December 24, 2023 • 39 mins
On this episode of About Sustainability…, Erin, Alice, and Simon were joined by Matthew Hengesbaugh and Chochoe Devaporihartakula, IGES experts working on plastic pollution. While plastics have been an indispensable part of modern life, plastic pollution has entered the public consciousness in recent years. It is an issue that most of us encounter every day.
The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) agreed in 2022 to create an intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) to establish a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution.
We discussed how serious plastic pollution is in Asia, what the INC is trying to achieve, what was discussed at the recent meeting (INC-3) including the challenges that emerged, and what is needed for an ambitious treaty to tackle this transboundary issue.
About our guests:
Chochoe Devaporihartakula manages the regional project portfolio addressing plastics and marine pollution at the IGES Bangkok Regional Centre. She also serves as a Programme Manager for the Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network, where she is dedicated to promoting improved compliance with environmental laws and regulations through environmental agencies across 18 countries in Asia.
Matthew Hengesbaugh is a Policy Researcher supporting the IGES Integrated Sustainability Centre with action research on the 2030 Development Agenda, working on issues such as climate change, green jobs, green economy, and sustainable consumption and production.
Relevant publications and projects:
- Previous podcast episodes on this topic:
- SWITCH-Asia’s policy brief on INC-3
"About Sustainability..." is a podcast brought to you by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), an environmental policy think-tank based in Hayama, Japan. IGES experts are concerned with environmental and sustainability challenges. Everything shared on the podcast will be off-the-cuff discussion, and any viewpoints expressed are those held by the speaker at the time of recording. They are not necessarily official IGES positions.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Erin (00:08):
Hello, and welcome to About Sustainability...
, a podcast bythe Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies (IGES).
It's your co-host, Erin.
This time, Alice, Simon and Iinvited our colleagues Matthew
Hengesbaughand Chochoe Devaporihartakula,
two experts following theongoing international
negotiations on plastics,the Intergovernmental
(00:31):
Negotiating Committee onPlastic Pollution, or INC
for short, is a process thatwas agreed in a historic
resolution at the fifth sessionof the United Nations
Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2),in 2022.
For a review of what happenedat UNEA, check out our
(00:52):
UNEA-5.2 episode.
So the aim of the INC is todevelop an internationally
legally binding instrument onplastic pollution, including in
the marine environment.
And this involves using anapproach that addresses the
entire lifecycle of plastics.
Our previous episode focusingon lifecycle approaches to
(01:14):
plastics shows how challengingthis actually is, and we
learned that it continues to bea major contention at
the actual negotiations.
Be sure to check out our shownotes for those references.
We caught up with Matthew andChochoe after they came back
from the most recent INCmeeting called INC-3,
which concluded in November.
(01:35):
We covered the majorcontentions at INC-3, who is
responsible and what is neededto reach a global agreement on
tackling this issue.
Let's get into it.
Plastic pollution isobviously a really serious
problem globally, but howserious is it in this
particular region,the Asia-Pacific region?
Matthew (01:57):
Yeah, that's an excellent question.
Um, I would say it's serious.
Um, there's been a lot ofresearch dating back now a
number of years.
For example, in 2017,some research came out
discussing how the top 20plastic-polluting rivers in the
world are mainly located inthe Asia region.
(02:19):
Um, I think this study actuallyfound that it was upwards of
very close to 70%.
A large bulk of the globaltotal of plastics were being
emitted from theserivers in Asia.
The research shows thatmany of them are located
in Southeast Asia.
But actually, if you look- takea more global perspective,
(02:42):
you find that a lot of theproblem is actually originating
in more advanced economies,of course.
And there was alot of debate around, uh,
this- the INC, with certaincountries calling for,
for example,some identification of what
they call the downstreamcountries that were actually
(03:03):
fully getting the brunt of alot of this plastic pollution.
Erin (03:05):
What you mean by downstream is- are countries
basically getting the plasticfrom some other country?
Is that- like for processing?
Is that whatyou're referring to, or?
Matthew (03:16):
It's difficult to really pinpoint where
the problem originates.
Erin (03:20):
Mmm hmm.
Matthew (03:21):
And a lot of this has to deal with what we think of
in terms of lifecycle.
So you have certain countriesfor example, a lot of
countries that, you know,maintain very large
petrochemical industries...
They would say that plastic,the issue itself must be
dealt fully downstream.
So that's at theend of life, right?
(03:42):
Um, where, you know,the most visible aspects of
plastic pollution, you know,your single-use products that
are discarded inthe environment, the discarded
fishing nets, etc.
But there's other countries,and rightfully so,
point out that,well, plastic actually begins
very much upstream, and thiswas a real issue at INC because
(04:06):
they- the countries, the memberstates were not able to really
forge any consensus around thisissue of polymers and chemicals
of concern, because, you know,a lot of people would
say that, you know,plastic actually begins very
much at the base level-you know, basically the
compounds that make up plastic,those- that is the
(04:27):
issue in itself.
So when I refer todownstream countries, these are
countries who took a stancethat plastic being a
transboundary issue, alot of these countries,
particularly in thedeveloping world, face issues
with waste management,collection,
sorting and disposal.
And a lot of that plastic wastewinds up on their shores and
(04:52):
they just don't have thecapacity to deal with it.
So again, this goes back to theidea that there are many
different perspectives when wetalk about the
lifecycle of plastics.
And it remains to be seenwhether or not countries will
be able to really come to abroad consensus on how to
tackle the many stagesacross the lifecycle.
Simon (05:12):
It sounds to me as if there is a discussion or
contention around whetherprimarily the consumer of the
plastic product should beresponsible for the waste,
or the producer of the rawplastic material should be
responsible for it.
So who's actually responsiblefor that?
Like the country that createdthe industry that creates it,
or the sector that creates theplastic bottles or the country
(05:36):
that- in which the peopleconsume the beverage that is in
those plastic bottles but donot have the capacity to
properly manage it, and it endsup in the rivers?
Can you say something,Matt, about who are the biggest
producers of plastic, and whoare the biggest consumers of
plastic in termsof countries or companies?
I'm just not clear on that.
Matthew (05:54):
Sure.
Well, no, that actually toucheson the point that again,
plastic is not- I mean,it's multi-sectoral, right?
So you have, for example,countries that rely heavily on
their petroleum industries.
Well, that's, you know, a majorbuilding block for the
production of plastics.
And then you have othercountries that host very
(06:15):
large chemical industries.
That also is another factorthat goes into the
manufacture of plastics.
And then you have countriesthat actually import the final
products at their end of life.
Right?
So the plastic waste that othercountries dispose of and don't
necessarilydeal with domestically.
(06:35):
So it's avery multi-dimensional issue.
This point that youmake around, you know, how much
is the consumer responsible-this is, uh, really a
controversial issue becauseit's actually- a lot of the
regulations that could be putin place really should fall on
governments and how theyregulate the corporations that
(06:58):
are involved inthe plastic trade.
So for me, my personalperspective is that, you know,
just putting all theresponsibility on the consumer
is a bit of a distraction.
Erin (07:11):
Hmmm.
Matthew (07:12):
Again, given the multi-dimensional nature of how
plastics are produced andmanufactured and the ways that
we consume them, if governmentswere to step in and really
start enforcing some verystrong regulations, including,
for example, makinguse of extended producer
responsibility-type approachesand ensuring that
the companies, the corporationsthat are involved with the
(07:35):
manufacture and distribution ofplastics- they
are clearly regulated.
Erin (07:40):
I mean, there's a lot of like eco-campaigning going on,
right at theconsumer level, you know,
sustainable lifestyles, etc.
, encouraging people to reusetheir bags, reuse cups..
.
So what you're saying basicallyis that it's really something
that should be tackled on amore systemic level and
not just, you know,at the consumer level.
(08:00):
Is that right?
Matthew (08:02):
Right.
And this goes back to thatcentral tension again about
what we mean by "lifecycle".
And how can we- how couldcountries come together to
agree on a series ofinterventions that, you know,
tackle first the upstream,the midstream
and the downstream.
Upstream being thevery production, you know,
again, the raw compounds,the polymers that make up
(08:25):
the plastics, then midstream interms of product design and how
plastics are actually produced.
And then downstream, of course,you know, at the
waste management level- howplastics should be properly
handled and disposed of.
And the objective is tocomplete this by next year.
(08:46):
It's a very,very ambitious undertaking.
Erin (08:48):
Wow.
Next year that's- We don't havemuch time, do we?
Matthew (08:53):
No we don't, no we don't.
Erin (08:55):
Okay.
Um, so how many meetings arethere overall before they're
supposed to agreeon a new treaty?
Matthew (09:03):
Set out to be a total of five INC meetings.
Erin (09:06):
Okay.
Matthew (09:07):
This being the third.
Erin (09:09):
Okay.
And then this final instrumentis supposed to be unveiled.
Matthew (09:15):
So that's right.
And they refer tothat as the internationally
legally binding instrument.
But the acronym was thrownaround was "ILBI".
Erin (09:23):
ILBI.
Alright.
[Laughs] What kind ofinstrument is that, exactly?
Is it something like the ParisAgreement for plastics?
Matthew (09:31):
Well, it's too early to tell, but yeah,
there's a lot of, a lotof- Again, the debate is around
whether or not there'll be anyglobal targets that are set,
for example.
So that would entail a lot of,you know, mandatory actions on
the part of all countries kindof following a kind
of systematised,harmonised kind of approach.
And then there's also othercountries that feel very
(09:54):
strongly that the treaty shouldresemble something like Paris,
uh, and beingvery much determined by
nationally-set targets.
Erin (10:03):
Okay.
So were you able to follow theprevious INCI meetings?
If so, can you maybe give uslike a little bit of a recap on
what happened at those meetingsbefore the third meeting,
which concluded recently?
Matthew (10:16):
Sure.
Well, I was fortunate enough totake part in INC-2, and that
took place in Paris earlierthis year and INC-2 basically-
it was again held up very muchdue to procedural issues.
Erin (10:31):
Sorry, what do you mean by "procedural issues"?
Matthew (10:34):
So I mean, it gets a little bit complicated here,
but we're talking about issuesof rules or procedure,
disagreements over how thenegotiations would proceed
on that basis.
And basically countries wereable to come together in the
end to mandate the developmentof a zero draft for the
(10:55):
new treaty, which would be verymuch discussed during this
interim period and developedand presented by the Presidency
at the INC-3 that tookplace in Nairobi.
So, basically, after gettingover a lot of these
procedural challenges,countries were able to come
together to at least agree onthe idea that a treaty,
(11:18):
a zero draft, would bedeveloped, and then it
would be taken upagain for consideration and
discussion at INC-3.
Erin (11:26):
Right.
So maybe let's turn itover to Chochoe.
What happened on INC-3?
Chochoe (11:32):
So the main focus of the inquiry was the revised
zero draft text and alsodiscussions around synthesis
report that was aimed toaddress the global agreement on
plastic pollution and also themarine pollution as well.
So all of the delegates[formed] three groups to
(11:54):
discuss different part of thezero draft, for example,
the objectives, principles,scope of the treaty,
chemicals and polymersof concern, waste management,
existing plastic pollution,just transition, implementation,
compliance and more.
(12:15):
So all of these issues can befound in the zero draft.
And there were proposals andalso options presented for each
of the sections, which alsoreflected the diverse view and
also approaches of the membercountries as well.
Alice (12:34):
Can you just tell us what your role was at INC-3?
Matthew (12:38):
I'm part of the IISD- you know, IISD is a partner
organisation of IGES.
It's the International Institutefor Sustainable Development.
Then they've got this wing.
It's called theEarth Negotiations Bulletin.
And basically it's a reportingservice for all these
intergovernmentalnegotiating processes.
Basically, it's like anauxiliary rapporteuring team
(13:01):
for the UN.
They refer to themselves as akind of the largest neutral
reporting service in the world.
Basically, your task is to goin and report what each country
says and what their position isin that meeting in real time.
Erin (13:17):
Okay, great.
And what about you, Chochoe?
We know that youhad maybe a side event?
Chochoe (13:22):
Sure.
IGES was selected as one of theco-organisers for the thematic
side event at INC-3 onmonitoring the situation,
progress of the futureinstrument, with the focus on
objectives, targets, baselineindicators and timelines.
So the sessions serveas a critical platform for
(13:44):
discussing the measurement andmonitoring of progress in
a future treaty.
The session was held on 15November 2023, and was
structured to explore differentperspectives on who should be
involved in this process,what should be measured
and monitored, andhow these activities should
(14:06):
be carried out.
So my presentation wasspecifically focused on the
ASEAN region's progress andchallenges in tackling plastic
waste and marine debris.
So we emphasised theneed for setting realistic and
achievable targets, and alsohighlighted the crucial need
(14:28):
for transparent, consistent andharmonised data collection.
We also advocate forstandardised approach to data
that also take into account,you know, the specific context
of local regions.
We also underlie the importanceof both regional and global
(14:50):
collaborations inthe ongoing battle
against plastic pollution.
So this session actually [was]led by a representative from
IUCN and [was] convened [with]a broad spectrum
of participants, ranging fromgovernment officials and
(15:11):
environmental specialists toNGO representative academics
and the private sector.
The session's importance liesin its ability to gather
diverse insight andpractical experience, which are
quite essential forcrafting a robust,
inclusive and effective draftof the INC agreement.
Erin (15:33):
Okay, were you also part of, like, observing the
negotiations?
Chochoe (15:37):
Yeah.
Erin (15:37):
Like Matthew?
Okay.
Chochoe (15:39):
So for me, apart from co-organising a side event,
I was also one of therepresentatives from IGES who
participated in INC-3 and had aunique chance to participate in
both the Contact Groups andalso Plenary sessions,
thanks to a floating badge thatgranted me flexible access.
(16:02):
The event itself was reallyquite intense in my view.
The official sessions couldstart as early as 8 a.m.
in the morning and occasionallyrunning until midnight.
Erin (16:16):
Oh my gosh.
Chochoe (16:18):
It's also worth noting that a key debate at the INC-3
was also about the role ofindustry in drafting the
treaty as well.
There were concerns aboutconflict of interest due to the
industry involvement in plasticand also fossil
fuel production, and there werecalls for strong policy to
(16:41):
manage these conflicts withinthe UNEP and also the INC
Secretariat as well.
Matthew (16:48):
Yeah, it was interesting to learn-
for example, I'm just citingthis press release that came
out - I only was able to comeacross this in part because I
was sitting next to somebodythat was representing one of
these advocacy groups.
This in particular isfor the Center for International
Environmental Law.
But they found that over 143fossil fuel and chemical
(17:11):
industry lobbyistswere registered, which was
upwards of 36%increase from INC-2.
And these representativesactually outnumbered- these
lobbyists outnumbered many ofthese smaller member state
delegations that werethere on-site.
This was actually raiseda few times.
I had the goodfortune of speaking to some
(17:31):
representatives from someSIDs countries, small island
developing states.
Yeah.
Among these smallisland developing states,
there's clear agreement that,you know, we need very
ambitious actions, in partbecause the impacts of plastic
pollution are quite visible andposing a real threat to their-
not only their ecosystems,but also their economies.
(17:52):
And they were callingfor real, clear action.
But they were alsosaying that, look, you know,
"we're here, we're only amember of- two or three members
of our team.
And, you know, we're faroutnumbered by some of these
other larger countries whoaren't really willing to take
action and really move forwardon a very ambitious treaty".
(18:13):
And then you look at a pressrelease like this and you
learn like, well, wait,you actually have many vested
interests that are partof this process, and-
Chochoe (18:21):
I heard that some organisations also raised this
to the INC Secretariat as well,but I'm not sure if
any progress has been made orany action has been made.
Erin (18:32):
Hmm.
Chochoe (18:33):
But despite challenges, the Contact
Groups made a lot of progressbased on country feedback.
There were different approacheswith some favour[ing] upstream
measures to prevent plasticpollution and other actually
support[ing] downstreamindustry-allied strategy.
(18:54):
So the discussion actually,you know, emphasised the need
for leading nations infossil fuel, petrochemical and
plastic product production totake decisive action.
The talks alsohighlighted the importance of
trade provisions,legally binding treaty aspects
(19:15):
and the urgency ofreducing plastic pollution.
Um, apart from that,frontline representatives like
waste pickers,indigenous peoples,
activists and scientists alsocontrasted with the industry
suggestion by presenting theeffect of plastic pollution and
(19:36):
also emphasised the importanceof focusing on reuse and
including indigenous knowledgein treaty negotiations as well.
So, um, what struck me the mostabout the INC-3 were the
intense negotiations inthe Contact Groups, really.
(19:56):
So these talks weretime-consuming, you know, and,
um, very unpredictable andsometimes challenging to
actually find common ground.
I myself, for example, I triedto make [an] intervention four
different days, but theschedule was packed with
(20:17):
member states' discussion.
And sometimes, you know, I wastold that there were 50
observers werewaiting for speaking.
So despite this, I also keptengaging with representatives
from various countries tounderstand their views on
compliance mechanism, a topic Ifound fascinating and something
(20:41):
that I've been workingfor a decade.
Erin (20:45):
Right.
So by compliance,you're talking about whatever
agreement they come to,whether they can keep it or
like some kind of monitoringand evaluation process?
Chochoe (20:55):
So if I could go into a little bit detail about my
proposed intervention,which was unfortunately
never considered, it wasactually focused on the
ambiguous language in thecurrent zero draft,
particularly the frequent useof "necessary or appropriate
(21:16):
measures"without specific definitions.
I also suggested that adding aclear definition to ensure
consistent understandingthroughout the treaty,
and incorporating this languageinto sections where it was
absent for enhanced clarity,I also proposed developing a
set of compliance andenforcement principles to
(21:38):
support [national]implementation of this
comprehensive treaty,including, you know,
guidelines for drafting law,anticipating non-compliance,
ensuring robust monitoring,specifying
reporting requirements,and encouraging public
disclosure for oversight.
(21:59):
And this principle would alsocover incentives for
self-auditing, early compliancetraining and restorative
justice mechanisms, and alsoconsideration for product life
cycle and design to preventnon-compliance as well.
So I think it was veryunfortunate that my proposal
(22:21):
was never really considered dueto the time limitation.
But overall I felt the processwas really interesting.
Erin (22:29):
Hmmm.
So it seems to me- this is justmy general impression- that
both you (Chochoe) and Mattbelieve that this meeting
wasn't super successful.
I mean, what'syour verdict on that?
Chochoe (22:42):
Well, if you actually compare this INC-3 with the
second one, I could saythat a lot of progress was
made by members,by the INC Secretariat.
No question about that.
Progress was made.
But we also couldn'tdeny the fact that the
(23:02):
fundamental issue, like,for example, why we
were there, was to actuallyend plastic pollution.
But at the end of the day,the most important thing that
should be discussed duringINC-3 and also should actually
reach the consensus, which wasthe intersectional work
(23:23):
was not achieved.
Erin (23:25):
Okay, so what was supposed to be achieved by this
point?
Chochoe (23:28):
So, um, you know, some of the countries actually
dominated the discussion,meaning that if some other
countries- like the majority ofthe countries actually
propose something, then itdoesn't mean that it
would go through, right?
Erin (23:46):
Uh huh.
Chochoe (23:47):
Just simply because [of] some- a few dominated
countries that maybe areinfluenced by industry.
Then it could also, you know,hinder the negotiation
process as well.
For example, something like,you know, the chemicals and
polymers of concern and so manythings there should be
(24:08):
discussed and also that shouldbe ready for the INC-4,
but that didn't really happen.
Alice (24:15):
I'm just having a hard time understanding how the
presence of the petrochemicalindustry's lobbies can affect
the decision making processof this INC.
What is theactual voting system ?
Is it decidedon a majority base?
Matthew (24:30):
So the voting system is not yet decided because the
treaty has notbeen fully formulated.
But it's fair to say that justby nature, by virtue of having
some of these lobbyists thereon-site, it shows that they
have a much more amplifiedvoice and how they advise the
country delegations,especially some of the
larger country delegations.
(24:51):
And yeah, how they participatein the process and basically
how they're havingtheir voices heard.
And again, it just relates tosome of these other- these
countries and many of them,as we spoke upon earlier,
representing some very largepetrochemicals and other
industries- how they,you know, are really,
(25:13):
it seems, steering the processaway from an ultimate goal,
which is having avery ambitious treaty.
So I can just speak on one.
I mean, for example, you havemany different coalitions that
are formed, right?
One of which is this HighAmbition Coalition (HAC) that
started out very strongly rightout the gate from, you know,
the first ink callingfor very, very strong actions
(25:35):
to address plastic acrossthe lifecycle.
Their voice was hardly heard atall at INC-3, but you did have
another newer coalition thatmust have- again, a lot of this
probably happens not so much inthe Plenary, but behind the
scenes- But this new coalitionrefer to themselves basically
as "the like-minded group".
But then we learned theyrepresented a much,
(25:58):
much broader, diverse rangeof countries, probably many
countries that, again,are dominated by very,
very large petro- orchemical industries, who yeah,
without singling out anyparticular countries that are
very much looking to focus theultimate ILBI probably more
(26:18):
on downstream actions,so waste management, as opposed
to very much upstreamaddressing those primary
polymers and polymers andchemicals of concern.
Alice (26:28):
Yeah, so you just mentioned the
High Ambition Coalition.
So if you could just tell us ifwe know what countries are part
of it and what are theirobjectives as part of the INC.
Matthew (26:38):
Yep.
So the High AmbitionCoalition again, not very
visible or present, at leastby our observations, at INC-3.
But it's made up of a broadsweep of countries from all
around the world, you know,advanced, middle-income,
And low-income countries.
And again, just going back toan earlier point, it's fair to
say that a lot of the calls forambitious action are taking
(27:02):
place among countries of thelower economic strata.
But, yeah, thisis many, many countries.
And I can read off a few,you know, EU, Netherlands,
Uruguay, Ghana, Colombia,Jordan, a number of others.
So very diverse rangeof viewpoints, but they
(27:23):
basically agree on anumber of main objectives or
strategic goals, and one ofwhich involves, you know,
reducing plastic productionto sustainable levels.
Another is to promote amore circular economy.
Another one is to ensure theenvironmentally sound
management and recycling waste.
So yeah, it's- they're callingfor basically or at least
(27:46):
starting from the earlyon in the process- they're
looking for, you know,minimising plastics and
ensuring safe and soundcollection and
disposal of plastics.
But may the main focus on basedon these points are really on
the midstream to downstreamaspects of plastic waste.
Erin (28:05):
Hmmm.
Alice (28:06):
And I actually just read recently that Japan had
recently joined the HAC, and Iwas wondering if by
any chance, you knew whatmotivated that reasoning?
Chochoe (28:17):
So I think with Japan deciding to join HAC- that was
like a significant shiftin the approach [to]
plastic pollution.
That's simply because,you know, that Japan was
a major producer, consumer [andexporter] of plastic waste
as well, and they rely heavilyon incineration for
(28:39):
plastic waste management.
Erin (28:41):
Uh huh.
Chochoe (28:42):
Joining the HAC is like, kind of like
big thing, I guess.
Like big commitment.
And it actually shows that theJapan[ese] government is really
takingplastic pollution seriously.
And this can be demonstratedthrough many of their
initiativesthroughout the negotiations.
Erin (29:03):
Great.
So I guess that'ssome progress, right?
[Laughs]
Matthew (29:08):
But yeah, it's some progress and it's really
encouraging that Japan joins.
I just very much hope that morediscussion can be around on the
reduction of plastic, not onlyreduction of production of
conventional plastics as weknow them, but also reduction
of the demands of plastic.
This is something that comesout very clearly from the HAC.
(29:31):
Unfortunately, at least myobservations of INC-3,
nobody is reallytalking about reduction.
Erin (29:39):
Hmmm.
Matthew (29:39):
Everyone is talking about-Yes, exactly.
Everyone's talking about howplastics can be managed.
Very, very little was spoken onhow we might- behavioural
changes that are necessary forus to reduce our consumption of
plastics orwhatever alternative material.
So I'm hopeful that the HighAmbition Coalition will
continue to grow and be acountervailing voice or force
(30:04):
against maybe some of theseother coalitions that are
calling forless ambitious actions.
Chochoe (30:09):
I just agree with Matthew that reduction was
not widely addressed.
Some country did.
But, you know, then it was notreally addressed effectively
during the negotiation process.
The discussion morefocused on, you know,
solid waste management.
(30:30):
And if we would like to endplastic pollution, we would
like to take measures, then itneeds to be done according to-
I think the wordthat they use is like
"national jurisdiction",meaning that the country will
be able to decideby themselves the target and
(30:51):
not necessarily, you know,the collective one.
Matthew (30:55):
Right.
And that is areal tension, isn't it?
Because, as we know, plastics isa transboundary challenge.
And for countries to cometogether and try to establish
some kind of treatyto address, you know,
this global challenge,planetary crisis,
national actions alone probablywill not be sufficient, uh,
(31:16):
to do so and in a kindof unified, systematic way.
So that's a real- that'sa real issue.
Erin (31:23):
When you're talking about reduction, I think there
are many ways, I guesswe could interpret that word.
And I just want to make surewha- that I understand what
you're trying to argue for.
Matthew (31:33):
That's great.
I mean, Chochoe, feel free tocome in here, but when I refer
to reduction, I mean reductionof both supply and demand.
Erin (31:41):
Okay.
Matthew (31:42):
So across the market.
This also lends to the ideathat maybe alternatives or some
kind of other quote unquote"sustainable materials" might
come and take theplace of plastics.
But, you know, here's where thescience is not entirely clear.
I think just recently we foundthat- there was a paper that
just came out a couple of weeksago that shows that actual
(32:04):
plastics recycling often emitsa lot of other hazardous
chemicals into the environment.
Just by the process- byway of the process itself.
Same goes with theidentification of some
kinds of alternatives.
We find that biodegradableoften isn't biodegradable.
And it can alsohave kind of negative impacts
(32:25):
on the environment.
Chochoe (32:27):
I think for me, production should be reduced in
the first place.
You know, I'm not saying thatyou can't produce it, but the
main discussion during theINC-3 was all about the waste
management- wasabout the recycling.
Does that make sense that weare talking about recycling?
Because how many years-
Erin (32:48):
We can't do it well.
Chochoe (32:49):
Yeah, we are not doing that well.
Right?
So and then at the INC-3,when it comes to the financial
mechanism during theintersessional work- this was
also not achieved as well.
So how can we be sure that,you know, those countries,
for example, in developingcountries like ASEAN, they have
(33:10):
good infrastructure to actuallydo all this kind of recycling.
Right?
And how many years that isgoing to take to actually end
all of these things.
So I think that it would bebetter for us to try to reduce
in the first place.
But at the same time, we alsoadvocate with people in the
community or people that wework with or even ourselves to
(33:34):
also reduce theconsumption as well.
I think that's the way how weshould look at it, but that was
not really widely addressedduring the INC as well.
I mean, when it comesto the outcome.
Matthew (33:48):
And there's just no way that we can recycle out
of this problem.
Um, it really comes down toreducing the production and
consumption of plastics.
Full stop.
Erin (33:59):
Right.
Yes.
So that's really, you know,the whole idea about taking
a lifecycle approach.
Right.
Okay, so I mean, itlooks like INC is slowly but
surely moving forward.
We hope?
Matthew (34:13):
Very much hope.
Erin (34:14):
Yes, with lots of hope.
[Laughs] Are there other apartfrom this idea, you know,
incorporating the idea ofreduction mechanisms or actions
that are necessary to endplastic pollution in your view?
Chochoe (34:29):
Um, so basically I think from my side, I feel that
the countries have to take thecompliance mechanism more
seriously and also harmonisedata and also, um,
monitoring tools.
So basically what happened inmany countries in ASEAN region
(34:50):
now or- and also elsewhere,it's like we have got
so many tools.
Really.
Maybe one country hasso many tools.
And then, you know, if we canactually harmonise all of these
tools in one single toolor something, then, and then we
apply this globallyor regionally, you know, then I
(35:10):
think it will be possible forus to actually monitor if the
country has made any progress,because I can tell you that
based on my experience withsome ASEAN member states and
also other countries, they haveset their targets very high and
they don't actuallyhave the baseline.
(35:32):
And then they don't actuallyhave the monitoring.
So, I think all these thingsshould be in place and
should be, you know,well-structured and formed.
And then, of course,countries will not have the
capacity to dothat by themselves.
International organisations,you know, all of the funders,
the financial mechanism need tobe there for them and to
(35:55):
provide this support so that wewill be able to hopefully
address plastic pollution inan effective manner.
Erin (36:05):
Right.
Matthew (36:05):
Yeah.
Just chiming in there.
I think that really importantpoint that Chochoe raised is
the needfor multi-stakeholder actions.
You need to betalking about government-,
country-led action togetherwith businesses,
together with, you know,research institutions,
together with the citizensthemselves in trying to
address the problem.
I think really fundamental todriving the change
(36:28):
will be education.
Especially among young people.
And again, it's hard to put anydefinite timelines on how
quickly we'll be able todraw down, the issue of plastic
pollution at least over thenext 10, 20 years.
But it's important toensure that, you know,
young people are not only havethe capacity and the
(36:49):
understanding to know how todeal with these issues,
but also are inspired and don'tfeel like this existential
challenge that we face -whether it be climate or
pollution or biodiversityloss- is insurmountable.
And yeah, so it's important tohighlight the role of not
only governments, policymakers,but also
(37:09):
educators and advocates.
And some of the work that isongoing by IGES - sorry if it
sounds like a shameless plug -But we're doing some excellent
work in the educational levelin Sri Lanka, as part
of this Basel, Rotterdam,Stockholm transboundary
pollution project and very muchworking with young people to
identify sources of plasticpollution and devise solutions
(37:33):
to address them, very muchfollowing a kind of citizen
science-type approach.
So I think that maybe if thiskind of approach or these kinds
of practices can bescaled up and replicated in
other locations,other countries,
starting locally and thenmoving upwards, maybe to,
(37:54):
you know, more nationally,I think we stand a real chance
of really addressing whateverchallenge- environmental
challenges we might face,plastics included.
Bob (38:10):
Thank you for listening to About Sustainability...
Pleasesubscribe at podcast.iges.
jp.
Or searchfor About Sustainability...
wherever you normallyget your podcasts.
If you've got feedback, you canreview us on your podcast
directory of choice or reachout on Twitter at IGES_EN.
(38:33):
About Sustainability...
is produced by the Institute forGlobal Environmental Strategies.
Any views expressed during thepodcast are those of the
speaker at the timeof recording, and do not
necessarily reflect theviews of IGES.
Thank you for choosing to spendyour time with us.
We don't take that lightly andwe hope you'll join
us next time.
Hello, and welcome to About Sustainability...
, a podcast bythe Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies (IGES).
It's your co-host, Erin.
This time, Alice, Simon and Iinvited our colleagues Matthew
Hengesbaughand Chochoe Devaporihartakula,
two experts following theongoing international
negotiations on plastics,the Intergovernmental
(00:31):
Negotiating Committee onPlastic Pollution, or INC
for short, is a process thatwas agreed in a historic
resolution at the fifth sessionof the United Nations
Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2),in 2022.
For a review of what happenedat UNEA, check out our
(00:52):
UNEA-5.2 episode.
So the aim of the INC is todevelop an internationally
legally binding instrument onplastic pollution, including in
the marine environment.
And this involves using anapproach that addresses the
entire lifecycle of plastics.
Our previous episode focusingon lifecycle approaches to
(01:14):
plastics shows how challengingthis actually is, and we
learned that it continues to bea major contention at
the actual negotiations.
Be sure to check out our shownotes for those references.
We caught up with Matthew andChochoe after they came back
from the most recent INCmeeting called INC-3,
which concluded in November.
(01:35):
We covered the majorcontentions at INC-3, who is
responsible and what is neededto reach a global agreement on
tackling this issue.
Let's get into it.
Plastic pollution isobviously a really serious
problem globally, but howserious is it in this
particular region,the Asia-Pacific region?
Matthew (01:57):
Yeah, that's an excellent question.
Um, I would say it's serious.
Um, there's been a lot ofresearch dating back now a
number of years.
For example, in 2017,some research came out
discussing how the top 20plastic-polluting rivers in the
world are mainly located inthe Asia region.
(02:19):
Um, I think this study actuallyfound that it was upwards of
very close to 70%.
A large bulk of the globaltotal of plastics were being
emitted from theserivers in Asia.
The research shows thatmany of them are located
in Southeast Asia.
But actually, if you look- takea more global perspective,
(02:42):
you find that a lot of theproblem is actually originating
in more advanced economies,of course.
And there was alot of debate around, uh,
this- the INC, with certaincountries calling for,
for example,some identification of what
they call the downstreamcountries that were actually
(03:03):
fully getting the brunt of alot of this plastic pollution.
Erin (03:05):
What you mean by downstream is- are countries
basically getting the plasticfrom some other country?
Is that- like for processing?
Is that whatyou're referring to, or?
Matthew (03:16):
It's difficult to really pinpoint where
the problem originates.
Erin (03:20):
Mmm hmm.
Matthew (03:21):
And a lot of this has to deal with what we think of
in terms of lifecycle.
So you have certain countriesfor example, a lot of
countries that, you know,maintain very large
petrochemical industries...
They would say that plastic,the issue itself must be
dealt fully downstream.
So that's at theend of life, right?
(03:42):
Um, where, you know,the most visible aspects of
plastic pollution, you know,your single-use products that
are discarded inthe environment, the discarded
fishing nets, etc.
But there's other countries,and rightfully so,
point out that,well, plastic actually begins
very much upstream, and thiswas a real issue at INC because
(04:06):
they- the countries, the memberstates were not able to really
forge any consensus around thisissue of polymers and chemicals
of concern, because, you know,a lot of people would
say that, you know,plastic actually begins very
much at the base level-you know, basically the
compounds that make up plastic,those- that is the
(04:27):
issue in itself.
So when I refer todownstream countries, these are
countries who took a stancethat plastic being a
transboundary issue, alot of these countries,
particularly in thedeveloping world, face issues
with waste management,collection,
sorting and disposal.
And a lot of that plastic wastewinds up on their shores and
(04:52):
they just don't have thecapacity to deal with it.
So again, this goes back to theidea that there are many
different perspectives when wetalk about the
lifecycle of plastics.
And it remains to be seenwhether or not countries will
be able to really come to abroad consensus on how to
tackle the many stagesacross the lifecycle.
Simon (05:12):
It sounds to me as if there is a discussion or
contention around whetherprimarily the consumer of the
plastic product should beresponsible for the waste,
or the producer of the rawplastic material should be
responsible for it.
So who's actually responsiblefor that?
Like the country that createdthe industry that creates it,
or the sector that creates theplastic bottles or the country
(05:36):
that- in which the peopleconsume the beverage that is in
those plastic bottles but donot have the capacity to
properly manage it, and it endsup in the rivers?
Can you say something,Matt, about who are the biggest
producers of plastic, and whoare the biggest consumers of
plastic in termsof countries or companies?
I'm just not clear on that.
Matthew (05:54):
Sure.
Well, no, that actually toucheson the point that again,
plastic is not- I mean,it's multi-sectoral, right?
So you have, for example,countries that rely heavily on
their petroleum industries.
Well, that's, you know, a majorbuilding block for the
production of plastics.
And then you have othercountries that host very
(06:15):
large chemical industries.
That also is another factorthat goes into the
manufacture of plastics.
And then you have countriesthat actually import the final
products at their end of life.
Right?
So the plastic waste that othercountries dispose of and don't
necessarilydeal with domestically.
(06:35):
So it's avery multi-dimensional issue.
This point that youmake around, you know, how much
is the consumer responsible-this is, uh, really a
controversial issue becauseit's actually- a lot of the
regulations that could be putin place really should fall on
governments and how theyregulate the corporations that
(06:58):
are involved inthe plastic trade.
So for me, my personalperspective is that, you know,
just putting all theresponsibility on the consumer
is a bit of a distraction.
Erin (07:11):
Hmmm.
Matthew (07:12):
Again, given the multi-dimensional nature of how
plastics are produced andmanufactured and the ways that
we consume them, if governmentswere to step in and really
start enforcing some verystrong regulations, including,
for example, makinguse of extended producer
responsibility-type approachesand ensuring that
the companies, the corporationsthat are involved with the
(07:35):
manufacture and distribution ofplastics- they
are clearly regulated.
Erin (07:40):
I mean, there's a lot of like eco-campaigning going on,
right at theconsumer level, you know,
sustainable lifestyles, etc.
, encouraging people to reusetheir bags, reuse cups..
.
So what you're saying basicallyis that it's really something
that should be tackled on amore systemic level and
not just, you know,at the consumer level.
(08:00):
Is that right?
Matthew (08:02):
Right.
And this goes back to thatcentral tension again about
what we mean by "lifecycle".
And how can we- how couldcountries come together to
agree on a series ofinterventions that, you know,
tackle first the upstream,the midstream
and the downstream.
Upstream being thevery production, you know,
again, the raw compounds,the polymers that make up
(08:25):
the plastics, then midstream interms of product design and how
plastics are actually produced.
And then downstream, of course,you know, at the
waste management level- howplastics should be properly
handled and disposed of.
And the objective is tocomplete this by next year.
(08:46):
It's a very,very ambitious undertaking.
Erin (08:48):
Wow.
Next year that's- We don't havemuch time, do we?
Matthew (08:53):
No we don't, no we don't.
Erin (08:55):
Okay.
Um, so how many meetings arethere overall before they're
supposed to agreeon a new treaty?
Matthew (09:03):
Set out to be a total of five INC meetings.
Erin (09:06):
Okay.
Matthew (09:07):
This being the third.
Erin (09:09):
Okay.
And then this final instrumentis supposed to be unveiled.
Matthew (09:15):
So that's right.
And they refer tothat as the internationally
legally binding instrument.
But the acronym was thrownaround was "ILBI".
Erin (09:23):
ILBI.
Alright.
[Laughs] What kind ofinstrument is that, exactly?
Is it something like the ParisAgreement for plastics?
Matthew (09:31):
Well, it's too early to tell, but yeah,
there's a lot of, a lotof- Again, the debate is around
whether or not there'll be anyglobal targets that are set,
for example.
So that would entail a lot of,you know, mandatory actions on
the part of all countries kindof following a kind
of systematised,harmonised kind of approach.
And then there's also othercountries that feel very
(09:54):
strongly that the treaty shouldresemble something like Paris,
uh, and beingvery much determined by
nationally-set targets.
Erin (10:03):
Okay.
So were you able to follow theprevious INCI meetings?
If so, can you maybe give uslike a little bit of a recap on
what happened at those meetingsbefore the third meeting,
which concluded recently?
Matthew (10:16):
Sure.
Well, I was fortunate enough totake part in INC-2, and that
took place in Paris earlierthis year and INC-2 basically-
it was again held up very muchdue to procedural issues.
Erin (10:31):
Sorry, what do you mean by "procedural issues"?
Matthew (10:34):
So I mean, it gets a little bit complicated here,
but we're talking about issuesof rules or procedure,
disagreements over how thenegotiations would proceed
on that basis.
And basically countries wereable to come together in the
end to mandate the developmentof a zero draft for the
(10:55):
new treaty, which would be verymuch discussed during this
interim period and developedand presented by the Presidency
at the INC-3 that tookplace in Nairobi.
So, basically, after gettingover a lot of these
procedural challenges,countries were able to come
together to at least agree onthe idea that a treaty,
(11:18):
a zero draft, would bedeveloped, and then it
would be taken upagain for consideration and
discussion at INC-3.
Erin (11:26):
Right.
So maybe let's turn itover to Chochoe.
What happened on INC-3?
Chochoe (11:32):
So the main focus of the inquiry was the revised
zero draft text and alsodiscussions around synthesis
report that was aimed toaddress the global agreement on
plastic pollution and also themarine pollution as well.
So all of the delegates[formed] three groups to
(11:54):
discuss different part of thezero draft, for example,
the objectives, principles,scope of the treaty,
chemicals and polymersof concern, waste management,
existing plastic pollution,just transition, implementation,
compliance and more.
(12:15):
So all of these issues can befound in the zero draft.
And there were proposals andalso options presented for each
of the sections, which alsoreflected the diverse view and
also approaches of the membercountries as well.
Alice (12:34):
Can you just tell us what your role was at INC-3?
Matthew (12:38):
I'm part of the IISD- you know, IISD is a partner
organisation of IGES.
It's the International Institutefor Sustainable Development.
Then they've got this wing.
It's called theEarth Negotiations Bulletin.
And basically it's a reportingservice for all these
intergovernmentalnegotiating processes.
Basically, it's like anauxiliary rapporteuring team
(13:01):
for the UN.
They refer to themselves as akind of the largest neutral
reporting service in the world.
Basically, your task is to goin and report what each country
says and what their position isin that meeting in real time.
Erin (13:17):
Okay, great.
And what about you, Chochoe?
We know that youhad maybe a side event?
Chochoe (13:22):
Sure.
IGES was selected as one of theco-organisers for the thematic
side event at INC-3 onmonitoring the situation,
progress of the futureinstrument, with the focus on
objectives, targets, baselineindicators and timelines.
So the sessions serveas a critical platform for
(13:44):
discussing the measurement andmonitoring of progress in
a future treaty.
The session was held on 15November 2023, and was
structured to explore differentperspectives on who should be
involved in this process,what should be measured
and monitored, andhow these activities should
(14:06):
be carried out.
So my presentation wasspecifically focused on the
ASEAN region's progress andchallenges in tackling plastic
waste and marine debris.
So we emphasised theneed for setting realistic and
achievable targets, and alsohighlighted the crucial need
(14:28):
for transparent, consistent andharmonised data collection.
We also advocate forstandardised approach to data
that also take into account,you know, the specific context
of local regions.
We also underlie the importanceof both regional and global
(14:50):
collaborations inthe ongoing battle
against plastic pollution.
So this session actually [was]led by a representative from
IUCN and [was] convened [with]a broad spectrum
of participants, ranging fromgovernment officials and
(15:11):
environmental specialists toNGO representative academics
and the private sector.
The session's importance liesin its ability to gather
diverse insight andpractical experience, which are
quite essential forcrafting a robust,
inclusive and effective draftof the INC agreement.
Erin (15:33):
Okay, were you also part of, like, observing the
negotiations?
Chochoe (15:37):
Yeah.
Erin (15:37):
Like Matthew?
Okay.
Chochoe (15:39):
So for me, apart from co-organising a side event,
I was also one of therepresentatives from IGES who
participated in INC-3 and had aunique chance to participate in
both the Contact Groups andalso Plenary sessions,
thanks to a floating badge thatgranted me flexible access.
(16:02):
The event itself was reallyquite intense in my view.
The official sessions couldstart as early as 8 a.m.
in the morning and occasionallyrunning until midnight.
Erin (16:16):
Oh my gosh.
Chochoe (16:18):
It's also worth noting that a key debate at the INC-3
was also about the role ofindustry in drafting the
treaty as well.
There were concerns aboutconflict of interest due to the
industry involvement in plasticand also fossil
fuel production, and there werecalls for strong policy to
(16:41):
manage these conflicts withinthe UNEP and also the INC
Secretariat as well.
Matthew (16:48):
Yeah, it was interesting to learn-
for example, I'm just citingthis press release that came
out - I only was able to comeacross this in part because I
was sitting next to somebodythat was representing one of
these advocacy groups.
This in particular isfor the Center for International
Environmental Law.
But they found that over 143fossil fuel and chemical
(17:11):
industry lobbyistswere registered, which was
upwards of 36%increase from INC-2.
And these representativesactually outnumbered- these
lobbyists outnumbered many ofthese smaller member state
delegations that werethere on-site.
This was actually raiseda few times.
I had the goodfortune of speaking to some
(17:31):
representatives from someSIDs countries, small island
developing states.
Yeah.
Among these smallisland developing states,
there's clear agreement that,you know, we need very
ambitious actions, in partbecause the impacts of plastic
pollution are quite visible andposing a real threat to their-
not only their ecosystems,but also their economies.
(17:52):
And they were callingfor real, clear action.
But they were alsosaying that, look, you know,
"we're here, we're only amember of- two or three members
of our team.
And, you know, we're faroutnumbered by some of these
other larger countries whoaren't really willing to take
action and really move forwardon a very ambitious treaty".
(18:13):
And then you look at a pressrelease like this and you
learn like, well, wait,you actually have many vested
interests that are partof this process, and-
Chochoe (18:21):
I heard that some organisations also raised this
to the INC Secretariat as well,but I'm not sure if
any progress has been made orany action has been made.
Erin (18:32):
Hmm.
Chochoe (18:33):
But despite challenges, the Contact
Groups made a lot of progressbased on country feedback.
There were different approacheswith some favour[ing] upstream
measures to prevent plasticpollution and other actually
support[ing] downstreamindustry-allied strategy.
(18:54):
So the discussion actually,you know, emphasised the need
for leading nations infossil fuel, petrochemical and
plastic product production totake decisive action.
The talks alsohighlighted the importance of
trade provisions,legally binding treaty aspects
(19:15):
and the urgency ofreducing plastic pollution.
Um, apart from that,frontline representatives like
waste pickers,indigenous peoples,
activists and scientists alsocontrasted with the industry
suggestion by presenting theeffect of plastic pollution and
(19:36):
also emphasised the importanceof focusing on reuse and
including indigenous knowledgein treaty negotiations as well.
So, um, what struck me the mostabout the INC-3 were the
intense negotiations inthe Contact Groups, really.
(19:56):
So these talks weretime-consuming, you know, and,
um, very unpredictable andsometimes challenging to
actually find common ground.
I myself, for example, I triedto make [an] intervention four
different days, but theschedule was packed with
(20:17):
member states' discussion.
And sometimes, you know, I wastold that there were 50
observers werewaiting for speaking.
So despite this, I also keptengaging with representatives
from various countries tounderstand their views on
compliance mechanism, a topic Ifound fascinating and something
(20:41):
that I've been workingfor a decade.
Erin (20:45):
Right.
So by compliance,you're talking about whatever
agreement they come to,whether they can keep it or
like some kind of monitoringand evaluation process?
Chochoe (20:55):
So if I could go into a little bit detail about my
proposed intervention,which was unfortunately
never considered, it wasactually focused on the
ambiguous language in thecurrent zero draft,
particularly the frequent useof "necessary or appropriate
(21:16):
measures"without specific definitions.
I also suggested that adding aclear definition to ensure
consistent understandingthroughout the treaty,
and incorporating this languageinto sections where it was
absent for enhanced clarity,I also proposed developing a
set of compliance andenforcement principles to
(21:38):
support [national]implementation of this
comprehensive treaty,including, you know,
guidelines for drafting law,anticipating non-compliance,
ensuring robust monitoring,specifying
reporting requirements,and encouraging public
disclosure for oversight.
(21:59):
And this principle would alsocover incentives for
self-auditing, early compliancetraining and restorative
justice mechanisms, and alsoconsideration for product life
cycle and design to preventnon-compliance as well.
So I think it was veryunfortunate that my proposal
(22:21):
was never really considered dueto the time limitation.
But overall I felt the processwas really interesting.
Erin (22:29):
Hmmm.
So it seems to me- this is justmy general impression- that
both you (Chochoe) and Mattbelieve that this meeting
wasn't super successful.
I mean, what'syour verdict on that?
Chochoe (22:42):
Well, if you actually compare this INC-3 with the
second one, I could saythat a lot of progress was
made by members,by the INC Secretariat.
No question about that.
Progress was made.
But we also couldn'tdeny the fact that the
(23:02):
fundamental issue, like,for example, why we
were there, was to actuallyend plastic pollution.
But at the end of the day,the most important thing that
should be discussed duringINC-3 and also should actually
reach the consensus, which wasthe intersectional work
(23:23):
was not achieved.
Erin (23:25):
Okay, so what was supposed to be achieved by this
point?
Chochoe (23:28):
So, um, you know, some of the countries actually
dominated the discussion,meaning that if some other
countries- like the majority ofthe countries actually
propose something, then itdoesn't mean that it
would go through, right?
Erin (23:46):
Uh huh.
Chochoe (23:47):
Just simply because [of] some- a few dominated
countries that maybe areinfluenced by industry.
Then it could also, you know,hinder the negotiation
process as well.
For example, something like,you know, the chemicals and
polymers of concern and so manythings there should be
(24:08):
discussed and also that shouldbe ready for the INC-4,
but that didn't really happen.
Alice (24:15):
I'm just having a hard time understanding how the
presence of the petrochemicalindustry's lobbies can affect
the decision making processof this INC.
What is theactual voting system ?
Is it decidedon a majority base?
Matthew (24:30):
So the voting system is not yet decided because the
treaty has notbeen fully formulated.
But it's fair to say that justby nature, by virtue of having
some of these lobbyists thereon-site, it shows that they
have a much more amplifiedvoice and how they advise the
country delegations,especially some of the
larger country delegations.
(24:51):
And yeah, how they participatein the process and basically
how they're havingtheir voices heard.
And again, it just relates tosome of these other- these
countries and many of them,as we spoke upon earlier,
representing some very largepetrochemicals and other
industries- how they,you know, are really,
(25:13):
it seems, steering the processaway from an ultimate goal,
which is having avery ambitious treaty.
So I can just speak on one.
I mean, for example, you havemany different coalitions that
are formed, right?
One of which is this HighAmbition Coalition (HAC) that
started out very strongly rightout the gate from, you know,
the first ink callingfor very, very strong actions
(25:35):
to address plastic acrossthe lifecycle.
Their voice was hardly heard atall at INC-3, but you did have
another newer coalition thatmust have- again, a lot of this
probably happens not so much inthe Plenary, but behind the
scenes- But this new coalitionrefer to themselves basically
as "the like-minded group".
But then we learned theyrepresented a much,
(25:58):
much broader, diverse rangeof countries, probably many
countries that, again,are dominated by very,
very large petro- orchemical industries, who yeah,
without singling out anyparticular countries that are
very much looking to focus theultimate ILBI probably more
(26:18):
on downstream actions,so waste management, as opposed
to very much upstreamaddressing those primary
polymers and polymers andchemicals of concern.
Alice (26:28):
Yeah, so you just mentioned the
High Ambition Coalition.
So if you could just tell us ifwe know what countries are part
of it and what are theirobjectives as part of the INC.
Matthew (26:38):
Yep.
So the High AmbitionCoalition again, not very
visible or present, at leastby our observations, at INC-3.
But it's made up of a broadsweep of countries from all
around the world, you know,advanced, middle-income,
And low-income countries.
And again, just going back toan earlier point, it's fair to
say that a lot of the calls forambitious action are taking
(27:02):
place among countries of thelower economic strata.
But, yeah, thisis many, many countries.
And I can read off a few,you know, EU, Netherlands,
Uruguay, Ghana, Colombia,Jordan, a number of others.
So very diverse rangeof viewpoints, but they
(27:23):
basically agree on anumber of main objectives or
strategic goals, and one ofwhich involves, you know,
reducing plastic productionto sustainable levels.
Another is to promote amore circular economy.
Another one is to ensure theenvironmentally sound
management and recycling waste.
So yeah, it's- they're callingfor basically or at least
(27:46):
starting from the earlyon in the process- they're
looking for, you know,minimising plastics and
ensuring safe and soundcollection and
disposal of plastics.
But may the main focus on basedon these points are really on
the midstream to downstreamaspects of plastic waste.
Erin (28:05):
Hmmm.
Alice (28:06):
And I actually just read recently that Japan had
recently joined the HAC, and Iwas wondering if by
any chance, you knew whatmotivated that reasoning?
Chochoe (28:17):
So I think with Japan deciding to join HAC- that was
like a significant shiftin the approach [to]
plastic pollution.
That's simply because,you know, that Japan was
a major producer, consumer [andexporter] of plastic waste
as well, and they rely heavilyon incineration for
(28:39):
plastic waste management.
Erin (28:41):
Uh huh.
Chochoe (28:42):
Joining the HAC is like, kind of like
big thing, I guess.
Like big commitment.
And it actually shows that theJapan[ese] government is really
takingplastic pollution seriously.
And this can be demonstratedthrough many of their
initiativesthroughout the negotiations.
Erin (29:03):
Great.
So I guess that'ssome progress, right?
[Laughs]
Matthew (29:08):
But yeah, it's some progress and it's really
encouraging that Japan joins.
I just very much hope that morediscussion can be around on the
reduction of plastic, not onlyreduction of production of
conventional plastics as weknow them, but also reduction
of the demands of plastic.
This is something that comesout very clearly from the HAC.
(29:31):
Unfortunately, at least myobservations of INC-3,
nobody is reallytalking about reduction.
Erin (29:39):
Hmmm.
Matthew (29:39):
Everyone is talking about-Yes, exactly.
Everyone's talking about howplastics can be managed.
Very, very little was spoken onhow we might- behavioural
changes that are necessary forus to reduce our consumption of
plastics orwhatever alternative material.
So I'm hopeful that the HighAmbition Coalition will
continue to grow and be acountervailing voice or force
(30:04):
against maybe some of theseother coalitions that are
calling forless ambitious actions.
Chochoe (30:09):
I just agree with Matthew that reduction was
not widely addressed.
Some country did.
But, you know, then it was notreally addressed effectively
during the negotiation process.
The discussion morefocused on, you know,
solid waste management.
(30:30):
And if we would like to endplastic pollution, we would
like to take measures, then itneeds to be done according to-
I think the wordthat they use is like
"national jurisdiction",meaning that the country will
be able to decideby themselves the target and
(30:51):
not necessarily, you know,the collective one.
Matthew (30:55):
Right.
And that is areal tension, isn't it?
Because, as we know, plastics isa transboundary challenge.
And for countries to cometogether and try to establish
some kind of treatyto address, you know,
this global challenge,planetary crisis,
national actions alone probablywill not be sufficient, uh,
(31:16):
to do so and in a kindof unified, systematic way.
So that's a real- that'sa real issue.
Erin (31:23):
When you're talking about reduction, I think there
are many ways, I guesswe could interpret that word.
And I just want to make surewha- that I understand what
you're trying to argue for.
Matthew (31:33):
That's great.
I mean, Chochoe, feel free tocome in here, but when I refer
to reduction, I mean reductionof both supply and demand.
Erin (31:41):
Okay.
Matthew (31:42):
So across the market.
This also lends to the ideathat maybe alternatives or some
kind of other quote unquote"sustainable materials" might
come and take theplace of plastics.
But, you know, here's where thescience is not entirely clear.
I think just recently we foundthat- there was a paper that
just came out a couple of weeksago that shows that actual
(32:04):
plastics recycling often emitsa lot of other hazardous
chemicals into the environment.
Just by the process- byway of the process itself.
Same goes with theidentification of some
kinds of alternatives.
We find that biodegradableoften isn't biodegradable.
And it can alsohave kind of negative impacts
(32:25):
on the environment.
Chochoe (32:27):
I think for me, production should be reduced in
the first place.
You know, I'm not saying thatyou can't produce it, but the
main discussion during theINC-3 was all about the waste
management- wasabout the recycling.
Does that make sense that weare talking about recycling?
Because how many years-
Erin (32:48):
We can't do it well.
Chochoe (32:49):
Yeah, we are not doing that well.
Right?
So and then at the INC-3,when it comes to the financial
mechanism during theintersessional work- this was
also not achieved as well.
So how can we be sure that,you know, those countries,
for example, in developingcountries like ASEAN, they have
(33:10):
good infrastructure to actuallydo all this kind of recycling.
Right?
And how many years that isgoing to take to actually end
all of these things.
So I think that it would bebetter for us to try to reduce
in the first place.
But at the same time, we alsoadvocate with people in the
community or people that wework with or even ourselves to
(33:34):
also reduce theconsumption as well.
I think that's the way how weshould look at it, but that was
not really widely addressedduring the INC as well.
I mean, when it comesto the outcome.
Matthew (33:48):
And there's just no way that we can recycle out
of this problem.
Um, it really comes down toreducing the production and
consumption of plastics.
Full stop.
Erin (33:59):
Right.
Yes.
So that's really, you know,the whole idea about taking
a lifecycle approach.
Right.
Okay, so I mean, itlooks like INC is slowly but
surely moving forward.
We hope?
Matthew (34:13):
Very much hope.
Erin (34:14):
Yes, with lots of hope.
[Laughs] Are there other apartfrom this idea, you know,
incorporating the idea ofreduction mechanisms or actions
that are necessary to endplastic pollution in your view?
Chochoe (34:29):
Um, so basically I think from my side, I feel that
the countries have to take thecompliance mechanism more
seriously and also harmonisedata and also, um,
monitoring tools.
So basically what happened inmany countries in ASEAN region
(34:50):
now or- and also elsewhere,it's like we have got
so many tools.
Really.
Maybe one country hasso many tools.
And then, you know, if we canactually harmonise all of these
tools in one single toolor something, then, and then we
apply this globallyor regionally, you know, then I
(35:10):
think it will be possible forus to actually monitor if the
country has made any progress,because I can tell you that
based on my experience withsome ASEAN member states and
also other countries, they haveset their targets very high and
they don't actuallyhave the baseline.
(35:32):
And then they don't actuallyhave the monitoring.
So, I think all these thingsshould be in place and
should be, you know,well-structured and formed.
And then, of course,countries will not have the
capacity to dothat by themselves.
International organisations,you know, all of the funders,
the financial mechanism need tobe there for them and to
(35:55):
provide this support so that wewill be able to hopefully
address plastic pollution inan effective manner.
Erin (36:05):
Right.
Matthew (36:05):
Yeah.
Just chiming in there.
I think that really importantpoint that Chochoe raised is
the needfor multi-stakeholder actions.
You need to betalking about government-,
country-led action togetherwith businesses,
together with, you know,research institutions,
together with the citizensthemselves in trying to
address the problem.
I think really fundamental todriving the change
(36:28):
will be education.
Especially among young people.
And again, it's hard to put anydefinite timelines on how
quickly we'll be able todraw down, the issue of plastic
pollution at least over thenext 10, 20 years.
But it's important toensure that, you know,
young people are not only havethe capacity and the
(36:49):
understanding to know how todeal with these issues,
but also are inspired and don'tfeel like this existential
challenge that we face -whether it be climate or
pollution or biodiversityloss- is insurmountable.
And yeah, so it's important tohighlight the role of not
only governments, policymakers,but also
(37:09):
educators and advocates.
And some of the work that isongoing by IGES - sorry if it
sounds like a shameless plug -But we're doing some excellent
work in the educational levelin Sri Lanka, as part
of this Basel, Rotterdam,Stockholm transboundary
pollution project and very muchworking with young people to
identify sources of plasticpollution and devise solutions
(37:33):
to address them, very muchfollowing a kind of citizen
science-type approach.
So I think that maybe if thiskind of approach or these kinds
of practices can bescaled up and replicated in
other locations,other countries,
starting locally and thenmoving upwards, maybe to,
(37:54):
you know, more nationally,I think we stand a real chance
of really addressing whateverchallenge- environmental
challenges we might face,plastics included.
Bob (38:10):
Thank you for listening to About Sustainability...
Pleasesubscribe at podcast.iges.
jp.
Or searchfor About Sustainability...
wherever you normallyget your podcasts.
If you've got feedback, you canreview us on your podcast
directory of choice or reachout on Twitter at IGES_EN.
(38:33):
About Sustainability...
is produced by the Institute forGlobal Environmental Strategies.
Any views expressed during thepodcast are those of the
speaker at the timeof recording, and do not
necessarily reflect theviews of IGES.
Thank you for choosing to spendyour time with us.
We don't take that lightly andwe hope you'll join
us next time.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.