Center for International Environmental Law Staff Respond to Developments During First Round of Plastics Treaty Negotiations

PUNTA DEL ESTE (UY) — This week, States and stakeholders from around the world gathered in Uruguay to begin the negotiations to advance an international plastics treaty. 

While the agenda for the first meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC-1) appeared to be full of procedural matters, critical decisions ranging from the composition of the guiding bureau to the adoption of rules that will determine how States and stakeholders can participate were made. A split between high and low-ambition countries was evident from the start, permeating State interventions that touched on the scope and objective of the future treaty and items of business around decision-making in negotiations and the site of negotiations. 

Members of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) delegation issued the following reactions:

Carroll Muffett, President and CEO:

“Negotiations at INC1 this week demonstrated that the majority of countries are ready to take urgent action to confront the plastics crisis, including by addressing the plastic production that drives that crisis. Sadly, it also proved that plastic producers and their allies are equally committed to slowing progress and weakening ambition – from the U.S. insistence that the plastic treaty replicate the weaknesses of the Paris Agreement, to last minute maneuvers by other fossil fuel and petrochemical States to block countries’ ability to vote on difficult issues.  Despite these maneuvers, the world made real progress in Punta Del Este. And high ambition, global commitments, and binding targets remain both necessary and achievable, but it will demand the US and other countries join the rest of the world in pairing claims of high ambition with the policies that high ambition demands.”

Jane Patton, Plastics and Petrochemicals Campaign Manager: 

“This week, an incredible coalition of over 100 civil society and rights-holder organizations came together to say “No mas plasticos!” on the global stage. These dedicated advocates pushed for solutions to plastic pollution on the scale of the crisis we are facing. The planet cannot handle the plastics that have already been produced, let alone an onslaught of new production. Only through dedicated inclusion of these voices can we negotiate an effective treaty to truly end plastic pollution.”

Giulia Carlini, Senior Attorney: 

“There is strong scientific consensus that plastics-associated chemicals cause diseases. Over the last week, we have heard dozens of interventions from delegations that they want the treaty not only to protect the environment, but also health from the impacts of plastics. Critically, this demonstrates that there is appetite to regulate the very materials and chemicals that plastics are made of. There is little doubt — the plastics treaty will be a global health treaty, and an instrument that is rooted in a human rights approach will necessarily address the disproportionate health effects in the most vulnerable and at risk, including children, youth, pregnant women, and workers with unique exposures. As in previous treaties that address health issues, such as the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, polluters have deliberately manufactured doubt about the health impacts of its products. So if the treaty is to succeed in meeting its health objectives, it will be essential to set strict conflict of interest policies going forward.”

Andrés Del Castillo, Senior Attorney: 

“We saw extraordinary efforts from global leaders like United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Tūrk and United Nations Secretary General António Guterres echoing messages from civil society connecting the plastics crisis to fossil fuels and calling for a human rights approach — demonstrating that the activity around the negotiations is as important as the negotiations themselves. Over this week, we have seen multiple interventions raising whether the future treaty will be based on national action plans, or global, mandatory targets. We know that this will be top of the agenda at INC-2. The failure of countries to fulfill their emissions reduction plans under the Paris Agreement shows that we cannot afford another treaty that centers on the whims of its leaders.”

Media contact:

 Cate Bonacini, press@ciel.org, +1-202-742-5847 (desk), +1-510-520-9109 (WhatsApp)

(Posted on December 2, 2022)