From Nice to Necessity: The case for a globally binding, full lifecycle plastic treaty

The “Nice wake up call”, led by co-host France, is a welcome sign of continued momentum and sends a strong message: countries can and must work together to end the plastic crisis. But let’s be clear – this statement is a solid starting point, not a finish line. What it outlines is the bare minimum needed to effectively tackle plastic pollution. A treaty that’s fit for purpose must go beyond broad aspirations. It must include specific, binding, and enforceable measures that cover the full lifecycle of plastics. 

That said, support among countries is not broad enough yet. To agree on the ambitious Treaty that is required, additional countries need to support ambitious action across the plastic lifecycle. So, while the Nice statement reinforces resolve among existing supporters, it hasn’t yet significantly broadened the political base as negotiations resume. 

Still, the timing matters. As governments prepare for INC-5.2 in Geneva (5-14 August), negotiators face a critical choice: settle for a treaty with broad buy-in but (very) limited ambition or pursue a bold agreement that enshrines legally binding global rules and finance mechanisms to support a just transition. 

The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty (now representing over 280 companies and financial institutions) welcomed the Nice statement and released The Economic Rationale for a Global Plastics Treaty underpinned by Mandatory and Harmonised Regulation. Developed by Systemiq and building on our Plastic Treaty Futures framework, the modelling compares two paths: one with harmonised global rules, and another with fragmented, voluntary national plans. It finds that there are clear economic benefits of adopting a Treaty with global rules, including: 

• More than double the number of problematic and avoidable plastic items could be eliminated through globally aligned phase-out criteria and obligations. 
• Mismanaged plastic waste could fall by 23 % thanks to elimination, common design requirements and increased EPR revenues. 
• Recycled content availability could increase by 77 % by 2040, lowering costs for recycled materials.  
• Harmonised EPR schemes could more than double revenues, unlocking US $ 576 billion for collection and recycling infrastructure. 
• Stable jobs would be protected and created, particularly in the waste management sector.  
• Healthier communities and improved public services would benefit from cleaner waste streams and reduced pollution, with knock-on benefits to industries like tourism and fishing.  
• Certainty for businesses and investors would rise, catalysing investment, innovation and long-term value creation. 

In short, globally harmonised regulation isn’t a cost; it’s a catalyst for economic value – that also brings environmental and social benefits. 

While globally relevant, the modelling focuses on Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, and South Africa – countries that have not signed the Nice statement. Our modelling shows that these nations stand to gain economically from an ambitious treaty. The potential benefits, from job creation to economic resilience, are too substantial to ignore.  

In our Plastic Treaty Futures analysis (April 2024), we modelled four treaty scenarios. The conclusion was clear: only a Global Full Lifecycle Scenario based on coordinated, legally binding action across the full plastics lifecycle can deliver the impact we need. By 2040, such an approach could reduce mismanaged plastic waste by 90 % and save the public sector roughly US $ 200 billion compared with a Business as Usual path. In contrast, voluntary or downstream-only approaches would fail to curb the crisis. Encouragingly, the positions of the Business Coalition and the Nice statement closely align with this most effective scenario.