New proposal to add exemptions for a banned hazardous chemical under Stockholm Convention is questioning its credibility: Giulia Carlini
Delegates from across the world gathered at meetings of the Conferences of the Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) Conventions in Geneva, Switzerland, from April 28 to May 9, 2025. BRS are also multilateral environmental agreements, which share the common objective of protecting human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals and wastes.
Down To Earth caught up with Giulia Carlini, manager and senior attorney, Environmental Health Program at the Center for International Environmental Law, a non-profit law organisation that focuses on the environment, to make sense of the recent listing of two persistent organic pollutants (POPs) for elimination under the Stockholm Convention, how reopening an already banned POP could set a bad precedent, and discussions around plastic wastes in the Basel Convention.
Rohini Krishnamurthy (RK): During the first week of the BRS Conventions, two POPs were successfully eliminated under the Stockholm Convention, with only a few exemptions. What are your thoughts about how the negotiations unfolded and your assessment of the decisions that were ultimately agreed upon?
Giulia Carlini (GC): Two of the three proposed POPs have been listed under the Stockholm Convention under Annex A. That means that we have a global ban on production and use, with some specific exemptions to continue producing and using these substances. The two POPs are Chlorpyrifos, an insecticide, and the long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs), a subgroup of PFAS, the forever chemicals. [LC-PFCAs have water, oil, dirt and grease repellent properties and can be found in a variety of products including personal care products, cleaning products, and surface treatments for textiles, upholstery, leather, automotive parts, carpet and paper products, and packaging]. There may be over 10,000 of PFAS. These are very dangerous chemicals, and their listing under Annex A is a very good first step. Chlorpyrifos can harm the developing brains of children.
However, the fact is that there are still exemptions for continued production and use for both POPs. These exemptions were added during the Conference of the Parties’ (COP) negotiations, especially for Chlorpyrifos. This is concerning. States have agreed that these substances are harmful because they are POPs, which means they persist in the environment, they can travel distances and have severe impact on human health and environment. But the exemptions for continued use causes harm.
Another thing to note is that before states agree on listing POPs under the Stockholm Convention, the chemicals go through a long process of review by the POP Review Committee (POPRC), a subsidiary body that assesses whether the chemicals fulfil certain criteria, after which they make recommendations along with the exemptions needed, if any.
More exemptions that were not discussed by the POPRC, were included during the COP’s negotiations. The political choice of the Parties or the states is undermining the scientific recommendation. These exemptions should not be added to protect the Stockholm Convention and its process, along with human health, the environment, and human rights.
As for medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs), the negotiation is still ongoing. Like LC-PFCAs, MCCPs are a group of substances [mainly as plastic additives]. I expect that we will have negotiations continuing. I hope they get finalised, and Parties agree to adopt the listing and eventual global ban of MCCPs. And there again, the discussions were also a lot on the exemptions, and some technical parts such as how to list the chemical identity, the traceability and the transparency because Parties should have ways of tracking products and articles in which they are used. This will help them deal with these as soon they are banned with specific exemptions.
RK: Parties are also discussing a proposal of adding a new exemption for UV-328, which was already listed for elimination with specific exemptions under the Stockholm Convention in 2023. Is this setting a bad precedent?
GC: Discussions on UV-328 is one of the reasons the negotiations under the Stockholm Convention are a bit delayed. Parties have not only added and negotiated a lot of exemptions for the new chemicals proposed to be listed as POPs this year, there is also a parallel proposal of amending a POP that was listed in Annex A under the Stockholm Convention in 2023. UV-328 [is a UV absorber to protect surfaces against discolouration and degradation under UV/sunlight] is also used in plastics. [Ethiopia proposed adding an exemption to allow the use of UV-328 in civilian and military aircraft that contain adhesives, potting compound].
Nongovernmental organisations are strongly opposing this because of the precedent that this will set. UV-328 is already banned with some exemptions [such as in parts of motor vehicles, industrial coating applications, mechanical separators in blood collection tubes, triacetyl cellulose film in polarisers and photographic paper]. So it went through the process: the scientific process, and then political decision at the previous COP in 2023.
Parties have started the implementation of the ban and then one country came up this year asking to include new exemptions for UV-328. There has not been a decision yet and it is still under negotiation, and, we are strongly opposing it because if the new exemption is adopted, it would open up the possibility of reopening POPs listed in the past years, hopefully phased out and banned globally. This is really questioning the credibility of the Convention, and the decisions that are taken.
The proposal for UV-328 is unprecedented because Parties are trying to go back and reopen a past decision to ban this POP. I think there are bigger interests at play in this request for the new exemption. Though Ethiopia made this proposal, I wouldn’t put the blame on this one country because it is evident in the discussion that there are bigger economic interests from the airlines that appear to played a role in proposing these exemptions.
RK: Countries adding new exemptions argue that there is lack of safer alternatives. Is this true?
GC: Based on discussions at POPRC, it is clear that there are alternatives. These arguments about a lack of safer alternatives often hide a matter of political will and economic interest. We are in closed rooms with no sunlight, no fresh air, and we are talking about substances with these complicated names. It seems that we are talking about intangible things. It seems that we are very detached from what is the real-life impact of continued production and use of some of the worst chemicals in the world.
Alternatives exist and having regulations is good to push for safer alternatives, because there is no incentive to produce safe alternatives if there is no rule to restrict or block these harmful chemicals.
Having bans is useful to produce and use safer alternatives. This is also something that came up during discussion on LC-PFCAs. Often, if there is a restriction or a ban on a group, the industry uses another type of PFAS. And in this case, there have been discussions about preventing the use of substitutes that are also similar chemicals and as harmful as the one that we just banned. Otherwise, we’ll just doing what is called a regrettable substitution by producing something that is as harmful as what was just banned. These chemicals should not be produced in the first place.
RK: There are discussions on plastic wastes under the Basel Convention. How are they shaping up?
GC: In 2019, amendments on plastic waste were adopted under the Basel Convention, which deals with the trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste. These amendments extended a system of prior informed consent (PIC) to the majority of the type of plastic waste. [PIC involves notifying the authorities of the prospective States of import and transit, providing them with detailed information on the intended movement]. However, a few types were considered somehow ‘green’ (presumed not to be hazardous) and were allowed to be traded without the PIC procedure. Those considered hazardous waste or ‘requiring special consideration’ go under the PIC rules of the Convention. This has put stronger rules on trading plastic than before. This also comes as a sort of reaction to the Chinese policy of not importing all plastic waste anymore from the world and that forced the Convention and Parties to address plastic waste more comprehensively.
After these amendments were adopted, we are now in a phase where Parties are starting to think if it is time to assess the implementation of these amendments because sometimes there are reports of illegal exports and dumping of plastic wastes. There are some streams of plastic waste that are not included, or it is not clear if they are included or not. For instance, in the case of textiles, which are made from artificial fibres, there is a question of whether we consider it a part of plastic or not? In the plenary on Saturday, an item called the “further consideration of plastic waste” came up, and it is currently being discussed in the contact group, which is basically where the negotiations are carried out before a draft decision is finalised and adopted.
Some Parties are advocating the need to strengthen the controls of what is covered by the PIC procedure. For example, there are some polymers, like the fluorinated polymers, that are not covered if the plastic waste is sent for recycling in an environmentally sound manner, and almost free from contamination and other types of wastes. However, they are still dangerous. We think it should go under the PIC. Ideally, all plastic waste should go under the PIC to have strengthened controls.
Another part of discussion is the technical guidelines on the environmentally sound management of different types of wastes, which are still ongoing. At the last COP in 2023, the updated technical guidelines on the environmentally sound management of plastic wastes were one of the big issues, especially on how to consider ‘chemical recycling’ of plastics. Some Parties really wanted this to be included and others opposed. Finally, this concerning technology was not considered environmentally sound, but we are monitoring any attempts to bring it up again in new decisions.
RK: How are negotiations on plastics wastes at the Basel Convention related to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) on plastics pollution?
GC: These are two different negotiations, but it is interesting to hear how some Basel Parties are trying to talk about the plastics treaty negotiation or INC as a waste management treaty because they do not want the plastics treaty to address production of plastics. We are hearing them say the same thing here. There are some common issues in terms of content between these BRS negotiations and the plastics treaty, such as with plastic waste under the Basel Convention, and with chemicals used in plastic under Stockholm because the MCCPs are also used in plastic — but those are not enough to address the plastics crisis, and that’s why a plastics treaty that covers the full lifecycle of plastics is needed.
Many Parties and the observers, the NGOs, the industries attending these discussions at the Basel COP will meet again here in Geneva in a few months in early August. There are parallel discussions on how to try to find convergence on some of the key articles of the future plastics treaty. Some Parties are still opposing it while others are trying to see how there can be more support for the treaty, on key provisions on regulating plastic production, plastic chemicals and products, and also for a future financial mechanism on how to implement the future plastics treaty. At the high level, the secretariat of the plastics treaty organised a high-level breakfast trying to bring together ministers or equivalent to discuss the plastics treaty, here at the margins of the BRS COPs.