0:08

Hello, and welcome

0:08

to About Sustainability...

0:11

, a podcast by the Institute for Global Environmental

0:13

Strategies (IGES). It's your co-host, Erin.

0:17

This time, Alice, Simon and I

0:17

invited our colleagues Matthew

0:21

Hengesbaugh

0:21

and Chochoe Devaporihartakula,

0:24

two experts following the

0:24

ongoing international

0:27

negotiations on plastics,

0:27

the Intergovernmental

0:31

Negotiating Committee on

0:31

Plastic Pollution, or INC

0:36

for short, is a process that

0:36

was agreed in a historic

0:40

resolution at the fifth session

0:40

of the United Nations

0:44

Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2),

0:44

in 2022.

0:49

For a review of what happened

0:49

at UNEA, check out our

0:52

UNEA-5.2 episode. So the aim of the INC is to

0:54

develop an internationally

0:59

legally binding instrument on

0:59

plastic pollution, including in

1:02

the marine environment. And this involves using an

1:04

approach that addresses the

1:08

entire lifecycle of plastics.

1:11

Our previous episode focusing

1:11

on lifecycle approaches to

1:14

plastics shows how challenging

1:14

this actually is, and we

1:17

learned that it continues to be

1:17

a major contention at

1:20

the actual negotiations. Be sure to check out our show

1:22

notes for those references.

1:26

We caught up with Matthew and

1:26

Chochoe after they came back

1:29

from the most recent INC

1:29

meeting called INC-3,

1:32

which concluded in November.

1:35

We covered the major

1:35

contentions at INC-3, who is

1:38

responsible and what is needed

1:38

to reach a global agreement on

1:42

tackling this issue. Let's get into it.

1:48

Plastic pollution is

1:48

obviously a really serious

1:51

problem globally, but how

1:51

serious is it in this

1:54

particular region,

1:54

the Asia-Pacific region?

1:57

Yeah, that's an excellent question. Um, I would say it's serious.

2:01

Um, there's been a lot of

2:01

research dating back now a

2:05

number of years. For example, in 2017,

2:06

some research came out

2:11

discussing how the top 20

2:11

plastic-polluting rivers in the

2:16

world are mainly located in

2:16

the Asia region.

2:19

Um, I think this study actually

2:19

found that it was upwards of

2:23

very close to 70%. A large bulk of the global

2:25

total of plastics were being

2:30

emitted from these

2:30

rivers in Asia.

2:33

The research shows that

2:33

many of them are located

2:36

in Southeast Asia. But actually, if you look- take

2:37

a more global perspective,

2:42

you find that a lot of the

2:42

problem is actually originating

2:45

in more advanced economies,

2:45

of course.

2:48

And there was a

2:48

lot of debate around, uh,

2:52

this- the INC, with certain

2:52

countries calling for,

2:56

for example,

2:56

some identification of what

2:59

they call the downstream

2:59

countries that were actually

3:03

fully getting the brunt of a

3:03

lot of this plastic pollution.

3:05

What you mean by

3:05

downstream is- are countries

3:09

basically getting the plastic

3:09

from some other country?

3:13

Is that- like for processing? Is that what

3:15

you're referring to, or?

3:16

It's difficult to

3:16

really pinpoint where

3:18

the problem originates.

3:20

Mmm hmm.

3:21

And a lot of this has

3:21

to deal with what we think of

3:23

in terms of lifecycle. So you have certain countries

3:25

for example, a lot of

3:30

countries that, you know,

3:30

maintain very large

3:32

petrochemical industries... They would say that plastic,

3:34

the issue itself must be

3:38

dealt fully downstream. So that's at the

3:39

end of life, right?

3:42

Um, where, you know,

3:42

the most visible aspects of

3:46

plastic pollution, you know,

3:46

your single-use products that

3:49

are discarded in

3:49

the environment, the discarded

3:52

fishing nets, etc.

3:55

But there's other countries,

3:55

and rightfully so,

3:58

point out that,

3:58

well, plastic actually begins

4:00

very much upstream, and this

4:00

was a real issue at INC because

4:06

they- the countries, the member

4:06

states were not able to really

4:09

forge any consensus around this

4:09

issue of polymers and chemicals

4:14

of concern, because, you know,

4:14

a lot of people would

4:17

say that, you know,

4:17

plastic actually begins very

4:20

much at the base level-

4:20

you know, basically the

4:25

compounds that make up plastic,

4:25

those- that is the

4:27

issue in itself. So when I refer to

4:28

downstream countries, these are

4:32

countries who took a stance

4:32

that plastic being a

4:36

transboundary issue, a

4:36

lot of these countries,

4:39

particularly in the

4:39

developing world, face issues

4:42

with waste management,

4:42

collection,

4:44

sorting and disposal.

4:47

And a lot of that plastic waste

4:47

winds up on their shores and

4:52

they just don't have the

4:52

capacity to deal with it.

4:54

So again, this goes back to the

4:54

idea that there are many

4:57

different perspectives when we talk about the lifecycle of plastics.

5:01

And it remains to be seen

5:01

whether or not countries will

5:04

be able to really come to a

5:04

broad consensus on how to

5:09

tackle the many stages

5:09

across the lifecycle.

5:12

It sounds to me as if

5:12

there is a discussion or

5:16

contention around whether

5:16

primarily the consumer of the

5:20

plastic product should be

5:20

responsible for the waste,

5:22

or the producer of the raw

5:22

plastic material should be

5:26

responsible for it. So who's actually responsible

5:27

for that?

5:29

Like the country that created

5:29

the industry that creates it,

5:32

or the sector that creates the

5:32

plastic bottles or the country

5:36

that- in which the people

5:36

consume the beverage that is in

5:40

those plastic bottles but do

5:40

not have the capacity to

5:42

properly manage it, and it ends

5:42

up in the rivers?

5:44

Can you say something,

5:44

Matt, about who are the biggest

5:47

producers of plastic, and who

5:47

are the biggest consumers of

5:50

plastic in terms

5:50

of countries or companies?

5:53

I'm just not clear on that.

5:54

Sure. Well, no, that actually touches

5:55

on the point that again,

5:58

plastic is not- I mean,

5:58

it's multi-sectoral, right?

6:01

So you have, for example,

6:01

countries that rely heavily on

6:05

their petroleum industries. Well, that's, you know, a major

6:07

building block for the

6:11

production of plastics. And then you have other

6:12

countries that host very

6:15

large chemical industries. That also is another factor

6:16

that goes into the

6:19

manufacture of plastics. And then you have countries

6:21

that actually import the final

6:24

products at their end of life.

6:27

Right? So the plastic waste that other

6:27

countries dispose of and don't

6:33

necessarily

6:33

deal with domestically.

6:35

So it's a

6:35

very multi-dimensional issue.

6:39

This point that you

6:39

make around, you know, how much

6:41

is the consumer responsible-

6:41

this is, uh, really a

6:45

controversial issue because

6:45

it's actually- a lot of the

6:50

regulations that could be put

6:50

in place really should fall on

6:54

governments and how they

6:54

regulate the corporations that

6:58

are involved in the plastic trade. So for me, my personal

7:00

perspective is that, you know,

7:04

just putting all the

7:04

responsibility on the consumer

7:08

is a bit of a distraction.

7:11

Hmmm.

7:12

Again, given the

7:12

multi-dimensional nature of how

7:15

plastics are produced and

7:15

manufactured and the ways that

7:18

we consume them, if governments

7:18

were to step in and really

7:22

start enforcing some very

7:22

strong regulations, including,

7:27

for example, making

7:27

use of extended producer

7:29

responsibility-type approaches

7:29

and ensuring that

7:32

the companies, the corporations

7:32

that are involved with the

7:35

manufacture and distribution of

7:35

plastics- they

7:38

are clearly regulated.

7:40

I mean, there's a lot of

7:40

like eco-campaigning going on,

7:43

right at the consumer level, you know, sustainable lifestyles,

7:45

etc. , encouraging people to reuse

7:47

their bags, reuse cups..

7:51

. So what you're saying basically

7:52

is that it's really something

7:55

that should be tackled on a

7:55

more systemic level and

7:58

not just, you know, at the consumer level. Is that right?

8:02

Right. And this goes back to that

8:02

central tension again about

8:05

what we mean by "lifecycle". And how can we- how could

8:07

countries come together to

8:10

agree on a series of

8:10

interventions that, you know,

8:14

tackle first the upstream,

8:14

the midstream

8:17

and the downstream. Upstream being the

8:19

very production, you know,

8:21

again, the raw compounds,

8:21

the polymers that make up

8:25

the plastics, then midstream in

8:25

terms of product design and how

8:30

plastics are

8:30

actually produced.

8:32

And then downstream, of course,

8:32

you know, at the

8:35

waste management level- how

8:35

plastics should be properly

8:39

handled and disposed of. And the objective is to

8:42

complete this by next year.

8:46

It's a very,

8:46

very ambitious undertaking.

8:48

Wow. Next year that's- We don't have

8:49

much time, do we?

8:53

No we don't, no we don't.

8:55

Okay. Um, so how many meetings are

8:56

there overall before they're

8:59

supposed to agree

8:59

on a new treaty?

9:03

Set out to be

9:03

a total of five INC meetings.

9:06

Okay.

9:07

This being the third.

9:09

Okay. And then this final instrument

9:09

is supposed to be unveiled.

9:15

So that's right. And they refer to

9:16

that as the internationally

9:18

legally binding instrument. But the acronym was thrown

9:20

around was "ILBI".

9:23

ILBI. Alright. [Laughs] What kind of

9:25

instrument is that, exactly?

9:28

Is it something like the Paris

9:28

Agreement for plastics?

9:31

Well, it's too early

9:31

to tell, but yeah,

9:34

there's a lot of, a lot

9:34

of- Again, the debate is around

9:37

whether or not there'll be any

9:37

global targets that are set,

9:41

for example. So that would entail a lot of,

9:41

you know, mandatory actions on

9:45

the part of all countries kind

9:45

of following a kind

9:48

of systematised,

9:48

harmonised kind of approach.

9:51

And then there's also other

9:51

countries that feel very

9:54

strongly that the treaty should

9:54

resemble something like Paris,

9:58

uh, and being

9:58

very much determined by

10:01

nationally-set targets.

10:03

Okay. So were you able to follow the

10:04

previous INCI meetings?

10:08

If so, can you maybe give us

10:08

like a little bit of a recap on

10:12

what happened at those meetings

10:12

before the third meeting,

10:14

which concluded recently?

10:16

Sure. Well, I was fortunate enough to

10:17

take part in INC-2, and that

10:22

took place in Paris earlier

10:22

this year and INC-2 basically-

10:27

it was again held up very much

10:27

due to procedural issues.

10:31

Sorry, what do you mean

10:31

by "procedural issues"?

10:34

So I mean, it gets a

10:34

little bit complicated here,

10:37

but we're talking about issues

10:37

of rules or procedure,

10:41

disagreements over how the

10:41

negotiations would proceed

10:45

on that basis. And basically countries were

10:46

able to come together in the

10:51

end to mandate the development

10:51

of a zero draft for the

10:55

new treaty, which would be very

10:55

much discussed during this

10:59

interim period and developed

10:59

and presented by the Presidency

11:04

at the INC-3 that took

11:04

place in Nairobi.

11:07

So, basically, after getting

11:07

over a lot of these

11:12

procedural challenges,

11:12

countries were able to come

11:14

together to at least agree on

11:14

the idea that a treaty,

11:18

a zero draft, would be

11:18

developed, and then it

11:21

would be taken up

11:21

again for consideration and

11:23

discussion at INC-3.

11:26

Right. So maybe let's turn it

11:27

over to Chochoe.

11:30

What happened on INC-3?

11:32

So the main focus of

11:32

the inquiry was the revised

11:36

zero draft text and also

11:36

discussions around synthesis

11:41

report that was aimed to

11:41

address the global agreement on

11:45

plastic pollution and also the

11:45

marine pollution as well.

11:49

So all of the delegates

11:49

[formed] three groups to

11:54

discuss different part of the

11:54

zero draft, for example,

11:59

the objectives, principles,

11:59

scope of the treaty,

12:03

chemicals and polymers

12:03

of concern, waste management,

12:07

existing plastic pollution,

12:07

just transition,

12:12

implementation,

12:12

compliance and more.

12:15

So all of these issues can be

12:15

found in the zero draft.

12:19

And there were proposals and

12:19

also options presented for each

12:25

of the sections, which also

12:25

reflected the diverse view and

12:29

also approaches of the member

12:29

countries as well.

12:34

Can you just tell us

12:34

what your role was at INC-3?

12:38

I'm part of the IISD-

12:38

you know, IISD is a partner

12:41

organisation of IGES. It's the International

12:42

Institute for Sustainable Development.

12:45

Then they've got this wing. It's called the

12:47

Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

12:49

And basically it's a reporting

12:49

service for all these

12:54

intergovernmental

12:54

negotiating processes.

12:57

Basically, it's like an

12:57

auxiliary rapporteuring team

13:01

for the UN. They refer to themselves as a

13:02

kind of the largest neutral

13:06

reporting service in

13:06

the world.

13:09

Basically, your task is to go

13:09

in and report what each country

13:12

says and what their position is

13:12

in that meeting in real time.

13:17

Okay, great. And what about you, Chochoe?

13:20

We know that you had maybe a side event?

13:22

Sure. IGES was selected as one of the

13:22

co-organisers for the thematic

13:28

side event at INC-3 on

13:28

monitoring the situation,

13:32

progress of the future

13:32

instrument, with the

13:36

focus on

13:36

objectives, targets, baseline

13:39

indicators and timelines. So the sessions serve

13:41

as a critical platform for

13:44

discussing the measurement and

13:44

monitoring of progress in

13:49

a future treaty. The session was held on 15

13:50

November 2023, and was

13:55

structured to explore different

13:55

perspectives on who should be

14:00

involved in this process,

14:00

what should be measured

14:03

and monitored, and

14:03

how these activities should

14:06

be carried out. So my presentation was

14:08

specifically focused on the

14:14

ASEAN region's progress and

14:14

challenges in tackling plastic

14:18

waste and marine debris. So we emphasised the

14:20

need for setting realistic and

14:24

achievable targets, and also

14:24

highlighted the crucial need

14:28

for transparent, consistent and

14:28

harmonised data collection.

14:34

We also advocate for

14:34

standardised approach to data

14:38

that also take into account,

14:38

you know, the specific context

14:43

of local regions. We also underlie the importance

14:45

of both regional and global

14:50

collaborations in

14:50

the ongoing battle

14:53

against plastic pollution. So this session actually [was]

14:55

led by a representative from

15:01

IUCN and [was] convened [with]

15:01

a broad spectrum

15:07

of participants, ranging from

15:07

government officials and

15:11

environmental specialists to

15:11

NGO representative academics

15:15

and the private sector. The session's importance lies

15:17

in its ability to gather

15:21

diverse insight and

15:21

practical experience, which are

15:25

quite essential for

15:25

crafting a robust,

15:28

inclusive and effective draft

15:28

of the INC agreement.

15:33

Okay, were you also

15:33

part of, like, observing the

15:36

negotiations?

15:37

Yeah.

15:37

Like Matthew? Okay.

15:39

So for me, apart from

15:39

co-organising a side event,

15:43

I was also one of the

15:43

representatives from IGES who

15:47

participated in INC-3 and had a

15:47

unique chance to participate in

15:53

both the Contact Groups and

15:53

also Plenary sessions,

15:57

thanks to a floating badge that

15:57

granted me flexible access.

16:02

The event itself was really

16:02

quite intense in my view.

16:07

The official sessions could

16:07

start as early as 8 a.m.

16:12

in the morning and occasionally

16:12

running until midnight.

16:16

Oh my gosh.

16:18

It's also worth noting

16:18

that a key debate at the INC-3

16:22

was also about the role of

16:22

industry in drafting the

16:26

treaty as well. There were concerns about

16:28

conflict of interest due to the

16:32

industry involvement in plastic

16:32

and also fossil

16:36

fuel production, and there were

16:36

calls for strong policy to

16:41

manage these conflicts within

16:41

the UNEP and also the INC

16:46

Secretariat as well.

16:48

Yeah, it was interesting to learn- for example, I'm just citing

16:50

this press release that came

16:53

out - I only was able to come

16:53

across this in part because I

16:57

was sitting next to somebody

16:57

that was representing one of

16:59

these advocacy groups. This in particular is

17:01

for the Center for

17:04

International

17:04

Environmental Law.

17:07

But they found that over 143

17:07

fossil fuel and chemical

17:11

industry lobbyists

17:11

were registered, which was

17:13

upwards of 36%

17:13

increase from INC-2.

17:17

And these representatives

17:17

actually outnumbered- these

17:21

lobbyists outnumbered many of

17:21

these smaller member state

17:24

delegations that were

17:24

there on-site.

17:27

This was actually raised a few times. I had the good

17:29

fortune of speaking to some

17:31

representatives from some

17:31

SIDs countries,

17:33

small island developing states. Yeah.

17:36

Among these small

17:36

island developing states,

17:39

there's clear agreement that,

17:39

you know, we need very

17:42

ambitious actions, in part

17:42

because the impacts of plastic

17:45

pollution are quite visible and

17:45

posing a real threat to their-

17:49

not only their ecosystems,

17:49

but also their economies.

17:52

And they were calling for real, clear action. But they were also

17:54

saying that, look, you know, "we're here, we're only a

17:56

member of- two or three members

18:00

of our team. And, you know, we're far

18:01

outnumbered by some of these

18:04

other larger countries who

18:04

aren't really willing to take

18:09

action and really move forward

18:09

on a very ambitious treaty".

18:13

And then you look at a press

18:13

release like this and you

18:16

learn like, well, wait,

18:16

you actually have many vested

18:19

interests that are part

18:19

of this process, and-

18:21

I heard that some

18:21

organisations also raised this

18:25

to the INC Secretariat as well,

18:25

but I'm not sure if

18:29

any progress has been made or

18:29

any action has been made.

18:32

Hmm.

18:33

But

18:33

despite challenges, the Contact

18:36

Groups made a lot of progress

18:36

based on country feedback.

18:41

There were different approaches

18:41

with some favour[ing] upstream

18:45

measures to prevent plastic

18:45

pollution and other actually

18:49

support[ing] downstream

18:49

industry-allied strategy.

18:54

So the discussion actually,

18:54

you know, emphasised the need

18:59

for leading nations in

18:59

fossil fuel, petrochemical and

19:04

plastic product production to

19:04

take decisive action.

19:08

The talks also

19:08

highlighted the importance of

19:11

trade provisions,

19:11

legally binding treaty aspects

19:15

and the urgency of

19:15

reducing plastic pollution.

19:19

Um, apart from that,

19:19

frontline representatives like

19:23

waste pickers,

19:23

indigenous peoples,

19:25

activists and scientists also

19:25

contrasted with the industry

19:31

suggestion by presenting the

19:31

effect of plastic pollution and

19:36

also emphasised the importance

19:36

of focusing on reuse and

19:41

including indigenous knowledge

19:41

in treaty negotiations

19:45

as well. So, um, what struck me the most

19:46

about the INC-3 were the

19:52

intense negotiations in

19:52

the Contact Groups,

19:56

really. So these talks were

19:56

time-consuming, you know, and,

20:00

um, very unpredictable and

20:00

sometimes challenging to

20:04

actually find common ground.

20:07

I myself, for example, I tried

20:07

to make [an] intervention four

20:14

different days, but the

20:14

schedule was packed with

20:17

member states' discussion.

20:19

And sometimes, you know, I was

20:19

told that there were 50

20:24

observers were

20:24

waiting for speaking.

20:28

So despite this, I also kept

20:28

engaging with representatives

20:33

from various countries to

20:33

understand their views on

20:36

compliance mechanism, a topic I

20:36

found fascinating and something

20:41

that I've been working

20:41

for a decade.

20:45

Right. So by compliance,

20:46

you're talking about whatever

20:49

agreement they come to,

20:49

whether they can keep it or

20:52

like some kind of monitoring

20:52

and evaluation process?

20:55

So if I could go into

20:55

a little bit detail about my

21:00

proposed intervention,

21:00

which was unfortunately

21:03

never considered, it was

21:03

actually focused on the

21:07

ambiguous language in the

21:07

current zero draft,

21:11

particularly the frequent use

21:11

of "necessary or appropriate

21:16

measures"

21:16

without specific definitions.

21:19

I also suggested that adding a

21:19

clear definition to ensure

21:23

consistent understanding

21:23

throughout the treaty,

21:26

and incorporating this language

21:26

into sections where it was

21:30

absent for enhanced clarity,

21:30

I also proposed developing a

21:35

set of compliance and

21:35

enforcement principles to

21:38

support [national]

21:38

implementation of this

21:42

comprehensive treaty,

21:42

including, you know,

21:44

guidelines for drafting law,

21:44

anticipating non-compliance,

21:49

ensuring robust monitoring,

21:49

specifying

21:53

reporting requirements,

21:53

and encouraging public

21:57

disclosure for oversight. And this principle would also

21:59

cover incentives for

22:03

self-auditing, early compliance

22:03

training and restorative

22:08

justice mechanisms, and also

22:08

consideration for product life

22:13

cycle and design to prevent

22:13

non-compliance as well.

22:16

So I think it was very

22:16

unfortunate that my proposal

22:21

was never really considered due

22:21

to the time limitation.

22:25

But overall I felt the process

22:25

was really interesting.

22:29

Hmmm. So it seems to me- this is just

22:30

my general impression- that

22:34

both you (Chochoe) and Matt

22:34

believe that this meeting

22:39

wasn't super successful. I mean, what's

22:40

your verdict on that?

22:42

Well, if you actually

22:42

compare this INC-3 with the

22:47

second one, I could say

22:47

that a lot of progress was

22:51

made by members,

22:51

by the INC Secretariat.

22:54

No question about that. Progress was made.

22:58

But we also couldn't

22:58

deny the fact that the

23:02

fundamental issue, like,

23:02

for example, why we

23:07

were there, was to actually

23:07

end plastic pollution.

23:10

But at the end of the day,

23:10

the most important thing that

23:15

should be discussed during

23:15

INC-3 and also should actually

23:20

reach the consensus, which was

23:20

the intersectional work

23:23

was not achieved.

23:25

Okay, so what was

23:25

supposed to be achieved by this

23:27

point?

23:28

So, um, you know,

23:28

some of the countries actually

23:32

dominated the discussion,

23:32

meaning that if some other

23:37

countries- like the majority of

23:37

the countries actually

23:42

propose something, then it

23:42

doesn't mean that it

23:45

would go through, right?

23:46

Uh huh.

23:47

Just simply because

23:47

[of] some- a few dominated

23:50

countries that maybe are

23:50

influenced by industry.

23:55

Then it could also, you know,

23:55

hinder the negotiation

23:59

process as well. For example, something like,

24:01

you know, the chemicals and

24:04

polymers of concern and so many

24:04

things there should be

24:08

discussed and also that should

24:08

be ready for the INC-4,

24:12

but that didn't really happen.

24:15

I'm just having a hard

24:15

time understanding how the

24:17

presence of the petrochemical

24:17

industry's lobbies can affect

24:21

the decision making process

24:21

of this INC.

24:25

What is the

24:25

actual voting system ?

24:28

Is it decided

24:28

on a majority base?

24:30

So the voting system

24:30

is not yet decided because the

24:33

treaty has not

24:33

been fully formulated.

24:35

But it's fair to say that just

24:35

by nature, by virtue of having

24:39

some of these lobbyists there

24:39

on-site, it shows that they

24:43

have a much more amplified

24:43

voice and how they advise the

24:47

country delegations, especially some of the larger country delegations.

24:51

And yeah, how they participate

24:51

in the process and basically

24:57

how they're having

24:57

their voices heard.

24:59

And again, it just relates to

24:59

some of these other- these

25:03

countries and many of them,

25:03

as we spoke upon earlier,

25:06

representing some very large

25:06

petrochemicals and other

25:10

industries- how they,

25:10

you know, are really,

25:13

it seems, steering the process

25:13

away from an ultimate goal,

25:17

which is having a

25:17

very ambitious treaty.

25:19

So I can just speak on one. I mean, for example, you have

25:21

many different coalitions that

25:24

are formed, right? One of which is this High

25:25

Ambition Coalition (HAC) that

25:28

started out very strongly right

25:28

out the gate from, you know,

25:32

the first ink calling

25:32

for very, very strong actions

25:35

to address plastic across

25:35

the lifecycle.

25:38

Their voice was hardly heard at

25:38

all at INC-3, but you did have

25:42

another newer coalition that

25:42

must have- again, a lot of this

25:46

probably happens not so much in

25:46

the Plenary, but behind the

25:50

scenes- But this new coalition

25:50

refer to themselves basically

25:53

as "the like-minded group". But then we learned they

25:55

represented a much,

25:58

much broader, diverse range

25:58

of countries, probably many

26:02

countries that, again,

26:02

are dominated by very,

26:07

very large petro- or

26:07

chemical industries, who yeah,

26:11

without singling out any

26:11

particular countries that are

26:14

very much looking to focus the

26:14

ultimate ILBI probably more

26:18

on downstream actions,

26:18

so waste management, as opposed

26:21

to very much upstream

26:21

addressing those primary

26:24

polymers and polymers and

26:24

chemicals of concern.

26:28

Yeah, so you just mentioned the High Ambition Coalition.

26:30

So if you could just tell us if

26:30

we know what countries are part

26:33

of it and what are their

26:33

objectives as part of the INC.

26:38

Yep. So the High Ambition

26:39

Coalition again, not very

26:42

visible or present, at least

26:42

by our observations, at INC-3.

26:45

But it's made up of a broad

26:45

sweep of countries from all

26:49

around the world, you know, advanced, middle-income,

26:50

And low-income countries.

26:53

And again, just going back to

26:53

an earlier point, it's fair to

26:58

say that a lot of the calls for

26:58

ambitious action are taking

27:02

place among countries of the

27:02

lower economic strata.

27:05

But, yeah, this

27:05

is many, many countries.

27:08

And I can read off a few,

27:08

you know, EU, Netherlands,

27:13

Uruguay, Ghana, Colombia,

27:13

Jordan, a number of others.

27:19

So very diverse range

27:19

of viewpoints, but they

27:23

basically agree on a

27:23

number of main objectives or

27:26

strategic goals, and one of

27:26

which involves, you know,

27:30

reducing plastic production

27:30

to sustainable levels.

27:33

Another is to promote a

27:33

more circular economy.

27:37

Another one is to ensure the

27:37

environmentally sound

27:39

management and recycling waste. So yeah, it's- they're calling

27:42

for basically or at least

27:46

starting from the early

27:46

on in the process- they're

27:48

looking for, you know,

27:48

minimising plastics and

27:51

ensuring safe and sound

27:51

collection and

27:54

disposal of plastics. But may the main focus on based

27:56

on these points are really on

28:02

the midstream to downstream

28:02

aspects of plastic waste.

28:05

Hmmm.

28:06

And I actually just read

28:06

recently that Japan had

28:10

recently joined the HAC, and I

28:10

was wondering if by

28:13

any chance, you knew what

28:13

motivated that reasoning?

28:17

So I think with Japan

28:17

deciding to join HAC- that was

28:24

like a significant shift

28:24

in the approach [to]

28:26

plastic pollution. That's simply because,

28:28

you know, that Japan was

28:32

a major producer, consumer [and

28:32

exporter] of plastic waste

28:35

as well, and they rely heavily

28:35

on incineration for

28:39

plastic waste management.

28:41

Uh huh.

28:42

Joining the HAC

28:42

is like, kind of like

28:44

big thing, I guess. Like big commitment.

28:47

And it actually shows that the

28:47

Japan[ese] government is really

28:52

taking

28:52

plastic pollution seriously.

28:55

And this can be demonstrated

28:55

through many of their

28:58

initiatives

28:58

throughout the negotiations.

29:03

Great. So I guess that's

29:03

some progress, right?

29:06

[Laughs]

29:08

But yeah, it's some

29:08

progress and it's really

29:10

encouraging that Japan joins. I just very much hope that more

29:12

discussion can be around on the

29:17

reduction of plastic, not only

29:17

reduction of production of

29:23

conventional plastics as we

29:23

know them, but also reduction

29:25

of the demands of plastic. This is something that comes

29:27

out very clearly from the HAC.

29:31

Unfortunately, at least my

29:31

observations of INC-3,

29:36

nobody is really

29:36

talking about reduction.

29:39

Hmmm.

29:39

Everyone is talking

29:39

about-Yes, exactly.

29:42

Everyone's talking about how

29:42

plastics can be managed.

29:45

Very, very little was spoken on

29:45

how we might- behavioural

29:49

changes that are necessary for

29:49

us to reduce our consumption of

29:52

plastics or

29:52

whatever alternative material.

29:55

So I'm hopeful that the High

29:55

Ambition Coalition will

29:58

continue to grow and be a

29:58

countervailing voice or force

30:04

against maybe some of these

30:04

other coalitions that are

30:06

calling for

30:06

less ambitious actions.

30:09

I just agree with

30:09

Matthew that reduction was

30:14

not widely addressed. Some country did.

30:16

But, you know, then it was not

30:16

really addressed effectively

30:22

during the

30:22

negotiation process.

30:25

The discussion more

30:25

focused on, you know,

30:28

solid waste management.

30:30

And if we would like to end

30:30

plastic pollution, we would

30:35

like to take measures, then it

30:35

needs to be done according to-

30:41

I think the word

30:41

that they use is like

30:43

"national jurisdiction",

30:43

meaning that the country will

30:48

be able to decide

30:48

by themselves the target and

30:51

not necessarily, you know,

30:51

the collective one.

30:55

Right. And that is a

30:55

real tension, isn't it?

30:58

Because, as we know,

30:58

plastics is

31:00

a transboundary challenge. And for countries to come

31:01

together and try to establish

31:07

some kind of treaty

31:07

to address, you know,

31:09

this global challenge,

31:09

planetary crisis,

31:12

national actions alone probably

31:12

will not be sufficient, uh,

31:16

to do so and in a kind

31:16

of unified, systematic way.

31:20

So that's a real- that's

31:20

a real issue.

31:23

When you're talking

31:23

about reduction, I think there

31:26

are many ways, I guess

31:26

we could interpret that word.

31:29

And I just want to make sure

31:29

wha- that I understand what

31:32

you're trying to argue for.

31:33

That's great. I mean, Chochoe, feel free to

31:34

come in here, but when I refer

31:37

to reduction, I mean reduction

31:37

of both supply and demand.

31:41

Okay.

31:42

So across the market. This also lends to the idea

31:44

that maybe alternatives or some

31:48

kind of other quote unquote

31:48

"sustainable materials" might

31:52

come and take the place of plastics. But, you know, here's where the

31:54

science is not entirely clear.

31:58

I think just recently we found

31:58

that- there was a paper that

32:01

just came out a couple of weeks

32:01

ago that shows that actual

32:04

plastics recycling often emits

32:04

a lot of other hazardous

32:09

chemicals into the environment. Just by the process- by

32:11

way of the process itself.

32:15

Same goes with the

32:15

identification of some

32:18

kinds of alternatives. We find that biodegradable

32:19

often isn't biodegradable.

32:22

And it can also

32:22

have kind of negative impacts

32:25

on the environment.

32:27

I think for me,

32:27

production should be reduced in

32:31

the first place. You know, I'm not saying that

32:32

you can't produce it, but the

32:35

main discussion during the

32:35

INC-3 was all about the waste

32:40

management- was

32:40

about the recycling.

32:43

Does that make sense that we

32:43

are talking about recycling?

32:46

Because how many years-

32:48

We can't do it well.

32:49

Yeah, we are not doing that well. Right?

32:51

So and then at the INC-3,

32:51

when it comes to the financial

32:56

mechanism during the

32:56

intersessional work- this was

33:00

also not achieved as well. So how can we be sure that,

33:02

you know, those countries,

33:06

for example, in developing

33:06

countries like ASEAN, they have

33:10

good infrastructure to actually

33:10

do all this kind of recycling.

33:15

Right? And how many years that is

33:16

going to take to actually end

33:20

all of these things. So I think that it would be

33:21

better for us to try to reduce

33:24

in the first place. But at the same time, we also

33:26

advocate with people in the

33:30

community or people that we

33:30

work with or even ourselves to

33:34

also reduce the

33:34

consumption as well.

33:37

I think that's the way how we

33:37

should look at it, but that was

33:41

not really widely addressed

33:41

during the INC as well.

33:45

I mean, when it comes to the outcome.

33:48

And there's just no

33:48

way that we can recycle out

33:50

of this problem. Um, it really comes down to

33:52

reducing the production and

33:56

consumption of plastics. Full stop.

33:59

Right. Yes. So that's really, you know,

34:00

the whole idea about taking

34:03

a lifecycle approach. Right.

34:07

Okay, so I mean, it

34:07

looks like INC is slowly but

34:11

surely moving forward. We hope?

34:13

Very much hope.

34:14

Yes, with lots of hope.

34:17

[Laughs] Are there other apart

34:17

from this idea, you know,

34:21

incorporating the idea of

34:21

reduction mechanisms or actions

34:24

that are necessary to end

34:24

plastic pollution in your view?

34:29

Um, so basically I

34:29

think from my side, I feel that

34:35

the countries have to take the

34:35

compliance mechanism more

34:39

seriously and also harmonise

34:39

data and also, um,

34:43

monitoring tools. So basically what happened in

34:45

many countries in ASEAN region

34:50

now or- and also elsewhere,

34:50

it's like we have got

34:52

so many tools. Really. Maybe one country has

34:54

so many tools.

34:56

And then, you know, if we can

34:56

actually harmonise all of these

35:01

tools in one single tool

35:01

or something, then, and then we

35:04

apply this globally

35:04

or regionally, you know, then I

35:10

think it will be possible for

35:10

us to actually monitor if the

35:14

country has made any progress,

35:14

because I can tell you that

35:19

based on my experience with

35:19

some ASEAN member states and

35:24

also other countries, they have

35:24

set their targets very high and

35:29

they don't actually

35:29

have the baseline.

35:32

And then they don't actually

35:32

have the monitoring.

35:35

So, I think all these things

35:35

should be in place and

35:39

should be, you know,

35:39

well-structured and formed.

35:42

And then, of course,

35:42

countries will not have the

35:45

capacity to do

35:45

that by themselves.

35:47

International organisations,

35:47

you know, all of the funders,

35:51

the financial mechanism need to

35:51

be there for them and to

35:55

provide this support so that we

35:55

will be able to hopefully

36:01

address plastic pollution in

36:01

an effective manner.

36:05

Right.

36:05

Yeah. Just chiming in there.

36:07

I think that really important

36:07

point that Chochoe raised is

36:10

the need

36:10

for multi-stakeholder actions.

36:13

You need to be

36:13

talking about government-,

36:15

country-led action together

36:15

with businesses,

36:17

together with, you know,

36:17

research institutions,

36:20

together with the citizens

36:20

themselves in trying to

36:23

address the problem. I think really fundamental to

36:24

driving the change

36:28

will be education. Especially among young people.

36:31

And again, it's hard to put any

36:31

definite timelines on how

36:35

quickly we'll be able to

36:35

draw down, the issue of plastic

36:39

pollution at least over the

36:39

next 10, 20 years.

36:42

But it's important to

36:42

ensure that, you know,

36:45

young people are not only have

36:45

the capacity and the

36:49

understanding to know how to

36:49

deal with these issues,

36:52

but also are inspired and don't

36:52

feel like this existential

36:56

challenge that we face -

36:56

whether it be climate or

37:00

pollution or biodiversity

37:00

loss- is insurmountable.

37:03

And yeah, so it's important to

37:03

highlight the role of not

37:07

only governments, policymakers,

37:07

but also

37:09

educators and advocates.

37:11

And some of the work that is

37:11

ongoing by IGES - sorry if it

37:16

sounds like a shameless plug -

37:16

But we're doing some excellent

37:19

work in the educational level

37:19

in Sri Lanka, as part

37:23

of this Basel, Rotterdam,

37:23

Stockholm transboundary

37:25

pollution project and very much

37:25

working with young people to

37:29

identify sources of plastic

37:29

pollution and devise solutions

37:33

to address them, very much

37:33

following a kind of citizen

37:36

science-type approach. So I think that maybe if this

37:38

kind of approach or these kinds

37:45

of practices can be

37:45

scaled up and replicated in

37:48

other locations,

37:48

other countries,

37:50

starting locally and then

37:50

moving upwards, maybe to,

37:54

you know, more nationally,

37:54

I think we stand a real chance

37:57

of really addressing whatever

37:57

challenge- environmental

38:01

challenges we might face,

38:01

plastics included.

38:10

Thank you for listening to

38:10

About Sustainability...

38:13

Please

38:13

subscribe at podcast.iges.

38:16

jp. Or search

38:18

for About Sustainability... wherever you normally

38:20

get your podcasts.

38:23

If you've got feedback, you can

38:23

review us on your podcast

38:26

directory of choice or reach

38:26

out on Twitter at IGES_EN.

38:33

About Sustainability... is produced by

38:34

the Institute for Global

38:36

Environmental Strategies. Any views expressed during the

38:38

podcast are those of the

38:41

speaker at the time

38:41

of recording, and do not

38:43

necessarily reflect the

38:43

views of IGES.

38:46

Thank you for choosing to spend

38:46

your time with us.

38:48

We don't take that lightly and

38:48

we hope you'll join

38:51

us next time.