Summary report, 28 April – 9 May 2025

Hazardous chemicals and wastes pose invisible dangers to health, the environment, and economic growth. Increasingly complex chemicals, such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) or “forever chemicals,” are used in a wide range of products, from industrial applications to everyday household items. Only a small fraction of chemicals currently on the market have been assessed for their risks to human health and the environment. Wastes move across borders without a full understanding of what the shipment contains, or if the wastes include harmful metals or chemicals.

While global chemical manufacturing is increasing at a rate of about 3.5% per year, on track to double by 2030, and increasingly concentrated in the Global South, the human health effects alone are estimated to cost up to 1% of the gross domestic product of India, China, and Nigeria. These estimates do not include the informal sector, which is disproportionately exposed.

Meeting under the theme of “Making visible the invisible,” the Conferences of the Parties (COPs) to the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm (BRS) Conventions adopted a series of decisions that seek to protect human health and the environment. These decisions, however, were challenged by the complexities of modern supply chains and the economic importance of chemicals and wastes.

The Basel Convention’s (BC) decisions include revising its Annex IV (disposal operations). Annex IV defines “waste” under the Convention and helps importing and exporting countries track and regulate what happens to waste. The BC COP also adopted a strategic framework to help countries collectively work toward a set of objectives and monitor their progress. New work will consider how the BC can address textile waste, a growing waste stream of particular importance to the Global South.

The Rotterdam Convention’s (RC) COP agreed to list two substances in Annex III of the Convention. The Convention’s prior informed consent (PIC) procedure will now include carbosulfan, a pesticide, and fenthion ultra-low volume formulations, a severely hazardous pesticide formulation. The COP, however, could not agree to list several other chemicals, including mercury, methyl bromide, and chlorpyrifos, that are already governed by other international conventions. The COP also adopted a decision to improve its effectiveness. It largely centers on activities that will facilitate the effective participation of all members of the Chemical Review Committee (CRC), which recommends chemicals for listing.

The Stockholm Convention’s (SC) COP agreed to list three new POPs. Production and use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos will be eliminated, but with a long list of time-limited specific exemptions to that ban. Two complex groups of industrial chemicals were also listed in Annex A (elimination) with specific exemptions: long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs), used for their ability to repel water, oil, dirt, and grease; and medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs), used to make plastics flexible and durable, among other applications. In a first-ever case, the COP agreed to reopen the UV-328 listing to allow for a new specific exemption use in water sealant tape and adhesives for the aircraft industry. Many stressed that this cannot set a precedent.

The seventeenth meeting of the COP to the Basel Convention, the twelfth meeting of the COP to the Rotterdam Convention, and the twelfth meeting of the COP to the Stockholm Convention convened together from 28 April – 9 May 2025, in Geneva, Switzerland. Over 1,600 people attended the COPs, including approximately 1,190 representatives from 191 states and ten representatives from states that are not party to any of the three Conventions. There were 95 representatives from 29 UN agencies and other international organizations, and over 300 representatives from 140 observer organizations. Fifteen Basel and Stockholm Convention regional centres were represented by 33 people.

A Brief History of the Chemicals and Wastes Conventions

The BRS COPs have been meeting jointly since 2013. Each treaty has its own mandate and takes its own decisions. There are connections among the treaties. For example, the Basel Convention addresses the environmentally sound management (ESM) of wastes contaminated or containing POPs listed by the Stockholm Convention. The Rotterdam Convention has, in recent years, listed some POPs in the Stockholm Convention.

Basel Convention

The BC, adopted in 1989 and entered into force in May 1992, was created to address concerns over the management, disposal, and transboundary movement of the estimated 400 million tonnes of hazardous wastes produced worldwide each year. The guiding principles of the Convention are that transboundary movements of hazardous wastes should be: reduced to a minimum; minimized at the source; managed in an environmentally sound manner; and treated and disposed of as close as possible to their source of generation. There are currently 191 parties to the Convention.

In September 1995, at BC COP3, parties adopted the Ban Amendment, which bans the shipment of hazardous wastes for final disposal and recycling from Annex VII countries (European Union (EU), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, and Liechtenstein) to non-Annex VII countries. The Ban Amendment entered into force on 5 December 2019 and currently has 104 parties.

Recent Highlights: At recent COPs, the BC has added to or amended the Convention to increase controls over transboundary movements of wastes of increasing concern, such as plastics and electronic and electrical waste (e-waste).

At COP13 (24 April – 5 May 2017), delegates adopted guidance to assist parties in developing strategies for implementing the Cartagena Declaration on the Prevention, Minimization and Recovery of Hazardous Wastes and other Wastes. COP13 also adopted further technical guidelines on POPs wastes, mercury wastes, and e-wastes, established a new partnership on household waste, and agreed to include marine litter in the programme of work of the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG).

At COP14 (29 April – 10 May 2019), parties took the first global action on plastics, by adopting an amendment that made certain plastic wastes subject to the PIC procedure by listing these wastes in Annex II (wastes requiring special consideration) and clarifying which plastic wastes are hazardous in Annex VIII. The amendment became effective on 1 January 2021. The COP also adopted revised e-waste technical guidelines.

At COP15 (6-17 June 2022), parties agreed to amend the Convention to make all electronic and electrical waste subject to the PIC procedure. E-wastes are now included in Annex II (wastes requiring special consideration) and the listing in Annex VIII (wastes) was amended. Several technical guidelines were adopted, although some will require further work, notably, the plastic wastes technical guidelines. Work also began to improve the efficiency and efficacy of the PIC procedure.

At COP16 (1-12 May 2023), parties adopted several decisions, the most significant of which was the technical guidelines on plastics wastes. This document sets out how to manage these wastes in an environmentally sound manner.

Rotterdam Convention

The RC was adopted in September 1998 and entered into force in February 2004. There are currently 167 parties to the Convention, which promotes shared responsibility and cooperative efforts among parties in the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals to protect human health and the environment from potential harm. The RC contributes to the environmentally sound use of those hazardous chemicals by: facilitating information exchange about their characteristics; providing for a national decision-making process on their import and export; and disseminating these decisions to parties. When adopted, the treaty had 27 chemicals listed. In 2006, the Mandatory PIC list expanded the number of listed chemicals to 39. To date, 56 chemicals are subject to the PIC procedure listed in Annex III, including 37 pesticides, 18 industrial chemicals, and one chemical in both the pesticide and the industrial chemical categories.

Recent Highlights: Long-standing issues that have eluded consensus include listing chemicals recommended by the CRC for inclusion in Annex III, including paraquat dichloride formulations, and chrysotile asbestos. The COP has agreed that each of these chemicals meets all criteria for listing but has not yet reached consensus to include them in Annex III. An intersessional process was established at COP7 in 2015, including meetings, surveys, and a working group that reported to COP9 (29 April – 10 May 2019).

At COP9, parties agreed to include hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and phorate in Annex III. Parties also resolved a second long-standing issue by adopting a compliance mechanism to facilitate parties’ implementation of the Convention.

At COP10 (6-17 June 2022), parties agreed to list decabromodiphenyl ether and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its salts, and related compounds in Annex III. Both were previously listed in the SC. They were again unable to list pesticides acetochlor, fenthion ultra-low volume formulations, paraquat dichloride formulations, and carbosulfan. Chrysotile asbestos was also not listed due to a lack of consensus.

At COP11 (1-12 May 2023), parties agreed to list the pesticide turbufos. Failure to list the other six chemicals triggered concerns over effectiveness and the proposal for a new annex containing failed listings that would be subject to the PIC procedure for ratifying countries. The proposal was put to a vote and failed to garner the three-fourths majority required to amend the Convention by a slim margin.

Stockholm Convention

The SC, adopted in May 2001 and entered into force in May 2004, calls for international action on three categories of POPs: pesticides, industrial chemicals, and unintentionally produced POPs. The SC requires parties to prevent the development of new POPs and promote best available techniques (BAT) and best environmental practices (BEP) for replacing existing POPs. The Convention, which initially addressed 12 substances (informally known as “the dirty dozen”), was designed to facilitate the review and addition of new chemicals through a three-stage scientific review process prior to consideration for listing by the COP. Since 2009, the COP has added 19 new POPs, including both pesticides and industrial chemicals, to the annexes of the SC. There are currently 186 parties to the Convention.

Recent Highlights: At its 2017 meeting, the COP agreed to list short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs) in Annex A (elimination) of the Convention. Due in part to its widespread use in a range of applications, this industrial chemical was under review by the POPs Review Committee (POPRC) for ten years before it was recommended for listing, and the COP agreed to allow several specific exemptions for continued production and use. Ongoing issues include work to: reduce stockpiles of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); review the continued need for dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) for disease-vector control; and achieve consensus to establish a compliance mechanism. 

At COP9, parties agreed to list dicofol and PFOA, its salts, and PFOA- related compounds in Annex A (elimination) of the Convention. For PFOA, a widely used group of industrial chemicals, the COP agreed to eight specific exemptions, including for use in firefighting foam for liquid fuel vapor suppression and liquid fuel fires (Class B fires) in installed systems.

At COP10, parties agreed to list perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), its salts, and related compounds without exceptions. A compliance mechanism again proved elusive as countries could not reach consensus on this issue outstanding since COP1.

At COP11 (1-12 May 2023), parties agreed to eliminate the production and use of methoxychlor, a pesticide, Dechlorane Plus, a flame retardant, and UV-328, an ultraviolet filter used in plastics. Parties also finally agreed to establish a compliance mechanism.

Joint Sessions of the Three COPs

The BRS COPs opened on 28 April with welcoming addresses from leaders of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN, and the BRS Conventions Secretariat. They reaffirmed their commitment to implementing the BRS Conventions, particularly given rising pollution levels, pesticide use, and challenging geopolitics.

A high-level segment convened on 30 April and 1 May. Ministers engaged in roundtables on pollution, circularity, and means of implementation. Many stressed the need to raise the profile of chemical and waste pollution, and to support developing countries in their efforts to promote safe management and eliminate POPs.

Opening Statements

The three COP Presidents opened their respective meetings and welcomed San Marino as a new party to the BC, and Belarus as a new party to the RC.

Ghana, for the AFRICAN REGION, lamented the negative impact of e-waste on Africa and called for implementing the Ban Amendment and fostering cooperation between the BC and the Bamako Convention, informing that the African Region submitted a conference room paper (CRP) on the matter. Calling for sustainable and enhanced financial support through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and other mechanisms, they also highlighted the Region’s CRP on resource mobilization from non-state actors.

Iran, for the ASIA-PACIFIC REGION, called for: recognizing diverse capacities of developing countries and small island developing states (SIDS) and providing targeted support; ensuring coherence between the plastics amendment to the BC and the anticipated international legally binding instrument (ILBI) on plastics; supporting the RC Compliance Committee; and strengthening regional centres.

Mexico, for the LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN GROUP (GRULAC), highlighted the need for intersessional consultations to unify criteria and enhance coordination among the BRS Conventions as well as with the Minamata Convention, particularly on challenges related to plastic and e-waste management. They stressed the importance of regional centres and financial and technological support.

Poland, for the EU, MOLDOVA, ALBANIA, GEORGIA, MONTENEGRO, and NORTH MACEDONIA, welcomed guidelines to improve the BC PIC procedure and called for the OEWG to include textile waste in its 2026-2027 work programme. They praised the efforts to eliminate PCBs and phase-out DDT. They also expressed grave concern about ongoing armed conflicts, given their impacts on human life and long-term environmental degradation.

UKRAINE, on behalf of 39 parties, drew attention to the Russian Federation’s aggression and its long-term impacts on soil and water contamination with hazardous chemicals across the European region and beyond. They called for an international coordinated response and for upholding the BRS principles in all circumstances.

Exercising its right of reply, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION “categorically rejected accusations,” and said that sustainable chemical management “can only be achieved by professional dialogue” and avoiding politicization.

Organizational Matters

Adoption of the agenda and organization of work: On Monday, 28 April, each COP adopted its respective agenda and organization of work (UNEP/CHW.17/1, Add.1; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/1, Add.1; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/1, Add.1). The meeting documents can be found on the BRS website.

Election of officers: The Secretariat introduced the overview of elections (UNEP/CHW.17/2, INF/3; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/2, INF/4, INF/5/Rev.1; and UNEP/POPS/COP.12/2, INF/6/Rev.1). On 8 May, the COPs adopted their respective rosters on elections of officers (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.27; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.13; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.16).

BC Election of Officers: Delegates elected to the COP18 Bureau: Nawaf Essam Bilasi (Saudi Arabia) as President; Leonard Tampushi (Kenya); Solomon Kai Bona (Sierra Leone); Fahmida Khanom (Bangladesh); Quetta Gibson (Bahamas); Arturo Gavilán García (Mexico); Ann De Jonghe (Belgium); and Michel Tschirren (Switzerland).

On 9 May, the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region reported that there was no consensus on its nominations to the Bureau because two parties blocked the nominations, but said nominations had been decided after a vote within the regional group. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION raised a point of order that there was no agreement to hold a vote within the regional group.

BC COP17 President Anita Sowińska ruled that, therefore, no nominations had been received. CZECHIA and UKRAINE objected and asked that the CEE regional focal point be allowed to finish their statement. President Sowińska then stated the COP will vote on whether her ruling stands since it was challenged. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION called for a secret vote on the COP President’s ruling, and for the Secretariat to check credentials and assess if there was a quorum.

After a lengthy delay, the BC COP17 President Sowińska reported that there was no quorum, and, therefore, her ruling stood that the nominations had not been received.

BC Election of Experts: As with the BC Bureau, the CEE region could not reach agreement on its nominations to the BC’s expert bodies, and, because of a lack of quorum in the BC plenary, no nominations were received.

For the OEWG Bureau, the COP elected: Jonah Ormond (Antigua and Barbuda) as Co-Chair (Legal); Norhazni Mat Sari (Malaysia) as Co-Chair (Technical); Océane Dayer (Switzerland); and Nancy Allimadi (Uganda) as Rapporteur.

For the Implementation and Compliance Committee (ICC), the COP elected: Mishelle Govender (South Africa); Mohamed Maki Aman (Bahrain); Angela Patricia Rivera Galvis (Angola); and Sophie Bernier (Canada).

For the Environmental Network for Optimizing Regulatory Compliance on Illegal Traffic (ENFORCE), the COP elected: Amit Raj (India) and Leila Devia (Argentina).

RC Election of Officers: As with the BC elections, the CEE region could not agree on its nominations to the Bureau, and because of a lack of quorum in the RC plenary, no nominations were received. Delegates elected to the RC COP13 Bureau: Teresa Moreno (Panama) as President; Kexiong Du (China) as Rapporteur; Marianne Pulchérie Simeon Donoumassou (Benin); and Rachel Burgess (Australia).

RC Election of Experts: As with the RC Bureau, the CEE region could not reach agreement on its nominations to the RC’s expert bodies, and, because of a lack of quorum in the RC plenary, no nominations were received.

For the CRC, for terms commencing 1 May 2026, the COP elected: Mantoa Makuena Sekota (Lesotho); Saida Ech-Chayeb (Morocco); Mehari Wondmagegn (Ethiopia); Perine Kasonde (Zambia); Zaigham Abbas (Pakistan); Cangmin Li (China); Abdel Fattah Hasan (State of Palestine); Palarp Sinhaseni (Thailand); Eliana Rosa Munarriz (Argentina); Flávio Manoel Rodrigues da Silva Júnior (Brazil); Pablo Ernesto Roa Maraga (Chile); Martin Lacroix (Canada); Catherine Elisabeth Smit (The Netherlands); Carles Escriva Pellicer (Germany); and Matthew Allen (New Zealand).

For the Compliance Committee, the COP elected: Joseph Edmund (Ghana); Youssef Zidi (Tunisia); Amit Vashishtha (India); Pattanan Tarin (Thailand); Rodrigo González Videla (Argentina); and Trond Liu Skaug (Norway).

SC Election of Officers: As with the BC and RC elections, the CEE region could not agree on its nominations to the Bureau, and because of a lack of quorum in the SC plenary, no nominations were received. Delegates elected to the SC COP13 Bureau: Aoudou Joswa (Cameroon) as President; Nicoletta Bouman (the Netherlands) as Rapporteur; Christopher Kanema (Zambia); Khodayar Rouzbahani (Iran); Sameera Aldosari (Qatar); Osvaldo Patricio Álvarez-Pérez (Chile); Leslie Ramsammy (Guyana); and Guy Jones (Australia).

SC Election of Experts: As with the SC Bureau, the CEE region could not reach agreement on its nominations to the SC’s expert bodies, and, because of a lack of quorum in the SC plenary, no nominations were received.

For POPRC, for terms commencing 5 May 2026, the COP elected: Lamin Jaiteh (The Gambia); John Mumbo (Kenya); Maach Kawtar (Morocco); Noluzuko Gwayi (South Africa); Syed Ahmmad Kabir (Bangladesh); Amit Raj (India); Husain Ali Ghanem (Bahrain); Mohammad Ateeq Al-Dosari (Saudi Arabia); Peter Rembischevski (Brazil); Suresh Amichand (Guyana); Luis Guillermo Romero Esquivel (Costa Rica); Adam Barlow (Australia); Sandi Moser (Canada); Leonarda Christina van Leeuwen (the Netherlands); and Daniel Borg (Sweden).

For the SC Compliance Committee, the COP elected: Michael Onwona-Kwakye (Ghana); Jennifer Kutesakwe (Uganda); Obed Maringo Baloyi (South Africa); Wei Yao (China); Hassan Azhar (Maldives); Sajad Motaharnia (Iran); Francisco Nelson Linhares de Almeida Júnior (Brazil); Jimena Nieto Carrasco (Colombia); Keima Gardiner (Trinidad and Tobago); Helga Schrott (Austria); Leo Andersson (Sweden); and Mark Govoni (Switzerland).

Report on credentials: The parties to the Conventions adopted the reports on credentials on 2 May. The final versions were adopted on 8 May.

Matters Related to the Implementation of the Conventions

Technical Assistance: This item was first taken up in plenary on 6 and 7 May. The Secretariat introduced the relevant documents, including reports on technical assistance activities (UNEP/CHW.17/15, INF/20, 42, 43; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/18, INF/20-22; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/15, INF/28-30), and on the BC and SC regional centres (UNEP/CHW.17/17, INF/44; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/16, INF/31). Many lauded the work of the regional centres. It was then discussed in a contact group, co-chaired by David Kapindula (Zambia) and Toks Akinseye (UK) on 8 and 9 May.

On 9 May, the COPs adopted their decisions.

Final Decisions: In their final decisions, (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.30; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.15; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.19), the COP, inter alia:

• requests the Secretariat to prepare the next report on the technical assistance needs of developing country parties and parties with economies in transition, taking full account of the specific needs and special situations of the least developed countries and SIDS in their actions, for implementation of the BRS Conventions and the technical assistance available from developed country parties and others for submission to the COPs meeting in 2029;
• welcomes the technical assistance plan for the implementation of the BRS Conventions for the period 2026-2029 and requests the Secretariat to disseminate it; and
• requests the Secretariat to implement the technical assistance plan in accordance with the decisions adopted at the present meeting of the COPs, including on the programmes of work and budgets of the Conventions for the biennium 2026-2027, and in cooperation with relevant actors.

Financial resources: Related to all three Conventions, parties considered a proposal from the African Region for a framework to develop a strategy to mobilize resources from non-state actors in order to complement traditional funding mechanisms for developing countries (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.2; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.3; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.3). The proposal was first taken up by the COPs on 29 April and discussed in a contact group, co-chaired by Kapindula and Akinseye. The contact group met numerous times throughout the two weeks, including on 30 April, 1, 5, 7, 8, and 9 May.

Most debates in the contact group revolved around how to react to the Secretariat’s compilation report on the possible development of a resource mobilization strategy from non-state actors, with one group of parties expressing concerns regarding several potential elements from the strategy described in the report. The proponents and other parties responded that the CRP proposed further intersessional work and would not develop the strategy based on everything outlined in the compilation report or endorse everything in it. At the same time, they stressed the Secretariat was given a mandate to develop this report by the previous meetings of the COPs, and their delivery on this mandate needs to be acknowledged. Another point of contention revolved around reference to developed countries’ obligations to provide financial resources, opposed by several parties on the grounds that the decision focuses on a non-state actor resource mobilization strategy.

After two weeks of deliberations, parties could not agree and did not forward any text to the plenary.

During the closing plenary on 9 May, Ghana, for the AFRICAN REGION, supported by many, expressed great disappointment at the lack of agreement. Some pointed to antagonism from a few other developing countries as the cause of the failure to reach consensus. They underscored the need for a solid resource mobilization strategy to support implementation in the region. In light of this, the group explained they “would not be held hostage,” and presented a proposal for a framework to develop a resource mobilization strategy for the African region only, not all countries (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.33, UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.17, UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.21). 

The Secretariat confirmed that the budgetary implications of the proposal fell entirely within the voluntary budget and its implementation cost would be USD 45,000.

COLOMBIA called for proper consideration of the proposal to develop a resource strategy that applies to all developing countries, and suggested it be taken up at the next meetings of the COPs. ANGOLA and NIGERIA pointed out that the proposal includes intersessional work and opposed waiting another two years. A compromise was found in a suggestion by COLOMBIA to add the Latin American and Caribbean region, to make the decision apply to both regions. With this, the COPs adopted the draft decision, as amended by COLOMBIA.

Final Decision: In their decision on a framework to develop a resource mobilization strategy for the African and the Latin American and Caribbean regions (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.33, UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.17, UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.21), the COPs request the Secretariat, inter alia, to:

• develop a questionnaire on possible elements useful for developing guidance for a resource mobilization strategy from non-state actors for the African and the Latin American and Caribbean regions;
• compile and summarize the information received and make it available to parties from the two regions;
• organize consultation sessions with parties from the two regions to update and finalize potential guidance for resource mobilization from non-state actors for the two regions; and
• prepare, based on this guidance, a resource mobilization strategy from non-state actors for the two regions for consideration by the BRS COPs at their next meeting.

The COPs further invite parties from the two regions and other relevant stakeholders to provide information by 31 October 2025, including through the questionnaire mentioned in the decision.

Enhancing Cooperation and Coordination among the BRS Conventions

International cooperation and coordination: Cooperation with the Minamata Convention on Mercury: On 30 April, the Secretariat introduced the reports on cooperation (UNEP/CHW.17/21, INF/54; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/20, INF/25; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/23, INF/44). Several discussed the Minamata Convention’s recent decision to set thresholds for mercury waste. The decision was adopted.

Final Decisions: In their decision (UNEP/CHW.17/21; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/20; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/23), the COPs, inter alia, request the BRS Executive Secretary to:

• continue, with the Minamata Convention Secretariat and under the overall steering of the task force, as appropriate, to cooperate on relevant administrative, programmatic, scientific and technical assistance matters and to explore ways to further strengthen cooperation and collaboration with the Minamata Convention;
• continue to implement shared services and the purchase of relevant services with the Minamata Convention Secretariat on a cost recovery basis; and
• report on the implementation of the present decision, including on a stable framework for cooperation and for the sharing of services, and providing an outline of the cooperation activities planned under such a framework for the biennium 2026-2027, for the consideration of and, as necessary, further guidance by the COPs at their next meeting.

Cooperation with other international organizations: This item includes the efforts of the BRS Secretariat and the BRS COPs to collaborate with other international organizations and to manage potential overlapping mandates. The issue was first addressed on 8 May, when the Secretariat introduced the note and draft decision (UNEP/CHW.17/22; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/21; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/24) and reports on activities and programmatic cooperation (UNEP/CHW.17/INF/55, 56; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/INF/26, 27; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/INF/45, 46). Additional reports and updates outline how the BRS Conventions can contribute to other agreements and ongoing negotiations. They noted a document on shipbreaking from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) relevant to the BC (UNEP/CHW.17/INF/60) and on cooperation with the World Customs Organization (WCO) relevant to the RC (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/INF/34).

In plenary, the AFRICAN GROUP introduced a CRP on cooperation, coordination, and resource mobilization with and for the Bamako Convention (CHW.17/CRP.1; RC/COP.12/CRP.1; POPS/COP.12/CRP.2). SAUDI ARABIA and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION requested deleting paragraphs on including waste management in the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement on climate change, and on BRS information provision on plastics. Several parties and observers called for providing legal clarity on the relationship between the Hong Kong Convention and the BC on ship waste.

The issue was subsequently taken up by a contact group on international cooperation, co-chaired by Ole Thomas Thommesen (Norway) and Artak Khachatryan (Armenia), which met on 4 and 8 May.

The group added a reference to the Waigani Convention on hazardous and radioactive waste in addition to the Bamako Convention. After lengthy discussion on the report related to chemicals of concern in plastics, and the BRS Secretariat’s participation in the plastics negotiations, the contact group also agreed to “acknowledge” the activities undertaken by the BRS Conventions Secretariat in the plastics Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC). They deleted the invitation to consider waste management in NDCs.

On 9 May, the BRS COPs adopted the decisions.

Final Decisions: In their final decisions (UNEP/CHW.16/CRP.28; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.14; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.18), the COPs, inter alia:

• take note of the report of the Secretariat on international cooperation and coordination;
• welcome the cooperation with the Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to establish an ILBI on plastic pollution, and request the Executive Secretary to continue to cooperate and coordinate closely with the Executive Director of UNEP in this context;
• reiterate their invitation to parties participating in the INC to ensure that the ILBI is fully coherent with and complementary to the BRS Conventions and avoids duplication;
• encourage parties to engage in the Bern process and actively promote cooperation and policy coherence among multilateral environmental agreements at the national level, taking into account national circumstances, needs, and priorities through, as appropriate, a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach; and
• welcome the adoption of the Global Framework on Chemicals and take note of the Secretariat’s report on how the BRS Conventions might contribute to its implementation.

The COPs also request the Secretariat to:

• propose to the WCO amendments to the Harmonized System to specifically identify chemicals that are included in the annexes to the SC, for which specific codes do not already exist;
• work closely with other international organizations, within their mandates, on activities related to plastic pollution;
• reflect the comments from parties and observers on the IMO’s provisional guidance on the implementation of the Hong Kong Convention and the BC with respect to the transboundary movement of ships intended for recycling; and
• enhance cooperation and coordination with the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals, with the secretariats of the Global Framework on Chemicals, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Montreal Protocol, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns, the IMO, the Group of 20, the OECD, the UN Children’s Fund, and the UN Institute for Training and Research on issues of common interest.

Clearing house mechanism for information exchange: On 7 May, the Secretariat introduced the draft decision and workplan (UNEP/CHW.17/23, INF/64; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/22, INF/35; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/25, INF/53). CHINA, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, KUWAIT, ALGERIA, SAUDI ARABIA, YEMEN, JORDAN, OMAN, LEBANON, IRAQ, and QATAR called for translation into all UN languages. The decision was adopted on 9 May.

Final Decisions: In their final decisions (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.32; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.16; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.20), the COPs, inter alia:

• welcome the progress made in the implementation of the clearing-house mechanism;
• take note of the workplan for the implementation of the clearing-house mechanism for the biennium 2026-2027; and
• invite parties and observers to participate, as appropriate, in the implementation and further development of the clearing-house mechanism strategy and in relevant activities of the workplan for the biennium 2026-2027.

The COPs also request the Secretariat to:

• continue the work to implement the clearing-house mechanism strategy in a gradual and cost-effective manner;
• continue to enhance cooperation and coordination activities with existing partners in the area of information exchange, to explore possible cooperative activities with new partners, including academia, as appropriate, and to ensure complementarity with and avoid duplication of existing and future activities, tools, and mechanisms;
• continue its collaboration with the Secretariat of the Minamata Convention to exchange information and share experiences and best practices regarding the use of existing clearing-house mechanism systems; and
• keep the strategy under regular review to consider lessons learned and relevant developments regarding the international agenda on the sound management of chemicals and waste.

Mainstreaming gender: On 7 May, the Secretariat presented the documents (UNEP/CHW.17/24; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/23; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/26). There was general support for the Gender Action Plan and the Secretariat’s efforts on awareness raising and mainstreaming. ARGENTINA called for replacing “gender” with “of women” or add a footnote explaining gender refers to men and women. This was not taken up by the COP.

Final Decisions: The final decisions (UNEP/CHW.17/24; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/23; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/26) provide that each COP may wish to:

• request the Secretariat to report on the implementation of the proposed new gender action plan to the COPs at their next meetings; and
• invite parties and other stakeholders to carry out activities to implement the new plan during the biennium 2026-2027 and share with the Secretariat the experience and good practices derived from that process.

Synergies in preventing and combating illegal traffic and trade in hazardous chemicals and wastes: Only the BC defines what is illegal traffic, but since 2017, the three Conventions have worked together to support parties to identify cases and address the illegal movements of hazardous chemicals and wastes. On 7 May, the Secretariat introduced the relevant documents, including a draft decision (UNEP/CHW.17/25; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/24; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/27). Many welcomed the work of the Secretariat and regional centres to try to address illegal traffic, although there was a recognition that much work remains. The COPs adopted their decisions.

Final Decisions: In their final decisions (UNEP/CHW.17/25; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/24; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/27), the COPs agreed to future actions relating to the illegal trade of chemicals covered by either the RC or SC, or both, as well as illegal traffic and trade in chemicals and wastes included in the BRS Conventions.

For the illegal trade of chemicals covered by the RC and the SC, the COPs request the Secretariat to:

• continue collecting information on best practices for preventing and combating illegal trade in hazardous chemicals and wastes and on cases of illegal trade in hazardous chemicals occurring in contravention of the Conventions submitted by parties, and to make such information available on the website of the Conventions;
• continue to develop case studies on action taken by parties to implement and enforce the trade control measures of the RC and the SC; and
• continue to assist parties in identifying cases of illegal trade in hazardous chemicals.

For the illegal trade of SC listed chemicals, the COPs request the Secretariat to continue to explore the needs related to amending the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System to identify substances and products that contain the chemicals listed in Annexes A and B to the SC and support the implementation of recommendations.

For the illegal traffic and trade of chemicals and wastes relating to the BRS Conventions, the COPs request the Secretariat to:

• continue to provide advice and conduct awareness-raising and technical assistance activities to strengthen the capacity of parties, including enforcement entities;
• further explore areas and opportunities for collaboration to prevent and combat the illegal trade in pesticides covered by the RC and the SC with relevant international and regional organizations and entities, including with a view to identifying the extent of the illegal trade in chemicals covered by the RC and the SC; and
• report to the COPs on implementing the present decision at their next meetings.

From science to action: Since 2015, the three COPs have undertaken a range of capacity-building workshops, knowledge-sharing platforms, and technical assistance projects, to support countries in integrating science-based approaches into national implementation efforts. On 7 May, the COPs adopted the draft decision and report on the activities to implement the road map to enhance science-based action.

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/CHW.17/26; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/25; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/28), the COPs request the Secretariat to carry out capacity-building and training activities to support parties in taking science-based action in implementing the BRS Conventions. They also request the Secretariat to continue to cooperate and coordinate with UNEP and other relevant organizations, scientific bodies and stakeholders with a view to strengthening the science-policy interface, including in the context of the implementation of UN Environment Assembly resolution 5/8 on a science-policy panel to contribute further to the sound management of chemicals and waste and to prevent pollution.

Programme of Work and Budget

This item was first addressed by the plenary on 29 April, and throughout the meeting by a contact group co-chaired by Isabelle Mayr (Canada) and Osvaldo Álvarez-Pérez (Chile). The relevant documents included a combined proposal (UNEP/CHW.17/27; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/26; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/29), proposed operational budgets for the two funding scenarios (UNEP/CHW.17/INF/69/Rev.1; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/INF/39/Rev.1; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/INF/58/Rev.1), and programmes of work activity fact sheets (UNEP/CHW.17/INF/70; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/INF/40; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/INF/59).

Parties noted the need for the budget to appropriately cover all bodies and aspects of the Conventions, including scientific bodies and compliance committees, and expressed concern over proposed budget cuts, especially on interpretation at POPRC and translation of BC technical guidelines.

On 9 May the COPs adopted their respective budgets.

Final Decisions: The three COP adopted their respective programmes of work and budgets (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.19, Add.1; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.11, Add.1, UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.14; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.13, Add.1), which have different total budgets for the core and voluntary funds. Common elements included:

• approving the programme budget for the Conventions for the biennium 2026-2027;
• authorizing the Executive Secretaries to make commitments up to the amount of the approved operational budget, drawing upon available cash resources; and
• deciding to maintain the working capital reserve at the level of 15% of the annual average of the biennial operational budgets for the biennium 2026-2027.

Venue and Date of the Next Meeting of the COPs

The COPs agreed to accept Panama’s offer to host the next meeting of the BRS COPs in Panama City, Panama, tentatively from 19 to 30 April 2027 (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.4; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.5; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.4).

Adoption of the Report

On 8 May, noting they had spoken for 39 countries, UKRAINE asked for paragraph 17 to be amended to reflect that they had spoken “on behalf of a number of countries.” The COPs agreed to the amendment and adopted their joint report (UNEP/CHW.17/L.1; UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/L.1; UNEP/POPS/COP.12/L.1).

Basel Convention COP17

The meetings documents can be found on the BRS website.

Matters Related to the Implementation of the Basel Convention

Strategic issues: Strategic framework: The renewed strategic framework for implementing the BC for 2025-2031 (UNEP/CHW.17/3, Add.1) was first taken up in plenary on 2 May. Discussions were held in a contact group, co-chaired by Ann De Jonghe (Belgium) and Lendita Dika (North Macedonia), which met on 5, 6, and 7 May.

The renewed framework was developed by a small intersessional working group (SIWG) led by Canada, under the mandate to improve the 2012-2021 strategic framework. Discussion at COP12 focused on the recommendations from the SIWG on goals and objectives and their indicators, as well as the implementation of the PIC procedure.

The COP adopted the renewed strategic framework on 8 May.

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.24), the COP adopts the Strategic framework for 2025-2031 (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.21) and, inter alia, requests the Secretariat to:

• prepare a report for consideration at COP18 identifying activities from the BC programme of work that contribute to the strategic framework;
• convey progress made using the strategic framework indicators; and
• undertake a final evaluation of the framework at COP21 for consideration at COP22.

The Strategic framework for 2025-2031 recognizes the waste management hierarchy (prevention, minimization, reuse, recycling, other recovery, including energy recovery, and final disposal). It includes four goals on overarching and specific obligations regarding the ESM of waste, as well as collaboration and capacity building, with their objectives and indicators. It also has sections on means of implementation, evaluation, and implementation.

Improving the functioning of the PIC procedure: The COP first took up this issue in plenary on 2 May, and in a contact group co-chaired by De Jonghe and Dika, which met on 5, 6, and 7 May. It included consideration of a report by a SIWG led by France on the challenges in implementing the PIC procedure and best practices, possible approaches and initiatives to improve its functioning, and options for possible ways forward (UNEP/CHW.17/4, INF/6).

Discussions in the contact group addressed, among other points, the need for support and technical assistance for developing countries, the electronic system, and consistency.

The COP adopted the decision on 9 May.

Final Decision: The COP decision (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.23) includes sections on: exchange of information; technical, financial, and administrative capacity of competent authorities; transit of transboundary movements; notification decision-making processes; variation in approaches to financial guarantees; issues with maritime transport of waste; and way forward. The decision, inter alia:

• requests the Secretariat to emphasize the need for parties, in particular developing country parties, parties with economies in transition, and SIDS, to receive support in the implementation of the PIC procedure when implementing the 2026-2029 technical assistance plan;
• requests the Secretariat to conduct capacity-building activities for competent authorities and focal points, including in relation to transit transboundary movements and to issues related to insurance and other financial guarantees;
• amends question 3(h) of the national reporting format to add a sub-question inviting parties to submit information on their practical application of the term “transit”;
• invites parties to transmit to the Secretariat, by 30 September 2025, information on their implementation of BC Article 6.5 (transboundary movement of hazardous wastes), and on how they address specific situations when their interpretations or definitions of waste differ, and requests the Secretariat to publish the information received;
• invites parties and observers to submit to the Secretariat, by 30 September 2025, comments on further options for improving the functioning of the PIC procedure; and
• requests the lead country or countries or the Secretariat, in consultation with the SIWG, to prepare a report on further options for improving the functioning of the PIC procedure, for consideration by OEWG15 and at COP18.

Scientific and technical matters: Technical guidelines: The technical guidelines intend to provide guidance to parties on the ESM of different types of wastes. The technical guidelines on POPs wastes, waste lead-acid batteries and other waste batteries, pneumatic tyres, and UV-328 were taken up in the contact group co-chaired by Nawaf Bilasi (Saudi Arabia) and Martien Janssen (the Netherlands).

POPs wastes: This item was first discussed in plenary on 29 April, and subsequently in the contact group on 4, 5, and 6 May. The Secretariat introduced the POPs wastes technical guidelines (UNEP/CHW.17/5/Adds.1-4; INF/7-8) in plenary. Several countries lamented the absence of low-POP content values. The contact group agreed to the following low-POP content values: 50 or 500 or 1,000 mg/kg as a sum for brominated diphenyl ethers (BDEs); 50 mg/kg for methoxychlor; 1μg or 5 μg or 15 μg TEQ/kg as a sum for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and dioxin-like PCBs; and 100 or 1,500 or 10,000 mg/kg for SCCPs. The values for Dechlorane Plus, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), its salts, and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (PFOSF), and UV-328 are still unagreed, and the contact group tasked the SIWG with coming up with single values when several are provided.

On 9 May, the BC COP adopted the general guidelines (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.13) and a decision on the technical guidelines on POPs wastes (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.12). The COP also agreed to include methoxychlor in the POPs pesticides technical guidelines (CHW.17/CRP.10) and Dechlorane Plus in the technical guidelines on BDEs (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.9).

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.12), the COP, inter alia:

• welcomes with appreciation the contributions made by the SIWG;
• adopts the general technical guidelines on POPs waste as well as the technical guidelines on BDEs, pesticides, and UV-328;
• takes note of the compilation of available information on low-POP content values for HBCD prepared by the SIWG;
• requests the SIWG to continue to monitor and assist in the review, updating, and preparation, as appropriate, of technical guidelines regarding POPs;
• decides to continue working towards a review of the provisional low-POP content values; and
• requests the SIWG to prepare a draft analysis of candidate POPs recommended for listing in Annexes A, B, and/or C to the SC by POPRC.

Electronic and electrical waste (e-waste) amendments: On 29 April, the Secretariat introduced the draft decision on the technical guidelines (UNEP/CHW.17/5) and e-waste amendments (UNEP/CHW.17/10). The COP adopted the decision in part II of CHW.17/5 to extend the expert working group’s mandate.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/CHW.17/5), the COP, inter alia:

• decides to extend the mandate of the expert working group;
• invites parties and others to continue to use and/or test, on a pilot basis, the technical guidelines; and
• requests the Secretariat to continue to carry out technical assistance activities to support developing-country parties and other parties in need of assistance in using the technical guidelines.

Waste lead-acid batteries and other waste batteries: In plenary, the Secretariat introduced additional information on technical guidelines on waste lead-acid batteries (UNEP/CHW.17/INF/76) and other waste batteries (INF/9) on 29 April. The contact group on Technical Matters discussed these technical guidelines on 30 April and 1 May. During contact group discussions, a group of countries opposed the inclusion of POPs wastes in national inventories of batteries. Delegates managed to remove some brackets in both technical guidelines, including some on life-cycle management, but agreed to leave some sections in brackets for SIWG consideration.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/CHW.17/5), the BC COP, inter alia:

• takes note of both draft updated technical guidelines (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.6 and UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.7);
• invites parties and others to nominate additional experts to participate in the SIWG and to submit to the Secretariat comments on the draft updated technical guidelines; and
• requests the co-leads, in consultation with the SIWG, to continue to prepare draft updated technical guidelines on the ESM of waste lead-acid batteries and other waste batteries.

Pneumatic tyres: This item (UNEP/CHW.17/INF/10) was first discussed in plenary on 29 April, and subsequently in the contact group on 2 May. The contact group did not agree to include used tyres and thermal treatment in the scope of the technical guidelines and tasked the SIWG with working further on the differentiation between used and waste tyres. Delegates agreed to include tyre retreading in the technical guidelines but asked the SIWG to: ensure alignment with BC Annex IV (disposal operations); specify which kind of tyres (used or waste) can be retreaded; clarify whether retreading is a waste minimization technique and/or a waste management operation; and define which stages of retreading are considered ESM.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/CHW.17/5), the BC COP:

• welcomes the contributions of the SIWG to the tasks pertaining to updating the technical guidelines on the ESM of used and waste pneumatic tyres;
• takes note of the draft updated technical guidelines (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.8);
• invites parties and observers to submit to the Secretariat comments on the draft updated technical guidelines; and
• requests the Secretariat to prepare, in consultation with the SIWG, draft updated technical guidelines for consideration by OEWG15 and for consideration and possible adoption at COP18.

UV-328: This item was first discussed in plenary on 29 April as part of the discussion on POPs wastes technical guidelines. It was then taken up in the contact group for BC technical matters. On 4 May, the contact group agreed to submit the new technical guidelines on UV-328 to the COP.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/CHW.17/5), the BC COP adopts the decision on technical guidelines (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.11).

Hazardous waste physico-chemical treatment (D9) and biological treatment (D8): On 29 April, the COP agreed to discuss this issue at COP18.

Plastic wastes: On 29 April, the Secretariat reported on technical assistance activities to support parties in using and testing these technical guidelines. The COP took note of the information.

Rubber wastes: On 29 April, the COP agreed to discuss whether to develop technical guidelines on this issue at COP18.

Classification and hazard characterization of wastes: With the WCO, the BC provides guidance related to the procedures for waste classification and control for international trade purposes. On 4 May, the Secretariat introduced the documents (UNEP/CHW.17/6, INF/11) addressing cooperation with the WCO on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. The COP agreed to the draft decision as presented.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/CHW.17/6), the BC COP, inter alia:

• takes note of the report on the status of work by the WCO on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System related to the BC;
• invites parties and others to submit comments on the draft proposal to amend the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System with respect to slag, ash, and residues containing selenium and tellurium; and
• requests the Secretariat to submit to the WCO a proposal for amending the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System.

National reporting: The Secretariat presented the relevant documents (UNEP/CHW.17/7, INF/12-16, 19) in plenary on 4 May. Several developing countries called for training on data gathering and reporting. The COP agreed to an amendment proposed by the EU for the draft decision to call for further development of the electronic system to ensure comparability.

The UK and SOUTH AFRICA called for consideration of possible revisions to table 9 of the national reporting format (cases of illegal traffic closed in the prior year), which was taken up by the contact group on Technical Matters and discussed on 5 May. Several delegates indicated they have numerous comments, and there was general support to compile comments for consideration by the OEWG.

On 6 May, the COP tasked the Secretariat with revising the draft decision to reflect a process to collect submissions for potential revisions to table 9, for consideration by the OEWG.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.20), the BC COP, inter alia:

• takes note of the revised practical guidance on the development of inventories of plastic waste, obsolete pesticides and pesticide-container waste, and waste batteries containing lithium;
• encourages parties that have not yet done so to transmit to the Secretariat their national reports for the year 2023 and for previous years as soon as possible;
• invites parties to provide comments on the possible revisions to table 9; and
• requests the Secretariat to continue to maintain and further develop the electronic reporting system, to support parties in using it, and to update the existing system to enhance its compatibility with current information technology standards.

Electronic approaches to the notification and movement documents: The development of electronic approaches for notification and consent and issuance of movement documents aims to improve the efficiency of Article 6 of the BC (transboundary movement between parties). On 4 May, the Secretariat presented the documents containing the proposed draft decision (UNEP/CHW.17/8) and recommendations (INF/17).

 CAMEROON highlighted their interoperability challenges after developing a national electronic export and import system, and TANZANIA requested technical and financial support to ensure participation in the global notification system once developed. The EU suggested additional wording for the draft decision on prioritizing decentralized approaches, and on nominating experts with experience in the PIC procedure and developing software for customs. The COP adopted the revised decision on 6 May.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.16), the BC COP, inter alia:

• recommends that parties, when considering electronic approaches to the notification and movement documents at the international level, prioritize a decentralized approach in the first instance, taking into account parties that already have a system in place or under development;
• decides to extend the mandate of the SIWG;
• requests the SIWG to prepare a compilation of case studies, experiences, standards, and requirements for the exchange of messages and the interconnection between systems, and fact sheets on key aspects to consider when developing e-approach solutions; and
• requests the Secretariat to organize, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, technical assistance activities, and awareness-raising events to help parties advance the work on electronic approaches to the notification and movement documents under the BC.

Further consideration of plastic waste: In 2019, the BC COP amended its annexes to make plastic wastes subject to the PIC procedure. These amendments entered into force on 1 January 2021. The BC COP considered additional activities to help countries implement these decisions.

On 2 May, the Secretariat presented the draft decision and further activities that could be conducted under the BC (CHW.17/9, INF/18). Several countries stressed avoiding duplication of efforts and alignment with the INC on plastics. SAUDI ARABIA and INDIA urged against creating a new reporting burden.

The contact group, co-chaired by Nawaf Bilasi (Saudi Arabia) and Martien Janssen (the Netherlands), discussed this item on 5 and 7 May. Delegates agreed with the deadlines: for parties and others to provide comments on the amendments by 28 February 2026; for the Secretariat to make available its draft report by 31 October 2026; and for parties and others to submit comments on the draft report by 18 January 2027. The contact group included in the work programme of the OEWG for 2026-2027: compiling comments on the plastic waste amendments; considering possible further activities that could be conducted under the BC; and updating several technical guidelines to reflect the amendments.

The COP adopted the decision on 8 May.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.22), the BC COP, inter alia:

• invites parties and others to provide comments on the plastic waste amendments, particularly regarding their implementation, challenges, and impacts, and requests the Secretariat to compile the information received and submit it to the OEWG;
• requests the Secretariat to support parties in capacity building, technical assistance, and technology transfer, with particular emphasis on addressing the unique vulnerabilities and capacity constraints of developing country parties, parties with economies in transition, and SIDS, to enable the implementation of the plastic waste amendments; and
• requests the Secretariat to prepare draft updates of the technical guidelines on the ESM of: HBCD; PCBs, polychlorinated terphenyls, polychlorinated naphthalenes or polybrominated biphenyls, including hexabromobiphenyl; and SCCPs.

Amendments to Annexes II, VIII, IX on e-waste: In 2022, the BC COP amended its annexes to make all e-waste subject to the PIC procedure. These amendments entered into force on 1 January 2025. On 4 May, the COP considered the document (CHW.17/10) to update the technical guidelines on POPs and on ships to reflect adjustments consequential to the adoption of the e-waste amendments.

The EU, echoed by COLOMBIA and THAILAND, urged to keep e-waste in the work programme of the ICC. They also called for guidance on the identification of e-waste and the procedure to follow when one party applies the amendments and another does not.

Under the OEWG work programme, the EU introduced a CRP (CHW.17/CRP.5) on the e-waste amendments to Annexes II, VIII, and IX. Parties asked the Secretariat to update the draft decision.

The COP adopted the decision on 7 May.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.17), the BC COP, inter alia:

• requests the Secretariat to reflect adjustments consequential to the adoption of the e-waste amendments in the technical guidelines on: the ESM of wastes containing or contaminated with unintentionally produced POPs; the full and partial dismantling of ships; and mercury or mercury compounds (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.18); and
• decides to expand the mandate of the expert working group on the development of technical guidelines on e-waste to also include the development of a guidance document.

Waste containing nanomaterials: Nanomaterials can occur in nature or be deliberately manufactured and engineered to exhibit novel characteristics, such as increased strength, chemical reactivity or conductivity, compared to the same material without nanoscale features. The Secretariat introduced the document (UNEP/CHW.17/11) on 5 May. Several delegates called for action on the issue, particularly continued data gathering, information sharing, and increased awareness. BANGLADESH proposed developing international standards, and SRI LANKA suggested preparing technical guidelines to control waste containing nanomaterials. The BC COP then adopted the draft decision.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/CHW.17/11), the BC COP requests the Secretariat to, inter alia:

• make available on the BC website new information from parties related to activities aimed at addressing issues related to waste containing nanomaterials for consideration by the OEWG; and
• organize activities to raise awareness among parties of activities aimed at addressing issues related to waste containing nanomaterials, including case studies about and best practices.

Legal, compliance and governance matters: Committee Administering the Mechanism for Promoting Implementation and Compliance: The COP took up this agenda item (UNEP/CHW.17/12/Rev.1, Add.1, INF/29-34, and INF/78) on 29 April, and adopted the draft decision on 1 May (BC-17/12). On 2 May, Mexico, for GRULAC, asked for reconsideration of the adopted decision, concerned in particular with a paragraph about the modification of the terms of reference (ToR) of the ICC allowing it to recommend punitive measures to the COP for parties that have not submitted national reports for more than five years.

On 6 May, the AFRICAN REGION, the ARAB GROUP, and many other countries seconded GRULAC’s request. Together, they submitted a CRP under Other Matters (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.14), insisting the intent was not to reopen an adopted decision but to address an unfortunate oversight due to the overlap of the plenary with the high-level segment, and the fact that the issue was not addressed in a contact group. After a lengthy debate, when some countries expressed concern with the precedent, the COP agreed to further discuss the issue in the contact group co-chaired by Perine Nkosi Kasonde (Zambia) and Jason Dunn (Australia). The contact group met on 7 and 8 May, and managed to revise the paragraph in question so that delegates agreed it better reflected the facilitative nature of the process.

The COP adopted the decision on 9 May.

 Final Decision: In its decision, as initially adopted and then later amended (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.31), the BC COP, inter alia:

• issued a cautionary statement in relation to the implementation by Togo and requests the ICC to continue consideration of the submission by Togo and assist in its resolution; and
• encourages various policy measures and national activities to improve implementation and compliance.

The COP decides to amend the ToR of the compliance mechanism so that if, after undertaking facilitation procedures and taking into account the cause, type, degree, and frequency of compliance difficulties, as well as the capacity of the party whose compliance is in question, the Committee considers it necessary to pursue further measures to address a party’s compliance difficulties, it may recommend to the COP that it consider, among others:

• recommending that parties not allow the export of such wastes to a party if the Committee has credible information that hazardous and other wastes exported to that party will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner; and
• suspending the eligibility of the party to become a member of the ICC.

The COP adopts the work programme of the ICC, and requests the ICC to:

• establish priorities, work methods, and schedules for the activities in its work programme and to coordinate with the OEWG, the Secretariat, and the BC regional and coordinating centres to avoid duplication of activities;
• consult parties, in advance of COP18, with regard to a draft work programme for the biennium 2028-2029; and
• report to COP18 on the work that the Committee has carried out in the fulfilment of its functions.

Providing further legal clarity: The BC has worked for six years to update Annexes I (categories of waste to be controlled), III (list of hazardous characteristics), and IV (disposal operations). This issue was first taken up in plenary on 28 April when the Secretariat introduced the documents (UNEP/CHW.17/13, Add.1, INF/36-38).

Discussion was taken up in the contact group on BC Legal Matters, co-chaired by Perine Nkosi Kasonde (Zambia) and Jason Dunn (Australia), several times, including on 29 and 30 April, and 1, 4, and 6 May. The contact group focused on Annex IV, which defines waste under the Convention.

Among the many issues considered by the contact group, there were particular disagreements on whether to include open burning as a disposal operation and preparing for reuse as a recovery operation. More generally, there was a conflict between two approaches to section B on resource recovery, recycling, or reclamation. Some called for a new approach that would more generally list recovery, recycling, and reclamation operations without specifying the type of waste. They argued that it is a more flexible approach that could accommodate emerging waste streams. Others noted that this new approach would involve considerable costs to transition because it would involve working with the industry and stakeholders to switch to the new codes. They preferred staying closer to the current approach that identifies operations and links them to specific waste streams.

Open burning is not an ESM disposal method because it harms the environment and human health. Several countries worried that including open burning in Annex IV could be seen to legitimize the practice. Others stressed that it would help bring open burning under the BC’s control because if a shipment is exported for another purpose, but is later open burned, it can be prosecuted as illegal trafficking of waste. To find compromise, it was ultimately not included in the Annex IV amendment, but work will continue.

On preparing for re-use, the proponents argued that waste shipments may contain items that can be sorted, cleaned, and then subjected to a recovery operation or reused. Others worried this could open a loophole that would allow exporters to use this operation for shipments that are then simply discarded. After several attempts to define the operation, the suggestion was removed, and work will continue.

On 9 May, the BC COP adopted the decision.

Final Decisions: In its final decisions (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.25 and UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.26), the COP amends Annex IV and requests, inter alia:

• the Secretariat to prepare draft revisions to the notification and movement documents and the instructions for completing them, as well as draft revisions to the national reporting format and the manual for completing it consequential to the adoption of the amendments to Annex IV;
• the Secretariat to identify, for consideration by OEWG15 and at COP18, consequential implications of the amendment to Annex IV for other documents such as technical guidelines and, if appropriate, the glossary of terms; and
• the expert working group will continue developing draft recommendations on the review of Annexes I and III, taking into account the comments received from parties and observers on its draft recommendations and discussions at COP17, for consideration by OEWG15 and at COP18. 

National legislation, notifications, enforcement of the Convention and efforts to combat illegal traffic: This agenda item (UNEP/CHW.17/14) was taken up on 2 May. Several countries spoke on challenges such as misalignment of codes, insufficient coordination between customs and regulatory offices, and limited national capacity. The same day the COP adopted the decision. 

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/CHW.17/14), the COP, inter alia, urges parties to provide the Secretariat with texts of their national legislation and update information on their national definitions of hazardous wastes or any information on import and export restrictions or prohibitions. It also requests the Secretariat to:

• continue to maintain and update the collection of best practices for preventing and punishing illegal traffic and the form for reporting confirmed cases of illegal traffic;
• make available information on national definitions of hazardous wastes and on import and export restrictions or prohibitions;
• continue to cooperate with enforcement organizations and networks, including in support of global and regional enforcement operations led by them; and
• further develop tools, including e-learning tools, and organize enforcement training activities, and assist parties to develop national legislation and other measures to implement and enforce the Convention and prevent and punish illegal traffic.

Proposal by the Russian Federation to amend paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention: This agenda item (UNEP/CHW.17/15 and INF/39-40) was introduced to plenary by the RUSSIAN FEDERATION on 4 May. It consists of a revised proposal for improving the PIC procedure by specifying that importing states shall respond to the notifying state within 90 days. Views differed on the merits of the proposal, including the extent to which it addresses problems with the PIC procedure. Consultations with interested parties were conducted, and on 5 May the COP agreed to defer the issue to the next meeting.

Basel Convention Partnership Programme: The BC engages in several public-private partnerships to support the work of the Convention. On 4 May, activities relating to the Partnership for Action on Challenges relating to E-waste (PACE II), ENFORCE, the Household Waste Partnership (HWP), and the Plastic Waste Partnership (PWP) were presented and discussed.

TÜRKIYE, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, SWITZERLAND, MALDIVES, and PAKISTAN welcomed PACE II’s work. MALDIVES called for tailored guidance to SIDS’ particular challenges. The EU welcomed the PACE II report but said further work is needed before deciding on the future of the partnership. They proposed rewording the draft decision to finalize the draft guidance at COP18. The COP adopted Part I of the decision with an amendment to reflect the EU’s proposal, as well as Parts II, III, and IV on the three other partnerships.

Final Decision: The final decision (UNEP/CHW.17/18) contains four parts.

In Part I (PACE II), the BC COP, inter alia:

• takes note of and invites parties and others to provide comments on the draft guidance documents on the environmentally sound repair and refurbishment of used and waste equipment of television screens, audio, and video equipment and the ESM of their waste, and on the environmentally sound repair and refurbishment of used and waste refrigerators and cooling and heating equipment and the ESM of their waste;
• approves the programme of work of PACE II for the biennium 2026-2027;
• requests the working group to prepare a further revised draft of the guidance documents; and
• requests the Secretariat to report on progress in implementing the present decision to COP18.

In Part II (ENFORCE), the BC COP, inter alia:

• invites entities with a specific mandate to deliver implementation and enforcement capacity-building activities that could assist BC parties in preventing and combating illegal traffic of hazardous wastes and other wastes to consider sending a duly motivated request to the Chair of the Network regarding admission as members of the Network;
• requests the Secretariat to support the work of the Network including, subject to the availability of resources, with regard to the implementation of its activities; and
• requests the Secretariat to report on progress in the implementation of the present decision to COP18.

In Part III (HWP), the BC COP, inter alia:

• welcomes the overall guidance document on the ESM of household waste;
• invites parties and others to carry out activities to use, promote, and disseminate the overall guidance document on the ESM of household waste;
• approves the workplan of the Partnership for the biennium 2026-2027, and requests the working group of the Partnership to implement it;
• requests the Secretariat to support the working group of the Partnership including, subject to the availability of resources, with regard to the implementation of the activities in its workplan; and
• requests the Secretariat to report on progress in the implementation of the present decision to COP18.

In Part IV (PWP), the BC COP, inter alia:

• approves the workplan of the Partnership for the biennium 2026-2027, and requests the working group of the Partnership to implement it;
• requests the Secretariat to support the working group of the Partnership including, subject to the availability of resources, with regard to the implementation of the activities in its workplan; and
• requests the Secretariat to report on progress in the implementation of the present decision to COP18.

Work programme of the OEWG for the period 2025-2026: This issue was first taken up on 2 May, when the work programme (UNEP/CHW.17/20) was presented in plenary. The EU introduced a proposal with Chile (UNEP/CHW.17/CRP.3) to add a new item on textile waste to the OEWG agenda.

Textile waste was discussed in the Technical Matters contact group on 4 and 7 May, and on 6 May in the plenary. Parties debated which level of priority to assign for this work, after agreeing that the OEWG should consider options under the Convention to address textile wastes. The decision was adopted on 9 May and the new item was assigned a medium level of priority (CHW.17/CRP.15).

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/CHW.17/29), the COP mandates work to the OEWG, including:

• strategic issues, such as work to improve the functioning of the PIC procedure;
• scientific and technical matters, such as updating the technical guidelines on the ESM of POPs wastes and considering the draft updated technical guidelines on the ESM of waste lead-acid batteries and other waste batteries, used and waste pneumatic tyres, and mercury;
• legal, governance and enforcement matters, such as providing further legal clarity; and
• international cooperation and coordination, such as consideration of progress made on the Basel Convention Partnership Programme and cooperation with the IMO.

Adoption of the Report

On 7 May, the COP went through the meeting report (UNEP/CHW.17/L.1/Add.1). On paragraph 89 on the adoption of the decision on compliance, SOUTH AFRICA referred to a disruption during the statement by the African Group on 1 May and, with CHILE, called for it to be reflected in the report of the meeting.

On 9 May, the COP entrusted the finalization of the report to the rapporteur with the support of the Secretariat to reflect interventions during the plenary in the final report.

Rotterdam Convention COP12

The meetings documents can be found on the BRS website.

Rules of Procedure for the COP

The Secretariat introduced the rules of procedure (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/3) pointing to brackets around voting procedures. The COP agreed to put this issue on the agenda for COP13.

Matters Related to the Implementation of the Convention

Status of implementation: The Secretariat introduced the document and draft decision (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/4) on 7 May. Several parties urged importing countries to submit missing import responses as soon as possible. Several parties also urged exporting parties to provide more detailed information on substances not listed in Annex III. The COP adopted the decision.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/4), the RC COP, inter alia, requests the Secretariat to:

• streamline information collection requests to parties, taking into account the periodic questionnaire on the implementation of Articles 11 to 14 of the Convention and the work programme of the Compliance Committee; and
• continue to facilitate implementation of the RC and report on it to COP13.

Listing of chemicals in Annex III to the Convention: Listing chemicals in Annex III of the Convention makes the pesticide or industrial chemical subject to the Convention’s PIC procedure. The chemicals were taken up in plenary on 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 May. Methyl bromide, mercury, chlorpyrifos, paraquat, and paraquat dichloride formulations were referred to a contact group, co-chaired by Marit Randall (Norway) and Caroline Theka (Malawi), which met a few times, including on 8 May.

CRC: The CRC reviews the notifications of final regulatory action, or proposals for severely hazardous pesticide formulations, against the criteria laid out in the Rotterdam Convention. If it finds that two notifications, from two different PIC regions, meet the criteria, the Committee prepares a draft decision guidance document (DGD) and recommends the chemical’s inclusion in the RC.

On 4 May, the Secretariat introduced the report and draft decision (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/5, INF/5/Rev.1). Noluzuko Gwayi, CRC Chair, reported on the CRC’s activities. Many spoke to praise the Committee’s work and agreed to a decision.

Final Decision: The RC COP (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/5 and CRP.13) appointed new experts to the Committee and asked the CRC to elect a new Chair on an interim basis

Acetochlor: On 6 May, the Secretariat presented the draft decision and DGD (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/6, Add.1). RC COP12 President Hammad Shamimi reminded delegates that at COP9, parties had agreed that all requirements for listing were met. Many countries supported the listing, but several opposed and objected to continued discussion in a contact group.

On 6 May, the COP agreed to add acetochlor to the COP13 agenda.

Carbosulfan: On 6 May, the Secretariat introduced the draft decision and DGD (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/7, Add.1). All parties supported the listing. That same day, the COP adopted the decision listing carbosulfan in RC Annex III.

Final Decision: The RC (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/7) agrees to amend Annex III to list fenthion ultra-low volume formulations as a pesticide and adopts the DGD.

Chlorpyrifos: On 5 May, the Secretariat introduced the draft decision and DGD (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/8, Add.1). Discussion was taken up by the contact group. Many countries supported the listing, noting chlorpyrifos is already listed under the SC. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION opposed and disagreed that the criteria for listing had been met.

On 8 May, the COP agreed to add chlorpyrifos to the COP13 agenda.

Chrysotile Asbestos: On 7 May, the Secretariat introduced the draft decision and DGD (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/9, Add.1), recalling that the COP agreed in 2006 that the listing criteria are met. Many parties supported the listing, but six opposed. That same day, the COP agreed to add chrysotile asbestos to the agenda of COP13.

Fenthion ultra-low volume formulations: On 7 May, the Secretariat introduced the draft decision and DGD (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/10, Add.1), noting that the COP agreed in 2015 that the listing criteria were met. All parties supported the listing. That same day, the COP agreed to list fenthion ultra-low volume formulations in RC Annex III. 

Final Decision: The RC (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/10) agrees to amend Annex III to list fenthion (ultra-low-volume formulations at or above 640 g active ingredient/L) as a severely hazardous pesticide formulation and adopts the DGD.

Iprodione: On 4 May, the Secretariat introduced the draft decision and DGD (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/11, Add.1). Statements continued on 5 May, with many parties supporting the listing, opposed by ARGENTINA, ECUADOR, GUATEMALA, and IRAN, who disagreed that the criteria for listing had been met. There were also objections to sending the issue to the contact group.

On 8 May, the COP agreed to add iprodione to the COP13 agenda.

Mercury: On 4 May, the Secretariat introduced the draft decision and DGD (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/13, Add.1), and the CRC’s rationale and comments (INF/11, 12). Discussion was taken up by the contact group. Many countries supported the listing to complement the Minamata Convention on Mercury, opposed by some states. The EU presented a CRP on ensuring coherence with the Minamata Convention’s trade provisions (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.7).

In the contact group, there was considerable discussion on whether the trade-related provisions of the Minamata Convention were complementary to a potential RC listing, or sufficient on their own to address trade in mercury and mercury-containing products. The contact group cleared the supplementary decision (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.10) but could not agree on the listing.

On 8 May, ARGENTINA, KYRGYZSTAN, and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION opposed listing and disagreed that the listing criteria had been met. The COP agreed to add mercury to the agenda of COP13.

Methyl bromide: On 4 May, the Secretariat introduced the draft decision (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/14), DGD (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/14, Add.1), and CRC recommendations and rationale (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/INF/13). Many parties opposed listing in the opening plenary.

The issue was also taken up by the contact group. The group extensively discussed the controls of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Some felt that these were sufficient to address the problem. Others expressed worry that an RC listing could affect the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipping operations, which is permitted and reviewed by the Montreal Protocol.

In plenary on 8 May, many countries supported the listing, noting that methyl bromide is already regulated by the Montreal Protocol. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION and IRAN opposed and disagreed that the criteria for listing are met. INDIA expressed its reservation to the listing.

The COP agreed to add methyl bromide to the COP13 agenda.

Paraquat: On 5 May, the Secretariat introduced the draft decision and DGD (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP/12/15/Rev.1, Add.1). Discussion was taken up by the contact group. Many countries supported the listing, opposed by VENEZUELA, GUATEMALA, ARGENTINA, ECUADOR, and PARAGUAY, who also disagreed that the criteria for listing had been met.

On 8 May, the COP agreed to add paraquat to the COP13 agenda.

Paraquat dichloride formulations: On 6 May, the Secretariat introduced the draft decision and DGD (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/12, Add.1). Many parties supported the listing, but GUATEMALA, ARGENTINA, PARAGUAY, ECUADOR, GUYANA, and VENEZUELA opposed. Discussions continued in a contact group, where parties could not reach agreement.

On 8 May, the COP agreed to add paraquat dichloride formulations to the COP13 agenda.

Enhancing the effectiveness of the Convention: There were three proposals on how to enhance the effectiveness of the Convention, each varied in the scope of work to be undertaken. The debate was divisive throughout the COP. On 5 May, the Secretariat presented documents, including a Secretariat note and report on information received (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/16, INF/18).

BRAZIL presented their proposal (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.4), highlighting the request for the FAO and World Health Organization (WHO) to ensure that RC listing is not a criterion for highly hazardous pesticide (HHP) classifications used, among others, by certification bodies to ban pesticides. They also underscored the request for technical support, capacity building and establishing a permanent effectiveness committee.

The EU underlined that actions should stay within the RC’s scope, and the COP cannot dictate to other international organizations. They also rejected creating another subsidiary body. They presented their proposal (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.8) aimed at enhancing understanding of how Annex III listings are used by standard-setting and certification bodies in the area of agriculture and food production by inviting parties to engage with such bodies.  

On 6 May, the COP took up a proposal by Kazakhstan to amend the RC rules of procedure and allow for an item to be considered as concluded and removed from the agenda if it is not completed after three ordinary meetings (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.2). After deliberations in plenary, this proposal was withdrawn.

Discussions were taken up in a contact group on RC Effectiveness, co-chaired by Linroy Christian (Antigua and Barbuda) and Karoliina Anttonen (Finland), on 6, 7, and 8 May. Some issues proved too contentious, particularly whether to establish an effectiveness committee. Some thought the CRC is effectively fulfilling its purpose, and pointed to the budgetary implications of a new subsidiary body. They said the problem arises at the COP when some parties block listing recommendations. Others cited the need to consider the socioeconomic implications of listing and the need for financial and technical assistance for parties, which could enable countries to support listings.

Several developing country parties brought up implications of listings on trade and supported clarifying its impact on the HHP definition in the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, and its use by private certification bodies. Other parties stressed the need to stay within the scope of the RC and not encroach on other bodies’ mandates. Observers rejected the claim about private certification schemes, reporting that major private certification bodies already designated the chemicals currently proposed, but not listed in the RC, as hazardous. There was a request for the FAO and WHO to provide experts who could answer parties’ questions, but such experts were not available.

Discussions then focused on the less contentious items in the Co-Chairs’ proposed text, including training and mentoring for CRC members, and a process to gather information from parties on their use of various databases, among other requests for information.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.18), the RC COP requests the Secretariat to, inter alia:

• subject to the availability of resources, when providing support to the CRC, to consider and, where possible, implement initiatives to provide additional training to current and incoming members, through online means;
• compile the information transmitted by parties and observers on provisions under the RC that may be relevant for quality standards in the area of agriculture and food production; and
• to translate the Handbook of Working Procedures and Policy Guidance for the CRC into the six UN official languages.

The decision also invites the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management of the FAO and WHO to discuss, as appropriate, the use of Annex III as a criterion for defining HHPs under Criterion 6 of the Guidelines on HHPs of the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management.

Compliance: This agenda item (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/17) was first introduced on 29 April, and then taken up on 5 and 7 May. Discussion centered on the Compliance Committee’s 2026-2027 work programme, and a proposal by the EU with two additional activities for the Committee (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.6). The latter proposal was later withdrawn given the already busy work programme and possible relevance elsewhere.

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/CRP.12), the RC COP, inter alia, requests the Secretariat to make the template for specific requests from parties available on the Convention website.

On laws, regulations, policies, procedures and other measures to implement the RC, the COP:

• decides to include in the technical assistance plan for the period 2026-2029 continued support to parties for the development of, the establishment of, and updates to legislative and administrative measures to implement the RC, and to raise awareness and increase coordination among involved entities; and
• requests the Secretariat to identify parties’ needs for assistance, assess the adequacy of tools and training activities to meet those needs, and any updates needed to existing tools and any new tools that should be developed in relation to legislative and administrative measures to implement the RC.

On notifications of final regulatory action, the COP:

• requests the Secretariat to collect more information from parties on the challenges faced with the submission of notifications of final regulatory action within 90 days of it taking effect;
• decides to continue to include in the technical assistance plan for 2026-2029 awareness-raising activities and exchanges of experiences and information on how to conduct risk evaluations;
• encourages FAO, UNEP, and other relevant entities, in their activities to support the technical assistance plan, to continue their efforts to assist parties in their actions to prepare and adopt final regulatory actions and to submit notifications of those final regulatory actions to the Secretariat.

On exports and imports of chemicals listed in Annex III, the COP:

• decides to emphasize, in the technical assistance plan for 2026-2029, the importance of importing parties receiving support to transmit import responses and of exporting parties ensuring that exporters comply with import responses;
• encourages the FAO, UNEP, and other relevant entities, in their activities to support the technical assistance plan, to organize awareness-raising activities for importing parties on the transmission of import responses in a timely manner and for exporting parties on ensuring that exporters comply with import responses, particularly in regard to the communication of responses, and to provide parties with opportunities to exchange lessons and good practices.

On export notifications, the COP decides to emphasize, in the technical assistance plan for 2026-2029, the importance of parties receiving support to raise awareness of the RC obligations pertaining to the transmission and acknowledgement of receipt of export notifications.

The COP approves the programme of work for 2026-2027.

Adoption of the Report

On 9 May, the RC COP adopted its report (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.12/L.1/Add.1).

Stockholm Convention COP12

The meetings documents can be found on the BRS website.

Rules of Procedure for the COP

The Secretariat introduced the rules of procedure (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/3) pointing to brackets around paragraph 1 of Rule 45 on voting procedures. The COP agreed to put this issue on the agenda for COP13.

Matters Related to the Implementation of the Stockholm Convention

Measures to Reduce or Eliminate Releases from Intentional Production and Use: Exemptions: Parties register their use of a specific exemption or acceptable purposes to help the COP understand the extent of production and use during the time-limited exemptions. On 30 April, the Secretariat introduced the documents (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/4 and INF/7/Rev.1), noting a request by the Republic of Korea for an extension of the specific exemption for the use of PFOA, its salts, and related compounds, for fire-fighting foam for liquid fuel vapor suppression and liquid fuel fires (Class B fires) in installed systems, including both mobile and fixed systems. The current specific exemption is set to expire on 2 June 2026. In plenary, many expressed reservations about allowing continued use of PFOA and the precedent it would set to add exceptions after listing.

The issue was taken up on 2 May by the SC listing contact group, co-chaired by Timo Seppälä (Finland) and Lamin Jaiteh (The Gambia). Ideas were raised to limit the scope or duration of the exemption, and to ensure it applied only to the Republic of Korea.

Later in the day, the decision was adopted in plenary. Observers lamented the ongoing use of PFOA in fire-fighting foams.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.9), the SC COP agrees to the request by the Republic of Korea for the extension of entries in the register of specific exemptions for four years, until 2 June 2030, for PFOA, its salts and PFOA-related compounds, and PFOS, its salts and PFOSF for use in fire-fighting foam for liquid fuel vapor suppression and liquid fuel fires (class B fires) in installed systems, including both mobile and fixed systems.

DDT: Listed in Annex B to the SC, DDT is restricted for disease vector control purposes in cases where no equally effective and efficient alternative is available. The agenda item (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/5, INF/8-9, INF/69) was taken up by the COP on 30 April. Many countries, particularly in Africa, pointed to their continued need for DDT as part of their disease vector control strategy, especially for malaria, given lack of alternatives. They added that they are not in a position to phase out DDT by 2025.

The draft decision was adopted by the COP the same day.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/5), the COP, inter alia:

• concludes that there is a continued need for the use of DDT for malaria vector control justified only in a few specific settings;
• decides to evaluate at COP13 the continued need for DDT;
• adopts a revised DDT questionnaire as set out in the annex to UNEP/POPS/COP.12/INF/8;
• encourages parties using DDT to adopt alternative indoor residual spraying products and/or insecticide-treated net classes, as well as supplementary interventions for malaria vector control;
• invites the UNEP to continue to lead the implementation of the road map for the development of alternatives to DDT, in consultation with the WHO, the DDT expert group and the Secretariat, and to report to COP13;
• requests the Secretariat to initiate, with the support of the DDT expert group and others, a scoping assessment for the safe disposal of wastes resulting from the use of malaria vector control methods as alternatives to DDT, particularly obsolete insecticide-treated nets; and
• requests the Secretariat to assist parties in reporting on DDT and promoting locally safe, effective and affordable alternatives for a sustainable transition away from DDT.

PCBs: This agenda item (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/6, INF/10-12, INF/35) addresses the ban on production and new uses of PCBs. SC parties committed to eliminating the use of PCB in equipment by 2025 and  ensure the ESM of liquids containing PCB and equipment contaminated with PCB by 2028. Discussion was taken up by the COP on 30 April. Many parties reported on progress made but others also expressed serious concern about meeting the deadlines. The draft decision was adopted by the COP the same day.

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/6), the SC COP, inter alia:

• welcomes the updated guidance for the development of inventories of PCBs, as well as the strategy to enable SC parties to meet the 2025 and 2028 goals;
• urges parties to meet their obligations; and
• requests the Secretariat to report back to COP13 on the implementation of the decision.

BDEs: In 2013, the COP agreed to a process to regularly evaluate progress toward eliminating BDEs contained in articles and to review if there is continued need for BDEs. On 1 May, the COP adopted the decision to further this evaluation.

Final Decision: In its decision, the SC COP (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.5) urges parties to take steps to eliminate production and address releases from recycling articles containing BDEs and to include information about BDE releases in their national reports. The COP also:

• decides to conduct an evaluation of parties’ progress towards eliminating BDEs contained in articles by COP14, whereby parties would submit information for review by POPRC, and the Secretariat finalizes the report for consideration by COP14;
• encourages parties that are registered for specific exemptions not to allow recycling of articles containing BDEs as soon as possible and no later than 2030, to review their continued need for such registration, and to make the resulting information available to the Secretariat to facilitate the evaluation and review; and
• encourages parties to share experiences of managing recycled plastics and wastes containing BDEs, including cost-effective methods suitable for developing countries, and to contribute to capacity-building efforts.

The SC COP requests the Secretariat to:

• provide, subject to the availability of resources, technical assistance on identifying BDEs in products and articles, on strengthening regulatory frameworks for managing these chemicals throughout their life cycles, while also enhancing capacities for the ESM of POPs wastes, particularly e-waste, end-of-life vehicles, and other waste streams containing BDEs;
• continue to support the review process, including, subject to the availability of resources, activities that assist parties in collecting the information required for this process; and
• report to COP14.

Measures to Reduce or Eliminate Releases from Unintentional Production: The SC developed guidelines and guidance on BAT and BEP for measures to reduce or eliminate releases from unintentional production, including toolkits. On 30 April, parties adopted the related decision and the noted joint Toolkit (INF/15).

Final Decision: In the final decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/8), the SC COP welcomed the BAT/BEP guidelines and guidance and takes note of the joint Toolkit. The SC COP also requests:

• the experts on the Toolkit and on BAT/BEP to continue the work on the ongoing review and update of the guidelines and guidance;
• the Secretariat to organize one meeting of the experts on the Toolkit and on BAT/BEP and, subject to the availability of resources, a second meeting; and
• the Secretariat, subject to the availability of resources, to continue to support the experts in their work and parties in the updating and implementation of action plans, and to implement awareness-raising and technical assistance activities to promote the Toolkit and the BAT/BEP guidelines and guidance.

Measures to Reduce or Eliminate Releases from Wastes: In collaboration with the BC, the SC addresses POPs releases from wastes. On 28 April, the Secretariat introduced the report (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/9) and, after initial comments, the COP adopted the decision. It also asked the Secretariat to revise the decision to include the UV-328 technical guidelines once agreed by the BC COP, and to reflect POPs listed at this SC COP.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/9), the SC invites the appropriate bodies of the BC, with regard to the chemicals newly listed in Annex A to:

• establish the levels of destruction and irreversible transformation necessary to ensure that the characteristics of POPs are not exhibited;
• determine what they consider to be the methods that constitute environmentally sound disposal;
• work to establish, as appropriate, concentration levels in order to define the low-POP content; and
• further update, if need be, the general technical guidelines on the ESM of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with POPs, and to update or develop new specific technical guidelines under the BC.

The SC COP also requests the Secretariat, subject to the availability of resources, to undertake capacity-building and training activities in relation to the sound management of POPs stockpiles and wastes, and to develop guidance and tools to support parties in these efforts.

Implementation Plans: National implementation plans (NIPs) outline how a country will fulfill its obligations under the Convention. These plans include preparing inventories, identifying alternatives, undertaking socioeconomic assessments, and other activities related to the POPs listed in the Convention. They are to be updated, as appropriate. On 30 April and 1 May, the Secretariat noted the very high transmission rate (up to 95%) of initial NIPs but the lower rates for updated ones. Several countries spoke to the challenges in updating their plans given the regular addition of new POPs, especially those that are widely used and present in a range of products. The COP adopted the decision. 

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/10/Rev.1), the SC COP:

• urges those parties that have not yet developed or updated their implementation plans to expedite their efforts and transmit their plans as soon as possible;
• invites parties and observers to submit comments to the Secretariat by 31 October 2025 on the guidance and the online course to support NIPs;
• invites the appropriate bodies of the BC to review the waste-related aspects of the NIP inventory and alternatives guidances and to submit comments thereon to the Secretariat by 31 October 2025; and
• requests the Secretariat to develop guidance on preparing inventories for the POPs listed at COP12, for the consideration of COP13.

The COP also requests the Secretariat to:

• continue to support parties in developing, reviewing and updating their NIPs;
• further revise, in consultation with POPRC and experts on BAT/BEP, as appropriate, the inventories and alternatives guidances, taking into consideration the comments received;
• identify additional needs for guidance and tools to assist parties in developing and updating their NIPs and to develop such resources, as appropriate; and
• continue improving the electronic templates for reporting quantitative and qualitative information contained in NIPs, harmonized with the reporting under Article 15 of the Convention, as appropriate, considering the comments received.

POPRC: On 29 April, the Secretariat introduced the developments for action by the COP (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/11, INF/6/Rev.1), and report on options for identifying POPs in stockpiles, products, and articles in use and in wastes (INF/26). POPRC Chair Peter Dawson reported on the work completed. The SC COP adopted the decision.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/11), the SC COP, inter alia:

• appoints 17 experts to serve as POPRC members;
• defers election of new POPRC Chair to COP13;
• requests the Secretariat to continue to assist the POPRC in gathering information on POPs in products, as needed for its chemical reviews, to provide parties with guidance on labelling for chemicals listed in Annexes A and B to the SC and to raise awareness among parties of existing guidance relevant to the identification of POPs; and
• requests the Secretariat to continue to support parties, new members, and newly appointed experts to effectively participate in the process of reviewing and listing new chemicals under the SC and in the POPRC’s work and to report on the outcomes of those activities to COP13.

Listing of Chemicals in Annex A, B or C to the Convention: Listing of chemicals in Annexes A (elimination), B (restriction), and/or C (reducing unintentional production) is one of the core areas of work for the Stockholm Convention. Three chemicals were suggested for listing in Annex A at COP12: chlorpyrifos (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/12), LC-PFCAs, their salts and related compounds (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/14), and MCCPs (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/13). Additionally, COP12 reviewed a proposal by Ethiopia to amend the listing of UV-328 to add a specific exemption for water-seal tape and polyurethane and polyamide adhesives for specific aircraft systems for a five-year period (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.1). The item was first introduced in plenary on 28 April for chlorpyrifos, and then on 29 April for the remaining sub-items.

The matter was discussed in a contact group co-chaired by Timo Seppälä (Finland) and Lamin Jaiteh (The Gambia), which met several times, including on 29 and 30 April, and 1, 2, 5 and 6 May.

Chlorpyrifos: Discussions in the contact group focused on the many requests for specific exemptions. After clarifying that parties did not want a general exemption for agricultural use, they began to narrow the specific exemptions to certain crop-pest combinations. Many parties still put forward additional exemptions for various agricultural uses, including locust and leaf-cutting ants, and termite control in construction. While some argued this undermines the listing process, given that POPRC already reviewed exemptions and submissions to the COP circumvent rigorous scientific review, many parties cited food security concerns and lack of alternatives with proven effectiveness in national contexts.

On 4 May, the SC COP adopted the decision on listing chlorpyrifos.

Final Decision: In its final decision on chlorpyrifos (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.7), the SC COP decides to list chlorpyrifos in Annex A with specific exemptions for crop-pest complexes, control of leaf-cutting ants for agricultural use only, control of locusts for agricultural use only, control of ticks in cattle, and wood preservation against borers and termites in building foundations.

MCCPs: Discussions in the contact group focused on defining the chemical identity of MCCPs and additional requests for specific exemptions.

On MCCPs’ chemical identity, parties reopened POPRC discussions on ensuring the listing includes both the congeners and the formulas often used by the manufacturers, while ensuring a comprehensive chlorination level to encompass all POP MCCPs.

On exemptions for MCCPs, many were introduced and discussed with debates revolving around polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in construction with some parties wanting it for indoor use, while others were against allowing use in dwellings. Discussions were also lengthy on other exemptions, including for paints and coatings for ammunition and ammunition marking, exempted until 2041.

Final Decision: In its final decisions on MCCPs (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.11 and CRP.12), the SC COP, inter alia, decides to list MCCPs with chemical identity as specified in the decision. The COP agreed to exemptions for: solid woven conveyor belts used in underground coal mines, and flexible elastomeric foam for thermal insulation.

The specific exemption for flexible PVC is limited to:

• the construction sector, including maintenance of buildings and other structures, for uses other than wires and cables, and excluding uses in indoor living spaces, e.g. flooring, wallpaper, and wall panels;
• wires and cables in the construction sector;
• wires and cables in medical devices and in-vitro diagnostic devices; and
• calendered films in the packaging field, excluding food packaging.

The specific exemption for adhesives and sealants is limited to:

• polysulfide sealant and one-component polyurethane foam used in sealing for doors and windows;
• waterproof coatings and anticorrosion coatings;
• aerospace and defence applications (e.g., polyurethane adhesives and tamper-proof putty);
• tape used for non-structural bonding in aerospace and defence products;
• fatliquoring component in leather, except in children’s products;
• emergency response pyrotechnic devices;
• paints and coatings for ammunition and ammunition markings;
• metalworking fluids in specific applications 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 service life of the articles or 2041, whichever comes earlier;
• ammunition pyrotechnic defence devices to achieve specific effects (e.g., sound, smoke, light), in specific applications and sectors;
• intumescent coating and paint for space and defence equipment and its packaging to protect against extreme temperature (may be available until 2041); and
• coating and paint for the repair of, and use in replacement parts for, space and defence equipment, in specific applications and sectors, which may remain available until the end of service life of that equipment for its repair and maintenance, subject to review by the COP, no later than 2041.

Additionally, the SC COP decides to undertake the review of MCCPs at COP14 and of specific exemptions for MCCPs at COP15, and requests POPRC to prepare reports and recommendations on these matters for consideration.

LC-PFCAs, their salts and related compounds: In the contact group, the discussion proceeded fairly quickly, with the main debate revolving around ensuring parties do not use PFAS as a substitute for LC-PFCAs.

Final Decision: In its final decisions on LC-PFCAs (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.6 and CRP.8), the SC COP, inter alia, decides to list LC-PFCAs with exemptions for:

• semiconductors designed for replacement parts;
• semiconductors designed for replacement parts for combustion-engine-powered vessels; and
• replacement parts for motor vehicles that have ceased mass production, covering all land-based vehicles, such as cars, motorcycles, agricultural and construction vehicles, and industrial trucks. Applications include semiconductors, coatings, cables, electronics, engines and under-hood applications, modules, hydraulic system components and relay assemblies.

It also:

• invites parties and others to take into account the information available in the draft indicative list of substances and to provide further information regarding the identification of substances covered by the listing of LC-PFCAs;
• requests the Secretariat to compile, in consultation with POPRC, the information submitted and to establish an indicative list of substances covered by the listing of LC-PFCA, mindful of the indicative list of substances covered by the listing of PFOA, its salts and PFOA-related compounds; and
• urges parties to take into account the information on potential alternatives provided in the risk management evaluation, to determine whether those alternatives exhibit the characteristics of POPs.

UV-328: In the contact group, parties debated how to avoid setting a precedent for amending an already discussed listing once there is additional information from industry, which many worried would weaken the SC and disincentivize the industry from engaging before listing decisions are adopted, and even encourage anti-competitive industry practices. There was also a concern that while, according to POPRC, alternatives would be employed for these uses before the listing entered into force, many countries were awaiting aircraft shipment with UV-328, which potentially would make them non-compliant. For this reason, several parties had opted out of the UV-328 listing entirely.

In the contact group, parties agreed to an amended listing decision that would allow the new specific exemption, with a preamble setting out parties’ understanding that this is an extraordinary situation involving low quantities of the POP.

On 9 May, SC COP12 President Maya Berci presented two decisions, which, taken together, reflect the outcome of the contact group. She explained that they are two separate but linked decisions to facilitate the Secretariat’s communicating a clear decision to the UN depository.

The COP simultaneously the two decisions.

BRS COP Executive Secretary Rolph Payet said the two decisions are the outcome of intense negotiations and reflect contact group consensus, including that parties are very aware of the unique nature of this request, and that parties should work to further the objectives of the SC.

CHILE welcomed the decision and said international environmental law is defined by flexibility and willingness to adapt, and said it is essential for the Secretariat to share this mindset and for all to remain pragmatic and in line with the Convention’s objectives.

ETHIOPIA thanked parties for understanding their unique request for this amendment and reaffirmed its commitment to the goals of the SC.

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO underlined that they are mindful of extenuating circumstances to amend the SC and noted the balanced approach is due to the precarious situation of the aviation industry, while ensuring the SC is not undermined.

COLOMBIA stated that it is an absolutely extraordinary situation leading to amending Annex A. He cited several concerns with precedents at the international level and expressed satisfaction that one decision requests parties not to use the amendment process to add specific derogations to Annex A.

Zambia, for the AFRICAN REGION, welcomed the ability to address this unprecedented situation while upholding the objective of the Convention. They emphasized the need for continued collaboration to realize the Convention’s shared vision for a sustainable future.

Final Decisions: In its final decisions on amending listing of UV-328 (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.15 and 17), the SC COP, inter alia, decides to amend the UV-328 listing with additional specific exemption for water-seal tape for insulation blankets and decking on aircraft; and polyurethane and polyamide adhesives, and polyurethane coatings, for structural, mechanical, interior and electrical assemblies, and emergency, propulsion, environmental control, and flight control systems, on aircraft. The exemption is limited to use only, and shall in any case expire by the end of 2030.

The SC COP also:

• strongly urges parties to refrain from using the amendment procedure under Article 22 to add new specific exemptions or acceptable purposes in Annexes A and B after a chemical has been considered by POPRC and the COP; and
• requests that any party making use of the specific exemptions report annually to the Secretariat on relevant information, including, as feasible, quantities used, specific applications and progress towards phase-out, using the best available scientific and technical evidence, and that POPRC assesses this information and any other relevant information and provides a report on the assessment to COP13.

Financial Mechanism: This agenda item, including reports on the financial mechanism (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/17, INF/32-39) was first taken up on 29 April, and in a contact group, co-chaired by David Kapindula (Zambia) and Toks Akinseye (the UK), which met numerous times throughout the two weeks, including on 30 April, 1, 5, 7, 8, and 9 May.

On the financial mechanism, parties considered a report by the GEF Secretariat (POPS/COP.12/17, Annex I), highlighting that the GEF-8 replenishment had allocated USD 413 million of its USD 800 million chemicals and waste budget to support the SC, and that GEF support reached 35 countries, including nine least developed countries.

Contact group discussions centered on properly reflecting differentiations, particularly developed countries’ obligations to provide financial support. Some parties expressed concern that initial language on developing country parties’ contributions and private sector and financial institutions dilutes the responsibilities of developed country parties in providing financial resources.

Additionally, views diverged on the language inviting developed countries to provide information on the funding they can provide to the SC. Some developing countries called for stronger language. Later, the Secretariat explained that the invitation relates to Secretariat activities to maintain an up-to-date donor database. The invitation was removed.

The COP adopted the decision on 9 May.

Final Decision: The SC COP decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.14) on the financial mechanism comprises six sections:

• guidance to the financial mechanism;
• report of the GEF Council;
• monitoring and evaluation;
• assessment of funding needs;
• assessment of funding needs with regard to PCBs; and
• cooperation between secretariats and reciprocal representation.

In the decision, the COP, inter alia: urges the GEF to prioritize: elimination of PCBs by 2028; ESM and disposal of listed POPs; facilitating the phase-out of the use of DDT; and the introduction and use of BAT and BET on unintentionally produced POPs.

It also requests the Secretariat to:

• prepare a report on the availability of financial resources that are additional to those provided through the GEF, and ways and means of mobilizing and channelling such additional financial resources;
• prepare draft terms of reference for the assessment of funding needed by developing country parties and parties with economies in transition for the implementation of the SC over the period 2030-2034;
• conduct validation activities with developing country parties and parties with economies in transition at each meeting of the COP to verify, on an ongoing basis, existing inventory data;
• collect additional data and other relevant information on the calculation of disposal costs for listed POPs and the costs of substituting them for safer alternatives, in collaboration with the GEF and others; and
• prepare a report on lending operations of multilateral development banks relevant to the elimination of PCBs, including the use of bank guarantees, for consideration by COP13.

Reporting pursuant to Article 15: Countries submit national reports every four years that, collectively, are a key reference point in evaluating the Convention’s effectiveness, including the progress towards eliminating PCBs. On 1 May, the COP considered a draft decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/19) and progress made by the Secretariat in improving the electronic reporting system and revising the national reporting template (INF/74).

Final Decision: The SC COP decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/19), among others:

• urges parties that have not yet submitted their fifth national reports, which were due by 31 August 2022, to do so as soon as possible, and to submit reports that are as complete as possible;
• decides that each party shall submit its sixth national report to the Secretariat by 31 August 2026, for consideration by COP13;
• requests the Secretariat to continue to maintain the electronic reporting system, support parties in using it, and update it to include POPs listed by COP12, as well as continue to revise, update, and improve the reporting format, especially the section on PCBs; and
• also requests the Secretariat to provide feedback to parties regarding the submission of their national reports, with a view to improving the quality and completeness of the reported data and information and to continue to undertake capacity-building and training activities to support parties, in particular developing country parties and parties with economies in transition, in submitting their national reports, and other information such as on regulatory measures and on DDT, PCBs, BDEs, and PFOS, its salts and PFOSF.

Effectiveness Evaluation: The effectiveness evaluation assesses whether the SC is an effective tool to protect human health and the environment from POPs. It collects data related to POPs releases from production and use, and stockpiles, as well as the environmental levels of POPs over time. On 1 May, the COP took note of the information presented and adopted the relevant decisions, including on the global monitoring plan (GMP), a report of the global coordination group and regional organization groups under the GMP and guidance thereof, and on a UNEP report on activities supporting the GMP (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/20, 21, INF/42, 43, 73).

Final Decisions: On the effectiveness evaluation (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/20), the COP requests the Secretariat to prepare a preliminary report to facilitate the process of the third evaluation of the effectiveness evaluation, using the information obtained from existing arrangements under the Convention, along with any other relevant information, and to make it available to the effectiveness evaluation committee by 31 January 2028.

On the GMP (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/21), the SC COP, inter alia:

• requests the regional organization groups and the global coordination group to continue to implement the GMP, and to present the fourth regional monitoring reports to the COP13; and
• requests the Secretariat to continue to support the work of the regional organization groups and the global coordination group in implementing the GMP’s fourth phase and to continue to support training and capacity-building activities to assist parties, in particular developing country parties and parties with economies in transition, in implementing the GMP.

Compliance: This item was first taken up in joint sessions on 29 April. The Secretariat introduced the document on procedures and mechanisms related to compliance with the SC (POPS/COP.12/22). A contact group, co-chaired by Sonja Dünnwald (Germany) and Keima Gardiner (Trinidad and Tobago), met on 2 May. Parties deliberated on the 2026-2027 work programme of the Compliance Committee, particularly on activities under the technical assistance and financial resources objective.

On 8 May, the COP adopted the decision.

Final Decision: In its final decision (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/CRP.10), the SC COP:

• come of the vote in the regional group received o
• Committee to consult parties on a draft work programme for 2028-2029, and report to COP13.

The 2026-2027 Work Programme contains seven objectives and twenty activities, including identifying challenges faced by parties in implementing Article 12 (technical assistance) and Article 13 (financial support), taking into account information from parties in, among others, the national reports, and the reports of the financial needs assessment on the needs, including how to meet the costs faced by developing country parties, parties with economies in transition, least developed countries, and SIDS, and provide recommendations on the support needed under the Convention, including means of implementation.

Adoption of the Report

On 2 May, delegates reviewed the report of the SC meeting (UNEP/POPS/COP.12/L.1/Add.1.) The report was adopted as amended by the REPUBLIC OF KOREA to clarify the record of their statement that introduced a request to grant an exemption on firefighting foams: they noted a national decision to replace the foams, but the process is yet to be finalized, and their initial request was for the 2031 deadline, not 2030.

Closure of the Sessions

On Friday, 9 May, Mexico for GRULAC, highlighting the adoption of the BC strategic framework, welcomed the inclusion of textiles in the OEWG work programme but remained concerned about the absence of a differentiation between reusable materials and waste in the e-waste technical guidelines. Stressing that technical and financial support must be supplied as needed, they expressed reservations on their participation in the development of a resource mobilization strategy for non-state actors until further regional consultations are concluded.

 Ghana, for the AFRICAN REGION, welcomed the decision on the regional centres, cooperation between the BC and the Bamako Convention, and work on the lead-acid batteries technical guidelines. Citing vast regional challenges, they welcomed the decision on a resource mobilization strategy. 

The EU cited deep concern over the lack of elected officers from Eastern Europe. They welcomed decisions on textile waste, e-waste, plastics waste, and PIC improvement, noting these decisions, with others, underline the BC is equipped to deal with emerging challenges. Welcoming the technical assistance and financial mechanism decisions, they also thanked the African Region for the decision on a resource mobilization strategy.

GRULAC, the AFRICAN REGION, and the EU welcomed SC and RC listings, with GRULAC and the EU expressing concern over the 10-year delay in the RC listing of fenthion and carbosulfan.

ROMANIA, speaking for the vast majority of Eastern Europe, delivered a statement on the results of a vote conducted in the CEE regional group meeting after all efforts to reach consensus were exhausted, as two parties blocked the nominations. They said the outcome of the vote in the regional group received overwhelming support for the following:

• BC: Lithuania and Serbia for the Bureau; Poland for both the OEWG and the ICC.
• RC: Georgia for the Bureau; Czech Republic, Serbia, and North Macedonia, for the CRC; and Bosnia and Herzegovina for the Compliance Committee
• SC: Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina for the Bureau; Czech Republic and Armenia for POPRC; and Croatia, Czech Republic, and Serbia for the Compliance Committee.

ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION read a poem on nature and caring.

CHILDREN AND YOUTH INTERNATIONAL drew attention to the first youth forum on chemicals and waste, and called for: working with the youth constituency on science and training workshops; co-developing a dedicated BRS action plan or strategy on children and youth; and raising awareness of the important risks for children and youth in NIPs and in the BRS Conventions.

The INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION ELIMINATION NETWORK (IPEN) said that while listing under the SC is commendable, exemptions compromise the integrity of the convention, and the continued blocking of listings under the RC must stop. They called for enhancing the Bamako Convention and for operationalizing the polluter pays principle.

BRS Executive Secretary Rolph Payet, also on behalf of Christine Fuell, RC Executive Secretary ad interim, thanked everyone “behind the scenes” and honored David Ogden, BRS Conventions Deputy Executive Secretary; Suman Sharma; and Bruce Noronha for their outstanding work and wished them happy retirements.

David Ogden, BRS Conventions Deputy Executive Secretary, thanked all participants and called the BRS process “a shining example of multilateralism.”

BC COP17 President Sowińska underscored the importance of cooperation and dialogue as building blocks for the future. She gaveled COP17 to a close at 11:55 pm.

RC COP12 President Shamimi highlighted the needs of developing countries and called for removing technology transfer barriers and ensuring financial and technical support. He gaveled COP12 to a close at 11:59 pm.

SC COP12 President Berci expressed pride in having collectively managed to address the most complex pollutants and gaveled the meeting to a close at 12:02 am on 10 May.

A Brief Analysis of the Meetings

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the most responsive to change.” – Charles Darwin

The Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm (BRS) Conventions find themselves contending with change. These conventions are now part of a wider ecosystem of international organizations, treaties, and ongoing negotiations. Pollution is more politically salient than ever, and the underlying economic realities of governing chemicals, the world’s fifth-biggest global manufacturing sector, remain. The issues themselves are ever-changing. Innovation creates new chemicals and new waste streams. In response, the BRS Conventions were designed to adapt by listing new chemicals or addressing new waste streams nimbly through decisions, rather than lengthy new ratification processes.

This brief analysis considers how each treaty leveraged its built-in flexibilities to adapt to the work of other international organizations and supply chains. For each Convention, delegates turned inward to take a hard look at their respective treaties, where they found different solutions, or few solutions at all.

Basel– Making the Treaty Fit for Purpose

The Basel Convention was the first multilateral agreement to act on plastic waste. It similarly used its flexible design to address e-waste. Delegates have recently started work on lithium batteries and other batteries, anticipating the onslaught of electric vehicle batteries. This work on modern wastes prompted delegates to look at their 30-year-old treaty anew. Initially, the Convention set out to address “toxic colonialism,” as some called it in the 1980s: rich countries’ hazardous waste was dumped in the developing world, particularly in Africa. Falling short of a full export ban, the treaty sets out a prior informed consent (PIC) procedure for transboundary movement of hazardous waste. The export ban would finally come in 2019, when the Ban Amendment entered into force.

In recent decades, technologies and market strategies have fundamentally changed the waste challenges in developing countries. Planned obsolescence creates mountains of e-waste. Old electronics may contain hazardous materials like lead, cadmium, or persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Single-use plastics litter shores and choke rivers and might contain any number of chemical additives, including POPs. E-waste could be repaired or reused. Plastics could be recycled at least a couple of times, but then POPs could be re-released into the environment and people. If not economically viable or possible to repair or recycle, these wastes are burned, further harming the environment and human health.

Updating Annex IV was meant to address these new challenges. Annex IV lists various ways of disposing, recovering, repairing, or reusing waste. A “waste” under the Convention must be exported for one of these operations. Two long-standing debates plagued deliberations: whether to include open burning and “preparing for re-use” in the annex. Open burning is not environmentally sound, but is a reality for many countries. Including the practice in Annex IV could be seen as legitimizing it, some feared; others felt strongly it was the only way to crack down on exporters who falsely claim their waste will be safely disposed. Delegates did not resolve this impasse, but will continue to work on it

A proposal for an operation called “preparing for re-use” either opened and or closed regulatory loopholes, depending on how you asked. They agreed that this operation was particularly prevalent for e-waste. The technical guidelines on e-waste leave open what is and isn’t “waste,” allowing some countries to maintain that exports destined for repair are exempt from the Convention. Even if repairable, electronics last only a short time and then are stranded in the Global South. The EU proposed a new entry for repair, and for preparing items for repair or re-use. E-waste would be labelled accordingly, closing this regulatory gap. But others worried the phrase was too ambiguous and could create a new loophole that would allow unscrupulous dealers to claim that waste could be repaired when it isn’t the case.

Like open burning, the preparing for re-use operation was ultimately dropped to allow for broader changes that, as the decision states, are intended to clarify operations that are actually in use. The changes were more incremental than some wanted. The EU, in particular, sought a more drastic change that would rewrite many of the operations. Others, including Canada, were wary of the huge implementation costs of such a change. Only experience in implementing the revised Annex will show if this effort to rewrite a key part of the Convention will make it more fit for purpose.

This update is particularly timely, given new work on the horizon. Delegates agreed to explore how to address textile waste. This is another tricky waste stream, where the difference between used textiles and textile waste can be subtle. With many countries’ economies depending on this industry, and many more suffering from the dumping of textile waste under the pretense of donations or further recycling, it will test the amended Convention and countries’ resolve to continue adapting to the realities of overconsumption and waste.

In the meantime, old work is still front and center. For example, as many as 15,000 ships are due for dismantling in the next 15 years. Ships contain large amounts of POPs, heavy metals, ozone-depleting substances, and other hazardous materials. The Basel Convention addressed this issue years ago, when low-lying states urged action to address the abandoned ships left on their shores because owners wouldn’t pay for safe disposal. In 2009, the International Maritime Organization adopted the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships. It enters into force on 26 June 2025. Now, countries are in a legal tennis match, as each Convention independently tries to provide legal clarity on how to navigate the clearly overlapping mandates. The ability to navigate competing treaties may become more pressing when, or if, the new plastics treaty becomes a reality.

Rotterdam – Adapt or Die

While the Basel Convention just touches on the mandates of other international organizations, the Rotterdam Convention finds itself squarely among many larger, more respected treaties, as it became clear at this meeting. The Rotterdam Convention has long been struggling with effectiveness. For many, listing two pesticides, fenthion and carbosulfan, at this COP was a pleasant surprise. However, the other eight chemicals on the agenda were forwarded to the next meeting. Fenthion and carbosulfan were previously blocked by those using these pesticides. The other outstanding chemicals are almost exclusively being held up by producer countries.

The Rotterdam Convention was designed for information sharing between parties, many of whom have limited capacities to analyze complex chemicals and their impact. With the information, parties can decide whether to allow the import of substances that other countries have banned or prohibited. Unlike some other treaties, it does not prescribe a ban or phase-out. As such, there is no financial mechanism or regional centres.

The Rotterdam Convention finds itself subsumed by other, larger organizations. In its International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) treats pesticides listed in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention as highly hazardous. The Global Framework on Chemicals aims to discontinue the use of highly hazardous pesticides in agriculture by 2035. Listing in Rotterdam, many parties claim, puts a target on a pesticide, impacting its trade, price, and availability. Private certification and standard-setting bodies are also interpreting Annex III listing as a ban, which countries like Argentina claim limits access to markets for their farmers, who cannot certify their produce. Observers were more dubious about the link to certification bodies, noting that certification bodies listed many pesticides before they were included in Annex III.

Delegates could not agree to list methyl bromide, mercury, or chlorpyrifos, which are being eliminated or phased out by the Montreal Protocol, Minamata Convention, and Stockholm Convention, respectively. Delegates worried that action by the Rotterdam Convention could get in the way of these well-functioning treaties. Each has its own trade provisions and has effectively addressed its central goals. Chlorpyrifos was for some especially galling: just days after the parties agreed to eliminate it under the Stockholm Convention, they couldn’t agree to share information about it during trade under the Rotterdam Convention.

The effectiveness of the Rotterdam Convention has been debated for a decade, with varied proposals on the table¾ambitious ones, like Brazil’s, and incremental ones, like the EU’s. Brazil sought to establish a new effectiveness committee and a thorough review of the Chemical Review Committee (CRC) review process. For them, it is problematic because the CRC keeps recommending chemicals for listing based on regulatory actions that “clearly lack in quality.” Other parties that were more incrementally minded stressed that many listings are in limbo because a few countries are holding the process hostage, despite clear scientific evidence and recognition that listing criteria are met, like in the case of acetochlor. The resulting decision on enhancing effectiveness aims to strengthen the CRC and its capacity to do quality work.

In debating how to improve effectiveness, many kept saying that parties were “not addressing the core issues,” but delegates could not agree on what those were. As one observer noted, “Some say listing has negative trade consequences, which they can’t systematically prove. Others say it’s just about information exchange, but the information is on the internet. They’re in a vicious loop.” Until countries can arrive at a collective diagnosis of the problem, the Convention will struggle to adapt and continue to be outpaced by existing and emerging international efforts.

Stockholm – Adapting to Stand Strong

Stockholm Convention delegates had a particularly heavy workload at this COP, leaving the contact group convening for “a record 30+ hours,” as tallied by one of its Co-Chairs. This work involved adapting to the realities of complex, globalized supply chains and avoiding setting a precedent in the process. The Stockholm Convention was initially designed to tackle “the dirty dozen,” 12 POPs that had mostly been phased out, but their stockpiles are still toxic and need environmentally sound disposal. The biggest challenge with pesticides like eldrin and chlordane, was locating and inventorying stockpiles. With polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), sampling old transformers’ oil was key to then draining and disposing of contaminated oil and, in some cases, transformers. In all those cases, it was clear where to look.

Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs) are, as COP President Maya Berci called them, “incredibly complex and woven into intricate supply chains.” Mainly, they are used for polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which could be in window frames, flooring, or ammunition. First, delegates had to work out how to delineate the chemical group¾what chemicals, with what chlorination level, would be included. The POPs Review Committee (POPRC) thought they’d cracked it, but the issue was reopened at the COP. This left delegations scrambling as discussions continued well into the second week. Since many delegations’ POPs experts had already left, having expected the Stockholm COP to end during the first week as scheduled, only a few remaining delegates truly understood the technicalities.

Then came the request for exemptions. Here, discussions on a complex chemical cluster, MCCPs, mirrored those for a chemically simpler, although highly used pesticide, chlorpyrifos. For both, delegates introduced many exemptions during contact group discussions. POPRC considers the availability and feasibility of alternatives for all the uses it can identify. It did not view many of the requested exemptions as necessary. This isn’t new, as participants have seen for previous pesticides and widely used industrial chemicals. But the scale of the requests seemed to rattle delegates. According to one, the requests “bypassed rigorous review by POPRC and made its work on listing recommendation seem irrelevant.” During the closing plenary, the EU asked parties to refrain from this practice in the future. Yet, as an observer recalled, the EU had also asked for defense-related exemptions for MCCPs.

When POPRC identifies a POP’s uses and assesses in each case whether an alternative is available or an exemption is warranted, it needs information. Given the growing complexity of supply chains, this process heavily relies on the participation of industry and its timely provision of information. This process broke down for UV-328. During the POPRC review, the airline industry assured the Committee that it was already transitioning to alternatives for water sealant tapes and adhesives. The industry association was wrong. After the Stockholm Convention agreed to eliminate the substance in 2023, UV-328 was found in these products, affecting nearly 4,000 planes destined for over 60 countries. It is only 8 or 9 grams per plane, but it was about the precedent.

The unprecedented proposal to reopen a listing was a major test for a Convention that rests on the precautionary approach and prides itself on never overturning a recommendation from its expert body. Accepting the exemption could create a precedent and open the door for industry to ignore POPRC and come to COP years later, asking to keep using POPs for new applications. A careful balance was struck in the negotiated decision text, where parties made sure to emphasize that this is an extraordinary situation, small quantities are involved, and it should not become common practice.

These adjustments, whether to avoid a precedent or limit the ongoing uses, both touched on the central belief that the strength of the Stockholm Convention is its scientific foundation. Engagement with industrial users will be critical to maintain the basis for the Convention’s ability to adapt to innovative chemistry producing widely used, and potentially problematic, chemicals.

Making Change Visible

The meeting’s motto was “Make visible the invisible.” Just as we can’t see the POPs in plastics or UV-328 in an aircraft’s adhesives, the ability for negotiators to reflect, learn, and adapt their treaties can go unnoticed. It takes time and can be subtle. But these small changes, to annexes or in accompanying decisions, can help keep treaties relevant as the world around them changes.

Part of this ever-changing world is the surge in international bodies taking up the challenge of chemicals and waste management. The Global Framework on Chemicals is just getting underway. Soon, there may be a plastics treaty and a science-policy panel on chemicals and wastes. The institutional landscape will continue to evolve. There is time before the next meetings of the COPs in two years to consider how to make the Rotterdam Convention relevant in these competitive surroundings. Meanwhile, the Basel and Stockholm Conventions seem set to thrive. But adaptation doesn’t guarantee effectiveness. That is left to the parties to take action to protect people and the planet.