UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

Punta del Este, Uruguay, 20 June 2025 – Against a challenging geopolitical backdrop and in a major move to protect people and planet, countries came together to agree a new intergovernmental science-policy panel to support the sound management of chemicals and waste and to prevent pollution.

Designed to fill a major gap in the global environmental architecture, the panel will provide countries with independent, policy-relevant scientific advice on chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention. Talks were kickstarted in 2022 following the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) resolution 5-8 that called for the creation of an intergovernmental science-policy body on chemicals, waste and pollution prevention.

After several years of hard negotiations, convened by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the newly established panel is expected to conduct global assessments, identify knowledge gaps, communicate complex science in policy-friendly formats, and integrate capacity for national decision-making in relation to the panel’s function. It will also support horizon scanning to anticipate emerging threats and guide timely response.

Camilla Alexander White: UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ of Chemistry, Lead Policy Advisor - Chemicals

When I landed in Punta del Este, it felt like a continuation of a long journey. Saturday 14 June was a pre-meeting stakeholder day for the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group, gathering once more with the Major Groups and Stakeholders. 

Many of us had travelled through the process together via Bangkok, Nairobi and Geneva. That sense of familiarity mattered. It meant we could get to work immediately, picking up our shared purpose and common priorities.

This time, I had the honour of co-facilitating the UNEP Science and Technology Major Group, and because this panel is about science, I was asked to lead civil society’s contribution. It’s been seven years of work for me on this. To be there as the panel was finally agreed – to be the person delivering our shared closing statement for the Major Groups – was an incredibly proud moment.

The nine major groups – from Children & Youth to Trades Unions, from Indigenous Peoples to Farmers – are not always aligned on all topics. But we came together with a shared demand: get this panel over the line. Our unity made a difference. We also raised specific concerns: gender equality, observer participation, intergenerational equity. We worked at pace, crafted our opening statement, and delivered it with clarity and resolve.

The formal meeting resumed where it had left off in Geneva, straight into the substance. We split into contact groups to tackle the core issues: institutional arrangements, operating principles, funding. I stayed in Contact Group One. My colleague, former UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ president, Tom Welton, took on Groups Two and Three. We coordinated closely, supporting each other through the long hours.

UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen also played a vital role. She visited a range of meetings and came to speak with us, the major groups, offering perspective and helping maintain momentum.

In these negotiations, the first days can feel like a slow burn. Wordsmithing dominates: picking over phrases without clear consequences. But then, everything changes. Suddenly, the stakes rise. Late-night huddles form. Ten or twelve countries are locked in a room, thrashing out wording that could unlock a deal – or derail it.

One night, this went on until 6:00am. Civil society colleagues and I took shifts to stay present. We wouldn’t risk being excluded, especially when some countries were more determined to try to limit observer roles. Our presence was a signal: we’re here, we care, we want our voices to be heard.

From that point, things moved quickly. As the clock ran down, the final push focused on the foundational document. This was the moment. Here, I must pay tribute to Toks Akinseye from the UK’s Defra and her Colombian counterpart, Miguel Ruiz Botero. Their leadership as lead co-facilitators in that last session was exemplary: patient, firm, collaborative. They worked line by line, bracketing disagreements, seeking consensus.

Two issues were particularly thorny: gender equity and observer participation. The US and Argentinian governments resisted inclusive language on gender. The US delegation, under instructions from the Trump White House, pushed to remove gender-responsive phrasing. Most other countries, including the UK and EU, supported strong commitments. This remains to be resolved, but ultimately did not present a barrier to proceeding.

Observer participation in the future Interdisciplinary Expert Committee (IEC) was another major point. This committee will set the panel’s work programme and choose experts. Without independent voices, we believe there is a real risk of it becoming dominated by governments and politicised. We continue to argue for observer scientists to be included in the IEC, to increase trust in the outputs and decisions taken. The final compromise is imperfect: it is possible accredited observers can be invited at the chair’s discretion. This is to be discussed again in the Rules of Procedure at the panel’s first meeting in 2026. That leaves the door ajar. It’s not the open access we wanted, but it’s something to build on through UNEA.

And then came the morning when it all became real. The open-ended working group closed. Two new chairs were appointed: Laura Dupuy from host nation Uruguay and Yutaka Matsuzawa from Japan. They opened the intergovernmental meeting. The first agenda item: naming the panel… 

We now have the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution. ISPCWP, in full. More informally, I think we’ll get used to calling it the science policy panel.

Cue a moment of joyful applause in the room – the UK delegation were hugging each other. I turned to Kay Williams, Head of the UN Global Framework on Chemicals secretariat, who has been with this since the very beginning. We hugged too. A few of us were on the verge of tears. We thought of all those who had campaigned, negotiated, contributed. I was reminded by Jill Hanna from GAHP of Viveka Bohn, the Swedish environment ambassador back in 2006, calling for a panel like this. 20 years on, crucially, all countries present indicated they would join. The panel begins with meaningful global support.

And now? We continue. The panel’s first plenary should take place within a year. Our push for observer scientists in the IEC continues. The Global Framework on Chemicals opens its own meeting this week, many of us stayed on in Punta del Este. UNEA-7, in December, will reflect on all this work and ask what comes next.

The importance of this panel cannot be overstated. According to the World Health Organisation, nine million premature deaths each year are linked to chemical pollution. From deadly lead battery recycling in south Asia to textile waste dumping in South America, air pollution in major cities to PFAS contamination of water – the scientific evidence is clear. This panel will bring the science needed to support sound policy and deliver solutions.

It will take time. Like the IPCC for climate change and IPBES for biodiversity loss, the science-policy panel’s impact will grow over years, even decades. The first reports may take five or more years. But they will matter. Think of the role of IPCC in securing the 1.5° climate target. The Montreal Protocol in tackling ozone depletion. This panel can be that powerful on chemicals and pollution.

The road ahead is long. But this was a real, meaningful start. And I’m proud to have been in the room where it happened.