The Committee held its long-awaited inaugural meeting, setting in motion a comprehensive agenda aimed at securing the implementation and compliance with the obligations under the Convention.

Geneva, 28 November 2025 – In an intensive three half-day online sessions, the Committee advanced a series of decisive measures to strengthen implementation and compliance with the Convention’s core obligations. These included obligations to designate country contacts, to transmit national reports, to transmit national implementation plans, to develop legislation and to take other measures to eliminate and restrict persistent organic pollutants. These actions also aim to reduce or eliminate releases from unintentional production as well as from stockpiles and wastes. The Committee also initiated its work to strengthen Parties’ implementation of the obligations related to the provision of technical assistance and financial resources to developing countries and countries with economies in transition. The Committee built on this momentum by further launching its engagement to work with the Implementation and Compliance Committees of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and the Rotterdam Conventionon the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. Finally, the Committee initiated its works towards identifying questions relating to individual Parties’ compliance.

Expressing her satisfaction with the progress achieved, the Chair of the Committee, Ms. Jimena Nieto Carrasco (Colombia), said that “In some respects, the Committee has to catch up with more than twenty years of developments under the Convention, and I am proud to say that the members succeeded in setting strong foundations for its important work”.

The Committee agreed that going forward, it will review updated, detailed data on the status of Parties’ implementation of their obligations. The upcoming discussions will draw on information about activities by the Secretariat and key partners, including the Global Environment Facility, the United Nations Environment Programme and the 17 Stockholm Convention Regional and Sub-regional Centres, aimed at improving the implementation of the Convention. They will also review insights on challenges faced by Parties in meeting specific obligations under the Convention and consider possible recommendations on how to improve Parties’ implementation of the Convention.

“The Committee will help ensure that Parties, individually and collectively, comply with their obligations,” noted the Executive Secretary of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, Mr. Rolph Payet. He went on to underscore that the work programme of the

Committee was a testimony to Parties’ ambition to ensure that all the obligations embedded in the Convention are implemented and that the Convention fulfils its objective to protect human health and the environment from the harmful impacts of persistent organic pollutants.

The Committee agreed to hold its second meeting in Geneva in June 2026, back-to-back with the meetings of the Compliance Committees of the Basel Convention and the Rotterdam Convention, and to hold a joint session with those Committees on 19 June 2026.

The Vice Chair of the Committee, Mark Govoni (Switzerland), emphasized the benefits derived from the cooperation between the three committees given the similarities in the obligations under the three convention and in the challenges Parties may face. He added, “It is also an advantage to the conduct of our work that the same Secretariat in serving the three Committees.”

The work of the Stockholm Convention Compliance Committee benefits from generous financial support provided by the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Union.

Note to editors

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, adopted in 2001 and entered into force in 2004, is a global treaty requiring its 186 Parties to take measures to eliminate or reduce the release of POPs into the environment, to protect human health and the environment from chemicals that remain intact for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of humans and wildlife, and have harmful impacts on human health or on the environment. The Convention currently controls 37 chemicals or groups of chemicals, including polychlorinated dioxins and furans, PCBs, DDT, PFOS, and others.

The compliance procedures of the Stockholm Convention were adopted in 2023, and the first cohort of members of the Compliance Committee was elected in 2025. The objective of the compliance procedures is to assist Parties to comply with their obligations under the Convention and to facilitate, promote, assist in, advise on and aim to secure the implementation of and compliance with the obligations under the Convention. The Compliance Committee, composed of 15 members serving objectively and in the best interests of the Convention, is mandated on one hand, to examine systemic issues of general compliance and implementation of interest to all Parties, and on the other hand to consider submissions or questions of compliance relating to individual Parties, with a view to establishing the facts and the root causes of the matter of concern and to assisting in its resolution.

For information on the Compliance Committee of the Stockholm Convention, contact: Juliette Voinov Kohler, Senior Legal Officer and Chief, Governance Branch, BRS Secretariat, juliette.kohler@un.org.

For media inquiries, contact: Maria Cristina Cardenas, Senior Policy and Strategy Advisor of the BRS Secretariat, maria-cristina.cardenas@un.org.

The Stockholm Convention Compliance Committee is meeting for the first time from 24-26 November in Geneva, marking an important moment for the Convention’s implementation efforts. As the committee kick starts its work, we speak with the Chair Jimena Nieto Carrasco to learn more about the goals of this committee, the challenges ahead, and how the committee plans to support Parties in fulfilling their obligations.

Q: It took more than twenty years for the Compliance Committee to be established under the Stockholm Convention and launch its work. How can the Committee best meet expectations?

Jimena: The Committee can meet the expectations by building on the other experiences under other long-standing compliance committees established under MEAs and not losing any time reinventing the wheel, going straight to work on substantive issues.

Q: How will your experience on other compliance committees, such as the Basel Convention, the Rotterdam Convention, the Minamata Convention, the Biosafety Protocol, and the Paris Agreement, inform your approach to leading the Stockholm Convention Compliance Committee?

Jimena: I hope to be able to share with members the discussions as well as the different avenues and approaches taken by those bodies for the Committee to take informed decisions based on precedents that have proven their efficacy.

Q: The Compliance Committee will be cooperating with the compliance committees of the Basel and Rotterdam conventions. What lessons can be drawn from their work, and how will they inform the Committee’s approach moving forward?

Jimena: It is difficult to list all the lessons from which this Committee can benefit, as many will emerge on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific items on our agenda. Nonetheless, I would like to emphasise that the Secretariat has also gained valuable knowledge and experience through its work with the two other Committees. This accumulated expertise will play an important role in helping us achieve the objective that inspired the long-awaited establishment of the Compliance Committee under the Stockholm Convention.

Q: You have worked in a government and know first-hand of the challenges a developing country may face to comply with its obligations, how will the Committee engage with Parties that face resource or capacity constraints in meeting their obligations under the Convention?

Jimena: The fact that the Committee is in a position to communicate with the support of the Secretariat, with parties experiencing challenges with the implementation, is, in itself a way of triggering political will and facilitating action at the national level. In addition, the Committee can discuss options available for providing assistance and supporting Parties to be in compliance with their international obligations under the Treaty.

The BRS Secretariat will participate in the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Minamata Convention (COP-6) to be held from 3 to 7 November 2025, in Geneva, Switzerland.

The BRS Secretariat, which participates in the meeting as an observer, will monitor and contribute as appropriate to the deliberations of the Minamata Convention COP-6 regarding a number of items on the agenda that are relevant to the BRS conventions, including:

• Item 5: International cooperation and coordination: The COP will consider the cooperation and coordination between the Minamata Convention and the BRS conventions on a broad range of programmatic and administrative issues to advance shared goals on addressing pollution; 

• Item 4(d): Waste: The COP will consider, among other things, the decision of the Basel Convention COP-17 to update the technical guidelines on mercury wastes to reflect the threshold for mercury wastes established in decision MC-5/10;    

• Item 4(a): Mercury supply sources and trade: The COP will examine measures to control mercury supply and trade, including illegal trade of mercury and trade of mercury compounds. Among the possible outcomes, the COP may request cooperation with other MEAs, including their compliance committees, to support Parties in preventing and combating illegal trade of mercury.

The BRS Secretariat will also take part in various events, such as knowledge labs, to showcase the technical, policy and awareness raising work done under the conventions that contributes to the Minamata Convention’s goals. It will further contribute to discussions on the benefits of, and possible approaches to, strengthening cooperation among MEAs and with other bodies to address the triple planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution.

BRS engagements at the COP-6:

• Monday, 3 November, 13:15 - 14:30, Special Event: “Driving Effective and Inclusive Implementation of the Minamata Convention on Mercury”, Room A
• Tuesday, 4 November at 18:00 – 18:45, Knowledge Lab: “InforMEA in Action: Supporting Minamata Convention Implementation through Digital Tools and Legal Transparency”, Location: Space A, Level 0
• Thursday, 6 November, 14:00–14:45, Knowledge Lab: “Informing Integrated Chemicals Management: Data Needs and Experience from Mercury”, Location: Space B, Level 0
• Friday, 7 November, 14:00–14:45, Knowledge Lab, “Mercury Wastes Management in countries: latest advances and experience in protecting human health and the Environment”, Location: Space A, Level 0

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.

As her time as Chair of the Chemical Review Committee (CRC) of the Rotterdam Convention comes to a close, Noluzuko “Zukie” Gwayi shares her reflections on the achievements, challenges, and lessons learned over the past eight years. 

Q: What do you see as the Committee’s biggest achievements during your time as Chair? 

Zukie: We’ve made significant progress over the years, and I’m proud of what the Committee has achieved. One of the biggest accomplishments was standing firm under pressure. At times, we faced strong opposition from observers who wanted decisions to reflect their interests, even involving political influence. Despite that, the Committee remained committed to fairness and scientific integrity. We also made strides in improving openness and inclusion, allowing observers to participate more meaningfully in a way that strengthened trust and transparency. The workload was intense - we reviewed a large number of notifications of final regulatory action to ban or restrict harmful chemicals and severely hazardous pesticide formulations - but we handled it effectively. Over time, the quality of our work improved, with better preparation and more thorough assessments. Personally, I learned how to navigate complex political dynamics and manage diverging views of Committee members and observers from governments or industry. These experiences weren’t always easy, but they were essential. I believe all of this has helped lay a strong foundation for the next Chair to build on and continue advancing the Committee’s important mission. 

Q: What were some of the toughest cases the Committee had to deal with? 

Zukie: COVID-19 made things harder. We had to train new members and hold meetings online, which wasn’t ideal – especially for those new to the CRC. Some of the most complex cases involved proposals based on national surveys or reviews, especially from developing countries. These didn’t always include detailed risk assessments, which some members from developed countries expected. I had to explain that risk evaluations, not full assessments, are acceptable under CRC rules, and that the conditions prevailing in a country cannot be ignored. 

Sometimes, the documentation we received wasn’t clear, and members had to understand the reasoning behind a country’s decision to ban or restrict a chemical. This led to disagreements within the Committee, and it was my role to remind everyone of the criteria we’re supposed to follow. In some cases, I spoke with Committee members privately, without observers present, to make sure we stayed focused and didn’t let outside pressure influence our decisions. 

Q: How has global chemical management changed during your time on the Committee? What trends do you see shaping the future? 

Zukie: 
The COVID-19 pandemic hit economies hard, and many countries are still recovering. One worrying trend is that the production of highly toxic and long-lasting chemicals is shifting to the Global South, regions that often lack strong safety systems to manage these substances properly. Many of these chemicals are already banned or restricted in the Global North, but they’re still being used in the South, where regulations and enforcement are weaker. At the same time, populations in these regions are growing fast, and so is the demand for food. This has led to increased use of pesticides, many of which are very toxic, persistent, and can disrupt hormones. On the positive side, more countries are becoming aware of the risks and ask for technical assistance provided by the Secretariat. This means the CRC will likely receive more notifications of final regulatory action and proposals for listing Severely Hazardous Pesticide formulations to review, as countries seek to ban or restrict harmful chemicals. To support this progress, the Rotterdam Convention’s Conference of the Parties should encourage countries and partners to invest in training and resources – especially for countries in the Global South. This would help them better understand chemical safety and submit stronger proposals to the CRC. 

Q: What advice would you give to the new Chair of the Committee? 

Zukie: 
First of all, congratulations to the new Chair! I wish the incoming Chair all the best in this important role. My advice is to remember that leadership in the CRC is a team effort. The Chair should work closely with the Bureau and make good use of their support to help guide decisions. It’s important to understand the weight of the responsibility and ensure that the Committee’s work is always fair, transparent, and of high quality. I recommend taking time to study the CRC Handbook, which offers helpful examples of past decisions, especially for complex or unusual cases. No two proposals are the same, so this resource is invaluable. Attending orientation sessions is also key, even for experienced members, as there’s always something new to learn and ways to grow as a leader. Preparation is crucial; doing the groundwork before meetings, and especially during intersessional and pre-session periods, can make all the difference. The Chair should encourage open and respectful discussions among members and with observers, as this leads to better understanding and stronger outcomes. Lastly, the Chair should feel confident reaching out to the Secretariat whenever needed - they are a rich source of knowledge and experience, and their support is always available.