Microplastics Fingerprinting project joins world leaders at global plastic pollution negotiations
By Stephanie Slowinksi
As a representative of the Microplastics Fingerprinting project, I had the chance to join world leaders in Kenya this past November at the third negotiation session for the Global Plastics Treaty. Led by the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), the meeting was part of an effort to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution. I was invited to join as part of the Environmental Defence delegation, one of our project partners.
I walked into the meeting confident in my scientific knowledge of plastic pollution but quickly realized that there was a lot to learn related to policy solutions. I encountered terms like “just transition,” “safe circularity,” “waste pickers,” and “fence line communities.” There were also other concepts that I knew but had not considered in the context of plastic pollution, such as “Indigenous knowledge.”
Often mentioned as being critical to an effective treaty, the concept of a “legally binding instrument” was a central theme discussed at the meeting. This refers to the ability of the UNEA, as the entity responsible for development and implementation, to hold signatories accountable for following the treaty’s rules.
Essentially, the UNEA uses Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) to preserve and rehabilitate specific aspects of the environment. MEAs are resolved to be made and then negotiated, ratified, and implemented. One well known example of an MEA is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which just hosted their annual Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Dubai this past December. Other MEAs that you might have heard of include the Minamata Convention on Mercury, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.
At the meeting in Nairobi, the international community was tasked with negotiating a MEA for plastic pollution. It began with a review of the zero draft (ZD) text that was developed at the first two negotiation sessions. The ZD determines major directions for the treaty, including through the definitions for plastic pollution and the implementation mechanisms for controlling plastic pollution. These conversations turned out to be less than simple as I watched different UN member states debate whether they agreed or not with aspects of the ZD text.
It was also interesting to observe the influence of the petrochemical industry at the meeting. The outcomes of the treaty will have a significant impact on the industry since most plastic is made of chemicals derived from fossil fuels. They were largely promoting the idea that recycling and other forms of waste management can address the problem of plastic pollution, as opposed to cuts in new plastic production. However, scientists and others, including Indigenous knowledge holders, have called this into question, highlighting that the current plastic manufacturing and recycling processes result in the release of harmful chemicals.
At the end of the meeting, there was still a lack of agreement in various areas, including:
- Whether there can be a stated link between plastic production and plastic pollution (i.e., some frame plastic pollution as only the result of mismanaged plastic waste)
- The definition of ‘plastics’ that would be covered under the treaty
- If plastic production reduction targets should be included in the treaty or if other measures are sufficient (e.g., the promotion of a safe circular economy, harmful chemicals regulation, etc.)
Ultimately, the meeting in Nairobi did not get as far as many member states hoped. There was no consensus on the ZD text, nor was there agreement on intersessional work (i.e., identification of topics to be discussed between the negotiation sessions). For additional perspectives on the Nairobi meeting, see the commentaries published by the organizations, Environmental Defence and the Centre for International Environmental Law.
So how does this connect back to the Microplastics Fingerprinting project? While microplastics are mentioned in the ZD text, it is not the current focus, except in two cases: 1) banning the intentional addition of microplastics in cosmetic products, and 2) considering microplastics as “emissions” under the “full lifecycle of plastics” concept (alongside other types of emissions such as greenhouse gases emitted during the manufacturing process). It remains to be seen how microplastics will be framed in the final text of the treaty. According to the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, they believe the best way to limit microplastics pollution is to reduce plastic production.
The next negotiation session (INC-4) is set to take place in Ottawa, Canada from April 23rd to 29th. The Microplastics Fingerprinting project is currently considering ways to support the development of an effective global plastics treaty informed by robust evidence-based decision-making. If you would like to discuss collaborating opportunities, please contact the project’s Knowledge Mobilization Specialist, Nancy.goucher@uwaterloo.ca.