Finance is often and always a thorny issue wherever multiple countries try to agree on anything.

On the fourth day of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to develop an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, in Busan Korea, money was a central focus for Contact Group 3.

On the table for consideration was the issue of which of the state submissions could be the basis for their negotiations, particularly on the establishment of a financial mechanism. While there were several submissions, two attracted a lot of attention.

One, championed by a group of developing countries, set out a path for a dedicated, standalone financial mechanism funded, primarily, by developed countries. The other, spearheaded by a group of developed countries, favored the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as the financial mechanism, and outlined means to mobilise finances from a wide range of sources, including from any and all countries with plastic production facilities.

Today, we catch up with Dr Sivendra Michael, Fiji’s Permanent Secretary for Environment and Climate Change, who is also the Pacific Small Island States (PSIDS) lead on Finance. Finance falls under Means of Implementation (MOI) which is Article 11 of the proposed instrument.

QUESTION: What is the Pacific asking for in terms of the area of the plastics treaty negotiations that you follow?

Answer: One of the challenges is access to finance, and to address that we are looking at the allocation which should recognise the special circumstances of SIDS and LDCs.

The Pacific countries are calling for a clear text recognising the systematic issues that SIDS face and providing direction on financing to address this. Even if that recognition is concise, it needs to be in the header to frame the instrument and the obligations contained within it.
Agreed solutions need to reflect the barriers we face. For example, fragmentation and inefficiency of finance, should be addressed by providing direct access, scale and scope, the high transaction cost to access finance should be addressed through national systems, process inefficiency and the burden of accessing funding should be addressed through mechanisms to streamline the application processes. We have a lack of access for national stakeholders, so we need to broaden the implementation base.
On allocation, PSIDS are asking for the well-established recognition under international law of the special circumstances of SIDS and LDCs.

On sources of funding, we are seeking the creation of two new funds to help us with the remediation of plastic waste in our environment as well as the implementation. On the provision of funds, PSIDS will only accept text that would create a transparent governance system.

Question: Can you talk to the progress of the negotiations/or perhaps the lack of?

Answer: Negotiations have been really slow. One of the issues in the rooms is that different groups are ballooning the text to try and suit their agenda and their circumstances but we know from the 1994 Barbados Programme of Action (BPOA) on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) that the special circumstances of SIDS is recognised within the UN body as well as across the Rio Conventions.

We are flexible in recognising other groups but not using the language of special circumstances, which has a well-established meaning for SIDS. We also believe that a lot of this push comes from advancing the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR–RC). Most countries are pushing that this should be determined at national level, taking into account national circumstances. We know the capacity constraints faced by PSIDS, so this argument is not easily acceptable. We need those to be properly defined.

We also need a proper definition of what innovative financing looks like. So, we need to be very articulate in how we build on that. And we are continuing the work on all this. It’s hard work but we remain resolute on our priorities and our positions for the sake of our communities back home.

Question: What will it take for INC-5 to reach a successful conclusion? What’s your gut-feeling about what’s going to happen in the next few days?

Answer: It will take a lot of hard work and willingness from all countries to work together to reach consensus.

This will be harder to achieve some provisions than others. Right now, we are not seeing a lot of flexibility within the negotiating rooms. Negotiators are are holding on tightly to their national positions which is why the text is growing rather than reducing.

Going forward, we have two clear priorities. First, we will not prematurely agree to any language or obligations might put us in a difficult situation when we go back home. The second is that we need an ambitious treaty because plastic pollution is a very big problem in the Pacific and our blue Pacific lung is under threat, and I’m referring of course to our moana.

We also know the only way to achieve ambition is if there is symmetry between ambition and means for implementation. The financial mechanisms need to deliver financial resources flowing into our countries in the region.

So, as we approach the final days of negotiation, if the text is weak and it’s going compromise our position, we should not be forced to accept a weak outcome. Rather, it will be important to continue negotiations. This is a multilateral process based on consensus. No matter how small we are, we have an equal and important voice in the process.