DIRECTION GÉNÉRALE
ENVIRONNEMENT
DirectionD – Protection de l’eau, substances chimiques et cohésion
ENV.D.1 - Substances chimiques
Brussels, 19 January 2007
ENV/D1/ D(2007)
3rd CA-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
26 JANUARY 2007
Doc.4:
Action requested:
- To reflect on the questions and information presented in the summary report.
- To give input and suggestions to help defining the way forward for the implementation of Article 9.
Informal Expert Meeting in Effectiveness Evaluation
15. January in Vienna in the
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management
1.Participants of the Meeting
Thomas Jakl (Austria)
Barbara Perthen-Palmisamo (Austria)
Peter Weiss (Austria)
Ivan Holoubek (CzechRepublic)
Timo Seppälä (Finland)
Steffi Richter (Germany)
Juliane Koch (Germany)
Marta Fratricova (Slovensko)
Bo Wahlström (Sweden)
2.Background
Article 16 requires that the COP shall initiate the establishment of arrangements to provide itself with comparable monitoring data on the presence of the chemicals listed in Annexes A, B and C as well as their regional and global environmental transport.
This process was continuously developed at INC 7 and the two COPs. COP 2 launched a process to ensure that the first effectiveness evaluation will be completed at COP 4 in 2009 and that a decision is taken to implement the elements for a global monitoring plan.
A Technical Expert Group was initiated with 15 representatives of Parties of the five United Nations regions to coordinate and oversee implementation of the global monitoring plan. The results of the work are expected be presented at COP 3 to provide a basis for further decisions whether or not the group should continue.
The Secretariat should compile the elements for the first effectiveness evaluation, including the global monitoring report, national reports and non-compliance information from any procedure that might be put in place by the Conference of the Parties.
COP 4 in 2009 shall review the arrangements, including the global monitoring plan and shall decide on future arrangements, including the intervals of subsequent effectiveness evaluations.
The Secretariat requested already Parties to identify monitoring programmes in order to update the information on existing human health and environment monitoring programmes.
The first meeting of the provisional ad hoc Technical Working Group (TWG) on POPs monitoring took place from 9 to 12 October 2006 in Brno, Czech Republic. A second meeting will be held at 29 January to 2 February 2007 in Geneva. The EU – representative at the TWG are Peter Weiss from Austria, Ivan Holoubek (CzechRepublic and co-chair of the TWG) and Tsvetanka Dimcheva (Bulgaria).
The Working group shall cover the following tasks:
- develop a list of criteria for evaluation of existing monitoring programmes,
- evaluate existing monitoring programmes,
- develop elements for a Global Monitoring Plan (GMP) and its implementation,
- develop by 2009 the first evaluation report.
At its first meeting Technical Working Group finalized a list of criteria to evaluate existing environmental monitoring programmes and identified available and suitable long-term programmes on a regional and sub-regional level, which can be used for effectiveness evaluation. It is the plan to identify suitable programmes at national levels already before COP 3.
3.Relevant Documents of the Technical Working Group (TWG)
- Report of the Provisional ad hoc TWG, 09.–12. October 2006 in Brno UNEP/POPs/GMP-TWG.1/6, 12. October 2006
- Draft Implementation Plan for the first evaluation UNEP/POPs/GMP-TWG.1/6, Addendum 2
- Revised Criteria for Evaluation and Monitoring Activities that can potentially contribute to the Stockholm Convention Global Monitoring Plan UNEP/POPs/GMP-TWG.1/6, Addendum 3
- Questionaire to assess the capacity and needs for existing monitoring programmes to be fulfilled by 20. January 2007 UNEP/POPs/GMP-TWG.1/6, Addendum 4, sent out by a letter from 20. January 2006
- Elements of the Global Monitoring Plan – draft outline UNEP/POPs/GMP-TWG.2/X
- Draft Grouping of Regional Structure of the POPs GMP
A further document is under preparation from the Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention:
- Guidance with information on implication of effectiveness evaluation for capacity building (GMP Guidance document, distributed by the Secretariat on 15. January2007)
4.Discussion of the Status of the Work of the TWG
4.1.General discussion
It should be ensured, that the information from COP 2, worked out by the Secretariat with an interim assessment of existing human and environmental data sets and identification of regional data gaps and monitoring options for am GMP (UNEP/POPs/COP.2/21) is aware to the experts of the TWG. A report on informal consultations on the effectiveness evaluation of the Stockholm Convention, held from 14 to 16 March 2006 in Bangkok, Thailand are relevant as well (UNEP/POPS/COP.2/INF/21).
A link between policy persons and scientific experts is also very important for the discussions in the TWG, but also in the member states to ensure the input of information on existing monitoring programmes on regional and national levels.
For future work it will be beneficial to ensure that TWG experts have enough support from policy people as well. They need policy guidance to make sure that TWG comes up with proposals that could be acceptable for the COP.
It should be emphasized, that it is of major importance for all member states to fulfill the questionaires of the TWG, sent out be the Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention have to be filled in to provide the TWG with relevant information.
4.2.Report of the 1. Meeting of the TWG, 09.–12. October 2006 in Brno
The EU should ensure, that available information is coordinated and brought to the TWG,e.g.: information from EPER, EEA, EMEP, AMAP and other programmes.
The EU Commission will be asked if they have made arrangements to coordinate these sources of information (this question should be put forward to the representative of the EU Commission).
The timetable is reflected without comments.
4.3.Draft Elements of the GMP
Messages to the Experts of the TWG:
The document should be revised to make it more reader-friendly and easier to understand, for instances referring:
- clarify terms “steps”, “tiers”, etc.,
- the term “Strategic Partnerships” should be explained more in specific,
- linkage to GEF and the National Implementation Plans of countries should be included,
- relevant actors should be identified, who will be addressed as responsible for covering working packages (Secretariat, a Clearing house, etc.),
- it will be important to emphasize, that a GMP is created and should be implemented on the basis of an regional approach, not on a national basis for the countries,
- regions should also focus on the core data; only in cases, where available additional data should be covered.
A glossary with clear definitions should be part of the GMP.
Consideration for an EU position:
A mechanism to link the GMP to financing by GEF and to National Implementation Plans should be installed and ensured.
There is information on GEF-projects, which investigate feasibility of regional structures in developing countries for monitoring programmes (the representative of the CzechRepublic will check this with UNEP Chemicals).
It is discussed, whether terminologies, like “global coverage” and “gaps” in the context of monitoring could be defined more precisely as a basis for cost estimates. Result of the discussion is, that this exercise will be difficult. For closing monitoring gaps a reasonable decision from regions will be needed on the basis of the regional approach and focussing on core data.
The relationship to the monitoring requirements of REGULATION (EC) No 850/2004 and the monitoring arrangements of the European Environment Agency (EEA) should be clarified.
The EU could initiate a discussion about the content of “coverage” (e.g. number of monitoring data and samples, number of contributing member states). This could serve as an example for the discussion in the other regions with the implication to avoid excessive coverage.
4.4.Proposal for Regional Grouping
Proposal of the TWG:
A core group of the TWG provided a proposal for a basic regional structure for the GMP. It was suggested that in setting up the regions, care should be taken that they provide an adequate basis for generating, collecting, reporting and presenting of data. To achieve this the regions were formed as geographical entities to facilitate also evaluation of regional and global environmental transport of POPs.
The first monitoring report should following a regional distribution:
- North and Central America including the Caribbean;
- Western, Central and Eastern Europe (including the whole UN-CEE region);
- West, South and South-eastern Asia;
- South America;
- Africa;
- and the region of Australia, New Zealand and the PacificIslands.
Information from the Arctic will be incorporated in the appropriate regions (North and Central America including the Caribbean as well as Western and Central Europe and Eurasia. The South America region and the region of Australia, New Zealand and the PacificIslands will approach the relevant Antarctic institutions for information from the Antarctic.
The plan is, to install a Regional Organization Group (ROG) for every region to direct the activities of this region.
Results of discussion in the proposal:
The proposed new regional grouping for the purpose to coordinate regional activities on a regional basis is reasonable. Especially for the EU there already exist regional monitoring programmes (EMEP and AMAP), which cover exactly the whole area, including the non-Parties Russia and Kasachstan.
It has to be considered, that in result of such a new regional grouping the constitution of the current TWG is not longer balanced according to this new proposal. In case the TWG-mandate will be continued after COP 3 a new distribution-key for designated experts has to be assessed. In this case from the perspective of the EU the whole number of experts of the TWG has to be increased to ensure adequate representative in this technical body.
This question needs EU – coordination prior to COP 3 in the WPIEI.
Messages to the Experts of the TWG:
The Secretariat should be asked to make visible in the regional grouping map those countries, which are Parties of the Convention. The EU TWG-members could ask the Secretariat for a cost estimate for setting up the ROGs, including meeting costs, travel, special experts for drafting reports etc.
Consideration for an EU position:
The EU should come prepared to COP 3 with a Conference Room Paper (CRP) on Terms of Reference for the ROGs. In this context cost estimates and a plan on the constitution, responsibilities, mandate, tasks on Regional Organization Group (ROG) should be determined.
4.5.Draft Implementation Plan
Messages to the Experts of the TWG:
The document revised to make it more reader-friendly and easier to understand as well. It would help to focus on general approaches and preventing to create it in a too detailed manner.
Some chapters, mentioned as “Output 1, 2 and 3” are going beyond the mandate of the TWG, as a proposal for Regional Organization Group (ROG) is already included. In fact the COP has to decide - pending also on funding and financial availability - if to install ROGs for each region (with a whole number of six).
The Draft Implementation Plan should make also transparently, which work should be done in future, and which tasks have already done (e.g. the distribution of questionnaires, is already done).
Consideration for an EU position:
There are implications to other issues technical assistance, capacity building, financial mechanism and budget to be considered in a later position to COP 3.
4.6.Criteria for Evaluation and Monitoring Activities
Messages to the Experts of the TWG:
The document has already worked out by the TWG finally. Nevertheless there is a need for some editorial work with polishing of terminologies, like “tiers”, “steps”, “phases”, etc. The use of such terms and the structure should be checked together with the Draft Elements of the GMP and the Draft Implementation Plan to achieve coherences of the approach as a whole. The term “Expert panels” would also be helpful to explain. A glossary should be added.
It would be helpful, if the criteria could be made more transparently by a flowchart, which also indicate, what action or decision is needed in case a criterion is fulfilled or not fulfilled (“yes/no-figure”).
5.Consideration for action in preparing COP 3
The EU have to discuss apart from the issues specific relevant to the proposals of the TWG outlined above:
- a cost estimate and plan on the constitution, responsibilities, mandate, tasks on Regional Organization Group (ROG),
- to be prepared to COP 3 with a Conference Room Paper (CRP) on Terms of Reference for the ROGs,
- if a larger group, acting as an over-viewing body is needed. This body should give general guidance to ensure a reasonable implementation. The TWG could be a model for this or could cover this task.
EU – Network:
To receive and access existing data and information, it is necessary to install a link between policy persons and scientific experts in the member states. The WPIEI should be sensitized for this need and to facilitate such cooperation.
Further action:
- The comments of this Informal Meeting in Vienna to specific documents of the TWG will be transferred to the TWG by the experts themselves.
- The minutes of the meeting will be provided for information to the WPIEI.
- The issues for consideration of a EU-position will be transferred to the preparation of the WPIEI of 13 March 2007. Relevant for this WPIEI will also be the hopefully available documents for COP 3 (including TWG 2 – documents).
- The Minutes of the meeting will be provided to the Meeting of the competent authorities at 26 January 2007,
- The representative of the EU Commission will be asked to include the document to the CIRCA-Webpage.
- The information will also made available to the Meeting of the NRCs of the EEA; the colleague from Finland will explain background and needs.
Implications for Outreach:
Issues for testing views with other regional groups are:
- The proposal for new regional grouping and possible ROG-arrangements (including implications of Canada),
- Possible cooperation for providing data and information.
1