Vienna, 14-18 June 1999

REPORT OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE CRITERIA EXPERT GROUP
FOR PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

Introduction

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

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

3. The first session of the Criteria Expert Group was held at the headquarters of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), in Bangkok, from 26 to 30 October 1998, at the invitation of the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand, and the second session at the Vienna International Centre, from 14 to 18 June 1999, with financial assistance from the Government of Austria and the Government of Germany.

I. OPENING OF THE SESSION

A. Opening statements

4. The session was opened at 10.20 a.m. on Monday, 14 June 1999, by Ms. Fatoumata Jallow Ndoye (Gambia), Co-Chair of the Criteria Expert Group, who thanked the Government of Austria and the Government of Germany for jointly providing full financial assistance for the session.

5. At the opening meeting of the session, statements were made by Mr. Heinz Schreiber, Director General of the Ministry of Environment, Youth and Family Affairs of Austria, Mr. James Willis, Director, UNEP Chemicals, and Ms. Jallow Ndoye.

6. Mr. Schreiber, speaking on behalf of Mr. Bartenstein, Minister of the Environment, Youth and Family Affairs of Austria, commended UNEP on its continued work in the field of POPs management and thanked Conference Services of the United Nations Office at Vienna for its assistance in the preparation and conduct of the session. He noted that, in Austria, awareness of chemicals had grown over the previous decade, in particular with regard to pesticides and their residues in food. The high persistence of certain pesticides was a reason for their not being permitted in Austria. Accordingly, nearly all POPS pesticides were banned in the country. He mentioned the principal characteristics and disruptive properties of POPs and noted that a joint global effort was needed to tackle the problem. In conclusion, he said that some criteria had already been formulated by the Criteria Expert Group at its first session and he wished participants a successful week in establishing further appropriate criteria and measures for their application.

7. Mr. Willis, speaking on behalf of Mr. Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director of UNEP, thanked the Governments of Austria and Germany for the financial resources provided to host the current session and welcomed the broad regional representation at the session. He reaffirmed the aim of UNEP to conclude negotiations by the year 2000, leading to a diplomatic conference in early 2001, and thanked the Government of Sweden for offering to host that conference. He explained that the negotiating process was threefold, with the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee addressing the 12 already identified POPs, the Criteria Expert Group determining the process for adding new chemicals and the Implementation Aspects Group establishing implementation procedures. A crucial part of the negotiation process was the establishment of criteria and procedures to add new chemicals and, at its current session, the Criteria Expert Group should concentrate on determining those criteria and procedures and leave the items that could not be completely resolved to the negotiations of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. In conclusion, he said that threats of POPs were being reported with increasing frequency and that a successful negotiation process was crucial for sustainable development and a safer planet.

8. Ms. Jallow Ndoye welcomed the participants and noted that bioaccumulation, toxicity and long-range transport were among the most relevant factors of POPs. Recommendations from the Criteria Expert Group at its second session would be forwarded to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee at its third session. She noted some salient points that had emerged from the Criteria Expert Group's first session, such as the technical and financial assistance needed by countries for information gathering, the accountability and transparency of the process and the inclusion of indigenous knowledge. She also noted that cut-off values and definitions still needed to be finalized. In conclusion, she wished the participants every success in their deliberations.

B. Attendance

9. The session was attended by government experts from the following countries: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comores, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay.

10. The following United Nations bodies and specialized agencies were represented by observers: United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), World Health Organization (WHO)/International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

11. The following intergovernmental organizations were represented by observers: Commonwealth Secretariat, European Commission, Organization of the Islamic Conference.

12. The following non-governmental organizations were represented by observers: Chemical Manufacturers Association, European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC), Global Crop Protection Federation (GCPF), Greenpeace International, Indian Chemical Manufacturers Association, International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL), World Chlorine Council (WCC), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

II. ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS

A. Bureau

13. The elected members of the Bureau continued in office:

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

Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany);

Rapporteur: Mr. Jarupong Boon-Long (Thailand).

B. Adoption of the agenda

14. The Criteria Expert Group adopted the following agenda for the session, as contained in document UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/2/1:

1. Opening of the session

2. Organizational matters:

(a) Adoption of the agenda;

(b) Organization of work.

3. Development of science-based criteria and a procedure for identifying additional persistent organic pollutants as candidates for future international action.

4. Other matters.

5. Adoption of the report.

6. Closure of the session.

III. DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE-BASED CRITERIA AND A PROCEDURE FOR

IDENTIFYING ADDITIONAL PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

AS CANDIDATES FOR FUTURE INTERNATIONAL ACTION

15. The representative of the secretariat introduced the draft proposal on procedures for identifying POPs for future international action (UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/2/2) and outlined the changes made to annexes I and II of the report of the first session of the Criteria Expert Group (UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/1/3) in preparing the document under consideration. He noted that the secretariat had endeavoured to retain a simple process with a straightforward organizational structure. The Criteria Expert Group commended the secretariat on the preparation of the document and agreed to use it as the basis for its discussions.

16. Speaking at the opening meeting of the session, Mr. Reiner Arndt, Co-Chair of the Criteria Expert Group, outlined the tasks and the general work plan in front of the session and noted two questions raised at the previous session, on the possible inclusion of tributyl tin in a future POPs convention and the availability of test data, that remained outstanding. He noted that the report of the Criteria Expert Group had been welcomed by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee at its second session.

17. Concerning the unresolved issue of the possible inclusion of tributyl tin in the scope of the future POPs convention, it had been suggested that further information should be sought through the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee from the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Accordingly, at the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, IMO had reported that a global instrument being developed by the Marine Environment Protection Committee would ensure, if adopted, a global prohibition on the application of organo-tin compounds which acted as biocides in anti-fouling systems on ships by 1 January 2003 and a complete prohibition on the presence of organo-tin compounds which acted as biocides in anti-fouling systems on ships by 1 January 2008.

18. At the first session of the Criteria Expert Group, several experts had expressed interest in determining the availability of test data relevant to POPs criteria, starting with high production volume chemicals and pesticides. The expert from the United States of America had volunteered to take the lead in that activity. Experts from Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, India, Japan, Norway, South Africa and Sweden and observers from the European Commission and the International Council of Chemicals Associations (ICCA) had indicated their interest in the activity. Accordingly, the expert from the United States of America submitted a report to the Criteria Expert Group, summarizing findings on the issue.

19. In the ensuing discussion, one expert said that there were limited data from pesticide studies, especially with reference to monitoring. Several experts noted that many studies were based on tests undertaken in temperate regions that did not take into account higher temperatures and humidity values and would not be applicable in tropical zones. One expert, however, said that, even for data for temperate regions, values often had to be extrapolated as the data were not always harmonized.

20. One expert considered that the Criteria Expert Group should, pursuant to its original mandate from the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, concentrate on the development of procedures to identify POPs, as well as the annexes D, E and F. He believed that political negotiation was the responsibility of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee and, accordingly, that the remainder of the procedures should be considered by that Committee.

21. A number of experts reported additional information on pertinent national or other activities that had taken place since the previous session of the Criteria Expert Group.

A. Articles F and O

22. Following a brief general discussion, the Criteria Expert Group decided to set up a contact group, under the chairmanship of Mr. David Egilson (Iceland), to consider issues raised under Article F, on the listing of chemicals in Annexes A, B and C, and relevant aspects of Article O, on the Conference of the Parties, and to report back to the Criteria Expert Group during the current session.

23. In its deliberations on the conceptual framework for the procedure, the contact group considered the following three options:

(a) That there should be one subsidiary body dealing with risk profile and risk management, ensuring a simple and continuous process but with the possible disadvantage that there would often be different people dealing with scientific assessment and the political aspects of management measures;

(b) That there should be one or two subsidiary bodies undertaking risk profile and risk management evaluations consecutively without formal approval of the Conference of the Parties in between, providing, as in option (a), for a continuous, albeit slightly more complex, process, to ensure a proper separation between science and politics, but with the possible disadvantage of a lack of political guidance;

(c) That there should be two subsidiary bodies, with formal approval of the Conference of the Parties in between, providing for a transparent and open process, where political guidance was available when necessary, but resulting in a possibly cumbersome process, especially if meetings of the Conference of the Parties were held less frequently than once per year.

24. On the basis of those discussions, it was agreed to proceed with an elaboration of option (b). The elaboration of a procedure for option (b) is presented in the format of a possible Article F, which is contained in section A of the annex to the present report and forwarded for consideration by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. Some experts were of the opinion that the procedure should be included in the legal text, owing to the nature of the instrument and the need for transparency, while others believed that that level of detail might be more appropriate in an annex or decision of the Conference of the Parties.

25. In addition, experts identified outstanding issues that might be appropriately addressed by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. Those included:

(a) The possible need for the work referred to in paragraph 2 of the draft to be conducted in more than one subsidiary body, or for the Committee to form ad hoc or standing working groups to carry out different functions;

(b) Also with reference to paragraph 2 of the draft, the need for further discussion of the manner in which the summary of the proposal was to be made available to observers. The Criteria Expert Group agreed that the issue might be best addressed under Article O;

(c) The need for further discussion of the issue of time-frames. In that context, the Criteria Expert Group was of the view that time-frames were probably best set by the Conference of the Parties in the context of implementation;

(d) The view of some experts, relating to paragraph 4 of the draft, that the term "flexible" as used in that paragraph meant that a proposal might be considered to have satisfied the criteria if one of the criteria was marginally not met but two or more other criteria were amply met;

(e) The view that the information referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the draft should be more generally available and that information-related issues of that kind should be considered one of the functions of the secretariat;

(f) The recognition that the subsidiary body or bodies would need to develop specific procedures with regard to the development of the risk profile, as well as the risk management evaluation, such as through a subgroup, lead country mechanism, consultant's services, etc.; and

(g) The view that paragraphs 11 and 12 of the draft were related to the issue of amendments and were best taken up by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

26. To facilitate an informed discussion in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the issue of procedures, the Criteria Expert Group requested the secretariat to prepare, for the Committee at its third session, an information document on the likely time-frames and financial implications of the proposed procedure.

27. In its consideration of Article O, the Criteria Expert Group made no recommendations regarding language. In the absence of agreed text, the relevant paragraphs of Article O are attached to the present document in section B of annex I, as worded in the note by the secretariat transmitting the draft proposal on procedures for identifying additional POPs as candidates for future international action (UNEP/POP/INC/CEG/2/2). The Criteria Expert Group agreed, however, that the following considerations should guide the development of any language in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee:

(a) In view of the quantity and diverse nature of the work to be undertaken by the Conference of Parties, it was felt that there would be a need to establish a subsidiary body or bodies;

(b) The subsidiary body or bodies should be of a manageable size;

(c) Membership of the body or bodies should comprise Parties;

(d) Deliberations of the body or bodies should be open to observers under the United Nations system.

28. The Criteria Expert Group noted that the subsidiary body or bodies might establish further ad hoc or standing subgroups as necessary to address specific issues, such as risk assessment and management issues for specific types of substance. It was felt that the composition of such body or bodies should give due regard to equitable geographical distribution and to the professional and technical capability of the members.

B. Annex D, Annex E, Annex F and definitions

29. Following a general discussion, a contact group was set up, co-chaired by Mr. Andrew Gilman (Canada) and Ms. Ines Toro Suarez (Colombia), to discuss issues related to Annexes D, E and F, as well as definitions. With regard to definitions, the Criteria Expert Group agreed that, with the exception of that on "risk profile", the definitions were not intended as an input to the article in the future convention on the use of terms but were working definitions intended to assist deliberations in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

30. With regard to Annex D, several experts suggested that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee could examine the possibility of including socio-economic factors as a reason for concern in assessing the impact of a substance. Others were of the view that the consideration of socio-economic factors should not be part of risk assessment, but of risk management. The Criteria Expert Group took note that, although the notion of not requesting exhaustive data was no longer reflected in the text of Annex D, it was still a valid concern of all experts and the current formulation should not be interpreted as a new requirement for exhaustive data.

31. With regard to the provisions on persistence, there was no agreement as to whether the half-life of the substance in water should be greater than two months or six months; similarly, with regard to bioaccumulation, views differed on whether the log Kow value should be greater than 4 or 5. Reasons for both options were discussed and it was agreed that the matter should be resolved by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

32. The Criteria Expert Group reaffirmed that, when bio-accumulation potential was based on the log Kow, the effects of molecular dimensions, molecular weight, metabolic potential and solubility needed to be considered.

33. One expert had a reservation concerning subparagraph 1 (d) of Annex D, pending the outcome of the discussion of the definition of long-range environmental transport.

34. In addition, it was pointed out by the secretariat that the text of Annex D as currently worded meant that information was required on all criteria, even though there were no "ands" linking subparagraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), as in annex I to the report of the Criteria Expert Group on its first session (UNEP/POPS,INC/CEG/1/3).

35. In the discussion of Annex E, the Criteria Expert Group noted that the text in the chapeau to paragraph 1 provided explanatory information and that the actual placement of the text within the future convention was a matter for further discussion. The first sentence of the text was designed to be consistent with the definition of "risk profile" to be placed in the article of the future convention on the use of terms.

36. Some experts stressed that the risk profile should be focused on the scientific information necessary for evaluating the substance within the context of the Convention. The Criteria Expert Group recommended that the secretariat should consolidate the technical information and guidance of the Criteria Expert Group and make it available to the subsidiary body or bodies.

37. With reference to the definition of a risk profile, several experts requested further clarification of the meaning of the word "significant" in that context. The Criteria Expert Group agreed that "release information", as provided for in subparagraph 1 (a), should include all types of releases, including, inter alia, during transport, storage, handling and disposal.

38. On a more general point, the Criteria Expert Group stressed the importance of the precautionary approach and recommended that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee incorporate that approach in an appropriate place in the future convention. Some experts were of the view that, in that context, specific reference should be made to the precautionary approach as set out in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration. Others noted that such a reference was often placed in the preambular part of global conventions.

39. In addition, the contact group was entrusted with consideration of the issues of test methodology and data generation; data quality and validity; and environmental fate. Following that consideration, the Criteria Expert Group recommended that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee might wish to consider referring the need for the development and improvement of relevant test methods to organizations such as the International Standards Organization (ISO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and recommending that those organizations undertook efforts to ensure that such needs concerning new and improved test methods were better met.

40. The Criteria Expert Group noted that monitoring data should be viewed as a broad term, covering but not restricted to areas such as environmental media, food and biota.

41. The Criteria Expert Group also recommended that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee might wish to consider developing and enunciating a provision, in accordance with its principles and objectives, which would seek to identify and develop approaches within the Convention whereby the Parties would encourage manufacturers of the substance under review, as well as other appropriate bodies, to generate test data required to meet the needs of the Convention. Those should be generated under standardized conditions using widely accepted test methods and laboratory practices.

42. The Criteria Expert Group also found that, in many areas, research needs remained to be addressed.

43. With regard to data quality and validity, the Criteria Expert Group recognized that data might have been generated under a wide variety of test methods and conditions. It agreed that all available data should be considered, and scientific judgement should be used by putting more emphasis on those results generated under standardized conditions using widely accepted test methods and laboratory practices.

44. Results obtained under non-standardized test conditions or without recognized test methods might also be considered, as they might be more appropriate to the issues of concern. In the risk profile, however, the review of such studies might need to be more rigorous, particularly if the findings differed greatly from the bulk of the data from other studies.

45. With regard to environmental fate, the Criteria Expert Group agreed, in the light of the discussion both in the plenary and in the contact group, that there were many environmental fate properties and data which were relevant for assessing long-range environmental transport. Those properties and data, many of which were relevant to several of those areas, could be grouped into those relevant for transport (vapour pressure, Henry's Law constant; water solubility; studies relevant to local, regional, or global environmental transport; particle dispersion; density; etc.), transfer (log Kow, other partition coefficients, water solubility, molecular weight, molecular size, bio-concentration factor (BCF), bio-accumulation factor (BAF), etc.), and transformations (molecular structure, half-lives in various environmental media, and many of the properties and data noted above). In addition, the experts agreed that, in subparagraph 1 (c) of Annex E, the term "measured values" referred to measured values of BCF or BAF.

46. The draft of Annex E, as submitted by the Criteria Expert Group for consideration by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, is contained in section D of annex I to the present report.

47. The Criteria Expert Group briefly considered the issue of information on socio-economic considerations and agreed to forward the draft of Annex F, as contained in section E of annex I to the present report, to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, for its consideration.

48. With regard to the definitions, the Criteria Expert Group established a small contact group, under the chairmanship of Mr. Charles Auer (United States of America). Those definitions are contained in section F of annex I to the present report.

49. In addition, the Criteria Expert Group agreed that no attempt should be made to define the term "substance". It was agreed that "substance", in the context of Annex D, encompassed groups of related substances or classes of compounds. It was also agreed that organo-metallic chemicals were organic chemicals and therefore fell within the scope of the future convention. Several experts noted that terms which had standard scientific definitions should not be re-defined.

50. It was also agreed that the assessment process undertaken by any subsidiary body or bodies under the future convention should include the consideration of transformation products of that substance that possessed POPs characteristics as defined in the future convention. In that regard, Parties should be able to nominate organic substances that were not in themselves POPs, but whose transformation products satisfied the criteria established under the future convention.

51. Pursuant to its mandate, which made reference to exposure in different regions and the potential for regional and global transport, the Criteria Expert Group discussed the term "long-range environmental transport". Three proposals towards such a definition had been made expressing the divergence of views, as follows:

(a) Environmental transport of a substance on at least a regional scale occurring in different regions of the world;

(b) Environmental transport of a substance globally or transregionally and at a distance where regional action was not sufficient alone to address the problem;

(c) Environmental transport of a substance on a global or transregional scale such that global action was warranted.

52. Some experts suggested that the term "region" also needed to be more clearly defined. Several experts were of the view that even regional transport, if on a sufficient scale, could be considered to fall within the scope of the future convention, while another expert was of the view that the definition was already adequately covered under subparagraph (d) of Annex D. Following that discussion, the Criteria Expert Group decided that further consideration of the issue should be left to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

53. In addition, the Criteria Expert Group agreed to a broad interpretation of the terms "toxicity" and "ecotoxicity" for use within the future Convention. Those terms were intended to cover a broad scope of adverse end-points as might be determined in a variety of controlled in vivo and in vitro laboratory studies, field studies of biota, and epidemiology studies. Furthermore, effects observed or reported could be associated with a variety of single, multiple, intermittent or continuous exposures, could be immediate or delayed, or could be short-term or chronic in their duration.

IV. OTHER MATTERS

54. There were no other matters.

V. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT

55. The present report was adopted at the final plenary meeting of the session, on Friday, 18 June 1999, on the basis of the draft report that had been circulated under the symbols UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/L.1, L.1/Add.1 and L.1/Add.2, and on the understanding that finalization of the report would be entrusted to the Rapporteur.

VI. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

56. At its closing meeting, on Friday, 18 June 1999, the Criteria Expert Group noted that, in preparing its submission for consideration by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee at its forthcoming session, it had discharged the mandate conferred upon it and had therefore concluded its work.

57. Following the customary exchange of courtesies, the Co-Chair declared the session closed at 4.30 p.m. on Friday, 18 June 1999.

Annex I

DRAFT SCIENCE-BASED CRITERIA AND A PROCEDURE FOR IDENTIFYING

ADDITIONAL PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS AS CANDIDATES

FOR FUTURE INTERNATIONAL ACTION

A. Article F. Listing of substances in Annexes A, B or C

1. Any Party may submit a proposal to the Secretariat for listing a substance in one or more of the Annexes A, B or C of the present Convention. The proposal shall contain the information required by Annex D. In submitting a proposal, a Party may be assisted by other Parties and/or by the Secretariat.

2. The Secretariat shall, as soon as possible and in any event no later than [six months] after receipt of a proposal under paragraph 1 of the present Article, verify whether the proposal contains the information required by Annex D. If the proposal does not contain the information required by Annex D, the Secretariat shall inform the proposing Party or Parties accordingly.

3. When the information requirements in Annex D have been verified with regard to a particular proposed substance, the Secretariat shall forward the proposal to the Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee and a summary of the proposal to all Parties and observers.

4. The Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee shall examine the information provided in the proposal, applying the screening criteria described in Annex D in a flexible, transparent and integrative manner. If the screening criteria are fulfilled the Committee shall proceed to a technical review of the proposal. If the screening criteria are not fulfilled, the Secretariat shall inform all Parties and observers accordingly, and the proposal shall be set aside.

5. Following the examination referred to in paragraph 4 and prior to the technical review of the proposal, the Secretariat shall circulate a copy of the proposal to the Parties and observers, and shall request input from all Parties and observers relating to information set out in Annex E.

6. The Secretariat shall collect the requested information set out in paragraph 5 and forward it to the Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee.

7. The Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee shall perform a review of the proposal, taking into account the additional information provided in paragraph 6, and prepare a risk profile in accordance with Annex E. The Secretariat shall forward the report to all Parties and observers and shall collect technical comments for a [specified period] [period not exceeding [x] months]. The Committee shall take these comments into account in completing the risk profile.

8. If, on the basis of the risk profile, the Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee agrees that the proposal should proceed, it shall request input from all Parties and observers relating to the information set out in Annex F for a [specified period] [period not exceeding [x] months]. If the Committee agrees that the proposal should not proceed, the Secretariat shall inform all Parties and observers accordingly, and the proposal shall be set aside.

9. For those proposals that proceed, the Committee shall prepare a risk management evaluation, including an analysis of possible control measures for the substance, taking into account socio-economic considerations in accordance with Annex F.

10. Based on the risk profile referred to in paragraph 7, and the risk management evaluation referred to in paragraph 9, the Committee shall prepare a recommendation as to whether the substance should be considered by the Conference of the Parties for listing under the Convention. The recommendation shall be in the form of a report to the Conference of the Parties containing the risk profile and the risk-management evaluation, including an analysis of possible control measures. When the report is available, it shall be communicated to all Parties.

11. The Conference of the Parties shall decide whether the proposed persistent organic pollutant should be listed under the Convention and approve appropriate control measures to accompany the listing of the substance in one or more of those annexes.

12. When a decision to list a chemical in one or more of the Annexes A, B or C has been taken and the appropriate control measures have been approved by the Conference of the Parties, the Secretariat shall forthwith communicate this information to all Parties.

13. The Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee shall be responsible to the Conference of the Parties for the prioritization and timely execution of its functions under this Article, and shall report to the Conference of the Parties at all its regular sessions.

B. Article O. Conference of the Parties

(...)

The Conference of the Parties shall, at its first meeting, establish a subsidiary body, to be called the Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee, for the purposes of performing the functions assigned to that Committee by this Convention. In this regard:

(a) The members of the Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee shall be appointed by the Conference of the Parties. Membership of the Committee shall consist of a limited number of government-designated experts in chemical assessment or management. The members of the Committee shall be appointed on the basis of equitable geographical distribution, ensuring a balance between developed and developing Parties;

(b) The Conference of the Parties shall decide on the terms of reference, organization and operation of the Committee;

(c) The Committee shall make every effort to make its recommendations by consensus. If all efforts at consensus have been exhausted, and no consensus reached, such recommendation shall as a last resort be adopted by a two-thirds majority vote of the members present and voting.

(...)

C. Annex D

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA FOR THE PROPOSAL AND SCREENING

OF PROPOSED PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

1. The Party or Parties submitting a proposal for listing substances in one or more of the Annexes A, B or C shall identify the substance (see subparagraph (a) below) and provide the information relating to the criteria under subparagraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) below:

(a) Substance identity, including name (trade name(s), commercial name(s) and synonyms, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) name, as appropriate) and structure, including specification of isomers, where applicable (or the structure of the chemical class);

(b) Persistence:

(i) Evidence that the substance's half-life in water is greater than [two months] [six months], or that its half-life in soils is greater than six months, or that its half-life in sediments is greater than six months; or

(ii) Evidence that the substance is otherwise sufficiently persistent to be of concern within the scope of the Convention;

(c) Bio-accumulation:

(i) Evidence that the bio-concentration factor (BCF) or bio-accumulation factor (BAF) in aquatic species for the substance is greater than 5,000 or in the absence of BCF and BAF data, that the log Kow is greater than [4] [5]; or

(ii) Evidence that a substance presents other reasons for concern, such as high bio-accumulation in other species or high toxicity or ecotoxicity; or

(iii) Monitoring data in biota indicating that the bio-accumulation potential of the substance is sufficient to be of concern within the scope of the Convention;

(d) Potential for long-range environmental transport:

(i) Measured levels of potential concern in locations distant from the sources of release of the substance; or

(ii) Monitoring data showing that long-range environmental transport of the substance, with the potential for transfer to a receiving environment, may have occurred via air or water or migratory species; or

(iii) Environmental fate properties and/or model results that demonstrate that the substance has a potential for long-range environmental transport through air or water or migratory species, with the potential for transfer to a receiving environment in locations distant from the sources of release of the substance. For substances that migrate significantly through the air, the air half-life should be greater than two days;

(e) [Reasons for concern] [Adverse effects]: Evidence that toxicity or ecotoxicity data indicate the potential for damage to human health or to the environment. This evidence [needs to] [should][, where possible,] include comparison of toxicity or ecotoxicity data with the detected or predicted levels of a substance resulting or anticipated from long-range environmental transport.

2. The proposing Party or Parties shall, to the extent possible and taking into account its or their capabilities, provide additional information to support the review of the proposal. In developing a proposal, a Party or Parties may draw on technical expertise from any source.

D. Annex E

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RISK PROFILE

1. The purpose of the review is to evaluate whether the substance, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, is likely to lead to significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects, such that global action is warranted. For this purpose, a risk profile will be developed which further elaborates on, and evaluates, the information referred to in Annex D and includes, inter alia, the following types of information:

(a) Sources, including, as appropriate, production data, including quantity and location; uses; and release information such as discharges, losses and emissions;

(b) Hazard assessment for endpoint(s) of concern. The assessment should include a consideration of toxicological interactions involving multiple substances;

(c) Environmental fate, including data and information on the chemical and physical properties and persistence of a substance and how they are linked to its environmental transport, transfer within and between environmental compartments, degradation and transformation to other substances. A determination of BCF or BAF, based on measured values, must be available except when monitoring data are judged to meet this need;

(d) Monitoring data;

(e) Information regarding exposure, both in local areas and particularly as a result of long-range environmental transport, and including information regarding bio-availability;

(f) National, regional and international risk evaluations, assessments or profiles and labelling information and hazard classifications, as available; status of the substance under international conventions.

E. Annex F

INFORMATION ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

An evaluation should be undertaken regarding control measures, encompassing the full range of options, including management and elimination, for substances under consideration for inclusion in the Convention. For this purpose, relevant information should be provided relating to socio-economic considerations associated with control measures to enable a decision to be taken by the Conference of the Parties. Such information should reflect due regard for differing capabilities and conditions among Parties and should include consideration of the following indicative list of items:

(a) Efficacy and efficiency of control measures in meeting risk reduction goals:

(i) Technical feasibility;

(ii) Cost;

(b) Alternatives (products and processes):

(i) Cost;

(ii) Efficacy;

(iii) Risk;

(iv) Availability;

(v) Technical feasibility;

(vi) Accessibility;

(c) Positive or negative impacts, or both, on society of implementing control measures:

(i) Health (inter alia, public, environmental and occupational health);

(ii) Agriculture (inter alia, aquaculture and forestry);

(iii) Biota (biodiversity);

(iv) Economic aspects;

(v) Movement towards sustainable development;

(vi) Social costs;

(d) Waste and disposal implications (in particular, obsolete stocks of pesticides and clean-up of contaminated sites):

(i) Technical feasibility;

(ii) Cost;

(e) Information access and public education;

(f) Status of control and monitoring capacity;

(g) Any national or regional control actions taken, including information on alternatives and other relevant risk management information.

F. Definitions

Annex II

DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE CRITERIA EXPERT GROUP AT ITS SECOND SESSION

UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/2/1 Provisional agenda

UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/2/1/Add.1 Provisional programme of work

UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/2/2 Draft proposal on procedures for identifying persistent organic pollutants for future international action: Note by the secretariat

UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/2/INF/1 Terms of reference of the Criteria Expert Group and decisions of relevance to the Group adopted by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee at its first and second sessions: Note by the secretariat

UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/2/INF/2 Flow chart illustrating the draft proposal on procedures for identifying persistent organic pollutants

UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/2/INF/3 Comments submitted by Governments on the report of the Criteria Expert Group on the work of its first session: European Union and Norway

UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/2/INF/3/Add.1 Comments submitted by Governments on the report of the Criteria Expert Group on the work of its first session: Australia

UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/2/INF/3/Add.2 Comments submitted by Governments on the report of the Criteria Expert Group on the work of its first session: Ecuador

UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/2/INF/4 List of participants

UNEP/POPS/INC/CEG/1/3 Report of the first session of the Criteria Expert Group

-----