6/12/ ORIGINS, BENEFITS AND THE PATH FORWARD BRS Secretariat December 2015 SYNERGIES UNDER THE BASEL, ROTTERDAM AND STOCKHOLM CONVENTIONS

6/12/ BASEL, ROTTERDAM & STOCKHOLM CONVENTIONS (1) A framework for Life Cycle Management The 3 conventions together cover elements of “cradle-to-grave” approach Common objective = to protect human health and the environment Most POPs are covered by all 3 Conventions Many pesticides are subject to the 3 Conventions As wastes, all chemicals fall under the scope of the Basel Convention  Interlocking scope and coverage Basel Convention Hazardous Wastes Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic Pollutants Rotterdam Convention Chemicals

6/12/ BASEL, ROTTERDAM & STOCKHOLM CONVENTIONS (2) Adoption 22 March September May 2001 Entry into force 5 May February May 2004 Number of Parties BASEL CONVENTION

6/12/ BASEL CONVENTION Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal Adopted 1989 in response to concerns about developed country companies dumping hazardous wastes in developing countries Entered into force on 5 May 1992 To date it has 183 Parties BASEL CONVENTION

6/12/ ROTTERDAM CONVENTION Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade Adopted in 1998 in response to dramatic growth in chemicals trade, and vulnerability of developing countries to uncontrolled imports Entered into force on 24 February 2004 To date it has 154 Parties

6/12/ STOCKHOLM CONVENTION Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Adopted in 2001 in response to an urgent need for global action on “POPs” (chemicals that are “persistent, bioaccumulate in fatty tissues and biomagnify through the food chain”) Entered into force on 17 May 2004 To date it has 179 Parties

6/12/ THE SYNERGIES PROCESS (1) 2006 Establishment of AHJWG Synergies decisions adopted 2010 Omnibus decisions at Ex-COPs 2011 Identical synergies decisions adopted by each COP 2013 The Joint COP 2015 Identical synergies decisions adopted by each COP

6/12/ THE SYNERGIES PROCESS (2) Part of the reform of environmental governance: forerunner Process initiated in 2007: AHJWG with conclusions confirmed by the 3 COPs in 2008/2009 Objectives: − Enhance cooperation and coordination among the three Conventions − Strengthen the implementation of the three conventions at the national, regional and global levels − Provide coherent policy guidance − Enhance efficiency in the provision of support to Parties to the conventions, reducing their administrative burden and maximizing the effective and efficient use of resources at all levels

6/12/ ExCOPS Identical decisions adopted by the three ExCOPs Secretariats reform: joint services established on a permanent basis, Joint Executive Secretary to be appointed for the UNEP-administrated part of the BRS Secretariat to undertake “joint activities” 1 st review of the arrangements: two parallel processes (UNEP/FAO and secretariats) on: joint management, joint services and joint activities (i.e. not the actions taken by the Parties) 2011 COPs: decision for the UNEP-part of the BRS to have a joint head (as of February 2012) Simultaneous 2013 COPs and ExCOPs: 1 st review of the synergies arrangements 2014 UNEA: establishment of the Special Programme for BRS, Minamata and SAICM SYNERGIES PROCESS: MILESTONES (3)

6/12/ SYNERGIES PROCESS: CURRENT STATUS (4) 2015 COPs: back-to-back with joint sessions Adoption of the ToRs for a second review to be undertaken by the 2017 COPs Review of the matrix structure of the UNEP-part of the BRS Secretariat Review of the cooperation with the FAO-part of the RC Secretariat Synergies “plus”: cooperation with Minamata and SAICM

6/12/ OUTCOMES OF SYNERGIES PROCESS (1) Coordination at the national level: Protection of human health and the environment from the harmful impacts or adverse effects of hazardous chemicals and wastes; Prevention of accidents and emergency response in case of accidents; Combating illegal traffic and trade in hazardous chemicals and wastes; Information generation and access; Technology transfer and transfer of know-how; Preparation of national positions for meetings of the conferences of the Parties and other bodies of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions;

6/12/ OUTCOMES OF SYNERGIES PROCESS (2) Programmatic level: Delivery of joint-activities on technical assistance Cooperation on scientific and technical issues Coordinated use of Regional Centres Increased funding opportunities for three conventions Joint information tools/systems (e.g. Clearing House Mechanism) Decision-making: Simultaneous EX-COPs, ordinary COPs held back-to-back and have joint sessions on joint issues Administrative level: Joint managerial functions for UNEP-administered BRS through single Executive Secretary Matrix-based Secretariat Cost savings

6/12/ BENEFITS OF SYNERGIES Increased visibility of three Conventions Effective mobilisation of financing and technical assistance for the implementation of the Conventions Policy coherence on chemicals and waste issues Cost-savings resulting from efficiency in administrative arrangements Maximize the effective and efficient use of resources at all levels

6/12/ REVIEW OF SYNERGIES PROCESS For 2017 COPs, a review of: matrix-based management approach and organization proposals on the organization and operation of the part of the Rotterdam Convention Secretariat hosted by FAO synergies arrangements incl. implementation and impact of (i) joint-activities, (ii) joint managerial functions and overall impact of synergies arrangements Independent assessor tasked with work Secretariat to develop proposals in response to conclusions and recommendations of review Oversight by a Steering Committee: 3 COP Presidents, BRS Executive Secretaries/Deputy, UNEP Office of Operations, UNEP and FAO Evaluation Officers

6/12/ THANK YOU