A little less conversation: How existing governance can strengthen the future global plastics treaty

Abstract

The growing plastic production, the lack of their waste management, and fragmented regulatory responses have increased their abundance in the environment. Plastic pollution has created significant environmental concerns leading to planetary boundary threats. As a result, an increasing number of governments and non-state actors have begun negotiations on a legally binding treaty to cover the full-life-cycle of plastics by 2024. While the negotiations were mandated at the United Nations Environment Assembly 5.2 in March of 2022, how the new agreement would link to existing governance bodies addressing plastic pollution at the global, regional, national and local levels requires careful consideration. This analysis examines the main multi-level governance structures in place to govern plastics while highlighting their principal roles as well as shortcomings and gaps. It then explores ways a new global agreement could complement existing governance structures without imposing and duplicating the work of previous agreements.

Impact statement

Plastic pollution is a serious global challenge. In response, the international community has embarked on a transformative journey towards crafting a comprehensive solution to end plastic pollution in the form of a global treaty. By investigating the gaps and synergies within multi-level governance and regulatory frameworks, this article explores the complex network that aims to establish an effective Global Plastics Treaty.

Introduction

Plastic pollution including marine litter is one of the most pressing issues affecting the planet’s health and productivity. Despite the existing commitments by governments to stop plastic from entering the ocean, annual plastic waste inputs may further grow (Borrelle et al., 2020). According to the OECD, if current trends continue, the worldwide accumulation of plastic waste is projected to increase from 353 million metric tons in 2019 to surpass 1 billion metric tons by 2060 (OECD, 2022). Upstream measures and curbing mismanaged plastic waste within the terrestrial environment are therefore a main priority for all governments. Plastic pollution is a true global, transboundary issue; leaked plastic items of different sizes are transported by a range of natural processes such as wind, rivers, currents and biota, as well as global supply chains and international trade mechanisms (UNEP, 2021; Nyberg et al., 2023). As a result, solutions will have to be found across the entire life-cycle including joint efforts from industry, civil society and authorities in collaboration with the countries along a drainage basin, within marine regions and globally.

An assessment report (Progress in the implementation of resolution 2/11 on marine plastic litter and microplastics Report of the Executive Director, n.d.), presented to the third United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in 2017, concluded that the current legal and institutional framework for addressing plastic litter and microplastics was fragmented and insufficient in addressing the pollution problem (Raubenheimer and McIlgorm, 2017). The report presented three policy options for the international community going forward: (1) continue and encourage existing efforts under current instruments, (2) revise and strengthen existing frameworks by adding new instruments specific to marine plastic litter and microplastics and (3) adopt a Global Plastics Treaty (GPT) with a multi-layered governance approach (Kirk, 2016; Vince and Hardesty, 2017; Raubenheimer and McIlgorm, 2018).

The third option which quickly gained momentum, was adopted at UNEA 5.2 in March of 2022 to begin negotiations on a first of its kind agreement. Before the second half of the fifth UNEA session, three resolutions for a treaty mandate were proposed. The first brought forward by Peru and Rwanda, ensured a full-life-cycle approach to plastics. The second brought forward by Japan focused on marine litter and did not include upstream measures and the final proposed resolution by India focused on voluntary measures and banning plastics for single use (Del Castillo and Dixon, 2021). In the end, the draft resolution proposed by Peru and Rwanda was most prevalent in the adopted text mandate for negotiating an international legally binding instrument (UNEA, 2022). The draft resolution (Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on 2 March 2022 5/14. End plastic pollution: towards an international legally binding instrument, n.d.) recommended establishing an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) with a mandate to agree on a legally binding global agreement to address the full-life-cycle of plastic. It highlighted the need for a commitment to create a framework for international cooperation that includes coordinated actions to address the entire life-cycle of plastics and recommends a circular economy approach, involving all actors, including governments, industry, the scientific community and civil society. The next step in the United Nations–led process towards a Global Plastics Treaty has emerged in the form of a “zero draft” version released in September 2023. It will be negotiated at the third Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-3) in Nairobi. The document offers avenues for reducing plastic production, eliminating polymers and “chemicals of concern,” eliminating short-lived and “avoidable” plastics and creating targets and systems for plastics reduction and reuse. It was prepared by the INC Chair, with the support of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), based on the views of the countries participating in the first and second INC sessions. The Zero Draft will serve as the basis for text negotiations over the next year, with the aim of finalising the treaty text by the end of 2024.

While much thought has already been invested in identifying the potential elements of a new global agreement (Raubenheimer and Urho, 2020; Cowan and Tiller, 2021; Simon et al., 2021; INC, 2023), the way the new agreement would link to the existing governance bodies addressing plastic pollution at the global, regional, national and local level in a way that creates synergies and takes into account existing processes has been less well understood, yet is necessary for successful implementation.

The following section provides the necessary context by first examining the main multi-level governance structures in place, highlighting their principal roles as well as shortcomings and gaps that will need to be addressed within the plastics negotiations. Tiller et al. (2022) reported the fragmentation in plastic governance and how the existing international agreements are not effective to addressing the full problem. Building on this overview, synergies with and potential ways in which a new global agreement could complement the existing governance structures are examined. Such as adopting financial, organisational, reporting and monitoring mechanisms from other treaties to advance the implementation of the GPT. As the adopted mandate takes a full-life-cycle approach, its crucial to avoid duplicating the work of previous MEAs, particularly in matters concerning chemical and marine pollution, where numerous conventions already hold significant importance as examined in Table 1. This process is also called regime or policy convergence and might arise through: emulation, where state officials copy action taken elsewhere; elite networking, where convergence results from transnational policy communities; harmonisation through international regimes and penetration by external actors and interests (Bennett, 1991).

Table 1. International instruments related to plastic pollution and their main gaps improved from Cowan and Tiller (2021)

Note: List is not exhaustive, the major global instruments are highlighted.

^a While the Rotterdam Convention does not specifically target plastic pollution, it plays a role in managing hazardous chemicals and pesticides – some of which might be used in productions, processing and disposal of plastics.

Overview of existing governance frameworks

In this study, governance framework refers to a structured set of principles, policies, processes and mechanisms that guide the decision-making, management and oversight of an organisation, system or a particular issue. It provides a clear structure for how responsibilities are allocated, how decisions are made, and how various stakeholders interact within the defined context. These instruments can be broadly divided into legally binding instruments (hard law), which mainly address a specific issue related to plastic pollution as well as non-legally binding (soft law), although potentially less effective, they aim to address the issue in a more comprehensive and integrated manner (Mendenhall, 2023). Non-legally binding instruments can play a vital role in international relations by offering flexibility, consensus-building mechanisms and guidance in addressing complex challenges and fostering cooperation. They complement legally binding agreements and can be effective tools in the absence of, or in preparation for, formal legal obligations.

The global level

Several existing legal instruments and international agreements have relevance to parts of the life-cycle of plastics, addressing various aspects from production to disposal, including environmental protection, greenhouse gas emissions, trade, chemical and waste management. Numerous international instruments have been adopted to regulate aspects of plastic pollution (UNEP, 2021) from a marine and terrestrial perspective, however, critical challenges remain in terms of enforcement and coordination. These governance frameworks have been unspecific and incomprehensive in their scope and coverage to tackle plastic pollution across its entire life-cycle (Cowan and Tiller, 2021). The effectiveness of these policies also depends on the willingness of governments, industries and communities to implement and adhere to them. Relevant legally binding provisions addressing specific issues related to plastic pollution have been introduced under international instruments (see Table 1). These global instruments related to plastic pollution cover different types of stakeholders and range from conventions, agreements and regulations as well as strategies, action plans, programmes and guidelines. As a result, the global community continues to explore the need for a dedicated and overarching global plastics treaty or agreement.

Some examples of international soft law instruments, non-legally binding, attempting to combat plastic pollution are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Soft instruments related to plastic pollution and their main gaps

Note: List is not exhaustive, only some of the soft instruments are highlighted.

Despite this wide range of international instruments which have been introduced over the years (see Figure 1), the international policy framework has several shortcomings to address plastic pollution. First and foremost, the hard law instruments listed do not specifically target plastic pollution across its entire life cycle and thus have limited reach and require more uniformity (i.e. UNCLOS and MARPOL). Moreover, most legally binding instruments focus on addressing the sea-based sources of plastic pollution (Raubenheimer and McIlgorm, 2017; Vince and Hardesty, 2018; Ferraro and Failler, 2020), even though land-based sources are responsible for the majority of global plastic pollution (Li et al., 2022). Second, most existing international instruments endeavouring to regulate plastic pollution from all sources lack enforcement and compliance mechanisms (Vince and Hardesty, 2018). Inefficiency and execution issues in the implementation of soft laws have been documented across various instruments (Chen, 2015; Karasik et al., 2020). Only a few binding commitments such as those under MARPOL Annex V and the London Convention and Protocol explicitly address the problem of marine plastic pollution and create appropriate implementation mechanisms (Vince and Hardesty, 2018; Karasik et al., 2020). Third, the existing international regulatory framework is disjointed due to its lack of coordination, limited enforcement mechanisms, resource strains, as well as its diverse set of interests and priorities by UN member states. This makes the implementation of an ecosystem approach difficult and undermines strong leadership and the formulation of generally agreed targets (like the SDGs), which could guide global action to reduce plastic pollution (Ferraro and Failler, 2020; Karasik et al., 2020). Finally, current global instruments mostly aim to address downstream pollution while less activities were aimed at promoting the needed transformation of upstream and circular approaches (Barrowclough and Birkbeck, 2022).

Figure 1. Timeline depicting main global regulations and policies relevant to marine plastics and the build-up towards the future Global Plastic Treaty in 2024. Source: GRID Arendal (UNEP, 2021).

The regional level

Regional governance instruments provide the opportunity to address plastic pollution within countries sharing borders and ecoregions. Regional instruments and cooperation efforts can help support member states in meeting their obligations to MEAs. They facilitate the development and implementation of monitoring, agreements, strategies, action plans, programmes and guidelines tailored to address the challenges, needs and characteristics of different regions and affected countries. As such, they create an opportunity to implement the standards set by international instruments, thus potentially inspiring further action around the world by inspiring higher ambition and knowledge transfer from various communities (Wienrich et al., 2021).

Several relevant regional conventions and frameworks already address plastic pollution (see Table 3); however, these are mostly focused on the marine environment and fall short in addressing other environmental compartments (e.g. freshwater, atmospheric) and social aspects (e.g. human health and rights). Relevant regional instruments include the Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans, as well as activities carried out under Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) and Regional Economic Organisations (REOs) (Wienrich et al., 2021). These regional sea conventions and programmes often have specific strategies, targets and initiatives to address plastic pollution in their respective marine environments. They promote cooperation among countries within their regions to collectively tackle the issue of marine litter and plastic pollution, reflecting the understanding that plastic pollution is a global challenge requiring localised solutions and actions. Other relevant regional instruments are inter alia regional agreements which are set up to support international conventions by facilitating national implementation (see Table 3).

Table 3. Current regional instruments related to plastic pollution and their main gaps

Note: List is not exhaustive, only some of the regional instruments across geographical areas are highlighted.

Most of the actions and measures created by those regional instruments are soft law instruments that often lack the authority and resources to promote the implementation of agreements. Some of the critical challenges regional instruments face are a lack of human and financial capacities, geographic gaps, the significant variation in the level of implementation of measures to address plastic pollution among countries, differences in capacities and systems in place to monitor and assess relevant data, deficits in the implementation of multi-stakeholder approaches and a widespread lack of engagement with the private sector (Wienrich et al., 2021; Manyara et al., 2023). It will be vital that the global agreement draws from the best practices of these regional instruments as well as aids in strengthening them (Maes and Preston-Whyte, 2023).

The (sub)national level

The obligations made under the auspices of international and regional instruments only become effective once they are incorporated into national legislation and are implemented and enforced. Two types of national plans exist, national implementation plans (NIPs) and national action plans (NAPs), the main difference between them lies in their scope and level of detail. NIPs are typically more comprehensive and are developed to meet specific obligations under a complex MEA, while NAPs are more action-oriented and can be used for a broader range of environmental initiatives. Both types of plans play a crucial role in helping countries meet their commitments under MEAs and address environmental challenges effectively. The effectiveness of national implementation depends on the presence of national and local policies as well as the available waste management infrastructures (Dauvergne, 2018) and subsequent uptake by stakeholders. An extensive range of NAPs have been developed and implemented by countries worldwide to address plastic pollution (Vince and Hardesty, 2018; GRID-Arendal, 2021). Among these national actions are policies regulating the sources of plastic pollution, such as restricting or banning the use of certain plastics and actions targeting improved waste management or the monitoring of plastic litter (Dauvergne, 2018; see Table 4).

Table 4. Current national instruments related to plastic pollution and their main gaps

Note: List is not exhaustive, only some of the national instruments across geographical areas are highlighted.

Challenges in addressing plastic pollution at the national level are related to the fact that plastic production, manufacturing, consumption, disposal and its unintentional releases are commonly dispersed (March et al., 2023). Moreover, there is little coordination and conversation between governments, waste management organisations, industry and consumers, on the sheer number of plastic materials produced, used and available for recycling (Tessnow-von Wysocki and Le Billon, 2019). Obviously, this does not even include documentation of chemicals, alternatives or substitutes. An analysis of national policies furthermore indicated that some governments have not developed comprehensive national policies concerning plastic waste (Karasik et al., 2020; March et al., 2023). Some issues are still not addressed, especially those with diffuse sources, pathways and fates, for example, relatively few policy responses exist regarding microplastic pollution (Karasik et al., 2020; March et al., 2023) and certainly none exist for nanoplastics. The notion of a circular economy is perceived as a more environmentally sound substitute for the conventional linear model characterised by “take-make-dispose.” Its objective is to confront ecological dilemmas like the depletion of resources, pollution and the accumulation of waste, all while yielding economic advantages, such as diminished material expenses, the generation of jobs in repair and recycling sectors, and heightened resilience within supply chains. Multiple entities, corporations and governments have been adopting the principles of the circular economy to foster sustainable growth and tackle urgent environmental concerns. Some key principles of a circular economy are regenerative and restorative and encompass designing durable products to extended their lifespan; fostering reuse, repair, remanufacturing and environmentally sound recycling practices; prioritising efficient resource utilisation; encouraging shared consumption models (e.g. rentals); harnessing digitalisation, innovation and resource management optimisation (Pires and Martinho, 2019). While the concept of a circular economy is widely regarded as a more sustainable and environmentally friendly alternative it is not without its challenges and issues (e.g. research and development, product demand, material purity and contamination, behavioural change). Addressing these challenges requires a concerted effort from governments, businesses and individuals to create a supportive environment for the transition to a circular economy in MEAs and regional and national policy frameworks. Policy initiatives, investment in infrastructure, consumer education and innovation in product design and manufacturing are all critical components of this transition.

Potential synergies with existing MEAs

The GPT is likely to have linkages and synergies with various MEAs and agreements related to hazardous waste, chemicals, biodiversity and climate change (see Table 5). Collaborative efforts and coordination among these agreements can lead to more effective strategies for addressing the complex issue of plastic pollution and its environmental impacts.

Table 5. Potential synergies between current MEAs and their linkages to the GPT

Note: The list is not exhaustive, only some of the MEAs are highlighted.

To start, the future GPT can adopt relevant provisions and elements from existing MEAs that deal with waste management, hazardous materials and pollution control. For example, it can incorporate principles from the Basel Convention for regulating the transboundary movement of plastic waste. It can establish control measures for plastic production, use, disposal and recycling, taking inspiration from control measures in MEAs like the Stockholm Convention for Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and the Montreal Protocol for ozone-depleting substances. Therefore, cooperation and coordination with other MEAs, international organisations and initiatives working on related issues should be promoted. Collaboration can avoid duplication of efforts and create synergies to address complex challenges. Capacity-building measures and experiences from other MEAs should be utilised to enhance member countries’ abilities to address plastic pollution effectively. This may involve technical assistance, knowledge sharing and technology transfer. Collaboration between governments, industry and other stakeholders is essential to effectively achieve the goals of these MEAs and address pressing global environmental issues.

Learning from the implementation measures of other MEAs, the new GPT can create a framework for member countries to enact and enforce policies and regulations related to plastic management. This includes setting up monitoring, reporting and enforcement mechanisms. Successful reporting and accountability mechanisms applied in other MEAs can be used to design a framework for the GPT. Establishing science-based targets for plastic pollution reduction will provide a solid foundation for action. Scientific assessment processes similar to those used in climate change agreements like the Paris Agreement should be incorporated. As well as regular reporting and review processes to track progress and hold member countries accountable for meeting their commitments. We should learn from the adaptive management approaches of other MEAs that allow for adjustments and improvements in response to changing circumstances and emerging scientific findings.

Financial mechanisms used in other MEAs should also be considered in the future GPT, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) or specific funds dedicated to addressing particular environmental issues. These mechanisms can provide financial support for member countries to implement plastic pollution reduction initiatives. To promote sustainable practices and investments, the treaty can encourage performance indicators that prioritise projects and initiatives aimed at reducing plastic pollution. Drawing from the principles of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which supports climate-resilient and low-emission projects, the treaty can guide member countries towards environmentally sound investments.

Incorporating these elements from other MEAs will help the GPT build on the successes and lessons learned from previous international environmental agreements. It can create a more robust framework to address the urgent and complex issue of plastic pollution effectively and comprehensively.

Implications for a new global agreement to address plastic pollution

The previous sections introduced the main instruments forming the current governance frameworks tackling plastic pollution, mainly in the marine environment and the related shortcomings, gaps and potential synergies. This section reflects on how the new GPT may address these shortcomings and thus provide an effective instrument able to improve the current fragmented governance of plastics’ life-cycle. We argue that if a new global agreement is to be developed, it must (1) set clear and ambitious targets and goals; (2) address regulatory gaps and (3) strengthen existing efforts at the global, regional, national and subnational levels.

Set clear ambitious goals and achievable targets

To address the sources of plastic pollution across the full-life-cycle of plastics, a high-level political commitment is needed, which drives all relevant policy sectors towards harmonised actions for the prevention, mitigation and removal of plastic pollution. A High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution has been formed, which includes 60 nations (as of October 2023) with a clear goal to ensure a strong GPT (HAC Homepage – High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution: High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution n.d.). The coalition has developed clear goals and targets, such as reducing production and incorporating circular principals. Setting production limits will be critical in this regard to deal with the sheer volume of plastics produced worldwide. Some experts and also industry representatives propose a production cap on virgin plastics to drive down aggregated global plastics production (Simon et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Bergmann et al., 2022) and to reduce dependency on fossil fuels (Guardian, 2021). However, for this to function, a production cap will need to ensure fair principles where low-income nations dependent on plastic products are not disadvantaged by the cap (e.g. higher production costs may equal higher consumer costs). Global targets could then be translated into regional and national implementation plans (RIP & NIP), requiring obligations towards monitoring and reporting to evaluate the future treaties effectiveness (GRID-Arendal, 2021; Wienrich et al., 2021).

Address regulatory gaps

Implementing key international conventions and other agreements aimed at addressing plastic pollution presents successes and challenges (Kuyper et al., 2018; Petersson and Stoett, 2022; Stokke et al., 2022). A brief overview can be found in Table 6.

Table 6. Successes and challenge to implementing MEAs list is not exhaustive, only some of the national instruments across geographical areas are highlighted based upon Petersson and Stoett (2022)

The GPT needs to address existing legal and institutional gaps as well as potential synergies as outlined in the previous sections. These include geographical gaps, especially regarding the High Seas and some regional gaps where few or no regional instruments are in place such as areas beyond national jurisdiction which is expected to briefly be addressed in the soon to be implemented BBNJ agreement. In addition to establishing limits to production (Simon et al., 2021), a new GPT provides an opportunity to address current regulatory gaps regarding issues on the design and trade of plastics, and processes for the removal and remediation of legacy plastics. For example, redesigning plastic products to make them safer in terms of chemical and polymer content would also facilitate subsequent recycling by simplifying and restricting the number of options on the market (U.S. Plastics Pact, 2020; Fenner and Scheringer, 2021; Wiesinger et al., 2021). High return rates can be achieved by creating economic incentives for plastic recycling and/or reuse (e.g. taxes, deposit return schemes) (Oosterhuis et al., 2014; Tudor and Williams, 2021).

Strengthen existing efforts

Whereas a new global agreement needs to fill critical regulatory gaps, it should build on and strengthen existing efforts of existing MEAs by coordinating the action of relevant stakeholders, harmonising efforts at all levels, providing and promoting finance and capacity building, raising public awareness and supporting research and innovation (Maes and Preston-Whyte, 2023). To improve cooperation and coordination, the future treaty can address gaps in current plastic governance by, for example, creating a reporting framework to encourage open dialogue and information sharing when it comes to the sheer number of plastic pellets, materials and products produced, sold and traded on a global scale. Moreover, the GPT can facilitate technology transfer and capacity-building programs for lower-income nations (i.e. waste management and recycling technologies that work in practice for each country). As well as foster international collaboration to identify solutions for managing all plastic waste streams. This will require binding commitments for reduction, preventions and consider countries individual capabilities with interim targets leading to ambitious long-term goals such as reducing the amount of plastic produced. Stronger standards for a wide range of materials, products, systems and services linked to plastics would allow for improved regulation and permit better collaborations with the industry (e.g. manufacturers, distributors, recyclers), improving transparency and risk determination (Fenner and Scheringer, 2021; Wang et al., 2021). Furthermore, by recognising their role as stewards of the environment, industry can actively contribute to reducing pollution and support broader efforts to preserve ecosystems and biodiversity. Sustainable practices not only benefit the planet, but can also enhance a company’s reputation, attract eco-conscious customers and create a positive impact on the community and the world.

Coordinating action

For effective global governance of plastics, coordination among all relevant stakeholders is crucial. A new GPT should improve this coordination by forming a committee to function as the leading, coordinating body and providing a forum where all relevant stakeholders, including international and regional organisations, governments, NGOs, academia, private sector and civil society, can gather and exchange ideas on what is working, and more importantly what is not. This is written into the negotiation mandate itself and demonstrated in the INCs multi-stakeholder dialogue sessions which took place during and directly before the first session of negotiations in November 2022. In the future, it is probable that, following the adoption of the treaty, a Conference of the Parties (COP) will be established. This COP will consist of representatives from member states of the convention and accredited observers and will be tasked with reviewing the implementation of the GPT.

Achieving adequate management and protection of natural assets requires that the socio-economic and human security needs of the populations are met. One way to reach the goal is through proper governance of the coastal and ocean assets (Kullenberg, 2010). The new GPT could build on the Global Partnership on Plastic Pollution and Marine Litter (GPML) efforts (“Global Partnership On Plastic Pollution and Marine Litter,” n.d.), which was established in 2012 between UN Environment and other UN bodies such as IMO, IOC-UNESCO and FAO. Especially the engagement of the private sector will be a crucial task since private companies will be essential stakeholders when discussing and agreeing on measures such as the use of alternative materials in manufacturing or improvements of waste management systems.

Harmonising efforts at all levels, including monitoring and reporting

Policy coherence and interoperability are other prerequisites for reducing conflicts and promoting synergies between stakeholders and policy areas. By providing common frameworks, guidelines, protocols, and so forth and setting common targets and measures, a new global agreement would harmonise various instruments’ efforts from the global to the (sub)national level. For example, through a systematic spatial and temporal scaling across multiple jurisdictions (e.g. community, municipal, regional, national and international), a generic suite of indicators is applied to monitor the annual changes in plastic production, usage and waste management, as well as pollution and ecosystem health, socioeconomics and governance (Sherman, 2014). Attempts to harmonise efforts must be accompanied by technology and knowledge transfer (on mutually agreed terms), best practice exchange, innovation, cooperation, financial and technical support and capacity building. The lack of common standards, baselines, monitoring methods and reporting systems for social and environmental data in relation to plastic make it difficult to compare data sets. Existing frameworks which could provide potentially relevant plastic indicators and data are for example those developed under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), the Green Growth Indicators and other OECD initiatives, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), the Basel Convention, the Framework for the Development of Environment Statistics (FDES) and the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA). One of the major advantages of these frameworks is their reliance on universally accepted concepts, definitions, classifications and accounting principles. To successfully incorporate plastic-related data into this structure, it will be essential to engage in further mapping and collaborate with pertinent accounts.

Establishing a common framework for data collection and assessment will be crucial to encourage uptake and compliance, while ensuring that the obligations of the agreement can be validated. Environmental policy integration is a key defining feature of sustainable development (Lafferty and Hovden, 2003). Policy integration and adaptive capacity are complementary concepts in the context of addressing complex, dynamic challenges. Integrated policies can help build adaptive capacity by considering diverse factors and promoting holistic decision-making, learning and innovation to enhance resilience in the face of environmental change and uncertainty. Links between existing and proposed collaborative groups, whether they are communities, organisations, governments or stakeholders, enhance adaptive capacity by creating a network of support, knowledge sharing and resource pooling. This collaborative approach strengthens resilience and facilitates effective responses to various challenges, including plastic pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss. This enhances the development of adaptation responses through the coordination of monitoring and review processes to promote learning across scales (Di Gregorio et al., 2017; Greenhill et al., 2021). Improved monitoring, reporting and transparency (e.g. enhanced HS codes for polymer, products and packaging including alternatives and substitutes) will allow for better control of exports, including reducing plastic waste trade to countries ill-equipped to manage waste in an environmentally sound manner. Where necessary, the implementation of such a common framework needs to be supported through regional capacity-building programmes. The GPML platform could act as a depository or clearing house, in allowing to assess progress on the GPT in future years.

Finance and funding

Preventing plastic waste inputs at the source will require significant long-term investments to support technical support, the implementation of policies, strategies, as well as capacity building. The necessary funding for the implementation of a new global agreement could come in four forms: public financing, private financing, public–private partnerships and donors and grants (Galaz et al., 2012; Oliveira and Hersperger, 2018). Especially lower-income nations and emerging markets will need capital input to address infrastructure and capacity needs. At this stage, it is unclear whether the GPT will either provide financial assistance (finances) or facilitate access to global, regional or national financial assistance for developing countries’ and economies in transition to meet the agreement’s objectives. Furthermore, a GPT could create an environment to support innovative financing instruments (e.g. GEF or GCF). Some MEAs obtain financial assistance through bilateral agreements between countries or multilateral agreements or have their own dedicated trust funds, which are financed by contributions from the parties to the treaty. For instance, the Adaptation Fund under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a dedicated trust fund for climate adaptation projects. In the context of climate change agreements, adaptation funds are created to support vulnerable countries in adapting to the impacts of climate change. The funds can be financed through various mechanisms, including carbon market revenue or contributions from developed countries. Investment and financing from financial institutions, including green bonds and impact investments, may also support projects and activities aligned with the GPT goals. Private sector companies, philanthropic foundations and non-governmental organisations may further contribute to dedicated funding mechanisms for the GPT. These novel funding platforms will be crucial to developing and implementing practical finance mechanisms to increase the impact across stakeholders. Such solutions should complement government spending for what governments allocate funding for (e.g. infrastructure development and social welfare programs) and amplify domestic financing (raising funds from within the country) to ensure countries can meet their spending commitments within the GPTs requirements. In addition, there is an interest from the private sector to engage private sector investors. Various financing and funding possibilities are currently being deliberated upon during the INC meetings. These encompass the potential implementation of globally coordinated fees, for instance, on particular polymers, additives and product types. The objective is to apply the “polluter pays” principle effectively and ascertain the responsible parties for levying such charges. This approach is intended to aid nations in fulfilling their financial commitments under the treaty (Proposal for a Global Plastic Pollution Fee in the legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution, 2023). Preventing industries from externalising their production and operating costs is a multifaceted challenge that requires the cooperation of governments, businesses, consumers and civil society. A combination of regulatory and economic measures, alongside a shift in corporate culture and public awareness, can help address this issue and promote sustainability and responsible business practices.

Improving science–policy interface

Inter-agency scientific coordination among the UN agencies about issues relating to the marine environment is formally carried out by GESAMP. Under a new global agreement, the science–policy interface concerning plastic pollution must be expanded by coordinating the efforts of a broader range of stakeholders from a wide range of experts in civil society, science community and the informal sector so that scientific studies and assessments can provide the best possible basis for decision-making across the entire life-cycle of plastics. This is visualised in the creation of an intergovernmental panel of experts to harmonise and steer assessments, develop global standards and regulations (e.g. assessment criteria, baselines, methodologies and protocols), and support and improve the global agreement over time. In the lead-up to INC-1, The Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty (“Scientists’ Coalition – Ikhapp,” n.d.) formed. It comprises autonomous scientists and experts aiming to enrich the treaty proceedings. They provide concise and comprehensible presentations and analyses of scientific insights to member states and observers engaged in the global plastics treaty.

Discussion

Plastic pollution is a global, transboundary problem that requires multilateral solutions and multi-stakeholder engagement. A key conclusion from the pre-UNEA6 sessions and first and second session of GPT negotiations have been that a continuation of “business-as-usual” is not an option. The existing legal and regulatory frameworks have proven insufficient in addressing the growing problem of plastic pollution. The mandate for an ambitious, legally binding global agreement covering the full life-cycle of plastics and allowing for coordination, cooperation and compliance can only be successful when using the foundations of existing governance structures. Promoting regional and sub-national approaches alongside the global plastics treaty negotiations is a prudent choice, particularly given the escalating issue of plastic pollution. After the second round of negotiations on the GPT in June 2023 (INC-2 in Paris), it was clear that two schools of thought are still prevalent for how the treaty should be governed. The first stemmed from a group of like-minded nations who advocated for the treaty to only include NAPs and voluntary measures. The second emerged from nations, including many of which who bear the brunt of the downstream effects of pollution, urged for mandatory and legally binding measures and funding mechanisms for transition (Cowan, 2023).

Although what the treaty may include is still undetermined, what is clear is that the framework created will require full societal systems change. In contrast to previous global agreements that addressed one or a limited number of chemicals, plastics encompass our entire way of life. The harmful effects of plastic pollution on ecosystems and human health are well documented. Furthermore, climate change, ocean acidification and biodiversity loss are already affecting the marine environment and coastal populations (Mendler de Suarez et al., 2014; Talukder et al., 2022). However, to solve the problems society faces from the triple planetary crisis it will require each aspect (biodiversity, climate and pollution) to be addressed via a legally binding instrument with provisions for flexibility to accommodate national and regional contexts and needs along the full life-cycle. An effective GPT will need to build upon regional initiatives gathering “likeminded” nations. Nations could report on monitoring and compliance to a regional body which then can report back to the global level once the treaty is negotiated, and a COP is formed. The regional centres might also assist with developing RIPs and subsequent NIPs depending on national needs.

To succeed in the short-term and reduce plastic pollution, the utilisation of existing global and regional frameworks is required. This should be followed by the formation of new partnerships and stronger regulations under the future GPT. Adopting a full life-cycle approach requires accounting for plastics released into all ecosystems, and a new global agreement should thus address land-based and sea-based sources, focusing on upstream and downstream actions and measures.

Conclusion

In light of the problems caused by plastic pollution, the urgent need for comprehensive and cohesive governance mechanisms cannot be overstated. This study has illuminated the complex landscape of plastic pollution governance and has shed light on the myriad challenges posed by the growing production (including the unregulated material and current lack of design and labelling standards), and inadequate waste management. This complex regulatory landscape requires strong coordinated action which may find synergies within other MEAs. The GPT negotiations mark a pivotal point in the fight against plastic pollution. Mandated at the UNEA 5.2 in March of 2022, this future agreement represents global effort to address the issue from its roots and provide the ability to govern the full life-cycle of plastics globally which has been absent in previous instruments.

As demonstrated, the current landscape of plastic pollution governance is characterised by a patchwork of global, regional, national and local initiatives to curb the problem. The current frameworks play a critical role in mitigating plastic pollution, but numerous shortcomings and gaps remain that undermine their efficacy to govern the full scale of the problem. The fragmented nature of plastic pollution governance has resulted in failure to achieve meaningful progress to end plastic pollution. In picturing the future of plastic governance, it is vital to strike a balance between the new global agreement and existing governance structures, as was demonstrated in Table 5. The future GPT must be crafted with a keen awareness of the strengths and limitations of the present instruments that complement rather than disrupt ongoing efforts. As negotiations continue with the GPT, careful consideration must be given towards mechanisms for information sharing, data harmonisation and cooperation among all governing bodies – such as building upon regional centres to report on efforts and shortcomings in implementing the treaty. Moreover, the success of the treaty will rely on commitments of nations, robust enforcement mechanisms, and the active engagement of civil society and the private sector.

In conclusion, the problem with plastic pollution requires a societal paradigm and global governance shift. The GPT offers hope for a collaborate framework that transcends jurisdictional boundaries. The journey towards a plastics-responsible world is rife with challenges, yet with political will, binding compliance and enforcement measures, a sustainable future can be an achievable aspiration. We need a little less conversation and build upon what exists to end plastic pollution as soon as possible.