What's next after ‘disappointing' plastics treaty talks?

There's a growing sense among advocates for an ambitious plastics treaty that the recent round of talks in Kenya ended somewhere between a failure and a disappointment, and that major changes will be needed to salvage an effective agreement.

The problem, they say, is that a relatively small number of countries with large oil and plastics production stalled progress by blocking important technical work that happens between formal negotiating sessions and by weakening the draft treaty language.

At the talks in Kenya, oil-producing nations including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia and others announced a coalition to advocate for the benefits of plastics and focus the agreement more around downstream measures like waste management.

But observers said those countries were at odds with a majority of nations who supported a broader treaty that would look beyond waste management to consider topics like chemical toxicity and lists of products to phase out.

David Azouley, a negotiator at the talks for the Center for International Environmental Law, said during a Nov. 27 webinar that the round in Nairobi, Kenya, which concluded Nov. 19, could be considered a failure.

"What we got was everybody trying to negotiate except for a small number of countries, who then blocked progress towards the end, and lead to the relative failure that we saw in Nairobi," he said on the webinar, organized by the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi.

One plastics industry group called it a missed opportunity that the Nairobi talks didn't make more progress.

Brussels-based Plastics Europe pointed to shortcomings with the draft treaty language, and to the inability of countries to agree on an agenda for technical consultations ahead of the next formal round of talks, slated for late April in Canada.

"We are disappointed that the negotiating parties were unable to agree a way forward by the end of this negotiating round," said Virginia Janssens, the group's managing director, in a statement. "This is a missed opportunity.

"The inability to agree to a mandate for technical work between INC-3 [the meeting in Kenya] and the next negotiating round was avoidable and will only serve to delay the overall negotiations," she said. "Additionally, it will further shorten the time available to address deficiencies in the 'zero draft,' specifically the lack of focus on measures required to accelerate the transition to a circular plastics system."

Other observers said they hoped the lack of progress in Kenya would force countries who want a stronger treaty to be more decisive at the upcoming negotiations in Canada.

They pointed to the so-called "high ambition coalition" of about 60 nations that have advocated for a broader treaty.

"While it was ultimately disappointing to see the meeting ending without much progress made towards simplifying the text or agreeing on how to move the process forward intersessionally, it feels like an important turning point in the process has been reached," said John Duncan, a treaty negotiator for the World Wildlife Fund International.

"Countries who are committed to a treaty which will end plastic pollution … will now need to decide on whether they let the minority with the lowest ambition (and the biggest interests in business-as-usual) hold the process hostage or, if they are willing to move forward with other similarly committed states and push for a more democratic solution," he said.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation said the lack of intersessional technical work and clear agreement on how to move forward on the next version of draft text ahead of Canada will make it more challenging to develop an "ambitious and effective" treaty in the remaining two negotiation rounds. Countries hope to finish the treaty by the end of 2024, a fast timeframe for international talks.

EMF said many countries agreed that the treaty should eliminate problematic plastic products and support better product design and extended producer responsibility, and others said they felt a majority of countries wanted stronger measures.

Azouley said the talks were split between those who want the treaty to include measures like some form of controls on primary plastics production and what he called "detoxification" of the plastics supply chain, against those who say the treaty should only focus on waste management.

He said CIEL counted about 120 countries making statements in the talks supporting a broader treaty agenda.

EMF said it was worried about calls from some in the negotiations to limit the treaty to only downstream solutions like better waste management, and it said it wanted more focus on developing reusable packaging solutions.

"We were concerned by some calls to limit the scope of the treaty to downstream measures only, including through removal of treaty provisions on primary plastic polymers," EMF said. "We also hope that treaty text on reuse can be expanded to go beyond product design. To enable the necessary system transformation to scale reuse, it is vital to also establish suitable infrastructure and make the economics work."

Azouley said the plastics treaty talks could follow the path of other international agreements and move ahead only with countries that want a strong agreement.

Such a treaty could use trade measures or other incentives for countries not in the initial agreement to later join, similar to how agreements like the Basel and Stockholm Conventions or the Montreal Protocol were set up, he said.

"It took a little time, when at first, some countries remained on the side," Azouley said. "But the system was built in such a way that there was a strong incentive for those countries to join eventually. … My sense is that this is probably where we would have to go also for this plastics treaty."

He said countries are split in the plastics treaty talks between making decisions based on consensus or by a two-thirds vote. An inability to bridge that gap was also seen at the previous treaty round, in Paris.

Joan Marc Simon, director of the group Zero Waste Europe, called on both the 60 nations in the "high ambition" coalition and consumer brands in an allied Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty to be more forceful.

In a statement, he echoed Azouley's call for the treaty to move ahead based on the more ambitious treaty he says most of the countries support.

"As long as some countries committed to boycotting the treaty are allowed into the negotiations, it will be very difficult to achieve anything," he said. "I think it will be better to have a good treaty working for those who really want to address plastic pollution than to try to find a minimum common denominator, which will not deliver a solution for anyone."