Implementing the Stockholm Convention

1. Implementing the Stockholm Convention - ways forward David Piper Task Manager (POPs enabling activities) UNEP DGEF

2. “Enabling Activities” National Implementation Plan Annex A exemptions register Exemptions review after 5 years. Extensions for further 5 years HCB permits expire after 10 years; extension possible COP to review PCB elimination every 5 years PCB reporting DDT register & reporting DDT in disease vector control review at CoP1 & each 3 years Review of DDT in closed systems after 10 years CoP to review progress of release reduction every 5 years CoP1 guidance on BAT, BEP Action plan with NIP + review every 5 years 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 The reporting schedule (Principal technical areas only)

3. NIP deadline for review at COP3: 31-Dec-06 SE extension requests 12 months before COP before expiry Convention enters into force; 50 Parties + 90 days = 17 May 2004 ‘Article 15 Report’ for review at COP5 31-Dec-10 Scoping paper for global monitoring DDT review in 2007 FM review + Procedure for costing NIPS DDT review In 2010 COP1 COP3 COP5 COP2 COP4 2007 2011 2004 2009 2006 2005 Reporting and reviewing COP1 decisions GEF4 GEF3

4. The costs of compliance Determining the costs and benefits of meeting Convention obligations will involve: • Comparing • the social, environmental and economic costs and benefits of alternative approaches against the present situation • Determining • the best approach – or combination of approaches - to meet Convention obligations • Identifying • who will meet the costs and implement activities An iterative approach between NIP inventories, objectives, priorities and action plans

5. Description of present situation Statement of objectives & obligations Agreed priorities based on national policies & needs Assessment of alternative approaches and methodologies, their costs and benefits Implementation strategy; a Portfolio of agreed ‘sector’ or ‘stakeholder’ plans Step 2 Step 3 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Action Plan – basic constituents

6. Shape v. Size: Where do we place NIP inventories in this matrix?

7. Preliminary national inventories Priorities and national objectives The Stockholm NIP process Action Plans for NIP Objective setting Focused inventory Basel PCB management guidance Treatment assessment Disposal Inventories & Action Plans - PCBs ‘Broad but shallow’, identifies priorities but not scale or detail ‘Narrow and deep’; prepares for technical specification for disposal

8. Article 13: Incremental costs • The EXTRA costs associated with doing things the way the Convention requires, rather than the way you are doing them • Need to know current costs in order to calculate • Need to be able to predict new costs • Calculate a ‘unit abatement cost’

9. GEF: opportunities • US$ 250 million allocation in GEF3 • US$450 million for GEF4? • Potential for major & costly projects beyond other individual grant donors • Country driven • Linked to needs identified in the NIP • Public Operational Programme with set objectives and targets • linked to advice from the CoP

10. GEF: things to be aware of • Lengthy project cycle • 2-4 years to start a full-size project? • Unclear incremental cost calculations • GEF funds the ‘global element of new and additional costs’ • Concentration on new and innovative rather than ‘investment’? • Council & CoP priorities may differ • Cofinancing difficulties & donor fatigue • 1:1 if < $5m from GEF, 1:5 if > $5m from GEF • How long will chemicals be ‘in the spotlight’? • Resource Allocation Framework • Allocations based on country potential to generate global benefits + country performance

11. Other sources of funding:always needed • Bilateral • Link NIP actions to development and assistance strategies • ‘Why should we fund this project if you haven’t shown it as a priority in our planning?’ • National • Link Stockholm objectives to other policies & strategies • incorporate Stockholm objectives into normal Government business • Industry initiatives & Public-Private Partnerships • Seeking private capital to increase total investments

12. Secretariat UNEP DTIE including Chemicals UNEP Division of GEF coordination US$865 x 106, of which US$ 444 x 106 from GEF, since 1991 US$258 x 106, of which US$80 x 106 from GEF, in 2004 POPs portfolio Capacity Building c.60 POPs enabling activities NIPs for Brasil & Russia Global Needs Lab & analytical needs Demonstrations DDT alternatives (with WHO) Plant protection without POPs (with FAO) Introducing BAT/BEP Implementation PCB management (with Basel Secretariat) UNEP in the Stockholm family

13. The basis of a good project • Clear priority from the NIP • Practical and viable objectives • Country/regional support & involvement • Competent executing agency • Realistic budgets and timescales • Secure ‘consortium’ finance • Clear path to sustainability

14. Concluding remarks • Importance of defining priorities & realistic actions + clear and transparent costs • Including more detailed planning • Actions identified under NIPs not necessarily for ‘chemical managers’ • Stakeholder engagement and commitment • A variety of funding mechanisms is needed • Some eligible for development finance, linked to national assistance strategies, others for ‘regular budgets’ • Opportunities to work regionally on shared issues? • UNEP ready to assist regionally and nationally

15. Thank You David Piper Task Manager (POPs enabling activities) UNEP DGEF dpiper@chemicals.unep.ch