26 December 2024 : the year’s most important stories

by Seema on 26/12/2024 No comments

Our round-up of the year’s most important stories.

Thailand bans all plastic waste imports from 1 January 2025

Thai authorities have banned plastic waste imports from the new year, setting a strong precedent for other SE Asian nations to follow. Campaigners have welcomed the move, even though it still leaves loopholes that allows Thailand to be used as a transit country for hazardous plastic destined for neighbouring states

 

Plastics industry heats planet 4 times as much as flying

If anyone is still in doubt about the link between plastic and climate breakdown, this US federal government report released in 2024 (and summarised more simply by GAIA) shows the devastating effects of plastic production on global warming. The modelling shows plastic alone could consume the planet’s entire carbon budget by 2060, even if all other industries miraculously decarbonised.

ExxonMobil sued over false claims about recycling

Among many, many stories about corporate greenwashing, this story of ExxonMobil’s lies about recycling stood out for the sheer scale of the deception. To add to their woes, Exxon and other plastics producers are now facing a new court case brought by a group of American citizens for similar reasons. If successful, this could open the door to a much bigger class action suit.

 

The microplastics map: which countries consume the most?

In June, researchers released a map of the world that estimated microplastic exposure for citizens of different countries. It revealed which people were consuming the most – and why. Where did your country come?

 

Bees are eating nano- and microplastics

It was sad news for bees, who were found to be consuming plastic, as well as bringing it into their hives. This is causing damage both to them and the wider ecosystem.

 

Finally, a shift in dynamics at the plastics treaty talks

Last but not least, there was some good news from the plastics treaty talks. Yes, nothing was agreed, but this means everything is still on the table – and the countries championing strong measures to curb production and harmful chemicals are getting louder and better organised. Watch this space for updates as we go into 2025!

What do you think about these stories? Is there one we missed? Let us know in the comments!

Every month we round up the top stories from the world of plastic pollution – and the work being done to stop it. From aquatic pollution to zero waste, you’ll always be up to date with the latest research, trends and greenwashing tactics.

To sign up click here.

read more
Seema26 December 2024 : the year’s most important stories

Plastics treaty talks end in deadlock

by Seema on 10/12/2024 No comments

It was supposed to be the final round of UN negotiations for a global plastics treaty. In the end, INC-5 wound up without an agreement – though not without progress.

The meeting was held in Busan, South Korea from 25 Nov to 1 Dec 2024, with almost 4,000 people in attendance. The Chair, Luis Vayas Valvidieso, was under intense pressure to seal a deal. He spent the week imploring countries to find common ground and “get it done”, even agreeing to closed door negotiations for almost three days – a flagrant disregard for transparency that left scientists, civil society groups and rights-holders most impacted by plastic pollution out in the cold.

But still a deal was not to be. The talks only highlighted the deep divisions among countries over three key issues: limiting plastic production (Article 6), regulating toxic chemicals (Article 3), and funding (Article 11).

A minority of so-called petrostates – major fossil fuel exporters – continued to block any attempts to cap or reduce plastic production, arguing this was irrelevant to the issue of pollution. They rejected scientific evidence of the harms of petrochemicals and claimed plastic was essential to progress, climate goals and the “right to development“.

However the majority of countries, covering both the Global South and Global North, were determined to include binding obligations to reduce plastic production, the phaseout of harmful plastic products and toxic chemicals, and a dedicated fund to support treaty implementation. They pointed to the UNEA resolution to take a full life cycle approach to plastic pollution and recalled the thousands of studies linking plastic chemicals with serious health issues.

With Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, the inspirational delegate from Panama.

Stand up for ambition

The emergence of this coalition of 100+ countries, led by Panama, Rwanda, Mexico and Fiji and backed by the EU, Switzerland, UK and Australia, was the high point of the talks. Appearing midweek, they swiftly gained the upper hand, using strong language – “if you’re not contributing constructively… then please get out” – that completely changed the energy and dynamics in the room.

At the closing plenary session, Juliet Kabera, the Director General of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority, received a thunderous standing ovation for her statement vowing to “stand up for ambition”.

For most observers, the failure to reach an agreement at INC-5 was a victory for courage over compromise. Instead of succumbing to the relentless petrostate bullying and watering down the text, progressive countries stood firm and opted for no treaty over a weak treaty. This leaves the door to real change very firmly open.

A failure of process

Indeed, the real failure at INC-5 was the process itself. Negotiations have gone much the same way over the last three rounds of talks: a text is proposed by the Chair with instructions to find an agreement or consensus. Countries then proceed to share their views, with the petrostates systematically vetoing whole articles and obfuscating every line with qualifications, additions and deletions. This results in an unintelligible and unusable document that has to be “streamlined” at the next round, before the process begins all over again.

Instead of switching up this failing formula at INC-5, the Chair simply increased the speed of the loop, bringing out two new streamlined proposals, one on Friday and one on Sunday, as each previous version was mangled within hours.

As Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director of GAIA, put it, “we cannot keep doing things the same way and expect different results – that is the definition of insanity. The ambitious majority needs to do whatever it takes to get these negotiations back on track and reclaim the spirit of multilateralism.” That might involve insisting on their right to vote on a text, instead of trying to find consensus, or even taking the whole process outside of the UN.

Broader implications

The divisions exposed in Busan have clear parallels with the challenges faced in the climate negotiations, where petrostates have been stalling progress for decades. Their orchestrated effort to obstruct and derail all multilateral environmental agreements needs to be recognised for what it is and seriously addressed by the UN. There are precedents for this, such as the conflict of interest policy used in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Failure to act decisively on plastic production will hinder broader environmental goals, including climate targets, as we know this sector alone could exceed the global carbon budget by 2060. Failure to act quickly will also intensify the looming public health crisis, as petrochemicals bioaccumulate and our exposure is growing every day.

A treaty in 2025?
INC-5 ended with negotiators agreeing to reconvene their session in 2025 – this will be known as INC-5.2, rather than INC-6, as it is a continuation of the same meeting. The date and venue is likely to be announced in January, and it is expected to take place within the first half of the year. This gives the new coalition of ambitious countries a few precious months to demonstrate strong leadership, intensify diplomacy and address the challenges of the process and vested interests to ensure we get a treaty that can truly end plastic pollution.

Trash Hero at the treaty talks
As a UNEP-accredited observer, Trash Hero is able to attend all INC meetings. We join our colleagues in the large civil society delegation that advocates for strong and just measures in the treaty and support the communications and advocacy work done in exhibition booths and side events around the meeting venue.

read more
SeemaPlastics treaty talks end in deadlock

Last chance for a fossil phase-out?

by Seema on 23/11/2024 No comments

Forget COP 29, the plastics treaty is the most important environmental agreement in the world right now.

Is there anyone left – except the oil industry – who doesn’t roll their eyes at the mention of the climate COP? These conferences have become synonymous with blatant conflicts of interest, empty “blah, blah, blah” posturing of world leaders, and a frustrating inability to deliver real progress.

But next week in Busan, South Korea, there’s a glimmer of hope. UN member states are convening at INC-5, at what is expected to be the final round of negotiations for a global treaty to end plastic pollution. This is the chance for governments to show they are serious about tackling the harms of plastic overproduction and consumption. And a strong agreement, capable of addressing the interlinked crises of wildlife loss, chemical pollution and climate breakdown, could set in motion the fossil fuel phase-out that has eluded the climate convention for three decades.

The hidden driver of climate change
Plastic is not only a source of pollution choking oceans and poisoning ecosystems but also an important and overlooked driver of climate change. 99 percent of plastic is made from fossil fuels and, as production skyrockets, it’s become the world’s fastest-growing source of industrial greenhouse gases, pumping out more than double the emissions of the aviation industry.

Plastic also contains a staggering 16,000 chemicals. Less than 1 percent of these are regulated, most are untested, and around 4,000 are known hazards to human health. These are substances that bioaccumulate and are linked to cancers, respiratory and neurological problems and hormone disruption. Microplastics carrying these toxins permeate our air, water, soil, and even our bodies.

The plastic crisis impacts us all, but it’s felt hardest in poor communities, often in the Global South, where plastics are produced, burned, or dumped.

We can do better than the Paris Agreement
Since November 2022, countries have been going back and forth on what the plastics treaty should include, how to enforce it, and who will fund it. The good news is that the measures needed for meaningful change are all still on the table. Just as importantly, so are provisions for monitoring, compliance and transparency. These key elements were missing in the Paris Agreement: its voluntary approach has allowed emissions to climb year after year.

At INC-5 then, negotiators face a crucial question: will they learn from Paris or repeat its mistakes?

How to build an effective treaty

Binding commitments
Deep, rapid cuts in plastic production are required to avoid breaching the 1.5°C warming limit. Analysis shows a minimum reduction of 12% to 17% per year, starting now, will be necessary. This needs measurable targets, deadlines and penalties, not hollow pledges.

Global implementation
Treaty measures must apply universally, with no exemptions under “special national circumstances” – the excuse countries used in the Paris Agreement to sidestep action.

The principle they invoked – of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR) – was originally intended to recognise the differing roles of countries in causing environmental crises and their corresponding financial needs and obligations. It was never meant to allow countries to choose whether or not to pollute.

Issues like harmful chemicals in plastic are impossible to address if countries claim CBDR. Without transparency and strict regulation across the board, we end up with piecemeal bans that leave gaps in protecting public health.

Sufficient and predictable funding
Another critical lesson from the climate COPs is the need for a dedicated global fund to support developing countries and those hit hardest by plastic pollution. Here is where the principle of CBDR should be applied. Wealthier countries and the plastic industry itself must provide this funding, with investments in redesign, repair, and reuse – not just waste management.

Civil society and rights-holders
Those directly impacted by the plastic life cycle, from waste pickers to fenceline communities and Indigenous Peoples, must be involved in shaping the treaty and their needs reflected in the final text.

But there is a very real danger of their voices being drowned out. The UN still recognises business and industry reps as “stakeholders” in environmental fora. Like at the climate convention, they are officially invited to the talks, often as part of government delegations. This conflict of interest is a major hurdle for good faith negotiators in Busan.

The fight against Big Oil
More than 60 countries have already called for the treaty to include binding phasedown targets for fossil fuels, enforced through global caps on plastic and petrochemical production. Many more support a treaty grounded in environmental and climate justice, public health and human rights.

On the other side, a vocal minority of oil-producing countries insist that solving plastic pollution is just a matter of improving recycling and waste management. They downplay the harms of plastic as “unproven” and argue the benefits to society outweigh the risks.

It’s a bold position that ignores the UN Environment Assembly’s resolution that the treaty address the full life cycle of plastic – from fossil fuel extraction to disposal. It also flies in the face of tens of thousands of studies confirming plastic’s devastating impacts on health, ecosystems, and the climate.

Meanwhile, these same countries plan to triple plastic production over the next 30 years, investing in petrochemical plants and promoting flawed and dirty technologies like chemical recycling. At COP28, their promise to transition away from fossil fuels was carefully applied only to “energy systems” – not plastics.

If left unchecked, plastic production alone could exceed the global carbon budget by 2060, according to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

UN member states must now choose whether to stop this happening.

The world is watching
Can negotiators deliver an effective treaty in just one week, with industry lobbyists hovering and a “need for consensus” pressuring them to water down the text rather than risk a vote?

Yes – but only if the world is watching. Governments must feel the pressure to support an ambitious, effective treaty that serves science and public interest, not corporate agendas.

International agreements can and should be more than a stage for world leaders to claim progress without commitments. We deserve treaties that are fit for purpose.

So, all eyes on Busan: if negotiators get it right, the plastics treaty could become the world’s most impactful environmental agreement, offering a path to cap fossil fuel production, restore planetary health and build a fairer, safer and more sustainable future for all.

Seema Prabhu is programmes director at Trash Hero. Trash Hero World attends the plastics treaty talks as a UNEP civil society observer.

read more
SeemaLast chance for a fossil phase-out?

What is the waste trade? Your questions answered

by Seema on 28/08/2024 1 comment

When you put your trash in the bin, do you really know where it goes?

In this post we’re exploring the waste trade, a widespread, yet little-known practice that moves mountains of trash around the globe.

What is the global waste trade?

The waste trade is the exchange of waste materials between countries. Various types of waste get exported and imported, including hazardous, non-hazardous, recyclable, and non-recyclable waste.

What countries are involved in the waste trade?

Many countries take part but the direction of trade is mainly one way. Waste is exported from wealthy developed countries to low- and middle-income nations. The primary destinations for waste exports are countries in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America. Central Asia and Eastern Europe are other common destinations.

Waste is exported and imported by both government agencies and private companies.

Why is waste traded internationally?

Most countries in the Global North produce more waste than they can deal with. Overpackaging and overconsumption are the norm. For example, the USA represents 4% of the global population but generates 12% of global municipal waste. And then there is industrial waste, which is many, many times greater.

Environmental regulations in these countries are usually strict and the costs of recycling or disposal are high. Exporting waste avoids these inconveniences, while taking advantage of the low labour costs and much weaker regulations overseas. This effectively outsources the burden of waste management to the recipient country.

How much waste gets traded?

It is difficult to get exact numbers on the amount of waste traded globally in any year. However, it is estimated to be in the 100s of millions of tonnes, with significant volumes of hazardous, electronic, and plastic waste being moved across borders.

Why do countries agree to import waste?

While some, correctly sorted, materials – scrap metals, for example – might have value, the main reason why countries accept waste imports is because they have little choice. Global inequalities mean developing countries rarely have the economic power or influence to turn down these containers, especially if they are dependent on the exporting nations for trade, loans or investment. This situation has led the waste trade to be viewed as a form of colonialism, as it mirrors historical patterns of exploitation, pollution and human rights violations.

It is estimated that 15 – 30% of waste shipments are illegal. Containers are often mislabelled (e.g. as “recyclables”, “paper” or “commodities” when they are nothing of the sort) or sent to unauthorised facilities. Bribes are used to get past officials. Interpol has expressed concern about the rise of organised criminal gangs working in the plastic waste trade – and the lack of resources to investigate them.

What happens to the waste?

Whether imported legally or illegally and regardless of the intentions of the exporter, the majority of imported waste is mismanaged. Some common scenarios include:

  • Illegal dumping: waste is disposed of in unauthorised areas, such as rivers, forests or even inside villages. Waste from UK supermarkets was found dumped in communities in Myanmar and Malaysia. Tonnes of toxic incinerator ash from America were rejected by several countries, before some was smuggled into Haiti for unlawful disposal and the rest thrown in the ocean.
  • Unsafe recycling: waste is processed in low-tech, often illegal, recycling facilities, by workers with few rights or safety protections. Illegal recycling centres in Malaysia were found processing German waste.
  • Incineration: waste is either openly burned, often near people’s homes, sent to cement kilns, or sold as fuel.

How does the waste trade affect recipient countries?

Environmental harm

Economic harm

  • The influx of foreign waste overwhelms local waste management systems. Countries that barely have capacity to deal with their domestic recycling now have to deal with thousands of tonnes of additional trash.
  • The influx of waste also lowers market prices for recyclable materials. This leaves local waste pickers, most of whom already work in precarious conditions, further impoverished.
  • Significant public funds are needed to clean up illegally dumped waste, as well as deal with the long-term health and environmental consequences.

Social and health impacts

  • Entire communities find themselves living next to other people’s waste and unwittingly exposed to toxic chemicals.
  • Marginalised groups, including children, are often forced into sorting imported waste. They lack legal protections and face serious health risks.
  • Mismanaged plastic waste can worsen environmental disasters such as flooding, increasing the risk of disease outbreaks.

Examples: 

How does the waste trade affect exporting countries?

The waste trade is the dirty secret of high-income countries.

Most of their citizens have no idea that the waste they dutifully put in the bin marked “recycling” is then sent overseas and often ends up dumped or burned. Countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan are repeatedly praised for their “good waste management”, yet they were among the top plastic waste exporters in 2023.

This lack of public awareness has serious consequences.

Firstly, it gives people the false impression that their waste is being managed efficiently, so nothing needs to change. If everything is being “recycled”, why bother to change patterns of consumption? Companies feel no pressure to produce less waste, nor to invest in local waste management.

Secondly, it perpetuates another dangerous myth – that the Global South cannot handle its waste and is largely responsible for the plastic pollution crisis. This narrative neglects to point out that much of the “mismanaged waste” originates from producers in the Global North.

Exporting countries need to be open about and be held accountable for the waste they ship overseas.

What regulations are there to manage the waste trade?

The Basel Convention exists to control the transboundary movement of explosive, flammable, toxic, or corrosive waste and its disposal.

Signatories have agreed to:

  • Seek explicit permission from the recipient country (prior informed consent, or PIC) before exporting their hazardous waste.
  • Reduce the generation of hazardous waste.
  • Restrict the movement of hazardous waste.
  • Implement procedures and standards for the safe handling and disposal of hazardous waste.

While these measures have improved the situation, many developing countries feel they do not go far enough.

They would prefer to see a complete ban on hazardous waste exports, including hard-to-recycle plastic. The EU has agreed to this, recently banning the export of any waste to non-OECD countries from the end of 2026.

Can recipient countries do anything about the waste trade?

Recipient nations are increasingly taking a stand against the dumping of foreign waste within their borders:

But more regional collaboration, for example within ASEAN countries, is needed to develop a stronger position; and more resources are needed to investigate and stop trafficking.

How can we stop the waste trade?

No country wants to be a dumping ground for others’ trash.

To stop the waste trade definitively, countries need to take responsibility for their own waste. If it can’t be managed locally, it should not be produced or allowed on the market.

Exports of plastic and other hazardous waste from high-income to low and middle-income countries should be completely banned, following the lead of the EU.

For this ban to be effective, it will need to be supported by:

  • a reduction in plastic production;
  • robust, society-wide reuse systems; and
  • more efficient sorting, management and monitoring of waste.

Without such measures, the illegal trade in waste will only increase.

As individuals, we can make others aware of the practice of shipping waste overseas and end the “out of sight, out of mind” mentality. We can also promote zero waste lifestyles and systems to reduce the amount of waste that needs to be managed in the first place.

Negotiators for the new Global Plastics Treaty are also attempting to address all of these issues. Trash Hero is advocating for the inclusion of strong and effective measures to stop the waste trade and solve other issues caused by plastic production. Join us by signing this petition.

Waste trade watch list

Links to great, short documentaries showing the waste trade in action:
➤ Your plastic waste might be traded by criminals – DW [12:30]
➤ Tracking devices reveal where recycling really goes – Bloomberg [13:01]
➤ Trashed: The secret life of plastic exports – ABC News [27:51]
➤ Thailand is tired of recycling your trash – Bloomberg [10:31]
➤ The environmental disaster fuelled by used clothes and fast fashion – ABC News [30:02]
➤ Ghana children work in toxic haze of e-waste – Al Jazeera [2:13]

read more
SeemaWhat is the waste trade? Your questions answered

What are the 3 Rs?

by Seema on 15/08/2024 No comments

You have probably heard of the 3 Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. But what do they mean?

3.8 billion tonnes is enough to cover some of the world’s biggest cities – Buenos Aires, Beijing, Manila, Delhi, Mexico City, Istanbul, Lagos, Paris and New York City – 1 metre deep in trash!

The 3 Rs are actions we can take to manage our waste. They are important because waste is increasing faster than we can deal with it. Right now we produce 2.3 billion tonnes of trash every year! If we don’t use the 3 Rs, in another 25 years that might be almost 3.8 billion tonnes 😱

Also a lot of the waste, like plastic, is toxic and dangerous for people and animals. The 3Rs help us to remember what to do to solve the problems caused by waste, like ocean pollution and climate change.

The 3 Rs come in a special order, or hierarchy. This is shown as an upside-down triangle called the waste hierarchy:

The order is important. It shows the priority for each action:

  1. Reduce
  2. Reuse
  3. Recycle

Reduce is the widest part of the triangle at the top because this is the first and most effective action we can take. It affects the largest amount of waste.
Reuse comes second because it is the most helpful action to take with the stuff we can’t avoid.
Recycle is at the bottom because it should be the last action we take, after we have already tried the other two.

What does it mean to REDUCE?

Reducing waste means using less stuff so we avoid creating waste in the first place. There are a few ways we can do this.

We can think before we buy new things: do we really need this? Or, we can refuse unnecessary things like plastic straws, cutlery or sachets of sauce that are offered with takeout food. We can grow or make food from natural ingredients instead of buying packaged products. Doing this will cut down a lot of waste in your bins!

Companies can also design their products and services to make less waste. They can use less packaging and produce things that are made to last, not break easily. Then we don’t have to throw them away and buy new ones so often.

When we reduce, there are fewer things we need to reuse or recycle.

What does it mean to REUSE?

We can’t avoid using stuff altogether! So reuse is something we can do with the things we need in our lives. It means helping stuff to last longer.

So we can think before we throw something away: is this really waste? Maybe it can be given to someone else who might find it useful. Maybe it can be repaired and used again. Maybe it can be repurposed for another use, like when we clean an empty jam jar and use it to store other things like crayons or nuts. Or if we give food scraps to animals to eat. Can you think of any other examples?

Some companies design things to be reused instead of thrown away after one time. We can choose these items instead of disposable ones. For example, if we carry reusable shopping bags and water bottles when we go out, we can use them again and again without needing to buy plastic bottles or take bags that will be thrown away later.

A few companies also make packaging that can be reused. So after you finish your shampoo, you can return the bottle to the store and they will clean it and fill it up again. We need more businesses to design products like this.

When we reuse things we don’t have to take more resources from the Earth to make new ones.

What does it mean to RECYCLE?

When we can’t use or reuse stuff any more, the best action to take is recycling. Recycling breaks things down into their original materials, so they can be used again. But not everything can be recycled. Right now, we can recycle:

  • Food and garden waste – it breaks down into compost to fertilise the soil. Click here to find out how to make your own compost.
  • Glass
  • Metal
  • Clean paper

Plastic is not on this list because it’s tricky to recycle. There are thousands of different types of plastic and they are difficult to identify. If different types get mixed up it can be dangerous (toxic), or make the end product unusable.

Clear bottles, made from a type of plastic called PET, are the easiest to recycle. Usually they don’t get turned into new bottles, but into clothes (like fleece jackets) or carpets. This is called downcycling because the material can’t be recycled again, it will just be thrown away. For plastic, it’s better to reduce and reuse wherever we can.

To recycle you need to sort your trash into different bins so they can be collected or taken to the right place to make them into new things. Organic waste goes into one bin and then clean glass, metal and paper into others. With plastic, you will need to check the label carefully to see if it can be recycled where you live.

What about the rest of the trash?

After you have reduced, reused and recycled what you can, there will usually still be some trash left over. Try our waste audit activity to help you see how this could be reduced further.

It can be hard to get to zero trash so don’t be disappointed if you can’t get there yet: remember, we can’t do it all – the big companies also need to use the 3Rs and design their products and services to make less waste.

Lots of organisations (like Trash Hero) are already campaigning to make this happen, so we can protect people, animals and the planet from plastic pollution – thank you for doing your part 💛

Trash Hero World
 WATCH
 TOPICS
 GET ACTIVE
 GAMES
 #AWESOME
read more
SeemaWhat are the 3 Rs?

Where does the trash go?

by Seema on 25/06/2024 No comments

This is the question we get asked the most by our cleanup participants. After doing the hard work of picking it up, it’s natural to want to find out what happens next!

No easy answers

In almost all cases, the trash is handed to the municipality to manage, according to the waste management infrastructure in place locally. In other words, we move it from one place to another. Wherever possible, our volunteers will first sort the collected waste, separating any recyclable and reusable material. What gets separated will depend on the local facilities, but the pile is always far smaller than people imagine. And they are usually surprised to learn that the few types of “recyclable” plastic may not get recycled at all and can only be recycled once or twice – often with serious health risks – before it gets thrown away.

This is an opportunity to reflect that, even in areas where glass, metal and paper are easily recycled, there really is no good solution for plastic packaging.

In all locations, some form of landfill or incineration remain the default for the non-recyclable waste. Both of these options have serious health, social, environmental and climate impacts, even in developed countries like Switzerland.

 

Reframing the question

With no good answer to the question “where does the trash go?”, we can conclude it’s critical to reduce the waste being produced in the first place. So we ask a different question – “where does the trash come from?” – instead. There is a widely-held belief that the current plastic pollution crisis is caused by irresponsible people who litter and / or poor waste management. People who join our cleanups are often unaware that this is an industry-marketed fiction. Through our cleanups, we try to move the conversation towards the real causes of the crisis – poor packaging design and delivery systems, overproduction and the lack of regulation or producer responsibility. These wider systemic problems are the real source of the pollution – not the weekend picknickers.

In some areas, after a cleanup we might also examine and record the brands on the plastic trash collected, to highlight the link between producer decisions and pollution. This “brand audit” data is also shared with organisations such as Break Free From Plastic for research and advocacy work.

 

“Upcycling” and “recovery”?

People often ask why we don’t “upcycle” the trash or collaborate with companies who say they “recover ocean-bound plastic“, sometimes as part of a credit scheme. The reason is that these are false solutions. At best they distract from the real actions needed; in the worst case scenario they create new problems or enable greenwashing by companies that have the power to make far more impactful changes.

Shop to save the planet: is producing more stuff really the way out of a crisis caused by overproduction?

What do we mean by this? So-called plastic “upcycling” is really “downcycling” – creating objects that cannot be recycled further, using additional new resources. This only delays disposal of the material in a landfill, incinerator or worse, while creating microplastics and potentially hazardous chemical cocktails in the process.

Suggesting these recycled products use material “recovered” from the ocean without any proof can add an additional layer of greenwash. In reality, most plastic pulled from the sea is too degraded to be recycled. But with some creative accounting or vague labelling producers can claim packaging is 100% made from this source.

Both “upcycling” and plastic “recovery” are almost always presented as a solution for plastic pollution, which leads people to think that it is okay to keep producing and using plastic at current rates. It’s common for the plastics industry to focus attention on these kinds of false solutions, rather than take more helpful steps to reduce their production of single-use plastic. We don’t want to be part of this misinformation.

 

Local downcycling

We do however support some small, locally-based initiatives to deal with existing waste, if they fit certain criteria.

Some Trash Hero chapters donate non-recyclable trash to local entrepreneurs who use it as raw materials to make different things. This is typically on islands or in rural areas where the alternative is often open burning. As long as there are no better options for the waste and no greenwashing is involved, downcycling into durable and relatively safe products using minimal additional resources can be a practical, if temporary solution for existing waste. While these actions can’t solve the plastics crisis long term, they don’t get in the way of the solutions that will lead to a truly safe and circular economy.

From left: shoes collected at cleanups are downcycled into new flip-flops by Tlejourn; straws are donated to create filling for wheelchair cushions; a sculpture created for a festival in Thailand; collected cigarette butts are displayed in Zurich

On a smaller scale, we have also worked with artists who make sculptures and other works from trash to draw attention to the problem of plastic pollution. This is different from artists who try to create beauty from plastic waste, which again feeds into the narrative that it is okay to keep increasing production of this toxic, climate-damaging material.

 

The bottom line:
The answer to “where does the trash go?” is “nowhere good”. We must instead look at “where does the trash come from?”. We need to reduce the amount of materials we use in the first place, make them safe and keep them in use – through reuse infrastructure, not recycling – for as long as possible. Only by supporting zero waste systems and lifestyles will we be able to stop picking up trash every week.

read more
SeemaWhere does the trash go?

What’s the problem with plastic?

by Seema on 20/06/2024 No comments

The problem – ironically – began with a solution. Plastic is a lightweight, durable, airtight, decay resistant, inexpensive material that can be moulded into a huge range of products. These are excellent, practical qualities – while the product is in use.

But almost 70% of all plastic (an estimated 5,700 million metric tons[1]) has become waste: 10% incinerated[2], releasing toxic heavy metals, dioxins and hazardous nano-particles into the air, water and soil; and 60% discarded, now accumulating in landfills or the natural environment.

“More than 1.2 billion kilogrammes of plastic – primarily single-use packaging – are produced globally every single day.[3]“

In the ocean, as on land, plastics persist. Their lightweight and indestructible nature allows them to disperse easily, breaking into smaller and smaller, highly toxic pieces that cause the death or injury of wildlife[4], biodiversity loss[5] and pose grave dangers to human health as they enter and contaminate the food chain. Barely 1%[6] of the 12.2 million tons of plastic that enters the ocean every year stays on the surface, making it all but impossible to recover.

Recycling cannot keep pace with the volume and variety of plastic materials in circulation. It is still only viable[6] to recycle two kinds of plastics at scale: PET and HDPE, usually with only one “loop” before the material is too degraded to recycle again. Even this is costly, often more so than producing virgin plastic[7]. This has led to many countries – who have infrastructure available – preferring to ship their plastic to the Global South in what has been termed “waste colonialism“[8].

Chemical additives in plastic also make it problematic to recycle[9], resulting in unwanted emissions, cross-contamination and concentration of hazardous substances in the resulting material. More than 16,000 chemicals have been identified in plastic[10], many of them in food packaging[11]. 7,000 of these chemicals have to date been researched – and 4,200 found to be hazardous, leading the World Health Organisation (WHO) to draft a resolution[12] calling on nations to “[scale] up work on plastics and health to enable better information of the potential human health impacts”. These impacts include endocrine disruption[13], cancer[14] and infertility[15].

Research from the Center for International Environmental Law[16] further suggests there may be an imminent public health crisis caused by exposure to plastic at all stages of its lifecycle, from extraction to disposal. Humans are at risk through inhalation, ingestion and skin contact, with recent findings showing micro- and nanoplastics already present in our blood[17], lungs[18], reproductive organs[19] and able to cause damage to cells[20].

Plastic is also a climate issue. 99% of plastic is made from fossil fuels. At every stage of its lifecycle, emissions are produced[21]: from the processing of the raw material, to its application and discarding. Plastic is the fastest growing industrial source of global greenhouse gas emissions, with an estimated contribution more than four times that of the entire aviation industry[22]. This figure will only increase as Big Oil banks on plastic to make up for decreasing demand and revenue[23].

Waste management infrastructure, ecosystems, the climate, even our own bodies are already overwhelmed by the impacts of plastic. It is a problem that is impossible to ignore and will be devastating if we do[24]. We need to act and the time is now.

———————————-
Sources

[1] Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made Roland Geyer, Jenna R. Jambeck, Kara Lavender Law, Sci Adv. July 2017
[2] Ibid, based on figures quoted of 407 million tons of plastic produced globally in 2015
[3] OECD, Global Plastics Outlook, 2022
[4] Plastic & Health: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet, CIEL, Feb 2019
[5] Plastic and the environment online series, Geneva Environmental Network, Jul 2023
[6] ‘Viable’ includes both financial and technical criteria
[7] The Plastic Pandemic, Reuters investigative report, Oct 2020
[8] The Guardian, 31 Dec 2021 (and many other sources)
[9] Forever Toxic: The science on health threats from plastic recycling, Greenpeace, May 2023
[10] CNN reporting on the PlastChem Report, March 2024
[11] Food packaging and human health fact sheet, Food Packaging Forum, Dec 2018
[12] 76th World Health Assembly, Agenda item 16.3, 24 May 2023
[13] Plastic, EDCs & Health: Authoritative Guide, Endocrine Society, Dec 2020
[14] The Guardian, 28 Mar 2023 (and many other sources)
[15] Microplastics May Be a Significant Cause of Male Infertility, Chenming Zhang, Jianshe Chen, Sicheng Ma, Zixue Sun, Zulong Wang, AmJ Mens Health, 2022 May-Jun
[16] Plastic & Health: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet, CIEL, Feb 2019
[17] Blood-type: Plastic, Common Seas, Jan 2020
[18] The Guardian, 6 Apr 2022 (and many other sources)
[19] Ibid, 20 May 2024
[20] Ibid, 8 Dec 2021
[21] Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet, CIEL, May 2019
[22] The Hill, 18 April 2024
[23] ClientEarth, 16 Feb 2021
[24] Breaking the Plastic Wave, Pew Trust 2020 shows 5 years of inaction equates to an additional ~80 million tons of plastic in the ocean

read more
SeemaWhat’s the problem with plastic?

Strong calls for action at plastics treaty talks in Ottawa, but countries make little progress

by Seema on 01/05/2024 No comments

The pressure was on at INC-4, the penultimate round of talks planned to create an international, legally-binding treaty to end plastic pollution. With the clock ticking after the three previous sessions failed to make any substantial progress, member states finally got down to discussing the content of the treaty.

Over the seven days (23 – 29 April 2024) in Ottawa, delegates were able to “streamline” some of the proposed text but, with a deluge of new additions and brackets (which show disagreement with the words placed inside), in the end they were left with a draft that is nowhere near ready for negotiations at the final session in Busan, Korea in November 2024.

A snapshot of the INC-4 streamlined text: all words in brackets have been objected to by at least one member state.

Aware of the amount of work still to do, member states did agree on creating a legal drafting group to help clarify the text of the future agreement. This is much needed because there are now at least 3,686 brackets in the text, making it almost unintelligible.

Countries also agreed to establish two expert working groups that would convene before November to discuss certain aspects of the treaty such as chemicals of concern, product design and financial support. Notably not up for discussion before INC-5 are primary plastic polymers, what Rwanda called “the elephant in the room”. An attempt to create such a working group, which would consider cuts in plastic production was disappointingly rejected at the last minute. This means it will be difficult, though not impossible, to include production caps – the key to ending plastic pollution – in the final treaty.

As is now the norm at INC meetings, a small number of countries continued to obstruct and delay discussions. They attempted to narrow the scope of the treaty to waste management (instead of the full lifecycle of plastic, as mandated) and remove all references to production, chemicals of concern, producer responsibility, human rights and microplastics.

One delegate said that every single material can release particles into the air – even skin – so plastics should not be singled out. Others denied the existence of scientific evidence of human health impacts, suggested wording to acknowledge the ‘critical role plastic plays in sustainable development’ and cautioned against any ‘sudden transition’ away from plastic.

This kind of bad faith negotiation can only be prevented by a strong conflict of interest policy and the right for member states to vote on decisions. The goal of the plastics treaty is to find solutions to a shared crisis caused by a minority of bad actors. But if these actors are present and demanding all text needs their approval, how can we ever hope to achieve this?

Highlights

Juliet Kabera, Rwanda

The highlight of the seven days was a strong push for a limit on new plastic production, championed by Peru and Rwanda. Their proposal to adopt a global target to reduce 40% of the global use of primary plastics polymers by 2040 from 2025 levels, was supported by at least 29 member states during the meeting.

Following the proposal, these countries launched the Bridge to Busan Declaration on Plastic Polymers to rally INC delegates to support reducing primary plastic production ahead of INC-5.

There was a strong presence of rightsholders at the meeting, including the Indigenous Peoples Caucus, waste pickers, women, workers and youth organisations. Rightsholders are different to stakeholders because they possess internationally recognised human or collective rights that will be impacted by the outcome of the treaty. They made moving interventions during the meeting and led the “March to End the Plastic Era” through the city.

Various global bodies were also present, with the World Health Organisation (WHO), recommending that the use of plastic for medical and healthcare should not be exempt from the treaty and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights calling for a reduction in plastic production, saying that “any person that is given a choice, will chose nature over destruction.”

Low points

There was a clear increase in industry interference in the treaty negotiation process. We saw everything from paid advertising around the venue extolling the virtues of plastic, to reports of harassment and intimidation from the independent Scientists Coalition. There were many industry-sponsored events, including one from the world’s biggest producer of PET resin called “Friends of Zero Waste”, while reps from plastic manufacturers and trade bodies sat alongside members of official government delegations in the negotiating rooms.

The industry lobbying and spread of misinformation to member states was coordinated and calculated. As a result, one of the topics for intersessional work is “enhancing recyclability”, despite clear evidence of the threats to health and the environment from the mixing and concentration of chemical additives during the recycling process.

Analysis by CIEL of the published list of INC-4 participants revealed that 196 lobbyists for the fossil fuel and chemical industry were registered for the event – a 37% increase over the previous meeting six months ago. With side events and informal meetings, many more were likely present.

What happens now

In the final session of INC-4, which ended in the small hours of the morning, countries decided to prioritise intersessional (preparatory) work on:

1) how to finance the implementation of the treaty;
2) assess the chemicals of concern in plastic products; and
3) look at product design, reusability and recyclability.

Other parts of the treaty – including primary plastic polymers, microplastics and extended producer responsibility – were not assigned any time or resources.

Member states agreed to let observers participate in this work. The composition and the schedule of the working groups is yet to be decided.

Additionally, they decided to create a legal drafting group that will conduct a legal review of the text and provide recommendations for the next meeting.

The big two open questions of the negotiation process remain open: will the INC listen to calls for a clear conflict of interest policy to stop the future treaty being derailed by the petrochemical lobby? And will they protect the right to vote on all decisions, so that it does not get watered down?

As Graham Forbes, global plastics campaign lead at Greenpeace put it: if member states “don’t act between now and INC-5 in Busan, the treaty they are likely to get is one that could have been written by ExxonMobil and their acolytes.”

Image credits: all photos taken inside the INC-4 venue by IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth

read more
SeemaStrong calls for action at plastics treaty talks in Ottawa, but countries make little progress

Take action!

by Seema on 16/04/2024 No comments
DOWNLOAD A
PDF VERSION Back to main page

In part 8 of this guide, we learned that solving plastic pollution and moving towards zero waste needs a whole system change to be successful. This is a really big task! And sometimes it can make you feel like your actions are just a drop in the ocean. But it’s important to remember that what we do still matters. In fact, without us system change would never happen!

Why is this? The short answer is that individual change and system change are not opposites. They work together.

The kind of change we looked at previously is called top-down system change. This is because it comes from people in charge, who hold the power and authority to control how things are done. Some examples are: governments passing laws to punish polluters; building infrastructure for reuse; or the food industry setting new standards for packaging and labelling. The new Global Plastics Treaty from the United Nations will be the biggest top-down change ever for plastic pollution! But even the people in charge of your local trash collection would make a big difference if they made people sort their waste. When the people at the top change the way things get done, everyone has to follow – and they will also be helped to do that.

But there is another type of change, that starts with us. This is called bottom-up system change. It comes from individuals like us taking action and influencing the smaller local systems that we live in – schools, offices, shops, restaurants etc. Some examples are setting up a water refill network, a repair cafe, a community garden for composting or a campaign to bring your own containers for take away food.

Initiatives like these influence how people and society think about a problem like waste and plastic pollution. In turn, this puts pressure on the higher levels of government and big companies to respond. They need to meet our new expectations. Even if this takes a while, we’ve already planted the seeds.

Individual action can take many forms: from protests to citizen science to organising a clothing swap. The key is to link up with other people doing the same thing, so that our individual impact multiplies. This is known as collective action and it creates momentum for wider system change.
Here are the twins with more:

 

Ideas for individual and collective action that change the system

Create a new normal
Just think how rare it was to see a reusable water bottle a few years ago and how common they are now. This is a result of people who started making those swaps and showing their family, friends and others that another way was possible. To help raise people’s awareness of plastic pollution, you can:

  • Share your zero waste lifestyle on social media
  • Talk to your friends and family about why you’re making these changes
  • Take your reusables to new places, like street food stalls, the deli counter, or your regular lunch venue

Influence local systems
There are many small local systems that we are part of – our school or workplace, our street or apartment building, or even our wider neighbourhood. As we already belong in these places, it’s often easy to start a small campaign or project that will help others in the same system to reduce waste. If you feel you don’t have enough influence to do it alone, ask some friends for support, or join a group that’s already working on similar issues.
You can:

  • Start a campaign to reduce single-use plastic or other waste at your school or workplace canteen
  • Ask local cafes to offer a discount for people who bring their own container
  • Join or start a Trash Hero chapter doing community cleanups
  • Get people composting
  • Ask friendly neighbourhood businesses to join our water refill network

Influence big companies
Because companies want to make money, they usually listen to their customers – people like us! That’s actually why you see so much greenwashing lately. Big business knows people are worried about plastic pollution so they are trying to fool us into thinking they care 🙄 But the more pressure they feel, the more likely they are to take real action. You can:

  • Do a brand audit, or join one from Trash Hero or other groups
  • Call out greenwashing and false solutions on social media
  • Start a boycott of big polluters and get others to join

Influence governments
As well as being a consumer, you are a citizen with the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Governments have a lot of power to decide what companies can and can’t do and the collective action of individuals can help to push for policies that would make them responsible for the pollution they cause. You can:

  • Start or join a campaign to support zero waste infrastructure or EPR laws
  • Start or sign a petition supporting a strong Global Plastics Treaty
  • Write letters to your local government representatives
  • Join a protest march or rally about plastic pollution
  • Join a group that does all of the above and more! See the links below for some ideas

All of these actions follow the golden rules of reducing waste at the source and working towards a safer, fairer and more sustainable system for people and planet. Hopefully you can find something here that you would feel comfortable doing! And again, we encourage you to find a group that is doing similar things, or start your own: it’s way more fun and way more impactful to work together.

It’s also important to keep learning about these topics! Although we’re wrapping up this guide here, feel free to go back to previous parts and watch or read things you missed. A deep understanding of the issues – and the real solutions needed – will make any action you take more meaningful and powerful.

Good luck and let us know how you get on!

To get more inspiration for the actions you can take, check out our reading and watch lists below. Take your time to explore whatever appeals to you. If you want to discuss any ideas you have, or have some thoughts on the question below, leave us a comment!

😎 MORE ON THIS TOPIC

➤ Individual vs. collective: are you responsible for fixing climate change?
➤ 10 ways people power can change the world
➤ Meet Asia’s zero waste warriors
➤ Join Break Free From Plastic Youth
➤ Greenpeace Youth Action Sheets
➤ Start a petition
➤ Start a Trash Hero chapter

WATCHLIST

❗ TRY THIS

Make a list of different actions you would be willing to take to fight plastic pollution. For example, you might want to:
– Join a group
– Volunteer
– Talk to your school
– Campaign on social media
– Do a brand audit
Do some research on each one.

❓ OVER TO YOU

Would you describe yourself as a consumer or a citizen? What is the difference?

💡 Think about the amount and kind of power that comes with each label.

Let us know your thoughts below!
Note: comments are moderated so they won’t appear right away

read more
SeemaTake action!

Global Plastics Treaty Jargon Buster

by Seema on 15/04/2024 No comments

If you care about plastic pollution, the announcement of a Global Plastics Treaty from the UN is big news. It means the problem is now internationally recognised and countries will have to work together to solve it. The final agreement could limit new plastic production, stop toxic chemicals and make sure products are designed for reuse.

But getting there isn’t easy. The negotiations involve almost 200 countries, with a lot of different interests. They need to follow certain rules for discussion and there are thousands of pages of documents produced. If you’re not a lawyer or policy geek, it can be hard to understand what’s going on. So we’ve made a guide that breaks down some of the terms used in the treaty discussion – and why they are important. The more people know about what’s happening and what’s at stake, the better chance we have to get a strong treaty to protect us and the planet.

So educate yourself and others! And follow us on social media @trashheroworld to stay informed about the upcoming rounds of negotiations.

1. The Instrument
Not a guitar or a piano! The Instrument is what the UN calls the Global Plastics Treaty. Its official title is the “international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment”. “Instrument” is just a legal term for any kind of formal document that records rights or duties.

Why not just call it a treaty? Because “treaty” has a specific meaning in international law. And there are other types of international agreements, like conventions, accords, declarations or protocols. As we don’t yet know what form the “instrument” will take, the UN uses this neutral word to cover all possibilities.

Having said that, it is most likely that the future treaty / instrument will be a “convention”. Ideally it should be a specific convention, where the countries’ obligations and commitments are written directly in the text.

The other option is a framework convention, where the text only agrees to do things in principle and leaves the details of how and when to be negotiated later. The framework model was used in the climate change treaty (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC), and countries are still debating actions and targets almost 30 years after it was made. COP29 will be held in Azerbaijan in November 2024 and will likely be more “blah blah blah“.

2. INC – Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee
This is the name for the group of UN member states that are discussing the future plastics treaty. The INC is facilitated by a secretariat of staff from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and it is funded by various member states. There are five meetings or sessions of the INC currently planned, roughly one every six months over two years. If the treaty is not ready after this, the member states will need to decide how to carry on. The schedule is as follows:

Nov 2022: INC-1 @ Punta del Este, Uruguay
May 2023: INC-2 @ Paris, France
Nov 2023: INC-3 @ Nairobi, Kenya
Apr 2024: INC-4 @ Ottawa, Canada
Nov 2024: INC-5 @ Busan, S. Korea

3. COP – Conference of the Parties
COPs are usually linked with the climate change treaty, but it’s a general term for what comes after any UN convention is agreed upon: the countries who signed it (the “Parties”) gather to review how it’s going and whether it needs changes. The COP for the climate convention happens every year. Some other treaties, like the Convention on Biological Diversity, hold a COP every 2 years. For the plastics treaty, it has not yet been decided how often the Parties will meet.

4. Observers and conflict of interest
Since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the UN has recognised the importance of having stakeholders present at any discussions about the future of our planet. They created nine “Major Groups“:

  • Women
  • Children and Youth
  • Indigenous Peoples
  • Non-Governmental Organisations
  • Local Authorities
  • Workers and Trade Unions
  • Business and Industry
  • Scientific and Technological Community
  • Farmers

Accredited representatives of these groups – like Trash Hero World – are called Observers. This doesn’t mean we just sit and watch things happen, though! Observers can join the INC negotiation sessions, make statements and written submissions and also receive information about what is happening in between the negotiations. But we are not able to vote and can only speak if there is time after the member states have finished.

The Observer system is not perfect. Different Observers have different levels of access and participation. Sometimes the logistics of joining all the meetings prevent some groups taking part – not everyone can afford the costs and many struggle to get visas. Observers’ rights to speak or attend meetings can also be refused by the member states – some are more friendly than others to civil society.

The whole system is a bit too friendly to certain powerful stakeholders, like the business and industry representatives, who are often invited to join official government delegations. The INC has not yet addressed the conflict of interest created by allowing the plastics industry to take part in the negotiations.

5. Plenary, contact groups, informals
At the INC meetings, the opening and closing sessions are held in plenary. This means they are open to all participants and live streamed for the public. But the main negotiations happen in Contact Groups.

Contact groups are formal meetings, usually dedicated to a particular topic, but they are not live streamed and are subject to the Chatham House Rule. This rule allows anything said in the meeting to be shared and used later, but only if the speaker is not identified. This in theory allows for a more open discussion.

If you see news reports during the INC meetings that say things like “Certain states tried to stall negotiations”, without specifying which ones, this is the Chatham House Rule in action!

The third type of negotiation is the “informal”. As the name suggests, these meetings are not recorded at all and are used to discuss sensitive issues, often between smaller groups of countries.

6. MEA – multilateral environmental agreement
An agreement between 2 countries or states is called bilateral and between many countries, it is called multilateral. The Global Plastics Treaty will be an MEA. There are already more than 250 MEAs covering everything from tuna fish to the ozone layer. This treaty needs to fit in alongside them and not duplicate or contradict anything they do. There is quite a bit of discussion about how best to do this, especially in relation to the BRS – Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm – conventions that regulate the production, use, trade and disposal of hazardous waste and chemicals, a lot of which is plastic.

7. EPR – Extended Producer Responsibility
This term refers to a wide set of measures that could be included in the treaty to make sure manufacturers of plastics (and the products and packaging made from them) are held responsible for the health and environmental costs of their products across the whole lifecycle.

At the most basic level, EPR means requiring companies to collect and recycle more of their waste. A stronger set of measures would also mandate targets for reduction of single-use plastic, design and infrastructure for reuse, labelling of the ingredients in plastic and fines for harms caused.

8. CBDR – Common but differentiated responsibilities
This is the idea that, while all countries share the responsibility for solving global environmental problems, not all countries are equally to blame. Countries in the Global North have typically done more to harm the climate and the living world and, as a result of that exploitation, now have more money to fix it. CBDR says they have an obligation to help countries in the Global South, who are less responsible. These developing nations need financial support to manage the impacts of plastic pollution and to take the actions that will be recommended by the treaty.

It’s important that the principle of CBDR should only apply to the financing of actions included in the treaty, not to the actions themselves. Some countries are already arguing that their “special national circumstances” excuse them from following any globally agreed standards. Using CBDR in this way will weaken the treaty as it lets individual countries choose whether or not to keep polluting.

9. Rules of Procedure (RoP)
They may sound like boring administrative details, but the draft rules of procedure that determine how the treaty gets decided are one of the hottest topics at the INC meetings. The big debate is whether member states should have the right to vote on decisions if they cannot reach an agreement, as stated in Rules 37 and 38.

Why would countries not want to vote? Some are afraid that, if they were on the losing side, they would be forced into doing things they don’t want to do. They prefer every decision to be made by consensus, which means a unanimous (100%) agreement is needed to pass.

However, this also means if just one country out of the 175 present disagrees with a proposal, nothing can happen until it is modified to a (usually weaker) version that the country will approve. In other words, decisions that are already agreed by a large majority of countries can be hijacked by powerful minorities.

As we head towards INC-4, the RoP are still in a draft version, which is a big risk as we get deeper into the negotiations. Powerful oil-producing countries will push for consensus so that they can veto any attempt in the treaty to limit their activities.

10. (Revised) Zero Draft (RZD)
The zero draft is a suggested text for the treaty prepared by the INC Secretariat after INC-2 in Paris. It contains all the different options for ending plastic pollution across its whole life cycle. At INC-3 in Nairobi, the text was discussed by member states and multiple pages of suggested new wordings were added. This resulted in the RZD, which is almost twice the length of the original.

At INC-4, this new text will be the basis for negotiations. For more about the zero draft and what it covers, see our Instagram post or check out the video to see what we think the treaty should include.

A legal drafting group will be set up at INC-4 to start summarising the text into a more workable version, while the countries try to find common ground on some of the more controversial points, like reducing plastic production.

—

If this guide was helpful and you’d like to know more about any other topics related to the Global Plastics Treaty or plastic pollution in general, drop us a comment below and we’ll see if we can cover it!

 

read more
SeemaGlobal Plastics Treaty Jargon Buster