PROGRESS ON ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
WWF uses a traffic-light system to track the status of essential elements for an effective legally binding global treaty to end plastic pollution:
- 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).
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON TREATY MUST-HAVES (As of 5pm on Day 5)
Binding global bans and phase-outs of specific plastic products
Summary: The proposed Article 3 (Plastic Products [and Chemicals of Concern in Plastic Products]) contains a voluntary option for Parties to take a range of possible actions. While it requires Parties to do something (‘each Party shall…take appropriate measures’), the list of measures that can be taken are so broad, they are effectively meaningless. It does not include binding global bans or phase outs despite a significant majority of States supporting such measures.
Article 3 should establish criteria and a global list of plastic products, but there is no obligation for Parties to take meaningful action on any product on the global list. Parties are required to report what measures they have taken. However, Parties could meet these obligations by taking very weak measures, for example commissioning research to consider whether a plastic product or group of products could be considered problematic in a national context - with no further regulatory action whatsoever.
Recommendations to progress: States must demand reinstatement of measures to ban and phase out the most polluting and high-risk plastic products. In last night’s contact group discussion, over 75 countries directly called for a binding obligation to be included in the text, with clear criteria and an initial list. Over 140 states have publicly supported such measures, which are critical to effectively addressing plastic pollution and fulfilling the INC’s mandate. These should draw on the strongest measures contained in the merged Brazil/Korea proposal and the UK products proposal. In addition, elements of Australia’s Article 3 proposal, that align global and national approaches, should be incorporated, as they can collectively meet the expectations and concerns of the vast majority of States.
Binding global bans and phase-outs of specific chemicals of concern in plastic products
Summary: The proposed Article 3 (Plastic Products [and Chemicals of Concern in Plastic Products]) brackets the inclusion of chemicals of concern and only references chemicals as a possible criteria for plastic products subject to national, voluntary measures. (“plastic products that…contain chemicals that pose risks of concern to human health or the environment”). It does not include binding measures despite many states supporting such measures and entirely leaves out the merged co-facilitators text developed. Essentially, states would not have to take any action to address chemicals of concern.
Recommendations to progress: States should demand inclusion of Option 2 from the merged co-facilitators text in the treaty text. Over 140 states have publicly supported global rules to ban and phase out the most harmful chemicals in plastic products, which are critical to minimising the harm caused to both people and the environment from chemicals of concern. Option 2 provides a comprehensive and clear pathway toward ending leakage of plastic chemicals into the environment.
Requirements on product design and systems necessary for a non-toxic circular economy
Summary: The proposed Article 5 on product design contains a nationally determined and globally binding option for Parties. It includes criteria-based global requirements; however these are put in brackets. All circular economy approaches except “reduce” are listed (including reuse and reuse targets). The role of systems in effectively managing products is not taken into account; and there is no reference to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Article 5 contains a clear way forward, tasking the COP to establish a process and schedule of work by its second meeting, however, bracketing the latter part.
Recommendations to progress: States must stay firm to make this a mandatory, binding provision. Only a mandatory provision will enable the circular economy measures to be effective and provide a global level playing field, which is supported by over 140 States and demanded by more than 280 businesses across the value chain. It is important to maintain in this provision, general criteria to be supported by sector or product specific design and performance requirements to be included in the Annex. Negotiators should draw on the proposal by China and the UK, among others, to include a link between product design and the necessary systems and infrastructure required. Furthermore, the provision would be strengthened by complementing the second paragraph (3) with paragraph 4 of the EU proposal referring to potential measures to meet the obligation, including EPR schemes. Para 7 and 7alt on international trade should be deleted.
A comprehensive financing and means of implementation package
Summary: The proposed Article 11 remains unclear and vague in key areas of the text. Positive elements from existing proposals are reflected, stepping in the right direction towards a comprehensive approach. However, clear definitions of obligations for the provision of financial resources for domestic, international, and private finance are lacking. The obligation for implementing the treaty is currently conditional on the availability of resources, without clear reference to the obligation for mobilizing resources, and their respective sources. A financial mechanism is established, but missing a clear definition whether this mechanism should be new or an existing one, or combination of both. Two distinct options remain for defining the responsible Parties to mobilise financial resources for the mechanism. The obligations of both developed countries and producing countries with financial capacities are not defined clearly enough. Good language on the alignment of financial flows is included and should be retained. Generally, the text is closer to the proposal by United States, European Union, and others than it is to the Africa Group, GRULAC, Cook Islands, Fiji and Federated States of Micronesia, which should be taken into account in further consultations.
Recommendations to progress: To agree on a comprehensive and effective financial package, that includes both the critical support to developing countries as well as enables the financial transition towards ending plastic pollution, countries should further work to come together, demonstrate flexibility and overcome divergences. Existing proposals on finance collectively contain all of the ingredients for a robust financing package. WWF urges States to step up collaboration in good faith to identify and retain the clarity and specificity of key elements.
Mechanisms to enable strengthening of the treaty over time
Summary: The proposed Article 20 stipulates that the Conference of Parties (COP) shall adopt its rules of procedure by consensus. This means that the Conference of Parties will in all likelihood not be able to agree on its decision-making rule, which has prevented progress in other MEAs for decades. While Article 23 and 24 stipulate that Amendments to the Convention and Adoption and Amendments of Annexes may be made by a three-fourths majority vote, the absence of a voting option in the COP will significantly limit the prospects for gradual strengthening over time, making the treaty into a rigid and unproductive instrument.
Recommendations to progress: States must ensure an effective and operational governing body—following precedent set by the BBNJ, as proposed by Norway and supported by a large group of states—and insert a clear decision-making rule into Article 20, enabling the Conference of the Parties to make decisions by a two-thirds majority vote as a last resort, if all efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted.
For further information for technical and text recommendations, on the four essential elements of the treaty, please see WWF’s Technical Paper.
|
Commenting on the INC-5 Chair's new draft text, Eirik Lindebjerg, Global Plastics Policy Lead, WWF said:
“We are calling on countries to not accept the low level of ambition reflected in this draft as it does not contain any specific upstream measures such as global bans on high risk plastic products and chemicals of concern supported by the majority of countries. Without these measures the treaty will fail to meaningfully address plastic pollution. High ambition countries must ensure that these measures are part of the final treaty text or develop an ambitious treaty among the willing.”
Also commenting on the Chair's text, Erin Simon, Vice President & Head of Plastic Waste and Business, WWF said:
"Despite the majority support of promising proposals for a strong and binding treaty on plastic pollution, what we have currently in this text is far from what we need. To reduce plastic pollution, we need binding measures on global bans on harmful plastic products and chemicals, global product design rules, aligned financial flows, and mechanisms to strengthen over time. We also need to align efforts to the waste hierarchy - with reduction at the top - in order to make the most of our resources. Without these, we’ll lose even more than our chance to end plastic pollution, we’ll lose our chance to recapture the economic value embedded in our materials, and the innovation that a strong treaty could have catalyzed.
At this point the progressive majority has a decision to be made - agree to a treaty among the willing even if that means leaving some countries that don’t want a strong treaty or concede to countries that will likely never join the treaty anyway, failing the planet in the process.”
Commenting on the lack of global bans in the draft text, Erin Simon, Vice President and Head of Plastic Waste & Business, WWF said:
"It’s very simple: To end plastic pollution we need to reduce plastic production. To do that we need binding global bans on specific harmful plastic products and chemicals. Despite the majority support of promising proposals for global product and chemical bans, the latest draft treaty text offers nothing of use.
What we have right now isn't a treaty with common rules at all. It's a list of measures so broad that they're effectively meaningless. For example, we don't have bans, we have suggestions. We have lists of products and chemicals but no one is compelled to do anything of substance with them. Without political will to bind those articles, we would have zero chance of ending the plastic crisis, which is what we came to Busan to do."
Commenting on excessive brackets on product design measures in the draft text, Laura Griestop, Senior Manager, Sustainable Business & Markets, WWF, said:
"A safe non-toxic circular economy that is effective in keeping our environment hinges on robust global binding design requirements that ensures products are safe and easy to reuse and recycle. The latest draft treaty text contains bracketed product design elements, which simply makes them subject to further discussion, and it is lacking several important pieces, including a clear commitment to reduction. What’s more, the text fails to commit to a system that would ensure the products designed for circularity are actually being circulated through reuse and recycling.
147 states support global rules on product design. Why are there still so many uncertainties? In the final 3 days of negotiations, we need countries to very vocally and very publicly support strong binding product design requirements and systems to secure a safe non-toxic circular economy."
Commenting on the need for a comprehensive financing and implementation package, Florian Titze, Senior International Policy Advisor, WWF, said:
"A treaty that has the power to end the plastic crisis must include a comprehensive financing and means of implementation package that offers critical support to developing countries and enables the financial transition towards ending plastics pollution. What we have right now is an ill-defined financial package that mirrors the lack of concrete control measures it’s meant to fund.
While there are a small handful of positive signals coming out of the draft treaty text, such as the alignment of financial flows, we see three major issues that countries must solve: 1) the lack of clarity on defined obligations for domestic, international and private finance; 2) the expectation of wealthy countries and companies with high plastic output to financially contribute to implementing the treaty; and 3) whether the mechanism should be a new or existing one. If these issues are not solved, we will not be able to secure a just transition that protects people and supports economies."
Commenting on measures that can strengthen and adapt the treaty over time, Zaynab Sadan, Regional Coordinator for Africa, WWF, said:
"There are clear signs that the treaty we get at the end of this week won’t be perfect. But we need assurances that we are on a pathway to ending plastic pollution, and this means countries must progressively expand and dial up their efforts over time. Future Conference Of Parties (COPs), or global meetings to assess and measure progress of agreed rules, will be essential to do this.
Based on what we’ve seen so far, not just in these negotiations but in almost all global negotiations on the environment, including the Climate COPs, a solely consensus-based decision-making mechanism would kill future progress dead in its tracks. The majority of countries, which have professed their support for a strong treaty, must not allow the abuse of the consensus rule by low ambition countries to be repeated at future talks. It is essential that we ensure the eventual plastic pollution COP can make decisions on substantive and procedural issues by voting when efforts on consensus are exhausted."
|
|
