As a minority threatens to block final negotiations in Geneva for a plastics treaty, countries should invoke their right to vote to ensure an ambitious agreement is reached, write Philippe Bolo (France), Fabien Fivaz (Switzerland), and Natacha Kpochan (Benin) on behalf of the Interparliamentary Coalition to End Plastic Pollution.
Final talks at the United Nations aimed at achieving a legally binding treaty to effectively address plastic pollution are in danger of failing before negotiations even begin. To date, a handful of authoritarian petrostates – informally known as the like-minded group – have consistently employed obstructionist tactics, including procedural manoeuvres to prevent substantive discussions.
Meanwhile, a group of nearly 100 countries, describing themselves as the ambitious camp, recently declared that the treaty must address the root cause of the crisis: the unchecked and growing production of plastics driven by fossil fuel giants. Despite their commitment to negotiating in good faith, these countries’ efforts to reach a compromise that regulates the full life cycle of plastics while addressing the concerns of the like-minded group have been unsuccessful across multiple sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC).
The committee was set up following a resolution adopted by consensus at the UN Environment Assembly in 2022, tasked with developing an international, legally binding instrument with “a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastics”. The resolution required five negotiation sessions, but the final meeting last December in Busan adjourned without a final treaty text. The chair was forced to suspend the proceedings, which are set to resume in Geneva on 5 August at the INC-5.2.
Most multilateral decisions are made by consensus. When consensus has been exhausted, the risk of a vote acts as an incentive for countries to negotiate in good faith and compromise. Although consensus may appear fair, it can be weaponised, allowing even a single country to use its veto power to block progress. In practice, consensus is the opposite of democracy. For example, within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a small number of countries have exercised veto power to delay meaningful climate action for over 30 years.
A similar drama has played out during INC meetings. At its first gathering in 2022, the rules of procedure were provisionally adopted, including two voting rules modelled after the Minamata Convention. However, at the INC-2, half the time for negotiations was lost to contentious debate about the rules’ applicability. To resume substantive work, the INC was compelled to add an interpretative statement, indicating that, while the committee agreed to apply the rules of procedure provisionally, rule 38 – on decision-making on substantive matters – lacked agreement. Unlike at the UNFCCC’s Conference of the Parties, though, the option to vote can still be legally used at the INC. But the interpretive footnote and threats of procedural delays from a few countries continue to discourage its use.
The like-minded countries have argued that decisions should strictly be made by consensus to prevent a “tyranny of the majority”, where countries lacking the financial or technical capacity to implement the treaty would still be bound by its obligations. However, these same nations have leveraged the absence of consensus as a de facto or unofficial veto to trigger pedantic discussions on everything ranging from the plenary agenda to chemical toxicity in plastics.
This consensus-based decision-making has allowed a minority of petrostates with a vested interest in a weak plastics treaty to exert undue influence. These so-called like-minded countries have consistently resisted stronger measures and instead have embedded weak, non-binding language throughout the treaty draft, effectively rendering it toothless.
To avoid another deadlock at INC-5.2 in Geneva, the ambitious countries should hold informal line-by-line discussions to draft a unified treaty text backed by the majority. This new text could then serve as the foundation for genuine formal negotiations.
If strong unity is achieved within the coalition, this action will send two equally powerful messages: first, that the ambitious camp has concluded its internal negotiations and has a solid text for moving forward. Second, the like-minded countries must reconsider their red lines or be prepared to accept flexibility mechanisms, like longer timelines, which will at least allow them to opt out of obligations to a certain extent.
To achieve an effective treaty in Geneva, establishing crucial procedural mechanisms is essential. This will prevent a minority of industry-aligned petrostates from derailing a legally binding treaty that enjoys the support of over 100 countries. Without these mechanisms, member states risk a lacklustre agreement that could lead to decades of further stalemate. The ambitious bloc must demonstrate courage for the plastics treaty to be ratified and implemented in a way that truly addresses the plastics crisis.
Full list of signatories (in alphabetical order):
- Sahar Albazar, member of parliament, Egypt
- Philippe Bolo, member of parliament, France
- Poonsak Chanchampee, member of parliament, Thailand
- Éléonore Caroit, member of parliament, France
- Alistair Carmichael, member of parliament, United Kingdom
- Virginie Dufour, member of parliament, Quebec
- Fabien Fivaz, member of the Council of States, Switzerland
- Riadh Jaidane, member of parliament, Tunisia
- Natacha Kpochan, member of parliament, Benin
- Ricardo Lagos Weber, senator, Chile
- Juan Carlos Lozada, member of parliament, Colombia
- Cédric Ngindu, senator, Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Jimmy Pahun, member of parliament, France
- Kate Parminter, member of the House of Lords, United Kingdom
- Nilto Tatto, member of parliament, Brazil
Recent Comments