In August, negotiators trying to finalise a treaty on ending global plastics pollution failed to reach an agreement. The draft text that did emerge from Geneva was even weaker than the one that had come out of the last negotiations in Busan, in December 2024. The text had shifted from a legally binding framework to a more nationally determined approach.
The negotiations, which began in 2022, are intended to create the first ever legally binding treaty tackling the annual US$1.5 trillion in health harms caused by plastic pollution. These include the microplastics which are now found in human organs.
But the Geneva text removes a list of plastic products to be phased out, waters down compulsory controls on certain plastic products, and reduces the funding responsibilities of developed nations. This all makes that goal seem less achievable.
As the world’s biggest plastics exporter, China is seeking to balance industrial competitiveness with supporting the circular economy. I think the more flexible framework of the Geneva text risks leading to differing standards, which means higher compliance costs for businesses and reduced effectiveness of national investments in plastics reuse. It could also slow the construction of the infrastructure needed to facilitate reuse.
A weakened text
The Geneva talks were difficult, with key disagreements over the definition of plastics and the scope of governance. That countries define chemical additives and polymers differently affects future management.
Some want an inclusive definition to cover the entire industry; others worry too much regulation will stifle innovation. Industrial interests lie behind these disagreements: plastic producers are not keen on manufacturing restrictions, while the small island nations affected by the pollution want it tackled at source.
The negotiators were divided into clear camps. The European Union (EU) led a 130-strong group of nations calling for powerful measures, including limits on production. The US was supportive of recycling but unsure about limits on production, which may be related to its 40 per cent share of PVC exports.
China aimed to maintain its competitiveness while balancing that with the circular economy. A “producer responsibility system” – in which manufacturers are responsible for the waste created at the end of their products’ lives – advocated by the EU and the Pacific island nations, was met with opposition by oil-producing nations excluding China.
Another key dispute was over financing. The developing nations wanted developed nations to be obliged to provide money and resources for funding mechanisms to meet the eventual treaty’s aims. The new talks, however, removed that obligation in favour of voluntary commitments.
The US delegation also questioned whether China and other emerging economies can be classed as developing nations. There were deep divisions over who would pay – particularly over the idea of a polluter-pays principle.
The Geneva draft text is also less binding than the 2024 draft from Busan.
There are changes on the allocation of responsibility, regulatory models, and the effectiveness of enforcement. On funding, the text has downgraded a “shall” to a “should”, reducing the responsibilities of the developed nations to the developing, least-developed and small-island nations.
On regulatory approaches, Busan stressed a top-down approach, with a global list of products to be phased out. Geneva shifts to national standards and risk assessments, with no restrictions on production.
On enforcement, the Geneva text downgrades the role of a science and technology committee. No longer a permanent committee with independent assessment and policy-making powers, it becomes subordinate to the Conference of the Parties, to which it provides advice. Meanwhile, the word “may” associated with producing national plans is strengthened to “should”.
Potential impacts of the new text
The new text, compared to Busan, would reduce the effectiveness of international governance of plastic pollution.
Two methods for tackling the problem – recycling and biodegradable plastics – both have their limitations. Currently only 9 per cent of plastics are recycled. Chemical recycling can produce toxic byproducts such as dioxins, and carbon emissions can be as much as 40 per cent higher than conventional recycling methods.
Most biodegradable plastics need to spend 180 days in an industrial composting facility to break down. In reality, only 0.007 per cent of plastics go through this process.
Reuse is one of the “Three Rs” of plastic management – reduce, reuse, recycle. This means ensuring plastic containers can be refilled with their original contents, extending the lifespan of containers and reducing disposal and recycling costs.
The Busan text tried to set out a framework for that kind of circular economy. It made clear that plastic products would have to be designed for reuse, refilling and repair. It would have banned the production and sale of “oxo-degradable” plastics, meaning conventional polymers that break down into microplastics and cannot be reused or recycled.
It also called for national standards to be set for the collection and recycling of plastic waste and a compulsory producer-responsibility system, to promote full-lifecycle management of plastic products. In the section on funding mechanisms, it listed reuse infrastructure as eligible for funding, creating a complete policy system covering design, production and recycling. These provisions would have laid a solid foundation for the circular economy.
The softening of the Geneva text may hamper that circular economy. There is no more mention of a technical standard for “refillability” – that is, plastic packaging or containers being refilled after cleaning or other processing rather than simply discarded. The ban on oxo-degradable plastics is also removed, as are quantified targets for reuse rates, making promoting the circular economy more of a principle than a measurable goal.
Producer-responsibility systems are now optional rather than required. Although funding mechanisms will continue to “support the circular economy”, priority is no longer given to reuse projects, which may mean waste plastics become more likely to be recycled or burned for power or heat.
The Geneva text also removes the requirement for businesses to disclose the chemical components of their products, and national progress reports have become voluntary. These changes challenge the safety, oversight and transparency of the reuse system. The shift from one global approach to different national programmes means reduction at source becomes optional, and global efforts may become focused on improving downstream recycling.
For China, the weakening of the text brings two challenges. First, exporters will need to deal with multiple national standards, increasing compliance costs. Second, changes to the funding mechanisms makes availability of international funding uncertain; this may delay the roll-out of reusable packaging or infrastructure such as community cleaning stations.
Sustainable solutions
Reuse is one of the most effective and sustainable solutions to the plastic pollution crisis, and China has made a lot of progress on the circular economy and reuse, with various policies and laws in place.
The 14th Five Year Plan for the Circular Economy, for example, has targets for resource reuse rates. While the Method for Use and Reporting of Commercial Single-use Plastics requires firms to report how much plastic they use, laying a foundation for reuse.
Businesses are also seeking out solutions that include reuse. For example, e-commerce site Cainiao stated that by reusing cardboard boxes and introducing reusable plastic boxes it reduced carbon emissions from its warehouses by over 32,000 tonnes in 2024. Meanwhile, SF Express, a delivery firm, packs goods in reusable boxes in 119 cities. There are 1.3 million of the boxes in circulation and they have been used 20.6 million times.
After years of restrictions, consumers are now more accepting of the need to reuse plastic products. According to a survey we carried out at Plastics Free China, while the reuse of food containers is not popular, most other reuse scenarios see approval rates of over 50 per cent, with 66 per cent of respondents being willing to pay a premium for reusable packaging.
I think government support and a coordinating mechanism are needed for reuse to scale up. Government policy could be used to reduce initial costs for companies, with a shared recycling system, which would raise the market competitiveness of reusable packaging.
The transition needs full participation across society. Companies should explore new business models and share their experiences. Consumers need to build new and greener habits. And everyone needs to raise levels of awareness and acceptance of reuse.
The thought-provoking sculpture outside the European headquarters of the UN in Geneva showed us the thinker and the child atop a mountain of plastic waste, warning us of our duties to the planet and to future generations.
This article was originally published on Dialogue Earth under a Creative Commons licence.
