Leading up to the second Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-2) meeting for the pending UN Plastics Treaty on May 29 through June 2, 2023, a range of stakeholders have published background reports, comments, and recommendations as input for the negotiations between committee member states. Some of the most discussed inputs are each summarized below arranged by stakeholder group.
UNEP Reports
Turning off the tap – “While many technical solutions for a circular plastics economy are known, the economic, fiscal, and business models to address the associated impacts while also safeguarding livelihoods are less clear.” The report emphasizes the need to address the root causes of plastic pollution rather than just the symptoms, stating that “such a systems change will enable countries to turn off the tap and end plastic pollution while at the same time transitioning towards safer and more stable jobs.”
By implementing a systems change scenario, which includes reducing problematic plastic use, promoting reuse and recycling, and encouraging sustainable alternatives, the report estimates that plastic pollution can be reduced significantly by 2040, leading to benefits such as job creation and cost savings. However, the report also highlights the importance of harmonized international action, stating that “aligned and coordinated measures and obligations between nations and across value chains will build synergies and create a major shift in the plastics policy landscape.”
According to reporting from The Guardian, UNEP has received some push back from the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty (SCEPT) over concerns the report did not properly address the environmental and health concerns from plastic pollution. “UNEP said it regretted that ‘due to a technical issue’ an email containing SCEPT comments was not received in time for publication. However, it said it received feedback from 75 experts from 39 organizations that were incorporated. It denied claims its report did not sufficiently reflect the health and environmental impacts of plastic.”
Global governance report – aims to address the fragmented and inadequate global governance landscape for plastic pollution. This report again emphasizes the need to prevent impacts on human health, well-being, and the environment throughout the entire life cycle of plastics and associated chemicals. It acknowledges that existing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) focus primarily on plastic waste and provide limited measures to tackle upstream activities such as production and the use of harmful additives and processing aids. The study seeks to identify governance gaps and explore complementarities with existing MEAs, particularly the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm (BRS) conventions.
It examines opportunities to strengthen governance across the full life cycle of plastics and associated chemicals, including the development of international sustainability criteria and the identification and addressing of concerning chemicals and polymers. “To be effective and impactful, it is necessary to consider closing the governance gaps across the full life cycle of plastics and associated chemicals, while complementing and preventing overlaps with the measures that exist or can be strengthened in the current suite of relevant MEAs. This requires clarity on obligations included in existing MEAs that may address some components of the life cycle of plastics, including associated chemicals.”
Chemicals in plastics report – UNEP also published a report focused on the chemicals in plastics. It found that of the 13,000 chemicals known to be used in plastics only 7,000 have any health data but of those that do, and half are hazardous (FPF reported). The report aims to provide stakeholders with a broad overview of the diversity of chemicals present in plastics, their life cycle, and the available evidence about known environmental and human health impacts.
Industry statements
Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) published a video with member CEOs stating their position for the treaty, “we are committed to working with governments to ensure a high ambition in treaty negotiations.” CGF focuses on redesign and the incorporation of extended producer responsibility into the treaty. CGF has previously published Golden Design Rules, which it is promoting for inclusion in Treaty discussions (FPF reported).
CGF is a member of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty a group of businesses, financial institutions, and NGOs convened by the World Wildlife Fund and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. The coalition supports the development of a treaty that sets clear goals, targets, and obligations for all parties, and includes measures to reduce plastic production and use, promote circulation of plastic items, and prevent and remediate plastic leakage into the environment. “The treaty must define a comprehensive and coordinated set of upstream and downstream policy measures.” Food brands endorsing the coalition’s vision statement include Coca-Cola, Mars, Mondelez, Nestle, and PepsiCo.
Scientific statements
The Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty (SCEPT) published a policy brief on May 16, 2023, explaining “why and how plastic chemicals and polymers of concern should be integrated in the global plastics treaty.” The brief highlights the adverse effects of plastic chemicals on human health and the environment (FPF reported), the global transport of these chemicals across borders (FPF reported), the inadequacy of current regulatory systems (FPF reported), and their hindrance to a circular plastics economy (FPF reported).
SCEPT suggests several ways in which the treaty can address these concerns, including the creation of a global inventory of plastic chemicals and polymers, comprehensive definitions of these substances, grouping chemicals based on structure, phasing out groups of concern based on hazard criteria, creating positive lists of safe chemicals and polymers, combining financial incentives with regulatory measures, and ensuring adaptive and science-informed provisions. By implementing these measures, SCEPT argues that the treaty can effectively reduce the global dispersion of harmful chemicals, mitigate the negative impacts of plastics, and promote a sustainable and healthy future.
Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative in its brief highlights the pervasive problem of plastic pollution in the deep ocean and its detrimental impact on ecosystems and human health. The brief emphasizes the need for better governance and management of land- and water-based activities to prevent plastic from reaching the deep ocean. It emphasizes that plastic pollution is long-lasting, as plastic can persist for centuries and degrade into microplastics that interfere with animal growth and reproduction (FPF reported). The policy brief calls for the acknowledgment of the deep ocean’s vulnerability, the adoption of strategies to prevent plastic waste discharges, the imposition of production caps on virgin plastic, and the promotion of safe recycling practices. It also emphasizes the importance of research, monitoring, and data-sharing schemes to inform and assess the effectiveness of remedial measures taken.
Previous research found that food packaging is the primary source of aquatic litter in all types of water bodies other than the deep ocean where it is second to fishing gear (FPF reported).
Civil society
Greenpeace states the Treaty should cap and reduce plastic production while prioritizing reuse-based systems. They highlight that the plastics industry, including fossil fuel and consumer goods companies, often promote recycling as a plastic pollution solution while neglecting significant reductions in plastic production. However, many plastics collected for recycling are never actually recycled, and the recycled plastics contain a toxic mix of chemicals, which Greenpeace says renders them unsuitable for consumer use, “plastics are inherently incompatible with a circular economy.” The recycling process itself can introduce new toxic chemicals into recycled plastics. Sorting challenges and the presence of certain packaging components can also contribute to toxicity in recycled plastic.
Recent work by the Food Packaging Forum found 509 chemicals have been detected in repeat use foodware, and 825 in recycled PET. Some FCCs frequently detected in migrates of reusable plastic FCMs, including the monomers bisphenol A, melamine, and formaldehyde, have hazard properties of concern (FPF reported).
Academia
References
UNEP (May 16, 2023). “Turning off the Tap: How the world can end plastic pollution and create a circular economy.”
UNEP, BRS (March 2023). “Global governance of plastics and associated chemicals.”
Karen McVeigh (May 18, 2023). “Developing country voices will be excluded at UN plastic talks, say NGOs.” The Guardian.
SCEPT (May 16, 2023). “Policy Brief: Role of chemicals and polymers of concern in the global plastics treaty.” Zenodo
CGF (May 23, 2023). “Delivering a circular economy for plastics – A message from CGF plastic waste coalition CEOs.”
Deep-Ocean Stewardship Initiative (2023). “Plastic Pollution in the Deep Ocean –Policy Brief.” (pdf).
Greenpeace (May 24, 2023). “Forever toxic: The science on health threats from plastic recycling.” (pdf).
Read more
UNEP. “Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) on Plastic Pollution.”
SCEPT. “Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty.” International Knowledge Hub Against Plastic Pollution
EMF and WWF (2023). “Business coalition for a global plastics treaty.”
