Related Stories
To create effective National Plans that truly advance the goals of the Global Plastics Treaty, we recommend the following:
These elements, if integrated into the Treaty, can help avoid the issues seen in other treaties such as the Paris Agreement, and set National Plans on a clear path to success.
Plastic pollution is one of the most urgent environmental crises facing our planet, harming our economies, environment, and health.
The Global Plastics Treaty, currently under negotiation, is a once in a generation opportunity, a chance to redefine our relationship with plastics. To do that, it will have to create binding, global commitments that span the full lifecycle of plastics.
One of the most likely ways to deliver the Treaty are National Plans, also known as National Action Plans. By the end of the second round of negotiations, National Plans were one of the few components of the Treaty drawing consensus, with over 85% of the negotiating countries supporting an approach based on National Plans.
National Plans are specific, tailored plans countries can use to achieve the Treaty’s global goals. Imagine the future, three years from now: every country in the world has a National Plan on Plastics, following the same format, using the same metrics with binding national targets contributing towards binding global commitments on plastics.
The problem is this: National Plans have a somewhat chequered history, and there is justified scepticism about their potential for success.
To create successful National Plans that actually deliver global impact on plastics, it is vital we avoid the mistakes of the past in treaties such as the Paris Agreement.
In this blog, we share a few of the lessons learned from previous treaties. We also offer our recommendations to ensure that National Plans can be powerful tools to implement the Global Plastics Treaty. With coordinated national action, we can deliver a future freed from plastic.
National Action Plans are a favourite tool to implement treaties, most notably in the Paris Agreement that superseded the Kyoto Protocol as the global response to climate change.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country created its own Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) to address climate change. This approach compounded the absence of binding global obligations. The key issues are:
Under the Paris Agreement, countries set their own voluntary commitments. As Daniel Bodansky wrote in the UN’s Audiovisual Library of International Law:
“Like the Kyoto Protocol and unlike the Copenhagen Accord, the Paris Agreement is a treaty within the meaning of international law, but not all its provisions establish legal obligations. Most importantly, parties do not have an obligation to achieve their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to address climate change – thus, in that respect, NDCs are not legally binding.”
As a result, some countries set low goals, while others made ambitious plans but none of them faced consequences if (and when) they fell short.
One of the positives in the Paris Agreement was that it included detailed rules on accounting and transparency to promote accountability and ambition. However, as Kilian Raiser noted, “…a lack of clear reporting standards and comparable information renders the Paris Agreement’s transparency provisions ineffective.”
This lack of a standardised NAP structure resulted in inconsistent information, making it hard to compare plans and assess overall progress.
The lack of consistent, standardized monitoring and reporting means there is no reliable way to measure progress or enforce accountability.
Many developing countries are struggling to fulfill their Paris Agreement commitments due to limited financial resources and technical support.
Imagine the difference if signatories to the Paris Agreement had been able to agree to resolve these issues in 2015. That’s the scale of the opportunity we have in the Global Plastics Treaty.
To ensure that National Plans deliver real change, we recommend four essential components for the Global Plastics Treaty:
National Plans are no substitute for binding global targets.
While countries need flexibility to adapt targets to their unique circumstances, the overall goal must be an ambitious, binding, global agreement, with global rules that address the full lifecycle of plastics, from consumption to disposal.
As Antaya March and colleagues wrote in the Global Plastics Policy Brief on Effectiveness of National Action Plans:
“Global goals, supported by nested national, regional, sector, or solution-specific targets can be a rallying call for, and a measure of, internationally consistent action.”
This approach has more in common with the Kyoto Protocol, which set binding reduction targets for 37 industrialised countries, economies in transition, and the EU.
Under the protocol, these countries committed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. Over 20 of the signatories succeeded in lowering their carbon emissions and, as The Guardian newspaper noted: “Overall, there are more successes than failures and the sum of emissions from nations with Kyoto targets have fallen significantly.”
The Global Plastics Treaty should require countries to set national targets that align with global goals. This means that countries should not only address local issues but also contribute to reducing global plastic waste. If each NAP is part of a larger global plan, we can create consistent and powerful action on plastic pollution worldwide.
Of course, to do that, we need a consistent structure:
While the details of National Plans are unlikely to be agreed in the fifth round of negotiations, the Global Plastics Treaty should require the development of a mandatory structure and content for National Plans during the Diplomatic Conference in 2025.
At a minimum, the National Plans should complement the Treaty, outlining how each government is working towards meeting the globally binding obligations.
With a standardized format, we can avoid a repeat of countries setting inconsistent goals, and low-ambition approaches that we saw in Paris. With standardised structures, it will be easy to demonstrate how national approaches are contributing to a global reduction in plastic pollution.
Monitoring, evaluation, and reporting (MER) systems are key to ensuring that countries stay on track. For the Global Plastics Treaty to be effective, it should establish a standard, transparent reporting framework that all countries can follow.
The Treaty should set a consistent baseline year, methods for measuring progress, and regular reporting requirements so countries can accurately compare their progress and share learnings.
A peer review system could also help countries share challenges and successes, ensuring transparency and encouraging improvement.
By using a consistent MER framework, we can create a reliable picture of global progress and hold countries accountable, while helping nations learn from each other’s successes and challenges.
One of the most significant challenges for National Plans in previous treaties has been the lack of capacity to develop, implement and report, especially for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and other countries disproportionately impacted by plastic pollution. Many countries with limited resources are likely to struggle to meet their commitments without outside support.
For the Global Plastics Treaty to be effective, it must include provisions for financial and technical assistance, such as dedicated funds for developing, implementing, and maintaining National Plans.
It should also provide technical assistance for data collection, technology upgrades, and expertise sharing to ensure each country can meet the required standards.
As we approach the fifth (and final) round of negotiations (INC-5), it is essential that the Treaty text includes strong provisions for creating successful National Plans.
At INC-5, negotiators should focus on defining clear global goals and a framework for National Plans that align with those goals. Although not all details will be resolved immediately, setting these foundational standards and a clear roadmap for the next steps to adopt design guidelines, will ensure that National Plans become a strong tool for meeting the Treaty’s objectives.
Common Seas will continue to support the development of ambitious National Plans by partnering with governments to create tailored solutions for their plastic pollution problems. Through initiatives like the Sustainable Blue Economies (SBE) Programme, we work directly with Small Island Developing States to build National Plans that aim to reduce plastic pollution by over 70% in the next decade.
With the right structure and support, National Action Plans can be a powerful tool in the fight against plastic pollution. By setting clear global standards and supporting countries in their unique contexts, the Global Plastics Treaty can be a compass that points us toward a world freed from plastic.
1. For a deeper understanding of how National Action Plans can drive meaningful action, read our policy brief, "Delivering an Effective Global Plastics Treaty through Coordinated National Action." This document offers in-depth insights and recommendations, drawing on our analysis of past treaties and practical experience working with governments around the world.
2. Global Plastics Policy Brief on Effectiveness of National Action Plans
Related Stories
Sign up to our newsletter to learn more about our upcoming programmes
