After the events of INC-5, Ed Shepherd, senior global sustainability manager at Unilever, commends the widespread consensus over a high-ambition Global Plastics Treaty that restricts new production and harmful substances – yet he warns of gaps in the current text and the ongoing risk of ‘endless negotiations’.
Last week, the final planned round of negotiations came to a close without an agreement over a Global Plastics Treaty. Now another session will take place sometime in 2025.
Although Unilever expresses its disappointment in this outcome, it still argues that negotiators “successfully avoided the worst scenario of a voluntary treaty”, with this round bringing the majority of delegates together to agree on an “ambitious middle ground”.
“My hopes were high, but the reality is that a deal wasn’t struck,” Shepherd says. “The good news is that the decision was made to resume the session at an ‘INC-5.2’ meeting in 2025, a pragmatic next step given where we stand.
“Despite the lack of a deal, I was encouraged to see meaningful progress by the majority of countries on some critical topics and agreement to use the Chair’s text [for the prospective treaty] for the resumed session.”
On this note, he commends the 95 countries that paid particular attention to the phasing out of ‘problematic’ and avoidable plastic products and chemicals of concern, which he considers a “cornerstone of the treaty.” Where viable alternatives are available, he believes that harmful substances should be avoided.
Regarding the controversial topic of restricting the production of new plastics to more sustainable levels – an approach that the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty supports – Shepherd is “delighted to see the majority of countries working constructively together to try to make real progress.”
He considers these efforts a “clear signal” that a low-ambition treaty is not on the cards for most countries, believing that such restrictions are “key to the treaty’s effectiveness”.
On the other hand, while Shepherd believes the draft text as it stands is “streamlined” and “contains “all of the critical elements” to make real progress, he fears that “some areas aren’t strong enough to deliver the clarity and harmonization that business needs.”
“One example is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which provides the most effective way to develop collection and processing infrastructure,” he explains. “The current text simply encourages governments to implement EPR – this must urgently be strengthened at INC-5.2.
“Not only do we need a mandatory assurance that EPR will be implemented, but it must also be implemented under the same core principles that we know work – for example to be government-regulated and industry-managed, and to have eco-modulated fees to drive up recyclability and improve material choices.”
He also warns of the “continued risk that we end up with a lowest common denominator treaty” as a “small group of nations continue to have a different vision for the treaty.”
“There’s a risk of the process sliding into endless negotiations, failing to deliver the clear global rules that business and investors urgently need to help scale solutions,” he cautions.
“This wouldn’t be good enough for business, nor the planet.”
Moving forward, he calls for capital cities across the world to increase their political engagement and tackle the remaining challenges.
“The majority of states are clearly signalling the need to move forward on the actions that we know must be taken,” he says.
“If the deadlock can’t be broken at INC-5.2, those nations that want a treaty fit for purpose must explore all options available to them.”
Unilever CEO Hein Schumacher adds: “We’re at an important inflection point. Governments must continue to pursue a meaningful treaty, underpinned by mandatory global rules across the full lifecycle of plastic.
“Unilever will be doubling down on our efforts, in the knowledge that this is most likely to help solve the plastic crisis, create jobs and drive growth.”
Shepherd previously described INC-5 as “once-in-a-generation” opportunity to tackle the plastic waste crisis, emphasizing that voluntary action won’t solve the problem. He called for measures that cement legal certainty and help businesses design their packaging accordingly.
Other reactions to the outcome of INC-5 included a sense of relief that the whole life cycle of plastic products was now being addressed, rather than placing the blame solely on waste mismanagement in the Global South. Yet conversations continue as to whether low-ambition countries should be left behind in favour of a more ambitious treaty – and, in line with Shepherd’s point of view, many have argued that gaps remain in the draft text.
The Business Coalition’s recommendations include taking sector-specific action where ‘sufficient alignment’ exists – the packaging industry is named as one example – and the mandated introduction or advancement of national collection, reuse, and recycling targets and systems.
If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:
The ultimate guide to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation in 2024
How are the top brands progressing on packaging sustainability?
Sustainable Innovation Report 2024: Current trends and future priorities
Everything you need to know about global plastic sustainability regulation
No comments yet