As this year’s Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) COPs convene this year, Mark Davis, CPSP’s Director for Agriculture and Regulatory Outreach, shares insights on the global effort and ongoing challenges to eliminate highly toxic pesticides.
*Warning: This article discusses suicidal behaviour. If you have questions on self-harm or feel suicidal, use this link to find an international helpline.*
The Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions: Addressing the Global Chemical Crisis
At the upcoming Conferences of the Parties (COPs) for the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions, decision-makers from around the world will gather once again to address one of the most pressing challenges of our time: the removal of hazardous chemicals and waste from our environments.
The process of removing harmful chemicals from circulation, however, is often far more complicated than introducing them in the first place.
Once these substances enter our bodies, food systems, water supplies, and broader ecosystems, they are nearly impossible to remove, leaving us to grapple with the consequences for decades or even centuries to come.
The Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions have been instrumental in raising global awareness about the most dangerous chemicals and waste products affecting both human health and the environment.
The Rotterdam Convention has provided a critical mechanism for alerting governments to hazardous chemicals they may wish to restrict or prohibit.
The Basel Convention has focused on curbing the transboundary movement of hazardous waste, while the Stockholm Convention has sought to eliminate the production and use of many persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
While significant progress has been made, the work is far from over.
As the parties continue to meet, they must discuss new strategies for implementing these Conventions effectively, including the potential listing of additional chemicals for regulation.
For those of us who have been working in the field of chemicals and waste for decades, attending these COPs often feels like a mixture of hope and frustration.
Hope that delegates will prioritise human and environmental well-being over profit, and frustration that a small but powerful minority will continue to resist rational action, insisting that the production and use of some of the most deadly chemicals in use must persist.
The Fallacy of “No Alternatives”
One of the most common arguments used to justify the continued use of harmful pesticides and chemicals is that there are no viable alternatives.
This claim is as misleading as the assertion that burning fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming or that “guns don’t kill, people do.”
There is ample evidence to contradict these claims.
A common narrative in agricultural circles is that food security would be threatened without pesticides, and that crop yields would plummet by 20-40 per cent in their absence.
Yet, there is no evidence to support these claims.
In fact, multiple countries and regions – including the EU that has banned, severely restricted or withdrawn 536 pesticide active ingredients with more under review, Bangladesh that banned all WHO Hazard Class 1a and 1b pesticides despite concerns about food security and a heavy dependence on agriculture for income, and Mozambique that banned 79 Highly Hazardous Pesticides with no negative impact on agriculture – have demonstrated that removing highly hazardous pesticides does not undermine agricultural productivity.
On the contrary, alternative approaches like Integrated Pest Management (IPM), agroecology, and regenerative farming have not only protected yields but often improved them.
These strategies also improve farmer incomes and foster more sustainable agricultural practices.
Furthermore, mounting evidence suggests that pesticides do more harm than good.
For instance, they deplete soil microbiomes and alter soil ecology in ways that reduce crop growth and resilience.
This makes crops more vulnerable to pests and diseases in the long term, creating a vicious cycle of dependency on chemical inputs.
Debunking the “Essential” Pesticide Myth
Take paraquat, for example. It is often touted as essential, with its proponents claiming that no other herbicide can replace it.
However, this claim ignores the fact that there are currently 574 herbicides listed in the BCPC Pesticide Manual.
Additionally, new technologies are rapidly emerging, including mechanical and thermal weed control systems and robotics that use lasers, heat, or small doses of herbicides to target weeds precisely.
It is true that robotics are an emerging technology that is currently being developed largely for high value crops, but work is advancing on low cost, options designed for mass use by small-scale farmers, and this will also create interesting jobs for young people in rural environments.
Robotics could leapfrog conventions farm mechanisation in the same way that cell phones leapfrogged wired telecommunications in most lower and middle income countries.
There are also cultivation strategies that suppress or tolerate weeds without relying on harmful chemicals.
This is true for many other “essential” pesticides that have been listed under the Stockholm Convention or banned by progressive national governments, and whose removal has had no detrimental effect on agricultural output.
Selective definition of harm
The Rotterdam Convention calls for the listing of severely hazardous chemicals so that parties to the convention can be better informed.
Chlorpyrifos, paraquat, aluminium phosphide, and several other chemicals are deadly to humans and are responsible for the majority of deaths from exposure to pesticides, yet they are not listed in the Convention’s annexes.
The problem is that the majority of deaths from pesticide exposure are the result of self harm which is understood to be ‘misuse’ of the pesticides and therefore beyond the scope of the Convention.
WHO advises that preventing access to means is the most effective way of preventing suicides.
Reducing suicides is the single indicator for improving mental health globally under the Sustainable Development Goals.
Industrialised countries often take costly regulatory and technical measures to prevent access to means of suicide such as constructing barriers on railway platforms and bridges, and limiting access to quantities of pharmaceuticals that could be harmful.
Pesticides cause an estimated 20 per cent of all suicides globally because they are so widely available especially in rural communities in lower and middle income countries which is where most pesticide suicides occur.
Yet here is a global mechanism that could help to reduce one of the most prevalent forms of self-harm on the planet, but will not discuss suicide as a form of harm.
Chlorpyrifos: A Case Study in Chemical Harm
One chemical that is under increasing scrutiny is chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to severe neurodevelopmental damage in children exposed in utero or in early life.
As an organophosphate, chlorpyrifos is not only acutely toxic to humans but also poses significant environmental risks.
The chemical is even more dangerous when combined with other widely used chemicals, such as the synthetic pyrethroid cypermethrin.
As a result of its well-documented toxicity, chlorpyrifos has been banned by many major agricultural producers worldwide.
Yet, for reasons often driven by commercial interests, there are still efforts to block its listing in the annexes of the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions.
The Stockholm Convention calls for the prohibition of the production and use of listed chemicals by its member countries.
Meanwhile, the Rotterdam Convention focuses on ensuring that governments are aware of the hazards associated with listed chemicals so they can make informed decisions about whether or not to import them.
However, vested interests from the pesticide industry continue to exert significant influence over decision-making, preventing the inclusion of known toxic chemicals on these important international lists.
A Growing Movement for Prohibition
A new reality is emerging, one where the demand for stronger action against highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) is louder than ever.
Countries around the world are beginning to recognise the need to prohibit the use of HHPs as part of a broader effort to protect agricultural workers, rural communities, biodiversity, food safety, and trade in agricultural products.
The Global Framework on Chemicals has highlighted the need to take action on HHPs, and UN agencies are working to support countries willing to take a stand against these chemicals.
As more nations take political and regulatory steps to ban HHPs, the role of the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions remains vital.
These conventions, unlike the chemicals they address, are not obsolete; rather, their importance has never been greater.
Delegates attending the COPs must fulfill their obligations to safeguard human health and the environment from harmful chemicals – something that is critical in the face of growing global awareness and action.
The Bottom Line
At no point do the texts of the Conventions suggest that the commercial interests of chemical producers should be prioritised over the health of our planet and its inhabitants.
While the challenges ahead are considerable, there is also a growing recognition that we must move away from a chemical-intensive agricultural system and toward more sustainable and ecological alternatives.
The question is: will the COPs take the bold steps needed to address the chemical crisis, or will powerful industry interests continue to stand in the way of meaningful change?
As we look ahead to these critical discussions, one thing is clear: the time to act is now.
Find out more
BRS COP’s Side Event: Accelerating the transition from HHPs to biopesticides and agroecological alternatives: Fostering sustainable food systems while mitigating severe environmental and public health impacts taking place on 2 May 2025.
Mark Davis is the Director for Agriculture and Regulatory Outreach. Trained as an ecologist, agricultural manager and information systems engineer, Mark developed a specialisation in sustainable agriculture practices, project and programme development and strategic planning. He played key roles in developing programmes to remove obsolete pesticides from Africa (Africa Stockpiles Programme), to advance the global agenda on pesticide risk reduction, to develop the widely accepted approach to sustainable intensification of crop production (Save & Grow), to formulate FAO’s principles of sustainability in rural development (Sustainable Food and Agriculture), and he led the preparation of the FAO Climate Change Strategy and designed the FAO Environmental and Social Safeguards programme.