The Global Plastic Treaty

As numerous studies have demonstrated, plastic has been found everywhere, not only in ecosystems and the atmosphere but also in the food we eat, the water we drink, and even inside our bodies. For the Global Plastics Treaty to be effective in reversing the tide of plastic pollution, mechanisms and solutions to address it need to exist within climate and planetary boundaries. This treaty is an opportunity to get it right. It can potentially be one of the most significant environmental agreements in history.

Action to reduce plastic pollution requires comprehensive and coordinated action from all countries. Baltic Sea region countries have to be ambitious to get the Treaty delivered.

It is becoming clear that stopping plastic pollution in oceans and other places needs a specific plan. In March 2022, at the fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly, a historic resolution 5/14 titled “End Plastic Pollution: Towards an International Legally Binding Instrument” was adopted, that began the process to negotiate a new global plastics treaty by the end of 2024.

UNEA Resolution 5/14 was a landmark moment in global policy making. Global treaties are the world’s best hope at regulating transnational environmental problems, as we saw in the successful regulation of ozone depleting substances by the Montreal Protocol.  Negotiations between UN governments will now focus on interpreting that mandate and developing the treaty. Significant questions about the treaty’s objective, scope, function and form remain.

The aim of the process is to create a global, legally binding agreement on plastic pollution. This plan tries to cover everything about plastic, like how it’s made, designed, and managed after it’s used. The plan works with other plans already in place and is supposed to fill in any important gaps to stop plastic from getting into oceans and to make sure plastic is used and recycled in a way that’s fair and good for the environment. Four sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop the treaty have already been held in 2022-2024 with the last session (INC-5) in Korea has been started on 25th of November 2024.

For the Global Plastics Treaty to be effective in reversing the tide of plastic pollution, mechanisms and solutions to address it need to exist within climate and planetary boundaries. This treaty is an opportunity to get it right. It can potentially be one of the most significant environmental agreements in history.

Key points for the Treaty are the following:

1. Primary Plastic Polymers (PPP) Production Reduction

The INC must adhere to the scope indicated by Parties in UNEA Resolution 5/14, which mandates that the future treaty adopt a comprehensive life cycle approach, from extraction to end of life. Any interpretation that excludes plastic polymers and their production processes from the treaty scope would contradict the reality of the plastics life cycle, its economic dynamics, and its human and environmental impacts and would disregard UNEA Resolution 5/14. While there is no legally established definition of a full life cycle approach for plastics, scientific evidence and existing practices demonstrate that the full life cycle begins at the sourcing of raw materials stage, regardless of whether plastics are fossil fuel- or bio-based, and goes all the way through to the removal of plastics from the environment and the remediation of contaminated ecosystems.

Mandatory targets to cap and dramatically reduce virgin plastic production, working towards a phase out commensurate with the scale and gravity of the plastic pollution crisis [and its contribution to the triple planetary crisis (climate change – biodiversity collapse – pollution). This includes, but is not limited to, the elimination of single-use plastics and other non-essential, unnecessary, or unsafe and unsustainable plastic products and and intentionally-added microplastics. It also includes the phaseout of plastic chemicals that harm health and the environment and make recycling toxic. This system should be supported by measures to prevent countries that are not parties to the treaty from undermining these agreements.

The INC should ensure the development of binding global and national targets, baselines, and schedules for an overall reduction in plastic production, as well as set up strict reporting mechanisms to inform and monitor compliance with a global reduction target. Also, production reduction provisions should be coupled with measures that restrict trade of plastic polymers and precursors between Parties and non-Parties to the treaty. Lastly, the treaty should include a general obligation to eliminate subsidies to plastic production.

2. Reuse

The treaty must prioritize reduction and promote reuse systems over recycling, bio-based, biodegradable or compostable plastics, and non plastic alternatives. It should also promote reuse materials based on the best environmental outcome for a specific application.

We need to include definitions and criteria for Reuse; Refill; Repair; Reuse Systems, as well as urgent timelines for the reduction, reuse and repair for plastic products.

Promoting reuse systems, which present a vital opportunity to move away from the existing linear take-make-waste packaging economy. Single-use packaging is a major contributor to the global plastic pollution crisis. The linear pathways of production and waste of single-use packaging materials, and their effects on our climate, environment, biodiversity, and health cannot continue. The introduction and scaling up of reuse systems offers a transformative solution to single-use packaging pollution by reducing virgin material use, retaining packaging in the economy, diverting waste packaging away from landfill and incineration, and reducing pollution and emissions.

Legally binding, time-bound, and ambitious targets to implement and scale up reuse and refill to accelerate the transition away from single-use plastics. Correspondingly, the treaty must reject false solutions, regrettable substitutes, and polluting and ineffective techno-fixes such as “chemical recycling,” incineration, waste-to-energy, co-processing of plastic-rich RDF in cement kilns, plastic credits, and other schemes which perpetuate business as usual and support continued plastic production and pollution to the further detriment of the climate and human and environmental health.

3. Chemicals including Polymers of Concern

The treaty must eliminate chemicals that are hazardous for human health and the environment throughout the lifecycle of plastics.

The treaty must provide a list of chemicals that are hazardous and of concern and criteria to identify and regulate any chemicals, groups of chemicals, including polymers, beyond this list.

Bans on toxic chemicals in all virgin and recycled plastics based on groups of chemicals, including intentional and non-intentional additives (e.g., brominated flame-retardants, phthalates, bisphenols) as well as notoriously toxic polymers (e.g. PVC).

In the same light, the treaty should also set publicly accessible, legally binding requirements for the transparency of chemicals in plastic materials and products throughout their whole life cycle.

The treaty must foresee effective monitoring and updating mechanisms in view of additional information on chemicals being available.

4. Financial mechanisms

The treaty should include a strong, dedicated financial mechanism to facilitate the flow of financial resources from the developed to the developing world, particularly for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), based on a clear grant basis, equitable process, and replenishable funds.

Financial mechanisms should strictly follow the zero waste hierarchy, focusing investment on initiatives that address plastic production, waste prevention, reuse systems and preparation for reuse instead of downstream interventions such as recycling and end-of-life treatment.

The financial mechanism should make funds available to promote and facilitate a just transition. Countries must include the activities and just transition measures to be funded in their national planning processes.

We cannot allow false solutions to be used either for treaty compliance or as a source of finance. This includes Plastic credits, offsets, and neutrality, which do nothing to address plastic pollution but instead provide a license to pollute further and encourage the burning of plastic — a practice that releases harmful toxic chemicals and greenhouse gases, with no environmental benefits. Plastic credits do not reduce plastic production and, therefore, do not contribute to a solution to the plastics crisis. They are not a genuine application of the polluters pay principle. Credits are used to justify the continued use of single-use plastic by credit buyers and do not reduce plastic pollution in the country where the credit buyer operates. Plastic offsetting fails to recognize other types of pollution from plastic other than litter, and schemes often rely on burning plastic in cement kilns to dispose of waste, generating air pollution and damaging the health of local communities. The treaty must not recognize plastic credits, offsetting, or the term ‘plastic neutral’ as an eligible way to claim plastic reduction. In addition, discussions on innovative financing, such as plastic credits, must not distract from the vital discussions on dedicated financing.

Programme Manual Online

Choose