What’s up with the global plastics treaty?

December 22, 2022

December 13, 2022


Today's guest blog is authored by Jon Smieja of the GreenBiz Group. The original post can be read here.


According to Pew and SystemIQ, plastic flows into the ocean are expected to triple by 2040. Immediate action, though, could stem the tide by more than 80 percent.


That’s why when nearly 200 countries agreed to work toward a treaty to end the plastic pollution crisis in March, the circularity community cheered. That cheering, of course, was tempered by the fact that there is a long way to go and likely a lot of compromises to be made. Fortunately for all of us waiting, the International Negotiating Committee (INC) meetings have started. Earlier this week, I caught up with Erin Simon of World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Dave Ford of the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network (OPLN), both of whom were in Uruguay for INC-1, to learn more about the process.


First off, let me start by saying how amazing it is that we are at this point. The unanimous decision in Nairobi to start the treaty process was monumental. Even more amazing is that they chose the aggressive starting point of focusing on the whole lifecycle of plastics rather than just waste management. With multiple proposals on the table back then, the parties could have just as easily started with a less ambitious proposal. When I asked about this, Simon said, "we’re feeling hopeful because we have a better chance at success since the negotiation process is already inclusive of many of the elements WWF sees as necessary." As we know from recent political trends, it is important to start on strong ground and let the negotiations bring you back toward reality rather than conceding too much out of the gate.


There are two major reasons member states didn’t settle for less, according to Simon. "Countries already have broad alignment on the severity of the issue and the risk of both inaction and delayed response," Simon said. "That's amazing." Secondly, and very importantly, members of the business community came out in favor of the more aggressive approach and have been visible proponents of something meaningful from the start.


Where are we now?


Today, INC-1 is in the rearview mirror and reports are starting to come out about what happened there and what it means for future negotiations. A few things are clear from my conversations with Simon and Ford:

To some extent, these negotiations have precedent, like the Montreal Protocol and the Paris Agreement, that they can use to guide discussions toward the best outcomes.


These first couple of INC meetings will focus largely on nation states’ starting points and the process and procedures that will be used to narrow in on a specific agreement. As Ford put it, "you can feel stuck in the mud at times at this big picture stage of the process" as the early negotiations are more or less laying the groundwork and sequencing for future meetings, "but all of this hard work at the beginning is slowly getting the ball rolling downhill for the hard work to come at future INCs."


Many stakeholders are interested in the process. A multi-stakeholder forum held the day before INC-1 drew more than 1,000 individuals. Engaging external stakeholders in the negotiations will continue to be important throughout the process, but is likely to get more difficult as details are hammered out between the international delegates.


To be clear, this will not be an easy process. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten a group of 10 people to agree on something as simple as dinner, much less an international delegation of more than 150 nation states to agree on a treaty that could forever change our interaction with plastics.


There will be winners, losers, power struggles, geopolitical arguments and likely some very frustrated civil society organizations and activists. With that in mind, let’s check in on some major sticking points early in the process.

The continuum of starting points


To say there is a lot of work to do would be an understatement. According to Simon and Ford, each nation state and major stakeholder in this conversation is starting from a unique spot on a continuum. On one end are those stakeholders pushing for National Action Plans (NAPs) where each country is, on its own, responsible to meet the criteria of the treaty. NAPs are the organizing method for meeting the Paris Agreement requirements and are seen by many activists as ineffective in dealing with large, global problems. On the other end are those stakeholders focused on global measures, including a cohort of more than 40 countries known as the High Ambition Coalition. In other words, they favor a coordinated effort across the world that could affect global supply chains and policies. Of course, with over 160 nation states in the discussion, you can imagine dots all over the middle of the continuum as well.


When I asked Simon about the difference between NAPs and global measures, she simply said, "You can imagine how much more coordinated these global supply chains will be if their targets for improvement are focused on the same outcomes." I take that to mean that global measures are likely to drive the massive changes we need more efficiently than country-specific NAPs. Global measures can also help the largest companies focus their efforts across countries and regions for the best outcomes. That being said, countries come to these negotiations knowing full well what is possible politically in their nation and will have a set starting position, from where they will negotiate accordingly.


Engaging stakeholders


In any international treaty process, there are likely to be stakeholders that will be underrepresented in the final negotiations who will also be the ones that will bear the brunt of any failures of the treaty to meet its goals.


There were positive signs for engaging communities at INC-1. First, as mentioned earlier, there was a full day of external engagement before the gathering started. Second, many groups were represented in the meetings throughout the week including fenceline communities, an Indigenous coalition, youth representatives and a group representing the informal waste sector.


This is all incredibly important, but will likely be difficult to maintain. As the INC meetings move from early phase discussions to nuts and bolts negotiations, nation state representatives are likely to narrow their focus on political jockeying, causing opportunities to hear from external stakeholders to decrease. As a result, it is important for these groups to have a loud voice in the discussions now and make their demands for the final treaty clear.   


What’s next?


The entirety of the negotiating process is slated to play out over the next two years with five INC meetings on the calendar. The last scheduled meeting will take place in December 2024 with the hope that a full treaty will be ratified shortly after. The next INC, however, is slated for spring and, according to Ford, will likely still include a lot of codifying the macro rules of negotiation before the nation states can start to engage in the minutia of final treaty language.


I’ll keep you updated here with the passing of each INC, but if you’d like to learn more about the first edition directly from folks who were there, you can sign up to join Ocean Plastics Leadership Network’s open dialogue meeting from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. EST Monday by registering here.


Here are more resources on the global plastics treaty for your enjoyment:

First session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-1) Quick Guide (World Wildlife Fund, 11/2022)

Towards a treaty to end plastic pollution: Global rules to solve a global problem (World Wildlife Fund, 11/2022)

Earth Negotiations Bulletin Recap of INC-1 (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 12/2022)

Business Coalition for a plastics treaty

UNEP homepage of the INC process

Erin Simon on the main stage at Circularity 22.



Disclaimer: Guest blogs represent the opinion of the writers and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.

Share Post

Maryland PaintCare Program Becomes 13th State-Wide Paint Recycling Program

By PaintCare • March 31, 2026
Marylanders can now recycle their leftover paint with PaintCare ! PaintCare is a nonprofit organization that plans and operates paint stewardship programs in states that have passed the paint stewardship law. The Maryland PaintCare program launched on April 1, 2026, making it the thirteenth jurisdiction to pass paint stewardship legislation. With the addition of Maryland, PaintCare now serves one-third of the U.S. population. PaintCare operates a network of over 100 drop-off sites across the state where households and businesses can recycle their leftover paint at no additional cost. Most drop-off sites are located at local paint retailers, making it convenient for Marylanders to responsibly dispose of their leftover paint. To find a drop-off site near you, visit the drop-off site locator on PaintCare’s website. PaintCare offers a large volume pickup (LVP) service, which provides free pickups of 100 gallons or more of eligible paint products. Those with large quantities of paint are encouraged to use this service to responsibly dispose of leftover paint. Large volume pickups can be requested through the large volume pickup request form. The paint stewardship law requires a fee, called the PaintCare fee, to be added to the purchase price of new paint. The fee is based on container size and funds all aspects of the program. This includes paint collection and recycling, consumer education, and program administration. The PaintCare fee in Maryland is as follows:

A greener goal, at a cost: recycling in Arlington is no longer free

By Brynn O'Connor | Your Arlington • March 26, 2026
As the cost of recycling continues to rise across the country, the community will decide how to cover the costs at the ballot box this weekend. Arlington is an environmentally conscientious community. It’s been ranked at number two in a list of the “ top 10 greenest towns ” in Massachusetts. Town leaders, employees, and residents have created climate goals and are putting policies in place to achieve them, such as electrifying transportation , building energy-efficient homes , and expanding recycling across the town. So when the town announced at the beginning of the year that paper cups would be added to the list of recyclable items , many celebrated it as a step toward a greener Arlington. Environmentally speaking, it is something to celebrate. But at a time when recycling is becoming more expensive than ever, the question arises: Is this progress the town can afford? “The recycling commodity market continues to falter, with our recyclables generating less and less revenue to offset the cost of their processing,” Town Manager Jim Feeney wrote in an email to YourArlington. The collapse of the recycling market The pivotal shift of the recycling market dates back to January 2018, when China, the largest importer of waste, enacted its National Sword policy ; extreme limitations on shipments which denied recyclables mixed with trash, the wrong type of and low-quality recyclables. At the beginning of this year, Feeney spoke at the Jan. 12 Select Board meeting to discuss the town’s trash and recycling budget for fiscal year 2026, during which he explained the recycling streaming costs and consequences of the declining commodity values. “Now, we have to pay roughly $125 per ton to have our recycling stream processed at a Materials Recovery Facility, also known as a M.R.F.” Feeney explained during the meeting. A new contract, a new reality As many in town now know, the town signed a new waste hauler contract with Waste Management , effective as of July 2025. With this new contract, according to Feeney, the town now owns its recyclables and can profit from the materials it collects, but only when commodity prices are strong. When municipalities send their waste products to MRFs, the blended value of their commodities, from cardboard, plastics, mixed paper, and more, is subtracted from the charge per ton, meaning the town’s final tab depends on the strength of the recycling market. “If the blended value exceeds the charge, the town would see the revenue… if it doesn’t, then we pay the net difference between the two,” said Feeney in the meeting. From $0 to $500,000 In January 2025, when the town was still bidding and receiving proposals for its new solid waste contract, the market value for the blended commodity items was approximately $67 (see diagram on Your Arlington website). Meaning, Arlington had both expected and budgeted to pay $58 per ton to process its recyclables. In addition to China’s National Sword policy, the country is currently in a “K-shaped” economic recovery following the Covid-19 pandemic, which has resulted in fewer household sales, fewer packages, and fewer shipping boxes. According to the Northeast Recycling Council , in 2025, commodity values went down for every recyclable item. “Through the first five months of fiscal year 2026, we’ve been paying, on average, $100 per ton to process our recycling,” Feeney said. In a report sent to YourArlington, Feeney estimated that if current trends continue, the town could face at least $185,000 in additional costs in fiscal year 2026, based on roughly 4,400 tons of recycling. The report indicates the town could spend as much as $500,000 to handle its recyclables this fiscal year—a striking increase from fiscal year 2025, when those costs were effectively zero. Before signing the new waste hauler contract, Arlington relied on JRM Hauling for trash and recycling collection – which was acquired by Republic Services in 2022. Under this contract, the hauler covered the recycling processing fees. While many municipalities have been faced with the effects of the declining recycling market for years, Feeney explained why Arlington has been insulated by a buffer that protected the town’s budget until this recent fiscal year. “Our old waste hauler [JRM] was looking for a contract extension prior to their acquisition by Republic. We agreed to the extension at the time, but only under the same terms, so we experienced an additional three years without bearing a cost for processing our recycling.” Covering the cost: what residents should know With Arlington’s recycling shifting from being cost free to a major budget burden, the issue at hand is how the community will cover these rising costs — a decision that may ultimately come down to how residents vote in this weekend’s town election. Feeney wrote that there may be a fee increase in the future for residents who request a second recycling cart from Waste Management, but otherwise, the town does not have plans to introduce a new recycling fee or raise taxes specifically to cover these costs. “At present we are absorbing this cost into the existing budget, and have updated budget projections for the upcoming fiscal years to reflect this experience,” Feeney wrote in an email to YourArlington. Recycling and trash collection are paid for out of the town’s General Fund, which also supports schools and other municipal services. That means the rising cost of recycling is factored into the town’s overall budget, including the proposed $14.8 million tax override on this year’s ballot . Balancing cost and climate goals While the outcome of this weekend’s vote could shape how these costs are managed, early data is already offering a look at how Arlington’s new recycling and trash collection system has been working. According to Feeney, early tonnage numbers have indicated that the town is experiencing a decrease in both trash and recycling waste streams under the new cart program. However, there has been a more “pronounced decrease” on the trash side than recycling—an encouraging sign that disposal costs could fall and help offset the new recycling expenses. The town now faces a crossroads where its environmental goals meet budget limitations and shifting markets—and where the cost of recycling is measured not just in good intentions, but in dollars. Read article on Your Arlington's webiste.

Maine, Maryland pursue PFAS biosolids remedies amid landfill capacity concerns

By Megan Quinn | Waste Dive • March 26, 2026
Northeastern states concerned with contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in sewage sludge are moving forward with new projects and proposed legislation meant to better manage the material in 2026 and beyond. During a Northeast Recycling Council webinar on Wednesday, officials from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Maryland Department of the Environment offered updates on how their states are managing PFAS in sludge. They also offered perspectives on how looming landfill capacity issues, proposed infrastructure projects and state legislation could influence how these states — and neighboring states — handle this material in the immediate term. Disposal capacity concerns prompt infrastructure plans in Maine Maine has been in the spotlight for several years for how it handles PFAS in sludge and in landfill leachate in the state. It was the first state to ban the land application of sewage sludge in 2022, and several projects are moving forward in 2026 that are meant to manage regional disposal capacity for the material as landfill space dwindles. That pressure on disposal capacity is expected to build as more Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states consider similar sludge fertilizer prohibitions due to PFAS concerns, said Susanne Miller, Maine DEP’s director of the bureau of remediation and waste management. “Right now, everything’s going to a landfill because there’s nowhere else to put it in Maine, and this is a big problem,” she said. Casella Waste, which operates the state’s Juniper Ridge Landfill, has been seeking a landfill expansion for several years, but that matter has been tied up in court. “Without an expansion, it’s going to be running out of capacity in about 2028 which is just around the corner.” One project to address capacity issues is the state’s first biosolids dryer , which is being built at WM’s Crossroads Landfill to reduce liquid volume of the material. That project, originally expected to come online sometime in 2025, is now expected to open in the second quarter of 2026, Miller said. It has a capacity of up to 200 tons a day and up to 73,000 tons a year. That project could handle up to 83% of Maine’s municipally generated biosolids, she said. The dryer is meant to help create a closed-loop system, she said. Sludge from wastewater plants will be treated in the dryer, and landfill leachate and dryer liquids will be treated onsite via a foam fractionation system that is already in operation at the landfill, she said. Treated water goes to a nearby wastewater plant, and sludge from that wastewater plant then returns to the dryer. Another proposed PFAS management project, a sludge processing plant by Aries Clean Technologies, could also be in the works in coming months. It aims to use a gasification and oxidization process to remove PFAS from sewage material and significantly reduce biosolids volumes in the process. The company built a similar facility in New Jersey in 2024. The project is currently under permit review, which Miller said will likely include a DEP review, public comment period and public hearing. The proposal has faced some public pushback over potential traffic, odor and pollution concerns, Maine Public reported . “With any kind of new technology relating to waste or that takes in a waste stream, there’s controversy and concern about it, and so we need to go through the entire permitting process to get to the point where the department is able to determine if an application can be granted,” Miller said. Meanwhile, the Portland Water District, which Miller says is Maine’s largest wastewater treatment facility, is also exploring its own treatment system for sludge. It’s an effort to reduce reliance on limited landfill capacity and unpredictable disposal costs, she said. The water district is considering a few different technologies like anaerobic digestion, drying and thermal treatments such as pyrolysis to reduce the amount of biosolids for disposal. “With the prices going up to go to landfill and the space at landfills shrinking, they want to take destiny into their own hands,” she said. According to DEP, several other sewer districts are working on similar projects. York Sewer District is planning a 2028 pilot project meant to use supercritical water oxidation technology to help destroy PFAS and reduce wastewater sludge volume. Meanwhile, landfill operators in the state have been subject to new PFAS leachate testing rules since September. A new law requires operators to test for PFAS in landfill leachate and report results annually to DEP. Wastewater dischargers that accept leachate must also maintain leachate records to report to DEP each year. Though these projects hold promise, Miller emphasized that source control efforts are just as important to reduce the amount of PFAS-containing materials entering landfills and being treated at wastewater treatment plants. The state has already passed laws that phase out intentionally added PFAS in certain products, with the list of applicable products expanding through the next few years to include artificial turf and outdoor gear by 2029 and most types of products by 2032. Maryland moves forward with biosolids ban bill Maryland is focusing on its own efforts related to PFAS in biosolids through new regulations and state legislation, said Thomas Yoo, chief of MDE’s biosolids division. The state generates about 600,000 wet tons of sewage sludge a year, and about 56% of that is hauled out of state for either land application or landfilling, mainly to Virginia and Pennsylvania, he said. Maryland has about 250 agricultural sites that are permitted to take sewage sludge, but in 2023 the state put a hold on issuing any new land application permits. It also began requesting PFAS data from out-of-state permittees bringing biosolids into the state and terminated permits for those that did not provide that data, he said. Maryland also requires all wastewater treatment plants where land applied biosolids originate to sample for PFOS and PFOA . About 50 biosolids generators are submitting this data, he said. The state already has recommended limits for PFAS in land applications , but a bill moving through the state legislature, SB 719 , would set enforceable limits starting in 2027. The bill calls for prohibiting land application for sludge that has a total concentration of PFOA and PFOS above 50 parts per billion and calls for other source tracking and mitigation plan measures. The neighboring state of Virginia passed a set of bills on March 11 with a similar intent. If signed by the governor, the bills would regulate the levels of PFAS in biosolids and would prevent the use of biosolids as fertilizer beginning in 2027 if levels of PFOA and PFOS are too high. Yoo says Maryland will continue to focus on state-level options for managing PFAS in biosolids as it awaits U.S. EPA guidance on the matter. The EPA released a draft risk assessment in January 2025 that found farmers who used the sludge may be at risk of exposure, but consumers who eat food from those sources may face less risk. The draft report says certain PFAS may leach from sludge when it’s land applied, disposed of in a landfill, or incinerated. The agency has not yet finalized the assessment. Read the article of Waste Dive