DOCSLIB.ORG

Proceedings Iomc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proceedings Iomc UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME Chemicals PROCEEDINGS of the Regional Workshop on the Management of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Hanoi, Vietnam, 16-19 March 1999 INTER-ORGANIZATION PROGRAMME FOR THE SOUND MANAGEMENT OF CHEMICALS IOMC A cooperative agreement among UNEP, ILO, FAO, WHO, UNIDO, UNITAR and OECD PROCEEDINGS of the Regional Workshop on the Management of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Hanoi, Vietnam, 16-19 March 1999 CONTENTS Introduction................................................................................................................................1 Programme of the Meeting.........................................................................................................2 List of Participants......................................................................................................................9 Working Group 1 Report..........................................................................................................23 Working Group 2 Report..........................................................................................................25 Dr. Pham Khoi Nguyen, Vice-Minister, MOSTE, Vietnam Opening Statement....................................................................................................................29 Presentations 1. Mr. J. Willis, Director, UNEP/Chemicals, Switzerland Global Action on POPs: Objectives and Strategy......................................................31 2. Mr. J. Willis, Director, UNEP/Chemicals, Switzerland Progress in the Negotiations on the Global POPs Convention...................................39 3. Mr. L. Nordberg, Deputy Director, Environment and Human Settlement Division, UN Economic Commission for Europe, Switzerland UN ECE Protocol on POPs: Provisions and Management Options..........................43 4. Mr. V. Kimstach, Deputy Executive Secretary, Arctic Monitoring and Assesment Programme (AMAP), Oslo Main Results of the AMAP Assessment of POPs Pollution.......................................63 5. Mr. P. Somsak, Senior Officer, Environment, ASEAN Secretariat ASEAN Cooperation on Persistent Organic Pollutants..............................................69 6. Mrs. N. Kositratna, Director of Hazardous Substance and Wast Management Division, Pollution Control Department, Thailand ASEAN Cooperation on Persistent Organic Pollutants: Regional and Country Perspectives (Additional to ASEAN Secretariat Information Paper).........................79 7. Mr. J. Weinberg, Senior Toxics Campaigner, Greenpeace International, USA Policies and Strategies of the International POPs Elimination Network....................81 8. Mr. V. Kimstach, Deputy Executive Secretary, Arctic Monitoring and Assesment Programme (AMAP), Oslo Multilateral Cooperative Pilot project for phase-out of PCB use, and management of PCB-contaminated wastes in the Russian Federation................85 9. Mr. J. Ehretsmann, Director, APTechnologies S.A., Switzerland Ms. A. Duhamel, Partner, APTechnologies S.A., Switzerland Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Decontamination and remediation Technologies for electrical equipment and polluted soils............................................89 10. Mr. D. Stone, Director, Northern Science & Contaminants Recearch Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Canada The Management and Disposal of PCBs in Canada....................................................93 i 11. Prof. I. Rae, Environment Australia Managing Chemical Wastes in Australia....................................................................101 12. Ms. H. Fiedler, Senior Scientist, University of Bayreuth, Germany National and Regional Dioxin Inventories..................................................................107 13. Mr. J. Abe (presented by Y. Maesawa, Medical Specialist, Office of Port Health Administration, Food Sanitation Division, Environmental Health Bureau, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Japan) Dioxin Reduction in Japan..........................................................................................115 14. Ms. P. Chareonsong, Environmental Scientist, Pollution Control Department, Thailand Dioxins and Furans Inventory in Thailand.................................................................131 15. H. Ellis, S. Buckland, Ministry of the Environment, New Zealand (presented by Ms. H. Fiedler) Reporting on Persistent Organochlorines in New Zealand.........................................135 16. Ms. A. Sunden-Bylehn, Scientific Affairs Officer, UNEP/Chemicals, Switzerland Characterization of POPs Pesticide Use.....................................................................145 17. Mr. R. Bos, Scientist, Executive Secretary, WHO/FAO/UNEP/UNCHS Panel of Experts on Environmental Management for Vector Control World Health Organization (WHO), Switzerland Alternatives to POPs for Disease Vector Control: Methods and Strategies..............147 18. Ms. P. Matteson, Country Programme Officer, FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia, Vietnam New Perspectives on Alternatives to DDT for Malaria Mosquito Control.................155 19. Mr. M. Whitten, Team Leader, Intercountry Programme for IPM in Vegetables, FAO, Philippines A role for small-scale farmers and rural communities in reducing the entry of POPs into the invironment......................................................................................159 20. Mr. Lim Guan Soon, Regional Bioscience Coordinator, CAB International South East Asia Regional Centre (SEARC), Malaysia Mitigating the Undersirable Effects of POPs Pesticides: the IPM Option.................173 21. Prof. V.P. Sharma, Emeritus Medical Scientist (ICMR), Malaria Research Centre, India Challenges and Opportunities in Malaria Control in India.........................................179 22. Prof. I. Rae, Environment Australia Chemical Control of Termites in Australia.................................................................199 23. Ms. A. Sunden-Bylehn, Scientific Affairs Officer, UNEP/Chemicals, Switzerland UNEP Immediate Actions to Support Activities on POPs.........................................203 24. Mr. A. Kool, Associate Expert, UNEP Chemicals, Switzerland POPs Clearinghouse....................................................................................................205 25. Prof. I. Rae, Environment Australia Managing OCPs and Other Unwanted Pesticides in Australia...................................219 26. Mr. V. Jugault, Programme Officer, Secretariat of the Basel Convention, Switzerland Preparation of National and Regional Action Plans for the Environmentally Sound Management of PCBs and PCB Containing Equipment................................................................................................223 ii 27. Mr. J. Willis, Director, UNEP/Chemicals, Switzerland Actions on Managing/Disposing of Unwanted Stocks of Pesticides..........................233 28. Ms. A. Sunden-Bylehn, Scientific Affairs Officer, UNEP/Chemicals, Switzerland Selecting Alternatives and Alternative Strategies – Need for Co-ordination.............241 29. Mr. P.P. Manandhar, Director General Nepal Bureau of Standards & Metrology Mr. B.R. Palikhe, Pesticide Registrar Pesticide Registration Office, Plant Protection Division POPs: Current Situation in Nepal..............................................................................243 30. Mr. A. Majeed, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs, Housing and Environment, Maldives The Situation of POPs in the Republic of Maldives...................................................259 31. Ms. Kyung-Hee Choi, Research Officer, National Institute of Environmental Research, Republic of Korea Actions Taken to Reduce/Eliminate the Releases of POPs In the Republic of Korea.............................................................................................263 32. Mrs. D. Sodnom, Senior Expert of EIA and State Senior Inspector The Ministry of Nature and the Environment, Mongolia Current Status of Persistant Organic Pollutants in Mongolia.....................................287 33. H.E. Mr. Cary To, Secretary of State, Ministry of Environment POPs Management in Cambodia................................................................................289 34. Dr. K. Untung, Special Assistant Minister for Global Environment Affairs, State Ministry of the Environment, Indonesia Management of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Indonesia.......................................293 35. Mr. M. Hassain, Deputy Director, Department of Environment National Experience to Enforce Ban on the Production and Use of POPs in Bangladesh.................................................................................299 36. Dr. S.S. Tahir, Director (NEQS/Lab), Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Pak-EPA) Country Report on POPs............................................................................................307 37. Mr. A. Munro, Wast Management and Pollution Prevention Officer, South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), Western Samoa POPs in the Pacific – the Legacy................................................................................315 38. Dr. Uan Boh Cheah, Senior Research Officer, Malaysian Agricultural Research & Development Institute (MARDI) Studies on POPs in Malaysia......................................................................................319 39. Mr. V. Pachaimuthu, Environmental Control Officer, Department of Environment, Malaysia National Action Plan for Management of POPs in Malaysia.....................................327
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biopesticides: State of the Art and Future Opportunities James N
    Entomology Publications Entomology 11-2014 Biopesticides: State of the Art and Future Opportunities James N. Seiber University of California - Davis Joel R. Coats Iowa State University, [email protected] Stephen O. Duke United States Department of Agriculture Aaron D. Gross Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ent_pubs Part of the Entomology Commons The ompc lete bibliographic information for this item can be found at http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ ent_pubs/300. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ howtocite.html. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Entomology at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Entomology Publications by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Biopesticides: State of the Art and Future Opportunities Abstract The use of biopesticides and related alternative management products is increasing. New tools, including semiochemicals and plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs), as well as botanical and microbially derived chemicals, are playing an increasing role in pest management, along with plant and animal genetics, biological control, cultural methods, and newer synthetics. The og al of this Perspective is to highlight promising new biopesticide research and development (R&D), based upon recently published work and that presented in the American Chemical Society (ACS) symposium “Biopesticides: State of the Art and Future Opportunities,” as well as the authors’ own perspectives. Although the focus is on biopesticides, included in this Perspective is progress with products exhibiting similar characteristics, namely those naturally occurring or derived from natural products.
    [Show full text]
  • Seven Biopesticide Active Ingredients You Should Know About
    Certis USA for CAPCA Adviser Seven Biopesticide Active Ingredients You Should Know About By Tim Damico, Executive VP-NAFTA, Certis USA Biological pesticides are often referred to as soft materials. It is Isaria fumosorosea. This fungus is highly pathogenic toward a broad true that their impact is soft to the environment, beneficial insects, range of pests, including whiteflies, aphids, thrips, soil-dwelling wildlife, spray applicators and farm crews. insects and spider mites. Spores applied as a foliar spray or soil drench germinate on contact with the target pest, and the growing But there is nothing soft about how biopesticides kill pests. fungus then penetrates through the cuticle or natural openings to proliferate inside. The insect or mite stops feeding and dies soon These seven common biopesticide active ingredients are formulated afterward, often with dark spots at infection points as the only from naturally occurring bacteria, fungi and viruses. Like the visible sign of fungal infection. I. fumosorosea can infect all life pathogenic diseases and insect pests they control, these beneficial stages of the pest (eggs, nymphs, pupae and adults). organisms must employ survival strategies to live. These strategies or modes of action allow them to biologically decimate their target Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. B. amyloliquefaciens is a broad spectrum pest species. preventive fungicide/bacteriacide for foliar and soil application. This bacterium rapidly colonizes root hairs, leaves and other plant Yet as destructive as they are to their target pests, beneficial bacteria, fungi and viruses cannot infect or harm non-target species. Their modes of action are specific to certain pests. A virus Paecilomyces lilacinus fungus engulfing nematode eggs.
    [Show full text]
  • Bmps) for Wildland Stewardship
    Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Wildland Stewardship Protecting Wildlife When Using Herbicides for Invasive Plant Management California Invasive Plant Council & Pesticide Research Institute ontrolling invasive plants is often a high priority when protecting wildlife habitat, and those working to protect Cwildlife from invasive plants want to be sure their approach is safe for wildlife. This manual of Best Management Practices focuses on how land managers can best protect wildlife when using herbicides to control invasive plants. While any invasive plant control method can potentially impact wildlife, chemical control methods are the focus of this report. The toxicology information presented shows data on herbicides most commonly used for invasive plant management in California natural areas. The Best Management Practices are drawn from methods used by experienced land managers. Along with providing guidance for land managers, this document is designed to inform the interested public about how herbicides are used to control invasive plants in natural areas. ©2015 California Invasive Plant Council Available at www.cal-ipc.org Cite this report as: Cal-IPC. 2015. Best Management Practices for Wildland Stewardship: Protecting Wildlife When Using Herbicides for Invasive Plant Management. Cal-IPC Publication 2015-1. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Available: www.cal-ipc.org Cover photos: Large photo: American goldfinch by Gary Kramer, USFWS Top small photo: Herbicide applicator by Jim Dempsey, California State Parks Bottom small photo: Pacific tree frog by Sandy DeSimone, Audubon Starr Ranch Contents 1. Introduction . 1 Wildland Stewardship, Invasive Plant Management and Wildlife . 1 The Importance of Best Management Practices . 3 2. Invasive Plant Management and Wildlife .
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Pesticide Use on Health in Developing Countries
    Impact of pesticide use on health in developing countries Proceedings of a symposium held in Ottawa, Canada, 1 7-20 September 1990 IDRC CRDI International Development Research Centre Centre de recherches pour le devetoppement international 1 March 1993 Dear Reader/Librarian, IDRC is a public corporation created by the Canadian parliament in 1970 to help developing countries find viable solutions to their problems through research. At the 1992 Earth Summit, IDRC's mandate was broadened to emphasize sustainable development issues. As part of IDRC's strengthened commitment to global action and harüony, we are pleased to send you a complimentary copy of our most recent publication: The impact of pesticide use on health in developing countries (March 1993, 352 pages, 0-88936-560-1, $17.95). The first part of this book presents a brief survey of the global situation and the results of twelve epidemiological studies carried out by researchers from Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. These focus on poisonings resulting from organophosphates, herbicides, and pyrethroids. The second part illustrates the role of the process of development, production, spraying techniques and legislation in protecting the health of workers. A discussion of the benefits and modalities of access to pertinent information for the prevention of pesticide poisonings is provided in the third section. Finally, in the fourth section, consideration is given to the advantages and disadvantages of certain alternatives to the use of synthetic pesticides in agriculture and public health, such as botanical pesticides and integrated pest management strategies. We hope this book is a valuable addition to your collection.
    [Show full text]
  • Consortium for International Crop Protection Pest Management & Related Environmental Protection Project*
    CONSORTIUM FOR INTERNATIONAL CROP PROTECTION PEST MANAGEMENT & RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECT* ANNUAL REPORT TO AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 1983 - SEPIEMBER 1984 Ray F. Smith, University of California, Executive Director Member Institutions: Cornell University North Carolina State University Oregon State University Texas A&M University University of California University of Florida University of Hawaii University of Illinois University of Maryland University of Miami, Florida University of Minnesota Purdue University University of Puerto Rico U. S. Department of Agriculture * Contract No. AID/DSAN-C-0252 Project No. 931-0930 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction .......................................................... 1 Response to USAID Mission Requests for Technical Assistance ....................................... 6 Sudan ............................................... 7 Niger .......... ............................ ..... ..... 20 Thailand ........ ............................ .... ..... 23 Bolivia......................... ................. 28 Ecuador .............................................. 31 Belize ......................................... 35 Caribbean................. ....................... 40 Kenya........................................... 51 Grenada ..... ..................................... 54 Mexico ........... ....... .................... .. 58 Program Evaluation or Design .......................................... 62 Cameroon .................................................... 63 Central
    [Show full text]
  • Disposal of Persistent Organic Pollutants and Obsolete Pesticides and Strengthening Life-Cycle Management of Pesticides in Benin”
    Project evaluation series Mid-term evaluation of “Disposal of Persistent Organic Pollutants and Obsolete Pesticides and Strengthening Life-cycle Management of Pesticides in Benin” Project evaluation series Mid-term evaluation of “Disposal of persistent organic pollutants and obsolete pesticides and strengthening life-cycle management of pesticides in Benin” GCP/BEN/056/GFF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2019 Required citation: FAO. 2019. Mid-term evaluation of “Disposal of Persistent Organic Pollutants and Obsolete Pesticides and Strengthening Life-cycle Management of Pesticides in Benin”. Rome. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. © FAO, 2019 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode/legalcode). Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Toxicology, PPP-40
    PPP-40 PURDUE PESTICIDE PROGRAMS Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service PESTICIDE TOXICOLOGY Evaluating Safety and Risk Fred Whitford, Coordinator, Purdue Pesticide Programs Tom Fuhremann, Director of Agricultural Toxicology and Risk Assessment, Monsanto K.S. Rao, Global Product Registration Manager, Dow AgroSciences Gail Arce, Toxicologist, Elf Atochem James E. Klaunig, Professor and Director of Toxicology, Indiana University School of Medicine Edited by Arlene Blessing, Purdue Pesticide Programs TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Public Debate About Pesticides and Human Health ........................................................................ 3 The Science of Toxicology ................................................................................................................. 4 Pesticide and Animal Interaction ................................................................................................... 5 Effect of the Chemical on the Animal ............................................................................................6 Effect of the Animal on the Chemical ............................................................................................7 The Relationship Between Dose and Response .......................................................................... 10 Describing Adverse Toxicological Effects...................................................................................... 14 Animal Testing Crucial to Safety Evaluation ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Acknowledgements
    Acknowledgements We would like to thank those involved in creating Planning a Drift Catcher Project and Organizing a Drift Campaign, including: Jeff Conant from the Hesperian Foundation; Mateo Rutherford and Roy Rojas of BITTS for translation; Brenda J. Willoughby (Pesticide Action Network North America) for layout; and contributors Andrea Wilson and Tracey Brieger (Californians for Pesticide Reform) and Katherine Mills, Susan Kegley, Tanya Brown, Kelly Campbell and Christine Riordan (Pesticide Action Network North America). Major funding for this guide and development of the Drift Catcher was provided by the Cedar Tree Foundation. Additional support was provided by grants to Pesticide Action Network North America and/or Californians for Pesticide Reform by the Beldon Fund, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, Columbia Foundation, Nathan Cummings Foundation, David B. Gold Foundation, Richard and Rhoda Goldman Foundation, Clarence E. Heller Charitable Foundation, David H. Klein, Jr. Foundation and John Merck Fund. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. Recommendations and views expressed are those of Pesticide Action Network North America, and do not necessarily represent the views of our funders and supporters. © 2012 by Pesticide Action Network North America. Permission is granted to reproduce portions of this report, provided the title and publishing organizations—Pesticide Action Network and Californians for Pesticide Reform—are acknowledged. Our sincerest thanks to the Hesperian Foundation for providing many of the images used in these materials. Copyright © 2003 by the Hesperian Foundation. The Hesperian Foundation encourages others to copy, reproduce, or adapt to meet local needs any or all of this pamphlet provided that what is reproduced is distributed free or at cost—not for profit.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbaryl Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Revised Final Report
    SERA TR-052-01-05a Carbaryl Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Revised Final Report Submitted to: Paul Mistretta, COR USDA/Forest Service, Southern Region 1720 Peachtree RD, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309 USDA Forest Service Contract: AG-3187-C-06-0010 USDA Forest Order Number: AG-43ZP-D-06-0009 SERA Internal Task No. 52-01 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin and Cynthia King Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 5100 Highbridge St., 42C Fayetteville, New York 13066-0950 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com February 9, 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v List of Attachments........................................................................................................................ vi List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... vi COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................... ix CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ............................................................................ x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Resistance Management: a Critical Role for Biopesticides
    Certis USA for CAPCA Adviser Resistance Management: A Critical Role for Biopesticides By Mike Dimock, Ph.D., Certis USA Vice President of Field Development & Technical Support and Scott Ockey, Certis USA Field Development Manager-Western USA BIOPESTICIDES are becoming critical components of resistance management programs. Most biopesticides, BENEFITS OF BIOPESTICIDES particularly microbial products, have multiple modes of action—they don’t target a single site or gene. Even if 0LNH'LPRFN3K'SRLQWVRXWWKHIROORZLQJ a pest is resistant to a single mode of action, it is highly EHQHÀWVWRXVLQJELRSHVWLFLGHVIRUUHVLVWDQFH unlikely it will have cross resistance to a biopesticide management: that has multiple modes of action or target sites. For this reason, biopesticides are valuable for helping us reduce or eliminate the development of resistance to pesticides. •0RVWDUHH[HPSWIURPUHVLGXHWROHUDQFHVRGRQ·W Resistance Development: A Brief Review SRVHDQLVVXHZLWK0D[LPXP5HVLGXH/LPLWV Weeds, insect pests and disease-causing fungi 05/V LQH[SRUWFURSV and bacteria are living organisms capable of evolving in response to selection. And one source of selection can be •6SHFLÀFLW\²PRVWELRSHVWLFLGHVSUHVHQWORZHU the pesticides used to control them. Most pest populations include a few individuals ULVNVIURPZRUNHUH[SRVXUHDQGHQYLURQPHQWDO with heritable traits that make them more able to survive issues. exposure to certain types of pesticide active ingredients. For example, a genetic mutation resulting in a slight change to •0RVWKDYHPXOWLSOHPRGHVRIDFWLRQUDWKHUWKDQ an enzyme that is the target of a particular active ingredient (AI) might make individuals expressing the altered enzyme attacking a single target site as is more typical of no longer susceptible to that AI. Application of pesticides conventional chemical pesticides. This puts them containing that AI acts as a selective agent favoring those DWORZHUULVNRIUHVLVWDQFHGHYHORSPHQW individuals (and their offspring) over individuals lacking the mutant genes for resistance to that mode of action.
    [Show full text]
  • Spray Drift of Pesticides
    G1773 Spray Drift of Pesticides Robert N. Klein, Extension Cropping Systems Specialist; Larry Schulze, Extension Pesticide Education Specialist; and Clyde L. Ogg, Extension Pesticide Educator Table I. Effect of droplet size on drift potential (Ross and This NebGuide discusses conditions that cause Lembi, 1985) particle drift, and methods private and commercial applicators may employ to reduce drift potential from Diameter, microns Time to fall 10 feet in still air pesticide spray applications. 1 (Fog) 28 hours 10 (Fog) 17 minutes Spray drift of pesticides away from the target is an im­ 100 (Mist) 11 seconds portant and costly problem facing both commercial and private 200 (Fine Spray) 4 seconds applicators. Drift causes many problems including: 400 (Coarse Spray) 2 seconds 1,000 (Coarse Spray) 1 second 1) damage to susceptible off­target sites, 2) a lower rate than intended, which can reduce the ef­ fectiveness of the pesticide and waste pesticide and acting upon the emerging droplets. These forces — gravity money, and and air resistance — greatly influence the speed and move­ 3) environmental contamination, such as water pollution ment of spray droplets. and illegal pesticide residues. Droplet speed is reduced by air resistance, which breaks up the droplets. After their initial speed slows, the droplets Drift occurs by two methods; vapor drift and particle continue to fall under the gravitational pull. drift. This NebGuide focuses mainly on conditions that cause With lower boom heights, the initial speed may be great particle drift, and methods to reduce the drift potential of enough that the droplet reaches the target before drift occurs.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Situation on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Pops) in India
    3.7 International POPs Elimination Project Fostering Active and Efficient Civil Society Participation in Preparation for Implementation of the Stockholm Convention Country Situation on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in India Toxics Link India March 2006 H-2 (Ground Floor), Jungpura Extension New Delhi 110014, INDIA T: +91-(0)11-24328006, 24320711 F: +91-(0)11-24321747 E: [email protected] I: www.toxicslink.org About the International POPs Elimination Project On May 1, 2004, the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN http://www.ipen.org) began a global NGO project called the International POPs Elimination Project (IPEP) in partnership with the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The Global Environment Facility (GEF) provided core funding for the project. IPEP has three principal objectives: • Encourage and enable NGOs in 40 developing and transitional countries to engage in activities that provide concrete and immediate contributions to country efforts in preparing for the implementation of the Stockholm Convention; • Enhance the skills and knowledge of NGOs to help build their capacity as effective stakeholders in the Convention implementation process; • Help establish regional and national NGO coordination and capacity in all regions of the world in support of longer term efforts to achieve chemical safety. IPEP will support preparation of reports on country situation, hotspots, policy briefs, and regional activities. Three principal types of activities
    [Show full text]