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.
Again, the morning started in a Major Groups meeting, yet with a different feeling as the SPP finally seemed to be on its way to the finish line. Melissa Wang (Greenpeace) and Chinkie Peliño-Golle (EcoWaste Coalition) chaired the meeting. The participants summarized the outcome of yesterday’s (June 19) plenary: some legal text is still bracketed; discussions about gender are still ongoing and unresolved; the position of observers in meetings of the Interdisciplinary Expert Panel (IEC) was substantially weakened yesterday; the issue of “Indigenous Peoples” vs. “Indigenous Peoples and local communities” is still unresolved and may remain so; and more issues. We learned that text can be adopted with brackets in the Intergovernmental Meeting, but brackets imply that text within brackets does not legally exist; every document should be read without whatever text may be in brackets.
David Azoulay (CIEL), a longtime observer and expert in intergovernmental processes, summarized his views: not more than a shell for the panel has been set up, many crucial topics have been kicked down the road to be decided later and only by consensus. The implication of decision by consensus is that it takes only one unyielding country to skuttle the will of the majority. The Rules of Procedure (RoP) is one of these topics, and a very important one, as it describes how the SPP will function. With the current, the limited RoP could result in an untransparent functioning of the SPP. Moreover, everything that is related to health and environmental protection is in brackets, so the draft Foundational Document does not really reflect its own purpose. As noted above, another fundamental problem is that the decision-making process is set up such that everything must be decided under consensus. This may, or based on negotiations leading up to this point, will block the SPP workflow and limit it to the smallest common denominator.
The Major Group participants discussed the delivery of a statement for the Intergovernmental Meeting. Miriam Diamond, Michelle Bloor and Dalia Márquez took the lead in drafting the statement.
At 11 am, the Intergovernmental Meeting commenced. The meeting was co-chaired by Laura Dupuy (Permanent Representative of Uruguay to the UN) and Yutaka Matsuzawa (Vice-Minister for global environmental affairs, Ministry of the Environment, Japan).
Alejandro Nario, National Director of Equality, Ministry of the Environment of Uruguay, highlighted the relevance of the SPP for developing countries. He stressed that we are just at the beginning of the process and there is still a lot of work to be done.
In her speech, Co-Chair Dupuy emphasizes the victory of multilateralism and the relevance of diversity and inclusivity. Co-Chair Matsuzawa also underlined that multilateralism and science matter. UNEP’s Executive Director Inger Andersen summarized the outcomes of the OEWG and mandate of the Intergovernmental Meeting, stressing that it is the meeting’s responsibility to consider and adopt the draft decisions prepared by the OEWG. The fact that the documents still have many brackets does not preclude their adoption. She highlighted the relevance of the SPP and its urgency as it provides science to those who want and need it while being inclusive to all groups and communities. She finished with the ambition that now is the moment to prioritize the world’s needs and make history.
The floor was then opened for delegations to make their statements. Many countries made supportive statements emphasizing the importance of the SPP. Ukraine emphasized that the SPP will also be critical for Ukraine given the destruction and environmental impacts that the Russian Federation has caused by waging war in their country. An unpleasant and ugly row with the Russian Federation, who objected to the statement by Ukraine, ensued. Tension rose in the auditorium as the two countries sparred. Ukraine asked the Co-Chair Dupuy to be allowed to finish their statement which the Russian Federation had interrupted repeated on points of order, yet she said that Ukraine had already exceeded their time and she would give them right to speak at the end of the list as it was not appropriate to politicize the meeting (oh, really?). After this difficult moment, Norway, France, Egypt, South Africa, Ghana, Iraq, Kenya and Yemen spoke to congratulate on the set-up of the SPP and commit to the work to be done by the SPP. Capacity-building was emphasized by Iran.
Under agenda item 5, concerning the transfer of the documents prepared by the OEWG to the Intergovernmental Meeting, the OEWG Chair, Gudi Alkemade, presented the report of the OEWG. The first decision to be made by the Intergovernmental Meeting was the official name of the SPP, which is proposed as “Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution” (ISP-CWP). The name was approved by the Intergovernmental Meeting.
Then, the time came to consider and hopefully adopt the Draft Foundational Document. There was silence in the large room as tension mounted, but no objections were raised and the decision to establish the ISP-CWP was approved. Great relief, applause and standing ovations. At 1:10 pm on June 20, 2025, the new panel entered into existence. The two subsequent decisions on the RoP and the interim provisions were also adopted swiftly and smoothly without any discussion.
In the afternoon, more statements regarding the work of the ISP-CWP were made, also by observers, including four statements by Major Groups participants: one by Ajay Jha on behalf of all Major Group participants, one by Olga Skaredina on behalf of the Children and Youth MG, one by Lynn Jacobs on behalf of the Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities MG, and one by Dalia Márquez on behalf of the Women’s MG.
The IPCP will follow up with a more detailed analysis of what has been accomplished and what is missing. At this point, all three IPCP delegates present in Punta del Este were extremely relieved that a demanding, stressful, and often frustrating process of more than two years is over, with an outcome that marks a starting point for more work towards chemical pollution control.
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