Author: Simona Zimmermann, WECF Chemicals & Health Project Manager

The BRS- what is it and what are we doing there?

Government representatives from all over the world gather in Geneva between the 28^th of April and the 9^th of May to discuss three international agreements to protect human health and our environment from toxic chemicals and waste. At this conference of parties (COP), which concerns the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions (BRS), we from WECF participate as observers, along with many other international civil society organizations (CSOs) committed to advocating for a healthy life for all living beings.

As observers, we have no decision-making powers. But, we can inform and advise government representatives about particularly worrying toxic substances in agricultural, industrial and everyday products, or on recent developments and events regarding the impact of them on human health and the environment, which provides them a good basis for their decision-making. This is absolutely essential, as during the COP, there are also industry representatives roaming around trying to lobby for the continued production and usage of toxic chemicals in their products.

The 2025 BRS: The issue with UV-328

One of the issues being debated at this conference is the UV filter UV-328 (an ultraviolet light stabilizer that absorbs plastics), which was already banned in a previous decision by the BRS parties in 2023 (‘listed in Annex A of the Stockholm Convention’). UV-328 has been associated with many adverse health effects, with the primary danger being in liver toxicity. 

New exemptions for the use of this chemical have now been introduced, for example, to make airplanes more flame resistant. CSOs are strongly opposed to the retroactive reintroduction of already banned substances, as this would undermine the reliability of the agreement.

Gender, Toxic Chemicals and Human Rights: Our Expertise

As an ecofeminist organisation, we at WECF are bringing our expertise to highlight the interconnection between gender, toxic chemicals and human rights, both at the BRS negotiations and side events during the conference. Together with the International Pollutants Elimination Network, IPEN, the Geneva Environment Network (GEN) and the UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights, Marcos A. Orellana, we organised a great event where it became clear that in different contexts the same problems exist for women’s health in relation to chemicals and waste.

The inputs from panelists from contexts as diverse as Germany, Indonesia and Kenya show that women are more at risk of developing diseases when exposed to chemicals.

Why is this? This is partially due to the fact that women’s bodies absorb harmful substances more quickly and store them for a longer time, Marcos A. Orellana explained while presenting his report  ‘Gender and hazardous substances’. Moreover, gender norms and social expectations result in women coming into greater contact with toxic chemicals due to their professional and private activities.  Halshka Graczyk and Clarissa Macaneiro Viana from the International Labour Organization (ILO) further emphasised this with the fact that women are disproportionately affected by “occupational cancer”.

According to the Special Rapporteur’s report, diseases also have social consequences for women. For example, women are often stigmatised when infertile, even though a common cause of infertility is consistent chemical exposure. In extreme cases, this can lead to their exclusion from their community and social networks. Moreover, when relatives fall sick due to chemical exposure, women are often held responsible to care for them, resulting in the costs of toxic chemicals externalised into gender-biased unpaid labour.

Steffi Richter (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Germany) points out that the hidden costs of using harmful chemicals must be taken into account. Her advice: highlight the social monetary costs of toxic chemicals when it is argued that gender is not an important dimension during difficult economic times.

On the flipside: Sonia Buftheim (nexus3, Indonesia) and Griffins Ochieng (CEJD, Kenya) emphasise that women make major contributions to solving the toxic problem, despite (or precisely) because they are affected. As the documentary ‘Tackling Toxics’ shows, women are finding sustainable alternatives among Kenyan waste pickers. Sonia Buftheim puts it quite directly: ‘We no longer wait for a place at the table. We are taking power’. As co-chair of IPEN’s youth organisation, she emphasises that communities cannot necessarily wait for political decisions, but can take their health and that of their environment into their own hands and presents impressive examples from Indonesia.

Our executive director, and the event’s moderator, Sascha Gabizon draws the following conclusion from the panel’s interventions and the lively discussion with the audience:

The best and most sustainable solution is to stop producing and using toxic chemicals. This benefits all living beings, regardless of gender! The right to a clean, safe, healthy, and sustainable environment must be taken seriously. As Sonia Buftheim aptly put it: ‘Let’s move from risks to rights!’

And this is exactly what civil society organisations like us at WECF are aiming for at the 2025 BRS COP. This time, we are particularly campaigning for a ban on three particularly harmful and persistent chemicals without exception: the pesticide chlorpyrifos, the chemical group of MCCPs (medium-chain chlorinated paraffins) and the perpetual chemicals from the group of LC-PFACs (long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids). All three have already been detected in nature, animals and humans all over the world and are harmful to health. There are alternatives that can be used. And yet we must continue to discuss and educate.

To arrive at an ecofeminist future: we will continue to fight for a toxic-free, sustainable world!