INF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
4 October  2023 
(23-6665) Page: 1/16 
  Original: English  
 
DIALOGUE ON PLASTICS POLLUTION AND ENVIRONMENTALLY  
SUSTAINABLE PLASTICS TRADE  
FACTUAL REPORT OF THE AID FOR TRADE (AFT) GLOBAL REVIEW  
AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT  SURVEY  
 
 
_______________  
 
 
 
1. In furthering the objectives of their 2021 Ministerial Statement1 to address trade -related 
capacity building and technical assistance needs of developing Members, least developed Members 
and vulnerable Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and consider plastic pollution and 
environmentally sustain able plastics trade in Aid for Trade (AfT) with environmentally sustainable 
objectives , the Dialogue on Plastics Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade 
(Dialogue) launched  on 9  June 2022 a voluntary survey on AfT  Global Review and Needs 
Assessment.2  
2. It outlined five main questions (with follow -up questions and guiding options for answers) 
addressed to different groups of Members and stakeholders, regarding: (i) how to better reflect 
plastic pollution in AfT programmes in the following AfT Global Revie w cycles; (ii) what needs were 
required to efficiently implement trade -related policies and actions to address plastic pollution; 
(iii) what assistance was already received to address plastic pollution, in particular to support 
trade-related actions; (iv) what assistance was already provided by WTO Members to address plastic 
pollution, in particular to support trade -related actions; and (v) what assistance was already 
provided by regional and international institutions working on plastics to address plastic  pollution, 
in particular to support trade -related actions.  
3. Preliminary results and insights were presented and discussed at several meetings of the 
Dialogue since its launch. This report provides a factual overview of the responses and insights 
gained fro m the AfT Global Review and Needs Assessment survey exercise (AfT survey). It focuses 
on the harmonized categories contained in the survey, as well as further information that could be 
extracted from the data . 
 
_______________  
 
 
 
 
 
1 See Ministerial Statement on Plastic Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade 
(WT/MIN(21)/8/Rev.2 ), 10  December  2021. Current co -sponsors are: Albania ; Angola; Australia; Austria; 
Barbados; Belgiu m; Bolivia, Plurinational State of; Bulgaria; Cabo Verde; Cambodia; Cameroon; Canada; Central 
African Republic; Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Costa Rica; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; 
Ecuador; Estonia; European Union; Fiji; Finland; France; Gam bia; Germany; Greece; Honduras; Hong Kong, 
China; Hungary; Iceland; Ireland; Italy; Jamaica; Japan; Kazakhstan; Korea, Republic of; Latvia; Lithuania; 
Luxembourg; Macao, China; Maldives; Malta; Mauritius; Mexico; Morocco; Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway; 
Panama; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russian Federation; Samoa; Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of; Singapore; Slovak Republic; Slovenia; Spain; Suriname; Sweden; Switzerland; Thailand; Tonga; 
United Kingdom; United States; Uruguay; and Va nuatu.  
2 Aid for Trade Global Review and Needs Assessment Survey ( INF/TE/IDP/W/8/Rev.1 ) INF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 2 - 
 
   
 
Contents  
 
1   OVERVIEW OF MAIN RESULTS  ................................ ................................ .....................  3 
1.1   General information  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
1.2   Enhancing transparency of plastic pollution efforts in AfT programmes in future AfT Global 
Review cycles  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  3 
1.2.1   Improvements to the AfT questionnaire ................................ ................................ ...... 3 
1.2.2   Efforts by Dialogue co -sponsors and other Members to better engage in the AfT review 
process  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  5 
1.2.3   Involvement of relevant stakeholders engaged in global, regional and domestic 
programmes to tackle plastic pollution  ................................ ................................ .................  7 
1.3   Needs identified in priority areas in plastic pollution  ................................ ........................  9 
1.3.1   Priority areas in addressing trade -related aspects of plastic pollution  ..............................  9 
1.3.2   Specific needs underscored by recipient partners to address trade -related aspects of plastic 
pollution  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  11 
1.4   Assistance already received to address plastic pollution, in particular to support trade -related 
actions  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  13 
1.5   Assistance already provided to address plastic pollution, in particular to support trade -related 
actions  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  14 
 
 
 
  INF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  OVERVIEW OF MAIN RESULTS  
1.1  General information  
1. The AfT survey consisted of four sections, with each section respectively addressed to:  
1. All participants;  
2. Recipient partners;  
3. Donor Members and South -South Partners; and  
4. Regional and international donor institutions and organi zations working on plastics.  
 
2. In total, 1 5 delegations and institutions submitted responses to the survey, including 
7 recipient partners, 6 donor Members and South -South partners, and 2 regional/international 
institutions working on plastics pollution.  
Graph 1: Breakdown of submissions  by recipient partners, donor Members and 
South -South partners, and regional/international institutions  
 
3. The WTO Secretariat had presented some preliminary results based on the data available from 
nine submissions at the time (16  February  2023).3 Since th en, six more submissions were received  
and more information could be sought in the future .  
Table 1: Recipient partners, donor Members, South -South partners, and 
regional/international organi zations who submitted responses to the AfT survey  
Australia  Kuwai t Tonga  
Cabo Verde  Norway  United Kingdom  
European Union  Paraguay  United States  
Ecuador  The Philippines  International Union for Conservation of Nature 
(IUCN)  
Japan  Saudi Arabia  Secretariat of the Pacific Regional 
Environment Programme (SPREP)  
 
1.2  Enhancing transparency of plastic pollution efforts in AfT programmes in future AfT 
Global Review cycles   
4. All participants were asked the following headline question:  
How can plastic pollution in AfT programmes be better reflected in the next AfT Global Re view cycle?  
5. To gather more granular information on the topic, three follow -up questions were asked, 
covering:  (i) improvements to the AfT questionnaire; (ii) enhanced engagement by delegations with 
the review process; and  (iii) potential engagement by relevant stakeholders. The responses are 
examined below.  
6. In total, 1 3 participants ( 6 recipient partners , 6 donor Members, and 1 institution ) shared 
their views regarding  relevant information, policies, efforts, and actions ne eded to increase 
transparency and delegations' and stakeholders' engagement in the AfT Global Review process and 
ensure programmes aimed to support efforts to  address  plastic pollution  were better identified .  
1.2.1   Improvements to the AfT questionnaire  
7. The firs t follow -up question was:  
What relevant information can be gathered, for example through questions specific to plastics and 
plastic pollution to be included in the questionnaire sent to participants? For example, should 
 
3 See Aide  Memoire by the  Facilitators on the Pre -Plenary Meeting held on 16  February  2023 
(INF/TE/IDP/R/11 ). INF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 4 - 
 
  participants be invited to simply in dicate programmes related to addressing plastic pollution? Should 
there be some prior categorisation to help better identify the nature of existing programmes (e.g.  by 
objective, type of policy, type of plastics, alternatives and substitutes and services, including goods, 
services and technologies targeted etc) and the links to trade (e.g. is trade considered in the 
programme, what trade measures might accompany or support the implementation of the policy/ 
programme, etc.)?  
8. Participants  put forth a range of  suggestions (see Table 2 below) seeking to ensure  information 
gathered in the 2024 -25 and following AfT Global Review cycle s was relevant to and  were better 
target ed at AfT programmes addressing  plastics and  plastic pollution.  
9. Overall, participants conve rged on the utility of a prior categorisation of existing programmes 
to better identify their nature, scope and linkages to trade ( 8), which would in turn help with the 
development of more targeted AfT programmes related to addressing plastic pollution. So me 
participants  also thought it helpful  that the AfT questionnaire allow for inputs on Members'  priorities 
and needs on technical assistance and capacity building programmes specific or complementary to 
plastics and plastic pollution (2), and that Members  be able to share case studies and experiences 
in their implementation of  domestic programmes, policies, activities, and efforts (2). Others called 
for Members to provide more specific information on their domestic programmes (3) , which could 
be use ful for other Members to evaluate if they could be replicated in their respective contexts .  
Table 2: Suggested improvements to the AfT questionnaire to gather more targeted 
information on AfT programmes addressing plastics and  plastic pollution  
Prior categorisation of programmes  Priorities and needs on technical assistance and capacity 
building programmes specific or complementary to plastics 
and plastic pollution  
Sharing of case studies and  
domestic experiences  Specific i nformation on existing domest ic programmes  
 
10. As regards the categorisation of existing programmes, participants generally agreed that 
categorisation could be based on:  
• objective ( e.g. research programmes into alternatives and substitutes to plastics);  
• type of policy and programme;  
• type of plastics t argeted (including specific polymers and additives);  
• alternatives and substitutes available; and  
• services, including access to technologies targeted at tackling plastic pollution.  
11. One respondent  noted the utility of having information on the plastics that were embedded in  
import ed and export ed goods, including their specific types and future uses . Another participant 
suggested that spatial distribution ( e.g. urban/rural, or city/municipality classification) of plastic 
pollution, including waste  management  policies and programmes could also be taken into 
consideration. In this regard, non -governmental organi zations in the Philippines such as Mother 
Earth Foundation and Philippine Reef and Rainforest Conservation Foundation Inc had implemented 
plastic waste ma nagement programmes in specific local government units (LGUs), and information 
on spatial distribution could be useful in evaluating the readiness and capacity of different types of 
LGUs in implementing plastic waste policies and programmes.  
12. One donor mem ber suggested that participants of the AfT Global Review should have the 
opportunity to provide information on policies, education, efforts to encourage substitutes and 
alternatives, and best practices, as well as  on activities designed to facilitate trade  in the collection, 
recycling and upcycling of plastics . Further, participants should be able to comment on the 
opportunities and challenges represented by the circular economy as it relates to plastic pollution.  
It was also vital to ensure that key cross -cutting issues were being considered in efforts to address 
plastic pollution.   
13. One recipient partner pointed to the value of case studies showcasing:  INF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 5 - 
 
  • how a member fostered an enabling business environment for recycling infrastructure and 
alternatives to si ngle-use plastic bags, and to increase private sector participation;  
• the use of technologies that have transformed the recycling industries and the production 
of alternatives to plastics;  
• awareness efforts to promote the use of biodegradable and alternatives among the public; 
and  
• learnings from other SIDS.  
14. One donor member suggested that the AfT review could seek to gather a greater breadth of 
information, including official development a ssistance programmes that were outside of the 
traditional AfT space and which address different elements of plastic pollution. This would help to 
provide an overview of the relevant development assistance, which could  serve to identify the 
relevant links t o trade.  
15. While participants generally recogni zed the value of having oversight of the multitude of 
domestic, regional and global programmes, with some calling for parties to provide more specific 
information on existing domestic programmes that address pl astic pollution, others cautioned the 
need to avoid comprehensive or complex reporting or granular information. Instead, questions could 
be marked by a high -level categorisation or focus on relevant programmes that do not duplicate 
other existing reporting  obligations, such as those under the Basel Convention or any new 
international agreement on ending plastic pollution. One donor Member recommended that the 
questionnaire include a reminder to Members to also notify any relevant measure under the 
appropria te WTO committees to fulfil their reporting and transparency obligations.  
1.2.2   Efforts by Dialogue co -sponsors and other Members to better engage in the AfT 
review process  
16. The second follow -up question was:  
What could IDP co -sponsors and other Members do them selves in their engagement in the process?  
17. To increase Members' engagement in the AfT review process, participants underscored the 
importance of prioritising plastic pollution in their AfT strategies, increasing engagement in the AfT 
review exercise and in  the Dialogue, and strengthening Dialogue and AfT coordination as well as 
coordination between Dialogue and the INC negotiations on a global plastics treaty. Other 
suggestions included training and capacity building workshops (technical and non -technical) for 
delegates; mobilisation of financial resources, including by assigning dedicated budgetary funding; 
coherence in their trade policy and regulatory design; establishing a public platform or on the WTO 
website of good practices by Members; and greater co mmunication and public advocacy.  
Table 3: Suggestions to increase Members ' engagement in the AfT review process  
Prioritise plastic pollution in AfT 
strategies  Increase engagement in AfT 
review exercise  Increase engagement in the 
Dialogue  
Feed Dialogue findings into AfT 
review  Facilitate links between 
Dialogue and INC negotiations  Coherence in trade policy and 
regulatory design  
Monitoring and evaluation  Mobilise financial resources  South -South cooperation  
Training and capacity building 
workshops (technical and  
non-technical) for delegates  Public platform (e.g. WTO 
website) containing good 
practices  of Members  Communication and public 
advocacy  
 
18. In terms of increasing engagement in the AfT  review exercise, one donor member suggested 
that donors could present to the AfT stocktake efforts by their governments to assist recipients, to 
facilitate a global picture of AfT efforts. This could then be analysed in the AfT review to determine 
overlap ping and/or complementary activities and encourage greater coordination and cooperation 
among donors. In addition, South -South cooperation on lessons learned to address plastic pollution 
could also be identified through the stocktake. In the same vein, one  recipient partner called for all 
Members to provide relevant information in order to identify commonalities, opportunities for 
improvement and for the implementation of business measures through an exchange of experiences 
and good practices.  INF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 6 - 
 
  19. Reiterating that it was important for Dialogue co -sponsors and other Members to review the 
draft questionnaire provided by the Secretariat and provide as comprehensive a response as 
possible, another donor Member suggested that Members could further encourage particip ation by 
the environment community, including through greater join -ups between government departments 
when completing the questionnaire, so as to provide information on official development assistance 
programmes that relate to plastic pollution but which w ere outside of the traditional AfT space. A 
widened participation by the environment community and between government departments could 
also be reflected in their participation in events at the AfT Global Review. In addition, Dialogue 
co-sponsors could rai se the profile of plastic pollution in the AfT review through their contributions 
to discussions on the theme and by ensuring that there are specific questions in the questionnaire 
that relate to plastic pollution.  
20. To facilitate the sharing of best practi ces in the AfT review exercise, one donor member noted 
that the AfT experience sharing model may be of interest, where Members could develop a mapping 
exercise (similar to workshops) to engage in the process of exploring plastic pollution issues. It noted 
that a mapping exercise could consist of: (i) a set of questions addressing critical knowledge gaps; 
(ii) a set of associated activities to answer them; and (iii) learning activities (e.g. experience sharing) 
aimed at disseminating findings. This mapping e xercise is intended as a way for Members to learn 
from each other while building trust and collaboration with Dialogue stakeholders and Members to 
revitalise joint work.  
21. In terms of increasing engagement in the Dialogue, one recipient partner and one dono r 
member called for more information sharing sessions by technical experts and Members on topics 
such as alternatives and substitutes, responses to plastic pollution and marine debris, and on trade -
related plastics measures, including those under considera tion in the INC negotiations. Such 
information sharing could include an inventory of the types of plastics that are being proposed to be 
banned, as this will affect both the domestic and global economies, particularly for producers and 
end-users of these p roducts. More broadly, one recipient partner called for Dialogue co -sponsors to 
continue with efforts to expand the membership of the Dialogue.  
22. The need for Dialogue inputs to be represented in the AfT review and INC negotiations was 
also emphasised. One donor member underscored the need to ensure that relevant findings from 
the Dialogue are fed into the AfT review but cautioned against overly comprehensive reporting 
requirements. One stakeholder suggested facilitating trade -related links with Dialogue co -sponsors 
and the INC negotiations through their respective domestic contacts to ensure that Dialogue inputs 
are represented in the discussions.   
23. To build capacity, one recipient partner recommended training and workshops on technical 
and non -technical issu es for delegates on topics such as the latest research and technical information 
on plastic pollution, biodegradable materials and alternatives to plastics, as well as ongoing 
developments in the preparation of the global plastics treaty under the INC and how Members could 
be involved at various stages of the negotiating process. Another recipient partner recommended 
that Members could design and adopt relevant domestic and regional trade -related policy and 
regulatory frameworks to reduce and eliminate plas tic pollution. Such policies could include phased 
bans on single -use plastics, mandatory extended producer responsibility (EPR) programmes, and 
taxes on virgin plastics.  
24. Participation by Members in monitoring and evaluation of their technical assistance 
programmes and trade -related plastic measures was noted by one recipient partner to be helpful in 
supporting the development and implementation of effective and sustainable solutions to plastic 
pollution. However, one donor member pointed to the limited adm inistrative capacity of Members to 
conduct additional monitoring in the context of other existing regular monitoring requests, such as 
those under the WTO's Trade Facilitation Agreement and  the Agreement on Trade -Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Ri ghts (TRIPS ). They further noted that classification codes for monitoring 
had not been established for programmes related to plastics or circular economy, and that 
monitoring requests remained burdensome even in areas with established classification codes from 
the OEC D-DAC definition of A fT.  INF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.2.3   Involve ment  of relevant stakeholders engaged in global, regional and domestic 
programmes to tackle plastic pollution  
25. The third follow -up question was:  
Should relevant stakeholders, including organi zations engaged in global, regio nal and domestic 
programmes related to addressing plastic pollution, also be involved? If yes, which and how? For 
example, through specific Workshops that can be directly embedded into the AfT Work Programme? 
If so, on what topics?  
26. All 14 participants of t he survey were in favour of involving relevant stakeholders – particularly 
organi zations engaged in global, regional and domestic programmes to tackle plastic pollution – in 
the AfT Global Review, with many going further to recogni ze the importance of stak eholder 
participation in the review process. Nonetheless, one recipient partner expressed that the AfT review 
should be member -driven where it is Members that are parties to the WTO and best positioned to 
understand their own domestic circumstances, includ ing stakeholder activities.  
27. Overall, participants pointed to the following categories of stakeholders that Members could 
engage with in the course of the Dialogue's work  on AfT issues  and as part of the AfT Global Review 
process, namely:  
• civil society (e .g. women and youth groups);  
• academia;  
• businesses;  
• industry associations;  
• chambers of commerce;  
• regional and international organi zations dealing with the environment, marine, customs, 
health, standards;  
• financial institutions;  
• research institutions.  
 
28. Participants also identified examples of stakeholders involved in work on plastics and plastic 
pollution that were of relevance to the AfT discussions . Table 4 contains a non -exhaustive list of 
stakeholders  mentioned .  
Table 4: Non-exhaustive list of stakeholders  mentioned  
Type  Stakeholder   
Inter governmental  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)  
United Nations Environment Programme ( UNEP )  
Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) Conventions  Secretariat  
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC) 
Secretariat  
Organi sation for Economic Co -operation and Development (OECD)  
Global Environment Facility (GEF)  
World Bank G roup (incl. PROBLUE fund)  
Food and Agriculture Organi zation (FAO)  
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)  
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)  
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)  
International Maritime Organization (IMO)  
International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL)  
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)  
World Customs Organi zation (WCO)  
Regional  Inter-American Development Bank  
European Investment Bank (EIB)  
Pacific Regional Infrastructure Facility (PRIF)  
Oceania Customs Organi zations (OCO)  
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP)  
Civil Society and 
Multi -stakeholder  Forum on Trade, Environment, and the SDGs (TESS)  
Pew Charitable Trusts  INF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Type  Stakeholder   
World Wide Fund for Nature's (WWF)  
World Economic Forum (incl. Global Plastic Action Partnership)  
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)  
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)  
Businesses / 
Industry  Suppliers of raw materials for the production of plastic products   
Manufacturers/producers of plastic products  
End-users or businesses that depend on plastic products  
Producers of substitutes and alternatives to plastics and plastic products, 
including refill and reuse systems  
Industry leaders with highly visible EPR programmes and strong community 
presence  
 
29. Participants were generally in agreement on engaging with stakeholders through workshops, 
meetings and discussions on a spectrum of topics (see Table 5), top among them circular plastic 
economy approaches; sustainable plastic waste management; financing me chanisms; alternatives 
and substitutes; quantitative analyses such as on AfT flows and trade statistics; and customs 
requirements.  
Table 5: Illustrative list of topics for engagement with stakeholders  
Circular plastic economy  Sustainable waste management  Customs requirements  
Financing mechanisms  Quantitative analyses e.g. on 
AfT flows and  trade statistics  Alternatives and 
substitutes  
Marine plastic pollution  Transboundary movement of 
plastic and waste  management  Agricultural plastics  
Health impacts of plastic pollution  INC process  Industry -led initiatives  
Linking custom s/trade data systems 
and environmental data systems  Use and treatment after receipt 
of plastic products  Community -based 
solutions  
 
30. One donor member recommended that these workshops be thematically focused along the 
capacity -building topics outlined in the 2021 Dialogue Ministerial Statement4, that is, on programmes 
supporting:  
i. moving towards more circular plastics economies;  
ii. improving the environmentally sound management, recovery and recycling of plastics;  
iii. facilitating access to key technologies; and  
iv. expanding trade in environmentally sustainable and effective substitutes and  
alternatives.  
31. It added that these workshops could also focus on developing methodologies and fostering 
experience sharing, where developing Members could be invited to present priorities and avenues 
for intervention in their respective contexts (albeit b eing mindful of varying administrative capacities 
so as not to create undue administrative burden on Members).  
32. Another donor member noted that those stakeholders not involved in the AfT stocktake, such 
as some private sector and/or philanthropic initiativ es, could participate in workshops in advance of 
the stocktake and review to assist Members to efficiently participate in review discussions as well as 
their submissions for the review. Further, researchers, non -governmental organi zations and other 
relevan t experts could be involved in a follow -up to the review to help determine gaps in AfT and 
how they might best be filled by donors and international development organi zations. For example, 
could more be done to focus the attention of multilateral AfT on tr ade facilitation in recycled and 
upcycled plastics? How can industries designed to collect and distribute plastics for reused be better 
supported? How can donors help developing Members address marine plastic pollution?  
33. One recipient partner expressed sup port for capacity building, training, and awareness 
programmes for:  
 
4 Ministerial Statement on Pla stic Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade 
(WT/MIN(21)/8/Rev.2 ), 10 December  2021.  INF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 9 - 
 
  • Domestic customs officials, on the Harmonized System (H S) codes and latest trade -related 
measures on plastics and conventions related to plastic pollution;  
• Micro, small and medium enterp rise (MSME) organi zations or associations involved in the 
production and distribution of plastics, biodegradable materials or alternatives to plastics;  
• Government bodies and MSME organi zations or associations involved in waste  
management , including recycl ing and disposal  of plastics .  
34. To allow for more targeted engagement, another recipient partner suggested that workshops 
could be contextualised and made relevant for certain regions by holding them at the regional or 
domestic level, with the participation  of relevant regional and domestic organi zations.  
35. Cooperation with organi zations leading research on foreign aid, plastic pollution and trade 
such as the OECD found support in two donor member responses. This could include specific 
workshops on topics such as OECD's monitoring of AfT flows related to plastics. The WTO could also  
leverage on the analytical capacities of the OECD to conduct joint WTO -OECD quantitative analyses 
to better analyse the nature of existing programmes and suggest appropriate prior categorisation, 
such as the type of plastics and alternatives and substitut es targeted by the programme. This 
analysis could be complemented by cooperation between the WTO and OECD on how best to source 
information on AfT programmes focusing on plastics.  
36. Beyond workshops and meetings, one recipient partner pointed to pilot proje cts, coastal clean 
ups and village clean up inspections as unorthodox approaches to stakeholder engagement. One 
example cited was the No Pelestiki Campaign in Tonga, which offered natural alternatives to plastic 
bags such as fabric bags and baskets woven f rom coconut fibres as a substitute. It further highlighted 
some domestic examples in the region on the implementation of sustainable finance mechanisms 
such as container deposit legislation and advance recovery fees.  
1.3  Needs identified in priority areas in  plastic pollution  
37. Recipient partners were asked the following headline question:  
What trade -related actions are envisioned in relation to objectives identified in the IDP Ministerial 
Statement (see below)? What specific needs do you require to efficiently implement trade -related 
policies and actions to address plastic pollution  [for each specific objective] . 
38. To gather more granular information on the topic and facilitate analysis, recipient partners 
were asked to provide a score from (low priori ty) 1 to 5 (high priority) on each of the eight 
harmonized objectives in the survey. They were equally asked to provide a score from 1 to 5 on a 
set of harmonized needs required to implement trade -related actions to realize each of the 
objectives. The resp onses and results are examined below.  
1.3.1   Priority areas in addressing trade -related aspects of plastic pollution  
39. The survey identified eight harmonized  objectives in relation to the 2021 Dialogue Ministerial 
Statement, namely :  
• Move towards more circular eco nomies of plastics;  
• Improve the environmentally sound management, recovery and recycling of plastics;  
• Facilitate access to key technologies;  
• Expand trade in environmentally sustainable and effective substitutes and alternatives;  
• Encourage collaboration wit h the relevant stakeholders through, inter alia , the exchange 
of knowledge and experience relating to the development of and access to environmentally 
sustainable and effective (including cost and functionally effective) substitutes and 
alternatives to sin gle-use plastics;  
• Develop and strengthen local capacities to produce environmentally sustainable and 
effective substitutes and alternatives to single -use plastics;  
• Design and implement trade policies to address plastic pollution; and  
• Other objectives , cons idering the whole lifecycle of plastics . 
 
40. All objectives had high average scores in the survey, above 4.15 average scores (see graph 2 
below). Of the eight objectives, recipient partners ranked highest the objectives of moving towards INF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 10 - 
 
  more circular economi es of plastics (4.83) and improving the environmentally sound management, 
recovery and recycling of plastics (4.83), followed by designing and implementing trade policies to 
address plastic pollution (4.67).  
41. It should be noted that three of the objectives  relating to sustainable and effective substitutes 
and alternatives, that is – (i) expanding trade in environmentally sustainable and effective 
substitutes and alternatives (4.33); (ii) encourage collaboration with the relevant stakeholders 
through, inter alia, the exchange of knowledge and experience relating to the development of and 
access to environmentally sustainable and effective (including cost and functionally effective) 
substitutes and alternatives to single -use plastics (4.17); and (iii) d evelop  and strengthen local 
capacities to produce environmentally sustainable and effective substitutes and alternatives to 
single -use plastics (4.17) – were indicated as priority areas by almost all recipient partners who 
responded to the survey (with scores of  4 or 5), notwithstanding their relatively lower scores.  
Graph 2. Priority areas in efforts to address trade -related aspects of plastic pollution  
 
 
 
42. Recipient partners also outlined a sample of trade -related plastic measures (TrPMs ) pursued 
in relation to the objectives, with four Members  indicating measures that sought to introduce 
restrictions of trade targeted at the most environmentally harmful plastics such as single -use plastics 
and packaging, and plastics that are hazardous.  
43. One Member  highlighted a domestic regulation to reduce the use of plastics such as by 
introducing a replacement schedule of single -use polyethylene bags with reusable and/or 
biodegradable ones. Another Member pointed to its domestic legislation that prohi bited the import 
of plastic waste, with forthcoming plans to prohibit the import of plastic straws. This was 
complemented by technical assistance to businesses on registration and certification requirements, 
in addition to monthly information  digests  on ho w to incorporate recycled material into various 
products. Another Member informed of proposed guidelines on the phase -out of two identified 
non-environmentally acceptable products, which included recommendations to: (i) develop markets 
for alternatives for  these products; (ii) ensure that affected industries producing materials covered 
by the ban were afforded sufficient support and incentives to shift to producing alternatives instead; 
and (iii) assist industries in redesigning their packaging of products.  Other Members also pointed to 
measures to improve transparency, reporting and notifications on TrPMs, as well as on experience 
and lessons relevant to plastics and plastic pollution.  
4.174.174.174.334.54.674.834.83
Encourage collaboration with the relevant stakeholders through, inter alia, the exchange of
knowledge and experience relating to the development of and access to environmentally
sustainable and effective (including cost and functionally effective) substituDevelop and strengthen local capacities to produce environmentally sustainable and effective
substitutes and alternatives to single-use plasticsOther, considering the whole life-cycle of plasticsExpand trade in environmentally sustainable and effective substitutes and alternativesFacilitate access to key technologiesDesign and implement trade policies to address plastic pollutionMove towards more circular economies of plasticsImprove the environmentally sound management, recovery and recycling of plasticsINF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 11 - 
 
  44. A separate survey on TrPMs was launched simultaneously with the AfT sur vey and a similar 
factual report on its results has been produced , providing further and more granular insights on the 
topic.5 
1.3.2   Specific needs underscored  by recipient partners  to address trade -related aspects 
of plastic pollution  
45. The survey identified 11 harmonized  needs  that respondents could indicate (and score 1 to 5 
in order of priorities) in relation to each of the objectives highlighted above, namely :  
• access to technolo gy; 
• technical assistance on policy development;  
• technical assistance on policy implementation (e.g. market surveillance);  
• certification, testing and metrology;  
• customs challenges;  
• financial and investment assistance;  
• domestic private sector engagement and partnerships;   
• civil society engagement, including local and domestic stakeholders;   
• cooperation from exporting and importing Members;   
• cooperation from value chain actors (incl. exporters); and  
• regional cooperation . 
46. Five recipient partners  and one regional organization  working on plastics weighed in on the 
specific support needed to achieve each of the eight objectives identified in the 2021 Ministerial 
Statement.6 As can be seen in graph 3, all needs were highly rated by respondents, with their 
average scores for all objectives being at least 4.12.   
Graph 3. Average score of specific needs for all objectives combined  
 
 
 
 
47. Domestic private sector engagement was the highest scored need by p articipants of the survey 
on average for all objectives (4.83), followed by domestic civil society engagement (4.71) and access 
to technology (4.69) . It is interesting to note that these topline results mirror the incidence of the 
same needs mentioned by respondents to the TrPM survey with regards to  the implementation of 
specific TrPMs captured in that survey. In that case, domestic private sector engagement, civil 
 
5 See Dialogue , Factual Report of the TrPMs Survey ( INF/TE/IDP/W/ 11). 
6 One recipient partner, with respect to an "Other" objective (not expressly listed in the eight identified 
in the survey), emphasised the support needed specifically on: access to technology; technical assistance for 
policy implementation; and certification, testing and metrology (see Table 6).  
4.574.194.334.524.714.834.124.194.334.604.69
regional cooperationcooperation from value chain actors (incl. exporters)cooperation from exporting/importing membersfinancial and investment assistancedomestic civil society engagementdomestic  private sector engagementcustoms challengescertification, testing and metrologytechnical assistance on policy implementationtechnical assistance on policy developmentaccess to technologyINF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 12 - 
 
  society engagement and access to technology were also among the top four results in the TrPMs 
survey (1st, 4th and 2nd most often identif ied needs respectively).  
48. Respondents to the AfT survey also provided individual grades for each need with respect to 
each specific objective. Table 6 below provides the breakdown of the highest and lowest scored 
needs for each objective captured by the sur vey. 
Table 6: Specific support needed to achieve each of the objectives  
Objective  Specific Support Needed (average scores)  
Most  Least  
Move towards more circular 
economies of plastics  • Access to technology  (4.83)  
• Domestic private sector 
engagement (4.83)  
• Civil society engagement  
(4.83)  
• Regional cooperation  (4.83)  • Certification, testing and 
metrology  (4.17)  
• Customs challenge s 
(4.17)  
Improve the environmentally 
sound management, recovery 
and recycling of plastics  • Domestic private sector 
engagement (4.83)  
• Civil society engagement  
(4.83)  
• Technical assistance on policy 
implementation (4.6) • Certification, testing and 
metrology  (4) 
• Access to technology  (4) 
• Customs challenge s (4) 
Facilitate access to key 
technologies  • Access to technology  (5) 
• Domestic private sector 
engagement (4.83)  
• Civil society engagement  
(4.83)  • Certification, testing and 
metrology  (4) 
• Customs challenges  (4) 
Expand trade in 
environmentally sustainable 
and effective substitutes and 
alternatives  • Access to technology  (4.83)  
• Domestic private sector 
engagement (4.83)  
• Civil society engagement  
(4.83)  • Certification, testing and 
metrology  (4) 
• Customs challenges  
(4.17)  
• Cooperation from value 
chain actors (incl. 
Exporters)  (4.17)  
Encourage collaboration with 
the relevant stakeholders 
through, inter alia , the 
exchange of knowledge and 
experience relating to the 
development of and access to 
environmentally sustainable 
and effective (including cost 
and functionally effective) 
substitutes and alternatives to 
single -use plastics  • Domestic private sector 
engagement (4.83)  
• Civil society engagement  
(4.83)  
• Cooperation from exporting 
Members  (4.67)  • Technical assistance on 
policy implementation 
(4.17)  
• Certificati on, testing and 
metrology  (4.17)  
• Customs challenges  
(4.17)  
Develop and strengthen local 
capacities to produce 
environmentally sustainable 
and effective substitutes and 
alternatives to single -use 
plastics  • Access to technology  (4.83)  
• Domestic private sector 
engagement (4.83)  
• Certification, testing and 
metrology  (4.5) • Technical assistance on 
policy implementation 
(3.33)  
• Civil society engagement  
(4) 
Design and implement trade 
policies to address plastic 
pollution  • Technical assistance on policy 
development  (4.83)  
• Domestic private sector 
engagement (4.83)  
• Civil society engagement  
(4.83)  • Cooperation from value 
chain actors (incl. 
Exporters)  (3.83)  
• Cooperation from 
exporting Members  (4) 
 
For other objective s, what 
specific support do you require • Custom training on transboundary movement of hazardous 
waste including toxic plastics . INF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Objective  Specific Support Needed (average scores)  
Most  Least  
to efficiently implement 
trade-related policies and 
actions addressing plastic 
pollution? ( Two free text 
answers reproduced here ) • Regional Policy that would mandate the banning of 
non-environmentally acceptable products (NEAP) and regional 
policy on the mandatory shifting to alternatives. In addition to 
the policy, support is needed in establishing sustainable 
supply and market of al ternatives to plastics.  
• Assistance on certification, testing and metrology for 
biodegradable goods , as well as technical assistance on policy 
implementation (e.g. on post -consumer plastics control).  
 
49. Respondents could also freely indicate other needs not  originally listed that they had in order 
to implement trade actions to achieve each objective. Only one recipient partner indicated a 
non-harmonized need, specifically with regards the first objective of moving towards more circular 
economies for plastics . They highlighted  the support needed in global collaboration, including with 
technology owners for waste and carbon removal technologies.  
1.4  Assistance already received to address plastic pollution, in particular to support 
trade -related actions  
50. Recipient partners were asked the following questions:  
What assistance do you already receive in your efforts to address plastic pollution? Does any of this 
assistance directly address trade -related actions to address plastic pollution? What is your 
experi ence with regional AfT programs to address plastic pollution? How do they compare to 
non-regional programs?  
51. Three recipient partners7 shared a total of six experiences with AfT programmes and 
assistance more broadly received to support efforts  to address plastic pollution. Of these, technical 
assistance for the development of legislation, regulations and policies was the most prevalent type 
of assistance received by the responding Members.  
52. The Philippines shared its experience with the United Nations Deve lopment Programme 
(UNDP) on actions to address  plastic pollution. The UNDP had assisted the Philippine Government in 
developing their National Plan of Action for the Prevention, Management and Reduction of Marine 
litter, and was also assisting in developin g the Implementing Rules and Regulations and the 
Framework of the E PR Act of 2022 (RA 11898).  
53. Recognizing that it would be opportune to have greater access to specific assistance 
addressing plastic pollution , Paraguay shared that some of its programmes, w hich focused on 
promotion of a circular economy, indirectly promoted the recycling of plastic packaging and other 
materials such as paper and aluminium. For example, the AC + Circular Economy Project, 
implemented by the Moisés Bertoni Foundation with the t echnical and financial support of the 
Innovation Laboratory of the Inter -American Development Bank (IDB Lab) , sought to encourage a 
model that leverages the innovation and technology capacity of urban cities and the innovation 
ecosystem to promote circular  business models. MIPYME COMPITE, a programme by Paraguay's 
Ministry of Industry and Trade, the World Bank, the Federation of Production Cooperatives 
(FECOPROD), the United Nations Industrial Development Organi zation (UNIDO), the Paraguayan 
Industrial Unio n (UIP) and the European Union, aim ed to contribute to inclusive and sustainable 
economic growth and job creation through better developed and more competitive MSMEs in an 
improved business environment.  
54. Finally, Tonga shared that it currently received fina ncial support and technical assistance to 
develop single -use plastic roadmap, sustainable finance schemes, marine litter management, coastal 
clean ups, domestic  training  on transboundary movement of hazardous waste, domestic  training on 
chemicals, and a domestic  action plan on plastic pollution. It also noted it had received some 
technical assistance for the development of necessary legislations and policies, and capacity building 
trainings for government officials and waste management authorities.  It also  added that a lot more 
 
7 Paraguay, the Philippines, and Tonga.  INF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 14 - 
 
  AfT or official development assistance programmes were usually targeted at addressing plastic 
pollution at the regional level.  
55. For the Pacific, the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) 
overs aw the implementation of some of such programmes, through efforts to build the capacity of 
government officials to address environmental issues, understand and impl ement multilateral 
environmental agreements (MEAs) and participate in the negotiat ions of  a global agreement to 
address plastic pollution covering the entire life cycle of plastics, as well as other initiatives to reduce 
marine plastic litter through the d evelopment of member -specific policies and regulatory 
frameworks. In terms of member -specific programmes, these var ied according to the demands and 
needs of the pertinent member , and assistance range from the development of policies and 
regulations, attainment of the necessary technology and establishment of the relevant 
infrastructure, as well as raising of public awareness.  
1.5  Assistance already provided  to address plastic pollution, in particular to support 
trade -related actions   
56. Donor me mbers and South -South partners were asked the following questions:  
What assistance do you already provide to address plastic pollution? Does any of this assistance 
directly address trade -related actions to address plastic pollution? What information is nee ded to 
help guide the development of your AfT strategy to include a goal of actions to implement trade -
related actions to address plastic pollution? What is your experience with regional AfT programs to 
address plastic pollution? How do they compare to non -regional programs?  
57. Regional and international donor institutions and organi zations working on plastics  were asked 
the following questions:  
What assistance do you provide to address plastic pollution? Does any of this assistance directly 
address trade -related actions to address plastic pollution?  
58. In total, the survey identified over 30 assistance programmes (see Table 7 below) provided 
by six donor Members to recipients across all regions and one regional organization  working on 
plastics and plastic polluti on, addressing  topics such as: marine plastic litter; environmentally sound 
waste management  of plastics ; circular economy for plastics; pollution mitigation solutions (e.g. 
alternatives and substitutes, including biodegradable materials); waste  management  and disposal 
infrastructure; plastic waste trade, including trafficking of hazardous plastic waste; and plastic 
packaging value chain.  
Table 7: Non -exhaustive list of  assistance programmes and actions to address plastic 
pollution  
Member/Institution  Programme/Initiative  Example projects  
Australia  Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility (PRIF)  
SPREP funding to build capacity and support Pacific Island Members  
ANZPAC Plastics Pact  
Pacific Ocean Litter Project (POLP)  
CSIRO: Ending Plastic 
Waste Mission (with 
several Members)  Australia -Indonesia Plastics Innovation Hub  
Plastic Innovation Hub Vietnam  
Mekong Plastics Innovation Alliance 
(Thailand)  
CSIRO: Reducing Plastic Waste in India (+  plastics research project ) 
European Union  SWITCH to Circular Value 
Chains (with UNIDO, EIB)  Improve practices by MSMEs in developing 
Members  in the plastic packaging value chain  
Pac Waste + project  Waste management  projects in the Pacific  
Rethinking Plastic  Seven economies in East and South -East Asia   
Japan  MARINE Initiative ( Osaka 
Blue Ocean Vision ) Various waste management assistance 
programmes in developing Members  INF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Member/Institution  Programme/Initiative  Example projects  
Asia-Pacific Plastic Waste 
Border Management 
Project (with WCO)  Capacity building support to customs officers 
to deal with illicit cross -border shipments of 
plastic waste in South -East Asia and 
neighbouring economies  
Norway  Norwegian Development 
Programme to Combat 
Marine Litter and 
Microplastics (~50 
programs)  No Plastic in Nature (WWF)  
PROBLUE (World Bank)  
GloLitter  Partnership Project (IMO and FAO)  
Strengthening capacity of 
Members to implement 
the Basel Convention, 
including the Basel 
Convention Plastic Waste 
Amendments of 2019 
(administered by the BRS 
Secretariat)  Pilot projects in over 35 economies  
BRS Plastic Waste Inventory Toolkit  
Marine Pollution Enforcement Project Phase II  (with INTERPOL)  
UNODC -WCO Container Control Programme  
United Kingdom  Global Plastic Action 
Partnership (GPAP ), 
through Blue Plante Fund, 
with the Word Economic 
Forum ( WEF) and others  Partnerships in Indonesia, Ghana, Vietnam, 
Pakistan, Nigeria, India and South Africa e.g. 
National Plastic Action Plan (NPAP) in Ghana 
on a study on the role of trade policy in 
addressing plastic pollution  
Sustainable Manufacturing 
and Environmental 
Pollution (SMEP) (in 
partnership with UNCTAD)  Targeted projects in Sub -Saharan Africa and 
South Asia, including Ghana, Zimbabwe, 
Nigeria, Kenya, Democratic Republic of Congo 
and Nepal  
ODA Environmental Quality Pollution  
Projects under the Basel 
Convention  Updating (and implementation) of the 
Technical guidelines for the identification and 
environmentally sound management (ESM) of 
plastic wastes and for their disposal  
Plastic Waste Partnership (established under 
the Basel Convention)  
United States  US Agency for 
International 
Development (USAID) : 
Clean Cities, Blue Ocean 
(CCBO)  Enhancing circularity in rapidly urbanizing 
areas of developing economies (aim to reduce 
mated 11 million metric tons of plastic that 
flow into the ocean each year ) 
USAID -Circulate Capital  
Agreement,  backed by 
multinational corporations   Leveraging more than USD 100 million in  
private -sector investment strategy to 
incubat e and financ e companies and 
infrastructure that prevent ocean plastic 
pollution in South and Southeast A sia  
SPREP  PacWaste Plus  
Pacific Ocean Litter Project (POLP)  
IUCN  Close the Plastic Tap Programme  
MARPLASTICCs Circular Economy Grants in Eastern and Southern Africa  
 
59. As can be seen, the AfT  survey has generated a wealth of information regarding dozens of 
specific programmes seeking to address plastic pollution through trade -related cooperation and/or 
actions. While the data does not easily lend itself for a particularly structured analysis a nd 
comparison, it does point to an important opportunity to further increase transparency and identify 
opportunities for broader cooperation and coordination on the topic, as suggested by many 
participants in reaction to the first two questions of the surv ey and summarized above.   INF/TE/IDP/W/12  
 
- 16 - 
 
  60. During discussions on the topic prompted by preliminary results presented by the Secretariat, 
a few delegations pointed to the value of the exercise itself of collecting such information which had 
already prompted internal coopera tion efforts and better understanding of the trade elements of 
existing aid programs seeking to address plastic pollution.  
61. Finally, the survey also queried what  information was needed by donor Members to guide the 
development of their AfT strategy to inclu de a goal of actions to implement trade -related actions to 
address plastic pollution. In general, respondents reiterated the need for greater information on the 
link between trade and development assistance related to plastic pollution, as well as further details 
on the specific trade needs of recipient partners in addressing plastic pollution so that strategies and 
programmes could be tailored to the pertinent motivations for action on plastics in each recipient's 
context.  
62. One donor member remarked that w hile some of its support to combat plastic pollution had 
trade-related elements, its specific  trade-related support was not currently focused on plastic 
pollution. Moreover, most of its AfT was channelled through multilateral organi zations and 
mechanisms s uch as the WTO, EIF, ITC and World Bank, and any increased focus on plastic pollution 
through its AfT would have to pass through these multilateral channels, to the extent relevant for 
their respective mandates.  
63. Another donor Member called for Members to not lose sight of the full life cycle of plastics 
while tackling specific aspects of the plastics value chain. It added that any information on the needs 
of LDCs to address plastic pollution would be useful and such information would not need to be 
limited  to trade -related actions and policies. Other donor Members pointed to the usefulness of 
disseminating within the Dialogue resources published by international organi zations, such as on the 
monitoring of AfT flows, and for the aggregation of more informati on on relevant AfT and broader 
ODA programmes across the donor community.  
 
__________