By Rachel Radvany and Giulia Carlini
New year, new acronym! The newly established Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP) will meet in its first Plenary session from February 2-6 in Geneva, Switzerland. The Panel is designed to provide scientific assessments on chemicals, waste, and pollution to inform policymakers at national, regional, and international levels.
The Panel is a counterpart to existing science-policy bodies such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is not a treaty or convention, so outcomes will not be legally binding. However, if IPBES and the IPCC are any indication, it will provide important information to be a key enabler for policy change.
Background and Establishment
The mandate for the panel was adopted at the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2), and for the last several years, it was referred to as the Science Policy Panel. Governments established the ISP-CWP and formally adopted the name at the resumed third session of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG-3.2) in June of 2025, after two and a half years of intense negotiations. However, after that meeting, many governance and operational issues remain unresolved.
This first Plenary session of the ISP-CWP aims to finalize some of these foundational elements and enable the Panel to begin its substantive work. So what should we expect from this meeting?
Key Agenda Items for the First Session
At the Plenary session, governments will be picking up where they left off at previous meetings, aiming to finalize documents and procedures. Governments have had at least some discussion on most of these documents, but were not able to reach a final agreement and adopt them. Key decision points include:
1. Rules of Procedure
The rules of procedure govern how the Panel will operate and include participation and decision-making processes. Finishing these rules during the Panel session is a top priority.
Such rules were discussed in detail in OEWG-3.2 along with the relevant parts of the foundational document. Some important elements remain unresolved, including the rules governing observer participation in the Panel and its meetings. It is imperative that governments maintain as broad observer participation as possible in order to ensure the Panel’s credibility and legitimacy. This is also consistent with the Panel’s agreed operating principles, which include ensuring transparency.
2. Conflict of Interest Policy
A conflict of interest policy will define how experts and stakeholders involved in the Panel are evaluated for potential bias. This policy is essential to ensure that the Panel’s outcomes are scientifically independent – consistent also with its operating principles – and that the Panel maintains its credibility and trustworthiness. Industry actors with vested interests in maintaining the production of harmful chemicals and products should not be allowed to influence the Panel’s work. Therefore, the conflict of interest policy must be clear and strong, including the possibility of excluding experts with conflicts from the Panel’s work.
3. Work Program and Deliverables Process
There are two additional procedural documents that are essential to addressing how the Panel will determine its work program and how assessments and deliverables are prepared and approved.
These documents must ensure transparency, including through observer participation and input into the Panel’s work program. This will help uphold the Panel’s legitimacy as it begins its work.
Governance Challenges and Risks
Consensus Decision-Making
In the foundation of the Panel, countries agreed that all substantive decisions must be made by consensus, meaning any country can block progress. This creates a serious risk for the Panel’s future. Consensus-based rules often lead to a lowest-common-denominator outcome that hamstrings progress, where ambition and scientific integrity are weakened to accommodate the most resistant voices. In a scientific panel, this is especially dangerous since scientific consensus is built on evidence, not political agreement. Allowing governments to veto findings or recommendations gives States with vested interests the power to delay, dilute, or derail the Panel’s work, undermining its ability to deliver clear, independent, and timely scientific guidance.
Delay tactics or efforts to dilute the language of the Panel’s policies and processes will likely abound at this meeting, and Member States must remain vigilant and hold the line on important issues that are central to the Panel’s success.
Transparency and Civic Space
As multilateralism is under attack in various spaces, we are seeing shrinking civic space and restrictions on observer participation, which is dangerous and threatens to undermine the good work going on in these processes. Beyond transparency, civil society observers — which include independent scientists — bring valuable insights to bear at intergovernmental science and policy meetings, and this only strengthens the quality of the outputs.
As negotiators look to formalize documents like the Rules of Procedure, it is essential to pay attention to how observer participation is addressed.
Rights of Indigenous Peoples
At previous meetings, there was a proposal to conflate Indigenous Peoples with local communities. Combining Indigenous Peoples with other groups causes conflict and confusion under different national circumstances and undermines their rights as enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Many countries defended the rights of Indigenous Peoples and supported keeping Indigenous Peoples separate from other groups throughout the texts of the new Panel. It will be important that countries continue to support Indigenous Peoples’ distinct rights and participation at the ISP-CWP’s first Plenary session.
Gender Dynamics
At OEWG-3.2, gender was one of the most contentious topics, with certain countries fighting its inclusion or attempting to redefine the term in the Panel’s text. This led to the term being bracketed throughout the foundational document. The gender dimension of the impacts of chemicals, waste, and pollution is well-documented, with women often being more impacted by toxic exposures and having fewer chances to participate in decision-making. The solution? Including gender-responsive science in the Panel, this will be imperative to ensuring equitable policymaking in this field.
What to Watch at Plenary 1
At Plenary 1, it will be important to watch for key issues that include:
- Attempts to restrict observer participation — including women, youth, public interest nongovernmental organizations, Indigenous Peoples, and independent scientists — and decrease transparency
- Further delays in adopting governance documents
- Efforts to weaken conflict-of-interest safeguards
- Language changes affecting Indigenous Peoples’ recognition
Policy Implications
Although the Panel is not legally binding, it is expected to be a major enabler of science-based policy on chemicals, waste, and pollution. It is important for governments to remember that independent science is key, and the precautionary principle should guide all work. While it may take some time for the Panel to be fully operational, there is enough scientific evidence to act to stop preventable sickness and death caused by chemicals, waste, and pollution.
Key Takeaway
The first meeting of the ISP-CWP is a foundational meeting that will shape the Panel’s future credibility, transparency, and effectiveness. It comes at the start of a year that is rich in geopolitical shifts and tensions, and the meeting has the potential to have an impact on other multilateral meetings this year.
Decisions made in the February meeting will determine how well the Panel can provide independent, policy-relevant guidance on chemicals, waste, and pollution.
Published on January 28, 2026