IFCS/FSC/06.47 rev1
73RD FORUM STANDING COMMITTEE TELECONFERENCE
7 NOVEMBER 2006
MEETING REPORT
PARTICIPANTS
Member: Officer/Government/Organization
Participants & Co-workers
President:
Hungary
Dr Z. Szabó

Vice-Presidents:
Africa:
Tanzania
Prof. J. Katima

Nigeria
Mrs A. Olanipekun

Iran
Mr S.A. M. Mousavi

Slovenia
Dr Marta Ciraj
Mrs Karmen Krajnc

Suriname
Dr J. De Kom

Argentina
Mr G. Entenza

Switzerland
Dr G. Karlaganis

United Kingdom
Ms Jane Stratford

Past President:
Thailand
Dr S. Wibulpolprasert
Africa Region:
Burkino Faso
Prof. Abdouraman Bary

Zambia
Mr M. Musenga

China
Ms Yu Fei
Republic of Korea
Dr Kyung-Hee Choi

Thailand
Dr R. Wisarutwet
Dr D. Hongsamoot

Belarus
Dr I. Zastenskaya

Latvia
Mr A. Ludborzs

Brazil
Ms Sergia Oliveira
Chile
Austria
HE Carman Hertz
Mr Osvaldo Alvarez
Dr T. Jakl


Germany
Ms M. Luxem

USA
Ms Hodayah Finman
Mr J. Shoaff


"Co-worker"
Asia & Pacific:
CEE:
"Co-worker"
LAC:
"Co-worker"
WEOG:
"Co-worker"
Asia & Pacific:
CEE:
LAC:
"Co-worker"
WEOG:
"Co-worker"
-1-
Participated
Absent






IOMC
Chair, IOCC:
"Co-worker"
NGOs
UNEP
Dr M. Younes
IOMC Secretariat
Dr T. Meredith
Ms C. Vickers
Industry
Ms K. Kunzer, ICCA

Public Interest
"Co worker"
Dr R.F. Quijano, PAN
Mr G. Wiser, CIEL

Labour
Mr B. Erikson, ICFTU
Science
Dr L. Corra, ISDE
IFCS Secretariat:





Unable to connect
Dr J.A. Stober

Dr M. Gubb

Other Participants
SAICM Secretariat
UNEP
-2-
IFCS/FSC/06.47 rev1
1.
Opening
The President welcomed members and participants to the teleconference.
2.
Acceptance of Agenda (IFCS/FSC/06.45)
The Agenda was adopted as proposed.
3.
Acceptance of Record of 72nd Meeting (IFCS/FSC/06.44)
The draft record of the 72nd FSC meeting was accepted.
4.
FSC - designation of representatives status report
The Secretariat informed the FSC that letters requesting official designations had been send to
Ministers of Foreign Affairs in the governments concerned by the 3 rd week in October 2006. To date
official designations had been received from Austria and the USA.
The Secretariat also informed the FSC that the President had written to the IFCS Vice Presidents
suggesting that each in his capacity as a regional IFCS Vice President, invite the SAICM Regional Focal
Point to participate in the FSC teleconferences and meetings. This would serve to establish and strengthen
a good working relationship between the IFCS, SAICM implementation and the ICCM. It will also be
very helpful for IFCS in its work to support the implementation of SAICM in this critical period. The
Vice Presidents had responded positively to the suggestion and to date G. Entenza, SAICM Regional
Focal Points for LAC and J. Stratford, SAICM Regional Focal Points for WEOG had responded
positively. A response from A. Olanipekun, SAICM Regional Focal Point for Africa was being processed.
5.
Forum V Follow-up
5.1
Bringing forward Forum V recommendations to CSD and IGO governing bodies
The President referred members to the IFCS Terms of Reference1 (TOR) which state:
16.
Reports
The Forum shall consider and adopt a report at each session embodying the recommendations
adopted. A statement summarizing minority views will be included when appropriate. Reports
will be distributed to all participants in the Forum and, through appropriate channels, to the
Commission on Sustainable Development and to the governing bodies of the IOMC
participating organizations.
7.1 There shall be a Forum Standing Committee to:
(g)
coordinate transmittal of IFCS reports and information to the UN Commission on
Sustainable Development, as appropriate;
He proposed in his capacity as the IFCS President to send the Final Report of Forum V to the CSD
Secretariat, noting that chemicals will not be addressed on the CSD agenda until 2010, and to write to
the Executive Heads of the IOMC organizations transmitting the final report and requesting that the
report and relevant recommendation be brought to the attention of the organization's Governing Body.
This is the process that has been used previously. The FSC agreed to the proposal.
1
Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety Terms of Reference, Forum III Third Session of the
Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety Final Report, Annex 1 (IFCS/FORUM III/23w, 20 October 2000)
http://www.who.int/ifcs/documents/forums/forum3/en/annex1.pdf
-3-
The President said that Hungary, as the host Government of Forum V and the current President of
IFCS and a member of the UNEP GC, intends to submit through its appropriate channels to UNEP
The Budapest Statement on Mercury, Lead and Cadmium for distribution at the upcoming 24th
session of the UNEP Governing Council (GC) to be held 5-9 February 2007. Given the place the topic
has on the UNEP GC agenda and the outcome of the Forum discussions it was important that the
Budapest Statement be brought to the attention of the UNEP GC via a separate communication. He
expressed hope that Finland, as the current EU President, would support submitting the Budapest
Statement to the UNEP GC.
In response to questions, it was clarified that individual government would be submitting The
Budapest Statement on Mercury, Lead and Cadmium to the UNEP GC, not the FSC.
A number of FSC members expressed support for the President in his capacity as the IFCS President
sending the full Forum V Final Report to the CSD and Executive Heads of the IOMC participating
organizations and in parallel the Government of Hungary and other countries, particularly developing
countries, taking action to submit The Budapest Statement on Mercury, Lead and Cadmium to the
UNEP GC. The FSC agreed to this dual track approach. The President encouraged other governments
to make available their documents on mercury, lead and cadmium to the UNEP GC to enrich the
discussions.
5.2
WG on Future of IFCS
The President introduced the agenda item. Forum V established a WG on the future of IFCS. The FSC
members are members of the WG, but the FSC was not requested to "oversee" the work as part of its
work. The mandate of the WG is given in the Forum V Resolution on the Future of IFCS:
"….. to prepare a draft decision, inter alia through teleconferences, email and other
communication aids, on the future role and functions of the IFCS, including options for its
institutional arrangement and consideration of a joint secretariat with SAICM, mindful of the
need to avoid duplication, its possible relationship to the ICCM, and its contribution to the
implementation of the SAICM, for consideration at Forum VI."
The Resolution further specifies that
"…… membership and participation in the working group shall be limited to the members of
the Forum Standing Committee (or the designee of a member of the Forum Standing
Committee), and that the five regional SAICM focal points (or the designee of a region
through the SAICM focal point) shall also be invited to participate as members of the working
group," .
SAICM Regional Focal Points have been invited to participate in the WG; to date one (1) regional
focal point has responded to the invitation: Gonzalo Entenza, LAC SAICM Regional Focal Point,
accepted the invitation to participate.
-4-
IFCS/FSC/06.47 rev1
The President stated that in order to prepare a "draft decision", the WG will need to consider the
process for carrying out the work, the questions to be addressed and what background & supporting
information should be provided. Concerning the process for carrying out the work, a date or time
frame for convening the 1st meeting/teleconference should be considered as well as the need for the
WG to possibly create subgroups to address specific issues and questions. Concerning the convening
of WG meetings, the president sought input on whether they should be held in conjunction with FSC
teleconferences (e.g. back to back) or separately.
The President said he was seeking input from the FSC on convening the WG. Initial input is
requested from the FSC during today's teleconference and then additional suggestions are invited to
be submitted in writing.
The FSC had an open discussion on the matter. 2 G. Karlaganis said he had sent the FSC agenda to the
IFCS WEOG National Focal Points and other WEOG contacts and had received input from Denmark
on this agenda item. He read the text sent by the Danish Ministry of the Environment (Annex 1). He
said Switzerland welcome the action by the IFCS VPs to invite SAICM Regional Focal Points to
participate in FSC meetings and teleconferences as this showed that the two processes could work
together and be mutually supportive. J. Katima said the matter was too difficult to adequately discuss
without a working paper and asked the President and Secretariat to prepare a document for the next
FSC teleconference. H. Finman said the first step should be to focus on a work plan and time frame
and asked the secretariat to prepare a first draft. In addition as a Thought Starter for the first WG
meeting, existing background documents could be compiled such as the Forum V Resolution, the
Forum V Thought Starter on the Future of IFCS, US Government paper submitted to Forum V. O.
Alvarez, K-H. Choi, S. Mousavi and others supported the proposal.
O. Alvarez raised the issue of electing a WG Chairman, Vice Chairman and possibly a facilitator to
help the decision making process. Questions concerning the process for electing WG Chair and cochair were raised. Several members expressed the view that as the WG is an IFCS WG, the IFCS
President would chair the WG and a SAICM Regional Focal Point could be invited to co-chair. As a
point of information, the Secretariat referred to the IFCS TOR which state "… ad hoc Working
Groups shall apply, mutatis mutandis, the rules of procedure adopted by the Forum." (para 13.
Procedures) A number of FSC members stated that they were not prepared to consider the matter at
this time. It was agreed to discuss the matter at the next FSC teleconference.
M. Gubb informed the FSC that the proposed date for ICCM2 was 11-15 May 2009 and that this
would need to be confirmed by the UNEP Executive director and WHO Director General.
The FSC agreed
 to request the President, Vice Presidents and Secretariat to prepare for the first WG meeting a
draft work plan and time frame for the WG and Thought Starter listing existing background
documents and distribute these documents to the FSC by 15 December 2006;
 the 1st meeting of the WG should be convened immediately following the next FSC
teleconference.
 to discuss the election of WG Chair, co-chair and possible facilitator at the next FSC
teleconference.
2
M. Musenga's intervention could not be heard due to a poor quality connection. He was requested to send his
comments to the President and other FSC members in writing via email.
-5-
6.
Forum VI
6.1
Topics for future forum
G. Karlaganis introduce the agenda item. He noted that the list comprises topics for more than one
session of the Forum and a selection process was needed for those to be included in the Forum VI
agenda. He suggested the FSC consider early on the organization of plenary sessions and provide
guidance on the distribution of time in plenary sessions. He recalled that a number of countries at
Forum V supported the idea of devoting 2 or 3 days at Forum VI to one topic to be able to address it
in depth with the remainder of the time allocated in brief sessions (e.g. 90 minutes as was done at
Forum V) to other topics. He proposed that FSC members who are interested in supporting a topic for
inclusion in the agenda prepare a brief proposal, as the lead sponsor, on the issues to be addressed and
how. The FSC could review the proposals. He stated that the guidance from the FSC should be carried
out in an open and transparent manner and that he would solicit input from WEOG IFCS NFP and
colleagues and invite them to submit proposals through him or individually. He said Switzerland
would prepare a proposal on nanotechnology noting that others may also be interested in doing so.
J. Katima asked for clarification on what a lead sponsors responsibilities entailed and expressed
concern that some topics important for a region may not get sponsored. G. Karlaganis explained that
the lead sponsor approach was the adopted normal procedure of volunteers proposing and preparing
topics for sessions of the Forum as described in the IFCS and FSC TOR. H. Finman proposed to
include the Topics for Forum VI on the next FSC agenda to discuss what are the most important items
for the Forum to address and not to invite sponsors at this stage. She expressed the view that the
Forum V discussion was a "brainstorming" session on the matter. J. Shoaff expressed the view that it
was too early to narrow the list of topics by asking for lead sponsors; the FSC should initially discuss
the full list.
The President suggested that a list of the most important questions for each topic be compiled as a
means of facilitating the work. He suggested that the secretariat in cooperation with G. Karlaganis
prepare a paper detailing this and the available scientific information, socio-economic and health
information. The Secretariat said that it did not have the capacity to undertake such work and said that
such a task would not follow the adopted IFCS working mechanisms. She referred to the FSC TOR
which state "The Forum Standing Committee will guide the process of development of meeting
materials and documents following the practice of lead country/sponsor/organization approach to
preparing materials for agenda items." The FSC TOR further states "Except for the President who, as
an independent chairperson acts in accordance with the recommendations of the Forum as a whole,
members of the Forum Standing Committee will serve as conduits for the views of participant
countries in their respective IFCS regions or respective NGO or IGO constituency." This was based
on the IFCS participatory mechanism of operating.
M. Luxem proposed that the FSC members provide input on each of the topics on the list to collect
information on the ones considered the most important. After considering the responses, the next step
would be to consider sponsorship.
The FSC agreed that the Secretariat in cooperation with G. Karlaganis should prepare a questionnaire
to solicit the views of the FSC on the list of topics for the future Forum session. The following time
schedule was agreed:
 1 December 2006 - draft questionnaire distributed to FSC for input
 8 December 2006 deadline for FSC providing input on draft questionnaire
 15 December 2006 final questionnaire distributed to FSC
 4 weeks prior to next FSC completed questionnaire to be submitted to Secretariat (1 February
2007)
-6-
IFCS/FSC/06.47 rev1
6.2
Scheduling - host/venue, date
The Secretariat referred to the Guidelines and Criteria for Selection of Hosts adopted by Forum IV
which state "The honour of hosting a Forum meeting is entrusted by the Forum Standing Committee
(FSC) to a country.. ". At Forum V, the Government of Senegal confirmed its interest and offer to
host Forum VI in Senegal. The Secretariat and IFCS VP African Region have communicated and
held discussions with the representative of Senegal to ensure the government is informed on the host
government requirements and responsibilities as well as the process for submission of an official
proposal. In order to ensure adequate planning and organization time for Forum VI, the Secretariat
asked the FSC to consider a time frame for taking a decision so that this information could be
conveyed to the Government of Senegal and proposed that the matter be discussed at the next FSC
teleconference. The FSC agreed.
7.
SAICM Implementation - update
M. Gubb provided scheduling information for the regional meetings: EU-JUSSCANNZ will be held
20-22 November 2006 in Barcelona and CEE will be held 4-6 December 2006 in Riga. It was hoped
that funds would become available to hold regional meetings for Asia-Pacific and LAC early in 2007.
The Quick Start Programme Trust Fund Implementation Committee met 18 October 2006. The
Committee approved 2 million USD for 8 projects in 20 countries, adjusted the guidelines for projects
and set the deadline for the next round of proposal submission in mid April 2007.
8.
Other Business
The President asked the Vice Presidents to inform the FSC on how each planned on making
connections to the SAICM Regional Focal Points on a day to day working basis in addition to inviting
the SAICM Regional Focal Point to participate in FSC meetings and teleconferences. As a number of
the Vice President's were not on the teleconference at that time, the President asked the Secretariat to
write on his behalf to each of the Vice Presidents to request the information.
9.
Next Meeting
The next FSC teleconference is scheduled for 1 March 2007.
(Note from Secretariat: meeting date changed to 2 March 2007)
-7-
ANNEX 1
Chemicals Conventions and
Pesticides
Dr Georg Karlaganis
IFCS Vice President, WEOG region
J.nr.
Ref. momwe
November 6 2006
Dear Dr Karlaganis
Denmark has the following comments to the proposed agenda for the Forum Standing Committee
Teleconference on 7 November 2006.
Item 5.2. WG on Future of IFCS
Denmark would like to stress the importance for the IFCS to adapt in the light of the adoption of
SAICM. It is important that the Working Group is guided in its work. Some guidance was provided in
the decision taken at IFCS Forum V, but it was not quite sufficient in our view.
SAICM invited the IFCS to be an open, transparent and inclusive forum for the discussion of mutual
interest on new and emerging issues. We agree that the focus should be on new and emerging issues,
to maintain and strengthen the IFCS as a technical and scientific forum, where policy plays a minimal
role.
It is important that the Working Group is very much aware of the need to avoid overlap with SAICM
and to keep a close working relationship with SAICM. We therefore see administrative merits in
merging the secretariats, but have no problem with the WHO still playing a dominant role.
We further find that the IFCS could continue to play an important capacity building role for
developing country and transition country representatives, and a forum where the NGO’s speak with
an equal voice. These characteristics of the IFCS should be maintained.
Finally, we would like to refer to the proposal brought forward by Finland at Forum V, proposing a
leaner structure for IFCS. The new IFCS should be more open and transparent than the old. Efficiency
is also important, especially in the light of fewer resources expected to be available to IFCS. We
would therefore prefer a relatively small executive board to steer the IFCS between Forum meetings,
replacing the Forum Standing Committee. This should be discussed by the Working Group.
We thank you for this opportunity to comment on the agenda and look forward to following the
process of reforming the IFCS.
Yours sincerely
Mona Westergaard
Senior Advisor on International Environmental Issues
-8-