Delays and deadlock prevented agreement on the foundational elements needed for the Panel to begin its work.
GENEVA, February 6, 2026 — The first session of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution has adjourned, having made no progress.
The session was intended to finalize the foundational documents necessary to ensure the Panel could begin its work. Instead of focusing on substantive issues, the week was dominated by geopolitics that derailed any progress. In the closing Plenary session, the meeting’s Chair acknowledged that there were no outcomes.
“The world is drowning in toxic chemicals and pollution, yet we spent a week talking in circles and witnessing power plays,” said Rachel Radvany, Campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law. “The only clear winners emerging from this process are governments determined to shut down debate. Many ambitious countries, alongside civil society organizations, Indigenous Peoples, independent scientists, women, and youth, came here to lay the foundation for a Panel that can earnestly address the serious topic of chemicals, waste, and pollution.”
The long list of documents to finalize stemmed from unfinished work in the Open-Ended Working Group sessions last year, which led to the Panel’s establishment. This week’s discussions should have covered the Panel’s programme of work, conflict of interest policy, rules of procedure, funding, and future date and location, but they stalled in closed-door working group sessions on the rules of procedure, with tensions spilling over into plenaries.
On Thursday, Colombia presented a plan that could end the deadlock — they suggested that the Panel adopt UNEA’s rules of procedure, allowing decisions to be made by vote. Despite support from a large number of Member States, a small group of countries, led by Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kenya, aggressively shut down the conversation.
David Azoulay, Director of Environmental Health at the Center for International Environmental Law, added, “Although the plan to introduce voting by using the UNEA rules of procedure was not successful, the meeting itself continued to expose the systemic bad faith engagement of certain Member State actors. And more importantly, it demonstrates the need for Member States who are unwilling to accept the obstruction we are seeing in international environmental law to come prepared with clear legal strategies, determination, and coordination if they want efforts to address the pressing environmental issues of our time to succeed.”
Giulia Carlini, Manager of Environmental Health and Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, continued, “The science is already clear: Chemical production is expected to triple by 2050, while the WHO says 2 million lives were lost due to chemical exposure in 2019 alone. This Panel is designed to focus on science-policy, but this week, there were no conversations about science or even policy. This is another example of obstructionist countries showing that they are more than willing to run down the clock and exhaust resources, with deleterious impacts. While this cannot continue, countries have no excuse to ignore the science: they must ban toxics and protect our health and the planet.”
The session concluded with the Plenary agreeing that the Chair and Bureau would determine the dates and venue of the next, resumed, session.
###
Media Contact:
Cate Bonacini, [email protected], +1-510-520-9109 (WhatsApp and Signal)