LAUSR

■ INTRODUCTION In 2021, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) recognized chemical pollution as a planetary crisis tantamount to climate change and biodiversity decline. In an important next step, the international community agreed in March 2022 on establishing an independent, intergovernmental science−policy panel on chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention (hereafter termed “the Panel”). This Panel will take its place among two other intergovernmental bodies, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Now is a crucial time for establishing the Panel, following a process facilitated by UNEP to negotiate the Panel’s scope, functions, and institutional design, with the ambition to formally establish the Panel in 2024. As a group of international scientists working on chemical pollution, we applaud this milestone of progress to initiate the establishment of a panel for chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention. At the beginning of the negotiating process, we would like to highlight the following 10 critical aspects for consideration in determining the settings of the Panel. 1. Why a New Panel? The new Panel is needed to fill a critical gap pertaining to the mounting and accelerating impacts on human and environmental health caused by chemical pollution and waste globally. The highly multifaceted and heterogeneous impacts of chemical pollution encompass a wide array of issues that often show dynamic development and require international action. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a big-picture perspective resulting from a comprehensive and ongoing horizon scanning, monitoring, interpretation of data, and synthesis of individual findings. This goes beyond the remit of existing bodies at the national, regional, and international levels because their scopes and mandates are limited to certain chemicals, geographical areas, or jurisdictions (examples here include the Basel, Stockholm, Rotterdam, and Minamata conventions). For the development of effective action at the global level, comprehensive and authoritative scientific assessments are crucial. 2. Avoid Paralysis by Analysis. Current knowledge is sufficient for several chemicals or groups of chemicals with hazardous properties (for example, lead, mercury, asbestos, and several pesticides) to enable implementing evidence-based solutions. As an integrator of scientific information, the Panel must avoid “paralysis by analysis” by repeatedly re-assessing the same topics and substances. The reports “Late lessons from early warnings I & II” provide a wide range of examples (e.g., benzene, DDT, mercury, lead, asbestos, and PCBs) where continued research expanded and deepened the understanding of the issue but largely confirmed earlier insights and where, accordingly, action could and should have been taken earlier. Also, knowledge of the proper treatment of many types of waste is available, which helps to reduce and ideally prevent the spread of many pollutants into the environment. The Panel should therefore provide a comprehensive bigger picture and forward-thinking reviews and assessments to enable horizon scanning in order to identify new research gaps and needs, also for more recently identified “emerging” issues. 3. Scope. The Panel’s work needs to be broad and inclusive to properly respond to the breadth and complexity of global chemical production, use, releases, and disposal, involving up to several hundred thousand chemicals, of which a substantial fraction is hazardous to humans and/or ecosystem health. This includes well-characterized “legacy” chemicals, but also a much