Historic plastics negotiations in Geneva

Since the mandate was adopted at UNEA – the world’s ‘environment parliament’ – in March 2022, five rounds of negotiations have been held in different parts of the world. Now, from 5 to 14 August, the second part of the fifth meeting is taking place in Geneva, Switzerland. The Norwegian Retailers' Environment Fund is present to follow the process and gain insight into the agreement, which will have implications for the fund’s further work.

Have you already been following the process? Scroll down to read the latest status.

The mandate from UNEA 5.2 is to develop a legally binding agreement that will stop plastic litter through a comprehensive approach – from production to waste management. The plan is for the meeting in Geneva to result in a finalised agreement.

Plastic is everywhere. In recent years, several news reports have shown that researchers have found microplastics in human blood, in the brain and in the placentas of unborn children. We do not yet know the full extent of how harmful this is, but we do know that plastic both contains and attracts chemicals when it ends up in the marine environment. The concern is that both the chemicals in and on the plastic – and the plastic itself – may have serious consequences for human health, wildlife and nature.

• Would you like a quick, visual explanation of the agreement? See here:
   

What the final objective of the agreement will be will be decided during the negotiations. Overall, the ambition is to protect human health, wildlife and nature, which are already under considerable pressure due to our heavy dependence on plastic – and inadequate management when plastic becomes waste.

When the mandate was finalised in 2022, a comprehensive global maturation process began. Knowledge about the harmful effects of plastic has increased significantly since then. At that time, the link between plastic and human health was less well known, but over the past three years this has become a widely discussed topic. We now know more about both the number and the types of chemicals found in different types of plastic.

One obstacle in the process has been disagreement between certain countries over whether the agreement should cover the entire life cycle of plastics through a comprehensive approach – despite this being explicitly set out in the mandate. This disagreement has caused delays. In addition, some countries have been accused of using “delay tactics” in procedural matters, such as whether certain elements of the agreement should be put to a vote. This was particularly noticeable during the meeting in Paris in 2023.

The goal is to negotiate a historic environmental agreement that is both global in scope and legally binding for all countries that ratify it. The agreement will establish common frameworks and rules to reduce plastic litter and contribute to more sustainable management of plastic throughout its entire life cycle – from production and design to use, reuse and waste management.

Such an agreement would be the first of its kind and would ensure that all countries commit to concrete measures and deadlines. It would also provide a framework for cooperation, technology transfer and financing, so that both wealthy and poorer countries can help stop plastic pollution. The goal is to protect human health, wildlife and nature from the increasingly harmful effects of plastic.

There are particularly three controversial issues in the negotiations that the countries have not been able to agree on. In this type of process, it is important to remember the principle that“Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”.

1. Phasing out harmful chemicals and products
   The question is how far the agreement should go in prohibiting or phasing out plastic types and additives that are harmful to people and the environment.
2. Plastic production
   A fundamental discussion is currently under way here on whether the agreement should also regulate the actual production of plastic – not only waste management. Most of the world's plastic is made from oil, and regulating plastic production could therefore help achieve climate targets.
3. Funding of measures
   How the agreement is to be financed, especially for the world’s poorest countries, remains unresolved. This includes support for the clean-up of historical plastic litter, such as that which washes ashore on small island states.

There are many possible variations of what the final agreement may look like. A key choice is whether the majority of countries should be able to move forward without those that do not agree – or whether full consensus among all countries will be required for the agreement to be adopted. If consensus becomes an absolute requirement, the result may be a less ambitious agreement.

Magnus Løvold, from the Norwegian Academy of International Law, has in aarticleraised questions as to whether consensus is always necessary, and warns of the danger that an important agreement may be “sacrificed on the altar of consensus”.

Norway has been a driving force in the process and, together with Rwanda, has led what is known asHigh Ambition Coalition– a group of countries that wants an ambitious agreement covering the entire plastics value chain. On the other side is a group of “like-minded countries” which does not describe itself as low-ambition, but which in practice is less willing to regulate, for example, plastic production. This group includes several Arab states and certain other countries.

The Norwegian Retailers' Environment Fund has no formal role in the negotiations and therefore participates as an observer. The administration, represented by the expert responsible for international work, follows the process closely to gain insight into the development of the agreement. The reason is that the Fund’s purposes largely overlap with the agreement’s objectives, and that the fields we work with on a daily basis – such as a circular plastics economy, cleanup of plastic litter and reduced plastic use – will inevitably be affected by a global agreement.

At the outermost extreme, the countries of the world could agree to ban certain plastic products considered unnecessary, superfluous or harmful – which would in that case also affect Norwegian consumers. However, the agreement is not expected to be stricter than current EU legislation.

The countries were unable to reach agreement at what was intended to be the final meeting in Busan, South Korea, in November/December 2024 – at INC 5.1. The Chair of the meeting, Luis Vayas Valdivieso of Ecuador, compiled what the secretariat understood to be the latest status, in which the so-called “red lines” are more clearly highlighted. This is referred to as the “Chair’s Text” and forms the basis for the negotiations in Switzerland. You can read this texthere.

During the meeting in Geneva, this text has been revised in contact groups and informal meetings in order to move closer to a final agreement text that can be adopted by the plenary session no later than Thursday evening, 14 August.