Summary of the Fourth Session of the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety: 1–7 November 2003^*

IFCS GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES: On Sunday, President Cavalcanti presented the proposed amendments contained in the IFCS Guidelines and Procedures (15w) to Plenary, noting that they concern the Regional Roles and Responsibilities for Vice Presidents (15w Annex 1) and Guidelines for National Focal Points (15w Annex 2). The matter was revisited in Plenary on Friday, when delegates considered and adopted the revised proposed amendments.
     Regional roles and responsibilities for Vice Presidents: On Sunday, delegates requested clarification regarding the phrase “having in mind the special features” of regions or subregions. Delegates also discussed how the Vice Presidents will organize regional efforts concerning the election of Forum Officers and FSC members. On Friday, the Secretariat presented revisions to the amendments and the document was agreed with minor editorial changes.
     Final Decision: This contains amendments to the guidelines outlining the roles and responsibilities for the Vice Presidents. The amendments include:

• having in mind the specific institutional and administrative framework of each country when fostering good intersectoral contacts through the region/subregion;
• organizing regional efforts for election of Officers and FSC members in accordance with IFCS Terms of Reference and general guidance from the President; and
• working in close collaboration with the National Focal Points in the region, with assistance from the Executive Secretary as required.

• each government should have a single National Focal Point identified through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or as appropriate, to act as a conduit for communication on IFCS activities, and the IFCS President and Executive Secretary will be in communication with governments to ascertain their position with regard to the nomination;
• the National Focal Point should report at least once a year on progress in the implementation of the Priorities for Action and other relevant matters, and the Secretariat will propose a reporting format in consultation with governments;
• the Secretariat should be advised of any changes by the respective Ministry or Department where the National Focal Point is located, or by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as appropriate; and
• the government representative attending each Forum session is requested to inform the Secretariat, upon registration, of any new National Focal Point designation.

On Sunday, President Cavalcanti presented his Progress Report, outlining progress achieved in the implementation of the IFCS Priorities for Action Beyond 2000. He highlighted the Report’s proposals to the SAICM process, including: adding new chemicals and vulnerable groups; defining the life-cycle concept; considering interfaces with other bodies such as the Chemicals Weapons Convention; and revising Priority F on illegal traffic to encompass trade and drug trafficking. He suggested creating French and Spanish websites to enhance information exchange, and called for greater developing country participation, particularly in risk reduction programmes and in the prevention of illegal traffic in toxic and dangerous products.
     On Tuesday, the Plenary discussed and many delegates congratulated Cavalcanti on his report. Switzerland and the Czech Republic raised concerns that the recommendations on the SAICM could predetermine discussions at the upcoming SAICM PrepCom1.

On Sunday, Georg Karlaganis, IOMC PRTR Coordinating Group, reported to Forum IV on progress in implementing Forum III goals on PRTRs/emission inventories, as requested by Forum III. He noted new national PRTRs in two regions and the establishment and upgrading of existing PRTRs. Karlaganis identified a legal framework requiring mandatory reporting as the most efficient way to organize work on PRTRs. He said the Coordinating Group proposed to continue raising PRTR awareness at the international level and to establish a clearinghouse for PRTR support activities.

This issue was included in the Forum IV agenda in response to a request from the CEE, IPEN and the International Network on Children’s Health, Environment and Safety. An FSC Working Group chaired by Vice President Ungváry met during the intersessional period to prepare the decision paper for Forum IV.
     Forum IV addressed this issue in Plenary on Tuesday morning, in an ad hoc Working Group on Tuesday evening, and again in Plenary on Thursday morning. The final decision was adopted on Friday morning.
     In Plenary on Tuesday, Jenny Pronczuk, WHO, presented a draft decision on Protecting Children from Harmful Chemical Exposures (14w), which received support from many delegations. Delegates stressed consideration of chemical exposures that can occur during preconception and throughout gestation, and proper labeling of consumer and pharmaceutical products. Delegates also identified the need to: train health professionals to diagnose and report environmental illnesses; address the underlying causes of children’s vulnerability; and educate parents about the safe use of household chemicals. Additional issues raised by delegates included: the risks posed by endocrine disruptors and tobacco; chronic poisoning from lead and arsenic; and the role of poison control centers in information dissemination.
     On Tuesday evening, an ad hoc Working Group, chaired by Michael Firestone (US), discussed the proposed actions outlined in the draft decision, including on the need to: prepare national assessments to provide a basis for developing action plans; develop mechanisms to facilitate collaborative research; and share information on ways to protect children from chemical risks where there is uncertainty. The draft decision was amended to include input from the Plenary and Working Group discussions.
     On Thursday morning, the revised text was taken up in Plenary and amendments were proposed and incorporated into the text. On Friday morning, the decision, contained in the Executive Summary of the Final Report (16w), was adopted without amendment.
     Final Decision: The final decision identifies the need to consider chemical exposures that occur during preconception, throughout gestation, infancy, childhood and adolescence. It recommends that governments prepare, through multi-stakeholder consultations, initial national assessments of children’s environmental health and chemical safety, and a progress report to Forum V. It requests the WHO to assist at least three countries in different stages of economic development in each region in preparing their assessment and action plans by 2006.
     The text also recommends that governments should, inter alia:

• promote education and training on children’s chemical safety with stakeholder support;
• commit to taking action to prevent or reduce exposure;
• consider the use of indicators and report to Forum V; and
• when setting acceptable levels or criteria related to chemicals, consider the potential enhanced exposures and/or vulnerabilities of children.

This issue was considered in response to Forum III recommendations relating to worker safety. Forum IV addressed it in Plenary on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, and in an informal group on Tuesday.
     On Tuesday, Patabendi Abeytunga (Canada) presented the decision document on Occupational Safety and Health Issues and the Work of IFCS (08w). The African Group proposed addressing poison centers, workers’ compensation, and women’s vulnerability. CEE urged consideration of illegal immigrants. The Asia and the Pacific Group proposed reference to ILO’s minimum employment age. A small informal group met that day to review the document.
     On Thursday, Abeytunga presented the revised document to Plenary. Poland called for reference to self-employed workers’ needs, and PAN urged training for all people involved with pesticide use. Vice President Ungváry recommended inserting a reference to hazardous chemicals management in the health sector.
     On Friday, delegates adopted the decision, contained in the Executive Summary of the Final Report (16w).
     Final Decision: The decision urges the ILO, WHO and FAO to strengthen collaboration in occupational safety, and relevant Forum participants to undertake actions on Programme Areas A (assessment of chemical risks); B (harmonization of chemical classification and labeling), C (information exchange), D (risk reduction programmes) and E (capacity building). Recommendations include:

• developing measures for the monitoring of workplaces and surveillance of workers;
• establishing roles and responsibilities of employers, employees and governments in reporting, recording, collecting and assessing data from workplaces;
• providing assistance for GHS development in the workplace;
• establishing a means of developing and updating internationally evaluated sources of information on chemicals in the workplace by IGOs;
• establishing new mechanisms to expand and update chemicalsrelated ILO Conventions and link them to other actions; and
• implementing ILO Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Systems with special attention to chemical safety.

This agenda item was included in response to a Forum III recommendation for improved global consistency and collaboration in hazard data generation. Forum IV considered this matter in Plenary on Monday, Thursday and Friday, and in an ad hoc Working Group, which met on Monday and Tuesday.
     On Monday, Vice President Bengtsson presented a proposal for an additional Priority for Action and a set of proposals for concrete actions contained in the decision and information documents on Hazard Data Generation and Availability (09w and 09w Annex). The EC highlighted its new regulation on Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH). The African Group stressed the importance of safety data sheets containing safe waste disposal information, and suggested that provision of hazard data by industry become a legal obligation. Sweden and Germany requested developing a timetable for the proposed actions. WHO proposed acknowledging the relevant work of the IPCS. OECD expressed its willingness to work on hazard data generation. IPEN expressed concern about using OECD List of Non-Confidential Data on Chemicals, which, she said, does not balance the public’s right to know with commercial interests. Argentina stressed the need for an on-line repository to be free of charge and available in several languages. PAN identified the need to provide information on the active ingredients of products. Delegates agreed to establish an ad hoc Working Group on this issue.
     Chaired by Vice President Bengtsson, the ad hoc Working Group met on Monday and Tuesday. On the legal obligation for industry to report on hazard data, Bengtsson explained that the decision document allows for a range of instruments, including regulatory interventions. Citing high costs, some delegates opposed the proposal to translate Internet databases, but agreed that the international repository should be free of charge. On achieving a balance between the right to know and commercial interests, a participant suggested recommending that additional information be made accessible “according to the need to protect both community’s right to know and industry’s valid claims for the protection of commercial information,” while others said a reference to the validity of confidentiality claims would be sufficient. Other proposals made in Plenary were incorporated in the draft decision document.
     Bengtsson presented the revised document to Plenary on Thursday, and the Forum adopted the new Priority for Action in Plenary on Friday.
     Final Decision: Contained in the Executive Summary of the Final Report (16w), the Priority for Action on Hazardous Data Generation and Availability states that for all commercial chemicals, appropriate hazard information should be made available to the public, and other information should be accessible according to a balance between the public’s right to know and the need to protect valid confidential business information. The Priority for Action further encourages governments to establish national priorities for information generation on chemicals not produced in high volumes and to use appropriate measures to promote timely generation of hazard data.
     It also invites the OECD to have by Forum V, inter alia:

• established a detailed programme for an international repository on hazard information;
• agreed to timeframes for how industry will make accessible or generate hazard information for high production volume chemicals;
• established generally applicable guidelines on the respective roles of stakeholders;
• further harmonized data formats for hazard information;
• established recommendations on tiered approaches to screening information requirements for chemicals not produced in high volumes; and
• identified possible approaches for prioritization for such chemicals.

This issue was addressed in response to a Forum III request to the FSC to provide initial input on the extent of the problem of acutely toxic pesticides. Forum IV considered the agenda item in Plenary on Monday, Thursday and Friday, and in an ad hoc Working Group, which met on Monday and Tuesday.
     On Monday in Plenary, Cathleen Barnes (US) presented Acutely Toxic Pesticides – Initial Input on Extent of the Problem and Guidance for Risk Management (10w). She outlined the report’s key recommendations, including: prohibiting certain pesticides as a risk mitigation mechanism; expanding research on safer alternatives; and improving information, reporting and health systems. The Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) urged a ban on the use of extremely and highly hazardous pesticides. The Asia and the Pacific Group proposed supporting non-chemical methods of pest control and addressing stockpiles. The CEE Group outlined the problem of under-reporting of pesticide-related poisonings. WHO, Brazil and PAN said under-reporting should not be used to underestimate the problem of acute poisonings. Noting that CropLife International (CI) understated poisonings in Thailand by misinterpreting data, Thailand questioned CI’s scientific credibility.
     In the ad hoc Working Group, delegates agreed on a provision suggesting that governments and stakeholders consider “liability and compensation issues,” but opinions diverged on its placement. Delegates decided to forward this decision to the Plenary.
     On Thursday, Barnes presented the revised draft to the Plenary. On the prohibition or restriction of availability of pesticides, CI proposed dividing the provision into two parts. He said this would permit the application of the precautionary approach to restrict availability of pesticides based on hazard classification, while allowing for pesticide bans where there is evidence of poisoning incidents. Australia expressed concern that requiring evidence of poisonings may restrict governmental action. The EC, Brazil, Thailand, PAN, FAO and others highlighted that CI had agreed to the language during the Working Group’s discussions, and opposed the proposed amendments.
     On liability and compensation, the EC, supported by Sweden, IPEN and Uganda, said that reference to these issues were useful and should be left in the document. Kenya proposed mentioning industrial and informal sector workers in pesticide production. Madagascar proposed raising public awareness on the risks of reusing pesticide containers. The Russian Federation, supported by Switzerland, suggested a broad interpretation of the concept of acutely toxic pesticides. The text was agreed upon, with the reference to liability and compensation.
     On Friday, the Plenary adopted the revised decision contained in the Executive Summary of the Final Report (16w).
     Final Decision: The decision recommends that governments take various actions to reduce pesticide-poisoning incidents, including policy, regulatory, and communication actions. Recommended policy actions include:

• implementing relevant agreements;
• prioritizing pest management in national development strategies; and
• basing national decisions on pesticides considering their intrinsic hazards, anticipated local exposure and conditions of use.

• promoting integrated pest management and research on alternatives; prioritizing the use of pesticide formulations suited to their conditions of use;
• substituting acutely toxic pesticides with safer alternatives;
• ensuring appropriate labeling, application equipment and packaging; encouraging industry stewardship;
• establishing or enhancing national systems of surveillance and reporting on poisonings;
• avoiding the build up of obsolete pesticides stocks; and
• prohibiting or restricting the availability of acutely toxic pesticides and/or pesticides associated with severe poisoning incidents.

Delegates considered and adopted decisions on two issues under this agenda item: capacity building assistance; and addressing the widening gap among countries in following chemical safety policies.
     CAPACITY BUILDING ASSISTANCE: This issue was considered in response to a Forum III recommendation that the FSC should review assistance to countries on capacity building support. Forum IV addressed this matter in Plenary on Monday, Thursday and Friday.
     On Monday, Matthias Kern (Germany) presented the Information Exchange Network on Capacity Building for the Sound Management of Chemicals (INFOCAP) – Report to Forum IV (3 INF). Kern outlined next steps identified in the report, including the need to raise awareness and facilitate participation, revise the promotional strategy, and develop French and Spanish websites. Thailand proposed the inclusion of national profiles on the INFOCAP website.
     On behalf of Roy Hickman, FSC Working Group Chair on capacity building assistance, Kern presented the decision document Assistance for Capacity Building Report for Forum IV (11w) to the Plenary on Monday. GRULAC and the Asia and the Pacific Group emphasized the importance of developing national chemical profiles as a basis for action. Many countries encouraged the integration of chemical safety into poverty reduction strategies, and Sweden emphasized the importance of project ownership.
     A revised list of recommendations to be included in the Final Report (16w) was discussed in Plenary on Thursday morning. China emphasized the value of bilateral cooperation to capacity building and Kenya stressed the need to urge the ILO to develop compensation mechanisms for workers poisoned by chemicals. The amended text, included in the Executive Summary and the annex of the Final Report (16w), was agreed in Plenary on Friday.
     Final Decision: The recommendations in the Executive Summary invite the private sector and civil society to participate in efforts and encourage: recognition of the importance of sound management of chemicals in poverty eradication; promotion of dialogue with international development assistance institutions; and integration of chemicals issues into all relevant activities.
     The annex on capacity building assistance counsels IFCS participants to, inter alia: ensure adequate capacity for the sound management of chemicals; disseminate chemical management success stories; and integrate chemicals management into other environmental management programmes. It counsels countries and stakeholders to take full advantage of existing funding opportunities; strengthen bilateral capacity-building efforts; apply a multi-stakeholder approach; and consider defining financial mechanisms. The annex counsels the IOMC and other IOs, to: use the momentum of existing chemicals-related multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs); develop training centers and ILO guidelines on compensation in the case of worker poisoning; and strengthen the integration of sustainable development and chemicals issues into all relevant activities. Furthermore, the annex recommends that the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) integrate all chemical safety related agreements into the 2002 DAC guidelines of the Integration of Rio Conventions in Development Cooperation by 2004.
     ADDRESSING THE WIDENING GAP AMONG COUNTRIES IN FOLLOWING CHEMICAL SAFETY POLICIES: This issue was considered in response to a proposal by Iran at the 44^th FSC meeting to address the widening gap among countries in implementing chemical safety policies. Delegates discussed this issue in Plenary on Monday, Thursday and Friday, and in an ad hoc Working Group that met on Monday.
     In Plenary on Monday, Rashid Bayat Mokhtari (Iran) presented Addressing the Widening Gap among Countries in Following Chemical Safety Policies (12w), highlighting obstacles faced by many developing countries in meeting chemical safety requirements. He stressed the need to strike a balance between developing further policies and helping countries that have lagged behind with regard to chemical safety policies. He proposed that Forum IV request the FSC to establish an ad hoc Expert Group to promote systematic ways to strengthen the sound management of chemicals in countries with implementation challenges.
     On Monday evening, the ad hoc Working Group, chaired by Mokhtari, discussed the proposal for an ad hoc Expert Group, including possible elements of a system for strengthening chemicals management in countries with an expressed need. Working Group participants discussed the role of the FSC in establishing the ad hoc Expert Group, reviewing implementation of the system, urging donor countries to provide funding, and reporting back to Forum V.
     On Thursday morning, the revised proposal was taken up by Plenary. Mokhtari highlighted amendments to the text, which: elaborate on the role of the proposed ad hoc Expert Group; emphasize the National Profile Process; and enhance FSC’s monitoring role. On the activities of the proposed Expert Group, Mokhtari said the Group would not create a new system, but would advise countries with problems implementing existing chemicals agreements. On Friday morning, the decision, contained in the Executive Summary of the Final Report (16w), was agreed with a minor amendment.
     Final Decision: The final text identifies the need to bridge the wide gaps that exist between developed and developing countries in their ability to pursue chemical safety policies. It explains that the Forum will establish an ad hoc Expert Group, including interested observers, to propose a systematic way to strengthen the sound management of chemicals in countries with an expressed need. The decision requests the FSC to decide on the Group’s modalities.
     It mandates the Group to propose a system by which a government could avail itself of available expertise. It also proposes possible elements of a system, including:

• listing states that face greater challenges in implementing chemical safety policies;
• taking stock of the available capacities, for example, as identified through the National Profile Process, and demands of countries seeking support;
• preparing an indicative survey of circumstances and challenges faced by developing countries and countries with economies in transition in implementing chemical safety policies;
• facilitating visits to states; and
• recommending actions on chemical safety to the requesting government and/or IOMC organizations.

This matter was first addressed in a dinner workshop on Sunday on the opportunities and challenges of implementing the GHS. A draft GHS Action Plan was presented to Plenary on Tuesday, and an informal working group chaired by Kim Headrick (Canada) met during the week to address revisions to the document.
     On Thursday, delegates considered a revised draft in Plenary. Many delegates expressed support for the draft Action Plan, although many also raised concern about the 2008 target and the transition period for global implementation. Germany and Switzerland underscored their support for capacity-building activities to this end. Trinidad and Tobago questioned how the GHS would address the issue of confidentiality. Thailand called for more regional workshops and pilot projects, and China proposed a data bank to enable quick access to information.
     On Friday, the Secretariat presented the GHS Action Plan, noting that it was attached as an annex to the Final Report. Delegates agreed that the text should be contained in the Executive Summary of the Final Report (16w).
     Final Decision: The decision comprises preambular and operative sections. The preambular section, inter alia:

• reaffirms the WSSD recommendation that all countries are encouraged to implement the GHS as soon as possible with a view to having the system fully operational by 2008;
• notes the importance of minimizing the transition period to global implementation;
• welcomes the framework work-plan of the WSSD GHS Partnership;
• emphasizes that GHS implementation has become a top priority for capacity building in developing countries and CEITs; and
• encourages developing countries to integrate chemical management into national poverty reduction and sustainable development strategies.

The operative section of the decision, inter alia:

• invites UNITAR and ILO to develop a roster of GHS experts by end of 2004;
• encourages the WSSD GHS Partnership to aim for specific capacity-building targets on the development of GHS awarenessraising materials, and regional and national GHS capacity development; and
• invites the FSC to submit a progress report to Forum V.

The issue of illegal traffic was first raised on Sunday in Plenary during consideration of the provisional agenda, when Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, with Thailand, Bangladesh, many Latin American countries and IPEN, called upon Forum IV to address illegal traffic. The issue was discussed in an ad hoc Working Group that met on Wednesday, and considered in Plenary on Thursday and Friday.
     On Wednesday, the ad hoc Working Group, chaired by Abiola Olanipekun (Nigeria), discussed a draft resolution on illegal traffic proposed by the African and GRULAC Regional Groups. Some delegates noted slow progress in implementing relevant Forum III recommendations, and suggested that the FSC should address this problem. Developing country delegates called for the identification of the reasons for slow progress, while others advocated focusing on the way forward. Referring to UNEP’s status report on this issue (9 INF), UNEP highlighted a lack of political will as a key reason for slow progress. Delegates also discussed whether the convening of a working group by UNEP should be “subject to available resources,” and considered the need to take action and assess capacities and activities at the national level, with one participant suggesting pilot studies to this end.
     On Thursday, Olanipekun presented the revised draft resolution to Plenary. Senegal noted that preventing illegal traffic depends on resource availability. Switzerland and Zimbabwe proposed highlighting the importance of the World Customs Organization’s work on this issue. Thailand emphasized that member countries should actively support the Forum’s recommendations in IOMC governing bodies.
     On Friday in Plenary, delegates agreed to reiterate the urgency of taking actions at the national level in accordance with recommendations of Forum III. The resolution was adopted with this amendment.
     Final Resolution: In the resolution, contained in Executive Summary of the Final Report (16w), the IFCS:

• invites UNEP to take the lead in initiating the actions requested at Forum III;
• calls upon governments and organizations to provide technical and financial resources;
• invites IOMC governing bodies, in particular UNEP GC, to consider adopting a decision on the prevention of illegal international traffic; and
• requests UNEP, on behalf of the IOMC, to report to Forum V on the implementation of this decision.

This issue was considered in response to decisions SS.VII/3 and 22/4 IV of the UNEP GC. Delegates discussed the Forum’s input to SAICM PrepCom1 in Plenary throughout the week. The final report was adopted on Friday afternoon.
     On Monday morning, William Sanders (US) presented the SAICM Forum IV Thought Starter on Gaps in the Bahia Declaration and Priorities for Action Beyond 2000 (13w), noting that its purpose is to stimulate discussion on identifying gaps in chemicals management policies and their implementation. Delegates addressed: the importance of national inter-agency coordination for chemicals management; the need to consider financial mechanisms and technology transfer to implement relevant agreements; and SAICM’s potential role in mobilizing resources and coordinating regional activities. Underscoring the goal agreed to at the WSSD to achieve, by 2020, the use and production of chemicals in ways that minimize adverse effects on human health and the environment, IPEN recommended that governments use the SAICM as a tool to reach that goal.
     On Tuesday morning, Regional Groups presented their input. WEOG recommended discussing governance and priority setting at SAICM PrepCom1. CEE recommended that the SAICM address the life-cycle of chemicals, preferably through a legally-binding instrument, and foster information exchange on the risks of chemicals throughout their life cycle. GRULAC highlighted the need for: synergies among chemical conventions; application of the precautionary principle; and measures to address the illegal trafficking of chemical products. She urged increased technical and financial assistance and the development of national profiles and priorities. The African Group called for: a broader scope for technology transfer and financial assistance; the development of clean technologies; corporate responsibility; and application of the precautionary and polluter pays principles. He also recommended a legal framework to address illegal trafficking. Asia and the Pacific suggested that the SAICM address the need to prevent polluting industries from migrating to developing countries, and recommended preventive measures and regulatory mechanisms.
     On Tuesday afternoon, delegates addressed gaps in the Bahia Declaration and the IFCS Priorities for Action Beyond 2000. Sweden, supported by many, urged the integration of chemicals management into poverty reduction and development objectives. Highlighting the life-cycle approach, IPEN and others stressed the need to address wastes. Senegal urged strengthening capacity to respond to chemical emergencies. Mexico, Kenya and others called for consideration of synergies between chemicals-related conventions. The Czech Republic advocated the development of mechanisms to phase out the most dangerous chemicals. Norway, supported by Switzerland, called for references to multi-stakeholder involvement, the precautionary approach, chemical substitution, and corporate responsibility. Thailand suggested addressing technical and financial assistance, and harmonization of the classification and labeling of chemical products. Iran proposed addressing the development of a global mechanism for responding to chemical disasters, the migration of polluting industries to the developing world, and chemical dangers resulting from war. Argentina noted that the SAICM should build on existing mechanisms to achieve chemical safety. The International Council on Mining and Metals emphasized the need to consider the benefits of chemicals.
     On ways to improve assistance, Senegal reiterated the importance of training and, with Mexico, recommended evaluating existing assistance efforts. The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) supported developing measurable indicators for success. Australia recommended exploring the potential of GEF funding. On strategies for chemicals management, the Dominican Republic called for changes in production practices and, with PAN, called for information on product toxicity. Madagascar proposed defining global criteria for the selection of countries requiring financial assistance. Jamaica suggested linking food safety and chemicals management. Delegates’ comments were integrated into a compilation document.
     On Thursday afternoon, Sanders introduced the revised Forum IV Report to SAICM PrepCom1 (13w revised), re-emphasizing that the revised report, or “Thought Starter,” was not a negotiated text but a compilation document that incorporated the viewpoints expressed in Plenary on Tuesday.
     On “addressing current implementation gaps rather than adding to the current list of priorities,” IPEN and others questioned whether merely addressing implementation gaps will be sufficient to achieve the WSSD 2020 target. Norway underscored the need to address gaps in policy integration and coordination and, supported by others, the need to consider new priorities and set concrete timetables to achieve targets, including the WSSD 2020 target. WWF stressed that the precautionary principle is a cornerstone for chemicals management, while Japan recommended emphasizing the importance of a science-based approach. ICCA suggested recommending that governments promote IFCS recommendations in relevant IOMC governing bodies. UNEP suggested emphasizing the importance of enhancing national-level coordination.
     On gaps in strengthening integrated approaches, IPEN noted the lack of an overarching framework for preventive measures and called for clearer articulation of the precautionary principle. On the establishment of risk reduction programmes, Zimbabwe suggested a reference to public health practitioners and integrated vector management programmes. Regarding hazard and risk assessment and management, Norway identified the need to investigate the risks posed by persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals not covered by the Stockholm Convention.
     Kenya recommended stressing the role of responsible journalism and lobbying groups in information exchange. The Russian Federation called for focusing on other groups of chemicals in addition to workplace chemicals, and on chemical risks to the environment. WHO suggested emphasizing the need to establish and strengthen poison control centers. Switzerland and others suggested deleting text on addressing heavy metals under existing policy instruments, stating that the language is too limiting and that new instruments may be needed in the future. In addition to heavy metals, Denmark, supported by Switzerland and others, said attention should be given to endocrine disruptors and substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic, reprotoxic, persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic. Norway suggested elaborating a reference to principles such as corporate responsibility, multi-stakeholder involvement, and the substitution of hazardous substances with alternatives posing less risk.
     On Friday morning and afternoon, the Plenary took up the revised Forum IV Thought Starter Report to SAICM PrepCom1. Germany, supported by Nigeria, Australia, Sweden, Norway and ICCA, urged drawing more attention to Forum IV decisions, including the decision on illegal traffic. WWF, supported by Denmark, Finland, Australia and Sweden, recommended maintaining a balance between addressing implementation gaps and adding to the current list of priorities. Denmark, supported by Finland, Sweden, Austria and Spain, urged governments to identify their priorities for managing carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins, in addition to endocrine disruptors, heavy metals, and persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals. Egypt reiterated the need to address illegal traffic in hazardous substances, products and wastes. On the need to strike a balance between developing further policies and helping those who lag behind to catch up, IPEN, supported by Australia, Iran and others, suggested reflecting in the text that this opinion is widely shared. Sweden, supported by Norway, Switzerland and IPEN, said cost benefit analyses should reflect the drawbacks as well as the societal benefits arising from chemicals use.
     On gaps in taking effective preventive measures with regard to health, Slovenia, supported by IPEN, and opposed by Australia and Japan, called for a reference to the precautionary principle. Delegates adopted the revised Forum IV Thought Starter Report to SAICM PrepCom1 (13w Revision 3) with several amendments.
     Final Text: The Report contains a preface, a summary, and sections on: centrality of chemicals in a modern world; life-cycle management of chemicals since Agenda 21; new and ongoing challenges; chemicals management regimes; gaps in life-cycle chemicals management; resources for capacity development and implementation; and increased coordination and linkages. It also contains an overview of the main discussion points raised in Forum IV, and an annex containing tables that identify key themes in the Bahia Declaration and Priorities for Action Beyond 2000.
     The summary clarifies that the Report is a compilation of issues and not a negotiated document. It says that the need for developing countries to “catch up” with developed nations in their capacity to manage chemicals is fundamental, and that the time has come to strike a balance between developing further policies and helping those who lag behind to catch up. It acknowledges that some countries stressed that preference should be given to addressing gaps in the implementation of current priorities, rather than adding to the current list of priorities, while other countries stressed the need to consider new priorities and set concrete timetables to achieve existing targets, such as the WSSD 2020 target. The Report notes that some delegates emphasized the need for a fundamental change in the way chemicals are managed and for benchmarks against which to measure progress toward achieving the WSSD 2020 target.
     The Report contains a section on the Centrality of Chemicals in the Modern World, which, inter alia, states that in addition to the benefits of chemicals, there are also unintended costs.
     The section on the Life-Cycle Management of Chemicals since Agenda 21 says, inter alia, that the key issue facing all nations is to ensure that chemicals are produced, transported, used and disposed of throughout their full life-cycle within a sustainable development context.
     The section on New and Ongoing Challenges calls attention to several Forum IV decisions. There are subsections on: the increasing global chemical output; the developing world’s increasing share in chemical production and consumption; and the changing “mix” of chemicals produced in developed countries.
     The section on Chemicals Management Regimes refers to various international efforts to improve chemicals management.
     The section on Gaps in Life-Cycle Chemicals Management contains subsections on: gaps common to developed and developing countries; developing country gaps; gaps in legally-binding international instruments and their implementation; stakeholder gaps; and obstacles and enablers.
     The section on Resources for Capacity Development and Implementation has subsections describing how current finance sources are largely MEA-based, and how a “mainstream” resource model could promote broad-spectrum gains.

The section on Increased Coordination and Linkages highlights developing country concerns about the number of international initiatives and agreements, and the resulting burden on human and financial resources. It says the international community has identified the need for coordination and linkages among chemicals management programmes. The Report also identifies the need for governments to carry forward IFCS recommendations to the IOMC governing body organizations for effective implementation.

REVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING: On Friday morning, delegates considered the Final Report (16w) comprising the Executive Summary, which contains an introduction that is yet to be drafted and decisions on:

• children and chemical safety;
• occupational safety and health;
• hazard data generation and availability;
• acutely toxic pesticides;
• capacity building;
• the GHS Action Plan; and
• the prevention of illegal international traffic in toxic and dangerous products.

• WEOG: US as Vice President; Australia, Canada and Germany as FSC members;
• CEE: Russian Federation as Vice President; Slovenia and Kazakhstan as permanent FSC members, and Croatia and Poland as alternates;
• GRULAC: Chile as Vice President; Suriname and Costa Rica as permanent FSC members, and Cuba and Bolivia as alternates;
• Africa: Tanzania as Vice President; Zimbabwe and Guinea as permanent FSC members, and Mauritius and Mauritania as alternates; and
• Asia and the Pacific: the Philippines as Vice President; Fiji and Iran as FSC members, and Japan and China sharing the FSC membership.

Forum IV comes at a point when new challenges presented by the WSSD and new opportunities provided by the anticipated entry into force of the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions urge many to think about how the international chemicals agenda should be developed. This analysis will discuss whether Forum IV demonstrated that IFCS is well positioned to respond to these new developments. It will consider the strengths and the weaknesses of the Forum, as well as the factors that can affect its future role in the international arena.

Many perceive that the Forum retains a unique position within the international chemicals regime as an overarching and flexible forum capable of both initiating and responding to innovative policy proposals. Since its creation, many emphasized that the Forum could provide the opportunity for new ideas to be discussed by all stakeholders, including NGOs and donor agencies, as partners. As in previous Forums, many participants, including those with a more limited voice in other international chemical processes, reiterated their appreciation to the IFCS for providing an opportunity for stakeholders to express their positions and have them reflected in both IFCS agenda setting and recommendations. Both NGOs and donor agencies alike note that the Forum is unique in that it enables them to communicate directly with chemicals experts and government officials, and work on integrating chemicals into the wider sustainable development agenda.
     The openness of the Forum to innovative ideas remains a key strength, as evidenced by the adoption of Iran’s initiative to address the widening gap between countries in implementing chemical safety policies. Several delegates emphasized the significance of a developing country’s leadership on this initiative. Many expressed that this initiative indicates that developing countries are optimistic about the Forum’s future and are assuming the responsibility of moving forward on their priority issues. Moreover, this initiative capitalizes on the Forum’s ability to develop synergies, identify gaps and prevent duplication between existing agreements.
     The Forum also has a valuable umbrella role in placing important new issues on the chemicals agenda. For example, Forum IV addressed the issues of occupational health and safety, children and chemical safety, and the development of an action plan on GHS. Furthermore, the IFCS provided recommendations on acutely toxic pesticides that move beyond the information system provided for under the Rotterdam Convention toward a more comprehensive acute pesticides management regime. Activities like these provide direction for the development of chemicals-related agreements, and set the directions for addressing new hazardous chemicals beyond the scope of existing multilateral environmental agreements.

Despite the optimism generated by these developments, several delegates noted that, in order to be effective in the future, the Forum needs to consider not only its strengths, but also its current limitations, particularly with regard to its implementation capacity and financial clout. The slow progress on illegal trafficking demonstrates the need for recognition that the Forum’s recommendations, however progressive and innovative, need strong political support from governments and institutions with tangible implementing power. There was optimism following Forum III’s decision to address illegal trafficking of toxic and dangerous products – an innovative and much needed initiative. However, the lack of intersessional progress disappointed many developing country delegates who felt that, while developed countries have the resources to ensure that their concerns are prioritized on the agenda, developing countries’ priorities had been sidelined.
     Indeed, whether the Forum will advance its recommendations into practice depends primarily on the follow-up activities undertaken, the existence of champions willing to push certain issues forward, and the prioritization of issues by donors. Some argue that the disappointment of developing countries should not be directed at the Forum itself, especially since the Forum has no implementation power. Instead, there is a need to place the issue of illegal traffic high on the agenda of the IOMC governing bodies, which have both the financial and technical resources necessary to take real action on this issue.
     Another issue that needs to be addressed is Forum attendance. While the IFCS has had growing attendance and receives continued praise for its participatory nature, the diversity of delegations can still be improved. Many delegations, especially from developing countries, consisted predominantly of health and agricultural officials, and lacked support of environmental officials who are more active in the international chemical conventions and could provide important input to the Forum’s attempts to create more coherence and synergies. Donor agencies could also be more active at future Forums, and a plea to donors to engage in the Forum’s discussion was reiterated by several delegates.

While some successes of the Forum, such as the advances in capacity-building initiatives, suggest an important role for the Forum in the international chemical arena, many have started thinking if the Forum in its current form will have an influence in the changing chemical landscape, where responsiveness to the WSSD targets and SAICM will be important factors affecting the relevance of international processes like the IFCS.
     It is indisputable that the future of the IFCS will be tied closely with the SAICM process. While it was considered by some that discussions on the role of the Forum regarding the SAICM might be premature, discussions held at Forum IV indicated that re-assessing the Forum’s mandate and role might be needed in the foreseeable future. Some ideas to this end were already voiced at Forum IV, demonstrating that there are divergent views on the future direction of the IFCS. On the one hand, stakeholders who use the IFCS as a unique forum where they are represented as partners, rather than merely observers, would like to see the development of a stronger, more institutional role for the Forum. On the other hand, many delegates said that the openness and flexibility of the IFCS could be damaged if the IFCS were to be institutionalized, and cautioned against “reinventing the wheel.” They pointed out that while many institutions already exist, the Forum remains unique because of its informal setting.
     The Forum may also need to re-evaluate its role in the broader context of implementing the WSSD outcomes. One of the most important determining factors in Forum’s future may be whether or not the Forum can take the lead in moving toward the WSSD 2020 target to achieve the use and production of chemicals in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and the environment. However, Forum IV’s discussions on the WSSD 2020 target were considered by some delegates to be rather limited. Many felt that the deliberations on how to move further toward achieving the WSSD’s goals, particularly relating to the life-cycle approach to chemicals management and the need to address the management of wastes, should have been much more prominent on Forum IV’s agenda. Some referred to the absence of key champions for the issue as a reason for the fact that the consideration of concrete timetables to reach the WSSD 2020 target were not taken up. In fact, a suggestion by an NGO to discuss the potential for the IFCS to take on a monitoring role and evaluate progress towards achieving the WSSD 2020 target was dismissed as too ambitious and far beyond the current mandate of the Forum.
     Like Forum III three years ago, Forum IV concluded on a relatively optimistic note, having made advancements on some important issues, including the GHS, addressing the widening gap and acutely toxic pesticides. But the lack of financial resources and the Forum’s timidity in addressing some of the developments that attract the most interest, including WSSD chemicals-related targets, left many questioning how the Forum will keep up with advancements in other international fora. The fact that some delegates kept their cards under the table on the possible role of the IFCS in the SAICM has disappointed some, who felt that the Forum has missed an opportunity to provide space for a more dynamic and open multistakeholder dialogue on the SAICM. Nevertheless, on the whole, Forum IV demonstrated that the IFCS does have a unique role to play and can exercise political, and even “spiritual” power, in advancing the international chemical dialogue.