Stakeholder views on SAICM beyond 2020: Results from an interview series - adelphi
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
#CHEMICALSBEYOND2020
POLICY PAPER 2017/01
Stakeholder views on SAICM
beyond 2020: Results from an
interview series
How should the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) develop beyond
2020? This was the guiding question in a series of nearly 40 interviews with governmental and non-
governmental stakeholders from developed and developing countries. The interviews focused on
stakeholders’ perception on the strengths and weaknesses of the Strategic Approach and on options
for enhancing SAICM beyond 2020.
The results show almost universal approval of the voluntary, multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral
nature of SAICM. They highlight the need for further efforts to enhance implementation of the
Strategic Approach, to increase participation of key sectors and stakeholders, and to prioritise action.
There was widespread approval for a renewed overarching vision and a set of goals to achieve it,
supplemented by suitable indicators to enable more stringent follow-up and review. The general
need for an enhanced science-policy interface was widely acknowledged, but no clear model on how
it should be designed became visible. More diverging views were held on financing. The results
suggest a clear demand for enhancing SAICM based on its current strengths, and they reveal
considerable room to manoeuvre through the intersessional process on SAICM beyond 2020.
The reform process for global chemicals and chemical producers to downstream users like
waste governance beyond 2020 textile, car or toy manufacturers as well as
consumers. At the fourth session of the Inter-
Synthetic chemicals are a major contributor to national Conference on Chemicals Management
economic development and human well-being. (ICCM4) in 2015, delegates launched an in-
They provide innumerous services and enable tersessional process through resolution IV/4.
the manufacturing and use of a broad range of This process ought to provide recommenda-
products. They offer significant benefits to tions on the future framework for the sound
society, and are thus an essential precondition management of chemicals and waste beyond
for achieving the Sustainable Development 2020, including SAICM, and should prepare a
Goals (SDGs). However, their use often has decision at ICCM5 in 2020.
significant consequences for human health and To support the discussion, adelphi conducted a
the environment, and therefore it is pivotal to series of expert interviews, and the results are
manage them sustainably. reported in this policy paper. In total 38
The sound management of chemicals and interviews took place with 13 representatives
waste (SMCW) requires the participation of all from governments in developed and developing
stakeholders and the involvement of various countries, 10 from intergovernmental organisa-
sectors from the local to the global level, from tions, nine from civil society organisations
Page 1 of 7(CSOs), and three each from academia and the and the International Labor Conference,
private sector. respectively. Stakeholders were aware that it
The interviews were semi-structured and cov- takes a “champion”; someone exerting a
ered the perceived strengths and weaknesses leadership role like Canada has done towards
of SAICM, addressed specific details including the health sector. On the labour sector,
multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral involve- interviewees with long-standing experience
ment, the emerging policy issues as well as in SAICM were puzzled by its diminished role.
financing. They also asked for both comments Representatives from this sector tended to
on existing proposals and new ideas to reform explain this with a lack of capacities.
SAICM beyond 2020. The answers of all inter- A majority of representatives from govern-
viewees are reflected here anonymously and ments and some officials from international
only the general affiliation of sources is revealed. organisations noted that industry could be
playing a more proactive role. They noted
Strong support for a multi-stakeholder and that chemical producers are engaged in the
multi-sectoral approach process through their associations, but
wondered how downstream users of
A clear result of the interviews was that the chemicals could become more integrated.
most important strength of SAICM is its Business representatives, on the other hand,
multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral form. argued they were highly engaged not only at
There was no interviewee who did not the ICCM and in the boards of a number of
mention these characteristics as defining and programs and partnerships, but also in other
essential to the Strategic Approach, and most forms e.g. through ICCA’s capacity
noted that both should be extended and development workshops. The difference in
strengthened beyond 2020. As SMCW is a perceptions could be at least partially due to
multi-dimensional challenge, all the focus on different venues. It seemed that
interviewees agreed that each stakeholder many interviewees focusing on the ICCM
has a vital role to play and must have an were not fully aware of the work done under
opportunity to be involved in deliberations the emerging policy issues (EPIs), whereas
and decision-making. There was widespread sources more engaged e.g. in the Chemicals
approval of the role of SAICM in this regard, in Products (CiP) programme did not always
and the opportunity to have an open find compelling reasons to attend the ICCM
discussion e.g. at ICCM sessions was often sessions, and were in turn less aware of
mentioned as a key feature. developments there.
There was more critical appraisal of the level One idea that emerged during the interviews
of engagement of some stakeholders within was that the ICCM could facilitate a series of
SAICM, and what role they play both within side events or a thematic day, with sessions
and outside its framework. Many focusing on the life cycle of chemicals within
interviewees noted that SAICM is too heavily various product groups (e.g. toys or textiles,
rooted in the environment sector, and cars or buildings). That way, chemical
accordingly they welcomed the recent producers, manufacturers and the retail
enhanced engagement of the health sector sector could be brought together to work
through the World Health Assembly more closely with each other on the
Resolution 69.4 from May 2016. Most found reduction, replacement, or elimination of
that SAICM should strive to likewise harmful chemicals. Business representatives
strengthen its links with the labour and especially noted that the ICCM could become
agriculture sector. The most promising a much livelier event, where the policy
strategy for this was considered preparing discussions are one of several thematic
comparable resolutions at the FAO Council streams while others deal with innovation
Page 2 of 7and technology or discuss partnerships and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
cross-sectoral collaboration. and the SDGs, which created a high degree of
commitment due to the inclusive deliberation
Almost universal approval for a voluntary process and high-level engagement from all
approach stakeholders. Translating these ideas for
SAICM beyond 2020 would mean to build on and
Curiously, the voluntary nature of SAICM was probably even extend the nature of non-
mentioned by many as both a strength and governmental stakeholder involvement. A small
weakness. Almost all interviewees agreed that number of interviewees, for example, suggest-
the voluntary nature of SAICM was one of its ed giving voting rights or some other form of
key defining characteristics, and that it should more substantial ownership than they currently
be kept beyond 2020. Most importantly, the vol- have, as e.g. the International Labour Confer-
untary framework enabled open discussions ence does.
and exchange among all stakeholders, invited
joint solution seeking, and enabled the estab- Shifting focus, but how?
lishment of work programmes that might oth-
erwise not have been possible. With the voluntary nature of SAICM and its
Most interviewees realised there is a trade-off function as an overarching, multi-stakeholder
between having a more binding instrument that and multi-sectoral forum established as clear
enables stakeholders to take substantive ac- cornerstones, the question arises how the Stra-
tion, and continuous reliance on a voluntary tegic Approach might be enhanced beyond
mechanism allowing for more open discussions 2020. The interviews were semi-structured, and
as well as the flexibility to more easily engage so they allowed both asking for an opinion on
in further issue areas. The developments in the existing reform proposals as well as giving
BRS Conventions were seen as a tale of cau- space to lay out additional ideas.
tion: It was assumed that if action on EPIs Quite a large number of interviewees were puz-
would become mandatory, one would likely see zled by the fact that SMCW receives relatively
less willingness to embark on new avenues, to little public attention, at least compared to
pass resolutions and establish programmes on much more prominent sustainability issues like
ongoing and emerging challenges. climate change and biodiversity loss or epidem-
Very few stakeholders from both governments ics like Zika. They perceived this as a mismatch
and non-governmental sectors said they were between the economic, social, and environmen-
in favour of assessing the possibility for a tal relevance of chemicals and wastes and their
framework convention on chemicals and waste perceived prominence. No clear strategy
or another form of legally binding agreement. emerged from the interviews on how to deal
They mentioned the higher level of commit- with this. Many pointed towards better commu-
ment, the easier provision of or access to finan- nication about the costs and benefits of SMCW.
cial resources, and the increased visibility in Others were more critical of the way the inter-
the international arena as advantages. Howev- national community has dealt with chemicals
er, they noted there was clearly no majority for and waste, in particular through SAICM, and
actively pursuing this idea, at least not before said that its relevance and importance would
2030. Therefore, improving SAICM under its only begin to increase when it becomes more
present non-binding form was universally seen relevant by addressing different issues, or by
as the most realistic path. addressing issues differently.
Apart from the question of the legal status, a Some interviewees from both developed and
recurrent theme was how to enhance stake- developing countries or working in
holder commitment towards resolutions taken international organisations suggested a shift
at the ICCM. Repeated mentions were made of in the primary focus of SAICM, so that it
Page 3 of 7concentrates more strongly on enhancing massively and pointed to the various
capacities in developing countries. They noted mandates of existing institutions, whose work
that within too many countries, basic on these issues should not be duplicated.
ingredients of chemical safety management A small number of interviewees from various
systems were lacking. The BRS conventions backgrounds were unhappy with the name of
as well as SAICM would largely miss this the Strategic Approach. They said it was neither
most important foundation. SAICM would be self-explanatory, nor fully adequate and hard to
ideally positioned to facilitate such communicate. There were, however, no pro-
cooperation and provide support, though they posals for a new name, and several sources
noted it would require a reallocation and cautioned against changing an established des-
probably extension of funds. Others added ignation. Comparable comments were made
that with the Inter-Organization Programme with regards to the “sound management of
for the Sound Management of Chemicals chemicals and waste”, with likewise a small
(IOMC) toolbox and other instruments e.g. by number of interviewees especially from civil
OECD, useful capacity development society, academia and businesses arguing that
mechanisms were already in place and could a switch to “sustainable” management might
be built upon. Notably, no one said that SAICM make more sense. However, governmental
would currently deliver capacity development sources especially cautioned that changing
on a sufficient scale, yet other interviewees such long-standing wording can be quite diffi-
were more cautious in saying whether SAICM cult, and that there was no urgent need to do so.
could or should reorient itself in this way.
How to deal with waste is a contentious issue. A renewed vision, goals and targets, and
The interviews revealed mixed positions of follow-up and review mechanism
professionals from all backgrounds. Some
argued that the focus on hazardous waste All interviewees agreed that a clear and renewed
was too narrow and limited SAICM vision was needed to spur progress beyond 2020.
unnecessarily, yet more interviewees Achieving SMCW in all countries and across their
(especially governmental representatives) life-cycle was mentioned, in various forms and
argued in favour of it. They said the problems wordings, by all interviewees as the essence of
with SAICM were not due to a limited that vision. Another element repeatedly mentioned
mandate, and tinkering with it would not do by developed country, business and CSO
much good. Those in doubt noted that hazard- representatives was a transformative vision
ous wastes were already dealt with by the involving sustainable chemistry, framed as a
Basel Convention, and to fill in gaps SAICM dynamic process with the goal to reduce resource
should cover other or even all wastes. One consumption of chemicals production, use more
argument was that if SAICM is supposed to benign processes and create safer chemicals, and
approach SMCW from a life-cycle perspective, to find green and socially beneficial solutions for
it has to look more closely at the waste stage dealing with wastes.
of chemicals and chemical products, which To achieve this vision, a set of actionable goals was
includes non-hazardous ones such as plastic. considered necessary or at least viable by all
In that regard, some academic and CSO sources for a framework beyond 2020, with no
representatives wondered why SAICM has not interviewee arguing against it. Common points of
been much more active on high-impact and reference were the SDGs and the Aichi Targets of
highly visible issues like air pollution, heavy the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). There
metals like cadmium and non-paint uses of was widespread agreement that a more concise
lead, or plastic waste. International list of something between 10 to 20 strategically
organisation officials, however, were wary of chosen goals with according indicators would be
ideas to broaden the work of SAICM so highly beneficial to foster SMCW. Building on
Page 4 of 7that, an enhanced system for follow-up and the composition of the list of issues, stating
review was repeatedly mentioned, with that it apparently lacked strategic
interviewees from various backgrounds who consideration in terms of prioritizing the
were aware of the long list of 299 goals and most urgent or most harmful problems.
activities in the Global Plan of Action saying However, opinions were split over this, and
the indicators discussed at present do not especially CSO representatives noted the list
actually track real-world progress on could indeed be different but pointed out that
chemical safety. An often mentioned it was the result of a transparent multi-
reference system was the 2030 Agenda, with stakeholder driven process, and should be
its commit-and-review approach building on taken (and kept) as such.
national implementation plans and voluntary Other sources were more critical of the
country reviews at the annual High-Level process by which EPIs are established, even
Political Forum on Sustainable Development though the procedure for nominating new
(HLPF). Building on that, some interviewees issues is laid out in the annex to resolution
from academia and international II/4 from 2009. Civil society representatives
organisations as well as from governments and government officials from developing
suggested turning the reporting system into a countries argued that only those issues
mechanism for mutual learning. They noted would have a chance of becoming listed and
that the reports need to be actively used by then implemented which had one or more
the international system and at ICCM champions among major donors. The
sessions, that they should be seen – and resulting list was therefore considered by
designed – as an opportunity to report on many to not mirror the most urgent global
successful progress as well as on challenges. chemical safety problems, but rather those
In that regard, it was suggested to include for which sufficient support could be
non-governmental stakeholders in the review mastered among the developed countries.
mechanism, for example by involving data Asked how to resolve this, developing
collected by CSOs or by the chemicals country and CSO representatives answered
industry under its Responsible Care initiative. that a fund should be established which
allowed countries to pursue priority
Ongoing and emerging challenges activities beyond the EPIs, including the
development of basic capacities.
On the EPIs, many interviewees stated that The growing list of EPIs and other issues of
one of the strengths of SAICM is to work as a concern was seen especially problematic as
tool for addressing ongoing yet hitherto un- many sources noted that adding more and
addressed as well as upcoming and new more issues was not a promising strategy
challenges. Especially in comparison to the for achieving global chemical safety. Some
BRS conventions, they saw it as a huge interviewees especially from developing
advantage to agree on such issues without countries felt the agenda of ICCM sessions
the tough negotiations that made it difficult has already begun to be overburdened.
for the conventions to list additional Apart from addressing more forcefully the
substances over the past years. question whether a new issue would not only
Representatives from all stakeholder groups be relevant in itself, but also in comparison
noted that listing an issue as an EPI to other challenges, a few interviewees from
increased its relevance and visibility, though developed countries proposed that EPIs
many noted ongoing challenges in should possibly be more time-bound and
implementing them. specific, so that they would not become
A number of interviewees from governments, everlasting activities but have a more
business, and academia critically mentioned focused mandate. Other ideas were to deal
Page 5 of 7with more specific problems primarily familiar with the UN system were cautious
through partnerships, reserving the ICCM about the expected results. They noted it could
plenary to questions of overarching steering, help provide some funds for some projects, but
reviewing, and planning. that it would do little to close the huge gap to
other fields relevant for sustainable development.
Stronger financial framework wanted amidst
funding challenges A new science-policy interface
Almost all interviewees noted that the current A number of interviewees with an academic
level of financing SAICM is far from sufficient. background as well as some governmental and
One made the somewhat counterintuitive international organisation officials were sup-
point that SAICM should be considered a portive of enhancing the science-policy inter-
highly cost-effective framework judged by its face on SMCW. While many agreed that a panel
minuscule resources, as it achieves quite a on hazardous substances and wastes was
lot with small funding. Especially CSOs and needed to translate scientific findings into poli-
government representatives from developing cy-relevant knowledge, they noted it should
countries complained about a mismatch of look quite different than the IPCC and would
needs and funds. Even many officials from have to be much leaner in its structure.
developed nations conceded that funding is When asked about its potential tasks, most
not on a level they liked to see, yet brought noted that for such a panel it would not make
forward domestic budget constraints and much sense to repeatedly assess and discuss
pointed towards the integrated approach with the global state of chemicals and waste, but
its Special Programme and to the increased rather to focus on more specific issues and
chemicals and waste focal area budget within publish shorter state-of-the-art reports on
the Global Environment Facility (GEF). these. Apart from spurring progress within
The Quick Start Program (QSP) was a SAICM by providing better knowledge on
common point of reference. Developing chemicals-related risks as well highlighting
country representatives pointed towards the existing uncertainties, some interviewees
relatively simple procedure to access funds suggested that such a panel could foster
for small- to medium-scale projects, transdisciplinary academic cooperation,
including efforts to bring together national- enable information exchange and learning
level stakeholders. CSO representatives across disciplines and regions, and generally
argued that QSP projects could have been enhance the visibility of these issues within
established by non-governmental academia and the public.
organisations, whereas the Special Program There were also a few cautious voices from
merely allows for their participation, giving CSOs who said the usefulness of such a panel
them a much weaker role especially when would depend on the composition of experts
governments were not keen to have civil and authors and the process of how they are
society on board. nominated, whereas governmental
One idea to increase the level of funding was to representatives pointed towards the financial
focus on linkages between SMCW and other implications and the need to think about a
issue areas like climate change or biodiversity, lean structure, e.g. by having the ICCM decide
health and agriculture, and try to access funds on its work programme.
operating in these fields. However, interviewees
Further information: http://chemicalsbeyond2020.adelphi.de
Contact: Nils Simon, Senior Project Manager, adelphi, simon@adelphi.de
Page 6 of 7Legal Notice Suggested citation: Simon, Nils (2017): Stakeholder views on SAICM beyond 2020: Results from an interview series. Chemicals beyond 2020 Series, 01/2017. Berlin: adelphi Published by: adelphi Alt-Moabit 91 10559 Berlin Germany +49 30 8900068-0 office@adelphi.de www.adelphi.de Author: Nils Simon (adelphi) Place and Date of Publication: Berlin, February 2017 Disclaimer: The project underlying this report was contracted by the German Federal Environment Agency and supported with funding from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety under project number FKZ 3715 65 402 0. The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the author(s). © adelphi, 2017
You can also read
