Report of the Working Group on Strategy and Review Richard Ballaman WGSR chairman

2 WGSR agenda Item 6: Review and revision of protocols and other strategy activities Item 7: Revision of the Protocol on POPs Item 8: Revision of the Protocol on HMs Item 9: Negotiations on further obligations to reduce emissions following review of the Gothenburg protocol

3 Reports of the WGSR in rd session, 9 – 13 March 44th session, 20 – 23 April 45th session, 31 August- 4 September

4 Item 6a) ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 25 on POPs candidates The WGSR: (c) Took note of the report of the TF on POPs (ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/2009/7); (d) Noted the conclusions of the TF regarding the technical content of the dossiers on endosulfan, dicofol and HBCD, together with the reservations of the USA as noted in the report, and recommended to the EB that these substances be considered POPs as defined under the Protocol; (e) Proposed to the EB that the TF continue with the track B reviews of endosulfan, dicofol and HBCD and explore management strategies for them;

5 Item 6a) ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 25 on POPs candidates The WGSR: (f) Regarding pentachlorophenol (PCP), noted the conclusions of the TF that PCP itself was not considered a POP in the context of the Protocol as there was no agreement on whether or not there was sufficient information on the transformation products of PCP, such as pentachloroanisole (PCA), as well as impurities, to consider PCP as a POP. The WGSR recommended to the EB that the TF continue with the track A review to assess PCA against the POPs criteria in the EB decision 1998/2 and to strengthen the information pertaining to the linkages of PCP to dioxins, furans, and PCA found in the environment. The WGSR, noting the reservations of the USA, recommended that the TF pursue track B review in parallel;

6 Item 6a) ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 25 on POPs candidates The WGSR: (g) Noted that the TF, with the exception of Canada and USA, had concluded, based on the technical contents of the dossier on trifluralin, that this substance should be considered a POP as defined under the Protocol; (h) Noted that Canada has additional information available on the POPs characteristics of trifluralin, and recommended to the EB that the TF continue with the track A and track B reviews of trifluralin in parallel, taking into consideration the new information from Canada.

7 Item 6a) ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 28 Cooperation and possible process efficiencies between the Protocol and the Stockholm Convention The WGSR: (a) Took note of the possibilities for harmonization and coordination between the Protocol on POPs and the Stockholm Convention, in particular for improving process efficiencies in the review of the substances nominated for inclusion to both legal instruments, as had been proposed by the World Chlorine Council, and emphasized that efforts to this end should be undertaken by the two constituencies; (b) Recognized that the delegations may ensure a better coordination of the national positions vis-à-vis the Protocol on POPs and the Stockholm Convention;

8 Item 6a) ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 28 Cooperation and possible process efficiencies between the Protocol and the Stockholm Convention The WGSR: (c) Welcomed the report of the UNEP secretariat that the POPs Review Committee of the Stockholm Convention would consider possible ways to cooperate on issues concerning the review of substances submitted for inclusion in the Stockholm Convention and those submitted for the POPs Protocol; (d) Suggested that the EB, at its twenty-seventh session in December 2009, invite the secretariat to reinforce the exchange of information with the UNEP secretariat and to identify possible ways of cooperation between the technical bodies of the two Conventions.

9 Item 6b): ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 49 on OPTIONS FOR REVISING THE PROTOCOL ON HMs The WGSR: (b) Suggested that the EB, at its 27th session in December 2009, invite the secretariat to reinforce the exchange of information with the UNEP secretariat, including to make available the relevant work undertaken by the TF on HMs, EMEP and the WGE; (c) Thanked the TF for its work in carrying out track A review and in initiating the track B review of the proposal of the EU to add mercury-containing products to annex VI to the Protocol, as had been requested by the Parties to the Protocol on Heavy Metals at the EB 26th session in December 2008; (d) Took note of the report of the TF (ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/2009/8), and agreed to submit it to the EB for consideration at its 27th session in December 2009;

10 Item 6b): ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/2009/8 Para. 22 The total emission of mercury in 2005 in the UNECE region is estimated at 349 tons of Hg, using the EMEP data. The Task Force estimated that emissions from the products and product groups included in the proposal account to 81–102 tons of Hg. Therefore the emissions from these product groups were estimated at about 23–29 per cent of total regional emissions. Table 1 on total emissions of mercury of the product groups contained in the EU proposal Product group Hg air emissions in tons in 2005 Batteries5 Measuring devices11-20 Vehicles12 EEE13-20 Fluorescent lamps5-10 Dental amalgam35 Total81-102

11 Item 6b): ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 49 on OPTIONS FOR REVISING THE PROTOCOL ON HMs (e) Noted the conclusions of the TF on the track A review of the proposal by the EU to add mercury-containing products to annex VI of the Protocol; (f) Recommended to the EB that the TF continue with the track B reviews of products and explore management strategies for them, taking into account the information provided by the USA, Canada and the EECCA countries expected by the end of 2009 as well as information related to the preparatory work for the global agreement on mercury; (h) Invited delegations to consider possibilities for providing bilateral support and capacity-building activities for countries in EECCA and SEE to assist them in their efforts to prepare emission inventories for heavy metals.

12 Item 6d): ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 55 on Action Plan for EECCA and SEE countries The WGSR: (a) Welcomed the progress in the implementation of the revised Action Plan for EECCA presented in document ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/2009/13, noting that some items of the Action Plan needed stronger efforts; (b) Thanked the Swedish Presidency of the EU and the delegations of Bulgaria and the Czech Republic for having organized informal EECCA and SEE consultations back to back to the WGSR sessions; (c) Took note of the financial contribution by UNECE to the implementation of the design phase of the project proposed by the Russian Federation, and invited Parties to explore ways and means to contribute further to the funding of the full-scale project;

13 Item 6d): ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 55 on Action Plan for EECCA and SEE countries The WGSR: (d) Welcomed the steps taken by the secretariat and the progress achieved in the implementation of the project funded by the Netherlands for the strengthening in SEE of the ratification and implementation of the three most recent protocols; (e) Welcomed the start of the project funded by the Czech Republic to support the Republic of Moldova with implementation and ratification of the Gothenburg Protocol; (g) Took note of the bilateral projects between Sweden and the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Belarus that aimed to improve data inputs for integrated assessment modelling;

14 Item 6d): ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 55 on Action Plan for EECCA and SEE countries The WGSR: (h) Took note of the planned project to be funded by the European Commission in the framework of its European Neighbourhood Policy, with the aim of improving the capacity of six countries in EECCA for air quality management and implementation of the provisions of the Gothenburg Protocol.

15 Item 9: ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 46 on Gothenburg Protocol revision The WGSR: (b) Took note of proposed draft amended text of the Protocol as presented in document ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/2009/4 and the additional proposals for amendments as presented in document /2009/16, and invited the secretariat to present a consolidated text for discussion at its next session, reflecting the comments and suggestions made during the discussions; (d) Agreed that the revised draft technical annexes IV, V,VI and VIII as presented in documents /2009/17, /2009/18 and Corr.1, /2009/19 and /2009/20 and the new draft technical annexes on dust and on limit values for the solvent content of products as presented in documents /2009/21 and /2009/22 would constitute a basis for further negotiations;

16 Item 9: ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 46 on Gothenburg Protocol revision g) Invited Parties to examine the draft guidance document prepared by EGTEI and to provide comments to the Expert Group as soon as possible, and not later than the end of 2009; (h) Took note of the legal considerations of the ad hoc group of legal experts for an amended or new Protocol focusing on the Gothenburg Protocol and the EECCA and SEE countries;

17 Item 9: ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 46 on Gothenburg Protocol revision (i) Invited CIAM to send the developed baseline data in the GAINS model format to Parties for validation; requested Parties within the geographical scope of EMEP to respond before the end of 2009; invited CIAM to present the consolidated baseline for discussion in the TFIAM in Jan/Feb 2010, and invited Parties outside the geographical scope of EMEP to submit similar data;

18 Item 9: ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 46 on Gothenburg Protocol revision (j) Requested CIAM to explore the ambition levels proposed in the technical annexes developed by the EGTEI in relation to emission levels, costs, environmental endpoints and environmental effects; and noted that this technology-oriented analysis was in addition to the already proposed effects-oriented analysis of modelled, optimized scenarios covering the whole geographic scope of EMEP (ECE/EB.AIR/2008/13);

19 Item 9: ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/98 Para 46 on Gothenburg Protocol revision (k) Expressed its wish –(i) to have annex I of the Gothenburg Protocol updated by the WGE, in particular on environmental target-setting and the possible inclusion of PM, ( –(ii) to report on progress made at the EB 27th session of the in December 2009, and –(iii) to present the proposed amendments to annex I at the session of the WGSR Group in April 2010; (l) Welcomed the plans to update empirical critical loads and dose-response functions and to have those results fed into the further development of indicators during 2010 on, for example, biodiversity;