___________________________________________________________________________2012/CTI2/CD/FOR/017

Report of the Chemical Dialogue Steering Group, 4 Feb 2012

Purpose: InformationSubmitted by: Russia

APEC Chemical Regulators’ ForumSingapore

30 March 2012

Report of the Chemical Dialogue Steering GroupFebruary 4, 2012MoscowThe Russian Federation

Summary and Action Items

Representatives from government and/or industry from Chile, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Russia, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, and the United States met to discuss priority work items for the 11th Chemical Dialogue, which will be held May 22, 2012 in Kazan. The CDSG was welcomed by Mr. Valery Sorokin on behalf of the SOM Chair. He observed that there were a variety of views on what can be done this year in the Chemical Dialogue, noting that the Russian delegation is prepared to work to secure significant deliverables. The group received a briefing on Russia’s 2012 APEC priorities and CTI priorities and how the work of the Chemical Dialogue aligned with these.

Sergey Tsyb, Head of the Department of Chemical Industries and Bio-Engineering Technologies, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Russian Federation, noted that 26% of Russian trade is with APEC economies. Russia’s priorities for APEC 2012 were released at the informal senior officials meeting in St Petersburg. Under the theme of “integrate to grow, innovate to prosper”, key priorities are: (1) trade and investment liberalization and regional economic integration (including regulatory alignment, sustainable growth); (2) strengthening food security (including food safety); (3) establishing reliable supply chains (bottlenecks, tracking technologies); and, (4) intensive cooperation to foster innovative growth (including addressing barriers to investment in high technology sectors). In drawing attention to how Russia sees the role of the Chemical Dialogue in it priorities (2012/SOM1/CDSG/011) he observed that chemistry is providing sustainable and innovative solutions. Shared Goal 1 relates to Trade and investment liberalization and economic integration: GHS, REACH, Regulators Forum topics; voluntary industry programs and Russia’s project on data harmonization.

He noted that Russia was in the process of GHS implementation and was actively dealing with REACH issues because of the relationship with the EU. A service center has been established. Russia’s Chemists’ Union promotes Responsible Care®. Russia notes the work on chemicals in articles, which deals not only with industrial chemicals but also other high tech sectors such as electronics and aerospace. These areas of focus are completely supported by the Russian Federation. There also is a need to look more broadly at chemical safety. The supply chain from producer to consumer is important in that regard. Russia supports the Emergency Response project to assure the safe handling of chemicals. Russia also has suggested the establishment of information centers using data sharing. It will be important to promote the significance of the chemical industry as a source of innovative growth, and to address new chemicals, including the protection of confidential business information (CBI). Russia believes that APEC can contribute to the methodology of hazard assessments and how chemicals are entered into information resources, including ways of assessing the hazardous properties of newly synthesized products. Russia has introduced for discussion the prospect of information exchange on the safe handling of chemicals. The first stage is the planned conference on hazardous properties data, followed by the detection of discrepancies, unification of data, and the creation of a global information resource. The conference will take place in May in Kazan alongside the Chemical Dialogue. The project will need to be incorporated into the strategic framework. Russia plans to be involved in much of the CD work, including initiating activity on global information exchange, active participation in the Regulators Forum, supporting the Emergency Response project, active participation in the regulation of chemicals in articles and the protection of CBI on new chemicals. The Chair of the Planning Group commented that it is clear that the CD is aligned with Russia’s priorities. She noted that CD members want to deliver a good outcome from CD to make Russia’s year a success. The CD has received BMC approval to go forward with two concept notes – the information exchange project and regulatory workshop. Thus the CD has both the tools and the finances to support a very good year. There was also good language in the Ministers’ statement out of Honolulu, putting a stamp of approval on projects underway.

Briefing by CTI Chair on APEC 2012 CTI Priorities

The CTI Chair observed that 2011 outcomes concentrated on regional economic integration – next generation trade and investment issues; green growth; and regulatory cooperation. In 2012 the CTI will align with Russia’s priorities of trade and investment liberalization and economic integration; food security; supply chains; and, innovative growth. Work in 2011 focused on developing recommendations on next generation issues that could be included in the FTAAP or other regional initiatives. These include facilitating global supply chains; enhancing SME participation in global production chains; and, promoting effective and non-discriminatory market driven innovation policy. In 2012 the CTI will focus on capacity building, including further high level discussions on innovation policy. She noted that a pathfinder had been approved for remanufactured products that would result in the same tariff and non tariff treatment for these goods as for new goods. Other outcomes included commitments to exempt alternative fuel demonstration vehicles from duties and taxes and to streamline customs procedures; a $59 billion saving through implementation of APEC’s trade facilitation action plan; a pathfinder on supply chain connectivity, where low value shipments ($100 or less) would be exempted from customs duties and enjoy streamlined customs procedures; and, the development of a list of environmental goods where tariffs would be reduced to 5% or less by 2015. She noted that APEC’s Regulatory Cooperation agenda agreed in 2011 is where the CD offered the largest contribution – through the strategic framework, the regulators forum and the G.R.E.A.T project, among others. The CD can provide a good example to other APEC fora. She noted that instructions will be forthcoming from senior officials to take the agenda forward further and urged that the CD be ready to convey the right messages. She noted that Ministers had asked the CD to continue its regulatory cooperation work and to undertake work on challenges posed by different regulatory approaches to chemicals in articles. The CD’s work on regulatory cooperation and convergence aligned with Russia’s first priority. The CD’s work on supply chain also is a Russia 2012 priority. She suggested that the CD consider how to contribute to food security and innovative growth.

The Chair CDSG agreed that the CD’s work fit well with Russia’s APEC 2012 priorities, observing the extent of work on regulatory cooperation which will be moving forward this year, the transparency and data exchange project, and supply chain and innovative growth initiatives. She wondered whether it also would be useful to look at chemistry’s role in assuring food safety/food security from the perspective of the role of chemicals in making sure products get from farm to market without spoiling. She noted that the CD looked forward to receiving the SOM template for regulatory cooperation.

Review of 2012 Ministerial Instructions

The CDSG Chair noted that Trade Ministers in June 2011 endorsed the 2011-2013 Strategic Framework, which has been further updated since the September 2011 Chemical Dialogue in San Francisco. In November in Honolulu, Ministers: … “endorsed the guidance document on the application of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) principles to the classification and labeling of consumer products – a major step forward in the implementation of GHS and a critical contribution to advancing regulatory cooperation”. They further “welcomed the launch of work in APEC to increase awareness of the challenges posed by different regulatory approaches to chemicals in articles, an issue that has a potentially significant economic impact on our major downstream industries”.

Ministers also agreed on issues that relate to the work of the Chemical Dialogue. For example, they agreed on specific actions to develop, use and strengthen implementation of Good Regulatory Practices (Annex D of the November 2011 Ministerial Statement), including internal coordination of rule making, economic impact assessments, and public consultation – actions that also were agreed by Leaders. Further, Ministers agreed to promote measures to facilitate trade in solar technologies through collaboration on standards and conformance. Finally, they endorsed an APEC Regulatory Cooperation Plan (Annex F of the November 2011 Ministerial Statement) and asked officials to report in 2012 on ways that the principles contained in this plan will be applied by APEC fora and sub-fora.

The CDSG Chair noted that the CD will need to be ready to respond to instructions from senior officials on regulatory cooperation and observed that the briefing by the Chair of the SCSC will help guide the response. She commented that there was good recognition of the CD’s work in the Ministerial Statement in 2011 which provided a good basis for moving forward. Work since the launch of the regulators forum in 2007, specifically the principles for best practice chemicals regulations agreed in 2008 will form a good basis for reporting on the APEC Regulatory Cooperation Principles.

The CD also needs to ensure that those Regulatory Cooperation Principles are fully reflected in work going forward, including a focus on tangible and practical outcomes.

1. The Strategic Framework

On behalf of the VWG the APCIC noted that the Strategic Framework had been further updated since the CD in September reflecting agreed action items. The update was circulated to the CDSG for comment on December 9, 2011. Updates were in highlighted areas of document 2012/SOM1/CDSG/015. It was noted that the IPM suggested a correction to item 3.6, which should read “develop project concept note for a workshop on data harmonization (completed)”. The next phase of this project will need to be reflected in a further update along with other actions from CDSG 1.

ACTION: Strategic Framework to be updated by March 5, 2012 to include actions agreed at CDSG1, also reflecting progress with the data harmonization/exchange project, the work of the regulators forum and workshop and intention to complete the template expected from senior officials on APEC’s Regulatory Cooperation Principles.

Shared Goal 1: Expand and support cooperation and mutual recognition among chemical regulators in the region to facilitate trade

2. GHS Implementation

GHS Implementation and consumer products

On behalf of the consumer products VWG, the APCIC Secretariat reported progress since Ministerial endorsement in November 2011 of the report and principles document “Approaches for Consideration by APEC economies in Applying GHS Principles to the Classification and Labeling of Consumer Products”. Attention was drawn to document 2012/SOM1/CDSG/017. The group is in the process of developing case studies and reporting templates to facilitate the utility of information provided in the case studies. It is expected that a number of case studies will be presented at CD11 in Kazan.

ACTION: CDSG to note progress with the development of case studies and templates

GHS Implementation – Report from Virtual Working Group

The CDSG Chair noted that the GHS implementation status report was submitted to Ministers at the AMM in November 2011 and endorsed as part of the CTI report to Ministers. She urged economies to submit additional updates by April 15 so that a further report can be prepared for consideration by the CD11 and submission to Trade Ministers at their meeting in Kazan (June 4-5).

ACTION: Economies to submit GHS implementation updates to the Program Director by April 15

Status of G.R.E.A.T. Project

Report on the G.R.E.A.T. Project (led by Chinese Taipei)

Chinese Taipei reported on developments with the G.R.E.A.T project (2012/SOM1/CDSG/002). Labeling elements have been incorporated from APEC member and non-member economies. The funding and website development continue to be provided by the Council of Labor Affairs. In 2011 Chinese Taipei completed addition of elements in 23 EU languages, meaning that labeling elements are now provided in a total of 32 languages. There have been over 25, 000 visits to the site as of January 2012. There has been consultation with Australia on the format for future expansion of the website to include GHS implementation status updates by member economies. Elements of the 3 rd

revision of the Purple Book also are provided on website. Economies are encouraged to provide updates and GHS labeling elements in different languages as well as their implementation status reports.

Chinese Taipei agreed to a U.S. industry proposal to add to the website as a tab the various industry GHS “guidances” that are consistent with the UN Subcommittee. It was noted that in addition to

accommodating sector specific guidance, the intention was to keep the website as an evergreen tool. It was noted that the GHS continues to be a moving target. Currently the 4 th revision is in operation and the 5th revision is expected shortly. Chinese Taipei indicated that it would add updates as the Purple Book is revised. Singapore noted that economies are using different versions of the Purple Book so it is very difficult to synchronize implementation. It depends on how fast regulatory processes can accommodate revisions. The CDSG Chair suggested that it would be helpful for Chinese Taipei to provide periodic updates on the G.R.E.A.T. website intersessionally so this important piece of work could be promoted more widely.

ACTION: Economies are encouraged to provide GHS implementation labeling elements and updates to Chinese Taipei for incorporation onto the website. Chinese Taipei will provide quarterly updates on developments.

Discussion with the SCCP on GHS Implementation and Single Window System

The CDSG Chair noted that CDSG1 had been hoping to have a discussion with SCCP on GHS implementation and the single window system to assess the feasibility of including GHS elements as part of single window portal. She observed that the CD had conducted outreach to SCCP chair in 2011 and 2012. Both times the SCCP declined to join in a discussion. The SCCP had asked for additional information on what was envisaged with the single window portal and GHS implementation. The Su Committee also offered to consult individually or with Chair CDSG. The SCCP noted that a workshop was planned on the single window in Kazan and left open the possibility of a session on GHS implementation if discussions had matured. The Chair CDSG commented that moving this work forward needs to be a joint SCCP/CD effort. She undertook to check at the upcoming CTI meeting. Mexico (industry) confirmed that it would be willing to make a presentation at that workshop, if appropriate. The CTI Chair confirmed that industry representatives have traditionally been included in SCCP workshops.

ACTION: At CTI1, CDSG Chair to discuss prospect of discussion of GHS implementation and the single window portal at the SCCP workshop in Kazan and advise that Mexico’s industry was willing to present at this workshop.

3. REACH

SVHC Thresholds/ REACH Article XIII Revisions

Led by the industry Co-Chair, the CDSG discussed two main issues (1) ECHA’s January 27, 2012 response to the CD letter of January 10, 2012 concerning inconsistency with the calculation of thresholds for SVHCs in articles and issues with amendments to REACH Article XIII (documents 2012/SOM1/CDSG/003, 004app, and 018); and, (2) a new issue – the Danish Proposal for additional restrictions on Phthalates (2012/SOM1/CDSG/004). The CDSG expressed disappointment that an ECHA representative was unable to participate in the discussion. How ECHA/the EU intends to solve the current inconsistency in threshold applications by 6 member states for SVHCs in articles remains an open question. The lack of definition of “part of an article” remains a serious problem. With respect to Article XIII amendments, although guidance does discuss most of the new criteria and how to apply the weight of evidence, additional explanations in the planned guidance update would be helpful.

The industry Co-Chair drew attention to industry concerns over the Danish proposal for additional restrictions on phthalates, noting that the approach is based on risks arising from “combined exposure” and that 3 of the substances covered by the Danish proposal are already covered by REACH. He indicated that risk evaluation should be based on a science based methodology, and observed that under Article 69.2 ECHA can only consider additional risks for those articles after their sunset date has concluded (February 2015). The industry Co-Chair posited that ECHA should be encouraged to decline to receive Denmark’s dossier pending a decision under Article 69.2.

The APCIC commented that the IPM had concluded that it would be worth seeking more guidance from ECHA and to write to the EC on the SVHCs in articles question as this is the Commission’s portfolio. Economies also were encouraged to study the Danish proposal and provide comments to Dr. Shono. It was noted that the comment period for the Danish proposal ends on March 16 2012.

ACTIONS: (1) The APCIC Secretariat will draft a letter to the EC concerning issues that were not responded to adequately by ECHA – such as the inconsistent application of thresholds by the 6 member states. (2) Economies are encouraged to provide comments on the Danish proposal to the industry Co-Chair via the Program Director by March 5. At that point the CDSG will assess whether there is sufficient consensus of views to raised questions with ECHA on the Danish proposal. (3) The USCIB will consult with the Toy Industry on the Danish proposal and share views with the CDSG.

4. Emerging Regulatory Issues

Chemicals in Articles

Update and progress report from the VWG on Chemicals in Articles (2012/SOM1/CDSG/006)

The CDSG Chair noted that work on chemicals in articles was included as part of the Ministerial Statement in November 2011. Ministers ““welcomed the launch of work in APEC to increase awareness of the challenges posed by different regulatory approaches to chemicals in articles, an issue that has a potentially significant economic impact on our major downstream industries”. She recalled that there was some discussion at CD10 of holding a discussion in the SCSC Trade Facilitation Task Force but it is not clear when a TFTF dialogue would take place. Other opportunities include the Regulators Forum in Singapore. On behalf of the VWG, USCIB observed that a 2 hour session was now planned to be held at the Regulators Forum on March 30. The overarching goal is to discuss the challenges faced by the down- stream industry with differing regulatory approaches to chemicals in articles. The plan is to inform regulators of new areas of regulation faced by industry, examples of how industry is dealing with these, and to learn from economies about their current or planned regulations. The CDSG Chair indicated that it would be important for the VWG to articulate the long term goal. As a result of discussions at the IPM the VWG intends to prepare case studies for delivery at the Regulators Forum. The case studies would take a product through the development, production and marketing chain, show what happened and the impact. Japan suggested that the VWG also examine the SCRUM project, which is helping SMEs with regulatory requirements along the supply chain. It might be useful for the SCRUM to be involved in the VWG. The CDSG Chair asked for a progress report from the group before the Regulators Forum in Singapore.

ACTION: Chair (1) VWG to circulate the draft agenda for the discussion on chemicals in articles at the Regulators Forum by February 20. (2) Economies to comment by February 27. (3) VWG to consult with SCRUM project coordinators. (4) VWG to provide a progress report to CDSG by March 5.

Regulators’ Forum and Workshop (2012/SOM1/CDSG/009)

The CD affirmed the importance of the Regulators’ Forum and associated workshop(s) and agreed that bundling various regulatory projects is an efficient way of proceeding. The CD further agreed to seek funding for a regulators forum and risk assessment workshop in 2012. The United States will update CDSG participants on plans for the Regulators’ Forum in Singapore, March 30.

The CDSG Chair observed that it looked as though funding was now secured from APEC for the two projects put forward in this funding cycle (the training workshop on risk management/risk assessment, and the data harmonization project). The concept notes would now need to be turned into full project proposals.

On behalf of the Chair of the Regulators Forum, the CDSG Chair noted that there would be two separate events: The Regulators Forum on March 30 in Singapore, and the risk management/risk assessment workshop in November in Singapore. The objective of the Regulators Forum is to exchange views among regulators on approaches for the sound management of industrial chemicals across the APEC economies. During the meeting, participants will provide an update on their regulatory actions, and will have the opportunity to follow up the discussions from the seminar on the chemical sector in 2011, and current and proposed initiatives on chemicals data and information. Specifically, participants will discuss use of inventories in their chemicals management process, databases for information exchange, and chemicals in articles. In addition, regulators will have an opportunity to discuss the Russian Federation priorities for APEC in 2012. The agenda for the Regulators Forum is in document 2012/SOM1/CDSG/009. Comments are welcome.

The Regulators Forum is being aligned with a meeting of the OECD Clearing House for new chemicals, which will be held in Singapore March 28-29. There might be an invitation extended to the OECD Secretariat to talk about tools for information exchanges. Japan noted that the OECD clearing house deals with new chemicals classification, which should be of interest to CD members. APEC member economies are welcome to attend. The Regulators Forum as currently structured will begin with presentations on latest developments, chemical inventories, a presentation on G.R.E.A.T, and a discussion on the data exchange proposal. The Chair CDSG noted that there is synergy between the work on G.R.E.A.T and the Russian project. There will be an afternoon session on chemicals in articles and a short session on future work of regulators forum.

The United States thanked the co-sponsors of the Training workshop in November – Australia, Chinese Taipei, New Zealand, Peru. The work shop is intended to be a more intense and second step to the work shop in Hiroshima one in early 2010. It is aimed at implementing best practices for chemical regulations. The Chair CDSG noted that because of the synergies with the broad APEC Regulatory Cooperation Plan and the need to fill out the expected template from SOMs, there would be a recommendation for a discussion of that plan at the Regulators Forum.

ACTION: (1) Comments on the Regulators Forum agenda by February 27. (2) Encourage economies to participate in the OECD Clearing House meeting in Singapore. (3) Recommend discussion of the CD’s contribution to the APEC Regulatory Cooperation Plan principles at the Regulators Forum.

Regulatory Coherence and Convergence --

Briefing on Regulatory Convergence and Cooperation outcomes Discussion of CD’s Contributions to Regulatory Coherence and Convergence

The Chair CDSG observed that she also acted as Vice Chair of the SCSC. The goal of the APEC Regulatory Cooperation Plan and associated principles is to achieve mutual regulatory goals. The objective is to incorporate the APEC regulatory cooperation principles (2012/SOM1/CDSG/21) into the work of all APEC fora and sub-fora that are working on regulatory areas. She noted that guidance will be forthcoming from senior officials at SOM1. The CD has a good story to tell. It has had a robust regulatory agenda for some time, with work on GHS, REACH, and RoHS. The CD also developed principles for best practice chemicals regulations in 2008 (2012/SOM1/CDSG/014) and has a strategic framework which includes a strategic objective of promoting regulatory cooperation and convergence. The Regulators Forum was established in 2007 and meets regularly. There also are specific workshops on regulatory cooperation. In 2012 the CD also has the project led by the Russian Federation on data information and exchange. She proposed that a group from the CDSG works with the Regulators Forum to fill out the expected template, noting that it will be very useful for other APEC groups to see all the good work being done in the CD. The template also provided the opportunity to look at future work.

On behalf of industry, the United States industry representative introduced a proposal to build on the platform provided by the APEC Regulatory Cooperation Plan to examine new areas of regulatory cooperation (2012/SOM1/CDSG/20/21). The objective of the proposal was to examine selected areas of chemicals management with a view to arriving at some key principles to report back to Ministers.

Proposed areas are: 1. Transparency in regulation more broadly, including more detailed principles that could help

ensure the consistent protection of critical information across the region, while fostering the useful exchange of information between regulatory authorities.

2. Data and information sharing – principles that minimize possible transaction costs and leveraging the considerable information resources (e.g. from REACH) that will become publicly available.

3. Prioritization – there are differences in how economies prioritize which chemicals to review either on risk or hazard. Principles on prioritization could encourage work and burden sharing and promote industry engagement in the process.

He proposed the establishment of a VWG and requested feedback on the scope and feasibility of the initiative and expressions of interest in VWG participation by end of February. The goal would be to include the initiative in the regulatory cooperation template as forward-looking work. On the basis of

feedback, a revised paper and principles would be prepared for discussion in Kazan. Japan supported this work and considered the approach useful and meaningful. The CDSG Chair noted that the proposal would demonstrate how further work in this area could be organized. She urged that in the review process, economies keep in mind the need for practical and tangible outcomes.

ACTION: (1) Program Director to circulate document 2012/SOM1/CDSG/020 with the summary of CDSG action items, for comment by February 27. (2) Expressions of interest for participation in the VWG to be forwarded by economies to the Program Director.

Voluntary Industry Programs

Update and Discussion (led by APCIC Secretariat)The APCIC provided an update on progress towards the goal of strengthening implementation of the industry’s Responsible Care® program worldwide. He noted that there were key emerging programs in China, India, and the Russian Federation. Large companies in each economy are encouraged to play a leadership role. Some 55 industry associations around the world are implementing Responsible Care® Programs. In the Russian Federation, the Chemists’ Union is taking leadership role in Russia. Large companies also can play a catalytic role. For example, in India Reliance has played a leading role. The ICCA also is engaged in the development of OECD leadership principles on process safety, which will be launched in June.

It was noted that the American Chemistry Council was undergoing strategic review of its Responsible Care program. The outcome will be considered by the Board in the week of February 3. Key items for decision are:

- The development of a new product safety code with metrics and implementation targets- Bolstering product safety through a new Code, with measurement and member support- Add management of operational energy efficiency to Responsible Care®- Streamline performance reporting by integrating energy efficiency, GHG reporting and add a

focus on waste and recycling.

He concluded by saying that initiatives started in one economy often are picked up by others.

The APCIC representative also described progress with the industry’s Global Product Strategy, an initiative to promote product stewardship across the value chain and throughout the product life cycle. There is a target of completing publicly available product safety summaries for all high priority chemicals by end of 2012. REACH summaries also will be added along with “How to” guides. The Russian Federation noted that the Russian Chemists Union was working with CEFIC and ICCA. Its participation was supported by Presidential and government decisions. The Russian chemical industry, including companies such as Sibur, were expected to join the program in the near future. Chinese Taipei provided its global product strategy update (2012/SOM1/CDSG/005) noting the chemical industry association had also compiled a Chinese version, which is on the ICCA chem portal and the Chinese Taipei industry workshop. A capacity building workshop is planned in Chinese Taipei in June. There are more than 25 capacity building workshops focused on developing economies.

Singapore observed that 2012 was the international year of energy cooperation for the UN and wondered whether the CD should make a submission on the energy saving/sustainability elements of Responsible Care® There was a good story to tell on emissions reduction. The Life Cycle Analysis work also could be highlighted. He noted that a report done by McKinsey that was peer reviewed by a Swedish group showed that chemical products resulted in savings of between 2 and 3 times of emissions. It would be useful to highlight that work to Ministers demonstrating the role of chemicals as an innovative solutions provider.

ACTION: CDSG to consider a submission to Energy Ministers on the energy saving/sustainability elements of Responsible Care.

Transparency and Innovation

On behalf of the VWG, the USCIB noted the tension between the need to protect confidential business information (CBI) and, at the same time provide transparency to stakeholders. The VWG working has produced a draft survey (2012/SOM1/CDSG/007) of how economies are approaching

this issue. The survey was circulated for comment recently. At the Industry Pre Meeting it was suggested that the VWG provide a case study along with the draft survey so that economies better understand what sort of information is being sought. The Chair CDSG observed that when economies were reviewing the survey they should comment on whether it was going to be too complicated or time-consuming to complete.

ACTION: THE VWG to circulate a case study/example by February 20. (2) Economies to provide comments on the survey by March 15.

Shared Goal 2: Enhance understanding of the chemical industry’s role as an innovative solutions industry

Review and Discussion

The Chair CDSG noted that in preparation for Rio + 20 economies were asked to provide examples of innovative technologies, programs or business models that show how industry addresses sustainable growth. Examples were shared at the time by Australia and Japan. She noted that this initiative accord with Russia’s priority innovation and innovative growth.

The APCIC indicated that no additional submissions had been made and encouraged members to come forward with examples. As an example he showed a video prepared by ICCA showing reductions in Green House Gas emissions of over half of all global GHG by 2030. He commented that Minister appreciate these sorts of examples, which are easily understood and speak to individual economy and global goals.

JCIA affirmed the importance of this work, noting that an examination of the carbon life cycle –c-LCA encourages total optimization rather than partial if only the manufacturing process was considered (2012/SOM1/CDSG/008). Consideration should be given to developing guidelines for these types of life cycle analyses. There was general consensus that it would be useful to find a way to highlight these analyses and promote the concepts inherent in the video. The APCIC Secretariat undertook to examine opportunities for showing casing this activity, including the video.

ACTION: (1) APCIC Secretariat to consult with the ABAC and APEC 2012 organizers on possible opportunities to showcase this activity. (2) Economies are encouraged to provide examples of innovative programs or business models that could be compiled and presented at Rio +20 or other appropriate forums.

Shared Goal 3: Encourage chemical product stewardship, safe use and sustainability

CD / SAICM Alignment

Review of Discussion Paper The APCIC Secretariat recalled that CD10 agreed to use SAICM categorization as basis of a CD report to ICCM-3. He noted that the CD had reported to ICCM2 on best practice principles and GHS implementation. Dates and venues for ICCM-3 had changed. It was now to be held from September 17-21, 2012 in Nairobi. This allows review of a final draft report to CD 11 in Kazan in May. A copy of the proposed approach is appended to these minutes. The report is envisaged to start with an introduction providing a description of the CD, summarize previous work, including the ICCM-2 submission, summarize progress, aligning work with SAICM core objectives, and review future work. Comments are requested by February 29. There would be a decision at Kazan as to who would present at ICCM-3 on behalf of the CD.

ACTION: (1) PD to circulate draft paper with CDSG1 action summary. (2) Comments due to VWG by February 29. (3) Decision at Kazan as to who would present the report to ICCM-3. (4) Economies to advise who from the CD will be attending ICCM-3. (5). Advise Program Director if there is additional interest in participating in the VWG.

Emergency Response

Review and Discussion of Elements Needed for Website (led by APCIC Secretariat)

A representative from the American Chemistry Council recalled that at CD10, a representative from ACC’s emergency response center “Chemtrec” had provided the outline of a website they intended to launch that would be a resource for emergency responders in the region. The website would provide in one place the relevant information on each APEC member economy and key people who manage emergency responses to hazard material emergencies, available resources, and procedures to be followed (2012/SOM1/CDSG/019). He noted that sometimes there was need to bring in outside experts and equipment and knowing the procedures for entry and handling was critical. Since CD10 Chemtrec has continued to refine the site and the appropriate platform. Technically the site will be ready for launch by Kazan. However, more information is needed from economies so as to populate the site accurately. Economies were encouraged to nominate expert points of contact by March 5 so that discussions can begin with those in each economy who have the expertise to populate the website. He noted that document 019 is very specific on what an economy’s site would include.

ACTION: Economies to review the specifications in Document 2012/SOM1/CDSG/19 and advise the Program Director of Expert Point (s) of Contact in their individual economy, along with contact details by March 5.

CD and UNCSD/Rio+20 Conference

In a discussion led by the industry Co-Chair and the APCIC Secretariat, CDSG was reminded that all stakeholders were invited to submit views on the Rio +20 process. Over 677 submissions received. They stretched to over 6000 pages. Submissions are available online at http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?menu=115They included a number from APEC economies and industry groups, including ICCA. It is possible to conduct a key word search. Included a number from APEC member economies and international industry groups including ICCA. The so-called “Zero draft” was released in mid January and can be accessed at http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?page=view&type=12&nr=324&menu=23There were 2 paragraphs specifically on chemicals, and many that have implications for chemicals. The two paragraphs are:

95. We call for strengthening the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), to step up efforts towards a more robust, coherent, effective and efficient international regime for chemicals throughout their lifecycle. Sustainable and adequate long-term funding will be important to assist developing economies with sound chemical and waste management through an integrated approach.

96. We commend the increased coordination and cooperation among the Basel Convention, the Rotterdam Convention and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and call for public-private partnerships aiming to enhance capacity and technology for environmentally sound waste management. We also note with concern the emerging challenges of electronic waste and plastics in the marine environment, which should be addressed inter alia through appropriate programmes and environmentally sound technologies for material and energy recovery.

Industry’s position is that the two paragraphs are not too troublesome. However it will be critical that the first sentence of paragraph 95 remains as a single sentence. If it is split, it becomes very problematic. SAICM would be strengthened but there also would be a new a separate agreement, which is unacceptable. There is mention of plastics in paragraph 96, but also paragraph 81 where plastics is singled out in terms of marine debris. Industry contends that plastics are not the only source of marine debris. Governments will be negotiating through June. In Kazan the CD will have a better idea of how chemicals are being considered. As noted previously, there are opportunities to highlight Responsible Care® and the Global Product Strategy, along with industry’s role as a solutions provider. ICCA intends to draft a report with case studies for Rio+20 which will be shared at Kazan. Thus far there is no program for side events but there are a number of specialty days in the four days leading up to the conference. By Kazan the entry points for the chemical industry will become clear.

In the meantime, the industry Co-Chair and APCIC urged economies to come up with examples and for the CD to consider ways on how to highlight industry’s role as solutions provider. There was a

question as to whether the CD11 should consider e-waste, but this issue was considered to be too technical for the CD. The industry Co-Chair suggested that the CD should not lose focus on SAICM, which was very important.

ACTION: (1) Economies are encouraged to provide examples of the industry as a solutions provider to the Program Director. (2) APCIC to share the ICCA case studies document with the CD. (3) APCIC to inform the CD of developments, including the potential for an industry day at Rio + 20.

New project proposals

GHS Information Portal and Workshop/Conference

The CDSG Chair noted that the data exchange/harmonization project proposed by the Russian Federation had been approved by APEC’s Budget and Management Committee and the workshop was planned for Kazan. She invited the Russian Federation to provide an update. Mr. Dmitry Skobolev drew CDSG’s attention to document 2012/SOM1/CDSG/013. He noted that there were many gaps in data on the properties of substances. Toluene was a good example. This resulted in either differences in hazard evaluation and/or different classification and labeling. Using the same data under different rules resulted in different outcomes. Thus the goal is to work towards the harmonization of hazard evaluation. The Russian Federation envisaged 5 main milestones. The conference planned for Kazan would discuss the general concept, and examine data resources and the possible structure of combined resources. The project would then move to the formation of a VWG to identify discrepancies and gaps, also looking at where there were simple discrepancies and gaps that would be easy to harmonize. A discussion would be initiated on prospects for data exchange. The eventual goal is the development of an integrated information resource that would serve as the basis for SDS classification and labeling. The project has received good support from economies. There is a need to identify the right participants for the workshop. Members of the CDSG are requested to nominate participants and speakers by March 5 so a program can be developed. Chinese Taipei’s G.R.E.A. T. project leaders would be invited, along with those involved in the e-chem portal and experts from the Chemtrec Emergency Response project.

A representative from the U.S. industry noted that there were parallel activities within GHS UN Sub Committee led by OSHA where divergent lists were emerging. He suggested that the conference organizers also reach out to the UN Sub Committee. Papers prepared for upcoming 23 rd session in June/July could be relevant. Russia indicated that it would provide draft of possible participants for discussion in Singapore. The CDSG Chair invited additional suggested, noting that it would be helpful to have an additional description of the types of participants and their desired areas of expertise. The Russian Federation agreed to develop a more detailed description of participants and speaker expertise. The intention was to invite people who control information resources – basically administrator of those resources, and those who develop lists of substances. Nominations need to be in quickly as the conference will be held in the period May 20-22 along with the industry pre-meeting and the CD11.

The industry Co-Chair indicated that it would be helpful if Russia also defined whether the objective was data harmonization or data integration. The Russian Federation noted that the aim of the conference was to define the players in this space, the available resources and which resources can be used.

ACTIONS: (1) The Russian Federation will develop a more detailed description of desired participants and speaker expertise for the May conference on data harmonization/data exchange for circulation to the CDSG by February 27. (2) Nominations for speakers and participants are to be forwarded to the Program Director by March 5.

Information sharing in supply chains

Japan provided a briefing on the work it is doing to enhance information sharing in the supply and value chain. The objectives of the activity are (1) To minimize chemical risk in the supply chain; and (2) conduct science based risk management. Attention was drawn to document 2012/SOM1/CDSG/010 for a description of the latest developments in the Joint Articles Management Program (JAMP) project. In a new development, JAMP in conjunction with electronics manufacturers

and JCIA has extended the program to include the development of a system for information sharing along the supply chain and the protection of CBI. It was noted that CBI is very important to specialty SMEs. Known as SCRUM, the relevance of this project to the activity of the VWG on Transparency and Innovation was noted and the VWG was encouraged to consult with SCRUM project leaders.

ACTION: Encourage consultation by the VWG on Transparency and Innovation with the SCRUM project leaders. JCIA to provide contact details.

Update on ERIA / METI Project

Discussion led by Industry Co-Chair and ERIA Representative

The Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) has examined the economic impact of chemicals management in East Asia and recommended policy approaches to achieve the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) goal of minimizing the significant adverse effects of chemical production and use in the region by 2020. Attention was drawn to document 2012/SOM1/CDSG/012. ASEAN is in the process of developing a chemical safety data base with a view to achieving GHS convergence in ASEAN. Database elements have been identified with instructions on use. The Russian Federation indicated that it would like to invite a representative from ERIA to the Data Exchange conference in May in Kazan. ASEAN continues to work on an interface for ASEAN languages.

ACTION: ERIA to be invited to the data harmonization/data exchange conference in May in Kazan

Malaysia provided a brief report on the First Asia Pacific Hazards Symposium, which was held in Kuala Lumpur in April 2011 (2012/SOM1/CDSG/016). It drew over 230 process safety experts. A second symposium is planned for mid April 2012.

ACTION: Malaysia will consult on whether this conference could be moved to be closer in time to the Regulators forum, so as to draw more CD participation.

There being no other business the CDSG adjourned the meeting, thanking the Russian Federation for its excellent arrangements and tremendous hospitality. She indicated that because there was such a short time between the CDSG and the Singapore and Kazan events, a summary of key action items would be circulated by February 6. The minutes of the meeting would follow in the next week.