Outside the Plastic Box: part 2
Substance
Many different perspectives were shared in response to our earlier LinkedIn post about whether the INC on plastic pollution should finally conclude after four years (and 6-9 or more rounds of negotiations, depending on how/what you count), with little progress on many elements of a future treaty. While many respondents agreed that existing international treaties and other instruments could be used more effectively, some disagreed, as expected.
We hope these posts clarify our perspective and encourage further discussion. Part 1 shared thoughts on the process. This post focuses on the substance, also with three points—(1) where current components of the proposed plastics instrument are already found, (2) clearing up the misconception that the BRS Conventions are only about waste management, and (3) the opportunities that other instruments hold.
1. All elements of the INC draft(s) are already in existing instruments
The following table is a rough draft to illustrate how just a handful of existing instruments have provisions, most legally binding, that are, or can be, operationalized to tackle plastic pollution throughout its lifecycle. Not a perfect regime, and some would require amendments or implementing language to be truly effective; but together they represent something far stronger – and existing – than what States are currently negotiating.
Table 1: Rough indication (light blue) of which of the elements of the proposed plastics treaty existing global instruments could address primarily through existing obligations. Source: author.
2. The BRS Conventions are not just a “waste management treaty”
First, at the risk of stating the obvious, the BRS Conventions are three treaties, not a single instrument. Some have referred to them as a single instrument. Second, each has a different role in the lifecycle of chemicals, wastes, and pollution. The oldest of the three, the Basel Convention, covers the transboundary movement of wastes and is not just about waste management (see below). The Rotterdam Convention focuses on sharing information across borders to enable national governments to decide on the use and import of chemicals that are banned or severely restricted in other countries, as well as on safe handling by workers. The Stockholm Convention is the most comprehensive of the three conventions, covering the lifecycle of chemicals defined as Persistent Organic Pollutants.
They have been linked through a series of synergistic decisions that forge a stronger lifecycle approach to chemicals and wastes, and are now referred to as the BRS, so perhaps that is why they are seen as a unitary treaty, but Parties do carefully respect the autonomy of each treaty. I would not consider them a waste management treaty individually or as a package.
3. Basel Convention could employ a lifecycle approach
Article 4.2(a) of the Basel Convention states that:
“Each Party shall take the appropriate measures to ensure that the generation of hazardous wastes and other wastes within it is reduced to a minimum, taking into account social, technological and economic aspects.”
This language on waste prevention holds incredible promise for reducing plastic and other forms of pollution. Across the globe, we've seen how both technically and economically, it's entirely possible to look upstream and choose safer, more sustainable chemicals and materials. Investing in pollution prevention pays off, and the data shows this.
This part of the negotiations—upstream measures to reduce the use of problematic plastics— has been a key challenge. If the current Parties to the Basel Convention (All States, except the United States, South Sudan, Haiti, Timor-Leste, Fiji, and San Marino) and a few others) could put this into action, it would go a long way in reducing the plastic pollution that contaminates our food, water, air, and eventually, our bodies.
The Basel Convention already includes features fiercely debated in the INC, such as a financial mechanism and the power to vote on decisions when consensus can not be reached. It also has a compliance committee and a subsidiary body, and it allows for the development of protocols. However, many of these elements remain undecided or are missing entirely from the INC-5 draft treaty texts.
In sum, why take the risk on two in the bush, when one bird is in hand? At the upcoming Heads of Delegation meeting in September 2026, States and other stakeholders should consider what current instruments and institutional arrangements, such as the BRS, Minamata, ISP, and GFC, already offer. Let's focus on building on these rather than staying stuck in negotiations like INC-5. It’s important to avoid adopting weak instruments that would merely serve as a “fig-leaf,” as one commentator stated, instead of actually making strides to end plastic pollution.