Towards SAICM IP4.2 discussion

Towards SAICM IP4.2 discussion


On November 1, the SAICM IP4 Co-chairs held a consultation meeting with stakeholder representatives to further develop the IP Co-Chairs’ single consolidated document and discuss other key issues to be considered in advance of the resumed IP4.2.

The meeting was recorded and uploaded on the SAICM website at: 

Environmental NGOs were represented by IPEN, PAN Germany and HEJSupport. Below, please see a short summary.

Detailed explanatory note from the IP Co-Chairs is available at:


To facilitate the work at IP4.2, the Co-Chairs seek answers to the five questions below. 

These questions are related to the IP4.1 consolidated document available at:

Other documents from IP4.1 are available at:


1.     What are the gaps, enhancements or improvements to be made in the text?

2.     Does the text adequately strengthen and enhance sectoral and multistakeholder engagement and ownership including for the private sector?

3.     Does the text fully reflect the ways of working and responsibilities of all stakeholders? Is the resolution the best way of taking actions? Should we hear from health sector? Are we addressing all stakeholders and all the needs?

4.     Could the placement of some text in the document be modified or moved out of the consolidated document and into a resolution?

5.     What part of the document could be considered static versus dynamic i.e. be more easily amended?

      The Secretariat suggested sending the answers to these questions to the Bureau members representing a particular stakeholder group (Sara Brosche represents environmental NGOs; Susan Wingfield represents health groups, Rory O’Neill represents trade unions) by December 2. The Bureau members and regional focal points are requested to compile the inputs or written submissions from the respective constituents and submit them to the SAICM secretariat.

The meeting participants raised concern that some of these questions go to issues that have not been fully assessed or considered at IP4.1. Thus, the Co-Chairs should be looking for suggestions and not agreed positions. For example, the discussion on issues of concern has not been finalized yet, and the process has not really had a chance to fully discuss.

 Some participants noted that the issues of concern (IoC) is the most important topic for them in terms of the work on SAICM.  We probably need to prioritize moving ahead on IoCs compared to other topics.

 It is also important that we progress at IP4.2 to resolve as many issues as possible before ICCM5.

 CoChairs noted that they were fully aware that nothing was finished. There is a full intention to go back to the work we were addressing in Romania. But we also need to decide how to resolve the things we observe in the consolidated document. It is not about negotiating text outside the process. At IP4.2 there will be the text that we finished discussing at IP4.1. But we might put a separate paper on some issues or annotate so that when people get to IP4.2 there will be a text to negotiate.

In addition, the Secretariat introduced a plan to prepare a draft policy resolution for ICCM5 by December 15. This draft resolution on the name and adoption of the new framework is supposed to become an outcome document from ICCM5. Also, an omnibus resolution from ICCM5 on the transitional arrangement and early implementation will be prepared.

The Secretariat noted that the resolution would include the text with preambular, information on how far we have come and the process we follow, some operational parts, and the name of the new instrument. The text of the new “beyond 2020” instrument/framework could be attached to the resolution as an annex.

Moreover, the ICCM5 would have to decide on the following elements: transitions of the current OPS, OOG, GPA; consideration of the rules of procedure; IoCs; what kind of intersessional work should take place after ICCM5; relationship with the SPP (Science Policy Platform); early implementation of the new instrument, for example on integrated chemicals and waste management in terms of national capacities; reports that were requested by ICCM4 that will have to be submitted to ICCM5.

 However, many participants raised concerns about developing a resolution while we have not finalized our work at IP4. Or is the work on the resolutions separate from our work at IP4? It was unclear whether the Secretariat plans to prepare one or two documents for IP4.2. So far, one single consolidated document was prepared after IP4.1 and had ownership of all participants and transparency. 

 The CoChairs provided an explanation to the concerns raised and noted that the priority for the resumed IP4 meeting should be to finalize the text of the “beyond 2020” instrument/framework.

Sharing is caring:

Tags: , ,
Written by Olga Speranskaya