Poppy Bell | Climate and Environment Fellow
Image sourced from Naja Bertolt Jensen via Unsplash.
Plastic pollution is one of the most severe environmental issues of today. In 2022, the United Nations passed a resolution and established an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to draft a Global Plastic Treaty toward ensuring sustainability throughout the life cycle of plastic. However, despite four rounds of INC meetings, significant obstacles remain. The most recent INC-4 meeting in April 2024 ended with over 3,600 unresolved points in their draft treaty, underscoring a major divide between participant nations. The crux of these disagreements is enforceability – that is, whether or not measures such as production caps and producer responsibility should be legally binding.
As Australia heads to the final INC-5 round in Korea this month, its role is pivotal. As a country known for environmental commitments, rich biodiversity, and strong Pacific ties, Australia is uniquely positioned to advocate for binding global regulations. Without enforceable commitments such as a production cap and Extended Producer Responsibility regime (EPR), the Global Plastics Treaty will be inconsistent and ineffective. Australia’s representatives must push the treaty beyond diluted, voluntary measures to genuine action.
Why a Treaty?
Plastic pollution has recently reached a crisis level. Global plastic production and waste have more than doubled since 2000, and only 9 per cent of plastic ultimately gets recycled. The OECD projects that plastic waste is set to almost triple by 2060, with around half ending up in landfill. An estimated 8 million tonnes of plastic enter the ocean each year, devastating marine ecosystems, killing wildlife, and contaminating food chains with harmful chemicals. For Australia, an island nation with rich marine biodiversity, this crisis hits close to home. Furthermore, current greenhouse gas emissions from the plastic industry could increase by 63 per cent by 2060, jeopardising climate targets.
A global treaty is essential for establishing uniform standards for plastic production, product design that minimises toxic chemicals, and better waste management. However, progress has been obstructed by certain nations prioritizing economic interests over environmental integrity. If Australia advocates for binding commitments, it can protect not only its own shores but the planet as a whole.
Committee Clashes
Unfortunately, INC negotiations have so far struggled with enforceability. While over 140 countries support binding global regulations – including Australia, Pacific Island Countries (PICs), and much of Africa and Latin America – a select few have retaliated. These are largely petrochemical-producing countries, including Russia, Saudi Arabia and China, who consider that legally binding restraints would inhibit their domestic industries. At INC-4, these nations’ voices were compounded with the cries of plastic industry group lobbyists. Their ultimate objective is to essentially dilute the Global Plastics Treaty to its least productive form. The WWF has condemned these “low ambition” countries for using delaying tactics at INC meetings and prioritising their own economic interests over environmental accountability.
These countries request national-level, voluntary actions that allow for flexibility based on economic interests. However, these kinds of commitments are not powerful enough. Voluntary agreements allow more powerful nations to sidestep their commitments while less developed countries in the Global South bear the brunt of the agreements. This can be seen in the success of the Montreal Protocol, with mandatory targets, in comparison to the slow start of the voluntary contributions of the Paris Agreement.
Australia’s advocacy for enforceability, backed by its regulatory experience and track record of productive domestic environmental policies, is a legitimate counter to these lower-ambition arguments from petrochemical-producing countries. It is essential that Australia leverage their credibility at INC-5 to protect the productivity of the treaty.
Plastic Policies Requiring Enforceability
There are several significant enforceable policies that Australia should advocate for at INC-5 which have been dismissed at previous meetings. An example of this is INC-4’s sidelining of discussions on a binding cap for primary polymer production (PPP) – the amount of virgin plastic produced. Rwanda has called this omission “the elephant in the room”. Many governments, including Russia and the Gulf States, support plastic design regulations or recycling efforts, but refuse to commit to limiting plastic production itself. Unfortunately, without enforceable production caps, pollution is likely to worsen.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is another policy that should be legally binding. EPR shifts waste management costs from the public to plastic producers, incentivising companies to manage waste responsibly. EPR has been discussed at INC-4 but critically, there is a lack of consensus over whether it should be enforceable.
Enforceability in this case is essential. Not only does it ensure compliance, but also guarantees important financing for the entire Global Plastic treaty. Developing countries such as PICS without established waste management systems will need significant capital to adhere to the treaty and stop pollution. Australia has significant ties to PICs. Consequently, it has a responsibility to advocate for enforceable EPR standards to support its neighbours and ensure the regional feasibility of the treaty.
A Pivotal Opportunity
With INC-5 nearing at the end of November 2024, stakes are high. Countries must not lose sight of the environmental repercussions of its outcomes. As stated by Eirik Lindebjerg, Global Plastics Policy Lead at the WWF, “The negotiators must be guided, not by what the least ambitious countries are prepared to accept, but by the urgency of the plastic pollution crisis has.” Australia has a unique responsibility at INC-5. It possesses the regional agency and credibility to overcome low-ambition opposition and advocate for binding production caps, EPR standards and regulations. We must urge our representatives to champion enforceable commitments and set an example for global action.
Poppy Bell is the Climate and Environment Fellow for Young Australians in International Affairs. She is a Chancellor's Scholar at the University of Melbourne, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts (Politics & International Studies, Economics) and Diploma in French.
As a Public Affairs Analyst for international renewable energy developer CIP, Poppy engages with Government on environmental legislation and develops stakeholder engagement strategies for renewables projects across Australia and New Zealand. This experience has honed her understanding of the complex interplay between climate action, environmental policy, and cultural considerations.
Comments