The resumed third session of the ad hoc United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG 3.2) on the Science-Policy Panel (SPP) on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution Prevention is taking place in Punta del Este, Uruguay. This event is organized back-to-back with the intergovernmental meeting to consider the establishment of the new Panel. The IPCP delegation includes three board members Martin Scheringer, Miriam Diamond, and Maria Clara Starling who are providing daily meeting summaries. Policy briefs and other documents prepared by the IPCP as inputs to the process are available on the IPCP publications page.
The day started with a chilly and brisk walk to the venue along the highway, made more challenging by the lack of a sidewalk. But the sun was inviting after the heavy rains of the previous day.
The work day again started with the meeting of the Major Groups. The first agenda item was reports from the Contact Groups. Reporting from Contact Group 1 highlighted negative energy in the room. In this group, discussions stagnated, with some delegations exerting strong influence, which has steered the process toward a possible deadlock. Similar reports were made for Contact Groups 2 and 3, where several points were redirected to the Rules of Procedure (RoPs), prompting the need for vigilant monitoring of both documents, the Foundational Document and the RoPs. The main issue for consideration by the Major Groups was then the deliberation by the countries whether or not to include observers in the work of the Panel within the Interdisciplinary Expert Committee (IEC), which will oversee the substantive work of the Panel. All groups attending the Major Group meeting were unanimous in agreeing to a short intervention urging country delegates to include participation of representatives from non-governmental groups in the IEC.
At 10 am, the delegates and observers met briefly in plenary. Chair Alkemade reported that 103 countries are now present at the meeting plus many observers. After this, the plenary heard summaries of yesterday’s events in the Contact Groups, where most of the negotiations take place. The Chair instructed delegates to finalize the Foundational Document that must go forward and be adopted by both the plenary of the OEWG and then by the Intergovernmental Meeting on Thursday and Friday to establish the SPP. The strategy is to move many issues, including contentious issues, to the Rules of Procedure, which can be discussed and adopted at a later time. The Chair also instructed delegates to only consider the text in the Foundational Document that was bracketed (indicating a lack of consensus) and conversely, to consider text not in brackets to be final. These instructions were, unfortunately, not heeded by certain countries who saw it as “fair game” to open up large parts of previously agreed-upon text, much to the frustration of other countries who saw this as a giant waste of time and effort. As some “difficult” countries repeated, “there’s no agreement until there is full agreement”.
Contact Group 1 continued with the discussion of membership and functions of the bodies of the panel, decision-making and related rules of procedure. This is where the drama occurred. For many hours, CG1 was dominated by detailed negotiations and a paragraph-by-paragraph struggle. The debate about paragraphs 16 to 19 of the draft Foundational Document (Membership of the IEC and Functions of the IEC) consumed the entire day (11:30 am to 10:45 pm), yielding only marginal progress. In the early afternoon, the countries in CG1 gathered for an informal discussion of the function of the SPP’s different bodies and the relation between policy- and science-related elements of the SPP. This discussion was held in a constructive tone and illustrated the wide range of different concepts and ideas of the form and work of the SPP.
Later in the afternoon, paragraph 17 on the participation of observers in the IEC became a flashpoint, and the non-governmental groups made an intervention and emphasized, as it had been planned in the morning’s Major Groups meeting, that observer participation in the IEC is of great importance. A large group of delegates from low- and middle-income countries noted the vital role that observer engagement plays in supporting lower-capacity countries. The intervention of the non-governmental groups prevented paragraph 17 from being deleted, but strong opposition and doubts about the role and relevance of observers remained. In general, there was a remarkable level of mistrust in the negotiations and an increasingly tense atmosphere. It was even openly said that if the progress remains so slow, the large amount of text that is not yet agreed upon will have to remain open and there will be no SPP. This is surprising because the SPP is not a legally binding agreement, but “just” an intergovernmental body without any political power, like IPCC and IPBES.
In the evening, the co-facilitators applied a different technique. Instead of paragraph-by-paragraph negotiations, which had been going in circles for many hours, they placed the language of all points in the text where the relationship of science vs. policy is mentioned in connection with the IEC on one slide. The countries were then asked to consider all these phrases in combination and modify them in such a way that they were acceptable to them. The key term here was “constructive ambiguity”, which stands for softening phrases such as “includes, but is not limited to” or just “such as”. Surprisingly, this approach worked and the issue of science vs. policy in connection with the IEC was resolved at 10:30 pm. However, the overall tone of the process remains troubling. Negotiations are painfully slow, and the SPP’s draft Foundational Document is being carved out piece-by-piece with minimal consensus.
Meanwhile, Contact Group 2, dealing with other foundational elements, and Contact Group 3 dealing with other rules of procedure and policies, was conducted with a surprising atmosphere of compromise and diplomacy. Several times countries came to consensus with language to appease other countries without compromising the integrity of process or intention of the panel. In some cases, content or format was taken from IPBES with the hope that this should be already agreed upon; an example was related to forms of knowledge other than Western science. All countries agreed to recognize the technical knowledge and experience of workers, including informal workers, and the importance of promoting a safe and healthy work environment.
While there was agreement on many issues, one issue that was not resolved was including gender balance in the operating principles and approaches of the Foundational Document. One country was adamant that the wording be changed from “gender” to “men and women”, saying that inclusion of “gender” was a “red line” that they could not cross. One other country backed this position. All other countries spoke up with a unified voice that “gender” and the issue of “gender equity” must stay. This issue remains unresolved, but in the spirit of advancing towards a finalized Foundational Document, the delegates pushed forward to consider other issues.
The day ended with the acrimony sowed by just a few countries in Contact Group 1 versus the more conciliatory environment in Contact Groups 2 and 3. We await with nervous anticipation to see who and what will prevail at the end of the meeting – birth of a new Science-Policy Panel or death by geopolitical tantrums.
The IPCP has developed several documents as inputs to the process, these are available on the IPCP publication page.
IISD coverage: https://enb.iisd.org/oewg3-2-science-policy-panel-contribute-sound-management-chemicals-waste-prevent-pollution