Member states had previously failed to reach a consensus on intersessional work during INC-3. Expectations were high for INC-4 to facilitate agreement on engaging in intersessional work on various issues.
Proposal Introduction:
- The Chair introduced a proposal during the fourth plenary session of INC-4.
- Aim: Establish ad hoc intersessional open-ended expert groups.
Expert Groups:
- Group 1: Resource Analysis
- Task: Develop analysis of resources and means for implementing the instrument.
- Utilizes: Report of Contact Group 2 and draft text of Part III.
- Structure: Two co-chairs.
- Group 2: Criteria on Plastic Products and Chemicals
- Task: Propose criteria on plastic products and chemicals of concern, and related product design issues.
- Utilizes: Report of Contact Group 1 and draft text of relevant sections developed at INC-4.
- Structure: Two co-chairs.
Working Process:
- Expert groups to initiate work electronically.
- One in-person meeting for each group during the intersessional period.
Opposition and Amendments:
- Opposition from like-minded countries to omit provision on primary plastic polymers.
- Proposal amended to include provision following interventions by 53 member states citing CRP by Rwanda and Peru.
Additional Proposal:
- GRULAC proposes formation of an Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) focusing on Part II and Part III of the Revised Draft Text.
OEWG Details:
- Tasks: Address definitions related to plastic, plastic pollution, and treaty implementation.
- Structure: In-person meetings, financing for two representatives per developing country.
- Outcome: Recommendations for consideration at INC-5.
Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs):
- What was the aim of the proposal introduced during the fourth plenary session of INC-4?
- A) To establish ad hoc intersessional expert groups.
- B) To conclude the negotiations.
- C) To address climate change issues.
- D) To formulate environmental policies.
- How many in-person meetings were proposed for each expert group during the intersessional period?
- A) None
- B) One
- C) Two
- D) Three
- What was the main concern expressed by the like-minded countries regarding the Chair’s proposal?
- A) Lack of funding
- B) Excessive focus on definitions
- C) Omission of primary plastic polymers provision
- D) Overemphasis on technology transfer
- What did the CRP presented by Rwanda and Peru propose?
- A) Reduction of plastic usage by 50% by 2030
- B) Sharing data on plastic production levels
- C) Establishment of a global plastic ban
- D) Striving for a 40 per cent reduction in production by 2040
- What did the GRULAC proposal focus on?
- A) Establishing a dedicated fund for plastic pollution control
- B) Defining terms related to plastic pollution and treaty implementation
- C) Increasing plastic production in developing countries
- D) Forming an expert group on climate change mitigation