5 Takeaways from the draft plastics treaty
Recently, the UN published the Zero Draft of a groundbreaking international treaty to reduce plastic pollution. It’s a promising start, and we hope that the upcoming INC-3 meeting in November brings further progress in ambitious plastic reduction targets with an emphasis on reuse.
Here are five takeaways from Upstream upon our review of the Zero Draft.
One: Ambition wins
Currently, the treaty provides two or more options for all of its provisions; one option is always more ambitious, the others are less so. Generally speaking, Upstream takes the position that the most ambitious options should be adopted at INC-3 and beyond.
Two: We need specific, binding reuse targets
For reuse targets specifically, one proposed option includes setting general and sector-based reuse targets—and a timeframe for achieving them—within the actual treaty, which all signatory countries must meet. The other option would require each country to adopt its own “timebound” targets “in support of reuse.” We need option one, as it will hold all countries—especially the less ambitious ones, which unfortunately include the US—to the same high global standard.
Three: Set global standards
The same logic applies to a section on establishing product design standards to “increase the safety, durability, reusability, refillability, repairability and refurbishability of plastics and plastic products.” These design standards should be outlined and required within the treaty, rather than left to each country to establish on its own. We need global standardization, not fractured requirements that change country to country.
Four: EPR must fund reuse
The more ambitious option in the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) section, which would require countries to adopt EPR schemes for packaging, says that the goal of these programs is “to incentivize increased recyclability, promote higher recycling rates, and enhance the accountability of producers and importers for safe and environmentally sound management.” This is not good enough. The goal of EPR should be to prevent waste, and these provisions should require EPR programs to fund reuse systems and include reuse targets that support or exceed the targets adopted in the treaty. (The less ambitious option simply says each country is encouraged to adopt EPR, which not only is not strong enough to advance reuse, it’s not likely to even achieve the goals as stated.)
Five: Clarify and emphasize a Just Transition
The treaty also includes a section on ensuring a Just Transition to an economy less reliant on plastic production. As it stands, this section is vague, and we would hope it has been or will be developed in consultation with the vulnerable communities and populations it refers to. It would be best for the UN to issue guidance for countries on how to navigate a Just Transition to ensure that appropriately robust processes are followed around the world.
Bottom line: it’s certainly exciting that there is such global momentum around cutting plastic pollution. Now more than ever, we need to push the message that the problem isn’t just single-use plastic, it’s single-use itself, and reuse is the answer.