NGOs South Asia Regional Capacity Building

NGOs South Asia Regional Capacity Building Workshop
on
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
India International Centre
New Delhi, India
I7-19 November 2005
Organised by:
South Asia Regional Hub for IPEP
H2, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi 110014
Tel: +91-(11)-24328006, 24320711
Fax: +91-(11)-24321747
Web: http://www.toxicslink.org
INTRODUCTION
The “NGOs South Asia Regional Capacity Building Workshop on
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)” was organised by Toxics Link in
capacity as South Asia Regional Hub for the International POPs
Elimination Project (IPEP) from 17-19 November 2005 in New Delhi,
India. There were over 50 participants, including the civil society groups,
from five countries in South Asia - Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan
and Sri Lanka, along with scientists, policy makers, industry
representatives, bilateral and multilateral funding agencies and UN
agencies from India. Their interest and enthusiasm made this three-day
workshop a grand and successful event.
IPEP is being implemented by the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) in partnership with the
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP) with core funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The project has twin goals: to help
harness the energies and creativity that these NGOs have already demonstrated and at the same time build
the organizations' capacity to develop and implement project activities to help make their work more
sustainable.
IPEN is a global network of public interest non-governmental organisations united in support of a common
POPs elimination goal. The mission of IPEN, achieved through its participating organisations, is to work for
the global elimination of persistent organic pollutants, on an expedited yet socially equitable basis.
Founded in early 1998 by a small number of NGOs, the network has grown to include over 350 public
health, environmental, consumer, and other non-governmental organisations in 65 countries. The network
worked to mobilise grassroots support for a global treaty to eliminate POPs. It also leveraged the resources
and created a forum for NGOs and activists from around the world to participate in the negotiations.
The workshop was organized with the support of $9,000 received by the hub from UNITAR and $2000
received from the UNDP-GEF Small Grants Program, India.
BACKGROUND
The UNEP Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) that came into force in May 2004
aims to reduce and eliminate twelve of the most toxic chemicals known to man.
The Convention recognizes the importance of, and requires the full participation of an informed civil society
without which no significant progress can be made in implementing effective actions to protect public health
and the environment.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have an important role to play in helping civil society better
understand POPs, POPs sources, the extent of harm that POPs can cause, and the kinds of measures
needed to reduce and eliminate exposure to POPs and POPs sources.
NGOs can also provide governments with important policy and information inputs that can contribute to
implementing the Stockholm Convention. In addition, NGOs can help build public support and secure
commitments to ensure that appropriate measures to reduce and eliminate POPs and their sources are
successfully undertaken
This workshop was an attempt at creating an understanding among the NGOs and enable them to play the
role of an effective stakeholder.
WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES
The Regional capacity building workshop was organized to achieve the following objectives:
2
Increased level of awareness, understanding, and knowledge among the civil society organisations and
other relevant stakeholders concerning the effects of POPs on human health and the environment and
the measures required to reduce and eliminate them.
Expanded interest, capacity and competence in POPs-related issues, leading to their ongoing
involvement in Stockholm Convention implementation efforts and other efforts that address persistent
toxic substances.
Individual, institutional and systemic capacity to formulate and implement projects by some of the
participants.
Sharing information on experiences and dissemination of good practices that is seen as fundamental to
improving country level coordination.
Enhanced national/ regional interaction on the POPs issue.
Cross-sectoral synergies and complementarities.
WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS
DAY 1: November 17, 2005
Inaugural Session
The three-day workshop started with a warm welcome to all the
participants by Ravi Agarwal, Director Toxics Link. In his introductory
speech, he traced the evolution of use of hazardous chemicals and how
it is affecting the present generation. He mentioned that it is the
responsibility of the policy makers to take the issue forward and the civil
society can play important role in shaping up of the policies. He stressed
on three basic principles which the civil society should stress on for
fighting the menace: the precautionary principle; polluter pays principle;
and the substitution principle.
He made it clear that the objective of the workshop was to understand the POPs issue and how with the
unified efforts of Government, Public Sector and Civil Society it can be dealt with in a better way.
Then after all the participants introduced themselves, Ravi Agarwal introduced Mr. M. S. Gill to the
participants and invited him to deliver the keynote address. Mr. Gill is at present Member of Parliament,
India. He has a vast experience of working in the Indian Administrative Service and has worked in various
departments like Agriculture, Chemicals, etc. both in Central Government and State Government of Punjab.
However, he got the most media attention working as Chief Election Commissioner of India.
Mr. Gill briefed the audience on how the increasing population and innovation of new technologies have
made twenty-first century a toxic century. He also mentioned how the farmers of Punjab are suffering due
to excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers and also due to industrialization of agricultural lands. He
suggested that in every state poor agricultural land may be designated for setting up industries.
Rationale and agenda for the workshop
Satish Sinha, Chief Coordinator, Toxics Link presented the agenda of the workshop. He explained that the
first day of the conference was dedicated to understanding the POPs issue and on the second day there will
be Panel Discussion and presentations from members of different organizations of various countries. On the
last day the participants would try and formulate strategies to take the issue forward. The program was
designed based on an assessment of the current knowledge and skills of the participants and their
expectations from the workshop.
3
SESSION I
Presentation 1: Sources, Emissions and Health Effects of POPs - An Overview
Ravi Agarwal presented an overview of the POPs and their ecological and health effects on behalf of Dr.
Kunwar P. Singh, Scientist and Head, Environmental Chemical Division of Industrial Toxicology Research
Centre (ITRC), Lucknow since he could not be present due to some last minute commitments. In the
presentation, participants were introduced to what are POPs, the timeline of evolution of POPs and the
chemical characteristics of them. In the presentation, Mr. Agarwal mentioned that POPs can get modified as
much as eleven times in the ecosystem through bioaccumulation and through long-range transport it can
travel a long distance through air, water and soil. The ill effects of DDT
therefore have been observed as far as in the Arctic region where the use
of it is non-existent. He also presented the Stockholm Convention
directions on POPs and the list of dangerous chemicals. Then he discussed
the ecological and biological effects of POPs especially on human health.
One of the devastating effects will be the transformation and mutation of
the genetic material through generations and this effect has been well
documented in marine animals. He ended the presentation saying that for
fighting the issue, at first proper baseline study is needed and civil society
can start working on it.
The presentation was followed by a lively discussion. When one of participants asked whether DDT should
be banned, Mr. Agarwal answered that Government of India is producing DDT for vector control only
specially for malaria prevention and that it is looking for substitution.
Presentation 2: Stockholm Convention on POPs and the NIPs process
Joe DiGangi, Global Coordinator, International POPs Elimination Project (IPEP) described how the Stockholm
Convention was planned and then adopted. He informed that the whole issue started when the scientists
wanted to study the effect of organic pollutants on human and found that Arctic people were the most
affected. Then the issue was taken as a preamble in the Earth Summit and it was decided that POPs should
be identified and their treatment measures have to be found. Mr. DiGangi described the directions of the
Convention taking one at a time. He also mentioned that each of the country signing the Convention has to
formulate a National Implementation Plan (NIP) for eliminating the POPs. Government also has to establish
a national co-ordinating body to look after the elimination of POPs. In some countries, NGOs are a part of
this body and so they can directly take part in the decision making process. He mentioned that IPEP has
variety of experiences in different countries.
Presentation 3: Global Environment Facility (GEF) and Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
Ravi Chellam from UNDP explained the GEF’s role in fighting with the
POPs. GEF acts as the ‘interim source of financing for Stockholm
Convention’. Presently, GEF-3 cycle of funding is going on and from July
next year GEF-4 cycle will start. Financing for POPs issue will continue to
be on first come first serve basis. But for financing, GEF strategies are
that the country should have their NIP in place, the project has to be
linked to the NIP and it has to be of medium size (less than 1 million US$
project). In India, though Government is in the process but still more
steps are needed to set up NIP.
In the discussion that followed the presentation, Mr. Chellam mentioned that any GEF activity require
Government participation. The enabling activity is to formulate NIP and he mentioned that India should
have completed the procedure within 12 months but it is already two years since the procedure started. He
also mentioned that GEF has the Steering Group that involves Government, CBOs and Community
Development bodies and it is of Multi Stakeholder Partnership. In India, GEF and UNIDO will set up a
national implementation body for POPs with the major international organizations like World Bank, Asian
Development Bank, UNDP, etc. and will also involve ITRC which is the national implementing centre. GEF
4
will like to intervene at every stages of dealing with POPs like production, stockpile, marketing, research and
development, etc. He said that India has already lost out on funding from GEF-3 and we really need to gear
up and act for setting up the NIP for funding from GEF-4 cycle.
SESSION II
Presentation 1: Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR)
Dr. A.A. Khan, Member UNEP Committee made a presentation on Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
(PRTR) as an important measure to reduce pollution on behalf of Olga Speranskaya, Director, Eco-Accord –
the Regional Hub for EECA region under IPEP.
PRTR is collecting information on release of pollutants and registering it.
It is slowly becoming a very useful and popular tool and is widely
accepted in Canada and UK. It is also beneficial for the public as they can
get access to the information on emission and the newly drafted Right to
Information bill has made it suitable for application. He also mentioned
Aarhus Convention and that many European countries have become part
of it. The problem is that many people are still not aware of PRTR and
the local industries are happy when they are within national limits.
Presentation 2: Pitfalls in Estimation of Organic Pollutants
Dr. Prem Dureja, Principal Scientist, Division of Agricultural Chemicals,
Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) gave the next
presentation on the pitfalls in estimation of organic pollutants. She
mentioned the different analytical processes to estimate the organic
pollutants and the difficulties in measuring them. She mentioned that
daily intake of PCB is highest in Russia and Japan as the seafood
consumption is high in these two countries. She also mentioned that
India has the highest concentration of DDT in surface water and is
only second to Philippines in concentration of DDT in river and estuary
sediments.
Presentation 3: Dioxins and Furans
Dr Padma S Vankar of Facility for Ecological Testing (FEAT) Laboratory,
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur gave the next presentation on
Dioxins and Furans. She mentioned the chemical structure, sources, ill
effects and the measures to destroy Dioxins. She gave the example of
Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko who suffered from
chloracne caused by prolonged exposure to dioxins. She also mentioned
that all the pros and cons are to be evaluated before the selection of Best
Available Techniques (BAT) to fight against the POPs. She mentioned the
necessity of creating a database for the effect of chemicals in Indian
condition and also lack of facility in India for proper laboratory testing of
POPs. Still now, only one such facility has been set up in RRI, Trivandrum. She said that the Indian
scientists have the technical knowledge but are lacking only of facility.
SESSION III
Presentation 1: Standardized Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Dioxin and Furan
Releases
5
Hana Kunkova of Arnika Association of Czech Republic presented on toolkit prepared by UNEP for estimating
Dioxins and Furans. She said that many NGOs have participated in the preparation of toolkit. She also
mentioned that the draft of BAT for the treatment of Dioxins and Furans are in the process.
Presentations were followed by some general discussion on the issue.
DAY 2: November 18, 2005
SESSION I
Panel Discussion: POPs -- A Public Health Concern and the Way Forward
After Mr. Satish Sinha welcomed the guests, panel discussion started which was moderated by Mr. Ravi
Agarwal.
The panellists were:
Priti Kumar, The World Bank
Dr. Juergen Porst, Advisory Services in Environmental
Management (ASEM), GTZ
S. Ganesan, Chairman Indian Chemicals Manufacturers Association
(ICMA)
Chandra Bhusan, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE)
Ravi Chellam, United Nations Development Program
Ravi Agarwal started the discussion by stating that the objective of the panel discussion is to get the views
of various organizations on the issue of POPs.
Priti Kumar from World Bank mentioned that the ongoing efforts of the
World Bank are directed towards involving more stakeholders for the
management of POPs. She said that a study in 2003 has found that
everyday every human body in US gets an average 38-70 hits per day of
POPs through food items. India also is facing the risk from food
contaminants and also through chemical industries. Time has now come
to take the issue of POPs specially the issues of Dioxin and Furan
seriously. Political awareness and reinforcement of industrial standards
need to be strengthened in India. She strongly recommended that multi
stakeholder partnership approach is needed for knowledge management
on POPs so that replicable models can be developed by the Government
for eliminating them. World Bank is looking for partners in various
organizations to carry the issue forward.
S. Ganesan, Chairman, Indian Chemical Manufacturing Association
(ICMA) represented the industry’s view on POPs. He said that the
industry is supporting the Stockholm Convention but substantial capacity
building is necessary before becoming a party to any Convention. He
questioned that when DDT is in use for malaria prevention then how can
we ban it and substitution often leads to creation of more problems. He
also mentioned that most of the knowledge we have on POPs is borrowed
knowledge and time has come to document the chemicals in Indian
condition. So we need to have capacity building first and then only we
can go for formulating preventive measures.
Chandra Bhusan from Centre for Science and Environment said that India
has officially banned the manufacture, import and export of hazardous
chemicals listed under Stockholm Convention but we continue to
manufacture, import and export all the POPs. He commented that in
2003-2004 India has exported Rs. 131 Crore worth of POPs. The POPs
6
pesticides are also regularly imported by India. CSE has already reported that about forty odd pesticides are
used in India without any standards. Along with multiplicity of problems there is also multiplicity of agencies,
which make these issues more difficult. He also mentioned his fear for unintentional POPs. He said that for
way forward multi stake holder partnership is needed and we have to search for safe alternatives like
organophosphates. A strong constructive approach is needed, as we are very poor in application of
regulations.
Dr Juergen Porst, ASEM GTZ mentioned at the beginning of his
presentation that GTZ is a bilateral development corporation owned by
German Government and it is working in 76 countries. He mentioned
about the project of GTZ in Karnataka with Ministry of Environment and
Forest (MoEF) and Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB). He
said that open burning should immediately be banned in India. The
country should stress on cleaner production and for this raising
awareness is necessary. He said that GTZ is interested in transferring the
know how for eliminating the POPs.
Ravi Chellam of UNDP said that GEF is involved in regional and global projects for eliminating POPs. He
mentioned that training and capacity building is necessary and dissemination of information is also
important.
Then with special request, Dr. VP Sharma of ITRC presented an overview of POPs. Dr. Sharma drew the
attention of the participants towards some of the challenges posed before us. He mentioned that as the
conditions differ in different countries so standardization of limits should also be different accordingly. Along
with humans, we should also note the effect of POPs on the flora and other fauna. We also need to
strengthen the lab facilities for testing of toxic chemicals. He said that in India, Dioxins and Furans are
produced unintentionally and we need to take special care of these unintended POPs. He also mentioned
that all data should be validated and checked at least thrice before taking any further action. However, he
could not tell the participants about the status of NIP in India. He said that as far as he knows report has
been submitted to MoEF but still no response has been received from them.
An interesting and lively discussion followed the panel discussion. In
answer to one question, Priti Kumar mentioned that farmers who are
using the pesticides should also be a part of the multi stakeholder
partnership. One participant mentioned that most of the farmers are
ignorant about the ill effects of POPs. So he asked how the information
could be disseminated at the grassroots level. Another participant
mentioned that State Government has not been made a stakeholder in
the whole process. Another participant asked whether global specific or
local specific standards should be followed. In response, Chandra Bhusan
mentioned that the standards have to be regional specific at least for the
contaminants and the toxics. He said that the Indian standards should be more stringent than European as
we are more susceptible to chemicals. Priti Kumar mentioned that Civil Society can play a good role in
generating awareness at the grassroots level. She also mentioned that Civil Society should take part in
regulatory processes and identify its own mandate and move ahead. To this one of the participants
mentioned that information for the farmers should be in local language.
A participant of Nepal mentioned that though his country has banned the production of POPs but still it is
suffering due to POPs stockpile in India. In response, Chandra Bhusan mentioned a case when a large
stockpile of DDT was found next to a school in Nepal. On investigation it was found that the stock was
brought from India. When one of the participants said that Government is promoting incinerator as landfill is
no more a good option but still it does not know how to deal with the incinerator waste. Dr. Juergen said
that Germany is using incinerator for the last 25 years and is at present managing incinerator at high cost.
Ms. Kumar mentioned that World Bank is not promoting incinerator but also there is no policy of banning it
also. World Bank is trying to find alternate technology. At this Mr. Ravi Agarwal mentioned that World Bank
is not supporting incinerator in health issues.
7
All the panellists agreed on the fact that capacity building should be decentralized and the NGOs should take
leading part in it. Ms. Kumar mentioned that a coordinated process of awareness generation can be started.
An information bulletin can be published first in English and then can be translated into local languages and
participation of various stakeholders is necessary for taking the issue forward.
Concluding the discussion, Ravi Chellam mentioned that UNDP would be
keen to promote the ideas of knowledge dissemination and the status of
NIP in India should get clear. Priti Kumar also stressed on knowledge
dissemination and also said that NIP should be on the table. Chandra
Bhusan also stressed on knowledge management and transmission of
information to grassroots level. He said that programmes like Small Grants
Programme of UNDP should be helpful in such approach. Dr. Juergen also
stressed on multi stakeholder partnership and collective action to fight the
cause. S. Ganesan said that industry will support the knowledge
dissemination provided the knowledge are locally generated and locally
relevant.
SESSION II
Presentation 1: New POPs
Joe DiGangi gave his second presentation on New POPs – the pollutants
that have been proposed to be added to the list of 12 chemicals under
the Stockholm Convention. He gave the name of five new candidates
namely
pentabrominated
diphenyl
ether
(penta-BDE)
and
hexabromobiphenyl (Hexa-BB) – both flame retardants and insecticide
lindane, the pesticide chlordecone and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS),
their chemical characteristics and their biological effects. He also
mentioned the process in which a new pollutant can be proposed. The
members only who have ratified the convention can propose it. He also
mentioned that if any country wants exemption from a particular newly added POPs then it can get it after
citing proper reasons.
Presentation 2: Presentation by SGP Partner NGO on “Remediation of Ground water and Soil
affected by Tannery effluents containing Chrome”
To demonstrate, the relationship between UNDP-GEF Small Grants Program and the NGOs, Dr Padma S
Vankar made a presentation on a project on treatment of tannery effluents containing Chrome-VI,
supported by SGP and executed by Devendra Vidyapeth Shiksha Samiti, a Kanpur based NGO. She
mentioned the details of the project, steps followed and expressed the desire to replicate the project.
Presentation 3: POPs Status in South Asia Region
The participants from the various countries of South Asia presented their country situation on POPs.
Bangladesh
Country Situation on POPs in Bangladesh was presented by Hossain
Shahriar of Environment and Social Development Organization-ESDO,
Bangladesh. The findings are from the recently concluded activity that
ESDO took up under IPEP on preparing the Country Situation Report on
POPs. He said that Bangladesh started reporting on POPs in 1955.
Current information indicates that some POPs like Heptachlor, Dieldrin,
DDT and Chlordane are still in use in different parts of the Bangladesh
where they are considered as essential for ensuring agriculture
production. Though use of DDT has been banned in early 1970s it is
received still in other names through India and Myanmar. The PCB
carrier (Power generator) are still allowed to be imported in the country. He said that the Bangladesh
8
government is positive to deal with the POPs issues, but they lack in skilled manpower and technical
knowledge. Department of Environment (DoE) of Ministry of Environment and Forest –MoEF has started
initiative to implement NIP but it does not have any plan for awareness generation on POPs.
In answering to questions, he mentioned that though NGOs are made member in the committees formed by
Ministries under the NIPs process, they have very little or no voice.
India
Country Situation on POPs in India was presented by Smita Pradhan of ASP Foundation. She said that
amongst the POPs only DDT is manufactured in India and used for disease vector control with a permitted
limit of up to 10,000MT per year. However, the stakeholders of the Enabling Activity Project are of view that
some of the Pesticide POPs under study and banned are still being used, but they were not able to
substantiate their claims with accurate information.
It is also evident that the stockpiles do exist in the country but exact
estimates are not available. She said that the monitoring and research
activities for the estimation of POPs are in a very preliminary stage in the
country. She expressed her concern over the lack of continuous
monitored data as in most of the regions the monitoring is only ‘one-time’
monitoring without any regular study and follow-ups. She also identified
the sectors that need immediate actions.
She said that the Government does not recognize the existence of POPs
in the country and so for protecting against POPs the NGOs have to take a major role. These NGOs need to
be made aware and educated before petitioning to the Government and for it network building among the
NGOs is important.
Nepal
Country Situation on POPs in Nepal was presented by Hansa Ram
Pandey of SHELGA. These again were the findings from the activity
taken up by SHELGA under IPEP on preparing the Country Situation
Report on POPs. He said that Nepal signed on POPs Convention on 5
April 2002 and on paper the use of POPs are banned but they are
illegally imported from India. BHC, chlordane, aldrin, deldrin, endrin,
heptachlor and toxaphane are most popular fertilizers and are widely
used for agriculture work whereas polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and
hexachloro benzene are mainly used by industries. He said that about
74.125 ton of obsolete pesticide is stockpiled in various locations throughout Nepal. The ware house filled
with POPs are without proper storage system and are immediate threat to public health and environment.
It is also estimated that 126 gram dioxin and furan is generated annually in Nepal from pulp and paper
industry, metal industry and also from burning of different materials. Mr.Pandey mentioned about the study
that revealed that the water sources like Lake Phewa and Rupa in Pokhra have been contaminated with the
pesticides used in nearby agriculture farm. He said that Nepal lack appropriate legislations to regulate
import, production and use of POPs and pesticides. However, Government with support of GEF is preparing
National Implementation Plan for eliminating POPs. The NGOs like SHELGA, Forum for Justice, etc. are
trying to make the people aware of the menace but there is lack of coordination among the NGOs.
Sri Lanka
The country situation on POPs in Sri Lanka was presented by Dilena
Pathragoda of Centre for Environmental Justice that has been involved in
preparing the Country Situation Report on POPs for Sri Lanka. He said that
the Government of Sri Lanka has already ratified the Convention. Ministry
of Environment with the NGO’s like Centre for Environmental Justice,
Green Movement Of Sri Lanka, SLEES and SMED and other relevant
organizations have taken steps to complete the POPs inventory and
identify the hot spots. Now programmes have been started to eliminate
9
stockpiles and raise awareness among the general public on POPs. Ministry has started a radio programme
on it. But still most of the farmers are not aware of the harmful effects of pesticides. He also mentioned that
DDT is not used officially in the country and instead Malathiane is used for the malaria prevention.
SESSION III
Presentation 1:
NGOs already working on POPs issue under IPEP in the region were invited to present and share their work
with the other participants. The idea was to present and share the various approaches being used to
address the issue by NGOs.
POPs and the Informal Recycling Sector
Bharati Chaturvedi of Chintan, an NGO based in New Delhi presented on how the informal recycling sector
are handling POPs and how they are getting infected. She informed that Chintan has established schools for
the education of rag picker children. She said that Chintan is looking for partnerships of knowledge to bring
awareness to the junk dealers and the rag pickers. She also stressed on Right to Access Waste and Right to
Clean Work.
Presentation 2: The Stockholm Convention and POPs Destruction Technologies
Hana Kunkova presented on the common destruction technologies of
POPs. She said that Stockholm Convention requires “each country to
reduce the total releases derived from anthropogenic sources of [POPs],
with the goal of their continuing minimization and, where feasible
ultimate elimination.” She mentioned the steps to eliminate the POPs –
identification of the materials and the processes, their phase out and
remediation of contaminated soils, sediments and groundwater. She said
that the cleaning up of the secondary sources like stockpiles are
essential and this should be done in a way that it does not result in
formation or release of POPs. She mentioned the criteria of Stockholm
Convention and also the IPEN criteria for the destruction of POPs. She gave the name of the available
technologies, their commercial scale and the countries where the particular technology is licensed and used
for commercial purposes. She then gave the detailed process, efficacy and applicability of Gas Phase
Chemical Reduction, Based Catalysed Decomposition, Sodium Reduction, Super-Critical Water Oxidation and
other non-combustion technologies. She said that the incineration is the most common way of POPs disposal
but all incinerator releases have the potential for public health impact. She summarized the whole
presentation saying that many traditional disposal technologies are inappropriate for POPs disposal and in
some cases are themselves major sources of POPs but this should not become an excuse for the on-going
production of POPs wastes.
DAY 3: 19 November 2005
SESSION I
Presentation 1: Toxics Free Future & SAICM
Joe DiGangi gave a presentation on Strategic Approach to International
Chemical Management (SAICM). SAICM works for bringing multi
stakeholder approach to fight POPs. The idea is to create a political
statement on chemical safety and to reduce the gap between the
developed and the developing countries as far as chemical safety is
concerned. He introduced the members of the SAICM to the participants.
He mentioned that the Arab and the African Countries have already
written out plans to observe the principles of SAICM. One of the
important SAICM principles is that the institutions that are creating the
hazards should be responsible financially for the mitigation of hazards.
10
Presentation 2: GEF Small Grants Programme
Prabhjot Singh Sodhi, National Coordinator, SGP India gave presentation
on the GEF Small Grants Programme. The programme is housed in Centre
for Environment Education (CEE). This is one window that is available to
NGOs working on POPs. He described the programme and gave instances
of successful projects, the SGP review process, application format, etc.
Presentation 3: International POPs Elimination Project
Joe DiGangi gave a presentation on IPEP project of IPEN. He stated how it all started with silent
demonstration of hundreds of woman in 1998. Then Stockholm Convention was signed in 2001. He
described the basic structure of IPEN consist of 400 NGOs in 70 countries and have three working groups.
The objectives of IPEN are to enhance skills and knowledge on POPs and to establish regional and national
NGO coordination. IPEN has executed a GEF Project along with UNEP and UNIDO. He introduced the
regional hubs and the people involved with the IPEN. IPEN has participated in 230 activities in 54 countries.
The IPEP’s website (www.oztoxics.org/ipepweb/) is available in five languages. In the future IPEN wants to
get linked with SAICM and UNDP-GEF Small Grants Programme.
SESSION II
Working Groups: Developing Regional Strategy
The participants were divided in to four groups for formulating strategies to mitigate POPs. Later however,
Group 2 and 3 were merged into one group. The session was moderated by Smita Pradhan of ASP
Foundation. Each group was given about 1 hour to discuss and prepare presentation on their topic.
The groups were asked to prepare presentations under the following headings:
Mechanism
Implementing Agencies
Type of Projects
Duration
The following are the strategies proposed by the groups:
Group 1: Develop strategy for Education and Awareness on POPs
The Group 1 developed strategy for awareness generation on POPs. They
proposed that the Government bodies, NGOs/CBOs and the co-operatives
should be the implementing bodies for education and awareness
generation on POPs. The stakeholders in the process can be the policy
makers and the legislatures, industries, judiciary, donor organizations,
research institutes, NGOs and media. Some decentralized networks can
be formed and area-specific and stakeholder-specific information material
in local languages should be generated. Multi stakeholder forums can be formed at different levels for
awareness generation. All these activities are to be completed by 30 months and the milestones are to be
planned accordingly.
Group 2 and 3: Develop and implement strategies for identifying
and managing existing POPs in the country and develop and
implement strategies for identifying and managing wastes and
contaminated sites
For developing and implementing strategies for identifying and managing
existing POPs, other wastes and contaminated sites, the Group 2 and 3
proposed that at first selection of the implementing organisations should
be done followed by the selection of the best mechanism. Management of
11
POPs is to be done by consulting groups, policy intervention, using appropriate technology, generating
information and disseminating the updated information up to the grassroots level. The identification of
substitute should be carried on side by side. The industries generating the wastes should also bear the
funding. The whole process needs to be completed by 1-3 years.
Group 4: Devise strategy for capacity building and institutional
strengthening
For capacity building and institutional strengthening, the Group 4
proposed documentation of existing facilities and mutual coordination
among the different organizations. The related organizations should have
dedicated staff who will regularly monitor the POPs. The target should be
that by 15 years we get a reasonable numbers of proven technologies for
the treatment of POPs. The group felt that people have the basic capacity
but they need illumination. This can be done through exchange of
expertise and organising workshops from time to time. The group proposed building of an Information
Caucus on POPs for facilitating the communication among the organizations. Agricultural universities and the
medical units should also be involved in the process.
SESSION III
The Way Forward – Open Discussion
The strategies proposed by the participants for tracing the future path are
as follows:
The interested NGOs should be identified and a strong network should
be built up;
Contaminated sites should be identified;
Sustained work on POPs issues for at least next three years for some
visible impact;
Enlarge the groups working on POPs;
Creating a list serve for facilitating internal communication among the
groups;
Creating a resource base to meet the training needs on POPs;
Community mobilization is utmost necessary;
SWOT analysis and tight timeframe is needed;
Mass mobilization including the regional and local media and folk
medium is needed;
All the donor agencies should have fund allocated for POPs;
POPs should be included in the Environmental Education Programme
for awareness building of the children;
Lastly and most important a very determined and concerted effort
from working groups are necessary.
Mr. Satish Sinha of Toxics Link ended the workshop by thanking the participants.
12
Annexure A
WORKSHOP PROGRAMME
Day 1 (November 17, 2005)
Time
Topic
Resource Person
9.00 a.m.
Registration
10.00 a.m. – 10.15 a.m.
Welcome Address
Ravi Agarwal, Director Toxics Link
10.15 a.m. – 10.45 a.m.
Keynote Address
Mr. MS Gill, Member of Parliament
10.45 a.m. - 11.15 a.m.
Discussion/ Questions
11.15 a.m. – 11.45 a.m.
Tea/ Coffee Break
11.45 a.m. – 12.00 noon
Rationale and Agenda for the workshop
Satish Sinha, Chief Coordinator, Toxics Link
12.00 noon – 12.30 p.m.
Sources, Emissions and Health Effects of POPs
Ravi Agarwal, Toxics Link
12.30 p.m. – 1.00 p.m.
Stockholm Convention on POPs and the NIPs
process
Joe Digangi, Global Coordinator, IPEP
1.00 p.m. – 1.30 p.m.
Global Environment Facility (GEF) and Persistent
Organic Pollutants (POPs)
Ravi Chellam, UNDP
1.30 p.m. – 2.30 p.m.
Lunch
2.30 p.m. – 3.00 p.m.
Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR)
Dr. A A Khan, IICT
3.00 p.m. – 3.30 p.m.
Pitfalls in Estimation of POPs
Dr Prem Dureja, Indian Agriculture Research
Institute (IARI)
3.30 p.m. – 4.00 p.m.
Discussion/ Questions
4.00 p.m. – 4.30 p.m.
Tea/ Coffee Break
4.30 p.m. – 5.00 p.m.
Dioxins and Furans
5.00 p.m. – 5.30 p.m.
Standardized Toolkit for Identification
Quantification of Dioxin and Furan Releases
5.30 p.m. – 5.45 p.m.
Discussion/ Questions
Dr. Padma Vankar, IIT Kanpur
and
Hana, Arnika Czech Republic (IPEN Dioxin
Working Group)
9.30 a.m. – 10.00 a.m.
Registration for Panel Discussion
10.00 a.m. – 11.15 a.m.
Stakeholders’ Panel Discussion: POPs: A Public
Health Concern and the Way Forward
Moderator: Ravi Agarwal
Panellists:
Priti Kumar, World Bank
S. Ganesan, Chairman, ICMA
Chandra Bhushan, Centre for Science and
Environment
Dr. Juergen Porst, ASEM GTZ
Ravi Chellam, UNDP
11.15 a.m. – 11.45 a.m.
Tea/ Coffee Break
11.45 a.m. – 1.30 p.m.
Panel Discussion Continued
1.30 p.m. – 2.30 p.m.
Lunch
Day 2 (November 18, 2005)
13
Time
Topic
Resource Person
2.45 p.m. – 3.15 p.m.
GEF Small Grants Program: Partner Presentation
(Remediation of Ground water and Soil affected by
Tannery effluents containing Chrome)
Dr. Padma Vankar, DVSS, Kanpur
3.15p.m. – 4.15 p.m.
POPs Status in South Asia Region
Bangladesh
India
Nepal
Sri Lanka
Hossain Shariar, ESDO, Bangladesh
Smita Pradhan, ASP Fdn., India
HR Pandey, SHELGA, Nepal
Dilena, CEJ, Sri Lanka
4.15 p.m. – 4.45 p.m.
Tea/ Coffee Break
4.45 p.m. – 5.15 p.m.
Civil Society Initiatives on POPs: Presentation by
NGOs
POPs and the Informal Recycling Sector
Chintan, India
5.15 p.m. – 5.45 p.m.
The Stockholm Convention and POPs Destruction
Technologies
Hana, Arnika Czech Republic (IPEN Dioxin
Working Group)
5.45 p.m. – 6.00 p.m.
Discussion/ Feedback
7.00 p.m. onwards
Welcome Dinner
Central Court, IIC
Day 3 (November 19, 2005)
9.30 a.m. – 9.45 a.m.
Welcome and Recap
Satish Sinha, Chief Coordinator, Toxics Link
9.45 a.m. – 10.15 a.m.
Toxics Free Future and SAICM
Joe DiGangi, Global Coordinator, IPEP
10.15 a.m. – 10.45 a.m.
UNDP-GEF Small Grants Program
Probhjot Singh Sodhi, National Coordinator,
SGP India
10.45 a.m. – 11.00. a.m.
International POPs Elimination Network and the
Global POPs Project (IPEP)
Joe DiGangi, Global Coordinator, IPEP
11.00 a.m. – 11.15 a.m.
Discussion/ Questions
11.15 a.m. – 11.45 a.m.
Tea/ Coffee Break
11.45 a.m. – 12.45 p.m.
Developing Regional Strategy
Working Groups
Moderator: Smita Pradhan, ASP Foundation
Group 1: Develop strategy for Education and
Awareness on POPs
Group 2 and 3: Develop and implement strategies
for identifying and managing existing POPs as well
as wastes & contaminated sites in the country
Group 4: Devise strategy for capacity building and
institutional strengthening.
12.45 p.m. – 1.30 p.m.
Reporting Back
Group Representatives
1.30 p.m. – 2.00 p.m.
The Way Forward - Discussion
Moderator: Satish Sinha, Chief Coordinator,
Toxics Link
2.00 p.m.
Vote of Thanks followed by Lunch
µµµ
14
Annexure B
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
S.No.
Participant’s
Name
Organisation
Country/ State
Email
1.
A Bolai Singh
Community Development
Organisation (CDO)
India, Manipur
[email protected]
2.
A. Ninan
IPS
India, Delhi
[email protected]
3.
Ajay Rastogi
Food and Agriculture Organisation
(FAO)
India, Delhi
[email protected]
4.
AK Ghoshal
Pesticide Manufacturers and
Formulators Association of India
India, Delhi
[email protected]
5.
Anuradha Kumar
Prithvi Innovations
India, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh
[email protected],
[email protected]
6.
AT Dudani
Society for Citizen Concerns
India, Delhi
[email protected]
7.
B. Jayaraman
Hindustan Insecticide Limited (HIL)
India, Delhi
-
8.
Barun Mitra
Liberty Institute
India, Delhi
[email protected]
9.
Bedoshruti
Sadhukhan
Environmental Justice Initiative,
Human Rights Law Network
India, Delhi
[email protected]
10.
Bhajan Singh
Janhit Foundation
India, Meerut, Uttar
Pradesh
[email protected]
11.
Bharati
Chatrurvedi
Chintan Environmental Research And
Action Group
India, Delhi
bharati@chintan_india.org
12.
Binod Sharma
Forum for Justice
Nepal
[email protected]
13.
Chandra Bhushan
Centre For Science and Environment
India, Delhi
[email protected]
14.
Col. JC Kapoor
Environment and Social Care
(ENCARE)
India, Delhi
[email protected]
15.
Devyani Rana
UNDP-GEF SGP
India, Delhi
[email protected]
16.
Dharmendra Rai
Friends
India, Varanasi, Uttar
Pradesh
[email protected]
17.
Dilena
Pathragoda
Centre for Environmental Justice
Sri Lanka
[email protected]
18.
DR Gunaratne
Sri Lanka Green Movement (GREEN)
Sri Lanka
[email protected],
[email protected]
19.
Dr Padma S
Vankar
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT),
Kanpur
India, Kanpur, Uttar
Pradesh
[email protected], [email protected]
20.
Dr. AA Khan
Indian Institute of Chemical
Technology (IICT)
India, Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh
[email protected]
21.
Dr. Juergen Porst
GTZ-Advisory Services in
Environmental Management (ASEM)
India, Delhi
[email protected],
[email protected]
22.
Dr. Prem Dureja
Indian Agricultural Research Institute
(IARI)
India, Delhi
[email protected]
15
23.
Dr. RS Sharma
National Malaria Eradication
Programme
India, Delhi
[email protected]
24.
Dr. Sunil Arya
Kheti Virasat Mission
India, Gurgaon,
Haryana
[email protected]
25.
Dr. T. Basu
Hindustan Insecticide Limited (HIL)
India, Delhi
26.
Dr. T. Patanjali
Sastry
Environment Centre
India, Rajahmundry,
Andhra Pradesh
[email protected]
27.
Dr. Toran
Sharma
Nepal Forum for Environmental
Journalist (NEFEJ)
Nepal
[email protected]
28.
Dr. VP Sharma
Industrial Toxicology Research Centre
(ITRC)
India, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh
[email protected]
29.
EM Koshy
Agriculture and Organic Farming
Group (AFOG)
India, Delhi
[email protected],
[email protected]
30.
G. Manjri
VAARTHA
India, Delhi
[email protected]
31.
Gurudutt Prasad
Action (Association for Rural & Tribal
Development)
India, Rajahmundry,
Andhra Pradesh
[email protected]
32.
Hana Kuncova
Arnika (Regional Hub CEE)
Czech Republic
[email protected]
33.
Hansram Pandey
Society for Human Rights,
Environment, Law and Governance
Activities (SHELGA)
Nepal
[email protected],
[email protected]
34.
Hossain Shahriar
Environment and Social Development
Organization (ESDO)
Bangladesh
[email protected],
[email protected]
35.
Joe DiGangi
Environmental Health Fund
USA
[email protected]
36.
KN Singh
Devendra Vidyapeeth Shiksha Samiti
India, Kanpur, Uttar
Pradesh
[email protected]
37.
Kultar Singh
Kheti Virasat Mission
India, Jaitu, Punjab
[email protected]
38.
Mahesh Sharma
Gramin Vikas Evm Paryavaran
Sanstha
India, Dausa, Rajasthan
[email protected]
39.
Meghana
Centre for Environment Education
(CEE) SGP
India, Delhi
[email protected]
40.
Nandan
Chirmulay
International Technical Consultant on
Chemical Management, UNDP
USA
[email protected]
41.
Pallavi Bharadwaj
Janhit Foundation
India, Meerut, Uttar
Pradesh
[email protected]
42.
Prabhjot Singh
Sodhi
Centre for Environment Education
(CEE) SGP
India, Delhi
[email protected]
43.
Preeti Soni
United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP)
India, Delhi
[email protected]
44.
Priti Kumar
World Bank
India, Delhi
[email protected]
45.
Raj Patnaik
Jeevan Rekha Parishad
India, Delhi
[email protected]
16
46.
Rakesh Jaiswal
Eco Friends
India, Kanpur, Uttar
Pradesh
[email protected]
47.
Ram C. Sah
Center for Public Health and
Environment Development (CEPHED)
Nepal
[email protected]
48.
Ramya Gopalan
United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP)
India, Delhi
[email protected]
49.
Ravi Agarwal
Toxics Link
India, Delhi
[email protected]
50.
Ravi Chellam
United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP)
India, Delhi
[email protected]
51.
Ritu Kanotra
United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP)
India, Delhi
[email protected]
52.
RS Tanwar
Indian Agricultural Research Institute
(IARI)
India, Delhi
[email protected]
53.
S Ganesan
Indian Chemical Manufacturers
Association (ICMA)
India, Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh
[email protected]
54.
S. Vasudev
STADD Development Consulting Pvt.
Ltd.
India, Delhi
[email protected]
55.
Salima Sarwar
Association For Community
Development
Bangladesh
[email protected]
56.
Sasanka Dev
Society for Direct Initiative for Social
and Health Action (DISHA)
India, Kolkata, West
Bengal
[email protected]
57.
Satish Sinha
Toxics Link
India, Delhi
[email protected]
58.
Shahid Jalil
Social Action Bureau for Assistance in
Welfare and Organisational
Networking – International
(SABAWON)
Pakistan
[email protected],
[email protected]
59.
Smita Pradhan
ASP Foundation
India, Vadodara,
Gujarat
[email protected]
60.
Suchit Ranjan
REALS
India, Orissa
[email protected]
61.
Sunil Arora
United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP)
India, Delhi
[email protected]
62.
Tanushree
Centre for Environment Education
(CEE) – SGP
India, Delhi
[email protected]
63.
Tsewang Norboo
Centre for Sustainable Development
and Food Security (CENSFOOD)
India, Ladhak
[email protected]
64.
Umendra Dutt
Kheti Virasat Mission
India, Jaitu, Punjab
[email protected]
65.
Upasana
Choudhry
Toxics Link
Inida, Delhi
[email protected]
µµµ
17
Annexure C
IN THE MEDIA
Moves on to ban use of lindane
It could be listed as Persistent Organic Pollutants under Stockholm Convention
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lindane widely used in India has adverse impact on health, environment
"India does not have reliable facilities to test harmful chemicals"
Workshop to discuss safer alternatives
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------NEW DELHI: With the last Conference of Parties under the Stockholm Convention proposing to include
lindane, a highly toxic chemical, in the list of 12 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP), its use could be banned
in the next two to three years. The POP Review Committee is studying this pesticide along with four other
chemicals recommended to be included in the POP list. Lindane is widely produced and used in India and has
been proved to have an adverse impact on the health and environment.
The proposal for listing lindane under POP was mooted by Mexico at the Uruguay Conference of Parties held
in Uruguay in May 2005. The review committee will study the profile of the chemical, its harmful effects and
its presence in the human body, following which the social and economic cost of the elimination of the
chemical and its possible alternatives would be looked into. "This process will take about three years but then
countries can take exemption on various grounds like India has done for the use of DDT, used for malaria
prevention," Ravi Agarwal of Toxics Links, a non-governmental organisation working in the field of
environment, said.
Meanwhile, hot on the heels of India deciding to ratify the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Stockholm Convention, which aims to reduce and eliminate 12 of the most toxic chemicals known to man,
civil society groups from five South Asian countries have gathered here to identify actions urgently needed to
protect human health and environment from the adverse effects of POP.
Of immediate concern are chemicals such as DDT, widely used for malaria control, and dioxins and furans unintended by-products of industrial processes and medical and municipal wastes, Mr. Agarwal said. Such
chemicals enter the human body through the food chain, and transmit from generation-to-generation, causing
severe health problems such as endocrine disruption, reproductive disorders and cancer. Often referred to as
the `dirty dozen,' POPs include DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, chlordane, heptachlor, mirex, toxaphene,
hexachlorobenzene, polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins and furans.
"India or the region does not even have any reliable facilities to monitor or measure them. There is little data
on stockpiles of such chemicals, despite studies showing environmental and food chain contamination in many
places," he said. Indians have the highest levels of DDT in their bodies in the world. Data shows that POPs'
widespread use for the past 100 years have led to serious environmental damage.
Recognising the existing gap, the workshop seeks to increase levels of awareness, understanding, and
knowledge among various stakeholders, especially public interest organisations, concerning the status of POPs
and their impact besides discussing sustainable and safer alternatives.
Source : http://www.hindu.com/2005/11/20/stories/2005112007451000.htm
18
Pollutant ban, minus stand-in
New Delhi, Nov. 19: India has decided to ratify an international convention to eliminate 12 toxic
chemicals - called the “dirty dozen” - but lacks a coordinated plan of action for alternative technologies, a
non-government agency has said.
The cabinet decided last month to ratify the United Nations Environment Programme Stockholm
Convention aimed at the phased reduction and elimination of 12 persistent organic pollutants - eight
organochlorine pesticides, two industrial chemicals and two industrial wastes. India has already banned
eight of these.
“The big three persistent organic pollutants in India are DDT and the two industrial wastes - dioxins and
furans,” said Ravi Agarwal, executive director of Toxics Link, a non-government agency. “But we don’t
seem to have a well-thought-out process in place yet to evaluate and induct alternatives.”
The malaria control programme in India continues to use DDT spray to tackle mosquitoes. Dioxins and
furans are generated as by-products in the paper and pulp manufacturing industries, and during metal
smelting, medical waste incineration and open burning of metal wastes.
The Stockholm Convention, which took shape in 2001, is aimed at eliminating what environmental
scientists believe are the most toxic chemicals that can persist for years in the environment, slip into the
food chain and affect human health.
Agarwal said the Convention offers opportunities for India to access alternative technologies.
“But we’re not looking at the available options closely enough,” he told a workshop here organised by
Toxics Link to identify initiatives needed from the government to eliminate the pollutants.
Agarwal said chlorine bleaching in the paper industry and metal smelting and waste-burning processes
generate dioxins and furans. There exist alternative technologies, such as non-chlorine processes and
safer waste recycling processes. “We need an urgent examination of options, sector by sector,” he added.
Toxics Link has also said that India lacks the monitoring facilities for some pollutants. There are not
enough data on stockpiles of such chemicals despite studies indicating unusually high levels of
environmental and food contamination at some sites.
While the Central Pollution Control Board is expected to track environmental pollutants in the country, it
appears to lack the resources for intensive and sustained examination of the persistent pollutants,
Agarwal said.
Earlier this year, delegates reviewing the Stockholm Convention proposed the addition of five new
chemicals to the list of the “dirty dozen”. One of the five is lindane, which is widely used and produced
in India.
Source : http://www.telegraphindia.com/archives/archive.html
19
India Next global hotspot for toxics?
Just as India has decided to ratify an international convention aimed at eliminating the use of
12 of the most toxic chemicals known to man, civil society groups meeting here say India,
indeed South Asia, could emerge as the next global hotspot of toxics.
Delhi-based NGO, Toxics Link chief Ravi Agarwal warns, that with new manufacturing bases
being shifted to the South Asian region and with new urbanization and waste generation, this
could be the next global hotspot for persistent organic pollutants (POPs). POPs travel far and
wide, resisting natural breakdown processes, and climbing the food chain until they reach
humans, where they build up in fatty tissues.
NGOs believe India, and the region, are just not ready to handle the situation. India isn’t ready
with a plan on what to do. Agarwal cities one example: Of $ 450 million available in a year
though a UN fund to combat this, they say China is ready to bid with sectoral projects worth
$300 million. India’s tally: Zero project so far. “This is all money which will go into
industrial development” says Agarwal.
As India opens up its market to the world, the least it should do is to demand clean technology
for doing so. “The issue of environmental goods and services is coming up into the WTO-we
need to concentrate on real solutions, not just markets for goods and services,” says Agarwal,
as civil society groups from India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka finished meeting
here, along with international funding and UN agency representatives. This meeting was part
of a global initiative by the International POPs Elimination Network, in partnership with the
UN Environment Programme and UN Industrial Development Organisation.
Source: The Times of India, New Delhi dated 21November 2005
20
Annexure D
ABOUT IPEN and IPEP
The International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) is a network of over 350 public health, environmental, consumer,
and other non-governmental organisations in 65 countries united in support of a common POPs elimination goal. The
mission of IPEN, achieved through its participating organisations, is to work for the global elimination of persistent
organic pollutants, on an expedited yet socially equitable basis.
To assist NGOs in dealing with POPs issues, IPEN launched in May 2004 a two-year project titled: Fostering Effective
Civil Society Participation in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which is generally referred to as
the International POPs Elimination Project or IPEP, for short.
The Project is being implemented in partnership with the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) with core funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
IPEP is primarily designed to help support small and medium-sized country-based NGOs reflecting a keen interest in the
efforts to reduce and eliminate chemical pollution. It is supporting multiple NGO activities in over 50 countries. It is
coordinated through eight NGO-based "regional hubs", one of it being located in South Asia (Toxics Link, India).
The project has twin goals: to help harness the energies and creativity that these NGOs have already demonstrated;
and at the same time, build the organizations' capacity to develop and implement project activities to help make their
work more sustainable.
IPEP has three principal objectives:
Encourage and enable NGOs 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; and
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.
For more information, please see visit: www.ipen.org (for IPEN); and www.oztoxics.org/ipepweb/ (For IPEP)
ABOUT TOXICS LINK
Toxics Link emerged from a need to establish a mechanism for disseminating credible information about toxics in India,
and for raising the level of the debate on these issues. The goal was to develop an information exchange and support
organisation that would use research and advocacy in strengthening campaigns against toxic pollution, help push
industries towards cleaner production, and link groups working on toxics and waste issues.
Over time, Toxics Link has developed capacities to interact with the grassroots through outreach amongst various civil
society actors, as well as to play a role in influencing policy and have conversations with other stakeholders such as
industry and technical experts. It is also central to networks connecting experts, civil society groups and individuals
working nationally and internationally on issues related to toxics.
Currently, Toxics Link has a main office in New Delhi, and two nodal offices in Mumbai and Chennai. From these, it
coordinates a nation-wide network of more than 400 individual and organisational members.
Toxics Link has unique expertise in the areas of hazardous, medical and municipal wastes, as well as in specific issues
such as the international waste trade, and the emerging issues of pesticides and POPs.
The organisation aims at doing work that is demand-driven, and derives its work plan based on the priorities and needs
of the network members that it serves. The development of the agenda and work plan, therefore, depends on the
following three criteria:
• An assessment of the demands of groups and activists, as well as of the key needs identified in national-level
meetings of all stakeholders
• An assessment of the coming requirements and of the situation in the country
• Campaigns that utilise our own specific skills.
Toxics Link is a member of International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) and been designated as the Hub NGO for
South Asia under the International POPs Elimination Project (IPEP).
For more information, please see http://www.toxicslink.org.
21
TOXICS LINK
Contact:
TOXICS LINK
H 2, Jungpura Extension,
New Delhi 110014,
India
Telephone: (91 11 2432 0711, 2432 8006
Fax: 91 11 2342 1747
Email: [email protected]
22