Poor progress at INC-4 as it fails to address the elephant in the room

The zero draft presented during third meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-3)  was expanded to encompass the perspectives of all Member States and carried forward for negotiations at INC-4 held under United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) aegis in Ottawa, Canada. 

The final day of INC-4 began with subgroups tackling textual revisions for various provisions. Although the progress made by these subgroups and contact groups was initially considered satisfactory, textual negotiations only commenced during the final days of the meeting.

Some Member States were observed negotiating in a manner that seemed inconsistent with collaborative efforts, expressing a preference for the omission of certain text from specific provisions. Despite this, they proposed insertions into the existing text under negotiation, with the aim of weakening provisions. 

Read more: CSE-DTE at Ottawa: Where does India stand in the global plastic treaty talks? An explainer

This approach was directed not only at provisions related to upstream measures, such as primary plastic polymers, chemicals of concern and problematic plastics, but also at downstream measures, including extended producer responsibility (EPR).

Understanding textual negotiations

Textual negotiations in multilateral environmental agreements (MEA) are advanced stage of negotiations and refer to the process of discussing and refining the wording of the agreement. This process entails dialogue among participating parties to reach consensus on the phrasing of various provisions, articles and clauses within the agreement.

During textual negotiations, parties may propose amendments, additions or deletions to the existing text. These proposals are often based on specific concerns, interests, or objectives of the participating countries. Negotiators work together to reconcile differing viewpoints and agree on wording that accurately reflects the intentions and commitments of all parties involved.

Textual negotiations are critical in the development of MEAs, as they shape the final content and legal framework of the agreement. The process involves careful consideration of technical, legal and policy aspects to ensure clarity, coherence and effectiveness in addressing the environmental challenges targeted by the agreement.

Poor progress on substantive elements

Contact Group 1, which was subsequently divided into three sub-groups, was deliberating on the substantive provisions of the treaty.. These substantive provisions encompass critical elements, such as operational mechanisms. 

Read more: CSE-DTE at Ottawa: As talks progress, ‘North Stars’ bring hope for a Global Plastic Treaty

Textual negotiations could not be started for all of the following provisions:

*textual negotiations started, but could not be completed

Contact Group 2 was split into 2 sub-groups. Sub-group 2.1 successfully fulfilled its mandate and finalised textual negotiations for the two provisions it was tasked with. However, Sub-group 2.2 encountered challenges and could not progress most of the provisions to the stage of textual negotiation.

Read more: CSE-DTE at Ottawa: Just transition and Global Plastic Treaty — An inclusive journey towards circularity?

Closing Plenary disappoints; dominated by like-minded groups 

The Closing Plenary was marked by disappointment and dominated by like-minded groups. The Chair presented a proposal for intersessional work, inviting comments and suggestions from the committee. While several countries expressed their support for the Chair’s proposal, a brief (one-hour) consultation revealed that the like-minded countries were now the primary proponents of the new proposal for intersessional work.

The initially weak proposal by the Chair was further watered down, leading to an agreement to proceed with intersessional work without a clear objective.

The final proposal, put forth by Iraq and accepted by all Member States, involved the formation of a special expert group to “identify and analyse the criteria and non-criteria-based approach for plastic products, chemicals of concern, and products of recyclability and reusability of plastic products, with consideration of their uses and applications.” 

The group’s findings will be discussed at INC-5, December 1, 2024 in Busan, Republic of Korea.

Read more: Global plastic profiles: Can a dedicated financial mechanism beat global plastic pollution?

Brazil also proposed a similar expert group and was supported by the committee with the objective “to develop an analysis of potential sources and means that could be mobilised, for implementation of the objectives of the instrument, including options for the establishment of a financial mechanism, alignment of financial flows and catalysing finance.”

However, the intersessional work will not involve textual negotiations, indicating that progress made during Intersessional work can only be validated and agreed upon in INC-5. 

A reluctance to tackle pressing issues such as plastic reduction targets and the consensus versus voting problems stemming from Rule 38.1 of the draft Rules of Procedure raises serious concerns about the Chair’s capability and the committee’s willingness to meet the 2024 deadline for finalising the treaty text.