The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty has published its latest policy recommendations ahead of INC-5.4 – encouraging negotiators to focus on clarifying obligations, improving transparency, and establishing a list of ‘problem’ substances during interim work.
Back in February, INC-5.3 concluded with the election of a new INC Chair: Julio Cordano from Chile. Now, the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty sets out its vision for successful discussions at the next round of negotiations.
“In order to finalize an effective treaty in the short term, robust discussions ahead of INC-5.4 are needed for countries to align on both the substance and the process,” says the Coalition. “While the growing convergence on key elements is an encouraging sign, negotiations much shift gears towards achieving alignment on a final agreement.
“There’s no time to waste. We stand ready to work with policymakers to turn momentum into harmonized, effective action to tackle plastic pollution around the world.”
Plastic products and chemicals
As part of a Global Plastics Treaty, the Coalition supports global restrictions and phase-outs for a set list of plastics and chemicals. This should be aligned based on a set of clear, internationally agreed criteria, with future Conference of the Parties (COP) discussions potentially amending the specific products and deadlines.
“Businesses need global alignment to confidently undertake and invest in R&D toward alternative solutions and invest in systems to manage the remaining plastics at scale,” the Coalition says. “It would also help alleviate the compliance costs from the current patchwork of restrictions.”
According to the Coalition’s research, restricting or phasing out ‘problematic’ plastics and chemicals of concern could eliminate 353 Mt of single-use plastics by 2040 – an outcome expected to relieve some of the burden on the public budget, which would otherwise be spent on cleanups and other reactive measures.
Its recommendations for interim work include conceptual discussions on the ways a Global Plastics Treaty should address plastic products and chemicals. In the Coalition’s view, this should include the eventual development of common criteria for global obligation and a global list of plastics and chemicals to be ruled out.
Technical exchanges and potential criteria for an initial list, including mapping and comparing existing laws, should also be considered in these discussions. Negotiators should also make sure that different parts of the treaty are connected and consistent.
Production and consumption
The Coalition believes that every country should agree to continuously improve their national policies to promote the sustainable production and consumption of plastics. This would be the first step in the longer-term adoption of common definitions, key principles, and quantitative and qualitative global targets, including mandatory reporting.
This is set to incentivize businesses to tackle plastic pollution and climate impacts in their own supply chains, and to invest in solutions such as reuse and recycling.
Approaches to strengthening transparency and measurability across the value chain should be a main focus of interim work, the Coalition argues. This is expected to unlock a shared understanding of global production and consumption patterns – and, in turn, lay the groundwork for more sustainable levels of plastic production and consumption.
Product design
In this area, the Coalition highlights that participants should consider which elements of product design are required to reduce plastic pollution, unlock the efficient management of infrastructure and systems, and encourage investment into products and infrastructure. This should include conceptual discussions and technical exchanges towards textual clarity.
The Coalition posits that topics should include product design principles and priority sectors; the link between product design and systems, infrastructure, and safety; and the importance of a mandatory provision and an annex, as well as the role of any guidance.
Harmonized product design rules are expected to reduce recycling costs by USD 90-140 per ton of plastic packaging collected, and to almost double the availability of recycled content by 2040. This approach is also hoped to improve the quality of feedstock entering the recycling system in the first place.
Additionally, consistent criteria and sector-specific guidance is anticipated to simplify compliance and help businesses decide where to funnel direct investments.
Waste management
The policy recommendations suggest that each country should be obligated to introduce or advance targets and systems for collection, reuse, and recycling. These should be supported by Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) measures, including deposit return schemes and/or other economic instruments.
“Businesses face compliance burdens and risks in today’s fragmented and unpredictable policy landscape,” the Coalition writes. “Harmonized EPR would deliver operational and economic benefits and mitigate corporate risk across the value chain via proper waste management and infrastructure development.”
Harmonizing EPR is hoped to generate US$576 billion in PER revenues and reduce net public waste management costs by 9%. It is also expected to alleviate pressure on public budgets, create and protect jobs across the value chain, and improve public services, as well as keep plastic waste out of the environment.
Interim work should ensure that the Treaty’s obligations are clear enough to be implemented; this includes any necessary clarification to prove that EPR is a reliable source of funding to operate systems and support changes in business practices.
Discussions could also cover key elements and definitions to help member states design and improve waste management systems, constructive engagement on EPR case studies, and important takeaways from industry experience.
Future COPs are expected to adopt further guidance to clearly define a ‘well-designed’ EPR scheme and set out key principles.
Financing and means of implementation
The Coalition goes on to assert that negotiators must agree on a strong financial mechanism – one that aligns all financial flows and covers the full life cycle in scope – and a strategy for resource mobilization.
The Global Plastics Treaty should also take capacity building, technology transfer, and a just transition into account, the Coalition adds. Ironing out the financial approach is considered an integral part of bringing the instrument to life.
To achieve this, the Coalition believes that participants must reach an agreement on the means of implementation (MOI) – building on the discussions taking place at INC-5.2 to ensure that all parties can implement the Treaty effectively.
COP decision-making
Finally, the Coalition indicates that all parties must agree on a “clear and effective” decision-making mechanism that will allow the COP to make “rapid and effective” decisions to strengthen the Treaty’s effectiveness over time – for example, the adjustment or adoption of new targets, measures, programmes of work, or timelines for implementation.
“This is critical to ensuring that the treaty can be implemented (particularly as several key aspects are likely to be left to the COP),” the Coalition says. “If the treaty cannot be implemented effectively, it is meaningless and won’t deliver the business benefits promised.
“Without an effective treaty, 95% of all packaging value would be lost after one use cycle, equivalent to USD 260-380 billion annually, and we would face dramatic growth in mismanaged waste (growing to 203 mT by 2040, versus a 54% reduction under global rules).”
As such, the Coalition posits that interim work should consider the impacts of various options for COP decision-making. In particular, it should focus on the role of COP decisions in enabling implementation and achieving the Treaty’s full effectiveness.
To catch up on the Global Plastics Treaty’s progress so far, take a look at our ultimate guide to INC-1 to INC-5, our live coverage of INC-5.2, and our general overview of proceedings at INC-5.3.
If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:
The ultimate guide to packaging innovation in 2026
Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation: what to know in 2026
Everything you need to know about global packaging sustainability regulation
No comments yet