COP vs SOM: Officials And Parties and Plastic Sustainability

Let's look at the difference between between a Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) and a Conference of the Parties (COP) in the context of international meetings.

Key Differences

• Level of Participation: SOMs involve senior officials below the ministerial or head of state level, while COPs involve higher-level representatives and decision-makers.
• Purpose: SOMs are preparatory and focused on technical or preliminary discussions. COPs are decision-making forums where binding agreements can be made.
• Outcomes: SOMs produce draft documents, recommendations, or preparatory work. COPs can result in binding international agreements or significant policy decisions.

SOMs are preparatory meetings focused on groundwork and technical discussions, while COPs are high-level, formal meetings where binding decisions and significant agreements are made.

I noticed that if you visit, photograph, or record either SOMs or COPs, a layperson would be hard-pressed to tell the difference.  A bunch of people with titles and badges from various countries show up and vote on language concerning a new or existing convention.

Here is a video of a Senior Officials Meeting for the World Trade Organization.

The previous video of the SOM looks a lot like the 2019 Conference Of Parties video for the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions... At least, the venue looks the same.

1. Senior Officials Meeting (SOM)

Purpose and Focus:

• SOM is typically a preparatory meeting where senior officials from various countries or organizations come together to discuss, negotiate, and coordinate on specific issues. These meetings often take place ahead of higher-level meetings or summits.
• The focus of SOMs is often on technical, logistical, or preliminary discussions. They aim to prepare the groundwork for decisions that will be made at higher-level meetings.

Participants:

• Participants are usually senior government officials, diplomats, or representatives from relevant organizations, but not typically ministers or heads of state.
• The attendees are often individuals who are knowledgeable about the specific issues on the agenda and can contribute to detailed discussions.

Outcomes:

• The outcome of an SOM might include draft agreements, working papers, or recommendations that will be presented at subsequent, higher-level meetings.
• SOMs do not typically result in binding decisions but rather serve to shape and refine proposals and strategies for the decision-making process.

2. Conference of the Parties (COP)

Purpose and Focus:

• COP is a formal, decision-making meeting of the parties to an international treaty or convention. The term "Parties" refers to the countries that have ratified the treaty.
• The focus of COPs is to assess progress in dealing with a particular issue, to make decisions on further actions, and to negotiate or adopt amendments to the treaty or convention. A well-known example is the COP for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Participants:

• Participants typically include government ministers, heads of state, and high-level representatives from the countries that are party to the treaty, as well as observers from intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, and other stakeholders.
• Given the high stakes and formal nature of COPs, participants often include the highest-level decision-makers.

Outcomes:

• COPs appear to result in binding agreements or decisions that guide future international actions or policies. Examples include legally binding commitments, resolutions, or protocols. Whether it is binding or requires further ratification or recognition depends on the checks and balances of the Party's government.
• The decisions made at COPs are usually significant and impactful, directly influencing international policy and actions related to the treaty’s subject matter.

The problem many democracies have with the "COP" decisions being "major" is that many of the same people attend, but that the representatives who are representing "Parties" to the convention as opposed to themselves as Senior Officials can raise their hands and vote on something that is afterwards considered as a recognized change to the Convention. 

At the 2019 Basel COP the senior officials who showed up representing their "Party" voted to remove Plastic from the Legal Use list (Annex IX B) to the restricted list (Annex IX A).  That means that whatever everyone decided during the 1990s original Basel Convention was just changed, significantly, by a bunch of individual senior officials. This is an example of why the USA often chooses not to enter into or become a Party to many Conventions in the first place.

The net effect is that 75% of the world can trade and recycle any plastic they want any way they want.  It just says that the exchange must be SEGREGATED.  75% of the world in non-OECD can trade and recycle plastic any way they want between the other 75%. The other 25% of "rich" nations cannot participate, despite having the standards and prices to incentivize standards that the non-OECD needs.

One of the big misunderstandings of International Law and Conventions is whether some countries "abide" or "ignore" or "violate" the conventions. The mainstream press repeatedly falls for the subtle difference between these states, and now - worrisomely - organizations like SERI are considering using terms like "international law" in the same way that national laws governing sovereign territory apply.

In previous blogs over the years I've tried to explain that another nation's law - like China's - is not binding on an American exporter, unless or until the sovereign US law requires something such as "proof of prior notification", which is itself not likely a felony.  If a Chinese person imports a Bible, the Bible seller in Seattle has certainly not "violated international law" by exporting the Bible to the Communist national.

Today let's look at how "International Law" is "changed" or "amended" by an international body, such as World Health Organization, Basel Convention Secretariat, World Intellectual Property Organization, etc.  Assuming it is understood that the UN can draft and representatives can vote on the language of a Convention, that act is not enforceable international law until or unless at least one nation becomes a Party to it.  A convention with no parties is like a bill that isn't signed into law, to put it in a USA Constitutional analogy.  Each nation has to not only vote on it, but ratify it using that Nation or Pary's process.

A totalitarian dictator has a very easy decision to make... Yes or No.  If the Dictator says he has "ratified it", it's ratified and applies inside that dictator's country.  Thus, in the case of the Basel Convention, the Dictator of non-OECD nation can say that his countries plastic scrap recyclers can recycle only non-OECD plastic scrap by ratifying the Convention. But the Convention doesn't stop the recyclers from importing plastic from the 75% of the world that isn't OECD.  Moreover, the Dictator can make any law he wants at any time and has no need for UN dictates. He arrests whoever he wants, accepts bribes or gives relatives exclusive rights.  The reference to the United Nations Convention gives the Dictator the appearance of being "law abiding" in international terms, but means nothing. No international enforcement exists, the Dictatorship's laws are sovereign. This is one of the USA's concerns - that dictators vote on rules that they know can never apply to them, but can be used to shame democracies.

The democracies are more easily shamed because it's actually a lot harder to ratify and adapt a UN law in a constitution.  If an angry Senator from Red West Carolina fillibusters the ratification, it can be spun by interested parties that the USA is somehow less internationally legal than the dictator.

4o