Union News
USNC/IUPAC Sponsors ACS Symposium Speaker

The Stockholm Convention:
Science-Based International Decision-making or Political Fix?

The Stockholm Convention sets out to protect human health and the environment by phasing out or strictly limiting the uses of twelve persistent organic pollutants. New chemicals can be added to the twelve if they meet criteria for persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and adverse effects. The criteria in the Convention are very similar to those in other regional agreements, but their global application through the Convention will be the subject of close scrutiny.
The Parties have started the task of assessing new chemicals that might be added to the Convention, and eight or so are currently being looked at. The Convention is acutely balanced between a reasonably scientific and rigorous assessment of candidates, and one in which political outcomes are achieved, if necessary, by stretching the criteria to fit the nominations. Most informed and objective observers probably accept that all the first round of nominations belong on the Convention. On the other hand, precedents have been set that lead to speculation on how the Convention’s expert Review Committee will assess nominated chemicals that might fall just outside the margins of the criteria.		Mark Hyman Courtesy IISD webpage
If the Convention becomes an instrument that lists chemicals for political rather than scientific reasons the “element of mutuality” that gives the Convention its force would be weakened. The other risk is the challenge to implementation presented by a rapidly growing list of chemicals. Many countries already find the Convention difficult to implement. If too many new chemicals (especially those with new uses) are added, some countries will choose not to ratify or simply not meet their obligations. Additions to the Convention may also dilute resources available for implementation. On the other hand, the political momentum of the Convention comes from those who want to see it evolve into a much more comprehensive instrument. For these players, a static or only slowly evolving Convention may not be worth the effort they have been putting in. The Convention, therefore, is delicately poised between over-ambition on the one hand, with a rapidly expanding list of chemicals to be controlled, and stultification on the other, with loss of political cachet as the grind of implementation on a static group of chemicals absorbs all the available energy. The challenge for the Parties is to walk the fine line between the two. In doing so Parties must avoid the temptation to bend the science to pick up chemicals which it would be politically attractive to include, but which do not meet the tests the Convention sets for candidates. Careful and comprehensive presentation of the evidence and reasoning for its recommendations by the Review Committee would provide those outside the process with some reassurance. Mark Hyman, Asst. Secretary, Environment Protection Branch, Australian Department of Environment and Heritage (Retired). Learn more about the First Meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP-1) of the Stockholm Convention held in Punta del Este, Uruguay, 2-6 May, 2005 and the summary of discussions in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin.