Tomorrow talks resume in the UN negotiations to forge the first global treaty on plastics. Sam Winton will be there to report on every stage of what promises to be a critical week. Delegates have seven days in Busan to agree a treaty equal to the task of turning the tide on plastic pollution, but even after four previous negotiations entrenched conflicts still remain and not everyone present appears to want the treaty to succeed.
Delegates are now gathering in Busan for INC-5, braced for 7 days of intense negotiations with a clear mission: deliver the text of a treaty to end plastic pollution by the end of the week. It is over 6 months since we left Ottawa after an INC-4 meeting, which had finished with a marathon closing plenary, finally agreeing to a mandate for intersessional work after two failed attempts. However, despite some progress, the compilation text was over 70 pages long and nearly entirely in brackets. With no mandate given to the Chair to revise the text into a new draft during the intersessional period, it was difficult to see a path to agreement with just seven days in Busan and, in my closing reflections, I felt that a change of direction would be needed if we were to retain a chance of delivering an ambitious treaty text in 2024.
At the first of several events that the University of Portsmouth team will be hosting this week, INC-5 delegates discussed how financial mechanisms can be organised to support the delivery of the Global Plastic Treaty (Photo: Sam Winton)
In the weeks and months after leaving Ottawa, a broad consensus became apparent among stakeholders, agreeing that a change in approach was needed. Therefore. The Chair, in collaboration with the Secretariat and heads of delegations, began work to determine what a new approach could look like. Fast forward to October, and the Chair presented his Non-Paper 3.0. This document proposes a new structure to the text, significantly simplified, and identifying the items which should be agreed upon at INC-5, along with others for which discussion can be delayed until future COPs. In essence, the proposal is for a framework agreement, adopting a start and strengthen approach and delivering an agreement by the end of 2024, thus meeting the INC mandate.
The Chair should be commended for recognising the challenges posed by the compilation text and taking action. Many stakeholders have welcomed his new approach as a sound basis for discussion in Busan. However, the text presented contains many challenges and weaknesses which will need to be addressed:
- Language such as ‘Parties may’ or ‘Parties are encouraged’ is widely used throughout the text. Legally binding language such as ‘shall’ and ‘must’ will be essential to ensure the text is ambitious, as a text with purely voluntary measures will not meet the mandate of UNEA Resolution 5/14
- The Non-Paper could be stronger regarding national plans, which are the most likely mode of converting the treaty into domestic policy. Currently, it only states that countries ‘may develop and implement a national plan’. This text is weaker than the Paris Agreement, which makes the development of national plans mandatory, and some high-ambition members believe that a lack of compulsory plans would be impossible to accept
- Upstream measures, including those addressing the production of plastic, are almost entirely absent in any meaningful way
- Many articles currently have no text proposed. Seeking to agree on those articles in the limited time remaining will be highly challenging.
With the above in mind, despite welcoming the approach, stakeholders have generally expressed concern over the content of the Non-Paper. The Business Coalition states that ‘In its current form, [the Non-Paper] does not create the enabling conditions for UN Member States to implement an ambitious, effective and binding policy framework’ while CIEL states that ‘In its current form, the text would deliver an ineffective and useless treaty and it would fail to adequately address the plastic crisis’.
As we look ahead to INC-5, there is extreme uncertainty about the direction the week will take. In his Scenario note and other public statements, the Chair has made his proposed approach clear.
- Move quickly through the opening of the session, including an agreement to continue the provisional application of the draft rules of procedure
- Secure agreement to resume negotiations on the basis of the Non-Paper
- Proceed to negotiations in Contact Groups, beginning with articles in which there is already broad consensus
The above is a pragmatic approach that, if executed well and in good faith by all members, could deliver an agreement within the seven days of negotiations that are available to us. However, there are many potential obstacles.
While members were able to quickly proceed past opening matters by the first evening at INC-4, other INCs have taken significantly longer to achieve this. The Chair has requested that members refrain from making individual opening statements, but there is no guarantee that this request will be honoured. The continued deference of reaching an agreement on rules of procedure means that members would still be unable to call a vote where consensus cannot be reached. A lack of voting could limit the ambition of the treaty to the lowest common denominator, and research by the Global Plastic Policy Centre identifies this as a significant barrier to treaty ambition. The GPPC would encourage members to refrain from sweeping this matter under the rug, especially now that members must make difficult decisions. It is also not a foregone conclusion that the Non-Paper will be adopted as a basis for negotiation. In my engagements with stakeholders in recent weeks, more than one person has expressed concern that some members may not agree to its adoption due to fundamental disagreements with its approach or as a method to frustrate and delay the process. If the Non-Paper is not adopted, we will revert to the largely discredited INC-4 compilation text, and It would be hard to foresee an agreement by the end of the week in that scenario.
The intention of the Chair to commence negotiations where the Chair believes there is broad consensus, as stated in his opening remarks at the Observers webinar one week before the commencement of INC-5, is one that I find disappointing. Many of us present at INC-4 will recall the tense events of Saturday night when a portion of the committee sought to derail the intended course of Sub-Group 1.2 deliberations, refusing to discuss specific provisions which included upstream measures. Their rationale was that we should first discuss those elements where consensus already existed. On that occasion, the co-facilitators and other members of the committee drew credit for standing up for the rights of the committee to discuss all potential elements of a treaty text, not prejudging any limits of ambition. The fact that the Chair is now retreating from this position is a concerning development, and I would urge members of the High Ambition Coalition to zealously advocate for sufficient discussion time to be given to upstream measures.
On Saturday, over 1500 activists took part in a march demanding cuts in plastic production. (Photo: Sam Winton)
Looking ahead at the next 7 days, my prevailing sense is one of concerned optimism. I stand by my statement at the conclusion of INC-4 that the process is fortunate to have many good people working tirelessly to deliver an ambitious treaty. This gives me hope. However, I am highly concerned that a rush to reach an agreement by any means necessary before we leave Busan will create a weak treaty, lacking the legally binding measures required to meet the scale of the plastic pollution problem. This fear is deepened by the fact that the least ambitious members are granted an effective veto on key measures due to a lack of ability for members to call a vote. By the end of the second day, we will likely have a good idea of the direction that the week will take. A best-case scenario is one in which the rules of procedure are agreed upon and the non-paper adopted at this point. However, that is optimistic, and it is equally possible that disagreements in the plenary will still deadlock members. While much uncertainty remains, if pushed, I would predict that we will continue to apply draft rules of procedure, the Non-Paper will be adopted, and we will reach an agreement on limited sections of the text, including waste management and a requirement to create national plans with obligations set at a national level by the end of the week. However, I don’t anticipate the delivery of robust, finalised text on upstream measures. Where the text on these measures does exist, I expect its finalisation to be deferred to future COPs with an aim among more ambitious members to start and strengthen. The delivery of a text would meet the mandate of UNEA Resolution 5/14, and readers will have their views on whether a text such as the one above would represent success. More importantly, members will have to decide if they will accept a text on that basis.
In closing, if given the opportunity to speak to negotiators ahead of INC-5, I would have two simple messages. Firstly, a start and strengthen approach is valid and, in this circumstance, prudent. However, careful drafting of the text is essential to ensure that ambitious measures are not locked out in the future. Finally, members must identify the key red lines regarding ambition that cannot be crossed. If it becomes apparent in the final hours of our time in Busan that the deliverable text lacks the potential to constitute an ambitious treaty that addresses the entire lifecycle of plastic pollution, then members must remain open to an extension of the process. The mission is too important to sacrifice to meet an arbitrary time goal if a limited extension could provide the space to develop a genuinely impactful treaty.
BIO
I am a postgraduate researcher working for the Revolution Plastics Institute at the University of Portsmouth since its creation in 2020. In 2023 I commenced my PhD studies titled ‘To what extent has the structure and implementation of the INC process facilitated the development of an effective Global Plastics Treaty?’ at the University of Portsmouth and the University of Surrey. This research will focus on how the structure and implementation of the INC process impacts the treaty’s outcome, consider how the inclusion of stakeholders in the process influences a fair and just treaty, and investigate the implications of the final text for members. With a background in environmental hazards and community preparedness, my main research focus is working with communities and a broad range of stakeholders to tackle environmental challenges. I have also conducted work with international organisations with a view to creating policies to tackle the global plastics problem, and facilitate sustainable development.
