The plastic waste stream must be tackled at its source

A change of perspective is needed in the global fight against plastic pollution. In addition to downstream solutions such as better recycling, upstream measures must be taken into account, such as limiting the production of primary plastics.

The penultimate round of negotiations for the global agreement to end plastic pollution came to an end in the Canadian capital Ottawa at the end of April. Although progress was made in the negotiations, an agreement is still a long way off.

The contracting parties agree that the future agreement must contain provisions on waste management. However, some countries and groups of countries continue to reject any provisions that would regulate the early stages in the life cycle of plastics. This means that one of the fundamental problems remains unresolved:

The fight against plastic pollution is now attracting unprecedented attention worldwide. This also applies to the negotiations on a binding agreement. However, the global focus is still very much on downstream solutions such as cleaning up beaches or improving waste disposal and recycling infrastructure.

Significantly less attention is paid to upstream measures at the production and sales level. This focus on the downstream level is like wiping the floor under an overflowing sink but not turning off the tap.

Improving waste management is certainly still crucial, especially in the Global South. But it is not enough to just clean up after ourselves.

It is estimated that global plastic consumption and the resulting waste volumes will almost triple by 2060.

The associated increase in single-use plastic waste is already a major challenge even for the well-established waste systems in the global North. One consequence of this is that plastic waste is being exported to economically disadvantaged countries with inadequate waste disposal infrastructure. This further exacerbates the plastic crisis.

Plastic is becoming an alternative business for the oil industry

The draft of the Global Plastics Treaty discussed in Ottawa contains both upstream and downstream measures. However, differences of opinion among the negotiators regarding the necessity and specific form of upstream measures are hindering consensus.

Examples of upstream measures include the proposal to restrict the production of primary plastics worldwide or to regulate the chemicals they contain, which are often harmful to health.

A steadily growing "High Ambition Coalition", currently consisting of over 60 countries, is in favour of legally binding upstream commitments, while a group of predominantly oil and gas producing countries, the so-called Like-Minded Group, rejects all measures aimed at plastics production itself or product design. The negotiating delegations are faced with the task of balancing these strongly competing interests.

Another obstacle to the adoption of effective regulations is lobbying, particularly from industries such as oil and gas extraction. Fuelled by the falling demand for fossil fuels, plastics production has become an alternative business for the petrochemical industry. The industry obviously does not want to be deprived of this last straw. This is also reflected in the strong representation of the industry in the negotiations.

Another cause for concern is that representatives of the petrochemical industry and polymer manufacturers can be found in the national delegations of countries such as China, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia and Thailand at the treaty negotiations in Ottawa. There is also repeated criticism that the plastics agreement is being decided in an ivory tower and that the needs of local people are not being sufficiently taken into account.

The agreement can enable systemic change

Downstream measures will continue to be crucial in the fight against plastic pollution. However, upstream measures must be seen as a catalyst for efforts on the ground to finally achieve the speed of action required to significantly reduce plastic pollution.

Global cooperation, including the agreement, has the potential to enable systemic changes that go beyond the room for manoeuvre of individual countries:

• Many of the upstream measures being negotiated in the agreement would make the excessive waste stream more manageable from the outset. For example, reduced quantities of plastics would place less of a burden on waste systems.
• At the same time, a reduced availability of primary plastics would increase the demand for secondary, i.e. recycled, materials, presumably even more than the quotas for recycled materials in products that are also being discussed.
• Stricter regulation of concerning chemicals and polymers would not only benefit health, but would also lead to higher recycling rates, as the use of today's often contaminated recycled raw materials and materials would become easier.
• Minimum standards for product design and performance - such as longer usability or reduced abrasion - that effectively "clean" waste streams should also benefit recycling and waste initiatives.
• A restriction or ban on the most problematic and easily avoidable products or uses discussed in the negotiations would ensure that the plastic waste that occurs most frequently in the environment, such as drinking straws or shampoo sachets, or that is simply superfluous, such as the plastic packaging around a peeled banana, is eliminated.

Combating plastic pollution requires a multi-pronged approach in which upstream regulations serve as the basis for further efforts. To be successful and effective, the global agreement must therefore include legally binding commitments for both upstream and downstream sectors. This demands a large and growing group of ambitious nations in the negotiations.

In addition, the overall success of the treaty will depend heavily on the capacity of the countries and projects to implement the provisions. The negotiators must therefore bridge the gap between high ambitions and financial and technical support for countries with limited capacities.

How this can be achieved is an important question that the delegations will have to work on until the next round of negotiations at the end of November in Busan, South Korea, and probably beyond.

This article was published on 16.05.2024 in German in klimareporter.