This blog post is based on the presentations and remarks of Dr Roland Weber, delivered at the GGKP webinar Activity Options for Action Plans on the Reduction of uPOPs and Management of PFASs held on 20 January 2026.
As part of the National Implementation Plans (NIPs) under the Stockholm Convention, Parties are required to develop action plans outlining how they will manage and phase out persistent organic pollutants (POPs) to meet Convention obligations. They provide a framework for reducing exposure, informing regulations and addressing national priorities. A well-structured action plan not only helps meet the core obligations of the Stockholm Convention, but also aligns with broader national and global chemical and waste management priorities.
By addressing the four groups of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) listed in the Stockholm Convention across their full life cycle, countries can meet Convention obligations on managing and eliminating these important POP groups while avoiding regrettable substitutions, mitigating legacy contamination and strengthening long-term chemical safety. This integrated approach supports sustainable POPs management and aligns with the Global Framework on Chemicals (GFC), especially when extending from POP-PFAS to the GFC issue of concern of all PFAS.
Why PFAS requires an integrated approach
Today, more than 10,000 PFASs are on the market globally, with more than 7 million PFAS structures documented in chemical databases according to the OECD definition. Efforts to address PFASs under the Stockholm Convention face a fundamental challenge, as it reaches only a small fraction of PFASs currently in use.
While perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) and long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs) and related compounds are now listed under the Stockholm Convention as POPs, industry has moved to short-chain PFAS and PFAS ethers as alternatives to regulated compounds. Thousands of other PFASs remain in active use, many of them equally persistent or generating persistent PFAS degradation products and many are highly mobile in the environment.
Scientific evidence shows that PFAS pollution has already crossed planetary boundaries, with POP-PFASs detected globally in rainwater, soils and surface waters at levels exceeding health-based guideline values. Even where production and use of certain PFAS have declined, their extreme persistence means that legacy contamination in landfills, products and contaminated sites will continue to drive exposure for decades and longer unless actively managed.
Synergies with the GFC to address PFAS
Against this backdrop, NIP action plans for POP-PFAS can be more effective when designed from the outset to align with the GFC, which addresses the entire group of PFASs. This approach provides a clearer pathway towards safer alternatives and helps avoid cycles of regrettable substitution.
The GFC treats all PFASs as an “issue of concern”, reflecting evidence that short-chain PFASs also raise concern due to their extreme persistence, high mobility and accumulation in plants and food crops, as well as the difficulty of removing them from drinking water. Studies show that the presence of these substances, or their degradation products, are effectively irreversible once released into the environment.
Significant gaps in data on PFAS chemical structures, toxicity, production volumes and uses continue to limit the effectiveness of regulation. Strengthening synergies between the Stockholm Convention and the GFC can help address these gaps by enabling action plans developed for POP-PFASs to also cover other PFASs.
PFASs are present in our daily life.
As Dr Weber noted: “Many chemicals, including PFAS, are used in consumer goods – electronics, cars, buildings, furniture, textiles, synthetic carpets – and these pose a risk for human health and the environment. With an integrated approach and cooperation with the Global Framework on Chemicals, we can manage and substitute groups of toxic substances like PFAS if we conduct a proper action plan and implementation.”
Building effective action plans
Key action plan elements include establishing regulatory frameworks that address PFAS across their full life cycle – from production and import to use, recycling and disposal. This can be operationalized through only allowing essential uses, improved PFAS traceability in products, extended producer responsibility (EPR) and application of the polluter-pays principle (PPP), shifting some responsibility from governments to market actors and supporting integrated, sustainably financed implementation.
Comprehensive inventories of PFAS uses, stockpiles and waste streams – particularly in firefighting foams, textiles, electronics, transport, construction materials and contaminated sites – are essential for prioritizing action. Sectoral inventories, material and substance flow analysis and strengthened data systems help capture current uses, historic stocks and future waste flows, aligning PFAS action plans with circular economy and waste-management strategies.
PFAS waste management presents major technical and economic challenges, as landfilling and incineration at low temperatures are ineffective or inappropriate and result in PFAS releases. Action plans should include activity options to assess available destruction capacities, such as hazardous-waste incineration and cement kilns, at national and regional levels, while recognizing cost and capacity constraints, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Accelerating substitution and restricting non-essential uses is critical to preventing future PFAS accumulation.
Monitoring and awareness raising
For POP-PFAS, awareness raising, monitoring of drinking water and contaminated-site management are critical due to widespread use, mobility and extreme persistence. Targeted monitoring of priority sites – such as airports, industrial areas, landfills, wastewater treatment plants and water sources – enables early risk identification, while systematic site assessment supports integrated exposure reduction across environmental media.
Integrating POP-PFAS action plans considering the GFC issue of concern supports a shift from reactive control of individual substances to proactive, class-based governance of all PFASs. Aligning Stockholm Convention implementation with broader chemicals, waste and product-policy reform strengthens synergies, avoids regrettable substitution, and enhances long-term protection of human health and the environment.
To learn more about the Global NIP Update project, visit Global NIP Update | Green Policy Platform.
For a deeper dive into the GGKP webinar “Activity Options for Action Plans on the Reduction of uPOPs and Management of PFASs”, you can access the full recordings and materials here.
Author:
 |
Roland Weber, POPs Environmental Consulting, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roland-Weber-2 |
This article was curated by Mark Schulman, Content Editor, GGKP.
