‘As the process for arriving at the legally binding instrument continues, we must confront a foundational truth: that justice is not an add-on to the instrument after it has been negotiated; it is the transition itself.’
By Jacob Johnson Attakpah, Green Africa Youth Organisation (GAYO)
Concerned by the vast amount of plastics surrounding us, both on land and at sea, the global community, gathered in Nairobi in March 2022, agreed to develop a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. Many have now referred to it as the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to tackle a menace that was birthed with the genuine intent of solving the problem that infiltrated our homes, schools, lives, and everywhere.
What is now known as the Global Plastics Treaty has brought together governments, corporations involved in plastic polymers and plastic production, scientists, Indigenous peoples, informal workers, waste pickers and civil society organizations, all focused on shaping the most significant multilateral environmental agreement since the Paris Climate Accord. While negotiations are progressing (very slowly), an uncomfortable question lingers in the minds and presses upon the hearts of many: Will this treaty honestly present an opportunity for a just transition, or are we merely transitioning?
While many view plastic pollution as an environmental crisis and sometimes a climate crisis, that is not the whole picture. In all the murkiness, there is also a question of justice. From waste pickers in Bangalore to the coastal communities of Ghana, millions of people who had no hand in creating this monster of a plastics crisis have had to live with its consequences and will likely continue to do so if we keep up business as usual. Notwithstanding this, the communities living with these impacts are being sidelined in the process of negotiating a treaty that will ensure a pollution-free future for them and the generations to come. Well-meaning stakeholders are constantly on edge, fearing that the treaty may overlook inclusion and accountability in favor of prioritizing global recycling supply chain efficiencies and mere waste management approaches that have historically failed to curb the plastics crisis.
In ensuring this treaty drives fundamental transformation, we must confront the difficult questions about power asymmetry, participation, and justice. This is because a transition that is not grounded in justice is not one worth calling progress.
Defining a Just Transition in the Plastics Context
A just transition in the context of the Global Plastics Treaty means reimagining the plastics economy in ways that are environmentally sustainable, economically sound, and socially equitable.
It centres people, not just products or profits. At its core, this concept demands inclusive decision-making, recognition of informal and frontline workers, particularly waste pickers, many of whom are women, and equitable access to resources and opportunities across the plastics value chain. It means shifting from extractive, linear systems toward regenerative, circular models that prioritizes reuse and refill and restores ecological balance whilst ensuring dignity and decent work for all.
Above all else, the International Alliance of Waste Pickers (IAWP) demands that for this treaty to be just there must be national laws that require the Universal registration of waste pickers and other workers in plastics value chains, recognition of waste pickers within informal and cooperative settings in national, provincial, and municipal legislations and norms, policies and laws, direct involvement and advancement in policy making and implementation processes among many others.
In practical terms, a just transition calls for redistributive policies, funding for community-led initiatives, and legal protections for workers transitioning out of harmful roles. It also requires confronting the geopolitical inequalities embedded in global plastics trade, where the Global South often bears the brunt of pollution from products manufactured and consumed elsewhere, yet are exported to us under the guise of recycling feedstock when in fact it is waste colonialism. Trade injustices worsen the plastic crisis, and a just treaty must enforce an end to such exploitative practices by setting global standards on trade in plastic waste, prohibiting transboundary shipments of unrecyclable materials, and holding exporting nations accountable for the end-of-life impacts of the products they create and or export.
A just transition in plastics is not merely about managing waste; it is about transforming systems of production and power, rethinking systems, and redesigning products to meet safe environmental standards, not just a label slapped on packaging.
Are We “Just Transitioning” Instead?
Many have called the plastics treaty a necessity of international urgency; however, there is an existential threat that the process will run its course without properly addressing the issue of justice and may only turn out to be “just” in name. There has been the platforming of bio-based polymers, bioplastics, and other false solutions that do not address the central theme of the socio-economic dimension of the plastic crisis. In effect, we may have on our hands a transition that will put false solutions (incineration, chemical recycling, etc) and corporate (polluter) interests ahead of the rights, livelihoods and voices of frontline communities.
This trend has been revealed by the persistent marginalization of informal waste workers from treaty discussions under the guise of “it’s a member-state-led process”. Waste pickers are the backbone of recycling systems in many countries. Yet, they face displacement, increased hazards, and a lack of social protection as formal waste management systems expand without their inclusion and integration. Without the treaty securing binding social safeguards, equitable, accessible, available, and adequate financing mechanisms, and mechanisms for accountability, the transition risks replicating existing inequalities under a different guise.
In essence, we risk “just transitioning”; moving forward in form, but lacking significantly in equity.
What Would a Truly Just Plastics Treaty Look Like?
If we dig to the core of a truly just global plastics treaty, what we should find are equity, human rights, accountability, and systemic transformation, rather than waste management solutions that have failed woefully over the past decades. The first step in realizing this will be to acknowledge the asymmetry in contributions to and the impacts of plastic pollution. Waste pickers and informal workers, frontline communities exposed to harmful chemicals and emissions from dumpsites and incineration, as well as a vast majority of communities in the global south, bear the greatest burden.
Such a treaty would embed social protection and human rights at its core through a mandatory article on just transition. This includes provisions that formally recognize and support informal waste workers through inclusion in decision-making, fair compensation, improved working conditions, and access to quality healthcare. It would also ensure a fair phase-out of harmful plastics by offering reskilling and transition pathways for workers in polluting sectors while eliminating PFAS, otherwise known as forever chemicals, and other toxic additives in plastics.
Additionally, a just treaty would require wealthier nations and plastic polymer-producing corporations to bear a greater financial burden through binding commitments to providing adequate and readily accessible finance, technology transfer, technical assistance, and capacity building. To prevent waste colonialism and outsourcing harms to lower-income countries, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks must be designed with robust safeguards.
More importantly, the treaty process must elevate and take into account voices from affected communities, particularly women, youth, indigenous people, and informal sector workers. Only by redistributing power, resources, and responsibility can we ensure that the treaty is not just a transition, but a just one.
Equally critical to a just transition is the integration of intergenerational equity. Young people, especially those in frontline communities, will inherit the legacy of decisions made today. Yet, their voices remain underrepresented mainly in treaty negotiations. While we have seen significant potential in youth-led innovations for reuse models, sustainable alternatives, and community education, these innovations require institutional support, sustainable funding, and increased visibility. A truly just plastics treaty must guarantee meaningful youth participation, both as future custodians of the planet and present-day co-creators of solutions. Their inclusion ensures that the treaty reflects the long-term vision necessary to safeguard environmental integrity for future generations.
Justice is the Transition
As the process for arriving at the legally binding instrument continues, we must confront a foundational truth: that justice is not an add-on to the instrument after it has been negotiated; it is the transition itself. If we fail to address justice, we would have successfully reinvented the wheel, perpetuating the same systems of exploitation and exclusion that led us to the UNEA 5/14 declaration in March 2022. To realize an effective and durable solution, we must move beyond phasing out problematic, avoidable, and single-use plastic to revolutionizing the socio-economic structures that fuel overproduction and overconsumption, waste colonialism, and environmental inequality. What this looks like is drastically shifting power to the communities most affected by pollution, reimagining the post-plastics economy by integrating social and environmental buffers, and opening up the treaty space to those who have been historically marginalized, giving them a fair chance to shape the global response we so badly need.
We cannot manage (and waste) our way out of this crisis; if we could, we would not be here. The treaty must design new economic models based on toxic-free circularity, solidarity, and sustainability.
We run the risk of transitioning into new systems that may seem different but will regurgitate the old harm if we fail to plant justice at the heart of this process. However, should we succeed, the future instrument could make a mark as an architectural prototype for a resilient world where environmental solutions uplift people, protect the planet, and reimagine prosperity for all.
ENDS.
