The first of INC-5's many hurdles has been cleared - negotiators adopted the INC Chair’s non-paper as the basis for the week’s negotiations.
As is tradition, Day 1 one of negotiations saw repeated interventions during the Plenary Session from several members of the ‘League of Arab States’ and the broader group of ‘like minded countries’ aiming to derail, or at the very least, slow down, negotiations. Their delay tactics this time, however, seemed borne from desperation - a clear signal of increasing nervousness from low ambition states, who are still unwilling to compromise, that they will be left behind and will lose any influence over the final outcome of these negotiations. Their concerns ranged from the contents of the INC Chair’s non-paper - designed only as a basis for this week’s negotiations - and the scope of the treaty itself, which was agreed by all countries back in 2022.
Despite - or likely as a direct result of - their efforts, however, a wave of support for the Chair’s non-paper eventually came flooding in. Many countries, including Rwanda, Republic of Korea, Samoa, Norway, Brazil, the UK and the US expressed their support for the non-paper as well as their eagerness for it to be adopted as soon as possible, so real negotiations could begin. The interventions by or on behalf of 151 countries during the Plenary sessions signaled overwhelming majority support for the Chair’s plan and to forge a legally binding instrument by the end of this week.
As a result of the majority support, and no further interventions by States, the Chair’s non-paper was adopted as the basis of the week’s negotiations, and “officially” promoted to the status of ‘paper’. The original schedule planned to complete the plenary by lunch. By stretching plenary into the afternoon, we've wasted a lot of valuable time. We now need ambitious countries to step up and drive this process forward to get the outcome that people and nature need.
Today delegates will be continuing negotiations in Contact Groups 2 and 4. In the evening, they move into Contact Groups 1 and 3. This is how the Contact Groups have been divided:
CG 1 - Upstream
Plastic products, chemicals of concern as used in plastic products, product design, and production/supply and related aspects
CG 2 - Downstream
Plastic waste management, emissions and releases, existing plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, and just transition.
CG 3 - Finance
Finance, including the establishment of a financial mechanism, capacity building, technical assistance and technology transfer, and international cooperation.
CG 4 - Supportive provisions
Implementation and compliance, national plans, reporting, monitoring of progress and effectiveness evaluation, information exchange, and awareness, education and research.
Assessment and recommendations on treaty must-haves
WWF’s daily bulletins at INC-5 will report on the progress of negotiations broadly and will use a traffic-light system to track the status of essential elements for an effective legally binding global treaty to end plastic pollution. Progress will be rated daily for each element as:
- green (on track towards strong text for an ambitious treaty);
- yellow (on track towards strong text, but slow progress);
- orange (heading in a counterproductive direction); and
- red (regressing, on track towards weak treaty text).
Binding global bans and phase-outs of specific plastic products
Summary: No text in non-paper. The proposal by the United Kingdom, Republic of Moldova and Norway provides a good basis for negotiations of legally binding obligations, but requires major improvements to ensure products are definitively banned at the global level. The US proposal provides a menu of options for product restrictions which are effectively voluntary measures. China’s proposal provides a menu of national actions and potential global measures that may be introduced by Parties. Russian Fedaration’s proposal suggests problematic products to be identified and controlled through nationally determined measures.
Recommendations to progress: More than 100 states have already supported global bans and phase-outs of specific plastic products. The only promising proposal as a basis for negotiating global bans and phase-outs is the one by the United Kingdom, Republic of Moldova and Norway. States should support this proposal as the basis for CG discussions. Once negotiation starts on this proposal as the basis, states should work to improve the language on binding obligations applicable to all parties. The other three proposals (by the US, China and the Russian Federation) would significantly undermine a legally binding treaty and not deliver the UNEA mandate.
Binding global bans and phase-outs of specific chemicals of concern in plastic products
Summary: No text in non-paper. The proposal submitted by Georgia, Ghana, Moldova, Norway, Peru, Rwanda, Switzerland and Thailand include global bans and phase outs of chemicals of concern in plastic products and manufacturing. The US proposal provides a menu of options for chemical measures which are effectively voluntary. China’s proposal on products includes references to chemicals of concern in plastic products, but does not include specific control measures.
Recommendations to progress: States are encouraged to voice support for the proposal by Georgia, Ghana, Moldova, Norway, Peru, Rwanda, Switzerland and Thailand in the CG1 informal sessions. Once CG1 starts negotiation on the basis of this proposal, states should further strengthen the text by: i) eliminating the chemicals of concern from all plastic products (except for BPA, to be eliminated from toys, children's products and food contact materials), ii) removal of blanket exclusions, and iii) shortening the timeframe for phase-outs. See pg. 8-10 in WWF’s Technical Brief for specific recommendations.
Requirements on product design and systems necessary for a non-toxic circular economy
Summary: Currently, the only proposed text is the Chair’s paper, which includes a weak, voluntary measure on product design. The EU and Chile submitted a proposal on a standalone article on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, which would provide necessary systems for a non-toxic circular economy.
Recommendations to progress: States should put forward a specific text proposal on more specific and binding product design requirements and the corresponding systems, including high-level criteria on reduction, reuse, recycle, and environmentally sound management - and support the proposal by EU and Chile. See pg. 11-14 in WWF’s Technical Brief for specific recommendations.
A comprehensive financing and means of implementation package
Summary: Text included in the Chair’s non-paper, with positive means of implementation text but no proposed language on financing. GRULAC’s proposed texts on just transition and capacity-building and technical assistance provide substantive detail on these elements; India’s financing proposal would establish a new dedicated multilateral fund.
Recommendations to progress: States should put forward a specific text proposal on a comprehensive package of financing and means of implementation, that leverages all sources and aligns financial flows with the objective of the treaty, and ensure a just transition, taking into account all affected populations and socio-economic implications. See pg. 15-16 in WWF’s Technical Brief for specific recommendations.
Mechanisms to enable strengthening of the treaty over time
Summary: Text included in the Chair’s non-paper, with positive means of implementation text but no proposed language on financing. GRULAC’s proposed texts on just transition and capacity-building and technical assistance provide substantive detail on these elements; India’s financing proposal would establish a new dedicated multilateral fund.
Recommendations to progress: States should put forward a specific text proposal on a comprehensive package of financing and means of implementation, that leverages all sources and aligns financial flows with the objective of the treaty, and ensure a just transition, taking into account all affected populations and socio-economic implications. See pg. 15-16 in WWF’s Technical Brief for specific recommendations.
The week ahead
On Wednesday, we expect negotiators to do a stock take in the afternoon when Contact Groups report back to the plenary. At this crucial midway point, we need to see considerable progress on key measures, including global bans, product design, finance and future decision-making. With only six days remaining and to avoid recreating the compilation text from INC-4, countries must start coalescing around specific and ambitious treaty text.
For more information, please refer to our policy brief here.
