Popping in on the Stockholm Convention

It’s a busy time of year for international lawyers. For those of us who work as academics, we’re busy writing and grading exams. For those working for governments, international organizations and NGOs, the spring season of treaty negotiations and meetings is in full swing. This week, for example, negotiators and other interested stakeholders are in Geneva for the Second Conference of the Parties for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (a.k.a. the POPs Convention). This treaty seeks to protect human health and the environment from certain chemicals, known as POPs, that share 4 characteristics: (1) they persist in the environment for long periods of time, (2) they are capable of traveling large distances across continents and oceans (thus, evidence of POPs are often found in the Arctic, notwithstanding their production takes place thousands of miles away); (3) they bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue (for example, if you eat fish infested with a POP, it ends up contaminating your tissue as well); and (4) they have significant impacts on human health and the environment (among other things, some can kill you).

The POPs Convention requires states parties to ban the use, import and export of the so-called “Dirty Dozen” POPs, except where specifically excepted under the Convention’s annexes. For example, the parties agreed to ban DDT (which was banned in the United States and many other developed countries in the 1970s, but remained in use in many developing states) subject to an exception if it’s being used to help control malaria. More importantly, the POPs treaty includes a mechanism for adding additional POPs to the treaty’s coverage through a decision of the parties, following the recommendation of a body set up under the treaty — the POPs Review Committee (referred to as the POPRC, but pronounced “POPROCK”).

Now, it’s no secret that the Bush Administration has expressed its disdain for certain environmental treaties. But, the POPs Convention is a notable exception. Indeed, more than five years ago, President Bush held a Rose Garden ceremony where he indicated strong U.S. support for the treaty, as well as his intention that the United States sign it and submit it for Senate advice and consent. He noted that the problem of POPs was “based on solid scientific information” of a “global environmental problem” given that the “chemicals respect no boundaries and can harm Americans even when released abroad.” So, why five years later are U.S. negotiators at the POPs Convention in an “observer” role, having signed but never ratified the treaty? Find the answer after the jump.