Browse our full library of in-depth resources and publications

Introduction to a Pacific Circular Economy

Globally, consumption patterns generally following a linear “take-make-waste” model. In the Pacific and Timor-Leste this means that items are imported or manufactured, and, at the end of their useful life, there are limited viable alternatives but for the items to be disposed into overflowing landfills or the environment. When items are disposed without recycling, we are throwing away precious materials, resulting in the need for new resources to be extracted.

This linear model impacts Pacific islands and Timor-Leste by contributing to :

• overflowing landfills – waste disposed estimated at 1,141 tonnes per day
• marine pollution - marine plastic pollution potential of estimated at 365 tonnes per day
• terrestrial pollution (burned, buried, littered, or dumped) - estimated at 227 tonnes per day
• and climate change, and biodiversity loss effects.

The costs of this linear model are borne by national and local governments for landfill management – cost of disposing waste for the region an estimated USD $44,293 per day1 – and by the health of communities and the environment.

Reducing Plastic Production to Achieve Climate Goals: Key Considerations for the Plastics Treaty Negotiations

Plastic production is currently on an upward trajectory and is projected to continue increasing exponentially. Global plastic polymer production doubled from 2000 to 2019, reaching 460 million tonnes (Mt) per year,1 and it is anticipated to almost triple from 2019 levels by 2050.2 This uncontrolled growth threatens the global climate, as well as human health, biodiversity, human rights, and environmental justice.

The world is already experiencing the devastating impacts of climate change, which will worsen with each fraction of a degree of warming. To minimize further temperature rise and avoid truly catastrophic climate change, GHG emissions must be reduced urgently anywhere that they can be effectively and rapidly cut. Scaling back plastic production represents one such area. The Paris Agreement, which makes no reference to fossil fuels or their petrochemical derivatives, does not ensure adequate action to address the climate impacts of plastics. It leaves the decision of where to curb emissions and by how much to States. Even if fully implemented, States’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement remain woefully inadequate to limit warming to 1.5°C.6 The global plastics treaty thus must complement the efforts of this agreement to ensure a swift and effective reduction in emissions from plastics.

Several Member States of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution have already identified the need to tackle global plastic production to address the climate crisis. This brief aims to inform the ongoing plastics treaty negotiations by compiling the current evidence on how prevailing production trends are fundamentally incompatible with achieving planetary climate goals, and provides recommendations on how obligations to address plastic production could be incorporated in the treaty to support their achievement.

INC Fact Sheet: Bioplastics 101

Pacific Island countries, like others around the world, are evaluating their plastics use. The global bioplastics market (bio-based and/or biodegradable plastics) is projected to increase in the next decade, with their use in a range of sectors including agriculture/horticulture, aquaculture, fisheries, and food and non-food packaging. While in restricted and specific applications they may bring some advantages over conventional durable fossil-based plastics caution is required to ensure these materials do not become regrettable substitutions, presenting hazards to organisms and human health, or contributing to social, economic and environmental burdens.

This fact sheet aims to provide Pacific Islands delegates the scientific evidence necessary to negotiate Core Obligation 8: Safe, Sustainable Alternatives and Substitutes (UNEP/PP/INC.2/4) and Part II Section 5d of the Zero Draft (UNEP/PP/INC.3/4) in a fully informed manner.

INC Fact Sheet: Plastics Alternatives and Substitutes 101

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

INC Fact Sheet: Plastics 101

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

INC Fact Sheet: Plastic Removal Technologies 101

Plastic Removal Technologies (PRTs) promise to improve environmental quality by removing plastics from the environment, but they can also threaten biodiversity. Almost no environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are done on PRTs.

Unselective PRTs can alter habitats and catch plants and animals. Manual collection selectively removes plastic, but it is limited in efficiency and effectiveness. Municipalities and communities ultimately bear the burden of plastics removal. Some PRT examples are discussed here.

INC 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.

INC Fact Sheet: Microplastics 101

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.

INC Fact Sheet: Financial Mechanism Options

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-

INC Fact Sheet: Abandoned, Lost and Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear

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.

INC 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.