Since 2017, state parties, regional groups, and multiple stakeholders have introduced formal propositions and issued declarations concerning a new global instrument to address the plastics crisis, demonstrating that movement towards such an instrument is picking up. But new global instruments do not happen overnight — before negotiations can begin, a mandate must be established and negotiating committees must be formed. The fall of 2021 saw parties take multiple concrete steps towards such action, and a mandate for negotiations will likely be formally adopted during the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) 5.2 in February 2022.
Before that conversation begins, we review how global discussions have shifted over the last year and the current state of play.
Ocean Day Declaration & Ministerial Conference Lay the Groundwork for Negotiations
In June 2021, led by a group of Small Island States, 81 countries signed the Oceans Day Declaration on Plastic Pollution, formally calling for a new legally binding global agreement to address plastic pollution and encouraging other states to move forward with “international conferences and processes to develop such an agreement.”
In September 2021, Ecuador, Germany, Ghana, and Vietnam, with the support of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), organized the first-ever Ministerial Conference on marine litter and plastic pollution. This special session provided parties an opportunity to build on mandates from previous sessions of UNEA and the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Expert Group on marine litter and microplastics (AHEG) that ran from 2018 to 2020, both of which concluded that business-as-usual is not an option for addressing the plastics crisis. The conference aimed to continue discussions from previous sessions of UNEA and build momentum and political will to advance a coherent global strategy to end marine litter and plastic pollution.
Despite challenges and barriers to participation due to the hybrid nature of the event, the headline from the government-led Ministerial Conference was the introduction of a groundbreaking draft resolution from co-authors Rwanda and Peru, recommending a legally binding global mechanism addressing the plastics crisis. This resolution reflects calls from more than 160 states affirming the need for a global instrument addressing the plastics crisis since 2018.
Since the September conference, 55 states have stepped forward as co-sponsors. CIEL and partners have urged ‘major powers’ — those who produce and consume the most plastic — to join as co-sponsors as well. Additional support for exploring the idea of an instrument includes countries that are historically less active during international discussions on plastics, including Indonesia, Libya, and Palestine, and others who have historically opposed such an agreement, including Brazil.
Negotiations Begin to Take Shape
The proposal requests an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for a new legally binding instrument on plastic pollution be established by UNEA 5.2. Previous Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) show that building a negotiation structure begins with establishing an INC and defining the scope of that committee’s work.
The key objectives of the Rwanda-Peru proposal are to reduce pollution from plastic in all environments and to promote mandatory reduction targets and National Action Plans to address the plastics crisis.
Other key elements of the draft resolution include:
- Addressing the full life cycle of plastics.
- Achieving sustainable production and consumption for plastics.
- Recognizing the need for an international legally binding instrument to prevent, reduce, and remediate plastic pollution.
- Considering the need for a financial mechanism to support the implementation of priorities.
- Specifying financial and technical arrangements, as well as technology transfer assistance, to support implementation in developing and emerging economy countries.
- Addressing product design and use, including compounds, additives, and harmful substances, as well as intentionally added microplastics.
With this outcome, the Ministerial Conference proved that an overwhelming number of governments support meaningful reforms that address the plastics crisis. It also demonstrated that countries are now not only willing to move beyond a marine litter frame, but they are willing to tackle the entire life cycle of plastics. The Ministerial Statement concluding the event, so far endorsed by 76 states, made reference to plastic being a hazard at all stages of its life cycle, and for the first time it included a call for the reduction of “virgin” plastic production.
Progress After the Ministerial Conference
Although the introduction of the Rwanda-Peru draft resolution is a profound indicator of political will toward and the potential shape of a new instrument, the Ministerial Conference was always intended to be a setting for keeping momentum and building consensus. The Rwanda-Peru draft resolution has been on the agenda of the Committee of Permanent Representatives Meetings since its formal introduction in October 2021.
Key players who have not previously supported globally coordinated actions to address the plastics crisis are now also joining the chorus of voices supporting a new global agreement. For example, on November 18th, the United States Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, announced the US’ support for developing a global agreement to end plastic pollution during a UNEP event. CIEL encouraged the Biden administration to rally behind the bold action offered under the Peru-Rwanda draft resolution, rather than chart a new course.
Since then, Japan has offered a competing resolution during the December 2021 Subcommittee of Permanent Representatives Meeting. This resolution aims to establish an INC with a mandate to prepare an international legally binding instrument to address marine plastic pollution.
CIEL and the Environmental Investigations Agency (EIA) jointly produced a line-by-line comparison to highlight the differences between the two competing resolutions and explore how they can be merged ahead of UNEA.
Later in December, the UN General Assembly called on states to recognize the magnitude and urgency of the problem, and seriously examine the options defined by AHEG.
Most recently, India tabled a third draft resolution, suggesting a global voluntary framework for urgent action to tackle plastic pollution, in particular single-use plastic product pollution.
Civil Society, Indigenous People, Workers, and Trade Unions Call for Action
As of this writing, nearly 1,000 organizations representing 127 countries joined the chorus of governments and businesses calling for action during UNEA 5.2. The call specifically demands a “legally binding, global instrument on plastic pollution that covers the entire life cycle of plastics, including extraction of feedstocks, production, transport, use, disposal, and remediation.”
Where previous announcements look toward the content of a future instrument, the civil society action also addresses the negotiation process. Rather than concentrate decisions in the hands of a few decision makers, the organizations call for a process predicated on a just and robust system that ensures stakeholder participation and meaningful participation at all levels, using a human rights approach.
The emphasis on participation takes on additional significance following the 26th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26) in Glasgow. The two-week conference saw attendees forced to navigate a system fraught with restrictions due to COVID protocols and diminished access to negotiations. This resulted in unprecedented hurdles for participants, while at the same time, there was an outsized fossil fuel industry presence. Significant steps must be taken to avoid these pitfalls in the upcoming negotiations.
Looking Ahead to UNEA 5.2
Now that the urgency of addressing the complex plastics crisis through a new international instrument has been recognized, countries must remain committed to the vision of revisiting and rethinking the entire plastic supply chain — not just with words, but through action.
Now is the time for parties to reflect on the design, legal nature, and type of any future legally binding instrument. And since the scope of the INC’s work lays the foundation for the shape of the ultimate resulting instrument, the question of the committee’s potential mandate is of utmost concern. Parties need to determine which proposal they will pursue or if the resolutions will be merged together before the Assembly begins. Our recent legal analysis “Toward a New Instrument Addressing the Full Life Cycle of Plastics: Overview of the Typology of International Legal Instruments” explores how previous MEAs have answered these questions and provides an outline of specific items delegates must consider at this stage.
Given the wide-ranging threats that plastic poses to the climate, health, the environment, future generations, and human rights worldwide, it is critical that conversations ahead of and during UNEA include the broadest possible participation. Organizers must heed the civil society and stakeholders call to action while applying lessons from the Ministerial Conference and other events, including COP26, to ensure that delegates and civil society are able to engage in meaningful participation. Otherwise, they risk repeating mistakes that benefit the oil, gas, and plastics industries and wealthy countries of the Global North while disproportionately harming stakeholders and citizens of the Global South, Indigenous Peoples, waste pickers and other laborers in the plastics supply chain, frontline and fenceline communities, and other essential voices.
To stay connected to developments during UNEA, follow CIEL on Twitter and check out the Progress on Plastics newsletter.
Published February 9, 2022.