UN to Broker Treaty Aiming to End Plastic Pollution

In response to the growing global crisis of plastic pollution, the United Nations established a committee in 2022 dedicated to negotiating a legally binding international treaty. This ambitious initiative aims to comprehensively address the entire life cycle of plastics, from their production to their disposal. The goal is to clearly define what constitutes plastic pollution and to curb the rampant production practices that lead to this environmental challenge. However, despite five negotiation sessions, nations have struggled to reach a consensus on the treaty’s language.

The final session that was hoped to settle the matter took place last year in Busan, South Korea, without yielding agreement. Representatives from 175 nations are scheduled to reconvene for part two of the negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland, from August 5 to 14. During this critical meeting, negotiators will aim to resolve the most contentious issues outlined in the draft treaty, which currently lists over 370 disputed points, according to the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).

Key Areas of Disagreement in Plastic Pollution Treaty Negotiations

Significant points of contention include the production of plastics, the use of harmful chemicals (deemed hazardous due to their toxicity), product design, and the financial mechanisms necessary to implement the treaty. These critical issues have led to a stalemate among nations, as highlighted by Cate Bonacini, Communications Manager for CIEL. Some countries advocate for the exclusion of health-related matters from the treaty’s scope. As negotiations resume, these themes will take center stage, with UN member states having spent the past eight months engaged in closed-door discussions to identify potential areas of agreement. Bonacini noted that the outcomes of these efforts will soon be revealed.

Bonacini emphasized that the crux of the matter lies in a fundamental disagreement about the definition of plastic pollution and the necessary measures to mitigate it. Although the commitment aims to encompass the complete life cycle of plastics, there is considerable debate about where this cycle begins.

According to Bethanie Carney Almroth, a professor of ecotoxicology at the University of Gothenburg and a member of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, scientists view the life cycle as commencing with the extraction and production of fossil fuels and raw plastics. This perspective encompasses the entire journey of plastics, from their initial production through to their use, trade, transportation, waste management, and the resultant environmental pollution, including the remediation of existing legacy plastics.

While over 100 countries expressed support last December for a treaty imposing limits on plastic production, certain nations opposed these caps. Notably, the United States reportedly reversed its initial inclination to support production limits. It is no surprise that the countries contesting the treaty’s scope are also among the world’s largest oil producers.

Carney Almroth pointed out that some stakeholders are attempting to narrow the treaty’s focus, shifting the emphasis from plastic products—such as water bottles—to waste management. This adjustment would effectively exclude broader definitions of the plastic life cycle, resulting in a treaty that resembles more of a waste management policy rather than a comprehensive approach to tackling plastic pollution.

The Role of Lobbyists in Plastic Pollution Treaty Negotiations

The negotiation sessions are not only attended by representatives of participating member states, but also by scientists, environmental organizations, and industry lobbyists. Carney Almroth, who has attended every Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) meeting and is currently in Geneva for INC-5.2, noted a growing presence of lobbyists in these discussions.

Winnie Courtene-Jones, a lecturer at Bangor University and a member of the Coalition, reported that during the last negotiation round, lobbyists representing the petrochemical and plastics industries constituted the largest delegation. CIEL revealed that there were three times as many lobbyists from the fossil fuel and chemical sectors compared to scientists at the Busan meetings. Bonacini remarked that since plastics are derived from 99 percent fossil fuels, these corporations have a vested interest in perpetuating the production of fossil fuel-based products, including plastics.

The substantial influence of these lobbyists has contributed significantly to the ongoing stalemate. Carney Almroth indicated that these entities wield considerable power, financial resources, and influence, extending their lobbying efforts beyond the negotiation halls, granting them access to decision-makers that other observers do not possess.

Carney Almroth further noted that these lobbyists are reluctant to address issues related to chemicals and production. Nonetheless, examining the implications of chemicals (including additives and processing aids) and production processes is crucial, not only for achieving environmental sustainability but also for safeguarding human health.

In a July editorial published in the Journal of Environmental Health, a group of scientists highlighted the numerous potential health risks associated with plastics, stemming from exposure to hazardous chemicals and micro- and nanoplastics. These risks include an elevated likelihood of multiple chronic diseases such as cancer, neurodevelopmental harm, and infertility, as well as respiratory, reproductive, and gastrointestinal issues with potential links to lung and colon cancer.

The authors urged delegates to prioritize these health concerns in the forthcoming negotiations and work towards a treaty that would eliminate the production of toxic chemicals in plastics, prohibit the recycling of plastic materials containing these harmful chemicals, and reduce overall plastic production. Their call coincided with a separate study published this summer in the Environmental Science & Technology, which identified over 4,200 chemicals of concern present in plastics out of a total of 16,325. The researchers argued for greater transparency regarding the chemical composition of plastics and emphasized the need to simplify plastics to enhance their safety.

The myriad chemicals incorporated into plastics can be released throughout the entire life cycle, from feedstock extraction and production to usage and waste disposal. The authors noted that specific end-of-life treatments, such as uncontrolled landfilling or incineration, can exacerbate these chemical releases. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has warned that the adverse effects associated with every stage of the plastic life cycle disproportionately impact vulnerable populations globally, including indigenous communities, low-income families, and rural residents.

The Current State of Plastic Pollution and Treaty Negotiations

At present, plastic is virtually unavoidable in our lives—microplastics are even found in our drinking water now. Research increasingly indicates that we may not fully grasp the extent of plastic pollution and its consequences.

Global plastic production has more than doubled in the past 25 years, with estimates indicating that over 400 million tons of plastic are produced annually. Alarmingly, only 6 percent of this total consists of recycled plastics, a figure that is unlikely to change, even as global plastic consumption and waste generation are projected to increase by 70 percent by 2040, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Each year, tens of millions of tons of plastic waste are disposed of improperly, leading to environmentally harmful practices such as uncontrolled dumping, open burning, or accumulation in land and waterways.

A recent study conducted by researchers from Utrecht University and the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research found that there may be significantly more plastic in the oceans than previously believed when accounting for particles smaller than microplastics. The research team collected water samples from 12 locations in the North Atlantic Ocean, measuring the concentration of nanoplastics (particles smaller than 1 micrometer) at various depths. Their estimates suggest that as much as 27 million metric tons of nanoplastics may be present in the North Atlantic alone, which is comparable to previous global estimates for larger plastic waste across all oceans.

In another recent study, researchers from the University of Toulouse in France discovered that we may be inhaling up to 100 times more microplastic particles indoors than earlier estimates suggested, based on measurements taken in their own homes and vehicles.

The urgency of the situation is particularly pronounced for vulnerable populations, according to Carney Almroth. “The volumes of plastics we are generating today and the extent of plastic pollution in the environment are staggering,” she stated. Just a few years ago, the amount of plastic on Earth exceeded the combined mass of all terrestrial and aquatic animals, including insects, and since then, we have produced even more plastic.

Plastic waste is overwhelming our existing waste management systems, rendering them ineffective in preventing pollution and mitigating harm. Carney Almroth warned that the environmental impacts of plastic pollution are extensive enough to destabilize essential Earth functions, including climate regulation, nutrient cycling, and biodiversity. Additionally, the human health implications are profound, making this an acute and pressing problem that requires immediate attention.

Navigating the Complexities of Plastic Pollution Treaty Negotiations

However, as the past five negotiation sessions have demonstrated, reaching a consensus on how to address this critical issue is far from straightforward. One of the primary challenges lies in the decision-making process, which to date has relied on consensus rather than voting. This approach grants any single country veto power over decisions, as explained by Carney Almroth and Bonacini.

Countries heavily involved in the petrochemical industry, such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, India, and Brazil, have exploited this consensus requirement, employing “obstructionist tactics” to prolong negotiations. Some of these nations have asserted, without legal basis, that decisions can only be made through consensus. However, consensus is not the sole option available.

The draft Rules of Procedure allow for majority voting if consensus cannot be achieved, but whether this provision will be invoked remains uncertain. Carney Almroth indicated that there are opportunities to enforce this rule, but it would require a country or a coalition of countries to take action.

At this juncture in the negotiations, there is a risk that nations may compromise on vital provisions for the sake of expediency, as Bonacini cautioned, which could ultimately undermine the treaty’s effectiveness. Once a treaty is finalized, making amendments to the original text can take years, if not decades, so it is essential to get it right from the outset. Past international agreements that have adopted a more lenient approach to environmental concerns, such as the Paris Agreement, have faced challenges in the context of rapidly rising global temperatures and climate change.

In June at the UN Ocean Conference, representatives from 95 countries involved in the INC reaffirmed their commitment to a treaty that comprehensively addresses the entire life cycle of plastics, phases out the most problematic plastic products and harmful chemicals, enhances product design to minimize environmental and health impacts, and employs effective implementation strategies. The group, which includes Canada, Australia, Colombia, Zimbabwe, the UK, and Germany, stressed that a treaty lacking these critical elements, relying solely on voluntary measures, or failing to encompass the full lifecycle of plastics would not be adequate to tackle the challenge of plastic pollution.

If consensus is not achieved during this round, several potential paths forward exist. The negotiations could extend into another meeting, or countries might consider pursuing alternative avenues.

Christina Dixon, Ocean Campaign Lead for the Environmental Investigation Agency, noted that many countries are exploring options should negotiations falter. These options include returning to the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) to establish a new mandate, creating a separate convention for committed nations to advance their objectives, or adopting a protocol under an existing convention. The UNEA is scheduled to meet again in December.

As Courtene-Jones articulated in The Conversation, we are at a critical juncture. Advocates for a robust, science-based treaty uniformly concur on this point. Carney Almroth emphasized, “There are numerous opportunities to effect meaningful change and improve the situation. Countries must be ambitious and assertive in their demands.”