Beach Litter: comparing the most abundant litter items on European beaches and three beaches in Tuscany
By Tosca Ballerini
The latest Marine Litter Watch – Europe’s Beach Litter Assessment by the European Environment Agency and the European Topic Centre Biodiversity and Ecosystems (ETC BE) came out on 3 July. Comparison with the results of the Citizen Science project ‘Anthropic Profiles – Plastic as a measure of our time’ during which beach litter was monitored on three beaches in Tuscany shows many similarities.
The problem
Pollution by plastic and other chemical pollutants is outside the safe operating space of planetary boundaries for mankind. Waste, particularly plastic, accumulates in aquatic systems, especially on coastlines. Every year, 11 million tonnes of plastic end up in the oceans, making up 80% of marine litter.
The European Strategy on Plastics (COM/2018/028final) set a 30% reduction target for marine litter and the Single Use Plastics Directive (SUPD, 2019/904/EU) set a target for EU Member States to reduce the impact of certain single use plastics (SUP) products in the environment by reducing or banning their use. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC) aims to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) of EU marine waters. To this end, and with regard to beach litter, the Marine Strategy has set a threshold value of 20 litter/100 m of beach, estimating that this value can reduce the damage of beach litter to a sufficiently precautionary level.
Europe’s most abundant beach litter
The European Environment Agency’s Marine Litter Watch (MLW) initiative involves citizens in the collection of litter and data on European beaches. Building on previous findings, this report analyses 2022 data in the context of EU efforts to tackle plastic pollution.
The MLW database provides essential information on the state of beach litter pollution in Europe. It complements the monitoring programmes of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and supports the assessment of EU policies, such as the Zero Pollution Action Plan and the Single Use Plastics (UPR) Directive. It includes contributions from more than 60 communities and organisations, which have recorded nearly 1.5 million litterings from European beaches over the past decade.
The analysis presented in the latest report Marine Litter Watch – Europe’s Beach Litter Assessment reveals that at a European level 86% of the registered objects are plastic and that single-use plastic products (SUP) account for 52% of the total waste. Cigarette butts are a significant problem, accounting for 23% of litter. Fishing-related items are less common, but significant in the North-East Atlantic. The Black Sea is the most polluted, followed by the Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea. Approximately 90% of the sites surveyed exceed the threshold set by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive for good environmental status GHG for beached litter.
The most abundant beach litter on three Tuscan beaches
As part of the ‘Anthropic Profiles’ project, between November 2022 and July 2023 11,237 litter was collected and classified on three beaches in Tuscany in the municipalities of Marina di Vecchiano, Livorno and Rosignano Marittimo. A sampling site was identified at each beach and three monitoring sessions were carried out at each site following the Marine Strategy Framework Directive protocol.
The analysis reveals that 88.39% of the waste to be found is plastic, while single-use plastic products represent (SUP items) 36.96% of the total waste. The most abundant wastes in this study are: cigarette butts (22.69%), plastic beverage bottles (4.38%, all sizes combined), plastic beverage caps/covers (2.89%), plastic cotton bud sticks (2.79%), crisp packets/candy wrappers (1.61%).
A median litter abundance of 1,266 objects/100 m of beach was found in the study. At all sites and during all monitoring, the Marine Strategy threshold for good environmental status GES was exceeded.
The solutions
Scientific evidence shows that upstream and downstream interventions, such as optimising waste management, removal technologies and improving circularity, are not sufficient to contain plastic pollution in the short, medium or long term. To tackle plastic pollution, it is urgent to implement upstream actions to reduce primary plastic production.
In parallel to actions at international and national level, municipalities can significantly limit single-use plastic pollution on their territory through the development of integrated strategies that include public procurement, exemplary practices and territorial animation.
As part of the Profili Antropici project, in addition to the monitoring of beach litter, we identified the environmental measures implemented by the three municipalities on the Tuscan coast to tackle single-use plastic (SUP) items and highlighted further possible environmental measures to reduce plastic pollution at local level.
The results of the study were presented at the Tenth International Symposium ‘Mediterranean Coastal Monitoring: Problems and Measurement Techniques’ held in Livorno from 11 to 13 June 2024 at the Mediterranean Museum of Natural History Museo di Storia Naturale del Mediterraneo – Provincia di Livorno and organised by the Institute of BioEconomy of the National Research Council (CNR-IBE) in collaboration with the Italian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology.
The full study by Tosca Ballerini, Yuri Galletti, Daniela Tacconi (2024) ‘Plastic pollution on the Tuscan coast: environmental measures municipalities can put in place to reduce it’ will be published in the coming months in the conference proceedings.
The Profili Antropici (Anthropic Profiles) project was conducted by Semi di Scienza in collaboration with Sons of the ocean and was funded by the 8 per mille of the Chiesa Valdese. Throughout the project there was an active and positive collaboration with the environmental councillors of the municipalities of Marina di vecchiano, Comune di Livorno, and Comune di Rosignano Marittimo.
Earth Day 2024’s theme is Planet vs. Plastic: what are the issues related to the use of plastic materials and how to solve them?
By Tosca Ballerini, published on Renewable Matter on 22/04/2024
The industrial production of plastic began around 1950 and has increased exponentially in the years since, substantially exceeding that of any other manufactured material. A 2020 study published in the scientific journal, Nature, shows that the weight of all plastics produced (8,000 million tons) is twice that of the biomass of all animals on Earth (4,000 million tons). Four years later, the weight of plastics has exceeded 10,000 million tons and, according to calculations made by the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, following this trajectory, in 2040 it will exceed 20,000 tons.
Over the same period of time, scientists have observed an “unprecedented” decline in biodiversity with about 1 million animal and plant species now threatened with extinction, many of them within a few decades, a number never before reached in human history. This biodiversity crisis has many causes, including the loss and fragmentation of natural habitats, but it is also greatly exacerbated by pollution and global warming. The United Nations have adopted the term “Triple Planetary Crisis” to describe these three intersecting global environmental crises: pollution, climate crisis, biodiversity loss and/or ecological crisis.
The production of plastic materials is considered by scientists to be the main indicator of plastic pollution. In fact, a study published in the journal Science estimated that less than 30 percent of all items made from plastics since 1950 are still in use, about 7 percent have been recycled, 10 percent incinerated, and the remainder, just under 60 percent, have been discarded and are now in landfills or dispersed in natural environments, terrestrial and marine.
The toxicity debt
When scientists talk about “plastics”, they are not only referring to plastic polymers, but they also include other chemicals that make up synthetic fibers and chemical additives used to achieve desired qualities (e.g., heat resistance, flexibility, etc.), many of which are toxic to living organisms. The fragmentation of plastics in the environment, combined with the release of chemical additives from these plastics, leads to a potential future spike in the release of toxic compounds (including chemical additives and nanoplastics).
According to a study published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology, we are already experiencing a period of toxicity debt closely linked to the long-term effects of plastic material degradation and pollutant release. According to the authors, this “debt” is contracted by the presence in the environment of large amounts of plastic currently exposed to degradation and which will still undergo decomposition processes and will release toxic compounds for many years to come. Thus, it is not a question of future plastic pollution, but of the current state of pollution from plastics already present in the environment, to whose damage the impact of any future pollution will evidently be added.
Diseases and social and economic costs associated with plastics
“Plastics contain many hazardous, endocrine-disrupting chemicals that leach and contaminate humans and the environment. These chemicals disturb the body’s hormone systems and can contribute to cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments of developing fetuses and children, and death” explains to Renewable MatterLeonardo Trasande M.D., M.P.P., of NYU Grossman School of Medicine and NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service in New York, N.Y.
Despite these negative effects on human health, many states that base their economies on fossil fuel extraction are reluctant to include provisions in the Global plastics treaty that would limit the primary production of plastics, more than 99 percent of which are made with chemicals from fossil fuels.
To accurately inform about the trade-offs involved in the continued reliance on plastics production as a source of economic productivity in the United States, Trasande and colleagues conducted a study, published in January 2024 in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, in which they calculated the disease burden (i.e., the burden a disease has on a population in terms of mortality, disability, social and economic costs) and attributable costs due to chemicals used in plastics materials in the United States in 2018. “Our study found that plastics contribute substantially to disease and associated social costs in the United States, about $250 billion in 2018 alone. These costs are equivalent to 1.22 percent of Gross Domestic Product” Trasande tells Renewable Matter.
The expert explains that the methodology used in the study can be extrapolated to global disease burdens that still do not sufficiently incorporate environmental exposures with substantial evidence of causation. “The Global Plastics Treaty should reduce the use of chemicals of concern, particularly PFAS, bisphenols, flame retardants and phthalates,” Trasande concludes.
Chemicals of concern in all types of plastics
Published in mid-March 2024, the State-of-the-science on Plastic Chemicals report provides a thorough and comprehensive overview of the current scientific understanding of the chemical aspects of plastics, including hazards, functionalities, uses, production volumes, and regulatory status of plastic chemicals. The report summarizes scientific information on more than 16,000 chemicals potentially used or present in plastic materials and products, of which only 6 percent are currently subject to international regulation, although a much greater number are produced in large quantities and have high exposure potential.
More than 4200 plastic chemicals are of concern because they are persistent, bioaccumulative, mobile, and/or toxic (PBMT). Over 1300 chemicals of concern are known to be marketed for use in plastics and 29–66% of the chemicals used or found in well-studied plastic types are of concern. This means that chemicals of concern may be present in all types of plastics. The report makes four recommendations: regulate chemicals in plastics comprehensively and efficiently; require transparency on which chemicals are used; simplify the composition of plastics so they are safe and sustainable; and promote technical and regulatory capacity to create safer and more sustainable plastics.
Reduction of primary plastic polymers is urgently needed
The UN Global Plastics Treaty, currently under negotiation, aims to reduce plastic pollution. But how to achieve that goal? “As a materials engineer, I recognize the merits of the plastics industry. However, we are not using it smartly,” Francesca De Falco, a researcher at the International Marine Litter Research Unit at the University of Plymouth and a member of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, tells Renewable Matter. “As a Coalition, we have identified the five most important pathways for reducing primary plastic polymers in order to reduce impacts on human and environmental health: reduce production of non-essential ones; reduce production of unsafe and unsustainable ones; work on transparency and accountability of producers; improve compliance mechanisms; and follow a sectoral approach,” says De Falco illustrating the recent Policy Brief Primary Plastic Polymers: Urgently Needed Upstream Reduction.
The researcher also explains that in the latest draft that will be used as the basis for the next round of negotiations, the reduction option is not always included and, when it is, it’s often between many parentheses. “It is important that these reduction options stand, that global reduction targets are clarified, and that there are mechanisms to ensure their implementation”.” To reduce plastic pollution,” De Falco explains, “downstream solutions, while important, cannot solve the problem on their own. Reducing plastic pollution requires working on multiple fronts simultaneously and the reduction of primary plastic polymers is a key measure.”
On 4 September 2023, the zero draft of the Global Plastic Treaty was published, serving as the foundation for the third round of negotiations (INC3) in Nairobi.
By Tosca Ballerini, published on Renewable Matter on 18/09/2023
On September 4th, the zero draft of the Global Plastic Pollution Treaty was published, reflecting a wide range of options and viewpoints. Among the various options are mandatory reduction of virgin plastic production levels, the ban on single-use plastic products, transparency and labeling, the promotion of reuse, and the establishment of extended producer responsibility regimes.
The zero draft of the Global Plastic Treaty
The text of the zero draft for the Global Plastic Treaty was developed by Gustavo Meza-Cuadra Velásquez, Peru’s ambassador and president of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), with the support of the INC secretariat, based on the mandate of UNEA 5/14 resolution and the opinions expressed during the first (INC-1) and second (INC-2) negotiation cycles.
The options presented in the zero draft will serve as the basis for negotiations during the upcoming third cycle of meetings (INC-3) scheduled for November in Nairobi, Kenya. As indicated by Meza-Cuadra Velásquez in the INC-3 scenario note, the negotiations will also be based on a synthesis report of proposals received on elements not discussed during INC-2, which will be published in the coming days and will include both civil society and country proposals.
Great ambitions, but also weaknesses
The document is complex and, according to experts, requires in-depth legal analysis. For example, in Part II on the lifecycle of plastic and plastic products, one of the strengths of the zero draft concerns the reduction of plastic production. In the section related to primary plastic polymers, the zero draft states that “Parties shall take measures necessary to prevent and mitigate potential negative impacts on human health or the environment resulting from the production of primary plastic polymers, including raw materials and precursors.”
The text of the zero draft consists of 32 pages, divided into six parts and seven annexes, with various sections still in the form of “placeholders” for elements that have not yet been discussed and numerous explanatory notes and references to other international treaties that inspire certain parts of the text. For elements that have already been discussed during INC-1 and INC-2, there are two or three options.
However, to achieve this goal, three possible options are indicated, ranging from mandatory “reduction targets” to “measures adopted [by Parties] […] reflected in national plans,” the latter being much less stringent.
In a “hot” analysis of the zero draft text conducted on September 6th, Andrés Del Castillo, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) who follows the Global Plastic Treaty negotiations, stated that the zero draft is a “fundamental document to transition from discussions to actual negotiations”, the structure and options expressed in the text represent “a very strong foundation” for the start of negotiations, and the text reflects “a wide range of options and viewpoints,” with some significant ambitions but also some weaknesses.
Comparing the purpose document for INC-2 and the zero draft, the expert notes many similarities in structure but also some forward strides, such as the presence of specific chapters dedicated to transparency, labeling, and specific obligations related to the trade and export of plastic products and plastic waste; the introduction of the concepts of single-use plastic and short-lived plastic that were not present before; the section dedicated to the promotion of reduction, reuse, and refilling.
The zero draft also includes a section dedicated to problematic chemicals and polymers, one dedicated to extended producer responsibility (with two options: each Party “shall” establish and operate EPR systems, or “is encouraged” to establish and operate them), and one dedicated to a fair transition.
A turning point to end plastic pollution
“The publication of the zero draft represents a significant turning point in the international community’s efforts to end plastic pollution,” said Magnus Løvold, an expert at the Norwegian Academy of International Law. “In my view, the zero draft faithfully reflects the proposals put forward so far in the process and provides the necessary clarity on the choices that states will have to make regarding the treaty’s structure, specificity, and legal strength. Of course, this is just a zero draft and not a negotiated outcome.
It will now be up to the states participating in the negotiations to decide and clarify their position on the options presented. Although opponents of the treaty will undoubtedly seek to weaken it, there seems to be more than enough support among states for a strong treaty with specific and binding provisions to prevail.”
According to Løvold, “it is impressive to see how President Ambassador Meza-Cuadra of Peru has managed to get this process back on track after the procedural debacle in Paris a couple of months ago.” Løvold refers to attempts to hijack the negotiations during INC-2 in Paris at the end of last May when several delegations led by Saudi Arabia, India, Brazil, and Iran blocked the first two and a half days of negotiations through discussions on procedural rules that should have been resolved during the preparatory meeting (OEWG) in Dakar, Senegal, in June 2022.
Now, it is necessary to resolve the procedural impasse
The procedural rules concern how decisions are made and are currently only provisionally applied because no agreement has been reached on rule 38 regarding decision-making processes (the states that blocked the negotiations at INC-2 would like consensus to be mandatory for every decision, while the EU and other states want decisions to be made by a majority) and rule 37 on the right to vote (the EU wants the right to vote on behalf of its 27 member states, while the United States would like each EU state to vote individually).
In an analysis published after the release of the zero draft of the plastic treaty, Magnus Løvold and his colleague Torbjørn Graff Hugo from the Norwegian Academy of International Law warn that conducting negotiations with provisional procedural rules represents an increasing risk with each subsequent negotiation, as the stakes on substantive treaty elements increase. The experts explain that until rule 37 is approved, it will not be possible to proceed to vote on rule 38; therefore, despite the zero draft released last week being “a solid push towards a treaty with specific global rules,” there is expected to be “coordinated procedural pushback” from states that do not want a strong treaty with global obligations.
Løvold and Graff Hugo recall that so far, President Meza-Cuadra Velásquez’s consultations on rule 37 have been fruitless because both the EU and the USA refuse to take a step forward. However, the experts indicate that it is possible to overcome this issue: “Other countries or regions may need to take a step forward. If a group of states, supported by the majority of INC members, were to present a clean version of the rule draft, with a workable compromise for rule 37, it could, with some luck, prepare the commission for a quick and efficient decision on the first day of INC-3.
If that were to happen, it would pave the way for a substance-focused negotiation cycle based on a solid zero draft and significantly improved prospects for a strong and ambitious treaty text by the end of 2024.”
The first round of negotiations for an internationally legally binding instrument (ILBI) to stop plastic pollution ended on Friday 2 December 2022 at Punta del Este, Uruguay. The ILBI has the possibility to become a global health and human rights treaty, but to succeed it has to prevent the possibility for States to use the veto and halt decision-making.
By Tosca Ballerini, published on Renewable Matter on 06/12/2022
“Plastics are fossil fuels in another form and pose a serious threat to human rights, the climate and biodiversity. As negotiations towards an agreement to beat plastic pollution continue, I call on countries to look beyond waste and turn off the tap on plastic” said on December 2nd António Guterres, Secretary General of the UN, on Twitter. With the same words Gustavo Meza-Cuadra, chair of negotiations, closed later the same day the first round of negotiations of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-1) that run from 28 November to 02 December in Punta del Este, Uruguay.
More than 2,300 delegates from 160 countries and stakeholder groups participated in the negotiations and the associated multistakeholder forum. Discussions included important issues such as health and human rights, the intention to cover plastics as materials and products — including banning toxic chemicals associated to plastic — as well as fossil fuel subsidies as drivers of the plastic crisis. Some countries called on cap on production.
Many delegations recognized the importance of scientific evidence and called for more involvement of scientists, also through the potential establishment of a dedicated scientific body. The EU stated that data are already available to make informed decisions to end plastic pollution, and called for using the precautionary principle.
Chemicals associated with plastics and human health
During the discussions, delegates recognized that numerous analyses of the chemical additives in plastics have negative impact on human health and proven “without a shadow of a doubt that there is a need for urgent global action”. It was pointed out that the World Health Organization has already acknowledged the issue and discussions were carried out under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
According to an observer “scientists were pivotal to change to include the narrative about human health”. The Endocrine Society reiterated that the plastics treaty is a global public health treaty, and noted the scientific consensus that endocrine disrupting chemicals in plastics cause non-communicable diseases, with greatest impacts for the most vulnerable; and urged that scientists should participate in all contact groups and treaty processes. Chile called for the development of a database of scientific information, and underscored the need for synergies with the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) and Minamata conventions and the Montreal Protocol, as well as other conventions and agreements.
The Basel Action Network called for a mechanism to provide full scientific transparency for chemicals in plastic, pointing to the Dubai Declaration on International Chemicals Management in this regard; and noted that all shipments of plastic waste are out of compliance with the Basel Convention as they do not provide information on chemicals and additives.
Conflict of interests
In a document published the 30 November, the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR) said that “There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the plastics industry and businesses deeply implicated throughout its supply chain and the human rights and policy interests of people affected by the plastics crisis. The plastic industry has disproportionate power and influence over policy relative to the general public. Human rights are needed to counter-balance these powerful interests”.
In order to establish clear boundaries to conflict of interest, OHCRH suggests taking a cue from Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which safeguards policy development from industry interests and creates a framework for accountability. “Clear boundaries on conflict of interest should be established for the negotiations process and the implementation of the new Plastics treaty drawing from existing good practices under international law, for example, article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control states that “Parties shall act to protect [their public health policies with respect to tobacco control] from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry…”
Human rights and inclusive transition
There was an important presence of indigenous people, surrounding communities affected by the petrochemical industry, wastepickers, youth, women, that contributed to the discussions, although an observer said this is “still not enough”. Especially compared to the large number of representatives of the “Fossil fuel and petrochemical industry which were supported in the negotiations with impunity” and which “blamed consumer behaviour and called for false solutions.”
IPEN, a coalition of over 600 NGOs in the majority from low- and middle-income countries that calls for a toxic-free world, decried the disproportionate participation of industry actors, and called for funding currently channeled to the multistakeholder forum to be channeled to participation of youth and delegations from developing countries.
New Zealand said the ILBI must contain measures to facilitate indigenous perspectives and traditional knowledge. The Children and Youth Major Group said that the ILBI needs to include the principle of intergenerational equity, and, highlighted the difference between stakeholders and rights-holders in the INC’s decision-making processes. The difference between stakeholder and right-holders was also highlighted by the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR) which also called for the necessity of human rights-based approach in the future plastic treaty.
Kenya and South Africa announced the Just Transition Initiative to end plastic pollution in a way that is as fair and inclusive as possible to everyone concerned, creating decent work opportunities and leaving no one behind. The Just Transition Initiative will be developed in consultation with the International Alliance of Waste-pickers and will be finalized in the next months before the INC-2.
Cap on production
Several countries said the ILBI should include a cap on production. The EU said the ILBI should reduce overall production and consumption of plastic, regardless of the raw material and called for core obligations on: design criteria; environmentally sound waste management; phasing out unnecessary, avoidable, and problematic plastics, and making others reusable, repairable, and recyclable; and cautioned against measures that could have unintended consequences (the so-called regrettable substitutions). The Small Island Developing States said the ILBI should include binding measures for primary production establishing baselines, similar to the Montreal Protocol, one of the most successful multilateral agreements. The Montreal Protocol is prescriptive in nature and established a strong international strategy for phasing out hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) with clear deadlines for phase out various chemicals.
New Zealand called for dramatic upstream interventions, naming fossil fuels and subsidies for plastics makers as a key drivers of the plastics crisis. “Over 99% of plastic is made from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels, and the fossil fuel and plastic industries are deeply connected. Each year governments spend an estimated US$500 billion of public money to subsidise fossil fuels. These subsidies artificially lower the cost of production and consumption, resulting in low prices of virgin plastic and many plastic products, which do not reflect true environmental costs” said Ms Renee Yap, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of New Zealand.
Core obligations vs voluntary elements
Several delegations said the ILBI should combine legally binding core obligations, control measures, and voluntary elements, and address the entire plastics lifecycle. The majority of countries and stakeholders were in favor of a top-down treaty with mandatory requirements. But a smaller number of countries prefers a bottom-up voluntary approach. The EU called for a strong monitoring and reporting framework, including on production, trade, value chains, and leakages, and underlined the importance of common monitoring and reporting frameworks, highlighting those under the Minamata Convention, the most recent global agreement designed to protect the environment and health from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds.
Several countries (including the African Group, Bangladesh, Chile, Mexico, The Pacific Small Island Developing States, China, Turkey, Pakistan and Costa Rica) at various degrees suggested that the ILBI should establish a framework to implement Extended Producers Responsibility (EPR) schemes at national and international level and execute social corporate responsibility. They also called for the precautionary principle and the polluters pay principle. The African Group said the ILBI should also include measures to prevent illegal trafficking and dumping of plastic waste.
Saudi Arabia expressed its favor for voluntary approaches and downstream measures to tackle plastic waste and called for “recognizing the vital role of plastics in sustainable development and the achievement of SDGs and the importance of response measures; and an approach based on national circumstances, underpinned by a bottom-up approach and nationally determined action plans, without any standardization and harmonization of these plans”. The US said that “control measures should consist of nationally determined policies and measures that are regulatory and voluntary in nature”.
Lengthy discussions on procedural rules could be part of an attempt to prevent a binding treaty
Discussion on rules of procedure prevented focusing on elements of the treaty, and only a few deep discussions about the elements of the ILBI were discussed. One national delegate told Renewable Matters: “Procedural issues have slowed down the process again, the failure of the bureau to be elected does not allow for a fully operational bureau, and will force the reopening of the session to deal with this agenda item again.” What the delegate is pointing to is discussions on Rule 37 (on voting rights) of the draft rules of procedure.
During the preparatory meeting (OEWG) in Dakar, Senegal, six months ago, the draft rules of procedure were agreed but not adopted. On 30th November, the 3rd day of INC-1, Saudi Arabia asked to discuss again Rule 37 to question if the EU had the right to vote for its 27 Member States or if each one should cast their vote individually. Magnus Løvold and Torbjørn Graff Hugo,experts from the Norwegian Academy of International Law interpreted this proposal of Saudi Arabia as “a first step in a stratagem to forestall any attempt to take the Committee’s work to a vote in the first place”. Qatar, Bahrain, and Egypt stepped up in support of the Saudi proposal, and China proposed to place the entire rules of procedure in brackets.
Indeed, another procedural issue was raised just before the ending of the negotiations. On Friday 2 December around 20:00 Uruguay time, India joined Saudi Arabia in stating that they wish to remove the voting possibilities in rule 38 (on decision-making). Rule 38 is about adoption of decisions and currently reads “The Committee shall make every effort to reach agreement on all matters of substance by consensus. If all efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted and no agreement has been reached,the decision shall, as a last resort, be taken by a two-thirds majority of the representatives of Members who are present and voting.”
Magnus Løvold and Torbjørn Graff Hugo write: “The possibility of bringing an issue to a vote in the negotiations is enshrined in rule 38 of the draft rules of procedure. An argument can be made that as long as there are unresolved issues related to voting rights in rule 37, the Committee cannot apply rule 38, even if the rest of the rules have been provisionally applied. That is to say, it is highly unlikely that voting would take place as long as there is bracketed text in rule 37. In this scenario, the plastic pollution treaty could fail and end up in an eternal diplomatic gyre.”
Consensus can undermine the effectiveness of global action
“When any participating State can veto any proposal, the best you can hope for is a consolidation of status quo. […] It is also why global treaties do not require ratification or accession by all UN Member States to enter into force” and “majority decision-making usually produces better results than consensus or unanimity says the WWF report Success criteria for a new plastic treaty. “In the long run, moreover, it is usually easier to increase participation than to change the text of the treaty. It is therefore better to adopt an ambitious treaty with a critical mass of States on board than to accept a weak treaty by consensus”.
Good examples of treaties are the Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm Convention, the Minamata Convention, the Montreal Protocol who are prescriptive in nature and include the possibility of voting if consensus could not be reached. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, instead, shows problems linked to working with consensus. As reported in the book I negoziati sul clima — Storia, dinamiche e future degli accordi sul cambiamento climatico, the rules of procedure for the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UNFCCC were drafted as early as 1996 but “surprisingly, have never been fully adopted due to a lack of agreement among countries precisely on the voting modalities, and particularly on Rule 42. In such a regulatory vacuum, decisions of the Conference of the Parties are still made by “consensus””. Recent examples show how consensus can undermine the effectiveness of global action to solve global problems. At the Cop27 climate talks last month, a call by more than 80 countries to phase out fossil fuels was not put to open debate because Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia, oil and gas producers, objected. At Cop26, the US denied developing countries — the overwhelming majority of parties — to change the text of the Glasgow agreement to increase funds for adaptation. After almost 30 years of negotiations, an agreement on how to stop greenhouse gas emissions is still far away.
Delegates agreed to postpone the consideration of draft rule 37 (on voting rights), to INC-2, which will be carried out in Paris, Francia, from 23 to 27 May 2022.
Magnus Løvold told to Renewable Matter: “I think states advocating a treaty with global, common rules see the need to resolve the issues related to the rules of procedure. Whether they will success, however, is an open question. It will be interesting to see how this plays out at INC-2 in Paris.”