What's the Holdup With Global Plastic Treaty Negotiations? (AI Translation)

【周刊提前读】塑料条约谈判进展有限 国际合作难在何处？

Environmental scientist Gwen Caughey from the University of California, Riverside led a study published in "Science Advances" revealing significant contributions of major corporations to global plastic pollution. Over a five-year period, researchers and 100,000 volunteers from 84 countries analyzed 1.8 million pieces of plastic waste, discovering that half bore identifiable brand markings. Notably, 24% of marked plastic waste came from just five companies: Coca-Cola (11%), PepsiCo (5%), Nestlé (3%), Danone (3%), and Altria (2%). This study coincided with the fourth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) for the Global Plastics Treaty [para. 1][para. 2].

INC-4, held in Ottawa from April 23 to 29, 2023, was the largest in its series, featuring over 2,500 delegates from 170 countries and 480 observer organizations. The discussions built on the progress from INC-3, aimed at drafting a legally binding instrument by December 31, 2023. Participants achieved significant milestones, including agreeing to form two expert groups to address financing and technologies for plastics, and a drafting group for legal aspects of the text [para. 3][para. 4][para. 5][para. 6].

Despite these advances, some environmental organizations criticized the slow pace and compromises made with fossil fuel and petrochemical industries. Many unresolved issues remain, reflected by the draft containing 3,686 brackets indicating points of contention [para. 9][para. 10][para. 11].

Discussions at INC-4 also addressed primary plastic polymers. Initiated during the first INC meeting, the contentious debate centers on whether to include these materials in the treaty, potentially extending regulations to the entire petrochemical industry. High Ambition Coalition members like Peru and Rwanda proposed a 40% reduction in primary plastic polymers by 2040 from 2025 levels, while plastic-producing nations opposed this [para. 17][para. 18][para. 23][para. 24][para. 25][para. 26].

INC-4 also highlighted microplastics, small plastic particles under 5 millimeters, which have been found in various environmental and biological contexts. Samoa, on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States, called for comprehensive regulation of microplastics. Scientists like Richard Thompson, attending as an expert, emphasized the need for scientific input in negotiations, suggesting the formation of advisory bodies akin to those in climate and biodiversity negotiations [para. 28][para. 29][para. 30][para. 31][para. 33][para. 36].

The INC series of meetings also drew attention to marine plastic pollution, specifically "ghost gear" from fishing that significantly contributes to oceanic plastic waste. Discussions at INC-4 acknowledged this issue [para. 37][para. 38].

Beyond conference discussions, industry influence and varying national interests were evident. There were protestors highlighting the benefits of plastic, and the petrochemical sector actively participated. Developing countries like Malaysia refuted criticisms from developed nations, attributing their plastic pollution to imported waste [para. 39][para. 40][para. 41][para. 42].

Companies like Unilever announced delays in their commitments to reduce plastic use, citing fragmented regulations. Attendees like Sian Sutherland advocated for legislation to drive systemic change in tackling plastic pollution [para. 47][para. 50][para. 52].

As preparations for INC-5 in Busan continue, challenges remain in finalizing a consensus-driven text. Observers expressed mixed optimism, concerned whether the final treaty will comprehensively address the vast plastic pollution issue if foundational elements like primary plastic polymers are excluded [para. 34][para. 43][para. 44][para. 53][para. 55].