In June 2024, the Open End Working Group (OEWG) for the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Waste met to discuss updates and possible changes which can be discussed and potentially agree upon at the COP17 meeting next year. This is important timing, as the Basel Convention, particularly the Plastic “Waste” Amendments, provide the legal framework for which the UN Plastic Treaty will revert to with respect to trade related issues which will impact the overall success of the treaty’s agreed upon objectives. This is also important to note, because many government delegates to the Basel Convention are often different from the delegates participating in the UN Plastic Pollution Treaty negotiations, with two sets of delegations representing the same member state, rarely coordinating on how the two treaties could complement one another.
As part of the OEWG, Ocean Recovery Alliance hosted a side event focusing on the facilitation of Global Circularity with Standardized Verifications and Procedures. The purpose of this discussion is to remind stakeholders that the Basel Convention is not intended to stop the trade of legitimate, verified materials which are used for inputs (feedstock), but instead is intended to stop the trade of waste materials which do not have the option for a second-life, like those of nuclear and chemical waste, and the rationale for the original treaty’s inception over 30 years ago.
Second-life materials (feedstock), on the other hand, are critical in supporting global circular markets, and are the inputs needed for circularity of material to occur. As such, facilitation of legitimate plastic feedstock for mechanical, advanced or other forms of value-creating recovered outputs leads to keeping these materials in circulation, reducing plastic pollution, and dependence on fossil-based feedstocks, which is one of the primary goals of the Plastic Pollution Treaty.
Without this mutual understanding, standardized definitions and agreements for implementation on the trade of legitimate feedstock, circularity and recycling at scale will face hurdles. If the material can be qualified, verified, and sent from pre-approved vendors to pre-approved users, most countries without sufficient resources for waste recovery and complete recycling will be able to benefit from the scale and expertise of others, without having to resort to illegal dumping, burning and inefficient recovery of plastic. At the same time, brands who desire to use recycled content will continue to face significant challenges in obtaining such feedstock for their use, as is becoming evident from the recent spate of scaling-back of recycling and recycled-content use commitments from a number of brands globally.
Terminology and words are important in creating unified understanding and interpretation. In this case, we should remember that the word “waste” has different meanings based on the material of focus within the Basel Convention. In the case of the Basel Plastic Waste Amendments, if we want to drive circularity with reduced plastic pollution, we could consider the use of a facilitating, constructive term, such as "feedstock", for material intended for secondary uses, which is verified and qualified for trade as a raw material for recycled content.
As the UN member states enter the final months of negotiating an agreement to reduce plastic pollution, creating circular economies for increased recycling will be critical in bringing about long-term positive impact. With the existing Basel Convention Framework already in place, global and regional efforts built upon well-defined and standardized principles can help to ensure that the trade in legitimate feedstock for recycling and circular economies is not unnecessarily restricted.
The Basel Convention’s COP 17, to be held in 2025, offers a perfect opportunity for enhancing a coordinated and transparent trade regime for plastic feedstock for recycling and circular post-use materials, ensuring the environmentally sound management of plastic waste along the way. This framework will be a significant enabling factor in developing the necessary capacities and investments in feedstock recovery and recycling technologies, which can be facilitated through efficiencies and common understanding via Annex 9.
The overall objective is to improve understanding and interpretation of how the guidelines work for the movement of plastic feedstock for recycling, and how to support a global circular economy via the existing Basel Framework. We feel that it is important for negotiating teams from member states, related both to the Basel Convention discussions, and the UN Plastic Treaty discussions, to understand the nuances of what each treaty brings to the table. This will help guide how the new Plastic Treaty framework can be written in a way that acknowledges the Basel Convention’s Plastic Amendment role with trade, but which also asks for alignment and improvement in the Basel regulations so that there are efficiencies created to enhance the overall outcome of reduced plastic pollution. Accordingly, though the word "waste" is used in the convention context of plastic (as opposed to hazardous chemicals and nuclear waste), it may be possible to create alternate wordings within the annexes which recognize the importance of feedstock as material for recycling.
We hope that this topic on trade facilitation can be properly referenced at the upcoming 5th session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC5) of the Plastic Pollution Treaty, to be held from 25 Nov-1 Dec 2024 in Korea, with purposeful linkage to the COP17 Basel event next year, so that the representatives of the member states of each event are more aligned on how trade in standardized, verified and certified feedstock for plastic recycling offers an important solution in the development of circular economies for plastic.
Commentaires