ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

THE 1998 PROTOCOL ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS:AN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE

22/05/20231

CONTENTSForeword

Preface

Introduction to the Convention

Introduction to the POPs Protocol

Chapter 1: Preamble

Chapter 2: Definitions and objective (Articles 1 and 2)

Chapter 3: Basic obligations (Articles 3, 4 and 7)

Chapter 4: Reporting obligations (Article 9)

Chapter 5: Review of compliance (Article 11)

Chapter 6: Reviews (Article 10)

Chapter 7: Procedures for amendment (Article 14)

Chapter 8: Activities in support of the Protocol (Articles 5, 6 and 8)

Chapter 9: Procedural issues (Article 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20)

Chapter 10: Planning for national implementation

Concluding remarks

AppendicesAppendix 1 Relevant bodies of the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air

PollutionAppendix 2 Emissions InventoriesAppendix 3 In-depth review of compliance by Parties with the Protocol on POPsAppendix 4 Decision 2003/10 (Establishing a task force on persistent organic

pollutants)Appendix 5 Summary information on the scheduled reassessments of substance-

related provisions in the protocol on POPsAppendix 6 Technical elements for the review of sufficiency and effectiveness of

the ProtocolAppendix 7 Decision 1998/2 on information to be submitted and the procedure for

adding substances to annexes I, II or III to the Protocol on POPsAppendix 8 Generic guidelines for the technical review of dossiers of new

substances that may be proposed by Parties for inclusion into annexes I, II or III to the Protocol on POPs

Appendix 9 Overview of the annexes to the Protocol

22/05/20232

Foreword (draft)

[Since the problem of transboundary air pollution was first recognised, considerable progress has been made in controlling the emissions that are its primary cause. This has brought benefits to our society by providing a significant measure of protection to health and the natural environment. The areas under threat from acid rain and excessive fertilisation and the numbers of people threatened by poor air quality have been reduced.

The Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution has played a major part in this environmental improvement by bringing together nations in Europe and North America to develop a series of international agreements to reduce pollution across the UNECE region. Protocols on emissions of the major air pollutants, Sulphur, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants have been agreed and have entered into force.

The particular measure that is the subject of this guide, the Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants, it expected to bring significant environmental benefits as the provisions it contains take effect over the next five to ten years. With its ambitious measures, underpinned by a large and highly developed scientific programme, it marks a major step forward as the first agreement of its kind to tackle toxic organic compounds over such a wide geographic scale. As such, it has become the precursor of global agreement on controlling these dangerous substances.

Many difficulties, including the scientific challenges, had to be overcome in producing this agreement. For the Parties to it, there will doubtless be significant challenges in implementation. This guide was never planned as an official interpretation of the Protocol, it was imply to serve as a tool in the hands of governments and experts to aid there understanding. Public authority officials will find important guidance on the provisions of the Protocol and on the further sources of advice that are available to them.

I therefore take considerable pleasure in commending this Guide to all those who have an interest in the implementation of this Protocol, notably policy makers and implementing authorities, but also NGOs, industry and citizens. In fact, to those whose efforts will be needed to achieve the environmental improvements this Protocol promises.]

Signature

22/05/20233

Preface

The aim of the 1979 UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution is to improve the environment of the UNECE region by reducing the impacts of air pollution.

This document is intended as a guide to encourage Parties to implement and accede to the Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) by helping them with the necessary analysis and planning. It should also support those who are already party to the Protocol by giving guidance on practical aspects of the planning processes and on the different kinds of information available to help them.

The Guide has been prepared with a range of different audiences in mind, recognising that they have different needs. It is designed to help the internal processes within Parties to the Convention that are needed to ensure that implementation runs smoothly and the external processes by which each Party accounts for its compliance with the terms of the Protocol.

In this respect, the Guide should also act as a source document for external stakeholders, providing reassurance that the Executive Body to the Convention has made every effort to support countries in achieving the aims of the Protocol, to increase the geographic implementation of the Protocol and to deliver a better quality of environment as a result.

The purpose of the guide is to:

Encourage the newer Parties to the Convention to accede to the Protocol by providing guidance for those that make decisions on accession or ratification as well as for their advisors;

Provide guidance to authorities charged with practical aspects of implementation;

Provide a guide to resources available to Parties, including the subsidiary bodies operating under the Convention;

Provide information on implementation of the Protocol for external stakeholders.

The guide is aimed at a range of audiences, broadly reflecting the different actors that are involved in implementing the protocol. It is recognised that these audiences will have different needs and the Guide is intended to satisfy as many of these as possible. It should answer the questions these different audiences have either directly within the guide or by providing references to external bodies or sources of information.

The aim is that each of the target audiences should be able to find the information they need simply and at the level of detail they require it. Clearly, this has led to a

22/05/20234

document where there may be some areas of duplication between sections. The aim, however, has been to ensure that each section is more or less self-contained and at an appropriate level of detail for its readers.

For some users of the Guide, the introductory material will be important. It may help them in preparing national internal communication documents and in making the arguments needed in their Governments to ensure that the measures required have support and are appropriately resourced. With this in mind, the Guide contains background material in a summary form suitable for introductory material in national documents and the more complete form required in analysis and policy assessment.

22/05/20235

INTRODUCTION

The Convention

The UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution was adopted in 1979, establishing a broad framework for the Member States of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) to cooperate in taking action to reduce the impacts of air pollution.

The background to the Convention, however, goes back further to the growing awareness that only international cooperation would solve the many emerging problems of air pollution. In the 1960s scientists demonstrated the link between sulphur emissions in continental Europe and the acidification of lakes in the Scandinavian region. At the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm, decisions were taken to start international cooperation on tackling environmental acid rain. In the investigations which followed, it was confirmed that air pollutants could travel several thousands of kilometres before being deposited and causing damage. International cooperation was the only way to solve the problem.

In response to these acute problems, a high-level ministerial meeting on the protection of the environment against air pollution was held in Geneva in 1979 within the framework of the UNECE. This resulted in the signature of the Convention by 34 Governments and the European Community. There are now 50 Parties to the Convention. The Convention was the first international legally binding instrument to deal with the problems of air pollution on a broad regional basis. It set the general principles of international cooperation for air pollution abatement and set up an international framework for research and policy development.

The Convention is governed by an Executive Body – its meeting of the Parties - which meets annually. Currently, the Executive Body has three main subsidiary bodies, have expert groups or task forces reporting to them. The Working Group on Effects advises the Executive Body on the impacts of air pollutants and produces analyses of harmful levels of deposition and ambient concentration that underpin the Convention’s protocols. The effects of air pollution have been a major driving force for the development of protocols; the need for monitoring and developing scientific information on effects is spelled out in many protocol texts. The Steering Body of the Cooperative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe (EMEP) is the Executive Body’s advisory body on methods of calculating transboundary movements of air pollution and emission reductions required to meet the aims of the protocol. EMEP is an important part of the Convention’s machinery and there are frequent references to it in the protocol texts. The Working Group on Strategies and Review is the principal negotiating body for the Convention, advising the Executive Body on text for new protocols and reviewing progress on existing measures. Appendix 1 to the Guide describes the machinery of the Convention in more detail.

The Convention text specifies, in article 11, that the UNECE Executive Secretary shall carry out the secretariat functions for the Convention. The day-to-day functions of the secretariat are carried out by the Executive Secretary’s staff.

22/05/20236

Since 1979, the Parties to the Convention have agreed on eight protocols, covering a wide spectrum of air pollutants. The measures agreed over this period have become increasingly focussed on the complex effects of air pollutants and, in consequence, reliant on close links between the policy and scientific communities. The Convention’s own scientific base has been developed through EMEP and the Cooperative programmes set up under the Working Group on Effects.

The Convention continues to develop its scientific capacity and, in particular, the Executive Body has made considerable efforts to ensure that its subsidiary bodies provide as much advice and support as possible to Parties to the Convention to assist them in implementing its protocols. EMEP has developed manuals for preparing estimates of national emissions and there is advice on mapping pollution effects and other crucial parts of preparation for accession.

The Protocol on POPs

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are defined in terms of their properties and structure. They are organic, toxic, persistent, accumulate in the environment, capable of long-range transport in the atmosphere and likely to cause harm. Studies have shown high levels of these substances in areas remote from any possible sources, suggesting that they are transported over large distances. In particular, high levels of POPs have been found in the fatty tissue in animals at the top of the food chain in the Arctic and high latitudes, for example, polar bears and seals.

Concern about persistent organic pollutants by some Parties in the 1980s led to the Executive Body establishing a Task Force on POPs, led by Canada and Sweden, at its eighth session in 1990. It was charged with preparing a state-of-the-art report on the control of persistent organic substances taking into account their effects, contribution to long-range transboundary air pollution and distribution between media in the environment. The work of the Task Force led to the Executive Body setting up, in 1994, an ad hoc Preparatory Working Group to prepare a priority list of substance, assess options for their management/control and consider optional elements for a future protocol. Under the Preparatory Working Group the ideas for a protocol were developed and a protocol text for negotiation was drawn up.

Following negotiations between Parties to the Convention, a Protocol on POPs was signed by 36 parties at Aarhus, Denmark in 1998. The Protocol came into force in October 2003 and now has now been ratified by 28 parties.

The Protocol on POPs followed protocols on substances that were creating visible damage to the environment. Typically these were released in large quantities, from recognisable large sources such as power stations or large industrial processes and their potential for long range transport was well known. The pollutants involved in the Protocol on POPs were very different in character. The emissions of these substances arose from many diverse sources, including distributed sources such as the use of agricultural chemicals. The emissions were relatively small, but their effects on health were potentially serious. The form of the Protocol on POPs is therefore different from that of previous protocols under the Convention.

22/05/20237

The broad objective of the Protocol is “to control, reduce or eliminate discharges, emissions and losses of POPs “(article 2 of the Protocol). Its form reflects the current state of knowledge. It covers substances whose effects are well known and there is a strong case for action. It is envisaged that the substances controlled will be extended as knowledge of effects and technologies for control improve.

The Protocol starts by identifying those substances that require action. It then provides a range of actions: a ban on use and/or manufacture in the case of the most dangerous substances, severe restrictions on the use of others and requirements for reducing the emission of a third group. In the case of substances scheduled for restriction or elimination, there are provisions for safe disposal. The protocol also makes provision for adding new substances to the action lists as evidence on effects comes available.

The Protocol currently covers 14 substances and groups of substances, 12 of which are scheduled for the elimination of use and/or production.

The Protocol consists of a preamble, 20 articles and 8 annexes, which will be dealt with in the sections below.

A distinction is made between:(i) substantive obligations, reporting requirements and obligations related to activities in support of the Protocol; and (ii) obligations that are a matter for individual action by Parties and obligations that are subject to, and dependent upon, collective action.

The Guide provides a framework for the review of obligations as part of the planning process for accession or ratification as recommended in the “Kiev Guidelines” adopted by UNECE Ministers at their Environment for Europe Conference in 2003 (ECE/CEP/107). In the cases where obligations are of a general nature, some criteria may be needed to assess compliance. The Kiev Guidelines suggest that indicators might be developed for this and some possible forms will be suggested in the Guide.

22/05/20238

Chapter 1

Preamble: the Preconditions for the Protocol

The preamble is, in effect, the introduction to the Protocol. It describes the basis on which the parties have agreed to it and records their common understanding of the context for the measure.

Although it is an integral part of the Protocol is does not contain binding obligations but sets out a series of principles that may be helpful in interpreting the rest of the Protocol, including the wider legal context. In fact, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties declares that the preamble is the primary source of interpretation.

In the guide to the Preamble below, the text from the Protocol appears in italics and the commentary, which follows, is shown in a normal font. The preamble to the POPs Protocol records the following agreement as the basis for the Protocol.

The Parties,Determined to implement the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution,

The preamble begins by reaffirming the common aim of parties to the Convention to ensure its implementation. This provides the rationale of the Protocol: it is a contribution towards the Convention’s aim of protecting man and the wider environment against air pollution. Parties to the Protocol and therefore in agreement that the substances it covers are harmful to man and the environment.

Recognizing that emissions of many persistent organic pollutants are transported acrossinternational boundaries and are deposited in Europe, North America and the Arctic, far from their site of origin, and that the atmosphere is the dominant medium of transport,

Aware that persistent organic pollutants resist degradation under natural conditions and have been associated with adverse effects on human health and the environment,

Concerned that persistent organic pollutants can biomagnify in upper trophic levels to concentrations which might affect the health of exposed wildlife and humans,

Acknowledging that the Arctic ecosystems and especially its indigenous people, who subsist on Arctic fish and mammals, are particularly at risk because of the biomagnification of persistent organic pollutants,

These four paragraphs record the common understanding of the need for the protocol. Parties agreed that POPs are persistent, accumulate in the environment are transported over long distances and have adverse effects on health. The last of these paragraphs makes specific reference to Arctic ecosystems and in particular to the impacts of POPs on indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples in the Arctic rely on animals at the top of the food chain for their food, seals, for example, and are therefore particularly exposed to the high levels of POPs in the fat of these animals.

Mindful that measures to control emissions of persistent organic pollutants would also contribute to the protection of the environment and human health in areas outside the United

22/05/20239

Nations Economic Commission for Europe's region, including the Arctic and international waters,

Resolved to take measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize emissions of persistent organicpollutants, taking into account the application of the precautionary approach, as set forth in principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,

These two paragraphs provide some wider context for the measure. They note that the measures proposed within the Protocol would have a beneficial impact outside the UNECE area, Arctic regions are given special mention, and contribute towards implementation of the Rio Declaration. The second of these paragraphs also makes a specific reference to the precautionary principle as a basis for the Protocol. The precautionary principle as it is set out in principle 15 of the Rio Declaration is as follows:

“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

Reaffirming that States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and theprinciples of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and development policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction,

This paragraph records the Parties recognition that under the UN Charter, States have rights over their own resources but not the extent that exploiting these resources causes harm to the environment in other States. This gives the basis for international action to control transboundary pollution from POPs.

Noting the need for global action on persistent organic pollutants and recalling the role envisaged in chapter 9 of Agenda 21 for regional agreements to reduce global transboundary air pollution and, in particular, for the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe to share its regional experience with other regions of the world,

Recognizing that there are subregional, regional and global regimes in place, includinginternational instruments governing the management of hazardous wastes, their transboundary movement and disposal, in particular the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal,

The two paragraphs above provide the basis of a regional approach to the problem of POPs. In the first, the preamble makes a link to Chapter 9 of Agenda 21 http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter9.htm, which makes specific reference to the regional regime created by the Convention. In the second there is recognition of the other regimes in place to manage POPs, including the Basel Convention http://www.basel.int Parties to the POPS Protocol are agreed that there is a need for action on a regional basis

22/05/202310

and that the Protocol has to recognise the contribution of other regimes to the control of POPs.

Considering that the predominant sources of air pollution contributing to the accumulation ofpersistent organic pollutants are the use of certain pesticides, the manufacture and use of certain chemicals, and the unintentional formation of certain substances in waste incineration, combustion, metal production and mobile sources,

Aware that techniques and management practices are available to reduce emissions of persistent organic pollutants into the air,

Conscious of the need for a cost-effective regional approach to combating air pollution,

These three paragraphs focus on the management of POPs. Firstly, parties record their agreement about the relative contribution from different sources. The preamble declares that the predominant sources are pesticide use, chemical manufacture and the formation of POPs in some combustion processes, including waste incineration. Next, parties accept that there are techniques and management practices available to reduce POP emissions. Finally parties agree that measures to control POPs should be cost effective.

Noting the important contribution of the private and non-governmental sectors to knowledge of the effects associated with persistent organic pollutants, available alternatives and abatement techniques, and their role in assisting in the reduction of emissions of persistent organic pollutants,

This paragraph acknowledges the contribution of bodies outside the Convention, including in the private and NGO sectors, to the aims of the Protocol, by improving the understanding of POPs and of the measures that can control them and by taking action themselves. Parties in this paragraph welcome the input of outside bodies to the development of the Protocol and to the overall strategy of managing POPs.

Bearing in mind that measures taken to reduce persistent organic pollutant emissions should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international competition and trade,

Taking into consideration existing scientific and technical data on emissions, atmosphericprocesses and effects on human health and the environment of persistent organic pollutants, as well as on abatement costs, and acknowledging the need to continue scientific and technical cooperation to further the understanding of these issues,

Penultimately, parties agree that the Protocol must be based on current technical and scientific understandings but that efforts should be made to improve the state of knowledge.

Recognizing the measures on persistent organic pollutants already taken by some of the Parties on a national level and/or under other international conventions,

Finally, Parties recognise that some Parties have already taken steps to manage POPs, either as part of another international agreement or on their own.

22/05/202311

Chapter 2

Definitions and Objective of the Protocol

Articles 1 and 22.1. Defnitions

The first article of the Protocol sets out the common understanding of the terms used in the Protocol. This is important as some of the term have a special use in the Protocol that is more restricted than their general meaning. It is important to be clear what terms mean when they appear in the Protocol.

There are three main parts to the article, covering definitions of the bodies involved in the Protocol, the substances covered and the sources from which they come.

2.1.1 Bodies Involved in the ProtocolArticle 1 paragraphs 1 to 6 define the different UNECE and other bodies to which reference is made in the Protocol. Most of these are self explanatory but it is worth noting the following in particular:

The term “Commission” as used in the protocol refers to the United Nations Commission for Europe and not the Commission of the European Union (para 4)

The term “Parties” in general means the parties to the POPs protocol, but there may be other meanings which have to be taken from the context in which the term is used, for example where the text refers to Parties to the Convention. The distinction is important as there will be Parties to the Convention that are not Parties to the Protocol.

The term “geographic scope of EMEP” needs careful interpretation. The Geographic Scope of EMEP is defined in Article 1, paragraph 4, of the EMEP Protocol of 1984 as follows: Geographic scope of EMEP means the area within which, co-ordinated by the international centres of EMEP, monitoring is carried out. This means that the Geographic scope is not fixed and can grow as Parties to the Convention develop monitoring networks linked to EMEP (para 6).

2.1.2. Substances Covered by the Protocol

Article 1 paragraph 7 and 8 deal with the terms used to describe the substances covered by the Protocol.

The term “substance” is taken to apply to both individual chemical compounds and to groups of chemicals. Groups can be either a set of chemicals with related structure and properties, dioxins, for example, or chemicals which are normally marketed as a single product, for example mineral oils or synthetic musks (para 8).

“Persistent organic Pollutants” (POPs) are organic substances that (i) possess toxic characteristics; (ii) are persistent; (iii) bioaccumulate; (iv) are prone to

22/05/202312

long-range transboundary atmospheric transport and deposition; and (v) are likely to cause significant adverse human health or environmental effects near to and distant from their sources (para 7).

2.1.3. Sources

Article 1 paragraphs 9 to12 explain the terms used to describe sources of POPs

The definition of a “stationary source” (para 10) is self explanatory, and the term “major source category” (para 11) refers the reader to the sources mentioned in an Annex to the Protocol, Annex VIII. Annex VIII gives 12 major source categories, including incineration, steel production and residential combustion. However, the Protocol also defines a category of “new stationary sources”.

In air pollution agreements in general a distinction is often made between new and existing sources. This is because it is in principle more straightforward and cost effective to achieve a given emission standards in a new plant where the standards are part of the design brief than it is to modify an existing plant to achieve the same standards, through technology retrofit, for example. It has been practice to recognise this by allowing an extended period for existing plant to comply or by setting different standards for them.

However, it is important to ensure that the definitions of new and existing are clear and not open to abuse. It is normal to define a new plant as one that is built after the agreement covering it has been made and to define an existing plant as one that is either built or where construction has reached the stage where a simple modification to the design would be infeasible or would not be cost effective. Pollution control authorities have also taken the view that if a plant undergoes substantial modification, there is scope for bringing it up to current emission standards and they would then seek to ensure that it confirmed to the same standards as a “new” plant.Article 1 paragraph 12 defines a “new stationary source” as one for which either construction or substantial modification is started after a certain date. There are two possibilities for the date. In most cases it will be two years after the Protocol comes into force (that is, after 23 October 2005). However, the Protocol is subject to modification and this might bring further sources into its scope. It would clearly be impossible for plant operators to anticipate this and the second date is two years after the amendment that brings the source within the protocol.

The determination of what constitutes a substantial modification is left to the competent authorities with each party to the protocol. The term “emission” itself (para 9) is simply taken to mean the release of a substance. This can be either from a point source, a waste incinerator, for example, or from a distributed source, for example fields sprayed with pesticide.

2.1.4. Other definitions

Article 3 paragraphs 1 to 3 contain referenced to the Basel Convention and a number of terms used in it. Parties should note that according to Article 3 paragraph 4 these terms are to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Basel Convention. The

22/05/202313

terms are: waste, disposal, and environmentally sound. The term “waste” in particular has caused difficulty, because there is a distinction to be made between a material for which there is no further use and a material from which can be used in some new way, for example as a fuel or a building material. Similarly there are different interpretations of “disposal”. There is, for example, a distinction between disposal with no value, land fill for example and disposal that fulfils a function, for example use of solid wastes in foundation for roads.

The final interpretation of these terms within the Protocol should finally be that of the Basel Convention and it may be necessary in particular cases to seek guidance from the Basel Convention http://www.basel.int

2.2.Objective

The objective of the Protocol is given in Article 2. It is to control, reduce or eliminate discharges, emissions and losses of POPs.

22/05/202314

CHAPTER 3

Basic Obligations

3.1 Introduction to the Basic Obligations

The basic obligations for Parties to the Protocol are contained in Article 3. These obligations relate directly to action that Parties must take to control emissions of the pollutants covered by the Protocol. In addition, there is a requirement under article 7 for each Party to develop strategies, policies and programmes to discharge these obligations.

In summary a Party to the Protocol must:

Eliminate production and/or use of the following substances: aldrin, chlordance, chlordecone, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor, Hexabromobiphenyl, Hexachlorobenzene, Mirex and Toxaphene (art.3, para. 1(a) and Annex I to the Protocol)

Restrict the use of the following substances: DDT, HCH and PCB (art.3, para.1 (c) and Annex II to the Protocol)

Reduce the emissions of the following substances: PAHs, Dioxins/Furans and Hexachlorobenzene (art. 3, para. 5(a) and Annex III)

Apply limit values and BAT (art. 3, para. 5(b)) to major stationary source categories

Develop and maintain emissions inventories for the following substances: PAHs, Dioxins/furans and HCB (art. 3, para. 8)

Collect available information relating to the production and sales of the substances listed in annex I and annex II to the Protocol

Develop strategies for identifying articles still in use and wastes containing such substances (art. 3, para. 3)

Ensure that, when required, destruction and or transboundary movement of substances is environmentally sound and in accordance with the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (art. 3 , para. 1 (b))

Develop strategies and policies (art. 7)

Although some POPs are waste products (see section 4.4, above, on the definition of waste), many have been used widely in industrial processes and in research. Some still have important economic use, for example in the control of transmissible disease. It has therefore been necessary to make a number of exemptions to cover the cases where continued use of a particular substance is desirable, though this will generally be under controlled circumstances. These exemptions are given in Article 4 and are discussed in section … below.

3.2. Elimination of production and use of the substances listed in Annex I

Substances to be eliminated from production or use are substances that have been shown to have serious environmental impacts. They are mostly pesticides. For some of the substances scheduled for elimination, use and/or production may continue, but with conditions. These conditions are specified in the Protocol in Annex 1. The term

22/05/202315

elimination, as it is used here, means that the use and/or production should cease on the date the Protocol entered into force (23 October 2003) and that the remaining stocks should be destroyed or disposed of in an environmentally sound manner (see below). Article 3 places Parties under an obligation to take account of the guidance from regional regimes, such as the Basle Convention, www.basel.int that govern the control of hazardous wastes is deciding on how these substances should be destroyed and to endeavour to ensure that this is done domestically. Article 3 Paragraph 1 (a) requires Parties to eliminate the production and/or use of a list of 12 substances currently specified in Annex I. The procedure for review (see article 10) may increase the number of substances covered.

For eight of the substances currently listed in Annex I, the protocol requires that both their production and use is eliminated:

Aldrin EndrinChlordane HexabromobiphenylChlordecone MirexDieldrin Toxaphene

With the exception of hexabromobiphenyl, which is used in manufacturing processes, they are pesticides.

Specific conditions apply for the following four substances:

DDT, an insecticide that was used widely, particularly for the control of public health pests such as mosquitoes. In this case, elimination hinges on the availability of suitable alternatives for public health protection. The conditions attached to elimination of production in Annex I are:

(i) that Parties should agree, by consensus, that there are viable alternatives, when the elimination of DDT production will follow in one year (see section…)(ii) that there should be periodic review, starting one year after the Protocol enters into force (that is, starting in October 2004) and that WHO, FAO and UNEP should be consulted (see section…)There is no condition on the elimination of use of DDT in this specific obligation.

However, there is also a separate obligation on Parties to restrict the use of some substances, and DDT is amongst them. The restrictions on the use of DDT are contained in Annex II and are described below.

Heptachlor, an insecticide which was used mainly in domestic pest control and was market under several trade names, including Heptagran, Basklor and Drinox. The Protocol requires the elimination of production of Heptachlor. The use of Heptachlor, however, is allowed in the specific case of control of fire ants in electrical junction boxes and only if it is used by certified personnel. The Protocol required this condition to be re-examined two year after the Protocol enters into force (that is, no later than October 2005).

Hexachlorobenzene, a fungicide, which was used as a seed dressing. Elimination of the use and production of Hexachlorobenzene is required except for limited purposes

22/05/202316

in Parties whose economy is in transition, in which case the parties must specify the purpose in a statement deposited on signature or accession.

PCBs are polychlorinated biphenyl compounds, which were, until recently commonly used in a range of industrial applications, notably as coolants in transformers. The protocol requires the elimination of production of PCBs, except in the case of parties whose economies are in transition, in which case production should be eliminated as soon as possible and in any case not later than the end of 2005. Parties that wish to make use of this provision must make a declaration to this effect to be deposited [on signature or ratification]/[with their instrument of ratification, acceptance approval or accession].

3. 3. Restriction of use of the substances listed in annex II

Paragraph 1 (c) of Article 3 contains requirements for restrictions of use of a set of, currently, three substances specified in Annex II. The same general conditions apply to this set as to the set scheduled for elimination, that is, this obligation does not apply:

if these substances are contaminants in products included in articles manufactured or in use before the implementation date of

the Protocol (23 October 2003) if they are part of a chemical process and are therefore chemically transformed

For each of the substances in Annex II, the particular uses which may continue are described. There are also specific conditions attached to the individual substances, as detailed below.

The substances scheduled for restriction of use are, at present:

DDT may continue in use for public health protection and as a chemical intermediate in the production of Dicofol. However, the use is allowed only as a component of an integrated pest management strategy and then only to the extent necessary. In any case this use should not continue for more than one year after production is eliminated under Article 3 para 1 (a). Any continuing use is to be assessed no later that October 2005 (see section…)

HCH, hexachlorocyclohexane, a compound with a number of different forms, is used as a pesticide under a number of trade names, including Lindane. The different forms (isomers) have different toxicity and are treated differently in the protocol. In the case of the technical material (containing a mixture of the isomers), parties are required to restrict use to chemical manufacture. In the case of products where one of the isomers, the gamma form, is the major constituent (at least 99%), which includes Lindane, parties are required to restrict uses to a range of agricultural and public health applications detailed in Annex II. The condition on these uses, in the case of Lindane specifically, is to be reassessed by October 2005. (see section…)

PCBs, uses of which are restricted to the PCBs actually in use on the date the Protocol entered into force or produced up to the end of 2005. The conditions on these uses require parties to make “determined efforts” to eliminate use of PCBS in electrical equipment in cases where they are in volumes or concentrations specified in Annex II

22/05/202317

and to use environmentally sound ways of destroying PCBs and decontaminating or disposing of equipment that contained PCBs.

3. 4. Reduction of emissions of the substances listed in annex III

This requirement is set out in article 3 paragraph 5. Many POPs occur as by-products of industrial processes, in particular processes involving combustion or high-temperature treatment of materials. The protocol requires parties to control these processes either by imposing limit values, or by applying Best Available Techniques (BAT) of emission abatement to them.

The substances covered by this provision are given in Annex III and at present there are three of them:

PAHs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a large group of substances with similar chemical structure. Because there are so many of these compounds four indicator species are taken as the basis of emission inventories. These are specified in Annex III

Dioxins/Furans, which occur as unwanted by-products in combustion and chemical processes. A formal definition based on chemical structure is given in Annex III.

Hexachlorobenzene, which is used in a range of chemical processes.

The primary requirement, given in article 3, paragraph 5(a), is for Parties to reduce their annual emissions of the Annex III substances from the level of emissions in a reference year given in Annex III. The reference year is either 1990 or an alternative year between 1985 and 1995, which parties specify on ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. No specific level of reduction in annual emissions is specified. The level of emission reduction achieved depends on the measures adopted, and these are specified in article 3, paragraph 5 (b).

3. 5. Application of BAT and Limit values

The provision of limit values applies in the Protocol to dioxins and furans produced in combustion processes. Limit values are expressed in the Protocol as the mass concentration of substances in the waste gases from the process in question, either as ng/m3 or as mg/m3 under standard conditions (defined in Annex IV).

BAT (Best Available Techniques) is a broader provision and applies in the Protocol to a wide range of industrial processes. The term BAT has been widely used in industrial pollution control and Parties should note that there are many definitions of BAT. In the case of this Protocol, the definition of BAT is contained in Annex V. Broadly, BAT in the Protocol means the application of techniques or technologies that are available in a cost effective form, and on an appropriate scale, to provide a high level of environmental protection. Please see Annex V of the Protocol for a precise definition.

The detailed provisions for the application of limit values and BAT to POPs emissions are given in article 3 paragraph 5(b).

22/05/202318

Article 3, paragraph 5 (b) (i) requires Parties to apply BAT to each new stationary source within a set of major source categories covered by Annex V. There are 11 of these, including combustion processes, metal processing, chemical processes and processes for wood preservation. The Guidance on BAT for each major sources category is also given in Annex V

Article 3, paragraph 5 (b) (ii) requires Parties to apply limit values to each new stationary source in the categories specified in Annex IV.

The limit values concern the emissions of dioxins/furans. The categories specified and the limit values Parties must apply to them are as follows:

o Municipal solid waste incineration (burning more that 3 tonnes per hour). Limit value: 0.1 ng TE/m3

o Medical solid waste incineration (burning more that 1 tonne per hour) Limit value: 0.5 ng TE/m3

o Hazardous waste incineration (burning more than 1 tonne per hour). Limit value: 0.2 ng TE/m3

The limit values to apply are to be at least as stringent as those in Annex IV. However, parties may apply an alternative strategy that achieves the same overall emission levels.

Article 3, paragraph 5 (b) (iii) requires the application of BAT to existing sources; and

Article 3, paragraph 5 (b) (iv) requires the application of limit values to them, both with the provision of alternative strategies that deliver the same outcome as applying BAT or limit values.

Article 3, paragraph 5 (b) vi) requires parties to take action to control emissions of POPs from mobile sources. Annex VII contains guidance on this.

The measures described must be applied to a time table given in Annex VI. For new stationary sources, emission controls should apply from a date two years after the protocol came into force, that is by October 2005 at the latest. In the case of existing stationary sources the application date is extended to October 2011. This date may be extended further for specific existing sources in accordance with the national legislation covering the period over which the [investment in the] plant concerned is amortized.

Emissions of POPs from residential combustion sources are covered in article 3, paragraph 6. The obligations in paragraph 5 (b) (i) and (iii) apply, but to all residential stationary sources taken together.

If it turns out that the measures taken under paragraph 5 (b) fail to produce a reduction in emissions of an Annex III substance, PAHs, dioxins/furans or hexachlorobenzene, then paragraph 7 provides an exemption for the Party concerned in the case of that particular substance.

22/05/202319

3. 6. Identification of Substances

This important action is aimed at the production of an effective inventory for each of the substances specified in the Protocol. The materials that contain them may be in use or they may be part of waste products. The Protocol obliges Parties to develop strategies of identification of these substances and the wastes containing them as part of a broader management strategy.

Although many of the substances covered by the protocol, and in particular those specified in Annex I and Annex II, are used as products themselves, mostly as pesticides, they also occur in other products, electrical equipment or building materials, for example. POPs are also present in wastes of various kinds, in particular wastes from combustion processes. The Protocol therefore requires Parties to search out these products and wastes and to ensure that they are destroyed or disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.

Article 3 paragraph 3 places two obligations on Parties:

Firstly, it requires Parties to develop strategies for identifying products or wastes that contain POPs (the specific POPs to which this applies are those specified in Annexes I, II and III, that is, the substances specified above, with the addition of Dioxins/Furans).

Secondly, it requires Parties the environmentally sound disposal of such wastes (see 3.7 below).

3. 7. Environmentally sound disposal

Article 3, paragraph 3 also requires Parties to ensure that the wastes, and the products at the end of their life, should be destroyed or disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.

In addition, article 3 paragraph 1 (b) introduces specific requirements for the destruction or disposal of the remaining stocks of annex I substances. It requires that when these substances are eliminated from production or use, the remaining stocks are destroyed or disposed of in conformity with the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and preferably domestically. Article 3 paragraph 2 requires that these provision come into effect for each of the substances in Annex I upon the date that its production or use is eliminated, whichever is the later.

3. 8. Emissions inventories and collection of information

Article 3 paragraph 8. Emission inventories are powerful tools in pollution management systems (see Appendix 2). They provide a framework for identifying sources and quantifying the pollution they produce. They provide useful information for setting priorities for control. For some regulated pollutants, SO2 and NOX, for example, there are established methodologies for producing inventories and

22/05/202320

inventories as a result are relatively well developed. In the case of POPs, however, emissions inventories are not well developed, in part because emissions are a complex function of fuel mix, waste composition and combustion conditions. However, it is highly desirable to improve emission inventories for POPs.

The final provision in Article 3, paragraph 8, requires Parties to develop and maintain emission inventories. The inventories should cover each of the Annex III substances. At the same time parties are required to collect information to improve the quality of inventories of the substances listed in Annex I and Annex II, including production and sales data. In doing this, Parties within the geographical scope of EMEP should use the methodology, including temporal and spatial resolution, specified by the EMEP Steering Body. Parties outside the geographic scope of EMEP should use the methodology developed through the work plan of the Executive Body.

Parties are required under paragraph 8 to report this information according to the general reporting requirements of the Protocol (see section …., below).

3. 9. Development of Strategies, Policies, Programmes, Measures and Information

The basic obligations of the Protocol are set out in Article 3 in terms of what action Parties must take to comply with the protocol. Article 7 provides the means by which they can meet their commitments. It requires Parties to adopt strategies, policies and programmes and apply measures to implement the Protocol. In general use, these terms are applied broadly and overlap and are subject to interpretation. The following is an illustration of how these terms might be applied in this Protocol:

The strategy a party adopts might be “to prevent human health effects of pesticides”

A number of policies might then follow to implement the strategy, including a policy of eliminating those found to be harmful to human health

Programmes of work to execute the policies might include programme to identify and classify pesticides in terms of health impacts

Particular measures might follow from these programmes, including measures to eliminate the most harmful, restrict others and place warnings on those essential pesticides that remained.

Article 7 describes the steps Parties are required to take. They are: Adoption of Implementation Plans. Article 7 paragraph 1 contains a general requirement for Parties to adopt strategies, policies and programmes and measures for meeting the requirements of Article 3. Parties are required to do this without undue delay, and no later than six months after the Protocol enters into force. This provision recognizes the role of planning as an essential first step in implementing the Protocol and on the distinction between overall strategies, the development of policies to meet the aims of the strategies, the programmes of action that will implement the policies in practice and the specific measures to be taken. Moreover, it stresses the importance of adoption of implementation plans and not simply the planning process itself. Chapter … of this guide contains further guidance on planning for implementation and chapter … details administrative arrangements needed.

22/05/202321

Specific Measures. Article 7 paragraph 2 requires the Parties to take a number of specific steps to reduce POPs emissions, as follows:

Encourage environmentally sound management techniques for all the stages in the life cycles of POPs and products containing POPs. This includes the production, the different distribution processes and use of the substances and products

Encourage the implementation of further management programmes including voluntary programmes and economic instruments

Consider adopting further policies and measures, non-regulatory approaches, for example, for reducing POPs emissions

Take firm, but economically feasible steps to reduce levels of POPs in products.

Evaluating substances for inclusion in the Protocol. Article 7 paragraph 2 (e) requires parties to ensure that its programmes for evaluating substances that are not included in the lists of substances for elimination, restriction or control at resent but that might be in future, subject to amendment. Parties are required to take into consideration the requirements for information set out in the Executive Body decision 1998/2 paragraph 1 (see Appendix 7)

Article 7 paragraph 3 contains a general provision that allows Parties to take more stringent measures than those contained in the protocol.

3. 10. Exemptions from the basic obligations

The Protocol on POPs covers a wide range of substances, including many of high toxicity. In Article 3 it provides some stringent requirements for parties, including the elimination of a list of the most toxic and persistent substances. However, there are circumstances in which these substances, even the most aggressive, will continue to be needed and Article 4 details the circumstances under which parties may exempt them from the provisions of Article 3.

Firstly, there is a general exemption which applies to POPs in general. Article 4 paragraph 1 allows quantities of POPs to be used in research at a laboratory scale and for the purposes of providing a reference standard.

The following parts of Article 4 apply to the substances covered by Article 3 paragraph 1(a) and paragraph 1 (c), that is those listed in Annex 1 and Annex II. The exemptions they allow are subject to a general condition that no exemption should be used to undermine the objectives of the Protocol. There are two main areas of exemption: for research and for managing public health emergencies.

Each exemption must be reported to the secretariat within 90 days of being granted. The information requirements are detailed under reporting requirements in section … below.

22/05/202322

CHAPTER 4

REPORTING OBLIGATIONS

This chapter considers the second type of major obligations under the Protocol, the obligations to report information. It explains the purposes and the importance of reporting in general. It also deals, in particular, with the reporting requirements of the Protocol and describes the actual process of reporting and the arrangements that have been put in place to assist Parties to comply with these requirements. It aims to provide an answer to the following three questions:

o What information is reported?o When and how often is it reported?o How is it reported?

4.1. Purpose and importance of reporting

The information reported by Parties provides the basis for assessing the overall effectiveness of MEAs in general, as well as the compliance by individual parties with their obligations. The importance of reporting is emphasized in the Guidelines for Strengthening Compliance with and Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements, adopted by Environment Ministers in the ECE region at the fifth Ministerial Conference “Environment for Europe” in 2003 (ECE/CEP/107). They note that one of the key issues for improving implementation of MEAs is improving the quality of the information available from parties about the progress they are making towards the aims of the MEA in question, and specifically mention reporting and detail steps for improving the quality of reports.

In the case of the Convention and its protocols, reporting has a number of important functions, including:

To confirm that progress is being made towards the aims of the ProtocolsIn assessing the information reported by Parties, the Executive Body can determine the effectiveness of the Protocols in achieving their aims.

As a means of ensuring that individual Parties are meeting their obligationsReports from individual Parties are assessed against the commitments they have made and form the basis of the reports from the Convention’s Implementation Committee to the Executive Body.

To provide information needed for periodic reviews required by the ProtocolsThe Protocol on POPs contains provisions for periodic review of the sufficiency and effectiveness of the obligations (article 10) See chapter 6.

Information sharingReports provided by Parties can be helpful to other Parties in their planning and implementation of measures to achieve compliance.

To provide information to stakeholders and the general publicThe Protocol on POPs contains, in article 5, an explicit obligation for Parties to promote public awareness. The reports provided under this part of article 3 also contribute to the implementation of Article 5.

22/05/202323

The Implementation Committee details each year in its report to the Executive Body problems Parties have had regarding their reporting obligations. They have noted on a number of occasions that a general strengthening of reports, in particular to ensure data quality and comparability between reports of different Parties, would make a significant contribution to the effectiveness of the Convention.

4.2. Reporting requirements of the Protocol on POPs

The specific reporting requirements of the Protocol on POPs are contained in Article 9. There are two main types of reporting obligations:

(i) Reporting on the strategies, policies and measures that Parties are taking or propose to take to meet their obligations under the Protocol; and

(ii) Reporting of data on emissions of pollutants covered by the Protocol.

Both kinds of data are essential to the assessment of the effectiveness of the Protocol.

4.3. Reporting on strategies, policies and measures

Article 9 paragraph 1 (a) contains the obligation for each Party to report information on the measures it has taken to implement the Protocol. With regard to timing, it specifies that reports should be made on a periodic basis as determined by the Parties meeting within the Executive Body. Reports should be made to the Executive Body, through the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. According to article 9, paragraph 2, the Executive Body should also decide on the format and content of the reports.

For many years the Executive Body has agreed upon a two-year cycle of reporting by Parties on their strategies and policies. For this, the secretariat has drafted a questionnaire, which after the approval of the Executive Body, is forwarded to Parties for reply. Responses are collated into reports for consideration by the Executive Body and for publication. Questionnaires ensure a common structure to reporting and provide a means for eliciting specific information on Protocol requirements.

In recent years, the secretariat has streamlined the process by developing an Internet-based questionnaire and database to assist Parties provide the required information and enables, with the Executive Body’s approval. public access to Parties answers. The Internet questionnaire and database simplify the task of a reporting and enable Parties to update earlier replies for use in current questionnaires.

In 2002, the Executive Body, in view of the increasing burden on Parties due to the increasing numbers of protocols and questions, decided to separate the questionnaire and the reporting process into two parts. One part was to contain protocol-related questions for priority compliance review; the other general policy questions. The Executive Body decided that reporting for compliance review would continue on the two-year cycle, whilst the general policy reporting would be only every four years. The 2006 draft questionnaire covered both parts.

22/05/202324

In recent years the reporting cycle follows approval of the questionnaire by the Executive Body in December. The questionnaire is made available on the Internet at the end of January and replies from Parties are due by the end of March. The secretariat uses the reported information to provide reports to the Implementation Committee to enable it to consider issues of compliance and a summary report to the Executive Body that may be subsequently published. As noted above, Parties replies can be accessed on the Internet.

The POPs section of the compliance questionnaire is based on the reporting obligation of Parties in accordance with article 9, paragraphs 1(a) and 2 and enables Parties to provide information on the measures they have taken to implement the following basic obligations which have come into force (see chapter…) under:

(a) Article 3, paragraph 1 (a) to eliminate the production and use of the substances listed in annex I to the Protocol.(b) Article 3, paragraph 1 (b) (i) to ensure that the destruction or disposal of substances listed in annex I is undertaken in an environmentally sound manner.(c) Article 3, paragraph 1 (b) (iii) to ensure that the transboundary movement of substances listed in annex I is conducted in an environmentally sound manner.(d) Article 3, paragraph 1 (c) to restrict the substances listed in annex II to the uses described.(e) Article 3, paragraph 3 to ensure that wastes and articles still in use containing the substances listed in annex I, II, or III, upon becoming wastes, are destroyed or disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.(f) Article 3, paragraph 5 (b)(i) to apply the best available techniques (BAT) applied to each new stationary source within a major stationary source category for which annex V identifies BATs. Information on BATs applied for PCDD/F and PAH emissions should be reported. (g) Article 3, paragraph 5 (b)(ii) to apply limit values to each new stationary source within a category referred to in annex IV. Limit values for PCDD/F emissions for municipal solid waste, medical solid waste and hazardous waste should be reported.(h) Article 3, paragraph 5 (b) (v) to take measures to control emissions from mobile sources, taking into consideration annex VII . Limit values for mass of hydrocarbons and NOx and mass of particulates should be reported for diesel-fuelled passenger cars, heavy duty vehicles and off-road engines.(i) Article 3, paragraph 8 to provide available information relating to the production and sales of the substances listed in annex I and annex II to the Protocol. (j) Article 7, paragraph 1 to develop national strategies, policies and programmes to discharge the obligations under the Protocol.

4.4. Reporting on emissions

Many environmental professionals consider emission inventories the single most important tool available to governments in planning and implementing measures to manage the impacts of air pollution.Article 9, paragraph 1 (b) provides an obligation for those Parties which come within the geographical scope of EMEP to report on their emissions of the different

22/05/202325

substances covered by the Protocol. Parties are required to provide data on emissions of POPs in the Protocol as well as for substances listed in its annex III (PAHs, dioxins/furans and hexachlorobenzene) estimated emissions for a baseline year, also, as specified in annex III to the Protocol, 1990 or an alternative chosen between 1985 and 1995. Parties that are not within the geographic scope of EMEP are obliged to provide similar emission information if requested by the Executive Body.

With regard to timing, reports should be made on a periodic basis, which is determined by the EMEP Steering Body and approved by the Executive Body. In the case of emission reporting, currently submissions of data for the calendar year that ended 13 months prior to the date of submission, and, if necessary, updates to data for earlier years and for emission projections, should reach the secretariat before 15 February. For example, data should be submitted by 15 February 2009 for the reporting year January to December 2007. In addition, there is a requirement for gridded data, but this should reach the secretariat no later than 1 March (see the Convention’s Emission Reporting Guidelines, paragraph 37).

The Protocol requires that reports are submitted to EMEP, through the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. In practice, reports are submitted in electronic form to the secretariat, which makes the necessary arrangements for transferring data to EMEP.

With regard to the format, the information should be reported, according to article 9, using, as a minimum, the methodologies and the temporal and spatial resolution specified by the Steering Body of EMEP. These methodologies are specified by the EMEP Steering Body in the 2002 Emission Reporting Guidelines or updates to them. The Guidelines aim to harmonize reporting procedures under the Convention with those used elsewhere, including under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the European Union National Emission Ceilings Directive, in particular with regard to the allocation of emissions to source sectors.

The EMEP/Corinair Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook developed by EMEP in cooperation with the European Environment Agency’s European Topic Centre on Air Emissions and Climate Change, is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change source nomenclature and is used to calculate emission factors. Both the Guidelines and the Guidebook are important sources of information to assist Parties in preparing submissions of emission data in accordance with their reporting obligations. They contain the specific requirements for reporting on POPs and make a distinction between minimum reporting required for compliance considerations and additional reporting useful for modelling or policy purposes. Parties are also encouraged to submit Informative Inventory Reports (IIRs). These should contain information on methodologies used, uncertainties and recalculations and are considered important for reviewing the quality of submissions

22/05/202326

4.5. Key Principles in Reporting

The Emission Reporting Guidelines provide a set of principles for effective reporting. The Guidelines are concerned with both quantitative data (how to prepare annual submissions of emission data), as well as qualitative data (methodologies used, information on recalculations, uncertainties, etc. of the inventory).The key principles underlying a high-quality submission may be summarized as:

(a) “Transparency” means that Parties should provide clear documentation and report a level of disaggregation that allows understanding how the inventory was compiled and assures it meets “good practice” requirements. The transparency of emission reporting is fundamental to the effective use, review and improvement of the inventory;

(b) “Consistency” means that annual emissions, as far as possible, should be calculated using the same method and data sources for all years, and resultant trends should reflect real fluctuations in emissions and not the changes resulting from methodological differences. Consistency also means that as far as practicable and appropriate the same data are reported under different international reporting obligations;

(c) “Comparability” means that the national inventory is reported in such a way that allows it to be compared with national inventories of other Parties. Comparability is achieved by using the methodologies recommended in the

22/05/202327

Emission Inventory Review and Improvement ProgrammeThe importance of improving data quality has been reiterated several times in recent years by

the Executive Body, the Working Group on Strategies and Review and the Implementation Committee. The Executive Body has charged its EMEP Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections , which provides guidance to experts to enable Parties to meet their emission reporting obligations, to develop an emission inventory review and improvement programme.

In 2005, the Executive Body approved Methods and Procedures for the Technical Review of Air Pollutant Emission Inventories reported under the Convention and its protocols (EB.AIR/GE.1/2005/7, Annex III) that had been proposed by the Task Force. The procedures include an annual review of air pollution emission data submitted by Parties in accordance with their emission reporting obligations. The review process is intended to be simple and transparent and is to be carried out in close cooperation with national experts. It involves the experts, representatives of the Task Force, the EMEP centres and the secretariat. The review will check and assess the data submissions with a view to improving their quality. The review also seeks to achieve a common approach to prioritizing and monitoring inventory improvements under the Convention with those of other organizations with similar reporting activities, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the European Union’s National Emission Ceilings (NEC) directive. The review programme will consist of three stages. Stage 1 is an initial check of submissions for timeliness and completeness. This information is routinely transmitted to the Implementation Committee to assess compliance with emission reporting obligations. Stage 2 is a synthesis and assessment of national submissions with respect to consistency and comparability of data with recommendations for data quality improvement. This is carried out by a review team of experts made up of representatives of the Centres, co-chairs of the Task Force and the secretariat. Stage 3 is an in-depth review of data from selected Parties.

The review programme will assist compliance and lead to improved data for work under the Convention.

EMEP/CORINAIR Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook, the Guidelines and reporting templates as well as through using accepted nomenclature for reporting.

(d) “Completeness” means that estimates are reported for all pollutants, all relevant source categories and all years and for the entire territories covered by the reporting requirements. Relevant source categories are defined in the Guidebook. Those specific to individual Parties should be transparently reflected through notes in the reporting templates. Where numerical information on emissions under any source category is not provided, an appropriate notation should be documented.

(e) “Accuracy” means that emissions are neither systematically overestimated nor underestimated, as far as can be judged. This implies that Parties will endeavour to remove bias from the inventory estimates and minimize uncertainty.

These principles are the basis of good practice in reporting on progress towards the protocol objectives and form the core requirements of reports from Parties.

4.6. Emission Inventories

Emission data are required in a highly specific form. The recommended way of producing and maintaining the data required is through the development of an inventory of sources and emissions.

The emissions inventory is a key resource for Parties (see Appendix 2 for further details on elements to be used in the construction of an emission inventory). In summary, an emissions inventory contains data on the emissions from the different pollution sources in the form of the mass emitted over a given period (usually one year for reporting purposes). There are basically three steps to compile an emission inventory for a pollutant:

Prepare data files of all the possible sources for a the pollutant ( inventory of sources)

For each source category, determine the relationship between the amount of the pollutant emitted and an appropriate measure of its activity. Such a measure of activity might be, for example, a unit of fuel used or of distance travelled. These are known as activity data. The relationship between the activity data and the reported emission figure is known as the emission factor and it is specific to each type of source and pollutant

Prepare the national inventory of emissions from each source for the reporting year by multiplying the total activity over the reporting period by its emission factor.

A software tool (“REBDAB”) has been developed by EMEP to enable an initial check of emission data before submission to the secretariat. In this way inconsistencies or errors detected by REBDAB can be rectified before submission.

In many cases, an emission inventory may already exist, for example for purposes of regulating industrial emissions of air pollutants. This may provide a quick route to developing the necessary data for the Protocol.

22/05/202328

In the past, the Executive Body often received reports, that emission inventories were a weakness in the implementation of protocols. It noted difficulties in comparing emission data between Parties (due to lack of conformity to standards) and incompleteness (due to missing source categories or missing data). The Executive Body has recognised the need for improving emission data and this Guide provides an overview of an emissions inventory review and improvement programme being developed to accomplish this (see box). In recent years there have been improvements in both the comprehensiveness, timeliness and comparability of reported emission data as a result of efforts by Parties’ experts, the EMEP centres and the Task Force in Emission Inventories and Projections.

Article 9 para 3 contains requirements for EMEP to provide information on the long-range transport of POPs to the Executive Body in good time for its annual session. The secretariat transmits reported information on emissions to the EMEP centres, which summarize and report it, through the EMEP Steering Body, to the Executive Body. EMEP is also responsible for providing the information on actual levels of monitored air pollution. Parties that come within the geographic scope of EMEP should have arrangements in place for producing these data and delivering them to EMEP.

4.7. Reporting on Exemptions

There is one further requirement for reporting. It falls outside the main reporting requirements of article 9 and is made on an occasional basis as the situation demands. This requirement concerns the exemptions contained in article 4, which also have reporting obligations attached to them.

Article 4 contains provisions for Parties to exempt certain substances under certain conditions from the general requirement to eliminate production and/or use of the Annex I substances, or to restrict production and/or use of the Annex II substances. When a Party grants an exemption, it is required to notify the secretariat with the following information:

The specific substance that is subject to the exemption, including its chemical name

The purpose for which the exemption is granted, taking the purposes set out in article 4 as a guide

The specific licence conditions applying to the exemption The duration of the exemption The persons or organizations to which the exemption applies Where the exemption is for research or to manage a public health emergency,

the estimated emissions of the substance that will arise as a result of the exemption, including an estimate of he contribution to the overall emissions of the substance in question.

The secretariat is required to make this information available to all Parties.

4.8. Support for Parties

Support for the process of reporting is available form the following sources

22/05/202329

EMEP: http://www.emep.int/ Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections: http://www.unece.org/env/tfeip/welcome.htm

Convention Secretariat : e-mail air.env@unece.org

22/05/202330

CHAPTER 5

Review of compliance

Article 11 of the Protocol provides for the regular review of compliance by Parties with the Protocol. Such reviews are carried out by the Implementation Committee which reports to the Parties to the Protocol meeting within the Executive Body in accordance with the annex to decision 1997/2 as amended in 2001 (ECE/EB.AIR/75, Annex V)

5.1. The Implementation Committee: structure and functions

Decision 1997/2 of the Executive Body (ECE/EB.AIR/53, annex III) establishes the Implementation Committee for the review of compliance by Parties with their obligations under the protocols to the Convention. The structure and functions of the Implementation Committee and the procedures for review of compliance are contained in the annex to it.

The Committee consists of nine Parties to the Convention. Each member of the Committee, must, according to the mandate, be a party to at least one Protocol.

The Implementation Committee is not a decision-making body. It makes recommendations to the Executive Body, which acts upon these recommendations. In accordance with paragraph 9 of its mandate, the Committee is required to report on its activities at least once a year to the Executive Body and make such recommendations as its considers appropriate. Upon consideration of a report and any recommendations from the Committee, the Executive Body may decide upon measures of a non-discriminatory nature to bring about full compliance with the Protocol in question.

The Implementation Committee has three main functions: (i) to review compliance by Parties with their reporting obligations; (ii) to consider any submission or referral; and (iii) to prepare in-depth review of compliance with specified obligations in individual protocols. The non-compliance procedure can be triggered by means of submissions by Parties or referrals by the secretariat.

5.2. Review of Compliance with reporting obligations

The Implementation Committee reviews periodically compliance by the Parties with the reporting requirements of the Protocols, as set out in article 9 to the Protocol on POPs (see chapter 3, section…) Parties are required to report two types of information: information on strategies and policies that serve as a means of reducing emissions (article 9, para. 1(a) and information on emission data (art. 9, para 1 (b)). The Implementation Committee reviews both the completeness and the timeliness of reporting on strategies and policies and on emission data.

According to article 9, paragraph 2 of the Protocol, the reporting of information on strategies and policies required by article 9, paragraph 1 (a), shall be in a conformity

22/05/202331

with a decision regarding format and content to be adopted by the Parties at a session of the Executive Body. For example, at its twenty-third session, the Executive Body decided that the Internet-based questionnaire on strategies and policies, developed by the secretariat for its 2006 review of strategies and policies, would represent this uniform reporting framework (ECE/EB.AIR/87, para. 70 (b)).

According to article 9, para. 1 (b) of the Protocol, the information on emission levels should be reported using as a minimum, the methodologies and the temporal and spatial resolution specified by the Steering Body to EMEP. These methodologies are specified in the Emission Reporting Guidelines. At its twenty-ninth session, the EMEP Steering Body decided that the methodologies referred to in article 9, para, 1(b) shall be those given in section IV of the Guidelines, while the temporal and the spatial resolutions will be those specified in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Guidelines respectively (EB.AIR/GE.1/2005/2, para. 48(l).

According to article 9, para. 1(b) reporting on emission levels should be on a periodic basis, to be determined by the Steering Body of EMEP and approved by the Parties at a session of the Executive Body. At its twenty-ninth session the Steering Body decided that this periodic basis will be the one given in para. 37 of the Guidelines (EB.AIR/GE.1/2005/2, para. 48(l). The Executive Body, at its twenty-third session, approved this decision (ECE/EB.AIR/87/Add.1, annex I).

So in practice, the Implementation Committee has reviewed whether a Party has provided responses to the questionnaire on strategies and policies by the required deadline (usually 31 March) after the questionnaire is made available and whether it has reported emission data in the format set forth by the Emission Reporting Guidelines within the required deadline (usually set as 15 February) each year.

5.3. Review of submissions of referrals

Submissions about a Party’s compliance with its obligations under the Protocol maybe brought before the Committee by one or more other Parties, by the Party itself, or by the secretariat, where it becomes aware of a possible non-compliance. In all cases, the Party whose compliance is questioned is given a period of at least three months to provide explanation and additional information about its compliance. The Party in question is also entitled to participate in the consideration by the Committee of that submission or referral, but without taking part in the preparation and adoption of any report or recommendation of the Committee.

5.4. In-depth reviews

In accordance with its mandate and at the request of the Executive Body, the Implementation Committee regularly prepares reports on Parties’ compliance with the principal obligations of a protocol for a given year. The difference between such in-depth reviews and the Committee’s consideration of submissions and referrals is that in-depth reviews are collective in nature and are principally concerned with the overall effectiveness of the Protocol under scrutiny, while referrals and submissions are concerned with the performance of individual Parties in respect of a particular Protocol obligation. This said, the in-depth reviews may provide raw material for making referrals by the secretariat. The Committee has stated that, even though it may

22/05/202332

become aware of an instance of non-compliance while carrying out in-depth reviews, due process dictates that the Executive Body should not take any measures unless and until the Committee has properly and individually reviewed the matter, including listening to any arguments that the Party concerned might wish to make. The Executive Body may, however, take general measures as a consequence of the findings of an in-depth review to promote and improve implementation by the Parties to a particular protocol.

In 2004/2005 the Implementation Committee carried out an in-depth review of the implementation of the Protocol on POPs. ( EB.AIR/2005/3, Add.2)

22/05/202333

In-depth review of the Protocol on POPsThe Implementation Committee carried out the in-depth review of the Protocol on POPs over the period 2004 – 2005, at the request of the Executive Body. It used as a basis the information received through the replies to the 2004 Questionnaire on Strategies and Policies and the emission data submitted by Parties in the 2005 reporting round. Nineteen Parties were assessed.The review focused on the obligations arising from article 3, paragraphs 1 (a), 1(b)(i), 1 (b)(iii), 1 (c), 3, 5 (a), 5(b)(i)-(iv), 5(b)(v) and 8 and article 7, paragraph 1. Mindful of that the purpose of in-depth reviews was to assess the general “state of health” of the Protocol in question, the Committee concluded that most Parties that appeared to be in compliance with the obligations under review. The full text of the Committee’s findings are presented in Appendix 3

CHAPTER 6

Reviews

The Convention and the Protocol are characterised by their scientific basis on the effects of the air pollutants and their focus on development of efficient strategies to reduce them.

It was recognized in developing the Protocol that it would be based in a current understanding of the origins, mobility, impacts and ultimate fate of POPs and that it would need amendment as knowledge improved. As Parties progressively reduce the air pollution burden, the Protocol makes provision for reviewing the effectiveness of the protocol in achieving its aims. The parties are under a general obligation to review the effectiveness of the measures taken to implement the Protocol in the light of scientific information provided by EMEP.

Some of the requirements for review are contained in the annexes to the Protocol. They concern schedule reassessment of the use and/or production of specific substances as mentioned in Chapter…(Basic obligations) above. In addition, Article 10 requires more general reviews by the Parties at sessions of the Executive Body.

Following the entry into force of the Protocol in October 2003, the Executive Body established the Task Force on POPs at its twenty-first session in December 2003. The Task Force addresses the technical needs of the reviews and reassessments required by the Protocol and the procedures adopted in Executive Body decision 1998/2. In setting up the Task Force, the Executive Body agreed decision 2003/10, which identifies the functions of the Task Force, and some of its methods of work (for more details, see appendix 4).

6.1. Requirements for review/reassessment, contained in the annexes:

Requirements for review/reassessment, contained in Annex I and Annex II to the Protocol, concern the following substances:

DDT: In relation to the requirement to eliminate production of DDT within one year of consensus by the Parties that suitable alternatives to DDT are available for public health protection from diseases such as malaria and encephalitis, the Parties are required, no later than one year after the date of entry into force of the Protocol and periodically thereafter, as necessary, review the availability and feasibility of alternatives in consultation with the WHO, FAO and UNEP. Annex II to the Protocol allows the use of DDT for public health protection only as a component of an integrated pest management strategy and only to the extent necessary and only until one year after the elimination of production in accordance with annex I to the Protocol.

DDT in dicofol: The Protocol on POPs requires the use of DDT as a chemical intermediate to produce dicofol to be reassessed no later than two years after its entry into force.

22/05/202334

Heptachlor: Annex I to the Protocol states that there shall be no production of heptachlor and no use of it except by certified personnel for the control of fire ants in closed industrial electrical junction boxes. Such use shall be re-evaluated no later than two years after the entry into force.

Lindane: Annex II to the Protocol requires that all restricted uses of lindane shall be reassessed no later than two years after the entry into force.

PCTs and ugilec: Under the Protocol (annexes I and II) the Parties agreed to reassess the production and use of PCTs and ugilec by 31 December 2004.

In implementation of these requirements, the Task Force on POPs carried out the above-mentioned reviews/reassessments in 2004. However, these did not lead to any amendments to the Protocol.

The full report of the Task Force on the scheduled reviews/re-assessments, carried out in 2004 is presented in appendix 5.

6.2. Reviews in accordance with article 10Article 10 provides for reviews of the Protocol by Parties at sessions of the Executive Body. The reviews under article 10 are a collective obligation. Parties can contribute to their implementation through their participation in the sessions of the Executive Body and the other subsidiary bodies.Article 10 makes provision for a general review of information available on progress towards the aims of the protocol. It places a collective responsibility on parties to review the information provided under Article 9 on reporting, together with information provides by subsidiary bodies, including EMEP, and the report of the Implementation Committee (art. 10, para. 1). In making this provision the protocol refers to Article 10 paragraph 2 (a) of the Convention. This requires the EB to “review the implementation of the Convention” and in making this link the protocol emphasises the contribution it makes to the aims of the Convention.

22/05/202335

Scheduled reassessments of substance-related provisions in the Protocol on POPs

The Task Force on POPs reviewed the production and use of each of the substances relative annexes I and II to the Protocol. It concluded the following:

DDT is still needed for public health protection in certain regions outside UNECE according to WHO, FAO and UNEP. Therefore, effective, economically viable and less environmentally hazardous alternatives to DDT continue to be needed there.

The one known remaining active producer of DDT in the UNECE region produces it as a non-isolated on-site intermediate in the production of dicofol. Because the Protocol allows such use, the restricted use of DDT as a chemical intermediate to produce dicofol allowed in the table in annex II is technically no longer being used.

With regard to heptachlor, no Party to the Convention has recorded the need for the heptachlor use exemption specified in annex I to the Protocol.

The use of lindane is definitely reduced. Only two of the six restricted uses listed in the Protocol will continue after 2007: pharmaceutical use for public health and as a veterinary topical insecticide, and seed treatment. Within the EU, a complete phase-out is scheduled by 2007.

There is no known production or new use of PCTs and ugilec in the UNECE region. PCTs and ugilec that are included in existing fluids with PCBs will be disposed of according to the destruction provisions for PCBs of the Protocol.

Parties are further required to: (i) to keep under review the progress towards achieving the obligations of the Protocol (art. 10, para. 2); and (ii) to review the sufficiency and effectiveness of the obligations set out in the Protocol (art. 10, para.3). The review of sufficiency and effectiveness should take account of the best available scientific information on effects of POPs, assessment of technological developments, changing economic conditions and the fulfilment of the obligations on emission levels.

The timing of reviews and the procedures and methods to be used are decided by the Executive Body (decision 2003/10). The Protocol requires, however, the first review should be completed within three years of the Protocol coming into force, that is, by October 2006.

Accordingly, the first review of sufficiency and effectiveness of the Protocol was completed in 2005 by the Task Force on POPs. It did not lead to any amendments to the Protocol.

The full text of the technical elements for the review is presented in appendix 6.

22/05/202336

Sufficiency and effectiveness review

The Task Force on POPs prepared the technical elements for the sufficiency and effectiveness of the Protocol. It reviewed the best available scientific information on the effects of deposition of POPs. and assessed technical developments with regard to waste management, by-products, limit values and measures to control emissions from mobile sources, as well as the available information on the emission levels.

Advances in modelling POP transport and deposition have improved the identification of chemicals having potential for long-range atmospheric transport (LRAT) based on their physical and chemical properties. Current models show transportation and deposition of POPs on global, hemispheric and regional scales. While these models demonstrate the importance of global POP sources, they indicate that most POPs deposited in the UNECE region originated from within the region. Model simulations show how reduced emission levels in UNECE have resulted in corresponding decreases in deposition.

CHAPTER 7

PROCEDURES FOR AMENDMENT

The procedures for amending the Protocol are contained in article 14.

Parties may propose amendments to the Protocol, and these must be submitted first to the Executive Secretary and considered by the Executive Body, requiring to be circulated for consideration at its next meeting at least 90 days in advance.

The article sets out different procedural requirements and provisions for –

Amendments to the Protocol and annexes I to IV, VI and VIII;

Amendments of annexes V and VII, and procedures for any Party unable to approve such an amendments; and

Addition of a substance to the Protocol, under annexes I, II or III.

Any Party is entitled to propose an amendment to the Protocol. The proposed amendment is submitted in writing to the Executive Secretary of the Commission, who then informs all the other Parties of the proposal. Amendments are adopted by a consensus of the Parties to the Protocol who are present at a session of the Executive Body.

The precise arrangements for entry into force are described in article 14, paragraphs 3 and 4. Article 14 paragraph 5 details provisions for Parties that are unable to approve an amendment to communicate the fact to the United Nations Depositary and for Parties to amend their previous position on the amendment.

The arrangements for making an amendment to annex I, II, or III by adding a substance to the lists of those to be eliminated, restricted or subject to emission limits are detailed in paragraph 6. In summary, the Party making the proposal should provide the Executive Body with a set of information as detailed in a decision of the Executive Body 1998/2 (see appendix 7), which includes data on the following characteristics of the substance:

Potential for long-range transport; Toxicity; Persistence; and Bio-accumulation.

The information submitted should also contain a report on its environmental presence, including:

Production, uses and emissions; Measured environmental levels; Degradation processes; and Bio-availability.

22/05/202337

The report should also contain as assessment of alternatives or BAT for reducing the emissions of the substance proposed for addition to the protocol, in particular:

Socio-economic factors relating to alternatives or BAT; The efficacy of alternatives; Adverse effects of alternatives; The performance of available measures for reducing emissions; and Monetary and on-monetary costs and benefits associated with alternatives or

BAT. Article 14, paragraph 7 makes provision for amendment of Executive Body decision 1998/2, which is to be made by consensus of the parties to the Protocol and comes into effect sixty days following the decision.

The secretariat makes sure that the submitted dossiers satisfy the requirements of decision 1998/2. In the ninety-day period between the submission of a dossier and its consideration at a session of the Executive Body, all such dossiers are made available on the Convention’s website. During this period other Parties and stakeholders can make comments or submit additional information in relation to the proposed substance.

The Executive Body then decides whether the risk profile element of the proposal is deemed acceptable. If so, it requests the Task Force on POPs to conduct technical reviews of the proposal to be undertaken.

In 2004, the Executive Body approved the Generic Guidelines/procedures for the technical review of dossiers of new substances. They provide generic guidance for the Task Force when undertaking technical reviews of a proposal. They are intended to provide a simple framework to achieve uniformity and consistency in expeditious reviews, and to reduce the level of uncertainty for all involved (i.e. the Party making the proposal, the Task Force and its reviewers, the Working Group on Strategies and Review, the Parties to the Protocol and the Executive Body).

The Generic Guidelines are based on a two-track approach and are consistent with decision 1998/2. Track A will review those elements of the proposal and other information that may have been forwarded by the Executive Body which are relevant to a decision being made whether or not the substance should be considered a POP. This review will focus upon the elements in paragraph 1 (a) - (d) of Executive Body decision 1998/2. Track B will review those elements of the proposal and other information that may have been forwarded by the Executive Body which are related to the development of a strategy for the substance. This review will focus upon the elements referred to in paragraph 1 (second part) of Executive Body decision 1998/2

The full text of the Generic Guidelines is presented in appendix 8.

22/05/202338

CHAPTER 8

Activities in support of the Protocol

In addition to the basic obligations to reduce emissions and on reporting, the Protocol also requires Parties to take steps to support the implementation of the Protocol through a range of ancillary measures. These include actions that Parties should take themselves within their territories and action they should take to improve cooperation between parties.

Domestically, Parties are required to promote public awareness of the risks associated with the use of POPs, and the measures that should be taken to manage them, and to encourage research and development. To improve cooperation between Parties they are also required to encourage the exchange of information and technology and to encourage collaboration on research.

Implementation of the obligations described in this section contributes to the success of the Convention as a whole. Parties may be invited to report on the steps they have taken to implement these obligations and responses could be used by the Implementation Committee to assess compliance.

8.1 Article 5: Exchange of information and technology

The Convention developed in its early days as a highly collaborative venture. The benefits of this soon became evident in the progressive improvement of the instruments it produced. The value of collaboration has been seen in the rapid response of the Convention to the concern of Parties about the long-range transport and impacts of POPs.

Article 5 requires parties to the protocol to create favourable conditions for the exchange of information and technology that will reduce POPs in the environment and to co-operate in the development of cost-effective alternatives. A number of specific actions are suggested;

Development of contacts and co-operation between public and private sector organisations, paragraph (a);

Exchange of information on alternatives, including associated risks, paragraph (b);

Developing and maintaining lists of relevant expertise, paragraph (c); Exchange of information collected from other international forums, paragraph

(d).

8.2 Article 6: Public awareness

Article 6 requires parties to promote measures to improve public awareness of the air pollution problems associated with POPs and the measures that can be taken to eliminate or reduce their use. It is targeted particularly on those that use POPs directly

22/05/202339

in their work. It also encourages parties to make the public aware of actions they can take themselves.

Article 6 lists the kind of information that parties may make available to meet their obligations on raising public awareness.

Information on risk assessment and hazard. It is suggested that this should include labelling. There are international guidelines on labelling of hazardous material, for pesticides these are within the ambit of the UN Food and Agriculture Administration (FAO) and can be found at http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/p.htm article 6, paragraph (a).

Information on methods of risk reduction, article 6, paragraph (b).

Information that will help uses to eliminate or reduce the use of POPs, article 6 paragraph (c). This paragraph is targeted on agricultural chemicals and suggests that parties provide information on integrated pest management (IPM) and integrated crop management (ICM). Advice on IPM is available from FAO at http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/IPM/Default.htm. This paragraph also suggests that parties should provide information on economic and social impacts of eliminating or reducing use of POPs.

Article 6, paragraph (d) suggests that parties might provide information on alternatives to POPs, but should ensure that the health and environmental risks of using alternatives are also mentioned, with their economic and social impacts. 8.3 Article 8: Research, development and monitoring

The Convention relies on its scientific and technical basis for its overall effectiveness and the POPs protocol is particularly dependent on the quality of the environmental science that underpins it. The substances covered by the protocol are complex and have complex behaviour in the environment. They are also highly toxic and even low concentrations have potential impacts. Research shows that they are highly mobile, travelling great distances and contaminating regions far remote from their sources. However, there remain many areas where further research would strengthen the protocol and, in particular, support the revision of the lists of substances it coverers. The Protocol therefore provides obligations on parties to continue to develop the scientific and technical base for the protocol and to share the knowledge acquired widely.

Article 8 requires parties to encourage research, development and monitoring and to foster co-operation between parties. In particular, parties should prioritise research and co-operation that will lead to the amendment of the protocol as provided in Article 14, that is, the addition of substances to the lists of substance to be eliminated or restricted contained in annexes I, II and III. Several specific areas of research and co-operation are singled out for mention, as follows.

Sources, transport and fate of POPs. The protocol depends heavily on knowledge of the sources of POPs, the mechanisms by which they are transported through the environment and their eventual fate. In particular,

22/05/202340

some POPs are know to have complex pathways through the environment, in including atmospheric transport to higher latitudes in stages in a process of deposition and re-suspension. Paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) require parties to encourage research and co-operation in these areas and draw attention to the need for harmonisation of research methodologies. It is also suggested that parties should develop inventories of POPs in a range of representative ecosystems. This could be done, for example, by reference to the work of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) http://www.amap.no/.

Effects of POPs. The protocol contains in its annexes lists of substances that were originally developed for beneficial use, for example to protect crops against pests, but which subsequently turned out to have harmful side effects on human health or the environment. There is every possibility that substances in current use may turn out to have similarly harmful aspects. Article 8, paragraph (c) encourages parties to research the effects of POPs on health and the environment and to share the insights from this work with others. In particular, they are encouraged to carry out research that will lead to a quantification of effects. This is important, because by quantifying effects it becomes simpler to prioritise substances for future action. Effects can be quantified in terms, for example of estimates of toxic dose or through epidemiological studies of the consequences of exposure to POPs.

Control measures. Where substances continue in use, the protocol requires control measures based broadly on best available techniques and practices. Article 8, paragraph (d) encourages parties to develop improved techniques and practices and draws particular attention to agricultural practice.

Socio-economic factors. Article 8, paragraph (e) requires parties to encourage research into means of incorporating a socio-economic dimension into the evaluation of alternative control strategies.

Developing an effects-based approach. In other parts of the work under the Convention it has been possible to develop an approach based on impacts of air pollutants and an integrated assessment of costs and benefits to produce optimised control strategies. The effects based approach has proved to be highly effective but demanding of scientific knowledge. It is the intention of Article 8, paragraph (f) that parties should co-operate in research to assimilate the developing knowledge of the sources of POPs, their pathways through the environment, and their eventual deposition with the impacts that then occur, into an integrated assessment of the effectiveness of different control strategies. The scientific understanding could be integrated into the developing knowledge of economic and social factors to develop appropriate strategies.

Emissions data. Collection of accurate data on emissions is an absolute requirement for monitoring progress towards the aims of the protocol. Review of the protocols of the Convention, for example in the 2000 Assessment of Strategies and Policies (EB.AIR/2001/1) suggests that this is an urgent area for improvement, and this has been stressed by the Executive Body and its subsidiary bodies on numerous occasions since that time. Parties are required,

22/05/202341

under paragraph (g) of article 8 to take steps to improve methods for estimating current and future emissions of individual species of POPs. Parties are also required to encourage research on the use of emissions estimates and projections in deriving future obligations on the reduction of POPs emissions. Participation in the work of the Task Force on Emissions Inventories and Projections, http://tfeip-secretariat.org/unece.htm. would be a valuable first step.

Development of products-based approaches. Many of the materials within the POPs category occur in products as contaminants. Knowledge of these substances is imperfect. In particular it is not clear how significant they are in terms of long-range transport. Article 8, paragraph (h) requires parties to encourage research on POPs in products and in means of reducing contamination. There is a particular reference to the levels of POPs produced in the life cycle of timber treated with pentachlorophenol.

22/05/202342

CHAPTER 9

Procedural issues

The Protocol contains a number of articles that deal with the procedural issues of signature, ratification amendment and implementation. In the case of the POPs protocol, the arrangements for amendment are particularly important. It was envisaged at the outset that the Protocol as it was first agreed would contain initial lists of substances for action, but that these would be reviewed and that further substances might be added as evidence of impacts developed. The procedural articles are as follows:

Article 12 Settlement of disputes

This article provides basic machinery for the settlement of disputes, and it should be noted that the Parties first obligation when there is a dispute is to seek a settlement of the dispute through negotiation or any other peaceful means of their choice, as well as informing the Executive Body of the dispute. Only in the event that such informal resolution is unsuccessful will the rest of the machinery described in the article, of arbitration, referral to the International Court of Justice or convening of a conciliation commission, become relevant. The Party’s preference may have been declared when ratifying or acceding to the Protocol.

Article 14 – Amendments (see section 12 above, for details)

Parties may propose amendments to the Protocol, and these must be submitted first to the Executive Secretary and considered by the Executive Body, requiring to be circulated for consideration at its next meeting at least 90 days in advance.

The article sets out different procedural requirements and provisions for –

Amendments to the Protocol and annexes I to IV, VI and VIII;

Amendments of annexes V and VII, and procedures for any Party unable to approve such an amendments; and

Addition of a substance to the Protocol, under annexes I, II or III.

Article 15 SignatureArticle 16, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval and AccessionArticle 17 DepositaryArticle 18 Entry into ForceArticle 19 WithdrawalArticle 20 Authentic texts

These articles contain formal machinery of the Protocol and are self explanatory. Information on the terms used in articles 15 and 16 is at http://untreaty.un.org/English/guide.asp

22/05/202343

The United Nations Treaty Collection has prepared a useful and practical reference guide which contains many definitions and descriptions of key treaty-related terms.

Key terms used are defined below.

1. “Ratification” defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, while in the case of multilateral treaties the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation. The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.

2. "Adoption" is the formal act by which the form and content of a proposed treaty text are established. As a general rule, the adoption of the text of a treaty takes place through the expression of the consent of the states participating in the treaty-making process. Treaties that are negotiated within an international organization will usually be adopted by a resolution of a representative organ of the organization whose membership more or less corresponds to the potential participation in the treaty in question. A treaty can also be adopted by an international conference which has specifically been convened for setting up the treaty, by a vote of two thirds of the states present and voting, unless, by the same majority, they have decided to apply a different rule.

3. The instruments of "acceptance" or "approval" of a treaty have the same legal effect as ratification and consequently express the consent of a state to be bound by a treaty. In the practice of certain states acceptance and approval have been used instead of ratification when, at a national level, constitutional law does not require the treaty to be ratified by the head of state.

4. "Accession" is the act whereby a state accepts the offer or the opportunity to become a party to a treaty already negotiated and signed by other states. It has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession usually occurs after the treaty has entered into force. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his function as depositary, has also accepted accessions to some conventions before their entry into force. The conditions under which accession may occur and the procedure involved depend on the provisions of the treaty. A treaty might provide for the accession of all other states or for a limited and defined number of states. In the absence of such a provision, accession can only occur where the negotiating states were agreed or subsequently agree on it in the case of the state in question.

Where the “signature” is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, the signature does not establish the consent to be bound. However, it is a means of authentication and expresses the willingness of the signatory state to continue the treaty-making process. The signature qualifies the signatory state to proceed to ratification, acceptance or approval. It also creates an obligation to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty.

22/05/202344

Article 13 Annexes to the Protocol

The annexes to the Protocol are an intrinsic part of it and contain much of the detail required for implementation, including lists of substances the protocol covers and guidance on meeting the requirements for emissions control. The Protocol on POPs has eight annexes. They are:

Annex I. A list of substances to be eliminated, including the conditions under which use or production may continue

Annex II. A list of substances to be subject to restriction, including the specific uses to which they are restricted and any conditions that apply to them

Annex III. A list of substances that are subject to emission reductions, and the reference year from which reductions will be measured.

Annex IV. A list of the limit values to be applied to Dioxin and Furan emissions from major Stationary sources. The emission limit values are given for municipal, medical and hazardous waste incineration.

Annex V. Information on BAT for controlling emission from major stationary sources. It contains a list of the major sources covered by the protocol and the relevant control techniques. There is also information, where it is available, on the performance and cost of the different control measures.

Annex VI contains the timetable for application of limit values and BAT to new and existing stationary sources.

Annex VII. A description of the measures recommended for the control of POPs from mobile sources, including information on their emissions performance.

Annex VIII Lists 12 major source categories to which the protocol applies.

A more detailed commentary on the Annexes is contained in Appendix 9.

22/05/202345

CHAPTER 10Planning for implementation and accession

One of the key aims of this guide is to encourage new Parties to join the protocol. In practice this decision depends very much on the assessment made by candidate parties of their capacity to implement the terms of the Protocol and of the additional action required. Once this decision has been made and parties have decided to join the protocol the planning process for implementation follows very similar lines of development. This section is therefore a guide both to decisions on joining and on planning for implementation, although the emphasis is on planning for implementation. All legal and other appropriate measures required to implement the Protocol should be in place in each party at the time it enters into force for them. This ensures that the Party is in a position to comply with the obligation of the Protocol from the outset. Parties will wish to ensure that they have these measures securely in place and that the necessary administrative structures are there to support them. This section provides information on planning for Parties joining the Protocol. It is designed to help parties in ensuring compliance with the terms of the Protocol and takes into account advice on planning for implementation contained in the Kiev Guidelines (ECE/CEP/107).

The first step in planning for implementation is to decide on the focal point for the implementation planning process and on political and administrative accountability. The questions of ownership of the decisions and the planning process are crucial. Normally, the ministerial responsibility for the protocol in governments will fall to ministers of environment, although decisions of governments will in practice be made with the engagement of other ministers, notably those responsible for sectors upon which the protocol impinges, including transport, energy and industry and ministers of finance. In some parties, however, Ministers responsible for foreign affairs may take the lead and responsibility for co-ordinating within government. It would also be normal for lead ministers to have responsibility, through their officials, for negotiations on accession. The key step is to ensure that responsibility is clear and that adequate resources are available to the responsible arms of government to support the planning process, including the officials who will be responsible for producing the plan and for negotiations. Section 12, below contains further guidance on administrative arrangements.

Once responsibility within government is clear, and lead officials have been identified and commissioned, parties should produce a National Plan for implementation. The Kiev Guidelines recommend that parties produce an explanatory report, including the justification for acceptance, approval, accession or ratification and draft implementing measures for review by relevant government decision makers. This report would be one of the key outputs from the National Plan.

The exact elements of a National Plan for Implementation will depend on the circumstances within the party in questions, but in general they should include:

22/05/202346

10.1 Review of basic obligations on emissions.

The basic obligations given in article 3 of the Protocol require action by Parties on emissions, reporting and other activities to support the aims of the protocol. Parties should review the overall thrust of these obligations to determine to what extent they match their existing strategies and policies. In many countries, for example, governments have decided to take action on emission from power stations and industry and the policies they have adopted may be simply adapted to the requirements of the Protocol. There may, however, be the need for new strategies, for example for protecting the environment against acid rain and in some cases these will need national political approval. Allowance for the process that will adapt existing strategies and policies will have to be made in the planning process.

The basic obligations given in article 3 should also be reviewed in detail by technical and legal experts to determine the nature of each obligation and its extent. In particular, the technical review should reach conclusions about:

o The extent to which current activities, including industrial plant, transport and energy systems and agriculture enable the party to meet the requirements of the Protocol

o The nature and extent of any new action that will be required, for example to adapt power stations or to renew vehicle fleets

o The likely costs and time tables for any new actions

This should enable Parties to take an overall view on the technical feasibility of each obligation in their specific circumstances. They should note in making this assessment the special arrangements for Parties with different economic circumstances in article 3.

The legal review should reach conclusions on:

o Whether existing laws cover the pollution sources specified in the protocol

o What new enactments or amendments to existing law, regulation or administrative practice might be required

o The legislative timetable for new legal instruments

This will enable parties to take a view on the scale of legal work required and on the time required to deliver any amendment to the legal framework.

10.2 Reporting obligations

Parties should also review the current arrangements they have in place for monitoring and for collecting the different kinds of information required to meet the reporting obligations of the protocol. This review will also provide information for the implementation plan on sources and current emissions. Parties should:

22/05/202347

Review the inventory of sources of the emission covered by the protocol. In the case of large industrial plant and power stations, it is likely that the inventory is available form the state pollution-control authorities. In the case of the vehicle fleet the statistics of vehicle numbers may be the responsibility of the transport authorities. For vehicles it will be particularly to have a breakdown by type and fuel used (diesel or petrol, for example) and by the emission regulation status of the fleet.

In order to predict the future of emissions, Parties will also need information about trends in the activity of these sources.

Parties should also review the inventory of emissions to ensure that it is to the standard of accuracy and completion required in reporting under article 9 of the protocol. There is considerable support available through the Executive Body and its subsidiary bodies for this review (see references in section 6 above).

Monitoring arrangements should be review taking into account the EMEP or other appropriate guidance. In particular the national monitoring network should be assessed to ensure that they conform to recognised protocols and that arrangements are in place for data collection and quality control.

10.3 Reviewing other obligations

The protocol contains a range of other obligations, on cooperation, research and public information for example and parties will wish to review these and to make plans to ensure that the necessary measures are in place.

10.4 Assessment of costs and benefits

Parties should analyse the social and economic aspects of the protocol. These may include the benefits to health and to the economy through reduction of the pollution burden and the costs, for example of added pollution control technology.

10.5 Identification of implementation responsibility

The government department responsible for implementation should be identified. In many cases the primary responsibility for implementation will lie with the government department responsible for the planning and negotiation of the protocol. It is this department that will develop the overall strategy and policies. However it is likely that the implementation of the measures required on the ground, through regulatory activities, for example, will be the responsibility of an agency of the government, a pollution control authority, for example. The lines of responsibility should be developed and clearly identified in the plan.

If, as seems likely, there is a division of responsibilities, for example between the authorities for controlling industrial, mobile and agricultural sources, the

22/05/202348

arrangements under which they will co-ordinate their efforts will also need to be delineated and recorded in the plan.

10.6 Arrangements for enforcement

The effectiveness of the Protocol depends crucially on the extent to which Parties can ensure that pollution sources are brought within control regimes and that the regulations they contain are enforced. Parties should assess the existing arrangements for enforcement of environmental regulation for their capacity to meet the new requirements. Staff may, for example, need to be identified for new responsibilities and may need further training.

10.7 Identification and development of resources

The implementation of the Protocol is highly likely to require additional effort in government and this will mean that funds will be needed and training will be required. The implementation plan should identify these funds and ensure that there is budgetary cover to meet the costs added at all levels of government and the implementation agencies. As there will be new responsibilities for people in the organisations provision should be made for training.

10.8 Public consultation

It is considered good practice to engage the public, including environmental groups, the regulated sectors and other stakeholders in the process of planning for implementation, in particular where new legislation or regulations are required.

There should also be outreach to the different stakeholders communities to promote the observation of the new laws and regulation required by the Protocol.

10.9 Planning for continuity: post ratification compliance and monitoring

The final part of a National Plan for implementation should detail the arrangements for ensuring that the requirements of the Protocol continue to be met following ratification and that there are adequate arrangements in place to ensure that monitoring continues to the standard required.

It is recognised that this is a long-term commitment and that other priorities may compete for resources, but parties are urged to ensure that the planning process takes full account of the continuing need for effort at all levels of government and its agencies. In particular, the reporting cycle for the protocol can be used to ensure that the administrative arrangements for compliance are continually reviewed to ensure that they remain equal to the task of implementation in the long term.

22/05/202349

10.10 Technical advice

For most parties the Protocol will take considerable technical resources for the agencies and other bodies responsible for regulations and enforcement. There are, however, existing networks that will support this process, including

IMPEL, the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental LawNISECEN, the Newly Independent States’ Environmental Compliance and Enforcement NetworkIN ECE, the International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement BERCEN, the Balkan Regulatory Compliance and Enforcement Network

Parties are encouraged to make full use of these resources.

10.11 Administrative arrangements

Section 9 above gives some outline guidance on issues to be considered in a National Plan for implementation of the Protocol and note that there are similar steps to be taken in deciding on agreement, approval, accession and ratification. There are also some early administrative arrangements to be made to support the process and in particular to ensure a good quality of cooperation within the Convention.

The first step is to ensure that the officials that will be responsible for planning and negotiations within the framework of the Convention are identified, given adequate resources (for administrative support, for example) and provided with the necessary mandate for their work.

Assigning responsibility for implementation at highest levels of government includes the appointment of:

Head of Delegation to Executive Body Head of Delegation to EMEP Steering Body, Working Group on Strategies

and Review, WGE Senior legal advisor Senior technical advisor

Other key administrative steps are to decide:

Arrangements for co-ordination between department to provide negotiating mandates

Arrangements for technical and legal co-ordination between departments Budgetary arrangements

With these key steps, parties can ensure that they develop and maintain a good level of engagement with the Executive Body and its subsidiary bodies. This will ensure that they can play a full part in decisions on further steps to develop the measures within the protocol by the process of amendment and participate effectively in the work of EMEP and other subsidiary bodies.

22/05/202350

Concluding remarks

The broad aims of the Convention are to protect human health and the environment within the UNECE by reducing transboundary air pollution. The Protocol on POPs contributes to these aims by providing obligations on its Parties to control and reduce air pollution emissions. It is expected that it will be a valuable first step in a process that will eventually deliver clean air throughout the UNECE. The effectiveness of the Protocol, however, depends on the extent to which Parties to the Convention ratify it and on Parties to the Protocol implementing it to the full.

The Executive Body is therefore very keen to ensure that more Parties are encouraged to accede to the Protocol and that those that have ratified it keep their obligations. It recognises, though, that many countries will need additional support in deciding on accession and in planning to implement the Protocol.

The information and guidance in this document is designed to support Parties in deciding on accession and in implementing the Protocol and Parties are encouraged to take account of it in their plans for implementation.

22/05/202351

Appendices

Appendix 1 Relevant bodies of the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

Appendix 2 Emission Inventories

Appendix 3 In-depth review of compliance by Parties with the Protocol on POPs

Appendix 4 Decision 2003/10 (Establishing a task force on persistent organic pollutants)

Appendix 5 Summary information on the scheduled reassessments of substance-related provisions in the protocol on POPs

Appendix 6 Technical elements for the review of sufficiency and effectiveness of the Protocol

Appendix 7 Decision 1998/2 on information to be submitted and the procedure for adding substances to annexes I, II or III to the Protocol on POPs

Appendix 8 Generic guidelines for the technical review of dossiers of new substances that may be proposed by Parties for inclusion into annexes I, II or III to the Protocol on POPs

Appendix 9 Overview of the Annexes to the Protocol

22/05/202352

Draft only

Appendix 1

Relevant Bodies of the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

1.1 Structure of the Convention

1.2 The Executive Body and meetings of the Parties to the Protocol

The Executive Body is the meeting of the representatives of the Parties to the Convention. It is responsible for taking action to implement the fundamental principles of the Convention, reviewing the implementation of the Convention and setting up subsidiary bodies to carry out the work on implementation and development.

For this the Executive Body adopts protocols with specific obligations for Parties, takes decisions related to its work (including issues of non-compliance of Parties with protocol obligations), agrees an annual workplan and approves financial issues related to workplan activities.

It has three main subsidiary bodies: The Working Group on Effects The EMEP Steering Body The Working Group on Strategies and Review

These bodies are supported by scientific programmes and by a number of task forces and expert groups. The subsidiary bodies are outlined below.

1.3 Working Group on Effects

22/05/202353

Draft only

Early in the history of the Convention it was recognized that a good understanding of the harmful effects of air pollution was a prerequisite for reaching agreement on effective pollution control. To develop the necessary international cooperation in the research on and the monitoring of pollutant effects, the Executive Body established the Working Group on Effects in 1980 and it held its first meeting in 1981.

The Working Group on Effects provides information on the degree and geographic extent of the impacts on human health and the environment of major air pollutants, such as sulphur and nitrogen oxides, ozone and heavy metals. Its six International Cooperative Programmes (ICPs) and the Task Force on Health (a joint Task Force between the Executive Body and the World Health Organization) identify the most endangered areas, ecosystems and other receptors by considering damage to human health, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and materials. An important part of this work is long-term monitoring. The work is underpinned by scientific research on dose-response, critical loads and levels and damage evaluation.

The Working Group meets annually to discuss the results of the international programmes and the current and future needs of the Convention. It publishes substantive reports summarizing and assessing the most important results of the activities of the international programmes.

1.4 The EMEP Steering Body

The EMEP programme provides scientific support to the Convention on:

Atmospheric monitoring and modelling; Emission inventories and emission projections; Integrated assessment modelling.

The EMEP Steering Body meets annually and reports to the Executive Body on its activities. Its four programme centres - the Chemical Coordinating Centre, the Meteorological Synthesizing Centre-West, the Meteorological Synthesizing Centre-East and the Centre for Integrated Assessment Modelling.- and three task forces coordinate the work of EMEP and provide reports to its Steering Body.

Information about the results of EMEP work on POPs is available from MSC-East.

The Bureau of the Steering Body, elected by the Steering Body each year, meets with the representatives of the task forces and programme centres to make strategic proposals regarding the work-plan and budget for EMEP. The Bureau also meets annually with the Bureau of the Working Group on Effects to harmonize their work-plans and coordinate their activities

The Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections, one of EMEP’s task forces, develops the Convention’s emission inventory based on emission data reported by Parties, provides a technical forum and expert network to harmonize emission factors, establishes methodologies for the evaluation of emission data and projections and identifies problems related to emission reporting. Its current focus emphasizes its

22/05/202354

Draft only

work on data quality and inventory review, recognizing the Executive Body’s concern regarding inventories of emissions of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), heavy metals and particulate matter.

The Task Force on Measurements and Modelling was established in 2000 to offer a forum to the Parties, the EMEP centres and other international organizations for scientific discussions to evaluate measurements and modelling of air pollution and to further develop working methods and tools. It reviews and assesses the scientific and operational activities of EMEP related to monitoring and modelling, evaluates their contribution and support to the effective implementation and further development of the Protocols; and draws up specific proposals for the EMEP workplan. It also provides for closer collaboration of Parties to the Convention, the EMEP centres, other bodies under the Convention, other international bodies, in particular with the World Meteorological Organization, and the scientific community in strengthening scientific communication and cooperation in air pollution monitoring and modelling.

1.5 The Working Group on Strategies and Review

The Working Group on Strategies and Review is the principal negotiating body for the Convention. It assists the Executive Body in policy-oriented matters including:

(a) Assessing scientific and technical activities relating to the preparation and revision of protocols;(b) Negotiating revisions to existing protocols and the preparation of new ones; (c) Promoting the exchange of technology;(d) Preparing proposals for any strategic development under the Convention

For these activities it works in close cooperation with the EMEP Steering Body and the Working Group on Effects. It also receives reports from a number of Expert Groups and Task Forces established by the Executive Body, including the Task Force on POPs.

22/05/202355

Draft only

Appendix 2

Emission Inventories

Emission inventories of POPs are instrumental in the effective implementation of the Protocol on POPs and constitute an important source of information for the Parties to the Protocol. High quality emission data is considered a high priority by the Executive Body. This overview is designed to support the aim of improving emissioninventories for POPs within Parties by providing a summary. It does not replace the Emission Reporting Guidelines, nor the CORINAIR Guidebook, which are the recognised standard tools to assist Parties in their emission reporting.

The general elements to be used in constructing an emission inventory to meet the requirements of the protocol are described below.

A Standardised List of Emission Sources Categories. All the sources covered by the Protocol should be grouped into source categories. This is a major activity and advice and assistance is available to experts to ensure this is done effectively. Over the years, a number of systems have been developed in different international forums to categorise sources in response to emerging requirements of international agreements. Inevitably, differences between them have emerged. Recently, however, there have been concerted efforts on a global scale to improve comparability of data and as a result there are now links between the different systems. For example, a certain level of harmonization has been achieved between the various nomenclatures used. In particular, the Emission Reporting Guidelines includes (annex III) a conversion table that shows the correspondence between source categories and levels of aggregation in the CORINAIR/ SNAP (Selected Nomenclature for Air Pollution) system originally used for reporting emissions under the Convention; the current EMEP Nomenclature for Reporting (EMEP/NFR) used by the Convention now and the CRF nomenclature currently used by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

As there are many sources of many different kinds, it has become practice to divide them into [three] main levels:

Level 1 source sectors Level 2 sub sectors Level 3 activities

The EMEP/NFR system recognises [7] source sectors, each with up to [7] sub sectors. Sub sectors can have up to [13] activities. Clearly, this creates a large number of categories and parties are encouraged to ensure that the allocation of sources to them is as accurate as possible. The purpose of allocation to sub-categories is to ensure completeness and transparency of the inventory. The accuracy of thesub-sectors will affect the EMEP modelling calculations of the transport and deposition. Support is available through EMEP, the Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections and the secretariat. Asssitance includes reporting instructions, templates of reporting tables for data, a list of source categories and their aggregation in the Emission Reporting Guidelines and the Emission Inventory Guidebook of methodologies as well as emission factor information for calculating emissions. At the time of writing,

22/05/202356

Draft only

the Guidebook was not fully developed for POPs; it was incomplete for some source categories and some emission factors needed updating. All of the above information is accessible through the EMEP website (www.emep.int) and its links.

Spatial Disaggregation. Spatial disaggregation means breaking the sources down by their location, or allocating them to particular geographic areas. There are two kinds of spatial disaggregation:

For locating specific sources, large point sources (LPS), which are large stationary sources (e.g. municipal waste incinerators), the exact geographic position (on a standard grid) is required. As these often contribute a large proportion of a Party’s emissions, they are treated separately by the EMEP model and it is important for the accuracy of the model results that these emissions are accurately located.

EMEP grid squares are the areas the EMEP model distinguishes in its calculation of all sources that do not fall under the category of LPS. The size and location of EMEP grid squares are agreed by the Executive Body on the recommendation of the EMEP Steering Body. They conform to international geographical standards and are well documented in EMEP publications. For the Parties within the geographic scope of EMEP, disaggregation into EMEP grid squares means allocating sources to each of the grid squares on their national territory, in the geographic scope of EMEP. Clearly, national borders do not correspond to EMEP grid squares, and a particular square may be shared by a number of Parties. Each Party should simply allocate sources to the parts of the grid square that lie within its borders. There are agreed procedures for handling the aggregation of all sources from different Parties within shared grid squares, but the need to add the sources emissions together correctly makes it important that the sources are accurately reported and allocated.

Calculation of baseline and current emissions. Once the inventory of sources has been completed, emissions of each substance covered by the protocol are estimated. Each source has different emission characteristics and this means that there are several different ways of calculating emissions, according to the source.

In general, the calculations require two kinds of information about each source: the level of activity it achieves over a given period (usually a year), in units of activity, and the emissions of each substance it emits per unit of activity. Multiplying the units of activity by the characteristic emission per unit then gives the total emission of the particular substance from the particular source over the period of report. For many POPs, emissions are directly related to the use of products and the POPs content of that product; emissions can be estimated using a mass balance approach.

The measure of activity chosen will vary from source category to source category. For example:

the activity of a waste incinerator could be measured by the quantity of waste it handles in a given period;

22/05/202357

Draft only

the activity of a fleet of a particular kind of vehicle, heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), for example, could be characterised by an estimate of the total miles of all those vehicles travelled in a given period;

the activity of an industrial sector could be characterised by the units of output it produces in a given period or by the quantity of product it handles;

the activity level associated with application of pesticide would be a combination of the number of applications made in a year and the rate of active ingredient applied per hectare on each application.

National consumption of a production containing solvents or pesticidesThe characteristic emission of a particular source per unit of activity is known as its emission factor. Again there is considerable detail behind this simple concept and many lists of emission factors have been prepared. There are lists available from European and American authorities and some of these are referenced in the EMEP/Corinair Guidebook. A list of helpful information on emission factors is also appended to the Guidebook.

Emission factors vary according to source sectors. The emission factor affects the kind of information parties collect in order to complete their emission inventories. Some examples are as follows:

Municipal Waste Incineration. Emission factors for dioxins/furans are usually quoted in terms of mass of the substance produced per tonne of waste handled. In this case the information required will be the waste capacity of the incinerator (usually quoted in tonnes per hour), any abatement technology in place and/or the amount of waste handled over the reporting period together with the emissions factors for this kind of plant, from the Guidebook. Operators of MSW installations should have information on waste handled readily on hand. There may, be issues of commercial confidentiality but increasingly, legislation and international agreements (such as the 1998 Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters) provide mechanisms for acquiring the necessary information.

Mobile sources. Emission factors for vehicle emissions of POPs are usually quoted in terms of mg/km. In this case, there is al need to collect data on the total mileage covered by the different parts of the vehicle fleet (petrol driven private cars, HGVs/HDVs, motorcycles, etc) in the reporting period. It is clearly not feasible to collect such data from each owner and then sum them, so alternative approaches have been developed to enable estimation of fleet mileages. Typically, these are statistical methods based on a fleet survey and, again, are detailed in the Guidebook.

Once activity data are collected and the relevant emission factors applied, calculating the current source sector emissions and then the total emissions for all sources should be straightforward.

22/05/202358

Draft only

Appendix 3

IN-DEPTH REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE BY PARTIES WITH THE PROTOCOL ON POPs

1. As requested by the Executive Body in its workplan (ECE/EB.AIR/83/Add.2, annex XIII, item 1.2), the Implementation Committee has continued and completed its in-depth review of compliance by the Parties with the 1998 Protocol on POPs, including their national emission obligations. For this purpose, it used as a basis the emission data reported by Parties to EMEP in the 2005 reporting round, and the responses to the questionnaire for the 2004 Review on Strategies and Policies. The Protocol entered into force for Cyprus on 1 December 2004 and for Latvia on 27 January 2005. These two countries, therefore, did not respond to the questionnaire regarding the POPs Protocol. The Protocol entered into force for Hungary on 6 April 2004, i.e. after the reporting deadline of 31 March 2004. All of these three countries were, nevertheless, invited by the secretariat to provide information on the Protocol for the in-depth review. Cyprus responded on 30 March 2005 and Hungary provided information with follow-up details on 15 July 2005. No response was received from Latvia. Estonia, for which the Protocol entered into force on 9 August 2005, was not included in the review. Although the Committee reviewed the information from Cyprus and Hungary, it did not include Cyprus, Latvia or Hungary in its assessment. The Committee limited its review to the obligations it had identified for priority review (EB.AIR/2004/6/Add.1, Chap. III, para.36). The reporting obligations of Parties under article 9 and the obligation under article 3.8 to develop and maintain emission inventories for substances listed in Annex III are dealt with separately in chapter II of this report. 2. At its fifteenth and sixteenth meetings, the Committee carefully considered the information available. It acknowledged the large amount of work carried out by the secretariat and various members of the Committee to prepare the necessary documentation for its review. 3. When considering sections A to E and H to J below, it should be borne in mind that four of the Parties to the Protocol to which the obligation in question applies (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Romania) did not respond to the questionnaire or otherwise report on compliance with the obligation in question. Due to their failure to report under article 9, para. 1 (a), the Committee was unable to evaluate whether they had complied or not complied with their obligation.

A. Compliance with article 3, paragraph 1 (a)

4. Article 3, para.1(a), of the Protocol requires Parties, except where specifically exempted in accordance with article 4, to eliminate the production and use of the substances listed in annex I in accordance with the implementation requirements specified therein. 5. The secretariat did not receive any information concerning an exemption as specified in article 4, para. 3.6. So far, no Party has made any statement upon signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, concerning further use or production as described in the column 'Conditions' of Annex I to the Protocol.7. The Committee concluded from the responses to the 2004 questionnaire on strategies and policies, in particular the responses to question 29, as well as from additional written information received from the Parties, that 15 of the 19 Parties assessed for this in-depth review appeared to be in compliance with this obligation.

B. Compliance with article 3, paragraph 1 (b) (i) 8. Article 3, para. 1 (b) (i), requires Parties to take effective measures to ensure that, when the substances listed in annex I are destroyed or disposed of, such destruction or disposal is undertaken in an environmentally sound manner, taking into account relevant international regimes governing the management of hazardous waste, and in particular the Basel Convention.9. The Committee concluded from the responses to the 2004 questionnaire on strategies and policies, in particular the responses to question 30, as well as from additional written information received from the Parties, that 15 of the 19 Parties assessed for this in-depth review appeared to be in compliance with this obligation.

C. Compliance with article 3, paragraph 1 (b) (iii)10. Article 3, para. 1 (b) (iii), requires Parties to take effective measures to ensure that the transboundary movement of the substances listed in annex I is conducted in an environmentally sound manner, taking into consideration applicable international regimes governing the management of hazardous waste, and in particular the Basel Convention.

22/05/202359

Draft only

11. The Committee concluded from the responses to the 2004 questionnaire on strategies and policies, in particular the responses to question 32, as well as from additional written information received from the Parties, that 15 of the 19 Parties assessed for this in-depth review appeared to be in compliance with this obligation.

D. Compliance with article 3, paragraph 1 (c)12. Article 3, para. 1 (c), requires Parties, except where specifically exempted in accordance with article 4, to take effective measures to restrict the substances listed in annex II to the uses described, in accordance with the implementation requirements specified therein.13. The secretariat did not receive any information concerning an exemption as specified in article 4, paragraph 3.14. The Committee concluded from the responses to the 2004 questionnaire on strategies and policies, in particular the responses to question 33, as well as from additional written information received from Parties, that 13 of the 19 Parties assessed for this in-depth review appeared to be in compliance with this obligation.15. France provided information but its response was unclear and the Committee was unable to evaluate its compliance with this obligation. With regard to Germany, Lindane (in wood preservative; apparent lack of restriction to professional remedial and industrial treatment) seems not to be in agreement with annex II of the Protocol; Germany appeared, therefore, not to be in compliance with this obligation.

E. Compliance with article 3, paragraph 316. Article 3, para. 3, requires Parties, for the substances listed in annexes I, II and III, to develop appropriate strategies for identifying articles still in use and wastes containing such substances, and to take appropriate measures to ensure that such wastes and articles, upon becoming wastes, are destroyed or disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. 17. The Committee concluded from the responses to the 2004 questionnaire on strategies and policies, in particular the responses to question 34, as well as from additional written information received from Parties, that 13 of the 19 Parties assessed for this in-depth review appeared to be in compliance with this obligation.18. France and Germany provided information, and Germany additional information, but the responses were unclear and the Committee was unable to evaluate their compliance with this obligation.

F. Compliance with article 3, paragraph 5 (a)19. Article 3, para. 5 (a), requires Parties to reduce their annual emissions of the substances listed in annex III from the level of emissions in a reference year set in accordance with that annex by taking effective measures, appropriate in their particular circumstances.Assessment of Parties’ compliance with this obligation will be relevant to future reviews but was not, the Committee concluded, relevant to this review as the Protocol did not enter into force until 23 October 2003. Nevertheless, the Committee noted that many Parties did in fact implement this provision voluntarily with respect to 2003. Only a few Parties appeared to have met their emission reduction obligations for all three of the substances listed in annex II in 2003. However, many more Parties appeared to have met their emission reduction obligation with regard to at least one of the substances, PAH, dioxins/furans and/or HCBs.

G. Compliance with article 3, paragraph 5 (b) (i)-(iv)20. Article 3, para. 5 (b) (i)-(iv), requires Parties, no later than the timescales specified in annex VI, to apply, taking into account annex V: (i) BATs to each new stationary source within a major stationary source category for which annex V identifies BATs; (ii) limit values at least as stringent as those specified in annex IV to each new stationary source within a category mentioned in that annex. Alternatively, a Party may apply different emission reduction strategies that achieve equivalent overall emission levels; (iii) BATs to each existing stationary source within a major stationary source category for which annex V identifies BATs, insofar as this is technically and economically feasible. Alternatively, a Party may, apply different emission reduction strategies that achieve equivalent overall emission reductions; and (iv) limit values at least as stringent as those specified in annex IV to each existing stationary source within a category mentioned in that annex, insofar as this is technically and economically feasible. Alternatively, a Party may apply different emission reduction strategies that achieve equivalent overall emission reductions.21. The obligations under (i) and (iii) will come into force on 23 October 2005 or later depending on the individual Party’s date of ratification, and those under (ii) and (iv) on 23 October 2011 or later. Assessment of Parties’ compliance with this obligation was not, therefore, relevant for this review.

22/05/202360

Draft only

Nevertheless, it should be noted that many Parties voluntarily implemented both para. 5 (b) (i) and para. 5 (b) (iii).

H. Compliance with article 3, paragraph 5 (b) (v)22. Article 3, para. 5 (b) (v), requires Parties, no later than the timescales specified in annex VI, to apply effective measures to control emissions from mobile sources, taking into consideration annex VII.23. Annex VI does not provide specific timescales for mobile sources. Solely for the purpose of its current evaluation, the Committee took the approach that this subparagraph is effective upon the date of entry into force of the Protocol.24. The Committee concluded from the responses to the 2004 questionnaire on strategies and policies, in particular the responses to question 36, as well as from additional written information received from the Parties, that 15 of the 19 Parties assessed for this in-depth review appeared to be in compliance with this obligation.

I. Compliance with article 3, paragraph 825. Article 3, para. 8, requires Parties to develop and maintain emission inventories for the substances listed in annex III, and to collect available information relating to the production and sales of the substances listed in annexes I and II, for those Parties within the geographical scope of EMEP, using, as a minimum, the methodology and the spatial and temporal resolution specified by the Steering Body of EMEP, and, for those Parties, outside the geographical scope of EMEP, using as guidance the methodologies developed through the work plan of the Executive Body. Parties are required to report this information in accordance with the reporting requirements set out in article 9 of the Protocol.26. In its report to the Executive Body in 2004, the Committee noted that, in order for it to carry out a complete review of compliance with the obligation under this article, as well as under article 9, paras. 1 and 2, various decisions would first have to be made under those articles by the Executive Body or the EMEP Steering Body (EB.AIR/2004/6/Add.1, para.38). As no such decisions have been made, it was not possible for the Committee, at this stage, to carry out a complete review of compliance with the obligation under article 3, para. 8.27. The Committee observed that question 37 of the 2004 questionnaire only relates to information pertaining to production and sales of substances listed in annexes I and II and not to emission inventories for substances listed in annex III. The obligation on maintaining emission inventories is linked to the reporting of data and the emission reduction obligation under article 3, para. 5 (a).28. The Committee concluded from the responses to the 2004 questionnaire on strategies and policies, in particular the responses to question 37, as well as from additional written information received from the Parties, that 15 of the 19 Parties assessed for this in-depth review have provided information relating to production and sales of annex I and annex II substances.

J. Compliance with article 7, paragraph 129. Article 7, para. 1, requires Parties, no later than six months after the entry into force of the Protocol, to develop strategies, policies and programmes to discharge its obligations under the Protocol.The Committee concluded from the responses to the 2004 questionnaire on strategies and policies, and in particular the responses to question 28, as well as from additional information received from Parties, that 15 of the 19 Parties assessed for this in-depth review appeared to be in compliance with this obligation.

K. Conclusion

30. Most Parties that reported appeared to be in compliance with the obligations reviewed. In a number of cases, however, because no information or only partial information had been submitted, it was not possible for the Committee to review their compliance. In reaching this general conclusion, the Committee was mindful that the purpose of its in-depth reviews was to assess the general “state of health” of the Protocol in question rather than to find whether particular Parties were or were not in compliance with their obligations. Moreover, it noted that in the case of the present review, the POPs Protocol had been in force for less than two years and that a number of Parties lacked awareness of, or had technical difficulty meeting, the new requirements and, as a consequence, were slow to provide the secretariat with answers to the questions put to them.

22/05/202361

Draft only

Appendix 4

DECISION 2003/10 ON ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

The Executive Body,Noting that the Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) entered into force on

23 October 2003,Recalling the requirements of the Parties to the Protocol on POPs to meet their obligations

under articles 10 and 14, and annexes I, II and III, 1. Establishes a task force, under the leadership of a Party or Parties to the Protocol on

POPs, as identified in the annual work-plan, to address the technical needs of the reviews and reassessments required by the Protocol: The lead country or countries will assume the principal responsibility for coordinating the work of the Task Force, for organizing its meetings, for designating its chair(s), for communications with participating experts and observers, and for other organizational arrangements in accordance with the work-plan;

2. Decides that the Task Force will carry out the tasks specified for it in the work-plan adopted annually by the Executive Body and will report thereon to the Working Group on Strategies and Review;

3. Also decides that the Task Force will be composed of experts from the Parties to the Convention. Each Party will nominate a national focal point and notify his/her name to the secretariat. The meetings of the Task Force will be open to individuals designated as authorized representatives of intergovernmental or accredited non-governmental organizations, who may participate as observers. The chair(s) may also invite individuals with expertise relevant to the work of the Task Force to attend a meeting as observers. If invited by the chair(s), observers may participate in the discussions of the Task Force;

4. Furthermore decides that the functions of the Task Force will be to:(a) Plan and conduct the technical work necessary for the review of sufficiency and

effectiveness of the obligations set out in the Protocol on POPs as foreseen in its article 10, paragraph 3, and prepare a technical review for submission to the Working Group on Strategies and Review;

(b) Plan and conduct the technical work necessary for the use reassessments, re-evaluations and reviews foreseen under the Protocol, in particular those scheduled in annexes I, II and III, and prepare technical reviews thereon for submission to the Working Group on Strategies and Review;

(c) Prepare technical reviews on dossiers of new substances proposed by Parties for inclusion into annexes I, II or III, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Protocol and paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Executive Body decision 1998/2, and present relevant documentation on the proposals to the Working Group on Strategies and Review; and

(d) Carry out such other tasks related to the Protocol as the Executive Body may assign to it in the annual work-plan;

5. Decides that technical documents related to dossiers of new substances to be considered at a meeting of the Task Force shall be distributed by the secretariat to the focal point nominated by each Party to the Convention at least 60 days in advance of the meeting. Where this has not occurred, the report of the meeting will indicate that the relevant documents were not provided in sufficient time for consideration, unless the Task Force decides otherwise by consensus;

6. Also decides that, at the end of each meeting, the Task Force will approve those parts of its report that constitutes the key elements of its deliberations relating to the tasks assigned to it by the Executive Body. The report will be distributed by the secretariat to the focal points nominated by the Parties to the Convention and to the observers and experts who were present at the meeting;

7. Furthermore decides that technical reports prepared by the Task Force for the Working Group on Strategies and Review will reflect the full range of views expressed during its meetings.

22/05/202362

Draft only

Appendix 5

SUMMARY INFORMATION ON THE SCHEDULED REASSESSMENTS OF SUBSTANCE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE PROTOCOL ON POPS

Introduction1. The Task Force prepared a compendium of dossiers provided by experts on the scheduled use reassessments and evaluations and reviews of substances listed in annexes I and II to the Protocol on POPs. This annex summarizes each of the substance dossiers. 2. The substance dossiers included the responses to a questionnaire distributed in January 2004 to all Parties to the Convention, as well as other information. The 2004 questionnaire was restricted to questions on the scheduled reassessments of substance-related provisions in the Protocol, and was essentially the same as that used in 2001 by the former Expert Group for its review. The results of the 2001 review (EB.AIR/WG.5/2002/2) complement the present review.3. Not all Parties to the Convention responded to the questionnaires (see table) and not all responses were complete.

Table: Summary of responses to the 2001 and 2004 questionnaires on POPs

Respondents Replies2004

Replies in2001only

Replies per substance 2001/2004

DDT DDT for

dicofol

Heptachlor

Lindane PCT Ugilec

Parties to the Protocol on POPs 13 2 14 13 14 14 15 14

Signatories to the Protocol on POPs 11 2 13 13 13 13 13 13

Parties to the Convention only 1 3 3 4 4 4 4 4

Total 25 7 30 30 31 31 32 31

A. DDT

Protocol review requirements

4. Parties to the Protocol on POPs are required to eliminate the production of DDT within one year of consensus by the Parties that suitable alternatives are available for public health protection from diseases such as malaria and encephalitis.5. To this end, Parties are required to review no later than one year after entry into force of the Protocol and periodically thereafter the availability and feasibility of alternatives to DDT in consultation with the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).6. Annex II to the Protocol allows the use of DDT for public health protection only as a component of an integrated pest management strategy and only to the extent necessary and only until one year after the elimination of production in accordance with annex I to the Protocol.

Production and use of DDT relative to annexes I and II to the Protocol

7. The 2001 and 2004 questionnaires requested information on DDT production, use, alternatives and control measures. None of the responses reported production or use of DDT for public health protection. 8. Malaria is not a significant health problem in the UNECE region at this time. However, outside the region, it is. According to WHO, malaria kills at least 1 million people each year. Nine out of ten cases occur in Africa south of the Sahara. Indications are that malaria is re-emerging in other areas of the world where it was considered “eradicated.” Increases in the frequency of reported cases have also been noted in some areas. DDT continues to be a tool in some countries for the control of malaria. According to the information available to WHO, DDT is currently not routinely used for the control of tick-borne encephalitis and WHO does not recommend it for this purpose.

22/05/202363

Draft only

9. Through the Roll Back Malaria initiative, WHO assists countries to reduce their reliance on DDT. It also has an international programme to promote and coordinate the testing and evaluation of new public health pesticides. WHO is uniquely suited to identify alternatives to DDT for disease vector control. 10. Building on successes in agriculture, the combination of vector and disease management strategies using an integrated vector management (IVM) approach seems the best way forward, rather than simply replacing DDT with another insecticide.

Conclusions11. According to WHO, FAO and UNEP, DDT is still needed for public health protection in certain regions outside UNECE. Therefore, effective, economically viable and less environmentally hazardous alternatives to DDT continue to be needed there.

B. DDT in dicofol

Protocol review/reassessment requirements12. The Protocol on POPs requires the use of DDT as a chemical intermediate to produce dicofol to be reassessed no later than two years after its entry into force. The introductory paragraph of its annex II provides that annex II shall not apply to the substances listed in it when they occur, inter alia, as site-limited chemical intermediates in the manufacture of one or more different substances and are thus chemically transformed.

Use of DDT as a chemical intermediate to produce dicofol relative to annexes I and II to the Protocol13. Within UNECE one active producer produces DDT as a non-isolated on-site intermediate to produce dicofol. In the European Union (EU) the production and use of DDT as a site-limited, closed-system intermediate for the production of dicofol is allowed until 1 January 2014 (EC Regulation 850/2004).14. Non-UNECE countries producing dicofol include China, Brazil and India, but no information is available on production processes.15. Several countries restrict the DDT (and related substances) content of commercial dicofol. In the EU, the United States and Canada the limit of DDT is 0.1%. No information is available for other Parties.

Conclusions16. The one known remaining active producer of DDT in the UNECE region produces it as a non-isolated on-site intermediate in the production of dicofol. Because the Protocol allows such use, the restricted use of DDT as a chemical intermediate to produce dicofol allowed in the table in annex II is technically no longer being used.

C. Heptachlor

Protocol review/reassessment requirements17. Annex I to the Protocol states that there shall be no production of heptachlor and no use of it except by certified personnel for the control of fire ants in closed industrial electrical junction boxes. Such use shall be re-evaluated no later than two years after the entry into force.

Use of heptachlor relative to annex I to the Protocol18. During the negotiations of the Protocol, the United States indicated the need for this exemption, as it had no registered alternatives for this use of heptachlor. Since then, it has registered five alternatives.

Conclusions19. No Party to the Convention has recorded the need for the heptachlor use exemption specified in annex I to the Protocol.

D. Lindane

Protocol review/reassessment requirements20. Annex II to the Protocol requires that all restricted uses of lindane shall be reassessed no later than two years after the entry into force.

Use of lindane relative to annex II to the Protocol

22/05/202364

Draft only

21. Technical HCH is restricted to use as an intermediate in chemical manufacturing and applications of lindane are restricted to:

(a). Seed treatment;(b). Soil applications directly followed by incorporation into the topsoil surface layer;(c). Professional remedial and industrial treatment of lumber, timber and logs;(d). Public health and veterinary topical insecticide;(e). Non-aerial application to tree seedlings, small-scale lawn use, and indoor and outdoor use

for nursery stock and ornamentals;(f). Indoor industrial and residential applications;

22. Because of its toxic, suspected carcinogenic, persistent, bioaccumulative and suspected endocrine disrupting properties, lindane was scrutinized and regulated. Production and marketed volumes have steadily decreased in the UNECE region. In 2004, 16 Parties reported available and well-known alternatives, compared to 5 countries in 2001. 23. The recent European Community Regulation on POPs (EC 850/2004) provides for the complete phase-out of lindane. The stepwise procedures will still allow its use for professional remedial and industrial treatment of lumber, timber and logs, and indoor industrial and residential applications until September 2006. Technical HCH for use as an intermediate in chemical manufacturing, as well as lindane-containing products for public health use and as veterinary topical insecticide, will be banned by 31 December 2007.24. According to the 2004 questionnaire, the most common reported use of lindane was for public health and as a veterinary topical insecticide. Canada and the United States stated explicitly that their pharmaceutical use of lindane is limited for treatment of humans. The remaining countries, except Switzerland and Croatia, i.e. EU members (Austria, Czech Republic (only for human health), Germany, France and Ireland), are expected to terminate the pharmaceutical uses and uses as a veterinary topical insecticide by the end of 2007 according to the new EC Regulation on POPs.25. A major use of lindane was historically for plant protection. However, only the United States reported the use of lindane for seed treatment to be relevant. All other Parties responding to the 2004 questionnaire had already banned all authorization and use of lindane-containing plant protection products or were about to do so.26. France and Spain also reported indoor industrial and residential applications. Lindane is still used for wood preservation (professional remedial and industrial treatment of lumber, timber and logs) in France. Since no non-EU country reported these applications, use for indoor industrial and residential applications, as well as wood preservation, will also be terminated by September 2006 under the new EC Regulation on POPs. 27. No responding Party reported current use for soil applications and non-aerial application to tree seedlings, small-scale lawn use, and indoor and outdoor use for nursery stock and ornamentals.Conclusions28. The use of lindane is definitely reduced. Only two of the six restricted uses listed in the Protocol will continue after 2007: pharmaceutical use for public health and as a veterinary topical insecticide, and seed treatment. Within the EU, a complete phase-out is scheduled by 2007. No responding Party to the Protocol will have the need for the restricted uses in annex II after 2007 with the exception of the pharmaceutical use and for veterinary purposes (Canada (only for human health), Croatia and Switzerland). At least one Signatory to the Protocol is still using lindane for pharmaceutical purposes for humans and for seed treatment.

E. Polychlorinated terphenyls (PCTs) and ugilec

Protocol review/re-assessment requirement

29. Under the Protocol on POPs (annexes I and II) the Parties agreed to reassess the production and use of polychlorinated terphenyls (PCTs) and ugilec by 31 December, 2004.

Production and use of PCTs and ugilec relative to annexes I and II to the Protocol

30. During negotiations of the Protocol, it became evident that the definition of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) sometimes differed between the EU and other UNECE countries. In the EU, PCTs are included in certain legislation together with ugilec under the definition of PCBs. However, Canada and the United States have chemically specific definitions: “PCBs” include only isomers of polychlorinated biphenyls and “PCTs” include only isomers of polychlorinated terphenyls. As a result,

22/05/202365

Draft only

the Protocol considers “PCBs” to be only isomers of polychlorinated biphenyls, and production and use of PCTs and ugilec will be reassessed.

PCTs

31. Historically PCTs have been used for similar purposes as PCBs.32. PCTs are known to have been produced by four Parties - the United States, France, Germany and Italy. The only other known historical producer of PCTs is Japan. Total global production of PCTs is estimated to have been 60,000 metric tons between 1955 and 1980. Production quantities of PCTs were 15-20 times less than the chemically similar PCBs. PCTs are not known to have been produced anywhere since the early 1980s.33. PCTs are known to have been used historically in Canada, the United States, Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Monaco, Spain and Sweden. Experts indicate that PCTs have never been used in Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Norway and Slovakia. In most responding countries, historical use of PCTs is unknown due to insufficient information. However, it is possible or even probable, given its wide range of applications and its use as a PCB substitute in many products up to the 1970s and later.

34. PCTs are not known to be currently used in the UNECE region. However, as with PCBs, they may be found in old electrical capacitors, transformers and other equipment, or as constituents or contaminants of some products and treated materials. 35. Based on the questionnaire responses, Parties in North America, the EU, as well as Monaco, Norway and Switzerland have taken, or are required to take, measures to ensure destruction or disposal of PCTs in an environmentally sound manner, and to ensure that the transboundary movement of PCTs is conducted in an environmentally sound manner. In these countries there are no known stockpiles of PCTs, and measures to destroy and/or dispose of PCTs are similar to measures to destroy and/or dispose of PCBs.

36. The existence of PCT stockpiles is unknown in other non-EU countries such as Armenia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Republic of Moldova and Turkey; there are no stockpiles reported in Croatia. Armenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Turkey either have or are developing national laws and regulations for environmentally sound disposal and transboundary movement of hazardous wastes. Bulgaria and the Republic of Moldova are following the EC directive regarding PCT disposal. Disposal measures for PCTs were reported as unknown for Kazakhstan.37. All Parties to the Protocol have ratified the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, but three Parties to the Convention are not Parties to the Basel Convention. Therefore, notwithstanding current disposal measures, all Parties to the Protocol are required to ensure that destruction or disposal and/or transboundary movement of PCT wastes is environmentally sound, as part of their obligations under the Basel Convention.38. Based on the questionnaire responses, Parties in North America, the EU, Norway and Switzerland have taken or are taking measures to directly prohibit or effectively control production and use of PCTs, through regulations on production and/or marketing, use and import. In addition, Armenia, Croatia, Georgia, Monaco, the Republic of Moldova and Turkey have also taken action to control production and use of PCTs. Control actions were not reported as being in place in Bulgaria and were reported as unknown in Kazakhstan.

Ugilec

39. The phasing-out of PCB in many countries caused an intensive search for safe alternatives. Ugilec 141 and ugilec 121 or 21 were considered as potential PCB replacements for various applications. However, shortly after its commercial introduction, elevated concentrations of ugilec found in fish and sediments revealed environmental behaviour comparable to that of PCB. Hence, ugilec failed to take off as a PCB substitute.40. No distinction was made in the questionnaires between ugilec 141 and ugilec 121 or 21. No Party reported the production of ugilec; it either never happened or was discontinued years ago. Two companies in France are known to have produced it in the past but no reliable data on manufactured volumes are available. Canada and the United States apparently never produced it.41. Reliable information on current and historic uses of ugilec is generally very scarce: ugilec 141 was on the EU market from 1981 until its prohibition by June 1994, but an exemption applies for

22/05/202366

Draft only

continuation in equipment and machinery already in use at that date. Ugilec 121 or 21 was allowed to be marketed in the EU from mid-1984 until it was banned in mid-1992. These legal provisions apply to all 25 EU members as of 1 May 2004. No evidence was found that ugilec has been used in Canada or the United States.42. Ugilec has been used for similar industrial applications as PCBs, e.g. dielectric fluid in transformers and capacitors, and as hydraulic fluids in coal mine equipment. Topping-up or fluid change may have led to mixing of PCB and ugilec in the equipment. Such maintenance operations have normally not been documented by the holders of the equipment, leading to further lack of clarity on the uses of ugilec in the past.43. Legal provisions on waste management of PCB do not differentiate between PCB, ugilec and PCT in the EU, offering no incentive to holders of blends of these substances to identify separate components in decommissioned fluid. Consequently, some respondents preferred an “unknown” over a “no” on current uses, as it cannot be certain that some “PCB fluid” still in service in certain machinery does not include ugilec components. However, a tight phasing-out programme for PCB, terminating use by 2010, is established across the EU. This will ultimately remove the possibility of ongoing (unidentified) uses of ugilec in those countries.44. Bulgaria communicated that ugilec is still in use on its territory today. France and Turkey left a blank to that part of the questionnaire. All other countries indicated either an “unknown” or a “no” for current use of ugilec.

Conclusions

45. There is no known production or new use of PCTs and ugilec in the UNECE region. PCTs and ugilec that are included in existing fluids with PCBs will be disposed of according to the destruction provisions for PCBs of the Protocol. No international agreement specifically covers the production and use of PCTs and ugilec

22/05/202367

Draft only

Appendix 6

I. TECHNICAL ELEMENTS FOR THE REVIEW OF SUFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROTOCOL

1. The Task Force reviewed and amended background documents prepared by experts and MSC-E and expressed its appreciation to those preparing the documents. A summary of the information reviewed is provided below.

A. Best available scientific information on the effects of deposition of POPs

2. This section provides a synthesis of the information on atmospheric transport and deposition, measured and modelled levels in environmental media and their potential toxicological effects.

3. Advances in modelling POP transport and deposition have improved the identification of chemicals having potential for long-range atmospheric transport (LRAT) based on their physical and chemical properties. Current models show transportation and deposition of POPs on global, hemispheric and regional scales. While these models demonstrate the importance of global POP sources, they indicate that most POPs deposited in the UNECE region originated from within the region. Model simulations show how reduced emission levels in UNECE have resulted in corresponding decreases in deposition.

4. The body of information on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis (4-chlorophenyl) ethane (DDTs) is relatively extensive and permits the assessment of some spatial and temporal trends that can be attributed to changes in deposition from LRAT. Results suggest that levels of both substances have generally decreased over the past 15-30 years as indicated in natural deposition archives (e.g. sediment cores) and levels in biota. Over the past 10-15 years temporal data from atmospheric and biological monitoring suggest that environmental levels are still decreasing though at a much slower rate, particularly in remote environments such as the Arctic. Despite these trends a number of species continue to display ∑PCB levels, and to a lesser extent ∑DDT levels, that exceed various thresholds for toxic effects. Estimated daily intake of PCBs among the general human population can exceed some guidelines indicating continued risk of adverse health effects. The risks are greater for newborns where exposure levels can exceed adult exposure by an order of magnitude. In general, levels of ∑DDT exposure among the general human population are well below dietary intake guidelines. Highly exposed groups, such as Inuit from Greenland and Canada, who regularly exceed guidelines for PCB intake, also have levels of ∑DDT exposure that approach and occasionally exceed WHO guidelines.

5. The amount of information on environmental levels of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) is not as extensive as it is for most other POPs. Models of current atmospheric levels and deposition suggest decreasing trends in industrial regions of the UNECE that are in the order of 50% since the late 1980s. Similar trends have been observed in breast milk in some European countries. Monitoring results from remote areas such as the Arctic generally show no discernible trends for PCDDs and PCDFs in abiotic media or biota. These data also suggest that some of the more highly exposed species of marine mammals and fish eating birds may exceed some toxicity thresholds. The probability of adverse effects is further increased when exposure to dioxin-like PCBs is considered. PCDDs and PCDFs are ubiquitous in human tissues and together with dioxin-like PCBs can contribute to levels of dioxin-like exposure that regularly exceed WHO dietary intake guidelines in the general population.

6. The accumulated information on environmental levels and trends of hexachlorobenzene (HCB), hexachlorocyclohexane (HCHs), chlordanes, toxaphene and to a lesser extent dieldrin and heptachlor epoxide allows for the assessment of some spatial and temporal trends that can be attributed to deposition from LRAT. Data suggest that environmental levels of HCB, α-HCH, heptachlor epoxide, chlordanes and toxaphene have generally decreased over the past 30 years, however, the evidence for decreasing trends in dieldrin, lindane (γ-HCH) or β-HCH is not as clear. Similar findings are also expressed in Arctic atmospheric monitoring data collected over the past 10-15 years. Tissue concentrations in the most highly exposed marine species (birds and mammals) generally do not exceed applicable thresholds of toxicity, however, some effects in

22/05/202368

Draft only

highly exposed species have been associated with toxaphene, HCB, HCHs, heptachlor epoxide and chlordanes. Levels of exposure to these POPs among the general human population and resulting from LRAT are well below applicable guidelines. Exposure among Arctic populations that consume marine mammals, however, can exceed some guidelines for dietary intake.

7. Some modelling data have been generated for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), particularly for more industrialized parts of UNECE. Model results appear to compare well to atmospheric monitoring data and suggest that atmospheric levels and deposition of PAHs have decreased over the past 10-15 years. Since PAHs do not accumulate or concentrate in food webs, levels measured in biota are relatively low. Consequently, human dietary exposure to PAHs as a result of LRAT is relatively low and well below applicable guidelines. The greatest source of human dietary exposure to PAHs results from their formation during food preparation.

8. Once released into the environment aldrin is readily degraded to dieldrin and is therefore rarely measured. Endrin and mirex are occasionally measured in environmental media, however, the existing data are insufficient for assessing temporal trends. A comparison of some recent results with those of 20-30 years ago suggests environmental levels have decreased. The limited data for biotic levels of endrin suggest relatively low levels of exposure and little risk of adverse effects resulting from LRAT. Levels of mirex, while higher than endrin, are lower than other POPs and there seems to be no documented risk of adverse effects related to exposure from LRAT. Levels of exposure among the general human population are well below applicable guidelines for dietary intake. Mirex exposure among Inuit exceeded Health Canada guidelines for dietary intake in some individuals.

9. There is very little information about environmental levels of chlordecone and polybrominated biphenyls that is related to deposition from LRAT. What little information there is suggests that exposure to wildlife and humans is negligible.

10. A number of substances with POP characteristics have recently been measured in remote environments where local sources do not exist. These include brominated flame retardants (PBDEs and hexabromocyclododecane), fluorinated organic compounds (PFOS and related compounds), chlorinated industrial chemicals (short-chain chlorinated paraffins and polychlorinated naphthalenes) and current use pesticides (endosulfan). Endosulfan is now one of the most abundant and ubiquitous organochlorine pesticides in the North American atmosphere. Increasing temporal trends with doubling times of 4-5 years have been reported for the most abundant PBDE congener (BDE-47) and concentrations of PFOS have been measured in some species at levels that are among the highest for any POP or substance with POP characteristics. PBDEs and PFOS are also being measured in human tissues with increasing regularity and in the case of ∑PBDEs, levels are increasing, particularly in North America.

B. Assessments of technical developments

1. Production and use, including exemptions, of substances listed in annexes I and II to the Protocol

11. This section provides a synthesis of available information for the following substances: DDT, HCH (lindane), and PCBs. It is based on information reported to the Task Force in 2004. Related information in the 2004 Task Force Force report (EB.AIR/WG.5/2004/1) includes the re-evaluations and reassessements of substances required by the Protocol.

12. No Party with an economy in transition has requested an exemption to produce or use HCB or to produce PCBs. The secretariat has no information on production and/or use of PCBs for non-Parties.

13. Regarding the uses and availability of alternatives to DDT, recently developed long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets incorporate a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide into the net fibers, extending the efficacy of the net to 2-5 years.

14. Regarding the use of HCH including Lindane, formerly isomers of technical HCH were used to manufacture trichlorobenzene (TCB). HCH is no longer needed for this. No other chemical products are made with technical HCH.

22/05/202369

Draft only

15. For PCBs, the most frequent alternatives used in transformers are mineral oils and silicone oils. Other alternatives may also be used, but they do not have similar commercial interest. Some alternatives currently in use, such as alkyl-substituted chlorodiphenyls, may also pose a risk to health and the environment. Mineral oils, silicone oils and ester-based materials all represent biodegradable alternatives and are preferable from an environmental perspective. Alternative engineering designs such as encapsulated transformers with air-cooling have been recommended for non-biodegradable PCB substitutes (DIVS 2000:825, Nordic Council of Ministers).

16. The Arctic Council initiated a project in 1998 to phase out PCBs in the Russian Federation. The project included a feasibility study with an evaluation of alternatives for larger capacitors and transformers. The combustibility of alternative liquids required adjustment of technologies for storage and filling of transformers and intensified fire safety measures. Alternatives did not require an upgrade of production technology for capacitors and transformers. Capacitors and transformers using alternatives have electric properties and service lives comparable with units using PCBs and cost less to destroy. 17. The Task Force noted the development of new technologies enabling the identification of PCBs in articles.

2. Waste management

18. New developments in environmentally sound destruction/disposal of substances listed in annexes I-III to the Protocol, adopted by the Basel Convention and supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), were examined.

19. At its seventh meeting in October 2004, the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention adopted General Technical Guidelines1 on the environmentally sound management of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with POPs. They describe commercially available operations for the environmentally sound destruction and irreversible transformation of the POP content in wastes. The document also provides guidance on reducing or eliminating releases into the environment from waste disposal and treatment processes.

20. A Review of Emerging, Innovative Technologies for the Destruction and Decontamination of POPs and the Identification of Promising Technologies for Use in Developing Countries2, published by the GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) in 2004, identified five non-combustion technologies3 as promising, emerging and innovative. The report recommends that these technologies be further evaluated to provide funding for developing the technologies commercially in the near future.

3. By-products

(a) Technological developments in Best Available Control Techniques (BAT)

21. The following overview of the most recent technological BAT developments in relation to annex V of the Protocol covers both new and existing major stationary sources. Alternatives and emerging technologies are summarized for each category in the table.

22. Some experts noted that a possible way to reduce PAH air emissions further would be to address the production and use of creosote and carbolineum under annex I or II to the Protocol.

1 The full text is available on the Internet at: http://www.basel.int/techmatters/pops/pops_guid_final.doc2 The full text is available on the Internet at: http://www.basel.int/techmatters/review_pop_feb04.pdf3 The definition used for the purpose of the review includes processes which operate in a starved or ambient oxygen atmosphere. Such technologies may produce dioxins or furans but require less technology than an oxidized process such as a high-temperature rotary kiln.

22/05/202370

Draft only

Category Alternatives Emerging technologiesIncineration, including co-incineration of municipal, hazardous, medical waste, or of sewage sludge waste.

FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE:Zero waste management strategies; waste minimization, source separation and recycling; sanitary landfill; composting; mechanical biological treatment; high-temperature melting.

FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE:Waste minimization and source separation with final disposal by other techniques or to appropriate landfill; gas phase chemical reduction; base-catalyzed decomposition; sodium reduction; supercritical water oxidation.

FOR MEDICAL WASTE:Steam sterilization; advanced steam sterilization; microwave treatment; dry heat sterilization; alkaline hydrolysis (or heated alkali digestion); biological treatment; disposal to landfill.

FOR SEWAGE SLUDGE:Disposal to landfill; landspreading of sewage sludge.

Pyrolysis and gasification; thermal depolymerization; plasma technologies.

Sinter plants FASTMET process; direct reduction processes; direct smelting processes.

Selective catalytic reduction;urea injection.

Primary and secondary production of copper

Consideration should be given to hydrometallurgical processes, where technically feasible, for new smelting facilities or smelting processes.

Catalytic oxidation.

Production of steel There are no alternatives to the graphite electrode at the present time.

Selective catalytic reduction; CONTIARC furnace; COMELT furnace.

Smelting plants in the secondary aluminum industry

Catalytic oxidation; catalytic filter bags; use of electric arc furnaces for salt-free melting of drosses; reuse of filter dust; processing of salt slag in a dry state.

Combustion of fossil fuels in utility and industrial boilers with a thermal capacity above 50 MW

Annex V does not identify best available techniques for the specific purpose of PCDD/F removal. Studies in the U.S. have shown that sulfur concentrations in the flue gas inhibit dioxin formation.

Residential combustion Replacing poorly designed stoves with improved stoves that burn fuel more efficiently.

Heat Pumps.

Firing installations for wood with a thermal capacity below 50 MW

Downdraught boilers; modern pellet boilers; installation of accumulator tank.

Small-scale combined heat and power units; heat pumps; renewable energy technologies; fuel cells.

Coke production European jumbo coking reactor (single chamber system); non-recovery cokemaking; antaeus continuous coke™ process.

Continuous cokemaking process; calderon cokemaking technology; Japanese SCOPE21 project.

Anode production Dry adsorption; condensation with electrostatic precipitators

Regenerative afterburner.

Aluminum production using the Soederberg process

Use of centre-worked pre-baked cell (considered BAT in Europe); inert anodes; wettable cathodes; vertical electrodes low-temperature electrolysis (VELTE); drained cell; carbothermic technology; kaolinite reduction technology.

Wood preservation installations

Strict restrictions on the use of creosote and carbolineum for wood preservation.

22/05/202371

Draft only

(b) Technical developments with regard to limit values

23. Current international and national limit values for new and existing facilities in those sectors identified in annex IV were compiled for this review. In addition, current limit values for both new and existing facilities in sectors identified in annex VIII, not covered in annex IV, were considered.

24. For major stationary sources of PCDD/F identified in annex IV (municipal solid waste, medical solid waste and hazardous waste incineration) most countries have emission limit values (ELVs) below or equal to those set by the Protocol.4 ELVs used by most countries are mostly set at 0.1ng TE/m3. The lowest value reported is 0.080 ng TE/m3 which applies to new and expanding facilities and will be applied to existing facilities in 2006. It is important to realize that different methods of measurement of dioxins can lead to different data. Details of the measuring method were in most cases not available.

25. ELVs for both PCDD/F and PAH have been adopted by many Parties to the Convention for sources in annex VIII. Several countries have ELVs for PCDD/F for all sectors of categories 1-5 in annex VIII but fewer ELVs for categories 6-11. A few countries have ELVs for PAHs. Values exist for PAHs for most source categories identified in annex VIII. ELVs for CO in flue gas are being used by some countries to control PAH emissions in the residential combustion sector. Only one country has reported values for HCB and this is for category 6. No ELVs for PCDD/F, PAH and HCB were found for the wood preservation sector (category 12). No ELVs for PAHs were found for the incineration sector.

26. Information compiled on medical and hazardous waste incineration standards in this report indicate that ELVs in the Protocol are generally higher than those set by many Parties. Annex IV of the Protocol only includes limits for incineration of municipal solid waste, medical solid waste and hazardous waste. The present compilation indicates that several Parties have set emission standards for sources in annex VIII, most notably for PCDD/F for categories 1-5.(c) Technological developments regarding measures to control emissions from mobile sources

27. National and international emission standards applying to mobile sources and their fuels, as well as to technical developments with respect to annex VII of the Protocol, were reviewed.

28. Regarding petrol engines, in the past alkyl-lead compounds were widely used in petrol to protect engines from "knocking" effects. Additives were used to avoid lead deposits. During combustion these halogenated scavengers created PCDD/PCDF. Today electronic fuel injection and combustion control (3-way catalytic converters) are routinely fitted to petrol vehicles and effectively eliminate PAH from exhaust. Since catalysts are intolerant to lead, unleaded fuel was phased in and addition of halogenated scavengers became obsolete. With leaded petrol phased out in most parts of the UNECE region, petrol cars have stopped being a source of PCDD/PCDF.

29. Due to their heterogeneous nature of combustion, diesel-powered engines are one of the major sources of fine particulate matter (PM). The amount of PM formed depends primarily on the operating conditions and the fuel quality. A major fraction of low-volatile hydrocarbons, including PAH, becomes associated with PM. However, all existing emission standards for diesel engines refer to PM rather than PAH. In recent years design of these combustion systems has improved resulting in substantial reduction of PM emissions. Further cuts require particulate filter trap systems. Such devices proved to be the most efficient tailpipe reduction technology available, capable not only of decreasing the total amount of particulates in diesel exhaust but also of retaining the full range of particle size down to those less than 100 nm. The EC has taken action to phase out the use of PAH-rich extender oils in tyre production. This will decrease PAH emissions from tyre abrasion.

4 Limit values for dioxins and furans referred to in the Protocol are expressed in TEQ/m3 using TEQ suggested by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)/CCMS, while currently there is another classification of TEQ given by the World Health Organization (WHO).

22/05/202372

Draft only

30. Performance of catalysts and electronic control devices are severely affected by poor fuel quality. Hence, advanced exhaust after treatment systems require enhanced fuel standards, e.g. low sulphur content. Refinery processes can produce petrol and diesel fuels with less than 10 ppm sulphur. In addition, low aromatic content fuels (e.g. alkylated petrol) may decrease PAH and other pollutant emissions efficiently in small 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines.

31. With the phasing out of leaded gasoline, petrol-fuelled vehicles are no longer a relevant source of dioxins and furans. Diesel-powered engines, formally a main source of fine particulates, with PAH as a major component, are subject to stricter controls for PM. Further tightening of ELVs, particularly for off-road machinery will further curb PM emissions from diesel engines. Some countries use fiscal incentives to accelerate phasing-in of cleaner technologies. In addition, car makers strive for better control technologies to cope with tightening of emission standards. Given the large number of limit values for specific categories of vehicles and taking into account rapid development of PM abatement technology, the Working Group on Strategies and Review may wish to consider the most appropriate mechanism for addressing PM emissions from mobile sources.

C. Emissions

32. The data required from Parties to the Protocol to show that they are meeting the obligations on emission levels for annex III sources are not yet available for review as Parties will not report 2004 emission data until 2006. As a result this review is limited. However, the Task Force on POPs invited MSC-E to prepare a synthesis document on the best available emission data submitted by countries, including 1990 and more recent years. A short overview of emissions data as noted in article 3, para 8, is presented below. Available data are also provided for annex I and II substances. The emission data submitted by countries in 2004 are available in EB.AIR/GE.1/2004/10.

1. Substances included in annex III to the Protocol

33. In 2004, 31 countries submitted information on emissions of PCDD/Fs and PAHs and 22 countries on emissions of HCB for the period from 1990 to 2002 (for at least one year).

34. For dioxins and furans, according to submitted data, most countries showed a general decrease within the period indicated. The overall PCDD/F emissions in 17 countries for 1990 and 2002 decreased by 68% (Fig.1). The maximum decrease of the PCDD/F emissions for a country was 90%, while the maximum increase was 50%. The data on PCDD/F emissions for each year (1990-2002) are available for 10 countries.

35. Information on the spatial distribution of PCDD/F emissions was submitted by 12 countries. Information on the nomenclature for reporting (NFR) PCDD/F sector emissions is available for 20 countries for 2002. The maximum contribution to the total PCDD/F emissions in these countries was from the residential source sector (31%).

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Net

herla

nds

Cze

ch

Fran

ce

Nor

way

Uni

ted

Bel

gium

Slov

enia

Aus

tria

Can

ada

Bul

garia

Hun

gary

Slov

akia

Rus

sia

Swed

en

Spai

n

Finl

and

Mon

aco

Rel

ativ

e de

crea

se, %

22/05/202373

Draft only

Fig.1. Relative decreases of PCDD/F emissions for 1990-2002 in 17 countries

36. For PAHs, 19 countries reported total emissions for four indicator compounds, listed in annex III of the Protocol. PAH emissions from nine countries decreased by 29% between 1990 and 2002 (Fig.2). The maximum national decrease in PAH emissions was 90%, while the maximum increase was 40%. Data on PAH emissions for each year (1990-2002) are available for eight countries. Eleven countries provided spatial distribution of PAH emissions and 13 countries submitted information on the PAH sector emissions for 2002. The greatest contribution to the total emission of PAHs is from the residential sector (63%).

-60-40-20

020406080

100

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

m

Slov

akia

Rep.

of M

oldo

va

Aust

ria

Swed

en

Cana

da

Finl

and

Norw

ay

Denm

arkR

elat

ive

decr

ease

, %

1

Fig.2. Relative decreases of PAH emissions for 1990-2002 in 9 countries

37. The total HCB emissions for eight countries decreased by 20% between 1990 and 2002 (Fig.3)5. The maximum national decrease of HCB emissions was 90%, while the maximum increase was 200%. Information on HCB sector emissions is available for 12 countries for 2002. The greatest contribution to the total HCB emissions is from the manufacturing industries and construction sector (35%).

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bul

garia

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Can

ada

Aus

tria

Spai

n

Fran

ce

Bel

gium

Rel

ativ

e de

crea

se, %

Fig.3. Relative decreases of HCB emissions for 1990-2002 in 7 countries

38. To estimate total emissions for annex III substances from the European region and their time series (1990-2002), expert estimates must be used. To meet the requirements of article 9 of the Protocol, i.e. to provide “information on the long-range transport and deposition of persistent organic pollutants,” official emission data and expert estimates will be used by EMEP. Currently available emission data for modelling give a two or three-fold underestimate of levels compared with available measured data. However, for substances in annex III, a more reliable comparison between calculations and measurements will be possible following

5 At the Task Force meeting, it was noted that the emission inventory for Hungary for HCB was under review. Therefore, at the request of Hungary, their information was removed from figure 3.

22/05/202374

Draft only

extension of the EMEP monitoring network with implementation of the monitoring strategy for 2004-2009.

2. Substances included in annex I and II

39. Nineteen countries submitted information on emissions of PCBs and 12 countries on emissions of HCH for the period from 1990 to 2002 (for at least one year). From the data, the total PCB emissions decreased by 75% between 1990 and 2002. The maximum national decrease of PCB emissions was 90%, while the maximum increase was 50%.

40. According to submitted emission data for 1990 and 2002, emissions of HCH decreased by 80% in one country and increased by 3% and 9% in two others. HCH emissions in one country have remained at zero since 1998.

41. Emission data on aldrin, chlordane, chlordecone, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexabromobiphenyl, mirex, toxaphene and DDT for the period from 1990 to 2002 (for at least one year) were also submitted by 11 countries. Ten of the 11 countries reported no use of these substances.

22/05/202375

Draft only

Appendix 7

EXECUTIVE BODY DECISION 1998/2 ON INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED AND THE PROCEDURE FOR ADDING SUBSTANCES TO ANNEXES I, II OR III TO THE PROTOCOL ON

PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

The Executive Body,

Resolved to act as early as possible to develop criteria and procedures for addingsubstances to the forthcoming protocol on persistent organic pollutants,

Adopts, with reference to article 14, paragraph 6, of the protocol, the requirements forinformation to be submitted and the procedure for adding substances to annexes I, II or III to the protocol on persistent organic pollutants set out below.

INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED AND THE PROCEDURE FOR ADDING SUBSTANCES TO ANNEXES I, II OR III TO THE PROTOCOL ON PERSISTENT

ORGANIC POLLUTANTS1. A Party submitting a proposal to amend annexes I, II or III in accordance with article 14, paragraph 6, shall provide the Executive Body with a risk profile on the substance and information on the characteristics below, following the guidance and indicative numerical values, which demonstrate:

(a) Potential for long-range transboundary atmospheric transport: evidence that the substance has a vapor pressure below 1,000 Pa and an atmospheric half-life greater than two days. Alternatively, monitoring data showing that the substance is found in remote regions; and

(b) Toxicity: potential to adversely affect human health and/or the environment; and

(c) Persistence: evidence that the substance=s half-life in water is greater than two months, or that its half-life in soils is greater than six months, or that its half-life in sediments is greater than six months. Alternatively, evidence that the substance is otherwise sufficiently persistent to be of concern within the scope of the protocol; and(d) Bio-accumulation:

(i) Evidence that the BCF or BAF for the substance is greater than 5,000 or the log Kow is greater than 5; or

(ii) Alternatively, if the bio-accumulative potential is significantly lower than(i) above, other factors, such as the high toxicity of the substance, that make it of concern

within the scope of the protocol.

The proposal shall also contain a summary report and include, as available, information on:

(i) Production/uses/emissions, measured environmental levels in areas distant from sources, abiotic and biotic degradation processes and rates, degradation products, bio-availability; and

(ii) Socio-economic factors related to the alternatives and/or the techniques available to reduce the emissions of the proposed substance including:

- Alternatives to the existing uses and their efficacy;- Any known adverse environmental or human health effects associatedwith the alternatives;

- Process changes, control technologies, operating practices and otherpollution prevention techniques which can be used to reduce the emissions of the substance, and their applicability and effectiveness; and- The non-monetary costs and benefits as well as the quantifiable costs andbenefits associated with the use of these alternatives and/or techniques.

2. Upon receipt of a submission prepared in accordance with paragraph 1 above and if the risk profile is deemed acceptable, the Parties shall, at a meeting of the Executive Body and by consensus, ensure that one or more technical reviews of the proposal are conducted if, on the basis of the submission and any other relevant information submitted to the Executive Body, further consideration of the substance is determined to be warranted. Any such technical reviews shall be in writing and evaluate, inter alia:

22/05/202376

Draft only

(a) The monitoring or equivalent scientific information suggesting long-rangetransboundary atmospheric transport; and

(b) Whether sufficient information exists to suggest that the substance is likely to havesignificant adverse human health and/or environmental effects as a result of its long-range transboundary atmospheric transport; and

(c) A list of the sources of the substance in the atmosphere, including the use ofproducts, estimates of the total emissions from these sources and the methodologies used; and

(d) Whether measures exist to reduce the risk of adverse effects on human healthand/or the environment as a result of its long-range transboundary atmospheric transport, and whether they are technically feasible, as well as their associated effects and costs.

3. The term risk profile mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 above refers to a comprehensive review of the scientific information related to the determination of general human health and environmental risks associated with the uses and releases of a substance. Such a review need not explicitly address risks associated with long-range transboundary air pollution, but must provide suitable information for the assessment of such risk.

4. On the basis of the submission specified in paragraph 1 above and any technical review(s) that may have been prepared in accordance with paragraph 2 above, the Parties shall, at a meeting of the Executive Body, complete their evaluation of the proposal taking into account the objective of the protocol set out in article 2.

22/05/202377

Draft only

Appendix 8

DRAFT GENERIC GUIDELINES FOR THE TECHNICAL REVIEW OF DOSSIERS OF NEW SUBSTANCES THAT MAY BE PROPOSED BY PARTIES FOR INCLUSION INTO ANNEXES I,

II AND III TO THE PROTOCOL

Introduction

1. Article 14 of the Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) lays down procedures for Parties that make a proposal (dossier) to add a substance to its annex I, II or III. It refers to Executive Body decision 1998/2, which details the information the proposal must contain, and provides a framework for reviewing it. The Task Force on POPs will prepare technical reviews of a proposal when requested to do so, and will present relevant documentation on it to the Working Group on Strategies and Review (Executive Body decision 2003/10, para. 4)

A. Objective and intent

2. These guidelines provide generic guidance for the Task Force when undertaking technical reviews of a proposal (ECE/EB.AIR/79/Add.2, item 1.5 (c)). They are intended to provide a simple framework to achieve uniformity and consistency in expeditious reviews, and to reduce the level of uncertainty for all involved (i.e. the Party making the proposal, the Task Force and its reviewers, the Working Group on Strategies and Review, the Parties to the Protocol and the Executive Body).

B. Procedure for review

3. Upon receipt of a proposal in accordance with article 14 of the Protocol, the Executive Body will decide if the risk profile element is deemed acceptable. If so, the Executive Body will ask one or more technical reviews of the proposal to be undertaken. The Task Force will then simultaneously begin two-track review.

4. Track A will review those elements of the proposal and other information that may have been forwarded by the Executive Body which are relevant to a decision being made whether or not the substance should be considered POP. This review will focus upon the elements in paragraph 1 (a) - (d) of Executive Body decision 1998/2, and be evaluated, inter alia, in accordance with its paragraph 2 (a) and (b), taking note of paragraph 3.

5. Track B will review those elements of the proposal and other information that may have been forwarded by the Executive Body which are related to the development of a strategy for the substance. This review will focus upon the elements referred to in paragraph 1 (second part) of Executive Body decision 1998/2 and be evaluated in accordance with its paragraph 2, taking note of paragraph 3.

6. Small ad hoc peer review teams of experts may be created to prepare draft reviews for consideration by the Task Force. Participation in such teams will be decided by the Task Force. They will consist of well-recognized experts from Parties to the Convention [preferably Parties to the Protocol]. They should not include an expert who participated in the preparation of the proposal. Separate teams may be established to deal with individual proposals or a single team may deal with several proposals, as decided by the Task Force. Different teams may be established to deal with different elements in a given proposal. Teams for track A reviews will preferably consist of three experts. It is expected that teams will work mainly remotely although meetings may be necessary. Peer review teams would be disbanded as soon as they have completed their task(s).

7. The Task Force will discuss the draft peer reviews prepared by the review teams and prepare reports for the Working Group on Strategies and Review.

C. Nature of the task force reviews

22/05/202378

Draft only

8. The review’s assessment of the proposal will provide critical scientific evaluation of the technical content of the proposal against each of the requirements outlined in Executive Body decision 1998/2, and advise on the degree to which the information provided supports the proposal.

9. The review will be transparent and will include critical evaluation of such aspects as, inter alia, availability, reliability, completeness and relevance of the information and references.

10. In the case of reviews of track B, the Task Force will respond to any additional requests from the Working Group on Strategies and Review for technical advice.

D. Time schedule and reporting (outputs)

11. Following decision by the Parties to the Protocol at a session of the Executive Body that a submitted risk profile is deemed acceptable, and the Task Force is requested to undertake a technical review, the Task Force will:

(a) Simultaneously initiate track A and B reviews without delay;

(b) Report in writing to the Working Group on Strategies and Review on its work related to track A as specified in the annual work-plan of the Executive Body. If so instructed, the Task Force will report on its track A review at the meeting of the Working Group on Strategies and Review that immediately precedes the next session of the Executive Body. This will enable the Parties to the Protocol to decide on the need to further consider the proposal at that time, should they wish to do so;

(c) Continue with its track B review of the proposal (should the Parties to the Protocol decide to further consider the proposal), and provide the necessary review information in writing to the Working Group on Strategies and Review according to the work-plan of the Executive Body and as may be elaborated by the Working Group. This will facilitate the development of a strategy for the substance and provide Parties to the Protocol with the necessary information for decision-making at sessions of the Executive Body. If the Parties to the Protocol meeting at a session of the Executive Body decide not to further consider the substance, the Task Force will terminate its work on the proposal.

12. All reports will be prepared and approved by the Task Force according to the provisions contained in Executive Body decision 2003/10.

22/05/202379

Draft only

Appendix 9

Overview of the annexes to the Protocol

The annexes to the Protocol are an intrinsic part of it and contain much of the detail required for implementation, including lists of substances the protocol covers and guidance on meeting the requirements for emissions control. The Protocol on POPs has eight annexes.

Annex I provides the list of substances to be eliminated, including the conditions under which use or production may continue.

The list is reproduced below for convenience:

Name of Substance CAS Number RequirementsAldrin 309-00-2 Complete elimination of production and useChlordane 57-4-9 Complete elimination of production and useChlordecone 143-50-0 Complete elimination of production and useDDT 50-29-3 Certain uses and production permittedDieldrin 60-57-1 Complete elimination of production and useEndrin 72-20-8 Complete elimination of production and useHeptachlor 76-44-8 Complete elimination of production, and

certain limited use exemptions allowedHexabromobiphenyl 36355-01-8 Complete elimination of production and useHexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 Exemption for transition economy PartiesMirex 2385-85-5 Complete elimination of production and usePCB Certain uses and production permittedToxaphene 8001-35-2 Complete elimination of production and use

Annex II contains the list of substances to be subject to restriction, including the specific uses to which they are restricted and any conditions that apply to them. The obligations described in this annex for the Parties came into effect immediately upon entry into force of the Protocol.

The list includes three substances: DDT, HCH, and PCBs. Of these substances, two are also scheduled for eventual elimination. The reason that use restrictions are listed for DDT and PCB here in Annex II, whilst Annex I calls for DDT and PCB to be eliminated, is that Annex I provides specific exemptions for elimination of DDT and PCB. Unlike most of the substances scheduled for elimination of production and/or use in Annex I, DDT and PCB do not have to be eliminated by each Party immediately.

DDT may still be used for one of two purposes: public health protection from public health threats, like malaria and

encephalitis as a chemical intermediate for the production of Difocol.

22/05/202380

Draft only

Any further use of DDT will be limited to use within an integrated pest management strategy, and this use will cease one year after production is completely eliminated. Parties may continue to use PCBs that have been produced up to and before the end of 2005. However, by the year 2010, or 2015 for Parties with economies in transition, PCB may no longer be used in equipment such as transformers, capacitors, in volumes greater than 5 dm3 and concentration greater than 0.05%.

PCBs not found in equipment but exceeding 0.005% concentration also need to be destroyed in an environmentally sound manner.

Finally, the use of technical-grade HCH, is restricted to that as an intermediate in the manufacture of other chemicals. For lindane (an isomer of HCH in which at least 99% is found in the gamma form), use is restricted to a number of specified applications including: seed treatment, certain soil applications, treatment of lumber and timber, veterinary and human topical insecticide, certain non-aerial agricultural uses, and indoor/residential applications.

Annex III contains the list of substances that are subject to emission reductions, and the reference year from which reductions will be measured.

This annex narrows the definition of PAHs and PCDD/PCDFs, which are large groups, to a smaller list of the most toxic substances within them.

The substances within the PAH group are benzo(a)pyrenes, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.

These are often found as products of combustion processes in, for example, particulate diesel exhaust.

In the case of dioxins and furans, the Protocol applies to all PCDDs (polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins)and PCDFs (polychlorinated dibenzofurans).

The annex also provides specific reference years for each of three groups of substances: PAHs, dioxins/furans, and hexachlorobenzene. 1990 is the recommended base year from which total annual emissions should be reduced. However, the Parties may also choose an alternative year to reduce from, provided that the year chosen is not before 1985 and not later than 1995.

Annex IV specifies the limit values for emissions of dioxins and furans from major stationary sources.

The emission limits are expressed in terms of toxic equivalents, or TEQ, an index of toxicity that enables emission of the different congeners to be summed.

The measurement of PCDD/PCDF is complex and good standards are required. For monitoring in respect of the Protocol, Parties are required to use standard methods,

22/05/202381

Draft only

those of CEN, ISO or equivalent USA or Canada standards. In the period until CEN standards are available, parties should use national standards.

PCDDs and PCDFs are emitted from various types of stationary sources, but in particular from incinerators. The types of incineration facilities from which PCDD/PCDFs are emitted are grouped into three general categories:

municipal waste incineration, medical solid waste incineration, and hazardous waste incineration.

For each of these, the Parties must ensure that emission do not exceed a maximum emission value (limit value) given in part II of annex IV.

Annex V contains information on BAT for controlling emissions from major stationary sources. It contains a list of the major sources covered by the Protocol and the relevant control techniques. There is also information, where it is available, on the performance and cost of the different control measures.

The Introduction provides a definition of Best Available Techniques (BAT), which includes both techniques and technologies and that the definition includes tests for availability. It also contains a list of measures that should be considered in setting BAT. This includes the scope for technological and scientific progress. It should be noted that BAT is not fixed, but liable to develop. BAT standards are likely to progress due to technological advance. It is recognized that there will be a need to update the annex with new information as it comes in. BAT for new plants may be transferable to older plants with an adequate transition period.

The variety of control measures listed in the annex all have different costs associated with them. Parties should therefore choose the technology that is appropriate for their particular level of economic development and level of technological infrastructure.

The most important POPs from stationary sources are identified: dioxins and furans, hexachlorobenzene, and PAHs.

Part II lists the major stationary sources of emissions for Dioxins/Furans, HCBs and PAHs. The table below summarises these.

Major Stationary Sources of PCDD/PCDF, HCB and PAH emissions.PCDDs/PCDFs HCB PAHs

Waste incineration and co-incineration plants

Waste incineration and co-incineration plants

Domestic wood and coal heating

Thermal metallurgical processes such as aluminium, iron and steel production

Thermal sources of metallurgical industry

Open fires (burning of waste, crops and forest fires)

Commercial combustion plants used for energy production

Chlorinated fuel use in furnace installations

Coke and anode production

Residential heating(coal or wood burning

Aluminium production (Pot -house fumes)

22/05/202382

Draft only

Certain types of chemical production processes involving dioxin/furan releases as intermediates and by-products

Wood preservation.

Note: Annex III provides an exception for Parties whose PAH emissions do not arise mainly form wood preservation facilities. In these cases parties do not have to take this source into account.

Part III describes techniques for controlling POP emissions from stationary sources in general terms and provides guidance to Parties on implementing currently available techniques. Five general techniques are listed, each of which may be used separately or in combination with others.

Some of the key terms related to POPs emissions from stationary sources are explained below:Combustion – a process by which a substance is rapidly oxidized and heat is evolved.Incineration – the process by which a substance or substances is/are combusted with the principal purpose of oxidizing a waste material. Takes place with excess air and at high temperatures. Refers most often to the thermal treatment of waste, with or without recovery of the generated combustion heat. Incineration of waste serves as an alternative to storage in landfills. Incineration temperature – temperature at which a substance is burnedEmission – the release or discharge into air of contaminants, may come both from a stationary or a mobile source.Residence time – the length of time (duration) for which a substance persists in a certain medium, such as water or air. Flue gas – a flue gas is any gas that is emitted from a source of combustion and/or incineration. Flue gases usually contain a mixture of gaseous products such as NOX, SOX and trace heavy metals. Most gases are removed during scrubbing. Thermal incineration – a controlled process by which waste is burned at high temperatures and energy is often recovered in the form of heat or electricity. Catalytic Incineration – A catalyst is used to convert exhaust gases into primarily carbon dioxide and water. Flue gases containing organic compounds are directed into a catalyst bed, where the conversion to carbon dioxide and water takes place, via a heat exchanger and preheating system. The catalyst, usually coated in a metal oxide, speeds up the waste oxidation process, without itself being changed or used up in any way. This process usually occurs at much lower temperatures (200 to 400 deg. C) than the higher temperatures required by thermal incineration.Dust Precipitation – a method used to clean flue gases whereby pollutants are separated out using electrostatic precipitators. Adsorption – adsorption is defined as the binding of particles or molecules to a surface, and is one of the methods used to clean flue gases. Abatement – abatement is a term used to refer to the act of, or techniques used to, reduce emissions of undesired compounds, such as POPs. Process economics – economic analysis should be used as often as possible to evaluate the costs and benefits at all stages of a process (here, chemical processes and their associated technologies) including equipment procurement, operational techniques, etc. over the entire life cycle of the project. A solid process economics analysis should begin with an exact definition of the project at hand, assembly of all relevant data, identification of all feasible alternatives, weighing alternatives according to chosen criteria, and following up on results.

Part IV describes control techniques for the reduction of PCDD/F emission in sectors A to E below.

A. Waste incinerationWaste incineration includes the incineration of hazardous wastes, municipal wastes, medical wastes as well as sewage sludge.

22/05/202383

Draft only

Information is provided on the main control measures for PCDD/F emissions from waste incineration facilities:- primary measures regarding incinerated wastes (para. 15)- primary measures regarding process techniques- measures to control physical parameters of the combustion process and waste gases- methods for cleaning the flue gas- treatment of residuals from the flue-gas cleaning process.

A comparison of various flue gas cleaning options in term of emissions, risks and estimated costs is given in Table I of Annex V. Estimated costs include measures for minimizing other pollutants as well, including heavy metals.

Some of the key terms related to PCDD/F emissions from waste incineration are explained below:

22/05/202384

The formation of dioxins & furansWhen wastes including halogenated compounds are burned, trace quantities of dioxins and other organic halogens are emitted into the atmosphere. In general, the type of contaminant emitted in the flue gas varies according to the substances being burned and the conditions of incineration. The types of contaminants found in the flue gas may include particulate matter or PM, acidic gases, trace heavy metals and other products of incomplete combustion. Metals such as Cu, Fe, Pb, Cd, As, Ni, Zn, Hg can be present in the flue gas as oxides and chloride salts in the vapour phase. Dioxins are formed indirectly as a result of incomplete combustion when chlorine and products of incomplete combustion react in a temperature range of 250 to 400 deg. C downstream of the combustion chamber. Dioxins are often formed when organic substances are thermally broken down in the presence of chlorinated compounds and or transition metals. Metals present in the gas stream may act as catalysts and promote the formation of dioxin. Dioxins can be formed through pyrosynthesis (high temperature gas phase), from macromolecular carbon in combination with chlorine, and from organic precursors such as chlorophenols. Control techniques for reducing dioxin in the flue gas include, among others, wet scrubbing or adsorption methods using activated carbon and lime. Rapidly quenching the gas after combustion (rapidly reducing the temperature to 200 deg. C) can also help to reduce dioxin formation. Modern techniques include reducing dioxins through catalytic or inhibitive processes.

Non-hazardous wastes versus hazardous wastesNon-hazardous wastes usually come from private households and light industry. Part of this category are municipal solid wastes. Municipal solid wastes include primarily paper, glass, plastics, rubber, leather, textiles, wood, food, yard waste, and other types of inorganic wastes. They can usually be treated in standard waste incineration plants. The relevant air pollutants that are released during the burning of municipal wastes are SOx and NOx. Hazardous wastes generally constitute chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds and come from industrial production and sewage sludge. Other hazardous-waste producing activities include the generation of energy and civil engineering works, such as construction and demolition. They are usually incinerated at industrial waste sites.Biomedical waste incineration facilities serve to dispose of clinical wastes, quarantine wastes, security wastes, pharmaceuticals, general hospital refuse, broken glass, alcohols, cytotoxic agents, heavy metals, infectious cultures. Wastes of the most environmental concern are those containing metals and plastic.

Draft only

B. Thermal processes in the metallurgical industry

Information is provided on techniques for reduction of PCCD/F emissions from sinter plants; primary and secondary production of copper; production of steel; and smelting plants in the secondary aluminium industry.

C. Combustion of fossil fuels in utility and industrial boilers

Improving the energy efficiency and energy conservation will reduce the emission of all pollutants, including PCDD and PCDF emissions. A trend towards gas-fired stations is also mentioned as a contribution towards reducing PCDD/PCDF emissions. It is noted that waste materials such as sewage sludge, waste oil, rubber wastes can increase the PCDD/PCDF content significantly. If wastes are combusted for energy supply, they should be burned in installations that have waste gas purification systems in place. The reduction NOX, SOX, and particulates in the flue gas also helps to reduce the emissions of PCDD/PCDF. Specifically for PCDD/PCDF, no best available removal techniques have yet been defined, although research is ongoing.

D. Residential combustionIt is noted that residential combustion is relatively less efficient than industrial combustion but that it is a less significant source of PCDD/F if approved fuels are used and wastes are not burnt in domestic grates. Public information programmes are recommended.

E. Wood firing installationsThe high content of chlorinated wood in wood-firing installations can make it hazardous to health and result in PCDD/PCDF emission values above the target value.If poor firing techniques are used, the total carbon monoxide concentration in the waste gas will be very high, and dioxin/furan emissions will also be high. Table 3 of annex V lists emission concentrations and factors for wood firing installations. Burning residential waste in wood-firing installations can produce emissions of PCDD/F as high as 114 ng TE/m3, in some cases. Demolition wood, or waste wood, gives off high PCDD/PCDF emissions when it is burned. Parties should make an effort to ensure that if treated wood and waste wood is burned, this combustion is carried out only in those installations which have the appropriate flue-gas cleaning measures in place.

Part V describes details the control techniques for reducing PAH in the different sectors A to E below:

A. Coke production This section describes how PAH emissions are produced in coke production and table IV lists management options with the performance they are expected to achieve, costs and managements risks.

B. Anode productionTreatment methods for reducing PAH emissions from anode production are similar to those measures required to reduce PAH emissions from coke production.

22/05/202385

Draft only

Four secondary measures to reduce PAH dust specifically emitted from anode production are listed. A summary of PAH emission control measures for anode production is given in a table V of annex V.

C. Aluminium industryIt is noted that some processes for producing aluminium, notably the Soederberg process are large sources of PAH emissions. The different options for reducing emissions are presented in table VI of annex V.

D. Residential combustionResidential waste combustion results in high PAH emissions, especially if wood or coal is burned. Households burning coal in stoves emit PAH, but not quite as much as wood operated stoves. This section gives the general options for controlling PAH emissions from this source. It describes combustion optimization measures and gives examples of modern techniques. Reference is made to CEN standards for coal and wood fired boilers. PAH emission control options for this sector are presented in table VIII of annex V.

E.Wood preservation installationsIf wood is preserved with PAH-containing coal tar products, PAH is emitted to the air. Emissions can occur also during the open-air storage and use of impregnated wood. Several approaches for reducing PAH emissions from wood preservation, installations and storage facilities are described. Alternatives to PAH-based products are presented in table IX of annex V.

Annex VI contains the timetable for application of limit values and BAT to new and existing stationary sources.For new stationary sources, the Parties are required to apply limit values and BAT standards two years after entry into force of the Protocol. For existing stationary sources this is extended to eight years. If the Parties deem it necessary, the eight-year period can be extended for specific stationary source categories to match amortization periods provided in national legislation.

Annex VII describes the measures recommended for the control of POPs from mobile sources, including information on their emissions performance.

Part I contains information on achievable exhaust emission levels for passenger cars, heavy-duty vehicles and off-road engines. In section A, a series of tables give achievable levels in terms of the limit values for emissions regulated under international and national vehicle certification schemes. The limit values are given for the combined emission of NOx and Hydrocarbons and for particulate matter. These are relevant to the Protocol as vehicle exhaust is known to contain POPs. Parties are referred to international and national regimes for vehicle certification for further details. ECE Regulation 96, for off-road engines, is mentioned specifically. In section B, minimum fuel specification are given for diesel, with standard test methods for each parameter.

Part II describes action on fuel and lubrication oil additives, many of which contain chlorine and therefore lead to the emission of PCDD/F from vehicles. Additives are commonly used to improve the performance of fuels. Common scavenger materials

22/05/202386

Draft only

used in leaded petrol are 1,2-dibromomethane (formerly also a widespread pesticide) and 1,2-dichloromethane. These are both halogenated compound that are toxic to human health, and the annex recommends that the Parties avoid their addition to fuel whenever it is possible.

The annex also points out that when fuel is combusted in the engine, dioxins and furans are formed as a side-product.

Table I of annex VIII provides guidance on management options to limit the emission of dioxins and furans from vehicle exhaust.

It should be noted that the use of halogenated scavengers will be phased out as new automobiles use closed-loop, 3-way catalytic converters, and require the use of unleaded petrol.

Part III provides information on control measures for POPs emissions from mobile sources. PAHs are emitted largely from diesel-powered vehicles but to a smaller extent also from vehicles fuelled by petrol/gasoline. Control measures for PAH emissions from both types of vehicles are suggested. The PAH emission control options are summarized in table II of annex VII.

Annex VIII lists the 12 major source categories to which the Protocol applies. These sources are discussed in other annexes and in the body of the Protocol. They are:

Category Description1. Incineration and co-incineration of municipal, hazardous or medical

wastes, and sewage sludge2. Sinter plants3. Copper production – primary and secondary4. Steel production5. Secondary aluminium industry smelting industry6. Industrial and utility boilers combusting fossil fuels, thermal capacity

above 50 MWh

7. Residential combustion8. Wood firing installations, thermal capacity below 50 MWh

9. Coke production10. Anode production11. Aluminium production using Soederberg Process12. Wood preservation installations that make a significant contribution to

total PAH emission

22/05/202387