Fast reading
- The global plastics treaty aims to tackle plastic pollution across the entire lifecycle, from design and production to chemicals of concern and disposal.
- The majority of states seeking an ambitious treaty called for a global ban and phase-out of chemicals and products of concern – mainly single-use plastics.
- Recognising the growing emphasis on upstream production to tackle plastics pollution, we have intensified our engagement with oil producers and petrochemical companies across all markets.
Discarded plastic waste is an ever-growing problem, but stemming the tide of new plastic is easier said than done. Negotiators met in South Korea in late November to hammer out a UN treaty on plastic pollution, in the hope of arresting the degradation of the natural world.
Pollution is one of the five main drivers of biodiversity loss, and ocean ecosystems are under threat. An estimated 1.7 million tonnes of plastic waste enter the ocean annually, bringing toxic chemicals and micropollutants into the marine environment.
Ahead of the UN treaty negotiations, we saw strong momentum on plastics policy in the public and private sectors. Alongside over 270 other organisations, EOS at Federated Hermes Limited became a supporter of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, advocating for policy measures to address plastics pollution. To support the development of an ambitious treaty, EOS also co-signed the Finance Statement on Plastic Pollution led by the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative, and the Investor Statement to petrochemical companies initiated by Planet Tracker. Further details on our company and policy engagement on plastics can be found in a deep dive article on oceans.
An unratified treaty?
Delegates from over 177 nations and 440 observing organisations convened in Busan, South Korea in late November to develop an international, legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. The global plastics treaty aims to tackle plastic pollution across the entire lifecycle, from design and production to chemicals of concern and disposal.
Contrary to expectations, a final treaty was not agreed in Busan due to significant divergence on contentious issues between states. A resumed round of negotiations is likely to be established in early 2025. The majority of states seeking an ambitious treaty called for a global ban and phase-out of chemicals and products of concern – mainly single-use plastics. However, this was one of the major points of divergence between states. After over 80 countries said they would not accept a low-ambition treaty, this was reflected in the chair’s text, opening the door for further talks.
The negotiations around a global plastics production cap were characterised by strong disagreements between oil-producing countries, and the rest. The unresolved draft text suggested two options – a choice between no global target, or a to-be-established global target with five-year plans from countries to track progress.
Another essential upstream measure is incorporating circularity into product design. This would help to tackle the root causes of plastic pollution, shifting away from the “take-make-waste” model. It was promising to see binding product design measures included in the text. Downstream measures, such as waste management, received the most agreement, along with a just transition. All hopes are now pinned on the next round to address the unresolved issues, including mandatory and voluntary measures at both national and global levels.
In the run up to COP16, we led or joined engagements with policymakers and negotiators to share the recommendations and understand the progress being made on implementing the Global Biodiversity Framework at the national level.
What progress was made at Biodiversity COP16?
The failure to agree a global plastics treaty followed a somewhat disappointing COP16 in Cali, Colombia, where delegates met to discuss progress on implementing the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), almost two years after it was agreed at COP15 in Montreal. However, only 44 out of 196 parties (22%) submitted their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), which are supposed to articulate how countries will translate the GBF goals and targets into national policy and regulation.
We attended COP16 as part of the Finance for Biodiversity (FfB) Foundation delegation, where we co-chair the Policy Advocacy Working Group. The working group published a policy recommendations paper for governments in April 2024. In the run up to COP16, we led or joined engagements with policymakers and negotiators to share the recommendations and understand the progress being made on implementing the GBF at the national level. We contributed to developing the FfB Foundation delegation’s position for COP16 and summarised our expectations in an article.
At COP16, we followed the negotiations, particularly on resource mobilisation, and participated in a range of events to share our policy recommendations and our approach to engagement with companies. We were pleased to see our policy expectations well-reflected at Finance Day, including the need for economic incentives and sectoral transformation pathways that enable private sector action; the alignment of public and private financial flows with biodiversity targets; and a whole-of-government approach to this challenge. However, a significant gap between recognition and implementation remains.
COP16 resulted in progress on Digital Sequencing Information, with the formation of the Cali Fund to recognise the value of nature for scientific research. Companies in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and other sectors that rely on nature for research will be expected to contribute to the fund, resulting in increased financial resources for the protection and restoration of tropical rainforests and other ecosystems. Additionally, more formal participation of Indigenous people and local communities in the negotiations was secured through the creation of a permanent subsidiary body.
However, COP16 concluded without an agreement on a resource mobilisation strategy, which relates to the financing of nature and biodiversity, or a monitoring framework for assessing implementation of the GBF. These critical elements will be further discussed at a reconvened meeting in Rome in February 2025.
The role of investors
Investor engagement with companies on biodiversity and plastics issues remains important alongside the development of national and international policy responses. EOS’s nature-related engagement has focused primarily on sectors within the food system, given the significant impacts, risks and dependencies. EOS also has a long history of engaging with retailers and grocers on plastics reduction, recycling and reuse targets.
Recognising the growing emphasis on upstream production to tackle plastics pollution, we have intensified our engagement with oil producers and petrochemical companies across all markets, particularly in Asia, the Middle East, and the US. As with many issues, ensuring robust governance and board oversight, as well as the alignment of companies’ direct and indirect lobbying practices with their own sustainability commitments and international agreements such as the Paris Agreement and the GBF, are critical for successfully tackling biodiversity loss, pollution and climate change.
Share:
EOS001341
