We are heartened that, in line with commitments to look at the whole-of-life cycle for plastics, there is increasing attention to cuts on plastic production.
Waste management
Countries found broad agreement over the text on waste management (Article 8).
Notably, among Asia-Pacific countries that submitted a text, all but one support the most ambitious option: a legal obligation for each country to ensure safe and environmentally sound management of plastic waste, including handling, collection, transportation, storage, recycling, and final disposal.
There was strong support for binding obligations on Extended Producer Responsibility (unfortunately, this was watered down from ‘shall’ to ‘encouraged’ in the Chair’s Text).
Unfortunately, Singapore did not appear in any of the above supporting countries.
(Note that there are 193 Member States of the UNEA in total.)
At the Final Plenary Meeting:
On behalf of 85 countries, Rwanda presented a statement, ‘Stand Up for Ambition’ which emphasised a Treaty enshrining reduction targets, phase-out of harmful chemicals, a just transition, and an equitable financial mechanism in the treaty. (SUPPORT FOR STANDING UP FOR AMBITION)
Part 1. Plastic products and chemicals of concern (Articles 3 and 5)
Part 2. Production levels (Article 6)
Part 3. Finance (Article 11)
Part 1. Plastic products and chemicals of concern (Articles 3 and 5)
Article 3 focuses on introducing regulations on the composition of plastic products being manufactured. It encompasses:
a) identification criteria of plastics and chemicals of concern;
b) establishment of an expert Review Committee;
c) establishment of a publicly available database on identified compounds;
d) regulations to prohibit/reduce the use of identified compounds
e) implementation measures to phase out/phase down the use of identified compounds
f) establishment of a subsidiary body for implementation
g) producer responsibility
h) transparency and traceability of plastic products
i) establishment of an annex of harmful plastic products to be phased out
Article 5 focuses on national-level measures on sustainable production of more circular plastic products. It encompasses:
a) implementing reuse and recycled content targets
b) ensuring plastic products align with the principles of a circular economy
c) promoting use of safe and sustainable additives
d) minimising plastic leakage
e) ensuring alignment with existing international frameworks
f) preventing discrimination for international trade
During INC-5, negotiations on these Articles were stalled. Certain Member States argued that product design and regulations on product composition were out of scope. For example, Iran submitted a text proposal detailing 21 reasons why Article 3 should be removed from the Treaty. We will discuss two of the stated reasons.
Our take: The UNEA 5/14 Resolution focuses on establishing a legally binding instrument on plastic pollution. Its scope should include impacts to human health, which must cover chemicals from plastics harming human and ecological health.
Claim: Overlap with existing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), in particular the Stockholm Convention
Our take: Articles 3 and 5 do not have much overlap with existing MEAs. The Stockholm Convention is the primary instrument on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), which are persistent, mobile, bioaccumulative and toxic (PMBT) carbon-based compounds. In fact, the following gaps in the Convention reaffirm the importance of Articles 3 and 5.
Lacks regulation on inorganic compounds
Plastics commonly contain inorganic additives such as anti-caking, anti-stick, anti-static agents, flame retardants, and optical bleaching additives.
Lacks coverage of plastics
Plastic production and usage entail chemical interactions between plastic polymers and additives, or between plastics and the external environment.
Furthermore, a group of Member States consistently pushed for voluntary, national level approaches instead of a legally-binding Treaty. These moves weakened the text for Articles 3 and 5 greatly.
What is Singapore’s position?
Interestingly, while Singapore mentioned support for inclusion of “phase down or phase out of harmful chemicals and/or additives” in its INC-2 pre-session written submission, the ambition for a phase out was later not reflected (e.g. not being a signatory to Mexico’s Declaration on phase out at the final plenary).
Part 2. Production levels (Article 6)
Article 6 discusses supply or sustainable production of plastics. There has been no consensus on a production cap, and much hedging evident through square brackets throughout the text.
Currently, there are two options:
No action
Calls for a global target (but vague and no quantitative figure)
Evolution of Article 6
Studies such as this 2020 paper indicate that there should be a 47% reduction in plastic production.
Specifically, plastic production must be 47% lower than its 2016 baseline.
No figure option (the current second option) eventually proposed by Panama and supported by over 100 countries, including PSIDS, at INC5.
Opposers (aka supporters of the first option) argue that the Treaty focuses on plastic pollution and can be solved with better waste management instead.
Recap: Why are production caps important?
Plastics is set to grow exponentially and uncontrollably: Under the business-as-usual scenario, annual production of virgin plastics would increase from 430 Mt in 2019 to 712 Mt by 2040, a 66% increase.
Plastic production is directly linked to plastic waste: Global Brand Audit report shows that there is a direct, linear correlation between companies’ plastic production outputs and corresponding waste generated → strongly suggestive that plastic waste produced is a direct reflection of plastic waste generated.
A report by SYSTEMIQ on the assessment of pathways towards plastic pollution found that reduction of pollution is by the far the most effective method.
Financially sustainable: A recent report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis finds that production caps are a financially efficient option. The following quotes from the articles encapsulate this message:
“The production cap will help manage the declining demand for primary plastic polymers that is occurring, driven by slower economic growth, a largely oversupplied market (causing overbuilding and volatile pricing) and new competitive alternative technologies.”
“The production cap can serve to modulate and stabilize growing supply and demand imbalances and smooth the way for the integration of sustainable products and business models into regional and global markets.”
“The cap does not seek the elimination of plastics. Rather, it seeks to ensure production of all the plastics the world needs and only the plastics the world needs.”
Evidently, we see that production caps are of extreme importance. For real solutions to the plastics crisis, waste management is insufficient.
What is Singapore’s position?
We are unsure due to the lack of data on Singapore’s position with regards to the article. Singapore is not part of the High Ambition Coalition and did not sign on to Panama’s ambitious proposal to cap production, nor did Singapore voice its direct opposition.
However, considering that Singapore had announced the opening of a resin manufacturing plant just days before INC-5, evidence points to the country disfavouring a cap on production levels.
Thanks for reading SYCA Environment Digest! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Part 3. Finance (Article 11)
Little progress overall was made on the financial mechanism required to support the transition as required by the Treaty. Specifically, the key areas to be clarified include:
Purpose and scope of a financial mechanism
Appropriate architecture for a fund (or funds)
Source of contributions to a fund (or funds), and other sources that can be
mobilised
How funds should be allocated
Without certainty in these key areas, developing countries that need funding face challenges of inadequate and unpredictable funding, bureaucratic delays, and donor distrust, amongst others.
Most ideas have been recorded in Article 11 of the Chair’s Text (many encased within many brackets) and include:
Creation of a new financing mechanism structure
May include a new and dedicated independent multilateral fund, remediation fund and also the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Trust Fund
Operating under the authority of the Conference of the Parties
Source of finance
May come from a range of policies and fiscal measures (e.g, primary plastic polymer fees, extended producer responsibility)
Developed countries to contribute funds and resources to developing countries
Additional resources from blended and innovative finance, as well as finance from bilateral, regional, and multilateral entities, and the private sector
Financial flows should be aligned with that of the Convention’s objectives, and
Criteria for finance
Specific needs and circumstances of developing country parties to be taken into account
With particular attention given to least developed countries and small island developing states (and countries with economies in transition, archipelagic states, landlocked developing countries)
Extent to which developing countries effectively implement their obligations depends on the availability of such funds.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of certain financing options?
For the full list of pros and cons of different financial mechanisms, see Annex III of the Co-Chairs’ Report, released prior to INC5, or an analysis from IUCN. Below is only a simplified and selective summary of the above pieces.
Alternatively, Parties may consider a hybrid financing system like the one adopted at the BBNJ, which consists of the voluntary trust fund administered by the COP and a special fund administered by the GEF.
Recap: Why is financing important?
An assessment by the Minderoo Foundation found an estimated $350-500 billion shortfall for the financing of an ambitious Treaty by 2040. Costs will cover:
Sustainable waste management infrastructure
Supporting the elimination, substitution and reuse models
Ensuring a just transition
Cleaning up legacy plastic pollution
Addressing human health impacts of plastic pollution
