Dialogue on Plastic Pollution and Environmentally

Sustainable Plastics Trade (DPP)

Pre-plenary MEETING HELD ON 31 October 2024

Aide Memoire^[1]

______________

1  INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY COORDINATORS

1.1._   The Dialogue on Plastic Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade (DPP) comprising at the time of 82 co-sponsors[2] held its fourth pre-plenary meeting after the 13^th Ministerial Conference (MC13) on 31 October 2024. It was chaired by Morocco (coordinator)[3], Peru, Switzerland, and the Philippines (facilitators).[4]

1.2._   Morocco in its opening statement recalled that this was the group's second of the three pre-plenary meetings dedicated to discussing the eight "points of focus" agreed before the summer break, through a consultative process (including an online survey among co-sponsors). The structure around the points of focus aimed to help the DPP achieve "further concrete, pragmatic and effective outcomes" by MC14 as called for in the group's MC13 outcome and were grounded on strong technical work already developed.

1.3._   China, in its opening remarks, expressed its gratitude to all co-sponsors and invited the Members and stakeholders to share their insights, suggestions and recommendations regarding identifying best practices and increasing transparency. Ecuador, in its opening statement thanked all participants for a full attendance. It showed the strong engagement and value that co-sponsors and stakeholders put in the initiative.

1.4._   Morocco recalled the meeting would discuss the points of focus (PF) 2, 5 and 7, namely:

a._         PF2: How to enhance transparency of trade flows of plastics, including, for example, by supporting the work at the World Customs Organization, United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) and other relevant institutions.

b._         PF5: Identify potential best practices from Members collective experiences.

c._         PF7: How to facilitate access to technologies and services, including for environmentally sound waste management technology (e.g. by identifying key technologies, challenges, and opportunities).

1.5._   Discussions were prompted by "guiding questions" put forward by coordinators and facilitators, as well as by technical presentations from experts.

2  Point of focus 2 on enhaNcing transpArency of trade flows of plastics[5]

2.1.  The representative from UNITAR presented (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/175) the draft United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)-UNITAR statistical guidelines on measuring flows of plastic throughout the life cycle, including insights on estimates of plastics content in traded goods and based on international statistical standards. As there were no robust and commonly agreed guidelines, the proposed draft could allow for cost-effective ways to estimate plastic flows, including "hidden flows" of plastic and improve trade data in the future. The representative also shared pilot projects and efforts to help domestic authorities to monitor plastic flows in their economies, including UNITAR's pilot projects in Viet Nam, Morocco and Tunisia. She suggested that UNITAR could support the development of a global plastic monitor.

2.1.  In the follow-up discussions and questions, delegations and stakeholders showed strong engagement. One delegation queried about UNITAR's pilot project in Viet Nam, its objectives, and outcomes. Another delegation acknowledged the relevance of UNITAR's research work in the development of statistical guidelines and queried about possible future challenges. In response, the representative from UNITAR identified the improvement in accuracy in parameters of different economies as its immediate challenge and the need to periodically update the parameters with more concrete data being provided by domestic authorities. The representative from the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) suggested that the calculation of plastics embedded in traded goods could be effectively addressed by designing statistical samplings rather than extensive amendments of the World Customs Organization's (WCO) Harmonized System (HS). The representative from UNITAR confirmed this was one of the key elements of their work, looking to identify the percentage of plastics in certain goods like laptops and phones. In response to a query raised by the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty on the minimum level of plastic content in a good that would be considered statistically relevant, UNITAR noted that they were still considering it, but that around 5% of plastic content in a product could be a good parameter, while acknowledging that the percentage could differ across economies. UNITAR also shared that they had developed a similar system for e-waste in the past 10 years which had been used by the European Union and that it offered important lessons for the plastic work.

2.2.  Next, coordinators recalled the guiding questions presented to delegations and stakeholders under this point of focus, namely:

a._         Are there domestic efforts to better identify material flows of plastics entering and exiting your economy? Do they rely on specific breakdowns of HS codes (i.e. below six digits)? Are there estimates, data or labelling requirements of average plastic content or plastic material composition in goods used in your economy (e.g. for statistical purposes or to support the implementation of Extended Producer Responsibility schemes)?

b._         How could we "improve transparency, monitoring and understanding of trade flows throughout the value chain of plastics, including flows of single-use plastics, plastic films and hard-to-recycle plastics" (as per our Ministerial Statement action 1)? What could be done to improve transparency of flows of "single-use plastics, plastic films and hard-to-recycle plastics"?

2.3.  Several delegations recognized the importance and supported enhancing the transparency of material flows of plastics through trade. Some had already adopted measures to better track plastics entering and existing their economies (e.g. Extended Producer Responsibility – EPR – schemes), while others noted the challenges in doing so effectively while not creating unnecessary frictions and costs to trade. Several showed interest in statistical tools to better assess volumes of plastics traded (e.g. average estimates of plastic content), while others supported further exploring HS and other customs tools. One delegation noted it had adopted or revised several trade-related environmental measures that required more detailed data on plastics and would promote a better identification of plastics material flows entering/exiting the economy. They underscored the role of EPR schemes in implementing and identifying material flows of plastics, in particular regarding the use of recycled plastic content, while expressing the need for transparency on reporting plastic content in the context of technological constraints faced by several Members. They were exploring the option of dedicated commodity codes for more detailed monitoring of recycled and virgin PET.

2.4.  They stressed the need of specific codes for single-use plastics, noting the biggest challenge was how to identify such goods at customs. Noting the ongoing discussions at the WCO could lead to reforms for the HS2028 that would improve understandings of trade flows, as well as the extensive technical work in the Dialogue which had shown that Members approach the definitions of single-use plastics in different, often overlapping ways, they suggested the DPP could work on mutual understandings, including on definitions and/or sets of criteria that would guide customs to improve transparency and monitoring. Recalling the MC13 Ministerial Statement factual compilation III, and without intending to duplicate or overshadow discussions in other fora, the Dialogue could trigger a reflection on which goods were associated with a high percentage of embedded plastics as part of their overall composition, such as new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles’ for which plastics represented 13% to 16% of their total weight, accounting for around 10% of the overall consumption of plastics in their economy. Finally, they stressed the need for transparency and verification systems in the reporting of recycled plastic content. Given the technological difficulties involved, particular when considering the options provided by chemical recycling, it was important to establish common methodologies and ways to easily calculate, measure, and verify the reported recycled plastic content.

2.5.  One delegation noted that while the guiding question focused on material flows of plastics, it was not linked to plastic pollution, since the flow of plastic wastes could result or not in plastic pollution and was regulated under the Basel convention. They noted they had made significant efforts in identifying and managing material flows of plastics within their economy as part of their broader economic and trade development, with specific HS codes breakdowns to categorise plastics more effectively and to improve data accuracy regarding plastic inputs and exports. They also had developed a centralised platform designed to track the input and export of various plastic types, which was accessible to key stakeholders, including government agencies, businesses, and researchers, facilitating better collaboration and informed decision-making. They raised concerns about the unique challenges faced by developing Members in implementing EPR schemes including lack of proper infrastructure and domestic circumstances. They noted the terms 'hard-to-recycle' and 'single-use plastics' were yet to be defined as the circumstances and design of the products varied based on the application and targeted market. Further, the hard-to-recycle term was heavily dependent on availability of recycling technologies within the economy.

2.6.  One delegation noted the use of HS codes at a regional level to identify trade in plastic products, including more detailed identification at the 10-digit level for items such as plastic bottles, cutlery, cups, and polymer-based boxes. They noted how their regional cooperation facilitated comprehensive monitoring of trade in plastics across the entire value chain, enabling effective enforcement of relevant legislation, including labelling requirements that enhanced the potential for recycling and proper disposal. They appealed Members to prioritise the enforcement of customs regulations and create conducive conditions in line with the recommendations from the WCO HS reform. Establishing coordination channels such as through the DPP, as well as cooperation with international organizations such as UNITAR and the WCO would be instrumental in enhancing knowledge and understanding, including on data collection and labelling.

2.7.  Another delegation shared that while their domestic EPR law did not include HS codes for the implementation of its requirements, companies were required to submit 'Plastic Waste Reduction Footprint Plans', which included estimates of the volume and weight of plastics in covered products, whether domestically manufactured or imported. They stressed that local government units, sometimes complemented by NGOs, provided more granular data on plastics circulating in the economy. They also underscored that the digitalization of the EPR scheme implementation could help improve transparency. Finally, they noted that to overcome complexities in tracking plastics, it could be useful to start by focusing on certain plastic packaging and linking to HS codes rather than trying to immediately achieve high degrees of detailed information on all goods.

2.8.  One delegation similarly noted their EPR programs improved transparency by requiring producers to report on plastic content, helping align their environmental goals with trade practices and enhancing data accuracy. They were working with the WCO to refine HS codes for plastics—especially for single-use and hard-to-recycle items—to support accurate monitoring and improve transparency across supply chains, while also supporting global efforts to standardize HS codes and labelling for plastics. Finally, they saw potential in a standardized data-sharing platform to better understand plastic flows across their lifecycle, which could support coordinated policy efforts and address the environmental impacts of plastic trade. Another delegation, while recognizing that using HS codes to understand and regulate plastic trade flows could be a meaningful trade-related initiative contributing to the fight against plastic pollution, they also cautioned against complicating trade procedures with excessive burdens. They suggested that before increasing the transparency of trade in single-use plastic products, the DPP should consider what was the aim of such efforts.

2.9.  One delegation stated that it had statistics on plastics imports and exports based on the HS codes and relevant information on consumption of plastic products, but it was not in possession of specific statistics for embedded plastics in products. They noted how the statistical guidelines being developed by UNITAR could provide with some inspiring perspectives and useful methodologies and looked forward to its updated information in the future. They attached great importance to increasing transparency and monitoring of trade flows of the value chain of plastics. However, due to the limited resources available for developing Members, they struggled to strike the right balance between cost and benefits. On how to improve the transparency of the trade flows of single-use plastic products, plastic films and hard-to-recycle plastics, they believed that there might be some steps for the DPP to consider, such as clear and easy to implement definitions of these goods, an evaluation of the contribution made to reducing plastic pollution by improving their transparency and that transparency requirements should not be used to impose additional burdens on trade or disguised protectionism.

2.10.  One delegation expressed their support for a pragmatic and efficient HS reform, particularly regarding plastics, and how the work of the WCO, the DPP, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to develop an international legally-binding instrument on plastic pollution were complementary. They stressed the need for more data to find out which HS modifications could really improve transparency of plastic flows, noting that some WCO proposals were not easy to implement and could actually work against the overall goal to improve transparency. They noted that several different definitions of single-use plastic goods were being discussed at the WCO and that the INC should come to a common understanding on the definition.

2.11.  One Member noted that a key challenge in understanding trade flows of plastic was that the current HS codes did not accurately reflect the actual amounts of plastics moving borders, such as the plastic film used to wrap pallets, the plastic packaging traded goods or any distinction between products made with recycled plastic content, bio-based inputs or related details. They noted the different initiatives carried out by their domestic agencies to improve transparency for plastics material flows and reduce procurement of plastic goods, including related to: life cycle analysis (LCA) data and tools that support environmental product declarations; funding for domestic laboratories studies on material flows of plastics; work to develop materials and product design standards for reduced demand and reverse supply chains, specifications and ecolabels; and community-level data on recycling infrastructure, material tonnages, and recycling market development opportunities. They also noted the relevant work taking place in other WTO committees, such as the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) committee, and encouraged the DPP coordinators to facilitate collaboration.

2.12.   The representative from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) expressed their concern over hidden flows of plastics and consequent data gaps which hindered effective understanding of plastic flows and stressed that transparency was not only needed but indispensable, while reiterating that durable progress was contingent on harmonized measures and cooperation across all parties.

3  Point of focus 5 on identifying potential best practices[6]

3.1.  The WTO Secretariat provided a refresher of previous DPP technical discussions and presentations on the efficiency of Trade-related Plastic Measures (TrPMs) (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/176). The presentation noted that there had been relatively few technical discussions on the topic at the DPP, while recalling that the TrPMs survey finalized in 2023 included a question regarding existing mechanisms to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of TrPMs collected. They noted that the survey included 39 TrPMs from 15 Members that included mechanisms to assess the efficiency of measures, including: the policy instruments used to assess, monitor and evaluate the implementation of the TrPM and the achievement of its objectives; the specific targets they aimed to achieve; the entities involved in monitoring/assessment; and results already reported. They noted that the TrPMs varied broadly in time frames (mostly focusing on the short to medium term horizon, 2023-2039), targets (e.g. improving recycling rates, varying from 40% to 100% targets), instruments (e.g. reports, forms, sworn declarations, registries, industry-led plans, certifications, spot checks), and entities involved (governmental bodies, municipalities, private sector, independent third parties or newly established committees). They noted that several TrPMs already indicated results, some significant (e.g. reduction from 283 to 89 single-use bags per inhabitant per year, or over 97% reduction of single-use plastic bags).

3.2.  Additionally, they recalled three technical presentations discussed at the DPP. First, a research conducted by Portsmouth University which had reviewed the efficiency of 100 policies and reached several key findings, including that there was a widespread lack of monitoring and evaluation of plastic policies. Secondly, a presentation by Duke University on the policy inventory and effectiveness analysis of measures targeting plastic bags which showed a wide variation in their effectiveness, from as low as 20% reduction in consumption to over 80%, with an average reduction of 64%. Finally, the Secretariat recalled the findings from the OECD report, 'Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040', which included, inter alia, the need for an efficient and cost-effective policy and for economies to expand and strengthen policy packages and the research on their effectiveness.

3.3.  The representative from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) presented key findings from their analysis of specific trade concerns (STCs) and questions in Trade Policy Reviews (TPRs) with regard to 21 TrPMs adopted by 14 WTO Members (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/179). According to IISD, 21 Members raised concerns, regarding, in order of frequency: the timing and implementation timeframe of measures (e.g. enough transition period); transparency (e.g. access to further information on the measure); absence of stakeholder engagement (e.g. lack of opportunity for comments); proportionality (e.g. excessive costs); justification and discrimination (e.g. arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination). Additionally, IISD made certain recommendations for policymakers to avoid trade frictions related to TrPMs including establishing timeframes after reasonable consultation and transition periods; establishing implementation guidelines; periodically notifying the WTO of these measures; enhancing stakeholder engagement; and ensuring proportionality, non-discrimination vis-à-vis importers and the proper technical/scientific justification of measures.

3.4.  One delegation queried whether IISD knew the outcomes of the STCs mapped, while noting that their recommendations sounded like respecting the TBT Agreement and following the TBT Committee's Six Principles and Good Regulatory Practices (GRP). The representative from IISD noted that no formal disputes had been requested with respect to the mapped STCs, while some STCs had not been raised a second time, indicating that they had been solved. They noted how valuable this tool was for WTO Members, while noting that their recommendations were also targeted at non-trade experts that might not be familiar with the TBT Agreement.

3.5.  Next, the facilitators recalled the guiding questions presented to delegations and stakeholders under this point of focus, namely:

a._         What guidelines/criteria should be taken into consideration when identifying "potential best practices" for TrPMs? Would you have concrete examples of what you could consider to be "best practices" in TrPMs that you have identified as you have developed relevant policies?

b._         Would the voluntary development of domestic inventories of TrPMs be useful to increase internal coordination, help improve transparency and coherence, and facilitate implementation and trade? Could it help to identify potential good practices and opportunities for further trade-related actions and plans? Would it be useful to "promote cooperative and effective trade-related policies or measures" (as per our Ministerial Statement actions 3 and 4)? What else could be developed for MC14?

c._         The DPP has conducted extensive technical work on this topic, as reflected in particular in Factual Compilation IV of the MC13 Ministerial Statement. Would any of the "options for trade-related actions raised in Dialogue discussions" listed in paragraph 2. b. of Factual Compilation IV merit further reflection towards potential MC14 outcomes?

3.6.  Several delegations shared principles, elements and criteria that should be considered when promoting best practices for TrPMs. Some delegations saw value in developing voluntary domestic TrPMs inventories, while others noted budgetary constraints, potential with duplication of existing databases or considered it could be outside the WTO mandate or impinge upon the INC scope. Several delegations proposed next steps for the DPP on this topic, as well as ideas for potential MC14 outcomes.

3.7.  One delegation noted its best practices for TrPMs, including EPR programs, focused on environmental effectiveness and producer accountability, balance, trade neutrality and barrier minimization, and alignment with international standards to reduce plastic waste, support fair trade, and harmonize with global efforts. They saw value in developing voluntary TrPM inventories to strengthen transparency, support knowledge-sharing, and help coordinate policy efforts across jurisdictions and expressed support for exploring specific MC14 proposals to improve policy coherence, such as best practice guidelines and frameworks for data-sharing.

3.8.  Another delegation stressed the need for TrPMs to be grounded on the best available scientific evidence, subject to review in light of emerging new data, and to align with WTO rules and existing environmental agreements. Noting the considerable number of TrPMs captured by the DPP survey, they emphasized the need for measures to be applied coherently across the WTO membership, stressing that these considerations had been reflected in the G20 principles on trade and sustainable development adopted on 26 October 2024, in Brazil. As an example, they suggested the DPP could delve deeper into how Members were leveraging EPR schemes in terms of foreign trade and whether there was recognition of charges paid across different jurisdictions or how that could be achieved. They further suggested analysing the design of these measures, particularly in terms of waste classification based on their hazard, as well as the implications for WTO compliance regarding export products potentially exempted from certain charges. Finally, they suggested the DPP should explore how to ensure alignment with Article 3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, particularly as it pertains to export subsidies.

3.9.  One delegation noted it was essential to adopt a bottom-up approach that recognized the unique contexts and needs of developing Members when identifying potential best practices for TrPMs, with no one-size-fits-all approach. The following guidelines criteria should be considered: collaborative initiatives should be explored (e.g. joint workshops and studies between trade and environmental experts); focusing on sustainable global supply, demand and investment chains, eco-labelling and trade in environmentally friendly goods to help identify positive synergies; and facilitating knowledge, experience sharing and mutual observance between organizations such as the WTO and the INC. They considered that domestic inventories fell outside the WTO mandate, as they related to waste and pollution management rather than trade, noting that to enhance TrPMs transparency and coherence, the following factors should be considered: alignment with WTO principles; focus on waste management; generally no creation of obstacles to trade; and ensuring measures did not create arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination nor disguised restrictions to trade.

3.10.  One delegation noted that since the vast majority of TrPMs had been put in place after 2016, it was possible that many measures had just entered into force, complicating the search for good practices and effectiveness indicators. They noted their own single-use plastics measure which had entered in force in 2019 and whose review was planned for mid2027. It could thus be useful to allow for continuous submissions by both Members and stakeholders on good practices related to the implementation of TrPMs, focusing on their trade aspects since the environmental effects should be discussed primarily within the expert environmental community. Relevant aspects for consideration could therefore be examples of trade facilitative aspects in TrPMs, examples of integration of international, regional or domestic standards in the development of TrPMs, or examples of coupling TrPMs with assistance measures for impacted stakeholders, such as Small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Given that most TrPMs in the DPP survey had been adopted by developing Members, the delegation was particularly interested in their views and experiences in developing and implementing TrPMs.

3.11.  Finally, they noted that the development of domestic inventories of TrPMs could help transparency and facilitate peer-learning effects, but it would likely draw on significant resources for setup and maintenance while possibly risking duplicating information already available elsewhere, such as the WTO Environmental Database or the results of the TrPMs survey. It would be therefore useful to map the information already available to ensure that any additional inventories provided significant benefit.

3.12.  One delegation listed certain criteria for identifying best practices in TrPMs, including: TrPMs should be conducive to the overall reduction of pollution throughout the lifecycle, rather than replacing one source with another; ensure proper balance of economic, social, health, and other factors with a special emphasis on the protection of vulnerable groups; proper balance of burdens between producers and consumers to build a sustainable value-chain with economic returns instead of solely relying on government subsidies; non-discrimination between imported and domestic products. They provided examples of domestic measures such as a ban on hotels providing free disposable toothbrushes and other toiletries and ban on the provision of free plastic shopping bags by supermarkets. Finally, they noted that potential MC14 outcomes should be based on the results of the INC negotiations.

3.13.  Another delegation suggested the importance of developing further granularity under PF5 and exploring potential overlaps with and between other PFs. A narrower list of PFs could help conversations to evolve. They noted they would be interested in looking at best practices in response to the impact of trade on nature and biodiversity, including hearing from any Members or stakeholders conducting studies such as life cycle impact assessments of trade in plastics, effective waste management and non-plastic substitutes and plastic alternatives. They noted the success of their domestic single-use plastic bag charges in place since 2015 and which had significantly reduced the number of bags being sold by retailers. They also planned on introducing a deposit return scheme from early 2025 for drink containers made of certain materials based on the total weight of goods. The measure would keep resources in use for as long as possible, minimizing environmental impacts of packaging and contributing to net zero efforts and circularity, another potential thematic focus for PF5.

3.14.   One delegation noted that there seemed to be two different approaches being discussed. First, on policy design, principles and GRP, they noted that the WTO Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions (TESSD) had already developed some work in the area and that potential cross-pollination opportunities could be explored. They noticed the importance of multi-stakeholder consultations and dialogues, recalling their own challenges in restricting non‑environmentally acceptable products due to concerns about cost effectiveness of substitutes. The second approach would be to explore what incentives and disincentives were being imposed by governments to assess what were the different policy options and policy landscape. They noted their own EPR program included fiscal incentives in the form of tax deductions to minimize the impact on the cost of covered products. They stressed the importance of seeking alignment with international standards (e.g. under the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions), localizing life cycle assessment, considering domestic circumstances as well as the impact of trade of measures such as eco-labelling requirements.

3.15.  Another delegation emphasized the importance of aligning TrPMs with their intended policy goals related to addressing plastic pollution and measuring their effectiveness. They suggested the consideration of GRP in the development of TrPMs, which were fundamental for transparent governance and fair trade, promoting better regulations, preventing and reducing non-tariff barriers and supporting compliance with international trade obligations. They recalled the TBT Committee work on GRP and suggested relevant experts could present findings to the DPP with respect of TrPMs. They stressed that inventorying TrPMs should not replace notification obligations under WTO Agreements, such as the TBT Agreement and appealed to Members to ensure that the DPP work was kept within the competence of the WTO and did impinge upon the mandate of the INC negotiations. They expressed interest in other Members' views with regards to the "options for trade-related actions raised in Dialogue discussions" found in Factual Compilation IV of the MC13 Ministerial Statement, noting the DPP could consider choosing one or two of the listed topics to begin a "deeper dive", which could include exploring or researching key questions, and inviting stakeholders and experts to weigh in (e.g. how would supply chains be impacted by a particular approach? What are the pros and cons from a trade perspective, environmental perspective, climate perspective, etc., of pursuing [X action]?).

3.16.  Finally, one delegation stressed the need for downstream measures to regulate the discharge of improperly managed plastics in the environment, while exploring broad facilitative and punitive policy actions from the perspective of the whole life cycle, including upstream. One possibility would be for the product design to be harmonized internationally on a de facto basis through voluntary efforts by industry groups so that resources could be recycled appropriately domestically, even for imported products. Care should be taken to ensure that TrPMs were not overly restrictive and to consider the proper balance between measures and voluntary industry efforts in identifying best practices.

3.17.  The Pew Research Center (PEW) Charitable Trust noted that while some best practices for TrPMs would be cross-cutting – particularly regarding transparency, stakeholder engagement, and providing scientific justifications – others could be issue-specific. A focused discussion on single-use plastics, for example, could help illustrate what guidelines or criteria might be useful. They also shared some insights on the Carbon Disclosures Project (CDP), an initiative to bring further transparency in corporate disclosure and reporting. Self-reported plastics data from almost 3,000 companies demonstrated the willingness of many companies to begin disclosure of risks, opportunities, impacts and dependencies. This disclosure would consequently enable the companies to gain greater insights into their contribution to plastic pollution and highlight potential areas of action, while also providing policymakers and investors with vital data on the production, use and disposal of plastics across the global economy.

3.18.  The representative from QUNO queried whether TrPMs also included subsidies or other incentives, not only for the reduction of plastic pollution, but also subsidies that could be increasing plastic pollution. If so, they noted that improved transparency on such policies, including via notifications to the WTO Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of policies that were supporting the production of primary plastic polymers, could be helpful.

4  Point of focus 7 on facilitating access to technologies and services, including for environmentally sound waste management technology[7]

4.1.  The representative from the UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) presented interim findings from a study on the challenges and opportunities for trade in services in the prevention and mitigation of plastic pollution (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/180). The study had first identified a series of relevant services along the plastics value chain, both from the producer and consumer angles. Producer side services included engineering, designing, and consulting services and consumer side services included services aimed at encouraging behavioural change and proper waste collection as well as recycling. Next, they noted the challenges in mapping trade in such services due to a lack in granularity of traditional services trade classification systems. As a consequence, mapping barriers and facilitative measures to such trade was also compromised. As next steps, they suggested, inter alia, developing solutions to gather more granular information and statistic, conducting an in-depth assessment of the social inclusion aspects of trade in relevant services and designing targeted measures to improve availability and accessibility to such services.

4.2.  Next, the representative from the Forum on Trade, Environment and the SDGs (TESS) presented insights from their upcoming study on pathways for trade policy cooperation to facilitate access for environmentally sound and safe plastic waste management technologies (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/178). They highlighted certain challenges such as fragmented governance, incoherent policies, lack of adequate infrastructure, constraints in technical and operational capacities, lack of financial resources or affordable access to existing technologies. They noted that trade cooperation on plastic waste management technologies would require a multi-pronged approach, including addressing tariff and non-tariff barriers, regulatory frameworks (including cooperation on standards and conformity assessments), support for finance and Aid for Trade (AfT), technology transfer and training of local workforce to operate, install and maintain technologies. They also provided an illustrative list of relevant technologies and their corresponding HS codes and ex-outs. Finally, they suggested the DPP could continue to identify specific technologies and services, relevant standards, best practices, specific constraints and environmental and social impacts of plastic waste management technologies, as well as barriers and mechanisms to facilitate access to them (e.g. AfT, TRIPs Article 66.2).

4.3.  Reacting to a question about existing legacy technologies for which developing Members could have better absorptive capacity, the representative from TESS noted there were several examples. However, in most cases they were classified under broad HS headings related to solid waste or waste-water management, which could complicate efforts to facilitate trade in them. In reaction to another set of questions, they acknowledged that HS reforms were not a panacea or always the most efficient answer, noting the possibility of domestic level customs granularity, regional trade facilitation, related services liberalization or standard harmonization as alternatives.

4.4.  The Council on Economic Policies briefed delegates on the role of services in cleaning up marine debris and the adopted Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Non-Binding Guidelines on the topic (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/177). They noted that, except for beach clean-up, there were no commercial markets for cleaning up marine debris, with action being procured by governments, international organizations, donors, and research institutions and remediation services dominated by a few large and global engineering firms. They highlighted that markets could be created from mandates for clean-up and/or for access to waste management systems, through competitive bidding for projects and noted how open markets could provide economies of scale. They noted several trade restrictions recorded in the APEC index, including: lack of recognition of foreign certificates and visas/temporary entry permits for crews on ships; discriminatory use of or access to port terminal services; restrictions on chartering of vessels; data localization requirements; and customs duties to equipment used for clean-up.

4.5.  Reacting to a question, they noted that the most prevalent restriction affecting these services were the limitations on the movement of people and equipment. Finally, they suggested the DPP could consider removing barriers to trade and investment in re-mediation services and waste treatment and disposal services, which offered a potentially interesting alternative for non-binding outcomes by MC14. In reaction to a question on best practices and impacts on biodiversity, they noted how marine debris often worked as platforms that could introduce invasive alien species, while some clean-up services and technologies could also harm biodiversity. However, no best practices on the topic had been developed in the study.

4.6.  Next, the facilitators recalled the guiding questions presented to delegations and stakeholders under this point of focus, namely:

a._         What specific technologies and services, including for environmentally sound waste management, would be particularly useful to address plastic pollution from a trade perspective? What are the relevant trade policy tools, main trade barriers and challenges to access to such technologies and services, including for developing Members and least-developed countries (LDCs)? What could be done under the DPP to help facilitate access to such technologies and services and "promote cooperation on trade that contributes to ending plastic pollution" (as per our Ministerial Statement action 5)?

b._         The DPP has conducted extensive technical work on this topic, as reflected in particular in Factual Compilations V and VI of the MC13 Ministerial Statement. How could the DPP efficiently build on that technical basis towards potential MC14 outcomes?

4.7.  Several delegations expressed support for the promotion and dissemination of technologies and services that contributed to environmentally sound waste management and combatting plastic pollution. A series of technologies and services were mentioned, while some delegations also highlighted existing challenges and opportunities and the value-added the DPP could provide by identifying specific trade-related barriers and/or supportive actions.

4.8.  One delegation stressed the importance of access to technology and services that promote environmentally sound waste management to effectively address plastic pollution from a trade perspective. They referred to several technologies, including: pyrolysis, which converted plastic waste into valuable resources such as fuel oil, gas, and carbon black; mechanical recycling technologies and processes to convert plastic waste back into usable materials; advanced sorting technology; waste-to-energy technologies, which contributed to energy security; and chemical recycling, which could break down plastics into their monomers, allowing for the production of new plastics with high quality and complemented traditional recycling methods.

4.9.  Another delegation stressed that the point of focus should remain firmly embedded in the efforts to promote trade in goods and services contributing to ending plastic pollution, including those contributing to environmentally sound waste management and clean-up, in alignment with the waste hierarchy. They considered that when referring to access to technologies, it was important to stress that access could only take place on voluntary and mutually agreed terms. As indicated by the results of the DPP Surveys on AfT Needs Assessment and on TrPMs, there were several avenues through which trade in those goods and services could be promoted, notably by improving the cooperation between value chain actors, such as exporters, civil society, and local and domestic stakeholders, including domestic private sector engagement. They suggested the DPP could leverage its inclusive approach to stakeholder engagement to identify specifically how to improve access to those technologies, benefitting other fora that were better placed to discuss the environmental sustainability of individual goods and services contributing to ending plastic pollution.

4.10.  Concretely, the DPP could encourage collaboration with stakeholders, including the exchange of knowledge and experience relating to the development of and access to non-plastic substitutes and plastic alternatives, the challenges they faced in trading such goods and services, or the application of design for recycling approaches with a view to stimulating information exchange for facilitating cross-border waste management. Finally, noting that the extensive technical work reflected in the MC13 Ministerial Statement compilations V and VI contained practices or alternatives for which there was no consensus on their environmental sustainability or for which environmental sustainability depended on the receiving environments, they stressed it was important to consider the need for appropriate socio-economic and lifecycle sustainability impact assessments to better understand the challenges and benefits stemming from their use, with a view to ensuring that overall, the environmental impact of their production and consumption was positive.

4.11.  One delegation noted that key technologies such as advanced recycling and plastic sorting were essential for effective plastic waste management, and expressed their support for further discussions on how they could help achieve DPP co-sponsors environmental goals. Trade policies that reduced tariffs and addressed cost and regulatory barriers could make these technologies more accessible, supporting broader adoption and encouraging sustainable waste management. They saw the technical work done by the DPP as a strong foundation for moving forward towards MC14. Another delegation highlighted the importance of technology and services related to the identification and traceability of plastics and plastic pollution. They noted how artificial intelligence could be useful in identifying marine debris, as well as services such as education, engineering, and research and development of environmentally sustainable technologies that did not harm biodiversity. They considered that there were many opportunities in the area for developing Members.

4.12.  One delegation supported disseminating technologies and services that contributed to plastic pollution control and plastic resource recycling internationally on a commercial basis, and to provide appropriate incentives for such technologies and services (including for the investment costs to be recoverable). They suggested the DPP should first aim to share information on the plastic pollution problems faced by each Member and solicit technologies and services that could be used to solve them, an area where the DPP could contribute. Finally, they noted it was important to establish appropriate incentives and EPR systems, as well as partnering with trade and investment promotion agencies who could play an intermediary function.

4.13.  Another delegation noted that all technologies and services that supported environmentally sound waste management, including recycling, were relevant to consider from a trade perspective, such as: engineering and consulting services that perform the site assessment; design, engineering, construction and operation of waste management infrastructure and systems; and services and technologies that provided collection, sorting, baling, etc., of waste and recyclable materials. There were several challenges facing solid waste management and other environmental technologies and services in the global marketplace, including, in some cases, high tariffs, as well as non-tariff barriers, and access to financing. They noted that there was considerable ongoing innovation which could and should be supported with well-designed regulations and policies, including trade policies. They would thus support exploring cooperative trade promotion activities that helped to increase access to solid waste management, including recycling, and all relevant technologies and services in the space, including with a view towards a potential MC14 outcome.

5  Any other business

5.1.  Two delegations expressed optimism regarding the potential outcome of the INC negotiations process. One delegation shared a proposal they had contributed to for the identification of targeted products under the INC, following a two-tiered approach: problematic and avoidable products; and problematic and non-avoidable products. At the appropriate moment, they would welcome a discussion in the DPP addressing the INC outcomes and the support for its implementation. In the same vein, thanking the DPP coordinators for their efforts to balance the priorities of the different DPP Members in establishing the points of focus, in particular the constructive approach to reflect the developing priorities of the DPP in light of the potential INC result, they supported the suggestion to explore how to support the implementation of the INC outcomes as helping reach concrete, pragmatic, and effective outcomes by MC14.

6  Concluding remarks

6.1.  The coordinators expressed gratitude to all delegations and stakeholders for their active participation as well as for an engaging session. They recalled that while the DPP continued the technical work on the points of focus for concrete MC14 outcomes, coordinators were open to organizing additional discussions on topics of interest to co-sponsors. They also appreciated the expansion of the DPP co-sponsorship in reflection of the broadening interest of Members about the importance of plastic pollution and recognition of the role that trade policies and measures could play. Plastic pollution was an example of new contemporary trade challenge that the global community was seeking to address. Through its technical work and survey results, the DPP showed that trade could be a key enabler for governments in meeting their environmental goals.

6.2.  They invited all WTO Members to join the DPP and called on all co-sponsors and stakeholders to help spread the information about the work of the Dialogue and the value it was seeking to bring to addressing plastic pollution. Coordinators then recalled that the DPP would reconvene in the February 2025 and address the remaining three points of focus: 1 (how to support the INC process and its implementation); 6 (identify opportunities for greater harmonization, alignment, or interoperability of TrPMs, starting by focusing on single use plastic); and 8 (identify opportunities for enhanced trade cooperation on non-plastic substitutes and alternatives, starting with standards).

__________