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 curtain rose at 9 am with one goal for the one informal Contact Group to complete the script into a coherent final draft. But the performance quickly stalled. Sentences on the screen were as unclear as the thick fog that blanketed Punta del Este in the morning. Although the official beginning of the plenary was scheduled for 10:00 am, it was 10:36 am when the scene was still dominated by one-on-one backstage talks between the Co-Facilitator (and Director of the drama) Miguel Ruiz Botero (Colombia), and various national delegations.
The plan was that all issues related to decision making of the SPP should be solved in one package. At 10:44 am, Facilitator Ruiz Botero reported that most issues seemed to be resolved. Delegations had agreed to include a footnote reaffirming the importance of consensus in decision-making processes. However, one issue remained: referencing Rule 49 in the Rules of Procedure, whose content had not yet been finalized. A debate ensued over whether the rule number could be dropped temporarily and updated later.
At 11:05 am, Facilitator Ruiz Botero, frustrated by the protracted intermission, reminded delegates that “every second in the Contact Group is a second lost in plenary.” The footnotes, now longer than the main text, seemed to outshine the play itself. Finally, by 11:14 am, the footnote was accepted, and the cast prepared to move the package to the Foundation Document.
No final act of the play would be complete without a dramatic callback. At this moment, one delegation stated they could not support forwarding the text to the Foundational Document due to ongoing disagreement over gender-related language. They proposed replacing “gender balance” with “men and women” throughout the document and suggested adding a footnote acknowledging their proposal. Another delegation argued the issue had already been resolved informally the night before. Facilitator Ruiz Botero clarified that even if informal agreement was reached, formal incorporation into the Foundational Document was still needed.
The meeting was suspended again after a new text was proposed for a section previously believed to be settled. Meanwhile, ministers who had arrived for the Intergovernmental Meeting were waiting for the process to conclude.
The group reconvened at 11:51 am. One delegation withdrew its proposal but expressed frustration with the lack of flexibility shown by others. By 12:12 pm, Facilitator Ruiz Botero, who by now was showing super-human abilities of staying calm and clear with no sleep, announced that brackets had been removed from Rules 35 and 36, which refer to the decision-making process of the SPP’s Plenary. Rule 35 now states that on matters of substance, the SPP’s Plenary will have to decide in consensus, which means that the actual content of the SPP’s work can only be based on the smallest common denominator. A brief review of the document’s text on the scope, objectives, and functions of the panel followed, with one country expressing concern about removing brackets from a clause on the protection of human health and the environment (meaning that they do not support that clause). It is by far not accepted that one purpose of the SPP should be to protect human health and the environment. (One may cynically assume that they see the SPP as a means to boost their chemical industry.) Revised wordings were proposed, but disagreement persisted.
The conversation then shifted to the participation of observers in the Interdisciplinary Expert Committee (IEC). The significance of having observers in the IEC is one of giving the deliberations of this body, which will strongly influence the work of the SPP, transparency and scientific legitimacy. Paragraphs 17–20 regarding this issue were again discussed in much detail. While some supported retaining the current, relatively comprehensive and specific description of how observers may attend IEC meetings, others wanted to delete paragraphs 17–20 altogether, citing concerns about undue influence or even pressure by observers on the scientists who work as members of the IEC. Practice shows that this “concern” is not justified – many UN bodies work well with many observers in the room. After much debate, a five-minute break was called at 1:25 pm. When more informal consultations concluded at 2:00 pm, participants were informed that most issues had been resolved, and the plenary would begin at 4:00 pm (instead of 10:00 am).
The plenary then began at 4:30 pm. Facilitator Ruiz Botero summarized the long hours of negotiations, noting that discussions covered the panel’s name, gender language, observers, reference to “Indigenous Peoples”. Three conference-room papers were uploaded to the OEWG 3.2 website, see tab “in-session documents”. They include the final version of the draft Foundational Document, with footnotes and edits and many remaining brackets; the draft Rules of Procedure (also with many brackets), and a draft decision on interim processes between now and the first session of the SPP. The chair thanked delegates for their commitment and highlighted the value of multilateralism.
In the plenary, the reading of conflicting issues on gender had a plot-twist when Indonesia proposed the inclusion of the term “Indigenous [and local people knowledge].” Although the session was conducted under a “non-objection” rule (changes are possible only as long as not a single country objects) and there were three objections (Canada, Colombia, the US), the Chair gave room to Indonesia to defend their point to connect Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (to which Indigenous Peoples strongly object). Several objections were voiced as it was not time to include new text and this would open precedent for other issues to be added, with the potential to compromise much of the work of the OEWG. As no consensus emerged, the chair decided to “park” the issue for the time being.
The full package—including three draft decisions for the Intergovernmental Meeting and the Foundational Document, Rules of Procedure, and Annexes attached to them—was finally adopted by the plenary of the OEWG and transmitted for consideration and adoption by the Intergovernmental Meeting on June 20. One point that is still open is the name of the SPP. The Intergovernmental Meeting will have to resolve this.
After everything had been decided and adopted, Argentina asked for the floor and expressed strong concerns related to gender (opposing to the use of the word “gender”), one of the main conflicts reflected in OWGE 3.2. Others, including Mexico, pushed back with the same determination.
We have reached the end of the OEWG’s work. It is with great relief tied to disappointment about the diminished strength of conviction for protecting human and environmental health. To our delegation, it is clear that the conflicts happening around the world were reflected in the discussion rooms during OWEG 3.2. We were encouraged by the US delegation stating its clear support for multilateralism. Although multilateralism seems to have prevailed here and now, the question is: for how long and what will or can it produce?
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