A BRS Cha-Cha: UN Chemicals Negotiations Make Some Key Advances, Delay Already Overdue Protections, and Offer Lessons for Future Plastics Treaty
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, June 17, 2022
Geneva, Switzerland — At the conclusion of the United Nations Triple Conferences of the Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions (BRS COPs) today, Parties made critical progress by banning a very dangerous “forever chemical” and limiting exports of e-waste, however, they once again failed to take meaningful action to regulate the trade of multiple toxic substances that threaten people and ecosystems and have been on the COP’s agenda for decades.
While active stakeholder participation advanced important provisions that have the capacity to speed up the transition to a toxic-free future, Parties failed to improve information sharing among countries regarding the trade of health-threatening substances. They also failed to set limits on the levels of hazardous chemicals in waste. Importantly, both the progress and the lack thereof at the BRS COPs are instructive for other international instruments — including the future treaty to end plastic pollution — both in terms of content and legal structure of the future agreement.
At the conclusion of the BRS COPs, members of the CIEL delegation issued the following statements:
Stockholm Convention:
Countries Pass Global Ban on Toxic PFHxS.
“We applaud the decision from the Stockholm Convention’s Parties to ban PFHxS — a persistent organic pollutant — with no exemptions. This decision recognizes once again the significant threat of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” that pose ongoing threats to human health and the environment. We expect this precedent to push the European Union to keep its promise and swiftly ban the PFAS group in the EU and be a champion for action at the global level.”
Giulia Carlini Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law.
Basel Convention:
Parties Take Critical Steps to Control E-Waste Trade and Avoid Rushed Decisions Which Could Have Harmed People and The Environment.
“We applaud the leadership of Ghana and Switzerland to make it harder for countries to dump their e-waste by demanding the bare minimum: prior and informed consent (PIC) of destination countries before shipping abroad their waste. While this decision is a positive step, it does not solve the massive e-waste problem, as most electric and electronic products are being shipped abroad under the guise of second-hand or reparable products and thus escape all control mechanisms under the Basel Convention, including the newly adopted PIC requirement. We, however, hope the decision will guide future legislation for countries to be able to be more selective on their waste imports.”
David Azoulay, Director of Environmental Health Program, Center for International Environmental Law
Discussions Stall on Limiting Levels of Toxic Chemicals in Waste.
“Stalled discussions about the technical guidelines on the level of Persistent Organics Pollutants (POPs) in waste continue to put people in danger. Without limits on the amount of POPs allowed in waste, dangerous materials will be recycled into everyday products, triggering further exposure to very toxic chemicals. Unfortunately, a substantial number of States blocked any stricter limits for POPs in waste. If Parties are serious in their commitments to protect people’s health and the environment, they must adopt stricter values at the next BRPs COPs in May.
In contrast, we welcome the postponement of the plastic waste technical guidelines that could harm people’s health and the environment if not done properly. Many delegates are finally realizing the dangers of false solutions to the plastic crisis, such as chemical recycling, which are purported to solve our plastic recycling problems, but are in reality a strategy to keep producing plastics which exacerbate the current pollution, biodiversity, and climate crises. We expect this postponement to lay the groundwork for stronger and more effective guidelines in the months to come, guidelines that will work in concert with the ongoing negotiations for a plastics treaty.”
Giulia Carlini, Senior Attorney at Center for International Environmental Law.
Rotterdam Convention:
Stalled Progress Provides Important Lessons For Other International Instruments
“Yet again, a few countries decided to favor narrow national and/or corporate interests and blocked the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos, acetochlor, carbosulfan, fenthion, and paraquat under the Rotterdam Convention, which would, at minimum implement the right to information on their toxicity. The failure of the Rotterdam Convention to take action on chemicals that have gone through a rigorous scientific assessment should inform the future negotiation of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Panel under UNEP to ensure that it can deliver on its objectives.”
David Azoulay, Director of Environmental Health Program, Center for International Environmental Law
Lessons For the Plastics Treaty
“Consensus-based decisions (such as under the Rotterdam Convention) are a sure recipe for failure by giving each and every country the right to veto and block progress supported by the vast majority. Conversely, an open approach, which provides strengthening controls (such as in both Basel and Stockholm), can guarantee vibrant international negotiating spaces and ensure the continued relevance of the future plastics treaty in the face of growing scientific knowledge.
The BRS COPs also demonstrated the importance of dedicated financial mechanisms and the value of developing clear directions for the development of a robust compliance mechanism, when this is not fully agreed upon during the intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC).”
David Azoulay, Director of Environmental Health Program, Center for International Environmental Law
###
Media contact:
Rossella Recupero, Communications Associate, press(at)ciel.org
Posted on June 17th, 2022