Design principles for the global plastics treaty’s financial mechanism

Abstract An effective and just Financial Mechanism will be crucial to the success of the Global Plastic Treaty. The content in the latest Chair’s Text from INC-5.1 on finance (primarily in Article 11) could be strengthened to avoid replicating shortcomings in existing financing models, which have often been insufficient and have not always provided the necessary resources for global sustainable development. Experiences with climate finance mechanisms reveal a pattern of misdesign that needs to be addressed. The current Article 11 reflects the deep divisions evident in the two main proposals tabled at INC-5.1 in November 2024. In the light of past precedents and tensions, we argue that several core design principles related to scope, scale and social and health considerations could ensure that the Global Plastics Treaty’s Financial Mechanism supports just, ambitious and transformative global action on plastic pollution. Furthermore, we argue that several elements in the current treaty text may undermine the design and implementation of an effective and just Financial Mechanism for the future Global Plastics Treaty. These risks include overemphasizing waste management; missing connections between finance and other measures in the treaty; risks of not addressing the most effective responses; not adequately addressing plastic leakage, releases and emissions; sustaining financial investments in techno-economic lock-ins lacking sufficient safety and sustainability criteria, standards and monitoring requirements and the prospect of plastic credits, which risks repeating past false solutions. There is an opportunity for the treaty to overcome these challenges with a financial mechanism that addresses overproduction and incentivizes safer, more sustainable, accessible and cost-effective upstream solutions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cambridge Prisms Plastics
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/plc.2025.10025
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Nuclear and radioactivity studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.30
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Design principles for the global plastics treaty’s financial mechanism

Andrea Bonisoli‐Alquati, Joseph Edward Alegado, Mengjiao Wang, Ed Cook et al.
1 citations
Cambridge Prisms Plastics
Nuclear and radioactivity studies
1.30
article

Design principles for the global plastics treaty’s financial mechanism

Andrea Bonisoli‐Alquati, Joseph Edward Alegado, Mengjiao Wang, Ed Cook, Kala Senathirajah, Natalia de Miranda Grilli, Noreen O’Meara, Sangcheol Moon
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract An effective and just Financial Mechanism will be crucial to the success of the Global Plastic Treaty. The content in the latest Chair’s Text from INC-5.1 on finance (primarily in Article 11) could be strengthened to avoid replicating shortcomings in existing financing models, which have often been insufficient and have not always provided the necessary resources for global sustainable development. Experiences with climate finance mechanisms reveal a pattern of misdesign that needs to be addressed. The current Article 11 reflects the deep divisions evident in the two main proposals tabled at INC-5.1 in November 2024. In the light of past precedents and tensions, we argue that several core design principles related to scope, scale and social and health considerations could ensure that the Global Plastics Treaty’s Financial Mechanism supports just, ambitious and transformative global action on plastic pollution. Furthermore, we argue that several elements in the current treaty text may undermine the design and implementation of an effective and just Financial Mechanism for the future Global Plastics Treaty. These risks include overemphasizing waste management; missing connections between finance and other measures in the treaty; risks of not addressing the most effective responses; not adequately addressing plastic leakage, releases and emissions; sustaining financial investments in techno-economic lock-ins lacking sufficient safety and sustainability criteria, standards and monitoring requirements and the prospect of plastic credits, which risks repeating past false solutions. There is an opportunity for the treaty to overcome these challenges with a financial mechanism that addresses overproduction and incentivizes safer, more sustainable, accessible and cost-effective upstream solutions.

Cambridge Prisms PlasticsVol. 3
Australian National University (AU), University of Tasmania (AU), University of Leeds (GB), Berkeley College (US), University of Exeter (GB), University College Cork (IE), University of California System (US), Centre for Marine Socioecology (AU), University of Newcastle Australia (AU), University of California, Berkeley (US), California State Polytechnic University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Nuclear and radioactivity studies
1.30
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.