The second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-2) on plastic pollution took place in Paris, France, from 29 May – 2 June 2023. IPCP members were in attendance and provided their recaps.
Following Wednesday morning’s adoption of the interpretive statement, the INC finally was able to commence substantive discussion of key elements for inclusion under the Treaty, building upon the comprehensive working document prepared by the Secretariat (UNEP/PP/INC.2/4).
In comparison to the dramatic first two days, the substantive discussion was rather uneventful. It started with Member States and various organizations providing their position statements. A good overview of the position statements can be seen at the Earth Negotiation Bulletin’s website. From the many strong statements asking for global concerted action covering the whole plastic life cycle including production, one can see renewed hope of a strong, effective treaty.
After the position statements, two contact groups (i.e., informal groups that carry out negotiations on specific matters) were proposed, one on key obligations and the other on means of implementation. Despite reappearing delay tactics by some Member States, both contact groups started their work on Wednesday evening.
Due to the limited time, Member States and stakeholders showed high commitment to work extra hours and went above and beyond. In contact group 1, the discussion followed the sequence of key obligations provided in the working document. Individual Member States and organizations provided their views on each key obligation, with the aim to narrow down possible options for developing a zero draft of the treaty. Given the nature of simply collecting views, the whole contact-group process was unusually calm. Both contact groups worked until late Thursday / early Friday to go through all the elements as far as they could.
When Member States and stakeholders went to sleep, the secretariat and the co-facilitators kept on working hard to summarize the very diverse (and sometimes conflicting) views shared and the elements of possible work to be carried out in the intersessional period between INC 2 and 3. On Friday morning, the co-facilitators presented the summary at the contact group and solicited further feedback. Member States and organizations expressed their gratitude to the good work the secretariat and the co-facilitators had put together and provided additional views, mostly for the clarification of the summary. Then, the secretariat and the co-facilitators finalized the summary during the lunch break (Group 1 and Group 2).
On Friday afternoon, the plenary reconvened and the co-facilitators presented their summaries. Thereafter, some Member States raised the point that the summaries should not be seen as agreed upon by Member States. This is understandable, as due to the time limit, the contact groups only collected views without trying to reach any consensus. By then, everything seemed to fall into the right place, with only one last question left open, i.e., what to do next during the intersessional period between INC 2 and INC 3. The Chair established an informal consultation to reach an agreement on the intersessional work.
The answer could have been simple: developing the zero draft based on the views expressed at the contact groups and conducting some additional intersessional work identified in both contact groups that will help to inform the INC on specific elements.
However, the reality showed that most people were too naïve. The informal consultation on the intersessional work started at around 16:30 and quickly turned into a mess. Some Member States appeared to not want intersessional work beyond the zero draft and thus blocked the consultation. Then, the consultation was adjourned, with some Member States forming smaller groups to discuss and reach agreements. Then, the co-facilitators resumed the consultation, but had to adjourn soon again as no agreements could be reached. This repeated a couple of times …
It was 19:30 and everyone was exhausted, hungry and thirsty, but one Member State was still not happy. The co-facilitators explicitly asked the Member State to provide a solution, but the Member State was not able to do so … As everyone was being pushed to the edge, another Member State from the same coalition made a text proposal. Without too much thinking, everyone quickly agreed with the proposal, reached the agreement to develop a zero draft, and rushed back to the plenary to finish the INC2. It officially closed at around 21:00.
What was the “magic” proposal that solved everything? In a simple way, it allows Member States and organizations to submit written statements, regardless of whether the statements were delivered at INC2 or only prepared in hindsight. These written statements will also be taken into consideration when preparing the zero draft, circumventing the negotiation/contact-group process. In a worst-case scenario, the contact groups’ efforts to narrow down the options would be thrown under the bus, and one might see even more options than initially proposed in the working document to be included in the zero draft.
That was a depressing moment … In a way, the extensive resources and efforts put into the preparation of INC 2, and the good work and best intentions of the secretariat, the co-facilitators and various Member States and organizations, were mostly wasted because of a small number of opponents. As someone reported after INC 2: we do not have time to lose, and now we even have less time to lose.
Then, there was the moment of epiphany, enlightened by a close friend, “the chair would anyway have a difficult time to choose which options to include in the zero draft.” That is very right. A weak starting point is still a starting point. With all the good wills and smart minds, there is still hope.
Oscar Wilde once said, “we are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” Looking at the stars, we scientists should come together and move on, actively connecting with Member States and organizations to understand their needs and how we may use our knowledge and expertise to support them in the forthcoming INC processes.
—
Longer daily reports prepared by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Earth Negotiations Bulletin are available at: https://enb.iisd.org/plastic-pollution-marine-environment-negotiating-committee-inc2