What’s Next for Plastics After Busan?
Tanya Cox, Manager – Biodiversity and Nature, Chronos Sustainability, advocates a complete redesign of plastic material, starting with a move away from the inclusion of toxic chemicals.
The failure to establish a Global Plastics Treaty (GPT) at the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) was a blow to the more than 100 countries that were advocating an ambitious and legally binding agreement. The holdouts were mainly nations whose economies are highly dependent on petrochemicals, including Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran.
The 3,300 delegates at the week-long summit in Busan, South Korea to hammer out an international pact on plastic pollution, which was to be the final session of a two-and-a-half-year process, came away on 2 December with a ‘Chair’s Text’ and the promise of another meeting (INC-5.2) sometime this year to carry on the negotiations.
Some have taken this as a sign to backtrack on their voluntary targets. Coca-Cola, for example, recently ditched goals to increase reusable packaging and to reduce virgin plastic use. Instead, it plans to increase “recycled plastic use to 30% to 35% globally” and “help ensure the collection of 70% to 75% of the equivalent number of bottles and cans introduced into the market annually”.
More recycled plastic content, if used to produce single-use plastic, will not reduce the company’s overall plastic use, according to Oceana.
Areas of divergence
The GPT’s mandate is to look at plastic pollution across the entire lifecycle of plastic, including extraction of raw materials, design and production, packaging and distribution; use and maintenance; and recycling, reuse, recovery or final disposal.
The main area of contention in the treaty text is around reducing the level of plastic production, Tanya Cox, Manager – Biodiversity and Nature at Chronos Sustainability, told ESG Investor. For example, one of the treaty’s articles proposes a cap that would reduce production to a more sustainable level. According to Statista, the worldwide production of plastics reached 413.8 million metric tonnes in 2023, almost double the amount produced in 2000, and is expected to double again by 2040.
Cox believes that part of the problem is that, while fossil fuel use for energy is on the wane, plastic production is the back-up plan for many of the big players in the oil and gas industry.
“It is a highly integrated industry; therefore a production cap calls into question the future business prospects of these companies, many of which are state owned or closely linked to states,” she said.
Another issue that created divisions in Busan is the use of ‘chemicals of concern’, or ones that have the potential to damage human health, in the manufacture of plastic polymers and applications in different products. Cox believes that this issue is as important as limiting production.
Speaking at ESG Investor’s Nature Data for Institutional Investors event in December, she stressed that the plastic in play today cannot be the plastic in 10 to 30 years’ time, because the chemical additives involved render many products harmful to human health and the environment. They also prevent proper reuse, refill, recycle and recirculation.
According to a PlastChem research, there are more than 16,000 chemicals known to be used in the production of plastics, and 4,200 of those are known to be harmful to human health and the environment, yet continue to be widely used.
“There is a big question around the transparency and disclosure of chemical additives,” she said. “It’s difficult to know which chemicals are being used in different products for specific applications, and then the fate of such chemicals in the supply chain and the ability to trace where they’re ending up.”
A third point of contention in Busan was around how the plastic transition would be financed, akin to recent debates at COP 29 in Baku. For example, should there be a tax on the production of plastics, or fees in the form of extended producer responsibility? Will this be government sponsored through subsidies? How will money be transferred to countries most adversely affected by the impacts of plastic pollution?
“Historically, these are countries and regions that weren’t responsible for producing the plastic – they are on the receiving end of the problem, rather than contributing to it,” Cox said.
Beyond Busan
To move forward with the GPT, there needs to be a review of the negotiation rules and procedures, according to Cox. Currently, the INC follows UN decision-making process, where decisions are taken by consensus. She warned of a stalemate and the potential of ending up in a situation similar to the High Seas Treaty (or the agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction), which went through almost two decades of discussions, including five years of negotiations.
Clearly, ending up with a strong treaty text is preferrable to a lowest common denominator result, says Cox, but often it comes down to a compromise between having a treaty fit for purpose and the ability to move forward with a majority of stakeholders.
Despite a lack of policy consensus, Cox sees many positive signs of and support for change, with different stakeholder groups – investors, businesses, the general public, governments, and scientific and academia communities – supporting an ambitious treaty text.
“While the treaty will hopefully get there in time, we can use the groundswell of activity to steer towards the more ambitious outcomes that have been on the table since the beginning of the negotiations,” Cox said.
She suggested that collectively the world should focus its efforts on reuse, for example, which is recognised as one of the most effective solutions for reducing plastic pollution. “We can support the detoxification of the material and greater transparency around what goes into plastic material and where that material flows in its value chain, as well as circular economy principles and the recapture of materials at the end of life to put them back into the system,” she explained.
Support for innovative solutions from businesses, investors and nations will also help to finalise the treaty, according to Cox. “It’s a chicken-and-egg situation – governments need to see support from stakeholders for ambitious outcomes, but at the same time they need to put policies in place that deliver ambitious outcomes,” she said. “Collectively, we need to continue putting known solutions into practice, which will then ease the negotiation process.”
Multitude of threats
The biggest risk plastics pose varies for both plastics producers and companies that use plastics, such as retailers. However, in general, inertia poses real reputational risk because many consumers and stakeholder groups are demanding change. Lack of action is also a regulatory risk as new policies come into effect, Cox added.
For example, in December the EU approved the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, which include new targets introduced for recyclability, reusability and banning single-use plastic packaging starting on January 1, 2030.
Other risks include stranded assets in cases where no effort has been made to look at how plastics are being made and used throughout value chains. In addition, plastics producers face transitionary, reputational and physical risks.
“Companies face significant risk if they continue to use plastic in products that is unnecessary and known to be causing an impact in the environment. For example, in Europe and many countries, there is a ban on microplastic ingredients in personal care products. While that ban doesn’t exist everywhere as yet, businesses need to understand that investors will start demanding a voluntary phase out and an elimination of microplastic ingredients,” Cox said.
As such, companies can mitigate the impact of potential future policy shifts by taking proactive action today, such as eradicating known plastic pollutants or the most easily avoided plastic pollution sources.
Firms can track regulatory shifts through resources such as the University of Portsmouth’s global directory of plastic policies. “There are emerging trends among plastic policies and – again taking the decision to be as ambitious as possible – legislation seen in one country will likely be picked up by others, so it’s possible to get ahead of that change in policy,” said Cox.
Turning the tide
“Plastics is a systemic issue – we can’t carry on with business as usual, nor can we recycle our way out of this mess. We have to change the way we perceive this material,” said Cox. “For too long it’s been considered disposable and dispensable, but it lasts almost forever. Rather than continue investing in how to increase production, we should spend that money on systems change that makes it a more sustainable and, ultimately, more profitable system.”
Cox is keen to see the GPT process finalised in 2025 with “a clear, ambitious text, as well as ambitious implementation phases”. She would also like to see all stakeholders – governments, businesses, financial institutions, consumer groups, indigenous peoples’ groups – uphold the ambition that has been pushing the process along as far as it has. “We can’t waver at this 11th hour,” she warned.
Once a text is agreed, swift approval is needed to avoid losing momentum on the path to implementation, according to Cox.
“I hope that the ambitious countries that have rallied around the process will ratify the text very quickly, which will be followed by real change on the ground, so that communities aren’t facing increasing mountains of plastic waste that’s affecting the health and livelihoods of everyone everywhere,” she said.
The post What’s Next for Plastics After Busan? appeared first on ESG Investor.