Summary report, 29 April – 10 May 2019

The 2019 joint Conferences of the Parties (COP) to the Basel,
Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions achieved several notable
outcomes, including:

• the establishment of a compliance mechanism under the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent
  Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in
  International Trade
• the listing of dicofol and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its
  salts, and PFOA-related compounds under the Stockholm Convention
  on Persistent Organic Pollutants; and
• the adoption of an amendment to address certain plastic wastes
  under the Basel Convention (BC) on the Control of Transboundary
  Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal.

This last decision was welcomed with raucous cheers, as delegates
celebrated the global agreement to take action on this pressing and
complicated issue. Parties to the BC also adopted technical
guidelines on environmentally sound management of electrical and
electronic wastes (e-wastes). These guidelines can now be
implemented, enabling countries to tackle this growing problem. Key
aspects of the e-waste issue remain, however, and an Expert Working
Group will continue working to answer questions about the export of
wastes for refurbishment—an issue that many characterize as a
loophole that allows end-of-life products to be exported under the
guise of “repairability.”

The Stockholm Convention COP also yielded significant developments,
with decisions to end some of the exemptions for the continued
production and use of certain industrial chemicals. These decisions
were welcomed by many, who saw these as evidence that this
“living” Convention is capable of effectively addressing
substances that are economically important but pose significant
risks to human health and the environment.

One of the most significant outcomes of the Rotterdam Convention
COP9 was the decision to adopt a compliance mechanism. This
challenging issue had been on the agenda of the Convention for 15
years, and while parties had come close to consensus at the last two
meetings of the COP, they were unable to overcome the concerns of a
small minority. When it became clear at this meeting that consensus
would once again be blocked by a single party, delegates took the
unprecedented step of voting to establish a new annex that would
delineate procedures and mechanisms to facilitate parties’
implementation of their obligations. This new mechanism will assist
parties to identify and address gaps in complying with the
Convention, with the aim of ensuring that governments have the
information they need about hazardous chemicals to assess the risks
and take informed decisions when importing chemicals.

Over 1700 delegates gathered in Geneva, Switzerland from 29 April-10
May 2019 for the fourteenth meeting of the COP to the Basel
Convention, the ninth meeting of the COP to the Rotterdam
Convention, and the ninth meeting of the COP to the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Negotiations in
Geneva focused on Convention-specific issues as well as issues of
joint concern to at least two of the three Conventions, including
cooperation and coordination among the Conventions to address issues
such as waste containing POPs.

A Brief History of the Chemicals and Wastes Conventions

Basel Convention

The Basel Convention (BC), which was adopted in 1989 and entered
into force on 5 May 1992, was created to address concerns over the
management, disposal, and transboundary movement of the estimated
400 million tonnes of hazardous wastes that are produced worldwide
each year. The guiding principles of the Convention are that
transboundary movements of hazardous wastes should be: reduced to a
minimum; minimized at the source; managed in an environmentally
sound manner; and treated and disposed of as close as possible to
their source of generation. In September 1995, at BC COP3, parties
adopted the Ban Amendment, which bans the shipment of hazardous
wastes for final disposal and recycling from Annex VII countries
(European Union (EU), Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) and Liechtenstein) to non-Annex VII countries.
The Ban Amendment will enter into force once it is ratified by
three-fourths (66) of the 87 parties that were parties to the
Convention when the amendment was adopted at COP3.

There are currently 187 parties to the Convention and 95
ratifications of the Ban Amendment.

Recent Highlights: At COP12 (4-15 May 2015,
Geneva), delegates adopted 25 decisions, including approving new
technical guidelines on POPs wastes and updated technical guidelines
on mercury wastes, and, on an interim basis, technical guidelines on
e-waste.

At COP13 (24 April – 5 May 2017, Geneva), delegates adopted guidance
to assist parties in developing strategies for implementation of the
Cartagena Declaration on the Prevention, Minimization and Recovery
of Hazardous Wastes and other Wastes. COP13 also adopted further
technical guidelines on POPs wastes, mercury wastes, and e-wastes,
established a new partnership on household waste under the Basel
Convention, and agreed to include marine litter in the programme of
work of the Basel Convention’s Open-ended Working Group.

Rotterdam Convention

The Rotterdam Convention (RC), which was adopted in September 1998
and entered into force on 24 February 2004, creates legally-binding
obligations for the implementation of the Prior Informed Consent
(PIC) procedure. The objectives of the Convention are to promote
shared responsibility and cooperative efforts among parties in the
international trade of certain hazardous chemicals in order to
protect human health and the environment from potential harm, and to
contribute to the environmentally sound use of those hazardous
chemicals by: facilitating information exchange about their
characteristics; providing for a national decision-making process on
their import and export; and disseminating these decisions to
parties. There are currently 161 parties to the Convention and a
total of 50 chemicals listed in Annex III, including 34 pesticides,
15 industrial chemicals, and one chemical in both the pesticide and
the industrial chemical categories.

Recent Highlights: Long-standing issues that have
eluded consensus include establishment of a compliance mechanism and
listing of several chemicals recommended by the Chemical Review
Committee (CRC) for inclusion in Annex III, including carbosulfan,
fenthion, and paraquat dichloride formulations, as well as
chrysotile asbestos. The COP has agreed that each of these chemicals
meets all criteria for listing but has not yet reached consensus to
include them in Annex III. At COP7 (4-15 May 2015, Geneva),
delegates agreed to establish an intersessional working group to:
review cases in which the COP was unable to reach consensus on the
listing of a chemical by identifying the reasons for and against
listing and, based on that and other information, to develop options
for improving the effectiveness of the process; and to develop
proposals for enabling information flows to support the PIC
procedure for those chemicals.

Following the working group’s report to COP8, delegates agreed
to request the Secretariat to develop an online survey to gather
information on priority actions to enhance the effectiveness of the
Rotterdam Convention, and to establish a working group to develop a
set of recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of the
Convention and to report to COP9.

Stockholm Convention

The Stockholm Convention (SC), which was adopted in May 2001 and
entered into force on 17 May 2004, calls for international action on
three categories of POPs: pesticides, industrial chemicals, and
unintentionally produced POPs. The SC requires parties to prevent
the development of new POPs and promote best available techniques
(BAT) and best environmental practices (BEP) for replacing existing
POPs. The Convention, which initially addressed 12 substances
(informally known as “the dirty dozen”), was designed to
facilitate the review and addition of new chemicals through a
three-stage scientific review process prior to consideration for
listing by the COP. Since 2009, the COP has added 16 new POPs,
including both pesticides and industrial chemicals, to the annexes
of the Stockholm Convention. There are currently 182 parties to the
Convention.

Recent Highlights: At its 2017 meeting the COP
agreed to list short-chain chlorinated paraffins in Annex A
(elimination) of the Convention. Due in part to its widespread use
in a range of applications, this industrial chemical was under
review by the POPs Review Committee (POPRC) for ten years before it
was recommended for listing, and the COP agreed to allow several
specific exemptions for continued production and use. Ongoing issues
include work to: reduce stockpiles of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs); review the continued need for
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) for disease-vector control;
and achieve consensus to establish a compliance mechanism. 

Synergies

Simultaneous extraordinary meetings of the Basel, Rotterdam and
Stockholm (BRS) COPs (ExCOPs) have been held twice. The first, held
22-24 February 2010 in Bali, Indonesia, resulted from the work of
the Ad Hoc Joint Working Group on Enhancing Cooperation and
Coordination among the BRS Conventions, which was mandated to
prepare joint recommendations on enhanced cooperation and
coordination for submission to the three COPs. Delegates adopted an
omnibus synergies decision on joint services, joint activities,
synchronization of the budget cycles, joint audits, joint managerial
functions, and review arrangements. In the decision on review
arrangements, the ExCOPs, inter alia, decided to review in
2013 how the synergies arrangements had contributed to achieving a
set of objectives, such as strengthening the implementation of the
three Conventions and maximizing the effective and efficient use of
resources at all levels.

The second simultaneous ExCOPs meeting was held in conjunction with
the back-to-back meetings of the COPs from 28 April-10 May 2013 in
Geneva, Switzerland. Delegates adopted an omnibus decision on
enhancing cooperation and coordination among the BRS Conventions.
The ExCOPs, inter alia, decided to undertake a review of
the synergies process and the organization of the Secretariats, and
to continue to present joint activities as an integral part of the
proposed programmes of work and budgets of the three Conventions. On
enhanced cooperation and coordination among the technical bodies of
the BRS Conventions, the ExCOPs, inter alia, requested
alignment of the working arrangements of the Rotterdam Convention
CRC with those of the Stockholm Convention POPRC to support
effective participation of experts and observers, and encouraged the
POPRC to involve experts from the Basel Convention when discussing
waste issues. On wider cooperation, the ExCOPs requested the
Secretariat to enhance cooperation with the Strategic Approach to
International Chemicals Management (SAICM) and expressed interest in
coordinating with the Minamata Convention on Mercury. On
facilitating financial resources for chemicals wastes, the ExCOPs
welcomed an integrated approach that includes mainstreaming,
industry involvement and dedicated external finance.

Report of the Meetings

Joint Sessions of the Three COPs

Marc Chardonnens, Director, Federal Office for the Environment,
Switzerland, opened the BRS COPs on Monday, 29 April 2019, and
called on delegates to: adopt a compliance mechanism under the RC;
address electrical and electronic waste (e-waste) and marine plastic
waste; and ratify the Ban Amendment to the BC.

Via video message, Joyce Msuya, Acting Executive Director, UN
Environment Programme (UNEP), called on delegates to ramp up their
efforts to address the full life cycle of chemicals and waste.

Rolph Payet, Executive Secretary, BRS Conventions, called on donors
to support the elimination of PCBs in equipment by 2025 and liquid
containing PCBs by 2028, and urged delegates to deliver action on
e-waste and marine plastics. Hans Dreyer, Executive Secretary of the
RC, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), stressed the
importance of addressing hazardous pesticides in order to meet the
Sustainable Development Goals, and drew attention to the forthcoming
UN International Year of Plant Health.

Mohammed Khashashneh (Jordan), SC COP 9 President, welcomed
delegates on behalf of Osvaldo Álvarez-Pérez (Chile), RC COP9
President, and Abraham Zivayi Matiza (Zimbabwe), BC COP14 President.
Khashashneh previewed the work ahead and synergies among the
Conventions, stressing the need for additional efforts to safeguard
human health and the environment. Each of the COP Presidents then
opened his respective meetings.

Organizational Matters

Adoption of the agenda and organization of work: On
Monday, 29 April, BC COP14 President Matiza, RC COP9 President
Álvarez-Pérez, and SC COP9 President Khashashneh introduced their
respective agendas (UNEP/CHW.14/1; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/1, Add. 1;
UNEP/POPS/COP.9/1, Add.1). All three agendas were adopted without
amendment.

Election of officers: On 29 April, the Secretariat
introduced the documents (UNEP/CHW.14/2, 13, INF/3;
UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/2, INF/3; and UNEP/POPS/COP.9/2, INF/3), noting
that the next BC COP President would be from the Latin American and
Caribbean Group (GRULAC), the RC COP President from the African
Group, and the SC COP President from Central and Eastern Europe
(CEE) countries. The agenda item was suspended and taken up by each
COP later in the meeting. On Friday, 10 May, the Secretariat
introduced the documents on the election of officers
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.41/Rev.1; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/CRP.13/Rev.1;
UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.28/Rev.1).

BC Election of Officers: Delegates elected to the COP15
Bureau: Osvaldo Álvarez-Pérez (Chile) as President; Joseph
Cantamanto Edmund (Ghana) as Rapporteur; Mohamed Karim Ouamane
(Algeria); Ali Al-Dobhani (Yemen); Zaigham Abbas (Pakistan); Irma
Gurguliani (Georgia); Mari-Liis Ummik (Estonia); Valentina Sierra
(Uruguay); Claire Gouvray (France); and Glenn Wigley (New Zealand).

For the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) Bureau: Gillian Guthrie
(Jamaica) and Stina Andersson (Sweden) as Co-Chairs; and Yaser Abu
Shanab (State of Palestine); Kristine Vardanashvili (Georgia); and
Hloblise Sikhosana (eSwatini).

For the Implementation and Compliance Committee: Paul-Babidou
Zarabingui (Central African Republic); Florisvindo Rodrigues Furtado
(Cabo Verde); Jimena Nieto (Colombia); Odessa Duncan (Guyana); Mark
Govoni (Switzerland); Nicole Mohammed (UK); Flavius Mihai Ardelean
Motoc (Romania); Gordana Vesligaj (Croatia); Mohamed Aman (Bahrain);
and Hamed Alinejad (Iran).

For the Environmental Network for Optimizing Regulatory Compliance
on Illegal Traffic (ENFORCE): Mazhar Hayat (Pakistan);
Florin-Constantin Homorean (Romania); Pulchérie Simeon (Benin);
Leila Devia (Argentina); and Katie Olley (UK).

RC Election of Officers: For the Bureau: Serge Molly (Gabon) as President;
Jeanelle Kelly (Saint Kitts and Nevis) as Rapporteur; Mohammed
Khashashneh (Jordan); Agnieszka Jankowska (Poland); and Alison
Kennedy (Canada).

RC Election of Experts: For the members of
the CRC, the COP appointed Dinesh Runiwal (India) to replace Manoj
Kumar Gangeya and Simon Hoy (UK) to replace Johanna Pelthola-Thies,
until 30 April 2020. The COP also appointed Martin Lacroix (Canada)
to replace Jeffery Goodman, Gloria Judith Venegas Calderon (Ecuador)
to replace Cristina Salgado, Kristīne Kazerovska (Latvia) to replace
Līga Rubene, Muhammad Shakeel Malik (Pakistan) to replace
Iftikhar-ul-Hassan Shah Gilani, and Agnieszka Jankowska (Poland) to
replace Dorota Wiaderna as members of the Committee until 30 April
2022 (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/CRP.11).

The 14 designated with terms of office from 1 May 2020 to 30 April
2024 are: Aïta Sarr Seck (Senegal); Clorence Matewe (Zimbabwe);
Youssef Zidi (Tunisia); Daniel William Ndiyo (Tanzania); Yenny
Meliana (Indonesia); Hassan Azhar (Maldives); Jayakody A. Sumith
(Sri Lanka); Dinesh Runiwal (India); Anahit Aleksandryan (Armenia);
Eliana Rosa Munarriz (Argentina); Jonah Ormod (Antigua and Barbuda);
Juergen Helbig (Austria); Mara Cubara (Belgium); and Sarah Maillefer
(Switzerland). 

The COP elected Nolozuko Gwayi (South Africa) as the Chair of the
CRC.

SC Election of Officers: For the Bureau: Silvija Nora Kalnins (Latvia) as
President; Sheikh Ahmed Tunis (Sierra Leone); Noluzuku Gwayi (South
Africa); Seyed Mahdi Parsaee (Iran); Yousif Muayad Yousif (Iraq);
Alexander Romanov (Russian Federation); Natalia Pacheco (Bolivia);
Nohelia Vargas Idiaquez (Nicaragua); Maria Delvin (Sweden); and
Felix Wertli (Switzerland).

SC Election of Experts: The members of POPs Review Committee (POPRC) with
terms commencing on 5 May 2020 are: Jean Paul Otamonga (Democratic
Republic of the Congo); Mehari Wondmagegn Taye (Ethiopia); Veiko
Uahengo (Namibia); Elham Refaat Abdel Aziz Sayed Ahmed (Egypt);
Jianxin Hu (China); Kazuhide Kimbara (Japan); Chalongkwan
Tangbanluekal (Thailand); Hyo-Bang Moon (Republic of Korea);
Magdalena Frydrych (Poland); Agustin Harte (Argentina); Mario Rodas
(Ecuador); Caren Rauert (Germany); Valentina Bertato (Belgium); and
Christina Tolfsen (Norway). 

Report on credentials: On Monday, 29 April, the
Secretariat introduced the documents (UNEP/CHW.14/1/Add.1, INF/4;
UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/1/Add.1, INF/5; UNEP/POPS/COP.9/1/Add.1, INF/5).
BC COP14 President Matiza welcomed new parties Vanuatu (BC, RC),
State of Palestine (RC, SC), and Turkey (RC).

On Thursday, 9 May, the Secretariat presented, and delegates
adopted, the report on credentials for each of the BRS Conventions.
China proposed making the credentials available online and asked
whether parties to the RC without credentials were entitled to vote.
This issue was discussed further under RC compliance.

Matters Related to Implementation of the Conventions

Technical assistance: This issue was introduced in
plenary on Monday, 29 April, and addressed in a contact group on
technical assistance and financial resources co-chaired by Reginald
Hernaus (Netherlands) and David Kapindula (Zambia). 

The Secretariat introduced the documents (UNEP/CHW.14/16 and 17;
UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/15; UNEP/POPS/COP.9/16, 17) and reported on its
technical assistance activities (UNEP/CHW.14/ INF/25/Rev.1;
UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/INF/24/Rev.1; and UNEP/POPS/COP.9/INF/25/Rev.1).
BC COP14 President Matiza identified the main issues as:

• the technical assistance plan for delivery of assistance under the
  Conventions (UNEP/CHW.14/INF/27; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/INF/26;
  UNEP/POPS/COP.9/ INF/26);
• the implementation of the BC emergency trust fund
  (UNEP/CHW.14/INF/56); and
• the BC and SC regional centres (UNEP/CHW.14/ INF/28/Rev.1, INF/29,
  Add.1; UNEP/POPS/COP.9/INF/27/Rev.1, INF/28, Add.1).

The COPs took note of the information provided on the implementation
of the emergency fund.

Georgia, for CEE, noted the value of the procedure for requesting
technical assistance. China and Iraq noted, respectively, the
efforts of FAO regional offices, as well as UNEP and the UN
Development Programme (UNDP) for technical assistance. South Africa
underscored the importance of ensuring that technical assistance is
sufficient to facilitate compliance. The EU said that technical
assistance activities should follow the mandates established in COP
decisions. On regional centres, many developing countries
underscored their value, citing examples of support such as staff
training, strengthening legal frameworks, and eliminating PCB
stockpiles. Many developing countries also called for further
strengthening of the regional centres, with South Africa urging
provision of sufficient financial resources, and Iran underscoring
the need for strengthening cooperation and coordination among
regional centres.

On the monitoring and evaluation strategy, the EU noted there was no
mandate for its development, while Thailand supported it. The
International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) called for technical
assistance to support non-combustion technologies to eliminate
stockpiles of POPs and suggested that regional centres would benefit
from involving civil society organizations in their projects.
Parties established a contact group, co-chaired by Reginald Hernaus
(Netherlands) and David Kapindula (Zambia) to discuss technical
assistance and regional centres. 

Delegates adopted a draft decision on Friday, 10 April.

Final Decision: In the joint decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.24, UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/CRP.7,
UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.24), the COPs, inter alia:

• invite developing country parties and parties with economies in
  transition to submit to the Secretariat information on their needs
  for technical assistance and technology transfer;
• invite developed country parties and others with the capacity to
  do so to submit to the Secretariat information on the technical
  assistance and technology that they have available to be
  transferred to developing country parties and parties with
  economies in transition;
• encourage parties, UNEP, FAO, the Global Environment Facility
  (GEF) and the Special Programme to support institutional
  strengthening at the national level for implementation of the BRS
  Conventions, the Minamata Convention on Mercury, and SAICM
  (Special Programme), and to continue to support the technical
  assistance plan for the implementation of the BRS Conventions for
  the period 2018-2021;
• request the Secretariat to: develop an online survey to collect
  the information from parties and make the information available on
  the Conventions’ websites; and prepare a report on the
  assessment of the information on the needs of developing-country
  parties and parties with economies in transition for technical
  assistance and technology transfer, based on the information
  submitted by parties; and
• emphasize the key role of the BC and SC regional centres, as well
  as the regional, subregional and country offices in delivering
  technical assistance upon request, particularly at the regional
  level, for the BRS Conventions and facilitating technology
  transfer to eligible parties.

Financial resources: This issue was opened in the
joint sessions on 29 and 30 April, and addressed in a contact group
on technical assistance and financial resources co-chaired by
Reginald Hernaus and David Kapindula for the duration of the
meeting.

The Secretariat introduced the document on the integrated approach
to financing sound management of chemicals and wastes
(CHW.14/INF/34, FAO/RC/COP.9/INF/27, POPS/COP.9/INF/33). UNEP
reported on the status and implementation of the Special Programme
(CHW.14/INF/35, FAO/RC/COP.9/INF/28, POPS/COP.9/INF/34). GRULAC
highlighted the importance of strengthening the role of the private
sector in the integrated approach, and underscored the importance of
additional finances to ensure implementation. Several countries,
including the Gambia, Bolivia, Togo, South Africa, Nigeria, Papua
New Guinea, and Iraq, outlined national actions to implement the
Special Programme and integrated approach. Colombia called for
revising the terms and conditions for accessing financing. Iran and
Kazakhstan urged non-discriminatory disbursement of funds. The State
of Palestine suggested review of the application submission
procedures. Palau called for strengthening international cooperation
to facilitate greater access to funding. The Center for
International Environmental Law (CIEL) recognized the value of the
Special Programme, but emphasized that full and adequate management
mechanisms require industry involvement. Delegates took note of the
information provided.

Enhancing Cooperation and Coordination among the BRS
Conventions

International cooperation and coordination: On
Tuesday, 30 April, the Secretariat introduced the document on
international cooperation and coordination, report on related
activities, report of the UNEP Executive Director, documents related
to cooperation with the Minamata Convention, and an update on the
SAICM intersessional process (UNEP/CHW.14/20, INF/36-38, 48, 51, 54;
UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/16, INF/29-31, 40, 16, 44; UNEP/POPS/COP.9/23,
INF/38-40, 49, 57, 59).

In plenary, Argentina supported the BRS Secretariat becoming a
participating observer in the SAICM process, and Switzerland
supported a similar status for the Secretariat in the
Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals
(IOMC). The African Group identified a discrepancy between the World
Health Organization (WHO) and the SC guidance regarding safe use of
DDT.

Rossana Silva Repetto, Executive Secretary of the Minamata
Convention, recalled the Minamata COP2 decision on development of a
proposal for a stable framework for sharing resources between the
Minamata Convention and BRS Secretariats. UNEP clarified that this
TripleCOP does not need to take a decision on this issue, and noted
9 of 25 resolutions adopted by the last session of the UN
Environment Assembly (UNEA) related to chemicals.

Outlining the linkages between several human rights conventions and
the BRS Conventions, the Special Rapporteur on Hazardous Substances
and Wastes called on parties to protect human rights.

The US urged parties to provide guidance to the Secretariat on
international cooperation, including on marine plastic litter.

This issue was then taken up in a contact group, co-chaired by Kay
Williams (UK) and Angela Patricia Rivera Galvis (Colombia).

Delegates adopted the decisions on Friday, 3 May. 

Final Decision: In their decisions
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.5; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/CRP.3;
UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.17), the COPs, inter alia, request the
Executive Secretary to cooperate with the UNEP Executive
Director in fostering the implementation of UNEA resolutions related
to the sound management of chemicals and waste and of the
plan “Towards a Pollution-Free Planet” in
areas relevant to the BRS Conventions. The COPs also request
the Secretariat to: 

• continue to make available to the UNEP information
  relevant to the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for
  Sustainable Development submitted to it by parties; 
• continue to cooperate with the UNEP, the Statistics Division
  of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs and other
  relevant organizations in the development of methodologies for
  indicators relevant to the BRS Conventions; 
• continue, subject to the availability of resources, to
  assist parties, upon request, in their efforts to integrate
  relevant elements of the Conventions into their national
  plans and strategies for sustainable development and, as
  appropriate, legislation; 
• continue to work closely with other international organizations on
  activities related to marine plastic litter and
  microplastics; 
• continue to participate as an observer, upon invitation, at
  relevant meetings of the IOMC, pending the outcome of
  the IOMC’s consideration of the BRS Conventions
  becoming members of the Programme;  
• continue to enhance cooperation and coordination with the Minamata
  Convention Secretariat in programmatic areas such as
  mercury wastes and their environmentally sound management
  (ESM), capacity building and the provision of technical
  assistance, including through regional centres and in
  other relevant areas of mutual interest to the
  Conventions;  
• continue to enhance cooperation and coordination with
  the SAICM Secretariat in areas of relevance to
  the BRS Conventions; and 
• report on the implementation of the present decision to
  the COP at its next meeting. 

Clearing house mechanism for information exchange:
The Secretariat introduced the documents (UNEP/CHW.14/21, INF/39;
UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/17, INF/32; UNEP/POPS/COP.9/24, INF/41). Parties
adopted this decision without further discussion.

Final Decision: In their decisions
(UNEP/CHW.14/21; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/17; UNEP/POPS/COP.9/24), the
COPs, request the Secretariat, subject to the availability of
resources, to

• continue the work to implement the strategy of the joint clearing
  house mechanism in a gradual and cost-effective manner; and
• implement the activities of the clearing house mechanism workplan
  for the biennium 2020-2021, while prioritizing recurring
  activities, in particular with respect to the maintenance of
  existing systems.

The decisions also request the Secretariat to:

• ensure that activities undertaken in the development of the
  clearing house mechanism are cost-effective, proportionate and
  balanced, and in line with the capacity and resources of the
  Secretariat;
• participate in meetings by electronic means where possible and to
  use translations that are already available in the six official
  languages of the UN;
• utilize the clearing house mechanism to gather information about
  regional and national initiatives related to waste management,
  including those on marine plastic waste, taking into account and
  in cooperation with other initiatives;
• continue to enhance cooperation and coordination activities with
  existing partners in the area of information exchange, to explore
  possible cooperative activities with new partners, as appropriate,
  and to ensure complementarity and avoid duplication with existing
  and future activities, tools, and mechanisms;
• expand its collaboration with the Minamata Convention Secretariat
  to exchange information and share experiences and best practices
  regarding the use of existing clearing house mechanism systems;
  and
• request the Secretariat to keep the strategy under regular review
  in order to take into account lessons learned and relevant
  developments with regard to matters such as the multi-sectoral and
  multi-stakeholder discussions on the sound management of chemicals
  and waste beyond 2020.

Mainstreaming gender: The Secretariat introduced
the documents (UNEP/CHW.14/22, INF/55; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/18, INF/45;
UNEP/POPS/COP.9/25, INF/58). Several parties expressed support for
the updated BRS Gender Action Plan, with many outlining national
actions to mainstream gender for the sound management of chemicals
and wastes. The EU requested the Secretariat to continue to update
subsequent COPs on implementation of the Plan. The African Group and
Iraq called for technical assistance to support gender
mainstreaming.

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) noted that women are more
biologically sensitive to pesticides and called for more work on
this issue. Independent Ecological Expertise called for a risk
evaluation of products to which predominantly women are exposed.
IPEN stressed the importance of correcting the “power
imbalance” in chemicals and wastes decision-making processes.

Delegates agreed to note this information in the report.

Synergies in preventing and combating illegal traffic and trade
in hazardous chemicals and wastes:
The Secretariat introduced the documents (UNEP/CHW.14/23, INF/42;
UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/19, INF/33; UNEP/POPs/COP.9/26, INF/42).Pakistan,
supported by the State of Palestine and Libya, highlighted the
problem of illegal exports of plastic scrap and garbage from
developed to developing countries and called for “strict
action” on illegal dumping. The African Group highlighted the
importance of the regional centres in fighting illegal traffic and
trade. Nigeria called for the Secretariat to organize sub-regional
capacity-building activities.

The Russian Federation called for strengthening cooperation among
the BRS Conventions and the Montreal Protocol. The EU said work on
this issue should build on previous decisions and be cost effective.
The US cautioned that a joint glossary of terms might conflate the
legal autonomy of the Conventions. IPEN called for development of a
glossary of terms and a form to report on illegal trade. PAN urged
inclusion of civil society organizations in monitoring.

This issue was forwarded to the joint issues contact group where
delegates discussed ways to make reporting illegal traffic and trade
voluntary to avoid creating new reporting burdens and to create an
explanatory note to accompany the reporting form. On a potential
glossary of terms shared by the three Conventions, some developed
countries noted that there are very few terms that related to
illegal traffic and trade in the RC and SC, and that the BC has
already done work on defining these terms.

In plenary on Friday, 3 May, the COPs adopted the decisions.

Final Decision: In their decisions
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.7; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/CRP.5;
UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.20), the COPs, inter alia, request the
Secretariat to:

• develop, taking into account lessons learned from experience with
  the BC a draft form and explanatory document to enable parties to
  the RC and SC to voluntarily provide information about cases of
  trade occurring in contravention of the Conventions, for comments
  by parties and subsequent consideration by the RC and SC COPs at
  their next meetings;
• prepare recommendations concerning opportunities for strengthened
  cooperation for consideration by the COPs to the BRS Conventions
  at their next meetings; 
• continue to provide advice and, subject to the availability of
  resources, undertake technical assistance activities to strengthen
  the capacity of parties to prevent and combat illegal traffic and
  trade in the chemicals and wastes covered by the BRS Conventions;
  and
• report on the implementation of the present decision to the BRS
  Conventions at their next meetings.

From science to action: The Secretariat introduced
the documents (UNEP/CHW.14/24, INF/40; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/20, INF/35;
UNEP/POPS/COP.9/27, INF/44). The African Group and others welcomed
the revised roadmap for enhanced science-based action in
implementation. Uruguay called for improved participation of
scientific and academic communities.

Nigeria called for financial resources to implement the roadmap. The
EU proposed textual changes, including to postpone the date for
parties to report on implementation to 2023.

This issue was forwarded to the joint issues contact group.

On Friday, 3 May, the COPs adopted the decisions with an amendment
proposed by Nigeria to request the Secretariat to cooperate and
coordinate with UNEP in preparation for assessment of options for
strengthening the science-policy interface for the sound management
of chemicals and wastes.

Final Decisions: In their decisions
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.6; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/CRP.4;
UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.19), the COPs request the Secretariat to:

• subject to the availability of resources, undertake
  capacity-building and training activities to support parties in
  taking science-based action in the implementation of the
  Conventions;
• continue to cooperate and coordinate with UNEP and, as
  appropriate, other relevant organizations, scientific bodies and
  stakeholders towards strengthening the science-policy interface
  and to report to the BRS COPs at their meetings to be held in 2021
  on the implementation of the present decision; and
• cooperate, as appropriate, with the UNEP Executive Director in the
  preparation of options for strengthening the science-policy
  interface for the sound management of chemicals and wastes as
  requested in UNEP Resolution 4/9.

Programme of Work and Budget

This issue was addressed in plenary on Tuesday, 30 April, and then
in a contact group on programme of work and budget, co-chaired by
Linroy Christian (Antigua and Barbuda) and Premysl Stepanek (Czech
Republic). The Secretariat introduced the documents (UNEP/CHW.14/25,
INF/43/Rev.1, INF/44; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/21, INF/36/Rev;
UNEP/POPS/COP.9/28) and presented information on: the zero nominal
growth budget scenario and the Executive Secretaries’
scenario; arrears; financial reports; and financial support from
partner organizations such as FAO.

The EU called for additional information on the two scenarios.
Supporting the zero nominal growth scenario, the Russian Federation
called for clarification on the increase of staff costs. Norway
expressed concern about outstanding arrears. Brazil and Argentina
noted their complicated financial situations, with Brazil supporting
the zero nominal growth scenario and Argentina calling on the
Secretariat to present additional scenarios in the future. The
African Group supported the Executive Secretaries’ scenario.

Delegates agreed to establish a contact group on the programme of
work and budget.

The COPs adopted the programme of work and budgets for each of the
three Conventions on Friday, 10 May. The budgets are summarized
under each of the Conventions below.

Memoranda of Understanding

On Tuesday, 30 April, the Secretariat introduced the documents on
Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) between UNEP and the BC and SC
COPs, and among FAO, UNEP, and the RC COP (UNEP/CHW.14/26/Rev.1,
INF/49; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/22/ Rev.1, INF/42;
UNEP/POPS/COP.9/29/Rev.1, INF/54-55). Delegates adopted the three
MoUs without amendment.

On Friday, 10 May, the Presidents of the BRS COPs signed the MoUs
with Joyce Msuya, Acting Executive Director, UNEP. In an address to
delegates, Msuya underscored the achievements of the BRS
Conventions, but, stressing that “complacence is the beginning
of stagnation,” she called for: precautionary action; speeding
up the rate at which new chemicals are listed; working with the
private sector; accounting for the impacts on future generations;
and dealing with hazardous wastes as a way to combat climate change.

The decisions related to the MoUs are summarized under each
Convention.

Venue and Date of the Next Meeting of the COPs

This item was introduced in the joint sessions of the BRS COPs on
Wednesday, 1 May. The Secretariat introduced the documents
(UNEP/CHW.14/INF/57; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/INF/46;
UNEP/POPS/COP.9/INF/60) and highlighted an offer from Kenya to host
the 2021 COPs, pending successful conclusion of a host country
agreement. Kenya, supported by the EU, Tanzania, Uganda, and
Nigeria, outlined its offer, highlighting the country’s
experience with hosting COPs of other multilateral environmental
agreements and meetings of UNEA. Delegates requested the Secretariat
to prepare a draft decision.

On Thursday, 9 May, delegates agreed to hold the next meetings of
the BRS COPs in Nairobi, Kenya, from 17-28 May 2021, with joint
sessions covering matters of relevance to at least two of the three
Conventions and separate sessions of each of the COPs. They also
decided that these meetings will include a high-level segment. 

Other Matters

These issues were addressed in joint plenary on Wednesday, 1 May.

Admission of Observers: The Secretariat introduced
the documents (UNEP/CHW.14/INF/58; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/INF/47;
UNEP/POPS/COP.9/INF/50). Delegates agreed to take note of the
observer requests.

Preventing harassment: Parties took note of the
guidelines preventing and addressing all forms of harassment at BRS
meetings (UNEP/CHW.14/INF/47; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/INF/48;
UNEP/POPS/COP.9/INF/51).

Partnerships: The Secretariat introduced the BC
Partnership Programme (UNEP/CHW.14/18). BC COP14 President Matiza
explained this item would be discussed jointly to ensure a
consistent approach toward partnerships.

Uruguay welcomed the establishment of partnerships with a
pre-established framework, specific terms of reference (ToRs), and a
work programme that allows progress to be measured. Iran, Nigeria,
and India called for a partnership on lead-acid batteries. Argentina
and the Gambia cited the benefits of partnerships for addressing
illegal traffic. Argentina and China highlighted the role of the
regional centres.

Noting that only the BC has partnerships, Switzerland said that the
SC and RC could start partnerships under their respective
Conventions and, with the EU, queried the need for joint
discussions.

Parties forwarded discussions to the joint issues contact group. The
issue is summarized under the BC section of this report.

Adoption of the Report

On Friday, 3 May, delegates adopted the report of the joint sessions
(UNEP/CHW.14/L.1; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/L.1; UNEP/POPS/COP.9/L.1). 

Stockholm Convention COP9

COP9 of the Stockholm Convention opened on Monday, 29 April, and
conducted most of its work from Tuesday, 30 April, through Friday, 3
May.

Rules of Procedure for the COP

The Secretariat introduced the document (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/3), noting
that paragraph 1 of Rule 45 on voting procedures remains in
brackets. Delegates agreed to defer this issue to COP10.

Matters Related to the Implementation of the Stockholm
Convention

Measures to reduce or eliminate releases from intentional
production and use: Exemptions: This item was first taken up
in plenary on Wednesday, 1 May. The Secretariat introduced the
report on specific exemptions, acceptable purposes, and other
exemptions (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/4), noting that delegates may wish to
include language in the draft decision indicating that, due to the
listing of dicofol, production and use of DDT as a closed-system
site-limited intermediate in the production of dicofol will not be
extended.

The EU supported the draft decision. Several delegates recognized
the efforts of the POPRC. Mexico expressed concern about the limited
number of notifications. Nigeria shared information on locally
available non-POP alternatives and called for more technical and
financial support.

IPEN emphasized that exemptions should be for specific products and
said each listing should require labelling new products that contain
POPs. The US called for information on exemption registration and
expiration dates to be included on the Secretariat website.

On Thursday, 2 May, the decision was adopted.

Final Decision: In its decision
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.11), the COP decides, inter alia, that
no new registrations may be made with respect to:

• lindane for use as a human-health pharmaceutical for the control
  of head lice and scabies as a second-line treatment; and
• PFOS, its salts, and PFOSF for photo masks in the semiconductor
  and liquid crystal display industries, metal plating, electric and
  electronic parts for some color printers and copy machines,
  insecticides for the control of red imported fire ants and
  termites, and chemically driven oil production.

The COP also decides, pursuant to note (iii) of Annex B, that any
notifications for the production and use of dicofol as a
closed-system site-limited intermediate will not be available after
15 December 2020.

DDT: On Wednesday, 1 May, the Secretariat
introduced the documents (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/5 and INF/6). UNEP
reported on the implementation of the DDT Alternatives Roadmap and
the Global Alliance for the Development and Deployment of Products,
Methods and Strategies as Alternatives to DDT for Disease Vector
Control (INF/8). WHO highlighted information on the use of DDT and
alternatives in disease vector control (INF/7).

Guinea, Senegal, Rwanda, and Honduras highlighted bans of DDT in
their countries. Namibia noted difficulties related to DDT
elimination. Uganda announced its intention to revert to DDT to
address vectors resistant to alternatives. Côte d’Ivoire noted
the importance of the precautionary principle and emphasized the
need to find a viable alternative.

The African Group and others called on UNEP and WHO to provide clear
guidance on the safety of DDT for indoor residual spraying for
disease vector control. Bangladesh urged the DDT expert group to
establish a timeline for the global phase-out of DDT. 

The EU encouraged parties on the DDT register to respond to the
questionnaire in order to receive technical or other assistance.

PAN urged greater attention to: illegal agricultural use of DDT;
funding for non-chemical management approaches to vector control;
and, with IPEN, called for improved reporting. The draft decision
was adopted with minor oral amendments.

Final Decision: In its decision
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/5), the COP, inter alia:

• concludes that countries that rely on indoor residual spraying for
  disease vector control may need DDT for that purpose in specific
  settings where locally safe, effective, and affordable
  alternatives are still lacking for a sustainable transition away
  from DDT;
• decides to evaluate at COP10 the continued need for DDT for
  disease vector control on the basis of the available scientific,
  technical, environmental, and economic information, including that
  provided by the DDT expert group, with the objective of
  accelerating the identification and development of locally
  appropriate, cost-effective, and safe alternatives; and
• requests the Secretariat to continue to support the process of the
  evaluation of the continued need, and to assist parties to report
  on DDT and to promote locally safe, effective, and affordable
  alternatives for a sustainable transition away from DDT.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): The
Secretariat introduced the recommendations on the elimination of
PCBs (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/6, Add.1, INF/11) and presented the report on
progress toward elimination of PCBs (INF/10), emphasizing that
reported data are incomplete and incomparable.

Many reported on their national efforts and underscored their
concern that the phase-out and elimination targets of 2025 and 2030,
respectively, will likely not be met. The EU, supported by
Switzerland, Norway, and Canada, proposed revisions to the draft
decision, including requesting the Secretariat to report on progress
and develop guidance on a standardized approach to developing PCB
inventories with support of the small intersessional working group
(SIWG). Canada suggested urging parties to provide information on
progress in their fifth national reports.

Jamaica called for the Secretariat, with the SIWG and PCB
Elimination Network, to develop a global strategy for the
elimination of PCBs.

UNEP said the financial basis for work on PCB elimination is weak
and enhanced collaboration is needed to meet the targets. IPEN
called for prioritizing guidance on, and funding and transfer of,
non-combustion technologies. Describing contaminated sites as
burdens her community did not create, Alaska Community Action on
Toxics urged elimination of PCBs.

Delegates adopted the decision as amended.

Final Decision:  In its decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/6), the COP,
inter alia:

• decides to undertake at COP11 a review of progress towards the
  elimination of PCBs;
• decides to re-establish a SIWG to prepare a report on progress
  towards the elimination of PCBs for consideration by COP11; and
• requests the Secretariat, with the support of the SIWG, to develop
  guidance on a standardized approach to developing PCB inventories
  and analysis for the identification and quantification of PCBs.

Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), its salts and
perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (PFOSF):
This item (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/7, INF/12-13) was first taken up in
plenary on Tuesday, 30 April.

In plenary, the EU, the African Group, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico,
Norway, Egypt, Switzerland, and New Zealand supported the
POPRC’s recommendation to revise the PFOS entry in Annex B to
remove many of the acceptable purposes and specific exemptions for
production and use, leaving insect baits with sulfluramid for
control of leaf-cutting ants as the only acceptable purpose and
firefighting foams for Class B fires and metal plating in closed
loop systems as specific exemptions. PAN reported that sulfluramid
has been sold for non-agricultural uses and said alternatives are
available for controlling leaf-cutting ants.

Canada supported removing all acceptable purposes and specific
exemptions. China called for firefighting foams to be an acceptable
purpose rather than a time-limited specific exemption.

The EU, supported by Switzerland, suggested adding to the decision
an encouragement to not replace firefighting foams containing PFOS
with foams containing short-chain per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS).

IPEN supported the recommendation and underscored that many
exemptions lead to ongoing exposure, contamination, liability, and
substantial work to address decisions “made in haste.”

This item was forwarded to the SC listing contact group for further
discussion.

In the contact group, participants discussed firefighting foams
extensively, particularly with a view to align the decision to the
decision regarding PFOA.

On Friday, 3 May, parties adopted the decision and actions related
to these chemicals.

Final Decisions: In its decision related
to PFOS, its salts, and PFOSF (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.16), the COP,
inter alia, decides to amend part I of Annex B to the
Convention by replacing the current listing of PFOS (CAS No.
1763-23-1), its salts, and PFOSF (CAS No. 307-35-7) with the new
listing that specifies only one acceptable purpose, insect baits
with sulfluramid (CAS No. 4151-50-2) as an active ingredient for
control of leaf-cutting ants for agricultural use only, and with two
specific exemptions for metal plating in closed-loop systems and
firefighting foams for liquid fuel vapor suppression and liquid fuel
fires (Class B fires) in installed systems, including both mobile
and fixed systems. 

The COP agrees to insert a new paragraph in part III of Annex B that
specifies that each party that registers for a specific exemption
for firefighting foams shall:

• ensure that firefighting foam that contains or may contain PFOS,
  its salts, and PFOSF shall not be exported or imported except for
  the purpose of environmentally sound disposal;
• not use firefighting foam that contains or may contain PFOS, its
  salts, and PFOSF for training;
• not use firefighting foam that contains or may contain PFOS, its
  salts, and PFOSF for testing unless all releases are contained;
• by the end of 2022, if it has the capacity to do so, restrict uses
  of firefighting foam that contains or may contain PFOS, its salts,
  and PFOSF to sites where all releases can be contained; and
• make determined efforts designed to lead to the ESM of
  firefighting foam stockpiles and wastes that contain or may
  contain PFOS, its salts, and PFOSF, as soon as possible.

In its decision on actions related to these chemicals
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.9), the COP decides to undertake, at COP11, the
evaluation of the continued need for PFOS, its salts, and PFOSF for
the various specific exemptions and acceptable purposes. It also
requests the Secretariat to:

• continue to support the evaluation process and to support parties
  in collecting the information required for the process;
• further promote the exchange of information, including information
  provided by parties and others, on alternatives to PFOS, its
  salts, and PFOSF and their related chemicals; and
• provide support to parties, in particular developing country
  parties and parties with economies in transition, subject to the
  availability of resources, to build their capacity to identify and
  collect information on PFOS, its salts, and PFOSF, to adopt and
  strengthen legislation and regulations concerning the management
  of those chemicals throughout their life cycles, and to introduce
  safer, effective, and affordable alternatives to those chemicals.

Evaluation of the continued need for the procedure under
paragraph 2 (b) of Article 3:
The Secretariat introduced the document (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/8) on the
review of the effectiveness of the procedure under paragraph 2(b) of
Article 3 of the Convention, which provides the measures that
parties shall take to ensure that a chemical listed in Annex A or B
is exported only for the purpose of environmentally sound disposal,
to a party that is permitted to use that chemical, or to a state not
party to the SC, which has provided an annual certification to the
exporting party.

The EU supported the proposed decision. Noting the low number of
reports and the need for capacity building, the US called for this
issue to be considered at COP11. 

The decision was adopted without amendment.

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/8), the COP, inter alia:

• takes note of the report set out in the note by the Secretariat on
  the review of the effectiveness of the procedure under paragraph 2
  (b) of Article 3, and of the conclusions contained therein;
• concludes that there is a need to enhance the effectiveness of the
  procedure through the increased provision of information related
  to the procedure and on the status of those parties that have
  consented to be bound by the Convention and by the amendments to
  its annexes;
• recalls that parties wishing to export chemicals listed in Annex A
  or B to the Convention to a state not party to the Convention must
  transmit to the Secretariat the certification from the importing
  state, using the revised certification template adopted for that
  purpose;
• requests the Secretariat to undertake awareness-raising
  activities, subject to the availability of resources, concerning
  the procedure and the revised certification format for export to a
  state not party to the Convention;
• decides to review the effectiveness of the procedure set out in
  paragraph 2(b) of Article 3 at COP11; and
• requests the Secretariat to prepare, subject to the availability
  of resources, a report on the effectiveness of the procedure set
  out in paragraph 2(b) of Article 3, based on party reports
  submitted, certifications from exporting parties and other
  relevant information, for consideration by COP11.

Measures to reduce or eliminate releases from unintentional
production:
This item was first taken up in plenary on Thursday, 2 May. The
Secretariat introduced the Toolkit for Identification and
Quantification of Releases of Dioxins, Furans and other
unintentional POPs, and guidelines and guidance on best available
techniques and best environmental practices (BAT/BEP)
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/9, INF14-15).

The African Group supported the recommendations of the experts on
the Toolkit and BAT/BEP guidance. Ghana encouraged the working group
to add experts to the roster. Argentina called for consistency with
the BC technical guidelines. IPEN encouraged parties to share
information on POPs contaminated sites. Toxic Links urged the
Secretariat to step up its efforts in capacity building,
facilitating access to BAT, and providing financial assistance to
deal with unintentionally produced POPs.

The COP adopted the decision on Friday, 3 May.

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.18), the
COP, inter alia: 

• adopts the workplan for the review and updating of the guidelines
  and guidance on BAT/BEP set out in the annex to the decision;
• requests the experts on the BAT/BEP Toolkit to continue the work
  on the ongoing review and updating of the Toolkit and on the
  guidelines;
• requests the Secretariat, subject to the availability of
  resources, to continue to support the experts on the BAT/BEP
  Toolkit, and to continue to implement awareness-raising and
  technical assistance activities to promote it;
• encourages parties to develop source inventories and release
  estimates for dioxins and furans and update them every five years
  in order to evaluate the efficacy of the measures taken towards
  the minimization or ultimate elimination of releases, and to
  report the estimated releases; and
• encourages parties and others to use the BAT/BEP guidelines and
  guidance when applying measures to minimize and ultimately
  eliminate releases of the chemicals listed in Annex A or B and/or
  C to the Convention, to provide feedback on their usefulness and
  to contribute to their finalization.

Measures to reduce or eliminate releases from wastes:
On Wednesday, 1 May, the Secretariat introduced the document
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/10). The EU proposed amendments to the draft. 

On Friday, 3 May, delegates adopted the decision, noting that it
will be updated to reflect the POPs newly listed at this COP.

Final Decision: In its decision
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.15), the COP, inter alia, requests the
Secretariat to undertake capacity-building and training activities
to support parties in meeting their obligations under Article 6.1
(stockpiles), and invites the appropriate bodies of the BC, with
regard to the chemicals newly listed in the Stockholm Convention,
to:

• establish for those chemicals the levels of destruction and
  irreversible transformation necessary to ensure that the
  characteristics of POPs are not exhibited;
• determine what they consider to be the methods that constitute
  environmentally sound disposal;
• work to establish, as appropriate, the concentration levels in
  order to define for those chemicals the low POP content;
• further update, if necessary, the general technical guidelines on
  the ESM of wastes consisting of, containing, or contaminated with
  POPs; and
• update or develop new specific technical guidelines under the BC.

The COP also invites the appropriate bodies of the BC, with regard
to the amendments of Annex B to the SC regarding PFOS, its salts,
and PFOSF, to further update, if necessary, the general technical
guidelines on the ESM of wastes consisting of, containing or
contaminated with POPs, and to update the technical guidelines on
PFOS, its salts, and PFOSF under the BC.

Implementation plans: This issue was discussed on
Thursday, 2 May, in plenary. The Secretariat introduced the
documents (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/11, INF/17-21, INF/19/Add.1), noting that
less than half of parties submitted updated national implementation
plans (NIPs) that include POPs listed after 2004.

Many developing countries underscored the need for technical
assistance and financial resources for updating NIPs to include new
POPs and to address the priorities identified in those plans.

The EU supported the draft decision on the NIP guidance document,
noting proposed amendments contained in UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.2, which
requests the collection of qualitative as well as quantitative data
in the electronic template. GRULAC and Canada supported the
conference room paper (CRP). GRULAC proposed removing the
consultation role of the POPRC and the experts on the BAT/BEP
electronic template, and to provide an opportunity for parties to
comment on the template and consider it at COP10. Canada suggested
revising the decision to urge, rather than encourage, parties to
submit updated NIPs.

IPEN called for multi-stakeholder involvement in NIP design and
implementation and for the guidance to include instructions on
developing inventories for PCBs and POPs listed at COP9. Based on
their experience supporting parties, the SC Regional Centre in
Uruguay underlined the importance of the guidance tools proposed.
Delegates adopted the decision with the proposed amendments.

Final Decision: In the decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/11), the COP
requests the Secretariat to, inter alia:

• continue, in consultation with the POPRC and the BAT/BEP experts,
  to further revise the guidance on developing and updating NIPs for
  the SC and the preliminary draft guidance prepared by the
  Secretariat;
• undertake capacity-building activities to support parties in
  developing and updating their NIPs;
• continue to support the development of an electronic template for
  the reporting of quantitative information contained in NIPs in a
  manner harmonized with the reporting under Article 15 of the
  Convention; and
• develop a template for the reporting of qualitative information
  contained in the NIPs that would be useful in order to evaluate
  the effectiveness of the Convention for consideration by COP10.

Listing of chemicals in Annex A, B or C to the Convention: This item, including the three sub-items on dicofol, PFOA, its
salts, and related chemicals, and the proposal by the Russian
Federation to amend the Convention, was first taken up in plenary on
Monday, 29 April. These issues were subsequently addressed in a
contact group on the listing of chemicals, co-chaired by Maria
Delvin (Sweden) and Agus Haryono (Indonesia). The SC COP listed two
new chemicals in the Convention: dicofol and PFOA, its salts, and
related chemicals.

POPRC: The Secretariat introduced the
documents (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/12, INF/3) and reported on its efforts
related to effective participation in the work of the Committee.

Parties adopted the decision on POPRC membership with the option for
the POPRC to identify an interim Chair to be elected at COP10, and
on the understanding that the names of the elected experts will be
included in the annex once they are identified.

Final Decision: In the decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/12), the COP,
inter alia:

• appoints 14 designated experts to serve as members of the
  Committee with terms of office from 5 May 2020 to 4 May 2024;
• requests the Committee to identify an interim Chair to preside
  over POPRC16; and
• decides to consider the election of the Chair of the Committee at
  COP10.

Dicofol: The Secretariat introduced the draft decision and
comments received on the POPRC recommendation to list dicofol in
Annex A (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/13, INF/23). Many supported listing dicofol
in Annex A without exemptions. India announced that it will stop the
production of dicofol in the next few months.

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/13), the COP
decides to amend part I of Annex A to the SC to list dicofol without
specific exemptions.

PFOA: In plenary, the Secretariat
introduced the POPRC’s recommendation and comments received
from parties and stakeholders (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/14, INF/23).

GRULAC, the EU, the African Group, Thailand, Switzerland, New
Zealand, Australia, Norway, China, Canada, Brazil, and the US
supported Annex A listing with specific exemptions, while Alaska
Community Action on Toxics, and the United Firefighters Union of
Australia called for listing without exemptions.

The Russian Federation supported listing and noted the need for
further scientific research on the harmful qualities of PFOA.
GRULAC, Ghana, Liberia, Egypt, and Palau expressed concern over
uncertainty related to PFOA in firefighting foams. Japan and China
called for further discussions to identify specific PFOA-related
compounds.

IPEN underlined that there was a moral and socio-economic imperative
to listing PFOA in Annex A without exemptions, given the long-term
harm and clean-up costs.

Inuit Circumpolar Council underscored the impact of perfluorinated
chemicals in the Arctic, including in biota that many Inuit rely on
for traditional foods, and urged listing of PFOA in Annex A without
exemptions.

The issue was forwarded to the contact group on listing of chemicals
for further discussion and preparation of a draft decision.

On Friday, 3 May, SC COP9 President Khashashneh introduced the draft
decision on PFOA, its salts, and PFOA-related compounds
(POPS/COP.9/CRP.14). Iran introduced a request for exemptions
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.22) for the manufacture of: polyfluoroethylene
propylene (FEP) for production of electrical wire and cables for
industrial use; and fluoroelastomers for the production of O-rings
and plastic equipment in the automotive industry. He requested that
these exemptions be included in the draft decision.

The EU called for more information on both proposed requests, noting
that the POPRC had assessed the recommendation related to
fluoroelastomers, but not the FEP recommendation. Norway supported
adopting the decision without Iran’s suggested exemption.
Switzerland stressed that requesting exemptions at the COP stage of
the process should not be encouraged as the POPRC should be able to
adequately review all requests, but, in the spirit of compromise,
supported revising the draft decision to include Iran’s
requested exemptions. 

Several parties underscored the need to respect POPRC’s
recommendations. Norway and Ghana expressed concern regarding the
“tendency” to request exemptions at COPs, and noted that
the POPRC had performed a thorough review of applications for which
exemptions were necessary. New Zealand implored parties to provide
information at an earlier stage of the POPRC process.

Plenary was briefly suspended to allow for informal consultations.
When it resumed, President Khashashneh introduced a revised proposal
for a specific exemption for: the manufacture of FEP for production
of high-voltage electrical wire and cables for power transmission;
and the manufacture of fluoroelastomers for production of O-rings,
v-belt, and plastic accessories for car interiors.

COP9 adopted the decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.14) as amended, as
well as the decision on actions related to PFOA, its salts, and
PFOA-related compounds (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.10).

IPEN lamented that the process does not provide for a rigorous
review of exemptions, which she said is “ironic” given
the precautionary principle and scientific foundations of the SC.
Alaska Community Action on Toxics, for the Native Movement and
Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus, characterized the decision as a
violation of basic human rights.

FluoroCouncil stressed that PFOA is no longer used to manufacture
the products included in the exemptions. The US thanked parties for
“working their magic” to narrow the exemptions and
encouraged parties to allow them to expire as soon as possible.

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.14), the
COP, inter alia, decides: to list PFOA,
its salts, and PFOA-related compounds in Annex A with specific
exemptions for:

• photolithography or etch processes in semiconductor manufacturing;
• photographic coatings applied to films; textiles for oil- and
  water-repellency for the protection of workers from dangerous
  liquids that comprise risks to their health and safety;
• invasive and implantable medical devices;
• firefighting foam for liquid fuel vapor suppression and liquid
  fuel fires (Class B fires) in installed systems, including both
  mobile and fixed systems;
• use of perfluorooctyl iodide for the production of perfluorooctyl
  bromide for the purpose of producing pharmaceutical products;
• manufacture of PTFE and PVDF for the production of
  high-performance, corrosion-resistant gas filter membranes, water
  filter membranes and membranes for medical textiles, industrial
  waste heat exchanger equipment, industrial sealants capable of
  preventing leakage of volatile organic compounds and PM2.5
  particulates;
• manufacture of FEP for the production of high-voltage electrical
  wire and cables for power transmission; and
• manufacture of fluoroelastomers for the production of O-rings,
  v-belt, and plastic accessories for car interiors.

On firefighting foams, the COP decides that each party that has
registered for a specific exemption for the use of PFOA, its salts
and PFOA-related compounds for firefighting foam shall: 

• ensure that firefighting foam that contains or may contain PFOA,
  its salts, and PFOA-related compounds shall not be exported or
  imported except for the purpose of environmentally sound disposal;
• not use firefighting foam that contains or may contain PFOA, its
  salts and PFOA-related compounds for training; 
• not use firefighting foam that contains or may contain PFOA, its
  salts, and PFOA-related compounds for testing unless all releases
  are contained; 
• by the end of 2022, if it has the capacity to do so, but no later
  than 2025, restrict uses of firefighting foam that contains or may
  contain PFOA, its salts, and PFOA-related compounds to sites where
  all releases can be contained; and
• make determined efforts designed to lead to the ESM of
  firefighting foam stockpiles and wastes that contain or may
  contain PFOA, its salts, and PFOA-related compounds.

On the use of perfluorooctyl iodide for the production of
perfluorooctyl bromide for the purpose of producing pharmaceutical
products, the COP agrees to review at COP13 and at every second
ordinary meeting thereafter the continued need for this specific
exemption, which shall in any case expire at the latest in 2036.

In its decision on actions related to PFOA (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.10),
the COP, inter alia:

• invites each party in the register of specific exemptions for the
  production and use of PFOA, its salts and PFOA-related compounds
  for the use of perfluorooctyl iodide for the production of
  perfluorooctyl bromide for the purpose of producing pharmaceutical
  products listed in Annex A to report to the Secretariat, by 1
  December 2025, justifying its need for the registration of that
  exemption;
• encourages parties and others to use alternatives, where
  available, feasible and efficient, while considering that
  fluorine-based fire-fighting foams could have negative
  environmental, human health and socio-economic impacts due to
  their persistency and mobility; and
• requests the Secretariat to compile, in consultation with POPRC,
  the information regarding the identification of substances covered
  by the listing of PFOA, its salts and PFOA-related compounds, and
  to establish an indicative list of PFOA, its salts and
  PFOA-related compounds, make it available on the
  Convention’s website, and update it periodically.

Amendment proposed by the Russian Federation: On Wednesday, 1 May, the Secretariat introduced
the proposal by the Russian Federation (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/15) and
related comments (INF/24).

The Russian Federation outlined two proposals: to amend Article 8 of
and Annex D to the SC to “improve the mechanism of listing
chemicals;” and to request the POPRC to develop a draft
guideline document on ways to improve the listing of chemicals in
the Convention, which would reflect the normative conditions for the
application of the precautionary approach. He suggested that this
guideline should specify the basis on which persistence can be
evaluated in the case of lack of scientifically sound information
regarding the half-life. 

Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, Pakistan, Canada, Japan, El
Salvador, Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Peru, the African
Group, Trinidad and Tobago, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Chile, the Bahamas,
and the EU said they did not support the proposals. Many said that
the proposals should not be discussed further.

Iran supported the proposal related to the precautionary approach,
suggesting that further clarity could support implementation of the
Convention. 

The US emphasized that the science-based approach of the SC may be
credited for much of its success. IPEN said the proposal would
seriously undermine the precautionary approach and delay listing of
new chemicals. CIEL said there is no reason to “fix a system
that is not broken,” and noted the Convention already provides
for the POPRC to consider all relevant data for persistence.

The International Council of Chemicals Association said the COP
should develop the guideline, particularly on socio-economic
factors, given the Convention’s “new phase” of
considering chemicals that are widely used.

Parties agreed to suspend this discussion.

Technical assistance: The discussions under this
agenda item are summarized under the joint sessions of the BRS COPs
(see page 4).

Regional Centres: Delegates adopted the
draft decision on SC regional and subregional centres (SCRCs) for
capacity building and the transfer of technology on Saturday, 4 May.

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.21), the COP, inter alia: 

• welcomes the extensive work that the SCRCs have already done on
  the impact of plastic waste, including marine plastic litter,
  microplastics and measures for prevention and ESM, and invites
  them to continue their activities;
• endorses for another period of four years the SC regional and
  subregional centres for capacity-building and the transfer of
  technology listed in the annex to the present decision, and also
  endorses the Novosibirsk Institute of Organic Chemistry located in
  Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, as a SCRC for capacity building
  and the transfer of technology for a period of four years; and
• invites parties, observers and financial institutions in a
  position to do so to provide financial support to enable SCRCs to
  implement their workplans with the aim of supporting parties in
  their efforts to meet their obligations under the Convention. 
• The COP requests the Secretariat to undertake the following
  activities to facilitate the work of the regional centres, subject
  to the availability of resources:
• organize annual meetings of the coordinators of the regional
  centres under the SC and the directors of the regional centres
  under the BC with a view to enhancing the performance of the
  regional centres and fostering cooperation and collaboration among
  them and attend meetings of the regional centre steering
  committees;
• facilitate the implementation of regional, subregional and
  national projects based on the business plans or workplans of
  regional centres through the Small Grants Programme of the
  conventions; and
• foster the activities of the regional centres to increase their
  visibility.

Financial resources and mechanisms: The Secretariat
introduced the documents on financial resources and mechanisms
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/18, INF/30-34, 52, 56; UNEP/CHW.14/INF/34, 35;
UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/INF/27, 28) in the joint sessions on Tuesday, 30
April.

On the SC financial mechanism, the GEF reported on its activities
from 2016-2018 totaling USD 139.81 million and leveraging USD 1.43
billion in co-financing. She reported that the GEF7 period
notionally allocates 15% of resources for chemicals and wastes.

The EU, with several others, welcomed the draft ToRs for the review
of the financial mechanism. Thailand reported on national
implementation measures supported by the GEF. Egypt expressed
concern over the GEF’s 1:11 co-financing ratio. The African
Group and China called for adequate, predictable, and sustainable
funding for SC implementation. Thailand, the African Group, the
State of Palestine, Bangladesh, and others called for further
financial assistance to address newly listed POPs. Iran, the State
of Palestine, the Russian Federation, and Syria underlined that the
GEF should not politicize access to financial resources for
implementing multilateral environmental agreements. The US stressed
that the GEF guidance should not divert SC funding to marine litter.
IPEN highlighted a UNEP evaluation of the approach to financing
chemicals and waste that recommended, inter alia,
allocating development finance to address chemicals and waste and
instituting cost recovery measures from POPs producers. 

Discussions resumed in the contact group on technical assistance and
financial resources.

In plenary on Friday, 10 April, President Khashashneh invited
delegates to consider adopting the draft decision. Iran said he did
not oppose adoption, but stressed that phasing out POPs requires
funding and lamented that the GEF was being used as an instrument
for the political goals of one country. Delegates then adopted the
draft decision.

Final Decision: In the decision on the SC financial mechanism
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.26), the COP, inter alia: 

• reiterates its request to the GEF to ensure that its policies and
  procedures related to the consideration and review of funding
  proposals be duly followed in an efficient and transparent manner;
• adopts the ToRs for the fifth review of the financial mechanism;
• invites developed country parties to use online questionnaires and
  other formats to provide the Secretariat with information on ways
  in which they can provide support, including new and additional
  financial resources, for the implementation of the SC;
• invites other parties to use online questionnaires and other
  formats to provide the Secretariat with information on ways in
  which they can provide support, including financial resources, in
  accordance with their capabilities, for the implementation of the
  SC; and
• invites other sources, including relevant funding institutions,
  such as development banks, and the private sector, to use online
  questionnaires and other formats to provide the Secretariat with
  information on ways in which they can contribute to the
  implementation of the SC.

Reporting pursuant to Article 15: The Secretariat
introduced the documents (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/19, INF/22, 29, 53) in
plenary on Thursday, 2 May.

The EU highlighted its proposed amendments (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.6),
which would include a deadline for improvement of the electronic
reporting system by the end of 2021 at the latest and provide for
updating of the user manual to reflect the changes made in the
electronic reporting system. Some delegates shared information on
their latest submissions and others noted difficulties in obtaining
data. Ghana said the electronic reporting system is convenient and
Chile urged parties to continue to use it despite difficulties. IPEN
called for more space for narrative reporting so countries can
insert background information.

The African Group, with Egypt, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Côte d’Ivoire and Mali, reiterated the need for financial and
technical support.

Parties adopted the draft decision contained in UNEP/POPS/COP.9/19
with the amendments proposed by the EU in CRP.6, noting that
paragraph 6(a) of the decision, on updates to the electronic
reporting system, would be amended to account for any decision to
list new chemicals in the annexes to the SC.  

Final Decision: In its decision
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/19), the COP, inter alia, decides that, in
accordance with Article 15, each party shall submit its fifth
national report to the Secretariat by 31 August 2022 for
consideration by COP11; and requests the Secretariat, subject to the
availability of resources, to:

• update the electronic reporting system to include the chemicals
  listed in Annex A to the Convention at COP9, for consideration by
  COP10;
• further improve the electronic reporting system in time for it to
  be used for the submission of the fifth reports, taking into
  account experiences and feedback provided by parties, the results
  of the survey on the difficulties faced by parties in fulfilling
  their reporting obligations, the revised framework and indicators
  for the effectiveness evaluation, as well as the results of other
  evaluations under the Convention, that is, the evaluations of PCBs
  and PFOS, its salts and PFOSF;
• provide feedback to parties regarding the submission of their
  national reports, with a view to improving the quality and
  completeness of the reported data and information; and
• continue to undertake capacity-building and training activities to
  support parties, in particular developing-country parties and
  parties with economies in transition, in cooperation with the
  SCRCs or other partners.

Effectiveness evaluation: The Secretariat
introduced the documents (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/20; Add.1;
UNEP/POPS/COP.9/21, INF/35-37) on the effectiveness evaluation of
the SC pursuant to Article 16 and the global monitoring plan on
Thursday, 2 May.

China, Pakistan, Iran, and Syria called for technical assistance and
financial resources for countries to fulfill their role in the
global monitoring plan. The African Group noted the importance of
funding for the regional organization groups and the global
coordination group to continue to implement the global monitoring
plan, stating the activities should not be subject to the
availability of funding. The US suggested using indicators to
measure whether the assistance has helped parties fulfill their
obligations in the effectiveness evaluation framework.

Palau underscored the importance of the marine waters matrix for the
Pacific region. IPEN called for establishing marine water monitoring
standards for coastal areas and the open ocean, noting the link
between PFOS and toxic additives to plastics that are likely to
leach into the sea.

Alaska Community Action on Toxics, for IPEN, Inuit Circumpolar
Conference, the Native Movement, and Indigenous Peoples’
Caucus, urged that the global monitoring plan be implemented so the
burden of proof is not put on the most vulnerable peoples.

The COP adopted a decision on the effectiveness evaluation framework
and the global monitoring plan for effectiveness evaluation.

Final Decisions: In its decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/20), the COP
adopts the revised framework for effectiveness evaluation and
requests the Secretariat to prepare a preliminary report to
facilitate the evaluation of the Convention, using the information
obtained from existing arrangements under the Convention, along with
any other relevant information, and to make it available to the
effectiveness evaluation committee by 31 January 2022.

In its decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/21), the COP,
inter alia, requests the regional organization groups and
the global coordination group to:

• continue to implement the global monitoring plan according to
  their terms of reference and mandate, taking into account their
  regional strategies and subject to the availability of resources,
  and
• present to COP10 the third regional monitoring reports and the
  updated guidance on the global monitoring plan for POPs.

It further requests the Secretariat, subject to the availability of
resources, to continue to:

• support the work of the regional organization groups and the
  global coordination group in the implementation of the third phase
  of the global monitoring plan; and
• support training and capacity-building activities to assist
  parties, in particular developing country parties and parties with
  economies in transition, in implementing the global monitoring
  plan for subsequent effectiveness evaluations and to work with
  partners and other relevant organizations to undertake
  implementation activities.

Compliance: Delegates initially addressed this
issue in the joint sessions on Tuesday, 30 April.

The Secretariat introduced the document (POPS/COP.9/22). Thailand,
Brazil, Canada, Iran, Colombia, and China called for a compliance
mechanism to be facilitative and non-punitive. Nigeria urged
provision of technical assistance and financial resources, and India
said capacity building and compliance go hand-in-hand. Norway said
compliance supports transparency and Ghana noted it helps
implementation. Switzerland said previous discussions should not be
reopened.

On Friday, 10 May, President Khashashneh reintroduced the document
containing the procedures and mechanisms on compliance with the SC
and proposed to complete consideration of this item by using the
standard text in the proposed action, suggesting that the COP
decides to consider further at COP10, for adoption, the procedures
and institutional mechanisms on compliance required under Article 17
of the SC, based on the draft texts set out in the annex of the
decision 7/26.”

China proposed adding the world “possible” in front of
adoption and, with Iran, suggested stating agreeing “by
consensus.” The Legal Advisor clarified that adding that the
decision should be adopted “by consensus” would not
change the essence but noted that the COP would need to agree to add
this reference. The Gambia agreed, stressing it was always the aim
of the COP to agree by consensus. President Khashashneh proposed,
and delegates agreed, to note this discussion in the meeting report.

Delegates also agreed to China’s amendment and adopted the
draft decision.

Final Decision: In its decision
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/22), the COP decides to consider further at COP10
for possible adoption the procedures and institutional mechanisms on
compliance required under Article 17 of the SC, based on the draft
texts set out in the annex of the decision 7/26.

Programme of Work and Budget

This issue was addressed by the joint sessions. On Friday, 10 May,
delegates adopted the SC programme of work and budget for 2020-2021.

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/CRP.27), the COP, inter alia: 

approves the programme budget for the SC for the biennium 2020-2021
of USD 11,729,385; 

• authorizes the SC Executive Secretary to make commitments in an
  amount up to the approved operational budget, drawing upon
  available cash resources;
• decides to maintain the working capital reserve at the level of
  15% of the annual average of the biennial operational budgets for
  the biennium 2020-2021; and
• welcomes the continued annual contribution of CHF 2 million by
  Switzerland to the Secretariat to offset planned expenditures and
  notes that CHF 1 million will be allocated annually as a
  contribution to the SC General Trust Fund and will include
  Switzerland’s assessed contribution and that CHF 1 million
  will be allocated annually to the Special Trust Fund for the SC.

Memorandum of Understanding between UNEP and the Stockholm
Convention COP

This issue was introduced in the Joint Sessions on Tuesday, 30
April.

Final Decision: In the decision on the MoU
between UNEP and the SC COP   (UNEP/POPS/COP.9/29/Rev.1), the COP,
inter alia, adopts the MoU between the Executive Director
of UNEP and the SC COP.

Adoption of the Report

On Friday, 3 May, delegates adopted the meeting report
(UNEP/POPS/COP.9/L.1/Add.1). 

Basel Convention COP14

COP14 of the Basel Convention opened on Monday, 29 April, and
conducted most of its work from 3-7 May.

Matters Related to the Implementation of the Basel
Convention

Strategic issues: Strategic framework: On Saturday, 4 May,
in plenary, the Secretariat introduced the documents (UNEP/CHW.14/3;
INF/5). Patrick McKell (United Kingdom), Co-Chair of the SIWG,
reported that the group had identified a range of additional sources
of information for each objective, and emphasized the need for a
“meaningful number” of parties to contribute to the
evaluation. 

The EU proposed a minor editorial change and, with the African
Group, South Africa, and Canada, supported the draft decision.
Delegates agreed to adopt the decision pending budgetary approval. 

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/3), the COP, inter alia, requests the
Secretariat to:

• prepare a draft report on the final evaluation of the strategic
  framework for consideration by the OEWG12 and to submit a final
  version of the report referred to in subparagraph 4(a) to COP15;
  and 
• support the SIWG in its work, and to report on the implementation
  of the present decision to the OEWG12 and COP15.

Addressing the entry into force of the Ban Amendment:
On Friday, 3 May, the Secretariat introduced the document
(UNEP/CHW.14/4).

Several, including the African Group, Colombia, Malaysia, and
Indonesia, lauded those countries that have ratified since COP13,
and called on others to do so. The EU noted that Croatia is in the
process of ratifying the amendment.

On Monday, 6 May, COP14 President Matiza invited further statements
on this issue. Noting that only two additional instruments of
ratification are needed for the entry into force of the Ban
Amendment, Indonesia encouraged parties to continue working toward
this goal. Delegates adopted the draft decision.  

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/4), the COP, inter alia:

• calls on parties to ratify the Ban Amendment;
• invites them to continue to encourage and assist other parties to
  ratify it; and
• requests the Secretariat to continue to assist those having
  ratification difficulties.

Development of guidelines for environmentally sound
management:
On Friday, 3 May, the Secretariat introduced the documents
(UNEP/CHW.14/5, Add.1). Yorg Aerts, Co-Chair of the Expert Working
Group (EWG) on ESM, reported on intersessional work including,
inter alia, development of manuals for implementing ESM,
guidance documents on waste prevention and minimization and
recycling and recovery, and fact sheets on wastes. He noted the EWG
had completed its mandate.  

Canada supported development of the ESM guidelines and called for
further discussion in a contact group of the notification of
transboundary movements. The African Group also called for a contact
group. The EU, Switzerland, and Uganda said all five documents were
suitable for adoption, but were open to discussion in a contact
group. Ghana, El Salvador, and Nigeria supported adopting the
guidelines, and Nigeria called for provision of technical
assistance. 

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) called for
exclusion of unsafe technologies such as incineration of plastic,
explicit prioritizing of waste reduction, and extended producer
responsibility schemes that include waste pickers. 

Delegates established a contact group on strategic matters,
co-chaired by Christoffer Vestli (Norway) and Zaigham Abbas
(Pakistan). 

On Monday, 6 May, the Secretariat introduced the draft decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.22). The EU suggested adding text requesting the
Secretariat to complete the work to update the toolkit for
consideration at OEWG12 and COP15. Delegates adopted the decision as
amended.

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.22), the COP, inter alia: 

• adopts practical manuals on extended producer responsibility and
  financing systems for ESM, the guidance to assist parties in
  developing efficient strategies for achieving the recycling and
  recovery of hazardous and other wastes and the guidance on how to
  address ESM in the informal sector;
• requests the Secretariat to integrate the practical manuals into
  the ESM toolkit;
• encourages parties and others to disseminate and use the ESM
  toolkit; and
• requests the Secretariat to undertake activities to promote and
  disseminate the toolkit in the context of its work programme for
  the biennium 2020-2021.

Cartagena Declaration on the Prevention, Minimization and
Recovery of Hazardous Wastes and Other Wastes:
On Monday, 6 May, the Secretariat introduced the document
(UNEP/CHW.14/6). Colombia described national actions to implement
the sound management of hazardous waste, defining regulatory
instruments such as comprehensive management plans and guidance
documents; the management of waste streams; and awareness raising
and educational material. Lamenting the low levels of implementation
of the Cartagena Declaration, she urged countries to share their
national experiences. 

The EU stressed the importance of sharing good practice on waste
prevention and minimization and, supported by the African Group,
Ghana, and Mexico, suggested the Secretariat make such information
available on the BRS website. Nigeria said the reasons for such low
response rates should be clarified to enable assistance to
facilitate compliance. Mexico emphasized that such an exercise would
make the most of regional centre experiences.

President Matiza proposed, and delegates agreed, to take note of
this discussion.

Scientific and technical matters: Technical guidelines: This item was
addressed in the joint session of the COPs on Tuesday, 30 April, and
during BC COP14 on 3, 4, 6 and 7 May. Delegates established a
contact group on technical matters under the BC, co-chaired by
Nanette Laure (the Seychelles) and Magda Gosk (Poland).

Wastes consisting of, containing, or contaminated with
POPs:
On Tuesday, 30 April, the Secretariat introduced the document
(UNEP/CHW.14/7/Add.1) on technical guidelines on the ESM of wastes
consisting of, containing, or contaminated with POPs.

Pakistan called for updating the guidance on remediating
POPs-contaminated sites. Belarus supported the draft decision.
Brazil said it supported several of the technical guidelines. The
Russian Federation called for clarification of the scientific
methods used to determine the low-content value for POPs wastes. 

The EU supported adoption of the new and revised technical
guidelines on POPs wastes, and noted its plan to review certain
low-POP content values taking into account new information. Thailand
said it had no objection to the low-POP content values. The African
Group requested technical support and opposed recycling of POPs,
noting this would increase the exposure of vulnerable populations.
IPEN underscored that “weak” low-POP content values in
the general technical guidelines lead to the free movement of POPs
and re-release through incineration. 

Delegates adopted the general technical guidelines on the ESM of
wastes consisting of, containing, or contaminated with POPs
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.9/Rev.1/Add.1), including: short-chain chlorinated
paraffins (UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.9/Rev.1/Add.2); hexabromodiphenyl ether
and heptabromodiphenyl ether, or tetrabromodiphenyl ether and
pentabromodiphenyl ether or decabromodiphenyl ether
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.9/Rev.1/Add.3); unintentionally produced
polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans,
hexachlorobenzene, polychlorinated biphenyls, pentachlorobenzene,
polychlorinated naphthalenes or hexachlorobutadiene
(UNEP/CHW/CRP.9/Rev.1/Add.4); and hexachlorobutadiene
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.9/Rev.1/Add.5).

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.9/Rev.1), the COP, inter alia:

• adopts updated general technical guidelines on the ESM of wastes
  consisting of, containing or contaminated with POPs; with
  hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether, or
  tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether or
  decabromodiphenyl ether; with unintentionally produced
  polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans,
  hexachlorobenzene, polychlorinated biphenyls, pentachlorobenzene,
  polychlorinated naphthalenes or hexachlorobutadiene; with
  hexachlorobutadiene; and with short-chain chlorinated paraffins;
• requests the Secretariat to disseminate the technical guidelines
  to parties and others in the six official languages of the UN;
• decides to extend the mandate of the SIWG;
• recognizes that provisional low POP content values have been
  established at previous meetings of the COP and that knowledge
  limitations have posed challenges to the setting of such values;
• decides to continue working towards a review of provisional low
  POP content values in the technical guidelines;
• decides that the updating of the general technical guidelines
  should be included in the work programme of the OEWG for the
  period 2020-2021;
• invites parties and relevant organizations to indicate to the
  Secretariat by 31 August 2019 their willingness to take the lead
  in updating the following technical guidelines; and
• requests the Secretariat to continue to provide, subject to the
  availability of resources, training to developing-country parties
  and other parties in need of assistance in using the adopted
  technical guidelines, and to report on the implementation of the
  present decision to OEWG12 and COP15.

E-waste: On Friday, 3 May the Secretariat
introduced the documents (UNEP/CHW.14/7, Add.6) on technical
guidelines on transboundary movements of electrical and electronic
waste (e-waste) and used electrical and electronic equipment, in
particular regarding the distinction between waste and non-waste.

Yang Zheng (China), Co-Chair of the EWG on e-waste technical
guidelines, reported on intersessional work and issues for further
consideration, including:

• the residual lifetime and age of used equipment;
• obsolete technologies, including cathode ray tubes;
• specific exemption for medical devices; and
• waste exported for failure analysis, repair, and refurbishment
  activities. 

The EU, Australia, Switzerland, Brazil, Information Technology
Industry Council, and the US supported adoption of the guidelines.
India introduced a CRP (UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.8) and characterized the
definition of equipment exported for repair, refurbishment, or
failure analysis as non-waste as a “major flaw” that
would leave large quantities of waste outside the scope of the BC.
Iran, Pakistan, Algeria, Sri Lanka, Bahrain, and the Dominican
Republic supported India. 

The African Group welcomed the technical guidelines with
reservations and called for distinguishing between waste and
non-waste. Liberia reported its e-waste inventory shows 80% of
imported electronic equipment is obsolete. Uganda called for
deferring adoption to avoid “dumping through the route of
repairability.”

Basel Action Network (BAN), with IPEN, highlighted that language
related to equipment repair presented a loophole that should be
addressed before adoption, with BAN highlighting their guidelines on
the transboundary movements of used electronic equipment and e-waste
to promote an ethical circular economy under the BC. Global
Diagnostic Imaging, Healthcare IT and Radiation Therapy Trade
Association (DITTA) supported the BAN guidelines. Toxic Link noted
that allowing the export of equipment for repair jeopardizes the
extended producer responsibility principle. Independent Ecological
Expertise called for including economic measures in the guidelines. 

President Matiza presented the draft decision on technical
guidelines on transboundary movements of electrical and electronic
waste and used electrical and electronic equipment
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.31). 

India voiced reservations, drawing attention to national legislation
against e-waste dumping and cautioning about diluting existing
safeguards on the transboundary movement of e-waste. 

President Matiza postponed the adoption of the decision.

On Friday, 10 May, President Matiza noted that there was not full
support for adopting the CRP, and that the Secretariat had
undertaken consultations with the parties concerned. He reported the
results of the consultations, including that the concerned parties
had requested further work on the guidelines, and requested the COP
to adopt, on an interim basis, the revised technical guidelines,
which further extend the mandate of the EWG on e-waste. He presented
a document, projected on screen, proposing the same language. 

Delegates agreed to adopt the technical guidelines on e-waste, on an
interim basis.

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.31), the COP, inter alia:

• acknowledges the outcome of the work of the EWG in particular
  regarding the distinction between waste and non-waste under the
  BC;
• invites parties and others to use and test the technical
  guidelines adopted on an interim basis by decision BC-12/5, to
  submit, not later than two months before COP15, through the
  Secretariat, comments on their experience in so doing;
• requests the Secretariat to make such comments available to COP15;
• takes note of the discussions at COP14 regarding the technical
  guidelines in particular regarding the distinction between waste
  and non-waste under the BC;
• requests the Secretariat to continue to provide, subject to the
  availability of resources, training to developing-country parties
  and other parties in need of assistance; and to report on the
  implementation of the present decision to OEWG12 and COP15.

Incineration on land and specially engineered landfill: On Friday, 3 May the Secretariat introduced the
draft updated technical guidelines on incineration on land (D10) (UNEP/CHW.14/INF/11) and on specially engineered
landfill (D5) (INF/12) and comments (INF/13).
Alejandra Acosta, SIWG Co-Chair, highlighted the aim of finalizing
the guidelines at COP15. 

Thailand suggested that the D10 guidelines should include more
information on air pollution control and environmental quality
monitoring costs. He said the D5 guidelines should include quality
assurance and control during construction. Colombia and Chile called
for distinguishing between hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. The
EU suggested extending the scope of the D10 guidelines to include
issues such as additional energy generation methods. IPEN called for
including information on the impacts of incineration, particularly
on vulnerable populations, and, with Shenzen Zero Waste, for
collaboration with SC experts and work on unintentional dioxin
releases. GAIA said the D10 guidelines were an inventory of all
practices, not best practices. Independent Ecological Expertise
called for evidence that recommended technologies will not harm
environmental health. 

Delegates adopted the technical guidelines on incineration on land
(D10) and on specially engineered landfill (D5). 

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.27), the COP, inter alia:

• takes note of the draft updated technical guidelines on
  incineration on land (D10) and the draft updated technical
  guidelines on specially engineered landfill (D5); and of the
  comments received pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5 of decision
  OEWG-11/5;
• agrees that the scope of the technical guidelines on incineration
  on land (D10) should be extended to also address incineration as
  covered by the operation “use as a fuel (other than in
  direct incineration) or other means to generate energy”
  (R1);
• acknowledges that the extension of the scope represents an
  increase in workload and that the co-leads therefore need to
  reconsider whether they are in a position to finalize the work;
• invites parties to consider serving as co-lead countries in the
  updating of the technical guidelines on incineration on land (D10)
  with an extended scope to inform the Secretariat of their
  willingness to do so by 30 June 2019;
• decides to extend the mandate of the SIWG, working in particular
  by electronic means;
• invites parties and others to nominate additional experts to
  participate in the SIWG and to inform the Secretariat of their
  nominations by 30 August 2019; and to submit by 18 October 2019
  comments on the draft updated technical guidelines;
• invites Argentina and Canada, as co-lead countries, to prepare the
  draft updated technical guidelines on specially engineered
  landfill (D5) for consideration by OEWG12; and
• requests the Secretariat to report on the implementation of the
  present decision to the OEWG12 and to the COP15.

Waste lead-acid batteries: On Friday, 3
May the Secretariat introduced the documents (UNEP/CHW.14/7) on
waste lead-acid batteries.

The EU questioned whether the technical guidelines should be updated
in light of the anticipated workload for the biennium. Argentina,
with the African Group and IPEN, called for discussion in a contact
group. The US highlighted their technical guidelines on this issue
and encouraged parties to take them into consideration. IPEN called
for revising the guidelines for safe practice and ESM. 

Delegates agreed to discuss these issues in the BC technical matters
contact group.

On Monday, 6 May, President Matiza introduced the draft decision on
technical guidelines on ESM of waste lead-acid batteries. Delegates
adopted the decision. 

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.20), the COP, inter alia:

• decides to include in the work programme of the OEWG for the
  biennium 2020-2021 the consideration of whether the technical
  guidelines for the ESM of waste lead-acid batteries referred to in
  decision VI/22 should be updated; and
• requests the Secretariat to report on the implementation of the
  present decision to OEWG12 and to COP15.

Mercury waste: The Secretariat introduced the document
(UNEP/CHW.14/7) on technical guidelines on the ESM of wastes
consisting of elemental mercury and wastes containing or
contaminated with mercury compounds. 

The EU supported the draft decision. Pakistan shared examples of
mercury-contaminated sites and, with Kazakhstan, suggested a
specific provision be included on remediation. Japan noted the
importance of intersessional work. Syria gave examples of national
initiatives adopted to address mercury wastes. 

The Minamata Convention drew attention to its work on contaminated
sites. IPEN supported aligning the BC and Minamata Convention
guidelines, taking into account BAT/BEP. Delegates agreed to forward
discussions to the contact group on BC Technical Matters.

President Matiza then introduced the draft decision on technical
guidelines on the ESM of wastes consisting of, containing, or
contaminated with mercury or mercury compounds, which was adopted
without amendment.

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.21), the COP, inter alia:

• decides that the technical guidelines on the ESM of wastes
  consisting of, containing, or contaminated with mercury or mercury
  compounds should be updated; and to establish a SIWG, operating by
  electronic means, to assist in the updating;
• invites parties to consider serving as lead countries in the
  updating of the technical guidelines to inform the Secretariat of
  their willingness and to nominate experts to participate in the
  SIWG  by 31 August 2019;
• requests the lead country or countries or, if there is no lead
  country, the Secretariat, subject to the availability of resources
  and in consultation with the SIWG, to prepare a draft of the
  updated technical guidelines for consideration by OEWG12;
• calls upon the members of the SIWG to cooperate with the group of
  technical experts on mercury waste thresholds; and
• requests the Secretariat to report on the implementation of the
  present decision to OEWG12 and COP15.

Classification and hazard characterization of wastes:
On Saturday, 4 May, the Secretariat introduced the document on
cooperation with the World Customs Organization (WCO) on the
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (UNEP/CHW.14/8)
and report on the status of work (UNEP/CHW.14/INF/14).

GRULAC, the EU, and New Zealand encouraged continued cooperation
with the WCO. The EU expressed openness to discussing types of
wastes to be included in the draft decision, citing waste
end-of-life vehicles and pneumatic tires as high priorities.
Kazakhstan said it would submit a proposal on types of wastes to
which individual customs codes should be assigned. Trinidad and
Tobago looked forward to inclusion of other significant waste
streams.

Delegates agreed to forward discussions to the Contact Group on BC
Technical Matters. On Tuesday, 7 May, delegates adopted the
decision. 

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.28), the COP, inter alia, requests the
Secretariat to submit to the WCO a proposal for amending the
Harmonized System to allow the identification of the following types
of wastes: 

• B1110 and A1180 – electrical and electronic assemblies;  
• A1160 – waste lead-acid batteries, whole or crushed; 
• A3210; B3010; Y48 – plastic waste;
• A1010, A1020, A1030, A1040 – metal wastes/compounds;
• A3020 – waste mineral oils unfit for their originally intended
  use, together with A3180 – wastes, substances and articles
  containing, consisting of or contaminated with PCB,
  polychlorinated terphenyls (PCT), polychlorinated naphthalene
  (PCN), or polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) or any other
  polybrominated analogues of these compounds;
• A4030 – wastes from production, formulation and use of biocides
  and phytopharmaceuticals, including waste pesticides;
• B1250 – waste end-of-life motor vehicles, containing neither
  liquids nor other hazardous components; and
• B3140 – waste pneumatic tires

National reporting: On Saturday, 4 May,
the Secretariat introduced the documents (UNEP/CHW.14/9; INF/15).

The EU expressed concern that only about half of parties reported
for 2015 and 2016. South Africa and Chad called for technical
assistance to support electronic reporting. Delegates requested the
Secretariat to prepare a revised draft decision.

Delegates adopted the draft decision without amendment.

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.23/Rev.1), the COP, inter alia:

• welcomes the updated electronic reporting system of the BC and
  encourages parties to use it to transmit their national reports;
• adopts the revisions to the format for national reporting and
  agrees that the revised format should be used by parties for
  reporting for the year 2018 and onwards; 
• requests the Secretariat to develop draft practical guidance on
  the development of inventories for consideration by OEWG12 and
  COP15 for the following waste streams: plastic wastes; obsolete
  pesticides, including pesticide-container waste; waste batteries
  containing lithium; waste cartridges and toners; and olive oil
  milling waste; and
• requests the Secretariat to continue to undertake pilot projects
  to test the draft practical guidance for the development of
  inventories of used lead-acid batteries, waste electrical and
  electronic equipment and waste oils, and to prepare revised
  practical guidance for consideration by COP15.

Electronic approaches to the notification and movement
documents:
On Saturday, 4 May, the Secretariat introduced the documents
(UNEP/CHW.14/10 and OEWG.11/6).

The EU supported the draft decision but with amendments including
deadlines for parties to submit information related to
implementation of electronic systems, and re-ordering of the text to
clarify the sequence and timing of activities. Venezuela, with the
African Group, called for the system to be available in the six UN
languages.

Delegates adopted the decision.

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/10), the COP, inter alia, requests the
Secretariat:

• to prepare a report on experiences at the national and
  international levels in developing and implementing electronic
  systems for exchanging information on or controlling the movements
  of goods and wastes, and lessons learned from such experiences,
  for consideration by OEWG12; and
• to organize consultative workshops involving experts from parties
  and observers to explore options for a BC system that would allow
  for the automation of processes and the electronic exchange of
  information relating to the notification and movement of hazardous
  and other wastes, their expected benefits and requirements, and
  possible steps towards their implementation.

Marine plastic litter and microplastics:
On Saturday, 4 May, the Secretariat introduced the documents
(UNEP/CHW.14/11; UNEP/CHW.14/27; INF/16-18, 53), noting a proposal
to establish a partnership on plastic wastes.

Norway introduced a proposal to amend BC Annexes II, VIII, and IX,
saying it seeks to strike a balance between management of plastic
waste and trade and would include measures for: clean, sorted
plastic waste; and—subject to the PIC procedures—hazardous plastic
waste, and non-hazardous, unsorted, mixed, and other plastic waste.
Many parties and observers supported the establishment of a plastic
wastes partnership, as well as Norway’s proposal.

New Zealand and China called for discussions in the contact group.
The EU, supported by Switzerland, the State of Palestine, and El
Salvador, suggested amendments to the Norwegian proposal to clarify
the scope.

Argentina, with Brazil, supported amending Annexes VIII (hazardous
waste) and IX (non-hazardous waste), but not Annex II (waste
requiring special consideration), citing the need to consider the
full impact of amending the annexes and to avoid creating barriers
to recycling. Brazil said parties should consider intersessional
work and deferral of this decision to COP15.

The African Group, with Iran and Thailand, called for adding plastic
pollution on land to the scope of discussion. Kazakhstan and
Kyrgyzstan suggested adding water courses and waterways. Kyrgyzstan
suggested adding glaciers. India called for technical guidelines on
plastic waste. The Gambia, Nigeria, and Rwanda underlined the need
for alternatives to plastic.

UNEP reported that the UNEA’s fourth meeting had extended the
mandate of the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Expert Group on Marine
Litter and Microplastics.

BAN presented a petition signed by 700,000 people calling to end
“the practice of using developing countries as dumping grounds
for plastic waste.” Toxics Link urged the use of the PIC
procedure to enable countries to refuse plastic imports. Observing
that marine litter is also a toxic hazard that can increase POPs
pollution, IPEN asked all parties to require extended producer
responsibility. CIEL called Norway’s proposal a “well
balanced” response. The Bureau of International Recycling
called for producers and designers to stop placing non-recyclable or
difficult-to-recycle plastics on the market.

The US supported a partnership on plastic waste, revising guidelines
on ESM of plastic wastes, and establishing an intersessional working
group on marine plastic litter, but expressed concern that amending
the annexes could negatively impact the recycling of plastic waste.
The American Chemistry Council expressed concern that
reclassification of wastes could increase burdens on states. The
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries said that the PIC procedure
could create an administrative burden. The World Plastics Council
stated that viable recycling is necessary to prevent marine litter
and expressed concern about amending the annexes. Information
Technology Industry Council supported further work to study
“unintended effects.”

Delegates established a contact group on plastics co-chaired by
Vivienne Ahern (Ireland) and Manoj Kumar Gangeya (India) with a
mandate to:

• discuss the amendments to Annexes II, VIII, and IX as proposed by
  Norway and to take into account the EU’s and
  Argentina’s proposals with the aim of preparing a draft
  decision;
• discuss further actions to address plastic waste; and
• revise the draft ToRs and workplan for the partnership.

The group met throughout the week, concluding its work on the
afternoon of Friday, 10 May.

In plenary on 10 May, the Secretariat introduced the draft decision
on amendments to Annexes II, VIII and IX to the BC
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.40). Delegates then adopted the decision. On the
reference to the ToRs for the Partnership on Plastic Waste, the
Secretariat said the text is set out in UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.35, Annex I,
and will be issued as UNEP/CHW.14/INF.16/Rev.1. The Secretariat also
introduced the draft decision on further actions to address plastic
waste (UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.38), which was adopted.

Norway lauded the COP for amending the annexes to the Convention,
setting out a comprehensive list of actions for further work, and
establishing a Partnership on Plastic Waste. As a co-sponsor of the
amendment text, Japan welcomed the update of the technical
guidelines on plastic waste and announced his country’s
contribution of USD 200,000 for the revision of these guidelines.

China appreciated the work to reach consensus on this issue, called
on the international community to promote effective measures to
address the sources of plastic as well as ESM of plastic waste, and
reduce transboundary transfer of this waste to protect the planet.

Canada noted that combating marine pollution is a priority and
lauded the work of the COP for its “historic” work on
amending the annexes to include plastic waste. Pakistan
congratulated the COP for successfully amending the annexes to
strengthen the control of plastic waste, particularly for developing
countries.

The African Group appreciated the work of the contact group on this
issue and stressed that a strong signal has been sent to the
international community that it is possible to achieve the better
management of plastic waste. India congratulated the contact group
for its work on this issue and underlined that this is the starting
point and called for even further action in the management of
plastic waste. The EU welcomed the decisions on plastic waste,
noting that “the work starts now” on the management of
this issue globally.

Calling the decision a “triumph of the Basel
Convention,” the Dominican Republic, with Peru and Palau,
expressed deep appreciation to Norway for their successful efforts
to amend the annexes. Togo thanked Norway, Japan, and Switzerland
for their work on this issue. Palau called for technical assistance
and financial resources to address plastic waste.

The US looked forward to working with parties to implement the
Partnership on Plastic Waste. PAN underlined that the adoption of
the decision is one of the top-two successes of the BC, alongside
the Ban Amendment. GAIA welcomed the decisions, hoped that they
would begin to address the global injustices in the global waste
streams, and underscored that incineration is not the solution to
this crisis.

Final Decisions: In the decision on the
amendments to Annexes II, VIII and IX to the BC
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.40), the COP, inter alia: decides to amend
Annex II to the BC by adding the following entry: plastic wastes,
including mixtures of such wastes (Y 48), except for plastic waste
which is hazardous waste, and plastic waste almost exclusively
consisting of:

• one non-halogenated polymer;
• one cured resin or condensation product;
• specific fluorinated polymer wastes; and
• mixtures of plastic wastes, consisting of polyethylene (PE),
  polypropylene (PP) or polyethylene terephthalate (PET), provided
  they are destined for separate recycling of each material and in
  an environmentally sound manner, and almost free from
  contamination and other types of wastes.

The COP also decides to amend Annex VIII to the BC by inserting a
new entry, as follows: plastic waste, including mixtures of such
wastes, containing or contaminated with Annex I constituents, to an
extent that it exhibits an Annex III characteristic (A3210). 

The COP further decides to amend Annex IX to the Convention by
replacing the entry B3010: solid plastic waste, with a new entry
B3011, as follows: plastic waste (contained in an extensive list
identical to the Y 48 entry), provided it is destined for recycling
in an environmentally sound manner and almost free from
contamination and other types of wastes. 

In the decision on further action to address plastic waste
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.38), the COP, inter alia:

• commits itself to working to support efforts to achieve the
  prevention, the minimization and the ESM of plastic waste, as well
  as the effective control of its transboundary movement;
• stresses the importance of cooperation and coordination with other
  international organizations and activities through existing
  mechanisms, and in particular the multi-stakeholder platform
  within UNEP, established by UNEA-4, while avoiding duplication;
• calls upon parties and others to: make further efforts at the
  domestic level to prevent and minimize the generation of plastic
  waste; promote the environmentally sound and efficient management
  of plastic waste; and ensure that transboundary movements of
  plastic waste are undertaken in accordance with the provisions of
  the Convention, as well as with related national laws and relevant
  regional agreements;
• decides to update the Technical Guidelines for the Identification
  and ESM of Plastic Waste and for their Disposal; and
• decides to establish a working group of the BC Partnership on
  Plastic Waste.

Waste containing nanomaterials: This issue
was addressed in plenary on Saturday, 4 May, and in a contact group
on BC Technical Matters. The Secretariat introduced the documents
(UNEP/CHW.14/12; INF/19; OEWG.11/INF/24). The African Group called
for WHO to collaborate with the Secretariat. Viet Nam lauded the UN
Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) for raising awareness
of potential risks of nanomaterials. Iran called for more engagement
with stakeholders. South Africa emphasized the need for synergies
with other environmental agreements.

Switzerland suggested the BC is the appropriate forum for this
discussion.

UNITAR, for WHO and the International Labour Organization (ILO),
cited the WHO guidelines on protecting workers from potential risks
of manufactured nanomaterials as useful for further work under the
BC. PAN, for IPEN, called for information to assess the
“supposed benefits and possible risks.”

American Chemistry Council called approaches that would “lump
together” nanomaterials impracticable given the diversity of
nanomaterials.

CIEL said the data gaps result from a “severe” lack of
transparency and supported further work under the BC. The issue was
then taken up by the contact group.

On Tuesday, 7 May, delegates adopted the draft decision.

Final Decision: In the decision, the COP
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.29), inter alia:

• encourages parties and others to undertake further research and
  develop other measures to generate the information needed to
  better understand the potential risks posed by waste containing
  nanomaterials;
• invites parties and others to make available to the Secretariat
  information related to activities aimed at addressing issues
  related to waste containing nanomaterials, including case studies
  and best practices relating to the management of waste containing
  nanomaterials; and
• encourages parties to develop strategies for the ESM of waste
  containing nanomaterials.

Legal, compliance and governance matters: Committee Administering the Mechanism for Promoting
Implementation and Compliance:
On Tuesday, 30 April, the Secretariat introduced the documents
(UNEP/CHW.14/13, Add/1-4, INF/20-22, 26, 52). Juan Simonelli, Chair
of the Implementation and Compliance Committee (ICC), reported on
the Committee’s work.

Several parties welcomed the efforts and achievements of the ICC.
Belarus appreciated the efforts to simplify national reporting. The
Gambia called for more information on challenges shared during the
reporting period.

On Friday, 3 May, COP14 President Matiza called for comments on the
benchmark report aimed at facilitating reporting, including examples
reflecting parties’ good practices (UNEP/CHW.14/13/Add.4).
Umicore urged parties to grant transit approvals. IPEN called on
parties to address non-compliance issues through the compliance
committee. BAN stressed the need to expand the Secretariat trigger.

Argentina called for further discussion on insurance bonds and
guarantees in a contact group. The EU noted their proposal
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.13) to amend the benchmark report. Switzerland
called for further discussion.

Delegates agreed to establish a contact group, co-chaired by
Isabelle Baudin (Switzerland) and Juan Simonelli (Argentina), to
address insurance bonds, the amendments to the benchmark report, and
the draft decision.

On Tuesday, 7 May, delegates adopted the decision.

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.17), the COP, inter alia:

• encourages parties with concerns to cooperate with the Committee;
• sets interim targets for national reports, to measure progress in
  overall implementation and compliance with paragraph 3 of Article
  13 of the Convention;
• adopts the benchmark report (UNEP/CHW.14/13/Add.4/Rev.1) and the
  revised guidance on improving national reporting
  (UNEP/CHW.14/13/Add.1);
• adopts provisions under national reporting for additional steps to
  improve timeliness and completeness of national reporting; 
• adopts the guide for the development of national legal frameworks
  to implement the BC and encourages entities undertaking activities
  to assist parties to review or develop legislation implementing
  the Convention;
• on insurance, bonds and guarantee, requests the Committee to
  invite comments to review and update the guidance for consultation
  at the OEWG12; 
• approves the work programme of the Committee for the biennium
  2020-2021 and requests the Committee to, inter alia,
  establish priorities, work methods and schedules for activities in
  the work programme, consult with parties, and report to COP15;
  and 
• elects two members from African States, Asia-Pacific States, CEE
  States; Latin American and Caribbean States, and Western European
  and other States to serve on the Committee until the close of
  COP16.

Providing further legal clarity: On
Saturday, 4 May, the Secretariat introduced the documents on
providing further legal clarity (UNEP/CHW.14/14, INF/23,
INF/24/Rev.1). Joost Meijer (Chile), Co-Chair of the EWG of the
Review of the Annexes, reported progress on the review of Annexes I,
III, and IV and related aspects of Annex IX to the BC. Delegates
agreed to mandate this to the BC Compliance contact group.

The contact group convened on Monday afternoon, 6 May, to discuss
the draft decision on providing further legal clarity (CRP.19) and
the way forward to the next two meetings of the COPs. Participants
discussed issues related to, inter alia:

• revisions to Annex IV;
• the extension of the mandate of the expert working group (EWG) to
  review the implications of the review of Annexes I, III and IV for
  other annexes of the Convention and to report this to OEWG12; and
• the request to the Secretariat to prepare an analysis of these
  implications.

Delegates also discussed the draft decision text (UNEP/CHW.14/13)
with some suggesting adding a new subparagraph to amend the terms of
reference of the mechanism for promoting implementation and
compliance with the BC. 

Delegates adopted the decision on Tuesday, 7 May.

Final Decision: In its decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.30), the COP, inter alia:

• invites parties to submit further views on the recommendations for
  revisions to Annex IV;
• extends the mandate of the working group;
• requests the EWG to continue its work on legal clarity;
• requests the Secretariat to prepare an analysis of the possible
  consequential implications of the review of Annexes I, III and IV
  for other annexes of the Convention and for relevant decisions of
  the COP;
• requests the EWG to report its findings;
• requests the regional groups to nominate experts to join the
  expert working group; and 
• requests the Secretariat to report on the implementation of the
  present decision to OEWG12 and COP15.

National legislation, notifications, enforcement of the
Convention and efforts to combat illegal traffic:
On Monday, 6 May, the Secretariat introduced the documents
(UNEP/CHW.14/13, Add.2, UNEP/CHW.14/15). The EU highlighted their
proposed amendments (UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.11), specifically on the
implementation of Article 6(4) on transit notifications.

South Africa, Lesotho, the Central African Republic, and Côte
d’Ivoire supported the Secretariat’s work on enforcement
and implementation measures. Syria, Lesotho, Pakistan, the Central
African Republic, the Maldives, and Nepal called for building the
capacity of customs officials to better enforce illegal traffic
legislation. Côte d’Ivoire requested the Secretariat to share
success stories on the website to assist other countries to make
progress on this issue. The BC Regional Centre in the Russian
Federation offered to share experiences related to identifying
hazardous wastes in transit.

The State of Palestine, supported by Syria, Yemen, Libya, Iraq,
Gabon, Benin, Burkina Faso, Liberia, Algeria, and Chad, stressed
that, since many developing countries do not have the capacity to
address these wastes, written notifications and responses should be
mandatory. The Secretariat noted that, under Article 4(6) on export
of hazardous wastes, states have 60 days to respond to
notifications, but can also decide not to grant consent for waste in
transit.

The EU suggested establishing a contact group to continue
discussions. The African Group called for a Friends of the President
Group to address this issue. President Matiza proposed, and
delegates agreed, to task the EU, the State of Palestine, and the
African Group to work with the Secretariat to revise the draft
decision in UNEP/CHW.14/15. 

On Tuesday, 7 May, delegates adopted the decision.

Final Decision: In its decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.34), the COP, inter alia:

• invites enforcement organizations and networks to continue to
  engage in preventing and combating illegal traffic in hazardous
  wastes and other wastes;
• urges parties to fulfill their obligations under paragraph 4 of
  Article 4 and paragraph 5 of Article 9 of the Convention including
  by updating and developing stringent legislation;
• encourages parties to provide the Secretariat with the texts of
  national legislation and other measures to implement and enforce
  the Convention; 
• invites parties to share information, through the Secretariat, on
  best practices and to report confirmed cases of illegal traffic;
• invites parties to provide the Secretariat with information on
  national definitions of hazardous wastes required under Article 3
  and paragraph 2(b) of Article 13 of the Convention; 
• requests the Secretariat to maintain a collection of best
  practices for preventing and punishing illegal traffic, forms for
  reporting confirmed cases of illegal traffic, and information on
  national definitions of hazardous wastes;
• make information on national definitions of hazardous wastes
  available in the six official languages of the UN; 
• provide parties with advice on matters pertaining to the
  implementation and enforcement of the Convention; 
• continue to cooperate with enforcement organizations and
  networks; 
• build on and further develop tools and organize enforcement
  training activities; and
• report on the implementation of the present decision to the COP15.

Technical assistance: This item was opened on
Monday, 29 April in the joint sessions of the COPs (see page X). 

Basel Convention regional and coordinating centres: On Monday, 6 May, President Matiza introduced the draft decision
on BC regional and coordinating centres (UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.14). 

El Salvador thanked Panama for hosting the regional centre and
supported the implementation of further activities. The decision was
adopted.

Final Decision: In its decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.14), the COP, inter alia:

• requests the BC regional and coordinating centres to submit to the
  Secretariat for consideration by COP15 of business plans and
  activity reports;
• requests the Secretariat to prepare a report on the activities of
  the BC regional and coordinating centres for consideration by
  COP15, an evaluation of the BC regional and coordinating centres
  for COP16, and undertake activities to facilitate the work of the
  regional centres;
• invites the governments of the Russian Federation and Slovakia and
  authorizes the Secretariat to take the steps necessary to effect
  the signing to formalize the establishment of BC regional centres
  for the CEE region in the Russian Federation and Slovakia; 
• decides to select Panama to host the BC regional centre to be
  established for the Central America and Mexico subregion, and
  authorizes the Secretariat to effect the signing of a framework
  agreement with the Government of Panama on the establishment of
  the BC regional centre;
• decides to evaluate the performance and sustainability of the BC
  regional and coordinating centres at COP16 and every four years
  thereafter; and 
• invites the provision of financial support to enable BC regional
  and coordinating centres.

Basel Convention Partnership Programme: This item
includes specific actions on a Partnership for Action on Computing
Equipment (PACE); an environmental network for optimizing regulatory
compliance on illegal traffic (ENFORCE); a guidance document on ESM
of household waste and related Partnership on Household Waste.

PACE: On Saturday, 4 May, the Secretariat introduced
the documents (UNEP/CHW.14/18; INF.30-32). Leila Devia (Argentina),
Co-Chair of PACE, drew attention to a concept note for a follow-up
partnership (Annex V, UNEP/CHW.14/INF/30).

El Salvador presented a CRP on PACE (UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.16). The
African Group, GRULAC, Switzerland, and Jordan supported the
proposal. The BC Regional Centre for South Africa called for the
proposed follow-up to offer opportunities for ESM of e-waste. The
issue was referred to the contact group on BC Strategic Matters for
further discussion.

On Tuesday, 7 May, delegates adopted the decision.

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.26), the COP,
inter alia: 

• agrees with the ToRs and the programme of work of the
  Partnership; 
• emphasizes that the Partnership does not have the authority to
  create additional rights or responsibilities for, or abrogate
  existing rights or responsibilities of, BC parties;
• takes note of the PACE funding proposals;
• decides to establish a PACE working group under the OEWG, and
  invites participation in it;
• invites parties and others to submit comments on the ToRs and the
  programme of work; 
• requests the PACE working group to prepare a revised ToR and
  programme of work for consideration by OEWG12 and for adoption on
  behalf of COP14; 
• requests the PACE working group to undertake the activities in the
  programme of work;
• requests the Secretariat to facilitate the work of and provide
  expertise to the Partnership, including to enhance the ESM of
  electronic and electrical waste at the national level; 
• encourages participation in the Partnership and financial
  contributions; and
• requests the OEWG to report to COP15.

ENFORCE: On Saturday, 4 May, the
Secretariat introduced the document (UNEP/CHW.14/INF/31) on the
environmental network for optimizing regulatory compliance on
illegal traffic (ENFORCE). Irma Gurguliani (Georgia), Chair of
ENFORCE, noted members had agreed to revise the roadmap to make it
more specific and action-oriented.

President Matiza noted that the ICC will review the ToRs for
ENFORCE. The African Group requested that the Secretariat draft
practical guidance on waste flows. Argentina highlighted the value
of training workshops for border officials.

BC COP14 adopted the part of the draft decision related to ENFORCE.

Final Decision: In the relevant parts of the decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/18) on the BC Partnership Programme, the COP,
inter alia:

• invites the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL),
  the WCO, and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime to consider joining
  the Network as members, and invites other entities with a specific
  mandate to deliver implementation and enforcement
  capacity-building activities that could assist BC parties in
  preventing and combating illegal traffic of hazardous wastes and
  other wastes;
• elects the representatives of five BC parties as members of the
  Network and four representatives of the BC regional and
  coordination centers until COP15; and
• requests the Secretariat to facilitate and provide expertise to
  the Network and to report COP15.

Guidance document on the ESM of household waste and Household
Waste Partnership:On Saturday, 4 May, the Secretariat introduced the revised draft
guidance document on the ESM of household waste (UNEP/CHW.14/INF/32)
and the Household Waste Partnership in the relevant parts of the
decision (UNEP/CHW.14/18) on the BC Partnership Programme. Gabriela
Medina, Co-Chair of the Working Group on the Household Waste
Partnership, noted the linkages to marine plastic litter and
microplastics. The EU recommended amending the decision to
acknowledge progress made rather than welcoming the work done, and
to request that the group further consider existing BC guidance,
particularly on ESM. Delegates adopted the decision as amended by
the EU.

On the Household Waste Partnership, on Tuesday, 7 May, the EU
highlighted proposed amendments (UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.33) to the
Partnership on Household Waste. President Matiza noted that the
decision (UNEP/CHW.14/18, part III) had already been adopted.
Clarifying they were seeking to correct errors, the EU introduced
its proposed amendments to the workplan for the biennium 2020-2021.
The Gambia noted that these were substantial, not editorial,
amendments. Syria requested clarification on whether parties would
need to vote on the amended document. Following informal discussions
among concerned parties, the EU reported the group had agreed to
adopt CRP.33. China stressed that this should not set a precedent.
Delegates adopted the amended decision, the annex of which contains
the Household Waste Partnership workplan for the biennium
2020-2021. 

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.33), the COP,
inter alia:

• takes note of the guidance document on the ESM of household waste
  and requests the working group prepare a complete draft of the
  overall guidance document to account for COP14 discussions, for
  consideration by OEWG12;
• requests the working group to implement the workplan set out in
  the annex to this decision, and to coordinate with the new
  partnership on plastic waste; and
• requests the Secretariat to make comments available online,
  facilitate and provide expertise to the working group, and report
  on implementation to OWEG12 and COP15.

Financial resources: This item was addressed in the
joint sessions of the COPs (see page 4). 

Work programme of the Open-Ended Working Group for the period
2020-2021: On Monday, 6 May, the Secretariat introduced the document
(UNEP/CHW.14/19), suggesting the draft work programme be revised to
account for decisions adopted during BC COP14. 

The African Group highlighted the need to consider regional
activities, especially regarding e-waste, as well as emerging issues
including plastic wastes, marine plastic litter and, with the
Russian Federation, waste containing nanomaterials. 

The EU emphasized that decisions taken during this COP need to be
reflected in the future work of the OEWG. Delegates requested the
Secretariat to prepare a revised draft work programme for
consideration later in the meeting. 

On Friday, 10 May, in the afternoon plenary, President Matiza noted
that, further to Monday’s request, the Secretariat had
prepared a revised OEWG work programme. The Secretariat introduced
the draft decision on the work programme of the OEWG for the
biennium 2020-2021 (UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.36), drawing attention to
brackets that could be removed following the adoption of the
decision, and explaining that the COP usually entrusts the
Secretariat to accurately reflect the decisions in the work
programme. The decision was adopted, to be amended as necessary,
pending the outcomes of the BC Plastics contact group.

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.36), the COP
adopts the work programme of the OEWG for the biennium 2020-2021, as
set out in the annex to the decision.

Programme of Work and Budget

This item was also addressed in the joint sessions of the COPs (see
page 6). On Friday, 10 May, delegates adopted the BC programme of
work and budget.

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/CHW.14/CRP.37), the COP, inter alia: 

• approves the programme budget for the SC for the biennium
  2020-2021 of USD 9,688,154; 
• authorizes the BC Executive Secretary to make commitments in an
  amount up to the approved operational budget, drawing upon
  available cash resources;
• decides to maintain the working capital reserve at the level of
  15% of the annual average of the biennial operational budgets for
  the biennium 2020-2021; and
• recalls that contributions to the BC General Trust Fund are
  expected by 1 January of the year for which those contributions
  have been budgeted, urges parties to pay their contributions
  promptly, encourages parties in a position to do so to pay their
  contributions by 16 October 2019 for the calendar year 2020 and by
  16 October 2020 for the calendar year 2021, and requests the
  Secretariat to notify parties of the amounts of their
  contributions as early as possible in the year preceding the year
  in which they are due. 

Memorandum of Understanding between UNEP and the Basel
Convention COP

This issue was introduced in the Joint Sessions on Tuesday, 30
April.

Final Decision: In the decision on the MoU
between UNEP and the BC (UNEP/CHW.14/26/Rev.1), the COP,
inter alia, adopts the MoU between the Executive Director
of UNEP and the BC COP.

Adoption of the Report

On Tuesday, 7 May, delegates adopted the meeting report
(UNEP/CHW.14/L.1/Add.1) with minor amendments. 

Rotterdam Convention COP9

COP9 of the Rotterdam Convention opened on Monday, 29 April, and
conducted most of its work from 7-10 May.

Rules of Procedure for the COP

On Thursday, 9 May, the Secretariat introduced the document
(UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/3), which invites the COP to consider bracketed
text stating that when attempts to achieve consensus are exhausted,
a two-thirds majority vote can be used to reach a decision. RC COP9
President Álvarez-Pérez proposed, and delegates agreed, that the COP
defer consideration of the text to its next meeting. He noted that,
until otherwise decided, substantive matters will continue to be
decided by consensus.

Matters Related to the Implementation of the Convention
 

Status of implementation: On Thursday, 9 May, the
Secretariat introduced the documents, including the draft decision
(UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/4; INF/6-8).

Encouraging all parties to submit notifications of final regulatory
action, the EU called for the development of additional webinars and
online tools for capacity building. He supported adoption of the
draft decision but highlighted his proposals for amendments set out
in UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/CRP.9, which addresses the definition of the
term “pesticides,” the use of Harmonized System codes
when exporting chemicals, and assistance provided by the Secretariat
to parties. 

The African Group, with Nigeria, supported the draft decision set
out in UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/4 and called for regional training and
capacity-building workshops to increase the number of notifications.

Switzerland encouraged parties to include exposure data in their
notifications. The Russian Federation called for all reference
materials to be translated into the six UN languages. Zambia
highlighted the benefits of the financial and technical support it
had received to undertake a gap analysis designed to support
implementation of the RC. The US agreed with Switzerland that the
information documents demonstrate that the available technical
assistance and evaluation tools are making a difference. 

Noting general support for the proposed action, President
Álvarez-Pérez suggested adopting the draft decision with the
amendments proposed by the EU and China. He noted that China’s
suggested changes to CRP.9 included: moving a paragraph on
submitting periodic questionnaires, so as to “encourage”
rather than “urge” parties to submit; adding the phrase
“to be used for occupational purpose” in relation to
chemicals in safety data sheets, which aligns the text with the
provisions of the Convention; and adding text pertaining to shipping
documents, in particular “if a code has been assigned.”
Guinea queried who would assign such a code. 

Kenya suggested making explicit the trigger and format for
submission of information. The Secretariat clarified that the
invitation to parties to provide information would have a flexible
format to capture a maximum amount of information. 

Delegates adopted the decision with the oral amendments proposed by
China.

Final Decision: In the decision (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/CRP.9), the
COP, inter alia:

• encourages parties to adopt and communicate the national
  definition for the term “pesticide” to the
  Secretariat; to ensure the submission of notifications of final
  regulatory action, proposals for listing severely hazardous
  pesticide formulations and import responses for listed chemicals;
  to use the final regulatory action evaluation toolkit and other
  relevant tools for national risk evaluation and decision-making;
  and to provide the Secretariat with information that may assist
  other parties to prepare and notify final regulatory actions;
• urges parties to implement Article 11 of the
  Convention, which is an important contribution to the fight
  against illegal trade in chemicals subject to the
  Convention, to ensure a safety data sheet that
  follows an internationally recognized format is sent to each
  importer of both chemicals listed in Annex III and chemicals
  banned or severely restricted in the exporting country’s
  territory in one or more of the official languages of the
  importing party;
• decides to adjust the composition of the PIC regions to add the
  State of Palestine to the Near East PIC region and South Sudan to
  the Africa PIC region;
• invites parties, non-parties, industry, civil society, and other
  stakeholders to provide to the Secretariat data on the
  international trade in chemicals listed or recommended for listing
  in Annex III; and
• requests the Secretariat to provide assistance to parties, subject
  to the availability of resources, to facilitate the implementation
  of the RC and to collect and make available to parties and other
  stakeholders information on the definition of the term
  “pesticides.”

Listing of chemicals in Annex III to the Convention:
On Tuesday, 7 May, the Secretariat introduced UNEP/FAO/RC/
COP.9/5/Rev.1. Nolozuko Gwayi (South Africa), Chair of the CRC,
presented the Committee’s recommendations to list in Annex III
the severely hazardous pesticide formulations (SHPFs) fenthion and
paraquat, as well as the chemicals acetochlor,
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), phorate, carbosulfan, and chrysotile
asbestos.

Many delegates expressed appreciation for the work of the CRC,
noting that listing under the RC does not constitute a ban. Norway,
New Zealand, Peru, Switzerland, the EU, Jordan, Thailand, Burkina
Faso, Saint Kitts and Nevis, the Maldives, Botswana, Chad, the
Republic of Congo, South Africa, the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, the Gambia, Australia, Uruguay, and Malaysia supported the
inclusion of all seven nominations. Guyana supported listing
acetochlor, HBCD, and phorate. Sri Lanka supported listing the SHPFs
nominated by the CRC. 

New Zealand noted broad support at past COPs for listing the
“old chemicals,” including carbosulfan, chrysotile
asbestos, fenthion, and liquid formulations containing paraquat
dichloride. President Álvarez-Pérez clarified that each chemical
would be considered separately. 

Colombia called for countries to appoint members to the CRC that can
fulfil the entire mandate. The African Group expressed concern about
the reduced length of CRC meetings, emphasizing the need for experts
to have enough time for deliberations. Norway supported the
translation of the Handbook of Working Procedures and Policy
Guidance for the CRC and the Pocket Guide for Effective
Participation in the CRC. 

Effectiveness of the CRC: On Wednesday, 8
May, President Álvarez-Pérez invited comments from observers on the
work of the CRC.

The US expressed appreciation for the work of the CRC, underscored
the importance of effective participation, and highlighted proposals
to enhance chairing and capacity building. Noting high turnover, PAN
called for the appointment of experts who can complete their terms.
CropLife International called for provision of translation services
in CRC plenary, as is done in the POPRC.

IPEN emphasized that PIC allows governments to accept or refuse
chemicals of concern and, with the Centre Africain pour la Santé,
supported the CRC’s listing recommendations. Rotterdam
Chrysotile Alliance (ROCA) expressed anger at those parties blocking
the listing of chemicals.

This issue was further discussed in the contact group on RC
Effectiveness, which prepared a draft decision on the operation of
the CRC. On Friday, 10 May, delegates adopted the decision.

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/CRP.11), the COP requests the Secretariat,
inter alia, to:

• establish and implement training activities within the framework
  of the technical assistance plan, subject to the availability of
  resources, for new and existing members and to report on their
  results to COP10;
• report to COP10 on progress with respect to the recommendations
  for improving participation, openness, and transparency in the
  CRC; and
• translate, subject to the availability of resources, the Pocket
  Guide for Effective Participation in the CRC and the Handbook of
  Working Procedures and Policy Guidance for the CRC.

HBCD: The Secretariat introduced the
documents (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/7, Add.1, INF/9/Rev.1, INF/12, INF/13)
on Wednesday, 8 May. 

The African Group, the EU, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, the Russian
Federation, Malaysia, Nepal, Ethiopia, and Syria supported listing
HBCD in Annex III. Delegates adopted the decision. 

Final Decision: In the decision (RC/COP.9/7), the COP,
inter alia:

• amends Annex III to the RC to list HBCD in the category of
  industrial chemical, which shall enter into force for all parties
  on 16 September 2019; and
• approves the decision guidance document on HBCD.

Phorate: The Secretariat introduced the
documents (UNEP/FAO/RC/ COP.9/8; Add.1; INF/9/Rev.1; INF/14; INF/15)
on Wednesday, 8 May.

The African Group, the EU, India, Australia, Nepal, Serbia, the
Russian Federation, Malaysia, the State of Palestine, Nigeria,
Brazil, Zimbabwe, and Nicaragua supported the inclusion of phorate
in Annex III. Delegates adopted the decision.

Final Decision: In the decision
(RC/COP.9/8), the COP, inter alia:

• amends Annex III to the RC to list phorate in the category of
  pesticide, which shall enter into force for all parties on 16
  September 2019, and
• approves the decision guidance document on phorate.

Acetochlor: The Secretariat introduced the
documents (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/6, Add.1, INF/9/Rev.1, INF/10, INF/11)
on Wednesday, 8 May.

The EU, Pakistan, Togo, India, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Mauritania, El
Salvador, Malaysia, the Russian Federation, the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Syria, Norway, Switzerland, Cambodia, Nepal, Serbia,
Bolivia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and PAN supported the inclusion of
acetochlor in Annex III. The African Group asked delegates to
consider all possible implications of listing acetochlor, noting
that some countries in the region had raised concerns. 

Stating that the CRC did not employ a rigorous procedure for review,
CropLife International noted that although the EU notification met
the Annex II requirements, the notification from the Sahelian
countries did not because it was, inter alia, based on the
research project of a Master’s student rather than reliable
exposure data. Norway dissented, explaining that the Sahelian
countries had effectively used the bridging criteria to demonstrate
a high risk for groundwater contamination. 

Argentina, with Chile, opposed the listing, saying the Annex II
criteria had not been met, and proposed further discussion, taking
into consideration more recent studies. 

President Álvarez-Pérez suspended the discussion and requested
parties to consult informally with the aim of seeking consensus. 

On Friday, 10 May, President Álvarez-Pérez noted that informal
consultations with concerned parties had not been successful and
asked if the COP could agree that all the listing requirements had
been met. Opposing the listing, Argentina said that not all
requirements had been met, with Chile stating that the requirements
had only been met in part. The EU, Mauritania, Guinea Bissau, Benin,
and the Gambia said that the listing criteria had been met.
Switzerland, supported by Norway, South Africa, Chad, El Salvador,
and Mali, recommended aligning the decision text with the text from
previous decisions on substances that have not been listed,
postponing further consideration to COP10. Argentina called for more
in-depth studies to be undertaken. 

Delegates agreed that the listing criteria had been met, but could
not reach consensus to list acetochlor in Annex III, and postponed
this issue to COP10.

Carbosulfan: The Secretariat introduced the documents
(UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/9; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/9/Add.1) on Wednesday, 8
May, noting that COP8 agreed that the listing criteria had been met
but did not reach consensus to include the chemical in Annex III. 

Kenya questioned the validity of one of the notifications and, with
India and Brazil, cited use of carbosulfan in agricultural pest
control and opposed listing. CropLife International said that when
used according to the label, carbosulfan is a safe pesticide and
questioned whether the notification met Annex II criteria.

The Philippines withdrew the reservations it had stated at COP8 and
said it was ready to support listing. The EU, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka,
Chile, Nigeria, Iraq, Mauritania, Sudan, Norway, Lebanon, Peru,
Argentina, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Malaysia, the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, and Gabon also supported listing. Several stressed
that listing does not equate to banning the substance. 

President Álvarez-Pérez suspended the discussion and requested
parties to consult informally with the aim of seeking consensus. On
Friday, 10 May, President Álvarez-Pérez proposed, and delegates
agreed, to forward this issue to COP10 for further consideration.

Paraquat: The Secretariat introduced the documents
(UNEP/FAO/RC/ COP.9/12; Add.1) on Wednesday, 8 May, noting that the
listing of this SHPF has been on the agenda since COP6. 

Opposing listing, Guatemala stressed the need to better evaluate
notifications. Highlighting a national scientific assessment of
paraquat, Indonesia reported that correct use of the pesticide is
not harmful to human health and the environment.

The African Group, Mauritania, Nicaragua, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, the EU, the Russian Federation, Burkina Faso, Peru, Saint
Kitts and Nevis, Norway, Cambodia, Switzerland, Malaysia, Tanzania,
Ecuador, Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire, Uruguay, Malawi, Bolivia, El
Salvador, PAN and IPEN supported listing. 

Noting that only two parties opposed listing, President
Álvarez-Pérez suspended discussions to allow for informal
consultations.

On Friday, 10 May, President Álvarez-Pérez informed plenary that
informal consultations had not been successful, as some parties
still had reservations. Chile opposed listing. Indonesia shared his
country’s experience, noting the concerns of farmers on the
increase of farming costs if paraquat is listed, but announcing the
country’s intention to create a roadmap to assist farmers to
access alternatives, which could possibly allow the country to
support listing at COP10.

Guatemala and Mauritania expressed support for listing. 

President Álvarez-Pérez proposed, and delegates agreed, to forward
this issue to COP10, noting agreement that the listing criteria had
been met.

Fenthion: The Secretariat introduced the
documents (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/11; /Add.1) on Wednesday, 8 May, noting
that COP8 decided that fenthion meets the criteria for listing.

Citing crop security issues, Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Uganda
opposed listing, and, with others, called for effective, practical
alternatives to be defined. Mauritania, Gabon, and Nigeria noted
similar problems with crop security but supported listing. 

Chad, the Russian Federation, Peru, PAN, the EU, Malaysia, Chile,
Bolivia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, India, and Nicaragua supported
listing. The EU emphasized that the purpose of PIC is information
exchange. Norway and others underscored that listing does not
constitute a ban. 

President Álvarez-Pérez called for informal consultations with the
four countries that opposed listing. 

On Friday, 10 May, President Álvarez-Pérez proposed, and delegates
agreed, to forward this issue to COP10. Speaking for Ethiopia, Sudan
and Uganda, Kenya welcomed the efforts of FAO in the control of the
quelea quelea birds but underlined that there are no
alternatives to the control of the millions of these migratory
birds, which are a threat to food security in Eastern Africa, and
called for speedy research into effective alternatives. Mauritania,
supported by Chad and Senegal, stated that the aerial spray of
fenthion has killed non-target organisms, such as lizards, snakes,
and insects, and has had negative impacts on proximate human
populations.

Chrysotile Asbestos: The Secretariat
introduced the documents (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/10; Add.1) on Wednesday,
8 May, noting that this issue has been on the agenda since COP3. 

Australia, Colombia, Norway, Canada, Peru, Georgia, Uruguay, Gabon,
Nigeria, Bahrain, the EU, Japan, Iraq, Togo, Chile, Malaysia, New
Zealand, Moldova, Switzerland, Vanuatu, the Republic of Congo,
Senegal, the Maldives, Kuwait, Benin, Saudi Arabia, and Cameroon
supported listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III. 

Citing lack of new evidence of effects on human health and the
environment, the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Syria, Zimbabwe,
Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, India, and the International Alliance of Trade
Union Organizations “Chrysotile” opposed listing.
Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran called for further discussions to
understand the rationale of those opposed to listing. 

Stressing overwhelming and conclusive scientific evidence, WHO
underlined that all forms of asbestos cause cancer in humans. ILO
underscored that the ILO Asbestos Convention should not be used to
justify continued use of asbestos. Solidar Suisse urged immediate
action to list chrysotile asbestos, emphasizing that millions of
people die every year due to exposure. Noting that evidence linking
chrysotile to disease is overwhelming, National Toxics Network
called for chrysotile asbestos to be listed in Annex III. 

The Fiber Cement Product Manufacturer’s Association of India
opposed listing, saying national governmental studies had shown no
negative health impacts. Workers of Kazakhstan called for a
distinction to be made between chrysotile and other forms of
asbestos, noting that workers using cement with chrysotile asbestos
were “all in good health.” 

Delegates deferred further consideration to COP10. President
Álvarez-Pérez noted that the comments would be included in the
meeting report.

Enhancing the effectiveness of the Convention: On
Tuesday 7 May, the Secretariat introduced the documents, including
proposals to amend Article 16 to include technical and financial
assistance through the GEF Trust Fund, and Article 22 to delete
references to requirements for consensus on amendments to Annex III
(UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/13; Add.1; INF/17-23). 

Intersessional Working Group Co-Chair Silvija Nora Kalnins (Latvia)
reported on the group’s activities, noting that priority
actions related to, inter alia: the process of listing
chemicals; information exchange (clearing house mechanism); capacity
building and technical assistance (development of guidance and
awareness); and other processes. 

The EU opposed both amendments, saying the amendment to Article 22
would create a confusing situation in which Annex III would only
apply to some parties. Acknowledging that three of its delegations
held different views, the Asia-Pacific Region objected to the
proposed amendments, noting implications for other articles. 

Thailand welcomed discussion of the proposed amendments. Syria
supported amending Article 16 and opposed amending Article 22.
Indonesia said GEF funding should be made available to developing
countries. The African Group called for the FAO to assist countries
through its regional offices. Nigeria emphasized that support for
parties should not be limited to voluntary contributions. GRULAC
stressed that assistance is vital for implementation. 

The Russian Federation, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, El Salvador, New
Zealand, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Guatemala, South Africa, the Maldives, the
US, and the International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations
“Chrysotile” supported maintaining decision-making by
consensus. Norway sympathized with the intent behind the proposed
Article 22 amendment but said they had concerns about challenging
legal and other implications. Switzerland underscored that the RC is
not being implemented if parties are unable to list substances that
meet the criteria.

Describing the listing procedure as “just plain broken,”
PAN supported the proposal to replace consensus-based
decision-making with voting. IPEN, supported by the Association of
Environmental Education for Future Generations (Tunisia), favored
both proposed amendments, noting that voting would be a last resort.

On Friday morning, 10 May, President Álvarez-Pérez introduced the
draft decision on enhancing the effectiveness of the Convention
(UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/CRP.12), noting it was entirely in brackets.
Parties agreed to remove the brackets and adopt the decision pending
confirmation from the budget group on the budgetary implications of
the decision.

In the afternoon plenary, President Álvarez-Pérez introduced the
African Group’s proposals to amend Articles 16 and 22 of the
RC (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/13/Add.1). The Russian Federation, noting a
lack of support for the amendments, particularly as Article 22
establishes the basic principles of the Convention, proposed the COP
conclude discussions on the issue without forwarding them to the
next COP. The African Group explained the rationale behind the
proposal, noting the amendments to Article 22 aimed to promote the
listing of chemicals to facilitate informed decision making,
reiterating that listing does not equate to banning. He also
underscored that reaching consensus was always the most desirable
outcome. Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and Oman supported the Russian
Federation. On Article 16, the African Group stressed the paramount
importance of a financial mechanism for the RC, noting the COP
should not relent in its efforts in making it a reality.

President Álvarez-Pérez took note of the lack of support for the
proposed amendments. With no agreement reached, the proposal was
withdrawn.

Final Decision: In the decision (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/CRP.12), the
COP, inter alia, invites parties to further analyze and
develop proposals to enhance the effectiveness of the RC, in
particular to improve the listing process, and requests the
Secretariat:

• subject to the availability of resources, to implement proposals
  on new and innovative ways of improving information exchange under
  the RC;
• to develop a dissemination strategy for obtaining and using
  information for consideration by the COP10;
• to continue sharing collected information on the measurable
  impacts of listing and not listing chemicals in Annex III,
  including at the regional preparatory meetings; and
• to identify, in consultation with the WCO, chemicals listed under
  the Convention that are not assigned exclusive Harmonized System
  customs codes, and to report to the COP10 for further action, as
  necessary.

Compliance: The Secretariat introduced the
documents (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/14/Rev.1, Add.1/Rev.1) in the joint
session of the COPs on Tuesday, 30 April, and compliance was
subsequently discussed by RC COP9 from 7-9 May.

Thailand, Brazil, Canada, Iran, Colombia, and China called for a
compliance mechanism to be facilitative and non-punitive.  Norway
said compliance supports transparency and Ghana noted it helps
implementation. Nigeria urged provision of technical assistance and
financial resources, and India said capacity building and compliance
go “hand-in-hand.”

On Tuesday, 7 May, President Álvarez-Pérez proposed establishing a
Friends of the President group to consider the text in Annex I of
UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/14/Rev.1, and in the absence of consensus, to
consider Annex II, which contains the “package deal”
discussed at COP7. Many delegates supported this proposal and
stressed the importance of agreement on a compliance mechanism. 

Iran opposed the President’s proposal, underscoring
“shortcomings” of the COP7 text including references to
“punitive measures” such as letters of concern, and said
that making compliance a public case could damage a country’s
reputation. He favored using COP8 discussions as a starting point
and supported decision-making by consensus. Cuba opposed the text in
Annex I, while Costa Rica, the EU, Nigeria, and Colombia expressed
support, saying the text should not be reopened. Colombia stressed
the text provides for capacity building and, with Argentina,
underscored that the mechanism is not punitive. 

The Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, and the US noted that consensus
needs to be ensured, with Brazil stressing that a COP decision
should involve every party. The African Group underscored challenges
such as weak borders, as well as a lack of resources and knowledge
to enable effective implementation. The Gambia, Senegal, Sudan,
Liberia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Botswana, and Benin
called for financial and technical assistance for implementation.
Iraq emphasized that not all parties have the same technical
capacity, human resources, or political stability, and called for
further discussion.

Underscoring that the PIC procedure does not ban chemicals from
international trade or production, IPEN called for adoption of a
compliance mechanism and support for capacity building. PAN said a
compliance mechanism that assists parties with implementation is
long overdue. 

Noting requests from the EU and China to enlarge the Friends of the
President group, President Álvarez-Pérez confirmed that the group
would include one delegate each from Namibia, South Africa, Zambia,
Tanzania, Iran, India, Japan, China, the Russian Federation, Latvia,
Armenia, Romania, Colombia, Argentina, Trinidad and Tobago, Ecuador,
Canada, Switzerland, the EU, and the UK. Iran requested inclusion of
two delegates from each party in the group. President Álvarez-Pérez
agreed to this request, but said only one delegate would be allowed
to speak, noting the importance of avoiding disruption to
negotiations. Delegates agreed to establish the Friends of the
President group, to be chaired by Glenn Wigley (New Zealand).

On Wednesday, 8 May, highlighting the Friends of the President
group’s work of the previous day, President Álvarez-Pérez
asked if there were any objections to the adoption of Annex I, which
contains the text negotiated at COP7 (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/14/Rev.1).
Iran opposed adoption. 

President Álvarez-Pérez then asked whether there were objections to
adopting Annex II, which contains the “package deal”
discussed at COP7. Iran, supported by Syria, opposed. President
Álvarez-Pérez subsequently invited delegates to discuss the proposal
to create a new annex establishing procedures and mechanisms on
compliance (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/14/ Add.1/Rev.1). Emphasizing that
consensus should not be a tool for blocking progress, Switzerland
explained the proposed Annex VII would allow parties who do not
agree to a compliance mechanism to opt out. 

Costa Rica, Canada, the EU, the African Group, Colombia, Norway,
Uruguay, Namibia, Mali, South Africa, Zambia, New Zealand, Liberia,
Japan, Ghana, Benin, El Salvador, Nigeria, Kenya, Malaysia, the
Maldives, Thailand, the Dominican Republic, Nepal, Senegal,
Botswana, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Honduras, Sudan, Vanuatu,
Papua New Guinea, IPEN and PAN supported the creation of Annex VII.
Many called for a decision, noting that the proposed mechanism is
not punitive and provides technical assistance. 

Iran, supported by the Russian Federation, opposed the proposal.
China cautioned that adopting Annex VII would modify the Convention
and could undermine its integrity. Iraq called for more time to seek
a consensus-based solution. 

Underscoring that all efforts to achieve consensus had been
exhausted, Switzerland called for a vote. President Álvarez-Pérez
said a vote would be held on Thursday, following adoption of the
report on credentials. Several called for the vote to take place
immediately. The BRS Legal Officer clarified that the vote could be
held earlier if a majority of parties were not content with the
President’s decision.

After a brief break, delegates voted to adopt the new annex, with
120 supporting and 6 opposing the proposal. 

Brazil, supported by the Russian Federation, lamented that the vote
happened prior to adoption of the report on credentials and, with
China and Trinidad and Tobago, said this should not set a precedent
for decision-making. Venezuela, Pakistan, Cuba, Qatar, and the
Russian Federation lamented that delegations were not given time to
consult with their capitals. Argentina expressed concern that only
some parties would comply. Iran emphasized that the reaction to the
vote was indicative of future problems.

On Thursday, 9 May, President Álvarez-Pérez noted that, during
discussions pertaining to the report on credentials, one party had
raised a question related to the vote to establish a new annex to
the Convention that would delineate procedures and a mechanism for
compliance. The BRS Legal Officer clarified that the rules of
procedure allow provisional participation of all parties in decision
making, pending a decision by the COP to accept their credentials.
She said the report of credentials would be made publicly
available. 

Asking how the Secretariat counted the votes, China, with the
Russian Federation, reiterated concern about Wednesday’s vote
setting “a dangerous precedent.” Brazil underscored the
importance of ensuring the integrity of the voting process. Pakistan
asked what the consequences would be if parties without credentials
had voted. Emphasizing lack of clarity about who voted, Bolivia said
there is no precedent for voting without credentials. 

Explaining that decision-making cannot be retroactive, President
Álvarez-Pérez reminded delegates that his decision to hold the vote
after the report of credentials was overruled by a majority of
delegates who preferred to hold the vote immediately. 

Iran expressed concern that some observers might have voted. The
Gambia emphasized that the numbers of votes in favor of creating the
annex was “huge” and said that exclusion of parties
without credentials would not have changed the results. 

Underscoring that the correct procedure was followed, Switzerland
called for the next Bureau to review and strengthen the process of
presenting credentials. Guinea stressed that parties’ main aim
should be implementation of the Convention. 

President Álvarez-Pérez explained that the vote had taken place in
accordance with the rules of procedure and as requested by parties.
He encouraged those who were “uncomfortable” with the
procedures to propose changes for future consideration.

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/14/Add.1/Rev.1), the COP adopts a new Annex VII
to the RC entitled “Procedures and mechanisms on compliance
with the Rotterdam Convention,” as set out in Annex I to the
decision.

Technical assistance: This item was addressed in
the joint sessions of the COPs (see page 4). 

Financial resources: This item was addressed in the
joint sessions of the COPs (see page 4). 

Programme of Work and Budget

This item was addressed in the joint sessions of the COPs (see page
6). On Friday, 10 May, delegates adopted the RC programme of work
and budget.

Final Decision: In the decision
(UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/CRP.10), the COP, inter alia: 

• approves the programme budget for the Rotterdam Convention for the
  biennium 2020-2021 of USD 8,315,672; 
• decides to maintain the working capital reserve at the level of
  15% of the annual average of the biennial operational budgets for
  the biennium 2020-2021;
• invites the governing bodies of UNEP and FAO to continue their
  financial and other support for the operation of the Convention
  and its Secretariat in the biennium 2020-2021; and 
• welcomes the continued annual contribution by Italy and
  Switzerland, the host countries of the Secretariat, of EUR 600,000
  each to the Secretariat to offset planned expenditures.

Memorandum of Understanding between FAO, UNEP, and the
Rotterdam Convention COP

This issue was introduced in the Joint Sessions on Tuesday, 30
April. On Friday, 10 May, the Acting Executive Secretary of UNEP,
Joyce Msuya, and the BRS presidents signed the MoU which will be
taken to FAO by Hans Dreyer, Executive Secretary (FAO) of the RC.

Final Decision: In the decision on the MoU
between UNEP, FAO, and the RC (RC/COP.9/22/Rev.1), the COP,
inter alia, adopts the MoU between the Executive Director
of UNEP, the Director-General of the FAO, and the RC COP.

Adoption of the Report

On Friday, 10 May, delegates adopted the meeting report
(UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.9/L.1/Add.1), with a few amendments related to
procedures undertaken to establish the RC compliance mechanism.

Closure of the Meetings

On Friday evening, 10 May, the contact group on budget worked late
into the evening to finalize the details of programme of work and
budget. As participants awaited the final documents on that agenda
item, President Alvarez-Perez invited regions to give their closing
statements.

Describing the meeting outcomes as “bittersweet,” the EU
expressed concern that “last-minute” proposals for
exemptions circumvented the scientific process that underpins
listing of chemicals under the Stockholm Convention. He also lauded
successes including, inter alia, listing of two chemicals
and reducing the derogations of another under the Stockholm
Convention, adopting a facilitative compliance mechanism under the
Rotterdam Convention, and inclusion of certain plastic wastes under
the Basel Convention.

GRULAC welcomed the decision to establish the BCRC for Mexico and
Central America in Panama, recognized the importance of the gender
action plan, and highlighted the need to protect workers and the
most vulnerable members of society from exposure to dangerous
wastes. He underscored the importance of financing, capacity
building, technical assistance and technology transfer to strengthen
implementation, and suggested that future meetings make good use of
resources without cutting essential services such as interpretation.

Emphasizing that her region is diverse and so are the feelings of
her countries, CEE lauded the constructive dialogues of these
meetings and said the decisions adopted will create solid ground for
more effective work under the Conventions, enabling them to deliver
on their objectives.

The Asia-Pacific region highlighted the importance of strengthening
international cooperation as a complement to national
implementation, as well as removal of barriers to technology
transfer, technical assistance, and financial support. Noting that
not all decisions were equally welcomed by all participants, and
underscoring that consensus-based decision-making is a
“precious heritage” that must be preserved, he called on
participants to “put divergent views on silent mode” and
remain optimistic that they can close gaps and move closer to common
objectives.

The African Group highlighted risks inherent to budgetary reductions
and, underscoring that countries in his region are generally most
affected by hazardous substances, encouraged countries to account
for the “real limits” of least developed countries in
implementation of the Conventions. He appreciated the work done
particularly on ESM of hazardous wastes, and thanked all delegates
for working cooperatively to resolve difficult issues.

With the budget decision still outstanding, BRS Executive Secretary
Rolph Payet offered closing remarks. Highlighting the
“significant progress” achieved on e-waste and plastics,
he characterized the end of the meetings as the start of another
journey, and called on all stakeholders to work together to find
solutions to difficult challenges ahead.

Noting that 28 decisions were adopted under the Stockholm
Convention, SC COP9 President Khashashneh said key outcomes included
listing of two new chemicals in Annex A, reducing the number of
acceptable purpose and specific exemptions for PFOS, its salts, and
PFOSF, and adopting guidelines on BAT/BEP. He also expressed
confidence that parties’ experience with compliance under both
the BC and RC will contribute to conversations about establishing a
compliance mechanism under the SC.

Lauding the “sheer determination” of delegates to come
to common understanding, BC COP14 President Matiza called for
parties to maintain this spirit of oneness and work toward
implementation with the same zeal displayed during the negotiations.

Following adoption of the decision on programme of work and budget,
RC COP9 President Álvarez-Pérez thanked participants for their
contributions and gaveled the meeting to a close at 10:13 pm.

A Brief Analysis of the Meetings

The 2019 Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions Conferences of
the Parties (COPs) showcased the politics of the possible for
conventions in the implementation stage. The administrative
synergies implemented six years ago worked seamlessly, enabling
delegates to the three Conventions to attend a well-managed joint
meeting of the COPs. The Conventions themselves, each working on
their separate mandates, walked very different paths.

As the Basel Convention sought to demonstrate its relevance to
emerging issues of global concern, the Stockholm Convention
continued to list chemicals, including chemicals still in use. The
Rotterdam Convention struggled to fulfil its mandate, however,
closing yet another COP with a growing number of unlisted chemicals
on its agenda. This TripleCOP, more starkly than those before it,
showed how even highly-intertwined Conventions can have varying
challenges as they work to implement their core mandates. This brief
analysis considers how the three Conventions advanced their mandates
in areas of traditional and emerging concern for the sound
management of chemicals and wastes, and how each ended the meeting
on a different trajectory.

The Basel Convention – Bounding Ahead

At this meeting of the TripleCOPs, the biggest highlights were those
achieved under the Basel Convention (BC), which managed to expand
its areas of work to include topical issues. There was a great buzz
of energy and enthusiasm going into COP13, with media outlets having
picked up on the fact that the UN was moving to address an issue
that has increasingly been in the public eye: marine plastics. At
the May 2017 BRS COPs, delegates agreed on new areas of work
including addressing marine plastic litter and microplastics. The
Basel Convention is the “right place to address marine
plastics,” stressed a number of countries coming into the 2019
TripleCOPs, “because its very mandate is to prevent and
minimize hazardous waste generation.” In the two years since
this issue first appeared on the agenda, Norway, supported by a
broad range of countries from both sides of the developing-developed
divide, worked on a proposal to amend the annexes to the BC to
include marine plastic as a separate waste stream. Norway’s
amendment proposal was a package deal to include plastic waste in
Annex II (waste requiring special treatment), Annex VIII (hazardous
waste), and Annex IX (non-hazardous waste).

One of the key concerns in initial discussions was that including
marine plastics was only “treating the symptom, and not the
cause,” with several developing countries, particularly from
Africa, calling to address all plastic waste, and especially
land-based sources that will “eventually end up in the
ocean.” Delegates quickly agreed to drop the
“marine” and address plastics more generally, which
further expands the work of the Convention, and opens up new vistas
for cooperation with other entities. Another concern was how to
include plastic waste without creating a barrier for the recycling
industry—both a labor concern and an environmental one. In the end,
delegates agreed to list plastic pollution in all three annexes,
detailing the specific types of plastic the Convention will not
address, including certain mixtures of plastic waste destined for
recycling, a welcome compromise for those parties concerned about
trade in plastic waste for recycling.

In an increasingly crowded governance landscape, it is most
impressive that the Basel Convention is the first to move from talk
to action in implementing change on plastics. But addressing plastic
pollution as a waste stream problem still leaves issues of
production and use wide open. One delegate, celebrating the adoption
of the inclusion of plastic waste under the BC, was jubilant but
cautious, sharing that “more work still needs to be done
outside the BC to really address this issue.” The newly
established Partnership on Plastic Waste will perhaps spur
collaborative work on plastics to address this issue more
holistically.

Alongside these discussions, delegates also addressed waste from
nanomaterials, another emerging issue that could have wide ranging
implications for a number of sectors. Nanomaterials are used in a
variety of products like sunscreen, antibacterial textiles, glass
coating, lithium ion batteries, and tennis rackets. Both the BC and
the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM)
identified nanomaterials and the waste they generate as an issue of
great concern from as early as 2012, but progress on actions to
address them has been slow due, in large part, to scientific
uncertainty and the complexity of dealing with a large number of
waste streams. At BC COP14, many agreed that the BC is the
appropriate forum to address nanomaterials wastes, but also
recognized the inadequacy of the knowledge about the issue. As a
first but important step to addressing nanomaterials, they agreed to
take active measures to gather the necessary information to manage
the trade or movement in these wastes.

The Basel Convention also adopted several technical guidelines that
will assist parties to implement the Convention. Notably, the COP
adopted, on an interim basis, the e-waste technical guidelines,
which have been “in the works” for some years now. This
was a compromise reached in order to allow time for the guidelines
to be amended to ensure no loopholes remain.

In their current form, the guidelines do not address what some
called a “major gap” related to the export/import of
waste for repair and/or refurbishment. The longstanding complaint
from some developing countries is that it is easy for entities in
developed countries to designate end-of-life products as repairable
and ship them to developing countries “where they immediately
become waste.” Many hoped that extending the mandate of the
Expert Working Group on e-waste to further work on the guidelines
will produce “sharper, tighter” guidelines that
comprehensively address this loophole. Almost overshadowed by the
“new, shiny discussions on plastic waste,” the
importance of these guidelines was not lost on many developing
countries, and will have wide reaching effects for the production,
consumption, and disposal of electrical and electronic products,
with limits set on the transboundary movements of these wastes.

The Stockholm Convention – Holding Steady

Stockholm Convention COP9 was both remarkable and worrying at the
same time. Against the backdrop of the second Global Chemicals
Outlook, which highlights that countries are not on track to meet
the 2025 and 2028 deadlines for the elimination of PCBs, the COP
agreed to list two chemicals: dicofol, for which most significant
production is expected to stop by August 2019; and perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA), its salts, and PFOA-related compounds, which is a
“live” chemical still in use in the production of
non-stick cookware, firefighting foams, semi-conductors, carpets,
and some textiles. While the COP managed to easily list dicofol with
no exemptions, the listing of PFOA was riddled with requests for
exemptions for uses that had been considered and rejected by the
Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee (POPRC) because
effective and cost-efficient alternatives were available. Both in
plenary and contact group discussions, delegates heard from a small
group of firefighters who stressed that alternatives are available
for PFOA in firefighting foams, and outlined the health risks
associated with exposure to PFOA. “Many of our colleagues have
survived the risks of fighting fires only to succumb to cancer as a
result of exposure to PFOA,” said one. The COP heeded this
warning by setting 2025 as a deadline to restrict the use of
PFOA-containing firefighting foams, and parties limited the types of
uses and conditions of use for firefighting foams containing PFOA.
However, exemptions were still granted for a long list of uses,
which were raised at the COP, and not during the POPRC review
process, such as for invasive and implantable medical devices; the
production of high-voltage electrical wire and cables for power
transmission; and the production of O-rings, v-belt, and plastic
accessories for car interiors.

This raised the second worry: that the scientific backbone of the
Convention—the POPRC—is being eroded. As more requests for
exemptions were raised by parties in the contact group, members of
the POPRC struggled to push back. “We have reviewed the
science and made provisions for exemptions where alternatives do not
yet exist,” noted one, “but each year, the list for
exemptions called for at the COP grows.” Perhaps more
worrying, noted some, is that this is not just a threat to the
recommendations of the POPRC, but a threat to human health and the
environment, as the Stockholm Convention’s mandate is to
eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs, “highly
dangerous, long lasting chemicals.” Responding to this
concern, one delegate shared that it may not be as bad as it seems
as specific exemptions have a five-year expiry date, although
parties can apply to extend them for a further five years. “In
the meantime, the rest of us can carry on with
implementation,” she said, which will further limit both
production and use.

Others were concerned that this trend “is not the precedent we
should be setting” and that exemptions, no matter how short,
enable these extremely persistent chemicals to continue to be
released into the environment when the aim of the Convention is to
phase them out.

The Rotterdam Convention – Struggling to Keep Pace

Looking at the slim agenda of the Rotterdam Convention, one would
not have been faulted for assuming the discussions would be easy.
However, with long-standing issues still up for discussion,
delegates faced an uphill challenge. Coming into COP9, the
“hottest” topic on the agenda was the Swiss proposal to
include a new annex to the Convention establishing a compliance
mechanism. The need for this mechanism has been stressed over the
years, with many countries underlining the importance of being able
to better monitor the trade in hazardous chemicals and pesticides.
Over the years, the number of parties blocking consensus on this
issue has been dwindling. At COP8 in 2017, frustrations mounted, as
it emerged that only a handful of countries stood in the way of a
compliance mechanism.

Parties used the intersessional period to “regroup,”
with many co-sponsoring the Swiss proposal to use the
Convention’s annexes to set up a compliance mechanism, based
on text that had been widely agreed at COP7 in 2015, which set out
the framework for a facilitative, responsive mechanism. Through a
vote of an overwhelming majority, delegates agreed to include the
annex establishing the mechanism. However, the fact that the text on
the mechanism is in an annex allows parties to invoke Article
22(3)(b) of the Convention in order to opt out of the annex, and
thus opt out of compliance obligations. This provision states that
“Any Party that is unable to accept an additional annex shall
so notify the Depositary, in writing, within one year from the date
of communication of the adoption of the additional annex by the
Depositary.” Some, commenting on their non-participation in
the vote, noted that this aspect set up a “two-track”
system under the Convention, which could “make compliance more
difficult to monitor.”

With the institutional arrangements dramatically agreed, delegates
embarked on the arduous listing journey. In a short session in
plenary, they quickly listed phorate and hexabromocyclododecane
(HBCD). But their applause was short lived as they were hamstrung in
the listing of five other substances, populating what is now a
growing list of substances that the Chemical Review Committee (CRC)
recommends as needing to be subject to the prior informed consent
(PIC) procedure. Four of these are so called legacy substances
(carbosulfan, acetochlor, paraquat and chrysotile asbestos), which
delegates have been unable to garner consensus to list for a number
of years. Added to this list at this meeting was acetochlor, which a
few countries and observers believed had not been subject to the
most rigorous review process, despite the review and recommendation
of the CRC.

Complicating matters further was parties’ interpretation of
listing under the Rotterdam Convention. Time and again, the CRC has
reminded delegates that listing does not constitute a ban.
Interpreting listing under this Convention as a ban poses a threat
to producer countries and industries, whose production values could
decrease as a result of a ban. Listing under the Convention subjects
the substance to the PIC procedure to promote information exchange
between countries engaged in its trade. Nevertheless, the COP had no
choice but to postpone listing the five chemicals to its next
meeting.

Exasperated by the inability to subject these chemicals to the PIC
procedure, one delegate noted that the Rotterdam Convention seems to
be “running fast in the wrong direction.” For many
developing countries, this Convention is the only way to track
hazardous chemicals entering their borders and increasing threats to
human health and the environment. As one delegate shared his
experiences in assessing the threats these chemicals pose to human
health and the environment, an observer noted that perhaps the work
for the intersessional period would be to find ways to communicating
these threats to a wider audience. “Chrysotile asbestos does
not need to be on a list for us to know it may be harmful, and take
the necessary steps to protect our populations,” opined one
delegate. Whatever the case, another delegate was hopeful in his
call to “put divergent views on silent mode and remain
optimistic that we can close the gaps and move closer to common
objectives.”

The BRS COPs – Next Steps

“Each of the three Conventions walked along its own path at
this meeting. In preparation for the next meetings, the scientific
and technical bodies will have a commensurate amount of work. The
BC’s OEWG will need to develop the technical guidelines on
plastic and attempt to resolve long-standing impasses in the e-waste
guidelines, in addition to considering how to best address
nanomaterials.

The POPRC and CRC will need to conduct rigorous assessments on new
chemicals to be listed. How many chemicals they will have on their
respective agendas is, so far, unclear. For implementation of all
the Conventions, parties will require technical and financial
assistance, an issue discussed throughout the two weeks and provided
for in the budgets of all three Conventions.

Regardless of their directions, the Conventions are all in new
territory now and will need to uncover innovative solutions to meet
the challenges ahead. The Basel Convention will have to continue to
flex its institutions to address emerging issues, the Stockholm
Convention will seek to shore up its scientific foundations, and the
Rotterdam Convention will try to find a way to show itself to be
relevant despite its challenges. In the closing plenary, BRS
Executive Secretary Rolph Payet encapsulated the overall mood when
he said: “Today is the beginning – this is the start of
another journey, another step, another stage, and another approach
to the opportunities we have before us. We need to work together and
find solutions to some of the world’s most difficult
challenges.”

Upcoming Meetings

Helsinki Chemicals Forum 2019: The Forum will
address issues related to promoting chemicals safety and management
globally, including in five panel discussions on risk management
options, measuring performance of chemical management systems,
grouping of chemicals, plastics, and chemicals data. 
dates: 23-24 May 2019  location : Helsinki, Finland  contact : HCF Secretariat 
phone: +35-840-450-3250  email: helsinkict@messukeskus.com  www: https://helsinkichemicalsforum.messukeskus.com/

56th Meeting of the GEF Council: The Council, which
meets twice annually, develops, adopts and evaluates the operational
policies and programs for GEF-financed activities. It also reviews
and approves the work program (projects submitted for approval),
making decisions by consensus.  date: 10-13 June
2019  location: Washington D.C., US 
contact: GEF Secretariat 
phone: +1-202-473-0508 
fax: +1-202-522-3240  email: Secretariat@thegef.org 
www:
https://www.thegef.org/events/56th-gef-council-meeting

41st Meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group of the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol: This meeting will consider issues related to the
implementation of the Montreal Protocol in preparation for the 31st
Meeting of the Parties (MOP31).  dates: 1-5 July
2019  location: Bangkok, Thailand 
contact: Ozone Secretariat 
phone: +254-20-762-3851
fax: +254-20-762-0335  email:
mea-ozoneinfo@un.org 
www: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/

39th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic
Pollutants (Dioxin Conference 2019): The conference aims to address various issues related to POPs by
sharing the latest knowledge and information among
internationally-renowned experts.  dates: 25-30
August 2019  location: Kyoto, Japan 
contact: Congress Secretariat 
phone: +81-66-229-2561 
fax: +81-66-229-2555  email:
dioxin2019@congre.co.jp  www: http://www.dioxin2019.org/

14th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant
(ICMGP14): ICMGP14 will assess the completeness of our knowledge on mercury
and implementation of solutions to reduce the emissions and exposure
to this pollutant.  date: 8-13 September 2019 
location: Krakow, Poland 
contact: Conference Secretariat 
phone: +48-12-651-9015  email: mercury2019@targi.krakow.pl  www: https://www.mercury2019krakow.com/gb/

SETAC Latin America 13th Biennial Meeting: The
meeting aims to promote interaction among Latin American
professionals engaged in environmental science with colleagues from
other parts of the world. The meeting also seeks to foster the
education and participation of students and facilitate scientific
exchanges among the academic, business and government sectors.  dates:
15-18 September 2019  location: Cartagena,
Colombia  contact: Programme Committee 
phone: +1-850-469-1500 
fax: +1-888-296-4136  email:
setac@setac.org 
www:
https://sla2019.setac.org/

Third Meeting of the SAICM Intersessional Process (IP3): IP3 is expected to continue the discussions on a
possible post-2020 platform for chemicals and waste. 
dates: 30 September - 3 October 2019 
location: Bangkok, Thailand 
contact: SAICM Secretariat 
phone: +41-22-917-8273 
fax: +41-22-797-3460  email:
saicm.chemicals@un.org 
www: http://www.saicm.org/

15th Meeting of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review
Committee (POPRC15):
The POPRC will review the possible listing of hazardous chemicals
under the various annexes of the Stockholm Convention. 
dates: 30 September - 4 October 2019 
location: Rome, Italy 
contact: BRS Secretariat 
phone: +41-22-917-8271  fax:
+41-22-917-8098  email:
brs@brsmeas.org 
www: www.pops.int

Intergovernmental Forum (IGF) on Mining, Minerals, Metals and
Sustainable Development - 15th Annual General Meeting
(AGM): The 15th AGM of the IGF will convene in October.
The IGF emerged from the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
Development in Johannesburg, South Africa.
dates: 7-11 October 2019 
location: Geneva, Switzerland 
contact: Secretariat  email: Secretariat@IGFMining.org  www: https://www.igfmining.org/

15th Meeting of the Chemical Review Committee (CRC15):
CRC15 is set to address PFOA, its salts and related compounds, and
other notifications submitted during the intersessional period. 
dates: 7-11 October 2019 
location: Rome, Italy 
contact: BRS Secretariat 
phone: +41-22-917-8218 
fax: +41-22-917-8098  email:
brs@brsmeas.org  www:
www.pic.int

31st Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
(MOP31):
MOP31 will consider issues, including HFC management,
implementation, and other matters.  dates: 4-8
November 2019  location: Rome, Italy 
contact: Ozone Secretariat 
phone: +254-20-762-3851 
fax: +254-20-762-0335  email: mea-ozoneinfo@un.org 
www: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/

3rd Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP3) to the
Minamata Convention on Mercury: COP3 to the Minamata Convention is expected to discuss, inter alia, waste thresholds, releases, interim storage, contaminated sites,
open burning of waste, review of Annexes A and B, and harmonized
customs codes.  dates: 25-29 November
2019  location: Geneva, Switzerland 
contact: Secretariat of the Minamata
Convention on Mercuryfax: +41-22-797-3460 
email:
MEA-MinamataSecretariat@un.org  www: http://www.mercuryconvention.org/

57th Meeting of the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
Council:
The 57th meeting of the GEF Council will take place in December. The
Council meets twice annually to develop, adopt and evaluate the
operational policies and programs for GEF-financed activities. It
also reviews and approves the work program (projects submitted for
approval), making decisions by consensus. 
dates: 9-12 December 2019 
location: Washington D.C., US 
contact: GEF Secretariat 
phone: +1-202-473-0508 
fax: +1-202-522-3240  email: Secretariat@thegef.org 
www: https://www.thegef.org/council-meetings

4th Meeting of the SAICM Intersessional Process (IP4):
IP4 is expected to continue the discussions on a possible post-2020
platform for chemicals and waste and will convene ahead of the fifth
session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5).  dates: 1-4 March
2020 [tentative] 
location: Bucharest, Romania 
contact: SAICM Secretariat 
phone: +41-22-917-8273 
fax: +41-22-797-3460  email: saicm.chemicals@un.org 
www: http://www.saicm.org/

42nd Meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG42) of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol:
OEWG42 is tentatively scheduled to convene in 2020. 
dates: 13-17 July 2020 
location: Montreal, Canada 
contact: Ozone Secretariat 
phone: +254-20-762-3851 
fax: +254-20-762-0335  email: mea-ozoneinfo@un.org 
www:
https://ozone.unep.org

Fifth Meeting of the International Conference on Chemicals
Management (ICCM5):
The ICCM undertakes periodic reviews of the SAICM, which is a policy
framework to promote chemical safety around the world. 
dates: 5-9 October 2020 
location: Bonn, Germany 
contact: SAICM Secretariat 
phone: +41-22-917-8273 
fax: +41-22-797-3460  email:
saicm.chemicals@un.org 
www: http://www.saicm.org/

Joint 12th Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention
(COP12) and 32nd Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
(MOP32): COP12 and MOP32 are tentatively scheduled to take place in 2020. 
dates: 23-27 November 2020 (tentative)
location: TBA  contact: Ozone
Secretariat  phone: +254-20-762-3851 
fax: +254-20-762-0335  email: mea-ozoneinfo@un.org 
www:
https://ozone.unep.org

Meetings of the Conferences of the Parties (COPs) to the Basel,
Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) Conventions: The fifteenth meeting of the COP to the Basel Convention, the tenth
meeting of the COP to the Rotterdam Convention, and the tenth
meeting of the COP to the Stockholm Convention will be held back to
back.  dates: 17-28 May 2021 
location: Nairobi, Kenya 
contact: BRS Secretariat 
phone: +41-22-917-8271 
fax: +41-22-917-8098  email:
brs@brsmeas.org 
www:
www.brsmeas.org

For additional meetings, see
http://sdg.iisd.org