Appropriate substitution of POPs by safer alternatives, chemical and non-chemical, is the best and most effective way to eliminate POPs from articles, products and processes and to reduce and prevent use-related environmental contamination and human health problems.
This electronic publication on POPs in Articles and Phasing-Out Opportunities aim therefore presents information on POPs in processes in identified sectors, availability and assessments of alternatives and substitutes to POPs. The publication aims at assisting Parties and others in their implementation of Stockholm Convention provisions (Art. 9 and Art. 10) by providing a compilation of information on alternatives to POPs in current uses.
The chemicals considered in this review are polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related substances, DDT, lindane, endosulfan, and PCBs.
The POP Review Committee (POPRC) has already developed the main steps in assessing the safer alternatives to POPs and released guidance on such alternatives for POPs like perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts, perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride and their related chemicals; commercial pentabromodiphenylether (c-PentaBDE); endosulfan and DDT.
Following a stakeholder’s consultation process, the current document gathered information which is meant to support that, the process and steps outlined by the POPRC guidance can be better implemented in practice by the Parties by compiling related relevant information.
This electronic publication is seen as a living document where information on substitutes will be updated when it becomes available e.g. by new documents from the POPRC or by other relevant publications. Examples of good practices are compiled as case studies and could be replicated in different countries.
Parties and other stakeholders are invited to continuously submit information on substitutes and other approaches to eliminate POPs and in particular POPs in articles for possible consideration and update. Also industries and public interest NGOs are invited to suggest best practice examples for updates when they have more benign alternatives or they became available.
Compilation of this publication has been funded by the Secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, through the financial contributions of Norway, Germany and GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit). The publication has been developed by the Stockholm Convention Regional Centre for Capacity-building and the Transfer of Technology in Asia and the Pacific (SCRCAP) from July 2013 to September 2014. The work has been lead by Prof. Li Jinhui, and coordinated by Ms. Zhao Nana. This document has been prepared by Dr. Roland Weber, POPs Environmental Consulting. The electronic version is available on Webpage http://poppub.bcrc.cn/.
SCRCAP gives thanks to the support of the experts for their inputs and suggestions to the publication:
• Arlene Blum, Green Science Policy Institute, California, USA
• Bob Buck, E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Company, USA
• Catherine Rye Senjen, Committee Member of the National Toxics Network in Australia, on behalf of IPEN
• Frederic Gallo; Stockholm Convention Regional Centre (SCP/RAC), Spain
• Huang Jun, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, China
• Jacqueline Alvarez, Secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions
• Jitendra Sharma, CSIR National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, India
• Jitka Becanová, Department of International Cooperation, Research Centre for Toxic Compounds in the Environment, Czech Republic
• Joe DiGangi, International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN)
• Lady Virginia Traldi Meneses, CETESB– Environmental Protect Company, Brazil
• Meriel Watts, Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific, New Zeeland
• Michelle Kivi, Section Head, Environmental Assessment Directorate, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, Government of Canada
• Mihaela Claudia P?un, Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests of Romania