Meeting of the Bureau of the 6th meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Rotterdam Convention, Rome, Italy, 13-14 September 2012

1. Opening of the Meeting

  1. The Bureau of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade met on Thursday, 13September 2012 and Friday, 14September 2012 at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in Rome.
  1. The meeting was attended by the President of the Conference of the Parties, Ms. Magdalena Balicka (Poland), and the following Vice-Presidents: Ms. Gladys Njeri Maina (Kenya), Mr. Mohammed Khashashneh (Jordan), Mr. Luis Vayas-Valdivieso (Ecuador) and Ms. Christina Charlotte Tolfsen (Norway).
  2. Ms.Balickaopened the meeting at 9:10 am and welcomed the participants. In his opening remarks, Mr. Gavin Wall, ad interim Executive Secretary of theFAO part of the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention, emphasized that international agreements such as the Rotterdam Convention continued to be of central importance to the efficient movement of goods and the delivery of services across national borders. He expressed support from FAO towards the synergies process, in particular FAO’s willingness to supportthe technical work under the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. Finally, he mentioned that thework of FAO on the management and use of agricultural substances extended well beyond the Secretariat services provided to the Rotterdam Convention and there were thus significant opportunities to achieve even more than originally envisaged under the synergies process.
  3. Mr. Jim Willis, Executive Secretary of the Secretariat of the Basel, and Stockholm Conventions and United Nations Environment (UNEP) part of the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention, stressed the importance of the leadership of the Bureau in ensuring that activities were implemented that the Bureau considered essential to meeting the goals under the Convention. He added that the origins of the Rotterdam Convention, namely the joint UNEP and FAO programme on a voluntary prior informed consent procedure, established under the FAO International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and the UNEP London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade, were the first instance of synergies among international organizations in the area of chemicals management. He mentioned that the Bureau would be reviewing progress on enhancing cooperation and coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholmconventions under several agenda items of the present meeting.

2. Adoption of the Agenda

  1. The provisional agenda was adopted without amendments and is included in the annex to the present report.

3.Update on the preparation of the final restructuring proposal by UNEP in consultation with FAO

  1. On this agenda item, the Executive Secretary Mr. Willisrecalled that the proposal for the organisation of the UNEP parts of the secretariats of the three conventions was presented to the Bureau in December 2011. Subsequently, he had received a number of comments on the proposal, which were published, together with his response to those comments, on the synergies website ( The restructuring implied a shift from a programmatic structure to a matrix structure with four branches and an immediate office and had been put into effect as of 18 February 2012.
  1. Mr. Willis reported that acting branch chiefs were currently heading the four branches on administrative services, conventions operations, scientific support and technical assistanceawaiting formal recruitment of all management positions. He ensured the Bureau members that due consideration would be given to demographic and gender balance when selecting the branch chiefs. He furthermore informed the Bureau that Ms. Kerstin Stendhal from Finlandhad been selected to fill the position of Deputy Executive Secretary of the Secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions and that she was expected to take up duty in November.
  1. To increase the openness and transparency of Secretariat operations, management reports, including quarterly reports of the Executive Secretary on costs and savings generated through the synergies process, consultant and individual contractor reports, reports on the trust funds of the three conventions, hospitality reports, reports on recruitment and contract extension, legal instruments reports and reports on staff travel were posted on the synergies website. Comments and reactions from parties on those reports were welcomed.
  1. Mr. Willis explained that the next step of the reorganization process would be the final restructuring proposal, to be developed by the Executive Director of UNEP in consultation with the Director-General of FAO. The process had started recently and informal discussion had been held. From a UNEP perspective, the final proposal could be expected tobe along the lines of the proposal prepared by Mr. Willis in December 2011, with a few technical changes and corrections, in particular to explain better how the FAO part of the Rotterdam Convention Secretariat aligned with the structure.
  1. In the ensuing discussion, the Bureau members sought further information on how the three conventions were being taken into account in the four new branches. Mr. Willis explained that instead of having individual staff members dedicated to one treaty, the branches would deliver the same functions for the three treaties, giving due consideration to specific expertises needed for the work of each convention. Certain staff members would thus continue working on specific (e.g. technical or scientific) issues related to one convention only.While staffing tables were indicativefor the current biennium, this would probably not be the case in the next biennium and the staff would thus need to account for time spent working on each convention.
  1. One Bureau member noted that the parties would need to make sure that the Secretariat was not losing its strengths and capacities accumulated over the past years as a consequence of the restructuring. Mr. Willis replied that the review of the synergies arrangements in 2013 provided an opportunity for parties to make sure that the Secretariat was efficiently delivering the services requested by the parties.
  1. The Bureau took note of the information providedand expressed support for the principle of ensuring geographic and gender balance in the selection of the management positions in the Secretariat. The Bureau members also welcomed the fact that the final proposal would clarify how the FAO part of the Secretariat aligned with the restructured UNEP part, as they needed to function well together.

4.Status of preparations for the extraordinary meetings of the conferences of the parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions

(a) Agenda

  1. The Bureau had before it the draft provisional agendaof the second simultaneous extraordinary meetings of the conferences of the parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. The representative of the Secretariat explained that the substantive items on the provisional agenda weredetermined by the decisions on enhancing cooperation and coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions taken by the conferences of the parties in 2011(the so-called “2011 synergies decisions”)and that changes to the provisional agenda could only be made if each and all of the ordinary meetings of the conferences of the parties to the three conventions in 2013 agreed to do so.
  1. In the subsequent discussion, the Bureau members agreed that it would be interesting to receive under item 4 (e) of the provisional agenda on “Reports or information received from the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programmeon the outcome of the consultative process on financing options for chemicals and wastes” additional reports from UNEP on relevant processes in the chemicals and wastes field, such as information on the outcomes of the third session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management taking place in Nairobi from 17 to 21 September 2012,and the UNEP Governing Council, as well as from the Global Environment Facility. The Bureau agreed that UNEP should be invited to provide relevant reports to the extraordinary meetings of the conferences of the parties and requested the Secretariat to follow-up with UNEP on the submission of these reports.
  1. The Bureau members took note of the information provided and decided to include explanations on the factthat changes to the provisional agenda could only be made by the ordinary meetings of the conferences of the parties in the document containing the annotations to the provisional agenda of the extraordinary meetings of the conferences of the parties.

(b) Organization of work

  1. On the suggestion of the President, Bureau members agreed to consider together the organization of work of the extraordinary meetings of the three conferences of the parties and the organization of work of the ordinary meeting of the Rotterdam Convention (agenda item 5 (b)). The Bureau had before it the thought starter on a possible approach prepared by Mr. Willis for the organization of work of the ordinary and extraordinary meetings of the conferences of the partiesin 2013.The Secretariat explained that the thought starter contained a possible schedule for the two weeks, as requested by the Bureauof the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention at their meeting in May 2012.One possibility would be to hold an extraordinary session of the conferences of the parties on Sunday 28 April 2013, followed by sequential sessionsof the ordinary meetings of the three conferences of the parties. Contact groups could be established at the beginning of the meetings and run the whole two weeks period. Final sessions of the extraordinary meetings of the conferences of the parties could be held at the end of the second week. The bureaux at their joint meeting in December 2012 were expected to agree on the organization of work of the meetings.
  1. In the ensuing discussion, the Bureau members asked for further clarifications on some issues. Mr. Willis explained that all efforts would be made by the Secretariat to raise the financial resources necessary to fund one participant per Convention for which an eligible country is party and that requested such assistance, for the full two weeks duration of the meeting.He also noted expressions of interest from donors that offered reassurance that such support was very likely to be forthcoming. To ensure that certain experts could join the meetings only for specific sessions related to their area of expertise, the organization of work needed to be made clear, logical and easy to plan and cover for delegations. Nevertheless, the participation of delegates in various sessions of the different meetings of the conferences of the parties would greatly facilitate the identification of opportunities to work across conventions on cross-cutting issues. In order to ensure that there was adequate opportunity for the interests of all delegations to be factored into the discussion, the total number of contact groups meeting at any one time would need to be limited and no more contact groups would be operating at any given point in time than has been past practice at meetings of the conferences of the parties.
  1. Mr. Willis clarified that the option of holding plenary sessions in parallel was not foreseen in his thought starter. While some Bureau members expressed support for the idea of parallel sessions, others preferred sequential plenary sessions. However, the Bureau members agreed that it could be useful to have a certain degree of flexibility in the organization, e.g. to start the meeting of a conference of the parties a day earlier than planned orto have contact groups work in parallel to the meeting of the Conference of the Parties to another convention. In order to enable the bureaux to discuss the organization of work efficiently at their joint meeting in December 2012, the Bureau requested the Secretariat to elaborate the possible schedule of the week in a flow chart providing more details and showing the different options available for scheduling the sessions and the possible sequence of the discussion. The paper should also include information on potential contact groups that might be set up and more details on the first and last days of the meetings.
  1. With regards to the holding of regional meetings on Saturday 27 April 2013, the Bureau members noted that in order to allow for effective discussion, regional representatives for the three conventions needed to be present.
  1. The Secretariat also mentioned that the bureaux would at their joint meeting in December 2012 agree on whether to organizea high-level segment during the extraordinary meetings of the conferences of the parties. The high-level segment could take place either at the beginning or at the end of the two-week period and the bureaux could add a day to the meetings of the conferences of the parties (e.g. Saturday, 11 May 2013) if considered necessary.
  1. While not all regions had clearly expressed views and preferences onthe idea of a high-level segment, it was noted by the Bureau that such an event could significantly increase political attention for the meetings. The Bureau members identified several potential topics for the high-level segment, including matters of interest to all three conventions;the integration of chemicals management with other environmental topics such as operationalizing synergies at the national level; and how to take synergies to the next level by involving related organizations and processes under the chemicals management agenda. Mr. Willis mentioned that he was optimistic about being able to raise funds to provide financial support for the participation of ministers from developing countries and countries with economies in transition for the duration of the high-level segment, should the bureaux decide to have a high-level segment.
  1. As the Bureau members were of the view that further feedback from the countries on a potential high-level segment would be useful, they decided to seek informal input from parties for the purpose of discussing the issue at the joint meeting of the bureaux in December 2012. This would focus on obtaining views and suggestions on potential topics of the high-level segment, its timing and its potential format (e.g. speeches, ministerial round tables, plenary discussion).
  1. The Bureau members concluded that it would be useful to also cover the constituenciesof the Basel and Stockholm conventions and tasked the Secretariat with developing a short questionnaire in consultation with the President of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention, who would seek the agreement from the presidents of the conferences of the parties to the Basel and Stockholm conventions to participate in the exercise. If they agreed, the Secretariat would then send the questionnaire on behalf of the three presidents to official contact points of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, collect the input, compile it by region and publish it on the web. If the regions additionally wanted to coordinate their position, regional coordinators and/or the bureaux members could do so. The Secretariat could assist the coordinators and/or Bureaux members with communicating with their regions upon request.
  1. The Bureau thanked the Executive Secretary for preparing the thought starter, took note of the information provided and decided to discuss organization of work in more detail during the joint meeting of the Bureaux.

5. Status of preparations for the ordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention

(a) Agenda

  1. The Secretariat introduced a draft provisional agendathat it had prepared for the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The agenda contained the same substantive items as the agenda of the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that,at its meeting in May 2012, the Bureau of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention had decided not to include a sub-item on “information exchange” on the provisional agenda of its sixth meeting, since it was covered entirely under the agenda item on “Joint activities for the biennium 2014–2015” (item 4 (c))on the provisional agenda of the second extraordinary meetings of the conferences of the parties.A footnote on the provisional agenda of the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention would explain why an item included on the agendas of previous meetings of the Conference of the Parties was not included as it would be discussed under the agenda of the extraordinary meetings of the conferences of the parties.
  2. In the ensuing discussion, the Bureau members agreed to follow the same approach for the provisional agenda of the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention. With this change, the Bureau finalized the provisional agenda of the meeting.
  1. The Bureau concurred that the annotations to the provisional agenda of the extraordinary meetings of the conferences of the parties should additionally explain that information exchange was to be covered under agenda item 4 (c) of the provisional agenda of the extraordinary meetings of the conferences of the parties.

(b) Organization of workand status of documents