Open Letter from IPEN to Participants of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM):


Global | Jan 20, 2006



(complete letter available for download in Arabic, English, French, Russian and Spanish in PDF below)


Since 2003, public health and environmental advocacy organizations from all regions have actively participated in intergovernmental processes to prepare a Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), with the intent that SAICM will be adopted by the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM) in 2006. The IPEN Steering Committee enthusiastically supports the ICCM and is optimistic that it will succeed. Our network is already taking steps to help prepare NGOs and civil society organizations in all regions to contribute actively to effective SAICM implementation. We thank everyone - delegates from Governments, IGOs, trade unions, academia, industry and the public interest sector - who have worked so hard to prepare a SAICM that aims to achieve, by 2020, that chemicals are used and produced in ways that minimize their harmful impacts on human health and the environment.

SAICM is essential

For everyone, but especially for those in developing countries and countries with economies in transition, SAICM is of great urgency. Most governments lack the institutional capacity to adequately protect the health of their people and their national environments from the harms that toxic chemical exposure causes. Yet the production, import, and use of toxic chemicals is rapidly expanding, making a bad problem even worse. Workers in agriculture and industry often suffer the most immediate and visible injuries. Entire communities are also seriously impacted, especially infants and children, indigenous peoples, the poor and undernourished, and other vulnerable groups. For these reasons and more, the adoption and implementation of an effective SAICM is essential.

Outstanding SAICM issues of concern to IPEN

We view the current ICCM drafts proposed by the President as a sincere effort to address the objections raised by a very small minority of countries at PrepCom3 in Vienna. Below are three areas in the texts where we have serious concerns:

SAICM Financial Considerations: The Financial Considerations section of the OPS fails to provide meaningful assurances that the new and additional funds required for effective SAICM implementation will be available. While the text commits to a short-term "Quick Start Program," that program will likely lack adequate resources even to meet urgent initial SAICM needs. Moreover, IPEN fears that few governments will develop plans to fully achieve SAICM objectives so long as the future availability of funds to implement these plans remains in doubt.

We welcome the text that calls for "considering" the establishment of a new chemicals focal area in the Global Environment Facility (GEF), but we note that most large donor governments are neither fully convinced nor committed to that proposal. We also welcome the text calling for integration of SAICM objectives into multilateral and bilateral development assistance co-operation. Many donor governments say they plan to increase such assistance programs, and we acknowledge that informal promises have been made committing some portion of this increase to SAICM implementation. But no mechanisms have been agreed that provide any assurance these promises will become realities.

Despite its inadequacies, many G77 governments appear to have signaled that they may be willing to accept the proposed Financial Considerations text as part of a compromise package, understanding that SAICM implementation arrangements will provide a framework to continue efforts to mobilize resources on the scale required for effective implementation. Based on this understanding, we too could accept the proposed text as part of a total ICCM package.

Voluntary SAICM: IPEN has always understood that SAICM will not be a legally binding instrument. Still, we have also always understood that SAICM would be politically and ethically binding, in a manner similar to the Rio Declaration or the WSSD Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. Thus, SAICM will be adopted at a high-level meeting at which government delegates arrive with credentials that empower them to make decisions on behalf of their government.

The demand by a few governments to insert the word "voluntary" at numerous places in the three documents adds nothing insofar as the legal nature of SAICM is concerned, because SAICM is plainly not legally binding. Rather, the word appears to us to be intended to trivialize the moral, ethical, and political urgency of the challenges SAICM addresses, as well as the spirit of commitment that the SAICM process is trying to elicit from all stakeholders.

While use of "voluntary" in the GPA may be similarly motivated, it is troubling in a different, possibly unintended way. The first sentence of the Executive Summary of the GPA states:

The Global Plan of Action of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management has been structured into work areas and associated voluntary activities that may be undertaken by stakeholders in order to pursue the commitments and objectives expressed in the High-level Declaration and the Overarching Policy Strategy (emphasis added).

This text suggests that SAICM implementation can (and must) be achieved exclusively through voluntary activities. But that contradicts the essence of many of the GPA activities. For example, activity 89 in GPA Table B, "Generate and share information detailing the inherent hazards of all chemicals in commerce," is one that governments may decide to undertake as part of their SAICM implementation. Such governments may decide to require relevant industries to supply such information. Thus, while the activity may be "voluntary" insofar as governments are concerned, it may not be "voluntary" for other stakeholders.

The use of the word "voluntary" in the opening sentence of the GPA is thus inappropriate, because it goes beyond the question of whether countries will voluntarily undertake GPA activities, and instead suggests that countries may not undertake GPA activities in ways that result in legally binding obligations for people or companies within their jurisdiction. As such, it suggests that effective laws, regulations, and enforcement are not a necessary aspect of country efforts to achieve safe chemicals management and that SAICM objectives can be achieved based merely on the good will and voluntary undertakings of chemical producers, exporters, users, and disposers. All OECD countries promulgate enforceable domestic laws and regulations to protect their public’s health and environment from chemical exposure. Why would SAICM discourage developing countries from doing the same?

The GPA text clearly states that the GPA "should be regarded as a guidance document" and it identifies the GPA as a "list of actions that can be undertaken" (emphasis added). In light of these qualifications and the implications of describing all GPA activities as voluntary, we suggest that the first sentence of the GPA Executive Summary be amended to read:

The Global Plan of Action of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management has been structured into work areas and associated (DELETE - "voluntary") activities that may be undertaken (ADD) "as appropriate" by stakeholders in order to pursue the commitments and objectives expressed in the High-level Declaration and the Overarching Policy Strategy.

Savings Clause: Responding to the wishes of a small minority of countries, the President agreed to insert a "savings clause" into the HLD. Paragraph 29 states:

We acknowledge that as a new voluntary initiative in the field of international management of chemicals, the Strategic Approach is non-legally binding and therefore does not change rights and obligations under legally-binding international agreements;

This text would be less subject to misunderstanding if what is now paragraph 8 appeared immediately before or after it, or was even moved to the same paragraph. Paragraph 8 states:

We are determined to implement the relevant international agreements, ensure that they are mutually supportive, strengthen the coherence and synergies that exist between them and work to close gaps in the framework of international chemicals policy;

Because the legal nature of SAICM is clear, IPEN believes the inclusion of the Paragraph 29 savings clause is superfluous. However, in the spirit of compromise, and as part of a package, we could accept the President’s proposed text. Efforts to amend paragraph 29 that would seek to inappropriately subordinate the consideration of the multilateral character of the SAICM in relationship to other relevant international agreements would, however, be unacceptable, and would run the risk of making the entire SAICM un-adoptable.

Two IPEN Proposals on SAICM implementation arrangements

IPEN proposes two amendments to the Draft resolutions for the International Conference on Chemicals Management on the topic of Implementation arrangements. These amendments would be inserted into the present text as paragraphs 6 bis and 7 bis. They would read:

Proposed amendment 1: 6 bis. With regard to nongovernmental SAICM participants, calls upon public interest NGOs and industry NGOs to each designate two SAICM focal points (possibly representing different classes of NGOs within each category); and calls on trade unions and academic NGOs to each designate one SAICM focal point. Each NGO category will make its designation through an appropriate self-selection procedure by organizations in its category that are actively engaged in SAICM implementation, and will communicate the details of the focal points to the SAICM secretariat referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12 , below, as soon as possible;

Proposed amendment 2: 7 bis. Establish a SAICM subsidiary body (in accordance with Rule 18) to be called the SAICM Standing Committee whose members will include: the ICCM President; the ICCM Bureau Members; two additional members from each UNEP region selected by the Regional Groups; the NGO focal points established in 6 bis above; a representative of UNEP; a representative of WHO; and two additional representatives of relevant Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs). The SAICM Standing Committee should endeavor to meet face-to-face at least once a year, and may also meet by teleconference and/or electronically. Its Terms of Reference (TOR) should be contained in a separate resolution to be adopted by the ICCM. This TOR should include the facilitation of communication and dialogue among governments and SAICM stakeholders aimed at facilitating and encouraging SAICM implementation and aimed also at helping prepare future meetings of the ICCM. It should also include the provision of assistance and input to the SAICM Secretariat in its carrying out of the Implementation Arrangements specified in this resolution.

Conclusion

IPEN is optimistic because we believe there exists a strong global consensus on the urgent need for a SAICM and broad agreement on the general form it should take. Like most other participants in the Preparatory Committee, we were deeply disappointed at PrepCom3 in Vienna when an extremely small minority of countries who had not actively engaged in the previous preparatory meeting gave the impression—through a confrontational approach and reluctance to seek common ground—that they were willing to see the SAICM process fail. We view the current ICCM drafts proposed by the President as a sincere effort to address the objections raised in Vienna without substantially compromising SAICM's integrity and potential effectiveness. While we would prefer some different language and approaches on a few key points, we believe the President's entire proposed text for all three ICCM documents could be adopted as a package (after removing all square brackets).

The proposed rules of procedure for the ICCM instruct participants to make every effort to reach agreement on all matters by consensus. But if a consensus is not possible, then a two-thirds majority of the governmental participants present and voting can decide matters of substance. The ICCM should strive to work by consensus of all its participants; however, it must also be prepared to hold a vote, if needed. The President's proposed text -as a package and with square brackets removed-would constitute a fully acceptable basis for holding a vote if a timely consensus is unachievable.



Attachment:
French version of OPEN LETTER TO ICCM PARTICIPANTS - FRENCH   DOWNLOAD

Spanish version of OPEN LETTER TO ICCM PARTICIPANTS - SPANISH   DOWNLOAD

Arabic version of OPEN LETTER TO ICCM PARTICIPANTS - ARABIC   DOWNLOAD

Russian version of OPEN LETTER TO ICCM PARTICIPANTS - RUSSIAN   DOWNLOAD

Open Letter IPEN to Participants of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM) - ENGLISH   DOWNLOAD






Version: DRAFT 2.0 (June 1, 2006)