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.
If you’re a gambler, then this is the meeting for you. Delegates and observers are taking bets on whether country delegates will come to sufficient agreement to allow the establishment of this new Science-Policy Panel. As of tonight, bets vary from 70 against vs. 30 for establishment, to 50-50, to 60-40 for vs. against establishment. Perhaps we will know the outcome of the wager as you read this. Throughout the day, the fragmented pace of discussions, paired with strategic stalling by some delegations, continued to raise concerns about the viability of concluding negotiations on time.
For the IPCP members, the day began at 9 am at the Major Groups meeting with reports from all three Contact Groups. As a general plan for the day, the Major Groups agreed to repeat their successful strategy of concise, unified interventions. The Major Groups also coordinated for their afternoon meeting with UNEP Executive Director, Inger Andersen. The Major Groups meeting aimed not at proposing new language, but at reiterating firm support for the SPP and reinforcing the value of broad and inclusive participation.
Today’s charge to the government delegates was to arrive at a final Foundational Document to move from the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) to the Intergovernmental Meeting that will take place immediately after the OEWG meeting on Thursday and Friday, June 19–20, 2025. To make this happen, the strategy followed was to minimize the text in the draft Foundational Document by moving contentious items to the Rules of Procedure, which do not need to be finalized (contentious issues remain in brackets indicating a lack of agreement). In fact, other panels and even legally binding agreements operate with “bracketed” elements in their texts.
To finalize the Foundational Document, today’s discussions took place almost entirely in Contact Groups, of which there are three. However, significant impasses arose during Contact Group discussions leading the co-chairs of the Contact Groups to convene discussions in small informal groups. Those informal groups, with the aim to come to agreement on specific contentious text, assembled the dissenting and some “moderating” delegates without observers or chairs. In other words, put them in a small room to fight it out. But even this tactic did not work as several small groups were unable to come to agreement! Some of the items directed to the informal discussions under CG2 were those seemingly less important issues of where and how the interim bureau of the SPP would be established and the procedure to invite countries to host the secretariat. All issues are fair game for the few dissenting countries to delay agreement of the delegates.
In Contact Group 1, just one informal group was formed and given the task to prepare text describing the selection of observers to the SPP’s plenary (paragraphs 17 and 18 of the draft Foundational Document). The group worked from 10 to 11:30 am and then presented the proposed text to the entire CG1, where it was mostly accepted. A rather small remaining issue that had to be “parked” without resolution was if Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities are to be listed as one entity or as two (“Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, etc.” vs. “Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities, etc.”). Importantly, the text provides observer status to all non-governmental groups that are accredited with or admitted to a wide range of bodies under UNEP, which is a very important success for the non-governmental groups, including the IPCP.
The informal group under CG1 then continued with work on text describing the selection of observers to the Interdisciplinary Expert Committee (IEC). When they reported back at 5:30 pm, the text seemed to be agreeable to the CG1. However, one delegate of one of the drafting countries who had for some reason not participated in the informal group then asked to put the entire new, widely agreeable text – which had been developed under the presence of the delegate’s own delegation! – in brackets. This illustrates how the process was delayed again and again and overburdened with requests for “additional clarity” that seem unjustified and, basically, unsatisfiable.
Contact Group 2 discussed many issues to finalize the draft Foundational Document and draft decision to establish the SPP. Debated issues included the proposal to remove “pollution prevention” from the Preamble, and the inclusion of language regarding the right to a “clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, the right to science, and intergenerational equity”. Several parts of the text actually did move forward with agreement, such as the text stating that “air pollution is the single greatest environmental risk to human health, with a disproportionate impact on women, children and the elderly”. Other issues debated without resolution included the types of pollution to be considered (e.g., existing, legacy). The evening discussions went into the Operating Principles and Approaches of the SPP, which invoked discussions of whether the text should refer to “vulnerable populations” and if so, who is vulnerable, as well as the value of chemistry to well-being.
At 6:30 pm, a stock-taking Plenary was convened. The co-facilitators provided updates from all three Contact Groups. CG1 emphasized the need for additional time. CG2 had not agreed on the Panel’s name and had several principles, including gender, still unresolved. CG3 had finalized some of its work. All three Contact Groups asked for more time to finalize their work. Chair Alkemade informed the Plenary that all remaining work must conclude by noon, June 18th. One delegation raised concerns about the long hours and capacity challenges for small delegations; another delegation expressed dissatisfaction with CG3’s impartiality and requested clarity on how future document revisions would be handled.
At 8 pm, the Contact Groups resumed their work. Again, progress was extremely slow. The last IPCP delegate left the venue at 10:15 pm when CG1 was still in the middle of very detailed discussions about the functions of the IEC. One example is if the text should say “highest levels of scientific quality” or “highest possible levels of scientific quality” for the review process of the SPP’s outcomes. From text messages from other observers, we learned the CG1 was still working at 2 am.
Overall, the discussions showed deep divisions with a few countries consistently objecting to language supported by the majority of delegates. Glimmers of hope emerged during the short Plenary session when one of the dissenting countries agreed to move forward several uncompleted Annexes of the documents to the first meeting of the SPP, tabling their disputes to a later time. And so the bets continue…
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