Finalising the Global Plastics Treaty: Key Issues and Steps Forward

After two years of negotiations, 170 countries meet one last time on Monday, 25 November to finalise the Global Plastics Treaty. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) created by UN Resolution 5/14 to develop a legally binding treaty addressing plastic pollution, will convene for the fifth time in Busan, South Korea.

With some major issues still unresolved, the final round of negotiations will significantly shape the scope of the treaty. Among the debated topics are the adoption of a life cycle approach to address plastic pollution, the establishment of a sustainable financing mechanism for treaty implementation, binding targets for plastic reduction, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance.

These elements are central to the treaty's long-term effectiveness, with the life cycle approach addressing plastic pollution in a comprehensive way, and the financing mechanism ensuring the resources needed for successful implementation and enforcement.

In addition, the European Union (EU) should play a particular role in building global consensus, raising the level of ambition, and supporting key provisions to strengthen the treaty’s impact. The EU should not hesitate to step up its efforts and encourage more ambitious actions, particularly in terms of financing, to address this pressing issue.

Looking ahead, the final agreement will also interact with other major international frameworks. To ensure effectiveness and prevent overlap, the Global Plastics Treaty will need to align with existing agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the Basel Convention on hazardous waste, and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). The second section will explore how the treaty can align with other international agreements and contribute to a more coordinated global environmental effort.

Addressing plastic pollution has become a critical priority on the global environmental agenda. Over recent decades, the widespread use of plastics has brought undeniable benefits to industries and economies, but it has also created significant challenges for ecosystems, public health, and climate systems. Plastic waste, particularly when mismanaged, has become a pervasive issue that transcends national borders, necessitating collective international action. In recognition of this, the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) adopted Resolution 5/14 in March 2022, launching a process to develop a legally binding treaty to combat plastic pollution. To facilitate this process, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) was established, tasked with finalizing the treaty by the end of 2024.[1]

As the INC convenes its fifth and final session in Busan, South Korea, negotiators face a range of unresolved issues, including setting binding reduction targets, establishing robust enforcement mechanisms, and agreeing on measures to tackle plastic waste management. These decisions are critical to defining the treaty’s ambition and its ability to address plastic pollution comprehensively.

Two pivotal issues stand out as central to the treaty’s success: adopting a full life cycle approach and implementing a sustainable financing mechanism. Together, these elements form the foundation for the treaty’s long-term effectiveness. By focusing on these priorities, negotiators could create a treaty that balances ambition with practicality, delivering sustainable and equitable outcomes for both developed and developing nations.

Furthermore, the treaty’s success will depend on its alignment with existing international legal frameworks, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the Basel Convention, and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Integrating these agreements will help ensure coherence and maximise the treaty’s impact on global environmental governance. As negotiations reach their conclusion, this treaty has the potential to provide a coordinated and comprehensive framework to address the challenges posed by plastic pollution.

[1] UNEA (2022) Resolution 5/14, “End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument”, UNEP/EA.5/Res.14.

As the negotiations move towards their final stages, two key issues remain, which are firstly the adoption of a full life cycle approach to plastic pollution and secondly the establishment of a robust financial mechanism. These two points are discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.

Some negotiating states—such as EU member states, many African nations, and several Latin American countries—advocate for a full life cycle approach to address plastic pollution comprehensively. Plastic’s lifecycle emissions are projected to reach 6.5 gigatonnes of CO₂-equivalent (GtCO₂e) annually by 2050, representing roughly 15% of the global carbon budget. This budget refers to the maximum amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted while keeping global warming within 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels—a target widely recognized as essential for minimizing the most serious climate risks.[1] Addressing plastic pollution holistically is therefore critical, not only to reduce environmental harm but also to support global climate goals by tackling emissions throughout plastics’ entire life cycle.

A narrow approach would only address part of the problem, focusing on waste management rather than reducing emissions across the entire life cycle. The treaty would therefore only manage plastic waste and overlook the environmental impact of producing new plastic. The more restricted solution would tackle plastic pollution only at the recycling stage and end-of-life waste management.

To effectively align with the global target of limiting warming to 1.5°C the Global Plastics Treaty should establish specific, measurable targets for reducing plastic production, starting with a reduction in the production of virgin plastic, and implement legally binding measures to reduce emissions throughout the entire life cycle of plastics. The full life cycle approach takes into account plastics along the entire chain, from the extraction of raw materials and production of plastics to their conversion into products, to waste management and recycling.[2]

Thanks to this strategy, the overproduction of virgin plastic polymers would fall under this treaty’s scope. These resins, produced from petrochemical or biomass feedstock, have never been used or processed before, and their production contributes significantly to plastic pollution.[3] Therefore, this would improve the scope of the treaty and make it more effective, helping to prevent pollution at its source.  

[1] World Economic Forum, “The 1.5C climate threshold: What it means and why it matters” (accessed 18 Novembre 2024).

[2] UNEP, “What is the life-cycle approach and how it help tackle plastic pollution?” (accessed 6 November 2024).

[3] Environmental Investigation Agency (January 2022), “Convention on Plastic Pollution. Essential Elements: Virgin Plastic Production and Consumption”, p.3.  

The global financial landscape for combating plastic pollution is fragmented and under-coordinated.[1] Many countries, particularly those in the Global South such as Small Island Developing States (SIDS), African nations like Senegal, and South Asian countries, struggle to access multilateral funds to fight plastic pollution.[2] These nations face challenges due to limited institutional capacity, the complexity of international funding mechanisms, and inadequate financial and technical resources. As final negotiations for a Global Plastic Treaty approach, these disparities risk undermining the equitable implementation of solutions.

The Global Plastics Treaty offers a unique opportunity to create a well-structured financial mechanism to address the plastic crisis comprehensively. However, divergent views on funding could threaten its success. Currently, negotiating states are considering two primary options for financing.

The first option is to establish a dedicated fund. This fund would focus solely on ending plastic pollution, as opposed to broader environmental funds that address multiple issues simultaneously, such as climate change or biodiversity loss. This option is supported by recipient countries, such as (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs). These countries advocate for a mechanism that is easily accessible, stable, and predictable, offering grants and concessional financing to ensure long-term support.

The second option is using existing multipurpose funds. This approach would leverage existing mechanisms like the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund. This solution is preferred by donor countries, including the EU. Donors argue that creating a new fund may add unnecessary complexity to the already crowded multilateral funding system. 

A dedicated fund would offer a clear advantage over existing mechanisms by providing focused and predictable support tailored to the specific challenges of plastic pollution. Unlike broader multipurpose funds that address a range of environmental issues, it ensures that resources are directed exclusively toward combating plastic pollution, making it more efficient and impactful.

This fund would be especially valuable for upstream actions, such as reducing plastic production, which prevents pollution at its source. These measures are not only more effective but also more cost-efficient than downstream solutions like waste collection and recycling. For example, investing in waste reduction and improving recycling systems could reduce the overall costs of plastic leakage.[3] In contrast, a multipurpose fund, which must balance multiple priorities, may not prioritize upstream actions as effectively, potentially diluting its focus and the resources available to prevent plastic pollution at its root.

[1] UNEP (2020), “Draft Provisional summary of the Inventory of technical and financial resources and mechanisms for supporting countries in addressing marine plastic litter and microplastics”, UNEP/AHEG/2020/4/3.

[2] Busch, Per-Olof (2022), “Challenges and opportunities of a global agreement on plastic pollution for SIDS”, GIZ, pp.22-26.

[3] OECD (2024), “Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040”, Paris, pp. 30-35.

The EU plays a key role in promoting an ambitious Global Plastics Treaty, from ensuring that it takes a full life-cycle approach to plastic pollution, addresses production, supports circular economy practices, and provides effective funding mechanisms.

The EU has progressively increased its ambition over the course of the negotiations, advocating for measures to reduce plastic production, such as strong monitoring and reporting on production levels, and supporting demand reduction through circular economy practices.[1] The EU’s ongoing leadership in these negotiations would help avoid only addressing plastic pollution at the recycling stage and end-of-life waste management. Excluding production from the treaty at INC-5 in Busan risks creating a significant gap that undermines the commitments made by the EU. Additionally, addressing this omission later would require an amendment, necessitating further negotiation time and substantial political effort.

While the EU has taken a leading role in advocating for a strong, legally binding agreement, one point remains critical: its opposition to the proposal for a dedicated fund raises specific concerns. By favoring existing multilateral financing mechanisms, the EU risks creating divisions among negotiating parties and limiting the ambition needed to support a comprehensive, full life-cycle approach to plastic pollution. This position could undermine efforts to align funding mechanisms with the scale and scope of the challenge.

[1] Pons, Geneviève and Kean-Hammerson, Jacob (2024), “Plastics Treaty negotiations: Time for a European green leadership”, Europe Jacques Delors, pp. 5-6.

The new treaty’s relationship with the existing international legal framework will be an important factor to ensure the new treaty’s effectiveness. The Paris Climate Agreement, the Basel Convention, and the MARPOL Convention already address aspects of plastic waste trade, production, and disposal. Ensuring that the new treaty complements these agreements without duplicating or contradicting them is an important aspect, as outlined in UNEA resolution 5/14 which is the basis of the negotiations for this new plastics treaty.

The Global Plastics Treaty must align with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, which focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and limiting global temperature rise to well below 2°C, with an aim of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Indeed, plastic production is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, with the largest share occurring during production, followed by emissions from incineration and decomposition. Currently, plastics production emits the equivalent of 600 coal-fired power plants each year, and by 2050, emissions from plastics are expected to triple from 2019 levels.[1]

The Global Plastics Treaty’s effectiveness depends on its ability to integrate climate considerations, particularly by addressing emissions from plastic production and waste. A broad definition of plastic pollution that includes its full life cycle and climate-related effects would help ensure that the treaty supports efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

This alignment with the Paris Agreement will avoid fragmentation, fostering a coordinated response to both plastic pollution and climate change, and ensuring that the treaty contributes meaningfully to global environmental goals.

[1] Center for International Environmental Law, “Plastic & Climate : The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet” (accessed 7 November 2024)

In 2019, the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention adopted amendments to address plastic waste, reinforcing its role as the only global legally binding framework targeting plastic waste trade. These amendments brought plastic waste under the Convention’s purview, introducing controls for exports, transit, and imports.[1]

However, significant gaps persist. For instance, some plastic-containing materials, such as textile waste, are still classified under outdated non-hazardous listings. Moreover, the Convention focuses primarily on waste management rather than upstream measures, and its limitations in categorising toxic polymers and additives pose challenges for effective monitoring and enforcement. 

The Global Plastics Treaty offers an opportunity to build on and complement the Basel Convention by addressing areas beyond its downstream focus. By prioritising measures to prevent and minimise plastic waste generation, the treaty can target the root causes of plastic pollution.[2]

Additionally, aligning with Basel’s control mechanisms can create coherence in the regulation of plastic flows, such as harmonising waste classifications, closing regulatory gaps on mixed and toxic plastics, and improving enforcement against illegal waste shipments. 

This approach would avoid duplicating existing frameworks while strengthening global efforts to tackle plastic pollution. By addressing the full lifecycle of plastics, the treaty could help reduce waste generation and toxicity, ensure proper end-of-life treatment, and enhance transparency in materials and waste tracking. These improvements would support environmentally responsible management and better enforcement across borders.

[1] Basel Convention, “Action for addressing plastic waste under the Basel Convention” (accessed 8 November 2024)

[2] Basel Action Network (BAN), Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and Global alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA),(2023), “Bridging the Basel Convention Gaps with the Future Plastics Treaty”, pp.20-23.

The MARPOL Convention is a key international treaty aimed at reducing marine pollution from ships, including the discharge of garbage and plastics. Annex V of MARPOL specifically addresses the disposal of waste at sea, prohibiting the dumping of plastics and other harmful materials. While MARPOL has made important strides in managing ship-generated waste, it is limited in addressing the broader issue of plastic pollution from other sources, such as fishing gear.

Effectively tackling fishing gear pollution requires interventions across the entire lifecycle of plastic materials, from production to disposal. While measures like mandatory reporting of lost gear could be integrated into MARPOL Annex V, gaps in current frameworks prevent a comprehensive approach to plastic pollution from fishing.[1] A dedicated programme under the Global Plastic Treaty could provide a unified framework, bridging these gaps and facilitating cross-organizational collaboration. This would align efforts with existing conventions, creating a more cohesive and effective response to the environmental impact of fishing gear.

[1] Environmental Investigation Agency (November 2022), “Convention on Plastic Pollution – Essential Elements : Fishing Gear”, p9.

Finalising the Global Plastics Treaty presents an important opportunity to address plastic pollution at its source, ensuring that production, emissions, and waste are tackled comprehensively.

With just one session left, there is still an opportunity to reach an international agreement that is ambitious. The focus will need to be on overcoming these remaining challenges and ensuring that the treaty includes strong, binding measures to address the full life cycle of plastic.

This is crucial as the outcomes of the final negotiations in Busan will have long-term implications for global efforts to combat plastic pollution. As countries face the interconnected crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution, the treaty is positioned as a critical tool to drive international cooperation and deliver measurable progress in addressing one of the planet’s most pressing environmental challenges.