financing plan (in us$): · web viewthe ppg phase will confirm the specific case study countries,...
TRANSCRIPT
FINANCING PLAN (IN US$):
GEF-6 Project Identification Form (PIF)
Project Type:
Type of Trust Fund:
For more information about GEF, visit TheGEF.org
PART I: Project Information
Project Title:
Global best practices on emerging chemical policy issues of concern under the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM)
Country(ies):
Global
GEF Project ID:[footnoteRef:2] [2: Project ID number will be assigned by GEFSEC and to be entered by Agency in subsequent document submissions.]
9771
GEF Agency(ies):
GEF Agency Project ID:
01571
Other Executing Partner(s):
SAICM Secretariat
Resubmission Date:
April 18, 2017
GEF Focal Area(s):
Project Duration (Months)
48
Integrated Approach Pilot
IAP-Cities |_| IAP-Commodities |_| IAP-Food Security |_|
Corporate Program: SGP |_|
Name of parent program:
[if applicable]
Agency Fee ($)
778,050
A. indicative Focal Area Strategy Framework and Other Program Strategies[footnoteRef:3] [3: When completing Table A, refer to the excerpts on GEF 6 Results Frameworks for GETF, LDCF and SCCF and CBIT guidelines.]
Objectives/Programs (Focal Areas, Integrated Approach Pilot, Corporate Programs)Trust Fund(in $)
GEF Project FinancingCo-financing
6,000,000
13,730,000
1,000,000
1,810,000
1,190,000
5,040,000
Total Project Cost
8,190,000
20,580,000
B. indicative Project description summary
Project Objective: Accelerate and measure adoption of national activities to control Emerging Policy Issues to achieve the 2020 implementation of SAICMgoal and support early planning for chemical management in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Project ComponentsFinancing Type[footnoteRef:4] [4: Financing type can be either investment or technical assistance.]
Project OutcomesProject OutputsTrust Fund(in $)
GEF Project FinancingCo-financing
1: Promoting regulatory and voluntary action by government to phase out known toxic chemicals
Countries restrict the use of lead in paint (LiP, 40 countries)
1.1 Demonstration pilots with paint manufacturers in Small and Medium Enterprises
1.2 Global Technical guidelines on BAT/BEP for manufacturers
1.3 Global guidance developed Policy advocacyand public awareness campaigns to generate support for lead phase-out
1,800,000
1,250,000
3,200,000
2,800,000
2. Lifecycle management of chemicals present in products
Companies in the building products, toys, and electronics sectors track and manage Chemicals of Concern (CoC) in their products
2.1 Platform to identify and quantify CoCs present in supply chains, based on existing and expanded Chemicals in Products (CiP) initiatives
2.2 Green Economy tools and guidance refer to CiP data to improve product design, purchasing, and use practices
2,400,000
4,000,000
3. Knowledge management and strategic planning
Cross-cutting SAICM implementation support to mainstream chemical management with science, policy and practice agendas of diverse sectors to 2020 and beyond
3.1 Knowledge management platform and new mechanisms to communicate science and best practices in policy development
3.2 A list of measurable indicators to monitor project progress on Emerging Policy Issues beyond 2020 in line with the Sustainable Development Goals
3.3 Multi-stakeholder engagement from other sectors and agendas
2,000,000
10,000,000
4. Monitoring and evaluation
4.1. Quarterly financial reports and annual progress reports monitoring status of project execution;
4.2. Midterm and Terminal Evaluations of project impacts shared with SAICM stakeholders.
350,000
500,000
Subtotal
7,800,000
20,500,000
Project Management Cost (PMC)[footnoteRef:5] [5: For GEF Project Financing up to $2 million, PMC could be up to10% of the subtotal; above $2 million, PMC could be up to 5% of the subtotal. PMC should be charged proportionately to focal areas based on focal area project financing amount in Table D below.]
390,000
80,000
Total Project Cost
8,190,000
20,580,000
For multi-trust fund projects, provide the total amount of PMC in Table B, and indicate the split of PMC among the different trust funds here: ( )
C. Indicative sources of Co-financing for the project by name and by type, if available
Sources of Co-financing
Name of Co-financier
Type of Co-financing
Amount ($)
Governments of champion and case study countries
2,000,000
Private sector and others (LiP and CiP)
5,200,000
IPEN
1,000,000
UN Environment
SAICM (QSP and Sec)
1,800,000
10,580,000
Total Co-financing
20,580,000
D. Indicative Trust Fund Resources Requested by Agency(ies), Country(ies), Focal Area and the Programming of Funds a)
GEF Agency
Trust Fund
Country/
Regional/ Global
Focal Area
Programming
of Funds
(in $)
GEF Project Financing (a)
Agency Fee (b)b)
Total
(c)=a+b
Global
- Program 1
6,000,000
570,000
6,570,000
Global
- Program 6
1,190,000
113,050
1,303,050
Global
- Program 3
1,000,000
95,000
1,095,000
Total GEF Resources
8,190,000
778,050
8,968,050
a) Refer to the Fee Policy for GEF Partner Agencies.
E. Project preparation grant (ppg)[footnoteRef:6] [6: PPG requested amount is determined by the size of the GEF Project Financing (PF) as follows: Up to $50k for PF up to$2m (for MSP); up to $100k for PF up to $3m; $150k for PF up to $6m; $200k for PF up to $10m; and $300k for PF above $10m. On an exceptional basis, PPG amount may differ upon detailed discussion and justification with the GEFSEC.]
Is Project Preparation Grant requested? Yes |X| No |_| If no, skip item E.
PPG Amount requested by agency(ies), Trust Fund, country(ies) and the Programming of funds
Project Preparation Grant amount requested: $200,000 PPG Agency Fee: 19,000
GEF Agency
Trust Fund
Country/
Regional/Global
Focal Area
Programming
of Funds
(in $)
PPG (a)
Agency
Fee[footnoteRef:7] (b) [7: PPG fee percentage follows the percentage of the Agency fee over the GEF Project Financing amount requested.]
Total
c = a + b
Global
Prog 1
102,827
9,769
112,596
Global
Prog 6
68,601
6,517
75,118
Global
Prog 3
28,572
2,714
31,286
Total PPG Amount
200,000
19,000
219,000
F. Project’s Target Contributions to Global Environmental Benefits[footnoteRef:8] [8: Provide those indicator values in this table to the extent applicable to your proposed project. Progress in programming against these targets for the projects per the Corporate Results Framework in the GEF-6 Programming Directions, will be aggregated and reported during mid-term and at the conclusion of the replenishment period. There is no need to complete this table for climate adaptation projects financed solely through LDCF, SCCF or CBIT.]
Provide the expected project targets as appropriate.
Corporate Results
Replenishment Targets
Project Targets
1. Maintain globally significant biodiversity and the ecosystem goods and services that it provides to society
Improved management of landscapes and seascapes covering 300 million hectares
Hectares
2. Sustainable land management in production systems (agriculture, rangelands, and forest landscapes)
120 million hectares under sustainable land management
Hectares
3. Promotion of collective management of transboundary water systems and implementation of the full range of policy, legal, and institutional reforms and investments contributing to sustainable use and maintenance of ecosystem services
Water-food-ecosystems security and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater in at least 10 freshwater basins;
Number of freshwater basins
20% of globally over-exploited fisheries (by volume) moved to more sustainable levels
Percent of fisheries, by volume
4. 4. Support to transformational shifts towards a low-emission and resilient development path
750 million tons of CO2e mitigated (include both direct and indirect)
metric tons
5. Increase in phase-out, disposal and reduction of releases of POPs, ODS, mercury and other chemicals of global concern
Disposal of 80,000 tons of POPs (PCB, obsolete pesticides)
0 metric tons
6.
Reduction of 1000 tons of Mercury
0 metric tons
7.
Phase-out of 303.44 tons of ODP (HCFC)
0 ODP tons
6. Enhance capacity of countries to implement MEAs (multilateral environmental agreements) and mainstream into national and sub-national policy, planning financial and legal frameworks
Development and sectoral planning frameworks integrate measurable targets drawn from the MEAs in at least 10 countries
Number of Countries: Three product sector supply chains; 40 countries ban LiP
7.
Functional environmental information systems are established to support decision-making in at least 10 countries
Number of Countries:
part ii: project JustiFication
1. Project Description. Briefly describe: 1) the global environmental and/or adaptation problems, root causes and barriers that need to be addressed; 2) the baseline scenario or any associated baseline projects, 3) the proposed alternative scenario, GEF focal area[footnoteRef:9] strategies, with a brief description of expected outcomes and components of the project, 4) incremental/additional cost reasoning and expected contributions from the baseline, the GEFTF, LDCF, SCCF, CBIT and co-financing; 5) global environmental benefits (GEFTF) and/or adaptation benefits (LDCF/SCCF); and 6) innovation, sustainability and potential for scaling up. [9: For biodiversity projects, in addition to explaining the project’s consistency with the biodiversity focal area strategy, objectives and programs, please also describe which Aichi Target(s) the project will directly contribute to achieving.]
1. Global environmental problems, root causes and barriers: Exposure to chemicals can cause or contribute to a broad range of negative environmental and health outcomes, including irreversible environmental degradation and death. Most common health problems include eye, skin, and respiratory irritation; damage to organs such as the brain, lungs, liver or kidneys; damage to the immune, respiratory, cardiovascular, nervous, reproductive or endocrine systems; and birth defects and chronic diseases, such as cancer, asthma, or diabetes. Chemicals released to air as a result of unsound management can act as local air pollutants, greenhouse gases, or ozone depleters and contribute to acid or toxic rain. Others can act as water pollutants with adverse effects on ecosystems, wildlife and aquatic organisms, and on the availability of water resources for drinking, bathing, and other activities. Soil contamination impacts include loss of agricultural productivity, contamination of food crops, toxicity to soil microorganisms and land degradation. In all cases, humans are exposed to this contamination through air, water or food intake, or through physical contact with contaminated air, water, soil or dust.
Global contaminants such as POPs or mercury are regulated by Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), namely the Stockholm and Minamata Conventions respectively. A number of additional ‘Emerging Policy Issues’ (EPIs) have been nominated for voluntary, cooperative risk reduction actions by countries through the Strategic Approach for International Chemicals Management (SAICM). Through contamination of global water bodies and globalised value chains, the environmental problems are globally distributed. The SAICM EPIs include: lead in paint; Chemicals in Products (CiP); Hazardous Substances in the Life Cycle of Electronics and Electronic Products (HSLEEP); highly hazardous pesticides HHPs); Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs); Environmentally Persistent Pharmaceutical Products; and Nanotechnologies and manufactured nanomaterials (nano). Each EPI presents particular environmental and health problems. This project focuses on addresses challenges posed by lead in paint and CiP and will complete a regional analysis to prioritise future support to HSLEEP via circular economy approaches as a global program in under the GEF 7 replenishment. The remaining EPIs will feature in future Medium Size Project(s) to be submitted in the coming 3 – 6 months which will seamlessly integrate and complimenet this project, and feed into the overall Knowledge Management system set up under this project. It is believed that this approach allows work to proceed on the time sensitive issues to inform the 2020 SAICM goal:
· Lead in paint: lead is a cumulative toxicant particularly harmful to young children and pregnant women. The cost of reduced cognitive potentials (loss of IQ points) due to preventable childhood lead exposure in low and middle-income countries is estimated as $977 billion annually[footnoteRef:10]. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) has estimated that in 2015 lead exposure accounted for 494,550 deaths due to long-term effects on health, with the highest burden in low and middle income countries. IHME also estimated that lead exposure accounted for 12.4% of the global burden of idiopathic intellectual disability, 2.5% of the global burden of ischaemic heart disease and 2.4% of the global burden of stroke[footnoteRef:11]. Lead in paint is a major source of childhood lead exposure in childhood; it results in contaminated dust in homes that is inhaled or ingested (UNEP 2010).[footnoteRef:12] [10: Attina and Trasande (2013) Economic Costs of Childhood Lead Exposure in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1206424) ] [11: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). 2015 GBD Compare. Seattle, WA: IHME, University of Washington, (http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare, accessed 26 Aug 16)] [12: UNEP 2010 Final review of scientific information on lead; http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Portals/9/Lead_Cadmium/docs/Interim_reviews/UNEP_GC26_INF_11_Add_1_Final_UNEP_Lead_review_and_apppendix_Dec_2010.pdf ]
· Chemicals in Products (CiP): include a number of hazardous or toxic substances which are incorporated into a product and pose a risk to human health and the environment. These may include POPs such as brominated flame retardants, (potential) endocrine disrupters such as phthalates, various solvents and colourants, and heavy metals. Manufacturers of products that include hazardous chemical components fail to document, and are thus not able to control the handling and use of these chemicals through the complex supply chain. Workers are unknowingly exposed to them; consumers are unable to identify which products may be contaminated and to what extent by toxic chemicals; and waste streams are inadvertently contaminated. Strategic Approach stakeholders have prioritized four product sectors for urgent action: electronics, building products, toys, and textiles. Significant efforts into e-waste have highlighted the environmental problems caused by inappropriate disposal, including production of dioxin and furans[footnoteRef:13]. [13: Li H, Yu L, Sheng G, Fu J, Peng P.. 2007. Severe PCDD/F and PBDD/F pollution in air around an electronic waste dismantling area in China. Environ Sci Technol 41:5641–5646]
SAICM stakeholders have collectively identified these global priority issues, but gaps remain in generating the political will to address them. There is a need to accelerate the adoption of regulatory, supply chain, certification, labelling and other measures to reduce the presence and risks of these chemicals. There is a widening capacity gap between developed and developing/emerging countries in identification and management of the risks posed by these chemicals, since research into the effects of novel chemicals, and regulatory and voluntary responses for established hazards, are concentrated in OECD and developed countries. Therefore, there is a pressing need for developing countries to close capacity and regulatory gaps for proven harmful chemicals; and to tackle research and monitoring gaps for chemicals whose risks remain uncertain.
An analysis of barriers for the sound management of chemicals during a series of regional SAICM meetings resulted in the 2015 Overall Orientation and Guidance which proposes six priority activity areas to address key barriers to 2020:
(a) Enhance the responsibility of stakeholders: promoting and reinforcing commitment and multisectoral engagement;
(b) Establish and strengthen national legislative and regulatory frameworks for chemicals and waste: improving capacity to address the basic elements of the sound management of chemicals and waste and encouraging regional cooperation;
(c) Mainstream the sound management of chemicals and waste in the sustainable development agenda: advancing risk reduction and enhancing the link between the sound management of chemicals and waste and health, labour, and social and economic development planning, processes and budgets;
(d) Increase risk reduction and information sharing efforts on emerging policy issues: continuing to promote actions on issues not currently addressed in existing agreements, complementing initiatives taken by other bodies;
(e) Promote information access: increasing the accessibility of relevant information and making it understandable for all levels of society;
(f) Assess progress towards the 2020 goal of minimizing the adverse effects of chemicals on human health and the environment: identifying achievements, understanding the gaps in implementation and prioritizing actions for achievement by 2020
With significant implementation and compliance gaps in relation to legally binding obligations under chemicals and waste MEAs, additional chemical safety issues may ‘compete’ for recognition, resources and political will. SAICM provides a voluntary mechanism to stimulate and support national regulatory and supply chain action, particularly in low and middle-income countries where such chemicals cause the most problems.
The following specific barriers relate to proposed project components:
Regulatory barriers:
A ’widening capacity gap’ is observed between countries that have restricted hazardous chemicals, and many developing and least developed countries where governments have not yet taken regulatory action to adopt policy frameworks that limit or ban production and use. Key barriers include:
· Lack of political will and prioritization of the issue, with governments and affected stakeholders (including manufacturers and exposed individuals) having inadequate appreciation and understanding of the risks of continued use, and of the regulatory options available to ban, restrict, or manage exposure to these chemicals
· Lack of development and implementation of relevant legislation within the majority of countries, incentives for the treatment of hazardous fractions and standards for responsible and safe EEE management, focusing on the entire product life;
· Insufficient capacity for risk assessment and risk reduction in developing countries, including lack of consideration of the health and environmental impacts of the continued use in regulatory decisions, which is in turn caused by inadequate monitoring, poor systems for sharing of data that may be available;
· Uncertainty about effectiveness of hazardous substances (such as adding flame retardant) and availability of alternatives among regulating authorities, leading to different and occasionally excessive minimum required amounts of such substances in products across different jurisdictions;
· Low awareness of environmentally sound and safer alternatives to lead in paint, at local level (e.g., in SMEs) and nationally and regionally (by regulators and other authorities), which contributes to low political will to address gaps in regulation and control of these products.
Lifecycle management barriers:
Reducing the use of hazardous substances in products and in electric and electronic equipment requires (a) upstream measures to design products with fewer toxics, and (b) to reduce the amount of such products through extending their product lifetime and hence reduce demand for more products. This is hampered by:
· Insufficient availability of information on chemicals used in products and processes through the many manufacturing stages of most products in complex supply chains, spread over numerous countries. This results in a corresponding lack of information at the consumer and end-of-life phases, greatly complicating the proper management of products for these stakeholders
· Lack of incentives to design products for minimum use of hazardous substances; also a lack of co-ordinating and integrating such an objective through the supply chain to ensure minimum use of hazardous substances in components, and to avoid overuse of hazardous substances through addressing the same design objective redundtantly across multiple components;
· Insufficient incentives for design of longevity into products, which reduces the aggregated amount of hazardous substances used through an overall reduced production rate;
· Limited application of the principles of Green Chemistry, notably the principles of prevention of waste and of production and use of more benign chemicals, and Circular Economy, with a focus on providing the information needed for recyclers to safely reintroduce the maximum materials back into production processes
Note:
Experiences on the downstream part of the life cycle, in particular collection and treatment of e-waste, are being collected through a number of ongoing approaches including GEF supported projects. Consequently, this component does not address e-waste and related barriers but focusses solely on upstream challenges, to efficiently reduce the amount of hazardous substances at source, and therefore does not focus on barriers to e-waste recycling.
Global strategy for implementation of EPI controls:
· Lack of systematic and objectively verifiable global monitoring of progress on adoption of measures at the global level on EPIs
· Inadequate information exchange on EPIs in a format appropriate for diverse stakeholders in developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Difficulty in accessing information, knowledge, evidence, and resources can prevent strong justification of proposed measures and causes delay in widespread adoption of regulatory or supply chain best practices.
· Limited mainstreaming of chemical management at the global level into broader sustainability agendas including for specific policy and product sectors
2. Baseline scenario and associated baseline projects
Lead in Paint: For lead in paint, regulatory controls and best practices are established and already adopted in many developed, transition and developing countries. The political visibility given to the issue through a global process such as SAICM helps to overcome the lack of political will in developing countries without regulations, but further work at national level is needed to achieve the known regulatory measures needed. Additionally, technical guidelines, BAT/BEPs and new PPP approaches are required to eliminate lead in paint in manufacturing by SMEs. The Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead Paint (Lead Paint Alliance) was established under the auspices of UN Environment and WHO, and with governments, IPEN and industry represented in its governing Advisory Group. It aims to phase out the use of lead in paint by 2020. The Action Plan for 2015-2016 includes a target that “20 more countries will have adopted new legal limits on lead paint, bringing the total countries with existing legal limits to 72”; as of August 2016, 62 countries have introduced laws or regulations. Such laws or regulations can include legal limits, certification standards, or labelling requirements. The Lead Paint Alliance works towards the goal of having such laws or regulations in place in all the countries by 2020, by developing regulatory guidance for governments and raising awareness through an annual International Lead Poisoning Prevention Week of Action (end October). Widespread public awareness of both risks and alternatives can provide additional pressure on decision makers to take the regulatory steps needed to reduce exposure and risks to people, especially vulnerable populations who are disproportionately affected. ‘Champion countries’ in East Africa and CEE have already taken a proactive approach and sought support from the Global Alliance to introduce new legal approaches. The International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) executed a European Commission funded project in eight Asian countries (Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, China, Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia), with follow up civil society projects funded by the SAICM Quick Start Programme in Cameroon and Nepal. In June 2016, UN Environment convened a workshop in Chisinau to assist countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia to develop legal limits to lead paint. Lessons from this project will be incorporated into this project. GEF projects on LiP are summarized in Section 5. Through these and other activities, the Lead Paint Alliance now has the support of governments, environmental NGOs and industry alike and is thus well positioned to promote successful elimination of lead in paint globally.
Source: WHO http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/phe/lead_paint/atlas.html
CiP: ICCM2 agreed priorty sectors for CiP namely textiles, toys, building products and electronics. CiP information systems do exist for products in some sectors, based on individual company needs or initiatives, leading to a patchwork of information systems that meet the main proponent’s needs, but which have not been taken up widely in the sectors. The programme on CiP was adopted by ICCM4 in 2015 and has developed an indicative list of the kinds of information exchange schemes and tools that already exist in different sectors[footnoteRef:14]. [14: UNEP (2015) Guidance for stakeholders on exchanging chemicals in products information]
The CiP programme identifies three core information objectives for SAICM stakeholders, including to: know and exchange in supply chains information on what chemicals are in products, associated hazards and sound management practicies; disclose information of relevance to stakeholders outside the supply chain to assist in informed decision making about CiP; and ensure, through due diligence, that information is accurate, current and accessible.
Examples of existing CiP schemes or tools for the project sectors include various tools developed to assess materials or ingredients of building products (e.g. the BASTA Building materials database; the Health Product Declaration Open Standard™Pharos Building materials). Uptake of these and other tools is not tracked, and data from the different tools has not been compared or compiled to provide a global overview either of the companies or products that do use such systems: or of the data within these systems on specific CoCs. Toy product manufacturers and their component and material suppliers must comply with regulations and legislation that have a global impact, such as the REACH and Toy Safety Directive of the European Union, and the Children’s Safe Products Act Reporting Rule of Washington State (United States). Since 2011, the Hong Kong Toys Council has jointly developed a standard system for toy chemical safety compliance management. In the electronics sector the BOMcheck Electronic system supporting compliance with regulations (e.g., EU REACH) builds on other tools such as the Joint Industry Guide IPC 1752 Standard for materials declaration. Other standards also exsit such as the harmonized International Electrotechnical Commission Database Standard 62474a which provides data to downstream manufacturers, or the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT®) helping purchasers, manufacturers, resellers and others to identify environmentally preferable electronic devices. The textile sector is relatively well organized with respect to identification and substitution of hazardous substances, with many lessons that can be shared with other sectors, for example the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Substances programme (see also Section 5 for GEF-funded projects on chemicals in textiles). Previous studies have shown that regulatory drivers, the requirement to provide information to regulators, are important in establishing tracking systems, but during the PPG the project will identify other voluntary or market drivers, as well as identifying and analysing existing schemes.
Information on toxics in specific products is needed to drive risk management and eventually substitution by alternative, lower risk chemicals and processes.. The “dearth of infrastructure for companies to ensure transparency on the product-level” has been highlighted as a critical factor hampering a transition to a circular economy as circular businesses need to know the resources used to manufacture a particular product[footnoteRef:15].While many product sectors have adopted a broad sustainability agenda, this is often focused on energy efficiency, water or natural resource use, with few examples of private sector initiatives that explicitly address chemical impacts and use of toxics in supply chains, in products and at consumer level. The SAICM Overall Orientation and Guidance[footnoteRef:16] calls for chemical producers and suppliers to make information on chemical exposure, hazards and safer alternatives available to distributors, workers, consumers and users at all levels in the supply chain (paragraph 68). A number of tools exist to support assessment, communication and promotion of more sustainable products, but focus on broader sustainability aspects such as energy use, natural resource use, or climate change and do not integrate toxics impacts adequately. Life Cycle Assessment is used by many industry stakeholders to compare alternatives, and an initiative to strengthen consideration of health effects of toxic chemicals has been initiated by the UN Environment/SETAC Lifecycle Initiative. USEtox is a model developed by the Life Cycle Initiative to characterize human and ecotoxicological impacts of chemicals, allowing manufacturers to assess specific toxicity from chemicals in their products. This kind of information can provide information for Sustainable Public Procurement and other consumer information resources such as the GoodGuide to consumer products and companies, and includes significant focus on chemicals content.UN Environment’s 10YFP Consumer Information Programme has developed ‘Guidelines for providing product sustainability information’ to be piloted in 2017, including in the chemicals sector. Many industry sustainability forums facilitate cooperation on environmental issues, including for consumer goods, telecommunications and others, but these tend to focus on energy, water, or natural resource use, without criteria or standards on toxics contained in products. [15: Dutch Sustainability Business Association, 2015, Governments going circular] [16: Overall orientation and guidance for achieving the 2020 goal of sound management of chemicals: The future we want for the sound management of chemicals http://www.saicm.org/images/saicm_documents/OOG%20document%20English.pdf ]
Strategic planning and knowledge management: The Secretariat tracks progress on SAICM based on 20 indicators (reports available for 2009-2010 and 2011-2013). These indicators do not explicitly address EPIs, and stakeholders called for an analysis of their continued use in ICCM 4 Resolution IV/1 para 18. Further work is needed to develop concrete and objectively verifiable targets for each emerging policy issue in line with the Sustainable Development Goals. UN Environment hosted an initial workshop in 2016[footnoteRef:17] to explore opportunities for integration of existing monitoring with the SDGs. [17: April 2016 workshop on ‘Integrated National Implementation of SDGs and International Chemicals and Waste Agreements’]
The SAICM Secretariat facilitates information sharing, through regional meetings and globally during ICCM, Open Ended Working Group and other inter-sessional events but the relevant documents containing much data and experience remain ‘hidden’ in workshop reports and are not extracted and compiled in an easy-to-access format.. Access to resources through the SAICM website is under-developed, with lack of analysis of potential overlaps and links with other sources (Basel Rotterdam and Stockholm site, Global Sustainable Consumption and Production clearinghouse, UN Environment Live). For each EPI, communication efforts are made with its own constituency including scientists, private sector supply chains, and end users and victims of chemical exposure, but there is a lack of a global coordination which ultimately limits the reach of such communication efforts and hinders effective lesson learning and contribute to duplication of effort. Nationally and regionally, the Quick Start Programme has supported information exchanging systems such as a Poison information network for the Pacific, on PCB management in Asia, and support to national Pollution Release and Transfer Registers. The PPG will conduct a review of existing outreach and information sharing efforts and during the project a detailed communication and information need assessment will address all stakeholders to design a knowledge management strategy that can help share and expand the reach of existing communication efforts by stakeholders on all EPIs.
Chemicals and waste management has been integrated into diverse Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) rather than as a stand-alone Goal on chemicals and waste, including among others, oceans and water quality, air quality and climate change, sustainable cities and urbanization or industrial transformation to a ‘green economy’. However, this approach relies on effective links between the chemicals agenda (through SAICM) and other policy, science and private sector initiatives. Further engagement by all sectors (health, agriculture, trade and industry) at a high level, and with external agendas and processes (on climate change, urbanization, water and wetlands, sustainable consumption and development planning) will facilitate the necessary policy and behavioural shifts to achieve the 2020 SAICM Goal and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The World Health Assembly adopted Resolution 69.4 in 2016 on SAICM, and WHO has developed a road map to enhance health sector engagement. Human rights stakeholders have engaged with the 2020 goal via two Special Rapporteurs on Toxics and the Right to Food. Other stakeholders have identified linkages between chemicals and other issues including gender[footnoteRef:18] or child labour[footnoteRef:19]. The Special Programme on Institutional Strengthening approved its first seven projects in 2016, aiming to strengthen national implementation of BRS, Minamata and SAICM commitments, including through better engagement and coordination between sectors and institutions. The PPG will identify existing areas of collaboration with stakeholders across diverse sectors, and identify gaps, best practices/ lessons and concrete mechanisms for engagement (e.g. policy briefs, joint events, communication materials, joint hosting of structures and processes, etc). These will inform the design of the project in terms of outreach to broader sustainability themes and communities. [18: Women in Europe for a Common Future (2016), Women and Chemicals The impact of hazardous chemicals on women A thought starter based on an experts‘ workshop] [19: International Labor Organization (2011) Children in hazardous work: What we know, what we need to do]
3. Proposed Alternative Scenario:
The Overall Orientation and Guidance endorsed at ICCM4 identified increased risk reduction and information sharing efforts on emerging policy issues as one of the six core activity areas to 2020. GEF resources available for SAICM under Programs 1 and 6, and for POPs under Program 3, are needed to take a coherent approach to the EPIs, take stock, and plan actions up to and beyond 2020. Without such funding, the proposed activities are unlikely to be achieved in the critical period to 2020. The following subsections outline the proposed components.
Component 1: Lead in Paint: The project will stimulate national regulatory action and engage the private sector, to ban known toxic chemicals, and provide global best practice on the necessary conditions and inputs that are most effective in generating political will to take action at the national level. It will support achievement of the aspirational target of the Global Alliance strategy for all countries to have legal limits on lead in paints in place by 2020.
Output 1.1 Demonstration pilots with paint manufacturers in Small and Medium Enterprises:
· Best Available Technology (BAT)/Best Environmental Practice (BEP) demonstration through investment for the phase-out of lead containing paint in companies selected in close consultation with the relevant governments according to technical and feasibility criteria.
· Establishing public and private partnership, strengthening institutional framework and capacity, and raising awareness in selected countries.
· Extending the public private partnership approach to other countries through the Global Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production network.
Output 1.2 Global Technical guidelines on BAT/BEP for manufacturers :
· Global Technical guidance will be produced on the pilot projects, including technical detail on phase out, on waste management, and financial incentives and new business models that can support phase out.
Output 1.3 Policy advocacy and and public awareness campaigns generate support for lead phase-out:
· Strengthening and developing technical resources, including an online toolkit, with a guide for regulating lead in paint, including sample legal language & examples of national legislative instruments.
· Promotion of the Toolkit through regional workshops and development of regional action plans to coordinate national commitments, establish regional mechanisms, regular reporting on progress to the Global Alliance.
· Targeted support for 40 countries on request to apply the Toolkit resources in their own context and introduce legal limits and other measures.
· Supporting the established Lead Poisoning Prevention Week campaign, delivered by health and environment partners all over the world, topromote consumer awareness, particularly among women, children, and other highly exposed groups of the risks of leaded paint. As well as changing purchasing decisions, public awareness via the Week of Action can stimulate policitical will for regulatory measures that can achieve lead phase out.
Component 2: CiP: The project addresses the barriers toward sound management of chemicals in products by compiling and expanding CiP systems and by demonstrating how they can be linked to SCP tools to trigger risk management measures. The project will address three of the four priority sectors (toys, building products and electronics). The relatively more developed baseline scenario and existing organisation in the textiles sector will serve to inform activities in the other three sectors (refer to Baseline and Coordination Sections in this document).
Output 2.1 Platform to identify and quantify CoCs present in supply chains, based on existing and expanded Chemicals in Products (CiP) initiatives:
· Coordinated mechanism and platform to share existing information on companies and initiatives.
· facilitate expansion of information collection on additional chemicals and new companies or stakeholders.
Output 2.2 Green Economy tools and guidance refer to CiP data to improve product design, purchasing, and use practices:
· Share expertise from UN Environment’s SCP branch to promote and expand sound chemical management through consumer information sharing, green procurement policies, lifecycle assessment tools and calculations, and green economy/green design initiatives.
· During the PPG phase, the Natural Resources Defence Council will also be included in the project to further develop and share their experiences in the textile sector, to inform new work in the three priority SAICM sectors which will be addressed in this project.
· Once companies in these sectors engage actively in the CiP Programme on tracking and reporting chemical use, they will be a key constituency for the project to reach out to and encourage adoption of the sustainability tools developed or strengthened under Output 3.2.
· Regional studies to define circular economy approaches for better management of electronic products through their lifecycle.
Component 3: Strategic planning and knowledge management: This component will provide the overall framework for each of the three chemical-specific components, ensuring effective experience sharing and close integration of the project results with the ongoing and future development of the Strategic Approach, including for the beyond 2020 period as it develops during the project lifetime.
Output 3.1 Knowledge management platform and new mechanisms to communicate science and best practices in policy development:
· Detailed stakeholder knowledge needs assessment and review of other information sharing portals on chemical management.
· Development and implementation of outreach and communication strategy for diverse stakeholders, including government, private sector and community level.
· Establishment of project Knowledge Management platform, supporting each of the components in disseminating specific technical knowledge products, and transition to SAICM Information Clearing House at project end.
Output 3.2 A list of measurable indicators to monitor project progress on Emerging Policy Issues in line with the Sustainable Development Goals:
· A strategy for implementing and monitoring project progress on the EPIs will be developed and shared with the beyond 2020 planning and ongoing work on defining the detailed SDG targets.
Output 3.3 Multi-stakeholder engagement from other sectors and agendas:
· Review of sectors and stakeholders of relevance to chemical management confirmed (this will be started during the PPG), and compilation of best practices and institutional arrangements that support effective stakeholder engagement.
· Joint development with technical leads of components, of policy briefs or publications on the role of chemicals management within diverse sectors, and presentation at relevant events (e.g. on cities, biodiversity, product sectors, or other).
· Outreach and advocacy with sectors to integrate chemical management issues into their approaches, and development of joint initiatives or projects.
Component 4: Monitoring and Evaluation: The detailed M&E plan will be developed and delivered by the Executing Agency, to track achievement of the project objectives and indicators.
4.1. Quarterly financial reports and annual progress reports monitoring status of project execution:
· Annual Project Implementation Report (PIR).
· Quarterly financial report.
· Establishment of decision making and coordination structure.
4.2. Midterm and Terminal Evaluations of project impacts shared with SAICM stakeholders.
4. Incremental reasoning
Without GEF assistance, international activities on Emerging Issues identified under SAICM are likely to remain uncoordinated, incoherent and ineffective. GEF assistance will ensure SAICM can provide guidance and leadership on Emerging Issues, support developing ‘champion’ countries in addressing these issues in a coordinated and effective manner, and share lessons learned and knowledge with other countries.
The project delivery is based on an unprecedented degree of collaboration and joint working between members of the IOMC, the private sector and civil society. This level of close collaboration across all three components will require close oversight and coordination by the Executing Agency and it is anticipated that the close working relationships to be established will provide the conditions for sustainability, and scaling up of future activities.
5. Global Environmental Benefits
Humans and ecosystems are simultaneously exposed to multiple combinations of chemicals, multiplying uncertainty around impacts of exposure to individual chemicals. Many chemicals may feature in one or more categories. In this context, the chemical-by-chemical regulatory approach is increasingly unable to address the global environmental and health risks posed by these chemicals. The project will deliver the integrated, collaborative and multistakeholder approach needed.
The CiP component will address new POPs in products, such as brominated flame retandants and PFOS, in building products and electronics supply chains.
The project will integrate SAICM targets and priorities into national regulatory and sectoral planning frameworks and in global supply chains. For lead in paint, direct global environmental benefits will be achieved through the pilot demonstrations the selected countries for the phase out of lead-containing paint in each country. Indirect global environmental benefits will be achieved through developed and enforced legal limits for the use of lead in paint. In total, the project will result in introduction of lead limits in 40 countries; and introduction of targets to replace POPs and other priority chemicals in at least three product supply chains.
6. Innovation, sustainability and potential for scaling up
The project addresses threats associated with new, emerging, and ‘live’ chemicals that may be widely distributed in the environment, in our bodies, in products, and in supply chains. The chemical issues addressed under SAICM are unlikely ever to be the subject of international, legally binding controls such as those included under the Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm or Minamata Conventions; and therefore a different approach is needed which prioritizes collaborative, coordinated and decentralized voluntary efforts by many stakeholders. The voluntary and multi-stakeholder structure of SAICM is able to deliver this approach.
The lessons learnt and best practices developed in Component 1 will be applicable for new chemicals as consensus is reached on the need for decentralized, national regulatory action by all stakeholders. The component will develop approaches and methods to stimulate action by countries and stakeholders at the lower end of the ‘widening gap’ in capacity for sound management of chemicals. Working with ‘hard to reach’ partners, including LDCs and SIDs, or the SME part of industrial production chains, or the most vulnerable population groups, the project will seek to consolidate best practices that can be applied more widely to future chemical hazards. Eventually, legal limits will drive innovation for environmentally benign products that may bring additional benefits in terms of higher quality and more economical products for users.
Under Component 2, the project will reach out to new stakeholders throughout supply chains in the private sector, based on already demonstrated needs for CiP information, and calls for a more efficient approach from numerous sectors. The potential for scale up is driven by the stakeholder needs, as well as the similarity in approaches across regions (within a given products sector) and across sectors (i.e. lesson learned from various approaches can be transferred).
The effective collaboration between numerous members of the IOMC will require close oversight and coordination by the Executing Agency. The close working relationships established will provide the conditions for sustainability. The close integration with the SAICM structure and mandate, especially in terms of strategic planning, monitoring progress, and knowledge sharing, means that project outputs in terms of knowledge management platforms, M&E systems, and strategic plans, will be designed and developed in a way that allows them to be adopted as future SAICM resources and ensure sustainability and scale-up.
2. Stakeholders. Will project design include the participation of relevant stakeholders from civil society organizations (yes |_| /no|_|) and indigenous peoples (yes |_| /no|_|)? If yes, identify key stakeholders and briefly describe how they will be engaged in project preparation.
SAICM brings together diverse stakeholders, and this project targets government, private sector, and researchers through the three technical components addressing the EPIs under this project and related MSPs to be submitted. The following table outlines key international and national stakeholders and their proposed respective roles in the project preparatory phase, and the execution phase. Design and delivery of the cross-cutting Component 3 will include input from all stakeholders, including on coordinated production and dissemination of communication products, country and sector engagement, and monitoring of progress.
Stakeholder
Proposed engagement in PPG process
Proposed engagement in project
International
UN Environment
Implementing Agency (IA), will coordinate the development and design of the project, and consult with stakeholders.
UN Environment Chemicals and Wastes Branch staff will provide targeted technical assistance on Lead in Paint as joint lead of the Global Alliance, and on the HHP, CiP, EPPPs and EDCs activities.
IA, will be responsible for implementing most of the project, apart from output 1.1, in line with project budget and workplan, and overseeing Executing Agency (SAICM).
UN Environment Chemicals and Wastes and Sustainable Consumption and Production Branches will provide targeted technical assistance and project coordination.
SAICM Secretariat
Executing Agency (EA) will cooperate with UN Environment on the design and development of the project.
EA responsible for execution of the project; timely and quality delivery by partners; reporting and coordination. They will also deliver Component 34 activities.
WHO
WHO will design component 3 on activities related to EDCs and EPPPs, and for HHP.
WHO will be a key executing partner, working closely with UN Environment on execution of Component 3.
FAO
FAO will design the outputs on HHP during the PPG and lead the consultation with participating countries and other stakeholders.
FAO will be a key executing partner on activities related to HHP, and will execute HHP activities.
UNITAR
UNITAR will design component 3 on activities related to nano.
UNITAR will be a key executing partner, working closely with UN Environment on execution of Component 3.
IPEN
IPEN will design components relevant to its 2020 strategic programme, including LiP and , HHP, CiP, EDCs and EPPPs.
IPEN will be an executing partner working closely with IOMC organizations to deliver project outputs, including coordination of national members where relevant
National and international scientific bodies
The International Panel on Chemical Pollution, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Endocrine Society, and other scientific groups may advise on the technical field study projects for Component 3
UNIANDES Colombia may deliver the field study and technical reports on nano-safety in Colombia and the wider region. IPPC and SETAC may deliver the reports on EDC. (subject to confirmation during PPG)
Private sector
Regional, global and sector-specific stakeholders will be mapped and consulted during the PPG.
Private sector actors in the toys, building products and electronics sectors will be involved in the CiP component; including sustainability standards and tools. Companies will also be involved through PPPs under the LiP component.
National
Ministries of Industry
UN Environment will coordinate governments in selected countries in design and development of the pilot projects on phase out of lead in paint in small or medium entreprises. Additionally other Ministries in the resp. countries will be consulted such as the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Health and other relevant Ministries.
The government agencies will oversee the pilot projects to phase out the use of lead in paint production in the selected countries, and coordinate experience sharing with other countries and regions.
Industry
Leaded paint manufacturers in the LAC region and production facilities throughout the toys, building products and electronics sectors will be involved in project design.
National industrial stakeholders will deliver the LiP demonstration projects and the CiP information sharing component.
National Cleaner Production Centers and RECP network (output 1.1.)
Where applicable, National Cleaner Production Centers will be involved during PPG activities on the design of output 1.1.
For the National Cleaner Production Centers in relevant countries, contractual scheme will be put in place to carry out project activities.
The RECPnet knowledge management will contribute to creating a vibrant community of practitioners among the NCPCs and other network members.
National authorities
National agriculture, health and environment authorities will inform the design of the HHP component in their countries including selecting regions for surveys and providing baseline information on pesticide registrations and alternatives in use.
The ministries staff will participate in HHP training and oversee the execution of the HHP outputs.
Civil society
IPEN members will be identified and approached in countries where project activities will take place
IPEN and its national members will deliver actions in line with their existing experiences and programmes (e.g. HHP, LiP, CiP etc.)
3. Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. Are issues on gender equality and women’s empowerment taken into account? (yes |X| /no|_|). If yes, briefly describe how it will be mainstreamed into project preparation (e.g. gender analysis), taking into account the differences, needs, roles and priorities of women and men.
Vulnerable groups, including women (especially women of child bearing age), children (especially unborn children), the elderly, people with immune disorders, and highly exposed workers including in the informal sector such as waste pickers and subsistence farmers, experience differential vulnerability, biological responses and impacts of exposure to chemicals. Endocrine disrupting chemicals have specific impacts on men or women, who display ‘sensitivity windows’ during key development phases in the foetus and during childhood and puberty, when impacts may be considerably different to those experienced at other times. Social factors determine exposure levels, with women, children and vulnerable workers such as immigrants not able to access necessary protective equipment or training when working with or handling dangerous chemicals. Gender cuts across all project components, and during the PPG phase a gender review will propose gender disaggregated indicators for the Project logical framework.
Component 1: During the PPG phase, an assessment of the impacts of LiP on women in participating countries will outline the specific vulnerabilities of women, and provide recommendations for improving opportunities for women. The project will specifically target women during the lead paint and blood sampling, and investigation of health and environmental incidents relating to HHPs.
Component 2: Gender and vulnerable groups aspects include assessment of differential risk (for example gender differences in worker rights to information and protection), and of differential opportunities for women, which will lead to the use of gender indicators in the logframe.
Component 3: The PPG gender analysis will focus on the specific information and technology needs for professional women involved in chemical management, ensuring opportunities for women to participate in Communities of Practice and networks to increase access to information. The Knowledge Management component will coordinate development of and share resources on impacts of chemical management on women and other vulnerable groups.
4 Risks. Indicate risks, including climate change, potential social and environmental risks that might prevent the project objectives from being achieved, and, if possible, propose measures that address these risks to be further developed during the project design (table format acceptable).
Risk
Risk ranking
Mitigation measures
Governments supportive, but lack adequate resources to be engaged
Low
Significant efforts will be made during the PPG phase to understand the needs of each participating country, and to broaden awareness of the project among stakeholders.
Laboratory analytical capacity for lead is available.
Low
Annecdotal evidence from initial discussion with participating countries) involved in the project indicate facilities are available. The PPG will confirm this situation, and if analytical capacity is not available, mobile units will be used.
SMEs are able/willing to phase out lead in paint
Medium
The PPG will involve baselining of the SMEs in the selected countries, manufacturing paint containing lead, and consultations with these SMEs to enure buy-in to project activities.
Companies willing to share data on chemicals identified as CoC
Medium
The baseline study conducted in the PPG will identify companies that already collect this kind of data, and consult with partners to identify the conditions under which they will be willing to share data (e.g. anonymity or others).
Lack of stakeholder, community and NGO interest in the project
Low
Anecdotal evidence from discussions with project counterparts during PIF development indicates this risk is low. Stakeholders are actively engaged with the emerging issues addressed in this project.
Lack of collaboration between IOMC agencies, and other delivery partners
Medium
The large number of delivery partners involved may be difficult for the Executing Agency to manage. Close attention will be paid during the PPG to agree the detailed scope of activities for each partner, but also a coordinating mechanism for decision making by component, which gives each partner a strong voice in technical decision making.
Impacts of climate change on the project
Low
The PPG will consider closely climate change risks on a country-by-country basis, once interventions have ben defined.
5. Coordination. Outline the coordination with other relevant GEF-financed and other initiatives.
Lead paint Elimination Project in Africa (GEF ID 5633): This ongoing UN Environment/IPEN GEF-5 project (until June 2017) aims to eliminate the manufacture, import, sale and use of decorative paints in four countries (Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia and Tanzania), through collaboration between governments and NGOs, and to develop strategies to replicate actions elsewhere in the African region and beyond. In December 2015, UN Environment convened a workshop in Addis Ababa liaising with the GEF-5 project where government officials from 11 African countries agreed to work towards the establishment of legal limits to lead in paint. The East African Community is currently working on a harmonised standard for lead in paint, and another UN Environment workshop was held to assist these efforts in Dar Es Salaam in September 2016. Potential for such regionally harmonised standards exist in the Economic Community of West African States, African Standards Organization, and the Caribbean Community.
Defining and demonstrating best practices for exchange of information on chemicals in textile products (GEF ID 5662): This ongoing project in China is being executed by the Government of China until end 2017, and aims to identify and demonstrate access to information on chemicals contained in textile products; while a new project is under development expanding to Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and Vietnam. This project proposes to take lessons and approaches from the relatively advanced textile sector and apply them in other sectors to develop information sharing and catalyzing action to remove the most hazardous chemicals from the supply chain.
Future Medium Sized Project: A project is under development with IOMC partners to cover additional EPI areas including EDCs, EPPPs and Nano materials. This project will be submitted and run in parallel with this new proposal. The project will feed into the newly developed Knowledge management system established under this project. The MSP will build on the following work implemented through IOMC partners:
EDCs: The Chemicals and Waste Branch at UN Environment has commissioned the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP) to prepare global level reports on: identification of recognized or potential EDCs; available data on levels and trends of EDCs in different regions; and regulatory and policy actions taken by countries (largely in OECD countries). The technical information coming out of this process during the project period will inform analysis by the group of developing and transition country experts and policy makers set up by the GEF project. The project will expand these technical studies in developing and transition economies, using similar methodologies, approaches and structures.
EPPPs: WHO is undertaking the Pre-qualification of Medicines Programme, the Member State Mechanism on Substandard/spurious/falsely-labelled falsified/counterfeit medical products and development and implementation of the Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance. UN Environment is undertaken an initial scoping and mapping exercise, aiming at collecting and compiling information, studies, practices in place, applicable legislation, stakeholders and work being undertaken that can serve as the basis to add understanding on EPPPs situation. The project research and technical studies will fill gaps identified during these activities, and results will feed into those global efforts.
HHP activities under the QSP: The Quick Start Programme funded HHP projects in Mozambique and Paraguay, and SAICM stakeholders endorsed the approach. The project will follow a similar approach, and consider other projects by other stakeholders (e.g. in Costa Rica by the Pesticide Action Network) and bring in experience from all regions to identify global commonalities and best practices.
6. Consistency with National Priorities. Is the project consistent with the National strategies and plans or reports and assessements under relevant conventions? (yes |X| /no|_| ). If yes, which ones and how: NAPAs, NAPs, ASGM NAPs, MIAs, NBSAPs, NCs, TNAs, NCSAs, NIPs, PRSPs, NPFE, BURs, INDCs, etc.
From 2008 to 2012, the Quick Start Programme supported National Profiles and SAICM Implementation Plans in over 50 countries (http://cwm.unitar.org/national-profiles/nphomepage/np3_region.aspx). A process of stakeholder consultation and engagement led to these national strategic documents and action plans, and they contain the nationally identified priorities for chemicals management. The PPG phase will confirm the specific case study countries, for LiP, HHP, EDCs, nano and EPPP, based on a number of criteria of which an important one will be the prioritization of the chemical issue in these National Profiles or other national priority setting plans.
Resolutions from the SAICM community as adopted at ICCM4 have been the driver for the project design. In addition to the technical resolutions as described in the Baseline section, the Conference also endorsed overall orientation and guidance (OOG) for achieving the 2020 goal of sound management of chemicals (SAICM/ICCM.4/6). The project contributes to all six core activity areas of the Overall Orientation and Guidance (please refer to Part II, Barriers).
7. Knowledge Management. Outline the knowledge management approach for the project, including, if any, plans for the project to learn from other relevant projects and initiatives, to assess and document in a user-friendly form, and share these experiences and expertise with relevant stakeholders.
Knowledge management is a substantive element of this project given the importance of information sharing as one of the five core objectives of the SAICM Overarching Policy Strategy. The knowledge management approach, links with other projects and initiatives, and effective documentation and sharing of experience are described in detail under Component 3. Briefly recapping, the cross cutting knowledge management component will present results from all three EPIs technical components to all SAICM stakeholders in a coordinated and consistent manner. The platform design will follow a systematic technological and information needs assessment, and once it is up and running, the Secretariat will actively manage and populate it with the component specific information and knowledge products.
Links with other information platforms will be maximized while avoiding duplication. Available UN Environment platforms like the Indicator Reporting Information System (IRIS) and UN Environment Live will be included in the need assessment. IRIS is an online national reporting system to facilitate reporting at all levels and to make it easier to take stock of the environment. Launched in 2014, UN Environment Live provides data access to both the public and policy makers using distributed networks, cloud computing, big data and improved search functions. UN Environment Live fills gaps between data providers and consumers, extending the knowledge base for global environmental policy-making and evidence-based analysis. UN Environment Live hosts Communities of Practice (CoP), which allow practitioners to share knowledge, best practices, ask/answer questions of their colleagues and peers. The project may establish such communities for each project component to ensure that practitioners from different geographic locations and disciplines can share information on lead in paint; HHPs; CiP;EDCs; nano and EPPPs.
part iii: approval/endorsement by gef operational focal point(s) and GEF agency(ies)
A. Record of Endorsement[footnoteRef:20] of GEF Operational Focal Point (s) on Behalf of the Government(s): (Please attach the Operational Focal Point endorsement letter(s) with this template. For SGP, use this SGP OFP endorsement letter). [20: For regional and/or global projects in which participating countries are identified, OFP endorsement letters from these countries are required even though there may not be a STAR allocation associated with the project.]
Name
Position
Ministry
Date (MM/dd/yyyy)
B. GEF Agency(ies) Certification
This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies[footnoteRef:21] and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for project identification and preparation under GEF-6. [21: GEF policies encompass all managed trust funds, namely: GEFTF, LDCF, SCCF and CBIT]
Agency Coordinator, Agency name
Signature
Date
(MM/dd/yyyy)
Project Contact Person
Telephone
Brennan Van Dyke Director, UNEP GEF Coordination Office
April 18, 2017
Eloise Touni
+412291
78607
C. Additional GEF Project Agency Certification (Applicable Only to newly accredited GEF Project Agencies)
For newly accredited GEF Project Agencies, please download and fill up the required GEF Project Agency Certification of Ceiling Information Template to be attached as an annex to the PIF.
1
GEF-6 PIF Template-August2016