The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001.  Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date.  This site is not updated so external links may no longer function.  Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

United States of America Statement Regarding its Proposal in Article K on Financial Resources and Mechanisms UNEP/POPS/INC.4/CRP.59 Released by the U.S. Delegation to the The Fourth Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) for an International Legally Binding Instrument for Implementing International Action on Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants, March 20-25, 2000 Bonn, Germany, March 25, 2000

1. The approach that we have proposed in submission C, contained in paragraph 4, starts with the fact that there are many existing organizations already engaged in POPs-related work. We believe that such work needs to be expanded and strengthened for purposes of the POPs Convention. However, we believe that there is a viable way to achieve this and to create necessary flexibility for both donors and recipients, through means other than creating a new stand-alone mandatory mechanism.

2. The reference in our proposal to a financial mechanism reflects the view that a new mechanism would need to be established to deal with other existing institutions and efforts, and does not mean a new stand-alone fund.

3. As outlined in submission C, and drawing also from Submission A from Canada, the US proposal would create a new arrangement whereby the following would occur:

a. The Conference of the Parties (COP) would discuss and develop its own set of priorities for technical assistance needs, and issues such as eligibility and criteria for access to resources to be provided on POPs.

b. The Conference of the Parties would consult with existing entities that provide technical assistance related to POPs and enter into arrangements for provision of such assistance.

c. We believe that the Global Environment Facility should be one, but not the only existing entity to play a role in providing assistance for POPs-related activities.

d. The Capacity Assistance Network (CAN) suggested by the Canadians is a very helpful concept. Our proposal would have the CAN serve a brokering role such that incoming requests from countries could be matched with the portfolio of technical and financial assistance providers.

e. We believe that we must ensure the successful operation of a function such as the CAN, and thus would seek to assure that it has adequate and stable financing as part of the secretariat function.

f. To the extent that shortfalls are identified between the requests of countries seeking assistance and the ability of existing mechanisms to support such requests, this should be brought to the attention of the Conference of the Parties, which could seek to address such situation.

g. With this approach, we believe it will be possible to understand and act on actual shortfalls and specific needs, and to mobilize new and additional funding to address such needs.

h. Finally, we believe that this new mechanism or arrangement under the Conference of the Parties for providing technical and financial assistance would need to be regularly reviewed overall to ensure that it was functioning effectively.

4. We believe that each treaty must have its own approach to funding and technical assistance that makes sense for it. The Montreal Protocol approach may have made sense for that treaty, where most of the problem was global in nature, and where few activities were already ongoing to address the concerns at issue in that treaty. For POPs, much of the impact is local, and in fact, most countries, including developing countries and countries with economies in transition, have already taken substantial steps to address POPs. Most importantly, many existing institutions are already involved in working on POPs activities. Thus, we believe that the approach we are suggesting will be the most efficient and effective way to support implementation of obligations under the POPs Convention.

5. By using existing entities, synergies will be created such that work undertaken in areas related to POPs will benefit the work of this Convention. For example, the United States yesterday announced a very significant contribution to India for Clean Air and renewable resources projects. This work will also lead to the reduction of by-products releases related to combustion. This is the type of synergistic approach that our new mechanism must encourage. This approach can achieve more attention to POPs than putting projects in the more narrow confines of a stand-alone fund.

6. Our thinking has benefited from many conversations and discussions leading up to and during this session. We will take the concerns we have heard from developing countries into account as we work with all parties towards the solution of this important issue.

[End of Document]

|| Chemicals and Hazardous Wastes |
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs |
U.S. Department of State | Disclaimers ||