Building a Bridge to Busan, and breaking free from [brackets]

From 23-29 April, over 2,500 registered delegates from 170 member states and 480 observer organisations gathered in Ottawa, Canada, for the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. Known as INC-4, this was the second-to-last of negotiation rounds, with a mandate for an agreement to be reached by the end of this year. As a result, all eyes were on the Shaw Centre in Ottawa.

On our arrival, a Giant Plastic Tap sculpture representing the call for ‘closing the tap’ on plastics welcomed us in front of the Shaw Centre. Built by artist Benjamin Von Wong, known for the “Turn Off The Tap sculpture” introduced at UNEA 5.2, and the Perpetual Plastics Machine presented in Paris during INC-2, Von Wong’s installation proved to be a hit once again, becoming a prime spot for protestors and supporters to gather, take photos and call for an ambitious treaty.

We kicked off the week with Partnerships Day, the day ahead of the start of the INC organised by the host country, in this case the government of Canada. The message shared by Executive Director of UNEP, Inger Andersen was clear:

“This throwaway world that we created since the invention of plastic simply cannot work. Plastic as a material was an important invention, and we will continue to need this material, but we need to be very conscious of where we apply it […] We must rethink how we use and produce plastics. […] Every child that opens her eyes today, will witness this throwaway culture. ‘Use once, throw away.’ 

Indigenous peoples fittingly opened the programme, emphasising how plastic pollution has disproportionate impacts on them and their territories, and reminding participants we are simply visitors on their stolen land. 

“We are no plastic producers, but we are finding plastics in our fish, our seals, whales that we rely on […] Taking an indigenous rights-based approach ensures traditional knowledge is upheld and will protect future generations.” 

Speakers further stressed the need for indigenous rights to be an integral part of the treaty, as they are not stakeholders to this process, but rights-holders. But when the following panel with business and industry followed, it was back to capitalist-centered talks on ‘creating a level-playing-field for businesses.

This ‘pre-INC’ day tends to boost motivation and energy levels for participants: with high ambitions shared by country delegates, commitments to new funding (such as a pledge of 90 million USD by Norway to continue its programme on plastics and marine litter) and suggestions for provisions along the life cycle of plastics. But, as soon as the actual fourth session was opened on Tuesday, country delegates showed their true colours.

Both the INC chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso and UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen’s tone turned serious. 

The INC chair emphasised the need for a treaty based in science: 

“We have a collective responsibility and duty: to deliver a treaty by the end of this year, that reflects the urgency to address plastic pollution crisis”. 

UNEP’s Andersen was clear and direct: calling for global targets, accelerating timelines, legally binding rules, a start-and-strengthening approach, and a convergence that can create that environment. She reminded the participants that yes, there is an essential use of plastics, in construction, windmills, electric cars, but a serious need to reduce on avoidable, problematic plastics, such as single-use and short-lived plastics. She mentioned the need to address chemicals of concern. And, also emphasised a need for waste pickers, representing a group of 20 million people worldwide, responsible for 60% of recycled plastics, to be part of the solution: creating jobs and providing sustainable livelihoods.

As soon as the INC chair’s proposal for contact groups and subgroups was accepted, the work on the revised zero-draft towards an advanced version of the draft text began.

While negotiators seemed committed to making progress, technical issues initially got in the way: no internet, non-functioning headsets for translation, and switching of rooms, which made for frustrated delegates. However, once the dust settled, work on the text commenced.  

Outside of the Shaw Centre, more and more protesters gathered. Signs calling for an end to toxic plastics, an end to unjust export of plastic waste to developing countries, and signs with heads of babies being fed microplastics. Greenpeace hired a container with the words ‘The world is watching you’ on its roof – which was towed from the venue later that same day.

GRID-Arendal meanwhile worked closely with delegates from West-Africa and IUCN to support them with the latest science and policy advice as part of our AFRIPAC project. Senior expert Ieva Rucevska presented our work on the Climate impacts of plastics report to the Asia-Pacific group, and we promoted our documentary film featuring waste pickers calling for systemic change and a just transition, among other activities. 

As negotiations progressed towards its final day, the intentions of some countries on ‘a comprehensive life cycle approach’ became clear. They would rather see the treaty focus on downstream measures, such as improved waste management, with a focus on product design and recycling, while other groups repeated the need to include reduction measures for production. As the science shows, current levels and the projected exponential increase of production are not sustainable. “High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution” members Rwanda and Peru therefore called for a report on sustainable levels of primary plastic production and consumption, without success. 

“I remain concerned about the lack of agreement om measures to curb plastic production to sustainable levels. The science on this is clear: significant reduction in the production of primary plastic is needed, on top of all other measures, to protect the environment and human health from the adverse effects of plastic pollution,” says Karen Landmark, director at GRID-Arendal.

The last negotiating day could be summarized in one word: brackets. With the negotiators plowing through provisions, more and more text received brackets, meaning text that has not been decided on or found no consensus on. 

However, the session successfully established intersessional work – something that lacked after INC-3 – to be convened between INC-4 and INC-5, with two ad hoc open-ended expert groups, one focusing on means of implementation and financing, and another focusing on products, chemicals of concern, and product design. Parties also agreed on a legal drafting group to be formed at INC-5. With high ambition countries not willing to let go of the reduction targets for production, an initiative was presented: the Bridge to Busan Declaration: invigorating the call for sustainable production levels of primary plastic polymers. 

“We are encouraged by the decision to establish two open-ended expert groups during the intersessional period before INC-5. These groups aim to address crucial aspects such as means of implementation, notably focusing on financing the treaty, and propose criteria regarding products, chemicals of concern, and associated product design matters. This signifies a proactive step towards addressing key issues, and we look forward to further constructive discussions,” says Karen Landmark.

After a long closing plenary, the delegates finalised the fourth session – at around 04.00 in the morning – on a positive note: celebrating multilateralism, convergence on the text, the compromises being made, the established intersessional work, and a clear path towards finalising the treaty text in Busan in November 2024. But the work ahead is still enormous and leaves a lot to be determined before we have a treaty that can effectively end plastic pollution. As the country representative from Fiji fittingly stated:

“Break free from plastics and break free from brackets.”