The sixth negotiating session of the United Nations Plastics Treaty came to an inconclusive end last month in Geneva. The lack of agreement among 180 countries, however, should not be a surprise and should not be considered a failure. Is the glass “half empty, or half full?” Four years ago, no countries had negotiating teams for plastic pollution issues, as there was nothing to negotiate on collectively. Fast-forward to today, we have had negotiating teams from over 180 countries discussing the best ways to address plastic pollution. For us to expect a global agreement of this scale to be reached within less than three years might well be unreasonable.
For the majority of countries, the three main stumbling blocks to an agreement seem to be production caps, chemicals of concern, and financing.
As we consider solutions for these issues, we should remember that caps on production were never part of the original UN Plastics Treaty’s goals set by the UN Environment Assembly in 2022 (UNEA). This is important because its inclusion will forever cause the failure of a treaty to be signed, if consensus is the rule. The perceived benefits of caps on production can be circumvented, however, often in more amenable manners. This can include the adoption of extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs, fees on virgin materials, and mandated recycled content programs.
Chemicals of concern topics were also not part of the original treaty’s formation and objective. Their inclusion brought too many “cooks to the kitchen”, leading to excessive dispersion of needs for expertise and science in decision-making across all countries involved. Chemical discussions can and should be undertaken within the existing Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions.
Financing topics are also one of the main unsolved issues, as the requisite amount of funding is unlikely to be delivered at the scale and timeframe desired for big impacts and pollution reductions. Part of the financing logjam can be addressed through EPR programs and other financing incentives, including fees and plastic credits or offsets. This means that users of plastic (brands and packagers) will need to contribute more than they have in the past for capacities and infrastructure for collection, sorting and recycling.
Realistic alternatives for a plastics treaty
Plastic pollution is one of the most pressing and complicated environmental challenges of our time. While the UN has initiated efforts to create a legally binding international treaty, the complexities of global politics, economics and enforcement have raised fears about its feasibility and effectiveness, yet the momentum on the topic should not be lost due to this uncertainty.
One of the core issues with an international treaty is enforcement, which technically is left to the individual nations that agree to the treaty. Even if the treaty includes “legally binding” language, each country must still enforce those rules within its borders. It is therefore possible for countries to create their own legislation against plastic pollution, without the need for a unified treaty.
The UN operates on consensus-based decision-making, where all member states must agree for a treaty to move forward. This approach often stalls progress, as countries with vested interests in maintaining the status quo can easily block agreements. Would switching to a majority voting system solve this problem? It might help solidify the momentum that over 70 high-ambition countries agree on today.
The UNEA March 2022 Resolution 5/14 set ambitious goals for addressing plastic pollution. Even though there was no conclusive agreement in Geneva last month, it does not mean that our collective plastic pollution reduction objectives cannot be met. Countries, regions and coalitions can impose domestic production caps, implement fees on the use of certain types of virgin plastic, ban toxic additives, require recycled content use where possible, and adopt standard design practices.
The challenge of plastic pollution is political, economic, and deeply interconnected. While an international treaty could provide a unified framework, meaningful progress does not have to wait for consensus. Countries and coalitions can act now to address the issue within their borders
Prior to China’s National Sword policy in 2018, which halted the importation of plastic for recycling, there was minimal oversight and enforcement of the trade in feedstock for recycling. This created a bad precedent and image for what was then called the “waste trade”. However, if plastic is used as a feedstock for a second or third life in a circular economy, it is not considered waste. The terminology here, unfortunately, has not been changed to address the needs of increased recycling, plastic pollution reduction, and circular economies along the way. Global trade in recycled feedstocks allows for economies of scale and higher-quality recycling processes.
While the business producers of petroleum-based polymers are often blamed for the increase in plastic use, they are actually not the ones creating products, packages and consumer demand. Brands are the users who make decisions about what products appear on shelves and respond to consumer preferences, or help steer them. The lack of legislation on packaging and standardized materials allows companies to sell virtually anything they want, in any shape, size, or recipe of chemicals, as long as it meets minimum health and safety standards. It is up to consumers, often with few choices, to ask questions about excessive or unnecessary packaging, not buy the item, or ask for an alternative. Without this public voice, legislators will not have the momentum needed to create the incentives and guidelines for improved waste management, recycling, and reduced plastic pollution overall.
Even if plastic production were banned entirely (which is not possible in the way we live today), millions of metric tons of plastic waste “inventory” is already in our landfills and environment. Almost all types of plastic can be recycled if the right infrastructure and scale are in place. The collection of this feedstock for circularity is the most significant missing link, and is where a lot of our collective focus needs to be placed. The exciting part here is that many of the solutions can be societal and do not require big machinery or funding. Still, they do need to be creatively incentivized and constructed so that a circular system can develop.
Resistance to prioritizing waste management often stems from political and financial constraints or forms of corruption. New scaled solutions, like EPR programs or fees on material use, could quickly provide the funding needed to build circular economy infrastructure, conserving resources, while moving away from the linear systems which usually rely on landfills or waste-to-energy options.
The path forward
The global challenge to reduce plastic pollution requires a mix of international cooperation, national action, and local solutions. While the UN Plastics Treaty can serve as a framework, the following steps can drive immediate progress:
Coalitions of the Willing: High ambition coalition nations can lead by example, creating domestic or regional agreements and demonstrating the effectiveness of their measures.
National Legislation: Countries could implement EPR programs, fees, and recycled content mandates to shift the economic burden to producers and incentivize circular practices.
Public Engagement: Elevating consumer awareness about waste, unnecessary items, and sustainable choices can help brands navigate market changes that are either demanded or legislated.
Waste Management Investments: Prioritize the collection and recovery of plastic without contamination, which can include a simple “wet versus dry” sorting policy across cities, reducing the costs of sorting and cleaning for the recycling industry.
Trade in Recyclables: Facilitate global trade in trusted and verified recyclable feedstocks to ensure efficient processing and reuse.
The challenge of plastic pollution is political, economic, and deeply interconnected. While an international treaty could provide a unified framework, meaningful progress does not have to wait for consensus. Countries and coalitions can act now to address the issue within their borders.
The author is the founder and managing director of Ocean Recovery Alliance, a Hong Kong-based nonprofit organization focusing on reducing plastic pollution.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
