New insights for action against chemicals, pollution and waste

As delivered

Excellencies and distinguished delegates,

I will try to move forward as quickly as possible, but also see if I can offer you some suggestions on how to move forward.

First, however, I would like to express my warmest thanks to the Swiss government for hosting us here in this beautiful place, for being a generous friend of UNEP, for having sponsored this resolution from the outset and for continuing to support the process.

I also express my sincere gratitude to all the delegates present here for everything they have done. I held several separate meetings this morning to listen to the distinguished delegates present here. I also stressed that we see this work as an important milestone for UNEP and the UN in dealing with this environmental wave that has not yet reached us but will reach us in the future. And that includes, of course, dealing with elements related to pollution, waste and chemicals.

And that’s where your work comes in. In 1988, the world decided to create the IPCC. In 2010, the world decided to create the IPBES. And in 2022, this body. So there’s a lot to do and a lot to learn in terms of precedents. You’re not working from scratch, and I get the feeling you see it that way too, but there are already a lot of precedents, and you don’t need to re-establish everything at this point.

A lean, concise founding document is all you need. Since we are running out of time, I would like to make some precise suggestions and present them to you in all humility, building on what you have in front of you, but also thinking about how we might streamline this founding document.

Let me first address the very heavily bracketed operating principles. I have of course read the text in Section B of the draft document. I note the many brackets in the text and invite you to refer to the UNEA resolution which clearly highlights the following key factors. I quote:

(a) Is capable of delivering outcomes that are policy relevant without being policy prescriptive;
(b) is interdisciplinary, meaning that it involves contributions from experts with a broad range of disciplinary expertise; it provides for inclusive participation, including of indigenous peoples, and it is geographically, regionally and gender balanced;
(c) have procedures in place to ensure that the work of the Panel is transparent and impartial and that it can produce credible and scientifically sound reports and assessments;
(d) Take measures that complement, and do not duplicate, the work carried out under relevant multilateral agreements, other international instruments and intergovernmental bodies, including members of the Inter-Agency Programme on Sound Chemicals Management;
(e) Coordinates with others as appropriate.

This is the language you need. It is already agreed upon and I suggest you take it, adopt it, insert it into the text and move on.

Second, on membership of the Science Policy Panel. Let me next turn to the question of membership and engagement in the Science Policy Panel. Here I would like to point out the universal membership of UNEA and the United Nations. I therefore strongly suggest that membership should not be based on an “opt-in” basis, as this would weaken this body that you are negotiating, but that a more comprehensive approach should be adopted, where membership is automatically open to UN member states and members of UN specialized agencies. You can accept this formulation and consider this problem solved.

Third, I want to address the question of names. Plenary versus governing body. In this context, I suggest we clarify the issues and rely – once again – on precedent. In the IPCC context, we speak of the “IPCC Plenary” as the governing body. When the IPCC meets for a meeting, this is a “plenary”. A plenary is therefore the meeting of the governing body. So I urge you to adopt similar nomenclature and delete these brackets. This can be done with the stroke of a pen in the next hour.

Fourthly, on the issue of subsidiary bodies other than the Bureau. Here I suggest that you delete the reference to specific subsidiary bodies. But that you give the Plenary the possibility to set up subsidiary bodies. Of course, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. If you do that, I would remind you that this is exactly what IPBES has done. You have not planned everything in advance. You have given the process the time it needs to determine its subsidiary body and I think it would be very helpful if you did the same and gave the Plenary the possibility to set up the subsidiary bodies and left it at that. You can agree to that tonight.

Fifth, on the question of the Secretariat. Here, of course, I have to say that we at UNEP have had the honour of acting as the Secretariat for this process and I will be completely honest and say that we want to continue to act as such. That is an assumption that I make here without hesitation. We recognise that there are scientific capabilities and expertise that we do not have. For example, expertise in the field of human health. With that in mind, we propose that in providing the Secretariat services, we would like to draw on the expertise and competencies of other UN agencies that need expertise, the WHO for human health, but also others for other expertise, as needed.

Sixth, I suggest that you do not burden yourself too much with the drafting of the financial arrangements, as this can be done later. We at UNEP have extensive experience in financing international and multilateral processes. We advise, and I advise Member States, to base such financing on a simple voluntary trust fund. In this respect, therefore, I suggest that you pare back the text from the complexity that it currently presents. After all, over the course of 52 years, UNEP has mobilised resources for countless other processes, MEAs and engagements, as well as for the current process. We consider a trust fund managed by UNEP to be the simplest and most effective financial arrangement without too much complexity.

Seventh, on strategic partnerships, I would like to remind you all that IPBES only addressed this issue in its third session, so a certain amount of discussion and reflection was possible before any hasty decisions were taken. This was done on the basis of very thorough deliberations, a good appendix and a series of consultations. And it was not something that was rushed. Accordingly,
They only made a decision at their third meeting. That decision was a carefully negotiated annex outlining stakeholder involvement. And in that spirit, I propose that the current open working group hold back on these details of the strategic partnership and leave them for further consideration to those who actually have that responsibility, that is, the first, second, third, etc. plenary.

Eight. On the issue of conflict of interest. A very important issue that you have addressed. But I would like to remind you again that the conflicts of interest of the IPCC and IPBES only arose after the creation of the body, and I strongly suggest that you do the same.

So you have raised many of these issues and that is good for you, but we are running out of time. So I strongly suggest you focus on the basic document, reduce it to the essentials and leave the things that take more time to later meetings. In doing so, you are only following the precedence of other bodies and processes that have come before you.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear delegates, we must give our approval to this body this evening.

On the basic text, we are out of time. The Future Summit will be on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly and I want to stand there and say that you have future-proofed the issue of chemicals, waste and pollution. That you have set up a body that will work in the spirit of the IPCC and the IPBES – the IPBES has been working for a good 10 years now, the IPCC for 36 years. That you will have dealt with this triple global crisis, including the pollution and waste crisis. And that, as requested by the United Nations Environment Assembly, you have set up this body, as I will report to the General Assembly at the Future Summit, that you will have set up this body, that it will go under the hammer tonight and that means that you can send the consolidated document – ​​the basic document – ​​to the first intergovernmental conference.

This is your task for the next three and a half hours and I am absolutely convinced that it can be accomplished.

Thank you very much.