Global Plastics Treaty | Trash Hero World

Plastics treaty talks end in deadlock

by Seema on 10/12/2024 No comments

It was supposed to be the final round of UN negotiations for a global plastics treaty. In the end, INC-5 wound up without an agreement – though not without progress.

The meeting was held in Busan, South Korea from 25 Nov to 1 Dec 2024, with almost 4,000 people in attendance. The Chair, Luis Vayas Valvidieso, was under intense pressure to seal a deal. He spent the week imploring countries to find common ground and “get it done”, even agreeing to closed door negotiations for almost three days – a flagrant disregard for transparency that left scientists, civil society groups and rights-holders most impacted by plastic pollution out in the cold.

But still a deal was not to be. The talks only highlighted the deep divisions among countries over three key issues: limiting plastic production (Article 6), regulating toxic chemicals (Article 3), and funding (Article 11).

A minority of so-called petrostates – major fossil fuel exporters – continued to block any attempts to cap or reduce plastic production, arguing this was irrelevant to the issue of pollution. They rejected scientific evidence of the harms of petrochemicals and claimed plastic was essential to progress, climate goals and the “right to development“.

However the majority of countries, covering both the Global South and Global North, were determined to include binding obligations to reduce plastic production, the phaseout of harmful plastic products and toxic chemicals, and a dedicated fund to support treaty implementation. They pointed to the UNEA resolution to take a full life cycle approach to plastic pollution and recalled the thousands of studies linking plastic chemicals with serious health issues.

With Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, the inspirational delegate from Panama.

Stand up for ambition

The emergence of this coalition of 100+ countries, led by Panama, Rwanda, Mexico and Fiji and backed by the EU, Switzerland, UK and Australia, was the high point of the talks. Appearing midweek, they swiftly gained the upper hand, using strong language – “if you’re not contributing constructively… then please get out” – that completely changed the energy and dynamics in the room.

At the closing plenary session, Juliet Kabera, the Director General of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority, received a thunderous standing ovation for her statement vowing to “stand up for ambition”.

For most observers, the failure to reach an agreement at INC-5 was a victory for courage over compromise. Instead of succumbing to the relentless petrostate bullying and watering down the text, progressive countries stood firm and opted for no treaty over a weak treaty. This leaves the door to real change very firmly open.

A failure of process

Indeed, the real failure at INC-5 was the process itself. Negotiations have gone much the same way over the last three rounds of talks: a text is proposed by the Chair with instructions to find an agreement or consensus. Countries then proceed to share their views, with the petrostates systematically vetoing whole articles and obfuscating every line with qualifications, additions and deletions. This results in an unintelligible and unusable document that has to be “streamlined” at the next round, before the process begins all over again.

Instead of switching up this failing formula at INC-5, the Chair simply increased the speed of the loop, bringing out two new streamlined proposals, one on Friday and one on Sunday, as each previous version was mangled within hours.

As Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director of GAIA, put it, “we cannot keep doing things the same way and expect different results – that is the definition of insanity. The ambitious majority needs to do whatever it takes to get these negotiations back on track and reclaim the spirit of multilateralism.” That might involve insisting on their right to vote on a text, instead of trying to find consensus, or even taking the whole process outside of the UN.

Broader implications

The divisions exposed in Busan have clear parallels with the challenges faced in the climate negotiations, where petrostates have been stalling progress for decades. Their orchestrated effort to obstruct and derail all multilateral environmental agreements needs to be recognised for what it is and seriously addressed by the UN. There are precedents for this, such as the conflict of interest policy used in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Failure to act decisively on plastic production will hinder broader environmental goals, including climate targets, as we know this sector alone could exceed the global carbon budget by 2060. Failure to act quickly will also intensify the looming public health crisis, as petrochemicals bioaccumulate and our exposure is growing every day.

A treaty in 2025?
INC-5 ended with negotiators agreeing to reconvene their session in 2025 – this will be known as INC-5.2, rather than INC-6, as it is a continuation of the same meeting. The date and venue is likely to be announced in January, and it is expected to take place within the first half of the year. This gives the new coalition of ambitious countries a few precious months to demonstrate strong leadership, intensify diplomacy and address the challenges of the process and vested interests to ensure we get a treaty that can truly end plastic pollution.

Trash Hero at the treaty talks
As a UNEP-accredited observer, Trash Hero is able to attend all INC meetings. We join our colleagues in the large civil society delegation that advocates for strong and just measures in the treaty and support the communications and advocacy work done in exhibition booths and side events around the meeting venue.

Last chance for a fossil phase-out?

by Seema on 23/11/2024 No comments

Forget COP 29, the plastics treaty is the most important environmental agreement in the world right now.

Is there anyone left – except the oil industry – who doesn’t roll their eyes at the mention of the climate COP? These conferences have become synonymous with blatant conflicts of interest, empty “blah, blah, blah” posturing of world leaders, and a frustrating inability to deliver real progress.

But next week in Busan, South Korea, there’s a glimmer of hope. UN member states are convening at INC-5, at what is expected to be the final round of negotiations for a global treaty to end plastic pollution. This is the chance for governments to show they are serious about tackling the harms of plastic overproduction and consumption. And a strong agreement, capable of addressing the interlinked crises of wildlife loss, chemical pollution and climate breakdown, could set in motion the fossil fuel phase-out that has eluded the climate convention for three decades.

The hidden driver of climate change
Plastic is not only a source of pollution choking oceans and poisoning ecosystems but also an important and overlooked driver of climate change. 99 percent of plastic is made from fossil fuels and, as production skyrockets, it’s become the world’s fastest-growing source of industrial greenhouse gases, pumping out more than double the emissions of the aviation industry.

Plastic also contains a staggering 16,000 chemicals. Less than 1 percent of these are regulated, most are untested, and around 4,000 are known hazards to human health. These are substances that bioaccumulate and are linked to cancers, respiratory and neurological problems and hormone disruption. Microplastics carrying these toxins permeate our air, water, soil, and even our bodies.

The plastic crisis impacts us all, but it’s felt hardest in poor communities, often in the Global South, where plastics are produced, burned, or dumped.

We can do better than the Paris Agreement
Since November 2022, countries have been going back and forth on what the plastics treaty should include, how to enforce it, and who will fund it. The good news is that the measures needed for meaningful change are all still on the table. Just as importantly, so are provisions for monitoring, compliance and transparency. These key elements were missing in the Paris Agreement: its voluntary approach has allowed emissions to climb year after year.

At INC-5 then, negotiators face a crucial question: will they learn from Paris or repeat its mistakes?

How to build an effective treaty

Binding commitments
Deep, rapid cuts in plastic production are required to avoid breaching the 1.5°C warming limit. Analysis shows a minimum reduction of 12% to 17% per year, starting now, will be necessary. This needs measurable targets, deadlines and penalties, not hollow pledges.

Global implementation
Treaty measures must apply universally, with no exemptions under “special national circumstances” – the excuse countries used in the Paris Agreement to sidestep action.

The principle they invoked – of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR) – was originally intended to recognise the differing roles of countries in causing environmental crises and their corresponding financial needs and obligations. It was never meant to allow countries to choose whether or not to pollute.

Issues like harmful chemicals in plastic are impossible to address if countries claim CBDR. Without transparency and strict regulation across the board, we end up with piecemeal bans that leave gaps in protecting public health.

Sufficient and predictable funding
Another critical lesson from the climate COPs is the need for a dedicated global fund to support developing countries and those hit hardest by plastic pollution. Here is where the principle of CBDR should be applied. Wealthier countries and the plastic industry itself must provide this funding, with investments in redesign, repair, and reuse – not just waste management.

Civil society and rights-holders
Those directly impacted by the plastic life cycle, from waste pickers to fenceline communities and Indigenous Peoples, must be involved in shaping the treaty and their needs reflected in the final text.

But there is a very real danger of their voices being drowned out. The UN still recognises business and industry reps as “stakeholders” in environmental fora. Like at the climate convention, they are officially invited to the talks, often as part of government delegations. This conflict of interest is a major hurdle for good faith negotiators in Busan.

The fight against Big Oil
More than 60 countries have already called for the treaty to include binding phasedown targets for fossil fuels, enforced through global caps on plastic and petrochemical production. Many more support a treaty grounded in environmental and climate justice, public health and human rights.

On the other side, a vocal minority of oil-producing countries insist that solving plastic pollution is just a matter of improving recycling and waste management. They downplay the harms of plastic as “unproven” and argue the benefits to society outweigh the risks.

It’s a bold position that ignores the UN Environment Assembly’s resolution that the treaty address the full life cycle of plastic – from fossil fuel extraction to disposal. It also flies in the face of tens of thousands of studies confirming plastic’s devastating impacts on health, ecosystems, and the climate.

Meanwhile, these same countries plan to triple plastic production over the next 30 years, investing in petrochemical plants and promoting flawed and dirty technologies like chemical recycling. At COP28, their promise to transition away from fossil fuels was carefully applied only to “energy systems” – not plastics.

If left unchecked, plastic production alone could exceed the global carbon budget by 2060, according to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

UN member states must now choose whether to stop this happening.

The world is watching
Can negotiators deliver an effective treaty in just one week, with industry lobbyists hovering and a “need for consensus” pressuring them to water down the text rather than risk a vote?

Yes – but only if the world is watching. Governments must feel the pressure to support an ambitious, effective treaty that serves science and public interest, not corporate agendas.

International agreements can and should be more than a stage for world leaders to claim progress without commitments. We deserve treaties that are fit for purpose.

So, all eyes on Busan: if negotiators get it right, the plastics treaty could become the world’s most impactful environmental agreement, offering a path to cap fossil fuel production, restore planetary health and build a fairer, safer and more sustainable future for all.

Seema Prabhu is programmes director at Trash Hero. Trash Hero World attends the plastics treaty talks as a UNEP civil society observer.

Strong calls for action at plastics treaty talks in Ottawa, but countries make little progress

by Seema on 01/05/2024 No comments

The pressure was on at INC-4, the penultimate round of talks planned to create an international, legally-binding treaty to end plastic pollution. With the clock ticking after the three previous sessions failed to make any substantial progress, member states finally got down to discussing the content of the treaty.

Over the seven days (23 – 29 April 2024) in Ottawa, delegates were able to “streamline” some of the proposed text but, with a deluge of new additions and brackets (which show disagreement with the words placed inside), in the end they were left with a draft that is nowhere near ready for negotiations at the final session in Busan, Korea in November 2024.

A snapshot of the INC-4 streamlined text: all words in brackets have been objected to by at least one member state.

Aware of the amount of work still to do, member states did agree on creating a legal drafting group to help clarify the text of the future agreement. This is much needed because there are now at least 3,686 brackets in the text, making it almost unintelligible.

Countries also agreed to establish two expert working groups that would convene before November to discuss certain aspects of the treaty such as chemicals of concern, product design and financial support. Notably not up for discussion before INC-5 are primary plastic polymers, what Rwanda called “the elephant in the room”. An attempt to create such a working group, which would consider cuts in plastic production was disappointingly rejected at the last minute. This means it will be difficult, though not impossible, to include production caps – the key to ending plastic pollution – in the final treaty.

As is now the norm at INC meetings, a small number of countries continued to obstruct and delay discussions. They attempted to narrow the scope of the treaty to waste management (instead of the full lifecycle of plastic, as mandated) and remove all references to production, chemicals of concern, producer responsibility, human rights and microplastics.

One delegate said that every single material can release particles into the air – even skin – so plastics should not be singled out. Others denied the existence of scientific evidence of human health impacts, suggested wording to acknowledge the ‘critical role plastic plays in sustainable development’ and cautioned against any ‘sudden transition’ away from plastic.

This kind of bad faith negotiation can only be prevented by a strong conflict of interest policy and the right for member states to vote on decisions. The goal of the plastics treaty is to find solutions to a shared crisis caused by a minority of bad actors. But if these actors are present and demanding all text needs their approval, how can we ever hope to achieve this?

Highlights

Juliet Kabera, Rwanda

The highlight of the seven days was a strong push for a limit on new plastic production, championed by Peru and Rwanda. Their proposal to adopt a global target to reduce 40% of the global use of primary plastics polymers by 2040 from 2025 levels, was supported by at least 29 member states during the meeting.

Following the proposal, these countries launched the Bridge to Busan Declaration on Plastic Polymers to rally INC delegates to support reducing primary plastic production ahead of INC-5.

There was a strong presence of rightsholders at the meeting, including the Indigenous Peoples Caucus, waste pickers, women, workers and youth organisations. Rightsholders are different to stakeholders because they possess internationally recognised human or collective rights that will be impacted by the outcome of the treaty. They made moving interventions during the meeting and led the “March to End the Plastic Era” through the city.

Various global bodies were also present, with the World Health Organisation (WHO), recommending that the use of plastic for medical and healthcare should not be exempt from the treaty and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights calling for a reduction in plastic production, saying that “any person that is given a choice, will chose nature over destruction.”

Low points

There was a clear increase in industry interference in the treaty negotiation process. We saw everything from paid advertising around the venue extolling the virtues of plastic, to reports of harassment and intimidation from the independent Scientists Coalition. There were many industry-sponsored events, including one from the world’s biggest producer of PET resin called “Friends of Zero Waste”, while reps from plastic manufacturers and trade bodies sat alongside members of official government delegations in the negotiating rooms.

The industry lobbying and spread of misinformation to member states was coordinated and calculated. As a result, one of the topics for intersessional work is “enhancing recyclability”, despite clear evidence of the threats to health and the environment from the mixing and concentration of chemical additives during the recycling process.

Analysis by CIEL of the published list of INC-4 participants revealed that 196 lobbyists for the fossil fuel and chemical industry were registered for the event – a 37% increase over the previous meeting six months ago. With side events and informal meetings, many more were likely present.

What happens now

In the final session of INC-4, which ended in the small hours of the morning, countries decided to prioritise intersessional (preparatory) work on:

1) how to finance the implementation of the treaty;
2) assess the chemicals of concern in plastic products; and
3) look at product design, reusability and recyclability.

Other parts of the treaty – including primary plastic polymers, microplastics and extended producer responsibility – were not assigned any time or resources.

Member states agreed to let observers participate in this work. The composition and the schedule of the working groups is yet to be decided.

Additionally, they decided to create a legal drafting group that will conduct a legal review of the text and provide recommendations for the next meeting.

The big two open questions of the negotiation process remain open: will the INC listen to calls for a clear conflict of interest policy to stop the future treaty being derailed by the petrochemical lobby? And will they protect the right to vote on all decisions, so that it does not get watered down?

As Graham Forbes, global plastics campaign lead at Greenpeace put it: if member states “don’t act between now and INC-5 in Busan, the treaty they are likely to get is one that could have been written by ExxonMobil and their acolytes.”

Image credits: all photos taken inside the INC-4 venue by IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth

Global Plastics Treaty Jargon Buster

by Seema on 15/04/2024 No comments

If you care about plastic pollution, the announcement of a Global Plastics Treaty from the UN is big news. It means the problem is now internationally recognised and countries will have to work together to solve it. The final agreement could limit new plastic production, stop toxic chemicals and make sure products are designed for reuse.

But getting there isn’t easy. The negotiations involve almost 200 countries, with a lot of different interests. They need to follow certain rules for discussion and there are thousands of pages of documents produced. If you’re not a lawyer or policy geek, it can be hard to understand what’s going on. So we’ve made a guide that breaks down some of the terms used in the treaty discussion – and why they are important. The more people know about what’s happening and what’s at stake, the better chance we have to get a strong treaty to protect us and the planet.

So educate yourself and others! And follow us on social media @trashheroworld to stay informed about the upcoming rounds of negotiations.

1. The Instrument
Not a guitar or a piano! The Instrument is what the UN calls the Global Plastics Treaty. Its official title is the “international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment”. “Instrument” is just a legal term for any kind of formal document that records rights or duties.

Why not just call it a treaty? Because “treaty” has a specific meaning in international law. And there are other types of international agreements, like conventions, accords, declarations or protocols. As we don’t yet know what form the “instrument” will take, the UN uses this neutral word to cover all possibilities.

Having said that, it is most likely that the future treaty / instrument will be a “convention”. Ideally it should be a specific convention, where the countries’ obligations and commitments are written directly in the text.

The other option is a framework convention, where the text only agrees to do things in principle and leaves the details of how and when to be negotiated later. The framework model was used in the climate change treaty (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC), and countries are still debating actions and targets almost 30 years after it was made. COP29 will be held in Azerbaijan in November 2024 and will likely be more “blah blah blah“.

2. INC – Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee
This is the name for the group of UN member states that are discussing the future plastics treaty. The INC is facilitated by a secretariat of staff from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and it is funded by various member states. There are five meetings or sessions of the INC currently planned, roughly one every six months over two years. If the treaty is not ready after this, the member states will need to decide how to carry on. The schedule is as follows:

Nov 2022: INC-1 @ Punta del Este, Uruguay
May 2023: INC-2 @ Paris, France
Nov 2023: INC-3 @ Nairobi, Kenya
Apr 2024: INC-4 @ Ottawa, Canada
Nov 2024: INC-5 @ Busan, S. Korea

3. COP – Conference of the Parties
COPs are usually linked with the climate change treaty, but it’s a general term for what comes after any UN convention is agreed upon: the countries who signed it (the “Parties”) gather to review how it’s going and whether it needs changes. The COP for the climate convention happens every year. Some other treaties, like the Convention on Biological Diversity, hold a COP every 2 years. For the plastics treaty, it has not yet been decided how often the Parties will meet.

4. Observers and conflict of interest
Since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the UN has recognised the importance of having stakeholders present at any discussions about the future of our planet. They created nine “Major Groups“:

Women
Children and Youth
Indigenous Peoples
Non-Governmental Organisations
Local Authorities
Workers and Trade Unions
Business and Industry
Scientific and Technological Community
Farmers

Accredited representatives of these groups – like Trash Hero World – are called Observers. This doesn’t mean we just sit and watch things happen, though! Observers can join the INC negotiation sessions, make statements and written submissions and also receive information about what is happening in between the negotiations. But we are not able to vote and can only speak if there is time after the member states have finished.

The Observer system is not perfect. Different Observers have different levels of access and participation. Sometimes the logistics of joining all the meetings prevent some groups taking part – not everyone can afford the costs and many struggle to get visas. Observers’ rights to speak or attend meetings can also be refused by the member states – some are more friendly than others to civil society.

The whole system is a bit too friendly to certain powerful stakeholders, like the business and industry representatives, who are often invited to join official government delegations. The INC has not yet addressed the conflict of interest created by allowing the plastics industry to take part in the negotiations.

5. Plenary, contact groups, informals
At the INC meetings, the opening and closing sessions are held in plenary. This means they are open to all participants and live streamed for the public. But the main negotiations happen in Contact Groups.

Contact groups are formal meetings, usually dedicated to a particular topic, but they are not live streamed and are subject to the Chatham House Rule. This rule allows anything said in the meeting to be shared and used later, but only if the speaker is not identified. This in theory allows for a more open discussion.

If you see news reports during the INC meetings that say things like “Certain states tried to stall negotiations”, without specifying which ones, this is the Chatham House Rule in action!

The third type of negotiation is the “informal”. As the name suggests, these meetings are not recorded at all and are used to discuss sensitive issues, often between smaller groups of countries.

6. MEA – multilateral environmental agreement
An agreement between 2 countries or states is called bilateral and between many countries, it is called multilateral. The Global Plastics Treaty will be an MEA. There are already more than 250 MEAs covering everything from tuna fish to the ozone layer. This treaty needs to fit in alongside them and not duplicate or contradict anything they do. There is quite a bit of discussion about how best to do this, especially in relation to the BRS – Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm – conventions that regulate the production, use, trade and disposal of hazardous waste and chemicals, a lot of which is plastic.

7. EPR – Extended Producer Responsibility
This term refers to a wide set of measures that could be included in the treaty to make sure manufacturers of plastics (and the products and packaging made from them) are held responsible for the health and environmental costs of their products across the whole lifecycle.

At the most basic level, EPR means requiring companies to collect and recycle more of their waste. A stronger set of measures would also mandate targets for reduction of single-use plastic, design and infrastructure for reuse, labelling of the ingredients in plastic and fines for harms caused.

8. CBDR – Common but differentiated responsibilities
This is the idea that, while all countries share the responsibility for solving global environmental problems, not all countries are equally to blame. Countries in the Global North have typically done more to harm the climate and the living world and, as a result of that exploitation, now have more money to fix it. CBDR says they have an obligation to help countries in the Global South, who are less responsible. These developing nations need financial support to manage the impacts of plastic pollution and to take the actions that will be recommended by the treaty.

It’s important that the principle of CBDR should only apply to the financing of actions included in the treaty, not to the actions themselves. Some countries are already arguing that their “special national circumstances” excuse them from following any globally agreed standards. Using CBDR in this way will weaken the treaty as it lets individual countries choose whether or not to keep polluting.

9. Rules of Procedure (RoP)
They may sound like boring administrative details, but the draft rules of procedure that determine how the treaty gets decided are one of the hottest topics at the INC meetings. The big debate is whether member states should have the right to vote on decisions if they cannot reach an agreement, as stated in Rules 37 and 38.

Why would countries not want to vote? Some are afraid that, if they were on the losing side, they would be forced into doing things they don’t want to do. They prefer every decision to be made by consensus, which means a unanimous (100%) agreement is needed to pass.

However, this also means if just one country out of the 175 present disagrees with a proposal, nothing can happen until it is modified to a (usually weaker) version that the country will approve. In other words, decisions that are already agreed by a large majority of countries can be hijacked by powerful minorities.

As we head towards INC-4, the RoP are still in a draft version, which is a big risk as we get deeper into the negotiations. Powerful oil-producing countries will push for consensus so that they can veto any attempt in the treaty to limit their activities.

10. (Revised) Zero Draft (RZD)
The zero draft is a suggested text for the treaty prepared by the INC Secretariat after INC-2 in Paris. It contains all the different options for ending plastic pollution across its whole life cycle. At INC-3 in Nairobi, the text was discussed by member states and multiple pages of suggested new wordings were added. This resulted in the RZD, which is almost twice the length of the original.

At INC-4, this new text will be the basis for negotiations. For more about the zero draft and what it covers, see our Instagram post or check out the video to see what we think the treaty should include.

A legal drafting group will be set up at INC-4 to start summarising the text into a more workable version, while the countries try to find common ground on some of the more controversial points, like reducing plastic production.

—

If this guide was helpful and you’d like to know more about any other topics related to the Global Plastics Treaty or plastic pollution in general, drop us a comment below and we’ll see if we can cover it!

Plastics treaty must not go the way of the climate convention

by Seema on 29/11/2023 No comments

The third of five rounds of negotiations for the Global Plastics Treaty in Nairobi ended in confusion and uncertainty last week. Trash Hero was there and reports on the key takeaways from the meeting.

K E Y O U T C O M E S
– The draft text of the treaty was made more complicated, not simplified
– No working groups will be set up to look at terms and definitions before the next meeting
– Oil-producing countries again attempted to delay and derail proceedings
– Importantly, they did not succeed in any meaningful way
– Wastepickers and indigenous groups achieved greater recognition for their roles

It was again a huge honour to represent our volunteers from 11 – 19 Nov 2023 at the UNEP headquarters in Nairobi and take my place alongside committed and knowledgeable colleagues in the Break Free From Plastic, GAIA and IPEN networks. (To understand why Trash Hero was there and what the talks were about, see Background, below).

The nine-day proceedings were intense, starting early morning and often finishing late at night. Discussions (in so-called “Contact Groups”) on different parts of the treaty text happened simultaneously in different parts of the building, which made them challenging to follow. At times progress was frustratingly slow and, despite many countries taking strong positions, it was not enough to overcome the blocking tactics of more powerful nations, with vested interests in continued plastic production.

Trash Hero met with many delegates, including those from Switzerland and Thailand, both of whom deserve mention for their strong stances on identifying the toxic chemicals in plastic. A joint proposal to advance work on chemicals and polymers of concern before INC-4 received support from 130 countries present, even though it ultimately failed to pass.

Access remained an issue at the daily Asia-Pacific regional meetings, which barred observers from attending – in contrast with the meetings of other regional groups, which are open to all participants. The Asia-Pacific region stretches from the Gulf States in the west to the Small Island Developing States in the Pacific Ocean and some members do not see the need for transparency and civil society participation.

During breaks in the official meetings, there were many side events, where we heard from experts on topics such as plastic and health and reuse systems, as well as from waste pickers and indigenous leaders, who shared their perspectives on a just transition.

INC-3 MEETING SUMMARY

Prior to the meeting, the INC Secretariat had prepared two documents, intended to form the basis of discussions:

The “Zero Draft” text, based on the outcomes of INC-2. This provided a clear structure for the treaty. Each part proposed a broad yet concise set of options, ranging from strict, globally-enforced rules to voluntary commitments, dependent on each country’s particular circumstances.
A “Synthesis Report“, an additional document containing recommended text for definitions, scope, principles and other items submitted by member states that had not yet been discussed by the INC.

The expectation before INC-3, based on the usual negotiating process for these kinds of agreements, was that member states would do two readings of these documents, discussing and expressing preferences for the different options. The goal was to move forward with a mandate to create a streamlined First Draft, reflecting the common ground and supporting detailed text negotiation at INC-4.

The second expectation was that member states would agree to carry out intersessional work – meetings in between the official rounds of negotiation – to discuss (among others) how they would define specific terms, establish targets, categorise chemicals and propose means of financing that could be used later in the negotiations, without prejudging the final outcome. This work is essential for member states to understand what is meant when the treaty refers, for example, to “chemicals of concern” or “safe, environmentally sound disposal”. It also brings independent science and expertise into the process, which has thus far been lacking.

However instead of a mandate for a first draft and intersessional work, what we actually got in Nairobi was quite different.

Should there be any doubt remaining about the intentions of oil-producing countries after the derailment of INC-2, INC-3 proved that this same minority continue to negotiate in bad faith. Branding themselves as the “like-minded group” of countries, they started by calling into question the “balance” of the Zero Draft and the Synthesis Report, then insisted that the existing text be expanded to take into account all views in the room. This was necessary, they said, in order to establish trust moving forward.

It resulted in chaos. Hundreds of amendments to the text were submitted within a matter of hours. The vast majority of these were designed to weaken the provisions or, in some cases, delete them entirely. The Secretariat scrambled to accommodate all the changes over the remaining days. Precious time was spent simply trying to establish whether the inputs had been recorded correctly.

What we are now left with is a bloated, 100+ page document (compared with the 30 pages of the original Zero Draft), with each of the original clauses expanded to include several, often confusing and contradictory options. This is not allowed to be streamlined or summarised, only edited for typos. It will be published by the Secretariat as a “Revised Zero Draft” by 31 December 2023. The only positive from the expansion is that support for waste pickers is now more clearly recognised and included throughout the text.

Meanwhile, similar stalling tactics meant there will be no intersessional work before INC-4. The topics for discussion and the format could not be agreed. The same minority of countries wanted to leave key issues like polymers, chemicals and EPR (extended producer responsibility) off the table and focus solely on waste management and finance. This will delay progress at INC-4 as no groundwork on terms and definitions will have been done.

The final outcome of the meeting was that a new Chair of the INC Secretariat was elected. Luis Vayas Valdivieso of Ecuador will replace outgoing Chair, Gustavo Meza-Cuadra of Peru, and preside over INC-4, 5 and beyond.

Analysis by CIEL identified at least 143 participants at the talks as members of the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries, outnumbering the representatives of the 70 smallest country delegations. Six member states, including Malaysia, hosted industry lobbyists as part of their official delegations.

Oil producing countries’ delegations in general tended to be far larger than those of the self-styled “downstream” countries, who suffer most from plastic pollution. This gave them an unfair advantage when it came to following the simultaneous discussions, speaking at the various Contact Groups, drafting submissions at speed and accessing technical and tactical assistance.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

On the surface, it may seem like the plastics treaty is going in the same direction as the climate change convention (UNFCCC), which is struggling to make a meaningful impact almost thirty years after its adoption.

We are seeing the same dominance of fossil fuel interests; the failure of the countries responsible for the crisis to take the lead in solving it; and the familiar move towards “pledges” based on “national circumstances” instead of a commitment to the globally binding measures needed to tackle the problem at the source.

But one critical difference with the plastics treaty is that we still have the means and the will to change this pattern. The member states taking part have yet to make any conclusive decisions. Although the outcomes of INC-3 mean the final treaty is likely to be significantly delayed, it is important to remember that as yet no real concessions have been made. The original text of the Zero Draft may be buried under new suggestions, but it is still in play. Countries chose to delay intersessional work, rather than settle for partial or watered down discussions. Many observers see this as a win: no progress is better than a compromise.

And unlike UNFCCC, the INC still has the possibility to make decisions by majority voting, not consensus (unanimous agreement). Consensus decision-making is widely seen as the fatal flaw of UNFCCC, as a single country with vested interests is able to veto any proposal. If the new Chair of the INC is able to take control of the proceedings and implement a strong conflict of interest policy – similar to that which the World Health Organisation used during the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – as well as support smaller countries to take a more active role, there is hope.

Ambition in many corners of the room – from Africa, Latin America, and small island states among others – is still high. If these member states succeed in creating a strong treaty that truly covers the whole life cycle of plastic, it will have huge implications, not only for our health and biodiversity but also for the climate and the UNFCCC. It will prove that caps on fossil fuel production are possible and that Big Oil can be defeated. Perhaps INC-4 in Ottawa will be the turning point that is so badly needed.

BACKGROUND

What is the Global Plastics Treaty?
In February 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly made a historic resolution (UNEA 5/14) to develop “an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment” – the Global Plastics Treaty – and gave member states just five meetings in two short years to agree on the text.

With the scope of the treaty covering the whole life cycle of plastic, there is a lot of ground to cover: the ever-mounting evidence about the toxicity of plastic, from extraction to disposal; its significant role in planetary warming; its destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity; the impossibility of plastic circularity; and the disproportionate impacts of all of these issues on the Global South and vulnerable communities.

Member states must also agree on the implementation of any agreed measures – whether they will be voluntary or binding, how they will achieve compliance and how they will be financed.

Why is Trash Hero involved?
In 2022, Trash Hero World received UNEP accreditation, recognising the work of our volunteers on plastic pollution worldwide, and allowing us to join the talks as civil society observers. This means we can take part in the negotiation process, contributing both formally through written submissions and statements and informally through discussions with official government delegates. Like all observers, who represent UNEP’s “major groups” of stakeholders – farmers, local authorities, women, children and youth, scientists, workers and businesses – we are not able to vote or make any decisions.

What is INC-3?
INC stands for Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, the group of around 175 UN member states who will decide on the form and content of the treaty, facilitated by a Bureau and Secretariat made up of UNEP staff and representatives of member states, who act in a neutral capacity.

The whole process is funded by member states, primarily from the Global North.

INC-3 is the third round of meetings of the INC, and the longest to date. It officially took place from 11 – 19 November 2023 (including two days of preparatory meetings) in the UN compound in Nairobi, Kenya. More than 1900 people were in attendance representing 161 countries and 318 observer organisations. The final two planned meetings of INC take place in Ottawa, Canada in April 2024 and in Seoul, S. Korea, in November 2024.

Trash Hero attends Global Plastics Treaty talks in Paris

by Seema on 12/06/2023 No comments

Key outcomes

Member states agree on a mandate to develop a draft treaty

Presence of industry lobbyists and lack of access for rights-holders, scientists and civil society remains a concern

Ongoing debate over the rules of procedure could continue to delay progress on the treaty

In 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly made an historic resolution to develop “an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment” – the Global Plastics Treaty – and gave member states just two short years to agree on the text.

And there is a lot of ground to cover, with ever-mounting evidence about the toxicity of plastic, from extraction to disposal; its significant role in planetary warming; its destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity; the impossibility of material circularity; and the disproportionate impacts of all of these issues on the Global South and vulnerable communities.

Member states must also agree on the implementation of any agreed measures – whether they will be voluntary or binding, how they will achieve compliance and how they will be financed.

Trash Hero World has just returned from INC-2, the second of five sessions to resolve these issues, held from 29 May – 2 June 2023 in Paris.

To see what we believe the treaty should look like, see this short video:

https://www.tiktok.com/@trashheroworld/video/7241141663110925570

What did Trash Hero do at the treaty talks?

It was Trash Hero World’s first time attending a UNEP event, as a recently accredited civil society organisation, and it was a huge honour to represent our volunteers and work alongside committed and knowledgeable colleagues in the Break Free From Plastic and GAIA networks.

Trash Hero World and other NGOs have the role of “observers” at UNEP: we cannot decide anything that goes into the treaty, but we are allowed to be present and – to some extent – heard at the negotiations, both formally and informally through discussions with official government delegates.

We were able to meet with the representatives from our major countries of operation – Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Switzerland – as well as several others. We also joined many side events to hear from experts in the fields of plastic toxicity and recycling (among others) and from indigenous leaders from the Global South.

With meetings starting early morning and negotiations going on well into the night, it was an intense and fruitful week, despite some early setbacks. Here are the key talking points:

1. Voting vs. consensus
Precious negotiating time was lost as a bloc of oil and plastic producing nations reopened an old discussion about the rules of procedure. They called for all treaty decisions to be made by “consensus”, i.e. unanimous agreement, rather than the 2/3 majority vote provisionally agreed at INC-1 in Uruguay, and refused to move forward until this point was resolved. Others present at the meeting observed that consensus would:

a) give any individual country veto power over the rest and
b) likely result in a weaker and / or voluntary set of measures being adopted, due to the difficulty of accommodating all interests

After more than 2 days of deadlock, a temporary compromise was reached, whereby the bloc’s objection to voting was mentioned in a footnote to the rule. This left less than 3 days for discussion on content – as well as the possibility that the issue could rear its head again at subsequent meetings.

2. Upstream vs. downstream
From the outset, countries have been divided over whether the treaty should focus on stronger, upstream measures to end plastic pollution (such as reducing the production of plastic and its associated chemicals and promoting reuse with safe alternatives) or instead look to weaker, downstream measures (such as reducing “leakage” and “improving*” waste management).

At INC-2, it was encouraging to see a majority of countries, including the EU, Switzerland, many small island developing states, Mexico, Senegal, New Zealand and others, openly support more ambitious upstream solutions. 135 out of 180 countries also called for the final rules to be globally binding for all countries. Countries who produce fossil fuels, petrochemicals and plastic unsurprisingly favoured downstream measures and a “bottom up” approach, where individual countries could pick and choose which measures to adopt.

Despite these fundamental differences, at the end of the week, a mandate was given to the INC secretariat to develop a first draft of the treaty to ‘reflect all viewpoints’. Although this will not be an easy task – especially if we are to keep the original ambition to regulate the whole life cycle of plastics, it was welcomed as a positive outcome and one that puts the negotiations back on track after the delays at the start of the week.

Intersessional work (informal meetings between now and INC-3) has also been mandated to make up for lost time and to set up scientific panels to advise member states on different issues. Who will sit on those panels will also be a topic for debate.

*”improving” in this context often includes false solutions such as incineration and chemical recycling.

3. Stakeholders vs. rights holders
UNEP reversed its decision to restrict access to civil society observers after an NGO action on the first day of the meeting, though access remains an ongoing issue for independent scientists, youth and indigenous peoples.

At the same time, at least 190 plastics industry lobbyists were present at the talks – some even joining official government delegations. UNEP regards this as normal “stakeholder” participation but this term, as GAIA notes, implies a “false symmetry […] between the perpetrators of plastic pollution and affected communities”. We should instead privilege the voices of “rights-holders” across the plastics life cycle. There is already a precedent for this, with WHO keeping the tobacco industry out of negotiations for the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control more than 20 years ago.

What happens now?
All eyes are now on INC-3 and the potential draft treaty that will emerge in the coming months, following the intersessional work and further submissions by member states and observers. The meeting is scheduled to be held in Nairobi in November 2023. We will have further updates on our social media channels @trashheroworld.