IFCS/FSC/02-05
FORUM STANDING COMMITTEE
40th Meeting/Teleconference. 26 February 2002
Summary Report
1. CALL TO ORDER
PRESIDENT
2. ROLL CALL
CONFERENCE SERVICE
Members: Officer/Government/Organization
Participants & Advisors
President
Brazil
Mr H. Cavalcanti
Vice-Presidents
Africa
Asia & Pacific
Senegal
Japan
LAC
WEOG
Past President
Ecuador
Sweden
Canada
Mr N.C. Sylla
Mr T. Yamamoto
Mr J. Yoshida
Prof. G. Ungvary
Dr A. Hudak
Ingeniera M. Bolanos
Dr G. Bengtsson
Mr R. Hickman
African Region
Nigeria
Mrs A. Olanipekun
Asia & Pacific
China
Ms Wang Ji
Central & Eastern Europe
Russian Federation
Slovenia
Prof. B. Kurlyandskiy
Ms Darja Bostjancic (alt for Mr
A. Grabner)
LAC
Trinidad & Tobago
Mr D. Roopnarine
WEOG
Australia
Mr P. Burnett
Germany
Prof. U. Schlottmann
Dr M. Kern
USA
Dr W. Sanders
Mr D. Strother
Ms M. Ricciardone
IOMC
UNITAR
UNEP
Head, IOCC Secretariat
IOCC
Mr A. Halpaap
Mr J. Willis
Dr T. Meredith (WHO)
Dr K. Gutschmidt (WHO)
Industry NGO
ICCA
Mr G. Lloyd
Public Interest NGO
PAN
Dr R. Quijano
Mr J. Weinberg (EHF)
Forum IV host
Thailand
Ms Pornpit Silkavuth(for Dr Vichae Chokevivat)
Executive Secretary
IFCS Secretariat
Dr J. Stober
Mrs R. Kirkby
Ms J. Rae
IUPAC(Science NGO)
Rep. of Korea
IUF(Labour NGO)
Iran
Honduras
Madagascar
Prof. W. Klein
Mr Y. Ahn
Mr P. Hurst
Mr S.R.T. Shafiei
Mr M.A.A. Casco
Mrs M. Rahelimalala (unable to
connect)
Central & Eastern Europe
Apologies:
Absent:
Hungary
IFCS/FSC/02-05
3.
INTRODUCTION
3.1
President´s Introductory Remarks and Welcome to Participants
The President welcomed participants and introduced four new members - Mr. Achim
Halpaap, new IOCC Chair and IOMC representative on the FSC; Mrs Abiola Olanipekun,
Ministry of the Environment, representative for Nigeria; Mr. Seyed R.T. Shafiei, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs representing Iran and Prof. Dr. Werner Klein, IUPAC, who replaces Dr.
Heinz Behret as representative for Science NGO, effective 1 January 2002. He also indicated
that official notification of appointment has been received for Mr Ndiaye Sylla, Vice
President, African Region, who was introduced at the 27 November 2001 FSC
teleconference.
3.2
Adoption of Agenda (IFCS/FSC/01.92)
The President proposed that item 4.3.1 UNEP – Strategic Approach to International
Chemicals Management, Report on outcome of Global Ministers of the Environment Forum,
be discussed first immediately after item 3.3. The agenda was agreed as altered.
3.3
Acceptance of Record of the 39th Meeting (IFCS/FSC/01.91)
The President invited comments on the draft meeting record. There being none, the record
was accepted.
4.3
NEW ISSUES
4.3.1 UNEP – Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management: Outcome
of Global Ministers of the Environment Forum (Cartagena, Colombia 13 –15
February 2002.)
The President informed members that he had met with Mr Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director
UNEP, Mr Jim Willis, Director UNEP Chemicals and Mrs Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel,
Director, UNEP Division of Technology, Industry & Economics in Cartagena before the
Global Ministers of the Environment Forum (GMEF) meeting. They reviewed the recent
exchange of letters and reached a mutual understanding on procedural issues as well as
expected goals. He introduced Mr. Willis and invited him to report to members on the
outcome of the GMEF.
Mr. Willis referred members to the draft decision that went forward from the Committee of
the Whole to the GMEF plenary. The Decision was adopted as drafted. He reviewed the
document pointing out the importance of statements referring to the linkages between work
related to chemicals/Chapter 19 and hazardous waste/Chapter20 (Basel Convention) and
noted the explicit recognition of the importance of integrating strategically work on
chemicals and other priority issues such as sustainable development and technology transfer.
He observed that such strategic links might provide new synergies between chemicals and
the other issues. For example, the work on chemicals might be able to benefit from the
resources going into sustainable development and those working in the chemicals area may
be able to influence the sustainable development agenda.
2
IFCS/FSC/02-05
Mr Willis pointed out that the decision endorses the Bahia Declaration and Priorities for
Action as the foundation for the Strategic Approach. He noted in particular the decision
items which request the Executive Director, UNEP, to carry out an assessment process and
then ‘together with IFCS and IOMC, to convene an open-ended consultative meeting of all
stakeholder groups…to contribute to the further development… of a strategic approach to
international chemicals management.’ He reviewed the remainder of the document and
invited questions.
In response to a request from PAN (R. Quijano) for more information on how the
consultation process would be accomplished, Mr Willis indicated that no discussions had
taken place yet. There were no resources in the current UNEP budget to act on any of the
items mentioned in the decision document. UNEP has estimated that a total of $ US
500,000-1,000,000 will be required to implement the Decision.
EHF (J Weinberg) enquired whether the consultation was planned for before or after the
WSSD. Mr Willis stated that the general thinking was that it would not be good to plan the
open ended consultation before WSSD. Germany (Prof. U. Schlottmann) asked for
clarification on how the GMEF decisions were to be incorporated into the WSSD process.
Mr Willis replied that the process was uncertain and that the IOMC organizations had
previously made an unsuccessful attempt to have the Chapter 19 Task Manager’s report
included in the progress report on Agenda 21 prepared for WSSD. UNEP will nonetheless
put forward to PrepCom III the decision text on the strategic approach and other text on
UNEP’s contribution to WSSD. During the GMEF, Switzerland presented chemicals-related
text it intended to bring forward at the next PrepCom.
The President indicated that Pakistan had suggested during the Meeting that the request to
the WSSD contained in the Decision be also presented to the PrepComs. The President noted
there would be opportunities for further input in the process leading up to the WSSD, such as
PrepComs III and IV. JUSCANZ plus others had presented text to PrepCom II on chemicals
which was not included in the Chair’s report and that proposals could be taken up again for
PrepCom III.
Canada (R Hickman) expressed concern about the resource requirements for the consultation
process requested in the GMEF decision and asked if there were any thoughts as to how the
3 entities, UNEP, IOMC and IFCS, might work together to raise the required funds. Mr
Willis said that he planned to send out a fund-raising letter, but that at present there were
insufficient funds for even an early assessment process. In addition, UNEP has had a 30%
budget cut - or $ US 1.2 million - this year eliminating any discretionary funds. He indicated
that his top priorities must be focused on the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions and that
he would deal with the UNEP GC decisions as remaining time and resources permit.
Members discussed how IFCS could consider participating with UNEP and other IOMC
organizations in developing plans for the open ended consultation. Canada observed that
UNEP consults with governments whereas the IFCS audience was much broader and could
assist in encouraging stakeholder participation. ICCA (Mr G Lloyd) commented that the
language used in the GMEF decision item 6 was similar to that in the initial decision
documents on POPs that led to a consultation process coordinated by the IFCS. He wondered
if the consultation referred to in item 6 might be part of the Forum IV programme. Mr
Willis asked if the Forum was prepared to spend the entire week on the topic. Canada
3
IFCS/FSC/02-05
suggested holding the consultation not as part of Forum IV but back to back would reduce
costs.
The President suggested that the initial discussions could take place during the IOMC
meeting in June. ICCA and Sweden (G Bengtsson) agreed that the first step should be an
analysis of basic information. Sweden observed that the consultation could then take place possibly in 2003. He said that the Cartagena decision should be a high priority for the IFCS
along with follow up on the Priorities for Action. EHF observed the enormous overlap
between the Decision on the strategic approach and the IFCS mandate and that IFCS should
continue to be the institution where new ideas were developed. The President reminded
members that the Strategic Approach extends beyond chemicals – there are overlapping and
additional themes. ICCA observed that the result of the Cartagena GMEF was similar to the
approach the FSC had agreed in Trinidad and Tobago.
Sweden proposed that a working group be formed to analyse the Cartagena decision and
identify which recommendations fit with the IFCS mandate and which go beyond IFCS.
Following the analysis he proposed the group draft an action plan to be discussed at the next
FSC teleconference, which he suggested should be scheduled before May. The President
proposed that FSC members participating in the A3 Working Group meeting (in Ottawa,
Canada, 18 – 20 March) could discuss initially how the IFCS should proceed and report back
to the FSC. The proposed process was agreed.
EHF inquired if the ‘Topics for the Future’ working group could take on the work but
Sweden felt that the mandate was sufficiently different to warrant a new group with a
different set of participants.
The President thanked Mr Willis for his presentation.
Action: Sweden
4.
MONITORING PROGRESS
4.1
Priorities for Action beyond 2000
4.1.1 Priority F: Prevention of Illegal Traffic in Toxic & Dangerous Products
In a letter from then IOCC Chair Dr Takala dated 21 June 2001, the IOMC informed the
FSC that UNEP, on behalf of IOMC, had agreed to take the lead on Priority F item 1 and
that FAO and UNEP, on behalf of IOMC, will actively support the process recommended in
priority item 2.
The President reported that Mr. Töpfer has indicated to him that UNEP will provide an
update as soon as possible (letter dated 25/01/02). UNEP (Mr Willis) indicated that an
unsuccessful start on the work had been attempted one year ago, but broader representation
from IOMC and chemicals experts was needed. It was planned to integrate the work with
UNEP’s work on compliance and enforcement. He has since spoken with the respective
manager of the UNEP programme, and now feels that the work can proceed and funds may
now be available. He will provide further information at a later date and will return to the
FSC to invite IFCS participants to contribute to the work.
4
IFCS/FSC/02-05
4.1.2 FSC Working Groups

E4 INFOCAP
The Executive Secretary reported that the Planning Group continues its preparations for the
first meeting of the Steering Group to be held 2-4 May 2002 in Bonn, Germany. She
informed members that the Planning Group had unanimously nominated Dr Matthias Kern,
GTZ, as Chair of the Steering Group and asked the FSC to endorse the nomination. Dr Kern
has been intimately involved in the development of the proposal for the information
exchange network on capacity building since the concept first emerged, and has been active
as a member of the Planning Group in the development and implementation of the network.
The President invited comments.
Sweden and the US (Dr W Sanders) strongly endorsed the nomination and the remaining
members unanimously agreed. The President congratulated Dr Kern on his nomination. Dr
Kern thanked members for their support and said he was looking forward to taking up the
challenge.

A3 Working Group on Hazard Data Generation and Availability
The WG Chair (Sweden) reported that preparations were well underway for the next meeting
of the Working Group to take place 18-20 March in Ottawa, Canada.

D5 Working Group on Acutely Toxic Pesticides
The Executive Secretary reported that there were no items for FSC discussion/decision and
referred members to the Progress Report on the work which has been provided as an
information document. She invited members to contact the Secretariat or the WG Chair (US
– Mrs Cathleen Barnes) for more information.
4.2
Forum III Recommendations
The President asked if any new information was available on the work in response to the
Forum III recommendation on barriers to information exchange. The Executive Secretary
confirmed that there was nothing new to report. The President requested a report be prepared
for the next teleconference.
Action: US, UNEP
4.4

Regional Efforts
African Region
The VP (Senegal, Mr N Sylla) introduced his progress report on regional efforts
(ref:IFCS/FSC/02.03), informing members that an African Regional Conference is planned
for 3-5 July 2002, in Dakar, Senegal. The proposed budget for the conference is
$US100,000. Financial contributions received/pledged to date from Germany, Switzerland
and the US total $US 68,000. FSC Members were invited to review the proposal and agenda
and consider ways in which they can support the conference.
5
IFCS/FSC/02-05
Nigeria (Mrs A Olanipekun) proposed that the agenda for this conference include follow-up
to the WHO consultation on chemical safety held in July, 2001. She noted the that technical
and financial support offered by WHO was an important contribution to efforts in African
countries. She asked how the representatives of NGOs would be invited to participate and
whether they were to be invited by the NFPs or the VP. Mr Sylla proposed to discuss this
within the African group and consult with the Secretariat to find the best means.
PAN indicated that the NGOs in Africa which had been involved in the negotiations for the
Stockholm Convention would be interested in participating. EHF indicated that IPEN
participating organizations in Africa are planning an NGO conference on POPs 15-18 July in
Rooshia, Kenya. Mr Weinberg will send information on the NGO meeting to Mr Sylla and
will share Mr Sylla’s proposal with them. The conference organizers should communicate
with Mr Sylla to find ways to facilitate cooperation. Mr Sylla indicated that discussions with
the NGO community had started during the GMEF.
The President requested the FSC to examine the proposal in detail and contact Mr Sylla to
discuss any assistance members could provide.
Action: Mr Sylla , J. Weinberg, FSC

Asia-Pacific Region
Japan (Mr J Yoshida on behalf of Mr T Yamamoto) welcomed the plans for the African
conference. He observed that the agenda and topics of the conference will be useful to
consider in planning the Asia Pacific regional conference to take place in the fall of 2002.

WEOG Region
The VP (Sweden, Dr G Bengtsson) reported that a brief WEOG meeting to exchange
information had taken place in Paris on the side lines of the OECD Joint Chemicals Meeting.
It was agreed that the next meeting would be held in November 2002. The VP had received
requests to include more discussion and decision items in the agenda of future meetings.

CEE Region
The VP, Prof Ungvary, was no longer connected to the call. The Executive Secretary
reported that the CEE conference will take place in May as scheduled.
5.
Forum IV
5.1
Topics for the Forum’s Future Agenda (IFCS/FSC/02INF2)
The President introduced the item and invited the Chair (Sweden, Dr G Bengtsson) to lead
the discussion taking into consideration the outcome of the GMEF and the agenda for the
WSSD. The Chair provided a recap of decisions taken at the 38th FSC Meeting where it was
proposed that arsenic and fibres should be considered as topics along with the strategic
approach. The discussion was deferred at that meeting until the outcome of the GMEF
meeting in Cartagena could be considered. He commented that a renewed discussion on the
6
IFCS/FSC/02-05
topic of vulnerable groups, especially children, had arisen, referring specifically to the WHO
Conference on ‘Children and the Environment’ to take place the first week in March in
Bangkok, Thailand.
The Chair recommended that:

specific work on arsenic and fibres could be incorporated in a more general discussion,

that a general discussion on vulnerable groups (especially topics concerning children)
could be included in the Forum IV agenda. The discussion would not lead to a policy
decision, since there were insufficient resources to prepare the item to this extent, and

the ‘Topics for the Future’ item could be dropped completely to focus on the strategic
approach.
PAN supported the proposal to include vulnerable groups. ICCA commented that if the IFCS
were to be involved in the consultation process recommended in Cartagena, the Forum IV
agenda might have to be altered. He advised that the FSC should consider how to follow-up
on the Cartagena decision and how to incorporate it into the Forum IV agenda. The
President invited suggestions and asked the Executive Secretary for her advice.
The Executive Secretary suggested that:

a proposal be prepared for discussion at the next teleconference, and

FSC members participating in the A3 WG meeting in Ottawa hold side discussions to
develop an options paper on how to follow-up on the Cartagena decision and how to
structure the Forum IV agenda. The options paper could be circulated to the FSC and
most of the next meeting be devoted to a discussion on the topic.
The proposal was agreed. The President invited members, or their representatives attending
the A3 WG meeting, to join him for the discussions in Ottawa. The Executive Secretary will
contact Health Canada to discuss how arrangements for the discussions can be
accommodated. In order to facilitate discussions in Ottawa, Sweden offered to prepare and
circulate in advance to members for comment a list of proposed questions concerning the
Cartagena decision. The list will be sent in the next few days.
Action: FSC, Sweden
Nigeria referred members to the meeting document text concerning risk reduction initiatives
for chemicals other than POPs (Priority D3; IFCS/FSC/02INF2, Page 1, paragraph 4). She
proposed that rather than dealing with this topic in the context of a special session on
‘Topics for the Future’ IFCS could consider developing an inventory of ongoing risk
reduction initiatives for chemicals other than POPs as was done by UNEP for the POPs
negotiations. The inventory could be developed for Forum IV and maintained subsequently
as an information source. The Executive Secretary observed that the Secretariat could
passively collect information but had no resources to do this actively. Sweden commented
that the proposal fits with the development of a strategic approach and the identification of
gaps in the Priorities for Action and could be considered in that context. The President
indicated that the issue could be raised in regional meetings and that some regions already
have begun work on this topic. It was agreed that the FSC would give the proposal further
thought and discuss it at the next meeting/teleconference.
Action: FSC
7
IFCS/FSC/02-05
6. FINANCE
The Executive Secretary presented a status report on contributions and an estimate of
Twinning Funds required for 2002-2003 (ref: IFCS/FSC/02.04). She acknowledged
financial contributions and pledges made since October 2001 by Denmark, Netherlands,
Sweden and Switzerland to the Trust Fund, and by Germany and ICCA to the Twinning
Funds. In addition, in-kind contributions form Canada and Germany to the Trust Fund were
acknowledged. She reported that the current balance in the Government Twinning Fund is
$US 40,000 and in the NGO Twinning Fund $US 4,000. Estimated requirements for the
period 2002/2003 are up to $ 360,000 for the Government Twinning Fund and up to $
61,500 for the NGO Twinning Fund. She encouraged members to continue their fundraising efforts.
The President thanked the contributors for their support.
7. COMMUNICATIONS AND EVENTS
7.1

WSSD
Status Report on PrepCom II, 29 Jan – 8 Feb 2002
The President observed that the topic had already been discussed in detail under item 4.3.1.
He mentioned the very active participation in the meeting of Dr Morley Brownstein of
Canada. He added that the FSC should consider a strategy for PrepCom III, one of the
remaining challenges being to identify a cluster of ‘other issues’ (e.g., water quality, etc)
already incorporated into the WSSD working paper into which chemicals could be inserted.
At the request of EHF, the President asked that the US provide to members a copy of the
paper prepared by JUSCANZ for PrepCom II. ICCA commented that the language in the
paper reflected the language agreed at Trinidad & Tobago and that its content had likely
been overtaken by the Cartagena decision.
Action: US
The US suggested that for the WSSD event in Johannesburg, the FSC could approach the
WSSD Secretariat and propose that IFCS hold an information session on the Strategic
Management of Chemicals with presentations by NFPs and others. The President indicated
that proposals were being welcomed for PrepCom IV and Johannesburg sessions.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
The President invited members to present any outstanding issues.
Trinidad & Tobago (Mr. D Roopnarine) asked if IOMC could assist the work of the
Occupational Health & Safety Working Group by encouraging ILO to contact him regarding
the requested IOMC update on OSH activities. IOMC (Mr A Halpaap) advised that the
update would soon be available and that ILO should be contacted directly.
8
IFCS/FSC/02-05
9.
FUTURE FSC MEETINGS
In response to Sweden’s request to hold the next meeting before May, Tuesday 23 April was
proposed as the meeting date. The Secretariat will ask members by email to confirm their
availability and advise on the final agreed meeting date.
The President thanked members for their participation.
9