UNITED NATIONS SC

UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Distr.: General 28 November 2013 Original: English Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee Ninth meeting Rome, 14–18 October 2013

Report of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee on the work of its ninth meeting

I. Opening of the meeting 1. The ninth meeting of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee was held at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome, from 14 to 18 October 2013. Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany), Chair of the Committee, declared the meeting open at 9.35 a.m. on Monday, 14 October 2013. 2. Mr. Jim Willis, Executive Secretary, welcomed the participants to the meeting, which he said was taking place in the wake of two major developments: the adoption of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, the most significant environmental development since the adoption of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; and the awarding of the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Since it was also Mr. Arndt’s last meeting as Chair of the Committee, one of the tasks over the coming week would be to identify his replacement. The Secretariat, with the assistance of the Government of Switzerland, was developing a training programme for representatives serving as presidents of the conferences of the parties to the chemicals-and-waste-related multilateral environmental agreements and as chairs of their subsidiary bodies and regional groups, which would be available to the new Chair of the Committee. He wished all participants a successful meeting. 3. Mr. Arndt added that a joint meeting of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee and the Chemical Review Committee of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade would be held on Sunday, 20 October 2013. The aim of the joint meeting would be to share scientific information and to discuss ways to enhance synergies between the two committees.

II. Organizational matters A. Adoption of the agenda 4. The Committee adopted the agenda set out below on the basis of the provisional agenda that had been circulated as document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/1: 1. Opening of the meeting. 2. Organizational matters: (a) Adoption of the agenda; (b) Organization of work.

K1354099 231213 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 3. Review of the outcomes of the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention and the second simultaneous extraordinary meetings of the conferences of the Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions relevant to the work of the Committee. 4. Rotation of the membership. 5. Consideration of draft risk management evaluations: (a) Chlorinated naphthalenes; (b) Hexachlorobutadiene. 6. Consideration of a draft risk profile on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters. 7. Consideration of chemicals newly proposed for inclusion in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention: (a) Decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE); (b) Dicofol. 8. Technical work: (a) Process for the evaluation of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 of part III of Annex B to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; (b) Guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts, perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride and their related chemicals; (c) Approach to the evaluation of chemicals in accordance with Annex E to the Stockholm Convention; (d) Guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Committee. 9. Report on activities for effective participation in the work of the Committee. 10. Coordination and collaboration with other scientific subsidiary bodies. 11. Workplan for the intersessional period between the ninth and tenth meetings of the Committee. 12. Dates and venue of the tenth meeting of the Committee. 13. Other matters. 14. Adoption of the report. 15. Closure of the meeting. B. Organization of work 5. The Committee agreed to conduct the meeting in accordance with the scenario note prepared by the Chair (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/1) and the proposed schedule set out in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/2, subject to adjustment as necessary. The Committee also agreed to conduct its work in plenary session and to establish contact, drafting and “friends of the Chair” groups as necessary. C. Attendance 6. The meeting was attended by the following 28 Committee members: Ms. Norma Sbarbati Nudelman (Argentina), Ms. Estefania Gastaldello Moreira (Brazil), Mr. Joswa Aoudou (Cameroon), Mr. Robert Chénier (Canada), Mr. Jianxin Hu (China), Mr. José Álvaro Rodriguez (Colombia), Ms. Floria Roa Gutiérrez (Costa Rica), Mr. Jorge Álvarez Álvarez (Cuba), Mr. Ivan Holoubek (Czech Republic), Mr. Raouf Okasha (Egypt), Mr. Timo Seppälä (Finland), Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France), Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany), Mr. Ram Niwas Jindal (India), Mr. Agus Haryono (Indonesia), Mr. Masaru Kitano (Japan), Mr. Mohammed Khashashneh (Jordan), Ms. Caroline Njoki Wamai (Kenya), Ms. Lulwa Ali (Kuwait), Ms. Haritiana Rakotoarisetra (Madagascar), Mr. Martien Janssen (Netherlands), Mr. Peter Dawson (New Zealand), Ms. Liselott Säll (Norway), Ms. Kyunghee Choi (Republic of Korea), Mr. Azhari Abdelbagi (Sudan), Ms. Svitlana Sukhorebra (Ukraine), Ms. Francisca Katagira (United Republic of Tanzania), Mr. Samuel Banda (Zambia).

2 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 7. The members of the Committee from Nigeria, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Thailand were unable to attend. 8. The meeting was attended by representatives of the following countries as observers: Australia, Austria, Belarus, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Gabon, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Japan, Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Poland, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Slovakia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Zambia. The European Union was also represented as an observer. 9. Representatives of the following United Nations bodies and specialized agencies also attended the meeting as observers: United Nations Development Programme. 10. The following intergovernmental organizations were represented: Global Environment Facility, League of Arab States. 11. Non-governmental organizations were also represented as observers. The names of those organizations are included in the list of participants (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/21).

III. Review of the outcomes of the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention and the second simultaneous extraordinary meetings of the conferences of the Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions relevant to the work of the Committee 12. Introducing the item, the representative of the Secretariat drew attention to the information provided in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/3, on the outcomes of the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention and the second simultaneous extraordinary meetings of the conferences of the parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, the Rotterdam Convention and the Stockholm Convention relevant to the work of the Committee. She drew attention in particular to the omnibus decision on enhancing cooperation and coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, adopted by the conferences of the parties to the three conventions and excerpted in Annex III to document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/3, and to decision SC-6/13, on the listing of hexabromocyclododecane in Annex A to the Stockholm Convention with specific exemptions for expanded and extruded polystyrene in buildings. She noted that in accordance with decision SC-6/14, on the operation of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, the Committee would report to the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting on its experience with the joint meeting with the Chemical Review Committee, the agenda for which would be based on requests of the conferences of the parties in the omnibus decisions. Work at the current meeting requested by the Conference of the Parties on other technical matters would be discussed under specific agenda items. The representative of the Secretariat reported on the development of a new section of the Convention website where parties could find information on all chemicals listed in the Convention, including alternatives.

IV. Rotation of the membership 13. Introducing the item, the representative of the Secretariat drew attention to the information provided in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/4, on rotation of the membership of the Committee, noting that 17 nominees would begin four-year terms as members of the Committee starting 5 May 2014. Nearly all such nominees were participating in the current meeting as observers. The Secretariat had received declarations regarding conflicts of interest from all Committee members and the Committee had examined them prior to the opening of the current meeting, finding no conflicts. 14. In the period between the Committee’s eighth and ninth meetings, Mr. Raouf Okasha (Egypt) had been nominated by his Government to replace Ms. Fatma Mohamed Ibrahim Abou El Shouk and Mr. Jorge Álvarez Álvarez (Cuba) had been nominated by his Government to replace Mr. Mario Abó Balanza. 15. The Chair noted that in addition to nominating his successor the Committee might need to name new chairs of intersessional working groups to replace the currently serving chairs upon the expiration of their terms on 4 May 2014. He said that he would consult the new Committee nominees with regard to both matters.

3 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 16. Subsequently, the Chair reported that Ms. Kyunghee Choi (Republic of Korea), had decided that the current meeting would be her last as Vice-Chair and Rapporteur, although she would continue as a member of the Committee. The Committee thus had to elect a new interim Chair, as requested by the Conference of the Parties in decision SC-6/14, and a Vice-Chair to replace Ms. Choi in accordance with paragraph 20 of the terms of reference of the Committee (decision SC-1/7, annex). 17. Following a proposal by the Chair, the Committee agreed by acclamation to elect Ms. Estefania Gastaldello Moreira (Brazil) as Chair, subject to confirmation by the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting in accordance with decision SC-6/14, and Mr. Azhari Abdelbagi (Sudan) as Vice-Chair. Both officers would begin their terms of office on 5 May 2014.

V. Consideration of draft risk management evaluations A. Chlorinated naphthalenes 18. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had before it a draft risk management evaluation for chlorinated naphthalenes (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/4) and comments and responses relating to it (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/5). 19. Ms. Svitlana Sukhorebra (Ukraine), chair of the intersessional working group on chlorinated naphthalenes, gave a presentation on the draft risk management evaluation. 20. In the ensuing discussion, many members expressed general support for the draft risk management evaluation, with a number also noting opportunities to clarify or improve particular elements of it. Several members expressed support for listing chlorinated naphthalenes in Annex A and Annex C to the Convention. 21. One member said that he could not support the draft risk management evaluation in its current form or a draft decision to list chlorinated naphthalenes in the Convention. In his view, the draft risk management evaluation did not include necessary data and did not sufficiently distinguish between different types of intentional production, unintentional production and emissions from stockpiles and wastes or the possible costs of addressing different types of emissions. Problems also existed with the potential unintentional release sources, some of which were too broad. Aluminium smelting and chlor-alkali production, for example, were pursued using different technologies in different countries. The draft document should reflect this and data should be gathered regarding the unintentional production of chlorinated naphthalenes, or lack thereof, in facilities employing various technologies. The Committee should collect that and other information before reconsidering the draft risk management evaluation. In response the Chair noted that information of the type described would be sought by the expert group on best available techniques and best environmental practices once the chemical was listed in the annexes to the Convention. 22. Many members expressed concern regarding the challenges that developing countries would face in implementing measures to minimize emissions of chlorinated naphthalenes, including with regard to monitoring, economic costs, availability of necessary technology, regulatory challenges and other issues. In that regard, several members said that developing countries faced significant challenges in monitoring and reducing releases of dioxins and furans. Factors included the high cost and availability of monitoring capacity, the high cost of acquiring and utilizing best available techniques and implementing best environmental practices, and the prevalence of open burning, including of industrial waste, in many developing countries. Consequently, references in the draft risk management evaluation regarding what it described as the relatively low costs associated with addressing the unintentional production and release of chlorinated naphthalenes were misleading and needed to be clarified. Similar concerns were expressed with regard to identifying stockpiles and articles containing chlorinated naphthalenes and their environmentally sound management and destruction. 23. One member called for caution regarding the creation of additional obligations under the Convention with regard to controlling unintentional production. His country had had significant success eliminating the intentional production of persistent organic pollutants controlled under the Convention but had had far less success controlling unintentional releases. The funds provided by the Global Environmental Facility to developing countries to reduce unintentional production had not been sufficient and more resources would be needed if the unintentional production of chlorinated naphthalenes were to be reduced. 24. A few members expressed concern with regard to the references to chlorinated drinking water in the draft risk management evaluation. One member said that use of the terms “wastes” and “stockpiles” in the draft risk management evaluation should conform to their definitions in the

4 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Convention. Another member said that it was important to maintain consistency regarding chemical names and expressed support for using the term “polychlorinated naphthalenes”. Another supported specifying the individual names of all chlorinated naphthalenes if a decision was taken to list the chemicals in the Convention. 25. The Committee agreed to establish a drafting group, chaired by Ms. Sukhorebra, to make any necessary amendments to the draft risk management evaluation and to prepare a draft decision on the listing of chlorinated naphthalenes in the annexes to the Convention. 26. Subsequently, the Secretariat introduced two conference room papers containing a revised draft decision and a revised draft risk management evaluation. In the discussion that followed, several members said that developing country Parties and Parties with economies in transition would face significant challenges if chlorinated naphthalenes were listed in Annex C to the Convention, including compliance with national chemical registration systems and the cost and technical challenge of monitoring and reducing emissions from multiple emissions sources. The Committee agreed that the drafting group should continue its work to reflect such concerns in the draft decision and to agree on the manner in which the draft decision would refer to the chemicals that would be recommended for listing. 27. Following the further work of the drafting group and further discussion in plenary, the Committee adopted decision POPRC-9/1, by which it adopted the risk management evaluation and decided to recommend to the Conference of the Parties that it consider listing di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-, and octachlorinated naphthalenes in Annexes A and C to the Convention. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report and the risk management evaluation is set out in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13/Add.1. B. Hexachlorobutadiene 28. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretariat setting out a draft risk management evaluation on hexachlorobutadiene prepared by the intersessional working group on hexachlorobutadiene (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/5) and a note by the Secretariat containing comments and responses relating to it (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/6). 29. Ms. Floria Roa Gutiérrez (Costa Rica), chair of the intersessional working group on hexachlorobutadiene, gave a presentation on the draft risk management evaluation. 30. In the ensuing discussion there was general agreement that hexachlorobutadiene was no longer produced intentionally and that there was sufficient information in the risk management evaluation to justify its listing in Annex A to the Convention. 31. There was considerable discussion of unintentional releases, however, and the related question of whether the chemical should be listed in Annex C to the Convention. 32. One member said that the draft risk management evaluation contained sufficient information on intentional production but not on unintentional production. Substantial uncertainty, he said, remained as to the kinds, extent and cost of unintentional releases and the measures that would be needed to combat them. While he was prepared to recommend the listing of hexachlorobutadiene under Annex A, he suggested that the Committee should continue gathering information on unintentional releases and discuss the matter again at its next meeting prior to making a recommendation regarding listing under Annex C. Several other members also said that the risk management evaluation lacked sufficient information on the economic and social impact of listing hexachlorobutadiene under Annex C, insisting that thorough review and understanding of the implications were required prior to listing. One added that data on unintentional releases in one country or region should not be extrapolated to others with different climates. 33. Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France), the drafter, explained in response that little information had been submitted on unintentional generation of hexachlorobutadiene. Data on the reduction of releases generated in the production of chlorinated solvents had been received from the European Union, Japan, the United States and Canada, but it was not clear whether developing countries used similar processes to produce cholorinated solvents, so the potential for reducing unintentional releases from those processes remained uncertain. Information on that question would be useful, but he asked whether another year would see it collected, as countries had already had a year to provide it in accordance with Annex F. 34. Several other members, acknowledging that developing countries did not have the technical knowledge or technology needed to collect the information required, suggested that hexachlorobutadiene should nevertheless be listed under both Annex A and Annex C. Listing, it was suggested, would trigger the updating of national implementation plans and the provision of assistance

5 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 in the application of best available techniques and best environmental practices. Such techniques and practices had already been shown to be effective in reducing unintentional releases. Following up on the point, the Chair suggested that listing under Annex C would result in the provision of assistance to developing countries to implement Article 5 (b) and other provisions of the Convention. 35. A few members drew attention to the information on alternatives provided in the risk management evaluation. One said that changes were needed to avoid the suggestion that the Committee was recommending certain alternatives. Another, saying that the production of chlorinated solvents was an important source of unintentional production, argued that the risk management evaluation should address alternatives for use in such production. 36. One member said that it was important to address the incineration capacity of developing countries, saying that many lacked the necessary technology to ensure the destruction of hexachlorobutadiene. 37. The Committee agreed that a friends of the chair group, chaired by Ms. Roa Gutiérrez, would meet to discuss the points raised, including those raised by observers. Following the discussions in that group a drafting group, also chaired by Ms. Roa Gutiérrez, would work to revise the draft risk management evaluation in accordance with the discussions in plenary, including the need for more information on the social and economic costs of listing hexachlorobutadiene in the Convention. The drafting group would also prepare a draft decision on listing hexachlorobutadiene in the annexes to the Convention. 38. Subsequently, Ms. Roa Gutiérrez provided an interim report on progress made by the group and outlined potential changes to the document. In the ensuing discussion, the Committee agreed that the draft risk management evaluation should clearly identify three different sources of possible emissions of hexachlorobutadiene: intentional production; unintentional production during the intentional production of other chemicals; and unintentional production and releases from thermal processes, in a manner similar to the production and release of dioxins and furans. 39. The chair of the drafting group later introduced two conference room papers containing a draft decision on hexachlorobutadiene and the revised draft risk management evaluation. The Committee adopted decision POPRC-9/2, on hexachlorobutadiene, by which it adopted the risk management evaluation, as amended, and decided, in accordance with paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Convention, to recommend to the Conference of the Parties that it consider listing hexachlorobutadiene in Annexes A and C to the Convention. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report and the risk management evaluation is set out in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13/Add.2.

VI. Consideration of a draft risk profile on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters 40. In considering the item, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretariat on a draft risk profile for pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/6), supporting information (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/7) and comments and responses relating to the draft risk profile (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/9). 41. Ms. Moreira, chair of the intersessional working group on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters, gave a presentation on the draft risk profile. 42. In the ensuing discussion, several Committee members questioned why supporting information had been provided in a separate document rather than in the draft risk profile itself, with one saying that there was no explanation as to why some information had been included in the risk profile and some not. The same member also expressed concern that it was not clear how some of the conclusions in the draft risk profile had been reached with regard to matters such as persistence and that references to the supporting data had not been included in some cases. Several members drew attention to areas of the draft risk profile where they felt that data were lacking, ambiguous or not up to date. Another said that, although pentachlorophenol and its transformation product pentachloroanisole were to be considered together, there was currently not enough information on pentachloroanisole in certain areas, including bioaccumulation, and it was suggested that the Committee should collect additional data and wait until its tenth meeting before moving from the Annex E stage to the Annex F stage. 43. One member said that the Committee already had enough information on pentachlorophenol and pentachloroanisole to confirm that they should be considered to be persistent organic pollutants under the Convention. He also suggested that additional information should be sought on the global half-life of pentachlorophenol and pentachloroanisole to facilitate the development of strategies for dealing with exposure and that the Committee should consider using a benchmarking approach.

6 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 44. Responding to the comments made, the drafter of the risk profile, Mr. Robert Chénier (Canada), explained that supporting information had been provided in a separate document because of the large volume of available information and the need, in keeping with Committee’s practices, to keep the risk profile to a manageable length. 45. The Committee agreed to establish a contact group, chaired by Ms. Moreira, to take an in-depth look at the draft risk profile with a view to adding or removing information and, if possible, removing brackets around text on which there was no agreement or, failing that, the bracketed text itself. 46. Ms. Moreira reported that the contact group had made progress working through the document but had not yet considered the sections related to possible endocrine-disrupting effects of pentachlorophenol, environmental effects on aquatic organisms and the relevance of particular types of risk assessments to the Committee’s development of draft risk profiles. 47. The Committee agreed that a friends of the Chair group, chaired by Ms. Moreira, should continue to work on the draft risk profile. 48. Subsequently, two conference room papers prepared by the group, one setting out a draft risk profile on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters and the other containing a draft decision, were introduced. 49. The Committee adopted decision POPRC-9/3, by which it adopted the risk profile for pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters and decided to establish an intersessional working group to prepare a risk management evaluation for those substances. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report and the risk profile is set out in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13/Add.3.

VII. Consideration of chemicals newly proposed for inclusion in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention A. Decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE) 50. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had before it notes by the Secretariat setting out a proposal by Norway to list decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE) in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/2) and the Secretariat's verification that the proposal contained the information specified in Annex D to the Convention (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/8). 51. Mr. Georg Becher, a representative of Norway, introduced the proposal. 52. In the ensuing discussion, several members expressed concern regarding the proposal’s conclusion that decabromodiphenyl ether met the Annex D criteria for bioaccumulation and adverse effects, saying that the proposal did not adequately reflect a number of studies indicating that the chemical was not bioaccumulative and did not have significant adverse effects. One such member also said that the size of the molecule inhibited its ability to follow common uptake pathways associated with bioaccumulation. Another said that assertions regarding endocrine disruption were not fully supported by the relevant references. 53. Several other members said that the information referenced in the report, as well as additional information that some members might provide, did provide sufficient evidence that decabromodiphenyl ether met the criteria of Annex D. Some members said that the existence of conflicting studies was to be expected considering that the substance continued to be studied and that there were differences among the studies with regard to location, species, exposure patterns and other factors. Such differences had been accounted for in the numerical ranges on bioaccumulation presented in the proposal. One member expressed concern, saying that the presence of decabromodiphenyl ether in soils was increasing owing to its use as one replacement for other chemicals listed in the Convention. Another said that while passive diffusion was blocked by the size of the molecule, several studies had shown active uptake through diet. 54. Some members said that the issue of reductive debromination of polybrominated diphenyl ether and its link to bioaccumulation was either not directly pertinent to the discussion or required more study. Other members said that the primary concern of the proposal was decabromodiphenyl ether but that debromination should be considered as an additional element of concern with regard to bioaccumulation and adverse effects. That, they argued, was consistent with the terms of the Convention and the past practice of the Committee.

7 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 55. One member said that the proposal relied on a number of very recent studies in reaching its conclusions and that more time was needed to confirm the relevant conclusions. Another said that issues related to bioaccumulation and adverse effects could be further clarified through the collection of the information specified in Annex E to the Convention. In addition, the fact that decabromodiphenyl ether had been found widely in the Arctic, where food chains were short, should be taken into account with regard to bioaccumulation. One member said that developing countries would face significant challenges addressing decabromodiphenyl ether if it was listed in the Convention. 56. Some members noted that the proposal included discussion of the commercial mixture c-decaBDE, while the examination of persistent organic pollutant criteria addressed only a single compound, decabromodiphenyl ether, saying that the Committee would have to consider carefully how to reference the chemical. One member said that the focus of the proposed listing should be decabromodiphenyl ether rather than the commercial mixture, which contained other chemicals. 57. One member said that in assessing bioaccumulation in respect of decabromodiphenyl ether, the Committee should also take into account the high value of log Koa of decabromodiphenyl ether, which coupled with the high value of its log Kow resulted in the slow elimination of the substances by air breathing organisms, as described in the proposal. She also noted that while Mr. Becher in his presentation might have mentioned only the most recent data, the proposal itself included all relevant data, including studies that did not show bioaccumulation. The proposal also included a discussion of why such studies might have underestimated bioaccumulation factors by relying only on measured levels in lipophilic layers, failing to account for the fact that decabromodiphenyl ether was not lipophilic and accumulated in blood rich tissue. As an example of other concerns, the proposal also discussed the potential for decabromodiphenyl ether to biotransform to brominated diphenyl ethers already listed in the Convention, thus meeting the criterion for bioaccumulation specified in paragraph 1 (c) (ii) of Annex D, and included information on debromination in the statement of reasons for global concern. 58. Following the discussion, the Committee agreed to establish a contact group, chaired by Mr. Peter Dawson (New Zealand), to consider the information provided and to determine whether it fulfilled the criteria of Annex D. 59. Subsequently, Mr. Dawson reported that the contact group had resolved the issues regarding four of the five screening criteria in Annex D to the Convention but had reached no conclusion on bioaccumulation. He suggested that in further considering the proposal the Committee could examine the annex to decision POPRC-2/6, on the evaluation of commercial octabromodiphenyl ether, and the guidance paper on bioaccumulation evaluation submitted to the Committee at its third meeting (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.3/20/Annex VI), which considered how the bioaccumulation criteria in subparagraphs 1 (c) (ii) and (iii) of Annex D could be applied when the criterion in subparagraph 1 (c) (i) had not been met. He also reported that the group had not looked into the matter of the chemical’s transformation products and, hence, debromination. 60. The Committee agreed to establish a drafting group, chaired by Mr. Dawson, to prepare a draft decision for consideration by the Committee. 61. Mr. Dawson subsequently reported that the group had been unable to reach agreement as to whether the chemical met the screening criteria pertaining to bioaccumulation but had begun to consider the matter of its debromination and transformation products. 62. In the ensuing discussion, one member suggested that the group should seek further guidance in decision POPRC-3/11, on perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride, and another drew attention to decision POPRC-8/4, on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters. Two members expressed doubt as to whether a conclusion could be reached regarding the bioaccumulation criteria, with one suggesting that they might be able to make progress with regard to debromination. 63. The Committee agreed to convene a contact group, chaired by Mr. Dawson, to attempt to resolve the outstanding issues with regard to bioaccumulation and to discuss debromination. 64. Subsequently, Mr. Dawson reported that the contact group had agreed that although there was no certainty as to the bioaccumulation potential of decabromodiphenyl ether, the potential for debromination to bromodiphenyl ethers already listed under the Stockholm Convention sufficed to confirm that the commercial mixture c-decaBDE met the screening criteria of Annex D. The group had therefore established itself as a drafting group and prepared a conference room paper containing a draft decision on decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE), which he presented to the Committee.

8 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 65. The Committee adopted decision POPRC-9/4, by which it decided that decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE, CAS No. 1163-19-5), met the criteria of Annex D to the Convention and agreed to prepare a draft risk profile pertaining to the substance. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report. 66. The Committee agreed that the paper by Mr. Ian Rae (Australia) referenced in the Committee's evaluation of the proposal to list decabromodiphenyl ether would be made available in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/19. It was also agreed that an expert on debromination could be invited to the Committee's next meeting to assist in its discussion of decabromodiphenyl ether in the context of Annex E to the Convention. B. Dicofol 67. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretariat setting out a proposal by the European Union to list dicofol in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/3), along with the Secretariat’s verification that the proposal contained the information specified in Annex D to the Convention (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/8). 68. Ms. Katinka Van der Jagt, a representative of the European Union, introduced the proposal. 69. In the ensuing discussion, many members said that dicofol should be further considered for listing in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention, with a particular focus on, among other things, trace quantities of DDT in the marketed product, the chemical’s persistence in sediments and its endocrine-disrupting properties. A few members, however, said that dicofol did not fully meet the persistence criteria laid down in Annex D to the Convention, as the evidence provided was based mainly on its degradation rate in water bodies with a pH value near 5; there was no evidence of its meeting the persistence criteria in saline water, and the limited number of water bodies with pH near 5 meant that the substance was of limited global relevance. One added that the findings cited in the proposal in regard to the toxicity of dicofol suggested that it did not meet the criteria on adverse effects either, saying that the substance was non-carcinogenic, non-mutagenic and non-teratogenic, had no effect on reproduction and had not been definitively shown to have endocrine-disrupting properties. 70. The Committee agreed to establish a contact group, chaired by Ms. Francisca Katagira (United Republic of Tanzania), to consider the information provided and to determine whether it fulfilled the criteria of Annex D. 71. Subsequently, Ms. Katagira reported that the contact group had confirmed that the information provided on dicofol met all of the criteria of Annex D except persistence. It recommended that the information on persistence be further considered in a drafting group established to prepare a draft decision for consideration in plenary. 72. The Committee, after further discussion, agreed to reconvene the contact group briefly to reassess the information provided by the proposing party, criterion by criterion, taking into account any comments from observers that received the support of members and bearing in mind that drafting must be left to a drafting group. 73. Ms. Katagira subsequently reported that the contact group had worked for several hours and had then decided to establish itself as a drafting group. One member, however, had objected to the procedure. Ms. Katagira indicated that all in the group, with the exception of that one member, had agreed that dicofol met the Annex D criteria. The Chair of the Committee requested the members of the group to provide him with a brief written statement of the information that they were relying on with regard to each of the Annex D criteria. The Committee then agreed that the group would reconvene to develop the statement. 74. Subsequently, the representative of the Secretariat introduced two conference room papers prepared by the group, which had re-established itself as a drafting group. The first contained a draft decision on dicofol, including a draft evaluation of the proposal to list the substance, and the second presented the requested statement describing the group's evaluation of each of the Annex D criteria, which took the form of the draft decision and evaluation annotated to show the arguments for and against each assertion in the evaluation. 75. In the discussion that ensued, all members, save one, agreed that dicofol met all Annex D screening criteria and should be moved forward to the Annex E risk profile stage. The dissenting member said that more information was needed and that it should be gathered before the Committee decided whether to prepare a risk profile for the substance. Many members objected to that proposal, saying that the additional information sought by the dissenting member would best be collected and considered during the Annex E stage.

9 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 76. In support of his position, the dissenting member questioned whether dicofol met the bioaccumulation criterion of Annex D, saying that the proposal improperly relied on bioaccumulation in fish and that the Committee should consider additional data with regard to terrestrial species such as rats and should also rely on the chemical's log Kow value. He also said that the proposal to list the substance relied on data from studies that were 30 years old, some unpublished, and that he would submit more up-to-date peer-reviewed data to the Committee at its next meeting. 77. In response, and at the request of the Chair, one member explained that the term bioconcentration referred to the uptake of chemicals from water by aquatic species. Other members pointed out that the Convention explicitly called for the determination of bioaccumulation to be made based on the bioconcentration factor or bioaccumulation factor in aquatic species. That factor exceeded the Convention's threshold in the case of dicofol, and it was thus unnecessary to consider other species. It was also pointed out that in the absence of such data the Committee could rely on log Kow and that the values reported for dicofol exceeded the Convention's threshold of 5. In the present case, however, there was no need to rely solely on log Kow because dicofol's bioconcentration factor was well above the Convention's threshold. 78. The dissenting member also questioned whether dicofol met the long-range environmental transport criterion of Annex D, relying on a February 2009 review conducted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe that had concluded that there was a lack of monitoring data revealing the presence of dicofol in remote regions. The remaining members of the Committee agreed that the criterion had been met, noting that estimated atmospheric half-lives of dicofol exceeded the Convention's threshold and that a 2012 study had detected dicofol in the Arctic. In that context, the Chair pointed out that the failure to detect dicofol in remote regions in 2009 did not constitute proof that the chemical was not found there, as more recent studies showed evidence that the substance was found in the Arctic. 79. Regarding adverse effects, again all members but the dissenting member agreed that the criterion had been met. The dissenting member argued that he should be given additional time to adduce additional scientific evidence that dicofol did not produce particular effects, saying that the data referenced in the proposal to list the chemical came only from developed countries and that it did not establish definitively that dicofol had adverse effects. One member requested that the dissenting member explain how, in his view, the listing proposal had failed to meet the criteria of Annex D with regard to ecotoxicity. The dissenting member said that he could not answer on the spot but that if anyone cared to give him such questions in writing they would be answered at a later date. The Chair said that even if the dissenting member could produce studies indicating that dicofol did not cause one or more adverse effects it would not change the fact that the proposal already presented sufficient evidence specified by Annex D to pass to the Annex E phase; that the chemical might not cause a particular adverse effect did not mean that it did not cause others, and, as the proposal already presented evidence that it did so, it satisfied Annex D. 80. The same situation obtained with regard to persistence, with all but the dissenting member agreeing that the Annex D criterion had been met. Many members spoke, urging the dissenting member to compromise and saying that any additional information would best be presented and examined in the course of developing a risk profile under Annex E. One member pointed out that if the closer examination of dicofol under Annex E proved the dissenting member right then the Committee could set the proposal aside at that point. The dissenting member maintained his position, however, promising to provide at the next meeting additional information that would bridge what he said were gaps in the available information and permit the Committee to decide. 81. In summary the Committee agreed to maintain the entirety of the outcome of the drafting group in square brackets, to indicate that it had not been agreed, and to resume its consideration of it at its next meeting. The Chair expressed concern that the dissenting member had based his position on a flawed understanding of Annex D and that if he did not correct it the Committee would again face deadlock at its next meeting. The outcome of the drafting group is set out in annex IV to the present report.

10 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 VIII. Technical work A. Process for the evaluation of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 of part III of Annex B to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants 82. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretariat on the process for the evaluation by the Conference of the Parties of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (PFOSF) pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 of part III of Annex B to the Convention (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/7). The Secretariat and the Committee had been requested, in decisions SC-6/4 and SC-6/7, to support the Conference of the Parties in undertaking the evaluation by developing terms of reference for and carrying out an assessment of alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF and by collecting information on those substances from parties and observers and preparing a report on such information. Draft terms of reference for the assessment of alternatives were set out in the annex to the draft decision in paragraph 5 of the note and a draft format for the collection of information from parties and observers was set out in the annex to document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/10. 83. Following that presentation the Chair welcomed the work of the Secretariat and the draft decision that had been proposed for consideration by the Committee but underscored the need for the Committee to review the text carefully, in particular the terms of reference, as well as the distribution of work and the timeline for its completion. 84. The Committee agreed to establish a drafting group, chaired by Mr. Mohammed Khashashneh (Jordan), to revise both the terms of reference for the assessment of alternatives and the draft format for collecting information from parties and observers. 85. Subsequently, the chair of the drafting group presented two conference room papers containing the revised terms of reference and revised draft format. The Committee agreed that the draft format could be further refined and decided to establish a group of friends of the Chair, to be chaired by Ms. Lulwa Ali (Kuwait), for that purpose. 86. The chair of the friends of the Chair group later introduced a further revised version of the draft format, explaining that the group had made progress. She noted that the group had decided to include in the format a list of supporting documents that would provide respondents with information that would be useful in completing the form. A number of members offered suggestions for further development of the document with regard to the identification of the relevant substances and to make it easier to use. The Committee agreed that the friends of the Chair group would reconvene and endeavour to complete the draft format. 87. Subsequently, the Secretariat presented two conference room papers containing further revised versions of the draft terms of reference and draft format and invited the Committee to consider the revised draft decision on the process for the evaluation of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride for the various acceptable purposes and specific exemptions. 88. The Committee revised the format and requested the Secretariat to send it to parties in the six official languages of the United Nations. The revised format in English is set out in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/10/Rev.1. The Committee also adopted decision POPRC-9/5, by which it decided to establish an intersessional working group to undertake the activities requested in paragraph 3 of decision SC-6/4 and paragraph 5 (d) (ii) of decision SC-6/7, which would work in accordance with the terms of reference set out in the annex to the decision. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report. 89. The Committee noted that a consultant would be needed to support the intersessional work to be undertaken relating to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF between its ninth and tenth meetings and invited Parties in a position to do so to provide financial resources to that end. B. Guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts, perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride and their related chemicals 90. In considering the item, the Committee had before it notes by the Secretariat on revision of the guidance on alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/8), revised draft guidance on such alternatives (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/11) and a compilation of comments and responses relating to the revised draft guidance (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/12/Rev.1). 91. At the request of Mr. Samuel Banda (Zambia), chair of the intersessional working group on revision of the guidance on alternatives to PFOS, its salts, PFOSF and their related chemicals,

11 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Mr. Stefan Posner, a consultant that had been engaged to prepare the revised guidance on alternatives, gave a presentation on the revised guidance. 92. In the ensuing discussion, one member expressed appreciation for the revised guidance and welcomed its recommendations but sought clarification regarding how it would be taken into account in the evaluation of specific exemptions and acceptable purposes by the Conference of the Parties. The Chair confirmed that it could be expected to contribute to the evaluation process. The representative of the Secretariat added that the Committee could draw on the experience in dealing with DDT, for which a similar periodic evaluation was undertaken by the Conference of the Parties. 93. Another member asked what other action could be taken under the Convention to ensure that the guidance reached its intended audience. He also asked about the extent to which industry had provided input and feedback on the guidance. Responding, Mr. Posner said that some companies had provided comments, while another member of the intersessional working group confirmed that background work had been carried out with industry and that the level of contribution varied from sector to sector. 94. An observer said that he wished to propose some modifications to the text. The Committee agreed that the observer and the chair of the intersessional working group should work together to integrate his suggestions into the text before the Committee considered the draft decision. 95. The Committee adopted decision POPRC-9/6, by which it endorsed the revised guidance on alternatives to PFOS, its salts, PFOSF and their related chemicals, as amended at the current meeting, and agreed to review it again at its tenth meeting in the light of the continuing work on alternatives. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report and the revised guidance is set out in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/11/Rev.1. C. Approach to the evaluation of chemicals in accordance with Annex E to the Stockholm Convention 96. In considering the sub-item the Committee had before it notes by the Secretariat on the approach to the evaluation of chemicals in accordance with Annex E to the Stockholm Convention (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/9), a discussion paper on the approach (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/13) and a compilation of comments and responses relating to the discussion paper (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/14). 97. The chair of the intersessional working group on the application of the Annex E criteria, Mr. Chénier, gave a presentation on the issues and common practices in the application of the Annex E criteria, as well as a summary of information on short-chained chlorinated paraffins submitted to the Committee during the intersessional period. 98. In the ensuing discussion, the Committee members who spoke welcomed the discussion paper; one said that he would be happy to endorse the document in its current form while the other said that she could do so following a number of changes, for example with regard to benchmarking. 99. Responding to one observer, the Chair thanked her for the letter that her organization had sent expressing concerns over the role of risk in the application of the Annex E criteria. He underscored that the Committee prepared risk profiles rather than risk assessments but suggested an amendment to paragraph 21 of the discussion document, saying that it suggested incorrectly that the work of the Committee was based on hazard assessment alone. 100. The Committee agreed to establish a drafting group, chaired by Mr. Chénier, to revise the discussion paper, looking in particular at sections 2.1 and 2.2, summarizing examples and approaches that had been used by the Committee in the past in preparing Annex E risk profiles. 101. Subsequently, three conference room papers prepared by the drafting group were introduced: one containing revised versions of chapters 1 and 2 of document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/13 on the application of the Annex E criteria; another containing a revised version of chapter 3 of document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/13 on the application of the Annex E criteria; and a third containing a draft decision on the approach to the evaluation of chemicals in accordance with Annex E to the Convention. 102. The Committee adopted decision POPRC-9/7, by which it endorsed the document set out in the annex to the decision outlining examples of practices used and decisions made in the evaluation of chemicals by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee in accordance with Annex E to the Convention. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report. The paper on the views on open issues in the evaluation of chemicals in accordance with Annex E to the Stockholm Convention is set out in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/20.

12 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 D. Guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Committee 103. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had before it notes by the Secretariat on guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Committee (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/10); on the revised draft guidance prepared by the intersessional working group established by decision POPRC-8/10 to carry out the further work needed to address the comments provided by parties and observers (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/15); and on a compilation of the comments from parties and observers and the corresponding responses (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/16). A draft approach to the consideration of climate change interactions with the chemicals proposed for listing under the Convention was set out in annex I to document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/10, and a set of draft recommendations to the Conference of the Parties was presented in annex II to that document. 104. Mr. Abdelbagi, co-chair of the intersessional working group, introduced the revised draft guidance, the draft approach and the draft recommendations to the Conference of the Parties. 105. In the ensuing discussion, general appreciation was expressed for the content of the documents presented. A few members said that the guidance and approach would probably evolve as additional chemicals were proposed for listing in the annexes to the Convention, starting with the two currently under consideration under item 7 of the agenda. Another member suggested that the Committee would not be expected to assess the climate change effect of every chemical evaluated. One member added a note of caution, saying that it might be difficult to obtain the information required to tackle some of the issues covered in the guidance. The Committee agreed that the Secretariat should revise the last paragraph of the draft recommendations, on updating the guidance and approach in the light of new information, to reflect the discussions in plenary. 106. Subsequently, the Secretariat presented the draft decision. The Committee adopted decision POPRC-9/8, by which it adopted the guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, the approach to the consideration of climate change interactions with the chemicals proposed for listing in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention and the recommendations developed on the basis of the guidance. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report and the guidance is set out in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/15.

IX. Report on activities for effective participation in the work of the Committee 107. In its consideration of this item, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretariat on activities for effective participation in the work of the Committee (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/11). The representative of the Secretariat introduced the item, outlining the information contained in the note. 108. At the request of the Secretariat, several members suggested topics for future webinars, which included the Secretariat’s clearing-house mechanism, effective participation during intersessional periods and an exchange of ideas on the phase-out of certain substances. Noting that the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme had recently released a state-of-the-science report on endocrine disruptors, an observer proposed that subject as a topic for a webinar or a seminar, and at the Chair’s request a representative of Norway agreed to provide the Secretariat with the names of experts on the topic. 109. In response to a request from a member regarding the scheduling of webinars to take into account time zone differences, the representative of the Secretariat said that two times were usually scheduled for each webinar to accommodate members in different regions. 110. Several members spoke about the need to provide sufficient information to allow new members to participate effectively in the Committee. One proposed an orientation workshop for new members like that offered by the Chemical Review Committee of the Rotterdam Convention, while another noted the importance of guidance documentation for new members, particularly to explain the Committee’s work, and suggested that the possibility of holding mock sessions of the Committee, like those held for the benefit of new members of the Rotterdam Convention’s Chemical Review Committee, should be considered. 111. There was substantial discussion regarding ways to share experience acquired and lessons learned, both among existing members and with incoming members. One member stressed the need for outgoing members to meet with their successors. The need for knowledge capture and sharing at the regional level was also discussed. One member suggested that mechanisms to facilitate

13 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 communication among members of other conventions from each region be studied, and another proposed that members take advantage of the current meeting to meet in regional groups at lunchtime to get to know each other better and to transfer knowledge. 112. One member said that it would be desirable to enhance the participation of outside experts in the Committee’s work. She also questioned how such experts might be compensated for their contributions and suggested acknowledgement in the reports of the Committee’s meetings as one possible means. 113. Several members suggested that regional centres could play a key role in improving stakeholder awareness of the Committee’s work and that the academic and research communities could be an important source of scientific and technical information at the regional level. 114. The Committee agreed to establish a drafting group, chaired by Ms. Norma Ethel Sbarbati Nudelman (Argentina) to revise the draft decision set out in paragraph 5 of document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/11, taking into account the comments and suggestions made during the current meeting. 115. Subsequently, the chair of the drafting group presented a conference room paper containing a revised version of the draft decision. 116. In the ensuing discussion, several members requested further clarification and additional amendments were made to the draft decision. The Committee agreed to adopt the revised draft decision, as orally amended, and to include on the agendas of future meetings a sub-item under effective participation in the work of the Committee on the activities of regional centres taking place during intersessional periods. 117. The Committee adopted decision POPRC-9/9, on effective participation in the work of the Committee. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report.

X. Coordination and collaboration with other scientific subsidiary bodies 118. In considering the item, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretariat on coordination and collaboration with other scientific subsidiary bodies (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/17). Introducing the item, the representative of the Secretariat mentioned key events, including the forthcoming joint meeting of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee and the Chemical Review Committee, to take place on Sunday, 20 October 2013, a workshop on enhancing participation and synergies between the two committees, to be held in Dakar in November 2013, and several planned and past webinars to facilitate information and experience sharing between the two committees. In addition, a small intersessional working group established by the Open-ended Working Group of the Basel Convention was currently in the process of reviewing and updating technical guidelines for the environmentally sound management of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with persistent organic pollutants, and members of the Committee were welcome to join in the work of that group. 119. The Chair said that the forthcoming joint meeting of the Committee and the Chemical Review Committee would be an opportunity for the two bodies to learn from each other, to develop a mutual understanding and to explore what could be done to improve information sharing. The outcomes of the joint meeting would be reviewed by the conferences of the parties to the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. 120. In the ensuing discussion, general support was expressed for the process of enhancing coordination and collaboration with other scientific subsidiary bodies, including in particular the joint meeting of the Committee and the Chemical Review Committee. 121. The Committee took note of the information provided.

XI. Workplan for the intersessional period between the ninth and tenth meetings of the Committee 122. In its consideration of the item the Committee had before it a note by the Secretariat on a draft workplan for the intersessional period between the ninth and tenth meetings of the Committee (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/12). The representative of the Secretariat introduced the item, outlining the information contained in the note.

14 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 123. In accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 8 of the Convention and paragraph 29 of the annex to decision SC-1/7, the Committee established a number of intersessional working groups to carry forward the work necessary to implement its decisions. The composition of those groups is set out in annex II to the present report. 124. The Committee adopted the workplan, as orally amended. The workplan as adopted is set out in annex III to the present report.

XII. Dates and venue of the tenth meeting of the Committee 125. The Committee decided that its tenth meeting would be held from 27 to 31 October 2014, back to back with the tenth meeting of the Rotterdam Convention’s Chemical Review Committee, at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in Rome.

XIII. Other matters 126. One member pointed out that the quality of information contained in draft risk management evaluations or draft risk profiles to be considered at the Committee’s meetings could be improved, for example by parties, observers and intersessional working group members providing more comments and relevant information during intersessional periods. In the light of that suggestion the Committee agreed that members and observers should provide suggestions for improvement to the Secretariat by 30 March 2014. The Secretariat, with the support of Mr. Ousmane Sow (Senegal), an incoming member of the Committee whose term would begin on 5 May 2014, would compile the comments received and circulate them before the Committee’s next meeting.

XIV. Adoption of the report 127. The Committee adopted the present report on the basis of the draft report contained in documents UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/L.1 and Add.1 and 2, as orally amended, on the understanding that the Vice-Chair, serving as rapporteur and working in consultation with the Secretariat, would be entrusted with its finalization.

XV. Closure of the meeting 128. During the customary exchange of courtesies members of the Committee and representatives of the Secretariat paid tribute to Mr. Arndt for his long years of service as Chair of the Committee and to Ms. Choi for her service as Vice-Chair. The meeting was then declared closed at 6 p.m. on Friday, 18 October 2013.

15 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Annex I

Decisions adopted by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee at its ninth meeting

POPRC-9/1: Chlorinated naphthalenes POPRC-9/2: Hexachlorobutadiene POPRC-9/3: Pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters POPRC-9/4: Decabromodiphenyl ether POPRC-9/5: Process for the evaluation of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride for the various acceptable purposes and specific exemptions POPRC-9/6: Guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts, perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride and their related chemicals POPRC-9/7: Approach to the evaluation of chemicals in accordance with Annex E to the Stockholm Convention POPRC-9/8: Guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee POPRC-9/9: Effective participation in the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee

16 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13

POPRC-9/1: Chlorinated naphthalenes The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Having concluded in decision POPRC-7/2 that 73 chlorinated naphthalene congeners containing from two to eight chlorine atoms meet the criteria set out in Annex D to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, Having evaluated the risk profile for chlorinated naphthalenes adopted by the Committee at its eighth meeting,1 Having concluded in decision POPRC-8/1 that dichlorinated naphthalenes, trichlorinated naphthalenes, tetrachlorinated naphthalenes, pentachlorinated naphthalenes, hexachlorinated naphthalenes, heptachlorinated naphthalenes and octachlorinated naphthalene are likely, as a result of their long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and environmental effects such that global action is warranted, Having completed the risk management evaluation for chlorinated naphthalenes in accordance with paragraph 7 (a) of Article 8 of the Stockholm Convention, Noting that developing countries and countries with economies in transition require technical and financial capacity to monitor emissions of the polychlorinated naphthalenes listed in paragraph 2 of the present decision, 1. Adopts the risk management evaluation for chlorinated naphthalenes;2 2. Decides, in accordance with paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Convention, to recommend to the Conference of the Parties that it consider listing dichlorinated naphthalenes, trichlorinated naphthalenes, tetrachlorinated naphthalenes, pentachlorinated naphthalenes, hexachlorinated naphthalenes, heptachlorinated naphthalenes and octachlorinated naphthalene3 in Annexes A and C to the Convention.

POPRC-9/2: Hexachlorobutadiene The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Having concluded in decision POPRC-7/3 that hexachlorobutadiene meets the criteria set out in Annex D to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, Having evaluated the risk profile for hexachlorobutadiene adopted by the Committee at its eighth meeting,4 Having concluded in decision POPRC-8/2 that hexachlorobutadiene is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and environmental effects such that global action is warranted, Having completed the risk management evaluation for hexachlorobutadiene in accordance with paragraph 7 (a) of Article 8 of the Stockholm Convention, 1. Adopts the risk management evaluation for hexachlorobutadiene;5 2. Decides, in accordance with paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Convention, to recommend to the Conference of the Parties that it consider listing hexachlorobutadiene in Annexes A and C to the Convention.

POPRC-9/3: Pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Having completed an evaluation of the proposal by the European Union and its member States that are parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants to list pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Stockholm Convention and having decided at

1 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/16/Add.1. 2 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13/Add.1. 3 Individually or as components of chlorinated naphthalenes. 4 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/16/Add.2. 5 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13/Add.2.

17 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 its eighth meeting, in its decision POPRC-8/4, that the proposal meets the criteria set out in Annex D to the Convention, Having also completed the risk profile for pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters, including consideration of the transformation product pentachloroanisole, in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 8 of the Convention, 1. Adopts the risk profile for pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters;6 2. Decides, in accordance with paragraph 7 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, that pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters are likely, as a result of their long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and environmental effects such that global action is warranted; 3. Also decides, in accordance with paragraph 7 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention and paragraph 29 of decision SC-1/7 of the Conference of the Parties, to establish an ad hoc working group to prepare a risk management evaluation that includes an analysis of possible control measures for pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters in accordance with Annex F to the Convention; 4. Invites, in accordance with paragraph 7 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, parties and observers to submit to the Secretariat the information specified in Annex F before 10 January 2014.

POPRC-9/4: Decabromodiphenyl ether The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Having examined the proposal by Norway to list the commercial mixture decabromodiphenyl ether (c-decaBDE, CAS No. 1163-19-5) in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and having applied the screening criteria specified in Annex D to the Convention, 1. Decides, in accordance with paragraph 4 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, that it is satisfied that the screening criteria have been fulfilled for decabromodiphenyl ether as described in the evaluation contained in the annex to the present decision; 2. Also decides, in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 8 of the Convention and paragraph 29 of decision SC-1/7, to establish an ad hoc working group to review the proposal further and to prepare a draft risk profile in accordance with Annex E to the Convention; 3. Invites, in accordance with paragraph 4 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, parties and observers to submit to the Secretariat the information specified in Annex E before 10 January 2014.

Annex to decision POPRC-9/4

Evaluation of decabromodiphenyl ether against the criteria of Annex D A. Background 1. The primary source of information for the preparation of the present evaluation was the proposal submitted by Norway (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/2). 2. Additional sources of scientific information included critical reviews prepared by recognized authorities. B. Evaluation 3. The proposal was evaluated in the light of the requirements of Annex D regarding the identification of the chemical (paragraph 1 (a)) and the screening criteria (paragraphs 1 (b)–(e)):

6 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13/Add.3.

18 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 (a) Chemical identity: (i) Adequate information was provided in the proposal and supporting documents. The proposal refers to commercial decabromodiphenyl ether; (ii) The chemical structure for the pure compound decabromodiphenyl ether was provided. Commercial decabromodiphenyl ether is a chemical product consisting predominantly of decabromodiphenyl ether (> 97 per cent) with low levels (0.3–3 per cent) of nonabromodiphenyl ether and octabromodiphenyl ether (0-0.04 per cent) as impurities;7 The chemical identity of commercial decabromodiphenyl ether and the pure compound decabromodiphenyl ether is adequately established; (b) Persistence: (i) The half-life of decabromodiphenyl ether in soil is longer than six months. The half-life of decabromodiphenyl ether in sediments ranges from hours, when the degradation process is dominated by photolysis, up to 50 years. Hydrolysis is unlikely to be a relevant degradation process in the environment, due to the very low water solubility of decabromodiphenyl ether (< 0.1 ug/l at 25 °C) and the fact that the molecule does not contain any functional groups that are susceptible to hydrolysis (Ref. 1); (ii) In a field study on freshwater lake sediment covering more than 65 years, decabromodiphenyl ether was found to be highly persistent (Ref. 2); There is sufficient evidence that decabromodiphenyl ether meets the criterion on persistence; (c) Bioaccumulation: (i) Log bioaccumulation factor (BAF) values derived from environmental monitoring data for aquatic species range between 4.06 and 6.7, where logBAF>3.7 corresponds to a BAF of >5000. Log KOW values for decabromodiphenyl ether are reported to range from 9.97 to 12.11. The calculated bioconcentration factor (BCF) values (< 3000) are considered to be unreliable and BCF is considered to be less relevant than BAF due to the extremely low water solubility of decabromodiphenyl ether and steric hindrance of diffusion across gills and cell membranes in aquatic organisms of the large molecules of decabromodiphenyl ether; (ii) and (iii) Experimental and field data of the biomagnification factor (BMF) (1.4–7) demonstrate that decabromodiphenyl ether biomagnifies in terrestrial species and food webs (Ref. 1). Other data demonstrate biomagnification potential in aquatic species (Refs. 1, 3) and foodwebs with BMF and trophic magnification factor (TMF) ranging between 0–34 and 0.2–10.4 (Ref. 1). There are also many experimental and field data, however, that do not provide evidence for biomagnification (Refs. 4–6); Decabromodiphenyl ether was detected in the muscles and livers of frogs from a contaminated site in South China. The concentration ranged from 0.13 to 1.37 ng/g ww. Decabromodiphenyl ether was also detected in frog eggs (0.45 ng/g ww) indicating that there is a transfer from mother to egg. BMF from diet (insects) were 10.4 and 13.0 in male and female frogs, respectively (Refs. 1, 7). In frogs, effects on the thyroid gland were detected at concentrations of 1 ng/L when frogs were exposed to a commercial decabromodiphenyl ether mixture (Ref. 8); The detected levels of decabromodiphenyl ether in a variety of species spanning different trophic levels of terrestrial and aquatic food chains in the Arctic provide additional evidence that decabromodiphenyl ether is

7 The composition of older products or products from other sources may be different. For example a product that is no longer supplied in the European Union had a composition of 77.4 per cent of decabromodiphenyl ether, 21.8 per cent nonabromodiphenyl ether and 0.85 per cent octabromodiphenyl ether.

19 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 bioaccumulated and biomagnified in freshwater and marine environments, since the detected levels cannot be explained by high continuous exposure from nearby sources (Refs. 1, 9); Several assessments have concluded that there is a high probability that decabromodiphenyl ether is transformed in biota to lower brominated diphenyl ethers that are more bioaccumulative and are listed in the Stockholm Convention, i.e. tetra-, penta-, hexa- and hepta-bromodiphenyl ethers (Refs.1, 10). There are also several studies in sediments as well as in soils and plants that indicate debromination of decabromodiphenyl ether similarly to the lower brominated diphenyl ether congeners (Ref. 10); There is uncertainty regarding the bioaccumulation and biomagnification potential of decabromodiphenyl ether. Considering all the evidence in a balanced manner, however, the Committee concludes that decabromodiphenyl ether is likely to meet the criterion on bioaccumulation; (d) Potential for long-range environmental transport: (i) Decabromodiphenyl ether is detected in air, sediment, snow and ice in the Arctic and in a wide range of organisms including birds, fish, crustaceans, mammals and plants. There is evidence of increasing levels in the Arctic atmosphere and Arctic bird eggs. The levels of decabromodiphenyl ether in the Arctic atmosphere are increasing with a doubling time in the range of 3.5–6.2 years (Ref. 1); (ii) Concentrations detected in the Arctic from air monitoring, snow-pit and ice-core studies indicate the potential of transfer of decabromodiphenyl ether via air to the Arctic environment. An ice core study reported a flux rate of decabromodiphenyl ether to be 320 pg/cm2/yr in 1995–2005 (Ref. 1); (iii) Decabromodiphenyl ether has a low vapour pressure (4.63×10-6 Pa at 21°C) and modelling data show an estimated atmospheric half-life of more than 94 days (Ref. 1); There is sufficient evidence that decabromodiphenyl ether meets the criterion on potential for long-range environmental transport; (e) Adverse effects: (i) Recent experimental studies show adverse effects on important biological endpoints in aquatic organisms, such as effects on the thyroid hormone system, reproductive toxicity, reduced survival, growth and fitness (Ref. 1). Specifically controlled feeding studies with fish have shown effects on the thyroid hormone system and reproduction and mortality at low doses (3 ng/g) (Ref. 11). Another study has shown that chronic low dose decabromodiphenyl ether exposure (0.96 µg/l) in zebra fish not only affects the parent generation, but also elicits neurobehavioural alterations in the offspring (Ref. 1); (ii) There is toxicity and ecotoxicity evidence that decabromodiphenyl ether can lead to endocrine-disrupting, reproductive, neurotoxic and immunotoxic effects, indicating the potential of decabromodiphenyl ether to damage human health and the environment. In both wild organisms and humans, early developmental stages appear to be more vulnerable to decabromodiphenyl ether exposure than adults. In vertebrates, the liver, the thyroid hormone axis and the nervous system appear to be the main targets for decabromodiphenyl ether toxicity; Increased mortality in birds was observed following in ovo exposure with an LD50 of 44 μg/egg (740 ng/g ww) (Ref. 12). Concentrations of decabromodiphenyl ether typically found in bird eggs in the wild are only around 2–10 times lower. Reported concentrations in bird eggs are typically in the range of 1–100 ng/g ww, with concentrations up to 420 ng/g ww being reported. Hence, the margin between exposure levels in wild birds and observed adverse effects in laboratory studies is not high. This raises concerns that adverse effects may occur in wild birds (Ref. 1); Several assessments have concluded that there is a high probability that decabromodiphenyl ether is transformed in biota to lower brominated diphenyl

20 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 ethers that are listed in the Stockholm Convention, i.e., tetra-, penta-, hexa- and hepta-bromodiphenyl ethers. In addition, reported in vitro data suggest that the various polybrominated diphenyl ethers could act in concert to induce additive or synergistic effects; There is sufficient evidence that decabromodiphenyl ether meets the criterion on adverse effects. C. Conclusion 4. Although there is not clear certainty with regard to bioaccumulation potential, taking into account the potential for debromination to bromodiphenyl ethers already listed under the Stockholm Convention, and considering the provisions of Article 8, paragraph 3, the Committee concluded that decabromodiphenyl ether met the screening criteria specified in Annex D.

References 1. Proposal to list decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE) in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/2). 2. M. Kohler and others, “Temporal Trends, Congener Patterns, and Sources of Octa-, Nona-, and Decabromodiphenyl Ethers (PBDE) and Hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCD) in Swiss Lake Sediments”, Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 42, No. 17 (13 February 2008), pp. 6378–84. 3. Y. Wan and others, "Distribution is a Major Factor Affecting Bioaccumulation of Decabrominated Diphenyl Ether: Chinese Sturgeon (Acipenser sinensis) as an Example", Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 47, No. 5 (6 February 2013), pp. 2279–2286. 4. H. Stapleton and others, “Debromination of the Flame Retardant Decabromodiphenyl Ether by Juvenile Carp (Cyprinus carpio) following Dietary Exposure”, Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 38, No. 1 (4 November 2003), pp. 112–119. 5. S. Burreau and others, “Biomagnification of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) studied in pike (Esox lucius), perch (Perca fluviatilis) and roach (Rutilus rutilus) from the Baltic Sea”, Chemosphere, vol. 55, No. 7 (May 2004), pp.1043–1052. 6. S. Burreau and others, “Biomagnification of PBDEs and PCBs in food webs from the Baltic Sea and northern Atlantic Ocean”, Science of the Total Environment, vol. 366, Nos. 2&3 (August 2006), pp. 659–672. 7. J. Wu and others, “Residues of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Frogs (Rana limnocharis) from a Contaminated Site, South China: Tissue distribution, biomagnification, and maternal transfer”, Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 43, No. 14 (June 2009), pp. 5212–5217. 8. X. Qin and others, “Thyroid disruption by technical decabromodiphenyl ether (DE-83R) at low concentrations in Xenopus laevis”, Journal of Environmental Sciences, vol. 22, No. 5 (2010), pp. 744-751. 9. S. Shaw and others, “Tissue-specific accumulation of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) including Deca-BDE and hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDs) in harbor seals from the northwest Atlantic”, Environment International, vol. 44 (1 September 2012), pp.1–6. 10. Debromination of decabromodiphenyl ether (BDE-209) in the environment (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/19). 11. P. Noyes and others, “Low Level Exposure to the Flame Retardant BDE-209 Reduces Thyroid Hormone Levels and Disrupts Thyroid Signaling in Fathead Minnows”, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 47, No. 17 (2013), pp. 10012−10021. 12. S. Sifleet, “Toxicology of Decabromodiphenyl Ether in Avian Embryos: Disposition of the Flame Retardant BDE-209 in Yolk-injected Chicken Embryos (Gallus gallus)”, thesis presented to the Faculty of the School of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary, 2009.

21 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 POPRC-9/5: Process for the evaluation of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride for the various acceptable purposes and specific exemptions The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee 1. Decides to establish an ad hoc working group to undertake the activities requested in paragraph 3 of decision SC-6/4 and paragraph 5 (d) (ii) of decision SC-6/7 and agrees to work in accordance with the terms of reference set out in section II of the annex to the present decision; 2. Endorses the terms of reference for the preparation of a report by the Secretariat for the evaluation of information on perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride set out in section III of the annex to the present decision; 3. Encourages the Secretariat and the ad hoc working group established in paragraph 1 of the present decision to collaborate to ensure that both the report on the assessment of alternatives referred to in paragraph 3 of decision SC-6/4 and the report on information on perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride referred to in the terms of reference set out in section III of the annex to the present decision are prepared in a manner that facilitates the evaluation by the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting of the continued need for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride for the various acceptable purposes and specific exemptions contained in Annex B to the Convention in accordance with paragraph 5 of part III of Annex B; 4. Invites parties and observers in a position to do so to provide technical and financial support for the Secretariat to engage a consultant to assist in undertaking the activities requested in paragraph 6 of the process for the evaluation of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride set out in the annex to decision SC-6/4.

Annex to decision POPRC-9/5

Terms of reference for the assessment of alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride and the preparation of a report for the evaluation of information on perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride

I. Introduction 1. Paragraph 5 of part III of Annex B to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants provides that the Conference of the Parties shall evaluate the continued need for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (PFOSF) for the various acceptable purposes and specific exemptions listed in Annex B on the basis of available scientific, technical, environmental and economic information. Paragraph 6 of part III of Annex B states that the evaluation shall take place no later than 2015 and every four years thereafter in conjunction with regular meetings of the Conference of the Parties. 2. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of part III of Annex B to the Convention, every four years each party that uses and/or produces PFOS, its salts or PFOSF shall report on progress made to eliminate those chemicals and submit information on such progress to the Conference of the Parties pursuant to and in the process of reporting under Article 15 of the Convention. 3. By paragraph 1 of decision SC-6/4, the Conference of the Parties adopted a process for the evaluation of the continued need for PFOS, its salt and PFOSF. As part of that process the Conference of the Parties requested: (a) The Secretariat to analyse information submitted by parties, and any other pertinent and credible information available, to prepare a preliminary report on the assessment of alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF to facilitate the Committee in undertaking such an assessment, and to prepare a draft report on the evaluation of information on PFOS, its salts and PFOSF for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting;

22 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 (b) The Committee to undertake an assessment of alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF, on the basis of information specified in paragraph 5 (c) of part III of Annex B to the Convention, and to provide comments on the draft report on the evaluation of PFOS, its salts and PFOSF developed by the Secretariat. 4. The present terms of reference pertain to the following assessments: (a) An assessment by the Committee of alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF to assist the Conference of the Parties in undertaking an evaluation of the continued need for PFOS, its salts and PFOSF, applying the methodology used in its assessment of alternatives to endosulfan.8 This assessment will be based on information on alternatives to PFOS, its salts, PFOSF and their related chemicals;9 (b) An assessment by the Secretariat of information for the process for the evaluation of PFOS, its salts and PFOSF, including recommendations for any modification to that process, for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting.

II. Assessment of alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride A. Action by the Secretariat 5. The Secretariat is to: (a) Collect and compile information on alternatives to PFOS, its salts, PFOSF and their related chemicals, from parties and observers, using the format set out in the annex to document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/10/Rev.1; (b) On the advice of and in consultation with the ad hoc working group: (i) Prepare an outline for the report on the assessment of alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF; (ii) Collect relevant information to support the further evaluation of those alternatives and their related chemicals identified in the technical paper on the identification and assessment of alternatives to the use of PFOS, its salts and PFOSF and their related chemicals in open applications10 as being of potential concern with regard to their effects on health and the environment; (iii) Apply the methodology mentioned in paragraph 4 (a) above and develop a draft preliminary report on the basis of information collected pursuant to paragraphs 5 (a) and 5 (b) (ii) above; (iv) Prepare a preliminary report on the assessment of alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF for consideration by the ad hoc working group. B. Action by the ad hoc working group 6. The ad hoc working group is to: (a) Agree on an outline for the report on the assessment of alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF; (b) Advise the Secretariat in undertaking the activities described in paragraph 5 (b) above; (c) Review and provide comments on the draft preliminary report prepared by the Secretariat on the assessment of alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF for consideration by the Committee at its tenth meeting;

8 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/28. 9 Related chemicals are chemicals that contain the structural element PFOS in their molecular structure and are or were produced with PFOSF as a starting or intermediate material. 10 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/17/Rev.1.

23 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 C. Action by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee at its tenth meeting 7. The Committee is to undertake an assessment of alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF, based on the preliminary report prepared by the Secretariat, for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting. D. Workplan

Activity Responsible Timing Collect and compile information on alternatives to Secretariat 30 October 2013– PFOS, its salts and PFOSF in accordance with 31 January 201411 paragraphs 5 (a) and 5 (b) above. Agree on an outline for the report on the assessment of Working group 30 October 2013– alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF prepared by 31 December 2013 the Secretariat. Apply the methodology for the assessment of the Secretariat 15 January 2014– alternatives to available information12 31 May 2014 Draft a preliminary report on the assessment of Secretariat 10 June 2014 alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF and make it available to the working group members. Provide comments on the draft preliminary report. Working group 24 June 2014 Finalize the preliminary report on the assessment of Secretariat 5 July 2014 alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF. Assess alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF based Committee 27–31 October 2014 on the preliminary report and finalize a report on the assessment. Finalize the report for the evaluation of PFOS, its salts Secretariat 30 November 2014 and PFOSF for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting.

III. Preparation of a report for the evaluation of information on perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride A. Action by the Secretariat 8. The Secretariat is to: (a) In accordance with decision SC-6/4, collect and compile information on PFOS, its salts and PFOSF from parties as follows: (i) Information on the progress made to eliminate PFOS, its salts and PFOSF, pursuant to Article 15 of the Convention; (ii) Information on the progress made in building the capacity of countries to move safely to reliance on alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF; (b) Undertake an assessment of information for the preparation of a report for the evaluation of PFOS, its salts and PFOSF by the Conference of the Parties; (c) Develop a draft report on the assessment, taking into consideration the report being prepared by the Committee on its assessment of alternatives to PFOS, its salts and PFOSF; (d) Finalize a report for the evaluation of information on PFOS, its salts and PFOSF by the Conference of the Parties based on the comments by the Committee on the draft report.

11 The deadline set out in decision SC-6/4 is March 2014; parties and observers are invited to submit information by 31 January 2014 to facilitate the subsequent steps of the workplan set out in section D. 12 Including information contained in the guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts, perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride and their related chemicals (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/11/Rev.1) as adopted by the Committee at its ninth meeting and the technical paper on the identification and assessment of alternatives to the use of PFOS, its salts and PFOSF and their related chemicals in open applications (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/17/Rev.1).

24 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 B. Action by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee at its tenth meeting 9. The Committee is to provide comments on the draft report prepared by the Secretariat for the evaluation of information on PFOS, its salts and PFOSF. C. Workplan

Activity Responsible Timing Collect and compile information on PFOS from parties Secretariat 30 October 2013– under Article 15 and other information specified in 31 August 2014 paragraph 5 (d) of part III of Annex B. Prepare a draft report for the evaluation of information on Secretariat 30 September 2014 PFOS, its salts and PFOSF. Provide comments on the draft report for the evaluation of Committee 27–31 October information on PFOS, its salts and PFOSF. 2014 Finalize the report for the evaluation of information on Secretariat 30 November 2014 PFOS, its salts and PFOSF for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting.

POPRC-9/6: Guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts, perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride and their related chemicals The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee 1. Endorses the revised guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts, perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride and their related chemicals as amended at its ninth meeting;13 2. Requests the Secretariat to make the revised guidance available to parties and observers; 3. Decides to review the guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride and their related chemicals at its tenth meeting, taking into account the outcomes of the assessment of alternatives by the Committee in accordance with decision POPRC-9/5 and the information contained in the technical paper on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride and their related chemicals in open applications.14

POPRC-9/7: Approach to the evaluation of chemicals in accordance with Annex E to the Stockholm Convention The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee 1. Endorses the document set out in the annex to the present decision outlining examples of practices used and decisions made in the evaluation of chemicals by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee in accordance with Annex E to the Stockholm Convention; 2. Decides to take into account the examples set out in the annex in its future evaluation of chemicals proposed for listing in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Stockholm Convention; 3. Takes note of the paper on views on open issues in the evaluation of chemicals in accordance with Annex E to the Stockholm Convention;15 4. Decides to consider adding further examples to the document set out in the annex to the present decision in the light of future experience.

13 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/11/Rev.1. 14 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/17/Rev.1. 15 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/20.

25 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Annex to decision POPRC-9/7

Examples of practices used and decisions made in the evaluation of chemicals by the Committee in accordance with Annex E to the Stockholm Convention 1. Background of the evaluation of chemicals in accordance with Annex E 1. According to paragraph 7 (a) of Article 8 of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee prepares a risk profile for a chemical proposed for listing under the Convention to provide a basis for deciding whether the “chemical is likely as a result of its long-range environmental transport to lead to significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects such that global action is warranted”. 2. The information requirements for a risk profile are identified in Annex E to the Convention. The first paragraph of Annex E, quoted below, which is substantially the same as that in paragraph (7) (a) of Article 8, has raised some discussions in the development of risk profiles and at the meetings of the Committee: “The purpose of the review is to evaluate whether the chemical is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects, such that global action is warranted.” 3. At its first meeting, the Committee developed and agreed on an outline of a risk profile.16 The Committee also agreed that the length of a risk profile should be 20 pages and that there should be no annexes to the document. 4. The chapters on “synthesis of information” and “concluding statement” of a risk profile, as risk profiles have been formatted by the Committee to date, contain critical parts of the summary rationale. Those chapters explain the Committee’s conclusion as to whether a chemical under review is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects, such that global action is warranted. Most of the risk profiles adopted so far by the Committee have had comprehensive summary rationales that draw on the critical data elements contained in the body of the report and linked them to an overall weight-of-evidence evaluation to support the conclusion related to paragraph 7 of Article 8 and Annex E.17 1.1 Scope of a risk profile 5. The development of risk profiles by the Committee has involved consideration of sources (production data, uses, releases); an assessment of hazards, including consideration of toxicological interactions; data on environmental fate (physical and chemical properties, persistence and coupling to environmental transport, degradation and transformation to other chemicals, bioconcentration and biomagnification factors based on measured values, except when monitoring data are judged to meet this need); monitoring data; exposure in local areas and, in particular as a result of long-range environmental transport, including information regarding bioavailability; national, international evaluations and peer-reviewed scientific studies; and the status of the chemical under international conventions. 6. Those components are analysed together using a weight-of-evidence approach to answer the question in paragraph 7 of Article 8 and Annex E, “whether the chemical is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and environmental effects, such that global action is warranted”. 1.2 Relationship between the evaluation in accordance with Annex E and the screening phase in accordance with Annex D 7. The following screening criteria are set out in subparagraphs (b) to (e) of paragraph 1 of Annex D: “(b) Persistence; (c) Bio-accumulation; (d) Potential for long-range environmental transport; and

16 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.1/10, annex IV. 17 The intersessional working group has revised the text contained in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/10.

26 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 (e) Adverse effects”. 8. In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Convention, the Committee examines the proposal and applies the Annex D screening criteria in a flexible and transparent way, taking all information provided into account in an integrative and balanced manner. The examination addresses all the screening criteria in Annex D, concludes for each criterion whether it has been fulfilled, and draws an overall conclusion on whether the screening criteria in Annex D have been fulfilled in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 8. 9. As provided in the first paragraph of Annex E, the risk profile “further elaborates on, and evaluates, the information referred to in Annex D”. 10. The following information requirements set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Annex D do not constitute screening criteria: (a) The proposing Party shall provide a statement of the reasons for concern including, where possible, a comparison of toxicity or ecotoxicity data with detected or predicted levels of a chemical resulting or anticipated from its long-range environmental transport, and a short statement indicating the need for global control; (b) The proposing Party shall, to the extent possible and taking into account its capabilities, provide additional information to support the review of the proposal referred to in paragraph 6 of Article 8. In developing such a proposal, a Party may draw on technical expertise from any source. 11. The above-mentioned information is to be reviewed and further elaborated on in a risk profile in accordance with Annex E. In other words, the screening of the proposed chemical against the criteria in Annex D, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 8, does not address the question of potential risks of the proposed chemical as a result of its long-range environmental transport, and the risk profile should address that question. 12. It should be noted that the fact that the criteria in Annex D are fulfilled is not in itself an argument that the evaluation in accordance with Annex E has been completed. According to paragraph 6 of Article 8, the Committee shall further review the proposal, taking into account any relevant additional information received and shall prepare a draft risk profile in accordance with Annex E. 1.3 Risk profile phase – Annex E 13. Under paragraphs 4 (a) and 6 of Article 8 of the Stockholm Convention, a chemical that has been proposed for addition to Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention and has passed the screening criteria set forth under Annex D moves forward to review under Annex E. At this stage, the Committee prepares a risk profile based on the information specified in Annex E. Information relevant to the development of the risk profile is collected from all possible sources, including literature, parties and observers. An intersessional working group prepares a draft risk profile based on the information received. The Committee considers the draft risk profile at its meeting and decides “whether the chemical is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects, such that global action is warranted”. 14. A risk profile builds on the work undertaken through the evaluation of the Annex D criteria provided in the original proposal, elaborating further the specific types of information specified in subparagraphs (a) to (g) of Annex E. It contains an analysis of “sources”, “environmental fate”, “monitoring data”, “exposure”, “hazard assessment for the endpoint or endpoints of concern, including a consideration of toxicological interactions involving multiple chemicals”, “national and international risk evaluations, assessments or profiles and labelling information and hazard classifications, as available” and the “status of the chemical under international conventions” to make the case why the Committee considers either that global action is warranted (Article 8, paragraph 7 (a)) or that the proposal should not proceed (Article 8, paragraph 7 (b)). 15. Article 1 of the Convention calls attention to the potential consideration of a precautionary approach with the following statement: “Mindful of the precautionary approach as set forth in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the objective of this Convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants.” 16. The reference to the precautionary approach in Article 1 is echoed in paragraph 7 of Article 8, and thus in Annex E. Paragraph 7 provides:

27 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 “That the chemical is likely as a result of its long-range environmental transport to lead to significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects such that global action is warranted, the proposal shall proceed. Lack of full scientific certainty shall not prevent the proposal from proceeding. The Committee shall, through the Secretariat, invite information from all Parties and observers relating to the considerations specified in Annex F. It shall then prepare a risk management evaluation that includes an analysis of possible control measures for the chemical in accordance with that Annex.” 17. The Convention deals with persistent chemicals that are dispersed throughout the globe, putting a special emphasis on the prediction of fate and effects compared to rapidly degrading chemicals with only local impact. 18. Socio-economic considerations are not included in the risk profile because they do not contribute to the scientific analysis defining whether a chemical is a persistent organic pollutant. Socio-economic information is essential, however, for the development of the risk management evaluation in accordance with Annex F to the Convention. 2. Examples of Committee decisions in accordance with Annex E 2.1 Use of local data and data from remote areas in the Committee’s decision-making 19. The data that are measured in biota or abiotic compartments from areas close to the source of release of a chemical are included in the risk profile for that chemical as specified in subparagraph (e) of Annex E. This information can be considered as one line of evidence in the assessment of the fate and the potential for uptake and effects in biota. As indicated in the same subparagraph, information on exposure resulting from long-range environmental transport (often referred to as exposure in remote areas) and information on bioavailability and metabolism within the biota are critical for decision-making. 2.2 Comparison of exposure levels and effects data 20. The risk profile further elaborates and evaluates the information referred to in Annex D, including the information specified in paragraph 2 of Annex D, which calls for, “where possible, a comparison of toxicity or ecotoxicity data with detected or predicted levels of a chemical resulting or anticipated from its long-range environmental transport”. The preparation of a risk profile in accordance with Annex E and its decision-making on the risk profile does not involve a quotient based risk assessment.18 21. While a comparison of exposure and effect levels is not a requirement of the Convention, it has been carried out in the past, where possible, to more clearly illustrate the need for global action. The exposure levels and effects data for remote regions have been compared in chapter 2.4, on “hazard assessment for endpoints of concern”, of the risk profiles adopted so far by the Committee. 19 22. In the risk profile for hexabromocyclododecane,20 the Committee evaluated concentrations in species against relevant adverse effect data near point sources and source regions, in remote areas and for human health.21 While the concentrations near point sources could not be used to conclude that the chemical was likely as a result of its long-range environmental transport to lead to significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects, the available studies for remote areas suggested that there was a potential for endocrine effects in fish, as well as a risk of reproductive and developmental effects in wild birds.

18 The definition of a risk assessment according to IPCS Risk Assessment Terminology (Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals, World Health Organization, 2004) (http://www.inchem.org/documents/harmproj/harmproj/harmproj1.pdf) is as follows: “Risk assessment: A process intended to calculate or estimate the risk to a given target organism, system, or (sub)population, including the identification of attendant uncertainties, following exposure to a particular agent, taking into account the inherent characteristics of the agent of concern as well as the characteristics of the specific target system. The risk assessment process includes four steps: hazard identification, hazard characterization (related term: Dose– response assessment), exposure assessment, and risk characterization. It is the first component in a risk analysis process.” 19 For example, chapter 2.4.6 of the risk profile on hexabromocyclododecane (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/13/Add.2). 20 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/13/Add.2. 21 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/INF/25.

28 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 23. In the risk profile for pentabromodiphenyl ether,22 a comparison using risk quotient data was made available to the Committee. In the risk profile for pentachlorobenzene,23 analyses on lethal and critical body burden were submitted by industry, and peer reviewed critical whole body residue information was also made available to the Committee. Nevertheless, the Committee concluded that the exposure assessment was uncertain, stating in the risk profile that “expressing the toxicological effects as internal dose or, whenever possible, [ as] critical body burdens, improves the effect assessment but only reduces partially its uncertainty”. 24. At its second meeting, the Committee stated that in the risk profile for perfluorooctane sulfonate24 the ad hoc working group on perfluorooctane sulfonate “had also concluded that all the elements of Annex E had been addressed; that the data used were recent, of high quality and reflected current monitoring in remote regions; and that current concentrations in birds and mammals were in the same range as laboratory-derived effect levels.” 25. In the past, when the Committee compared exposure and effects data attention was paid to restrictions and limitations as further described in chapter 3 of the present paper. When making comparisons, the Committee has taken note of uncertainties in exposure (risk profile on pentachlorobenzene),25 the fact that environmental levels have been on the rise during the last decades and the fact that the effects of exposure may depend on the timing of exposure (risk profile on hexabromocyclododecane).26 26. While there was no data on hexabromocyclododecane in polar bears and seals in remote areas, it was noted that there might be effects on Arctic mammals that would become evident due to normal emaciation in winter. The fact that environmental levels are below effect levels cannot be interpreted to mean there is no risk of concern. However, when exposure levels have been in the same range as or greater than adverse effect levels, the Committee has considered this as one line of evidence that global action is warranted in accordance with paragraph 7 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention. 2.3 Comparison of the data for a candidate chemical with the data for a listed persistent organic pollutant 27. One of the ways of evaluating the characteristics and effects of a substance for which not enough information exists is to compare it with better known chemicals with similar characteristics. 28. In respect of Annex E, comparison may involve comparing the properties or the concentrations of a candidate chemical in biota from remote areas with those of an already listed persistent organic pollutant. 29. As additional information in the risk profile on endosulfan,27 endosulfan properties were compared with those of existing persistent organic pollutants. Results from the CliMoChem model showed that overall persistence (POV) and long-range transport potential (LRTP) of the endosulfan substance family were similar to those of aldrin, DDT, and heptachlor. 28 30. Endosulfan levels in remote areas, as well as no observed effect concentration (NOEC) and no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) values, were compared with those for lindane, a persistent organic pollutant listed in the Convention in 2009. This approach showed that lindane and endosulfan were found in comparable concentrations in biota from remote areas. Endosulfan was also considered to have similar or higher toxicity than lindane. This information strengthened the decision-making on endosulfan. 31. In the risk profile on hexabromobiphenyl,29 the potential for long-range transport was determined by comparing the water solubility, vapour pressure and Henry’s Law Constant for the substance to those for DDT and endrin.

22 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.2/17/Add.1. 23 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.3/20/Add.7. 24 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.2/17. 25 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.3/20/Add.7. 26 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/13/Add.2. 27 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.5/10/Add.2. 28 The initial 12 persistent organic pollutants listed in the Convention were assessed for their persistent organic pollutants properties during the international negotiating committee’s process. 29 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.2/17/Add.3.

29 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 32. If the concentrations of a candidate chemical and a listed persistent organic pollutant in biota from remote areas are comparable, and the toxicity of the candidate chemical is comparable or higher than the toxicity of the listed persistent organic pollutant, it has been considered to be support for deciding that the candidate chemical is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects such that global action is warranted. 33. If, however, benchmarking shows concentrations that are not comparable or the candidate chemical is less toxic than the benchmark chemical, it is not possible to conclude that the candidate chemical is of no concern without information on potential exposure (e.g., current and future releases, bioaccumulation over time). 2.4 Use of environmental modelling for chemicals withdrawn from the global market 34. For chemicals that have been long withdrawn from the global market, such as chlordecone and hexabromobiphenyl, environmental concentrations and concentrations in biota may be very low. Also, data on environmental concentrations may be limited. If analytical techniques for detection in various media are still in development, concentrations may have not yet been determined. In such cases, a comparison of exposure data with effects data is not conclusive and therefore the potential for long-range environmental transport has been assessed using model calculations. Listing such chemicals under the Convention prevents their reintroduction on the global market. 35. The Committee has used information from environmental modelling in the risk profile for chlordecone30 when there were no measured environmental concentrations or concentrations in biota in remote areas as chlordecone had been long withdrawn from the global market. The assessment of the potential for long-range transport of chlordecone (table 2.2 of the risk profile on chlordecone) was based on physical properties due to lack of concentration data in remote areas. Persistence, vapor pressure and the Henry’s Law Constant were considered to be the most relevant properties. 36. Modelling was also used in other risk profiles, such as those for hexabromobiphenyl,31 pentachlorobenzene32 and endosulfan,33 to strengthen the evaluation of long-range transport potential. 2.5 Evaluation of time trends of releases or concentrations in the environment in remote areas 37. An example of a risk profile for which the Committee considered time trends of exposure levels in remote areas is that for pentabromodiphenyl ether, about which it was noted in the report of the Committee’s second meeting: 34 “With the chemical’s volatility contributing to its long-range transport, however, levels of exposure to pentabromodiphenyl ether continued to rise in North America and remote Arctic regions”. 38. Evidence or likelihood of an increase in concentrations of a chemical in the environment over time is an additional argument for the Committee to consider that global action is warranted. 3. Guidance developed by the Committee 3.1 Bioaccumulation evaluation 39. The Committee has prepared and has taken note of the “Preliminary guidance paper on bioaccumulation evaluation” for the related criteria under Annex D to the Convention35 as a useful aid to its work. The paper considers how to apply the bioaccumulation criteria in subparagraphs 1 (c) (ii) and (iii) of Annex D when the criterion in subparagraph 1 (c) (i) is not fulfilled. 3.2 Consideration of toxicological interactions 40. The Committee has prepared “Guidance for drafters of risk profiles on consideration of toxicological interactions when evaluating chemicals proposed for listing”36 and agreed that it could be used as guidance for drafters preparing risk profiles.

30 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.3/20/Add.10. 31 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.2/17/Add.3. 32 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.3/20/Add.7. 33 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.5/10/Add.2. 34 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.2/17, para. 47. 35 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.3/20, annex VI. 36 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/16, annex V.

30 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 3.3 Possible impact of climate change 41. The Committee has prepared and adopted “Guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee”, 37 an approach to the consideration of climate change interaction with the chemicals proposed for listing in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Stockholm Convention,38 and recommendations developed on the basis of the guidance,39 and it has decided to use the guidance and approach for its future evaluation of chemicals proposed for listing in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Stockholm Convention.

POPRC-9/8: Guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Recognizing the scientific evidence of climate change impacts and interactions with chemicals and the need for such interactions to be considered in the review of the chemicals proposed for listing in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 1. Adopts the guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee,40 the approach to the consideration of climate change interactions with the chemicals proposed for listing in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Stockholm Convention set out in annex I to the present decision and the recommendations developed on the basis of the guidance, as amended at its ninth meeting and set out in annex II to the present decision; 2. Decides to use the guidance and approach referred to above in its future evaluation of chemicals proposed for listing in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Stockholm Convention; 3. Also decides to forward the recommendations developed on the basis of the guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee to the Conference of the Parties for consideration at its seventh meeting.

Annex I to decision POPRC-9/8

Approach to the consideration of climate change interactions with the chemicals proposed for listing in the annexes to the Stockholm Convention

I. Introduction 1. Climate change is predicted to have an impact on the environmental fate of persistent organic pollutants and the risks that they pose to the environment41 and will therefore be relevant to consider when reviewing chemicals proposed for listing under the Stockholm Convention.42 2. The interactions between persistent organic pollutants and climate change relevant to consider in the review of chemicals proposed for listing are described in chapter 4 of the "Guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee" (hereinafter referred to as “Guidance”).43 The information is summarized in table 1 below.

37 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/15. 38 Decision POPRC-9/8, annex I. 39 Decision POPRC-9/8, annex II. 40 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/15. 41 UNEP/AMAP 2011; UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/15. 42 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/15. 43 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/15.

31 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Table 1. Summary of potential climate change impacts and interactions with persistent organic pollutants according to the Guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee Climate change impact Induced change Type of study Reference chapter in the Guidance Temperature effects on water Exposure of biota Laboratory studies or 4.2 (b) and (e) solubility of the chemical field studies Salinity effects on the Exposure of biota Laboratory studies or 4.2 (b) and (e) bioavailability of the field studies chemical Changes in primary Exposure of herbivores and Modelling or field 4.2 (c) and (e) production zooplankton studies Changes in persistent organic Exposure of predators or Modelling or field 4.2 (c), (d) and (e) pollutant levels in prey or humans studies food Change of prey by predators Exposure of predators Field studies 4.2 (c) and (e) Migration of new species Exposure of biota in the new Field studies 4.2 (a) and (e) region Releases from new sources Exposure of biota and Field studies 4.2 (a) and (e) humans Remobilization from Exposure of biota Modelling or field 4.2 (a), (d) and (e) secondary sources studies Changes in solar irradiation Photolytic degradation rate Modelling or 4.3 (a) and (c) of the chemical evaluations based on fate properties Temperature changes in air, Abiotic degradation, Modelling, field 4.3 (a), (b) and (c) water, soil or sediment photolytic degradation or studies or laboratory microbial degradation studies Changes in pH in water, soil Microbial degradation and Modelling, field 4.3 (b) and (c) or sediment activity studies or laboratory studies Changes in salinity in sea Microbial degradation Laboratory studies or 4.3 (b) and (c) water or fresh water field studies Temperature effects on Accumulation levels and Modelling, laboratory 4.4 uptake rates and elimination rates in organisms studies or field studies rates Changes in food web Accumulation levels up the Modelling or field 4.4 structures food chain and across food studies webs Temperature effects on Environmental distribution Modelling, 4.5 (a), (b) and (c) volatilization of the chemical and transport of the monitoring and/or chemical, including evaluations based on long-range transport fate properties Changes in wind pattern and Atmospheric transport of Modelling, 4.5 (b) and (c) strength airborne particulates and the monitoring and/or chemical evaluations based on fate properties Changes in rainfall dynamics Transport pathways, rate of Modelling, 4.5 (b) and (c) environmental transport and monitoring and/or transport medium evaluations based on fate properties Migration of new species Transport of the chemical to Field studies 4.5 (b) and (c) new regions Temperature-induced Chemical uptake rate, Laboratory studies 4.6 (a) and (c) changes in toxicokinetics and physiological and metabolic and/or field studies toxicodynamics processes in the biota Chemical toxicant exposure Homeostatic temperature Laboratory studies 4.6 (a) and (c) interacting with climate regulation and physiological and/or field studies change impact, such as adaptation to heat stress and increased temperature susceptibility to hazardous substances in biota Chemical toxicant exposure Physiological cost and Laboratory studies 4.6 (a) and (c) interacting with climate ability to maintain and/or field studies change impact, such as osmoregulation altered salinity

32 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13

Climate change impact Induced change Type of study Reference chapter in the Guidance Chemical toxicant exposure Biomolecular, cellular and Laboratory studies 4.6 (a) and (c) interacting with climate physiological alterations in and/or field studies change impact, such as organisms making them increased ultraviolet radiation more susceptible to contaminants and exacerbation of adverse effects of hazardous substances Chemical toxicant exposure Adverse effects of Laboratory studies 4.6 (a) and (c) interacting with climate hazardous substances and/or field studies change impact, such as through interfering with increased hypoxia physiological processes in organisms Temperature induced effects Formation of toxic Laboratory studies 4.6 (a) and (c) on biotransformation of metabolites in biota and/or field studies chemical in biota

3. In specific situations, it may also be appropriate for the Committee to consider climate change impacts when considering possible socio-economic impacts on society44 in the risk management evaluation for a chemical under review (Annex F).45 The present document aims to describe a simplified and practical approach to how information on climate change interactions with the chemicals proposed for listing can be presented and applied by the drafter in the development of a proposal for listing a chemical in Annexes A, B and/or C (Annex D), a risk profile (Annex E) and a risk management evaluation (Annex F). 4. The approach is based on the "Handbook for effective participation in the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee", and the background for the approach is described in chapter 5 of the Guidance.

II. Methodology for consideration of climate change impacts and interactions with chemicals under review by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee 5. The approach is based on the methodology used by the Committee in the review of chemicals proposed for listing. It is a systematically narrative review, which is science-based and aims to describe the state-of-the-art science using the weight-of-evidence approach. The review shall be nuanced, trying to get all aspects of relevance integrated in a balanced manner, including positive and negative findings, and give weight to possible risks in a precautionary manner. Quantified criteria should be combined with qualitative methods. Furthermore, it should be prioritized to obtain information from all regions and relevant stakeholders. 6. The information on climate change impact on and interactions with persistent organic pollutants shall be applied by the Committee chemical by chemical and be based on chemical-specific data. If data on climate change impact is not available for the chemical under review, consideration should be given to data on climate change impact on analogous substances if relevant and available. The analogous substances’ identity, phase or form, physiochemical profile, structural similarities and potential differences with the chemical under review should be documented, together with a justification for using the information. If relevant, the environmental fate properties, mode of action and metabolic pathway in organisms should also be included. Further information on analogous substances is available in chapter 6.3 of the Guidance. 7. The uncertainties and ranges of possible changes in the chemical, physiological or biological factors due to climate change will be different for every chemical under review, type of impact, ecosystem, species, population, scientific test/observation and region. Quantification of the various possible effects and uncertainties in the scientific findings must therefore be based on the documented uncertainties in the data reviewed.

44 UNEP/AMAP 2011. 45 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/15.

33 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 8. If possible, the regional differences in climate change as observed and projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be taken into account in the evaluation.46 9. All relevant evidence should be taken into account, but some evidence should be given more weight in the overall conclusion. The evaluation of the information provided on climate change interactions with the chemical shall be based on the quality, relevance, and reliability of the data (for further advice, see also chapter 6.3 of the Guidance. Peer reviewed scientific data should take precedence and priority should be given to the most recent data. The decision of which data is given more weight shall be based on the precautionary approach, based on a scientific evaluation of the data at hand and transparently described.

III. Basic scheme for taking into account climate change interactions with chemicals Step 1 - Collection of relevant information 10. Relevant information to be collected is described in step 3 below, and background information is summarized in chapter II of this document. The “Handbook for effective participation in the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee” describes the methodology of data collection and information sources for the three different review processes.47 Step 2 - How to integrate the relevant information (1) Proposal for listing a chemical in Annexes A, B and/or C 11. If information on climate change interactions with the chemical under review adds to the reasons for concern and the need for global control, it should be presented in the chapter containing the statement of concern (cf., Annex D, para. 2) in the proposal for listing a chemical in Annexes A, B and/or C. (2) Risk profile 12. Relevant information, if available, should be presented in the following chapters of a risk profile: 2.1 Sources; 2.2 Environmental fate; 2.3 Exposure; 2.4 Hazard assessment for endpoints of concern. 13. If climate-change-associated effects on a substance add to the concern that the chemical poses to the environment and human health and is important for the consideration of global management, it should be highlighted in chapter 3 of the risk profile, Synthesis of the information. (3) Risk management evaluation 14. Relevant information related to the impact of measures taken during the whole life-cycle of the chemical, including waste and disposal implications, should be presented in the following chapter of a risk management evaluation, if available: 2.4 Summary of information on impacts on society of implementing possible control measures. 15. Information on whether the recommended strategy provides co-benefits and mitigation measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and persistent organic pollutants through proper life-cycle management may be included in chapter 3 of a risk management evaluation, Synthesis of the information.

46 The uncertainties in the findings of observed and projected climate change impacts are given in the technical summaries developed by the IPCC. 47 UNEP/POPS/COP.4/INF/9. The document describes the methodology of data collection and information sources for the three different review processes. In tables 3 and 4 in the handbook, a non-exhaustive list of public and private databases and other sources of information is provided. http://chm.pops.int/Convention/POPs%20Review%20Committee/Publications/tabid/345/Default.aspx

34 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Step 3 - Applying the information on climate change interactions with chemicals in decision-making (1) Proposal for listing a chemical in Annexes A, B and/or C 16. Climate change impacts in a real-life exposure scenario are related to environmental conditions in the field and do not change the conclusions on the chemicals’ intrinsic properties, such as persistence, toxicity, ability to bioaccumulate or to undergo long-range transport, measured under standardized conditions. The climate change impact will therefore not interfere with the conclusion on the persistent organic pollutant properties of the chemical under review. It may, however, impact the releases, degradation, transport and fate of contaminants in the environment, accumulated levels of contaminants in organisms, their bioavailability to organisms and the vulnerability of organisms to the contaminants, and therefore add to the reasons for concern and need for global control. The adverse effects of the chemical under review on organisms may in addition interfere with their ability to adapt to changes in the environment such as increased temperatures, changes in salinity or loss of ice due to climate change. The interactions are described more in depth in the Guidance, which can be used to evaluate when interactions between climate change and the chemical under review should be included in the statement of reasons for concern in the proposal. 17. Differences in climate between regions add to and increase the variability and complexity of the environmental system and make it harder to extrapolate from the laboratory to studies in the field, as well as from findings in one region to another. The conditions of obtaining the data and, if possible, region-related findings, are therefore important to describe when presenting the data. 18. Examples illustrating how the climate change impact on the chemical under review can be evaluated in the proposal are given in chapter 5.1 (e) of the Guidance. A. Persistence 19. Climate change impacts on the degradation of substances are summarized in Table 1 above and are described in more depth in chapter 4.3 of the Guidance. When considering the relevance for the statement of concern, the findings on climate change impact on the degradation of the chemical under review should be evaluated in an integrated manner, together with other information relevant for the persistence criteria 1 (b) (i) and (ii) of Annex D to the Convention. 20. Under the criterion 1 (b) (i) of Annex D to the Convention, half-lives for water, soil and sediment are set. The standardized laboratory test methods for persistence of a chemical give empirical estimates of the chemical’s biodegradation potential under standardized conditions. They can be used as a guiding tool to evaluate the persistence of a substance in comparison with the numerical half-lives for persistence (1 b (i) of Annex D to the Convention) and with half-lives of already listed persistent organic pollutants. 21. Under criterion 1 b (ii) of Annex D to the Convention, "[e]vidence that the chemical is otherwise sufficiently persistent to justify its consideration within the scope of this Convention", field studies or monitoring data can be used to consider if the criterion is fulfilled. 22. Information that may be relevant for the statement of concern (cf., Annex D, paragraph 2) can include, but is not limited to, findings of increased environmental half-lives or decreased degradation because of changes in climate factors from laboratory tests, monitoring or field studies. The climate factors relevant to the evaluation of climate change impacts on degradation are temperature, solar irradiance, pH, salinity and microbial activity.48 B. Bioaccumulation 23. Climate change impacts on the accumulation of a substance in organisms and food webs are summarized in table 1 above and are described in more depth in chapter 4.4 of the Guidance. When considering its relevance for the statement of concern, the information on climate change impacts should be evaluated together with other information relevant for the three bioaccumulation criteria 1 (c) (i)–(iii) of Annex D to the Convention in an integrated and balanced manner. 24. Under criterion 1 c (i) of Annex D to the Convention, numerical values are set for bioconcentration factors (BCFs) or bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) in aquatic species. The standardized laboratory test method for bioaccumulation of chemicals uses aquatic species and gives empirical estimates of the chemicals’ bioaccumulation potential under standardized conditions. The methods can be used as a guiding tool for evaluating the bioaccumulation of a substance in comparison to the numerical BCFs or BAFs for bioaccumulation (criterion 1 c (i) of Annex D to the

48 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/15.

35 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Convention) and to BCFs or BAFs of already listed persistent organic pollutants. Criterion 1 c (ii) of Annex D to the Convention asks for other reasons of concern, such as high bio-accumulation in other species, high toxicity or eco-toxicity. The third criterion of Annex D, 1 c (iii), includes monitoring data in biota indicating a bio-accumulation potential of global concern. 25. The factors relevant for the evaluation of the climate change impacts on accumulation in organisms and food webs are changes in temperature and food web structure.49 26. Information that may be relevant for the statement of reason of concern and need for global control (cf., Annex D, para. 2) should address data of concern on, but not be limited to: (a) Laboratory studies showing changes in BCF and BAF values with increased temperatures in organisms; (b) Changes in levels in biota along with increased temperatures in their surrounding environment from field studies or monitoring; (c) Field studies showing changes in trophic structure resulting in changes in biomagnification in top predators; (d) Data from field studies of different trophic levels from the same area and changes in biomagnification or levels in top predators with differences in temperature; (e) Monitoring results showing contaminant levels in food webs in combination with auxiliary information such as temperature, total organic content (TOC), diet, etc. over a time period indicating a change in bioaccumulation or biomagnification; (f) Climate change interactions with the chemical under review that change the adverse effects of the chemical, showing high toxicity or eco-toxicity. 27. The interlinkages of climate change and the adverse effects of a contaminant are described in chapters 4.6 and 4.1 (c) of the Guidance. The application of the criteria when evaluating the climate change impact on a chemical under review is described below. C. Long-range environmental transport 28. The interlinkages between climate change and the long-range environmental transport of persistent organic pollutants are summarized in table 1 above and are described in more depth in chapter 4.5 of the Guidance. When considering its relevance for the statement of concern, the information should be evaluated in an integrated manner, together with other information relevant for criteria 1 (d) (i)–(iii) of Annex D to the Convention. 29. Criteria 1 (d) (ii) and (iii) are more relevant for the evaluation of climate change impacts on environmental transport and transfer of a chemical than is criterion 1 (d) (i) of Annex D. Criterion 1 (d) (ii) relies on monitoring data and criterion 1 (d) (iii) relies on environmental fate properties and modelling results and sets a numerical value for persistence in air. 30. The factors relevant for the evaluation of climate change impacts on environmental transport are changes in temperature, wind strength and pattern, rainfall dynamics and migration of new species.50 31. Information that may be relevant for the statement of concern (cf., Annex D, para. 2) can include, but is not limited to: (a) Changes in volatility of a substance with increased temperature; (b) Modelling taking into account the climate change impact on environmental transport and fate; (c) Monitoring data showing air concentrations of a contaminant together with data from monitored weather systems in the region, its environmental fate properties and known effects of climate change. D. Adverse effects 32. The projected interactions between the adverse effects of a substance and climate change impact are summarized in table 1 above and are described in more depth in chapters 4.6 and 4.1 (c) of the Guidance. When considering its relevance for the statement of concern, the information should be

49 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/15. 50 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/15.

36 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 evaluated in an integrated manner, together with other information relevant for criteria 1 (e) (i) (evidence of adverse effects) and 1 (e) (ii) (indication of the potential for damage) of Annex D to the Convention. 33. The factors relevant for the evaluation of climate change impacts on environmental transport are changes in temperature, salinity, ultraviolet radiation and hypoxia.51 34. Information that may be relevant for the statement of concern (cf., Annex D, paragraph 2) can include, but is not limited to: (a) Laboratory studies or field studies showing the impact on the vulnerability of organisms to the chemical or bioavailability of the chemical due to changes in temperature, salinity, ultraviolet radiation or hypoxia; (b) Laboratory studies or field studies showing the impact on the vulnerability of organisms to temperature changes, changes in salinity, ultraviolet radiation or hypoxia due to exposure to the chemical under review; (c) Laboratory studies exploring the climate change impact on the adverse effects of a chemical, including comparisons of the levels used in the laboratory to measured levels of the compound in the environment experiencing climate change; (d) Laboratory studies exploring the effect of changes in environmental parameters on the adverse effects of a chemical, only if the changes are relevant to describing the climate change impact; (e) Field observations of changes in environmental parameters due to possible or observed climate change impacts and their impact on the adverse effects of a chemical in the environment; (f) Detections of increased levels of a chemical under review with changes in environmental parameters due to climate change in endangered species, vulnerable populations, human body (blood, milk, fatty tissue) and changes in exposure due to climate change in the development stage of a species. (2) Risk profile 35. Climate change interactions with persistent organic pollutants are complex and a wide range of ecological and physiological processes and end points have to be taken into account. Climate change is predicted to alter the environmental distribution of contaminants due to changes in environmental transport, partitioning, carbon pathways, accumulation and degradation process rates, as well as their bioavailability and organisms’ susceptibility to hazardous substances. Persistent organic pollutantss, on the other hand, are predicted to interact with physiological, behavioral and ecological adaptations to climate change and thereby influence the ability of organisms, populations, communities and ecosystems to withstand and/or adapt adequately to climate change. 36. A risk profile shall further elaborate on, and evaluate, the information referred to in Annex D, and include, as far as possible, any additional information following the criteria in Annex E. Climate change impacts are of particular relevance to the evaluation of the environmental fate and transport (Annex E, subparagraph (c)) and the hazard assessment (Annex E, subparagraph (b)) of a potential persistent organic pollutant in the risk profile. 37. In addition the following criteria will be relevant when addressing climate change impact and interactions with a chemical under review in the risk profile: sources (cf., Annex E, subpara. (b) (iii)), exposure in local areas (cf., Annex E, subpara. (e)); monitoring data (cf., Annex E, subpara. (d)), and national and international risk evaluations and risk assessments (cf. Annex E, subpara. (f)). 38. Examples illustrating how climate change interactions may be handled in the risk profile for achemical under review are given in chapter 5.2 (e) of the Guidance. A. Hazard assessment 39. Relevant information on the interactions between a chemical under review and climate change that are relevant for the hazard assessment for the endpoints of concern can include, but are not limited to, documented data derived from field studies, monitoring and laboratory studies on: (a) Climate change interactions with the adverse effects of the chemical, including data relevant for criteria 1 (e) (i) and (ii) of Annex D and the background information summarized in table 1 above;

51 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/15.

37 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 (b) Impacts of climate change on exposure to persistent organic pollutants of biota and humans, including the background information summarized in table 1 above; (c) The effects of multiple stressors (figure 2 in the Guidance), including exposure to persistent organic pollutants and climate change, on vulnerable species and populations, including all considerations described in chapter 4.1 (c) of the Guidance. B. Evaluation of environmental fate and transport 40. Relevant information on the interlinkages between the chemical and climate change when analysing data to ascertain the environmental fate of the chemical can include, but is not limited to, documented data derived from field studies, modelling, laboratory studies and monitoring on: (a) Differences in the impacts of climate change in different regions and ecosystems, as well as impacts on environmental partitioning, including all the considerations described in chapter 4.1 (a)–(b) of the Guidance; (b) Climate change impacts on environmental reservoirs, contaminated sites and landfills, as well as the spread of biovectors, as described in chapter 4.2 (a) of the Guidance; (c) Climate change impacts on degradation, including data relevant for criteria 1 (b) (i) and (ii) of Annex D and the background information summarized in table 1 above; (d) Climate change impacts on uptake rates, rates of biotransformation and excretion, bioaccumulation and biomagnification, including data relevant for the criteria 1 (c) (i)–(iii) of Annex D, and the background information summarized in table 1 above; (e) Climate change impacts on the environmental transport of persistent organic pollutants, including data relevant for criteria 1 (d) (ii) and (iii) and the background information summarized in table 1 above. C. Other criteria of relevance to Annex E 41. In addition, the following information will be relevant for the evaluation in the risk profile stage: (a) Climate change impact on releases from sources (cf., Annex E, subpara. (b) (iii)) and on exposure in local areas (cf., Annex E, subpara. (e)), including the background information summarized in table 1 above; (b) Available monitoring data, including climate change impact on levels (cf., Annex E, subpara. (d)); (c) National and international risk evaluations and risk assessments taking into account climate change impact (cf., Annex E, subpara. (f)). (3) Risk management evaluation 42. According to the report “Climate change and POPs: Predicting the impact”52 it is important that decision makers explore and disseminate information on possible mitigation activities and the co- benefits of managing persistent organic pollutants, other contaminants and climate change in an integrated manner. This relates specifically to the consideration of positive and/or negative impacts on society of implementing possible control measures in Annex F, subparagraph (c), considering the whole life-cycle of a chemical and waste and disposal implications in Annex F, subparagraph (d). For example, it might be appropriate to discuss the effect of mitigation activities on emissions of greenhouse gases or climate change impacts with relevance for the strategy of waste management and disposal of a chemical, such as extreme weather events. 43. Examples illustrating how climate change interactions may be integrated in the risk management evaluation for a chemical under review are given in chapter 5.3 (c) of the Guidance. 44. Relevant information when considering the positive and/or negative impacts on society of implementing identified possible control measures can include, but are not be limited to: (a) Impacts on emissions of greenhouse gasses; (b) Impacts on energy consumption;

52 UNEP/AMAP 2011.

38 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 (c) Co-benefits for the elimination or reduction of releases of greenhouse gases and a chemical under evaluation; (d) Regional risk and national reduction measures aiming at the reduction or elimination of both greenhouse gases and the chemical; (e) Assessment of co-benefits of mitigation activities, including reduction of greenhouse gases and releases of the chemical. References UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/15. Guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, 2013). UNEP/POPS/COP.4/INF/9. Handbook for effective participation in the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee. (Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, 2008). UNEP/AMAP 2011. Climate change and POPs: Predicting the impacts. Report of the United Nations Environment Programme/Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme expert group. (Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention, 2011).

39 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Annex II to decision POPRC-9/8

Recommendations prepared on the basis of the Guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee,53 Climate change and POPs: predicting the impacts,54 and the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee recommends that the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants: 1. Note: (a) That climate change is predicted to increase the transport of persistent organic pollutants to the Arctic and other remote regions; (b) That climate change is predicted to exacerbate the adverse effects of persistent organic pollutants in regions with increasing environmental temperatures and salinities, in particular in subtropical and tropical regions; (c) That extreme weather events such as flooding and heat waves, which have been registered more frequently in many regions, will have implications for the management of contaminated areas, stockpiles and waste; (d) That climate change is predicted to alter the environmental distribution of contaminants, including persistent organic pollutants, owing to its impact on carbon pathways and changes in chemicals’ environmental transport, partitioning, accumulation and degradation process rates, as well as their bioavailability and organisms’ susceptibility to hazardous substances; (e) That persistent organic pollutants are predicted to interact with physiological, behavioral and ecological adaptations to climate change and thereby influence the ability of organisms, populations, communities and ecosystems to withstand and/or adapt adequately to climate change; (f) That consideration of multiple stressors is important when evaluating the risk posed by persistent organic pollutants , since the vulnerability of organisms to them depends on multiple stress factors, including exposure to multiple hazardous substances and climate change impacts; (g) That careful scientific consideration in the hazard assessment undertaken in developing a risk profile in accordance with Annex E to the Convention of all environmental stress factors, including toxicological interactions and climate change interactions with a chemical proposed for listing, is likewise important; (h) That exploring and assessing opportunities for co-benefits and mitigation measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and persistent organic pollutants are equally important; (i) That promoting an approach to identifying and addressing the combined effects of climate change and exposure to persistent organic pollutants is needed and, to that end,, an exchange of information between the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may be needed to provide important data and facilitate the assessment of the combined effects of persistent organic pollutants and climate change; (j) That updating of the guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, based on experience in applying the guidance and the approach to the consideration of climate change interactions with the chemicals proposed for listing in the annexes to the Stockholm Convention set out in annex I to decision POPRC-9/8, as well as on the availability of new scientific findings and new reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme and/or the United Nations Environment Programme, as well as other regional and national reports and assessments, will be needed;

53 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/INF/15. 54 United Nations Environment Programme, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2011).

40 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 (k) That climate change impacts and interactions with contaminants are particularly relevant to the Committee’s consideration of the chemicals proposed for listing in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention, in particular subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Annex E, on hazard assessment and environmental fate, respectively, subparagraph (c) (v) of Annex F, on movement towards sustainable development, and paragraph 2 of Annex D, on the statement of reasons for concern and the need for global control; (l) That knowledge regarding climate change interactions with persistent organic pollutants is particularly limited in developing countries and that some effects may therefore go unnoticed if developing countries are not assisted; (m) That further efforts and guidance are therefore needed to enable developing countries to participate effectively in the Committee’s review of the chemicals proposed for listing in the annexes to the Convention; (n) That it is important that monitoring activities address climate change interactions with persistent organic pollutants, especially in developing countries; (o) That the identification of areas of uncertainty and gaps in information, knowledge and data on climate change interactions with persistent organic pollutants at the global level, and in particular in developing countries, is important; 2. Encourage parties: (a) To consider and make use of the information provided in the guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Committee and the approach to the consideration of climate change interactions with the chemicals proposed for listing in the annexes to the Convention when evaluating the risks posed by persistent organic pollutants and developing mitigation measures; (b) To apply the draft approach to the consideration of climate change interactions with the chemicals proposed for listing in the annexes to the Convention when drafting proposals for listing chemicals in Annexes A, B and/or C according to Article 8 of the Stockholm Convention; (c) To strengthen regional and national monitoring and research programmes in developing countries and include climate change impacts and interactions with persistent organic pollutants in such programmes; 3. Invite parties: (a) To provide the Committee with information on climate change interactions with chemicals under review; (b) To explore and assess opportunities for co-benefits and mitigation measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and persistent organic pollutants; (c) To make available information on climate change interactions with persistent organic pollutants for further revisions of the guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Committee and the approach to the consideration of climate change interactions with the chemicals proposed for listing in the annexes to the Convention; 4. Request the Secretariat to broadly disseminate the information contained in the draft guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Committee and the draft approach for consideration of climate change interactions with the chemicals proposed for listing among Parties and other stakeholders, including the IPCC. 5. Encourage the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee: (a) To apply the approach to the consideration of climate change interactions with the chemicals proposed for listing in the annexes to the Convention when drafting risk profiles and risk management evaluations according to annexes E and F to the Stockholm Convention, respectively; (b) To consider and make use of the information provided in the guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Committee when evaluating the risks posed by persistent organic pollutants and developing mitigation measures; 6. Invite the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee to update the guidance on how to assess the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Committee and the approach to the consideration of climate change interactions with the chemicals proposed for listing in the annexes to the Convention, based on its experience in applying the guidance and approach and on the availability

41 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 of new scientific findings, and to follow up on new reports developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme and others.

POPRC-9/9: Effective participation in the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Recalling that at its sixth meeting the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention requested the Secretariat to continue the activities listed in decision POPRC-8/12, including the organization of webinars and face-to-face activities, among other things, to assist developing countries and countries with economies in transition to participate effectively in the work of the Committee, Taking note of the activities undertaken to date to assist developing-country parties and parties with economies in transition to participate effectively in the work of the Committee, in particular the series of successful webinars held on topics related to the Committee’s work, Recognizing the need to make use of the experience gained by the members of the Committee and their potential to support and serve as resource persons that can assist parties in participating effectively in the work of the Committee, Recognizing also that parties face difficulties in responding to requests for information from the Committee, 1. Invites the Secretariat to continue its activities related to supporting effective participation in the Committee’s work, subject to the availability of resources, including: (a) Organization of webinars, training and online meetings on topics related to the Committee’s work55 with support from current and former members who can share their expertise and lessons learned; (b) Use of web-based platforms to facilitate the intersessional work of the Committee, to which relevant stakeholders, including parties, observers, members of the academic community, research institutions and companies could be invited to contribute their knowledge and experience; (c) Organization, with the support of current and former Committee members, the regional centres of the Stockholm Convention and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, regional networks and the regional offices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, of workshops and other face-to-face activities aimed at building the capacities of parties, training incoming Committee members and training trainers; (d) Organization, with the support of current and former Committee members and drawing on the practices of the Chemical Review Committee of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, of orientation workshops to train incoming members in matters relating to the work of the Committee; (e) Facilitation, in cooperation with members of the Committee, the Basel Convention and Stockholm Convention regional centres and experts of the Rotterdam Convention, of the development of pilot projects that can stimulate the active involvement in the work of the Committee of various stakeholders such as the academic community and research institutes; (f) Development of tools to facilitate the sharing of information and resources to support the effective participation of parties and others in the Committee’s work, including, for example, the development of training modules and videos; (g) Revision and updating of the handbook for effective participation in the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee under the Stockholm Convention56 to include terminology regularly used during the meetings of the Committee and other relevant information to facilitate incoming members’ rapid understanding of the Committee’s processes;

55 Webinars could address, among other topics, candidate chemicals being evaluated, persistent organic pollutants in products, endocrine disruptors, persistent organic pollutants and climate change, alternatives to persistent organic pollutants, experience in phasing out persistent organic pollutants, how to respond to information requests and topics of relevance to the Committee’s work upon request by members and parties. 56 UNEP/POPS/COP.4/INF/9.

42 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 2. Invites current and former members, on a voluntary basis, to be actively involved in activities to promote the effective participation of parties in the Committee’s work, to support the Basel Convention and Stockholm Convention regional centres and experts of the Rotterdam Convention and to disseminate the work being undertaken by the Committee within their countries and regions; 3. Encourages the Basel Convention and Stockholm Convention regional centres and experts of the Rotterdam Convention, subject to the availability of resources, to play an active role in providing assistance to facilitate effective participation in the Committee’s work, including through the exchange of information and expert knowledge in their areas of expertise and with support from current and former Committee members; 4. Invites parties and observers in a position to do so to contribute to the Committee’s work and to provide financial support for the implementation of activities in support of effective participation by parties in that work.

43 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Annex II

Composition of intersessional working groups (2013–2014)57 Working group on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters Committee members Ms. Estefania Moreira (Brazil) (Chair until 4 May 2014) Mr. Joswa Aoudou (Cameroon) Mr. Robert Chénier (Canada)* Mr. José Álvaro Rodríguez (Colombia)* Ms. Floria Roa-Gutierrez (Costa Rica)* Mr. Jorge Álvarez (Cuba) Mr. Timo Seppälä (Finland)* Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France) (Drafter) Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany)* Mr. Ram Niwas Jindal (India) Mr. Agus Haryono (Indonesia) Ms. Caroline Wamai (Kenya) Mr. Martien Janssen (Netherlands) Mr. Peter Dawson (New Zealand)* Ms. Kyunghee Choi (Republic of Korea) (Chair from 5 May 2014) Mr. Azhari Abdelbagi (Sudan) Ms. Francisca Katagira (United Republic of Tanzania)* Ms. Svitlana Sukhorebra (Ukraine)* Observers Mr. Jack Holland (Australia)** Mr. Gary Fan (Australia) Ms. Ingrid Hauzenberger (Austria)** Ms. Tamara Kukharchyk (Belarus)** Ms. Michelle Kivi (Canada)** Mr. Pavel Čupr (Czech Republic)** Ms. Rikke Donchil Homberg (Denmark) Ms. Consuelo Meneses (Ecuador)** Ms. Katinka Van der Jagt (European Union) Ms. Sandrine Andres (France) Mr. Hubert Binga (Gabon)** Mr. Tirthankar Basu (India) Mr. Seyed Jamaleddin Shahtaheri (Islamic Republic of Iran)** Mr. Shuji Tamura (Japan) Mr. Yusuke Kusakawa (Japan) Mr. Nobutada Kimura (Japan) Mr. Noriyasu Nagai (Japan) Mr. Hirotaka Yamamoto (Japan) Mr. Naoki Hashizume (Japan) Mr. Kiyohiro Kubota (Japan) Ms. Mantoa Sekota (Lesotho)** Mr. Christophe Rosiers (New Zealand) Ms. Christina Tolfsen (Norway) Mr. Said Ali Alzadjali (Oman)** Mr. Marcus Richard (Saint Vincent and Grenadines)** Mr. Ousmane Sow (Senegal)** Mr. Jayakody Sumith (Sri Lanka)** Ms. T.K.I.G. Kumari (Sri Lanka) Ms. Maria Delvin (Sweden)**

57 Committee members whose names are marked with one asterisk in the present annex will end their terms as members on 4 May 2014. Similarly, observers whose names are marked with two asterisks will begin terms as members of the Committee on 5 May 2014; until such time, they will participate in the intersessional working groups as observers.

44 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Mr. Armando Diaz (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela)** Ms. Vivian Cardenas (United Nations Development Programme, Honduras) Ms. Pamela Miller (Alaska Community Action on Toxics) Mr. Philippe Chatton (CropLife International) Mr. Shunmugam Ganesan (Indian Chemical Council) Ms. Mariann Lloyd-Smith (International POPs Elimination Network) Mr. Joseph DiGangi (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Eva Kruemmel (Inuit Circumpolar Council) Ms. Emily Marquez (Pesticide Action Network, USA) Ms. Meriel Watts (Pesticide Action Network, Asia Pacific) Mr. Herbert Estreicher (Wood Preservation Canada)

Working group on decabromodiphenyl ether Committee members Mr. Robert Chénier (Canada)* Mr. Jianxin Hu (China)* Ms. Floria Roa-Gutierrez (Costa Rica)* Mr. Jorge Álvarez (Cuba) Mr. Raouf Okasha (Egypt)* Mr. Timo Seppälä (Finland)* Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France) Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany)* Mr. Ram Niwas Jindal (India) Mr. Agus Haryono (Indonesia) Mr. Mohammed Khashashneh (Jordan)* Ms. Caroline Wamai (Kenya) Ms. Lulwa Ali (Kuwait) Ms. Haritiana Rakotoarisetra (Madagascar) Mr. Martien Janssen (Netherlands) Mr. Peter Dawson (New Zealand)* (Chair until 4 May 2014) Ms. Liselott Säll (Norway) (Drafter) Ms. Kyunghee Choi (Republic of Korea) Mr. Azhari Abdelbagi (Sudan) Ms. Svitlana Sukhorebra (Ukraine)* Observers Mr. Jack Holland (Australia)** (Chair from 5 May 2014) Mr. Gary Fan (Australia) Ms. Ingrid Hauzenberger (Austria)** Ms. Tamara Kukharchyk (Belarus)** Ms. Michelle Kivi (Canada)** Mr. Jean-François Ferry (Canada) Mr. Pavel Čupr (Czech Republic)** Ms. Rikke Donchil Homberg (Denmark) Ms. Consuelo Meneses (Ecuador)** Ms. Katinka Van der Jagt (European Union) Ms. Sandrine Andres (France) Mr. Hubert Binga (Gabon)** Mr. Seyed Jamaleddin Shahtaheri (Islamic Republic of Iran)** Mr. Shuji Tamura (Japan) Mr. Yusuke Kusakawa (Japan) Mr. Nobutada Kimura (Japan) Mr. Noriyasu Nagai (Japan) Mr. Hirotaka Yamamoto (Japan) Mr. Naoki Hashizume (Japan) Mr. Kiyohiro Kubota (Japan) Ms. Mantoa Sekota (Lesotho)** Mr. Sidi Ould Aloueimine (Mauritania)** Mr. Christophe Rosiers (New Zealand) Ms. Christina Tolfsen (Norway) Ms. Trine Celius (Norway)

45 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Mr. Said Ali Alzadjali (Oman)** Ms. Anna Graczyk (Poland) Ms. Magdalena Pyjor (Poland) Mr. Marcus Richard (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines)** Mr. Ousmane Sow (Senegal)** Ms. Maria Delvin (Sweden)** Mr. Armando Diaz (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela)** Ms. Vivian Cardenas (United Nations Development Programme, Honduras) Ms. Pamela Miller (Alaska Community Action on Toxics) Ms. Caroline Ciuciu (Bromine Science and Environmental Forum) Mr. Olivier de Matos (Bromine Science and Environmental Forum) Ms. Venetia Spencer (Bromine Science and Environmental Forum) Ms. Sylvia Jacobi (Bromine Science and Environmental Forum) Mr. Philippe Chatton (CropLife International) Ms. Mariann Lloyd-Smith (International POPs Elimination Network) Mr. Joseph DiGangi (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Eva Kruemmel (Inuit Circumpolar Council)

Working group on perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride Committee members Mr. José Álvaro Rodríguez (Colombia)* Mr. Raouf Okasha (Egypt)* Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France) Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany)* Mr. Ram Niwas Jindal (India) Mr. Agus Haryono (Indonesia) (Co-Chair) Ms. Caroline Wamai (Kenya) Ms. Lulwa Ali (Kuwait) Ms. Haritiana Rakotoarisetra (Madagascar) Mr. Martien Janssen (Netherlands) (Co-Chair) Mr. Peter Dawson (New Zealand)* Ms. Kyunghee Choi (Republic of Korea) Mr. Azhari Abdelbagi (Sudan) Ms. Svitlana Sukhorebra (Ukraine)* Mr. Samuel Banda (Zambia)* Observers Mr. Jack Holland (Australia)** Mr. Gary Fan (Australia) Ms. Ingrid Hauzenberger (Austria)** Ms. Tamara Kukharchyk (Belarus)** Ms. Michelle Kivi (Canada)** Mr. Jean-François Ferry (Canada) Mr. Pavel Čupr (Czech Republic)** Ms. Rikke Donchil Homberg (Denmark) Ms. Katinka Van der Jagt (European Union)

Ms. Sandrine Andres (France) Mr. Hubert Binga (Gabon)** Mr. Tirthankar Basu (India) Mr. Seyed Jamaleddin Shahtaheri (Islamic Republic of Iran)** Mr. Shuji Tamura (Japan) Mr. Yusuke Kusakawa (Japan) Mr. Nobutada Kimura (Japan) Mr. Noriyasu Nagai (Japan) Mr. Hirotaka Yamamoto (Japan) Mr. Naoki Hashizume (Japan) Mr. Kiyohiro Kubota (Japan) Ms. Trine Celius (Norway) Mr. Said Ali Alzadjali (Oman)**

46 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Mr. Ousmane Sow (Senegal)** Mr. Jayakody Sumith (Sri Lanka)** Ms. T.K.I.G Kumari (Sri Lanka) Ms. Maria Delvin (Sweden)** Ms. Pamela Miller (Alaska Community Action on Toxics) Mr. Philippe Chatton (CropLife International) Mr. Richard Holt (FluoroCouncil) Mr. Ronald Bock (FluoroCouncil) Ms. Mariann Lloyd-Smith (International POPs Elimination Network) Mr. Joseph DiGangi (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Eva Kruemmel (Inuit Circumpolar Council) Mr. Edson Dias da Silva (Leaf-Cutting Ant Baits Industries Association) Ms. Juliana Berti (Leaf-Cutting Ant Baits Industries Association) Mr. Luiz Carlos Forti (Leaf-Cutting Ant Baits Industries Association)

47 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Annex III

Workplan for the preparation of a draft risk profile and draft risk management evaluation during the period between the ninth and tenth meetings of the Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee Interval between Scheduled date Activity (for each chemical under review) activities (weeks) 18 October 2013 - The Committee establishes an ad hoc working group. The Secretariat requests parties and observers to provide the 25 October 2013 1 information specified in Annex E for risk profiles and Annex F for risk management evaluations. Parties and observers submit the information specified in annex E for risk profiles and Annex F for risk management evaluations to the Secretariat. 10 January 2014 11  The Secretariat sends a reminder to parties and observers regarding the request for information by 13 December 2013. The working group chair and the drafter complete the first draft.  The drafter prepares the first draft and sends it to the chair 28 February 2014 7 by 24 February 2014.  The chair sends the first draft to the working group by 28 February 2014. The members of the working group submit comments on the first 14 March 2014 2 draft to the chair and the drafter.

The working group chair and the drafter finish their review of the 28 March 2014 2 initial comments from the working group and complete the second draft and a compilation of responses to those comments.

The Secretariat distributes the second draft to parties and 4 April 2014 1 observers for comments. 23 May 2014 7 Parties and observers submit their comments to the Secretariat. The working group chair and the drafter review the comments from parties and observers and complete the revised (third) draft and a compilation of responses to those comments. 6 June 2014 2  The drafter prepares the third draft and sends it to the chair by 2 June 2014.  The chair sends the third draft to the working group by 6 June 2014. The members of the working group submit their final comments 20 June 2014 2 on the third draft to the chair and the drafter.  The working group chair and the drafter review the final comments and complete the final draft and a compilation of responses to those comments. 11 July 2014 3  The drafter prepares the final draft and sends it to the chair by 30 June 2014.  The chair sends the final draft to the Secretariat by 4 July 2014. The Secretariat sends the final draft to the Division of 18 July 2014 1 Conference Services for editing and translation. The Division of Conference Services completes the editing and 12 September 2014 8 translation of the final draft. The Secretariat distributes the final draft in the six official 15 September 2014 <1 languages of the United Nations.

27–31 October 2014 6 Tenth meeting of the Committee.

48 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Annex IV

Dicofol 1. The text below is the outcome of the work of the drafting group on dicofol established during the Committee’s ninth meeting under agenda item 7 (b). It consists of a draft decision on dicofol and, as an annex to the draft decision, a draft evaluation of the proposal to list dicofol in the annexes to the Convention, as they stood at the end of the meeting. 2. As the drafting group was unable to reach agreement and the Committee did not take any decision on dicofol at its ninth meeting, the Committee decided to annex the draft decision and evaluation to the report of the meeting for possible further consideration at its tenth meeting. The entire text is enclosed in square brackets to indicate that it is not the subject of agreement. 3. The draft decision includes two sets of alternative paragraphs, each of which is enclosed in square brackets. In addition, alternative conclusions regarding each criterion in Annex D are presented in square brackets in the draft evaluation, and the argument supporting each such conclusion is presented in a text box immediately following the conclusion itself.

[Draft decision POPRC-[ / ]: Dicofol

Submission by the drafting group on dicofol

The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Having examined the proposal by the European Union to list dicofol in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and having applied the screening criteria specified in Annex D to the Convention, [1. Decides, in accordance with paragraph 4 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, that it is satisfied that the screening criteria have been fulfilled for dicofol as described in the evaluation contained in the annex to the present decision; 2. Also decides, in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 8 of the Convention and paragraph 29 of decision SC-1/7, to establish an ad hoc working group to review the proposal further and to prepare a draft risk profile in accordance with Annex E to the Convention; 3. Invites, in accordance with paragraph 4 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, parties and observers to submit to the Secretariat the information specified in Annex E before 10 January 2014.] [1. Decides, in accordance with paragraph 4 (b) of Article 8 of the Convention, that it is not satisfied that the screening criteria have been fulfilled for dicofol, as set out in the evaluation contained in the annex to the present decision; 2. Requests the Secretariat to make the proposal and the evaluation of the Committee available to all Parties and observers; 3. Decides that the proposal shall be set aside.] Annex to decision POPRC-[ / ]

Evaluation of dicofol against the criteria of Annex D

A. Background 1. The primary source of information for the preparation of this evaluation was the proposal submitted by the European Union that is Party to the Convention, contained in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/3. 2. Additional sources of scientific information included critical reviews prepared by recognized authorities, the Risk Profile and Summary Report for dicofol from April 2002, prepared for UNECE and, prepared by Rasenberg et al. 2003 as well as its Addenda from December 2005 and February 2009 respectively Track A Summary of Dicofol Reviews from April 2009 performed by the UNECE Task Force on POPs, reports by EFSA, AMAP and OSPAR, USEPA, Pesticide Programs Washington

49 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 D.C and the Pesticide Manual (14th edition), as well as recent scientific publications, investigated on a screening basis for relevant information on dicofol. B. Evaluation 3. The proposal was evaluated in the light of the requirements of Annex D, regarding the identification of the chemical (paragraph 1 (a)) and the screening criteria (paragraphs 1 (b)–(e)): (a) Chemical identity: (i) Adequate information was provided in the proposal, which relates to dicofol, Chemical Abstracts Services no. 115-32-2. and its isomers (p,p'-dicofol, CAS RN: 115-32-2 and o,p'-dicofol, CAS RN: 10606-46-9) (ii) The chemical structures were provided; The chemical identity of dicofol and its isomers is adequately established; (b) Persistence: (i) Degradation in water is primarily by hydrolysis. At pH5, the half-life of dicofol’s main p,p’-isomer was 85 days, fulfilling the cut-off value of 60 days for persistence in water. Approximately 10 per cent of northern EU nation surface waters have a pH of around 5. (Belfroid A et al. 2005 (Ref. 1) and Belfroid A et al. 2009 (Ref. 2); Also, blackwater rivers found in several areas around the world (Australia, Amazonia, Europe, Indonesia, Orinoco basin, Northern and Southern United States) typically have a pH of around 5. Conservative estimates for half-life in aerobic soil of dicofol (considering the parent compound and its major degradates) are as high as 313 days fulfilling the cut-off value of 6 months for persistence in water. Isomers of dicofol hydrolize relatively quickly at neutral and alkaline pH. Both isomers hydrolize within 8 hours at pH 7 with half-lives of 64 hours. Dicofol hydrolizes very rapidly under neutral and alkaline conditions (USEPA RED 1998) (Ref.3). Half-life is less than sixty days in soil and less than one day in sediment [(Canadian Technical Comments on Dicofol Dossier 2009) (Ref 4)]. (ii) According to the Japanese NITE database dicofol is characterized as non-biodegradable. [There is sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the persistence criterion;] There is sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the persistence criterion because:  The half-life of the chemical in water at pH 5 is of 85 days.  The half-life of the chemical in aerobic soil is of 313 days.

[There is no sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the persistence criterion;] There is no sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the persistence criterion because:  The pH in the global ocean surface waters ranges from 7.9-8.2. The vast areas of subtropical oceans have seasonally varied pH values from 8.05 during warmer months to 8.15 during colder months.  Dicofol is not persistent in natural waters near or above neutral pH and not expected to be persistent in water above pH 5.5.  Half-life is less than sixty days in soil and less than one day in sediment

(c) Bioaccumulation: (i) A study with p,p’-dicofol in bluegill sunfish resulted in BCF of 10000. A study with fathead minnows after 296 days of exposure to dicofol reported BCF values as high as 43000. p,p’-dicofol residues accumulated in bluegill sunfish with bioconcentration factors of 6,600, 17,000 and 10,000 in fillet, viscera, and whole fish, respectively during 28 days of exposure No information is available on bioaccumulation in fish for o,p’-dicofol since o,p’-dicofol hydrolizes quickly. (USEPA RED 1998) (Ref 3). BCF values are available in the Japanese METI-NITE database of 8200 and 6100 obtained for common carp which were in the same range as the BCF values found in their own study with zebra fish. Comparison with BCF values obtained from QSAR models showed good 50 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 agreement with those obtained in their study. Therefore, there is strong evidence from several fish studies indicating that BCFs are above the threshold of 5000. Metabolism testing on rat elimination half-lives were estimated to be 1.5-4 days for o, p’- dicofol and 4-7 days for p,p’-dicofol (OECD 1995) (Ref.5). Measured log Kow value of dicofol is 4.30 as per the Pesticide Manual 14th edition 2012. Measured log Kow values vary from 4.08 to 5.02. A high log Kow of 6.06 has been reported in USEPA RED 1998 (Ref 3). A high log Koa of 8.9 is reported indicating in air breathing organisms (Kelly 2007) (Ref 6). [There is sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the bioaccumulation criterion;] There is sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the bioaccumulation criterion because:  BCF is greater than 5000: A study with p,p’-dicofol in bluegill sunfish resulted in BCF of 10000. A study with fathead minnows after 296 days of exposure to dicofol reported BCF values as high as 43000. p,p’-dicofol residues accumulated in bluegill sunfish with bioconcentration factors of 6,600, 17,000 and 10,000 in fillet, viscera, and whole fish, respectively during 28 days of exposure.  BCF values are available in the Japanese METI NITE database of 8200 and 6100 obtained for common carp which were in the same range as the BCF values found in their own study with zebra fish.  A high log Koa of 8.9 is reported indicating in air breathing organisms.

[There is no sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the bioaccumulation criterion;] There is no sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the bioaccumulation criterion because:  Log Koa is a parameter that is not in the scope of the Convention.  Measured log Kow value of dicofol is 4,30 as per the Pesticide Manual 14th edition 2012  The references quoted in the proposal by the EU are from 1982, 1986, the later being not published.  Metabolism testing on rat elimination half-lives were estimated to be 1.5-4 days for o, p’- dicofol and 4-7 days for p,p’-dicofol.  Dicofol residues depurated relatively quickly with an estimated elimination of half- life 33 days.  - There is uncertainty on bioaccumulation.

(d) Potential for long-range environmental transport: (i) and (ii) There are little data on presence of dicofol in remote areas. Dicofol has been detected in the Arctic environment (Zhong et al. 2012) (Ref.7). [In 2009, no evidence of long range transport for dicofol was found by UNECE (2009).] (iii) The estimated atmospheric half-lives exceed the screening criteria of 2 days (3to 10.5 days). The calculated transport distance in Europe is 1650 km for dicofol. [There is sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the criterion on potential for long-range environmental transport;] There is sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the criterion on potential for long-range environmental transport because:  Dicofol has been detected in the Arctic environment.  The estimated atmospheric half-lives exceed the screening criteria of 2 days (3to 10.5 days).  The modeled transport distance in Europe is 1650 km for dicofol.

51 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 [There is no sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the criterion on potential for long- range environmental transport;] There is no sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the criterion on potential for long-range environmental transport because:  Dicofol does not degrade to DDT or DDE. Presence of dicofol may be related to presence of dicofol and its metabolites.  No information is available on dicofol in remote areas.  References quoted in the proposal by the EU are based on evidence of DDT or DDE signature.  There is no actual field evidence of LRT of dicofol.

(e) Adverse effects: (i) There are no specific data available; (ii) There are animal data showing a potential of dicofol to have adverse effects on human health, including effects on the liver, kidney, adrenal gland and urinary bladder. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for induction in mice is 2.1 mg/kg bw/day. UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF13 concluded that based on available data there is no evidence for carcinogenicity of dicofol, however a recent study (Liu et al.2012) (Ref.8) indicates that dicofol might raise the risk of cancer incidence through effects on frame conformation of proteins, disturbing the physiological function. A 2-year study with rats, liver, growth, enzyme induction and other changes in the liver, adrenal gland and urinary bladder were observed at doses of 2.5 mg/kg/day, resulting in a limit dose value (ADI) of 0.0022 mg/kg bw day (JMPR 2011) (Ref.9). In another two-year study on hormonal effects in dogs a NOAEL of 0.22 mg/kg/day has been determined leading to a RfD of 0.0004 mg/kg/day (USEPA RED 1998) (Ref. 3). A dietary concentration of 7 mg/kg dicofol fed to mice for 3 generations produced defects in 12 days old offspring of the third generation. Effects however, where not identified in another study with rabbits at similar exposure and at higher exposure levels. Dicofol is highly toxic to aquatic animals as defined in Global Harmonised System (GHS). It is classified as aquatic acute and chronic category 1 in EU-CLP Regulation. The lowest LC50 for fish is 0.053 mg/l, the lowest value for crustaceans is 0.06 mg/l (OSPAR 2002) (Ref.11). The NOEC in a 60 d-fish early life stage test was 4.4 μg/L as well as NOEC for chronic exposure of 4.5 – 9 μg/L. The USEPA RED (1998) (Ref.3) cites effects on the reproductive physiology of the fathead minnow as low as 5 μg/L. A two generation study by MacLellan et al. (1996) (Ref. 12) showed significantly thinner egg shells at 20 mg/kg of dicofol. Male embryos from females dosed with 5 and 20 mg/kg of dicofol had gonads that were significantly different from the control chicks. Wiemeyer et al 2001 reported the lowest observed dietary effect concentration for eggshell thinning was 3 mg/kg and the no/observed adverse effect concentration was 1 μg/g. This is slightly lower than the NOEC of 2.5 ppm (2.5 mg/kg) for eggshell thinning in ducks as reported in the original report. According to the OSPAR document on dicofol (OSPAR, 2002) (Ref.11), the pattern and magnitude of dicofol on eggshell thinning was similar as observed with p,p’-DDE. Schwarzbach et al (1988), cited in OSPAR2002 (Ref.11) showed that dicofol was not metabolised to DDE in birds and therefore concluded that the adverse effect is based on dicofol itself. In a study with earthworms by Shi et al. (2006) (Ref.13), dicofol significantly inhibited the reproduction ability of earthworms

52 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 Lavado et al (2004) (Ref.14) and Thibaut and Porte (2004) (Ref.15) showed that dicofol can interfere with the synthesis of sexhormones in fish microsomes Haeba et al. (2008) (Ref.16) demonstrated in daphnia that 0.1 mg/L of dicofol resulted in a significant shift of the sex ration in favour of males at 0.1 mg/L. Kojima et al. (2004) (Ref.17) showed estrogenic activity of dicofol in in vitro test. Endocrine effects were also observed by e.g. Vinggaard et al., 2000 (Ref.18); Okubo et al., 2004 (Ref.19), Hoekstra et al. (2006) (Ref.20), and Thiel et al. (2011) (Ref.21). [There is sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the criterion on adverse effects.] There is sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the criterion on adverse effects because:  There are animal data showing a potential of dicofol to have adverse effects on human health, including effects on the liver, kidney, adrenal gland and urinary bladder. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for induction in mice is 2.1 mg/kg bw/day. UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/13 concluded that based on available data there is no evidence for cardinogenicity of Dicofol, however a recent study (Liu et al.2012) (Ref.8) indicates that dicofol might raise the risk of cancer incidence through effects on frame conformation of proteins, disturbing the physiological function.  A 2-year study with rats, liver, growth, enzyme induction and other changes in the liver, adrenal gland and urinary bladder were observed at doses of 2.5 mg/kg/day, resulting in a limit dose value (ADI) of 0.0022 mg/kg bw day (JMPR 2011) (Ref.9).  In another two-year study on hormonal effects in dogs a NOAEL of 0.22 mg/kg/day has been determined leading to a RfD of 0.0004 mg/kg/day (USEPA RED 1998) (Ref. 3).  A dietary concentration of 7 mg/kg dicofol fed to mice for 3 generations produced defects in 12 days old offspring of the third generation, Effects however, where not identified in another study with rabbits at similar exposure and at higher exposure levels.  Dicofol is highly toxic to aquatic animals as defined in Global Harmonised System (GHS). It is classified as aquatic acute and chronic category 1 in EU CLP Regulation.  The lowest LC50 for fish is 0.053 mg/l, the lowest value for crustaceans is 0.06 mg/l (OSPAR 2002) (Ref.11).  The NOEC in a 60 d-fish early life stage test was 4.4 μg/L as well as NOEC for chronic exposure of 4.5 – 9 μg/L. The USEPA RED (1998) (Ref.3) cites effects on the reproductive physiology of the fathead minnow as low as 5 μg/L.  A two generation study by MacLellan et al. (1996) (Ref. 12) showed significantly thinner egg shells at 20 mg/kg of dicofol. Male embryos from females dosed with 5 and 20 mg/kg of dicofol had gonads that were significantly different from the control chicks.  Wiemeyer et al 2001 reported the lowest observed dietary effect concentration for eggshell thinning was 3 mg/kg and the no/observed adverse effect concentration was 1 μg/g. This is slightly lower than the NOEC of 2.5 ppm (2.5 mg/kg) for eggshell thinning in ducks as reported in the original report.  According to the OSPAR document on dicofol (OSPAR, 2002) (Ref.11), the pattern and magnitude of dicofol on eggshell thinning was similar as observed with p,p’- DDE. Schwarzbach et al (1988), cited in OSPAR2002 (Ref.11) showed that dicofol was not metabolised to DDE in birds and therefore concluded that the adverse effect is based on dicofol itself.  In a study with earthworms by Shi et al. (2006) (Ref.13), dicofol significantly inhibited the reproduction ability of earthworms  Lavado et al. (2004) (Ref.14) and Thibaut and Porte (2004) (Ref.15) showed that dicofol can interfere with the synthesis of sexhormones in fish microsomes  Haeba et al. (2008) (Ref.16) demonstrated in daphnia that 0.1 mg/L of dicofol resulted in a significant shift of the sex ration in favour of males at 0.1 mg/L. Kojima et al. (2004) (Ref.17) showed estrogenic activity of dicofol in in vitro test.  Endocrine effects were also observed by e.g. Vinggaard et al., 2000 (Ref.18); Okubo et al., 2004 (Ref.19), Hoekstra et al. (2006) (Ref.20), and Thiel et al. (2011) (Ref.21).

53 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13 [There is no sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the criterion on adverse effects.] There is no sufficient evidence that dicofol meets the criterion on adverse effects because:  UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/13 concludes that available data there is no evidence for carcinogenicity of dicofol.  Available field data suggest that dicofol does not cause significant adverse effects on avian reproduction and does not present an unreasonable risk to ecosystem.  Metabolism testing effects on adrenal cortical synthesis on dogs, dicofol has a negative effect.  As per the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification, dicofol has been classified under group 3.  Carcinogenic bioassays of dicofol were carried out by the National Cancer Institute in rats and mice. No compound-related tumours were observed at either dose.  Dicofol is not classified for any carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic effects according to regulation (EC) 1272/2008.  Examination of selected liver sections from long term study in mice showed no evidence for carcinogenic effect of dicofol in male mice at doses of 264 and 558 ppm/day.  Various experiments were conducted on test animal on reproductive toxicity of dicofol. No treatment related effects were observed on the number of stillborns, mean litter sizes at birth, sex ratio, viability, clinical signs, or body weight of offspring. No treatment related effects were observed on parameters of reproductive function of performance: length of estrous cycle.  For dicofol, evidence for endocrine disruption is suggested but not definite.  Available field data suggest that dicofol does not pose significant adverse effects on avian reproduction and does not present an unreasonable risk to ecosystem.  - Dicofol is a weak hER agonist due to activity of the achiral p,p’ isomer and (-)-o,p’ substituted enantiomer and emphasizes the influence of the chemical structure and configuration on biological responses from chiral compounds.

C. Conclusion 4. [The Committee concluded that dicofol meets the screening criteria specified in Annex D.] [The Committee concluded that dicofol does not meet the screening criteria specified in Annex D.] References 1. Belfroid A, Blok H, Balk F. 2005. Addendum to the risk profile of Dicofol. Royal Haskoning report 9R5744.01/R0007/ABE/CKV/Nijm 2. Belfroid A, Schoep, P. 2009. Second addendum to the risk profile of Dicofol. Royal Haskoning report 9T7379.01/R0003//Nijm 3. EPA’s RED (1998). US EPA’s Registration Eligibility Document for Dicofol. Available through: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDs/0021red.pdf 4. [Canadian Technical Comments on Dicofol Dossier 2009.] 5. OECD 1995 Final report on the OECD pilot project to compare pesticide data reviews; OECD Environment Monographs No.108; http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/pesticides-biocides/32478823.pdf 6. Kelly 2007. Food Web–Specific Biomagnification of Persistent Organic Pollutants. Science 317, 236 (2007); DOI: 10.1126/science.1138275 7. Zhong G. et al. (2012). Distribution and Air-Sea Exchange of Current-Use Pesticides (CUPs) from East Asia to the High Arctic Ocean. Environmental Science & Technology, 46: 259-267 8. Liu et al.2012The interaction of α-chymotrypsin with one persistent organic pollutant (dicofol): Spectroscope and molecular modeling identification. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50: 3298-3305. 9. JMPR 2011. DICOFOL (026) ][http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/JMPR/Report11/Dicofol.pdf to be inserted 10. EPA’s RED (1998). US EPA’s Registration Eligibility Document for Dicofol. Available through: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDs/0021red.pdf

54 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.9/13

11. OSPAR 2002 OSPAR Commission, Background Document on Dicofol, 2002. Hazardous Substances Series. ISBN 0 946956 97 9] 12. MacLellan K. et al. (1995). Reproductive and morphological effects of o,p’-dicofol on two generations of captive American Kestrels. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 30, 364-372 13. Shi Y.J., Wang X., Lu Y.L., Guo F.F. (2006). Acute and subtle toxicological effects of DDT and dicofol on earthworms (Eisenia foetida). Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 26 (5): 851-857. 14. Lavado et al (2004). Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2004 Apr 15;196(2):247-57. 15. Thibaut R, Porte C.; Effects of endocrine disrupters on sex steroid synthesis and metabolism pathways in fish. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2004 Dec;92(5):485-94 16. Haeba M.H. et al. (2008). Selected Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (Vinclozolin, Flutamide, Ketoconazole and Dicofol): Effects on Survival, Occurrence of Males, Growth, Molting and Reproduction of Daphnia magna. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 15 (3): 222-227 17. Kojima, H et al. (2004). Screening for estrogen and androgen receptor activities in 200 pesticides by in vitro receptor gene assays using Chinese Hamster ovary cells. Environ Health Perspect 2004: 112: 524-531 18. Vinggaard AM, Hnida C, Breinholt V, Larsen JC., Screening of selected pesticides for inhibition of CYP19 aromatase activity in vitro; Toxicol In Vitro. 2000 Jun;14(3):227-34 19. Okubo T, Yokoyama Y, Kano K, Soya Y, Kano I., Estimation of estrogenic and antiestrogenic activities of selected pesticides by MCF-7 cell proliferation assay; Arch Environ Contam. Toxicol. 2004 May;46(4):445-53 20. Thiel A. et al. (2011). Dicofol degradation to p,p-dichlorobenzophenone – A potential antiandrogen. Toxicology, 282: 88-93 21. Hoekstra P.F. et al. (2006). Estrogenic activity of dicofol with the human estrogen receptor: Isomer- and enantiomer-specific implications. Chemosphere, 64: 174-177 22. EPA’s RED addendum (2005). Available through: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0220 23. EU Commission Decision 2008. European Union Commission Decision concerning the non-inclusion of dicofol in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance. (2008/764/EC). Available through: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:262:0040:0041:EN:PDF 24. Pridgeon JW, Pereira RM, Becnel JJ, Allan SA, Clark GG, Linthicum KJ 2008. Susceptibility of Aedes aegypti, Culex quinquefasciatus say, and Anopheles quadrimaculatus say to 19 pesticides with different modes of action. J.Med.Entomol. 45, 82-87 25. Rasenberg M. 2003. Risk profile and summary report for dicofol; Dossier prepared for the third meeting of the UN-ECE Ad hoc Expert Group on POPs. Royal Haskoning report 4L0002.A1/R0012/EVDP/Nijm 26. Eaton G.J. et a.l 1982. Effects of suspended clay on bioconcentration of Kelthane in Fathead Minnows. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 12, 439-445. 27. Tillman, A. M. 1986. The bioconcentration, elimination and metabolism of 14C-dicofol by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis microchirus). Report No. 310-86-17, prepared and submitted by Rohm and Haas Company, Philadelphia, PA. 28. El-Amrani S. et al. (2012). Bioconcentration of pesticides in Zebrafish eleutheroembryos. Science of the Total Environment, 425: 184-190. 29. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Arctic Pollution 2009, Oslo 2009]

55