Analysis of Actors and Coalitions in the Argentine Position on the Global Plastic TreatyAbstract
This article analyzes the actors that participated in the domestic process of formulating Argentina’s position on the global plastic treaty and how their interests and perspectives are reflected in that position. The period analyzed covers from the convening of the international negotiation in March 2022 to the fourth negotiation meeting in April 2024. Based on the conceptual framework of the advocacy coalitions approach, three coalitions of actors are identified: a dominant coalition formed by different governmental and plastics industry actors and two minority coalitions. These coalitions differ in terms of their priority policy objectives, in how they conceptualize the plastic pollution problem, and in their preferences regarding the scope of the international agreement. The analysis shows that the Argentine position primarily reflects the views and preferences of the dominant coalition.
Keywords:
Global treaty on plastics; advocacy coalitions; plastic pollution; plastic policy; environmental foreign policy
Resumen
Este artículo analiza los actores que participaron del proceso doméstico de formulación de la posición argentina sobre el tratado global de plásticos y cómo sus intereses y perspectivas se reflejan en dicha posición. El periodo analizado comprende desde la convocatoria a la negociación internacional en marzo 2022 hasta el cuarto encuentro de negociación en abril 2024. En base al marco conceptual del enfoque de coaliciones promotoras, se identifican tres coaliciones de actores interactuando en este proceso: una coalición dominante conformada por diferentes actores gubernamentales y de la industria del plástico y dos coaliciones minoritarias. Estas coaliciones difieren en cuanto a sus objetivos de política prioritarios, en cómo conceptualizan el problema de la contaminación por plásticos y a sus preferencias respecto al alcance del tratado internacional. El análisis demuestra que la posición argentina refleja primordialmente los planteos y preferencias de la coalición dominante.
Palavras clave:
Tratado global de plásticos; coaliciones promotoras; contaminación por plásticos; políticas sobre plásticos; política exterior ambiental
Resumo
Este artigo analisa os atores que participaram do processo doméstico de formulação da posição da Argentina no tratado global sobre plásticos e como seus interesses e perspectivas estão refletidos nessa posição. O período analisado vai desde a convocação da negociação internacional em março de 2022 até a quarta reunião de negociação em abril de 2024. Com base na estrutura conceitual da abordagem de promoção de coalizões, são identificadas três coalizões de atores: uma coalizão dominante composta por diferentes atores governamentais e do setor de plásticos e duas coalizões minoritárias. Essas coalizões diferem em termos de seus objetivos políticos prioritários, na forma como conceituam o problema da poluição plástica e em suas preferências em relação ao escopo da convenção internacional. A análise mostra que a posição argentina reflete principalmente as opiniões e preferências da coalizão dominante.
Palavras-chave:
Convenção global sobre plásticos; coalizões de defesa; poluição por plásticos; política de plásticos; política ambiental externa
Introduction
The issue of plastic pollution has emerged as one of the most pressing challenges for both local, national and global levels. Several studies and statements have warned about the severity and scale of this issue and its environmental and health impacts (Wright; Kelly, 2017; Smith et al., 2018; Lebreton et al., 2022; WWF, 2022; Wagner et al., 2024). It is estimated that 11 million tons of plastic waste enters the oceans each year (Geyer et al., 2017), being the main marine litter. Likewise, it is estimated that between 1950 and 2015, around 6.3 billion tons of plastic waste was generated worldwide, of which 79% ended up in landfills or dumps, 12% was incinerated and only 9% was recycled (Geyer et al., 2017).
In March 2022, the United Nations General Assembly on the Environment agreed to form an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution by the end of 2024 (Naciones Unidas, 2022). Between November 2022 and April 2024, the first four meetings of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-1, INC-2, INC-3 and INC-4) were held, in which States began to articulate and develop their positions on the content and scope of the treaty. This paper explores the internal process of formulating the Argentine position on the global plastics treaty during this period by analyzing the governmental and non-governmental actors that participated in the process and how their interests and perspectives were reflected in that position. The paper assumes that the formulation of the national position on this issue reflects both international and foreign policy considerations as well as the dynamics of domestic plastics politics and the multiplicity of actors and their different interests and perspectives on this issue (Haar; Pierce, 2021).
Argentina is a particularly valuable case in the Latin American context to analyze the dynamics of domestic plastics politics and how these are reflected in its position with respect to the global treaty. Argentina is one of the main plastic resin producing countries in the region, after Brazil and Mexico (Ministerio de Hacienda, 2019). Likewise, the issue of plastic pollution has gained increasing relevance in the domestic environmental agenda, reflected in the significant increase, in recent years, of specific regulations on the use and management of plastics, mainly at the subnational level (Unplastify, 2024). However, despite this growing social and political attention, progress at the national level in terms of environmental regulation of plastic has been limited (Testa; Bilbao, 2023; Unplastify, 2024), suggesting the existence of multiple perspectives and competing interests within this policy field. In this sense, this work, focused on the actors and coalitions involved in policy formulation, represents a relevant contribution to the still incipient literature on the politics of plastic pollution in Latin America, a topic that has received relatively little attention in the study of politics and the environment in the region (for exceptions, see Urbina et al., 2020; Dauvergne; Lehnhoff, 2024). Likewise, the analysis of the internal process of negotiation and formulation of the country’s position vis-à-vis the global treaty on plastics adds additional value, given that, to the best of our knowledge, there are no previous studies that address this interface between domestic politics and the international agenda on this issue in the region.
Conceptual elements of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) are used in this paper. Two fundamental reasons justify the choice of this theoretical framework for the analysis. First, the ACF approach makes it possible to focus on the actors involved in a policy subsystem and the way in which they are articulated around coalitions with shared visions of the problems and their possible solutions. This emphasis on actors is especially useful for the study of complex public policy processes, such as in the case of plastics policies, where diverse visions and narratives about the problem and the ways to address it coexist and enter into dispute (Palm et al., 2021). Second, the ACF provides a conceptual framework for organizing and analyzing the coalitions that interact within a subsystem, as well as the factors that affect their relative influence on the policy-making process. In this sense, by linking the analysis of the actors (their perspectives, resources, etc.) with the dynamics of the decision-making process and its outcomes, it provides a particularly useful perspective for analyzing the domestic process of formulating the Argentine position on the plastic treaty.
This article is organized as follows. First, the conceptual elements of the advocacy stream approach used for the analysis are briefly presented and the methodology and sources of information are described. Then, the analysis of actors and coalitions is developed. In the final section, some of the empirical findings and theoretical implications resulting from the analysis are highlighted.
Framework of analysis: advocacy coalitions
According to the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), a coalition is understood as a set of actors, governmental and/or non-governmental, who share certain fundamental beliefs about a policy issue and engage in a non-trivial level of coordination in order to influence the policymaking process (Sabatier & Weible, 2007).
The shared belief system is the binding element of the set of actors that make up a coalition. The ACF literature distinguishes three levels of beliefs that follow a hierarchical structure: deep core beliefs, policy core beliefs and secondary beliefs (Sabatier; Weible, 2007; Weible et al., 2020). At the broadest level are the deep core beliefs that refer to the most general and fundamental normative and ontological assumptions. For example, about the role of the state and the market in public life, the relationship between individual freedoms and collective interests, etc. Then, at the next level are the policy core beliefs, which are applications of the deep core beliefs to a specific subsystem or area of public policy. This level comprises, fundamentally, beliefs about the general policy objectives to be prioritized in relation to a given issue or problem, how these problems are conceived (in terms of severity, root causes, etc.), and policy preferences about how to address and solve these problems and achieve the objectives (Weible; Ingold, 2018). Finally, the third level consists of secondary beliefs that refer to the more instrumental aspects, particularly referring to the design of policy instruments that allow implementing the policy core beliefs in relation to a specific issue or problem. This article focuses specifically on the identification and analysis of the policy core beliefs, since this set of beliefs constitute the key element that enables the identification of potential allies and opponents and guides the strategic behavior of a coalition (Sabatier; Weible, 2007; Weible et al., 2020; Nohrstedt et al., 2023).
Given that shared beliefs are the constitutive and binding element of coalitions, one of the main theoretical challenges for the ACF is how to consider the interests of the actors. Within this same theoretical framework, several authors (Sabatier; Weible, 2007; Weible et al., 2020) have argued that actors’ interests, whether economic, political or organizational, can (and should) be subject to analysis using the ACF, but without assuming that actors are a priori motivated primarily by self-interest. Interests, like ideational elements, have to be subject to empirical testing. Following Weible et al. (2020, p. 1063) one of the ways to address stakeholder interests in the ACF framework is to incorporate interests as part of the policy core beliefs. In this way, for example, actors pursuing material benefits could come together in a coalition that articulates policy positions and proposals that prioritize economic growth and/or employment generation goals. This article considers the interests of the actors in the analysis of the coalitions involved in the process of formulating the Argentine position, using this modality suggested by Weible et al. (2020). Thus, the paper is part of a line of studies on politics and environment in Latin America that posit how interests and ideas are intertwined in the dynamics of coalition formation and action (Gutiérrez, 2017; Figueroa, 2019; Alcañiz; Gutiérrez, 2022).
The second constitutive element of coalitions, according to the ACF approach is the coordination between the different actors to influence public policy. This coordination can take different forms, from information exchange to joint planning and execution of advocacy actions. Coordination actions can be classified into strong or weak coordination (Weible; Ingold, 2018). The former refers to activities that are agreed upon and recognized by the actors themselves, such as the joint formulation of position papers or other advocacy actions. Weak coordination, on the other hand, refers to actions that are in sync to achieve a common goal but have not been jointly agreed upon. The distinctive characteristics of these types of actions reveal the level and density of the coordination relationships developed by the actors within a coalition.
Coalitions also have resources with the objective of influencing the policy process. The ACF literature has identified a diversity of types of resources, including legal competencies to make decisions, public opinion support, mobilization capacity, economic resources, information and technical scientific knowledge and leadership capacity (Sabatier; Weible, 2007; Weible et al., 2020). Although the relevance of the different types of resources is highly contextual and depends on the characteristics of each case, the fact of having actors who are members of a coalition in situations of formal power in the state structure, with legal powers to make policy decisions, is a critical resource that makes it possible to identify and differentiate dominant coalitions from minority coalitions in a policy subsystem or in relation to a given policy issue (Sabatier; Weible, 2007). It is worth clarifying that the categories of dominant and minority coalition do not depend on the number of actors that make up each coalition, but on their relative levels of influence on policy processes within a specific subsystem (Weible et al., 2020). A coalition is considered dominant when it succeeds in exerting sustained influence over the orientation of a policy subsystem, whereas a minority coalition has a significantly more limited capacity for influence, or one that is concentrated on specific aspects or issues within the subsystem.
Methodology and sources of information
Coalitions also have resources with the objective of influencing the policy process. The analysis of the actors that participated in the process of formulating the Argentine position was conducted in two stages. First, the actors and their interests, beliefs and policy preferences regarding the Argentine position on the global plastics treaty were identified and mapped. Second, the coalitions of actors involved in this process were identified. The analysis covers the period March 2022 to April 2024; from the approval of the UN resolution calling for the negotiation of the treaty in March 2022 to the fourth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee held in April 2024 (INC-4).
The stakeholder identification and analysis process was based on three types of information sources: primary and secondary documentary sources, semi-structured interviews and participatory observation. Regarding documentary sources, technical reports, institutional reports and position papers prepared by the different stakeholders identified were analyzed, including information available on their websites, statements by leaders and institutional spokespersons of the mapped stakeholders, as well as the different position papers submitted by the Argentine State to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. For its part, participatory observation took place during almost the entire time period analyzed. Since October 2022, the first author of this article participated in and closely followed the process of formulating the Argentine position as policy coordinator of Unplastify, a social enterprise that works for the reduction of disposable plastics. In this capacity, she participated in public activities and meetings with different ministries and other actors involved in the process. She also covered the first three INC meetings and participated in person as an observer of INC-4. Particularly important for stakeholder mapping was the author’s participation in the two meetings entitled “Plastic pollution: towards a collective construction of the Argentine position”, organized by the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs in October 2022 and 2023. Representatives of different public agencies as well as non-state actors, including scientists, representatives of environmental organizations and the plastics industry, participated and made presentations at these events. During these activities, the author took notes and recorded observations on the key discussions and the positions and arguments put forward by the participants. While the direct involvement of the first author in the process under analysis may introduce potential biases, steps were taken to mitigate them through continuous reflection with the co-author and triangulation of data obtained from participatory observation with documentary sources and interviews. In order to ensure the transparency and internal validity of the analysis, the article specifies when an observation is based exclusively on participatory observation as a source. With respect to the interviews, during July and August 2024 three semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants who were actively involved in the process of formulating the Argentine position (see list of interviews in the References section). As noted above, these interviews were especially valuable for triangulating evidence from participatory observation.
Once the actors were mapped, we proceeded to identify coalitions of actors that shared a set of core policy beliefs regarding the issue. To this end, the perspectives of each actor were assessed in relation to three key dimensions identified by the literature on ACF (Weible; Ingold, 2018): first, the priority policy objectives of each actor regarding plastic-related issues; second, how they conceptualized the problem, in terms of the core causes of plastic pollution; and third, their views and preferences concerning the scope of objectives and policies to be established in an international treaty. To assess the levels of coordination among actors, evidence of high-or strong-coordination was considered to include the joint formulation of positions and/or the implementation of advocacy activities or actions together, including the sharing of resources.
The analysis of stakeholder perspectives in relation to these dimensions, their levels of coordination and the subsequent identification of coalitions was conducted qualitatively, based on the information collected for stakeholder mapping and analysis.
The process of formulating the Argentine position
The formulation of the Argentine position for the international negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty involved several actors, although it was not a formalized public consultation process. This process, led by the Directorate of Environmental Affairs of the Argentine Foreign Ministry, included the two public seminars mentioned above (October 2022 and October 2023) as well as interministerial meetings prior to the INCs and consultation meetings with non-governmental stakeholders (Interview 1).
At INC-1 (November 2022), the Deputy Director of Environmental Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Focal Point on Plastics was the only representative of Argentina at the negotiation meeting. After this meeting, discussions on the treaty began to take on greater relevance in the agendas of other areas of the national government, mainly the Ministries of Environment, Economy and Social Development. The subsequent negotiation meetings of INC-2 (May 2023), INC-3 (November 2023) and INC-4 (April 2024) were attended by representatives of both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Environment.
Most of the process analyzed (2022-2023) took place during the government of Alberto Fernández, heading an alliance that integrated diverse sectors of Peronism, with the support of various trade unions and social movements (Casullo, 2022). Drawing on the categories proposed by Carter (2013), the general strategy of the Fernández government regarding environmental issues could be characterized as “low-intensity integration” (Ryan, 2017): the importance of the environmental agenda was recognized, existing policies were continued and some progress was registered, yet the government pursued development strategies and sectoral production policies that were not necessarily compatible with sustainability objectives.
The brief period between December 2023 and April 2024 occurred under the government of Javier Milei, who assumed the presidency with a narrative combining a radical critique of the role of the State and social rights, with a climate change denialist stance and a rejection of the 2030 Agenda. His government adopted a markedly adversarial strategy towards the socio-environmental agenda, which was expressed early on in the downgrading of the Ministry of Environment (reduced to an under-secretariat) and in the general weakening of its institutional capacities.
Analysis of actors and coalitions
More than 15 stakeholders were identified who participated in the process of formulating the Argentine position. Several of these actors constitute networks or second or third degree organizations that, in turn, group or represent groups of actors. Table 1 lists the stakeholders identified, includes a brief description of their main perspectives and interests with respect to the issue of plastic pollution and evaluates their level of involvement in the process of formulating the Argentine position.
Based on the stakeholder analysis, at least three coalitions were identified as interacting in the process of consultation and formulation of the Argentine position on the global plastics treaty: a dominant coalition and two minority coalitions. These coalitions differ from each other in terms of their priority policy objectives in relation to the issue, how they conceptualize the problem of plastic pollution and their preferences regarding the scope of the objectives and policies to be defined in an international agreement.
The dominant coalition, which we refer to as the ‘productivist-efficiency oriented’ coalition, comprises a range of actors who recognize the seriousness and need to address the problem of global plastic pollution, but without affecting the viability and competitiveness of the Argentine plastics industry. With nuances, these actors conceive the plastic pollution problem as a result of inefficient management systems and consumers’ bad practices and habits. Regarding the scope of the global plastics treaty, this group of actors shares the need for an international agreement, but without establishing strict prohibitions or regulations on production processes or that could affect international trade, and with a level of commitment to environmental protection framed in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
This coalition comprises the different actors of the plastics industry, who were highly involved in the process of formulating the Argentine position and showed high levels of coordination among themselves. These actors participated in both seminars organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and made several presentations with their positions to the INC Secretariat (CAIRPLAS, 2023; CIQyP, ICCA; EURECA, 2023; EURECA, 2023). Their position was marked by a promotion of the circular economy of plastics, based exclusively on the recovery of plastics and the improvement of waste management processes.
Furthermore, this coalition includes several key national governmental actors, in particular, the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the case of the Ministry of Economy, its positions were strongly oriented towards the protection and promotion of Argentine industry, emphasizing the need for technology transfer and support for the transition of the industrial sector (personal observation). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for its part, played a central role in the process of formulating the Argentine position, coordinating the consultation process with the different areas of the government, with non-governmental actors and presenting the official position of the Argentine State in the international negotiation (interviews 1, 2 and 3). In this process, the Ministry put forward two central elements, which have historically been part of Argentina’s positions in different multilateral environmental negotiations: the reaffirmation of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and that the possible measures to be incorporated in a global treaty should not imply restrictions to international trade (interview 1).
The Ministry of Environment can also be considered as part of this coalition, although with certain distinctive features nuances and in a more contingent manner. The Ministry had a high level of involvement in the process. In fact, during the year 2023, the then Vice Minister of the Ministry of Environment was part of the Argentine delegation in the international negotiation meetings INC 2 and INC 3. One of the main focuses of the Ministry was the inclusion of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)2 principle as a central element of waste regulatory regimes, although adapted to the particular circumstances of each country. The main differences between the Ministry of Environment and other actors in this coalition lie on the Ministry’s view that certain plastics deemed avoidable should be regulated, and in its perspective that, while the national industry should indeed be protected as the Ministry of Economy proposes, it must also adapt to the new international regulatory instruments (interview 2).
Given the scale and diversity of resources and advocacy capacity, we consider this set of actors as the dominant coalition in the process of formulating the national position. This advocacy capacity is reflected in the key elements of the positions put forward and sustained by the Argentine State in its presentations at the international negotiation meetings on the global plastics treaty.3 First, the focus on waste management and extended producer responsibility as a central measure to address the problem of plastic pollution (Argentina, 2022; 2023(1); 2023(2); 2023(3); 2024). Second, the affirmation of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (Argentina, 2023(1); 2023(2)), which should be considered in a cross-cutting manner throughout the instrument (Argentina, 2024). Third, the protection of international trade, so that the measures arising from the instrument do not imply a disguised restriction on international trade (Argentina, 2022; 2023(1); 2023(2); 2024). Finally, the importance of the means of implementation, ensuring financing, capacity building and technology transfer to developing countries for proper compliance with the Treaty (Argentina, 2022; 2023(1); 2023(2); 2023(3); 2024). These key elements of the Argentine position, which have been sustained throughout the negotiation process beyond the change of government in December 2023, clearly fall within the ideational framework put forward by the dominant coalition.
In contrast to this dominant coalition, a minority coalition was identified, which we have called “socio-environmental” and which prioritizes the consideration of environmental and health impacts in addressing the plastic issue. From this perspective, the problem of plastic pollution is not only the result of deficiencies in management systems, but is fundamentally linked to the increase and scale of plastic production and consumption. It also emphasizes the environmental and health impacts of the entire life cycle of plastics, not just the waste stage (interview 3). In relation to the treaty, this coalition acknowledges the differentiated responsibilities among countries according to their levels of development and the challenges faced by Argentina as a developing country, while it raises the need to establish binding global goals to reduce plastic pollution. It also supports regulatory measures on the additives used in plastics, particularly those that have an impact on health.
This coalition is mainly made up of different NGOs working on environmental issues, which have a high level of coordination among themselves. These actors participated in seminars organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and informal meetings with the various governmental actors involved in the process (interview 3). They also made presentations to the INC secretariat (Consciente Colectivo et al., 2023) and joint statements with other NGOs in the region (Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil Latinoamericana, 2023). This coalition also includes actors from the Argentine scientific community, especially researchers from CONICET, who participated in the Chancellery seminar in October 2022 and various INCs. These scientists, in addition, articulate efforts through the Coalition of Scientists for an Effective Plastics Treaty, an international network that seeks to generate and disseminate scientific knowledge on the impacts of plastic pollution.
We consider this a minority coalition because, although these actors have a high level of involvement in the process and a high level of coordination, their resources and advocacy capacity are clearly limited compared to the dominant coalition. The absence of strong governmental actors within this coalition is an indicator of these limitations.
Another indication of this limited capacity is the modification of Argentina’s position on the regulation of toxic additives and avoidable plastics. At INC-1, Argentina stated that addressing plastic pollution requires “[a] general change in the system that addresses the entire life cycle of plastics, including the possibility of eliminating hazardous additives and conflicting chemicals, as well as products that are unnecessary, avoidable or problematic” (Argentina, 2022). This approach to more structural change in plastic production systems was not sustained in subsequent INCs, where Argentina’s position was focused on extended producer responsibility and proper waste management. The inclusion of this more ambitious language in the country’s presentation at INC-1 was not the result of a process of internal deliberation, but rather responded to the conjuncture and the “climax” of the first session of the INC-1 international negotiation (interview 1). Let us recall that, at that time, the process of internal discussion in Argentina on the global plastics treaty was very incipient and had not fully captured the attention of the various domestic policy actors linked to the plastics issue, both from the governmental sector and the industry (interview 1). As these actors became involved, the country’s position on this issue changed. Arguably, the impossibility of sustaining this more ambitious language of structural change in the subsequent presentations by the Argentine State reflects the weaknesses in the advocacy capacity of the socio-environmentalist coalition during the process of formulating Argentina’s position.
Finally, the second minority coalition, which we have called the “social justice” coalition, comprises actors whose main and priority focus is the situation of workers in the informal economy linked to the recovery and recycling of plastic waste. This coalition comprises mainly non-governmental actors linked to the waste pickers and recyclers movement and governmental actors from the Ministry of Social Development. The demands for a just transition and the rights of recyclers and waste pickers are also strongly shared by the actors of the socio-environmental coalition (personal observation). However, no relevant levels of coordination between actors of these two coalitions have been observed during the process of formulating the Argentine position (personal observation). Likewise, although the concern for just transition is shared by both coalitions, the other unifying ideational elements of the socio-environmental coalition regarding the need to regulate plastic production are not a central part of the agenda of the social justice coalition actors.
This coalition was the one most strongly affected by the changes in the Argentine political context since Javier Milei took office in December 2023. In the first part of the period under analysis (2022-2023), this coalition, even with limited involvement, had a relative capacity to influence the process of formulating Argentina’s position. Leaders of waste picker movements were part of the government at that time under President Fernández, holding leadership positions in the Ministry of Social Development and also legislative seats in the national Congress. In addition, the need for a just transition and the recognition of the role of waste pickers and recyclers were strongly shared and promoted by the Ministry of Environment. The coalition’s capacity to influence during this period is reflected in the relevance of just transition and the human rights approach in Argentina’s positions during INCs 1, 2, and 3 (Argentina 2022; 2023(1); 2023(2); 2023(3)). This situation changed substantially after the beginning of Javier Milei’s government. The social justice coalition lost its allies within the national government, the new political-ideational context became reactive to social justice proposals, and its capacity to influence the process decreased drastically. This was clearly reflected in Argentina’s position in INC 4, in which the issues of just transition and human rights approaches were not mentioned (Argentina, 2024).
Conclusions
This article analyzes the internal process of formulating the Argentine position on the global plastics treaty based on the actors that participated in the process and how their perspectives, interests and policy preferences are reflected in that position. Based on the conceptual framework of the advocacy coalitions approach, we identify a dominant coalition and two minority coalitions of actors interacting and contesting this policy process. In this final section, some of the most relevant empirical findings and theoretical implications resulting from the analysis are highlighted.
Firstly, the study shows that the position of the Argentine State reflects the preponderance of the dominant coalition’s positions. Throughout the Argentine government’s presentations at the four international conferences, the vision of the need to address plastic pollution, but without affecting the viability of the plastics industry in Argentina, has prevailed. Within this framework, a conceptualization of the pollution problem as linked to inefficient waste management systems and bad practices and consumption habits has predominated, leading to policy proposals and measures focused on the improvement of mechanisms and procedures “downstream” of the process of production and consumption of plastics (e.g., recovery, sorting, recycling, treatment and final disposal) and not on the regulation of the design and production of this material. In turn, the country’s positions are also linked to Argentina’s historical positions in international environmental negotiations: the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and the importance that the environmental measures agreed upon do not affect international trade.
Secondly, the change of government in December 2023 and the rise of Javier Milei’s government has had a mixed impact on Argentina’s position. On the one hand, there was a clear shift regarding the issue of just transition and the rights-based approach. On the other hand, there was a continuity of the other core elements of the Argentine position that were not affected by the change of government (focus on waste management and extended producer responsibility; protection of international trade; common but differentiated responsibilities).
The analysis also enriches the literature on advocacy coalitions in at least two dimensions. First, the article demonstrates how changes in the political context can impact the advocacy capacity of coalitions within a policy subsystem and lead to policy changes. Consistent with the ACF literature, a change in government can represent an alteration in the external conditions of a subsystem and reconfigure the relative influence of coalitions as well as affect components of their sets of beliefs and policy preferences. Our analysis clearly demonstrates how the change in government weakened the resources of the social justice coalition, which lost its institutional allies and ostensibly reduced its advocacy capacity. In contrast, the resources and capacities of the dominant coalition were not affected, although the question remains as to what extent the new political context could affect and redefine the set of core policy beliefs that bind it together, given the ideological orientation of the new government and its strong and growing anti-agenda 2030 discourse.
Second, the Argentine case shows how certain types of resources, in particular access to formal positions of power within the state apparatus, can be particularly relevant in explaining the degree of influence of a coalition depending on the context. While there is a diversity of resources that coalitions can mobilize, their relevance and effectiveness depend on the specific characteristics of each situation. In this study, it is shown how the presence of coalition actors in positions of formal authority in the State was key to consolidate the position of the dominant coalition, while the loss of these resources by the social justice coalition resulted in a significant reduction of its influence capacity.
Finally, the analysis of the case offers valuable elements for future research on coalitions, particularly in the field of plastic pollution where diverse perspectives and narratives coexist regarding the problem and the ways to address it. The study shows how minority coalitions, despite sharing some core policy beliefs, presented low levels of coordination among themselves, which could have affected their ability to build a stronger alternative position vis-à-vis the dominant coalition. This suggests relevant questions about the conditions that facilitate or inhibit the articulation between coalitions with partially convergent agendas, especially in contexts of high social fragmentation and political volatility such as those of Latin America.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Agency for the Promotion of Research, Technological Development and Innovation of Argentina (project PICTO-2022-ITBA-00023). We thank the interviewees for their valuable insights and the journal’s anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
References
- ALCAÑIZ, I.; GUTIÉRREZ, R. A. The Distributive Politics of Environmental Protection in Latin America and the Caribbean. Elements in Politics and Society in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
-
ARGENTINA. Intervención Delegación Argentina. Primer Periodo de Sesiones; Comité ́ Intergubernamental de Negociación para la elaboración de un instrumento internacional jurídicamente vinculante sobre la contaminación por plásticos (INC-1). Punta del Este, Uruguay, Noviembre-diciembre 2022. https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/intervencion_argentina_general_statement_0.pdf Acceso 23 de agosto, 2024
» https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/intervencion_argentina_general_statement_0.pdf -
ARGENTINA (1). Tema 1 del Programa - Apertura del periodo de sesiones. Segundo Período de Sesiones; Segunda sesión del Comité Intergubernamental de Negociación para la elaboración de un instrumento internacional jurídicamente vinculante sobre la contaminación por plásticos, incluso en el medio marino (INC-2). Paris, Francia, mayo-junio 2023. https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/argentinaagenda1statement_0.pdf Acceso 23 de agosto, 2024
» https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/argentinaagenda1statement_0.pdf -
ARGENTINA (2). Tema 4 del Programa - Preparación de un instrumento internacional jurídicamente vinculante. Segundo Periodo de Sesiones. Segunda sesión del Comité Intergubernamental de Negociación para la elaboración de un instrumento internacional jurídicamente vinculante sobre la contaminación por plásticos, incluso en el medio marino (INC-2). Paris, Francia, mayo-junio 2023. https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/argentinastatement4.pdf Acceso 23 de agosto, 2024
» https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/argentinastatement4.pdf -
ARGENTINA (3). Intervención Delegación Argentina. Tema 4 - Preparación de un instrumento internacional jurídicamente vinculante. Tercer Período de Sesiones; Comité ́ intergubernamental de negociación para elaborar un instrumento internacional jurídicamente vinculante en materia de contaminación por plásticos, incluso en el medio marino (INC-3). Nairobi, Kenia, noviembre 2023. https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/argentina.pdf Acceso 23 de agosto, 2024.
» https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/argentina.pdf -
ARGENTINA. Declaración de Apertura de la República Argentina. Cuarta sesión del Comité Intergubernamental de Negociación para elaborar un instrumento internacional jurídicamente vinculante sobre la contaminación por plástico (INC-4). Ottawa, Canadá, abril 2024. https://resolutions.unep.org/incres/uploads/opening_statement_-_argentina_-_inc-4_0.pdf Acceso 23 de Agosto, 2024.
» https://resolutions.unep.org/incres/uploads/opening_statement_-_argentina_-_inc-4_0.pdf -
CARTER, N. Greening the mainstream: party politics and the environment. Environmental Politics, v. 22, n.1, p. 73-94, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.755391
» https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.755391 -
HAAR, R.; PIERCE, J. Foreign Policy Change from an Advocacy Coalition Framework Perspective. International Studies Review, v. 23, n. 4, p. 1771-1791, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viab044
» https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viab044 -
CAIRPLAS. Declaración ante el INC2. Cámara Argentina de la Industria de Reciclados Plásticos. 2023. https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/230105_cairplas_camara_argentina_de_la_industria_de_reciclados_argentina_0.pdf
» https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/230105_cairplas_camara_argentina_de_la_industria_de_reciclados_argentina_0.pdf - CASULLO, M. E.. El curioso caso de un peronismo no verticalista. Nueva Sociedad, n. 299, p. 83-92, 2022.
- CIQyP; ICCA; EURECA. Declaración ante el INC-2. Cámara de la Industria Química y Petroquímica (CIQyP®), miembro del Consejo Internacional de Asociaciones Químicas (ICCA) y EURECA® (Entidades Unidas Reafirmando la Economía Circular en Argentina). 2023
-
CONSCIENTE COLECTIVO et al. Pre-Session Submission. Segunda Sesión del Comité Intergubernamental de Negociación del INC 2. Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales; Taller Ecologista; Unplastify; Asociación Sustentar. 2023. https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/argentina_joint_15082023_a.pdf
» https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/argentina_joint_15082023_a.pdf -
DAUVERGNE, P.; POOLE LEHNHOFF, K. (2024). The power of biojustice environmentalism in the Global South: insights from the politics of reducing single-use plastics in Guatemala. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, p. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2024.2386550
» https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2024.2386550 -
EURECA. Declaración ante el INC-2. Entidades Unidas reafirmando la Economía Circular en Argentina. 2023. https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/230106_eureca_entidades_unidas_reafirmando_la_economia_circular_en_argentina.pdf
» https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/230106_eureca_entidades_unidas_reafirmando_la_economia_circular_en_argentina.pdf -
FIGUEROA, L. M. Entre la economía y la política, factores que activan coaliciones. Aportes teóricos a la luz de la adecuación e implementación de una política ambiental nacional en tres provincias argentinas (2008-2019). Estudios Políticos, [S. l.], n. 60, p. 251-275, 2021. DOI: 10.17533/udea.espo.n60a11.
» https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.espo.n60a11. -
GEYER, R. et al. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv., v. 3, n. 17, e1700782, 2017. DOI:10.1126/sciadv.1700782
» https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782 - GUTIÉRREZ, R. A. La confrontación de coaliciones sociedad-estado: la política de protección de bosques nativos en Argentina (2004-2015). Revista SAAP v. 11 n. 2 p. 283-312. 2017.
-
LEBRETON, L. et al. Industrialised fishing nations largely contribute to floating plastic pollution in the North Pacific subtropical gyre. Sci Rep 12, 12666, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16529-0
» https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16529-0 - MINISTERIO DE HACIENDA. Informe Cadenas de Valor. Petroquímica-Plástica. ISSN 2525-0221. 2019.
- NACIONES UNIDAS. UNEP/EA.5/Res.14. Fin de la contaminación por plásticos: hacia un instrumento internacional juridicamente vinculante. Asamblea de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente; Nairobi, 5/14; 2 de marzo 2022.
- NOHRSTEDT, D., et al. (2023). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Progress and emerging areas. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process. 5th ed. p. 130-160. Routledge
-
ORGANIZACIONES DE LA SOCIEDAD CIVIL LATINOAMERICANA. Declaration of various civil society organizations in Latin America INC-2. June 2023. https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/ngos_latin_america_0.pdf
» https://resolutions.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/ngos_latin_america_0.pdf -
RYAN, D. Política y Cambio Climático: Explorando la relación entre partidos políticos y la problemática climática en América Latina. Ambiente & Sociedade, v. 20 n.3. p. 277-294, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422ASOCEx0007V2032017
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422ASOCEx0007V2032017 - PALM, E., et al. Narrating plastics governance: policy narratives in the European plastics strategy. Environmental Politics, v. 31 n.3, p. 365-385, 2021.
-
SMITH, M. et al. Microplastics in Seafood and the Implications for Human Health. Curr Envir Health Rpt. v. 5, p. 375-386. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-018-0206-z
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-018-0206-z - SABATIER, P.; WEIBLE, C. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. In SABATIER, P., Theories of the Policy Process., 2. ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2007, p. 189-222.
-
TESTA, M. E.; BILBAO, C. El rol del Congreso de la Nación en la lucha contra la contaminación plástica. Buenos Aires: Círculo de Políticas Ambientales, noviembre, 2023. https://circulodepoliticasambientales.org/el-rol-del-congreso-de-la-nacion-en-la-lucha-contra-la-contaminacion-plastica/
» https://circulodepoliticasambientales.org/el-rol-del-congreso-de-la-nacion-en-la-lucha-contra-la-contaminacion-plastica - URBINA, M. A. et al. A country’s response to tackling plastic pollution in aquatic ecosystems: The Chilean way. Aquatic Conservation. Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. v. 31, n.2, p. 420-440, 2021.
-
WEIBLE, C.; INGOLD, K. Why advocacy coalitions matter and practical insights about them. Policy & Politics, v. 46, n. 2, p. 325-343, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318X15230061739399
» https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318X15230061739399 -
WEIBLE et al. Sharpening Advocacy Coalitions. Policy Studies Journal, v. 48, p. 1054-1081, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12360
» https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12360 -
WAGNER et al. State of the science on plastic chemicals - Identifying and addressing chemicals and polymers of concern. Zenodo, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10701706
» http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10701706 -
WRIGHT, S.; KELLY, F. Plastic and Human Health: A Micro Issue?, Environmental Science & Technology, v. 51, n. 12, p. 6634-6647, 2017. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00423.
» https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00423. -
WWF. Towards a Treaty to End Plastic Pollution Global Rules to Solve a Global Problem. Gland: WWF International, 2022. https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/towards_a_treaty_to_end_plastic_pollution___final_report.pdf
» https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/towards_a_treaty_to_end_plastic_pollution___final_report.pdf
-
List of interviews
(1) Alejandro Tórres Lepori, Deputy Director of the Environmental Affairs Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and focal point of the internal process of formulating the Argentine position on the plastic treaty until December 2023; date of interview: 07/30/2024.(2) Candela Nassi, official of the National Undersecretariat of the Environment; member of the Argentine delegation in the negotiations at INC 1, 2, 3, 4. Date of interview: 07/08/2024.(3) Cecilia Bianco, member of the ONG Taller Ecologista Rosario. Date of interview: 08/08/2024.
-
1
- Argentine scientists, part of the Coalition of Scientists for an Effective Global Treaty.
-
2
- EPR is a principle of environmental policy and management that implies holding the producer of a good legally and economically responsible throughout its life cycle, including its post-consumer stage (see Testa; Bilbao, 2023, for more information).
-
3
- A detailed analysis of the submissions is available as supplementary material at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383273033_Material_Suplementario_Anexo_I_La_posicion_argentina_a_lo_largo_de_los_INC_-_Tratado_Global_de_Plasticos
-
Data Availability Statement:
The data supporting this study are described and included in the article.
The data supporting this study are described and included in the article.
