 |
| Plastic bottles and Styrofoam in Merri Creek |
The United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Global Plastics Treaty is holding its fifth meeting in Busan, South Korea from 25 November to 1 December 2024 to prepare a treaty by the end of 2024. This meeting is it.
Global Plastics pollution is an escalating Crisis that interlinks with the Biodiversity Crisis and Climate Crisis. The Health and environmental impacts of plastics, microplastics and nanoplastics are of increasing concern as more research is done.
The process for a Global Plastics Treaty was started in March 2022 at the resumed fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2). See my reports of INC1, INC2, INC3, INC4.
A Zero Draft of the treaty was prepared at INC4 with elements of both common rules for all parties, and a nationally driven policy framework, and many procedural issues still to sort out. As this zero draft contained some 1500 brackets, in the interim the Secretariat has prepared a non-paper to try to streamline negotiations start.
Australia is a member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastics Pollution, which put out this joint Ministerial statement before INC5.
UNEP INC5 website
| CIEL INC5 preparatory work
| IPEN at INC5
Break Free From Plastic News
| Break Free from Plastics POPlite daily summaries
| Minderoo Foundation | GAIA news updates
December 1 - Day 7
IISD/ENB have a highlights report available with a summary of Final Plenary discussions.
- They agreed to adjourn INC-5 in Busan, Republic of Korea, and convene a resumed meeting at a later date. Some countries wanted it early in 2025 not to lose momentum, while others like Saudi Arabia called for later - July or August.
- delegates agreed to use the Chair’s revised Text as a basis for negotiations at the resumed fifth session of the INC (INC-5.2), and also other texts.
- INC Chair Vayas resassured delegates that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
- While supporting it as the basis for negotiations at the next meeting, several delegations underlined that the Chair’s Text should remain open to additions and deletions. They noted that the text did not always reflect the discussions held during the week and excluded some countries’ “red lines.”
- The Arab Group and the Russian Federation noted that the Non-Paper containing the draft text of the Chair of the Committee, circulated on Friday, 29 November 2024, better reflected discussions, but were willing to engage on the basis of the Chair’s Text
- “We are not leaving Busan discouraged,” shared the EU, encapsulating the mood during the closing plenary.
- Several delegations spoke, with Mexico and Rwanda speaking on behalf of 95 and 85 countries, respectively, to call for a strong treaty, which would include articles on production, hazardous plastics, and chemicals of concern.
- Kuwait, who spoke for the Like-Minded Countries, expressed concern that “at this session, expedient progress was undermining trust and inclusivity,” and noted “attempts to stretch” the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) resolution mandate beyond its limits.
Watch the final Plenary on UN WebTV here: http://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1n/k1ngcaixml
2 December - International talks on curbing plastic pollution fail to reach agreement (Guardian)
Chair releases latest text. Some Delegates and Policy Experts have responded with this press release (GAIA):
Plastics Treaty INC-5: Global South Delegates and Civil Society Speak Out
Delegates and Policy Experts React to the Chair’s Proposed Treaty TextBusan, South Korea – Global South delegates and civil society leaders spoke at a press conference at BEXCO Convention Center this afternoon, to share their outlook on the negotiations thus far and what it means for the Global South. In the hour before the press conference, the Chair released his latest paper, which proposes text for the treaty to serve as a basis for the final bout of negotiations.
Arpita Bhagat, Plastics Lead at GAIA Asia Pacific states: “The Chair’s latest text is unacceptable to the majority of Global South countries and the billions of people they represent: people who are fighting for their lives for a strong treaty. Nor is it acceptable to people harmed by plastics in the Global North, including environmental justice, front and fenceline communities, and Indigenous Peoples who have long been sidelined in the process. It is not a reflection of the will of the vast majority of Member States, who support ambitious measures in a legally-binding, global instrument. Once again, as throughout this process, the Chair has bent to the will of the petrochemical states while dismissing the demands of the majority, in a completely non-transparent, exclusionary process. This is a matter of life and death, especially for Global South communities. Member States will not roll over and play dead. As long as ambitious countries hold on to their principles, civil society will have their backs.”
Cheikh Ndiaye Sylla, National Focal Point for Senegal, states, “This version of the text is…not acceptable…For life cycle, we have to negotiate this from the polymer, meaning the production. It is legally binding as per the title…No text is better than bad text.”
Dr Sam Adu-Kumi, Negotiator for Ghana, states, “The whole world is looking up to us…they are expecting something better that will protect the environment, human health, our brothers and sisters, and our young populations….So we are not here to accept anything short of an ambitious treaty.”
These elements in the new text are particularly problematic:
On core obligations:
- Plastic production (“Supply”): the Chair’s text does not represent the strong language Panama and more than 100 other countries proposed, including a global target on production reduction; it is full of weak text options, such as referring to a reduction target as “aspirational.” This critical article must be strengthened with national targets.
- Chemicals of concern: The Chair has stripped away systematic controls on toxic chemicals from this article, where we need the strongest measures to address the fundamental threat posed by chemicals of concern.
- Waste management: the waste hierarchy has been removed; and “energy recovery” – code for waste-burning technologies– remains.
On means of implementation:
- Financial mechanism: At least 126 countries support an independent, dedicated fund– the most widely supported provision in the instrument– yet the Chair’s text undermines it with weak, optional language that fails to provide adequate funds, such as through a polymer production fee.
The treaty infrastructure is weak:
- No right to vote: The Chair’s text fails to give countries the right to vote, ensuring further paralysis of the process. This is not the “start and strengthen” treaty that we were promised.
The week in Busan started with petrochemical states threatening to derail the process if Member States exercised their right to call for a vote, which brought us to this point. Continuing the work in an INC 5.2 will only be worthwhile with a transparent process where states put an end to the tyranny of the minority.
As we confront the potential failure of the negotiations, we remind Member States that, as they themselves have stated, no deal is better than a bad deal.
Panama makes an Impassioned plea alongside all high ambition countries at the global plastic treaty negotiations in Busan. We can’t be dragged down by those with low ambition. Treaty must reduce plastic production & address chemicals of concern. Its not a waste a management treaty
30 November 2024 - Saudi Arabia Leads Pushback Against Global Plastic Treaty (New York Times) "Saudi Arabia, Russia and other producers of petroleum, which is used to make most of the world’s plastic, have pushed back against measures that would address plastic pollution by placing curbs on excessive plastic production. The Saudis and their allies have also said they oppose any treaty that would start to list and phase out chemicals present in plastic that are thought to be harmful to health."
November 30 - Day 6
According to Break Free from Plastic: "The sixth day of #INC5 negotiations for a #PlasticsTreaty have been spent in informal closed door meetings that are extending to the late evening."
Marine Biology Professor Rebecca R Helm reports: "Citizens at the UN plastics negotiation are no longer allowed in rooms. This is, in some ways, abnormal. But it’s also not unexpected. Rumor has it a key sticking point is on capping plastic production. Now we wait."
IISD/ENB 30 November summary and In the Corridors section.
Will INC-5 deliver a treaty? With only a day left for delegates to negotiate, the answer to this question generated mixed responses. Amidst the “aura of confusion” at the venue, some country delegates felt that the light at the end of the tunnel was “getting brighter.” “There are some articles that we can already agree on,” referring to issues such as information exchange; public information, awareness, education and research; final provisions; and the establishment of the conference of the parties (COP), subsidiary bodies, and the secretariat. Others, however, were more cautious, sharing that the clean articles need to be attached to strong language on production, design, waste management, and finance. “We are not there yet.”
For some “stakeholders,” though, being excluded from the talks at this crucial stage sent a “dark signal.” At a press conference of the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics on Saturday, Indigenous representatives stressed, “We have been silenced and strategically undervalued” in these negotiations. “How can you talk about a just transition, when we are not given a space at the table?” Another delegate shared, “we are rights holders in this process,” and “this treaty must guarantee not only our participation in the negotiations, but also in the implementation of measures to tackle the onslaught of plastic pollution, which disproportionately affects our communities, relatives, and Mother Earth.”
Will it be a plastics treaty, or a plastic waste treaty? “It is worrying that at this stage in negotiations, we are still unsure,” opined one participant. The text circulated on Friday has elements that, if agreed, “could give us a plastics treaty, with upstream measures related to production and design.” On the other hand, “if we cannot agree on these, we will go home with a plastic waste treaty,” she said, noting that this would be “a real waste.” Another delegate was overheard lamenting, “If after all this, we end up with a plastic waste treaty, which countries can implement domestically if they want, does it even make sense to call this an international treaty? Will it have been worth our efforts?”
One seasoned delegate wondered out loud whether there was still time to change the working modalities of the negotiations. “By now, we have come to the end of the line on contact-group-like negotiations, with every state commenting on every line,” drawing attention to the fact that the informal closed-door negotiations seem like “contact groups, just without the transparency.” He described several formats that could “push negotiations over the finish line,” including the round-table Vienna setting, which would bring the Chair and key coalitions together in face-to-face discussions. He wondered whether, “we may have run out of time” to switch gears in this way.
With the informals going on upstairs, delegation after delegation held bilaterals with the INC Chair downstairs, perhaps in a bid to break the deadlocks on core issues. However, at the end of the evening, it was still unclear whether “we’ll be shedding happy tears on Sunday, or weeping.” In hushed conversations throughout the day, some were heard discussing “plan B options,” in the event that INC-5 does not deliver a treaty. “Who will fund a resumed meeting of the INC, if it comes to that?” queried one delegate. “Should we keep hope alive?” asked one delegate. The jury is still out.
Break Free from Plastics POPlite daily summaries and awards for Day 6:
CIEL Update on negotiations:
30 November 2024 - Greenpeace challenges petrochemical tanker as Busan plastics treaty talks enter final stage (Greenpeace)
Greenpeace International activists have boarded a tanker that is set to load toxic plastic chemicals from South Korea’s Hanwha TotalEnergies complex. They are urging governments to resist fossil fuel and petrochemical industry interference in the talks and to deliver a treaty that firmly cuts plastic production, which on current trends is set to triple by 2050.
“We are taking direct action here today – stopping this plastic shipment – to urge world leaders to listen to the voices of the millions of people around the world, along with scientists and businesses – who are demanding they cut plastic production to stop plastic pollution,” said Alex Wilson, Greenpeace UK climb team volunteer.
They continued, “As we protest here, petrochemical industry lobbyists are out in force in Busan. They are using their power, money and access to try to ensure that the treaty fails to do what it must – turn off the tap of plastic production.
November 29 - Day 5
IISD/ENB 29 November summary and In the Corridors section.
At the end of a week which had only yielded limited progress, states met to try and thrash out their differences in an informal consultation in the morning. “The progress is slow, to say, the least,” one delegate shared as he took a break from the closed-door meeting. Discussions focused on the most polarized elements on the table. From the beginning, some states had voiced opposition to “even mentioning anything related” to plastic products and chemicals of concern. Their positions remained intractable throughout the contact group discussions, and no textual negotiations occurred on these issues. At a press conference on Friday, Fiji stressed that the treaty must contain measures to address chemicals of concern. Familiar arguments on the sources of funding for treaty implementation were fractured throughout the week, although “not as polarized because there is some common ground.”
The issue of supply/production of plastic products and virgin plastic, respectively, “is the heart of the treaty,” shared one observer. Concurring, the EU, a proponent of including it in the new agreement underscored, “You can talk about waste management all you want but this is not the silver bullet. Mopping the floor when the tap is open is useless.” On the other hand, there are some who would like to see this provision deleted entirely.
Outside of the closed-door meetings, civil society members made their disappointment heard, lamenting that there had been “no meaningful negotiations in the five days of INC-5” and “no clear document” being considered by the delegates. With time running out, some considered the prospect of reaching agreement at INC-5 “rather fanciful.” Others, however, left the morning’s consultations hopeful and determined, stressing that ambitions are still high, two full negotiating days remain, and that pathways towards convergence among the many different proposals were beginning to show.
In the afternoon, the venue was full of delegates reviewing the new Non-Paper. “It contains all the diverging elements,” shared one, “but, at first glance, it could serve as a good basis for negotiations.” Others shared that “the negotiating process continues to be a bit unclear.” Many wondered whether, having presented it to the Heads of Delegations on Friday evening, INC Chair Vayas will issue a revised document based on those discussions. Others questioned whether deliberations would continue in the informal setting witnessed on Friday, whether contact groups or other group formations would convene to consider different elements of the text, and when plenary would resume to consider the text. In any case, there was no doubt that Saturday “will also be a long day.”
Break Free from Plastics POPlite daily summaries and awards for Day 5:
Courage Not Compromise: Observer Organizations React to the Initial Days of the Plastics Treaty Negotiations
BUSAN, Republic of Korea, November 29, 2024 — A broad coalition of observer organizations held a press conference outside of the fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to advance a plastics treaty. The organizations demanded that negotiators come together to show courage and not compromise in the final days of the negotiations. (CIEL)
The organizations delivered the following statement:
There are only 36 hours left of scheduled negotiations to secure a global treaty that can end plastic pollution. But right now, we see the usual low-ambition countries derailing the negotiations while the countries who have pledged ambition, such as members of the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) and who sit comfortably in the majority, are sleepwalking into a treaty that will not be worth the paper it will be written on. Negotiators are sticking with business as usual at such a crucial stage, abandoning their commitments, ignoring their principles, neglecting the science and economics in front of them, and failing those most impacted. All in the pursuit of consensus and finalizing any kind of treaty by the end of this week, regardless of how catastrophically futile it will be in addressing the worsening plastic crisis.
Contrary to their excuses, ambitious countries have the power and the pathways to forge a treaty to end the global plastic crisis. What we are severely lacking right now, however, is the determination of our leaders to do what is right and to fight for the treaty they promised the world two years ago.
A weak treaty based on voluntary measures will break under the weight of the plastic crisis and will lock us into an endless cycle of unnecessary harm. The clear demand from impacted communities and the overwhelming majority of citizens, scientists, and businesses for binding global rules across the entire lifecycle is irrefutable. The vast majority of governments know what now needs to be done. They know what measures we need and they know how they can be implemented. Negotiators have several procedural options available, including voting or making a treaty among the willing. In these final throes of negotiations, we need governments to show courage. They must not compromise under pressure exerted by a small group of low-ambition states and hinge the life of our planet on unachievable consensus. We demand a strong treaty that protects our health and the health of future generations.
30 November 2024 - Hope of breakthrough at international plastic treaty talks after two-year deadlock (Guardian)
November 28 - Day 4
IISD/ENB 28 November summary and In the Corridors section.
With at least six hours of negotiating time per contact group on Day 4, the ILBI talks had certainly shifted into high gear. Responding to INC Chair Luis Vayas’ call to forward text to the Legal Drafting Group by 9:00 pm on Thursday, delegates gave their all to clear text. As the deadline loomed, delegates rushed through their interventions at a breathless pace, in some cases introducing text for the first time. One seasoned delegate lamented the rushed discussions, noting “I have been in this job for more than twenty years, but I have never seen a mode of operation so confusing!” One delegate was of the opinion that “discussions in the corridors may be more effective in breaking some of the deadlocks.”
“Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” wondered one delegate, alluding to the ongoing debates among delegations about whether substantive provisions should be finalized before addressing definitions and scope—or vice versa. “At the moment,” he remarked, “the ILBI is simultaneously a treaty addressing plastic production, and also one focused solely on plastic waste.” Zooming out, one delegate confided that, “this is turning into a mini climate COP,” pointing to “similar delay tactics” witnessed during those negotiations.
Meanwhile, as contact groups concentrated on “adding text and brackets rather than streamlining,” delegates were stunned when one of the texts under negotiation ballooned from 200 words to 1399 words. Reflecting on this, one participant voiced “serious doubts” about the feasibility of producing an adoptable text by the week’s end. She questioned whether this approach was “a deliberate strategy” or merely reflected “a process unravelling into entropy.” Another was confident that the INC Chair “is working some magic,” the result of which will be that INC5 delegates “will soon have a clean text.”
Break Free from Plastics POPlite daily summaries and awards for Day 4:
November 28 - IPEN publishes new report: Plastics Poison the Workplace: Chemical Exposures to Plastic Waste and Recycling Workers (IPEN). The findings show that all workers experienced chemical exposures, with plastic waste and recycling workers exposed to more chemicals than the other workers.
Global plastics pact “hangs in balance” as petrostates block talks (Climate Home News)
November 27 - Day 3
IISD/ENB 27 November summary and In the Corridors section.
The seemingly endless hours of negotiations were starting to show as delegates made their way to the conference venue for the third day. “We’ve gone until 11:00 pm each night since we got here,” shared one delegate in the morning, “but we may benefit from a more informal setting so that we can work out our differences.” In response to this, contact groups met in a mix of contact and informal sessions throughout the day, giving delegates the latitude to have private conversations on difficult issues.
The discussions on financing were “always going to be difficult,” mostly because, as one delegate put it, “they always are.” However, the Minamata Convention on Mercury and the Multilateral Fund under the Montreal Protocol provided hopeful templates for how all parties to the future plastic pollution treaty may find middle ground between developed country perspectives (whose focus lies in raising funds from all sources, working through the Global Environment Facility) and developing country perspectives (who prioritize a dedicated fund, with finances flowing from the Global North to the Global South).
The discussion raised several questions. How can the new instrument compel the private sector to provide finances for implementation? Should there be a disaggregation of developing parties, in order to single out those developing countries with “high levels of plastic leakage?” And should developing countries with plastic and/or polymer production facilities also be nudged to contribute finances to the ILBI’s implementation in more vulnerable countries?
Contentious discussions ensued on plastic products and chemicals of concern, with some states wishing to exclude this “core” issue from the new agreement altogether, citing familiar reasons, specifically that these issues are addressed by other MEAs. “I wish this were so,” sighed one delegate, “because if it were, we would scarcely need to be here.” Others were more circumspect, pointing to the damning science exposing the health impacts of forever chemicals found in microplastics, which are “now found in us.”
In this context, a key issue resurfaced: what will happen to those elements that some deem beyond the scope of UNEA resolution 5/14, while others view as essential to the ILBI? Some delegations expressed concern about using the little time left discussing “divisive” provisions and warned that if the final draft of the ILBI includes these, the adoption process “might be mired by a vote.” “A vote would definitely affect the adoption of this agreement,” shared one observer, “because it risks excluding key stakeholders from an instrument that demands universal participation to be effective.”
Strong calls for an ambitious treaty were made during the stocktaking plenary, but many shared that at the current pace of discussions, “the end seems far from sight.”
The early evening plenary video showed the divisions and frustrations. Juan Carlos Monterrey, Special Representative for Climate Change from Panama delivered a call which received sustained applause. This is the speech below:
Colleagues, this is the fifth time we meet within two and a half years. A titanic effort never before seen in global affairs.
Now we are here in Busan with one goal: to tackle the most visible form of pollution the planet and its people is suffering from: plastic.
More than two and a half years ago we agreed to develop an internationally legally binding Instrument on plastic pollution that addressed the full life -cycle of plastic. For our colleagues that argued that production is not part of the mandate, let me correct the record. Production is part of the full life-cycle of plastic.
Excellencies, we do not have time or the resources to convene another round of negotiations. We must rise to the occasion and leave Busan with the world’s first global treaty on plastic.
I will allow myself to remind us why we are here. We are here because over the last 48 hours, since we have started working in Busan, a staggering 3 billion plastic bottles Have been produced. Every minute one million plastic bottles are purchased globally. Bottles that will further poison oceans, ecosystems and bodies. We are here because microplastics have been found in the placentas of healthy women, both foetal and maternal sites. Think about that for a minute. We are literally raising a generation that starts its life as polluted. before taking its first breath. If that doesn’t alarm us what will?
We are here today because it is not just about our bodies. It is also about the health of the planet itself. Even at the world’s highest peaks, plastic pollution is present. The snow samples from the Everest base camp reveal that 119,000 microplastic pieces per cubic meter have been found. While we here sit debating and arguing over semantics procedures, the crisis worsens and consequences multiply.
Colleagues, progress is possible. In panama we have taken steps to combat the plastics crisis. In 2018 we became the first country in Central America to ban single use plastic bags nationwide. Panama is a vivid example that change is possible. But let’s not pretend this work comes cheap or easy. Implementing these measures requires resources and political will. Every time we hesitate in these negotiations. Every time that we soften ambition, more plastics seep into earth and us. The Crisis is escalating too fast. And there are more and more voices demanding progress. Voices that are growing impatient. Voices that want us to move forward.
If we cannot agree on measures to reduce plastic production, a critical piece to this fight, let me ask this to my colleagues: Dont we at least agree to curb our dependence on single use plastics? This item accounts for over 40 percent of plastic waste globally much of which clogs our oceans and threatens our ecosystems.
Panama has already implemented this step. Many nations have to. What are we waiting for?
We recognise that multilateral spaces like this exist precisely to negotiate and seek viable solutions even in the face of disagreements. We are deeply concerned that due to the lack of consensus in contact groups some colleagues consider not having a text in the treaty as an option. We firmly believe that failing to reach agreement cannot be an alternative when facing a global crisis as the plastic pollution.
Furthermore, we emphasise the importance of addressing plastic pollution through a comprehensive approach that covers its entire life-cycle.
Mr President, Colleagues, plastic pollution is not just a crisis, it is an assault on our planet, on our people and an assault on our future. And yet here we are. Tip toeing around the truth, sidestepping ambition and ignoring the urgency that demands action.
If we fail to deliver a strong binding treaty, we are signing a pact of destruction for our planet and our people.
Thank you very much.
(Strong sustained applause).
Video from ASH Day 3: https://ash.org/day-3-plastics-inc5/
Break Free from Plastics POPlite daily summaries and awards for Day 3:
27 November 2024. What about a basic Treaty, a start and strengthen it over time? The Centre for International Environment Law (CIEL) provides insight on the risks of this approach.
"Many are pushing for a "start and strengthen" approach to the #PlasticsTreaty. But this strategy comes with a number of risks. ⚠️ As @helionordeanzizu.bsky.social warns, a treaty without a solid foundation could fail over time. "
27 November 2024 - CIEL has counted the registrations again this year with 220 Fossil Fuel and Petrochemical lobbyists at INC5. Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Flood Final Scheduled Round of Global Plastics Treaty Negotiations. Dow (5) and ExxonMobil (4) were among the best-represented fossil fuel and chemical companies. Chemical and fossil fuel industry lobbyists outnumber the Scientists’ Coalition for An Effective Plastic Treaty by three to one, and the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus by almost nine to one. (CIEL). Allegations of Fossil fuel 'unduly influence' on some national delegations, such as South Africa. Watch the Press Conference 48mins (CIEL Youtube)
November 26 - Day 2
IISD/ENB In the Corridors summary for 26 November.
Despite the morning downpour, delegates arrived at the conference venue in Busan ready to share their views on the Chair’s Non-Paper, before delving into textual negotiations. Contact group rooms were filled to capacity and, unfortunately, several observers were locked out entirely as some of the rooms ran out of space to accommodate them. “Unbelievable that we came all the way here only to stand in the corridors,” lamented one observer, who shared that she had arrived more than half an hour early for a morning contact group, only to find all the observer seats already filled.
In one room, delegates initially engaged in procedural discussions on which comes first: the treaty’s objective or setting out its scope? In another room, discussions moved at a brisk pace, as delegates got into the weeds of the issues on the table. Should the new treaty deal with “existing plastic pollution” or “legacy waste” and what is the actual difference? Who will deal with the existing/legacy waste in areas beyond national jurisdiction if the treaty only provides for national measures? Should the responsibility for existing/legacy waste always be laid at the feet of rich countries, when every country has used (and discarded) plastic waste over the last three decades? “This issue is directly tied to funding,” shared one observer. “Which issue isn’t?” quipped another.
Later in the day, before they launched into textual negotiations, many delegations were frustrated at what they deemed “wasted time” in sharing their views during the first reading, when they discovered that these interventions had not been recorded in the text. Meanwhile, another delegate shared, “we are ready for line-by-line negotiations, but the process to get there is not clear.” But as they began to propose additions to the text on waste management, the dreaded multiplicity of brackets reemerged. “This was the low hanging fruit element that we all seemed to agree on,” sighed one participant, “what happened?” Commenting on the ballooning text, one delegate stressed “We just don’t have the time to continue like this,” while another implored the contact group to “focus on the must-haves and not the wish lists.”
Break Free from Plastics POPlite daily summaries and awards for Day 2:
Logistics is Political: Numerous complaints about the small rooms allocated to contact groups, which means most observers are excluded.
GAIA Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives said on Bluesky : "Here in Busan, where #INC5 is underway, frustration is mounting. Citing “limited seating,” civil society observers, including environmental advocates & waste pickers who have traveled across continents, are being shut out of contact groups where negotiations are taking place." and "What happens in those rooms will affect the lives of our families and our communities— we deserve to be heard. "
Rebecca R Helm said on Bluesky: "Damn rocky start so far. Today is the first substantive day of the negotiating. But rooms are capacity-limited, with no overflow, no broadcast. Here at the the final negotiation of a potentially world-changing plastics treaty, citizen are being stopped at the door. #INC5 #plasticstreaty "
Demands have been issued to INC Secretariat and the Republic of Korea to address meeting space capacity and poor internet conectivity that undermines the principles of transparency and inclusivity that, as the Chair continues to note, are essential components of procedural justice in the negotiations. (Civil Society and Rights-Holders Coalition for a Plastics Treaty)
November 25 - Day 1
IISD/ENB In the Corridors summary for 25 November.
Excitement and expectation pulsed through the packed room at the opening of what many hope will be the last INC meeting to adopt a new treaty on plastic pollution. In the icy plenary room in the morning, delegates heard rousing calls to adopt the treaty at this session to end the ever-growing menace of plastic pollution. However, a crack in the carefully crafted organization of work emerged, related to the all-important negotiating text. How should delegates treat the new Non-Paper proposed by INC Chair Vayas vis á vis the compilation text circulated after INC-4? One delegate stressed that the compilation text, which contains more than 3,000 brackets, is “unworkable at this point of the discussions.” “If we are to succeed and finalize treaty negotiations within the mandated period,” the delegate continued, “we need to start with a more streamlined text which we can actually (finally) negotiate.” Meanwhile, another, exasperated delegate was overheard saying, “we cannot keep going around in this performative circus.”
As the afternoon plenary session dragged on, some delegates “blew off steam” sharing their suggestions on how to best address this procedural issue, while others were “falling into a desperation” to get into the substantive work, noting that less than 60 hours are left before the clock runs out on the UNEA mandate which established the INC’s timeframe. In this regard and looking ahead to potential end-game scenarios, one delegation shared that there might be need for an additional meeting before the Diplomatic Conference to allow more time to work on the “stickiest issues” to be included in the future treaty or agreement or framework. Others prayed for a miracle, with one seasoned participant expressing hope that “if we fill in the gaps left in the Non-Paper creatively, we may just make it over the finish line on time.”
Break Free from Plastics POPlite daily summaries and awards for Day 1:
The Plenary set up 4 contacts groups to address:
- Plastic products, chemicals of concern as used in plastic products, product design, and production/supply and related aspects;
- Plastic waste management, emissions and releases, existing plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, and just transition;
- Finance, including the establishment of a financial mechanism, capacity building, technical assistance and technology transfer, and international cooperation; and
- Implementation and compliance, national plans, reporting, monitoring of progress and effectiveness evaluation, information exchange, and awareness, education and research.
Press Conference
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) Chair, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, Executive Director of UN Environment Programme, Inger Andersen, South Korean Foreign Ministry's Director-General for Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Scientific Affairs, Han Min-young, and Executive Secretary, INC Secretariat, Jyoti Mathur-Filipp, speak at news conference on the first day of fifth session of talks to develop a legally binding international instrument on plastic pollution including in the marine environment.
.jpg) |
| Photo: © Greenpeace / Sungwoo Lee |
Created by artist Dan Acher in collaboration with Greenpeace East Asia Seoul, the flag features faces of diverse supporters including public figures like William Shatner, James Cromwell, and João Pacífico. Together, these images represent a united call for a treaty that cuts plastic production, eliminates single-use plastics, and sends a clear message: the world is watching.
25 November: Corporate Advocacy on the UN Global Plastics Treaty. A new report by InfluenceMap analyzes the plastic value chain’s advocacy on the UN Global Plastics Treaty and regional climate related-circular economy policies (Influence Map)
In April at INC4, Fossil Fuel and Chemical Industry Lobbyists numbered 196, Outnumbering National Delegations, Scientists, and Indigenous Peoples at Plastics Treaty Negotiations, a 37% increase from the 143 lobbyists registered at INC-3. (CIEL)
24 November: World will be ‘unable to cope’ with volume of plastic waste in 10 years, warns expert (Guardian) Countries must curb production now and tackle plastic’s full life cycle, says Norwegian minister Anne Beathe Tvinnereim who leads the High Ambition Coalition.
24 November 2024 - Greenpeace, WWF, Break Free from Plastic deliver almost 3 million signatures demanding strong Global Plastics Treaty (Greenpeace)
The petition signatures were delivered to Rwanda Environment Management Authority Director General Juliet Kabera and US Senator Jeff Merkley. The symbolic handover was led by renowned poet Nikita Gill alongside South Korean youth activists and Baby Climate Plaintiffs, Hannah Kim and Jeah Han. The event took place just a day before the fifth and final round of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) meeting for a Global Plastics Treaty resumed in Busan, Republic of Korea.
22 November 2024 - How the Plastic Industry Misleads Consumers: Paid TikTok Influencers, Shady Facebook Ads, and Questionable Math (FieldNotes) Internal industry documents reveal a multiyear campaign from 2018 by some of the largest petrochemical and plastic corporations in the world to mislead consumers about the recyclability of disposable water bottles and other single-use containers.
21 November 2024 - UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human rights (OHCHR) - Plastic pollution a global threat to human rights, say UN experts (OHCHR)
Every stage of the plastic cycle generates plastic pollution that threatens the effective enjoyment of human rights. The mandate given by the UN Environment Assembly to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee was clear: the instrument under negotiation must address the full lifecycle of plastics.
March against Plastics
Plastic March in Busan: GAIA Asia Pacific's Arpita Bhagat
What Scientists say
23 November: Over 900 Scientists have signed a new declaration calling UN negotiators to agree on a comprehensive and ambitious global plastics treaty based on robust scientic evidence to end plastic pollution by 2040. (Media Release | Declaration) An excerpt:
Based on robust scientific evidence, a successful treaty will require global, legally binding obligations applied across the full life cycle requiring parties to:
- rapidly and substantially reduce the production of non-essential plastics irrespective of their feedstock
- regulate production, use, and emissions of plastic chemicals, including polymers, and groups of chemicals
- reduce the production of micro and nanosized plastics as well as their shedding from products
- ensure transparency by disclosing health, safety, and sustainability information about plastics and their composition
- ensure plastics are trackable and traceable
- establish harmonized methodologies for data collection and reporting on plastic flows, addressing critical data gaps
- promote reuse, refill and repair and remanufacturing of plastics products
- improve waste management systems, with safe and sustainable collection, sorting, treatment, recycling and / or disposal
- regularly monitor and report on progress toward plastic pollution prevention
- protect the human rights of populations, workers, and communities
- dedicated financial, technical assistance, and capacity building mechanisms
- international trade regulations
- just transition strategies for populations, communities, and workers
- globally harmonized safety and sustainability criteria
- harmonised assessment of the essential use of all plastics and support for parties to swiftly transition away from groupings of plastics listed in the annex of the treaty
- the prioritization of human rights including the right to a safe, clean, and healthy environment, and the rights to access to information and to science
- prioritized contributions from Indigenous rights holders
- ensuring transparency of work and decision making processes that allow for active participation of multidisciplinary and gender-balanced independent scientists, experts, and knowledge holders who represent all stages of the plastics life cycle, and who are free from conflicts of interests
- standardized global monitoring of plastics, needed for managing andmeasuring and reporting effectiveness of the treaty as well as compliance
Key Issues to look for
IPEN identifies a number of key issues in the INC Chair non-paper outlining a potential basis for negotiations. How each of these is dealt with and resolved will reflect upon the effectiveness and ambition of a Global Plastics Treaty
- Voluntary national action or Global controls: The non-paper focuses on voluntary, national actions instead of legally binding global controls. IPEN argue that solutions must be global. An approach based on national rules would make the Treaty largely ineffective. Global measures would instead create a level playing field for all countries and economic actors.
- Addressing plastics supply and Production: There is no text suggested for the article on supply/production. Since overproduction is at the root of the crisis, the negotiations need to ensure that meaningful global mechanisms exist to reduce plastic production. This is a key area that needs ti be addressed.
- Chemicals of Concern, transparency, tracking and entire life cycle: The non-paper eliminated two critical articles: “chemicals and polymers of concern” and “transparency and tracking,” even though both were strongly supported throughout the negotiations. Chemicals must be addressed in a separate article addressing the entire life cycle, not just as product content.
Background:
IISD/ENB have published an Explainer blog: What to Expect at Plastics INC-5
Climate Adam, 22 November 2024, How Plastics Fuel Climate Change
As part of the INC2 commentary in May 2023 I reported on Plastics and the Climate Crisis based on a new report:
Pacific Environment NGO prepared a report prior to the INC2 conference linking the Plastics Crisis to the Climate Crisis.
The report shows that two key pathways are needed to put the industry on a 1.5 degree Celsius compatible pathway:
- Plastic must be reduced by at least 75% by 2050. This includes phasing out single-use plastic by 2040 and curbing durable plastic.
- End plastic incineration (and any plastic burning, including in cement kilns and chemical recycling) and require remaining plastic products be produced with greener feedstocks (such as green hydrogen) and 100% renewable energy.
The report presents new global modeling that shows the policy action needed to reduce emissions from the plastics and petrochemicals industries in time to defeat the climate crisis.
See: Chen, Xuejing, Kristen McDonald, Madeline Rose, Pacific Environment, 23 May 2023, “Stemming the Plastic-Climate Crisis: Paris Alignment for Plastics Requires at least 75% Reduction,”, https://www.pacificenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Stemming-the-Plastic-Climate-Crisis-1.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment