Day 5 (November 29, 2024) was dedicated entirely to informal (closed-door) discussions among member states, leaving observers excluded from most meetings. While some criticised the lack of transparency in the process, others pointed out that such practices are common in negotiation settings.
The release of the fourth version of the non-paper, initially scheduled for half past noon, was delayed by approximately three hours before being made public.
The Chair’s Proposal, or the fourth version of the non-paper, represents a significant step forward in promoting the “start and strengthen” approach to negotiations on a global treaty to combat plastic pollution.
While the proposal does omit some crucial elements, such as defining global criteria for chemicals of concern, it attempts to integrate these concepts into the criteria for addressing plastic products. The article on supply incorporates specific targets, which were absent in the previous version. Additionally, the Chair’s Proposal provides a comprehensive list of terminologies that need to be defined, offering clarity and precision to the treaty framework.
Definitions and terminologies
One of the notable strengths of the Chair’s Proposal is its emphasis on detailed definitions, such as plastics, polymers, microplastics, and plastic waste. However, there remain some critical gaps that need to be addressed.
On plastics, while the inclusion of polymers in all proposed definitions is commendable, it is vital to ensure additives are explicitly recognised as integral components of plastics. Option 3, which explicitly mentions thermoplastics, thermosets, and elastomers, is preferred.
The definition of the life cycle of plastics must incorporate extraction processes, particularly fossil fuel feedstock exploration, as part of the lifecycle. The inherent non-circular nature of plastics, given their inability to biodegrade, should also be acknowledged.
The definitions of microplastics and nano-plastics rely on diameter measurements or terms like ‘easily released’. This raises the risk of scientific inaccuracy. More precise language based on scientifically accepted parameters is needed.
The definition of plastic pollution focuses solely on end-of-life issues and is thus insufficient. Pollution must encompass ecosystem contamination, including human and non-human health impacts, as well as intergenerational effects.
Scope and objective
The objective of ‘ending plastic pollution’ is an ambitious cornerstone of the proposal. However, this goal remains vague without clear definitions to guide implementation. While UNEA Resolution 5/14 sets the treaty’s scope, the separate article on scope introduces potential redundancies. Exemptions, such as for healthcare and scientific uses, are overly broad and risk undermining the treaty’s effectiveness. Excluded uses, including plastics in emergency response or national security, also leave room for loopholes.
Article 3
The lack of a stand-alone article on chemicals of concern is concerning. By merging chemicals into broader product regulations, the proposal risks diminishing their significance.
The phrase ‘chemicals that pose a risk of concern’ should be replaced with ‘chemicals that pose a hazard to human health or the environment’, aligning with the precautionary principle.
The inclusion of a global list for regulated products is promising, but ambiguity remains due to the absence of annexes explicitly listing chemicals or products.
Stronger language such as ‘prohibit the manufacture, import, or export’ is preferable to weaker terms like ‘address’ or ‘manage’.
Transparency on chemical compositions and mandatory reporting for imports and exports should be emphasised.
Article 4
Exemptions for specific products or chemicals undermine the treaty’s overarching goals. The Chair’s Proposal introduces annexes (A and B) to list exemptions, but the criteria for granting extensions are vague. Without robust safeguards, exemptions risk becoming perpetual, allowing countries to delay compliance indefinitely.
Article 5
The emphasis on product design is a critical aspect of the treaty, but significant gaps persist.
Transparency and traceability of chemicals in product materials are only partially addressed. This information is essential for informed decision-making across the lifecycle.
The absence of language on non-toxic reuse systems weakens the framework for reusable products, especially in regions lacking supporting infrastructure.
Article 6
This article marks a significant advancement by introducing global targets to reduce primary polymer production. However, the current draft falls short of establishing enforceable obligations.
The inclusion of ‘sustainable levels of production’ is problematic, without clear criteria or mechanisms for determining these levels.
The absence of interim measures, such as a moratorium on new plastic production facilities, limits immediate impact.
National targets are not mandated, leaving global targets unenforceable and reliant on voluntary compliance.
Reporting on current and planned production capacities per polymer is essential for tracking progress.
Finance and implementation
The financial mechanism proposed in the Chair’s Proposal introduces a dedicated multilateral fund to support developing nations. This is a critical step, but more specificity is needed.
Clear eligibility criteria for accessing funds should be established. Contributions from high-production countries and private sector stakeholders must be mandated rather than encouraged.
Alignment with existing international financing frameworks can enhance resource mobilisation.
Conference of the Parties (COP) and Voting
The Chair’s Proposal outlines a comprehensive role for the COP in guiding treaty implementation. However, procedural gaps remain.
Voting mechanisms must be robust to prevent individual countries from blocking critical decisions. The COP’s ability to update annexes, particularly for chemicals and products, is essential for ensuring the treaty remains dynamic and responsive to emerging challenges.
While the Chair’s Proposal introduces several progressive elements, such as targets for reducing production and detailed definitions, critical gaps and ambiguities remain.
Stronger language, enforceable mechanisms, and greater emphasis on transparency and traceability are necessary to achieve the treaty’s ambitious goals.
The text is a solid foundation, but significant revisions will be needed to ensure it delivers a comprehensive, binding framework to combat plastic pollution effectively.
As negotiations progress, balancing national interests with global urgency will be paramount.
In the plenary meeting on November 30, the committee will take a call on whether the text would be sent to the legal drafting group.
