Dialogue on Plastic Pollution and Environmentally
Sustainable Plastics Trade

Pre-plenary MEETING HELD ON 18 september 2024

Aide Memoire[1]

_______________

1  INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY COORDINATORS, Points of Focus and roadmap towARDS mc14

1.1.  The Dialogue on Plastic Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade (DPP) comprising at the time of 82 co-sponsors[2] held its third pre-plenary meeting after the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) on 18 September 2024. It was chaired by DPP coordinators Australia, Barbados, China and Ecuador, four of the six coordinators of the Dialogue[3].

1.2.  Coordinators recalled that it was the first DPP meeting which would start discussing the eight 'points of focus' agreed through a consultative process (including an online survey among co-sponsors and bilateral consultations) to help the DPP achieve "further concrete, pragmatic and effective" outcomes by the 14^th Ministerial Conference (MC14), as called for in the MC13 Ministerial Statement. This was the first of the three pre-plenary meetings covering the eight points of focus.

1.3.  Coordinators further recalled that the points of focus reflected strong technical work already developed, the results of consultations and the broad agreement around them. However, they should not be read as indicating any prejudgment of potential MC14 outcomes or inflexibility in the process, nor an exhaustive list of the topics that would or could be discussed at the DPP. They reiterated that the DPP would continue to be open, inclusive and transparent where all co-sponsors would continue to have full opportunity in shaping its discussions and outcomes.

1.4.  Finally, coordinators recalled the conceptual "roadmap" shared in the beginning of the summer, indicating that the DPP would cover two points of focus in this meeting and three points of focus in each of its next two pre-plenaries. This should allow the Dialogue to hold a "mid-point review of advancements" by around April 2025.

1.5.  They recalled that this first meeting would cover points of focus 3 (capacity building) and 4 (transparency on Trade-related Plastic Measures – TrPMs), respectively:

a._    How to enhance capacity of developing Members to integrate trade as part of the solution to plastic pollution, including, for example, by identifying opportunities to work with UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the World Bank, and the work of other relevant institutions.

b._    Continue to identify Members' TrPMs, building domestic inventories/internal coordination.

1.6.  Co-sponsors generally welcomed the eight points of focus, some emphasizing specific points of focus they believed to be their priorities. One delegation stressed that point of focus 7 (access to technologies and services, including for environmentally sound waste management) was of great importance, while another noted that the DPP would be an effective platform for discussing ideas related to efficient waste management, recycling, and circular economy. They noted such an approach would be more beneficial than outright bans that lacked scientific basis.

1.7.  One delegation noted that the pre-plenary meetings in accordance with the roadmap were a step in the right direction, stressing the need to remain flexible on the points of focus. While highlighting the circular economy approach, they suggested that it would be useful to have a collection of the ideas shared through the surveys and bilateral meetings regarding the points of focus. Some co-sponsors expressed their desire to discuss additional topics for potential outcomes for MC14, while others noted the importance of taking into account the results of the United Nations International Negotiating Committee (INC) on a new legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, scheduled to end negotiations in early December 2024. A few delegations noted that work should focus where there seemed to be some consensus, namely on waste management and recycling and on single-use plastics.

1.8.  The coordinators recalled that in accordance with the DPP conceptual roadmap released before the summer break, the DPP would have a "mid-term review" in April 2025 to reflect and adapt its work to the INC results.

1.9.  The coordinators also emphasized that with about six technical meetings before MC14, results would have to be drafted, and following calls from co-sponsors to focus work, the adoption of the eight points of focus and the new structure of the group's meetings was required. They noted that there seemed to be widespread agreement and appreciation of the new format and points of focus among co-sponsors and stakeholders.

2   Point of focus 3 on capacity building[4]

2.1.  The WTO Secretariat made a presentation (INF/TE/IDP/RD/173) recalling the main results of the 2022-2023 Aid for Trade Global Review and Needs Assessment Survey (INF/TE/IDP/W/12) and developments regarding "efforts to better match existing funding opportunities with specific trade‑related needs" (as per action 2 of the MC13 Ministerial Statement – WT/MIN(24)/14). The presentation highlighted that in the 2024 Global Review only three references had been made to plastic pollution, while 36 programmes had been identified in the 2022-2023 DPP survey. This indicated that the ideas and suggestions made in the DPP survey to improve transparency and how the Global Review could identify plastic-related Aid for Trade (AfT) programmes were still valuable. This was particularly relevant since the previous Global Review exercise, in 2022, had identified seven references to plastic pollution.

2.2.  The Secretariat further recalled some of the priority areas identified in the survey in efforts to address trade-related aspects of plastic pollution, with "improving the environmentally sound management, recovery and recycling of plastics" as the specific objective most often referred to, followed by "move towards more circular economy of plastics." In terms of specific needs to efficiently implement TrPMs, the survey had found domestic private sector and civil society engagement, followed by access to technology and technical assistance on policy development as the needs with highest scores. The Secretariat also recalled that a side event focused on the needs of developing and LDC Members to implement TrPMs had been organized at the 9th Global Review.

2.3.  Finally, the presentation illustrated ongoing efforts by the DPP to align existing funding opportunities with the specific trade-related needs of developing Members. They recalled that since MC13, around seven funding opportunities had been facilitated through the work of the Dialogue, including from institutions such as UNOPs, different workstreams of the World Bank (e.g. global PROBLUE programme, MENA or Southeast Asia programmes) and the GIZ. These had global, regional, or economy-specific focuses (e.g. Tunisia, Morocco and Mozambique).

2.4.  Next, the coordinators recalled the guiding questions presented to delegations and stakeholders under this point of focus, namely:

a._    Please share further information on existing or planned trade-related capacity building programmes you participate in (either as donor or receiving partner) that could be further leveraged through enhanced collaboration under the DPP. Please share any new needs identified.

b._    How could we build upon and further refine our "efforts to better match existing funding opportunities with specific trade-related needs identified by developing Members to tackle plastic pollution" (as per our Ministerial Statement action 2)? What else could be done
by/launched at MC14 to "enhance capacity of developing Members to integrate trade as part of the solution to plastic pollution"?

2.5.  Several delegations expressed support for point of focus 3 and shared their existing trade‑related programmes including: the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance, the Blue Planet Fund, the Sustainable Manufacturing and Environmental Pollution (SMEP) programme with UNCTAD, the Global Plastic Action Partnership (GPAP) with the World Economic Forum (WEF), the PROBLUE project with the World Bank, the Darwin Initiative, the Osaka Blue Ocean Vision, the MARINE Initiative, the World Customs Organization (WCO) Asia Pacific Plastic Waste (APPW) Border Management Project, the Switch to Circular Value Chains project, the Pac Waste+ project, the Rethinking Plastic project, the USAID's flagship Clean Cities, the Blue Ocean (CCBO) programme, and China Aid in developing Members and LDCs (e.g. technical cooperation and human resource development).

2.6.  One delegation noted ongoing projects in its economy, including with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), World Bank, WEF, USAID, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and observed that cooperation was being pursued through various modalities, such as support to domestic agencies, local governments, and key stakeholders. They recommended that the DPP derive lessons from the broader landscape of plastics-related development cooperation to evaluate which types of support have the strongest trade relevance.

2.7.  Some delegations and stakeholders noted the value of the information shared on existing trade‑related fundings and projects and suggested a compilation of such programmes (categorized by themes) and contacts be made available to WTO Members. One delegation noted it was important to continue the momentum in the DPP of information sharing to ensure well-informed participation in the AfT global stocktake and review. Another delegation noted the progress of the DPP in collating Members' experiences through AfT, and that it would be useful to build on that exercise, including through: identifying gaps in the availability of trade-related capacity building assistance; identifying options to better match recipients with donors/co-investors (including existing mechanisms), with an analysis of pros and cons; sharing case studies where Members could present to their stocktake efforts so a global picture of AfT efforts could be developed which could then be analysed in the review to determine overlapping and/or complementary activities and encourage greater coordination and cooperation among donors.

2.8.  Several delegations stressed the need for capacity building programmes to be demand-driven. One delegation stressed the importance of plastic pollution-related assistance programmes, technical cooperation, and human resource development, especially in developing Members and LDCs, while simultaneously identifying their specific needs and challenges. One delegation, while recognizing the significance of reducing plastics pollution globally, added that information sharing as part of the AfT Global Review was useful in identifying gaps and potential overlapping, especially in the context of the INC treaty negotiations. One delegation noted that it would make use of the case studies in the factual compilation prepared for MC13, and the report of the AfT Global Review. Another delegation emphasized the interlinkages between trade and transition to circular economy and importance of protecting marine environment.

2.9.  Several delegations noted that the DPP should cooperate with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on the topic, in particular due to its involvement in mapping AfT. Some delegations also asked for the DPP to cooperate with UNCTAD, the World Bank, WCO, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), WEF and the private sector. One delegation noted the Action on Climate and Trade (ACT) initiative, led by WEF, the World Bank and the WTO was also an avenue where donors could identify capacity building needs, as the implementing partners work towards developing analysis tailored to each economy's climate needs and trade flows.

2.10.  One delegation noted the WTO was very well positioned to draw on in-house resources from Members and Secretariat to help match needs with existing funding opportunities. However, it noted it would be key to do so in a structured way addressing development Members' needs, for which the DPP survey had been a good starting point. Another delegation, later supported by several other interventions, suggested the DPP organize a one-off match-making event aiming to bring together the institutions active in trade-related capacity building efforts to identify plastics-related AfT demand requests and AfT supply opportunities. To better focus this initiative, they suggested it could be targeted at a specific area, such as single-use plastics, and involve a wide range of participants, including private sector representatives with relevant expertise.

2.11.  One delegation stressed the importance in facilitating access to clean technologies, technical and financial assistance, and promoting international cooperation to boost sustainable trade. Another delegation stressed that while improving coordination on technical assistance was challenging, it was the only way to better match funding opportunities with the specific needs of Members. By creating partnerships, strengthening technical capacity, and promoting other solutions, developing Members could integrate trade into the solution to plastic pollution and move towards a more sustainable economy. Assistance should be aligned with local challenges, such as lack of technological capacity, limited access to financing, or weak regulatory frameworks. Creating accessible credit lines, low‑interest financing, and specific grant programs, while leveraging the participation of entities like the Green Climate Fund, the World Bank, and other relevant actors was also stressed.

2.12.  Among the stakeholders, the representative from UNCTAD spoke about its upcoming training workshops: i) in Nairobi on regulations and standards for plastics biodegradation and compostability (in cooperation with ISO and the Environmental Coalition of Standards); and ii) in in Suva, Fiji, to assist in aligning Pacific authorities on themes of control measures, material substitution, and financing (in cooperation with UNDP). They suggested that on the road to MC14 the DPP could take stock of trade-specific capacity building requests through a dialogue among the WTO Secretariat, DPP coordinators, and stakeholders to produce a heat map of core trade-related capacity building demands while also learning from field projects. The representative from WEF shared that the 19 economies that were part of its GPAP project had now shared learnings and mutual identification of standards and eco-labelling and that that was essential to avoid duplication of efforts. Activities were set to commence in Nigeria, and likely Dominican Republic in 2025. They also welcomed the reference to ACT, noting the many parallels with the 'plastic-verse' and queried whether there would be interest for a similar programme for trade-related capacity building for developing Members (Action on Plastics and Trade – APT) to be launched by MC14. ACT and APT being complementary and modular projects could lead to economies of scale in analysis.

2.13.  The representative from ISO presented its views on the role of harmonization of standards and referred to its extensive capacity building program and a project specific to trade for developing Members who make up the majority of ISO Members. They also noted ISO's Members in South Africa had been collaborating with WEF, resulting in new standardization work on plastics circularity. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) noted the high value of experiences and projects shared but stressed that the INC negotiations results should be taken into consideration. Enhanced coordination of projects was an important element for MC14. The representative from TESS noted they were working on a guide in consultation with a range of experts to support World Bank client economies in navigating trade policies relevant to their plastic pollution reduction goals. One of the key objectives was to identify capacity gaps faced by economies, both in implementing domestic trade-related policy tools for tackling plastic pollution and supporting implementation of regulations and standards that their businesses may face in export markets. Finally, they would shortly be publishing a report with QUNO on environmentally sound and safe waste management technologies and services that could be pursued in the DPP.

2.14.   The Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions (BRS) Secretariat noted they had over 65 projects to strengthen capacities for the control of transboundary movements, environmentally sound management, and prevention and minimization of the generation of plastic waste funded by Norway, Germany, and the United States. She also briefed on insights drawn from recent workshops, including one for French speaking African economies in which one of the challenges highlighted had been waste classification, including distinguishing between mixed wastes ("other wastes" under Annex II, subject to Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure)) and non-hazardous plastic wastes under Annex IX destined for recycling.

2.15.  The representative from the World Bank presented their programmes in Tunisia and Morocco (supported by the Pro Blue Trust Fund) which examined trade volume in plastics, in primary forms and plastic packaging, as well as trade-related policies (like ecotax and import licenses) and their effectiveness in addressing plastic pollution. She noted that both projects had benefited from the DPP match-making efforts to identify experts and domestic authorities to cooperate with. She stressed it would be important to continue this kind of collaboration and that they would explore joint capacity development work with the WTO Secretariat and potentially with other development partners. The OECD representative emphasized the need for financial support and investment in waste management, especially in developing economies, to eliminate plastic leakage globally. New approaches were needed to fill the investment gap and mobilize resources, including private sector involvement.

2.16.  Finally, the representative from the Pew Research Center's (PEW) shared they had been working with partners in South Africa (the Council on Scientific and Industrial Research and the South Africa Plastics Pact) to leverage PEW's analytical model, the Pathways tool from PEW's "Breaking the Plastic Wave" report. The analysis had found that under a business-as-usual scenario, plastic pollution was set to double in South Africa by 2040, whereas an optimal change scenario could help South Africa avoid 63% of its projected plastic pollution over the period 2023-2040. She noted PEW's tool was just one of several tools and that they were working with BRS and other partners to conduct the same analysis in Zambia. She noted neither Member was a co-sponsor to the DPP and there could thus be synergies to be found.

3  Point of focus 4 on TRPMs[5]

3.1.  The WTO Secretariat recalled the main results of the TrPMs survey (INF/TE/IDP/W/11) and highlighted the information gaps on trade-related policies and regulations aimed at addressing plastic pollution (INF/TE/IDP/RD/174). They recalled that while the survey contained over 220 TrPMs from 85 WTO Members, the vast majority were of a regulatory nature. Support measures accounted for 21 measures – a relatively low number considering support measures represented almost half of all environment-related measures contained in the WTO Environmental Database (EDB) for other objectives. Additionally, the survey contained 19 pricing and market mechanisms (such as excise taxes and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes), most of which had been voluntarily informed by survey participants and not collected through regular WTO notifications. This could indicate a direct value-add from the DPP survey and work. Finally, the Secretariat recalled the objectives most often pursued by the TrPMs in the survey (waste management, followed by single-use plastic, recycling and eco-design), as well as the TrPMs implementation challenges and needs most often indicated (domestic private sector engagement, followed by access to technology and technical assistance on policy implementation).

3.2.  Next, the coordinators recalled the guiding questions presented to delegations and stakeholders under this point of focus, namely:

a._    Please share further information on existing or planned TrPMs not already included in the survey. Would gathering structured information on each Member's set of TrPMs and reflecting it in some form (e.g. voluntarily in Trade Policy Reviews – TPRs – or in the form of individual "trade-related action plans") be useful to "promote cooperative and effective trade-related policies or measures" (as per our Ministerial Statement action 4)?

b._    Would a global, online, structured (e.g. with HS information) and publicly available inventory of TrPMs hosted by the WTO (potentially in cooperation with other institutions) be useful to increase transparency, support enhanced cooperation and facilitate implementation and trade?

c._     Would establishing domestic coordination mechanisms (e.g. focal points, interministerial committees) on TrPMs be useful? If so, could initial guidelines/principles/good practices based on existing experiences be developed by MC14?

3.3.  Some delegations questioned whether the DPP should not wait for the end of INC negotiations before inventorying TrPMs or suggesting the creation of focal points to avoid duplication. Several noted the DPP should be mindful of cost and administrative constraints. Some queried whether existing databases, such as the WTO Environmental Database (EDB) could not be used as basis. On this, one delegation suggested that one way to approach a structured inventory of TrPMs could be to allow the EDB information to be better dis-aggregated by TrPM profiles, especially since creating a new database would be financially burdensome and could amount to duplication of efforts. They also suggested to promote cooperation on TrPMs not based on types of measure but on sources of plastic pollution, for example single-use plastics and suggested revisiting the suggestion on focal points and gathering structured information on TrPMs once the INC negotiations were completed.

3.4.  One delegation noted how compiling and publishing information on TrPMs would support transparency, multilateral cooperation and access to financing and technical assistance, while contributing to more sustainable trade. From this compilation, Members could evaluate how trade policies impact sustainability and international trade, promoting the alignment of these policies with environmental objectives and Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). It could also build trust, help reduce trade tensions, avoid potential disputes and offer guidance on policies that others have successfully implemented. A public inventory could help identify sustainable trade opportunities, such as export and import of products that meet specific environmental standards.

3.5.  Finally, they noted MC14 was the ideal space for developing guidelines, principles, and best practices based on successful experiences. Domestic coordination mechanisms would facilitate the inclusion of key sectors such as industry, civil society, local communities, and international organizations, enhancing the acceptance and effectiveness of TrPMs. The guidelines could suggest the creation of domestic committees or working groups that include representatives from the ministries of trade, environment, energy, agriculture, and other relevant areas. The guidelines could also recommend that TrPMs be included in domestic economic development and sustainability plans, ensuring they were aligned with long-term priorities.

3.6.  Another delegation, noted it was important to consider whether TrPMs were aligned with their intended policy goals related to addressing plastic pollution, and whether they were successful at achieving these goals. They reiterated that inventorying TrPMs under the DPP or elsewhere should not be considered to replace Members' reporting or other obligations under other WTO Agreements, such as the TBT Agreement. They emphasized Members should already be notifying such measures under existing mechanisms. They further queried about the funding implications and value added of developing a separate database for TrPMs if they already appeared in the EDB and whether it was proper to elevate plastic pollution above other environment issues by having a dedicated database. Similar questions could be raised by the possible establishment of new focal points. One delegation raised the same questions and suggested exploring existing inventories such as the EDB.

3.7.  One delegation noted it was important that the identification of measures did not become a goal in and of itself, that it was essential to facilitate access to information for stakeholders who were in need of it and facilitate policy coordination among Members. It might be thus useful to organize information by Member, including information that had already been collected, and to construct a structured policy inventory that was easy to understand, while avoiding duplication with existing efforts outside the WTO. Given the large differences in regulations and administrative organizational structures among Members, it was first necessary to share a common vision based on end goals on what kind of content could be truly useful to each Member.

3.8.  One delegation updated the DPP on developments related to the implementation of its EPR law and a new standard on the use of the recycled material "bituminous concrete surface course with low-density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic bag waste, hot laid" that had been approved for use in road construction projects. While stressing that the EDB and regular notifications should be supported, they also noted that not all TrPMs were covered by WTO transparency obligations, so not all would be captured in the EDB. They suggested the DPP TrPMs survey could be updated with new responses from co-sponsors. Finally, they suggested the DPP could look into guidance and best practices in developing TrPMs, drawing inspiration in what had been done under the Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions (TESSD) for trade-related climate measures.

3.9.  One delegation, while recognizing the value in further coordination initiatives, particularly in relation to recording new and existing measure, cautioned that the DPP should be mindful of the INC process to ensure it pursued initiatives that were complementary rather than duplicative, such as the compilation of domestic action plans. Similarly, while there could be value in establishing domestic focal points, it would be essential to ensure these complemented any similar initiatives under a treaty and had a clear focus on trade. Similarly, another delegation noted that some Members had showed concerns during the MC13 consultations regarding inventorying TrPMs and that the DPP should take into consideration potential redundancy and resource constraints. They noted they were open though to gathering structured information in other forms, suggesting the DPP could discuss the possibility to voluntarily include the information in TPRs. Finally, they stressed that better domestic coordination mechanisms could facilitate TrPMs, but since different Members had different governance frameworks, it should left to the Members to decide whether to establish coordination mechanisms and that universal guidelines may not be necessary on this regard.

3.10.  Next, among the stakeholders, the representative from IISD noted there was immense value in any type of information that could be collected on TrPMs. From a research institution perspective though, they would normally need much more granular data than what was contained in the DPP Factual Report issued if they were to proceed with further analysis. That is why they currently used the EDB as an excellent multilateral source of data. They also noted they had used the WTO Specific Trade Concerns (STCs) database as well as TPR questions for a recent publication and shared a few findings, including that: there had been 21 Members who had raised STCs on TrPMs adopted by 14 Members; there were seven instances of questions related to TrPMs raised in TPRs; and six main issues had been raised, namely timing and implementation of timeframes, transparency, absence of stakeholder engagement, proportionality of measures, the justification of measures, as well as potential discrimination by the implementing Member.

3.11.  The representative from the OECD shared their ongoing work on plastics included a paper on "Trade Policies to Promote a Circular Economy," focusing on the plastics value chain and trade policies to reduce plastic pollution. The Environment Policy Committee (EPOC) was working on "Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution" by 2040, with interim findings released in November 2023 and a final report due in October 2024. Other EPOC efforts included EPR schemes and policies to reduce microplastics pollution. Government support was crucial for tackling plastic pollution, with measures like increasing prices of primary plastics and incentivizing recycling. Green Public Procurement and comprehensive circular economy policies were also emphasized.

3.12.   The representative from TESS suggested it could be useful to streamline and harmonize requirements for notifying TrPMs. They added that a global online repository potentially hosted by the WTO and linked to the HS codes could serve as a valuable resource, enhance transparency, support and facilitate cooperation in the design and implementation of trade policies, become a reference point for WTO Members to review their own TrPMs and identify good practices, opportunities and gaps, and should complement and not duplicate existing tools and initiatives. They noted that an interministerial consultation and coordination mechanism, including designated focal points (not necessarily only for plastics, but more generally for trade issues on environmental matters), would be a key step forward for tackling the nexus of trade and plastic pollution in a coherent manner since these policies had environmental, health and sustainable development implications, involving numerous actors along the supply chain. As such, a useful output of the DPP could be guidelines or best practices that could support Members to identify the relevant ministries, technical experts, stakeholders to engage in the coordination mechanism, as well as resources that they could draw upon.

3.13.  Finally, the TESS representative recalled that the last session of the WCO HS Review Subcommittee would take place during the last two weeks of November, and that there was a proposal under consideration on possible HS amendments to improve transparency in the trade flow of plastic products, which the DPP work had prompted. They encouraged DPP Members to reach out to their counterparts at the WCO and Environment Ministries regarding the importance of that work for increasing transparency of plastic trade flows across the life cycle and supporting the capacity to effectively address plastic pollution, including by enabling them to better monitor and regulate particularly challenging plastics that had been identified in the work of the DPP, such as single-use plastics and unnecessary plastics packaging.

3.14.  The representative from International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) stressed that businesses needed effective policy frameworks that provided real incentives and supported concrete action and innovation by all companies, in particular small enterprises, while not creating administrative burden, complexities and hindering international trade and access to markets. They recognized the vital role that trade, and smartly designed trade policies and trade-related measures could play in addressing the plastic pollution crisis. They shared their strong belief that a close coordination and dialogue between the WTO and the INC process could be beneficial in designing coordinated solutions and effective policies and means of implementation, that took into account local contexts and the needs and priorities of developing Members, including the those of small and medium sizes enterprises. Finally, they emphasized the importance of engagement and involvement of the private sector in policy design and implementation.

3.15.  The representative from the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty expressed their support for the concept of a global online structured publicly available TrPMs inventory but emphasized several key points that should either be addressed or incorporated into associated guiding documents as caveats to the inventory, namely: a clear definition of environmental sustainability; the incorporation of the 'essential use' concept to avoid replacing unnecessary single-use products with similarly unnecessary ones; prioritizing measures according to the waste hierarchy; measures should address listed" chemicals, polymers and products not merely chemicals in plastic waste; the whole life cycle approach should to be supported by monitoring of production as well as waste; due consideration to the capacity of importing Members to interpret the potential impacts/risks of importing listed chemicals/polymers/products and to make informed decisions on whether to give their 'PIC; no broad exemptions to all medical goods; identify and promote simplified products versus complex products such as those with layers of multiple materials that are difficult to recycle; and appropriate funding to support upstream measures in developing Members.

3.16.  The representative from PEW suggested to focus on a particular issue or set of policies, such as the effort underway in the East African Community (EAC) to develop a regional single-use plastics bill. They noted how discussions in the meeting had emphasized the importance of harmonization of TrPMs and posited that single-use plastic measures were amongst the most prominent TrPMs. Concrete examples could illuminate how economies could design effective policy interventions, enabling a discussion about lessons learned with a focus on single-use plastics. Lastly, the representative from WEF shared they would organize with UNCTAD an informal half day side event prior to INC-5 negotiations focused on TrPMs and how they would relate to the future agreement. They were also organizing another half day of events focused on finance issues, together with the OECD, UNEP-FI, the World Bank Circular Initiative, and the University of Portsmouth.

4  Any other business or interventions by delegation and stakeholders

4.1.  One delegation noted that while the points of focus were in the right direction they were still too broad and the guiding questions would have to be very focused going forward. They also noted that some flexibility was required since the INC process had note ended and noted that the many ideas Members had shared in the DPP could be useful for continued work under the points of focus. Another delegation noted that with INC-5 on the horizon, point of focus 1 could be pertinent for consideration for the next DPP meeting and that reaching out to WTO Members that were not yet DPP co-sponsors could be valuable to encourage efforts to conclude the negotiations with a successful and ambitious outcome. Another delegation echoed the importance to consider the outcomes of the INC negotiations when moving forward with the DPP points of focus.

4.2.  The representative from Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) recalled their previous interventions at the DPP regarding the use and management of plastics in agriculture. They provided a brief update on the FAO Voluntary Code of Conduct on the Sustainable Use and Management of Plastics in Agriculture (VCoC), which had been developed through inclusive and geographically representative consultations with a wide range of stakeholders during the course of 2023. The final draft was available online and would be discussed in the forthcoming meeting of the FAO Committee on Agriculture, taking place from 30 September to 4 October. The draft aimed to provide guiding principles, actions and measures that governments, manufacturers of plastics used in agriculture, and other stakeholders in the agrifood systems could adopt to promote sustainable management practices for plastics used in agriculture. Finally, the representative noted that FAO had recently launched a dedicated website on the topic, outlining facts and figures related to plastics used in agriculture and providing information on FAO's support including various projects promoting sustainable agricultural practices through reducing harmful agrochemicals and plastics.

5  Concluding Remarks by coordinators

5.1.  The coordinators expressed their gratitude to all delegations and stakeholders for their strong engagement at the meeting, noting that while the DPP had already developed considerable technical work (reflected in the compilations attached to the MC13 Ministerial Statement), the present meeting had been a step in the right direction towards MC14 outcomes, having covered two points of focus effectively.

5.2.  They recalled that the next pre-plenary meeting was scheduled for 31^st October and would cover points of focus: 2, 5 and 7. They noted that while the DPP would continue the technical work on the points of focus for concrete MC14 outcomes, they were open to organizing additional discussions on topics of interest to co-sponsors. They further noted a side event focused on capacity building would be organized during the WTO Trade and Environment Week. Finally, they renewed the call for all WTO Members to join the Dialogue.

__________