IPEN NewsLetter 2

IPEN Newsletter No.2:

April 2007

Welcome to the IPEN newsletter!! This newsletter will be a monthly brief of POPs chemical safety issues of interest to IPEN Participating Organizations (POs).

This month's newsletter includes the following headlines:
1. IPEN PLANS FOR COP3
2. REGIONAL ASSESSMENTS UPDATE
3. REGIONAL FOCUS: This month's region: Anglophone Africa
4. OTHER NEWS
5. FUTURE NEWSLETTERS
6. CALENDAR OF EVENTS

1- IPEN PLANS FOR COP3

The Third Conference of the Parties (COP3) will be meeting in Dakar, Senegal from the 30th of April through the 4th of May. IPEN established a COP3 listserve to coordinate development of issues and positions. If you would like to have your email address added to that listserve, please let the Secretariat know at jenniferfederico@ipen.org. In Dakar on the 29th of April there will be an IPEN COP3 Preparation Meeting at the Hotel Ngor. Details will follow via the COP3 listserve.

In preparation for COP3, there are three different groupings of topics that will be up for discussion and consideration. These groupings are: Matters required by Convention to be dealt with at COP3; Matters to ensure timely implementation; and Issues at COP3. At the end of this section you will find a list of topics within these groups. With over 25 NGOs making up the IPEN COP3 Team, the issues at COP3 have been delegated out, and will be consolidated to form a comprehensive IPEN COP3 document. Please note that by April 27th this IPEN COP3 Positions Paper will be circulated over the IPEN COP3 list serve. A matrix of the issues and the IPEN PO responsible for covering each issue is available upon request to the IPEN Secretariat.

Recognizing that the malaria and DDT issue will be one of the main issues at COP3, the POPs Pesticides Working Group has organized a Side Event on May 1st titled: "Focusing on health and fighting malaria: without DDT. Supporting safe and sustainable strategies."

NOTE: If there is a specific topic that you would like to participate in regarding COP3 position development, please inform the IPEN IC (BjornBeeler@ipen.org) immediately, in order to link you to the COP3 issue focal point.

Below please find the list of the IPEN POs who will make up the Dakar IPEN COP3 Team.

Dakar COP3 TEAM:
Ane Leslie Adogame, Nigerian Environmental Society, Nigeria
Emma Anakhasyan, AWHHE, Armenia (IPEN WG grantee)
Fernando Bejarano, RAPAM, Mexico (IPEN WG grantee)
Judith Carrera, Sustain Labour, Spain
Jayan Chelaton, Thanal, India
Emilie Diallo, PAN Afrique, Senegal
Joe DiGangi, IPEP Global Coordinator / EHF, US
Henry Diouf, PAN Afrique, Senegal
Mohamed El Banna, Day Hospital Institute, Egypt
Jennifer Federico, IPEN Secretariat, US
Imogen Ingram, ISACI, Cook Islands (IPEN WG grantee)
Crispin Kaposhi, PAN Zambia (IPEN WG partial grantee)
Ebeh Adayade Kodjo, ANCE-TOGO
Mariann Lloyd-Smith, National Toxics Network, Australia
Jorge Mendez, PAN / IPEN (IPEN WG partial grantee)
Monica Moore, PANNA
Yahya Msangi, TPAWU, Tanzania
Jindrich Petrlik, ARNIKA, Czech Republic (IPEN WG grantee)
Dolores Romano, ISTAS/ CCOO, Spain
Tania Santivanez, CEIIS, Bolivia
Paul Saoke, PSR, Kenya (IPEN WG partial grantee)
Isuf Sidibe So, ACOBES, Guinea Bissau (IPEN WG grantee)
Fatou Souare-Hann, Health Care Without Harm, US
Olga Speranskaya, Eco Accord, Russia
Alan Watson, Public Interest Consultants, Wales (IPEN WG grantee)
Meriel Watts, PAN AP, New Zealand
Jack Weinberg, IPEN Senior Policy Advisor / EHF, US
John Wickens, National Toxics Network, Australia
Glenn Wiser, CIEL, US
Halvor Woien, Global Unions, Norway

COP3 Agenda Issues: (The IPEN Positions Paper on these issues will be available on April 27th)

Matters required by Convention to be dealt with at COP3:
Export of POPs, DDT, Monitoring plan,

Matters to ensure timely implementation:
Exemptions, BAT/BEP, Financial Assessment, Toolkit, POPs in wastes, Non-compliance, POPRC, Synergies, Budget, Clearinghouse, Regional centers, Needs assessment, Reporting,

Issues at COP3:
Election of officers, Rules of Procedure, Secretariat budget, DDT, Party Reporting, Effectiveness Evaluation, Export of POPs, BAT/BEP Guidelines, Synergies, Dioxin Toolkit, NIPS, Official communications, Needs Assessment, Information exchange, Non-compliance, Isomers and POPRC, Confidentiality arrangements for POPRC, Review of Financial Mechanism, Register of Specific Exemptions, Measures to reduce / eliminate releases from waste,

SEE BELOW FOR SHORT INTROS ON EACH TOPIC

2- REGIONAL ASSESSMENTS 3

In follow-up to the International POPs Elimination Project, the IPEN Regional Hubs have advanced efforts to strengthen regional communication and coordination. Presently, the Hubs are conducting contact inventories of NGOs they have worked with and/or that have completed IPEP projects. In an effort to enhance information flow within the region, the Hubs will formulate (if not already established) regional list serves working in the languages of Arabic, English, French, Russian or Spanish.

Furthermore, over the next few months the Hubs will be conducting IPEN Regional Assessments. After successfully implementing the first two years of IPEP, all eight regions are participating in an IPEN Regional Assessment exercise. The Assessments aim to collect input from NGOs working at the local and national level in order to provide strategic information to IPEN about what is important to NGOs in the Network. The Assessments will also attempt to describe and communicate the current state of the regional chemical safety situation via a Regional Report, which will be produced by the IPEN Regional Hubs, utilizing the input/data from a wide range of local NGOs on NGO strategies, needs, and opportunities. Additional information about the Regional Assessments is available via your Regional Hub or the IPEN Secretariat.

3- REGIONAL FOCUS: ANGLOPHONE AFRICA

Each IPEN Newsletter includes a Regional Focus section that provides an opportunity for IPEN Participating Organizations (POs) to share their NGO's work, news, updates and/or local information as it pertains to our shared mission for a Toxic Free Future. We encourage all interested IPEN POs to share their work and information with the global IPEN network. In an effort to be inclusive and comprehensive, all articles are welcomed; however, lengthy articles are summarized for the newsletter and then added at the end in their original form.

This month Anglophone Africa is the Regional Focus. We encourage IPEN POs from Central and Eastern Europe to submit articles for next month's IPEN Newsletter (submit to jenniferfederico@ipen.org).

News from: Pesticide Action Network - Mauritius- by Hemsing Hurrynag

The Pesticide Action Network- Mauritius is fully involved in trying to stop the idea of putting a Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) incinerator in Mauritius.

Following the tremendous reaction of most of our friends in GAIA and IPEN, we are moving ahead. Input from Bobby Peek and his office (groundWork) in South Africa, Paul Connett, Pat Costner, Monica Wilson and a few others (including our French friends) have supplied quite a bit of information. Three times we have been featured in a weekly newspaper by the name of WEEK-END (www.lemauricien.com). Recently I gave a short interview and also spoke about the support of GAIA, IPEN and South Africa and the SADC Region. I also gave input on a live radio programme called "Radio Plus". PAN-Mauritius additionally had a very interesting work session with two different communities at direct risk recently, and two other community leaders group meetings are planned in an effort to get people to understand the problem and the risk. A second letter, with about 1500 signatures, will be issued to the authorities to show our objection, and a press-conference was held at the end of March.

Presently we are tackling the problem from three different angles: official letters to the authorities, engagement with the press, and community education. Manifestations like marches and sittings and others are envisaged, if no reaction comes from the authorities. We are proposing alternatives, by giving reasons, and we are clear that we don't want incinerators.

We also hope to get input and as much strong support as possible from all readers!

News from: Pro-biodiversity Conservationists in Uganda / Uganda Network for Toxic-free Malaria Control- by Robert Tumwesigye Baganda

Re-introduction of DDT is not a solution to Malaria control in Uganda.

The re-introduction of DDT in Uganda has taken an interesting turn. It started in 2004 after the Global Fund introduced a lot of money to control HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis. Officials from the Ministry of Health sought ways to utilize the money and the best way according to them was to re-introduce DDT as the quickest alternative.

News from: AGENDA- Tanzania- by Silvani Mng'anya and Jamal Kiama

Malaria Survey in Tanzania

AGENDA for Environment and Responsible Development is conducting a survey to review the status of malaria and its control in Tanzania in the past and present. The survey will help to identify the trends of malaria prevalence in different periods and places in Tanzania so as to establish the correlation between DDT phase-out and malaria trends. It will include curative measures of malaria at present, vectors control programmes implemented in specific localities and their effectiveness, and several other measures in place to control and prevent the increase of malaria epidemic in the country. The survey will also help to identify the alternatives to DDT; specifically disease vector control, alternatives on indoor residual spraying (IRS) and variety of mosquitoes in the country. The survey will analyse different non-spraying control interventions and their success stories for promotion as a way forward for malaria vector control.

The survey has been planned as a response to aggressive campaigns by several institutions discrediting the work by NGOs. NGOs have been calling for total global ban of DDT use due to its negative impacts to the environment, human health and the ecology. Developing countries, especially governments in Africa, have been planning to re-introduce DDT as an insecticide for indoor residue spraying (IRS) to help fight malaria vector. According to the National Malaria Control Programme (NMCP), Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, the programme for DDT-IRS will start early next year in 25 malaria-prone districts. The DDT-IRS programme will be implemented after the pilot study to be carried out by the Ifakara Health Research and Development Centre (IHRDC), and is expected to commence in August 2007 in some villages to be selected in Morogoro Region.

AGENDA's malaria survey is expected to be completed by the end of April 2007, hence it will provide important information for malaria control before the onset of DDT-IRS in the country. Some initial findings and sustainable options for malaria control will be highlighted in an event to be organized on the Africa Malaria Day, 25th April 2007.

News from: Youth Watch- Uganda- by Dennis Kateregga

DDT spraying: Its Impact on Youth Development in Uganda

As the government is planning to use DDT to fight malaria, it has already used ICON in Kabale via a method called Indoor Residual Spraying, and it is supported by the USA under the "President Malaria Initiative (PMI)". This DDT spraying is to spread to other parts of Uganda especially around the L. Victoria region.

The Kabale spraying was done before the Environmental Impact Assessment was completed by the National Environment Management Authority, which has come out to say it's okay if sprayed in small quantities. This has been WHO's position.

The youth are being told the only way to fight poverty is to engage in agriculture as it is still Uganda's highest foreign earner; other activities they have indulged in include fishing. These two industries have enabled youth to sustain themselves; their products have earned Uganda foreign currency from European countries, earning that is being threatened by a ban by the EU if Uganda uses DDT.

Despite all that the government has kept a deaf ear, calling the DDT issue political, as demonstrations are organized by the opposition. The youth and the community that survive on agricultural produce and fishing are left wondering how they will survive to see tomorrow.

News from: groundwork - South Africa- by Jane Harley

Tyre Burning in Cement Kilns

The issue of waste burning in cement kilns in South Africa first raised its head at the beginning of the century. Now, in 2007, the process is running full steam ahead and almost undoubtedly waste burning in cement kilns will be a fact of life in the very near future.

The politics around one particular waste stream, waste tyres, is particularly interesting. The Waste Tyre Regulations have recently been published for comment. For various reasons it has taken almost seven years for this small piece of legislation to come under public scrutiny and, now that it has been published, it is being pushed through under the Environment Conservation Act rather than the more appropriate Waste Management Bill, which is currently out for comment. The regulations deal only with waste tyre storage facilities and the obligation of tyre dealers to mutilate waste tyres and to register with the government and do not touch on issues such as disposal or transportation, relying on the underlying Act to deal with these.

News from: Nigeria:

"Women protesters shut oil facility as toxic waste ravages community" The Guardian, 23 March 2007 - http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/news/article25/230307

Thanks to Nigerian Environmental Study / Action Team for passing along this article!!

4- OTHER NEWS

New IPEN Website in Chinese

Thanks to Global Village of Beijing and John Wickens (NTN, Australia), we are excited to announce that part of the IPEN website has been translated into Chinese! This new version can be found here: link

5- FUTURE NEWSLETTERS

In future Newsletters, we will continue to have a section that will focus on a regional component within IPEN. As with IPEP, the regions consist of:
Anglophone Africa (April)
Central and Eastern Europe (May)
Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (June)
Francophone Africa (July)
Latin America (August)
Middle East (September)
South Asia (October)
Southeast Asia (November)

The IPEN Secretariat will invite input and contributions from IPEN POs in the featured region each month. This could include specific articles, press releases, action alerts, updates, etc. Moreover it will provide the opportunity for your NGO to share its work with the global IPEN network.

For May, Central and Eastern Europe will be the featured region for the IPEN Newsletter.
Therefore IPEN POs located in Central and Eastern Europe are invited to submit a short article (under 500 words), press release, or other news/updates from this region for the May newsletter. Please send your emails to Jennifer at the IPEN Secretariat at: jenniferfederico@ipen.org

Translation
We are pleased to inform you that translation of the Newsletters into French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, and Chinese is now underway. We hope to circulate the translated copies of the first Newsletter very shortly.

Website
Please note that the Newsletter can now be found on the IPEN website at http://www.ipen.org/ipenweb/ipen.html

6- IPEN CALENDAR OF EVENTS

April
16th - RAP-AL/PAN Meso - American MeetingRAP-AL / PAN Latin America will be the organizers and it will be held in Costa Rica on 19 April for RAPAL focal points and government officials from Mesoamerica and the Caribbean. It will be a one-day workshop to exchange information on the progress for the Implementation of the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions.

17th - 18th NERC Knowledge Transfer Network on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) presents the 2nd Network Conference on POPs: Legacy and Current Use POPs- Birmingham, UK

19th- 20th - 16th International Conference Health and Environment: Global Partners for Global Solutions, on the theme: Responding to the Climate Crisis: Asking the Right Questions- United Nations Headquarters, New York City, Conference Room 3

25th Africa Malaria Day

25th- 27th - Second meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group on Non-Compliance (OEWG-2), Dakar, Senegal

30th - 4 (May) COP3- Dakar, Senegal

May
9th -18th 5th GKSS School of Environmental Research to be held in Northern Germany. The title of the school is: "Persistent Pollution: Past, Present and Future"

17th-19th Mercury workshop organized by UNEP- Bangkok, Thailand

21st - 23rd Asia Pacific Regional SAICM Meeting- Bangkok, Thailand

24th- 25th Chemicals management and infrastructure workshop organized by UNEP/Sweden- Bangkok, Thailand

If there is an event that you would like to have listed here, please let me know! Jenniferfederico@ipen.org

REMINDER:

If your organization has yet to complete the IPEN online survey, please take a minute to do so!! It's very short and simple, and by completing it you can be assured that your organization is listed in the IPEN database. Go here: http://www.oztoxics.org/ipen/IPENform1.html to complete it. Many thanks!!

Re: Section 1: IPEN PLANS FOR COP3

PRIORITIES AT COP3

Matters required by Convention to be dealt with at COP3

Export of POPs: Evaluate the continued need for the procedure contained in paragraph 2 (b) of Article 3, regarding the export of chemicals listed in Annex A for which a production or specific use exemption is in effect, including consideration of its effectiveness (Article 19, paragraph 7)

DDT: Evaluate, in consultation with the World Heath Organization, the continued need for DDT for disease vector control (Annex B, part II, paragraph 6)

Monitoring plan: The Conference of the Parties at its third meeting must establish arrangements that will enable it to begin evaluating the effectiveness of the Convention before 17 May 2008 and to complete this first evaluation at its fourth meeting (Article 16, paragraph 1)

Matters to ensure timely implementation

Exemptions: To consider the possible adoption, with any amendments, of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the review process for entries in the register of specific exemptions set out in the annex to decision SC 1/24

BAT/BEP: To adopt with any amendments the guidelines on best available techniques and best environmental practices relevant to Article 5 of the Convention

Toolkit: To adopt, with any amendments, the process for the continuing review and updating of the standardized toolkit for identification and quantification of dioxin and furan releases

POPs in wastes: To consider the guidelines on the environmentally sound management of persistent organic pollutants wastes adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention at its eighth meeting

Financial assessment: To consider guidance on social and economic assessment of measures by Parties to implement the Convention and on the calculation of the cost of developing and implementing the actions plans required by the Convention

POPRC: To consider matters referred to it by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee

Clearinghouse: To agree on a strategic plan for the establishment of the clearing house mechanism to be provided by the Secretariat

Regional centers: To agree on terms of reference for the process of selecting regional and subregional centres for capacity-building and transfer of technology pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 12 of the Convention

Needs assessment: To consider terms of reference for work on modalities for the assessment of the needs of Parties which are developing countries or countries with economies in transition to implement the provisions of the Convention for the period 2006-2010

Reporting: To consider the first reports transmitted by Parties pursuant to Article 15 of the Convention

Non-compliance: To consider the report of the open-ended ad hoc working group on non-compliance, including possible draft procedures and institutional mechanisms for determining non-compliance with the provisions of the Convention and for the treatment of Parties found to be in non-compliance

Budget: To adopt its budget for the biennium 2008-2009

Synergies: To consider the report of the first meeting of the ad hoc joint working group on enhancing cooperation and coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions and to consider funding a second meeting

Issues at COP3

Election of officers. Document: COP3-2
Possible discussion topics: Nicholas Kiddle (New Zealand), President of COP2 will open COP3. The COP will then elect a Rapporteur from among the current Vice Presidents from a different region of the current Rapporteur (Therese Yarde, Barbados; GRULAC). Next, the COP will elect a President who should be from a different region than the Presidents of COP1 (GRULAC) and COP2 (WEOG). Finally, the COP will select nine Vice Presidents who would serve until the end of COP4. One of these will be the Rapporteur of COP4

Rules of Procedure. Document: COP3-3
Possible discussion topics: This point concerns the right to vote if efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted. The text says that if no agreement can be reached then a decision can be made by a 2/3 majority vote of the Parties present and voting. COP2 declined to deal with this issue. COP3 provides another opportunity to discuss the matter. This same issue undermined SAICM when the rules were manipulated to eliminate the possibility of a vote.

DDT. Document: COP3-4, COP3-24 (expert report)
Possible discussion topics: Need for DDT in vector control; financial support for DDT elimination; alternatives to DDT; capacity building for implementation of alternative measures; poor reporting by countries on DDT use; WHO recommendations. Note that UNEP and WHO will have a side event on use and elimination of DDT on Monday at lunch.

Register of Specific Exemptions. Document: COP3-5 Possible discussion topics: How should the COP decide if an exemption should be denied? The review of exemptions will occur at COP4 in 2009 along with the expiration of some of them. Current exemptions include mirex (for termiticides in Australia and China), DDT (as intermediate in Dicofol production in China and India), and chlordane (produced in China and used as a termiticide in China and Botswana). Note that the current exemption list is posted here: http://www.pops.int/documents/registers/specexempt.htm

Export of POPs. Document: COP3-6 Possible discussion topics: This point concerns Article 3 Paragraph 2b which allows Annex A and B chemicals that have production or use specific exemptions to be exported for the purpose of environmentally sound disposal. The importing country can be a Party which is permitted to use the chemical under Annexes A or B or a non-Party. At issue is the requirement for reporting exports, including a list of recipient countries. Even though reports on this matter were due 31 December 2006, there is still insufficient information. Should the meeting evaluate the procedure and consider its effectiveness? Should it request the Secretariat to provide a report on the matter for COP4? Should it evaluate the procedure further at COP4?

BAT/BEP Guidelines. Document: Possible discussion topics: Whether to adopt draft BAT/BEP guidelines; discuss if review needed in future; should the guidelines be updated?; discuss if there will be a field testing period to test out experiences with the guidelines; should there be an advisory board?; a clearing house?; consultations and workshops?; evaluation report? Note that the Secretariat will have a side event on the results of the BAT/BEP expert discussion (supported by Canada).

Dioxin Toolkit. Document: COP3-8 Possible discussion topics: The Secretariat will propose a periodic review process; how should emission factors be reviewed?; what about HCB and PCBs?; source identification strategy?; adequacy of reduction measures?; how reflect changes in TEFs?; developing countries vs. developed? Note that Germany will host a side event on its projects with Kenya and UNEP Chemicals.

Measures to reduce / eliminate releases from waste. Document: COP3-9 Possible discussion topics: What level of POPs in waste is considered "low enough" to avoid further destruction treatment?; impact of Basel Convention discussion on Stockholm Convention policy?; impact of EU legislation?; possible impact on waste trade?

NIPs. Document: COP3-10, COP3-29 NIPs transmitted Possible discussion topics: civil society participation in NIPs; laws needed for effective implementation; adequate dioxin inventory?; other inventories adequate?; monitoring in humans and/or environment?; quality of national action plan; who is responsible for which parts of implementation?; should the structure of NIPs be harmonized?; national priorities?; synergy with SAICM implementation?

Confidentiality arrangements for POPRC. Document: COP3-12 Possible discussion topics: should the POPRC utilize confidential information?; what can be considered confidential information?; will industry refuse to submit information if confidentiality arrangements are unclear?

Isomers and POPRC. Document: COP3-12 Possible discussion topics: should POPRC only review what is submitted even if relevant isomers are omitted?; should POPRC have the ability to suggest relevant isomers for review?; how should the POPRC handle commercial mixtures?; impurities? Note that the Secretariat and POPRC members will organize a side event on the work of the POPRC. IPEN has been asked by the Committee to participate.

Information exchange. Document: COP3-13 Possible discussion topics: Secretariat will present a draft proposal for a clearinghouse mechanism to exchange information on export, action plans, implementation plans, monitoring and research results; progress in eliminating PCBs, DDT use and progress in elimination. Does the plan include the needed items?; allow for NGO contributions?; should we participate?

Review of Financial Mechanism. Document: COP3-18 Possible discussion topics: The meeting will discuss draft terms of reference to review the financial mechanism of the Convention. These terms of reference (TOR) would be used to review the financial mechanism at COP4. Should the meeting consider or adopt the draft TOR? Should the TOR be amended in any way? Should the COP ask the Secretariat to compile any information for the review of the financial mechanism at COP4?

Needs Assessment. Document COP3-20 Possible discussion topics: COP1 agreed to regularly provide the GEF with assessments of the funding needed to ensure effective implementation of the Convention. COP2 invited Parties and other governments to submit views on the terms of reference for work on assessing funding needs of developing and transition countries to implement the Convention from 2006 - 2010. COP2 also asked the Secretariat to prepare a revised draft of the terms of reference. Should the COP adopt the revised draft? Should it amend the draft?

Party Reporting. Document: COP3-21 Possible discussion topics: An electronic reporting system to comply with Article 15 resulted from COP2. Is the format user friendly?; is it being used?; how should the results be used?; should the submitted reports be evaluated by the Secretariat? Note that this topic does have links to compliance.

Effectiveness evaluation. Document: COP3-23 Possible discussion topics: This process evaluates the effectiveness of the Convention by monitoring POPs in humans and the environment (Article 16). The Technical Working Group developed items for discussion at COP3 including an outline of the global monitoring plan; draft implementation plan; draft terms of reference for the regional organization groups; regional structure for global monitoring plan (6 instead of 5 regions; North America, South America, Europe including Eastern Europe; Asia; Africa; Australia, New Zealand and Pacific). What is needed for the evaluation?; what regions and countries?; should a global coordination group be established?; what is the mandate for future work of the Technical working group?; budget and financial implications of the plan?

Official communications. Document: COP3-25 Possible discussion topics: This point concerns how the Secretariat communicates with governments and NGOs. COP2 decided to accredit NGOs to its meetings if they appear in part 2 of Annex III of UNEP/POPS/COP.2/26. If your NGO wishes to be accredited to meetings of the Stockholm Convention, you can submit the information in Annex IV of UNEP/POPS/COP.2/26 to the Secretariat for consideration by the COP. The meeting may choose urge Parties to nominate official contact points if they have not already done so.

Non-compliance. Document: COP3-26 Possible discussion topics: The open-ended ad hoc working group on non-compliance will continue its work before COP3 begins (25 - 27 April 2007) and give a report at COP3. Should the COP take note of the report? Should the COP develop procedures and institutional mechanisms for determining non-compliance? Should the COP develop procedures for dealing with Parties who are non-compliant?

Secretariat budget. Document: COP3-27 Possible discussion topics: This point concerns the Secretariat budget for 2008 - 2009.

Synergies. Document: COP3-28 Possible discussion topics: Previous COPs decided to explore synergies between the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions. COP2 requested the Stockholm Convention President to work with the Secretariat and the presidents of the Basel and Rotterdam Conventions to prepare a report exploring specific areas in which greater cooperation would be to the advantage of all three conventions. This report was finalized September 2006. COP2 also established an ad hoc joint working group on the matter. The Rotterdam Convention COP3 and the Basel Convention COP8 decided to participate in the working group and the process. Should the COP take note of the President's report? Should it welcome the establishment of the ad hoc working group? Should it provide money to support a meeting of the second meeting of the ad hoc working group in 2008? Should it note that the working group will make joint recommendations to the COPs of all three conventions include the Stockholm Convention at COP4?

Re: Section 3: REGIONAL FOCUS: ANGLOPHONE AFRICA (Full Articles)

News from: Pro-biodiversity Conservationists in Uganda / Uganda Network for Toxic-free Malaria Control- by Robert Tumwesigye Baganda

Re-introduction of DDT is not a solution to Malaria control in Uganda.

Interestingly, DDT was first used in Uganda between 1959 and 1960. In the places where it was used in western Uganda, malaria was reduced for a short time but it eventually escalated. The recent study done by the Ministry of Health indicates that there are traces of DDT in places where it was never used.

The proponents of DDT in Uganda are mainly medical doctors from the Ministry of Health. They contend that DDT is not harmful to human health and environment. Their assertions are persistently reported in the press and they are available on the internet. This argument leaves a lot to be desired because there has not been an adequate study to find out the long term effects of DDT in Uganda.

The debate about DDT in Uganda has been more political than scientific. There has been a lot of lobbying by government officials. This was evident when the Parliamentary Committee on Social Service made a pronouncement on the issue before the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was approved by any competent body.

The Ministry of Health is currently concentrating on only three methodologies of controlling malaria. These are: insecticide treated mosquito nets, indoor residual spraying and treatment. In a country where malaria kills about 320 people per day (Ministry of Health Report 2004), these three measures are insufficient. Site visits in most areas in Uganda show that there are many breeding grounds for mosquitoes, and that malnutrition levels are very high, especially in the northern part of the country where people live in the camps. This means malaria attacks people that are already sick.

Uganda is blessed with a lot of trees which could be used for both repelling mosquitoes and as herbs. Surprisingly, these options are not considered. One wonders whether this is not a conspiracy by government officials to use the crudest means of controlling malaria while leaving out outstanding measures.

In addition, the records about malaria death incidents reported by the Ministry of Health indicate that most people die while being attended to in hospitals or clinics. This also shows that there is a big gap in the health workforce. If there was a competent health work force, why would people who are getting treatment die of a curable disease like malaria? If you ask this question to the Ministry, the answer would most probably be: lack of sufficient information about malaria and its symptoms. In short, malaria incidents in Africa are mainly accelerated by poverty, which governments advocating for the re-introduction of DDT do not want to admit.

The most worrying scenario is the loss of organic farming. Ugandan organic farmers have expressed their fear about the DDT issue. Their concern is that DDT will not only affect organic products but the whole agricultural export sector. This is because the European consumers would not like to associate themselves with countries that are using DDT (The East African March 19-25, 2007).

Civil Society Organizations in Uganda support the guidelines put in place by the WHO and the Stockholm Convention. Both guidelines state that for a country to use DDT, it should demonstrate that there are no available alternatives. In Uganda, this is not the case because all of the alternatives have not yet been explored. Additionally, the EIA done by the Ministry of Health is lacking and it should not be used as a basis for the re-introduction of a dangerous chemical like DDT.

Malaria is a real problem in Uganda and Africa at large but our Ugandan government should not use toxic substances to reduce problems while breeding more problems. More integrated approaches such as destroying breeding grounds for mosquitoes, intensifying public campaigns about malaria prevention, involving all the stakeholders in identifying the possible ways of fighting malaria down to the household level, alteration of breeding sites, IRS without use of DDT, planting repellents around homesteads, and use of mosquito nets and treatment should be considered. Otherwise IRS with DDT will not be a sole savior to millions of Africans dying of Malaria.

News from: groundwork - South Africa- by Jane Harley

Tyre Burning in Cement Kilns

In the wings, waiting for promulgation of the Waste Tyre Regulations, is the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and an organisation known as the South African Tyre Recycling Process Company (SATRP Co), which represents the tyre industry and the cement industry. Through this agreement, SATRP Co will be able to collect a levy on each tyre sold from buyers of tyres, and use the money thus raised to dispose of waste tyres. The levy is described as a "voluntary" levy. What this means is that it has not been legislated (because SATRP Co believe that if the government collects the money they'll never see it again, and they may well be right in this), but in reality each person buying a tyre will have no choice but to pay the levy - not really how one defines "voluntary". Out of this levy SATRP Co will be able to pay people to transport waste tyres, to administer the system and to educate people about waste tyres. In addition, they will have money to pay a 14c disposal fee for each kilogram of tyres disposed of and a 38c per kilogram establishment levy to help with the initial capital costs incurred in establishing suitable disposal facilities. Because this is essentially a private agreement between the DEAT and SATRP Co, the public has no say in the contents of the agreement and no input into how what is essentially public money is spent.

Meanwhile, all the cement companies that have kilns have Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) running. One company has already achieved a positive Rule of Decision (RoD), which means that as soon as the Waste Tyre Regulations are passed, and the MOA becomes effective, they could begin burning tyres. Based on the number of waste tyres available in South Africa, and assuming that all the companies are given positive RoDs, over five years the cement industry stands to be subsidised by the South African consumer to the tune of R50 million in disposal fees and R137 million in establishment fees, which is sufficient for them to upgrade their kilns at a minimal cost to themselves.

GroundWork's concerns centre around the following:
a) despite the assurances of the cement industry, it is undoubted that the burning of waste in cement kilns will result in emissions which will be harmful to the health of the surrounding communities;
b) South African regulation and monitoring systems are not strong enough to properly enforce any permit agreements which may be put in place. As many of the cement kilns are in remote, rural areas, it is likely that operating conditions are going to be less than ideal;
c) While the MOA between DEAT and SATRP Co allows for a great deal of public money to be collected and spent, it is not open to public debate or comment. The MOA certainly does not encourage genuine recycling of tyres and appears to have been biased in favour of "tyre derived fuel users".
d) In South Africa we are constantly being told that incineration in kilns is "standard international practice". We are concerned that other countries around the world (especially in the global south) may be faced with similar challenges and fooled or forced into adopting similar wasteful and degrading practises. Brazil's current WTO case is of particular concern as waste tyres might be "legally exported" around the world for unfair disposal!

GroundWork is participating fully in all the EIA processes and has made comment on the Waste Tyre Regulations. In addition, it is our intention to run a media campaign to inform the public of what is happening and provide an evidence base of environmentally sound technology alternatives to mitigate this practise. Unfortunately it appears that much has already been decided between industry and government, and with South Africa's hosting of the 2010 World Cup Soccer event, cement is seen as a rather important commodity.

We urge all fellow IPEN'ers who have experience in this regard to assist us in any way possible… we are particularly interested in providing an evidence base for environmentally sound technology alternatives waste such as waste tyre recycling, life cycle assessments etc. Contact Jane Harley at: research@groundwork.org.za

Questions - Inquiries - Comments?
Please contact jenniferfederico@ipen.org

IPEN Secretariat:
1962 University Ave., Suite 4, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
Tel: 1 (510) 704 1962/3
Fax: 1 (510) 883 9493
www.ipen.org

Version: 2.0 (March, 2007)

IPEN Newsletter No.2:April 2007