The global treaty against plastic pollution risks being watered down according to STEPS researchers

From 13 - 19 November, the world's countries will meet in Nairobi for the third round of five negotiations to achieve a global treaty against plastic pollution. One risk is that the agreement will be watered down by countries unwilling to address the root problem: increasing plastic production. This is the opinion of three STEPS researchers who have followed the ongoing negotiations closely.

Fredric Bauer, Ellen Palm and Karl Holmberg are members in STEPS. In their research on energy and environmental systems, politics and plastics, they follow the process of getting the global plastics treaty in place.

Every year, 5–13 million tons of plastic waste end up in the oceans. Without effective measures, emissions into the oceans are expected to triple by 2040.

During the meeting, the countries will discuss what the treaty should contain concretely, based on the draft that has been circulated before the meeting, the so-called zero draft.

– Here there is a concern that some countries will once again want to open up discussions about formalities and the decision-making process for the treaty itself, something that was about to overturn the last meeting in Paris last spring, says Fredric Bauer, assistant lecturer at Environment and Energy Systems at Lunds university.

The Zero draft contains a number of proposals for measures and interventions that try to deal with the problems caused by plastic in different ways. For example, proposals for a global ceiling for plastic production, reduced trade in plastic waste, a phasing out of particularly problematic plastics and subsidies to the industry. The text also includes proposals for extended producer responsibility, design for increased circularity and increased use of recycled plastic.

– There are many positives in zero draft. Of particular importance is that there are proposals to address one of the basic problems of plastic pollution: the large and increasing plastic production. It is also positive that justice aspects and distribution of responsibility between different countries are included in the current draft, says Fredric Bauer.

The agreement may be watered down

At the same time, it is difficult to know how far-reaching the final treaty will be, the researchers point out. Currently, there are different options, based on varying degrees of coercion and voluntariness, linked to each proposal. The different options can be seen as the difference between a treaty that contains global bans on certain things, and a treaty that states that countries can do basically whatever they want to contribute to the agreement's goals and then report on what they have done, the researchers explain.

– There will likely be tough negotiations on what type of measures the agreement will actually be based on, where some countries are very hesitant about global, legally binding bans, and would rather see voluntary measures, says Fredric Bauer.

He is supported by Karl Holmberg, PhD student at the Department of Political Science at Lund University, who reflects that the text of the agreement will probably slowly but surely be cut down and nuanced so that the different starting points and positions of the countries can be incorporated into the wording.

– I think, unfortunately, that many of the more far-reaching proposals and alternatives will go up in smoke, for example those linked to reduced production, bans on chemicals and bans on single-use items, and that the proposals that focus on accessing rubbish and waste management will become easier to get through. There is great agreement about reducing marine waste, for example, but little understanding of, or willingness to accept, that the more we produce, the more waste we have to deal with, says Karl Holmberg.

Pressure makes a difference

However, what happens outside the negotiation room is also important, Ellen Palm, PhD student points out. She explains that some countries' reluctance to introduce stricter measures against plastic pollution has led to other countries and organisations rallying around tougher measures. For example, the discussion around introducing a global limitation of plastic production is a result of these pressures.

- The organisations that, despite everything, have received accreditation for the meeting also raise completely different stories about plastic, for example about how plastic affects people on the local level, or future generations. A light in the dark is that these ideas and ambitions can be further developed by other actors, organisations or groups of countries, regardless of what is ultimately decided, says Ellen Palm, PhD student at Environment and Energy Systems at Lund University.

Would like to see stricter regulations

Ahead of the further negotiations, the researchers hope that the countries manage to agree on the decision-making process so that the treaty does not collapse due to one or a few countries demanding a decision via consensus and then vetoing the agreement. They also want to see stricter regulations around production, problematic chemicals and single-use plastics.

- The goal is for the treaty to be strong enough in the end that it really makes a difference to future development, and that it can strengthen other international agreements that in different ways also deal with restrictions of plastics and chemicals, for example the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, says Fredric Bauer.

About the Global Plastics Treaty

In March 2022, the UN Environment Assembly adopted a resolution to develop a global plastics treaty.The goal is to reduce plastic pollution, including ocean pollution and microplastics, across the entire plastic life-cycle. An intergovernmental negotiating committee has met twice. A third meeting is scheduled for November, 2023, in Nairobi, Kenya. The intent is to draft the treaty by the end of 2024.