“The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) has once again failed to ask the most fundamental question for the success of the future global treaty on plastics: how to tackle the unsustainable production of plastics”, lamented Jacob Kean-Hammerson, head of the Ocean Campaign at the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), who took part in the negotiations in Ottawa, Canada, from 23 to 29 April 2024. And not for lack of proposals aimed at reducing the unsustainable production of plastics, in particular a proposal for intersessional work by Rwanda and Peru on primary plastic polymers, aimed at reducing the global use of primary plastic polymers by 40% by 2040 compared to 2025 levels. This proposal was strongly supported by several delegations, including Malawi, the Philippines and Fiji.
Yet these tiny particles of plastic, less than 5 mm in size, are a worrying source of pollution for the environment, biodiversity and human health. It is for this reason that the G7 countries (Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States of America), meeting on 29 April 2024 in Turin, Italy, to discuss the environment and strategies for tackling climate change, committed themselves to reducing the global production of primary plastic polymers in order to put an end to plastic pollution by 2040.
In addition to the Kigali and Lima proposal, which was sidelined as Rwanda was one of the first countries in the world to ban single-use plastic bottles and bags, several countries launched the “Bridge to Busan” declaration on plastic polymers in order to rally support for maintaining the provision on primary plastic polymers in the treaty text and to create momentum for the fifth and final round of negotiations to be held in Busan, South Korea, from 25 November to 1 December 2024.
A draft contested by polymer producers and lobbyists
If a consensus has not been reached on reducing the production of plastics worldwide, it is because the polymer and plastics-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia, India, Kuwait and Qatar, are not prepared to commit to it, nor are the 196 lobbyists from the fossil fuel and chemicals industries who took part in the negotiations in the Canadian capital. “They have also cast doubt on the scope of the proposed treaty in order to redefine what the full life cycle of plastics means, in an apparent attempt to restrict the scope of the proposed treaty to waste management issues only”, says the EEA. This is because producing less plastics would mean a reduction in their turnover.
Given the divergence of views, the parties operated under provisionally applied procedural rules that allow decisions to be voted on if all efforts to reach a consensus have been exhausted. Compromises were made on the outcome, which did not take into account the cap on plastic production, taking us even further away from the conclusion of a treaty that environmentalists and states concerned about the future of the planet are demanding and that justice is calling for. Yet Canada had hoped to reduce the text of the draft treaty by 70% in order to reach an agreement by the end of 2024.
Read Also – Plastic treaty: will it save Eritrea, the country with the worst management index?
While the final direction of the legally binding international agreement on plastics will not be clearly specified until 29 April 2024, the intersessional work that took place, notably on the financial mechanism, as well as on plastic products, chemicals of concern in plastic products, product design, reuse and recyclability, led to the assumption that the global treaty on plastics will favour recycling, even though Canada supported the proposal put forward by Rwanda and Peru. A practice that is far from being the best applied after all. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), only 9% of the 9 billion tonnes of plastic the world has ever produced has been recycled.
The heavy ecological toll
A treaty on plastics that does not take into account the production process is certain to be a disaster for the environment, as plastics are also contributing to the climate crisis. According to the United Nations (UN), plastic production is one of the most energy-intensive manufacturing processes on the planet. This material is made from fossil fuels such as crude oil, which is transformed into polymers using heat and other additives. In 2019, for example, plastics generated 1.8 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or 3.4% of global emissions.
To limit this disaster, as well as plastic pollution, the UN is also calling on governments to encourage innovation and put in place incentives for companies to abandon “useless” plastics. Taxes are also needed to discourage the production or use of single-use plastic products, while tax reductions, subsidies and other tax benefits should be introduced to promote alternative solutions, such as reusable products.
Inès Magoum