DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate C - Environment and Health
ENV.C3 – Chemicals
Brussels, March 22, 2006
Doc: POP-CA2/Feb06/Draft 1.0 Summary Record
2nd meeting of the Competent Authorities
for the implementation of Regulation (EC) Nr 850/2004
of the European Parliament and of the Council on
Persistent Organic Pollutants
21 February 2006
Subject:Draft Summary Record (DSR) of the 2nd meeting of the Competent Authorities for the implementation of Regulation (EC) Nr 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Persistent Organic Pollutants, held on February 21 February, 2006
Action: Member States Competent Authorities and other participants are invited to take note of and adopt the Summary Record at the 3rd CA-meeting.
/ EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate C – Air and Chemicals
ENV.C.3 - Chemicals
Brussels, 22 March 2006
Doc. POP-CA2-Feb06-Draft 1.0 Summary Record
2nd MEETING OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATION (EC) NR 850/2004
OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON
PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS
21 February 2006 starting at 10.00 a.m.
Centre Borschette (Room 0B)Brussels
draft summary record and
follow-up actions
1.Adoption of the agenda (POP-CA2-feb06-doc.1)
The Commission (COM) welcomed Competent Authorities (CAs) and observers to the second meeting of the Competent Authorities for Regulation 850/2004. The chairman, Ms Yvon Slingenberg, regretted that the meeting scheduled for October 2005 had to be postponed. She explained that due to budgetary and logistic reasons there would be no interpretation provided at the meeting and then presented the Commission team. The agenda of the meeting was presented and adopted without comments (Annex I).
2.Adoption of the summary record of the 1st CA-meeting (POP-CA1-Mar05/draft 1.0)
The summary record of the 1st CA-meeting on March 8, 2005 was adopted without comments.
3.Update of the list of the Competent Authorities and other Contact Points (POP-CA2-Feb06-DOC.2)
The chair reminded participants that all Member States (MS) are obliged to designate one or more Competent Authorities (CA) in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation 850/2004 and are requested to nominate also other POP contact points, possibly with identified field of expertise.
The list of CAs and other contact points (POP-CA2-Feb06-Doc.2) was circulated during the meeting for update. The list of participants of the meeting is given in Annex II.
Action: MSs that have not yet notified their CA(s) to COM are asked to do so as soon as possible. All CAs and contact points to check and update the information given in Doc.2. COM to update the document and circulate it via Circa system before the next meeting.
4.Development of National implementation plans (NIP) and the community implementation plan (CIP)
4.1.State of play of the NIPs in the Member States
COM announced that Spain and Finland had agreed to give an oral presentation on their experience with the NIP development. The power point presentations will be made available via Circa.
Spainexplained establishment of a National Co-ordination Group and the different steps of the NIP development. The approval of the NIP is foreseen for May this year.
COM thanked Spain for the useful information and reminded that the Stockholm Convention (SC) obliges all Parties to submit their NIPs to the Secretariat within 2 years from EiF of the SC for that Party. For some countries this means already 17 May 2006. All MSs are also obliged to ratify the SC and therefore all MSs need to develop a NIP sooner or later.
In a tour de table MSs gave a short overview of the state of play of NIP preparation in their country (see Annex III for further details).
COM congratulated Latvia who is the first EU MS submitting its NIP to the Convention Secretariat on 7 June 2005.
At the end, Finland gave a presentation sharing their experience with the development of a NIP. Their NIP is planned to be ready for endorsement in March this year and will be available in FI, EN and SW. Finland encountered problems especially with dioxin contaminated river sediments. So far, no specific measures are foreseen in this regard except monitoring.
Action: Presentations to be made available via Circa. MSs are requested to submit draft NIPs and other relevant information to COM for dissemination to other MSs.
4.2.Common format for NIPs (POP-CA2-Feb06-Doc.3)
COM gave short overview of the paper which is based on the UNEP guidance for developing a NIP and asked whether a common EU NIP format would be useful at this stage or would it come too late and whether there are other ways to facilitate the exchange of information and ‘best practices’ on NIPs.
MSs (SW, DE) agreed that as they closely follow the UNEP guidance anyway in their NIP preparation, the common format would not be necessary. They recommended that the consideration of a common format could be kept for the revising and updating phase of the NIPs.
CZ pointed out that certain sections in the NIP guidance are difficult to prepare and that Chapter 2 and section 2.2 should in general be made concise. Furthermore, it was suggested that for voluminous NIPs a summary of maximum 20 pages in EN could be provided by all MS in order to facilitate the exchange of information.
Conclusion: Work on common format on NIPs is ceased for the moment. The issue will be revisited when the NIPs are asked to be revised by the SC.
4.3.Community Implementation plan (POP-CA2-Feb06-Doc.4 and 5)
COM presented first meeting document 5 which lays down the key community legislation and policies related to EU’s obligations under the Stockholm Convention. The document almost acts as a database having active web-links to the various pieces of legislation and other documents.
Secondly, COM presented the draft outline of the CIP stressing the interlinkages with the the MSs' NIPs and the wish not to duplicate MSs efforts and to bring added value to the CIP (especially valid for chapters 4 and 5).
As translation of bulky documents into all EU languages in the given timeline would pose a major problem, it is foreseen to produce a Commission communication of max. 15 pages in all Community languages and a longer Commission staff working paper in EN only. The first version of the COM staff working paper is foreseen to be circulated in May 2006 for comments. Unfortunately, the results of the study on by-product POPs that was launched only last year, will not be ready in time to be captured in this first staff working paper properly. COM is not yet sure whether there will be an internet consultation on the CIP. The final CIP (communication and a more substantial COM staff working paper) is foreseen to be sent to the Stockholm Convention Secretariat in February 2007.
Reinhard and Anke Joas from BIPRO presented the COM study on by-product POPs. The study is intended to serve as a basis for assessing the need for additional release reduction measures at EU level. An inventory of major sources is being made together with an inventory of measures planned or already in place at EU and national level. Areas not properly addressed will be identified and recommendations on possible release reduction measures will be given. The power point presentation or the interim report will be made available via Circa.
In an open discussion NL thanked the consultant for an interesting approach to need assessment. However, stated that the timeline might be too ambitious as all MSs are not ready or at an advanced stage with their NIP in order to contribute to the study and regretted that NL could not answer the questionnaire as the NIP work was given the first priority.
COM stressed that the Regulation stipulates that the CIP must be developed in parallel with the development of the NIPs although the information from the NIPs would be a pre-requisite for the CIP. The study was launched because the Commission does not have enough information on by-product POPs which nevertheless seem to cause the biggest problems at Community level and in MSs.
DE endorsed the comments by NL but informed that some available information had been sent to BIPRO. AT found that the study would be useful for their NIP development and mentioned a study on HCB use in pesticides that could be interesting for the consultants. BE informed that the Brussels region is developing its own implementation plan and asked how the study addresses the differences in emission factors used in the EMEP (Co-operative programme for monitoring and evaluation of the long range transmission of air pollutants in Europe)annual reports and other fora. BIPRO explained that they intend to calculate EU-25 data using the activity data released by Eurostat as a basis and using reduction factors for emissions based on BAT. He clarified that the study will not aim to provide an overall EU-25 emission inventory but only rough estimations to identify the main sources of by-product POPs. IT pointed out that they had not received the questionnaire but wanted to know which reference years should be used. BIPRO stated that they use 2000-2003 EMEP data and in some cases even older data.
BE suggested to send the matrix of measures back to the MS for review and updates. BIPRO supported this approach and stressed that the intention is to have an iterative and interactive exchange of information.
COM asked opinions on how PAHs should be addressed in the NIPs and the CIP. Although they are not listed in the Stockholm Convention, they are listed in the UNECE Protocol and therefore the BIPRO study will cover them as well. As the emissions of PAHs are high, their inclusion into the CIP would be useful but on the other hand that might influence greatly the choice of priority actions i.a. due to the differences in release sources of PAHs and other by-product POPs. FI felt that PAHs should not perhaps be included in the NIPs that are communicated to the SC Secretariat. ES proposed to create two versions of the NIP – one for the SC and one for the internal EU use. COM stressed that at the end the issue whether or not to address PAHs in the NIP is a policy choice that each MS needs to take. ES preferred a harmonised approach and creating synergies between the different NIPs. LT informed the meeting that it has already started to revise its NIP, highlighting the need to adjust priorities in the course of time.
Conclusion: The general approach used in the study on by-product POPs and proposed by COM to be used in the CIP development was endorsed.
Action: MSs are invited to submit comments on meeting documents 4 and 5 in writing (preferably by 24 April 2006). BIPRO presentation(or an interim report) to be made available via Circa.
5.Issues concerning the implementation of regulation 850/2004
a)Release inventories (POP-CA2-Feb06-Doc.6)
COM presented the draft analysis of the existing inventory tools for by-product POPs. Release inventories are linked to the implementation of Article 6 of the Regulation. The tools developed under the UNECE Protocol cover all by-product POPs but the methodologies concern only air emissions. The standardised toolkit for the identification and quantification of Dioxin and Furan releases is recommended to be used by the Parties of the Stockholm Convention when they develop their National Action Plans (NAP) on by-product POPsbut that toolkit does not yet address other POP substances. The meeting document also describes the EPER and future E-PRTR (European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register). All in all, the most difficult item is how to address releases from diffuse sources - as discussed already at the 1st CA-meeting. The subject is also of international interest; e.g. India has just recently signalled its interest to get information on EU release inventory methods.
Cefic pointed out that methods should be developed to better identify diffuse sources of POPs. European Environment Bureau (EEB) mentioned an IPEN document concerning problems with emission factors used in the Dioxin Toolkit and volunteered to circulate this information.
NL presented the results of a new study on chlorine compounds ("Evaluation of current emissions of chlorinated microcontaminants from the Dutch chlorine chain") and made both hard copies and CDs available to the participants of the meeting.
SK mentioned that BIPRO is also involved in a study on the IPPC Directive, which could be of interest to the CAs.
Action: Discussion to be continued at the next meeting. MSs and observers are invited to submit relevant information and reports for dissemination via Circa.
b)Monitoring (POP-CA2-Feb06-Doc.7)
COM presented document 7 concerning monitoring and implementation of Article 9 of the Regulation. An overview of already existing co-ordinated monitoring of dioxins, furans and PCBs was given. In principle, harmonised EU monitoring exists in the areas of emissions (EPER, PRTR) and feed and food (EU recommendations). There are also regional monitoring schemes for these substances in the water environment set up by HELCOM and OSPAR. The issue is very much linked with international activities concerning the Stockholm Convention's effectiveness evaluation. As the Article itself is vaguely formulated, COM welcomed input from MSs on how to proceed on the issue.
ES informed that it has put a lot of emphasis on the monitoring issue when developing its NIP and stressed the importance of feed as a contamination source. BE asked about the link to the Water Framework Directive's lists of hazardous substances. COM explained that for the moment, dioxins, furans and PCBs are not included in these lists.
UK informed the meeting about its national monitoring program on dioxins and furans and underlined that monitoring in this area is costly. In the UK, there are six air quality monitoring stations and therefore a lot of information is available on these substances. Air quality monitoring has proved to be an effective way to keep an eye on emissions. UK also has a human milk monitoring program which produces information on contaminant levels in humans. However, this kind of monitoring is complicated for ethical and other reasons. COM asked UK to send links to these national programs. SE stated that it also has a rather comprehensive monitoring program and highlighted the importance of individual congener reporting.
EEB pointed out that E-PRTR would in principle offer one additional harmonised monitoring framework for POPs but regretted that the current thresholds are too high to provide sufficient information.
The chair noted that none of the speakers had proposed concerted Community action on the issue. NL reported about its national program on levels in cow milk, which is used as an early warning system of food chain contamination. NL also cautioned for too ambitious approaches to monitoring, explaining that the most resources-efficient method of global monitoring needs to be found, in stead of every region/state developing its own monitoring. In this respect, it did not find monitoring of intentional POPs particularly useful since production shall be phased out. There seems to be no special need for EU guidelines on monitoringsince monitoring needs to be organised on a global level in order to gain insight in the effectiveness of the convention. AU pointed out that all POP substances can still be found in the Alpine environment and stressed that without standardised methods a comparison of results is impossible. The EU recommendations for monitoring of feed and food were considered a step in the right direction.
FIN reminded the meeting about a forthcoming workshop on the SC effectiveness evaluation (Bangkok, end of March) and asked whether other MSs intend to participate. Chair concluded the point by reminding that CoP-2 of the SC would also discuss the issue and therefore, although no particular inter-sessional work is foreseen, implementation of Article 9 should be followed up at the next CA-meeting.
Action: MSs are invited to submit information on their national monitoring programs and other relevant information for dissemination via Circa. The item will be on the agenda of the next CA-meeting.
c)Reporting (no document)
COM presented the item of reporting orally. According to Article 12, Member States are obliged to report on various issues to COM and COM is obliged to provide harmonised reporting formats, adopted through the Comitology procedure. Both MS Parties and the Community need also to report to the international agreements. The first report under the SC is to be sent by the end of this year.
COM reaffirmed its intention to use as much as possible the format adopted at COP-1 of the SC for the general reporting. COM also indicated that it intends to get the formats agreed, possibly by written procedure, in autumn, well before the first general reporting deadline.
SW mentioned it participated in the field testing of the SC reporting format and finds the final format very easy to use. NL agreed that a format is needed as soon as possible and called also for clarification of the responsibilities in reporting to the SC. COM agreed to try to provide draft reporting formats before summer in order to have comments of the MS by autumn and then adopt the formats later in the autumn by written procedure.