1. Introduction
People may have sensed that the issue of plastic pollution is increasingly featured in newspapers as a major international environmental issue. A report released at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2016 presented a sensational finding—that there will be more plastic than fish in the world’s oceans by 2050 if the current trend continues (WEF, 2016). As exemplified by that report, the plastic pollution issue has attracted attention and spurred arguments based on various perspectives, including the conservation of marine ecosystems, the impact on the fishery industry, and the impact on human health. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to develop an international legally binding instrument (international treaty) intended to control pollution throughout the entire life cycle of plastic was convened around once every six months under the framework of the United Nations after its first session in November 2022, and its fifth and final session (INC5) was held from the end of November 2024 in Busan, South Korea. The final session attracted intense public attention because an agreement-in-principle on a treaty on plastic waste was expected to be concluded. However, as member countries remained sharply divided, the session was closed without an agreement after the chair declared on the last day of the session that the INC5 would be reconvened at a later date (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2024).
According to the chair’s draft text of the treaty, published on the last day of the session, December 1, progress had been made in forming consensuses concerning matters such as plastic product design (Article 5) and plastic waste management (Article 8). However, with respect to matters such as production restrictions, identification of harmful substances, a financial mechanism to support developing countries, differences remained after multiple options were presented (INC, 2024).
We have been addressing this problem since before the negotiations on the treaty started. In particular, regarding the nature of the international treaty under discussion, we examined differences from other international environmental treaties in an article published in 2018. In that article, we pointed out that it is difficult to treat the proposed treaty on plastic pollution and other treaties that regulate specific harmful substances in the same way because plastic is a material that is in widespread use (Kojima and Iwasaki, 2018). Moreover, we believe that in order to make the proposed treaty more effective, it should include a provision for creating a financial mechanism for the capacity development of developing countries, similar to a scheme that has become a major issue at COP29, an international conference on the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2024. Controlling plastic pollution under the proposed treaty is somewhat similar to the fight against climate change (controlling CO2 emissions) in that while it is easy to identify plastic manufacturers, due to the near globally ubiquitous use of plastic, it is difficult to fully identify sources of waste plastic emissions.
2. Plastic Pollution Problem and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities
Regarding global environmental issues, there are often pronounced divisions between the characteristics of developed and developing countries. The principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) forms the basis of the approach of having developed countries bear greater responsibilities for addressing those problems. The CBDR principle has been applied to international agreements related to various global environmental issues, including the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is targeted at global warming. With respect to climate change, in accordance with the polluter pays principle (PPP), the CBDR principle requires developed countries, which have emitted and continue to emit large amounts of CO2, to be the first parties to implement emission control measures and to contribute to progress in emission control by developing countries while allowing developing countries to delay taking action until developed countries have made some progress in implementing their control measures. In other words, in terms of the fight against climate change, the CBDR principle stipulates that developing countries should be given the right to emit similar amounts of CO2 as developed countries have done in order to achieve economic development and that developed countries should bear greater responsibilities for reducing emissions.
The CBDR principle, adopted as Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which was worked out at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (popularly known as the Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992, is defined as follows:
Principle 7
States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.
This is a concept that often came to attention at the latest INC session, in the draft text and in discussions, as one of the fundamental principles for the approach to global environmental issues.
It goes without saying that promoting financial assistance and technical cooperation is critical both for pollution control and capacity building in developing countries. However, the current plastic pollution problem is distinctive in that developing countries are larger pollutant emission sources than developed countries, unlike in the case of other global environmental issues (Note 1). With respect to the plastic pollution problem, a number of academic estimates concerning the release of pollutants into the environment have been published. According to the estimates, among emerging countries in Asia and other regions that have achieved remarkable economic development, those where the development of infrastructure for collecting, transporting, and appropriately processing waste is inadequate relative to population growth and economic development tend to be large plastic pollutant emission sources (e.g., Jambeck et al., 2015; Meijer et al., 2021). In Japan and other developed countries, the coverage rate of waste collection and the rate of waste that undergoes appropriate processing, including recycling, are already at high levels, which means that pollutant emissions from those countries have been restricted. Therefore, when we consider how to apply the CBDR principle, it is necessary to explore frameworks that are different from existing ones.
Moreover, the presence of oil-producing countries that are deeply involved in plastic production (e.g., Arab countries and Russia) adds further complexity to the traditional division between developed and developing countries. In INC sessions, those countries have expressed opposition to the addition of a clause related to restricting production (The Guardian, 2024). Today, emerging countries that have achieved remarkable economic development, collectively known as the Global South, are gaining more and more say in the international community. Plastic pollution is an issue in which Global South countries are significant plastic producers and emitters. If measures are not taken in these emerging countries from the treaty formulation stage, this could be the first global environmental treaty that is ineffective.
3. Summary and Future Outlook
In this article, we highlighted the difficulty of considering effective measures to control plastic pollution in light of recent developments concerning the proposed treaty on plastic pollution and how the CBDR principle has been applied to date. Among the factors pointed out as causing developing countries to become major plastic waste emission sources are shortages of waste collection infrastructure and facilities that process plastic waste in preparation for recycling, incineration and land reclamation; and inadequate management of waste during processing and disposal (e.g., OECD, 2022).
Japan started to engage in waste control early in the postwar period, and in fiscal 1977, waste collection services in Japan applied to more than 90% of the population. In response to the increase in plastic waste since then, Japan enacted the Act on the Promotion of Sorted Collection and Recycling of Containers and Packaging in 1995. Through several amendments of the law, Japan has clarified the roles of consumers, municipalities, and business operators in waste control and implemented measures to ensure appropriate waste processing.
With respect to emerging countries, where waste disposal infrastructure has not kept pace with economic development, it is necessary to provide soft power assistance that contributes to the reduction of volumes of plastic used and waste emitted. We believe that plastic pollution control is an area where Japan, as a front-runner in plastic pollution control, can support emerging countries in developing institutional systems and acquiring knowhow tailored to the circumstances of individual countries.
February 3, 2025
>> Original text in Japanese
