The fourth round of negotiations (INC-4) for an international legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution just concluded in Ottawa, Canada between 23 and 29 April. If you’re aware of the global plastics treaty being negotiated and you are curious to know what’s the latest news but without getting lost in technicalities or legalese, then this article is for you.
To refresh your memory, let’s do a TV style ‘previously on the global plastics treaty’. In March 2022 the United Nations Environment Assembly adopted Resolution 5/14 to develop an international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution and the treaty was mandated to be negotiated and delivered by the end of 2024. The 3rd round of negotiations (INC-3) which took place in Nairobi, ended on a disheartening note where an ambitious zero draft was watered down while growing double in size and no agreement on mandate for intersessional work was reached. The mandate for intersessional work is of extreme importance because the designated timeline of negotiating the Global Plastics Treaty (GPT) within two years is a real race against time and therefore working in between the sessions is imperative to keep up with the timeline. So now that we entered the next episode/season of the GPT negotiations, what happened in Ottawa?
At INC-4, the countries were expected to clean up the ginormous revised zero draft by streamlining (technical) various options for core obligations which will be governed under the treaty, and start textual negotiations. This task was undertaken by two Contact Groups (CG) and their subgroups which met under Chatham House Rules. CG 1 delved into Parts I and II of the revised zero draft (objective, scope, core obligations, etc) and CG 2 delved into Part III (financing and implementation mechanism). While there was no apparent filibustering throughout the week unlike the Paris experience (INC-2), the action sequence i.e., textual negotiations gained momentum only towards the end of the week. The bloc of like-minded countries (LMC) and some others played their role as expected. They sustained and even amplified their efforts at debilitating the treaty in order to protect their vested interests. They did this by attempting to limit the scope of the treaty to redefine the meaning of the term ‘life cycle’. They vehemently argued that the lifecycle of plastics starts only from manufacturing of plastic products (midstream) and some among them even went on to say that the scope of the treaty should concern only with the ‘life cycle of plastic waste’ (downstream). Playing along with this logic for gags, does this mean the lifecycle of say rice, doesn’t start with grain production but only when harvested grains are processed, packed and hit the shelves of supermarkets?
So what happened in Ottawa?
To start on a positive note, for the first time the INC witnessed a discussion of the ‘Lord Voldemort’ of core obligations - primary plastic polymers. It was promising to see that a proposal on reduction of plastic production spearheaded by Peru and Rwanda garnered support from many member states. One of the subgroups in CG 2 successfully fulfilled its mandate of textual negotiations for provisions relating to the financial mechanism of the treaty. This was perceived as a significant win as the financial mechanism will be the backbone for the implementation of the treaty. Another high point of the week was when frontline and marginalised voices, particularly of the indigenous communities, besought the world for immediate and effective action to end plastic pollution and stressed the importance of incorporating Indigenous Knowledge, Systems, Practices and Innovations as an integral part of the solution to the plastics crisis.
While this sounds like reasonably good progress was made at INC-4, it is our responsibility to take off the rose-tinted glasses to get a balanced view of the Ottawan affairs.
While the proposal on reduction in plastic production enjoyed the support of many member states, the interests of the almighty custodians of the oil and plastic industrial complex prevailed over the planet and people. In addition to vociferously maintaining their ‘Option 0’ or no text option for key items such as caps on plastic production, regulating chemicals of concern, problematic plastics, trade in listed chemicals, polymers and products, etc, the LMC also ensured that other measures (including midstream and downstream) were diluted. Strong options calling for binding measures on micro- and nano plastic pollution, product design, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), etc supported by many countries were watered down to voluntary measures and/or through the use of ‘nationally determined’ caveats.They did this by making various additions and deletions during the textual negotiations.
In international policymaking, a bracket [ ] is added to a word(s) or phrase(s) when the said text is not yet agreed upon and still under consideration or negotiation. So at INC-4, when any Member State did not agree with a particular text and wanted it removed/deleted from the draft treaty, they ‘bracketed’ the text. Observers and many ambitious member states were in a state of ‘bracket fatigue’ after witnessing the LMC and some other countries including India, ‘bracket’ crucial provisions and text indiscriminately and absolutely (i.e., seeking deletion of an obligation in its entirety). This fatigue was best explained by one of the delegates of Fiji who concluded his plenary statement by saying, ‘Let us break free from plastics and break free from brackets’.
Another outrage of enormous proportions was the overwhelming presence of industry lobbyists and their access to member states. As per an analysis by the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and others, INC-4 witnessed a 37% increase in fossil fuels and chemicals lobbyists compared to INC-3 and it was distressing to note that the lobbyists largely outnumbered many national delegations including the EU, independent scientists from The Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, and Indigenous Peoples. In addition, aggressive lobbying through advertisements glorifying plastics and their benefits were rampant inside the venue, Shaw Centre and even throughout the city of Ottawa, including airports. Although the Civil Society and Rights Holders’ Coalition for the plastics treaty also conducted their own peaceful demonstrations, it was no match for the bounty of resources at the disposal of the industry lobbyists.
Head in the sand
The civil society and the scientist’s coalitions arrived in Ottawa, having lined their arsenal with irrefutable evidence of health and environmental impacts of plastics throughout their lifecycle. This included the most recent study published in April 2024 by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory which revealed that ‘deep primary production cuts are urgently needed for our planet to avoid breaching the 1.5 degree limit set by the Paris Agreement, at least 11.8% to 17.3% per year, starting in 2024’. However, those with vested interests in the oil-plastic industrial complex chose to ‘pull an ostrich’, by disregarding and discrediting every piece of evidence which proved the negative impacts of plastics. In addition, they also claimed that the scientific evidence cited or brought forth by the civil society and the scientific community is insufficient and that they need to come back with stronger and conclusive evidence of detrimental impacts of plastics on the environment and human health. A very important point to understand here is that, in our global efforts and processes to regulate a material which is quite apparently wreaking havoc on the environment and public health, the burden of proof should be on the industry which produces it to prove otherwise. It is grossly unfair and unjust to place the onus of adducing conclusive evidence on the very victims of plastic pollution - marginalised and frontline communities, consumers and civil society, etc, instead of the polluters.
What did INC-4 achieve?
At the closing plenary the main item which was discussed was the mandate for intersessional work. In our race against time to deliver a global plastics treaty the world desperately needs, the intersessional work will delve into the nitty gritties of certain topics and lay the foundation for the negotiations during INC-5. To the majority’s dismay, production reduction was knocked off the table and will not be a part of intersessional work. However, this doesn’t mean that it has been kicked out of the negotiations yet. During the wee hours of the final day, observers witnessed informal huddles of various member states trying to negotiate and strike a compromise for the intersessional work. After pushback from many delegations, including the EU, negotiators managed to include ‘chemicals of concern’ to the list of topics for intersessional work. The intersessional work will be shouldered by an ad hoc open-ended expert group which will prepare an analysis of potential sources and means of implementation, including options for the establishment of a financial mechanism, and another similar group to identify and analyse criteria and non-criteria based approaches with regards to chemicals of concern in plastic products and product design focused on recyclability and reusability of plastic products.
What to expect from INC-5?
The LMC’s goal of excluding upstream measures from the scope of the treaty stands unabated despite the increasingly unimaginable costs to the environment and health. We are well aware of the LMC’s agenda - protect and continue business as usual; mainstream the narrative that plastic pollution is only a litter/ waste management problem which has nothing to do with the material; hold the process hostage until the treaty is weakened and diluted. The disagreement on consensus versus voting stemming from the undecided rules of procedure is still a golden arrow in the LMC’s quiver. The outcome of this debate can make or break the treaty.
Despite evidence showing that 8 in 10 people all over the world show strong support for capping plastic production, LMC and lobbyists continue to propagandise age-old false narratives - such as ‘Plastics don’t pollute, people do’ - unless they are talking about the people who produce plastics..? Unlikely! Irrespective of the efforts and solidarity shown by the civil society or the scientists’ coalition, the ultimate negotiating and decision-making power lies with the member states. In addition to Rwanda and Peru’s proposal on primary polymer production, a declaration titled ‘Bridge to Busan’ was launched towards the end of INC-4 by 28 Member States. The declaration aims to rally support for the inclusion of production reduction in the treaty and currently enjoys the endorsement of over 30 Member States and 39 observers.
The planet and its people are counting on this treaty to be strong and effective. Many Member States who were in support of Rwanda and Peru’s proposal did not walk the talk when the time came on the last day during the closing plenary session to call for production reduction. Even to land among the stars, you need to have aimed for the moon. Therefore, it is absolutely insufficient to settle for bare minimal action on the so-called low hanging fruits and it is high time for the Member States outside of LMC to wake up from their false consciousness, push back harder and live up to their name of the ‘High Ambition Coalition’.
About CAG:
Citizen consumer and civic Action Group (CAG) is a 38 year old non-profit, non-political and professional organisation that works towards protecting citizens' rights in consumer and environmental issues and promoting good governance processes including transparency, accountability and participatory decision-making.
Add new comment