Waste management and littering are more important than production and climate impacts in submissions to the Global Plastics Treaty

The photo is taken outside the third negotiations meeting in Nairobi. Photo: Tara Olsen.

Waste management, plastic pollution, capacity building and financial support for developing countries. This is the focus of the submission to the UN's Global Plastics Treaty, which is to be agreed upon in December. Less focus is placed on production issues and plastic's climate impact. This is shown by a new report from researchers from STEPS - from Lund University and University of Copenhagen.

Download the report. Cover photo: Tara Olsen.

Karl Holmberg is a PhD student at the Department of Political Scence at Lund University.

– The common denominator is that all proposals include waste management and littering in one way or another, which is not surprising as it is a big problem in many parts of the world. There is a big risk of the treaty becoming a waste management plan, instead of something progressive, says Karl Holmberg, PhD student at the Department of Political Science at Lund University.

In the report, Karl Holmberg, Teis Hansen, Johannes Stripple, Elin Dreyer and Tara Olsen have coded the various member countries' submissions to the Global Plastics Treaty, in connection with the second and third negotiation rounds in 2023. A total of 182 proposals, representing 170 countries, were analysed to see what the countries would like to include in the treaty, and whether the countries propose soft, hard or financial incentives as measures. Many countries negotiate in various coalitions such as the EU, the group of African states, the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), where for example the EU, Japan and many African and South American countries are included, and the "like-minded group" which includes countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Russia and Cuba.

Waste management and plastic pollution in focus

The analysis shows that a majority of the world's countries would like to see changes linked to waste management and reduced plastic pollution. Many proposals also include targets for increased producer responsibility and plastic recycling. Proposals to try to limit plastic production in various ways are driven by a number of actors, for example the EU. However, such bans are opposed by the so-called "like-minded group", which includes many oil-producing countries.

– Our analysis clearly shows that the focus is on the later parts of the plastic's life cycle, perhaps because it is easier to implement measures against, for example, littering. But the plastic problem is so much broader, says Karl Holmberg.

– Does the production of plastic continue to increase, which it has done with approx. 100 million tonnes per decade in recent decades, a trend that is only expected to continue, we will never catch up to clean up, no matter how good our collection systems are.

– Collection is also complex, it takes a fairly well-functioning society and capacity for the first step, collection, to even work somewhat. This is a connection many countries do not want to make, instead they argue in their proposals that it is the handling of plastic that is the problem, not the production quantities, says Karl Holmberg.

Regulations and soft measures

Furthermore, the report shows that most of the proposals favor regulations and soft measures over various financial incentives. Examples of regulatory measures are standardisation, bans on certain single-use plastics and recycling requirements, while soft measures include, for example, education, support for research, and issues of information and transparency.

The researchers' explanation is that this may be because it is partly easier to agree on soft voluntary measures, while certain regulatory measures have great support, especially when it comes to waste management. This applies not least to countries that have capacity problems, i.e. where financial incentives can be difficult to implement as it is difficult to get actors and people to comply with laws. In these countries, for example, it may be easier to ban than to introduce a tax, say the researchers.

This is the start of the treaty text

In connection with the fourth round of negotiations in Canada at the end of April, all proposals must begin to be harmonised into a treaty text. The final treaty will be decided on in December in South Korea. Tough negotiations are to be expected, which will probably dilute the more ambitious proposals on the table.

– It is likely that we will not see any binding agreement on a ceiling for plastic production, but rather that the countries themselves may set their own ambitions. At the same time, the treaty can lead to an organisation where the countries can meet regularly, like the annual climate negotiations, but for plastics. Under such a structure, the production issue may come up again, but right now we are far away from this as too many countries and their industries have their fingers deep in the plastic can.

He further reflects that, after all, it is positive that many countries want to see measures to make plastics easier to recycle and collect.

– In Sweden, we have come relatively far in terms of deposit schemes and collection. If other countries can follow suit, we have at least gained ground globally in terms of waste management. Major problems remain, however, in connection with how we, also in Sweden, will be able to realise a functioning recycling of the material itself in the next step.

Download the report: “Towards a Global Plastics Treaty: Tracing the UN Negotiations.

It is written by researchers Elin Dreyer, Teis Hansen, Karl Holmberg, Tara Olsen and Johannes Stripple. Elin and Teis work at University of Copenhagen, while Karl, Tara and Johannes work at Lund University.