Climate Policy Negotiations

Toxic legacy or sustainable future? That’s the choice the world confronted in Geneva in the last 2 weeks. At the United Nations 2025 Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) COPs, nearly 180 nations made critical decisions that will reshape global trade, chemicals use, and waste management. 🌏 Australia was in the room but are we ready for what comes next? Here’s what business should know: 🔒 Global chemical bans are getting sharper. The Stockholm Convention voted to eliminate medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs) which is a key additive in PVC, making this the most technically difficult ban yet. These are used in construction, cars, and electronics. Compliance isn’t optional. 🧪 Chlorpyrifos and LC-PFCAs were also listed for phase-out. These are persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals with real health risks. 🔁 The Basel Convention adopted a new plastic waste strategy, tightening controls on e-waste and updating guidance on batteries and tyres. Circular economy businesses: this would appear to be your moment ! 🚫 Corporate funding for implementation support was blocked at COPs — a missed opportunity, but also a clear signal: public-private partnerships need diplomacy, not just dollars. 📉 The Rotterdam Convention once again stalled on key chemical listings (like mercury and methyl bromide) due to political resistance. But global consensus is building — slowly, and visibly. 🇦🇺 As a party to all three conventions, Australia now faces: - Stricter import/export monitoring requirements - Compliance challenges for the PVC and construction industries - Expectations to lead on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) - New alignment pressure from the upcoming global plastics treaty 💡 What Australian businesses must do now: - Audit supply chains for chemicals flagged in BRS COPs. - Invest in green chemistry and digital waste tracking. - Support regional technical centres with expertise and tools. - Engage early in consultations on treaty alignment and implementation. - Set public sustainability targets that reflect global MEA trends. The message from Geneva is clear: Regulatory gravity is pulling toward accountability, circularity, and toxics reduction. The businesses that act now will lead — and be trusted — in the low-tox future. 🔗 Full breakdown of BRS COPs 2025 and Australian policy/business implications has been circulated to the BCSDA Members in the Circular Materials and Pathways Working Group. Read background: https://lnkd.in/g8CGDiPz What do you see as Australia’s biggest opportunity — or risk — from the BRS decisions? Are our current policies and business strategies up to the challenge? Kirsten Rose FTSE GAICD Lisa McLean Chris Foley Andrew Doig

Big Week For Plastic. Anyone else following the Geneva talks? The city’s in full negotiation mode this week as INC-5.2 gets underway. The last stretch of talks to finalise a global plastics treaty, and the outcome could shape the future of packaging for decades. The ambition's to create a legally binding agreement to tackle plastic pollution from production to disposal. But getting there means untangling decades of conflicting priorities, economic interests and political pressure. The focus is simple, but the politics aren’t. Countries are trying to agree on a legally binding plan to tackle plastic pollution at every stage of its life. That means talking about what gets produced, how it’s used, what goes into it, and who’s responsible for cleaning it up. Packaging sits right in the middle of the debate. There appears to be growing support for a cap on virgin plastic production. Over 100 countries back it. The idea is to stop the flow at the source and push industry investment into reuse, recycling and alternative materials. But big producers aren’t on board. The US, China and others are calling for the focus to stay on waste, not supply. That disagreement alone is slowing everything down. Chemical regulation is another sticking point. Some parties are pushing for stricter controls on additives like PFAS, along with full disclosure on what goes into plastics. That’s a challenge for brands using multi-layer films, barrier technologies or opaque formulations. But without transparency, there’s no real way to track impact or enforce standards. Extended Producer Responsibility is also under discussion. The idea’s to make companies legally and financially responsible for the full life of their packaging, including clean-up and disposal. Not a new concept, but if this becomes global law, it changes the equation for design, sourcing and cost. Then there’s the issue of fairness. Developing countries are being asked to hit the same targets without the same infrastructure. The treaty text includes references to support and flexibility, but so far, there’s little agreement on what that looks like in practice. Even the basics are still contested. Delegates can’t agree on definitions, on the scope of the treaty, or whether health impacts should be included. And with no formal voting procedure in place, a handful of countries can block consensus. That’s happened before, and it could happen again. All very complex, but the direction’s appears clear. Brands and manufacturers are facing a future where business as usual won’t cut it. If this treaty lands with teeth, it will impact everything from sourcing to design to disposal. What’s being decided in Geneva is more than policy but a marker of where the world is heading and how fast the packaging industry is expected to move. No brand is too big or too niche to be affected by this Worth keeping an eye on! Where should the responsibility land first design, production, or policy?

This week in Geneva, negotiations for a historic global plastics treaty stalled. The draft agreement—meant to curb plastic pollution—was stripped of its most critical provisions: no caps on plastic production, no limits on toxic additives, and no binding global rules. Why? Because oil-producing nations and petrochemical giants pushed back hard. They want to frame plastic as a waste problem—not a production problem. But we know the truth: recycling alone won’t save us. Less than 10% of plastic ever produced has been recycled. The rest is choking our oceans, entering our food, and now—our bloodstream. Countries like Norway, Mexico, and members of the EU are demanding stronger action. But without a united front, the treaty risks becoming another watered-down promise. This isn’t just about plastic. It’s about power, equity, and the kind of future we’re willing to fight for. We need a treaty that doesn’t just manage pollution—but prevents it. Because the cost of delay isn’t measured in negotiations—it’s measured in lives, ecosystems, and generations. #PlasticTreaty #ClimateJustice #Sustainability #CircularEconomy #GlobalAction #EnvironmentalPolicy #LeadershipForChange

Why is the UN Plastic Treaty Failing? Negotiations for a legally binding #UNGlobalPlasticTreaty have faced significant challenges and delays, falling short of the initial target of finalizing it by the end of 2024. The primary reasons for this stagnation stem from #deepdivides among countries regarding the #scope #ambition of the treaty. ▶️ Production vs. Waste Management: A core disagreement lies in whether the treaty should address the entire lifecycle of plastics, including production limits, or focus primarily on waste management and recycling solutions. A coalition of over 100 countries, advocates for binding commitments to reduce the production of primary plastics emphasizing that curbing #production is essential to address the root cause of the plastic pollution crisis. However, a smaller group of nations, including major oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and the US, resist production caps, emphasizing waste management & recycling as the primary focus. ▶️ Economic Interests: The opposition to production limits from some countries is largely driven by #economicconcerns, due to their significant investments in the #fossilfuel and #petrochemicalindustries, which are integral to plastic manufacturing. Imposing production cuts could have detrimental effects on their economies & development plans. ▶️ Hazardous Chemicals: Another contentious area involves the regulation of hazardous chemicals used in plastic products. Some countries seek to include strict #bans and restrictions , highlighting their negative impacts on #humanhealth and #environment & some oil-producing nations, are reluctant to endorse stringent #regulations, citing potential disruptions to their industries. ▶️ Financing Mechanisms: Developing nations have stressed the need for adequate financial & technical support to implement the treaty's provisions, particularly concerning #wastemanagement #infrastructure & transitioning to safer alternatives. Wealthier nations have been hesitant to commit significant resources without a clear framework for action. ▶️ Decision-Making Processes: Disagreements regarding the rules for decision-making within the #negotiations, specifically on whether to rely solely on consensus or allow for majority #voting, have also slowed progress. During the most recent round of negotiations in Geneva, observers expressed disappointment at the slow pace and the lack of progress on crucial issues like production cuts and the regulation of #hazardouschemicals. While a #drafttreaty text exists, it reflects the numerous unresolved issues. The path forward will necessitate gigantic efforts to bridge these gaps, potentially exploring compromise solutions that balance environmental goals with economic realities and development. Without achieving a significant level of #consensus on these critical points, the effectiveness of the #UNPlasticTreaty in addressing the #globalplasticpollution crisis remains uncertain.