Annexe F : Consultations de 2005 sur le Plan national de mise en oeuvre en vertu de la Convention de Stockholm sur les polluants organiques persistants

  1. Introduction
  2. Observations et propositions d'ordre général
  3. Commentaires visant des parties particulières du Plan provisoire
  4. Commentaires sur le Plan d'action national (PAN) sur les POP produits involontairement
  5. Prochaines étapes

Le présent rapport résume les observations et les conclusions clés formulées au cours d'une réunion de consultation multilatérale des intervenants d'une journée tenue par Environnement Canada dans le but d'obtenir des observations et des propositions sur la version provisoire du Plan national de mise en uvre (PNMO) du Canada en vertu de la Convention de Stockholm sur les polluants organiques persistants (POP).

La partie I du PNMO traite de la démarche adoptée par le Canada pour se conformer à toutes les conditions pertinentes de la Convention de Stockholm et comporte un chapitre sur les POP produits involontairement. Des précisions supplémentaires sur la démarche adoptée par le Canada pour les POP produits involontairement sont présentées dans la partie II du PNMO et constituent le Plan d'action national (PAN) du Canada sur les POP produits involontairement.

Cette réunion multilatérale de consultation des intervenants (voir l'annexe 1 : Ordre du jour) avait pour objectif d'obtenir des observations et des propositions d'intervenants représentatifs (voir l'annexe 2 : Participants) sur la version provisoire du Plan national de mise en oeuvre (PNMO) du Canada en vertu de la Convention de Stockholm sur les polluants organiques persistants (POP).

La réunion a débuté par un bref aperçu de la nature des engagements du Canada envers un tel plan national de mise en oeuvre et du processus d'élaboration de la version provisoire. On a ensuite procédé à des séances de discussion portant sur les deux principaux sujets qui sont les POP produits volontairement ou involontairement.

Après que les engagements de chaque partie des plans ont brièvement été discutés et précisés, les participants ont fait connaître leurs préoccupations à l'égard de la clarté ou de la pertinence des plans et formulé des propositions visant à renforcer ou à préciser les énoncés d'engagement ainsi que les plans, les processus ou les échéanciers prévus pour leur respect. La réunion n'avait pas pour but d'obtenir un consensus, mais les intervenants ont généralement exprimé leur opinion. Tous les points de vue ont été respectés et aucun domaine de désaccord important n'est apparu, ce qui ne veut pas dire que les intervenants étaient d'accord avec toutes les positions ou suggestions exposées.

Tel que mentionné au début de la réunion, la version provisoire du PNMO sera communiqué à d'autres pays à titre de document d'information au cours de la première Conférence des Parties (CdP-1) qui aura lieu du 2 au 6 mai 2005 en Uruguay. Le plan sera ensuite corrigé en fonction : i) des propositions faites par les participants à la réunion; ii) des observations écrites ultérieurement présentées par les participants (d'ici le 18 mars 2005 ); iii) des commentaires exprimés par écrit par le public, au 18 mars 2005, sur le site Web de consultation du Registre environnemental de la LCPE d'Environnement Canada, ainsi que des vues recueillies au cours de la CdP-1 et des avis exprimés par d'autres pays. Après la CdP-1, Environnement Canada examinera tous les avis obtenus et complétera le PNMO qui sera présenté, avant le 17 mai 2006, au nom du gouvernement du Canada à la Conférence des Parties. Des consultations finales seront cependant tenues avant que le PNMO définitif ne soit présenté à la Conférence.

Les observations et les propositions présentées dans ce chapitre, et dans tous les chapitres suivants, reflètent les vues des participants et sont rédigées dans leur perspective. Tel qu'indiqué dans l'introduction, l'atelier de consultation n'avait pas pour objet d'obtenir un consensus, mais les participants étaient généralement très en accord avec les vues des autres en ce qui a trait aux points présentés ci-après et dans les chapitres qui suivent.

De façon générale, et dans l'optique des intervenants, le plan semble couvrir tous les domaines d'engagement importants en vertu de la Convention et constitue un résumé raisonnablement complet et clair des politiques, des programmes et des stratégies qui permettent ou permettront au Canada de respecter ses engagements.

Les principales préoccupations ont trait au style plutôt « passif » utilisé dans le plan. Les autres préoccupations ont trait à quelques domaines où les engagements et les plans du gouvernement devraient être plus clairs ou pour lesquels d'autres mesures et éléments complémentaires devraient se traduire par une démarche nationale plus rigoureuse et plus complète.

On trouve ci-après un résumé des principales observations et propositions formulées. Elles sont traitées de façon plus détaillée, pour chacun des éléments du plan, dans les parties subséquentes du rapport.

S'engager à utiliser les résultats des travaux en cours, dans le cadre de la LCPE, sur la catégorisation et les incidences sur la santé et l'environnement pour fournir de l'information sur d'éventuels nouveaux POP préoccupants.

9h00 - 10h00
Inscription et échanges informels

10h00 - 10h15
Introduction, remarques d'ouverture et présentation de l'ordre du jour
Cheryl Heathwood, Environnement Canada
Phil Nicholson, facilitateur

10h15 - 10h30
Aperçu du PNMO du Canada: Objet, structure et processus
Greg Filyk, Environnement Canada

10h30 - 11h15

Chap. 3 : Mesures propres à réduire ou à éliminer les rejets résultant d'une production et d'une utilisation intentionnelles
Chap. 4 : Inscription de dérogations explicites et substances chimiques assujetties à un usage limité

  • Remarques générales
  • Propositions particulières, partie par partie


11h15 - 11h30
PAUSE

11h30 - 12h30

Chap. 5 (et PNMO, partie II) : Mesures propres à réduire le volume total des rejets résultant d'une production non intentionnelle : Plan d'action national du Canada (PAN)
Patrick Finlay, Environnement Canada

  • Remarques générales
  • Propositions particulières, partie par partie


12h30 - 13h30
REPAS DU MIDI (sur les lieux)

13h30 - 14h30
PAN du Canada (suite)

14h30 - 15h30

Chap. 6: Mesures propres à recenser et à gérer les stocks et les déchets

  • Remarques générales
  • Propositions particulières, partie par partie


15h30 - 15h45
PAUSE

15h45 - 16h30

Chap. 7 : Activités de soutien
Chap. 8 : Autres engagements

  • Remarques générales
  • Propositions particulières, partie par partie


16h30 - 16h50

Questions et dossiers en suspens

  • Discussion générale


16h50 - 17h00
Récapitulation et prochaines étapes
Cheryl Heathwood, Environnement Canada

Environnement Canada est lié par la Loi sur les langues officielles et les politiques pertinentes du Conseil du Trésor, de sorte que tous les renseignements fournis sur ce site sont offerts en français et en anglais. L'utilisateur doit toutefois être conscient que l'information provenant de sources externes peut être présentée uniquement dans la langue dans laquelle elle a été fournie.

Canadian Chemical Producers'
Suite 805, 350 Sparks Street
Ottawa ON K1R 7S8
T: 613-237-6215 F: 613-237-4061
www.ccpa.ca

March 7, 2005

Mr. Greg Filyk
Manager, POPs
Environment Canada
Transboundary Air Issues
351 St. Joseph Blvd.
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3

Dear Mr. Filyk,

RE: CCPA Comments on National Implementation Plan and Action Plan for POPs

Attached please find CCPA comments on the National Implementation Plan and National Action Plan for POPs. The comments are based on the version sent out before the consultation. The documents posted on the web are slightly different - e.g. Section 1.3.1 has a paragraph describing each individual POP. Overall, we found the plans were appropriate although rather long. We would hope that they could be edited to be shorter, sharper and more focused. We hope that comments from stakeholders do not lead to an even lengthier version. For this reason, CCPA has tried to keep its comments very concise and focused.

It is important to remember that Canada was able to ratify the Stockholm Convention because we concluded our existing policies and legislation allowed us to implement it. The National Implementation Plan and National Action Plans need to confirm this. We do not need the plan to make new policy and positions across numerous regulatory activities, and it should not be misused for this purpose. We are pleased to see that this is the case with the plan to date, and we hope this will continue to be the case. CCPA is somewhat concerned about the proposal to table the plan at the COP Meeting in Uruguay prior to its finalization. We believe that Canada should share the draft plan informally with other countries and this would be useful. However, to formally table it would add a sense of finality that is inappropriate at this stage. While Environment Canada did a good job in early 2004 of involving stakeholders early in the process of developing this plan, there was no further stakeholder involvement until February 14th, 2005. Had Environment Canada involved stakeholders at an earlier stage in reviewing the draft plan, we might be in a better position to table it at the COPMeeting, however this was not the case.

The National Action Plan should be a shorter, sharper and more focused document. The content should be a presentation of the Canadian successes that allowed us to accomplish the goals of the Stockholm Convention. We do not need to define more plans or policies, but must proactively have pride in listing our accomplishments and "tooting our own horn".

Sincerely,

Gordon Lloyd,
Vice-President, Technical Affairs

Enclosure

c.c.: Cheryl Heathwood, Environment Canada
Jean-Louis Wallace, Foreign Affairs Canada
Gary McGee, Industry Canada
Dave Shortt, Dow Chemical Canada Inc.

March 7, 2005

Specific CCPA Comments on
Canada's National Implementation Plan and National Action Plan
Re Stockholm Convention POPs

In Section 1.1, Paragraph 2, the reference should be to "voluntary programs and standards" as a reference to "voluntary standards" is too narrow.

In Section 1.3.1, the section on "What are POPs?" should conclude that under the Stockholm Convention POPs are substances that are added to the Convention. The preceding discussion in Section 1.3.1 provides a useful generic understanding of what POPs are all about, but is misleading in the context of the Convention, where a POP is what is added to the Stockholm Convention.

Section 1.3.2 should be refocused by deleting the second paragraph. This would remove speculative and potentially inflammatory language. The typo involving "for good" should be eliminated from the first paragraph - it should be "for food".

In Section 1.4 describing the Stockholm Convention, there should be a brief mention of the process for determining a substance as a POP including: review of a proposed POPs to see if it meets the scientific screening criteria (Annex D); the development of a risk profile (Annex E); and review of socio-economic considerations (Annex F). It should be noted that for POPs products there is an Annex A to add POPs when they are intended to be eliminated and an Annex B to add them when they are intended to be restricted and managed (e.g. DDT). For unintended byproduct POPs there is Annex C, where it should be noted that the approach is measures to reduce or eliminate releases with the goal of their continuing minimization and, where feasible, ultimate elimination. It should be explained that "feasible" is in the context of technically and economically feasible.

In Section 2.1.2 re economic and political profile, too rosy a picture of Canada's economic prospects is painted. While Canada ranked 6th in the world in GDP per capita in 2002, our prosperity is at risk due to ongoing problems with the gap in our productivity. Industry Canada should be asked to add a paragraph on this issue. Environment Canada should also include a paragraph on the emerging recognition within the Canadian Government that economic and environmental issues need to be looked at together as reflected in the development of a Competitiveness and Environmental Sustainability Framework.

In Section 2.3.1.3, the statement is made that "POPs targeted for action under the Stockholm Convention are designated as Track 1 substances under TSMP and targeted for virtual elimination". This might not necessarily be true of all substances that are subsequently added to the Convention. This should be qualified in the statement. While the TSMP discussion is useful, what is probably more relevant are the specific provisions in CEPA and the Pest Control Product Act.

In the CEPA Section 2.3.1.1, there should be some reference to virtual elimination requirements and a cross-reference to these in the TSMP Section. This should note that virtual elimination release limits are set for substances under CEPA taking into account health and environmental risks and socio-economic and technical factors, and this will apply to POPs.

At the end of Chapter 2, it is appreciated and appropriate that Responsible Care® Program is mentioned.

In Section 5.1 (second last paragraph) where the reference is made to "the goal of their continuing minimization and, where feasible, ultimate elimination", there should be a reference to the fact that feasible is understood in the Convention to include "economic and technically feasible". This was very clear in the development of the Convention and the negotiation of this specific text. That understanding and reality needs to be reflected in the Canadian National Implementation Plan.

Section 5.2 presents a good depiction of successes that Canada has had in reducing dioxin and furan emissions. The plan depicts this in factually accurate terminology, but should go on to clearly say that this program has been a success. This is a general flaw in the plan. Canada has been successful in managing POPs. The plan presents the evidence that could be used to make that conclusion, but then the Plan falls short of making that conclusion. In a typically Canadian fashion, we refuse to "toot our own horn". In the POPs area, both in terms of developing the Convention and in terms of implementing what is needed, Canada has been a leader and achieved great success. We should be proud of this and declare these successes as such.

Section 6.2 re managing waste stockpiles, should make it clear from the outset that Canada supports appropriate incineration as an acceptable management tool under the Stockholm Convention. The attached letter reassuring CCPA of this from ADM Barry Stemshorn should, in fact, be referenced and be an attachment in the National Implementation Plan. This should be right at the beginning of Section 6.2 before 6.2.1 and the other subsections. At a minimum, the following statement from that letter should be included in this section: Canada does not interpret this obligation (destruction) as prohibiting the use of high temperature incineration, nor is there any intent to revisit applicable domestic policies, guidelines or legislation as a consequence of this provision in the Convention.

In Section 6.2.1.2, why are PCTs and PBBs included? These substances are not POPs and it should not be implied that they are. It is suggested their reference be deleted from this section.

In Section 7.2, research that is taking place in industry or in academia is not recognized. The work of Dr. Bill Anderson of the University of Waterloo that was presented at the CCMEWorkshop on February 15th is an example of effort that could be cited.

In Part II, Section 5.3 covering UPOPs, characterizing these sources as emerging sources is questioned. The first 2 sources are the third and fourth largest sources of dioxins and furans, and when combined represent 25% of the national total. Given these activities have existed for many years; it is not clear why they are now "emerging sources".

Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H3
October 4, 2001

Mr. Gordon Lloyd
Vice President Technical Affairs
Canadian Chemical Producers' Association
Suite 805, 350 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1R 7S8

Re: Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Convention and Incineration of Wastes

Dear Mr. Lloyd:

Thank you for your letter of Sept. 7, 2001 indicating your support for the Stockholm Convention on POPs. I appreciate your industry's support over the course of negotiations and commend your personal commitment to the process and your efforts over the years that contributed greatly to this success. In your letter you indicate concerns regarding the Convention's provisions dealing with wastes, particularly the wording dealing with destruction. Having participated in the Johannesburg negotiations, you will recall that the waste provisions of the Convention were the last ones to achieve consensus. Canada supported the Basel Convention as the primary vehicle to address POPs wastes, and in the end consensus was achieved by agreeing to waste provisions consistent with Basel.

I take note of your concern that the Convention text on "destruction" may be argued by some as precluding incineration as a waste management option. I would re-emphasize the assurances given to you earlier in CPPA's meeting with Environmental Protection Service staff that Canada does not interpret this obligation as prohibiting the use of high temperature incineration, nor is there any intent to revisit applicable domestic policies, guidelines or legislation as a consequence of this provision in the Convention. Consistent with your discussions in Johannesburg with representatives from other governments, we are not aware of any country promoting or even suggesting this restrictive concept. In Johannesburg, we made a particular effort to canvass major players on this issue and all made it clear they viewed incineration as an important and practical option in the POPs wastes tool box. Indeed, most indicated that exclusion would be unrealistic.

I appreciate your point that some non-government organizations may have a non-incineration interpretation of the Stockholm Convention provisions (although none have as yet made this argument to Environment Canada). However, Canada was always clear in our view on incineration both at the negotiation table and in domestic stakeholder consultation sessions. We have open and transparent policies on hazardous wastes in Canada which are consistent with our Convention obligations. I therefore do not see that a pre-emptive statement is required or needed. We are certainly prepared to outline our implementation strategy for these requirements to any interested Party.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the Basel Convention Technical Working Group has been charged with providing assistance to the Stockholm Convention with respect to guidelines on environmentally sound management of POPs wastes and has initiated this work. This should provide clarification with respect to utilization of incineration.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Barry Stemshorn
Assistant Deputy Minister
Environmental Protection Service


1 Voir l'article 5c) de la Convention de Stockholm selon lequel chaque Partie doit : « Encourager la mise au point et, si elle le juge approprié, exiger l'utilisation de matériels, produits et procédés modifiés ou de remplacement pour prévenir la formation et le rejet des substances chimiques inscrites à l'Annexe C... »

Détails de la page

Date de modification :