 Good afternoon and welcome to our panel. We have a very exciting conversation. So I want to dive right in on landing an ambitious global plastics treaty. My name is Douglas McCauley. I'm a professor at the University of California Santa Barbara and I run a group called the Benioff Ocean Science Lab there at UCSB. I'm going to invite our panelists to come and join us, please, on the stage as they're coming up. In fact, I'll introduce you once you're here with us. But I believe I can invite you to come right up. I would love to bring on to the screen an invitation for all of you to participate in the conversation. So we have a very engaging conversation about an opportunity that's in front of us in 11 months to negotiate a treaty which could bring an end to plastic pollution forever. So I'm going to ask our panelists the very same thing, but I want to begin by asking you to engage by asking or answering for me what you think would be the most impactful action or policy that you'd like to see in a treaty in order to again get to this goal of ending plastic pollution forever. Well, as you're engaging our panelists, I'd like to invite the stage Dr. Leila Benali. Dr. Benali is the president of the sixth session of the UN Environment Assembly. And also the minister of the Energy Transition and Sustainable Development in Morocco. And minister Javier Gonzalez-Oleche Franco is the minister of Foreign Affairs in the public of Peru. Welcome. I may welcome to the stage Hein Schumacher, CEO of Unilever. To the stage also, very glad to have remarks from Inger Anderson, executive director from the United Nations Environment Program and Jim Fitterling, chair and CEO of Dow. Well, thank you all. I know that you're here on the stage for the same reason that we are all here engaging in the conversation both live and virtually which is that we're committed to solving this global problem of plastic pollution. So we have plastic pollution that's ending up in our rivers, in our fields, in our forests and our oceans. And to bring forward an image here that was taken on an island where I had the privilege of spending a few months of a happier portion or an exciting portion of my youth in the middle of the Pacific. It's an image of an albatross chick that died after ingesting plastic pollution that was fed to it by its parents. The tragedy of seeing an image like this really only kind of hits home for you if you have that special opportunities I had to be a roommate for 2 million albatross in a special place like that in the Pacific. Now these are animals that, again, the tragedy becomes realized when you get to learn that they live as long as humans do. They fall in love with what they do and actually maintain relationships as long as we do. Stay committed to the ones that they fall in love with. There are better dancers than I am which perhaps is not saying very much but nonetheless, a truly majestic animal that, again, when you see an individual like this lost, makes the loss of that family significant. But this is not just an issue for albatross, for sea turtles, for whales. It's an issue for us as well. Plastic pollution is a human challenge and human issue. So probably some of you, as you were inbound coming into Davos, saw research that came out for Columbia University last week using different methods and laser spectrometry. They estimate that 240,000 pieces of tiny, tiny plastic are found in every liter of bottled water. There's a statistic that I just could not get out of my head on the plane every time the flight attendant refilled my cup of water on the plane. So a human health issue, it's also a climate issue and also a climate opportunity. So plastic pollution by some measures has the emissions footprint of aviation and brain shipping combined. So to the conversation at hand, the treaty, we've had, we have, as I say, 11 months ahead of us to negotiate the conclusion that we could end all of the environmental challenges, the human health challenges and these issues about climate challenges in the plastic system. We have 60 countries that have come to the stage and already said, we want to zero out in this treaty, zero out plastic pollution by 2040. Now, as I said, I'm a scientist. We're a little bit of a skeptical crowd. The first thing that we did was we did science. We spent a year with our labs at UC Berkeley and UC Santa Barbara trying to understand, is that even a realistic possibility? Can we actually get to zeroing out plastic pollution? Business as usual to give you a sense of the gravity of where we're headed, but happily we're here to talk about business as unusual. Business as usual would create a pile of plastic pollution that would swamp the entire island of Manhattan and raise a pile up into the sky that would disrupt aviation and touch the clouds. When we engaged this modeling exercise, what we found was we could actually get a very, very exciting result we could get to zero. It was possible by 2040. In fact, it was possible with just five policy actions. Do a combination of different policy actions but we can get there. The research was powered by artificial intelligence. So the artificial intelligence is saying we can solve this. Now the question in essence for us today is do we have the human intelligence? Do we have the political intelligence to solve this problem? And that is exactly what I have in great supply here on the panel, a great deal of human intelligence and political intelligence. So I'd like to turn over to our panelists to engage the same question about how we end this problem together. Mr. Bernali, if I can begin with you. So as I mentioned in your introduction, you're president of the UN Environment Assembly. They're convening the assembly in just a matter of weeks next month in February. Can you share with us a little bit more about how you see the assembly fitting into this process of coming to a just and robust equitable treaty? Well, thank you. I think we've highlighted very well that the INC on plastic pollution really is a lifetime opportunity to end the issue of plastic pollution. And as we enter this sprint to finalize the negotiations on the instrument by the end of 2024, I think the role of UNEA-6 is really to show that sense of urgency. So strong and ambitious and bold statements, bold leadership is gonna be really more essential than ever. In the negotiations process, we've noticed that countries, several countries have made it very clear that they wish to have bold commitments that addresses, well first, the full life cycle of plastics, not only part of the value chain, protects the environment, but also protects human health. And I'll have a special gift for you on that one. And also, because it's like a conference of parties where we have to find consensus, we have to pay attention to the unique circumstances of every country. We want to reach, and that's the latest, latest draft of the ministerial declaration that we are working on. And hopefully we will have a bold draft by the end of February when we gather in Kenya for UNEA. That this draft is really pursuing the common ground for a fair, effective, balanced, and ambitious legally binding agreement through the INC by the end of 2024. So that's the target that we set for ourselves. The impact of plastic pollution, and that's the reason why I wanted to give some numbers there, the plastic we produce, 46% end up in landfills, but only 9% is actually recycled after losses. You talked a lot about the impact on birds, fish that we end up eating. They have plastic particles in their stomachs, but the issue of microplastics is definitely an issue that is really under-researched. And in UNEA, we have developed this key chain, which is the quantity of microplastics and nanoplastics that 20 people inhale in one week. This are being found now in human blood and the accumulating organs. Now we can wait for science to tell us what will be the impact of inhaling. I'm not even talking about drinking, I'm just talking about inhaling here. The impact on our health, of inhaling this quantity every week. That's why I wanted to insist on, in addition to tackling pollution, there are a few strategic goals that can guide, we think circularity is very important there. Definitely ensuring that plastic products are designed to be circular at the production level, manage the plastics that cannot be reused or recycled in an environmentally responsible manner, but I really want this discussion today to take us to standards for plastic recycling and all those agreed measures in product design this year because we really have by the end of the year to come up with a legally binding agreement on plastic pollution. The other message that I wanted to leave with you here is that indeed Indian plastic pollution is not a job of government only. We'll have to do it together, private sector, industry, but also civil society and academia, the youth and the informal sector. In Morocco, in the Kingdom of Morocco, we have a large informal sector that needs to be embarked in the issue of plastics recycling. A few national actions that we took at the level of Morocco, as you know, we are deeply committed to environmental protection and sustainable development. We became very aware, very early on the impact of pollution on natural ecosystems and on our health. So we took a number of legal regulatory measures. I don't want to bore you with the details. We have a law banning the manufacturing and import and export and marketing of plastic bags. We adopted an equal tax on the sale and import and production of plastic products and we are currently, as we speak, revising the law on waste to introduce the principle of extended producer responsibility and the adoption of plastic-free coastal strategy and action plan. Well, thank you for that leadership and thank you for the forthcoming leadership that are in Nairobi at UNAM. I want to keep going a little bit from the theme that you opened on human health with a question for Minister Gonzales Olachea. Minister, there's been a great deal of new science. Leila highlighted a bit of this. There's more out there about the impacts of plastic pollution on human health and, as you said, a lot yet to be learned. How do you see the future of this plastics treaty playing a role in protecting human health? First of all, I would like to thank you, and Mr. Macaulay, for your invitation. I'm honored to participate in this panel discussion along with Mrs. Anderson Benali and Mr. Gonzales Schumacher and Fitterling. Thank you so much. What does Peru think? Well, just like any other human being, which is affected by a reality that seems to be reversible, but as Brecht said, after Brecht said do not approach the disorders of nature as something usual. Do not be shy on efforts to fight against this because if there's a will, there's a way. And in this case, political will does exist and there's growing consensus and growing political will among countries which reflects what the largest majority is who are affected think and say, my children, young people, my grandchildren, those who are here, they all want a healthy life and of course, health is already being affected. And that has happened for many years already. Health and human bodies have been historically affected by... ...treatments that food staff have received. So, this is an old story, a new reality with new challenges and we are optimistic about this. If the agreement is binding and if it foresees monitoring the compliance of what has been agreed in the treaties, just like in many other international treaties to avoid these double standards whereby one signs a binding agreement and then when you do reviews in different countries, authorities do not report on this. They are not accountable for what they do. So, we need to have... ...a faithful monitoring of the compliance of the new standards because it is young people besides us who have responsibilities. It is young people who are mostly aware of the deep ecology and they are keen on healthier lives free of cost. Like so many of these conversations, I appreciate that you are highlighting the importance of thinking about next generations because that is indeed our responsibility in this decision making. Hain, if I can come to you next. Unilever is a large global business. Any large global business has a large global footprint which leaves you with a lot of authority, I think, to be able to do that. So, from your desk at Unilever, what do you think an ambitious treaty should look like? What should we be prioritising as we are in these next negotiating sessions? Sure. First of all, it is good that I am representing Unilever here, but importantly, also the business coalition towards an international treaty. There were 60 countries which I just learned talking about, but actually there have been 170 organisations from the private sector who are gathered in that coalition. Unilever is chairing it or is co-chairing it, I should say, but also other companies where there is Nestle, Walmart and so forth are in there. So, I think that is important. So, quite a critical mass, actually, and we are very keen to progress this. In fact, if you look back over the last couple of years, many of us have signed up to put together and they were voluntary. You know, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, obviously, very important to us, wanted to make progress. And the great news is all these organisations that have signed voluntary pledges actually have made progress, but we are not as far as we would like to be and it is fair to say that most of us, including us, are somewhat behind our internal ambitions on the topic. So, I think that is the good bridge to an international treaty and what that should look like. And I very much want to build on the comments that were made earlier. You know, it has to be a binding agreement. That is super important for us. You know, the goal has to be an end to the pollution and achieve a more circular economy through and three things are important. It's reduction. It's circulation and recycling, but also prevention. And, well, I'll come back to that. We also expected the treaty to be for the full life cycle. You know, it cannot just be on recyclability and downstream only. That is super important to us because don't forget that the costs in our system are very much born because of differences in recyclability systems and therefore the design of our products is a very fragmented exercise leading to unnecessary costs. We also believe, as I said, binding because national plans in themselves are good, but they have proven to be insufficient. I come personally. I'm from the Netherlands and we've been working on this and it's quite unbelievable to say, but if we are working on certain packaging solutions that are fully recyclable in the Netherlands and use the PCR for our products, actually just across the border in Germany, it's a whole different system and that fragmentation, even within economic blocks as the EU, we should absolutely counter. I think, you know, that doesn't mean, by the way, that we shouldn't allow for national flexibility. There are, of course, national circumstances that we should all know. I think those are probably the most important points I just wanted to make now. I think, importantly, moving from voluntary to a treaty is super crucial. And once again, I think business is having a strong voice here. We are pleading for this for a while and we're very keen for INC-3 now to move on after the draft text and go to INC-4 in Ottawa. So I'm having great expectations. Thanks for sharing those perspectives and for communicating the same ambition for the coal issue bring together. The special thing about Davos, of course, is that we have those ingredients and at least some of those, many of those here, we have business and not just one business, multiple business, a coalition of businesses behind you, policy, and other voices, youth that you brought in, but thank you for that voice. I do want to maybe sample some perspectives as we get closer to policy from Ingrid. Ingrid, can I ask you? Well, thanks is first in order, so thank you for the leadership from UNEP in this process and thanks to the team as well. All of the folks there that are bringing this forward. It absolutely is not an easy challenge, right? But when was anything that we ever tried to do for the environment, for the planet? Easy, so thank you for that. I'd love if you could tell the folks that are here on the panel, if you could tell the folks in the audience, the folks that are watching virtually, what sort of concrete steps do you have for all of us? Similar question, but from your vantage point, what concrete steps do you have for us to in these next two negotiating rounds for the treaty, one in Ottawa in April, later in the year in South Korea? What concrete steps do you have that we can do to help support a successful treaty? Well, thank you, and this is really a great conversation. Look, we obviously would like to see that governments, because this is amongst governments first, as you know, but that they listen to the broader community that is part of their remit, and that includes the NGOs, but it certainly includes business, it includes science, and so on and so forth, so that we can, yes, get ambitious, right? An unambitious treaty will not be accepted by the populations that vote, because they have ambition in heart. Do they understand what ambition looks like? No, not exactly, but nevertheless. But what it has to therefore do, and when we look at all other treaties that we, UNEP, have on our belt, it has to have some timelines for certain things to happen. Elimination of the unnecessary, the short used kind of plastics that frankly are a complete waste of a precious resource will be absolutely critical in engaging and understanding that and businesses can lean in and are already leaning in on, okay, so how do we replace? How do we reinvent our product? Does it have to be enveloped in plastic? Does it have to be liquid? Can it be deliquified? Is there another way of delivering it? Et cetera, et cetera. This is a very interesting space that the brand owners are in, and one that we really think there's a lot that can be done here. I think for the recyclers, help policymakers understand the difficulties, some of the barriers that are real, right? It's not as simple as okay, everybody gets different colored waste bins and then they do. It's complicated, and getting compliance or doing it in a central spot, those issues are clearly at play. But then I think also very much that everyone has said it, but it means pushing past voluntary action. We are going to deal with the entire life cycle. National action plans are fine and dandy, but that will not be what will deliver this. Because we have to have this level playing field and get everybody on board so that businesses don't feel that just because my community of countries is going this direction, the price for my product is higher than another community. There's a reality here because there's also countries where you have mom and pop kind of soda companies and they will have smaller companies. They are not the unilevers of this world. They are not the Pepsi and the Coke. For them, this is very difficult. So having an understanding of those companies that might be smaller but are providing an important but how do they then move into this. So I think that's something that we clearly have to deal with. And then be mindful that I think plastics jobs in this sector are not, we can't discuss oh it's only in this and that country it is a global phenomenon. Every country has this and we want to move away from the scourge of plastic in the environment. So how do we make that happen while being very mindful of these jobs and these development opportunities that these jobs bring? And how can we ensure that that position has a degree of justice within it? I think these are in large part some of the issues that we would like to highlight. And then maybe just finally to say that industry can truly enable this. I mean be the enabler I think that the industry that is present here is part of that enabling but the way that we will get there will be by understanding that there's a popular demand on dealing with the entire life cycle and on ensuring that we will tackle it from every perspective and yes some will have to focus more on the recycling bit but the elimination bit is something that will actually take plastic out of the environment. Thank you. Let's keep going with that thought of industry as an enabler, another voice from Industry Gem if I may. So your company is a major producer of plastics. What elements, I'll give you two questions what elements do you think will answer, we got perspectives from others what elements do you think will be most important for a treaty and then as Inger noted it's governments that are negotiating to support governments in this process as they move ahead on the treaty journey. Right, speaking for now and obviously the broader industry we're heavily engaged in trying to make sure that we do reach a global treaty that can be legally binding and to do that we want as many countries as possible to be party to that. That means a change in the way we do things is a big part of that. Reuse of materials different forms getting design standards up front on refillable, reusable types of packaging more recycled content mandates so that can be done at a country level. We know from a voluntary basis working with our partners in the brand industry they have voluntary targets many of them 30 to 50% post-consumer recycle content and we are gearing up with investment to try to be able to meet that demand. But there needs to be more systematically to support that. There's been a lot of discussion around the elements of good enhanced producer responsibility schemes which will bring in the funding that's necessary to move to a circular economy that helps us to make sure that the waste doesn't end up in the environment. And we know that at some point we're going to have to tackle pictures like the one you showed and we're going to have to come up with a funding mechanism to be able to address that as well. You can't just clean up without changing the system and you're going to need to do both to have a long-term sustainable solution. I think the other thing that's important is life cycle assessment is critically important. One of the reasons plastics is grown is because it provides a lot of value in protection of packaging. Could be food products, could be medical applications. It could be light weighting for automobiles and other devices that we use. In many of the industries automotive industry even is the contents and 40% of a typical vehicle today are polymers to make them lighter weight. So we know these things can be done but we have to have some impetus to move in that direction and I think we've got good alignment across the industry from a producer standpoint and we have organizations that have been put together on a voluntary basis which bring together the entire value chain of trying to tackle how do we move from a linear to a circular economy. Inger's right it's not just waste management although we know from going into the developing world many times when we're going into the developing world to tackle these challenges we're confronted with a number of people who have no access to any waste management at all. I'm not talking about just plastics I'm talking about any waste management so somewhere along the way between industry and governments and using science we're going to have to figure out ways to tackle how we have access to waste management for 3 billion people that don't have access to that today and it's you know that there's a cost to that and we have to navigate through this how we're going to be able to tackle that. You've brought up many things that I'd love to circle we will circle back to the panel. Your suggestion that these things can be possible with the right kind of stimulus for innovation from the treaties what makes me really resonated the thought that if we look at that treaty as a organism for putting to work that I don't know how many thousand PhDs are sitting there clever folk in doubt if you create the right regulatory environment they can innovate I love that thought. Minister we've talked a little bit about the multinational complexity of this issue so we have what 193 states in the United Nations each of those countries with their own perspective their own relationship to plastic production we of course remember plastic is an oil and gas product have their own relationship with oil and gas own relationship unique relationship with the back end from plastic pollution so a whole sweat sweet of different diverse perspectives there negotiating this treaty love your perspective on cooperation so what role do we see do you see cooperation playing and taking us further forward to the kind of treaty we're all imagining here together an effective treaty for plastic pollution well when it comes to cooperation in humankind history well this started from the outset we walked and started gathering in small groups to cope with heat or cold many million years have passed and cooperation is still as important as before for our survival but it's not sufficient having a good will is not sufficient even if there is this legally binding treaty and I would like to make a remark and it's nothing new I'm just saying what has happened with other international treaties for instance in the ILO there are 190 something international multilateral treaties there's a project review the main age covenants well all the countries need to report and in that review and where there is a new covenants there is a first review and they need to respond to a very detailed survey and we want to achieve even more with this treaty what we're asking is to set up a sort of survey every year then every three years and then for each country to explain what they did for instance what did Peru do to abide by the binding conditions in the treaty a very straightforward question why did they manage to do so or why not and if not what was the reason and then the the organization of the treaty would ask how can we assist your company you in order to fulfill those criteria and not to punish them but to support them in the process so that they can achieve what they set themselves to do they may require technical advice but the government will continue changing politicians will change the ministers will change and ideologies will change in our governments but when a state adheres to binding treaty we should provide a necessary instrument so that this obligation become state policy review with specific questions about what did they manage to achieve during the first year or after three years and they could set up a timeline let's say the Philippines in 2025 let's say or 2024 they will sign the treaty and the period review will be in 2026 for instance this way each country will know when they need to take part in this period review which will take place every year every two years every four years and this will respond to this logic what did they manage to achieve what they didn't manage to achieve and why and how can these organizations in the treaty support them not as a punishment but rather to support them and to find out what they need in order to provide the necessary conditions and in doing so these legally binding instruments can succeed many others always have these double standards whereby countries or signed the treaty but they know they do not observe the conditions and this periodic review should be made public it should be published it should be written or read-listed the idea is that a country after signing after 10 years I don't know we could see what they have been doing for instance Burma 40 years ago they would recruit children for the military services and at the time they monitored what happened and then Burma changed and the system can be more powerful if it is consistent and it has the necessary instruments to carry out this monitoring and active monitoring because there will be a point where a government will say yes you are right plastics do pollute plastics are harmful for health and plastics go against human rights and the right to life even to those that haven't been born yet because if a woman is pregnant and she's becoming polluted this is harming their unborn child thank you indeed there is something historic about this opportunity very much historic and new thinking about recalling some of those models and those structures of cooperation I think can give us confidence that we can move into this brave new space successfully I would like to put a question to you Jim raised Jim you raised this question about investment and there is a lot of parallels we are trying to draw lessons from other examples of multilateralism but there is a lot of parallels that can be drawn between the plastic treaty process and climate change negotiations one of those of course is thinking about how do we invest as you asked Jim in the global south in developing countries that is every much a question that is germane here in the treaty process I would love your take how can we support developing countries as we move forward with this treaty I think it is a very interesting question intellectually and I think the challenge that we have this year is to bring it from a nice intellectual question into a practical intellectual question because I mean it is true there are a lot of parallelism that we can draw from climate negotiations and UNS6 actually we have thanks to Inga team that raised the fact that we want to add more synergies between the different cops and the different multilateral environmental agreements because there are lessons that we can learn from each other so we have an MEA day organized by UNEP at UNS6 in Kenya at the end of February I think from our perspective we tend to usually have the same challenges I mean the first one is that for countries of the global south you usually have the same negotiators in climate negotiations as is in environmental negotiations and plastics negotiations as well usually we try to carve out a couple of public servants from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Environment or Energy or whatever on the topic however in front of us and that's really a key issue that we have in terms of capacity building there are there is a limit to what we can achieve in terms of taking advantage of some of the progress that we've made on climate negotiations for example having I think there is a consensus today that we need a carbon price or a valuation of carbon but I strongly believe and I think we had the discussion this morning around that is that on plastic we've been a bit more advanced in terms of standards for plastic recycling much more than the discussions that we've been having on carbon pricing and climate and there are many reasons why and I think the complexity the over complexity of those questions those two questions makes it difficult to try and take the best out of these two worlds I think if we just keep it simple by saying hey today full life cycle of plastics emits 4% of greenhouse gas emissions I know you don't like business as usual but that would increase business as usual to 19%, 20% of greenhouse gas emissions in the next 20 years if we just take that metric and use the impact the bigger impact of the COPS climate to raise awareness on the things that I've shown because one of the things that we are facing in COPS climate and biodiversity is that there is limited space for environmental questions and same thing, that's something that we have been discussing with Inger a lot we cannot bring climate discussions into the environmental discussion so these are some of the aspects that we are trying to I don't want to say break the silos but increase the synergies between between the multilateral environmental agreements in general and also the different COPS because at the end of the day especially for countries of the global south we are the same negotiators that are in these different rooms you have the same public servants from either the minister of foreign affairs or energy or environment that are in those rooms so I think we need really to get beyond those silos well if ever there was a domain where we needed to get rid of those silos it would be in a space that is as complex as the plastic system the plastic economy, the plastic industry so 100% agree, 100% agree also with the idea of going from a theory of our conversations into practical matters so a lot of alignment and I want to talk about recycling and Jim I want to ask you a recycling question Hine you mentioned recycling Jim you also mentioned recycling the artificial intelligence work we've been doing it's impossible for us to get to zero plastic waste in 2040 without recycling but we need a lot more in the process with recycling but one of the points you made before what I'd love to give you a chance to dig down a little bit more on relates to actually the supply of recycled feedstock so what kinds of things do we need to do we talked a little bit about investment what do we need to do to make sure that supply of recycling feedstock that it's there that it materializes I think to collection sorting and creating a high value waste stream and not letting it get into the environment is critically important if you want to have success in a circular economy well waste stream like the picture you showed at the beginning once plastics gets to that level it's not recyclable we need to clean it up and deal with the waste issue what you want is you want your system to work so that instead of getting into the waste system it's sorted out before and you've got a high quality stream that can be easily recycled to a specification a scientific specification where we know it's clean and we know it can be used in another reuse again so that's important and I want people to understand that we're working on both sides of this equation we're working on how to make plastics with zero scope one and two emissions we know we can do this through the energy transition with technologies like hydrogen and carbon capture through other uses of power and steam that are friendly and green on the other end we also have to deal with the end of life and not let that get into the environment and recycle it we can do a lot from a design standpoint so most there are today some plastic products that are hard to recycle because of the way the structures are put together but there's a lot of work going on in companies today to simplify those structures and make them more homogenous so they're easy to recycle the easier they are to recycle the less challenges that we have and putting together that circular economy I would say the other whether it's a developed country or a developing country the challenges on collection and sortation are the same in a developed country where you might have a well-managed landfill system you still don't want to see that material get the landfill you'd still rather see it collected at the home or at the industrial use in many cases in industrial uses it's collected at Walmart for example or buy an Amazon from big bulk packaging that they use and that's high quality waste that can be recycled when you get into a developing country and we know because as a coalition we put together a group called the Alliance in Plastic Waste and we've done several public-private partnerships actually building full-scale MRFs you have to deal with all the waste you have to deal with the biomass the construction waste the glass the metals the plastics and you have to come up with viable economic uses for each one of those and when we're building that typically the good side is we're not starting with an existing infrastructure we're starting with a clean sheet of paper so we can build it in that way from the beginning when you're dealing with a developed economy you've got an ecosystem operating and generating a profit now you want to try to divert so much plastic away from a landfill back into a circular economy it's a different set of challenges so I think the treaty has to be able to have some flexibility for the countries to do what fits their individual situation I think one of the good things that's happened through the INC process is a tremendous amount of sharing of best practices of what works and where industries where we feel like we play the most important role is our ability to scale up technology you you want recycling to have a lesser footprint than making virgin material so I don't we don't want to recycle material and then create more environmental problems than we already have we would actually like to recycle it and create less energy create less byproduct waste and we think that's possible and our job is to help governments understand how we can scale that up faster I think even brand companies we can help them understand how we can scale that up faster and so real investment is needed we need internal targets on how much recycled content we want in our products but I also think we need those external mandates that say we're going to drive to that level because the whole system change requires those kind of hard targets I think that I think that image of the albatross for example we've all failed right it's a failure for the albatross but as Inger said it's a failure also because we have this material that we didn't want to get there not be recaptured and brought back in so some good thoughts and points about a strategy to make sure that does come back in and enabling conditions in the treaty that can make that actually truly possible we talked a variety of ways about multilateralism but I daresay no one knows more about multilateralism than you and certainly UNEP in general they've brought all kinds of sticky challenging multilateral international agreements across the finish line what do we have to learn from some of those past successes that we should draw into this process so I mean since 72 when we were founded the way that the world has looked upon environmental challenges is to find a way to come that are global in nature is to sort of mimic what the EPA is doing at the national level so what is it that what's the problem how do we get together around it and how can we solve it and UNEP has been the conveyer for practically all the treaties conventions that you know of and to whose cops you go some became so big that they no longer sit with us but that's a different story and so this treaty is not the first time nor will it probably be the last but what's very clear is that as everyone has said it shall have legally binding elements and it shall deal with the entire life cycle and so that's these are the parameters within which negotiators are operating and once you have legally binding then it becomes so what does that look like right and in other treaties and let me mention a couple Montreal protocol the one that deals with the hole in the ozone layer clearly there was a phase out schedule of the ozone depleting substances the chlorinated gases and and yeah there were some you know we're not we can't do it as fast as we asked for an exception for but on the whole this process is sort of marched forward I could mention similarly the Minamata convention for those of you who are familiar with it it's a convention that deals with exit of mercury so therefore today you want to buy a thermometer it will not have mercury light bulbs will not have even your dental amalgam will not have mercury a UNIP treaty not so well known but there you have it or you are in the pets trade and you want to sell certain fish for the aquarium well you know it is regulated by us there are 10,000 species that are listed some you can trade and some you can't and so that gives you a sort of up down no you can't maybe you can give a license will give you a license and then you can move that particular thing across if member states have so agreed and all of this is based on science right it's not sort of oh I think that this fish is pretty so therefore no there is an understanding that science needs to tell us what's happening and so this treaty instrument agreement whatever it's going to have to be called will have to have some clear targets because there are some legally binding elements and it will have to have some scientific dimensions to it it will also have to have some financing attached to it and I think everyone understood but let's recall please we don't get blinded by dollar signs in our eyes let's recall please that private sector once a regulator is setting a certain they adjust and they will really need a subsidy from the government to make some of those shifts and some places would but other places would not and so when we think about Montreal protocol what we had was a fund that over 30 years has dispersed some 4 billion so but 30 years 4 billion to help on refrigerants coolants and of course forms, fire forms and other things that have chlorinated gases and ozone depleting gases it'll have to have and this is what Foreign Minister was talking about some degree of effectiveness review that we will look at a compliance mechanism and if you read Montreal protocol the first chapter is compliance you know boom that's it how are we going to comply with this thing and so we can say that the three Rio treaties are much softer there are these frameworks where we agree to have national plans and we add it and we go up and we check are we doing and how are we doing I don't think the world has patience for this and anyhow you know give very clear guardrails for there will obviously be national action plans don't get me wrong but that is not on its own enough and so the targets et cetera will be clear and the effectiveness reviews will be clear so I think I mean obviously in stakeholder engagement the last point you have to have throughout the process maybe a really good example is biodiversity convention which has a very open engagement much biodiversity is in indigenous people's lands therefore indigenous people are very present in that convention I think here we are seeing yes companies yes science but also others that are in the waste sector be they waste pickers or be they others who are clearly impacted by these issues so these are some of the issues that I would expect and and very much what we are already seeing now in the INC process Thank you for that Inger Hi and I want to come to a last at least a last final question for our panelists of some up thoughts from you all but Inger mentioned adaptation the ways that some of these businesses with small businesses can be made to adjust to provisions that come forward for the treaty so let me say when we pass we'll just go there when we pass a robust meaningful treaty what kinds of things maybe I'll have you take on the perspective of big business what kinds of things could big businesses need to do to adjust to comply with the treaties perhaps particularly in respect to supply chains or any kind of adjustments that you might forecast yeah Inger expected us to be flexible and agile and respond and in fact I think that's right but because on that one look I don't want to be naive but I'm very optimistic on that and let me just give you three quick reasons why that is first of all we're a branded consumer company so I'll talk to that lens we do a lot of surveys we do consumer surveys and we ask consumers for their pain points what bothers them let's not forget whilst probably they're not always prepared to pay for it but plastics and the way it's packaged and how their favorite brands come across and when they look at all of that it is a very big pain point so it forces consumer companies and I guess any company to come up with solutions that are innovative that answer that issue and that pain point and therefore that can contribute to the brand value you refer to you know to the evolution of laundry products it's absolutely true if you think about it we started with a bar a soap bar to wash it then we moved to powder solutions a little bit of packaging in there actually on the bar very little then oh liquids is a great idea brought plastics to it after liquid well the good news was we were able to downsize it again into concentrates and capsules okay that helps a little bit but the latest that we're adding just to answer all of these challenges is a small paper sheet that is you know degradable biodegradable and paper packaging part so you know it's sort of the it's all the way around which is in a way a bit sad but I believe businesses will respond through innovation so that's number one very important I think number two we will not make the plastics we will not make our greenhouse gas emissions targets we will not make our greenhouse gas emissions targets so we will have issued for themselves and will be held accountable to if we don't solve the plastics problem so yes there will be additional cost in the supply chain probably but we need it to achieve other goals and you don't leave it we looked at it if we don't make our plastic targets it would mean a 10% problem on our greenhouse gas emissions so we will not collect more plastic than what we make and you know for example in India we're now at sort of that 100% level which is great news but then you don't tackle the root cost you know you're effectively adding cost to the system and it's much better to spend that money upfront and having the right design I think what you already know is that you have to go back to the treaty then let me go back to the treaty in itself I think businesses always do better when it's a stable and a clear and an overseable regulatory framework and I think therefore a treaty with binding elements to it and compliance to it I think we'll bring that stability and I think that's something that businesses generally like so when you think about targets and the minister talked about targets you know I think this is something for us to reflect on a hard target a very hard and ambitious target will also unlock something that is the hardest thing for businesses to do and that has changed consumer behavior you know when you think of refill for example and refill of products it's interesting when I go to and I was in India today and I was like I was in the world just driving around every day washing powder or liquid you know a bottle that you have at home and with another product is from an affordability standpoint it's used widely there it's done all the time it's much harder to bring that solution to retailers in Europe and to consumers in Europe or probably in the United States because and that will also take money out of the system. Long story short, yes, it will add some complexity and some costs, but there are so many offsetting factors that I think businesses will simply respond, so I agree with Inge. Thank you, Inge. All right, I'm going to absorb your optimism, and when you all absorb the same optimism, bring your own optimism to a one-sentence answer, because we're just about out of time. One-sentence answer, what's the most important thing to get right in this treaty? Mr. Bernali. Oh, apparently, well, in addition to the compliance, the target, the timelines, et cetera, I was thinking whether we can have something similar to not a loss and damage fund, but some sort of funding, especially the cleaning, but we understand that there's no point in cleaning if we continue polluting, right? So something similar to a loss and damage fund, although it took us 30 years to reach that in the COP negotiations, so I don't think we can wait 30 more years. I'll count that as a sentence. Thank you, Minister Jim. I think you have to keep science in the front. I mean, anytime you're moving one material to another, material substitution, there are scientific impacts. You've got to look at that. We also have to look at scientific data on the health impacts, and so we need to keep science front and center and have the right peer reviews of that science to make sure that we're actually making a positive improvement in the environment. Music to my heart, Jim, as a scientist, hi. Well said before, but I would say a full-life cycle has to be in the treaty, and it has to be top-down and bottom-up, both. Well done, Inger. I'll pick up on the full-life cycle, but then add to that with innovation, with boldness, and with ambition. Perfect. Minister, the final thought. Perhaps a one-sentence thought. Most ambitious thing we should do the treaty. Minister Gonzalez-Elechea. Okay. This should lead us to understand and to realize that all this transition and climate crisis requires ethics in capital letters and that it requires philosophers of life and humankind that think about the current and future generations, experts and technicians come to a limit. Politicians change, but we don't have cyberethics or cyber philosophers who think about a better future and a possible future. I also want to bring up to the screen very quickly the results of the same question that we looked at. Let's see if I can hear over in that direction. So a lot of support, dominant support, for phasing out unnecessary single-use plastics, but I would say it looks like with the exception of our last choice, creating a global fund, although I'd have to say I'm in complete agreement with our panel for this being essential, that there's a lot of diversity of opinions and votes that are up there, which to me sounds like our collective intelligence suggests we need a lot of things. There's no silver bullet to this in the treaty. Well, we'll have the opportunity not to do this in the abstract, but do this in real life in the next two months. My final thought for you all is that it's interesting you should mention the Montreal Protocol because last night to sort of show my cards for my level engagement in Davos nightlife, I was watching a panel from 1986 on the Montreal Protocol, but this is before the treaty itself of protocol was passed. Folks talking about the ozone layer and there were some similarities and some differences, happily some differences. There was all men on this panel. There were some bad ties on this panel and some similarities. They were talking about the gravity of almost existential, truly grave problem in the form of ozone to the planet, but they also talked about transitions for industry, transitions for the impacts on economy, some of the things that we spoke about here. But my happy thought, my encouraging thought and the one that I'll leave you with is that one year after that panel aired, a treaty came to fruition that ended that problem. We've talked about plastic. It seems like forever here in Davos. What if this was the last conversation we ever had to have about plastic pollution because in one year we ended? Take that thought with you. Thank you to our panelists. Thank you all for joining us.