In April, I attended the fourth session of the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), where diplomats from around the world worked toward consensus in the development of a legally binding instrument to regulate plastic pollution.
The negotiations have been an interesting and engaging experience as well as a tedious slog as nations debate a draft of the treaty, paragraph by paragraph. A consensus on some items has emerged, but it can be discouraging to see the divergence on issues of great importance in the global scheme to end plastic pollution.
When I watched previous negotiations online, I began to see that some countries consistently held a divergent view from the one developed by our Congregations of St. Joseph UN NGO (representing our global family who trace their origins to Le Puy). Perhaps it was different being present in the back of the room as an observer during the fourth negotiating session (INC-4) in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada in April…or maybe something new is emerging.
I was very impressed by the deep listening countries did with each other. You could visibly see a delegate changing testimony to align with someone who had presented similar views rather than pushing for their own wording. Other times, I was surprised by strong support and commitment from a country on an issue that aligned with the Sisters of St. Joseph perspective where there was such divergence on other issues. It seemed apparent that everyone recognizes the crisis of plastic pollution and there was genuine effort to reach consensus where it was possible. There were many differing ideas on how to make this happen.
Transparency is a real issue. There were occasions where nations felt their voice had not been heard or that they were being treated differently. Although perhaps not intentional, I saw misunderstandings happen a few times during these negotiations. Sometimes, it takes a few exchanges to gain understanding.
Although it is frustrating that so much time is spent trying to come to agreement and understanding on the processes to be used rather than substantive issues, it appears that these discussions are essential to overcome current and past perceptions of nations feeling that their concerns are not taken seriously.
This is all kind of maddening, yet I am beginning to see how it might work. There are lots of nations coming together to support a certain approach. Peru and Rwanda are leading the effort to ensure the treaty addresses primary plastics. Most scientific experts consider decreasing the use of primary plastics (often referred to as virgin polymers) essential. If we don’t stop creating new plastics and move to creating a circular economy where we use the plastic currently available to us, the multiple risks to human health and the environment from plastic pollution will only increase. Small Island Developing States, referred to as SIDS, have been reminding the INC about the harm they have already suffered and their need for help. The African Group is really pushing the concept of waste management and noting the need for technology and financial assistance from the largest plastic-producing countries and businesses to address legacy plastic pollution in their countries.
The European Union is strongly advocating for binding international obligations, noting that supply chains are international. Saudia Arabia, several other Middle Eastern countries, and India have repeatedly added words that specify “taking into account national circumstances and capabilities through nationally determined initiatives reflecting country-driven approaches while ensuring sufficient flexibility to accommodate the different capacity and circumstances of developing countries.” Although in the places in the treaty where this wording is included will mean uneven implementation across the globe, many nations including smaller, less developed countries, have presented significant testimony about how unintended consequences could impact them.
Although scheduled to end in the early evening of the final day, consensus had not been reached on a plan for work between INC-4 and INC-5 in November 2024. Previously, due to a lack of consensus at INC-2 and INC-3, an intersessional work plan was not approved. It was obvious to everyone that there had to be something approved if a final draft was to be completed at INC-5. Much to my amazement, an unlikely group of delegates from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Switzerland and the United States (working until about 2 a.m.) were able to craft a compromise that was approved by the whole body.
It would be much simpler to take a vote and move forward. However, consensus means that the member states recognize and jointly commit to doing what it takes to end plastic pollution. This is a global problem, and all nations need to be engaged in the solution. It is obvious to me that there is a will. Through consensus, I believe the delegates to INC-5 will find a way.
However, some things from my UN experience are helpful reminders to us. Deep listening allows us to carefully consider new ideas that may be foreign or repellant to us. Identifying where there appears to be convergence helps build a sense of doing something together. Where there are differences, having civil discourse and continuing efforts to maintain relationships even when there appear to be major differences in core values is essential.
For eight days, I was in a room with delegates from countries, some of whom are at war with each other, and yet they have put those tensions aside and committed to trying to find common ground. It’s amazing how much of it there is.
Our Congregations of St Joseph UN-NGO will be at the final United Nations Intergovernmental Committee session in the Republic of Korea to finalize an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. It is only by agreeing to a strong treaty with clear obligations for countries, companies and consumers that we will be able to prevent future plastic pollution and mitigate the pollution that currently exists.
For those in the United States, please sign the Plastic Pollution Coalition letter to the U.S. government encouraging them to take bold action at the upcoming fifth negotiating session on an international legally binding treaty to address plastic pollution.