UNEP/POPS/COP.5/INF/17
UNITEDNATIONS / / SC
UNEP/POPS/COP.5/INF/17
/
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
/ Distr.: General18 March 2011
English only
Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
Fifth meeting
Geneva, 25–29 April 2011
Item 5 of the provisional agenda[*]
Enhancing cooperation and coordination among the
Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions
Report on clearinghouse mechanisms and similar mechanisms in the area of chemicals and wastes
Note by the Secretariat
The annex to the present note contains a report on clearinghouse mechanisms and similar mechanisms in the area of chemicals and wastes.
77
UNEP/POPS/COP.5/INF/17
Annex
Report on clearinghouse mechanisms and similar mechanisms in the area of chemicals and wastes
Introduction
1. Decisions BC.Ex-1/1 of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, RC.Ex-1/1 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 and SC.Ex 1/1 of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (the “omnibus decisions”) were adopted by the conferences of the parties to the three conventions, respectively, at their simultaneous extraordinary meetings, in February 2010.
2. By paragraph 11 of section I of the omnibus decisions, the conferences of the parties of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions requested the convention secretariats to prepare a report on clearinghouse mechanisms and similar mechanisms in the area of chemicals and wastes, especially the Strategic Approach clearinghouse mechanism, with a description of their basic characteristics and the extent to which they contain elements that could be considered for inclusion in a joint clearinghouse mechanism for the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, to avoid duplication of work, for presentation at the ordinary meetings of the conferences of the parties in 2011.
3. To gather information for the above-mentioned report the Secretariat prepared a questionnaire and sent it to existing clearinghouse mechanisms on chemicals and wastes and other well-known clearinghouse mechanisms in other environmental areas.
4. The Secretariat received completed questionnaires from the secretariats of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management, the OzonAction Branch of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters and the Convention on Biological Diversity. These completed questionnaires, together with data collected from the Stockholm Convention ClearingHouse Mechanism, served as the basis for the present report. For purposes of tabulating in the pages that follow the number of responses to various questions in the questionnaire, the data collected from the Stockholm Convention ClearingHouse Mechanism are treated as a “completed questionnaire” in the same manner as the completed questionnaires submitted by the four above-mentioned organizations. The present report, therefore, is based on five completed questionnaires.
5. The completed questionnaires themselves may be found in the appendix, where they are reproduced as submitted, without editing.
I. Questionnaire
6. The questionnaire was divided into five main sections: part 1. General information on the contact officer; part 2. Information scope; part 3. Tools and infrastructure; part 4. Network; and part 5. Project management.
7. The objective of part 1 was to collect information on the clearinghouse mechanism and the contact officer responsible for its operation and management.
8. In part 2, information was collected on the type and scope of information that a clearinghouse mechanism covered, as well as indications on whether it was used for purposes other than pure information exchange, for example the collection of information for evaluating the effectiveness of a multilateral environmental agreement, the compiling of national reports or the provision of technical assistance to its constituents.
9. In part 3, the focus was on the tools and infrastructure that were used or had to be developed to implement the clearinghouse mechanisms. The main questions focused on the type of information technologies used, i.e., hardware, software and communications technologies, and whether the infrastructure was centralized, decentralized or mixed.
10. Part 4 aimed at gathering information on the main target audiences of the clearinghouse mechanisms, how its members interacted with one another and whether the mechanisms were interactive or passive, i.e., whether they involved information exchange between network members, and the dissemination of information by a secretariat and other key players. Part 4 also collected information on how the clearinghouse mechanisms dealt with the mobilization of expertise.
11. Part 5 was aimed at understanding how the clearing-house mechanisms were managed and what resources were required to operate them.
II. Report (analysis of completed questionnaires)
A. General findings
12. One of the main findings is that the term “clearinghouse mechanism” is used by different organizations in different ways. Some use it to refer to their websites and the dissemination of information, usually generated or held by secretariats, to their target audiences. In these organizations the scope of the clearinghouse mechanism is restricted to the websites, and sometimes even to specific sections of the websites.
13. Other organizations use the term to refer to all activities undertaken by their secretariats and other stakeholders to generate, collect, repackage and exchange information in service of the implementation of their instruments. Websites, CD-ROMs and other information vehicles are considered to be part of these clearinghouse mechanisms. The most comprehensive clearing-house mechanisms incorporate activities for the identification of information gaps as well as the means to fill those gaps.
14. Some clearing-house mechanisms include active programmes for developing and nurturing networks of members that actively collaborate on activities related to the implementation of their instruments. They are embracing new social networking technologies that with the increasingly prominent role of the internet in the information society are bringing a new dimension to the information exchange required for the effective implementation of their instruments. These tools provide all stakeholders with the opportunity to collaborate, to exchange information, experiences and best practices and readily to identify available experts for projects. It provides the opportunity for direct exchange between Governments, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, industry and the private sector, the academic community, individual experts, decision makers, students and any other members of the global community interested in participating in the debate.
B. Scope of information
15. The scope of the information managed in the various clearinghouse mechanisms varies. Some mechanisms are concentrated on disseminating information on meetings and conferences organized by their secretariats, and official documents including technical guidelines, procedures and training materials, while others provide for the exchange of information on useful contacts and expertise and a few others extend to the provision of capacity-building and financial assistance information. The following table provides a statistical analysis of the submitted questionnaires on the scope of the information managed in the clearinghouse mechanisms of the submitting organizations.
Questions / Statistics / Comments /1. Do you use your CHM for reporting on implementation of the goals of your programme? / Three organizations answered yes representing 60% of all answers. Two organizations answered no, representing 40% of all answers. / One organization said that it would like to include this feature in its clearinghouse mechanism.
2. Do you use your CHM for collecting information for evaluation of the effectiveness of your instruments? / Three organizations answered yes, representing 60% of all answers.Two organizations answered no, representing 40% of all answers. / One organization said that it would like to include this feature in its clearinghouse mechanism.
3. Do you use your CHM to exchange meeting information? / Three organizations answered yes, representing 60% of all answers. All three reported availability of information on meeting schedules, meeting arrangements, meeting reports and meeting documents. Two organizations answered no, representing 40% of all answers. Only one organization reported availability of information on meeting registration and participation.
4. Do you use your CHM to facilitate technical assistance to your constituents / stakeholders for the implementation of their programmes? Check the type of information you exchange. / Four organizations answered yes, representing 80% of all answers. All four reported availability of technical guidelines, manuals and procedures, information about expertise, implementation plans and training materials.
One organization answered no, representing 20% of all answers.
Three organizations reported availability of information systems.
5. Does your CHM facilitate exchange of information on organization / programme mandates and their implementation? / Five organizations answered yes, representing 100% of all answers. All of them reported availability of information on mandates and implementation.
Two organizations, however, reported that they did not exchange information on progress reports and one that it did not exchange information on its programme of work.
6. Do you use your CHM to exchange information on projects, funding needs, funding opportunities and a mechanism for matching these? / Three organizations answered yes, representing 60% of all answers. One organization reported that it was planning the implementation of such a feature, representing 20% of all answers. One organization reported that it did not use its clearinghouse mechanism to exchange information on projects or funding needs. / One organization reported that it would like to include this feature in its clearinghouse mechanism.
7. Have you developed a roster of experts? Do you facilitate online access to expertise in your CHM? Examples: discussion forums with experts participation, “expert of the day” / Four organizations answered yes, at least at the global level, representing 80% of all answers. One organization answered no, representing 20% of all answers.
None of the organizations reported having developed regional rosters of experts. / One organization reported that it had phased-out its experts feature but could re-activate it if procedures were made more effective.
One organization reported that it was planning to implement regional and national rosters.
8. Do you have country profiles on your CHM (country profiles which contain all relevant information on the status of the programme for that country)? / Four organizations answered yes, representing 80% of all answers. One organization reported that it was planning the implementation of such a feature, representing 20% of all answers.
9. Do you have contact information on your CHM? Check the relevant boxes below with whom you exchange contact information. / All five organizations answered yes, representing 100% of all answers.
National official contacts points are available in all five mechanisms, while information on unions and other worker’s associations is less common. / One organization reported that it was planning to expand the types of contacts in its clearing-house mechanism.
10. What kind of meeting and other official documents do you exchange on your CHM? / All five organizations reported exchanging official documents, representing 100% of all answers. Training documents and case studies were the most common types of official documents featured on the mechanisms. / One organization reported using a document management system integrated with its website to permit users to find meeting documents.
11. Do you have a correspondence tracking system as part of your CHM system for all official correspondence? / Two organizations answered yes, representing 40% of all answers. Two organizations answered no, representing 40% of all answers. One organization reported that it was planning to implement this feature, representing 20% of all answers.
12. Do you use your CHM for outreach activities? Do you include information and materials such as news, media events or any other outreach materials? / All five organizations answered yes, representing 100% of all answers.
13. Do you use / accept information in your CHM from the following source categories? If yes indicate whether they are peer reviewed? / Two organizations reported accepting information from 11 of the 12 identified source categories, representing 92% of all source categories.
One organization reported accepting information from four source categories, representing 31% of all source categories.
Two organizations reported having review processes in place, representing 40% of all organizations. / One organization reported that it was planning to expand the range of its information sources.
One organization reported that most of its submissions came from parties.
14. Does your CHM support the six official United Nations languages and how is this implemented? / Two organizations reported that their mechanisms included content in the six official languages, one that it supported four languages, one that it supported three languages and one that it used English only.
All organizations reported providing all content in English. / One organization reported that it was planning to support all six official United Nations languages, subject to the availability of funds.
16. The most common use of the clearinghouse mechanisms of the organizations submitting completed questionnaires is the exchange of information related to outreach activities, including information and materials such as news, media events and any other outreach materials and programme mandates, followed by information on national official contact points.
17. The least common feature of the clearing housemechanisms is the availability of peer reviewed sources of information provided by diverse sources. The main sources of information are the secretariats and Governments, followed by United Nations bodies and specialized agencies.
C. Tools and infrastructure
18. The tools and infrastructure used to exchange information in the various clearinghouse mechanisms differ from one another, having been adapted to the information scope and processes of the various mechanisms. Some of the mechanisms take a centralized approach to the collection, repackaging and dissemination of information by the secretariats, using traditional technologies such as printed materials, CD-ROMs and non-interactive websites. This a relatively passive approach to information exchange, in which the mechanisms function as simple repositories of information, like traditional libraries. A few clearinghouse mechanisms, on the other hand, are using tools such as interactive websites, content management systems, document management systems, relational databases, web services and social networking tools. These technologies facilitate a decentralized approach to information exchange, in which the secretariats can play a more catalytic role in developing and nurturing informationexchange networks. Experttoexpert interaction can take place in such online networks, between diverse users groups and geographical regions. Network members can actively collaborate to produce and share information and expertise without the direct involvement of the secretariats. The following table provides a statistical analysis of the submitted questionnaires on clearinghouse mechanism tools and infrastructure.