Plastic Pollution Dialogue

Plastics Treaty | State of Play and Priorities for an Ambitious Outcome

Estimated read time: 1:20

Summary

The event, organized by the Geneva Environment Network, brought together esteemed delegates and experts to discuss the ongoing negotiations for a global plastics treaty aimed at reducing plastic pollution. The dialogue focused on evaluating the progress made so far, the existing challenges, and the priorities necessary to achieve an effective and ambitious treaty. Insights from various sessions highlighted the significance of measurable global targets, financial frameworks, and inclusive participation, emphasizing the critical need for an international legally binding instrument to address the comprehensive life cycle of plastics.

Highlights

Esteemed delegates gather to discuss a global treaty for plastic reduction 🌏
The significance of legally binding measures in addressing plastic pollution 💼
Norway and 69 friends advocate for lifecycle measures to curb plastic waste by 2040 🗓️
A call for action to prevent the escalation of environmental problems globally 📈
The role of international law in ensuring compliance and financial support for developing countries 🌐

Key Takeaways

An insightful discussion on the progress and challenges in forming a global plastics treaty 🗣️
The necessity of measurable, global targets to tackle plastic pollution effectively 🌍
A challenge to traditional negotiation methods, highlighting the need for innovative solutions 🚀
Importance of intersessional work and informal agreements to expedite treaty success 🤝
The pivotal role of financing mechanisms and stakeholder engagement in the negotiation process 💸

Overview

The Geneva Environment Network orchestrated a successful dialogue focusing on the progress and hurdles in the ongoing plastic treaty negotiations. The session was graced by high-ranking officials and experts who shared their insights and visions for navigating the complexities of reducing global plastic pollution. The dialogue highlighted the urgent need for an international treaty that addresses the entire lifecycle of plastics, ensuring environmental sustainability.

With delegates from numerous countries participating, the event underscored the significant progresses made, especially with the growing coalition of countries advocating for stringent, measurable targets. Challenges such as the scope of the treaty, financing mechanisms, and observer participation were debated, illustrating the importance of transparency and collaboration in achieving a transformative outcome.

An underlying theme expressed was the critical role of financial mechanisms and intersessional work, which are essential to driving the treaty forward. The dialogue served as a platform for asserting the necessity of innovative solutions and multi-stakeholder engagement in securing an ambitious and effective international treaty that will safeguard the environment and public health.

Chapters

00:00 - 00:30: Introduction The chapter 'Introduction' serves as the opening of the book, where it sets the stage for the content that will follow. The focus of the introduction is to provide context and background information to help readers understand the key themes and subjects that will be explored in the subsequent chapters. It typically outlines the main objectives, the significance of the work, and may even pose questions that the book aims to answer. Readers are provided with an overview that helps them engage with the book's material more deeply.
00:30 - 05:00: Event Launch and Welcome The chapter titled 'Event Launch and Welcome' marks the official beginning of an event focused on plastic pollution dialogues. It begins at 2 PM Geneva time with a warm welcome extended to excellencies, colleagues, and delegates. The event is part of a series initiated two years prior to the 2022 adoption of an impactful resolution at the United Nations Environmental Assembly. This resolution was pivotal in establishing a pathway towards a global treaty aimed at ending plastic pollution.
05:00 - 19:30: Session Overview and Negotiation Progress This chapter, "Session Overview and Negotiation Progress," discusses the ongoing multilateral efforts to address and mitigate plastic pollution. The event is organized by the Geneva Environment Network alongside Norway and Switzerland. The chapter highlights participation from various co-conveners including secretariats like Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions, the Center for International Environmental Law, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature. The focus is on linking existing dialogues and initiatives in the plastic pollution sphere, detailing the participation and roles of these organizations, and setting the stage for progress in negotiations.
19:30 - 30:00: Negotiation Challenges and Political Will The chapter discusses the challenges faced in negotiation and the political will required to overcome them. It mentions a forum on trade environment and the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) known as Tess, as well as the University of Geneva's involvement in these discussions. The intergovernmental negotiating committee is working to develop an international legally binding instrument following the adoption of a resolution and will be resuming its fifth session in the upcoming months. The series of events has been a platform for member states and stakeholders to prepare for these negotiations, and it is now reconvening.
30:00 - 42:45: Financial Mechanisms and Support The chapter begins with acknowledging the contributions of coalitions and partners in engaging with series co-conveners to propose dialogues supporting ongoing negotiations. The audience is joined by His Excellency Ambassador Luis Vias, chair of the committee, along with experts providing a progress overview and highlighting key priorities necessary for formulating an ambitious and effective treaty text.
42:45 - 52:00: Rules of Procedure and Decision-Making The chapter titled "Rules of Procedure and Decision-Making" begins with a reminder about the availability of event documents and materials online. This includes summaries, event videos, and transcripts in 100 different languages. Prior to the event, questions have been collected to guide the panel discussion, indicating a structured approach to the event.
52:00 - 73:00: International Treaty Considerations This chapter introduces Ambassador Tood Kaplan Anderson, the permanent representative of Norway to the United Nations office in Geneva and co-convenor of a series of events. Ambassador Anderson opens the discussion by expressing gratitude to the Geneva Environment Network and its partners for organizing the event.
73:00 - 79:45: Subsidies and National Plans The chapter discusses the urgent and escalating issue of global plastic pollution. The narrative emphasizes the importance of reaching an effective international treaty to address this environmental crisis by the end of the year. There is a global expectation for leaders to conclude this treaty, highlighting the critical nature of the problem and the need for collective action.
79:45 - 95:30: Conclusion and Next Steps The chapter emphasizes the importance and necessity of a multilateral system in addressing global problems, using plastic pollution as a primary example. It highlights that the only way to resolve plastic pollution is through global solutions. Norway, alongside other members of the high ambition Coalition, is advocating for legally binding measures across all stages of the plastic lifecycle aiming to eliminate plastic pollution by 2 (presumably meaning a certain year that was cut off in the text).

Plastics Treaty | State of Play and Priorities for an Ambitious Outcome Transcription

00:00 - 00:30 e
00:30 - 01:00 greetings to all it's now 2 pm Geneva times we are officially launching this event excellencies dear colleagues uh dear delegates welcome this to this new bit plastic pollution dialogue the series of events that we launched two years before the adoption in 2022 of a historic resolution at the United Nations environmental assembly setting up the path to a Global treaty to end
01:00 - 01:30 plastic pollution the series of dialogues making links with ongoing multilateral processes to tackle plastic pollution is organized by the Geneva environment Network in collaboration with the governments of Norway and Switzerland both joining uh today's panel to respectively open and close the event the other co-conveners are the Basel rdam and Stockholm convention Secretariat the center for international environmental law the international Union for conservation of nature The
01:30 - 02:00 Forum on trade environment and the sdgs known as Tess and the University of Geneva who is also joining us on the panel this uh the intermental negotiating committee to develop the international legally binding instrument that was set up following the adoption of the resolution will be resuming resuming its fifth session in a few months this series of events that has been providing uh member states and stakeholders a platform to prepare for negotiation um is now reconvening we are
02:00 - 02:30 thankful to to the coalitions and the other partners who regularly engage with the co-conveners of this series to propose dialogues that we hope can support the work of those engaged in this negotiation today we are delighted to be joined by the chair of the committee his Excellency ambassadors Luis Vias and by experts who will be providing an overview of the progress made and the key priorities that we need to have an ambitious and effective treaty text next I will share some
02:30 - 03:00 housekeeping rules before you are formally welcomed let me remind you that the documents presented the summary as well as the video of the event will be made available as usual on the web page of this event the transcript is available in 100 languages as indicated in this slide in preparation for this event we have collected questions for the panel that will Feit the discussion of this event and now to formally open this
03:00 - 03:30 dialogue we have the pleasure to be joined by his Excellency Ambassador tood Kaplan Anderson who is the permanent representative of Norway to the United Nations office and other International organizations here in Geneva and a co-convenor of the series of events with that Excellency you have the floor thank you very much Diana and hello everyone H good afternoon from Geneva it's great to be with all of you and let me thank the Geneva environment Network and their partners for for bringing us together to
03:30 - 04:00 St take stock of of where we are and just to remind everyone uh about the importance of what we're dealing with uh the plastic pollution problem is the most rapidly escalating environmental problem globally and at this stage ahead of the second round of the final meeting the world is watching us people everywhere is expecting us to conclude an effective treaty by the end of this year that is an important objective in itself and it's also stress test I would
04:00 - 04:30 say to the multilateral system at a time where many doubt its ability to deliver and plastic of course is uh the textbook example of a pressing problem that can only be resolved through Global solution so that's uh the stakes that we're looking at uh Norway has along with our 69 friends in the high ambition Coalition called for legally binding measures across the entire life cycle of plastics to end plastic pollution by 2
04:30 - 05:00 40 and we also participate in the dialogue on plastic pollution in the WTO the World Trade Organization that we believe can be a positive complement to the UN process and you know uh just again to remind you of the stakes without action leakage of plastics to the environment will reach 30 million tons in 2040 up from 20 million tons in 2020 and the amount of Plastics in rivers and oceans could almost double uh in the same time
05:00 - 05:30 period to 300 million tons by 2040 so at the inc5 over 100 countries supported the facing out of the most harmful Plastic Products and chemicals in a globally coordinated manner that is not nothing and something we can can build on over 100 countries also supported the goal to reduce production to sustainable levels and committed to taking measures across the life cycle to this end on on the process we believe that we can consolid this large group of
05:30 - 06:00 countries for an effective treaty also when it comes to financing and means of implementation because I think we all agree that the treaty should have a robust Financial mechanism to support recipient countries and their activities to combat plastic pollution so we see it as a crucial uh objective to reach agreement on on the relevant Provisions relevant articles on these issues that is 366 and 11 ahead of the Inc f 52 to be able to conclude
06:00 - 06:30 negotiations on an effective treaty there we cannot leave this to our principles to decide we need to to to reach agreement in advance uh we hope you also agree that and can support efforts to find Common Ground ahead of the Inc 52 we uh as Norway expect to participate uh at ministerial level and I encourage you uh your countries also to participate on on a political level as we all are getting ready for the resumed
06:30 - 07:00 session I would like to thank Diana and her team for all of their efforts to create these important opportunities to share information and look at priorities ahead we can do this and I now have the pleasure to give the floor to Ambassador Luis vas Valu from Ecuador the chair of the Inc dear colleague you have the floor thank you very much exellency dear friend Ambassador Eden for giving me the floor and thank you first of all to the
07:00 - 07:30 Geneva environment Network for organizing this very very important webinar and for giving me the opportunity also to share with you different My Views my perspective and also my messages to all of you thank you very much for that indeed ER first of all I would like to H highlight the commitment of the members of the member states in this process and taking the positive aspects that that we got in Inc five as Ambassador Edon mentioned ER we
07:30 - 08:00 have a high level of convergence in the majority of Provisions so I am glad to see how members are talking in this also intersectional period about that also taking the church text that I present at the end of Inc 5.2 as a point or a starting point of H our future negotiations so quite important also a goal that we got in in inc5 and also I'm
08:00 - 08:30 glad to see that member states are going deeper in those Provisions that are more complex Ambassador Anderson also mentioned those articles and I can see also Delight when I see members talking about us ER we all can recognize that the key to success is to find Common Grounds Landing zones agreements and I see once again I would like to reiterate that I see that this is happening in this
08:30 - 09:00 intersectional period and I'm encouraging members to do so and I'm happy to see that they are doing so and also that they are reporting on their preparation towards Inc 5.2 the process is very much alive and we we saw that in Inc 5 and after Inc 5.2 and we need to keep it alive and keep working very hard for a successful Inc 5.2 I urge member states to work work together and prepare Inc 5.2 to
09:00 - 09:30 have a success end in Inc 5.2 we have problems yes we have complex issues but one main problem that we have been facing since the beginning of this process is time time constraints and time limitations that we have faced and we are still facing those ER that problem that's why we need to be effective very effective in the organization of our work ER this this
09:30 - 10:00 process has different particularities but one of them is to have and we have seen and that's positive is a positive particularity to have more than 3,000 observers participating and is increasing that level of participation and it's very important their contribution not only participation but also contribution and I want to reiterate that we will keep working together with all stakeholders scientists represent representatives from Civil Society private sector and we
10:00 - 10:30 will strength also the communication with observers during 5.2 once again thank you so much to Geneva environment Network and congratulations also once again for the 25th anniversary and I wish 25 50 or 100 more years of success thank you very much thank you very much chair Vias um
10:30 - 11:00 my name is talash Kai and I thank you very much for having me to the Geneva environment Network um my name is Tash as I said and I lead the team that produces the Earth negotiations bulletin at the Inc uh this panel will deal with unpacking in 5.1 and the way forward I've been asked to address three things one the progress made between Inc 4 and Inc 5.1 and also some of the progress made at in 5.1 two the point of
11:00 - 11:30 agreement and contention and three the context of the plastic stocks within environmental multilateralism so firstly on the progress made um as has been said before like a lot a lot was done um at for me at a 5.1 first and foremost delegates had before them this new text the chair n paper which was more focused than the compiled text that they that they had been expecting to go through this n paper contained suggested text in treaty language and suggestions for how
11:30 - 12:00 to deal with the more difficult issues that was a giant leap and in the end the chair's text um out of Busan is 22 Pages which is down from the compil text 68 pages um also Inc 5.1 got the text to its most negotiated and actually perhaps it can also be called um the redline Inc the redline meeting because States shared their red lines on issues throughout the text um they worked in contact groups which were were open of course to just a limited number of
12:00 - 12:30 observers and also in different configurations of informal discussions whether they were in the corridors whether they were more formal and so in that sense they're closer to agreement now than ever before on certain elements States also as has been mentioned formed coalitions over important issues and that's something that we haven't seen before at this at this uh during this process they were also able to work together on bridging proposals um which are some of which are some of which are
12:30 - 13:00 now being negotiated including on issues such as Finance where a proposal from the African group and one from the US have sort of been merged to create what we have now as article 11 uh before I begin to talk about my next um point I have to note that for most of the substantive issues included in the text as it now stands actions that should be taken at the national level this is um concerning because plastic pollution is a transboundary is issue as we know and it's an issue of global
13:00 - 13:30 concern and limiting action to the National level lowers the ambition quite significantly at this point can the text be refocused to prioritize Global actions to prioritize on global actions to end plastic pollution I hope so and I think that I'm encouraged by the fact that the chair has talked about intersessional work and ongoing discussions intersectionally so now onto areas of emerging agreement here I I I've been a bit reticent I was I was very nervous about preparing this because the text obviously has to be looked at as a whole
13:30 - 14:00 and there are areas for example when you look at the the chair's text most of the text seems um clean but when you look at but you have to look at the text as a whole so uh and and understand also that this is the chair's understanding of the state of play um towards the end actually at the in the last plenary we heard interventions from States noting that the text was not balanced and announcing that they would be more they would be submitting a more text which you know may of course balloon the text but there are core issues that some feel
14:00 - 14:30 are not being have not been addressed so as I said looking at the look at looking at the text holistically I think I guess all the substantive issues would need to be ironed out um concretely for example on product design extended extended producer responsibility on leakages and releases Waste Management existing waste capacity building te technical assistance and Technology transfer also there are some issues that haven't been included in the text at all at this point right so so will we will
14:30 - 15:00 we see Standalone articles on health on biodiversity um SIDS have repeatedly called for a remediation fund uh which is not in the text which we haven't discussed so like at which point do we get to to see that text and will it end up in the treaty text and then you know as I mentioned before so Global measures versus National measures to end plastic pollutions also very much still on the table and still in contention cuz these help to set the level of ambition and then will these measures be voluntary will they be um mandatory all of this is
15:00 - 15:30 still in contention and so like when you look at the text holistically you realize that like a lot of unlocking needs to happen as we move forward and then the ambition needs to be raised even on these sort of simple simpler issues so then we can move on to the more contentious issues as have already been named uh the three big ticket items that will require enormous amounts of political will to unlock our article three on products where the chemicals of concern are sort of said in said
15:30 - 16:00 silently um part six on Supply and sustainable production and part and article 11 on uh financial resources and mechanism the articles on product and supply and sustainable production speak to the very scope of the future instrument which in itself needs to be defined and included in the text we all celebrated I remember I was I was right there at you um when UNF uh resolution 514 which commit states to end plastic
16:00 - 16:30 pollution including the in the marine environment was was adopted and especially when we saw that this was also to address the entire life cycle of plastic As We Now know as the information is becoming more and more clear plastic is the primary material from which plastic products are made these Plastic Products of course later tend to pollution at one stage or other so in this sense States committed to addressing plastic production as well as plastic products found to cause the
16:30 - 17:00 most harm to human health and the environment and the chemicals that these Plastics contain so back to the the idea of unlocking how will States balance between their commitment to address the full life cycle of plastics and their duty to the people who make a living in the Plastics industry right we we we cannot see an article on just transition without looking at the broader environment in which it it it is uh finally the article on finance which will be discussed um later on by other panelists when the nonp paper was first
17:00 - 17:30 uh discussed at 5 in 5.1 there were there was hope that two proposals one from Africa one from the US providing quite different perspectives on how the money component worked there was there was hope that those proposals could be bridged but a lot has changed in the few months um since uh Busan uh and the global in uh the Global Financial landscape is is Shifting political will around Financial flows from a global North to the global
17:30 - 18:00 South seem to be waning so how is the new treaty going to ensure adequate finances for implementation is a Montreal protocol like multilateral fund for plastic pollution which very many developing countries have been calling for is that still possible so again more more unlocking more discussions need to happen here but having said all this let's not forget the broader landscape in which the new treaty will fit in once it's adopted the issue of plastic Plastics or plastic pollution has always been complex the more we learn about
18:00 - 18:30 plastic and plastic pollution the more fets of Our Lives we know now that it touches it spans across so many meas and other agreements right so from the BRS chemicals and chemicals and waste um to climate change biodiversity and so many you know sort of biodiversity related conventions under that including enclos um it's also a human health issue the there have been conversations under who on this they've been conversations under
18:30 - 19:00 the FAO because it affects our food water security it's also a trade issue under the WTO with ongoing talks to to that end and I guess again States really need to keep in mind that entire landscape as they look as they look towards Inc 5.2 and as they try to get an agreement and with that I hand over to Magnus Loval who is a project supervisor at the Norwegian Academy of international law thank you thank very much for that uh Tash and
19:00 - 19:30 and good morning good afternoon good evening everybody so my name is Magnus Lal I'm I'm with um with nail or norian Academy of international law as as talash said um I'm very pleased to be with you uh today I'm um a little bit ill today I should say so I hope that my voice will hold and that my head will will remain uh as clear as as as it needs to be throughout throughout the session um of course uh looking back a little bit bit at um Inc 51 as we now
19:30 - 20:00 call it in Busan I think you know we all saw the saw the headlines to some extent uh the BBC I think they called it the collapse of of the Plastics treaty negotiations I think Reuters reported a failure of the of the treaty negotiations um and I think you know there was this general impression of of failure in Busan um created by these uh by by these headlines and of course the ambition was to conclude this treaty by the end of 2024 so in that sense a mere
20:00 - 20:30 temporal sense so to speak it it was a failure but I think it's clear and I agree very much with with the previous speakers uh that if you look below the headlines and you look below the surface uh a little bit that Inc 5.1 in Busan marked actually a a significant step forward for this uh for this process then agree with with tash's point that you know there there was a sense of of considerable more Focus focus in the negotiations uh than than previous inc's
20:30 - 21:00 um in in my view having followed the the Inc session so far the U the one in Busan was by far the most productive one in terms of outcomes um and I think that I agree very much that the chairs non papers um that were prepared in runup to the session and also went through several several iteration during the session in Busan really helped explore U areas of possible convergence and also highlight uh the real choices uh that
21:00 - 21:30 negotiators are are faced with in these uh in these negotiations I also very much agree that you know you saw countries and groups of countries uh showing their their cards um their their real red lines uh submitting um uh some some proposals important proposals on key Provisions including on articles 35 uh 6 11 and and 20 and this led to an uh sort of actual negotiations and and
21:30 - 22:00 which entailed movement in countries uh positions and I think this from my perspective this also indicated an an increase in the sort of atmosphere of trust in the in the process I think this is a trust that we to some extent saw also in how negotiators uh empowered both the chair and and the co-chairs to take uh the the step forward moving on from what I have called a little bit of track changes exercise that we have seen with all the bracket it's being inserted at previous uh inc's but I think from
22:00 - 22:30 from my perspective most importantly uh the meeting in Busan and why I think it was a real uh significant move forward was that it it marked a what I've called a moment of ascendency for for the Progressive Majority which was marked in particular by the the two joint statements that were delivered towards the end of of the meeting uh one by by Mexico on behalf of of 95 States on on products and and chem chals face outs and also a significant statement
22:30 - 23:00 delivered by Rwanda on behalf of 85 uh States these statements which I think generated significant energy and support in the room shows in my mind that the kind of leadership that this uh treaty process uh needs that this leadership is is emerging and sort of looking where we are now um for me the biggest question is whether this Progressive Majority will capitalize on or build upon these achievements and develop an an
23:00 - 23:30 updated and near final treaty text ready for adoption at Inc 5.2 uh whenever that may may happen um I think um this The increased Focus that were provided by the chair's nonp papers and a political will mobilized uh through the joint statements leads me to Hope if nothing else uh that we will see such an initiative emerging uh in in the coming uh months and just wanted to also reflect a little bit uh on what uh such
23:30 - 24:00 an initiative will require uh moving moving forward and some of the things that I sort of observing this process will will definitely keep an eye out for um and I think there are mainly three three main three main uh aspects or or elements that will uh require work uh in my mind and the first is the technical and legal work uh to develop further develop the the the treat text uh in in the runup to Inc 5.2 and this is clearly
24:00 - 24:30 partly an intellectual challenge figuring out how to design a set of articles that will fit coherently together and and actually have the effect that we're we're looking uh uh looking for and I think we'll hear more from from from Joshua and Elena on this in a minute I believe but it's also partly a mobilization uh challenge uh sort of bringing the largest group largest group possible behind uh such a text the the Progressive Majority uh I
24:30 - 25:00 think uh in these negotiations the states that are involved in good faith actually trying to find a solution to the problem plastic pollution is significantly larger than the 100 something states that that signed or co-signed these joint statements in Busan and I think you know mobilizing this this group and rallying this group will be a a significant mobilization challenge in the coming months leading up to 5.2 the second aspect that in my mind will require work at a label sort of procedural uh work and
25:00 - 25:30 specifically for this for this group this Progressive Majority to to make a credible path for the adoption of this treaty even if some countries uh choose not to join at least uh initially I think I've I've said and and I've also written before that the idea of adopting um this treaty by a consensus I don't see it as as realistic and I think also uh some of the spoiler tactics that we saw uh continue to see um uh on play in
25:30 - 26:00 in Busan made that that very clear in my my mind that you need a an alternative um adoption modality than having basically everybody agree or at least everybody not disagreeing with with the outcome um I do think I mean it's very clear that these alternative adoption or adoption mod modalities as an alternative consensus they they they need to be developed and they exist there is Pres cedent for for adopting treaties by by a vote uh there's
26:00 - 26:30 precedence for forwarding a draft treaty text to an alternative Arena capable of making decisions or of course simply deciding for countries simply deciding to adopt a treaty irrespective of uh the The Forum in which this takes place so I think we should keep in mind that we have a tendency in these processes to to erect our own barriers to some uh extent uh but also remember that no country or a group of country uh has the right to stop another group of country from from
26:30 - 27:00 exercising their Sovereign Sovereign right to to enter into International uh agreements so that's I think it's an important uh point to to to proceed upon when thinking about how such a treaty can be adopted and finally uh the last track that I think will require work um and we I will definitely look out for in the coming months uh leading up to Inc 5.2 is the the political work the to prepare uh ministers who will ultimately of course be the ones um signing uh and
27:00 - 27:30 agreeing to this treaty on behalf of their countries um and preparing them of what adopting a strong treaty actually requires in terms of of of leadership uh it's clear of course that moving uh on from or moving beyond a fairly deepr rooted culture of of what I would call absolute consensus in environmental diplomacy is at all order and will require significant leadership and and these ministers will also have to be provided with Arenas both at 5.2 but
27:30 - 28:00 also in the run at 5.2 uh to articulate their support for for for a strong treaty uh adopted by by a Progressive Majority uh of States that's my two cents and what I wanted to wanted to say looking forward to a discussion and I now pass uh the floor on to uh my dear colleague and friend uh Joshua link and josha you have the floor Magnus um thank you everybody good morning good afternoon good evening from Boston Massachusetts it's a pleasure to
28:00 - 28:30 be with you all um a great discussion a great start to to getting back in the bath of the the Plastics treaty as it were um I think many things have already been said I'm going to try and add a couple of thoughts um to the pot in the hopes that we can we can have a have a conversation as it were uh to to to explore further some of these issues um it's been said already I think Inc 5.1 as it's now called uh saw a welcome shift to what I would call Strategic negotiations as a as a process there was
28:30 - 29:00 more bargaining there were more proposals and they were matrixed in the sense that with each proposal there was now a coalition backing it in this process increased as we went so that was very welcome um I have to say at the same time that I I've heard often the remark that we ran out of time in Busan and I I think I don't really share that view I think we kind of went as far as we could um there were substantial substantial differences in positions between parties that emerged and I don't
29:00 - 29:30 think that they were bridgeable in Busan uh in that sense I I I want to join the The Hope and the optimism of of of Busan to this sort of ongoing concern about whether or not positions can be bridged on some of these issues and um I think in that respect what is needed I know we speak about a 5.2 but conceptually I think we actually are speaking about a six we need Inc 6 we need a a further evolution of the process that we saw there was an evolution from four to 5
29:30 - 30:00 and now we need from 5 to six exactly what form that will take I think is really the main question for the months to come for the intercessional period from now until whenever that next session is is held um I say that because uh of course there are additional uncertainties that have been added to the circumstances since since Busan in particular the position of the United States um it's too early to tell um it's too early to analyze or project uh what that position will be but it will have a substantial impact on on the
30:00 - 30:30 negotiations in this next round there are sort of three looming questions cordor questions three ideas that that people were talking about Busan before Busan and since then um and I also think it's it's useful to identify them if at least to know what to do with them and the first is really this idea of a treaty of the Willing um it's been it's been spoken about as an alternative you heard Magnus speak about it um you heard some of the other speakers refer to it um and that as a sort of as an option I think again the
30:30 - 31:00 perspective on that has changed since Busan and we need to to to put it on the shelf for now it's too early to come to this question in some respects similarly the idea that um as we've heard it again um and I would I would call that what's been referred to as the Ottawa option ref reference of course to the Ottawa landmine treaty as a as a sort of step out of the existing process and go next door across the street and start a new process the second one would be the idea that there no deal is better than a bad deal um and you heard this very recently
31:00 - 31:30 um articulating the European Parliament European union and so on again I think um perhaps too early um to to really come to that question uh that in in my mind I always think of as the Copenhagen to Paris transition moment the fact that sometimes you need a good good failure you have to walk away from a bad deal or the inability to get a deal in order to come back to it later and one of the things that gives me Comfort with respect to that that is just to be reminded that the the Plastics crisis
31:30 - 32:00 itself is not going away it will just keep coming back uh I would bet money that the Plastics crisis five years from today or 10 years from today will be worse according to all scientific indicators than it is today which means that the the global pressure to to seek a a solution to this um is not going away and and and that is also something that is useful to remember the third idea is um something in between um and we've heard some talk about this
32:00 - 32:30 two of my colleagues um Dan Bensky and marianova recently wrote a piece talking about the virtues of the marpole treaty on Maritime pollution as a kind of a menu like treaty where you all parties could sign up to a main a main uh part of the treaty and then a series of protocols dealing with particular issues sub isues articles um could be could then be sort of available to and you could bring the measure of ambition that you wish to this treaty and it would allow us to find them A Passage through
32:30 - 33:00 this moment all three of these issues it seems to me we it's too early to talk about um and in in a way what is needed in the interim from now until um Inc 5.2 is really to focus instead on continuing to build the treaty that was being built at absam in that sense uh again you heard the previous speakers refer to it um you know developing the the proposals Bridging the proposals building the coalitions getting more SU atic with the work that that lines up Behind These key
33:00 - 33:30 key issues uh I think we need to understand better the the the so-called Rhonda Coalition from the the closing ceremony the the Mexico Coalition um also from the closing ceremony where the hack stands on some of these things um the African uh group proposal what was called the African group proposal on on financing same thing all these things were positive but in a way that work needs to absolutely continue between now and and and 5.2 the second thing is by
33:30 - 34:00 reminding ourselves about sort of where the effectiveness of the treaty lies and and not to take our eye off the ball um a colleague Yan Johnston of mine and I have written a little bit about this this idea that you can think about treaty Effectiveness or treaty strength along two axes the sort of substantive axis of the provisions themselves but then a procedural axis as well it's equivalent to the idea of of giving the treaty good bones and there are sort of five five things that one can look for other people may come to different different lists of them um the first is
34:00 - 34:30 National reports all of these in some measure are in the chairs draft which is encouraging and some of them are not in it sufficiently shall we say um in in that respect so um Regular National reports currently articles 14 and 15 an expert scientific function uh ideally a committee itself this is sort of the the the weaker of the elements it's mentioned in 20 bis but uh simply as uh which is sort of about subsidiary B all it says right now is the cop can create
34:30 - 35:00 such bodies I think we would like to see I think it would be important to see specific design of a scientific subcommittee scientific body in the treaty language itself third is the implementation committee which is currently in Article 13 which is great and essential um it could probably use a little bit of strengthening as well uh as we go fourth is regular review of the treaty bites parties and this is the the function of the conference of parties uh article 6 currently um there the question about the voting process and
35:00 - 35:30 the rules of procedure of the conference of parties arises it's been discussed before but this is an issue that does not go away um our friends at the center on International environmental law have produced a lot of good work on this issue but detailing that in the treaty language itself would be essential and Fifth and finally a defined process to amend to upgrade uh to evolve the substantive obligations including the possibilities of new annexes this uh this might be the one that that that would depend the most on um an answer to
35:30 - 36:00 the three questions that we were talking about earlier uh exactly how do we see this treaty evolving from the day of signature onward um I think I would add a sixth which is strengthening the language of the treaty with respect to Human Rights and I think um in in in specific terms there is no reference in the treaty anywhere to the right to a clean healthy and sustainable environment which as you know was a sort of of the youngest of the human rights recognized
36:00 - 36:30 by the human rights uh Council and by the general assembly a couple years ago and it would be entirely fitting entirely appropriate and in fact very important that it be understood that the work on Plastics Falls within the context of this of this human rights framework um the the the the second thing that I would add is I think we could use this period from my perspective to improve the possibility and the outcome of the negotiations themselves that is some work that can be done now you heard Magnus speak to some
36:30 - 37:00 of it um but I I would in particular I think that there is more work to be done in terms of modeling and statistical understanding of of some of the tradeoffs and impact of of what is being considered under Articles three uh six I mean three on plastic products and chemicals of concern five plastic product design six Supply and 11 Financial mechanism uh we need modeling we need data to inform some of the
37:00 - 37:30 choices I'm not aware of any substantial work in this area but for the tradeoffs and for the negotiations to be more productive we need to have an understanding about the consequences of what is being written into the treaty or the impact of it over time I don't see that yet similarly I think we could use a better understanding of the underlying motivations of key States key players I think uh it's too easy if we want to promote an interest based negotiation we have to do a better job I don't see a
37:30 - 38:00 deep understanding between states of the interests or an awareness of the interests uh long-term medium-term short-term of other states so uh I believe there's a range of key players I would include in that the United States China India Brazil Saudi Arabia Iran Russia probably a number of others where a deeper understanding greater dialogue with respect to what their interests are what their concerns are uh needs to be fostered in order to have a more productive next round similarly uh
38:00 - 38:30 mapping influence networks is always very interesting figuring out how these coalitions and these member states work together um and then I think I we've all mentioned it but assessing and promoting the work of the various coalitions as bundlers of the interests that they represent so the Mexico group The Ronda group the hack the like-minded as well uh in so far as these can all Advance stated clear increasingly clear agend gend as and interests they then begin allow for a deepen discussion a deepen
38:30 - 39:00 negotiation so I think um those would be the elements that I could think of of useful ways to spend to spend the months between now and Inc 5.2 or inc6 conceptually as I think I'm promoting the idea and in that respect I think also we need that time in order for some of the uncertainty that is in in that has emerged since the conclusion at Busan to dispel some of these questions will really not not be resolved not become apparent until the opening bell
39:00 - 39:30 of 5.2 of uh round Inc number six so we need to in a way prepare along different tracks it is a it is a moment of sobriety of sober reflection uh of preparation I think the the effort has to go to building the strong treaty that we had anticipated the work that began in Busan in a way um with the the a while maintaining the agility and the ability to adapt and to figure out what the best options uh may be as the negotiations themselves resume and and
39:30 - 40:00 move towards their conclusion at the end of that particular round so uh with that um I'm going to hand over to Professor Elena Sima and thank you very much thank you very much Joshua um for passing the Baton and thank you as well for mentioning uh the marpel uh convention and the fact that we can learn so much from existing treaties existing meas and we can you know there's not really much that we need to reinvent but there are so many lessons
40:00 - 40:30 that we can draw and I will try to uh make some references uh to some of you know other existing processes existing treaties that can teach us a lot in particular about financing so we'll focus uh in these few minutes uh that I have I will talk a little bit about um you know the the the the financing let's say uh component of the of the process of the negotiations and of the treaty and I want to start by just um underlining the importance of this uh Dimension and this component of the
40:30 - 41:00 treaty uh this is something that is first of all required uh by International environmental law uh the idea of providing support to less developed countries um and to keep in mind the differences uh among countries when designing a financial mechanism or a financial uh system for support uh it is really um rooted in the idea that uh a treaty like this like any other um environmental treaties should aim uh at
41:00 - 41:30 preventing environmental harm so uh the overarching idea is to just facilitate compliance uh and providing Technical and financial support is precisely how we make sure um that all countries can contribute uh at different levels but our countries are put in a in a situation where they can in a way or another uh contribute then at a practical level um I believe that this uh this part of the treaty is one of the most complicated one of the most fascinating but it's also one of the most critical um to a success um of the
41:30 - 42:00 negotiations um I believe it is key in order to ensure the participation of of countries uh less developed countries would not participate if uh financial support and and a and a good and efficient Financial mechanism um is not in place at the same time it is also um a part of the treaty that um you know raises some concerns for developed countries or for those countries that are those that should provide the
42:00 - 42:30 financial support um they have a significant interest in in the actual formulation and the actual uh design but I do think that again any environmental treaty um would be very hard uh to negotiate without uh a clear idea of this of this component and that is why uh I do believe that is that is really key and that and this is one of the of the aspects that we it's really important to to discuss and we need to try to make some um some progress and sub some some steps forward now the good
42:30 - 43:00 news uh I think after all this process is that uh at least uh from the way I see it there is a general agreement um as to the importance of um coming up with a good section with a good provision um on on financing um and we have now a draft a draft article article 11 now the bad news is that there are still a lot of unanswered question questions uh and I think that there are still a lot of challenges still many
43:00 - 43:30 areas uh where there is quite significant disagreement among countries and some are are interconnected uh now I could go on uh for a very long time so I've decided to just focus on five what I believe are five uh main uh challenges and and and and open and unanswered questions but then of course I'm happy to also touch upon touch upon others um and these are all again question questions that have not yet been answered uh by by the draft that we have
43:30 - 44:00 so the first um the first uh point is the type of the obligation of the financing or funding obligation now uh very different formulations have been proposed uh there are different types of language and different levels and types of commitments uh from a legal uh standpoint different uh terms are used shell undertakes the idea of voluntary contribution so this is a first question that uh that has to be addressed um and
44:00 - 44:30 it again it doesn't have to be addressed on its own we can also link it uh with my second uh main point which is um who first of all who are the subjects of these obligations so what countries uh have to provide the financing the funding and to whom so which countries uh should be the recipients now here again um there are you know there is a certain level of of disagreement um and here is I believe where for example when we're thinking about what countries should provide the funding um that's
44:30 - 45:00 where the first point so what kind of obligation can also um you know can also help in the discussion because we could even think about different levels of obligations for different for different countries um I'm thinking for example of the of the multilateral fund uh of the Montreal protocol where um which is financed by mandatory contributions from developed countries and then contri contributions from other parties uh that are just encouraged and are on a
45:00 - 45:30 voluntary basis so the discussion on the on the question of mandatory voluntary could also then uh be brought in a discussion on which which countries which parties should uh should provide the funding another like a third point and probably the uh I think the biggest question uh is really in terms of the source of the financing um this is this is a big question um and the text right now envisions multiple uh possible
45:30 - 46:00 funding streams um public financing domestically private different different mechanisms plastic fees extended producer responsibility multilateral Aid private sector investment and so on and so forth so there there are a lot of options out there um now there are a couple of things that I that I kind of would like to to to highlight the first one is that um these don't have to be alternative of course we can also think
46:00 - 46:30 of a of a system where there are several uh different mechanisms um in place um and we where we can for example mix private and and public of course so the first I think element to keep in mind is that uh we could uh Envision a mechanisms where you know there are multiple sources and again you know there are several several examples under the Kyo protocol for example uh there was the the Prototype carbon fund was hybrid it was mixed private uh private
46:30 - 47:00 and and public or the private sector facility of the green climate fund the climate regime is actually an excellent example when it comes to different uh types of of of financing mechanisms um and this takes me to the second point that yes that we can Envision a mix of different sources and that we can learn so much uh from uh from uh other treaties so um I do think that existing agreements and existing funds can really uh you know provide a lot of different types of mechanisms uh that we can uh
47:00 - 47:30 that we can look at um now uh a fourth Point uh that I wanted to make is about the kind of fund so if we if we if we think about um a new independent multilateral fund rather than relying on on an existing mechanism such as the Global Environmental facility um then again there are a lot of a lot of things that we could that we could think about and just like for the approaches and for the sources of the financing it doesn't have to just be one fund there are some
47:30 - 48:00 parties for example that have been advocating for a remediation fund alongside um a more like dedicated Financial mechanism and honestly the two can can can coexist again the climate regime is a very good example there are multiple funds uh in the in the climate regime we had for example funds for uh for mitigation and adaptation funds for loss and damage so that's also something to to keep in mind and finally the last Point uh that I think is something that
48:00 - 48:30 is again there is agreement um in general terms but then there are a lot of elements that have to be really um straightened out is the how to prioritize certain especially vulnerable uh States I'm thinking of small island developing States for example or least developed countries um that of course should should be prioritized in terms of being recipients of this financing and again I think that here is important to to Really uh select and identify the factors that should be taken into
48:30 - 49:00 account when um identifying uh these specific categories and here again we have in some meas some good examples of how to differentiate and how to how to identify um these these more more vulnerable countries I just want you to focus focus on these five um I believe challenges or unanswered questions uh but there are of course a lot of other uh elements of of the of article 11 and of the of the whole financing section of
49:00 - 49:30 the of the text that are that are still open for discussion so I'm also happy to uh to continue in the in the Q&A thank you very much
49:30 - 50:00 colleagues we were hoping you would be uh taking the questions and I let Tash and Magnus maybe react first and when you want to drop a question just uh let the S and we move to the next slide um so sorry about that uh so is there a path to having rules of procedure that would allow for voting I mean this is very controversial this this um qu very question held up um most of Inc
50:00 - 50:30 2 um and it's just it's just unclear the current rules of procedure it's not very clear that I'm just going I'm just going to stop there I I feel like it's it's very controversial and there are very many people on the call and yeah maybe I can step in um and maybe also reflect a bit on this this question uh agreeing very much that is a controversial question that has been um uh discussed at length in the Inc and
50:30 - 51:00 took up more than half of the negotiation time at a meeting inc2 in in Paris um and has come up repeatedly maybe just very very briefly I would say if there's to the question is there a path to having uh rules of procedure that would allow voting if the question is is there a procedural path the the answer is yes uh I would say um there is a procedural path for the adoption of the rules procedure um to get a little bit technical um the as
51:00 - 51:30 as I think talash notes in the answer in in the chat is that this is uh related to rule 38.1 in the rules of procedure regarding um decision- making on substantive matters and that's what's been very controversial that includes like big decisions such as treaty adoption for instance and that um that has a long history but it's it's it's been it's in dispute I think we can uh we we can all agree um that that rule um but uh there is another rule in the rules procedure 38.2 which relates to
51:30 - 52:00 procedural questions and procedural questions can be uh settled by a uh vote of simple majority and that rule has not been contested and in so far as the rules procedure provisionally apply to the work of the Inc which was the decision made at Inc Point uh inc1 uh it is possible to settle in theory there possible to settle the question of the rules of procedure at through uh rule 38.2 uh the procedural uh and sort of
52:00 - 52:30 frame that as procedural question now there's all kinds of scenarios that comes up when thinking about these things because it can be disputed whether the adoption of the rules procedure is a procedural question or a substantive question uh but there's also a mechanism and then if you look at rule 38.3 for settling those kind of kinds of issues so I think that in general the rules procedure as they are currently drafted and as they apply to the committee they do allow for uh a resolution to these issues um but I think the bigger question if you interpret your question the question on
52:30 - 53:00 the screen as is there a political path to having the rules of procedure adopted that's a very different question and it's much harder to to answer but I would say where there's a will there's a way always um and that applies to these negotiations as well
53:00 - 53:30 um this is a very interesting question uh I mean maybe it might be that we need to change where we need we need to talk about the scope and if we look at what the scope could be for this treaty if the scope is on plastic and like if if you if we imagine that plastic pollution starts at the the level of production of plastic then perhaps it's
53:30 - 54:00 possible perhaps it's possible for if we're going to be true to the Mandate of resolution 514 then the countries that are the producers of plastic really do have to step step up very much like under the unfc but you know we're also very cognizant of how that's going thank you for this question it's very
54:00 - 54:30 difficult can I can I just maybe uh jump in and and add a thought which is I I often think about this I said you know if I want to sell you a kilo of something my ability to sell it to you depends on your willingness to buy it uh and so uh and this is part of the reason why I think I think it's a moment of of sober reflection on all parts I think there's a danger for for for people to overread their hand as well U the problem will not go away if they um and so you have a question the real
54:30 - 55:00 question becomes where this where this issue this specific issue finds resolution does it find resolution at the international regulation level I.E in a treaty or does it find resolution within Regional markets which is regional markets will be in to establish their own uh regulatory Frameworks about importing plastic sale of plastic resale of plastic does it fall at the national level and so um this question you know production on uh a cap production or the question of Supply will eventually find
55:00 - 55:30 an answer the question is where it finds an answer and at the end of what process there's been a proposal that it find an answer here in the international treaty We There are reasons to believe that this would be an excellent place an excellent way for do for it to do so but if that doesn't happen um then it will probably um find u a stable point in other ways through other mechanisms and I I think that that's one of the reasons why I think really everyone absolutely everyone needs to think do we want do we need a treaty now and what are the costs
55:30 - 56:00 uh of not securing a treaty now or of not having the treaty address certain issues now the issues themselves will not go away and and so you you the risk that you run if you give up if you if you successfully exclude this issue from the treaty is that this issue will go and find a resolution outside the treaty framework somewhere else where you may have much less control over it
56:00 - 56:30 nobody knows I don't know does anyone know uh no but the last uh minutes of the the bureau meeting was that they were exploring um maybe July maybe in Geneva but unclear we we are yet to hear the official communication I I I heard Geneva as
56:30 - 57:00 well um maybe I can take a first attempt at this and I would welcome any of the panelists come to my come to my help uh on this one um I I think you you heard me articulate earlier I I believe the position of the US and its engagement with this is not yet known I think I think we have to be sober and careful in the way in which we describe
57:00 - 57:30 this and not surrender to hyperbole on on either side we don't know yet um the US has withdrawn from two out of three international negotiation processes that it was formally engaged in the pandemic treaty and the taxation treaty um it did so following executive orders signed from the White House um and and then it it exited those processes in one case three days before the third 13th round of the pandemic treaty and in another case on the opening afternoon of the
57:30 - 58:00 first day of the taxation treaty um as I said in both cases that followed executive orders issued out of the White House very early on we have not had such an executive order in the case of plastics um and I think therefore we shouldn't interpret it one way or the other um there has been the the paper straws executive order which gives an indication that all is not well with respect to um the focus on PL ICS um that that executive order for those of you are not familiar basically um tried
58:00 - 58:30 to uh remove the uh the use and the purchase by the federal government of paper straws as was a replacement for plastic straws but again I I not I think it's useful not to um not to move precipitously with respect to this and and and therefore um to continue with the business with the work that that we've all outlined here about about about enriching and building the negotiations and taking them to the next level without which they can succeed
58:30 - 59:00 they cannot succeed uh one way or the other um I I think we will obviously find out whether it's on the a couple days before or a week before or the day of or or so on we will have an answer to this question and at that point then some of these other issues will come back around with respect to they they've come up in the chat already and in the Q&A already with respect to a treaty of the Willing with respect to how how quote unquote weak a treaty um is is is is acceptable whether a no treaty would
59:00 - 59:30 be a better option all these things it seems to me are really things that cannot be answered now and in some ways are are distractions if I can if I can suggest that for for the work that we've outlined here of of building a really rich profound serious sober next round of negotiations on on this treaty thank you I think just quickly sorry if you don't mind um every treaty negotiation has gives delegates an opportunity to
59:30 - 60:00 innovate right so Montreal protocol we have the multilateral fund for um the Mercury um treaty we have the special International Pro program which is the funding mechanisms which are different from others so maybe this is an opportunity right like at at the end at in at the end of Busan we didn't know that the Global Financial landscape was going to change as it has and maybe this pushes us into a new space where we can get some real Innovation where financing is concerned and maybe Elena wants to say more on
60:00 - 60:30 this no no for sure I I'm going to say something the movie is going to be a little bit controversial so I'm happy to to also Spar spark a debate with the other panelists but kind of um taking this question and the one before about you know what if we don't reach uh a consensus I I do think that the that this Global binding treaty on plastic is an extremely ambitious effort way more ambitious than at least to my knowledge any other previous multilateral environmental agreement uh not only the
60:30 - 61:00 the the you know the the problem that it tackles is extremely complex um but uh there has been this intention because of the urgency of the situation as well to go straight to just a binding treaty with all the elements that we can find in the treaty covering the whole supply chain and so the production cycle and so on and so forth um and again I'm going to say something a little controversial but I do think that um you know there are most treaties have
61:00 - 61:30 generally they usually start with the framework convention and then we go to protocols and of course we are a little bit too far ahead to go back to a framework convention but the idea of maybe you know um dividing certain aspects or certain topics I'm thinking of an example that maybe uh we will see how successful it's going to be by the fishery subsidies agreement at the WTO where they split two huge huge issues in a first wave and a second wave um it kind of worked at the time to try and
61:30 - 62:00 come and find consensus on some of the issues and then and then move move to others or the way in which the many protocols to some uh to some conventions work like know long range transboundary air pollution where you have your convention and then several protocols that touch upon specific aspects um and again I know that it goes a little bit um in a different direction than what the negotiations have been so far and I'm not saying that this is a best uh route but I I do think that if at a
62:00 - 62:30 certain point there are certain aspects that really are Block in the whole negotiations it could be maybe unless they are essential I think financing is essential we can't leave this for later uh but it could you know it it could be um something to think about if there are some elements that could be kind of set for a second wave or second phase I may also jump in on this oh sorry but yeah just just very quickly on this as well uh since you I I think those those thoughts about framework
62:30 - 63:00 convention are very interesting and I very much like controversial uh suggestions Alena so I appreciate that I think also for me that question highlights really the problem of of consensus right I mean consensus um will make a treaty making process extremely sensitive to the point of allergic to particular developments or political developments in particular countries right and that's one of the big uh problems uh with with with consensus and I think you know thinking about this treaty as a strategy we need this
63:00 - 63:30 strategy and this treaty to be effective even if some countries don't initially join right to set develop those rules and develop those mechanisms that will help uh reduce um uh and end plastic pollution and then sort of set a standard that allows other countries uh that may not initially join to join later on in time and I think there's also clear precedence for that right I mean many treaties they have been developed by a smaller group of states and then gradually gone through a
63:30 - 64:00 process of universalization where when the political developments in a particular country uh you know the Stars a line in a sense then they can join this treaty and that's I think that's also uh one way to think about think about this uh think about this this question can I jump back in because and I know there are other questions but in a way this is the sort of such an interesting thing I I think the points that you just been made are are are all essential and then the I think this is a little bit why I was saying look I think there's more work to be done with
64:00 - 64:30 respect to exploring the fundamental interests of states in order to promote I would say another level another layer of depth of Interest based negotiation we've kind of spent a couple inc's with everybody talking over each other's head um and and and and where I think most parties think they understand the interest of other parties but it's it's not always clear that that that's the case and uh the life the life cycle of this of this negotiation from 2022 from from the unaa resolution until present
64:30 - 65:00 has covered an extraordinarily chaotic and dynamic period in the International System it's a little bit like negotiating on the back of a tiger you know that so much has changed keeps changing between every Inc we have had fundamental changes and and as much as we like to inspire ourselves from the previous examples the good work the framework conventions whether it's Montreal or marpole or drawn all these things I I think you you heard it here and I think the point is very well made
65:00 - 65:30 there is going to be a need to innovate here and now to do something to bring together elements that haven't necessarily been brought together in the same way before that burden falls on the on the negotiators and on the ones that are going to have to try and Bridge the views and the positions between major coalitions and groups it it can't be done deep inside it has to be done at the edges it has to be done in discussion between the like-minded and the hack it has to be done between the so-called Mexico group the so-called Ronda group and a variety of others that
65:30 - 66:00 are going to come along with this and in only at the end of that I think do we will we know whether there's a whether there's a treaty there in in some respects um and but that that that process itself is going to be extremely interesting and Rich to to to watch and difficult um so I I in in a way uh you know wishing you all the best of luck
66:00 - 66:30 uh I can take a start but I'm sure some of my fellow panelists have have other other other things to add um having been in Busan and in the previous rounds I I shared the frustration of many of the NGS uh and and observers in the process I think we we had significant challenges some of them technical um I've heard Ambassador vaa since then speak to the need to improve communication and
66:30 - 67:00 participation for observers participants I'm I'm not going to speak on behalf of the secretary on behalf of of the chair here but I I have heard those those statements made while at the same time I've also heard them defending the need for member states to have their own Pro their own space and their own uh um sort of margin of of operation uh within which to to move this process which uh they underline is a is a member State L and driven process in that sense I I
67:00 - 67:30 think that there are again here some creative things that could be done to increase that sense of participation and and engagement um I Heard the Sid's representatives and um yesterday making reference the fact saying that the intercessional period is when uh Nos and observers can best affect and impact the process by engaging the member States during that period I thought the point was very well taken it's easy to think that um you know this comes down to the the negotiation sessions themselves and that that's when one wants to be heard
67:30 - 68:00 by member states but the reality is it's probably the months beforehand so again we come back to how best to use the time uh now and and I think that is probably a really important aspect of this maybe I can also jump uh jump in on this this question very very quickly just to maybe um build upon that point made by by Josh that I think inclusivity and participation in discussions is it's
68:00 - 68:30 partly a discuss a question of you know whether meetings are accessible open or closed right um and and you sort of NOS observers others are able to actually follow and and and find out what is going on and maybe also meaningfully interact right and provide their opinions and provide their points on the different items under discussion but I think maybe equally important it is the extent to which uh countries um that are involved in these negotiations are open
68:30 - 69:00 uh to NGO input on a sort of ongoing basis and I in my experience uh many of the delegates many of the countries not all but many of them are very open to hearing from uh NOS uh if they are approached um and they want to hear uh their points and they also take these points on board when they formulate their positions and in many ways that work and again building upon what Jor said that work work that is done in the runup to the negotiation sessions is also in my experience from other treaty
69:00 - 69:30 making processes more important in a sense more essential um than than the work that is actually taking place in the negotiation sessions themselves I don't want to take too much space but I I find all these questions really good um does anyone else want to comment on this
69:30 - 70:00 one um well I mean I guess there is a section for amending the treaty and making sure that I mean the states can amend the treaty um this is a growing issue as we know right the the science is still growing we're still learning so much about this and and just creating a treaty that is flexible enough to take in all of the knowledge that is going to come through in the next 15 years is very very important and I think that that section an amendment which hopefully is easier to agree because
70:00 - 70:30 it's it's part of the final provisions and it's it's sort of agreed language in other Provisions maybe that's maybe that helps yeah I I agree with you I think this is uh partly a question of treaty amendments and particularly if you go down the route of towards a framework convention solution as you suggested L I think the question about treaty amendments and developing of the roles in the future and how to do that it becomes increasingly important right and is there a credible um decision- making uh mechanism for to ensure the
70:30 - 71:00 strengthening the adoption of new annexes and new protocols down the line right incredibly important I think you know in these negotiations and I think we saw that increasingly in Busan um there's also question of the decision-making rule of the conference of parties uh which is a slightly different different issue um but that's also been contested to some extent um whether the conference of parties will adopt their rules of procedure by consensus or by some other mechanism um and I think you know um given you know I think
71:00 - 71:30 we all if if if a treaty should be can be conclude concluded this year as I think the Norwegian ambassadors said indicated was the was the ambition right uh there is a lot of questions and a lot of work that the conference of parties will be required to do now we know from other meas that adopting the rules procedure of conference of parties has been a very very difficult issues for instance in UNF C I don't think theyve I mean they have been working on this since 199 six and still have uh some of the rules of procedure in in Brackets right particularly the decision-making
71:30 - 72:00 rule um which had which has had an an impact on the work within that treaty right so I think given the number the high number of decisions that will have to be made and important decisions that will have to be made by the conference of parties um it's essential that conference of parties have a um has a uh has a clear decisionmaking Rule and and I would argue uh that that decision making rule should allow for uh again vote as as a last resort if if efforts at achieving consensus have been
72:00 - 72:30 exhausted um I to to pick up on talash is very uh important point and and yours Magnus I think the takeaway from this as I I think I mentioned earlier is that with respect to the existing the chairs draft uh um the chairs text you know two two aspects that need in a way to be resolved in in the in the text itself and not kick down downfield to to the cop uh I I would argue the first is sort of to name a scientific body because I think this is a really really important
72:30 - 73:00 we we need to embed it it may be difficult to negotiate now but it will be enormously helpful down the road in the future to embed scientific review inside the treaty explicitly as a fundamental part it will help all of us to be able to refer back to to expertise and to and to technical expertise scientific expertise with respect to the range of issues as Tes pointed out the science is barely I mean the the front edge of the science on Plastics is moving so fast in
73:00 - 73:30 some ways the treaty structure has to accommodate for that and the second thing is the decision- making of the cop itself um um it is possible to hobble the cop by as in the example just given by Magnus if we don't uh basically if the current if the draft treaty text itself does not help resolve this problem before uh it it creates the next problem in in that sense so for me those are the sort of the two takeaways uh on on on this issue in
73:30 - 74:00 particular I really don't want to go first because you know as organization as you know we have a very privileged position as observers um for most of the
74:00 - 74:30 multilateral environmental agreements so so I'm going to I'm going to hand this over to everybody else I I'll take a first uh a first stab at it on on the promise that somebody will come and rescue me um but but I think you you heard Marcus just make make one reference for example um uh to to and I I think it's not it's not too hard to look and find different difficult experience in in in in almost
74:30 - 75:00 every treaty process and uh and there's probably um and to me this just makes the point which is every Tre proc every TT process is Su generous it it it arises in response to a subject it arises a particular time and it arises in a process characterized by a number of players and and so um we can we can draw on the the positive and the negative examples from other treaties and other times and other spaces dealing with other issues um but in the end they are they are no guide
75:00 - 75:30 with respect to what has to be done on Plastics here today by the member states present at the table today in 2025 and and I think that that that hence the burden of innovation and adaptation and Agility and creativity even as you draw on the vast body of learning that is that is the past in these various in these various meas and outside the mea process as well um and I I think so you know we could we could you could we could take it we could take
75:30 - 76:00 a topic we could raise Montreal or we could you know we could raise any any number of the the Mercury process or whatever it was and we would we would each one of us have a view on what worked and what didn't work or what what's a problem what isn't a problem but in the end it would not guide us with respect to perhaps the elements that we have to put in place Here and Now on on this particular agenda I may build upon that and very much agree with you Josh I think I mean maybe two points that we've seen from previous treaty negotiations and that
76:00 - 76:30 tend to happen is when in negotiations um too much ambiguity is introduced into the provisions um leaving a lot of room for interpretation as to what the states parties are actually required to do comes it sometimes it comes to to a point where that ambiguity gives you know rise to significant uncertainty and just having these political battles having to be run over over and over again throughout the implementation process of the treaty and basically not providing the guidance that states
76:30 - 77:00 parties need to to to implement their Provisions right and I think there are uh several examples uh of that both within and outside the mea space I just know that just because there's been a meeting this this week in Geneva on the arms trade treaty and I know that that's a treaty that uh had um has significant uh ambiguity introduced into its provisions and therefore I think it's very clear lacking effectiveness because the provisions are inter interpreted in so many different ways and it makes it harder to actually monitor um you know
77:00 - 77:30 treaty compliance and treaty implementation because it's initially very unclear what states parties are actually required to do right and this is of course related to the question of why is mbu to introduced and again that comes back to the question of decision making and to strive for consensus if the top priority is always to get everybody to agree um then you you will have to allow significant ambiguity and treaty Provisions um and but if if you allow for more clarity in the language then you will have to look at other um adoption modal treaty adoption
77:30 - 78:00 modalities I think if I can just very very quickly build on on both Joshua and magnus's so I first of all I agree uh with Joshua on you know uh that we can just you know just take whatever happened in the past and just apply it whether it's uh problems or challenges or whether it's positive um elements that we had in previous meas and I I always like to to refer to what's already been done because I do think that we have a lot of interesting lessons and and there's a a
78:00 - 78:30 lot of interesting um ways of solving certain challenges that we can find um in in other treaties but I do agree that uh every every negotiation is a different process every uh topic is a completely different it's also a different time um uh geopolitically than than when other meas were were were negotiated and so of course whenever we're looking at shortcomings of pre of previous processes or uh positive aspects is true
78:30 - 79:00 that we always need to keep in mind again that we can just take them and it just apply something that might have not worked in a treaty might actually be very helpful here so I think that it's important first of all to take this into account um and then in terms of the the this this element on the constructive ambiguity or ambiguity that that Magnus you were referring to you were referring to uh I think it also opens up another question that I think you were maybe hinting um hinting at which is this idea that you know should we have this maybe more ambiguous uh language so that more
79:00 - 79:30 parties can join um or should we have something which is clearer which is a little bit more rigid in the formulation with the risk that less parties uh that the less countries will join which is I think another I don't know if a question is going to come up on this but I think that that's also something that we experienced in many negotiations I'm thinking of climate I mean the whole shift from UNF triple Seco to Paris is a good example of this of should we have everybody in to to address this Global challenge but then of course with all the
79:30 - 80:00 compromises uh water down language and so on or should we just have you know some Champions with a with a clearer treaty I think that this is an extremely difficult question uh but is is something that might uh you know that that that we might have to have to uh tackle at some point anything I can add is you know H have a have a time frame so it was good to hear the Ambassador saying by the end of the year the BB andj negotiations went on for almost 19 years you know
80:00 - 80:30 maybe let's maybe maybe the states shouldn't do that very very quickly yes and that there's also something else I'm glad you brought up the BB andj there's also another point because we don't just have to think of a language and a text that countries would sign but also one that the countries would ratify uh because the BB andj is an excellent example it took forever to negotiate we have finally this text uh but we're still very far away from uh the number of ratifications that that we need so that's also important to think about
80:30 - 81:00 that step uh because a text that isn't ratified sends a beautiful message but doesn't really do much concretely so that's also another um another element that we always need to keep in mind can I add a thought into this because again here we are we're we're going off into a really interesting conversation about this um you know I mentioned earlier the example of the marole convention uh which is Maritime pollution pollution by ships and and it's it's cited in a in a in an article a couple weeks ago by Maria Ivanova and
81:00 - 81:30 and Dan bodansky and it strikes me as a as a sort of a really interesting model for what I would call this particular phase of reflection 5.1 to 5.2 and it it basically I'm I'm simplifying it and but the way in which it would apply to the Plastics treat treaty concept is you would you would create a core element in which you would put all the sort of things that people are going to argue the least about principles mode of implement mode of implementation um a whole series of the sort of the the
81:30 - 82:00 fundamentals of the treaty but the ones that are not controversial and then you would set up a set of protocols that you know you could think about a protocol on article three on PL on on products and on chemicals of concern and perhaps another one on five and another one on on I mean on six and and so on and so forth um I I I I I hear these discussions about past agreements and then I think to myself what would the world like at that point in time what was the broad multilateral gestal the feeling the
82:00 - 82:30 limitations on the system at that time as opposed to today and I I this is where the sort of the international relations uh observer in me kicks in and starts saying what what can we manage today what what is doable today and and and that may sometimes be a different answer from what was doable five or 10 years ago or what may be doable five years from today but we can only address ourselves to what's doable today I I'm not suggesting reduction in ambition I that's why I want to be very clear you got to keep keep negotiating hard for
82:30 - 83:00 the the highest best purest strongest treaty that we can get um but I I do think that we have to temper that with with a sensitivity and understanding about the the moment that we're in and what is achievable and doable you know uh no a weak treaty a so-called weak or partial treaty is is is is worse than no treaty at all I think that's a very difficult judgment to to to make in this moment in time and I think we we would have to see really you know on the last day of 5.2 where are we in that in that
83:00 - 83:30 in that respect uh having tried very hard up until then to to come to terms uh to to the the the best treaty that we can let me take a first stab and then maybe one of you can can can can jump in um
83:30 - 84:00 look this could be an important part of national plans you could you could invite you could invite countries to to speak to limitations on plastic subsidies plastic subsidies in in their plans I I think the question here implies could you put it into a it put it into the regulatory framework as opposed to just leaving it in the reporting framework could you compel could you require um I I think I think I would find that very difficult having listened to some of the some of
84:00 - 84:30 the states and their positions at Inc 5.1 in Busan many states would consider plastic subsidies to be a fundamentally domestic Sovereign fiscal uh matter that that they would not accept to be to be regulated at the international level and would insist must be managed at the national level that said you might be able to put in aspirations reporting requirements or common goals uh into a treaty that would
84:30 - 85:00 that would address this issue nonetheless I agree I agree um and I also think that you know considering the the need for uh ensuring Mutual supportiveness between environmental treaties and treaties in other area of international law and thinking of trade treaties in particular in WTO agreement where there is a specific text dealing with sub idies and regulating subsidies then another question is should we add something like this in that in that in
85:00 - 85:30 that treaty but um I think it would be just hard to have something that would still allow for the mutual supportiveness between the treaties because you couldn't just derogate um the kind of obligations that countries have um have accepted under other treaties in particular I'm thinking of the WTO subsidies and contrail measures treaty so uh what Joshua was mentioning objective aspiration ation something with more of a oratory language rather than mandatory something that I I could
85:30 - 86:00 I could I could think of dear colleagues there are many more questions but um we are arriving at the end very close to the end of the time of this event so it's now time to give the floor to Michelle Chiran from Switzerland uh for his concluding remarks yes thank you very much
86:00 - 86:30 Tiana for giving me the floor dear colleagues distinguished panelists and participants first of all um I would like to thank the Geneva environment Network for organizing today's event and uh thank you all for participating in this insightful discussion as part of the Geneva beat plas pollution dialogue Series today our panelists have provided valuable insights into uh the current
86:30 - 87:00 state of the negotiations and the challenges we face it is clear that uh maintaining momentum and ambition is essential as we approach the Inc 5.2 and um I would like to briefly highlight some of the important points that I have heard today uh with regards to the plastic treaty state of play and the priorities for ambitious outcome from the panelists and through also the
87:00 - 87:30 questions from the participants I have sort of grouped into three main points the three points are measurable and binding targets not business as usual the second is addressing issues even if difficult and the third is functioning Solutions so measurable binding targets not B business as
87:30 - 88:00 usual Ambassador Anderson mentioned at the outset that the figures of the Plastics ending up in rivers and lakes and the oceans without adequate changes and measures so this clearly describes what needs to be addressed and that business as usual is not an option we on the contrary need clear and measurable targets for reducing plastic pollution through the life cycle of plastics that is also foreseen in the unaa resolution 514 agreed already
88:00 - 88:30 before we started the Inc uh which the resolution which was referenced by talash Kai um this is essential to drive meaningful change and this includes also Global targets for um sustainable production we need the commitment to reach sustainable levels over time a reference was made to today to the Ronda group and the statement in buan where close to 100 countries stated production needs to be
88:30 - 89:00 covered by the treaty so again on this first point um that we need binding measurable targets and it covers the whole full life cycle then the second uh important Point going forward is addressing issues even if difficult Elena Sima and Joshua Lincoln mentioned that is helpful to look to the other meas as example and um talash Kai explicit mentioned the BRS regarding products and chemicals
89:00 - 89:30 indeed products and chemicals um of concern are an area um that is not the easiest to um solve in the negotiation but um it is true as Magnus LEL mentioned that the Mexican statement showed um on products and chemicals is a phase out is needed um according to close to 100 countries um that supported Mexican
89:30 - 90:00 statement so it shows that even if not an easy topic there's no way around it legally binding measures to eliminate chemicals of concerning Plastic Products are seemed key to an effective treaty and it's true the uh terms of the models that were mentioned um if looking to the BRS then defining specific exemptions and uh setting phase out dates um making
90:00 - 90:30 reservations at time of rication um these are elements that uh we can certainly look to models to have a global approach with rules that in principle apply to all but then still take into account the national circumstances of the countries I come to the Third cluster of elements that I've heard today functioning Solutions so at inc5 several member states worked hard
90:30 - 91:00 to find functioning Solutions um this work must continue with her today there are um Ambassador vas highlighted uh our chair the evolvement in buzan and that there is progress on the majority of provisions and that this works needs to continue especially ahead of Inc 5.2 in fact speakers after him him also mentioned
91:00 - 91:30 the importance of the chair's text in buzan to capture the um the evolvement and the work that was done informally also and many referenced that uh important step Magnus Lal is um also mentioning the question on how we agree on the text so so functioning solution is also uh to be seen in that regard
91:30 - 92:00 um and uh who will be part of the agreement it was said clearly today that more than 100 uh countries want an agreement that address the problem that we face and so it's important to check on the options um with those countries and continue the informal work solution opt uh solution options were also mentioned in terms of financing uh and implementation of the treaty as
92:00 - 92:30 outlined by Elena SEMA where she spoke of different sources that should be used and also to possibly uh use for example the extended producer responsibility to finance measures Joshua Lincoln continued to stress we need to build the treaty so this informal work now ahead of the negotiation is important in particular with the countries and stakeholders that want to address the issue um he also mentioned the point and
92:30 - 93:00 then also let's think about the how the treaty will evolve in the in the future that means we need to um sometimes pause and think about what really needs to be in the final treaty text to end plast to be able to end plastic pollution and um what can follow if the right Mech mechanism is included in that treaty text and then even is a question some of the elements that we have discussed in
93:00 - 93:30 the Inc U perhaps they are less of a priority and they can be dealt with elsewhere in another uh instrument so these are the three clusters of imp important messages that I have heard on where we stand and where um we can best prepare for the Inc 5.2 let me just also uh certainly assure you that Switz remains very committed to finding also viable Solutions and uh that we will continue to work towards an effective
93:30 - 94:00 Plastics treaty and to collaborate and work hard um with uh everyone involved this certainly is an opportunity to achieve a transformative Global treaty um with a global approach that protects the environment and human health and fosters sustainable development so thank you very much again for the session today that was very fruitful Mercy uh I wish you a good rest of the day everyone
94:00 - 94:30 and um back to you Jana thank you thank you very much Michelle and thank you to all the the panelists who joined us today particular thanks to the chair Ambassador vas you have uh been with us through all the session listening to all the comments and the questions that were ra ra throughout this session we look forward to support you Ambassador vas and your team and
94:30 - 95:00 also the Inc Secretariat and all those who are engaged in this process wherever the next session takes place in Geneva or not and I take this opportunity to um to announce that the ne one of the upcoming sessions in this series we'll be looking at observers participation and will take place on the 27 of of March I know Ambassador V that you have received uh many uh uh letters uh addressing this topic but you you were very clear in your uh statement today
95:00 - 95:30 about the efforts that you are making um to um have everybody on board um for a good outcome so with that it's time to close and to thank you all uh and looking forward to to to see you at the upcoming session thank you that byebye thank you to everybody