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.
Intergovernmental negotiations are like a type of theatre. The players are the government delegates. They require a very select and unusual set of skills – extreme emotional control, patience, great attention to detail, perception, and above all, stamina. Then there are a small number of delegates who are playing leading roles as they run amuck with grandstanding, stubborn insistence, and seeming maleficence. The events of the day would provide Shakespeare with fertile ideas for a play. Unfortunately, at the time of writing at 10 pm on Wednesday night, we do not know whether the play is a tragedy or a farce.
Theoretically, Wednesday would have been the last day of negotiations for governments to finalize the Foundational Document that should establish the Science-Policy Panel. But theory rarely survives reality. Instead of resolution, we witnessed a day of rather unrehearsed characters enter the stage in a scenery full of brackets.
Members of the IPCP started the day in the Major Groups meeting. The first agenda item was, as always, the reports from the three Contact Groups. Similar concerns from all Contact Groups were spotlighted, such as the question of who may be admitted as observers to the Interdisciplinary Expert Committee (IEC) or the issues that some countries raised on expressions such as “gender-balanced”, “Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities”. The Major Group participants decided that a final statement reflecting the opinions of all participants in the room should be developed. This should propose a “human rights-based approach” as an alternative to “gender,” in response to the mounting resistance from some states.
Among all participants of the OEWG 3.2, exhaustion is setting in since some of the Contact Groups deliberated until after 2 am the previous day. Wednesday was again spent in Contact Groups, which, as we explained yesterday, is where the negotiations of content take place. Progress in all three Contact Groups was dismal, with a few exceptions. Discussions were exemplified by a few states holding fast to positions, thereby not allowing for compromise. It was mostly the same states that obstructed progress during the day by disputing compromising language on just about every point under consideration. However some other states obstructed progress on specific issues such as inclusion of the term “gender”, which appears in the Operating Principles, the location of the SPP’s Secretariat, and reference in the documents to Indigenous Peoples separate from “Local Communities”(one country is adamant about referring to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities together, which is strongly disputed by the Indigenous Peoples representatives present at the meeting).
So, the play went on with hardly any progress in Contact Group 1 (CG1) and a fairly “bracketed” (undecided) document submitted to the plenary, while some progress was made by Contact Group 2 (CG2) on the Rules of Procedure. No consensus was reached on the name of the Panel, gender-related language, or financial matters. Contact Group 3 (CG3) transmitted a clean foundational text but with many bracketed Rules of Procedure. As non-political observers and scientists, we see most of the tedious and lengthy deliberations as unsubstantive wordsmithing and find it inappropriate and irresponsible that political battles now dominate the process while the actual substance of the negotiations, the impacts of chemicals on environmental and human health and how they can be reduced, is lost.
At 8:30 pm, the day’s plenary began. After brief reports from the Contact Groups, Indonesia demanded standardized terminology of “Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities” as a single term which appears in some older United Nations agreements. Representatives of the Indigenous Peoples Major Group made a statement to present their clear and well-reasoned view that the two terms should be listed separately, as is the case in some newer United Nations agreements such as the Minamata Convention. After that, the United States doubled down on their biological interpretation of “gender,” asserting that “women are biologically female, and men are biologically male” — a line unlikely to go unnoticed.
At this point, a lot of work on the Foundation Document remains. Chair Alkemade, exuding patience beyond most mortal limits, called for overnight work to continue. At 10:35 pm, Contact Group 1 reconvened behind the curtains in an “informal-informal-informal-informal” setting while co-facilitators toiled on the Panel’s name and preamble. Thus, at 11 pm, the night is unfolding as perhaps the “night of the long knives”, with delegates tasked to agree upon text to move forward with the Decision and Foundational Document. IPCP representatives Miriam Diamond and Martin Scheringer left the venue at this point; Maria Clara Starling soldiered on.
At 1 am, the weary cast of delegates files once again onto the stage of Contact Group 1. The script is unfinished, the lines disputed. The co-facilitator, Miguel Ruiz Botero (Colombia), playing the role of a determined yet diplomatic stage director, announces that the next act will not attempt to resolve the infamous “gender issue”.
A bit of set dressing is done. The terms “gender balanced” and “gender inclusive” are struck from the script, leaving “[gender responsive]” as the lone survivor in brackets. One delegate raises a hand from the shadows, requesting a return of “gender balanced,” preferring its symmetry to the nuance of “responsive.” The co-facilitator insists this is merely a cleaning process, not a rewrite of the entire play.
Another actor storms in with a bold proposal: cut the entire gender line from the scene. The room hesitates, but the co-facilitator points to precedent: “gender responsive” appears in many official texts worldwide. The ensemble seems to lean toward keeping it, trimming only the flab of “inclusive.”
But backstage pressures loom. The cast must deliver a cleaned-up script to the plenary in less than seven hours. One player proposes a drastic edit: if consensus proves elusive, perhaps the whole line should exit.
Then, a new character steps into the spotlight. Their suggestion: drop the word “gender” entirely, and swap it for “men and women.” The co-facilitator reminds them that this line was workshopped at OEWG 3.1 in Geneva and nearly finalized; only the brackets remained. Another delegate echoes the sentiment: gender must be cut for the scene to move forward.
As tensions mount, one of the earlier critics of “gender” softens their stance, expressing openness to the term “inclusive.” A glimmer of compromise flickers, but time is short, tempers are high, and the Act closes on a knife’s edge — a cliffhanger before the final scene.
At 2 am, Maria Clara Starling left the venue while the delegates were struggling on to finish the document overnight for the plenary that will be held at 9 am on June 19. From observer colleagues, we learned in the morning of June 19 that the struggle went on until 5:40 am and is to be continued from 9 to 10 am. The plenary will then begin at 10 am. Wondering whether the SPP will finally enter or exit the stage, one can only hope the exhaustion will set the stage for clarity rather than collapse.
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