Last December, the 175 countries gathered for the 5th negotiation session of the Global Plastics Treaty left without managing to reach an agreement. The fault lies largely with various oil-producing states that blocked the main points debated during the discussions.
Having failed to reach a conclusion, what was supposed to be the final negotiation session will ultimately be followed by a new session, called 5.2, which will be held in Geneva from August 5 to 14.
As in previous times, the stakes are high. The environmental and health risks linked to plastic pollution no longer need to be proven: plastic is everywhere, not only in ecosystems and the atmosphere, but also in the food we eat, the water we drink, and even inside our bodies. It is urgent to act on an international scale!
It is necessary to reach a text that conforms to the initial mandate, is legally binding, and has as its central principle the reduction of global plastic production, as well as the reduction, or even elimination, of problematic products and substances.
Surfrider will be present and will closely monitor the negotiations in order to exert pressure and obtain a legally binding Plastic Treaty.
Context and Stakes: Some Reminders
The negotiations will be based on the latest text from the President of the International Negotiating Committee, Luis Vayas Valdivieso. However, this version shows a lower level of ambition than previous ones on essential points such as production reduction, and contains several contradictions.
The divide between parties is clear. On one side, 96 states approved the Nice Call (the Nice Wake Up Call) last June in favor of an ambitious treaty. On the other, a coalition led by oil-producing countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia) opposes any mention of the complete lifecycle of plastics, preferring to limit the treaty to waste management alone. These countries also refuse to integrate health concerns and the most recent scientific data.
Faced with this blocking situation, some NGOs and progressive states advocate for recourse to majority voting rather than traditional consensus. The text or certain articles could be submitted to a vote by states. This could mark a turning point in international environmental governance.
Surfrider’s Priorities
As a member of the Break Free From Plastic movement, we strongly wish for member states to agree on the provisions of a legally binding treaty in order to effectively reverse the trend of plastic pollution and contribute to ending the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.
We will pay attention to certain central points:
Reduce Global Production: Acting at the Source
The first priority consists of integrating into the treaty a binding objective and a target for reducing global production of plastic materials. This approach responds to simple logic: to effectively reduce pollution, production must be decreased at the source.
The treaty must define scientific guidelines to set global objectives, aligned with climate and biodiversity imperatives. This also implies significantly strengthening the annexes of Article 3, which in their current form would not allow for a significant reduction in plastic pollution. It is essential to include a list of products to be reduced as a priority – notably single-use plastics like bottles – and a list of products to be banned, with precise deadlines.
Packaging products, which represent 40% of global plastic production, must imperatively figure in these restrictions, as well as problematic chemical additives. In this regard, more than a hundred NGOs are calling for a deplasticization of our water.
Intentionally Added Microplastics and Cigarette Filters: Specific Pollutions to Address
Two categories of pollution deserve particular attention:
- Microplastics intentionally added to numerous products constitute an invisible pollution with considerable impacts on marine ecosystems. Their maintenance in the annex of Article 3 represents a crucial issue.
- Concerning cigarette filters, composed of cellulose acetate (plastic), they constitute the waste most frequently collected on beaches and a major source of chemical and microplastic pollution of the oceans. The treaty offers the historic opportunity to ban them on a global scale. Already present in the Chair’s text proposal, it is possible to obtain their inclusion in the annex of products subject to elimination, notably thanks to a campaign carried by Surfrider on Chilli.
Prevent Releases and Leaks of Microplastics into the Environment
Beyond intentionally added microplastics, the treaty must also tackle involuntary releases and leaks of microplastics, notably industrial plastic pellets which represent a major source of pollution. Leaks of these pellets (GPI), largely avoidable through better industrial practices, constitute the second most important source of “primary” microplastics.
The treaty must therefore integrate binding measures to drastically reduce these industrial losses and strictly regulate practices of handling, transport, and storage of plastic materials.
Favor Sustainable Solutions over False Alternatives
The treaty must promote reuse and refill systems rather than the false solutions widely promoted by the industry that will be present in large numbers in the negotiations. Biodegradable or bio-sourced plastics, although presented as ecological, remain partially derived from oil, require polluting manufacturing processes, and present an end-of-life similar to conventional plastics.
For many single-use plastic products, sustainable alternatives already exist, notably reuse. The treaty must integrate clear objectives for reducing single-use plastics through the development of reuse systems and elimination of dangerous chemical substances throughout the entire value chain.
The approach must be based on a truly circular design, integrating from conception the principles of sustainability, reuse, and material sobriety.
Guarantee Equitable and Effective Financing
Financing constitutes a determining lever for the treaty’s success. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, application of the polluter-pays principle, can constitute effective tools if they become true transformation instruments favoring reduction at the source.
EPR must not be limited to financing waste management, but intervene upstream to reduce the marketing of problematic products. This requires effective incentive mechanisms: ambitious bonus-malus systems, exclusion of dangerous or non-recyclable products, transparent monitoring, and governance involving civil society and not only centered around producers.
Other levers deserve to be explored, notably a global tax on virgin plastic polymers to make the private sector more accountable.
Financing must support neither technologies with high climate impact nor unreliable devices like plastic credits. They must favor sobriety and material economy solutions, particularly reuse, to durably anchor the transition in industrial models.
Fight Against Conflicts of Interest
The treaty must integrate explicit measures against conflicts of interest to protect against commercial pressures, particularly those from the plastic, tobacco, fossil fuel, and petrochemical industries. These sectors deploy considerable means to influence negotiations and weaken binding measures.
A Last Chance for International Action
These ten days in Geneva will determine whether the international community will be able to adopt the first binding treaty on plastic pollution. Negotiators have the opportunity to create a historic precedent in global environmental governance.
This is not about negotiating yet another treaty on waste management, but rather about adopting a legal instrument that tackles production itself, which NGOs will not cease to remind negotiators.
Surfrider will be present to carry the demands for Ocean protection and defend a treaty truly up to the challenges. Because beyond the technical and diplomatic aspects, it is indeed the future of our aquatic ecosystems and our own that is at stake in this ultimate negotiation session.
