For the past two years, countries have been negotiating the first-ever legally binding global agreement to end plastics pollution. We are now weeks away from what is meant to be the final negotiating session to determine the scope, mechanisms, governance and obligations of this new agreement. Despite the level of uncertainty that remains in terms of what shape the final agreement will take, one fundamental element remains clear: comprehensive, reliable data will be essential to its success.
Yet, in the most recent non-paper released by the Chair (Non-paper 3 of the Chair of the Committee) of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) - data was noticeably absent.
Although this non-paper has no formal status, and is only meant to offer a guide for the future negotiations, data and the concept of evidence-based decision making and reporting is a troubling omission. This is despite many effective provisions being proposed by Parties in the Draft Compilation text.
We cant manage what we cant measure. Achieving an end to plastics pollution and protecting human health will require a detailed understanding on plastics flows in each national economy. It will be important to ensure data is brought back into the agreement at INC-5.
Why data is important: understanding the scale of the problem
To solve the plastics crisis, we first need to understand its true magnitude and the impact of our efforts to address it.
Currently, our grasp of global plastics production, consumption, and waste patterns remains surprisingly limited. While we know that approximately 400 million tonnes of plastic are produced annually, significant gaps exist in our knowledge of how this plastic moves through the global economy and environment.
Without addressing these data gaps, it becomes impossible to:
- Establish meaningful national action plans to address plastic pollution Track progress effectively (both nationally and globally)
- Identify the most impactful interventions
- Allocate resources efficiently
It will also pose challenges for verification measures, that will be crucial for any potential market mechanisms. The lack of reliable and comparable data makes it difficult to verify progress claims or ensure the integrity of any trading schemes or offset programs that might be implemented as part of the global effort to combat plastic pollution.
Following the flow of plastic
The plastics lifecycle is complex and global. Plastic products may be manufactured in one country, consumed in another, and end up as waste in yet another. Currently, we lack standardized methods to track these flows across borders. This data gap makes it challenging to understand where interventions are most needed, and which countries might require additional support in managing the flow of plastics through their economy and ultimately addressing plastic waste.
Learning from other environmental treaties
Previous environmental agreements recognise the crucial role of data, with provisions requiring monitoring and reporting based on data in the agreement itself. For example, the Montreal Protocol's success in addressing ozone depletion was largely due to its robust monitoring and reporting requirements and the compilation of data submitted into a publicly available dashboard. Similarly, the Paris Agreement relies on standardized emissions reporting to track progress toward climate goals coupled with nationally determined contributions. The plastics treaty can learn from these examples.
Although much of the detail regarding reporting, guidance and methodologies will need to be developed in future decisions of the Conference of the Parties to the new agreement, it is important that the agreement itself requires the collection and compilation of national data and establishes the importance of the best-available science and data.
Looking Ahead to INC-5
As negotiators convene in Busan, South Korea at INC-5 later this month, ensuring that data is seen as a critical building block for success must be a priority.
This includes:
- Recognition of the importance of the use of best available science and data and the urgent need to strengthen the science-policy interface at all levels and improve understanding of the full life cycle of plastics
- Setting requirements for measuring baselines relevant to each point in the plastics lifecycle
- Ensuring reporting includes available national data, ideally through the creation of national inventories or accounts to ensure centralised and accessible data (ensuring the necessary flexibility is built into any requirements to reflect different starting points and national capacities and capabilities)
- Creating mechanisms and guidance for data sharing and international cooperation
- Building capacity for data through technical assistance and support
- New, additional and accessible support for countries lacking data infrastructure
- Appropriate methods to validate reported information and build trust
Without these fundamental elements, the treaty risks becoming a well-intentioned but ineffective agreement.
With them, we can create a powerful tool for addressing one of our most pressing environmental challenges in a way that builds collective capacity, doesn’t leave anyone behind and ensures evidence-based decision-making and policy.
Conclusion
The success of the global plastics treaty will largely depend on our ability to measure, monitor, and manage plastic flows through the global and national economy.
By prioritizing data collection now, we can build a strong foundation for effective action against plastic pollution. The challenge is significant, but the cost of flying blind is far greater. Only with robust data can we hope to turn the tide on plastic pollution and create a cleaner, more sustainable future.
Author: Eliza Northrop
