the dioxin/furan concentration in mother's milk.

69. The meeting concluded that present generation best technology waste incineration facilities are very expensive to construct, sophisticated to operate and their widespread deployment in many developing countries is unlikely in the near future. Other options including transport to existing facilities, development of regional facilities and/or use of other disposal methodologies and/or materials policies should be explored.

70. Regional training and the provision of technical advice were identified as an effective tool to assist in the transfer of information. Financial considerations are likely to be raised when an international agreement is being developed.

71. The meeting recommended that cooperative programmes between developed and developing countries (particularly of a regional nature) on aspects of dioxin/furan management be undertaken within the framework of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) (e.g. the present Pollutant Release and Transfer Registry project).

72. The meeting concluded that a global plan of action may wish to encourage regional action plans for waste management in order to ensure maximum utilization of appropriate waste disposal infrastructure. If transboundary movement of material is involved, this approach may require consideration of existing instruments and their adequacy.

73. Effective remedial strategies relating to dioxins/furans are being formulated and implemented in many developed countries. These are based upon an understanding of the relative strengths and characteristics of potential sources. The transfer of information from the developed to the developing world of information relating to dioxin/furan sources should be encouraged and enhanced to assist in the development of their national management plans which must nevertheless accommodate the specific concerns of individual developing countries.

74. Release inventories that include dioxins/furans are not easily produced. Many developed countries and most developing countries do not possess the necessary analytical capability. Two approaches were proposed which are not mutually exclusive.

75. Because national and/or regional strategies to reduce and/or eliminate dioxin/furan releases will be dependant upon the unique release profiles of individual countries, the actions to be taken to reduce and/or eliminate releases will vary from country to country. The national and/or regional plans may require a characterization of the national release profile which should ideally be able to reflect current releases and make some projections into the future.

76. Global action on POPs (including dioxins/furans) will require a facility to promote information exchange and to provide advice. Components of this facility should be flexible and able to accommodate new information quickly. For example, dioxin destruction technology is making rapid advances which must be adequately accommodated in an information/advice facility.

77. The meeting concluded that a key component in environmentally sound management is capacity building and notes the supporting role of UNEP and UNIDO in this context. The meeting identified a number of elements which should be included in building capacity in developing countries as set out in paragraph 49.

78. The Co-chairs expressed their gratitude for the substantial efforts of the experts who contributed papers and reports for the meeting. Special recognition was given to the project led by Sweden relating to products and processes that may serve as alternatives for the specified POPs. The reports of the Swedish-led project were of great assistance in carrying out the work of the meeting and the meeting recommended that the attention of the Working Group and UNEP Governing Council be drawn to the potential usefulness of the reports in designing and implementing international action on the specified POPs.

79. On behalf of the participants, the Co-chairs thanked the Republic of the Philippines and Canada for hosting the Experts Meeting and expressed appreciation for the excellent support provided by the local organizers.