The third and final scheduled session of the ad hoc Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG-3) on the Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution Prevention is taking place in in Geneva, Switzerland on June 17–21, 2024. IPCP Board Members are in attendance and are providing their daily summaries. Policy briefs and other documents prepared by the IPCP as inputs to the process are available on the IPCP publications page.
Another hot day in the city of Geneva and in the Geneva International Conference Centre. Again, the Major Groups meeting at 8:30 opened the day for the civil society groups, including the IPCP team. The meeting was chaired by Michelle Bloor, SETAC and Eric Rushton, Cefic and the main topic of the meeting were extensive reports from the contact group sessions yesterday. One important observation from the contact groups was that progress is still (very) slow on several topics and that a lot of open questions remain to be resolved. Another persisting issue is the question of how civil society groups can be involved with the SPP. Several governments clearly want to reduce the participation of civil society groups to a minimum and give all power within the SPP to the governing body (or plenary), which will consist of government delegates only. The discussion about possible strategies for us as civil society groups was intense because it is not yet clear how the governments will finally handle this issue.
At 10:30, an OEWG-3 plenary was opened by Chair Alkemade with reports from the contact groups. The compromise on capacity building between the EU, on the one hand, and the African Group and GRULAC, on the other hand, was highlighted as an important success and an example of constructive negotiation. However, Chair Alkemade also emphasized that, overall, the progress is still too slow and that delegates would have to accelerate their discussions and negotiations and reach resolutions of the many open questions. Another important topic was the plan that the secretariat of the SPP should be jointly hosted by UNEP and WHO, which is intended to ensure inclusion of human health concerns and strengthen the position of the secretariat. Some countries, including Switzerland, the EU, Canada, and Norway, supported this plan, whereas others pointed out that the close coordination between UNEP and WHO may turn out to be complicated. Russia said that the highest priority for OEWG-3 should be given to the work on the SPP documents whereas the question of the joint secretariat was of lower priority and the WHO should just be involved as an observer. It may be added that a joint secretariat hosted by UNEP and WHO is an ambitious plan.
In the afternoon, all three contact groups continued their work. Contact Group 1 held a very long session that ended only at 22:10 in the evening. The group intensively discussed many aspects of the institutional arrangements for the SPP, in great detail. Two important points were, firstly, that the proposal for a Policy Committee, mentioned in yesterday’s Geneva Briefing, was officially withdrawn, but the proponent of this Policy Committee announced that they would present a new proposal for an “Extended Bureau”, which would have a similar function, namely to have considerable influence including oversight and review of submissions and their prioritization for SPP assessments according to their “policy relevance”. The IPCP and many other civil society groups do not agree with this proposal. It is still unclear how many countries will support this proposal. The second important point was again the question of civil society representation and participation. Some countries proposed excluding civil society groups from the SPP’s Interdisciplinary Expert Committee (IEC), but others countered that civil society groups should be represented on the IEC at least as observers. Three strong interventions by the Royal Society of Chemistry (Camilla Alexander-White), IPEN (Sara Brosché), the Global Alliance on Health and Pollution (GAHP; Jill Hanna), and the Children and Youth MG (Aseel Abotalib) clearly presented the civil society groups’ view that their representation is needed. Another success later in the evening was that “relevant stakeholders” were re-introduced in the text describing who can make submissions for assessment topics to the governing body of the SPP and also that stakeholders can comment on other submissions, but this was only after an intervention by GAHP respectfully asking for countries to support the inclusion of “relevant stakeholders” in the text and also an IPCP intervention supporting the role of stakeholders regarding submissions.
Overall, it was a very full and intense day. Some said that they see light at the end of the tunnel, but others are still frustrated by the lack of progress and the concern that the result of OEWG-3 may be a “smallest common denominator” that does not live up to the expectations and ambitions expressed over the last months and years. And one issue that is looming in the background, but is not being discussed, is the financing of the SPP.
IISD coverage:
https://enb.iisd.org/oewg3-science-policy-panel-contribute-sound-management-chemicals-waste-prevent-pollution