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 3pm on Day 7)
Binding global bans and phase-outs of specific plastic products
Summary: The proposed Article 3 (Plastic Products) in the Chair’s text includes several binding measures that would implement global product bans and reporting, and enable future listings of harmful products and chemicals. It also includes criteria and ban lists. However, many of the strongest provisions are bracketed. While further strengthening will be critical, the new text responds to a significant majority of over 140 States that support global bans and phase-outs as a critical element of the treaty.
Paras 4bis contains the strongest product ban measure of all options and will be essential to the effectiveness of Article 3 and the treaty as a whole. 4bis is linked to Annex Y, which provides a list of products/product groups that would be subject to global bans. WWF recommends items from Annex X be added to the global list (Annex Y), noting extensive scientific evidence of the feasibility of banning all of these items.
Recommendations to progress: States should ensure brackets around 4bis (product bans) are removed. Annex Y (global product and chemical ban list) should be supported and strengthened, and the phase out date (currently 203X) should be 2028. The following harmful products from Annex X should be moved to Annex Y: single-use plastic food and beverage packaging made from EPS (expanded polystyrene), and XPS (extruded polystyrene), oxo-degradable plastic products; and cigarette filters made with plastic. States should also push to remove mentions of any aspects which undermine global binding rules, such the reference to consensus decision-making in para 7 and the misrepresentation of World Trade Organization (WTO) trade law offered in para 8.
Binding global bans and phase-outs of specific chemicals of concern in plastic products
Summary: The proposed Article 3 (Plastic Products) provides a basis for addressing chemicals of concern in plastic products. The article contains a legally binding requirement to “not allow the manufacture, import or export of plastic products as listed in Annex Y”, which includes an initial list of chemicals that should be phased out in toys, children’s products and food contact material. However, nearly every aspect of the text is in brackets, “and chemicals of concern” has been removed from the title. The initial list could be strengthened but is a workable starting place. The criteria would need to be strengthened to add items to the list in the future.
Recommendations to progress: Brackets around para 4bis must be removed. Annex Y (global product and chemical ban list) should be supported and strengthened, and the phase out date (currently 203X) should be 2028. States must also pursue the “shall” option when it would strengthen the text. Option 2 in the merged co-facilitators text continues to provide a strong reference point for wording on chemicals of concern. States should push to remove mentions of any aspects which undermine global binding rules, such the reference to consensus decision-making in para 7 and the misrepresentations of WTO’s trade law offered in para 8.
Requirements on product design and systems necessary for a non-toxic circular economy
Summary: The proposed Article 5 on product design is a mandatory provision. However, it includes neither criteria-based global requirements nor a reference to an Annex for the inclusion of sector-specific requirements/guidelines. The circular economy approaches are strong, with clear emphasis on reuse and reuse targets; however, while sustainable production and consumption of plastics is mentioned, reduction is not. The Chair’s text provides a pathway forward, giving the COP the mandate to establish a process and schedule of work, but lacking a specific timeframe.
Recommendations to progress: The mandatory nature of this obligation is agreed upon. However, the specificity of this article has been lowered. It is important to reinsert reference to criteria-based global requirements as well as an Annex to contain sector or product-specific requirements, to be developed and adopted over time by the COP (as in the UK, partly the Philippines and the EU proposal). The proposals by the African Group, the UK and partly the Chinese proposal consider the link between product design and the necessary systems and infrastructure. Part of the EU proposal (paragraph 4) on EPR could still strengthen the provision.
A comprehensive financing and means of implementation package
Summary: The updated proposed text on Article 11 eliminates some of the vagueness of the previous version, with more specific provisions at the cost of bracketed options. The main sticking points that require convergence between Parties remain unresolved. Most concerningly, the text has made no progress toward agreeing the respective obligations for the provision of and eligibility for receiving financial support. Issues related to a dedicated fund remain unresolved, including its form, place, governance and required contributors. The alignment of financial flows has been bracketed and further diluted.
Recommendations to progress: Countries need to urgently work towards common ground in key areas of the text, including the obligations for the provision of financial resources to the financial mechanism; the funds that the financial mechanism will contain; and the alignment of financial flows. A priority is to agree on a financial package that effectively supports developing countries and enables the necessary global transition. States need to agree on a clear responsibility of developed counties to provide reliable and consistent financing, while establishing that countries with sufficient financial capacity and high levels of production contribute their fair share. A new independently-governed financial mechanism should be agreed. Finally, the alignment of public and private financial flows must be retained, and clearly defined as an additional measure, separate from other financial obligations, for long term harmonisation of investments with the treaty’s objective.
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 COP will struggle to agree on its decision-making rule, which has prevented progress in other MEAs for decades. The absence of a voting option in the COP will make the treaty into a rigid and unproductive instrument. 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—this mechanism however is in brackets under both Articles.
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 into Article 20 a clear rule 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. The currently bracketed voting option in Articles 23 and 24 must be finalised and included in the final draft text.
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 latest draft text, Eirik Lindebjerg, Global Plastics Policy Lead, WWF, said:
"While there are still many gaps, the new draft finally includes some essential elements that have been missing throughout these negotiations. The majority of countries have been calling for the measures that will have the biggest impact to address this crisis, including binding global bans and phase outs of harmful products and chemicals. And today, we finally have a draft that is starting to reflect that ambition.
But in itself, it is meaningless as these measures are listed as options alongside weak and ineffective alternatives. Unless the majority countries are willing to stand up for the most effective version of these measures, this treaty will fail to protect and save the lives of countless citizens. The coalition of the willing cannot take their foot off the pedal and must keep the pressure on to ensure the final treaty text includes the most impactful measures.
If countries are not able to agree to a ban on the most harmful plastic products and chemicals, the further we get from ensuring a safe and habitable planet for current and future generations.”
And Erin Simon, Vice President & Head of Plastic Pollution & Waste, WWF, said:
“Progress not perfection, is what we’re currently seeing from the latest draft of the treaty text. The majority of Member states have been successful in finally drowning out a vocal minority, and the text is starting to reflect this shift. Now is not the time to back off on ambition but to push forward to ensure the elements that are still missing can find their way into the final draft.
With the pressure on, key components of the treaty are showing improvement over previous drafts. The transition to binding measures around product design is promising and an appetite for including a global list of chemicals and products of concern to eliminate has emerged, but there has not been a meaningful change in the binding nature of the article as a whole.
While this is progress - we need to keep the pressure on for the rest of the day, we are still far apart on a financial mechanism to support the transition and it seems as if countries have not yet learned that consensus will limit their ability to strengthen the instrument moving forward. What is clear however, is that we are finally seeing the text reflect key elements we need. Now the majority of countries need to bring this to a close by making them strong enough to deliver on a treaty that could end plastic pollution.”
Commenting on global bans in the new text, Maria Alejandra Gonzalez, Regional Coordinator for Latin America, WWF, said:
"It is now clear that global bans on harmful plastic products and chemicals are absolutely necessary to end plastic pollution. A vast majority of countries are supporting such bans, and today more than 80 countries said they will not accept a treaty without it. In the current Chair’s text, many of the strongest provisions are still bracketed, meaning there are still weak and ineffective alternatives on the table. Additionally, it seems that the term "chemicals" was removed from the title of Article 3, while the references to it in the text are still bracketed - this could create a vulnerability in the Article if not prioritized. 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. The coalition of the willing cannot take their foot off the pedal and must keep the pressure on to ensure the final treaty text includes the most impactful measures.
Commenting on product design in the new text, Laura Griestop, Senior Manager, Sustainable Business & Markets, WWF, said:
"A robust non-toxic circular economy hinges on robust global binding design requirements that ensures products are safe and easy to reuse and recycle. In the latest draft, the measure on product design requirements has finally broken free from brackets and is now a mandatory provision. However, it lacks a clear reference to criteria-based global requirements and the annex, making the mandatory provision unenforceable."
Commenting on finance mechanisms in the treaty text, 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. The latest draft treaty text has made little progress towards an agreement that is both fair and ambitious. Countries must still find common ground on where the money would come from, what type of mechanism the treaty should be supported by and on the aligning of financial flows to divert funds away from harmful activities. 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:
"The treaty we get, if we get one at the end of this week, won’t be perfect. But we need assurances that we are on a pathway to ending plastic pollution, which ensures countries progressively expand and dial up their efforts over time, through future COPs. The latest draft still does not allow for this in a meaningful way.
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 COP can make decisions on substantive and procedural issues by voting when all efforts towards consensus are exhausted.
Ensuring a treaty that can adapt over time is essential to make sure we base our future decisions on the best available science."
|
|
