EFRA Committee hears concerns over "last chance" Global Plastics Treaty talks

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee has heard evidence describing the upcoming Global Plastics Treaty negotiations as the "last chance saloon" for reaching an agreement. On 8 July, the Committee held a one-off evidence session to explore how the UK can advance struggling negotiations ahead of crucial talks in Geneva next month.

International negotiations involving 175 countries have been ongoing since 2022, aimed at developing a legally binding agreement to eliminate plastic pollution by 2040.

Negotiations were originally scheduled to conclude in November 2024 at the fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) in Busan. However, the session failed to achieve an agreement due to disagreements between high-ambition countries pushing for production cuts and oil-producing nations resisting upstream measures. A resumed session, INC-5.2, has been arranged to finalise the treaty and will take place from 5 to 12 August in Geneva.

Rudy Shulkind, political campaigner at Greenpeace UK, summarised the four key elements that he believes the UK delegation should advocate for in Geneva: cutting plastic production, regulating harmful products and chemicals, establishing an ambitious financial mechanism for Global South countries, and enabling voting procedures rather than consensus-only decision making.

Production cuts face industry resistance

During the session, Greenpeace's Shulkind advocated for legally binding production cuts, criticising a solely waste management approach. He cited Greenpeace research which claims that only 17 per cent of UK plastic is recycled, significantly lower than the 60 per cent figure often claimed.

"The holy grail of this treaty is cutting plastic production," Shulkind told the committee, proposing a 75 per cent reduction by 2040.

Professor Richard Thompson, Professor of Marine Biology at the University of Plymouth, reiterated the need to reduce plastic production. He told the committee that current production of around 450 million tonnes of plastic annually is predicted to triple by 2060, with production escalating faster than waste management capacity can cope.

Industry representatives presented contrasting perspectives. Joe Francis, Vice President of Sustainability at Coca-Cola, emphasised their support for a legally binding global plastics treaty. "We have been, as Coca Cola, attending every one of the INCs," Francis stated. As a founding member of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics treaty, which brings together 290 businesses, they are working to 'support getting the treaty over the line,' Francis added.

In contrast, INEOS's Peter Williams firmly opposed production caps because of potential "unintended consequences." INEOS, an upstream virgin plastic producer responsible for approximately 33 per cent of UK plastics, instead prefers to focus on choosing "the right material for the job," according to Williams.

Patrick Brighty, Head of Recycling Policy at the Environmental Services Association (ESA), outlined its approach, saying that while the ESA has had "quite limited engagement directly in the process," they are signatories to the UK government's statement calling for an ambitious and effective treaty. Brighty emphasised that their focus has been on "what the UK government can do domestically to create the conditions to develop a domestic circular economy for plastics and, by extension, minimise the global impacts of plastic waste generated in the UK."

Industry lobbying threatens negotiations

Shulkind expressed concern over industry influence, stating that at the last treaty negotiations held in Busan, there were 222 industry lobbyists, collectively forming the largest delegation.

He warned: "It's a major risk with smaller countries, in some cases, lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry actually able to be on the delegation of countries. So they have a seat at the table, at the negotiations, in a way that civil society, indigenous communities don't have a seat at the table."

Professor Thompson reported facing legal threats from companies when conducting peer-reviewed research on plastic pollution. He revealed that fellow scientists have been verbally threatened on UN premises during treaty negotiations.

Thompson described these threats as "a slightly David and Goliath battle" that represents a fundamental challenge to scientific independence in addressing plastic pollution. He expressed particular concern for younger scientists who may not be prepared to withstand such pressures.

Inadequate chemical regulations

The committee heard evidence on the need for the Global Treaty to address regulatory gaps surrounding chemicals in plastics. Professor Thompson stated that there are 16,000 chemicals associated with plastic production, of which 4,000 are known to be hazardous, with only a small minority regulated via existing international agreements.

Thompson explained that eliminating just one chemical could yield enormous savings: "It's estimated, for example, that if we were to eliminate Bisphenol A in the US and Europe, that could save around four billion [pounds] per year in health costs."

Shulkind advocated for banning "categories or groups of chemicals rather than individual chemicals" because companies can "slightly alter the formulation of chemicals so that they evade the ban."

The British Plastics Federation's Helen Jordan expressed concerns about creating lists of problematic materials and chemicals, suggesting that such lists "wouldn't necessarily take into consideration applications of material of particular countries and requirements." She emphasised the importance of ensuring "plastic is used where it offers the best environmental outcome" and considering alternatives on a case-by-case basis.

Debate over financial mechanisms

Another debate emerged regarding financial support for countries in the Global South. Witnesses explained that some countries support creating a dedicated multilateral fund for the treaty, while others support using the existing Global Environment Facility, which has provided over 26 billion dollars in financing over the past 30 years.

Dr Alison Lundna explained the UK government's stance that using the existing fund would reduce administrative burden. However, Shulkind noted that almost all countries in the Global South are calling for dedicated funds due to past difficulties accessing finance.

Professor Thompson highlighted that the financial mechanisms debate could undermine negotiations: "I remember specifically speaking to one country that was a less well off nation at the negotiations in Ottawa, and he said to me, you know, I totally get what the science is telling me. My heart is telling me I need to have high aspirations for my country. My head is telling me I'm worried that I can't afford it, and I'm worried that whatever the richer nations tell me, they will renege on their promises."

Thompson concluded that it is important to prepare a clear financial plan before INC-5.2 to ensure a "just transition and that no one is left behind."

Witnesses emphasised the importance of strengthening the High-Ambition Coalition in preparation for August, a group of 100 countries supporting strong measures across the four key priorities identified during the session.