Theme 1: Existing standards and standard-setting bodies

Dear Olivier Kervella,

Thank you very much for sharing your experience (http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/theme1_art18.shtml?threadid=979) about the ISO and CEN standards.

Here are my questions for you to answer please, if you can, about the UNECE standards and mainly in the context of the Aarhus Convention (and perhaps also the Espoo Convention and other UNECE treaties):

Q.1: If a developing country outside of the "UNECE region" (for example, Nepal) decides to acceed to the Aarhus Convention, and subsequently also to its GMO Amendment (that is likely to enter into force in 2010/2011), then it (i.e. Nepal) will not have to abide by the UNECE standards unless it can become a member of the UNECE which is only possible for a country/Aarhus Convention Party of Central Asia (for example, the least developed country or LDC such as Afghanistan) because Central Asia is part of the UNECE "region", is this correct?

Q.2: In that case, can that developing country (such as Nepal) also have the opportunity/option to become a UNECE member? How does UNECE plan to deal with this reality, now that developing countries outside its "region" can acceed to the Aarhus Convention, and subsequently also to the Espoo Convention?

Q.3: What about other UNECE treaties relevant to Cartagena Protocol provisions such as, for example, the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Transport (CLRTAP) that may, in the future, also be "opened" to accession by countries outside of the UNECE "region"?

If necessary, I can explain the relevance of CLRTAP to Cartagena Protocol provisions: it is my futuristic perspective that could become realistic sooner than I imagine, depending upon climate change effects/impacts.

Thank you in advance for your reply, if it can be possible for you to reply before this Forum closes.

If not, I shall still appreciate your reply at your convenience, next week or even later this month, directly to me at my e-mail address stated below.

From: gunasutra@yahoo.in

Dear Guna Sutra,

I will refer your question to my UNECE colleagues dealing with these conventions, but it is important to note that each convention has to be taken separately. Parties to a given convention are bound by the provisions of that convention only, and a country party to the Aarhus convention is not bound by the provisions of another UNECE convention (i.e. ADR for transport of dangerous goods by road) if it is not party to this other convention.

Most UNECE conventions are also open to other UN member States, since they allow participation of UN member States in consultative status with UNECE pursuant to par 11 of its terms of reference, which states:"The Commission shall invite any Member of the United Nations not a member of the Commission to participate in a consultative status in its consideration of any matter of particular concern to that non-member." Thus, quite a number of non-UNECE members are already parties to a number of UNECE conventions.
A party to a convention, whether  UNECE member State or not,has the same rights and obligations under the  convention as any other Party. So I believe that if Nepal acceded to the Aarhus convention, it would have to abide by the provisions of the Aarhus convention, but not of those contained in other UNECE conventions to which it would not be party.
For the question concerning Central Asia, only Central Asia States which were part of the former USSR are members of the UNECE, and this does not include Afghanistan. The fact that a non-UNECE country accedes to an UNECE convention does not mean that this country could become a member of UNECE. But it would have the same rights and obligations as a UNECE member State under that convention.
Best regards
Olivier Kervella

Dear Olivier Kervella,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Mainly, what I needed to know and what I understand from your reply is that if a country such as Nepal (outside of the UNECE "region") acceeds to the Aarhus Convention (including its GMO Amendment) and/or Espoo Convention, for example, then the dangerous goods standards/regulations of the UNECE (such as the ADR, ADN, CRTD and GHS) are not legally binding for such a country (or UN member State) unless it takes action to also acceed to each legal instrument.

From: gunasutra@yahoo.in

Yes, your understanding is correct.
Best regards
Olivier Kervella