TEXT: IPEN Quick Views on the third session of the Ad hoc Open-Ended Working Group on a future Science-Policy Panel on chemicals, waste and to prevent pollution (SPP OEWG-3)

Access to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, including a safe and healthy working environment, is a universal human right. This includes the right of access to information and requires science-based policies to protect the human rights of individuals and communities exposed to hazardous substances and wastes. In addition, the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that the dangers and risks of environmental pollution must be taken into account in the right to health. The work of the Science-Policy Panel must contribute to upholding the enjoyment of these rights, and should be based on precaution, prevention, the polluter-pays principle, and the industry’s duty to disclose information.

To be credible and trustworthy, the Panel and its work must be:

• Inclusive and Participatory: The Panel must effectively integrate views, information, and data from consumers, stakeholders, and communities impacted by chemicals, waste, and pollution, including groups in especially vulnerable situations, Indigenous Peoples, and workers. Gender, regional, and sectorial balance must be ensured. There must be participation of civil society representatives in all work of the Panel and its subsidiary bodies. Knowledge must be broadly defined to include traditional and Indigenous Knowledge systems, as well as citizen science.

• Transparent: Work processes, prioritization of issues, sources of information, and decision-making must be traceable, and documentation must be publicly available and accessible. No information or data submitted to the Panel and its subsidiary bodies, or used by the Panel and its subsidiary bodies, should be treated as confidential, to safeguard the integrity of the Panel and align with other science-policy panels.

• Free from conflicts of interest: The development and implementation of a strong conflict-of-interest policy will be crucial to ensure that the Panel provides independent, scientifically sound data, suitable to inform policy work. The policy should take both current and previous engagements into account and apply to all involved experts and participants. The policy must apply to the decision-making body, subsidiary bodies, committees, and other processes. The policy should require disclosure of all real, potential, and apparent conflicts of interest, and the Panel should have procedures to actively prevent conflicts of interest throughout all its work and decision-making processes. All information related to conflicts of interest disclosures should be made publicly available online, including evaluations of conflicts of interest. See IPEN’s submission on this topic here.

Expected Outcomes of OEWG-3

The following outputs are expected from OEWG-3, either as finalized proposals for adoption at the Intergovernmental Meeting, or as drafts to be forwarded to the first session of the Panel:   

1. Finalized text of Section A-D of document OEWG.3/2 - Compilation of proposals for establishing a science-policy panel.
2. Proposal for a draft decision establishing the panel (see document OEWG.3/3 - Proposals on the establishment of the Panel).
3. Proposal for a draft decision to give effect to arrangements to support the work of the Panel, such as Secretariat, Bureau, and financial arrangements (see document OEWG.3/4 - Proposals to give effect to arrangements).
4. Draft proposals for Annex I- IV (see documents OEWG.3/2/Add.1, OEWG.3/2/Add.2, OEWG.3/2/Add.3 and OEWG.3/2/Add.4).

Overview of key working documents for OEWG-3

The key working documents are posted in all UN languages here.[1] They consist of:

• The draft proposal for foundational elements to establish the panel: OEWG.3/2 - Compilation of proposals for establishing a science-policy panel.
• Draft proposal text for Annexes: 
  • Add.1: Draft rules of procedure 
  • Add.2: Draft financial procedures 
  • Add.3: Draft process for determining the work programme, including prioritization
  • Add.4: Draft procedures for the preparation and clearance of panel deliverables
  • Add.5: Draft conflict-of-interest disclosure form
  • Two working documents containing proposals for draft decisions: 
    • OEWG3/3: Proposals on the establishment of the Panel to be considered by the intergovernmental meeting.
    • OEWG3/4: Proposals to give effect to arrangements to be considered by the intergovernmental meeting.

OEWG 3/2 Compilation of proposals for establishing a Science-Policy Panel. 

This working document contains the draft proposal for foundational elements to establish the panel that came out of OEWG-2:

1. Scope, Objective, and Functions
2. Operating Principles
3. Institutional arrangements for the panel
4. Evaluation of the operational effectiveness and impact of the panel

In addition, the working document contains placeholders for the preamble and Annexes I-IV. It also contains draft text for the Conflict-of-Interest Policy in Annex V that came out of OEWG-2. 

Section A. Scope, objective, and functions of the panel

The section contains draft text for an objective and five functions: (a) horizon scanning; (b) conducting assessments; (c) providing up-to-date and relevant information; (d) facilitating information sharing, and; (e) capacity building. The details of the capacity-building function are yet to be agreed on.  

IPEN views:

Overall, IPEN supports the proposed objective and functions. The function (e) on capacity building is important, for example to provide support and create an enabling environment to ensure that outputs from the Panel can be implemented in all countries, particularly developing countries and countries in transition. Function (d) should address the problem that most scientific publications on chemical hazards are not publicly available but only accessible to those who have the financial resources to pay for them. 

Section B. Operating principles of the panel

The text of this section of the draft proposal currently includes 15 draft Operating Principles, from (a) to (o). Not all the principles have been agreed on and much of the text is in brackets, including important language on prevention, precaution, and the protection of human rights.

IPEN views:

For the text in brackets, the language options should be kept that ensure that the work of the Panel will provide reliable and independent science-based information to protect human and environmental health. This means keeping language around prevention, precaution, and the protection of human rights and communities in vulnerable situations.  

It is important to take into account that data on emerging issues may be limited. This means that in order for the Panel to fulfill its aim to “prevent pollution” and its horizon-scanning function, the work of the Panel must be based on precaution and prevention. 

In operating principle (a), consensus is suggested within brackets. This suggested language should not be included since it would be inappropriate for a Science-Policy Panel. Science and scientific assessments should be driven by evidence and sound methodology rather than the need to achieve unanimous agreement and this suggestion would jeopardize the scientific integrity. 

Section C. Institutional arrangements for the panel

This section includes six subsections (I-VI).

Subsection I – IV While the proposed body is called a “Panel,” the draft institutional arrangements suggest developing a structure similar to other policy forums, with a decision-making body (a plenary), a Bureau, a Secretariat, and several subsidiary bodies, including an Expert Committee. The subsidiary bodies proposed are 1) an Interdisciplinary Expert Committee; 2) a Policy Committee; 3) a Conflict-of-Interest Committee; 4) a Prospective Error Analysis Committee; 5) a Capacity-Building Committee; 6) Technical Support Units and; 7) a Socioeconomic Subsidiary body.    

IPEN views on Subsection I – IV:

IPEN supports the overall set-up of the Panel. Noting the importance of ensuring the integrity of the work of the Panel, the inclusion of a Conflict-of-Interest Committee is strongly supported. However, subsidiary bodies that are outside the scope of the mandate of UNEA resolution 5/8, or could delay or limit the outputs of the Panel should not be included. Therefore, the proposed Policy Committee, Socioeconomic Subsidiary body, and Prospective Error Analysis Committee are not supported. 

In addition, the decision-making body and all subsidiary bodies must be open to participation and contributions from Civil Society, to ensure transparency, credibility, and trustworthiness of the work of the Panel and its outputs. This is already an established practice in all chemicals and waste-related Conventions (Stockholm, Rotterdam, Basel, and Minamata) and their subsidiary bodies (the POPs Review Committee, the Chemicals Review Committee, Basel Convention Working Groups, and the Implementation and Compliance Committee). 

Subsection V on Financial Arrangements establishes a new Trust Fund to support the work of the Panel. Voluntary contributions to the Fund would be welcome from a wide range of stakeholders, including the private sector. Most details of rules and procedures are yet to be agreed on. 

IPEN views on subsection V:  New, robust, independent financing is urgently needed for addressing chemicals, waste, and pollution, as a part of the triple planetary crisis. The significant lack of adequate, predictable, and sustainable funding is a key obstacle to moving forward towards sound management of chemicals and waste in developing countries and countries in transition. This includes new and additional resources to finance the work of the SPP. 

New funding initiatives should be built on the polluter-pays principle. As noted by the UNEP report on the cost of inaction on the sound management of chemicals, “The emerging data on the economic consequences of harmful chemicals related to negative health, environment, and development planning effects, clearly point to very high effects and associated costs.” These effects and costs are borne by the public, while the profits are enjoyed by the chemicals industry. So far, the dedicated external funding to the integrated approach to financing has been insufficient, and industry involvement in financing the sound management of chemicals has been marginal at best.

The proposed new trust fund will be a suitable way forward, since it is suggested to also accept contributions from the private sector. However, noting concerns around Conflicts of Interest, it needs to be guarded by strict transparency measures and ensure that contributions do not influence the work, deliberations, and decision-making of the panel in any way. 

Subsection VI provides details related to Strategic Partnerships, most of which are yet to be agreed on.  

IPEN views on subsection VI:

It is vital for the credibility of the Panel that stakeholder engagement and any Partnership are transparent and with clear boundaries preventing influence from stakeholders with conflict of interests. Any partnerships must be based on agreed criteria, including measures preventing partnerships with entities that have conflict of interests. 

Section D. Evaluation of the operational effectiveness and impact of the panel

This section includes provisions for evaluating the efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of the Panel. 

IPEN views: Periodical, independent evaluation of the work of the Panel will be very important to verify that it is functioning as intended. Evaluation criteria should include transparency, inclusiveness, conflict of interest, and relevance of outputs. An evaluation can be helpful in identifying obstacles, weaknesses, and limiting factors, and propose ways to strengthen the Panel.  

Annexes

Five annexes are proposed, containing procedures, policies, and guidelines.

Annex 1. Rules of procedure 

IPEN views: IPEN notes that these overall contain similar language as in other chemicals and waste frameworks and can be adopted more or less as is, but that there are some instances where there is a lack of clarity that needs to be addressed (for example in Rule 35).  

Annex 2. Financial procedures

IPEN views: IPEN supports the draft financial procedures, and notes that both financial and in-kind contributions should also be published on the SPP website to ensure transparency. This would also help show the importance of the engagement by non-governmental organizations, developing countries, and countries in transition, which are often able to provide only in-kind contributions.

Annex 3. Process for determining the work programme, including prioritization

IPEN views: Transparent decision-making and prioritization processes, free from conflicts of interest, will ensure credibility and trust in the work of the Panel. Therefore, provisions on Conflicts of Interest need to be added to Annex 3.   

Annex 4. Procedures for the preparation and clearance of panel deliverables

IPEN views: IPEN supports the general outline of the draft procedures in the Annex. However, specific revisions are needed:

• Care must be taken to include conflict-of-interest provisions at all stages, including the review stage. Therefore, paragraph 25 should be deleted. In addition, “industry” should be removed from paragraph 37. Instead, a separate paragraph should describe what specific review process information from the industry should undergo.
• All stages of this process must be transparent, including access to data and sources.  Therefore, review comments and the final draft of the deliverable should be made publicly available online. Also, Section E should include the same language as IPBES: the secretariat “should provide access to these materials on request.”
• The process should be science-focused. Therefore, paragraph 28 should be deleted, as well as the word “socioeconomic” in paragraph 29. 
• As indicated in paragraph 51.a), similar to Stockholm Convention Article 9.5., information on the health and safety of humans and the environment cannot be regarded as confidential. Also, neither IPBES nor IPCC has procedures for safeguarding commercially sensitive information.[2] Therefore, this section should be deleted or significantly edited, to only include a statement that information on the health and safety of humans and the environment cannot be regarded as confidential. 

Annex 5. Conflict of Interest policy

The text of Annex 5 is included in document UNEP/SPP-CWP/OEWG.3/2 containing the Compilation of proposals for establishing a science-policy panel. In addition, document 

UNEP/SPP-CWP/OEWG.3/2/Add.5 contains a Draft conflict-of-interest disclosure form.

IPEN views: To ensure that the future panel is viewed as credible and trustworthy and able to provide independent, scientifically sound data, suitable to inform policy work, the development and implementation of a strong Conflict of Interest (COI) policy will be crucial. 

It is important to compare best practices from existing COI approaches intended to ensure scientific integrity and credibility. These should include best practices from other panels working in the science-policy interface on chemicals, for example the POPRC under the Stockholm Convention, other UN Agencies such as the WHO, but also from other science-based organizations such as the Endocrine Society. 

The COI policy needs to ensure

1. That the evaluation of potential conflicts of interest accounts for current potential conflicts of interest and also potential conflicts of interest resulting from recent engagements.  Therefore, “from the past four years” should be retained in paragraph 12 and “current” should be deleted from paragraph 15. 
2. That information on potential conflicts of interest for all participants is made public, including outcomes of COI investigations, to ensure transparency of work and secure public confidence in, and legitimacy of the work of the panel. 
3. That the scope of the COI policy applies to all involved experts and partnerships that are engaged in the work of the panel. Therefore, all roles mentioned in Part B, paragraph 7, should be retained, and “partnerships” should be added.   
4. That the COI policies require disclosure of all real, potential, and apparent conflicts of interest. This should be specified in Annex 5 as well as in the draft form.
5. That procedures for implementation are developed and that identified COI are acted upon, to prevent undue influence on the Panel’s work and functioning, rather than merely “identified”.

For more information see IPEN’s submission.