UN TREATY TO END PLASTIC POLLUTION

Print

TAG: GS 3: ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT

THE CONTEXT: The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), operating under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), convened in Nairobi to pursue the creation of an international legally binding treaty to combat plastic pollution worldwide.

EXPLANATION:

• The third round of negotiations, INC-3, aimed to refine the ‘zero draft’ text and establish a comprehensive global plastics treaty by 2025, as mandated by UNEA Resolution 5/14.

Outcome of INC-3: Evaluating the ‘Zero Draft’

• The ‘zero draft’ initially proposed robust measures for a binding treaty to address plastic pollution.
• However, during negotiations, member states diluted core obligations, particularly regarding high-impact elements like primary polymer production, chemical concerns, problematic plastics, trade regulations, and financial mechanisms.

Controversial Negotiations: Divergent Perspectives

• Member states debated the treaty’s objective and scope, with consensus on ending plastic pollution and safeguarding human health and the environment.
• Nevertheless, a group of nations, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran, and Gulf Cooperation Council members, advocated for a clause favouring sustainable development to protect economic interests.
• The reduction of primary polymer production faced opposition due to industry concerns.
• Lobbying from the fossil fuels and chemicals sector significantly influenced discussions, leading to debates about the treaty’s scope regarding plastic production.

Disagreements on Lifecycle Assessment and Key Provisions

• Disagreements emerged regarding the starting point of the plastic lifecycle, with some countries arguing for product design as the initiation stage to exclude production from the treaty’s scope.
• Additionally, objections were raised against provisions eliminating harmful compounds and polymers, hindering progress in combating plastic pollution.

Financial Control and Implications

• Financial mechanisms within the treaty, such as imposing pollution fees on plastic producers and reducing investments in environmentally detrimental technologies, faced opposition from certain countries.
• Implementing these measures could have required nations to curb fossil-fuel subsidies and investments in unsustainable practices, yet they were obstructed by opposing states.

Plastic Trade Regulations: Sovereignty vs. Restrictions

• Debates arose on regulating the trade of polymers, chemicals, plastic products, and waste.
• Concerns about infringing on national sovereignty clashed with efforts to strengthen regulations and align with the objectives of the Basel Convention.
• Some countries misconstrued WTO rules to resist trade restrictions, impeding progress.

Challenges with Rules of Procedure and Decision-Making

• INC-3 faced challenges finalizing rules of procedure, hindering effective decision-making.
• Disagreements persisted regarding the voting process, causing delays and impeding consensus-based decisions.
• This impacted negotiations and prevented significant advancements during the meeting.

Impact of Stalling and Resistance

• INC-3 encountered delays and blockades, resulting in an expanded, contentious draft text and a lack of consensus on intersessional work.
• The refusal to adopt a mandate for drafting the treaty’s first version underscored industry influence and identified states opposing a robust, binding treaty against plastic pollution.

Conclusion

• INC-3’s proceedings revealed divisions among member states, industry influence, and challenges in establishing a comprehensive global plastics treaty.
• Despite initial ambitions, divergent interests, resistance to strong provisions, and delays in decision-making have hindered progress toward an effective, binding framework to combat plastic pollution.

SOURCE: https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/inc-3-meeting-end-plastic-pollution-treaty-industry-pressure-explained/article67607097.ece