Everything You Need to Know About the Upcoming Global Plastics Treaty
As we edge ever closer to a legally binding agreement on plastic pollution before the end of 2024, how hopeful should we be?
It was an “historic day” proclaimed the UN: “175 nations agree to develop a legally binding agreement on plastic pollution by 2024, prompting a major step towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions from plastic production, use and disposal.”
“Against the backdrop of geopolitical turmoil, the UN Environment Assembly shows multilateral cooperation at its best,” said the President of UNEA-5 and Norway’s Minister for Climate and the Environment, Espen Barth Eide, “Plastic pollution has grown into an epidemic. With today’s resolution we are officially on track for a cure.”
That announcement came in March 2022, with the ambition of completing a draft global legally binding agreement by the end of 2024. But today, as we reach the end of 2024, what will that legal agreement look like? And will it work?
The goal is to develop ‘the instrument’ which will be based on a comprehensive approach addressing the entire life cycle of plastic, including its production, design, and disposal. Through this International Legally Binding Instrument (ILBI), countries will be responsible for implementing globally aligned policies that meet the set targets. Think of it as the Paris Agreement, but for plastic pollution.
An Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) was established to facilitate five meetings aimed at developing this global framework and setting targets. INC-1 took place in November 2022 in Punta del Este, Uruguay; INC-2 was held in May 2023 in Paris, France. INC-3, marking the midpoint of the process, occurred in November 2023, in Nairobi, Kenya. INC-4 took place in April 2024 in Ottawa, Canada, and the final session, INC-5, is scheduled for November 2024 in Busan, South Korea.
In the near future, we will witness the historic establishment of a global plastic treaty. This treaty is something that many environmental enthusiasts, including myself, have awaited anxiously and excitedly. I believe it will be instrumental — a key to our long fight against plastic pollution. It will accelerate the transition to sustainable production and consumption, propelling progress forward. It will get the sustainable ball rolling, faster.
And as someone building a waste traceability start-up in Indonesia, this treaty holds personal significance for me. It could either drive growth in my industry or cause stagnation.
However, the current draft of the treaty is daunting to some, especially those not familiar with the “plastic” field. It has expanded from a draft of about thirty pages to a compilation text of seventy-seven pages. This article aims to summarise and simplify the key points, provide an overview of what the global plastic treaty is, where the tension points lie, and what we can expect to happen this year. (And if you want to delve further, you can also check the full version of the UN text here).
The 13 areas to be agreed upon
Thirteen may not sound like a lot, but when you have 175 countries needing to reach a consensus, that is almost impossible. I cannot even get everyone in my seven-person start-up happy without a heated debate about what to eat for lunch — what more a globally binding agreement on plastic pollution? But we enjoy a mission impossible, do we not?
- Primary Plastic Polymers
The idea is to set a limit and establish a reduction target for the production of primary plastic polymers. This is deemed necessary, especially for countries with inadequate waste management. This follows the principles of responsible production, which state that we should only produce items that we can manage after their use. Currently, we are producing more plastic than we can handle in terms of post-waste management.
2. Chemicals and polymers of concern
This section of the Agreement aims to identify hazardous chemicals and polymers to avoid and outline how we can control and regulate these substances. The goal is to minimise human and environmental exposure to these chemicals of concern. This should be implemented through domestic measures, which will then be reflected in national plans.
3. Problematic and avoidable plastic products
This section aims to identify problematic plastic products, particularly single-use plastics and short-lived items. Additionally, it discusses the measures required to reduce the production, sale, import, and export of these avoidable plastic products. The debate revolves around the necessity to encourage the banning, phasing out, or restricting of these items.
4. Available exceptions for Parties upon request
This section discusses the possibility of making exceptions for certain countries through special requests. It recognises that not all countries may have the capabilities or capacities to comply directly with the treaty and may require these exceptions.
5. Product design, composition, and performance
How can we enforce better product design from the very beginning to reduce the waste generated afterward? That is probably the main question to be addressed in this section. The guidelines will focus on adopting more sustainable product designs, including reducing the use of plastics in product packaging and improving the durability, reusability, and recyclability of products. This section will also discuss advancing repair and the use of recycled plastic content.
6. Non-plastic alternatives
What can a country do to encourage innovation for the development and mass adoption of sustainable non-plastic substitutes? This involves not only providing incentives to accelerate innovation but also encouraging the large-scale use of non-plastic materials that are safer and more environmentally friendly.
7. Extended producer responsibility (EPR)
The topic of EPR cannot be excluded from the discussion on plastic pollution. This section calls for establishing and operating an EPR scheme in each country to promote recycling and enhance producer accountability in managing their post-consumer waste. The issue of traceability will inevitably be discussed here, and it will be interesting to see how this topic develops, as traceability has proven to be a challenge everywhere.
8. Emissions and releases of plastics throughout their life cycle
This issue is closely related to the notorious problem of microplastics. So, what can we do to prevent and reduce, or ideally eliminate, the release of plastics and their components into the environment throughout their life cycle? This includes addressing issues from production and distribution all the way to their end of life.
9. Waste management
The most non-negotiable and perhaps least debatable area is waste management. No country will deny the importance of improving waste management, from collection and recycling to safe disposal. This section will emphasise the need to encourage investment and mobilisation of resources to establish effective waste management systems and infrastructure. Additionally, some countries highlight the necessity of providing incentives for behavioural change throughout the waste value chain. What can and should countries do to transform their citizens’ waste habits into more responsible practices?
10. Trade
Discussion here revolves around addressing the issue of plastic waste dumping in ‘poorer’ countries, a common phenomenon and highly debatable topic. With China leading the way by banning the import of plastic waste, the focus is on ensuring that no country can claim to have fulfilled its responsibilities while exporting low-value materials to others. This section will specifically concentrate on the possibility of establishing global rules to prohibit cross-border trade in plastic waste and hazardous polymers.
11. Existing plastic pollution, including in the marine environment
What has been done wrong needs to be corrected, and that is the focus of this chapter. It discusses the required mitigation measures and effective remedial actions at identified pollution sites, including activities such as cleanup actions. The debate primarily centers on whether this section will be binding or lean more towards voluntary cooperation.
12. Just transition
With all the proposed changes, vulnerable communities will be affected. It is essential to ensure that the transition towards a more sustainable lifestyle and better waste management considers promoting a fair and inclusive transition for the affected populations. This means supporting the most impacted communities, such as waste pickers, and acknowledging their roles and the potential impact on their livelihoods as the plastic treaty is implemented.
13. Transparency, tracking, reporting, and labelling
And finally (a big clap for making it to the last point!), we are discussing the need to encourage greater transparency across the value chain, enabling traceable national progress reporting. This should lead to the publication of standardised reports across the 175 participating countries. Additionally, this section aims to establish global rules on product labelling to support the implementation of more circular plastics.
There are a few more chapters being discussed in the current draft of the treaty, particularly those on financing mechanisms, capacity building, governing bodies, and more. However, I will leave it to you to read further about these topics.
The remaining tension points
You can now count yourself amongst the top percentile of humanity who are well-versed in the upcoming global plastic treaty. In essence, the treaty addresses important topics that we should all agree on to progress toward overcoming plastic pollution. From limiting the production of plastic polymers to mandating proper waste management across countries, these initiatives are drafted with good will. From an environmentalist’s point of view, all thirteen areas should be set as stringently as possible to enable the fastest transition.
However, we can only dream of a world without conflict or disagreement. As expected, several tension points have arisen, highlighting the complexity of agreeing on the treaty’s scope and ambition. I believe several key points must be agreed upon at the last INC-5 in Busan, which will determine whether we can get a solid global plastic treaty. These are:
1. The definition of plastic.
At which point in the plastic life cycle do we consider this treaty to begin? At what stage do we define plastic as a problem? When can we say it falls outside the scope of this treaty? This debate pits countries that rely on petrochemical and plastic production for their national economy against historically fossil fuel-friendly nations. The former argue that we should only define plastic once it becomes a product, rather than regulating plastic polymers within this treaty. According to them, limiting production could hinder economic growth and industrial progress, creating negative impacts on societal functions. Conversely, the latter group advocates recognising that the problem begins at the source, suggesting that the entire life cycle of plastic should be the primary focus of regulation by this instrument.
2. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
While almost all countries agree on the importance of having a proper EPR scheme to fund waste management, collection, and recycling, some debate that the direction on how to implement it, and in what form, should be left to the discretion of each country. Should it be a voluntary agreement rather than a mandatory one? Given that each country has different conditions regarding waste management and capabilities, some support the idea that an EPR scheme should be tailored to each country’s context.
3. Whether to set a global target or allow national targets?
Should this treaty establish a universal target for all countries to achieve within a specific timeframe, or should it permit flexibility, allowing each country to set its own national targets? Some assert the importance of national sovereignty in target setting, advocating for countries to tailor their commitments based on specific circumstances and capacities. Others argue for globally agreed, legally binding, and time-bound targets, claiming they create a level playing field for industries, stimulate innovation, and attract investment by providing certainty and consistency across borders.
A reflection: what will be considered “just”?
What keeps me less hopeful is not the possibility of this treaty being non-stringent, but whether it will be just and inclusive in its implementation. If you watch this three-minute video about an Indonesian village that has become a dumping ground for developed countries’ “recycling” waste, you will understand why ensuring a just transition is so challenging.
“If the government decides to send the trash back, it will cause turmoil. People will be angry. It’s better to work like this rather than working in a factory. I’m free.” said Mbah Bodo — resident of Bangun Village
In this village, residents pay to purchase recycled plastic waste sent from developed countries. They then sort this waste and resell it at a higher price. While the income from sorting is better than factory work, they have witnessed the environmental and health impacts on their community. Still, they say it is better than being hungry.
I feel conflicted. If the treaty progresses and the section on trade is properly enacted, these villagers who rely on sorting foreign recycled waste will lose their jobs, becoming the first to suffer. Is it just to allow them to bear this burden? Are we drafting a treaty for a better future for ourselves while allowing them to suffer in the short term?
So, that is the question that I deeply hope will be discussed and agreed upon in an inclusive way to incorporate the most vulnerable communities into the treaty. Each country should have a strategy for a just transition, specifically for these people. I believe that this is the most challenging part of completing this mission impossible.
We have to start somewhere
The upcoming INC-5 in Busan will be very interesting. We will see if humanity can accomplish the mission impossible. It will be an extremely challenging task to balance power and fairness while considering environmental and economic growth. Once again, it is a mission impossible to agree on effective terms for advancing circularity across 175 countries. My little wish is that this global plastic treaty will achieve some concrete action plans for countries worldwide, rather than just vague agreements to address plastic pollution.
It is not going to be easy, but I believe we are off to a good start. We just need to begin, albeit late. After all, life is about making progress.
