International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP)

And while you are on the topic, read this editorial by Gunilla Öberg and Martin Scheringer: “Everyone has interests”: A red herring https://lnkd.in/dsgrjXuX

Where does your information and data come from? What are the motivations of the source? Are their conflicts of interest? Greenwash from industry and their marketing departments is not just annoying, it is creating significantly flawed data and real confusion. Conflicts of interest erode progress on reducing pollution and mitigating climate change. Trust independent science for quality data and guidance to protect human and planetary health. Take the time to read this. Trust the independent scientists.

Looking for something to read during the summer break? We recommend our paper "Conflicts of interest in the assessment of chemicals, waste and pollution". In the paper we define and review the implications of COI, and its relevance for the management of chemicals, waste, and pollution. We also summarize established tactics to manufacture doubt in favor of vested interests, i.e., to counter scientific evidence and/or to promote misleading narratives favorable to financial interests. We further rebut an assertion voiced by some that the chemical industry should be directly involved in the new global Science-Policy panel’s work because it possesses data on chemicals essential for the panel’s activities. Finally, we present steps that should be taken to prevent the detrimental impacts of COI in the work of the panel. In particular, we propose to include an independent auditor’s role in the panel to ensure that participation and processes follow clear COI rules. Among others, the auditor should evaluate the content of the assessments produced to ensure unbiased representation of information that underpins the panel’s activities.

Our final briefing from #OEWG3 is out. This is not the end we had hoped for, but we will continue to work for a strong global science policy body that contributes to protecting human health and the environment. https://lnkd.in/dXAvNgxJ

Policy brief: Leveraging solution-oriented assessments for the Science-Policy Panel These are our recommendations 1. The Science Policy Panel could consider solution-oriented assessments (SOAs) as a means to include analyses of possible solutions to chemicals-related problems. Typically, such problems are “wicked problems”, which means that they have no single solution, but require a variety of societal responses. 2. SOAs could include multiple solution pathways that also analyze regionally-attuned and realistic options for implementation. 3. Analyses of solution pathways could include targets that could be met along the various pathways presented. 4. SOAs must consider multiple sectors in order to achieve “buyin” and cooperation while ensuring that the solutions explored maximize human and ecosystem health protection and prevention. 5. Inputs to SOAs should come from multi- and interdisciplinary science and Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge to develop a range of options informed by lived experiences. For detailed background information, please refer to our working document: Schäfer, M. (2024) Solution-­oriented assessment: A literature review and conclusions for the SPP on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution Prevention. https://lnkd.in/dGUWJ59D The policy brief can be found here: https://lnkd.in/dRkFxp6M

Policy brief: Exploring outputs of the SPP on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution Prevention. The Science Policy Panel should conduct both retrospective and prospective assessments that are integrative and comprehensive, holistically consider root causes, barriers and enabling elements, intended and unintended consequences, and that build on previous “lessons learned” to develop policy-relevant, solutions-oriented assessments. The assessments can integrate knowledge and experiences from other science-policy interfaces such as the IPCC and IPBES to broadly, but pragmatically explore issues and their solution-space. Finally, the Science Policy Panel assessments should be flexible in scope and depth, ranging from specific issues contained within a specific geography to more expansive and encompassing assessments. We offer two examples of the types of integrative solutions-oriented assessments to spark conversations on what the Science Policy Panel’s assessments might consider. The first example is retrospective, concerning pollution from pharmaceuticals that threatens biodiversity, ecosystem services and public health globally, especially in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). The second is prospective by considering potential releases of chemicals and waste from technological infrastructure (e.g., hospitals, transportation hubs) and landfills located in coastal zones threatened by climate-induced sea level rise and extreme weather events. For detailed background information, please refer to our publication: Diamond et al. 2024. Exploring outputs of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on chemicals, waste and pollution prevention. Environmental Science & Technology Letters.  https://lnkd.in/dGTMG_Q4 You can find the policy brief here: https://lnkd.in/dzkPgsKz

The briefing from day 4 of the #OEWG3 meeting is now online. https://lnkd.in/dpvWWC-N

"Overall, it was a very full and intense day. Some said that they see light at the end of the tunnel, but others are still frustrated by the lack of progress and the concern that the result of OEWG-3 may be a “smallest common denominator” that does not live up to the expectations and ambitions expressed over the last months and years. And one issue that is looming in the background, but is not being discussed, is the financing of the SPP." https://lnkd.in/dwpZKHQb

The briefing from day 4 of the #OEWG3 meeting is now online. https://lnkd.in/dpvWWC-N

The briefing from day 4 of the #OEWG3 meeting is now online. https://lnkd.in/dpvWWC-N