New Delhi’s position is largely unchanged from INC-3 in Nairobi, although it has introduced some new arguments; it is also trying to reinvent the concept of the “life cycle of plastic” in the negotiating arena
UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen meets with Naresh Pal Gangwar, India's Additional Secretary, Minister of Environment, Forest & Climate Change at INC4. Photo: @andersen_inger / X (Formerly twitter) The fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) of the United Nations Environment Agency (UNEA) has commenced in Ottawa this week, attracting participation from over 170 member states. The aim is to address plastic pollution across its entire life cycle, including its impact on marine environments.
India, playing a significant role as a key representative from the Global South, holds considerable sway in these negotiations. Leading the Indian delegation at INC-4 is the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change, supported by representatives from the Departments of Commerce as well as Chemicals and Petrochemicals, in addition to the Union Ministry of External Affairs.
Efforts towards the organisation of work at INC-4 have progressed smoothly, with member states actively participating in discussions within contact groups. Two parallel contact groups have been established, each comprising subgroups tasked with addressing specific provisions. These provisions cover a wide range of aspects related to the treaty, including the preamble, objectives, waste management, and transparency.’’
The following are the contact groups, sub groups and the provisions that will be discussed in each of the contact groups:
| Contact Group 1 | Contact Group 2 | |||
| Subgroup 1.1 | Subgroup 1.2 | Subgroup 1.3 | Subgroup 2.1 | Subgroup 2.2 |
| Preamble | Primary plastic polymers | Extended producer responsibility. | Financing | National Action Plans |
| Objectives | Chemicals and polymers of concern | Emissions and releases of plastic throughout its life cycle | Capacity building, technical assistance and technology transfer | Implementation and Compliance |
| Definitions | Problematic and avoidable plastic products including short lived and single use plastics and intentionally added microplastics | [Plastic] Waste management | Reporting on progress [of implementation] | |
| Principle | Micro and nano plastics | Transboundary movement of [non-hazardous] plastic waste | Periodic assessment and monitoring of the progress of implementation of the instrument [and effectiveness evaluation] | |
| Scope. | Exemptions available to a Party upon request | Existing plastic pollution, including in the marine environment | International cooperation, information exchange, awareness raising, education and research [and development], [Partner and] stakeholder engagement and health aspects. | |
| Just transition | Product design, composition and performance | Governing body, subsidiary body, Secretariat | ||
| Overarching provisions related to part II | Non-plastic substitutes | Possible annexes to the instrument | ||
| Fishing gear | ||||
| Trade in listed chemicals, polymers and products | ||||
| Transparency, tracking, monitoring and labelling | ||||
Delegates from the United Kingdom, Brazil, Norway, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Portugal, France, and Indonesia co-facilitate the subgroups. The contact groups, along with their subgroups, must advance the development of the draft text to ensure its finalisation at the fifth session of the committee in 2025.
Read DTE Coverage: Run-up to Ottawa
Contact Group 2 has made notable advancements, although disagreements persist regarding the provision of financial assistance. However, progress in Contact Group 1 has been slower, with considerable time spent streamlining the existing text to maintain all member states’ perspectives expressed in earlier meetings.
The streamlined text proposed by the contact group co-chairs, is now under negotiation with member states. Both contact groups are scheduled to meet for a report back from the subgroups on the fourth day of the ongoing negotiations.
India intervened multiple times and submitted proposals to the secretariat both before and after the streamlining process, articulating its demands.
India advocated for the preamble of the future instrument to reaffirm “the sovereign rights of states to sustainable development”. The proposed objective put forward by the Indian delegation for the prospective instrument is “to safeguard human health and the environment from plastic pollution, including in marine environments, while ensuring sustainable development”.
The delegation emphasised the incorporation of principles such as equity, sustainable development, and common but differentiated responsibilities, along with a comprehensive list of over 30 principles. However, the list does not encompass fundamental human rights principles, such as right to a healthy environment, right to access information, and principles regarding the protection of workers from exposure to toxins, etc.
India opposes any limitations on primary plastic polymers or virgin plastics, arguing that production reductions exceed the scope of UNEA resolution 5/14. While acknowledging chemicals used in plastic manufacturing, India highlights that some are already subject to prohibition or regulation under different conventions.
India has urged that decisions regarding chemicals should be grounded in a transparent and inclusive process informed by scientific evidence. However, India disagrees with the inclusion of language pertaining to polymers of concern. For problematic and avoidable plastics, including single-use plastics, India advocates for nationally-driven measures guided by scientific criteria.
During discussions on midstream measures, the Indian delegation emphasised their pivotal role in promoting sustainable and efficient plastic usage. They advocated for an approach that enhances the longevity of plastic products through improved design, including provisions for repair, reuse, refill, and recyclability.
Read DTE Coverage: Global plastic profiles
However, India stressed the importance of these measures being nationally determined, without the imposition of international design standards. Furthermore, India urged against the inclusion of language promoting reduction in midstream measures, suggesting that a decrease in plastic usage could naturally result from improved product design.
Concerning downstream measures, India stressed the importance of adopting nationally driven approaches tailored to each country’s specific circumstances and capacities. For instance, regarding Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), India reiterated its stance that EPR mechanisms should remain within national boundaries and not encompass international supply chains. The determination of the scope and modalities of EPR should be left to the discretion of each member state.
In terms of emissions and releases throughout the plastic life cycle, India emphasised the need to prioritise the elimination of plastic waste leakage into the environment. This focus excludes considerations of emissions and effluents that may occur during the manufacturing and/or recycling stage of plastics. India advocates for prioritising plastic waste management as the primary area of intervention and action through the future treaty.
India has expressed early concerns regarding cross-cutting issues such as trade, consistently advocating for the exclusion of provisions related to trade involving plastic or plastic products. In terms of financing and technology transfer, India has been particularly vocal, consistently urging for comprehensive financial and technical assistance alongside technology transfer in most provisions.
India has insisted that both financial and technical assistance, as well as technology transfer, should be integrated into the substantive provisions of the draft text resulting from the INC-4 negotiations. Moreover, the country has been actively advocating for financial assistance and technology transfer across various areas, including non-plastic substitutes and other downstream measures aligned with its objectives.
India’s position has remained largely unchanged from INC-3 in Nairobi to INC-4, although it has introduced some new arguments, which are less persuasive, to support its plastic production activities and is trying to reinvent the concept of the “life cycle of plastic” in the negotiating arena.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.