“High ambition coalition”: International divisions over UN plastic pollution treaty solidify

23 Feb 2023 --- Nations worldwide are dividing and conflicting over which direction to take the UN’s global plastic pollution treaty. EU and African countries are pushing for plastic reduction, while the US and Saudi Arabia want the treaty to focus on recycling and waste disposal.

EU supporters want top-down rules to target reductions in the amount of plastic produced, while the US side – a major oil producer – favors a bottom-up approach concentrating on stopping plastic from polluting land and sea.

Discussions about the opposing opinions will occur in Paris, France, in May this year. There, the nations will advocate for their positions regarding the treaty, which they are aiming to set up by 2024.

Nations will discuss their viewpoints on the global plastic pollution treaty this May in Paris, France. Countries' submissions
The EU submission says: “While measures on the demand side are expected to indirectly impact the reduction of production levels, efforts and measures addressing supply are equally needed to cope with increasing plastic waste generation.”

The submission suggests several options to cut plastic production, including global targets to cut a certain percentage by a given year or nations putting forward their own targets.

Similarly, the UK and African Group call for governments to adopt legally binding targets to “restrain” plastic creation and consumption. Norway and Rwanda call themselves the “high-ambition coalition,” echoing the EU’s suggestion of a global target to reduce plastic production.

On the other hand, the US says the treaty should be “country-driven” and “flexible.” The country says the treaty’s preamble could include “the beneficial role of plastic, including for human health and food safety.”

Akin to the US, China, the world’s largest plastic producer, says, “a variety of economic and market tools could be adopted in an integrated manner to reduce production and use of plastic products.”

On behalf of the 39 member states of the Alliance of Small Island States, Samoa did not call for production cuts, even though the island’s areas are particularly vulnerable to climate change due to their equatorial location.

EU “not willing to play”Countries are debating over how to deal with the global plastic waste crisis.
The small islands’ legal adviser Bryce Rudyk says their focus is instead reducing the amount of plastic in the sea. Additionally, the islands are concerned that reductions in plastic production “may actually increase the cost of the plastic that small islands would utilize.”

Andres Del Castillo from the Center for International Environmental Law told Climate Home, “if the plastics treaty is to meaningfully address plastic pollution, it will be critical for more countries to adopt similar positions [to the EU] that address the early stages of the plastics life cycle.”

In a parallel situation last year, the US attempted to enlist Japan and Australia to join a coalition to influence the parameters of the global plastic pollution treaty to compete against the rival alliance of European countries. The coalition’s agenda resembles the Paris climate accords to keep the treaty focused on individual countries’ efforts.

Based on the recent submissions, Christina Dixon, who follows plastics treaty talks for the Environmental Investigation Agency, said the EU sent a clear signal that its member states are “leaders who are not willing to play with a Paris-style agreement like some of the lower ambition countries have indicated in their submissions.”

A threat to the EU
However, the EU has been concerned about how much voting power it should receive. Other countries are attempting to weaken the EU’s capacity to vote on behalf of their member states in treaty negotiations.

Currently, the EU negotiates as a bloc on behalf of its 27 member states under rules of procedure drafted by the UN Environment Program (UNEP). It is set that they would do the same in the plastics treaty talks, but UNEP has proposed a voting system under which votes would be quantified by numbers instead, threatening the EU’s voting power.

By Sabine Waldeck

To contact our editorial team please email us at editorial@cnsmedia.com