PE_International_Flags

The INC Chair has published a non-paper document that will frame upcoming negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty at INC-5 – but WWF argues that it lacks specificity regarding product design requirements and funding, and cautions that single parties could still veto important decisions.

Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution, has authored the paper to serve as the basis for upcoming negotiations. WWF states in its policy brief that the non-paper is a “clearer and cleaner starting point” than the “unwieldly 70-page draft produced at INC-4”, but adds that “significant gaps remain that negotiators must immediately rectify”.

‘Problematic’ plastics, chemicals of concern, and product design

Valdivieso notes that delegates have generally supported the management and elimination of certain plastic products, as well as the avoidance of chemicals of concern, to protect human health or the environment; yet these sentiments have not been converged in the draft text as it stands.

Similarly, he recognizes that some national and regional initiatives have eliminated particular plastic products and banned or restricted certain chemicals. However, such efforts are fragmented.

In his view, there is too much variety between each country’s circumstances, as well as their legal and administrative structures, to adopt a “one size fits all” approach – even though many countries share a ‘similar high ambition’.

Among other measures, Valdivieso suggests that an initial list or lists of plastic products to be controlled could be featured in one or several of the treaty’s annexes. Criteria could be established to identify additional plastic products or chemicals of concern used in plastics, and that additional steps could cover product design, reuse, recyclability, and non-plastic substitutes and alternatives.

However, WWF criticizes the paper for failing to include explicit text to ‘ban and phase out the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern’.

The non-paper goes on to encourage every party to improve the design and performance of their plastic products. This should focus on their safety, durability, and the ability to reuse, repair, recycle, and/or dispose of them in such a way that would not cause harm to the environment.

In order to reduce the use of primary plastic polymers and chemicals of concern, such factors as their chemical composition should be transparent and disclosed – aligning with international standards and guidelines.

Research, innovation, and development should be encouraged for non-plastic substitutes and sustainability-minded materials, technologies, and services; Valdivieso recommends that they draw upon up-to-date science, traditional knowledge (including that of Indigenous Peoples) and local knowledge systems, while also focusing on their potential to reduce waste and unlock reuse.

Those involved in their development should fully consider the environmental, socio-economic, and human health impacts of these products across their life cycle. If they are proven sustainable, they should be adopted wherever and whenever possible.

Even so, WWF condemns the paper’s lack of clarity as to whether product design requirements would be mandatory, or whether they would be treated as recommendations or guidelines.

Plastic waste management

In the suggested text, plastic waste should be managed in an ‘environmentally sound manner’ that aligns with the Basel Convention’s guidelines on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, as well as any further guidelines implemented at the upcoming Conference of the Parties (COP) – the governing body of an international convention consisting of Member State representatives and accredited observers.

Parties are then encouraged to take further action, including investing in waste management systems and infrastructure; adopting extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes and other measures to incentivize recycling, boost recycling rates, and hold producers and importers to account; and establishing local and national systems to handle, sort, collect, transport, store, recycle, and treat plastic waste.

Parties should also promote, develop, and strengthen markets for secondary plastics, Valdivieso suggests, as well as drive public awareness and encourage behavioural changes across the value chain.

He goes on to recommend that exports should only be permitted if they facilitate the safe and environmentally sound recovery, reuse, recycling, or responsible disposal of plastic waste – and they should require the written consent of the importing party or non-party.

Authorized exports should require safety data sheets providing complete information about the polymer, chemical, and plastic content of the exported waste, with any subsequent hazards to human health or the environment. Exporters should also be held to ‘generally accepted and recognized international rules, standards, and practices for packaging, labelling and transport’.

Financial mechanisms, building capacities, and a just transition

In general, Valdivieso recommends that parties account for informal waste reclaimers, Indigenous Peoples, and the populations most impacted by plastic pollution in their efforts to ‘promote and facilitate a transition towards sustainable production [and] consumption of plastic’.

A mechanism should be defined to provide financial and technical support and help parties comply with the upcoming legislation, Valdivieso says. It could be operated by one or more entities and include one or more funds.

It should also recognize that financial flows are already stemming from the private sector, domestic finance, and bilaterial, regional, and multilateral entities; the non-paper argues that the treaty’s mechanism could include these flows, but also provide additional resources among existing efforts.

Nevertheless, policymakers should also remember that some countries will rely on financial and technical assistance to build their capacities. Valdivieso believes that developed countries should provide ‘timely’ and ‘appropriate’ support to developing countries, especially to SIDS and the least developed nations.

This could be achieved via regional, subregional, and national arrangements. The non-paper acknowledges that existing regional and subregional centres could contribute, but also raises the possibilities of other multilateral and bilateral means, as well as partnerships with the private sector or other stakeholders.

Valdivieso adds that the development, transfer, diffusion of and access to technologies to tackle plastic pollution should also be environmentally sound. This encompasses collection, sorting, processing, and recycling technologies, as well as alternative materials and non-plastic substitutes.

Parties should ‘promote and facilitate’ research, innovation, and investment in the pursuit of environmentally responsible technologies and solutions, as well as facilitate access to essential technologies.

Despite all these suggestions, WWF asserts that the text is too vague as to what level of funding countries are expected to commit and how the resources would be distributed.

PE_Plastic_Pollution

National plans

In Valdivieso’s vision of the treaty, parties would be permitted to develop and enforce national plans based on their individual requirements, capabilities, and circumstances. These should lay out the intended measures to meet the treaty’s requirements and should be delivered to the Secretariat as soon as they have been developed.

At any time, a party would be permitted to revise and increase the ambition of its national plan. National stakeholders should be consulted to develop, implement, review, and update plans.

Subregional and regional plans would also be encouraged, with parties working together to develop and implement them as appropriate.

Every national plan submitted to the Secretariat would be made publicly available.

Exemptions

Valdivieso proposes a system where any party can write to the Secretariat and request one or more exemptions from the specified phase-out dates, accompanied by a statement explaining their reasoning. Unless a shorter period is specified, every exemption would expire five years after the phase-out date.

If an exemption were granted, it would be listed in a public register alongside its expiration date and the name(s) of the party/parties it applies to. Only one exemption would be permitted per chemical or product per phase-out date.

No exemptions would be granted once five years had passed since a product or chemical’s original phase-out date, unless one or more parties are still registered for an exemption for the given chemical or product. In that scenario, parties could register for an exemption that would expire ten years after the phase-out date specified – but, without exceptions, nobody would be granted an exemption once ten years had passed since the original phase-out date.

Parties could withdraw from an exemption at any time by writing to the Secretariat.

Reporting, evaluation, and monitoring

Each party would be expected to submit a report to the Secretariat detailing its measures to implement the treaty, their effectiveness so far, and any remaining challenges to meeting the instrument’s expectations.

Right now, the format and frequency of these reports have not been specified; this remains to be discussed in upcoming negotiations.

Even so, the Secretariat would keep these under review and regularly communicate the status of submissions to the COP.

An initial evaluation of the instrument’s effectiveness would take place no later than six years after it enters into force; the COP would then agree to reconvene for further evaluation at recurring intervals. This would draw upon available scientific, environmental, technical, financial, and economic information including national plans and reports, both from participating parties and multilateral organizations (e.g. the World Health Organization).

Entry into force and amendments

On the ninetieth day after the date of deposit of the fiftieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession, a Global Plastics Treaty would enter into force. Every State or regional economic integration organization that ratifies, accepts, or approves of the treaty, or else accedes to the deposit of the fiftieth instrument, would be held to the treaty on the ninetieth day after their date of deposit.

After its entry into force, any party would be permitted to propose amendments to the treaty; these would be communicated to the COP by the Secretariat at least six months before a meeting is held to propose its adoption.

The parties would then attempt to reach an agreement, but if no consensus was reached, a three-fourths majority vote of the parties present would be utilized as a last resort.

An amendment would enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date of deposit of instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval, or vote. As before, parties would be held to it on the ninetieth day after the day it deposits its instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval.

Remaining concerns

Alongside its aforementioned concerns, WWF fears that the current proposal could still enable a single party to veto any of the decisions made by the treaty’s governing body, which could render the treaty ‘stagnant and dead’ – i.e., preventing any future adaptations based on changing circumstances.

“A global plastic pollution treaty that is fit for purpose is one that is undiluted, that includes binding global bans and phase-outs, product and systems design requirements, implementation support and mechanisms for gradual strengthening,” says Eirik Lindebjerg, global plastics policy lead at WWF. “The “non-paper” puts the negotiation process back on track by offering a much-needed and more accessible document for negotiating key measures, but it lacks specificity and well-defined content that assures us we will get a strong, ambitious treaty.

“We still need to see a significantly higher level of improvement to the treaty’s text. It is now up to the countries that want a strong treaty to ramp up ambition and make this a reality - a reality they promised us two years ago.”

In WWF’s opinion, the instrument should include global bans and phase-outs for the most harmful and ‘problematic’ plastic products and chemicals; lay out product design requirements to ensure the safe reuse, recyclability, and non-toxic circularity of plastics; align financial flows and resources in a just transition; and future-proof the treaty via mechanisms ensuring that it strengthens over time.

“The global plastic pollution crisis can only be addressed if all these measures are included in the treaty,” Lindebjerg concludes. “If countries cannot reach a consensus, then the majority of countries that want a strong treaty should be ready to vote for a treaty that includes all four measures.

“Countries that want a strong treaty must push ahead with one, even if this means not all countries will ratify it, or be ready to take the decision to another forum. A treaty with binding measures supported by the majority of countries will be far more effective than a voluntary-based treaty supported by all countries.”

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 regulatio