UNEP Advisory Group
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
Report of the First (on-line) Meeting
14 May 2014
I. Opening of the meeting:
1. The first meeting of the UNEP Advisory Group took place on-line on 14 May 2014 at 15.00
Geneva time and was opened by the UNEP secretariat. Being the first meeting, participants
were requested to introduce themselves.
2. Introduction of participants:












Riana Bornman: University of Pretoria; work in Africa is focused on DDT in malaria
and associated health and environment effects
R. Thomas Zoeller: University of Massachusetts; Biology Department; involved with
molecular studies, brain development and chemicals
Nina Hallmark: International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA); toxicologist;
endocrine disruption and chemicals; background of research in cancer, working with
animal models etc.
Bob Diderich: OECD; in charge of environment, health and safety program; also in
charge of the developing test methods for identifying EDCs
Poul Bjerregaard: University of Southern Denmark; been working on EDC for 20 years
Peter Korytar: Policy officer at the European Commission: responsible for EDCs;
working on the issue for the last 5 years
Christina Roden: Stockholm University, Department of Applied Environmental
Science: focus on regional aspects, test strategies and uncertainty management
Jane Muncke: Managing Director at International Panel on Chemical Pollution, a nonprofit organization; focus on science communication on chemicals; environmental
chemistry background; worked on chemicals mostly in aquatic environment for the
last 14-15 years;
Rikke Holmberg: Danish EPA; represents the EU; with EPA for 9 years; involved in EDC
and SAICM in general for 6 years
Steve Millington: Ministry of Health, Wellness and Environment of St. Vincent and
the Grenadines; pharmacist by training; works with the regulatory department
Derek Muir: University of Toronto; Environmental chemist; worked on the UNEP
WHO State of Science report; chemicals in commerce is an interest to him
Joseph Digangi (IPEN)- Biochemist, science and technical advisor to IPEN; involved in
SAICM since 2003.
3. Participants who were invited to become members of the Advisory Group but unable to
join the meeting were: Hans-Christian Stolzenberg (Federal Environment Agency Germany),
Ake Bergman (Stockholm University, Sweden), Susan Jobbling (Brunel University), Helmut
Segner (University of Bern), Caroline Njoki Wamai (Ministry of Environment and Mineral
Resources, Kenya) , Carolyn Vickers (WHO); Ludovic Bernaudat (UNIDO).
4. UNEP Chemicals Branch DTIE as secretariat to the Advisory Group is being represented by
Heidelore Fiedler and Desiree Narvaez.
II. Organization of work
5. The participants adopted the agenda of the meeting as set out in meeting documents
UNEP/AG/EDC 1.1 and UNEP/AG/EDC 1.2. In the absence of a chair, Desiree Narvaez chaired
the first advisory group meeting. Attention was drawn to the meeting documents: 5 in total,
plus 3 INF documents. For every meeting document there is a background note; in preparing
the meeting documents, UNEP drew on the ICCM resolution which mandated the issue of
EDC as an emerging policy issue based on SAICM criteria of impact, coverage, knowledge,
cross-cutting nature and deliverables. UNEP is also mandated to address the issue of EDCs as
part of its programme of work
III. Proposed terms of reference (TOR) of the Advisory Group (AG)
6. Meeting document UNEP/AG/EDC 1.3 on the draft TOR of the Advisory Group was
presented. It consisted of 3 parts: A: Structure and membership; B: Functions and
responsibilities; C: Meeting of the Advisory Group. Proposal is to have 20 members of the
advisory group which are to provide advice on the implementation of UNEPs activities; the
AG should have representatives from all stakeholders, UNEP invited the members through
the SAICM bureau members and identified individual members on basis of expertise,
previous work, and interest; consideration was given to geographical representation. The AG
has to decide on: length of membership, a chair, the TORs of the chair. UNEP will serve as
the Secretariat. In response to a question from the floor, it was clarified that the AG has
representatives from all relevant sectors that are represented in the SAICM bureau. The
International Council of Chemicals Association represented by Nina Hallmark of Exxon Mobil
represents industry.
7. The title and part A of the draft TOR of the Advisory Group was discussed




Peter: brought up the question whether the AG’s advice to UNEP is limited to the
issues of environmental exposure and impact of EDCs or whether also other issues
are to be addressed; the floor proceeded to discuss this issue upon invitation by the
chair
Jane: reiterated Peter’s concern; voiced her opinion that environmental exposure
and impact are established and implied; suggested the phrase “AG to advice UNEP
on its activities concerning EDCs” in general, rather than limiting the mandate to
environmental exposure and impact
Peter: voiced his support for Jane’s proposal
Poul: agreed; proposed to shorten the wording and just focus on EDCs














Joseph/Joe: Supported Jane’s proposal, since it allows more flexibility; regarding the
functions and responsibilities, simply stating EDCs will allow the group to operate
effectively
Christina: supported Jane’s proposal; drew attention to paragraph A.1. that will also
need to be changed
Heidi: supported Jane’s suggestion; should simply state that the AG advices UNEP
on EDCs; what is needed is advice on the work to be carried out by UNEP; need to
avoid duplication, particularly regarding the work done by the OECD and WHO
Derek: agreed with Heidi that there are potentials for overlap; asked for clarification
from Heidi regarding the specific wording
Heidi: it should read “Advisory Group on EDCs for UNEP”; reiterated the idea that
the scope would otherwise be too limited; it is an external advice to UNEP
Derek: voiced his agreement with Heidi’s comments
Jane: drew attention to paragraph A.1. clarified that to broaden the scope it is not
enough to revise the title, since paragraph A.1. would also need revision; noted
that A.1. mentions strategic and policy advice, but not scientific advice; identified
two options for re-phrasing: a) “provide scientific, strategic and policy advice” or b)
“provide advice”
Jane: voiced support for the wording “provide advice”, so as to keep it broad
Peter: Proposes to change A.1. to read “…advice on activities of UNEP on EDCs”;
raised the question whether technical issues are part of the work of the AG
Desiree: clarified that there is no formal mandate of the Advisory Group, it is a
request from UNEP to have a body to give advice on the implementation of its
activities
Jane and Christina agreed that the AG advises UNEP on approaches
Christina: identified the option of keeping strategic and policy advice and removing
the reference to environmental exposure and impact; alternatively: highlight that
this is a strategic and policy advice group but keep it broad by removing
“environmental exposure and impact”
Nina: regarding the discussion on strategic and policy advice, notes that the AG has
many members with technical knowledge and that this resource should be used;
noted that several wordings are possible, but proposes to a) remove “strategic and
policy”; b) add “technical”
Desiree: UNEP will re-draft the ToRs based on the floors comments and suggestions
and then circulate the revised version for the AG members’ and IOMC Partners’
review and invite additional comments; noted that there were no further comment
and proceeded to part B
8. Part B. Functions and responsibilities in the draft TOR of the Advisory Group was discussed

Desiree: clarified that the listed activities are suggestions from UNEP; the AG is
invited to explain their views, comment and advice on these







Joe: noted that part B could benefit from reflecting the ICCM3 consensus
resolution;
o Regarding B1., the group might consider the text of para 3a of the ICCM3
resolution; one way to reflect this wording in in B1 would be to rephrase as
follows: “The advisory group will provide UNEP and relevant stakeholders
with up-to-date information and scientific expert advice for the purpose of
identifying or recommending potential measures that could contribute to
reductions in exposures to or the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals,
in particular among vulnerable populations”
Christina: voiced her support for the text proposed by Joe
Desiree: invited further comments on the functions and responsibilities of the AG
Joseph: suggest to further add text reflecting the ICCM3 resolution
o Regarding B1. (iii): as the purpose if international support, the ICCM3
resolution identifies assessing issues in order to reduce risks; it might be
useful to add to ‘c’: “Capacity building in order to support decision-making,
including the prioritization of actions to reduce risks”; could add n
additional point ‘d’, e.g.: “Other matters requested of UNEP by regional
groups and/or national governments”
o Drew attention to para 6(d) of the ICCM3 resolution which is not reflected in
the ToRs; proposed language for B.3bis: “Provide guidance on the
development of case studies and advice on translation of research results
into control actions”
Desiree: noted that the ICCM 3 resolution has been the basis for the ToRs and
invited Joe to send his proposals for text by email
Rikke: going back to the discussion on A.1, asked the chair to clarify what has been
proposed/agreed; voiced her support for establishing the links to the resolution, but
noted regarding the last suggestion that it would be very difficult to transform the
advice to this group into control actions; raised her doubt whether this area should
be entered
Desiree: regarding A.1., clarified that many members suggested to delete
“concerning environmental exposure and impact” and rephrase as “Advisory Group
to UNEPs activities on EDCs”; noted that UNEP will revise the draft and then circulate
among the AG members and IOMC Partners and that the final text will be adopted by
consensus; proceeded to draw attention to the organizational structure and
institutional arrangements
9. The proposed organizational structure and institutional arrangements was discussed


Desiree: drew attention to the diagram on the proposed organizational structure;
noted that the purpose is for UNEP to get advice and benefit from the AG’s work;
there is a direct link between the AG and the stakeholders (governments, NGOs etc.)
Joe: drew attention to the issue of the Topic Expert Groups shown in the diagram;
voiced his concern that the identified Topic Expert Groups’ work overlaps; noted






that there would be greater coherence by keeping the group together, rather than
identifying Topic Expert Groups; proposed to decide on the establishment of
subgroups and leads on a case by case basis, rather than creating Topic Expert
Groups a priori
Desiree: noted that the diagram is a draft based on a recommendation of the
International Panel on Chemicals Pollution (IPCP) where UNEP contracted a work to
investigate needs regarding EDCs; the IPCP suggested these groups to address
existing gaps; the idea is for the expert to identify research gaps and establish specific
areas of work
Peter: asked for clarification on the Topic Expert Groups and its composition; sought
clarification whether the members of the topic expert groups will be recruited from
within the UNEP AG and whether the Topic Expert Groups are a part of the AG
Desiree: clarified that the Topic Expert Groups will be created based on the needs of
UNEPs work on EDCs; the core of the Topic Expert Groups could be recruited from
members of the AG, however, the AG could identify additional external experts as
needed; idea is for the Topic Expert Groups to identify a research gap or area of
work and work within a common topic or theme
Derek : agreed with Joe’s comments on the Topic Expert Groups; noted that there is
sufficient technical expertise in the AG; AG members could be leading or active in
one or more topic expert groups
Heidi: noted the difficulty that the EDC issue is relatively new on the agenda;
identified three mandates: the ongoing programme with the EU (ENRTP), the UNEP
Programme of Work, and the SAICM mandate; the SAICM mandate is directed to
three organizations; UNEP needs advice on its role; suggested not to define the
composition and the tasks of the Topic Expert Groups now; suggested that the AG
nominates experts as needs arise; the membership will have to be decided at a
later stage; the AG should advice UNEP on the best suitable composition
Rikke: voiced appreciation for the comments of Peter, Derek and Joe; noted that the
AG is composed of highly specialized experts and also includes government
representatives; voiced her doubt that it will be necessary to identify additional
experts, but appreciates the option; considers that the Topic Expert Groups may
not be established now
10. Part C. Meetings in the draft TOR of the Advisory Group was discussed:



Desiree: proposal is for the AG to meet at least annually
Rikke: proposed to change the language so that the AG would meet maximum once
a year
Derek: Opposed use of the word maximum; agrees that frequent meetings are not
desirable, but should reserve a certain flexibility; proposed to leave the text
unchanged; alternatively delete “at least” so it would read “will meet on an annual
basis”




Christina: concerned with the costs that will arise with frequent meetings
Derek: supported the idea of meeting once a year
Poul: Requested UNEP to prepare a list of AG members with a few words on their
background
Desiree: confirmed that UNEP will prepare and circulate such a list
IV. Report of UNEP activities on EDCs in 2013- 2014
11. Desiree: presented past UNEP activities as set out in meeting document
UNEP/AG/EDC 1.4. These activities were on the basis of UNEP commitment to ICCM 3
involving three inter-governmental organizations (UNEP, WHO, OECD); action points
were noted in the left column in relation to the workplan for activities in 2013 and
the first quarter of 2014
 Joe voiced his support for translation into all official UN languages; noted his
participation in two of the regional meetings, observation of the EDC workshops as
well as subsequent discussions; indicated that the workshops, questionnaires and
discussions were very well received and succeeded in informing participants, raised
awareness on and understanding of EDCs
 Peter: reiterated support for translation; asked for information on action point 6b
 Desiree: clarified that the questionnaire was sent electronically to the SAICM focal
points; purpose was to gather additional information on activities, awarenessraising, legislation etc. related to EDCs at country level; noted that no information
was received, however, the questionnaire was given to the delegates during the
workshops and valuable and substantive responses were forthcoming
 Bob: noted OECD participation in the workshops; participants were informed about
the OECDs activities (on testing and assessments) in relation to EDCs; emphasized the
need to integrate activities of the various organizations involved; highlighted that
more awareness raising workshops are necessary
 Heidi: supported Bob’s remarks; the needs of the audience, in particular the
availability of and access to funds, should be addressed; UNEP, WHO and OECD
should work closely together and integrate key messages, discuss how to strengthen
mandates
V. Review of UNEP workplan on EDCs in 2014
12. Desiree: presented UNEP’s work plan for remaining part of the year as set out in
meeting document UNEP/AG/EDC 1.5; drew attention to UNEP/AG/EDC INF 1.1
which is the ICCM 3 resolution on EDCs and UNEP/AG/EDC INF 1.2 which is the IOMC
work plan listing the activities to be conducted by UNEP, WHO and OECD; asked the
AG for comments and guidance on the work plan and activities; a face-to-face
meeting of the AG is envisaged in November 2014 and invited the members of the
advisory group to potentially host face-to-face meetings; noted the cooperation
between UNEP and WHO, with the former focusing on environment issues and the
latter on health components.
13. Joe: voiced his support for the work plan; suggested that the AG revisit the issues of
case studies; noted the relevance of the case studies mentioned in the resolutions,
with five having been recommended; noted that the resolutions passed during the
regional meetings extended an invitation to UNEP and WHO to develop a reportlike document on EDCs that is targeted to the needs of developing countries and
specific to the regions; highlighted the importance of funding in this respect;
invited UNEP and the AG to contemplate ways to reflect this invitation and how it
will be addressed in the future.
14. Desiree: drew attention to UNEP/AG/EDC INF 1.3 on outcomes of the regional
awareness raising workshops. UNEP conducted awareness raising workshops on EDCs
back-to-back with regional SAICM meetings; resolutions were adopted in three
regions (LAC, Africa, Asia-Pacific); noted that no resolution was adopted at the
regional meeting in CEE but region expressed interest on the issue ; noted that
regional requests could be included in UNEPs Programme of Work; noted that funds
have to be raised in order to address requests made by the 4 regions.
15. Participants were invited to make additional comments
 Steve: indicated that he will still need time to familiarize himself with the process
 Riana: pointed out that the Africa region now understands their vulnerability and
needs for capacity; voiced her support to the idea of raising funds to implement
activities on EDCs; suggested to start with awareness raising via press reports etc.
 Peter: commented on the issue of awareness raising; noted that the ICCM3
highlighted the need to provide information and advice to raise awareness; the
website needs to become operational; noted that a lot of EDC related activities are
ongoing in the EU and the US and suggested for these to be placed on the website;
asked the floor to contemplate on next steps and priorities and to reflect the needs
arising in the coming years
 Joe: suggested that setting the agenda and the priorities could be done by strongly
considering the items included in the various resolutions, both the ICCM3 and the
regional resolutions, since these reflect the countries’ wishes
 Heidi: voiced her concerns regarding the legal status of the regional ‘resolutions’
 Desiree: informed the floor that UNEP will send an email to the AG members
summarizing the outcomes (changes to the terms of reference) of the AG meeting
 Jane: suggested to use conferences with UN involvement for awareness raising on
EDCs
 Peter: drew attention to WHO report on the “Identification of risks from exposure to
endocrine-disrupting chemicals at the country level”
 Desiree: informed the floor of her discussions with representatives from the OECD
and WHO; updates were exchanged; the WHO is holding a workshop in July,
organized by its regional office in Bonn
VI. Closure of the Meeting
16. Concluding remarks by Heidi and Desiree: emphasized that this is one of the first
initiatives in this area; highlighted that UNEP relies on the AG’s support; UNEP is
looking forward to the AG’s comments and suggestions; the ToRs will be revised and
then disseminated among the AG members and IOMC Partners for an additional
round of comments; efforts will be undertaken to complete the group; thanked the
AG members for their participation and the BRS for providing the infrastructure
17. The meeting was closed at 17.00 Geneva time by UNEP secretariat.