ILO, OECD and UNEP/FAO Chemical Safety Activities: A Comparative AnalysisChapter VConclusions |
This analysis focuses on instruments which have either been adopted or are the subject of discussion. It does not address the question of whether current work programmes involve overlapping activities, and where there are opportunities for improved coordination. Furthermore, as already indicated, there appears to be a distinct trend towards improved coordination and cooperation among those organizations involved in chemical safety which may not be reflected in existing instruments, except perhaps for those adopted most recently.
It appears that much of the apparent overlap or confusion which does exist in the instruments stems from the fact that the different organizations have different constituencies. Although national delegates to the policy bodies of any organization represent their countries' position as a whole, the reality is that they rarely consult with all other interested national agencies/bodies. Therefore, delegates tend to decide on future work programmes without sufficient knowledge of the decisions being made by their compatriots in other forum.
This problem could be mitigated by the promotion of inter-ministerial coordination at the national level, which would allow delegates to consult and formulate consistent national frameworks in chemical safety prior to their participation in international policy-making bodies. Mechanisms such as the IPCS, IOMC and the IFCS have a crucial role to play in realizing this objective.
With respect to the specific instruments described above, there are several opportunities for improved coordination and cooperation. As an illustration in the case of the recent OECD Declaration on Lead, given the clear statements seeking non-member country involvement and the fact that lead in the workplace is a particular concern, the ILO could encourage its member States to take measures consistent with the Declaration and to work with the OECD to further its implementation.
With respect to chemical accidents, the question remains as to why ILO and OECD prepare fairly duplicative guidance especially given the limited resources available to all parties. The fact is that the governing bodies of both organizations called for the development of the guidance materials during the same period, and therefore each organization felt compelled to follow through. In addition, since the work in the field of chemical accidents was relatively new at the time, there was no mechanism in place to facilitate such coordination. It is considerably less likely that similar overlaps could occur in the future. Furthermore, the direction of work has diverged with the ILO assisting countries in the implementation of the Convention and the OECD working towards the development of guidance dealing with specific subjects (such as pipelines, port areas) and addressing issues of mutual concern (such as risk assessment).
One area of possible future coordination between the ILO, OECD and others is set out in the ILO Recommendation (No. 181), specifically calling for information exchange related to, inter alia, major accidents. The OECD and the UN/ECE both have an accident reporting scheme, organized by the French Government through their Bureau for Risk and Industrial Pollution Analysis (BARPI) in Lyon.
With respect to PIC, there seems to be more grounds for concern. ILO's coordination with UNEP and FAO has so far been forthcoming. However, more work is needed in harmonizing the provisions of the PIC Convention and of the legal instrument on further measures which are being discussed with those of the existing ILO instruments. The ILO could consequently cooperate in the implementation of the PIC procedure. This would relieve member countries from the burden of duplicative efforts, and would enhance the application of national chemical safety policies within the framework of constructive inter-ministerial coordination.
| [ Table of contents ] | [ List of papers ] |