MENU
This publication is also available online in a web-accessible version at https://pub.norden.org/temanord2022-513.
Increasing efficiency and effectiveness in implementation of multilateral environmental agreements through increased cooperation and the identification of potential synergies has already been given significant consideration. However, efforts to date have mainly focused on cooperation and synergies within the same thematic cluster. This review is concerned with opportunities that may exist for working across thematic clusters, specifically focusing on strengthening collaboration and coordination between the biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters. The review was commissioned by the Nordic Council of Ministers and executed by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
Numerous global assessments have expressed concern about the impacts of chemicals and waste on biodiversity and ecosystem services, including increased impacts resulting from drivers of change acting in combination. Whatever the original intent with respect to the use of chemicals, many of which have brought significant health and economic benefits, chemical and waste pollution is impacting biodiversity and ecosystem services in a range of ways. Meanwhile, the chemicals industry is already very large in financial terms, and projected to double by 2030. For example, increasing demand for food and biofuels will likely lead to a continued increase in nutrient and chemical inputs, with pesticide and fertilizer use potentially doubling by 2050. At the same time, illegal trade of chemicals and waste continues to be a problem in some parts of the world. The volume of solid waste generated is already high and projected to increase significantly, and plastic pollution and marine litter has become an issue of serious concern.
Concerns about pollution and the safe and effective management of chemicals and waste are clearly expressed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals. Also, several international agreements on chemicals and waste have been adopted and are gradually extending and enhancing their impact. In addition to multilateral environmental agreements addressing specific groups of chemicals, it was considered necessary to establish a multi-stakeholder forum with a broader mandate and scope, which led to the policy framework provided by the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management. Within the marine realm, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea also includes relevant provisions, and there are also international agreements relating specifically to dumping of wastes and pollution from ships. Given that pollution is identified as one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss, the biodiversity-related conventions have themselves taken a number of actions to recognise and address pollution. These include, for example, the Aichi Biodiversity Target on reducing pollution and the proposed target for inclusion in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework currently under negotiation, actions to address threats to World Heritage Sites and Wetlands of International Importance, efforts to prevent the risk of poisoning to migratory birds, and efforts to reduce the impacts of chemical pollution and marine debris on cetacean populations.
The importance of policy coherence is recognised at the highest level including in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals. There is also increasing recognition of the need for ‘transformative change’ that takes fully into account the interconnections between environmental issues. The United Nations seeks coherence in its operations, and has recently adopted a United Nations Common Approach on Biodiversity relevant across all United Nations entities. Increased alignment in the chemicals and waste cluster is evidenced by the synergies process among three of the conventions, which has led to a range of identified improvements in implementation. Meanwhile many governments have taken a more aligned approach to implementing the biodiversity-related conventions when addressing the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and this is also likely to be further encouraged in implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.
Efforts to strengthen collaboration and coordination between biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters at the national level need to build on existing mechanisms, such as reporting requirements and the role of national focal points. Therefore, it is important to understand what mechanisms are in place and how they work at the national level in both clusters. There are national focal points within each country for each of the multilateral environmental agreements the country is party to and the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management. Each of the conventions and protocols requires some form of national reporting, and most have some form of implementation strategy or plan at the national level. While any action or adjustment to strengthen collaboration and coordination is clearly a decision for each country based on the instruments the country is party to, guidance provided by the governing bodies of instruments, or by secretariats and bureaux on their behalf, can help guide and influence this.
In both the biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters there are ongoing processes which will influence targets, priorities and action at all levels leading up to 2030. The post-2020 global biodiversity framework is being developed under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and is expected to be approved by its next Conference of the Parties (COP 15). Meanwhile an intersessional process is under way to prepare recommendations regarding the sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020 for consideration at the fifth session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management. It is important to understand how these two ongoing processes and their outcomes will influence efforts to strengthen collaboration and coordination between the biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters. Unfortunately, both processes have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the processes that were meant to end in 2020 have been extended. However, this has brought opportunity to make additional inputs. The United Nations Environment Programme has provided support to both processes to enhance engagement, including convening the Second Consultation Workshop of Biodiversity-related Conventions on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and developing an assessment on interlinkages and options to coordinate and cooperate on areas of common interest for the beyond 2020 intersessional process.
A number of ‘options for action’ for strengthening collaboration and coordination between biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters have been identified, in particular with respect to implementation at the national level. These have been reviewed by representatives of relevant secretariats and a range of national representatives, and further discussed at an expert consultation workshop convened by the United Nations Environment Programme.
Action to be taken needs to be considered from three different perspectives:
While not the focus of this report, actions taken by the private sector are also relevant including their engagement in the actions taken by others. The private sector is therefore also a key player.
Before identifying actions to be taken at any level, it is also important to consider the characteristics of a successful approach, so as to better understand how to make effective use of time and resources. Based on experience from the chemicals and waste conventions, the following key characteristics are proposed:
The following four broad strategic approaches have been identified, with the options for action focused on using existing mechanisms and processes wherever possible, building on and learning lessons from activities already under way, and focussing on issues of common interest.
The first strategic approach is to improve mechanisms for cooperation and collaboration across the biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters when implementing each of the intergovernmental agreements and processes in the two clusters. In order to achieve this there are actions that can be taken at both Party and instrument levels, building as appropriate on existing processes and experience.
The second strategic approach is to identify opportunities for cooperation and collaboration areas across the biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters where working together can help achieve common aims and bring clear benefits. Such actions would be planned in the context of not only implementation of the instruments, but also considering delivery of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The third strategic approach is to identify opportunities for achieving improved effectiveness and cost-effectiveness through enhancing coordination of common services. Addressing biodiversity loss and the sound management of chemicals and waste requires the same means of implementation (capacity-building, technical and scientific cooperation, technology transfer, resource mobilization), and many of the same sort of underpinning activities including monitoring, development and use of indicators, reporting, and knowledge management. Opportunities for increasing effectiveness pragmatically should be identified.
The fourth strategic approach is to identify key international entry points and to enhance engagement with relevant international initiatives to focus increased attention on efforts to reduce the negative impacts of chemicals and waste on biodiversity and ecosystem services. A number of obvious key initiatives or entry points are identified below, but there are also others that could be considered.
The multiple interactions between environmental problems mean that uncoordinated single-issue solutions are inefficient and will fail. An integrated approach that addresses the underlying root causes of interlinked environmental problems and pays attention to unintended consequences of actions is both more cost-effective and more likely to be successful than treating the issues as if they were independent of one another. It further allows synergies to be identified and exploited, while steering away from the worst trade-offs.”
Making Peace with Nature:
A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate biodiversity and pollution emergencies
BLG | Liaison Group of Biodiversity-related Conventions |
BRS | Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (Conventions) |
(Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal; Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade; Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants) | |
CBD | Convention on Biological Diversity |
CFCs | Chlorofluorocarbons |
CITES | Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora |
CMS | Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals |
COP | Conference of the Parties |
FAO | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations |
GEF | Global Environment Facility |
HFCs | Hydrofluorocarbons |
HHP | Highly Hazardous Pesticide |
HLPF | High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development |
ICCM | International Conference on Chemicals Management (governing body of SAICM) |
IOMC | Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals |
IPBES | Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services |
IPCC | Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |
IPM | Integrated Pest Management |
IPPC | International Plant Protection Convention |
ITPGRFA | International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture |
IWC | International Whaling Commission |
MEA | Multilateral Environmental Agreement |
NIP | National Implementation Plan |
PCB | Polychlorinated biphenyl |
PIC | Prior Informed Consent |
POPs | Persistent Organic Pollutants |
SAICM | Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management |
SDG | Sustainable Development Goal |
UN | United Nations |
UNCCD | United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification |
UNCLOS | United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea |
UNEA | United Nations Environment Assembly |
UNEP | United Nations Environment Programme |
UNEP-WCMC | UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre |
UNFCCC | United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change |
UNITAR | United Nations Institute for Training and Research |
VNR | Voluntary National Review |
WHC | Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage |
WHO | World Health Organization |
WMO | World Meteorological Organization |
In recent years, efforts to improve international environmental governance have focused on improving policy coherence, coordination, and effectiveness. Exploring opportunities for enhancing synergies in implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) has been a key part of these endeavours. This has included consideration of what can be done at both national[1]See for example UNEP (2015). Sourcebook of opportunities for enhancing cooperation among the Biodiversity-related Conventions at national and regional levels. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (nationalmeasynergies.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/sourcebook-web.pdf) and international[2]See for example www.brsmeas.org/Decisionmaking/Overview/SynergiesProcess levels. However, efforts to date have mainly focused on cooperation and synergies among MEAs within the same thematic cluster, for example among those agreements addressing biodiversity, among those agreements addressing chemicals and waste, and through establishment of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM).
This review is part of an effort to take this discussion to the next level, and to consider opportunities for strengthening collaboration and coordination in implementing MEAs and related processes across two different thematic clusters, the biodiversity cluster and the chemicals and waste cluster. This issue is significant as pollution is identified in both the fifth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook[3]Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2020). Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. (www.cbd.int/gbo5) and the IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services[4]IPBES (2019): Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (See www.ipbes.net/global-assessment) as one of the five main direct drivers of biodiversity loss. The expectation is that if those working on implementing biodiversity MEAs and processes and those working on implementing MEAs and processes relating to chemicals and waste were able to work together more efficiently and effectively where it is appropriate to do so, then implementation in both clusters will benefit. This would in turn demonstrate a more coherent response to addressing global environmental problems, which is entirely consistent with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals which are intended to be integrated and indivisible.[5]UN General Assembly Resolution 70/1 Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development (sdgs.un.org/2030agenda)
The time is opportune, as intergovernmental processes are currently under way to develop a post-2020 global biodiversity framework[6]See www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020 and a new global framework for sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020.[7]See www.saicm.org/Beyond2020/IntersessionalProcess Both processes are described further below. Additionally, some of the conventions in the chemicals and waste cluster are actively considering interlinkages with biodiversity, and again this is addressed further below.[8]Secretariats of the BRS Conventions and the Minamata Convention on Mercury (2021). Interlinkages between the chemicals and waste multilateral environmental agreements and biodiversity: Key insights. (wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36088/BIKI.pdf) Meanwhile, the recently concluded UNEP-led report[9]UNEP (2021). Making Peace with Nature: A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies. (www.unep.org/resources/making-peace-nature) on Making Peace with Nature concluded inter alia that “given the interconnected nature of climate change, loss of biodiversity, land degradation, and air and water pollution, it is essential that these problems are tackled together. Response options that address multiple issues can mitigate multidimensional vulnerability, minimize trade-offs and maximise synergies”.
Scope and definitions
Consistent with the definition used by the Convention on Biological Diversity, biodiversity is taken to mean the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.[1]Article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (www.cbd.int/convention/text/)
Consistent with the wording of Agenda 21[2]UN (1992). Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–14 June 1992 (sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf) this report is concerned with the environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals and hazardous waste. This is taken to include any chemicals or wastes introduced into the environment which have an unintended negative impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services, whether introduction is deliberate or unintentional. The report does not address other forms of pollution affecting biodiversity, such as noise or light pollution.
The following definitions are also used:[3]Based on page 3 of UNEP (2015). Sourcebook of opportunities for enhancing cooperation among the Biodiversity-related Conventions at national and regional levels. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (nationalmeasynergies.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/sourcebook-web.pdf)
Coordination: organization of the different elements of a complex body or activity so as to enable them to work together effectively and without duplication
Collaboration: working together to produce a discrete output or set of outputs
Cooperation: working together towards a common aim or objective
Synergies: linking processes in a way that increases the effects of the sum of the joint activities beyond the sum of individual activities, and thus making efforts more effective and efficient
Coherent implementation: implementing relevant agreements and processes in a consistent manner as a whole, rather than considering each independently
The review concerns the implementation of several international agreements and processes. Each of these has its own objectives and mandates, and its own governance and advisory processes, as well as different memberships. The review, and in particular the options for action, need to be understood in this context.
For the purposes of this review, the biodiversity cluster is taken to comprise the eight global conventions and processes represented in the Liaison Group of Biodiversity-related Conventions (BLG). These are (in alphabetic order):
Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (WHC)
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar)
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)
International Whaling Commission (IWC)[1]The IWC is established by the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling.
For the purposes of this review the chemicals and waste cluster is taken to include the following global conventions and processes:
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
Minamata Convention on Mercury
Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM)
Some of the discussion will also be relevant to other global MEAs, as opportunities for strengthening collaboration and coordination may also relate to their interests, and/or the way they are implemented at the national level. In this context it is worth mentioning four MEAs, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The issue is also relevant to the Regional Seas Conventions, and, where appropriate, examples of regional agreements are considered, such as the Cartagena and its Protocols. Annex 1 provides basic information on all MEAs referred to in the report.
The overall project, which was originated by the Council of Ministers and supported by them, aims to identify opportunities to further enhance cooperation and coordination across biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters. The purpose of this review is therefore to improve the knowledge base on opportunities for action which could potentially lead to synergies between the clusters, and identification of ways to promote further cooperation. Opportunities for synergies and the potential benefits are explored with a wide scope, and also illustrated through a case study requested by the Nordic Council of Ministers, focusing on the impact of pesticides on biodiversity.
This review identifies ‘options for action’ that will hopefully provide useful input to discussions at the international level, including potentially the post-2020 and beyond 2020 processes, future sessions of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), and individual MEA advisory and governing body meetings, and contribute to future processes aiming at improving international environmental governance. However, the primary focus is on identifying opportunities for action that can be taken at the national level, and actions that can be taken at the international level in order to promote, facilitate and support action at the national level. In doing so it also identifies potential regional support mechanisms, and examples of support that might be provided by other organizations and initiatives.
The review has been developed by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) with the guidance of a steering committee representing the Governments of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. A range of national representatives, all relevant MEA Secretariats, the SAICM secretariat, as well as a number of other experts have had opportunity to provide feedback on drafts of the review at various stages, as have colleagues within UNEP and UNEP-WCMC.
A draft of this review provided input to an expert consultation workshop convened by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in September 2021, with advice from the project steering committee. This workshop provided opportunity for dialogue amongst selected national focal points to the conventions from both clusters and SAICM from across all regions, and representatives of MEA secretariats and the SAICM Secretariat. The discussions during this expert workshop have informed this final version of the study report, and each of the participants was also invited to provide feedback on an earlier draft of the study report. The workshop report can be found in Annex 2.
The review report comprises six sections.
The review has been broad-based in the way in which it has addressed chemicals and waste, their impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and options for action in the context of MEAs and SAICM. To illustrate some of the detail, this broad view is supplemented by more detailed consideration of pesticides. This is presented as a series of boxes throughout the text.
Box 1: Introduction to pesticides case study boxes
Where it is useful to the narrative, additional information is provided in boxes like this on aspects of the study as they relate to pesticides. The intention is not to provide a complete overview of the need for and use of pesticides, their impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and response to this at national and international levels. That would be a major study in its own right. Rather the intention is to provide additional context for this study and the options for action identified.
The focus on pesticides was chosen by the Nordic Council of Ministers because of growing concerns over the impact of certain pesticides on pollinators and pollination. As highlighted by the IPBES assessment report on pollinators, pollination and food production,[1]IPBES (2016). The assessment report on pollinators, pollination and food production. (See ipbes.net/assessment-reports/pollinators) 75% of food crops and nearly 90% of wild flowering plants depend on pollinators, yet pollinators are being threatened by a wide range of human activities including extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers which have proven to have lethal effects on them. This example therefore highlights in a very concrete way the close interlinkage between biodiversity and chemicals and waste and the need to shift from business as usual to working to solve the known challenges in a more coherent and synergistic manner, while recognising that in a range of countries relevant actions are already under way.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) has defined a pesticide as: “any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying or controlling any pest, including vectors of human or animal disease, unwanted species of plants or animals causing harm during or otherwise interfering with the production, processing, storage, transport or marketing of food, agricultural commodities, wood and wood products or animal feedstuffs, or substances which may be administered to animals for the control of insects, arachnids or other pests in or on their bodies”.[2]FAO (2003) International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Rome. Article 2 on terms and definitions. (www.fao.org/3/Y4544E/y4544e02.htm)
There are many chemicals entering the environment, and an increasing amount of waste, and while these are not the only sources of pollution they can potentially comprise a significant part of it. This is happening in almost all sectors, exacerbated by a wide range of factors including population increase. Whatever the original intent with respect to the use of chemicals, many of which have brought significant health and economic benefits, chemical and waste pollution is impacting biodiversity and ecosystem services in a range of ways.
There is clear concern about the unintended impacts of chemicals and waste on biodiversity and ecosystem services, with evidence presented in multiple global assessments. Each of these assessments considered an extensive literature, and more detail on the nature of the risk and the sources of information used to reach their conclusions can be found each of the assessment reports. The findings of the different assessment reports included the following:
Each assessment has a different focus and concentrates on different areas of concern with respect to chemicals and waste and the ways in which they enter ecosystems and impact on biodiversity. The IPBES global assessment, for example, was particularly concerned with three types of pollution: emissions into the atmosphere; contaminants dissolved in and carried by water; and disposal or deposition of solids. It also recognised the potential impacts of increasing use of fertilizers and pesticides as a result of efforts to feed a growing world population. The marine assessment considered 11 sources of harmful material and excess nutrients, including from land-based sources and from shipping. Given the nature of the ocean environment, these pollution sources have potential impacts on countries other than the source country, as well as areas beyond national jurisdiction. The first of the FAO reports was primarily concerned with overuse and misuse of chemicals in agricultural practice, while the Global Assessment of Soil Pollution identifies multiple pollution sources including agriculture, industrial activities and mining, waste disposal and management, industrial accidents, military activity and natural disasters.
There is also concern that chemicals and waste exacerbate threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services when experienced in combination with other threats. For example, the IPCC Special Report on Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate[8]IPCC (2019). Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. (www.ipcc.ch/srocc/) indicates that the impacts of climate change on ocean and cryosphere ecosystems can be exacerbated by other factors such as pollution, and therefore addressing pollution needs to be part of the response options. Similarly, exacerbation of climate change impacts on natural ecosystems by other ‘stressors’ including pollution was identified as being of concern in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (Working Group II).[9]IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. (www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/) The Global Biodiversity Outlook also recognised that different threats to biodiversity were interconnected, as did the report prepared by the BRS and Minamata Convention Secretariats on key insights on the interlinkages between the chemicals and waste MEAs and biodiversity,[10]Secretariats of the BRS Conventions and the Minamata Convention on Mercury (2021). Interlinkages between the chemicals and waste multilateral environmental agreements and biodiversity: Key insights. (wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36088/BIKI.pdf) and the report of the 2021 meeting of the IWC Scientific Committee.[11]IWC (2021). Report of the Scientific Committee, 27 April-14 May 2021. (archive.iwc.int/pages/view.php?ref=19276)
Meanwhile the size of the chemicals industry in terms of financial value is already very large and projected to double by 2030. This was one of the conclusions of the second edition of the Global Chemicals Outlook,[1]UNEP (2019). Global Chemicals Outlook II: From Legacies to Innovative Solutions: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Synthesis Report. (gpcpe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GCOII_synth.pdf) which also recognised that hazardous chemicals and other pollutants (including pharmaceutical pollutants) continue to be released in large quantities, are ubiquitous in the environment, and are accumulating in material stocks and products. There are concerns about both current and legacy impacts of chemical pollutants, and this relates to both chemicals that have been deliberately introduced into the environment for an intended purpose and those that have been released through inappropriate use or accidental release.
Increasing demand for food and biofuels will likely lead to a continued increase in nutrient and chemical inputs, with pesticide and fertilizer use expected to double by 2050 if current trends continue. This was part of the findings of the IPBES assessment on land degradation and restoration,[2]IPBES (2018). The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration. (See ipbes.net/assessment-reports/ldr) which also identified specific concerns about high use of chemicals in intensive agricultural systems leading to eutrophication of water bodies and toxic effects of pesticides on non-target species. This also relates to concerns expressed in the FAO report on State of Knowledge of Soil Biodiversity[3]FAO (2020) State of knowledge of soil biodiversity - Status, challenges and potentialities
(www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/CB1928EN/) and the UNCCD Global Land Outlook[4]Secretariat of the UNCCD (2017). Global Land Outlook: First edition. (knowledge.unccd.int/sites/default/files/2018-06/GLO English_Full_Report_rev1.pdf) on the impacts of overuse and misuse of agrochemicals.
Meanwhile illegal trade of chemicals and waste continues to be a serious problem in some parts of the world.[5]UNEP and GRID-Arendal (2020). The illegal trade in chemicals. (www.grida.no/publications/474) The independent evaluation of SAICM[6]SAICM (2019). Final report: Independent evaluation of the Strategic Approach from 2006-2015. (www.saicm.org/Portals/12/Documents/reporting/FinalReport_Independent-Evaluation-SAICM-2006-2015.pdf) reported that significantly more work needed to be done in this area, and identified a number of gaps limiting international progress including: lack of verification and information on traded chemicals, products and waste; insufficient information sharing and cooperation internationally; lack of enforcement of anti-corruption laws; lack of capacity in customs control systems; and lack of ability to regulate illegal traffic. Such illegal activity will inevitably increase impacts of chemicals and waste on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
The volume of solid waste generated each year is already high and projected to increase very significantly in the coming years. This is one of the findings of the World Bank Group Report on What a Waste 2.0.[7]Kaza, S., Yao, LC., Bhada-Tata, P., Van Woerden, F. (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Urban Development and World Bank. (openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30317) The extent to which waste is properly managed varies widely both within countries and between countries, and to some extent across sectors. At the same time the amount of waste generated in low income countries is projected to increase even more rapidly in the coming years, as waste generation generally increases as a result of population growth, increasing urbanization and economic development. While not all waste is hazardous, this does mean that the types of impacts on biodiversity resulting from waste will vary quite significantly geographically.
Marine litter originating from both land-based sources and sea-based activities has become an issue of increasing concern in recent years. This was recognised, for example, in both the First Global Integrated Marine Assessment[8]UN (2016). The first global integrated marine assessment: World Ocean Assessment I. (www.un.org/regularprocess/content/first-world-ocean-assessment) and the first edition of the Global Waste Management Outlook.[9]UNEP (2015). Global waste management outlook. UNEP and International Solid Waste Association. (wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/9672/-Global_Waste_Management_Outlook-2015Global_Waste_Management_Outlook.pdf.pdf) Part of the problem is that the overall magnitude of litter entering the sea annually is unknown, and the amount at any given location will vary depending on a range of factors including not only the ‘entry point’ and physical characteristics of the litter itself, but also factors such as hydrological and meteorological conditions, and movement through ocean currents.
Chemicals and waste enter the environment in a range of different ways and have a range of different types of impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services. For example, the report prepared by the Secretariats of the BRS and Minamata Conventions on key insights into interlinkages between the chemicals and waste MEAs and biodiversity[10]Secretariats of the BRS Conventions and the Minamata Convention on Mercury (2021). Interlinkages between the chemicals and waste multilateral environmental agreements and biodiversity: Key insights. (wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36088/BIKI.pdf) provides examples of the impacts of chemicals and waste and how they enter the environment.
There are many challenges and issues of concern that need to be considered and addressed.[11]UNEP (2020). An assessment report on issues of concern: Chemicals and waste issues posing risks to human health and the environment. (wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/33807/ARIC.pdf) SAICM currently recognises eight emerging policy issues or other issues of concern:[12]See www.saicm.org/Implementation/EmergingPolicyIssues chemicals in products; endocrine disrupting chemicals; environmentally persistent pharmaceutical pollutants; hazardous substances in the life cycle of electrical and electronic products; highly hazardous pesticides; lead in paint; nanotechnology and manufactured nanomaterials; and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. The second edition of the Global Chemicals Outlook identifies 11 chemicals or groups of chemicals where emerging evidence suggests further environmental and/or health risks.[13]UNEP (2019). Global Chemicals Outlook II: From Legacies to Innovative Solutions: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Synthesis Report. (gpcpe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GCOII_synth.pdf). The UNEP assessment report on issues of concern[14]UNEP (2020). An assessment report on issues of concern: Chemicals and waste issues posing risks to human health and the environment. (wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/33807/ARIC.pdf) reviews each of these issues of concern, and also suggests ways in which issues of concern might be identified in future given the very large number of chemicals on the market and in use.
Pharmaceutical residues are also present worldwide in surface water, groundwater, soil and within the biota. This was reported on in the second edition of the Global Chemicals Outlook,[15]UNEP (2019). Global Chemicals Outlook II: From Legacies to Innovative Solutions: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Synthesis Report. (gpcpe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GCOII_synth.pdf) which recognised that pharmaceuticals are one of the chemical industries’ fastest growing segments, with an annual growth rate of 6.5%. The report noted that some pharmaceuticals were transported and accumulated within food webs, and that some were found to have endocrine disrupting effects in animals. A particularly well publicised concern over pharmaceuticals in recent years has been the impact of diclofenac, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug used for treating cattle, which has been the cause of substantial declines in three species of Gyps vultures in South Asia.[16]See CMS COP Resolution 12.10 (www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/cms_cop12_res.12.10_vultures_e.pdf) and IUCN WCC 2016 Resolution 22 (portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/resrecfiles/WCC_2016_RES_022_EN.pdf) Other drugs, including carprofen, flunixin, nimesulide, aceclofenac and ketoprofen are also known to be dangerous to vultures and other scavenging birds. At the regional level a study a UNESCO-led assessment found a wide variety of pharmaceuticals in marine and freshwater habitats in the Baltic Sea region, largely entering the natural environment through discharge of effluents from municipal wastewater treatment plants.[17]UNESCO and HELCOM (2017). Pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment of the Baltic Sea region – A status report. UNESCO Emerging Pollutants in Water Series, No. 1. (unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247889)
Legacy chemicals and waste are found in some of the most remote regions of the world. The second edition of the Global Chemicals Outlook[1]UNEP (2019). Global Chemicals Outlook II: From Legacies to Innovative Solutions: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Synthesis Report. (gpcpe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GCOII_synth.pdf) observed that polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been detected at high concentrations in amphipods found in the deep ocean trenches, and organochlorine pesticides have been found in Himalayan glaciers. The First World Ocean Assessment[2]UN (2016). The first global integrated marine assessment: World Ocean Assessment I. (www.un.org/regularprocess/content/first-world-ocean-assessment) also found that “marine debris is present in all marine habitats, from densely populated regions to remote points far from human activities, from beaches and shallow waters to the deepest ocean trenches”. Both the persistent nature of the chemicals and waste, and their transport are issues of concern, together with concerns about concentration though food chains.
Chemicals can cause impacts which themselves then impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services. An obvious example is those chemicals which damage the ozone layer protecting the Earth from the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel has found that, inter alia, UV radiation and climate change is reducing the viability and availability of certain habitats, causing disruption of some ecosystems, and negatively impacting the life cycles of fish species.[3]UNEP (2020). Environmental Effects of Stratospheric Ozone Depletion, UV Radiation, and Interactions with Climate Change: Update 2020. UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel. (ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/assessment_panels/EEAP-summary-update-2020-for-policymakers.pdf) Some ozone-depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs), are also greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. Ozone depletion is caused by emissions of ‘anthropogenic ozone-depleting substances’ from industrial and other human activities, and the subsequent release of halogen gases. Fortunately, according to the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018,[4]WMO (2018). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, Report No 58 (https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/SAP-2018-Assessment-report.pdf) these emissions and their impacts are largely decreasing as a result of action taken (see next section). This is mentioned here as there may be opportunities for cooperation in the ways in which chemicals and their potential and actual impacts are reviewed and managed.
Box 2: Impacts of pesticides on biodiversity
Pesticides have been a significant tool in the management of pests worldwide for many years, and around 1000 different pesticides are in use currently,[1]FAO and UNEP (2021). Global assessment of soil pollution: Report. (www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb4894en/) including insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, rodenticides and herbicides. They are used to control potentially harmful effects of target species on, for example, human and animal health, and food production and storage. However, pesticides and pesticide use can also have deleterious effects through contamination of air, soil, water and vegetation, and they can impact many non-target species including beneficial insects.
The UNEP Assessment Report on Issues of Concern[2]UNEP (2020). An assessment report on issues of concern: Chemicals and waste issues posing risks to human health and the environment. (wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/33807/ARIC.pdf) reviews chemicals and waste issues identified as posing risks to human health and the environment. One of the eight SAICM issues of concern[3]See saicmknowledge.org/program/highly-hazardous-pesticides reported on is production, transport and use of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs). In addition, two of the 11 chemicals and groups of chemicals identified by the second edition of the Global Chemicals Outlook as chemicals considered a risk, are used as pesticides - glyphosate and neonicotinoids.[4]UNEP (2019). Global Chemicals Outlook II: From Legacies to Innovative Solutions: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Synthesis Report. (gpcpe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GCOII_synth.pdf)
The report prepared by the Secretariats of the BRS and Minamata Conventions on key insights into interlinkages between the chemicals and waste MEAs and biodiversity[5]Secretariats of the BRS Conventions and the Minamata Convention on Mercury (2021). Interlinkages between the chemicals and waste multilateral environmental agreements and biodiversity: Key insights. (wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36088/BIKI.pdf) observes that “pesticide use is a well-documented threat to birdlife, with bird populations having declined 20–25% since pre-agricultural times with one of the main causes being pesticides” and provides a number of specific examples. They also find that use of insecticides has resulted in “widespread contamination of agricultural soils, freshwater resources, wetlands, non-target vegetation, and estuarine and coastal ecosystems”. They are further concerned that “the combination of prophylactic use, persistence, mobility systemic properties and chronic toxicity is predicted to result in substantial impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning”. Their findings include: significant declines in terrestrial insect abundance; reduction in aquatic plants; reduced fish egg production; high mortality and reduced growth in amphibians.
The IPBES assessment on pollinators, pollination and food production[6]IPBES (2016). The assessment report on pollinators, pollination and food production. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany (See ipbes.net/assessment-reports/pollinators) found that wild pollinators are declining in occurrence and diversity, and that pesticides are one of a number of key threats. This is of particular concern because of the critical importance of pollination and pollinators to natural systems (including maintenance of genetic diversity in wild plants) and agriculture and food production. Risk to pollinators appears to arise from a combination of toxicity and the level of exposure, which varies geographically with the compounds used and the ways in which the landscape is managed. There is growing concern about the potential risks to bees and other pollinators from neonicotinoids, which have been used quite extensively since the early 1990s.[7]UNEP (2019). Global Chemicals Outlook II: From Legacies to Innovative Solutions: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Synthesis Report. (gpcpe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GCOII_synth.pdf)
The report prepared by the Secretariats of the BRS and Minamata Conventions on interlinkages between the chemicals and waste MEAs and climate change[8]Secretariats of the BRS conventions and the Minamata Convention on Mercury (2021). Chemicals, wastes and climate change: Interlinkages and potential for coordinated action. (mercuryconvention.org/Portals/11/documents/Climate_Change_Interlinkages.pdf) found that climate change can potentially lead to increased use of pesticides to combat higher incidences of pest and disease outbreaks, as increased distribution, growth and reproduction of pests is observed at higher temperatures and in wetter conditions, and because the efficacy of pesticides decreases with increased temperature.
The Global Assessment of Soil Pollution[9]FAO and UNEP (2021). Global assessment of soil pollution: Report. (www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb4894en/) published by FAO and UNEP concludes that “many pesticides are highly persistent in the environment and toxic residues can affect beneficial and non-target organisms … and contaminate waters and soils on a global scale”. They also recognised that a number of pesticides and pesticide residues “can bio-accumulate in high concentrations in plants and animals and cause biomagnification in the food chain”. The potential impact on ecosystem health is a concern, and this is compounded by the potential impacts of pesticides in combination, given the number of pesticides in use.
The UNEP report on environmental and health impacts of pesticides and fertilizers and ways of minimising them[10]UNEP (2021). Environmental and health impacts of pesticides and fertilizers and ways of minimising them: Summary for Policy Makers. (See www.unep.org/resources/report/environmental-and-health-impacts-pesticides-and-fertilizers-and-ways-minimizing) Note that the full report has not yet been released. found that “pesticide residues have been detected in a wide range of environmental media, including surface and groundwater, soils and air … even … in remote areas such as the Arctic”. As well as current-use pesticides, these included “legacy pesticides (e.g. organochlorines), which may not have been authorized for decades in many counties”. While the presence of pesticide residues does not of itself indicate an immediate risk, there is concern that such residues are being found in multiple locations, including quite remote locations.
Box 3: Pathways for chemical pesticide impact on biodiversity
Pesticide production is a multi-billion dollar industry and global demand, production and use has expanded steadily,[1]UNEP (2021). Environmental and health impacts of pesticides and fertilizers and ways of minimising them: Summary for Policy Makers. (See www.unep.org/resources/report/environmental-and-health-impacts-pesticides-and-fertilizers-and-ways-minimizing) Note that the full report has not yet been released. with herbicides such as glyphosate accounting for a very high proportion of global pesticide use.[2]UNEP (2020). An assessment report on issues of concern: Chemicals and waste issues posing risks to human health and the environment. (wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/33807/ARIC.pdf) Pesticides are deliberately introduced into the environment with the intention of controlling one or more ‘pest’ species that are impacting human well-being or the environment in some way. They may, for example, be used to increase agricultural productivity, to control pest species in containers and transport facilities, to improve the health and quality of life of human populations or their livestock, or to combat invasive alien species.
Agriculture covers more than a third of the terrestrial land area, and use of pesticides is widespread in response to pest pressures that impact food production demands. However, large-scale agriculture puts significant pressures on biodiversity including through adverse impacts resulting from pesticides, particularly in intensive crop production systems.[3]Secretariats of the BRS Conventions and the Minamata Convention on Mercury (2021). Interlinkages between the chemicals and waste multilateral environmental agreements and biodiversity: Key insights. (wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36088/BIKI.pdf) Intensive agriculture implies the systematic and widespread use of pesticides for controlling crop pests, competing weeds and fungal infections, and many studies have demonstrated the potential impacts of pesticides on arthropod diversity in particular.[4]Sánchez-Bayo, F. and Wyckhuys, KAG. (2019). World decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biological Conservation 232:8–27. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020)
The UNEP report on environmental and health impacts of pesticides and fertilizers and ways of minimising them[5]UNEP (2021). Environmental and health impacts of pesticides and fertilizers and ways of minimising them: Summary for Policy Makers. (See www.unep.org/resources/report/environmental-and-health-impacts-pesticides-and-fertilizers-and-ways-minimizing) Note that the full report has not yet been released. found that pesticides and their degraded products were ubiquitous in the environment, including in soils and surface and groundwater. Direct drivers that have the potential to increase pesticide use include agricultural intensification, pesticide resistance, genetically modified crops (mainly for herbicide tolerance), marketing practices and commodity prices. Use differs with crop type and location, but there are also fundamental differences between smallholder and large-scale agriculture. There are also concerns about inappropriate use, inadequate training and information, and limited availability of appropriate equipment.
While the majority of pesticides are used in agriculture, there are other uses including disease vector control, domestic uses, and amenity and industrial applications,[6]UNEP (2021). Environmental and health impacts of pesticides and fertilizers and ways of minimising them: Summary for Policy Makers. (See www.unep.org/resources/report/environmental-and-health-impacts-pesticides-and-fertilizers-and-ways-minimizing) Note that the full report has not yet been released. representing about 10–15% of the total market. The CMS Review of Ecological Effects of Poisoning[7]UNEP/CMS/COP11/Inf.34 Review of the ecological effects of poisoning on migratory birds. (www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/COP11_Inf_34_Review_effects_of_Poisoning_on_Migratory_Birds_Eonly.pdf) on migratory species found that globally most of the drivers resulting in exposure of birds to toxic substances were related to three activities: (a) agricultural protection of crops and livestock from predators, pests, and diseases; (b) hunting and fishing; and (c) harvesting birds with poison-baits for consumption.
It is important to recognise that there are also circumstances where pesticides are used as a tool to protect biodiversity. Examples primarily relate to the management of invasive alien species and their pathways of spread, including ballast water management, fisheries management, and the movement of wildlife, pathogens and pests. For example, pesticides might be used to control rats which are threatening seabird colonies and bat roosts. Associated monitoring and testing helps to ensure the risk of unintended impacts is minimised.
In addition to any issues relating to the actual use of pesticides, consideration also needs to be given to any issues associated with production, transport, storage and disposal. This includes addressing trade in substandard, illegal and counterfeit pesticides,[8]UNEP (2021). Environmental and health impacts of pesticides and fertilizers and ways of minimising them: Summary for Policy Makers. (See www.unep.org/resources/report/environmental-and-health-impacts-pesticides-and-fertilizers-and-ways-minimizing) Note that the full report has not yet been released. the use of which undermines efforts to promote more sustainable and lower-risk products. The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management[9]FAO and WHO (2014). The international code of conduct on pesticide management. (www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Code/Code_ENG_2017updated.pdf) addresses: policy and legislation; production; registration; quality control; trade; packaging, labelling and advertising; distribution and sales; use; food safety, health and environment; and waste management.
Pesticides have been in use for decades, and there are therefore also legacy issues. The Global Assessment of Soil Pollution[10]FAO and UNEP (2021). Global assessment of soil pollution: Report. (www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb4894en/) specifically identifies “excessive and inappropriate use of pesticides, and the mismanagement of obsolete and highly harmful pesticide stocks” as a major concern, and draws attention to the fact that “stores of obsolete pesticides still occur in many countries”, and that “spills and leakages from these depots continue to cause significant soil pollution”. They are concerned that “pesticides have been spread throughout the earth-atmosphere system and pesticide contamination occurs worldwide”.
Summary of key points relevant to strengthening collaboration and coordination:
Concerns can relate to:
Chemicals and waste can be introduced into the environment through:
Other issues to be considered include:
Possible responses might include:
International concern for achieving the sound management of chemicals and waste is clearly expressed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Numerous targets across several of the SDGs directly relate to this:
This confirms concerns that have been expressed in intergovernmental fora numerous times over the decades since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972.[1]UN (1973). Report on the UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, Sweden, 5–16 June 1972. (undocs.org/en/A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1) For example, chapters 19–22 of Agenda 21[2]UN (1992). Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–14 June 1992 (sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf) adopted at the ‘Earth Summit’ in 1992 covered issues relating to environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation[3]UN (2002). Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August – 4 September 2002. (digitallibrary.un.org/record/478154?ln=en) adopted at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 renewed the commitment to the sound management of chemicals and hazardous waste, and inter alia promoted the ratification and implementation of relevant international instruments on chemicals and hazardous waste.
As a result of such concerns, several international agreements on chemical and waste have been adopted and are gradually extending and enhancing their impact. These address a range of issues relevant to biodiversity and ecosystem services, although this is not their only or necessarily their primary concern. These international agreements include the following:
Within the marine realm UNCLOS also includes relevant provisions, and there are also international agreements relating specifically to dumping of wastes and pollution from ships. For example:
A range of regional agreements also address specific aspects of the chemicals and waste agenda. For example:
In addition to MEAs addressing specific groups of chemicals, it was considered necessary to also establish a multi-stakeholder forum with a broader mandate and scope, in order to fully address the goal of achieving by 2020 use and production of chemicals in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse impacts on human health and the environment. This goal was agreed in Johannesburg Plan of Implementation[9]UN (2002). Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August – 4 September 2002. (digitallibrary.un.org/record/478154?ln=en) adopted at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. Four years later in 2006 the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) was adopted as a voluntary policy framework to promote chemical safety around the world. SAICM comprises the Dubai Declaration on International Chemicals Management and an Overarching Policy Strategy[10]SAICM texts and resolutions of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (saicm.org/Portals/12/Documents/saicmtexts/New SAICM Text with ICCM resolutions_E.pdf) setting scope, statement of needs, objectives, financial considerations, underlying principles and approaches, and implementation and review arrangements. Stakeholders are currently discussing a beyond 2020 chemicals and waste framework, to succeed SAICM.
Given that pollution is identified as one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss, the biodiversity-related conventions have themselves taken a number of actions. Examples include the following, and further examples are included in the next section which considers current alignment of policy responses.
Box 4: Action on pesticides promoted by intergovernmental agreements and processes
The Rotterdam Convention supports countries in making informed decisions about future import and use of certain hazardous pesticides. It provides a mechanism for developing countries and countries with economies in transition to report adverse impacts on human health and the environment. One obligation for all Parties is to provide notifications of any final regulatory actions they have taken on a national basis to ban or severely restrict pesticides to protect human health and the environment, in response to the known adverse impacts identified in their domestic risk evaluation. Annex III to the Convention currently includes 36 pesticides, three of which are in the category of severely hazardous pesticide formulations.
The Stockholm Convention supports countries in eliminating or restricting the production, use, import and export of POPs, reducing or eliminating releases from unintentionally produced POPs, and ensuring that stockpiles and wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with POPs are managed safely and in an environmentally sound manner. Eighteen of the substances currently listed in the annexes to the Convention are identified as pesticides or having pesticide uses, and two further pesticides are being considered for listing. Guidance has been developed to assist Parties eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs pesticides listed under the Convention, including through the introduction of safe alternatives.
The Basel Convention aims to control transboundary movement of hazardous waste, reduce its generation, and promote the environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes and other wastes. This includes the management of waste from pesticides, and technical guidelines and manuals have been developed for assisting countries in the environmentally sound management of waste, including pesticides waste. A guidance manual on developing inventories for pesticide waste is still under development and not yet adopted.
The Montreal Protocol aims to eliminate the production and use of ozone depleting substances, and one of these was used as a pesticide (methyl bromide). By January 2015 the global phase out of methyl bromide for all but a number of specific uses and exemptions had been completed.
The Minamata Convention on Mercury aims to protect human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds. It sets out a range of measures to meet that objective, including phasing out the use of mercury in pesticides, biocides and topical antiseptics. Under Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Convention, each Party shall, as a general matter, not allow the manufacture, import or export of any pesticides, biocides or topical antiseptics containing mercury after 2020.
Since 1985, FAO together with WHO has been publishing the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management[1]FAO and WHO (2014). The international code of conduct on pesticide management. (www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Code/Code_ENG_2017updated.pdf) as a voluntary framework to help guide government regulators, the private sector, civil society and other stakeholders on best practice in managing pesticides throughout their lifecycle. Technical guidelines and guidance have subsequently been developed to elaborate specific articles of the Code of Conduct and related technical aspects of pesticide management,[2]See https://www.fao.org/pest-and-pesticide-management/pesticide-risk-reduction/code-conduct/en/ and these include Guidelines on Highly Hazardous Pesticides,[3]FAO and WHO (2016). International code on pesticide management: Guidelines on highly hazardous pesticides. (www.fao.org/3/a-i5566e.pdf) which are defined as presenting “particularly high levels of acute or chronic hazards to health or environment”.
At the fourth session of International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM), the governing body of SAICM, highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) were recognised as another issue of concern and there were calls for concerted actions to address them.[4]SAICM/ICCM.4/15 Report of the International Conference on Chemicals Management on the work of its fourth session (www.saicm.org/Portals/12/documents/meetings/IP1/K1606013_e.pdf),[5]See saicmknowledge.org/program/highly-hazardous-pesticides,[6]SAICM/ICCM.4/8 Proposal on highly hazardous pesticides. (www.saicm.org/Portals/12/documents/meetings/ICCM4/doc/K1502177 SAICM-ICCM4-8-e.pdf) The actions proposed include encouraging relevant stakeholders “to undertake concerted efforts to implement the strategy at the local, national, regional and international levels, with emphasis on promoting agroecologically-based alternatives and strengthening national regulatory capacity to conduct risk assessment and risk management, including the availability of necessary information”.
SAICM has a community of practice on HHPs[7]See saicmknowledge.org/topic/community-practice#hhps and is working closely with FAO, UNEP and WHO amongst others. FAO, WHO and UNEP are also working together with relevant partners to develop a global action plan on HHPs which aims to consolidate the commitments and efforts of diverse organizations that have interests and responsibilities in eliminating the risks from HHPs.[8]FAO, WHO and UNEP (undated) Draft global action plan on highly hazardous pesticides. (chemicalswithoutconcern.org/sites/default/files/meterial/Draft_Global_Action_Plan_HPP.pdf) A module on national management of pesticides has been developed by the multi-agency Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) as part of the IOMC Toolbox.[9]See iomctoolbox.org/node/50034/steps
The CMS Guidelines to Prevent the Risk of Poisoning to Migratory Birds[10]UNEP/CMS/COP11/Doc.23.1.2 Guidelines to prevent the risk of poisoning to migratory birds. (www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/Guidelines to Prevent the Risk of Poisoning to Migratory Birds.pdf) make a significant number of references to the use of pesticides. This includes advice concerning Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as an effective approach for reducing the need for pesticides.
IPPC is concerned with protecting global plant resources and its primary aim is to prevent plant pests from spreading and establishing in new countries and regions. Tools for phytosanitary risk management inevitably include pesticides. IPPC provided guidance to national plant protection organizations on the replacement of or reduction of methyl bromide use as a phytosanitary measure.[11]FAO and IPPC Secretariat (2017). Recommendation on: Replacement or reduction of the use of methyl bromide as a phytosanitary measure. Adopted 2008. (assets.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2017/08/R_03_En_2017-08-23_Combined_f3wtoE3.pdf)
Following completion of the IPBES assessment on pollinators, pollination and food production, the CBD COP considered the findings and in decision XIII/15[12]CBD COP decision XIII/15 (www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-15-en.pdf) made a number of recommendations relating to reducing risk from pesticides. This builds on the earlier work of the International Pollinators Initiative, and the decision also drew the attention to FAO’s guidance on aspects of the risk of pesticides to wild bees[13]FAO (2013). Aspects determining the risk of pesticides to wild bees: Risk profiles for focal crops on three continents. (www.fao.org/3/i3116e/i3116e.pdf) developed as part of a contribution to that initiative.
Summary of key points relevant to strengthening collaboration and coordination:
Common objectives with respect to chemicals and waste:
Possible responses might include:
The importance of policy coherence is recognised at the highest level. For example, in paragraph 89 of The Future We Want,[1]UN (2012). The Future we Want: Outcome document of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro Brazil. (sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/733FutureWeWant.pdf) the outcome document of the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, Heads of State and Government and high-level representatives acknowledged the work already undertaken to enhance synergies among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, and encouraged “parties to multilateral environmental agreements to consider further measures, in these and other clusters, as appropriate, to promote policy coherence at all relevant levels, improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary overlap and duplication and enhance collaboration and coordination among the multilateral environmental agreements”.
The need for policy alignment is also clear from the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals.[2]UN General Assembly Resolution 70/1 Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development (sdgs.un.org/2030agenda) The SDGs and their targets are presented as being “integrated and indivisible”, as the “interlinkages and integrated nature of the SDGs are of crucial importance in ensuring that the purpose of the … Agenda is realized”. The implication is that achievement of SDG 12 and its associated targets 12.4 and 12.5 relating to chemicals and waste (and indeed Target 11.6 on reducing the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities) are inter alia important for achieving SDG 14 (on marine ecosystems) and SDG 15 (on terrestrial ecosystems) and their respective targets, as well as Target 6.6 relating to protection and restoration of water-related ecosystems and Target 3.9 concerned with health implications of pollution and contamination. This is relevant at all levels, including for national action. Tracking implementation of the SDGs includes a specific indicator on policy coherence, SDG 17.14.1 (number of countries with mechanisms in place to enhance policy coherence of sustainable development), which reinforces their integrated nature. Meanwhile, in reviewing the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) the UN General Assembly has agreed a strengthened focus on interlinkages, synergies and trade-offs.[3]UN General Assembly Resolution 75/290 High-level forum on sustainable development (See www.undocs.org/en/A/75/L.102, when released it will be at www.undocs.org/en/A/RES/75/290)
There is increasing recognition of the need for ‘transformative change’ that also takes fully into account the interconnections between environmental issues. For example, the IPBES global assessment found that “nature can be conserved, restored and used sustainably while other global societal goals are simultaneously met through urgent and concerted efforts fostering transformative change”, and “the global environment can be safeguarded through enhanced international cooperation and linked, locally relevant measures”.[4]IPBES (2019): Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES, Bonn, Germany. (See www.ipbes.net/global-assessment) The UNEP-led report on Making Peace with Nature[5]UNEP (2021). Making Peace with Nature: A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies. Nairobi, Kenya. (www.unep.org/resources/making-peace-nature) found that “transforming humankind’s relationship with nature is key to a sustainable future” and “Earth’s environmental emergencies should be addressed together to achieve sustainability … given the interconnected nature of climate change, loss of biodiversity, land degradation, and air and water pollution”.
There is increasing recognition of the value of identifying opportunities for increased coherence in implementing intergovernmental agreements and programmes. For example, UNEA resolution 2/17 on enhancing the work of UNEP in facilitating cooperation, collaboration and synergies among biodiversity-related conventions[6]UNEA Resolution 2/17 Enhancing the work of UNEP in facilitating cooperation, collaboration and synergies among biodiversity-related conventions (wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/11190) lays the groundwork for UNEP work on cooperation and synergies with respect to the biodiversity-related conventions at both national and international levels. UNEA resolution 1/5 calls for an integrated approach to financing sound management of chemicals and waste, UNEA resolution 3/2 concerns pollution mitigation by mainstreaming biodiversity into key sectors,[7]UNEA Resolution 3/2 Pollution mitigation by mainstreaming biodiversity into key sectors (wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/31017) and UNEA resolution 4/8 on sound management of chemicals and waste inter alia welcomes the decisions on collaboration and coordination between the Minamata Convention and BRS Conventions taken by the COPs of those conventions to take further pragmatic steps to share services. UNEA resolutions on marine plastic litter and microplastics recognise and promote an increasing alignment of policy responses.[8]UNEA resolutions on marine litter (see unea.marinelitter.no)
There is increasing recognition of ways in which chemicals and waste management are converging, according to the Global Chemicals Outlook.[9]UNEP (2019). Global Chemicals Outlook II: From Legacies to Innovative Solutions: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Synthesis Report. (gpcpe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GCOII_synth.pdf) In part this is through implementation of the waste hierarchy from the preferred reduction and reuse, through recycling and composting to the least preferred options of energy recovery, and treatment and disposal. This also places the emphasis on sustainable resource management, resource efficiency and life cycle management. The same review found that significant resources can be saved by sharing knowledge on chemical management instruments more widely and by enhancing mutual acceptance of approaches in areas ranging from chemical hazard and risk assessments to alternatives assessment, and that global knowledge gaps can be filled more readily by taking steps to harmonize research protocols and strengthen the science-policy interface through enhanced collaboration of scientists and decision-makers.
Increased alignment in the chemicals and waste cluster is also evidenced by the synergies process in the BRS Conventions, which began before Rio+20 and adoption of the SDGs. In order to facilitate implementation of the conventions, the COPs of the BRS Conventions adopted a series of decisions aimed at enhancing cooperation and coordination among the conventions at all levels.[10]See www.brsmeas.org/Decisionmaking/Overview/SynergiesProcess and documents referred to on this page This has led inter alia to increased cooperation in implementing the conventions, joint services to increase harmonization and reduce costs, and harmonized decision making in the COPs. Key characteristics of this party-led process have been: the identification of clear benefits; ensuring effective focus on common interests; proposing achievable steps for addressing identified needs; and remaining respectful of mandates and avoiding controversy. In 2017, review of the synergies arrangements concluded, for example that the “quantity and quality of technical and scientific support provided to Parties has improved, and there has been good progress towards joined-up policy-making and a ‘lifecycle’ approach to hazardous chemicals and waste management among the Parties”.[11]See UNEP/CHW.13/INF/43 at www.brsmeas.org/Decisionmaking/COPsandExCOPs/2017COPs/2017COPs/Overview This is complemented by the work of SAICM with multiple stakeholders. The secretariats of the BRS and Minamata conventions also collaborate closely in areas of mutual interest.[12]See www.basel.int/Partners/MEAs/TheMinamataConvention/tabid/3895/
Meanwhile many governments are taking a more integrated approach to implementing the biodiversity-related conventions at the national level. This is by increasing the extent to which their national biodiversity strategies and action plans support the implementation of MEAs other than the CBD,[13]e.g. UNEP (2018). Assessment of post-2010 National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. (wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/25656/post2010_NBSAP_Assessment.pdf through national ecosystem assessments,[14]e.g. CBD/SBSTTA/24/INF/18 National ecosystem assessment in support of the implementation of the CBD: Outlining initial impact (www.cbd.int/doc/c/73ad/c55b/615e1f1e1882ab9807758d0e/sbstta-24-inf-18-en.pdf) and through the establishment of national biodiversity platforms[15]e.g. Appendix III of IPBES/8/INF/9 Information on work on capacity-building (www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2021-05/ipbes_8_inf_9_capacity_building_en.pdf) or other science-policy mechanisms. However, there is need for this integration to be increased, as is clear from decision XIII/24[16]CBD COP decision XIII/24 on cooperation (www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-24-en.pdf) of the CBD Conference of the Parties and the report of the Second Consultation Workshop of Biodiversity-related Conventions on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework convened by UNEP.[17]CBD/SBI/3/INF/29 Report of the second consultation workshop on biodiversity-related conventions on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (Bern II) (www.cbd.int/doc/c/39f2/7257/df0b4d2bbdd7e383051e58f0/sbi-03-inf-29-en.pdf)
CBD Parties have reported on efforts to address Aichi Biodiversity Target 8 on pollution; although it is not clear from the synthesis reports available[18]e.g. CBD/SBI/3/2/Add.2 Analysis of the contribution of targets established by Parties and progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (www.cbd.int/doc/c/f1e4/ab2c/ff85fe53e210872a0ceffd26/sbi-03-02-add2-en.pdf) to what extent there has been active consideration of alignment in implementation. Parties reported in their sixth national reports that actions being undertaken included regulatory approaches, setting up monitoring systems and standards, and promoting the development and improvement of infrastructure to improve waste management. Commonly reported policies included regulation of fertilizer use, monitoring agricultural runoff and placing caps on nitrogen use. With regard to plastic pollution, commonly reported actions included bans on certain types of plastics, and awareness campaigns and clean-up activities.
The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets provided a valuable framework for alignment of MEAs on biodiversity related issues, including with respect to implementation at the national level. For example, several Regional Seas Conventions actively sought to align their actions with relevant Aichi Biodiversity Targets, including Target 8 on pollution, recognising their ability to promote implementation within their respective regions.[19]e.g. CBD/SBSTTA/24/INF/24 Report on Regional Seas biodiversity under the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (www.cbd.int/doc/c/0c09/8814/cc8c0cd04f77b9a61240a33c/sbstta-24-inf-24-en.pdf) In both the Ramsar Strategic Plan 2016–2024[20]Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2016). The Fourth Ramsar Strategic Plan 2016–2024. Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands. (www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/hb2_5ed_strategic_plan_2016_24_e.pdf) and the CMS Strategic Plan for Migratory Species 2015–2023[21]CMS COP Resolution 11.2 Strategic Plan for Migratory Species 2015-2023. (www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/Res_11_02_Strategic_Plan_for_MS_2015_2023_E_0.pdf) there are annexes relating their targets to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, including Target 8 on pollution, and so facilitating a degree of alignment to implementing the conventions.
CMS has taken active steps to promote increased cooperation in preventing the poisoning of migratory birds, also recognising the impact of poisoning on species other than birds. CMS Resolution 11.15[22]CMS COP Resolution 11.15 (Rev.COP13) Preventing poisoning of migratory birds (www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/cms_cop13_res.11.15_rev.cop13_e.pdf) actively promotes consultation and cooperation across sectors in addressing the problems, including cooperation in implementing international agreements relating to both biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters. In this resolution the CMS COP also adopts Guidelines to Prevent the Risk of Poisoning to Migratory Birds[23]UNEP/CMS/COP11/Doc.23.1.2 Guidelines to prevent the risk of poisoning to migratory birds. (www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/Guidelines to Prevent the Risk of Poisoning to Migratory Birds.pdf) which explicitly identifies the role of the Rotterdam Convention as well as legislative and non-legislative actions that can be taken.
Concern about chemical pollution led to recommendations that the IWC work more closely with other institutions including the chemicals conventions. The IWC Scientific Committee initiated research on the effects of chemical pollution on cetacean populations,[24]See iwc.int/chemical-pollution in particular persistent organic pollutants and mercury, and inter alia recommended engagement with the chemicals conventions in addressing the issue of chemical pollution, in particular the Stockholm Convention and the Minamata Convention. The research necessary for understanding the likely impacts was a key element in identifying potential impacts and where action might be needed.
It is also important to recognise that biodiversity can help to reduce the impacts of pollution in particular, and this consideration also has the potential to help drive alignment. This can include both efforts to control and mitigate the effects of pollution and efforts to reduce the need for chemical inputs (and in both cases this may benefit response to climate change). Consider, for example:
Conventions in the two clusters also work together as part of the Green Customs Initiative,[32]www.greencustoms.org/ which aims to enhance the capacity of customs and other relevant border control officers to monitor and facilitate the legal trade and to detect and prevent illegal trade in environmentally-sensitive commodities covered by the MEAs. The partnership includes the BRS and Minamata conventions, CBD and CITES, and the Montreal Protocol, as well as UNEP and a number of other UN entities. Activities include the development of guidance materials and e-learning modules for customs officers.
Other international initiatives and programmes are also relevant to alignment between the two clusters, including the ‘One Health’ approach. It has been recognized that the complex and multidisciplinary issues raised by the interface of human, animal and ecosystem health (“One Health”) require enhanced collaboration and coordination among sectors and agencies, nationally and internationally, and the World Health Organization has recently established a high-level panel to consider this further.[33]See www.who.int/news/item/11-06-2021-26-international-experts-to-kickstart-the-joint-fao-oie-unep-who-one-health-high-level-expert-panel-(ohhlep) The ‘One Health’ approach recognises the interaction between disease – including poisoning – in wildlife, human and domestic animals, and the urgent need to ensure that policy responses are better integrated for more effective outcomes. See for example Ramsar Convention Resolution XI.12 on wetlands and health[34]www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documentstemanord2022-513.pdfcop11/res/cop11-res12-e.pdf and CMS Resolution 11.15 on preventing poisoning of migratory birds.[35]www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/mos2_inf11_cms_res_11_15_e_0.pdf Focusing on the One Health approach also has the potential to link to the post COVID-19 recovery agenda.
Box 5: Current alignment of policy responses with respect to pesticides
It is important to note that the majority of the alignment actions already identified in this section are relevant to pesticides in some way or another (for example the CMS Guidelines or the work of SAICM with multiple stakeholders). The following paragraphs only relate to those actions that are specific to addressing problems with pesticides and their impacts or are clear sub-components of actions already mentioned.
The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management[1]FAO and WHO (2014). The international code of conduct on pesticide management. (www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Code/Code_ENG_2017updated.pdf) is a voluntary instrument developed jointly by FAO and WHO through their Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management.[2]See for example www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CB2892EN/ The code of conduct and associated guidance and technical support from FAO are very relevant to implementation of SAICM and the Rotterdam Convention in particular to support action at the national level. The Code of Conduct is also recognised by the CBD in decision XIII/15[3]CBD COP decision XIII/15 on implications of IPBES assessment (www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-15-en.pdf) which encourages Parties to “develop and implement national and as appropriate regional pesticide risk reduction strategies …, for example, by adopting Integrated Pest Management practices and biocontrol, taking into account the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management”.
The CMS Guidelines to Prevent the Risk of Poisoning to Migratory Birds[4]UNEP/CMS/COP11/Doc.23.1.2 Guidelines to prevent the risk of poisoning to migratory birds. (www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/Guidelines to Prevent the Risk of Poisoning to Migratory Birds.pdf) includes chapters on rodenticides (chapter 1) and insecticides (chapter 2), as well as a chapter on use of poison baits for predator control (chapter 3). All are concerned with pesticides. The guidelines draw attention to the role of the Rotterdam Convention in supporting the reduction of risk of imports of products highly toxic to birds through: (a) informing national governments deciding whether to allow import of pesticides; and (b) further consideration by the Convention on whether to regulate additional pesticides.
The draft Global Action Plan on Highly Hazardous Pesticides[5]FAO, WHO and UNEP (undated) Draft global action plan on highly hazardous pesticides. (chemicalswithoutconcern.org/sites/default/files/meterial/Draft_Global_Action_Plan_HPP.pdf) being developed by FAO, WHO and UNEP identifies its anticipated role with respect to SAICM and the chemicals conventions (Rotterdam, Stockholm, Montreal). Although the current draft clearly indicates the importance of action with respect to degradation of biodiversity and ecosystems, it does not explicitly identify how it might relate to implementation of the cluster of biodiversity conventions. However, it is important to recognise that this is still a draft, and consultations are ongoing.
Summary of key points relevant to strengthening collaboration and coordination:
Possible responses might include:
Supporting activities might include:
Efforts to strengthen collaboration and coordination between biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters at the national level need to build on existing mechanisms. Each of the MEAs discussed, as well as SAICM, encourage national approaches to implementation that vary from one instrument to another. However, as implementation is a national responsibility and the circumstances and priorities of countries vary, the ways in which the obligations entered into are addressed will also vary from one country to another. In addition, not all countries are party to all conventions, so there are also differences in the obligations that countries have committed to. The extent to which MEAs and SAICM are implemented in a coherent manner – even within clusters – may therefore also vary from one country to another.
It is therefore valuable to understand what mechanisms are being encouraged at the national level by the instruments in each cluster, so as to better understand how the mechanisms might be adapted or influenced. For example, there are national focal points within each country for each of the MEAs and SAICM, each of the MEAs requires some form of national reporting, and most have some form of implementation strategy or plan at the national level. While any adjustment to strengthen collaboration and coordination is clearly a decision for each country, this can be influenced by guidance provided by the MEA governing bodies or the ICCM, or by secretariats and bureaux on their behalf. It can also benefit from guidance and support provided by other organizations, and examples of good practice from other countries. Also financing opportunities can serve as promoters of collaboration.
While this section focuses on national approaches to implementation, it is important to recognise different national circumstances. The approach to national implementation may depend on the roles and responsibilities of sub-national governments, for example the roles of provinces or states in federal countries. Countries also vary in the ways in which they engage other stakeholders including local governments and indigenous peoples and local communities in implementation of intergovernmental agreements and processes.
For each of the biodiversity-related conventions there are identified national focal points, although their exact role may vary depending on the convention and on national circumstances. In principle focal points are the individuals in each country who are involved in the meetings of the convention advisory and governing bodies. These the individuals are also responsible at the national level both for communication with those responsible for implementation, and for organizing reports back to convention bodies on what has been done. For some conventions there is guidance provided for national focal points on the convention and their associated roles and responsibilities. For example:
Advice is also provided to national focal points of the biodiversity-related conventions on the ways in which they might collaborate with their counterparts for other conventions. In part this is covered above, but other examples include:
National biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) are the main instrument for national implementation of the CBD. In accordance with the Convention, Parties have to “develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity or adapt for this purpose existing strategies, plans or programmes”[11]Article 6(a) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (www.cbd.int/convention/text/) aimed at fulfilling the objectives of the CBD. Almost all Parties have developed at least one NBSAP (192 out of 196), although these documents vary considerably in terms of content, process through which they are developed, breadth of ownership within Government and beyond, and level of adoption within Government.[12]UNEP (2018). Assessment of post-2010 National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. (wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/25656/post2010_NBSAP_Assessment.pdf
Guidance on approaches for the development and implementation of NBSAPs has been provided by the CBD COP. This includes both general and more specific guidance. For example, COP decision IX/8[13]CBD COP decision IX/8 on review of implementation (www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-09/cop-09-dec-08-en.pdf) and decision X/2[14]CBD COP decision X/2 on the strategic plan for biodiversity (www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf) include some key aspects relating to both content and process. In addition, a range of CBD decisions target specific elements relating to development and implementation of NBSAPs, including with respect to these being instruments for cross-sectoral cooperation. For example, COP has encouraged Parties to “further strengthen cooperation and synergy among convention focal points and focal points for other relevant sectoral processes and partners at the national level so as to enhance capacity to implement the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, avoid duplication of activities and further enhance the effective use of resources, recognizing that national biodiversity strategies and action plans provide a useful tool for such collaboration” (decision XI/6[15]CBD COP decision IX/6 on cooperation (www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-11/cop-11-dec-06-en.pdf) paragraph 10).
Since 2010 there has been an expectation that NBSAPs should also include appropriate reference to actions to support the implementation of other biodiversity-related conventions. When CBD Parties adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, other biodiversity-related conventions recognised that the strategic plan was also relevant to their interests, and as indicated earlier both the CMS and the Ramsar Convention went a step further and aligned their own strategic plans with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Linking implementation of the other biodiversity-related conventions through NBSAPs has also facilitated access to GEF funding for relevant projects for those countries that are GEF eligible.[16]GEF Secretariat (2014). The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy. (www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/publications/GEF-6-BD-strategy.pdf)
National implementation of the other biodiversity-related conventions occurs using a variety of instruments and approaches, in addition to anything that is reflected within NBSAPs. Each convention requires that domestic measures are adopted for its implementation, and in some cases particular approaches are directly mandated by the relevant MEA. In most cases guidance is provided in some form. However, each Party decides how it wants to incorporate its international obligations into national legislation and practice, based on national circumstances. For example:
The CBD also requires Parties to integrate the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies.[25]Article 6(b) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (www.cbd.int/convention/text/) Some Parties address this significantly in their NBSAPs which are adopted at the highest level of government, while others hardly address it at all. Acknowledging the importance of this integration to help fulfil the objectives of the CBD, since 2016 Parties have considered the issue of mainstreaming biodiversity in much more detail. They are currently working to develop a long-term approach for mainstreaming biodiversity as requested by CBD COP in decision 14/3.[26]CBD COP decision 14/3 on mainstreaming (www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-03-en.pdf), [27]The approach will be considered by the CBD Subsidiary Body on Implementation at its 3rd meeting, during the face-to-face session in 2022. See CRP 16 (www.cbd.int/doc/c/aa97/8fa2/4d21550ccf7f670e3dc3f14a/sbi-03-crp-16-en.pdf)This is highly relevant to strengthening collaboration and coordination between clusters.
As in the biodiversity cluster. national focal points are appointed by parties to facilitate communication on the matters relating to each of the conventions in the chemicals and waste cluster. Depending on the convention, some additional focal points can be established. For example:
SAICM has national focal points, but also has a flexible approach for engaging focal points from relevant stakeholders and sectors. Under SAICM, each government should designate a Strategic Approach national focal point, which should be a representative of the country’s inter-ministerial or inter-institutional arrangements, where these exist.[3]SAICM texts and resolutions of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (saicm.org/Portals/12/Documents/saicmtexts/New SAICM Text with ICCM resolutions_E.pdf) SAICM also provides the possibility for regional focal points be nominated, and some regions have developed terms of reference for their focal points.[4]See www.saicm.org/Implementation/FocalPoints/tabid/5461 SAICM also has a unique multi-stakeholder and multisectoral approach, allowing for non-government focal points from industry, NGOs and academia, as well as governmental national focal points from ‘other’ government departments and ministries.
Parties to the chemicals and waste conventions adopt national legislation and other regulatory measures to implement or comply with the provisions of the respective conventions. Some guidance is provided, but ultimately each Party decides on the most suitable approach to fulfil its international obligations. For example:
SAICM aims inter alia to strengthen enforcement and encourage the implementation of national laws and regulations regarding chemicals management, as a policy framework for the achievement of the sound management of chemicals throughout their life cycle. In this context, the development of national and regional SAICM implementation plans has been encouraged.[13]See saicmknowledge.org/library/saicm-overarching-policy-strategy It was expected that each government would establish arrangements for implementing the Strategic Approach on an inter-ministerial or inter-institutional basis, so that all concerned national departmental and stakeholder interests are represented and all relevant substantive areas are addressed.[14]SAICM texts and resolutions of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (saicm.org/Portals/12/Documents/saicmtexts/New SAICM Text with ICCM resolutions_E.pdf) Guidance for developing SAICM implementation plans was prepared by the SAICM Secretariat working with UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) and IOMC.[15]SAICM Secretariat and UNITAR (2009). Guidance for developing SAICM implementation plans. (cwm.unitar.org/publications/publications/cw/inp/Developing_SAICM_Implementation_Plans_3Nov09_2009_edition_Final.pdf)
Each of the chemicals and waste conventions and SAICM highlight the importance of greater coordination and integration among different processes and policy instruments. For example, the COP to the Basel Convention adopted a strategic framework for its implementation for the period 2012–2021.[16]www.basel.int/Implementation/StrategicFramework/Overview/tabid/3807 One of its objectives is to “develop national and regional capacity, particularly through the Basel Convention regional and coordinating centres, by integrating waste management issues into national sustainable development strategies and plans for sustainable livelihood”. Meanwhile, the Global Plan of Action discussed under SAICM refers to “measures to review national legislation in order to ratify and implement existing international agreements dealing with chemicals and hazardous wastes … to improve coordination and synergies with respect to chemical safety policy and activities at the national and international levels”.[17]SAICM texts and resolutions of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (saicm.org/Portals/12/Documents/saicmtexts/New SAICM Text with ICCM resolutions_E.pdf)
The ongoing ‘synergies’ process among the BRS conventions has not only led to changes at the global level as discussed earlier, but has also encouraged action at the national level. Parties have been encouraged to establish national-level coordination mechanisms with a view to facilitating the exchange of information among relevant authorities responsible for the implementation of and compliance with the provisions of each of the BRS conventions. These mechanisms are intended, for example, to coordinate activities to implement the BRS conventions, “in particular activities of the focal points and designated national authorities for the three conventions, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management and other relevant policy frameworks, as appropriate; and preparation for convention meetings".[18]Decisions BC-IX/10, RC-4/11 and SC-4/34 available at www.brsmeas.org/SynergiesProcess/Decisions/tabid/2616
Box 6: National approaches to implementation relating to pesticides
It is important to note that many of the national approaches to implementation already covered in this section are relevant to pesticide management in some way or another. The following paragraphs only relate to those actions that are specific to addressing problems with pesticides and their impacts or are clear sub-components of actions already mentioned.
The fourth session of ICCM adopted a resolution that recognizes highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) as an issue of concern and calls for concerted action to address them.[1]SAICM/ICCM.4/15 Report of the International Conference on Chemicals Management on the work of its fourth session (www.saicm.org/Portals/12/documents/meetings/IP1/K1606013_e.pdf), [2]SAICM/ICCM.4/8 Proposal on highly hazardous pesticides. (www.saicm.org/Portals/12/documents/meetings/ICCM4/doc/K1502177 SAICM-ICCM4-8-e.pdf) The concerted actions include capacity-building in regulatory control in order to support governments in: (a) strengthening pesticide registration schemes, risk assessment and review of registered pesticides; (b) strengthening the regulatory framework with regard to manufacturing, formulation, distribution, storage, sale, use and disposal of HHPs; (c) the development and adoption of effective enforcement mechanisms as part of the regulatory system for pesticides.
Both the FAO/WHO International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management[3]FAO and WHO (2014). The international code of conduct on pesticide management. (www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Code/Code_ENG_2017updated.pdf) and the CMS Guidelines to Prevent the Risk of Poisoning to Migratory Birds[4]UNEP/CMS/COP11/Doc.23.1.2 Guidelines to prevent the risk of poisoning to migratory birds. (www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/Guidelines to Prevent the Risk of Poisoning to Migratory Birds.pdf) make explicit reference to actions to be carried out at the national level with respect to pesticides. Both essentially provide advice to decision making processes at the national level, as well as to other stakeholders.
Summary of key points relevant to strengthening collaboration and coordination:
Possible responses might include:
On both biodiversity and chemicals and waste there are ongoing processes which will influence priorities and action at all levels during the decade leading up to 2030. Notably both processes refer directly to the impetus provided by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs.[1]It should be noted that SDG targets relating to both biodiversity and sustainable management of chemicals are aligned with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and relevant SAICM targets, and thus expiring in 2020 unlike the majority of other SDG targets for which the target year is 2030. It will be important to understand how these two ongoing processes would (or could be made to) influence efforts to strengthen collaboration and coordination between the biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters. Unfortunately, both processes have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and in both cases processes that were meant to end in 2020 have been extended. However, these delays do mean that there are also opportunities to make additional inputs.
The post-2020 global biodiversity framework is being developed under the auspices of the CBD and is expected to be approved by COP 15. The process for its development was set out in decision 14/34,[1]CBD COP decision 14/34 on a comprehensive and participatory process for the preparation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-34-en.pdf which established an Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Initial discussions took place in the open-ended working group in August 2019 and February 2020, and advice was also was provided by numerous other formal and informal meetings and through submissions in response to formal notifications from the CBD Executive Secretary.[2]See www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020 for links to all relevant meetings and submissions except subsidiary bodies Many Parties have also stressed the need to focus on addressing the drivers of biodiversity loss. The preparatory process actively encourages participation by all stakeholders, and inputs have been made on behalf of the chemicals and waste cluster.[3]Submission by UNEP (26 February 2020) on strengthening links between the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and chemicals and waste. (s3.amazonaws.com/cbddocumentspublic-imagebucket-15w2zyxk3prl8/a426992b24d9968973e92a2878b5ad5f)
A first draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework was made available in July 2021 and provided the basis for discussion at a virtual meeting of the open-ended working group in August and September. The draft included a proposed 2030 target to “reduce pollution from all sources to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity and ecosystem functions and human health, including by reducing nutrients lost to the environment by at least half, and pesticides by at least two thirds and eliminating the discharge of plastic waste” (Target 7).[4]CBD/WG2020/3/3 First draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. (www.cbd.int/doc/c/914a/eca3/24ad42235033f031badf61b1/wg2020-03-03-en.pdf) This and the other 20 proposed targets are based on a theory of change that inter alia aims to reduce the threats to biodiversity through transformative action. While there was extensive discussion of this draft in August and September 2021,[5]See www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020/wg2020-03/documents, [6]CBD/WG2020/3/5 Report of the Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework on its third meeting (part 1). (www.cbd.int/doc/c/aa82/d7d1/ed44903e4175955284772000/wg2020-03-05-en.pdf) no decisions have been taken, and the meeting was adjourned until a physical meeting is possible in 2022.
CBD negotiations on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework are also concerned with development of an associated monitoring framework and securing means of implementation. Discussions in meetings of the open-ended working group and the CBD subsidiary bodies are also considering advice with respect to NBSAP revision, indicators and the monitoring framework, review and reporting, capacity-building, technical and scientific cooperation, and resource mobilization. The monitoring framework proposes a number of headline, component and complementary indicators for each goal and target. Currently suggested headline indicators for proposed target 7, which Parties might be expected to report on, relate to coastal eutrophication potential, amount of pesticides leached or lost to the environment, amount of discharge of plastic waste and amount of other pollutants.[7]See CBD/WG2020/3/3/Add.1 Proposed headline indicators of the monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. (www.cbd.int/doc/c/d716/da69/5e81c8e0faca1db1dd145a59/wg2020-03-03-add1-en.pdf)
The post-2020 global biodiversity framework will be a useful framework for addressing biodiversity loss across MEAs and sectors, and thereby helping to underpin delivery of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs. As a result, representatives of the biodiversity-related conventions have actively sought to make input through various means, including through written submissions, interventions in CBD meetings and though two consultation meetings.[8]See www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020/brc-ws which provides a summary of meetings and links to the reports The second Consultation Workshop of Biodiversity-related Conventions on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (Bern II) convened by UNEP[9]See https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/39f2/7257/df0b4d2bbdd7e383051e58f0/sbi-03-inf-29-en.pdf identified 12 conclusions aimed at increasing engagement by other MEAs in the in development and implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Separately, in response to decisions of the UN Executive Committee and the Chief Executives Board, the UN system has developed a UN common approach to biodiversity which is intended to convene UN support in delivering the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.[10]CEB/2021/1/Add.1 UN Common Approach to Biodiversity (unsceb.org/un-common-approach-biodiversity)
Parties to the CBD encourage their Executive Secretary to cooperate with other conventions and international organizations, and the importance of such cooperation is likely to be reflected in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. In the first draft,[11]CBD/WG2020/3/3 First draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. (www.cbd.int/doc/c/914a/eca3/24ad42235033f031badf61b1/wg2020-03-03-en.pdf)
it is made clear that “efficiency and effectiveness will be enhanced for all by integration with relevant multilateral environmental agreements and other relevant international processes, at the global, regional and national levels, including through the strengthening or establishment of cooperation mechanisms”. In addition, with respect to mechanisms for planning, monitoring, reporting and review, the draft proposes that “these mechanisms are aligned with and, where appropriate … integrated with other processes and other relevant multilateral conventions including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals”. However, this text has yet to be negotiated.
The fourth session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management initiated an intersessional process to prepare recommendations regarding SAICM and the sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020. The process for development of the recommendations was set out in ICCM decision IV/4,[1]In the annex to SAICM/ICCM.4/15 Report of the International Conference on Chemicals Management on the work of its fourth session (www.saicm.org/Portals/12/documents/meetings/IP1/K1606013_e.pdf) and to date there have been three meetings of the intersessional process. A fourth meeting was due to take place in March 2020 but this has been postponed as a result of the COVID-19 situation, as has the fifth session of ICCM where a decision on SAICM and sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020 will be taken, taking into consideration the recommendations of the intersessional process. At this stage, the scope of the new instrument with respect to chemicals and waste has yet to be defined - indeed, it is still being discussed how waste will be addressed as SAICM stakeholders are known to have differing views.
Documents prepared for the fourth meeting of the intersessional process include a compilation of recommendations and proposed targets. The compilation of recommendations[2]SAICM/IP.4/2 Compilation of recommendations regarding the Strategic Approach and the sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020. (www.saicm.org/Portals/12/documents/meetings/IP4/Docs/SAICM_IP4_2_compilation-recommendations-SAICM-consideration-ICCM5.pdf) is based on the deliberations of the third intersessional meeting and the proposed targets[3]SAICM/IP.4/3 Proposed targets prepared by the Technical Working Group on targets, indicators and milestones for SAICM and the sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020. (www.saicm.org/Portals/12/documents/meetings/IP4/Docs/SAICM_IP4_3_Proposed-targets-TWG-SAICM-smcw-beyond-2020.pdf) have been prepared by a Technical Working Group on Targets, Indicators and Milestones established by the intersessional process. While this is clearly still a draft with significant negotiation still to take place, the overall aim is to reduce the impact of chemicals and potentially also waste on human health and the environment, which, if achieved, will reduce one of the most significant drivers of biodiversity loss. There is a proposed strategic objective that “benefits to human health and the environment are maximised and risks are prevented, or where not feasible, minimised through safer alternatives, innovation, sustainable solutions and forward thinking”. A Virtual Working Group on Targets, Indicators and Milestones[4]SAICM/ICCM.5/VWG1/Final report (saicm.org/Portals/12/documents/meetings/VirtualWG/Target/VWG1_Co-facilitators-final-report_16FEB2021_FINAL.pdf) reviewed the work of the Technical Expert Group, and some support was expressed for further discussion on two new proposed targets concerning biodiversity: “by 20xx, pollution from chemicals and waste has been brought to levels that are not detrimental or harmful to ecosystem services and biodiversity”; and “all stakeholders identify and strengthen synergies and linkages between chemicals [and waste] and other environmental, health and societal priorities, such as climate change, biodiversity, human rights, universal health coverage and primary health care.”
Documents prepared for the fourth meeting of the intersessional process also include a report on linkages with other clusters related to chemicals and waste management and options to coordinate and cooperate on areas of common interest. This report was prepared by UNEP[5]SAICM/IP.4/INF/3 Submission from UNEP on assessment of interlinkages with other clusters. (www.saicm.org/Portals/12/documents/meetings/IP4/INF/SAICM_IP4_INF_3.pdf) and identified key topics and opportunities to coordinate and cooperate between the chemicals and waste and the biodiversity clusters. This included inter alia the alignment and strengthening of relevant targets and indicators by jointly identifying chemicals of concern and parameters and methodologies for monitoring. The document identified the following as key areas of common interest - plastic pollution, land degradation driven by artisanal mining, lead poisoning of water birds, pesticide use and loss of pollinators, and nutrient management. The identified options for action included further mobilizing the chemicals and waste conventions in achieving biodiversity goals, drawing heavily on the recommendations of an earlier study by IDDRI.[6]Kinniburgh, F., Rankovic, A. (2019). Mobilising the chemical conventions to protect biodiversity - An example with pesticides and the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions. IDDRI, Issue Brief N°07/19. (www.iddri.org/sites/default/filestemanord2022-513.pdfPublications/Catalogue Iddri/Décryptage/201906-IB0719EN-chemicals CBD.pdf) These issues are addressed further below.
Alignment of targets and use of common indicators where appropriate could lead to strengthened collaboration and coordination between the clusters, and improved outcomes in terms of both efficiency and environmental protection. There is therefore value in considering how the post-2020 and beyond 2020 processes relate, and what might be done to increase alignment with respect to targets and indicators in particular with the aim of coordinated actions for implementation and assessment of progress. The value of this sort of approach was stressed in the recently concluded UNEP-led report[1]UNEP (2021). Making Peace with Nature: A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies. (www.unep.org/resources/making-peace-nature) on Making Peace with Nature which concluded that “Earth’s environmental emergencies … need to be addressed together to achieve sustainability … development of goals, targets, commitments and mechanisms … need to be aligned to become more synergistic and effective”. Both the post-2020 and beyond 2020 processes need to consider alignment with SDG targets and indicators, for similar reasons.
The intersessional process on the Strategic Approach and sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020 has directly aimed to link to and support the biodiversity process, with a proposed target that “by 20xx, pollution from chemicals and waste has been brought to levels that are not detrimental or harmful to ecosystem services and biodiversity” (as indicated earlier). This text appears to have been adapted from Aichi Biodiversity Target 8, and is consistent with Target 7 in the draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework to “reduce pollution from all sources to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity and ecosystem functions and human health, including by reducing nutrients lost to the environment by at least half, and pesticides by at least two thirds and eliminating the discharge of plastic waste”. It is important to note that in both cases these are draft targets, and consultation and negotiation continues.
Additionally, the Secretariats of the Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm Conventions, and the Minamata Convention on Mercury identified opportunities for contributing to the post-2020 biodiversity process in the report published in May 2021 on interlinkages between the chemicals and waste MEAs and biodiversity.[2]Secretariats of the BRS Conventions and the Minamata Convention on Mercury (2021). Interlinkages between the chemicals and waste multilateral environmental agreements and biodiversity: Key insights. (wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36088/BIKI.pdf) Two of the conclusions of that study are:
At the face-to-face session of their COPs in June 2022, BRS Parties are expected to consider the report and an associated draft decision[3]Working documents UNEP/CHW.15/21, UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.10/17 and UNEP/POPS/COP.10/21 on cooperation. (www.brsmeas.org/2021COPs/MeetingDocuments/tabid/8810) which “invites Parties to take into account the objectives of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework in their actions to implement” the BRS conventions, and “requests the Secretariat to prepare … a report, including recommendations, on how the conventions could contribute to the post-2020 global biodiversity framework” for consideration at the subsequent COPs. This wording is, of course, subject to approval by the COPs.
Whilst the proposed inclusion of targets relating to biodiversity is a new subject for the chemicals and waste community, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 did include Aichi Target 8 on pollution. Unfortunately review of progress in achieving the target indicates that the target has not been achieved,[4]Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2020). Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. (www.cbd.int/gbo5) and only a small proportion of reporting Parties have national targets of similar scope and ambition to Aichi Target 8 and are on track to meet them. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, but the situation could be exacerbated in at least some countries as a result of insufficient interaction between governmental mechanisms for addressing pollution and waste, such as under SAICM, and those agencies responsible for NBSAP design and implementation. At least in theory there is opportunity for the SAICM beyond 2020 instrument to serve as a mechanism for achievement of relevant elements of target 7 of the draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Potentially the two processes could share a common target, or target elements, with recognition in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework that the Strategic Approach and the sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020 would have a role in supporting achievement of the proposed target 7.
Also relevant are the means of implementation and enabling conditions for implementation of future strategies, and these are also areas where collaboration and coordination could usefully be strengthened. These are likely to be addressed to some extent explicitly in the adopted texts or in associated decisions, but also relate to areas of common working practice. These cover areas such as:
The Second Consultation Workshop of Biodiversity-related Conventions on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework made several recommendations broadly relevant to intergovernmental agreements and processes. The report of the workshop[1]CBD/SBI/3/INF/29 Report of the second consultation workshop on biodiversity-related conventions on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (Bern II) (www.cbd.int/doc/c/39f2/7257/df0b4d2bbdd7e383051e58f0/sbi-03-inf-29-en.pdf) includes the following recommendations amongst others. While the workshop was not fully representative, and the recommendations were not formally agreed by participants, they confer the sense of the meeting which included representatives of MEA parties and secretariats.
The UNEP assessment on interlinkages[1]SAICM/IP.4/INF/3 Submission from UNEP on assessment of interlinkages with other clusters. (www.saicm.org/Portals/12/documents/meetings/IP4/INF/SAICM_IP4_INF_3.pdf) and options to coordinate and cooperation on areas of common interest prepared for the SAICM intersessional process also identified options for strengthening collaboration and coordination. These included the following:
In the context of the ongoing post-2020 and beyond 2020 processes, IDDRI produced an issue brief on mobilizing the chemicals conventions to protect biodiversity.[2]Kinniburgh, F., Rankovic, A. (2019). Mobilising the chemical conventions to protect biodiversity - An example with pesticides and the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions. IDDRI, Issue Brief N°07/19. (www.iddri.org/sites/default/filestemanord2022-513.pdfPublications/Catalogue Iddri/Décryptage/201906-IB0719EN-chemicals CBD.pdf) This focused specifically on the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, but its recommendations are more broadly applicable and were picked up in the recommendations of the UNEP assessment referred to above. These were:
Of course, it is understood that expanding the list of pesticides could only be done in the context of the processes established by the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions.
Box 7: Issues specific to pesticides in the post-2020 and beyond 2020 processes
There is one explicit reference to pesticides in the first draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework[1]CBD/WG2020/3/3 First draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. (www.cbd.int/doc/c/914a/eca3/24ad42235033f031badf61b1/wg2020-03-03-en.pdf) in draft target 7. It is proposed that this will be tracked with a headline indicator on “pesticide use per area of cropland” produced by FAO.[2]See CBD/WG2020/3/3/Add.1 Proposed headline indicators of the monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. (www.cbd.int/doc/c/d716/da69/5e81c8e0faca1db1dd145a59/wg2020-03-03-add1-en.pdf) ,[3]See www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/EP/visualize
During the third meeting of the SAICM intersessional process some stakeholders proposed targets that explicitly refer to pesticides and biodiversity, although the wording of other targets is also relevant to pesticide management, use and disposal.[4]SAICM/IP.4/3 Proposed targets prepared by the Technical Working Group on targets, indicators and milestones for SAICM and the sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020. (www.saicm.org/Portals/12/documents/meetings/IP4/Docs/SAICM_IP4_3_Proposed-targets-TWG-SAICM-smcw-beyond-2020.pdf)
The SAICM Virtual Working Group on Targets, Indicators and Milestones[5]Further work on targets was done during the SAICM Virtual Work Group discussion on targets, indicators and milestones. See SAICM/ICCM.5/VWG1/Final report (saicm.org/Portals/12/documents/meetings/VirtualWG/Target/VWG1_Co-facilitators-final-report_16FEB2021_FINAL.pdf) was mandated to review all progress to date and make proposals that progress the topic in the lead up to the final meeting of the intersessional process. None of the targets in the section on “possible formulation of targets based on points of convergence of views among stakeholders” directly refer to pesticides, although they would be encompassed within broader reference to chemicals in the draft wording presented. Two new targets were proposed during the discussions but not included in the final document, namely “by 2030, the use of Highly Hazardous Pesticides is eliminated from agriculture” and “by 2025, 70 countries have prohibited and phased-out at least ten highly hazardous pesticides and by 2030, highly hazardous pesticides are removed from agriculture”.
Summary of key points relevant to strengthening collaboration and coordination:
Opportunities identified:
The previous sections in this report suggested a number of ways in which collaboration and coordination between biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters could be strengthened, in particular with respect to implementation at the national level. This led to the identification of a range of ‘options for action’ that were included in earlier drafts of this report, and validated through peer review and then through discussion during an expert consultation workshop. In addition to members of the project steering committee, a range of national representatives had opportunity to review the report, as did representatives of all relevant MEA secretariats, the SAICM Secretariat, and a number of other experts, as well as colleagues within UNEP and UNEP-WCMC.
The options for action were discussed extensively during an expert consultation workshop convened by UNEP in September 2021. This workshop provided opportunity for dialogue amongst selected national focal points to the conventions and SAICM from across all regions, and representatives of MEA secretariats and the SAICM Secretariat. The discussions during this expert consultation workshop informed this final version of the study report, and each of the participants had previously been invited to provide feedback on an earlier draft of the study report. The workshop report can be found in Annex 2.
Before identifying actions to be taken at any level, it is important to identify why such action might be valuable both to provide context and to help ensure that any actions taken have clear purpose. This is in addition to any gains in efficiency and/or cost-effectiveness that may result. The following areas of key mutual interest have been identified. These are areas where there is potential value in those working in the chemicals and waste cluster and those working in the biodiversity cluster to collaborate in order to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. The numbering is for convenience in referencing and should not be taken to imply priority.
Action to be taken needs to be considered from three different perspectives relating to decision making at national and international levels, and to encouraging and supporting any action that is taken. The following ‘levels of action’ are to some extent arbitrary in nature, but they are useful in conceptualising the action that needs to be taken for each of the options for action described below. These levels of action are as follows:
The primary focus of this report has been on implementation at the national level, and therefore on government agencies and the support that they get thought intergovernmental agreements and processes, and organizations working internationally. However, the private sector is also a key player, and needs to be taken into account when considering the actions to be taken. This is particularly the case for those companies involved in the production, transport, use, storage and disposal of chemicals. The private sector needs to be engaged appropriately, and encouraged and supported where this is necessary.
Before identifying actions to be taken at any level, it is also important to consider the characteristics of a successful approach, so as to better understand how to make effective use of time and resources. Based on experience gained in the BRS conventions synergies process, the following key characteristics are proposed:
The following options for action have been identified, divided into four broad strategies. Wherever possible the options for action focus on using existing mechanisms and processes, seeking to add value with a focused approach on common issues. In many cases these options relate to activities already under way that could be learnt from and built upon. The actions are not intended to be exclusive and are more likely to be implemented in combination. The actions taken at the national level may well vary from one country to another depending on national circumstances, national needs and nationally determined priorities.
The first strategic approach is to improve opportunities for cooperation and collaboration across the biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters when implementing each of the intergovernmental agreements and processes in the two clusters. In order to achieve this there are actions that can be taken at both Party and instrument levels, building as appropriate on existing processes and experience.
The second strategic approach is to identify opportunities for cooperation and collaboration across the biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters where working together can help achieve common aims and bring clear benefits. Such actions would be planned in the context of not only the implementation of MEAs and SAICM, but also considering delivery of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Depending on the actions undertaken, the focus might well be at the local level, and not just at the national level. International support might be needed, and could also be achieved through the use of multi-stakeholder partnerships focused on issues of particular concern. These could be established by countries, and/or established internationally to support national action.[1]Note, for example, the global multi-stakeholder partnerships resulting from the work of the Global Plan of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (www.gpmarinelitter.org)
The third strategic approach is to identify opportunities for achieving improved effectiveness and cost-effectiveness through enhancing coordination of common services. Addressing biodiversity loss and the sound management of chemicals and waste requires the same means of implementation (capacity-building, technical and scientific cooperation, technology transfer, resource mobilization), and many of the same sort of underpinning activities including monitoring, indicators, reporting, knowledge management. Where there are opportunities for increasing effectiveness pragmatically through cooperation and collaboration, including sharing of experience, these should be identified.
The fourth strategic approach is to identify key international entry points and to enhance engagement with relevant international initiatives so as to focus increased attention on efforts to reduce the negative impacts of chemicals and waste on biodiversity and ecosystem services. A number of key initiatives or entry points are identified in the following options for action.
In addition to the options for action identified, it will also be valuable to promote discussion and broader recognition of the importance of ‘nexus’ issues so that the interconnected nature of issues is better appreciated. There is an important role to be played in increasing both national and international focus on nexus issues, and in improving understanding of the ways in which key issues and key sectors are related, thereby raising political awareness of the interlinkages. This is the key focus of a planned IPBES assessment,[7]See ipbes.net/nexus and has been increasingly referred to in international meetings. It is also the basis for mainstreaming. Currently there is in effect a hierarchy of environmental concerns, with climate change getting more attention that biodiversity loss, which gets more attention that chemical and waste pollution. Increased understanding of how these and other issues relate will be important to addressing them in the future.
Pesticides case study: Options for action
With respect to pesticides, the options for action are essentially the same as those already identified above. However, there may be opportunities to develop specific actions focused on pesticides and their impacts, given the particular uses to which they are put and the relatively clear stakeholder groups. Such actions might be focused on addressing specific concerns (such as the impact of neonicotinoids on bees), exploring alternatives (such as the potential role of agroecology in reducing the need for pesticides), or increasing understanding of the issues.
The IPBES assessment report on pollinators, pollination, and food production[1]IPBES (2016). The assessment report on pollinators, pollination and food production. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany (See ipbes.net/assessment-reports/pollinators) means that this issue is very much on both national and international agendas, and this could usefully provide motivation for developing pilot work where it is not already under way, and may increase opportunities for funding. The IPBES assessment has led to increased interest amongst governments, as evidenced by establishment of the Coalition of the Willing on Pollinators.[2]See www.promotepollinators.org
Examples of national action: The following are existing actions identified by expert workshop participants as examples that could usefully be applied elsewhere.
Both issues are dealt with in the same Government department…
…and there is opportunity for staff working on biodiversity and staff working on chemicals and waste to regularly meet both formally and informally to discuss common interests and approaches, and gain a common understanding.
National commission to address environmental issues involving all major stakeholders…
…including participants working in both the biodiversity and chemicals and waste cluster. Depending on national circumstances and institutional arrangements, the commission may be able to establish expert groups to consider specific topics and provide advice on them.
Collaborative projects bringing a range of people from across sectors together…
…for example, actions to promote crop rotation both to reduce invasive weed species and to address concerns about pesticide resistance development. Actions are supported by industry-led partnerships with regulators to address residual environmental risk from chemical use and to support change at local level whilst building capability to use alternatives to chemicals.
Regular meetings of national focal points to all MEAs that the country is party to…
…allowing for exchange of information and planning. Depending on national circumstances and priorities these meetings may well include focal points from SAICM and other intergovernmental processes.
Establishment of a National Centre for Toxic Compounds…
…responsible for coordinating national activities related to the implementation of international conventions on chemicals, the executive body of which is a national council comprising representatives of all relevant ministries and institutions.
Use of a key natural site such as a World Heritage Site as a focus for actions to address pollution…
…which included a national parliament adopting a resolution to halt emissions from cruise ships and ferries entering the area by 2026. As some 300,000 cruise ships visit the area in a year, this has a significant impact, including beyond the natural site itself.
Use of tools such as the Data Reporting Tool for MEAs (DaRT)[1]See https://dart.informea.org…
…which provides Parties to MEAs with a private and secure working space to organize, share, and maintain information, data and knowledge across conventions and across reporting purposes.
“The multiple interactions between environmental problems mean that uncoordinated single-issue solutions are inefficient and will fail. An integrated approach that addresses the underlying root causes of interlinked environmental problems and pays attention to unintended consequences of actions is both more cost-effective and more likely to be successful than treating the issues as if they were independent of one another. It further allows synergies to be identified and exploited, while steering away from the worst trade-offs.”
Making Peace with Nature:[1]UNEP (2021). Making Peace with Nature: A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies. (www.unep.org/resources/making-peace-nature)
A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate biodiversity and pollution emergencies
The information included in the table below is illustrative and non-exhaustive. It aims to provide a brief overview of the scope, including some of the key definitions, of each of the intergovernmental agreements and processes covered in the present study. In developing the table, the following order has been used: (i) biodiversity-related conventions; (ii) conventions and processes relating to chemicals and waste; (iii) other global multilateral agreements; and (iv) regional agreements.
Full title | Abbreviation | Scope | Notes |
Convention on Biological Diversity | CBD | The objectives set out in Article 1 of the Convention are “the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources”. Biological diversity is defined in Article 2 as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems”. | Article 28 of the Convention anticipates that Parties will cooperate in the formulation and adoption of protocols to the Convention in order to further operationalise its implementation. Two protocols and one supplementary protocol have so far been adopted. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety aims to ensure the safe handling, transport and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health. The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing aims at sharing the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources in a fair and equitable way. |
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora | CITES | CITES aims to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten the survival of the species. The Convention builds on the principle that “international cooperation is essential for the protection of certain species of wild fauna and flora against over-exploitation through international trade” (Preamble). In the context of the Convention (Article I), species means “any species, subspecies, or geographically separate population thereof”; and trade is defined as “export, re-export, import and introduction from the sea”. | The Convention has a number of appendices. Appendix I lists species threatened with extinction which are or may be affected by trade. Trade in specimens of these species must be subject to particularly strict regulation in order not to endanger further their survival and must only be authorized in exceptional circumstances. Appendix II lists species which although not necessarily now threatened with extinction may become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to strict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival. Appendix III lists all species which any Party identifies as being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or restricting exploitation, and as needing the co-operation of other Parties in the control of trade. The Convention sets out the provisions for the amendments of Appendices I and II (Article XV) and II (Article XVI). |
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals | CMS | CMS is a framework Convention for the conservation and sustainable use of migratory animals and their habitats. Article I defines "migratory species" as the entire population or any geographically separate part of the population of any species or lower taxon of wild animals, a significant proportion of whose members cyclically and predictably cross one or more national jurisdictional boundaries. The Convention defines "Range State" in relation to a particular migratory species means any State (and where appropriate any other Party referred to under subparagraph (k) of Article I) that exercises jurisdiction over any part of the range of that migratory species, or a State, flag vessels of which are engaged outside national jurisdictional limits in taking that migratory species. | CMS contains a number of appendices: Appendix I lists migratory species which are endangered; Appendix II lists migratory species which have an unfavourable conservation status and which require international agreements for their conservation and management, as well as those which have a conservation status which would significantly benefit from the international cooperation that could be achieved by an international agreement. A migratory species may be listed both in Appendix I and Appendix II (Article XV). Appendices I and II may be amended at any ordinary or extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties (Article XI). CMS encourages the Range States to conclude global or regional agreements and, as such, it is considered a framework Convention. The term “CMS Family” includes the Convention as well as the collection of Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding that have been concluded under it. |
Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage | WHC | The Convention defines the criteria for natural or cultural sites which can be considered for inscription on the World Heritage List, and sets the duties of Parties in identifying potential World Heritage sites and in protecting and preserving them. Each State Party recognises that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State (Article 4). | Each State Party shall adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes (Article 5). The criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List are regularly revised by the World Heritage Committee , which also decides on whether a property will be inscribed on the List. The amendment procedure for the Convention is set out in Article 37. |
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat | Ramsar Convention | The Ramsar Convention is the intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. | States Parties decide on inclusion on or removal from the Ramsar list of sites situated on their respective national territory. The COP has adopted (and amended several times) the specific criteria for interpreting the text of the Convention. |
International Plant Protection Convention | IPPC | The IPPC aims at “securing common and effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products, and to promote appropriate measures for their control” (Article 1). The Convention defines plants as “living plants and parts thereof, including seeds and germplasm”. The Convention introduced International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures as its main tool to achieve its goals. | In its preamble, the Convention recognises the necessity for international cooperation in controlling pests of plants and plant products and in preventing their international spread, and especially their introduction into endangered areas. In this regard, it includes provisions relating to international cooperation (Article VIII) as well as on the establishment and role of regional plant protection organizations in the development and use of relevant international standards for phytosanitary measures (Article IX). The IPPC is one of the "Three Sisters" recognized by the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (known as SPS Agreement), along with the Codex Alimentarius Commission for food safety and the International Animal Health Organization (OIE) for animal health. Amendments to the Convention should be done in accordance with Article XXI. |
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture | ITPGRFA | The objectives of the International Treaty “are the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their use, in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity, for sustainable agriculture and food security.” (Article 1). The scope of the Treaty relates to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, which are defined as “any genetic material of plant origin of actual or potential value for food and agriculture” (Article 2). | In its preamble, the Treaty recognises that the management of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture are at the meeting point between agriculture, the environment and commerce, thus highlighting the importance of synergy among these sectors. In this regard, requires Contracting Parties to integrate activities relating to conservation, exploration, collection, characterization, evaluation, documentation and sustainable use of Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture into their agriculture and rural development policies and programmes, and cooperate with other Contracting Parties, directly or through FAO and other relevant international organizations, in the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (Article 7). Article 23 sets out the procedure for amendments of the Treaty. |
International Whaling Commission | IWC | The IWC is the global body charged with the conservation of whales and the management of whaling. It is set under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which aims "to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry” (Preamble of the Convention). The Convention “applies to factory ships, land stations, and whale catchers under the jurisdiction of the Contracting Governments and to all waters in which whaling is prosecuted by such factory ships, land stations, and whale catchers” (Article I). | An integral part of the Convention is its legally binding “Schedule”. The Schedule sets out specific measures taken by the IWC to regulate whaling and conserve whale stocks. The amendment procedure to the Schedule is set out in Article 5 of the Convention. Through some (mostly non consensus) decisions, the Commission has started to conduct activities related to cetaceans others than those mentioned in the Schedule (which only lists the 17 types of whales, which were or are concerned with whaling). This extension did not take place through an amendment of the Convention or the Schedule. |
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal | Basel Convention | The objective of the Basel Convention is to protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects of hazardous wastes. Its scope of application covers the transboundary movement of wide range of wastes defined as “hazardous wastes” based on their origin and/or composition and their characteristics, as well as two types of wastes defined as “other wastes” - household waste and incinerator ash. | Annexes to the Convention: Annex I lists categories of wastes to be controlled. Annex II lists wastes requiring special consideration. Annex III lists of hazardous characteristics. Annex IV lists disposal operations. Annexes VA and VB relates to information to be provided on export notification and on the movement document respectively. Annex VIII (List A) of the Basel Convention lists wastes which are characterized as hazardous under Article 1, paragraph 1 (a), of the Convention. Annex IX (List B) lists wastes that will not be considered wastes covered by Article 1, paragraph 1 (a), of the Convention unless they contain Annex I material to an extent causing them to exhibit a hazardous characteristic. Established under the Convention, the Protocol on liability and compensation for damage resulting from transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal aims to provide for a comprehensive regime for liability and for adequate and prompt compensation for damage resulting from the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and other wastes and their disposal including illegal traffic in those wastes (Article 1 of the Protocol). The amendment procedure for the Convention and the Protocol is set out in Article 17 of the Convention; and for the Annexes in Article 18. |
Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants | Stockholm Convention | The objective of the Convention is “to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants” (Article 1). | Annex A to the Convention lists the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) for which production, use, import and export is prohibited and/or has to be eliminated. Annex B lists some acceptable purposes for the production and use of certain POPs, and also allows for registration of specific additional exemptions for production and use. The import and export of chemicals listed in Annex B can take place under specific restrictive conditions. The Convention and its annexes can be amended as per Articles 22 and 23 respectively. |
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade | Rotterdam Convention | The objectives of the Convention is “to promote shared responsibility and cooperative efforts among Parties in the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals in order to protect human health and the environment from potential harm and to contribute to their environmentally sound use […]” (Article 1). The Convention applies to “banned or severely restricted chemicals” and “severely hazardous pesticide formulations” (Article 3). Both terms are defined in Article 2. | The procedures for amendments to the Convention is set out in Article 21. The annexes to the Convention formed an integral part of it. Annex III provides the list of chemicals subject to the prior informed consent procedure. Annex II details the criteria for listing those chemicals in Annex III, and Annex IV provides information and criteria for listing severely hazardous pesticide formulations in Annex III. The amendment procedure for annexes is set out in Article 22. |
Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management | SAICM | The SAICM is a policy framework to promote chemical safety around the world. Its overall objective is the achievement of the sound management of chemicals throughout their life cycle. Within its scope, it includes: (i) environmental, economic, social, health and labour aspects of chemical safety; and (ii) agricultural and industrial chemicals, with a view to promoting sustainable development and covering chemicals at all stages of their life-cycle, including in products (Overarching Policy Strategy). | SAICM aims to enhance synergies between the activities of Governments, international institutions, multilateral organization secretariats and development agencies in pursuit of the sound management of chemicals. A Strategic Approach and the sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020 is currently being developed. |
Minamata Convention on Mercury | Minamata Convention | The Convention aims “to protect the human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds” (Article 1). In its Article 2, the Convention defines the terms mercury, mercury compound and mercury-added product. | The Convention text is completed by 4 annexes, among which Annex A lists mercury-added products, Annex B describes manufacturing processes in which mercury or mercury compounds are used, and Annex C relates to artisanal and small-scale gold mining. Amendment procedure for the Convention is set out in Article 26 and for the Annexes in Article 27. |
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer | Montreal Protocol | Building on the provisions of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol seeks to “take appropriate measures to protect human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting or likely to result from human activities which modify or are likely to modify the ozone layer, regulates the production and consumption of nearly 100 man-made chemicals known as ozone depleting substances (ODS)” (Preamble). In particular, it aims to phase out the production and consumption of ODS and phase down hydrofluorocarbons, the latter substances being not ozone-depleting but potent greenhouse gases used as ODS substitutes in many applications. | The substances covered by the Protocol are listed in Annexes A (CFCs, halons), B (other fully halogenated CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform), C (HCFCs), E (methyl bromide) and F (HFCs). The Montreal Protocol was designed to allow for revisions to the phase out schedules and the list of controlled substances on the basis of periodic scientific and technological assessments. This is done through adjustments and amendments. Through the Kigali Amendment, in 2016 Parties to the Montreal Protocol also reached agreement to phase down HFCs, which had been largely used as an alternative to some ODS. HFCs do not deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but uncontrolled growth in HFC emissions challenges efforts to keep global temperature rise at or below 2°C. The amendment procedure for the Protocol is set out in Article 9 of the Vienna Convention. |
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea | UNCLOS | The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea defines the rights and responsibilities of nations regarding their use of the ocean, establishing rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources. UNCLOS defines pollution of the marine environment as “the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the marine environment, including estuaries, which results or is likely to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources and marine life, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine activities, including fishing and other legitimate uses of the sea, impairment of quality for use of sea water and reduction of amenities” (Article 1). The Convention provides for measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment (e.g. Article 194). | The following three bodies have been established under the Convention:
|
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships | MARPOL | The objective of MARPOL is “to prevent the pollution of the marine environment by the discharge of harmful substances or effluents containing such substances in contravention of the Convention” (Article 1). The Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships, 1973 states that both the Convention and the Protocol shall be read and interpreted together as one single instrument (Article I). | The Protocol of 1978 was adopted in response to a spate of tanker accidents in 1976–1977. Given that the MARPOL Convention had not yet entered into force, the 1978 MARPOL Protocol absorbed the parent Convention. The Convention includes regulations aimed at preventing and minimizing pollution from ships and currently includes six technical Annexes:
|
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 | London Convention and London Protocol | The Convention aims to “promote the effective control of all sources of pollution of the marine environment”. For this purpose, it requests Contracting Parties to “to take all practicable steps to prevent the pollution of the sea by the dumping of waste and other matter that is liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea” (Article I). In 1996, the Protocol to the Convention on The Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 (London Protocol) was agreed to “protect and preserve the marine environment from all sources of pollution… […with Contracting Parties taking] effective measures, according to their scientific, technical and economic capabilities, to prevent, reduce and where practicable eliminate pollution caused by dumping or incineration at sea of wastes or other matter. Where appropriate, they shall harmonize their policies in this regard” (Article 2). | The Protocol prohibits the dumping of any wastes or other matter except of those listed in Annex I (known as “reverse list”). The Protocol supersedes the Convention as between Contracting Parties to this Protocol which are also Parties to the Convention (Article 23). Both the Protocol and its annexes can be amended as per Articles 21 and 22 respectively. |
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | UNFCCC | The objective of the Convention “is to achieve the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner" (Article 2). The Convention defines climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” (Article 1). | The Convention builds on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (Article 3). The Protocol to the UNFCCC (Kyoto Protocol) established legally binding quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments for developed countries included in Annex I of the Convention. The Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC “aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by: (a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change; (b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; and (c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development” (Article 2). |
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification | UNCCD | The objective of the Convention is “to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought in countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa, through effective action at all levels, supported by international cooperation and partnership arrangements, in the framework of an integrated approach which is consistent with Agenda 21, with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in affected areas” (Article 1). The Convention addresses specifically the arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas, known as the drylands, where some of the most vulnerable ecosystems and peoples can be found. | The principles set out in the Convention emphasise the importance of partnership, cooperation and coordination (Article 3). Article 8 in turn refers to the relationship with other conventions, particularly CBD and UNFCCC (as the other two Rio Conventions). The Convention can be amended as per Article 30. The Convention text has five regional implementation annexes for Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Northern Mediterranean, Central and Eastern Europe. |
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution | Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution | The Convention aims “to protect man and his environment against air pollution”. For this purpose, Contracting Parties “shall endeavour to limit and, as far as possible, gradually reduce and prevent air pollution including long-range transboundary air pollution” (Article 2). Air Pollution is defined as “the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the air resulting in deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger human health, harm living resources and ecosystems and material property and impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment”. Long-range transboundary air pollution means “air pollution whose physical origin is situated wholly or in part within the area under the national jurisdiction of one State and which has adverse effects in the area under the jurisdiction of another State at such a distance that it is not generally possible to distinguish the contribution of individual emission sources or groups of sources” (Article 1). | Amendments to the Convention can be pursued as per Article 12. The 1999 Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone (Gothenburg Protocol) aims to “control and reduce emissions of sulphur, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, volatile organic compounds and particulate matter that are caused by anthropogenic activities and are likely to cause adverse effects on human health and the environment, natural ecosystems, materials, crops and the climate in the short and long term, due to acidification, eutrophication , particulate matter or ground-level ozone as a result of long-range transboundary atmospheric transport, and to ensure […] that in the long term and in a stepwise approach […] atmospheric depositions or concentrations do not exceed” the levels set out in Annex I of the Protocol (Article 2). |
Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region | Cartagena Convention | The Convention is a regional agreement for the protection of the Caribbean Sea, gathering 26 States in the Wider Caribbean Region, covering the area as defined in Article 2. The Convention includes a range of provisions aimed at regulating pollution from different sources. | The Convention is supported by three technical agreements or Protocols on Oil Spills, Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) and Land Based Sources of Marine Pollution (LBS). The amendment procedure for the Convention or its Protocols is set out in Article 18 of the Convention. The procedure for adoption of new Protocols is set out in Article 17 of the Convention. |
Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa | Bamako Convention | The Bamako Convention aims to prohibit the import of all hazardous and radioactive wastes into the African continent; to minimize and control transboundary movements of hazardous wastes within the African continent; to prohibit all ocean and inland water dumping or incineration of hazardous wastes; to ensure that disposal of wastes is conducted in an environmentally sound manner; to promote cleaner production over the pursuit of a permissible emissions approach based on assimilative capacity assumptions; to establish the precautionary principle (Source: InforMEA page on Bamako Convention). | The Bamako Convention is essentially a response to Article 11 of the Basel Convention, which encourages Parties to enter into bilateral, multilateral and regional agreements on hazardous waste. Annex I includes categories of waste which are hazardous waste; Annex II provides a list of hazardous characteristics; and Annex III lists disposal operations. The amendment procedure for the Annexes is set out in Article 18 of the Convention. |
As a part of the project on “Strengthening collaboration and coordination between biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters” supported by the Nordic Council of Ministers, UNEP organized an expert consultation workshop with the support of UNEP-WCMC, and benefiting from the advice of the project steering committee. This workshop took place online, for a period of three hours each day on 23, 24 and 27 September.
The main objective of the workshop was to identify challenges and opportunities in strengthening cooperation and coordination across the biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters at all levels, with a specific focus on learning from national-level experiences. The workshop both drew on the draft study report (which was sent to all participants) and contributed substantially to completion of the study report, in particular with respect to the sections on options for action and next steps. The workshop agenda is provided in appendix a.
Participation in the workshop was by invitation, and included: national focal points from 19 countries with experience of one or more of the MEAs in the biodiversity and/or chemicals and waste cluster or of SAICM; representatives of MEA secretariats and the secretariat of SAICM; and other experts, including both independent experts and UNEP staff with appropriate expertise. The participants list is provided in appendix b. Everyone participated in their personal capacity, discussing the issues and sharing experience in the spirit of the Chatham House Rule.[1]See www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/chatham-house-rule
In introducing the workshop, the facilitator Neville Ash (Director of UNEP-WCMC) asked participants for their active participation, encouraging them both to draw on their experiences and to be as innovative as possible, to bring new ideas to the table, and to work to bridge the two communities. In welcoming participants, Tita Korvenoja on behalf of UNEP and Marjaana Kokkonen on behalf of the Nordic Council of Ministers both drew attention to the challenges and opportunities which made this project particularly timely.
On the first day work began with a panel discussion, where five people with very different backgrounds and experiences had been asked in advance to share their perspectives. On the second day work began with Nalini Sharma from the SAICM Secretariat inviting participants to share practical examples from cross-cluster cooperation in a number of countries. For the rest of the first two days participants were in breakout groups discussing options for action under a total of seven different headings, and then reporting back on those discussions.
At the end of the first two days a two page ‘synthesis’ was prepared, drawing not only on the breakout group discussions but also on the welcoming remarks, panel discussions and sharing of national experience. This drew not only on what was being said, but also on what was being shared in the ‘chat’. The synthesis, which was shared with all participants and introduced on the final day, provided focus for further discussion amongst participants and contribution through the ‘chat’. This was followed by consideration of next steps, where inter alia the facilitator encouraged participants to identify what steps they would personally take in the coming weeks.
At the time of the workshop, the study report on “Strengthening collaboration and coordination between biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters” commissioned by the Nordic Council of Ministers was still out for review, and workshop discussions could therefore contribute directly to its completion. It was therefore decided by the project steering committee that there was no need for a separate substantive meeting report to be released, and instead this summary report has been prepared for inclusion as an annex to the full study report. All inputs to the workshop, both in plenary and in breakout groups, were considered in finalizing the study report.
There was broad agreement that MEAs and SAICM play a significant role in triggering national action to address international concerns which include common drivers of change. However, in both the biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters goals and targets are not being met, and further effort is needed. This is evident from the ongoing negotiations relating to the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and the intersessional process on the Strategic Approach and sound management of chemicals beyond 2020.
Increased coherence in implementation across the biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters would be valuable in a range of ways. These include, for example, building a greater understanding of the mutual dependencies between the two clusters, and working together to meet the broader objectives of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs.
With respect to strengthening collaboration and coordination between the biodiversity and chemicals and waste clusters, key characteristics of the current situation include the following.
It was suggested that a successful approach to strengthening collaboration and coordination across clusters would be likely to have the following characteristics:
A number of key issues and opportunities came up several times in both plenary and breakout group discussions, and to the extent possible these were captured in the synthesis prepared following the first two days of discussions. The following observations draw on both the synthesis and the associated discussion on the final day of the workshop.
While much of the focus of discussion was on options for action at the national level, the value of supporting action at the international level, including through the use of intergovernmental fora, was well recognised. Some of the supporting activities most frequently mentioned during discussion included the following.
The following practical examples of efforts to strengthen collaboration and coordination across the clusters were contributed by one or more participants, or were referred to in discussions.
It was recognised that both the workshop discussions and the study report provided good ‘food for thought’, and a range of useful ‘options for action’ had been identified. Release of the study report later in the year, its communication to interested individuals, and active follow up would lead to further consideration of what should be done next, and text on this will be included in the study report.
Meanwhile, specific examples of follow up actions identified by meeting participants included:
In addition, it was noted that a draft decision would be prepared for the next BRS COPs which included invitation to Parties to take the post-2020 global biodiversity framework into account when implementing the BRS Conventions, and also to give consideration to areas where the BRS Conventions could work more closely with the biodiversity cluster. Extension of this sort of approach to other MEAs and intergovernmental processes would be valuable with respect to both the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and the beyond 2020 framework on sound management of chemicals and waste.
Attention was drawn to the active engagement of both parties and secretariats of a range of MEAs at the Second Consultation Workshop of Biodiversity Related Conventions on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (Bern II).[2]CBD/SBI/3/INF/29 Report of the second consultation workshop on biodiversity-related conventions on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (Bern II) (www.cbd.int/doc/c/39f2/7257/df0b4d2bbdd7e383051e58f0/sbi-03-inf-29-en.pdf) There may be value in considering how the work done in the current workshop can also build on the recommendations of this earlier workshop.
Finally, it was recognised that for many issues it may be appropriate to address within the biodiversity or chemicals and waste cluster themselves. Strengthening collaboration and coordination across the clusters needs to be based on clearly identified needs, whether to bring about an improvement or address a problem, in order to build interest and encourage engagement. It is therefore important to identify opportunities or topics that are of mutual interest as a stimulus for follow up, and to communicate why collaboration and coordination is important.
Organization of the workshop was led by Tita Korvenoja of UNEP, with the support of Joyce Jelagat and Njoki Kibe, also of UNEP. The workshop was facilitated by Neville Ash of UNEP-WCMC and the two-page synthesis and the workshop report were prepared by Jerry Harrison, also of UNEP-WCMC. The project steering committee comprises Marjaana Kokkonen (project manager) and Laura Niskanen from the Ministry of Environment in Finland, Lone Schou and Mona Westergaard from the Ministry the Environment in Denmark, Lajla Tunaal White from the Ministry of Climate and Environment in Norway, and Sofia Tingstorp from the Ministry of Environment in Sweden.
Breakout group sessions were facilitated by Laura Niskanen and Tuulia Toikka from the Ministry of Environment in Finland, Sofia Tingstorp from the Ministry of Environment in Sweden, Nalini Sharma from the SAICM Secretariat, and Haddy Guisse and Diane Klaimi from UNEP. Notes were taken by Joyce Jelagat and Hyun Sung from UNEP, Caridad Canales from the CBD Secretariat, and Daniela Guarás from UNEP-WCMC. The panellists were Maria Ivanova from the Center for Governance and Sustainability at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, Norbert Baerlocher from the Federal Office for the Environment in Switzerland, Patrick Umuhoza from the Rwanda Environment Management Authority, Kerstin Stendahl from the UNEP Regional Seas Programme, and Maria Cristina Cardenas-Fischer from the Secretariat of the BRS Conventions. Nalini Sharma from the SAICM Secretariat facilitated discussion on national examples.
Times are indicative, and in in East African Time (UTC+3)
Thursday 23 September | |
14:00–14:20 | Introduction to the workshop by moderator, Neville Ash, UNEP-WCMC Opening remarks by co-organizers
|
14:20–15:20 | Panel discussion: An understanding of the interlinkages between biodiversity and chemicals and waste. Practical action and experiences from the two clusters. Speakers/panelists:
|
15:20–15:30 | Break while moving to the breakout groups |
15:30–16:35 | Discussion in smaller groups on “options for action”: These discussions will draw on the study report and in particular annex 3, but these inputs should provide ‘food for thought’ for discussion rather than restrict it. Breakout groups:
|
16:35–17:00 | Reports back from breakout groups |
Friday 24 September | |
14:00–14:10 | Recap and introduction to the day’s work |
14:10–14:40 | Reflections on the pre-recorded presentations/country submissions on synergies across biodiversity and chemicals clusters, facilitated by Nalini Sharma of the SAICM Secretariat |
14:40–16:10 | Discussion in smaller groups on “options for action”: These discussions will draw on the study report and in particular annex 3, but these inputs should provide ‘food for thought’ for discussion rather than restrict it. Breakout groups:
|
16:10–16:20 | Break while moving to the plenary |
16:20–17:00 | Reports back from breakout groups |
Between days 2 and 3 a brief synthesis of the discussions, also drawing on the material available in the draft study report will be prepared. This will inform discussion on the final day. It would be helpful if participants made available some time ahead of the final session to read the synthesis.
Monday 27 September | |
14:00–14:10 | Recap and introduction to the day’s work |
14:10–14:30 | Synthesis of discussions on options for recommendations Jerry Harrison, UNEP-WCMC |
14:30–15:20 | Plenary discussion on the synthesis |
15:20–15:30 | Break |
15:30–16:35 | Plenary discussion on next steps |
16:35–17:00 | Summary observations Closing remarks from Tita Korvenoja, Law Division, UNEP, and Marjaana Kokkonen, Ministry of Environment Finland, and the Nordic Steering Committee on behalf of the Nordic Council of Ministers |
National experts and focal points | |||
Name | Affiliation | Country | Cluster |
Carolina Rotolo | Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate of Environmental Affairs | Argentina | Chemicals/waste |
Narelle Montgomery | Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts | Australia | Biodiversity |
Mr Hamadjoda | Ministry of Environment, Protection of Nature and Sustainable Development | Cameroon | Chemicals/waste |
Stanislaus Lebaga Killa Gwankobe | Ministry of Environment, Protection of Nature and Sustainable Development | Cameroon | Both |
Ziekine Angele Wadou | Ministry of Environment, Protection of Nature and Sustainable Development | Cameroon | Biodiversity |
Greg Filyk | Environment and Climate Change Canada | Canada | Both |
Zhang Caili | Foreign Environmental Cooperation Center, Ministry of Ecology and Environment | China | Chemicals/waste |
Jing Zhao | Solid Waste and Chemicals Management Center, Ministry of Environment and Ecology | China | Chemicals/waste |
Yueqing Zhang | Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Environment and Ecology | China | Chemicals/waste |
Zhenhua Zhang | Nanjing Institute of Environmental Science, Ministry of Ecology and Environment | China | Biodiversity |
María Solano Trejos | Ministry of Environment and Energy | Costa Rica | Chemicals/waste |
Kateřina Šebková | Research Centre for Toxic Compounds in the Environment, and Stockholm Convention Regional Centre | Czech Republic | Chemicals/waste |
Lukas Pokorny | Research Centre for Toxic Compounds in the Environment, Masaryk University | Czech Republic | Chemicals/waste |
Marina von Weissenberg | Ministry of the Environment | Finland | Biodiversity |
Tuulia Toikka | Ministry of the Environment | Finland | Chemicals/waste |
Teona Karchava | Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection | Georgia | Biodiversity |
Lucy Wambui Nganga | Ministry of Environment and Forestry | Kenya | Biodiversity |
Zona Zaidi | Ministry of Climate Change | Pakistan | Biodiversity |
Alexander Romanov | Scientific Research Institute for Atmospheric Air Protection | Russia | Chemicals/waste |
Patrick Umuhoza | Rwanda Environment Management Authority | Rwanda | Both |
Nopasika Malta Qwathekana | Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism | South Africa | Biodiversity |
Brenda Maphanga | Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment | South Africa | Chemicals/waste |
Norbert Bärlocher | Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) | Switzerland | Biodiversity |
Ellie Bates | Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs | UK | Chemicals/waste |
Joseph Moss | Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs | UK | Chemicals/waste |
Judith Torres | National Environmental Directorate, Office of International Environmental Affairs | Uruguay | Chemicals/waste |
Project Steering Committee | |||
Marjaana Kokkonen | Ministry of the Environment | Finland | Biodiversity |
Laura Niskanen | Ministry of the Environment | Finland | Chemicals/waste |
Mona Mejsen Westergaard | Ministry of Environment | Denmark | Chemicals/waste |
Lone Schou | Ministry of Environment | Denmark | Chemicals/waste |
Sofia Tingstorp | Ministry of the Environment | Sweden | Chemicals/waste |
Panellists | ||
Maria Ivanova | Associate Professor of Global Governance, Director of the Center for Governance and Sustainability | University of Massachusetts Boston |
Norbert Bärlocher | Head Rio Conventions (Climate Change, Biodiversity) | Federal Office for the Environment, Switzerland |
Patrick Umuhoza | International Environmental Agreements Officer | Rwanda Environment Management Authority |
Kerstin Stendahl | Chief, Ecosystems Integration Branch, Ecosystem Division | UNEP |
Maria Cristina Cardenas-Fischer | Senior Policy and Strategy Advisor | BRS Secretariat |
Secretariats | |
Maria Cristina Cardenas-Fischer, Marylene Beau | BRS Secretariat |
Neil Pratt, Chantal Robichaud, Laetitia Sieffert, Caridad Canales | CBD Secretariat |
Umberto Gallo-Orsi | CMS Secretariat |
Nina Arden | EMG Secretariat |
Nalini Sharma, Delfina Cuglievan | SAICM Secretariat |
Mechtild Rossler, Susanna Kari | UNESCO World Heritage Centre |
UNEP | |
Tita Korvenoja, Diane Klaimi, Haddy Guisse, Hyun Sung, Joyce Jelagat, Njoki Kibe, Paxon Maina | Law Division |
Pierre Quiblier, Sandra Averous-Monnery, Malgorzata Alicja Stylo | Economy Division |
Neville Ash, Jerry Harrison, Daniela Guarás | UNEP-WCMC |
Compiled by Jerry Harrison of the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) from multiple sources, including an expert workshop.
ISBN 978-92-893-7281-7 (PDF)
ISBN 978-92-893-7282-4 (ONLINE)
http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/temanord2022-513
TemaNord 2022:513
ISSN 0908-6692
© Nordic Council of Ministers 2022
Cover photo: Anne Nygård / Unsplash
Published: 17/2/2022
This publication was funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the Nordic Council of Ministers’ views, opinions, attitudes or recommendations.
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.
Translations: If you translate this work, please include the following disclaimer: This translation was not produced by the Nordic Council of Ministers and should not be construed as official. The Nordic Council of Ministers cannot be held responsible for the translation or any errors in it.
Adaptations: If you adapt this work, please include the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by the Nordic Council of Ministers. Responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the adaptation rests solely with its author(s). The views and opinions in this adaptation have not been approved by the Nordic Council of Ministers.
Third-party content: The Nordic Council of Ministers does not necessarily own every single part of this work. The Nordic Council of Ministers cannot, therefore, guarantee that the reuse of third-party content does not infringe the copyright of the third party. If you wish to reuse any third-party content, you bear the risks associated with any such rights violations. You are responsible for determining whether there is a need to obtain permission for the use of third-party content, and if so, for obtaining the relevant permission from the copyright holder. Examples of third-party content may include, but are not limited to, tables, figures or images.
Photo rights (further permission required for reuse):
Any queries regarding rights and licences should be addressed to:
Nordic Council of Ministers/Publication Unit
Ved Stranden 18
DK-1061 Copenhagen
Denmark
pub@norden.org
Nordic co-operation is one of the world’s most extensive forms of regional collaboration, involving Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland.
Nordic co-operation has firm traditions in politics, economics and culture and plays an important role in European and international forums. The Nordic community strives for a strong Nordic Region in a strong Europe.
Nordic co-operation promotes regional interests and values in a global world. The values shared by the Nordic countries help make the region one of the most innovative and competitive in the world.
The Nordic Council of Ministers
Nordens Hus
Ved Stranden 18
DK-1061 Copenhagen
pub@norden.org
Read more Nordic publications on www.norden.org/publications