Global Plastics Treaty Negotiating Countries Fail to Respond to the Magnitude of the Plastics Crisis

OTTAWA – The fourth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) for a global agreement to end plastic pollution concluded after a plenary full of huddles, leaving the most contentious item to the very end of the session: intersessional work, which did not include discussions on primary plastic polymers.

Countries decided to move forward with intersessional work on the financial mechanism, as well as on plastic products, chemicals of concern in plastic products, product design, reusability, and recyclability. Member States agreed to include observers’ participation during this work. Additionally, they decided to create a legal drafting group that will conduct a legal review of the text and provide recommendations to the plenary.

'The decision to exclude upstream measures from the intersessional work means it will be more daunting to include extraction or production reduction measures under the ambit of the draft plastics treaty,' said Brett Nadrich, #BreakFreeFromPlastic's US & Canada Communications Officer. 'This compromise diminishes the ambition of this process as it ignores the central role of plastics production in fueling the climate, biodiversity and pollution crises. This is not only an utter disappointment, but also a missed opportunity to tackle the root causes comprehensively.'

The seven days spent in Ottawa in negotiations revealed who are the champions for an ambitious plastics treaty that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics from extraction to disposal, and who are the spoilers bending to the interests of the plastics and fossil fuel industry.

The Champions

Perú and Rwanda stood out as champions for presenting a proposal for intersessional work on primary plastic polymers with aims to reduce 40% of the global use of primary plastics polymers by 2040 from 2025 levels, which a number of delegations strongly supported, including Malawi, the Philippines, and Fiji. 

In addition to the Rwanda/Perú proposal, several countries launched the Bridge to Busan Declaration on Plastic Polymers to rally parties in support of keeping the provision for addressing primary plastic polymers alive in the treaty text and building momentum for the fifth (and last planned) round of negotiations in Busan, Republic of Korea later this year. 

The Spoliers

The “spoilers,” on the other side of the spectrum, are a small group of polymer-and-plastics-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia, India, Kuwait, and Qatar, who tried to reopen and sow doubts over the scope of the draft treaty to redefine what the full lifecycle of plastic means, in an apparent bid to reduce the coverage of the proposed treaty to waste management matters only.

'Although there was progress on substantial negotiations in Ottawa, countries are walking away with a text that is not yet fit for final negotiations in Busan. While there has been some streamlining of the draft, there have also been more additions than deletions, leading to a text riddled with a large number of options and bracketed words and sentences (i.e language not yet agreed upon),' said Von Hernandez, #BreakFreeFromPlastic Global Coordinator. 'A small number of countries continued their obstructionist and low-ambition tactics—watering down, adding countless brackets, and shamelessly twisting the language across the different provisions in an attempt to narrow the scope and lower the ambitions of the treaty.'

The Special Interests

The low-ambition efforts are not surprising, given how much fossil fuel interests have been increasing their presence at the negotiations. Early in the week, a CIEL analysis of the UNEP list of INC-4 participants revealed that 196 lobbyists for the fossil fuel and chemical industry registered—which is seven times greater than the Scientists’ Coalition for An Effective Plastic Treaty.

#BreakFreeFromPlastic members react to the end of the Plastics Treaty INC-4:

Jacob Kean-Hammerson / Ocean Campaigner, Environmental Investigation Agency / United Kingdom, said: “The INC has once again failed to ask the most fundamental question to the success of the future treaty: how do we tackle the unsustainable production of plastics? While it is important to discuss the financial aspects, how can we discuss means of implementation without knowing what we are implementing?If we continue to ignore the calls of progressive countries and allow blocker countries to hold the talks, hostage, we will fail to reach our shared ambition of ending plastic pollution.”

Christopher Chin / Founder and Executive Director, COARE / United States, said: 'Thousands of Country delegates, scientists, NGO representatives, and First Nation rightsholders traveled to Ottawa, Canada to continue negotiating a treaty to end plastic pollution. However, instead of good-faith engagement and progress, they were met with obstruction and delay tactics by industry-inspired interests and a small handful of Countries with no interest in protecting human or environmental health.  While the rest of the world literally suffers from the affront of the lifecycle of plastic, these parties shamelessly and knowingly prevent any meaningful development.'

Griffins Ochieng / Executive Director, Center for Environmental Justice and Development / Kenya, said: “A comprehensive global treaty which tackles chemicals in plastics, including primary plastic polymers, is an impetus towards eradicating plastic pollution. The provisions on plastic chemicals and polymers should be legally binding, as well as adaptive and informed by independent science. In doing so, the global Plastic Treaty creates an opportunity to put global control on toxic chemicals, mitigate the negative impacts of plastic on human health and the environment, reduce the global dispersal of chemicals, and protect vulnerable communities, especially in the Global South.'

​​Janelle Nahmabin / Elected Councillor, Aamjiwnaang First Nation / Turtle Island (Canada), said: 'Aamjiwnaang left the negotiations feeling supported and heard by our Indigenous relations, and our allies. Indigenous Peoples must be given a seat at the negotiating table. Many of us are advocating for a strong treaty that puts human health above money. That's the world we want, and that's the world we will stand for. We are determined to keep the momentum going.'

Frankie Orona / Executive Director, Society of Native Nations / Turtle Island (United States), said: “Negotiating with the U.S. and other oil states has felt like trying to negotiate with industry, always prioritizing profit over the well-being of people and the planet. In order to have an ambitious Treaty, we need a fundamental shift. We need intersessional work with the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples—who are rights holders with traditional knowledge and a deep understanding of sustainable resource management—as well as frontline and fenceline communities—who, for generations, have borne the brunt of environmental damage from fossil fuels and petrochemical production.

'By including these often-marginalized groups, we can move beyond ‘business as usual’ to achieve an ambitious Treaty that protects our environment, respects human rights, and fosters a more equitable and sustainable future for all of us and Mother Earth.”

Larisa de Orbe / Director, Red Mexicana de Acción Ecológica / México, said: “At this stage of the negotiations of the Plastics Treaty, it is important to ensure that the voices of Latin America and the Caribbean are heard, as our region is directly affected by the consequences of excessive plastic production. Some of these consequences include the problems associated with the export of plastic waste to our countries, which we consider waste colonialism, as well as the false solutions that are imposed in the territories, affecting the lives of communities and intensifying environmental injustice.”