Experts meet as final global plastics treaty negotiations draw near

More than 90% of plastic is not recycled, most of it is dumped into nature or buried in landfills. File | Photo credit: AP

Crucial negotiations on the world’s first binding treaty on plastic pollution are still several months away, and experts are meeting in Bangkok to discuss financing options and problem plastics.

The four-day meeting is a technical step towards final talks to be held in Busan, South Korea at the end of November.

There, countries are hoping to sign a potentially landmark agreement to tackle the massive problem of plastic pollution.

The scale of this problem is almost unprecedented – microplastics have been found in the deepest ocean trenches, the highest mountain peaks, clouds, and even breast milk.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), plastic production has doubled in 20 years and at current rates it could triple by 2060.

Yet over 90% of plastic is not recycled, and most of it is dumped into nature or buried in landfills.

Negotiators have already met four times to reach a deal that could include production limits, unified rules on recycling, and even bans on certain plastics or chemical components.

But important differences still remain, including whether the treaty would be adopted by consensus or majority.

“Other important issues include whether plastic production will be accounted for,” said Erik Lindebjerg, global plastics policy lead at WWF. AFP,

“Is it appropriate to talk about production, or does the value chain start after plastic products are made? And then if we can regulate production… is it with a cap, is it with a reduction target, what are the measures?” he said. “This has been a very controversial issue.”

Environmental groups have long argued that the treaty should include a ban on new plastics, a position supported by dozens of countries that call themselves the “High Ambition Coalition.”

They may now have a powerful ally in the United States, which has reportedly thrown its support behind some production limits.

The change has been welcomed by environmental groups, though Mr. Lindebjerg cautioned it was not yet clear whether Washington would support mandatory limits or weaker voluntary ones.

‘Unresolved cases’

How binding the deal will be is another source of controversy.

Some countries want measures such as a unified timeline for phasing out certain plastics, while others support vague language that would allow nations to decide how and when to regulate.

And, as with climate negotiations, the issue of financing to implement whatever is agreed remains highly controversial.

“Simply put, some countries want the money and some countries don’t want to pay the money,” Mr. Lindebjerg said.

Two expert groups are meeting in Bangkok, one focused on financing, including technical details on waste management systems and ways to implement “polluter pays” principles.

The second group will focus on frameworks and criteria for chemicals, plastic materials and plastic products that could be targeted for bans or reductions in the treaty.

These meetings are advisory and are being held behind closed doors, frustrating some environmental groups and industry.

“There are still a lot of unresolved issues,” warned Chris John, council secretary of the International Council of Chemical Associations, which represents the global chemicals industry.

The group opposes language that regulates chemicals or bans plastic production.

“Plastics are essential for the world to achieve sustainable development and climate change goals,” Mr. Jahn said, pointing to uses ranging from solar energy to food preservation.

The American Chemistry Council warned last week that US support for production limits would be a “betrayal” of American manufacturing and put jobs at risk.

“The industry supports efforts to promote new designs to make plastics easier to reuse and recycle, as well as regulations to make producers pay for plastic pollution,” Mr. Jahn said.

And despite the gaps remaining, there is cautious optimism that a strong deal is possible.

“I think we’re really at a historic moment,” Mr. Lindebjerg said.