1. WORKING TOWARDS A TOXIC FREE FUTURE Almaty, 18-22 October, 2010 By Olga Speranskaya, IPEN CoChair/Director of Eco-Accord Progam on Chemical Safety

2. We are focused on chemicals which disrupt hormone functions, cause cancers or birth defects, harm reproduction, and build up or persist in the environment, food chain and in the fatty tissues in our bodies

3. Obsolete pesticide stockpiles in EECCA

6. Ban pesticides are sold openly at the local markets

7. EECCA region leads in production and use of asbestos We discovered: Schools, hospitals, other public social buildings are build with asbestos Households use asbestos

8. We address: PUBLIC RIGHT TO HEALTH AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT PUBLIC RIGHT TO INFORMATION ON HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POVERTY ERADICATION

9. Key issues of concern PESTICIDES WASTE MANAGEMENT; POLLUTED COMMUNITIES; LACK OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION ; CHEMICALS IN PRODUCTS; ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOMONITORING; ILLEGAL TOXIC TRADE

10. MAP of the EECCA region

11. Evolution of the Chemical Safety Movement in the EECCA Region 1. Federal Food Security Program – the USSR republics served as the breadbasket of the country 2. The collapse of the USSR - many of these countries lost control of the system completely 3. Governments lack the capacity, financial resources and political will to systematically locate, quantify, monitor, inspect, identify and dispose the toxic chemicals.

12. Evolution of the Chemical Safety Movement in the EECCA Region potentially hazardous chemical facilities were constructed and commissioned 40 - 50 years ago. Russia: 10,000 facilities - 70% of them are located in 146 cities with population over 100 thousand residents. Weak control over chemical production Annual air emissions of toxic chemicals and accumulation of toxic waste Very low or no NGO involvement into decision making on chemicals

13. Steps Forward 1998 The First Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee for global treaty on POPs meets. IPEN is established, defined by a POPs Elimination Platform that focused on developing a strong POPs Treaty. NGOs endorsed the Platform to become IPEN Participating Organizations (ie: IPEN Members).

14. Steps Forward 2001 IPEN adopts the “IPEN Stockholm Declaration”, which is focused on implementing the POPs Treaty on-the- ground 2002 IPEN focuses on POPs outreach and NGO capacity- building IPEN begins project development for an International POPs Elimination Project –IPEP Concept.

15. Steps Forward 2003 IPEN expands its scope of work beyond POPs via participation in the SAICM process, with the aim to promote integration of chemical safety into the sustainable development agenda and articulate SAICM’s 2020 Goal. IPEN is awarded an IFCS Special Recognition Award for work during the POPs Treaty negotiations.

16. How do we work TOXIC FREE NETWORK – IPEP implementation begins, including the establishment of 8 IPEN Regional Hubs MULTISTAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS AND CONFERENCES WORKING WITH NGOs – IPEP implementation begins, 8 Hubs established 4 202004 IPEP implementation begins, including the establishment of 8 IPEN Regional Hubs INFORMATION AND AWARENESS MATERIALS, TOOLKITS, GUIDEBOOKS WORKING WITH MEDIA WORKING WITH GOVERNMENTAL EXPERTS ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNS

17. IPEP and SAICM implementation in the EECCA 2004-2006 - 70 projects on POPs implemented in the region Direct impact on toxic clean up Since 2007 20 more projects have been Started with the focus on chemical free future

18. Main results IN THE FIELD:  Identification of POPs "hot spots" (15 hot spots identified);  Public participation in identification of unauthorised storage of banned and obsolete pesticides (67,846 kg of obsolete pesticides were identified additionally, 68 storage facilities were analysed);  Public participation in PCB inventory (16 facilities in 7 cities); ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNS:  Participation in development and implementation national legislations and policies on chemicals (NGOs in 11 EECCA countries) ;  Working with governmental experts on asbestos, mercury, lead in paint, toxic chemicals in products, including toys (NGOs in 7 EECCA countries)

19. Main results AWARENESS RAISING  Information campaigns (65 campaigns, 4 public service announcements, 2 documentaries, 10 country situation reports, 25 brochures, numerous information materials) RESEARCH:  Analysis of health impacts of POPs (5 projects on community monitoring, 12 projects on toxic contamination of food products, 5 projects on environmental monitoring);  Development of proposals for rehabilitation of contaminated territories, analysis of existing national strategies ;  Identification of toxic sources (4 projects on PBDEs, mercury in medical devices, mercury emission sources, contamination of territories by heavy metals)

20. NGO project results Strategy and Regional Action Plan for the EECCA highlights current approaches, tools and strategies details NGO opportunities and needs Plans for future activities

21. Strategy and Regional Action Plan for the EECCA PESTICIDES MANAGEMENT, including obsolete stockpiles, illegal trade, hazardous pesticides WASTE MANAGEMENT, including POPs waste, heavy metals, incineration, zero-waste approach, medical waste. HOT SPOTS, including assessing toxic contamination of food, human bodies and environmental media, providing affected communities with necessary knowledge and information to reduce the risks of contamination. CHEMICALS IN PRODUCTS, including mercury in products; cadmium and lead in baby products, including toys; lead in paint; toxics in construction materials; electronics

22. NGO project results Involvement Inventory results – toxic stockpiles More structured and better organized IPEN, GAIA, PAN, HCWH Better recognized at the international level (GHS, CiP, PEN magazine) Working with UNEP, UNDP, UNITAR

23. Evolution of the Chemical Safety Movement in the EECCA Region 1998 – 2010 80 EECCA organizations which are IPEN members More than 760 members of the EECCA information network on Chemical Safety NGO expert team (Eco-Accord, AWHHE, MAMA-86- Kharkiv, CMA, SPES, Greenwomen, IEE, etc.) New partnerships Fundraising opportunities

24. Challenges opposition from the business, local authorities insufficient access to information on toxic chemicals in goods and food products lack of systems to inform citizens on hazardous chemicals Ministries are almost closed for a constructive dialogue with NGOs Co-operation with governmental agencies is mainly of formal nature NGOs are not sufficiently involved into decision-making Economic hardships in the region force people to buy cheap and accessible goods