Daily Editorial Analysis

The journey towards a plastic-free world (GS Paper 3, Environment)

Why in news?

• The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), under the United Nations Environment Programme, met in Nairobi from November 13 to 19 for its third round of negotiations to develop an international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution worldwide.
• Under the UN Environment Assembly Resolution 5/14, the INC is responsible for delivering a global plastics treaty by 2025.
• The INC-3 was a make-or-break opportunity as countries came together to negotiate the ‘zero draft’ text developed by the committee’s secretariat, with various options for core obligations and control measures.

What does the ‘zero draft’ say?

• The zero draft as prepared by the secretariat contained strong options for an international legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution.
• But during negotiations, member states managed to water down their core obligations, particularly those pertaining to some high-impact elements such as primary polymer production, chemicals of concern, problematic and short-lived plastics, trade, and financial mechanisms, among others. Some states also disagreed on the objective and scope under UNEA Resolution 5/14.
• Most countries agreed that the treaty’s objective should be to end plastic pollution and protect human health and the environment.
• But a group of like-minded countries including Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran, and some members of the Gulf Cooperation Council argued to include the clause “while contributing to the achievement of sustainable development”, to ensure their economic interests and investments.

Controversy over production of primary polymers:

• The most important provision, that is a reduction in the production of primary polymers, also stirred controversy because of its implications for industry.
• Some member states also submitted that “to even discuss reducing plastic production was completely out of the scope of the mandate of UNEA Resolution 5/14 and that such a provision should be completely deleted from the draft” and that “UNEA Resolution 5/14 calls to end plastic pollution and not plastic production”.
• While it is agreed that plastic pollution can be managed only with strong, concrete measures at each stage throughout the lifecycle of plastics, many countries disagreed where the lifecycle begins.
• Similarly, the same group objected to including provisions pertaining to eliminating compounds and polymers of concern and problematic and avoidable plastics, which are key in ending plastic pollution, and called for a ‘null option’ despite broad agreement from other countries that were pushing for a binding agreement.

Does the treaty discuss finance?

• A financial mechanism is one of the cornerstones of the treaty to determine how it will be implemented, and it was yet another point of divergence.
• The zero draft contains options such as imposing a plastic-pollution fee to be paid by plastic polymer producers, and another on reducing the financial flow into projects with a high carbon footprint.
• But the same group of like-minded countries demanded that these provisions be deleted altogether from the draft.
• Should these provisions be included, they will have considerable implications; in particular, countries will have to cut, if not eliminate, fossil-fuel subsidies and investments in environmentally disfavourable technologies such as incineration and waste-to-energy plants. This would have been a big victory for the environment and human health if they hadn’t been blocked.

Are there limits on plastic trade?

• Another crucial provision that the same bloc argued against was the trade in polymers, chemicals, plastic products and waste.
• While the plastics treaty is expected to plug the holes left open by the Basel Convention, any restrictions on trade is considered to be impinging on the freedom and sovereignty of nations, the bloc contended.

• The group of like-minded countries rejected every single upstream measure, and diluted midstream measures with the inclusion of voluntary measures and phrases such as “national circumstances”, “national priorities”, “bottom-up approach” etc.
• Excluding the provision on waste management, in fact, almost all other provisions were watered down to account for “national circumstances and capabilities”.
• Even under waste management, there is a high risk of these countries insisting on the treaty accommodating unsound solutions. This is because the phrase “environmentally sound management” isn’t well-defined even as terms such as “best available science” and “best available technology’ continue to be used.

What is the issue with the rules of procedure?

• At INC-2, representatives of the member states debated the rules of procedure for two days with no concrete outcome, even as a handful of countries, including India, continued to demand consensus-based decision-making instead of a two-thirds vote majority.
• The rules of procedure continued to apply provisionally at INC-3, without any final determination, and the meeting passed the buck to INC-4 to deal with them.
• If a decision had been made on the voting procedure and the rules of procedure were formally adopted, the negotiators could have better staved off the objections of the like-minded countries at INC-3.
• In this context, the African group of countries and Small-Island Developing States (SIDS) played an important role. They advocated for strong binding provisions for the high-impact elements in the treaty.
• Their submissions stood out from the rest as they championed the voices of waste-pickers and indigenous peoples, and approached the treaty from a human-rights and public health perspective.
• However, the draft text has now tripled in size, with member states adding and deleting the text as befits their interests. The meetings themselves were frequently delayed and stretched into the wee hours due to the stalling and blocking by like-minded countries.

What’s the takeaway from INC-3?

• One of the closed-door meetings that discussed the synthesis report and possible list of topics for intersessional work was unable to reach a consensus until the very end.
• As a result, no intersessional work will happen between now and INC-4. This is a big setback: many countries were counting on this to work to make some headway in hammering out the finer points, such as the definitions, targets, and timelines, before INC-4.
• INC-3 didn’t adopt the mandate to proceed with developing the first draft.  As such, INC-3 exposed the considerable influence of industry and revealed the member states that are opposed to a strong binding treaty to end plastic pollution.