Building a global plastics pollution agreement that works for all: Is there a path to progress?

I've worked across many roles at Dow, the materials science company, over the last 18 years. No matter the role, sustainability has always been at the core. Packaging and specialty plastics is a significant part of Dow's business. From packaging for food and medicines, cars and airplanes, wire and cable materials, to specialised films and adhesives for industrial applications; we serve much of the world with the high-performance, low-carbon emissions materials needed. We are also working to change our business models and challenging ourselves with targets in both climate and circularity, as well as other areas.

As lead sustainability director at Dow, I'm focused on advancing circularity because we firmly believe that a circular economy for plastics is the strongest solution to the plastic pollution challenge – and critical to securing a low carbon emissions economy, across our industry, our value chains, and society at large. At Dow, we support a global plastic pollution agreement that incentivises circularity and enhances waste management infrastructure.

Negotiating a global plastics pollution treaty

I have recently returned from INC-5 - the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee - which took place in the beautiful city of Busan in South Korea. This was meant to be the last round of negotiations in a highly ambitious two-year timeline, but countries ran out of time to agree on the provisions of the agreement and conceded to resume negotiations in 2025. In a previous article, I addressed the scale of the challenge of achieving a global plastics pollution agreement: in order for as many countries as possible to be part of the agreement it must cater to nations with different needs, economies and starting points in terms of systems, programmes and policies to manage waste responsibly and enable them to move from a linear to a circular economy and generate economic growth in an inclusive and sustainable manner. Managing waste responsibly at the global level will help put an end to open burning and open dumping, and even better, maximise resource use.

Even after five negotiation rounds, countries remain divided over the scope of the agreement. Is this meant to be an instrument that regulates all aspects of plastics or is it an instrument to stop plastics from going into our environment? It is critical for us to solve this issue so the world moves forward in tackling the challenge of plastic pollution which – for the most part – could be a vital resource to the circular economy.

There is a broad perception that an ambitious approach would mean regulating every aspect of plastics in this agreement, and anything else would be lacking. I would counter that tackling waste management at the global level is, in itself, a monumental ambition given 2.7 billion people today lack access to basic waste management. Trillions of dollars will be needed to close critical gaps in waste management systems around the world. This is going to require concerted efforts from all levels of government, business, financial institutions and consumers in every country.

Whilst consensus has proven difficult to achieve, it is critical. Only with meaningful collaboration among stakeholders, and with all countries under the tent, is a circular economy for plastics within our reach. An agreement that is not inclusive of all countries will fail to deliver. We want to see a practical, sustainable and implementable agreement, and cannot miss this opportunity. How can progress be made when there is so much divergence?

A focus on 'first things first'

Focusing the scope of the agreement is not about ignoring issues of importance but recognising that to move forward as a collective, we need to put 'first things first' to get started. Even if the agreement does not immediately bring a solution to every concern, stakeholders can agree on where best and how to tackle such concerns.

One of those concerns relates to chemicals used in plastic products. There is a prevailing narrative that 16,000 chemicals are associated with plastic production and that a significant number do not have safety information. Many stakeholders are asking for transparency on chemicals used in plastic products, and for lists of chemicals and products for global action, including potential bans and restrictions. This is to ensure they are removed, and that plastic and recycled products are safe. As a parent, I fully understand the concern and emotion behind it. As a toxicologist and product safety professional, I want to help bring transparency on how we demonstrate product safety.

Dow is already working with many others in the broader industry to increase transparency on what is used and alleviate safety-related concerns. We are working with the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) on a database designed to be a one-stop-shop of information on chemicals that are in commerce and used in plastics, the types of products they are added to, what functions they serve, their associated safety information, and corresponding risk assessments that governments around the world have conducted. The database, which was launched at INC-5, is available to governments and any other stakeholders who want to use it or offer input to further strengthen it. Chemicals are used in all aspects of life and in many applications beyond plastics, like personal care, cosmetics, paper, sealants, paints, coatings, to name a few. To protect human health and the environment, there is no substitute for countries implementing comprehensive chemical management programs that assess all uses of any given chemical and regulating them appropriately where warranted. Attempting to additionally regulate chemicals in the plastic pollution agreement itself, is not only duplicative of existing regulations and other multi-lateral environmental agreements that exist, but also diverts attention from getting all countries to implement comprehensive chemical management programs as they should. The database is intended to provide transparency as countries work towards implementing chemical management systems.

Representing a highly regulated business community, ICCA is committed to helping countries introduce comprehensive chemicals management programmes, and to achieving the targets set by the Global Framework on Chemicals which was agreed in Bonn in September 2023.

Surgical precision, not a hacking saw

Another sticking point in the negotiations is the idea that tackling waste management alone will not fix the issue of waste in the environment and that plastic production needs to be capped to enable the downstream systems to be more efficient.

However, in addition to their use in short-lived applications, plastics are used in many durables sectors, like clean energy, mobility, aerospace, building and infrastructure to name a few.

To elaborate, as AI develops, we'll see an increased need for cleaner forms of energy. High performance plastics are needed for renewable wind and solar energy among other forms of low-carbon emissions energy. Similarly, electrifying transport will mean more plastics usage in vehicles to off-set the weight of the electric battery. Adding restrictions on production levels would create unintended consequences as alternatives to plastics where they exist carry a higher carbon footprint and increase the costs in developing economies. Further, the starting polymers used in durable sectors are the same as those in shorter-lived applications. We would jeopardise the low carbon emissions transition and, ultimately, put the least developed economies at a disadvantage in terms of affordability and economic development.

Truly sustainable production goes beyond how much is produced: it includes leveraging alternative and waste plastic feedstocks for new production, designing products that deliver both improved sustainability benefits and high performance, and embracing lower-emissions production. So surgical precision is needed. By that, I mean a focus on policies that intentionally address products that are most prone to leak to the environment. The agreement could guide countries towards a common assessment framework to determine which plastic products are avoidable in the first place or most problematic at the local level. This would equip each country with the tools to take action at a national level to intervene with solutions, such as better product design, collection systems and other circularity interventions, including any shifts to a more sustainable alternative, for example if an alternative comes with a proven reduction in total environmental footprint. Furthermore, interventions to minimise waste including new business models that foster reuse and refill models can also make an important contribution.

Prioritisation of progress over perfection to land an inclusive agreement and get started on tackling priorities

In Busan, I observed that whilst there is minimal litter, there is still a high consumption of plastics; whether extra shrink wrap on water bottles or individually wrapped fruits and vegetables. Yet, Korea has one of the most advanced waste management systems in the world with one of the best recycling rates. Korea has set the path for more materials to enter the circular economy with enabling policies, including for example, approving a suite of recycling technologies such as chemical recycling to enable more plastics to be recycled.

I was also struck by the discipline of citizens in separating recyclables at source. Korea and other countries with advanced systems can show the way and play a big role in capacity building and technology transfer.

What also emerged from the negotiations in Busan are some clear areas of convergence in terms of provisions for waste management, product design, Extended Producer Responsibility or similar schemes and national action plans. These are squarely in the landing zone for an inclusive agreement.

I hope the agreement enables countries to prioritise the most critical aspects first and provides them with the tools, guidance and capacity building so they can get on the crucial journey of reducing plastics in the environment. It is important to get started and once an agreement is adopted, it will set the future path and allow more to be tackled over time.

Jihane Ball is lead sustainability director at Dow.

This article is sponsored by Dow.