India’s dilemma: Global Plastic Treaty summit will push to wrap up use, but at what cost? 

Global negotiations on plastic pollution are set to begin in Busan as soon as COP29 ends. Petro-states resist production cuts, favouring waste management solutions instead. India is seeking to balance economic growth with sustainability, keeping in mind its large plastic production workforce.

Even as global attention centres on Baku, Azerbaijan, where over 190 nations have gathered for the COP29 conference on climate change, preparations for another crucial summit are already brewing in the background. Shortly after COP29 concludes, 175 countries will convene in Busan, South Korea, for the final round of negotiations on the Global Plastic Treaty, which was adopted in March 2022. These talks also come amid heightened concern that the return of Donald Trump as US president could signal a renewed push for fossil fuel expansion.

Finding consensus on this treaty is crucial, given that plastic poses a dire threat to ecosystems and human health, while also fuelling climate change thanks to its heavy reliance on fossil fuels for production. While mitigating plastic pollution will be on top of the agenda at Busan, negotiators will also have to address the geopolitical implications of such a treaty. 

It is no secret that fossil-fuel-rich countries are keen to preserve their economic interests in plastic, despite calls for stronger sustainability measures. Moreover, the link between fossil fuel production and plastic manufacturing raises questions about the future of global environmental governance. These fossil-fuel-rich countries are currently resisting adopting measures to curb plastic production, and are instead advocating solutions focused only on waste management and recycling. 

Such conflicting priorities have complicated negotiations, with developing countries such as India finding it particularly challenging to find a balance between practising sustainability and economic growth. The country has a robust plastic industry that provides millions of jobs. So how can India achieve a balance between economic development and the urgent need for sustainable practices in the face of mounting global pressure to combat plastic pollution? 

The outcomes in Busan are also closely intertwined with the discussions in Baku—especially as climate negotiations take place in a petrostate for the third year in a row.

Tracing the origins of the Global Plastic Treaty 

The first plastic polymer was invented in 1869, but the threat of plastic pollution became widely recognised only a hundred years later in the 1970s and 1980s. Initially, the concern of nations was limited mainly to plastic deposits in the ocean. It was only ten years ago, in 2014, at the first session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) held in Nairobi, Kenya, where “marine plastic debris and microplastic” was listed as one of the main issues in its adopted resolution. India tabled the proposal to ban single use plastic in 2019. 

Plastics are inexpensive, synthetic materials that are mainly made of polymers, which in turn are produced from fossil fuels like petroleum, natural gas and coal. Not only is the rise in the production of widely used plastics directly linked with the increase of greenhouse gas emissions, but plastics also have degrading ecological impacts from disrupting food chains, contaminating water and soil, and posing threats to environmental and human health.

Amidst the escalating threat that plastic poses to the planet, countries agreed in March 2022 to prepare an internationally legally binding agreement – also known as Global Plastics Treaty (GPT) — which aimed to “end plastic pollution”. An Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) was established to focus on a “comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design, and disposal”. The INC aims to complete negotiations by the end of 2024. 

Initially proposed by Peru and Rwanda, the treaty has the support of 175 countries, including India. To date, four rounds of negotiations have taken place in Uruguay, France, Kenya, and Canada, as nations work toward a consensus. The fifth and final round of discussions is set to occur in South Korea from November 25 to December 1, 2024.

A tug of war

The treaty has a vast ambit, focusing on the entire life cycle of plastics — from raw material extraction to design, chemical use, disposal of waste and recycling. In March 2022, when the resolution for the plastic treaty was adopted in UNEA, it was described as “the most significant environmental multilateral deal since the Paris accord”. Led by Rwanda and Norway, a “High Ambition Coalition” (HAC) comprising 40 countries was formed, which advocates for eradication of plastic pollution by 2040. This bloc is pushing for a deal that guarantees interventions throughout the life cycle of plastics. 

A proposal named ‘40 by 40’ was tabled in the Ottawa conference (INC-4) by Peru and Rwanda, which aims to cut 40% plastic production by the end of year 2040. With the support of 27 countries, the Ottawa conference concluded with a declaration — Bridge to Busan — an attempt to ensure that “production cuts” remain on the Busan summit’s agenda.

However, there could be possible roadblocks ahead. Big Oil, petrochemical lobbies, and petrostates like Saudi Arabia, Russia, USA, and Iran do not want to reduce the extraction of material and production of plastic (which is known as the “upstream” stage of the plastic cycle). They are advocating addressing only the “downstream” stage, which includes recycling and waste management. In fact, countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China and Cuba, have forged the “Global Coalition for Plastic Sustainability” alliance to demand that the treaty should focus on waste, not production. 

High-stakes game

Under the pledge taken at the COP28 Climate Conference, the world has to “transition away” from fossil fuels to renewable energy and a low carbon path. Naturally, oil-and-gas-rich countries are looking for other avenues for their fossil fuels. The plastic industry is a ripe candidate, according to Siddharth Ghanshyam Singh, programme manager at the New Delhi-based Center for Science and Environment (CSE). 

“Fossil-fuel-rich countries and mega oil and gas companies won’t reduce the use or extraction of fossil fuels. They say if you do not allow the use of coal, gas and oil in the power generation, we will find some other way to use it,” he says.

Not surprising that the number of pro-plastic lobbyists (who are representatives of fossil fuel and petrochemical industries) is increasing in the negotiation to influence the outcome. In the last UN plastic treaty meeting at Ottawa, Canada, the number of such lobbyists increased by one-third in comparison to their presence in the previous conference held at Nairobi, Kenya. 

This is a concern for nations like Peru, Rwanda, and Norway, who do not want plastic production to increase. They plan to bargain hard at Busan (INC-5). According to Delphine Levi Alvares,  petrochemicals campaign manager with Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), “the text of the treaty agreed in Busan will decide the fate of plastic policy governance globally.”

Alvares said, “If the negotiating countries maintain high ambition, the treaty could be a catalyst in reducing how much plastics we produce, what chemicals are used in making them, and how we manage them as waste. The stakes are high for the large polymer producers, chemical manufacturers, and other commercial interests, and their lobbyists will likely turn up as a strong force.”

An analysis done by CIEL, in collaboration with other indigenous and civil society groups, found that a total of 196 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists had registered at INC-4, a 37% increase from INC-3. At INC-4, the fossil fuel and chemical industries registered more representatives than the combined delegations of the 87 smallest participating countries.

“Lobbyists have appeared in country delegations and gained privileged access to Member State-only sessions, where sensitive discussions unfold behind closed doors. This shows that the footprint of industry lobbyists is progressively increasing,” Alvares said. 

India’s position in the negotiations

In its submission to INC, India clearly stated that the “legally binding instrument should specifically address plastic pollution only” and “there should be no binding targets / cap with respect to production of plastic polymers.” In the ‘proposed principles’ section of the submission, India has demanded that the treaty “should be based on the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility [CBDR] as well as national circumstances and capabilities…”

The increasing significance of plastic in India’s economy is one of the factors influencing its stance on the GPT on the international stage. According to government figures, there are about 130,000 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) registered and engaged in the plastic industry, which have employed about 1.65 million people. The plastic industry provides 1.4 million direct and 7 million indirect jobs in India. This is one of the primary reasons behind India’s opposition to any reductions in plastic production.

“Why should India take a position that will render its own workforce unemployed? Rich nations produced and used plastic for decades and polluted the earth and the marine ecosystem. Now they put the blame on the developing world. The truth is plastic provides millions of jobs. Even the waste creates opportunities for a lot of entrepreneurs,” a government official told CarbonCopy on condition of anonymity. 

In 2014, the total production value of plastic machinery in India was ₹21.5 billion. In 2022, it reached ₹38.5 billion — a growth of almost 80% in less than a decade. The cumulative export of plastic-related material in FY 2022-23 was $11.96 billion. 

Officials of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) maintain that plastic isn’t the problem, only plastic waste is a problem. They say pollution is “caused by the mismanagement of plastic waste” and  “ending the use of plastic is not a simple solution.” 

Rajiv Chawla, chairman of the non-profit Integrated Association of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises of India, says, “One can’t ban plastic altogether. Can you make a car, a mixer or a washing machine without using plastic? Plastic which is used for long-life items and saving other precious environmental resources can’t be wished away. The need of the hour is to reuse and recycle the plastic of short term use and we are surely taking steps for that.” CarbonCopy reached out to the MoEFCC to better understand India’s stand on the issue. This copy will be updated once a response is received. 

In line with this thinking, India is making efforts on the domestic front by recycling plastic, utilising it in “waste-to-energy” plants, and sending it to incinerators. To reduce the waste, the government announced a prohibition on “identified single use plastic items” in August 2021. This order came into effect in July 2022 under which the government prohibited “identified single use plastic items, which have low utility and high littering potential”, such as earbuds with plastic sticks, plastic sticks for balloons, plastic flags, candy sticks,  and cigarette packets, among others. However, on the ground, this order is rarely implemented and has proven to be largely ineffective.

Paramita Dey, senior faculty at National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi, says, “The collection of plastic is feasible only when it is clean and segregated at source. Otherwise, collection of post-consumer plastic is extremely challenging.” According to Dey, plastic packaging is crucial for some items, but can be avoided in many other products. 

“Unless the production of single use plastic is stopped completely, it will not find its way out of our environment. A lot of MSMEs are involved in production of single use plastic. This needs to be phased out and alternatives must be proposed for them,” she says. 

With the ban on single use plastic, India has also introduced an extended producer responsibility (EPR) regime to address plastic pollution in the packaging industry. This EPR regime, which functions under the Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016, describes “responsibility of Producers, Importers and Brand-owners (PIBOs) to ensure processing of their plastic packaging waste through recycling, re-use or end of life disposal.” Under the EPR guidelines, PIBOs and waste recyclers (known as plastic waste processes or PWP) need to  register themselves on the EPR portal of the Central or State Pollution Control Board. While the rules outline specific targets and responsibilities, the EPR regime has several weaknesses in its current form. It primarily addresses packaging plastic waste, leaving many items, such as sanitary napkins and slippers, outside its purview.

Ankur Bisen, author of the book “Wasted” and senior partner with Technopak Advisors, says at present the policymakers are using “a very simplistic framework for a very complex problem.” He says while PET bottles are mostly recycled and brought back to the value chain, there is nothing that effectively governs single layer plastic (SLPs) and multi layer plastic (MLPs). 

Bisen told CarbonCopy, “By banning single-use plastic, we are only addressing that part of the issue which affects the marginalised, single unit retailers or shopkeepers. We have not looked at the issue of MLPs and SLPs, which have no recycling value and can only be incinerated. They cause havoc to ecosystems, as nothing governs  them. This in spite of the fact that FMCGs [fast-moving consumer goods] are using MLPs and SLPs as the primary packaging solutions for their products like  chips, ketchup, etc. in small plastic bags which proliferate all over. The growth of all FMCGs is based on MLPs and SLPs and it is becoming increasingly unsustainable.” 

Abishek Garg, who is an EPR consultant, explains that India’s EPR regime mandates companies to collect and sustainably process their products’ packaging waste. Companies can now purchase EPR credits from government-authorised recyclers, essentially incentivising recyclers. This credit-based system, widely adopted in the European Union, ensures that obligated companies either comply or face penalties.

Despite more than half a dozen amendments to the EPR guidelines since their initial notification, significant loopholes persist. For example, the discovery of more than 6 lakh fake pollution-trading certificates highlights this issue. 

Garg says, “In Europe, this system is supported by robust infrastructure for waste collection, segregation, and recycling, alongside significant investment in technology to promote circularity. However, in India, a lack of infrastructure for collection, source segregation, and recycling of post-consumer waste presents a significant challenge. Additionally, the incentivisation of recyclers has led to fraudulent practices, with some recyclers falsely registering and generating fake EPR credits.”

EPR policies across the globe are designed to uphold the principle of ‘polluter pays’. Their fundamental goal is to support the collection, recycling and circularity of materials. CSE’s Singh says implementation of EPR in India is “market driven” and strictly based on trading of EPR certificates. 

“A handful of PWPs wilfully disregarded the EPR guidelines by generating (over 7 lakh) fraudulent certificates and trading them with PIBOs. As a result, the supply of EPR certificates surged, causing their prices to plummet. Moreover, regulatory action was only taken on PWPs and not on PIBOs who procured the fraudulent certificates. This approach of letting the polluter go ‘free’ undermines the basic principle on which EPR policies are based globally,” says Singh. 

Production cut is vital 

Observers, who are tracking the developments in the GPT negotiations, maintain that the problem cannot be solved without addressing the upstream stage.

Despite the economic challenges it faces, India’s alignment with petro-rich states positions it alongside countries seen as laggards in environmental responsibility.

Mere plastic waste management, even if it is done efficiently, won’t be enough to deal with the crisis. CIEL’s Alvares says producers have a financial stake in avoiding discussions about limiting production, but the world can no longer afford continued plastic production. 

She says, “Reducing production is not only viable, but essential to addressing the plastic crisis at its root. It was also clearly stated in the mandate given to the negotiators at UNEA 5.2 in 2022. Plastic pollution doesn’t start when plastic becomes waste or ends up in the environment. It starts when oil, gas, and coal are extracted from the earth to be turned into plastic.”

“No demand-driven policies have been successful at reducing the overall amount of plastic produced, and the pollution that goes with it, because the industry simply finds new markets and products. We won’t solve plastic pollution without reducing plastic production,” says Alvares. 

According to her, plastic production is fueling the climate crisis and undermining the goals of the Paris Agreement. It is expected to consume up to one-third of the remaining carbon budget by 2050, outpacing the energy and transportation sectors. Experts say that establishing and reinforcing the connection between climate change and plastics, and understanding the role of the fossil fuel industry is critical for the upcoming climate summit in Baku and the Global Plastic Treaty at Busan.

Harjeet Singh, climate activist and global engagement director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, says that to fully grasp the issue, one must recognise the intrinsic link between climate change, plastics, and the expanding influence of the fossil fuel industry.

“The new Global Plastics Treaty must break away from the blunders of past climate agreements by addressing the root cause of plastic pollution: fossil fuels. This treaty cannot sidestep what we all know—that ending plastic pollution means stopping fossil fuel-based plastics at the source. For too long, corporate interests have put profit over the well-being of our planet and people. We need bold, uncompromising action to halt plastic production and shield future generations from the compounded crisis of fossil-fuel-driven pollution and climate change,” Singh told Carboncopy. 

However, the question remains how a vast country like India will strike a balance between the economy and the fight with plastic pollution. Bisen advocates for a “roadmap of just transition”. 

He says, “Recycling should be viewed as a stop-gap arrangement and we should definitely address the production part of it. But to do that, we need a clear roadmap for a just transition, so that companies and businesses gradually increase the target to phase out plastic from their systems. The policymakers should ensure safer alternatives to big and small businesses – for example restoration of tin cans instead of plastic containers for mobil oil, so that there is no disruption in the value chain or loss of livelihood.”

The stakes are high for India and other developing nations that are increasingly affected by plastic pollution yet reliant on its economic benefits. The outcomes of both COP29 and the Busan summit should ideally help to shape the international framework for managing plastic waste and production. This will ultimately determine the path to combat global plastic pollution effectively.

About The Author

Hridayesh Joshi

See author's posts