Engaging Scientists and Experts to Strengthen the Science-Policy Interface on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution | Road to ISP-CWP P1

About this Event

This event is being held in preparation for the inaugural Plenary session (P1) of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP) to be held from 2 to 6 February 2026 in Geneva, preceded by regional and stakeholder meetings on 1 February 2026.

The event focused on the engagement of scientists and experts at the science-policy interface and what can help facilitate the strengthening of the interface for chemicals, waste and pollution prevention. A first panel explored relevant examples of expert networks, including those engaged on questions of chemicals, waste and pollution. A second panel turned to strategies employed to enhance the reach of expert engagement. The audience will then have the opportunity to put questions to the panellists.

Speakers

Tessa GOVERSE

Head, Interim Secretariat of ISP-CWP, UNEP

Mohamed ABDELRAOUF

Program Manager, Gulf Research Center | Co-Facilitator, Scientific and Technological Community Major Group to UNEP

Camilla ALEXANDER-WHITE

Lead Policy Advisor, International Chemicals Policy, Royal Society of Chemistry | Co-Facilitator, Scientific and Technological Community Major Group to UNEP

Bob DIDERICH

Head, Division of Environment, Health and Safety, OECD | IOMC Chair

Jorge OCANA

Manager, Chemicals and Waste Management Programme, UNITAR | IOMC Representative

Anne-Sophie STEVANCE

Senior Science Officer, Head of Unit, International Science Council

Peter BATES

Head, IPBES Technical Support Unit on Indigenous and Local Knowledge, UNESCO

Janna RADI

Chemicals, Waste and Pollution Thematic Facilitator, Children and Youth Major Group to UNEP

Halshka GRACZYK

Technical Specialist, Occupational Safety and Health and Working Environment Branch, ILO

Miriam G. MEDEL GARCIA

Head, Environment Team, Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva

Miriam DIAMOND

Panel Member on Chemicals and Waste, GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) & Professor, University of Toronto | Moderator

Highlights

Video

Live on Webex.

Summary

Opening Remarks

Tessa GOVERSE | Head, Interim Secretariat of ISP-CWP, UNEP

• Scientists and experts are absolutely central to the new Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution.
• The panel is expected to be policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. It is expected to be scientifically independent and to ensure credibility and legitimacy, including through peer review of its work.
• Scientists and experts are therefore at the core of this new panel, with opportunities for engagement at all levels.
• The plenary is the governing and decision-making body of the panel and is composed of governments.
• The secretariat has issued a call for nominations of national focal points, and several countries have nominated chemicals or science-policy interface experts.
• This is fully aligned with the objective of the panel, which is to strengthen the science-policy interface to support the sound management of chemicals, waste and pollution prevention.
• The plenary is open to participation by observers, subject to provisions contained in the foundational document adopted on 20 June 2025 at the establishment of the panel, as well as the future rules of procedure.
• The rules of procedure have not yet been adopted and will be a main focus of the first session of the plenary, which will take place from 2 to 6 February 2026 in Geneva, hosted by Switzerland.
• The scientific and technical core of the panel is the Interdisciplinary Expert Committee.
  • This body will provide scientific advice to the plenary and the bureau.
  • It will develop a transparent peer-review process to ensure the highest standards of scientific quality, independence, inclusivity, integrity and credibility for the panel’s deliverables.
  • The committee will operate in accordance with procedures and processes set out in relevant documents, some of which still need to be considered and adopted by the panel at upcoming plenary sessions.
• Significant work therefore remains for the panel itself.
  • Members of the Interdisciplinary Expert Committee will be nominated by regions and elected by the plenary, with due consideration for interdisciplinarity and inclusivity.
  • Committee members will be selected based on expertise, including but not limited to scientific, socioeconomic and technical expertise, as well as knowledge relevant to the panel’s mandate.
  • The number of representatives on the committee has not yet been determined in the rules of procedure. Indicatively, this may involve around 20 to 25 members.
• The largest number of scientists and experts will be engaged through expert groups once the panel has an approved work programme, as well as through peer-review processes.
• The functions of the panel include conducting assessments, horizon scanning, providing up-to-date and relevant information, and facilitating information sharing.
• Procedures for preparing assessments and other deliverables are still to be finalized but are likely to include expert groups with coordinating lead authors, lead authors and contributing authors, similar to other assessment panels.
• An approved work programme is required before defining priorities and identifying the expertise needed to respond to the needs expressed by panel members, particularly developing countries, and to prepare the panel’s deliverables.
• Attracting relevant expertise is not possible if awareness of the panel remains limited. Informing and engaging stakeholders, including through this webinar, is therefore essential.
• It is also important to learn from existing expert networks working on chemicals, waste and pollution, including those supported by the OECD, WHO and ILO, and to understand what is already happening or planned to strengthen the science-policy interface in this area.
• Further reflection is also needed on what constitutes expertise and which sources of knowledge should be considered in the work of this panel.
• There is strong interest in hearing from today’s speakers, as well as in exploring how best to strengthen the science-policy interface across sectors, whether on chemicals, waste and pollution prevention or other fields. This includes encouraging stronger connections between policymakers and experts at the national level, in both directions.

Roundtable 1: Fostering Strong Science-Policy Networks

Mohamed ABDELAROUF | Program Manager, Gulf Research Center | Co-Facilitator, Scientific and Technological Community Major Group to UNEP

• The Scientific and Technical Major Group (S&TMG) witnessed the establishment of this panel and followed the process from the very beginning.
• The S&TMG at UNEP serves as the voice of the scientific community. It provides independent, evidence-based scientific and technical knowledge to inform activities related to UNEP, including the ISP-CWP
• The group contributes directly to strengthening the science-policy interface. It acts as a bridge between the scientific community and policy makers, facilitating knowledge exchange and the sharing of best practices to support informed decision-making at all levels.
• Across the various functions of the panel, the S&TMG can play an important role.
• Scientific expertise is provided across all fields of science.
• Expertise and data on chemicals, waste and pollution are contributed from economic, scientific, social and technical perspectives.
• Support can also be provided in proposing and reviewing panel assessments.
• A particularly important role lies in identifying gaps and emerging issues that require attention. Through horizon scanning, the group can help identify future priorities and key knowledge gaps for the panel’s work.
• The group consistently advocates for the use of strong, independent science as a foundational element of the panel.
• Inclusivity is also a core principle. Scientists from across economic, social and technical disciplines are engaged, and cooperation is maintained with other Major Groups to ensure that expertise is brought forward in a transparent and inclusive manner.
• Support for capacity-building is another area where contributions can be made.
• In essence, the S&TMG helps ensure that the ISP-CWP is grounded in the best available science to support effective, evidence-based action. The group benefits from a global network of expertise spanning multiple fields.
• It contributed actively to the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) and aims to continue playing a similar role by bringing expertise from diverse organizations and networks.
• One ongoing initiative under consideration is the establishment of a science coalition as an international network dedicated to supporting the work of the panel.

Camilla ALEXANDER-WHITE | Lead Policy Advisor, International Chemicals Policy, Royal Society of Chemistry | Co-Facilitator, Scientific and Technological Community Major Group to UNEP

• Participation in the S&TMG accreditation. Organizations must apply through UNEP to become members.
• The S&TMG was actively involved in the OEWG process from 2022 to 2025. At present, the group includes 94 accredited organizations.
• At a practical level, the focus is now on mapping this landscape and understanding where scientific networks are located.
• The Scientific and Technological Community Major Group can be described as a network of networks because of the diversity of its membership. Among the 94 organizations, some are networks of individuals, while others are networks of networks.
• One example is the chemicals, waste and pollution network led by the Royal Society of Chemistry, which maintains outreach connections across Pan-Africa, the Commonwealth chemistry community, and other regional and thematic groupings.
  These structures illustrate how networks are layered and interconnected.
• The International Science Council also represents a large umbrella of organizations. In addition, there are networks composed primarily of individual experts.
  • Examples include participation in international panels on chemicals and pollution and organizations accredited to multilateral environmental agreements.
• All of these actors operate within the same ecosystem with the shared objective of identifying and engaging the best available scientific expertise.
• In practice, the effectiveness of engagement across these scientific networks will depend heavily on several factors.
  • These include the rules of procedure, the institutional structure of the panel, the processes established for engagement, and the nature of the work to be undertaken.
  • The management of conflicts of interest across government, non-governmental organizations, and industry will be a critical factor in ensuring credibility and trust in the panel’s work.
  • Awareness-raising is also essential. Efforts will be made to mobilize and inform scientific networks during the first quarter of next year, particularly in advance of the February plenary.

Bob DIDERICH | Head, Division of Environment, Health and Safety, OECD | IOMC Chair

• Within the OECD chemicals programme, one of the core activities is the development of technical instruments to support chemical safety policy implementation. This work can become highly technical. One example is the development of laboratory methods to test hazardous properties of chemicals.
• Currently, there is a project underway to replace an existing test method that relies on laboratory animals for developmental neurotoxicity testing with a battery of in vitro methods that do not use laboratory animals. Work of this nature requires engagement with the most up-to-date scientific knowledge, which makes the involvement of scientists and technical experts essential.
• The OECD relies primarily on experts and scientists nominated by its member countries. These experts are expected to represent the scientific community of their respective countries and typically come from regulatory agencies or academic institutions. At any given time, the programme operates approximately ten to twenty expert groups focused on test methods for assessing chemical properties.
• Engagement with the scientific community also takes place through collaboration with large research consortia. Many of these consortia are established within the European Union through major research grants from the European Commission. A significant number of these initiatives focus on regulatory science for chemical risk assessment.
• These research consortia are frequently engaged to help ensure that their projects address regulatory needs. The OECD provides a platform for exchange between researchers, regulators, and policy makers so that research outcomes can directly inform regulatory science and decision-making.
• Another area of engagement involves the development of guidance aimed at the academic research community. Regulators are often criticized for relying primarily on results from highly standardized test methods and for not sufficiently using results generated through academic research projects. This challenge arises because research data often lack the specific metadata and documentation required for regulatory use, making it difficult for regulators to interpret and apply those findings.
• To address this gap, the OECD has developed guidance on the generation, reporting, and use of research data for regulatory assessments. The objective is to improve the usability of data produced by research projects for chemical regulators.

Jorge OCANA | Manager, Chemicals and Waste Management Programme, UNITAR | IOMC Representative

• UNITAR has more than two decades of experience working on chemicals and waste management. Engagement with experts and policymakers is central to this work.
• Projects are typically implemented in close collaboration with governments, and participating countries are strongly encouraged to include academic experts and members of scientific networks as part of project teams.
• For example, in projects addressing nanomaterials, countries have been encouraged to integrate scientific experts directly into project implementation.
• Similarly, in mercury management initiatives, local universities have been included as part of project teams and have contributed to the development of key outputs.
• In addition, many projects are overseen by national steering committees. These committees are multisectoral and multistakeholder bodies that assess project progress.
• In several cases, representatives from academia or scientific experts participate in these committees, either as observers or as full members. Through these arrangements, the link between policy and science is addressed in a practical and operational manner.
• However, challenges remain in sustaining engagement between scientific experts and policy actors.
  • Projects are typically time-bound, and once a project concludes, collaboration with participating scientists does not always continue.
  • Differences in institutional cultures and working methods between academia and government can also complicate long-term collaboration.
  • Greater mutual understanding of these institutional dynamics is necessary to strengthen sustained cooperation.
• In this context, initiatives that explicitly aim to bridge the gap between science and policy are particularly valuable. One such initiative is currently under development to support national focal points in engaging local scientists and experts in a structured and systematic way.
• This guidance is being developed with the support of the Swiss government and is intended to assist national focal points in establishing formal mechanisms for collaboration with scientific communities. The guidance will outline a step-by-step process for engaging and committing different stakeholder groups to the work of the science-policy panel.
• The draft guidance is currently under development and is expected to be finalized by the end of the year. A series of webinars is planned to present the draft and collect feedback, with sessions envisaged for four regions beginning in January. The intention is to refine the guidance based on this feedback and to present it informally during the first session of the panel.

Anne-Sophie STEVANCE | Senior Science Officer, Head of Unit, International Science Council

• Experience from climate and biodiversity shows that intergovernmental science-policy panels are essential for developing shared understanding and mobilizing collective action. This represents an important step forward, particularly at a time when the multilateral system is under significant pressure. It also demonstrates how science can be leveraged in support of diplomacy.
• The International Science Council functions as a network of networks. It is a membership organization with national members in approximately 140 countries, typically national science academies, as well as international disciplinary organizations such as IUPAC for chemistry and equivalent bodies for biology, sociology, and other fields. Together, these members span the natural and social sciences.
• Additional members include organizations such as the Global Young Academy and other scientific bodies that foster international and interdisciplinary collaboration.
• Beyond disciplinary breadth, the International Science Council hosts and coordinates global scientific networks covering thematic areas as well as data bodies. These include networks of data repositories and organizations that establish standards for data sharing and interoperability across sectors.
• The Council also works with global observing systems that form critical scientific infrastructure, particularly in climate and ocean observation, in close collaboration with relevant UN agencies.
• The Council further supports thematic research networks that coordinate international science and research.
• One example is the World Climate Research Programme, established in 1980, well before the creation of the IPCC. This programme played a major role in catalyzing international climate research and helped lay the foundation for the IPCC. It continues today by supporting scenario development and coordinating research relevant to IPCC assessments.
• These curated global networks of scientists provide essential foundations for science-policy interface mechanisms, including intergovernmental panels.
• Expertise from these networks is mobilized in multiple ways to strengthen science-policy interfaces in the multilateral system. This includes identifying subject-matter experts for processes such as the IPCC and other UN mechanisms, supporting the creation and implementation of science-policy interface bodies such as the UN Secretary-General’s Scientific Advisory Board, and contributing to the design of science input mechanisms for emerging processes, including the plastics pollution treaty currently under negotiation.
• Advocacy for evidence-based decision-making is another core function. This is carried out through participation in the Science and Technology Major Group for the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as engagement with UNEP and the UN General Assembly to strengthen scientific input into global deliberations.
• All of this work is underpinned by the need for strong science systems globally. Scientific capacity varies significantly across countries, and strengthening national and regional science systems is essential. This includes support for research funding mechanisms, transdisciplinary programmes, and long-term capacity-building initiatives.
• A particular focus is the International Network for Government Science Advice, which brings together more than 8,000 science advisers worldwide. These advisers typically work with executive branches of government, parliaments, and public institutions to provide scientific advice, as well as academics who study science-policy interfaces and advisory methods. This growing community of practice also delivers training to scientists, recognizing that strengthening science-policy interfaces requires building the capacity of scientists to engage effectively in decision-making processes.
• International assessments produced by intergovernmental panels ultimately need to be translated and implemented at national level. Capacity-building at the national level is therefore essential to ensure that scientific knowledge informs policy outcomes over time.
• Effective engagement between panels and the international scientific community depends on institutional design.
• As rules of procedure and institutional arrangements for the new panel are developed, careful consideration should be given to how engagement with scientific networks is structured.
• Established approaches include strategic partnerships, mechanisms for filling expertise gaps as they arise, and the creation of thematic working groups that allow panels to remain responsive to rapidly evolving science.
• It is also essential not to define relevant expertise too narrowly. Addressing chemicals, waste, and pollution requires a full life-cycle perspective and an understanding of drivers, impacts, and systemic interactions. This demands a wide breadth of expertise across disciplines and knowledge systems.
• Finally, strong relationships with external networks are critical to ensure that panel outputs are taken up across sectors, stakeholders, and governance levels. Experience from IPCC and IPBES shows that while significant progress has been made in mapping problems and building scientific consensus, translating that knowledge into solutions and implementation remains challenging.
• Well-connected networks working alongside panels can help bridge this gap and support the transformation of scientific advice into actionable decisions across sectors and scales.

Roundtable 1: Panel Discussion

Q: What makes for effective and engaged networks of scientist experts at the science-policy interface?

Camilla ALEXANDER-WHITE | Lead Policy Advisor, International Chemicals Policy, Royal Society of Chemistry | Co-Facilitator, Scientific and Technological Community Major Group to UNEP

• When the work is challenging, academics will like a challenge. Nobody’s going to get paid for this work on these panels. Therefore, it is about giving them opportunities to work on big tasks that they can add to their CVs, giving them reputational enhancement for their universities etc.
• It is the scale and nature of the challenge that brings some academics into this work.

Mohamed ABDELAROUF | Program Manager, Gulf Research Center | Co-Facilitator, Scientific and Technological Community Major Group to UNEP

• Inclusivity is key, having all kinds of experts is crucial.
• Another thing is a good policy of conflict of interest that will guarantee the independence and effective motivation of scientists.

Bob DIDERICH | Head, Division of Environment, Health and Safety, OECD | IOMC Chair

• Coming from the regulatory world, our experience shows that to get results the policy context or even the regulatory context must be crystal clear for whatever question that will be asked.
• The problem formulation is going to be the groundstone of whatever work you’re you’re going going to do.
• Knowledge of existing practices, tools and instruments is also very useful before starting any big endeavor, especially to avoid duplication.

Jorge OCANA | Manager, Chemicals and Waste Management Programme, UNITAR | IOMC Representative

• Experts usually want to understand clearly what the focus of the study or the engagement is. They want to know what they are being asked to contribute to.
• Another important point is that they want to see how their outputs will be used. There is often a question about the purpose of the work and where the outputs are heading.
• Another aspect that comes up is the need to understand the conditions under which experts can engage. One example involved trying to engage a local university in Switzerland. The response was that there were conditions for participation, such as funding a PhD student. The proposal was to fund the student and then move forward together.
• The challenge arises when approaching donors with this request. While there is interest in fully engaging universities and experts in programs, donors often do not fund this type of arrangement. This creates a gap that needs further attention.
• Overall, there are ways to engage experts more clearly, but it is important to be very clear about roles and expectations, as well as about what will happen with the study, the research, or the work carried out within a program or project.

Anne-Sophie STEVANCE | Senior Science Officer, Head of Unit, International Science Council

• Articulating what the decision-making context is and what’s at stake with the advice that’s being sought is very important as over time there’s going to be a lot of assessments being done and it needs to be cumulative. There needs to this sense that these are the decisions that we’re trying to inform. Being able to come back to that with some feedback on how the knowledge has been used or not and what we can refine over time is important in that kind of cumulative process.

Q: As a youth parliamentarian from Gambia wanting to establish a science and chemical network in Gambia, could it be possible under your network?

Camilla ALEXANDER-WHITE | Lead Policy Advisor, International Chemicals Policy, Royal Society of Chemistry | Co-Facilitator, Scientific and Technological Community Major Group to UNEP

• It is very exciting to see this kind of initiative coming forward.
• We do provide advice to countries and actors within countries on how to establish science-policy mechanisms. We can help in terms of being able to set up the mapping of the landscapes, understanding what kinds of models have worked in different countries and helping with that kind of institutional advice in terms of how to set it up.
• Any network of scientists has to be credible and trusted by the government. We’re seeing a bit of erosion of governments and civil society lately, and if you were an individual in a country setting up your own network, it would be difficult as you will need to get accreditation to go through UNEP’s accreditation systems.
• Suggest looking at the Pan Africa Chemistry Network, which has go their networks across Africa, which we can then feed in through the S&TMG in accredited processes rather than being an independent network that is not accredited.

Roundtable 2: Enhancing the Reach of Expert Engagement

Peter BATES | Head, IPBES Technical Support Unit on Indigenous and Local Knowledge, UNESCO

• The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) produces large-scale assessments of biodiversity and of what are referred to as ‘nature’s contributions to people’.
• Since its inception in 2012, the platform has recognized the importance of indigenous and local knowledge and the roles of indigenous peoples and local communities in biodiversity conservation, land management, governance, and related areas. Work with indigenous and local knowledge was embedded in the platform’s objectives and deliverables from the outset. There is currently an objective specifically dedicated to indigenous and local knowledge.
• Early in the process, the platform also developed a conceptual framework that explicitly considers multiple knowledge systems and different types of values. This provided part of the foundational infrastructure supporting the integration of indigenous and local knowledge.
• A series of task forces was also established, including a task force on indigenous and local knowledge. This task force currently has fourteen members, ten of whom are indigenous peoples. Its work is supported by a technical support unit on indigenous and local knowledge, based at UNESCO in Paris.
• At the time the task force was established, there had been limited experience globally in working with indigenous and local knowledge in large-scale assessments. One of its first roles was therefore to develop appropriate methods and processes for working with locally based indigenous and local knowledge systems at global scales. This led to the development of what is known as the approach to recognizing and working with indigenous and local knowledge within the platform. This approach was approved by member states at the plenary in 2017. It also includes a participatory mechanism outlining how participation by indigenous peoples and local communities should proceed within the platform, providing an agreed foundation for this work.
• Since then, the task force has developed methodological guidance on how to implement the approach and how to enhance the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities. This guidance builds on lessons learned through assessment processes. The methods and processes are continuously reviewed and refined, including through dialogue workshops with indigenous peoples focused on improving these approaches.
• A range of methods has been put in place to support assessments, including dialogue workshops for each assessment that bring together indigenous peoples and local community members with assessment authors. There has also been substantial work on the co-production of concepts and figures, working with indigenous groups to unpack key concepts that underpin assessments, such as the meaning of nature or sustainable use of wild species.
• Significant effort has gone into reviewing and synthesizing diverse sources of knowledge. The platform does not rely solely on peer-reviewed literature but also works with community reports, videos, artworks, and other materials to broaden the evidence base available to assessment experts.
• Collaboration with indigenous networks and organizations has been central to this work. These networks operate at multiple scales, including global networks such as the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, centers of distinction on indigenous and local knowledge, regional organizations, national-level bodies, and local groups. Engagement across these networks has helped strengthen participation and knowledge exchange.
• Several key lessons have emerged.
  • Institutional infrastructure, such as the task force and technical support unit, provides a critical foundation for supporting assessment authors, who are the main drivers of assessment work.
  • Embedding indigenous and local knowledge in the platform’s objectives and conceptual framework has helped establish shared understanding and acceptance, including during plenary discussions, where agreed documents are frequently referenced by member states.
  • Participation has proven essential. This includes not only drawing on documented indigenous and local knowledge but also ensuring that indigenous peoples and local communities are directly engaged in platform processes.
  • Additional effort is required to recruit and support indigenous peoples and local community members as authors within assessment teams.
  • Greater emphasis has also been placed on involving social scientists, particularly those with experience working with indigenous and local knowledge. This has required active engagement with member states to encourage nominations beyond ecologists and biologists, including indigenous experts and social scientists. Over time, the platform’s growing focus on social dimensions, through assessments on values, transformative change, and sustainable use of wild species, has increased interest from the social science community.
  • Adequate time and budget allocation are necessary to move beyond literature reviews and support meaningful participation. Experience shows that work with indigenous and local knowledge brings substantial benefits to assessments, to indigenous peoples themselves, and to the planet. This work is not an additional burden but a significant strength.
• Indigenous peoples have generations of experience observing their environments, including the impacts of chemicals, waste, and pollution. They also have management and governance systems that address these challenges at local levels. With appropriate support, these systems can be strengthened and scaled to national and global levels. This type of scaling is an area of ongoing exploration within the platform

Janna RADI | Chemicals, Waste and Pollution Thematic Facilitator, Children and Youth Major Group to UNEP

• The Children and Youth Major Group (CYMG) to UNEP has been leading the youth engagement in the process for the panel’s establishment since the adoption of the UNEA-5 resolution in 2022.
  • The CYMG is the formal youth engagement mechanism to the United Nations Environment Programme across UNEP’s activities in global environmental governance.
  • The group represents more than 2,000 youth organizations, 66 of which are UNEP-accredited, and includes over 12,000 individual members from more than 130 countries.
  • Activities are organized primarily around supporting young people’s accessibility to decision-making processes, capacity building, and policy advocacy in environmental governance.
  • Engagement includes participation in the United Nations Environment Assembly and other core processes, such as meetings of the Committee of Permanent Representatives, as well as UNEP-administered assessments including the Global Environment Outlook and other processes such as the Minamata Convention, the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, and related initiatives.
• The CYMG has consistently advocated for strong youth engagement and for the panel to adopt an intergenerational equity approach within its core principles. This advocacy has been ongoing since OEWG 1.2 in Bangkok, Thailand. Recorded interventions from the CYMG are reflected in official meeting reports.
• Another key advocacy priority has been the establishment of an inclusive and institutionalized youth expert advisory group to support the Interdisciplinary Expert Committee. Additional policy recommendations have been developed based on research and lessons learned from existing panels such as the IPCC and the Global Environment Outlook.
• A significant milestone was reached with the adoption in December 2025 of the first UNEA resolution on the participation of young people in environmental processes and environmental education.
  • This resolution invites Member States to provide young people with opportunities for full, effective, meaningful, constructive, and inclusive participation in environmental matters and processes, including science-policy panels.
  • It also calls on secretariats to facilitate such inclusion. This creates an important opening for embedding youth participation within new science-policy panels as preparations continue for the first plenary and negotiations by Member States on options for inclusive governance.
  • The resolution on the sound management of chemicals and waste also highlights synergies to be facilitated by the UNEP Executive Director between science-policy panels and chemicals and waste processes, where young people can play a role as connectors and facilitators across these processes.
• There are multiple, practical options for meaningful youth engagement, drawing on experiences from existing panels.The new science-policy panel has an opportunity to begin with strong, inclusive engagement of young people.
  • One option is the establishment of a youth expert advisory group, institutionalized under the Interdisciplinary Expert Committee, to provide structured and consistent input from young scientists across regions. This approach builds on experience from the Global Environment Outlook assessment, where the CYMG nominates representatives to advisory groups.
  • Another option is the creation of fellowship programs, similar to those already in place within IPBES, which provide early-career researchers with capacity-building opportunities to understand how science-policy panels operate and to ensure continuity and long-term institutional memory. PhD scholarship programs are another mechanism, currently present within the IPCC, offering important opportunities for early-career researchers, particularly from developing and Global South countries, to conduct research on large-scale challenges such as chemicals, waste, and pollution.
  • The establishment of a youth network is also critical, providing a community and space for continued capacity building, sustained outreach, and uptake of panel outputs by future generations.
  • Finally, youth-friendly deliverables and outreach are essential. While not yet common practice, ensuring accessibility of materials is strongly encouraged. The Global Environment Outlook has demonstrated this approach through youth-focused dissemination products. Similar efforts have been undertaken by the CYMG, including the development of a youth summary of the Global Waste Management Outlook launched at UNEA-6, to make technical evidence more accessible to young audiences worldwide.

Halshka GRACZYK | Technical Specialist, Occupational Safety and Health and Working Environment Branch, ILO

• The International Labour Organization (ILO) has been engaged in science-policy interfaces since its inception. One of its very first mandates at its establishment in 1919 was to protect workers and ensure safe and healthy working environments.
• The translation of scientific evidence into policy for governments dates back to 1919, when the first ILO standards were adopted to regulate white phosphorus and white lead in the workplace. By 1921, recognition of chemical exposures such as mercury led to the development of the first occupational disease lists, including diseases caused by chemical exposures at work.
• Worker exposures are viewed as sentinels of chemical risk. Workplace exposure data function as early warning systems for society. Workers often experience the highest doses, the earliest exposures, and the most chronic and prolonged exposures. Occupational settings therefore frequently reveal chemical harms before these are fully understood through public health or consumer exposure pathways. This pattern has been observed historically for substances such as asbestos and silica, and is now seen with modern chemical classes such as PFAS.
• What harms workers today signals what may affect the broader population in the future. For this reason, the ILO works closely with experts worldwide to extract workplace exposure data and ensure it informs policy processes.
• Workplace science contributes directly to policy development.
  • Data derived from occupational settings support the establishment of occupational exposure limits and thresholds.
  • Toxicological data and occupational epidemiological studies inform decisions on hierarchies of control, including bans or restrictions on chemicals in industrial processes and across supply chains.
  • Evidence also supports research on substitution to avoid regrettable substitutes when replacing hazardous chemicals.
  • In addition, workplace evidence guides best practices for prevention and protection, including ventilation systems, appropriate personal protective equipment, and respirators. Ongoing workplace monitoring and health surveillance allow policies to be adjusted based on observed impacts in worker populations.
• The ILO institutionalizes these processes by working with experts globally to develop guidance and standards. Outputs include non-binding instruments such as codes of practice and technical guidelines, as well as legally binding international labour standards addressing chemical hazards. This work operates through a tripartite governance system that brings together governments, workers and their organizations, trade unions, employers’ organizations, and business representatives. These groups engage alongside occupational safety and health experts to determine how scientific evidence can be translated into practical workplace policy.
• Several mechanisms support this work.
  • Meetings of experts convene governments, workers, employers, and scientific specialists to review best practices and recent evidence for specific sectors. Recent examples include work in the textiles and clothing sector, where chemical hazards are addressed through expert-informed guidance translating toxicological studies into workplace applications. Technical meetings may result in guidelines or policy conclusions that are referred to the International Labour Conference for further action.
  • Global dialogue forums bring together experts to address broader policy issues where guidance or standards are still lacking, enabling discussion on appropriate methodologies and frameworks for workplace regulation. In addition, ad hoc expert consultations support the development of publications, briefs, and guidance for governments, workers, and employers across sectors.
  • The ILO’s global occupational safety and health expert networks vary depending on the topic. Long-standing collaborations exist with universities, OSH authorities, and national agencies conducting research and developing policy. These collaborations support scaling effective approaches regionally and globally. Engagement with toxicological and occupational research networks occurs through both formal processes and urgent consultations when immediate attention is required.
  • The ILO also collects global statistics on chemical exposures and related mortality and morbidity. With 187 Member States, collaboration with national statistical offices enables data collection through labour force surveys on occupational exposures and health outcomes across regions, countries, and high-risk sectors such as agriculture, mining, and construction. Joint estimates with the World Health Organization assess the global burden of work-related diseases, with recent findings showing that a majority of exposure-outcome pairs are linked to chemical exposures. This evidence underscores the need to continue strengthening the science-policy interface to protect workers globally. 

Roundtable 2: Panel Discussion

Q: What makes for effective and wide-reaching networks of scientific experts at the science-policy interface?

Janna RADI | Chemicals, Waste and Pollution Thematic Facilitator, Children and Youth Major Group to UNEP

• Having embedded opportunities for capacity building for individuals within the science-policy interface is key.
• Reflecting on the comment made previously by the youth parliamentarian in Gambia, this is a prime example of a young person who is already thinking ahead of establishing a science and chemical network in their country. So making sure there is participation of young people and early career professionals within the panel, does not only invests in them but in their future institutions and in their countries.
• What can enable a wide-reaching network is for people to see it as an opportunity not just to contribute to the panel but also build their own capacity.

Peter BATES | Head, IPBES Technical Support Unit on Indigenous and Local Knowledge, UNESCO

• We have many of the same experiences working with networks of indigenous peoples and local communities. One of the other things we’ve really tried to work on is ensuring that there are clear benefits to communities from their participation. This includes making sure that the methodologies are appropriate for working with indigenous and local knowledge and really trying to ensure that participation is at the fore and not just working with documented knowledge.
• It is also important do work once an assessment is finished to produce materials for indigenous peoples and local communities. We run webinars for indigenous peoples and local communities and to demonstrate that there are clear tangible benefits because I’m sure as many of you know the history of science working with indigenous and local knowledge has been rather extractive and often people are asking what the benefits are to them and how it flow back to their communities.

Halshka GRACZYK | Technical Specialist, Occupational Safety and Health and Working Environment Branch, ILO

• From the ILO’s perspective, we echo that the importance of engagement. We see that working with global workers unions and with different organizations knowing that there is so much information to be shared from this population that is at the front line of exposures.
• It is important to also go a step further to ensure there’s also meaningful institutionalization of the outcomes that we have this data it’s available to us and how is it used and how is it used by the stakeholders that are able to make the difference so it’s about making that connection. This is why science-policy interfaces are so important, as they make the tangible link between the scientists and the communities, the people that are exposed and also the ones that make institutional change.

Open Q&A 

Q: How can we ensure an inclusive process so that these networks are in line with the realities of developing countries?

Jorge OCANA | Manager, Chemicals and Waste Management Programme, UNITAR | IOMC Representative

• Ensuring inclusiveness, particularly for developing countries, begins with clearly defining the scope of the task to be undertaken. It is important to understand what is being requested from different stakeholders and then identify how scientific and expert communities can support that task.
• A key element is the establishment of coordinating groups that are multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral. This approach has been used in UNITAR to address inclusiveness in projects and activities. For example, when working on mercury, which is a global problem, expertise is required from multiple perspectives. Governments, as coordinators, are advised to include representatives from different sectors, stakeholders, and expert communities.
• An initial mapping exercise is essential. This involves identifying relevant stakeholders across sectors, as well as academic institutions, scientific programs, and experts needed for the specific topic. In some cases, UNITAR supports this process by developing preliminary or draft terms of reference to guide the engagement or hiring of experts. These terms of reference outline the types of expertise required at the national level.
• This practical approach – defining scope, mapping stakeholders and expertise, and supporting structured engagement – is how inclusiveness, particularly for developing countries, is addressed based on existing experience.

Q: What types of expertise will be engaged in the ISP-CWP and how can individual experts become involved?

Janna RADI | Chemicals, Waste and Pollution Thematic Facilitator, Children and Youth Major Group to UNEP

• This is a key concern for us and there has been the lack of inclusion of early career professionals in many existing science-policy mechanisms.
• For this reason, advocacy efforts have emphasized the institutionalization of an expert advisory group for young people. Such a group would ensure a formal seat at the table for early career professionals, particularly those from underrepresented regions. The expert advisory group concept is intended to address existing gaps in representation and participation.
• In addition, networks play an important role in enabling stakeholders to engage by commenting on processes and providing inputs to different activities under science-policy panels. Networks can also support synergies, as professionals and individuals with lived experience who are engaged in other processes can bring relevant knowledge into the new science-policy panel, even at an early stage of its development.
• Providing opportunities for stakeholder engagement and institutionalizing advisory groups for young people, who are often underrepresented in these spaces, has therefore been a continued focus. There is hope that these approaches will be reflected more clearly in the first plenary, particularly following the recent UNEA resolution, which calls for increased support and capacity building for young people to participate meaningfully and inclusively in environmental processes. Science-policy interfaces are one of the key processes currently under discussion.

Camilla ALEXANDER-WHITE | Lead Policy Advisor, International Chemicals Policy, Royal Society of Chemistry | Co-Facilitator, Scientific and Technological Community Major Group to UNEP

• The structure of the panel will see at the top the governing body, composed of government representatives and below that is the interdisciplinary expert committee, which plays a crucial role in developing the work programme and in selecting experts. The substantive technical work (assessments, working groups, and related activities) will ultimately be carried out by hundreds of scientists.
• It has also been noted that the interdisciplinary expert committee is likely to consist of only around 20 to 25 members. For those with long experience in chemicals, waste, and pollution, it is clear how highly multidisciplinary this field is. Such a limited number of committee members cannot possibly cover the full range of required expertise.
• This raises a central question: how to bridge the gap between a relatively small decision-making body within the interdisciplinary expert committee and the hundreds of scientists working across many disciplines. Ideas to address this challenge have been developed, including proposals currently discussed in a recent publication, which explore possible bridging mechanisms.
• In the context of chemicals and waste, there may be a need for formal bridging arrangements involving nominated or accredited civil society groups or other mechanisms that can connect the committee to a broader multidisciplinary scientific community. Work undertaken so far has identified 40 to 50 relevant disciplines, far more than could ever be represented within a 20 to 25-member committee.
• This is therefore an issue that merits discussion during the development of the rules of procedure in February, with the aim of establishing a bridging mechanism that is credible, trusted, and acceptable to governments.

Q: How can the ISP-CWP quickly build expert networks like the IPCC and IPBES? What early challenges may be expected and how could we overcome them?

Peter BATES | Head, IPBES Technical Support Unit on Indigenous and Local Knowledge, UNESCO

• Initial considerations include clearly articulating the benefits of participation for Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Engagement should build on existing networks that are already in place and ensure that there are clear, well-defined mechanisms for participation by Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
• Participation needs to be meaningful, not marginal or siloed, but embedded within core advisory groups, core expert groups, and related decision-making structures. This requires moving beyond tokenistic approaches and beyond parallel or isolated participation models, and instead creating genuine space where participants are able to represent themselves fully and effectively.
• When participation is clearly meaningful and embedded in core processes, engagement is more likely, as participants can see that their contributions matter and have real influence.

Anne-Sophie STEVANCE | Senior Science Officer, Head of Unit, International Science Council

• Linking to existing networks is key, as accreditation is one way to ensure the relevance and credibility of the panel as it develops institutionalized relationships with existing expert networks. Over time, these relationships can expand and deepen.
• Early engagement with international scientific organizations and regional organizations will also support accreditation and affiliation processes. Other panels have, over time, built strong communities of observer organizations, supported by rules and procedures that allow for accreditation requests, participation in plenaries, and contributions to work planning processes.
• These mechanisms develop progressively, but bringing in established networks early can already signal clearly to scientific and expert communities that the panel is committed to building those relationships.
• In addition, it is important to connect with national delegations. Incentives should exist to include experts from across scientific disciplines and different knowledge systems within country delegations, enabling participation in plenaries and contributions to shaping rules of procedure as they are being developed.

Closing Remarks

Miriam G. MEDEL GARCIA | Head, Environment Team, Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva

• These remarks are offered from a government perspective, shaped by daily engagement in negotiations in Geneva and direct responsibility for the chemicals and waste cluster. This includes close involvement with the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, the Minamata Convention, the recently created Global Framework on Chemicals, and the new panel.
• It is important to briefly reflect on why today’s conversation matters and why it matters now. We are living in a moment in which multilateralism is under strain. Cooperation is increasingly questioned, trust is very fragile, and yet the challenges posed by chemicals, waste, and pollution are profoundly global and deeply interconnected.
• In this context, the creation of the panel is not only timely but inspiring, almost a miracle amid current difficulties facing multilateral processes.
• From a Mexican perspective, the establishment of the panel sends a clear message that evidence, dialogue, and collective action still belong at the heart of global governance.
• The next task is to provide the panel with adequate governance, sensible rules of procedure, and the tools required to fulfill its mandate effectively. This responsibility will fall to governments and representatives at the ISP in February, and there is deep appreciation for the input received from scientists and stakeholders across society, all of whom are represented here today.
• What was heard today reinforces a simple truth: political decisions must be grounded in science. Not science as an abstract exercise, but science that is independent, credible, and policy-relevant. Science is needed to anticipate environmental and health risks before they escalate, to understand cumulative and unequal impacts across populations and ecosystems, and to guide choices that prevent harm while protecting both people and nature.
• This underscores the central role of science and experts within the ISP. With robust, independent, and policy-relevant science, political decisions can avoid becoming reactive, fragmented, or driven by short-term pressures rather than long-term public interest. This is a lesson already visible in the experience of existing panels and one that must be fully integrated to avoid short-term thinking by anchoring all work firmly in science.
• From Mexico’s experience, the connection between science and policy is concrete. Effective action on chemicals and waste has required scientific evidence to inform regulation, exposure prevention, and environmental protection, as well as the capacity to translate knowledge into public policy and early intervention strategies. Importantly, it has also required listening to those who experience pollution-related impacts firsthand.
• This leads to the second key message from today: the value of diverse ways of knowing and the importance of connecting those ways of knowing. Indigenous peoples, youth, other stakeholders, and non-traditional scientists have long observed the links between environmental change, contamination, and health outcomes that science is only beginning to document systematically. Their voices must be incorporated into both the work and the outcomes of the panel.
• At the same time, many expert networks are already producing crucial analysis on toxicology, exposure pathways, waste governance, informal worker protection, and economic instruments. The task ahead is not to duplicate these efforts, but to connect them, amplify them, and bring them into a coherent science-policy continuum. This will be challenging.
• Strengthening the reach of the ISP-CWP will also require ensuring that experts from underrepresented regions are able to contribute and be heard, and that the panel remains accessible and relevant to countries with differing capacities. This requires building a space of plurality and trust.
• Another important reflection confirmed by today’s discussion is that the era of sectoral approaches is behind us. Chemicals, waste, and pollution simultaneously affect health systems, environmental integrity, labor conditions, and social equity.
• Addressing these challenges requires whole-of-government approaches that break institutional silos, as well as whole-of-society approaches that engage scientists, indigenous peoples, health and environmental professionals, workers, youth, and civil society as partners in decision-making processes led by governments.
• The ISP has a unique opportunity to embody this shift by connecting existing expertise, amplifying underrepresented voices, and ensuring that science truly informs political choices that protect health and the environment.
• Looking ahead to the first plenary in February, Mexico remains fully committed to the work of the panel and to shaping its rules and agenda with the conviction that the panel can and must become a space of trust between science and policy. It can also serve as a powerful reminder that multilateralism, when grounded in knowledge and inclusion, can deliver for people and planet.

Documents

• Presentations made during the event

Links

• ISP-CWP Plenary