Summary report, 15–20 June 2025

Air pollution is the single largest environmental threat to human health worldwide, with nine out of 10 deaths occurring in low and middle-income countries. Meanwhile, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), certain chemicals, including those found in food packaging, have been linked to endocrine disruption, heart disease, obesity, and cancer. The release of toxic wastes into water bodies and the soil persists and accumulates over time, severely disrupting ecosystem functioning.

Bolstering scientific knowledge on the impact of chemicals and waste pollution on ecosystems and human health is an urgent priority, especially for developing countries who require access to the best prevailing evidence to both raise awareness and guide and direct policy. Stakeholders from around the world have been working for years to create a new body that will bridge this gap between science and policy. And now, governments have successfully established the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP).

After a week of often difficult deliberations on the “foundational document” that outlines the Panel’s basic structure, its draft rules of procedure, as well as arrangements for the interim period before the new Panel holds its first session, the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) on a Science-Policy Panel eventually reached sufficient consensus to transmit three draft decisions to the Intergovernmental Meeting, where they were officially adopted. Alongside the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) the newly established ISP-CWP completes a “trifecta” of international science-policy bodies to respond to the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.

In addition to establishing the Panel, the Intergovernmental Meeting:

• recommended draft rules of procedure for possible adoption at the Panel’s first meeting;
• transmitted draft procedures for determining the work programme, the preparation and clearance of panel deliverables, and a draft conflict of interest policy for further consideration at the Panel’s first session; and
• decided on arrangements for the interim period, including financial arrangements.

During the OEWG, discussions were particularly contentious around decision-making modalities; the scope of the Panel; references to preventing pollution; non-governmental participation in the Panel’s work; and on the host to the Panel’s Secretariat. The inclusion of references to gender throughout the document, and the distinction between Indigenous Peoples and local communities, were also strongly tested. Divisions linger, with bracketed text remaining on core aspects of the new Panel, including its scope, objectives and functions, and operating principles and approaches.

The resumed third session of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on a Science-Policy Panel to contribute further to the sound management of chemicals and waste and to prevent pollution as well as the Intergovernmental Meeting convened in Punta del Este, Uruguay, from 15-20 June 2025. Delegates from over 100 Member States and 39 observer organizations were in attendance.

A Brief History of the Science-Policy Panel for Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution

Chemicals, waste, and pollution are permanent features of our daily lives, posing direct and indirect threats to the environment and human health. The impact and scale of these pollution streams and estimates of chemicals released to the environment are nebulous due to incomplete data and the evolving and fast pace of development in a globalized world. With this in mind, the fourth meeting of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA), held in March 2018, adopted a resolution calling on all stakeholders to strengthen the science-policy interface at all levels. It also requested the Secretariat to prepare a report assessing options for strengthening the science-policy interface at the international level for the sound management of chemicals and waste.

At the resumed session of UNEA 5, held in February-March 2022, Member States adopted Resolution 5/8, which calls for establishing a new science-policy panel to contribute further to the sound management of chemicals and waste and the prevention of pollution. As envisaged in the resolution, this panel could support countries’ efforts to implement multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and other relevant international instruments, promote the sound management of chemicals and waste, and address pollution, by providing policy-relevant scientific advice. The panel could also further support relevant MEAs, other international instruments and intergovernmental bodies, the private sector, and other stakeholders in their work.

UNEA decided to convene an OEWG to prepare proposals for the panel with the ambition of completing its work before the end of 2024. An intergovernmental meeting would then be held to consider the proposals generated by the OEWG.

OEWG 1-1: The first part of the first session convened on 6 October 2022 in Nairobi, Kenya, and virtually. Member States gave general statements and focused on organizational matters to kickstart the OEWG’s work. Member States agreed that three OEWG meetings during 2023 and 2024 would suffice to complete their work in preparation for an intergovernmental meeting. They agreed to focus on the panel’s scope and functions at OEWG 1-2.

OEWG 1-2: At the resumed first meeting (30 January-3 February 2023, Bangkok, Thailand), delegates elected Gudi Alkemade (the Netherlands) as OEWG Chair. Delegates focused on the scope and functions of the panel. Capacity building attracted particular attention, which delegates ultimately agreed would be an additional function of the new panel. They also agreed on a list of the elements that will have to be developed to establish the panel, including rules of procedure, processes for adopting assessments, and institutional arrangements, among others. Delegates further agreed on a timeline for when each element would be discussed and on how intersessional work would proceed.

OEWG 2: The second meeting (9-15 December 2023, Nairobi, Kenya) advanced work, which was captured in six conference room papers on: institutional arrangements; operating principles; conflict of interest (CoI); scope, objective, and functions; intersessional work; and the provisional agenda for OEWG 3.

OEWG 3-1: The third meeting (17-21 June 2024, Geneva, Switzerland) could not reach agreement on the foundational document, or the related annexes containing the rules of procedure and CoI policy. Progress was captured in conference room papers from the contact groups. Recognizing that the deadline to finish this work would pass without its completion, the OEWG Bureau worked intersessionally to secure additional time.

OEWG 3.2 Report

On Sunday, 15 June 2025, OEWG Chair Gudi Alkemade (the Netherlands) opened the meeting. She highlighted the task ahead to finalize the foundational document and draft rules of procedure, urging delegates to use their time wisely to reach this goal.

Edgardo Ortuño Silva, Minister of the Environment, Uruguay, noted the historic opportunity to create a mechanism to channel scientific knowledge to policymakers, similar to the IPCC and IPBES. He called for an agile set-up that allows the Panel to develop organically while engaging a wide range of actors, including women and other vulnerable groups. Underscoring Uruguay’s commitment to multilateralism and living in peace with nature, he recalled advice from José Mujica, former President of Uruguay, to avoid conflating hyper-consumption with progress. 

Inger Andersen, Executive Director, UN Environment Programme (UNEP), stressed that the Panel is not a treaty and will not impose obligations on Member States. She suggested that the operating principles are already stated in UNEA Resolution 5/8, and urged parties to determine the question of voting or consensus urgently, suggesting it could unlock other issues. Andersen identified key points for deliberation, including determining whether membership should be automatically open to all Member States or whether governments decide to join when they are ready, and how best to incorporate the knowledge of observers. She stated that UNEP is prepared to serve as the Secretariat, drawing upon the competencies and expertise of other UN agencies, but that this should not “distract” delegates in their deliberations.

Election of officers: Chair Alkemade noted that officers were previously elected and still in office.

Adoption of the agenda: Delegates agreed to the proposed organization of work (SPP-CWP/OEWG.3/INF/8). Chair Alkemade recalled that the agenda had been adopted at OEWG 3.1 (SPP-CWP/OEWG.3/1/Rev.1).

Opening statements: On Sunday, regional groups, Major Groups, and the WHO delivered opening statements signalling their priorities for the meeting and commitment to completing the work. Many urged gender inclusiveness, responsiveness, and transparency. Developing countries emphasized equal representation of both developed and developing countries, including on the Interdisciplinary Expert Committee (IEC), and grounding decisions on consensus. Major Groups presented a joint statement calling for formal mechanisms for the participation of civil society organizations, observers’ participation in the IEC, and the highest standards of transparency and accessibility.

Preparation of Proposals for the Establishment of a Science-Policy Panel

On Sunday, Chair Alkemade introduced the relevant documents, including the draft decision on the establishment of the Panel and its foundational document (UNEP/SPP-CWP/OEWG.3/6); recommendations for consideration by the Panel at its first meeting, including draft rules of procedure (UNEP/SPP-CWP/OEWG.3/7); and a draft decision on arrangements for the interim period (UNEP/SPP-CWP/OEWG.3/8).

The OEWG established three contact groups:

• Contact Group 1, co-facilitated by Toks Akinseye (UK) and Miguel Ruiz Botero (Colombia), to address the foundational document, focusing on membership and functions of the bodies of the Panel, decision-making and related rules of procedure;
• Contact Group 2, co-facilitated by Keima Gardiner (Trinidad and Tobago) and Kateřina Šebková (Czechia), to finalize the elements not considered by Contact Group 1, including other foundational elements and related rules of procedure, and the draft decision to establish the Panel; and
• Contact Group 3, co-facilitated by Sam Adu-Kumi (Ghana) and Itsuki Kuroda (Japan), to take up other rules of procedure, the draft decision on recommendations for consideration by the governing body of the Panel at its first session, and the draft decision on arrangements for the interim period.

The contact groups met throughout the session, reporting back to plenary on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. On Wednesday evening, Chair Alkemade established an informal group to further discussions, co-facilitated by Akinseye and Ruiz Botero. This group worked throughout the night on Wednesday and Thursday morning, delivering a compromise package to plenary on Thursday afternoon.

Foundational document: The foundational document sets out the scope, objective, and functions of the Panel, as well as its operating principles, institutional arrangements, and evaluation mechanisms. This document was the necessary deliverable from this meeting to forward to the Intergovernmental Meeting. Discussions took place in Contact Groups 1 and 2, which met throughout the week, and were completed in an informal group on Wednesday and Thursday.

Scope, objective and functions: This section was retained mostly as forwarded from OEWG 3.1. The main exceptions were the addition of brackets in the objective of the Panel around references to the protection of human health and the environment, and the insertion of “without being policy prescriptive,” also in brackets, as proposed by two delegations opposed by several others. A proposal to delete “gender” in the section on integrating capacity building, which is one of the functions of the Panel, was strongly opposed by various delegates, who stressed it is well-established language and is key for capacity building. Attempting to come up with a solution, various options were considered by Contact Group 2, including the insertion of footnotes or cross-references to sub-paragraphs in the operating principles, which address gender balance, gender equity and equality. The issue remained unresolved, and brackets were retained around “gender balanced,” “gender-responsive,” and “inclusive” participation in the paragraph on capacity building.

Operating principles and approaches: Discussions centered particularly on pollution prevention, relevant forms of knowledge, and references to gender. Several bracketed paragraphs, including on prevention of existing and legacy pollution in the air, water, oceans and soil; the rights to a clean and healthy environment; and special attention to those that are vulnerable, were moved to the preambular section of the draft decision, where they continued to be contested.

Discussions on the use of the word “gender” were protracted and affected various paragraphs in the foundational document. One Member State, supported by two others, suggested changing references on gender to “men and women.” Many opposed, stressing that these principles were negotiated and agreed at OEWG 3.1, and the terms are commonly used in other science-policy panels and UN bodies. No compromise was found and the references to gender and to “men and women” remain bracketed.

Brackets were also added to previously clean text on the principle for taking an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach that incorporates a broad range of relevant disciplines and sources. The debate centered on how to incorporate sectoral expertise, which some viewed as a complement to academic knowledge that could include the expertise of workers or others in economic sectors. Eventually the group agreed to “appropriate sectoral, scientific, technical, and socioeconomic expertise, and taking into account as appropriate, relevant forms of knowledge, including Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge.”

On the principle that recognizes the technical knowledge and experience of workers, an attempt was made to delete reference to informal workers. However this was resisted, and the reference remains.

On the principle of producing policy-relevant while not policy-prescriptive, scientifically robust, unbiased, and accessible deliverables, compromise was reached by reverting to language from UNEA Resolution 5/8, which removes references to prevention as well as to the negative socioeconomic aspects of policies, with the understanding that pollution prevention is a key objective of the Panel.

On decision-making, the question of whether to “find” or “ensure” consensus, was discussed under the operating principles and approaches of the Panel in the draft forwarded by OEWG 3.1. This was taken up by Contact Group 1 and eventually resolved by an informal group. After continued informal discussions on Thursday, participants were able to clear text on operating principles for decision-making, namely in agreeing to “upholding” consensus in decision-making.

Institutional arrangements: Discussions centered on the participation of observers and membership of the IEC.

Regarding membership of the Plenary, on Sunday, delegates agreed to open membership to “UN non-member observer states” and that states need to opt in by expressing their intention for membership. On Wednesday, one delegate requested re-inserting brackets around membership of “UN non-member observer states,” citing terminology concerns. In response, another Member State requested adding “people under occupation” alongside Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and groups in vulnerable situations in a list of potential observers. After lengthy discussions, the delegate withdrew his request to insert brackets around membership of “UN non-member observer states, noting “we don’t want to be having discussions that can lead to politicized sensibilities that can be handled through technical discussions.” The text on membership was then cleared, leaving brackets around the participation of regional economic integration organizations. In informal consultations, delegates agreed to delete reference to regional economic integration organizations.

Regarding participation of observers, delegates discussed who the observers are and what “non-governmental organization (NGO) observers” refer to. An informal group provided text stating that bodies, organizations, and agencies with observer status in any UN system entity, consultative status with UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), accreditation to UNEA, or any relevant MEA would be eligible for observer status in the Panel unless one-third of Member States object to their admission. Delegates agreed on this text.

Delegates also agreed to include a revised paragraph in the text specifying that NGOs with consultative status within the UN are entitled to participate as observers in the Plenary. One delegate suggested alternate text reflecting that the meetings of the Plenary are open to participation by observers, “including non-member states, international organizations, specialized agencies and related organizations and NGOs.” Delegates eventually agreed that the Panel’s Plenary will decide on the observer status of non-accredited observers, subject to non-objection from Member States. They also agreed that the Plenary is open to participation by regional economic integration organizations as observers. A lengthy debate took place over how to refer to Indigenous Peoples and local communities, with no agreement achieved on several proposals, including to delete the term “local communities” or express divergent views in a footnote.

On participation and membership of the IEC, a lengthy debate ensued regarding the inclusion of policy expertise as a desirable form of expertise and knowledge for IEC members. There was broad support for the suggestion that, since the Panel includes both “science” and “policy,” both are equally important with respect to expertise and knowledge in the IEC. Several others, however, stated that IEC members should focus on the scientific and technical aspects of the Panel’s work elements, rather than policy, which should be covered by the Plenary. Delegates agreed to include “socioeconomic” expertise as desirable for members in the IEC. They also agreed to specify that representatives of NGOs may participate as observers to the IEC, “without the right to vote or to join or to block consensus in IEC meetings” and with a bracketed inclusion that this will be “subject to the prior notification to and non-objection from the members of the Panel.”

Delegates further deliberated upon two alternative texts regarding the participation of observers in IEC meetings. One text specified that observers could attend at the chair’s invitation, in accordance with the Panel’s policy and procedures on the admission of observers, while the other did not require a specific invitation. A debate ensued, during which several delegations raised concerns about permitting all observers, citing both practical reasons and the risk of politicizing the independence of the science generated by the IEC. One delegate disagreed, stating that the admission of observers is common practice for the Stockholm Convention’s Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee. It was eventually decided that “the Plenary may further decide on procedures for which the IEC chair may invite members to the Panel and observers of the Panel to participate as observers, noting that the Plenary is to be informed.”

On whether bureau members, representatives of other relevant science-policy panels, international organizations, and relevant MEAs may be invited to participate as observers in IEC meetings, delegates agreed that the invitation would be made by the IEC chair, subject to the rules of procedure and that Plenary is to be informed.

On the Secretariat, there was general agreement that the Secretariat should be hosted in a single location. There was also some support for a broad suggestion to allow the Panel to secure Secretariat services at its first meeting. Some held firm that UNEP should provide services alone, noting delegates could not agree at OEWG 3.1 to provide a formal role for the WHO. Others wanted to leave the door open for collaboration with other organizations, not only the WHO. Suggestions to allocate administrative services to UNEP, or to task the Panel with assessing arrangements in the future, did not resolve the impasse. Views remained entrenched on whether the foundational document should state that Secretariat services are to be provided solely by UNEP, or to keep it open to proposals by Member States and/or to UNEP receiving support from other intergovernmental organizations, or even whether the decision can be taken at the first meeting of the Panel. Eventually delegates agreed on two paragraphs stating that the Panel at its first session will secure Secretariat services provided by UNEP, and the Secretariat will be hosted in a single location based on proposals by Member States. Remaining brackets on functions of the Secretariat related to proposing potential partnerships were also cleared.

On financial arrangements the group agreed that a trust fund “will be” established. Contact Group 2 Co-Facilitator Šebková then suggested deleting the rest of the section given that it is not essential to the establishment of the fund, but some parties called for keeping some elements, in particular on ensuring that contributions to the trust fund do not come with conditionalities, orient the work of the Panel, and/or are earmarked. On the latter, concerns were expressed that exceptions would be required for funds to be allocated for agreed activities, given donors’ internal budget allocations. Various language formulations to include exceptions to earmarking for specific elements of a work programme approved by the Plenary were attempted. Many drew attention to the IPBES experiences with contributions to its trust fund, but also noted the need to facilitate contributions. Eventually the group settled on language stating that contributions cannot be earmarked for specific activities, unless otherwise decided by the Plenary, and that the Panel will decide on the financial procedures, including details on the modalities related to earmarking, at its first session.

Several paragraphs related to the Bureau’s role in reviewing budgetary information and the Secretariat’s role were deleted, with delegates agreeing that these roles were already captured elsewhere in the foundational document.

On partnerships, delegates could not agree on the proposed text. They agreed therefore to remove “strategic” from the title and to text having the Plenary at its first session request the Secretariat to develop a proposal on establishing different types of partnerships. Some called for this to be an open and ongoing process. Contact Group 2 Co-Facilitator Šebková and others assured there is broad agreement on the importance of establishing partnerships, but a request to have this clearly stated in the foundational document was unable to find common ground. Delegates finally settled on having the Panel request the Secretariat, at its first session, to develop a proposal on establishing different types of partnerships to be considered by the Panel.

Draft decision to establish the Panel: Discussion on the draft decision focused mainly on preambular paragraphs moved from the operating principles, in particular those referring to: pollution prevention for the full enjoyment of human rights, human well-being and dignity for present and future generations; the prevention of all forms of existing and legacy pollution, including pollution released into the air, water, oceans, and soil; and the need to protect human health and the environment, with special attention to those vulnerable to pollution.

On reference to pollution prevention, one delegation called for bracketing the text, opposed by others, on the grounds that an earlier compromise was made by moving this text to the preamble of the decision from the operating principles and approaches of the Panel. Various text proposals attempted to find consensus on a paragraph addressing all forms of pollution. Sticking points included how to refer to prevention, legacy pollution, the range of pollution sources, and the release into different environmental compartments, such as air, water, and soil. However, no compromise was found on any of these, and the brackets were retained in the decision later adopted by the Intergovernmental Meeting.

On protecting human health and the environment, the phrase “with special attention to those that are vulnerable” was also contested, with one delegate calling to specify those who are vulnerable to pollution. Given lack of agreement, the paragraph remains bracketed.

On Thursday, in plenary, informal group Co-Facilitator Ruiz Botero reported on the outcome of discussions on pending issues. He highlighted agreement on a decision-making package, which included elements on membership and related rules of procedure, as well as on reformulated text on participation of observers. He added that one delegation had further introduced a package related to gender and explained that this was incorporated and accepted by delegates with the view to finalizing the foundational document. 

Co-Chair Chair Alkemade introduced the draft decision to establish the Panel (UNEP/SPP-CWP/OEWG.3/CRP.5) as presented by the informal group. The plenary then went through the decision text and the foundational document on a “no objection basis.”

On a paragraph of the operating principles on taking an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach that incorporates a broad range of relevant disciplines and sources, INDONESIA, opposed by COLOMBIA, CANADA, and the US, called for amending the text so it reads Indigenous “and local peoples’” knowledge. Chair Alkemade suggested to have Indonesia’s views reflected in the report of the meeting, noting that the paragraph in question had been thoroughly discussed, but was found unacceptable. After further consultations, URUGUAY, reporting on attempts to find a compromise, said common ground had been found by adding “and local knowledge” after Indigenous knowledge. The plenary agreed to this change.

Delegates agreed to forward the draft decision to establish the Panel to the Intergovernmental Meeting for adoption.

Draft decision on recommendations for consideration by the governing body of the Panel at its first session: On Monday, delegates discussed whether to “take note” or “welcome” the work of the OEWG, what this work consists of, and reference to the annexes. The group eventually settled for “take note” and simplified references, agreeing to the text.

On the draft rules of procedure, many participants voiced support for decision making based on consensus for matters of substance, procedure, and modifications to the rules of procedure (Rules 35, 36, and 49, respectively). Views diverged on whether to provide the opportunity to take decisions by vote if all efforts to achieve consensus have been exhausted. Some participants supported voting as a fallback option, with one noting that this could help to unlock situations and prevent the use of consensus procedures as a veto. Many delegates rejected the option of voting on matters of substance, with one noting that voting on science would undermine the Panel’s legitimacy. The rules remained bracketed. In informal consultations on Wednesday night and into Thursday morning, delegates agreed to take decisions on matters of substance by consensus, “unless otherwise provided for by the rules of procedure.”

On Thursday, in plenary, delegates agreed to forward the draft decision with its annexes, one of them comprising the draft rules of procedure, (UNEP/SPP-CWP/OEWG.3/CRP.6), to the Intergovernmental Meeting for adoption.

Recommendations to the UNEP Executive Director for the Preparation of the Intergovernmental Meeting to Establish the Science-Policy Panel

Draft decision on interim arrangements: Taking up the draft decision text, Contact Group 3 agreed to the first paragraph requesting UNEP to provide the Interim Secretariat supporting the operation of the Panel, but brackets were added to the preamble after a question was raised on the welcoming of proposals from the OEWG and on Secretariat arrangements.

An invitation to Member States to submit offers to host the Panel was debated at length, including the need for a deadline for submissions. Informal consultations were held but disagreement persisted, including whether to continue as an informal group or to present the issue in plenary. With no agreement, the invitation to submit offers to host the Panel was deleted from the draft decision.

Having agreed on the modalities for the UNEP Executive Director to convene the first session of the Panel, Parties expressed divergent views on government oversight through a bureau or another mechanism during the interim period. There was a wide recognition that bureau elections should be avoided at the Intergovernmental Meeting due to time constraints. Several preferred maintaining the current bureau during the interim period, noting that members can step down as per the UNEA rules of procedure. Other suggestions included an informal set of regional liaisons chosen by the regions or asking the UNEA Committee of Permanent Representatives to work with the UNEP Executive Director. Informal discussions eventually led to agreed language requesting the UNEP Executive Director, in consultation with Member States, to prepare relevant documentation for consideration by the Panel.

On Thursday, in plenary, delegates agreed to forward the draft decision (UNEP/SPP-CWP/OEWG.3/CRP.7) to the Intergovernmental Meeting for adoption, with Chair Alkemade noting that brackets remain on terminology relating to a comma and the word “and” between Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Adoption of the Report and Closing of the OEWG Session

On Thursday, Rapporteur Linda Kosgei (Kenya) introduced the draft reports of OEWG 3.1 (UNEP/SPP-CWP/OEWG.3/5) and OEWG 3.2 (UNEP/SPP-CWP/OEWG.3(II)/L.1 and Add.1). The plenary adopted the reports.

In closing statements, a regional group, Member States, and Major Groups shared their reflections on the outcomes of the session, welcoming the inclusion of capacity building in the Panel’s functions, highlighting Indigenous Peoples’ role for the Panel, and calling for the participation of observers, among others.

UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen thanked and commended all on the momentous agreement at a time “when the world decided to make the best available science on chemicals, waste and pollution accessible to the world.” She stressed the Panel’s critical role in the uptake of sound policies in this realm, adding that “multilateralism will deliver when there is good will.”

Chair Alkemade closed the session at 7:10 pm.

Intergovernmental Meeting Report

UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen opened the Intergovernmental Meeting on Friday morning, 20 June.

Election of Officers: Noting that consultations had resulted in general agreement to select Yutaka Matsuzawa, Vice-Minister for Global-Environmental Affairs, Ministry of the Environment, Japan, and Laura Dupuy, Permanent Representative of Uruguay to the UN, as Co-Chairs for the Meeting, UNEP Executive Director Andersen invited delegates to approve their election. There were no objections.

Co-Chair Dupuy expressed her gratitude and invited Alejandro Nario, National Director of Equality, Uruguay, to address the meeting.

Nario highlighted this is a historic moment in which a new pillar is established to transform waste, chemicals, and pollution governance. He underlined the institutional links between the Panel and the Global Framework on Chemicals, urged for dialogue between the institutions, and said “synergy is essential for maximum impact.” Pointing to the high value of the Panel for developing countries and the importance of capacity building, he said the Panel is a “strategic lever for justice.” Nario added that “leadership is not only measured by the size of the budget,” and called for opening a “new chapter of shared responsibility.”

Organizational Matters

Rules of procedure: Co-Chair Dupuy proposed that, in accordance with established practice, the UNEA rules of procedure would be applied mutatis mutandis to the work of the Intergovernmental Meeting. There were no objections.

Adoption of the agenda: Delegates approved the provisional agenda (UNEP/SPP-CWP/IM/1) and the annotated provisional agenda (UNEP/SPP-CWP/IM/1/Add.1).

Organization of work: Co-Chair Dupuy introduced the scenario note prepared by the Secretariat (UNEP/SPP-CWP/IM/INF/1), noting the Meeting would take place during two plenary sessions, and outlined procedures for the speaking order, including on the right to reply. Delegates agreed to the organization of work.

Credentials of Representatives: Co-Chair Dupuy introduced this agenda item. The Meeting adopted the credentials as presented.

Opening Statements

Co-Chair Dupuy said the establishment of the Panel represents a milestone for multilateralism and an opportunity to enable cooperation and ensure that science plays an independent guiding role. For the Intergovernmental Meeting, she called for a constructive dialogue focused on convergence and appealed to delegates to refrain from opening text that has been thoroughly discussed, and work in a constructive manner.

Co-Chair Matsuzawa thanked everyone for the “tremendous efforts” to establish the Panel. He stressed the importance of multilateralism and science, highlighting the moment as an occasion for the world to see that “multilateralism works.” 

Noting that every year without the Panel is another year countries do not have access to the science as challenges continue to spiral, UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen encouraged all to “not let the moment slip by.” She recalled that it is not unprecedented for bracketed text to be adopted and that the Panel does not set prescriptive policy, but as with the IPCC and IPBES, each country can set its own path. She called for the Intergovernmental Meeting to deliver on its mandate, adding “this is a moment when you can prioritize the world’s needs” and “make history.”

Nigeria, for the AFRICAN GROUP, emphasized the need for evidence-based strategies and, recalling IPCC and IPBES, said this Panel will ensure the problem receives global attention. She acknowledged the UNEP’s leadership and welcomed capacity building at the center of the work plan, adding “may this meeting mark a significant start for people to live in an environment that is not harmful to their health.” 

The EU, also for UKRAINE, MONTENEGRO, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, and SERBIA, noted the new Panel will fill a gap in multilateral science-policy bodies addressing the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.

Pakistan, on behalf of the ASIA PACIFIC GROUP, stressed that the new Science-Policy Panel is “one of the most historic components of UNEP” and recognized the long journey since UNEA Resolution 5/8.

UKRAINE stressed that despite numerous challenges and difficult compromises, “we laid the foundation for the establishment of the Panel,” noting the particular relevance of the Panel in responding to the environmental consequences of long-lasting damage from “the full scale military aggression of the Russian Federation” and the war-related waste, pollution, environmental degradation, and debris it generates.

Ukraine’s statement was interrupted by a point of order by the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, who requested the suspension of Ukraine’s intervention as not being within the “scope of our debate.”

Upon the resumption of Ukraine’s intervention, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION once again raised a point of order, calling for a vote on the Co-Chair’s ruling to resume Ukraine’s intervention. This prompted Co-Chair Dupuy to state that we must “stop politicizing the meeting and focus on our matters.”

The RUSSIAN FEDERATION welcomed agreement on consensus-based decision making and balanced geographical representation to ensure equal participation of all Member States to ensure the legitimacy of the Panel’s work. He also welcomed compromise on financial issues and supporting the host of the Secretariat for the Panel at UNEP as a center of competence in the field of international environmental policy.

UKRAINE raised a point of order to complete its statement, to which Co-Chair Dupuy noted that additional time would be allotted after other statements concluded.

NORWAY emphasized that reports from the other science-policy panels have given his country’s policy makers knowledge to support concrete action, for instance, in supporting pollinators. He said the Panel will “enable us to share existing knowledge, exchange experiences and best practices, and bridge the gap between knowledge and policy on chemicals, waste, and pollution.”

FRANCE underscored that over nine million individuals die prematurely due to exposure to various forms of pollution and lauded the opportunity to develop the Science-Policy Panel to identify emerging hazardous substances and draw a link with other environmental crises.

Highlighting that pollution is one of the greatest environmental risks, EGYPT said capacity building should be given priority as a core function of the Panel. She voiced support for finalizing the outstanding matters, including reaching consensus on financial arrangements, and welcomed the establishment of a transparent and impartial Panel.

SOUTH AFRICA echoed support for focusing on capacity building as the Panel’s main function and called for finalizing work, including on the CoI policy to avoid harmful influence on the Panel’s work. She suggested that all key elements from UNEA Resolution 5/8 be included in the Panel’s name.

YEMEN called for the provision of technology and data for developing countries to deal with threats to human health and the environment.

Pointing to the Panel’s transformative role for global environmental governance and noting the impacts of chemicals are threatening “not only the environment but also our economies and our dignity of life,” GHANA called for bridging the gap between science and policy making.

IRAQ called for an independent, neutral, and transparent Panel that should not be politicized, noting her country’s readiness to contribute to the work of the Panel to reach its objectives.

KENYA noted that pollution is intrinsically linked to climate change and biodiversity loss and shared her expectation that the Panel will contribute to a holistic body of knowledge. She called for finalizing outstanding issues at the first session of the Plenary, voicing preference for locating the Secretariat at UNEP headquarters in Nairobi.

IRAN highlighted the importance of capacity building, noting financial support is needed to assess the risks of chemicals and wastes and pointing to limitations for some States.

Co-Chair Dupuy briefly paused the meeting to allow for informal discussions with the delegations from the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

Following a suggestion from Co-Chair Dupuy, the Meeting suspended opening statements and moved to agenda items on credentials of representatives.

In the afternoon, Co-Chair Dupuy invited Ukraine to deliver the remaining part of their statement. UKRAINE said that the establishment of the Panel is a milestone, “but only the beginning,” calling for focusing on finalization of its structure. He added that “unfortunately, we have to request the unfair treatment and limitations faced while delivering our national statement” to be recorded in the meeting report. Exercising their right of reply, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION and UKRAINE exchanged views, with the RUSSIAN FEDERATION opining that Ukraine’s declaration is “unacceptable and politicizing the discussions.” UKRAINE responded that different “opinions of the truth” exist.

Farmers, on behalf of all MAJOR GROUPS present, expressed their optimism about the Panel’s ability to advance the protection of human and environmental health. They highlighted the importance of inclusivity, transparency, and robust outcomes, expressing their readiness to meaningfully participate in the Panel.

The WHO called for the inclusion of health matters in the Panel’s work, saying they “stand ready to further discuss how WHO can support the Panel.”

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights highlighted the importance of independent and robust science and stressed maintaining text defining the “protection of human health and the environment” as a “guiding star” for the Panel. She voiced concern over the lack of reference to human rights standards, such as gender equality, and underscored their commitment to continue strengthening a human-rights approach in the work of the Panel.

Noting that the Secretariat has been supporting the OEWG since its inception through technical support, the BASEL, ROTTERDAM, and STOCKHOLM (BRS) CONVENTIONS SECRETARIAT welcomed the new Panel to the chemicals and waste “family,” stressing that it can build a bridge across disciplines and serve as a catalyst for greater coordination among MEAs.

CHILDREN AND YOUTH MAJOR GROUP underscored that the impact of pollution and exposure to hazardous chemicals and waste disproportionately affects people in vulnerable situations, including children, youth, the elderly, migrants, workers, disabled people, and those in conflict zones and in humanitarian crises. She called for the establishment of a youth expert advisory group as integral to the new Panel to support inclusive engagement that builds impactful results responsive to the realities and needs of all generations.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES emphasized that they face many barriers to participate in multilateral agreements and are forced to fight for their unique rights to self-determination as enshrined in international law, which “takes time and resources away from other important messages we bring from our communities and Nations.” She called on delegates to support a formal request for an Indigenous Peoples Advisory Committee to mainstream Indigenous rights in the Panel, protections for Indigenous knowledge systems, and the participation of Indigenous Peoples who are the experts of their own science and knowledge.

The WOMEN’S MAJOR GROUP underlined that “gender is not symbolic” and expressed hope that the new Panel will be gender responsive in its structure, participation, knowledge generation, and outputs.

Establishment of a Science-Policy Panel to Contribute Further to the Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste and to Prevent Pollution

OEWG Chair Gudi Alkemade introduced the documents for consideration, namely three draft decisions on: establishing the Panel, recommendations to the Panel at its first session, and arrangements for the interim period. She highlighted outstanding brackets, including the name of the Panel, preambular paragraphs, and a comma and an “and” between reference to “Indigenous Peoples” and “local communities,” adding that the three draft decisions represent a “carefully negotiated package” and “commitment to multilateralism.”

Participants were invited to adopt the draft decisions one by one.

Draft decision to establish the Panel: On the name of the Panel, Co-Chair Matsuzawa referred to informal consultations where the name Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP) was found to contain all the important elements. Delegates adopted the name of the Panel and the draft decision.

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/SPP-CWP/IM/2), the Intergovernmental Meeting, inter alia:

• decides to establish the ISP-CWP, as specified in the foundational document set out in the annex to the decision;
• confirms that the ISP-CWP is an independent governmental body with a programme of work approved by its Plenary to deliver policy-relevant scientific evidence without being policy prescriptive; and
• requests the Executive Director to report on the outcomes of the Intergovernmental Meeting convened for the purpose of considering the establishment of the Science-Policy Panel to the UN Environment Assembly, relevant multilateral agreements, other international instruments and intergovernmental bodies.

The annex to the decision contains four sections. The title of the first section, “Scope, objective and functions of the Panel,” is in brackets, as is text related to the objective of the Panel: “to strengthen the science-policy interface to contribute to the sound management of chemicals and waste and pollution prevention [for the protection of human health and the environment], [ without being policy prescriptive]. This section outlines five functions of the Panel, including:

• “horizon scanning” to identify relevant issues and propose evidence-based options for addressing them;
• conducting assessments of current issues, in particular those of relevance to developing countries, and identifying potential evidence-based options to address them;
• providing up-to-date and relevant information, identifying gaps in the scientific literature, supporting communication between scientists and policymakers, explaining and disseminating findings for different audiences, and raising public awareness;
• facilitating information-sharing with countries; and
• integrating capacity building into all functions and the work of the Panel to strengthen the science-policy interface.

The second section, “Operating principles and approaches of the Panel,” includes bracketed text referring to “gender” or “men and women.” The section specifies that the Panel will be guided by principles and approaches including:

• being scientifically independent and ensuring credibility and legitimacy, including through peer review of its work;
• upholding consensus in decision making;
• respecting the independence of science while ensuring differing scientific views are adequately reflected;
• ensuring impartiality and transparency;
• taking an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach and taking into account relevant forms of knowledge including Indigenous Knowledge and local knowledge;
• recognizing the technical knowledge and experience of workers involved in the management of chemicals and waste;
• having geographical, regional, [and gender balance] [as well as balance between men and women] and promoting inclusivity of participation, and considering linguistic diversity, in all
  relevant aspects of its work;
• integrating [gender equality and equity][equality between men and women] in all relevant aspects of its work;
• producing deliverables that are policy relevant without being policy prescriptive;
• avoiding overlap and duplication of work;
• having the flexibility to respond to members’ needs, in particular the needs of developing countries and integrating capacity-building into all aspects of its work.

The third section outlines the institutional arrangements for the Panel, including:

• establishment of the Plenary, which is the governing and decision-making body of the Panel, open to Member States of the UN, non-member observer states that have expressed their intent to be a member of the Panel, and the participation of observers; and its functions;
• establishment of the Bureau, its membership and functions;
• establishment of an interdisciplinary expert committee comprised of representatives of the five UN regional groups, and its functions;
• establishment of a Secretariat and its functions, noting that the panel at its first Plenary session will secure secretariat services provided by UNEP and the Secretariat would be hosted in a single location based on proposals by Member States;
• financial arrangements, including a Trust Fund to be established by the Plenary; and
• at its first session, the Plenary will request the Secretariat to develop a proposal to establish partnerships.

The fourth section specifies that the efficiency and effectiveness of the Panel will be independently and externally reviewed and evaluated on a periodic basis, based on the Terms of Reference as decided by the Plenary.

Draft decision on recommendations for consideration of the Panel at its first session: Delegates adopted the decision as presented.

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/SPP-CWP/IM/3), the Intergovernmental Meeting, inter alia, recommends to the Plenary the draft rules of procedure in Annex I to the decision for consideration and possible adoption at its first session. The decision also transmits three bracketed annexes to the Plenary for further consideration at its first session: the draft process for determining the work programme (Annex II), the draft procedures for the preparation and clearance of panel deliverables (Annex III), and the draft CoI policy (Annex IV).

Draft decision on arrangements for the interim period: The meeting adopted the decision as presented.

Final Decision: In its decision (UNEP/SPP-CWP/IM/4), the Intergovernmental Meeting, inter alia:

• requests the UNEP Executive Director to provide the Interim Secretariat supporting the operation of the ISP-CWP;
• invites governments and others in a position to do so to provide voluntary financial contributions to UNEP to support the interim arrangements, and requests UNEP to continue receiving financial contributions that are provided for the operation of the Panel until a trust fund for the Panel is established;
• requests the UNEP Executive Director, subject to the availability of resources, to convene the first session of the Plenary at the earliest practicable date, and preferably no later than one year from the date of the establishment of the Panel, at a date and venue to be determined by the Executive Director, in consultation with Member States;
• requests the UNEP Executive Director, in consultation with Member States, to prepare relevant documentation for consideration at the first session of the Plenary; and
• requests the UNEP Executive Director to report on the progress made in preparing for the first session of the Plenary.

Statements: The UK noted it is widely recognized that pollution is one of the three urgent and interconnected planetary crises, yet it has not had an overarching science-policy panel to deliver scientific advice for policy making. She said that “today, we changed that” and stressed that the ISP-CWP will be a powerful driver of global action.

The US restated its national position on the use of the word “gender” and requested this be reflected in the meeting report, specifying that “women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.”

SOUTH AFRICA stressed stakeholder participation in the IEC as key to ensuring the integrity and legitimacy of its outputs, highlighting citizen science and broader sources of knowledge.

Emphasizing the importance of transparency and inclusivity, Nigeria, for the AFRICAN GROUP, urged moving ahead and called for convening the ISP-CWP within one year. She underscored, inter alia: the need to mobilize finance for the Trust Fund while avoiding earmarking unless approved by the Panel; capacity building among the functions of the ISP-CWP; and the location of the Secretariat in Nairobi with UNEP as the host.

The EU noted its acceptance of the temporary solution providing for an enhanced observer status for the EU, adding it intends to be fully engaged and expressing trust that a permanent solution on membership will be found. In so doing, the EU stressed the difference between the Panel and legally binding MEAs. 

CHINA underscored the importance of building a bridge uniting science and the development of policies and expressed its commitment to participate in intersessional work, continuing discussion on pending issues. She called for “joining hands” in enhancing cooperation and understanding “for our shared goal.”

Drawing attention to the forthcoming Climate Change Conference in Belém, BRAZIL expressed hope that the spirit of cooperation will continue to guide and advance multilateralism, “the most powerful weapon for shaping our shared future.” She welcomed consensus in decision-making processes especially at times of fragmentation and mistrust, adding that multilateralism is “the expression of democracy at the international level.”

GERMANY commended all on the historic step for global environment and health protection, saying it sends a clear message of solidarity and mutual trust in solving global problems at a time when multilateralism is under pressure, and for strengthening science when facts are questioned.

INDONESIA highlighted the Panel’s establishment as a “critical step towards a sustainable and pollution-free future” and said recognition of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including their rights and contributions, is central to the Panel’s work, calling for their empowerment and engagement in decision-making processes to ensure culturally sensitive outcomes. She requested her statement be recorded in the meeting report.

The RUSSIAN FEDERATION highlighted the centrality of consensus for decision-making procedures and noted that Annexes II, III and IV of the decision on recommendations for the Panel remain in brackets. He requested his statement be recorded in the meeting report.

Highlighting that collective action must be grounded in a shared scientific understanding, REPUBLIC OF KOREA said the ISP-CWP will be a crucial platform for the development of inclusive environmental policies.

JAPAN congratulated all on the establishment of the Panel, noting this moment represents “only the starting point for translating science into policy” and outlining how national policies can advance the Panel’s work.

Noting that Geneva is the base of a “vibrant ecosystem” of multilateral instruments addressing chemicals, waste and pollution, including the BRS Conventions, Minamata Convention, UN Global Framework on Chemicals, and the World Health Organization, among others, SWITZERLAND stated they would like to host the first session of the new Panel. Emphasizing that the ISP-CWP is a major milestone for building a scientific foundation for informed decision making, he noted his country’s commitment towards financially supporting and hosting the Interim Secretariat of the new Panel.

COLOMBIA stressed the crucial importance of the ISP-CWP for Indigenous Peoples, who are frequently exposed to the devastating impacts of industrial pollution. Highlighting numerous decisions of various multilateral instruments that separate Indigenous People from local communities, he underscored that when Indigenous Peoples are grouped together with local communities, it affects the specificity of their identity and undermines their rights.

AUSTRIA expressed hope that the ISP-CWP will embrace a broad understanding of science, including social and political sciences, “which taught us that liberal democracies don’t just obey the survival of the fittest, but replace the law of power with the power of law.” Adding that people have the choice to what extent they accept their sexual identity, he stressed that while “others may flood the zone with whatever they wish, this Panel will flood the zone with sound science.”

BELGIUM stated that the new Panel will complement lessons from the IPCC and IPBES by identifying risks early and forwarding policy guidance around the world.

BAHRAIN expressed hope that the Panel enhances capacity building for decision makers at the local and international levels.

CHILE stated that with the new Panel, “we are making a forthright step forward where the health of our planet and the people that live on it will be our main priority.”

CANADA commended the establishment of the Panel as a major milestone for the international community and underscored the importance of different knowledge pathways. She welcomed the gender dimension and inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in the decision.

COOK ISLANDS drew attention to small island developing states’ (SIDS) fragile ecosystems, high exposure to imported chemicals, waste, and pollution, and limited capacity to manage it. Adding that the Panel is a vital platform for global accountability, he stressed the need for: inclusiveness and fair representation, especially of those most vulnerable; inclusion of diverse Indigenous Peoples and local knowledge systems alongside science; and the need to deliver real help for those most affected.

Noting its participation as a member of the Bureau supporting the OEWG process, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA spoke about the sometimes frustrating but ultimately rewarding experience and highlighted the Panel’s role in developing science globally, especially in developing countries and SIDS.

SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS drew attention to SIDS sitting at the frontline of the triple planetary crisis, noting that while it is an entangled crisis, “pollution is the common thread.” He called for urgency and resolve and stressed the need for an action-oriented, equitable Panel delivering science that compels policy and hope.

On membership of the Panel, Co-Chair Matsuzawa noted that all UN Member States and non-member observer states that express their intent will be members of the Panel. He outlined the procedure for becoming a member for all states not registered for the Intergovernmental Meeting and announced that all Member States registered to the Intergovernmental Meeting will be the founding members of the Panel, if no objection is registered by 8 December 2025. He said this procedure will be recorded in the meeting report.

Closure of the Meeting

Adoption of the Report: Co-Chair Dupuy introduced the draft report of the meeting (UNEP/SPP-CWP/IM/L.1), which was adopted.

Recalling the core values of protection of the most vulnerable, including Indigenous Peoples, Antigua and Barbuda, on behalf of the LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN GROUP, reiterated the group’s strong commitment to science-based solutions and international cooperation, grounded in a shared sense of purpose and with tangible benefits for all.

URUGUAY thanked Switzerland for their support in hosting this session and the meeting of the Global Framework on Chemicals.

UNEP Executive Director Andersen congratulated all on completing the trifecta of science-policy panels in the UN system, noting that “global problems require global solutions.” She said UNEP is honored to serve as Secretariat, a request “it does not take lightly or for granted,” and looked forward to operationalizing the Panel in an inclusive and transparent manner.

Co-Chairs Dupuy and Matsuzawa thanked Member States, co-facilitators, Secretariat staff, technicians, interpreters, report writers, editors, and others for their hard work. Co-Chair Matsuzawa thanked the people of Uruguay “for their unforgettable hospitality.”

After another round of applause for the historical moment, Co-Chair Dupuy closed the meeting at 5:00 pm.

A Brief Analysis of the Meetings

“It was a spring without voices.”

Rachel Carson’s powerful wake-up call still echoes in people’s minds. Not only are the adverse effects of chemical and waste pollution still a cause for concern, but today, the problem has ballooned in magnitude and complexity. Each year thousands of new chemicals are released into the environment, with new waste streams resulting from rapid development. While chemicals play a vital role in modern society, exposure to many of these substances poses serious and growing risks for human health and the environment.

While multilateral efforts through specialized treaties such as the Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm (BRS), and Minamata Conventions have yielded significant successes in managing the risks posed by many chemicals, a significant gap remains. Specifically, stakeholders have been calling for a scientific body that could take a broader perspective, including by undertaking “horizon scanning” to identify emerging issues and inform action in the early stages of a problem involving chemicals and waste pollution. This body would raise awareness about emerging issues of concern and provide scientific information to support policy responses, especially for those countries lacking institutional capacity to collect or analyze such data. In response to growing calls for establishment of a science-policy body for chemicals, in 2022 the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) tasked an Ad-hoc Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) to develop proposals.

After several years of work, delegates brought this vision to life in Punta del Este, Uruguay, with the establishment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP). UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen captured its monumental significance, emphasizing “The world wanted this Panel, the world needed this Panel, and now the world has this Panel.”

There is hope that, in the springs ahead, this new Panel will amplify the role of science to inform policymaking. The ISP-CWP is expected to identify issues and key gaps in scientific research, explain and disseminate findings for broad audiences, strengthen capacity building, and conduct assessments of current issues and identify potential evidence-based options to address those concerns, particularly for developing countries.

Despite the widespread support for this Panel, delegates were unable to reach consensus on a few key issues, leaving areas in the foundational document in brackets. This analysis looks at where delegates were able to overcome divergent views, where the Panel’s foundations remain on shaky ground, and what lies ahead to operationalize the Panel.

The Voice of Governments

At the outset of the OEWG, UNEP Executive Director Andersen reminded participants that the task ahead is to establish a science-policy panel, not to negotiate a multilateral environmental agreement (MEA). The purpose of the panel is to give scientists a voice to communicate, in a policy-relevant and non-prescriptive manner, the best prevailing evidence on chemicals, waste and pollution to policymakers. For governments, there would be no legal obligations. Instead, the Panel will provide information that may be used to raise awareness about particular risks and guide domestic policy responses.

As with its sister organizations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the ISP-SWP will be an intergovernmental body, where governments take decisions on the Panel’s work. This includes making decisions on the Panel’s work programme, electing members to its Bureau and subsidiary bodies, and endorsing the Panel’s official outputs, such as assessment reports. While delegates agreed that taking decisions by consensus is essential for the Panel’s legitimacy, views diverged on whether voting on matters of substance should be allowed as a last resort. Proponents of voting highlighted that in the case of protracted stalemate, this method of decision making could ensure the Panel is able to continue its work. Others underscored the importance of speaking with one voice and rejected the idea of voting on scientific matters. Some delegates expressed their preference for dealing with decision-making modalities in the rules of procedure rather than enshrining consensus decision-making as an operating principle of the Panel. They also wondered how the principle to “ensure” consensus would work in practice. As the decision to uphold consensus was agreed on at the end of the week, the implications of removing voting procedures may come back to haunt delegates in getting the Panel’s work approved without delay in the years ahead.

A bigger question that cropped up throughout the week was the Panel’s objectives and scope, which still remain bracketed even though the Panel was formally established. One delegate wondered if “the spirit of UNEA is still with us,” referring specifically to contention around the Panel’s purpose to protect human health and the environment. Some questioned if not for these purposes, what other purpose would the Panel be for. Widening the scope to health issues has major implications for the relevance of the Panel’s work. It would expand the reach of policy actors from the health sector into environmental issues, it would put additional pressure on the petrochemical industry to account for the consequences of their activities, and it touches on personal concerns to be healthy. As one delegate put it “everyone wants to live in an environment where you’re not being poisoned.”

The Voice of Scientists and Stakeholders

In the newly established ISP-CWP, the Interdisciplinary Expert Committee (IEC) will be the centerpiece for the scientific work of the Panel. It will be involved in defining the scope of the Panel’s deliverables and selecting experts for their preparation. Members of the IEC will be nominated by the five UN regions to ensure equitable geographic representation.

Building bridges, but also drawing lines between science, policy and non-governmental actors in this crucial subsidiary body of the Panel resulted in protracted discussion throughout the week. A topic of contestation was how to set up the body to avoid what was termed the “politicization of science.” Some delegations argued that the independence of scientists in the IEC should be shielded from the influence of vested influence and therefore meetings of the IEC should not be open to non-governmental participation.

Others highlighted that lack of institutional capacity in developing countries would be greatly assisted by non-governmental participation. Excluding these actors would also be to the detriment of inclusivity and transparency of the process. Yet, the means of avoiding politicization of the IEC’s work was construed differently by Member States. A suggestion to allow all members of the Panel to attend IEC meetings as observers was opposed as the addition of government representatives in the IEC would, perhaps ironically, increase the politicization of this primarily scientific body.

Furthermore, inviting the chairs of sister organizations like the IPCC and IPBES or relevant MEAs to the new Panel’s IEC was debated at length. Some argued their presence would compromise the independence of the IEC and politicize its work. Others pointed at the risk of missing out on creating crucial synergies with these relevant bodies, and thus compromise the relevance of the ISP-CWP.

Similar differences surfaced when divergent views were expressed as to whether IEC members should be selected for their policy expertise. Some called for prioritizing a strong focus on the scientific and technical track record of candidates for the IEC. Ultimately, delegates agreed to also select candidates for their socioeconomic expertise. As with IPCC and IPBES reports, solutions-oriented knowledge will be key.

In addition to addressing the core questions needed to set the new Panel in motion, delegates were at odds towards the end of the week around other sensitive issues, such as the use of terminology around gender inclusion or responsiveness, and the addition or removal of a comma between “Indigenous Peoples” and “local communities.” These discussions reflected larger debates that are playing out across the multilateral system in which vulnerable and marginalized stakeholders are fighting even harder for their voices to be heard.

Operationalizing the New Panel

The Panel is not a treaty or convention, but must be complementary to existing MEAs and assist in their coordination. Yet, delegates were at odds throughout the week on the meaning of “strategic” partnerships with other international instruments and bodies that focus on chemicals, waste, and pollution. Some wanted the Panel to stand on its own without interference from other organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO). Others held firm that the raison d’être of the Panel revolves around partnerships as a strategy to enhance uptake of the Panel’s findings.

In the end, delegates agreed to keep the matter open for the time being and let the Panel determine the nature of these partnerships at its first session. The question of partnerships for the Panel is particularly salient given that unlike the IPCC, which has a clear link to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), or IPBES, which serves a cluster of biodiversity-related MEAs, the ISP-CWP will exist in a fragmented and diverse governance context for chemicals, waste and pollution. This comprises a diversity of specialized MEAs, the multi-stakeholder Global Framework on Chemicals, and a wide range of international organizations, including the health sector. Finding its position in this complex ecosystem will be key to the ISP-CWP’s success.

The decision on where the Secretariat would be based also led to lengthy debates, reminiscent of the previous session of the OEWG, and centered largely around whether the new Panel should be based in Geneva, Switzerland, together with related MEAs, the WHO, and the Global Framework on Chemicals, among others, or at UNEP Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. There were also discussions regarding the earmarking of funds to finance the Panel, in which some developing countries were resolute against dedicating funds to issues of importance determined largely by wealthier nations. Ultimately, delegates had to navigate between introducing potential donor bias in earmarked funds and ensuring sufficient funding is available for the Panel to carry out its work. For now, delegates only agreed that the Secretariat will be located in a single location and that UNEP would serve this role in the interim period.

Looking Ahead

Now that the Panel is established and the foundational document accepted, important steps to set the Panel in motion remain. Key among the various issues that still need to be resolved are the rules of procedure, the process for determining the work programme and its deliverables, and the conflict of interest policy. Decisions on these issues will greatly impact the credibility, relevance, and legitimacy of the Panel. Member States are expected to take up these issues at the Panel’s inaugural session, which many requested to take place within one year.

While the areas of contention in the Panel’s foundational document were frustrating to many delegates, it is not unusual for multilateral negotiations to leave some issues unresolved, with the expectation that they can be ironed out over time. Ultimately, delegates expressed satisfaction as they crossed the finish line, reaching agreement to establish a new body with the potential to make a significant contribution to global efforts¾at all levels¾to protect human health and the environment from dangerous chemicals, waste, and pollution.

In May 2009, during the Second Session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management in Geneva, UNEP Champion of the Earth and former President of the Preparatory Committee for the eventual development of a Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) Viveka Bohn made a plea to invite UNEP and the WHO to establish an international chemicals panel similar to the IPCC. Sixteen years later, her dream became a reality. The ISP-CWP will fill a crucial gap and strengthen science-policy collaboration to tackle the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.