Library

Chemicals of concern (CoC) in the building and construction sector is not a new issue. Childhood lead poisoning and chronic lung disease from the inhalation of asbestos fibers are well-known impacts of chemicals that have afflicted the sector over the decades. Building and construction is one of the most chemical-intensive sectors downstream of the chemical industry and the largest end market for chemicals, generating the highest chemical revenue of all sectors. Driven by rapidly accelerating urbanization, the global construction sector is expected to grow by 3.5% annually, with its chemicals market growing by 6.2% annually between 2018 and 2023.

Compared to other consumer products, such as textiles, electronics, and toys, products for the building and construction sector are used solely in the built environment context and are directly linked to the life cycle of buildings, from manufacturing and construction, through the use phase to demolition, recycling, or disposal. In addition, a building’s life cycle can last for decades or centuries, longer than other sectors. This results in a greater lag time between the design and manufacturing stages and the end-of-life stages, during which knowledge about chemicals and their risks may increase, as can the health and environmental impacts. At the end of life, building and construction products enter the waste stream as construction and demolition waste, which often represents the largest proportion of total waste generated in a country and poses considerable risk if not properly managed.

Negotiations are underway to develop a new global framework for the sustainable management of chemicals and waste to succeed the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), which was established in 2006. Following a delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic, discussions on the Strategic Approach and the sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020 (Beyond 2020) are expected to result in an adopted framework at the fifth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5) in Bonn, Germany, in September 2023. Managing chemicals in products, which includes the building and construction sector, is expected to be an integral part of the new framework.

This policy brief explores efforts and initiatives to advance the issue of CoC in the building and construction sector, including under a GEF-funded project on Global Best Practices on Emerging Chemical Policy Issues of Concern under SAICM, launched in 2019. The project focuses on lead in paint and chemicals in products such as electronics, toys, and building and construction, as well as on knowledge and stakeholder engagement. The brief draws on a 2021 SAICM report on the building and construction sector, which recommends, inter alia, more circularity and a life-cycle approach in the sector, and highlights opportunities for the sector that ICCM5 and the Beyond 2020 framework provides. It also discusses a proposal regarding a sectoral approach for implementation when addressing CoC in products that was tabled by the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) for inclusion in the Beyond 2020 framework instrument.

What are chemicals of concern in the building and construction sector?

A range of chemicals have been and continue to be used in building and construction products in everything from insulation materials and sealants to paint, wood products, and carpeting. Building materials and construction activities use petrochemicals, industrial gases, and specialty chemicals, such as concrete admixtures, flame retardants, coatings, and adhesives, among others. Chemicals used in building materials can also be a passive emission source indoors, leading to deteriorating indoor environmental quality. As a result, some chemicals have been banned or have extremely restricted use, while others have risks of concern with knowledge and evidence still emerging. Asbestos, lead in paint used in buildings, brominated flame retardants and PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, or “forever chemicals”) are some of the better-known ones. International efforts to ban and restrict their use have had some significant successes, although much remains to be done.

For example, beginning in the late 19th and early 20th century, asbestos was considered an ideal material for use in the construction industry because it could act as a fire retardant with high electrical resistance and was inexpensive and easy to use. Efforts to limit its use began in the 1970s when its toxicity and related health impacts became better known. When asbestos fibers become airborne and are inhaled, they cannot be expelled by the lungs due to their size. They are also sharp and penetrate internal tissues. The World Health Organization (WHO) lists asbestos as a serious carcinogen. It causes a range of diseases from breathing difficulties and lung disease to cancers of the stomach, ovaries, and kidneys.

Although relatively safe while encapsulated in glue or cement, asbestos becomes hazardous when the buildings are destroyed or torn down and it is released into the air. A recent example of this is in Ukraine, where many buildings built using asbestos have been destroyed during the ongoing war, creating millions of tons of highly hazardous, asbestos-contaminated rubble, constituting a long-term health hazard. Asbestos is listed as a category of controlled waste under Annex I of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, with exemptions for minor uses permitted in some countries. Even though worldwide more than 67 countries have banned the use of asbestos, many others have yet to ban its use, and even in countries where it is banned, asbestos remains in the buildings for decades and sometimes centuries. It is thus a “legacy” chemical, an issue that must be addressed.

Lead is another CoC in the building sector, used as a paint additive. Lead can cause brain damage, particularly in children, and damage kidneys, nerves, and blood, especially because of deteriorating lead-based paint that is peeling, chipping, chalking, cracking, or damp, and can enter the body through inhalation, ingestion, or dermal contact. Most developed countries banned decorative lead paint over 40 years ago, adopting regulations to control lead in paints used in homes, schools, and other buildings. However, studies conducted by the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) in more than 55 countries found that high lead levels in paint still exist in most of them. In the US, for example, although lead-based paint was banned for residential use in 1978, it remains a legacy chemical due to its presence in millions of homes built before 1978 and continues to be a leading cause of childhood lead poisoning.

The Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead in Paint, jointly led by the WHO and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), helps prevent exposure to lead by promoting the phase-out of paints containing lead and helping countries pass legislation based on the Alliance’s Model Law and Guidance for Regulating Lead in Paint. According to the WHO Global Health Observatory on legally-binding controls on lead paint, as of 31 March 2023, 48% of countries reported that they have legally binding controls on the production, import, sale, and use of lead paints. Nonetheless, paints with lead are still sold in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. At the end of 2022, according to UNEP, more than 100 countries still had not set legal limits on lead in paint.

While lead and asbestos and their impacts have historically garnered much publicity, brominated flame-retardants (BFRs) and PFAS have more recently come to the fore, raising alarms. PFAS, for example, are used in building and construction materials, such as electrical wires and cables, thermal insulation foams, stain- and water-resistant carpeting, and paints, adhesives, and sealants for waterproofing. First used in the 1940s, they are now present in hundreds of products, and have been linked to endocrine disruption, thyroid disease, neurological and liver damage, and cancer. Because they break down very slowly, persist in the environment, are “nearly indestructible,” and resist grease, oil, water, and heat, they are commonly referred to as “forever chemicals.” BRFs, a relatively new generation of chemicals used as flame retardants, are still widely used in industrialized countries, although some are voluntarily banned by manufacturers. Currently, BFRs and PFAS are being addressed in some manner under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). For example, most commercial PFAS and BFRs are listed in the Stockholm Convention with restrictions on their production and use. Nevertheless, exemptions exist which allows them to be used in some building and construction products, for example, use of deca-BDE in polyurethane foam for insulation.

While these examples illustrate targeted efforts to ban or restrict use of specific chemicals, a holistic, sector-wide approach is also necessary to tackle CoC in the building and construction sector more broadly. Sectoral policies, for example, can provide an opportunity to chart the path forward towards addressing CoC in the sector and achieving sustainable development more broadly.

Initiatives to address chemicals of concern in building and construction

SAICM is at the forefront of international action to address CoC in products, including those in the building and construction sector. Chemicals in products and lead in paint are longstanding emerging policy issues (EPIs) and other issues of concern under SAICM. From 2020-2022, SAICM convened multiple Communities of Practice, which held discussions on these issues among interested and relevant stakeholders. The Chemicals in Products Community of Practice discussed, among others, CoC in building materials.

UNEP’s Eco-Innovation Manual and its building materials supplement presents the eco-innovation process through the example of a fictional company, elucidating the many innovations the sector could potentially take to transition to a pathway that is better for both human health and the environment. UNEP’s Chemicals in Products (CiP) Programme is a voluntary initiative designed to help all stakeholders who are seeking to improve the process for exchanging information on chemicals in products throughout their life cycle. It focuses on the four priority sectors of electronics, building products, toys, and textiles. In addition, the GEF’s Eighth Replenishment (GEF-8) Programming Directions include a Sustainable Cities Integrated Program that highlights the construction sector’s contribution to mercury emissions from cement production. It, thus, promotes circularity and integrated approaches in this regard. The Program will also support improved landfill management and increased energy efficiency in buildings and lighting systems, which can contribute to the reduction of hazardous chemicals, including POPs and mercury.

SAICM’s Buildings InfoHub provides information and resources for designers, architects, builders, and other actors in the construction value chain to help understand, identify, and reduce risks and impacts of chemicals in building materials. It details some of the chemical hazards in common building materials and products, such as: adhesives, sealants, and waterproofing; plastics; flooring; insulation; paints and coatings; and roofing. It also contains guidance and tools to conduct chemicals assessments at different stages of the value chain, as well as assess hazards. A chemical substitutes and alternatives page details key considerations to avoid “regrettable substitution” (when one chemical is replaced by another that is just as harmful or worse).

The InfoHub highlights policies from around the world that aim to phase out harmful chemicals in the sector and help transform markets towards safer alternatives, including those related to global chemicals inventories, cleaning up “forever chemicals” in construction, and action on asbestos and lead. Case studies spotlight best practice examples of various approaches to managing CoCs in the building and construction sector, including affordable housing developments in New York City and Minnesota, US, using materials that take human health impacts into consideration. The InfoHub also links to global databases of building products, which have been assessed against sustainability certifications or other chemicals-related criteria.

UNEP Report on Chemicals of Concern in the Building and Construction Sector

UNEP’s technical report on Chemicals of Concern in the Building and Construction Sector, developed within the framework of the GEF project on Global Best Practices on Emerging Chemical Policy Issues of Concern under SAICM, provides an overview of the challenges that CoC pose in the context of products in the sector. The 2021 report: identifies and elaborates on 30 CoC; outlines linkages among CoC with respect to the building life cycle; and highlights existing gaps, challenges, and opportunities regarding increasing circularity in the sector.

The sector is one of the largest end markets for chemicals and its product range reflects the full diversity of outputs from the chemical industry, according to the report. One chemical may be used in multiple applications throughout the sector, affecting different stakeholders, and at different stages in the process. For example, certain short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs), addressed under the Stockholm Convention, could be used as plasticizers in flexible PVC material used for wood panel ceilings, flooring, or in plumbing, but also as flame retardants in paints for metal surfaces or interior walls.

Table 1: Chemical Revenues by Sector and End-Market Size

Given the considerable lag between the design and manufacturing and end-of-life stages of building and construction products, by the time risk management action is taken for a CoC, the chemical has already been used in products and sold on markets sometimes for extended periods of time, the report states. Legacy chemicals are, therefore, important to consider when discussing CoC in building products. For example, use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in Switzerland was widespread in coatings and joint sealants but was banned in 1972. The report flags that due to the long lifetime of these products in the built environment, PCBs are still routinely found in buildings during refurbishing or demolition operations more than 50 years after they were banned.

 At the end of life, the report notes, building and construction products enter the waste stream as construction or demolition waste, which may be considered hazardous at the national or international levels, such as under the Basel Convention. Such waste often represents the largest proportion of total waste generated in a country and is only growing due to the increase in infrastructure development across the globe. In the EU, for example, construction and demolition waste accounts for more than one-third of all waste generated.

 Despite this, the report explains, the building and construction sector represents significant opportunities for sustainable development, given the sector’s growth trajectory. It recommends adopting a more holistic approach, which combines addressing legacy chemicals with innovations in chemistry and material science, design practices, and regulation to increase chemical safety, reduce hazards, and increase resource efficiency. Beyond SDG targets directly relevant to chemicals and waste, such as SDG target 12.4 (on achieving the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle) and SDG target 3.9 (on reducing the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals), all 17 SDGs can be supported through the sound chemicals and waste management. 

The report underscores the need for more research and collaboration to address emerging concerns about additional chemicals in the sector. It urges adopting a precautionary approach where evidence is emerging, or where data gaps exist on hazards and potential impacts.

Opportunities and recommendations detailed in the report revolve around the following:

• Increasing information transparency on chemicals and ensuring the flow of information along the entire life cycle of building products. As information on use and concentration levels is still scarce, action on increasing transparency could build on existing initiatives, such as health product declarations developed under voluntary building certification schemes (e.g., Leadership and Energy Environmental Design, or LEED) or databases providing occupational safety information for construction workers, such as the German GISBAU initiative. Furthermore, available information on CoC uses in building products often reflects the context of their application in specific products and industries in developed countries, as well as the identification of potential risk. Thus, the current results and available knowledge might not fully reflect the situation in developing countries and economies in transition.
• Designing new buildings for circularity and using products that support the sector’s transition to circular models and retain the highest possible value at the end of life. Potential chemicals-related impacts of materials along the entire life cycle of buildings should be evaluated, and benign chemicals and recyclable materials should be developed through green and sustainable chemistry innovation. When CoC cannot be avoided, contaminated materials should be separated from uncontaminated materials at the end of life.
• Minimizing the impacts of legacy chemicals and barriers to circularity for existing buildings and developing new technologies for recycling. Barriers in the context of legacy chemicals should be addressed, for example, by managing construction and demolition waste containing CoC, such as POPs, in as sound a manner as possible to minimize their negative impacts. Efforts should also be made to avoid reintroducing CoC into secondary raw materials, and to advance research and development of technologies for the sound recycling of building products that contain CoC.
• Undertaking targeted regulatory action to identify, assess, and address CoC in building products, based on emerging scientific knowledge, to ensure protection of human health and the environment at all stages of the life cycle. This could include advancing knowledge on applications and potential occurrences of identified CoCs, such as POPs, in products relevant to the sector, as well as mandating and incentivizing phaseouts of individual CoC from products. Where substitution of CoC is not technically feasible, regulators must ensure adequate training and protection of, for example, construction workers and the general public. In addition, regulators should evaluate if regulatory requirements for the building and construction sector may have consequences for chemical use or material choices that, in turn, can cause adverse effects on human health or the environment.

IOMC proposal for the Beyond 2020 framework

In an effort to operationalize some of these recommendations going forward, the IOMC has proposed three Implementation Programmes for the Beyond 2020 framework that adopt a sectoral and value chain approach to chemicals and waste management more broadly to improve circularity. The proposal calls for:

• developing integrated national chemical management systems and capacities in all countries and regions;
• integrating sound chemicals and waste management in chemical-intensive economic sectors and value chains (which the building and construction sector falls under); and
• integrating sound chemicals and waste management within sustainable development objectives and decision-making processes.

The Programmes would aim to strengthen implementation of the Beyond 2020 framework through inclusive stakeholder and sectoral engagement and action, knowledge sharing, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and mobilization of additional resources. The Implementation Programmes would directly link to, and support implementation of, the proposed strategic objective and targets of the framework. They are also consistent with the three dimensions of integrated chemicals and waste management presented by the IOMC at the fourth meeting of the intersessional process considering the Strategic Approach and sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020 (IP4) in the fall of 2022.

To advance and inform about its ideas and proposal, the IOMC organized two workshops on advancing global chemicals and waste management in chemical-intensive economic sectors and value chains and industries. In January 2023, building and construction was discussed as a candidate sector for implementation. In June, discussions addressed guidance to support strategies and a possible global programme on advancing chemicals and waste management in economic industry sectors and their value chains.

Going Beyond 2020

We now know that business-as-usual in the building and construction sector is not an option. Whether it is managing legacy chemicals or integrating into products, from the beginning, materials that are better for the environment and human health, transitioning towards safety, sustainability, and circularity along the entire life cycle of the sector is crucial. Advancing and implementing recommendations outlined in this Policy Brief could help ensure the sector provides a meaningful contribution to the sound management of chemicals and waste in the Beyond 2020 framework, and to sustainable development more broadly.

* * *

This document has been developed within the framework of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) project ID: 9771 on Global Best Practices on Emerging Chemical Policy Issues of Concern under the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). This project is funded by the GEF, implemented by UNEP, and executed by the SAICM Secretariat. The International Institute for Sustainable Development acknowledges the financial contribution of the GEF to the development of this policy brief.

This Policy Brief is the eighth in a series featuring cross-cutting topics relating to the sound management of chemicals and waste. It was written by Leila Mead, Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) team leader, editor, and writer. The series editor is Elena Kosolapova, Senior Policy Advisor, Tracking Progress Program, IISD.

RELATED EVENTS

• Fifth Meeting of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5)

We are in the midst of a triple planetary crisis. Climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution endanger the environment and all Earth’s inhabitants – including us. Five of the nine planetary boundaries have been crossed, creating an environment beyond the safe operating space for humanity. Each of the problems, from rising rates of extinction to carbon emissions and plastic pollution, is drastic and frightening on its own. They also interact.

Given the rates of environmental decline, the interactions between climate change and chemical pollution are especially pernicious. The chemical sector is part of the climate problem because of its own greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the global warming potential (GWP) of some of the chemicals it produces. Yet, through green chemistry, it could be part of the solution. The need for such solutions is urgent. A warmer world, with less predictable weather patterns and more intense storms, alters how chemicals behave in the environment and how we are exposed to them.

There are dangerous feedback loops. Climate change can lead to shifts in chemical production and use, which, in turn, could fuel further climate change. Some of these links are relatively direct. A warmer world increases the demand for air conditioning. This requires chemical refrigerants. More demand boosts production and, consequently, emissions from the sector. Other feedback loops could be less obvious. There will be more droughts and flooding, which could increase pest and disease outbreaks. This could lead to further use of pesticides and fertilizers. Again, there is an increase in demand and emissions, which adds to the climate crisis.

There is growing evidence of the many varied interconnections between climate change and chemical production and use. Yet, governance of these issues is largely working in silos. Climate change actors deal with reducing emissions and adapting to a warmer world but largely ignore chemicals. Chemicals actors are slowly drawing links to climate change (with the exception of the ozone regime that holds global warming as a central issue). This Policy Brief considers the interactions between climate change and chemicals in more detail, maps the governance connections – or lack thereof, and considers options for the future.

Chemicals are a climate problem

The chemicals sector both produces GHGs on its own and contributes significantly to the global demand for fossil fuels. The chemical sector is the third largest industrial emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the chemicals sector was responsible for 14% of industrial GHG emissions in 2019 (see Figure 1). It is also the single biggest industrial user of fossil fuels for both energy and feedstock purposes. Natural gas, followed by coal, are widely used energy feedstocks.

Figure 1. Global GHG emission trends by industry subsectors

Source: IPCC Working Group III Summary for Policymakers

During chemicals manufacture, GHG emissions come from fossil fuel combustion, electricity use, and fossil fuels used as chemical feedstocks. GHG emissions are also by-products of chemical reactions. About quarter of emissions are industrial process emissions, and the rest are from fuel combustion. The highest share of emissions is from ammonia production, followed by high-value chemicals (e.g., ethylene, propylene, benzene, toluene, and mixed xylenes) and methanol. A recent study found that the production of “forever chemicals” (formally per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS) is associated with substantial hydrochlorofluorocarbons (specifically, HCFC-22) emissions. HCFCs are potent GHGs, far more damaging to the climate than CO2. It is also used as an intermediary in PFAS production.

In addition, some chemicals themselves contribute directly to climate change. Chemicals with high GWP trap heat in the atmosphere. Several fluorinated chemicals, often used as refrigerants, have a high GWP value. These include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), HCFCs, and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), each of which are magnitudes more potent than CO2. The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol sought to address HFCs, in part because they were increasingly being used to replace CFCs after they were banned under the Protocol.

Climate scientists are closely considering the chemical sector’s emissions. The International Energy Agency (IEA) finds that the chemicals sector is not on track to meet net zero. The IPCC reports that, on average, the sector’s emissions grew by over 1.5% per year between 2010 and 2019. According to the IEA, the carbon intensity of the sector, that is, how much CO2 is produced per tonne of primary chemicals, has remained stable.

There are key regional differences. Chemicals production has shifted to the Global South, bringing with it the emissions from the sector. In 2020, China was responsible for roughly 57% of global GHG emissions associated with petrochemicals, while the US and Europe accounted for 6% and 5%, respectively. In part, this variation is down to where the industry gets its energy. The more coal, for example, in the energy mix, the higher the emissions from the sector.

The chemicals sector has yet to find or implement efficiencies to decrease its CO2 intensity. As a result, increased production necessarily leads to increased emissions. Reducing carbon intensity can be a step toward addressing the sector’s emissions while still meeting demand. While efficiency can be a key solution, the issue of raw materials and feedstocks remains. Overall, we still have an complete picture. Emissions reporting is improving, but as a report from Lund University makes clear, disclosure is partial and inconsistent, and complicated by long, complex value changes.

Potential solutions

Addressing climate change emissions may become a pressing concern for the industry. Pressure from governments, coupled with changes to the global energy system, may require companies to act to reduce emissions and to find alternatives to using fossil fuels as inputs. Climate action could build long-term value. There are also economic opportunities for the industry to help itself, and others, reduce GHGs, including in the transportation and aviation sectors.

There are analyses of potential solutions that the industry can implement to reduce GHG emissions in the sector, many of which point to the opportunities for reaching net zero. Net zero, as a concept, recognizes that some sectors may be difficult to fully decarbonize. Therefore, a mix of emissions reductions and offsetting or carbon capture and storage (CCS) could realize a “balance” between emissions and removals. Some research has advocated for the use of carbon capture technologies to reduce emissions in the sector, and for using carbon from sequestered CO2, called carbon capture and utilization. Biomass could potentially replace fossil fuels as raw materials, although there would be implications for land use.

There are other solutions at hand, drawing from ideas in the chemicals community, particularly green chemistry and circular economy. Green chemistry minimizes the need for hazardous substances when designing products and production processes. It mimics nature, by using renewable and biodegradable materials. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has outlined ten objectives for green chemistry, including using chemistry to minimize hazards, avoiding regrettable substitutions, and green sourcing feedstocks and production processes.

Similarly, circular economy thinking can help with identifying potential impacts from a product’s design to its end of life. Tools such as lifecycle assessment can include GHGs. For example, making products more reusable and repairable will decrease demand for new products and chemicals, which will reduce emissions from the sector. Renewable inputs could be a cost effective and sustainable solution for the industry.

Climate change is a chemicals problem

The impacts of climate change complicate chemicals management in several ways. There is a growing need for the sector and governments to think about climate adaptation (that is, building resilience to a warmer, less predictable world) in the context of chemicals management. It can increase the toxicity of some chemicals and amplify their releases into the environment. At the same time, climate change raises risks for chemicals and waste management facilities to keep hazardous products away from the surrounding environment and populations.

Already, the world is more than 1.1°C warmer than the pre-industrial era. Higher temperatures can lead to an increase in the toxicity of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), air pollutants, and pesticides, including organophosphate insecticides such as chlorpyrifos. Increased temperature can influence the fate and behavior of POPs, affecting how humans are exposed to these chemicals. Ecosystems are at risk as well. Ocean acidification may influence the behavior of metals in marine sediments, as well as their toxicity, impacting ecosystems and their inhabitants on the ocean floor. For animals already at the edge of their ability to survive in a warmer world, increased chemical toxicity could be particularly harmful.

Other effects of climate change are likely to amplify the releases of chemicals, either from the environment directly, or by damaging infrastructure. Melting ice is particularly worrying. Melting glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau release PFAS. Mercury may emerge from thawing permafrost. Melting Arctic ice could lead to four-fold increase in banned POPs in Arctic waters.

Flooding, “super-storms,” and other climate-fueled events can challenge chemicals management. These events can exacerbate the risks by increasing the likelihood of spills, contamination, infrastructure damage, and altered environmental conditions. For example, the Krasny Bor hazardous waste site in Russia has previously flooded. Assessment projects have tried to identify the risks of releases into the surrounding environment. The World Health Organization (WHO) has prepared guidance for public health authorities on the types of risks associated with chemicals after cyclones and flooding. For both, it highlights an increased risk of burns, poisoning, respiratory tract injuries, and injuries to workers.

Other tools of chemical management may need to be updated. Risk assessments often involve models or data on human and animal exposure. Altering the toxicity, behavior, and movement of chemicals could require updates to models and methodologies. It may also mean governments and researchers may have to enlarge their sample populations.

There will be regional differences in how climate change affects chemicals management and human exposure. The Arctic is of particular concern. It is highly vulnerable to both climate change and chemical pollution. Melting ice, coupled with changes to precipitation, water salinity, and sea ice quality, could unlock POPs and other chemicals deposited in the region, leading to unintentional releases and movement. These climate factors are associated with POPs concentrations in multiple Arctic biota. Other regions will face their own challenges. Small island States are already experiencing the effects of sea level rise, which could increase chemical releases from waste disposal sites. Solutions to chemical management in the context of a warmer, more turbulent world will have to be tailored to regional, and perhaps local, differences.

The potential impacts of climate change on the sector are wide ranging, from operations to risk assessments. There are equally a wide range of measures that could be implemented, as outlined in a 2015 UK Climate Change Adaptation Guidance.

Governance silos

Despite all the interconnections, climate governance rarely touches on chemicals specifically, and vice versa. The Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol on ozone depleting chemicals are an exception. These treaties, working together, regulate chemicals that damage the ozone layer, and also consider the GWP of chemicals. The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol regulates HFCs, potent GHGs.

The Paris Agreement on climate change requires countries to submit or update nationally determined contributions (NDCs) every five years. The content of these pledges is almost entirely up to countries. Developed countries are required to have an economy-wide numerical target. Developing countries are encouraged to do so. In the current set of NDCs, 115 countries’ pledges include a target for industry, of which chemicals is a part. Waste is its own sector in climate planning and reporting, widely included in NDCs.

There is a role in global climate governance for the private sector and other actors to also make pledges under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Global Climate Action portal encourages and tracks the pledges of a wide range of non-state actors. The portal allows for searching for chemicals companies specifically. In total, 289 chemicals companies logged an action, 263 of which made a commitment. So far, 207 of these companies have reported on their progress toward that commitment. Many of these seem to be small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Of the top 20 chemical companies in the world, 11 registered on the portal, nine have at least one commitment, and five had reported back. Less than 40% of US-based Independent Commodity Intelligence Services (ICIS) Top 100 companies have net-zero goals or align with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

In chemicals governance, there have been a growing number of reports to raise awareness of the interconnections between chemicals and climate change, but little in the way of rule making to draw firmer links. The Stockholm Convention has repeatedly explored the connections between POPs and climate change. In conjunction with the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, the Secretariat produced a report as early as 2011. Another report, co-authored with the Minamata Convention Secretariat, was published in 2022. The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC) published a report on POPs and climate change in 2013 It noted that climate change could affect some criteria that the Committee’s considers when assessing chemicals, such as toxicity and long-range environmental transport (LRET).

As yet, climate change has not been incorporated in the Committee’s work. In part, this may be due to its mandate to consider the persistence, toxicity, bioaccumulation, and LRET of a chemical based on existing information and data. Models predicting future values are not considered as part of the Committee’s reviews.

In the current negotiations for the post-2020 strategic approach to chemicals and waste, there is a target related to synergies and linkages with other policies (currently, target E6). At present, the text mentions climate change, biodiversity, and other areas such as health. There is also a target related to implementing policies to encourage production with sustainable and safer alternatives. This could include policies to facilitate the use of cleaner production technologies, or product re-use and recycling, which could indirectly help reduce GHG emissions. Realizing these targets, in whatever final, adopted form they will take, will require further drawing the links between these two governance arenas.

Bridging the gaps

The biodiversity-climate link could be instructive. It took years of work, largely on the part of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat, to forge the connections and conduct outreach to the climate community. Recently, there have been decisions in the UNFCCC and CBD that recognize these connections. Most revolve around the idea of nature-based solutions (NbS). The concept has proved useful to articulate nature-climate connections in a way that facilitates actions on both sides.

At present, the chemicals-climate link lacks such a unifying concept. Climate actors may ask, “why should we do more on chemicals, specifically? What’s the value added?” Chemicals actors could ask the same questions. A concept bridging and articulating the solutions could help provide a common frame of reference and action.

Building this bridge may require collaboration. Some Secretariats, namely the UNFCCC and the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions (BRS) Secretariats, are already talking about commonalities. Wider engagement among scientific communities, activists, and states could further improve knowledge of how intertwined the climate and pollution crises are, and the implications for the future.

* * *

This document has been developed within the framework of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) project ID: 9771 on Global Best Practices on Emerging Chemical Policy Issues of Concern under the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). This project is funded by the GEF, implemented by UNEP, and executed by the SAICM Secretariat. The International Institute for Sustainable Development acknowledges the financial contribution of the GEF to the development of this policy brief.

This Policy Brief is the seventh in a series featuring cross-cutting topics relating to the sound management of chemicals and waste. It was written by Jen Allan, Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) Strategic Advisor. The series editor is Elena Kosolapova, Senior Policy Advisor, Tracking Progress Program, IISD.

Legislation is not in place in every country to manage chemicals of concern.  The OECD Compare your Country Interactive mapping tool shows where legislation is in place and in development to manage industrial and consumer chemicals. 

The tool also includes a series of country profiles, providing details of legislation, the year of adoption and the approximate number of industrial chemicals assessed per year.

Safer States is an alliance of diverse environmental health organizations and coalitions from across the United States committed to building a healthier world.  The website features an interactive map showing chemical-related policies, including those related to building materials.  A Bill Tracker provides further detail of the action taken by individual states to regulate chemicals, covering PFAS, toxic flame retardants, heavy metals, BPA and phthalates.

Chemicals are essential to many household and industrial activities, but they also pose threats to humans, wildlife, and ecosystem health. The World Summit for Social Development (WSSD) in 1995 called for developing “a strategic approach to international chemicals management” by 2005, and set a 2020 target to minimize the significant adverse effects of chemicals on human health and the environment.

Since then, the international community has taken some important steps, adopting multilateral agreements on prior informed consent (PIC), persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and mercury, as well as continuing prior work on the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. An overarching policy process, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), was established in Dubai in 2006. While some progress has been made, the ambition for an overall strong post-2020 regime on chemicals and waste has not yet been achieved.

To support negotiations toward a post-2020 regime, in 2019, the fourth session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-4) called for review of evidence published within the previous decade (Resolution 4/8) to support further discussion at UNEA-5 and other international forums working toward sound management of chemicals and waste. Following on from this, in 2020, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) published a major report titled, ‘An Assessment on Issues of Concern: Chemicals and Waste Issues Posing Risks to Human Health and the Environment.’ The report highlights challenges and opportunities for sound chemicals management, and proposes policy and management options.

This policy brief provides a summary and perspective on that report, in light of the most recent developments on chemicals and waste.

The eight issues identified under SAICM

The 2006 Dubai Declaration and Overarching Policy Strategy called for the SAICM process to identify “emerging policy issues” (EPIs), based on specified criteria that include the magnitude and impacts of the problems, their cross-cutting nature, and the status of knowledge and action around those issues, with the aim to avoid duplication of efforts. To date, the SAICM process has identified six EPIs, namely:

• chemicals in products;
• endocrine disrupting chemicals;
• environmentally persistent pharmaceutical pollutants;
• hazardous substances within the life cycle of electrical and electronic products;
• lead in paint; and
• nanotechnology and manufactured nanomaterials.

Two other “issues of concern” have also been highlighted for action:

• highly hazardous pesticides; and
• per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

This section provides a summary of these issues, as reflected in the UNEP report.

Chemicals in products (CIP), including those used in many consumer items, are not always listed on labels. The CIP programme, launched by UNEP, SAICM, and the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) in 2015, promotes information exchange about chemicals of concern so that all users can make informed choices. That includes not only the companies within the product supply chain, but also others, such as designers, consumers, waste managers, and users. This is truly a global challenge because product life cycles often span different countries – they are made in one country, used in another, and finally recycled or disposed in yet another.

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) affect the characteristics of sexual organs and reproduction in humans and animals. More than 1,400 chemicals in pesticides, biocides, industrial chemicals, cosmetics and drinking water are thought to be EDCs, but only a small number have been screened by regulators. The report suggests that including EDCs in the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals – a system for the classification of chemicals with the use of internationally consistent labels, safety data sheets, and easily understandable symbols – would help countries regulate EDCs in a coordinated manner.

Environmentally persistent pharmaceutical pollutants (EPPPs) include drugs used to treat people and livestock, which cause ill effects when released into the environment. The impacts include antimicrobial resistance, which is linked to the rise of ‘superbugs.’ Action on this issue would mean that countries strengthen their own regulatory and voluntary frameworks to avoid improper prescription and overuse of antibiotics, and organize take-back and sound disposal of unused or expired drugs. The report calls for conducting risk assessment of drugs – especially those that were licensed before environmental risk assessment systems were put in place – based on criteria such as sales data, ecotoxicity, and efficiency of wastewater treatment to counter their impacts.

Hazardous substances in the life cycle of electrical and electronic products (HSLEEP) contain heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants. Actions to reduce the impacts of HSLEEP would include changes to the design and composition of products to minimize the use of hazardous substances, and management of recycling methods to avoid releases of chemicals into the environment. As noted in the report, this is a major issue for many developing countries and economies in transition (EITs), where informal recycling methods expose women and children who work in those industries.

Highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) are those that cause severe and irreversible harm to human health, the environment, and sustainability of agriculture. While the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have developed codes of conduct and management guidelines, implementation is often patchy. Capacity building, information sharing about pesticide use, toxicity, and exposure, and steps toward non-chemical alternatives are all needed. For example, agroecology techniques and integrated pest management would help reduce risk. FAO is currently in the process of drafting a Global Action Plan on Highly Hazardous Pesticides to reduce and manage HHP use.

Lead in paint is a neurotoxin, especially dangerous to children. The Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead Paint (GAELP), initiated as an international partnership in 2009, aims to have all countries adopt legally binding measures to control the production, import, sale, and use of lead paints. As of December 2021, just 43% of countries had done so. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is helping 40 countries to introduce legislation, and also works with some paint manufacturers to phase out the use of lead paint. In a number of countries that already have laws restricting lead paint, measures for effective monitoring and enforcement are still needed, according to the report.

Nanotechnology and manufactured nanomaterials (nanomaterials), while composed of known chemicals, may pose new threats. For example, the effects of inadvertently inhaling or ingesting nanomaterials are often unknown. Vehicle tires are one example of a common product containing nanomaterials that may be released into the environment during use, recycling, and disposal. In the EU and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, some information-sharing mechanisms and voluntary partnerships have begun, including the Malta Initiative that supports OECD guidance and testing development for nanomaterials. The report recommends that a common definition of nanomaterials be adopted.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are manufactured chemicals containing linked carbon and fluorine atoms. Products containing PFASs include many that resist oil and water, such as rainwear, non-stick cookware, and carpets. Being present in many household products, they pose a high exposure risk. PFASs may have negative impacts on immune system function and cognitive function in children, and are linked to type 2 diabetes in women. Long-chain PFASs are listed under the Stockholm Convention on POPs. A phased approach to ending the use of PFASs except for “essential use” purposes is needed, according to the report.

The eleven other issues of concern identified in GCO-II

In 2016, UNEA requested UNEP to provide an update on EPIs and other issues “where emerging evidence indicates a risk to human health and the environment” (Resolution 2/7). UNEP published a report titled, ‘Global Chemicals Outlook II: From Legacies to Innovative Solutions’ (GCO-II), in April 2019. GCO-II identified 11 “other issues” of concern that pose risks to people and the environment, drawing on assessments done by governments or intergovernmental organizations. They are:

• arsenic, a heavy metal;
• bisphenol A (BPA), used, for example, in durable plastics for water bottles and protective coatings on vehicles and machinery;
• cadmium, used in batteries and solar cells;
• glyphosate, a weedkiller;
• lead, a heavy metal which, besides its usage in paint (addressed above), is also in batteries, ceramics, and other items;
• intentionally added microplastics in products, such as the ‘microbeads’ in some detergents and facial cleansers;
• neonicotinoids, pesticides that affect the nervous system of insects;
• organotins, used as biocides in products such as anti-fouling paint for marine vessels;
• phthalates, used in solvents and plasticizers to improve the flexibility of plastic items;
• polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), found in smoked meats, mothballs, and other consumer goods; and
• triclosan, an antiseptic used in personal care products.

Many of these chemicals are classified as potential carcinogens and have other adverse health impacts in humans and animals. Some pose the risk of bio-accumulation as concentrations in the body tend to increase over time. Many are transported across the globe through water, soil, and atmospheric systems, thus posing transboundary issues that no single country can manage on its own. Clean-up from the environment is difficult or unfeasible; therefore, the UNEP report calls for addressing risks at every stage of the product life cycle, from design through to usage, recycling, and disposal.

As noted in the report, regulating, and reducing the use of chemicals with the most troubling impacts will also have many benefits. For example, more than half the world’s usage of glyphosate is for crops that have been genetically engineered to tolerate this weedkiller. Reducing and eliminating the use of glyphosate would encourage better agricultural practices, such as crop rotation and integrated pest management. Managing the risks would help avoid intergenerational impacts, for example, for low-income populations that are thought to be more exposed to phthalates in cheap building and household materials such as vinyl, food wrappers, and takeaway containers.

Mutually supportive processes and frameworks

Section 5 of the UNEP report presents a “thought starter” on avenues and means of future work, highlighting, among many different possibilities, the following:

• Multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) allow for addition of new issues of concern to come under their purview. For example, the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes amended its annexes in 2019, to bring plastic waste within its scope. Similarly, the Rotterdam Convention, which covers prior informed consent and information exchange regarding the movement of hazardous chemicals, the Stockholm Convention on POPs, the Minamata Convention on mercury, and the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances all may include listings of new chemical hazards as they become known.

• International reviews and risk assessments are conducted by multilateral organizations, including WHO, FAO, UNEP, and others. Additionally, the IOMC was established in 1995 to strengthen cooperation and increase coordination in the field of chemical safety. Besides the flagship GCO, UNEP also publishes the Global Waste Management Outlook. OECD’s work in establishing standard testing guidelines and protocols for good laboratory practice provides a foundation for implementation of sound chemicals management.

• The International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM), the governing body for SAICM, will consider options for a post-2020 framework for sound management of chemicals and waste when it convenes for its fifth meeting (ICCM-5) in September 2023. Concurrently, negotiations are ongoing toward establishing a science-policy panel to contribute further to the sound management of chemicals and waste and to prevent pollution. Such a panel would be a counterpart to existing science-policy panels, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). These processes are also relevant to achieving SDG 12 on ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns.

According to an IOMC proposal to be considered within the SAICM process, a post-2020 framework for integrated chemicals and waste management should include:

• developing basic national chemical management systems and capacities in all countries;
• integrating chemicals management in key industry sectors and product value chains; and
• integrating chemicals management with sustainable development issues and initiatives.

At an intersessional meeting of SAICM, which took place from 29 August to 2 September 2022 in Bucharest, Romania, delegates developed a draft of a single consolidated document for the future post-2020 framework, to be fleshed out in subsequent intersessional meetings leading up to ICCM-5.

Looking ahead: Creating a strong framework for chemicals management

GCO-II found that global chemical production capacity of 2.3 billion tonnes in 2017 is set to double by 2030. According to UNEP’s assessment of issues of concern, the existing multilateral regime, which addresses specific chemicals and chemical groups, leaves many gaps. Some substitutions for hazardous chemicals also turn out to be “regrettable substitutions” that have equally negative impacts. Rapid changes sparked by adoption of new technologies and the changing global environment are meanwhile posing new challenges.

A strong policy and programme framework on chemicals would include the ability to effectively track national and regional regulatory actions that signal emerging priorities, the UNEP report suggests. It would engage a wide range of stakeholders in the governance of chemical and waste management, beyond chemicals experts, such as law scholars, social scientists, and civil society organizations (CSOs) who would bring a sharper focus on social and environmental concerns relevant to chemicals management.

Ultimately, the sound management of chemicals will not take place in isolation from efforts to address the triple planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. A strong policy and management regime to address pollution and waste must be part of the global quest for a sustainable planet.

 * * *

This document has been developed within the framework of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) project ID: 9771 on Global Best Practices on Emerging Chemical Policy Issues of Concern under the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). This project is funded by the GEF, implemented by UNEP, and executed by the SAICM Secretariat. The International Institute for Sustainable Development acknowledges the financial contribution of the GEF to the development of this policy brief.

This Policy Brief is the third in a series featuring cross-cutting topics relating to the sound management of chemicals and waste. It was written by Delia Paul, Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) team leader and writer. The series editor is Elena Kosolapova, Senior Policy Advisor, Tracking Progress Program, IISD.