There are issues with the rules of procedure, including those related to voting. Some countries prefer to not have voting within the context of the treaty, meaning everything is consensus-based, whereas others argue for a default to having a vote on an issue. Also unresolved is the bureau of countries guiding the content of the negotiations. At the moment this cohort includes Senegal, Rwanda, Antigua and Barbuda, representing the small island developing states. Added to this are Japan, Jordan, Sweden, the US, Peru, which is the chair, and Ecuador, which will be the second chair. There are two bureau spots from the Eastern European group that have not been confirmed. There was only one delegate funded per developing country, which proved an issue, as they could not attend more than one simultaneously running discussion. Experts also pointed out that there is little time between INC-1 and INC-2 in treaty negotiation terms, which could prove an obstacle for stakeholders being able to adequately digest the information and translating it into concrete positions.
According to UNEP, mission-critical issues for the treaty’s design, in terms of viability, include:
- Failure to include controls on virgin plastic polymer production
- Lack of monitoring and reporting obligations
- Inadequate and unstable funding
- Lack of transparency and restrictions on the chemicals used in plastic products
- Linear-economy conceptualisation of plastics.
- Replicating the failings of the Paris Agreement
It remains to be seen whether the delegates can steer the next phase of negotiations with the right blend of speed and care.
As well as the sources listed, this article is based on insights shared in an OPLN webinar held in December and Back to Blue interviews with Mr Ford, Marta Lopata (partner, OPLN) and Yoni Shiran (partner, SYSTEMiQ). We thank them for their insights and support.