The third and penultimate round of intergovernmental negotiations (INC-3) for an Internationally legally binding instrument (ILBI) on plastic pollution that is expected to be ready for ratification by 2024 began Monday, Nov. 13, in Nairobi, Kenya.
Much more work needs to be done, and there are three main points to follow. First, delegates will have to decide whether to adopt the Zero Draft prepared by the INC Secretariat as the basis for future treaty discussions. Then they will have to consider the INC Secretariat's synthesis report on member’s comments on the elements not discussed at INC-2 (purpose, principles, preamble and definitions to be included in the treaty). Finally, they will have to adopt the Rules of Procedure, on which there is disagreement and whose discussions have so far slowed down the work.
The clash over the purpose of the treaty
UNEA Resolution 5/14 in March 2022 gave a mandate to negotiate a legally binding treaty based on “a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastic”, but among members there are differing views on what should be included in the scope of the treaty.
On Nov. 3, the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, a group of more than 60 members represented by Rwanda and Norway, issued a joint statement reaffirming its "commitment to ending plastic pollution by 2040 and [its] [...] call for the establishment of an ambitious and effective treaty to protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastics."
This group of countries, which has been active since August 2022 and includes many African and Central American states, Canada, Australia, Japan, several European countries, the European Union and the United Kingdom, also reiterates "the call for binding provisions in the treaty to restrain and reduce the consumption and production of primary plastic polymers."
Iran's surprise intervention and the Global Coalition for Plastics Sustainability
On Nov. 11, during the INC-3 preparatory meeting in Nairobi, Iran's intervention surprised by speaking on behalf of a new (and previously unannounced) coalition of countries, the Global Coalition for Plastics Sustainability consisting of Russia, Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, among others. In line with the interventions of these countries during INC-2, the group calls for the global plastics treaty to focus on plastic waste management, for the targets included to be set at the national level (bottom-up approach), for no trade issues to be addressed within the INC process, and for discussion and agreement on scope and definitions before moving forward.
This group's position contrasts with that of the High Ambition Coalition, which seeks globally binding regulations (top-down approach) and tighter controls throughout the life cycle of plastics.
An observer with extensive experience in multilateral environmental negotiations, who was present at the Nov. 11 preparatory meeting, told Renewable Matter that in principle it is good for public interest campaigning organizations to be able to put names and faces on those who stand in the way of environmental progress. But he expressed concern that all members of the Global Coalition for Plastics Sustainabilty are countries that are rarely receptive to international public pressure. "This is likely to present a new challenge for environmental advocacy organizations, and also for the high ambition countries", he told Renewable Matter, anticipating that "a lot of behind-the-scenes conversations at the highest levels will have to take place."
The clash over the Rules of Procedure
During INC-1 in Punta del Este and INC-2 in Paris, several delegations led by Saudi Arabia and Iran (countries that are part of the new Global Coalition for Plastics Sustainability) along with India and Brazil, blocked the start of discussions on the substantive elements of the treaty through lengthy discussions on procedural rules.
“The INC has not formally adopted the Rules of Procedure and the debate around them has been a winning tactic for some Member States, resulting in delays to substantive negotiations at both INC-1 and INC-2. So it is not a question of if they will come up, but when” there will be other discussions on the Rules of Procedure explained to Renewable Matter Andrés del Castillo, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) tracking negotiations for the Global Plastic Treaty.
“The INC has agreed that the Rules of Procedure have been provisionally adopted with legal effect, including the paragraph related to how votes will be tallied. There is also an interpretative statement agreed at INC2. I. Our opinion is that it is imperative that Member States hold firm positions to keep voting by â…” majority and not capitulate to demands of consensus voting in the name of expediency. Doing so would force every decision to default to the lowest possible form of consensus, thus making forward progress on plastics impossible” added del Castillo.
The Minamata Option
According to an analysis by Magnus Løvold, an expert at the Norwegian Academy of International Law, the procedural debacle could have been avoided if, at the June 2022 preparatory meeting in Dakar, UNEP's legal division had presented "a scenario in which the negotiating committee simply adopt the same rules that had successfully governed the negotiations for the Minamata Convention on mercury a decade earlier. But for reasons unknown, UNEP suggested a series of rule changes that, for many negotiators, just didn’t make sense".
Renewable Matter asked Magnus Løvold whether it would be possible to adopt the Minamata Convention Rules of Procedure now. The expert replied that " anything is possible, as long as there's a critical mass of countries that care enough about this. The question is when the debate about the rules of procedure will resurface. When it does, adopting a clean draft based on the Minamata rules should be one of the options on the table, in my opinion." However, it is not known whether this option is clear to the various delegates. Foto di gruppo bandiera
Protecting human rights and prioritizing reuse
Andrés del Castillo further explained to Renewable Matter that although a solid starting point for conversation on the future treaty text, there are also some weaknesses. " There are notable omissions in the treaty text. Chief among them is any mention of human rights. Plastics affect human rights at every stage of the life cycle and it is imperative that the treaty contain the protection of human rights in its core objective and that it operationalizes human rights principles throughout the text. Other missing elements include tasks for the governing body, including its role in implementing the instrument, and procedures to amend the treaty text and its annexes.”
According to PR3, the Global Alliance to Advance Reuse, the global plastics treaty will need to incorporate reuse standards that include product design and performance criteria. “If properly incorporated within the instrument – said to Renewable Matter Rémi Parmentier, Director of the Varda Group attending INC3 on behalf and in representation of PR3, the Global Alliance to Advance Reuse - such standards can play a key role in enhancing the development of new reuse infrastructures integrating accessibility, affordability, equity and progressive environmental criteria, in line with the internationally agreed Waste Management hierarchy which places prevention and minimization at the top and identifies reuse as best practice to support these two priorities. Finance mechanism(s) built within the instrument under negotiation must prioritize and facilitate investments for reuse infrastructure. This must clearly take precedence over any single-use waste and recycling infrastructure.”
Plastics industry and conflict of interest
In a plenary statement before member states during the INC-3 preparatory meeting on Nov. 11, Jane Muncke, speaking on behalf of the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastic Treaty, stressed the importance of addressing conflict of interest in the negotiation process. According to the Coalition, scientific input should be facilitated in intersessional work and through a dedicated subsidiary body under the instrument.
However, the Coalition is concerned that the ongoing systematic fabrication of doubts by the plastics and chemical industries will derail the treaty negotiation process and hinder the achievement of the best outcomes for people and the planet. For this reason, according to the Scientists' Coalition, a robust conflict-of-interest management policy is needed for the intersessional work of expert panels and the work of a subsidiary body.
This article is also available in Italian / Questo articolo è disponibile anche in italiano