As the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC) marks another milestone in its work under the Stockholm Convention, having just finished its twenty-first meeting in Rome, we take a moment to reflect on some of the key moments of its outgoing Chair, Peter Dawson. In this interview, we explore the Chair’s reflections, insights, and hopes for the future of POPRC.
Q: After six years of serving as chair of the POPRC, what have been some of your proudest achievements?
Peter: There are a number of things over the past six years that I think POPRC can be proud of, and that I personally am proud of. Firstly, there is the number of new chemicals the Committee has assessed and which the COP has gone on to list as POPs. There were six of these including some of the most complex substances the Committee has considered to date, such as Dechlorane Plus, UV-328 and the medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs). This continued the record of the COP adopting all of the chemicals that the POPRC has recommended to it that should be listed as POPs.
Then there is the work we have done on developing guidance or framework material to assist the Committee, and indeed the Convention, to operate in a more effective and efficient way. This includes the development of the report on long-range environmental transport and how the Committee has considered evidence in respect of this in past deliberations in order to improve the understanding and more consistent approach to this, and this included consideration of complex matters such as the influence of local sources on levels of POPs in remote regions and of the potential for long-range transport of POPs as part of plastic debris in the oceans.
Then there was the report on POPs in stockpiles, products and articles in use, and in wastes, and particularly how to identify these. This work has become more important as the nature and complexity of the substances being considered as POPs has increased. This work is ongoing and has expanded to look at how we can more effectively engage with stakeholders to enhance the information we use in the Annex F risk management evaluation stage and how this can be used to develop more complete, robust recommendations to COP.
Then, just at this last meeting, we considered how the Committee can effectively engage with and assist the work of the Global Coordination Group of the Global Monitoring Plan which is another critical part of the Stockholm Convention. I think if the Committee can continue to engage and cooperate with the GMP work this will only help enhance the success of the Stockholm Convention. Another thing I am very happy with after the last six years is how we have increased the engagement with and inclusion of observers. Again, this has been particularly important for the consideration of the industrial chemicals we have considered over this period, and their complex uses and supply chains. I have always been very appreciative of the inputs of the observers.
Q: How has the scientific landscape around persistent organic pollutants evolved since you have been chair of Committee?
Peter: The complexity of the chemicals being considered by the Committee has increased considerably, in not only the description, scope and identity of the substance, as we saw with the consideration of the MCCPs, but also the range of uses and given that these substances are also still currently used, the number and length of specific exemptions and the phase out times needed. DecaBDE, Dechlorane Plus, UV-328, and particularly the MCCPs which is probably the most complex listing recommendation ever put forward by the POPRC, are all examples of this. As we heard from industry side events at the last POPRC meeting, these types of substances can be used in a myriad of plastic and polymer materials, and the supply chains before the production of the final article, such as a motor vehicle or an aeroplane, is mind-boggling. There can be many tiers of suppliers and thousands of companies supplying components before you get to the final product. This makes the process of identifying whether a POP is in a particular end product extremely complex and demonstrates the need for the work I mentioned above on identification of POPs in articles and on the better engagement with stakeholders. The international landscape relating to the management of chemicals and wastes has become more complex in recent times with the establishment of the Global Framework on Chemicals and the work underway to develop the Science-Policy Panel on chemicals and wastes and the negotiations to develop a global treaty on plastic pollution. It is necessary there is enhanced cooperation and coordination between the BRS Conventions and these other initiatives in order to get the most effective and efficient outcomes – there is a long way to go to truly get the benefits of synergies across all the related United Nations activities in this area.
Q: What were some of the most challenging decisions or debates the committee faced, and how did you navigate them?
Peter: Firstly, there were the logistical challenges with the meetings that were affected by Covid-19. My first meeting as Chair was POPRC-16 and this was postponed from 2020 until January 2021 in the hope that the pandemic would have passed by then which in hindsight was rather optimistic. The meeting went ahead but online and given the 12-hour time difference between New Zealand and Geneva, it meant I had to chair the meeting from about 9.30pm each day until around 6am the following day, for six days in a row. I still remember starting the day’s sessions just when the sun was setting and closing the meeting for the day when the sun was just rising again! Then POPRC-17 could also not be held as scheduled in Rome in 2021 but was rescheduled for Geneva in January 2022 and was held in a hybrid fashion with some members participating online which introduced its own challenges. POPRC-18 then followed in September 2022 in Rome, but this only allowed eight months for the intersessional work which was also challenging. In terms of challenging decisions or debates, these were mostly handled using a transparent, inclusive, precautionary and science-based approach. In several cases where the Committee was not able to reach consensus on a decision then it was deferred until the following meeting to allow further evidence to be gathered and analysed and discussed. If there was one decision that I had regrets over, then it would be on the risk profile for Dechlorane Plus which I rather pushed through at the second meeting it was considered despite the misgivings of some very experienced members of the Committee. But this was during that Covid period where, as mentioned above, there were a number of challenges.
Q: What’s next for you?
Peter: There is still some unfinished work with POPRC on the follow-up to the report on POPs in stockpiles, products and articles in use and in wastes, and the consideration of ways of enhancing the engagement with stakeholders and the submission of information specified in Annex F to the Convention. Then there is more work to do with the Technical Guidelines on POPs wastes, including the establishment of low-POP content values under the Basel Convention and the work on the revision of the Annexes to the Basel Convention. Also, following the discussions at the recent POPRC meeting, I am encouraged to take some more interest in the work under the Global Monitoring Plan of the Stockholm Convention.
Magdalena Frydrych from Poland has been made the new interim Chair for the Committee, taking up the office from 5 May 2026.