Subscribe
Countries gathered in Punta del Este, Uruguay, from June 15 to 18 have agreed to establish a new global science-policy panel on chemical pollution. However, they failed to adopt its core objective: the protection of human health and the environment.
Delegates adopted a foundational document that lays the groundwork for the panel, which will support the sound management of chemicals and waste and help prevent pollution. The new body joins the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), completing a “trifecta” of international science-policy bodies aimed at addressing the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution.
David Azoulay, Environmental Health Programme Director at nonprofit Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), told Down To Earth that the disagreement over the panel’s objective to protect human health and the environment “sends a very bad signal.” He noted that a few countries were reluctant to effectively prioritise these protections.
This hesitation, he added, “makes it harder for countries to argue in favour of prevention and precaution measures” that the panel might recommend, potentially enabling those who wish to block such recommendations.
Some delegates questioned the purpose of the panel if it does not aim to protect human and environmental health. “Widening the scope to health issues would expand the reach of policy actors from the health sector into environmental issues, it would put additional pressure on the petrochemical industry to account for the consequences of their activities, and it touches on personal concerns to be healthy. As one delegate put it ‘everyone wants to live in an environment where you’re not being poisoned’,” according to think tank International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).
The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that certain chemicals, including some used in food packaging, are linked to a host of health issues. In 2019, a small subset of chemicals with available data was estimated to be responsible for two million deaths worldwide, due to poisonings, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory illnesses and cancers. Toxic waste continues to be released and accumulate in waterbodies and soil, severely disrupting ecosystem functioning.
The push to form the panel stems from a 2022 resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly, initiating a process to develop a dedicated science-policy body on chemicals, waste and pollution. Once operational, the panel will support the sound management of chemicals and waste and prevent pollution by providing countries with independent, policy- relevant scientific advice.
The panel will have five key functions. These include identifying issues and proposing evidence-based options to address them. Second, assessing current challenges and identifying potential evidence-based solutions, particularly those relevant to developing countries. Third, providing up-to-date and relevant information, identifying key gaps in scientific research, and encouraging communication between scientists and policymakers.
The fourth function is facilitating information-sharing with countries, especially developing nations. Fifth, integrating capacity-building to strengthen the individual capacities of scientists, policymakers and other relevant stakeholders, and thereby enhancing institutional capacities, particularly in developing countries.
“The panel is not designed to do risk assessment or hazard analysis. They do not look at how to regulate specific types of chemicals,” Azoulay explained.
Despite agreement on the foundational document, much remains unresolved. The final text still contains bracketed sections, indicating no consensus during the meeting, leaving them to be ironed out over the subsequent meetings.
Throughout the meeting, several sticking points emerged. These included the question of whether observers or non-state governments would be allowed to participate in the negotiations. It was decided that observers would be permitted to attend the plenary meeting but not the interdisciplinary expert committee, which is tasked with advising the plenary (the governing body), implementing the scientific, technical and capacity-building aspects of the work, as well as providing advice and assistance on technical and scientific communication matters to the panel.
“This creates issues around transparency and independence of the work of the interdisciplinary expert committee,” Azoulay added.
Another contentious issue was whether the decision-making process should be through consensus or voting. Countries opted for consensus when disagreements arise, a move that could hinder decisive action, according to a press statement by CIEL.
Gender-related provisions consumed a lot of time. “Very few negotiations were on science. The United States, Argentina, Russia and Saudi Arabia objected to the word ‘gender’ being used in the foundational document, despite it being included in international law. They wanted to replace ‘gender’ with ‘men’ and ‘women’. This remains in brackets in the foundational document,” lamented Azoulay.
The adopted foundational document mentions gender seven times — all of which are in brackets, showing disagreement. The document does commit the panel to inclusivity across geographical, regional and linguistic lines — but explicit commitments to gender equity remain in dispute.
The foundational document also stated that the panel will be guided by a set of operating principles and approaches that ensure geographical and regional balance, promote inclusive participation and consider linguistic diversity in all relevant aspects of its work. However, countries have opposed the inclusion of gender balance as part of these principles.
Similarly, there were disagreements over whether to integrate gender equality and equity across all relevant areas of the panel’s work. For example, there were disagreements on whether the function of the panel would enable capacity building, ensuring balanced, gender-responsive and inclusive participation. A proposal was made to replace the term “gender” with “men” and “women”.
During the meeting, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights upheld the text framing the “protection of human health and the environment” as the “guiding star” for the panel. The organisation also expressed concern over the absence of references to human rights standards, such as gender equality, according to IISD.
Azoulay estimated that it might take three to five years to operationalise the panel. Going forward, countries will still need to adopt other drafts, including the rules of procedure, the process for determining the work programme and its deliverables, and the conflict of interest policy. According to IISD, the outcome of these drafts will significantly influence the credibility, relevance, and legitimacy of the panel. Nations will also need to discuss funding for the panel’s operations.
