UN Plastics Treaty: WWF concerned harmful plastics and chemicals could be permitted

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has raised concerns over the third iteration of a “non-paper” set to shape the world’s first comprehensive treaty to end plastic pollution. It has been released as the basis for discussions at the Fifth Session of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) in Busan, South Korea. However, WWF’s policy brief highlights crucial gaps that could undermine the effectiveness of the final treaty.

WWF acknowledges that this third iteration of the informal document is clearer and cleaner than the previous draft produced at INC-4. However, the NGO emphasizes that it still lacks explicit text to ban and phase out the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern, even though the majority of states already support these measures.

Eirik Lindebjerg, global plastics policy lead at WWF, tells Packaging Insights: “Banning and phasing out the avoidable and most harmful plastic products is an absolutely essential measure in any efforts to tackle plastic pollution. Negotiators need to make sure that such bans are included in the final treaty.”

Gaps in framework

WWF notes that the non-paper also falls short of mandating sustainable product design requirements and provides no clear framework for funding distribution to support countries’ compliance. 

“Currently, binding provisions on product design are supported by over 100 states. It is critical that the treaty includes both product design criteria and systems requirements to increase reduction, reuse and refill, durability and repairability, recyclability and use of recycled content. The “non-paper does not reference criteria nor system requirements,” explains Lindebjerg.

“National extended producer responsibility (EPR) is currently only included as a voluntary measure, while there is strong support from States and businesses alike for this to be binding. WWF calls for governments to demand mandatory national EPR schemes as part of the new treaty. ”

Eirik Lindebjerg, global plastics policy lead at WWF.Lindebjerg noticed that the supply side provision has been left open by the Chair, resulting in unclarity on whether the treaty will include any direct measures limiting production. 

“It is now up to states to make sure that the treaty also includes supply side measures to address unsustainable levels of global production and allow for strengthening these measures over time,” he shares.

Warning on voting mechanism

The NGO also raises the alarm over a clause in the non-paper that could empower a single party to veto any future decisions made by the treaty’s governing body. 

“The current proposal — not including rules for Conference of Parties decision-making in the treaty text and adopting all procedural rules by consensus — means that any one Party could veto any future developments. This is significant and worrying because it can lead to major delays and stagnation,” Lindebjerg highlights.

“If one Party can stop any initiative or block any decision, it would make the treaty incapable of adapting to new knowledge and it would make it almost impossible to strengthen or adapt the measures in the treaty along the way depending on progress made, rapidly making the treaty irrelevant. ”

WWF insists that the treaty needs to remain effective in the face of shifting global circumstances.

“As part of the agreement in Busan, the treaty must include provisions to stipulate that the COP, which is the organizational body that takes over from the INC, can adopt decisions by a majority vote in case consensus cannot be reached,” Lindebjerg says.

WWF calls for INC-5 to secure binding commitments in future-proofing the treaty through mechanisms that guarantee strengthening over time.

“The non-paper provides the basis of negotiations in Busan and, as such, deliberately leaves many gaps open. This highlights how important it is for governments to push hard to fill these gaps with binding global rules,” Lindebjerg concludes.