1. European Commission UNITAR Thematic Workshop on the Implementation of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) Session 2: Panel on Governance for National SAICM Implementation 19 June 2006 DG Environment, European Commission

2. European Commission 2 Governance for National SAICM Implementation Why am I here? Not a chemist, health professional or ecologist. No longer an aid official involved in project implementation, but an environmental negotiator and policy-maker, with a particular interest in financial and institutional questions. Been asked to address final question before the Panel.  What are donor perspectives (and possible expectations) concerning national governance frameworks for SAICM implementation? To do so also need to look at another of the questions -  How can SAICM implementation be integrated into national development planning processes?

3. European Commission 3 Governance for National SAICM Implementation Donor perspectives – Gloom in the 1990s  In the 1990s growing public feeling in Europe that aid was not working. Taxpayers had provided enormous amounts. Yet still famine in Africa, deep poverty in Asia, excluded millions in Latin America, conflict and AIDs. Some wanted to turn off the aid tap and spend in Europe.  The needs of recipient countries are HUGE and diverse and many donors had great difficulty in deciding on priorities for their support.  Without priorities and targets, it became increasingly difficult to make the case that development aid was working and should continue and grow.

4. European Commission 4 Governance for National SAICM Implementation Donor perspectives – 2000 and 2002 the response  UN Millennium Development Summit was a turning point.  It made poverty eradication the overarching theme of development.  Adopted Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) - 7 overall priorities and specific time-bound targets to measure progress.  Key factor was that these were agreed by donors AND developing countries. A common agenda and an agreed date - 2015.  BUT missing ingredient ……..

5. European Commission 5 Governance for National SAICM Implementation Donor perspectives – 2000 and 2002 the response Goal 8 agreed in 2002. € € €  ¥ ¥ ¥ EU collective commitment to reaching 0.7% by 2015 and to doubling total EU aid to € 66 billion by 2010. Governance for National SAICM Implementation

6. European Commission 6 Governance for National SAICM Implementation Donor perspectives –the MDGs  No time to go through all the MDGs (see handout).  Essential point is that they provide:  Agreed priorities  Agreed timetable  A global partnership for getting there with donor promises of resources  This is a very powerful combination with a lot of political momentum and pressure to deliver.  The problem is that we are not on course to deliver the MDGs, especially in Africa.

7. European Commission 7 Governance for National SAICM Implementation Donor perspectives –the MDGs  So the pressure to concentrate becomes ever stronger.  Donors and the Finance and Planning Ministries of developing countries alike are scrutinising all aid proposals to see how they contribute to poverty eradication and how they will meet the MDGs.  If your issue is not seen as MDG-friendly it is not likely to be proposed for the pre-determined aid allocation by the Finance Ministry and is not likely to be accepted by a donor.

8. European Commission 8 Governance for National SAICM Implementation Donor perspectives – Country owned approaches  Donors have long ceased to pretend to know best.  Since last year’s Paris Declaration between nearly all donors and many developing countries, there is general agreement on ‘country owned, country-led’ development policies where the developing country sets the priorities, objectives and strategy and the donor provides support.  Donors are moving away from projects to sectoral programmes, or even general budget support.  This means that even if the donor thinks that an issue is important, they will not force its inclusion in a bilateral development relationship.

9. European Commission 9 Governance for National SAICM Implementation What does this imply about donors’ attitudes to SAICM? At the bilateral level  Donors are unlikely to raise SAICM spontaneously with partner governments.  Like me, most aid officials are not chemists, health professionals or ecologists. They do not know about the benefits and potential risks of chemicals and would rather stick to health clinics and schools. (MDG friendly and vote-winners)  Nor do donors, when putting together large programmes, tour the country asking everyone for good ideas. They expect their usual contacts in partner governments to have engaged in dialogue and that priorities have been discussed across all Ministries and with civil society. (Country owned and country led)

10. European Commission 10 Governance for National SAICM Implementation So for a donor what would be the ideal national governance framework for SAICM implementation? No single recipe, but some characteristics:  Something that makes evident the links with the MDGs and makes SAICM a credible and integrated part of an MDG-based national development programme/PSRP.  Something with strong civil society support and the backing of many different Ministries including Planning and Finance.  Something with the prospect of being self-financing in the long-term.

11. European Commission 11 Governance for National SAICM Implementation Is that possible? YES But it is not easy! 

12. European Commission 12 Governance for National SAICM Implementation Relatively easy to show SAICM is relevant to MDGs (integration):  MDG 1 poverty (role of chemicals in prosperous livelihoods) and hunger (role of chemicals in agriculture)  MDG 4 child mortality (reducing risk)  MDG 5 maternal mortality (reducing risk)  MDG 6 disease (role of chemicals – not just pharmaceuticals - in healthcare and disease prevention)  MDG 7 environmental sustainability (sound management of chemicals as a fundamental aspect)

13. European Commission 13 Governance for National SAICM Implementation But how relevant – why SAICM rather than clean water etc etc? Need to provide credible evidence if to achieve real integration  Need to bring in the economists to use evidence from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and recent study on environment and health by WHO.  Studying the costs of non-action was very important in EU enlargement in building understanding and political will.

14. European Commission 14 Governance for National SAICM Implementation  On the basis of credible MDG linkages should be able to mobilise both the green NGOs and the development NGOs. Very powerful combination in Europe and I would expect them to be more effective together than apart in partner countries.  If politicians see that people care, easier to bring in Ministries of Finance and Planning – who are also swayed by credible MDG link and prospect of long-term financial sustainability.

15. European Commission 15 Governance for National SAICM Implementation But Need money to get started – for making link with MDGs, integration into development plans, and looking at financial sustainability 

16. European Commission 16 Governance for National SAICM Implementation This is where the SAICM QSP Quick Start Programme and other funding comes in, such as the EU Thematic Programme for the Environment (€ 806.5 over 7 years of which about 5% for chemicals)

17. European Commission 17 Information