Planet Over Plastic | Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee INC 5.2 | Ep 09 The Sunita Narain Show

The world is in the final stages of an international agreement on how we will control the pollution of plastic that plagues our oceans and our cities, litters our surroundings, and is today found even in the deepest parts of the oceans.

Plastic is a product that we, as human beings, have made to work for us. It is convenient—but it is also indestructible. And, as with many indestructible products, it has today become a plague on our world.

I'm Sunita Narain, and I want to speak today about why this global agreement is so crucial for us.

So why talk about plastic pollution, when this is really about how we manage it in our cities?

The fact is, this latest agreement that the world is negotiating brings together — stitches together — what is known as ecological globalisation rules.

Ecological globalisation refers to those agreements made on products and pollutants that go beyond national boundaries. The world must come together to agree on a set of rules on how to contain and mitigate pollution.

The most famous of these, as you know, is the climate change agreement. We've also had the agreement on the ozone layer, where the world came together to control CFCs — chemicals that, we later found, were burning a hole in the ozone layer.

Since then, there have been many other treaties: the Biodiversity Convention, the Basel Convention on hazardous waste transfer between nations — all about the world agreeing to come together to live within planetary boundaries.

The latest in this line is the forthcoming agreement on plastic pollution.

One of the questions that arises is: Can you manage plastic pollution by just controlling the litter and garbage in our cities and oceans? Or is something more drastic needed — something that addresses the entire life cycle of plastic?

That is what this agreement seeks to focus on.

We know that when it comes to the problem of plastic pollution in our cities, we must do more. That is something governments across countries of the Global South are beginning to understand. Cities are grappling with mountains of garbage that simply do not degrade over time. So, if we pollute, the waste stays. That’s what plastic pollution is all about.

Cities across the world are learning to do better. They are segregating waste, reprocessing plastic, and taking steps to manage pollution to reduce litter in our streets, rivers, and waterways.

But they’re also finding that this is a losing battle.

We need to take more drastic action to address the nature of plastic pollution. And that’s what this convention is all about.

So what does it propose?

We need to go beyond the simplistic idea that recycling is the answer. We are learning that recycling is no panacea. It is not as easy or effective as we once believed.

Why do I say that?

We know today that only a small share of plastic produced globally is actually recycled or reprocessed. The data now tells us that recycling alone is not enough.

There are also serious challenges in the recycling process itself.

A recent study by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) found that the waterways of a northern Indian city were full of branded plastic packaging waste—floating in rivers, strewn across the city. These are products that should have been collected and managed under the extended producer responsibility (EPR) regime.

Clearly, the best way to manage plastic today is, first, to segregate waste. The second is to put the onus on producers under EPR, so they are required to collect the plastic waste, reprocess it, and manage it safely.

But that’s not happening.

If EPR were working successfully, we wouldn’t see so much litter in our cities, landfills, and oceans. And most of this plastic waste comes from top brands that are already supposed to be complying with EPR.

That tells us that recycling, while important, is not enough.

This is why the plastic treaty now under negotiation is so important.

It focuses on what is called the upstream—on the amount of plastic material the world produces. Should there be limits?

This is a contentious issue. Plastic is produced by the petrochemical industry—an industry based on fossil fuels. So this is not only about the power of the petrochemical sector; it’s also about asking: what plastic is truly needed, and what isn’t? How will we make that determination?

But it is clear we must minimise the amount of plastic produced globally, so we can manage it better.

That’s why upstream action must be the top priority.

The second is midstream.

Midstream refers to the materials and chemicals used to manufacture the plastics we use. Why is this important?

Because if you want to recycle or reprocess plastic, and it contains chemicals with high toxicity, it becomes far more difficult to manage. The question of plastic design—the materials and chemicals used—and the need to ban certain toxic substances becomes a very important part of the global agreement.

The third part is about managing litter.

This is where the best practices in EPR must be scaled up. We must explore what more can be done globally under EPR. And, of course, we need to address the financing needs of countries in the Global South. All of this must come together to make the treaty both effective and ambitious.

Now, even as the world comes together on this, we know these are extremely difficult times.

We live in a world that is insecure, polarised, and fractured. Countries are looking at every international agreement not as a way to live within the shared resources of the planet, but to safeguard their own national self-interest.

That is the reality of the world today.

But this agreement demands that we come together and rebuild trust, so that we can unite behind an agreement to reduce pollution—pollution that is endangering life, health, and ecosystems across the planet.

And I know this will be tough.

Take, for example, the issue of banning certain chemicals. How do you determine which chemicals are too toxic? There is no global standard for this.

And countries worry: will the chemicals being banned be those that are going off-patent? Will they now be forced to shift to newer, more expensive chemicals? Is this going to be affordable?

All of these are valid concerns.

But they require dialogue, discussion, and an understanding of the need for rules that bring countries together—so that we can live together and share the resources of this one Earth.

I also know this battle may not be won exactly as we want, when the final agreement is stitched together.

But what matters is that the building blocks are solid.

We need the agreement to be based on the understanding that the entire life cycle of plastics must be taken into account.

Because in the countries of the Global South, we know we cannot afford to clean up after pollution has occurred.

We need to prevent pollution. We need to minimise it. We need to design products that are easier to manage, recycle, and rework—so we can build a more circular economy and use our resources more efficiently.

We also know we need an equitable and just agreement—one that brings together countries of the South and the North.

We are not enemies when it comes to plastic pollution.

We face a common enemy: the degradation of our environment and the compromise of human health.

That is why the building blocks of this international agreement must be based on ambition—but also on the principle of equity.

And most importantly, we must recognise that we share a common future. One we simply cannot afford to put at risk.

Thank you.