Day 1 of the final round of plastic treaty negotiations saw old rivalries coming to the fore, with countries impatient for progress towards a high-ambition treaty and the so-called like-minded group, who oppose legally binding measures and curbs on plastic manufacturing, combining their tried and tested tactics with new strategies to get the treaty they want in the limited time remaining. Sam Winton reports on the outcomes of the first day of negotiations and outlines the hopes for progress over the coming week.

At 10.14 on the 25th of November 2024, exactly 1000 days since members passed UNEA Resolution 5/14 – End Plastic Pollution, INC Chair Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso called to order the Fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment (INC-5). In his opening remarks, Ambassador Luis Vayas described plastic pollution as an ‘Urgent and insidious threat to ecosystems, economies and human health’, calling for members to ‘overcome our differences and craft a treaty as ambitious as our collective will allows’.

INC Chair Ambassador Luis Laya Valdivieso calling the Fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment (INC-5) to order (Photo: Sam Winton)

Following this, UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen used her opening remarks to describe the potential articles of the treaty in 3 interrelated categories. In Category One are those articles that have an opportunity to take precedent from existing Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Executive Director Andersen encouraged member states to quickly agree these items in line with these precedents. In Category Two are those articles where there is convergence, but members are keen to deepen discussions. Again, Executive Director Andersen called for these provisions to be agreed upon quickly, with an acceptance that some detail would be added at a later date. The 3rd category is articles with deeper divisions, where the Non-Paper does not recommend text. These include chemicals and products of concern, which ‘should list the obvious harmful chemicals [and products]’ and then ‘establish a process for listing other things as they may emerge or are yet to be identified’. Another item in this category is supply, including production. Executive Director Andersen called for UNEA Resolution 5/14 to be a ‘guiding star’ requiring sustainable consumption and production with a lifecycle approach in alignment with SDG 12. The third and final issue in this category is finance. Executive Director Andersen referenced the challenges of last week’s COP 29 climate negotiations, where members of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) walked out of the talks, stating they were ’not being heard’ in discussions on providing finance for climate implementation. Executive Director Andersen noted that UNEA Resolution 5/14 calls for a ‘dedicated multilateral fund’. The three issues in this third category will need significant negotiating time. Executive Director Andersen pleaded with members not to ‘lower the bar so that the treaty becomes meaningless’.

These opening remarks set a strong tone for the start of this final INC, and members quickly moved on to the opening agenda items, including the vital adoption of Rules of Procedure, which research by the Global Plastic Policy Centre suggests is a critical issue. Our research called for the Rules of Procedure to be agreed upon as a priority, including a voting mechanism as a backup if consensus cannot be reached prior to substantive negotiations. However, this contrasts with the Chair’s intentions, stated prior to INC-5, to continue provisionally applying the draft rules of procedure. Members of the Like-Minded group, a coalition of 15-30 primarily developing and oil-producing countries, took the floor to resolutely advocate for consensus-based decision-making and reject the principle of voting. With no opposition from the floor, the Chair’s proposal passed. Our research suggests that this is damaging to the ambition of the treaty and may act as a barrier to progress. Therefore, members must work hard to ensure that ambition is retained in the text. If any member does attempt to invoke the disputed Rule 38 and call a vote on matters arising during INC-5, the Like-Minded group have made it clear that they will demand an immediate return to plenary to resume negotiations on Rules of Procedure, which have been shelved since INC-2 in Paris.

Next, discussions turned to the organisation of work at INC-5, where the chair proposed to negotiate on the basis of his Non-Paper 3.0, a streamlined approach created to replace the Compilation draft text that existed as we left INC-4 and promote efficient negotiations in Busan. Furthermore, the Chair wished to convene 4 Contact Groups with their mandates set out below:

• Contact Group 1 – Plastic products and chemicals of concern as used in plastic products, product design, exemptions, plastic product design, supply, and definitions
• Contact Group 2 – Plastic waste management, emissions and releases, existing plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, and just transition
• Contact Group 3 – Finance, including the establishment of a financial mechanism, capacity building, technical assistance and technology transfer, including international cooperation
• Contact Group 4 – Objective, scope, preamble, principles, implementation and compliance, national plans, reporting, effectiveness evaluation and monitoring, information exchange, awareness education and research, health, Conference of Parties including subsidiary groups, Secretariat and final provisions.

As many observers had anticipated, this proposal received significant challenge from the Like-Minded Group during the course of over 4 hours of discussion on the topic. Firstly, the group stated a belief that the Non-Paper did not fully incorporate their views, which members had developed through extensive discussion on the Compilation text. On this note, the group insisted that the Compilation text be retained as a reference document from which members can copy text into the Non-Paper. Second, as a procedural matter, the group believed that principles, objectives, scope, and definitions are foundational and that discussion should not continue until agreement on those matters is reached. Third, on articles on which there had been no-text options in the Compilation text, particularly articles on production and chemicals of concern, the group insisted that no-text options must be present in the Non-Paper and further insisted that the whole text should be bracketed to indicate that it was currently disputed in its entirety. Several members of the group expressed that until their concerns were addressed in writing and displayed on the plenary screen, they would be unwilling to proceed.

A significantly larger number of members, including the UK, US, EU and other High Ambition Coalition members, showed strong support for the Chair’s proposed approach. This group noted that the Chair had carefully drafted the Non-Paper in an iterative and consultative process over the past 6 months and that all members had been invited to provide their input. They expressed a desire not to take steps backwards, recognising the urgency to conduct efficient negotiations at INC-5 to allow the negotiations to conclude by the end of 2024, in line with the mandate of UNEA Resolution 5/14. Most significantly, this group noted that the Non-Paper text is imperfect and that members would use the course of INC-5 to refine it to satisfy all parties. That the text does not deliver the entirety of the wishes of all members is to be expected, and this should not hold up substantive discussions.

In proposing a way forward at the conclusion of these discussions, the Chair made assurances to the Like-Minded group that their concerns around bracketing the Non-Paper, reaffirming the status of the Compilation text, including zero options in disputed articles, and ensuring Objectives, Scope, Principles and Definition would be given sufficient discussion time by the committee, were recognised and would be reflected in the approach. On this basis, after two sessions of opening plenary discussions, the organisation of work was approved.

The evening session saw the commencement of Contact Group discussions, with Contact Groups 2 and 4 convening with some initial difficulty. The rooms allocated to these groups are smaller in capacity than at the previous 2 INCs, and delegates significantly overflowed the rooms. Members of the committee (only allocated one seat per member) struggled to gain access to the room as observers, for whom far too few seats had been allocated, crowded around the exit doors attempting to hear proceedings. In response, the Secretariat has issued a note that observers’ access to the rooms will be limited to the number of seats available, which does not appear to be more than 100-200 in each of the rooms in use today. With over 2000 registered observers, this will likely present significant challenges in the coming days. It is hugely disappointing to see issues of this nature recurring after the Secretariat has recognised similar mistakes of INC-2 in Paris and committed that they will not be repeated. Similarly, once again, WiFi in the conference centre became impossible to access once all delegates were present, as happened at INC-4 in Ottawa. Hopefully, the Secretariat will find a solution to these issues quickly in the coming days.

No seat to spare as Contact Group 4 begins its deliberations (Photo: Sam Winton)

In assessing the key issues of the day, a major thorn in the sentiment of the Like-Minded group has been a perceived lack of transparency and equity in the way that the Non-Paper has been developed and other informal processes may be conducted through the remainder of the negotiations. This is not a new complaint, and I expect it to continue to be a theme throughout the week. The Chair’s introduction of the Non-Paper has created a ‘battle of texts’, and it is still unclear whether this will be productive. The Like-Minded group are clearly not content with the text in its current form, and it would not surprise me to see them flooding the Non-Paper with text copied and pasted from the Compilation text, essentially recreating it. While representatives, including those of Cuba and Rwanda, advocated against this approach, Russia has shown a clear intention to do so, at least to some extent, and time will tell how significant this will be.

Ambassador Luis Vayas closed his opening remarks by stating, ‘I’m optimistic, not because I believe in miracles but because I believe in the power of human actions, hard work and collective will’. However, a strong polariasation still persists and was expressed today via pointed applause after interventions in plenary. After the initial interventions opposed the proposed organisation of work, Uruguay received a large round of applause as the first intervention to support the chair, and for the next few hours, every intervention showing support received similar applause. It is clear that members and observers are growing frustrated with the Like-Minded Group, and members will need to be careful to avoid this becoming a further barrier to progress. The representative of Iran lamented that it is not fair to ignore the concerns of the Like-Minded group and then accuse them of blocking progress. This is undoubtedly true. However, it is also not good faith for members to reject outright any measures that they do not like without seeking compromise. I would urge all members to consider that while every country has the right to advocate for their interests, this cannot hold back the collective ambition of the conference to the point where any final treaty has no chance of meeting its objectives.

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.