Stockholm Convention And Annex A: All You Need to Know

A lot of us have heard about ‘Stockholm Syndrome’, read articles, or even seen movies associated with it. Another reason why the Swiss city is famous is because of the many famous environmental conventions it hosts. One of them is the popular Stockholm Convention, which was recently deliberating which pollutants to add to its list of what is popularly called ‘persistent organic pollutants’ or POPs as we commonly call them. The results are out, and we have two new entries, over and above the 31 already present. Surprisingly, India refused to include a POP called Chlorpyrifos.

So what happened?

The 18th meeting of Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committer (POPRC.18) took place in Italy, Rome at the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). One of their main agenda was to assess five persistent organic pollutants, out of which two have been included in the banned list, or Annex A. The chemicals to be assessed included Dechlorane Plus (a flame retardant), UV 328 (used in plastic stabilisation), chlorpyrifos (an insecticide), chlorinated paraffins, and perflurocarboxylic acid. Only the first two were added to the list of POPs.

But what is Stockholm Convention?

Stockholm Convention was initiated primarily to eliminate persistent organic pollutants. It is a global treaty, which was opened up for signing in 2001, and came into effect in 2004. In addition to eliminating POPs, they also want to find alternatives that are safer, clean up existing POP stockpiles, and develop international collaboration for a POP-free world. Initially, they started off with twelve POPs (also called dirty dozen) to be banned, including eight pesticides, two industrial chemicals, and two unintended by-products. These are included in Annex A of the convention, where now two more have been added. Annex A includes those chemicals which are to be completely eliminated.

What is India's stance?

India ratified the Stockholm Convention in 2006 and became a part of the 180 parties who have already signed the convention. The country is presently opposing the ban of Chlorpyrifos at POPRC.18 because it is a frequently used insecticide by our farmers, for which a viable alternative is yet to be developed. The Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association (PMFAI) had already opposed the listing of the chemical in Annex A previously. As per some estimates, it is used in 23 crops In India. It is already banned in the USA and many developed countries. India is in fact one of the largest producers of this chemical, in addition to China. India claims its toxicity is yet to be 100 percent proven, and hence banning is not a viable option. The country is not wrong in not wanting to ban Chlorpyrifos, given its use and economic potential, and it makes sense to wait till a viable alternative is discovered. The scenario also tells us about the fact that India is emerging as a force to be reckoned with on the global stage, and countries are paying heed to India’s needs and responding to its demands.