Wheres can this UPI article be found that everyone keeps referring to??
The Drudge report times out.
-
=http://www.geocities.com/barrybolton187/lok.jpg>
-
=http://www.geocities.com/barrybolton187/lok.jpg>
-
Announcement from ERM has made my day. :)
-
A study last year found that without a “concerted” international effort, the level of plastics seeping into the environment each year could double by 2040.
In 2022, UN Member States committed to developing a Global Plastics Treaty aimed at reducing global plastics production, prioritising materials that pose the greatest risk to the environment and public health, and requiring nations to enhance waste management practices.
Despite years of discussions, time constraints and unresolved issues prevented negotiators from finalising a draft treaty text last year that could accommodate differing national positions.
However, Carsten Wachholz, co-lead of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, tells edie that some progress was made, and businesses are now in a prime position to drive action towards securing a treaty in 2025.
Why were the talks unsuccessful?
One of the main challenges in Busan was the limited time available to process a new negotiating text.
“There was a last-minute attempt,” Wachholz explains, referring to the ‘non-paper’ approach introduced by the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for the Plastics Treaty just two months before the final negotiation round.
“That required revisiting and a better understanding among countries regarding what the Chair intended with this text,” he adds.
Wachholz highlights that although this document was widely accepted as the basis for negotiations, key unresolved issues—such as defining sustainable levels of plastic production, phasing out problematic plastics, and securing financial resources—slowed progress.
The political pressure to meet the original two-year timeline was immense, Wachholz points out. But the complexity of the negotiations made it impossible to finalise a meaningful treaty in such a short time, especially after delays at previous meetings.
He says: “From an institutional or procedural point of view, there are no comparable timelines that have been met. For any other major multilateral environmental agreement, it has always taken more time.”
He emphasises that while delays can be frustrating, rushing to conclude an ambiguous and non-enforceable agreement would have been counterproductive. A date for the next round of negotiations, which will be known as INC 5.2, is yet to be confirmed.
What was achieved?
Wachholz highlights that significant progress was made. “We’ve reached a stage where there is now a clear division between two groups of countries,” he explains.
One group wants the treaty’s targets to be more voluntary and for nations to draw up their own plans – in which they should have the right to focus on waste management more than reducing plastic production at source. The other pushes for a more ambitious agreement addressing the full life cycle of plastics. This divide, while challenging, has helped clarify the key issues that must be resolved in 2025.
Negotiators moved closer to establishing global targets for plastic production, restrictions on problematic plastic products, and sector-specific waste management measures.
Wachholz notes that discussions on circular economy principles and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) have gained traction, signalling a shift towards greater accountability for companies in managing plastic waste.
Additionally, while some areas remain ambiguous, key provisions such as scaling up waste management infrastructure and setting clear expectations for product design have been widely accepted.
“Some elements are more mandatory, while others—like EPRs—are mentioned as supporting mechanisms,” Wachholz notes. This progress, though incomplete, offers a strong foundation for finalising a treaty in 2025.
What are the challenges ahead?
Looking forward, Wachholz warns that some countries may attempt to “cherry-pick the easiest elements—like waste management and product design—while neglecting the more difficult measures, such as plastic production limits and phase-outs.”
To prevent a diluted treaty, business engagement will be essential in maintaining pressure for a comprehensive, life-cycle approach.
There is also the challenge of securing financial resources for implementation. Wachholz highlights that mobilising both public and private funds will be necessary to ensure the treaty is not only legally binding but also practical for implementation at the national level.
Developing nations, in particular, will require financial and technical support to scale up waste management systems and transition towards circular plastic economies.
Another concern is the potential for regulatory fragmentation. Without clear and enforceable global standards, some countries may implement only selected aspects of the treaty, leading to inconsistencies across regions. Wachholz emphasises that a coordinated global approach will be far more effective than a patchwork of national policies that may lack cohesion and enforcement.
How can businesses lead the change?
The business sector has already shown leadership in supporting a strong treaty.
“Since the beginning, we have convened the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, and we continue to receive requests from companies wanting to join,” Wachholz explains.
Nearly 300 companies and organisations from across the plastics value chain are now involved in the Foundation’s Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, advocating for decisive action at INC 5.2.
Wachholz underscores the importance of businesses reinforcing key treaty provisions, particularly around product design regulations and EPR.
“Many companies have already voluntarily aligned on key principles for circular plastic design, particularly in packaging. Strengthening and standardising these measures would reduce costs associated with collecting, sorting and processing plastic waste,” he says.
Moreover, Wachholz argues that while some governments hesitate to mandate EPR, corporates can help to give policymakers permission.
Wachholz points out that companies should work closely with regulators to ensure that new policies are effective, practical and scalable.
Businesses can also play a crucial role in helping governments implement treaty provisions by offering expertise and technological solutions.
“A strong treaty will empower the private sector to ramp up and run solutions on their own, rather than relying solely on scarce public funds,” he says.
Looking ahead to INC 5.2, Wachholz warns that the process cannot be endlessly prolonged.
He says: “We shouldn’t reach the seventh session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-7) in December 2025 only to hear that another two or three years are needed. Ideally, 2025 should be the year they seal the deal.”
To achieve this, Wachholz recommends that companies must continue to push for ambitious, enforceable measures while helping governments shape effective regulatory frameworks. By aligning industry efforts with treaty provisions, businesses can demonstrate that a strong agreement is not only necessary but also economically viable.
Source: https://www.edie.net/how-businesses-can-drive-action-towards-a-global-plastics-treaty-this-year/
P.S sorry to interrupt, while Pact responded with some bull crap information, this news from plastic treaty woke me up. While all evidences on ASX news pointed to the trading movements and other company's information. Environmental news me pointed me to exactly the opposite, as like Pact is benefitting that RG too much, man, like puppyeh said!! What about us?
While that Pact ASX news is the responding to ASX, I questioned myself after what Pact intention for putting heave capex on the report? My news huh? Why you don't tell us environmental truth for god sake? You made at least 3-4 holders exited before hand. Will you respond to it for your butt's job? Let me guess, Pact thinking was like, mumbo jumbo bananas, who is the loser and RG must be the winner? I was like HUH? Excuse ME!!!!! This is still the public company btw and Pact respond to the authority after I read this news was like, hey you are FAVOURING the CHAIR too much btw. It's only the chair and we can all sit on it, you know????
For me, I only focus this Plastic Treaty and top 200 holders on Pact shares, so little Pact respond to ASX, that I care!!!
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
76.0¢ |
Change
-0.020(2.56%) |
Mkt cap ! $258.2M | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| 76.5¢ | 78.0¢ | 75.0¢ | $43.71K | 57.23K |
Buyers (Bids)
| No. | Vol. | Price($) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2353 | 76.0¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
| Price($) | Vol. | No. |
|---|---|---|
| 77.0¢ | 14888 | 4 |
View Market Depth
| Last trade - 12.14pm 19/06/2025 (20 minute delay) ? |
|
|||||
|
Last
75.5¢ |
Change
-0.020 ( 1.96 %) |
||||
| Open | High | Low | Volume | ||
| 76.5¢ | 77.0¢ | 75.0¢ | 3657 | ||
| Last updated 12.23pm 19/06/2025 ? | |||||
| PGH (ASX) Chart |