During the negotiations, the EU, Canada, NGOs, and northern indigenous peoples —> lead roles in

supporting a strong regime. E veto roles shifted according to the specific issue in question.
Interestingly, no governments opposed creating controls on the dirty dozen.
The 1 and 2 phases, produced an endorsement at the first session of the Intergovernmental
Negotiating Committee of the need for global regulations. This reflected a general acceptance of the
science regarding POPs + relatively modest adjustment costs, given that industrialized E had
already established significant controls on the dirty dozen.
EU and NGOs also supported creating controls on chemicals beyond the dirty dozen. veto coalition
opposing this view, US + Japan (supported by companies that made or used the chemicals), argued
successfully that starting with twelve on which consensus existed - best opportunity for creating a
new regime. Although agreement existed on the need to phase out the rest of the dirty dozen,
Australia, Brazil, China, India, US, + E stated that they needed individual exemptions for specific
uses of certain chemicals, at least for short period.

EX: Botswana and China supported continued use of chlordane to protect wooden dams + other
structures from insects. African countries and health-related NGOs advocated strongly for broad
exemption for DDT as use essential for battling mosquitoes malaria - quickly gained near-universal
support.

G knew they would need to create provisions for providing FTA to developing countries to help
implement regime + mechanism for adding new chemicals to strengthen the agreement.
Industrialized and developing E disagreed strongly on the mechanism for providing financial
assistance + possible procedures for adding new chemicals, if the treaty should include a
noncompliance procedure, and institutional links to other treaties. Resolving these and other issues
required difficult and detailed negotiations.

Resulting 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants seeks to protect human
health + MA by eliminating or reducing the production, use, trade, and emission of POPs. All
parties must eliminate the production and use of aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, etc

treaty divides POPs into three categories, according to their source and the type of control measures
placed on them:
A: Substances slated for elimination
B: Substances whose production and use will be severely limited, like DDT,
C: POPs produced inadvertently, as unintentional by-products of other activities
Process for Adding New Chemicals to the Stockholm Convention was very long, taking each step a
year p147

Under the convention, industrialized E must provide new financial resources, at unspecified levels,
and promote transfer of technical assistance. Although all negotiators acknowledged the importance
of providing FTA, very different views existed regarding the proper level and delivery mechanisms.
Most developing E strongly supported creating a new stand-alone financial institution patterned
after that developed under the Montreal Protocol. But at the end through GEF. Aun que se pensaba
que este no le expondría como prioridad.

regime-strengthening process began almost as soon as the convention was signed. POPRC1 then
began considering the first set of chemicals proposed by parties for inclusion in the convention, The
POPRC adopted risk profiles for these substances in 2006, and in 2007 it approved risk-
management evaluations and formally recommended that the COP consider adding these substances
to the convention. It completed the same process for four other chemicals in 2008.
Veto states were empowered to the extent that they were willing to prevent consensus on listing a
chemical unless certain exemptions were allowed;
An important issue for some chemicals is the annex (grupo: eliminar, reducir, etc) in which they
could be placed.
the shift to evaluating toxic chemicals still in widespread production and use presents a new
challenge. “from considering what are commonly referred to as ‘dead’ chemicals to those ‘live’
chemicals that are still in use in many parts of the world.” several live chemicals have been added to
the Stockholm Convention despite strong opposition during POPRC and COP deliberations

efforts to continue strengthening the Stockholm Convention have the resources to overcome veto E,
either by addressing their concerns via exemptions or by resorting to a vote if their demands are
seen as too extreme or their brinkmanship negotiating tactics backfire (as India’s appeared to have
with regard to pentachlorophenol). However, E are not required to ratify the addition of particular
chemicals, and several important E have not. But, voting could weaken support for the regime
among E that consistently lose votes in the POPRC or the COP or that worry that they could wind
up on the losing end in the future. For these reasons China, India, Russia, and the United States, etc
expressed regret that votes had been taken. However, convention can impact countries that do not
ratify a particular chemical by reinforcing or even accelerating global market forces or by impacting
national political and regulatory mechanisms.

EX final decision to list endosulfan led to domestic pressure within India (from both
environmentalists and manufacturers of alternatives) to eliminate the production and use of this
pesticide, showing that the Stockholm Convention can “play an important agenda-setting role that
can help influence domestic decision-making even in the presence of particular economic interests.”

many developing E not allow a decision on the listing of additional chemicals until a satisfactory
resolution was reached on the package of FTA issues. Since 2001, the GEF has allocated + $ 900
million to POPs projects in more than 135 countries + leveraged more than $ 2.4 billion of
additional funding—from G, the private sector, OOII, foundations, and NGOs—to support POPs
projects. In 2013 and 2015, the COP agreed that the GEF should continue its role as the main
financial mechanism

Success:
• expanded significantly since governments adopted the Stockholm Convention in 2001. As of
early 2016, one hundred eighty E have ratified the convention.
• 14 new chemicals have been added.
• Production, use, and emissions of controlled POPs have declined, as has the use of specific
exemptions for the original dirty dozen.
• The POPRC continues to evaluate candidate POPs nominated by parties.
• The GEF has created a dedicated chemicals focal area.
• Regional centers serve as nodes for capacity building and technical assistance.
• Global networks have been created to speed deployment of alternatives to DDT and the phaseout
of PCBs.
• Awareness regarding the production, use, and impacts of toxic chemicals has increased within
many national G.
• synergies initiative has produced cost savings and augmented productive coordination within the
Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions.

Challenges:
• continuing to address live chemicals. US, Israel, and Malaysia, each a producer and consumer of
toxic chemicals, are not yet parties to the Stockholm Convention + Argentina, Australia, China,
India, Russia, etc have not ratified the control measures on some of the chemicals added to the
treaty.
• Working to ensure that the use of voting and the opt-in/ opt-out structure doesn’t create situations
in which key E remain outside the regime with regard to individual POPs, and thus weaken the
treaty’s global impact, remains a key challenge.
• Acceptable purpose and E-specific exemptions might be political necessities that overcome the
lowest-common-denominator problem by establishing asymmetrical controls, but can weaken the
impact of listing a particular chemical, especially if the country in question both produces and
consumes the substance. Although E have retired most exemptions for the original dirty dozen,
some chemicals added to the convention carry larger lists of acceptable purposes and country-
specific exemptions. For the regime to be effective over the long term, the COP must prevent
parties from renewing these exemptions and reduce acceptable uses, especially if there is
evidence of nontoxic alternative substances or practices.
• need for more financial and technical resources to assist some developing E in their transition
away from the use of toxic chemicals and to improve the management of those that remain.
• Finally, the synergies initiative presents important challenges and opportunities. necessary step
toward establishing environmentally sound, implementable controls on all aspects of the life
cycle of toxic chemicals. Effective implementation of the synergies initiative will enhance the
effectiveness of the conventions, promote cost-savings at the national and secretariat level, allow
more resources and attention to shift toward implementation, raise the profile of chemicals and
wastes issues within E, and provide more opportunities for regime expansion in the future.