Short Interview: Inside Perspectives on the Plastics Treaty Negotiations
In the following exchange, our recruiter, Darryl Huntley, got a chance to pull back the curtain and ask the Assistant Managing Editor for Plastics News, Steve Toloken, some granular questions about the Plastics Treaty talks. Steve goes into detail on the U.S. stance in the negotiations and how these talks will impact resin-producing countries.
** Two of the articles Steve mentions are not accessible unless you are subscribed to Plastics News. Reach out to Darryl if you want to do a deep dive on this topic!
Darryl: As the negotiator from Kuwait was quoted, “Countries were expanding the treaty beyond what it said was the original mandate on plastics pollution in the environment.” This sentiment was echoed by the negotiator from Saudi Arabia. Is this the prevailing opinion of most of the resin producing countries such as the US?
Steve: The US govt position on the scope of the treaty is not the same as the Saudis and Kuwaitis. The Biden administration has signaled it’s ok with some sort of supply regulation (this story Nov. 16: Biden Administration Faces Criticism over Perceived Shift Plastic Production Caps Treaty Talks), and it’s said it’s ok with chemicals of concern and problematic plastic products rules being in the treaty, which is also beyond how the Saudis, Kuwaitis and their allies see the treaty with its more limited scope. I could say more if you want, but that’s the short answer. The Chinese are another big resin maker, I don’t recall them saying much on the supply/production cap point, but they did submit a proposal for chemicals of concern and problematic plastic regulations in the talks, which people told me was a first for them. So they’re not where the Saudi coalition is either. The Germans and the Canadians seemed to have a more high-achievement coalition in their thinking. The final version of the draft treaty (released Dec. 1) took the production cap/production regulation proposal from the high-ambition group and allies. It put more qualifiers in front, like calling the global reduction goals “aspirational.” We had an earlier story in the talks quoting someone close to the talks saying the US seemed to be trying to find a middle ground on production regulation, with language in the treaty but not as legally binding in its language.
Darryl: I was particularly surprised that the element of fees for plastic production or the plastics stream, in general, was not discussed in the summary article. Was this a prominent part of the negotiations? This seems like an obvious point of emphasis to increase funding for recycling efforts, waste management, and other areas that can lead to true circularity. As was discussed in your previous article before the talks started, such a fees plan would have support from prominent resin producing countries.
Steve: On your resin fee question, we had this story on Friday on the resin fee debate:
**https://www.plasticsnews.com/news/us-eu-join-call-fees-virgin-resin-treaty
It didn’t come up much in the last plenary that the final story came from. I think only the Iranians specifically talked about fees. However, there was a press conference of some of the African countries earlier Sunday, and the head of the Ghana delegation talked about their support for resin fees. Ghana seems like it’s taking the lead among resin fees among developing countries. Something for follow-up coverage. I didn’t have time or space to work the Ghana press conference comments into the story on the final plenary, but something for future coverage.