'Reality kicks in': What just happened at talks to create a 'Paris deal for plastics'?

João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, Global Affairs Special Envoy, The Ocean Cleanup: It's a serious thing. So to have states, all states, 193 states, agree on these global commitments, it's a very big deal.

Robin Pomeroy, host, Radio Davos: Welcome to Radio Davos, the podcast from the World Economic Forum that looks at the biggest challenges and how we might solve them. This week the world is trying to write a global treaty to tackle one of the biggest environmental problems.

Kwame Asamoa Mensa-Yawson, Manager, Ghana National Plastic Action Partnership: We have people calling it the Paris Agreement for plastics, and rightly so because this is a very important treaty that is looking at one of the serious issues, environmental issues, of our time, which is plastic pollution.

Robin Pomeroy: Work has started on drafting a global treaty on plastic pollution, confronting a problem that has become a big political issue around the world.

Eline Leising, Regional Program Manager, Enviu: It's really, really super important to actually phase out the most problematic plastic packaging types as soon as possible because they're everywhere, right? In the whole global South, from the capitals to the smallest remote islands, you can find these sachets everywhere.

Robin Pomeroy: A global treaty could have a big impact on the way we produce, use and dispose of just about everything. We hear from governments, companies and NGOs at the talks.

Bethanie Carney-Almroth, Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty: CMR - cancerogenic, mutagenic, reproductively toxic - those should be banned. Chemicals that are endocrine disruptors should be banned. Chemicals that are persistent and bioaccumulative and toxic could be banned.

Robin Pomeroy: We’ll take you inside the UN negotiations where the stakes are high - for the environment, and for industry.

Jodie Roussell Global Public Affairs Lead - Packaging & Sustainability Nestlé: We are also concerned to see the attempts to narrow the scope of the treaty text to focus only on downstream measures.

Robin Pomeroy: Subscribe to Radio Davos wherever you get your podcasts, or visit wef.ch/podcasts.

I’m Robin Pomeroy at the World Economic Forum, and with this look at the INC-3 talks on a global plastics treaty…

João Ribeiro-Bidaoui: I hope INC-3 is the moment where reality kicks in.

Robin Pomeroy: Welcome to Radio Davos.

Plastics pollution is a very visible, global environmental and health challenge, and last year the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) launched a process to draft a global treaty aimed at solving the problem. Radio Davos reported on that in February last year - the episode is still available.

Earlier this week, delegations from all over the world met in Nairobi to work on the first full draft of a treaty which could set binding rules that would affect the production, use and disposal of plastics all around the world.

To get a readout of what happened there, and what might happen next, I spoke to someone at that conference - known asl INC-3. Kwame Asamoa Mensa-Yawson heads the Ghana National Plastic Action Partnership, a multistakeholder group looking at solutions to the plastics issue, under the auspices of the World Economic Forum.

Kwame does a great job of explaining what this treaty is, and where the talks stand now - spoiler alert - there is a deadlock over whether it should cover, as a vast majority of states think - all parts of the lifecycle of plastics, including the production of raw materials.

Kwame also managed to grab some soundbites for us from a wide range of delegates in Nairobi, and we’ll be hearing some of those.

Here’s Kwame, I started by asking him to outline what the plastics treaty is, and what these talks in Nairobi, are all about.

Kwame Asamoa Mensa-Yawson: So at UNEA 5.2, which is the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly, which is dubbed UNIA 5.2, in Nairobi, Kenya, in February 2022, there was a historic adoption of what we call a resolution that is calling for a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. And as a result, a mandate was given to an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, called the INC, which will convene over five meetings to negotiate and develop this treaty, that is to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.

So the INC is the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. They've met three times now. The first meeting was in Uruguay. The second meeting was in France. The third meeting is just what happened a couple of days ago in Kenya. The fourth and fifth meeting would be in Canada and in South Korea, respectively.

So the INC is responsible and has the mandate for working together to negotiate the Plastics Treaty, leveraging all the UN member countries with also opportunities for different stakeholders like NGOs, affiliated members of UN agencies to also join in as observers.

Robin Pomeroy: And you were obviously mixing with a lot of those different people. And you did us the service of grabbing some sound bites off several delegates and we'll be listening to those during this interview.

So, this is the third meeting out of five. So, we're exactly in the middle of this negotiation for something which could potentially be quite a big deal. And it's sometimes called in the media, potentially, the Paris Treaty for Plastic. That obviously refers to the international climate change deal. What would or might this plastics treaty do? Can you give us just an idea in a nutshell?

Kwame Asamoa Mensa-Yawson: Yes, sure. We have people calling it the Paris Agreement for plastics, and rightly so because this is a very important treaty that is looking at one of the serious issues, environmental issues, of our time, which is plastic pollution.

And the treaty, the resolution that gave birth to all these discussions, called the UNEA 5.14 resolution, sort of states clearly the scope of the treaty, which is that it should aim to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.

And so definitely I am expecting, and people around the world are also expecting, a treaty that is robust, a treaty that is practical and is ambitious and has actions that address the full life-cycle of plastics. So looking at the upstream solutions and the downstream solutions and also, most importantly, a treaty that has legally binding rules to ensure that there is strict adherence to the provisions of the treaty by the different countries.

Robin Pomeroy: It's really interesting to watch how this is going to emerge, because we don't know what's going to come out of the end of it yet.

The issue of plastic pollution really leapt up the agenda, I think probably everywhere in the world, all kinds of countries all over the world, with pictures of the sea turtles with the straws up their nose, beaches covered in plastic pollution. Lots of countries have put in bans for single-use plastics, this kind of thing. But it seems that the problem doesn't seem to be improving anytime soon. And there's been a political decision at the international level to try and make this treaty happen.

Let's hear from one of, the first one of your interviews. We've got five or six, I think, soundbites that you sent me. This first one is from João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, who is the global affairs special envoy for something called The Ocean Cleanup, which is an NGO, a non-governmental organization. It's based in the Netherlands and it looks at technology that can extract plastic pollution from the ocean and in rivers. This is what he had to say.

João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, Global Affairs Special Envoy, The Ocean Cleanup: I hope INC-3 is the moment where reality kicks in. A treaty is not a manifesto. A treaty needs to be agreed by states that then has to go through their constitutional requirements to have it enforced at the domestic level. It will have to influence allocation of resources in budgets, change in laws. So it's a serious thing. So to have states, all states, 193 states, agree on these global commitments, it's a very big deal. And of course, history tells us that these agreements usually bring it down to the minimum common denominator.

Robin Pomeroy: That was João Ribeiro-Bidaoui of The Ocean Cleanup saying, really putting out what a big deal this could be, but also the challenge of getting consensus because a United Nations negotiation, you need consensus, which means all countries, and he says there are 193 of them, need to agree.

Let's talk about what it might do in terms of the nitty gritty. Could this treaty set rules on what countries can and can't do with plastics? For example, how much plastic they can produce or how they have to dispose of plastics? Is it those kinds of measures that will be in this treaty?

Kwame Asamoa Mensa-Yawson: Yes, so the treaty definitely looks at upstream solutions and downstream solutions, as I've mentioned. And the goal is that the treaty is expected to address the full life-cycle of plastics.

And so if you talk about issues around the production of plastics, you're looking at provisions in the treaty that talks about plastic, primary plastic polymers, for example, right? And there is text in the in the zero draft that talks about the need for countries to manage and also reduce the production and consumption of plastics.

There are also other issues around the need for product design that leads to reduction of plastics, for example, in packaging. Also looking at how plastics can be developed or designed better to ensure that they can be repurposed easily, they can be recycled. And all these have impact on the production and the consumption of plastics.

Again, there are also provisions around the reuse of recycled content which would definitely affect the use of virgin plastics in the various packaging or plastic use as well. There's also issues around a need for reuse, reduction and refill systems, which all come together to ensure that the production and the consumption of plastic is adequately managed.

And then when you also talk about the issue of disposal, there is also provisions in the zero draft, for example, looking at waste management. So, for example, how parties should ensure that the different stages of waste management, looking at handling, collection, sorting, recycling, transportation, and also the final disposal, is done in a way that plastics doesn't end up and affect human life and affect wildlife and then also impact on ecosystems as well.

So if you look at the text of the zero draft, it is very comprehensive, right? So looking at upstream and downstream as well.

Robin Pomeroy: You use this expression zero draft. Is that what you're saying?

Kwame Asamoa Mensa-Yawson: Yes, so at the second meeting of the INC, which is INC-2, that happened in Paris, the chair was mandated to come up with what we call a zero draft, which would be essentially the basis for future discussion. And so it has the various submissions that were made from the various countries sort of put together in terms of a direction on what the different countries are saying together with what we call a synthesis report as well.

And so the zero draft in INC-3 was the basis for the discussion for the various elements that could potentially end up in the treaty. So you have various options for each of the elements. And at INC-3, different stakeholders were given the opportunity to review each of the options for the various elements and also add on if they have to or sort of propose any changes to these options in the treaty.

Robin Pomeroy: The complexity of the issue is partly because there isn't such a thing as plastic - it's plastics - many different types of plastics made of many different materials.

So I want to hear from a couple more voices from the people you met during those negotiations in Nairobi a few days ago. The two people we are going to hear now are both scientists from a thing called the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. That is a group formed last year after the UN Environment Assembly agreed to start these negotiations, and they are trying to make sure this treaty is effective.

Kristian Syberg, Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty: My name is Kristian Syberg. I am an associate professor at Roskilde University in Denmark, and I am leading the working group on circular economy in the Scientists' Coalition.

There are 13-16,000 different chemicals and plastics. Many of them with unknown effects and also many of them with known hazardous effects. So we need the treaty to provide the foundation for getting rid of these chemicals, making a simpler matrix for plastics in the future. Otherwise, we have no chance of controlling how we both human health and environment is exposed to these chemicals.

And then on top of that, there's also the issue with with micro and nanoplastics that are shredded both from materials, but also also during use, but also a once these are lost to the environment. This is a big issue as well.

We know a lot about microplastics and impacts of that as well and we are starting to learn more and more about nanoplastics, and nanoplastics can be a translocated across the blood-brain barrier, for example. So it could be taking up in bodies. We don't fully understand the implications of that. But there's definitely something to worry about.

So I think from my perspective, dealing with both the chemicals and the micro and nanoplastics in plastic production in the future will be a central aspect to consider.

Bethanie Carney-Almroth, Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty: My name is Bethanie Carney-Almroth. I'm a professor of eco toxicology and environmental sciences at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, and I am a steering committee member of the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty.

Regarding microplastics specifically, the lowest hanging fruit, the easiest way to address that is to ban microplastics that are intentionally added. For microplastics formed during use, during wear and tear and so on, we need to find - A - ways to design products that don't shed as many microplastics during the use phase, and then - B - find ways to contain them so they're not released to the environment when they are shed.

So these are different and obligations that will come in and during different stages in the lifespan of plastics from the very beginning, from production and design, to the very end.

Robin Pomeroy: That was Bethanie Carney-Almroth, and before her you heard Kristian Syberg. Both of them are in the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. That was an organization that was there in Nairobi at this negotiation.

Kwame, they were talking about there's so many different types of plastics, there are so many products that go into making the different plastics, and some plastics are being talked about, or some of the chemicals that go into making them, are known as problematic. That's a word that is being used, right? What does that mean?

Kwame Asamoa Mensa-Yawson: So this is a term that has been captured in the zero draft, which I've explained. However, there needs to be work to really explain and drill down on what these items would be. And I think this is where the need for science to also inform on what are problematic plastics or plastics product.

And so here, I believe that there's a need for intersessional work - in between the INCs - where we bring together the various and relevant stakeholders with expertise to help provide some clarity on what some of these definitions will mean for the treaty.

And of course, these are some of the issues that are currently causing disagreements between these different countries in terms of what would these items essentially comprise or be composed of. And so I believe that there's a need for science to come in here and advise on what we talk about problematic unnecessary plastics or products. What do we mean?

Currently, there are different countries who are rolling out sort of phase out mechanisms for some of these types of plastics. And these learnings could be very useful in some of these discussions going forward.

Robin Pomeroy: Well, let's hear from one of those experts now. It's actually someone we just heard from. We're going to hear two voices, but the first one is once again, Bethany Carney-Almroth of the Scientists' Coalition, talking about exactly what you just said.

Bethanie Carney-Almroth: So we're not starting from zero here. There is a lot of data and science out there on how chemicals are problematic and toxic. So I think we could start from there.

This will, of course, need to be decided by the member states in their future work. But characteristics like CMR - cancerogenic, mutagenic, reproductively toxic - those should be banned. Chemicals that are endocrine disruptors should be banned. Chemicals that are persistent and bioaccumulative and toxic could be banned.

And these are all labels that are used already today globally to understand how chemicals are problematic.

And when it comes to problematic products, I think there's more work to be done there in defining what that means. In the case for the plastics treaty, that might be referring to single use or short-term use, plastics, unnecessary plastics. We might need to have discussions around essentiality.

And again, these are all discussions that need to be had and need to be built on. But we do have data indicating starting points and we can build on those.

Eline Leising, Enviu: My name is Eline Leising and I'm the programme manager for Enviu in Indonesia.

We started this plastics programme in 2019 in Indonesia, and when we assessed the innovation situation, we found out that the vast majority of all the projects were actually focusing on the downstream part of the plastics value chain - so collection, treatment management and recycling, and only very little was done on the reduction of the very source of all this plastic pollution. That's what we call the broken linear plastics packaging chain.

It's really, really super important to actually phase out the most problematic plastic packaging types as soon as possible.

Let me be specific. I mean, sachets and other flexibles which are non-recyclable and just do not get collected. Because that is obviously what we substitute with our solutions and is also our main motivation because they're everywhere, right? In the whole global South, from the capitals to the smallest remote islands, you can find these sachets and other flexible packaging everywhere, and they all end up in the environment as the waste management system is simply not present. At best they end up in poorly managed landfills. But this this has to stop.

Robin Pomeroy: That was Eline Leising of Enviu. Before that, there was Bethanie Carney-Almroth of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty.

Kwame, some people might have seen media coverage of INC-3, the meeting you were at, and the headlines that I saw was there was stalemate and there's been a big stumbling block. It seems to be about this thing about the life-cycle of plastics and whether the upstream inputs to make plastic, which are usually oil and gas products, whether they should be included at all. Could you tell us something about that kind of political standoff?

Kwame Asamoa Mensa-Yawson: Yes, so definitely. I mean, the news covered the stalemate that happened at INC-3. And as you've rightly captured, the discussion has been on what should the treaty address in terms of the scope. I mean, UNEA 5.14 really sets out the scope for the treaty, which is to look at the full life-cycle of plastics. Significant majority of member states are in alignment with this, that a treaty should look at upstream, should look at downstream, and even midstream as well.

But however, there is also a number of countries who also believe that the treaty should be targeted and should be narrowed to look at downstream solutions instead of upstream solutions that target the production of plastics and the management of plastics upstream.

And so that is where the issue was at INC-3 in terms of having that consensus on what issues should we look at if we're talking about the full life-cycle of plastics.

Robin Pomeroy: Well, let's hear another voice from another one of the many people you were talking to in the corridors. This is from the multinational food company, Nestlé. She's called Jodie Roussell and she's the global public affairs lead for packaging and sustainability.

Jodie Roussell Global Public Affairs Lead - Packaging & Sustainability, Nestlé: We are also concerned to see the attempts to narrow the scope of the treaty text to focus only on downstream measures. The resolution that was passed at the UNEA 5.2 to mandate the beginning of negotiations, was clear that it focussed on the full life-cycle of plastics to address plastic pollution.

And we really need action across the entire plastics value chain with specifically upstream solutions like elimination of problematic materials and chemicals of concern, better product design and scaling up re-use and refill systems.

These measures are really essential because we know that recycling and waste management alone can't address the challenge.

Disappointed to see a proliferation of alternative text proposals at the INC-3, including some calls for deletion of key provisions relating to primary plastic polymers, the identification of chemicals and polymers of concern, as well as some of the problematic and avoidable plastic products.

I'll give you an example to make this specific. At Nestlé, we have a list. It's public. It's called our negative list, of materials we've targeted for phase out because those materials obstruct recycling - elements like carbon black that can't be identified by near infrared scanners or plastic straws which are too small to be collected and recycled in most systems today.

Robin Pomeroy: Jodie Roussell, Global Public Affairs Lead, Packaging and Sustainability of Nestlé. So, at this meeting, there were NGOs, there were scientists, there were obviously, I guess, the most important people, the country delegates, and there was big business, but there were also people representing very small businesses or citizens who are affected by the plastics pollution problem. One of them that you spoke to, there's a group called the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. Among other things, they represent the many people around the world who are waste pickers. Can you tell us anything about that group or all the people they represent, Kwame?

Kwame Asamoa Mensa-Yawson: Yes, sure. One of the elements in the treaty discussion has been on just transition - how to ensure that in moving to the circular economy that we're talking about, we're ensuring that we're leaving nobody behind. And one of the groups that definitely comes to the fore when these discussions come up, we're looking at the informal sector, looking at the waste pickers and waste collectors.

And it was interesting at INC to see that most of the elements that many of the countries were pushing for was around ensuring that just transition is also considered very heavily.

Robin Pomeroy: Yes, this expression, 'just transition', I don't know if it originated there, but it certainly is a big part of climate change negotiations where rich countries have produced most of the climate pollution, are we going to tell poorer countries to stop using fossil fuels in the same way that rich countries supposedly are meant to be phasing them out?

So, let's hear from that member of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

Rafael Eudes, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives: My name is Rafael Eudes, I am from Aliança Resíduo Zero Brasil. I am also part of GAIA, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives.

We expect that we are going to have a clear mention of just transition and the waste pickers in the process.

But we really need to understand the next steps. We really need to understand to what we are transitioning.

We have an economy that right now it's making huge plastic pollution to the world, to the environment. And we need to transition to a new economy. So which economy would it be?

For us, for GAIA, we do believe that we really need to focus to an economy, that you have reusable systems and you have a reduction of plastic production. And also implementing a safe and non-toxic recycling assistant.

Robin Pomeroy: GAIA that he mentioned there is, of course it means the Earth, but it also means, in this case, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. Interesting stuff on their website.

Now, Kwame, we mentioned that your day job is you run NPAP in Ghana. Tell us what NPAP is, or what an NPAP is, and then we're going to hear from our final clip that you got for us at those talks.

Kwame Asamoa Mensa-Yawson: NPAP is the National Plastic Action Partnership, which is a platform that is created by the Global Plastic Action Partnership, which is hosted at the World Economic Forum.

And the understanding here is that there needs to be co-creation amongst different stakeholders if we are going to address the plastic pollution challenge. And so this platform provides an avenue for stakeholders from the public, private, civil society and development partners to come together to leverage their efforts and their resources and programming to be able to drive plastic pollution, to be able to impact on efforts to address plastic pollution.

And I specifically work for the National Plastic Action Partnership in Ghana, managing the platform in Ghana. It is refreshing to highlight that there are a number of these NPAPs in different parts of the world. So moving from Africa, you have some in Latin America, in Asia as well. So these platforms provide an avenue for stakeholders to engage and also work together to address plastic pollution.

Robin Pomeroy: Let's hear from, I guess, an equivalent of yours or someone who's doing a similar job in Asia. This is Le Ngọc Tuan. I'm sure I'm pronouncing it wrong. I'm very sorry. He was the delegate to the meeting from Viet Nam's Ministry of Environment and he runs the NPAP in Viet Nam.

Le Ngọc Tuan, Le Ngọc Tuan, Director General of International Cooperation Department, Viet Nam's Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, and chief negotiator of the intersectoral working group of the Viet Nam government at INC-3: Because we have NPAP as a multi-stakeholder platform, it means that it engaged the government agency and also for private sector and also for academia in the process.

So in the context of the future global treaty on plastic pollution, I think NPAP may be just a good platform to engage all the stakeholders in the fight against plastic pollution. So it means that you already have a platform to get everybody on the same page.

Robin Pomeroy: Le Ngọc Tuan of the Vietnamese Environment Ministry and of the Vietnamese NPAP, which is part of the work overseen by the World Economic Forum, doing national action, bringing multi-stakeholder groups together on a national level.

What he's saying there is, if this treaty comes, those groups, so the kind of thing you're working on in Ghana, Kwame, will be well positioned to help implement some of these measures when it comes to tackling plastics pollution.

As we're three-fifths of the way through this negotiation process, are you confident? Are you optimistic that it will have any result, that it will have a good result? How are you feeling about it now this third session is finished?

Kwame Asamoa Mensa-Yawson: Yes, Robin, thank you very much. So before I come to that, I think I would want to highlight briefly the importance of the National Plastic Action Partnership, the platforms, and the role they can play going forward.

I see three opportunities here that we can look at. One is that the treaty calls for the development of what we call national action plans. And the GPAP model can support countries to develop what we call a baseline analysis, which does the plastic flows through the economy, also the projections into the future in terms of plastic flows.

And then that leads to the development of what we call national action roadmaps, which sets priorities, targets, and recommendations on how stakeholders can work together. And I believe that this methodology or body of work could provide a good foundation for countries to build on to develop their national action plans.

Obviously, there's conversations going on what these national action plans would include, but I believe that this methodology in terms of the baseline and the roadmap that has been developed by GPAP with different countries could provide a basis for that.

Again, the treaty talks about the need for stakeholder engagement and for stakeholders to work together. And given that the NPAP platform provides this inclusive opportunity and avenue for stakeholders to engage, I believe that countries could leverage these NPAP platforms in their country to sort of build on the stakeholder engagement and coordination to ensure that the different positions in the countries are aligned and they're working in one direction.

The third one which I'll talk about is awareness creation, which is a very important element of the treaty. And the treaty calls for awareness creation on plastic pollution to incentivize behavior change. And one of the impact areas of GPAP is behavior change. And there has been a body of work done in this area that I believe that countries again can pick on this and use the learnings and insights on behavior change also to support them in creating awareness around that.

Now, onto your question on whether I'm optimistic about the agreement on the treaty, I would say yes. I believe that there will definitely be an agreement on a treaty. But the question is, what kind of treaty are we going to agree on? Is it a treaty that pushes for a bare minimum in terms of addressing plastic pollution, or a treaty that calls for robust and ambitious actions that will encourage countries to adopt significant targets to ensure that we are reducing plastic pollution?

At INC-3, we had a stalemate, as many will call it, in terms of different countries having different opinions around the life-cycle of plastics. But I believe that this presents a very unique opportunity between now and INC-5, that there's a need for increased collaboration and engagement between the different countries to ensure that they align their position and interest.

And then also there is the need for work to be facilitated by the INC secretariat in what we call intersessional work to ensure that different groups and relevance stakeholders are brought together in between INCs to discuss some of these topical issues that people need clarity on or where they are sort of disagreements and concerns around. And I believe that once these activities are done, then we can get to a point where the countries come up with a treaty that is robust, that is practical, and that is ambitious.

And I mean, to the negotiators, the world is definitely looking up to you, and that you come up with a treaty that can address this challenge that has been with us for some time now.

And so I believe that they also are very conscious that they can't afford to let the billions of people down across the world, and that the treaty that would be developed would have provisions that can ensure that we are making efforts and strides to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment

Robin Pomeroy: Kwame Asamoa Mensa-Yawson of the Ghana National Plastic Action Partnership. Thanks very much for joining us.

Kwame Asamoa Mensa-Yawson: Thank you very much Robin for having me. It was a good discussion.

Robin Pomeroy: Kwame Asamoa Mensa-Yawson of the Ghana National Plastic Action Partnership.

The World Economic Forum’s Global Plastic Action Partnership (GPAP) is a multi-stakeholder platform that brings together governments, businesses and civil society to translate commitments to reduce plastic pollution into concrete action. Find out more at globalplasticaction.org.

There are lots more Radio Davos episodes about the environment - subscribe to the podcast wherever you listen, or visit wef.ch/podcasts where you will also find the brilliant Meet the Leader, our sister podcast. And if you like our podcasts please do leave us a rating or review. And you are also welcome to join the World Economic Forum Podcast Club on Facebook.

This episode of Radio Davos was written and presented by me, Robin Pomeroy. Studio production was by Gareth Nolan.

Radio Davos will be back next week, but for now thanks to you for listening and goodbye.