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.
Today was a more dynamic and even somewhat dramatic day of OEWG-3. In the Major Groups meeting from 8:30 to 9:30, various participants reported extensively from yesterday’s contact groups. This exchange of impressions is always helpful because so many things happen in the contact groups that it is challenging for everyone to form a coherent picture. Important topics were, again, stakeholder involvement, the conflict-of-interest policy for the SPP, and the plan for a secretariat hosted jointly by UNEP and WHO. We left the meeting with a plan to intervene on these major issues, a plan that was soon to change.
At 10:30, delegates resumed their work in the Contact Groups 1 and 2. Contact Group 1 was split in two groups of delegates; one group had to work in a small room in the basement with an insufficient number of chairs; some observers had to sit on the floor (NB: all rooms are without windows). This group was chaired by Miguel Ruiz (Colombia), an experienced diplomat who, with great negotiation skills, moved the group towards agreement on some of the SPP’s text on “Institutional Arrangements”. The small room forced delegates to face each other when speaking and in doing so, to make concessions and work in a more collegial manner towards a common goal. The subgroup negotiated the set-up of the Bureau of the SPP, the SPP’s Interdisciplinary Expert Committee (IEC), which will vet and prioritize submissions, and the SPP’s secretariat. Most discussions were very detailed by going back and forth many times on the same text — progress was slow. One aspect of debate was the kind of competencies and background required for the members of the SPP Bureau, with some delegates insisting that Bureau members should have a scientific background, whereas others said that no scientific experience was needed since the Bureau has a purely administrative function. This discussion took at least 30–40 minutes. In a next step, one country proposed that Bureau members should provide policy advice to the IEC. This was immediately and sharply countered by another country who pointed out that it would be most inconsistent if, on the one hand, the Bureau will have a mostly administrative function and, on the other hand, should provide policy advice in a way that would give it a strong influence on all of the SPP’s work. That would result in bypassing the actual scientific assessments. Martin Scheringer, IPCP chair, and another civil society representative also made interventions and spoke against this proposal. Martin Scheringer’s intervention was quoted in today’s IISD report,
For a scientist: “it’s completely inappropriate for an administrative bureau to have a say in scientific priorities and deciding what topics scientists would pursue in the panel.”
https://enb.iisd.org/oewg3-science-policy-panel-contribute-sound-management-chemicals-waste-prevent-pollution-daily-report-20jun2024
Another important and sensitive issue in this subgroup of CG1 was whether or not, and if yes, in what role, stakeholders may contribute to the work of the IEC. It became obvious that some governments would severely limit this participation. Miriam Diamond, IPCP Vice-Chair, intervened to recommend inclusion of stakeholders who bring a wide range of expertise including those beyond the confines of “Western science”, which was supported by some members, especially those from the Global South.
At 17:00 h, a plenary was opened by Chair Alkemade, first with reports from the contact groups and then with a report from the African Group, who had prepared a “Conference Room Paper” dealing with suggestions for the name of the panel. They proposed the name, “Intergovernmental Panel on Chemicals and Waste and to Prevent Pollution” (IPCWP). They also mentioned that the – preferable – abbreviation “IPCP” was not available because it was already taken by the International Panel on Chemical Pollution. Several other countries then made other suggestions, for example Intergovernmental Panel on Chemicals or Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Pollution. IPCP Chair Martin Scheringer then made an intervention in which he explained the history of the IPCP: 15 years ago IPCP members proposed an Intergovernmental Panel on Chemical Pollution, but did not find any support for this and instead, formed the IPCP as an association of academic scientists. He acknowledged that the name may be a source of confusion and then expressed his support of the proposal by the African Group. The question of the name was not decided as the session closed.
As a last item of the plenary, Chair Alkemade presented the plan for the SPP Secretariat to be hosted jointly by UNEP and WHO. The introduction of the proposal was awkward and led to sharp disputes among delegates. This led, finally, to the rejection of the proposal by several countries, including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others. Chair Alkemade then withdrew the proposal. This dissatisfying outcome and the lack of appropriate preparation of such an important topic was surprising and a source of frustration among delegates.
After the plenary, Contact Groups 1 and 2 resumed their hard work on the many remaining open parts of the various documents, but still at a frustratingly low pace; they finished the work for today at 22:30 h. There were major disagreements visible on the specifics in the Operating Principles, and whether the inclusion of “precautionary principle”, “independent science” or exclusion of “report by consensus” were appropriate or needed. It was clear that stakeholders should be restrained in making any interventions, and rather let the delegates finish their wrangling. Overall, it was a day with dramatic events under an atmosphere of frustration and doubt about the overall outcome of the SPP. Tomorrow will be the day that will force delegates to reach the finish line. A decision must be made by Friday – the outcome of the SPP remains in the balance!
IISD coverage:
https://enb.iisd.org/oewg3-science-policy-panel-contribute-sound-management-chemicals-waste-prevent-pollution