Global best practices on emerging chemical policy issues of concern under the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM)


GEF ID:
Focal Areas: Persistent Organic Pollutants
Country(ies): Global
Geograpic scope: Global
Project Description:

1. Global environmental problems, root causes and barriers: Exposure to chemicals can cause or contribute to a broad range of negative environmental and health outcomes, including irreversible environmental degradation and death. Most common health problems include eye, skin, and respiratory irritation; damage to organs such as the brain, lungs, liver or kidneys; damage to the immune, respiratory, cardiovascular, nervous, reproductive or endocrine systems; and birth defects and chronic diseases, such as cancer, asthma, or diabetes. Chemicals released to air as a result of unsound management can act as local air pollutants, greenhouse gases, or ozone depleters and contribute to acid or toxic rain. Others can act as water pollutants with adverse effects on ecosystems, wildlife and aquatic organisms, and on the availability of water resources for drinking, bathing, and other activities. Soil contamination impacts include loss of agricultural productivity, contamination of food crops, toxicity to soil microorganisms and land degradation. In all cases, humans are exposed to this contamination through air, water or food intake, or through physical contact with contaminated air, water, soil or dust.

 

Global contaminants such as POPs or mercury are regulated by Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), namely the Stockholm and Minamata Conventions respectively. A number of additional ‘Emerging Policy Issues’ (EPIs) have been nominated for voluntary, cooperative risk reduction actions by countries through the Strategic Approach for International Chemicals Management (SAICM). Through contamination of global water bodies and globalised value chains, the environmental problems are globally distributed. Each EPI presents particular environmental and health problems:

 

·         Lead in paint: lead is a cumulative toxicant particularly harmful to young children and pregnant women. The cost of reduced cognitive potentials (loss of IQ points) due to preventable childhood lead exposure in low and middle-income countries is estimated as $977 billion annually[1]. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) has estimated that in 2015 lead exposure accounted for 494,550 deaths due to long-term effects on health, with the highest burden in low and middle income countries. IHME also estimated that lead exposure accounted for 12.4% of the global burden of idiopathic intellectual disability, 2.5% of the global burden of ischaemic heart disease and 2.4% of the global burden of stroke[2]. Lead in paint is a major source of childhood lead exposure in childhood; it results in contaminated dust in homes that is inhaled or ingested (UNEP 2010).[3]

·         Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHP): are defined by their negative effects on humans: confirmed by WHO or the Globally Harmonized System as carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxins; listed under Stockholm, Rotterdam or Montreal conventions; and with evidence of severe or irreversible adverse effects on health and the environment. Chronic exposure to HHPs can result in effects on skin, eyes, nervous system, cardiovascular system, gastrointestinal tract, liver, kidneys, reproductive system, endocrine system and blood, and may affect the immune system. Available data are too limited to estimate the global health impacts of occupational exposure and accidental or intentional poisonings. The global impact of self-poisoning by pesticides in 2002 (suicides) has been estimated at 186,000 deaths and 4,420,000 disability adjusted life years (DALYs)[4]. In 2013, UN Environment estimated that the health costs associated with exposure to pesticides in sub-Saharan Africa in the period 2005–2020 without any preventive and risk reduction actions will amount to at least $97 billion[5]

·         Chemicals in Products (CiP): include a number of hazardous or toxic substances which are incorporated into a product and pose a risk to human health and the environment. These may include POPs such as brominated flame retardants, (potential) endocrine disrupters such as phthalates, various solvents and colourants, and heavy metals. Manufacturers of products that include hazardous chemical components fail to document, and are thus not able to control the handling and use of these chemicals through the complex supply chain. Workers are unknowingly exposed to them; consumers are unable to identify which products may be contaminated and to what extent by toxic chemicals; and waste streams are inadvertently contaminated. Strategic Approach stakeholders have prioritized four product sectors for urgent action: electronics, building products, toys, and textiles. Significant efforts into e-waste have highlighted the environmental problems caused by inappropriate disposal, including production of dioxin and furans[6].

·         Hazardous Substances in the Life Cycle of Electronic and Electrical Products (HSLEEP): include lead, mercury, cadmium, zinc, yttrium, chromium, beryllium, nickel, brominated flame-retardants, antimony trioxide, halogenated flame-retardants, tin, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and phthalates. Electronic products contain metals such as gold and copper that are valuable and relatively easy to extract for recyclers. During 2016, the Swedish Chemicals Agency inspected the content of 154 electrical and electronic low-price products and found chemicals banned or severely restricted for these uses in the EU, including lead, phthalates and short chain chlorinated paraffins, in 38% of samples[7].

·         Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs): are chemicals or chemical mixtures that interfere with normal hormonal action and cause adverse effects, and include a number of POPs including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDT. Endocrine-related disorders in both humans (such as infertility, reproductive, neurobehavioural or respiratory disorders, certain cancers, obesity and Type 2 diabetes) and animals (effects on growth and reproduction) are well documented to be on the rise. A series of peer-reviewed economic analyses estimated that damage of EDCs to human health could cost more than €150 billion a year in the European Union[8].

·         Environmentally Persistent Pharmaceutical Products (EPPPs): A global literature review in 2016 compiled studies that measured EPPP (antibiotics, analgesics, lipid-lowering drugs, estrogens, and others) concentrations in surface water and waste water, with more limited analyses on groundwater, tap/drinking water, manure, soil, and sediments. 631 different pharmaceuticals or their transformation products were detected in the environment of 71 countries; 17 of these were detected in all five UN regions. Despite knowledge gaps on the likelihood of effects at different concentrations, some case studies give cause for alarm. For example, the anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac, detected in 50 countries, has caused a near-extinction of vultures on the Indian subcontinent, caused by the birds’ feeding on the carcasses of treated cattle. Several countries have reported the feminization of fish due to estrogenic pollution of water bodies, and in whole-lake experiments, one of the EPPPs detected in the global review has caused population collapse due to feminization of male fish. Urban wastewater seems to be the dominant emission pathway of pharmaceuticals globally, whereas emissions from industrial production, hospitals, agriculture, and aquaculture are important locally[9].

·         Nanotechnologies and manufactured nanomaterials (nano): are increasingly being used in products, with an estimated fivefold increase in products containing them from 2006 - 2011 as manufacturers used them to improve performance in more than 1,300 products from car tyres and tennis rackets to smartphone batteries, deodorant and hair conditioner. Impacts based on laboratory studies may potentially include cancer causing properties in lungs, toxic effects to the nervous system and antibacterial properties that could harm ecosystems. A review of nanosilver (one of the more well studied nanomaterials) indicates that nano-silver is more toxic than conventional silver, which is already well established to be toxic to fungi, bacterial, aquatic invertebrates, algae and fish[10] . Even in OECD countries, waste containing engineered nanomaterials is disposed of along with conventional waste, with no special precautions or treatment; and in wastewater sludge that is often spread on farmland as fertiliser. There are no in-depth studies of the potential transformation of engineered nanomaterials in soil, their interactions with plants and bacteria and their transfer to surface water. The effects of nanoplastics in the marine environment are included in a global assessment of micro-litter[11], which describes laboratory studies that “illustrate the potential of nanoplastics to affect plankton and early life stages, to decrease biological fitness (through immunosuppression) and reproductive and predator avoidance behaviours, with potential consequences at the population level or food webs over time.” As with other nanoparticles and microplastics, the lack of evidence of occurrence of such particles in marine environments makes extrapolation from laboratory results very contentious. Drawing conclusions in terms of appropriate policy or regulatory responses is even more challenging.

 

SAICM stakeholders have collectively identified these global priority issues, but gaps remain in generating the political will to address them. There is a need to accelerate the adoption of regulatory, supply chain, certification, labelling and other measures to reduce the presence and risks of these chemicals. There is a widening capacity gap between developed and developing/emerging countries in identification and management of the risks posed by these chemicals, since research into the effects of novel chemicals, and regulatory and voluntary responses for established hazards, are concentrated in OECD and developed countries. Therefore, there is a pressing need for developing countries to close capacity and regulatory gaps for proven harmful chemicals; and to tackle research and monitoring gaps for chemicals whose risks remain uncertain.

 

An analysis of barriers for the sound management of chemicals during a series of regional SAICM meetings resulted in the 2015 Overall Orientation and Guidance which proposes six priority activity areas to address key barriers to 2020:

(a)    Enhance the responsibility of stakeholders: promoting and reinforcing commitment and multisectoral engagement;

(b)   Establish and strengthen national legislative and regulatory frameworks for chemicals and waste: improving capacity to address the basic elements of the sound management of chemicals and waste and encouraging regional cooperation;

(c)    Mainstream the sound management of chemicals and waste in the sustainable development agenda: advancing risk reduction and enhancing the link between the sound management of chemicals and waste and health, labour, and social and economic development planning, processes and budgets;

(d)   Increase risk reduction and information sharing efforts on emerging policy issues: continuing to promote actions on issues not currently addressed in existing agreements, complementing initiatives taken by other bodies;

(e)   Promote information access: increasing the accessibility of relevant information and making it understandable for all levels of society;

(f)     Assess progress towards the 2020 goal of minimizing the adverse effects of chemicals on human health and the environment: identifying achievements, understanding the gaps in implementation and prioritizing actions for achievement by 2020

 

With significant implementation and compliance gaps in relation to legally binding obligations under chemicals and waste MEAs, additional chemical safety issues may ‘compete’ for recognition, resources and political will. SAICM provides a voluntary mechanism to stimulate and support national regulatory and supply chain action, particularly in low and middle-income countries where such chemicals cause the most problems.

 

The following specific barriers relate to proposed project components:

 

Regulatory gaps: A ’widening capacity gap’ is observed between countries that have restricted hazardous chemicals, and many developing and least developed countries where governments have not yet taken regulatory action to adopt policy frameworks that limit or ban production and use. Key barriers include:

·      Lack of political will and prioritization of the issue, with governments and affected stakeholders (including manufacturers and exposed individuals) having inadequate appreciation and understanding of the risks of continued use, and of the regulatory options available to ban, restrict, or manage exposure to these chemicals

·         Insufficient capacity for risk assessment and risk reduction in developing countries, includinglack of consideration of the health and environmental impacts of the continued use in regulatory decisions, which is in turn caused by inadequate monitoring, poor systems for sharing of data that may be available;

·         Low awareness of environmentally sound and safer alternatives to lead in paint and highly hazardous pesticides, at local level (e.g., in SMEs or farms) and nationally and regionally (by regulators and other authorities).

 

Lifecycle management: Managing hazardous substances in products and in electric and electronic equipment requires upstream measures to design products with fewer toxics, as well as downstream measures to manage wastes and emissions. This is hampered by:

·         Insufficient availability of information on chemicals used in products and processes through the many manufacturing stages of most products in complex supply chains, spread over numerous countries. This results in a corresponding lack of information at the consumer and end-of-life phases, greatly complicating the proper management of products for these stakeholders

·         Limited application of the principles of Green Chemistry, notably the principles of prevention of waste and of production and use of more benign chemicals, and Circular Economy, with a focus on providing the information needed for recyclers to safely reintroduce the maximum materials back into production processes

 

Hazardous Substances in the Lifecycle of Electric and Electronic Products (HSLEEP): The activities on HSLEEP have focused on providing support to developing counrties and countries with economies in transition to set up sustainable strategies for e-waste management. The remaining barriers towards the Global Action Plan will focus on addressing managerial challenges at the upstream level, including the management of chemical inputs for electrical and electronic products and their impacts during design, production and remanufacturing, distribution, consumption, use, reuse and repair. The main barriers  (as outlined in SAICM/ICCM.4/INF/18) are the following:

·         Lack of development and implementation of relevant legislation within the majority of countries, incentives for the treatment of hazardous fractions and standards for responsible and safe Electric and Electronic Equipment (EEE) management, focusing on the entire product life cycle from eco-design to final disposal and recycling methods;

·         Inefficient supply chains and strengthening of the circular economy on a global level;

·         Continous use of hazardous substances during the production process of EEE and lack of communication regarding the use and occurrence of chemicals within EEE.

 

Scientific gaps and lack of common methodologies: The widely differing levels of knowledge and policies to address EDCs, EPPPs and nano between countries and regions stem from a lack of availability and consensus on key scientific and technical information.

·         Challenges for policy makers in developing countries to follow and interpret scientific and technical debates on key issues such as on which chemicals are recognized as EDCs, whether existing risk assessment methodologies can address risks at the nano scale, and on the consequences of exposure to EPPP through environmental sources

·         Enormous gaps on information and evidence from developing and transition countries on the use, distribution, environmental fate, and impacts on health or ecosystems of these chemicals of emerging concern; and on existing policy or regulatory measures to control them.

·         A very small number of developing countries have regulatory or policy national initiatives for control of these chemicals, but information on this experience is scattered and country-specific, with no readily accessible evaluation of impacts and broader recommendations for all developing countries on what the first steps towards control should be.

 

Global strategy for implementation of EPI controls: SAICM stakeholders have focused on prioritizing emerging issues, but there is no strategic and global overview of progress in implementation. For developing countries in particular, access to this information can be instrumental in stimulating implementation actions.

·         The wide scope of EPIs and the range of actions needed (e.g. in the Global Plan of Action) can be overwhelming for stakeholders to identify priorities for action. The lack of a global overview of progress makes it difficult to pinpoint examples of best practices for countries to learn from; or of gaps which can help prioritize support and assistance where it is most needed.

·         Inadequate information exchange on EPIs in a format appropriate for diverse stakeholders in developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Difficulty in accessing information, knowledge, evidence, and resources can prevent strong justification of proposed measures and causes delay in widespread adoption of regulatory or supply chain best practices.

·         Limited mainstreaming of chemical management at the global level into broader sustainability agendas including for specific policy and product sectors. Among others, this affects the ability of stakeholders to access diverse sources of funding as recommended by the Integrated Approach to Financing; and restricts the uptake of chemical management into existing sustainability and green economy global activities.

 

 

2. Baseline scenario and associated baseline projects

 

Lead in Paint: For lead in paint, regulatory controls and best practices are established and already adopted in many developed, transition and developing countries. The political visibility given to the issue through a global process such as SAICM helps to overcome the lack of political will in developing countries without regulations, but further work at national level is needed to achieve the known regulatory measures needed. Additionally, technical guidelines, BAT/BEPs and new PPP approaches are required to eliminate lead in paint in manufacturing by SMEs. The Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead Paint (Lead Paint Alliance) was established under the auspices of UN Environment and WHO, and with governments, IPEN and industry represented in its governing Advisory Group. It aims to phase out the use of lead in paint by 2020. The Action Plan for 2015-2016 includes a target that “20 more countries will have adopted new legal limits on lead paint, bringing the total countries with existing legal limits to 72”; as of August 2016, 62 countries have introduced laws or regulations. Such laws or regulations can include legal limits, certification standards, or labelling requirements. The Lead Paint Alliance works towards the goal of having such laws or regulations in place in all the countries by 2020, by developing regulatory guidance for governments and raising awareness through an annual International Lead Poisoning Prevention Week of Action (end October).

http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/Global_chemicals_lead_paint_regulations_2015.png

Source: WHO http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/phe/lead_paint/atlas.html

 

Widespread public awareness of both risks and alternatives can provide additional pressure on decision makers to take the regulatory steps needed to reduce exposure and risks to people, especially vulnerable populations who are disproportionately affected. ‘Champion countries’ in East Africa and CEE have already taken a proactive approach and sought support from the Global Alliance to introduce new legal approaches. The International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) executed a European Commission funded project in eight Asian countries (Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, China, Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia), with follow up civil society projects funded by the SAICM Quick Start Programme in Cameroon and Nepal. In June 2016, UN Environment convened a workshop in Chisinau to assist countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia to develop legal limits to lead paint. Lessons from this project will be incorporated into this project. GEF projects on LiP are summarized in Section 5. Through these and other activities, the Lead Paint Alliance now has the support of governments, environmental NGOs and industry alike and is thus well positioned to promote successful elimination of lead in paint globally.

 

HHPs: HHPs continue to be available and used in many developing countries, particularly Rotterdam-Convention listed pesticides and those that may cause health and environmental impacts through global food supply chains. For many of these, less hazardous alternatives are available. FAO, UN Environment and WHO developed a joint approach and strategy in 2015 to address the significant risks of HHPs, endorsed by SAICM stakeholders in ICCM 4 Resolution IV/3. The 2016 FAO/WHO Guidelines on HHPs under the Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management provide step-wise guidance on how to identify HHPs, assess their risks and identify the best risk mitigation measures. The guidelines are complemented by a new FAO Pesticide Registration ToolKit, which guides pesticide registration authorities in conducting risk assessments and taking registration decisions. Implementation of the Guidelines and Toolkit have been tested in a number of countries and now are ready to be rolled out on a large scale. In November 2016, FAO conducted a webinar and a training-of-trainers workshop and established an extensive programme involving trainers from Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, China, Germany, Mozambique, New Zealand, Saint Lucia, Sweden and Zimbabwe to roll out the Toolkit During 2017-2018, national capacity training will be rolled out within the framework of ongoing programmes and projects to strengthen pesticide management. This project will build on these activities.

 

The potential of regional collaborations and initiatives in setting regulatory standards and enforcing national regulations is also under-explored, particularly in regions with porous borders and widespread illegal international trade. Within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region countries individually struggle to regulate and manage the negative health and environmental effects of HHPs.  The Southern African Pesticide Regulators Forum (SAPReF), a sub-technical committee of SADC, formed in 2010 to collectively address these issues. Elimination of HHPs was listed as a priority under the SAPReF Strategic Action Plan developed in July 2015 at a regional workshop in Harare, Zimbabwe. Ever since, SAPReF has submitted a request for technical and financial assistance to develop regional cooperation on elimination of HHPs in SADC countries. Likewise, East Africa Community countries have initiated consultations of the issue. The Pacific Small Islands, as part of their efforts in strengthening chemical management in agriculture, have initiated a process of regional collaboration on pesticide risk assessment, including the compilation of their pesticide registries into a database.

 

CiP: ICCM2 agreed priorty sectors for CiP namely textiles, toys, building products and electronics. CiP information systems do exist for products in some sectors, based on individual company needs or initiatives, leading to a patchwork of information systems that meet the main proponent’s needs, but which have not been taken up widely in the sectors. The programme on CiP was adopted by ICCM4 in 2015 and has developed an indicative list of the kinds of information exchange schemes and tools that already exist in different sectors[12].  The CiP programme identifies three core information objectives for SAICM stakeholders, including to: know and exchange in supply chains information on what chemicals are in products, associated hazards and sound management practicies; disclose information of relevance to stakeholders outside the supply chain to assist in informed decision making about CiP; and ensure, through due diligence, that information is accurate, current and accessible.

 

Examples of existing CiP schemes or tools for the project sectors include various tools developed to assess materials or ingredients of building products (e.g. the BASTA Building materials database; the Health Product Declaration Open Standard™Pharos Building materials). Uptake of these and other tools is not tracked, and data from the different tools has not been compared or compiled to provide a global overview either of the companies or products that do use such systems: or of the data within these systems on specific CoCs. Toy product manufacturers and their component and material suppliers must comply with regulations and legislation that have a global impact, such as the REACH and Toy Safety Directive of the European Union, and the Children’s Safe Products Act Reporting Rule of Washington State (United States). Since 2011, the Hong Kong Toys Council has jointly developed a standard system for toy chemical safety compliance management. In the electronics sector the BOMcheck Electronic system supporting compliance with regulations (e.g., EU REACH) builds on other tools such as the Joint Industry Guide IPC 1752 Standard for materials declaration.  Other standards also exsit such as the harmonized International Electrotechnical Commission Database Standard 62474a which provides data to downstream manufacturers, or the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT®) helping purchasers, manufacturers, resellers and others to identify environmentally preferable electronic devices. The textile sector is relatively well organized with respect to identification and substitution of hazardous substances, with many lessons that can be shared with other sectors, for example the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Substances programme, the Natural Resources Defence Council ‘Clean by Design’ programme, as well as previous GEF-funded projects on chemicals in textiles (see Section 5). Previous studies have shown that regulatory drivers, the requirement to provide information to regulators, are important in establishing tracking systems, but during the PPG the project will identify other voluntary or market drivers, as well as identifying and analysing existing schemes.

 

Information on toxics in specific products is needed to drive risk management and eventually substitution by alternative, lower risk chemicals and processes.. The “dearth of infrastructure for companies to ensure transparency on the product-level” has been highlighted as a critical factor hampering a transition to a circular economy as circular businesses need to know the resources used to manufacture a particular product[13].While many product sectors have adopted a broad sustainability agenda, this is often focused on energy efficiency, water or natural resource use, with few examples of private sector initiatives that explicitly address chemical impacts and use of toxics in supply chains, in products and at consumer level. The SAICM Overall Orientation and Guidance[14] calls for chemical producers and suppliers to make information on chemical exposure, hazards and safer alternatives available to distributors, workers, consumers and users at all levels in the supply chain (paragraph 68). A number of tools exist to support assessment, communication and promotion of more sustainable products, but focus on broader sustainability aspects such as energy use, natural resource use, or climate change and do not integrate toxics impacts adequately. Life Cycle Assessment is used by many industry stakeholders to compare alternatives, and an initiative to strengthen consideration of health effects of toxic chemicals has been initiated by the UN Environment/SETAC Lifecycle Initiative. USEtox is a model developed by the Life Cycle Initiative to characterize human and ecotoxicological impacts of chemicals, allowing manufacturers to assess specific toxicity from chemicals in their products. This kind of information can provide information for Sustainable Public Procurement and other consumer information resources such as the GoodGuide to consumer products and companies, and includes significant focus on chemicals content.UN Environment’s 10YFP Consumer Information Programme has developed ‘Guidelines for providing product sustainability information’ to be piloted in 2017, including in the chemicals sector. Many industry sustainability forums facilitate cooperation on environmental issues, including for consumer goods, telecommunications, and others, but these tend to focus on energy, water, or natural resource use, without criteria or standards on toxics contained in products.

 

HSLEEP: In 2012, ICCM 3 endorsed the addition to the Global Plan of Action of new activities related to hazardous substances within the life cycle of electrical and electronic products (HSLEEP), including the work areas of e-products green design, environmentally sound manufacturing of e-products and awareness-raising for e-products. A SAICM survey in 2014 produced a “Compilation Of Best Practices On Hazardous Substances Within The Life Cycle Of Electrical And Electronic Products’ (OEWG.2/INF/14), and in 2016 the UN Environment Management Group established an Issue Management Group on ‘Tackling E-waste: Towards Eco-design and a Life-cycle Approach for E-products - Coordinating delivery by the United Nations’.

 

Until now, most activities have focused on the downstream level, dealing with e-waste management. Several UN entities and international organizations have provided support to developing countries and countries with economies in transition for the development of sustainable e-waste management schemes taking into account the whole reverse supply chain of electrical and electronic products, the development of policies and international standards on e-waste, the establishment of collection schemes and dismantling or recycling facilities, the transfer of technologies, and the building of national capacities. UNIDO has executed projects in East Africa (e.g. Ethiopia, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, Rwanda) with various donors (e.g. GEF, Korean International Cooperation Agency). Various guidelines and papers have been published on different aspects of e-waste management, including on take-back systems[15] [16], on mapping flows of e-wastes[17] and technical guidelines on transboundary movements of e-waste[18]. An informal network of WHO, UN Environment, PACE, UNU and other stakeholders, works on the health impacts of e-waste on vulnerable populations. A pilot study has been developed on heavy-metal levels in children living and studying near e-waste sites in Thailand. As already mentioned, the SAICM Secretariat has conducted a survey on hazardous substances within the life cycle of electrical and electronic products to support its stakeholders to map existing tools for chemicals used in the production of electrical and electronic products. The results support the need for more work on the upstream and midstream levels of the life cycle, such as in design and manufacturing.

 

Over 200 public interest NGO stakeholders in 40 countries have developed and endorsed the International Campaign for Responsible Technology initiative seeking industry cooperation and action in six areas: transparency on chemicals used and associated hazards; use of safer alternatives; worker protection; participation of workers and community members in sound management of chemicals; protection of communities and the environment; and, compensation and remediation for harm to people and the environment[19]. One common certification for greener electronics, EPEAT, is available for products with reduced levels of cadmium, lead, mercury and other toxics, to support both sustainable procurement and individual consumer choice.

 

The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in collaboration with the Secretariats of the Stockholm and Basel Conventions and UN Environment’s International Environmental Technology Centre are developing a multi-stakeholder HSLEEP workplan. ICCM 4 resolution IV/2C on HSLEEP  endorses the recommendations of the “International workshop on Hazardous Substances within the life-cycle of electrical and electronic products”, held in Vienna (Austria) in 2011, including the need for manufacturers to implementat take-back programmes, establish industrial hygiene and environmental monitoring, and collect and share health and safety information to workers. The resolution also encourages procurement intitiatives to favour sustainable electronic products. Private-public partnerships and joint efforts undertaken to support governments continue to evolve, for example within the Solving the E-waste Problem (Step) initiative, the Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE), and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI).

 

These existing global networks will be used for coordinating project activities, knowledge exchange and information dissemination, especially by involving multinational companies and their industry associations to role out Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in developing countries and countries in transition. Step, currently by 64 members27 work in the areas of reseach and piloting, strategy and goal-setting, training and development and communication and branding.  The GeSI’s vision is to get a sustainable world through responsible, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) - enabled transformation. GeSI is also a proactive driver of the ICT sustainability agenda as measured by the development and use of its tools, broad member base and contribution to relevant policies. Its 40 members28 represent the world’s leading service providers and vendors from the ICT sector. These GeSI partners also collaborate on projects in both developed and developing countries to respond to emerging issues.

 

ICCM 4invited UNIDO in partnership with other organizations of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC), such as ITU, UNE-IETC, WHO, UNU, ILO, the BRS Convention Secretariat, PACE, Step, IPEN, BAN, OEMs and other relevant stakeholders to undertake a process to develop and finalize the draft work plan 2016-2020 (Annex D). This draft workplan is a multi-agency coordination process and the tentative activities (except for activity 10) will be used as basis for this project and will build on existing national and international activities. As mentioned, the HSLEEP activities so far have focused on providing support to developing countries and countries with economies in transition in order to set-up sustainable strategies for e-waste management; thus .the remaining gaps(SAICM/ICCM.4/INF/18) towards the Global Action Plan will focus on the upstream level.

 

EDCs: Significant scientific and technical debates are ongoing at the global level, for instance on which chemicals are recognized as EDCs and at what concentrations. Much of the research and technical work is done by developed countries in forums such as the OECD, with limited consideration on the needs and situations of developing and transition countries. A WHO global network of health risk assessment experts  provides an authoritative forum for assessing health risks for developing and transition countries; a UN Environment Advisory Group for EDCs exists but focuses on policy aspects and does not provide an equivalent, technical forum for environmental risk assessment. EDCs range from known chemicals with EDC properties (such as PCBs for example), through potential EDCs for which some countries have already implemented bans (such as a French ban on bisphenol-a), to chemicals for which laboratory evidence may have indicated effects on the hormone system or for which effects and especially relevant doses are debated at a scientific level. The PPG will review chemicals in these categories and the project will be designed to develop strategies for facilitating policy progress where immediately possible, even while scientific uncertainty may prevent comprehensive action on all likely or possible EDCs.    

 

In 2012, UN Environment and WHO published the State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, including a summary for decision makers, recently translated into the official UN languages. In 2014, UN Environment established an Advisory Group on environmental exposure and impact of EDCs, with representatives from governments, academia, industry and civil society, to provide strategic and policy advice. UN Environment is implementing a project aimed at providing factual, balanced and robust available information on EDCs, including by the preparation of overview reports on different aspects of the life cycle of EDCs and potential EDCs. ICCM4 confirmed the continuing need for support to address the needs identified by developing countries and countries with economies in transition. IPEN’s programme of work on EDCs includes collaboration with technical institutions and engagement with national policy makers through trainings and publications.  OECD coordinates methodological work on identifying EDCs, with five new and updated Test Guidelines for the detection and characterisation of EDCs since 2012. An Advisory Group on Endocrine Disrupters Testing and Assessment guides this work, helping prioritize needs and providing technical support e.g. on extrapolating from case studies[20].

 

EPPPs:ICCM4 agreed to implement cooperative actions on EPPPs with the overall objective of increasing awareness and understanding among policymakers and other stakeholders, and invited Governments and other stakeholders to generate and share information to fill the identified knowledge gaps (Resolution IV/2 part III). UN Environment has started a initial scoping and mapping exercise, aiming at collecting and compiling information of EPPP in different stages of their life cycle, including presence in wastewater, studies and practices in place, applicable legislation, stakeholders involved and work being undertaken that can serve as the basis to add understanding on EPPPs situation. The work is building on the German Environment Agency review of over 1000 scientific publications in 2016, and published an online database of the data. For example, developing countries with poor or non-existent waste management systems are very likely to have higher levels of EPPP in the environment than the richer countries for which data is gradually becoming available. Introduction of policies or systems for take-back of unused pharmaceuticals and appropriate disposal can allow countries to better manage health care costs as well as reducing environmental impacts, so can be promoted for each action despite a lack of evidence of environmental levels or impacts. The World Health Assembly adopted a Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance in 2015 calling for new guidance to address the presence of antimicrobials and residues in the environment, especially in water and wastewater.

 

Nano: ICCM Resolution IV/2 recommends that stakeholders: develop and implement regional cooperation mechanisms; address nano issues in national and international instruments including regulatory frameworks (e.g. by using the UNITAR guidance); exchange information on the sound management of nano, including through regional networks; and, for IGOs to continue development of guidance and training materials. UNITAR organized regional workshops in 2015 and has developed national pilot projects including in Armenia, Jordan, Nigeria, Thailand, Uruguay, and Vietnam. IPEN has developed regional reviews of the use and environmental implications of nanotechnology for all regions[21].

 

Since 2006, the OECD has coordinated the work of the Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials, providing a forum for stakeholders to collaborate on human health and environmental safety implications of nanomaterials in a harmonised manner, particularly in relation to regulatory frameworks and risk assessment methodologies. The group has published numerous guidance documents on risk assessment, development of national policies, and links with agriculture, worker exposure and GHS.

 

Strategic planning and knowledge management: The Secretariat tracks progress on SAICM based on 20 indicators (reports available for 2009-2010 and 2011-2013). These indicators do not explicitly address EPIs, and stakeholders called for an analysis of their continued use in ICCM 4 Resolution IV/1 para 18.  Further work is needed to develop concrete and objectively verifiable targets for each emerging policy issue in line with the Sustainable Development Goals. UN Environment hosted an initial workshop in 2016[22] to explore opportunities for integration of existing monitoring with the SDGs.

 

The SAICM Secretariat facilitates information sharing, through regional meetings (specifically on nanosafety or EDCs; and regular regional meetings of SAICM focal points) and globally during ICCM, Open Ended Working Group and other inter-sessional events but the relevant documents containing much data and experience remain ‘hidden’ in workshop reports and are not extracted and compiled in an easy-to-access format.. Access to resources through the SAICM website is under-developed, with lack of analysis of potential overlaps and links with other sources (Basel Rotterdam and Stockholm site, Global Sustainable Consumption and Production clearinghouse, UN Environment Live). For each EPI, communication efforts are made with its own constituency including scientists, private sector supply chains, and end users and victims of chemical exposure, but there is a lack of a global coordination which ultimately limits the reach of such communication efforts and hinders effective lesson learning and contribute to duplication of effort.  Nationally and regionally, the Quick Start Programme has supported information exchanging systems such as a Poison information network for the Pacific, on PCB management in Asia, and support to national Pollution Release and Transfer Registers. The PPG will conduct a review of existing outreach and information sharing efforts and during the project a detailed communication and information need assessment will address all stakeholders to design a knowledge management strategy that can help share and expand the reach of existing communication efforts by stakeholders on all EPIs.

 

Chemicals and waste management has been integrated into diverse Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) rather than as a stand-alone Goal on chemicals and waste, including among others, oceans and water quality, air quality and climate change, sustainable cities and urbanization or industrial transformation to a ‘green economy’. However, this approach relies on effective links between the chemicals agenda (through SAICM) and other policy, science and private sector initiatives. Further engagement by all sectors (health, agriculture, trade and industry) at a high level, and with external agendas and processes (on climate change, urbanization, water and wetlands, sustainable consumption and development planning) will facilitate the necessary policy and behavioural shifts to achieve the 2020 SAICM Goal and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The World Health Assembly adopted Resolution 69.4 in 2016 on SAICM, and WHO has developed a road map to enhance health sector engagement. Human rights stakeholders have engaged with the 2020 goal via two Special Rapporteurs on Toxics and the Right to Food. Other stakeholders have identified linkages between chemicals and other issues including gender[23]  or child labour[24]. The Special Programme on Institutional Strengthening approved its first seven projects in 2016, aiming to strengthen national implementation of BRS, Minamata and SAICM commitments, including through better engagement and coordination between sectors and institutions. The PPG will identify existing areas of collaboration with stakeholders across diverse sectors, and identify gaps, best practices/ lessons and concrete mechanisms for engagement (e.g. policy briefs, joint events, communication materials, joint hosting of structures and processes, etc). These will inform the design of the project in terms of outreach to broader sustainability themes and communities.

 

 

3. Proposed Alternative Scenario:

 

The Overall Orientation and Guidance endorsed at ICCM4 identified increased risk reduction and information sharing efforts on emerging policy issues as one of the six core activity areas to 2020. GEF resources available for SAICM under Programs 1 and 6, and for POPs under Program 3, are needed to take a coherent approach to the EPIs, take stock, and plan actions up to and beyond 2020. Without such funding, the proposed activities are unlikely to be achieved in the critical period to 2020. The following subsections outline the proposed components.

 

Component 1: Lead in Paint and HHPs: The project will stimulate national regulatory action and engage the private sector, to ban known toxic chemicals, and provide global best practice on the necessary conditions and inputs that are most effective in generating political will to take action at the national level. It will support achievement of the aspirational target of the Global Alliance strategy for all countries to have legal limits on lead in paints in place by 2020; and demonstrate the replacement of HHP with safer alternatives.

 

Output 1.1 Demonstration pilots with paint manufacturers in Small and Medium Enterprises (UNIDO):

This output addresses the low awareness of environmentally sound alternatives to the use of lead in paint production, particularly targeting the SME sector where awareness is lowest. It builds on experience by UNIDO and others in working with supply chains and mechanisms such as eco-labelling to create incentives for manufacturers to phase out lead.

·         Best Available Technology (BAT)/Best Environmental Practice (BEP) demonstration through investment for the phase-out of lead containing paint in companies selected in close consultation with the relevant governments according to technical and feasibility criteria.

·         Establishing public and private partnership, strengthening institutional framework and capacity,  and raising awareness in selected countries.

·         Extending the public private partnership approach to other countries through the Global Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production network.

 

Output 1.2 Global Technical guidelines on BAT/BEP for manufacturers (UNIDO):

·         Global Technical guidance will be produced on the pilot projects, including technical detail on phase out, on waste management, and financial incentives and new business models that can support phase out.

 

 

 

 

Output 1.3 Policy advocacy and and public awareness campaigns generate support for lead phase-out:

This output addresses two of the barriers to phase out of lead in paint, namely lack of political will and the low awareness of the alternatives among vulnerable groups exposed to lead paint. It builds directly on Global Alliance partner projects in Africa, Asia and CEE as described in the Baseline.

·         Compiling, strengthening and developing new global guidance resources on lead in paint based on project experiences; and updating the existing online Toolkit (e.g. addition of the UNIDO technical guidelines from Output 1.2, sample legal language, examples of national legislative instruments)

·         Promotion of the Toolkit through regional workshops and development of regional action plans to coordinate national commitments, establish regional mechanisms, regular reporting on progress to the Global Alliance.

·         Targeted support for 40 countries on request to  apply the Toolkit resources in their own context and introduce legal limits and other measures.

·         Supporting the established Lead Poisoning Prevention Week campaign, delivered by health and environment partners all over the world, topromote consumer awareness, particularly among women, children, and other highly exposed groups of the risks of leaded paint. As well as changing purchasing decisions, public awareness via the Week of Action can stimulate policitical will for regulatory measures that can achieve lead phase out.

 

Output 1.4 Global best practices in  HHP risk assessment compiled based on experiences in multiple regions and adopted by pesticide registrars:

This output addresses the lack of capacity for risk assessment in developing countries, by providing training, supporting case study countries to identify HHPs, and highlighting common and best practices. It also addresses the lack of political will by strengthening regional cooperation and networks. It builds on the baseline by developing and sharing experiences from more regions and linking to global action under the Rotterdam Convention and on sustainable food supply chains.

·         Training of regulators and review of registered pesticide lists by regulators, collection of evidence on actual health and environmental impacts of use under field conditions, and comparison against agreed criteria for HHP,and targeted support to regulators to develop regulatory responses.

·         Developing regional strategies and coalitions (such as SAPREF) to stimulate south-south cooperation and exchanges and information sharing between regions.

·         Compilation of best practices based on experiences gained in a larger number of countries and regions, providing more globally relevant experience sharing.

 

Output 1.5 Evidence on HHP alternatives is accessible to registrars and informs HHP registration decisions:

This output addresses the low awareness of alternatives, both among regulators and users of HHP, and builds on baseline activities by developing new case studies on adoption of alternatives in developing countries, and explicitly linking these and existing resources on sustainable production/alternatives with constituencies working on HHP.

·         Global review and compilation of information and expertise on alternatives to the HHPs identified by diverse stakeholders.

·         Dissemination of evidence and guidance on alternatives, using resources developed in multiple formats and for diverse audiences, including through the SAICM Knowledge Management platform.

·         Monitoring and reporting on adoption of alternatives for different uses of HHPs that have been restricted and developing lessons learnt and case studies to encourage further regulatory and voluntary phase outs of HHPs.

 

 

Component 2: CiP and HSLEEP: The project addresses the barriers toward sound lifecycle management in a stepwise manner, first addressing the lack of information by strengthening CiP systems, and then by demonstrating how this information can support SCP measures to phase out toxics use. The project builds on baseline activities by expanding from the textile sector to an additional three sectors (toys, building products and electronics), while ensuring that relevant lessons and best practices from the baseline textile work is transferred.

 

Output 2.1 Platform to identify and quantify CoCs present in supply chains, based on existing and expanded Chemicals in Products (CiP) initiatives:

·         Coordinated mechanism and platform to share existing information on companies and initiatives.

·         facilitate expansion of information collection on additional chemicals and new companies or stakeholders.

 

Output 2.2 Green Economy tools and guidance refer to CiP data to improve product design, purchasing, and use practices:

·         Share expertise from UN Environment’s SCP branch, and potentially the Natural Resources Defence Council[25], to promote and expand sound chemical management through consumer information sharing, green procurement policies, lifecycle assessment tools and calculations, and green economy/green design initiatives.

·         Once companies in these sectors engage actively in the CiP Programme on tracking and reporting chemical use, they will be a key constituency for the project to reach out to and encourage adoption of the sustainability tools developed or strengthened under Output 3.2.

 

Output 2.3 Work Plan on Hazardous Substances within the Life Cycle of Electrical and Electronic Products (HSLEEP) 2016-2020 implemented with support of the GEF (UNIDO):

This output addresses the regulatory/ legislative and the supply chain barriers to upstream management and reduction of hazardous chemical inputs in EEE.

·         Gaps in existing policies and legal institutional frameworks addressing the design of e-products wil be analyzed, assessed and closed. Policy instruments to address hazardous chemicals in electrical and electronic products will be promoted and adopted to support the proper management, reduction, elimination or substitution of toxic chemicals in electrical and electronic products in developing countries and countries with economies in transition.

·         Major leading global companies and their industry associations will be engaged under the Step, PACE and GeSI Initiatives. Partner UN organizatioans and NGOs will be included to help roll out EPR in developing countries and countries with economies in transition.

·         Voluntary approaches will be set with particular focus on the use of economic instruments and other incentives, the application of the extended producer responsibility principle and e-products take-back schemes, as appropriate.

·         A final list of activities to be funded under this GEF grant will be established during PPG, using the following criteria: cataloguing of past/ongoing activities funded through multiple sources, to avoid duplication of activities and enhance the knowledge and experience sharing; ensuring that the limited funding available is used to get sufficient instruments to reach the 2020 SAICM objective for HSLEEP. The establishment of the final list will be undertaken in consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

 

 

Component 3: New and emerging scientific issues: Work on the three EPIs (EDC, EPPP and nano) will follow a similar approach, with an output for each EPI. The scientific, technical and policy review activities under each output address the second and third barriers identified, of evidence gaps for developing countries both for environmental presence and policy measures. Detailed evidence of environmental levels and impacts may be prohibitively resource-intensive to obtain, and the scientific work is primarily aimed at summarizing and prioritizing research needs. The activities on dissemination of these results will address the first barrier, namely the challenges for developing countries to access and take part in global level scientific and technical work on these issues.

 

Output 3.1 Data on EDCs is compiled, including global and national technical reviews and field studies:

·         Expert studies conducted on global scientific work and developments on EDC, including technical aspects of screening methodologies etc, and establishment of a global scientific environmental risk assessment expert group.

·         Mapping of countries which use recommended EDC screening methods and have introduced EDC controls through policy or other measures.

·         Dissemination of results and advocacy for improved management of EDCs through existing SAICM events and meetings (OEWG, ICCM etc).

 

Output 3.2 Knowledge gaps on EPPP filled. Global guidance document developed by project end:

·         Studies conducted and published on environmental and health levels of EPPPs; and on the influence of EPPP in the environment on antimicrobial resistance.

·         Mapping of countries’ and stakeholders’ policies and practices on disposal of human medicines.

·         Dissemination of results and advocacy for improved management of EPPP through existing SAICM events and meetings (OEWG, ICCM etc).

 

Output 3.3 Studies on environmental levels of nanoparticles, and global guidance on nanosafety science and policy, for use by developing countries impact evaluation of previous policy workshops and pilot projects to raise awareness and introduce nano-safety policies:

·         Field studies of nano levels in aquatic or terrestrial ecosystems.

·         Dissemination of results and advocacy for improved management of nano through existing SAICM events and meetings (OEWG, ICCM etc).

 

 

Component 4: Strategic planning and knowledge management: This component will provide the overall framework for each of the three chemical-specific components, ensuring effective experience sharing and close integration of the project results with the ongoing and future development of the Strategic Approach, including for the beyond 2020 period as it develops during the project lifetime.

 

Output 4.1 Knowledge management platform and new mechanisms to communicate science and best practices in policy development:

This output addresses the barrier on inadequate information exchange, by creating coordinated channels to share both existing information from baseline initiatives, and also the information and knowledge products that will be generated by this project.

·         Detailed stakeholder knowledge needs assessment, building on PPG assessments of other information sharing portals on chemical management.

·         Development and implementation of outreach and communication strategy for diverse stakeholders, including government, private sector and community level.

·         Establishment of project Knowledge Management platform, supporting each of the components in disseminating specific technical knowledge products, and transition to SAICM Information Clearing House at project end.

 

Output 4.2 A list of measurable indicators to monitor project progress on Emerging Policy Issues  in line with the Sustainable Development Goals:

This output addresses the problem of the wide, and often overwhelming scope of EPI issues, by improving global monitoring of progress to explicitly refer to EPIs and allow objective comparisions between countries and regions. It will build on the existing SAICM monitoring of progress based on the 20 indicators by creating EPI-specific monitoring, and strengthen the indicators by including objective state indicators as well as process-based ones.

·         A strategy and objectively verifiable indicators for monitoring project progress on the EPIs developed in coordination with component technical partners

·         Data collection for the project period for national, regional and global levels wherever possible, and used by project M&E processes (see Component 5) to produce periodic statements of global progress on implementation of EPIs by the project and baseline activities

·         Coordination with baseline and parallel processes and discussions on beyond 2020 period and ongoing work on defining the detailed SDG targets.

 

Output 4.3 Multi-stakeholder engagement from other sectors and agendas:

This output addresses the limited global mainstreaming of chemical management by strengthening existing cooperation with SAICM stakeholders, and creating new alliances through diverse constituencies. This work is closely linked to the baseline functions of the SAICM Secretariat and engagement with the health sector, and will use this experience to approach new partners and sectors.

·         Review of sectors and stakeholders of relevance to chemical management confirmed (this will be started during the PPG), and compilation of best practices and institutional arrangements that support effective stakeholder engagement.

·         Joint development with technical leads of components, of policy briefs or publications on the role of chemicals management within diverse sectors, and presentation at relevant events (e.g. on cities, biodiversity, product sectors, or other).

·         Outreach and advocacy with sectors to integrate chemical management issues into their approaches, and development of joint initiatives or projects.

 

 

Component 5: Monitoring and Evaluation: The detailed M&E plan will be developed and delivered by the Executing Agency, to track achievement of the project objectives and indicators.

 

5.1. Quarterly financial reports and annual progress reports monitoring status of project execution:

·         Annual Project Implementation Report (PIR).

·         Quarterly financial report.

·         Establishment of decision making and coordination structure.

 

5.2. Midterm and Terminal Evaluations of project impacts shared with SAICM stakeholders.

 

 

4. Incremental reasoning

Without GEF assistance, international activities on Emerging Issues identified under SAICM are likely to remain uncoordinated, incoherent and ineffective. GEF assistance will ensure SAICM can provide guidance and leadership on Emerging Issues, support developing ‘champion’ countries in addressing these issues in a coordinated and effective manner, and share lessons learned and knowledge with other countries.   

 

The project delivery is based on an unprecedented degree of collaboration and joint working between members of the IOMC, the private sector and civil society. This level of close collaboration across all three components will require close oversight and coordination by the Executing Agency and it is anticipated that the close working relationships to be established will provide the conditions for sustainability, and scaling up of future activities.

 

 

5. Global Environmental Benefits

Humans and ecosystems are simultaneously exposed to multiple combinations of chemicals, multiplying uncertainty around impacts of exposure to individual chemicals. Many chemicals may feature in one or more categories, for example, lead is present in paint but also in electronics; manufactured nanomaterials and lead in paint are also chemicals used in products; and estrogens and contraceptive medications are both EDC and EPPP. In this context, the chemical-by-chemical regulatory approach is increasingly unable to address the global environmental and health risks posed by these chemicals. The project will deliver the integrated, collaborative and multistakeholder approach needed.

 

The project will support replacement of POPs and potential future POPs in the agriculture sector, for example endosulfan and lindane, under the HHP component. The CiP and HSLEEP component will address new POPs in products, such as brominated flame retandants and PFOS, in building products and electronics supply chains.

The project will integrate SAICM targets and priorities on lead in paint, EDC/EPPP/nano and HSLEEP into national regulatory and sectoral planning frameworks and in global supply chains. For lead in paint, direct global environmental benefits will be achieved through the pilot demonstrations the selectedcountries for the phase out of lead-containing paint in each country. Indirect global environmental benefits will be achieved through developed and enforced legal limits for the use of lead in paint. In total, the project will result in introduction of lead limits in 40 countries; of restrictions of HHPs in 15 countries; and introduction of targets to replace POPs and other priority chemicals in at least three product supply chains.

 

 

6. Innovation, sustainability and potential for scaling up

 

The project addresses threats associated with new, emerging, and ‘live’ chemicals that may be widely distributed in the environment, in our bodies, in products, and in supply chains. The chemical issues addressed under SAICM are unlikely ever to be the subject of international, legally binding controls such as those included under the Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm or Minamata Conventions; and therefore a different approach is needed which prioritizes collaborative, coordinated and decentralized voluntary efforts by many stakeholders. The voluntary and multi-stakeholder structure of SAICM is able to deliver this approach.

 

The lessons learnt and best practices developed in Component 1 will be applicable for new chemicals as consensus is reached on the need for decentralized, national regulatory action by all stakeholders. The component will develop approaches and methods to stimulate action by countries and stakeholders at the lower end of the ‘widening gap’ in capacity for sound management of chemicals. Working with ‘hard to reach’ partners, including LDCs and SIDs, or the SME part of industrial production chains, or the most vulnerable population groups, the project will seek to consolidate best practices that can be applied more widely to future chemical hazards. Eventually, legal limits will drive innovation for environmentally benign products that may bring additional benefits in terms of higher quality and more economical products for users.

 

Under Component 2, the project will reach out to new stakeholders throughout supply chains in the private sector, based on already demonstrated needs for CiP information, and calls for a more efficient approach from numerous sectors. The potential for scale up is driven by the stakeholder needs, as well as the similarity in approaches across regions (within a given products sector) and across sectors (i.e. lesson learned from various approaches can be transferred).

 

Component 3 will engage developing country partners in issues that have been previously very heavily skewed by research, information and participation from OECD countries. The planned global status reports will provide both data and a methodology that is appropriate for developing and transition government and thus provide a basis for scaling up and sustainability through ownership of this agenda among scientific and technical communities in these countries.

 

The effective collaboration between numerous members of the IOMC will require close oversight and coordination by the Executing Agency. The close working relationships established will provide the conditions for sustainability. The close integration with the SAICM structure and mandate, especially in terms of strategic planning, monitoring progress, and knowledge sharing, means that project outputs in terms of knowledge management platforms, M&E systems, and strategic plans, will be designed and developed in a way that allows them to be adopted as future SAICM resources and ensure sustainability and scale-up. For example, the knowledge management platforms and systems developed can be used for further development of the SAICM Information Clearing House which is one of the responsibilities of the SAICM Secretariat. Similarly, the monitoring indicators and data from the project period developed for the EPIs could be integrated with either the 20 Progress Indicators or any new monitoring system that may be adopted by stakeholders either for the 2020 goal or eventually the 2030 Agenda.

 

2. Stakeholders. Will project design include the participation of relevant stakeholders from civil society organizations (yes  /no) and indigenous peoples (yes  /no)? If yes, identify key stakeholders and briefly describe how they will be engaged in project preparation.

 

SAICM brings together diverse stakeholders, and this project targets government, private sector, and researchers through the three technical components addressing the EPIs. The following table outlines key international and national stakeholders and their proposed respective roles in the project preparatory phase, and the execution phase. Design and delivery of the cross-cutting component 4 will include input from all stakeholders, including on coordinated production and dissemination of communication products, country and sector engagement, and monitoring of progress.

 



[1] Attina and Trasande (2013) Economic Costs of Childhood Lead Exposure in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1206424

[2] Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). 2015 GBD Compare. Seattle, WA: IHME, University of Washington, (http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare, accessed 26 Aug 16)

[4] Prüss-Ustün et al (2011) Knowns and unknowns on burden of disease due to chemicals: a systematic review

[5] UN ENVIRONMENT, 2012. Cost of InAction on the Sound Management of Chemicals, http://www.UN Environment.org/chemicalsandwaste/Mainstreaming/CostsofInactionInitiative/tabid/56397/Default.aspx  

[6] Li H, Yu L, Sheng G, Fu J, Peng P.. 2007. Severe PCDD/F and PBDD/F pollution in air around an electronic waste dismantling area in China. Environ Sci Technol 41:5641–5646

[7] KemI (2016) Supervision of electrical low-priced products (http://www.kemi.se/global/tillsyns-pm/2016/tillsyn-11-16-tillsyn-av-elektriska-lagprisprodukter.pdf)

[8] Trasande et al (2015) Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4399291/)

[9] German Environment Agency (2016) Pharmaceuticals in the environment – the global perspective Occurrence, effects, and potential cooperative action under SAICM

[10] US EPA (2012) Nanomaterial Case Study:Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray

[11] Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection GESAMP (2016) Sources, Fate And Effects Of Microplastics In The Marine Environment: Part Two Of A Global Assessment

[12] UNEP (2015) Guidance for stakeholders on exchanging chemicals in products information

[13]  Dutch Sustainability Business Association, 2015, Governments going circular

[14] Overall orientation and guidance for achieving the 2020 goal of sound management of chemicals: The future we want for the sound management of chemicals http://www.saicm.org/images/saicm_documents/OOG%20document%20English.pdf

 

International Environmental Technology Centre (2012) Volume III: WEEE/E-waste Take-back System.

[16] United Nations University (UNU) Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP) Initiative (2015) E-waste Prevention, Take-back System Design and Policy Approaches

[17] UNU (2014) The Global E-waste Monitor 2014: Quantities, flows and resources

[18] Basel Convention Decision 12/5, Technical guidelines on transboundary movements of electrical and electronic waste and used electrical and electronic equipment, in particular regarding the distinction between waste and non waste

 

[19] Step’s members (www.step-initiative.org/world-map-of-members.html

28 GeSI’s members (gesi.org/ICT_sustainability_members_and_partners?page=1)

[19] ICRT & Good Electronics (2015) Meeting the challenge: detailed recommendations for implementation of the challenge to the electronics idustry

[20] WHO (2014) Identification of Risks from Exposure to EDCs at the Country Level – covers Denmark, France, Japan, Korea and US

[21] For example, IPEN (2012) Social and Environmental implications of nanotechnology development in Africa

[22] April 2016 workshop on ‘Integrated National Implementation of SDGs and International Chemicals and Waste Agreements’

[23] Women in Europe for a Common Future (2016), Women and Chemicals The impact of hazardous chemicals on women A thought starter based on an experts‘ workshop

[24] International Labor Organization (2011) Children in hazardous work: What we know, what we need to do

[25] To be engaged during the PPG to share experience from the textile sector1. Global environmental problems, root causes and barriers: Exposure to chemicals can cause or contribute to a broad range of negative environmental and health outcomes, including irreversible environmental degradation and death. Most common health problems include eye, skin, and respiratory irritation; damage to organs such as the brain, lungs, liver or kidneys; damage to the immune, respiratory, cardiovascular, nervous, reproductive or endocrine systems; and birth defects and chronic diseases, such as cancer, asthma, or diabetes. Chemicals released to air as a result of unsound management can act as local air pollutants, greenhouse gases, or ozone depleters and contribute to acid or toxic rain. Others can act as water pollutants with adverse effects on ecosystems, wildlife and aquatic organisms, and on the availability of water resources for drinking, bathing, and other activities. Soil contamination impacts include loss of agricultural productivity, contamination of food crops, toxicity to soil microorganisms and land degradation. In all cases, humans are exposed to this contamination through air, water or food intake, or through physical contact with contaminated air, water, soil or dust.

 

Global contaminants such as POPs or mercury are regulated by Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), namely the Stockholm and Minamata Conventions respectively. A number of additional ‘Emerging Policy Issues’ (EPIs) have been nominated for voluntary, cooperative risk reduction actions by countries through the Strategic Approach for International Chemicals Management (SAICM). Through contamination of global water bodies and globalised value chains, the environmental problems are globally distributed. Each EPI presents particular environmental and health problems:

 

·         Lead in paint: lead is a cumulative toxicant particularly harmful to young children and pregnant women. The cost of reduced cognitive potentials (loss of IQ points) due to preventable childhood lead exposure in low and middle-income countries is estimated as $977 billion annually[1]. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) has estimated that in 2015 lead exposure accounted for 494,550 deaths due to long-term effects on health, with the highest burden in low and middle income countries. IHME also estimated that lead exposure accounted for 12.4% of the global burden of idiopathic intellectual disability, 2.5% of the global burden of ischaemic heart disease and 2.4% of the global burden of stroke[2]. Lead in paint is a major source of childhood lead exposure in childhood; it results in contaminated dust in homes that is inhaled or ingested (UNEP 2010).[3]

·         Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHP): are defined by their negative effects on humans: confirmed by WHO or the Globally Harmonized System as carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxins; listed under Stockholm, Rotterdam or Montreal conventions; and with evidence of severe or irreversible adverse effects on health and the environment. Chronic exposure to HHPs can result in effects on skin, eyes, nervous system, cardiovascular system, gastrointestinal tract, liver, kidneys, reproductive system, endocrine system and blood, and may affect the immune system. Available data are too limited to estimate the global health impacts of occupational exposure and accidental or intentional poisonings. The global impact of self-poisoning by pesticides in 2002 (suicides) has been estimated at 186,000 deaths and 4,420,000 disability adjusted life years (DALYs)[4]. In 2013, UN Environment estimated that the health costs associated with exposure to pesticides in sub-Saharan Africa in the period 2005–2020 without any preventive and risk reduction actions will amount to at least $97 billion[5]

·         Chemicals in Products (CiP): include a number of hazardous or toxic substances which are incorporated into a product and pose a risk to human health and the environment. These may include POPs such as brominated flame retardants, (potential) endocrine disrupters such as phthalates, various solvents and colourants, and heavy metals. Manufacturers of products that include hazardous chemical components fail to document, and are thus not able to control the handling and use of these chemicals through the complex supply chain. Workers are unknowingly exposed to them; consumers are unable to identify which products may be contaminated and to what extent by toxic chemicals; and waste streams are inadvertently contaminated. Strategic Approach stakeholders have prioritized four product sectors for urgent action: electronics, building products, toys, and textiles. Significant efforts into e-waste have highlighted the environmental problems caused by inappropriate disposal, including production of dioxin and furans[6].

·         Hazardous Substances in the Life Cycle of Electronic and Electrical Products (HSLEEP): include lead, mercury, cadmium, zinc, yttrium, chromium, beryllium, nickel, brominated flame-retardants, antimony trioxide, halogenated flame-retardants, tin, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and phthalates. Electronic products contain metals such as gold and copper that are valuable and relatively easy to extract for recyclers. During 2016, the Swedish Chemicals Agency inspected the content of 154 electrical and electronic low-price products and found chemicals banned or severely restricted for these uses in the EU, including lead, phthalates and short chain chlorinated paraffins, in 38% of samples[7].

·         Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs): are chemicals or chemical mixtures that interfere with normal hormonal action and cause adverse effects, and include a number of POPs including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDT. Endocrine-related disorders in both humans (such as infertility, reproductive, neurobehavioural or respiratory disorders, certain cancers, obesity and Type 2 diabetes) and animals (effects on growth and reproduction) are well documented to be on the rise. A series of peer-reviewed economic analyses estimated that damage of EDCs to human health could cost more than €150 billion a year in the European Union[8].

·         Environmentally Persistent Pharmaceutical Products (EPPPs): A global literature review in 2016 compiled studies that measured EPPP (antibiotics, analgesics, lipid-lowering drugs, estrogens, and others) concentrations in surface water and waste water, with more limited analyses on groundwater, tap/drinking water, manure, soil, and sediments. 631 different pharmaceuticals or their transformation products were detected in the environment of 71 countries; 17 of these were detected in all five UN regions. Despite knowledge gaps on the likelihood of effects at different concentrations, some case studies give cause for alarm. For example, the anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac, detected in 50 countries, has caused a near-extinction of vultures on the Indian subcontinent, caused by the birds’ feeding on the carcasses of treated cattle. Several countries have reported the feminization of fish due to estrogenic pollution of water bodies, and in whole-lake experiments, one of the EPPPs detected in the global review has caused population collapse due to feminization of male fish. Urban wastewater seems to be the dominant emission pathway of pharmaceuticals globally, whereas emissions from industrial production, hospitals, agriculture, and aquaculture are important locally[9].

·         Nanotechnologies and manufactured nanomaterials (nano): are increasingly being used in products, with an estimated fivefold increase in products containing them from 2006 - 2011 as manufacturers used them to improve performance in more than 1,300 products from car tyres and tennis rackets to smartphone batteries, deodorant and hair conditioner. Impacts based on laboratory studies may potentially include cancer causing properties in lungs, toxic effects to the nervous system and antibacterial properties that could harm ecosystems. A review of nanosilver (one of the more well studied nanomaterials) indicates that nano-silver is more toxic than conventional silver, which is already well established to be toxic to fungi, bacterial, aquatic invertebrates, algae and fish[10] . Even in OECD countries, waste containing engineered nanomaterials is disposed of along with conventional waste, with no special precautions or treatment; and in wastewater sludge that is often spread on farmland as fertiliser. There are no in-depth studies of the potential transformation of engineered nanomaterials in soil, their interactions with plants and bacteria and their transfer to surface water. The effects of nanoplastics in the marine environment are included in a global assessment of micro-litter[11], which describes laboratory studies that “illustrate the potential of nanoplastics to affect plankton and early life stages, to decrease biological fitness (through immunosuppression) and reproductive and predator avoidance behaviours, with potential consequences at the population level or food webs over time.” As with other nanoparticles and microplastics, the lack of evidence of occurrence of such particles in marine environments makes extrapolation from laboratory results very contentious. Drawing conclusions in terms of appropriate policy or regulatory responses is even more challenging.

 

SAICM stakeholders have collectively identified these global priority issues, but gaps remain in generating the political will to address them. There is a need to accelerate the adoption of regulatory, supply chain, certification, labelling and other measures to reduce the presence and risks of these chemicals. There is a widening capacity gap between developed and developing/emerging countries in identification and management of the risks posed by these chemicals, since research into the effects of novel chemicals, and regulatory and voluntary responses for established hazards, are concentrated in OECD and developed countries. Therefore, there is a pressing need for developing countries to close capacity and regulatory gaps for proven harmful chemicals; and to tackle research and monitoring gaps for chemicals whose risks remain uncertain.

 

An analysis of barriers for the sound management of chemicals during a series of regional SAICM meetings resulted in the 2015 Overall Orientation and Guidance which proposes six priority activity areas to address key barriers to 2020:

(a)    Enhance the responsibility of stakeholders: promoting and reinforcing commitment and multisectoral engagement;

(b)   Establish and strengthen national legislative and regulatory frameworks for chemicals and waste: improving capacity to address the basic elements of the sound management of chemicals and waste and encouraging regional cooperation;

(c)    Mainstream the sound management of chemicals and waste in the sustainable development agenda: advancing risk reduction and enhancing the link between the sound management of chemicals and waste and health, labour, and social and economic development planning, processes and budgets;

(d)   Increase risk reduction and information sharing efforts on emerging policy issues: continuing to promote actions on issues not currently addressed in existing agreements, complementing initiatives taken by other bodies;

(e)   Promote information access: increasing the accessibility of relevant information and making it understandable for all levels of society;

(f)     Assess progress towards the 2020 goal of minimizing the adverse effects of chemicals on human health and the environment: identifying achievements, understanding the gaps in implementation and prioritizing actions for achievement by 2020

 

With significant implementation and compliance gaps in relation to legally binding obligations under chemicals and waste MEAs, additional chemical safety issues may ‘compete’ for recognition, resources and political will. SAICM provides a voluntary mechanism to stimulate and support national regulatory and supply chain action, particularly in low and middle-income countries where such chemicals cause the most problems.

 

The following specific barriers relate to proposed project components:

 

Regulatory gaps: A ’widening capacity gap’ is observed between countries that have restricted hazardous chemicals, and many developing and least developed countries where governments have not yet taken regulatory action to adopt policy frameworks that limit or ban production and use. Key barriers include:

·      Lack of political will and prioritization of the issue, with governments and affected stakeholders (including manufacturers and exposed individuals) having inadequate appreciation and understanding of the risks of continued use, and of the regulatory options available to ban, restrict, or manage exposure to these chemicals

·         Insufficient capacity for risk assessment and risk reduction in developing countries, includinglack of consideration of the health and environmental impacts of the continued use in regulatory decisions, which is in turn caused by inadequate monitoring, poor systems for sharing of data that may be available;

·         Low awareness of environmentally sound and safer alternatives to lead in paint and highly hazardous pesticides, at local level (e.g., in SMEs or farms) and nationally and regionally (by regulators and other authorities).

 

Lifecycle management: Managing hazardous substances in products and in electric and electronic equipment requires upstream measures to design products with fewer toxics, as well as downstream measures to manage wastes and emissions. This is hampered by:

·         Insufficient availability of information on chemicals used in products and processes through the many manufacturing stages of most products in complex supply chains, spread over numerous countries. This results in a corresponding lack of information at the consumer and end-of-life phases, greatly complicating the proper management of products for these stakeholders

·         Limited application of the principles of Green Chemistry, notably the principles of prevention of waste and of production and use of more benign chemicals, and Circular Economy, with a focus on providing the information needed for recyclers to safely reintroduce the maximum materials back into production processes

 

Hazardous Substances in the Lifecycle of Electric and Electronic Products (HSLEEP): The activities on HSLEEP have focused on providing support to developing counrties and countries with economies in transition to set up sustainable strategies for e-waste management. The remaining barriers towards the Global Action Plan will focus on addressing managerial challenges at the upstream level, including the management of chemical inputs for electrical and electronic products and their impacts during design, production and remanufacturing, distribution, consumption, use, reuse and repair. The main barriers  (as outlined in SAICM/ICCM.4/INF/18) are the following:

·         Lack of development and implementation of relevant legislation within the majority of countries, incentives for the treatment of hazardous fractions and standards for responsible and safe Electric and Electronic Equipment (EEE) management, focusing on the entire product life cycle from eco-design to final disposal and recycling methods;

·         Inefficient supply chains and strengthening of the circular economy on a global level;

·         Continous use of hazardous substances during the production process of EEE and lack of communication regarding the use and occurrence of chemicals within EEE.

 

Scientific gaps and lack of common methodologies: The widely differing levels of knowledge and policies to address EDCs, EPPPs and nano between countries and regions stem from a lack of availability and consensus on key scientific and technical information.

·         Challenges for policy makers in developing countries to follow and interpret scientific and technical debates on key issues such as on which chemicals are recognized as EDCs, whether existing risk assessment methodologies can address risks at the nano scale, and on the consequences of exposure to EPPP through environmental sources

·         Enormous gaps on information and evidence from developing and transition countries on the use, distribution, environmental fate, and impacts on health or ecosystems of these chemicals of emerging concern; and on existing policy or regulatory measures to control them.

·         A very small number of developing countries have regulatory or policy national initiatives for control of these chemicals, but information on this experience is scattered and country-specific, with no readily accessible evaluation of impacts and broader recommendations for all developing countries on what the first steps towards control should be.

 

Global strategy for implementation of EPI controls: SAICM stakeholders have focused on prioritizing emerging issues, but there is no strategic and global overview of progress in implementation. For developing countries in particular, access to this information can be instrumental in stimulating implementation actions.

·         The wide scope of EPIs and the range of actions needed (e.g. in the Global Plan of Action) can be overwhelming for stakeholders to identify priorities for action. The lack of a global overview of progress makes it difficult to pinpoint examples of best practices for countries to learn from; or of gaps which can help prioritize support and assistance where it is most needed.

·         Inadequate information exchange on EPIs in a format appropriate for diverse stakeholders in developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Difficulty in accessing information, knowledge, evidence, and resources can prevent strong justification of proposed measures and causes delay in widespread adoption of regulatory or supply chain best practices.

·         Limited mainstreaming of chemical management at the global level into broader sustainability agendas including for specific policy and product sectors. Among others, this affects the ability of stakeholders to access diverse sources of funding as recommended by the Integrated Approach to Financing; and restricts the uptake of chemical management into existing sustainability and green economy global activities.

 

 

2. Baseline scenario and associated baseline projects

 

Lead in Paint: For lead in paint, regulatory controls and best practices are established and already adopted in many developed, transition and developing countries. The political visibility given to the issue through a global process such as SAICM helps to overcome the lack of political will in developing countries without regulations, but further work at national level is needed to achieve the known regulatory measures needed. Additionally, technical guidelines, BAT/BEPs and new PPP approaches are required to eliminate lead in paint in manufacturing by SMEs. The Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead Paint (Lead Paint Alliance) was established under the auspices of UN Environment and WHO, and with governments, IPEN and industry represented in its governing Advisory Group. It aims to phase out the use of lead in paint by 2020. The Action Plan for 2015-2016 includes a target that “20 more countries will have adopted new legal limits on lead paint, bringing the total countries with existing legal limits to 72”; as of August 2016, 62 countries have introduced laws or regulations. Such laws or regulations can include legal limits, certification standards, or labelling requirements. The Lead Paint Alliance works towards the goal of having such laws or regulations in place in all the countries by 2020, by developing regulatory guidance for governments and raising awareness through an annual International Lead Poisoning Prevention Week of Action (end October).

http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/Global_chemicals_lead_paint_regulations_2015.png

Source: WHO http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/phe/lead_paint/atlas.html

 

Widespread public awareness of both risks and alternatives can provide additional pressure on decision makers to take the regulatory steps needed to reduce exposure and risks to people, especially vulnerable populations who are disproportionately affected. ‘Champion countries’ in East Africa and CEE have already taken a proactive approach and sought support from the Global Alliance to introduce new legal approaches. The International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) executed a European Commission funded project in eight Asian countries (Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, China, Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia), with follow up civil society projects funded by the SAICM Quick Start Programme in Cameroon and Nepal. In June 2016, UN Environment convened a workshop in Chisinau to assist countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia to develop legal limits to lead paint. Lessons from this project will be incorporated into this project. GEF projects on LiP are summarized in Section 5. Through these and other activities, the Lead Paint Alliance now has the support of governments, environmental NGOs and industry alike and is thus well positioned to promote successful elimination of lead in paint globally.

 

HHPs: HHPs continue to be available and used in many developing countries, particularly Rotterdam-Convention listed pesticides and those that may cause health and environmental impacts through global food supply chains. For many of these, less hazardous alternatives are available. FAO, UN Environment and WHO developed a joint approach and strategy in 2015 to address the significant risks of HHPs, endorsed by SAICM stakeholders in ICCM 4 Resolution IV/3. The 2016 FAO/WHO Guidelines on HHPs under the Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management provide step-wise guidance on how to identify HHPs, assess their risks and identify the best risk mitigation measures. The guidelines are complemented by a new FAO Pesticide Registration ToolKit, which guides pesticide registration authorities in conducting risk assessments and taking registration decisions. Implementation of the Guidelines and Toolkit have been tested in a number of countries and now are ready to be rolled out on a large scale. In November 2016, FAO conducted a webinar and a training-of-trainers workshop and established an extensive programme involving trainers from Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, China, Germany, Mozambique, New Zealand, Saint Lucia, Sweden and Zimbabwe to roll out the Toolkit During 2017-2018, national capacity training will be rolled out within the framework of ongoing programmes and projects to strengthen pesticide management. This project will build on these activities.

 

The potential of regional collaborations and initiatives in setting regulatory standards and enforcing national regulations is also under-explored, particularly in regions with porous borders and widespread illegal international trade. Within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region countries individually struggle to regulate and manage the negative health and environmental effects of HHPs.  The Southern African Pesticide Regulators Forum (SAPReF), a sub-technical committee of SADC, formed in 2010 to collectively address these issues. Elimination of HHPs was listed as a priority under the SAPReF Strategic Action Plan developed in July 2015 at a regional workshop in Harare, Zimbabwe. Ever since, SAPReF has submitted a request for technical and financial assistance to develop regional cooperation on elimination of HHPs in SADC countries. Likewise, East Africa Community countries have initiated consultations of the issue. The Pacific Small Islands, as part of their efforts in strengthening chemical management in agriculture, have initiated a process of regional collaboration on pesticide risk assessment, including the compilation of their pesticide registries into a database.

 

CiP: ICCM2 agreed priorty sectors for CiP namely textiles, toys, building products and electronics. CiP information systems do exist for products in some sectors, based on individual company needs or initiatives, leading to a patchwork of information systems that meet the main proponent’s needs, but which have not been taken up widely in the sectors. The programme on CiP was adopted by ICCM4 in 2015 and has developed an indicative list of the kinds of information exchange schemes and tools that already exist in different sectors[12].  The CiP programme identifies three core information objectives for SAICM stakeholders, including to: know and exchange in supply chains information on what chemicals are in products, associated hazards and sound management practicies; disclose information of relevance to stakeholders outside the supply chain to assist in informed decision making about CiP; and ensure, through due diligence, that information is accurate, current and accessible.

 

Examples of existing CiP schemes or tools for the project sectors include various tools developed to assess materials or ingredients of building products (e.g. the BASTA Building materials database; the Health Product Declaration Open Standard™Pharos Building materials). Uptake of these and other tools is not tracked, and data from the different tools has not been compared or compiled to provide a global overview either of the companies or products that do use such systems: or of the data within these systems on specific CoCs. Toy product manufacturers and their component and material suppliers must comply with regulations and legislation that have a global impact, such as the REACH and Toy Safety Directive of the European Union, and the Children’s Safe Products Act Reporting Rule of Washington State (United States). Since 2011, the Hong Kong Toys Council has jointly developed a standard system for toy chemical safety compliance management. In the electronics sector the BOMcheck Electronic system supporting compliance with regulations (e.g., EU REACH) builds on other tools such as the Joint Industry Guide IPC 1752 Standard for materials declaration.  Other standards also exsit such as the harmonized International Electrotechnical Commission Database Standard 62474a which provides data to downstream manufacturers, or the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT®) helping purchasers, manufacturers, resellers and others to identify environmentally preferable electronic devices. The textile sector is relatively well organized with respect to identification and substitution of hazardous substances, with many lessons that can be shared with other sectors, for example the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Substances programme, the Natural Resources Defence Council ‘Clean by Design’ programme, as well as previous GEF-funded projects on chemicals in textiles (see Section 5). Previous studies have shown that regulatory drivers, the requirement to provide information to regulators, are important in establishing tracking systems, but during the PPG the project will identify other voluntary or market drivers, as well as identifying and analysing existing schemes.

 

Information on toxics in specific products is needed to drive risk management and eventually substitution by alternative, lower risk chemicals and processes.. The “dearth of infrastructure for companies to ensure transparency on the product-level” has been highlighted as a critical factor hampering a transition to a circular economy as circular businesses need to know the resources used to manufacture a particular product[13].While many product sectors have adopted a broad sustainability agenda, this is often focused on energy efficiency, water or natural resource use, with few examples of private sector initiatives that explicitly address chemical impacts and use of toxics in supply chains, in products and at consumer level. The SAICM Overall Orientation and Guidance[14] calls for chemical producers and suppliers to make information on chemical exposure, hazards and safer alternatives available to distributors, workers, consumers and users at all levels in the supply chain (paragraph 68). A number of tools exist to support assessment, communication and promotion of more sustainable products, but focus on broader sustainability aspects such as energy use, natural resource use, or climate change and do not integrate toxics impacts adequately. Life Cycle Assessment is used by many industry stakeholders to compare alternatives, and an initiative to strengthen consideration of health effects of toxic chemicals has been initiated by the UN Environment/SETAC Lifecycle Initiative. USEtox is a model developed by the Life Cycle Initiative to characterize human and ecotoxicological impacts of chemicals, allowing manufacturers to assess specific toxicity from chemicals in their products. This kind of information can provide information for Sustainable Public Procurement and other consumer information resources such as the GoodGuide to consumer products and companies, and includes significant focus on chemicals content.UN Environment’s 10YFP Consumer Information Programme has developed ‘Guidelines for providing product sustainability information’ to be piloted in 2017, including in the chemicals sector. Many industry sustainability forums facilitate cooperation on environmental issues, including for consumer goods, telecommunications, and others, but these tend to focus on energy, water, or natural resource use, without criteria or standards on toxics contained in products.

 

HSLEEP: In 2012, ICCM 3 endorsed the addition to the Global Plan of Action of new activities related to hazardous substances within the life cycle of electrical and electronic products (HSLEEP), including the work areas of e-products green design, environmentally sound manufacturing of e-products and awareness-raising for e-products. A SAICM survey in 2014 produced a “Compilation Of Best Practices On Hazardous Substances Within The Life Cycle Of Electrical And Electronic Products’ (OEWG.2/INF/14), and in 2016 the UN Environment Management Group established an Issue Management Group on ‘Tackling E-waste: Towards Eco-design and a Life-cycle Approach for E-products - Coordinating delivery by the United Nations’.

 

Until now, most activities have focused on the downstream level, dealing with e-waste management. Several UN entities and international organizations have provided support to developing countries and countries with economies in transition for the development of sustainable e-waste management schemes taking into account the whole reverse supply chain of electrical and electronic products, the development of policies and international standards on e-waste, the establishment of collection schemes and dismantling or recycling facilities, the transfer of technologies, and the building of national capacities. UNIDO has executed projects in East Africa (e.g. Ethiopia, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, Rwanda) with various donors (e.g. GEF, Korean International Cooperation Agency). Various guidelines and papers have been published on different aspects of e-waste management, including on take-back systems[15] [16], on mapping flows of e-wastes[17] and technical guidelines on transboundary movements of e-waste[18]. An informal network of WHO, UN Environment, PACE, UNU and other stakeholders, works on the health impacts of e-waste on vulnerable populations. A pilot study has been developed on heavy-metal levels in children living and studying near e-waste sites in Thailand. As already mentioned, the SAICM Secretariat has conducted a survey on hazardous substances within the life cycle of electrical and electronic products to support its stakeholders to map existing tools for chemicals used in the production of electrical and electronic products. The results support the need for more work on the upstream and midstream levels of the life cycle, such as in design and manufacturing.

 

Over 200 public interest NGO stakeholders in 40 countries have developed and endorsed the International Campaign for Responsible Technology initiative seeking industry cooperation and action in six areas: transparency on chemicals used and associated hazards; use of safer alternatives; worker protection; participation of workers and community members in sound management of chemicals; protection of communities and the environment; and, compensation and remediation for harm to people and the environment[19]. One common certification for greener electronics, EPEAT, is available for products with reduced levels of cadmium, lead, mercury and other toxics, to support both sustainable procurement and individual consumer choice.

 

The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in collaboration with the Secretariats of the Stockholm and Basel Conventions and UN Environment’s International Environmental Technology Centre are developing a multi-stakeholder HSLEEP workplan. ICCM 4 resolution IV/2C on HSLEEP  endorses the recommendations of the “International workshop on Hazardous Substances within the life-cycle of electrical and electronic products”, held in Vienna (Austria) in 2011, including the need for manufacturers to implementat take-back programmes, establish industrial hygiene and environmental monitoring, and collect and share health and safety information to workers. The resolution also encourages procurement intitiatives to favour sustainable electronic products. Private-public partnerships and joint efforts undertaken to support governments continue to evolve, for example within the Solving the E-waste Problem (Step) initiative, the Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE), and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI).

 

These existing global networks will be used for coordinating project activities, knowledge exchange and information dissemination, especially by involving multinational companies and their industry associations to role out Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in developing countries and countries in transition. Step, currently by 64 members27 work in the areas of reseach and piloting, strategy and goal-setting, training and development and communication and branding.  The GeSI’s vision is to get a sustainable world through responsible, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) - enabled transformation. GeSI is also a proactive driver of the ICT sustainability agenda as measured by the development and use of its tools, broad member base and contribution to relevant policies. Its 40 members28 represent the world’s leading service providers and vendors from the ICT sector. These GeSI partners also collaborate on projects in both developed and developing countries to respond to emerging issues.

 

ICCM 4invited UNIDO in partnership with other organizations of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC), such as ITU, UNE-IETC, WHO, UNU, ILO, the BRS Convention Secretariat, PACE, Step, IPEN, BAN, OEMs and other relevant stakeholders to undertake a process to develop and finalize the draft work plan 2016-2020 (Annex D). This draft workplan is a multi-agency coordination process and the tentative activities (except for activity 10) will be used as basis for this project and will build on existing national and international activities. As mentioned, the HSLEEP activities so far have focused on providing support to developing countries and countries with economies in transition in order to set-up sustainable strategies for e-waste management; thus .the remaining gaps(SAICM/ICCM.4/INF/18) towards the Global Action Plan will focus on the upstream level.

 

EDCs: Significant scientific and technical debates are ongoing at the global level, for instance on which chemicals are recognized as EDCs and at what concentrations. Much of the research and technical work is done by developed countries in forums such as the OECD, with limited consideration on the needs and situations of developing and transition countries. A WHO global network of health risk assessment experts  provides an authoritative forum for assessing health risks for developing and transition countries; a UN Environment Advisory Group for EDCs exists but focuses on policy aspects and does not provide an equivalent, technical forum for environmental risk assessment. EDCs range from known chemicals with EDC properties (such as PCBs for example), through potential EDCs for which some countries have already implemented bans (such as a French ban on bisphenol-a), to chemicals for which laboratory evidence may have indicated effects on the hormone system or for which effects and especially relevant doses are debated at a scientific level. The PPG will review chemicals in these categories and the project will be designed to develop strategies for facilitating policy progress where immediately possible, even while scientific uncertainty may prevent comprehensive action on all likely or possible EDCs.    

 

In 2012, UN Environment and WHO published the State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, including a summary for decision makers, recently translated into the official UN languages. In 2014, UN Environment established an Advisory Group on environmental exposure and impact of EDCs, with representatives from governments, academia, industry and civil society, to provide strategic and policy advice. UN Environment is implementing a project aimed at providing factual, balanced and robust available information on EDCs, including by the preparation of overview reports on different aspects of the life cycle of EDCs and potential EDCs. ICCM4 confirmed the continuing need for support to address the needs identified by developing countries and countries with economies in transition. IPEN’s programme of work on EDCs includes collaboration with technical institutions and engagement with national policy makers through trainings and publications.  OECD coordinates methodological work on identifying EDCs, with five new and updated Test Guidelines for the detection and characterisation of EDCs since 2012. An Advisory Group on Endocrine Disrupters Testing and Assessment guides this work, helping prioritize needs and providing technical support e.g. on extrapolating from case studies[20].

 

EPPPs:ICCM4 agreed to implement cooperative actions on EPPPs with the overall objective of increasing awareness and understanding among policymakers and other stakeholders, and invited Governments and other stakeholders to generate and share information to fill the identified knowledge gaps (Resolution IV/2 part III). UN Environment has started a initial scoping and mapping exercise, aiming at collecting and compiling information of EPPP in different stages of their life cycle, including presence in wastewater, studies and practices in place, applicable legislation, stakeholders involved and work being undertaken that can serve as the basis to add understanding on EPPPs situation. The work is building on the German Environment Agency review of over 1000 scientific publications in 2016, and published an online database of the data. For example, developing countries with poor or non-existent waste management systems are very likely to have higher levels of EPPP in the environment than the richer countries for which data is gradually becoming available. Introduction of policies or systems for take-back of unused pharmaceuticals and appropriate disposal can allow countries to better manage health care costs as well as reducing environmental impacts, so can be promoted for each action despite a lack of evidence of environmental levels or impacts. The World Health Assembly adopted a Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance in 2015 calling for new guidance to address the presence of antimicrobials and residues in the environment, especially in water and wastewater.

 

Nano: ICCM Resolution IV/2 recommends that stakeholders: develop and implement regional cooperation mechanisms; address nano issues in national and international instruments including regulatory frameworks (e.g. by using the UNITAR guidance); exchange information on the sound management of nano, including through regional networks; and, for IGOs to continue development of guidance and training materials. UNITAR organized regional workshops in 2015 and has developed national pilot projects including in Armenia, Jordan, Nigeria, Thailand, Uruguay, and Vietnam. IPEN has developed regional reviews of the use and environmental implications of nanotechnology for all regions[21].

 

Since 2006, the OECD has coordinated the work of the Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials, providing a forum for stakeholders to collaborate on human health and environmental safety implications of nanomaterials in a harmonised manner, particularly in relation to regulatory frameworks and risk assessment methodologies. The group has published numerous guidance documents on risk assessment, development of national policies, and links with agriculture, worker exposure and GHS.

 

Strategic planning and knowledge management: The Secretariat tracks progress on SAICM based on 20 indicators (reports available for 2009-2010 and 2011-2013). These indicators do not explicitly address EPIs, and stakeholders called for an analysis of their continued use in ICCM 4 Resolution IV/1 para 18.  Further work is needed to develop concrete and objectively verifiable targets for each emerging policy issue in line with the Sustainable Development Goals. UN Environment hosted an initial workshop in 2016[22] to explore opportunities for integration of existing monitoring with the SDGs.

 

The SAICM Secretariat facilitates information sharing, through regional meetings (specifically on nanosafety or EDCs; and regular regional meetings of SAICM focal points) and globally during ICCM, Open Ended Working Group and other inter-sessional events but the relevant documents containing much data and experience remain ‘hidden’ in workshop reports and are not extracted and compiled in an easy-to-access format.. Access to resources through the SAICM website is under-developed, with lack of analysis of potential overlaps and links with other sources (Basel Rotterdam and Stockholm site, Global Sustainable Consumption and Production clearinghouse, UN Environment Live). For each EPI, communication efforts are made with its own constituency including scientists, private sector supply chains, and end users and victims of chemical exposure, but there is a lack of a global coordination which ultimately limits the reach of such communication efforts and hinders effective lesson learning and contribute to duplication of effort.  Nationally and regionally, the Quick Start Programme has supported information exchanging systems such as a Poison information network for the Pacific, on PCB management in Asia, and support to national Pollution Release and Transfer Registers. The PPG will conduct a review of existing outreach and information sharing efforts and during the project a detailed communication and information need assessment will address all stakeholders to design a knowledge management strategy that can help share and expand the reach of existing communication efforts by stakeholders on all EPIs.

 

Chemicals and waste management has been integrated into diverse Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) rather than as a stand-alone Goal on chemicals and waste, including among others, oceans and water quality, air quality and climate change, sustainable cities and urbanization or industrial transformation to a ‘green economy’. However, this approach relies on effective links between the chemicals agenda (through SAICM) and other policy, science and private sector initiatives. Further engagement by all sectors (health, agriculture, trade and industry) at a high level, and with external agendas and processes (on climate change, urbanization, water and wetlands, sustainable consumption and development planning) will facilitate the necessary policy and behavioural shifts to achieve the 2020 SAICM Goal and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The World Health Assembly adopted Resolution 69.4 in 2016 on SAICM, and WHO has developed a road map to enhance health sector engagement. Human rights stakeholders have engaged with the 2020 goal via two Special Rapporteurs on Toxics and the Right to Food. Other stakeholders have identified linkages between chemicals and other issues including gender[23]  or child labour[24]. The Special Programme on Institutional Strengthening approved its first seven projects in 2016, aiming to strengthen national implementation of BRS, Minamata and SAICM commitments, including through better engagement and coordination between sectors and institutions. The PPG will identify existing areas of collaboration with stakeholders across diverse sectors, and identify gaps, best practices/ lessons and concrete mechanisms for engagement (e.g. policy briefs, joint events, communication materials, joint hosting of structures and processes, etc). These will inform the design of the project in terms of outreach to broader sustainability themes and communities.

 

 

3. Proposed Alternative Scenario:

 

The Overall Orientation and Guidance endorsed at ICCM4 identified increased risk reduction and information sharing efforts on emerging policy issues as one of the six core activity areas to 2020. GEF resources available for SAICM under Programs 1 and 6, and for POPs under Program 3, are needed to take a coherent approach to the EPIs, take stock, and plan actions up to and beyond 2020. Without such funding, the proposed activities are unlikely to be achieved in the critical period to 2020. The following subsections outline the proposed components.

 

Component 1: Lead in Paint and HHPs: The project will stimulate national regulatory action and engage the private sector, to ban known toxic chemicals, and provide global best practice on the necessary conditions and inputs that are most effective in generating political will to take action at the national level. It will support achievement of the aspirational target of the Global Alliance strategy for all countries to have legal limits on lead in paints in place by 2020; and demonstrate the replacement of HHP with safer alternatives.

 

Output 1.1 Demonstration pilots with paint manufacturers in Small and Medium Enterprises (UNIDO):

This output addresses the low awareness of environmentally sound alternatives to the use of lead in paint production, particularly targeting the SME sector where awareness is lowest. It builds on experience by UNIDO and others in working with supply chains and mechanisms such as eco-labelling to create incentives for manufacturers to phase out lead.

·         Best Available Technology (BAT)/Best Environmental Practice (BEP) demonstration through investment for the phase-out of lead containing paint in companies selected in close consultation with the relevant governments according to technical and feasibility criteria.

·         Establishing public and private partnership, strengthening institutional framework and capacity,  and raising awareness in selected countries.

·         Extending the public private partnership approach to other countries through the Global Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production network.

 

Output 1.2 Global Technical guidelines on BAT/BEP for manufacturers (UNIDO):

·         Global Technical guidance will be produced on the pilot projects, including technical detail on phase out, on waste management, and financial incentives and new business models that can support phase out.

 

 

 

 

Output 1.3 Policy advocacy and and public awareness campaigns generate support for lead phase-out:

This output addresses two of the barriers to phase out of lead in paint, namely lack of political will and the low awareness of the alternatives among vulnerable groups exposed to lead paint. It builds directly on Global Alliance partner projects in Africa, Asia and CEE as described in the Baseline.

·         Compiling, strengthening and developing new global guidance resources on lead in paint based on project experiences; and updating the existing online Toolkit (e.g. addition of the UNIDO technical guidelines from Output 1.2, sample legal language, examples of national legislative instruments)

·         Promotion of the Toolkit through regional workshops and development of regional action plans to coordinate national commitments, establish regional mechanisms, regular reporting on progress to the Global Alliance.

·         Targeted support for 40 countries on request to  apply the Toolkit resources in their own context and introduce legal limits and other measures.

·         Supporting the established Lead Poisoning Prevention Week campaign, delivered by health and environment partners all over the world, topromote consumer awareness, particularly among women, children, and other highly exposed groups of the risks of leaded paint. As well as changing purchasing decisions, public awareness via the Week of Action can stimulate policitical will for regulatory measures that can achieve lead phase out.

 

Output 1.4 Global best practices in  HHP risk assessment compiled based on experiences in multiple regions and adopted by pesticide registrars:

This output addresses the lack of capacity for risk assessment in developing countries, by providing training, supporting case study countries to identify HHPs, and highlighting common and best practices. It also addresses the lack of political will by strengthening regional cooperation and networks. It builds on the baseline by developing and sharing experiences from more regions and linking to global action under the Rotterdam Convention and on sustainable food supply chains.

·         Training of regulators and review of registered pesticide lists by regulators, collection of evidence on actual health and environmental impacts of use under field conditions, and comparison against agreed criteria for HHP,and targeted support to regulators to develop regulatory responses.

·         Developing regional strategies and coalitions (such as SAPREF) to stimulate south-south cooperation and exchanges and information sharing between regions.

·         Compilation of best practices based on experiences gained in a larger number of countries and regions, providing more globally relevant experience sharing.

 

Output 1.5 Evidence on HHP alternatives is accessible to registrars and informs HHP registration decisions:

This output addresses the low awareness of alternatives, both among regulators and users of HHP, and builds on baseline activities by developing new case studies on adoption of alternatives in developing countries, and explicitly linking these and existing resources on sustainable production/alternatives with constituencies working on HHP.

·         Global review and compilation of information and expertise on alternatives to the HHPs identified by diverse stakeholders.

·         Dissemination of evidence and guidance on alternatives, using resources developed in multiple formats and for diverse audiences, including through the SAICM Knowledge Management platform.

·         Monitoring and reporting on adoption of alternatives for different uses of HHPs that have been restricted and developing lessons learnt and case studies to encourage further regulatory and voluntary phase outs of HHPs.

 

 

Component 2: CiP and HSLEEP: The project addresses the barriers toward sound lifecycle management in a stepwise manner, first addressing the lack of information by strengthening CiP systems, and then by demonstrating how this information can support SCP measures to phase out toxics use. The project builds on baseline activities by expanding from the textile sector to an additional three sectors (toys, building products and electronics), while ensuring that relevant lessons and best practices from the baseline textile work is transferred.

 

Output 2.1 Platform to identify and quantify CoCs present in supply chains, based on existing and expanded Chemicals in Products (CiP) initiatives:

·         Coordinated mechanism and platform to share existing information on companies and initiatives.

·         facilitate expansion of information collection on additional chemicals and new companies or stakeholders.

 

Output 2.2 Green Economy tools and guidance refer to CiP data to improve product design, purchasing, and use practices:

·         Share expertise from UN Environment’s SCP branch, and potentially the Natural Resources Defence Council[25], to promote and expand sound chemical management through consumer information sharing, green procurement policies, lifecycle assessment tools and calculations, and green economy/green design initiatives.

·         Once companies in these sectors engage actively in the CiP Programme on tracking and reporting chemical use, they will be a key constituency for the project to reach out to and encourage adoption of the sustainability tools developed or strengthened under Output 3.2.

 

Output 2.3 Work Plan on Hazardous Substances within the Life Cycle of Electrical and Electronic Products (HSLEEP) 2016-2020 implemented with support of the GEF (UNIDO):

This output addresses the regulatory/ legislative and the supply chain barriers to upstream management and reduction of hazardous chemical inputs in EEE.

·         Gaps in existing policies and legal institutional frameworks addressing the design of e-products wil be analyzed, assessed and closed. Policy instruments to address hazardous chemicals in electrical and electronic products will be promoted and adopted to support the proper management, reduction, elimination or substitution of toxic chemicals in electrical and electronic products in developing countries and countries with economies in transition.

·         Major leading global companies and their industry associations will be engaged under the Step, PACE and GeSI Initiatives. Partner UN organizatioans and NGOs will be included to help roll out EPR in developing countries and countries with economies in transition.

·         Voluntary approaches will be set with particular focus on the use of economic instruments and other incentives, the application of the extended producer responsibility principle and e-products take-back schemes, as appropriate.

·         A final list of activities to be funded under this GEF grant will be established during PPG, using the following criteria: cataloguing of past/ongoing activities funded through multiple sources, to avoid duplication of activities and enhance the knowledge and experience sharing; ensuring that the limited funding available is used to get sufficient instruments to reach the 2020 SAICM objective for HSLEEP. The establishment of the final list will be undertaken in consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

 

 

Component 3: New and emerging scientific issues: Work on the three EPIs (EDC, EPPP and nano) will follow a similar approach, with an output for each EPI. The scientific, technical and policy review activities under each output address the second and third barriers identified, of evidence gaps for developing countries both for environmental presence and policy measures. Detailed evidence of environmental levels and impacts may be prohibitively resource-intensive to obtain, and the scientific work is primarily aimed at summarizing and prioritizing research needs. The activities on dissemination of these results will address the first barrier, namely the challenges for developing countries to access and take part in global level scientific and technical work on these issues.

 

Output 3.1 Data on EDCs is compiled, including global and national technical reviews and field studies:

·         Expert studies conducted on global scientific work and developments on EDC, including technical aspects of screening methodologies etc, and establishment of a global scientific environmental risk assessment expert group.

·         Mapping of countries which use recommended EDC screening methods and have introduced EDC controls through policy or other measures.

·         Dissemination of results and advocacy for improved management of EDCs through existing SAICM events and meetings (OEWG, ICCM etc).

 

Output 3.2 Knowledge gaps on EPPP filled. Global guidance document developed by project end:

·         Studies conducted and published on environmental and health levels of EPPPs; and on the influence of EPPP in the environment on antimicrobial resistance.

·         Mapping of countries’ and stakeholders’ policies and practices on disposal of human medicines.

·         Dissemination of results and advocacy for improved management of EPPP through existing SAICM events and meetings (OEWG, ICCM etc).

 

Output 3.3 Studies on environmental levels of nanoparticles, and global guidance on nanosafety science and policy, for use by developing countries impact evaluation of previous policy workshops and pilot projects to raise awareness and introduce nano-safety policies:

·         Field studies of nano levels in aquatic or terrestrial ecosystems.

·         Dissemination of results and advocacy for improved management of nano through existing SAICM events and meetings (OEWG, ICCM etc).

 

 

Component 4: Strategic planning and knowledge management: This component will provide the overall framework for each of the three chemical-specific components, ensuring effective experience sharing and close integration of the project results with the ongoing and future development of the Strategic Approach, including for the beyond 2020 period as it develops during the project lifetime.

 

Output 4.1 Knowledge management platform and new mechanisms to communicate science and best practices in policy development:

This output addresses the barrier on inadequate information exchange, by creating coordinated channels to share both existing information from baseline initiatives, and also the information and knowledge products that will be generated by this project.

·         Detailed stakeholder knowledge needs assessment, building on PPG assessments of other information sharing portals on chemical management.

·         Development and implementation of outreach and communication strategy for diverse stakeholders, including government, private sector and community level.

·         Establishment of project Knowledge Management platform, supporting each of the components in disseminating specific technical knowledge products, and transition to SAICM Information Clearing House at project end.

 

Output 4.2 A list of measurable indicators to monitor project progress on Emerging Policy Issues  in line with the Sustainable Development Goals:

This output addresses the problem of the wide, and often overwhelming scope of EPI issues, by improving global monitoring of progress to explicitly refer to EPIs and allow objective comparisions between countries and regions. It will build on the existing SAICM monitoring of progress based on the 20 indicators by creating EPI-specific monitoring, and strengthen the indicators by including objective state indicators as well as process-based ones.

·         A strategy and objectively verifiable indicators for monitoring project progress on the EPIs developed in coordination with component technical partners

·         Data collection for the project period for national, regional and global levels wherever possible, and used by project M&E processes (see Component 5) to produce periodic statements of global progress on implementation of EPIs by the project and baseline activities

·         Coordination with baseline and parallel processes and discussions on beyond 2020 period and ongoing work on defining the detailed SDG targets.

 

Output 4.3 Multi-stakeholder engagement from other sectors and agendas:

This output addresses the limited global mainstreaming of chemical management by strengthening existing cooperation with SAICM stakeholders, and creating new alliances through diverse constituencies. This work is closely linked to the baseline functions of the SAICM Secretariat and engagement with the health sector, and will use this experience to approach new partners and sectors.

·         Review of sectors and stakeholders of relevance to chemical management confirmed (this will be started during the PPG), and compilation of best practices and institutional arrangements that support effective stakeholder engagement.

·         Joint development with technical leads of components, of policy briefs or publications on the role of chemicals management within diverse sectors, and presentation at relevant events (e.g. on cities, biodiversity, product sectors, or other).

·         Outreach and advocacy with sectors to integrate chemical management issues into their approaches, and development of joint initiatives or projects.

 

 

Component 5: Monitoring and Evaluation: The detailed M&E plan will be developed and delivered by the Executing Agency, to track achievement of the project objectives and indicators.

 

5.1. Quarterly financial reports and annual progress reports monitoring status of project execution:

·         Annual Project Implementation Report (PIR).

·         Quarterly financial report.

·         Establishment of decision making and coordination structure.

 

5.2. Midterm and Terminal Evaluations of project impacts shared with SAICM stakeholders.

 

 

4. Incremental reasoning

Without GEF assistance, international activities on Emerging Issues identified under SAICM are likely to remain uncoordinated, incoherent and ineffective. GEF assistance will ensure SAICM can provide guidance and leadership on Emerging Issues, support developing ‘champion’ countries in addressing these issues in a coordinated and effective manner, and share lessons learned and knowledge with other countries.   

 

The project delivery is based on an unprecedented degree of collaboration and joint working between members of the IOMC, the private sector and civil society. This level of close collaboration across all three components will require close oversight and coordination by the Executing Agency and it is anticipated that the close working relationships to be established will provide the conditions for sustainability, and scaling up of future activities.

 

 

5. Global Environmental Benefits

Humans and ecosystems are simultaneously exposed to multiple combinations of chemicals, multiplying uncertainty around impacts of exposure to individual chemicals. Many chemicals may feature in one or more categories, for example, lead is present in paint but also in electronics; manufactured nanomaterials and lead in paint are also chemicals used in products; and estrogens and contraceptive medications are both EDC and EPPP. In this context, the chemical-by-chemical regulatory approach is increasingly unable to address the global environmental and health risks posed by these chemicals. The project will deliver the integrated, collaborative and multistakeholder approach needed.

 

The project will support replacement of POPs and potential future POPs in the agriculture sector, for example endosulfan and lindane, under the HHP component. The CiP and HSLEEP component will address new POPs in products, such as brominated flame retandants and PFOS, in building products and electronics supply chains.

The project will integrate SAICM targets and priorities on lead in paint, EDC/EPPP/nano and HSLEEP into national regulatory and sectoral planning frameworks and in global supply chains. For lead in paint, direct global environmental benefits will be achieved through the pilot demonstrations the selectedcountries for the phase out of lead-containing paint in each country. Indirect global environmental benefits will be achieved through developed and enforced legal limits for the use of lead in paint. In total, the project will result in introduction of lead limits in 40 countries; of restrictions of HHPs in 15 countries; and introduction of targets to replace POPs and other priority chemicals in at least three product supply chains.

 

 

6. Innovation, sustainability and potential for scaling up

 

The project addresses threats associated with new, emerging, and ‘live’ chemicals that may be widely distributed in the environment, in our bodies, in products, and in supply chains. The chemical issues addressed under SAICM are unlikely ever to be the subject of international, legally binding controls such as those included under the Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm or Minamata Conventions; and therefore a different approach is needed which prioritizes collaborative, coordinated and decentralized voluntary efforts by many stakeholders. The voluntary and multi-stakeholder structure of SAICM is able to deliver this approach.

 

The lessons learnt and best practices developed in Component 1 will be applicable for new chemicals as consensus is reached on the need for decentralized, national regulatory action by all stakeholders. The component will develop approaches and methods to stimulate action by countries and stakeholders at the lower end of the ‘widening gap’ in capacity for sound management of chemicals. Working with ‘hard to reach’ partners, including LDCs and SIDs, or the SME part of industrial production chains, or the most vulnerable population groups, the project will seek to consolidate best practices that can be applied more widely to future chemical hazards. Eventually, legal limits will drive innovation for environmentally benign products that may bring additional benefits in terms of higher quality and more economical products for users.

 

Under Component 2, the project will reach out to new stakeholders throughout supply chains in the private sector, based on already demonstrated needs for CiP information, and calls for a more efficient approach from numerous sectors. The potential for scale up is driven by the stakeholder needs, as well as the similarity in approaches across regions (within a given products sector) and across sectors (i.e. lesson learned from various approaches can be transferred).

 

Component 3 will engage developing country partners in issues that have been previously very heavily skewed by research, information and participation from OECD countries. The planned global status reports will provide both data and a methodology that is appropriate for developing and transition government and thus provide a basis for scaling up and sustainability through ownership of this agenda among scientific and technical communities in these countries.

 

The effective collaboration between numerous members of the IOMC will require close oversight and coordination by the Executing Agency. The close working relationships established will provide the conditions for sustainability. The close integration with the SAICM structure and mandate, especially in terms of strategic planning, monitoring progress, and knowledge sharing, means that project outputs in terms of knowledge management platforms, M&E systems, and strategic plans, will be designed and developed in a way that allows them to be adopted as future SAICM resources and ensure sustainability and scale-up. For example, the knowledge management platforms and systems developed can be used for further development of the SAICM Information Clearing House which is one of the responsibilities of the SAICM Secretariat. Similarly, the monitoring indicators and data from the project period developed for the EPIs could be integrated with either the 20 Progress Indicators or any new monitoring system that may be adopted by stakeholders either for the 2020 goal or eventually the 2030 Agenda.

 

2. Stakeholders. Will project design include the participation of relevant stakeholders from civil society organizations (yes  /no) and indigenous peoples (yes  /no)? If yes, identify key stakeholders and briefly describe how they will be engaged in project preparation.

 

SAICM brings together diverse stakeholders, and this project targets government, private sector, and researchers through the three technical components addressing the EPIs. The following table outlines key international and national stakeholders and their proposed respective roles in the project preparatory phase, and the execution phase. Design and delivery of the cross-cutting component 4 will include input from all stakeholders, including on coordinated production and dissemination of communication products, country and sector engagement, and monitoring of progress.



[1] Attina and Trasande (2013) Economic Costs of Childhood Lead Exposure in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1206424

[2] Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). 2015 GBD Compare. Seattle, WA: IHME, University of Washington, (http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare, accessed 26 Aug 16)

[4] Prüss-Ustün et al (2011) Knowns and unknowns on burden of disease due to chemicals: a systematic review

[5] UN ENVIRONMENT, 2012. Cost of InAction on the Sound Management of Chemicals, http://www.UN Environment.org/chemicalsandwaste/Mainstreaming/CostsofInactionInitiative/tabid/56397/Default.aspx  

[6] Li H, Yu L, Sheng G, Fu J, Peng P.. 2007. Severe PCDD/F and PBDD/F pollution in air around an electronic waste dismantling area in China. Environ Sci Technol 41:5641–5646

[7] KemI (2016) Supervision of electrical low-priced products (http://www.kemi.se/global/tillsyns-pm/2016/tillsyn-11-16-tillsyn-av-elektriska-lagprisprodukter.pdf)

[8] Trasande et al (2015) Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4399291/)

[9] German Environment Agency (2016) Pharmaceuticals in the environment – the global perspective Occurrence, effects, and potential cooperative action under SAICM

[10] US EPA (2012) Nanomaterial Case Study:Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray

[11] Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection GESAMP (2016) Sources, Fate And Effects Of Microplastics In The Marine Environment: Part Two Of A Global Assessment

[12] UNEP (2015) Guidance for stakeholders on exchanging chemicals in products information

[13]  Dutch Sustainability Business Association, 2015, Governments going circular

[14] Overall orientation and guidance for achieving the 2020 goal of sound management of chemicals: The future we want for the sound management of chemicals http://www.saicm.org/images/saicm_documents/OOG%20document%20English.pdf

 

International Environmental Technology Centre (2012) Volume III: WEEE/E-waste Take-back System.

[16] United Nations University (UNU) Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP) Initiative (2015) E-waste Prevention, Take-back System Design and Policy Approaches

[17] UNU (2014) The Global E-waste Monitor 2014: Quantities, flows and resources

[18] Basel Convention Decision 12/5, Technical guidelines on transboundary movements of electrical and electronic waste and used electrical and electronic equipment, in particular regarding the distinction between waste and non waste

 

[19] Step’s members (www.step-initiative.org/world-map-of-members.html

28 GeSI’s members (gesi.org/ICT_sustainability_members_and_partners?page=1)

[19] ICRT & Good Electronics (2015) Meeting the challenge: detailed recommendations for implementation of the challenge to the electronics idustry

[20] WHO (2014) Identification of Risks from Exposure to EDCs at the Country Level – covers Denmark, France, Japan, Korea and US

[21] For example, IPEN (2012) Social and Environmental implications of nanotechnology development in Africa

[22] April 2016 workshop on ‘Integrated National Implementation of SDGs and International Chemicals and Waste Agreements’

[23] Women in Europe for a Common Future (2016), Women and Chemicals The impact of hazardous chemicals on women A thought starter based on an experts‘ workshop

[24] International Labor Organization (2011) Children in hazardous work: What we know, what we need to do

[25] To be engaged during the PPG to share experience from the textile sector

Lead Executing Agency: Unspecified
Project Type: FSP
PPG/PDF Grant: $ 0.00
PPG Confinancing: $ 0.00
Project Grant: $ 0.00
Project Confinancing: $ 0.00

Project Status

PIF: PIF Submission Date   Unspecified
GEF Approval Date   Unspecified No Document
 
PPG: GEF Approval Date   Unspecified No Document
UNEP Approval Date   Unspecified
Completion Date   Unspecified
 
Project: Expected CEO Approval Date   Unspecified
Project Submission To GEF  Unspecified
CEO Approval Date  Unspecified No Document
UNEP Approval Date  Unspecified
Completion Date  Unspecified No Document