NEWS > REPORTS
NATIONAL TOXIC NETWORK REPORT
30 March - 2 April 2004, Geneva, Switzerland
Thematic Workshop On Synergies For Capacity Building Under International Agreements Addressing Chemicals And Waste Management
Following is a report on the UNITAR workshop on capacity building for
synergy. In summary the workshop, hosted to encourage synergy in national
capacities, quickly gave the message back that if convention secretariats and
UN bodies want synergy in the combined implementation of the chemical
conventions then it must start with them, the international bodies.
Lots of urgent needs were identified and a formal report of these will
be going to SAICM PREP COM2.
The Synergy of the "Five Cs":
Coherency, Co-ordination, Consistency, Continuity, and Cost efficiency; The UNITAR Workshop aimed to identify synergies for capacity building under
chemical and waste international agreements. The workshop developed
recommendations aimed at countries, intergovernmental organisations,
non-government organisations, and other key actors to assist with integrated
capacity building for implementing chemical and waste related conventions
and instruments.The workshop attended by 80 participants as well as UNITAR staff and
advisers.
Introductory presentations were given by representatives of funding agencies and some of the Conventions, followed by a panel, which identified different stakeholder perspectives for developing synergies for capacity building.
There were then short statements from the floor by participants. The following two
days consisted of working groups to focus on existing experiences, needs and
options for national efforts to address synergies.The working groups focused on :
· legislated and institutional frameworks
· linking chemical safety to general development policies
· the role of States/provinces and local authorities in implementing international agreements
· awareness raising, education and training
· public participation in national implementation
· information exchange and dissemination
· capacity for risk assessment and risk management
· capacity for analysis, monitoring and enforcement
· import and export control /Customs training
· Informing the SAICM Process
The Friday plenary reviewed and refined the workshop conclusions and
recommendations. A full report should be available on the UNITAR website shortly.There was a clear understanding by all participants that the coordinated implementation of chemical conventions brought with it many benefits including:
life cycle management of chemicals at national, regional & global level providing a cornerstone for improved domestic environmentally sound management of chemicals, stronger more effective regional and global frameworks and improved information exchange and technical capacity building.However, there was clear resistance to more chemical conventions among
participants. The workshop papers had included eleven chemical and waste related
chemical conventions to be considered for synergies in capacity building.The IPEN presentation argued that countries particularly developing and
transitional countries should review their own needs and prioritise their progressive
ratification of the conventions. We suggested that a framework for sound chemicals
management should at a minimum include the following priorities:
- Stockholm Convention
- Basel Convention
- Waigani Convention (regional)
- Bamako Convention (regional)- Rotterdam Convention -ban import & info exchange
- ILO Convention 170 - info on hazards for workers
- GHS for Classification & Labelling - info on hazards.
While these instruments had different focuses and approaches, there were many commonalities and opportunities for synergies in both their implementation and capacity building activities.The workshop identified an extensive number of "horizontal" or cross cutting
national capacity requirements among the eleven conventions. These included:
Generic Legislation
Import/Export Control Legislation
Enabling Legislation for Chemical Use Restrictions/Bans
Development of Chemical Lists and/or Inventory
Emissions Reporting
National Information Systems/Exchange
International Information Exchange
Hazard Data Generation
Data Confidentiality
Access to Information
Hazard Assessment/Classification
Hazard/Risk Communication /right to know
Risk Assessment
Packaging Requirements
Capacity for Risk Management Decision Making
Chemical Specific Use Restrictions/Bans
Life-cycle Management
Precautionary Principle/Approach
Focal Points
Interministerial Coordination
Stakeholder Involvement
Resource Mobilisation
. Technical Assistance
Training/Skills Building
Technology Transfer
Development of Alternatives
Evaluation of Implementation
Capacity for Chemical Analysis/Monitoring
Enforcement of Regulations/Decisions
Access to Justice
Capacity for Rehabilitation of Contaminated Sites and Poisoned Persons
Effective Education Programs
Capacity to Respond to Emergencies
There also appeared to be some resistance to any more chemical conventions
from both internationals funders concerned about duplication as well as the lack of coordination, and from countries concerned about their capacity. It was clearly acknowledged that there was a lack of national administrative and technical capacity as well as a lack of stakeholder capacity among governments, industry, agriculture, NGOs and even Convention Secretariats to work in a truly cooperative manner.
How to address this when there were clear sectoral interests, limited financial and technical resources, limited administrative capacity and little political support was the underlying question of the workshop. While the original focus of the workshop had been on national activities, it became quickly apparent that participants felt that if synergy was to exist between the chemical and waste related conventions at a level, then synergy must start at the Convention Secretariat level.
The critical question was who would be responsible for synergistic capacity building activities. While it appeared that UNITAR was ideally placed to take on the role, the Rotterdam Convention Secretariat was already holding workshops on combined implementation of Stockholm, Rotterdam and the Basel and UNEP had also published information on the synergy, while Basel had established technology transfer/capacity building centers in different regions of the
world. There was a general view that these were ideally placed to deliver capacity
building initiatives.
Some participants familiar with SAICM saw this forum as providing the synergistic approach to the international chemical and waste related conventions. This view was argued by the Chemical and Allied Industries Association who viewed the development of a Strategic Approach To International Chemicals Management as providing a unique opportunity for national, regional and international agencies involved in the management of chemicals to streamline their activities.
It was strongly felt by the participants that all outcomes from this workshop should
be compiled and forwarded for consideration at the next the PREPCOM2 of the
SAICM process to be held in October. This report is being finalized and will be
available shortly.Over the four days specific themes emerged as to some of the priority needs
of countries, particularly developing or transitional conutries. These included:
# Synergies to be developed at all levels: the international level (e.g Secretariats
and COPs), the regional level, national level (e.g. coordination between focal ooints), and the state/local level (e.g. dealing with the problems on the ground
addressed by conventions).
# The development of an integrated national framework for implementing
international agreements. By linking it with national development priorities, it was
thought that much needed financial resources could be more effectively mobilized. A permanent National Chemicals Coordinating Committee was viewed as a way to assist this.
# The need for legislative, institutional and administrative models /case studies. By
building upon existing documents, it was viewed that model integrated legislation
be developed at the international level (e.g. an omnibus legislation template) to
encompass the obligations under Conventions. COPs could then endorse such
model legislation across different agreements.# The urgent need for improved information management and exchange, both
nationally and internationally, was seen as crucial for developing synergies among
those involved with international agreements at the national level and also to improve public participation.
# To better ensure effective participation, it was considered that legislation may be necessary, especially to regulate the implementation of the "right to know". Also countries and stakeholders could work towards a common set of principles and specific implementation guidance that outlined what governments commit to do
(such as a "Public Participation Protocol") so that confidence in the process is
fostered.
# The need for improved capacity for risk evaluation, assessment and management
as required by the conventions. The requirements for risk evaluation vary across the
conventions and there appeared to be a lack of understanding and capacity to fulfill
those obligations. It was acknowledged that stakeholder involvement and communication was needed from the beginning of the risk process and that NGOs were an effective instrument for delivering risk management-related information.
# The need for a training kits and workshops on technical issues that crossed
Convention boundaries, eg development of programs and strategies for chemicals
analysis and monitoring, with international financial and technical support.
Similarly it was recognized that an integrated approach to import/export control
across agreements would require extensive training/capacity building. In response, it was recommended that complimentary activities and approaches at the nternational level were necessary in order to foster synergies and that together the international bodies should design international capacity building projects to facilitate synergy development.
As NGOs we had argued that capacity building programs must reflect the specific needs of participants and should result in a suite of transferable capacity building and information tools in response to clearly defined needs. This should start with coordinated efforts among the Convention Secretariats.
We recommended that priority areas for international capacity building were :
# Information management and delivery with data consolidation in a uniform information repository and retrieval system with logical cataloging and information
criteria. A coordinated data repository for information on the chemical conventions
and the synergies between their obligations and principles.
# Risk assessment tools with clear description of risk evaluation/management
processes for the individual conventions, and the distribution of public domain risk assessment software accompanied by manuals and training kits
# Basic template models/ framework for environmental management legislation
be developed with avenues to encompass obligations under the various conventions, eg South Pacific Case Study of model omnibus environmental legislation to establish legislative authority for the minister & department, with general provisions for environmental impact assessment; regulations can then be developed for specific conventions.A copy of the full IPEN Paper is available ..
________________________________________
Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith
Coordinator National Toxics Network Inc.
47 Eugenia St Rivett ACT 2611
Tel & Fax (612) 62885881
Mobile 0413 621557
Email: biomap@oztoxics.org
http://www.oztoxics.org
|
