 |
| In the negotiating plenary in Ottawa, April 2024. - © Lucien Chabason |
Negotiations to curb plastic pollution made headway in Ottawa. PFAS, microplastics... members of NGOs are pleased that "the crux of the matter" has finally been raised, despite opposition from oil companies and their allies.
Canada, correspondence
Reduction of raw materials, internationally harmonized elimination of certain single-use plastics, framework for producer responsibility: the table of contents of the negotiations for a Plastics Treaty was huge, and the work in hand is just as immense. "There are still more sentences in square brackets [proposals yet to be decided] than at the start, but we've made progress nonetheless!" says Lucien Chabason, executive advisor to the Institut du développement durable et des relations internationales (IDDRI), present this week in Ottawa.
In any case, this negotiating session was not intended to produce a final treaty, which we can only hope for at the end of the fifth (and supposedly final) session. Rather, it was to provide an opportunity to decipher what each bloc is prepared to discuss, let go of ballast and identify "where there is consensus", as Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault put it. In this respect, hopes were not disappointed.
African countries and oil states
For a week, the two camps kept a close eye on each other, and sometimes showed their fangs. The "High Ambition" coalition, which brings together some sixty countries, mainly from the West and Africa - including France - continued to state loudly and clearly its objective of reducing plastic at source. Rwanda, for example, which chairs the coalition, proposed that the final treaty include a target of a 40% reduction in the production of primary plastic polymers by 2040.
Opposing them are the "Like-minded countries", a bloc of some fifteen countries led by Russia and Iran. It also includes India and a host of oil-producing states. "They hammered home key messages: no international limits on plastic production, no new regulations restricting the use of certain chemicals. They want the final text to show that they have principles, but that in the end, it's up to the States to set binding criteria, and only on their territory", explains Lucien Chabason.
This bloc says it is counting above all on better recycling and more efficient management of the second life of plastics to curb pollution. They point to the fact that only 9% of plastic waste is recycled worldwide. "They don't want to talk about the whole life cycle of plastic," notes David Azoulay, Director of Environmental Health at the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel), an NGO that uses the law as a basis for defending the environment.
 |
| Plastic lobbyists scattered such ads around Ottawa, with the message "Plastic saves lives". © Rachel Radvany / Center for International Environmental Law |
On site, the message from the oil-producing countries was relayed by 196 petrochemical industry lobbyists (compared with 143 at the last session in Nairobi), according to the Ciel count. "There were pro-plastic sandwich men," recounts David Azoulay. "We saw a bunch of ads on the idea that plastic saves lives and the planet, because it allows for better food preservation, etc." For him, the nuisance power of the pro-oil lobbies was anything but negligible. "They're present in the plenary sessions, they disrupt the message, but most of their work is done in the corridors. Their narrative greatly influences the discussions that take place."
Amid the two blocs and the lobbies, geopolitical heavyweights such as the United States and Latin American countries danced a tango between the lines. Uncle Sam, who sold himself as an architect of compromise, failed to live up to expectations. "If we look in detail, his proposals would have the same results as those of the Russian bloc, if they were accepted", says David Azoulay. China, for its part, mainly supported the oil-producing countries, but sometimes played its own part.
 |
| "Blink twice if Big Oil is holding you hostage"; "Imagine NOT listening to the oil companies for once": environmental activists also made their voices heard in Ottawa. © Lucien Chabason |
The oil producers' camp argues that binding international agreements on the amount of plastic produced could run counter to the 1992 Rio Declaration. This establishes the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities", i.e. that all countries must protect the environment, but that this responsibility must vary according to capacity and historical contribution to pollution. In other words, the rich have the means to make up for their mistakes. The countries of the South have also invoked this principle in their declarations, calling for financial mechanisms to help them cope with the plastics crisis.
The Russian-Iranian bloc was also obstructive. "There was the beginnings of a crisis, threats and mistrust on the part of Russia and Iran concerning the conference's working methods. They have the impression that the presidency has downplayed their positions. They rely on anything that can slow down the debates. We've seen a lot of bad temper and bad will", says Lucien Chabason. This bloc also wants to impose consensus as the decision-making mechanism for the treaty, rather than a majority vote, which opens the way to vetoes on points they reject.
"We finally talked about reality, less about theory!"
Despite the many obstacles and countries playing for time, Eirik Lindebjerg, head of global plastics policy at WWF, saw some improvement at this session. "We finally talked about reality, not theory! For example, the importance of eliminating certain chemical compounds - PFASs, in particular. We're seeing more consensus on eliminating certain types of polymers or removing microplastics from cosmetics."
Like others, he sees more bite from the "high-ambition" countries at this session than at previous ones. "We can see that they want to fight, and have a better grasp of the problem. For example, dozens of countries have clearly expressed their desire to work on the pollution of primary polymers, between negotiation sessions. We can sense that they no longer want to be held hostage by the pro-oil bloc, and the Russians can feel the pressure mounting."
 |
| Pro-plastic lobbies have paid for ads on Ottawa cabs, like this one defending vinyl as a way to reduce housing costs. © Rachel Radvany / Center for International Environmental Law |
Henri Bourgeois-Costa, Director of Public Affairs at Tara Océan, agrees. "We shouldn't have expected a final text in Ottawa. But after a second session that defined the subject and another that clarified our intentions, now we're really talking about the future of plastics as such. We were right in the thick of it.
The final negotiating session will take place in Busan, South Korea, on November 25. Until then, if we are to have any hope of a binding international treaty, we won't be able to loosen the grip on those countries that rely more on exploiting the planet's resources than on protecting them.
Comments
Post a Comment