Closing the Information Gap in Global Plastics Governance: No Data, No Deal
Eliza Northrop and Emily Belonje
We are currently a little over a month away from what is intended to be the final negotiating session to develop the first global treaty to end plastic pollution. Next week, senior government negotiators will meet in Nairobi, Kenya over several days to try and unlock progress on key issues in advance of the final session.
Yet as negotiators prepare for these critical discussions, a fundamental challenge remains: most countries lack comprehensive data on their plastic production, consumption, and emissions into the marine environment. Without improving national data on plastics, even the most ambitious treaty will be implemented in the dark, making commitments difficult to properly measure and collective progress impossible to accurately understand.
To be effective and deliver on its promise of ending plastic pollution – any final treaty text must include a binding obligation to compile relevant national data on plastics.
High Expectations, Missing Foundations
Images shared across the world of plastic debris choking marine ecosystems—from deep mounds washed up on remote atolls to turtles ingesting shopping bags—have made this the most publicly visible of the major issues facing the ocean.
The resulting global attention has created high expectations for meaningful progress toward a robust solution.
In March 2022, a historical resolution was adopted at the 5th session of the United Nations Environment Assembly – End plastic pollution: towards an international legally binding instrument (UNEA 5/14), recognizing that “the high and rapidly increasing levels of plastic pollution represent a serious environmental problem at a global scale, negatively impacting the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainable development”. It initiated an international negotiating processes (referred to as an International Negotiating Committee (INC)) to develop and adopt a legally binding instrument on plastic pollution based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastics.
This treaty was meant to be concluded at the end of last year, but Parties could not reach agreement on fundamental issues in the agreement, namely the inclusion of production and consumption stages in the scope of the agreement, a legally binding obligation to phase out the most problematic plastic products and chemicals of concern in plastic products and the need for effective means of implementation and accessible, new and additional financing.
The upcoming INC5.2, in Geneva, Switzerland from 5th to 14th of August may be our last shot to change the current trajectory of plastic pollution. Pressure is mounting, including a “wake up call” from 95 countries, to ensure we leave Geneva with a treaty that meets global expectations to adequately tackle the plastic pollution problem.
To deliver on these expectations, any new treaty must embed requirements for transparency and accountability. However, the current text lacks clear and binding provisions for comprehensive data collection, reporting, and monitoring—elements that have proven essential to the success of existing Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). Without these provisions, we face a treaty that may be ambitious in rhetoric but impossible to implement or evaluate in practice.
International environmental agreements without robust data frameworks are like sailing ships without navigational instruments—they may look impressive, but they cannot reliably reach their destination.
Central Role of Data in Environmental Governance
All environmental agreements face a fundamental challenge: how to measure progress toward complex, global objectives and enable regular opportunities to course correct or increase ambition. Existing environmental agreements demonstrate that comprehensive data systems are the operational backbone of effective environmental governance. Without mechanisms to measure, report, and verify progress, even well-intentioned agreements struggle to move beyond aspirational language to concrete implementation.
To this end, a systematic review of four multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs)—the Basel Convention, Minamata Convention on Mercury, Paris Agreement, and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants —reveals several consistent approaches to data collection and reporting.
Universal Data Requirements
All examined MEAs explicitly require parties to collect relevant data, establish national inventories, monitor progress, and report findings to their respective secretariats or Conference of the Parties (COPs).
This universality suggests that data collection is viewed as a fundamental requirement rather than an optional element.
The Basel Convention, for example, requires parties to transmit annual reports containing "information regarding transboundary movements of hazardous wastes," including detailed data on amounts, categories, characteristics, destinations, and disposal methods (Article 13 Basel Convention). Similarly, the Minamata Convention mandates that parties "establish and maintain an inventory of emissions and releases from relevant sources" within five years of the Convention's entry into force (Article 8 and 9, Minamata Convention on Mercury).
Data collection and centralisation in these agreements serves dual purposes. First, it establishes baseline measurements against which progress can be tracked over time. Second, it enables evaluation of policy effectiveness, creating feedback loops for continuous improvement.
The Stockholm Convention exemplifies this approach by requiring parties to develop "source inventories and release estimates" (Article 5, Stockholm Convention) that both inform action plans and provide the basis for ongoing assessment of progress toward reducing releases of persistent organic pollutants.
Standardised Methodologies
In addition to obligations for the collection and compilation of data, the MEAs examined also recognise the importance of harmonised methodologies and approaches. The Paris Agreement requires national inventory reports to be "prepared using good practice methodologies accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties" and the Conference of the Parties (Article 13 Paris Agreement).
This standardization serves multiple purposes: ensuring data quality, enabling meaningful comparisons between countries, and facilitating the aggregation of national data into global assessments.
Time-Bound Obligations for Reporting
Lastly, successful agreements consistently include specific timeframes for reporting. The Minamata Convention requires emissions inventories to be established "no later than five years after the date of entry into force" (Articles 8 and9, Minamata Convention). The Basel Convention mandates annual reporting "before the end of each calendar year" (Article 13, Basel Convention)
These clear deadlines create structured opportunities to assess collective action through regular assessment cycles. The Paris Agreement's Global Stocktake mechanism demonstrates how individual national data can be aggregated to assess collective progress toward shared goals. The outcomes of this Global Stocktake then informs the next round of nationally determined contributions, ensuring a cycle of increased action which is informed by data.
This process transforms individual national actions into a coordinated global response by providing a clear picture of overall progress, identifying implementation gaps, and informing future commitments.
Implications for the Global Plastics Treaty
The consistent presence of comprehensive data requirements across successful environmental agreements suggests several considerations for the ongoing plastics treaty negotiations.
Methodological Harmonisation: The emphasis on standardised methodologies in existing agreements highlights the importance of comparable data collection approaches. This ensures that national data can be meaningfully aggregated and compared at the global level.
National Inventory Development: Existing MEAs typically require parties to establish and maintain national inventories relevant to their specific environmental focus. For a plastics treaty, this might involve tracking production, import, export and discharge into the marine environment across the plastics lifecycle. These inventories could be improved over time, ensuring flexibility for countries that need it as they build their capacity and new, predictable and accessible finance to support capacity building and technology transfer.
Flexibility would need to be ensured for countries to avoid undue burden. This could be facilitated through a tiered methodology, as followed under the UNFCCC.
Global Assessment Mechanisms: The success of mechanisms like the Paris Agreement's Global Stocktake suggests the value of periodic global assessments that aggregate national data to evaluate collective progress toward shared objectives.
Regular Reporting Cycles: The time-bound reporting obligations found in existing MEAs create structured accountability mechanisms. Regular reporting cycles enable continuous monitoring of progress and early identification of implementation challenges.
Looking to Geneva
As the negotiations enter their final stage, at INC5.2 in August the importance of including requirements for data collection and reporting must not be lost.
The experience of existing environmental agreements demonstrates that comprehensive data collection and reporting systems are integral to effective environmental governance. These precedents offer valuable guidance on how to structure data requirements that support both national implementation and global coordination.
This is not merely a technical issue but a fundamental prerequisite for the treaty's success.
The consistent approach across diverse environmental challenges—from hazardous waste to climate change to persistent organic pollutants—suggests that robust data frameworks represent a fundamental requirement for effective environmental treaties.
If we are serious about addressing the plastic pollution crisis, we must begin by ensuring we have the data systems necessary to understand its scope, track our progress, and hold parties accountable. Without this foundation, even the most ambitious treaty language will remain empty promises and fail community expectations for real, measurable and ultimately visible change.
The time for rhetoric is past. Now is the time for rigorous, data-driven action.