The Triple Conference of the Parties to the three chemical conventions (Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm) took place in Geneva, Switzerland, from April 28 to May 9, 2025, bringing together more than 1,600 participants. These included representatives from 191 countries, UN agencies, international organizations, and observer groups.
Hazardous chemicals and wastes can harm our health, the environment, and the economy, even when we don’t see the danger. Many modern products, from industrial tools to household items, contain complex chemicals such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs), also known as “everlasting chemicals.” However, only a small number of these chemicals have been properly tested for safety. Additionally, waste is often moved between countries without clear information about what it contains, including the presence of harmful substances.
Chemical production is growing rapidly at approximately 3.5% per year and is projected to double by 2030. Much of this growth is taking place in developing countries. The health costs associated with chemical exposure in countries such as China, India, and Nigeria can reach as high as 1% of their GDP, not including individuals working in the informal or unregulated sector, who are often more exposed.
To address these challenges, the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions convened jointly under the theme “Making the Invisible Visible”. Several decisions have been made to better protect people and the planet, but challenges persist due to the complexity of global trade and the economic value of chemicals.
What the Conference of the Parties (COP) to each convention has done:
- Basel Convention (BC):
- Updated the definition of “waste” to help countries better track and manage it.
- Created a new plan to help countries work together and measure progress.
- Began to explore ways to manage textile waste, which is growing rapidly, especially in developing countries.
On May 9, the BC COP adopted general guidelines on the environmentally sound management of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with persistent organic pollutants (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.13) and a decision on technical guidelines for POPs waste (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.12). The COP also decided to include methoxychlor in the technical guidelines for POPs pesticides and dechlorane plus in the technical guidelines for brominated diphenyl ethers.
Textile waste was discussed in the contact group on technical matters and in plenary. Parties deliberated on the priority that should be assigned to this work after agreeing that the Open-ended Working Group should consider options for addressing textile waste under the Convention between 2025 and 2026. The decision was made on 9 May, and the new item was assigned medium priority.
- Rotterdam Convention (RC):
The agenda of the RC COP considered four new chemicals recommended for listing under the Convention this year: chlorpyrifos, mercury, methyl bromide, and paraquat. Additionally, six recurring substances that had been recommended for listing but did not achieve consensus at previous COPs were revisited. These substances were acetochlor, carbosulfan, chrysotile asbestos, iprodione, and two highly hazardous pesticide formulations containing fenthion and paraquat.
As a result of negotiations, only two hazardous pesticides—carbosulfan and fenthion—were added to the list that requires countries to obtain consent before trading. At the same time, suppliers of these products are required to provide information about the dangers of the imported substances and the availability of safer and economically acceptable alternatives. For example, fenthion is used in some African countries to protect crops. Carbosulfan is applied to crops such as rice, cotton, and vegetables to eliminate insects and small worms in the soil.
Delegates failed to reach an agreement on extending the jurisdiction of the Rotterdam Convention to include additional harmful chemicals, thereby depriving developing countries and nations with economies in transition of their right to be informed about the dangers posed by these substances and the availability of safe alternatives. For instance, in most EECCA countries, chlorpyrifos-based preparations are extensively used both as insecticides and for household and medical disinfection. However, the chemical is not produced in the EECCA region but is instead imported from India. Chlorpyrifos is harmful to children’s development. There are safer alternatives. It should have been banned globally years ago. Nevertheless, many countries, including those in the EECCA region, which have access to alternatives, opposed the inclusion of chlorpyrifos in the Rotterdam Convention. Such resistance would sentence millions of children to persistent exposure to this toxin, leading to long-term damage not only to individuals but also to the economy as a whole, which would have to deal with the consequences for many years.
The RC COP also considered Kazakhstan’s proposal to amend the RC rules of procedure, allowing agenda items to be deemed closed and removed if they are not finalized after three regular meetings of the Parties to the Convention. For instance, the introduction of chrysotile asbestos into the list of RC was unsuccessfully discussed at the COP of RC for the tenth time. However, following an extended discussion during the plenary session, Kazakhstan’s proposal was withdrawn.
- Stockholm Convention (SC):
- Three new POPs have been banned:
v chlorpyrifos, with a large number of temporary exemptions.
Discussions centred on the many requests from countries for specific exemptions. After clarifying that parties did not want a blanket exemption allowing continued use of the chemical in agriculture, they proceeded to narrow down specific exemptions to certain crop and pest combinations. Many parties proposed additional exemptions for various agricultural uses, including locust and leafhopper control, as well as termite control in construction. Although some countries argued that the number of exemptions undermined the SC listing process, given that the New POPs Review Committee (POPRC) had already agreed on exemptions and made submissions to the COP, opponents of chlorpyrifos’s inclusion on the SC list contended that the POPRC’s proposed exemptions had not undergone rigorous scientific review and that further research was needed. Additionally, some parties cited food security concerns and the lack of alternatives with proven efficacy in national settings. As a result, although chlorpyrifos is listed in Annex A of the SC, the number of agreed exemptions effectively authorizes its continued use.
Two groups of industrial chemicals—long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs) and medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs)—are specifically used for processing and manufacturing plastics, albeit with exemptions.
With respect to LC-PFCAs, the final COP decision includes numerous exceptions for:
- semiconductors destined for spare parts;
- semiconductors intended for spare parts for vessels with internal combustion engines; and
- spare parts for vehicles whose series production has been discontinued, including all land vehicles such as automobiles, motorcycles, agricultural and construction machinery, and industrial trucks. Applications include semiconductors, coatings, cables, electronics, engines and under hood components, modules, hydraulic system components and relay assemblies.
SC also:
- Invites parties to submit additional information on the identification of substances listed as LC-PFCAs;
- Encourages Parties to take into account the information on potential alternatives presented in the risk assessment to determine whether these alternatives have POPs characteristics.
Concerning exemptions for MCCPs, many exemptions were introduced and discussed, with the debate primarily focused on polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in construction. Some parties supported its use indoors, while others opposed it in residential areas. Additionally, there were extensive discussions on other exemptions, including those for ammunition paints, coatings, and marking, which will extend until 2041.
The special exception for flexible PVC is limited:
- by the construction sector, including maintenance of buildings and other structures, for purposes other than the manufacture of wires and cables and excluding residential use, such as flooring, wallpaper and wall panels;
- wires and cables in the construction sector;
- wires and cables in medical and in vitro diagnostic devices; and
- calendered films in the field of packaging, excluding food packaging.
The special exception for adhesives and sealants is limited to the following:
- Polysulfide sealant and one-component polyurethane foam used for sealing doors and windows;
- waterproof coatings and anti-corrosion coatings;
- Aerospace and defense applications (e.g., tamper-resistant polyurethane adhesives and sealants);
- A tape used for non-structural bonding in the aerospace and defense industries;
- components for greasy leather impregnation, except for children’s products;
- pyrotechnic devices for emergencies;
- paints and coatings for ammunition and ammunition markings;
- metalworking fluids in specific areas and sectors;
- polymers and rubbers (including PVC, ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber, chloroprene, nitrile butadiene rubber and chlorinated polyethylene) used in repair and replacement parts in specific applications and sectors, until the end of the products’ useful life or 2041, whichever comes first;
- Pyrotechnic devices for ammunition designed to achieve specific effects (e.g. sound, smoke, light), in specific applications and sectors;
- Coatings and paints for space and defense equipment and its packaging to protect against extreme temperatures (may be available through 2041); and
- Coatings and paints for repair and spare parts use for space and defence equipment in specific applications and sectors that may remain available until the end of the useful life of that equipment for repair and maintenance, subject to COP review no later than 2041.
In addition, the SC CC agreed to review the MCCPs at COP-14 and the specific exemptions for MCCPs at COP-15.
- For the first time, it was decided to renew the previous ban on the continued use of an already prohibited POP. Thus, despite the ban on UV-328 adopted at the last COP in 2023, its limited use in aircraft materials is now permitted. This decision opens new opportunities to renegotiate additional exemptions that would allow for the continued use of already banned POPs. Consequently, the COP decision stressed that the ruling on UV-328 should not become common practice.
To summarize the negotiations, the following can be noted.
The Rotterdam Convention, which aims to share information on hazardous chemicals and pesticides, has struggled to remain effective and relevant compared to other major international treaties.
- Progress made: At the last meeting, two pesticides—fenthion and carbosulfan—were finally listed under the Convention after years of obstruction by countries that use them. However, decisions on eight other chemicals were postponed once again, mainly due to opposition from producing countries.
- Purpose of the Convention: It does not prohibit chemicals but assists countries in determining whether to import substances banned in other nations. Unlike other treaties, it lacks financial support and does not have regional centres.
- Overlap with other treaties: The Convention often gets overshadowed by stronger agreements such as the Montreal Protocol, the Minamata Convention, and the Stockholm Convention, which manage some of the same chemicals more effectively.
- Trade concerns: Some countries argue that the inclusion of a chemical in the Rotterdam Convention impacts its trade and market value, even though the Convention does not prohibit it. Others believe that the issue is overstated.
- Disagreements and delays: Delegates were unable to reach consensus on the listing of chemicals such as methyl bromide, mercury, and chlorpyrifos, despite their phase-out under other treaties. This was disappointing, particularly since chlorpyrifos had just been banned under the Stockholm Convention.
- Debate on reform: Countries struggle to reach consensus on improving the Convention. Brazil proposed significant changes, including the establishment of a new committee, while the EU suggested more modest steps. Ultimately, it was decided to enhance the Chemical Review Committee (CRC), which assesses chemicals for listing.
- Ongoing controversy: There is no clear consensus regarding the main concerns of the Convention. Some argue it pertains to trade impacts, while others contend it solely involves information exchange. Until countries reach an agreement on the core issues, the Convention will fall behind other global initiatives.
At the most recent Stockholm Convention COP, delegates addressed issues related to complex chemicals used in global supply chains, while being careful not to set new precedents that could weaken the Convention’s scientific basis.
Key Issues and Decisions:
- From the “dirty dozen” to complex chemicals:
The Convention originally targeted 12 toxic chemicals but now faces more complex substances such as MCCPs (used in PVC products) and chlorpyrifos (a widely used pesticide). These substances are more challenging to monitor and regulate because of their widespread use and chemical complexity.
- Exceptions generate discussion:
Many countries have requested exemptions for the continued use of these chemicals. This has complicated the process and raised concerns that it undermines the credibility of the expert committee, which has already reviewed and not recommended many of these exemptions.
- The controversy surrounding UV-328:
A rare case has arisen in which a chemical (UV-328) was discovered in aircraft materials after it had already been banned. This led to an unprecedented decision to reopen the listing review and authorize a limited exemption – something the Convention has never done before. Delegates emphasized that this should not become common practice.
- Scientific integrity is at risk:
The effectiveness of the Convention relies on scientific data and industry cooperation. However, when the industry provides incorrect or untimely information, as in the case of UV-328, it undermines the process.
- Adapting to a changing world:
The Convention should evolve alongside new global initiatives such as the Global Framework on Chemicals, a potential treaty on plastics, and a science-policy panel on chemicals and wastes. The Stockholm Convention is striving to keep pace with the increasing complexity of global chemical usage. While it remains grounded in science, its effectiveness hinges on countries and industries collaborating, making informed decisions, and resisting pressures to dilute its standards.
Additional information is available at:
https://www.brsmeas.org/2025COPs/NewsRoom/tabid/10251/language/en-US/Default.aspx
https://enb.iisd.org/basel-rotterdam-stockholm-conventions-brs-cops-2025
https://ipen.org/conferences/brs-cop-2025
The proceedings of the discussion held in the EECCA region on the eve of the Triple Conference of the Parties to the chemical conventions are available on the website:
