Authors
Read time: 7 minutes
International negotiations are ongoing for a global plastics treaty to combat plastic pollution. Rather than addressing just plastic waste, the scope of the initiative (which is sponsored by the United Nations) goes wider to regulate the plastics lifecycle, potentially stretching from sustainable production and requirements for the design of plastic goods to covering reuse and recycling as part of the circular economy.
Environment and sustainability
The development of a global treaty was called for by 175 UN members in a UN Environment Assembly decision (UNEA Resolution 5/14) in 2022. It is hoped it will tackle the estimated eight billion tonnes of plastic waste that exist as a legacy of the 10 billion tonnes of plastic produced since the 1950s and the 10 to 15 million tonnes of plastic waste finding its way into the marine environment each year (which is expected to more than triple by 2050). Other objectives are to control the human health impacts deriving from exposure to harmful chemicals incorporated into plastics and to regulate the release of microplastics into the environment.
The story so far
Negotiations are taking place through an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC). Five sessions were mandated in total. The most recent (INC-4) was held in Ottawa, Canada, from 23 to 29 April 2024 and attended by more than 2,500 participants, representing governments, academia, civil society organizations, private sector entities, UN entities and international organizations. The final session (INC-5) will take place in Busan, Korea from 25 November to 1 December 2024. If agreement is reached, the treaty would be opened for signing at a diplomatic conference to be arranged for the first half of 2025.
Progress was made at INC-4
Some of the key steps forward were:
1. Waste management
On waste management, delegates seemed to be moving toward agreement on the need for global waste management targets that would be achieved through nationally determined measures set out in national plans.
2. Just transition
The climate change concept of a “just transition” has been employed in the drafting to protect the interests of vulnerable populations and workers who may be affected by new measures, such as those individuals who rely on collecting and selling litter for recycling. A just transition in this context would be one that does not disproportionately affect those who are already marginalized.
3. Financial mechanisms
There was growing support for a dedicated multilateral fund that would operate on a grant basis and support activities designed to foster a just transition. There is also support in some quarters for a hybrid approach involving flexible and innovative finance that leverages the private sector to catalyse public financing through project-specific grants supported by the Global Environment Facility.
4. Establishment of working groups
At INC-4, delegates agreed to establish two ad hoc expert groups to tackle the following essential issues ahead of the final session:
- Implementation methods – in particular, options for a financial mechanism.
- Chemicals of concern – focusing on recyclability and reusability of plastics, given their chemical additives.
This is important as a means of progressing open issues if there is to be a realistic chance of concluding a deal at Busan.
Major sticking points and difficulties
There remains much ground to cover in resolving the following issues:
1. Scope of the agreement
Fundamentally, the scope of the treaty remains contentious. Some countries advocate for a broad scope that addresses the entire lifecycle of plastics (including curbs on production), while others prefer to focus solely on tackling plastic waste. This divergence in views has led to significant delays in the negotiations. The High Ambition Coalition (including the UK) seeks a comprehensive approach, while a “like-minded” group, including China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, prefers a more limited scope.
2. Primary plastic polymers
Discussions on limiting production of primary plastic polymers have proven to be particularly divisive. Some delegations support mandatory limits on production of virgin plastic, while others advocate for voluntary measures only. A number of delegations argue that restricting production would exceed the terms of reference for the treaty. UNEA Resolution 5/14 specified a treaty on plastic pollution, albeit one that is based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full lifecycle of plastic. It called for a treaty to promote:
- Sustainable production and consumption of plastics through, among other things, product design and environmentally sound waste management, including through resource efficiency and circular economy approaches; and
- National and international cooperative measures to reduce plastic pollution in the marine environment, including existing plastic pollution.
Promoting sustainable production is arguably very different from placing limits on overall total volumes of plastic production. This is an area where countries whose economy (and businesses) are part of the plastics value chain may be diametrically opposed to those who perhaps mainly suffer the negatives of plastic littering beaches and other aspects of their natural environment.
3. Chemicals and polymers of concern
Countries appear to be wide apart on how to address the use of chemicals and polymers of concern. Some delegations propose inclusion of globally agreed measures to regulate the use of these chemicals, while others would prefer the measures to be determined nationally by each party. It has been suggested there should be a prescriptive list of chemicals banned for incorporation into plastics, but reactions to this approach are mixed, with some countries arguing it goes beyond the treaty mandate. Others see such a list as essential for effective regulation.
4. Single-use plastics and microplastics
The regulation of single-use plastics and the use of microplastics is another contentious area. Again, while some countries support adoption of a global list of plastic products that are subject to a ban or phase-out, others call for nationally determined measures. There is no uniform understanding amongst countries regarding which are “problematic” and “avoidable” plastic products that should be subject to such measures.
Likelihood of a deal
It is hard to be optimistic on the prospect of negotiations clinching a deal by year-end 2024:
- The current working draft is a compilation of comments, most of which remain in square brackets, with little having been settled to date; and
The deep divisions on key issues, such as the scope of the agreement and the regulation of primary plastic polymers, pose substantial challenges.
It is helpful that a legal working group will be on hand at INC-5 tasked with ensuring the drafting is coherent, but the success of INC-5 will largely depend on the ability of delegates to find common ground on the major issues.
What next if no deal is agreed?
Ideally, UN members will come to together to renew the mandate for a further round of talks.
In the meantime, we expect to see individual national efforts to combat plastic pollution with divergent approaches that will struggle to achieve significant headway in the global context of the problem. That said, national and voluntary actions have had notable local successes (such as reducing plastic bag use very significantly (in the UK) or ensuring return of plastic drinks bottles (in Germany and the Nordic countries)).
Conclusion
If a worthwhile agreement is reached at INC-5, it will be a remarkable achievement in the relatively short time since UNEA Resolution 5/14 was adopted on 7 March 2022.
With global supply chains moving huge volumes of plastic goods (and packaging) around the planet every day, and plastic litter being spread uncontrollably by the wind and ocean currents, addressing plastic pollution requires a multilateral approach as it is a fundamentally transboundary problem.
Authors