REPORT OF THE ROTTERDAM CONVENTION SUB-REGIONAL DNA CONSULTATIVE MEETING FRA VALUATION TOOLKIT MEETING

Transcription

1 REPORT OF THE ROTTERDAM CONVENTION SUB-REGIONAL DNA CONSULTATIVE MEETING FRA VALUATION TOOLKIT MEETING 28 TH TO 30 TH JUNE, 2016 PROTEA TOWER LUSAKA, ZAMBIA 0

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP EXPECTED OUTPUTS WORSHOP PROCEEDINGS OPENING AND WELCOMING REMARKS PRESENTATIONS BY THE BRS SECRETARIAT COUNTRY PRESENTATIONS PRESENTATIONS BY THE FACILITATOR PRESENTATIONS ON TOOLS BREAKOUT GROUPS DISCUSSIONS: RECOMMENDATIONS NEXT STEPS ANNEX 1: AGENDA OF THE MEETING ANNEX 2: PARTICIPANT LIST

3 1.0 BACKGROUND The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade establishes an international mechanism to regulate the trade of pesticides and industrial chemicals that are contained in its Annex III. Chemicals listed in Annex III based on the notifications of Final Regulatory Actions (FRAs) by the Parties within the scope of the Rotterdam Convention, have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons. Some developing countries have limited capacity to undertake risk assessments and other related evaluations required for scientifically sound decision-making on hazardous chemicals. Thus the number of notifications under the Convention appears to decline in both submission and meeting the Annex I and Annex II criteria of the Convention. The decision making on importing of Annex III chemicals under Article 10, paragraph 2 of the Convention requires Parties to review the risk of the chemicals under local conditions. Therefore, every Party should have the capacity to evaluate the risks and make risk management decisions including future imports of Annex III chemicals. The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Rotterdam Convention, at its seventh meeting requested the Secretariat to undertake activities by its decision COP.7/1 to assist parties in preparing notifications of final regulatory action including user-friendly access to scientific and technical information. In view of the foregoing, the Secretariat in consultation with selected experts of the CRC and DNAs developed an online toolkit (FRA Evaluation toolkit) aimed at assisting and enhancing the efforts of DNAs, especially from developing countries, to facilitate scientifically sound decision making and submitting the notifications of FRAs. A sub-regional consultative meeting for Designated National Authorities (DNA) on the Final Regulatory Action (FRA) Evaluation Toolkit and other approaches under the Rotterdam Convention was convened from 28th to 30th June, 2016 in Lusaka, Zambia. Participants from Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia attended the meeting. The meeting was oraganized by the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention in collaboration with Zambia Environmental Management Agency with financial support from the European Union. 2

4 2.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP The overall goal of this workshop is to strengthen the decision-making capabilities of countries in scientifically sound life cycle management of chemicals, within the scope of Rotterdam Convention. The meeting was convened in order to come up with: i. A set of priority chemicals identified by participating designated national authorities for ii. iii. iv. further evaluation of risks under local conditions towards decision making on final regulatory actions; Access to available tools and resources of scientific and technical information on priority chemicals for scientifically sound decision-making on chemicals; A network of DNAs and technical experts within national and sub-regional levels for sharing of technical information and experience related to sound management of chemicals; Increased awareness on the PIC procedure and information exchange provisions of the convention and how this might be used to strengthen chemicals management at national level; v. Increased utility of tools and information materials available for the implementation of vi. the Convention; and An increase in the number of import responses and/or notifications of FRAs, based on the increased knowledge on how to assess risks of chemicals and make notifications to the Secretariat. 3.0 EXPECTED OUTPUTS Expected outputs of the workshop were identified as follows: I. A set of priority chemicals identified by the participating DNAs for the further evaluation of risks under local conditions towards decision making on final regulatory actions. II. Access to available tools and resources of scientific and technical information on priority chemicals for scientifically sound decision-making on chemicals. III. A network of DNAs and technical experts within national and sub-regional levels for sharing of technical information and experience related to sound management of chemicals. 3

5 IV. Increased awareness on the PIC procedure and the information exchange provisions of the Convention and how this might be used to strengthen chemicals management at the national level. V. Increased utility of tools and information materials available for the implementation of the Convention. VI. An increase in the number of Import Responses (including PFOS, Octabromodiphenyl ether and Pentabromodiphenyl ether) and/or notifications of FRA, based on the increased knowledge on how to assess risks of chemicals and make notifications to the Secretariat. 4.0 WORSHOP PROCEEDINGS 4.1 OPENING AND WELCOMING REMARKS During the opening ceremony, Mr. Patson Zulu, Manager Inspectorate from Zambia Environmental Management Agency (ZEMA) extended gratitude to the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention for according Zambia an opportunity to host the said meeting. The Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ) became a Party to the RC in Whilst government acknowledges the likely impact to human health, animal or plant life and the environment of certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides that are contained in Convention, the country also faces challenges of limited capacity to undertake risk assessments and other related evaluations required for scientifically sound decision-making on hazardous chemicals. He further acknowledged that Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) had developed a pilot toolkit, which required testing and evaluation among the DNAs. For this reason, the meeting was convened to test the tool kit among selected DNAs. It was expected to contribute to capacities of Parties to effectively protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of hazardous chemicals, and meet obligations under the RC and other related Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Speaking on behalf of the BRS Secretariat, Mr. Manuweera informed the meeting that there were 47 chemicals listed under RC of which 30 were pesticides, three were SHPF and 14 industrial chemicals. There are 215 chemicals with Annex I information pending listing in RC, 346 notifications of which 161 were from developing countries. Citizens of the global community have a responsibility to protect human health and the environment from adverse effects of chemicals. For this reason, DNAs play a vital role in achieving this noble objective. 4

6 4.2 PRESENTATIONS BY THE BRS SECRETARIAT The Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Secretariat through Mr. Gamini Manuweera and Mr. Alexander Mangwiro made presentations, which focused on the scope, purpose, structure of the workshop and an overview of the Rotterdam Convention SCOPE, PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THE WORKSHOP Chemicals are listed in the Convention based on the notifications for the FRAs by the Parties that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons. However, the number of notifications of FRAs declines in both submission and meeting the Annex I and Annex II. Further, developing countries have limited capacity to undertake both scientifically sound assessments of health & Environmental risks and evaluation of risks for scientifically sound decision-making. Recognizing the gaps, COP 7 requested the Secretariat to assist parties in preparing notifications of FRA and user-friendly access to scientific and technical information. In view of the foregoing, a consultative workshop was organized in collaboration of the Government Republic of Zambia through ZEMA and the Rotterdam Convention Secretariat administered by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Participants included DNAs for both pesticides and industrial chemicals from Republic of Kenya, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Zambia and United Republic of Tanzania. The scope of the workshop was based on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade. The focus was on scientific and technical information of notifications of final regulatory actions under the Rotterdam Convention (Annex I); and the criteria for listing banned or severely restricted chemicals in Annex III OVERVIEW OF THE ROTTERDAM CONVENTION The Rotterdam Convention entered into force on 24 th February The objective of the RC is to promote shared responsibility and cooperative efforts among Parties in the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals in order to protect human health and the environment from potential harm and to contribute to their environmentally sound use. Specific highlights of the Convention were presented and these included: i. The PIC procedure- provides for a national decision making process on import of hazardous chemicals in Annex III and attempts to ensure compliance with these decisions by exporting Parties. ii. The PIC procedure involves 47 chemicals listed in Annex III. These include 33 pesticides (including 5 severely hazardous formulations) and 14 industrial chemicals. 5

7 iii. iv. The key players for the shared responsibility were identified including the Designated National Authorities; Customs officials; Politicians, Academia, Farmers, Agro chemical associations, Informal Sector, Government Departments (Local Authority, MoH), State Police, Civil Society Organisations and Ministry of Finance. Key elements in the PIC procedure include the Decision guidance documents (DGDs), Import responses and PIC Circular were discussed. 4.3 COUNTRY PRESENTATIONS Presentations made by participating countries; Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia focused on national regulatory management systems for chemicals, incidence reporting mechanisms, processes for FRA, capacity and institutional arrangements for risk assessments and proposed lists of chemicals for review PRESENTATION BY KENYA PCPs and industrial chemicals are regulated by the PCPB and National Environmental Management Agency (NEMA) respectively. Key pieces of legislation to support this include the Pest Control Products Act, Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) and Constitution. The country is also Party to a number of MEAs among them the RC and Stockholm convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Kenya has put in place an Incident Management Policy for managing environmental incidents hazards. Procedures and safeguards for the prevention of accidents are also in place. The reporting mechanism for PCPB involves review of products every three years after registration. The process of FRA includes suspension or deregistration of products. The country has draft regulations on monitoring impacts of chemicals to human health and the environment and regulations on restriction and banning of chemicals are being developed. In terms of capacity for risk assessment, registration is conducted before importation and use. A Technical and Registration Committee has been established and a Board which is appointed by Cabinet. The proposed list of industrial chemicals for review in Kenya are: Mercury, Chloroform; Nonylphenol ethoxylates; and Cadmium. The identified pesticides are: Nonyl-phenol ethoxylate; Dichlorvos; Paraquat Dichloride and Procymidone and Carbofuran PRESENTATION BY MALAWI Malawi has dual DNAs for the management of chemicals; the Environmental Affairs Department for industrial pesticides and the Pesticides Control Board (PCB) for pesticides. 6

8 The main regulatory framework for the management of chemicals are the Environment Management Act and Environment Management Regulations. In addition, the country has sectoral legislation dealing with different aspects of chemicals and associated wastes. There are various inter-ministerial institutions and coordinating mechanisms that have been established with the mandate of dealing with the management of specific chemicals. A multisectoral national chemicals committee for the implementation of the Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm and Minamata Conventions, and Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) is in place. Boards, Councils and Technical Committees have been set up with functions ranging from management and control of pesticides, pharmaceuticals and poisonous drugs, and policy guidance among others. Malawi has not established a formal system or mechanism for incidence reporting. Other challenges include inadequate communications systems, equipment, environmental services clean up and mechanisms for follow up and rehabilitation of exposed persons. There is also limited capacity and institutional arrangements for risk assessments in the country. The process for FRA involves quarterly and adhoc meetings of the multi-sectoral national chemicals committee. The committee evaluates chemicals listed in Annex III and any other chemicals that are of concern and discuss ways of meeting convention obligations. The proposed list of chemicals for review in Malawi under Industrial Chemicals are Chrysolite asbestos and Tributyltins. Under Pesticides, 2, 4-D, Carbaryl, Carbofuran, Dichlorophen, Fipronil and Paraquat have been listed PRESENTATION BY TANZANIA The Government of Tanzania has taken several initiatives towards Sound Management of Chemicals. The country has legislation on chemicals management and control which include the Industrial and Consumer Chemicals Act and Environment Management Act. Enforcement is conducted through registration, inspection and issuance of permits to importers, users, transporters, handlers and disposers of chemicals. Stakeholders are involved in decision making through a Technical Committee and Chemical Emergency Response Committee. The country has no defined surveillance system for pesticides poisoning but there exists limited data of pesticides poisoning incidences managed by the Ministry of Health. Community health pesticides poisoning reporting mechanisms have been established in Kilolo district and collecting of pesticide poisoning cases is being conducted in Arusha, Kilimanjaro, Mwanza and Iringa. A National Poison Control Center (NPCC) has been established to oversee issues related to poisoning incidences. Chemical incidents are handled in accordance to contingency plans approved by the Chemical Emergency Response Committee (ERC). 7

9 Tanzania has capacity for carrying out risk assessment which covers inspection and monitoring for safety, human health biological monitoring and assessment of pesticides dossier during registration. There is need for strengthening capacity for development and assessment of risk management plans. The proposed list for industrial chemicals for review are Creosote, Mercury, Chloroform and Carbon tetrachloride. None are listed as pesticides PRESENTATION BY ZAMBIA The management of chemicals in Zambia is guided by the Environmental Management Act (EMA) No. 12 of 2011 and Environmental Management Licensing Regulations of In addition to licensing and compliance monitoring, border controls are conducted to regulate the import, export and transportation of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (PTS). A network of institutions which include State Police, ZEMA, Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit and Ministry of Health constitute the reporting mechanism. Reporting of incidences is triggered by a number of factors among them poisoning cases, hazardous chemical spills and accidents during transportation of PTS and natural causes. The following process is proposed for FRA: i. Identification of PTS likely to be harmful to human health and Environment; ii. Endorsement of the proposed list of PTS to be banned or severely restricted; iii. Publishing in the Government Gazette; and iv. Informing the Rotterdam Secretariat. In line with this, a risk evaluation process should be put in place and should include the use of recognized laboratories, research institutions and academia. A proposed list of chemicals for review for industrial chemicals comprised: Mercury, Chrysolite, Benzene and Chlorinated Paraffin's. Under pesticides Endolsulfan, Aluminium phosphide; Methyl bromide; and Monocrotophos have been listed. 4.4 PRESENTATIONS BY THE FACILITATOR The facilitator; Ms. Zukie Gwayi made presentations on the Rotterdam Convention with a focus on scientific and technical information in FRAs, bridging the information on FRAs and national and regional coordination SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION IN FRA 8

10 Article 5 (1) of the Rotterdam Convention provides for Parties that has adopted a final regulatory action to notify the Secretariat in writing. The notification shall contain the following information as set out in Annex I: 1. Properties, identification and uses (a) Common name; (b) Chemical name according to an internationally recognized nomenclature (for example, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)); (c) Trade names; (d) Code numbers: Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number, Harmonized System customs code and other numbers; (e) Information on hazard classification; (g) Physico-chemical, toxicological and Eco toxicological Properties 2. Final regulatory action Information (i) Information specific to the final regulatory action: a) Summary of the final regulatory action; e.g. Regulations for the Prohibition of the use, Manufacturing, import and export of asbestos and asbestos containing materials, b) Reference to the regulatory document; e.g. published under Government Notice R 341 in Government Gazette of 28 March c) Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action; 2008 d) Indication of whether the final regulatory action was taken on the basis of a risk or hazard evaluation e) Reasons for the final regulatory action relevant to human health, including the health of f) Summary of the hazards and risks presented by the chemical to human health, including the health of consumers and workers, or the environment and the expected effect of the final regulatory action (ii) Category or categories where the final regulatory action has been taken, and for each category: a) Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action; b) Use or uses that remain allowed; c) Estimation, where available, of quantities of the chemical produced, imported, exported and used; (iii) Other relevant information that may cover: a) Assessment of socio-economic effects of the final regulatory action; b) Information on alternatives and their relative risks, where available 9

11 4.4.2 NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REGULATORY ACTIONS UNDER THE ROTTERDAM CONVENTION This presentation provided key elements and stages followed in the notification of the FRA as indicated in the figure below. When a Party submits a notification of final regulatory action, the risk evaluation and the bridging information must be sufficient to fulfil the criteria in Annex II (b) (iii) for this notification to be a trigger for further consideration under the Convention. The CRC considers such bridging information on a case-by-case basis. In reviewing the information, the Committee applies the following principles: (a) (b) (c) Exposure or potential exposure is a key element; The information should be science-based, on the best available knowledge; The information should also be sufficiently detailed to enable the CRC to make an assessment. 10

12 4.4.3 NATIONAL COORDINATION AND REGIONAL COLLABORATION FOR FOLLOW- UP ACTIONS ON PRIORITY CHEMICALS The presentation on national coordination reviewed the following challenges associated with sound management of chemicals and research: i. Lack of awareness and knowledge amongst the general public. ii. iii. iv. Some awareness programmes developed (e.g. at the workplace), but not extended to end-users. Limited information on chemicals in products, lack or inadequate tracking or audit system to track chemicals from production or import to secondary use and final disposal. Few chemicals have been thoroughly assessed for risk before they are introduced into the market, and impacts are largely undetermined. v. Fragmentation and duplication of legislative responsibilities amongst Government Departments/Ministries. vi. vii. A general lack of monitoring and enforcement throughout the life cycle of chemicals. Most research on chemicals is on an ad hoc basis, not coordinated to address country needs and priorities and mainly based on academic interests or funding specifications. Regardless of the challenges stated, there exist opportunities and the following low hanging fruits were suggested for the FRA notifications: i. Rotterdam Convention: A priority list of chemicals exists. ii. iii. iv. Stockholm Convention: listed chemicals and candidate POPs not in Annex III of RC. Minamata: Mercury National problematic chemicals stakeholders (especially researchers & Civil Society Organisations) key in identifying these. v. SAICM Emerging issues: Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals & substitute alternatives; Hazardous substances within the life cycle of electrical & electrical products; Lead in Paint; Chemicals in products; Nanotechnology and manufactured nanomaterials; 11

13 Environmentally persistent pharmaceutical pollutants (EPPPs); Highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs); and Perfluorinated chemicals. 12

14 4.5 PRESENTATIONS ON TOOLS The presentations were made on the FRA Evaluation Toolkit under the Rotterdam Convention by Mr. Gamini Manuweera and Mr. Maxwell Nkoya the Acting Director General made a presentation on the International Organisation Management of Chemicals Toolbox (IOMC) FRA EVALUATION TOOLKIT AND OTHER APPROACHES UNDER THE ROTTERDAM CONVENTION A presentation was made to introduce the FRA evaluation toolkit. The key elements of the toolkit were outlined as shown in the figure below. The participating countries were taken through the toolkit and how to use it to fill in the FRA form IOMC TOOLBOX Inter Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) has established Internet based Toolbox for Decision-Making in Chemicals Management (IOMC Toolbox). It aims at countries who wish to address specific national issues regarding chemicals management. The IOMC Toolbox is a problem-solving tool that enables countries to identify the most appropriate and efficient national actions to address specific national problems related to chemicals management. 13

15 The toolbox identifies the available IOMC resources that will help the country address the identified national problem(s) or objectives. Special focus is given to identifying simple cost-effective solutions to national chemicals management issues. THE SCOPE The IOMC Toolbox identifies appropriate actions and guidance for: i. A national management scheme for pesticides; ii. iii. iv. An occupational health and safety system; A chemical accidents prevention, preparedness, and response system for major hazards Pollutant release and transfer registers (PRTR) (New!); An industrial chemicals management system (New!); v. A classification and labeling system (New!); and vi. A system to support health authorities which have a role in the public health management of chemicals (New!) RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT DECISION-MAKING FOR PRIORITY CHEMICALS (ENDOSULFAN) UNITAR PROJECT BY TANZANIA A case study on risk assessment and risk management of endosulfan was presented by Tanzania. In the pilot case study, Tanzania was among the four countries that participated in the UNITAR funded project. The objective was to assess potential risks and adverse effects to health and the environment posed by endosulfan. It was realized that there were gaps in the data/information needed for proper assessment and management of endosulfan with regard to hazard classification as provided for under the WHO Class II. This has led to accidental & suicidal poisonings. The study also found that there was no documented National study on effects of endosulfan. However, data on poisoning was found at Government Chemist Laboratory Agency. The case study recommended the following: i. Continued use of Endosulfan with enforced safe handling procedures; ii. iii. iv. Strengthen control of illegal use, through patrols, heavy fines to offenders; Making frequent visits to institutions, handlers, users to gather more data / information on the concerns raised during the workshop; and Provide training, seminars and IEC Materials. 14

16 4.5.4 ESTABLISHING A POISON CENTRE IN ZAMBIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH A presentation was made on Zambia s efforts to establish a poison centre. It was reported that there had been an increase in the number of chemicals entering the country and emerging problems have led to new priorities for chemical safety. Among the identified challenges facing the country include an inadequate enforcement of legislation, low national preparedness capacity for chemical hazards, limited capacity to respond to poisoning events and the lack of a database for poisons. The cost of treating poison cases was unknown. In 2010, the cost of pesticide poisoning in one district in Zambia was USD 1million in one year. A surveillance study on childhood poisoning was conducted and revealed that Paraffin and Organophosphates were leading causes of poisoning. For this reason, a poison centre is required in the country. The centre can play a number of functions of information service, prevention of poisoning, diagnosis of poisoning, management of poisoning cases and trainings. Efforts to establish a poison centre in Zambia was traced to the following milestones: i. 2011: Healthy homes project which focused on preventing Kerosine poisoning. ii. iii. iv. 2012: Concept note on the development of poisons information, laboratory and treatment services in Zambia. 2014: Regional proposal development to improve poison centre services in Eastern Africa. 2015: Development of a plan of action involving key stakeholder participation. This mapped the way forward in establishing the poison centre. The action plan had been disseminated to the Ministry of Health management. Mobilisation of resources and location of the centre is now required. Compilation of initial information in the format of notification of FRAs under the Convention 5.0 BREAKOUT GROUPS AND DISCUSSIONS The countries were assigned tasks to fill in FRAs for their priority chemicals using information based on the toolkit. The countries also produced action plans as indicated in table 1. During the plenary discussions, the DNA s appreciated the information and experience sharing regarding sound management of chemicals management in the four countries. The meeting 15

17 noted that listing of chemicals must be country driven and the FRA must focus on human health and the environmental as the trade reasons alone were insufficient. For this reason, research should be undertaken at county level to link the human and environmental aspects of chemicals management. DNA s were encouraged to network and learn from each other, for example, Tanzania had a model which other countries could consider. Countries were encouraged to provide notifications to the Secretariat within the stipulated period of 90 days. The criteria for meeting the requirements of the RC would primary objective of notification should not be misused. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The following were identified as recommendations of the meeting: i. Regulatory and research institutions should collaborate and provide empirical data to make appropriate policy decisions. ii. iii. iv. Research should be carried out by member countries to establish diseases related to chemicals exposure. Regulatory authorities should facilitate shared research evidence on the chemicals and hazardous waste sector in order to provide a coherent platform for strengthening the science and policy interface. Resource mobilization and mainstreaming of chemicals management into the national agenda should be undertaken. This should link and contribute towards the National Development Plans and Sustainable Development Goals. v. Awareness raising on risks and mitigation measures and capacity building among medical personnel on how to handle and manage poisoning should be conducted by member countries. vi. vii. Capacity in risk assessment should be built among member countries and particularly African countries. BRS Secretariat should create a platform to facilitate networking and sharing experiences among DNAs. 7.0 NEXT STEPS Each country represented was requested to develop a road map of activities for the FRA for the priority chemicals which would include timelines and responsible institutions. The facilitator would be available to provide support to the countries and countries were encouraged to utilize her expertise. 16

18 Table 1 shows the timeline for activities to be undertaken. Activity Timeline Remarks Initial compilation of information on priority chemicals Two weeks (15 July) Submit FRAs for the priority chemicals to the facilitator Response from the facilitator Two weeks (31 July) To identify information gaps Collection and compilation of missing information Review and comments by the facilitator One month (30 Aug) Where necessary, the Secretariat could be of assistance to collect the information * One month (31 Sept) 7.0 CONCLUSION The meeting observed that capacity is needed in the respective countries regarding sound management of chemicals. The BRS Secretariat was available to assist the countries meet their obligations under the Convention. Concern was raised regarding the need to differentiate the levels of capacity building needed to address challenges regarding sound management of chemicals in the sub-region. The meeting was informed that resources had been secured to conduct trainings in the regions and the training programmes will be conducted in phases. The meeting conveyed its gratitude to the Zambian Government through ZEMA for successfully hosting the meeting and Ms. Noluzuko Gwayi for facilitating the meeting. Countries were encouraged to continue working hard to address the challenges in the chemicals sector. 17

19 ANNEX 1: AGENDA OF THE MEETING Sub-Regional DNA consultative meeting on the FRA Evaluation Toolkit and other approaches under the Rotterdam Convention Lusaka, Zambia 28 to 30 June 2016 PROVISIONAL AGENDA Time Activity Person Responsible DAY 1 TUESDAY, 28 JUNE Session 1: Opening, Introduction and Background Information Chair: Zambia Environment Management Agency 09:00-09:20 Registration of participants 09:20-09:40 Opening Remarks: Zambia Government BRS Secretariat Zambia BRS Secretariat 09:40-09:50 Introduction of participants All 09:50-10:00 Scope, purpose and structure of the workshop BRS Secretariat 10:00-10:20 COFFEE BREAK 10:20-10:40 Rotterdam Convention Overview: BRS Secretariat PIC Procedure National obligations 10:40-12:00 Presentation of national profiles of regulatory management of chemicals Kenya Malawi 18

20 Tanzania Zambia 12:00-13:00 Plenary discussion 13:00-14:00 LUNCH 14:00-14:45 Scientific and technical information in Final Regulatory Actions: Facilitator Annex I information Annex II criteria 14:45-15:10 Presentation on the FRAE toolkit BRS Secretariat 15:10-15:30 COFFEE BREAK 15:30-18:00 Other related tools: RC industrial chemicals toolkit BRS Secretariat UNITAR IOMC toolbox e-learning tool Reception DAY 2 WEDNESDAY, 29 JUNE Session 2: Preliminary assessment of priority chemicals Chair: BRS Secretariat 08:30-09:15 Notification of Final Regulatory Actions under the Rotterdam Convention Bridging Information 09:15-10:00 Risk Assessment and Risk Management Decision-Making for Priority Chemicals (endosulfan) UNITAR Project Facilitator Tanzania 10:00-10:20 COFFEE BREAK 10:20-12:00 WHO Human Health Risk Assessment Toolkit: WHO - Introduction to risk assessment - Demonstration of toolkit - Poison Centres 12:0-13:00 Breakout groups Review of information on priority chemicals Facilitator 19

21 13:00-14:00 LUNCH 14:00-15:10 Breakout groups (cont.) Information gaps Facilitator Breakout groups Compilation of initial information in the format of notification of FRAs under the Convention. Facilitator 15:10-15:30 COFFEE BREAK 15:30-17:00 Breakout groups (cont.) Compilation of initial information in the format of notification of FRAs under the Convention. 17:00-18:00 National coordination and regional collaboration for follow-up actions on priority chemicals Facilitator Facilitator DAY 3 THURSDAY, 30 JUNE Session 3: Data collection and follow-up actions Chair: Zambia Environment Management Agency 08:30-10:00 Country s National coordination for follow-up actions on priority chemicals Kenya Malawi 10:00-10:20 COFFEE BREAK 10:20-12:30 Country s National coordination for follow-up actions on priority chemicals (cont.) Tanzania Zambia 12:30-14:00 LUNCH 14:00-15:00 Recommendations and national roadmaps Facilitator 15:00-15:30 Areas for further improvements in the FRA evaluation toolkit All 15:30-15:50 Workshop evaluation 15:50-16:00 Closing 20

22 ANNEX 2: PARTICIPANT LIST LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FOR ROTTERDAM CONVENTION SUB REGIONAL DNA CONSULTATIVE MEETING FRA EVALUATON TOOLKIT LUSAKA ZAMBIA 28 TH 30 TH JUNE, 2016 PROTEA HOTEL Country Name of Participant Organisation address Telephone Kenya Dickson Njora Chemicals Management in National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) Kenya June Aluoch Pest Control Products Board Kenya Paul Ngaruiya Pest Control Products Board Malawi Caroline Theka Environmental Affairs Department Malawi Victoria Kachimera Environmental Affairs Department Malawi Mischek Soko Tanzania Jeniva Kamuhabwa Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Tanzania Sabanitho Mtenga Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Tanzania Jones Ackson Kepeleka Tropical Pesticides Research Institute (TPRI) Zambia David Kapindula Zambia Environmental Management Agency Zambia Christopher Kanema Zambia Environmental Management Agency

23 Zambia Cliff Ngwata Zambia Environmental Management Agency Zambia Rodwell Chandipo Zambia Environmental Management Agency Zambia Chrispin Simwanza Zambia Environmental Management Agency Zambia Mutinta Malambo Ministry of Agriculture BRS Secretariat Gamini Manuweera BRS Secretariat South Africa Zukie Gwayi Consultant BRS Secretariat Alexander Mangwiro BRS Secretariat 22