Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

UNITED NATIONS SC

UNEP/POPS/COP.6/INF/28 Distr.: General 26 March 2013 Stockholm Convention English only on Persistent Organic Pollutants

Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Sixth meeting Geneva, 28 April–10 May 2013 Item 5 (h) of the provisional agenda* Matters related to the implementation of the Convention: reporting

Strategy to increase the rate of submission of national reports by parties pursuant to Article 15 of the Stockholm Convention

Note by the Secretariat 1. In decision SC-5/16, the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants requested the Secretariat to develop a strategy to increase the rate of submission of national reports by parties pursuant to Article 15, taking into account the feedback received from parties on obstacles to reporting. 2. In response to this request, and as referred to in document UNEP/POPS/COP.6/26, the Secretariat invited parties that had not submitted their second national report to provide their views on the obstacles faced in reporting. By 1 March 2013, completed questionnaires had been received from six parties.1 Four of the six respondent parties reported that they had not received or were not sure if they had received the access codes to enter data onto the online reporting system. Two parties mentioned a lack of data and information requested in the reporting form. One party said that there was a lack of financial resources to initiate data collection. Another party responded that it had encountered difficulties in coordinating the collection of data and information from various sources, such as Government ministries and other relevant bodies, which it attributed to both regular and irregular transfer of key personnel within the Government and to the low priority given to reporting within the national programme. 3. The Secretariat also conducted a comparative study to review the reporting rates and approaches adopted by other multilateral environmental agreements to improve the number, quality and timeliness of national reports. 4. Taking into account the feedback received from parties and the findings of the comparative study on reporting rates, a draft strategy to increase the rate of submission of national reports pursuant to Article 15 has been developed and is contained in annex I to the present note. 5. The comparative study to review the reporting rates and approaches adopted by other multilateral environmental agreements is set out in annex II to the present note. 6. The annexes to the present note have not been formally edited.

* UNEP/POPS/COP.6/1. 1 The completed questionnaires from the above-mentioned parties are available on the Convention website at http://chm.pops.int/Countries/NationalReports/tabid/751/Default.aspx.

K1351070 080413 UNEP/POPS/COP.6/INF/28 Annex I

Draft strategy to increase the rate of submission of national reports pursuant to Article 15 of the Stockholm Convention 1. Bearing in mind the objective of enhancing synergies, it is recommended that, as far as possible, actions taken to increase the rate of national reports benefit from the lessons learned on reporting under the Basel Convention, as well as other conventions, and that, when appropriate, activities that benefit both conventions be undertaken. 2. Taking into account the feedback received from parties on their difficulties in reporting and the different approaches adopted by other MEAs for improving reporting rates, the following approaches and tools are proposed for implementation by the Secretariat to improve the submission rate of national reports under Article 15 of the Stockholm Convention. A. Guidance and manuals (a) Develop and disseminate guidance materials to assist parties in collecting information required in national reports, i.e. to establish and maintain relevant inventories and databases. This work can be linked to existing guidance for the development, updating and review of national implementation plans; (b) Prepare tutorials and continual/on-demand training on reporting, such as training videos, webinars and other tools on reporting; (c) Keep the user’s manual for the online electronic reporting system up to date in all UN languages; (d) Maintain a helpdesk for assisting parties during the reporting period. B. Reporting format and online reporting system (a) Update the reporting format to reflect any amendments to Annexes A, B and C to the Convention; (b) Improve and enhance the online reporting system, taking into account the comments received from parties on their experiences in using the online reporting system and the use of national reports as one element in undertaking an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Convention pursuant to Article 16; (c) Integrate new features into the online reporting system such as functions to import data from excel sheets, tools for data validation and a unit converter/auto calculator, to enable parties to import information from their database, save time and avoid potential errors while typing large amount of data. C. Institutional strengthening and human resource management (a) Encourage parties that have not already done so to designate an official contact point (OCP), as this person is responsible for formally submitting the national reports to the Secretariat, and thus will receive a specific access code to the online reporting system; (b) Encourage parties to establish a secondary account for the online reporting system to allow different technical officers from various ministries to complete respective sections of the reporting form online under the coordination of the OCP; (c) Assist the OCP in identifying the entities that are responsible for the collection and storage of required data and assist in establishing coordination mechanisms or procedures to facilitate exchange of information and collection of data. D. Promoting awareness and information exchange (a) Continue to raise awareness of parties on the importance of reporting under the Stockholm Convention and underline the user-friendliness of the online reporting system for preparing national reports; (b) Systematically include assistance for national reporting in the technical assistance activities delivered by the Secretariat (e.g. global/regional/national workshops and meetings, webinars);

2 UNEP/POPS/COP.6/INF/28 (c) Promote exchange of information among parties on their experiences and best practices for national reporting and foster networks of government officials, e.g. on the website or through social media. E. Possible additional actions (a) In addition to the actions that could be taken by the secretariat enumerated in the above, the Conference of the Parties may wish to consider whether additional steps could be taken to better facilitate and support reporting. Such steps could include, for example: (i) when considering its decision on developing and approving procedures and institutional mechanisms for determining non-compliance with the obligations under the Convention (see document UNEP/POPS/COP.6/29), should such a mechanism and procedures be agreed, whether it would be appropriate for an initial focus to include facilitating the efforts of parties to meet their reporting obligations; and, (ii) in discussing the results of the UNEP consultative process on financing chemicals and wastes (see document UNEP/FAO/CHW/RC/POPS/EXCOPS.2/INF/14) whether the outcomes of that discussion could include approaches to strengthen assistance to parties in developing national reports.

3 UNEP/POPS/COP.6/INF/28 Annex II

Comparative study on reporting rates under a selected number of other multilateral environment agreements (MEAs) A. Observation of reporting rates under a selected number of other MEAs 1. The study presents information on the reporting rates under the following MEAs. It reviews the approaches used or adopted by these agreements with a view to improving the number, quality, timeliness of national reports. (a) The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; (b) The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes; (c) The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); (d) The Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances; (e) The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); and (f) The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). 2. To review reporting rates and relevant practices used to encourage and improve national reporting, the Secretariat either contacted the secretariats of the MEAs or performed a desk study using information contained on the websites of the concerned MEAs. The Secretariat also used available reports on the subject, such as a survey conducted by the Division on Environmental Law and Convention (DELC) of the United Nations Environment Programme on the situation of monitoring and reporting under selected MEAs1 and a similar study undertaken by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity2. 3. The following aspects will be considered when reviewing reporting rates: (a) Reporting requirements and frequency; (b) Reporting rates; (c) Format for reporting,(online reporting/ electronic form); (d) Reporting guidance and tools available to parties; (e) Linkage to a compliance mechanism or / and a financial mechanism; (f) Direct assistance to parties (training, feedback, etc.); (g) Process for reviewing information contained in national reports (i.e. QA/QC system). 1. Reporting under the Stockholm Convention (179 parties, as at 8 March 2012) 4. Relevant information related to reporting under the Stockholm Convention is, as follows: (a) Article 15 of the Convention requires all parties to report on the measures taken to implement the Convention, and on the effectiveness of such measures in meeting the objectives of the Convention. It also requires parties to provide statistical data on production, import, export of chemicals listed in annexes A and B of the Convention, and to the extent practicable, a list of the States from which it has imported each such substances and the States to which it has exported each such substance. (b) Parties are to submit their national reports every four years3. (c) Two four-year cycles of reporting have already been undertaken under the Convention. The reporting rate observed during the last cycle was 54%; (d) Reporting is done through an online electronic reporting system;

1 Manual on Compliance with and Enforcement of Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Survey of Monitoring and Reporting under Global MEAs, UNEP-DELC, p. 137-141, available at: http://www.oas.org/dsd/Tool-kit/Documentos/ModulleVI/Compliance%20with%20MEAs.pdf 2 http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/bs/bscc-06/official/bscc-06-02-en.pdf. 3 See decision SC-1/22: Party reporting, timing and format.

4 UNEP/POPS/COP.6/INF/28 (e) Guidance documents/user manuals for reporting are available on line; (f) The Convention has a financial mechanism4, however to date it has not funded directly the preparation of national reports. (the GEF as the principal entity entrusted with the operations of the financial mechanism of the Convention, has funded the development of national implementation plans under which information collected can be used for national reports). In accordance with the guidance to the financial mechanism5, those activities that seek to meet the objectives of the Convention, by assisting eligible parties to fulfil their obligations under the Convention, in accordance with guidance provided by the Conference of the Parties are eligible for funding from the financial mechanism. (g) Although the Convention has provisions for developing and approving procedures and institutional mechanisms for determining non-compliance with the obligations under the Convention, a compliance mechanism is yet to be established; (h) Help desk within the Secretariat and through the Convention home page; (i) The Secretariat, subject to available funding, delivers technical assistance activities, including training workshops and webinars to support developing countries and countries with economies in transition to submit their national report; (j) There is no provision under the Convention for a process for reviewing information contained in national reports (i.e. QA/QC system). Reporting First cycle: 2004-2006 Second cycle6: 20067-2009 cycles Within Within After the Within Within extended After the Submission deadline deadline deadline extended deadline deadline trends (31 Dec (until 28 (31 Oct deadline (until (31 July (Aug 2011) 2006) Oct 2009) 2010) 31 July 2011) 2007) No of 5 28 12 40 39 16 reports Overall reporting ~27% (45 out of 167 parties) ~54% (95 out of 177) rate Reporting rates under the Stockholm Convention (as at 31 December 2012) 5. Although the overall reporting rate was increased during the second reporting round, the overall submission rate can still be seen as low. 6. National reports submitted pursuant to Article 15 of the Convention are one of the three sources of information on which the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Convention pursuant to Article 16 is based on. Efforts by the Secretariat to increase the reporting rates during the second reporting round included: a more user-friendly online reporting system, a users’ manual for the online reporting system in all UN languages; awareness-raising activities and workshops organized in regions, online webinars and direct assistance given to parties through a helpdesk and reporting days carried out during six months prior the reporting deadline. 2. Reporting under the Basel Convention (179 parties, as at 31 December 2012) 7. General features of national reporting under the Basel Convention are summarized below: (a) All parties to the Basel Convention are required to submit national reports to the Secretariat pursuant to Article 13, paragraph 3 (e.g. information regarding transboundary movements of hazardous wastes or other wastes); (b) Reports should be submitted annually; (c) The reporting format is a pre-filled electronic form (online reporting system under development); (d) Guidance for reporting, developed under the authority of the Conference of the Parties, is available. It is composed of: a questionnaire on “Transmission of Information”; a benchmark report

4 See article 13 of the Stockholm Convention. 5 See paragraph 1(b) of the annex to decision SC-1/9: guidance to the financial mechanism. 6http://chm.pops.int/Countries/NationalReports/tabid/751/Default.aspx 7 The reporting year 2006 is repeated in both cycles as the deadline for the first reporting cycle was 31 December 2006.

5 UNEP/POPS/COP.6/INF/28 aimed at facilitating reporting under paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Basel Convention; a guidance document on improving national reporting; and a guidance on the development of inventories (currently being drafted); (e) A compliance mechanism is in place with a double mandate: review of general issues of implementation and compliance; consideration of specific submissions (see below); (f) Help desk within the Secretariat; (g) The Secretariat, subject to available funding, delivers technical assistance activities to support developing countries and countries with economies in transition to submit their national report; (h) No provision for a financial mechanism under the Convention; (i) Limited Secretariat’s quality control to the reported information/data is in place.

Years 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Reports 96 102 108 98 103 104 98 105 97 80 91 72 submitted

Reporting 72.2 72.3 73.0 64.5 65.6 64.2 59.4 63 58 47 53 38 rate (%) Reporting rates under the Basel Convention (as at 31 December 2010) Notes: (i) Data from the Convention’s website at: http://www.basel.int/Countries/NationalReporting/StatusCompilations/tabid/1497/Default.aspx 8. Parties started reporting from the year 1992 and the reporting rates8 for the first few years were above 70% which slightly fell and stayed consistently at around 65% for another five years. The recent reporting rate has been around 50%. 9. Under the Basel Convention, the Committee Administering the Mechanism for Promoting Implementation and Compliance (hereinafter “the Committee”) has been particularly involved in the matter of improving timely and complete reporting. Under its general review mandate the Committee has and continues to review general issues faced by parties in implementing and complying with their national reporting obligation. Under this mandate, the Committee has, over the years, analyzed difficulties faced by parties in submitting complete reports on time, it has developed guidance documents (Benchmark report aimed at facilitating reporting under paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Basel Convention; Guidance document on improving national reporting), and it has classified parties’ compliance performance with the national reporting obligation. Other activities included in the Committee’s 2012-2013 work programme include the development of guidance on the development of inventories and the development of electronic tools to improve national reporting. The Committee has also initiated an informal dialogue with other MEA compliance mechanisms with a view to exchanging lessons learned on how to improve compliance with national reporting obligations. In this regard, a letter was sent to the President of the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention who expressed support for this initiative. 10. Under its specific submission mandate, the Committee may consider and assist parties in resolving implementation and compliance difficulties with obligations under the Convention. At this time, the Committee is considering 9 submissions pertaining to developing country parties facing national reporting difficulties with a view to resolving, through a facilitation procedure, the matter of concern. In two instances, the Committee has adopted compliance action plans and allocated funding from the implementation fund with a view to restoring compliance with the national reporting obligation. 3. Reporting under the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (195 parties, as at 2011) 11. Reporting under the UNFCCC has the following general features: (a) Reporting is mandatory for all parties, but, with different contents and timeframes for their submission between Annex I (developed) and non-Annex I (developing) parties9;

8 UNEP/CHW/CC/8/14 Report on the status of reporting prepared for the Committee for Administering the Mechanism for Promoting the Implementation and Compliance of the Basel Convention. 9 In accordance with the principle of “common and differentiated responsibilities” enshrined in the Convention.

6 UNEP/POPS/COP.6/INF/28 (b) Parties are to report periodically (every 4-5 years) on their efforts in implementing the Convention and to report on their inventories on an annual basis; (c) The non-Annex I (developing) parties have a possibility to opt out from this requirement; (d) Non-Annex I (developing) parties are eligible to receive funds under the financial mechanism (the GEF) to prepare their reports; (e) Web-based interface for submission of reports is available to all parties; (f) Reporting guidelines, user manual and training courses are available; (g) Information submitted by Annex I (developed) parties is subject to in-depth revision by an international team of experts. Annex I parties Non-Annex I parties Reporting First Second Third Fourth Fifth First Second Third Fourth Fifth cycles10 (1994- (1997- 2001 2006 2010 (1994- (1997- 2001 2006 2010 1995) 1998) 1995) 1998) No of 40 40 40 40 41 141 45 2 1 No reports submiss ions Average 98% 0-92% reporting rate Reporting rates under the UNFCCC (as at 31 December 2010) Note: (i) Data on Annex I parties from the UNFCCC website at: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/4903.php (ii) Data on non-Annex I parties from the UNFCCC website at: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/non-annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/653.php 12. There have been five reporting (“communications”) rounds so far and almost 100% of the Annex I parties have reported all five communications while the reporting rate of the non-Annex I parties shows abrupt decline. As high as 92 % of the non-Annex I parties submitted their first communication while the submission falls to 29% for second communication and to less than 1% to third and fourth communications. 4. Reporting under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer (197 parties, as at 2012) 13. General features of reporting under the Montreal Protocol are summarized below: (a) All parties are required to report data annually to the Secretariat on their production, imports, exports of ozone depleting substances (ODS); (b) The financial mechanism, the Multilateral Fund, finances the establishment and operation of the national focal point (known as the National Ozone Unit) and provides assistance with understanding data reporting requirements and resolving data reporting problems; (c) Electronic reporting form; (d) Tools and guidance are available; (e) A compliance mechanism is in place which may, through its committee, recommend suitable actions for parties that do not comply with their reporting obligations; (f) Technical and financial assistance is made available to support developing country Parties to comply with the Protocol. This includes the development and submission of national reports to the Secretariat. Year 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 Reports 93 117 115 131 142 171 173 173 171 170 172 169 169 171 165 submitted Reporting >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 100 93 rate11 (%)

10 Date of submission was not taken into account.

7 UNEP/POPS/COP.6/INF/28 Reporting rates under the Montreal Protocol (as of 2005) Note: Data on Montreal Protocol reporting: http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/ozone_data_tools.php 14. The Protocol has one of the highest reporting rates12 among the MEAs considered in this study. The reporting statistics, published by the Ozone Secretariat in 2005, show a 100% reporting rate from 1990 to 2003 in a row13. 5. Reporting under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (193 parties, as at 2012) 15. The main features of reporting under CBD are, as follows: (a) Article 26 of the Convention requires all parties to submit their national reports every four years providing information on measures taken for the implementation of the Convention and the effectiveness of these measures in meeting the objectives of the Convention; (b) Standardized formats and guidance for reporting are available; (c) A compliance mechanism is in place; (d) The financial assistance (the GEF) provides financial assistance to developing country parties for the preparation of national report. Reporting First cycle Second cycle Third cycle Fourth cycle Fifth cycle cycles 1992-1997 1998-2001 2002-2005 2006-2009 2010-2014 No of reports 150 136 153 168 Not published Total 78% 71% 79% 87% yet Reporting rates under the CBD (as at 2012) 16. As shown above, the Convention has very high reporting rates throughout the years ranging from 70% to almost 90%. 6. Reporting under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)14 (175 parties, as at 2011) 17. The main features of the reporting system under CITES are, as follows: (a) Under Article 8 of the Convention, each party is required to submit periodic reports on its implementation of the Convention and transmit to the Secretariat: (a) an annual report on trade in CITES-listed; (b) a biennial report on legislative, regulatory and administrative measures taken to enforce the Convention; (b) The Secretariat has developed Guidelines for the Preparation and Submission of CITES Annual Reports and a biennial report format; (c) If a party so requests, UNEP-WCMC will compile an initial annual report for the State based on copies of permits that are provided to it; (d) The Standing Committee, which acts as the compliance mechanism, can require stronger measures to promote compliance with national reporting requirements15 and can recommend various measures on reporting to increase submission rates. Biennial report Annual report Year 2003-04 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Reports 94 74 66 15 144 141 140 126 113 43 submitted Reporting 59% 45% 39% 9% 87% 84% 83% 73% 65% 25% rate

11 Several countries reported their data even before the Protocol came into force for their countries. 12 http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/Production_and_consumption2005.pdf 13 From the publication: “Production and Consumption of ODS under Montreal Protocol (1986-2004)”, 2005, Ozone Secretariat. 14 http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports.php. 15 Resolution Con.11.17 instructs the Standing Committee to determine which parties have failed, without having provided adequate justification, to submit annual reports for three consecutive years. This Resolution further recommends that parties not authorise trade in specimens of CITES-listed species with any party subject to such determination by the Standing Committee.

8 UNEP/POPS/COP.6/INF/28 Reporting rates under the CBD (as of end of 2010) Note: (i) data on annual reports: http://www.cites.org/common/resources/annual_reports.pdf (ii) data on biennial reports: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml 18. In practice, there has been greater compliance with the national reporting requirements, as the reporting rates for the annual reporting has between 25 and 87% over the years, while for the biennial reporting between 9 and 59%. B. Summary of core approaches and tools developed to improve reporting rates 19. The review conducted on reporting rates shows that MEAs invariably experience reporting problems. Several MEAs have adopted different approaches to improve the number, quality and timeliness of national reports. Some of the core approaches adopted are as follows: 1. Guidelines and manuals 20. Many MEAs considered, such as CITES, Montreal Protocol, Basel Convention, UNFCCC and CBD, provide guidelines, guidance and tools to assist parties’ focal points in preparing and submitting their national reports. 2. Online reporting/electronic form 21. A number of MEAs considered in this report, such as UNFCCC, Montreal Protocol and the Basel Convention, have developed or are developing web-based reporting systems to assist parties’ focal points in preparing and submitting their national reports. Online reporting portals allows parties to easily and securely upload the required submissions and view the status of their submissions, especially if this one is provided by different relevant competent authorities. Such systems also allow parties to confirm the validity of information submitted for previous reporting periods. 3. Funding through a financial mechanism 22. Under the Montreal Protocol, the CBD and the UNFCCC, eligible parties receive financial assistance to prepare their national report. Under the Montreal Protocol, the Multilateral Fund assists eligible party to establish a national ozone unit and support the work of the unit to prepare the report through different several mechanisms: information support through a clearinghouse function, mutual hep from other countries in the region through Regional Networks of ODS officers and south-south cooperation and direct assistance to NOUs from the UNEP Compliance Assistance Programme and from implementing agencies. The disbursement of funds is under the supervision of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund, which comprises of 7 members from each developing and developed country parties, which considers the overall progress on compliance including the work of national ozone units, when allocating funds. 23. The GEF operates a similar GEF fund to assist in implementing the reporting requirements under the CBD and the UNFCCC. 24. Availability of funding for the preparation of national reports is found strongly associated with higher reporting rates. 4. Review of general implementation issues and/or consideration of specific submissions by the compliance mechanism 25. A compliance mechanism under the MEAs certainly exerts pressure on parties to meet their reporting requirements. 26. Under CITES and the Montreal Protocol, the compliance mechanism in place can take sanctions when parties do not comply with their requirements obligations. Under CITES, a notification is issued recommending that parties not authorize trade with States that not submitted reports for three wears running without providing adequate justification. Under the Montreal Protocol, Article 5 countries that do not comply for two years in a row, risk losing their Article 5 status and thus their eligibility for funding. A non-compliance situation can also trigger the following actions: (i) issuing cautions and (b) suspension from the operation of the treaty. 27. Under the Basel Convention, the compliance committee can consider allocating funding, from the Implementation Fund, to assist parties to undertake specific activities set out in voluntary compliance action plan, with a view to restoring their compliance with the national reporting obligation.

9 UNEP/POPS/COP.6/INF/28 5. Awareness-raising workshops and other direct support 28. Many of the MEAs considered in this study (Montreal, the CBD, the Basel Convention, CITES) organize regular awareness-raising meetings at the regional/national levels with their focal points on reporting requirements. These meetings could be one element to help improve reporting rates, as these meetings: (a) (i) Motivate focal points to play a proactive role in reporting; (b) (ii) Allow for discussion on the progress in complying with reporting requirements; (c) (iii) Provide opportunity for sharing the difficulties and the best practices while reporting. 29. The positive impact of these enhanced interactions and exchanges between reporting officers and the Secretariat could also be noted for the Stockholm Convention. The relatively higher rates observed during the second round of reporting under the Stockholm Convention could be attributed to the efforts made to reach as many parties as possible on reporting requirements by organizing several regional training workshops. 6. Harmonization of reporting 30. A number of pilot studies to test approaches to streamlining and harmonizing reporting among the five biodiversity-related conventions (CBD, CITES, CMS, RAMSA and World Heritage Convention) are underway. 31. A similar initiative is ongoing between the Stockholm and Basel conventions under the mandate of the decisions taken in 2011 by their respective conferences of the parties on enhancing cooperation and coordination between the two conventions.