IPEN UPDATES COP 4:Keep the Promise Eliminate POPs
In preparation for the Fourth Conference of the Parties (COP4), IPEN would like to share our perspectives with all delegates on each of the major issues at the meeting. Please see the following document, IPEN Quick Views of Stockholm Convention COP4.
COP4 will be a landmark event recognizing that POPs Review Committee has recommended to add nine substances for listing to the Convention. In addition, a wide range of ongoing implementation and reporting activities will need to be reviewed and improved in order to keep the promise the international community made in 2001, when the Stockholm Convention was adopted.
In addition, IPEN has produced the following COP4-related documents:
IPEN Views COP4:
- IPEN Quick Views of Stockholm Convention COP4
IPEN Quick Views of Stockholm Convention COP4 .pdf 67KB
This document is a summary statement of the views of the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) on issues that COP4 will be called upon to address.
Chinese .pdf 160KB
Spanish .pdf 44KB
- Exemptions: India & Dicofol
full analysis as a .pdf file 109 KB
IPEN's analysis of and response to India's request for exemptions that Need to write 1 or 2 lines about this exemption, and that the Conference of the Parties should not grant India's request.
- DDT Position Statement
IPEN and PAN COP4 Statement
An IPEN and PAN COP4 Statement that was produced via an African CSOs and Experts Meeting on DDT: Towards malaria reduction without DDT
- DDT in Eggs A Global Review
full report as a .pdf file 743KB
Monitoring activity of analysis of 2005 Egg data & other eggs for DDT levels
full report in Russian as a .pdf file 558KB
- DDT and the Stockholm Convention - States on the edge of non-compliance
.pdf file 1400 KB
The objective of the Stockholm Convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants by eliminating such chemicals globally. One of these hazardous chemicals is DDT - which is still being used in vector control programs. This study shows that many players and financiers of malaria control programs do not comply with the requirements of the Stockholm Convention.
Dar-es-Salaam Declaration on Alternative Approaches to DDT Use for Vector Control
8th April 2009 Go To
- Dioxin Toolkit COP4 Brief
Dioxin Toolkit Briefing Paper
A summary & update of the toolkit process.
Ongoing review and updating of the Standardized Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Dioxin and Furan Releases
- BAT / BEP position paper
BAT BEP COP4 - An IPEN Perspective
Guidelines on Best Available Techniques and provisional guidance on Best Environmental Practices (BAT/BEP) An IPEN Perspective as a .pdf 167KB
- Low POPs Position Paper
Low POPs Position Paper
Measures to reduce or eliminate releases from wastes: The “Low POPs Content” – An IPEN Perspective as a .pdf 195KB
- PCB Elimination
PCB Elimination Position Paper
PCB Elimination Club An IPEN Perspective as a .pdf 289KB
- Open System PCB
A background paper
Open System Uses of PCBs paper.
- MaPP Report
Breast Milk Monitoring as a .pdf 1876 KB
International Breast Milk Monitoring Report.
Hot Spot Map:
- Hot Spots of POPs
Map and Report
Selected POPs waste "Hot Spots" from around the World, map and report.
- New POPs in the Arctic
Report in English as a .pdf 690KB
A Report for the Delegates of the 4th Conference of the Parties Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
- New POPs Guide
in English as a .pdf 1750KB
Chinese text translation .pdf 180KB
Nine (9) new substances will be up for consideration at COP4. IPEN has produced a guide to the recommendations of the Convention's scientific committee, the POP Review Committee (POPRC). The guide includes IPEN's position on these recommendations.
- IPEN Guide to Annex A or B 28 April 2009
Guide to Annex A or B .pdf 49KB
- The Next Generation of POPS PBDEs and Lindane
PBDEs and Lindane Report in English as a .pdf 428KB
- New POPs in Dust
Danger Dust Report in English as a .pdf 830KB
Danger: Dust and PDBEs, phthalates and nonylphenols are currently found in dust and rainwater in the czech republic? 2004 report.
- African Endosulfan Paper
African Endosulfan Paper - .pdf 267 KB
This document is based largely on a 2008 report by Dr. Demba Farba Mbaye, plant pathologist specializing in pesticides management. It also includes part of a 2009 report by the Bénin-based Group of Action for the Promotion and Protection of Flora and Fauna (GAPROFFA): "Perceptions of Producers on the Risks Related to the Use of Endosulfan in Bénin and Togo.
- Endosulfan Alternatives in Latin America Summary
An Executive Summary in Spanish and English of alternatives to endosulfan in Latin America
- Endosulfan Alternatives in India
Endosulfan Alternatives in India
A document that outlines alternatives to endosulfan in India
Lindane: Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Alternatives. An IPEN report. as an adobe pdf file 505KB
A call to work toward the rapid elimination of all uses of lindane.
A letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the uses of lindane.
Lindane Press Release
Arctic Tribal Leaders, Doctors, Parents and Advocates Call for New US Position on Pharmaceutical Uses of the Pesticide Lindane.
Rules of Procedure:
- Voting - Stockholm vs. Rotterdam ROPs
analysis as a .pdf file 109 KB
IPEN Quick Views of Stockholm Convention COP4:
This document is a summary statement of the views of the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) on issues that COP4 will be called upon to address:
- New POPs: Listing chemicals in Annexes A, B or C of the Convention
- Effectiveness evaluation
- Reporting and specific exemptions
- National Implementation Plans (NIPs)
- Best Available Techniques / Best Environmental Practices (BAT/BEP)
- Standardized Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Dioxin and Furan Releases
- Financial resources and mechanism
- Measures to reduce or eliminate releases from wastes
- Rules of procedure
New POPs: Listing chemicals in Annexes A, B or C of the Convention
All of the nine substances recommended for listing by the POPs Review Committee should be added to Annex A of the Convention.1 Pentachlorobenzene should be added to both Annex A and Annex C. No exemptions should be included for any substance except for PFOS. Unfortunately, the POPRC could not decide where to list PFOS. IPEN believes that PFOS and PFOSF should be listed in Annex A. An Annex B listing would permit a potentially large number of uses, and would allow them to continue for an indefinite period of time. This would likely result in substantial and continuing increases in the amount of extremely persistent PFOS present in the global environment. An Annex A listing of PFOS would permit certain uses based on time-limited, possibly renewable, exemptions. These exemptions could be described in a Part III of Annex A that outlines exemptions and phase-out timelines as done for PCBs in Part II. No PFOS exemptions should be permitted for dispersive uses. Parties should recall that the COP’s decision to list additional POPs in Annexes A, B, or C is governed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, providing that amendments to these Annexes may be adopted by a three-fourths majority vote if all efforts at consensus have been exhausted.
COP4 should reject India’s request for extension of its specific exemption to produce and use DDT as an intermediate in the production of dicofol. India failed to address four of the six conditions that the COP is required to take into account when deciding whether or not to grant an extension of a specific exemption.2 For the two conditions that India did address, India failed to provide information that demonstrated that it had met the condition. For additional information, please see the IPEN legal analysis of India’s request.3
1. COP4 should establish a multi-stakeholder global partnership to develop and deploy alternative products, methods and strategies to DDT for disease vector control in support of the three-phase timeline proposed by the Secretariat.4
2. WHO and the Secretariat should continue to strengthen the capacity of countries to report on the production and use of DDT.
3. COP4 should invite WHO to participate actively in evaluating the continued need for DDT for disease vector control and in identifying safer alternatives.
4. COP4 should request WHO to include all countries producing and using DDT in its monitoring program to measure DDT and its metabolites in humans and the environment.
1. The baseline evaluation of the Convention suffers from major gaps: 1) two-thirds of the Parties did not report information as required and 2) monitoring programs are not available in many developing countries, leaving out entire sub-regions. COP4 should request Parties to supply the information by 31 October 2009. The final report should describe data gaps.
2. The format for national reports should be revised to allow provision of appropriate, consistent, and comparable data.
3. The global monitoring program should:
4. Future evaluations by the proposed expert group and the work of the monitoring coordination group should follow the practice of other expert group processes by allowing participation of observers, including public interest NGOs and CSOs.
5. COP4 should strongly encourage Parties to participate in the global monitoring program.
Reporting and specific exemptions
1. The COP should request Parties to fully report their import and export of Annex A and B substances as required by Article 3.2(b) of the Convention.
2. All Parties should report in accordance with Article 15. The COP should request Parties to submit their outstanding reports by 31 October 2009 and their second reports for evaluation at COP5 by 31 October 2010.5
3. COP4 should review progress on the submission of reports on eliminating PCBs required under Article 15 and Decision SC-3/18 and should request all Parties to submit them by 31 October 2009.6
National Implementation Plans (NIPs)
1. Country priorities should be taken into account for decisions regarding financial assistance, capacity building, technical assistance, regional center assistance, and other forms of cooperation and assistance.
2. COP4 should reiterate with urgency the request of COP3 to all Parties that have not done so to finish and transmit their completed NIPs.7
3. COP4 should request all relevant Parties to develop and implement an action plan to control the dioxin sources that they have identified in their national dioxin inventories.8
4. COP4 should request all Parties to strengthen multi-stakeholder consultation in the design and implementation of NIPs and to comply with their Article 11 commitments.
Best Available Techniques / Best Environmental Practices (BAT/BEP)
1. The COP should request that each Party report by 31 October 2009 on how it has defined best available techniques (BAT) for Annex C Part II source categories. Each Party should additionally report on the legal instruments it employs to require the use of BAT for all new or substantially modified facilities in these source categories as it is required to do under Article 5(d). (For most Parties, this obligation entered into force in May 2008.)
2. Parties should provide feedback on the use of the guidelines and comments to the Secretariat for developing a proposal for updating the BAT/BEP guidelines for consideration at COP5.
Standardized Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Dioxin and Furan Releases
The Secretariat should continue its process of ongoing review and updating of the Toolkit, specifically to avoid overestimation of diffuse sources and for operations producing or releasing Hexachlorobenzene. The process should include all stakeholders; should adequately address key sources for which limited monitoring data are available; and should support developing countries 1) to identify their sources, including those not specifically addressed in the Toolkit, and 2) to verify emission factors.
Financial resources and mechanism
1. There is a large gap between the full incremental costs that developing countries and countries with economies in transition need to fulfill their Convention obligations and the amount of funds that are available through the Convention financial mechanism.9
2. COP4 should request the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to simplify and clarify the process by which eligible countries can access funds to cover their incremental costs.
3. COP4 should recommend that the cleanup of obsolete POPs stockpiles, POPs wastes, and POPs contaminated sites be one of GEF’s priorities for funding.10
4. COP4 should recommend to the GEF that it restore its past practice of allowing NGOs with the capability to do so to execute GEF Medium Sized Projects (MSPs).11
5. The GEF’s Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) should not be expanded to the POPs focal area, since doing so would undermine the provisions of Convention Article 13, paragraph 6.12
Measures to reduce or eliminate releases from wastes
The current "low POPs content" levels provisionally set in the Basel General Technical Guidelines are inappropriately high, not protective of human health and the environment, and therefore inconsistent with the Stockholm Convention and its objective.13 These provisional levels could be used to justify the export of hazardous, POPs-contaminated wastes from developed to developing countries. The Stockholm Conference of the Parties should therefore assume its obligation under Article 6, paragraph 2(c), and develop its own proposed definition of "low POPs content" that is consistent with the Convention and its objective. COP4 should refer the task of developing a recommended definition to the Toolkit expert group with a request that it conclude this work in time to provide a recommendation for consideration at COP5. The process for developing this recommendation should include full stakeholder participation.
1. COP4 should request a substantive analysis of how implementation activities and progress toward achieving the goals of the Stockholm Convention could be potentially affected by association with the other conventions. The analysis should include both administrative and programmatic aspects. COP4 should reinforce the importance of maintaining the protective objectives of each convention and the need not to weaken treaties that may have overlapping policies, technical issues, or activities.
2. Synergies between the three chemicals conventions should preserve the participation of public interest NGOs and CSOs in COPs, intersessional meetings, expert groups, and other aspects of global, regional, and national convention implementation.
Non-compliance with Convention obligations, including non-compliance with reporting requirements, may undermine the ability of the Convention to achieve its objectives. For example,
Rules of procedure
Parties should support effective operation of the Convention by removing the brackets in Rule 45.1 that surround the sentence permitting voting when all efforts at consensus have been exhausted.
2 Decision SC-2/3.
3 Legal analysis of request by India for an extension of its specific exemption to produce and use DDT as an intermediate in the production of dicofol, IPEN, 23 March 2009, http://www.ipen.org/ipenweb/documents/ipen%20documents/CIEL%20DDTDicofol. pdf.
4 The three phases are: 1) Preparation of a global business plan and partnership on developing alternatives to DDT and establishing the national capacities to deploy these alternatives (2007-2010); 2) Deployment of selected alternatives to DDT, resulting in a termination of DDT production (2009 – 2017); and 3) Destruction of all remaining stocks and stockpiles of DDT by the year 2020.
5 At the time of this writing, only 44 Parties have submitted reports pursuant to Article 15.
6 Less than 25% of Parties have submitted these reports on PCBs as required by SC-3/18.
7 Slightly more than half of the Parties (88) have transmitted completed NIPs. Many are more than a year past due.
8 All Parties, within two years of the Convention’s entry into force, are obliged to develop these plans. For most Parties, the twoyear period ended in May 2006, but it appears many have not yet completed this action plan. Only 30 Parties (less than 20%) have reported completing this activity.
9 The draft report on the second review of the financial mechanism states that “that the full needs identified in this study for 2004-2009 were USD 3,336.48 million, and that the POPs funding level at the GEF for this period of time was USD 300 million.”
10 Only a small portion of all obsolete POPs stockpiles and wastes will be addressed by GEF projects funded so far. Some of the countries with the largest number and quantities of obsolete POPs stockpiles and contaminated sites are not yet included.
11 It appears that the GEF has a new policy making NGOs ineligible to execute projects other than through the Small Grants Programme, a policy which fails to recognize the important and unique contributions to the success of the Convention that NGOs can make.
12 See UNEP/POPS/COP.4/INF/17.
13 The Basel Convention has suggested that wastes be considered to have low POPs content if they contain less than 15 parts per billion (ppb) of dioxin, or less than 50 parts per million (ppm) of other POPs; see UNEP/POPS/COP.3/INF/7.
16 UNEP/POPS/COP.4/5; This represents 33% of the estimated number of countries using DDT.
Dar-es-Salaam Declaration on Alternative Approaches to DDT Use for Vector Control
8th April 2009
Acknowledging that malaria is a global crisis, which needs immediate attention and dedication by the global community to roll it back and that public health programmes and poverty reduction need broad-based sustainable/long-term strategies to address malaria as well as other diseases that are preventable and curable with sufficient resources;
Aware that DDT is a persistent organic pollutant , which is a bio-accumulative pesticide, that causes reproductive health and neuro-developmental disorders, pregnancy wastages and shortened lactation in breast feeding mothers ; whose use is to be eliminated under the Stockholm Convention;
Understanding that many Parties to the Convention facing the enormous burden of malaria have requested for exemption to use DDT for malaria control in the short term and that they are bound to observe the conditions as set out in Annex B, Part II of the Stockholm Convention;
Appreciating the efforts of the global community and their commitment to fight malaria through the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the Conference of Parties 3 decision to prepare a business plan to develop and deploy alternative methods, strategies and products to combat malaria as well as the initiative to establish a global partnership to develop alternatives to DDT;
Worried that the use of DDT has escalated threefold since the signing of the Convention in 2001 and that many more countries are planning to re-introduce DDT while the Convention demands that Parties reduce reliance on DDT for vector control and work towards eventual elimination;
Seriously concerned that the use of DDT for IRS is being conducted without strict observance of the WHO guidelines and disposal of DDT in accordance with the Basel Convention guidelines and Stockholm Convention BATs/BEPs and, that strategies for monitoring and evaluation are not built into spraying programs;
Noting that the goal of the Stockholm Convention is to "protect human health and the environment", however there is emerging new evidence of environmental and health effects of DDT in newborn children and in male reproductive health disorders due to DDT used in IRS;
Mindful of the global economic crunch that threatens funding for malaria control programs development and deployment of alternatives and that there is a general reluctance by Parties in Africa to embrace and fund alternatives;
Comforted by the results of the UNEP/GEF/WHO project on Demonstrating and Scaling-up of Sustainable Alternatives to DDT in Vector Management (DSSA - Global Programme)in Latin America indicating that malaria can be controlled without the use of toxic chemicals, and that similar projects have been initiated in other continents including Africa;
We, representatives of the NGO community in Africa, driven by our desire to address the health and environmental problems that affect poor communities especially in the developing countries and countries with economies in transition commit ourselves to;
Create awareness on adverse effects of DDT use, organize meetings, seminars, conferences, etc to review communication strategies on DDT issues and train the media for information dissemination while promoting publications by providing information, education and training to decision makers, health care workers, and the community focusing on the health impacts and non chemical alternatives;
Lobby Governments to recognize the role of NGOs in DDT campaigns and relevant government authorities to embrace DDT alternatives and subsequently work with national governments and relevant stakeholders to comply with article 7 of the Stockholm Convention;
Build a core fund raising group amongst the NGOs and develop proposals (with emphasis on coordinated initiative and capacity building and fundraising skills) and identify donors to fund them;
Identify training needs for NGOs including training on advocacy, negotiations, lobbying techniques, technical information and monitoring and evaluation;
Exchange information and ideas, share experiences and case documentation of success stories of malaria prevention and control without use of DDT;
Harmonise Community Pesticide Action Monitoring (CPAM) activities at national and regional levels;
Advocate for the development of a full cost benefit analysis and life cycle assessment of DDT and alternative, including social, environmental, health cost and job beneficiation; and
Demand to participate in the UNEP/GEF/WHO program on Demonstrating and Scaling-up of Sustainable Alternatives to DDT in Vector Management (DSSA - Global Programme) especially in projects designed for the sub-Saharan African region.
ORGANIZATION NAME COUNTRY
1. PROBICOU Mr. Robert B. Tumwesigye Uganda
2. PAN Africa Dr. Abou Thiam Senegal
3. iLima Kenya Mr. Griffins Ochieng Kenya
4. NAPE Ms. Betty Obbo Uganda
5. PAN - Ethiopia Mr. Tadesse Amera Ethiopia
6. PAN Germany Ms. Carina Weber Germany
7. SRADev Mr. Eugene Itua Nigeria
8. UNETMAC Mr. Ellady Muyambi Uganda
9. Justica Ambiental (JA!) Mr. Arsenio Banze Mozambique
10. EYAN Mr. Osei Akoto Ghana
11. PSR-Kenya Dr. Paul Saoke Kenya
12. PAN Zambia Mr. Crispin K. Kaposhi Zambia
13. AGENDA Prof. J.H. Katima Tanzania
14. ENVIROCARE Mr. A. Mwakatole Tanzania
15. AGENDA Mr. Silvani Mng'anya Tanzania
16. AGENDA Mr. Haji Rehan Tanzania
17. AGENDA Mr. Jamal Kiama Tanzania
18. AGENDA Ms Cecilia Mwakasege Tanzania
19 JET Ms. Judica Losai Tanzania
20 TWIG Mr. Mark Wells South Africa
21 TAPOHE/ IUF Mr. Yahya Msangi Tanzania
22 DION/PAN Mauritius Mr. Hemsing Hurrynag Mauritius
23 IRTECO Mr. Mwadini Myanza Tanzania
24 VVT Mr. Obed Mahenda Tanzania
25 DONET Mr. Josiah Mshuda Tanzania
26 LEAT Ms. Euphrasia Shayo Tanzania
27 LANESO Mr. Benedict Kwangu Tanzania
28 KAESO Mr. Ozem Chapita Tanzania
29 JEMA Mr. Mutagahywa Dunstan Tanzania
30 KADETFU Ms. Juliana Optat Tanzania
31 GSG Mr. Suleiman Msangi Tanzania
32 TUCTA Ms. Helen Katala Tanzania
33 JET Ms. Flora Nzema Tanzania
34 Tabora NGO Cluster Mr. Boniface Maziku Tanzania
35 Tanzania 4H Organization Mr. Joseph Desideri Tanzania