Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee
for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (INC/POPS)
Geneva , Switzerland , 17 – 21 June 2002

Opening Remarks
by Mr. Klaus Töpfer
Executive Director
United Nations Environment Programme

 

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

 

Mr Chairman, Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen

Let me start by congratulating you on your success in developing and adopting the Stockholm Convention.  This Convention is clearly one of the greatest environmental accomplishments of the past decade.  Persistent organic pollutants pose exactly the kind of problem that international treaties were designed to tackle. Because POPs move across borders, travel vast distances from where they were released, and remain in the environment for many years, collaboration amongst the world’s governments is the only way to cope with these dangerous chemicals.  The Stockholm Convention – widely praised by governments and business and environmental interests alike – is our pathway to a POPs-free future, a vision that all of us here embrace with great enthusiasm.

I am delighted that your efforts and enthusiasm have continued beyond the Stockholm Conference of Plenipotentiaries.  The number of governments that have taken concrete actions to implement the Convention’s provisions is an impressive indicator of your commitment. Some fifty countries have already started developing their National Implementation Plans, well in advance of their legal obligation to do so. I welcome too the steps taken by the Global Environment Facility to support these initiatives. Even though the provisions of the Convention have not entered into force, the GEF has accepted the spirit of the Convention and has begun funding the development of the Implementation Plans. It has gone further, as well. The GEF Council has responded to the Conference of Plenipotentiaries and recommended to the GEF Assembly the opening of a Focal Area for POPs. This action undoubtedly has the potential to place the funding of the priorities identified by the INC and ultimately the COP on a firm and predictable basis.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us remind ourselves that the Stockholm Convention is not just about ridding the world of a certain class of toxic chemicals.  It is also about promoting sustainable development.  Stockholm should be seen and recognized as being a major element of the sustainable development agenda launched by the 1992 Earth Summit and soon to be reviewed by the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. I would go further and state that the Stockholm Convention – together with its sisters the Basel Convention and the Rotterdam Convention – provides an excellent model for international environmental governance and for collaboration amongst multilateral environmental agreements. Stockholm represents the kind of global partnership that we must nurture and strengthen if we are to address successfully the environmental problems of the early 21st century.  In this vein permit me to draw your attention to the INF document for this meeting that UNEP has prepared in the context of the ongoing discussions on global environmental governance and which describes the concept of a wastes and chemicals conventions cluster.

This week’s INC marks a transition in the Convention’s implementation.  The INC needs to maintain the momentum of the past year, recognizing that this will require providing governments with some essential tools in the form of guidance. Establishing a process for developing this guidance must be one of your highest priorities, together with providing guidance to the Secretariat for its work during the interim period. Here in Geneva you will also be putting into place the preparatory process for ensuring a highly productive first COP.  Your agenda is full and you have much to accomplish.  Key items include: Launching work aimed at minimizing and ultimately eliminating releases of dioxins and furans, including the development of guidelines on best available techniques and best environmental practices; Developing a review procedure for entries in the register of specific exemptions for uses of chemicals slated for elimination or restriction; Evaluating the continued need for DDT in disease-vector control; Making arrangements for providing monitoring and other comparable data to be used by the COP in evaluating the effectiveness of the Convention; Considering interim action on the possible establishment of a Capacity Assistance Network that could serve as a complementary mechanism to the Global Environment Facility in providing technical and financial assistance to countries, particularly the smaller countries; Developing the terms of reference for the POPs Review Committee that will consider proposals for the addition of new chemicals to the Convention; and
Making arrangements to ensure that developing countries and countries with economies in transition receive the technical and financial assistance they need to effectively implement the Convention.

These actions I have just listed will take the form of recommendations for adoption by COP 1.  In addition of course there are many operational matters to resolve. You may also wish to consider the need to provide guidance related to developing national implementation plans, since GEF funding to develop these plans has already been approved for many countries.  

At this point I must introduce a cautionary note. Recognising the global threat from POPs and negotiating a treaty were major accomplishments. Enthusiasm to get started with implementation is commendable.  But implementation, all of it, will require funding. A special urgency must be given to the question of how to finance the operation of the Convention and its Secretariat during the interim period.  I thank all those who  have contributed to the UNEP trust fund, to the POPs Club, and to some of the individual meetings.  Unfortunately, the contributions did not meet the demand and  the finances of the Convention and its Secretariat are now truly in a state of crisis.  I do not use the word crisis lightly. We in UNEP are deeply concerned that – after the remarkable momentum achieved over the past several years leading up to the Convention’s adoption last May in Stockholm – we now face the unthinkable possibility that this process is about to come to an abrupt halt.  This would be a great tragedy and we must not allow it to happen.

Let me start with the big numbers. Your projected deficit for 2002 is two million two hundred and ninety six dollars.  Two million two hundred and ninety six dollars.  This is based on 2002 operating expenses of two million three hundred and eighty one thousand dollars, your debt of eight hundred and eighteen thousand dollars to UNEP’s Environment Fund Reserve, and pledges and receipts through April 19 of nine hundred and three thousand dollars.  In 2001 the UNEP Governing Council make it clear that the POPs Secretariat would need to be fully self-supporting. The Environment Fund has permitted you some additional financial flexibility in the past, but this can no longer continue. Much of the problem stems from the facts that the negotiation of the Convention cost more than the sum total of your contributions and that, in some cases, meetings cost more than the funding provided by host Governments, requiring the Secretariat to cover unanticipated costs.  I regret to inform you that, unless you repay a significant portion to the fund reserve, it will not be possible for the Secretariat to undertake any new initiatives on POPs. This would have consequences for INC 7 and COP 1 and for all other Secretariat services after the end of this year.  I cannot stress too much the urgency of your taking action now on the budget crisis facing the Stockholm Convention.

To conclude on a happier note, I am pleased to observe that during the year since the Stockholm Diplomatic Conference, the Convention has received 151 signatures. Eleven governments have also ratified, and I take this opportunity to welcome them as Parties to the Stockholm Convention. To other governments, especially the signatories that are preparing for this important step, I wish to say:  You created this Convention on a tight and ambitious schedule, and I urge you to maintain this momentum during the ratification process.  We are on track for entry into force in 2003 if the current momentum can be maintained. As for UNEP, we remain fully committed to providing you with programme and service support – over and beyond the contributions of your secretariat – on such issues as capacity building, national reporting, and so forth. We welcome your guidance and would be pleased to present a regular report to meetings of the INC with a view to stimulating dialogue on how UNEP can best support the Stockholm Convention during the critical years to come.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you for all your efforts, and I wish you every success at INC 6.