Is there a split between UK food manufacturers and retailers on the role of reusable packaging? David Burrows reports.
Talks to thrash out a global plastics treaty are taking place in France this week. It’s the second of five rounds of talks that should end in an agreement by the end of next year. Given the tight timeframe there is a sense of urgency in getting to the nitty-gritty sooner rather than later.
A 37-page options paper sets the scene for what a treaty might include. It’s actually quite accessible, listing 12 possible core obligations, which include bans on “problematic” plastic products, reducing microplastics, fostering circular design, addressing existing plastic pollution and protecting human health. Others involve encouraging reuse and promoting the use of “safe, sustainable alternatives”.
Most attention will be on the obligation to phase out and/or reduce the supply of, demand for and use of plastic polymers. The UK government appears to be on board with the possibility of a production cap, having signed up to (and been influential in) the so-called high ambition coalition to end plastic pollution. This group of 52 nations is “alarmed” by the reliance on plastic and forecasts that could see global plastic waste triple by 2060. “[…] the world cannot manage the resulting plastic waste in an environmentally sound and safe manner,” the coalition warned in a joint ministerial statement last week.
Plastic producers obviously believe differently. Indeed, in April the likes of ExxonMobil, the British Plastics Federation (BPF) and the Chemicals Industries Association (CIA), attended a UK meeting of stakeholders organised by Defra and the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network. There were NGOs like WWF, Wrap and the EIA, too, and representatives from Morrisons, Marks and Spencer, Nestlé, Unilever, Danone and Coca-Cola; plus universities, fisheries and waste management companies (though no-one from foodservice, it seems).
The discussions led to a short report published yesterday (May 30th). This broke down how the UK stakeholders as a whole, and by sector, were feeling about the various possible rules that the treaty could set in motion. Unsurprisingly the petrochemicals gang (BPF, CIA and ExxonMobil) felt targets for virgin polymer production shouldn’t be included. Packaging converters also saw this as a low priority. Everyone else wanted it as a top priority,
Reusables rupture
More interesting (or rather worrying) were some of the other splits. The consumer goods companies group for example listed funds to mobilise reuse and refill infrastructure as a low priority (as did, less surprisingly, petrochemicals companies and packaging converters). The three groups were also aligned when it came to the potential of mandatory disclosure of chemical content in plastic products (which is set to be a high profile topic as talks progress).
Retailers felt reuse and chemicals should be a top priority for the treaty (the measure gained the support of more than 60% of participants overall).
NGOs I have spoken to have been enthused by how food businesses generally have aligned with their thinking on plastic pollution and what an effective treaty could look like. But perhaps companies are not quite as comfortable with this as campaigners think (or the public statements suggest).
Where was there total cross sector alignment on measures? On global design criteria, establishment of producer responsibility schemes for plastic and technology transfer to low- and middle-income countries. Mandatory disclosure of polymer types in plastic products also garnered over 70% support, as did the need for clear definitions on biodegradable, compostable and bioplastics.
“[…] we are dedicated to continuing to push for the development of an ambitious and effective treaty that will end plastic pollution by 2040,” said Defra head of international marine environment Fiona Charlesworth. “The UK is already leading by example on tackling plastic pollution at home.”
That is a stretch. Bans on a few single-use items to date and a few more later this year won’t quite cut it if this treaty really delivers something ambitious. There is also need to be wary of how this all plays out in the media. The focus is once again on plastics which will buoy the likes of paper, aluminium, glass and novel material producers. Substitutions are however “absolutely” part of the discussions, says Alexandra Harrington from Lancaster University law school who is attending the talks as chair of an international environmental law taskforce. “We need to know what the alternatives are and if they are better or worse.”
That is easier said than done. The media focus this week will be on a target to reduce plastic production, and it’s not too early to talk about such a thing. “There is energy around this idea,” says Christina Dixon from EIA. But expect things to get nittier and grittier (and for the lobbying to get louder and dirtier) as we reach round three later this year and the prospect of an initial draft.
