The third UN Oceans Conference (website) took place in Nice, France from 9 to 13 June 2025. Australia's new Environment Minister attended as head of mission for Australia.
The final Plenary adopted the outcome document of UNOC3, the declaration “Our Ocean, Our Future: United for Urgent Action,” reports the UN. During the closing plenary, Elinor Hammarskjöld, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and UN Legal Counsel, noted that the declaration, also known as the “Nice Ocean Action Plan,” offers a solid roadmap for future action, stressing the need to translate commitments into action to carry the momentum forward, reported the Earth Negotiations bulletin team.
Outcome summary: Negotiations fail to conclude, but some progress made. Still wide divergencies in some areas. A resumed session in 2025 agreed to.
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.
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.
After report backs from the 4 contact group co-chairs, Chair has proposed the latest non-paper as a starting point for further negotiations at a resumed session 5.2 at some time in the future. Various Parties spoke in plenary, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, India, Ghana, Rwanda, Mexico, Uruguay, European Union, Finland. Panama, Russian Federation, Iraq, Canada, Cuba, Grenada, Samoa, Japan, Vanuatu, Jamaica, Armenia, Tonga, UK. Powerful statements by Rwanda on behalf of 85 countries and Mexico for 95 countries for an ambitious legally binding full-life-cycle treaty that addresses chemicals of concern.
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 Text
Busan, 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."
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.
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.
Photo Credit: Ottawa march for a Plastics Treaty coutesy FoEI via X
The United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Global Plastics Treaty is holding its fourth meeting in Ottawa, Canada from 23–29 April 2024 to prepare a treaty by the end of 2024. 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. (See Background Science).
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.
A Zero Draft of the treaty has been prepared with elements of both common rules for all parties, and a nationally driven policy framework, and many procedural issues still to sort out. Australia is a member of the High Ambition Coalitionto End Plastics Pollution, which put out this joint Ministerial statement before INC4.
INC4 wrapped up with some progess made, decision on intercessional work covering several issues but excluding polymer production and reducing production, and kicking the big decisions on plastics regulation down the road. The failure of the High Ambition Coalition to speak up and push more strongly for more ambition by including more in intercessional work at the last plenary is a lost opportunity that may knobble ambition in the treaty that results.
The next negotiation meeting - INC5 - is due in November in Busan, South Korea.
Comments on the final day and hours of negotiations:
Negotiations wrapped up at 3.17 am local time in Ottawa with the call from the dais: “Plastics may last forever, but this INC should not!”.
Miko Aliño (@mikoalino) commented on X: "The bridge getting to an ambitious #PlasticsTreaty became much more challenging after #INC4 delegates chose to exclude production reduction measures from intersessional work – a compromise that ignores the full plastics life cycle, contrary to the UNEA Resolution 5/14 mandate."
Earth Negotiations Bulletin (@IISD_ENB) commented on X: "Despite a growth of brackets and new text when #INC4 was meant to streamline, there were some signs of #PlasticTreaty progress, such as agreeing to set a legal drafting group to ensure the text of the new instrument on #plasticpollution is legally sound."
Greenpeace Canada summarised the outcome in a statement highlighting the failure in the High Ambition Coalition (that includes Canada, Australia) to push more strongly for "inclusion of any reference to plastic production or polymers in intersessional work, despite strong support by various countries, scientists and civil society groups. While Canada supported in principle a proposal from Rwanda to add a reduction of production in the intersessional work, the country and various other high ambition coalition governments did not push for it in the final plenary, resulting in a compromised outcome."
Graham Forbes, Greenpeace Head of Delegation to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations and Global Plastics Campaign Lead at Greenpeace USA, said:
“The world is burning and member states are wasting time and opportunity. We saw some progress, aided by the continued efforts of states such as Rwanda, Peru, and the signatories of the Bridge to Busan declaration in pushing to reduce plastic production. However, compromises were made on the outcome which disregarded plastic production cuts further distancing us from reaching a treaty that science requires and justice demands. People are being harmed by plastic production every day, but states are listening more closely to petrochemical lobbyists than health scientists. Any child can see that we cannot solve the plastic crisis unless we stop making so much plastic. The entire world is watching, and if countries, particularly in the so-called ‘High Ambition Coalition’, don’t act between now and INC5 in Busan, the treaty they are likely to get is one that could have been written by ExxonMobil and their acolytes.
“We are heading towards disaster and with time running out – we need a Global Plastics Treaty that cuts plastic production and ends single-use plastic. There is no time to waste on approaches that will not solve the problem.”
Break Free from Plastics in a statement - INC-4 negotiating countries fail to respond to the magnitude of the plastics crisis - also highlighted the non-inclusion of plastics production in intercessional work as a lost opportunity making the achievement of an ambitious treaty more difficult:
"Today’s decision to exclude upstream measures from the intersessional work means it will be more daunting to include extraction or production reduction measures under the ambit of the draft plastics treaty. This compromise diminishes the ambition of this process as it ignores the central role of plastics production in fueling the climate, biodiversity and pollution crises. This is not only an utter disappointment, but also a missed opportunity to tackle the root causes comprehensively."
Indian based NGO Centre for Financial Accountability (@cfa_ind) did a thread summary of outcomes on X:
"The fourth meeting of the INC for a global agreement to end plastic pollution concluded on April 29 after a plenary full of huddles and the regrettable decision to not include discussions on primary plastic polymers in the intersessional work. "
"Countries decided to move forward with intersessional work on the financial mechanism, as well as on plastic products, chemicals of concern in plastic products, product design, reusability, and recyclability."
"Member States agreed to include observers’ participation during this work. They also decided to create a legal drafting group that will conduct a legal review of the text and provide recommendations to the plenary. "
"The exclusion of upstream measures from intersessional work, however, weakens the plastics treaty's scope. Ignoring plastics production's impact on climate, biodiversity, and pollution crises undermines comprehensive solutions."
"This compromise diminishes ambition and highlights the need for holistic solutions. It's not just disappointing; it's a severe setback in our efforts to combat the plastic pollution crisis."
WWF said in a statement while progress had been made, most of the big decisions that determine how ambitious the treaty will be are still to be made:
“Countries have made important progress in Canada with constructive discussions on what the treaty will actually do, but the big decisions still remain: will we get the strong treaty with common global rules that most of the world is calling for, or will we end up with a voluntary watered-down agreement led by least common denominator values?
"Negotiators need to recognise that plastic pollution is an accelerating global crisis that cannot be solved with fragmented national approaches. Governments must now employ all possible means to step up progress between the meetings on measures that will have the biggest impact on addressing plastic pollution across plastic’s full lifecycle, in particular, global bans on high-risk products and chemicals, global product design requirements and a robust financial package to secure a just transition,” said Eirik Lindebjerg, Global Plastics Policy Lead, WWF International.
During the closing plenary, INC Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso (Ecuador) proposed, and delegates agreed to establish a legal drafting group to ensure legal clarity in the text of the future agreement. The Committee also established two intersessional expert groups to:
develop an analysis of potential sources and means that could be mobilized, for implementation of the objectives of the instrument, including options for the establishment of a financial mechanism, alignment of financial flows, and catalyzing finance; and
identify and analyze criteria and non-criteria based approaches with regards to plastic pollution and chemicals of concern in plastic products and product design, focusing on recyclability and reusability of plastic products and their uses and applications.
During the course of the day, delegates had considered and modified the streamlined parts of the Revised Draft Text (PDF), on issues related to just transition, the preamble, objective, scope, and the principles that will govern the new agreement, as well as the technical issues to be addressed in the future instrument.
Global Alliance Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Global South media conference (Starts 11 mins in):
Europe proposes to adjourn INC4 and hold an INC4.2 to further work
Delphine Levi Alvares (@delphinelevialv) comments on X At 2.16 am, "EU proposes to adjourn rather than close #INC4 and hold an INC4.2 to continue the work. GCC countries are obviously saying no. The group of 'like-minded countries' is brought up again and still has not disclosed who is part of it... Are they ashamed of working together?"
Earth Negotiations Bulletin (@IISD_ENB) on X: "Delegates at #INC4 discuss a European Union, proposal calling for additional time for negotiations before INC-5, calling to adjourn INC-4 and resume the work to identify common areas and landing spots before November 2024. "
Rwanda and Peru propose 40% by 2040 plastics production reduction target
Rwanda and Peru submitted a conference room paper calling for a compilation report of scientific and technical information on sustainable levels of consumption and production of primary plastic polymers, and an open-ended working group to consider options for primary plastic polymers including the implication of no option.
"The science tells us that current and projected levels of plastic consumption and production are unsustainable and far exceed our waste management and recycling capacities. Moreover, these levels of production are also inconsistent with the goal of ending plastic pollution and limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees." said a Rwanda statement on intercessional work.
A motion submitted by Rwanda and Peru sets out a global reduction target, ambitiously termed a “north star”, to cut the production of primary plastic polymers across the world by 40% by 2040, from a 2025 baseline.
It says: “The effectiveness of both supply and demand-side measures will be assessed, in whole or in part, on their success in reducing the production of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels.” (Guardian)
The motion was supported by 29 countries including Australia, Denmark, Nigeria, Portugal, the Netherlands and Nigeria, who signed a declaration, “the Bridge to Busan”, calling on all delegates to ensure plastic production was addressed.
Delegates arriving for the penultimate day of official negotiating time for INC-4 hunkered down, with some Subgroups spending considerable time validating streamlined texts, while others proceeded with line-by-line negotiations. Discussions had become heated in one group late Saturday evening, with some delegations noting that their considerations did not appear in the streamlined text. “Any discussions on polymers goes beyond the mandate of the INC,” charged one delegation, noting that they had made strong calls to delete that part of the text, and were concerned that it was still reflected in the Co-Facilitators’ streamlined text. In response, another delegate stated that “we must be able to discuss polymers in order to consider the full lifecycle of plastic.”
As delegates worked through the text, it was sometimes difficult to see the shape the future instrument will eventually take. “There are so many no-text options, the final document may just be one page,” joked one delegate. Others were encouraged by the proposals for intersessional work, although how to fit all the potential issues to consider into the six months before INC-5 will be challenging.
The heavy sighs among participants were palpable in the hallways and contact group rooms as many realized the sheer amount of work they will need to get through before the end of 2024. What will the output of INC-4 be? How useful will it be for their deliberations at INC-5? Will a foundation of convergence on key concerns among delegations be possible to advance an agenda leading to a robust ILBI on plastic pollution? While the somber mood spoke volumes, the path towards candid textual negotiations offered a glimmer of hope.
As the energy waned in the halls of the Shaw Center in Ottawa, delegates slogged through the Revised Zero Draft to make headway on narrowing down the options, thereby streamlining the text.
Spending a considerable amount of time during the day addressing issues of finance, the testy discussion about breaking the traditional approach to financing, that developed countries should pay, has reared its head over the past few days. If all countries are responsible for plastic pollution in the environment, all countries pay to clean it up, correct? And what about historical responsibility? Should we compel the plastics industry to pay for plastic waste generated further down the plastics value chain? Delegations grappled with these questions, as one delegate reminded others that to effectively implement the new treaty, every cent, from every source, will count.
In the corridors, and behind closed doors, many participants were involved in fevered conversations about the status of the Draft and the nature and magnitude of intersessional work ahead. “They’ve spent so much time streamlining the text that we really may not get to the heart of the textual negotiations at this meeting,” lamented one worried observer. One participant said that “at this stage, we don’t know if we are taking one step forward and two steps back, or two steps forward and one step back.” On intersessional work, one delegate was overheard saying, “this cannot be a repeat of Nairobi… the earlier we hear what is planned, the sooner we can agree.” One seasoned delegate, commenting on the sheer volume of work remaining, wondered if INC-4 would benefit from “one additional day of negotiations.” A plenary scheduled for Sunday may give additional guidance.
On a Friday that felt like a Wednesday, delegates continued streamlining the Revised Draft Text. Many were excited to discuss the issue related to fishing gear in a joint Subgroup, with some being reminded that the issue of marine litter was what kickstarted the global discussions on marine plastic which grew into these negotiations towards a plastic pollution treaty. A seasoned delegate expressed optimism that “consensus was likely achievable,” hoping that an “easy win” could infuse the rest of the process with much needed energy. But what initially appeared to be a low-hanging fruit proved to be rather more complex, with developing countries wondering who would pay for the artisanal fishing industries to obtain alternative, biodegradable fishing gear.
In the morning, some were surprised to see the daily program showing three contact groups meeting in parallel. The schedule remained fluid, with some delegates arriving in the right rooms at the wrong time, and others missing out on short sessions altogether. “My delegation cannot be in three different places at the same time, didn’t we agree we wouldn’t do that?” complained one delegate.
Meanwhile, rumors were circulating about the possibility of a resumed INC-4 (INC-4.2) that could be convened prior to INC-5. In hushed conversations, some delegations shared that convening a “jamboree” would not be as effective as holding structured intersessional talks, targeted at the most contentious issues that remain on the agenda. Unfortunately, the late-night plenary did not shed more light on the status of intersessional work.
What is abundantly clear is that delegates will have their hands full for the rest of the meeting, with three meetings running in parallel to get through another reading of the text.
26 April - Plenary Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlQDSTkbwwo Debate on whether to proceed with 3 sub-groups running in parallel to speed work in the limited time at INC4. Australia spoke in favour of this. Many small countries have small delegations and would be unable to attend 3 groups in parallel. Chair decides to proceed with two meetings in parallel.with a third stream when exceptional circumstances dictate.
26 April 2024 - Canada's First Nation declares emergency due to excessive chemicals emission (Yahoo News)
26 April 2024, Greenpeace ramps up pressure on UN delegates to cut plastic production, by delivering a “Global Plastics Factory” outside the Shaw Centre (Greenpeace)
26 April 2024, Plastics Offsetting project by Danone in Bali called into question
A plastic offsetting project backed by the food and drink giant Danone has been suspended, following allegations that a recycling facility was built illegally close to a Balinese community and without proper consultation, an Unearthed investigation has found. Danone’s project was set up as an attempt by the French multinational to offset its enormous plastic footprint in Indonesia, and part of its promise to recover more plastic than it uses in the country by 2025. (Greenpeace Unearthed)
The United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiationg Committee for a Global Plastics Treaty is meeting in Nairobi, Kenya from 13-19 November 2023. Global Plastics pollution is an escalating Crisis that interlinks with the Biodiversity Crisis and Climate Crisis. 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).
A Zero Draft of the treaty has been prepared with elements of both common rules for all parties, and a nationally driven policy framework, and many procedural issues still to sort out.
INC3 concludes with no intersessional work approved, petro states blocking consensus, negotiating in what some call in bad faith. New revised zero draft authorised to be prepared by the Secretariat by 31 December 2023 for INC4 in Ottawa in April 2024
Plenary suspended and delegates continued deliberations in informal groups. Photo: by IISD/ENB | Anastasia Rodopoulou
Magnus Løvold (@magnuslovold) from Norwegian Academy of International Law, tweeted:
The third round of the #PlasticsTreaty #INC3 negotiations just concluded in Nairobi with no plan for how to move the process forward. This is a deeply disappointing, but not unexpected, outcome. For too long, ambitious countries have failed to face up to the reality that a meaningful treaty on plastic pollution cannot be achieved as long as the least ambitious countries are allowed to control the pace of the process.
The Nairobi round will go down in history as an unqualified failure of multilateral environmental diplomacy. It did nothing but record in elaborate detail the magnitude of the committee’s disunity. The week’s proceedings have swept away all doubt that some of the countries involved in this process — notably Iran Saudi Arabia and Russia — are negotiating in bad faith. It is impossible to develop a treaty on plastic pollution under such circumstances.
As they prepare for the next negotiation round in Ottawa, @HACplastic and other ambitious countries must muster the courage to move ahead, even if those least willing to join stay behind.
We cannot afford to let a small minority of countries continue to hold this process hostage. It is time to overrule their spoiler tactics, and take future substantive decisions to a vote #ConsensusKillsDemocracy
“This week made clear that an overwhelming majority of countries demand an ambitious treaty that covers the full lifecycle of plastics,” said CIEL President Carroll Muffett. “That treaty is still achievable in these talks, but only if negotiators acknowledge and confront the coordinated campaign by fossil fuel and petrochemical exporters to prevent real progress of any kind.”
Alongside exporting countries themselves, INC-3 saw a massive presence in the industries that make plastics and plastic feedstocks. A CIEL analysis revealed that 143 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered for the negotiations – including on country delegations.
“The results this week are no accident,” said David Azoulay, Program Director for Environmental Health at CIEL. “Progress on plastics will be impossible if Member States do not confront and address the fundamental reality of industry influence in this process.”
There was also criticism of the High Ambition Coalition in the CIEL statement. Australia is a member of the High Ambition Coalition.
a troubling number of wealthier countries, including members of the 60+ member “High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution,” suggested a willingness to prioritize short-term consensus over long-term success.
“‘High Ambition’ is not a brand — it’s a commitment,” Azoulay said. “High Ambition countries in the Global North must follow the lead of Rwanda, Uruguay, and Pacific Island states in fighting to ensure ambition is reflected not just in empty political commitments but in the final treaty text.”
Break Free From Plastic (@brkfreeplastic) tweeted:
The #INC3 missed a vital chance for ambitious action on plastic reduction. A few loud voices held sway, blocking advances in setting targets, baselines & schedules.
We need a strong #ConflictofInterest policy to overcome deliberate obstruction.
In a statement they called for a strong conflict of interest policy and reassess how to deal with the countries deliberately blocking the ambition of the negotiation process.
Despite a mandate for a revised draft, Member States failed to reach an agreement on priorities for intersessional work ahead of INC-4, despite an 11th-hour attempt, jeopardizing significant advancements for the treaty process.
With the petrochemical influence in the treaty negotiations, including the ‘low ambition’ of a group of ‘like-minded’ plastic-producing countries, and the lack of ambition by the so-called ‘high ambition’ countries, the INC-3 concluded without concrete headway towards the mandate adopted at the fifth United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA 5.2) to negotiate a comprehensive and legally binding treaty that will cover measures along the entire life cycle of plastic.
“This round of Global Plastics Treaty talks proves once again the toxic influence the petrochemical industry has on global governments and our future. Between now and the next round of negotiations, high ambition countries have their work cut out for them to counter the damage done by the problematic low ambition countries. Unless the Treaty dramatically reduces plastic production, we cannot make gains on the worsening climate, pollution and biodiversity crises and their associated harms to people worldwide.
“The Global Plastics Treaty must reduce plastic production by at least 75% by 2040 to stay within the 1.5 degree threshold."
At the start of INC-3 the Zero Draft was a balanced document representing a range of views to provide Member States a basis for negotiating; by Sunday afternoon the draft more than tripled in size. A minority of Member States–particularly oil-producing nations in the newly formed informal “group of like-minded countries” including Iran, the Russian Federation, and Saudi Arabia– undermined the previously agreed upon mandate for a plastics treaty, seeking to include low-ambition language and trying to run out the clock.
Such interventions include inserting language on “national priorities,” “national circumstances,” and a “bottom-up approach,” which could lead to voluntary measures overpowering legally-binding measures – a thus far failed approach to international environmental policy, as evidenced by the Paris Climate Agreement.
The same Member States, and some others, worked hard to undermine the mandate for a treaty covering the “full lifecycle of plastic, including its production, design, and disposal” (Res. 5/14), to focus solely on waste management approaches, claiming that the problem is not plastic itself, but its disposal.
“There is no difference between plastic and plastic pollution– plastic is pollution,” says Rafael Eudes, Aliança Reziduo Cero, Brazil. Plastic pollutes from the moment fossil fuels are extracted from the earth, to when the waste is thrown away.”
What a disastrous ending to #INC3! No mandate for intersessional work was agreed, which is fundamental to develop a #PlasticsTreaty by 2024. Industry in alliance with Saudi Arabia, Russia & Iran have derailed the process. We must better prepare for #INC4 💪 to secure the process. pic.twitter.com/qG0AYjO0C3
— Dr. Melanie Bergmann 🐘MBergmann🐘mstdn.social (@MelanieBergma18) November 19, 2023
Inger Andersen speech at the opening plenary of the 3rd conference meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to Negotiate a Global Plastics Treaty sets out the broad arguments and need for the Global Plastics Treaty. Inger Andersen is Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
The second meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) of the Plastics Treaty ocurred from 29 May – 2 June 2023 in Paris, France. Referred to with the hashtag #INC2. The first meeting convened 28 November - 2 December 2022 at Punta del Este, Uruguay, which I reported on. The aim is to complete negotiations by the end of 2024 and create a global, legally binding plastics treaty.
Katherine Lynch (Australia) at the final Plenary
Australia's Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek attended the first day of the conference, then returned to Australia. Australian official Katherine Lynch played a key role in co-facilitating Contact Group 2.
In 2022 Australia joined the High Ambition Coalition of 20 nations including the UK, Canada, France, and Germany that aims to end plastic pollution by 2040, including a legally binding target to phase out plastic waste products by 2025. But some countries, including the United States, Saudi Arabia and China, want to make targets voluntary. Read more at Sydney Morning Herald (28 May): Australia steps in to stop countries watering down plastics pact.
Outcomes:
Delegates mandated the INC Secretariat to prepare a zero-draft of the treaty in advance of INC-3.
INC3 scheduled for Nairobi, Kenya in November 2023, to work on a Zero draft.
Committee welcomed offers to host INC-4 by Canada (Ottawa April 2024) and INC-5 by the Republic of Korea towards the end of 2024.
The options paper from INC2 will inform the ‘zero draft’, the text with legal language that will form the blueprint of the final treaty.
An important decision will be what kind of treaty: a treaty focused on global obligations, where every country needs to comply with an international set of standards (like the Montreal Protocol or Minamata Convention)? Or should it be a treaty that relies on nationally determined measures, where countries set their own goals and targets (like the Paris Agreement)?
The final resolution at the United Nations Environment Assembly 21 February – 4 March 2022 was to develop a Global Plastics Treaty and to set up an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an internationally legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.
That Negotiating Committee has now convened 28 November - 2 December 2022 at Punta del Este, Uruguay. Negotiations on the Treaty is expected to take until 2024. Australia is a member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution and is attending and have made a submission regarding processes and a statement to the Opening Plenary
