The UN’s new plastics treaty is about to be finalised – marking a crucial opportunity to form an international agreement to tackle the plastic pollution crisis. Plastic waste is ubiquitous – damaging human health and livelihoods, as well as ecosystems in water and on land; yet plastic production is at an all-time high.
This week, the intergovernmental negotiating committee is meeting in Busan, Korea. The goal? To agree an international legally binding way to curb harmful plastic production and pollution, including in the marine environment.
Today’s plastics economy is largely fossil-based, extractive and rooted in the take-make-waste model that forms the basis of the linear economy. Natural resources and cheap labour are exploited, fuelling consumerism and compromising human health, ecosystems, climate and resources. Notably, less than 10% of plastic gets recycled.
The plastics crisis is characterised by gross inequalities – between and within countries – surrounding how plastics are produced, handled, collected or not, and the level of care taken to deal with them. The UN plastics treaty might helpfully tackle five fairness issues:
Public, political and corporate attention to plastics largely focuses on materials – often overlooking the people working in this industry. Of course, branded packaging starkly shows the origin of plastic waste, while people’s labour can seem “invisible” to those not closely involved. Humanising plastics can foreground how the plastics crisis is affecting people.
Lack of decent work is a persistent challenge in plastics. At the bottom of the pyramid, difficulties include: low wages, exposure to toxic chemicals, violence and harassment, and a concentration of stigmatised groups. Plastics waste pickers often work informally and lack social protection. During COVID-19 many waste pickers were excluded from government support and dumpsites, but needed to work to survive.
In response to the decent work challenges faced by recycling workers, including in plastic recycling, the International Labour Office (ILO) will host a tripartite meeting of experts in May 2025. An ILO official commented, “this expert meeting will adopt guidance and recommendations for everyone involved in recycling on how to create decent jobs and improve working conditions for more women and men. This is key to ensuring a just transition to the wider circular economy, in plastics as well.”
There is considerable trade in used plastics. The overwhelming direction of travel is plastic waste being shipped from wealthier countries to poorer countries, sometimes termed “waste colonialism”, as highlighted by the environmental charity Greenpeace’s campaign, “Wasteminister: A Downing Street disaster”.
Waste plastic is often shipped to places without the necessary waste disposal and recycling infrastructure. This leads to dumping, burning, air pollution, land contamination and clogged waterways. In January 2018, China banned plastic waste imports. Plastic waste was then diverted to other countries, including Malaysia and Indonesia.
If plastics exports are to continue, the population and environment of recipient countries must be prioritised. Some social enterprises are working to improve plastics recycling workers’ occupational safety, healthcare and incomes.
Most production and consumption follows a linear model, whereby materials are extracted, used and disposed of. A circular economy minimises extraction and waste by keeping materials in use at their highest value for as long as possible.
Of the circular options, such as reduction, reuse, substitution, recycling, and even refusal, recycling is usually the least desirable. Plastics are often downcycled into products of lower quality, and recycling can be resource and energy-intensive. Recycling can also release and concentrate toxic chemicals and pollutants in plastics.
Over-reliance on recycling can create misaligned incentives that encourage plastic use and disposal, diverting attention from other solutions that might involve not using plastic at all. There are concerns that the final treaty might overlook the root cause of plastics pollution: plastics production. The draft treaty frequently refers to “sustainable production”. Demand for plastic production should be curtailed and any new plastics should be designed for reuse and safety – simplifying the chemical mixes used and creating products suited to existing recycling systems.
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a policy principle that aims to shift the costs of collecting and recycling waste from local authorities to the producers of plastic packaging. EPR can promote the sound management of plastics, if supporting systems are in place such as waste management infrastructure and legal guidelines.
Unclear accountability could weaken the plastics treaty. The current draft lacks clear mechanisms for resolving disputes and penalising non-compliance. Voluntary measures alone are ineffective, and penalties and prosecution should be strengthened. Effective enforcement requires a robust global monitoring system.
Disinformation also demands attention. A UN special rapporteur stated that the tactics used by industry, and governments, can “delay controls, divert attention, and escape effective accountability for exposure to dangerous substances”.
Higher-income countries are typically more equipped to enforce controls, while lower-income countries may struggle to apply the same standards. To make compliance fairer, developing countries should receive financial and technical support.
The draft treaty includes the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. If a plastic will release toxic chemicals it should be diverted from recycling, or not made at all. Binding product design restrictions could prevent future leakage of microplastics.
Were a fully functioning circular economy to commence today, a clean up operation would still be needed to tackle decades of mounting plastic waste. Approximately 4,900 million tonnes, or 60% of all plastics ever produced, are in landfill or pollute natural environments. Plastic waste is disproportionately found in poorer countries.
Though essential, a clean up isn’t the only answer. Some businesses are patching up their linear supply chains by contracting others to collect their waste. Ideally future plastic waste will be handled differently, if it exists at all. Systemic changes are needed to achieve this.
So, what needs to happen? The inequalities in the production, handling and disposal of plastics must be addressed. To achieve this, the plastics industry must be rethought and redesigned with social justice at its core.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.
Anna Barford has received funding from the ESRC, British Academy, Leverhulme Trust, Cambridge Political Economy Society Trust, UKRI and a philanthropic grant from Unilever to the University of Cambridge. Anna is the Director of the Business Fights Poverty Institute and consults for the International Labour Organization.
Jakob T. Pruess has conducted research on circular plastics and extended producer responsibility at ETH Zurich and the University of Cambridge. He has received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation. Previously, he has worked for the OECD and the United Nations. He currently works on product sustainability and stewardship at Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
