The second session of the ad hoc Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG-2) on the Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution Prevention is taking place in Nairobi, Kenya, from December 11 to December 15, 2023. Three IPCP Board Members are in attendance and are providing their daily summaries.
Today was a day with a lot of work on many fronts, but as this work is still ongoing, not much can be reported. The Major Groups meeting was the start into the day, with IPCP Board Member Penny Vlahos acting as one of the co-chair of the meeting. Several interventions of one or more of the Major Groups were discussed and finalized for delivery in the contact groups, including one on capacity building and one on conflict-of-interest (COI) provisions.
In the morning plenary, the co-facilitators of both contact groups reported back to the delegates and it was decided that both contact groups would be given more time to continue their work, which then took place until 9:45 h in the evening. The IPCP delegation mostly attended the discussions about conflict of interest in contact group (i) and about institutional arrangements in contact group (ii). The progress of the contact groups’ work varied; there were several parts of the sessions with slow progress and a lot of detailed discussions about very specific aspects, and also parts when the work advanced more quickly. For the co-facilitators, the process is difficult to steer, and the pace depends strongly on the content of the delegates’ interventions (disagreeing views and need for clarification vs. mutual support and specific input that is broadly accepted and then adopted).
In the COI discussions in contact group (i), one of the topics was the period of time over which financial interests would be considered relevant. There are organizations such as the IPCC and the Montreal Protocol that ask for all activities and interests in the current year, and others where all activities over the last four years are included. Another question was who should be covered under the COI provisions and in what form and level of detail the positions of experts working with the new panel would be listed in the COI provisions (experts, authors, reviewers, Bureau members etc.). A majority favored that the COI provisions pertain broadly to a more detailed lists so that all roles are covered. However, many questions are still open and the COI topic will be continued tomorrow. Many modifications of the document OEWG.2/INF/Add.1 were made and discussed, sometimes controversially and without a resolution.
In the evening, contact group (i) turned to the question of capacity building. Capacity building is listed as the fifth function of the new panel, but there are two very different ideas of what capacity building entails and what its purpose in the context of the new panel is, see Nairobi Briefing from Preparatory Day 2 . In today’s discussions, this disagreement could not yet be resolved, but the two positions were explained by their proponents and proposals for bridging the gap between them were made. The proposals came from the Group of African States and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, who called for a more comprehensive program of capacity building, versus the EU’s proposal of more constrained language.
Contact group 2 discussed and drafted text on the role of the secretariat in the panel. This went relatively smoothly. We also heard from the IPCC representative who shared structural details and “lessons learned”. There was discussion on the creation of a policy group and an uncertainty group, but there was concern that complicating the structure would make the panel less efficient. Finally, the text for the group of experts and subsidiary groups was edited, but also this is still in progress.
—
Longer daily reports prepared by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Earth Negotiations Bulletin are available at: https://enb.iisd.org/oewg2-science-policy-panel-contribute-sound-management-chemicals-waste-prevent-pollution