Speaking at the Plastics Division plenary session, Alev Somer, BIR Trade & Environment Director, explained that the 2022 proposal would be subject to another round of talks, known as 5:2, in August this year. The aim of the planned treaty, she said, was to develop a legally binding instrument addressing plastic pollution. It would cover plastics for both single use and long-term use and, within the proposals, the recycling of plastics was in sharp focus. Ms Somer explained: “Since 2022, we at the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee have been discussing reaching the ultimate goal of a plastics treaty that would address the whole life cycle of plastics and actually perhaps support the recycling industry. This treaty would address plastic pollution not only at land but also at sea.”
However, she warned, the waste part of the proposed treaty “is really dividing the negotiating committee into two groups with low ambition countries, oil producing countries, pushing for it to be addressed only at the end of life so that they don’t have to make any changes in terms of their production and keep the commitments light with a voluntary agreement, and high ambition countries pushing for the treaty to be legally binding and covering the entire life cycle of plastics”. Summing up progress, she said: “Basically it’s like the Ottoman march. You make two steps forward and then one step back.”
The BIR Trade & Environment Director was asked directly by BIR Plastics Division President Henk Alssema (NLD), who chaired the session: “Do you think there is any real chance of a deal being signed at all, or are we chasing a moving target?”
Ms Somer replied: “I think miracles can happen. But to be honest, no, I do not frankly see a binding treaty signed at the end of the session 5.2 unless there is tremendous progress, and then there might be further negotiations.” She also explained that she had spoken with the Secretariat working on the proposed treaty, “and if there is no agreement, no consensus reached at 5.2, they really cannot find the resources nor the budget to continue these negotiations.”
Instead, Ms Somer suggested: “there would be more action taken through the Basel Convention on Plastics and there might be other platforms also like the Stockholm Convention, where the POPs, the persistent organic pollutants, are addressed, perhaps to reduce the use of chemicals in plastics.”
The plenary session panellists then discussed markets for recycled material after a presentation from Sally Houghton, Executive Director of the PET Recycling Corporation of California (USA). Ms Houghton, who is also a Plastics Division board member, explained how new policies are being developed in the US.
She said that EPR – Extended Producer Responsibility – is being introduced as a new concept. “I refer specifically to EPR for plastic packaging. Currently, five states are exploring or have implemented EPR for packaging. So, it’s exciting times.”
However, Ms Houghton remarked that there was no immediate encouragement for domestic US plastics recyclers because of competition from imported material. She said: “The problem we’re seeing in California is we have such an influx of cheap PCR (post-consumer recycling) coming into the state.”
The challenges faced by US domestic recyclers were noted by Mr Alssema, who reflected that plastics recyclers were facing difficult times.
After reporting on factory closures in the Netherlands, he said: “Last year in Singapore, we already concluded that our industry was going through stormy weather, and we had hoped to see signs of recovery by now, but instead it seems the situation in our sector is even worse.”
Board member Max Craipeau, Greencore Resources Ltd (Hong Kong SAR China), said he felt that on EPR: “the best is a push pull mechanism with the minimum recycled content obligation, because if brands have no other choice but to include a certain portion of recycled content in their product, then upstream, downstream, the collection, everything is reorganising itself because the demand is there.
“The pricing becomes attractive, the investment becomes a reality, and this is definitely why the BIR should be pushing for more such legislation.”
Also commenting on markets, was board member Bashar Gadawala, ALA Group & Fam Recycling FZCO (UAE). He said: “There is a lot of raw material availability and polymer prices are dropping, especially the virgin material, which is making a big effect on the recycled material at the moment.”
Mr Craipeau agreed. He said: “The impact of virgin is huge on our market. It’s not necessarily the case for the other commodities like metals and everything. But for us, we are really always coupled with the virgin material prices.
“One of the major producing costs for beverage companies is the bottle itself, the container. So, when you have cheap virgin PET, which you can find these days at 800 US dollars, whereas recycled is almost twice this, it’s an easy choice for them to do unless they have clear regulations and mandates that oblige them to incorporate recycled content.”
