What exactly is the Global Plastics Treaty?
In March 2022, during the resumed session of UNEA-5 (UNEA-5.2), the United Nations Environment Assembly adopted a historic resolution to combat plastic pollution with a global and legally binding instrument on plastic pollution — the United Nations Global Plastics Treaty. Heads of State, environment ministers, and other representatives from 175 nations agreed. However, it remains unclear whether the treaty will include a cap on production or cover plastic chemicals.
Central to this agreement was the establishment of an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) tasked with producing the United Nations Global Plastics Treaty that, despite interventions by the industry and objections from various delegations, ambitious provisions included addressing "the entire life cycle of plastics and binding targets." What follows is a resume of the INC talks so far. You can access all the press releases here.
INC-1. Took place in Punta Del Este, Uruguay, in December 2022 and was the first negotiating session of the UN Plastics Treaty (INC-1). In summarising the discussions, INC Chair Ambassador Gustavo Meza-Cuadra (Peru) stated: “‘It is clear that we have started to see areas of convergence in the development of the future instrument.”
INC-2. Held in Paris, France, between May and June 2023, the second negotiating session of the UN Plastics Treaty saw parties agree that the Chair, with the support of the INC Secretariat, would produce the first “zero” draft ahead of INC-3 in Nairobi, Kenya, which would be necessary to keep negotiations on track.
INC-3. In November 2023, the third negotiating session of the UN Plastics Treaty (INC-3) was held in Nairobi, Kenya — some five miles from the Dandora dump site, a wasteland of plastic, much of it imported from other nations as part of the globalised, industrial waste trade. Member states failed to agree on the draft.
INC-4. In April 2024 in Ottawa, Canada, the fourth session saw the establishment of an ad hoc intercessional open-ended expert group to develop an analysis of the potential resources and means that would be mobilised for the implementation of the instrument for consideration at the fifth session.
INC-5. Discussions took place across October and November 2024 in the Republic of Korea. Talks concluded without agreement. Production caps, program funding, and chemical phaseout lists remain problematic.
Why caps on plastic production are necessary
The vast majority of plastics are made from petrochemicals (fossil fuels). Producing plastic increases oil demand, creating even more emissions and exacerbating the climate crisis. We also know that manufacturing petrochemical plastic (including recycling it) is inherently dangerous. Around 16,000 identifiable chemicals are used in plastic. A quarter of them are classified as hazardous in some way, while almost 11,000 haven’t been assessed for safety at all. Production caps on plastics remain vital for various reasons, but mostly because production is forecast to increase. Second, recycling is not economically viable, and neither is it [plastic recycling] a solution to the plastic pollution crisis.
Source: OECD (2024), Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/76400890-en.
Globally, 9% of all plastic ever produced has been recycled, and it has everything to do with money. That is historically, but data from the OECD finds that in the future, recycled plastics will continue to represent just 6% of all plastics produced in 2040. That means that as we see plastic production soar, mismanaged waste will increase by 47% and plastic leakage to the environment by 50% by 2040 (from 2020 levels), continuing to impact environmental and human health - but more than currently.
Fig. 1. Share of plastic waste recycled, incinerated, landfilled and lost due to mismanagement in 2019. Adapted from the report made by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Another concept that is helpful here is one presented by Clara Guasch, who writes in MaDe (Material Designers) Boosting talents towards circular economies on the idea of product stewardship:
“Current global social movements do not focus exclusively on resources and environmental issues as the circular economy does. [...] From a resources point of view, local materials should be used. If flows are not managed locally, the possible environmental impacts derived from resource transportation could be kept at the same level as today’s production systems. Furthermore, using local resources has positive social impacts such as reducing community’s dependency on importations, benefiting local economies and increasing their self-sufficiency.”
With this thinking, a country would use on-shore resources, which are not subject to global politics and the economy. With this approach, recycled materials would have a market because the material is valuable. There are no cheap imports, and the linear model has been abandoned. However, the NZ government has rejected a petition on the ban on plastic exports to developing nations and fast-tracked a bill for a waste-to-energy plant to burn 365,000 tonnes of trash annually instead of working to reduce waste to landfills.
READ: Plastic recycling was never going to work, and the industry knew it
Limiting the amount of plastic entering the economy requires policy to target all phases of the plastic lifecycle. If no new policies are implemented, this research projects a doubling of global plastic demand by 2050 and more than a tripling by 2100, with an almost equivalent increase in CO2 emissions. The plastics industry and other organisations continue to block significant bans on these toxic materials.
Stegmann, Paul & Daioglou, Vassilis & Londo, Marc & Vuuren, Detlef & Junginger, Martin. (2022). Plastic futures and their CO2 emissions. Nature. 612. 272-276. 10.1038/s41586-022-05422-5.
What policies would work to reduce plastic pollution by 2040?
The following policies are what the OECD wants. And as per the INC-5 talks, they do not reflect the desires of many nations. Comprehensive policies remain opposed by corporate interests and blocked by a coalition of oil and plastic-producing nations. Opponents argue that the problem is pollution, not plastic. The following are the key policy scenarios:
- Curbing production and demand: e.g., taxes to reduce primary production and some uses (such as packaging), changes to fossil fuel subsidies, and bans on some products.
- Designing for circularity, e.g., using eco-design standards for reuse and repair, banning single-use plastics, and finding suitable substitutes.
- Enhancing recycling (from 9.5% in 2020 to 42% in 2040): e.g., recycling targets, enhanced collection and sorting, extended producer responsibility for packaging, landfill and incineration taxes.
- Closing leakage pathways (96% reduction from business as usual) by 2040: e.g., improved waste collection, sorting and management, improved litter management, reducing the loss of fishing gear into the oceans.
Reference: OECD (2024), Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/76400890-en.
What is the NZ government doing?
It remains uncertain what if any, further legislation will seek to restrict plastics and chemicals in packaging.
“The Minister for the Environment will seek a decision from Cabinet on the third tranche of single-use and hard-to-recycle plastic phase-outs in 2024. If progressed, the regulations would likely not take effect any sooner than mid-2026 (not mid-2025 as initially signalled in the 2021 Cabinet decision). We will update this webpage with more information when we can.”
As mentioned earlier, the government rejected a petition to ban plastic waste exports and they will fast-track a landfill site to burn 365,000 tonnes of trash annually.
At the time of writing, Jenny Marshall (previously Senior Behaviour Change Specialist at the Ministry for the Environment) posted on LinkedIn that of the five policies presented to the government during her three-year tenure at the MftE, only standardising materials collected for household recycling came into effect. The current government now deciding to abandon the remaining policies presented, which were:
- introducing a council household recycling service to all urban areas
- introducing a council household food scraps service to all urban areas
- data reporting for private household recycling providers
- a performance standard for household recycling and food scraps diversion.
READ: MftE compostable products publications May, 2024
What is the Australian government doing?
In October, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) released its 'Reform of packaging regulation' consultation paper. From the information presented, we will likely see the implementation of an extended producer responsibility scheme in 2026. The three options are as follows:
Option 1 – Strengthening administration of the co-regulatory arrangement (will not achieve targets)
Option 2 – National mandatory requirements for packaging
-- (FEES: The government may impose cost recovery fees on regulated entities to cover the administration of the arrangement.)
Option 3 – An extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging
-- (FEES: EPR provides funding mechanisms through an eco-modulated fee structure that could support the whole supply chain actions.)
*Options 1 and 2 require each regulated entity to report annually to the government or scheme administrator, confirm liability and compliance, and provide data to support the arrangements.
Key points from the consultation webinar and positions included:
- EPR fees based on packaging placed on the market would support administration and industry in delivering outcomes (e.g., funding recyclers, litter reduction strategies, and improved recovery). This has the potential to deliver the most significant outcomes and address the issue of free-riding businesses.
- Problematic additives are impeding recovery and recyclability (including organics recycling)—for example, carbon-black, oxo-degradable products and PFAS. A red list of chemicals will be presented in 2025. It is likely that any product placed on the market will need to be tested. There was mention of increasing on-shore testing capacity. The government might also potentially look to grade packaging. This would occur in the scenario where eco-modulated fees were used.
- Businesses must be responsible for consumer education and communicating end-of-life to customers. This takes the form of evidence-based labelling — the ARL (what is actually recyclable and % of access to curbside collections). Recycled content minimums could be used to drive markets for recycled materials and support recyclability.
How dependent is your business on petrochemical plastics?
Failing to address plastic production will only lead to dependence on flawed and insufficient waste management strategies. Some waste management technologies, such as forms of chemical (advanced) recycling, cause socioeconomic and environmental harm. And no one wants another town landfill in their backyard.
In the absence of more progressive bans on petrochemical plastic packaging products and chemicals, many organisations would agree with the concept of protecting the environment.
We are proud to work alongside our partners, who have shifted away from petrochemical plastic packaging or are in the process of doing so. Change can be challenging, so if you have taken a look around our website and would like more details or pricing information, get in touch at hello@ecoware.co.nz. We know that we can have a nation that is more about composting and less landfilling.
