INF/TE/IDP/RD/62* 
5 October 2022  
(22-7513)  Page: 1/5 
 Original:  English /anglaise/ inglés  
 
  
UNOFFICIAL ROOM DOCUMENT1 
 
INFORMAL DIALOGUE ON PLASTICS POLLUTION  
AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE PLASTICS TRADE  
 
STATEMENT BY THE FORUM ON TRADE, ENVIRONMENT & THE SDGS (TESS)  
IDP pre -plenary Meeting – 11 May 2022  
 
DOCUMENT DE SÉANCE NON OFFICIEL1 
 
INFORMAL DIALOGUE ON PLASTICS POLLUTION  
AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE PLASTICS TRADE  
 
STATEMENT BY THE FORUM ON TRADE, ENVIRONMENT & THE SDGS (TESS)  
IDP pre -plenary Meeting – 11 May 2022  
 
DOCUMENTO DE SALA NO OFICIAL1 
 
INFORMAL DIALOGUE ON PLASTICS POLLUTION  
AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE PLASTICS TRADE  
 
STATEMENT BY THE FORUM ON TRADE, ENVIRONMENT & THE SDGS (TESS)  
IDP pre -plenary Meeting – 11 May 2022  
 
_______________  
 
  
 
* In Original language only/En langue originale seulement/En el idioma original solamente.  
1 Documents issued in the RD series are not official WTO documents. They usually appear in their 
language of submission and will not be translated systematicall y into the working languages of the WTO. They 
are intended for use in WTO meeting rooms and are attributed an unofficial symbol for archiving purposes only.  
Les documents de la série RD ne sont pas des documents officiels de l 'OMC. Ils ne paraissent 
génér alement que dans la langue dans laquelle ils ont été communiqués et ne seront pas systématiquement 
traduits dans les langues de travail de l'OMC. Ils sont destinés aux salles de réunion de l'OMC et une cote non 
officielle leur est attribuée à des fins d'ar chivage.  
Los documentos de la serie RD no son documentos oficiales de la OMC. Por lo general se distribuyen en 
el idioma en que han sido presentados y no se traduce n sistemáticamente a los idiomas de trabajo de la 
Organización. Se distribuyen para su uso e n las salas de reunión de la OMC y se les asigna una signatura no 
oficial a efectos de archivo únicamente.  INF/TE/IDP/RD/62  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Work stream 1: Cross -cutting Issues  
Thank you for the invitation to be here at your pre -plenary meeting today and for focusing our 
attention on these crosscutting issues. Thank you also to the UK and China for their updates.  
Transparency  
As has already b een noted in this Informal Dialogue, there is a lack of transparency with regard to 
types of plastics, plastic products, plastic additives as well as plastic substitutes that are traded 
internationally, in part because these are not fully captured by the H armonized System (HS) 
classification.  
TESS has already presented to this committee of this working group the findings of our research on 
this topic. To support that work further we are pleased to be sharing a policy brief  on the potential 
amendments to the HS classification, which lays out some very concrete options for ad dressing some 
of the main gaps identified and that could be pursued as part of the current amendment cycle at the 
WCO.  
We are delighted to see the suggested elements of the communication to the WCO and agree with 
other comments that a key priority going f orward would be to integrate the work in capitals between 
authorities responsible for customs, trade and plastic pollution. This will be particularly important 
given the short time -frame for moving ahead with potential HS amendments in the 2022 -2027 
amendm ent cycle.   From the TESS point of view, we would like to highlight how important this kind 
of technical work will be to enabling future co -operation on trade policies and plastic pollution. 
Putting this on the agenda is already an excellent contribution by IDP to international efforts to 
tackle plastic pollution.  
We are also conscious that there will be a need for some very detailed work from governments in 
order to take specific amendments forward, so one should not underestimate the task ahead. For 
this reason, it is especially good to see the co -operation of the Secretariat with the WCO on this 
topic.  
As discussed already this morning, there is also the need more transparency in environmental 
policies that are relevant to trade, and of trade policies m ore generally that are relevant to plastic 
pollution. We agree that transparency of national measures is an area where the IDP could make an 
important contribution. With that in mind we endorse the proposal for a taxonomy of types of trade 
policies relevan t to plastic pollution and of environmental policies with a trade dimensions. A 
voluntary survey that complements the WTO’s formal notification processes would help stimulate 
information sharing. In addition, it would spur dialogue within national capitals  and among 
stakeholders on plastic pollution and trade, spurring joint analysis of what is going on nationally and 
where some of the trade -policy related challenges lie. The survey can thus be seen as a key 
contribution of the IDP process to the important process of building dialogue between trade and 
environment experts and stakeholders at the national level.  
On the issue of transparency, we think it is also important to highlight an important number of wider 
data gaps. There is no common platform in the i nternational system for publicly accessible data on 
trends in global plastic production, trade -flows, plastic value chains, and material composition of 
plastics or of the implications of policy measures that countries take nationally.  It would be fantasti c 
looking forward if the IDP could explore with the WTO Secretariat options to work with and spur 
other IGOs and parts of the UN system to form kind of joint portal or data entry point for some of 
this information. I think this will make it a lot easier fo r governments at the national level to get a 
full picture. While it will be difficult to have a fully integrated online database, it should be possible 
to at least put together the various sources of information in one place.  
Another aspect of transparency  is to build better understanding of the terminology commonly used 
in regard to plastics, plastic substitutes, and circularity in ways that are relevant to this trade and 
trade policy discussion. One option would be a glossary of terms that draws on work a lready 
underway and undertaken by UNEP and by our colleagues at the Basel Convention. At TESS, we are 
keen to consult with colleagues at UNEP or beyond on contributing to a compendium of some of the 
terms that would be useful for your discussions here in t he IDP. There are many stakeholders here INF/TE/IDP/RD/62  
 
- 3 - 
 
  who could contribute further with their analyses on the definitions and debates on the terminology, 
concepts and technologies that are out there.  
On this point, TESS would like to remind you of the presentation by our Senior Policy Advisor Mahesh 
Sugathan at the March 18 session of the IDP, where he shared early findings of his research on the 
state of play on Aid for Trade and plastic pollution.  
TESS will be issuing a policy brief  to be shared with all IDP co -sponsors and stakeholders that 
provides a snapshot of the state of play on overseas development assistance on plastics pollution 
generally as well as that re lated to trade and trade -policy. The policy brief shows that there are 
numerous pathways for co -operation on Aid for Trade that will be vital to enabling developing and 
least-developed countries to address the trade -dimensions of plastic pollution. At TESS , we are 
hopeful that this topic will achieve attention in the next work programme of the Aid for Trade 
initiative, and we are heartened to hear that co -sponsors are working to have a special session on 
plastic pollution at the 2022 Aid for Trade Global Re view.  
Our colleagues from other IGOs have highlighted a number of areas where there are 
complementarities and synergies. Going forward, it will be important for the IDP to find ways to 
benefit from and work with UNCTAD on their work on plastic substitutes  and the circular economy 
as well as their work to support sustainable manufacturing in developing countries.  
At the WCO, there is both the opportunity to engage with process on HS reform and the potential to 
bolster collaboration with customs authorities  in monitoring and identifying plastics at the border. 
Another potential area worthy of exploration would be to see if there are ways to address 
unnecessary secondary plastic packaging that may be used as part of export and import procedures. 
This is an as pect of plastic packaging that has a very specific trade angle and the WCO may be 
uniquely positioned to support an exploration of that topic.  
Finally, our colleagues from UNEP mentioned the INC process for the negotiation of a new 
international instrumen t on plastic pollution. While trade is not mentioned specifically in the 
resolution, it is a topic highlighted for discussion in the multi -stakeholder dialogues that will take 
place as part of the Open -Ended Working Group (OEWG) at the end of May in Senega l. We encourage 
Members to speak up at the OEWG meetings on the importance of the challenges and opportunities 
linked to trade, supply chains and efforts to reduce plastic pollution. Ideally, the WTO Secretariat 
could also participate and contribute their expertise to the OEWG meeting.  When negotiations for 
the new treaty begin, a very specific issue on the agenda will be financial mechanisms for supporting 
action on plastic pollution in developing countries. Here too, there is a link to work on Aid for Tr ade 
that you are contemplating here.  
Work stream 2: Promoting trade to tackle plastic pollution:  
TESS would like to join others in thanking UNCTAD and UNEP for their excellent presentations today. 
TESS has been contributing to UNCTAD’s work on non -plastic substitutes and supports UNCTAD’s 
proposal for a workshop on this topic of substitutes for plastics and look forward to joining with other 
stakeholders in contributing our expertise if invited.  
One of the issues we did not hear so much about today but whi ch a number of delegations in the 
early stages of the IDP was that plastic substitutes may be of export interest to some developing 
countries and that they may also have a role in displacing plastic imports. That is, in domestic market 
place in some develo ping countries, there may be opportunities for communities that produce 
traditional packaging materials to replace imports while also supporting livelihoods in rural 
communities, including by generating employment for women.  
A really key part of promoting substitutes is to explore business models that reduce the use of 
plastics.  This topic may arise in discussion on this IDP workstream later today, but it is worth noting 
here because re -use and refill schemes are an approach to substituting plastics. Reuse  and refill 
schemes may require standardization of packaging and may also spur new re -use services and 
business models. The trade dimensions of re -use and re -fill models are only just beginning to be 
explored, but it would be useful in the IDP to devote so me attention to better understanding the 
trade and trade policy dimensions of promoting refill and reuse particularly across supply chains.  INF/TE/IDP/RD/62  
 
- 4 - 
 
  On promoting trade in environmentally sound recycling and waste management goods and services, 
we need to listen ca refully to developing countries on what they consider to be environmentally 
sound technologies particularly with regard to the health effects of different types of technologies 
and also in consideration of the livelihoods and health effects of workers in t he informal plastics 
waste collection and management sector. There have been important discussions about this in the 
UNEA context.  There is not a perfect set of technologies that can be used in all settings.  On the 
topic of promoting trade in environment al goods and services we will need to explore if there is a 
link to discussions on promoting trade in EGS in the TESSD context.   
Also on this topic of promoting environmental goods and services that can help tackle plastic 
pollution, it will be important to have a broad approach that considers tariff and non -tariff regulatory 
measures, standards as well as issues of technology transfer, financing and investment, which are 
all critical to how much and whether these technologies are actually useful and used in developing 
countries.  
On the issue of standards, the Philippines delegates has made an important point about false claims 
and greenwashing around the range of plastics that we see on the market. The WTO will not be 
place to develop regulations and standards on issues such as ec o-design and labelling on the material 
composition of plastic products, but it can be a place to foster understanding the tensions and the 
challenges related to cross -border cooperation on standards.  
Finally, I mentioned earlier the links between the IDP work streams on “promote” and on “reduce.” 
Something that you may want to consider is the role of major international distributors, shipping 
companies and retailers, all of which are drivers and vectors for a lot of unnecessary and harmful 
plastic packagin g. The IDP could consider how to better understanding opportunities from their 
perspective on how to promote re -use and re -fill schemes across international supply chains, for 
example, and how trade policies might help provide incentives in this respect.  
A final is that it may be useful to create a link between your discussions here on plastic pollution 
and transfer of technology, and the work of the WTO Working Group on Trade and Transfer of 
Technology.  
Work stream 3: Circularity and reduction to tackle plastic pollution  
TESS supports the idea, introduced by Colombia, of a voluntary survey on trade -related policies and 
measures related to plastic pollution, and look forward to analyzing the survey results. Such as 
survey would help Members and stakeholder s better understand the state of play and to identify 
ways countries might be able to co -operate going forward.  
On the theme of ‘reduce’, it is important to bear in mind that the work of the IDP and the wider 
global efforts to tackle plastic pollution are  advancing in the face of massive projected increases in 
the amount of plastics circulating in the global economy.  By 2040, current forecasts are for a 
doubling of the overall production of plastics globally. Predictions are for up to 2 000 million metric  
tonnes per year by 2050 if we continue on our current trajectory. That compares to 400 million 
metric tonnes per year in 2020.  
At TESS, we understand that plastics will continue to play a vital role in the economy. The key 
challenge is for us to make sur e if we are using plastics in a way that is safe, non -toxic and circular 
and that we only use them where they are necessary and where there are not environmentally sound 
and effective substitutes for them.  
Many countries are already working to reduce the production and use of unnecessary, harmful or 
problematic plastics. Some are focusing on single -use plastics, others on particular products, 
materials or additives that are harmful. The key point for us to bear in mind is that the production 
and consumptio n of plastics occurs across a range of different sectors. The implications of those 
plastics for the environment are different and the economic stakes vary for countries widely 
depending on the sector. What is clear is that that the plastics sector operate s internationally through 
trade, investment and integrated supply chains. No country acting alone will be able to successfully 
reduce the use or misuse of harmful, unnecessary or problematic plastics. It will require international 
co-operation and there wi ll be a trade piece to that puzzle. It is clear that there is considerable scope 
for more analysis. The plastics economy is vast, the range of products and materials are many. INF/TE/IDP/RD/62  
 
- 5 - 
 
  However, a key starting point is to examine what countries are already doing and  the policies they 
are implementing at the national level.  
One of the questions for today was on the trade and trade -policy measures that Members could take 
and what aspects require international cooperation. Looking ahead, this question is one of the cen tral 
ones for the IDP. We can start by looking at what countries are already doing. Following are some 
quick reminders of options that have been noted in past IDP discussions:  
• Members that have already banned or wish to phase out or restrict production or use of 
specific plastics could extend those same policies to their exports as well (i.e., do not export 
what you restrict domestically).  
• Members could focus attention on how they can co -operate on trade -related restrictions on 
specific problematic plastics  such as certain single -use plastics or hazardous plastics or 
unnecessary ones particularly in the area of plastic packaging.  
• A specific trade -related issue worthy of exploration is secondary plastic packaging used for 
the purposes of international transp ortation and distribution. Here, it is important to 
understand where such packaging might be necessary for particular hygiene, safety or other 
reasons or where there are certain requirements that one might be able to remove. That is, 
can we target a share of the plastic packaging that crosses borders internationally, but which 
is hidden and not captured in trade flow statistics. If you are an importing company or 
consumer, you might receive a product with packaging that is used only for transportation 
purpo ses. This is a complex area as there is broad array of packaging that can be directly 
associated with a good (such as pre -packaged goods) that require consideration and some 
has vital hygiene and food safety purposes. However, the suggestion here is to sta rt with 
just a piece of the puzzle, by exploring plastic packaging used for clearing customs, 
transportation and shipping. A key point to bear in mind when considering strategies for the 
transition to supply chains that use less plastics is that there will  be many producers around 
the world that will need to adapt to new packaging requirements, systems and so on. So, 
there will be a need to consider the kinds of support, technology and technical assistance 
that developing country producers and exporters wil l need in order to be able to compete in 
key export markets where there may be changing regulations around packaging.  
• Reducing certain uses of plastics across supply chains will require transparency and 
cooperation on the standards and labelling requiremen ts that different countries have. As 
noted earlier, the WTO is likely not place to set such standards, but it can be a place for 
deepening deepen understanding on how these standards vary across countries, the trade 
implications of that variation, and also  the implications for businesses and their incentives 
to invest in supply -chains and in products that use less plastic. We hear from a lot of 
businesses that this patchwork of regulatory requirements is something that slows them 
from making the transition to reduce unnecessary and problematic uses of plastic.  
Finally, it would be useful to consider work that IDP Members could spur or support among 
companies that are involved with international supply chains or plastics value chains. This could 
include effor ts by supply chain leaders to reduce excess use of packaging in their supply chains 
or to ensure the shipping of plastic pellets is better regulated to avoid the loss of plastic pellets 
at sea. We have also heard of major international shipping companies r efusing to ship plastic 
waste that do not meet a certain set of requirements. The point to underline here is that action 
by key actors in plastics value chains will be important to complement the work here that you 
are doing here.  
Thank you.  
__________