Dialogue on Plastic Pollution and Environmentally

Sustainable Plastics Trade

Pre-plenary MEETING HELD ON 13 february 2025

Aide Mémoire[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 first pre-plenary meeting of the year on 13 February 2025. It was chaired by Australia, China, Ecuador and Morocco (coordinators)[3], and by Cabo Verde, Peru, Switzerland and the Philippines (facilitators).

1.2.  Ambassador Valencia (Ecuador) opened the meeting, recalling it was the third DPP meeting in the process of discussing the Eight 'points of focus' agreed through a consultative process to help the DPP achieve "further concrete, pragmatic and effective" outcomes by the 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14), as called for in the MC13 Ministerial Statement. This was the last of the three pre-plenary meetings and would discuss the remaining three points. According to the updated DPP roadmap, the following meeting, in April, would offer a chance for a collective review of the work done and to start identifying potential concrete outcomes. Ambassador Valencia thanked the strong engagement seen thus far in the meetings and invited participants to offer their constructive and candid insights to help the DPP collectively pinpoint MC14 outcomes.

1.3.  He recalled the meeting would cover Points of Focus (PFs) 1, 6 and 8, respectively:

PF1: How to support the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution process and its implementation.

PF6: Identify opportunities for greater harmonization, alignment or interoperability of TrPMs, starting by focusing on single-use plastics.

PF8: Identify opportunities for enhanced trade cooperation on non-plastic substitutes and alternatives, starting with standards (e.g. by identifying gaps in international standards applicable to substitutes and/or alternatives)

1.4.  China, in its opening remarks, stressed the WTO had a role to deliver results that were good for people and the planet, as reflected in the WTO Marrakech Agreement objectives of sustainable development and the need to protect and preserve the environment. Since the DPP launch, there was increasing scientific evidence showing the serious challenge plastic pollution posed to people's health and to the sustainability of the environment. He recalled the intense work of the DPP, how trade could be both a tool and an enabler and the urgency and responsibility to achieve incremental results. Finally, he welcomed the engagement of all delegations, including those not formally co_‑sponsoring the Dialogue, as a sign of the great potential of the DPP to foster solidarity and cooperation among WTO Members.

1.5.  Morocco in its opening statement recalled that 2025 marked an important milestone in the history of the DPP, which would celebrate its fifth anniversary in November 2025 after being launched during the WTO Trade and Environment Week in 2020. He noted how the DPP had grown to represent almost 90% of global trade in plastics, with co-sponsors from all regions, but stressed that it remained crucial to continue engaging with other Members given the universal nature of plastic pollution, one of the defining environmental challenges of the 21st century, threatening both the present and the future.

2  Point of focus 1 on supporting the INC[4]

2.1.  Ms. Jyoti Mathur-Filipp, the Executive Secretary of the Secretariat to the INC to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, updated participants on the ongoing United Nations negotiations. After the fourth INC negotiation session (INC-4), and in the lead up to INC-5, some important work had taken place in the intersessional period. At INC‑4, the Committee had decided to establish two ad-hoc open-ended expert groups to consider aspects relating to finance and to criteria and non-criteria-based approaches to plastic products and chemicals of concern in plastic products, and product design, respectively. Work had been conducted mostly through July and August, and their reports were presented and received by the Committee at INC‑5 in November 2024 in Busan, South Korea.

2.2.  Despite the lack of final agreement on the Chair's proposed text, Ms. Mathur-Filipp highlighted the significant progress achieved at INC-5. She noted INC-5 had been the largest session to date, with a total of 2,610 participants in attendance, including 1,200 representatives from 171 members and 1,100 representatives of over 400 non-governmental organizations. She emphasized that the Chair's text of 22 pages had laid a strong foundation for future negotiations, while differences remained particularly around provisions to address plastic products, sustainable consumption and production, and on the establishment of a financial mechanism, catalysing finance and alignment of financial flows. The timing and location of the second part of INC-5 was still being decided.

2.3.  The WTO Secretariat briefed delegations on its participation at INC-5. After recalling previous presentations and the WTO Secretariat observance of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA) processes, including in the process of producing the WTO MEA Matrix, he highlighted the substantial progress made at the session. The WTO Secretariat also shared insights on its participation in two side events during INC-5: first, a pre-INC event focused on trade discussions co-organized by UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Economic Forum (WEF); and secondly, an event co-organized by World Business Council of Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) on comparable data and tracking plastic pollution. In both events, the WTO Secretariat shared what WTO Members had discussed regarding trade and plastic pollution, notably at the DPP but also in other WTO bodies like the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) and the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).

2.4.  One delegation enquired whether the INC Secretariat had in place a plan or recommendations with the objective of reconciling the very different positions held by members on certain issues. They shared their view that the final draft text did not always reflect the substance of the ongoing negotiation process, particularly in the areas such as definitions and scope.

2.5.  Another delegation expressed their view that the DPP should support the INC process to the extent that both exercises were compatible. The DPP should be involved in assessing the potential operational challenges of proposals that could imply trade-restrictive measures, as well as in assisting members in evaluating the economic impact of trade-related plastic measures (TrPMs). The scenario where the future instrument left room for the creation of TBT should be avoided. The instrument should emphasize the need for alignment with relevant international standards on plastics and their alternatives in accordance with WTO agreements and avoid favouring or discriminating against specific raw materials or technologies, allowing for technological neutrality.

2.6.  One delegation acknowledged the significant efforts at INC-5 to advance negotiations towards a global agreement on plastic pollution but noted key areas of divergence that needed to be addressed to ensure a balanced and implementable outcome. They advocated for a collaborative and environmental treaty with clear principles, prioritizing waste management, circular economy solutions, and innovation in recycling technologies. Members should be given the flexibility to develop tailored approaches that align with their development capabilities and economic and environmental priorities while ensuring global progress in addressing plastic pollution. They called for a pragmatic and science-based approach to ensure the treaty addressed plastic pollution without hindering sustainable industrial development.

2.7.  One delegation expressed their determination to build on the progress made at INC-5 to end plastic pollution and noted the increasing support for an environmentally ambitious treaty. The delegation emphasized the importance of using the upcoming INC-5.2 session to find creative solutions and compromises for remaining issues. The delegation encouraged Members to continue reaching out and working towards an agreement on an ambitious plastics treaty in 2025.

2.8.  Another delegation expressed regret over the lack of agreement at INC-5 despite the compromises proposed and remained committed to an ambitious plastics treaty covering the full lifecycle of plastics to end plastic pollution and protect health and the environment. They emphasized that DPP discussions had shown that trade had to be part of the solution. Trade-related provisions already existed in MEAs, contributing to form a mutually supportive relationship with WTO rules to meet the common goal of protecting and preserving the environment. Noting that no consensus had been reached at the INC on the measures, criteria or elements to be included, they considered essential to collect additional data on existing domestic efforts and suggested the DPP could explore opportunities to compile and share information on the trade flows of primary plastics, polymers and products containing plastics.

2.9.  One delegation acknowledged that while INC-5 did not result in a final agreement, it had been a significant step forward, with the negotiating text streamlined from over 70 pages to 22. They emphasized the need for active ministerial engagement to maintain momentum and achieve a robust outcome by the end of the year. They suggested a DPP side event could be organized before INC‑5.2 to discuss trade-related measures to curb plastic pollution and promote a circular economy, and to clarify links to other MEAs like the Basel Convention. They also highlighted DPP's role in supporting the implementation of the future agreement by sharing expertise and ensuring trade measures complemented environmental goals.

2.10.  One delegation emphasized their support for an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) that provided an effective framework, ensuring participation from both large consumers and producers of plastics. The ILBI should promote sustainable production and consumption of plastics through resource efficiency and recycling. They stressed that the DPP process should be consistent with the content of the intergovernmental negotiations. Trade policy makers in each Member should pay close attention to INC negotiations to avoid impediments to international trade and to ensure it could contribute to the fight against plastic pollution. They welcomed the DPP workstream on this issue, while emphasizing the need for consistency and non-duplication with the INC negotiations.

2.11.  Another delegation reiterated that plastic pollution was a major global environmental challenge affecting millions of people and biodiversity and stressed the importance of keeping the reasons behind these negotiations in mind during the INC process. They underscored that harmonizing global rules on plastics would level the playing field, enhance trade cooperation, and increase environmental protection. Upholding and safeguarding an open and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system and acting for the protection of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development could and had to be mutually supportive. They expressed support for a successful INC outcome and looked forward to further discussing how trade could help reduce plastic pollution.

2.12.  One delegation reaffirmed their commitment to securing an ambitious and effective treaty to end plastic pollution at the resumed session in 2025. They acknowledged the disappointment of not reaching an agreement in Busan but saw the extension as an opportunity to reflect on how trade measures could support the final treaty's objectives. They continued to support a consideration of the DPP's role in ensuring the best possible outcomes on trade.

2.13.  The Quaker United Nations Office in Geneva (QUNO) congratulated the WTO on its accomplishments in 2024 and highlighted the importance of the WTO's role in supporting global efforts to end plastic pollution (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/185). They emphasized the need for the WTO to support the INC in developing and implementing an ILBI on plastics pollution. While noting that previous INC sessions had explored financial incentives and disincentives for plastic supply, trade, and consumption, they stressed WTO's expertise in providing valuable insights on the topic, including past initiatives like the WTO Agreement on Fishery Subsidies. They highlighted their own research on financial support measures for primary plastic production (estimated at USD 45 billion annually) and advocated for enhanced subsidy notifications under the WTO framework to provide insights into government support for the plastic sector, while emphasizing the need for coherence between domestic policies and international objectives and integrating these elements into the MC14 ministerial outcome to support a global response to plastic pollution.

2.14.  The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) emphasized the importance of continuous and in-depth dialogue in the INC process, especially as the treaty moved towards finalization and implementation stages, while noting that the treaty currently lacked the necessary level of detail for effective compliance. Parties would have to develop shared understanding of the treaty and translate its objectives into WTO-consistent trade policies. The process would thus require strong engagement from the trade and trade policy community to ensure consistent interpretation and application of new commitments. They suggested that the INC implementation could be an essential workstream, encouraging its members to allocate sufficient time for it in future discussions.

3  Point of focus 8 on non-plastic substitutes and alternatives[5]

3.1.  The representative from ISO provided a presentation on mapping potential gaps in international standards applicable to non-plastic substitutes and alternatives to single-use plastics and packaging (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/183). The presentation shed light on the process of development of ISO standards, which should be prompted by ISO Members (so-called national standards bodies – NSBs) and further noted it respected WTO TBT principles and represented global best practices. They should respond to market needs and were created through consensus among various stakeholders, including the private sector, governments, civil society, and academia. The presentation reiterated that international standards supported policy objectives by harmonizing how goals were achieved, ensuring consistent practices across sectors and economies. They could be referenced in regulations and agreements to support environmental goals.

3.2.  The representative noted ISO had mapped relevant standards across the plastic lifecycle, including those applicable to end-of-life assessment, recycling and composting, feedstock design, use-reuse, disposal, and waste management. They had also identified specific examples of standards relevant to bamboo and rattan, as well as cross-cutting standards for packaging, recycling, and environmental labelling. While considering the possibility of extending the mapping of standards relevant to non-plastic substitutes and alternatives, the representative emphasized the importance of understanding what was the 'problem' policymakers were seeking to solve, suggesting as potential next steps for DPP Members to contact and liaise with their NSBs, reach out to the private sector and relevant policymakers, as well as potentially hosting a joint high-level dialogue to capture standardization needs.

3.3.  In response to a question, ISO noted that a potential mapping of existing ISO standards relevant to non-plastic substitutes and alternatives should not be done simply by materials, but potentially by looking into the usage or application of such material and by identifying the particular problem or objective to be addressed. They also noted that the mapping would have to be done in collaboration with the WTO and multiple stakeholders that had technical expertise on the topic, like UNCTAD.

3.4.  The Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastic Treaty (Scientists Coalition) considered some of the challenges were derived from the fact that standards were driven by a market need whereas international action was driven by an environmental need. While attributes outlined in the DPP meeting guiding questions included reusability, biodegradability, recyclability and compostability, there were very few standards that would adequately address them, partly because they were entirely context dependent. They supported approaching the exercise through a product-lens, rather than materials, since they were the ones ending up in the environment.

3.5.  The presentation by ISO was followed by presentations from private sector representatives on challenges with certifying non-plastic substitutes and alternatives in single-use goods and packaging. Three private sector representatives were invited to give presentation under this agenda item: Ecoware (India), GreenHope (Indonesia), and Anhui Hongye Group Co. Ltd (China).

3.6.  The representative from EcoWare introduced its company, a pioneer in sustainable packaging in India, which used agricultural residues like sugarcane bagasse, wheat, and rice straws to create 100% biodegradable disposable packaging (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/182). This approach helped reduce air pollution and dependence on oil imports while addressing waste management challenges in India. The presentation highlighted certain key challenges faced by the private sector engaged in plastic alternatives, from the import and export perspectives. Import challenges included the lack of unique Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) codes for plant-based alternatives, leading to classification under paper products with no clear criteria for plant-based content. Export challenges included costly, market-specific certification requirements and the need for recertification every one to three years, posing significant barriers for small companies. The representative suggested certain avenues through which the WTO could support the private sector in overcoming barriers: clear definitions and nomenclature based on organic content and end-of-life period to avoid confusion and greenwashing; universal labelling by implementing visual cues to differentiate harmful from healthy packaging, similar to cigarette warnings and food labelling in India; and standardized testing by rationalizing certification costs, expanding accredited labs, and making test results universally acceptable with longer recertification periods.

3.7.  Next, the representative from GreenHope presented his company, a social material innovation enterprise from Indonesia focused on creating biodegradable bioplastics from locally sourced tapioca starch to tackle climate and microplastics emission challenges (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/188). With over 40 years of experience in plastic packaging, they worked with more than 150 producers and brand partners, exporting to over 10 economies. While GreenHope echoed the concerns raised by EcoWare about the process of obtaining certifications being costly and time-consuming, they also emphasized the importance of reducing, reusing, and recycling, using biodegradable alternatives for non‑recyclable items. They stressed the importance of adopting localized approaches as different economies have varying economic and environment-dependent viability for waste management solutions (e.g. levels of temperature and humidity that make waste-to-energy solutions unviable or which complicated composting/degradation processes).

3.8.  On identification of gaps and international standards to promote cooperation and transparency to non-plastic substitutes and alternatives to single-use plastics and packaging, GreenHope made several suggestions, including: establishing standards and (HS) codes for regions/economies sharing similarities in biodegradation conditions; strengthening regional labs and certifications; ensuring materials were environmentally effective and relevant to the importing economy's conditions; promoting technical collaboration and certification improvements and adopting true cost accounting to internalize negative externalities; using HS codes and certifications to provide incentives to lower trade barriers on new sustainable materials and to spur innovation. Finally, the representative stressed the need to prioritize progress over perfection, aiming to improve both material usage and waste management to combat plastic pollution effectively.

3.9.  The representative from Anhui Hongye Group also presented his company, the largest bamboo products manufacturer in China (INF/TE/IDP/RD/181). He shared Anhui Hongye's experience in supporting the development of the recently adopted ISO standard for bamboo straws (ISO 16830:2025) the first ISO standard for a non-plastic substitute to disposable plastic goods. He emphasized the importance of standards in facilitating market access, simplifying certification processes, improving product quality, building consumer trust, and adapting to environmental protection requirements. The representative reiterated that international standards provided unified technical specifications, helping manufacturers meet market requirements and overcome trade barriers and highlighted the importance of simplification of certifications to unify standards, reduce repeat testing and certification cost as well as improve trade efficiency.

3.10.  The representative underscored standards ensured stability and consistency in product quality, promoting technological innovation and upgrades and that internationally recognized standards increased consumer confidence and willingness to purchase bamboo products. The presentation also highlighted the environmental advantages of bamboo straws, such as degradability, and called for efforts to harmonize standards, improve trade facilitation, and discuss trade measures like tax reductions and removal of trade barriers for non-plastic substitutes. He noted the release of the ISO standard would encourage and promote the development of the environmentally friendly green industry and contribute to addressing plastic pollution.

3.11.  Several participants intervened and asked follow-up questions to the presenters, noting, inter alia, the importance of availability of source materials and non-plastic substitutes for developing Members, the need to take into consideration local cultural, economic and climatic conditions when adopting waste management and alternative solutions or developing related standards (both through top-down, international processes as well as bottom-up, domestic and regional efforts), and the potential for the DPP to serve as a matchmaker between private sectors from different regions, helping developing Members access plastic substitutes and comply with standards. The presenters also noted that oftentimes the technologies and processes required to produce non-plastic substitutes were not complex or necessarily costly and demonstrated openness to cooperating with producers in other economies, including developing Members.

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

_     i._        Please provide domestic examples of how international standards have been successfully applied for non-plastic substitutes and alternatives to single-use plastics and packaging (including to facilitate their trade)? Can you list them? What key attributes, such as reusability, biodegradability, recyclability, compostability, material safety, efficiency, effectiveness and environmental impact (lifecycle assessments) are important for those standards?

_    ii._        What are the main trade-related challenges with regards to international standards in the promotion of non-plastic substitutes and alternatives to single-use plastics and packaging? What are the particular challenges faced by developing Members and Least-developed Countries (LDCs)? How can the private sector better transition to non-plastic substitutes and alternatives?

_   iii._        How can the WTO support identifying potential gaps and leveraging international standards to promote cooperation and transparency to non-plastic substitutes and alternatives to single-use plastics and packaging?

3.13.  Several delegations supported enhanced trade cooperation on non-plastic substitutes and alternatives, in particular on international, regional and/or domestic standards. Costs, environmental integrity, adaptation to local conditions and avoidance of unnecessary barriers were some of the relevant factors mentioned in addressing standards fragmentation and promotion harmonization and international standards. Some highlighted the importance of also seeking cooperation on reuse, repairing and remanufacturing systems, as well as design, while others called for technological neutrality, non-discrimination, overall reduction in environmental impacts and avoiding regrettable substitutions.

3.14.   One delegation shared their experience on the application of international standards for biodegradability and compostability in their waste management guidelines. They highlighted the standard EN 13432 for packaging materials and the consensus in the domestic industry to label bioplastics suitable for bio-waste elimination. However, they noted a technical issue where often the biodegradability and compostability in real life conditions was worse than what was claimed by the producers based on the standards, since biodegradation and composability was better in laboratories than what happens in composting and fermentation plants. The delegation also highlighted a research project initiated to address open questions about non-plastic substitutes and alternatives, including their biodegradability, compostability and environmental impact. They noted that researchers were exchanging with the platform Compostable by Design who was similarly developing guidelines. Regarding trade-related challenges and international standards, they emphasized the private sector need for scientific knowledge and a clear legal framework to transition to non-plastic substitutes. They expressed caution against greenwashing and stressed the importance of lifecycle assessments to avoid regrettable substitutions, as some plastic alternatives could have a worse environmental footprint than conventional plastics.

3.15.  Another delegation highlighted the challenges in implementing international standards for non-plastic substitutes and alternatives to single-use plastics and packaging, including knowledge gaps in assessing material substitution impacts and the dependency on receiving infrastructure. The delegation suggested that the private sector could drive innovation in material development and provide evidence of the impacts of alternative solutions, while underscoring their recently published packaging and waste regulation which allows the use of compostable lightweight plastic carrier bags under specific conditions related to collection and waste treatment infrastructures. The delegation further shared that the regulation aimed to ensure sustainability throughout the lifecycle of such plastics are aligned with the principles of a circular economy. They also planned a review of the state of technological development and environmental performance of bio-based plastic packaging and to further work on standards on compostable packaging, including home compostability of packaging. The delegation suggested that the WTO could serve as a forum to share experiences, identify gaps, and build knowledge to support the uptake and development of international standards in this area and that cooperation and exchange of good practices were essential to tackle the identified challenges.

3.16.  One delegation emphasized the importance of aligning the creation of standards with existing relevant international standards or, in their absence, their development within the scope of relevant international standards organizations. They stressed the need for technological neutrality and non‑distinction between raw materials to avoid TBT. For non-plastic substitutes and alternatives, the delegation highlighted the importance of transparency and integrity in lifecycle assessments. They suggested that a standardized analysis of lifecycle would support decision-making on replacing plastic applications. Substitutes from the bioeconomy could offer sustainable solutions. The design and implementation of plastic measures should prioritize equivalence and mutual recognition, considering the realities of different Members to level the playing field for substitutes and alternatives to plastics. They suggested that the DPP should map international and regional standards applicable to substitutes and alternatives to plastics to broaden the understanding of regulatory practices.

3.17.  Another delegation expressed appreciation for the presentations from ISO and private sector stakeholders, particularly the practical insights on non-plastic substitutes and alternatives. They emphasized the importance of ensuring that standards for these substitutes were suitable for different contexts in different economies, with due consideration for regionalization and waste systems. They noted that replacing single-use plastic items with alternatives did not always lead to better environmental outcomes and suggested considering additional options like reuse, where feasible. They also referenced suggestions from the Global Plastic Policy Centre presented in 2024 at the DPP.

3.18.  One delegation highlighted the importance of international standards in facilitating trade in non-plastic substitutes, while underscoring the need for aligning standards across jurisdictions and recognizing ecolabels and certifications to reduce trade barriers and support the transition to sustainable alternatives. Fragmented standards and regulatory inconsistencies were challenges that had to be addressed, while greater harmonization of biodegradability, compostability, and recyclability standards, along with regulatory alignment, would help scale up the use of non-plastic substitutes. They suggested the WTO could promote cooperation by improving transparency, harmonizing standards, and encouraging lifecycle assessments to ensure that substitutes provided real environmental benefits. Clear regulations and market incentives would also help businesses invest in sustainable alternatives. They concluded by expressing their support for collaboration between governments, industry, and standard-setting bodies to ensure these materials were both commercially viable and environmentally sustainable.

3.19.  Another delegation underscored the importance of biomass plastics, biodegradable plastics, and marine biodegradable plastics as alternatives to traditional plastics while highlighting the operation of their domestic bioplastic association on the basis of identification and labelling systems which helped consumers identify the biodegradability and safety of products, using ISO standards for marine biodegradability. The delegation considered that to promote the distribution and trade of alternative plastics, it was crucial to improve the reliability of evaluation methods through certification schemes and international standardization and that government procurement and labelling could potentially stimulate demand for these generally costly alternatives. However, the delegation also warned that imposing requirements for recycled plastic content in products could disadvantage exports from developing Members where such materials were hard to procure and therefore, measures should be carefully examined and coordinated internationally to avoid unduly impeding international trade. They suggested the need to deepen discussions on promoting and facilitating trade in alternative plastics, including tariff reductions and eliminating non-tariff barriers, with input from experts and industry stakeholders.

3.20.  One delegation emphasized the importance of collaboration in regulatory efforts to facilitate trade and achieve better environmental outcomes. They noted that fragmented standards posed challenges, especially for developing Members and the private sector, recognizing the relevance of the work being done at the WTO for improving trade outcomes while considering environmental and health goals. They highlighted some specific challenges including assessing the biodegradability of plastics and substitutes, as many materials certified as biodegradable might not be so in marine environments or under certain conditions and added that accurate information and scientific involvement were crucial. Food packaging, particularly in agriculture and exports, were underscored as a significant issue for the delegation, who recalled the TBT Committee would be organizing a thematic session on the topic in the future.

3.21.  Another delegation highlighted that their compostable plastic standards for regulating single‑use plastics were based on international standards with additional rigorous requirements. Regarding trade-related challenges, the delegation noted the importance of implementing the HS reforms to ensure greater transparency and accurate reporting of trade flows of plastics and alternatives. They suggested that WTO could support compiling specifics standards DPP Members were applying, which would help in selecting existing international standards and developing future ones relevant to plastic circularity.

3.22.  One delegation considered that globally adopted standards for non-plastics were often ineffective due to the lack of affordable natural resources domestically and undeveloped infrastructure. They suggested focusing on waste management as the key to ending plastic pollution rather than reducing plastic production. Regarding the WTO's role, the delegation stressed the importance of ensuring further transparency, knowledge and experience sharing, technology transfer, and capacity building. They stressed the WTO should promote and liberalize all trade without imposing standards that had not been agreed to and avoid an overlap with ongoing negotiations at the INC and other international forums for development of international standards.

3.23.  Another delegation spoke on the importance of enhancing trade cooperation on non-plastic substitutes and alternatives while also focusing on transitioning towards more circularity. They highlighted the need for regulations and incentives that drove resource efficiency and global requirements for product design. According to the delegation, the design criteria should address different objectives and lifecycle phases including reduction and optimization, prolonged use and reuse, and repairability and refurbish ability. The delegation also stressed the importance of ensuring that bio-based plastic replacements and new alternative plastics reduced the overall environmental impact and did not create new problems.

3.24.  One delegation noted that public policy generally was driving demand in a certain direction, as were innovations from the private sector, which lead to an increased demand for relevant standards. Cooperation and collaboration were thus important from a trade perspective to ensure better outcomes. They further noted that plastics had replaced other goods and services in many economies, so discussing the opportunities and cooperation in these sectors was also important.

3.25.  The representative from the Forum on Trade, Environment and the SDGs (TESS) noted several trade-related challenges and highlighted the role of the WTO in supporting non-plastic substitutes and alternatives to single-use plastics and packaging. Some of the challenges identified were the wide variation in standards across domestic jurisdictions and private sector supply chains, leading to fragmentation that undermined global cooperation and increased costs for producers and exporters. They highlighted gaps in standards for non-plastic substitutes and alternatives, including reuse and refill systems, which could impede efforts to tackle plastic pollution. They further noted an imbalance in standard-setting between stakeholders with commercial interests and experts who could verify environmental credentials, with limited participation from developing Members due, inter alia, to lack of capacity, affordable access to technologies, and financing. They expressed the need for international cooperation to address these concerns through financial and technical assistance, investment, and technology partnerships. To support identifying gaps and leveraging international standards, they suggested that the WTO could conduct a mapping to identify gaps in existing standards and focus on a few key standards and non-plastic substitutes to present environmentally sound solutions. They emphasized the importance of inclusiveness and effectiveness in standard-setting, ensuring that standards reflected scientific evidence and the circumstances of developing Members. Finally, they suggested enhancing cooperation with ongoing processes such as the work at the INC and the Basel Convention.

3.26.  The Scientists Coalition addressed the challenges related to existing standards for non-plastic substitutes and alternatives, emphasizing the need for the WTO to promote research and innovation to develop safe and sustainable plastics and their substitutes (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/186). They stressed the importance of ensuring that these alternatives were fit-for-purpose and did not lead to unintended consequences. Standards and criteria should consider local conditions and be based on independent science, traditional knowledge, and the expertise of indigenous peoples and local communities and that transparency, traceability, and trackability in labelling were essential, including information on the carbon source and appropriate disposal pathways. The WTO should promote knowledge and capacity building about the potential human health and environmental consequences of using both conventional plastics and their alternatives. Clear transparency around the biodegradability of plastics was necessary, including the conditions required to achieve it. Supportive documentation was needed to help economies understand biodegradability requirements and infrastructure needs. Alternatives and substitutes should be better than conventional plastics, not just different. Standards should address the environment in which materials were used and consider the final product, including any chemical additives. Independent international guidance was crucial, and an international science body should provide clear guidance to the WTO. This body would help balance trade needs with environmental demands. They suggested that the WTO could ensure that broad terms like compostability and biodegradability had clear explanations to avoid greenwashing and that this clarity and capacity building should be available globally, with documentation prepared by an independent body.

4  Point of focus 6 on opportunities for greater harmonization, alignment or interoperability of TrPMs, starting by focusing on single-use plastics[6]

4.1.  The WTO Secretariat provided a presentation recalling technical discussions held at the DPP as well as information available in the DPP Survey on TrPMs, regarding differences in how such measures were targeting single-use plastic (SUP) and goods (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/189). They noted that most substantive discussions had taken place in 10 substantive meetings held after the MC12 Ministerial Statement as well as during a special workshop on reduction and circularity held in April 2023 in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Such discussions had been reflected in the DPP Factual Summary of Discussions on Reduction and Circularity (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/125) prepared for the workshop. After the MC13 Ministerial Statement, three additional substantive presentations had covered the topic. In total there had been interventions from 34 Members and 12 stakeholders on TrPMs targeting SUP goods which covered domestic policies, challenges in implementation, scientific studies, and suggestions for action. They noted that a common element in many interventions had been the increasing fragmentation of regulatory approaches and the need for enhanced international and regional coordination of trade‑related policies on plastic pollution. Finally, they called the attention to relevant work on SUP goods outside the DPP, including a thematic session in the TBT Committee in March 2023.

4.2.  Next, the presentation recalled findings from the Factual Report of the DPP Survey on TrPMs (_INF/TE/IDP/W/11), notably the types of products most often targeted by the measures found in the Survey, with plastic bags the most often targeted SUP product. The factual report indicated that there were 59 TrPMs applied on single-use plastic bags by 61 Members in the Survey. However, there was a wide variation on how Members were identifying SUP bags, using different configurations of four broad criteria: material thickness; usage; polymer input; and end-of-life properties. Even when using the same criteria, the TrPMs varied on the specific elements (e.g. minimum thickness varied from 15 to 100 microns).

4.3.  The representative from Kenya shared trade-related challenges in the implementation of the domestic restrictions on SUPs and goods (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/184). The presentation shed light on Kenya's experience with implementing a ban on SUPs. Kenya, the host to UNEP, had faced significant environmental and economic consequences from plastic pollution, particularly affecting livestock, fisheries, tourism, and urban infrastructure. They noted that a study by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) had revealed that 50% of livestock in Nairobi had ingested plastic bags, leading to health issues and reduced productivity. Consequently, in August 2017, Kenya issued a government notice banning the use, manufacture, and importation of plastic bags for commercial and household packaging, with certain exemptions for industrial packaging. The implementation of the ban involved extensive efforts by NEMA to provide clarifications and ensure compliance, working closely with police authorities. However, challenges persisted, including legal battles, smuggling, and the emergence of a black market for plastic bags. Additionally, the production and importation of low-quality, non-woven bags that could not be reused multiple times created further challenges. Kenya introduced new policies for reuse and remanufacturing, but poor disposal practices and lack of infrastructure remained significant obstacles.

4.4.  The representative further shared certain difficulties faced by Kenya due to illicit cross-border trade and the lack of coherent regional policies and harmonized standards within the East African Community (EAC) and how the diverse standards and limited data complicated circular supply chains. They highlighted the need for better regional cooperation and standardized regulations to effectively manage plastic pollution and support sustainable practices, while also emphasizing the importance of enhanced information sharing, transparency, ecodesign and international cooperation to address plastic pollution. They suggested adopting an aid for trade mandate to support developing Members in designing and implementing TrPMs and promoting regional cooperation on SUPs, as well as continued discussions among Members to identify areas of convergence towards cooperation in the WTO.

4.5.  One delegation queried how could international cooperation support regional initiatives on the topic. Another delegation queried about the definition of SUP bags employed by the regulation and whether there were estimates of the value of SUP bags in the black market. Similarly, another delegation asked if there had been an economic impact assessment of the ban and product switching since its implementation. Finally, one delegation asked for further information on the efforts undertaken to combat illegal trade. In response, the representative from Kenya noticed that there was a challenge when one economy banned a good that was still allowed in a neighbouring territory, particularly in case of a free trade agreement or customs union. This was also the case when the restrictions diverged, increasing costs and potentially leading to illegal trade. They also noted that the Act provided a definition of the SUPs bag and that the value of the black market was substantial. They noted that on the environment side there had been noticeable positive outcomes, but they did not have information on the economic impact assessments at hand.

4.6.  Next, the representative from New Zealand shared some trade-related challenges relating to the implementation of domestic restrictions on SUPs. They outlined their government's efforts to phase-out hard-to-recycle and SUPs over the previous five years. The initiative had begun with public consultations in 2020, following a 2019 report titled "Rethinking Plastics in Aotearoa, New Zealand." The government had received nearly 8,000 submissions from various stakeholders, reflecting strong public interest. The phase-out aimed to reduce plastic waste, improve recycling systems, and protect the environment, moving towards a low-emission, low-waste economy. The first phase, implemented in October 2022, banned several SUP items, while the second phase in July 2023 introduced further restrictions, including on plastic straws and tableware. The implementation had seen high compliance rates, driven by societal and consumer pressures, both consumers and industry broadly supported the bans.

4.7.  Some challenges were also highlighted, particularly regarding changes to infrastructure and production lines. They noted that a particular trade-related challenge had involved produce labelling. As a smaller and more distant market, New Zealand had to balance the ambition of moving to fully home compostable labelling with market realities, given that international pack houses and international exporters were unlikely to be able to substantially change and adopt special labels. Thus, in a first phase in July 2023, domestic producers were required to use fully home compostable labels, except for the adhesive. The second stage will require that all produce, both domestic and international, to use fully home compostable labels, including the adhesive. This stage, which was originally due for July 2025, had been extended to 2028, when other key trading partners who are suppliers to the New Zealand market would have imposed similar requirements.

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

_     i._        What are the main challenges in implementing TrPMs targeting single-use plastics (SUPs) and goods?

_    ii._        What trade-related outcome by the DPP at MC14 would be helpful to facilitate implementation and avoid illegal trade? Would voluntary guidelines and mechanism to increase the alignment of trade-related requirements applicable to SUP bags and/or other often targeted single-use goods (e.g. tableware, food containers, plastic straws, cups, bottles) be useful?

4.9.  Several delegations noted that the lack of harmonized definitions of SUP goods and concerted action posed significant challenges. For some, this meant that there was a potential role for the WTO and the DPP, such as developing voluntary guidelines based on good practices for MC14. For others, it made harmonization efforts difficult, particularly when considering the ongoing INC negotiations and the need to wait for and align with their results.

4.10.  One delegation emphasized the importance of a structured approach to discussing trade measures, starting with mapping, assessing, and providing guidelines. They highlighted the need for initial discussions on good practices to avoid validating TrPMs solely based on their inclusion in a WTO inventory. They opined that domestic practices were not necessarily best practices but should be compiled and assessed using mutually agreed criteria, with results possibly accessible online. After such exercise, promoting equivalence and mutual recognition measures that considered each Member's specific realities would streamline cross-border trade and prevent developing Members from being disproportionately burdened by varying regulatory requirements and standards.

4.11.  Another delegation emphasized the indispensable role of SUPs in modern economies, highlighting their importance for food safety, healthcare, logistics, and consumer convenience due to their efficiency, affordability, and functionality. They cautioned that restrictive regulations or bans on SUPs could disrupt global trade, increase costs, and drive shifts towards alternative materials with potentially greater environmental footprints. Instead, the delegation advocated for trade‑friendly, innovation-driven approaches that supported the responsible growth of the plastics sector. This included harmonizing global trade standards to reduce regulatory fragmentation, encouraging investment in recycling and circular economy solutions, and recognizing the environmental benefits of lightweight, durable plastics. The delegation stressed that the real issue was inefficient waste management, not plastics themselves and urged WTO discussions to prioritize strengthening recycling infrastructure, promoting trade in recycled materials, and encouraging technological advancements in plastic production and reuse.

4.12.  One delegation, while sharing their own definition of SUPs goods, noted that one of the challenges was how different Members defined and understood SUPs and goods and the need to remain material neutral. This meant that more effort was required from all relevant parties to identify sustainable alternatives that were easily available, affordable, and preferable from a lifecycle perspective. They considered that policy measures had to be adopted and that challenges presented opportunities to work together internationally. They noted they had adopted a mix of measures for different product groups, such as market restrictions, product and marking requirements, extended producer responsibility schemes, separate collection, as well as awareness raising. While domestic circumstances should be considered when applying the mix of measures, cooperation to exchange good practices and to jointly tackle challenges would be essential. The delegation suggested that the DPP could look to factual summaries for building consensus around recommendations or guidelines, starting with SUPs bags or products.

4.13.  Another delegation noted that the lack of a global legal framework and universally accepted definitions for SUPs products, which were being negotiated at the INC process, complicated the establishment of harmonized policies. The delegation emphasized the need for documents, approaches, commitments, and mechanisms that provided specific instruments for tackling plastic pollution in the context of trade, including SUPs. However, this would only be feasible after adopting a legally binding instrument as outlined in the fifth United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-5) resolution. They argued that developing voluntary guidelines or additional documents at this stage, without having a clear definition of SUPs, was premature and potentially redundant, given the current lack of clarity on future efforts to combat plastic pollution.

4.14.  One delegation highlighted the regulatory inconsistencies and varying definitions of SUPs, which created uncertainty for businesses and hindered effective implementation of TrPMs. They suggested that the WTO could help by aligning definitions, standards, and regulatory approaches to ensure consistency in phase-outs and restrictions, and by fostering dialogue on global criteria and lists. They suggested that at MC14, voluntary guidelines on trade-related requirements for commonly targeted SUPs, such as bags, tableware, and food containers, could improve regulatory alignment. The DPP could enhance transparency, prevent greenwashing, and address trade-related barriers and that strengthening enforcement, customs coordination, and information sharing could help curb illegal trade in SUPs.

4.15.  Another delegation underscored the need for better harmonization of SUPs regulations, noting fragmented regulations at their own domestic level and a lack of international harmonization. They noted how domestically, while there was an Act to ban the placement of any short-lived and single‑use products in any given market if the benefits did not justify the environmental pollution these caused. The industry also had to be provided the chance to implement voluntary measures that had the same environmental protection effect, leading to a plurality of voluntary industry measures and very little legal provisions. They similarly highlighted the challenge of limited data and reporting activities. They supported voluntary guidelines at MC14 but stressed the need for legally binding international rules to effectively tackle plastic pollution, and the need for WTO guidelines to align with the future plastics treaty framework.

4.16.  One delegation emphasized the importance of implementing waste and recycling policies through domestic measures, including TrPMs, to tackle plastic pollution. They highlighted the need for transparency and access to information while ensuring that measures were not overly restrictive to trade. They noted that trade-related requirements for SUPs could vary widely among Members, depending on their goals, such as combatting marine pollution or building a circular economy. They suggested that it would be wise to first establish a common understanding of the purpose and useful content of voluntary guidelines before designing them.

4.17.  Another delegation highlighted the challenge of defining SUPs products, noting that a shared understanding was helpful for harmonization, while emphasizing the need for flexibility, as the usability and harm of products could vary significantly depending on their intended purpose and their specific content. Regarding potential outcomes, they expressed interest in options for tangible results for MC14 and could see potential value in voluntary guidelines. They sought to understand what information or evidence would be necessary for Members to agree on such guidelines. For example, if the focus was to be on approaches to define SUPs, they suggested discussing and identifying from regulators and relevant businesses what evidence would be useful.

4.18.  One delegation stated that they were not ready to discuss or agree to any MC14 outcomes at that time, while expressing agreement with some other delegations that the discussion might be premature, given the current status of the INC process and treaty negotiations.

4.19.  Another delegation identified two main challenges in implementing TrPMs in targeting SUPs and goods: globally inconsistent regulations, which increased compliance costs and undermined environmental outcomes; and a lack of transparency that hindered safe use and circularity. The delegation highlighted the importance of the ongoing INC negotiations and suggested that the WTO, WCO, and ISO could complement these efforts by developing consistent regulations and improving transparency. They stressed the need for the WTO to limit unnecessary impacts on trade from legitimate environmental measures, support trade facilitation and work to align measures and requirements which would facilitate trade in compliant goods. For example by reaching a common understanding, even voluntary guidance, on a multiple-use bag definition, could improve outcomes for all involved. They proposed the DPP could compile specifications and standards for product requirements and collate information on recyclability challenges, requirements and standards. Voluntary international standards for traceability of recycled content in trade could be beneficial.

4.20.  One delegation noted it had several measures in place in the context of the regional economic cooperation to restrict the import of certain plastic products, such as bans on the placement of certain products and requirements in a market, on the marking of some SUP products that were frequently inappropriately disposed of. They emphasized the importance of waste management at all levels and highlighted their role in proposing stricter global trade rules for plastic waste under the Basel Convention as well as the Global Partnership on Plastic Waste, which aimed to improve plastic management globally. The delegation suggested further work in the DPP to align TrPMs applicable to SUPs and stressed the need for stronger measures in the ILBI being negotiated in the INC process.

4.21.  The representative from the Scientists Coalition emphasized several key challenges in addressing plastic pollution and highlighted the need to avoid regrettable alternatives and substitutions, develop consistent criteria for safety and sustainability, and establish broad product design recommendations (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/186). They stressed the importance of restricting trade in recycled materials to those tested for safety and sustainability, ensuring transparency, and providing equitable access to financial and technical support for developing Members. Regarding trade-related outcomes, they suggested that the WTO could help identify global standards and criteria and develop harmonized international standards to enhance transparency and reduce illegal trade in plastics.

4.22.  The representative from TESS welcomed the discussion on potential outcomes at the DPP, emphasizing the need to support governments and companies in addressing plastic pollution. They noted that many Members had introduced regulations to reduce unnecessary plastic products, but differences in these regulations created costs for businesses and enforcement challenges. They highlighted the importance of aligning trade-related requirements to reduce regulatory complexity and boost transparency. They suggested exploring mutual recognition of certification, common definitions, and shared practices for monitoring illegal trade. They recommended that DPP Members consider producing collective guidance and identifying three to four product categories on which restrictions had been imposed for similar purposes for alignment to reduce trade costs and enhance environmental measures. Finally, they suggested Members could share information with the Secretariat and facilitate the compilation of domestic experiences on SUP product requirements.

4.23.   IISD emphasized the importance of trade-related measures in implementing effective plastic policies. Their research, based on WTO data, had identified 93 unique plastic-related measures introduced by nearly 70 Members between 2009 and 2021, targeting single-use or short-lived plastics like bags, food containers, and straws. They highlighted the variation in definitions of SUPs and the need for a harmonized approach to ensure policy effectiveness and minimize trade and environmental consequences. They encouraged Members to: develop a shared understanding of SUPs; enhance coordination on aligning measures on SUPs with best practices that were proportionate, scientific and aligned to WTO principles; improve existing databases to separately report SUP-related notifications; and build consensus and advance practical solutions to balance environmental objectives with trade.

5  Any other business or interventions by delegations and stakeholders

5.1.  Under this agenda item, UNCTAD announced the fifth United Nations Ocean Forum on Trade‑Related Aspects of SDG 14, to be held from 3-5 March 2025, at the Palais des Nations in Geneva (_INF/TE/IDP/RD/187). This forum, a milestone event leading up to the United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice in June 2025, aimed to align trade and economic policies with the sustainable use and conservation of oceans. It would feature high-level segments with ministers from France, Costa Rica, and Portugal, and include thematic sessions on ocean trade trends, innovative marine products, and blue finance. Co-sponsored by several economies and organizations, the forum would also host the first Marine and Natural Product Expo, showcasing products that mitigated plastic pollution and promoted sustainability. All WTO Members were invited to participate in the event.

6  Concluding Remarks by coordinators

6.1.  Australia expressed its gratitude to all delegations and stakeholders for their strong engagement at the meeting.

6.2.  They highlighted that the purpose of the last three meetings had been to deep dive into the Points of Focus, discussing challenges and opportunities in tacking plastic pollution, an emerging policy priority of many governments demonstrated through the growing use of TrPMs. They underscored that the discussions had shed light on the importance of regulatory cooperation and sharing practices, considering the work of relevant bodies and international organizations.

6.3.  Thanking the insights shared by participants, not least the private sector in Asia and developing economy businesses, they noted the role of trade in supporting innovation and addressing environmental and health objectives. They recalled that, according to the DPP roadmap, the next step would be to consolidate the view shared by Members in the upcoming midpoint stocktaking and review meeting on 8-9 April 2025, which would include a workshop.

__________