According to the UN, more than 300 million tonnes of plastic are produced every year, and only nine percent of it is recycled. The rest ends up in landfills, oceans, and incinerators, where it can persist for centuries.
The world is facing a plastic crisis, and many agree that urgent action is needed to address it. That is why representatives from 175 nations are meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, from November 13 to 19, to negotiate for the first time what concrete measures should be included in a binding global treaty to end plastic pollution.
The negotiations in Nairobi are expected to be heated and challenging, as nations try to find a common ground and a balance between their needs and responsibilities. The outcome of the talks could have a lasting impact on the future of plastic and the environment.
The high ambition vs. the low ambition
ROB ENGELAAR/ANP/AFP via Getty Images
One of the main points of contention in the negotiations is the level of ambition and commitment that the treaty should have. There are two main camps: the high ambition and the low ambition.
The high ambition camp consists of countries and environmental groups that want the treaty to include strong and binding provisions to reduce the production and consumption of plastic, especially single-use plastic, which accounts for half of the plastic waste generated globally.
They also want the treaty to promote the transition to a circular economy, where plastic is reused, recycled, or composted, rather than discarded or burned.
The high-ambition camp argues that addressing the root causes of plastic pollution is the only way to solve the problem effectively and sustainably.
They pointed out that the current approaches, such as improving waste management and recycling, are not enough, as they only deal with the symptoms, not the disease.
They also warned that the plastic industry is expanding rapidly and that without strict regulations, the plastic crisis will only worsen.
The low ambition camp consists of countries and industry associations that want the treaty to focus on improving waste management and recycling, rather than limiting the production and consumption of plastic.
They also want the treaty to be flexible and voluntary, allowing countries to set their own goals and measures, according to their national circumstances and capabilities.
The low-ambition camp argues that plastic is an essential and beneficial material, that provides many economic and social benefits, such as convenience, affordability, hygiene, and innovation.
They claimed that plastic is not the problem, but rather the way it is managed and disposed of.
They also stressed that countries have different realities and needs and that imposing uniform and rigid rules would be unfair and impractical.
The negotiations in Nairobi are the third of five sessions in a fast-tracked process that aims to conclude the talks by next year so that the treaty can be adopted by 2025.
The previous sessions, held in Bangkok and Paris, were mainly procedural and preparatory and did not delve into the substantive issues.
The Nairobi session is the first opportunity for the parties to discuss the draft treaty, which was published in September by the co-chairs of the negotiations.
The draft treaty outlines the possible elements and options for the treaty, covering its objectives, principles, scope, obligations, institutional arrangements, and financial and technical support.
The draft treaty is meant to serve as a basis for discussion and negotiation and does not reflect any official position or consensus.
It presents both high-ambition and low-ambition options, without favoring or excluding any of them. It also invites comments and suggestions from the parties, to help refine and improve the text.
The draft treaty has been welcomed by many as a positive and constructive step, that reflects the diversity and complexity of the plastic issue.
However, it has also been criticized by some as vague and ambiguous, which leaves too much room for interpretation and negotiation.
The hopes and fears for the treaty are high, as the parties prepare to engage in a crucial and decisive dialogue, but the stakes are also high, as the treaty could have a profound and lasting impact on the future of plastic and the environment.
The treaty could be a historic and groundbreaking achievement, that could set a new global standard and direction for tackling the plastic crisis.
It could also be a missed opportunity and a disappointment, that could fail to address the root causes and the urgency of the problem.
The outcome of the negotiations will depend on the political will and the compromise of the parties, as well as the pressure and the support of the public and the stakeholders.
The fate of the treaty, and the fate of the plastic, are in their hands.
