Arms aloft, the president of the United Nations Environment Assembly triumphantly told delegates in Kenya: “Plastic pollution has grown into an epidemic. With today’s resolution, we are officially on track for a cure” in November 2023. Three years on, governments have not yet agreed on a global instrument to combat plastic waste, but the ambition and willingness remain. Success, however, is closely linked to systems change, which is urgently needed if we are to change the current trajectory.

Plastic remains closely intertwined with modern life. It keeps medicines and food safe and affordable, and it makes a vital contribution to the way we live, consume, work and travel. With it comes the issue of plastic waste. Yet, plastic waste is a solvable problem despite the scale and diversity of the challenge.

A future international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution could provide a coherent policy framework for industry, governments, civil society and financial institutions to carry out coordinated action. But that’s just the start. The key to success will be implementation of the instrument — deploying the solutions and funding the systems change needed to vastly improve waste management and increase recycling rates to drive a circular economy for plastics.

Prioritizing collaboration over compulsion

To achieve lasting change, the instrument must provide mechanisms to unlock financial support for waste management infrastructure and innovation. With an estimated $2.1 trillion needed by 2040 to eliminate plastic leakage into the environment, it is imperative that we look for innovative ways to mobilize capital from a diverse range of sources. Every dollar of capital committed to the right project can potentially catalyze ten times that amount from larger institutions.

Every dollar of capital committed to the right project can potentially catalyze ten times that amount from larger institutions.

The Alliance to End Plastic Waste has direct experience of this. To provide just one example, we made a critical loan to a women-led social enterprise in Indonesia that allowed it to navigate equity requirements and to secure a $44.9 million Asian Development Bank loan to develop a bottle-to-bottle recycling plant in Java.

Our work on the ground has demonstrated the significant potential of coordinated action and a systems-based approach. For example, by providing our technical expertise and financial support to the ASASE Foundation — a Ghana-based social enterprise that supports women entrepreneurs in managing plastic waste collection and recycling businesses — the foundation successfully developed a functional system and became a recipient of the World Bank’s Plastic Waste Reduction-Linked Bond. The bond provides investors with a financial return linked to plastic and carbon credits expected to be generated, allowing the ASASE Foundation to benefit from financing that significantly exceeds our initial investment.

In developed countries, where we are more focused on addressing plastic waste through technology, a coordinated approach has also been pivotal to progress. HolyGrail 2.0, a digital watermarking technology that we support, is a good example of this. The imperceptible codes contained in the watermarks and printed on plastic packaging carry information about the material and can be detected by high resolution cameras in sorting facilities to increase sorting accuracy and improve the quality of material bound for recycling. The project has involved significant collaboration across the plastics value chain, involving technology providers, sorting facilities, brands and governments, enabling the technology to be successfully proven in a series of industrial trials in Europe.

Reliable and consistent definitions and reporting metrics, both heavily discussed at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee sessions, are fundamental to the future instrument’s long-term and lasting impact. These will not only establish how much plastic is used, its purpose, the levels of waste and where it ends up, but also allow businesses and governments to develop the most impactful responses and introduce accountability.

Reliable and consistent definitions and reporting metrics […] are fundamental to the future instrument’s long-term and lasting impact.

They will also guard against a cumbersome ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach that underestimates the complexity of the plastic waste challenge and puts progress at risk. Indeed, the flexibility of countries to design action plans that acknowledge and address specific national circumstances is vital, as is the need for the treaty to encourage greater collaboration between nations and actors across the entire plastics ecosystem.

Resetting the dial

As an organization that is focused on developing and implementing solutions, we have learnt a lot over the past five years. As the world looks for how to scale practical solutions to the challenges of plastic waste, the alliance is concentrating on larger-scale efforts in the Global South where underdeveloped waste management infrastructure represents an outsized opportunity for plastic waste reduction. These programs, aligned with countries’ national priorities, will begin in India, Indonesia and South Africa — each receiving at least $100 million in collective financing. The scale of these efforts and their ability to provide a practical model that other nations can replicate will help to move countries up the recycling maturity curve.

In parallel, we will be carrying out significant efforts to tackle systemic plastic waste issues in the Global North with a focus on film and flexible plastics. Commonly used in packaging and consumer goods, flexible packaging is notoriously difficult to recycle. This is a problem for every consumer packaging goods company, retailer and municipality. The key to success will be bringing together all the different stakeholders of this complex ecosystem around a cohesive strategy.

A time for action

A fully circular economy for plastics can only be achieved through systems change. We are optimistic that the delegates at the upcoming negotiations in Geneva will create a framework to catalyze collaborative progress, but this is just one piece of the puzzle. What countries really need is the ability to implement the right solutions and infrastructure, which is only possible with cooperation across the entire plastics ecosystem.

What countries really need is the ability to implement the right solutions and infrastructure, which is only possible with cooperation across the entire plastics ecosystem.

More details of the Alliance’s work can be found on our website.

In return, the U.S. agreed to drop plans to revoke Chinese student visas. But the situation remains tense — at the G7 summit in Canada, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen accused China of “weaponizing” its leading position in producing and refining critical raw materials.

At the summit, Western leaders were expected to pledge to implement a “G7 critical minerals action plan.” But their statement didn’t name-check China, instead obliquely mentioning “non-market policies and practices in the critical minerals sector.”

“China has the upper hand in the short term,” said Philip Andrews-Speed, senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Beijing’s export controls are “much more powerful than a tariff that Trump is putting on,” he added.

Those controls — initially imposed in April and framed as a response to Trump’s tariffs — sparked outrage and alarm among industry bosses and officials in the U.S. and across the EU. They apply to all countries, requiring companies to be granted a license for each shipment.

Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič earlier this month called the situation “alarming” for the European car industry as well as for industry more broadly. “Rare earths and permanent magnets are absolutely essential for industrial production,” he argued, with the magnets an essential component in everything from smartphones, TVs and computers to car and wind turbine engines and defense applications.

Decades in the making

It’s a gambit Beijing has skillfully crafted for decades — and one that projected market developments are only set to buttress.

We’re pausing our live coverage

Thanks for following our live coverage of the war in Ukraine.

We’ll be back with any breaking news. Until then, here’s a rundown of what’s happened during the last 24 hours…

Huge overnight attacks

Russia launched its biggest overnight aerial attack of the war so far, with Ukraine’s air force saying a combined 550 drones and missiles were fired at the country.

Kyiv was under an all-night attack, injuring at least 23 people, damaging railway infrastructure and sparking fires across Ukraine’s capital, authorities said.

Russia said its forces successfully carried out strikes against military targets in the city.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the “cynical” attack began “almost simultaneously” with the start of yesterday’s phone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

Kremlin responds to Trump comments

Trump described his call with Putin as “disappointing,” adding that he did not believe the Russian leader wanted to end the war.

The Kremlin effectively confirmed that this morning, with spokesperson Dmitry Peskov saying that a diplomatic end to the war “does not appear possible” at the moment.

He added that Moscow was still waiting to coordinate the dates for a third round of peace talks with Ukraine.

Latest prisoner swap goes ahead

At the last round of talks, Ukraine and Russia agreed to several rounds of prisoner swaps, the latest of which happened today.

Zelenskyy said most of the prisoners who were returned to Ukraine today had been captured during the first year of the war.

In other news…

US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke for two hours on the phone today. It’s the third known time the two leaders spoke since Trump was inaugurated in January and comes as he has grown increasingly frustrated with the Russian president’s refusal to strike a peace deal with Ukraine.

Before talking to Putin, Trump spoke to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Here’s what we know about developments after the Trump-Putin call:

What Putin said: The Russian president said the conversation with Trump was “frank and substantive,” and thanked him for US support in “resuming the direct talks between Russia and Ukraine,” according to TASS. Putin also said Trump “expressed his position on the secession of hostilities, ceasefire, and from my end, I have emphasized that Russia stands for peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian crisis. We just need to outline the most effective routes of moving towards peace.” The two leaders did not discuss a timeframe for talks, a Kremlin spokesperson said.

What Trump said: “Russia and Ukraine will immediately start negotiations toward a Ceasefire and, more importantly, an END to the War,” Trump announced on Truth Social after his call. “The conditions for that will be negotiated between the two parties, as it can only be, because they know details of a negotiation that nobody else would be aware of.” Trump also said that the “tone and spirit” of his conversation with Putin “were excellent,” and that “Russia wants to do largescale TRADE” with the US when the war is over.

Trump informs allies: Trump also said on Truth Social that after his call with Putin ended, he immediately informed the following leaders about the contents of the call after it ended: Ukrainian President Zelensky, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Finnish President Alexander Stubb.

How Zelensky responded: Zelensky called for further sanctions on the Russian banking and energy sectors. He said a future location for a next round of talks — which would be aimed first at achieving a ceasefire — would be discussed. Zelensky also said Ukraine will not withdraw any of its troops from Russian-held regions of its country.

US-Russia prisoner swap: In addition to talking about the war in Ukraine, Putin and Trump also discussed a US-Russia prisoner swap, involving nine people for nine people, Kremlin presidential aide Yury Ushakov said.

Trump’s frantic week of peace brokering hints at what he really wants

16 May 2025 Share Save James Landale • @BBCJLandale Diplomatic correspondent Share Save

BBC

“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” So supposedly said the Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. The diplomatic whirlwind that has surrounded US President Donald Trump this week suggests the old Bolshevik might have been onto something. For the protectionist president, who promises always to put America First, has in recent days instead been busy bestriding the world stage. He and his team have done business deals in the Gulf; lifted sanctions on Syria; negotiated the release of a US citizen held by Hamas; ended military strikes on Houthi fighters in Yemen; slashed American tariffs on China; ordered Ukraine to hold talks with Russia in Turkey; continued quiet negotiations with Iran over a nuclear deal; and even claimed responsibility for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan… The pace has been breathless, leaving allies and opponents alike struggling to catch up as the US diplomatic bandwagon hurtled from issue to issue. “Just, wow!” remarked one London-based ambassador. “It is almost impossible to stay on top of everything that’s going on.” So what is going on? What have we learned in this frantic week about the US president’s emerging foreign policy? Is there something approaching a Trump doctrine – or is this just a coincidental confluence of global events?

Pomp and flattery in Saudi

A good place to start, perhaps, is the president’s visit to the Gulf where he set out – in word and deed – his vision for a world of interstate relations based on trade, not war. In a speech in Riyadh, Trump said he wanted “commerce not chaos” in the Middle East, a region that “exports technology not terrorism”. His was a prospect of a breezy, pragmatic mercantilism where nations did business deals to their mutual benefit, a world where profit can bring peace.

Getty Images In Saudi Arabia, Trump signed deals the White House claimed represented $600bn of investment in the US

As he enjoyed the flattery of his Saudi hosts and the obeisance of visiting dignitaries, the president signed – with his fat felt tip pen – deals that the White House claimed represented $600bn of investment in the US. This was Trump in all his pomp; applauded and rewarded with immediate wins he could sell back home as good for American jobs. Some diplomats privately questioned the value of the various memorandums of understanding. But the show, they said, was more important than the substance.

A ‘none of our business’ approach

Absent from Trump’s speech was any mention of possible collective action by the US and other countries; no talk of multilateral cooperation against the threat of climate change, no concerns about challenges to democratic or human rights in the region. This was a discourse almost entirely without reference to ideology or values except to dismiss their significance. Rather, he used his speech to Saudi leaders to make his clearest argument yet against Western interventionism of the past, attacking what he called “the so-called nation-builders and neo-cons” for “giving you lectures on how to live or how to govern your own affairs”. To the applause of his Arab audience, he said these “Western interventionists” had “wrecked more nations than they built”, adding: “Far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it’s our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use US policy to dispense justice for their sins. “I believe it’s God’s job to sit in judgement. My job is to defend America.”

AFP via Getty Images ‘My job is to defend America,’ Trump told audiences this week

That reluctance to intervene was on show in recent days when it came to the fighting between India and Pakistan. In the past, the US has often played a key role seeking to end military confrontations in the subcontinent. But the Trump White House was initially cautious about getting involved. Vice-President JD Vance told Fox News the fighting was “fundamentally none of our business… We can’t control these countries”. In the end, both he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio did make calls, putting pressure on both nuclear powers to de-escalate. So too did other countries. When the ceasefire was agreed, Trump claimed US diplomacy had brokered the deal. But that was flatly dismissed by Indian diplomats who insisted it was a bilateral truce.

Pros of policy in one man’s hands

The centrality of Trump to US foreign policy has also become apparent this week. This is more than just a simple truism. On show was the lack of involvement of other parts of the US government that traditionally help shape US decision-making overseas. Take the president’s extraordinary decision to meet Syria’s new president and former jihadist, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and lift sanctions on Syria. This showed the potential advantage of having foreign policy in one man’s hands: it was a decisive and bold step. And it was clearly the president’s personal decision, after heavy lobbying by both Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It was seen by some diplomats as the quid pro quo for the diplomatic fawning and investment deals Trump received in Riyadh. Not only did the decision surprise many in the region but it also surprised many in the American government. Diplomats said the State Department was reluctant to lift sanctions, wanting to keep some leverage over the new Syrian government, fearful it was not doing enough to protect minorities and tackle foreign fighters. Diplomats say this pattern of impulsive decision-making without wider internal government discussion is common in the White House. The result, they say, is not always positive.

AFP via Getty Images A billboard in Damascus, thanking Saudi Arabia and the US, after sanctions were lifted

This is due, in part, to Trump’s lack of consistency (or put simply, changing his mind). Take the decision this week to do a deal with China to cut tariffs on trade with the US. A few weeks ago Trump imposed 145% tariffs on Beijing, with blood thirsty warnings against retaliation. The Chinese retaliated, the markets plunged, American businesses warned of dire consequences. So in Geneva, US officials climbed down and most tariffs against China were cut to 30%, supposedly in return for some increased US access to Chinese markets. This followed a now-familiar pattern: issue maximalist demands, threaten worse, negotiate, climb down and declare victory.

Limitations of his ‘art of a deal’

The problem is that this “art of a deal” strategy might work on easily reversible decisions such as tariffs. It is harder to apply to longer term diplomatic conundrums such as war. Take Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. On this, Trump’s policy has been fluid, to put it mildly. And this week was a case in point. Last Saturday the leaders of the UK, France, Poland and Germany visited Kyiv to put on a show of support for Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. And in a group call with Trump on French President Emmanuel Macron’s phone, they spelled out their strategy of demanding Russia agree an immediate 30-day ceasefire or face tougher sanctions. This was Trump’s policy too. The day before he wrote on social media: “If the ceasefire is not respected, the US and its partners will impose further sanctions.” But then on Sunday, President Vladimir Putin suggested instead there should be direct talks between Ukraine and Russia in Turkey on Thursday. Trump immediately went along with this, backtracking on the strategy he had agreed with European leaders a day earlier.

AFP via Getty Images Some diplomats say they are confused by Trump’s approach to the war in Ukraine. (Pictured with Putin in 2019)

“Ukraine should agree to (these talks) immediately,” he wrote on social media. “I am starting to doubt that Ukraine will make a deal with Putin.” Then on Thursday, Trump changed his position again, saying a deal could be done only if he and Putin were to meet in person. This puzzles some diplomats. “Does he genuinely not know what he wants to do about the war in Ukraine?” one remarked to me. “Or does he just grasp at what might offer the quickest resolution possible?”

A snub to Netanyahu?

Into this puzzling mix fell two other decisions this week. First, Trump agreed a ceasefire after a campaign bombing Houthi fighters in Yemen for almost two months. There have been questions about the effectiveness of the hugely expensive air strikes, and the president’s appetite for a long military operation. He repeatedly told his Arab hosts how much he disliked war. Second, Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, held his fourth round of talks with Iran over efforts to curb their nuclear ambitions. Both sides are hinting that a deal is possible, although sceptics fear it could be quite modest. Talk of joint US-Israeli military action against Iran seems to have dissipated.

Getty Images Netanyahu appears to have been snubbed by Trump this week, according to some onlookers

What unites both issues is that the United States was acting directly against the wishes of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu may have been the first world leader invited to the Oval Office after Trump’s inauguration, but in recent days, he seems to have been snubbed. Trump toured the Middle East without visiting Israel; he lifted sanctions on Syria without Israel’s support. His Houthi ceasefire came only days after the group attacked Tel Aviv airport. Diplomats fear Netanyahu’s reaction. Could the spurned prime minister respond with a more aggressive military operation in Gaza?

Capitalism to overcome conflict

So after this week of diplomatic hurly burly, how much has changed? Perhaps less than might appear. For all the glitz of Trump’s tour through the Middle East, the fighting and humanitarian crisis in Gaza continues unresolved. A fresh Israeli offensive seems imminent. One of Trump’s chief aims – the normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia – remains distant. For all the talks about ending the war in Ukraine, there is no greater likelihood of the guns falling silent. Putin’s ambitions seem unchanged. And for all the deals to cut US tariffs, either with the UK or China, there is still huge global market instability.

Getty Images Despite deals to cut US tariffs, there is still huge global market instability

We do have a clearer idea of Trump’s global ideology, one that is not isolationist but mercantilist, hoping optimistically that capitalism can overcome conflict. We also have a clearer idea of his haste, his desire to clear his diplomatic decks – in the Middle East, Ukraine and the subcontinent – so he can focus on his primary concern, namely China. But that may prove an elusive ambition. If there are weeks when decades happen, there are also weeks when nothing happens.

Top picture credit: Getty Images