What's next for the Global Plastics Treaty? PMM Insight

The latest round of talks to establish an international treaty on the use and disposal of plastics ended in December with the sides still far apart.

Another session is planned for 2025, but who's the biggest loser if no agreement is reached? The plastics industry, says Editor Ron Shinn in this PMM Insight commentary. 

Transcript

The fifth and final round of talks to establish an international plastics treaty concluded last month with no agreement except to meet again sometime in 2025.  

I am not surprised at the outcome, or should I say lack of outcome. You may have heard me say that getting hundreds of delegates representing 170 countries with more than a thousand lobbyists whispering in their ears to agree on a treaty with hefty financial and political implications was not a scenario for success. 

Will a sixth negotiating session make a difference? I remain highly skeptical. 

Thus far, delegates and lobbyists have each racked up more than 48,600 frequent flyer miles while differences have become wider since the first negotiating session in Uruguay in late 2022. 

There is a bloc of about 100 countries that wants limits on virgin resin production and another 94 countries that want problematic chemicals phased out entirely. The oil-producing nations, including those from the Middle East and Russia and India, do not want virgin resin production curtailed or chemical phase-outs. 

During the first four rounds of talks, the U.S. said reduction of virgin resin production should be left up to each country, but that position shifted before the final session to support reduction in the treaty language.  

Should we care? Who is the big loser if no treaty is achieved? 

I believe the biggest loser will be the plastics industry – processors, suppliers and OEMs. 

There is a growing anti-plastics sentiment. It started with concerns over plastic waste killing marine life and now there are concerns that microplastics are building up in our bodies. The anti-plastics sentiment, which we wrote about in our recent Top 10 industry trends for the past 10 years, is only going to get louder. 

The easy answer is that if there is no treaty, the industry endures criticism and marches on. Jobs and profits are maintained.  

But that makes the industry look like it cannot solve its own problem. Recycling, while important, has not made much of a difference in the bigger picture. It cannot be discounted, but we also cannot depend on recycling to quell the anti-plastics sentiment. 

I hope the sixth treaty negotiating session sometime this year does not simply become the next one in an unending string. The plastics industry needs to show the world that it can solve its plastics pollution problem. 

A treaty might lead nations – including the U.S. – to adopt meaningful, common-sense legislation that would improve collection, invest in technology, enforce product design standards, require more recycled content in finished products, limit virgin resin production and eliminate problematic chemicals and additives.  

Will meaningful change require an entirely new plastics value chain? Let’s hope not.  

But are big changes to the current value chain needed? Probably, yes. 

Would an international treaty improve our future? No doubt. 

We should all be paying close attention.