Three days into what is supposed to be the final round of negotiations for the first global plastics treaty, a predictable lack of agreement is still stifling the progress needed to finalise a treaty by the end of the week. Sam Winton reports on the state of play as frustrated delegates look for new strategies to break the impasse and move talks forward.

After three days of negotiations, where the sense of deja vu has sometimes been overwhelming, convergence has been in short supply, and significant work is needed to deliver an agreement by the end of the week. Now that contact group negotiations have kicked off,  I am aiming to track the progress of specific groups. My priority will be Contact Group 1, but when they have not been meeting, I have been focussing my time on Contact Group 4, where, over the last few days, I have observed discussions on Objective, Scope, Principles, Preamble and Reporting. 

Tuesday’s session began with a discussion of the treaty’s objective. There is a clear majority of members who would prefer this to remain short and concise, and the Chair’s proposal in his Non-Paper meets this brief: 

The objective of this Convention is to protect human health and the environment from the adverse impacts of plastics, with the ambition of ending plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. 

While on the surface, this should, therefore, be a relatively simple article on which to reach an agreement, the reality is more complex. Unsurprisingly, many members disagree on what should be contained in their version of a ‘short and concise’ objective with wide-ranging suggestions including reference to biodiversity, sustainable consumption and production, a one health approach, legacy plastics, and recognition of the contributions that plastic makes to sustainable development, as well as the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. This represents a laundry list of potential topics with little convergence. I therefore anticipate that few, if any, of these topics will make it into the final text. Meanwhile, while a coalition of members has made it clear that they believe the treaty should focus on the environment and not human health, they could be flexible to include human health if the ordering of references in the text is reversed. Some members also wish to change the language to ‘address plastic pollution’, believing it is more realistic. However, this received strong opposition, and I do not anticipate this formulation will be in the final text. Without agreement on improving the text, I see a path to convergence on the Chair’s original text with a minor amendment to read ‘protect the environment and human health from the adverse impacts of plastics’. 

Subsequent discussions turned to Scope, and Principles, both of which are articles not present in the Chairs Non-Paper and, therefore, have no proposed text. Furthermore, these articles have opposing coalitions of members who either believe their inclusion is essential or unnecessary in the final text. Therefore, the proceeding discussions on these topics were a repeat of the type of discussion held in Nairobi and a stage behind those in Ottawa, where the compilation text was drafted. For us to be taking so many steps backwards and effectively spending the first half of the week reconducting discussions held over a year ago is unfathomable, and the approach that the Co-Facilitators have been mandated to use is not fit for purpose. Subsequent discussions on the Preamble and Reporting where text exists had limited progress. There is a sense that positive discussions were held and some compromises were being reached among members with similar points of view. However, deep divisions remain along the same lines seen at INC-3 and INC-4. It has been expressed to me by a fellow delegate that these discussions would have been valuable in Nairobi, but at this stage, it is nearly impossible to see how they can lead to consensus in just a few days of negotiations. There have also been significant issues with the facilitation of these discussions, with the intended approach being confusing and inconsistent. The co-facilitators have occasionally suggested approaches that contradict the mandate given by the plenary and are inconsistent with actions taken earlier in the same session. This would be workable in a room where all members wish to engage positively, but when some members wish to frustrate the process, they are once again being gifted an easy opportunity. The underlying message from the Like-Minded group since the start of INC-4 has been that they demand a clear and consistent approach to contact group discussions and are unwilling to afford the Co-Facilitators significant flexibility in approach. This may not be the most efficient way of conducting discussions at all times, but repeated hour-long arguments about the topic are even less efficient. The leadership of the process have not taken the lessons from Ottawa, where these same issues occurred, and the same procedural inconsistencies are again needlessly disrupting the process.  

Live in-text edits being made on the screen on Article 15 (Reporting). Once again, new complexity is being added to the text, and viewpoints are becoming increasingly divergent (Photo: Sam Winton)  

On Wednesday, I attended discussions on Plastic Products and Chemicals of Concern in Contact Group 1. This is an article for which the chair has not proposed text, and the group held informal discussions behind closed doors on Tuesday in an attempt to find quick convergence. At the risk of being repetitive, this has not been forthcoming. Members can effectively be divided into three categories. Those members who support a provision with mandatory measures and global lists of chemicals and products to be controlled. Those members willing to accept a provision but who would not support global lists and prefer voluntary control measures set at a national level. Finally, those members for whom any article is entirely unacceptable, particularly concerning chemicals. These members have repeatedly tried to filibuster, disrupt and prevent this provision from being discussed. The co-facilitators have shown impressive room control to keep the discussions near their intended track, but with no path to consensus in the contact group setting, the group subsequently adjourned for further informal discussions. 

Wednesday evening saw an explosive stock-taking plenary at which the challenges of the process were laid bare. The plenary was opened by the co-facilitators of the contact groups, who provided updates. While some limited progress was presented, the headline from all groups is that convergence is in short supply, no text is ready for legal review, and the pace of negotiations is significantly too slow. The Chair called for contact groups to deliver tangible outcomes by Thursday and a substantive draft by Friday. With the current methodology, this does not appear to be a possibility, even in the most optimistic scenarios. Subsequent interventions from the floor raised significant concerns over the lack of progress and called for various changes to occur. In particular, many members have called for the co-facilitators to be given a stronger mandate to edit text based on member interventions in an attempt to find consensus. Interventions note that this text should contain minimal brackets, and members should refrain from entering new text.  

Most remarkably, the plenary included a range of exceptionally strong interventions from members who have clearly become frustrated with the current situation. There were many accusations of members deliberately blocking the process, and It is worth recalling some of these interventions below: 

‘We are literally raising a generation that starts its life polluted before taking its first breath. If that doesn’t alarm us what will?’ – Panama 

‘At a minimum we believe that all participants need to work in good faith. Unfortunately this has not been the case of all delegations’ – Columbia 

‘For our colleagues who argue that production is not part of the mandate, let me correct the record. Production is part of the full life cycle of plastic’ – Panama 

‘Brackets are like the back pocket ammunition for those with low ambition’ – Fiji 

‘As much as we support the circular economy approach, we can’t keep going in circular discussions’ – Mexico 

For balance, members of the Like-Minded Group made similarly strong interventions. Notably, interventions reflected that a shortage of time should not be a reason to compromise inclusiveness, transparency and the spirit of consensus. Interventions further complained of a perception of discrimination in the process by which proposals were being discussed, refuting that they were blocking negotiations and accusing other members of doing so. The group complained that the process in which the negotiations are being conducted is the primary block to progress, with messy discussions and a disconnect between declared goals and the actual course of negotiations.  

began, 3 billion plastic bottles have been produced (Photo: The distinguished representative of Panama making an impassioned intervention highlighting that since INC-5 began, 3 billion plastic bottles have been produced (Photo: Sam Winton)  

While it is clear that all parties agree that the current conversations do not meet the urgency of what must be delivered, the Chair must clarify the plan to correct the course. On resumption of contact group deliberations in the late evening, the same methodology was applied by Co-Facilitators of Contact Group 4 with similarly slow progress and further divergence being introduced. As I and other observers feared, the continued flooding of the Non-Paper with new text and brackets is creating a compilation text 2.0. This is simply not productive. The leadership of the negotiations need to urgently decide what we are aiming to deliver and adopt a methodology in accordance with this aim. All is not lost, but unless the negotiation leadership reflects overnight and brings a new approach to the negotiations in the morning, then we will struggle to deliver any kind of agreement this week, let alone one with suitable ambition. 

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.