· 10 min read
After meeting for ten days from 5-15 August at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, countries were unable to agree on a new global plastics pollution treaty, including in the marine environment. This was not the first time countries had met to thrash out an agreement, it was the sixth time they had convened since 2022.
So, are countries wasting their time or is there still hope a new treaty can be agreed?
A brief history
It’s not my intention to traverse through the history of these negotiations, other than to recall that the negotiating mandate came from the historic UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) Resolution (5/14) titled ‘End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument’ adopted on 2 March, 2022, which led to the establishment of an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) that first met in late 2022 and has met on a further five occasions.
The INC is responsible for determining its own rules of procedure and it elects its Chair and Bureau. The INC Secretariat is provided by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). For the first three meetings a delegate from Peru was elected as Chair, after which the Chair moved to Ecuador.
A succinct and insightful summary by the IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin offers an understanding of the history of the process. My focus is on why we have reached this impasse and a possible way forward.
What came out of the Geneva INC?
The INC meeting in Geneva, known as INC5.2, could not reach agreement on a new international legally binding treaty. There was no text agreed, and no agreed draft text to be carried forward. Further, there was no clear pathway for next steps articulated by the INC Chair.
The meeting was simply ‘adjourned’ by the INC Chair. As the INC was not closed, there is a possibility of a seventh meeting, a resumed INC5.2 (or INC5.3) to be convened, possibly in October, before the UNEA-7 in Nairobi in December, where a progress report on delivering on the UNEA Resolution will be made. These discussions are underway.
We should know relatively quickly if INC5.2 is to resume. This will include questions of what country(s) may offer to host the meeting and who would be prepared to fund the meeting. I was advised that this last meeting was estimated to cost the Swiss over $8 million.
The INC Bureau and INC Secretariat will manage this process.
I did not directly participate in the negotiations over the past three years. Rather, I followed it from a distance. However, I did attend the Geneva negotiations, and it was an eye opener for anyone who has been involved in international negotiations.
Listening into the briefing of Observers, various Contact Groups (established to work through different parts of the draft text), as well as Plenary sessions, I could not help but feel like I was watching a ship that was heading on a collision course with a reef, but no one seemed able to change course. And sure enough, the ship hit the reef.
What are the main issues?
There are two main camps inside the negotiations. More than 100 countries and the EU support an ambitious, legally binding treaty and they are known as the ‘High Ambition Coalition’. A smaller group of countries, known as the ‘Like-Minded Group’, do not support an ambitious treaty, most particularly regarding reducing overall plastic production (sometimes called a cap on production) and on chemicals of concern in products, with financing being a major issue that cuts across both groups.
While the Like-Minded Group is a smaller group in number, it comprises over ten countries, including China, India, Iran, the Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia – and at INC5.2, the USA was aligned with its position. Hence, comments made by some dismissing this as a small group of countries blocking progress is misplaced. It is a formidable cluster of like-minded countries.
There is no agreement on the rules of procedure governing the meetings, including regarding voting, and hence the INC is proceeding based on consensus and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, which the INC Chair has continually stressed.
All participants should reflect on why no agreement was reached
At the best of times, this would be a difficult negotiation. It is a challenging time for multilateralism, and it is a complex topic. To have a real shot at reaching a consensus we need to have the ‘A team’ on the pitch.
Everyone involved in the process is committed, hardworking and striving to achieve to a successful outcome. However, after six rounds of negotiations, and the utter failure of the meeting in Geneva, one needs to reflect upon how we got here and put getting a successful outcome ahead of personal loyalties or sensitivities.
The INC Chair
The INC Chair does not appear to have garnered the trust and confidence of the delegates. There were multiple examples of the INC Chair getting it wrong, from cutting off delegates as they were making creative suggestions, to failing to actively listen to inputs and respond effectively, to putting forward a poorly considered Chair’s text that had not been seen by or supported by anyone, to adjourning the meeting with no clear path forwards.
The INC Secretariat
The INC Secretariat appeared timid and not to have a close rapport with the INC Chair. The Secretariat is not a negotiator, but an effective Secretariat plays a key role in generating trust amongst delegates and in supporting the Chair in carrying out a highly challenging task. I did not see the INC Chair once turn to the Secretariat for advice during one of the most awkward, challenging and tense Plenary sessions I have ever seen.
The delegates
Delegates of all persuasions seemed intent on repeating their positions, as articulated in prior INCs, and expressed their positions repeatedly at INC5.2. One would have hoped that by INC5.2 positions were well-known and there was a convergence around finding solutions to the issues that are central to getting an agreement, most particularly production, chemicals of concern, and financing – and in that context reaching agreement on scope and definitions.
The observers
Observers from across a wide range of groups play an important role in multiple ways. Many NGO observers have been at the heart of supporting awareness raising, generating sound science and in efforts to get this negotiation underway. Some NGOs are also part of, or close to, country delegations, and are advising them to ‘stand firm’ in calling for an ambitious agreement, including on issues some countries have repeatedly stated they will not accept.
The industry lobbyists
There was criticism of industry lobbyists attending INC5.2, with some calling for them to be prohibited from participating in future INCs, referencing the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (see article 5.3). We need full transparency about who is attending, but should we be seeking to exclude any lawful organisation or lobby because we disagree with them, especially in the current climate? Where might this lead us?
In this context, the number of observers from other groups outnumbered the lobbyists by ten to one. Further, industry has many voices, and the industry sector included those who were working to advance the negotiations and striving to achieve a treaty.
All participants
If we collectively want a treaty, then everyone needs to reflect upon their role, their position, and on the pathways that exist to reach an agreement that all countries can buy into. If countries, and their advisors, insist on sticking with their oft stated positions, and if the next INC is managed in the same way as INC5.2, then we should wrap up this process now.
Can we still get a treaty?
The failure of these negotiations thus far has many causes. Seeking to demonise some countries and observers, and to stick to hard positions meeting after meeting will not result in a treaty. Rather, we need to work harder to understand each other’s perspective through deeper engagement, to openly recognise that a treaty will impact countries in different ways, to respect differing viewpoints, and thereby find mutually agreed ways forward.
I remain personally convinced that there is a deal to be done if all sides are prepared to make concessions. That sort of flexibility was not apparent during the long Plenary session on 14 August, where countries tended to dig in deeper, or at the final Plenary on 15 August where no text, or draft text, was adopted.
As such, moving forward will require revitalised leadership through the international process, most particularly by the INC Chair and Secretariat, and within each country, together with the crafting of highly creative solutions. We can draw on the experience gained through other treaties, such as those addressing ozone depletion, and, for example, further explore the use of nonbinding language to recognise, but not be prescriptive, regarding contentious issues, the possibility of future optional protocols, and the role of the Conference of the Parties.
It will be extremely challenging, but it can still be done. Some say, we should have an ambitious treaty or nothing at all. After six INC’s one can clearly see there is no consensus around the sort of ambitious treaty some are calling for. Maintaining that position will mean no treaty.
My view is that there is value in having a treaty that recognises the challenges, even if in a nonbinding way, while having legally binding provisions on less contentious issues. It will serve to provide an enduring global platform to keep the issue front and centre, including to monitor progress, and it will evolve over time, just as we have seen with other treaties, such as those addressing biodiversity, climate change, chemicals, ozone and wastes.
For this to happen, the INC Chair, INC Secretariat and UNEP need to closely reflect upon the process they have led over the past three years, especially at this INC5.2, where a number of rather unfortunate issues of process arose, which did not facilitate the negotiations. Quite the opposite in fact.
A quick process, a complex issue, and a changing geopolitical landscape
Three years may seem like a long time, but in the context of international negotiations it is not. Plastic pollution is a complex issue – perhaps more complex than was fully understood when the UNEA Resolution was adopted in 2022. There are significant economic, environmental and social implications for all countries, which vary quite considerably from country to country.
Further, the geopolitical landscape has changed dramatically since the UNEA Resolution was adopted in 2022, which quite clearly impacts the ability to conclude an agreement (as I addressed in my article ‘Environmental multilateralism at a crossroads. What next?’).
We will soon know if there is an appetite to continue with the INC process and for countries to make one last attempt at reaching consensus. If continuing the negotiations is to be a success, we need a major change in direction. If there is, then we may yet see a treaty being adopted.
If an agreement cannot be concluded through the UNEA process, then there is another way forward for countries intent on concluding an ambitious treaty, namely to negotiate a treaty through a tailored diplomatic process outside of the UN, as was set out in my joint article titled ‘Plastics pollution treaty negotiations – alternative pathways to overcome the impasse.’
Given the benefits of universal buy-in, and the importance of bringing the Like-Minded Group on board to beat plastic pollution, countries should continue to strive for consensus on an acceptable way forward, noting that if this option either closes or lacks any reasonable sense of ambition, then there are alternatives that have been used before and can be used again.
The photo with this article is called “The Thinker’s Burden” and it depicts a world slowly drowning in plastics. It is by Von Wong and it was installed outside the Palais des Nations to coincide with INC 5.2.
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
Track the real‑world impact behind the sustainability headlines. illuminem's Data Hub™ offers transparent performance data and climate targets of companies driving the transition.
