COMPARISON TABLE ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURES TO NEGOTIATE A PLASTICS TREATY

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document provides a side-by-side comparison of the proposed rules of procedure for negotiating a global plastics treaty against the template provided by the Minamata Convention. It highlights key additions in the plastics draft, such as provisions for online participation and gender balance, while raising concerns regarding the classification of business entities as NGOs and the potential barriers to accreditation for certain civil society groups.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The draft Rules of Procedure for the plastics treaty (RoPsEPP) are largely based on the Rules of Procedure for the intergovernmental negotiating committee that prepared the Minamata Convention (RoPsM).
  • The RoPsEPP introduces several new features compared to the RoPsM, including the use of the term "Members" to be more inclusive of UN specialized agency members, the possibility of online participation with attention to time zones, and language ensuring gender balance for the Bureau and Working/Expert Groups.
  • The RoPsEPP modifies the participation of civil society observers by incorporating elements of UNEA Rule 70, which restricts their participation compared to the RoPsM, although it removes the requirement for NGOs to justify an international scope.
  • The RoPsEPP allows intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to submit written statements for circulation to members.
  • The author expresses concern that the draft rules treat "business sector entities" as non-governmental organizations.
  • There is concern that requirements to demonstrate legal registration and an "interest in the field of the environment" may exclude social movements, informal settings, and certain rights holders from accreditation.

Cite the original document

APA
Center for International Environmental Law (2022). COMPARISON TABLE ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURES TO NEGOTIATE A PLASTICS TREATY. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022-05-02-Comparison-Rules-of-procedures-INC-2.pdf
Chicago
Center for International Environmental Law. COMPARISON TABLE ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURES TO NEGOTIATE A PLASTICS TREATY. 2022. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022-05-02-Comparison-Rules-of-procedures-INC-2.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=COMPARISON TABLE ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURES TO NEGOTIATE A PLASTICS TREATY |date=4 May 2022 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022-05-02-Comparison-Rules-of-procedures-INC-2.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallaw2022comparison, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{COMPARISON TABLE ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURES TO NEGOTIATE A PLASTICS TREATY}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2022}, month = may, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022-05-02-Comparison-Rules-of-procedures-INC-2.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated