The failure of the "IPCC for chemicals" and its implications for global governance

In February 2026, Geneva hosted the first plenary meeting of the Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution Prevention (ISP-CWP), often compared to an "IPCC for chemicals". Its aim was to create a space of independent scientific expertise to inform policy decisions concerning the 350,000 chemical substances registered worldwide, only a tiny fraction of which have been assessed for their impacts on health and the environment.

This meeting also aimed to adopt a holistic vision of these chemicals, while existing treaties address only part of the problem (for example: the Kyoto Protocol for greenhouse gases, the Minamata Convention for mercury, the Basel Convention for hazardous wastes, the Stockholm Convention for persistent organic pollutants, and the Rotterdam Convention for certain pesticides).

Yet, despite expectations, substantive discussions could not begin. Indeed, no consensus was reached regarding the panel's operating procedures, funding, and governance. This outcome is disappointing, especially since chemical pollution today represents a major environmental challenge, on par with climate change or biodiversity loss.

This failure deserves particular attention. For in the absence of a dedicated international body, the regulation of pollutants remains fragmented, leaving states and industries to act without a common framework.

Negotiations at an impasse

Observers present in Geneva highlighted a climate of mistrust and division, in which geopolitical and economic concerns took precedence over scientific and health considerations.

The main sticking points:

• A persistent disagreement over funding: So-called "developing" countries, often the most exposed to pollutants (notably those that host electronic waste or poorly regulated chemical industries), insisted on the need to create a fund dedicated to the panel's work, with financial contributions shared equitably. Industrialized countries, for their part, proposed no concrete solution, leaving the risk of an unbalanced panel in which the voices of the most affected nations would not be sufficiently heard.
• A diplomatic and procedural quagmire: Even the most technical questions, such as the composition of the panel or the procedures for selecting the scientific studies to be discussed or commissioned, divided states. Some countries, like the United States, unsurprisingly slowed multilateral environmental initiatives (recall their withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under the Trump administration). Others, like China or India, fear that overly strict regulations would harm their industrial competitiveness.
• The influence of industrial actors: The chemical industry, a powerful economic sector, made its presence felt behind the scenes. Some delegations unfortunately defended positions aligned with the interests of large companies, such as maintaining the confidentiality of industrial data. Such a demand, however, is at odds with the need for a transparent and rigorous assessment of the risks associated with chemical products.

When a molecule is finally banned, it is often replaced by another, less studied, but potentially just as harmful.

The challenge of chemical pollution

Unlike other pollutants, such as CO₂, whose effects become visible in the medium term, many chemical substances persist in the environment for centuries. Their accumulation in ecosystems and living organisms poses a public health and environmental problem that crosses borders.

The stakes are multiple. In terms of human health, some substances, even at low doses, are associated with developmental disorders, chronic diseases, or endocrine disruptions; their impact often remains difficult to measure, because effects can take years to appear. Environmentally, chemical pollutants accumulate in soils, waterways, and oceans, affecting biodiversity and ecosystem quality. Some, like plastics, break down into micro-particles that progressively contaminate the entire food chain.

Finally, the economic consequences are also considerable: the costs associated with chemical pollution — whether health expenditures, cleanup operations, or lost productivity — are colossal. Yet they often remain underestimated, because they are dispersed and indirect.

The problematic lack of data

One of the major challenges lies in the absence of comprehensive assessments for the majority of chemical substances currently in circulation. When a molecule is finally banned, it is frequently replaced by another, less studied, but potentially just as harmful. This phenomenon, called "regrettable substitution", perpetuates the cycle of pollution without really solving it.

What are the prospects after Geneva's failure? At this stage, several avenues remain possible to move forward:

• Restart the dialogue on firmer grounds: States could reconsider their positions to find common ground on funding and governance issues. A gradual approach, based on clearly defined intermediate objectives, could help restore trust.
• Strengthen existing initiatives: In the absence of a dedicated panel, other international bodies — such as the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants — could see their mandate expanded. At the same time, independent scientific networks could be mobilized to fill the gap left by the ISP-CWP.
• Involve civil society and the private sector more: Some companies, aware of long-term risks, are beginning to support stricter regulations. Likewise, citizen movements and local initiatives — such as green chemistry projects or campaigns against plastics — show that momentum is possible outside traditional institutional frameworks.

Geneva revealed the limits of current multilateralism, but constitutes an opportunity to innovate in forms of cooperation by more closely associating science, civil society and decision-makers.

Geneva: a failure or a step?

The failure of the February 2026 negotiations recalls the difficulties of reconciling national interests, industrial pressures, and environmental urgency. Yet it should not be interpreted as an end, but rather as a signal calling for a rethinking of chemical governance.

Chemical pollution is not inevitable. Solutions exist, whether technological (green chemistry, biodegradable materials), regulatory (targeted bans, the precautionary principle), or economic (tax incentives, extended producer responsibility). What is missing today is a collective political will capable of implementing them both globally and locally.

Geneva revealed the limits of current multilateralism, but also represents an opportunity to innovate in forms of cooperation by more closely involving science, civil society and decision-makers. The issue is not only environmental: it is a matter of justice, public health and economic resilience.

Let us not forget that the decisions made today will have consequences for decades to come. It is up to us to choose what our children will say about us.

This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.