Recommendation: Defining an effective “plastics treaty” through national perspectives and visions during early negotiations — R0/PR2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With increased international concern over the pervasive plastic pollution problem, early negotiations to develop a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution (“the Plastics Treaty”) were supported by 175 member countries toward a sustainable plastics future. Defining features of the plastics treaty by UNEP member countries began in Punta del Este, Uruguay in November 2022 during the first session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-1). However, INC-1 ended with many unanswered questions regarding the structure, scope, and targets of the treaty. Sixty-seven member countries, including members of the High Coalition Ambition, submitted their objectives, guiding principles, and expectations for the treaty before the INC-2 negotiations while also suggesting measures for its effective implementation. This paper compiles submissions of the 67 member countries and evidence-based policymaking approaches that have been described in peer-reviewed and gray literature following INC-1, but before the INC-2 negotiations in Paris, France in June 2023. Recommendations for developing an effective plastics treaty by most member countries include incorporating the complete life cycle of plastics, promotion of transparency in global trade through uniform labeling measures, capping virgin plastic production, incorporating extended producer responsibility to develop a circular economy, and addressing hazardous chemicals in plastics. Suggested implementation measures include building a multilateral fund, supporting smaller countries with technology transfer, improving local stakeholder engagement, developing subsidiary bodies, and regular national reporting. Encouragingly, many of these national plans were proposed in the Zero Draft document released in September 2023 before INC-3 in Nairobi, Kenya in November 2023 and further developed in the revised draft text which served as the provisional agenda at INC-4 in April 2024 in Ottawa, Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".