A draft compromise for a ‘Plastics Treaty’ was tabled at the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) in Busan on Friday 29 November. However, this new working basis does not mean the end of disagreements, as the delegations have until 1 December to reach an agreement.
As it stands, the 23 pages of the draft compromise still contain multiple, more or less binding versions of a future ‘Plastics Treaty’. Even the main principles do not meet with consensus.
In the preamble, supporters of a more “ambitious” treaty, including the European Union, point out that the ‘Plastics Treaty’ was conceived as a “legally binding instrument”.
These words disappear in the alternative option, which leaves more room for manoeuvre to the stakeholders, adding that “nothing in this Convention prevents a Party from taking additional domestic measures”, and which defends the “principle of common but differentiated responsibility”, the basis of a distinction between developed and developing countries.
The EU made no such distinction in its opening statement on Monday 25 November, stating that “plastics production is a global problem, not a North/South issue” (see EUROPE 13531/12).
In the draft compromise, the least restrictive version of the treaty excludes from its scope the raw materials needed to produce plastics. In other words, the regulations only apply to plastics after they have been manufactured, and not to the raw materials of which they are made. In this case, regulation would focus solely on finished products (processed plastics) and limit the overall scope of efforts to reduce plastic pollution.
However, draft resolution UNEA 5/14, as proposed by the United Nations, “deals with the life cycle of production and explicitly mentions sustainable production and consumption” (see EUROPE 13533/18), as Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), pointed out on Wednesday 27 November.
Option 1 of Article 1, on the “principles” of the text, introduces the notions of the “right to development” and the “principle of State sovereignty”. The countries in favour of this option want to make “economic development a prerequisite for the adoption of measures to combat plastic pollution”. Measures taken to combat plastic pollution must not “cause trade distortions” or “disguised restrictions on international trade”.
The EU subscribes instead to option 2, which includes the “polluter pays” principle, the need for which it has defended, as well as “the use of the best scientific data and information available”, which is absent from option 1.
Developing countries are not necessarily spared. Only “small island developing states and least developed countries” may be subject to “special circumstances”, in line with the principles of the version of the Treaty defended by the EU. This distinction between “developing countries” and “parties most in need” then permeates the entire draft compromise.
This is particularly true of the financial mechanism, as the developed countries (EU Member States, United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway and the United Kingdom) believe that the Arab countries, Brazil and China, for example, do not necessarily need financial support from them or “appropriate technical assistance and technology transfer”.
Plastics production and health are the subject of debate. The question of “supply” or “sustainable production” has not been settled with the publication of the draft compromise, as there are still plans to delete Article 6, as proposed by “the group of Arab countries”.
Earlier in the week, without wishing to delete Article 6, Iran and Kazakhstan had argued, respectively, that it was “crucial to differentiate between the global management of plastic waste and the production of primary polymers” and that it would be “premature to apply restrictions or regulation on polymer production”. Iran, for example, stressed the absence of “viable alternatives” to plastic products “in many cases”.
Option 2 aims instead to “reduce the production of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels”, in line with the original ambition of the draft ‘Plastics Treaty’. In this spirit, each party would be asked to “provide statistical data on its production, imports and exports of primary plastic polymers and on the measures taken to achieve the global target referred to in paragraph 1”.
On health, the draft compromise has two versions: one without a dedicated article, the other with. The aim is to “identify the risks of and protect against adverse health impacts associated with plastic pollution”. To achieve this, the text would deploy measures relating to education, prevention and the exchange of information.
See the draft compromise: https://aeur.eu/f/ej9 (Original version in French by Florent Servia)