Plastics treaty talks set to begin sixth phase

Global representatives have spent five sessions and almost three years negotiating a legally binding treaty on plastic pollution. From Aug. 5-14, they will make a sixth attempt at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.

The sixth United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, or INC-5.2, is billed as an extension of the fifth session, which took place Nov. 25-Dec. 1, 2024, in Busan, South Korea. That conference was supposed to be the finale, wrapping a two-year process to create a legally binding document. However, key differences remain between countries, including potential caps on plastic production, the establishment of a financial mechanism to implement the agreement and whether participation will be mandatory or voluntary.

RELATED: Scientific paper concludes plastics treaty must include production cuts | Forging a global agreement

According to the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), more than 3,300 delegates, including members representing more than 170 countries and observers from more than 440 organizations, met for INC-5. Through its own research, the Washington-based Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) said at the time that more than 220 fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists also attended.

The starting point

INC-5.2 talks will use the “Chair’s Text” as a starting point in Geneva.

Developed by INC Chair and Ambassador for Ecuador Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the treaty text includes measures addressing product design and the development of a global list of chemicals and products of concern to eliminate while leaving options open for countries wishing to participate on a more voluntary basis—an ongoing point of contention.

During the previous session in Busan, a majority group of more than 100 countries from various regions led by Mexico and Rwanda said they would not accept a treaty without binding global bans and phaseouts of “harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern.” The stance was at odds with countries such as China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, which pushed for more focus on managing plastic scrap rather than capping production or eliminating certain chemicals.

Somewhere in middle is the United States, which has sided with both groups. While it previously aligned more closely with China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, advocating for a focus on a circular economy for plastics and addressing production design and scrap management, the Biden administration shifted course in the summer months of 2024, instead supporting a global target to reduce yearly plastic production and create a chemical phaseout list, aligning it more closely with the majority group, which includes Canada, Mexico, South Korea and European Union member states.

While the U.S. has shown interest in voluntary production caps and minimum design and performance standards on plastic products, the Trump administration’s stance on the treaty and its goals remains unclear as negotiations begin.

During a July hearing conducted by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, ranking member Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, a Democrat, addressed the upcoming treaty talks in his opening remarks.

“Like the climate crisis, plastic pollution is a global problem that warrants ambitious cooperation from the international community,” he said. “The U.S. delegation must continue to be a strong voice at the global plastics treaty negotiations next month. We should not take a backseat or accept weaker standards.”

The call to action

A host of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and stakeholders has expressed a desire to see the adoption of a binding agreement at INC-5.2.

In June, the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, a group of more than 290 businesses, financial institutions and NGOs, published an open letter to negotiators urging an agreement on harmonized regulations to end plastic pollution.

“Business supports harmonized regulations because they drive consistency across borders while supporting national ambitions and provide the lowest cost option to effectively address plastic pollution,” the group writes. “Voluntary efforts are not enough, and the current fragmented regulatory landscape results in increased costs and complexity.

“With a pivotal opportunity at INC-5.2, we urge you to support a treaty that includes provisions for harmonized regulations on key elements, including phaseouts, product design and extended producer responsibility [EPR]. Enabled by a fair financing mechanism, such measures would help support sustainable levels of production and consumption of plastics globally, ensure a level playing field for businesses and support all countries to deliver on their national ambitions.”

Also in June, representatives of 95 countries published “The Nice Call for an Ambitious Treaty on Plastic Pollution,” or the “Nice Wakeup Call,” which stated a similar position to the business coalition.

“We are heartened by the constructive engagement of the majority of Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee members to conclude an effective treaty that is urgently needed, acknowledging the scale of socioeconomic challenges that ending plastic pollution may represent for certain parties,” the letter states, adding that certain points are key to reaching an agreement that is “commensurate with what science tells us and our citizens are calling for.”

The five key points include:

• Reaffirming that the full life cycle of plastics includes the production and consumption stages and calling for a global target to reduce the production and consumption of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels, to be regularly adjusted with a view of enhancing the level of ambition. “We also call for an obligation for parties to report on their production, imports and exports of primary plastic polymers, and to take measures across the full life cycle of plastics to achieve the global target,” the countries write.
• The call for a legally binding obligation to phase out “the most problematic plastic products and chemicals of concern in plastic products,” including those “most likely to cause harm or hinder circularity,” as well as the creation of a global list of plastic products and chemicals of concern.
• The call for an improvement in the design of plastic products and the assurance they cause minimal environmental impact to safeguard human health.
• The development of an effective means of implementation and accessible, new and additional financing, noting the special circumstances of the least developed countries and small island developing states. “We underscore the need to mobilize the necessary resources from all sources, public and private, domestic and international, in a way that ensures the achievement of the objectives and provisions of the treaty and guided by the polluter-pays principle,” the letter states.
• The adoption of a treaty that can evolve over time and is responsive to changes in emerging evidence and knowledge. The countries write, “To this end, the treaty should provide for the possibility of decision-making, through regular U.N. procedures, if all efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted.”

The Washington-based Ocean Conservancy is an official U.N. observer organization and has been involved throughout the negotiation process. The organization’s five treaty priorities are to secure plastics source reduction; address abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded plastic fishing and aquaculture gear; address microplastics; incentivize designing plastics for reuse and recyclability; and include the expertise of the informal scrap collection sector as a critical participant.

“We needed an ambitious plastics treaty at the last round of negotiations in November, one that addresses the root causes of plastic pollution and empowers countries to work toward a future where we’re not drowning in plastics,” says Nicholas Mallos, the organization’s vice president of conservation, ocean plastics. “Between that last meeting in Busan and the start of the negotiations in Geneva, an estimated 7.4 million metric tons more plastics have entered the ocean, and that’s why we cannot delay this agreement any further.”

The Washington-based World Wildlife Fund (WWF) notes that while previous efforts to finalize a treaty have stalled, “a majority of ambitious countries” continue to push for progress, “with only a small minority hindering momentum.” Much like the representatives who authored the “Nice Wakeup Call”, the organization supports global bans on what it deems the most harmful plastic products and chemicals, global product design requirements, financial and technical support for developing countries and mechanisms to strengthen and adapt the treaty over time.

“The speed at which the treaty went from conception to near completion is exactly what the planet needed, but it was never going to be without challenges,” says Erin Simon, vice president and head of Plastic Waste & Business at the WWF. “As we approach the final stretch, negotiators must remember why we’re here. Our planet is overwhelmed by plastic waste, and it’s impacting everyone and everything that calls this planet home. At the start of these negotiations, the global community collectively agreed enough was enough, now is the moment to come together to deliver a path forward.”

Aid from industry

The Global Partners for Plastics Circularity (GPPC), a multinational collaboration of associations and companies that make, use and recycle plastics, says it is advocating a global agreement to “accelerate a sustainable, circular economy for plastics.”

The Washington-based organization, which is supported by the World Plastics Council (WPC) and the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), says governments must focus on common ground and deliver an agreement countries can implement and communities can benefit from. The GPPC says that, at the heart of an effective agreement, is circularity, where plastics are designed to be reused or recycled, collected at their end of life and remade into new products.

“This is a critical moment,” ICCA President Ilham Kadri says. “The world cannot afford to miss this opportunity to forge a robust global agreement that helps end plastic pollution. Governments have made meaningful progress, and now it’s time to turn ambition into action. The industry stands ready with the data, innovation and global partnerships needed to support implementation. We are not just asking for an agreement, we are prepared to help deliver it.”

The GPPC says the industry is committed to supporting an agreement that can help end plastic pollution while enabling innovation, investment and continued access to “the essential benefits plastics provide,” and offers a range of science-based resources, including:

• ICCA’s Plastic Additives Database, which aggregates extensive information on thousands of additives to support transparency and capacity building efforts for developing economies to regulate chemical additives used in plastics by leveraging existing data and risk assessments conducted by governments and multilateral institutions across the globe.
• Decision Tree to Prevent Plastic Pollution, a step-by-step tool designed to help governments assess plastic products across three dimensions: design for circularity, local waste management capacity and socioeconomic value. The GPPC says the tool guides users through targeted actions such as redesign, improved end-of-life treatment or identifying alternatives, based on national circumstances and circularity goals.
• Industry policy recommendations from the GPPC to help draft an agreement that is effective, inclusive and actionable by all countries.

“The global plastics agreement is an opportunity to move towards a circular economy,” ICCA Council Secretary Marco Mensink says. “We’ve seen promising convergence on several key areas like design, infrastructure and addressing high-leakage products. We urge negotiators to seize this moment and bring the agreement across the finish line. Let’s not let the perfect stand in the way of the possible.”

The warning

Treaty negotiations were discussed during the Bureau of International Recycling (BIR) Convention & Exhibition in Valenica, Spain, in May, and Alev Somer, the BIR’s trade and environmental director, warned that talks could grind to a halt with no consensus.

“Since 2022, we at the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee have been discussing reaching the ultimate goal of a plastics treaty that would address the whole life cycle of plastics and actually, perhaps, support the recycling industry. This treaty would be addressing plastic pollution not only on land, but also at sea.”

RELATED: Commentary: The circular bioeconomy will help make a more effective global plastics treaty | Commentary: Where do we go from here after failure to agree on plastics treaty?

However, Somer said the “waste part” of the proposed treaty “is really dividing the negotiating committee into two groups, with low-ambition countries, oil-producing countries, pushing for it to be addressed only at the end of life so that they don’t have to do any changes in terms of their production and keep the commitments light with a voluntary agreement, and high-ambition countries pushing for the treaty to be legally binding and covering the entire life cycle of plastics.”

Describing the progress of treaty talks over the last several years, Somer said, “Basically, it’s like the Ottoman march. You make two steps forward and then one step back.”

When BIR Plastics Division President Henk Alssema asked if there was a real chance of a deal being signed, Somer said, “I think miracles can happen. But to be honest, no, I do not frankly see a binding treaty signed at the end of the session 5.2 unless there is tremendous progress, and then there might be further negotiations.”

Somer said she had spoken with the secretariat working on the proposed treaty, who explained that if no agreement is reached at INC-5.2, the resources and budget do not exist to continue the negotiations. Instead, Somer suggested that more action could be taken through the Basel Convention on Plastics and other platforms, such as the Stockholm Convention, where persistent organic pollutants (POPs), could be addressed to potentially reduce the use of chemicals in plastics.