Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is the concept that producers and importers should take responsibility for the products they put into a market across their entire lifecycle – the polluter pays principle. We are now seeing a ‘third wave’ in the development and implementation of EPR frameworks around the world. Let’s take a look at the evolution of EPR frameworks to mitigate plastic pollution, and what might expect – and strive for – next.

First there were bans and taxes

Early legislative initiatives to mitigate plastic pollution took the form of often symbolic bans and taxes on single use plastics. These policy measures started emerging in the 2010s, with Zimbabwe being one of the first countries to ban plastic packaging [1]. Most recently, the UK government’s ban on the supply of single-use plastic plates, cutlery, balloon sticks, and polystyrene cups and containers comes into effect from April 2023. In the US, there is currently no federal legislation for single-use plastics (aside from that introduced recently for public lands and parks) and progress varies significantly across states, however, at least 10 states have completely banned certain forms of single-use plastics, mainly plastic bags to date.

There is limited evidence of single use plastic bans and taxes reducing overall plastic consumption levels [2] and for this reason such policy instruments are generally now considered as but one in a broader suite of plastic pollution mitigation measures.

‘Voluntary’ EPR

A ‘second wave’ in terms of legislative approach has been the introduction of mandatory reporting requirements for producers on their plastic packaging. In Singapore, producers have been required to report against their own, in-house plastic mitigation plans and targets since 2020. Similarly, the Australian Packaging Covenant is a mandatory reporting scheme against voluntary targets and in-house plans which has been in place since 2017. However, recycling rates in Australia have remained flat since the Covenant was introduced [3], suggesting that such voluntary schemes are not the most effective policy approach.

EPR status quo

Voluntary targets (with mandated reporting) may be seen as a precursor or stepping-stone towards a more comprehensive, mandated extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework. A well-designed EPR framework has clearly defined mandatory targets covering a range of plastic types which scale up over time and are accompanied by robust enforcement mechanisms and meaningful non-compliance penalties. Targets may be for collection, recycling, recycled content and reuse. Revenue collected from non-compliance penalties is used to improve plastic waste management infrastructure. EPR frameworks can also contain requirements for appropriate end-of-life plastic and can accommodate offsetting.

There are now over 70 countries with some form of plastic EPR system in place or under development to help reduce the environmental impacts of producing and using retailer / consumer products and associated packaging material. See our first blog on EPR for details on schemes in place in the Philippines, India, Singapore, the European Union (EU) and South Africa. Of note is the different approaches taken by different countries, with frameworks reflecting the scale of the domestic (and often imported) problem, individual legislative approaches, political environments, and available government resources.

Our ‘personal favourite’ EPR framework to date is that implemented by the Philippines in July 2022 – its flexible approach ‘fits the purpose’ of an emerging economy ranked in the top five of plastic polluted countries. Its stated objective is to:

“Institutionalise the extended producer responsibility mechanism as a practical approach to efficient waste management, focussing on waste reduction, recovery and recycling, and the development of environment-friendly products that advocate the internationally accepted principles on sustainable consumption and production, circular economy, and producers’ full responsibility throughout the life cycle of their product.”

The Philippines EPR legislation requires “obliged large enterprises” (assets over USD 1.7m) to register and achieve plastic waste diversion targets (i.e. the volume of plastic packaging waste recovered for reuse, recycling, treatment or proper disposal) of 80% of their plastic footprint by end 2028. Where targets are exceeded these certified volumes can be traded with other enterprises for offset purposes.

Enterprises have broad scope as to how they go about meeting this target – and they can do so individually or collectively, with or without a PRO (Producer Responsibility Organization – conducts recovery and diversion activity for obliged enterprises). The legislation includes the following hierarchy of activity (for waste diverted into downstream supply chains):

• Reuse
• Mechanical recycling
• Chemical recycling
• Alternative Recycling
• Co-processing (e.g. cement kilns) of non-recyclables and low quality plastic
• Waste to energy
• Safe disposal in sanitary landfills.

Enterprises submit their EPR plan and independently audited compliance report to the government annually. Requiring enterprises to submit audited reports is cost effective for the government – the need to build an internal audit team is avoided. For diverted (into downstream supply chains) material, the plan must include a material or mass balance study that allows for GHG computation and analysis on the main materials and processes involved in the plastic waste value diversion in comparison with the baseline. Fines for non-compliance range from USD 85,000 to USD 480,000 depending on whether it is a first, second etc. offence.

How effective are current EPR frameworks in promoting circularity in plastic packaging? Germany implemented its EPR in 1991 and saw packaging decrease by more than 13 percent in the first 7 years. All EU countries must have their EPR in place by 2024 (with a 75 percent plastic packaging recycling target) – the majority of EU countries have had their EPRs in place for several years – as a consequence European Union plastic collection and recycling rates are the highest in the world. It is still too early to tell in most cases however just how effective current EPR frameworks given many have been implemented in the past 3 years.

The third wave

We think the next wave of legislated EPR frameworks (and amendments) will be more comprehensive in coverage and have greater focus on the goals of circularity and sustainability across entire product life cycles.

Specifically, we envisage policymakers adding discrete targets for collection, recycling, PCR content, reuse, and recyclability – across more plastic types (beyond packaging) and more companies. This might look like an evolved version of India’s current EPR targets for recycling (60 to 80 percent by 2028 depending on plastic type); and for PCR content (10 to 60 percent). These targets are for plastic packaging producers and importers. For brand owners the recycling target is 60 to 80 percent by 2028, with a reuse target of 20 to 80 percent by 2028, and PCR content of 10 to 60 percent. And governments have started by mandating compliance for large enterprises; this will likely trickle down to SMEs over time.

The accommodation of offsetting (that is, where one producer exceeds mandated targets, this certified surplus can be sold to other enterprises in the form of an offset certificate to other entities) is also likely to appear in ‘third wave’ EPR schemes. Indeed, offsetting is accommodated in both the current Philippines and India EPR frameworks. However, the Philippines EPR scheme accommodates the application of independent certification schemes such as the Verra Plastic Waste Reduction Standard; in India the offsetting mechanism is more restrictive (apply to recycled content targets only) and is still under development by the Central Pollution Control Board. Again, the inherent flexibility in the Philippines EPR yields cost savings for the government whilst also incentivising more efficient mitigators.

The allowable end-of-life for plastic will also likely be tightened – at present some EPR programs do not define allowable end-of-life. And some include ends of life which have material carbon footprints and other environmental consequences (for example where official landfill is allowable but in practice poorly managed).

And for EPR frameworks which include fee structures for regulated entities such as in the European Union, the emergence of eco-modulated fee structures is conceivable. Fee modulation involves altering fees paid by producers based on the materials used, product design, and recyclability. The goal is to provide incentives for better product stewardship and circularity. In Portugal for example, producers pay penalty fees for producing PET bottles with metal caps and PVC labels.

We also anticipate EPR policies being more explicit going forward on the safeguards and co-benefit capture for the millions of waste pickers who form the backbone of informal collection globally. These waste pickers generally work in hazardous conditions for little pay, and suffer health issues as a direct consequence of their work environment. In this context, Plastic Collective is working in several small, emerging countries to develop and certify plastic collection and recycling ‘proof of concept’ projects that ensure safeguards are in place, co-benefits are captured, stakeholders are consulted, and robust reporting systems are in place. The Verra Plastic Waste Reduction Standard is the blueprint for this work. The Standard represents a comprehensive, readily available ‘plug and play’ framework for EPR design for small and emerging economies which may face resource constraints. The seven core components of the Plastic Standard which give the blueprint for EPR legislative design are illustrated in the diagram below.

Diagram – The Plastic Standard ‘blue print’ for EPR programs

The evolution of EPR frameworks will also be driven by the UN global plastics treaty currently being negotiated (see our blog on this topic). EPR frameworks will logically form the cornerstone of national action plans embodied in the treaty, so having well-designed frameworks that are ultimately compatible with the treaty will be advantageous.

Perhaps the end game will be “Universal Producer Responsibility” frameworks, premised on 100 percent circularity with legislated producer responsibility for proper waste management across all waste types and at a global scale, irrespective of where the waste ends up? This concept was proposed recently by a global group of researchers and experts to address the implications of international trade in waste – which is not subject to local country EPR laws [4].

In the meantime, please contact us to find out more about developments in the EPR space and Plastic Collective’s ‘proof of concept’ EPR projects.

Find out more about Plastic Collective and get the latest news about Plastic recycling, microplastics and the effects of climate change, by subscribing to the Plastic Collective newsletter.

Image: hans | pixabay

What is EPR?

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is the concept that brands, plastic packaging producers and importers should take responsibility for the plastic they put into a market across its entire lifecycle. EPR policies are based on the “polluter pays” principle and are generally implemented by governments via a set of rules and targets.

EPR programs take one of two forms: those with mandatory targets and penalties for not meeting targets; and those with non-binding targets but with a legal requirement for brands to report on their mitigation performance. The latter is sometimes a stepping-stone towards a more comprehensive, mandated EPR framework.

So if you’re a company selling plastic-bottled mineral water in a country that has a mandatory EPR framework, you’ll probably be required to meet certain collection, recycling and possibly post-consumer recycled (PCR) content targets for your plastic packaging. This means organising your local supply chains and / or working with collection and recycling organisations (sometimes called producer responsibility organizations) to meet these targets.

Why EPR? The plastic pollution problem

EPR is all about addressing the global plastic pollution problem across the product lifecycle. Based on current recycling rates, out of the 460 million tonnes of plastic produced each year, 9 percent is recycled, 19 percent is incinerated, 50 percent goes to landfill, and 22 percent is leaked into the environment (OECD Global Plastics Outlook 2022). This leakage adversely affects human and animal health, air and soil quality, and ocean carbon sink capacity as it breaks down into microplastics. A well-designed EPR framework incentivises plastic packaging producers towards product stewardship via circular production systems and reusable product design which reduce this environmental leakage. It also provides incentives for stakeholders to establish deposit return and take-back schemes.

And a well-designed EPR framework will have clearly defined mandatory targets covering a range of plastic types which scale up over time and are accompanied by robust enforcement mechanisms. Revenue collected from non-compliance penalties will be used to improve plastic waste management infrastructure. EPR frameworks can contain end-of-life plastic disposal requirements and should be synchronised with other circularity-focussed EPR law and legislation such as single-use plastic bans.

Which countries have EPR frameworks?

There are now over 70 countries with some form of plastic EPR system in place or under development to help reduce the environmental impacts of producing and using retailer / consumer products and associated packaging material. A snapshot of the EPR schemes and policy approaches in the Philippines, India, Singapore, the European Union (EU) and South Africa is presented in the table below.

Table – a snapshot of EPR frameworks in India, Philippines, South Africa, Singapore, and the EU

EU

Implementation date:

Each member state to implement an eco-modulation fee-based EPR framework by end 2024

Plastic types:

All plastic packaging used for the containment, protection, handling, delivery and presentation of goods

Targets:

55% by 2030

End of life: 

Differs between member states

Enforcement:

Differs between member states (e.g. Germany requires PRO participation or face sales ban).     

Offset mechanism:

Member states are permitted to include economic instruments that promote recovery and diversion

INDIA

Implementation date:

Feb 2022

Plastic types:

Rigids, flexibles, multi-layered and plastic sheet

Targets:

For producers and importers – by 2028 recycle 60 to 80%, PCR content of 10 to 60%. For brand owners – by 2028 reuse 20 to 80%, recycle 60 to 80%, PCR content of 10 to 60%

End of life:

Road construction, energy recovery, waste to oil.

Enforcement:

Levies TBD

Offset mechanism:

Tradeable certificates for surplus reuse, recycling and end of life disposal

PHILLIPINES

Implementation date:

July 2022

Plastic types:

Rigids, flexibles, plastic bags, B2B plastic products

Targets:

“Obliged large enterprises” (assets over USD 1.7m) must “recover and divert” 80% of their plastic footprint by end 2028, with multiple, broadly defined compliance options.

End of life:

“Appropriate” end of life allowable part of recovery and diversion plan

Enforcement:

Non-compliance fines USD85,000 -480,000

Offset mechanism:

All offsetting of recovery and diversion activity permitted

SOUTH AFRICA

Implementation date:

May 2021

Plastic types:

14 categories including single use, compostable and biodegradable plastics

Targets:

Producers design own EPR plan or pay a fee to one of 8 registered PROs which undertake collection and recycling activity required to meet the producers’ targets.

For PET, the 2026 targets are 20% PCR content, 70% collection, 65% recycling.

End of life:

Not specified for plastic

Enforcement:

Revocation of licence

Offset mechanism:

Not included

SINGAPORE

Implementation date:

2025

Plastic types:

4 broad categories of plastic packaging

Targets:

Not yet specified; mandatory packaging reporting against submitted plan/targets has been in place since 1/7/2020

End of life:

Not yet specified

Enforcement:

Applies to companies with turnover >USD 7 million; fines of SGD3,500 to 7,000 for non-compliance.

Offset mechanism:

Likely to be included.

EU

Implementation date:

Each member state to implement an eco-modulation fee-based EPR framework by end 2024

Plastic types:

All plastic packaging used for the containment, protection, handling, delivery and presentation of goods

Targets:

55% by 2030

End of life:

Differs between member states

Enforcement:

Differs between member states (e.g. Germany requires PRO participation or face sales ban).

Offset mechanism:

Member states are permitted to include economic instruments that promote recovery and diversion

What’s really interesting is how these national EPR frameworks for environmental protection might ultimately complement and intersect with global initiatives such as the Verra Plastic Waste Reduction Standard and the United Nations Global Plastic Treaty.

Plastic Standard

Let’s start with the Verra Plastic Waste Reduction Standard. This global standard enables certified plastic waste collection and recycling programs to generate tradeable plastic credits, the revenue from which may be used to fund project scale-up (check out our blog on how plastic credits work). The requirements for certification are rigorous – so a brand / producer partnering with a certified project to help meet its EPR targets will have peace of mind that the project is independently audited, has no child labour, pays living wages, has engaged with stakeholders, and yields community-co-benefits. Certified projects also submit volume monitoring reports on a regular basis which might also be used to meet EPR reporting requirements.

From a brand perspective, Plastic Standard certification can offer a point of differentiation – it’s a signal that it goes beyond what is required to comply with the local EPR rules by being independently certified under a globally-recognised standard as part of its plastic product stewardship journey.

In addition, the certified project may generate tradeable collection and / or recycling credits that are recognised under some EPR frameworks (see table below) as a mechanism for a producer to offset its collection and recycling targets – the same way that carbon credits work as part of greenhouse gas mitigation strategies.

At the country level, it’s also conceivable that the Plastic Standard could be adopted by local governments and municipalities as a broader “plug and play” framework for the regulation and monitoring of its EPR framework.

Global Plastic Treaty

The United Nations Environment Assembly has the commitment of 193 parties to negotiate a Global Plastic Treaty by November 2024 that will address the full life cycle of plastic, including single-use plastics and microplastics (see our recent blog about the UN Global Plastic Treaty for more details). The treaty will be analogous in structure and intent to the Paris Agreement (and supplementary Glasgow Climate Pact) to limit climate change, with national action plans underpinning the plastic pollution mitigation targets set by each party.

An EPR framework would logically form the cornerstone of these national action plans, giving those parties with well-designed frameworks already in place a head start in this global effort. The Treaty will also contain an offset mechanism, allowing parties to trade plastic credits generated by certified plastic waste reduction projects.

All this points to a plastic stewardship pathway that is increasingly characterised by common concepts and tools: action on single use plastics, circularity in supply and design, mitigation targets that can be ramped up over time, and tradeable plastic credits to help companies and nations address plastic pollution efficiently and transparently.

Learn more about Extended Producer Responsibility, sustainability and plastic waste recycling news by subscribing to the Plastic Collective newsletter.

The recycled PET market:  many large buyers, but not enough collection

We know that of the 460 million tonnes of plastic consumed globally each year, just 9 per cent is recycled (1). Roughly 50 percent of plastic waste generated globally ends up in landfill; 19 per cent is incinerated, and the rest leaks into the environment (2). So what are the dynamics of the market for recycled plastic? Are these dynamics working to increase the recycling rate and build circularity in the production and consumption of plastic?

The widening supply-demand gap in the recycled PET market in particular would suggest not. Building commerciality – by facilitating the smooth transition of both materials and value across the entire plastic supply chain from post-consumer waste collection through recycled product manufacturing – is key to addressing this gap.

Market dynamics

Recycled PET is the most commonly recycled polymer (easiest to collect post-consumer, tends to be less contaminated, and reasonable margins) with a 40 percent share of global plastic recycling input capacity (3) . rPET global annual production capacity is around 20 million tonnes, centred in over 1,000 mechanical recycling plants generally located in urban areas, where plastic waste is easiest to collect and aggregate (4). rPET is predominantly used to produce textiles and bottles, with these two manufacturing sectors using 41 percent and 35 percent of all rPET molecules produced respectively (5).

Let’s take a closer look at the factors driving the demand for and supply of rPET.

On the demand side: in response to consumer and investor concerns over the plastic pollution crisis, most major brands using plastic in their supply chain have started to measure their plastic footprint and take mitigating actions. These actions include packaging redesign and light-weighting, reducing virgin plastic use, increasing reusability, and setting targets for recycled plastic content. A summary of these targets (and progress to date) for the top 10 plastic consuming brands is presented in Table 1 below (6). As brands strive to meet their targets, they are collectively expanding demand and increasingly competing with each other for available rPET, with the availability of food grade pellets being a particular pain point.

Table 1 – Targets and progress of the top 10 plastic packaging producers (7)

New regulations are also driving demand for rPET – under the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, PET drinks bottles will be required to contain at least 25 percent recycled plastic from 2025, and 30 percent from 2030. This has prompted several members of the European beverage industry to call for a ‘first refusal’ mandate for rPET for the beverages industry in order to secure the supply required to meet these market and regulatory demands (and buffer against the ‘downcycling’ of food grade rPET into the textile industry).

And in April 2022, the UK introduced a tax on plastic packaging of £200 per tonne where recycled content is less than 30 percent. In the US, a tax of USD 0.20 per pound of virgin plastic used to make single-use plastics has been proposed.

On the supply side, collection is key to generating feedstock for rPET production – and this is where the supply bottleneck lies. “Informal” collection of post-consumer PET is labour-intensive, relying on networks of waste pickers to retrieve waste from land, waterways and dumpsites which must then be aggregated, sorted and transported. “Formal” collection by municipalities and private service providers requires sufficient volumes to justify investment in materials recovery and plastic recycling facilities; otherwise landfill or incineration is the end of life.

The rPET bottleneck (no pun intended) has been compounded by persistent global supply chain issues, labour shortages, and import bans – and these factors are now driving higher prices. European prices for post-consumer bottles reached record highs earlier this year, and flake prices rose around 10 per cent to reach €1,600 per tonne (8). In the US, food-grade rPET pellet prices have increased by 52 percent over the last year (9).

Rising rPET demand and prices are incentivising investment in new recycling capacity – Europe has seen a 21 percent increase in the installed capacity for PET recycling (10). The world’s largest rPET producer, Indorama Ventures, is raising its production target by 750,000 tonnes and is investing USD1.5 billion in additional capacity to achieve this by 2025. Whilst global rPET capacity is forecast to boom over the next five years, it will still fall short of the expanding demand from the packaging and textile industries.

Supply-demand gap

Despite rising prices and the addition of new recycling capacity, there is a persistent gap between the demand from packaging and textile companies for rPET and its supply. According to modelling work conducted by ICIS, at least 1,800 new rPET plants with an average output of 25,000 tonnes/year would be necessary globally to achieve the 2025 targets set by the major brands (11). In the US, it is estimated that there is a gap of nearly 500,000T between current US supply and projected 2025 demand for rPET for use in bottles alone (12).

A key to narrowing this gap is the continued commercialisation of the market for recycled plastic by facilitating the smooth transition of both materials and value across the entire plastic supply chain, from the post-consumer waste collection phase right through to the manufacturing of recycled products. This will require:

• Addressing the collection bottle neck – the EU has set a 77 percent target for the separate collection of plastics for recycling by 2025 (90 percent by 2029). This target is to be achieved through deposit return schemes or separate collection targets in Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. Over 30 countries have now implemented EPR schemes which aim to set collection and recycling targets for plastic packaging producers. It is crucial that EPR schemes also drive improvements in the working conditions and livelihoods of the 12 million waste pickers working around the world in dangerous conditions for less than a living wage.
• Addressing the lack of transparency around feedstock quality and contaminants such that recycled material is seen by the market as a perfect substitute for virgin plastic, especially food grade (where the supply gap is the greatest). Customers are increasingly demanding certification of the recycled plastic feedstock they’re buying; the market and regulators need to facilitate this.
• Recycling capacity addition – increasing investment in new capacity needs to be facilitated. Plastic credits generated via waste management project certification under stringent standards such as Verra’s Plastic Waste Reduction Standard provide a mechanism for this. A project certified under this standard can be eligible to generate both plastic collection and recycling credits (if it is engaging in both activities). Revenue from plastic credit sales can be used by the certified project to invest in additional collection and recycling capacity.

A further benefit of a robust plastic credit mechanism is that brands may purchase these credits and use them as a fully audited offset against their plastic mitigation targets.   For brands with ‘at risk’ targets due to rapidly expanding global rPET demand and persistent supply constraints, credits are an attractive interim solution.  It is anticipated that the UN Global Plastic Treaty  will include a credit trading mechanism when it is implemented in late 2024.

Plastic Collective is working with many projects and brands to incorporate certified plastic credits into their sustainability programmes – please contact us if you’d like to know more (see also our recent blog on how plastic credits work) .

(1) https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/plastic-pollution-is-growing-relentlessly-as-waste-management-and-recycling-fall-short.htm

(2) https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/plastic-pollution-is-growing-relentlessly-as-waste-management-and-recycling-fall-short.htm

(3)  (see (recycling magazine))

(4) https://www.recycling-magazine.com/2022/07/06/plastics-recycling-how-to-square-supply-and-demand/

(5) https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/blogs/petrochemicals/022621-us-plastic-recycling-pet-bottles-packaging-waste-investment

(6) https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/BRAND-AUDIT-REPORT-2021.pdf

(7) Note that Procter & Gamble and Philip Morris International have not set recycled plastic content targets; their alternative targets are presented here.

(8) https://packagingeurope.com/news/rpet-prices-reach-record-high-across-europe/6953.article

(9) https://www.icis.com/explore/cn/resources/news/2022/03/04/10740575/insight-2022-to-be-a-pivotal-year-for-us-r-pet-market

(10) https://packagingeurope.com/news/how-will-the-pet-industry-deliver-its-sustainability-targets/7803.article

(11) https://www.recycling-magazine.com/2022/07/06/plastics-recycling-how-to-square-supply-and-demand/

(12) https://recyclingpartnership.org/the-recycling-partnership-announces-first-ever-u-s-circular-economy-roadmap/

(13) https://www.sea-circular.org/news/new-wwf-report-on-plastic-packaging-focuses-on-epr-solutions/#:~:text=More%20than%2030%20countries%20have,example%20of%20an%20effective%20solution

The OECD’s latest report on plastic pollution is not exactly ‘beach read’ material. It projects that plastic leakage into the environment will double to 44 million tonnes a year by 2060, while the build-up of plastics in aquatic environments will more than triple, exacerbating environmental and health impacts. And then there’s the carbon footprint of plastic from plastic production, transport, consumption and environmental leakage (currently contributing around 15% of total emissions) – greenhouse gas emissions from the plastics lifecycle are projected to more than double by 2060. Plastic pollution is a transboundary crisis that will get worse. Given that current regulatory responses are fragmented, uncoordinated across countries and yet to demonstrate impact, the case for coordinated international action and a global solution through a legally binding instrument is strong.

At UNEA-5.2 in Nairobi, the recently adopted UN resolution “End plastic pollution: towards an international legally binding instrument” is an historical step in this direction. So far, 193 UN member states have agreed to negotiate a global plastic treaty by November 2024 that will address the full life cycle of plastic, including single-use plastics and microplastics.

The global agreement will likely be analogous in structure and intent to the Paris Agreement (and supplementary Glasgow Climate Pact) to limit climate change, with national action plans forming the cornerstone of an overarching plastic pollution mitigation target with accompanying reporting and compliance measures. These latter measures, combined with ‘peer pressure’ and sheer will, are crucial to treaty effectiveness – its “legally binding” nature in practice has few legal teeth given there is no international environmental court or governing body ready to enforce compliance of a binding agreement.

It is anticipated that developing countries in Africa and Asia-Pacific and elsewhere – where waste management infrastructure is minimal and plastic leakage into waterways and oceans is extreme – will be proactive parties in these treaty negotiations. The treaty will include arrangements for capacity-building, technology transfer, and financial and technical assistance via a multilateral fund. Mechanisms for incorporating the best available science, traditional, local and indigenous knowledge will also be negotiated to help reduce the impact of plastic across its entire life cycle.

Finally, as a part of the negotiation process, in the new treaty there will likely be a market mechanism initiative to support the voluntary trade of verified plastic credits which represent a specific unit of plastic collected and / or recycled by one party and purchased by another to offset against their plastic mitigation target. This recognises the important role that markets can play in addressing global problems. The Clean Development Mechanism established under the Paris Agreement in 2006 has created a global market for carbon credits with a turnover of 229 billion euros per annum and double-digit growth forecast by 2030.

The nascent market for certified plastic credits is being facilitated by the Verra Plastic Waste Reduction Standard, the Zero Plastic Oceans Ocean Bound Certification Programme and their associated trading registries.

Plastic Collective is working hard with organisations and the private sector around the world to certify their plastic waste management projects under these rigorous standards so that they may generate and trade credits, using the revenues to further scale their mitigation work. Often this work is conducted by waste picker communities in remote areas with minimal plastic waste processing and transport infrastructure. Credit revenue enables supply chains to be built and waste pickers to be paid a living wage.

The use of verified plastic credits by both companies and consumers to offset their plastic footprints as part of their broader mitigation strategies has enormous potential to address the plastic crisis and reinforce the actions of similarly committed parties at a global level via the global plastic treaty. Now that is good news.

Find out more about Plastic Collective and get latest news and info about Plastic recycling, microplastics, clean energy and the effects of climate change, by subscribing to the Plastic Collective newsletter.