We appreciate the interest that our Perspective on the Stockholm Convention (Convention) on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) (1) has elicited. A vigorous exchange of ideas by those with a shared interest in assuring that the Convention lives up to its full potential can only be valuable. Clearly, there is much common ground with Scheringer et al. (2) Most importantly, we share the desire to safeguard the effectiveness of the Convention and to maintain or even strengthen the ability to globally regulate chemicals that are likely as a result of their long-range environmental transport (LRET) to lead to significant adverse human health or environmental effects. Another point of agreement is that the number of chemicals that meet the four screening criteria of persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and LRET potential and therefore are eligible for listing in the annexes of the Convention is potentially large, although there may not be consensus as to how large.

Scheringer et al. (2) insist that a high number of nominations is not a problem and the logical response is to strengthen the implementation process. This would entail not only a greatly expanded capacity of the Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee (POPRC) to assess nominations and of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) to adopt amendments. Equally importantly, it would require an increased capacity of the more than 180 Parties to the Convention (Parties) to develop National Implementation Plans (NIPs) and enshrine the decisions of the COPs in national policy and legislation. We do not share the optimism that the latter is realistically achievable. We note that some of the authors of the correspondence stated in a policy analysis in 2022 that it is already “increasingly challenging for all Parties, particularly low- and middle-income ones, to compile an overview of POPs present within their national borders and transport via goods and waste, and to develop and implement effective control measures”.