Advancing Science-Policy Solutions for Chemical, Waste, and Pollution Management: UNEP OEWG 3 Update
Michelle Bloor, University of Glasgow
It was expected that UNEP’s 3.0 ad hoc Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG 3) Science-Policy Panel for the Continued Sound Management of Chemicals, Waste and Pollution Prevention (SPP CWP), which took place from 17–21 June in Geneva, Switzerland, would be the last round of negotiations before ministerial sign-off and the establishment of the new science-policy panel. However, participants did not manage to complete the process as agreement on several important points could not be reached within the timeframe. Consequently, it is anticipated that a final meeting (OEWG 3.2) will take place at the end of 2024 or the start of 2025.
As a recap, leading on from the adoption of resolution 5/8 at UNEA 5.2, there have been three previous OEWG SPP CWP meetings so far. OEWG 1.1, which took place 6 October 2022 in Nairobi, Kenya, and on-line, explored procedural matters, including the establishment of a Chair and a Bureau for the OEWG, and adopted rules of procedures for the conduct of its work. OEWG 1.2 occured from 30 January– 3 February 2023, in Bangkok, Thailand, and explored the scope and functions of the SPP CWP. OEWG 2, which was held from 11–15 December in Nairobi, Kenya, had an ambitious agenda and included topics such as the principles of operation, conflict of interest, capacity building, operational structures and budget.
The six-month intersessional period, which followed OEWG 2, was intended for all interested parties to prepare for OEWG 3 as the momentum increased around the SPP CWP process. It was a time to reflect on best practices adopted by existing science-policy instruments, such as science-policy panels and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) for capacity building and conflict of interest. It was also a time to explore, in more detail, the proposed institutional arrangements for the SPP CWP, including the proposed composition of the governing body and plenary and the interdisciplinary expert committee, and to consider the inclusion of a policy committee, which was proposed at OEWG 2 by one Member State.
While the OEWG mechanism is governmental, stakeholders, such as SETAC, have been encouraged to actively engage by submitting evidence and statements on the meeting topics, participating in intersessional webinars, submitting written responses to OEWG documentation, undertaking verbal interventions in the contact groups and plenaries, and engaging in bilateral discussions with Member States. However, at OEWG 2 there was a clear call for stakeholders to collaborate, when possible, on developing joint statements and interventions on areas of consensus.
Building on the cooperation and collaboration of the UNEP major groups at OEWG 2, it was hoped that this collegiality could be repeated at OEWG 3. On 16 June, stakeholders participated in a major groups event, which provided the opportunity to discuss the OEWG 3 meeting documents and identify areas of consensus. SETAC is accredited to UNEP’s scientific and technological community major group and has engaged with the OEWG process from the start, which has been documented in a series of Globe Articles (2022, 2023, 2024). The other eight major groups are non-governmental organizations, farmers, Indigenous Peoples and their communities, local authorities, women, business and industry, children and youth, and workers and trade unions.
There was strong stakeholder participation at the major group event, including a large number of scientific organizations. All nine major groups agreed for the first time to support the creation of a joint statement, presented on 17 June in Plenary by Josephine Robertson from the International Council on Mining and Metals and the business and industry major group. The joint major groups statement focused on three points, mirroring SETAC’s statement, which was produced and submitted by the SETAC Advisory Panel on Chemicals Management (CheM Panel) before OEWG 3 for consideration by Member States and other stakeholders.
The joint major groups statement focused on:
- The removal of the proposed “policy committee” from the structure of the Interdisciplinary Expert Committee. This was considered a duplication of work at an additional cost, and it posed a potential risk to the successful completion of deliverables, which could weaken the science policy interface.
- The meaningful participation of civil society actors in the Interdisciplinary Expert Committee and throughout the science policy work program.
- A strong and rigorous conflict-of-interest process.
It was always known that OEWG 3 was likely to be a busy meeting, and it met that preconception. It included four parallel contact groups that focused on: (1) institutional arrangements and operating principles, (2) work program and deliverables, (3) rules of procedure and conflict of interest, and (4) preparation of proposals for the SPP CWP. In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO) also submitted a proposal for the provision of joint Secretariat services with UNEP for the SPP CWP. This proposal received a mixed response from Member States, so it’s unclear if and how the Secretariat will move forward into the SPP CWP.
Space was limited in the negotiation rooms and the atmosphere was tense. Inger Anderson, UNEP’s Executive Director, attended the final day of negotiations. It was hoped that she could rally everyone to get the job done. Everyone knew the looming deadline, but agreement on several important points could not be reached within the timeframe. At 23:00 on 25 June, an alarm went off, marking the cut-off point for trying to finalize the SPP CWP during OEWG 3, and everyone was escorted from the building. It was a strange ending to such an intense week.
While work is still required before Ministerial sign off on the SPP CWP, Member States worked incredibly hard to try and cross the finish line. It was inspiring to see their dedication to the process, and it highlighted the challenges for international science-policy diplomacy. Similarly, stakeholders worked incredibly hard to provide expertise and guidance to Member States, through bilateral conversations, providing expertise through written evidence, verbal statements and interjections.
I had the honor of representing SETAC at OEWG 3, and my reflections from the meeting are simple. Like many stakeholders, I believe it is important for stakeholders to be included in the SPP CWP Independent Expert Group. Their inclusion would ensure non-government scientists and Indigenous scientific knowledge and expertise are included in the process. In addition to providing other relevant expertise, it also ensures transparency. Member States and stakeholders have work to do before the SPP CWP is established, especially on the theme of stakeholder engagement, but at this moment in time, we are unsure of the timeframe until OEWG 3.2, and we eagerly await an update from UNEP.
Over the past eighteen months, the SETAC CheM Panel has held Special Sessions at the SETAC Europe, SETAC Latin America, SETAC Africa and SETAC North America annual and biennial meetings to engage with the membership and undertake a consultation on chemicals management. A Special Session is also planned at the SETAC Asia-Pacific 14th Biennial Meeting from 21–25 September in Tianjin, China.
SETAC has established an Affinity Group for the Panel on Chemicals Management (CheM Panel). If you are interested in getting involved, please follow the instructions to join the group. Participation in an Affinity Group is open to everyone, and we will provide regular opportunities to engage in the CheM Panel activities process through this forum.
Author’s contact: [email protected]