The third and final scheduled session of the ad hoc Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG-3) on the Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution Prevention is taking place in in Geneva, Switzerland on June 17–21, 2024. IPCP Board Members are in attendance and are providing their daily summaries. Policy briefs and other documents prepared by the IPCP as inputs to the process are available on the IPCP publications page.
The first event of the second day of the OEWG-3 marathon was the regularly scheduled Major Groups meeting, which today was chaired by IPCP members Angeliki Balayannis and Martin Scheringer. Main topics were reports back from yesterday’s contact groups and work on a written submission on Conflict of Interest (COI) supported by several Major Groups and coordinated by Melissa Wang (also an IPCP member). The Major Groups meetings are an important forum for all civil society groups to prepare and coordinate their inputs, exchange ideas, and join forces. Given the reluctance of some governments to open the SPP process to non-governmental organizations, this is a very valuable activity. Civil society groups have much to offer to the SPP negotiations, and they also represent many of the directly affected communities. However, some governments strongly argue against substantial participation of civil society groups in the SPP’s work. Amongst the Major Groups represented were Science & Technology (where IPCP sits), Business and Industry, NGOs, Women, Children and Youth, Indigenous Peoples, and Local Authorities.
Today no plenary was scheduled, but the work in the various contact groups was resumed where it had ended on Monday, with many changes made by government delegates. In the morning, Contact Groups 2 on the Work Programme and 3 on Rules of Procedure met. As on Monday, progress was slow and deep divisions between countries became visible. Contact Group 1 met on Institutional Arrangements and Contact Group 3 on Conflict of Interest. The evening meetings, which lasted until 22:00, were Contact Group 1 on Capacity Building and then Operating Principles, and Contact Group 2 on the Work Programme and Deliverables.
In Contact Group 1, a breakthrough on capacity building was reached between the EU, the African Region and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC). The compromise survived the discussion in the CG1, and infused momentum in the ensuing discussion on further Operating Principles of the panel. This is a “big deal” since there had been a “north-south” division regarding the capacity building function of the SPP.
Much discussion was had on which bodies could submit proposals for topics addressed by the SPP and what would be required for a proposal for an SPP assessment topic that would then undergo prioritization. Of concern were interventions proposing to limit proposal submissions to governments, excluding, for example, United Nations bodies and Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) such as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. This limitation would be unfortunate. Our earlier analyses of why an SPP is needed (Wang et al. 2021, Science – free access provided here) pointed out that MEAs do not conduct “future-oriented” assessments or assessments of topics that fall outside their specific mandates. Therefore, a formal connection between these MEAs and the SPP would be needed.
Another issue that arose was the intention by some delegates to separate “science and technical” considerations from “policy” considerations in the review of proposals for SPP assessments and their prioritization. One member country, which had proposed an additional Policy Committee to review proposals for policy relevance, has now proposed an “Extended Bureau” to judge the policy relevance of proposals. Our view is that this artificial separation of science, technical aspects, and policy would restrict the ability of the SPP to provide “policy-relevant”, solution-oriented assessments that could be used by governments to craft policy responses. It will also add another layer of bureaucracy that could slow the process and allow for more political influence on the selection and prioritization of topics for SPP assessments.
The move to require more information that would have to accompany proposals for SPP assessments would restrict the potential of low-income countries to submit proposals since most data and information regarding environmental issues resides in high-income countries. Overall, a disturbing level of disagreement between different countries became obvious during day 2 of the OEWG-3 meeting.
IISD coverage:
https://enb.iisd.org/oewg3-science-policy-panel-contribute-sound-management-chemicals-waste-prevent-pollution