Barallas, Jomed B.

Control
1220126/BsCHE

Industrial Waste Management and

Engr. Magnaye

Stockholm Convention

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is a global treaty to

protect human health and the environment from chemicals that remain intact in the
environment 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.
Exposure to Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) can lead to serious health effects
including certain cancers, birth defects, dysfunctional immune and reproductive
systems, greater susceptibility to disease and damages to the central and
peripheral nervous systems.
Given their long range transport, no one government acting alone can protect its
citizens or its environment from POPs.
In response to this global problem, the Stockholm Convention, which was adopted in
2001 and entered into force in 2004, requires its parties to take measures to
eliminate or reduce the release of POPs into the environment.
Objective
As set out in Article 1, the objective of the Stockholm Convention is to protect
human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants.
Main provisions
Among others, the provisions of the Convention require each party to:

Prohibit and/or eliminate the production and use, as well as the import and
export, of the intentionally produced POPs that are listed in Annex A to the
Convention (Article 3)
Annex A allows for the registration of specific exemptions for the production
or use of listed POPs, in accordance with that Annex and Article 4, bearing in
mind that special rules apply to PCBs. The import and export of chemicals
listed in Annex A can take place under specific restrictive conditions, as set
out in paragraph 2 of Article 3.

Restrict the production and use, as well as the import and export, of the
intentionally produced POPs that are listed in Annex B to the Convention
(Article 3)

Annex B allows for the registration of acceptable purposes for the production and
use of the listed POPs, in accordance with that Annex, and for the registration of
specific exemptions for the production and use of the listed POPs, in accordance
with that Annex and Article 4. The import and export of chemicals listed in Annex B
can take place under specific restrictive conditions, as set out in paragraph 2 of
Article 3.

Reduce or eliminate releases from unintentionally produced POPs that are

listed in Annex C to the Convention (Article 5)

The Convention promotes the use of best available techniques and

best environmental practices for preventing releases of POPs into the environment.

Ensure that stockpiles and wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated

with POPs are managed safely and in an environmentally sound manner
(Article 6)

The Convention requires that such stockpiles and wastes be identified and
managed to reduce or eliminate POPs releases from these sources. The Convention
also requires that wastes containing POPs are transported across international
boundaries taking into account relevant international rules, standards and
guidelines.

To target additional POPs (Article 8)

The Convention provides for detailed procedures for the listing of new POPs
in Annexes A, B and/or C. A Committee composed of experts in chemical
assessment or management - the Persistent Organic Pollutants review Committee,
is established to examine proposals for the listing of chemicals, in accordance with
the process set out in Article 8 and the information requirements specified in
Annexes D, E and F of the Convention.

Other provisions of the Convention relate to the development of

implementation plans (Article 7), information exchange (Article 9), public
information, awareness and education (Article 10), research, development
and monitoring (Article 11), technical assistance (Article 12), financial
resources and mechanisms (Article 13), reporting (Article 15), effectiveness
evaluation (Article 16) and non-compliance (Article 17).

Basel Convention
The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, usually known as the Basel Convention, is an
international treaty that was designed to reduce the movements ofhazardous
waste between nations, and specifically to prevent transfer of hazardous waste
from developed to less developed countries (LDCs). It does not, however, address
the movement of radioactive waste. The Convention is also intended to minimize
the amount and toxicity of wastes generated, to ensure their environmentally sound
management as closely as possible to the source of generation, and to assist LDCs
in environmentally sound management of the hazardous and other wastes they
generate.
The Convention was opened for signature on 22 March 1989, and entered into force
on 5 May 1992. As of July 2016, 183 states and the European Union are parties to
the Convention. Haiti and the United States have signed the Convention but
not ratified it.

Kyoto Protocol
It took all of one year for the member countries of the Framework Convention on
Climate Change to decide thatthe Convention had to be augmented by an
agreement with stricter demands for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The
Convention took effect in 1994, and by 1995 governments had begun negotiations
on a protocol -- an international agreement linked to the existing treaty, but
standing on its own. The text of the Kyoto Protocol was adopted unanimously in
1997; it entered into force on 16 February 2005.
* The Protocol's major feature is that it has mandatory targets on greenhouse-gas
emissions for the world's leading economies which have accepted it. These targets
range from -8 per cent to +10 per cent of the countries' individual 1990 emissions
levels "with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5
per cent below existing 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012." In
almost all cases -- even those set at +10 per cent of 1990 levels -- the limits call for
significant reductions in currently projected emissions. Future mandatory targets
are expected to be established for "commitment periods" after 2012. These are to
be negotiated well in advance of the periods concerned.
* Commitments under the Protocol vary from nation to nation. The overall 5 per
cent target for developed countries is to be met through cuts (from 1990 levels) of
8 per cent in the European Union (EU[15]), Switzerland, and most Central and East
European states; 6 per cent in Canada; 7 per cent in the United States (although
the US has since withdrawn its support for the Protocol); and 6 per cent in Hungary,
Japan, and Poland. New Zealand, Russia, and Ukraine are to stabilize their

emissions, while Norway may increase emissions by up to 1 per cent, Australia by

up to 8 per cent (subsequently withdrew its support for the Protocol), and Iceland
by 10 per cent. The EU has made its own internal agrement to meet its 8 per cent
target by distributing different rates to its member states. These targets range from
a 28 per cent reduction by Luxembourg and 21 per cent cuts by Denmark and
Germany to a 25 per cent increase by Greece and a 27 per cent increase by
Portugal.
* To compensate for the sting of "binding targets," as they are called, the
agreement offers flexibility in how countries may meet their targets. For example,
they may partially compensate for their emissions by increasing "sinks" -- forests,
which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. That may be accomplished
either on their own territories or in other countries. Or they may pay for foreign
projects that result in greenhouse-gas cuts. Several mechanisms have been set up
for this purpose. (See the sub-chapters on "emissions trading," the "clean
development mechanism," and "joint implementation.")
* The Kyoto Protocol is a complicated agreement that has been slow in coming-there are reasons for this. The Protocol not only has to be an effective against a
complicated worldwide problem -- it also has to be politically acceptable. As a
result, panels and committees have multiplied to monitor and referee its various
programmes, and even after the agreement was approved in 1997, further
negotiations were deemed necessary to hammer out instructions on how to
"operate" it. These rules, adopted in 2001, are called the "Marrakesh Accords."
* There is a delicate balance to international treaties. Those appealing enough to
gain widespread support often aren't strong enough to solve the problems they
focus on. (Because the Framework Convention was judged to have this weakness,
despite its many valuable provisions, the Protocol was created to supplement it.)
Yet treaties with real "teeth" may have difficulty attracting enough widespread
support to be effective.
* Some mechanisms of the Protocol had enough support that they were set up in
advance of the Protocol's entry into force. The Clean Development Mechanism, for
example -- through which industrialized countries can partly meet their binding
emissions targets through "credits" earned by sponsoring greenhouse-gas-reducing
projects in developing countries -- already had an executive board before the Kyoto
Protocol entered into force on 16 February 2005.
* For the full details of the Kyoto Protocol, see the text of the Protocol.

Montreal Protocol

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (a

protocol to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer) is an
international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the
production of numerous substances that are responsible for ozone depletion. It was
agreed on 16 September 1987, and entered into force on 1 January 1989, followed
by a first meeting in Helsinki, May 1989. Since then, it has undergone eight
revisions, in 1990 (London), 1991 (Nairobi), 1992 (Copenhagen), 1993 (Bangkok),
1995 (Vienna), 1997 (Montreal), 1998 (Australia), 1999 (Beijing) and 2007
(Montreal). As a result of the international agreement, the ozone hole in Antarctica
is slowly recovering. Climate projections indicate that the ozone layer will return to
1980 levels between 2050 and 2070. Due to its widespread adoption and
implementation it has been hailed as an example of exceptional international cooperation, with Kofi Annan quoted as saying that "perhaps the single most
successful international agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol". In
comparison, effective burden sharing and solution proposals mitigating regional
conflicts of interest have been among the success factors for the Ozone
depletion challenge, where global regulation based on the Kyoto Protocol has failed
to do so. In case of the ozone depletion challenge, there was global regulation
already being installed before a scientific consensus was established. As well in
comparison, lay people and public opinion were more convinced about possible
imminent risks.
The two ozone treaties have been ratified by 197 parties, which includes 196
states and the European Union, making them the first universally ratified treaties in
United Nations history.
These truly universal treaties have also been remarkable in the expedience of
the policy making process at the global scale, where bare 14 years lapsed between
a basic scientific research discovery (1973) and the international agreement signed
(1985 & 1987). When comparing this very success story with attempts to establish
an international policy on the Earth's climate or atomic energy, the entire process
from a problem formulation to a global acceptance supported by a legal framework
took less than a quarter of a single human generation live span.