My thanks to the Republic of Korea and the city of Busan for hosting us as we gather for the fifth round of negotiations on a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution.
Today marks one thousand days since the historic UNEA resolution green lighting these negotiations. As some other multilateral deals were decades in the making, this marks good progress.
But plastic pollution operates on a different timescale. Some plastics can take up to one thousand years to decompose. Even then, they break down into ever smaller particles that persist, pervade and pollute.
This pollution is harming the natural systems and species on which we depend. Making it harder to adapt to climate change, damaging ecosystem resilience and blocking drainage systems in cities. Very likely also harming human health. And growth in plastic production is emitting more greenhouse gases, pushing us further into climate disaster.
This is why public and political pressure for action has risen to a crescendo. Waste pickers and civil society groups are fully engaged. Businesses are calling for global rules to guide this future reality. Indigenous People are speaking out. Scientists are calling out the science. The finance sector is beginning to make moves. At the international level there have also been clear signals that a deal is essential – including the G20 declaration last week, which said that G20 leaders were “determined” to land this treaty by the end of the year.
And we at UNEP have received letters from thousands of children across Kenya, our headquarters and the place where this instrument was conceived. I am going to read just one, from Myles Kariuki, who says, ‘Since this plastic pollution spreads, we will not have food. Fish are eating plastic. Our parents won’t have money to pay our school fees. Please help us.’ Essentially, in his community, the fish catch has gone down due to plastic in the nets and people’s lives are impacted.
Here, in Busan, we have reached the moment of truth, for children like Myles and people all over the world. This is your chance to craft an instrument for the ages. One that could deliver thousands of years free from plastic pollution. At the end of this week, the gavel must come down on an instrument that represents an ambitious starting point. Not everything will be as detailed as some may wish. But the broad contours and strokes must be there.
Friends,
When I look beyond the fog of negotiations, when I reflect on the last thousand days and consider what we have learned over seven decades of agreeing treaties, I see three interrelated buckets of provisions deriving from the Chair’s Non-Paper 3.
In the first bucket are provisions that are informed by strong precedent in other environmental treaties. These include implementation and compliance. National plans and reporting. Effective evaluation and monitoring. Information exchange. Education and research. Establishing a Conference of the Parties, including the ability to establish subsidiary bodies. Slight differences of opinion should not stand in the way of making rapid progress in these areas. Let’s agree on these quickly, so we can address the critical issues.
In the second bucket are provisions around which, despite convergence, Member States appear keen to deepen discussions. These are key obligations and include product design. Emissions and releases. Waste management. Dealing with legacy pollution. Just transition. Capacity building, technology assistance and technology transfer. Final provisions. Similarly, here, let’s focus on what can bring us together so that these provisions can be nailed and nailed fast.
In the third bucket, there are three provisions that require significant work to resolve and therefore require serious attention during the course of this week. These are the three provisions that are yet to be outlined in the Chair’s non-paper.
The first unresolved issue is around plastic products and chemicals.
We can all agree that there are some chemicals we do not want in our food, in our homes and in our bodies or the bodies of our children and loved ones. Some of these are known and listed in some global frameworks. Others are not. There is a clear opening here to list the obvious harmful chemicals and to establish a process for listing those that are yet to be identified.
Furthermore, are there specific plastic items that we can live without, those that so often leak into the environment? Are there alternatives to these items? This is an issue we must agree on. As I have said from the start, we can begin that discussion on that which is single-use or short-lived plastics, while understanding the different circumstances across the rainbow of nations.
The second unresolved issue is around supply.
The UNEA resolution called for sustainable production and consumption of plastics – taking a lifecycle approach. This obviously takes inspiration from Sustainable Development Goal 12 that addresses sustainable production and consumption. My plea is to use this aspect of the resolution as your guiding star, while recognizing that national plans and reporting will offer a critical tool for Parties to ensure adherence to the agreements that you may strike.
The third unresolved issue is around finance.
Financing is central to multilateral environmental agreements. We saw how important this issue is to many countries in the just-concluded climate talks. The UNEA resolution clearly provides you with guidance and states that parties should consider the establishment of “a financial mechanism to support implementation of the instrument, including the option of a dedicated multilateral fund”. That is what the UNEA resolution instructed you to do. My plea to you is to craft text that responds to the resolution in this regard and outlines the broad contours of how this mechanism would work.
So, there is much ground to cover this week. l urge you to give the Chair your full support. Move fast when you can. Leave corner solutions behind. Negotiate in good faith. Focus on what is important and urgent – because many details will come later – but don’t lower the bar so far that the treaty becomes meaningless.
Friends,
Allow me to also remind you that we need to think beyond the negotiating process. The UNEA resolution requested the Executive Director to convene a diplomatic conference to adopt the instrument and open it for signature. I have encouraged the four countries that put three bids before us to find a consensus on this matter so that we can move forward.
Not a single person on this planet wants to witness plastic litter in green spaces, on their streets or washing up on their shores. Not a single person wants chemical-laced plastic particles in their bloodstreams or organs or their unborn babies. The people who depend on sifting through plastic waste for a living would rather do so under decent, safe and well-paid conditions.
So, the world wants an end to plastic pollution. The world needs an end to plastic pollution. I ask you to deliver an instrument this week that puts us on the road to delivering just that, for thousands of days, months and years to come.
