Major Measures and Achievements of China’s Implementation of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Over the Past Two Decades

In May 2004, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants entered into force worldwide. That same year, China formally acceded to the Convention, fully assuming all its obligations to phase out, reduce, and control the various POPs substances covered by the treaty. This year marks the 20th anniversary of both the Convention’s global entry into force and China’s implementation thereof. Drawing on this milestone, this paper reviews China’s key measures and achievements over the past two decades in fulfilling its obligations under the Convention—ranging from participation in treaty negotiations and the formulation of regulatory policies to the refinement of national standards, the development of alternative technologies, the conduct of compliance‑related research, and the attainment of compliance targets. It also presents three representative case studies and outlines priorities for the next phase of work as well as prospects for the future.

Since the 1990s, the international community has increasingly focused on the global pollution caused by organochlorine compounds. Building on regional environmental protection agreements for persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and following multiple rounds of intergovernmental negotiations, the international community adopted the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in May 2001. As one of the Convention’s original signatories, China formally acceded in 2004, fully implementing its obligations to phase out, reduce, and control the various POPs covered by the treaty. Half of the chemicals subject to the Convention are used as pesticides, making compliance with pesticide‑related provisions a formidable task fraught with significant challenges. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs has remained actively engaged in intergovernmental negotiations on POPs, closely monitoring global progress under the Convention, ensuring effective implementation, and strengthening pesticide management. It has conducted specialized reviews and studies of more than a dozen newly added POPs—such as lindane—and incorporated them into the priority categories of pesticide registration and oversight, while launching targeted regulatory measures to ensure the smooth fulfillment of China’s obligations under the Convention.

1 

Key Measures and Outcomes

1.1 Strengthen the institutional framework for compliance, actively participate in convention negotiations, and stay abreast of compliance developments. Enhance the inter‑ministerial coordination mechanism for compliance, reinforce collaboration and coordination with the Compliance Office of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, regularly attend meetings of the National Compliance Coordination Group, establish joint working groups, nominate pesticide‑management experts to serve on the National Expert Committee, and further fortify internal compliance‑related mechanisms. Under the unified coordination and guidance of the Compliance Office of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs continues to engage in intergovernmental negotiation sessions, Conferences of the Parties, and expert review committee meetings related to POPs used in pesticides. It actively participates in the deliberation and consultation processes concerning compliance‑related documents, such as risk‑assessment reports on pesticides like endosulfan, dicofol, fipronil, and chlorpyrifos, as well as preliminary assessments of their socio‑economic impacts on China, promptly puts forward policy recommendations on pesticide‑related compliance, keeps abreast of international compliance trends, and proactively carries out its responsibilities within its mandated scope.

1.2 Improving various standards and guidelines for POPs‑related pesticides to provide technical support for the formulation of pesticide policies. National standards (GB 2763‑2005) have been established for maximum residue limits of pesticides such as hexachlorocyclohexane and DDT. Maximum residue limit standards have also been set for seven POPs with pesticidal uses—chlordane, mirex, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, and toxaphene—in agricultural products. In addition, an industry standard titled “Methods for Efficacy Testing and Evaluation of Pesticide‑Based Termite Control Agents for Registration” has been developed. The methods for detecting polychlorinated biphenyls and hexachlorobenzene in feed, along with their corresponding residue limit data, have been refined. Furthermore, toxicological data, residue‑detection methods, and limit standards related to POPs used as pesticides have been expanded, with appropriate method validation and sample monitoring conducted. Routine monitoring has been carried out for POPs pesticides such as dicofol, endosulfan, and fipronil; safety monitoring and evaluation of dicofol have been performed on cotton, citrus, and apple crops; and risk assessments regarding the use and safety of endosulfan have been undertaken. The development of these pesticide‑related standards and guidelines is of significant practical importance for filling gaps in China’s standards‑setting framework, enhancing the capacity for monitoring agricultural product quality and safety as well as compliance with POPs obligations, and promoting international trade in agricultural products.

1.3 Formulating and promulgating POPs pesticide management policies to ensure the smooth achievement of national compliance objectives In 2002, the former Ministry of Agriculture issued Announcement No. 199, explicitly prohibiting the use of pesticides such as DDT, toxaphene, aldrin, and dieldrin. This measure was taken by the Ministry following the international community’s adoption of the Stockholm Convention in 2001, targeting the first batch of pesticide‑related compounds listed as controlled POPs. In 2016, the former Ministry of Agriculture issued Announcement No. 2445, revoking the pesticide registration for dicofol and gradually banning its sale and use. In 2017, it issued Announcement No. 2552, canceling the pesticide registration for endosulfan and progressively prohibiting its sale and use. In 2019, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued Announcement No. 148, phasing out the registration, sale, and use of flufenoxuron. Furthermore, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, together with the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, the National Development and Reform Commission, and other departments, has jointly introduced management policies addressing the pesticide uses of certain POPs. For example, in 2023, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Commerce, the General Administration of Customs, and the State Administration for Market Regulation jointly issued (Ministerial Order No. 28), “List of Priority‑Controlled New Pollutants (2023 Edition),” which prohibits the production, processing, use, import, and export of sodium pentachlorophenate and other POPs when used as pesticides. The repeated introduction of these management policies targeting the pesticide applications of POPs has ensured the effective formulation and implementation of China’s National Implementation Plan under the Stockholm Convention, thereby guaranteeing the successful fulfillment of national compliance targets.

1.4 Development of Alternatives to POPs‑Based Pesticides and Alternative Technologies Building on the further establishment and refinement of relevant regulatory frameworks and specific requirements, the former Ministry of Agriculture has actively conducted trials, registration, demonstration projects, and promotion of alternative products for POPs‑based insecticides, particularly those used for specialized applications such as termite control and snail eradication. It has also participated in the formulation and implementation of monitoring programs for POPs and their alternatives in agricultural products, and developed a plan to set maximum residue limits for POPs in food and feed. With respect to POPs‑based insecticides like DDT that are used in agricultural products, uniform standards have been established for residue limits—either the instrument’s limit of detection or “not detectable”—and the analytical methods for o,p′‑DDT, p,p′‑DDT, heptachlor, aldrin, hexachlorobenzene, dieldrin, and endrin in vegetables and fruits have been revised and improved.

1.5 Actively conduct research and surveys on the implementation of the POPs pesticide convention, carrying out studies and related work to add lindane, endosulfan, fipronil, methoxychlor, chlorpyrifos, and other pesticides to the list of POPs. We organized investigations into the registration, import‑export activities, production, and applications of insecticides such as endosulfan, fipronil, and chlorpyrifos that possess potential persistent organic pollutant characteristics. The scope of these surveys covered 45 domestic and foreign pesticide manufacturers across 13 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions in China. A special study was also undertaken on the use of pentachlorobenzene as an intermediate in the production of sodium pentachlorophenate. Based on the primary uses and geographic areas of application of sodium pentachlorophenate, a targeted survey was conducted to assess its actual use for snail control and to evaluate available alternatives. Proactive planning enabled timely monitoring of the registration, production, and application status of convention‑controlled pesticides such as chlorpyrifos, thereby providing robust data support to safeguard national interests to the greatest extent possible in international negotiations and compliance efforts in response to the growing challenges posed by newly listed POPs under the convention.

2 

Typical Cases

Since the implementation of compliance measures, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs has integrated the spirit of the Convention into pesticide registration review and post‑registration reevaluation, aligning compliance requirements with data‑submission standards for pesticide registration and linking them to reevaluation procedures and policies on bans and restrictions, thereby guiding the industry toward sustainable development. In recent years, the Ministry has further advanced the green development philosophy to support high‑quality agricultural growth; in the process of phasing out certain pesticides, it has drawn on the Convention’s evaluation methodologies. To date, the Ministry has explicitly prohibited 56 highly toxic pesticides, while the share of low‑toxicity and virtually non‑toxic products among registered formulations has risen to 86.2 percent, making efficient, low‑toxicity, and low‑residue green pesticides the mainstay of both registration and use. Below, we share typical practices adopted in implementing these compliance efforts, particularly in relation to the domestic bans on dicofol, endosulfan, and fipronil.

2.1 In 2016, the former Ministry of Agriculture issued Announcement No. 2445, revoking the pesticide registration for dicofol and gradually prohibiting its sale and use. Dicofol is one of the commonly used organochlorine insecticides in modern agricultural and livestock production. When the Convention imposed controls on dicofol, it was registered in China for controlling red spider mites on cotton, apple trees, and citrus trees. The former Ministry of Agriculture also promulgated and implemented product quality standards for dicofol technical grade and emulsifiable concentrate (HG 3699-2002 and HG 3700-2002). The Ministry actively participated in the implementation of the “China Project on Production Control of DDT‑Containing Dicofol and Demonstration of IPM Technology Application,” a collaborative initiative led by the former Ministry of Environmental Protection’s External Cooperation Center. It carried out demonstration projects to promote alternatives to dicofol, strengthened oversight of compliance with quality standards for both dicofol and its substitutes, and focused on capacity building, policy research, IPM implementation, and the development of nationwide dissemination technologies. The former Ministry of Agriculture subsequently completed supplementary surveys on dicofol alternatives, gathering information on their production, marketing, costs, pricing, and efficacy. It also assessed the production, sales, and application of predatory mites, and based on these findings recommended specific manufacturers. Furthermore, it conducted comprehensive investigations and analyses of dicofol, alternative products, and related substitution technologies. At that time, available alternatives included abamectin, etoxazole, pyridaben, spirotetramat, azocyclotin, dimethyl disulfide, and others; alternative approaches encompassed biological control (releasing predatory mites and establishing bio‑trap strips using natural enemies such as alfalfa), cultural practices (orchard sanitation, canopy reshaping, vigorous branch thinning, reduced planting density, enhanced fertilization and irrigation, and timely flower and fruit thinning to boost tree resistance), and physical methods (installing insecticidal lamps, hanging yellow sticky traps, deploying pheromone‑based pest‑attracting bands, and employing apple bagging techniques for pest management). In conjunction with the dicofol project, 185 farmer field schools were established across three pilot counties, providing training to approximately 25,000 farmers. Relevant outreach efforts were conducted through radio, television, mobile publicity vehicles, and cultural bulletin boards. Supported by the project’s technical framework, the former Ministry of Agriculture enforced rigorous registration and management, striving to minimize emissions of DDT during its use. In 2016, the Ministry issued Announcement No. 2445, revoking dicofol’s pesticide registration and progressively banning its sale and application.

2.2 In 2017, the former Ministry of Agriculture issued Announcement No. 2552, revoking the pesticide registration for endosulfan and progressively banning its sale and use. In the early 1990s, endosulfan was registered for use as a pesticide in China; the technical grade material is highly toxic, while formulated products are classified as moderately or highly toxic. In April 2011, at the fifth Conference of the Parties to the Convention, endosulfan was added to Annex A, with specific exemptions retained for crops such as cotton and rice. In June 2011, the former Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Environmental Protection, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine jointly issued Announcement No. 1586, canceling endosulfan’s registration for use on apple and tea trees. At that time, registrations for endosulfan‑containing products remained valid for five technical‑grade formulations and 40 single‑component or mixed‑formulation products, involving more than 40 enterprises. China has a large number of smallholder farmers, among whom approximately 15 million households are engaged in cotton production. Faced with the realities of numerous manufacturers and fragmented pesticide application, the phase-out of endosulfan posed significant challenges. The former Ministry of Agriculture participated in the “China Endosulfan Phase-Out Project,” led by the Foreign Affairs Center of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, refining alternative pesticides and associated application technologies. A range of substitutes—including beta‑cypermethrin, sfenvalerate, hexaflumuron, chlorpyrifos, deltamethrin, Bacillus thuringiensis, Heliothis armigera NPV, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, fenvalerate, malathion, and bifenthrin—were introduced and widely promoted for agricultural pest control. In July 2017, the former Ministry of Agriculture issued Announcement No. 2552, revoking pesticide registrations for products containing endosulfan and gradually phasing out their use in agriculture.

2.3 In 2019, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued Announcement No. 148, prohibiting the production and use of flufenoxuron. Flufenoxuron is a perfluorooctane sulfonate‑based compound and a low‑toxicity organofluorine insecticide with chronic toxicity. At the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention in 2009, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its salts (PFOS) were added to Annex A of the Convention, while flufenoxuron was granted a specific exemption for agricultural applications. On March 26, 2019, the specific exemption for flufenoxuron’s use in China for the control of red imported fire ants and termites expired. Since 2009, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs has initiated a re‑evaluation of flufenoxuron, conducting extensive literature reviews and field investigations into the product’s basic characteristics, toxicity, environmental impacts, and domestic and international registration and application status.

According to pesticide registration data from the China Pesticide Information Network, as of June 2018, there were three products under registration: one technical‑grade active ingredient and two single‑ingredient formulations, involving two companies. The primary formulation types were baits and bait tablets, with the main target pests being termites and red imported fire ants. Information obtained from the technical‑grade manufacturer, Changzhou Yekang Chemical Products Co., Ltd. in Jiangsu Province, indicates that its stock of fipronil amounted to 250 kg (expressed as 100% active ingredient), and production since 2017 has been minimal, with sales largely drawing on existing inventory. At that time, the leading insecticides used by professional termite‑control agencies nationwide were chlorpyrifos, fenvalerate, and permethrin. Pyrethroid insecticides such as deltamethrin, fenvalerate, bifenthrin, and cypermethrin served as ideal substitutes for organochlorine ant‑control agents, while other compounds with promising application and development potential included imidacloprid, hexaflumuron, hydramethylnon, and fipronil. Surveys indicate that, given the availability of numerous alternative products, banning the production and use of fipronil would not have a significant adverse impact on China’s socio‑economic conditions. Moreover, as China is a party to the relevant convention, and in line with its commitment to honoring international obligations, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued Announcement No. 148 in 2019, revoking the pesticide registration and manufacturing licenses for all fipronil‑containing products and gradually phasing out their sale and use.

The timely adjustments to the policies governing the aforementioned POPs pesticides ensured that China completed its global phase-out obligations ahead of schedule, thereby providing policy support for the country’s implementation of the Stockholm Convention and for the effective regulation of POPs with pesticide uses, such as dicofol, endosulfan, and fipronil.

3 

Next Steps in the Work Plan

3.1 Secure financial support to conduct specialized research on pesticides such as chlorpyrifos that are currently under review by the Convention, further clarifying their usage—including historical use—inventory—including contaminated sites—and available alternative products, and formulating policy recommendations for reduction and phase-out. In addition, undertake preparatory measures to address the inclusion of new POPs under the Convention.

3.2 Secure project support to advance the research and development of new technologies and alternative products for pesticide active ingredients such as chlorpyrifos, which exhibit certain POPs‑related characteristics, thereby providing a solid foundation for formulating relevant pesticide reduction plans and management policies and ensuring the smooth implementation of national compliance obligations.

3.3 Dispatch personnel to attend meetings of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC), the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, and other relevant forums, promptly monitor developments in compliance progress, and proactively carry out compliance-related tasks within the scope of our mandate.

Source: Pesticide Science and Management Issue No. 5, 2024