0:00

I think the difference between a

0:03

pretty watered down treaty and

0:05

a really rigorous one is how successful

0:07

we are as a global community at

0:09

delivering on what we actually committed to

0:12

in 2022, which was to end plastic

0:14

pollution. Welcome

0:18

to Global Dispatches, a podcast for

0:20

the foreign policy and global development

0:23

communities and anyone who wants a

0:25

deeper understanding of what is driving

0:27

events in the world today. I'm

0:30

your host, Mark Leon Goldberg. I

0:32

am a veteran international affairs journalist

0:34

and the editor of UN Dispatch.

0:37

Enjoy the show. Looking

0:51

for a trustworthy podcast to

0:54

bring you unfiltered viewpoints and

0:56

experiences on global health, tune

0:58

into Global Health Matters, the

1:00

podcast that connects silos and

1:02

amplifies diverse voices to give

1:04

you a holistic picture. Each

1:07

month, Dr. Gary S. Lanyon from

1:09

the World Health Organization hosts discussions

1:12

with guests spanning former ministers of

1:14

health, award-winning journalists and authors, and

1:16

frontline public health workers. Join

1:19

listeners from across 180 countries

1:22

for an exciting season four,

1:24

launching in June. Global

1:27

Health Matters is available on Apple

1:29

Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. Diplomats

1:37

are gathering in Ottawa this week

1:39

for the latest round of negotiations

1:41

on a treaty to end plastic

1:43

pollution. Back in 2022,

1:46

175 countries agreed to develop a legally binding

1:48

agreement on plastic pollution by

1:54

2024. This

1:56

meeting in Ottawa is the penultimate

1:58

round of negotiations. and a

2:01

critical moment in the long

2:03

effort to curb the environmental

2:05

damage caused by the rampant

2:07

production and use of plastic

2:09

today. On the line

2:11

with me to discuss what these negotiators

2:14

hope to achieve and some of the

2:16

key obstacles in the way of a

2:18

robust treaty on plastic pollution is Aaron

2:21

Simon, Vice President and

2:23

Head of Plastic Waste and Business

2:25

at the World Wildlife Fund. We

2:28

kick off discussing the problem

2:30

of plastic pollution before having

2:32

a broader conversation about these

2:35

treaty negotiations. We

2:37

first covered this topic when negotiations

2:39

on this treaty first kicked off

2:42

in Uruguay and now

2:44

as we are racing towards that

2:46

2024 finish line for a plastic

2:49

pollution treaty, I'm glad

2:51

to bring you this update from

2:53

the negotiations and preview

2:55

what to expect as

2:57

negotiators race to the finish line. So

3:01

here is Aaron Simon of the

3:03

World Wildlife Fund. Aaron

3:12

before we talk about the substance of

3:14

a potential treaty on plastics, can you

3:17

just make the case for why there

3:19

ought to be such a treaty in

3:21

the first place? So

3:24

the world comes together and requires

3:27

a treaty when there is an issue

3:29

that can't be solved by individual nations

3:31

on their own, right? When problem

3:33

is so large that it

3:36

requires a coordinated global

3:38

action. In fact,

3:40

there has never been a global

3:43

crisis that has been effectively

3:45

addressed without one. So

3:48

as we look at plastic

3:50

pollution and we

3:52

look at how quickly it

3:54

is accumulating, one dump

3:57

truck a minute of plastic pollution is entering

3:59

our... oceans every day, rising

4:01

to about 10 million metric tons a

4:03

year. And we're on a

4:05

track to triple that. And

4:08

quadruple how much is actually there in less

4:10

than 20 years. If

4:12

we don't change anything, plastic pollution is

4:14

such a global issue. It has

4:17

this huge scale at which it's

4:19

entering the world at such a

4:21

fast pace, but it also represents both

4:24

production use and waste

4:26

supply chains that don't adhere

4:28

to country boundaries. So

4:31

you can't solve for it in one part

4:33

of the world and assume that

4:35

we'll solve for it another. And

4:37

because of that, you've seen

4:40

the efforts that have gone into

4:42

it to solve it without this

4:44

global coordination, whether it's companies doubling

4:46

down on their commitments or

4:49

individual governments putting out

4:51

policies and bans that

4:53

in the process of all of

4:56

that growth of effort, plastic pollution

4:58

is continuing to grow. It's

5:00

clearly needed that we need to have the

5:03

world come together and agree on how to

5:05

address it collectively instead of separately.

5:07

Is the problem of plastic

5:09

pollution fundamentally one related

5:12

to marine life? Or

5:14

is it something broader than that? It's

5:17

much broader than that. And actually

5:19

the resolution that negotiators

5:22

have agreed to negotiate is about

5:26

the whole life cycle of plastic. It

5:29

really highlights that plastic

5:31

pollution happens from the moment

5:34

plastic is produced, right? 99%

5:37

of plastics today are coming from oil and gas. And

5:40

so it identifies that

5:42

you have plastic pollution entering

5:45

our community and our

5:47

ecosystems from production through use

5:49

and into its persistence

5:51

as waste, where it's

5:54

harming again, communities and

5:56

ecosystems and species.

6:00

What does a potential treaty on plastics

6:02

seek to do? I

6:07

know we are speaking just

6:09

a few weeks before negotiators

6:11

head to Ottawa, Canada for

6:13

yet another round intended to

6:16

produce a treaty on

6:19

plastics. What are

6:21

some key elements of this

6:23

draft treaty? Part

6:25

of the benefit of the

6:28

UN process and the law of treaties

6:30

is that all of the countries

6:33

that are participating agree to

6:35

a framework on how

6:37

to address the problem, a common set of rules, if

6:40

you will, for what each country

6:42

should be committing to do. And

6:44

so we would hope that these common

6:47

set of rules that the countries agree to, which

6:49

should make up the text of the

6:51

treaty, would account for the

6:53

key levers that the broader scientific community

6:56

has said we need to do to

6:58

end this crisis. One of those

7:00

is we should all agree,

7:02

what are those high risk chemicals and

7:05

products and criteria on how to

7:07

determine them and a plan on how to

7:09

phase them out. Those could

7:11

be chemicals or products that are

7:14

high risk for leakage somewhere in the

7:16

life cycle and high risk for

7:18

creating damage when they are leaked, whether

7:21

to people or species. Like

7:24

the idea is that plants that make

7:26

plastic products use these chemicals and that

7:28

sometimes these chemicals get into the ecosystem

7:30

in some way and cause harm? That's

7:33

correct, yes. Through emissions, through

7:35

runoff, sort

7:37

of those implications to air, soil, and

7:39

water, those main things

7:41

that humans depend on for feed

7:45

and water and

7:47

oxygen. So basic

7:49

human rights, if you will. So

7:51

you first say as a global community, what

7:53

shouldn't we be making in the first place? And

7:57

for everything else that you should continue making,

7:59

you have... agree on how everyone is going

8:01

to make it. What are those design standards? And why

8:03

that's so important is, one, it

8:06

creates alignment around reducing

8:09

those harmful chemicals. But two,

8:12

it means that you can

8:14

match infrastructure to manage those materials

8:16

with the materials that you have. One

8:19

of the barriers to recycling today,

8:22

for example, is because we have

8:24

proliferated the types of plastics and

8:26

materials we use without

8:28

advancing the recycling technology to

8:31

be able to manage that

8:33

large array and variety of

8:36

materials that end up in

8:38

our material recycling facilities. So

8:41

if you're going to design materials

8:43

for the infrastructure that

8:45

you are going to

8:47

invest in globally, you

8:49

want to make sure that everybody is doing

8:51

it the same. That's going to be especially

8:54

important for countries who are not producing countries,

8:56

countries who just receive materials but

8:58

are being asked to invest in

9:00

infrastructure to manage those. And so we want

9:03

to have those design guidelines because

9:05

that is going to really make

9:07

it easier to create a

9:10

system to recover those, whether that's a

9:12

reuse system, a recycling system, a compost

9:15

system. You'll be building

9:17

and investing in that technology to manage

9:19

those materials. It will

9:21

increase the consistency that goes

9:23

into that infrastructure. It

9:26

will increase the quality of materials coming out

9:28

the other side, which will increase the value

9:30

of it. It's about jobs.

9:32

It's about dollars. All of

9:34

those things are just sort of guided

9:36

by this common set of design guidelines.

9:40

And then finally, you need a

9:42

treaty that has policies that

9:44

can create those enabling mechanisms

9:46

through an extended producer responsibility

9:48

system, for example, that could drive

9:51

the mandate for those guidelines and

9:53

for a fee associated with them

9:56

and create a longer

9:58

term operating budget for those

10:01

facilities, especially in small and medium

10:03

economies. It should have a

10:05

financial mechanism that supports this growth

10:08

and innovation so that we can

10:10

implement and do capacity building globally

10:12

for this. And it

10:14

should ultimately have a common way that

10:16

we all measure, you know, the plastic

10:18

pollution that we're creating in the world

10:20

and what we're doing to solve it

10:22

so we can check and make sure

10:24

we're making progress together as a global

10:26

community, of course, correct when we need

10:28

to strengthen as we learn more.

10:31

So that's what we're really hoping that the

10:34

global set of sort of rules

10:36

that everybody would agree to would

10:38

include. Well, that's interesting. I mean,

10:40

it sounds as you're describing it, like

10:43

a very kind of technical treaty that

10:46

compels signatories and

10:48

those countries that ratify it to adhere

10:50

to a certain set of standards, but

10:53

like I have to imagine having covered

10:55

treaty processes in general, not this one

10:57

in particular, but in general for the

10:59

last like 20 years, that

11:01

there are key political

11:03

debates that go along with

11:06

creating some of these standards

11:08

that often have the

11:10

potential to upend, if not derail,

11:13

sensitive negotiations like this.

11:16

I'm keen to learn from

11:18

you what some of those

11:20

like higher level political debates

11:23

and discussions are looking like.

11:26

There is a great deal of tension

11:28

in this process. There's

11:30

a tension between global rules versus

11:32

national action plans to begin with. Oh,

11:34

the idea that like some countries just

11:37

want to have their own kind of

11:39

voluntary plans with no real enforcement mechanism.

11:42

Exactly. That's all in vogue now in

11:44

these environmental treaties, I feel like. Yeah.

11:46

And it's really for an issue like

11:48

this, where these materials,

11:51

both as in a feed stock

11:54

and in a product are flowing across

11:56

all of these country boundaries. It's

11:59

a very. difficult to consider

12:02

how that would actually help us

12:04

to solve this problem because that is what

12:06

we have happening right now and it has

12:09

proven to be unsuccessful in stemming the tide

12:11

in plastic pollution. That's one

12:13

of the arguments that you hear often

12:15

from sort of the countries who are

12:17

in support of this top-down or global

12:20

rule-based mechanism is that it

12:22

needs to address the issues we

12:24

can't address on our own. Now, adding

12:27

a layer of tension to that, our

12:29

countries that agree with that

12:31

but also legally from

12:34

a domestic or national policy perspective

12:37

have limitations to what they can

12:39

even ratify. And so they are

12:42

trying to negotiate the line of

12:45

that where there is a universal provision

12:47

but yet more autonomy

12:49

in the regional implementation.

12:51

Would that include say like the

12:53

United States? That is a

12:56

great example of a country that is

12:58

challenged by existing authorities. Yeah,

13:00

I mean just politically it's very difficult

13:02

to get 70 senators

13:04

to agree on anything which is like two-thirds

13:06

is the threshold required to ratify a treaty.

13:09

So the idea here

13:11

is that the United States still wants like

13:14

an enforcement mechanism without requiring ratification.

13:16

Am I getting that right? I

13:19

think they still want to

13:21

have these universal provisions but

13:23

without the requirement for new

13:25

policy to be developed. So

13:28

therefore not requiring that

13:30

congressional ratification process. In

13:34

general, like what are some of

13:36

the key like negotiating blocks in

13:38

a treaty like this? In

13:41

general you will often have certain groups

13:43

of countries band together to pursue common

13:45

interests and sometimes those conflict with the

13:47

interests of other groups of countries. What

13:49

are some of those fault lines you're

13:52

seeing? The first fault line

13:54

that started to come about was this

13:56

essentially labeling of countries as ambitious or

13:58

not ambitious. And that really

14:01

progressed pretty quickly coming out of

14:03

the first INC or Intergovernmental

14:05

Non-Negotiating Committee meeting. What do

14:07

you mean by ambitious in

14:09

this context? These countries

14:12

were saying we need to start with cutting

14:14

the amount of plastics we use in the

14:16

first place. This theory comes

14:18

from the fact that if we can't manage the

14:20

plastic we're using now, and

14:23

we're slated to double that in less than 20 years, we're

14:25

never going to be able to catch up with just waste

14:27

management alone. We have to reduce the

14:29

size of that circle. And it's

14:31

hard to disagree with that. You

14:33

had all of these stakeholders sort of

14:35

saying you have the scientific community, you

14:37

have the business community actually all agreeing

14:39

with this very, very high level ambition

14:41

and saying we need to start by

14:43

making that and agreeing

14:45

what we're going to make moving forward

14:48

and investing the infrastructure and add policy.

14:50

And that fast wave of

14:54

very progressive positioning kept

14:57

its momentum into INC2. And

15:00

a couple of things sort of

15:02

stalled it out. And just

15:04

to be clear, INC2 is International

15:07

Negotiating Committee and this happens in

15:09

phases and the second one, which

15:11

I think was where Uruguay? Yeah,

15:13

it was in Uruguay. Every

15:16

treaty negotiation process has to have at

15:18

least five INCs, right? And

15:20

they usually take a decent amount of time

15:23

to negotiate, usually around 10 years. And

15:25

part of the resolution 5.2 that

15:27

was unanimously adopted by the UN

15:29

member states back in 22 was

15:33

that they would do this in two years,

15:35

that they would accelerate the timeline. And

15:38

I think everybody was really excited about it.

15:40

But what you're finding is that it

15:44

is happening too fast for

15:46

people to catch up with

15:48

that momentum. And

15:51

in a process like the UN process

15:53

that is designed to bring everyone together

15:55

and find common ground, that

15:58

tension of those who already understood

16:00

the science for riding that wave

16:02

of momentum for high ambition and

16:05

those who are like, whoa, whoa,

16:07

whoa, wait a minute. That

16:10

is way more than we're willing to

16:12

negotiate for. That became

16:14

very clear in an early way

16:16

when we started to see stall

16:18

tactics, especially from producing countries. Because

16:20

at the top of this is

16:24

less production. You

16:26

know, that top statement is we need to start with making

16:28

laws. And that hits the

16:30

bottom line, right? That's an economic impact

16:32

and hit the countries that depend heavily

16:35

on the production of oil and gas. Are

16:37

the same countries that produce

16:40

plastics, generally speaking, than oil

16:42

and gas countries? Yes,

16:45

generally speaking. Oil and gas,

16:47

you know, 99% of this is coming from oil and

16:49

gas. It comes out of that barrel of oil, just

16:52

like our fuel and our energy does.

16:54

Just a different carbon chain, if that makes sense.

16:57

Just a different length of carbon. So

16:59

I would imagine that the negotiating blocks, as

17:01

you describe them, are not terribly dissimilar to

17:03

what we've seen at the COP

17:06

in the past, the UN Climate Conferences. It's

17:09

absolutely going to be that same community.

17:12

And I would argue that chemicals

17:14

that are produced out of a

17:16

barrel of oil and that are used to produce plastics

17:19

are pretty high value. And they've been highly subsidized.

17:21

They've got a high value to them. So

17:23

I do believe that there are a number

17:26

of those countries that are producing countries, and

17:28

not all of them, but a number of

17:30

them who are really concerned about what this

17:33

could mean. And so we started

17:36

to see that tension early

17:38

on because they're strong

17:40

positioning that they want to continue to

17:42

produce, but also because they felt like

17:44

this was moving really fast without them.

17:48

And so as a person who arguably

17:50

fits within the observer pool for

17:53

this process and is a material

17:55

scientist as my background, and I

17:57

work for a conservation organization.

18:00

This is my my mission is to. Help address

18:02

this problem pragmatically and thoughtfully. I

18:04

was really frustrated right away when

18:06

I saw the stall tactics happening

18:08

because I felt like they represented

18:10

thread industry just fighting. But

18:12

I see another layer of that now that

18:14

I've observed the process a bit more. And

18:16

it is not just that, I

18:19

want to keep producing. It's also

18:21

feeling like we were progressing pertains

18:23

to quickly and they weren't ready

18:25

for that. And I'm not saying

18:27

that in the last two years since. I and C

18:29

to as we headed die and see for just.

18:32

Twelve months later, right? Alice? How fast

18:34

these are every six months. That

18:36

has changed that much. but. You. Start

18:39

to understand how you have to

18:41

meet each of these member states

18:43

for a really constructive discussion about

18:45

how to move forward. Uncommon grounds

18:47

and you start to figure out how

18:50

do you build those right? solutions? Instead,

18:52

the instruments so that was ten

18:54

do something effect with it and

18:56

not create an empty. Water.

18:58

Down Treaty that actually nothing changes

19:00

with and so it's been hard

19:03

to observe that and see that

19:05

happen both in Uruguay and. In

19:07

Nairobi, a going into I and see

19:09

for it's can be really important that

19:11

we do come together and move away

19:13

from that divisive tension of the ambitious.

19:16

And the now ambitious. As new Ford

19:18

and I know that sounds. Very pollyanna of me,

19:20

but that's really going to be a part

19:22

is that we sort of have that. We.

19:25

Are the world must be sentenced. Disenchanted,

19:27

Out and find some common ground

19:29

as he thought. Of the

19:31

tensions and debates that have been

19:33

happening. I think that underlying

19:36

theme has then the biggest. There are

19:38

discussions around whether or not we should

19:40

have. With. The products

19:43

Whether or not there should even

19:45

be criteria whether to the upstream

19:47

and or just downstream meeting like

19:50

production versus waste management's. There's.

19:52

Been a lot of those discussions, but. I

19:55

merely they all are fundamentally on how

19:57

the treaty is shaped, what kind of

19:59

binding. Patients that doesn't include

20:01

the other defendants are obviously

20:03

around. How do we financially?

20:06

Support. As. And the

20:08

is with small and medium enterprises.

20:10

Yes, or small and medium. Astronomy

20:12

is. That need to be

20:14

really successful. Along with the

20:17

global North right like there's inequities,

20:19

Felton see the global process. That.

20:22

Come with those you. Are.

20:24

Much larger economy has come with

20:26

larger delegations, more lawyers, more sciences,

20:28

more expertise. And. Flasks

20:31

police in this one of those issues

20:33

that if we are not successful everywhere,

20:35

we won't be successful at all. So.

20:38

Delegates. Are meeting in Ottawa

20:40

for this fourth round? What

20:43

comes after because. We

20:45

know that. As you said earlier,

20:47

the intense in here is to

20:49

get a treaty done by Twenty

20:52

Twenty Four. Yeah. This

20:54

year or less Isis is this

20:56

area is suspicious. I

20:59

know, overwhelming. never so in I see

21:01

for. They. Need to take. The

21:03

updated draft text. Ads

21:06

negotiated. Throughout. The

21:09

week Plus that we will have an Iowa.

21:11

So that. Coming out as.

21:14

I and see for we have. An

21:17

updated and very close to the final taxed.

21:20

Very close so that in I and see Fi

21:22

which will happen if the end of this year

21:24

in November. In South Korea, we

21:27

can finalize the treaty text. And

21:29

so. In. The Diplomat

21:31

Conference That should happen in early to mid

21:34

of Twenty Twenty Five, it will be ready

21:36

for ratification. So. This is just

21:38

like a very important moment in that

21:41

process, obviously. It is. A

21:43

pivotal moments. How well.

21:46

The. Tax cuts negotiated and

21:48

how good the member states

21:50

are at finding path forward

21:52

together, finding common ground, creating

21:54

the structure of the taxed

21:57

that ultimately allows us to

21:59

start. Ambitiously as possible, but

22:01

also continue to strengthen through the

22:03

top. Of process to that a

22:05

conferences of the parties that will

22:07

have been following ratification. That

22:10

it's going to be dependent on how good

22:12

they are. In. Ottawa as coming

22:14

together. He's They continue.

22:17

To sit back and their corners and

22:19

not find common ground. Then.

22:21

We will be kicking the can down the route of

22:23

we will be. Pushing. That sir

22:25

I and C size. And

22:28

hoping for something different which could

22:30

allow us to bleed over into

22:32

Twenty Twenty Five. I

22:34

suppose. maybe just. Big. Picture.

22:37

How does the world was

22:39

difference between having no treaty,

22:41

have a relatively weak treaty

22:43

language were having a strong

22:46

to the language on controlling

22:48

in one way or another

22:50

plastics. Yeah I think

22:52

no matter what, The.

22:54

Treaty process itself has

22:57

already changed. The. Way

22:59

we think about. Materials.

23:02

And six. It's are

23:04

ready. For. Policy.

23:08

Fans redesign and new business

23:11

models so I A new

23:13

business model for example, would

23:15

be delivering a beverage in

23:17

a. Free use of the

23:19

and hate her or a returnable com. Vs.

23:23

Doing it in a plastic bottle. A

23:26

single use plastic bottle. That's

23:28

already happening. But. I

23:30

think the difference between a pretty

23:33

the. Water. Down Treaty and

23:35

a really rigorous one is how successful

23:37

we are as a global community at

23:39

delivering on what we actually committed to.

23:41

and twenty Two which was and plastic

23:44

pollution. And in

23:46

plastic pollution stopping plastics. From

23:48

going into our ecosystems and

23:51

into our communities requires us.

23:54

To produce how much we make. There.

23:56

Is no modeling done

23:58

by any. The

24:00

table for you to pick institution

24:02

that exists today that shows being

24:05

successful at all without production assistants.

24:08

In so that's going to be one

24:10

of the hardest points, right? So how

24:12

successful we are at stopping pollution will

24:15

depend on how willing we are. You.

24:17

Understand and and make that sacrifice

24:20

and make that commitment to change

24:22

at a larger scale and a

24:24

coordinated scale. Next, the second piece.

24:26

How much for the. Nation is

24:29

designed. It says a mechanism. Will

24:31

be the second factor in determining how

24:33

successful the are. If for

24:36

example, Companies have to

24:38

continue to design for a hundred and

24:40

ninety different. Infrastructure Systems.

24:42

In the eyes. Of hundred

24:44

and ninety different policy. Landscapes.

24:48

It will increase their rest and

24:50

or costs and therefore they will

24:52

invest less. Because. The won't

24:55

be a safe and they will pass more costs

24:57

on a consumer. Is it

24:59

is consistent globally. It

25:01

reduces that risk allowing them to

25:03

invest more into the theater guys.

25:05

Technology That standardized guidelines. And

25:08

reduce the costs and of his

25:10

overall. the ultimate outcome if we

25:12

do this in a coordinated way

25:14

are going to be much more

25:17

beneficial to people of. Then

25:19

if we don't so I think it's that

25:21

means of where we're going to be I'm

25:23

guessing are going to land somewhere in the

25:26

middle if we're successful in Ottawa. Getting to

25:28

an update attack. I think we're

25:30

gonna have a chance of hitting somewhere in a good.

25:32

Middle range with a certain strengthen where

25:34

we can kind of fell to. More.

25:37

Of those. Key. Provisions.

25:40

Around criteria some those more technical elements

25:43

that I outlined earlier I think. We.

25:45

Could do that. I think there might

25:47

be appetite for that and that you

25:49

so much your time, No problem. What

26:00

Is Badges? The show is produced

26:02

by me Merkley on Goldberg. It

26:04

is edited and next I leave

26:07

I sharp. If you are listening

26:09

on Apple podcasts, make sure to

26:11

follow the show and enable automatic

26:13

downloads to get new episodes as

26:15

soon as they're released on Spotify.

26:18

Tap the Bell icon to get

26:20

a notification when we publish new

26:22

episodes. And of course, please visit

26:24

Global dispatches.org to get on our

26:26

free mailing lists. Get in touch

26:29

with me and access are full

26:31

archives. Thank you.