It’s clear to see that not much progress has been made in the current conferences towards an international treaty to end plastic contamination.
“The majority [of UN member nations] had the best intentions and worked to find common ground among diverse international perspectives, but the entire process was consistently hindered by a small number of member states prioritizing plastic and profits over the planet,” said Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business at World Wildlife Fund (WWF) United States.
The third of 5 intergovernmental conferences, known as INC-3, took place in Nairobi on Nov. 19. The process that began with a United Nations Environment Assembly resolution in March 2022 is more than halfway to the goal. So far, multi-stakeholder forums, policy guidance notes and a “zero draft” (that GreenBiz covered here and here) have left many questions unanswered.
Here’s what you need to know about INC-3 from experts who were there.
What’s the scope?
If you think it’s outrageous that we have not yet decided the scope of the international plastics treaty, you are not alone. According to the WWF, all countries involved in the negotiations initially agreed to a treaty to address the entire lifecycle of plastics — yet low-ambition countries including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba, and Bahrain are backtracking to focus only on waste management and deflect attention away from their fossil fuel interests.
“Voluntary national measures and a sole focus on waste management will only continue to exacerbate the problem for the countries that are hardest hit by the plastic pollution crisis,” said Alice Ruhweza, senior director for policy and engagement at WWF International.
A handful of countries rejected the zero draft outright on the first day of the latest conferences.
It seems that low-ambition countries wanting to stall this process are advocating for a formal agreement on the treaty that gives the power to delay adoption of the final text. Most countries, on the other hand, are angling toward a majority vote to water down the power of the holdouts.
What should be prohibited?
We should not expect more than 170 countries to reach agreement on what to restrict and ban without a fight.
Prior to INC-3, Simon urged negotiators to choose ambition. “By placing strong emphasis on eliminating high-risk, single-use items coupled with systems for prevention, reduction, and efficient recycling and reuse throughout the entire lifecycle of plastics, only then can we have any hope of seeing a future without plastic in nature.”
Very little progress was made on this front at INC-3, so negotiators need to dig deep for INC-4 in the spring.
What should be mandated?
The tug-of-war around what, if anything, to mandate can make or break a final agreement. For evidence, look at the success of the Montreal Protocol (mandatory targets) versus the slow start for the Paris Agreement (voluntary Nationally Determined Contributions).
For the international plastic treaty,
