Polarised Positions Cast Shadow Over Global Plastics Treaty

Adam Duckett speaks to lobbyists about what they want from a global agreement to end plastic pollution

NOVEMBER could prove a turning point for the future of the plastics industry as nations meet for what is scheduled to be the fifth and final round of negotiations to create an international treaty to end plastic pollution. Unfortunately, negotiations are behind schedule and there are stark disagreements among lobbyists over what needs to be included in the treaty to make it successful.

Speaking at the close of the fourth round of negotiations in Canada earlier this year, the host country’s climate minister Steven Guilbeault said: “Together we can land one of the most significant environmental decisions since the Paris Agreement,” referring to the landmark climate treaty agreed in 2015.

Ahead of the fifth meeting in Busan, South Korea, we spoke to representatives of industry and environmental lobby groups to ask what they want from the treaty.

Limit production. No, don’t

One of the most contentious points is whether to control plastics supply in order to limit pollution. Bjorn Beeler, international coordinator at the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) wants limits put on plastic production, which the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has estimated could triple between 2019 and 2060.

“You must get controls on plastic production for this to mean anything and that’s the baseline…if you can’t get controls on production and reduce production then it’s done,” Beeler says.

It’s no surprise that oil producing nations and industry are opposed to caps. Beeler says the language agreed at last year’s COP meeting, which called for the “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems”, is a threat to their income and creates a loophole through which they’ll instead funnel fossil fuels to make plastics.

Dominic Byrne, senior policy manager at the trade group Plastics Europe opposes a cap on production, describing it as a “blunt solution” and instead wants the treaty to help bring about a circular economy where waste plastic is used to make new plastic.

“We have the opportunity to take plastics from a linear economy model and really transition to a circular economy model via the global plastics treaty, by hopefully putting a value on plastic at the end of its life and creating a really powerful incentive to keep plastics out of the environment,” Byrne says.

Decision tree tool

Plastics Europe has put forward a decision tree assessment tool which countries could use to identify their problem plastics. They could then prioritise which types of plastic need to be phased out or redesigned, or where waste management needs improving to prevent plastic from polluting the environment.

“We would love to see that tree translated into legal text and integrated into the global treaty,” Byrne says.

To bring about this shift to circularity, industry wants the treaty to create a market for recycled feedstock by setting mandatory recycled content targets and implementing extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes that would shift cost or collection of dealing with waste plastics from public authorities to producers and prompt investment in chemical recycling plants.

Stewart Harris, a spokesperson for the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) agrees.

“We really see EPR as both a funding mechanism and a policy tool, so it provides that sustainable financing for the operational costs of recycling systems, but it also sends a very clear demand signal up through the value chain to the designers to design products in a way that we can better capture the value of that material at the end of life and pull it back into the system.”

Canadian Press/Shutterstock