Excellencies, Distinguished Participants, Dear Friends,
When waste is not managed in an environmentally safe manner, people and planet pay the price. And while chemicals play an important role in our societies, when improperly managed they drive the triple planetary crisis. The crisis of climate change. The crisis of nature, biodiversity and land loss. And the crisis of pollution and waste.
Sustainable solutions to this crisis arise from multilateral environmental agreements, such as the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) conventions, which protect human health and the environment from the risk of exposure to hazardous chemicals and wastes.
We at UNEP are proud to host the Secretariat of the BRS Conventions, and indeed proud to host 17 other conventions and platforms that Member States have entrusted to us.
The BRS Conventions play a critical role across the spectrum of conventions and other frameworks we host, from the CBD and its Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) to the Global Framework on Chemicals. And they are linked to the instrument to end plastic pollution and the Science Policy Panel on chemicals, waste and pollution prevention – both under negotiation.
Today, you will consider ways to expand and strengthen solutions through the BRS Conventions, in the areas of pollution control, circularity and financing. Before you begin your discussion, please allow me some reflections in these areas.
I come to you with three priorities that we must tackle.
First, strengthening action on preventing pollution and chemical exposure.
Pollution hazards and exposure present real risks. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), for example, accumulate in living organisms, which means higher health risks – such as cancer, endocrine disruption and birth defects. This imposes a heavy economic burden on healthcare systems. And a heavy toll on the families and communities impacted.
The Stockholm Convention is phasing out POPs and now covers 34. But the impacts of pollution and exposure cannot be solved fast enough through a chemical-by-chemical approach alone. So, as you look at the span and effort of the Stockholm Convention, let’s look at safety across the entire sector.
The Global Framework on Chemicals provides an opportunity to do that. Let us also not forget that green chemicals exist, but they are a niche market. So, we must explore how we build on this new sector and leapfrog to the broader safety such chemicals can provide.
The questions we need to answer include: how can the BRS Conventions help to ensure environment and human safety across entire sectors? Can governments create policy incentives to promote innovation from industry to scale green and safe chemicals?
Second, boosting circularity.
The Basel Convention is ensuring ensure proper transboundary movement where facilities exist to process the waste. The Rotterdam Convention is ensuring prior informed consent. But we cannot expect these two conventions to do it all.
Each year, two billion tonnes of municipal solid waste are generated. Plastic waste and E-waste are rising. Recycling rates are low across the board. So, we must avoid producing waste in the first place – through smart upstream Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), to name just one entry point.
We have seen progress in waste as a resource in national jurisdictions. And efforts to grow circular economies are popping up everywhere. There are many new jobs coming online from innovations – in product safety and in products designed for durability, reuse and easier recyclability.
But my question is: how can governments further incentivize circular markets?
Third, creating the right fiscal environment for reducing pollution and waste, and for increasing sound management of chemicals.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has been critical in supporting the BRS Conventions, particularly the Stockholm Convention. The next GEF replenishment is key. Moving to chemical safety across entire sectors will require the GEF 9 strategy to evolve, guided by governments and will require significant replenishment.
Beyond this, governments need to create the right fiscal policy environment and unlock innovative financing.
Here, as we see in many countries, EPR can make companies responsible for financing waste management and circular economic approaches. Over 60 countries now have EPR in place. Allocations from public budgets can leverage private sector financing, as can fiscal policy.
My question to governments is: how can you leverage finance from other sectors, such as insurance companies, banks of all stripes, export credit entities, securities and exchange commissions?
Excellencies and friends,
Strong efforts in these areas – moving to sectoral chemical safety, unlocking new circular economy market opportunities, and unleashing the power of fiscal policy and public funds – can make a massive difference.
To supporting the work of the BRS Conventions. To backing other global goals that are linked to chemicals, waste and pollution management. And to the health and wealth of every nation and person on this planet.
As I close, I extend my deep appreciation to Switzerland, host to five UNEP conventions: the BRS, CITES and Minamata – and a place of environmental activism. Switzerland generously reached out to host the last round of negotiations on the plastic pollution instrument, INC 5.2, here in beautiful Geneva. Here, in this city, we know we have the wind at our backs and the support of our hosts.
I look forward to successful BRS COPs and a successful INC 5.2.
