Summary of the UCC Report on the Global Plastics Treaty

Prepared by Master’s students in Environmental Law, University College Cork (UCC).
With thanks to Lecturer Owen McIntyre and the contributing LL.M. students

As plastic pollution continues to pose a serious global threat to human health, ecosystems, and biodiversity, nations are negotiating a new Global Plastics Treaty, formally known as the International Legally Binding Instrument (ILBI), on plastic pollution. A team of Master’s students in Environmental and Natural Resources Law at University College Cork (UCC), under the guidance of Lecturer Owen McIntyre, has produced an extensive report critically analysing the treaty’s progress and the many legal and political challenges that remain.

This summary outlines the core insights of their work, highlighting the need for an ambitious and enforceable treaty that reflects the full life cycle of plastics and addresses the root causes of pollution, not just its symptoms.

1. A Treaty in Progress: Promise vs. Political Reality

The treaty stems from UNEA Resolution 5/14, which mandates a comprehensive instrument addressing the full life cycle of plastics, from production and use to disposal. However, despite five rounds of negotiations (INC-1 to INC-5), no final text has been agreed upon. Divisions persist between:

• High Ambition Coalition (HAC) countries pushing for upstream regulation (reducing plastic production).
• Like-Minded Group (LMG) countries favouring downstream solutions (waste management).

The UCC report warns that industrial lobbying and national self-interest are watering down the treaty’s potential by shifting focus away from systemic change and toward weak, voluntary measures.

2. Defining the Treaty’s Objective: More Than Symbolism

The ILBI’s objective will determine its strength and enforceability. The current drafts suggest varying aims, from “ending plastic pollution” to “protecting human health and the environment”, but key terms like plastic pollution and life cycle remain undefined.

Drawing from successful treaties like the Montréal Protocol, the report argues for a strong, legally binding objective that:

• Targets upstream causes of plastic pollution.
• Prioritizes public health and environmental integrity.
• Avoids vague or aspirational wording that weakens legal obligations.

Without clarity on scope and definitions, the treaty risks becoming unenforceable.

3. Scope and Definitions: A Battle Over the Treaty’s Soul

The original intent of the treaty was to cover both upstream (production) and downstream (waste) phases. Over time, however, pro-plastic interests have pushed to narrow the scope, limiting the treaty’s reach to post-consumer waste rather than tackling overproduction and toxic materials.

The report finds that even basic terms like “plastic,” “pollution,” and “circular economy” are inconsistently defined across drafts. This legal ambiguity allows states and industries to interpret the treaty as they see fit, reducing its effectiveness.

The authors recommend:

• Including a dedicated article on definitions.
• Using science-based and internationally recognized terminology.
• Explicitly addressing “plastic pollution” as encompassing all emissions across the plastic life cycle.

4. Principles of International Environmental Law: The Missing Backbone

The ILBI should be grounded in well-established environmental law principles, such as:

• Polluter Pays
• Precautionary Principle
• Sustainable Development
• Intergenerational Equity
• Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR)

Currently, the treaty drafts reference these principles inconsistently. The report stresses that without clear integration and operationalisation of these norms, the treaty risks lacking both moral authority and practical enforceability.

5. Circularity and Sustainable Design: Moving Beyond Recycling

The report argues that true circularity is not just about recycling but re-thinking how plastics are designed and used. It calls for:

• Mono-material product design to ease recycling.
• Phase-outs of unnecessary and toxic plastic products.
• Binding Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes to hold companies accountable.

Models like California’s SB-54 law and the EU’s plastics directive offer legal precedents. However, current treaty texts are vague on enforceable targets. Without legal teeth, sustainability goals may remain mere aspirations.

6. Human Rights and Environmental Justice

Plastic pollution disproportionately harms vulnerable communities, including:

• Indigenous Peoples
• Informal waste workers
• Women and children
• Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

While human rights language has begun to appear in later drafts, it remains weak and non-binding. The report calls for:

• Legally enforceable recognition of the right to health.
• A just transition for communities reliant on plastic-related industries.
• Guaranteed decision-making roles for rights holders.

Symbolic inclusion without legal power, the authors argue, undermines equity and justice.

7. Aligning With Other Global Agreements

The ILBI must interact with existing global frameworks, such as:

• UNCLOS (marine pollution)
• Basel and Stockholm Conventions (hazardous waste)
• WTO rules (trade in plastic goods)

Overlapping mandates and vague roles could cause legal confusion. The report recommends establishing formal coordination mechanisms, improving regulatory coherence, and enhancing monitoring to ensure treaty alignment and effectiveness.

8. Financing the Transition: Who Pays and How?

A major sticking point in negotiations is funding. Developing countries demand fair and predictable financing, while richer nations debate who should contribute and how much.

The Chair’s current proposal includes a COP-managed financial mechanism to support:

• National action plans
• Technology transfer
• Reporting and monitoring

The UCC team urges a system modeled on the Montreal Protocol’s Multilateral Fund, with:

• Balanced governance
• Clear eligibility rules
• Sufficient, predictable funding streams

9. Monitoring, Compliance, and Reporting

For the ILBI to be effective, it must have:

• An independent monitoring body with financial autonomy.
• A clear compliance framework grounded in science.
• Regular, transparent reporting on plastic production, trade, and pollution.

The report also recommends inclusive data systems that support equitable participation and accountability across nations.

Conclusion: A Make-or-Break Moment

This report urges governments to resist industry pressure and reaffirm their commitment to ending plastic pollution, not just managing it. The treaty must address root causes, including unchecked production and harmful design and not settle for end-of-pipe solutions like recycling alone.

The UCC students conclude that a strong, legally binding ILBI must:

• Define and uphold a full life-cycle approach.
• Enshrine environmental and human rights principles.
• Mandate meaningful participation from civil society and vulnerable communities.
• Be backed by robust financial and monitoring systems.

If done right, this treaty could be a transformative step in ending the plastic crisis. If done wrong, it risks entrenching the very systems that created it.

‍