The Global Plastics Treaty: to be or not to be*
*(or the path forward after failed negotiations)
After more than 2 years and 1200 hours of negotiations on the Global Plastics Treaty, the INC5.2 meeting in Geneva ended without agreement. The script of this last stage of negotiations was a repetition of the script we have been seeing in the five preceding INCs. From Uruguay (INC1) to Busan (INC5), we have seen a few petro-states blocking any attempt to advance a viable treaty in front of a majority of countries that are looking for a functional treaty that can be strengthened over time.
Photo credits: Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)
The strategy of the blocking minority has always been to block and derail any ambition and propose a weak treaty without binding measures, leaving it in the hands of the countries to implement some waste management measures, and leaving reduction and health impacts completely out of the negotiations. Sadly, in the latest hours of the negotiations, this lowest common denominator was also pedalled by the Chair, who proposed a compromise text 30 hours before the end of the negotiations in Geneva, hoping that exhausted delegates would accept such a weak text to avoid going home empty-handed. Fortunately, ambitious Member States held firm under immense pressure and a broken process, and refused to end INC-5.2 with a weak treaty that would have failed to address the existential threat of plastic and repeated the fatal errors of the Paris climate negotiations.
Photo credits: Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)
A failed process
There is no doubt that the process has been a failure. Decision-making by consensus has blocked any process since INC1. Instead of being a way to forge alignment, consensus has been abused by the blocking minority to hold the process hostage.
The INC5.2 in Geneva ended without a clear way forward: there could be an INC5.3 (i.e. a continuation of the negotiations under the same circumstances) , or the decision could be brought to the United Nations Environmental Assembly (UNEA) in December or to the UN General Assembly.
In my opinion, any attempt to prolong this agony with the same decision-making rules will be nothing but a waste of time and money. Countries that want real measures to fight plastic pollution should make it clear that continuing this process without changing the decision-making is unacceptable. It would be stupid to repeat the same flawed process over and over again and expect a different outcome.
Photo credits: IISD/KiaraWorth
An ambitious treaty is within reach
Despite the frustration of this failed process, there is a silver lining: the three years of negotiations produced important results.
- Increase awareness and understanding
Firstly, the treaty negotiations have raised awareness and built knowledge in all countries about the dangers of plastic pollution to the climate and human health – which, until recently, had been considered only as a threat to marine wildlife. Science has been producing more and more literature and evidence on a topic receiving attention from the media and the public. As a result, addressing the production of plastic (which is the root of plastic pollution) has moved from the activist fringe to becoming a core demand of about 100 national governments.
- Development of strong treaty language
Secondly, the negotiations also produced excellent treaty texts that can be recycled into an ambitious treaty outside the UN. Position papers circulated by the negotiating states gathered clear majorities around strong texts on reducing production, chemicals of concern, problematic products, and Just Transition. All this work should not go to waste and can be used to move forward.
Two of the three legs required for an effective treaty are now in place: political will and a strong text. All that we lack is a good process. If anything was proven during the last 3 years, it was that a UN process working by unanimity cannot deliver ambition.
Photo credits: Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)
Follow the Ottawa process
In 1997, when the landmines convention faced a stalemate by a handful of obstructionist countries, Canada solved the problem by inviting countries that wanted an effective treaty to a negotiation session outside the UN. This required some previous alignment, which, for plastics, we know exists since a majority of countries have already expressed it. The Ottawa process is a good precedent for a way to adopt a rapid and effective treaty which remains open for other countries to eventually join.
To be or not to be
The Global Plastics Treaty has been a bad and painful play since the beginning, summarising and exemplifying all the wrongs in this world: from putting profits before people, science denial, obstructionist and bullying practices, to disregarding the importance of a safe environment for the future of the planet (among others). Throughout this pain, civil society, together with progressive industry, supported the Global South and some progressive countries in the Global North, such as the European ones, in the struggle against the oil industry, which controls the most powerful states in the world and we have managed to reach the “to be or not to be” moment.
Despite all the pain and bad acting, this play can and should have a happy ending. It will still take some work, but we have never been as close to a plastics treaty as we are now.
The solution is clear: ambitious countries should unite and move forward without those who have consistently blocked progress.
