Plastics Sector Umbrella Agreement

Despite their merits, it turned out that the regional and global framework conditions for plastics have not contained plastics law and policy and that it was necessary to assess and address the causes of their inefficiency. Before October 2009, there were only two ways for plastics companies to potentially reduce their energy costs: through the Industrial Film Association (PIFA) or through the Non Ferrous Alliance (NFA) for processes that still use lead. However, since the introduction of the plastics agreement, the situation has increased. We can now boast of having more than 425 agreements, including agreements for the plastics sector and for PIFA. This is an important achievement in such a short time, but there are still hundreds of plastic companies that could benefit from the initiation of a CCA. In 2017, UNEP conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of international and regional governance, strategies and approaches to combat plastic waste and microplastics at sea, which concluded that “current governance policies and approaches offer a fragmented approach that does not adequately address plastic waste and microplastics at sea.” The rapid overview of the international legal and political architecture that governs plastic is sufficient to understand the foundations of UNEP`s diagnosis. With regard to fragmentation, it is clear that discrete instruments concern different types of hazardous waste and different stages of their life cycle, while others regulate activities at sea. This fragmented framework fosters overlaps and gaps that are reflected in regional and national instruments and are responsible for the implementation of international and regional commitments and commitments within different departmental portfolios. Another gap in current global (and regional) regulation is the focus on waste prevention and waste management at the end of the plastics life cycle.

It does not promote the prioritization of plastic waste prevention, nor the change/redesign of products that would dictate the application of the zero waste hierarchy (see chart below), nor the transition to a circular economy of products. Changes to the repurchase fee for the third and fourth periods are defined in the framework agreement. Increasingly, the economy is seeing the benefits of security as a result of a coherent, universal and binding global regime for plastics. As reported recently by WWF, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and the Boston Consulting Group, joint report, The Business Case for a UN Treaty on Plastic Pollution, 29 large companies – and increasingly – have signed a manifesto highlighting the urgency of the issue and calling for negotiations on a new global treaty. An ILBI on plastic and plastic pollution appears to be the most effective way for many experts. to achieve AHEG`s recommendations and create the coherent legal architecture needed to “cut the plastic faucet” and support a shift from the current linear consumption model “use and scope” to a circular economy model that reduces the use of new products and develops sustainable products designed to maximize, reuse, repair and recycle sustainable resource use. CCA systems in the plastics sector have been tasked with saving thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions and millions of pounds on energy bills. To date, the sector as a whole has saved more than $10 million — and CDC`s savings will continue to grow.

A recent review of energy taxes in the UK has highlighted a complex set of commitments that urgently needs to be streamlined.