Highlights and images for 28 April 2024

With time running out, Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) delegates rushed from subgroup to subgroup, addressing various provisions of the revised draft text of the international legally binding instrument (ILBI) on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.

Want to dig deeper into today's talks? Read the full Earth Negotiations Bulletin daily report.

In plenary, INC Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso (Ecuador) proposed the establishment of an ad hoc intersessional open-ended expert group to develop an analysis of potential resources and means that could be mobilized for implementation of the instrument. He also proposed the establishment of a second ad hoc intersessional open-ended expert group to propose criteria on products, chemicals of concern, and related product design issues. 

Focusing their discussions on the streamlined parts of the Revised Draft Text, the Subgroups considered: 

• Fishing gear; 
• Extended producer responsibility;  
• Implementation measures, including national (action/implementation) plans; 
• Primary plastic polymers, and polymers and chemicals of concern; 
• Financing, including the financial mechanism and resource mobilization; 
• Capacity building, technical assistance and technology transfer; and 
• Technology transfer. 

As they did at INC-3 in Nairobi, they spent some time validating the streamlined text presented by Subgroup Co-Facilitators, verifying whether the text reflected discussions held over the course of the week, a task unique to this process.  

And the devil is in the details, as is the case with all negotiations. In their discussions on extended producer responsibility, for instance, they debated whether the ILBI should contain global legally binding requirements on the establishment of extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, or whether EPR measures should be nationally determined. They also discussed whether these schemes should be mandatory or voluntary, elements which could determine the strength of the new agreement as a whole. 

In an impassioned discussion on primary plastic polymers, views diverged sharply. Delegations differed over whether the very consideration of this issue was outside the scope of the mandate provided by UN Environment Programme (UNEP) resolution 5/14, which established the INC. Those in favor vehemently suggested that the most efficient and effective way to reduce plastic pollution is to produce less pollution, while those opposed claimed there is insufficient evidence between the production of plastic and environmental or human health concerns, but that the issue is rather about poor waste management. Delegates will soon need to bridge this seemingly intractable gap. 

Some Subgroups worked more smoothly than others on this last official day of their negotiating time. One group struggled to find the balance between streamlining and negotiating the text, with confusion over what the validation exercise entails. In other rooms, delegations were able to confirm that the streamlined text presented by the Co-Facilitators did indeed contain most of what had earlier been discussed. They spent their time in a line-by-line reading, reinserting text that had been excluded, as well as adding nuance to the presented text, suggesting deletions of whole parts, or inclusion of completely new language. Many were aware that this validation “is unique to this process,” extending increasing amounts of patience in order to agree on a workable text for further negotiations. 

Aware of the looming deadline to finalize their work before INC-4 closes on Monday, 28 April 2024, delegates worked late into the night to get the text into the best shape possible for INC-5.