 RESTRICTED  
  
INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
4 October 2021  
(21-7484) Page: 1/32 
  Original: English  
 
 
INFORMAL DIALOGUE ON PLASTICS POLLUTION AND ENVIRONMENTALLY  
SUSTAINABLE PLASTICS TRADE (IDP)  
FACTUAL REPORT (2021)  
_______________  
 
 
1. The Informal Dialogue on Plastics Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade  (IDP) 
was established by a group of WTO Members during the Committee on Trade and Environment 
(CTE) 2020 Trade and Environment Week.1 The dialogue was born out of the recognition of the 
need for coordinated action to address the rising environmental, hea lth, and economic cost s of 
plastics pollution and the importance of the trade dimension as a solution.  
2. The group aims to identify opportunities for enhanced trade cooperation within the rules and 
mechanisms of the WTO to support domestic, regional, and gl obal efforts to reduce plastics 
pollution and transition to a more circular and environmentally sustainable global plastics 
economy  while avoiding duplication of work . The informal dialogue is intended to  complement 
discussions in the  CTE and  be part of br oader WTO deliberations to advance  shared trade and  
environmental sustainability objectives . The dialogue is open to all WTO Members.  
3. On 24 March 2021, IDP co -sponsors issued a Proposal for a Transparency and International 
Cooperation Exercise.2 Paragraph 2.2 of the Proposal foresees the preparation of a " factual 
report for the consideration of Members to support them in devising possible policy options in 
advance of MC12 ." The proposed exercise and the factual report would help to establish a so lid 
factual basis to discuss current trade -related efforts along with experiences and views shared in 
meetings.   
4. This 2021 IDP Factual Report summarizes the IDP work and discussions so far on the topic of 
plastics pollution and environmentally sustainable plastics trade. It is subdivided into the 
following sections:  
• Overview of WTO discussions  
• Mapping of Current International Efforts with Potential Trade Implications  
• Summary of Discussions on the Six Topics in IDP Meetings  
• State of the Informal Dialogue (including policy options raised in discussions)  
 
_______________  
 
  
 
1 See the  co -sponsors communication WT/CTE/W/250/Rev.1 (Annex I). Current co -sponsors are 
Australia, Barbados, Cabo Verde, Canada, Central African Republic, China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Fiji, The 
Gambia, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Morocco, New Zealand, Russia, Sw itzerland, Thailand and United Kingdom.  
2 INF/TE/IDP/W/1, "Proposal for a Transparency and International Cooperation Exercise, Draft concept 
note" (Annex II).  INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 2 - 
 
  
 TABLE OF CONTENTS  
 
1   OVERVIEW OF WTO DISCUSSIONS ON PLASTICS  ................................ .......................  3 
1.1   Evolution and type of plastic -related interventions  ................................ .........................  3 
1.2   Interventions by plastic life -cycle stages  ................................ ................................ ...... 4 
1.3   Illustrative overview of interventions by plastic life -cycle stages  ................................ ...... 6 
1.3.1   Plastic feedstock and primary plastics  ................................ ................................ ....... 8 
1.3.2   Plastic -based inputs  ................................ ................................ ...............................  8 
1.3.3   Finished goods and manufacturing  ................................ ................................ ...........  8 
1.3.4   Packaging materials  ................................ ................................ ...............................  8 
1.3.5   Plastic use  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  8 
1.3.6   Waste and scrap  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 9 
1.3.7   Recycling  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  9 
1.4   Topics (keywords) mentioned in plastics interventions  ................................ .................  10 
2   MAPPING OF CURRENT INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS WITH POTENT IAL TRADE 
IMPLICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  11 
2.1   United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) process on marine litter and microplastics  . 12 
2.2   Plastic feedstock and primary plastics  ................................ ................................ ........  13 
2.2.1   International Organization for Standardization (ISO) plastics circularity standards  .........  13 
2.2.2   Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants  ................................ .............  14 
2.3   Finished goods and manufacturing  ................................ ................................ ............  15 
2.3.1   UNCTAD -FCDO – SMEP manufacturing in sub -Sharan Afric a and South Asia  .................  15 
2.3.2   G7 Ocean Plastics Charter  ................................ ................................ .....................  15 
2.4   Packaging materials  ................................ ................................ ................................  15 
2.4.1   The Ellen MacArthur Foundation  ................................ ................................ .............  15 
2.5   Plastic Use  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  16 
2.5.1   World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Global Plastic Action Partnership (GPAP)  ............  16 
2.6   Waste and scrap  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 16 
2.6.1   The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous  
Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention)  ................................ ................................ .... 16 
2.6.2   The Basel Convention Plastic Waste Partnership (PWP)  ................................ ..............  17 
2.6.3   The World Customs Organization (WCO)  ................................ ................................ . 17 
2.6.4   OECD Council Decision on the Transboundary Movements Wastes  ...............................  17 
3   SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS ON THE SIX TOPICS IN IDP MEETINGS  .......................  18 
3.1   Transparency and monitoring trade trends  ................................ ................................ . 18 
3.2   Promoting best practices  ................................ ................................ .........................  21 
3.3   International cooperation  ................................ ................................ .........................  23 
3.4   Collective approaches.  ................................ ................................ .............................  23 
3.5   Policy coherence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 24 
3.6   Capacity and technical assistance needs  ................................ ................................ .... 26 
4   STATE OF THE INFORMAL DIALOGUE  ................................ ................................ ....... 26 INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 3 - 
 
  
 ANNEX I – IDP CO -SPONSORS REVISED INITIAL COMMUNICATION – 
WT/CTE/W/250/REV.1, 15 JULY 2021  ................................ ................................ .........  29 
ANNEX II – IDP CO -SPONSORS PROPOSAL FOR A TRANSPARENCY AND 
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION EXERCISE – INF/TE/IDP/W/1, 24 MARCH 2021  ....... 30 
1   INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE  ................................ ................................ ............  30 
2   PROPOSED TRANSPARENCY AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION EXERCISE  ..........  30 
ANNEX III – IDP CO -SPONSORS PROPOSAL FOR ROADMAP AND POTENTIAL  
OUTCOME IN MC12 (2021 -2023) – INF/TE/IDP/W/2, 24 MARCH 2021  .......................  32 
1   IDEAS ON POTENTIAL OUTCOME IN MC12  ................................ ...............................  32 
2   ROADMAP  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  32 
 
_______________  
 
 
1  OVERVIEW OF WTO DISCUSSIONS  ON PLASTICS  
5. Discussions on different trade -related aspects of the plastic pollution challenge have been held 
in the WTO for several years. In particular, WTO Members have shared their perspectives on the 
topic and related trade policies in the CTE since 1995.3 However, discussions have intensified in 
recent years, in particular since 2018, reflecting growing awareness regarding the challenges of 
plastics and marine pollution and ongoing international, regional,  and domestic efforts on the 
topic shared at the CTE, as well as in dedicated side events.  
1.1  Evolution and type of plastic -related interventions  
6. These discussions in the lead -up to the formal launch of the IDP can provide important context 
to the process. T hey also allow IDP participants to better understand the impact that the focus 
and structure provided for discussions on the subject have had on the quantity, diversity, and 
breadth of topics covered. In effect, an overview of interventions on plastics fro m June 2018 
until June 2021, in both the CTE and IDP, clearly indicates the impact the IDP has had ( see 
graph 1 ). In the four CTE meetings held between June 2018 and November 2019, a total of 30 
plastic -related interventions occurred. Since the start of di scussions around launching an 
informal dialogue on the topic, a total of 66 interventions occurred in the following four CTE 
meetings (July 2020 to June 2021). All in all, discussions among WTO Members and invited 
stakeholders in the CTE and IDP combined m ore than quadrupled since July 2020, to a total of 
132 interventions.  
 
3 As an example, in a CTE m eeting held on 6 April 1995 , Argentina noted the importance of ensur ing 
transparency of "waste handling" and "take -back" requirements covering plastics and other materials as there 
did not seem to be precise WTO transparency rules for such measures (see WT/CTE/M/2 , para. 18). In a 
subsequent meeting in the same year, Malay sia, on behalf of ASEAN, noted how proposed sustainability criteria 
and labelling eventually applied to timber trade should also cover plastics and other "substitute materials" 
(WT/CTE/M/ 5, para. 78). Malaysia, on behalf of ASEAN, repeated a similar positi on in a CTE meeting held on 
19-20 March 1998 , noting increased sustainability requirements on timber could " result in the increased use of 
substitutes such as plastics … whose production, use and re -use, and disposal also had environmental 
implications " (WT/CTE/M/ 17, para. 89).  INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 4 - 
 
  
 Graph 1 - Evolution of plastic discussions  - CTE and IDP combined  
 
 
7. From the start, the IDP offered enhanced opportunities for stakeholder engagement and for WTO 
delegations to be brief ed about relevant domestic, regional, and international efforts on the 
topic, as well as academic research. In effect, 24 of the 31 plastic -related stakeholder 
interventions since 2018 occurred during IDP meetings (18 stakeholders "views" about 
roadblocks and potential solutions to the plastic pollution challenge, including through trade, and 
13 "processes" and efforts in the context of stakeholders' work, including negotiations and new 
agreements). In total, so far 15 invited  stakeholders shared their view s and/or briefed 
delegations on their own processes4 on the topic.  
Table 1 – Invited stakeholders with at least one intervention in IDP meetings  
WCO  UNEP  UNCTAD  ISO The Ellen MacArthur Foundation  
BRS WEF  OECD  ALADI  The Graduate Institute  
IISD Norway -IASS  CIEL  PIFs Newcastle and Massey Universities  
 
8. Delegations also engaged actively, sharing their domestic policies and experiences in 48 
interventions, in addition to their domestic views and preferences5 on the topic in 83 
interventions. Once again, a significant increase in domestic views shared can be observed since 
July 2020 (about 88% of all such interventions). Similarly, domestic policies shared doubled in 
the period (32 interventions) as compared t o the period from June 2018 to November 2019 (16).  
1.2  Interventions by plastic life -cycle stages  
9. As noted in the UNCTAD -Graduate Institute Report presented to the IDP ( INF/TE/IDP/RD/1 ) 
titled ‘ Global trade in plastics: insights from the first life -cycle trade  database’ , "international 
trade occurs at every step of the plastics life  cycle – from feedstocks  to primary plastics in resin 
pellet and fibre forms, through to intermediate plastic goods, final manufactured  plastic goods 
and plastic waste ."6 It is thus  potentially useful to follow a similar breakdown of the "plastic 
trade life cycle" used by the report to examine how the trade -related plastics interventions in 
the IDP relate to these different stages, namely: plastics feedstock; primary plastics; plasti c-
based inputs; finished plastic goods and manufacturing; packaging materials; plastic use; waste 
and scrap; and recycling.7  
 
4 See section 2  below for an overview and mapping of such trade -relevant processes.  
5 See section 3  below for a summary of views and discussions.  
6 See Diana Barrowclough, Carolyn Deere Birkbeck, and Julien Christen UNCTAD Research Paper No. 53 
‘Global trade in plastics: insights from the first life -cycle trade database’, at p. 5, available on: 
https://unctad.org/webflyer/global -trade -plastics -insights -first-life-cycle-trade -database . The UNCTAD 
database is accessible at http://stats.unctad.org/plastics . Similarly see Deere Birkbeck, C. and M. Sugathan 
(2021) ‘How can international trade policy help tackle plastic pollution? Policy Options and Pathways,’  Global 
Governance Centre and the Forum on Trade, Environment & the SDGs (TESS), Geneva . 
7 A similar bre ak-down has also been used in UNCTAD's contribution to the June 2020 CTE meeting 
circulated at the request of the delegations of Fiji and China (JOB/TE/63), available on: 
https://unctad.org/system/files/information -document/wto_unctad_CTE2020_en.pdf . 01020304050607080
2018 2019 2020 2021Stakeholder view
Stakeholder processes
Domestic view
Domestic policyINF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 5 - 
 
  
 10. Flowchart 1 below  provides a conceptual visualization of the plastic life -cycle stages and how 
trade intersects with efforts to  reduce plastics pollution and transition to a more circular and 
environmentally sustainable global plastics economy . 
Flowchart 1 – Plastic Life -Cycle Stages and Trade Flows8 
 
 
11. As can be noted in graph 2,  almost half of the interventions addressed the topic with respect to 
the "waste and scrap" life -cycle stage.9 Plastic use and recycling were the next stages most often 
discussed, with only a few interventions directly addressing topics such as primary pl astics, 
feedstock, and inputs.  
Graph 2  – Plastic trade life -cycle stage discuss ed 
 
12. As can be seen in graph 3  below, while domestic views and policies discussed broadly 
concentrated in the life -cycle stages of waste and scrap, plastic use and recycling, st akeholder 
views were more uniformly spread in four stages: primary plastics; finished goods and 
manufacturing; packaging material; and waste and scrap. Given the low number of interventions 
 
8 This flowchart is based on contributions and interventions by WTO Members and invited stakeholders 
who participated in IDP meetings. A broader conceptual visualizat ion of the relationship between trade and 
circularity can be found in Yamaguchi, S. (2021), "International trade and circular economy - Policy 
alignment",  OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers , No. 2021/02, OECD Publishing, 
Paris,  https://doi.org/10.1787/ae4a2176 -en. 
9 It is worth noting that about half of the interventions did not focus on specific life -cycle stages and/or 
covered all stages in general.  
2.2% 3.3% 1.1%
6.6%
4.4%
19.8%
48.4%14.3%plastics feedstock
primary plastics
plastic-based inputs
finished goods and manufacturing
packaging materials
plastic use
waste and scrap
recyclingINF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 6 - 
 
  
 expressly focused on three of these topics, the participation of i nvited stakeholders has 
contributed to diversify the IDP debate. However, it is also worth noting that stakeholder 
processes discussed which focused on specific life -cycle stages covered the downstream stages 
of waste and scrap and recycling.10 This is broadly in line with the mapping of international 
efforts (see section 2 below).  
Graph 3  – Plastic interventions by type and life -cycle stage  
 
13. The concentration of interventions on these downstream life -cycle stages can be contrasted to 
the fact, noted in the UNCTAD -Graduate Institute Report presented to the IDP 
(INF/TE/IDP/RD/1 ), that most identifiable trade in plastic products seems to occur in more 
upstream stages, such as plastic feedstocks and primary plastics ( see section 3  for a summar y 
of the study).  
Graph 4 – Proportion of total plastics trade in volume11 
 
 
 
1.3  Illustrative overview of interventions by plastic life -cycle stages  
14. Following the plastic trade life -cycle breakdown and the type and nature of plastic -related 
interventions, the  mind map below  provides an illustrative snapshot overview of the topics 
discussed at the CTE and IDP meetings since 2018. Next, a brief description of some 
interventions under each life -cycle stage is provided to illustrate discussions. See section 3 for 
a more in -depth summary of discussions.  
 
10 Some stakeholder processes shared during IDP a nd CTE meetings did not focus on specific life -cycle 
stages and/or covered all stages in general.  
11 See Diana Barrowclough, Carolyn Deere Birkbeck, and Julien Christen UNCTAD Research Paper No. 53 
‘Global trade in plastics: insights from the first life -cycle trade database’, at p. 14. The authors note that " the 
data on volumes should not be interpreted as the total volume of plastics traded internationally; instead, they 
represent a simple addition of volumes traded under different HS codes selected. In re ality, the same 
underlying quantity of primary plastics is traded between countries at different stages of the plastics life cycle 
for value addition and eventually disposal ." 
0 10 20 30 40 50recyclingwaste and scrapplastic usepackaging materialsfinished goods and manufacturingplastic-based inputsprimary plasticsplastics feedstock
Domestic policy
Domestic view
Stakeholder processes
Stakeholder viewINF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 7 - 
 
  
 Mind map  Plastic Discussions CTE and IDP  
 
INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 8 - 
 
  
 1.3.1   Plastic feedstock and primary plastics  
15. In 2019, Bangladesh briefed delegations in the CTE on the advantages of jute as a sustainable 
alternative to plastics.12 In 2020, the United States addressed supply chains in plastic production 
and the need to focus on a trade facilitative approach to reverse supply chains to support better 
environmental outcomes.13 Additionally, fossil fuel subsidy reform was discussed by New 
Zealand, ( with responses from, among others, Norway, Switzerland, and Costa Rica) and IISD.14 
A majority of feedstock for plastics derives from fossil fuels and their depressed price could affect 
the affordability of alternatives.15 
1.3.2   Plastic -based  inputs  
16. Peru outlined in 2018 their domestic practices on regulating plastic -based inputs and finished  
plastic goods. Peru was debating a bill in Congress to reduce gradually the use and production 
of plastic bags, ice cream containers, and Styrofoam containers.16 
1.3.3   Finished goods and manufacturing  
17. On the topic of finished goods and manufacturing of plastics, New Zealand banned the 
manufacturing of microbeads to help prevent the entry of plastics into the marine environment.17 
Chad also discussed the need for an environmental goods agreement, mentioning that it could 
reduce barriers t o trade in goods that were environmentally friendly.18 The OECD presented in 
2019 on sustainable plastic design, furthering knowledge on sustainable plastic production and 
eco-design.19 In a similar manner, the topic of green design of plastics and address ing the 
resource at source was mentioned by Chinese Taipei in the context of its Resource Recycling and 
Reuse Plan in 2020.20 
1.3.4   Packaging materials  
18. Stakeholders such as the WEF (Ghana experience) have shared their expertise and views on 
plastic packaging. On e hundred percent  of the plastics used for packaging in Ghana were virgin 
plastics, and establishing a minimum recycled plastic content mandate could generate demand 
for plastic recycling in the country according to WEF .21 In a similar manner, the Central African 
Republic informed delegations it had adopted a prohibition on non -biodegradable plastic 
packaging, also promoting alternative packaging materials.22 Other Members have shared 
similar measures to address plastic packaging domestically, notably the E uropean Union’s aim 
to have  all plastic packaging be reusable or recyclable  by 2030.23 
1.3.5   Plastic use  
19. Zero single -use plastic regulations, including those that apply to plastic bags, have been a 
significant topic in the CTE and IDP. Plastic ban policies exist  and have been discussed both in 
IDP and CTE meetings by Bangladesh, Barbados, China, Chile, Jamaica, Maldives, Canada, Niger, 
and Thailand.  
20. The European Union presented in 2018 on biodegradable, and compostable plastic alternatives 
and a directive address ing single -use plastics.24 It gave an update in the IDP June meeting on 
 
12 WT/CTE/M/68, report of the meeting held on 26 - 27 November 2019, para. 1.8.  
13 WT/CTE/M/69, report of the meeting held on  3 July 2020, para. 2.27.  
14 See WT/CTE/M/67, WT/CTE/M/69, WT/CTE/M70.  
15 See INF/TE/IDP/R/1 , report of the meeting held on 29 March 2021, paras. 2.3 and 3.6.  
16 WT/CTE/M/66, report of the meeting held on 30 November  2018, para. 1.59.  
17 WT/CTE/M/65, report of the meeting held on 28 June  2018, para. 1.32.  
18 INF/TE/IDP/R/2, report of the m eeting held on 21 June  2021, para. 3.2.  
19 WT/CTE/M/68, report of the m eeting held on 26 - 27 November 2019 , para. 2.55.  
20 WT/CTE/M/70, r eport of the meeting held on 16 and 20 November 2020 , para. 1.31.  
21 INF/TE/IDP/R/2, report of the m eeting held on 21 June 2021 , para. 2.6.  
22 WT/CTE/M/71, r eport of the meeting held on 30 March 2021, para. 1.39.  
23 WT/CTE/M/66, report of the meeting held on 30 November 2018, para. 1.46. See also 
INF/TE/IDP/R/2, report of the m eeting held on 21 June  2021, paras. 2.3 -4. 
24 WT/CTE/M/66, report of the meeting held on 30 November 2018, paras. 1.47 -51.  INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 9 - 
 
  
 mandatory requirements for recycled content and issuing a policy framework on bio -based, 
compostable and biodegradable plastics.25  
21. Single -use plastic bans and restrictions were discus sed in the CTE and IDP by several Members. 
Pakistan underlined the importance of transparency and transfer of technology for poorer 
Members  to address single -use plastic usage.26 In the margins of the first part of  the 5th United 
Nations Environment Assembly  (UNEA5), on 22 February 2021, the EU had launched the ‘Global 
Alliance for Circular Economy and Resource Efficiency’ (GACERE) jointly with the United Nations 
Environment Programme (UNEP) and in coordination with the United Nations Indu strial 
Development Organization (UNIDO).27 Plastic circularity seems to continue to be an important 
aspect of future efforts by stakeholders and Members to address plastic pollution across the 
plastic lifecycle, including in the plastic use cycle stage.  
1.3.6   Waste and scrap  
22. Waste and plastic scrap and recycling were the most discussed life -cycle stages in the CTE and 
IDP. Downstream impacts of plastics waste, especially maritime litter, were part of a 
presentation by Norway in 2019. Norway has issued a politica l declaration in 2019 calling for a 
new global agreement to combat marine plastic litter and microplastics.28  
23. Several domestic practices show the concern of Members about plastic waste and scrap on land 
and oceans. Already in 2018, Chinese Taipei, Norway,  the EU, Canada (in the context of the 
Charlevoix Blueprint for Healthy Oceans, Seas and Resilient Coastal Communities), and New 
Zealand brought up the issue of maritime litter in the CTE.29 An intensification of discussions on 
plastic waste and scrap, inc luding with the participation of stakeholders such as the BRS, UNEP, 
WEF and WCO, can be observed in the CTE sessions of 2018 and 201930, as well as in both March 
and June 2021 IDP meetings.  This includes technologies for plastic waste reduction and a 
possible global agreement on plastic pollution.  
24. Domestic Plastic waste policies, whether related to maritime pollution or land pollution, were 
outlined by many WTO Members, both in the CTE and IDP. Proposals had been discussed, such 
as the United Kingdom’s vie w on the role of public -private partnerships driving positive outcomes 
on plastic wastes.31 The Philippines, in collaboration with the Canadian government and the 
private sector, had launched a project known as "plastic bank", which aimed to turn plastic w aste 
into currency and reduce plastics in the ocean while improving the lives of collector 
communities.32 Such initiatives to address plastic waste and include communities in this process 
were welcomed by several Members. In a similar vein, the United Stat es noted the value that 
plastic waste and scraps can have in the reduction of plastic pollution and the need to address 
the topic also from a reverse supply chain and trade facilitative approach.33  
1.3.7   Recycling  
25. Recycling policies on the domestic level have been an important topic throughout CTE and IDP 
discussions. The European Union presented on its 2030 aim that all plastic packaging would be 
reusable or recyclable, and that sorting recycling capacity would gro w four times compared with 
2015.34 China presented in 2019 its municipal waste recycling increase of 50% in the past 10 
years.35 Other Members  presenting domestic policies on recycling efforts include Chinese Taipei 
and Morocco .36 The European Union also d iscussed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) 
 
25 INF/TE/IDP/R/2, report of the m eeting held on 21 June  2021, paras.  2.3-4. 
26 November 2020 IDP meeting.  
27 WT/CTE/M/71, r eport of the meeting held on 30 March 2021 , para. 1.24.  
28 WT/CTE/M/68, report of the m eeting held on 26 - 27 November 2019 , para. 2.15.  
29 See WT/CTE/M/65 and WT/CTE/M/66.  
30 See WT/CTE/M/65, WT/CTE/M/66, and WT/CTE/M/68.  
31 WT/CTE/M/70, r eport of the meeting held on 16 and 20 November 2020 , para. 1.27.  
32 WT/CTE/M/69, report of the meeting held on  3 July 2020, para. 2.31.  
33 WT/CTE/M/71, r eport of the meeting held on 30 March 2021 , paras. 1.35 -1.36.  
34 WT/CTE/M/66, report of the meeting held on 30 November 2018, para. 1.46. See also 
INF/TE/IDP/R/2, report of the m eeting held on 21 June  2021, paras. 2.3 -4. 
35 WT/CTE/M/68, report of the m eeting held on 26 - 27 November 2019 , para. 2.32.  
36 WT/CTE/M/70, r eport of the meeting held on 16 and 20 November 2020 , para. 1.31., and November 
2020 IDP Meeting.  INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 10 - 
 
  
 schemes for recycling in 2018.37 The Maldives and Sri Lanka have also outlined EPR programs.38 
Diverse topics such as E -waste recycling (Colombia and Switzerland) and artisanal efforts 
(Central African Republic) to recycle plastics have  also been discussed.39  
1.4  Topics (keywords) mentioned in plastics interventions  
26. As can be seen by the examples shar ed above, WTO Members and stakeholders have addressed 
a myriad of specific aspects of the trade and plastics pollution and sustainable plastics economy 
nexus. An examination of relevant keywords that were most often referred to in these 
discussions can off er additional insight into the tenor and substance of matters discussed and, 
potentially, where further discussions could be warranted. A total of 35 relevant keywords were 
identified in at least one intervention in the IDP and/or CTE from 2018 to 2021 ( table 2). 
Table 2  – Relevant keywords identified  
Biodegradable  Cooperation  Labelling  Recycling  Technical assistance  
Biomass  Data collection  Manufacturi
ng Services  Technology  
Capacity building  Design  Microplastics  Single -Use Transparency  
Carbon -neutrality  Downstream  Oceans  Standardization  Upstream  
Circular Economy  E-waste  Packaging  Supply chains  Virgin plastics  
Coherence  Fossil fuel  Plastic bags  Sustainable alternatives  Waste  
Collective 
approaches  Hidden flows  Production  Sustainable 
consumption  Zero waste  
 
27. As can be noted in graph 5 below, the topics most often raised by stakeholders and delegations 
were waste (around 20% of identified keywords) and oceans (about 15%), followed by circular 
economy (11%), single -use (10%),  recycling (6%) and cooperation (5%). However, the other 
20 relevant keywords were only identified in one or two interventions, indicating the wide variety 
of topics and perspectives put forward by WTO Members and stakeholders  
Graph 5  – Top 15 topics (keywords) most often raised by type of intervention  
 
28. Some examples of interventions which concerned “oceans” are: Norway’s underlining of 
favouring a new global agreement to combat marine litter and microplastics40, SIDS 
 
37 WT/CTE/M/66, report of the meeting held on 30 November 2018, para. 1.48.  
38 WT/CTE/M/71, r eport of the meeting held on 30 March 2021 , para. 1.58 and WT/CTE/M/69, report of 
the meeting held on  3 July 2020, para. 2.15.  
39 See WT/CTE/M/68, report of the m eeting held on 26 - 27 November 2019 , para. 2.19 -2.22 and  
INF/TE/IDP/R/1 , report of the meeting held on 29 M arch 2021, para. 3 .5. 
40 WT/CTE/M/70, r eport of the meeting held on 16 and 20 November 2020 , para. 1.23.  0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40WasteOceansCircular EconomySingle-UseRecyclingCooperationTechnical assistanceZero wasteMicroplasticsPlastic bagsVirgin plasticsCollective approachesBiodegradableDesign
Domestic policy
Domestic view
Stakeholder processes
Stakeholder viewINF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 11 - 
 
  
 interventions (s uch as Mauritius) on supporting initiatives such as the Action Group on Marine 
Plastic Pollution under the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Islands41, and the Charlevois Blueprint 
for Healthy Oceans, Seas, and Resilient Coastal Communities outlined by Canada in th e CTE of 
2018.42 On “circular economy”, some examples include the European intervention outlining the 
EU Circular Economy Action Plan43, Ecuador’s National Alliance for Circular Economy with some 
180 companies44, and the WEF intervention on a case study in  Ghana, outlining scope for trade 
policy to move to alternatives for plastics in order to obtain a more circular plastics economy.45 
29. “Single -Use Plastics” mainly concerned interventions outlining single -use plastic bans or single -
use plastic ban roadmaps, which includes the interventions by Bangladesh, Barbados, China, 
Chile, Jamaica, Maldives, Canada, Niger, and Thailand. Interventions on "c ooperation" included 
calls by Switzerland, Ecuador, the Russian Federation among others for cooperation in 
addressing  plastic pollution.46 "Technical assistance" was another recurring topic, including as 
raised by Australia in expressing its interest in hearing how technical assistance can and is aiding 
developing Members to implement policies to deal with plastic pollution47, and Ecuador’s interest 
to marry technical aspects and cooperation in order to effectively address plastic pollution 
challenges among others.48 
2  MAPPING OF CURRENT INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS WITH POTENTIAL TRADE 
IMPLICATIONS  
30. As noted above, the IDP s eeks, among other things, to enhance cooperation with other 
international processes and efforts.  The information shared by both delegations and invited 
stakeholders so far has made it possible to construct a preliminary mapping of existing and 
planned inte rnational and regional efforts with potential trade implications. Several of these 
relevant international and regional institutions have been invited and already briefed delegations 
and expressed their views in the IDP.  
31. This section thus provides a prelim inary mapping of such "stakeholder processes" discussed in 
the IDP and in the CTE (2018 -2021) and seeks to identify trade "entry points" and what plastic 
life-cycle stages such efforts are more directly related to. By its very nature, the mapping does 
not seek to provide an exhaustive picture of existing international and regional efforts on plastic 
pollution and environmentally sustainable plastics trade, but it is rather a snapshot of elements 
brought to the discussions so far. It also contains short desc riptions of each stakeholder process 
stressing, as far as possible, their trade -relevant elements.  
 
41 WT/CTE/M/70, r eport of the meeting held on 16 and 20 November 2020 , para. 1.26.  
42 WT/CTE/M/66, report of the meeting held on 30 November 2018, para. 1 .18. 
43 WT/CTE/M/70, r eport of the meeting held on 16 and 20 November 2020 , para. 1.22.  
44 WT/CTE/M/69, report of the meeting held on  3 July 2020, para. 2.32.  
45 INF/TE/IDP/R/2, report of the m eeting held on 21 June  2021, para. 3.12.  
46 See INF/TE/IDP/R/1 and INF/TE/IDP/R/2.  
47 See INF/TE/IDP/R/2, report of the m eeting held on 21 June  2021, para. 3.8. 
48 INF/TE/IDP/R/1 , report of the meeting held on 29 March 2021 , para. 3.3. INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 12 - 
 
  
 Flowchart 2  – Mapping of stakeholder processes discussed  
 
32. The legal nature, format, and scope of the "stakeholder processes" discussed varies broadly. 
Some,  like the Plastic Amendment to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary 
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal  (Basel Convention) led to legally -binding 
international commitments with direct trade implications. Others, such as the Uni ted Nations 
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Sustainable Manufacturing and Environmental 
Pollution (SMEP) programme  are cooperative efforts seeking to support stakeholders in 
addressing specific elements of the plastic pollution challenge. As s uch, their trade implications 
are less direct, but still relevant to the overall IDP discussions.  
33. The descriptions below were either provided by the stakeholders themselves or summarized 
from discussions in the IDP. Stakeholder processes are described und er the first life -cycle stage 
identified (except the United Nations Environment Assembly whose scope encompasses – at 
least potentially – all life -cycle stages).  
2.1  United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA)  process on marine litter and 
microplastics49 
34. The Un ited Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) is the governing body of the United Nations 
Environment Programme (UNEP) and the world’s highest -level decision -making body on the 
environment. UNEA has adopted several decisions regarding marine litter and plastic pollution, 
since its inaugural meeting, UNEA1 in 2014.  Some of the key UNEA outcomes include:  request 
 
49 This description of the UNEA process has been extracted from th e joint UNEP -BRS Secretariat s 
submission titled " Strengthening Policy Coherence, Assessing Capacity and Technical Assistance Needs and 
Collective Approaches " (INF/TE/IDP/RD/14 ). 
INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 13 - 
 
  
 for a state of knowledge report (request of UNEA1 in 2014); request for a state of governance 
report (request of UNEA2 in 2016); agreement of a vision of  zero leakage and a mandate for an 
ad hoc open -ended expert group on marine litter and microplastics (the AHEG) (request of 
UNEA3 in 2017); and a renewed mandate of the AHEG, stressing the importance of 
strengthening the scientific and technical knowledge with a new state of knowledge report and 
the need for increased coordination amongst actors through coordination of multi -stakeholder 
action ( at UNEA4 in 2019).  
35. The AHEG concluded its work in November 2020, identifying  a list of eight non -exhaustive 
potent ial options for continued work in moving forward, including: (i) a g lobal common vision; 
(ii) domestic  action plans and their implementation; (iii) regional and international cooperation 
to facilitate domestic  actions; (iv) s cientific basis; (v) m ulti-stakeholder engagement; (vi) 
strengthening existing instruments; (vii) a  new global instrument; (viii) e nhanced coordination 
among instruments. Member States will come together at UNEA 5.2 to be held in February 2022 
and consider potential options for  action.  
36. Discussion under the UNEA lens has evolved from effects on marine ecosystems, to more focus 
on the source of the problem . This includes  highlighting the need to phase out avoidable plastic 
products , to have global and domestic reduction targets an d to develop  design standards . There 
are currently multiple country -driven informal processes, including the Ministerial Conference on 
Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution  held from 1 -2 September 2021  in the WTO premisses , co-
convened by the Governments of Ecuador, Germany, Ghana and Vietnam, with an aim to keep 
the topic of marine litter and plastic pollution high on the political agenda towards the resumed 
fifth session of the UNEA in 2022, the New York and also Nairobi Group of Friends to combat 
Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution . 
37. The formal process to which all these informal processes aim to contribute will be initiated in 
October 2021 through the Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPR) to UNEP and UN -
HABITAT in Nairobi. Formal submission for draft  resolutions on marine litter and plastic pollution 
will be made to this body which will then be considered and further discussed by Member States 
through the open -ended CPR and the resumed session of UNEA5.  UNEA  5.2 will take place in 
February 2022 where an ambitious decision on marine litter and plastic pollution is anticipated.  
Experts in the AHEG have agreed that maintaining the status quo is not an option and have 
highlighted the necessity of further actions across the life  cycle required to address m arine litter 
and microplastics, including through a circular economy approach.  As noted above, one of the 
options would be to launch formal negotiations on a global agreement on marine litter and plastic 
pollution . 
2.2  Plastic feedstock and primary plastics  
2.2.1   International Organization for Standardization (ISO) plastics  circularity  standards  
38. ISO Technical Committee (TC) 61 is responsible for plastic -related standards. Its subcommittee 
(SC) 14 focuses on plastics environmental aspects and is subdivided into five working groups: 
i) terminology, classifications and general guidance; ii) biodegradability; iii) bio -based plastics; 
iv) plastics leaked into the environment (including microplastics) and quality control criteria of 
respective methods; and v) mec hanical and chemical recycling. As in other ISO working groups, 
experts representing governments, business associations, industry, academia and NGOs all took 
part in discussions.  
39. The scope of work under SC 14 was broad and covered a ll standardization activities in the field 
of plastics relating to environmental and sustainability aspects. The focus included, inter alia , 
biobased plastics, biodegradability, environmental footprint incl uding  carbon footprint, resource 
efficiency incl uding circular economy, characterization of plastics leaked into the environment 
including  microplastics, waste management incl uding  organic, mechanical and chemical 
recycling .50  
 
50 More information can be found at: https://www.iso.org/committee/6578018.html .  INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 14 - 
 
  
 40. SC 14 has developed a number of relevant standards and work was underway in ma ny other 
(see table 3 below ).51 For instance, ISO 17422:2018  provides a structure for  the inclusion of 
environmental aspects in standards for plastics products. It proposes an approach that is 
directed at minimizing any adverse environmental impact without  detracting from the primary 
purpose of ensuring adequate fitness for use of the products under consideration.  
Table 3  – Examples of ISO Standards and Guidelines related to Plastics Pollution  
Life-cycle stage  State  Code  Description  
Plastic feedstock 
and primary 
plastics  Published  ISO 16620 -1:2015  General principles and calculation 
methods to determin e the amount of 
biobased content in plastic products  
Plastic -based 
inputs  Under 
development  ISO/CD 5425  Specifications for use of poly(lactic 
acid) based filament in additive 
manufacturing applications  
Finished goods 
and 
manufacturing  Under 
development  ISO/DTR 4763  Analysis of relevant terms used in the 
sector (plastics) and need for 
standardization  
Waste and scrap  Under 
development  ISO/DIS 5148  Determination of specific aerobic 
biodegradation rate of solid plastic 
materials and disappearance time 
(DT50) under mesophilic laboratory 
test conditions  
Under 
development  ISO/DIS 5412  Biodegradable plastic shopping bags 
for industrial composting  
Recycling  Published  ISO 15270:2008  Guidelines for the recovery and 
recycling of plastics waste  
Published  ISO 17088:2021  Organic recycling specifications for 
compostable plastics  
 
2.2.2   Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants  
41. The Stockholm Convention was adopted on 22 May 2001 and entered into force on 17 May 2004.  
It seeks to protect human health and the environment from chemicals that remain intact in the 
environment for long periods, become widely distributed geog raphically, accumulate in the fatty 
tissue of humans and wildlife, and have harmful impacts on human health or on the environment  
(known as persistent organic pollutants, or POPs) . 
42. At its last meeting held in January 2021, the Stockholm Convention ’s POPs R eview Committee 
(POPRC) discussed among other chemicals, a proposal to list the ubiquitous plastic additive, UV -
328.  UV-328 is a pervasive high -volume additive in plastic products typically found in personal 
care products, transparent plastics, and coatin gs. It has been found in the environment and 
biota, including in remote areas such as the Arctic and the Pacific Ocean, far from its production 
and use. UV -328 has been found to be transported with, and may subsequently be released from 
plastic debris, whi ch is taken up for example by seabirds with subsequent accumulation in their 
tissue.  
43. The POPRC concluded that the chemical does indeed satisfy the four screening criteria and 
therefore, it will further review UV -328 to decide whether the chemical is likel y to lead to 
significant adverse effects due to its long -range environmental transport, opening up options for 
Parties to decide at future Stockholm Convention meetings to take measures with the view to 
reduce or eliminate it.  This is an important mileston e as the Stockholm Convention is therefore 
poised to become the second legally -binding international treaty to push for the sound 
management of plastics throughout their life cycle, especially at the design stage, where 
alternatives to hazardous chemicals will need to be identified, and thus ensure circularity in the 
life cycle of plastics.  
 
51 Published standards and ongoing work can be found at: 
https://www.iso.org/committee/6578018/x/catalogue/p/1/u/1/w/0/d/0   INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 15 - 
 
  
 2.3  Finished goods and manufacturing  
2.3.1   UNCTAD -FCDO  – SMEP manufacturing in sub -Sharan Africa and South Asia  
44. The Sustainable Manufacturing and Environmental Pollution (SMEP) pr ogramme has been 
established by the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) 
and is implemented in partnership with UNCTAD. SMEP aims to fund a total of GBP 20 million in 
research and applied solutions to reduce pollution coming f rom trade -exposed manufacturing in 
sub–Saharan Africa and South Asia until at least 2024.  
45. Approx imately GBP 5 million will be devoted to work on plastics.  As part of the programme’s 
objectives, plastic pollution is addressed by SMEP in 3 ways: i) through the exploration of 
material alternatives to single -use plastics; ii) through biodegradation ; and iii) by improved 
manufacturing / remanufacturing practices.  Additionally, SMEP work on plastics is aligned with 
other plastic -focused partner initiatives . For example, a  study on alternative materials which can 
competitively substitute single -use plastics in SMEP regions  was being developed  in cooperation 
with UNC TAD’s Ocean Economy and Fisheries Programme and in partnership with the Graduate 
Institute. Additionally, a  life-cycle analysis , trade and pollution  data dashboard was being 
developed52 and would  be expanded to include life-cycle assessment  of plastic mate rials and 
plastic substitutes for SMEP regions. Impacts on marine wildlife and ecosystems would  be also 
analysed.  
46. UNCTAD would  be convening stakeholder -engagement events in 2021 -22 in preparation for 
planned technical assistance activities.  
2.3.2   G7 Ocean Plasti cs Charter  
47. At the G7 Summit in 2018, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the 
European Union adopted the Ocean Plastics Charter to demonstrate their commitment to take 
concrete and ambitious action to address the problem.53 
48. The Charter lays the groundwork to ensure plastics are designed for reuse and recycling. By 
signing the Charter, partners  commit to a more resource -efficient and lifecycle approach to 
plastics stewardship on land and at sea. The Charter brings together lea ding governments, 
businesses and civil society organizations to support its objectives and commit to taking action 
to move toward a more resource -efficient  and sustainable approach to the management of 
plastics.  Partners are invited to implement the object ives and commitments of the Charter within 
their respective jurisdictions and area of influence. They are also invited to report on their 
progress in implementing the Charter through their own reporting processes and mechanisms.  
49. The Charter lays out a seri es of commitments and targets under five headings: 1) Sustainable 
design, production and after -use markets ; 2) Collection, management and other systems and 
infrastructure ; 3) Sustainable lifestyles and education ; 4) Research, innovation and new 
technologie s; 5) Coastal and shoreline action . 
2.4  Packaging materials  
2.4.1   The Ellen MacArthur Foundation  
50. Run in collaboration with a broad group of leading companies, cities, philanthropists, 
policymakers, academics, students, NGOs, and citizens, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation has 
brought together key stakeholders to rethink and redesign the future of plastic s, starting with 
packaging.  
51. Additionally, The Ellen MacArthur Foundation stipulates that, b y 2040, a circular economy has 
the potential to:  
 
52 The beta version can be accessed here: http://bit.ly/SMEP_UNCTAD    
53 For further details, see: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment -climate -change/services/managing -
reducing -waste/international -commitments/ocean -plastics -charter.html   INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 16 - 
 
  
 • reduce the annual volume of plastics entering our oceans by 80%  
• reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25%  
• generate savings of USD 200 bn per year  
• create 700,000 net additional jobs  
52. The Foundation initiative adopts a circular economy framework approach, shaped around three 
main pillars: i) eliminate unnecessary plastics; innovate to ensure necessary plastics ar e 
reusable, recyclable or compostable; and iii) circulate plastic items to keep them in the economy 
and out of the environment.  
2.5  Plastic Use  
2.5.1   World Economic Forum (WEF) and the  Global Plastic Action Partnership (GPAP)54 
53. The World Economic Forum  (WEF) , togeth er with the Global Plastics Action Partnership (GPAP), 
delivered a white paper55 in July 2020 exploring trade barriers to address the growing problem 
of plastic pollution. The paper used industry interviews to understand challenges, with trade 
expert s and environmental community peer review of the insights generated.   
54. The project team subsequently commissioned a case study on plastic action and trade policy in 
Ghana. The report is designed to support the National Plastic Action Partnership, which has been 
developed under GPAP and the leadership of the Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology, 
and Innovation (MESTI), in addition to the National Plastics Management Policy, approved by 
the Presidential Cabinet in 2020. The case study aims to go from a glob al perspective to a more 
granular understanding of actions policymakers can take at the domestic  level to align trade 
with plastic pollution reduction objectives. The partnership with Ghana also affords the 
opportunity to understand these issues within a d evelopment context and in the transition to a 
circular economy.56 
55.  GPAP is seeking to expand its presence across 25 emerging and developing countries by 2025 
through both domestic  partnerships and also targeted, tailored support. Several tools will be 
made available to partner governments. WEF is keen to replicate trade studies tied to plastic 
pollution action strategies, and could  manage projects on implementation of solutions.  
2.6  Waste and scrap  
2.6.1   The Basel Convention  on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous 
Wastes and their Disposal  (Basel Convention)  
56. The Bas el Convention was adopted in 1989 with the objective to protect human health and the 
environment against the adverse effects of hazardous wastes  and other wastes . Its scope of 
application covers a wide range of wastes defined as “hazardous wastes” based on  their origin 
and/or composition and their characteristics  (including domestic  definitions of hazardous 
wastes) , as well as initially two types of wastes defined as “other wastes” – household waste 
and incinerator ash. The Basel Convention’s three main pil lars regarding wastes falling under its 
cope are: i) the control of their transboundary movements (TBM); ii) their environmentally sound 
management (ESM); and iii) the prevention and minimization of their generation.  
57. The Plastic Waste Amendments were adopt ed by the Conference of the Parties (COP)  to the 
Basel Convention  in May 2019 in decision BC -14/12.  To summarise the scope of these 
amendments, these consist more specifically in the following:   
• Annex II  on categories of “Other wastes ” requiring special c onsideration : the new entry Y48 
covers all plastic waste, including mixtures of plastic waste, except those covered in the other 
Annexes.  
 
54 Extracted  from WEF's submission to the  IDP.  
55 The white paper can be accessed at: https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/plastics -the-circular -
economy -and-global -trade   
56 See the key results and policy suggestions from the study in subsection 3.5  – Policy coherence below.  INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 17 - 
 
  
 • Annex VIII on wastes that are characterized as hazardous (unless hazardous characteristics 
are used to demonstrate tha t they are not hazardous) and therefore subject to the Prior 
Informed Consent (PIC) procedure : the new entry A3210 covers hazardous plastic waste.  
• Annex IX on wastes that are not considered hazardous  unless they contain hazardous material 
to such an extent  to cause them to exhibit hazardous characteristics: t he new entry B3011 
covers plastic waste that is not hazardous and therefore not subject to the PIC procedure, 
provided the waste is destined for recycling in an environmentally sound manner and almost 
free from contamination and other types of wastes.  
58. The trade implications of the Basel Convention and its annexes consist of clear  categories of 
plastic waste that will now be subject to the Convention’s control procedure for transboundary 
movements – the PIC procedure  – and the conditions under which this procedure applies or not; 
the provisions pertaining to waste minimization; and the provisions pertaining to the 
environme ntally sound management of wastes. Since 1 January 2021, the amendments have 
been effective for 186 States and one regional economic integration organi zation.   
59. Additionally, since December 2019, the Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention has entered 
into force. It prohibits all transboundary movements of hazardous wastes  (as classified by the 
Basel Convention)  destined for final disposal from developed  countries (OECD, EU, Liechtenstein) 
to developing countries for the 100 Parties that have agreed to be bound by the Amendment . 
2.6.2   The Basel Convention Plastic Waste Partnership (PWP)  
60. The PWP was established pursuant to Decision BC -14/13, adopted by the COP in May 2019. Its 
aim is to improve and promote the ESM of plastic waste at the global, regional , and domestic  
levels , as well as to prevent and minimize its generation. In 2020 -21, 23 pilot projects have 
been selected for implementation under the PWP. The work of the P artnership is overseen by a 
working group, which established four project groups:  i) plastic p revention and minimization; ii) 
plastic waste collection, recycling and other recovery including financing and related markets; 
iii) transboundary movements of pl astic waste; iv) outreach, education and awareness raising . 
2.6.3   The World Customs Organization (WCO)  
61. The WCO is a member of the Basel Convention Environmental Network for Optimizing Regulatory 
Compliance on Illegal Traffic (ENFORCE) and  is leading the efforts of the Basel Convention PWP 
sub-group preparing a plastic waste enforcement guide.  
62. Extensive work on environmental measures and support to implementation of various global 
environmental conventions and agreements is carried out under the the auspices of th e WCO 
Environmental Programme (EP), including with respect to the Tariff and Trade Affairs Directorate 
and the Harmonized System Committee . For the Harmonized System (HS)  2022 changes, 
environmentally important issues were reflected in the changes . However, regarding work on 
plastics in the HS, there had been difficulties (see section 3.1 below). Nevertheless, the WCO 
Secretariat was confident of being able to bring proposals that made significant improvements 
in the reporting of trade in plastics in  the HS. This optimism was further strengthened by the 
global focus and interest that was represented by dialogues such as the IDP . 
2.6.4   OECD Council Decision on the Transboundary Movements Wastes  
63. The OECD Decision of the Council on the Control of Transboundary  Movements of Wastes 
Destined for Recovery Operations (OECD/LEGAL/0266)57 was adopted on 14 June 2001. It 
revises the 1992 OECD Decision on the Control of Transfrontier Movements of Wastes Destined 
for Recovery Operations which provided a framework for Adh erents to control transboundary 
movements of recoverable wastes within the OECD area in an environmentally sound and 
economically efficient manner. The original Decision was revised in order to harmonise its 
provisions with the Basel Convention in particul ar with regard to the classification of wastes 
subject to control. However, certain procedural elements of the original Decision, which do not 
exist in the Basel Convention, such as time limits for approval process, tacit consent and pre -
consent procedures  have been retained.  
 
57 See: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD -LEGAL -0266.  INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 18 - 
 
  
 64. The Decision was modified to reflect the Basel Convention amendments on plastic waste in 2019. 
Hazardous plastic wastes, reflecting the new Basel entry A3210, are listed under a new entry 
AC300 and controlled pursuant to the tacit con sent procedure (amber control procedure). For 
other plastic wastes, namely those covered by new Basel entries B3011 and Y48, each OECD 
Member retains its right to control the plastic waste in question in conformity with its domestic 
legislation and interna tional law, as no consensus was reached on the controls to be applied 
within the OECD system. The modification to the Decision was adopted on 7 September 2020 
and has been in effect since 1 January 2021.58 The OECD continues to monitor the 
implementation o f these amendments and collects information on the domestic controls that 
Adherents put in place. This information is made publicly available on the OECD website and 
updated regularly.59 OECD Member s agreed that the appropriate OECD body should review 
whether consensus could be reached to also incorporate non -hazardous plastic wastes into the 
Decision before the end of 2024.  
3  SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS ON THE SIX TOPICS IN IDP MEETINGS  
65. In their initial communication (WT/CTE/W/250/Rev.1 ), co -sponsors identified s ix possible 
subjects for discussions in the IDP :  
i. improving transparency  and monitoring trade trends ;  
ii. promoting best practices ;  
iii. cooperating with other international processes and efforts ;  
iv. identifying the scope for collective approaches ; 
v. strengthening po licy coherence ; and 
vi. assessing capacity and technical assistance needs . 
 
66. IDP participants (delegations and invited stakeholders) shared their views, policies, and 
experiences on each of these topics throughout their three meetings thus far since its launch in 
November 2020.  Additionally, technical segments were organized in IDP meetings during which 
invited stakeholders and delegations provided further information on specific topics of focus. The 
IDP held its first meeting on 17 November 2020, during the 20 20 WTO Trade and Environment 
week. A second meeting took place on the 29th of March 2021, focussed on transparency 
challenges and international cooperation. A third meeting was held on 21 June 2021  and focused 
on policy coherence, capacity and technical assistance needs , and collective approaches .60 
67. This section summarizes some key information shared and views  discussed on each of the six 
topics.  
3.1  Transparency and monitoring trade trends  
68. UNCTAD and the Graduate Institute (GI) outlined some of the challenges in collecting data about 
trade in plastics  as well as a first comprehensive mapping of the volume of global trade in plastics 
(INF/TE/IDP/RD/1 ). Their joint study  aimed to develop a database covering trade data across 
the entire life cycle o f plastics – from raw inputs to final plastic products and waste  – derived 
from the United Nations International Trade Statistics Database (UN Comtrade ), itself based on 
official sources. The trade data was categorized by  the plastics ’ life cycle stage – from inputs 
through phases of production to final products and waste.  
69. According to the study,  the volume of identifiable trade flows of plastics was much bigger than 
previously estimated, amounting in 2018 to more than 1 trillion dollars (5% of global trad e), 
almost 40% higher than previously estimated , with more potential trade in plastics still 
unaccounted . It was also concentrated in 2018 in primary (US$ 348 billion) and intermediate 
forms of plastics (US$ 158 billion) and final manufactured plastic prod ucts (US$ 416 billion).  
Intermediate manufactured products represented US$ 83 billion, while trade in plastic waste 
represented a much smaller share, with US$ 3 billion in that year. Finally, although the data 
 
58 For further details of these amendments , see: https://www.oecd.org/environment/waste/full -
summary -of-the-amendments -to-the-OECD -Council -Decision.pdf . 
59 For a summary table of the domest ic controls in place, see: 
https://www.oecd.org/environment/waste/Reporting -of-controls -non-hazardous -waste.pdf . 
60 Publicly available information about IDP  meetings can be found here. Informal summaries by IDP 
Coordinators of the second (INF/TE/IDP/R/1) and third meetings (INF/TE/IDP/R/2)  were issued.  INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 19 - 
 
  
 reflected only traded plastics, trade represented a significant portio n of production for some 
parts of the plastics life cycle, accounting for as much as 54% of total production of primary 
forms of plastic in 2018 . 
Table 4  – Summary international trade in selected plastics, by phase in the plastics life  
cycle  (exports, 2018 , $US billions).  
Plastic Products  $US billions  
Primary forms of plastics  (excl. potential fossil fuel feedstocks , precursors  and 
additives used in plastics61) 348 
Intermediate forms of plastics  158 
Manufactured plastic goods - intermediate  83 
Manufactured plastic goods – final, of which:  416 
(empty) plastic packaging  53 
Plastic waste  3 
Total  1008  
Source: reproduced from UNCTAD, Global trade in plastics: insights from the first life -cycle 
trade database - UNCTAD Research Paper No. 53 (UNCTAD/SER.RP/2020/12) , at p. 14.62 
70. A key message from their effort is  that it was harder than initially previewed  to get the full 
picture of plastic trade flows.  The effort had involved a granular examination of official WCO HS 
data, compiling informatio n on all flows in HS Chapter 39 (' Plastics and articles thereof ') but also 
plastic flows identifiable in other Chapters ("semi -hidden flows"), such as synthetic rubber 
products, synthetic textiles,  and fishing nets . The database still did not cover "hidden  flows" of 
trade in plastics embedded in products but not identifiable in customs data  (e.g., goods packaged 
and transported in plastics or with high share of embedded plastics). Due to hidden flows, the 
real volume and value of trade in plastic could be up to 30% higher than the database captured.  
71. The study also demonstrated that most trade in the different plastic products and life -cycle 
stages is concentrated in a few economies and regions. In the aggregate, most trade was 
concentrated in Europe and in Asia , with the United States also an importan t exporter and 
importer. However, trade in plastic products was still relatively widespread, with the category 
"rest of the world" the biggest single contributor to export and import values after the 20 biggest 
players (see graph 5 below). The study also i llustrated the complex trade flows of plastics across 
different stages of the value chain and life cycle (see graphs 6 below).  
Graph 5  - Exports (left) and imports (right) in total plastic products – 2018, $US bn  
 
Source: Ibid., at p. 28.  
 
61 According to the authors, a significant amount of trade in fossil fuel feedstocks and precursors  ($US 
94 billion in 2018) and additives ($US 81 billion) could legitimately be considered as plastic related. However, 
these values were not added to the total  given that the study did not seek to identify what percentage of such 
trade was done as part of a plastic production chain.  
62 Original note from authors: " See Annex for a detailed list of HS codes included in each category and 
explanatory notes.  Note that  these figures do not reflect a simple addition of values for each category or a 
calculation of value -added across the production process." The report is available at: 
https://unctad.org/webflyer/global -trade -plastics -insights -first-life-cycle-trade -database   
INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 20 - 
 
  
 Graph 6 – Select ed bilateral trade flows – by value, 2018  
 Trade flows in primary plastics  Trade flows in final manufactured plastic goods  
  
 
 Trade flows in plastics wastes  Trade flows in total plastics products  
 
Source: Ibid., at pp. 28, 32 and 33.  
72. Another  key insig ht from the study was that trade upstream was important to the plastic 
pollution challenge since they added to the stock and flow of plastic that would either rapidly or 
eventually become part of the domestic  plastic waste stream. Additionally, plastic pol lution 
occurred across the plastics life cycle, including loss of plastic pellets during transportation, 
adding significant CO2 emissions and pollution. To fully understand trade relevant to the life 
cycle of plastics, trade in feedstocks (98% of which wer e fossil fuels), chemical precursors for 
plastics production, additives used in plastic, and plastics production and waste management 
technologies should also be monitored. Although there had been amendments to address 
governments needs for more informatio n about certain environmental aspects of traded goods, 
including on plastics wastes, the HS was designed for the identification of products based on 
their "defining characteristic", not material composition or environmental characteristics and 
implications . More work on the topic, including to address hidden flows, should be explored.  
73. On this aspect, the WCO noted work had been developed in the context of the  HS 2022 reform  
to reflect environmentally important issues in the changes . However, regarding plastics  
classifications challenges, several difficulties had been encountered. These include, but were not 
limited to:  
• the lack of globally accepted definitions of many relevant terms, such as biodegradable, 
compostable, bioplastics, biobased et c.; 
• the complexities of plastics, including understanding the effects and implications of the wide 
and growing ranges of additives used in their manufacture, making it difficult to define what 
should be targeted for separate identification in the limited s pace available in the HS for 
maximum effect;  
• the difficulty of identifying the large proportion of plastics that are integrated into or 
presented as packaging with goods of other materials without overly complicating the 
declaration of goods; and  
• how to en sure that any commodities identified could be verified in a timely and economically 
affordable way at the border in all jurisdictions , noting that any change to the HS creates a 
compliance obligation on customs administrations.  
74. This last point was particu larly important in relation to issues such as biodegradability and 
whether a plastic is compostable. On top of the issue of defining what this meant, there was a 
related challenge of how border agencies could realistically test compliance physically or 
chemically, as required periodically for compliance enforcement and the prevention of abuse of 
INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 21 - 
 
  
 measures. The role of customs  and other border agencies was generally focused on 
implementation in the real world.  
75. Nevertheless, the WCO Secretariat was confident of being able to bring proposals that made 
significant improvements in the reporting of trade in plastics in the HS.  This optimism was 
further strengthened by the global focus and interest that was represented by dialogues such as 
the IDP.  
3.2  Promoting best practices  
76. Experiences, domestic policies, and views on best practices were shared throughout all the IDP 
meetings.  Section 1  of the present report has already showcased a number of these 
interventions. In the March 2021 IDP meeting ( INF/TE/IDP/RD/ 2), the WTO Secretariat provided 
an overview of trade measures notified to the WTO to address plastic pollution since 2009 (as 
captured by the WTO Environmental Database – EDB63). The analysis captured a total of 129 
measures in the period (2009 -2019), the majority of which had been notified in the last few 
years, with an average of 20 measures per year since 2016 (graph 7). Similarly, the average 
annual number of references to p lastics -related measures in Trade Policy Reviews (TPRs) had 
almost quadrupled between the period 2009 -13 (around 3) and the period 2014 -19 (around 11).  
Graph 7  – Plastic pollution -related measures notified to the WTO, by year  
 
 
77. EDB plastic -related measure s had been notified by 48 WTO Members, across all geographic 
regions and levels of development, and under different WTO Agreements. In effect, WTO 
developing and LDC Members notified 80% of all plastic pollution -related measures identified, 
clearly indicat ing they see trade and trade policy as an important element of their approach to 
tackling the challenge. In terms of regional representation, most measures were notified by 
Members in Asia (46), followed by Africa (28), the Middle East (22) and Europe (17) . 
Graph 8  – Plastic pollution -related measures notified to the WTO (2009 -2019), by region  
 
 
 
63 The EDB can be accessed at www.wto.org/edb . 3 39118 9
334
14 1421
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
36%
22%17%13%8%3%1%
Asia
Africa
Middle East
Europe
South and Central America and the Caribbean
North America
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 22 - 
 
  
 78. All identified notified measures sought to address the plastic pollution challenge, but often did 
so highlighting related environmental objectives, such as resourc e efficiency and conservation, 
biodiversity and ecosystems protection, chemicals and hazardous substances management or 
climate change mitigation ( see table 5). They also affected different sectors of the economy, 
mostly manufacturing, but also the chemica ls, agriculture, and  forestry sectors. The wide variety 
of environmental objectives addressed, and economic sectors affected by these notified trade 
measures indicate the complexity and scope of the challenge of addressing plastic pollution. 
They also deno te the different ways in which trade policy intersects with other policies to address 
plastic pollution.  
Table 5  – Eleven most often identified environment -related objectives in notified plastic 
pollution measures (2009 -2019)64 
Environment -related objectiv e Total measures  
Waste management and recycling  98 
Chemical, toxic , and hazardous substances 
management  39 
MEAs implementation and compliance  17 
Ozone layer protection  14 
Biodiversity and ecosystem  12 
Environmentally friendly consumption  12 
Animal protection  9 
Plant protection  7 
Sustainable and environmentally friendly production  7 
Water management and conservation  7 
Environmental goods and services promotion  6 
 
79. Notifications included a wide variety of measures, from bans on non -biodegradable plastic 
bags65, straws66 and cotton buds67 and import licenses and quotas on plastic wastes68, to tax 
concessions69 and public procurement preferences70 to recycled plastics and alternative 
materials ( graph 9 ). However, the majority of measures identified were regulatory measures, 
such as technical regulation or specifications (72) and conformity assessment procedures (13), 
notified under the agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary measures (SPS).  
Graph 9  – Plastic pollution -related measures notified to the WTO (2009 -2019), by type71 
 
 
 
64 Each notified measure can  (and often does)  contain more th an one environment -related objective. 
The total number of identified environment -related objectives thus surpasses the total number of measures.  
65 See, for instance, G/MA/QR/N/URY/3  (Uruguay).  
66 See, for instance, G/TBT/N/SYC/4 (Seychelles ). 
67 See, for ins tance, G/TBT/N/ITA/33 (Italy).  
68 See, for instance, G/LIC/N/3/IND/17 (India).  
69 See, for instance, G G/SCM/N/192/PAN (Panama).  
70 See, for instance, GPA/37/ADD.10 (Japan).  
71 Each notified measure can  contain more than one type of trade instrument. The total number of 
identified types of trade instruments thus surpasses the total number of measures.  112334513183172
Intellectual property measuresRisk assessmentExport licencesImport quotasTax concessionsGrants and direct paymentsPublic procurementConformity assessment proceduresBan/ProhibitionImport licencesTechnical regulation or specificationsINF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 23 - 
 
  
 80. Both agreements require, except in urgent circumstances, that measures are notified in draft 
format, providing an opportunity for early dissemination of information, preliminary discussions, 
peer-learning and sharing of best practices. An analysis of these  measures demonstrated that 
83% had been notified to the TBT and SPS Committees as draft measures. Most measures 
notified to these Committees (almost 80%) applied to the downstream part of the value chain, 
which comprises packaging materials (30 measures) – especially single -use plastic bags – and 
plastic waste (34) and recycling (33). The remaining measures (20%), applied to primary 
plastics (7 measures), plastic -based inputs (12) and finished goods (8).  
81. Considering the useful information contained in suc h notifications, the voluntary sharing of all 
types of measures early, in a draft format, could allow for further constructive debate and 
experience sharing.  
3.3  International cooperation  
82. Section 2  has already provided a mapping of current international effor ts based on the 
contribution of several different stakeholders who took part in the discussions. Several 
participating Members noted during the IDP the importance of collaborating with outside 
stakeholders to better understand how trade cooperation,  within  the rules and mechanisms of 
the WTO , could constructively contribute to efforts in other forums.72 They also noted the value 
of enhanced and early voluntary information -sharing on domestic policies to increase 
transparency and international cooperation.73 In addition, several delegations stressed that 
mapping international action, cooperation with international institutions, and focusing on core 
WTO capabilities would be key to avoid duplication and ensure any trade discussions would add 
value to ongoing d omestic, regional, and international efforts to address plastics pollution.74 The 
importance of working with the private sector was also emphasized by some participants during 
IDP meetings .75 
3.4  Collective approaches.  
83. Collective approaches were referenced by delegations and stakeholders as potential useful 
avenues to address plastic pollution. For instance, a senior adviser to the Ministry of Climate and 
Environment of Norway presented a study on the role of regional in struments in strengthening 
cooperation in marine plastics pollution.76  
84. The research looked at regional instruments to combat marine plastic litter, including  regional 
seas conventions and action plans, large marine ecosystem activities, regional economic 
organizations and regional fisheries bodies , and a case study on the Mediterranean. The study 
concluded that there was a substantial role for the regional level in combating marine plastic 
litter although there was substantial variation in the level of imp lementation measures to address 
plastic pollution across different regions. Recommendations were included in the research, which 
included, inter alia : i) initiate  or expand activities under existing regional seas conventions and 
regional economic organisat ions; ii) p romote and assist development of regional response 
strategies and action plans ; iii) p romote regional commitments to ban and address single -use 
plastic, polystyrene and plastic packaging ; iv) i ntroduce regional thresholds and aims ; and v) 
Suppor t continuation and expansion of existing integrative regional platforms for coordination 
and cooperation .  
85. The report also found that a new global agreement would provide both top -down and bottom -
up benefits to combat marine plastic litter in the environme nt. Norway welcomed the 
contribution of the regional level as one move forward in preparing for the new global agreement 
under the auspices of UNEA. Existing regional instruments were well-suited to transfer global 
 
72 See INF/TE/IDP/R/1.  
73 INF/TE/IDP/R/1 , report of the meeting held on 29 March 2021, para. 3 .3. 
74 INF/TE/IDP/R/1 , report of the meeting held on 29 March 2021, para. 3 .4. 
75 INF/TE/IDP/R/1 , report of the meeting held on 29 March 2021, para. 3 .5. 
76 INF/TE/IDP/RD/6, Presentation by Ms Ingeborg Mork -Knutsen, Senior Adviser at the Ministry of 
Climate and Environment of Norway - The Role of regional i nstruments in strengthening cooperation in marine 
plastic pollution, 22 June 2021.  The study from the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS)  titled 
"Stronger Together – The role of regional instruments in strengthening global governance of ma rine plastic 
pollution " is available on:  https://publications.iass -
potsdam.de/rest/items/item_6000714_5/component/file_6000717/content   INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 24 - 
 
  
 objectives and standards into regional ag reements, roadmaps or action plans . In that sense, t he 
regional level could  complement and reinforce a new global agreement on marine plastic 
pollution . 
86. The Latin American Integration Association (ALADI) mentioned two upcoming rounds of trade 
discussions ( so-called “business rounds ”) that were relevant to addressing plastic pollution in 
the region. A first round in August 2021 called “Creative Industries and I nformation and 
Communication Technologies ” would include the participation of small and medium enterprises 
(SMEs) from 13 Latin American  economies  and focus on plastics  substitutes , such as banana 
leaves, biodegradable packaging, and other alternative products.77 A larger trade round in 
December w ould include a focus on plant and animal fiber value chains. The objective was to 
support SMEs in these sectors to reach markets and economies of scale. Finally, the APEC 
Roadmap on Marine Debris , adopted under the Chilean presidency in 2019, and the  
Commo nwealth Litter Programme (CLiP), led by the UK through the Centre for Environment 
Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) , were also referenced as regional cooperative 
approaches.78 
3.5  Policy coherence  
87. Researchers from the Massey University and University o f Newcastle presented their study titled 
"Plastic pollution prevention in Pacific Island Countries: gap analysis of current legislation, 
policies and plans".79 The policy gap analysis  indicated the existence of  only one reference in all 
policy documents st udied that explicitly mention ed the prevention of microplastics. There was 
almost no regulation on virgin, fossil fuel -based plastics. Last, there was almost no market 
restrictions preventing a broader range of problematic plastics from circulating in the economy.  
Graph 10  – Sample Waste Prevention gap analysis of Pacific Island Economies  
Green indicates explicit mention of the theme  in the document; y ellow indicates that the document either partially  
includes the theme or that it is inferred; and red indicates that that  theme is absent in the document  
 
Source: reproduced from EIA, Plastic  pollution prevention in Pacific Island Countries: gap analysis of current 
legislation, policies and plans , at pp. 36 -37.  
88. According to the authors, human rights law obligat es governments and industry  to take 
responsibility for the full lifecycle of plastics including producti on, manufacture, and safe end -
of-life management.  However, the Pacific Island Economies lacked the political and economic 
power to compel companies to seek and obtain ongoing soci al license to operate end -of-life 
management technologies. Thus, domestic policy frameworks could not fully and faithfully 
domesticate and integrate international plastic pollution -related human rights obligations due to 
resource and capacity constraints, and because the main source of the problem did not reside 
 
77 See INF/TE/IDP/R/ 2, report of the meeting held on, 21 June 2021 , para 3.11.  
78 See See INF/TE/IDP/R/ 2, report of the meeting held on, 21 June 2021.,  paras. 3.1 and 11.  
79 INF/TE/IDP/RD/3,  Presentation by Dr. Trisia Farrelly, Massey University Political Ecol ogy Research 
Centre (PERC), New Zealand, 17 June 2021.  The study is available on: 
https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/15818   
INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 25 - 
 
  
 in the region. For that reason, there was overwhelming support for a global treaty among 
participants interviewed in the research, as it would support a shared regional position that 
helped address boundary challenges, promote extended producer responsibility, and compel 
plastics producers and manufacturers to design safe products that prevented plastic pollution at 
source.  
89. The European Union presented its experience with the transition to a Circular  Plastics Sector.80 
The transition plan consisted of several policies, including the 2019 plastics strategy and the 
single -use plastic (SUP) directive, which sought to address the source of around 70% of the 
marine litter in the European Union coast. The m ost SUP items found in European beaches 
included drink bottles, cups, cigarette butts, bags and food containers. Some SUPs had been 
banned entirely, such as straws and cutlery, while other measures were in place for items for 
which no clear sustainable alt ernatives were available (e.g., consumer information labelling 
requirements). The EU had also adopted plastic packaging recycling target which aimed to 
achieve 55 percent of recycled plastic packaging by 2030.  
90. The EU Circular Economy Action Plan issued in  March 2020 contained 35 actions along the entire 
life cycle of products that were also relevant for plastics and plastic products. It sought to keep 
the value of plastic material in the circular economy, including by adopting mandatory 
requirements for re cycled content and waste reduction measures, addressing the presence of 
microplastics in the environment and issuing a policy framework on bio -based, compostable and 
biodegradable plastics. Finally, the EU also had a zero -pollution strategy in place which 
envisaged other policies and potential reforms such as restrictions on export of problematic 
plastics, EU budget incentives for increased domestic recycling rates and promotion of a well -
functioning EU market for secondary raw materials. The EU was committ ed to a global agreement 
on plastics, as plastics had to be addressed globally.  
91. The WEF presented the result of its project on trade and plastic pollution in Ghana under the 
GPAP.81 The study titled “Trade and the Circular Economy: A deep dive into plastic s action in 
Ghana”82 was the result of a on the ground GPAP project looking at the challenges and 
opportunities of using trade and trade policy as enablers for more circular and sustainable plastic 
economy in Ghana. It indicated that 70% of the plastics us ed in Ghana were SUPs for packaging. 
Additionally, 100% of the plastics used for packaging in Ghana were virgin plastics.   
92. The researchers suggested that, building  on important domestic steps, Ghana could strategically 
use trade policy, by adapting domesti c tariff lines and modernising border clearance procedures 
to keep out hazardous and hard -to-recycle plastic waste. Further recommendations included: 
enhancing trade control and implementation of the Basel Convention Plastic Waste Amendment; 
identifying an d facilitating safe trade in relevant upstream and downstream inputs; attracting 
key investment and services through proactive services negotiations ; leveraging regional 
platforms to develop regional standards on plastic recycling grades; and intra -ministe rial 
cooperation. Finally, trade negotiations can be used to create export markets for plastic 
alternatives and to seek support in complying with new standards around plastic waste 
elimination. In time, Ghana may wish to consider becoming a regional plasti c waste recycling 
hub. There would be trade considerations to doing so.  
 
80 INF/T E/IDP/RD/5, European Union experience with the transition to a  Circular Plastics sector, 22 June  
2021.  
81 INF/TE/IDP/RD/4, Trade and the Circular Economy: A deep dive into plastics action in Ghana – 
presentation by the WEF, 18 June 2021.  
82 The paper can be accessed at: https://globalplasticaction.org/blog/trade -and-the-circular -economy -a-
deep-dive-into-plastics -action -in-ghana/   INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 26 - 
 
  
 Graph 11 – Matrix of trade policy suggestion derived from the project  
 
Source: INF/TE/IDP/RD/4  
3.6  Capacity and technical assistance needs  
93. Throughout the IDP discussions, several WTO Members and stakeholders stressed the 
importance of capacity building and technical assistance, in particular to SIDS, vulnerable 
developing Members and LDCs. For instance, Jamaica noted i nternational cooperation and 
assisting developing Members  were impor tant to incentivize trade and investment opportunities 
in new markets of substitute and alternative plastics.83 Barbados stressed the importance of 
correct product classification, identification, and regulatory definitions, and the need to assist 
developin g Members and help build their capacity in the area , especially for SIDS.84 Ecuador 
underlined it was indispensable to marry technical aspects with cooperation and capacity 
building .85 Chad, on behalf of the LDCs Group, stressed s upport for LDCs was needed  for a 
circular economy, including technology transfer.86 Several delegations noted that given 
developing Members  constraints  to ensure transparency , positive encouragement approaches 
should be pursued in lieu of punitive ones .87 Other delegations such as Australia , Canada, the 
Central African Republic, China, Fiji, Niger, Switzerland and the UK similarly stressed the 
importance of capacity and technical assistance.  
94. On the stakeholder side, the researchers from the Massey University and University of Newcastle 
noted their study88 had found that even with the most robust domestic  legislative and policy 
frameworks for plastic pollution prevention, island nations would require significant support of 
the international community to close the gap in the nece ssary policy framework . This was mainly 
due to the transboundary flows of plastics. As indicated in section 2  above, several international 
institutions and stakeholders were focused on or included efforts aimed at addressing capacity 
and technical assistan ce needs, including, inter alia , the BRS PWP, the Graduate Institute, 
UNCTAD SMEP, UNEP, WCO, WEF GPAP and IISD.  
4  STATE OF THE INFORMAL DIALOGUE  
95. On the 24th of March 2021, IDP co -sponsors circulated a " Proposal for roadmap and potential 
outcome in MC12  (2021-2023) " (INF/TE/IDP/W/2  – see Annex III) which included the following 
 
83 INF/TE/IDP/R/2, report of the m eeting held on 21 June 2021 , para. 3.5. 
84 INF/TE/IDP/R/1 , report of the meeting held on 29 March 2021 , para. 3.3. 
85 INF/TE/IDP/R/1 , report of the meeting held on 29 March 2021 , para. 3.3.  
86 INF/TE/IDP/R/2, report of the m eeting held on 21 Ju ne 2021 , para. 3.2. 
87 INF/TE/IDP/R/1 , report of the meeting held on 29 March 2021 , para. 3.3. 
88 INF/TE/IDP/RD/3,  Presentation by Dr. Trisia Farrelly, Massey University Political Ecology Research 
Centre (PERC), New Zealand, 17 June 2021.  The study is available on: 
https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/15818   
INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 27 - 
 
  
 elements expected to be included in a potential Ministerial Declaration at the WTO’s 12th 
Ministerial Conference (MC12) : 
• Taking stock of the discussions on the six aspects of the initiative since 2019, especially in 
2021;  
• Emphasizing the importance of the topic and expressing the political will of the co -sponsors;  
• Identifying next steps and instructing officials to carry on further work;  
• Promoting related work through the coordinators and striving to achieve concrete outcomes 
in MC13.  
 
96. The proposal also included a roadmap for discussions in the IDP building up to such o utcome. 
Throughout the IDP meetings, many delegations – including non -cosponsors – shared their views 
and ideas on the potential content of such outcome as well as on the work of the IDP post -MC12. 
In general, a strong call was made for a declaration to be  issued , including potentially a work 
plan. Many stressed the importance of clearly outlining the specific relevance of trade, trade 
policy and the WTO to support ongoing and future efforts to address plastic pollution, including 
under UNEA, while avoiding  duplication of efforts and focusing on core WTO capabilities. Others 
also added the importance of ensuring a significant part of WTO Membership support the 
declaration.  
97. Many noted the complementarity and synergies between the IDP and the Trade and 
Enviro nmentally Sustainable Structure Discussions (TESSD), noting the IDP was part of the 
WTO's broader agenda to support a more environmentally sustainable global economy  and could  
demonstrate the ability of the WTO to contribute positively to climate and envir onmental 
objectives . Some also noted the importance and value of the contribution from stakeholders and 
the private sector to the dialogue. Finally, the respect of WTO rules and principles while 
addressing plastic pollution through trade measures was also stressed.  
98. Stakeholders also strongly welcomed the IDP and a potential outcome at MC12, often noting the 
mutual supportiveness and complementarity with other international efforts to address plastic 
pollution. Specific suggestions on future areas of focus a nd opportunities for trade action in 
support of efforts to address plastic pollution included, inter alia : 
Research and analysis  
• map the intersections between supply chains, circular plastics strategies in key markets  and 
trade policies ;  
• understand the ra nge of domestic  trade measures  adopted to address plastic pollution;  
• analyse the impact of trade measures on trade flows of plastics and  substitutes ; 
• revise definitions  of waste  as recyclable materials  increasingly becom e traded good s; 
Transparency  
• promote transparency, monitoring and information -sharing on trends in plastic trade and 
supply chains;  
• enhance transparency on plastic -related subsidies ( e.g. fossil fuels from which plastics are 
made and plastic production) ; 
Policy options  
• strengthen coherence between trade policy frameworks and domestic policies to reduce 
plastic pollution ;  
• emphasize and urgently implement upstream measures ; 
• harmonize and improve standardization measures for plastic pollution prevention such as 
product desi gn, labelling, certification schemes, and others;  
• restrict trade in problematic plastics and waste and shrink the market for these materials;  
• promote trade in plastic substitutes and recycled plastics;  
• remove trade barriers to recycling and waste manageme nt goods and services;  
• adopt a comprehensive approach towards fossil fuel subsidies for virgin plastics;  
• ensure that single -use and harmful plastics banned or restricted domestically were not 
exported abroad;  
• lower or eliminate tariffs and trade barriers to non -plastic substitutes and environmentally 
sound waste management technologies and facilitate trade i n recycled plastics and 
recyclable plastics;  INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 28 - 
 
  
 • put forward concrete pledges to reduce unnecessary trade in single -use plastics and 
excessive plastic packaging;  
• adopt measures across plastics  lifecycle , based on sound science  that link t o relevant existing 
regional, domestic  and local actions ; 
• explore minimum requirements on the embodied carbon emissions or quality standards for 
secondary raw materials that would benefit from preferential trade conditions compared to 
waste shipments;  
International cooperatio n and collective approaches  
• continue to explore cooperative trade policy efforts to increase their effectiveness  (e.g. 
regional efforts);  
• revise, strengthen, and coordinate the existing trade framework and provide a new legally -
binding framework ; 
• strength en regional and international cooperation to avoid problematic plastics and waste 
diversion to nearby markets;  
• enhance coordination framework s that promote collaboration amongst existing instruments ; 
• support enabling initiatives such as HS code updates and trade facilitation for alternative 
materials (incl. nature -based goods and services and second -life materials) which reduce 
reliance on single -use plastics;  
• provide guidance and leadership at the WTO Ministerial Conference by identifying priori ties 
for work in other international bodies that would support more environmentally sustainable 
plastics trade, including, inter alia , international standards and labelling for plastics and trade 
classification to promote more environmentally sustainable p lastics trade;  
Technical assistance and capacity building  
• identify where Members face challenges in the implementation of trade -related M ultilateral 
Environmental Agreement ( MEA) obligations relevant to plastics ;  
• improve prior informed consent procedures to avoid illegal trade and avoidable wastes;  
• adopt an aid for trade mandate to support developing Members to design and implement 
trade policies related to plastic pollution;  
Future work of the IDP  
• remain open to advice from external experts and  represent atives of stakeholder groups ; 
• use IDP to spur discussion between trade , environment and customs departments on the 
role of trade measures to support  domestic  efforts, including r eview process between trade 
and environment ministries ;  
• shape IDP discussions around the notion of value preservation so that plastics are kept in 
the economy and out of the environment;  
• create a publicly accessible webpage on the WTO’s website about the work of the IDP ; 
 
99. Co-coordinators of the initiative are currently Australia, Barbados, China, Ecuador, Fiji , and 
Morocco. The 1 8 WTO Members  who currently co -sponsor the informal dialogue are Australia, 
Barbados, Cabo Verde, Canada, Central African Republic, China, Costa Ri ca, Ecuador, Fiji, The 
Gambia, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Morocco, New Zealand, Russia, Switzerland, Thailand and United 
Kingdom.  
_______________  
 
 
 INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 29 - 
 
  
 ANNEX I – IDP CO -SPONSORS REVISED INITIAL COMMUNICATION – 
WT/CTE/W/250/REV.1 , 26 JULY 2021  
WTO INFORMAL DIALOGUE ON PLASTICS POLLUTION AND ENVIRONMENTALLY 
SUSTAINABLE PLASTICS TRADE  
 
Communication from Australia, Barbados, Cabo Verde, Canada, Central Afric an Republic,  China, 
Costa Rica, Ecuador, Fiji, The Gambia, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Morocco, New Zealand, Switzerland,  
Thailand and United Kingdom  
Revision  
_______________  
 
 
1. The rising environmental, health and economic cost of plastics pollution is a concern that 
increasingly unites all countries and regions, large and small, developed and developing.  The 
COVID -19 pandemic has only amplified these concerns, underscoring the world's vulnerability to 
natural crises, and reinforcing the importance of buil ding more resilient and sustainable economies.   
2. Given the growing need for coordinated global action – and recognizing the important trade 
dimension of this challenge – we, as interested Members, are launching an open -ended informal 
dialogue on plastics p ollution and environmentally sustainable plastics  trade, in which all WTO 
Members are invited and encouraged to participate.  
3. Aiming to complement existing international processes in other fora – and avoid duplication - 
the informal dialogue will explore h ow improved trade cooperation, within the rules and mechanisms 
of the WTO, could contribute to domestic, regional and global efforts to reduce plastics pollution and 
transition to a more circular and environmentally sustainable global plastics economy. Pos sible 
subjects for discussion include improving transparency, monitoring trade trends, promoting best 
practices, strengthening policy coherence, identifying the scope for collective approaches, assessing 
capacity and technical assistance needs, and coopera ting with other international processes and 
efforts.   
4. We believe that the informal dialogue should be a key part of broader WTO discussions to 
advance our shared trade and environmental sustainability objectives.  
_______________  
 
 
 INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 30 - 
 
  
 ANNEX II – IDP CO -SPONSORS PROPOSAL FOR A TRANSPARENCY AND INTERNATIONAL 
COOPERATION EXERCISE – INF/TE/IDP/W/1, 24 MARCH 2021  
PROPOSAL FOR A TRANSPARENCY AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION EXERCISE  
DRAFT CONCEPT NOTE  
The following proposal , dated 24 March 2021,  is being circulated at the request of the Informal 
Dialogue on Plastics Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade (IDP) co -sponsors: 
Australia, Barbados, Canada, China, Ecuador, Fiji, The Gambia, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Morocco,  
New Zealand, Switzerland, Thailand and United Kingdom.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE  
1.1.  Improved transparency could play a valuable role in helping Members better understand the 
nature of plastics trade and the positive and negative impact of existing trade -related measures to 
reduce plastics pollution and waste, identify gaps or limitations in current efforts, explore the scope 
for more effective approaches, and review the trade -related challenges Members face in meeting 
sustainability goals r elated to plastics.  
1.2.  Facilitating the implementation, administration and operation of transparency obligations in 
WTO Agreements is a core function of the WTO.89 Recent discussions at the Committee on Trade 
and Environment (CTE), as well as enhanced efforts  at the national, regional and international level 
have demonstrated there is a need for increasing the availability and reliability of relevant data and 
information on plastics trade and related polices.  
1.3.  Other concerted efforts at the regional and international level are already in place or are 
expected to be conducted in the coming months and years with a view to addressing the rising 
plastic pollution and waste challenge. A clearer mapping and understand ing of these efforts are 
paramount to identifying how trade policy could support current and future domestic and 
international initiatives, including concrete policy options.  
1.4.  A focused transparency and international cooperation exercise would be a concrete  and 
constructive first step for Members to pursue through the WTO  Informal Dialogue on Plastics 
Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade (IDP) . This exercise would leverage 
the WTO's comparative strengths, contribute to existing internatio nal initiatives, and better reinforce 
global, regional and domestic efforts to tackle plastics pollution.  
2  PROPOSED TRANSPARENCY AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION EXERCISE  
2.1.  The aim of a transparency and international cooperation exercise would be to develop a c learer, 
more detailed, and more comprehensive 'picture' of global trade in plastics and policy measures. It 
would further illustrate current trade -related efforts and best practices to reduce plastic pollution 
and transition to more circular and environmen tally sustainable plastics trade. Finally, it would also 
promote greater policy cooperation and coherence – and avoid duplication – by actively involving 
relevant international organizations, including the Secretariats of the Multilateral Environmental 
Agreements, and relevant non -governmental stakeholders, including the private sector, civil society 
and academia, in data collection and assessment.   
2.2.  The IDP provides a dedicated platform for sharing information, exchanging best practices, and 
encouraging pol icy dialogue. Through this first concrete exercise, the Informal Dialogue would help 
to establish a solid factual basis for Members to discuss current trade -related efforts and future 
progress notably by preparing a factual report for the consideration of Members to support them in 
 
89 Article III of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization ("WTO 
Agreement").  INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 31 - 
 
  
 devising possible policy options  in advance of MC12  Indeed, identifying the trade -related dimensions 
of the plastics pollution challenge – through transparency and international cooperation – would also 
be a first step to explore  more proactive and collective trade -related actions in the future.  
2.3.  In particular, the transparency and international cooperation exercise could aim to:  
• Enhance, where feasible, data availability on trade flows and patterns of virgin, recycled and 
recycla ble plastics, plastics wastes , more environmentally  sustainable plastics alternatives  
and substitutes ; 
 
• Share information, data, technical expertise, and best practices on reducing plastics pollution 
and shifting towards a more sustainable and circular pla stics economy, and on their trade -
related aspects ;  
 
• Identify trade -related challenges and opportunities relevant to domestic, regional and global 
efforts to reducing plastic pollution and achieving more environmentally sustainable and 
circular plastics tr ade, including but not limited to those related to product classification, 
identification and regulatory definitions, and meeting plastic product performance 
requirements through standards harmonization;  
 
• Develop bilateral and multilateral technical assist ance and capacity building programmes to 
assist WTO Members in enhancing transparency ; 
 
• Share information of domestic, regional and global actions to ensure that trade and trade 
policy support international sustainability goals related to reducing plastic pollution; and  
 
• Contribute to deepening discussions related to plastics and trade in the CTE, build on existing 
transparency mechanisms at the WTO where necessary and in external stakeholders, and 
pool their respective information and expertise.  
 
_______________  
 
 INF/TE/IDP/W/3  
 
- 32 - 
 
  
 ANNEX III – IDP CO -SPONSORS PROPOSAL FOR ROADMAP AND POTENTIAL OUTCOME 
IN MC12  (2021 -2023) – INF/TE/IDP/W /2, 24 MARCH  2021   
PROPOSAL FOR ROADMAP AND POTENTIAL OUTCOME IN MC12  
(2021-2023)  
 
The following proposal , dated 24 March 2021, is being circulated at the request of the Informal 
Dialogue on Plastics Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade (IDP) co -sponsors: 
Australia, Barbados, Canada, China, Ecuador, Fiji, The Gambia, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Morocco,  
New Zealand, Switzerland, Thailand and United Kingdom.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1  IDEAS ON POTENTIAL OUTCOME IN MC12  
1.1.  A Ministerial Declaration in MC12. The content of the  declaration is expected to include:  
• Taking stock of the discussions on the six aspects of the initiative since 2019, especially in 
2021;  
• Emphasizing the importance of the topic and expressing the political will of the co -sponsors;  
• Identifying next steps and instructing officials to carry on further work;  
• Promoting related work through the coordinators and striving to achieve concrete outc omes 
in MC13.  
2  ROADMAP  
2.1.  The 6 volunteer co -sponsors – Australia, Barbados, China,  Ecuador,  Fiji and Morocco – will 
serve as coordinators throughout the year to help move the work forward. Other co -sponsors are 
invited to join as co -coordinators on a voluntary basis.  
2.2.  Holding three  informal dialogues in the form of the Committee on Trade and Environme nt (CTE) 
side events open to all WTO Members in March, June and November, covering the six aspects of the 
initiative. Between those informal dialogues, co -sponsor meetings could be held by coordinators.  
• The first dialogue on 29th of March will be chaired a nd coordinated by Morocco and focus on 
improving transparency (including monitoring trade trends), cooperating with other 
international processes and efforts, and sharing best practices.  
 
• The June dialogue will be co-chaired and coordinated by Barbados and Ecuador and could 
focus on strengthening policy coherence, assessing capacity and technical assistance needs  
and identifying the scope for collective approaches.  
 
• The November dialogue could be chaired and coordinated by Australia and focus on 
discussing the draft Ministerial Declaration and reach out to Members to endorse the MC12 
Ministerial Declaration.  
__________  
 