“We have to present [the international treaty against plastic pollution] by Sunday”, declared the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Inger Andersen, on Wednesday 27 November, at a press conference organised at the halfway point in the final week of negotiations on this treaty, in Busan.
A sense of urgency is emerging in South Korea, where the negotiations have been divided into four contact groups. Each of the four groups has been given several articles to discuss in a spirit of “convergence”, as the Chair of the International Negotiating Committee (INC), Luis Vayas Valdivieso, had hoped in advance.
Group 1, for example, is responsible for reaching an agreement on Article 4 (exemptions), Article 5 (design of plastic products) and Article 6 (production), while Group 2 deals with Article 7 (emissions and discharges), Article 8 (management of plastic waste) and Article 10 (just transition). Furthermore, Groups 3 and 4 are discussing finance (Article 11), implementation (Article 13), national plans (Article 14) and exchanges of information (Article 17) respectively.
“We need to see a text on the table tomorrow [Thursday 28 November]”, declared Inger Andersen, who explained that in the event of deadlock, the groups should “move on to those points upon which they can make progress”. She believes that at this rate, the targets will not be met.
Ms Andersen acknowledged, however, that the move from using a 77-page document to using a 17-page informal note as a basis for negotiations (see EUROPE 13517/16) had already been progress in itself.
However, negotiations have stalled. There is an overlap between stakeholder proposals and disagreements on each article, without there necessarily being any tendency towards convergence.
Articles 3 and 6, on ‘plastic products and chemical substances of concern used in plastic products’ and on ‘supply’ respectively, are a particular source of hot debate. Saudi Arabia, who takes a radical stance on these issues, spoke on behalf of the “group of Arab countries”, putting forward their opposition to the slightest regulation of plastics production and proposing nothing less than the deletion of Article 6.
In their view, “restrictions on supply go beyond” the scope of the treaty, which is to combat “plastic pollution, particularly during those stages where waste is generated”.
To defend its position, Saudi Arabia listed the reasons why plastic is essential, including food safety, hygiene and healthcare, while pointing out that the economies of certain countries are heavily dependent on plastic production.
According to Inger Andersen, however, UNEA resolution 5/14 is very clear on the subject: “It deals with the life cycle of production and explicitly mentions sustainable production and consumption”. What a reduction in production means is “up to the negotiators to define”, she added. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)