POPS REVIEW COMMITTEE INFORMATION REPOSITORY THE REVIEW PROCESS Meetings |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The third meeting of the POPs Review Committee is scheduled for the 19-23 November 2007
and will be held in Geneva.
REPORT OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE POPS REVIEW COMMITTEE 7-11TH NOVEMBER 2005
THE IPEN TEAM
JOE DIGANGI
SHARYL PATTON
ROMEO QUIJANO
JACK WEINBERG
MARIANN LLOYD-SMITH
JOHN WICKENS
PAM MILLER (Alaska Community on Action on Toxic Chemicals)
SHAWNA LAWSON (Indigenous Environmental Network)
Lin Li and Gwynne Lyons also attended on behalf of WWF
Other observers included the U.S. government officials from State Department and the US EPA, as well as from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public works. Industry representatives included the American Chemistry Council, Croplife, International Council of Chemical Association and the World Chlorine Council.
Interestingly, even governments who are Parties but not committee members are considered "observers" in terms of the POPs Review Committee. This highlights the need for the IPEN team to develop contacts and relationships directly with those countries represented on the Committee to push our concerns and ideas. There are 31 experts designated by the Parties of the Convention as the 1st POPRC members. For information on nominated countries and experts, see http://www.oztoxics.org/poprc
The IPEN team played an important role providing interventions and additional information to strengthen the nominations of the candidate chemicals. The Chair welcomed the IPEN input and highlighted the need for our continued involvement in the development of the risk profiles and socio-economic assessments.
THE CHEMICALS
The first meeting of the POPs Review Comittee considered 5 POP candidate chemicals;
All were found to meet the POPs screening criteria found in Annex D; persistence, bioaccumulation, long range transport and adverse affects. All 5 will now pass on to the risk profile stage as outlined in Annex E.
While it is a good sign that groups of chemicals can be proposed, it also highlighted the need for proper documentation to be prepared before the proposal is forwarded to the committee. The meeting report noted that information regarding PFOS precursors and Lindane isomers will be solicited when asking Parties and observers to provide information specified in Annex E.
Other issues addressed by the meeting included the assessment and management of confidential information, the criteria for selection of experts from the roster of experts and the development of guidance for the submission of information under Annex E as well as the development of a risk profile template.
The meeting started on a positive note with the Chair, Dr Reiner Arndt introducing three presentations from committee members on persistence, bioaccumulation and long range transport. All stressed the importance of assessing POP attributes in a flexible and integrated manner. This set the tone for the meeting. However, many of the experts were not familiar with the convention text and obligations, and some argued that chemicals should fulfil all points in each of the criteria.
The Chair reminded the Committee that the use of the word "or" rather than "and" meant that only one element of the criteria needed to be fulfilled and the committee had to be flexible and balanced in their considerations.
WORKING GROUPS
The meeting established working groups for three of the candidates, PFOS, Lindane and chlordecone to discuss specific issues relating to the criteria. IPEN participated actively in all.
Once these outstanding issues were resolved, the working groups were transformed into drafting group (in which only the Committee members participated) to prepare the draft decision on each of the proposals.
Drafting groups were also established for PBDE and HBB.
After an initial discussion on confidentiality, a working group was established to look at Annex E, to develop guidance for those submitting information and examine what information may be submitted as confidential. It also was charged with developing a template for the risk profile report.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The challenge of confidential information took up considerable time both in the working group and the following discussions in plenary on the last day. While the final draft decision on provisional confidentiality arrangements submitted by the Secretariat severely limited the type of information on which a claim of confidentiality could be made, a late intervention by Australia meant that the report of the meeting that goes to the COP leaves the way open for the broadening of categories of information that may be considered confidential. The draft decision ensured that observers would be able to participate in all meetings (including intersessional ones) regardless of confidentiality, but would be bound by the same arrangements as the committee members and invited experts.
RISK PROFILE VS RISK ASSESSMENT
Late in the meeting there was a debate on the real meaning of a risk profile. The U.S. (EPA) and industry wanted to include detailed risk assessment information in the risk profile and Spain proposed to put "risk characterization" in the risk profile outline. While the ENGOs, with the proposal from EU and supported by Uruguay and South Africa, managed to keep the risk assessement out of the body of the risk profile template, a proposal for a more formal risk characterization was included the meeting report.
THE NEXT STAGE
The next stage in the assessment of candidate POPs, will start almost immediately with a call for information for the risk profiles of the 5 proposed chemicals. The risk profiles will be developed by 5 working groups working intersessionally. All working groups have IPEN observers. It is intended that 5 risk profiles will completed by the second meeting of the POPRC in November 2006.
Apart from the work of IPEN within the intersessional working groups, the following dates will require responses from IPEN POs on all 5 chemical.
18th November 2005 - Secretariat requests information specified in Annex E from Parties and Observers - Deadline 27th January 2006
9th May 2006 - Secretariat will distribute the draft risk profile and request comments from the Committee, Parties and Observers - Deadline 16th June 2006
This timetable puts considerable pressure on IPEN to consolidate and provide relevant information in a very tight timeframe. IPEN needs to identify 'lead' people to oversee the collection of information for specific chemicals.
The IPEN CMWG will help coordinate this process.
Please contact us if you are interested in taking the lead for any of the 3 other proposals (Pentabromodiphenyl ether, Chlordecone, Hexabromobiphenyl )
INFORMING THE EXPERTS
Some of the expert scientists recommended by Parties to join the Review Committee appeared unfamiliar with the role of the Precautionary Principle in the convention text, particularly in how it relates to the work of the POP Review Committee and the selection of additional POP. Some appeared to be more comfortable with the risk characterization or assessment model than a risk profile based on precaution.
The implications of the “weight of evidence” approach as outlined in Article 8 as opposed to the “burden of proof,” or put simply the ‘risk profile’ versus a ‘risk assessment’ needs to be further elaborated.
Following the risk profiles, socioeconomic assessments as outlined in Annex F will be developed. A working group was also formed to develop guidance on Annex F Information on Socio-Economic Considerations, and consider any confidentiality issues related to socio-economic data.
FUTURE PROPOSAL
Through informal discussions with the experts, a number of chemicals of concern were identified that may be nominated in the future. These were Short Chained Chlorinated Paraffins, Polychlorinated Napthalenes, PAHs and Tetrachlorobenzene.
ACTIONS ARISING
The Secretariat to the POP Review Committee report has requested information (as outlined in Annex E Information Requirements for the Risk Profile) on the 5 proposals.
The 5 chemicals are :
The risk profile for each of the five chemicals is to “evaluate whether the chemical is likely, as a result of its long-rang environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects, such that global action is warranted”.
The information requirement summary is included below.
Other Relevant information including an optional submission format is available on the Convention website,
### COMMENTS ARE DUE BY 27th January 2006. ###
Explanatory notes to the form for submission of information specified in Annex E for use by the POPS Review Committee
In filling in the form please provide, where possible and relevant, information of sufficient detail to inform scientific considerations of the Committee in preparing the risk profile, emphasizing information on study methods, tissue concentrations for comparative purposes, and citations, including, if possible, original copies of papers not readily available in the public literature. If the information is not peer-reviewed, it may still be useful for the Committee
(a) Sources
1. Provide units for the data.
2. Historical data and trend data regarding production and uses.
3. Information regarding imports and exports.
(b) Hazard assessment for the endpoints of concern
1. Only information regarding the most important endpoints of concern need to be provided.
2. Data on human toxicity and ecotoxicity would be particularly helpful.
(c) Environmental fate
1. Other information, including long-range environmental transport modelling data.
(d) Monitoring data
1. If possible, provide additional monitoring data with indication of the data quality or the level of confidence.
2. Trend data.
3. Additional data related to the criteria in Annex D, especially where relevant to persistence, bio-accumulation and long-range environmental transport, as well as exposure. Please compare with the Annex D evaluation by the Committee (www.pops.int/...)
4. Environmental monitoring data and exposure data.
(e) Exposure in local areas
1. Data regarding areas remote from sources of the chemical.
2. Data related to human health as well as wildlife.
3. Experimental or modelling data indicating possible long-range transport.
4. Occupational exposure data.
(f) National and international risk evaluations etc.
1. Rationale (assessment information) for regulation on toxic chemicals.
2. National and international risk evaluations prepared by Governments, inter-governmental organizations, regional economic integration organizations and non-governmental organizations
(g) Status of the chemical under international conventions
1. Only information regarding instruments other than the most well-known ones should be submitted (see document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.1/INF/10).
Additional information may also be submitted that is relevant for the evaluation of the chemical by the Committee but which does not fall within the above categories.
