Highlights and images for 17 June 2025

This is a meeting about chemicals, waste, and pollution… but it also isn’t really. The task is to design a global science-policy body that will select policy-relevant topics and assess the state of knowledge on those issues. That science-policy panel will then share its findings with policymakers and the world. It’s the same basic idea of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Want to dig deeper into today's talks? Read the full Earth Negotiations Bulletin daily report.

At this stage, negotiators are trying to work out basic questions of organizational design. What organization will host the secretariat is still controversial. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) will surely play a leading role to provide secretariat services. But it’s just one of the many organizations working on chemicals, waste, and pollution, besides others, such as  the World Health Organization (WHO). Leveraging the expertise and networks of the WHO could help strengthen the secretariat’s ability to support the panel and its members, but others worry shared arrangements could make the science-policy panel less efficient.

Considerable time was spent on foundational design issues. Delegates debated if voting should be allowed for procedural matters–many expected that voting on substantive matters would not move forward. Membership is also an outstanding question, including which observers can participate and which members, particularly for regional economic integration organizations like the EU, will be part of decision making. How much oversight governments will have over the scientific body, the Interdisciplinary Expert Committee, raised questions about scientific independence and avoiding politicization.

There is a need to attune the panel to the unique needs of chemicals, waste, and pollution policy, especially when setting out the panel’s scope, objective, and functions. Many thought these design elements were largely settled, even tentatively agreed. New requests came in, including to remove a “guiding star” in the objective for the panel to protect human health and the environment.

An evening stock-taking showed mixed progress. There are fewer issues outstanding, but they are difficult. There is one day left to resolve questions including membership, decision making, functions of the panel’s bodies, contributions to the trust fund, strategic partnerships, and references to gender and human rights.