Search

This Policy Brief outlines the history behind the SAICM agenda, puts in context the issue of financing the sound management of chemicals and waste, and highlights the main findings and proposals from the SAICM study.

Chemicals are essential to many household and industrial activities, but they also pose threats to humans, wildlife, and ecosystem health. The World Summit for Social Development (WSSD) in 1995 called for developing “a strategic approach to international chemicals management” by 2005, and set a 2020 target to minimize the significant adverse effects of chemicals on human health and the environment.

Since then, the international community has taken some important steps, adopting multilateral agreements on prior informed consent (PIC), persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and mercury, as well as continuing prior work on the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. An overarching policy process, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), was established in Dubai in 2006. While some progress has been made, the ambition for an overall strong post-2020 regime on chemicals and waste has not yet been achieved.

To support negotiations toward a post-2020 regime, in 2019, the fourth session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-4) called for review of evidence published within the previous decade (Resolution 4/8) to support further discussion at UNEA-5 and other international forums working toward sound management of chemicals and waste. Following on from this, in 2020, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) published a major report titled, ‘An Assessment on Issues of Concern: Chemicals and Waste Issues Posing Risks to Human Health and the Environment.’ The report highlights challenges and opportunities for sound chemicals management, and proposes policy and management options.

This policy brief provides a summary and perspective on that report, in light of the most recent developments on chemicals and waste.

The eight issues identified under SAICM

The 2006 Dubai Declaration and Overarching Policy Strategy called for the SAICM process to identify “emerging policy issues” (EPIs), based on specified criteria that include the magnitude and impacts of the problems, their cross-cutting nature, and the status of knowledge and action around those issues, with the aim to avoid duplication of efforts. To date, the SAICM process has identified six EPIs, namely:

• chemicals in products;
• endocrine disrupting chemicals;
• environmentally persistent pharmaceutical pollutants;
• hazardous substances within the life cycle of electrical and electronic products;
• lead in paint; and
• nanotechnology and manufactured nanomaterials.

Two other “issues of concern” have also been highlighted for action:

• highly hazardous pesticides; and
• per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

This section provides a summary of these issues, as reflected in the UNEP report.

Chemicals in products (CIP), including those used in many consumer items, are not always listed on labels. The CIP programme, launched by UNEP, SAICM, and the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) in 2015, promotes information exchange about chemicals of concern so that all users can make informed choices. That includes not only the companies within the product supply chain, but also others, such as designers, consumers, waste managers, and users. This is truly a global challenge because product life cycles often span different countries – they are made in one country, used in another, and finally recycled or disposed in yet another.

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) affect the characteristics of sexual organs and reproduction in humans and animals. More than 1,400 chemicals in pesticides, biocides, industrial chemicals, cosmetics and drinking water are thought to be EDCs, but only a small number have been screened by regulators. The report suggests that including EDCs in the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals – a system for the classification of chemicals with the use of internationally consistent labels, safety data sheets, and easily understandable symbols – would help countries regulate EDCs in a coordinated manner.

Environmentally persistent pharmaceutical pollutants (EPPPs) include drugs used to treat people and livestock, which cause ill effects when released into the environment. The impacts include antimicrobial resistance, which is linked to the rise of ‘superbugs.’ Action on this issue would mean that countries strengthen their own regulatory and voluntary frameworks to avoid improper prescription and overuse of antibiotics, and organize take-back and sound disposal of unused or expired drugs. The report calls for conducting risk assessment of drugs – especially those that were licensed before environmental risk assessment systems were put in place – based on criteria such as sales data, ecotoxicity, and efficiency of wastewater treatment to counter their impacts.

Hazardous substances in the life cycle of electrical and electronic products (HSLEEP) contain heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants. Actions to reduce the impacts of HSLEEP would include changes to the design and composition of products to minimize the use of hazardous substances, and management of recycling methods to avoid releases of chemicals into the environment. As noted in the report, this is a major issue for many developing countries and economies in transition (EITs), where informal recycling methods expose women and children who work in those industries.

Highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) are those that cause severe and irreversible harm to human health, the environment, and sustainability of agriculture. While the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have developed codes of conduct and management guidelines, implementation is often patchy. Capacity building, information sharing about pesticide use, toxicity, and exposure, and steps toward non-chemical alternatives are all needed. For example, agroecology techniques and integrated pest management would help reduce risk. FAO is currently in the process of drafting a Global Action Plan on Highly Hazardous Pesticides to reduce and manage HHP use.

Lead in paint is a neurotoxin, especially dangerous to children. The Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead Paint (GAELP), initiated as an international partnership in 2009, aims to have all countries adopt legally binding measures to control the production, import, sale, and use of lead paints. As of December 2021, just 43% of countries had done so. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is helping 40 countries to introduce legislation, and also works with some paint manufacturers to phase out the use of lead paint. In a number of countries that already have laws restricting lead paint, measures for effective monitoring and enforcement are still needed, according to the report.

Nanotechnology and manufactured nanomaterials (nanomaterials), while composed of known chemicals, may pose new threats. For example, the effects of inadvertently inhaling or ingesting nanomaterials are often unknown. Vehicle tires are one example of a common product containing nanomaterials that may be released into the environment during use, recycling, and disposal. In the EU and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, some information-sharing mechanisms and voluntary partnerships have begun, including the Malta Initiative that supports OECD guidance and testing development for nanomaterials. The report recommends that a common definition of nanomaterials be adopted.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are manufactured chemicals containing linked carbon and fluorine atoms. Products containing PFASs include many that resist oil and water, such as rainwear, non-stick cookware, and carpets. Being present in many household products, they pose a high exposure risk. PFASs may have negative impacts on immune system function and cognitive function in children, and are linked to type 2 diabetes in women. Long-chain PFASs are listed under the Stockholm Convention on POPs. A phased approach to ending the use of PFASs except for “essential use” purposes is needed, according to the report.

The eleven other issues of concern identified in GCO-II

In 2016, UNEA requested UNEP to provide an update on EPIs and other issues “where emerging evidence indicates a risk to human health and the environment” (Resolution 2/7). UNEP published a report titled, ‘Global Chemicals Outlook II: From Legacies to Innovative Solutions’ (GCO-II), in April 2019. GCO-II identified 11 “other issues” of concern that pose risks to people and the environment, drawing on assessments done by governments or intergovernmental organizations. They are:

• arsenic, a heavy metal;
• bisphenol A (BPA), used, for example, in durable plastics for water bottles and protective coatings on vehicles and machinery;
• cadmium, used in batteries and solar cells;
• glyphosate, a weedkiller;
• lead, a heavy metal which, besides its usage in paint (addressed above), is also in batteries, ceramics, and other items;
• intentionally added microplastics in products, such as the ‘microbeads’ in some detergents and facial cleansers;
• neonicotinoids, pesticides that affect the nervous system of insects;
• organotins, used as biocides in products such as anti-fouling paint for marine vessels;
• phthalates, used in solvents and plasticizers to improve the flexibility of plastic items;
• polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), found in smoked meats, mothballs, and other consumer goods; and
• triclosan, an antiseptic used in personal care products.

Many of these chemicals are classified as potential carcinogens and have other adverse health impacts in humans and animals. Some pose the risk of bio-accumulation as concentrations in the body tend to increase over time. Many are transported across the globe through water, soil, and atmospheric systems, thus posing transboundary issues that no single country can manage on its own. Clean-up from the environment is difficult or unfeasible; therefore, the UNEP report calls for addressing risks at every stage of the product life cycle, from design through to usage, recycling, and disposal.

As noted in the report, regulating, and reducing the use of chemicals with the most troubling impacts will also have many benefits. For example, more than half the world’s usage of glyphosate is for crops that have been genetically engineered to tolerate this weedkiller. Reducing and eliminating the use of glyphosate would encourage better agricultural practices, such as crop rotation and integrated pest management. Managing the risks would help avoid intergenerational impacts, for example, for low-income populations that are thought to be more exposed to phthalates in cheap building and household materials such as vinyl, food wrappers, and takeaway containers.

Mutually supportive processes and frameworks

Section 5 of the UNEP report presents a “thought starter” on avenues and means of future work, highlighting, among many different possibilities, the following:

• Multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) allow for addition of new issues of concern to come under their purview. For example, the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes amended its annexes in 2019, to bring plastic waste within its scope. Similarly, the Rotterdam Convention, which covers prior informed consent and information exchange regarding the movement of hazardous chemicals, the Stockholm Convention on POPs, the Minamata Convention on mercury, and the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances all may include listings of new chemical hazards as they become known.

• International reviews and risk assessments are conducted by multilateral organizations, including WHO, FAO, UNEP, and others. Additionally, the IOMC was established in 1995 to strengthen cooperation and increase coordination in the field of chemical safety. Besides the flagship GCO, UNEP also publishes the Global Waste Management Outlook. OECD’s work in establishing standard testing guidelines and protocols for good laboratory practice provides a foundation for implementation of sound chemicals management.

• The International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM), the governing body for SAICM, will consider options for a post-2020 framework for sound management of chemicals and waste when it convenes for its fifth meeting (ICCM-5) in September 2023. Concurrently, negotiations are ongoing toward establishing a science-policy panel to contribute further to the sound management of chemicals and waste and to prevent pollution. Such a panel would be a counterpart to existing science-policy panels, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). These processes are also relevant to achieving SDG 12 on ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns.

According to an IOMC proposal to be considered within the SAICM process, a post-2020 framework for integrated chemicals and waste management should include:

• developing basic national chemical management systems and capacities in all countries;
• integrating chemicals management in key industry sectors and product value chains; and
• integrating chemicals management with sustainable development issues and initiatives.

At an intersessional meeting of SAICM, which took place from 29 August to 2 September 2022 in Bucharest, Romania, delegates developed a draft of a single consolidated document for the future post-2020 framework, to be fleshed out in subsequent intersessional meetings leading up to ICCM-5.

Looking ahead: Creating a strong framework for chemicals management

GCO-II found that global chemical production capacity of 2.3 billion tonnes in 2017 is set to double by 2030. According to UNEP’s assessment of issues of concern, the existing multilateral regime, which addresses specific chemicals and chemical groups, leaves many gaps. Some substitutions for hazardous chemicals also turn out to be “regrettable substitutions” that have equally negative impacts. Rapid changes sparked by adoption of new technologies and the changing global environment are meanwhile posing new challenges.

A strong policy and programme framework on chemicals would include the ability to effectively track national and regional regulatory actions that signal emerging priorities, the UNEP report suggests. It would engage a wide range of stakeholders in the governance of chemical and waste management, beyond chemicals experts, such as law scholars, social scientists, and civil society organizations (CSOs) who would bring a sharper focus on social and environmental concerns relevant to chemicals management.

Ultimately, the sound management of chemicals will not take place in isolation from efforts to address the triple planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. A strong policy and management regime to address pollution and waste must be part of the global quest for a sustainable planet.

 * * *

This document has been developed within the framework of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) project ID: 9771 on Global Best Practices on Emerging Chemical Policy Issues of Concern under the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). This project is funded by the GEF, implemented by UNEP, and executed by the SAICM Secretariat. The International Institute for Sustainable Development acknowledges the financial contribution of the GEF to the development of this policy brief.

This Policy Brief is the third in a series featuring cross-cutting topics relating to the sound management of chemicals and waste. It was written by Delia Paul, Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) team leader and writer. The series editor is Elena Kosolapova, Senior Policy Advisor, Tracking Progress Program, IISD.

The links between policies on water and chemicals are straightforward but integrated policy is a challenge that needs to be addressed. The Strategic Approach to Integrated Chemicals Management (SAICM) has played an important role in bringing attention to emerging issues that cross these domains.

Two chemical groups recognized by SAICM that fall outside global agreements and have significant impacts on water, health, and biodiversity are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and environmentally persistent pharmaceutical pollutants (EPPPs). SAICM recognized EDCs and EPPPs as emerging policy issues a decade ago, accelerating cooperative actions among governments and stakeholders to mobilize knowledge and awareness. EDCs and EPPPs are not only important topics for global governance on chemicals. Policy advancements addressing EDCs and EPPPs are also applicable to and can be strengthened by the voluntary commitments of the 2023 UN Water Conference, negotiations for a new international treaty on plastics and a science-policy body on chemicals and wastes, and the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), among other decision-making forums.

EDC and EPPP Risks

Historically, the risks and harms of pollution have not been prioritized in policy agendas commensurate with their impact on the health of people and planet. Worldwide consumption and production patterns have pushed the planetary boundary for environmental pollutants past sustainability while at least 5,000 novel chemicals produced since 1950 are recognized to have nearly universal human exposure. Pollution contributes approximately 17-25% of the environmental burden of disease, or about 9 million deaths per year. This is a fraction of the amount of its sub-lethal harms that lead to a wide spectrum of diseases, many of which are not recognized.

In 2017, the global health community elevated the visibility of negative health outcomes from chemical pollution through the formation of a Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health, yet an assessment report five years later noted “strikingly little” progress within countries to address these challenges. In fact, the challenge is increasing according to the World Water Development Report 2023: globally, water use rises by 1% per year but, still, five of 11 target indicators for SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) are not reported.

EDCs and EPPPs were recognized by SAICM as emerging pollutants of concern in 2012 at the third International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM3) and in 2015 at ICCM4, respectively, due to their health risks. Worldwide, nearly everyone is suspected to have EDCs in their blood. EDCs are also found in the blood of diverse species in many ecosystems, which creates specific risks for mammals, birds, fish, and some other species who have endocrine systems. Normal reproduction and development of current and future generations of humans and other species are jeopardized by EDCs. This is a risk that will grow with rising use of plastic – a major EDC source -, which is projected to triple by 2060.

The sub-lethal effects of EDCs are dangerous and long-lasting. EDCs alter natural mechanisms of development and normal physiologic function because they change the internal communication system – the hormone system – of the organism exposed, essentially resulting in a biological re-programming, de-programming, or mal-programming. They are also known to modify DNA regulation and expression, yielding heritable changes across multiple generations. In addition, EDCs are associated to secondary effects, such as increased likelihood of non-communicable diseases (NCDs).

Concentrations of EPPPs create low-dose drug mixtures that humans are exposed to in water, and at the same time, these substances can have complicated negative therapeutic impacts on other species. Drugs in the environment have the unintended consequence of having their intended effect on the physiology of other species. For example, antidepressants, analgesics, antimicrobials, and steroids like contraceptives alter behavior and feeding, renal function, natural decomposition of excrement, and feminization, fertility and fecundity, ultimately disturbing ecological relationships and life cycles. The intentional therapeutic design of pharmaceuticals also contributes to their persistence in ecosystems and risks to other species.

EDCs and EPPPs both have substantial negative impacts on water resources and water ecosystems. EDCs are found in diverse water ecosystems and in surface, ground, and drinking water. Many sectors contribute to the EDC “cocktails” in water resources because EDC production and use are central to agriculture (pesticides), houseware industry (plastics), electronics (plastics and heavy metals), cosmetics, and healthcare (plastics). EDCs also arise from industrial chemicals used to enhance other products, such as with flame retardant qualities. The exposure data on EDCs at the sectoral level can be staggering. For one, fruit and vegetable produce can carry dozens of endocrine disrupting residues from pesticides. Current data on a specific type of EDC with hydrophilic (water-loving) chemical properties, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs), show they are widespread across regions, and frequently detected in water regardless of proximity to point sources, carrying significant implications for public health. For instance, the European Environment Agency (EEA) observes that 14% of teenagers across nine countries have blood levels of PFAs above health guidance levels. Leading institutions generally conclude that the impacts of EDCs are underestimated. A focus on water pollution is important to the management of EDCs because, according to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants’ (POPs) Second Global Monitoring and Review, EDC concentrations in water serve as an important indicator to the effectiveness of policies to reduce their emissions.

Similarly, EPPPs mainly pollute water, contaminating surface water, groundwater, drinking water, and soil. The dominant emission pathway is urban wastewater discharge, with that from manufacturing, animal husbandry, and aquaculture also being significant. Findings from a report of 89 countries showed 992 active chemicals from pharmaceuticals or their transformation products are found in water and waste streams, and 703 of these were found in surface, ground, or drinking water. Another finding showed that 37 EPPPs exist in all five UN regions. At the same time, conclusions from a workshop on risks held by the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe concluded that no existing health-surveillance programmes are fully applicable for EPPPs.

Governance arrangements

EDCs and EPPPs slip through the cracks of existing environmental governance regimes. The risks of EDCs are well understood but constructing a regulatory framework that captures their complexity, prevalence, and life cycle in the environment is difficult. EDCs can contaminate soil, water, air, and food, and fall under numerous regulatory categories depending on what profession is assessing them. Under international environmental law they can be categorized as “POPs,” “hazardous waste,” “mercury products” and other “heavy metals,” “pesticides,” and “plastics.” In the health sector, they are discussed as “carcinogens,” “mutagens,” and “reprotoxicants.” Despite that EDCs link to a spectrum of governance instruments, and their global prevalence, major sources of EDCs are not being addressed at the global scale because no global instrument encompasses them comprehensively. Efforts at the sub-global and national level are similarly uneven and patchy. Thousands more chemicals are linked to endocrine disruption than the 1,400 currently documented as EDCs, and of those documented, less than 10% are being assessed and/or addressed through existing instruments and actions, worldwide.

A similar challenge exists for EPPPs, but for different reasons. Major multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) addressing chemicals, namely the Stockholm Convention on POPs, the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC), and the Minamata Convention on Mercury, explicitly exclude pharmaceuticals from consideration. The sheer volume of these substances in the environment warrants a more inclusive approach. In some high-income economies estimates suggest nearly 50% of the population uses pharmaceuticals at any given time. The cumulative outflow of pharmaceutical products in hospital and household water and waste streams is steadily growing but risk assessments are insufficient. For example, in the EU, more than 3,000 pharmaceuticals are distributed without an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA).

Water policy should be a logical home for governance of EDCs and EPPPs, however in practice, there is a mismatch in scale. Most regulatory policies on water are at the local or regional level, or scoped for river basins, while the prevalence and distribution of EDCs and EPPPs are global and transboundary. Moreover, global health experts note that metrics for industrial water pollution were agreed as part of the SDGs but are underdeveloped. Under public health mandates, water and sanitation policies are not scoped to consider chemical pollutants comprehensively or, in some areas, prioritize water access over risks from chemical pollution. The WHO began a process of developing drinking water quality guidelines on PFAs in 2017.

SAICM mobilized a series of “cooperative actions” to stimulate progress on EDCs (2012) and EPPPs (2015), because a focus on research cannot alone be successful in driving policy action. In 2020, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) issued ‘An Assessment Report on Issues of Concern: Chemicals and Waste Issues Posing Risks to Human Health and the Environment,’ in which it noted that despite some progress on EDCs and EPPPs, current actions were insufficient to address the global nature and/or full life cycle of these issues. In the report, UNEP identified a number of ways to develop and advance a landscape of governance approaches to EDCs, spanning agriculture policies, health and occupational policies, human rights, and the domains of biodiversity and climate change. UNEP also identified challenges and opportunities to shape the norms and policies in the sound management of EDCs:

• Bringing countries to the same level of awareness and knowledge, and ensuring regular periodicity of assessments and synthesis of scientific knowledge ready to be used in policy environments; and
• Bridging different approaches to assessing and managing EDCs, rectifying policy inconsistencies, data requirements, and joint assessments and strategies, with emphasis on the broad uptake of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).

UNEP also identified challenges to making progress on EPPPs that include addressing barriers in existing norms and policies:

• The scope of pharmaceuticals addressed is limited by terminology “environmentally persistent,” which does not capture, for instance, those that are pseudo persistent and bioaccumulate or those whose short-term impacts are irreversible. One way forward is to expand this scope with simple, general criteria.
• Pharmaceutical waste prevention needs to be stepped up because contamination is expensive and technically difficult. Stakeholders need to encourage pharmaceutical manufacturers to be more engaged in “green pharmacy” approaches along the value chain.
• Support for addressing negative impacts of pharmaceuticals is needed in developing countries and economies in transition and needs to be tailored to the pharmaceuticals most prevalent in local wastewater in those areas.
• The system of Environmental Risk Assessments (ERAs) needs to be re-visioned to capture the existing risk of total pollution load. Thousands of pharmaceutical products are distributed without ERAs and are measured in surface water at significant concentrations.
• Strengthening the engagement of pharmaceutical manufacturers and capturing the full life cycle of a pharmaceutical product in policy actions are important.
• Moving beyond a focus on knowledge to policy actions is needed. A package of instruments that includes marketing authorization, take-back unused/expired drug programs, and waste treatment, among others, are required.

One issue linked to EPPPs – the increasing risk and threat of “superbugs” – is drawing increasing attention worldwide. The multifaceted problem due to the use of antimicrobial drugs in human, veterinary, and livestock agriculture is a significant issue under EPPPs. According to a 2023 report, ‘Bracing for Superbugs,’ UNEP says minimizing pharmaceuticals is “critical” to preventing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and ecotoxicity. Antibiotics, antivirals, fungicides, and disinfectants flow in wastewater, but a fraction have been assessed. The scale and interconnectedness of AMR water contamination calls for a comprehensive, multi-sectoral response, including ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ interventions as well as enhanced data collection and research. Solutions include improved prevention and reduction in overuse, especially in the agriculture sector, and improved water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) programmes.

Financing the sound management of EDCs and EPPPs

Major risks and major costs present a dual challenge for the sound management of EDCs and EPPPs and new attention is needed to highlight the long-term financial impacts of these pollutants. Arguments that pollution is not cost-effective are “flawed and obsolete,” according to health experts. At the same time, new investments in cost-benefit analyses to unveil and communicate hidden costs of pollution are essential.

A 2015 estimate of the cost of inaction on EDCs in Europe totals EUR 157 billion, and similarly, projections to pre-emptively manage the costs of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are between USD 4 billion – 9 billion per year (upstream) and USD 13 billion – 47 billion per year (downstream). Another gap area is the disproportionate lack of funding in research and design for hazard analysis. In 2013, the EEA noted that “over the past decade” 1% of research funding went to hazards while 99% went to product development. Some stakeholders advocate for a 0.5% chemicals tax on the USD 2.3 trillion profit from production of basic chemicals.

Human rights dimension of EDCs and EPPPs management

The UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics views exposure of people to harmful substances without their prior informed consent as a human rights issue. The Rapporteur outlines the human rights obligations of states on pollution and toxics, including to establish monitoring programmes, assess major sources of exposure, and provide the public with accurate, accessible information about risks to health, and to not cause pollution or exposure to toxic substances that violate the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment recently recognized by the UN General Assembly (UNGA). Specifically, the Rapporteur notes that the “application and interpretation of the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment in the context of pollution and toxic substances should be guided by the principles of prevention, precaution, non-discrimination and non-regression, and the polluter pays principle.” The UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Environment further states that a non-toxic environment depends on safe, sufficient water and healthy aquatic ecosystems, which should be managed with water plans that take a rights-based approach.

Pollution is a major cause of environmental injustice, and gender equity is receiving increasing attention in this regard. The disproportionate exposure and risks women face leads some stakeholders to underscore the importance of gender-responsive chemicals management, while eight countries have invested in a multi-year project to assess the EDC toxicity on the female reproductive system. SAICM recognizes that information on chemicals associated to endocrine disruption should not be confidential.

Opportunities to promote sound management of EDCs and EPPPs

The recently concluded UN 2023 Water Conference created an opportunity to elevate the importance of sound management of EDCs and EPPPs. One key focus could be incorporating their consideration in voluntary commitments that make up the Water Action Agenda, which could, for instance, emphasize or specify quantitative goals on pollution, and the interlinkages of the human right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment and the right to water and sanitation. The High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) in July 2023 where SDG 6 will undergo in-depth review, as well as the SDG Summit in September could both bring much-needed attention to the issue of EDCs’ and EPPPs’ sound management.

In addition, 2023 will be a busy year with high potential to advance more comprehensive global chemical governance that includes emerging policy issues. SAICM – a multistakeholder and multi-sectoral policy framework established in 2006 to mobilize action until 2020 – will undergo a critical review to determine the sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020. Key events contributing to this review are the resumed fourth session of the Intersessional Process for Considering SAICM and the Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste Beyond 2020 (IP4.3) and ICCM5 – a body whose aim is to promote chemical safety worldwide and whose mandate includes considering a new instrument to follow SAICM. Both of these events have been delayed since 2020 and will convene in September 2023. These forums provide opportunities to directly promote the management of EDCs and EPPPs as issues of concern.

In addition, UNEP’s intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) on plastics will reconvene to continue deliberation on the design of a new international legally-binding instrument (ILB). The meeting will focus on the substantive scope of the treaty and its implementation and the form of the global agreement to which countries could commit. Some governments propose that the treaty be scoped to consider both socioeconomic and environmental considerations of plastics, which is a way to ensure space to consider EDCs and EPPPs under the health dimension of socioeconomic concerns.

The Open-ended Working Group for a science-policy panel for chemicals, waste, and pollution will also resume to advance discussion on the scope and concept of the new panel. The panel aims to provide policy-relevant scientific advice, and these talks provide another ripe moment to ensure that the mandate of the panel is broad enough to include impacts of EDCs across exposure routes (air, water, soil, food, and chemicals in products) and also explicitly include pharmaceuticals. The innovative horizon-scanning feature proposed for this panel is important for tackling emerging issues and facilitating early warning. The updated WHO report on the State of Science on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals since 2012 is underway and anticipated prior to the sixth session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) in 2024. Consideration for how the global health field can incorporate EDCs’ and EPPPs’ monitoring and actions to address them, such as through WASH programmes, would be a valuable chapter.

Other international forums and implementation actions provide additional opportunities to ensure water pollution, EDCs, and EPPPs are appropriately addressed and regulated at the global level. There are a number of biodiversity policy spaces that can strengthen uptake and capacity building for chemicals. GBF target 7 – to “reduce pollution risks and the negative impact of pollution from all sources, by 2030, to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, considering cumulative effects,” including by halving nutrient loss and the risk of pesticide and highly hazardous chemicals, and by working towards eliminating plastic pollution – provides important synergies to chemicals governance spaces. Specific mention of water pollution from EDCs and EPPPs can be incorporated into updates of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), which are currently underway. Development of One Health Action Plans is another vehicle where EDCs and EPPPs are relevant, such as within management strategies for antimicrobial drugs.

A renewed focus on gaps in national implementation and agenda setting is a way to take up global health recommendations. A 2022 Lancet Commission on pollution and health progress report on national water governance underlined the importance of cross-sectoral approaches to pollution control policies. The report observed that “ministries of health continue to prioritise infectious diseases and disease treatment, leaving pollution prevention to the ministries of environment, which usually have less power and less funding than ministries of health,” and further noted the absence of leadership from powerful ministries of finance, urban development, and energy.

Advancing effective pollution control for water resources, EDCs, and EPPPs will require the involvement of the health sector at the national level, particularly in the development of evidence reports, action plans, and communication. Some countries are making progress on EDCs, including Belgium, France, Japan, and Malaysia, though a recent analysis of regulatory approaches points to major technical barriers, such as the in vivo evidence requirement to demonstrate EDCs’ adverse effects. On pharmaceuticals, the Netherlands, Sweden, and China have developed progressive approaches. However, significant imbalance exists in the assessment and monitoring of chemicals, including EDCs and EPPPs, across regions. The Lancet report offers several recommendations to develop health sector involvement, including:

• Establishing monitoring and control systems on different forms of exposure, such as developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity, the effects of long-term low-level exposures, and the health risks of chemical mixtures, such as by building on hazard identification models;
• Incorporating pollution prevention into development strategy frameworks;
• Strengthening media attention to topics relating to pollution and health;
• Including modern pollution prevention in multilateral development institutions’ country strategy frameworks;
• Linking pollution to planning for noncommunicable disease, climate change, biodiversity, food, and agriculture, and making pollution a more robust component of the One Health approach and in dialogues on planetary health; and
• Identifying and mapping pollution exposures particularly in low-income and middle-income countries.

A stronger mention of pollution in the Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases would provide top-down support to national planning.

UNEP’s Assessment Report on Issues of Concern concluded by highlighting looking not only at risks to human health and the environment, but also at the links between chemicals and waste and other environmental and societal priorities. The year 2023 offers many doors to improving the global best practices on emerging issues in chemicals governance.

* * *

This document has been developed within the framework of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) project ID: 9771 on Global Best Practices on Emerging Chemical Policy Issues of Concern under the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). This project is funded by the GEF, implemented by UNEP, and executed by the SAICM Secretariat. The International Institute for Sustainable Development acknowledges the financial contribution of the GEF to the development of this policy brief.

 This Policy Brief is the fourth in a series featuring cross-cutting topics relating to the sound management of chemicals and waste. It was written by Liz Willetts, IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) Team Leader and Senior Writer. The series editor is Elena Kosolapova, Senior Policy Advisor, Tracking Progress Program, IISD.

RELATED EVENTS

• Fifth Meeting of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5)
• UN 2023 Water Conference

Safer States is an alliance of diverse environmental health organizations and coalitions from across the United States committed to building a healthier world.  The website features an interactive map showing chemical-related policies, including those related to building materials.  A Bill Tracker provides further detail of the action taken by individual states to regulate chemicals, covering PFAS, toxic flame retardants, heavy metals, BPA and phthalates.

Safe or scary? The use of pesticides in modern agriculture has brought gains but also risks for human health and the environment. Addressing the use of chemicals, including highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), in our modern world is especially important in the context of the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution, which jeopardizes decades of progress in human development. Current trends showing that the SDGs are off track illustrate the gravity of the situation. While blurred by complexity and distrust, the sound management of chemicals and waste is central for more resilient and healthier food systems.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) 2013 International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management and the 2016 Guidelines on Highly Hazardous Pesticides adopt the following definition of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs): “pesticides that are acknowledged to present particularly high levels of acute or chronic hazards to health or environment according to internationally accepted classification systems such as WHO or Global Harmonized System (GHS) or their listing in relevant binding international agreements or conventions.”

Chemicals, such as pesticides, fertilizers, and food additives, are widely used in food production to increase crop yields, prevent pest damage, and enhance food’s appearance, taste, and shelf life. However, exposure to certain chemicals can harm human health, including by causing cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, and neurological issues. In particular, the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) latest Global Chemicals Outlook warns about the growing risks associated with the use of hazardous chemicals and other pollutants.

This Policy Brief aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current challenges related to food systems, focusing on the impact of HHPs on the health of people and the planet. It concludes with policy recommendations that can support decision makers in implementing integrated approaches to pesticide management, notably in the context of the new Global Framework on Chemicals, adopted in September 2023.

Food systems transformation: The need for bold and urgent action

Our current food systems are not fit-for-purpose. This is because despite the successful growth of global production and a growing population, several new challenges emerged due to how we produce and consume food in our modern era.

First, paradoxically, all forms of malnutrition are on the rise. The 2023 edition of the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) shows that about 29.6% of the global population – 2.4 billion people – were moderately or severely food insecure in 2022. Among them, about 900 million (11.3% of people in the world) were severely food insecure. Second, food production and unsustainable consumption patterns challenge the wellbeing of future generations. Around 828 million, or 1 in 9, people go to bed hungry every night. This happens at the same time that 931 million tons of food, or 17% of the total food available to consumers, goes to waste. Food loss and waste are estimated to account for 8-10% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, exacerbating climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss. Third, rising inequalities contribute to negative trends in food security. For example, the gender gap in food insecurity continued to rise in 2021, with 31.9% of women in the world being moderately or severely food insecure, compared to 27.6% of men – a gap of more than four percentage points, compared with three percentage points in 2020. Finally, unsustainable food systems, coupled with the cost-of-living crisis, primarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing conflicts worldwide, risk exposing populations to increasingly insecure food and energy supplies.

With the burden of malnutrition disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable with low incomes, deep health disparities will continue delaying progress in poverty reduction under a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario. The SOFI 2023 report also projects that almost 600 million people will still be facing hunger in 2030 – even if global economic recovery is achieved. This is the same as in 2015, when the goal of ending hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition by the end of this decade was launched under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 SDGs.

In sum, more is needed to achieve a genuinely equitable food system that delivers nutritious and healthy diets for all. Recognizing these challenges, the UN Food Systems Summit 2021 and its follow-up actions set the stage for a transformation that can support the achievement of the SDGs by 2030.

Food systems and chemicals management: Challenges for people and the planet

A more resilient, healthier, and more equitable and sustainable environment is a core piece of the food systems transformation puzzle. And yet, the excessive use of pesticides contaminates soil, water, wildlife, and habitats. This is especially critical in the context of HHPs. As noted, HHPs are pesticides that must be handled differently, given their high toxicity. They are considered too dangerous for standard risk reduction measures, such as labeling and personal protective equipment (PPE). 

HHP residues are also found in food. This is not only dangerous for farmers and other workers directly handling those chemicals but raises risks for consumers as well. Developing countries shoulder these risks disproportionately, as only 35% of them have pesticide regulations. Moreover, even with regulations, a lack of capacity to enforce the rules creates implementation gaps. With the global population growing, food safety remains a rising challenge worldwide, given that pesticide residues are found in high concentrations in fresh agriculture. Recent statistical results show that the most problematic hazard classifications for food safety are antibacterial substances and pesticides.

Figure 1. Percentage of pesticides considered as highly hazardous, by country

Source: Pesticide Atlas 2022, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung & others Eimermacher/stockmarpluswalter, CC BY 4.0

Moreover, according to WHO, three million cases of pesticide poisoning occur annually, resulting in an estimated 220,000 deaths, with HHPs being responsible for many poisoning incidents. In addition, about 20% of the approximately 800,000 people who die by suicide yearly do so by ingesting pesticides (WHO, 2019). HHPs harmful effects are particularly notable in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs), where the lack of regulations or disposal centers cause great damage. In total, 95% of 385 million people who suffer from unintended pesticide poisoning every year are in the Global South.

Global chemical pollution levels have crossed planetary boundaries

Already in 1962, the famous ‘Silent Spring’ by Rachel Carson alerted the world to the harmful effects of pesticides. This milestone work influenced the ban of highly toxic chemicals such as DDT in many countries. Despite this success, nowadays, the use of chemicals is at its record high. To safeguard our planet’s habitability, countries must work with and not against nature. And yet, harmful impacts of HHPs on ecosystems have historically been neglected.

The use of agrochemicals comes with the promise that they will minimize losses by protecting crops, increasing productivity, and maintaining the quality of products. They are also defended for the chance to save labor costs, which allows for price reduction of global commodities. Pesticides have been used to keep harmful pests away from the fields, including rats, mice, ticks, and mosquitoes. Although there have been advantages in terms of productivity, exposure to HHPs is problematic. According to WHO, the most significant exposure to HHPs occurs among agricultural and public health workers during handling, diluting, mixing, and applying pesticides. HHPs have been linked to immunologic abnormalities and reproductive and developmental consequences. 

A highly contentious debate linked to this theme is the expansion of genetically modified crops. A study shows that, currently, 74% of soybeans grown worldwide are genetically modified. The same analysis shows that Brazil and Argentina are now among the countries with the highest herbicide consumption in the world, just after China and the US.

Pesticides are ubiquitous. They contaminate groundwater, rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, representing a threat to the environment. Healthy soils are considered an essential natural element for human security. And yet, population growth and rapid urbanization are putting soils at risk, and agricultural intensification is making soils more prone to erosion. Allowing unrestricted use of chemicals exacerbates this challenge. The importance of healthy soils, which are fundamental to the future of food, is underestimated. Diverse species, including invertebrates, bacteria, and fungi, that are essential for ecosystem services because they help filter water, recycle nutrients, sequester greenhouse gases (GHGs), regulate climate, and support healthy soils, are threatened by abundant use of dangerous chemicals. Insects, too, are in danger, and this is bad news for us. This is because they offer pollinating services, allowing fruits, flowers, and vegetables to grow. Honey, silk, and beeswax are other products that insects offer, besides contributing to recycling of nutrients and pest control.

Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) concentrations, measured in air and human milk, showed a general declining trend. However, OCPs are still found in the environment, including in some remote places showing high values, even though these substances have been banned decades ago. DDT, one of the initially listed persistent organic pollutant (POPs) under the Stockholm Convention, was detected in high values in both core matrices air and human milk. DDT has been the dominant POP out of all the POPs analyzed in the framework of the UNEP/GEF Global Monitoring Plan (GMP) projects. Further, other OCPs like dieldrin, heptachlor, and endosulfan showed scattered values depending on the country.

The use of synthetic chemicals and the expansion of monocultures cause biodiversity loss and erode the basis for a healthy future. The intensification of the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution could increase the use of pesticides, creating a vicious cycle: the decreasing number of beneficial insects justifies and calls for more pesticide use, further reducing all types of biodiversity. Moreover, pesticides are constantly on the move. Wind can move dangerous particles from agricultural areas to residential zones. Called “pesticide drift,” this phenomenon has often been overlooked.

In addition, pesticides threaten people’s right to live in dignity, the right to bodily integrity, and the right to a healthy environment. Only around 4% of all pesticides used globally are regulated by binding international conventions. Moreover, indirect effects on food chains and biodiversity remain little understood, with negative effects hard to predict. Responding to all these challenges calls for an accelerated transition toward more resilient, sustainable, nutritious, and inclusive food systems.

Regulatory shortcomings and the need for multilateral coordination

Several international, national, and regional regulations are in place to minimize chemical exposure throughout the food supply, benefiting people and the planet.

Prior to the adoption of the Global Framework on Chemicals, for more than 15 years, SAICM served as a global policy framework aimed at enhancing the management of chemicals and improving the health of human beings and the environment. Efforts to agree on a chemicals management approach have a long history, starting at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), where countries agreed to achieve, by 2020, the use and production of chemicals in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and the environment. That led to the launch, in 2006, of the SAICM at the first ICCM in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE). A flexible, voluntary, non-binding, multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral initiative dedicated to promoting collaboration, SAICM, recognized the importance of ensuring safety, calling for developing and implementing policies and measures to minimize exposure to hazardous chemicals through the food supply and improving the overall safety of the food system.

To continue this work, in September 2023, the Fifth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5) adopted a successor agreement to SAICM – the Global Framework on Chemicals. Among others, the new framework calls for the prevention of illegal trade and trafficking of chemicals and waste, the implementation of national legal frameworks, and the phase out, by 2035, of HHPs in agriculture. The adoption of this new framework on chemicals, pollution, and waste recognizes these challenges at the same level as the crises of climate change and nature and biodiversity loss.

This enhanced global cooperation complements other multilateral efforts. For example, the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) conducts risk assessments for pesticide residues in food. With an independent international expert scientific group, these assessments are based on all data submitted to national registries of pesticides worldwide, complemented by peer-reviewed articles. JMPR sets safety limits to ensure that the amount of exposure to pesticide residue when consuming food over lifetime does not result in adverse health effects. These are used by governments and other regulatory bodies such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which establishes maximum residue limits (MRLs) in food standards.

At the national level, countries have established food safety agencies to oversee the implementation of food safety regulations, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the EU. In addition, the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation aims to protect human health and the environment from the potential risks associated with chemicals.

Despite local and global efforts, a significant gap remains in ensuring the safety of food systems and protecting public health, as evidenced by ongoing food contamination incidents. To reduce this risk, international, national, and regional regulations, policies, and objectives such as those established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the FDA, EFSA, and SAICM and its successor framework, are in place to ensure the safety of the food we consume. Continued efforts are needed to improve the safety of the food supply and minimize chemical exposure to protect the health of people and the environment.

Stakeholders continue to call for stronger actions to address HHPs to combat short- and long-term impacts on planetary health, and, with governments, they have signaled their determination to minimize the adverse impacts of pesticides on health and the environment. The political commitment expressed in the 2023 Bonn Declaration for a Planet Free of Harm from Chemicals and Waste is significant, but progress, has been slow. From the perspective of corporations, one common argument in defense of the continued use of pesticides is that they are needed to ensure food security and that local laws decided upon by sovereign countries are followed. However, there is a discrepancy between regulations in developed countries and those in LMICs.

With the emergence of the Green Deal, the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy asks Member States to reduce by 50% the use of more hazardous pesticides by 2030. And yet, despite being banned for sale in high-income countries (HICs), companies based in these countries can legally produce and export HHPs to LMICs. While the burden of HHPs is mostly carried by the Global South, some of the hazardous pesticides exported from Europe find their way back in when food is imported and contains residues. Two countries in Europe have been leading by example – Luxembourg and Denmark. Luxembourg has banned the use of all products containing the herbicide glyphosate from 1 January 2021, while Denmark has implemented taxes according to the toxicity of pesticides to humans and the environment and used the money to reinvest in the agricultural sector, easing resistance from farmers.

Figure 2. Destinations of pesticides banned for use in the EU and exported to developing countries

Source: Unearthed and Public Eye (2020)

The way forward

We know that regulations to ban the use of HHPs have saved lives. Food systems must evolve to include strong social and ecological management of fields. While solutions to combat adverse impacts of dangerous chemicals and wastes exist, more ambitious regulations and knowledge dissemination are needed.

Whereas the success of reining in pesticides has been limited due to, among other reasons, the lack of regulations and asymmetry of power among regulators and large companies, there are examples of approaches to chemicals management that inspired positive change. The best known one is the Montreal Protocol to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which has reduced the use of hazardous pesticides by replacing methyl bromide with less hazardous alternatives. The Stockholm Convention’s early action to restrict 12 POPs, and the Rotterdam Convention, which facilitates information sharing between states about hazardous chemicals entering international trade and about the regulatory actions taken, are good examples of efforts improving informed collective decision making.

There is enough scientific evidence to inform bold decision making in the sphere of food systems transformation and sound chemicals management. However, more work needs to be done to ensure that identified solutions are reaching decision makers, especially in the Global South. In this context, two opportunities for decision makers to demonstrate progress and commitment emerged in 2023.

First, the UN Food Systems Summit +2 in July 2023 built on the UN Secretary-General-led 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, which attested to both the urgency and the political will to do better to overcome all forms of malnutrition. The 2023 Summit was the first-ever opportunity for decision makers and practitioners to disseminate solutions about food systems transformation, overcoming coordination and implementation gaps. As of July 2023, 125 countries had designed or were implementing national pathways to achieve more sustainable food systems. Addressing the use of hazardous pesticides deserves more attention in this conversation. Outcomes from this global gathering deserve to be included in deliberations on how to tackle HHPs, and better alignment between public health and environmental protection policies should also be encouraged.

ICCM5 was another important milestone where countries and multiple stakeholders successfully negotiated a post-2020 platform for the sound management of chemicals and waste to succeed SAICM. The new Global Framework on Chemicals sets the 2035 target for stakeholders to “have taken measures” to phase out HHPs. ICCM5 also launched a Global Alliance on HHPs, a collaborative multistakeholder initiative to scale up global action on HHPs. This target complements the recently agreed Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). In its Target 7, countries agree, among other aspects, to reduce the “the overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by at least half including through integrated pest management, based on science, taking into account food security and livelihoods; and also preventing, reducing, and working towards eliminating plastic pollution.”

As argued, dangerous chemical exposure affects the most vulnerable disproportionately. Although there has been progress, international agreements remain insufficient to cope with the adverse environmental and health impacts of pesticides and fertilizers. Stakeholders have thus recommended a set of priorities and transformative actions to minimize these impacts:

• Incentivize healthy and sustainable consumer choices and consumption;
• Fundamentally change crop management and adopt ecosystem-based approaches;
• Promote circularity and resource efficiency;
• Use economic instruments to create a level playing field for greener products and approaches;
• Adopt integrated and life cycle approaches for sound pesticide and fertilizer management; and
• Strengthen standards and adopt corporate policies for sustainable supply chain management.

Reducing inequalities will require decision makers to scale up options that allow for a replacement of HHPs. The Guidelines on Alternatives to HHPs, for example, offers options, including agroecology, crop rotation, microbial and semiochemical agents, and botanical pesticides. Moreover, beyond investing in agricultural robotics, drones, and algorithm-driven technologies, which are often benefiting big business but not necessarily the most vulnerable, countries must invest more in educating specialists, infrastructure, and reducing costs of implementation based on true cost accounting of food.

No country or discipline alone can drive the needed change at scale. The need for food system transformation is irrefutable, and chemicals management must be part of the menu of solutions.

While much remains to be done, several countries and cities are leading the transition towards more ecological and healthier options. Examples can be found in the 2018 decision of Kyrgyzstan’s parliament calling for all agriculture to transition to organic production within the next ten years. Over 550 German cities and municipalities have decided to manage their urban greenery partially or completely without pesticides. These examples prove that a healthier and more ecologically friendly future is possible. Thus, it is time to scale political momentum to deliver access to healthy diets, while safeguarding our environment and promoting equitable livelihoods. The incoming Presidency of the UN Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC COP 28) taking place later this year has put forward an action agenda that places nature, people, lives, and livelihoods at the heart of climate action. It has also proposed a leader-level Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action, which could help scale political will to help steer the necessary transformation. It remains to be seen whether and how many countries will support the Presidency’s initiative.

* * *

This Policy Brief is the tenth in a series featuring cross-cutting topics relating to the sound management of chemicals and waste. It was written by Nicole de Paula, Ph.D, Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) contributor and author of ‘Breaking the Silos for Planetary Health – A Roadmap for a Resilient Post-Pandemic World.’ The series editor is Elena Kosolapova, Senior Policy Advisor, Tracking Progress Program, IISD.

RELATED EVENTS

• 2023 UN Food Systems Stocktaking Moment
• Fifth Meeting of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5)
• 2023 UN Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC COP 28)