Stockholm POPs Convention
Overview & Status of US Ratification and
Implementing Legislation
I. Stockholm Convention Overview
The Stockholm Convention on persistent organic
pollutants (POPs) represents the most important
effort by the global community, to date, to rein in
and ultimately halt the proliferation of toxic
chemicals. The treaty targets some of the world’s
most dangerous substances, including industrial
chemicals such as PCBs, byproducts such as
dioxins, and pesticides such as chlordane. It is
designed to eliminate or severely restrict
production and use of POPs pesticides and
industrial chemicals; ensure environmentally
sound management and chemical transformation
of POPs waste; and prevent the development of
new chemicals with POPs-like characteristics.
Finalized in Stockholm on May 23, 2001, the
Convention has now been ratified by the requisite
50 parties and becomes binding international law
for those governments on May 17, 2004.
POPs pose a particular hazard because of four
characteristics: they are toxic; they are persistent,
resisting normal processes that break down
contaminants; they accumulate in the body fat of
people, marine mammals, and other animals and
are passed from mother to fetus; and they can
travel great distances on wind and water currents.
Even minute quantities can cause nervous system
damage, diseases of the immune system,
reproductive and developmental disorders, and
cancers. Most vulnerable are those in the womb
or egg, and in infancy, as vital organ systems are
being developed.
POPs pose a threat in the United States and
around the world. From Alaska to the Great
Lakes to Florida, people and wildlife face an
insidious but largely invisible threat from POPs
chemicals. Although many of the targeted
chemicals are no longer produced in the U.S.,
POPs used and released in other countries – often
thousands of miles from our borders – continue to
contaminate our lands and waterways, the food
we eat, and the air we breathe.
Eliminating intentionally produced POPs. The
Stockholm Convention targets chemicals that
harm human health and the environment globally,
starting with a list of 12 POPs. Most of the
pesticides are slated for immediate bans once the
treaty takes effect. A longer phase-out (until
2025) is planned for certain PCB uses. For DDT,
the agreement sets the goal of ultimate
elimination, with a timeline determined by the
availability of cost-effective alternatives for
malaria prevention. The agreement limits DDT
use in the interim to disease vector control in
accordance with World Health Organization
guidelines, and calls for research, development,
and implementation of safe, effective, and
affordable alternatives.
Ultimately eliminating by-product POPs. For
dioxins, furans, and hexachlorobenzene, parties
are called on to reduce total releases “with the
goal of their continuing minimization and, where
feasible, ultimate elimination.” The treaty urges
the use of substitute or modified materials,
products, and processes to prevent the formation
and release of by-product POPs.
Incorporating precaution. Precaution, including
transparency and public participation, is a core
tenet throughout the treaty, with explicit
references in the preamble, objective, provisions
for adding POPs, and determination of best
available technologies.
Disposing of POPs wastes. The treaty includes
provisions for the environmentally sound
management and disposal of POPs wastes
(including stockpiles, products, articles in use,
and materials contaminated with POPs). The
POP content in waste is to be destroyed or
irreversibly transformed, or in limited situations,
disposed of in an environmentally sound manner
in coordination with Basel Convention
requirements.
Controlling POPs trade. Trade in POPs is
allowed only for the purpose of environmentally
sound disposal or in other very limited
circumstances where the importing State provides
certification of its environmental and human
health commitments and its compliance with the
Stockholm Convention’s waste provisions.
Allowing limited and transparent exemptions.
Most exemptions to the treaty requirements are
chemical-and country-specific. There are also
broader exceptions for use in laboratory-scale
research; for small quantities in the possession of
an end-user; and for quantities occurring as
unintentional trace contaminants in products.
Notification procedures and other conditions
apply to exemptions for POPs as constituents of
manufactured articles and for certain closedsystem site-limited intermediates.
Funding for developing countries. The ability of
all countries to fulfill their obligations will be
integral to the treaty's success. The Global
Environment Facility (GEF) has been designated
as the interim financial mechanism, through
which donor countries have committed to
assisting developing countries and transitional
economies in meeting their obligations under the
treaty. Adequacy, predictability, and timely flow
of funds are essential. The treaty calls for regular
review of the level of funding and the
effectiveness of the GEF’s performance as the
entity entrusted with its financial operations.
Adding new POPs to the treaty. The international
community envisioned a dynamic instrument that
could take into account emerging scientific
knowledge about chemicals beyond the initial 12.
With great care and deliberation, governments
crafted a rigorous scientific process for adding
chemicals that warrant global concern because of
their POPs characteristics. That process includes
the following core steps:
 The first Conference of Parties (COP)
establishes a POPs Review Committee
(POPRC).
 Parties submit chemical nominations to the
POPRC, which evaluates them based on
agreed scientific criteria including
persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range
transport, and toxicity.


The POPRC circulates a draft risk profile,
invites input from parties and observers, and
prepares a risk management evaluation.
The COP, taking due account of
recommendations from the POPRC, decides
whether a nominated chemical shall be added
to the treaty as a binding amendment, and
specifies the appropriate control measures.
Assuming U.S. ratification, there is no question
that the United States will be actively engaged as
a key participant throughout the review process.
Separate “opt in” for each new chemical. The
Convention does not automatically obligate the
U.S. or other countries to eliminate new POPs
that are added to the treaty. Special protections
under Article 25(4), called for by the U.S., allow
a government to declare, when ratifying the
Convention, that it will be bound by new
chemical amendments only if it affirmatively
“opts in” via a separate ratification process for
each chemical. The U.S. Department of State has
said that the U.S. will avail itself of the “opt in”
provision, necessitating Senate “advice and
consent” to the addition of each new chemical.
This process fully protects the rights of parties to
reject the addition of any particular substance;
there is no reason to load up the implementing
legislation with additional hurdles.
II. Status of U.S. Implementing
Legislation and Ratification
When President Bush made a Rose Garden
statement in April 2001 expressing support for
the Stockholm Convention, NGOs and the
chemical industry applauded. It is critical,
however that before becoming a party, the United
States be able to fully carry out its obligations
under the treaty.
It is U.S. policy to enact the necessary
implementing legislation prior to the Senate
giving its “advice and consent” to ratification. In
the case of the Stockholm Convention, the
Department of State and EPA determined that the
U.S. needs to amend two domestic laws: the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA). NGOs and industry agreed early
on, in principle, that any amendments should be
“surgical,” resulting only in those changes
necessary to enable effective implementation of
the treaty.
Industrial chemicals: Environment and Public
Works Committee Senators Chafee (R-RI) and
Jeffords (I-VT) last year endeavored to craft
amendments to TSCA that would address the
need for an effective adding mechanism for new
POPs. Unfortunately their efforts were severely
hindered by interventions of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and other Bush
Administration officials. Industry and
environmental groups were both unhappy with
the resulting bill (S. 1486, as reported out of the
Committee in July 2003). The initial
implementing language proposed by the
Administration left out the adding mechanism for
new chemicals altogether, while later proposals
risk shackling the EPA with unnecessary and
cumbersome cost-benefit related requirements
that would make it extremely difficult for the
U.S. to take effective action after a new POP is
added to the treaty.
Pesticides: Last fall the pesticide industry trade
association CropLife America and the Bush
Administration prepared draft FIFRA bills for
review by the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Those bills, considered by NGOs to be seriously
flawed, fortunately were never introduced. More
recently, the locus of activity has shifted to the
House Agriculture Committee, where Majority
staff have been working closely with the
Administration to finalize a draft FIFRA bill.
Although chemical companies are intimately
involved in this process, no drafts have been
shared with the NGO community.
From what NGOs have learned about the bill,
instead of streamlining and facilitating the FIFRA
regulatory process to address chemicals slated for
global elimination, the Administration bill would
add additional cost-benefit and “sound science”
hurdles to the existing FIFRA provisions, which
already take many years to complete. Moreover,
it is NGOs’ understanding that the legislation
completely dissociates EPA’s decision to initiate
a cancellation proceeding from the international
decision to add a POP to the treaty. And if a
cancellation proceeding were initiated, the draft
only goes so far as to say that the Administration
“may” consider information related to the
rigorous, multi-year, Stockholm Convention
listing process and decision.
In proposing its approach, the Administration is
using the POPs implementing legislation to
advance a radical constitutional interpretation –
one which to our knowledge has never been
supported by any court - that would forbid
Congress from mandating EPA or other
administrative agencies to act in response to
international treaty events. This far-reaching new
theory has dangerous implications not only in the
context of POPs but also for other agreements to
which the United States is a party, such as the
Montreal Protocol.
It is likely that the Administration will try to rush
its favored FIFRA bill through Congress in the
coming weeks, while also hoping to resolve any
significant disagreements on TSCA amendments.
These actions could set the stage for an effort to
achieve quick “advice and consent” to ratification
by the Senate. To have a “seat at the table” at the
first COP, tentatively set for April 2005,
governments must ratify the Stockholm
Convention at least 90 days prior thereto.
Several important decisions – involving
procedural rules, review of candidate POPs,
national implementation plans, Secretariat budget
and workplan, etc. -- will take place at COP-1, so
the White House and the chemical industry are
keen to ratify soon. WWF and other
environmental and public health groups want the
United States to become a party, but to do so in a
way that fully and effectively implements the
treaty.
February 18, 2004
For more information, contact Tina Skaar at
202-778-9606, 202-487-1181 (mobile),
tina.skaar@wwfus.org