Date : 7/12/2023

Relevance: GS Paper 3 – Environment and Ecology

Keywords: INC-3, UNEP, UNEA Resolution, CIEL

Context-

• The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), operating under the United Nations Environment Programme, held its third round of talks in Nairobi from November 13 to 19. The goal was to create a global agreement that legally binds countries to stop plastic pollution worldwide.
• According to the UN Environment Assembly Resolution 5/14, the INC is tasked with finalizing this plastics treaty by 2025. During INC-3, participating countries worked on the initial draft of the agreement, which was developed by the committee's secretariat.
• The meeting was crucial, as it provided an opportunity to discuss the actual content of the treaty, unlike INC-2 in Paris earlier in the year, which mainly focused on procedural rules.

What is Outlined in ‘Zero Draft’?

• The initial draft of the international treaty to stop plastic pollution, prepared by the committee's secretariat, had strong proposals.
• However, during negotiations, member states weakened their core commitments, especially regarding crucial elements like primary polymer production, harmful chemicals, problematic plastics, trade, and financial measures. Some countries also disagreed on the goal and scope outlined in UNEA Resolution 5/14.
• Most nations agreed that the treaty should aim to stop plastic pollution and safeguard human health and the environment.
• Yet, a group of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran, and some members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, insisted on adding the clause "while contributing to the achievement of sustainable development" to protect their economic interests and investments.
• A significant point of contention was the provision to reduce the production of primary polymers due to its impact on the industry.
• The industry's influence was noticeable, with 36% more lobbyists from the fossil fuels and chemicals sector at INC-3 than at INC-2. Some states even argued that discussing a reduction in plastic production was beyond the mandate of UNEA Resolution 5/14, asserting that the resolution aimed to end plastic pollution, not plastic production.
• While everyone agreed that addressing plastic pollution requires concrete measures at every stage of the plastic lifecycle, there was disagreement about when this life cycle begins.
• While some suggested it starts with obtaining raw materials, others argued it begins with product design. The same group objected to including provisions targeting harmful compounds, problematic plastics, and those that can be avoided, despite broad agreement from other countries advocating for binding commitments.

Financial Mechanisms and Implications:

• The treaty relies on a financial mechanism to decide how it will work, and this became another area of disagreement.
• The initial draft suggests options like charging a fee on plastic pollution for plastic producers or reducing funds for projects with a large carbon footprint. However, the same group of countries insisted on removing these ideas from the draft altogether.
• If these provisions were included, it would have significant impacts. Specifically, countries would need to reduce or even eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels and investments in environmentally unfriendly technologies like incineration and waste-to-energy plants.
• This could have been a significant win for the environment and human health if these measures hadn't been blocked.

Trade Restrictions and Sovereignty Concerns:

• Another important part of the treaty that the same group opposed was the trade involving polymers, chemicals, plastic products, and waste. While the plastics agreement aims to fill gaps in the Basel Convention, the bloc argued that any restrictions on trade would infringe on the freedom and sovereignty of nations.
• However, the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL), a non-profit in Washington, D.C., discovered that the bloc misinterpreted the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to benefit their position. According to CIEL's analysis, WTO rules allow for trade restrictions when necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health. There's nothing preventing states, under international law, from regulating or restricting the trade of certain products and materials.
• The group of like-minded countries rejected every proposed measure that addresses issues at the beginning of the plastic lifecycle and weakened those in the middle by including voluntary measures and phrases like "national circumstances," "national priorities," and "bottom-up approach." With the exception of waste management, almost all other provisions were toned down to consider "national circumstances and capabilities." Even in waste management, there's a high risk of these countries insisting on the treaty accommodating unsound solutions. This is because the term "environmentally sound management" isn't well-defined, while terms like "best available science" and "best available technology" are still used.

Challenges in Rules of Procedure:

• During INC-2, representatives from member states spent two days discussing procedural rules without reaching a clear decision. Some countries, including India, insisted on consensus-based decision-making instead of a two-thirds majority vote.
• The rules of procedure were temporarily applied at INC-3, and the final determination was postponed to INC-4. If a decision had been made on voting procedures and the rules of procedure formally adopted, negotiators might have been better equipped to address objections from like-minded countries at INC-3.
• In this context, the African group of countries and Small-Island Developing States (SIDS) played a significant role by advocating for strong, binding provisions regarding key elements in the treaty.
• Their submissions stood out as they prioritized the perspectives of waste-pickers and indigenous peoples, approaching the treaty from a standpoint of human rights and public health.
• However, the draft text has now become three times larger, with member states adding and removing content according to their interests. The meetings faced frequent delays and extended into late hours due to the stalling and blocking tactics employed by like-minded countries.

Key Takeaways from INC-3:

• A closed-door meeting discussing the synthesis report and potential topics for intersessional work failed to reach a consensus until the very end. Consequently, there will be no intersessional work between now and INC-4, which is a significant setback. Many countries were relying on this period to make progress in refining details like definitions, targets, and timelines before INC-4.
• Due to the delays, INC-3 did not adopt the mandate to proceed with developing the first draft. A delegate from the African group expressed frustration, stating, "No state has the right to keep others hostage... Those who don’t want to move ahead with us are free to stay behind." Consequently, INC-3 highlighted the substantial influence of the industry and identified member states that oppose a robust, binding treaty to address plastic pollution.

Conclusion

The journey towards a plastic-free world, as navigated by the INC, is undoubtedly fraught with challenges. The intricacies of negotiating a binding international treaty to combat plastic pollution were laid bare at INC-3, emphasizing the need for global cooperation while balancing economic interests and environmental imperatives.

As the INC process moves forward, addressing industry influence, overcoming national divergences, and fostering consensus-based decision-making will be crucial to realizing a comprehensive and effective global solution to the plastic pollution crisis. The setbacks and lessons from INC-3 underscore the urgency of the mission and the collective responsibility to safeguard the planet for future generations.

Source- The Hindu