Contact
Science
Melanie Bergmann
+49(471)4831-1739
Melanie.Bergmann@awi.de
Press Office
Sarah Werner
0471 / 4831-2008
sarah.werner@awi.de
En route to a global UN agreement against the plastic flood
Delegates from all 193 UN member states, along with representatives of the scientific community, civil society and business sector, recently gathered in Busan, South Korea for a fifth and final session to approve a legally binding treaty (UN Plastics Treaty) that combats plastic pollution. The treaty was meant to be ratified by the representatives in attendance.
In the public discourse, recycling is chiefly underscored as the solution to plastic pollution, placing responsibility for solving the problem with consumers. But researchers see another source of the plastic problem: the petrochemical industry, which produces the plastic. And that’s also precisely the crux of the negotiations. Representatives of civil society want a more ambitious treaty that chiefly focuses on production limits and the health risks of plastics. In contrast, representatives of the industry want to further increase production so as to maintain or even boost profits. Some countries with strong petrochemical or fossil sectors are concerned about their economic future.
“The current situation isn’t easy; it’s now very unclear what direction the negotiations should head in,” says Melanie Bergmann. The AWI marine biologist is part of the “Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty” – a network of more than 350 independent experts from over 30 countries, which supports the negotiations with assessments and summaries of the current state of research, helping the delegates make informed choices. “All decisions and measures designed to stop the global flood of plastics have to be made and developed on the best independent scientific basis in order to ultimately be effective,” says Melanie Bergmann. Further, the choices made can’t be limited to the plastic currently in circulation: “For the global plastics treaty, it’s important to set ambitious targets that address the entire lifecycle of plastics; from sourcing to factory production and service life, to the end, whether that means at a rubbish tip, incineration or recycling.”
In the eyes of the marine biologist, the Scientists Coalition, and many other institutions, it goes without saying that plastic production has to be substantially reduced in order to effectively address the problem: even if plastic production were reduced by one to three percent annually, global plastic pollution would still increase, as the total plastic produced will amount to at least 20 billion metric tons by 2040. And where the use of plastic is unavoidable, its composition should be modified, as, according to Melanie Bergmann: “Plastic contains at least 16,000 different chemicals. A quarter of them are considered hazardous, and we lack data on roughly 10,000 of them.” As such, the plastics treaty should ideally produce a list of positive and negative ingredient groups so that plastic products can be made with non-hazardous chemical compositions.
What was the status quo heading into Busan?
In November and December 2022, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) first convened in Punta del Este, Uruguay – the beginning of a lengthy process intended to end with the approval of a binding treaty in Busan. Although the parties agreed that the treaty should address the entire lifecycle of plastics, they could not agree on what that lifecycle includes. Should the early stages of plastic production be included, or does it start in the product design phase? It was also unclear how the treaty was to be voted on: with a majority vote or a unanimous vote, which would mean it could also be vetoed. This question is anything but trivial, as leading up to the negotiations, more than 100 of the 193 member states had called for reducing plastic production; less than 15 had called for increased production. If the vote had to be unanimous, they could veto. No consensus would be found regarding the voting procedure in the next session, either.
Once chiefly organisational aspects had been clarified in Paris (May and June 2023), a first draft was discussed in the third round of negotiations, which took place in Nairobi in November 2023. The draft summarised the delegations’ most important positions, together with questions that still needed to be addressed. For some countries, the draft didn’t go far enough; they wanted more regulations and fewer voluntary commitments. For other delegations, the draft was too strict. The third round ultimately ended without having approved a draft, and the decision was pushed back to the negotiations in Ottawa in April 2024 – along with the decision concerning work on technical and scientific aspects between the rounds of negotiations (intersessional work), e.g. on the chemicals used in plastic production. In Canada, the delegations finally agreed to allow intersessional work.
In the declaration “Bridge to Busan”, some countries pledged to pursue ambitious targets in terms of combating plastic pollution. Yet the fourth round in Ottawa also failed to produce a jointly approved draft treaty. Instead, the number of pages of the first draft more than doubled; instead of agreeing on shared positions, more alternatives were added. There continued to be different views on what the plastics lifecycle includes, and on whether the raw materials used to make plastics should also be addressed in the treaty. Researchers and some delegations argued that doing so would be the most effective way to combat plastic production at the source, helping stem the massive amounts of plastic litter.
Plastic credits
Given the growing problem of plastic pollution, various countries are exploring more and more options for addressing the social, political and economic impacts. In this regard, plastic credits have gained importance as a potential tool. Based on the same principle as CO2 certificates, a plastic credit represents the quantifiable, transferrable price of removing or reclaiming one metric ton of plastic waste. Currently, credits can be issued for two activities: litter collection (removal) and recycling (reclamation). Many see in this approach a new financing and monitoring measure. The Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty has now taken a closer look at how effectively these credits can reflect the material complexity and varying effects of different types of plastic. The Coalition’s findings are clear: plastic credits do not constitute an innovative approach to reducing plastic pollution or financing its mitigation. Although there is an urgent need to support massively underfinanced plastic litter removal and recycling programmes, the credits aren’t the right tool for doing so – because they could worsen the already fragmented plastics policy and hinder more effective measures like sector-specific plastic reductions.
What would a treaty have to include to be a success?
The Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty has identified key aspects that a binding treaty must address to reduce the negative effects of plastic pollution on human health, the environment, climate, biodiversity, and economies. These effects are produced in all phases of the plastics lifecycle, from sourcing to reclamation. It is considered a scientific fact that these problems cannot be solved by waste management alone, and that the production of primary plastics must also be reduced. Consequently, an effective treaty must include the following key elements:
- Regulations and resolutions that address the entire plastics lifecycle, so as to end plastic pollution by 2040 and protect human health and the environment
- Ambitious and legally binding targets to reduce the primary production of plastics, including plastic chemicals and plastic alternatives
- Limits and bans on hazardous chemicals in plastics
- Phasing out non-essential plastic chemicals, materials and products
- A concept for granting limited-time exceptions for hazardous plastics that are considered essential and for which there are currently no safer and more sustainable alternatives
- Uniform safety, environmental and socio-cultural sustainability criteria for plastic chemicals, materials, products, technologies, alternatives and substitute substances
- Transparent reporting and monitoring of plastic chemicals, materials, products, and supporting technologies, systems and services
- A specially designed financing mechanism and (technical) collaboration to support the signatory parties in fulfilling their obligations under the treaty, and to ensure a just transition for affected populaces, communities and employees
- A dedicated and independent liaison office for science policy with clearly defined mechanisms for resolving and mitigating conflicts of interest
Factsheet from the Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty
Further information:
Briefing from the Science Media Center with Melanie Bergmann
Earth Negotiations Bulletin on the negotiations
Website of the Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty
