Zero Waste Europe founder: Petrochemical states continue to derail UN Global Plastic Treaty

Zero Waste Europe’s (ZWE) founder, Joan Marc Simon, is blaming oil-producing countries for the “low-ambition” outcomes of the recent UN Global Plastic Treaty negotiations. Simon, who attended the INC-5 discussions in Busan, South Korea, says that the Arab League, Russia and India are actively derailing progress in environmental sustainability. 

Meanwhile, Global South countries have been most ambitious in promoting progressive policy changes at the treaty negotiations, according to Simon, who says these countries suffer disproportionately from plastic pollution. 

However, he was encouraged by the EU’s efforts to raise its profile in the last stage of discussions and advocate for more impactful changes. 

We sit down with Simon to discuss how a meaningful treaty might be established and how major roadblocks can be overcome. 

What are you expecting INC-5.2 to deliver to establish a powerful treaty?
Simon: There are only three ways to achieve an ambitious treaty. One is to convince the oil and plastic-producing countries to raise their ambition. The second way is to change the decision-making process from consensus to majority voting, which would allow most countries in the world to approve what the majority wants. The third option is that if the other two fail, most of the parties should start a parallel process with those willing to address the roots of plastic pollution. This last option is not unprecedented, as the Ottawa process in 1997 successfully produced a Mine Ban Treaty outside the UN and has 164 signatories as of today.While petrochemical states are blocking a meaningful plastic treaty, developing nations are ambitious to bring about progress, says Simon.

What did the INC-5 negotiations establish?
Simon: INC-5 negotiations didn’t conclude in anything concrete. The parties just agreed to continue the negotiations in a last session, INC-5.2, the location and time of which is still to be decided. INC-5 also produced a text which will be the basis for the negotiations going forward but so far nothing has been agreed as such. 

What parties were the main contributors to the progress?
Simon: There were two big blocks during the negotiations. On one hand, there were those who wanted to basically have a waste management treaty that leaves out any mention of controlling production or chemicals of concern. They called themselves the coalition of like-minded countries, and the members were exclusively oil or plastic-producing countries. Political enemies, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, joined forces to push a low-ambition agenda together with the Arab League, Russia, India and some others. They intervened a lot more than any other countries or groups, and they are the ones to blame for the delay and derailment of the process.

On the other side, there was a much bigger group of countries under the umbrella of what they named the High Ambition Coalition, which during INC-5 evolved to become the coalition of the willing. These countries advocated for a global treaty that tackles the whole life cycle of plastics, from extraction to disposal, including the social and health dimensions. Most outspoken countries in this coalition were some Latin-American countries led by Panama, some African countries led by Rwanda, some small island states such as Fiji and the EU as a whole, complemented with good interventions from Norway, Switzerland and the UK. 

What were you hoping the treaty negotiations would bring?
Simon: Given the existing scientific consensus on the topic and the pressing urgency on impacted communities, including plastic pollution in all our bodies, I was hoping to get an agreement around a Global Plastic Treaty that properly addresses plastic production, restricts toxic chemicals, increases circularity and delivers on financing for a just transition. The good news is that in Busan, we saw that a majority of countries is supporting this approach. 

What were the main obstacles to achieving these outcomes? 
Simon: UN negotiations take place by consensus, that is, by unanimity. A tool that gives incredible power to a minority to block the process or drag the majority to the lowest common denominator. The parties can decide by consensus to work by majority, using voting, but such a move would invalidate the strategy of the low-ambition countries. Therefore, the same obstacles that block action on climate or biodiversity also block progress on plastic pollution.