Global Plastics Treaty Progress: Delays, Challenges, and Growing Ambition
A train filled with plastic pre-production pellets spills its contents into surrounding local communities and the environment. A fifth and final round of negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty becomes gridlocked and cannot continue, causing the plastics crisis to escalate with each passing day. These interconnected issues and real-life events have the same common denominator: plastic and fossil fuel producing countries and the petrochemical industry derailing progress for human rights, a healthy environment and a livable planet in the ecocidal quest for economic gain.
Surfrider Foundation and Surfrider Foundation Canada, alongside fellow civil society organizations and over 170 member states, headed to Busan, South Korea to complete a historic negotiation: Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee-5 (INC-5), which was intended to be the final round of the talks for a United Nations treaty to end plastic pollution. All five negotiations, which kicked off in 2022, extend out of the United Nations Environmental Assembly (UNEA) Resolution 5/14, which calls for a global mechanism to end plastic pollution, taking a life cycle approach (plastic production through disposal).
Key disagreements over the treaty's scope and measures, which emerged during INC-4 in Ottawa last April, carried forward into INC-5, further amplifying tensions. The INC-4 resulted in the “compilation draft” - a very complicated draft of options and a notorious amount of brackets added in from participating member states. Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the INC Chair from Ecuador, then created a Chair “Non-Paper” taking direction from the compilation draft, but creating a much more workable foundation for the INC-5 negotiations to use. Member states decided to go forward using the Non-Paper and proceeded with contact groups to negotiate and attempt to agree on different measures of the treaty text (including supply, chemicals of concern, plastic products, product design, and finance mechanisms). From this point, we go downhill.
Negotiations on the treaty text are being conducted through consensus, but a minority of low-ambition countries—chiefly plastic and fossil fuel producers such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and Kuwait—have exploited this decision-making mechanism to obstruct progress. These nations have also employed various delay tactics, including disputing the treaty’s scope on adopting a life cycle approach. Their goal is to secure a voluntary waste management agreement, which would result in a weak and unacceptable treaty. Adding fuel to the fire of these obstructionist strategies, there was also the presence of over 220 fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists, who outnumbered key environmental and scientific coalitions as well as Indigenous Peoples.
So, the fifth and final negotiation is not so final after all. The Chair announced on the final night of negotiations that there will be an INC-5 2.0, with an undetermined date and location in 2025. Current decisions will be postponed until that time. Countries will use the latest Chair’s text for the resumed session as the basis for the continued negotiations, which is far from being a fit for purpose treaty. As stated in the Break Free From Plastic press release about the Chair’s text:
“There is no direct mention of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Likewise, the current text does not list chemicals of concern, nor does it include direct obligations, criteria, and transparency provisions, among other red lines that cannot be crossed without perpetuating the harms of plastic pollution, especially on frontline communities. Additionally, many observers noted that the current text has too many options, weak language, and a lack of clear definitions.”
Overall, the need for an "INC-5 2.0" reflects the issue of trying to achieve consensus-based diplomacy when there is presence of power-over domination of petro states and the petrochemical industry. Delays and protracted negotiations are not uncommon in UN processes though (for example, the High Seas Treaty faced delays for almost two decades), but we simply do not have time to wait.
Fortunately, this past week has also resulted in major wins for the movement, including alliances built between countries, exemplified by a proposal put forward by Panama and backed by 100+ countries, calling for a comprehensive strategy to reduce global plastic production through a systematic, adaptive approach with a global plastic production reduction target. A cap on plastic production has become the cornerstone of this treaty, akin to the 30x30 goal of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels stands as the centrepiece of the Paris Agreement. A majority of countries are now pushing for this Global Plastics Treaty cornerstone, and are fed up with the obstructionism from petro states. They have voiced that they are more determined than ever to achieve a fit-for-purpose treaty. The coalition of Indigenous Peoples, waste pickers, frontline and fenceline community members and civil society organizations will continue to uplift and urge these ambitious countries to demonstrate courage over compromise.
While frustration is bubbling over, there is a positive way forward. Firstly, it’s better to have the treaty negotiations continue, rather than settle for a treaty that is weak in its measures. Secondly, ambitious countries can demand that decision making be changed from consensus to a majority vote. A majority vote can solve the current gridlock, and light the path towards an ambitious treaty. A majority vote has been used to secure other successful multilateral agreements, including the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (1946) to regulate whaling and conserve whale populations, and this can be the case for a Global Plastics Treaty.
One of the most powerful moments of the week took place on the final night, when Rwanda's lead negotiator, Juliet Kabera, spoke on behalf of 85 countries in insisting that the treaty be ambitious throughout, fit for purpose and not built to fail, for the benefit of current and future generations. She asked everyone who supported the statement to "stand up for ambition." Country delegates and most of us observers in the audience stood and clapped for three minutes. At that moment, we were collectively louder than any petro state, and any petrochemical industry player in the room. This moment epitomizes what we must move forward knowing: that together, we are stronger and louder, and we can end the plastics crisis out of a love for humanity, the oceans, and the planet we call home.
As a reminder, here’s what’s needed for a Global Plastics Treaty that will end the plastics crisis:
Establish a cap on plastic production with binding targets. The evidence is clear, to end plastic pollution, we need a cap on production. The treaty needs to establish ambitious, science-based goals to phase down plastic production. These goals need to be met by binding, transparent targets across all member states.
Ban the most harmful plastics and chemicals. To protect human and environmental health, problematic plastics and toxic chemicals must be eliminated worldwide. The treaty should enforce binding, global bans with clear timelines.
Prioritize and promote reuse and product design for a circular economy. There needs to be binding targets for reuse, adhering to the zero waste hierarchy. The treaty needs to enable the shift from single-use items to reusable, circular product designs.
Ensure EPR schemes promote reuse and discourage single-use designs.
Recognise that Indigenous Peoples have distinct status and inherent collective rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).Also, ensure that the UNDRIP is upheld in the preamble and throughout the operational aspects of the treaty text (see all recommendations from the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics here)
Establish a financing mechanism to support a just transition, including assisting developing countries in implementing the treaty.
Ensure the treaty remains adaptable by allowing new measures to be added annually through a two-thirds majority vote.
Centre human rights and human health in the treaty
Ensure the Global Plastics Treaty includes the Basel Convention in the preamble, and bans the export of plastic waste from high-income countries to low- and middle-income countries, which often lack the infrastructure to manage it sustainably.
Require member states to report on plastic production, use, waste management practices, as well as plastic imports and exports and plastic waste imports and exports.
Require governments to eliminate subsidies for petrochemical feedstocks used in plastic manufacturing. Redirect these funds to support a financial mechanism, legacy plastic cleanup and innovation in reuse systems.
Develop binding measures to tackle secondary microplastics from sources like tires, textiles, and paints.
By the time you’ve finished reading this article, around 200 tonnes of plastics have entered the oceans. The time is now, let’s end the plastic era, together.
Continued Reading:
https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/poplite/
https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution/session-5
https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/2024/12/02/plastic-treaty-talks-stall-despite-support-for-production-cuts-additional-session-planned/