Multi-disciplinary scientists are ready to act. Are governments?
The world is facing a growing crisis of chemical pollution and waste mismanagement. In January the World Health Organisation said that ‘in 2016 around 13.7 million deaths in the world – 24% of all fatalities – were linked to modifiable environmental factors, including chemicals, waste and pollution’.
From microplastics in our oceans and our bodies, to toxic substances accumulating in our ecosystems, the challenges are vast and complex. Scientific expertise must be at the heart of finding solutions. How that expertise is structured and accessed will determine the success of both the UN’s new Science-Policy Panel (SPP) on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution Prevention (SPP) and the UN Global Framework on Chemicals (GFC).
The SPP will provide policy-relevant scientific advice for preventing global pollution – and the science community wants to see this legally established at the final open-ended working group meeting and intergovernmental meeting in Uruguay on 14–20 June. Conveniently, the first open-ended working group for the GFC will also take place in Uruguay on 22–27 June. These activities are strongly connected: ‘issues of concern’ are likely to be raised in the GFC and referred to the SPP.
Understanding the impacts of chemicals, waste and pollution is imperative, but the SPP should also be policy-relevant and solutions-focused. To achieve this requires more than evidence – it requires multi-disciplinary systems thinking.
If the SPP is to be effective, it must include broad skills and expertise in its decision-making and must harness developments by engaging a network of experts from chemicals and waste science, with collaboration that extends beyond traditional regulatory science. Chemicals and waste are often treated separately, but the GFC shows it is time to integrate science policy across both areas, using systems approaches including life cycle assessment and circular economies.
A new kind of expertise
For decades, policy in chemicals and waste management has drawn mainly on chemistry, toxicology and environmental sciences. These remain essential, but advances in materials science, engineering biology, artificial intelligence and environmental monitoring are rapidly expanding what is possible. New approach methodologies, next-generation risk assessment, life cycle analysis and biomonitoring can offer faster, more effective solutions.
However, many governments and regulators are not yet investing in these areas at the required scale and pace. The SPP must help identify and incorporate these new types of expertise and build capability. Cutting-edge approaches such as in vitro and computational toxicology can help move away from outdated animal-based models and accelerate the search for solutions. Remediation technologies are also advancing, with potential for new business models.
Knowledge systems beyond Western science – particularly from indigenous and local communities – must also be integrated. These communities often have long-standing lived experience of pollution’s effects on ecosystems and health, offering insights that lab science may miss. The science community must work together with governments and other UN civil society groups to consider impacts, solution readiness and SPP priorities.
Knowledge systems beyond Western science – particularly from indigenous and local communities – must also be integrated. These communities often have long-standing lived experience of pollution’s effects on ecosystems and health, offering insights that lab science may miss.
Panel structure
A key challenge is how to assemble a body of experts covering this wide range of disciplines. Lessons can be drawn from other UN science-policy interfaces such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This delivers strong reports, but the range of expertise needed for chemicals and waste is broader.
Governments are expected to nominate scientists to the SPP’s Assessment Groups and Interdisciplinary Expert Committee (IEC). However, a small number of individuals from each UN region cannot cover the full spectrum of expertise. A solution is a structured advisory mechanism aligned to the IEC, offering access to cross-disciplinary experts via a ‘network-of-networks’ approach, supported by UN Environment Programme-accredited organisations and the UN Science and Technology Major Group.
Transparency will be essential to the SPP’s credibility
The concept of a Science Alliance aligned to the SPP is being explored – a network of individuals which, over time, could become UN Environment Programme-accredited.
It could also be useful to establish a supplementary civil society science and technology advisory group aligned to the IEC. This could serve as a cross-disciplinary bridge, ensuring access to emerging and classical expertise. A skills-based roster of specialists could support deep-dive assessments at short notice. As most contributions are pro bono, mechanisms to facilitate participation will be important.
Transparency will be essential to the SPP’s credibility and to maintain public trust. Experts must declare financial and non-financial interests, with an effective review process to assess and manage conflicts. Scientific advances often occur in industry, and the panel must access this knowledge without compromising impartiality.
The time to act is now
The new panel could become a transformative advisory body helping governments reduce pollution. The scientific community is ready and urges governments to ratify the Foundational and Decision Documents in Uruguay in June 2025. Draft Rules of Procedure are also on the table and can be simplified to secure agreement; scientific advisory structures can be developed further once the Governing Body is in place.
If governments ratify the SPP, it could become a beacon for science-policy collaboration on pollution. Science is advancing rapidly. The question is whether global governance can keep pace.
No comments yet