INC-5 Day 1: November 25, 2024
Welcome to Day 1 of plastics treaty negotiations (INC-5) in Busan, South Korea. Civil Society entered the BEXCO Convention Center united with hope and determination to land a strong global plastics treaty with binding cuts to plastic production.
Delegates are feeling the heat: on Saturday over 1,500 people rallied outside of BEXCO demanding an ambitious treaty (see the inspiring speech from GAIA Asia Pacific’s Arpita Bhagat), and more than 900 independent scientists signed a declaration calling on UN negotiators to “agree on a comprehensive and ambitious global plastics treaty based on robust scientific evidence to end plastic pollution by 2040.”
The sense of urgency was palpable in KIM Wan Sup, Minister of Environment of the Republic of Korea’s opening remarks: “We must end plastic pollution, before plastic pollution ends us.”
Negotiations Begin with Bullying
In the opening plenary, the Chair, Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso of Ecuador sought to get agreement on his proposed agenda for the talks. He didn’t get far.
As INC-5 approached, there was much speculation on whether the Rules of Procedure would be used as an obstruction mechanism as it did at INC-2 (see our press kit for details) – where petro-states pushed for consensus at all costs, even if it meant that one single Member State could blow up negotiations by refusing to budge. An uneasy truce was reached at INC-2, whereby the matter was shelved until a Member State decided to call for a vote, which has yet to happen, perhaps in part because parties are hoping to avoid the same showdown as INC-2.
However, as negotiators get down to the wire at INC-5, the possibility that this tension will flare up once more is much higher. Perhaps in anticipation of this, before the Chair could even mention this provisional rule, India called for consensus. The usual “like-minded group” followed: Russia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Bahrain, Egypt, Uganda, and Qatar, in what looked like a coordinated effort to send a message: don’t mess with consensus.
This is a strategic deterrent to more ambitious countries who may become frustrated by the like-minded group’s efforts to block progress on a treaty and may call for a vote, as well as a strategy to provoke ambitious countries and waste time.
The game did not fully work today as ambitious countries didn’t take the bait and allowed the topic to fizzle out, preventing more time-wasting.
Saudi Arabia Takes the Lead in Asia Pacific
In the wake of the resignation of the Vice Chair of the Asia Pacific States Group, Member States in the region held a blind vote to nominate a replacement. Mohamed Al Barack of Saudi Arabia was nominated to lead the group, and with no dissent voiced at plenary, his spot was secured. It remains to be seen how this appointment will shape the region’s positioning in the negotiations, as well as its openness to hearing from civil society.
So far the Asia Pacific group has not held a meeting with civil society in the lead-up to INC-5, unlike most other regions where such a thing is standard practice. With Saudi Arabia at the helm, the chances of such a meeting are even more slim. Saudi Arabia has been consistently obstructive in previous INC’s, refusing to support anything but downstream solutions to the crisis. Just a couple of days ago Saudi Arabia was outed for trying to water down official negotiating text at COP 29.
However, there are champions of ambition in the Asia Pacific region who will no doubt make their voices heard, particularly the Pacific Small Island Developing States.
Inger Andersen Goes on the Defensive
Inger Andersen, the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has come under fire in recent days, with allegations that she has been pressuring countries behind closed doors to drop production reduction from their priorities, going against her mandate to be an impartial convener of the talks.
At both the Observer’s Meeting on Sunday and the press conference on Monday she was asked about whether or not she had conducted these meetings, and she did not deny, but both times dodged the question by replying vaguely that she “will meet with everyone, at every stage of the way.”
Andersen was recently the subject of a letter from civil society members criticizing her public statements that focusing on plastic production reduction in the treaty was “not intelligent,” accusing her of putting her thumb on the scale ahead of negotiations.
Non paper, non agreement
The Chair sought agreement to move forward with using his non paper as the basis for negotiations, instead of the bloated compilation text that came out of INC-4 (For an overview please see our press kit. For a deeper dive please see the “Comments on the INC Chair’s third non paper” section of our booklet).
Many countries expressed reservations about this proposal, citing the closed-door nature of its development, in which not all Member States felt that their viewpoints were reflected in the finished product. Member States were also concerned that previous work on the compilation text may be lost, including the objectives, scope and principles.
On substance, Member States objected to the non paper for polar opposite reasons. 169 countries accepted the non paper, on the basis that it will be strengthened in negotiations to have more ambitious positions. The African Group of Negotiators (AGN), Pacific Island Developing States (PSIDS), led the way in insisting that obligations must not be voluntary and nationally determined, as is currently in the draft. On the flip side, the Arab League and Russia rejected the non paper on the basis of lower ambition– arguing that stronger articles be deleted, like on supply and reduction, and chemicals of concern.
Finally, after many hours of empty statements, the Chair announced that he will allow Member States to submit proposals to be included in the non paper. This opens the door for the non paper to go the same way as the zero draft text– from a leaner, more streamlined starting point for negotiations to a massive tome of conflicting viewpoints. The INC-Secretariat and the Chair seem to insist on the same process, expecting a different outcome.
Chile the Champion
Chile’s intervention was a bright spot in what was otherwise a plodding start of the negotiations. The delegate emphasized the importance of global reduction targets, transparency and traceability, and just transition. Other countries also expressed the importance of the treaty scope to encompass the full life cycle of plastics, starting with production, including the Republic of Korea and Somalia.
What’s Next
In the evening two of the four contact groups deliberated:
- CG 2: Plastic waste management, emissions and releases, existing plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, and just transition.
- CG 4: Implementation and compliance, national plans, reporting, monitoring of progress and effectiveness evaluation, information exchange, and awareness, education and research.
The other two contact groups will begin meeting tomorrow:
- CG 1: Plastic products, chemicals of concern as used in plastic products, product design, and production/supply and related aspects
- CG 3: Finance, including the establishment of a financial mechanism, capacity building, technical assistance and technology transfer, and international cooperation.
Contact:
Claire Arkin, Global Communications Lead
claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869
References:
For more information about GAIA’s treaty advocacy, please visit no-burn.org/unea-plastics-treaty, follow us on X @gaianoburn, and read our Press kit.
