Subscribe
Even as nations agreed to eliminate the harmful pesticide chlorpyrifos — barring specific exemptions — some countries opposed mandatory information-sharing prior to trade, sparking transparency concerns at the ongoing Rotterdam and Stockholm Convention summits.
The debate unfolded on May 5 at the ongoing Conferences of the Parties (COP) to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, taking place in Geneva from April 28 to May 9, 2025. The conventions aim to safeguard human health and the environment from dangerous chemicals and waste.
Chlorpyrifos, known for its neurotoxic effects on children and environmental harm, was among four new substances proposed for inclusion in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. Annex III listing does not ban a chemical but requires exporters to obtain prior informed consent (PIC) from importing countries before trading it. This mechanism enhances transparency and enables countries to make informed decisions about the import of hazardous substances.
However, opposition from some countries — particularly India and Russia — threatened the consensus required for listing. These nations called for further expert-level reviews and expressed concerns over the lack of viable alternatives, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).
“Chlorpyrifos is a highly toxic pesticide that harms the brain development of children even at very low concentrations. Harm to farming communities and ecosystems is well documented in many countries, leading to significant social costs in addition to the human suffering,” Fernando Bejarano, executive director of RAPAM (Pesticide Action Network in Mexico), made this intervention on behalf of International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global network of nongovernmental organisations.
Just days earlier, Parties to the Stockholm Convention (a global treaty that aims to protect human health and the environment from the effects of persistent organic pollutants) agreed to eliminate chlorpyrifos, allowing 22 temporary exemptions. “Government have already reached a consensus to list chlorpyrifos under the Stockholm Convention for global elimination. However, a long list of exemptions was included in this decision,” Bejarano said.
He added that the procedure (PIC) was crucial to ensure that exempted uses remained subject to safeguards and transparency and the chemical is only traded if the importing country provides PIC. Unlike Stockholm, Rotterdam does not ban the chemical.
“Some countries are using the argument that listing chlorpyrifos (and other pesticides) under Rotterdam Convention would affect its trade, which is baseless,” AD Dileep Kumar, chief executive for coalition Pesticide Action Network India told Down To Earth (DTE).
India, a major producer and exporter of chlorpyrifos, reportedly manufactured 24,000 tonnes of the pesticide in 2021, exporting half of that volume, according to a report. Russia also uses chlorpyrifos extensively. Russian companies manufacture formulations based on chlorpyrifos and import them from other nations, including India and the European Union member states, according to IPEN.
In addition to chlorpyrifos, three other substances were under discussion for listing under Rotterdam: Methyl bromide (used in pest control), mercury (used in industrial processes), and paraquat (a widely used herbicide).
On May 5, discussions on paraquat revealed sharp divides, with countries like Uruguay and Venezuela opposing its listing on the grounds that it would hinder trade.
Chemicals previously discussed but without consensus — acetochlor (herbicide), carbosulfan (insecticide), chrysotile asbestos (used in building materials), fenthion (insecticide), iprodione (fungicide), and paraquat dichloride (herbicide) — were also scheduled to be revisited. Discussions on acetochlor will be taken up at the next meeting, while similar divisions emerged during negotiations on paraquat dichloride
This is the sixth COP where countries have blocked the listing of paraquat dichloride, said Fredrick Otieno of the Centre for Environment Justice and Development (CEJAD), Kenya. “This amounts to 12 years of delays, perpetuating harm. Economy and trade should never come before people and environment well-being. These chemicals have been evaluated, found to meet all criteria under the Convention, and therefore recommended for listing by the Chemical Review Committee (CRC),” he said.
CRC is a subsidiary body of the Rotterdam Convention established to review chemicals and pesticide formulations.
However, countries reached a consensus on listing carbosulfan and fenthion in Annex III on May 6 and 7, respectively. Fenthion was added after a decade of blockades, during which concerns were raised about food security and the lack of alternatives. The decision came as a surprise to many delegates, who were left wondering what prompted the shift, according to IISD. Some even speculated whether the chemical is now “dead,” with no ongoing production or use. IISD also noted that increased capacity-building efforts and technical support from the Secretariat on alternative control methods may have influenced the decision.
“This Conference of Parties is considering the listing of 10 chemicals, including 8 pesticides. So far, Carbosulfan and Fenthion formulations have been adopted,” Dileep said. Decisions on the remaining chemcials, he added, may be postponed to the next meeting.
Most parties and observers have expressed concerns that non-listing of chemicals brings down the effectiveness of the convention, he added. “Non-listing deprives importing parties of access to critical information about the dangers of the chemical that could help them implement protective measures in their territory from the harmful effects.”
Dileep explained that despite many chemicals such as chrysotile asbestos and paraquat formulations meeting the listing criteria even a decade back, they continue to be blocked by a small number of countries. “They have commercial interest that undermines health and environmental effects despite having more than enough scientific evidence of harm,” he noted.
