As stakeholders gear up for the fourth round of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) deliberations on plastics in Ottawa, the stakes could not be higher. As per an EA Earth Action report, a whopping 220 million tonnes of plastic waste is set to be generated in 2024. At the same time, recent findings from CSIRO and the University of Toronto reveal an estimated 11 million metric tons of plastic waste on the ocean floor, starkly underlining the urgent need for a robust global response to plastic pollution. Additionally, one cannot overlook the pervasive nature of microplastics that have threateningly made their way into living systems. Plastics, therefore, present grave risks on land, in water, and inside the body of living beings! Against this backdrop, it is essential that the upcoming negotiations not only confront the visible symptoms of this crisis but also address its systemic roots.
The challenge of tackling plastic pollution is complex, intertwined with economic interests, international trade, and environmental justice. A broad-based coalition must push for a treaty that is not just limited to waste management but includes stringent production controls and sustainable practices.
The staggering amount of plastic pollution accumulating in the oceans and the disproportionate impact on the Global South highlight a disturbing trend of environmental inequity. Higher-income countries have long outsourced their waste problems under the guise of recycling, a practice that burdens poorer nations ill-equipped to manage this waste safely. This not only exacerbates local environmental degradation but also perpetuates a form of ‘waste colonialism’ that exploits vulnerable communities.
These realities must draw the outline of negotiations in Ottawa. It is imperative that the treaty not only enhances the Basel Convention's existing frameworks but also introduces binding, enforceable measures that prevent plastic waste at the source. This includes regulating the production and design of plastic products to ensure their lifecycle sustainability, and tackling the hidden plastics in trade materials, an issue that exacerbates the already daunting challenge of plastic pollution.
The pressure from the plastics industry to limit the treaty’s scope to waste management must be resisted. True circularity in the plastics economy is a myth as long as it relies on fossil fuels and involves the use of hazardous chemicals. A meaningful treaty should prioritise reducing plastic production, redesigning materials to be genuinely sustainable, and transitioning towards zero-waste models that empower communities rather than exploit them.
The concept of 'end-of-life' for plastics must be redefined in this treaty. Rather than seeing the end-of-life as an opportunity to offload waste to other nations or into the oceans, the world needs a paradigm shift that views the entire lifecycle of plastic within the framework of environmental justice and sustainability. This includes investing in infrastructure that supports reuse and refill systems, and significantly enhancing the capacity for local waste management in less developed nations without resorting to harmful disposal methods.
A crucial element of the treaty should be the establishment of a global standard for safe plastic waste management that strictly regulates where and how plastic can be disposed of, ensuring that technologies such as incineration and pyrolysis do not merely transform one type of pollution into another. Additionally, the treaty must include mechanisms for transparency and accountability, so that nations and industries comply with their environmental obligations.
It is aptly clear that a successful treaty must not only address the symptoms of the plastic pollution crisis but also its root causes. It must challenge the status quo of plastic production and consumption, and pave the way for a sustainable, equitable global economy that respects both human rights and planetary boundaries. The world is watching, and it is time for decisive action.