INTERNATIONAL POPs ELIMINATION PROJECT (IPEP)

Final Performance Report



Joseph DiGangi, Global Project Coordinator
International POPs Elimination Project
Environmental Health Fund
September 2006



Table of Contents:

   List of tables       List of abbreviations       Acknowledgements       Executive summary   

   Introduction and objectives       Summary of performance against objectives and goals   


   Objective 1: Activities that provide concrete and immediate contributions to country efforts in preparing for Stockholm Convention implementation       Types of IPEP reports and activities       IPEP Project list   
   Translation       Website       Expert teams       Participation in National Implementation Plans   
   Contributing to increasing Stockholm Convention ratifications       Global day of action on POPs   
   Global egg study       Increased public awareness   


   Objective 2: Enhance the skills and knowledge of NGOs to help build their capacity as effective stakeholders in Convention implementation       Increased NGO capacity       Provided civil society policy inputs   
   Increased NGO - government collaboration       Fostered precedent-setting research   
   Increased collaboration between regions       Utility of workshops       Developed long-term commitment to work on POPs and chemical safety       Need for more NGO capacity   


   Objective 3: Help establish regional NGO coordination and capacity in all regions of the world   
   Regional hub responsibilities and selection       Outreach to NGOs       Replication of similar activities speeds implementation       Importance of face to face meetings       Importance of hubs   


   Annex 1. Project management   
   Annex 2. Funding   
   Annex 3. Output 1: Produce and disseminate POPs information   
   Annex 4. Output 2: Participation in National Implementation Plans   
   Annex 5. Output 3: Increased awareness   
   Annex 6. Output 4: Increased NGO capacity   
   Annex 7. IPEP project activity list   

List of tables:

   IPEP output summary   
   Table 1. Country situation reports by country   
   Table 2. Hotspot reports by country   
   Table 3A. Policy briefs by country   
   Table 3B. Policy recommendations by country   
   Table 4. NGO participation in NIPs by country   
   Table 5. Public awareness campaigns by country   
   Table 6. Workshops and capacity building activities by country   
   Table 7. NGOs that will continue as stakeholders or providers of POPs-related information   
   Table 8. NGOs that have secured funding for future work on POPs and chemical safety   

List of abbreviations:


CEE Central and Eastern European
COP Conference of the Parties
CSO Civil society organization
DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
EECCA Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia
EHF Environmental Health Fund
GAIA Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives
GDA Global Day of Action
GEF Global Environment Facility
HCWH Health Care Without Harm
IPEN International POPs Elimination Network
IPEP International POPs Elimination Project
NGO Non-governmental organization
NIP National Implementation Plan
PAM Project activity memorandum
PAN Pesticide Action Network
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
POPs Persistent organic pollutants
PRTR Pollutant release and transfer registry
PTS Persistent toxic substances
RAPAL Red de Acción sobre Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas en América Latina
RAPAM Red de Acción sobre Plaguicidas y Alternativas en México
SAICM Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
UNITAR United Nations Institute for Training and Research
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UPOPs Unintentionally produced POPs
WHO World Health Organization


5

Acknowledgements:



Thank you to all funders, implementing agencies, Project Steering Committee members, and partners including the Global Environment Facility, UNIDO, UNEP, UNITAR, GEF Small Grants Programme, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Swiss Agency for the Environment Forests and Landscape, the Canada POPs Fund, the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), and the charitable foundations that support IPEN.

A very heartfelt thanks to the coordinators and colleagues of the regional hubs as the key to the success of IPEP; Mohamed Aly Abdelsalam El Banna, Maria Eugenia Acosta, Fernando Bejarano, Manny Calonzo, Upasana Choudhry, Henry Diouf, Ladislav Kleger, Hana Kuncova, Silvani Mng'anya, Jindrich Petrlik, Olga Speranskaya, Romeo Quijano, Sampaguita Quijano, and Martin Skalsky.

Thanks for guidance and advice throughout the Project from the Environmental Health Fund Global Chemical Safety Program, IPEN Secretariat, IPEN Co-Chairs, and the IPEN Steering Committee.

I also appreciate the cooperation of all Governments where IPEP was implemented.

Thank you to more than 350 NGOs who participated in IPEP for your hard work in advancing Stockholm Convention goals and moving towards a toxics free future.

Finally, thank you to my colleague, Jack Weinberg, the principal architect of IPEP, for his steady guidance and wisdom.





6

Executive summary:



In many developing countries and countries with economies in transition, there has often been very limited and incomplete public awareness and understanding about the severe health and environmental harm caused by POPs and other chemical pollutants. NGOs could help address this problem but without new support and assistance, they lacked the capacity they needed to play their desired roles. These included effectively helping to raise public awareness about POPs, increasing civil society participation in Stockholm Convention-related activities, and in providing direct contributions to Stockholm Convention National Implementation Plan preparations and other activities aimed at helping their country prepare for effective Convention implementation.

To tackle these urgent needs, the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN www.ipen.org) began a global NGO project called the International POPs Elimination Project (IPEP) in partnership with the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The Global Environment Facility (GEF) provided core funding for the project. Major project co-financers included agencies of the Swiss government in cooperation with United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR); the Canadian POPs Fund in cooperation with UNEP Chemicals; the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM); and charitable foundation funders of IPEN. Information about IPEP management is described in Annex 1. Funding information can be found in Annex 2. The two-year Project began 1 May 2004 with three principal objectivesb:

IPEP performance in each of these three objectives is discussed below.

b  See Project Document Section 9, Objective


Objective 1: Activities that provide concrete and immediate contributions to country efforts in preparing for Stockholm Convention implementation:


The Project supported NGO participation in the development of Stockholm Convention National Implementation Plans (NIPs), training and awareness workshops, and public information and awareness-raising activities. It also supported the preparation and dissemination of NGO reports describing the country situation with respect to POPs, hotspot reports on contaminated sites or practices leading to POPs formation, and POPsrelated policy briefs. c

NIP Participation. IPEP served to substantially enhance meaningful participation by public interest NGOs in NIP preparations. By the end of the Project, 88 IPEP-associated NGOs had participated in the Stockholm Convention NIP preparations in 53 countries.

POPS Country Situation Reports. NGOs produced reports in 44 countries that described and assessed the country situation with respect to POPs and Stockholm Convention implementation. These country situation reports provided the basic information required by NGOs for awareness-raising activities.

POPs Awareness-Raising Activities. The Project supported wide, multi-lingual outreach on POPs and the Stockholm Convention by NGOs to all sectors of society including farmers, women, students, health care practitioners, incinerator operators, municipal workers, community based organizations, agricultural workers, academic professors, government officials, media and others. These efforts often included translation of materials into local languages. NGOs in 52 countries produced 150 public awarenessraising activities.

POPs Hotspot Reports. NGOs in 39 countries also performed research, collected samples for POPS analysis, organized community mapping, and devised strategies for preventing POPs formation, along with many other activities to characterize contaminated POPs hotspots or practices producing POPs. These included stockpiles of obsolete pesticides, informal sector practices, old factories, POPs pesticides in agriculture, waste incineration, dumpsites, and many others.

POPs-Related Policy Briefs. IPEP NGOs produced 21 focused policy briefs and 88 reports with policy recommendations for a total of 109 reports containing NGO policy recommendations. The topics included waste management, DDT and malaria, and how NGOs might better participate in decision-making processes in multi-lateral environmental agreements.


c  Available at the IPEP portion of the IPEN website www.ipen.org


Objective 2: Enhance the skills and knowledge of NGOs to help build their capacity as effective stakeholders in the Convention implementation process:


Prior to IPEP, NGOs in many regions had more experience with other issues such as, for example, climate change, biodiversity, HIV AIDS, malaria, desertification, poverty eradication etc. IPEP has helped further increase the number of NGOs with an interest in POPs and other issues related to sound chemicals management, and it has helped build the capacity of both individuals and NGOs on POPs and the Stockholm Convention. The Project also helped increase technical capacity and the ability to engage governments on the POPs and issues related to sound chemicals management.

According to a survey conducted by the regional hubs, the impact of IPEP has motivated 200 NGOs in 65 countries to indicate that they are committed to continue as stakeholders, advocates, and/or providers of POPs information. In 27 countries, 37 NGOs indicated that they have already secured funding support to continue working on POPs and chemical safety issues.



Objective 3: Help establish regional NGO coordination and capacity in all regions of the world.:



A key to the success of IPEP was the establishment of eight regional facilitation hubs based within existing NGOs. The hubs served both a strategic and helping function in IPEP. Their responsibilities included: identifying NGOs in their country and surrounding countries with an interest and ability to work on IPEP activities; help the NGOs prepare proposals with well identified outputs, indicators, a deadline and payment schedule, help NGOs with executing the activities and preparing the reports; facilitating communications between NGOs in the region; and disseminating relevant information to stakeholders and the public. The regional facilitation and coordination relationships established by the hubs during the project have now become an integral part of IPEN’s global coordinating structure.

NGOs in each region selected the following NGOs to serve as regional hubs for the twoyear term of IPEP:

Anglophone Africa
Silvani Mng'anya, Agenda for Environment and Responsible Development (AGENDA) (Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania) (working in English) Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda

Central and Eastern Europe
Jindrich Petrlik, Arnika (Prague, Czech Republic) (working in English) Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Turkey

Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia
Olga Speranskaya, Eco-Accord (Moscow, Russia) (working in Russian) Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

Francophone Africa
Henry Diouf, Pesticide Action Network Africa (PAN Africa) (Dakar, Senegal) (working in French) Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Congo, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Senegal, Togo

Latin America
Fernando Bejarano, Red de AcciÓn sobre Plaguicidas y Alternativas en México (RAPAM) (Texcoco, México) (working in Spanish) Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, México, Paraguay, Perú, Uruguay, Venezuela

Middle East
Mohamed Aly Abdelsalam El Banna, Day Hospital Institute for Development and Rehabilitation (Cairo, Egypt) (working in Arabic) Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen

South Asia
Upasana Choudhry. Toxics Link (New Delhi, India) (working in English) Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka

Southeast Asia
Manny Calonzo and Romeo Quijano, Southeast Asia POPs Elimination Network (collaboration between Pesticide Action Network Philippines and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives [GAIA]) (Manila, Philippines) (working in English) Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand

Developing regional facilitation hubs represented a major step forward in IPEN’s organizational operation. For the first time, IPEN had an organized regional management structure designed to help develop NGO capacity and coordinate strategic work on the ground in eight large regions of the world.




Conclusion:



IPEP successfully met its three objectives. It encouraged and enabled more than 350 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in 65 developing countries and countries with economies in transition to engage in more than 290 activities within their countries that provided concrete and immediate contributions to country efforts in preparing for Stockholm Convention implementation. These activities greatly enhanced NGO skill and knowledge and prepared many to engage effectively in ongoing Stockholm Convention implementation activities. IPEP also established a system of regional NGO coordination hubs that have already evolved into a sustainable regional coordinating mechanism that is now an integral part of the organizational structure of the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN).




11

Introduction and objectives:



In July 1998, over 100 NGO representatives met just prior to the first POPs Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) meeting in Montreal, Canada. The NGOs formed the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) and unanimously adopted the POPs Elimination Platform.d

This common platform guided the cooperative work of a large and diverse international coalition of NGOs from all regions to help shape and promote an intergovernmental agreement on provisions that, taken together, added up to an effective global POPs Treaty. IPEN maintained a strong NGO presence at all the POPs negotiating meetings, and at all the other working group meetings, workshops and other global and regional intergovernmental gatherings that shaped the final terms of the Convention. No one doubts that IPEN and its Platform had a substantial impact on the Convention's final shape and its provisions.

When the Convention was adopted at a Diplomatic Conference held in Stockholm in 2001, IPEN arrived at a crossroads: it had completed its initial mission to promote the adoption of an effective global POPs instrument. An IPEN meeting held at that time decided to continue the network and adopted a new IPEN common platform: the IPEN Stockholm Declaration.e This Declaration established IPEN's new mission, "to facilitate effective involvement by its Participating Organizations in local, national, and international activities to promote the elimination of POPs and other persistent toxic substances."

IPEN's primary task became Stockholm Convention implementation and other measures aimed at achieving the elimination of POPs and other persistent toxic substances of equivalent concern. What began as a network whose aim was to influence the negotiated text of a Convention was transformed into a network to promote NGO activities aimed at actually eliminating pollutants from the world. IPEN’s past strength had been to coordinate and facilitate NGO interventions in a global policy process. IPEN decided to prepare and execute the International POPs Elimination Project (IPEP) in order to contribute to this new mission and to enable NGO POPs elimination efforts at local, national and regional levels.

IPEP was designed to help NGOs participating in the IPEN network begin to overcome many existing barriers to effective NGO engagement in Stockholm Convention implementation and longer-term efforts to reduce and eliminate other persistent toxic substances (PTS). In many developing countries and countries with economies in transition, there is often very limited and incomplete public awareness and understanding about the severe health and environmental harm caused by POPs and other chemical pollutants. Data about POPs, obsolete stockpiles, and other toxic chemicals is often incomplete, inaccessible, or does not exist. The lack of testing facilities for POPs, especially unintentionally produced substances such as dioxins and furans (UPOPs), makes monitoring these substances difficult. Government responsibility for addressing POPS and other toxic chemicals tends to be divided between many ministries none of which generally view POPs and other chemical safety issues as a top priority. Nor have most countries had a history of public participation in national efforts aimed at addressing chemical pollution.

IPEP was developed and executed by IPEN in partnership with the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The Global Environment Facility (GEF) provided core funding. Major project co-financers included agencies of the Swiss government in cooperation with United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR); the Canadian POPs Fund in cooperation with UNEP Chemicals; the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM); charitable foundation funders and NGOs participating in IPEN. The two-year Project began 1 May 2004 with three principal objectives:f

This report will describe the objectives, outputs, and impacts of IPEP. For an excellent and more detailed review of IPEP in each of its eight regions, please see the individual regional reports posted on the IPEN website (click on IPEP) www.ipen.org.


d  http://www.ipen.org/pops_platform.htm#platform
e  http://www.ipen.org/stockholmdec.html
f  See Project Document Section 9, Objective


12

Summary of performance against objectives and goals:



IPEP met its three objectives. It encouraged and enabled more than 350 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in 65 developing countries and countries with economies in transition to engage in more than 290 distinct project activities within their countries. Each of these project activities was based on a Project Activity Memorandum that was agreed in advance between the NGOs carrying out the activity, the IPEP Regional Hub and IPEP Global Management. These project activities provided concrete and immediate contributions to country efforts in preparing for Stockholm Convention implementation.

IPEP performance exceeded expectations in each of the four key output areas: 1) produce and disseminate POPs information, 2) participation in National Implementation Plans, 3) increased awareness, and 4) increased NGO capacity.



IPEP Output Summary

     IPEP Project   
     Output Goalg   
   Output 1: Produce and disseminate info   
   Country situation reports 44 40   
     Hotspot reports 108 30   
     Policy briefs and recommendations 109 30   
     Output 2: Participation in NIPs 53 countries 20 countries   
     Output 3: Increased awareness   
     Public awareness activities 150 40   
     Info and training workshops 53 20   
     Output 4: Increased NGO capacity   
     Continued work on POPs 65 countries 30 countries   
     Secure funding to continue activities 27 countries 20 countries   


g  See UNEP Project Document, Project Description, Activities and Financial Inputs Needed to enable Changes

The multidisciplinary nature of the IPEP activities meant that the various types of IPEP reports and activities were often combined in a single Project Activity Memorandum (PAM). For example, a PAM calling for developing a hotspot report might include a complete public awareness-raising campaign in the same proposal. For proper accounting, activities were tabulated based on what was actually done. There were only two special cases: country situation reports were in a category by themselves, and the documenting of policy briefs distinguished between reports dedicated as briefs and reports containing NGO policy recommendations. Each of the topic categories presented is discussed further below in the body of the report.

The Project faced some unforeseen external challenges. During the Project period, the Asian region was hit by the tsunami which affected NGOs in Sri Lanka, the southern part of India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand as they had to grapple with its after affects. Later a devastating earthquake shook the northern part of India and Pakistan. Finally, political disturbances disrupted communication and occupied the attention of NGOs in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Palestine. Despite these challenges, civil society groups kept the POPs and chemicals issues alive.

IPEP was successfully implemented along the lines described in the UNEP Project Document. Hubs were chosen in all the regions and served for the full term of the Project, guiding NGOs throughout the process and maintaining excellent collaborative relations with the global project manager. Hubs identified NGOs in their regions to participate in the project and worked with them to develop Project Activity Memoranda (PAMs) that describe project activities the NGO would perform and agreed payments for the work. These NGOs then performed the work outlined in a total of more than 290 PAMs with no defaults. The global project manager produced regular reports and maintained an excellent working relationship with UNIDO staff who implemented hundreds of money transfers directly to hundreds of developing country NGOs. There were, however, some problems and positive lessons after two years of IPEP activities that were revealed in implementing a global NGO project of this magnitude. These are discussed in the body of the report below during descriptions of each of the three Project objectives.

Output 1 Produce and disseminate POPs information
The goal for the two-year Project was to produce 40 Country Situation Reports. IPEP produced 44 Country Situation Reports in the following countries: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cameroon, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Ghana, Georgia, Hungary, India, Jordan, Lebanon, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Malaysia (2), Mali, Moldova, Nepal, Palestine, Philippines, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen. For a list of NGOs producing the reports, please see the list in Annex 3.

The IPEP goal was to have 30 Hotspot reports with approximately four per region. IPEP produced 108 Hotspot reports with the number of reports per region varying from seven to 33. For a list of NGOs producing the reports and their titles, please see Table 2 in Annex 3.

The goal for policy briefs was to produce 30 with approximately four per region. IPEP produced 21 focused policy briefs and 88 reports with policy recommendations for a total of 109 reports containing NGO policy recommendations in reports. For a list of NGOs producing the reports and their titles, please see Tables 3A and 3B in Annex 3.

Output 2 Participation in National Implementation Plans
The overall Project goal for NIP participation was to have NGOs participating in 2 - 3 countries per region for a total of 20 countries. Eighty-eight IPEP-associated NGOs participated in the NIPs in 53 countries during the Project period. For a list of NGOs and countries, please see Table 4 in Annex 4.

Output 3 Increased awareness
The goal for this output was to have eight public awareness-raising activities per region for a total of 40 for the Project. IPEP produced 150 activities with the number of activities per region varying from 10 to 44. For a list of NGOs, countries, and project titles, please see Table 5 in Annex 5.

IPEP also planned to have 2-3 informational workshops and capacity building activities per region for a total of 20. By the end the Project, IPEP NGOs had conducted 53 workshops with the number per region varying from 2 to 9. For a list of NGOs, countries, and project titles, please see Table 6 in Annex 5.


Output 4 Increased NGO capacity One goal for this output was to have NGOs in more than 30 countries continue as stakeholders and/or advocates and/or providers of POPs-related information. According to a survey conducted by regional hubs, 200 IPEP participating NGOs in 65 countries indicated they plan to continue as Stockholm Convention stakeholders. For a list of NGOs and countries, please see Table 7 in Annex 6. Another goal for this output was to help NGOs in 20 countries secure funds or other sources of support to enable them to continue their activities. At the end of the Project, 37 IPEP-associated NGOs from 27 countries indicated that they had secured funds to continue working in the area. For a list of NGOs and countries, please see Table 8 in Annex 6.




16

Objective 1: Activities that provide concrete and immediate contributions to country efforts in preparing for Stockholm Convention implementation:



Types of IPEP reports and activities
IPEP supported NGO work on three types of reports and three types of activities concerning POPs and Stockholm Convention. IPEP reports included country situation reports, hotspot reports, and policy briefs. IPEP activities included participation in the National Implementation Plan (NIP), training and awareness workshops, and public information and awareness-raising activities. A brief description of these follows.

Country situation reports:
These reports described the state of Convention ratification, POPs sources, the extent of harm caused by POPs and other relevant country information. The intended audience for these reports was NGOs or academics and others with a public policy interest. Their purpose was to help prepare an informational and policy framework that would enable national NGOs and civil society organizations to play effective roles in national implementation of the Stockholm Convention.

Hotspot reports:
Hotspot reports described POPs-contaminated sites or a pattern of activities or practices that release POPs. The goal was for these reports to contribute toward building the support necessary for effective action aimed at reducing and eliminating POPs.

Policy briefs:
The policy briefs identified a country-relevant policy topic relating to the Stockholm Convention and proposed solutions and public policies. The purpose of these reports was to contribute to national public policy and to provide a basis for NGO and civil society policy interventions.

Participation in the NIP:
This key activity of the project included both direct participation and providing substantive, useful information inputs into the NIP process.

Training and awareness workshops:
The goal of the workshops was to increase knowledge and capacity about POPs and related issues among NGOs and provide support for NGO activities on POPs.

Public awareness-raising activities:
These activities and campaigns were undertaken to help enable sectors of civil society, the media and/or the general public understand what POPs are; the Stockholm Convention, its objectives and provisions; and also, possible solutions to POPs problems in the country.




IPEP Project list
A full list of IPEP Project titles and NGOs is listed by country in Annex 7. Project summaries provide a more informative view of the activities, but due to the size they occupy (more than 100 pages) they are presented instead on the IPEP website at www.ipen.org In addition keyword categories on the website can help the viewer find reports about certain topics including: Country situation reports for contribution to NIP processes; DDT; PCBs; Unintentionally produced POPs (dioxins, furans, HCB, PCBs); Obsolete pesticides; New POPs; POPs Hotspots; Waste management and POPs; Public information, education, capacity-building, and awareness-raising; Policy and legislation Pesticides, agriculture and integrated pest management; Inventories and data collection; Monitoring and assessment; Health and ecosystem impacts; Indigenous Peoples and POPs; and Alternatives to practices that use or generate POPs.



17



Translation
Since IPEP worked in five of the six UN languages, it also supported translation of key information and documents to ensure availability in Arabic, English, French, Russian, and Spanish. This helped spread POPs expertise around the growing network.



Website
To help provide access to IPEP results, the Project established a multi-lingual website. The IPEP website was developed and launched in March 2005 in coordination with the release of an interregional project to sample eggs for by-product POPs. The site features a Google search function and information about the partners, projects, and Hubs. The Library section includes relevant UN and GEF documents for work on POPs. Flags denote the working website languages: Arabic, English, French, Russian, and Spanish. The website was presented to participants of COP1 and has been integrated with the IPEN website at www.ipen.org. IPEN has secured the support needed to maintain and update this website.



Expert teams
The IPEP GEF Project Document called for establishing and maintaining five issuefocused NGO expert teams to provide support and assistance to NGOs. The idea was that NGOs could request policy or technical advice from the appropriate team and quickly move forward with their project activities. The teams would cover five topics: DDT, alternatives to POPs pesticides, obsolete stockpiles and wastes, inventories, and monitoring. This aspect of the Project was implemented differently than was originally imagined primarily because project planners expected it would be easier than it proved to be to raise co-finance money directly allocated to this task.

Therefore, a less-formal version of the expert teams was developed. Instead of a centralized global team responding to requests, NGOs developed relationships with academic experts, physicians, medical associations and academies of sciences, researchers, certified laboratory analysts, nurses, and other professionals in their countries and regions to mobilize needed expertise. Although the project did not establish five global expert teams as planned, NGOs did develop in its place sustainable mutually helpful relationships within the project as well as links with a great number of newly identified professional experts interested in chemicals issues in their own countries and regions.



18

Participation in National Implementation Plans
In Article 7, the Stockholm Convention states the importance of governments consulting with civil society in formulating and implementing National Implementation Plans (NIPs); "The Parties shall, where appropriate, cooperate directly or through global, regional and subregional organizations, and consult their national stakeholders, including women's groups and groups involved in the health of children, in order to facilitate the development, implementation and updating of their implementation plans."

In addition, GEF guidelines stress the importance of participation in the NIP by a range of interest groups which includes "..nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as relevant environmental, academic, social, women's, and child protection organizations, and organizations from the industrial, commercial, agricultural and labor sectors."

IPEN's policy is to strongly support genuine participation of NGOs in NIP preparation processes, including participation in decision making. Unfortunately, not all governments recognize the importance of civil society participation in NIP preparations. For the purposes of IPEP, we defined NIP participation to include both direct NGO contributions to the NIP process as well as useful inputs into the process in cases where NGOs encountered barriers to their substantive direct participation.

The IPEP goal was to have NGOs in 20 countries participate in some way in the NIP. By the end of the Project, 88 IPEP-associated NGOs had participated in the Stockholm Convention NIP preparations in 53 countries: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Benin, Cambodia, Cameroon, Colombia, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Egypt, India, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Hungary, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Mali, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Nepal, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, and Yemen.

In some countries, IPEN NGOs were given important roles in the NIP preparation process including membership on the national coordinating committee and/or active participation in subcommittees. In other countries, the government did not allow meaningful participation of public interest NGOs even though, in some cases, POPsproducing industries were active players in NIP preparations. On the whole, however, IPEP served to substantially enhance meaningful participation by public interest NGOs in NIP preparations; IPEN will continue to strive for full civil society participation in the NIP and other processes involving decision making on chemicals policy.



19


Contributing to increasing Stockholm Convention ratifications
Following adoption of the Stockholm Convention in 2001, IPEN began actively campaigning in support of Convention ratification (or accession) in all countries where the network is active. During the two-year period of the IPEP project, a total of 18 countries with significant IPEP activities ratified including Argentina, Burundi, Chile, Congo, Gambia, India, Jordan, Kenya, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, Romania, Sri Lanka, Syria, Thailand, Uganda and Venezuela.



Global Day of Action on POPs
IPEN called on NGOs around the world to engage in a Global Day of Action in support of POPs elimination to take place in May 2005, prior to the First Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention (COP1). The purpose of this activity was raising public awareness on POPs, and it proved very effective. IPEP supported 60 NGOs in 38 countries in all regions to undertake 53 Global Day of Action activities. These events took different forms in different countries, but the results indicate the great potential of synchronized global NGO efforts.

The outreach activities included: public lectures at universities; roundtable discussions, workshops, and meetings with the National Coordinating Committee of the NIP or other relevant government officials; educational activities on waste management and incineration; citizen inventory activities with schoolchildren; events for youth; construction of a website devoted to NGO activities on POPs and chemical safety; publicizing the results of the global egg study (see below); field visit to an obsolete pesticide site with government officials; screening of NGO-produced videos on POPs, advocating on topics such as: Convention ratification, site cleanup, an end to smuggling, alternatives to incineration, and inclusion of new POPs in the Convention; and extensive outreach to print, TV, and radio media.

NGOs in the following countries mobilized activities for the Global Day of Action: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Benin, Bulgaria, Burundi, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Czech Republic, Egypt, Gambia, India, Jordan, Lebanon, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uruguay.



20

Global egg study
IPEP undertook two ground-breaking globally coordinated studies on POPs contamination in chicken eggs involving NGOs in all regions.h Both studies found dangerous levels of POPs in eggs collected near potentially polluted sites such as waste incinerators, cement kilns, the metallurgical industry, waste dumps and chemical production facilities. The 17 countries included in the study i were chosen with priority to those countries that lack information about POPs in their environment.

The first study looked for dioxin, furan, PCB, and HCB contamination in home-raised chicken eggs from 21 locations in 17 countries on five continents. The sampling sites were selected for their proximity to a facility or hotspot that NGOs suspected was a significant environmental source of these unintentionally-produced POPs.

Seventy percent of the samples exceeded the EU limit for dioxins in eggs and sixty percent exceeded proposed EU limits for PCBs in eggs. Three egg samples reported in this study contained some of the highest dioxin levels ever measured in chicken eggs. These egg samples were collected near a metallurgical facility in Egypt, a thermal power plant in Bulgaria, and a chlor-alkali facility in Russia. In 12 of the 17 countries (70%), the IPEP study represented the first national data ever reported on unintentional POPs in eggs.j

The study did not attempt to identify average of typical levels of POPs in eggs in the country. Rather, samples were taken near facilities NGOs that suspected of being significant POPs sources in an attempt to confirm the suspicion and to highlight the source.

The report on the findings of this study also included the following policy recommendations:

1. Information on unintentionally-produced POPs in food should be collected and made publicly available;

2. The likely POPs sources identified in the study should be prioritized for action under the NIP

3. POPs in wastes must be completely destroyed (several dump sites were featured)

4. Guidelines need to be developed on how to design facilities that avoid POPs formation

5. Implement Convention Article 5 (c) promoting material substitution to prevent POPs formation and release.

The study demonstrated the importance of monitoring in Convention implementation. In Kenya, the national television station produced a documentary on the dumpsite upwind from where the eggs were sampled.

NGOs in the Philippines widely publicized the results in the media and the government requested independent testing of the medical waste incinerator's emissions. When the company refused, the government cancelled their permit.

In Uruguay, the cement kiln company had insisted that it only burned agricultural refuse. After the results of the egg testing showed high PCB levels, another explanation had to be found. Residents of the town stepped forward and reported that the kiln was in fact burning chlorine-containing wastes.

Eggs sampled near a waste dump in Senegal unexpectedly did not show the congener pattern of a burning dump, but rather, that associated with certain chlorinated solvents. The results pointed to industrial dumping of chlorinated solvents such as pentachlorophenol.

In Egypt, the record-setting high results focused attention on the Helwan industrial area as a POPs hotspot that needed to be addressed in the NIP.

The Indian press described the study's result as the toxic link to medical waste incineration. It pointed out that no monitoring of medical waste incinerators is done in India and that no norms for food safety exist.

Eggs in the Czech Republic sampled near a chlorine-chemical manufacturing facility showed high levels of HCB and reinforced the need to fully account for this by-product POP in national inventories.

In Russia, the IPEP study produced only the second measurements of dioxins in chicken eggs collected near Dzershinsk, which is named by the Guinness Book of World Records as the world’s most polluted industrial town. A large national press conference focused new attention on POPs in Russian food. Study results were disseminated to more than 500 Russian-speaking NGOs.

A second study looked at the same eggs for the presence of the pesticide hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH, Lindane), and at brominated flame retardants, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). This study tested for chemicals with properties that are very similar to the original 12 POPs listed in the Stockholm Convention.

Lindane, beta-HCH and the PBDE flame retardants were found in all samples. The flame retardant, HBCD, appeared in 80 percent of the samples. This study produced the first data on these substances in the environment for most of the countries examined.

The principal IPEN policy recommendation from the second study was to add Lindane and PBDE to the Stockholm Convention. Less a month later, Norway proposed the addition of PBDE to the Convention and Mexico proposed the addition of Lindane. The POPs Review Committee of the Convention has examined both substances (along with three others) and determined that they fit the POPs screening criteria. The Committee is continuing to examine the risk profiles and socio-economic considerations of the candidate substances to determine if they will be recommended for addition to the Stockholm Convention.


h  Available here http://www.oztoxics.org/ipepweb/egg/Hotspot%20Reports.html
i  Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt, India, Kenya, Mexico, Mozambique, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, Tanzania, Turkey, Uruguay and the United States
j  The countries are: Belarus, Bulgaria, Egypt, India, Mexico, Kenya, Mozambique, Pakistan, Philippines Senegal, Tanzania, Turkey, and Uruguay.


22

Increased public awareness
IPEP has significantly boosted the understanding among NGOs and the public about what POPs are, including their sources, effects and possible remedial measures. In many countries, this has contributed to increased attention to the topic by the news media. The project did outreach to a wide range of groups including: farmers, women, students, health care practitioners, incinerator operators, municipal workers, community based organizations, agricultural workers, academics, government officials, media and others. As called for in the Convention, many of the IPEP awareness-raising efforts were directed to the most vulnerable. NGOs in 52 countries produced 150 public awarenessraising activities and we have reports from more than 20 countries where these activities were reflected in local or national media.

IPEP has enhanced the ability of governments to honor their commitments under Stockholm Convention Articles 9 and 10, which require them, inter alia, to undertake information exchange concerning alternatives to POPs and POPs reduction or elimination; and to promote and facilitate: awareness among policymakers and the public of POPs, educational programs on POPs, provision to the public of all available information on POPs, and public participation in addressing POPs.

The awareness-raising activities disseminated up to date information on POPs which helped orient new NGOs to the topic and, in some cases, helped prepare NGOs for participation in the NIP. Information exchange between NGOs helped to forge links between organizations working on POPs in different countries and regions. In some regions, IPEP information on POPs has become part of the collection of public libraries or in those of institutions dealing with chemical safety.

An important part of IPEP awareness-raising activities has been to produce materials in both UN and local languages. For example in Paraguay, materials were produced in Guaraní, an Indigenous language, as well as Spanish. In India, reports and activities were conducted in Bengali, Hindi, Telugu, Malayalam, and Punjabi. IPEP produced the first POPs materials available in Nepali and reports in Pakistan were also presented in Pashto. This has helped dissemination and increase stakeholder participation.

The NGOs serving as IPEP regional hubs have described the change in public and NGO awareness over the course of the Project as a "quantum leap" in knowledge about POPs and chemicals and their impacts on public health and the environment.



23


Objective 2: Enhance the skills and knowledge of NGOs to help build their capacity as effective stakeholders in the Convention implementation process



Increased NGO capacity
Prior to IPEP, NGOs in many regions tended to have more experience with other issues such as, for example, climate change, biodiversity, HIV AIDS, malaria, desertification, poverty eradication etc. IPEP has helped increase the number of NGOs with an interest in POPs and other issues related to sound chemicals management, and it has helped build the capacity of both individuals and NGOs in relationship to POPs elimination and the Stockholm Convention implementation.

For some NGOs, IPEP represented their first opportunity to develop a proposal with a timeline of activities, execute it, write the report, and receive payment. In implementing IPEP activities NGOs learned about the Convention and its ratification process, or how to investigate the details of a contaminated site, or how to assemble a policy proposal, or how to run a public awareness-raising campaign. This learning by doing approach yielded high-quality work as evidenced in the numerous IPEP reports. In addition, many NGOs also learned for the first time about the roles of UN agencies in POPs elimination and chemical safety including UNIDO, UNEP, UNDP, WHO, UNITAR, FAO, and others.

The Project helped enhance the management capabilities of the hub NGOs, required them to develop coordinating and helping relations with NGOs in their regions, and required them also to provide assistance on technical questions and with project management. Some of the technical issues included the use of emission factors in constructing dioxin inventories; pollutant release and transfer registers; pesticide toxicology; sampling methodologies; regulatory limits in a variety of media; Integrated Pollution Prevention Control; and many others.

IPEP helped to build the capacity of community leaders around contaminated sites by providing them with information about the sites that would need in order to participate constructively in for planning remediation. Finally, in several regions, IPEP helped the training of workers as trainers who can now train co-workers on issues related to POPs and the Stockholm Convention.

IPEP produced 53 capacity-building workshops in all regions that helped NGOs and the public audiences build expertise on POPs. In some cases the hubs assembled groups of regional or national experts to help them prepare and execute the workshops and provide helpful services on POPs and other chemical safety issues to NGOs. Many of these experts continue helping NGOs to: prepare policy papers on chemicals management; participate in NIPs; strengthen their role in the development of pollutant release and transfer registers; organize campaigns against chemical pollution; and promote sustainable waste management and the zero waste approach.

IPEP helped provide a platform for civil society to build capacities and engage with the issue of POPs in a more organized way. Even though the financial resources available to the project were relatively small given its global nature and the number of countries it covered, project results have proved to be of very great value. The project catalyzed the collaboration of many organizations and has created a platform for larger debate and conversations on the issue. This initiative has been able to bring together many important stakeholders and engage them in focussing on the issue of POPs.



25

Provided civil society policy inputs

IPEP provided significant opportunities for NGOs to have impacts on POPs policies. This included impacts on the NIP, government decisions on clean up of contaminated sites, inventories, permitting, and many others. Many recommendations elaborated by NGOs during the implementation of IPEP-related initiatives were incorporated into NIPs and other governmental policies and strategies on chemicals.

As mentioned above, 88 IPEP-associated NGOs have participated in the Stockholm Convention NIP preparations in 53 countries. This included directly contributing to the process by participating in the inter-ministerial committees for development of the NIP or the provision of substantive, useful inputs into the process in cases where public interest NGOs were not able to directly participate in NIP committees.

IPEP made especially important contributions to national POPs inventories. These included unauthorised storages of banned, obsolete and unmarked pesticides; PCB inventory; and evaluation of dioxin/furan sources.

The NGO activities under IPEP also contributed to current Convention policy discussions regarding addition of new POPs substances to the Convention. These included preliminary studies of environmental contamination by brominated flame retardants and Lindane in several countries.

IPEP also contributed to Stockholm Convention-related policy discussions on POPs sources and on POPs in wastes, (a cross-cutting issue between the Basel and Stockholm Conventions). Reports produced by NGOs in the context of IPEP have provided inputs to policy discussions at Stockholm Convention COP1 and 2, the Expert Group on Best Available Techniques/Best Environmental Practices (BAT/BEP) and the POPs Review Committee.

IPEP activities have elevated the recognition of the role of NGOs in the implementation of the Stockholm Convention, and have raised the level of NGO relationships with government officials responsible for Convention implementation. The Project has helped advance the idea that Stockholm Convention implementation is not some highly complex matter to be left to foreign or national experts, but is something that well-informed NGOs and citizens can contribute to by highlighting important civil society concerns and by forwarding their own proposals for effective Convention implementation.



26


Increased NGO-government collaboration
Participation in government and UN-initiated activities was a new experience for some of the IPEP NGOs. It was a largely a successful experience that helped to build new relationships, new forms of cooperation, and new ways of working. The project also greatly contributed to raising the awareness of local NGOs and local government officials on POPs issues. Because of IPEP, many government officials and NGOs learned to establish trustful and collaborative relationships. Numerous government officials came to view their interactions with the NGOs who were working on IPEP as a win-win situation.

For example, in a number of countries, the NGOs interested in working on IPEP initially had a difficult time convincing their governments to agree that NGOs should be allowed an active role in the NIP process. When IPEP project management was informed, we contacted the Implementing Agency for the country's GEF Enabling Activities Project, provided the names of NGOs who had both an interest and the ability to participate in the NIP process, and requested help in getting them invited to participate. The results were mixed, but in some cases not only was the NGO invited to participate, but the invitation resulted in the development of excellent collaborative relations between the invited NGOs and the other NIP participants.

IPEP has helped NGOs to become known to the government agencies. In some regions, IPEP contributed to regional dialogue workshops with both NGOs and government officials participating. In some cases, relationships built during these regional workshops, together with good outcomes from IPEP activities, contributed to decisions by government to invite NGOs to participate in the National Coordination Committee to develop the NIP.

While the nature of participation mechanisms associated with Stockholm Convention implementation are still being worked out in many countries, NGOs have learned to value opportunities to participate, and many have been able to make important contributions and to provide significant input. Overall, IPEP has encouraged many governments to view national, regional, and global NGO networks as a significant contributing asset in the implementation of the Stockholm Convention. IPEP has succeeded in promoting and strengthening NGO partnerships with international organizations, different levels of governmental authorities and the academic community.



27


Fostered precedent-setting research
IPEP activities include a number of research projects that have become precedents in their countries. The IPEP egg study described above had a global impact since it provided monitoring data for unintentionally-produced POPs (UPOPs) including dioxins, furans, HCB, and PCBs. In 12 of the 17 countries (70%), the IPEP study represented the first information about these POPs in eggs ever reported. These countries include Belarus, Bulgaria, Egypt, India, Mexico, Kenya, Mozambique, Pakistan, Philippines Senegal, Tanzania, Turkey, and Uruguay. In Russia, IPEP supported a study of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in the environment at several locations. It was the second study in Russia of this contaminant in the environment, and was the first to look at BFR contamination in computer rooms. IPEP produced the first data ever collected of BFRs in the environment in Belarus.

IPEN reports have provided a basis for NGO presentations in national, regional, and international fora. For example, an IPEP project carried out by a Mexican NGO with assistance from a consultant assessed dioxin emission factors in the UNEP Dioxin Toolkit; compared these with data in the published literature; and demonstrated that that by using well-supported alternate emissions factors, national source priorities in a country’s dioxin inventory can change dramatically. This study was presented in a side event at Stockholm Convention COP2 and was very well received by the delegates. IPEP-supported research has made solid contributions to knowledge about POPs and as increased recognition of the network’s technical and scientific capabilities.






Increased collaboration between regions
IPEP helped foster increased collaboration between NGOs working in different regions. These partnerships made a valuable contribution to the overall success of IPEP. For example the hub for Latin America prepared the "Citizens Guide to the Stockholm Convention" which described NGO participation in the NIPs. Parts of this important publication were translated into Arabic, French, and Russian by the hubs and used for raising NGO awareness in this field in the Middle East, Francophone Africa, and Eastern Europe Caucasus, and Central Asia (EECCA).

The EECCA hub provided materials and a presentation on PRTR issues to Toxics Link (India) for use in a workshop in India on Stockholm Convention implementation and POPs. At the same workshop in India, a representative from the NGO Arnika, the CEE hub, presented useful information on dioxin inventories to NGOs from the South Asia region. Later, the CEE hub collaborated with the NGO, SDPI, in Pakistan to perform a study of dioxin and furan content in ashes from medical waste incinerators in Pakistan.

Some regions also promoted collaborations between NGOs in different countries within the region. For example, NGOs in Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines collaborated on a zero waste policy brief that described and compared the situation in the three countries. IPEP provided one of the first opportunities for collaborative NGO work of this kind.



28


Utility of workshops
Workshops in IPEP regions provided venues for interaction between NGOs engaged in the Project and opportunities for discussion and learning. This helped strengthen NGO participation and capacities, particularly when there were widely differing levels of experience, knowledge, and status of Convention ratification within the region. Many of these workshops engaged government officials and in some cases, they also served to help increase the capacity of government officials. In many cases, new NGOs who were invited to workshops ended up becoming actively engaged in POPs work. In some cases, regional workshops led to corresponding national workshops that further expanded the interest in the Convention among civil society and government participants. The workshops also provided an excellent place for NGOs to meet and communicate with one another and some national POPs elimination networks formed as a result of workshops.






Developed long-term commitment to work on POPs and chemical safety
An important indicator of the commitment to continue work on POPs and chemicals issues is the large number of NGOs that intend to continue as stakeholders and/or as advocates. Table 7 (Annex 6) shows that 200 NGOs in 65 countries have indicated that they intend to continue work on chemicals and POPs. In addition, 37 IPEP-associated NGOs from 27 countries have secured funding to working in the area (see Table 8 in Annex 6). The Stockholm Convention and its implementation have inspired a great deal of enthusiasm and energy on the part of many NGOs in all regions.

Hub consultations with NGOs in their region have revealed that they have a great desire to continue work on POPs. It has also revealed that most IPEP-participating NGOs have found contributing to government policy both at the national and local levels to be very useful. Many NGOs working on IPEP discovered gaps in government-generated data, and most of them want to continue working to help fill these gaps. We find this to be an indication of the empowering impact of engagement in IPEP on the part of organizations and community members who were involved in project activities.

By coincidence, preparations for the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) took place during the same time period as IPEP implementation. IPEP hubs, because the structure already existed, played key roles in organizing and mobilizing NGOs in their regions for engagement in the SAICM preparatory process. This simultaneous involvement of the IPEP hubs in regionally coordinating both IPEP project activities and NGO participation in SAICM preparations reinforced the idea of the important synergies between Stockholm Convention implementation and more foundational concerns associated with achieving sound chemicals management.



29


Need for more NGO capacity
IPEP illustrated the benefits of engaging NGOs in activities to prepare their countries for Stockholm Convention implementation. However, in many countries, when the project started, NGO capacity in the fields of POPs and chemical safety was at a very low level. In those countries and regions with higher initial NGO capacity, the project results were most impressive, as were the provision of concrete benefits to actual Convention implementation and civil society involvement. On the other hand, in many countries, the NGOs participating in IPEP realized that they were starting at a low level and needed to still greatly increase their expertise in chemical policy, hotspot characterization, health effects, alternatives, clean production, PRTR, analytical laboratories, media, and interaction with other stakeholders (government, NGO, and private sector) etc. Many also were exposed to learning new roles in relationships with their governments and international institutions. IPEP triggered an awakening and a great advance in NGO capacity, but it was just a first step and much more is needed.




30


Objective 3: Help establish regional NGO coordination and capacity in all regions of the world:





Regional hub responsibilities and selection
One of IPEP's objectives was to establish regional NGO coordination for POPs and related chemical safety work. Identifying NGOs to serve as project regional facilitation hubs was the first step in implementing the Project. In the end, the hubs and their role were crucial to the success of the Project.

Hub responsibilities The hubs served both a strategic and helping function in IPEP. Their responsibilities included:

  • Identifying NGOs with an interest and ability to work on IPEP activities at various levels;

  • Helping NGOs prepare a Project Activity Memorandum (PAM) between the Hub and the selected NGOs that described IPEP activities the NGO was interested in carrying out, including well identified outputs, indicators, a deadline and payment schedule,

  • Helping NGOs with advice on the execution of project activities and preparation of the reports;

  • Facilitating communications between NGOs in the region and disseminating relevant information to stakeholders and the public.


Some hubs established an advisory committee of NGOs in the region to guide them on decisions related to project activities and strategies for the region.

Flexibility in how the NGO serving as regional hub organized their personnel arrangements proved to be a wise decision. Some hub NGOs hired new staff to largely or exclusively carry out their hub responsibilities. Some re-distributed responsibilities among existing staff. Others, such as the Central and Eastern Europe hub organized their work by country with different personnel taking responsibility for different countries. The flexible arrangements reinforced the region and country-driven nature of the Project and enabled the hub NGOs to implement the most efficient and cost-effective method of getting its work done.

Selection
A process was designed and carried out to select NGOs that would serve as regional hubs in the following eight regions: Anglophone Africa; Central and Eastern Europe; Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia; Francophone Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean; Middle East; South Asia; and Southeast and East Asia and the Pacific.

After a call for nominees across the IPEN network, NGOs in each region selected the organization that would serve as their regional hub. A sub-committee of the IPEN steering committee helped NGOs establish a regional review committee in each region. The regional review committees evaluated the responses to questionnaires, made selections by consensus, and recommended candidates to the steering committee for approval. The following NGOs were selected in the process and served as regional hubs for the two-year term of IPEP:

Anglophone Africa (working in English): Agenda for Environment and Responsible Development (AGENDA) (Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania)

Central and Eastern Europe (working in English): Arnika (Prague, Czech Republic)

Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia (working in Russian): Eco-Accord (Moscow, Russia)

Francophone Africa (working in French): Pesticide Action Network Africa (PAN Africa) (Dakar, Senegal)

Latin America (working in Spanish): Red de Acción sobre Plaguicidas y Alternativas en México (RAPAM) (Texcoco, México)

Middle East (working in Arabic): Day Hospital Institute for Development and Rehabilitation (Cairo, Egypt)

South Asia (working in English): Toxics Link (New Delhi, India)

Southeast Asia (working in English): Southeast Asia POPs Elimination Network (collaboration between Pesticide Action Network Philippines and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives [GAIA]) (Manila, Philippines)

Developing regional facilitation hubs represented a major step forward in IPEN’s organizational operation. For the first time, IPEN had an organized regional management structure designed to help develop NGO capacity and coordinate strategic work on the ground in eight large regions of the world.



31


Outreach to NGOs
Hubs faced an immediate task of introducing IPEP to NGOs in their own and surrounding countries and evaluating their interests and experience so as to match them with appropriate IPEP activities. Each hub resolved this challenge differently depending on the situation in the region.

The Middle East represented a special challenge since IPEN previously had no active presence in the region. As hub, Day Hospital Institute began by first identifying databases of NGOs and selecting 70 organizations for extensive outreach and information. Since most of these NGOs had experience in other areas, the hub worked extensively for more than six months to introduce chemical safety, POPs, and the Stockholm Convention to the NGOs in the region as an area of possible work. By the end of two years, 20 NGOs in nine countries participated in the Project. Countries included Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen.

Extensive outreach to NGOs had occurred Anglophone Africa, but at the time IPEP started, few NGOs were actively engaged in POPs-related activities. To develop IPEP, AGENDA made use of a large regional NGO meeting it helped host which was attended by NGOs from 13 African countries. The Eastern Africa Regional NGOs/CSOs Workshop on the Implementation of International and Regional Chemicals Conventions was held in Arusha, Tanzania in April 2004, just before the start of IPEP in May. AGENDA presented the project opportunities and objectives to meeting participants and later sought assistance from government representatives during SAICM Prep-Com meetings and COP1 of the Stockholm Convention to cover more countries including Nigeria, Ghana, and Gambia. All together, 14 NGOs and two trade unions from seven countries participated in IPEP including Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda. Most of these are new countries for IPEN work.

Aside from Senegal, IPEN has also been historically thin in Francophone Africa. To help introduce IPEP to NGOs in the region, PAN Africa communicated through IPEN, GAIA, and Stockholm Convention focal points as well as through PAN network organizations. Eventually, the persistence of the hub generated enough interest to mobilize 15 NGOs working in 10 countries; Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Republic of Congo, Senegal, and Togo. Most of these countries are new to IPEN.

Though it contains highly active IPEN NGOs, the South Asia region also faced a large outreach process to connect with NGOs outside of India and Pakistan. Toxics Link used NGO networks and searched for groups with a history of active work in their countries. By the end of the two-year Project, the hub managed to mobilize 40 NGOs of which 36 were new to the IPEN network and a majority even new to the issue. In this region, IPEP was implemented in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

Some regions utilized pre-existing networks to initiate regional coordination of IPEP. For example, Arnika in the Central and Eastern European region (CEE) had a history of NGO organizing regional NGO cooperation dating back to 2000. To mobilize work for IPEP, the hub held a regional kick-off meeting at the beginning of the Project in the Czech Republic that quickly produced proposals. More than 20 NGOs participated in IPEP from 10 countries including Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Estonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Turkey. Albania, Croatia, Estonia, and Turkey are new countries for IPEN work.

In a like manner, RAPAM in the Latin American region utilized pre-existing networks to find NGOs for activities including Health Care Without Harm (HCWH), Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), IPEN, and the Red de Acción sobre Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas en América Latina (RAPAL or PAN Latin America). These networks and other contacts produced 16 NGOs working on IPEP in ten countries including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

In Southeast Asia, SEAPEN reached out to NGO contacts in the PAN Asia Pacific network and Waste-Not Asia, and other networks involved in pesticides, wastes, incineration, environmental and sustainable agriculture issues. In addition, the hub utilized radio interviews that were broadcast in the Philippines and in some parts of Southeast Asia to discuss IPEP and the POPs issue. SEAPEN mobilized 38 NGOs in seven countries including Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand.

Eco-Accord, the EECCA hub, began a news service for Russian-speaking NGOs on chemical safety topics in 1999. By the time IPEP started, the service had 500 NGO subscribers who had already been exposed to topics such as POPs and the Stockholm Convention. Eco-Accord mobilized both experienced and new NGOs in 10 countries; Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. The IPEP project in the EECCA region involved the participation of more than 200 NGOs.

Occasionally there were communication problems between hubs and NGOs in the region. Sometimes this resulted from changes in the NGO staff functioning as regional project coordinators resulting in delays in project execution.



33


Replication of similar activities speeds implementation
Several projects such as the global egg sampling encouraged NGOs in different countries and regions to submit similar Project Activity Memoranda (PAMs) which helped produce uniform results and sped up the process. Another benefit of this approach was building global and regional cooperation, especially on cross-cutting issues and had the benefit of allowing the entrance of new NGOs to do projects which could be replicated from country to country. It also brought new information about country specific problems into the regional body of work.





Importance of face to face meetings
The smooth implementation of IPEP was made possible by several key face to face meetings. The hubs and global project manager met several times together and with representatives of UN agencies. The first meeting was to help plan the Project; the second meeting was to discuss implementation and to answer questions before starting. Several additional meetings were held to assess implementation. Additionally, the global project manager visited all eight regions to have meetings with the hub NGO and other NGOs in the region. These interactions proved essential for establishing key information and operating practices and building relationships between IPEN and the UN agencies, and between hubs and the global project manager. Although the project budget did not call for this number of face to face meetings, extra-budgetary resources were found to supplement the original budget in order to enable them.





Importance of hubs
Establishing or enhancing regional and NGO coordination and communication in support of POPs elimination and chemical safety was an important Project goal. It was achieved and proved to be a key to the success of IPEP. All the hubs effectively reached out to NGOs in several countries, assessed their strengths and weaknesses, helped them participate in IPEP by developing activity ideas, and monitored their progress throughout the course of the two years. The hubs also provided translation facilities and acted as a distributor of important information. IPEP hubs often also helped enable NGOs to participate in activities strengthening Convention implementation in their countries. One hub calls this the "activity magnification effect" of the hub structure and describes its impact as unprecedented. Finally, hubs helped many NGOs in their regions obtain financial support to continue their work. During IPEP implementation, the hubs took on coordinating and communications roles in their regions in support of POPs elimination and chemical safety efforts above and beyond those required by the project. These roles and the regional relationships established during the project are no longer dependant upon this or any project, a key component of the sustainability of the IPEP project.



  Annex 1.













Version: 2.0 (January 10, 2007)