Plastics Treaty

Plastic production is set to triple by 2060 without intervention – and less than 10% is recycled globally. ‘Business as usual’ cannot continue – plastic production must be rapidly phased down, with problematic, unnecessary and avoidable plastics prioritised for elimination.  

The Global Plastics Treaty must clearly define a criteria for problematic and avoidable plastic items, to avoid ambiguity and strengthen enforcement.   

Half of all plastic produced is designed for single-use purposes and persists in marine environments, causing widespread damage to ecosystems, marine life, and coastal communities. Extensive work has been done to identify priority plastics in need of elimination – now global legislation must follow. 

The treaty must also establish effective and globally harmonised control measures to phase out problematic, unnecessary and avoidable plastics, as well as intentionally added microplastics.  

We view coordinated, harmonized global elimination and phase out of problematic and avoidable plastics as critical to effective enforcement, avoiding loophole and ultimately preventing these items from being littered or ending up in the natural environment. 

Measures established to tackle problematic, unnecessary and avoidable plastics and intentionally added microplastic leakage should follow the principles of a just transition to a circular economy, and prioritise interventions in line with the waste hierarchy.  

This means prioritising elimination and prevention of such plastics, followed by an emphasis on reuse systems as a solution.  

Elimination and reuse models offer significant benefits over recycling by conserving resources, extending product lifecycles and reducing the need for new production and waste generation. For example, our reusable diaper project, ‘Bumbi’, in Indonesia, helps to save 1,460 single-use diapers per year per household on average. 

Read the full statement here.

Ambitious globally-binding obligations are vital to ensure the Global Plastics Treaty is robust and enforceable. However, National Action Plans will be key to enabling countries – particularly small coastal economies with limited infrastructure and resources – to translate global commitments into actionable strategies that suit their needs and unique contexts.  

National Plans should be complementary to, not a replacement for, globally binding obligations on plastic production and consumption. 

In the same way that ambitious globally binding obligations are needed to ensure the Global Plastics Treaty is robust and enforceable, the role of National Plans in delivering these obligations in a consistent and harmonised way at the national level cannot be overlooked.   

The Global Plastics Treaty should clearly outline the required structure and content, and reporting of National Plans to ensure consistency and accountability. 

To avoid the pitfalls of previous MEAs and to maximise the potential impact of NAPs, the Global Plastics Treaty should mandate the structure, content and reporting of national plans with globally-harmonised requirements, rather than leaving it to countries to determine their approaches.  

National plans should detail how each government will meet the requirements of the Treaty across the full lifecycle of plastic. They should also outline the costs of implementation and technical and financial assistance needs.    

The Global Plastics Treaty must provide technical and financial assistance to ensure successful implementation of national plans 

To keep us on track to ending plastic pollution globally by 2040, all countries should be required to develop national plans on the same timeline. However, financial will be necessary for successful implementation of National Plans, especially for less-resourced nations.  

National action plans offer huge benefits for countries, translating global goals into tailored, actionable strategies 

Comprehensive, treaty-aligned and fully-costed national action plans offer extensive benefits, facilitating a shift towards a sustainable blue economy while ensuring a healthier future for countries, communities and the environment.

Greater alignment and harmonisation of national planning process and content are needed to build state confidence and drive more effective action on plastic pollution. 

To avoid the challenges associated with National Plans under previous MEAs, it is vital that countries work closely with expert organisations and key stakeholders to develop greater alignment on key content such as metrics, monitoring approaches, and reporting structures. This will help to improve comparability across countries and support global efforts to track progress. 

Common Seas is proud to work with small coastal countries to support national action. So far, we have already developed national action plans with Barbados and The Gambia, which have delivered collaborative, context-specific strategies to reduce plastic pollution by up to 86% over the next decade.  

Read the full statement here.

From production to disposal, plastic poses a profound threat to our ocean, our ecosystems and our health. The plastics crisis is one of the most pressing issues of our time. With mounting evidence demonstrating the numerous health impacts associated with plastic exposure, it is vital that all negotiators work together to achieve a globally coordinated and harmonized Global Plastics Treaty that safeguards our health and future.  

Plastic poses a huge risk to human health – and our healthcare systems  

In 2022, our Blood Type Plastic research found microplastics in 77% of human blood samples. Since then, they’ve since been detected in lungs, placentas, and even the brain.  

We are exposed to microplastics every day and in almost every aspect of our lives through ingestion, inhalation and skin contact, posing numerous known health risks, such as cancer, diabetes, and reproductive disorders.  

These health impacts also put strain on healthcare systems. A 2023 report estimated that U.S. exposure to chemicals in plastics cost the government $920 billion in 2015 alone. 

The Global Plastics Treaty must protect those disproportionately at risk of plastic-related health impacts  

The health impacts of plastics are a major environmental justice issue. Informal sector workers in the Global South and communities residing near petrochemical plants are at disproportionate risk from the health impacts of plastic exposure.  

A Global Plastics Treaty must ensure health justice through specific measures to protect those most impacted by the health impacts associated with plastic across its lifecycle. 

We cannot tackle the environmental or health risks associated with plastics without cutting production and eliminating harmful chemicals 

Reducing plastic production and eliminating unnecessary plastics is key to limiting microplastic exposure and the associated health risks. 

Plastics also contain thousands of endocrine-disrupting chemicals known to harm human health. With over 16,000 chemicals linked to plastic production, it’s critical to identify and eliminate those known to cause the most harm and rapidly phase them out from plastic products. 

We no longer need to ask whether plastic harms us. The urgent question we must now answer is how much, in what ways, and what must be done to reduce risk?

Whilst there is already plenty of evidence that plastic harms our health, several key questions remain. There is also a severe lack of research on the long-term health impacts of plastic exposure, particularly in the Global South.

The Global Plastics Treaty must provide the foundation for the scientific community and other key stakeholders including policymakers to work together to develop robust and consistent best practice methodologies that can answer outstanding questions.

It must also ensure that there is an effective mechanism to ensure that the best available science informs future policymaking. This will require an effective science-policy interface consisting of independent scientists, other observers and rights holders, including Indigenous scientists and knowledge holders. Clear conflict of interest policies must also be embedded in this interface. 

To help accelerate cross-sectoral action on plastics and health in the post-treaty context, we are developing our health work to enhance collaboration between researchers, healthcare leaders and policymakers.

Read the full statement here.

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are on the frontlines of global environmental crises not of their making. They are among the worlds most historically-exploited and under-financed countries. But SIDS are also historically and culturally linked with the ocean, and many are leading the way in tackling plastic pollution.  

SIDS contribute little to our global environmental crises, but are disproportionately impacted by them. 

SIDS rely on healthy seas for regulating their microclimate, preserving their rich cultural heritage, and providing spaces for recreation, but also for the foundation of their economies.  

Marine plastic pollution is disproportionately impacting SIDS. Most SIDS do not produce plastic products, but have limited power over the format of imported items – and even less say in the plastic pollution that washes up on their shores. Geographic isolation, high waste management costs, and inadequate infrastructure make it difficult for SIDS to effectively manage the plastic waste. 

As ocean stewards, it is vital that the voices and needs of SIDS are reflected in the Global Plastics Treaty. 

As we approach the next round of negotiations, negotiators must prioritise the special circumstances and ecological significance of SIDS, recognizing their critical role in global environmental health. As front-line states disproportionately impacted by our interlinked environmental crises, SIDS must be given a strong voice in shaping the global plastics treaty. The treaty should address their specific needs, including limits on global plastic production, financial and technical assistance, and global cooperation for the remediation of legacy plastics.  

SIDS play a vital role in safeguarding our planet’s biodiversity and oceans. 

Despite occupying less than 0.5% of the Earth’s land surface, these islands are believed to support 20% of its terrestrial biodiversity, with many species unique to their geographies. They also host 40% of the world’s coral reefs, which are among the most biodiverse ecosystems globally. 

By acknowledging the ecological importance of SIDS and empowering them in negotiations, the final treaty can better serve the global community and protect vital marine ecosystems.  

Common Seas is proud to advocate for, work with and learn from SIDS – together identifying and implementing solutions to radically reduce plastic pollution on their shores and beyond. We are currently in the final stages of delivering National Action Plans and policy strategies with five SIDS-status countries: Saint Lucia, Grenada, Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea and Guinea-Bissau.

Read the full statement here.

Whether through environmental degradation, contributions to climate change, or the impacts on our health, plastic pollution affects every single one of us. However, the burden of the plastic crisis is disproportionately carried by countries in the Global South, small island developing states (SIDS), and communities living or working around production and waste facilities. This makes plastic pollution not only an environmental crisis, but also a major environmental justice issue.  

SIDS and countries in the Global South contribute little to the plastics crisis – in fact, the whole of Africa accounts for just 5% of plastic production and 4% of consumption globally. Despite this, the true full lifetime cost of plastic is eight times higher in low- and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. 

For many, the true cost of plastic is more than financial: toxic fume emissions, flooding, health risks, and social injustice. Particularly for informal sector workers, fenceline communities and communities living in SIDS, our linear take-make-waste economy causes detrimental impacts to health, home and livelihoods. 

Plastic is also driving the climate crisis, which disproportionately impacts coastal developing countries and SIDS that are particularly vulnerable to sea level rises and extreme weather. 

For the Global Plastics Treaty to be successful in driving a just transition to a circular economy and a healthy future, the current inequities associated with plastics must be acknowledged and addressed.  

The treaty must represent the voices of communities that are disproportionately impacted by the impacts of plastics, and their knowledge and rights must be integrated into policy design that upholds principles of environmental justice.  

Many of the groups advocating for the rights of most-impacted communities are often excluded from the decision-making spaces of the negotiations. The Global Plastics Treaty must ensure that the voices of those disproportionately affected by the plastics crisis are represented – and their rights upheld. 

The Global Plastics Treaty should be designed from the outset to complement legislation protecting human rights and labour rights.  

Currently, informal workers perform 60% of global waste collection for plastic recycling, but their contribution is not formally recognised, and they often do not have adequate labour rights, a fair share of profits or a safe working environment. This makes injuries, illnesses and exploitation common. To address this, the Treaty must include specific measures to protect informal workers across the plastics value chain. 

In addition, the treaty must  align with and enhance the Basel-Bamako Conventions on the shipping of hazardous wastes to put an end to waste colonialism further burdening historically-exploited countries. 

Read full statement here.

Every year, it costs global governments more than US $32 billion to collect, sort, dispose and recycle the huge quantities of plastic waste generated. These costs are not evenly distributed, with countries in the Global South facing the highest costs due to uneven impacts of plastic pollution and the limitations of their existing waste management systems. 

The treaty presents an opportunity to ensure stable, adequate and predictable levels of financial support for governments to fulfil their core obligations to effectively implement treaty measures.   

This must include a robust financial mechanism, which advances a just transition toward a circular economy and provides specific support provisions for SIDS, including priority access to fast tracked resources, technology transfer, technical assistance and capacity building.  

Public funds alone will be vastly insufficient to achieve our collective goal. To fulfil an ambitious Treaty, private sector involvement is critical.   

The plastic crisis has largely been driven by a relatively small number of firms in the petrochemical and consumer goods industries. These companies have an ethical responsibility to financially support the implementation of the Treaty – and the financial means to do so.  

Common Seas supports the proposal for a plastic pollution fee as put forward by Ghana and Norway as a key source of additional finance, alongside sustainable financing mechanisms such as EPR. 

The treaty should establish an additional fund dedicated to tackling existing pollution in the environment and the remediation of legacy plastic waste. 

This should be targeted specifically at supporting vulnerable countries and SIDS that bear a disproportionately heavy burden of legacy plastics.   

Consistent national reporting and an enabling environment are vital for effective alignment of financial flows.   

Environmental policy instruments, such as national plans, play a significant role in aligning financing by providing key information that reduces uncertainty and stimulates transparency. Financing must be a central component of National Plans to guide the allocation of financial resources. 

Alongside this, the Treaty must create an enabling environment for investment, by including provisions for capacity building and training, technology transfer, institutional strengthening, policy development and pilot projects. 

An ambitious provision on financing will be key to ensuring consistent and predictable support for member states to implement an ambitious and impactful treaty.  

Read the full statement here.

The benefits of EPR – or Extended Producer Responsibility – are widely recognised for supporting design for circularity, driving collection and recycling system efficiency, and increasing transparency of material and financial flows. To date, over 400 EPR schemes exist worldwide, 75% of these developed in the last 20 years. 

An ambitious provision on EPR in the Global Plastics Treaty has the potential to provide sustainable funding, incentivise producers to minimise waste and increase circularity, and drive alignment, and level the playing field for multinational businesses. 

To ensure an effective provision on EPR in the Global Plastics Treaty, there must be a legal obligation for all parties to the treaty to establish and regulate EPR systems.  

Whilst taking into consideration countries; different starting, this obligation would ensure a minimum level of harmonisation of EPR regulations across markets and facilitate the technical assistance and safeguards necessary to ensure a just transition.  

However, first, member states need to develop an agreed definition of EPR in the treaty text. 

Extended Producer Responsibility should be defined as an environmental policy approach that holds producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products, from design decisions through to the end-of-life stage – including managing and funding the collection, treatment, and processing of post-consumer waste.  

The objective of EPR schemes is to encourage producers to develop products that are easier to reuse, recycle, or dispose of sustainably. Producers need to design products for circularity, which is currently not happening at the scale we need.      

With a definition agreed, the Treaty must set out key principles for the design of effective and fair EPR systems, with clear objectives and scope. 

Businesses need harmonised rules in order to scale innovative systems-change solutions. To accomplish this, we need a global plastics treaty that mandates EPR with agreed minimum levels of harmonisation and key principles.   

EPR schemes should incentivize waste reduction and promote circularity through eco-modulated fees, clear targets and transparent reporting linked to rewards for exceeding minimum design standards and penalties for noncompliance. 

Support must be provided for governments to establish or improve their legislative framework, particularly in SIDS and countries in the Global South 

SIDS and countries in the Global South could face significant challenges when establishing the necessary infrastructure and other enabling conditions to design and deliver effective EPR schemes.   

The treaty must therefore facilitate support to ensure For example, a global ‘EPR hub’, established under the treaty and based on exiting initiatives, could provide guidance and facilitate knowledge exchange across industries and countries on the development of socially inclusive, harmonised and effective systems.    

It must also provide a framework for the development of solutions tailored to the realities of remote geographies to more effectively tackle plastic pollution and strengthen blue economy resilience.  

Common Seas remains committed to supporting efforts to accelerate research into the effective implementation of EPR in SIDS in line with the future treaty, including via regional approaches.

Read the full statement here.