Intersessional working group on the process of listing chemicals in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention

An intersessional working group was established by the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention (RC-7/5) to undertake intersessional work on the process of listing chemicals in Annex III to the Convention.

The intersessional working group is mandated to:

  1. Review the cases in which the Conference of the Parties was unable to reach consensus on the listing of a chemical by identifying the reasons for and against listing and, based on that and other information such as the information set out in documents UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.4/12 and UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.4/13, to develop options for improving the effectiveness of the process; and

  2. Develop proposals for enabling improved information flows that support the prior informed consent procedure for those chemicals.

The Conference of the Parties also called on interested parties and observers to nominate experts for participation in the intersessional working group and invited parties to consider serving as lead country for undertaking the work of the group.

In July 2015, Australia volunteered to act as lead country of the intersessional process. Subsequently, a background note and a workplan were circulated to the nominated experts of the group. Following this, Australia developed a thought-starter document with targeted questions that was submitted to the group for comments. The thought-starter document and the comments received will serve as a basis for discussions at the upcoming workshop in Riga, Latvia, from 3 to 5 July 2016.

The group is requested to report on its work to the Conference of the Parties at its eighth meeting.

Comments from intersessional working group members


MemberCommentsDate English
Items: 17   
CropLife InternationalComments from CropLife International4/21/2016114.16 K
International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile”Comments from the International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile”4/27/20161.46 MB
KenyaComments from Kenya4/28/201623.65 K
NorwayComments from Norway4/28/201657.55 K
EgyptComments from Egypt4/28/201657.82 K
International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN)Comments from the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN)4/29/2016136.3 K
Rotterdam Convention Alliance (ROCA)Comments from the Rotterdam Convention Alliance (ROCA)4/29/201690.28 K
The Fibre Cement Products Manufacturers AssociationComments from the Fibre Cement Products Manufacturers Association4/29/201656.18 K
European UnionComments from the European Union4/29/2016108.84 K
Instituto Brasileiro do CrisotilaComments from the Instituto Brasileiro do Crisotila5/1/201686.84 K
CanadaComments from Canada5/2/201663.64 K
United States of AmericaComments from the United States of America5/4/201670.02 K
ColombiaComments from Colombia5/11/201663.92 K
SwitzerlandComments from Switzerland5/11/201655.53 K
International Chrysotile AssociationComments from the International Chrysotile Association5/12/2016688.46 K
BrazilComments from Brazil5/16/201698.21 K
JapanComments from Japan5/31/201639.51 K