From January 30 to February 3, 2023, national delegates, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders met in Krung Thep Maha Nakhon (Bangkok), Thailand for the UN Environmental Assembly working group meeting to create a science-policy panel dedicated to the management of chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention (hereafter: the Panel). The meeting focused on defining the role of the Panel, and its scope and function within existing chemical regulatory bodies.
Defining the scope of the Panel is a large task due to the hundreds of thousands of chemicals on the market, the variety of products they are used in in different combinations, and with wildly variable effects on humans and the environment (FPF reported also here and here). Stakeholders and delegates will also have to decide how to deal with data gaps, as there are many chemicals and chemical effects for which information is not publicly available (e.g., polymerized PFAS, FPF reported).
As discussions were beginning in Thailand, Marlene Ågerstrand of Stockholm University, Sweden, and 21 other scientists in the field of chemical pollution published an article in Environmental Science and Technology highlighting “ten critical aspects for consideration in determining the settings of the Panel.” The aspects include:
- Paralysis by analysis – “the Panel must avoid repeatedly re-assessing the same topics and substances” where continued research may expand or deepen the understanding of the issue(s) but would simply confirm earlier insights “and where, accordingly, action could and should have been taken earlier.”
- Scope – “the Panel’s work needs to be broad and inclusive to properly respond to the breadth and complexity of global chemical production, use, releases, and disposal, involving up to several hundred thousand chemicals, of which a substantial fraction is hazardous to humans and/or ecosystem health.”
- Establish inclusive knowledge exchange – chemical use and regulation is globally diverse, and the Panel will need to integrate a diverse array of knowledge sources including natural and biomedical sciences, social sciences, humanities, traditional and local indigenous knowledge, and others. To get from knowledge to action, “the adequate involvement of experts in risk communication will be critical for the dissemination and contextualization of the Panel’s work.”
Another of the “ten critical aspects” was that of conflicts of interests. Ågerstrand and co-authors wrote that “while the private sector might be privy to important information, its representatives may also have inherent conflicts of interest.” The 22 authors argued “all experts contributing to the work of the Panel must declare their conflicts of interest, financial and otherwise” including those working as part of civil society or other nongovernmental organizations.
On January 26, 2023, one of the authors of the paper, Martin Scheringer, hosted a webinar on behalf of the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP), a non-profit organization of chemical pollution researchers, to discuss conflict of interest. They explained the term, provided examples from policy debates, and strategies to deal with it. IPCP aimed to “illustrate the role that private interests play in delaying actions that are intended to prevent adverse health impacts from toxic chemicals and waste.” Five panelists shared insights from their work “uncovering, analyzing, and communicating” the actions of private interests in chemical pollution regulation.
David Azoulay from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) said that “corporate interests are always and will always be involved” in these regulatory discussions but it is important to keep in mind how the claims of corporate interests hold up over time. According to Azoulay, “in all of the examples of regulatory risk assessment that have been done for the past 10-15 years in the EU the costs that industry claim they will have to suffer from any sort of restricting regulation is on average overblown by a factor of 10. Basically, industries claim 10x more potential cost from restricting certain substances from their businesses” than is the case.
Laura Vandenberg of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, shared her research on the tactics and overall framework that industries use to disrupt and delay discussions on topics such as tobacco, coal, sugar, atrazine (a pesticide), and climate change. When asked about one thing that could be changed to improve how to deal with conflict of interest, she suggested that more organizations should adopt policies like those of the International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC does not allow scientists with ties to industry to have a vote on the reports they write. In addition, the affiliations of all the people involved in research and report writing are stated up front.
Other panelists called for changing society’s understanding of the burden of proof. David Michaels of George Washington University stated that “we need to recognize that we don’t have all the answers, but we need to regulate on the best available evidence.” Rob Bilott, attorney at Taft Stettinius & Hollister famously portrayed in the movie Dark Waters, added “we need to change this presumption of ‘innocence’ for toxic chemicals… we need to put the burden of proof on the chemical producers and not consumers.”
Back in Thailand, delegates deliberated on the role of the new chemicals’ panel. According to a summary published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, “while consensus could not be reached on the panel’s objective, some common understanding emerged… to specify that the panel will undertake its work for the protection of human health and the environment.” Because of the work completed during the first meeting of the delegates in October 2022 “discussion on the panel’s functions was far more straightforward,” IISD writes.
In 2022, delegates agreed to four functions of the Panel: horizon scanning, scientific assessments, information provision and dissemination, and information sharing. At this meeting they added a fifth – capacity building. What exactly “capacity building” will entail is not yet clear. IISD explains, “for some, the focus should be strictly on supporting scientists from developing countries to participate in the work of the panel. For others, the function should also support local scientists in their work to identify research needs, undertake research, and publish their findings.”
The next meeting of the working group is not yet scheduled, but national delegations, civil society, scientists, and other stakeholders will continue to meet bilaterally and in other forums to swap ideas and prepare.
References
Ågerstrand, M., et al. (January 2023). “Key Principles for the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Panel on Chemicals and Waste.” Environmental Science & Technology. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c08283
IPCP (January 26, 2023). “Webinar: Unwrapping Conflict of Interest in Chemicals and Waste Governance.»
IPCP (January 29, 2023). “IPCP Bangkok Briefings.”
UN Environment Program. “EWG1.2: Science-Policy Panel to contribute further to the sound management of chemicals and waste and to prevent pollution.”
Earth Bulletin. (January 30 – February 3, 2023). “OEWG1-2: Science-Policy Panel to Contribute Further to the Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste and to Prevent Pollution.” International Institute for Sustainable Development.
