Despite the Friday result, the plastic treaty does not seem dead yet. Virtually all countries have expressed interest in constant negotiations – the delegate of the European Union Jessika Rosall said that she would not accept “Dead Treaty” – And many took advantage of the microphone time during plenary closing to remind others about what is threatened.
“We can’t ignore the gravity of the situation,” said Madagascar negotiator. “Every day our oceans, ecosystems and communities suffer from the consequences of our inability to take decisive and united actions.” Tuvalu delegate, pepetua Latasi election, said that the lack of adoption of the treaty means that “millions of tons of plastic waste will continue to be dropped into our oceans, affecting our ecosystem, food safety, maintenance and culture.”
Despite this, without changing in the format of negotiations – especially in terms of decision making – it is not clear whether further discussions will be fruitful. The norm around “making a consensus -based decision means that the risk of voting cannot be used to ignite stubborn countries away from their red lines; unless making decisions by most votes is introduced, then this dynamics is unlikely to change.” This meeting has proved that the consensus is not dead “, said Bjorn Beeler, executive director of the international pollution network, an elimination network. Health dinner and environmental organizations. “It is not dead.”
Other non -profit organizations and the group of sparkling issued several quiet protests during talks in Geneva, raising the same point, showing the reading signs: “Consensus kills ambitions.”
Senimili Nakora, one of Fiji’s delegates, said during the plenary closing that “consensus is worth looking for if he goes forward, not if he gets stuck in this process.” Switzerland negotiator, Felix Wertla, said that “this process requires a time limit” and that “another similar meeting may not bring a breakthrough and ambitions that are needed.”
Other countries raised wider concerns about the “process” in which negotiations progressed. The meetings were “impermanent”, “muddy” and “ambiguous”, they said during the plenary, probably referring to the unclear instructions that they received from the secretariat, a bureaucratic organ that organizes negotiations.
ENING Andersen, executive director of the UN program, told journalists on Friday that at least it was helpful to hear countries more clearly expressing their red lines. “Everyone must understand that this work will not end, because the plastic pollution will not end.”
The plastics industry, which opposed the control of plastics and withdrawing of risky chemicals, said that he would continue to support the treaty, which “maintains plastics in the economy and outside the environment.” Marco Mensink, secretary of the International Council of the Council of Chemistry Associations, said in a statement: “Without concluding a global agreement on the termination of plastic pollution, it is a lost opportunity, we will continue to support efforts to reach an agreement that works for all nations and can be effectively implemented.”