Global Plastics Treaty: we are getting there. Slowly.

Written by Joan Marc Simon, Founder of Zero Waste Europe (Link)

We almost made it. Most countries in the world are in favour of an ambitious Global Plastics Treaty that addresses plastic production, restricts toxics, increases circularity and delivers on financing for a just transition. However, after more than 2 years of meetings, negotiators ran out of time to agree a deal and decided to call one extra session to hammer the treaty.

Glass half full or half empty?

This outcome can be seen both as a success and as a failure.

A failure because negotiators exhausted the allocated time and, whilst plastic pollution continues to increase, no agreement was found.

A success because the process, as  extremely slow and painful as it was, has delivered a text; and, more importantly, has raised enough awareness among the negotiators to draw a line of ambition and stand behind it.

Our victory

The most important – and yet, little mentioned – victory, which is key to explain why a majority of countries decided to not accept a weak treaty and opted for an extension, is the victory on the framing.

When the plastic crisis exploded almost a decade back, plastic pollution was seen as a problem of waste mismanagement led by global south countries. Today, the framing of the debate has moved to address the whole life cycle of plastics, including the need to regulate production and toxics. The victims are no longer portrayed as aggressors and, today, the bad ones are those inundating the world with plastic. We are finally having a conversation which goes to the root of the problem!

Having been to all Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) meetings I can confirm that the battle of the framing is won. The blockers of this process openly talk against production cuts, plastic levies, and toxic chemicals. They are, thereby, accepting a framing which they neither control nor master, and which provides the conditions for the countries with ambition to draw a line behind which they stand together with civil society and progressive industry.

A good illustration of INC negotiations. Image credits: Bryan Mathers, Visual Thinkery for Break Free From Plastic

Two clear opposing strategies

During these 2,5 years of negotiations, we have seen two strategies unfold.

On one hand, the low ambition countries – all of them oil or/and plastic producing countries – have deployed the old tactic of delay and derail. Overrun by a framing which places them in the wrong side of history, they opted for abusing the consensus rule, blocking intersessional work between INCs and boycotting discussions on content until the last minute. Their plan was to exhaust the time in order to force the majority of countries into a low-ambition treaty.

On the other hand, it is fair to say that the 85+ countries that are now the coalition of the willing didn’t have a coordinated strategy in the beginning, and engaged in the negotiations in good faith. Their strategy emerged as a reaction to 2 years of filibustering and obstructionism from the low ambition countries combined with a process of collective empowerment in the new emerging framing. Learning from the recent failures of other multilateral negotiations, the ambitious countries drew a line on the ambition and held it. This prevented the process from closing with a weak treaty.

It’s the process [,] stupid [?] [!]

Yes. It is stupid.

UN negotiations take place by consensus: that is, by unanimity. A tool that gives incredible power to a minority to block the process or drag the majority to the lowest common denominator. The parties can decide by consensus to work by majority, using voting, but such a move would invalidate the strategy of the low-ambition countries.

This explains why, in the first session of INC1 held in Uruguay in 2023, instead of a discussion about plastic policies, obstructionists opened the discussion on rules of procedure. 75% of INC2 in Paris was on the rules of procedure, with a political loss to the right to vote; and, at INC3 in Nairobi, the negotiations on content were delayed because of attempts from all sides to either change or keep the decision-making process.

Whilst plastic pollution continued to destroy ecosystems and pollute our bodies, us humans couldn’t even agree on how to agree. Now, with a final text, the parties have decided to give each other more time to find an agreement in an INC5.2 to be held in the coming months using the same decision-making process they have used so far.

The way forward

With most nations united in atmbition, we must transform our decision-making from consensus that paralyses to collective action that liberates. The future of our civilisation demands we move forward, with or without those who would obstruct progress.

If both factions in the contest decide to hold their lines, then no treaty will be possible, no matter how many INCs they decide to organise. For the last round of negotiations, there are only two ways to deliver on the ambition we need: either low ambition countries raise their ambition, or the majority of the parties should start a parallel process with those willing to address the roots of plastic pollution. This last option is not unprecedented, as the Ottawa process in 1997 successfully produced a Mine Ban Treaty outside the UN and counts  164 signatories as of today.

Conclusion

I’m surprised how far we have come with such a flawed decision-making process and a messy organisation of the negotiations.

I’m happy to see countries from the Global South and the Global North coming together around a shared understanding of what needs to be done.

I’m proud of the key role that civil society organisations have played in building this collective empowerment around a framing that the Break Free From Plastic movement has been pushing since 2016.

I’m disappointed by the speed of change; and yet, I definitely prefer a good treaty that arrives a bit later than a bad treaty today. After all, fossil fuels run the – plastics – world and changing the compass of civilisation takes time. 

As the saying goes: “we go slow because we go far”. May this be the good reason to justify a delay in obtaining an ambitious Global Treaty on Plastics!