14. The Stockholm Convention
introduced the following articles:
• Each Party shall
• 1) Prohibit and or take the legal and
administrative measures necessary to eliminate:
• A) its production and use of the chemicals listed
in Annex A subject to the provisions of that
Annex
• B) its import and export of the chemicals listed in
Annex A in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph 2
15. Articles continued
• 2) Restrict its production and use of the
chemicals listed in Annex B in accordance
with the provisions of that Annex
16. What does this mean?
• Basically, a ban on any production,
use,import, or export of the chemicals
listed in Annex A (the more dangerous
ones), and a cut back of the production,
use, import, and export of the chemicals
listed in Annex B (the not as dangerous as
annex a ones)
21. And last but not least…
• Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
22. Why the problem arose, and why it
persists?
• The problem simply arose due to use of
the chemicals in industry
• Problems continue due to late production
bans, and from current use, however most
pollutants have not been used for years
and decades…as far as we know
23. Concentration Shift
It has been observed that emission
sources in the last 20 years have shifted
from industrialized countries to
developing countries
• This information should be used to
improve emissions from these developing
countries
25. • One of the requirements of the Stockholm
Convention is that there is constant
monitoring of POP concentrations in the
environment to assess the effectiveness of
the convention, as well as make any
amendments or changes to it as required
• This in turn required the development of
the POPs global monitoring program
(GMP)
26. Finally, how does this convention
impact sustainability?
• Hard to say considering there is no clear
definition of sustainability
• Sticking to the facts, the convention aids in the
preservation of human life, as well as all wildlife,
because in this case, what is good for humans is
good for animals as well.
• It does remove a negative factor from the
equation in terms of human longevity, and
therefore if it has no impact on sustainability it at
last has the noble cause of preserving human
life.
Hello ladies and gentlemen, my name is Aaron Berlingieri, and this is a slidecast on behalf of Dr. Egan of McMaster University for the course History 3ES3: Environmental Sustainability in Global History. Please Enjoy.
This presentation will pertain to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. A Stand for Human Sustainability.
The first topic that I would like to cover is, What is a Persistent Organic Pollutant? Understanding what they are and their effects is an important part of understanding the Convention itself.
Persistent Organic Pollutants, or POPs as they will be referred to for the remainder of the slidecast, have been classed as organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These are mainly chemicals that are or were used in an industrial setting.
Now, one might ask “why are POPs being discussed by the United Nations?” What makes them so bad?
The simple answer of course is that POPs are toxic. They are harmful to human life, and the volumes in which they are used are having devastating effects on ecosystems and their inhabitants.
One of the properties of POPs is that they are, what I would like to call, omni-permeable because they can permeate an ecosystem through differect mediums: air, water, and migratory species.
The reach of POPs can easily be seen in the fact that they can be found far from their location of origin, taking advantage of their omni-permeable abilities.
In addition, POPs resist degradation, which means they don’t break down on their own, and they bioacumulate in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems which means stockpiles of POPs grow larger.
One could compare POPs to zombies in that, they grow in concentration, spread out to cover territory far from their point of origin, they don’t degrade, and are hazardous to human life. Therefore, a POP problem should be treated with the severity of a zombie problem.
The problem of POP concentration in the environment came to light when scientists started measuring their levels in the environment.
With the knowledge of the problem, came the next stage in the saga, of coming up with a solution. What could be done about the POPS?
Simple solution, stop using them. It doesn’t get any more cut and dry than this. Its like when a pipe is leaking, the first step the plumber takes is to turn the water valve off, just like the UN would turn the POP valve off. Cutting the source off would ensure that no more pollutants entered the ecosystem and we could then deal with current pollution levels.
And so the basis of the Stockholm Convention, taken right from the minutes, is the introduction of 2 articles. 1st article, states that each part shall prohibit and or take the legal and administrative measures necessary to eliminate: a) its production and use of the chemicals listed in Annex A subject to the provisions of that annex and b) its import and export of the chemicals listed in annex A in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.
The 2nd article states that each party shall restrict its production and use of the chemicals listed in annex B in accordance with the provisions of that annex.
So if you are wondering what this means, simply the convention bans the production, use, import or export of the chemicals listed in Annex A, which are the more dangerous POPs, and a cut back of the production, use, import, or export of the chemicals listed in annex B, the not as dangerous as annex A POPS.
To add a little chemical formality here is a brief list of the 12 original Stockholm convention pollutants and their chemical formulas. Note that most of these are organochlorine pesticides (OCPs).Aldrin, chlorodane, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethanes or DDTs (which is much simpler and easier to say)
The initial use of these chemicals in industry is what caused these problems to arise. The problems with POPs continue due to late production bans and from possible current use, however most pollutants have not been used for years, and some for decades…as far as we know.
In marking the concentrations of POP and sites of emission, scientists have observed that developing countries are now the major emission sources over industrialized countries. This information should be used to further implement the Convention in these developing countries by applying political pressure to their leaders.
And this is exactly why we have to stay vigilant in monitoring the concentrations of POPs.
Just like its articles the Stockholm Convention has a requirement to constantly monitor POP concentrations to assess how effective the convention has been, as well as make any amendments to it. This is a difficult task for which new monitoring models are being developed all the time, and is so far proving effective as in May 2009 9 new POPs were added to the original 12. The organization that heads up monitoring POP concentrations in the environment is the POPs global monitoring program or GMP.
The final factor to investigate is the impact that this convention has on sustainability. This is extremely hard to do considering the hazy views of sustainability. To stick to the facts the convention is a champion of human life, and in turn protects all life in our ecosystem. The convention is an aggressive stride in removing a negative factor from the equation in terms of human longevity. In the sense that the convention strives to remove toxins from the environment, I would have to say that this does impact sustainability in a positive manner leaving the environment a little cleaner, and humans a littler healthier.
