Last week, The Fletcher School at Tufts University's Ian Johnstone and I sent a short expert submission (https://lnkd.in/e3Z_FXW2) to the UN Environment Programme-brokered negotiations on a Global #PlasticsTreaty. We raised ten structure questions for the negotiators and other stakeholders: here are two critical ones.
Plastics are an essential material of the built world. We wear, sit in, work in, sleep in, eat out of, and increasingly drive and fly plastics. But they are also a terrible source of pollution. About 99% of plastics are currently fossil fuel-derived though bioplastics hold enormous sustainable potential. The mandate is broad (“a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastic”) but still undefined and the battle lines are forming up between those who support a strong treaty and those who oppose it. Is it a pollution issue or a circular economy question? There are deep vested interests and strongly held beliefs among major governments, industries (petrochemicals), major brands (from apparel to food), scientists, and those who represent impacted communities and ecosystems but also parts of the lifecycle of plastics (like ‘plastic picker’ associations).
The first question is whether the treaty will be ‘top-down’ with clear obligations for states or ‘bottom-up’ based on voluntary country pledges (like the 2015 #parisagreement)? This is probably a false dichotomy but relying on the Paris model is unwise given it has yet to deliver on global emissions (a treaty ‘effectiveness’ issue). In any case, a hybrid or blended approach to obligation is best.
The second is whether the core obligations and ‘control measures’ (the provisions intended specifically to remedy the problems that give rise to the treaty) should be structured in a comprehensive single binding Convention (the 2013 #MinamataConvention on #Mercury) or instead in a one-two Framework Convention (usually consisting of principles) that is followed by a binding Protocol separately negotiated and adopted (like the 1985 #ViennaConvention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and its 1987 #Montreal protocol phasing out #Ozone depleting substances)?
Conceptually, we have to think of both plastics-as-materials and plastics-as-pollution. But the key negotiating ingredient will be CREATIVITY. For example, can we design a treaty-within-a-treaty, just as one thinks of a protocol-from-a-convention? Could we structure a (mainly) top-down core of obligations and control measures dealing with plastics-as-pollution within a (mainly) wider bottom-up treaty on plastics-as-materials that will strengthen (‘ratchet up’ in Paris talk) over time? We're about to find out.