Negotiations on the UN’s bold plans for a global treaty to stop plastics pollution are scheduled to recommence on 13 November in Nairobi, Kenya, with supporters and critics ready to do battle over whether the rules will be enforceable.

Following the end of the previous round of tenuous talks in early June, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP; www.unep.org) worked on what was to become the “Zero Draft” of the treaty, which was released in September. Those proposals are expected to form the basis for the current round of talks scheduled to run until 19 November.

The main sticking points remain: are national governments willing to approve legally binding measures, ie rules and guidelines that can be enforced via some mechanism, or will major resin-producing countries like the US, China, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil be able to make the measures voluntary, something likely to drastically diminish the effectiveness of a treaty originally conceived and developed to reduce and eliminate the plastics pollution that many scientists say is hurting humanity and its habitat.

Just days before the negotiations were set to start, the resin makers’ association Plastics Europe (Brussels; www.plasticseurope.org) allied with those pushing back on a fully binding treaty. In a written statement, managing director Virginia Janssens wrote, “The global agreement on plastics pollution should contain mandatory and voluntary measures, obligations and criteria, and hold all stakeholders involved accountable. It must also strike the right balance between global obligations and national measures. A one-size fits all global approach to policy and regulation will not work.”

Her statement said the Zero Draft failed to place more emphasis on circularity. “Therefore, negotiators will need to shift their focus towards circularity, including measures to promote sustainable production and consumption as well as recycling.”

In the run up to the talks, various groups of researchers have questioned the effectiveness of recycling, including NGO Zero Group Europe, which said pyrolysis, the oft-touted process behind much of what is called chemical recycling, fails to meet the requirements for Europe’s Green Deal environmental plans.

In a commentary in One Earth, more than 10 academics criticised the impact that waste collection technologies can have on the environment and presented a way to deal with the problem: “To reduce plastic pollution efficiently and economically, policy should prioritise regulating and reducing upstream production rather than downstream pollution cleanup.”

According to the group, “The most effective and cost-efficient way to prevent plastic pollution is to replace unsafe, unsustainable, and non-essential plastic chemicals, polymers, and products from the economy and to design safe, sustainable, and essential materials, products, and systems so that products retain their value.” 

Throttling plastics production to cut the supply of possible waste and lower carbon emissions remain top-level arguments from a wide range of NGOs including Greenpeace. 

The background for government policymakers is difficult at best. With global growth slowing and a wide range of resin makers reporting declines in earnings and plans to sack workers, elected officials may be unwilling to put more pressure on companies that employ voters.

Related: European plastics production, global market share decline in 2022

Conversely, with emissions from plastics production contributing to climate change, decisionmakers also have to consider the long-term effects of their actions, especially as more worrisome date continues to emerge. Scientists at the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service reported that last month was the hottest October on record and this year is “virtually certain” to have the highest temperatures in 125,000 years.