The UN Plastics treaty, which aims to tackle the scourge of plastic pollution, has not made progress in 2023. In the last week of the year, the new negotiating draft was published, comprising an overwhelming range of options, to be discussed at the next meeting (INC-4) in April 2024. With little or no ongoing work between the last meeting and the upcoming one, there is a lack of focus on priority actions around which consensus could most easily be reached. The impasse has been attributed to groups of countries with opposing views, unwilling to compromise. In fact, it is a disagreement about how to implement a Circular economy for chemicals and plastic.
The opposing groups comprise the big oil producing states on one side and the ‘coalition of high ambition countries’ on the other. The former group sees the Treaty as primarily concerned with waste management, whereas the latter insist that overproduction of primary/virgin plastics from oil and gas is an important factor. There is also too much wishful thinking which is a diversion, for example, the references to the ‘use of safe, environmentally sound and sustainable non-plastic substitutes’.
The Ellen MacArthur foundation has stated that the priority should be to find a solution for packaging, as this forms the largest proportion of plastic pollution in the developing world. In Europe, the problem is being tackled by requiring an increasing level of recycled content in packaging. If enacted realistically, with a definition of recycling which includes both mechanical and chemical processes, the measures will suppress the demand and the production of primary/virgin plastic packaging, without the need to force companies to reduce their output. The value of recyclate should increase, providing an incentive for it to be fed back into the loop. However, collection and sorting infrastructure is expensive. So, developing nations will not be able to make the necessary investment without help.
There are some measures upon which agreement could be reached, if opposing groups could be less antagonistic towards each other. The banning of toxic components including added microplastics, the recognition of chemical recycling for difficult to treat plastics and a proper place for biobased and compostable plastics should all be included.
But the main emphasis must be on helping developing nations, particularly small island countries, pay for waste and recycling infrastructure. Awkward truths have to be faced, rather than placing all the blame on plastic producers. Funds can be and are raised by imposing EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) schemes, but all members of the supply chain should contribute. Brand owners, who sell their products in packaging that they know won’t be collected or recycled in the country where it is on sale, could be paying more of a tax towards waste management infrastructure. Then there is the trade in waste plastic, which escapes without much scrutiny. Rich countries will still be sending waste plastic to countries without the required infrastructure to deal with it, because it is cheaper than treating it themselves. That surely can’t be right.
In the future, we will always need plastics and other chemicals made from carbon. Not least because, some plastics will be needed for use in light weight transport and other applications that are essential for a low carbon world. As we transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions, this carbon will come from wastes, biomass and carbon dioxide abstracted from the air. So even when we have stopped using oil and gas, we will still need the infrastructure to recycle both durable and single use plastics.
So, this Treaty is in reality a test case for how the Circular Economy should be implemented. Of course, we need both recycling of wastes and reductions in production of the primary materials. But which should be tackled first and who will pay? The chances of success must be greater if individual countries are left to decide how to implement a Circular Economy. Nations should determine the balance between different policies such as incentives and outright bans. International cooperation is needed however to resolve how rich countries and companies can help poorer ones. And if the argument is framed in those terms, it might provide a way to allow the opposing parties to square the circle and come to an agreement.
Published: 8 January 24
