Science Sidelined: New UN Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals and Pollution Stumbles after obstruction by a few countries

The week-long first plenary session, held 2-6 February at the Geneva International Conference Centre, was meant to establish the operational foundations for the first UN’s Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP). Delegations from UN Member States were meant to to finalise the Rules of Procedure, electing a full bureau, adopting a conflict-of-interest policy, agreeing on the secretariat’s location, and setting a work programme with future meeting dates to ensure that the Panel is fit for purpose and can commence its important work.

The Third Pillar: A Panel Meant to Address Pollution

Following UNEA resolution 5/8 adopted in 2022, the ISP-CWP was established in June 2025 in Uruguay to address a critical absence in the global response to the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. Despite mounting evidence of toxic impacts on marine ecosystems, human health and the environment, chemical production is expected to triple by 2050, yet a comprehensive independent scientific assessment of these threats was missing. Alongside the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this panel was meant to complete what advocates have called a “trifecta” of international science-policy bodies.

The panel’s mandate is to assess scientific evidence on chemicals, waste, and pollution, and provide policy-relevant guidance to governments. But the distance between the urgent need for evidence-based science and the political reality inside the negotiation room could not have been more apparent.

Standard Procedures a Scene for Delay Tactics

A concrete solution put forward in a procedural motion by Columbia to overcome the deadlock: adopting for this first session the rules of procedure from the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) stalled. Despite support from a large number of member states (Mexico, Switzerland, Uruguay, Ghana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Norway, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, the UK, Peru, Senegal, Canada, the EU, Australia, Cameroon, Panama, New Zealand, Malawi, Chad, Madagascar, Zimbabwe and Zambia), the proposal was objected by Saudia Arabia for the Asia-Pacific Region, the Russian Federation, and a few other countries, who insisted that every procedural rule must be finalised by consensus before any substantive work could begin, meaning any single country can block progress. In a scientific body, this is particularly problematic, as scientific consensus is built on evidence, not political agreement. This negotiation strategy by certain countries turned routine procedural language and boiler-plate text that exists in countless international agreements, into points of contention.

While to week first started in a constructive spirit under the able leadership of Osvaldo Álvarez Pérez, the Chilean diplomat chairing the meeting, the mood changed as the week progressed and disappointment and frustration took hold. On Thursday, 5^th February, there was a breakdown of order during the plenary session, when a few delegations involved audible furniture-banging in protest against the intervention by Columbia and the Chair.

Fabienne McLellan, Managing Director of OceanCare who observed the meeting on behalf of OceanCare, member of the Science & Technology Major Group, said: “This was an absolute low-point in international negotiations and shows the perceived threat of a rigorous science-policy panel on chemicals and pollution by certain countries. Delegations must fully adhere to the UN Code of Conduct. Constructive debate and vigorous discussion are hallmarks of effective multilateral engagement, but they must always be conducted within the norms of mutual respect and professionalism”.

Another Politisation of Independent Science

The politicisation of what was meant to be a scientific undertaking became starkly apparent throughout the week. The word “science” itself was barely mentioned in discussions, in fact, there were no real conversations about science or even science-based policy-making. Instead, what should have been grounded in scientific urgency became a procedural battlefield, yet another example of undermining independent scientific assessment.

The timing of the session, coinciding with sessions of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in Manchester, UK meant that efforts were stretched between two science-policy processes happening in parallel.

“We noted from quite a few interventions that some Negotiators were more accustomed to negotiating multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), rather than scientific panels, muddling the rules which potentially contributed to the dysfunction of this meeting”, says Fabienne McLellan.

An Uncertain Path Forward

The ISP-CWP’s future now is hanging by a thread. In the closing plenary, Chair Osvaldo Álvarez Pérez acknowledged that the session had produced no outcomes. Days of long negotiations came to an agreement on only a few of the 50 procedural rules. Member states departed Geneva with the bureau only partially elected and the secretariat location undecided. The chair and bureau will now determine the dates and venue for the next session, but the lack of progress raises serious questions about whether the body can fulfil its mandate to provide timely, independent scientific guidance at a moment when science-based decision-making is desperately needed.

While the panel is voluntary and advisory rather than legally binding, its potential to enable science-based policy on chemicals, waste, and pollution remains significant. But only if it can overcome the political obstacles that dominated its first session.

At least, more progress was made the next day at the resumed session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to develop a legally binding Plastics Treaty, electing a new Chair.

Further information

• IISD / Earth Negotiations Bulletin – Summary Report
• Genva Solutions Artikel (13th February, 2026)