May 25, 2023

Plastic Pollution:

Focus Upstream at INC-2

Next week from May 29 to June 2, delegates will gather at the UNESCO building in Paris for the INC-2 meeting to negotiate a new treaty designed to prevent pollution from plastic production and plastic wastes. This is the second of only four projected meetings with ambitions far higher than the allocated time to accomplish a global commitment that makes a serious difference. Indeed, the first meeting (INC-1), which took place in Uruguay, accomplished little in the way of negotiations.

The Basel Action Network (BAN) recommends that delegates focus immediately and exclusively on areas where the return on investment for a global treaty will be the highest: looking upstream in the life-cycle to urgently begin to turn off the tap of plastic production, in particular those plastic uses that are wasteful, hazardous, or generate microplastic pollution. This is far more effective than chasing the plastic pollution ambulance downstream, when it is too late to effectively manage what will inevitably be a serious pollution problem once plastics products become waste.

There are four compelling reasons we must focus the new treaty upstream:

1. We Are Not Going to be Able to Recycle our Way out of the Plastic Crisis

For more than fifty years the plastics industry has repeated the mantra: "Don't worry, we can recycle it." And yet to date less than 9% of the plastic waste ever produced has actually been recycled. And much of that has been exported to developing countries where it is only partially recycled and often in harmful, polluting operations. Today, the industry is attempting the same tactic, this time by promoting "chemical recycling" as the new and shiny version of the "don't worry we will recycle it" promise. The Basel Parties earlier this month were right to reject "chemical recycling" as being considered ESM in the Technical Guidelines on the ESM of Plastic Waste. In truth, all forms of plastic recycling are fraught with serious problems – many stemming from the very fact that plastic waste has little value and must compete directly with virgin plastic, which is only slightly more expensive, and does not need to be collected, sorted and cleaned. Moreover, recycled plastic must contend with hazardous additives moving into the recyclate or being released into the workplace. Traditional recycling of plastics requires massive amounts of fresh water to clean the plastic during the process while such cleaning causes a run-off of microplastics into the environment. Finally, plastic recycling requires the addition of virgin plastic to counter polymer chain shortening that takes place every recycling cycle. All of these insurmountable operational challenges demonstrate that plastics recycling is inherently non-circular.

2. The New Treaty Should not Duplicate Basel's Mandate

The mandate of the new treaty is spelled out in the UNEA Resolution 5/14, in item (k):

(k) To promote cooperation and coordination with relevant regional and international conventions, instruments and organizations, while recognizing their respective mandates, avoiding duplication and promoting complementarity of action;

Basel's respective mandate is clear. Its task is to control the transboundary movement of wastes and their Environmentally Sound Management, once wastes are generated and it is important that the new treaty does not duplicate Basel’s downstream mandate. It can allow Basel to further flesh out downstream areas such as remediating plastic waste dumps, or transitioning the informal sector, including waste pickers, to safer and formal management of the plastic waste, but should not usurp the primary focus of the new treaty, which must be upstream management.

3. Greatest Return on Investment Lies in Producing Less Unnecessary and Harmful Plastic

Most experts agree that the most important work needed to make a significant impact on the growing plastic waste crisis is to look upstream and mandate phase-outs and plastic use alternatives, including substitute materials and re-usable packaging. This is especially important in view of the industry’s plans to double to triple plastic production, including single-use plastics  going forward. We must target actions against wasteful and inappropriate usage of plastic (e.g., single or minimal use, difficult to recycle applications) as well set our sights on mandatory phase-outs of hazardous additives and polymers. While Basel has a paragraph (Article 4, 2, a) calling for minimization of generation of hazardous and other wastes, Basel lacks the hard law to actually do the job of mandating bans and phase-outs of certain harmful or inappropriate plastic products. We need the new treaty to do this vital job.

4. The Public and Basel Have the Right and Need to Know Which Plastics are Hazardous

Currently, the general plastic-consuming public does not know if the plastic products they handle or their infant suckles on each day, or the food and drink contained in plastic each day is toxic or not. This is unacceptable. We all have the right to protect ourselves and our children, equipped with knowledge based on sound science. The right to information on plastic polymers and their additives can only be achieved via the new treaty and an independent scientific review board. Indeed, this full transparency is a requisite requirement of Basel Convention implementation, as currently it is impossible for Basel Parties and their competent authorities to determine whether a shipment of plastic waste is hazardous or not under the Convention or not. Each shipment contains many types of plastics in many uses from many corporate sources. While we have a non-hazardous plastic listing, a hazardous plastic listing, and a "waste for special consideration" listing, we cannot possibly know which listing to apply as we have no knowledge of additives and polymer chemistry that applies in each shipment. Basel desperately needs the new Treaty to provide the scientific assessment and the transparency of what types of polymers and additives should be considered hazardous.

Time to Turn our Attention to the Source of the Crisis – Misguided Plastic Production

Of the options provided in the pre-session document UNEP/PP/INC.2/4, we are pleased to see some core objective options which face upstream towards the source of the problems we face with plastic. Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, stand out as the options where our focus needs to be. With these options we can boldly prevent the problem at its overflowing source and turn off the tap of plastic production.

On the other hand, we should not be spending our time on options 5, 9, 10, and 12. These are far less urgent, far less vital to the mandate of the Plastics Treaty. These can be done later under the respective mandate of the Basel Convention.

We urge all Basel Delegates attending the INC-2 meeting in Paris to work hard to direct the new treaty to face most vitally upstream and thereby solve the plastics crisis, rather than look downstream and chase it. If you are not going to the meeting, we hope you will pass this message to those in your delegation that will be. Together we can ensure the Paris meeting provides a real opportunity to solve the plastic pollution crisis, for our children and grandchildren.