© Dzianis Rakhuba stock.adobe.com
The latest negotiating text for a global plastics treaty has renewed uncertainty about whether chemicals of concern will be included in the final agreement.
NGOs and observers have criticised the document for reflecting the "lowest common denominator" among the options discussed during negotiations on the long-delayed UN agreement.
Published last week, the document contains only two references to chemicals of concern in plastic products. Both are in brackets, indicating a lack of consensus among negotiators and leaving their inclusion in the final treaty unresolved.
Chemical controls have been among the most contested aspects of the treaty talks, with some countries, NGOs and scientists calling for global rules, while others favour a narrower agreement focused primarily on waste management.
Diplomats drew up the document during informal meetings in Nairobi between 30 June and 3 July. In a written summary of the meetings, the chair of the treaty negotiating committee, Julio Cordano, said some members were in favour of global criteria to address plastic products which contain hazardous chemicals and intentionally added microplastics.
But Cordano wrote that the issue was not discussed in detail and "remained a recurring area of divergence".
The text comes just over a year after negotiations on the treaty collapsed in Geneva amid disagreement over measures to curb plastic production and impose legally binding controls on chemicals of concern.
Cordano has described the draft as an "informal, evolving reference document" intended to review all components of the negotiations and reflect any divergent views. It is meant to aid discussions at the next informal heads of delegation meeting in Bangkok on 27-30 September.
‘Charade’
Critics say the text is a watered-down version of previous treaty drafts and have condemned the closed-door talks that only included heads of delegation, excluding other stakeholders.
Melissa Aguayo, co-coordinator of NGO Break Free From Plastic, said the process raised "serious concerns about legitimacy and trust", with critical issues, including chemicals, kept off the formal agenda. "The text cannot be accepted as is," Aguayo said.
David Azoulay, director of environmental health at the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said the text sidelines proposals central to an effective agreement.
"The text is full of brackets and options, but even its most ambitious reading shows that it will do nothing to end plastic pollution," Azoulay said. "The best available science tells us that if this treaty were adopted as it is written, it would not bring plastic production to levels compatible with climate goals, the protection of human and environmental health, or the effective elimination of plastic pollution."
Prominent human rights lawyer and former UN special rapporteur for toxics and human rights Baskut Tuncak labelled the treaty negotiations a "charade".
"If states and funders are serious about protecting the environment and human health, they should double down on a science policy panel for chemicals that will work, use the BRS Conventions more effectively on plastics and expand the Minamata Convention [on Mercury] to address not just mercury but lead, cadmium, chromium and other highly toxic substances that are having devastating effects on children and workers around the world," Tuncak said.