Science Panel Established, but Protections for Environment and Health Remain in Limbo
Punta del Este, Uruguay - Today governments agreed to the adoption of an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (a science-to-policy panel or SPP) to address toxic threats from hazardous chemicals and waste. There are expectations that this Panel will enhance action to address threats from hazardous chemicals and waste. However, the lack of inclusion of civil society in all aspects of the Panel's work, a democratic function needed to ensure transparency, and the postponement of the adoption of a policy to protect the Panel’s work from influence by corporate polluters could lead to distrust in the Panel’s work and are a major cause for concern.
In addition, governments failed to agree on the intent of the panel, leaving open the nature of the panel’s basic purpose and activities. Despite a UNEA mandate stating, “...that the sound management of chemicals and waste is crucial for the protection of human health and the environment,” countries assembled could not agree that protection of health and the environment would be included in the panel’s purpose.
“Increased visibility, awareness and action on toxic chemicals and waste is urgently needed. However, having a science panel intended to equip environmental policy makers without a mission to protect the environment and health is like establishing a panel on pediatrics that can’t consider children,” said Sara Brosché, PhD, an IPEN Science Advisor. “In addition, not ensuring transparency will threaten the credibility of the Panel. It’s a shame that a few countries were able to obstruct a more ambitious and inclusive foundation of the Panel and unfortunately, as consensus will remain for decision-making, we can expect more of this kind of underhanded manipulation of the process going forward.”
While the large majority of countries at the meetings this week supported the purpose of the panel including protection of health and the environment, consensus on adopting such language was blocked by a few countries. Language ensuring participation, inclusivity, and transparency in the panel’s operations was similarly blocked.
“We need a science panel that is not subject to undue influence from corporate polluters, who have a long history of manipulating data and engaging in dirty tricks to subvert science and derail any policies that would protect health and the environment from their toxic products,” said IPEN Science Advisor Therese Karlssson, PhD. “It is concerning that conflict-of-interest policies and other items needed to address industry inputs were not taken up this week, as this leaves the panel open to their dishonest tactics.”
Other troubling language that countries have yet to agree on could allow industry to hide damaging science about their toxic products as “commercially sensitive information. Such language is not included in other science panels and IPEN notes it could undermine the principles and function of the SPP and thus should be deleted. Decades of experience shows that industry has used such loopholes to hide their knowledge of chemicals that pose serious threats to health and the environment, including lead poisoning threats from lead paint, health threats from PFAS “forever chemicals,” cancer and other health consequences from PCB exposures, and dozens of others.
In addition, despite global concern about addressing the unequal impacts of chemicals related to gender differences, the panel also failed to agree on text that would call on the science panel to include a gender lens when exploring impacts of toxic chemicals, based on opposition led by the US government.