When the United Nations Environment Assembly created the mandate for a global legally binding plastics treaty in March 2022 this was never part of their plan, nonetheless here we are. The final set of planned negotions in Busan last Autumn failed to produce the promised treaty and now negotiations resume, this time in Geneva. There is renewed hope of a meanginful treaty but also worries about transparency should closed-door negotiations prove to be the only way forward. Worse, the old rivalries that stymied previous negotiation sessions still loom large. In this new series of blogs, Sam Winton reports the latest developments from Geneva as they emerge and tries to anticipate what they will mean for the future of plaste waste.

Delegates have now gathered in Geneva for the resumed fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment (INC-5.2) and, by the end of next week, the committee has been tasked with finalising a treaty text. Of course, this was also the intention when we gathered in Busan last November but I believe most delegates arrived at that summit with a realisation that the process would likely require an extension. For a multitude of reasons including political momentum, the urgency of taking action, and the financial implications of a further extension, I believe it is more likely than not that this will be our final INC. What the outcome will be on the 14th August is much harder to judge.

In her opening remarks at INC 5, UNEP Executive Director, Inger Andersen noted 3 key areas where deep divisions remained. The first 2 of these were chemicals and products of concern, and supply (including sustainable production). After 7 days of negotiation in Busan, while many countries had converged on text on these issues, consensus felt as distant as ever with the like-minded group of countries steadfastly refusing to accept these topics as within the scope of the treaty. The 3rd issue identified was the supply of financial and technical support from the global north to the global south. This continues to be a difficult topic in all environmental negotiations. Despite a challenging week of negotiations, progress towards an ambitious outcome was made in Busan. Nearly 100 countries agreed and submitted a proposal for relatively strong wording of an article on sustainable consumption, and two joint statements delivered on behalf of over 100 countries demanded an ambitious treaty, despite the failure to deliver a text on schedule by the end of 2024. Therefore, as we concluded INC 5, I was buoyed by the avoidance of a worst case scenario of a weak text which sucks the political momentum from taking further action but does little to truly address the problem.  

Since we met in Busan there has been significant informal work among members of the committee. I am aware of efforts from various countries to find convergence, including interesting efforts by a country in the middle east to find a middle ground between their regional partners and more ambitious countries in the west on sustainable production. Due to the political nature of these conversations behind closed doors it is hard to decipher from an observer’s perspective, what progress has been made. However, we are expecting various conference room papers to be submitted on behalf of groups of members at the start of the meeting which will provide new text proposals which seek to find consensus. The extent to which this will be successful remains to be seen. Arguably the most significant moment since we left Busan occurred at the UN Ocean Conference, held in Nice in June where ‘The Nice wake up call for an ambitious plastics treaty’, a joint declaration on behalf of 95 nations reaffirmed their commitment to an ambitious treaty. The statement notes that ‘a treaty that only relies on voluntary measures or does not address the full lifecycle of plastics will not be effective to deal with the challenge of plastic pollution’. 

As we convene for INC 5.2 it is extremely challenging to predict what will happen. It has been clear for over a year that countries fall into two categories. First, a majority of members who support a treaty which addresses the full lifecycle of plastic including production. These countries support measures to address sustainable production, products and chemicals of concern. They also recognise the need for financial and technical assistance. Achieving consensus among this group on all of these topics is complex but I do believe that it is achievable. Second, there is a minority of countries who have significantly lower ambitions for the treaty, seeking voluntary commitments focussed around waste management. It remains hard to see how these two groups can be brought together. The success of our discussions in Geneva will depend on political will and compromise. To this end, for the first time in the process, INC 5.2 will include ministerial participation. Much of this compromise will happen behind closed doors in bilateral discussions and, at a conversation with observers on Monday, Ambassador Vayas, Chair of the INC acknowledged that the use of informal closed door sessions if progress in contact groups stalls is extremely likely. Despite a promise from the chair to allow observers to speak at the close of the opening plenary, he made no such commitment to enabling participation in contact groups. Observers are therefore concerned about the transparency of the process moving forward and a probability of having limited opportunities to provide input. 

I enter INC 5.2 with some hope but also trepidation. It feels like we are still a long way from achieving consensus and I do not see any move towards initiating a voting mechanism which would ease this deadlock. While I have concerns about transparency, effective use of behind closed doors meetings could help find compromise. We must now see how the next 2 weeks develop, keep applying pressure to the national delegations and hope that countries can converge on a strong, deliverable and meaningful text to end plastic pollution.

Authors note

This is the first instalment in my INC 5.2 blog series. I will release a second blog after day 1 and then plan to release further blogs approximately every 2 days. However, with the potential for discussions to go behind closed doors or major changes in the planned activities for the week to occur, this may change

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 impact 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 worked with international organisations to create policies to tackle the global plastics problem and facilitate sustainable development.