Browse our full library of in-depth resources and publications

Fact Sheet: Strengthening the Global Plastics Treaty with Indigenous Pacific People’s Knowledge

(Publications under review and may be updated prior to 30 September)

The global plastics treaty (GPT) mandates the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to create binding rules based on the best available science, traditional knowledge, knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local knowledge systems (Res 5/14). The knowledge and practices of Indigenous Pacific Island Peoples are deeply rooted in a respectful and mutual co-existence with the natural world. New materials, products, and technologies offer advantages, yet bring pollutants that were not present pre-colonization. Plastic pollution harms sustainability, ecosystems, culture, economies, health, and well-being. Polymers and petrochemicals are not produced in the region. Nevertheless, Pacific Islands communities are severely impacted by plastic pollution from the increasing volumes of plastics entering the region via trade, tourism, fishing, and tidal flows - and never leaving.

Fact Sheet: Plastics Alternatives and Substitutes 101

(Publications under review and may be updated prior to 30 September)

Many INC delegates indicated that the scope of the treaty should include plastics alternatives and substitutes. However, there are no internationally agreed definitions of plastics alternatives nor plastics substitutes. Sound definitions will support fully informed treaty negotiations. International agreements emphasize the need to promote the human health, environmental, economic, and social risks, costs, and implications of alternative substances (e.g., Art. 9 Stockholm Convention1; see also Art. 1 Convention). International legal instruments also note that when considering substitutes, the potential environmental benefits or penalties of substitute materials or activities (i.e., negative externalities) must be considered.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has developed the following plastics alternatives and substitutes definitions: Plastics Alternatives are plastics not made with conventional fossil-fuel based polymers(i.e., bioplastics).

Plastics Substitutes are all other non-plastic materials that may be used to replace synthetic fossil fuel-based polymers and bioplastics. Some examples are glass, leather, wood, silk, paper, cotton, wool, stone, ceramic, and aluminum

Fact Sheet: Plastics 101

(Publications under review and may be updated prior to 30 September)

This fact sheet is intended to support fully informed global plastics treaty negotiations by clarifying the terminology used to describe plastics as “polymers” or “materials” and not plastics as “products”.

In other words, this fact sheet explains plastics as the material that is produced and later manufactured into, for example, drink bottles, or takeaway containers.

More than 13,000 chemicals are used in plastics of which >3,200 are classified as hazardous1

Fact Sheet: Science Policy Interface

(Publications under review and may be updated prior to 30 September)

The complexity of global environmental challenges has meant the interface between science and policy has become increasingly important in shaping coordinated global policy response to the world’s most complex environmental issues.

The establishment of a new International Legally Binding Instrument (ILBI) to end plastic pollution presents the opportunity to ensure that the most up to date science and knowledge are a fundamental part of the institutional framework and decision-making process.

Fact Sheet: Microplastics 101

(Publications under review and may be updated prior to 30 September)

The ever-increasing discharges and accumulation of microplastics in the environment is a serious global concern. Microplastics are found in polar ice caps, at the top of mountains, in soil, freshwater systems, and all ocean basins, from the surface to the deep sea. Ocean life is particularly vulnerable to exposure to, ingestion of and the damaging effects of microplastic pollution, given the ubiquitous nature of microplastics.

Resolution 5/14 of the United Nations Environment Assembly was clear that “plastic pollution includes microplastics,” placing microplastic pollution squarely within the remit of the new international legally binding instrument (ILBI) to end plastic pollution.

Fact Sheet: Financial Mechanism Options

(Publications under review and may be updated prior to 30 September)

To deliver an International Legally Binding Instrument (ILBI) to end plastic pollution will require mobilising substantial financial resources from a variety of sources to achieve its objectives. This may include leveraging new multilateral finance from developed (donor) countries to developing (recipient) countries party to the new agreement, accessing existing multilateral and bilateral finance and ensuring flows of private sector finance. The coordinated, predictable, adequate, and timely delivery of these financial resources will be the challenge when designing the financial mechanism for the International Legally Binding Instrument (ILBI).

In the negotiations to date, there has been overall support for a comprehensive approach to means of implementation and a financing mechanism to provide an enabling framework, assisting parties in meeting their obligations. However, there are divergent views on the structure of the new mechanism. In broad terms, there are three preferences that have been expressed by members and highlighted in the Options for Elements paper provided to INC-

Fact Sheet: Abandoned, Lost and Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear

(Publications under review and may be updated prior to 30 September)

Sea-based marine plastic pollution is roughly estimated to comprise around 20% of all marine plastic pollution and represents a major threat to marine ecosystems. However, sea-based marine plastic pollution has not been sufficiently addressed to date, representing a significant gap in global governance. Sea-based plastic pollution largely stems from shipping (35%), with an estimated share of 65% from the fishing sector.

Abandoned, lost and otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) is an ever-growing problem, impacting marine resources, wildlife and habitats. When fishing gear is lost, it continues to catch both target and non-target species – also known as ‘ghost-fishing’ – entangling and killing threatened and protected marine animals and commercially important fish species.

Lost gear also damages coral reefs and the seabed, while surface ALDFG presents a significant safety hazard for shipping and maritime activities, such as propeller entanglement. The existing governance framework to address fishing gear requires significant improvement due to the current fragmentation of laws and regulation across instruments – predominantly the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), in addition to a myriad of regional conventions and fisheries management bodies. In 2019, UN Environment published a report calling for the “development of a comprehensive global strategy to address ALDFG”, building on existing work and ensuring coordination across several key areas4. For this reason, member states have been discussing potential measures for addressing ALDFG within the negotiations for a new International Legally Binding Instrument (ILBI), with particular consideration for what ending plastic pollution ‘including in the marine environment’ could look like.

Fact Sheet Designing Products and Systems for Safe and Sustainable Reuse

(Publications under review and may be updated prior to 30 September)

Reuse is a key component of the 3Rs + return (reduce, reuse and recycle) approach to reducing pollution but it has not yet been fully embraced in policy despite its reference in the Sustainable Development Goals. While it may appear as a new concept, before the advent of single-use plastics (SUP) traditional practices of reuse and refill were commonplace and are still a part of everyday life around the world. More recently, governments have recognised the impact of SUP products and imposed bans on specific items. However, this often leads to problematic alternatives and substitutes and perpetuates the take, make, dispose mentality. In reality, reuse comes higher up the waste hierarchy and deserves greater consideration by policymakers.

Comparing SUP and reusable packaging, reusable packaging is the more environmentally friendly option. The underlying logic is as simple as it is compelling: by using and reusing an item many times before it ends up as waste, the environmental costs, the amount of waste generated and the resources needed to produce and dispose of it can be divided by the number of uses. There are also significant opportunities for job creation. Deposit systems (not just specific to reuse) can create 11-38 times more job opportunities than other waste management alternatives. In this context the negotiations towards an International Legally Binding Instrument to End Plastic Pollution (ILBI) have included discussions on reuse as a pathway to reduce pollution. Reuse, if designed and defined correctly in the ILBI, has the potential to increase safe circularity and support the overall objective of ending plastic pollution.

Plastics Treaty Legal Advisory Service Note: Non-Party Provisions

(Publications under review and may be updated prior to 30 September)

The inclusion of ‘Non-party provisions’ in a Plastics Treaty could have an important influence on plastic production within nations that do not become a party to the Treaty.
This would be particularly so if there was a critical mass of State Parties representing a large plastic consumer market to create an incentive for plastic producers in Non-party States to change their overall production practices to meet the requirements of selling into those markets (i.e., to produce less environmentally harmful plastic products, whether for consumption in State Parties or Non-party States).
Non-party provisions could also influence downstream activities within Non-party nations.

This note summarises a range of precedents in multilateral treaties for Non-party provisions, along with advantages and disadvantages of Non-party provisions.

Plastics Treaty Legal Advisory Service Note: Considerations for the use of an existing Financial Mechanism to fund Treaty Implementation

(Publications under review and may be updated prior to 30 September)

At INC-2, states expressed divergent views on whether a new dedicated multilateral fund should be established by the new treaty and/or whether existing financing mechanisms should be leveraged, such as the Global Environment Facility – possibly through a dedicated window.

This note considers existing multilateral financial mechanisms that may be suitable for providing finance to assist developing states to implement a plastics treaty, and the advantages and disadvantages of using an existing mechanism as opposed to establishing a new mechanism.

Plastics Treaty Legal Advisory Service Note: Key Principles

(Publications under review and may be updated prior to 30 September)

Note: This advice/paper is subject to the Plastic Treaty Legal Advisory Service Standard User Terms and Conditions available at www.plasticstreatylegal.info
Any enquiries regarding this advice/paper should be sent to enquiries@plasticstreatylegal.info

This note identifies definitions and applications of the key principles set out in the UNEP Options Paper UNEP/PP/INC.2/4, that ‘the Committee [INC] may wish to consider’ in developing an internationally legally binding instrument (ILBI) on plastic pollution (Plastics Treaty).

The note highlights different ways of operationalising key principles, including considerations relevant to determining their role, content and impact in a Plastics Treaty. In this respect, it must be noted that all provisions within a treaty – including the preamble, objectives, governing principles, substantive provisions, and institutional framework – can be based on, include, reflect or operationalise specific principles and/or a human rights-based approach. However, the legal effects of a treaty provision will depend upon how it is phrased, including the category of provision to which it belongs. While a treaty’s preamble, for example, can inform the interpretation of the treaty as a whole it typically will not produce obligations in itself on the States party to the treaty. Therefore, if States desire to give a particular principle the fullest possible effect in a treaty, they should reflect the relevant principle in the substantive provisions of the treaty itself and phrase those provisions in such a way as to oblige parties to take concrete measures or actions aimed at realising to the fullest extent possible the specific principle.