Nairobi INC-3: A job half-done?

When the world met in Nairobi on November 13-19, one-and-a-half years after making a landmark pledge to forge a le-gally binding instrument to end plastic pollution by 2024, the hope was to leave with a first draft of the treaty. However, the third meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) on Plastic Pollution resulted in a revised zero draft that only serves as a starting point for more discussion. Groundwork for this INC meet was laid this summer when countries met at Paris to prepare a zero draft of the instru-ment. Marked by delays, the Paris meet decided that the INC Secretariat would release a proposed zero draft ahead of the Nairobi session. The Secretariat would also prepare a synthesis report to help discuss aspects such as the preamble, scope and definitions in the instrument.

The proposed zero draft was released in September and welcomed by some countries at Nairobi. However, one coalition claimed the draft went beyond the mandate of UN Environment Assembly resolution 5/14, adopted to end plastic pollution.

This group came to the fore during a preparatory meet ahead of the third INC session, when Iran declared formation of a coalition that included countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba, China, Bahrain, and potentially Brazil and India, although they were not explicitly mentioned. This group positioned itself as a counterpart to the so-called High Ambition Coalition—a group of 57 nations for a robust instrument against plastic.

However, at the INC meet, this coalition did not see unanimity and was quickly reduced to a set of like-minded countries. Iran, on behalf of this group, advocated for an instrument focused on waste management to “limit the damage on plastic-producing countries”.

Lack of consensus

The proposed zero draft had 10 placeholders to discuss the preamble, definitions, principles and scope of the instrument, in addition to the institutional arrangements and final provisions. A placeholder indicates that the section will need to be elaborated upon based on negotiations of member states. At the INC meet, three contact groups were constituted to discuss aspects of the proposed zero draft. The first group focused on Part I (text of the objective) and Part II (text of the instrument) of the proposed zero draft. Discussions largely centred around the lifecycle of plastic — while some countries assert that it begins at extraction of raw materials, others peg product design as the starting point.

Part II of the proposed zero draft comprises 13 elements including primary plastic polymers, chemical polymers and waste management. Countries were to accept or reject various options indicating ambition of potential targets. While blocs like the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) and African nations were in favour of strong ambitions, like-minded countries represented by Iran, along with Saudi Arabia and India, spoke against an “over ambitious” text and raised interventions against inclusion of language on polymers of concern and the “polluter pays” principle. India also urged in an intervention, “It needs no over-emphasis that plastics are useful materials and that the INC should address the pollution caused by plastic...Accordingly, there must be no binding targets/cap on the production of plastic polymers.”

The second contact group addressed subjects such as financing, national action plans, and need for subsidiary bodies under the instrument. Discussions here largely saw consensus, though disagreements on financing arose between developed and developing countries.

The two groups, at the end of the INC meet, submitted texts compiling all views and interventions to be included into the zero draft. As a result, the 31-page draft increased to more than 100 pages of text. The third contact group comprised representatives of the five global regions (the UN member states are geopolitically divided into different regional groups for ease of governance). The third contact group was tasked with reviewing INC Secretariat’s synthesis re-port and summary of the preparatory meet to identify elements to include in the zero draft, and with deciding inter-sessional work for the next two INC meets. But as members failed to reach a consensus, no measures were adopted.

The meet concluded with the agreement that the Secretariat will revise the draft text to include the texts submitted by member states during the discussion in the contact groups and make it available on December 31, to form the basis for more negotiations.

Urgency highlighted

Even as contact groups were discussing the proposed zero draft, countries and civil society groups such as BAN Toxics, an independent environmental non-profit, highlighted the urgent need to address the plastic crisis. The Philippines-based organisation cited the country’s pollution problem to advocate for a comprehensive instrument.

“This crisis cannot be solved by the same technofixes, we need to address the problem at source,” said a South African representative of Break Free From Plastic, a global movement against plastic pollution.

There was also emphasis on a just transition from plastic. The 33-member Group of Latin America and Caribbean Countries, for instance, presented a position advocating for rights of waste pickers.

It remains to be seen whether these aspects feature in upcoming negotiations. The current pace, however, has raised concerns on the feasibility of the 2024 deadline.

This was first published in the 1-15 December, 2023 print edition of Down To Earth

Subscribe to Daily Newsletter :

SUPPORT US

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.