The Intersessional Process for Considering the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) and the Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste Beyond 2020 held its first meeting.
SAICM’s original mandate will end in 2020, and discussion focused on the preferred type of global platform for promoting sound management after that date.
Most participants appeared to favor maintaining the voluntary nature of SAICM, although some mused about “upgrading” governance.
9 February 2017: The Intersessional Process for Considering the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) and the Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste Beyond 2020 held its first meeting from 7-9 February 2017. SAICM’s original mandate will end in 2020, and discussion focused on the preferred type of global platform for promoting sound management after that date.
SAICM Intersessional Process (IP) 1 convened in Brasilia, Brazil, with the mandate, from the fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4) in 2015, to assess progress made towards the 2020 goal, and to offer recommendations to ICCM5, which will convene in 2020, regarding SAICM and the sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020.
Participants exchanged views on: vision and scope of the future platform; whether to maintain the current voluntary, multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral approach; what process should be used to respond to new and emerging issues; financing implementation of the sound management of chemicals and waste; linkages to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; and how the concepts of sustainable chemistry and green chemistry might fit into a post-2020 agenda. Delegates also debated what time horizon would be set for further chemicals/waste work: 2030 to match the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), or 2040, 2050, or open-ended.
The Earth Negotiations Bulletin report from the meeting indicates that, while it was on the agenda, the topic of meeting the 2020 goal only received a handful of comments, and some participants openly suggested that the goal cannot be met due to the enormity and complexity of the task. As a result, delegates seemed eager to get to “the main event”: discussing what will happen after 2020.
ENB described the Brasilia meeting as “primarily a brainstorming session, which will inform later negotiations on a future chemicals and waste platform.” Discussions revealed wide support among participants for maintaining SAICM’s flexible, multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder nature beyond 2020, and expanding it to enlarge the stakeholder base and take advantage of the opportunities presented by the implementation of the 2030 Agenda to forge new and relevant links with other sectors and processes, such as climate change and biodiversity.
Setting measurable objectives and achievable targets received broad support.
Expanding the scope of SAICM to explicitly address waste and setting measurable objectives and achievable targets also received broad support. IPEN offered specific possible targets in this regard, but others expressed reluctance to discuss indicators at this early stage.
Most participants appeared to favor maintaining the voluntary nature of SAICM, although some mused about “upgrading” governance in some fashion, perhaps by asking governments to prepare and report on national action plans, or defining targets and indicators that would be reported on and measured against. Several expressed interest in the governance options explored in a recent Nordic Council paper, but in the corridors many delegates expressed skepticism that the governance or voluntary nature of SAICM will change significantly post-2020.
Consensus did not appear emergent regarding a proposal for a science-policy interface for chemicals/waste, nor on SAICM’s means of implementation. Developing countries said every issue in a post-2020 platform must have a clearly defined source of funds and the application of the CBDR principle, while OECD countries referred to the concept of an integrated approach to financing for sound chemical management endorsed by UNEA1, composed of mainstreaming, industry involvement and dedicated external financing (primarily the GEF and the Special Programme).
In other comments, GRULAC stressed the region’s support for broad stakeholder participation, with the EU inviting the co-chairs to consider a format for future meetings to enable participation. The African Group called for support to organize regional meetings. Greenpeace called for countries to follow the example of China and others that have taken national-level action to achieve sound chemicals management. [ENB Meeting Coverage]