United Nations Environment Programme

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Fifth Session of the Intergovernmental

Negotiating Committee (INC-5) on a POPs Treaty

Johannesburg, South Africa -- 4 December 2000

Good morning. Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates, honored guests, and ladies and gentlemen – I am pleased to welcome you to this fifth and final negotiating session. We are gathered to establish a global defence against persistent organic pollutants.

Welcome, also, to South Africa. A culture of solidarity is taking root. I sincerely hope it inspires us all to manifest global solidarity and support a POPs treaty that recognizes the needs of all nations. POPs are truly a global problem and need a global solution.

I extend my deepest gratitude to South Africa and Denmark for jointly hosting this final negotiating session.

It is appropriate that you meet here in South Africa for this session. For it is in South Africa that the world witnessed major changes in attitude and thinking that led to mutual understanding and the resolution of previously intractable issues.

And it is that sort of change in thinking, associated with a sense of compromise, that we need to see here this week.

Because without compromise, there cannot be true negotiation – only confrontation. And without such open negotiation, you cannot give effect to the UNEP Governing Council decision to establish a global legally binding treaty on POPs.

You will recall that governments – your governments – came together three years ago and decided that these POPs were of sufficient concern to warrant establishment of a legally binding instrument to control them.

Honored delegates, you got off to a truly great start with the negotiations. You came together first in Montreal, and I remember what hard work it was. I will never forget it. You came together again in Nairobi, Geneva, and Bonn, and each time, solidified the foundation.

But I note that some issues seem to have polarized, rather than coalesced, and that there are square brackets in many important issues.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me remind you that treaties do not have square brackets.

Let me observe too that a treaty is a complex, living document that must be transparent, and reflect fairness and rigor. All those elements are essential if the Parties and the global community are to have faith in it.

From my study of the draft text, I think there is still some work to be done on these aspects, particularly in the issue of allowing some ongoing use for essential purposes.

I emphasize that no more INCs are foreseen. The Governing Council mandate calls for the negotiations to be finished by the end of this year. The budget has carried the negotiating process forward thus far, thanks to the generous contributions to the POPs Club, but there is no expectation of additional INCs – only the Diplomatic Conference to adopt and sign the finished product in Stockholm next May

So my main message is this: come to a compromise. Finalize the negotiation. We urgently need this convention to fight against persistent organic pollutants – such a disaster for human health and the environment. We need consensus and we need this convention now.

The groundwork has been laid. At your request, your chair, John Buccini, has prepared a Chairman’s draft of the treaty to move the negotiations forward.

All the issues have been out on the table for months. There have been many opportunities for discussion and reflection in the past months, and Sunday, regional groups had a full day for discussion. There has also been a relatively long lead-time for considering meeting documents. Most were sent to delegates at the end of July – that’s almost four months before the meeting.

I recognize that there are some difficult issues. Perhaps the most challenging is how best to finance developing countries and countries with economies in transition to enable them to meet their obligations under the treaty. Again, I note that there has been considerable work done already, and the issues have been exhaustively explored.

At your request, in June your Chairman brought together in Vevey, Switzerland, representatives of 18 countries to reason through the issues in order to facilitate a consensus at INC-5. I know that some countries have favored a free-standing multilateral fund, while others have preferred the already existing Global Environment Facility.

The Vevey meeting identified attributes that the final model needs in order to provide adequate and timely financial assistance. For example, it says there should be clear obligations for funding, with new and additional financial resources made available. It says there should be synergy with other programmes, agencies, and mechanisms. Other performance criteria cover accountability to the Conference of the Parties, timeframe, mode of operation, efficiency, transparency, and accessibility.

This week, you need to reach agreement on the best way to incorporate these performance criteria into an effective financing mechanism. Let me remind you that the treaty is a living document. Once it enters into force, the Conference of the Parties can made adjustments, as needed and agreed to by the Parties, including the financing provisions. Now we need this first step – the treaty itself.

In looking at the remaining provisions in the draft treaty, there do not seem to be any truly major substantive differences. However, there is a considerable amount of drafting to be done. There are many comparatively minor issues and resolving them will require hard work and long hours. For example, you will need to work out the details of providing country specific exemptions for intentionally produced POPs, and how to apply best available technologies to address the by-product POPs. The Chair has done an excellent job of producing a draft text that allows you to focus on the more important issues.

But even so, the Chair’s draft has many dozens of brackets. You will need to work quickly, and in a spirit of compromise, if you are to resolve them all by Saturday.

I would like to reflect on the issue of DDT and our shared commitment to protecting human health and the environment. In many countries, there has been progress in rolling back malaria without over-relying on DDT. This is the goal embodied in the World Health Organization’s Roll Back Malaria programme, and UNEP is a full partner. At its core is an integrated set of tools, ranging from better environmental practices to better medical systems. The result is a win-win situation for health and the environment.

However, in some countries, integrated measures are not yet in place and the cost of alternatives is prohibitively high. There, at least for some time, DDT will still has a role to play in controlling the mosquitoes that carry the disease.

The Chair’s draft reflects this reality, and it provides useful language for moving the treaty forward. Use of DDT would be allowed for disease vector control in accord with WHO recommendations and guidelines, and where Parties do have not locally effective and affordable alternatives. All other uses would be prohibited.

These 12 POPs last a long time and travel long distances. Most did not exist before World War II. Now they are in the air, water, and soil around the planet. Only a short time ago, ecosystems functioned mostly free of this toxic burden. The food chain was largely free of POPs as well. Today these dirty dozen of POPs are in us all.

Children are at particular risk. POPs can pass to the fetus in the womb and to the infant through breastfeeding. Thus, the next generation becomes exposed to persistent organic pollutants at critical stages in development. Sadly, children from all over the world, from Africa to the Arctic, are inheriting this toxic legacy. This has to stop.

There is enormous interest in securing a POPs treaty. One sign is the extraordinary number of pledges to the POPs Club. Please accept my sincere gratitude for your generosity in making progress on the treaty possible.

Thanks also to the intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organisations from around the world whose commitment to protecting the environment and public health from POPs is deeply appreciated and is helping to drive the negotiation forward.

I am pleased to note that the draft text also assigns UNEP the responsibility for providing the Secretariat for the convention. This is a role that I accept gladly and readily, as it is in keeping with UNEP’s mandate for global environment protection.

Now let me leave you to your work, with this one message. Please, let us come to a good end to this negotiation. We urgently need this convention to fight against persistent organic pollutants, which have such a lot of negative repercussions for human health and for the environment. Let’s finalize this negotiation, and protect this blue planet Earth and all people living today and generations to come.