Will nations agree treaty to cut plastic production?

Fossil fuel and plastics producers want to focus on improving recycling instead

Plastic being sorted near Colombo, Sri Lanka. About 20 million tones of plastic ends up in the environment each year. AFP

Talks to agree the first global treaty on combating plastic pollution are set to begin on Tuesday, and limiting plastic production is a key point of contention.

Dozens of countries, campaign groups and researchers say that legally binding cuts to plastic production, which is running at about 460 million tonnes a year, are the only way to deal with the problem.

However, many other nations, including producers of fossil fuels that are used to make most plastics, want the treaty to instead focus on improving the collection and recycling of plastic waste.

The discussions in Geneva, scheduled to run until 14 August, are titled INC-5.2 because they are the second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, part of the UN Environment Assembly.

More than 170 nations and hundreds of organisations are taking part in the talks, which ended in gridlock over the issue of production limits during the first part of the fifth session, in Busan, South Korea, in late 2024.

Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040. OECD

Beyond waste management

Prof Bethanie Almroth, co-coordinator of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, which is pressing for production limits, said studies had shown that improved waste management “will not suffice” in dealing with plastic.

“The amount of plastic being produced is not manageable by the infrastructure that exists or will exist in the future,” said Prof Almroth, a plastic pollution researcher at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden.

According to figures published by the World Economic Forum, the amount of plastic produced each year could rise to 1.7 billion tonnes by 2060.

Prof Almroth said a proposed 40 per cent cut in annual plastic production by 2040, put forward by Rwanda and Peru, would be insufficient to prevent continued plastic pollution. Environmental organisations have previously called for a 75 per cent reduction in production.

Negotiations on a global treaty to combat plastic pollution will resume on Monday. AFP

Economic vs environmental costs

Pollution is created across the life cycle of plastic, including during production, so improvements in recycling would not be enough to end environmental harms, according to Prof Almroth.

Concerns have been raised over lobbying by fossil fuel and plastic producers at gatherings to finalise the treaty. Prof Almroth said there was disinformation and misrepresentation of scientific findings, making it harder for delegates to come to decisions.

She acknowledged that a shift away from fossil fuels and their use to produce plastics would have an economic cost, but said “the costs of inaction will be greater” and efforts to find alternatives would create new business models.

While describing herself as “realistically optimistic” about the outcome, Prof Almroth said the way that negotiations were proceeding by consensus could derail efforts to cut plastic production. “There’s a risk of watering down negotiations to the point where the treaty might lack effectiveness,” she said. “Plastic pollution is urgent. Delaying further would allow the problem to grow.”

Groups have formed during the negotiations, notably the “high-ambition coalition”, which includes more than 60 nations such as Norway, Rwanda, Peru and the UK that support a legally binding treaty with production limits.

By contrast the “like-minded group”, which contains nations such as Saudi Arabia and China, is pressing for a treaty that focuses on dealing with plastic waste.

Farah Al Hattab, lead plastics campaigner for Greenpeace Mena. Photo: Greenpeace.

Among the organisations pushing for a treaty that mandates production limits is Greenpeace Mena. Its lead plastics campaigner, Farah Al Hattab, said during a media briefing that plastic was “strangling our soil, our water, our air”.

While calling for “ambitious objectives” on the reuse of plastics to be adopted, she suggested that a focus simply on ways to improve how plastic waste was dealt with risked the adoption of “fake solutions”.

 Plastic is strangling our soil, our water, our air

Farah Al Hattab,
Greenpeace Mena

“This treaty should be legally binding,” she added. “Other treaties that are not legally binding have problems with implementation.”

In the Mena region, communities could look back to traditions to find ways of cutting out plastic, Ms Al Hattab said.

“We can stop using single-use plastic. Our ancestors used containers from glass and clay,” she said. “If we promote clean-up initiatives, we can help reduce plastic pollution, but this takes time and money.”

An estimated 20 million tones of plastic ends up as waste in the environment each year, according to reports. Studies have shown that this can be harmful to a wide range of wildlife including turtles and seabirds in the UAE.

Pieces of plastic waste break down into microplastics, which have been found around the globe, including in polar regions far away from large human populations, and in human tissue.

How microplastics are produced and make their way into our food. Roy Cooper / The National

Microplastic impact on health

A study published in Nature in July indicated that more than 16,000 chemicals have been used in plastics, at least 4,200 of which could be harmful to humans or the environment. The study reported that potentially harmful chemicals were present even in food packaging.

One of the study’s authors, Dr Zhanyun Wang, a scientist at Swiss research institute Empa, said when the study was released that to create “a safe and sustainable circular economy for plastics” it was necessary to simplify their chemical composition.

The British Plastics Federation, a UK trade association that represents organisations such as plastics producers and recyclers, said it favoured “an ambitious treaty that covers the whole life cycle of plastics”.

While stating that plastic “has no place in the open environment”, the organisation added that it should continue to be used “where it provides the best environmental outcome and offers clear benefits”.

“Plastic has a strategically important role in vital infrastructure, such as the distribution of fresh food and water, in developing clean energy and in defence,” the federation said in a statement.

While it said it would continue to “provide every support required” to the British government team at the conference, the federation added that plastic helps to reduce carbon emissions by limiting the weight of transported items and by cutting food waste.

“The treaty needs to be impactful while not hampering the ability of the UK, and the world, to be innovative, achieve net zero and avoid the worst effects of climate change,” its statement added.

The federation did not respond to an enquiry about whether it supported limits on plastic production.