Subscribe
A 100 per cent bio-mining of legacy waste is the solution to the problem of frequent fires at dumpsites in Delhi. However, bio-mining of legacy waste at the Ghazipur dumpsite is very slow. Only seven per cent of the total legacy waste has been processed there since July 2019, according to the interim progress report on fires at Ghazipur landfill filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), July 31, 2022.
Biomining is a process by which garbage is treated with bio-organisms or natural elements like air and sunlight so that the biodegradable elements in the waste break down over time.
The dumpsite at Ghazipur spread over 28 hectares has been used for dumping municipal solid waste (MSW) since 1984. It crossed its carrying capacity long ago.
Its height in July 2019 was around 65 metres. The legacy waste dumped at the site was 14 million tonnes and around 2,300 tonnes per day (TPD) of fresh MSW is dumped daily at the site.
The average processing capacity is only 2,100 TPD. The legacy waste that is bio-mined is only 0.960 MT (6.86 per cent) of the total.
Dumping of fresh, unsegregated and partially segregated municipal solid waste of 2,200-2,300 TPD was aggravating problems, according to the report.
The report was prepared by a committee was constituted on the orders of the NGT April 22, 2022 to look into the matter.
Sandeep Sharma, chief engineer, East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC), was requested by the committee to brief the committee about the dumpsite and the fire incidents at Ghazipur landfill.
The committee was told that the Ghazipur landfill area is one of the biggest and oldest landfills. It is an unscientific dumpsite. It has not been designed according to Schedule III of Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 and Schedule I of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
Earlier, the bio-mining of legacy waste (old MSW) was carried out using two types of trommels (30 mm and 6 mm screen size). Presently, 25 trommels (a type of machine) have been installed for bio-mining of legacy waste.
About 0.95 MT of legacy waste has been bio-mined since October 2019.
Sharma told the committee that the EDMC had proposed to develop an integrated solid waste management facility of 2,000 TPD capacity in a joint venture with the National Thermal Power Corporation at Ghonda Gujran.
However, the Principal Committee constituted on the orders of the NGT has rejected the project in its meeting held January 14, 2022, as the said facility was located on the flood plain of the Yamuna river.
EDMC was in talks with the Delhi Development Authority for the allotment of alternative land.
Measures taken by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai could be replicated and adopted at the Ghazipur dumpsite, the report said.
DK Singh, one of the members of the joint committee team, had visited the Gorai and Deonar dumpsites in Mumbai May 5-6, 2022.
The committee examined his report and was of the opinion that the various steps taken at the Gorai and Deonar dumpsites were very useful and could be replicated at landfill sites at Delhi.
The committee also put forward certain suggestions to prevent fire incidents in future:
Perforated high density polyethylene pipes pipes or of any other suitable material may be provided at the dumpsite at suitable locations with proper spacing for the release of methane generated from a dumpsite.
Declare the entire dumpsite as a ‘No Smoking Zone’ and ‘Match-Box Free Zone’
Increase the number of tankers for sprinkling water to control dust and fire
Deploy adequate heavy machinery for dousing fires
Construct roads on the periphery of the dumpsite to facilitate movement of vehicles, patrolling teams and fire tenders
Adequate number of CCTV cameras should be installed in consultation with Delhi Police and Delhi Disaster Management Authority at suitable locations covering vulnerable spots for fire
Regular plantation activities should be undertaken over the capped area
Rag pickers are frequent visitors to landfill sites and are said to be helpful also. It has been suggested that non-profits like ‘Chintan’ can be involved to regulate the entry of rag pickers
The number of surface fires can be substantially reduced by covering the free landfill surface with a layer of non-combustible material like earth / waste building construction materials.
Coca-Cola, one of the world’s most polluting brands when it comes to plastic waste, has been criticised for its reported discontinuation of reusable packaging goals.
The company seems to have abandoned previous commitments of encouraging refillable packaging and cutting virgin plastic use by citing business growth as a challenge.
All this comes just as negotiations on an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution concluded in Busan, South Korea.
Early this year, researchers at Science.org had found that fewer than 60 multinationals are responsible for more than half of the world’s plastic pollution, with six responsible for a quarter of that.
Coca-Cola was one of them. In 2022, it promised to have 25 per cent of its drinks sold in refillable or returnable glass or plastic bottles, or in refillable containers which could be filled up at fountains or freestyle dispensers.
Instead, Coca-Cola has now announced that it would aim to use 35-40 per cent recycled plastic in primary packaging (plastic, glass and aluminium) and ensure collection of 70-75 per cent of bottles and cans by 2035. It plans to increase its investment in innovation and infrastructure solutions, and collaborate with bottling partners, industry peers, local governments and civil society to achieve its goals.
There is criticism that this pivot undermines global efforts to reduce plastic waste, with Coca-Cola responsible for 11 per cent of branded plastic pollution worldwide. For every percentage increase in plastic produced, there is an equivalent increase in plastic pollution in the environment.
More than 1,870,000 items of plastic waste across 84 countries over five years were collected and surveyed by an international team of volunteers; the bulk of the collection was single-use packaging for food, beverage, and tobacco products. Less than half of the plastic litter had identifiable branding that could be traced back to the company responsible for its packaging.
Campaigners have invoked companies such as Coca-Cola to move from recycled plastic targets to reusable bottle targets, since single-use items are the main problem, and recycled single-use items continue to contribute to environmental pollution most of the time.
This coincides with nearly 200 nations failing to reach an agreement to reduce the production of plastics at the fifth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) in Busan. For many, this failure represents a profound setback, exposing the deep divisions among nations and the compromises made in pursuit of consensus.
The other brands responsible for plastic pollution globally apart from Coca-Cola were PepsiCo (5 per cent), Nestlé (3 per cent), Danone (3 per cent), and Altria (2 per cent), accounting for 24 per cent of the total branded count.
At the recently held Global Soils Conference, senior scientists revealed a startling reality — nearly 90 per cent of India’s topsoil suffers from nitrogen and phosphorus deficiencies, and 50 per cent lacks potassium, underscoring a critical soil health crisis across the nation.
This crisis of soil, characterised by erosion, degradation of topsoil and low soil nutrients as well as carbon in India, has major implications for long-term agricultural sustainability.
This World Soil Day, it is time to shift the focus on the importance of soil health in sustaining ecosystems, food security, and climate resilience. Out of the many strategies envisioned for improving soil health, one that demonstrates multiple benefits is that of nutrient circularity.
Nutrient circularity is the process of collecting, processing, and returning nutrients from urban organic waste back into agricultural soil. A multi-solving strategy, it directly replenishes soil nutrients along with reducing the quantum of waste that needs to be managed. For a country that has inadequate options for managing the enormous quantity of waste it generates, nutrient circularity offers an option to realise circularity at every scale.
However, budgetary allocations for waste management in India show that its emphasis is heavily invested on the waste-to-energy sector. There are two types of waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies in operation, one that uses mass incineration and the other that relies on bio-methanation.
Incineration-based plants dominate waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies, accounting for 81 per cent of the total waste treated.
A striking example is Delhi wherein 7,250 tonnes of the total 11,328 tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated per day is managed through incineration.
Although touted as a solution to the waste problem, incineration-based plants demand high capex and opex while solely focusing on energy production, neglecting other potential problems such as the hazardous ash and other toxic byproducts they produce.
The plants are also highly prone to failure, out of the 14 incineration plants with a total capacity of 130 MW, half have failed over the past several years.
The reasons for the same range from economic unviability (despite subsidies) and the low calorific value of India’s high-moisture waste. Apart from their failure rate, these plants also have significant adverse impacts on public health and the environment.
A recent study found that incinerator-based plants emit significantly more greenhouse gases (1707 g CO2e/kWh) and air pollutants than any other power source (2.4–991.1 g CO2e/kWh), raising public health and environmental concerns.
What exacerbates this issue is the lack of stringent standards and poor regulatory oversight leading to inadequate monitoring and non-compliance with real-time reporting mandates.
While biomethanation plants avoid these risks, they face other significant challenges.
They have a high failure rate, as seen in cities like Bengaluru, Salem and Lucknow, mainly due to poor waste segregation. The process requires highly skilled maintenance and an uninterrupted supply of high-quality waste. Poorly maintained plants not only risk operational failure but also methane leakages, which have a much higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide.
These challenges of incineration and biomethanation-based plants must also be seen in light of the fact that WtE plants in India contribute to only 0.1 per cent of renewable energy generation as opposed to the share of 26 per cent contributed by other technologies like solar and wind. This is apart from the fact that waste-to-energy plants have largely failed to address the primary problem they were intended to solve - India’s waste crisis.
Considering that 40-70 per cent of the waste is biodegradable, an alternative imagination of waste management, by operationalising nutrient circularity may offer a pathway to not only recycle organic waste but also regenerate topsoil and enhance urban-rural nutrient flows.
The organic waste crisis in India is inextricably linked to the flow of nutrients from the soil in the form of agricultural resources from rural to urban areas.
Restoring nutrient circularity would then entail recovering them from urban areas through the process of composting and transporting them to rural areas, thus effectively closing the nutrient cycle. Although municipal solid waste derived compost has lower nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content compared to chemical fertilisers, it is rich in organic carbon (about 20 per cent by weight).
Studies have shown that when used along with chemical fertilisers, it delivers optimal results at two-thirds of the cost per hectare compared to chemical fertilisers. This roughly translates to a reduction in production costs by 15–20 per cent.
This approach thus not only enhances soil fertility but also reduces the reliance on chemical fertilisers.
Nutrient circularity did find favour amongst the policy makers which resulted in the Government introducing a fixed subsidy of Rs 1,500 per tonne of compost sold under the Policy on Promotion of City Compost in 2016.
However, the policy failed as it did not address two critical aspects: improving compost quality and creating public demand. There were no efforts to ensure high-quality compost, and the policy lacked testing standards, sufficient laboratories, monitoring protocols, and certification mechanisms. Instead of addressing these issues and fostering the compost market, policy support was completely withdrawn in 2021, with budget allocations reduced to zero.
Currently, all financial incentives, supports, and subsidies are focused solely on bio-methanation.
While the process of biomethanation can also technically achieve nutrient circularity owing to the nutrient-rich slurry it generates, the large scale of the process, costs, complexity, and most importantly lack of mechanisms for slurry utilisation make it less viable.
Composting on the other hand can be accomplished at different scales at a fraction of the cost.
Models demonstrating the effective use of municipal solid waste-derived compost abound. Several cities around the country have devised projects and institutional mechanisms to streamline the transfer of urban compost to rural areas.
Towns such as Chikkaballapur in Karnataka have initiated a city-farmer partnership for solid waste management wherein 759 tonnes of legacy waste was semi-processed into organic compost and supplied to 109 farmers across 17 villages of Chikkaballapur.
Similarly, Alappuzha Municipality in Kerala is implementing a hub and spoke nutrient circularity model, facilitating the transfer of compost generated from the hub (urban town) area to the spoke (rural villages) areas around the town.
However, all these are isolated cases with their execution and implementation contingent on the will of stakeholders associated with the process. What is needed is a two-pronged push for replicating nutrient circularity in other regions of the country. A top-down policy push must be complemented by a bottom-up demand from the public and farmers. Such policy interventions may also improve compost quality, enabling a gradual phase-out of chemical fertilisers.
Nutrient circularity is not a novel concept, a time-honored and adaptable practice, it was how organic waste was (still is) managed across Indian households and homesteads over the past many decades. All that remains is scaling it up, if needed, according to the context of the neighbourhood/ward or town.
And the compost generated will restore not only the soil in the fields in the peri-urban and rural areas, but also the soil in our community and terrace gardens.
Views expressed are authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect that of Down To Earth
Sruthi Pillai is a researcher working at the intersection of sanitation, solid waste management, and climate change. She is currently working as a Research Scientist at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.
Rakendu S is a Research Scholar at the Ashank Desai Centre for Policy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. She is a Prime Minister’s Research Fellow.
Leaders at Busan must push for a robust, transformative treaty that protects human health, prioritises the needs of marginalised communities, and builds a safer, healthier and sustainable future
The evidence on microplastics affecting human and environmental health has become too significant to ignore, a fact that delegates will do well to remember when they meet for the final negotiation on a global plastic treaty in Busan next month
Signing of the global plastics treaty is being heralded as a milestone with comparisons drawn with the historic Paris Agreement
UN experts stated that ending plastic pollution necessitates placing human rights at the core of the legally binding instrument
CSE team to attend INC-5 session on ending plastic pollution globally; meeting being held in Busan, South Korea from November 25-December 1
Kenyan population has been found to be more aware about plastics than their American and Canadian counterparts
More than 900 independent scientists called on UN negotiators to agree on a comprehensive and ambitious global plastics treaty based on robust scientific evidence
The Philippines has taken a proactive stance in addressing emissions across the plastic life cycle
India has specifically supported the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, recognising varying capacities among nations to address waste management challenges
By engaging all stakeholders and adopting a coordinated global response, the treaty negotiations seek to build a framework that effectively tackles the challenges posed by legacy plastic pollution
A multi-faceted approach to just transition seeks to ensure no group is left behind in the global shift toward sustainability
“For too long, we have kicked the plastic bottle down the road”: António Guterres urges INC-5 negotiators to finalise a treaty that tackles single-use plastics, strengthens waste management systems and promotes sustainable alternatives
By aligning with other developing countries, LMCs can ensure their interests are effectively represented while contributing to a strong, unified position
While there were encouraging signs of ambition and systemic reform, significant obstacles remain, particularly in aligning priorities and ensuring meaningful inclusivity in the process
Widespread production and use of these basic building blocks have contributed significantly to global economic growth but have also raised serious environmental concerns
Scientific evidence underscores the adverse impacts of many plastic-related chemicals which contribute to serious health issues
Addressing problematic and avoidable plastics requires a delicate balance between global mandates and national flexibility
By addressing product design and performance holistically, nations can develop standards that advance sustainability without compromising functionality
Options being considered include contributions from producers, levies on plastic products, and international funding bodies
Out of 400 million tonnes of plastic waste is generated annually, merely 9% of plastics are recycled
Highest number of fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered to participate at Busan
Several scientists working on plastics have felt unsafe and harassed by alleged aggressive industry lobbying, according to a new investigation
Stronger language, enforceable mechanisms, and greater emphasis on transparency and traceability are necessary to achieve the treaty’s ambitious goals
Securing a deal is undoubtedly important, but it must not come at the expense of meaningful action
The Busan meeting underscores a stark reality: achieving consensus is not enough if it comes at the expense of ambition
Public art installations have emerged as a potent medium for climate activism
Bali has a unique opportunity to address plastic waste by integrating sustainable practices into the tourism experience
The much-anticipated fifth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) in Busan ended on December 1 without delivering a treaty to address the global plastic pollution crisis.
For many, this failure represents a profound setback, exposing the deep divisions among nations and the compromises made in pursuit of consensus. The Chair’s text, designed to reflect the voices of all parties, fell short of ambition, raising serious questions about whether the treaty process is truly equipped to tackle one of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time.
Observers, including major groups such as the scientific community, civil society organisations, indigenous peoples, women, children, and youth, were locked out of key negotiations over the past two days. The lack of transparency in these discussions sparked outrage, with many stakeholders questioning the legitimacy of decisions being made in closed-door settings. These decisions, after all, directly impact the lives of billions, particularly those in vulnerable communities. Yet, their voices were excluded in a process that seemed to prioritise political expediency over accountability.
The Chair’s fourth version of the non-paper, released on November 29, 2024, followed informal consultations with member states. While this draft offered a semblance of progress, the next two days of closed-door talks appeared to mark a turning point.
The Chair’s text, released on December 1, reflected significant dilution, with its ambition noticeably reduced compared to earlier versions. What was once a bold attempt to combat plastic pollution had been tempered into a document that secured broad agreement but lacked the teeth needed for real impact.
The plenary session, held on December 1, revealed the fractures within the committee. Countries like Rwanda, Mexico, and Panama advocated for a stronger treaty, particularly around contentious issues such as plastic production and the regulation of hazardous chemicals. Their interventions highlighted the need for a treaty that addresses the root causes of plastic pollution rather than merely treating its symptoms. These nations argued for meaningful action to curb production and hold industries accountable, emphasising that the stakes were too high for half-measures.
In stark contrast, nations such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, representing a coalition of like-minded countries, consistently pushed back against ambitious proposals. Saudi Arabia, in particular, played a pivotal role in resisting measures related to plastic supply (production), chemicals of concern, and health. Their opposition often centered around perceived economic threats to industries reliant on plastics. The influence of this coalition was evident throughout the negotiations, as the text shifted further away from bold commitments and toward a more diluted framework.
Adding to the uncertainty is the impending political shift in the United States, where a Trump administration is poised to take power. This change is likely to strengthen the low-ambition bloc, as the US delegation has already backtracked on several commitments, including production cuts. The shift in US policy, coupled with existing resistance from other nations, raises serious doubts about whether the treaty can achieve its intended goals in the current political climate.
Despite these challenges, the Chair’s December 1 text will serve as the basis for further negotiations. This text contains some positive elements, including a strengthened focus on human health and the lifecycle of plastics. It provides clear definitions for key terms such as plastic, plastic pollution, and plastic waste, offering a foundation for consistent interpretation and implementation. Additionally, the inclusion of annexes listing banned products and chemicals is a significant step toward coordinated global action. Provisions addressing single-use and short-lived plastics, with prescribed phase-out timelines, demonstrate a commitment to reducing the most harmful types of plastic pollution.
The text also emphasises transparency, mandating the reporting of statistical data and making publicly available a list of exemptions granted to Parties and Regional Economic Integration Organizations. These measures aim to ensure accountability and provide stakeholders with the tools to monitor progress. Furthermore, the document prohibits open dumping and burning of plastic waste—practices that contribute significantly to environmental degradation and public health hazards.
Sectoral focus is another strength of the text. It addresses emissions from fishing gear, plastic pellets, and microplastics from all sources, recognising their role as major contributors to marine pollution. The inclusion of artisanal and small-scale fishers, as well as alignment with other Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), ensures a more integrated approach to tackling these issues. The emphasis on non-toxic reuse systems, the reduction of microplastic releases, and adherence to the waste hierarchy reflect a broader commitment to sustainable product design and waste management.
Yet, these positives are overshadowed by significant gaps and weaknesses. The global criteria for product regulation have been diluted, with the requirement for ‘sufficient’ scientific evidence to prove threats to health or the environment introducing potential delays in action. The absence of strong provisions on plastic production, chemicals of concern, and financing further undermines the treaty’s potential impact. Exemptions remain another contentious issue, with the process for granting and extending them lacking the strict criteria needed to prevent abuse.
The location and timing of the next INC meeting remain undecided, with the Bureau tasked with determining these details. Meanwhile, the mandate to deliver a treaty by the end of 2024 has not been fulfilled.
However, there is still hope. Over 100 countries have rallied under the “Coalition of the Willing”, pledging to fight for a robust and ambitious treaty. This coalition represents a critical force in pushing for stronger provisions on contentious issues such as supply, chemicals of concern, and financial support for developing nations.
The Busan meeting underscores a stark reality: achieving consensus is not enough if it comes at the expense of ambition. A treaty that fails to address the root causes of plastic pollution will do little to alleviate the environmental, health, and socio-economic burdens this crisis imposes.
As negotiations continue, the global community must demand a framework that prioritises equity, accountability, and meaningful action. Anything less risks turning the plastic treaty into a hollow promise rather than the transformative solution the world so desperately needs.
The text released by the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on December 1, in its pursuit of reflecting the voices of all parties, seems to have diluted the language to such an extent that it risks failing to address the core issues the future global treaty on ending plastic pollution is supposed to resolve.
While this approach may bring all stakeholders to an agreement, one must question the value of a deal that does not effectively tackle the pressing problem of plastic pollution. After two days of excluding observers from negotiations, what has emerged is a text that feels unworthy of the time, effort, and resources poured into this process.
The text has been analysed extensively, examining the preamble and 13 critical articles to gauge the ambition and scope of the proposed treaty. Unfortunately, the results paint a picture of compromise over conviction, with crucial opportunities for meaningful action sacrificed at the altar of consensus.
The preamble sets the tone by replacing a specific acknowledgment of the special circumstances faced by developing nations, particularly Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), with a generalised reference to national circumstances. This shift undermines the focus on equity and fails to account for the disproportionate impacts of plastic pollution on vulnerable nations. By aiming for inclusivity, the text diminishes the tailored support required by those most affected.
On the surface, the inclusion of strengthened references to human health and the full lifecycle of plastics in the objectives of the treaty appears promising. However, the absence of specific actionable measures exposes the hollowness of this ambition. Without mechanisms to translate these objectives into tangible outcomes, the treaty risks becoming an exercise in rhetoric rather than resolve.
Definitions play a critical role in shaping the scope and enforceability of any treaty, yet the Chair’s text falters significantly here. While it provides clarity on terms like party, plastic, plastic product, and Regional Economic Integration Organization, it inexplicably omits vital definitions for lifecycle, microplastics, nanoplastics, primary plastic polymers, and recycling. The absence of these terms creates loopholes and ambiguity, especially in addressing emerging challenges like the proliferation of micro- and nanoplastics.
The provisions on products and chemicals offer some progress by introducing references to single-use and short-lived plastics, previously absent. The annex listing banned products signals a step toward global action. However, the diluted criteria for product regulation, which now hinge on ‘sufficient’ scientific evidence to prove threats to health or the environment, introduce unnecessary delays. The narrow focus on chemicals used in food contact applications, toys, and children’s products leaves other sectors inadequately addressed, hindering comprehensive action.
Exemptions remain a contentious area. The introduction of a publicly available list of exemptions promotes transparency, but the allowance for Parties to apply for and extend exemptions creates opportunities for prolonged inaction. Without strict criteria for granting or renewing exemptions, the treaty risks becoming a patchwork of inconsistencies, undermining its overall effectiveness.
In the realm of product design, the emphasis on non-toxic reuse systems and the reduction of microplastic releases through better design is a welcome inclusion. Specific guidance to be developed by the Conference of the Parties (CoP) offers flexibility for implementation. Yet, the failure to mandate stronger product redesigns to eliminate problematic plastics highlights a lack of ambition in this area.
The provisions on supply and production introduce mandatory reporting on statistical data, enhancing transparency. However, the language has been watered down, with terms like ‘maintain/manage’ replacing ‘reduce’, significantly weakening the treaty’s resolve to curb plastic production. The delay in deciding reporting formats and methodologies until the first CoP, combined with an infrequent five-year review cycle, reflects a missed opportunity to address the rapidly escalating crisis.
The sections on emissions and releases bring some sectoral focus, particularly on emissions from fishing gear, plastic pellets, and microplastics. Artisanal and small-scale fishers are also acknowledged. However, the removal of broader provisions for reducing emissions across the lifecycle diminishes the treaty’s ability to address the problem holistically.
On waste management, the prohibition of open dumping and open burning is a step forward. Yet, the removal of the waste hierarchy from the first paragraph and the inclusion of energy recovery options like waste-to-energy weaken the focus on sustainability. Financing provisions are heavily reliant on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and economic instruments, leaving too much to the discretion of national implementation without binding commitments.
Addressing existing plastic pollution remains a critical need. While the text highlights legacy pollution sites beyond national jurisdictions, it fails to provide funding mechanisms for developed countries to support this endeavor. The absence of the waste hierarchy further limits the scope for effective remediation.
The provisions for a just transition are perhaps the most glaring oversight. With no mention of dedicated funds or clear modalities to support informal workers and affected communities, the text risks sidelining critical stakeholders. The transition to sustainable systems must be equitable, yet the treaty offers no assurance of this.
The finance article introduces a dedicated fund alongside references to a primary plastic fee and financial flows from developed to developing countries. While these are positive additions, the lack of specific obligations undermines fairness and equity, leaving vulnerable nations without guaranteed support.
National Action Plans (NAPs) are envisioned, but the text lacks standardised formats, timelines, and mandatory requirements, raising concerns about the consistency and comprehensiveness of efforts by Parties. The possibility of voluntary NAPs further diminishes their potential impact.
Finally, the interlinkages between health and other provisions are acknowledged, which is a positive step. However, without concrete measures to link health and environmental action, this acknowledgment remains symbolic rather than substantive.
As Member States prepare for the plenary and the text is opened for comments, the critical question remains whether this diluted version will proceed to the legal drafting group or require another round of revisions.
Securing a deal is undoubtedly important, but it must not come at the expense of meaningful action. A treaty that fails to address the root causes of plastic pollution will only serve as a hollow victory.
The world deserves a robust, ambitious, and equitable agreement—one that goes beyond consensus and delivers real solutions to one of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time.
Day 5 (November 29, 2024) was dedicated entirely to informal (closed-door) discussions among member states, leaving observers excluded from most meetings. While some criticised the lack of transparency in the process, others pointed out that such practices are common in negotiation settings.
The release of the fourth version of the non-paper, initially scheduled for half past noon, was delayed by approximately three hours before being made public.
The Chair’s Proposal, or the fourth version of the non-paper, represents a significant step forward in promoting the “start and strengthen” approach to negotiations on a global treaty to combat plastic pollution.
While the proposal does omit some crucial elements, such as defining global criteria for chemicals of concern, it attempts to integrate these concepts into the criteria for addressing plastic products. The article on supply incorporates specific targets, which were absent in the previous version. Additionally, the Chair’s Proposal provides a comprehensive list of terminologies that need to be defined, offering clarity and precision to the treaty framework.
One of the notable strengths of the Chair’s Proposal is its emphasis on detailed definitions, such as plastics, polymers, microplastics, and plastic waste. However, there remain some critical gaps that need to be addressed.
On plastics, while the inclusion of polymers in all proposed definitions is commendable, it is vital to ensure additives are explicitly recognised as integral components of plastics. Option 3, which explicitly mentions thermoplastics, thermosets, and elastomers, is preferred.
The definition of the life cycle of plastics must incorporate extraction processes, particularly fossil fuel feedstock exploration, as part of the lifecycle. The inherent non-circular nature of plastics, given their inability to biodegrade, should also be acknowledged.
The definitions of microplastics and nano-plastics rely on diameter measurements or terms like ‘easily released’. This raises the risk of scientific inaccuracy. More precise language based on scientifically accepted parameters is needed.
The definition of plastic pollution focuses solely on end-of-life issues and is thus insufficient. Pollution must encompass ecosystem contamination, including human and non-human health impacts, as well as intergenerational effects.
The objective of ‘ending plastic pollution’ is an ambitious cornerstone of the proposal. However, this goal remains vague without clear definitions to guide implementation. While UNEA Resolution 5/14 sets the treaty’s scope, the separate article on scope introduces potential redundancies. Exemptions, such as for healthcare and scientific uses, are overly broad and risk undermining the treaty’s effectiveness. Excluded uses, including plastics in emergency response or national security, also leave room for loopholes.
The lack of a stand-alone article on chemicals of concern is concerning. By merging chemicals into broader product regulations, the proposal risks diminishing their significance.
The phrase ‘chemicals that pose a risk of concern’ should be replaced with ‘chemicals that pose a hazard to human health or the environment’, aligning with the precautionary principle.
The inclusion of a global list for regulated products is promising, but ambiguity remains due to the absence of annexes explicitly listing chemicals or products.
Stronger language such as ‘prohibit the manufacture, import, or export’ is preferable to weaker terms like ‘address’ or ‘manage’.
Transparency on chemical compositions and mandatory reporting for imports and exports should be emphasised.
Exemptions for specific products or chemicals undermine the treaty’s overarching goals. The Chair’s Proposal introduces annexes (A and B) to list exemptions, but the criteria for granting extensions are vague. Without robust safeguards, exemptions risk becoming perpetual, allowing countries to delay compliance indefinitely.
The emphasis on product design is a critical aspect of the treaty, but significant gaps persist.
Transparency and traceability of chemicals in product materials are only partially addressed. This information is essential for informed decision-making across the lifecycle.
The absence of language on non-toxic reuse systems weakens the framework for reusable products, especially in regions lacking supporting infrastructure.
This article marks a significant advancement by introducing global targets to reduce primary polymer production. However, the current draft falls short of establishing enforceable obligations.
The inclusion of ‘sustainable levels of production’ is problematic, without clear criteria or mechanisms for determining these levels.
The absence of interim measures, such as a moratorium on new plastic production facilities, limits immediate impact.
National targets are not mandated, leaving global targets unenforceable and reliant on voluntary compliance.
Reporting on current and planned production capacities per polymer is essential for tracking progress.
The financial mechanism proposed in the Chair’s Proposal introduces a dedicated multilateral fund to support developing nations. This is a critical step, but more specificity is needed.
Clear eligibility criteria for accessing funds should be established. Contributions from high-production countries and private sector stakeholders must be mandated rather than encouraged.
Alignment with existing international financing frameworks can enhance resource mobilisation.
The Chair’s Proposal outlines a comprehensive role for the COP in guiding treaty implementation. However, procedural gaps remain.
Voting mechanisms must be robust to prevent individual countries from blocking critical decisions. The COP’s ability to update annexes, particularly for chemicals and products, is essential for ensuring the treaty remains dynamic and responsive to emerging challenges.
While the Chair’s Proposal introduces several progressive elements, such as targets for reducing production and detailed definitions, critical gaps and ambiguities remain.
Stronger language, enforceable mechanisms, and greater emphasis on transparency and traceability are necessary to achieve the treaty’s ambitious goals.
The text is a solid foundation, but significant revisions will be needed to ensure it delivers a comprehensive, binding framework to combat plastic pollution effectively.
As negotiations progress, balancing national interests with global urgency will be paramount.
In the plenary meeting on November 30, the committee will take a call on whether the text would be sent to the legal drafting group.
The fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee session (INC-5) on ending plastic pollution through a global plastic treaty started on November 25. Here is a look at what happened on the fourth day of the meet. Also read the diary for November 25, November 26 and November 27.
In Contact Group (CG) 1 which deals with chemicals, supply and products, member states worked to define a few basic terminologies like ‘plastic pollution’, ‘plastic waste’ and the ‘life cycle’ of plastic. Many countries disagreed on the definitions proposed by the United Nations Environment Programme in its documents released in earlier INC meetings. Some countries tried to limit the definition of ‘plastic pollution’ to ‘plastic waste’. It was also said that only a few terminologies should be defined by the committee, the ones that actually need to be defined.
In the latter half of the day, the committee worked on the streamlined text that was shared by the co-chairs of the contact group for product design (Article 5) and plastic products (Article 3). Due to disagreement around the chemicals of concern which is blocked by a handful of countries, Article 3 was split up into 2 sections: one on plastic products and the other one on chemicals of concern.
Brazil and South Korea took to informal meetings to develop a text that took all the proposals in consideration. This was discussed in the last meeting before the CGs broke and went to Bureau meetings. The issue of chemicals of concerns could not be discussed.
Panama led a cross-regional proposal for a comprehensive strategy to reduce global plastic production through a systematic, adaptive approach with a global target addressing the entire plastics lifecycle.
In CG 3 (finance), Hungary, on behalf of the European Union, proposed increased financing for activities to prevent or reduce plastic, plastic products, and microplastic emissions into the environment. The proposal drew attention to the need to develop effective reuse systems and adequate waste management infrastructure.
In CG 4 (objective, scope, principles, and preamble), Samoa, on behalf of the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), introduced a written proposal to establish a subsidiary body for scientific, technical, economic, cultural, and social advice.
As many as 16 joint and independent submissions were received which proposed the way forward for the scope and principles of the future instrument. While some countries continue to believe the scope of the future instrument is well-defined in the resolution 5/14, many including India proposed a new text for the scope and definition of the plastic life cycle to protect their economic interests.
Some countries insisted on limiting the right to vote on substantial matters. Some also pushed for increasing the number of Parties needed to ratify the treaty.
Three CGs were scheduled in parallel, making it challenging for small delegations to participate.
Small countries have been unhappy about three CGs sitting concurrently, due to the limited size of their delegations. Some member states have just two people in Busan. For them, attending three CGs at one time is impossible.
US-based industry association NAPCOR, which represents nearly 70 companies that deal in Polyethylene terephthalate or PET plastic used for soft drink bottles, has been behind a campaign that misled consumers with paid TikTok and Facebook content, it has been revealed at Busan.
NAPCOR held a session for delegates and observers earlier in the week at INC-5 where it advocated for PET over aluminium and glass.
The International Pollutants Elimination Network released two new studies on November 28. The first showed that Thai workers in the plastic waste industry are more exposed to harmful chemicals than workers in other industries. The second showed that even UN officials are exposed to chemicals linked to hormone disruption and other health issues.
Several scientists working on plastics have felt unsafe and harassed by alleged aggressive industry lobbying, according to a new investigation.
The harassment includes verbal attacks at conferences, online abuse and being filmed and photographed at industry events. Some even say this has made them afraid of publishing research on certain topics.
Academics have identified five fairness flaws in the Global Plastics Treaty. They have called for the text to humanise plastics and promote decent work, end waste colonialism, transition to socially just, sustainable and circular plastics, ensure enforcement, compliance and accountability, and complete the cleanup needed to tackle decades of mounting plastic waste.
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, INC chair, distributed a procedure to “accelerate progress and foster consensus” due to the lack of progress in the CGs.
The CGs should have finalised their work by 9 pm local time on November 28 night, according to the 2-page document, before the co-chairs of each CG submitted the text to the chair, who was to present a new non paper to members by noon on November 28.
The non paper will then be considered in plenary either on November 29 afternoon or November 30 morning before being sent to the Legal Drafting Groups for legal review.
For “persistent divergencies” in the text, “informal consultations or Friends of the Chair meetings may also be convened to consider how to proceed.”
The text the INC Chair compiles from the CGs will be “the battleground of the final showdown of the plastics treaty talks,” according to Norwegian academic Magnus Løvold, author of a series of detailed accounts throughout the INC process
He adds that “spoilers do what spoilers must: derail, delay, distract and divide… the progressive majority must break free from precedent and move to conclude the treaty without them.”
With inputs from Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) and Global Strategic Communications Council (GSCC)
The fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee session (INC-5) on ending plastic pollution through a global plastic treaty started on November 25. Here is a look at what happened on the third day of the meet. Also read the diary for November 25, November 26 and November 28.
Countries in contact group (CG) 1 have so far discussed product design, plastic products, chemicals of concern and supply. Of all the measures discussed by this group, product design is largely supported by many countries although a handful of nations have pointed out that a paragraph in product design does talk about chemicals of concern and primary plastics, which they want removed.
Several countries put forth their proposals for a global criteria on products and on chemicals of concern.
However, while countries are discussing the global criteria for plastic products, the one for chemicals of concern is being blocked.
Similarly, the idea of discussing supply (production) did not receive a shred of support from the oil, gas and plastic producing countries.
CG 3 has been discussing the issue of finance. More than 100 countries are supporting the proposal by the African group and GRULAC that advocates the establishment of a new, independent, adequate, and accessible financial mechanism to support developing countries in meeting their obligations under the proposed treaty.
Developed countries have together put forth a proposal for finance which promotes the leverage of existing funds, such as the Global Environment Fund to finance the treaty. However, these countries have also questioned financing a treaty whose mandate they say they are unaware of. They have agreed to discuss financing provided the text is agreed to by everyone.
CG 4 is in the proverbial eye of the storm, at least for the time being. It has a mandate to discuss a lot of things that the INC has not touched before, like the settlements of disputes in Conferences of Parties, amendment to conventions and adoption of annexes. CG4, as a group, also has to cover a lot of ground and has made the least progress.
Many countries made strong interventions, emphasising the urgency to address the issue of plastic pollution. Like-minded countries like Saudi Arabia accused some member states of using ‘delay tactics’, due to which progress was slow.
Indigenous peoples demanded a slot to speak in the plenary and made the first interventions by observers and major groups at the INC-5.
The committee denied the possibility of the agreed text to be sent to the legal drafting group, citing reasons that the first reading of a lot of articles has not concluded and there might be a possibility to insert text in the articles that have been discussed, when discussing these.
After the stock taking plenary, the committee went back to CG3 and CG4 to take the work forward. The chair said the secretariat intends all the contact groups to complete the negotiations on the basis of the non-paper till Thursday 9:00 PM (Korea time). The co-facilitators of the contact groups will prepare the draft text for which convergence has emerged. The chair will consolidate the inputs and share the text with the plenary and possible informals. Post an agreement by the committee, the text will be sent to the legal drafting group. The work of the legal drafting group would be shared with the committee for further negotiations.
As the plenary drew to a close, the calls from the back of the room for Indigenous and youth voices to be heard became deafening, to which the Chair eventually acceded.
A weak treaty would be a failed treaty, said Lisa Bellanger from the International Indigenous People’s Forum on Plastics.
Inger Andersen made a brief but forceful appearance in the media room immediately after the plenary. She referred to the chair’s call to accelerate negotiations and said a final treaty should “absolutely” deal with both consumption and production.
Seventeen-year-old Indonesian Aeshnina Azzahra Aquilani urged a breakfast audience to stop exporting waste on November 27. She said her country was a “dumping ground for developed countries’ waste.” She urged the Global North attendees to change their lifestyles and to stop sending their waste to developing countries.
Some 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists are registered to participate at INC-5—the highest at any plastics treaty negotiations to date, as per analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law.
Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumber the host Republic of Korea’s 140 representatives as well as the 89 representatives from Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS).
In addition, 16 lobbyists were identified in national delegations, including those from China, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, Iran, Kazakhstan and Malaysia.
Total subsidies to polymer production are estimated at US$43 billion in 2024 and US$78 billion in 2050, according to an update to an earlier report by the Quaker United Nations Office and Eunomia on plastic subsidies.
Saudi Arabia accounts for the majority of these subsidies: US$38 billion in 2024 and US$64 billion in 2050.
The analysis found that fully removing the subsidies to plastic production would lead to a price increase of less than one per cent for bottled water and other fast moving consumer goods.
The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) highlighted several reuse solutions used across Asia in a report published on November 27. These include the Philippines’ “Kuha sa Tingi” initiative, where consumers bring reusable containers to buy daily essentials, as well as India’s Crockery and Cutlery Banks, which eliminate the need for disposable tableware at events.
Asia is home to various different community-led refill initiatives and reuse systems, according to GAIA.
In a statement published ahead of a meeting with the US delegation, Break Free From Plastic members demanded the US government support a strong plastics treaty and “thereby live up to the Biden-Harris Administration’s promises to protect frontline communities who are most impacted by the plastic crisis.”
With inputs from Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) and Global Strategic Communications Council (GSCC)
