Published March 25, 2026
By Rachel Radvany, Environmental Health Campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law.
The first meeting of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution (ISP-CWP) ended without taking any basic decisions for the panel to be able to begin its work. The ISP-CWP was created to help governments better understand and respond to the growing crisis of toxic pollution. Instead, the inaugural plenary session, held in February 2026 in Geneva, collapsed amid procedural disputes, high-stress negotiations, and repeated obstruction. By the end of the session, many participants agreed that this was one of the most tense and politicized multilateral environmental negotiations they had seen in years.
What the ISP-CWP Is Supposed to Do
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP), established in June 2025 in Punta del Este, Uruguay, was designed to provide policymakers with independent science-based assessments to support policy on chemicals, waste, and pollution – much like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does for climate change. In theory, it could help governments engage in activities such as ‘horizon scanning’ to identify new and emerging risks and conduct assessments of topics related to chemicals and waste. However, the panel cannot begin producing scientific assessments until the foundational documents, key processes, and policies are finalized.
Key Decisions the First Plenary Needed to Make
The first Plenary session was meant to finalize several essential governance decisions needed for the panel to operate:
- Electing a Chair and Bureau – the ‘leadership’ of the panel,
- Negotiating and adopting the rules of procedure – the rules that govern its work,
- Discussing the Panel’s conflict of interest policy,
- Discussing the process for determining its work program, including how it will prioritize topics,
- Designating the location of the Panel’s Secretariat, and
- Establishing a trust fund.
According to the newly elected Chair, some of these items were absolutely ‘essential’ outcomes of this first meeting. Instead, the negotiations stalled over procedural disputes, leaving major decisions unresolved and suspending the first Plenary to be resumed at a later date. The only two outcomes were electing a Chair and a partial Bureau (the Eastern European regional group was unable to agree on its two representatives).
Protracted Discussions and High Tension
Hopes for an efficient and successful meeting began to unravel almost immediately. At the opening plenary, some countries opposed using the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA)’s rules of procedure to guide the meeting. The interim Secretariat had proposed applying those rules temporarily until the panel’s own rules of procedure could be adopted. After lengthy discussions and consultations, Member States agreed to apply one specific UNEA rule to elect a Chair. However, this led to a serious problem: the plenary lacked agreed rules of procedure to govern the work for the remainder of the meeting – a situation that quickly created confusion and procedural deadlock. Without agreed-upon rules, it was unclear how to make decisions, and procedural challenges frequently disrupted negotiations. When the Chair tried to move forward with the agenda – and some countries did not like it – they would challenge his authority, pointing out that there were no rules governing the negotiation.
Circular Negotiations
Many of the discussions in Geneva echoed arguments already heard during the panel’s creation in Uruguay in 2025. In both sessions, delegates spent hours debating standard procedural language, while making little progress on substantive issues. Many of the documents still under consideration are carryovers from the earlier working group process to establish the panel. Even now, many of the panel’s foundational elements, crucial to its success, contain bracketed sections, indicating unresolved points in the previous negotiation.
A Breakdown in the Plenary Room
One of the most tense moments came during a Thursday morning plenary session. Colombia arrived with a plan to move the discussions forward: apply the UNEA rules of procedure provisionally until the session concluded or the Panel adopted its own rules. Many Member States supported this proposal, including the European Union, because it would allow the meeting to function. However, the UNEA rules include the possibility of voting, which removes the de facto veto power of the countries that have traditionally attempted to derail other negotiations. This opposition to voting is not new – it is a fight being played out across multiple other multilateral environmental treaties – and a decision is essential to making progress. And predictably, the same countries strongly resisted Colombia’s proposal. When the Chair moved to consider Colombia’s proposal, delegates opposing the motion repeatedly raised points of order to prevent discussions from advancing. When it was clear that the procedural objections might fail, the situation escalated. Delegates opposed to Colombia’s proposal began shouting, interrupting speakers, and finally banging on tables, which is almost unheard of in other negotiating fora. Security rushed into the room – they reportedly believed that there was a protest. Soon after, multiple delegations intervened, suggesting to take a recess to lower the temperature, and the Chair adjourned the session for lunch.
An Unprecedented Breakdown of Diplomatic Norms
Observers with years of experience in environmental negotiations agreed that this was one of the worst displays of decorum they have seen at a meeting. When the meeting resumed, the Secretariat projected the UN Code of Conduct on the screen and read it to the room. Despite attempts to restore order, the meeting did not regain momentum. By the end of the week, some delegates were calling the session a funeral or a circus.
Why the Meeting Broke Down
There were several factors working in this meeting’s favor. First, the Panel elected a Chair who was clearly focused on achieving the meeting’s intended outcomes. Second, Colombia laid out a reasonable plan to move discussions forward, which was supported by many countries. Still, it was not enough. Two main factors contributed to the breakdown:
- Lack of agreed-upon rules of procedure
- Without agreed-upon and adopted rules of procedure, the Chair had limited ability to manage debates or move decisions forward. A handful of Member States continued their display of procedural tactics to delay progress. Many of these tactics are repeated from other spaces.
Lessons Learned
While chemicals and waste negotiations have been relatively protected from the politicization seen in other environmental instruments, the first ISP-CWP Plenary made it clear that era is over. For Member States to confront obstructionism and bad-faith behavior, the dynamics of the negotiations need to change. The failure to make meaningful progress and finalize foundational documents offers several lessons going forward:
- Finalizing the rules is essential.
Negotiating the rules of procedure is technical – but the panel’s rules determine how decisions are made and who can block them. Making decisions by consensus will ensure that obstruction will continue to dominate future sessions. - Preparation and coordination matter.
Arriving at the negotiation with clear legal strategies and coordination is mission-critical. This must be paired with a willingness to see them through, even in the face of intimidation. - Guardrails are necessary.
There is abundant scientific evidence of the urgent need to address chemicals, waste, and pollution. Policymakers would benefit from clear, authoritative scientific summaries to support regulatory decisions. If the Panel’s rules allow a small group of countries to block or distort its work, it risks becoming ineffective or vulnerable to industry influence.
The Future of the ISP-CWP
Last year in Uruguay, the narrative was ‘let’s set up the skeleton of the Panel, and we can add the details later.’ The Geneva meeting demonstrated the risks of that approach. The Member States that opposed the Panel from the beginning are also willing to obstruct its development. If Member States really want the Panel to deliver on its intended work and mission, they must be open-eyed not only about attempts to stymie progress, but also to politicize and manipulate science, and they must guard against that. The next round of negotiations will determine whether the ISP-CWP becomes a credible science-policymaking body or a stalled institution unable to deliver meaningful assessments. Regardless of the Panel’s fate, independent science continues to reveal the impacts of chemicals and waste, people and the environment continue being poisoned, and States can and must step up to protect us.
