Good morning, Mr. Roch, Dr. Buccini, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to open the Third Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a treaty on persistent organic pollutants.

More than 400 participants have gathered for this INC. You come from 110 countries, 10 intergovernmental organizations, and more than 70 non-governmental organizations. This high degree of participation shows the serious and growing concern about the risks posed by POPs. It shows the responsibility we all feel toward establishing a treaty can safeguard people living today and future generations, as mandated by the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Substantial progress has been made in reaching agreement in the year 2000. The talks in Montreal and Nairobi laid the basis. In June, the Criteria Expert Group agreed on recommendations for identifying additional POPs for international action and a process for including them in the treaty. The further good news is that the criteria work was accomplished in only two meetings and under budget. The recommendations offer the basis for fashioning a durable process for dealing with future POPs.

Now we are at the mid-point. Now is the time to begin developing the specific control measures and deadlines for the 12 POPs listed in the mandate. From incinerators that release dioxins into the environment -- to contamination of the air, water, soil, wildlife, and food with pesticides and PCBs -- worrisome signs are growing, and the world is watching, and for good reason.

These toxic pollutants last a long time in the environment. They travel long distances far from the source. They are taken up in the fatty tissue and are bioaccumulated and biomagnified as they move up the food chain and with time. They contaminate the next generation through exposure to the fetus and through breast milk. The most significant pathway of human exposure is food.

Only a few months ago, foodstuffs were contaminated by dioxins and PCBs in Europe, prompting authorities to stop sales and order destruction of products. It was a wakeup call. The situation showed how quickly millions of people in a fast-moving distribution chain can become exposed to potentially dangerous levels of POPs. The countries of the European Union were in a position to act, and they did so. But what would have happened in developing countries, which typically lack resources and adequate regulatory systems?

Releases and emissions of POPs into the environment can and do originate in any country, and these can be transferred globally. No country is immune from the risk posed by persistent organic pollutants, and no country acting alone can solve this global problem. It is in every country's national interest to protect against POPs.

So far, there have been important national and regional actions against POPs, but there has never been concerted global action. Now we have the opportunity for framing control measures and deadlines on a global basis.

Industrialized countries will be in a strong position for responding to the treaty provisions. Many have already put in place extensive measures. But developing countries and countries with economies in transition often lack the means -- both technical and financial -- though not the will -- for response. They will need, and the industrial world will need to provide, substantial support to enable full participation in and compliance with the future POPs treaty. This week, there will be the opportunity to discuss these issues and begin to find solutions.

These challenges now require development of a framework for specific controls. Decades worth of electrical equipment containing PCBs are aging, and in serious in danger of leakage and accidents. Most is located in or near urban areas. Dioxins and furans, unintended toxic by-products of many industrial and combustion processes, have been released largely unmeasured and unchecked in most countries. Obsolete and unwanted stocks of POPs pesticides often are poorly marked and stored, threatening to leak into water supplies and poison the air and land.

DDT requires special attention and caution. DDT is used against malaria and other vector-borne diseases. Today, we know there are an increasing number of alternative strategies that can reduce over-reliance on DDT, moving society toward a win-win situation-- in other words, less DDT with fewer cases of malaria. As head of UNEP, I pledge to continue to cooperate with my counterpart at WHO, Director-General Gro Harlem Brundtland, to pursue informed action, fully protective of public health and the environment, on DDT. We must ensure that we move toward reducing and eliminating releases of DDT into the environment, but not at the cost of lives lost to malaria or other diseases.

In preparing for this third INC, your chair, John Buccini, and I talked, and he outlined his expectations for its outcomes. I share his expectations and challenge you to meet them. I look forward to your firm proposals on the specific control decisions and an advanced draft of the convention text.

The precautionary principle embodied in Agenda 21 tells us to take significant action to prevent harm to health and the environment. In response to the UNEP Governing Council, work is underway now to help developing countries build the capacity for managing POPs -- ahead of the global treaty.

UNEP and partner intergovernmental organizations are acting to help countries expand their capacities for environmentally sound management of chemicals, identify and prioritize sources of emissions, and promote alternatives.

There is extensive cooperative work involving UNEP Chemicals and the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization. Many national governments are also strongly supporting important capacity-building programmes. I would like to recognize recent contributions and pledges from the United States, Australia, and New Zealand for this vital work -- which will enable us to put on regional and subregional workshops to address dioxins and furans, and to help countries select and safely move to alternatives to POPs pesticides.

We are also seeing growing support from the Global Environment Facility to address the problems posed by persistent toxic substances. These projects include regionally based assessments as well as national case studies and country-based projects that will serve as a basis for further global action.

A number of governments will be recognized at a ceremony this week for their 1999 contributions to the POPs Club, the innovative funding mechanism for the talks. I want to take this opportunity to express appreciation to the following 1999 contributors to the POPs Club: Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Madagascar, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. But I remind you that sustained funding for the POPs Club is still needed to complete the mandate in the year 2000.

In closing, I am pleased that the process for reaching a POPs treaty is well begun. Now is the time for decision making. Let us work together with mutual respect to achieve durable actions to safeguard our planet and our society in the new millennium.