Next week Geneva will host delegates from almost every corner of the globe for what is billed as the final round of talks on a “legally binding” Plastic Treaty.
Do not be fooled by the lofty rhetoric. Each delegation arrives armed not with solutions for our shared future, but with spreadsheets of national interests, red-lines, and back-channel deals. The well-oiled bloc of Saudi Arabia and other petro-states is already lining up to dilute caps on virgin-plastic production; major exporting economies want loopholes that keep trade flows friction-free; consumer nations are fighting to dump responsibility on producers—and everyone else is searching for friendly flags to stand behind while isolating the ones they dislike.
In principle the UN secretariat should corral this cacophony into a coherent, forward-looking text. Instead, insiders describe a process adrift: no roadmap for trimming the hundreds of bracketed options, no vision for building on the few areas of consensus, and no strategy for rallying momentum around measures that would actually curb pollution. The result is déjà-vu diplomacy—multilateralism by attrition—where clerical tidiness masquerades as progress and the ultimate prize is a lowest-common-denominator treaty that lets every capital claim victory while the plastic tide keeps rising.
We are going to break down the draft text of an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution in this article.
The draft now on the table lays bare these systemic failures: sprawling, vague, and riddled with escape clauses. It risks becoming the latest exhibit in the UN’s growing museum of underpowered agreements. What follows is an analysis of that text, the loopholes it enshrines, and the hard choices negotiators must make if they hope to avoid another headline-grabbing—but toothless—pact.
Compilation of draft text of the international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment
The draft text that is publicly accessible aims to address plastic waste through a combination of regulations, commitments, and international cooperation. It covers a broad range of issues, including plastic production, chemical composition, waste management, trade, labeling, and national implementation plans. The document at its current version is highly bracketed, indicating ongoing disagreements and unresolved issues among negotiators.
The treaty is structured into multiple parts, with specific sections dedicated to product design, extended producer responsibility, chemical and polymer regulation, and transboundary movement of plastic waste. While it aspires to be a legally binding instrument, its effectiveness is undermined by vague commitments, national discretion, and overlapping provisions with existing frameworks, such as the Basel Convention.
Strengths and Potential of the Treaty
- Recognition of the Full Lifecycle of Plastics: This treaty attempts to incorporate a lifecycle approach—covering production, consumption, disposal, and recycling. If properly structured, this could help shift the global plastics economy towards sustainability.
- Inclusion of Harmonized Labeling Requirements: One of the most promising elements of the text is the proposal for standardized labeling of plastics, which could improve traceability, consumer awareness, and waste sorting efficiency. However, its placement in the transboundary movement section could limit its impact.
- Potential to Strengthen Global Governance on Plastics: The treaty seeks to establish international cooperation and coordination mechanisms that could complement existing regulations. If clear obligations are set, it could create a more unified global response to plastic pollution.
Key Issues Identified in the Draft
- Excessive Bracketing and Lack of Clarity: The treaty text is heavily bracketed, making it difficult to discern concrete obligations. This raises concerns about whether meaningful consensus can be reached within the limited timeframe of negotiations (i.e. INC-5.2). The likelihood of finalizing the treaty during the next round of negotiations remains low, given the complexity and divergent national interests.
- Confusion in Scope and Priorities: The treaty fails to clearly define its primary goal. Is it about reducing plastic production? Addressing harmful chemicals? Improving recyclability? This lack of focus weakens the overall framework.
- National Implementation Plans: Even among relatively minor provisions, there is little agreement on how national action plans should be structured or whether they should be mandatory.
- Over-Reliance on National Regulations: A recurring issue in the draft is the frequent deference to national governments through phrases such as “national requirements” and “national capacity.” While flexibility is important, this approach significantly weakens enforceability, as countries could interpret obligations in vastly different ways or opt for minimal action.
- Confusion Between Plastic and Chemical Regulations: The draft treaty includes provisions on chemicals and polymers of concern, which overlaps with existing conventions such as the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions. Instead of introducing redundant measures, the treaty should clearly define its role in addressing harmful chemicals used in plastics.
- Disproportionate Focus on Trade and Transboundary Movement: While trade in plastics and plastic waste is an important aspect, the treaty dedicates significant attention to trade-related procedures, often at the expense of more direct commitments on plastic reduction and waste management. This risks making the treaty more about regulatory processes than about actual pollution control.
- Overemphasis on Circular Economy Without Clear Targets: The draft repeatedly references circular economy principles, such as recycling and reuse, yet it lacks specific reduction targets for virgin plastic production. Without enforceable targets, the emphasis on circularity may remain largely aspirational rather than a transformative strategy.
- Ambiguity in Implementation: The treaty offers broad goals like “improving recyclability” and “reducing plastic pollution” but does not define clear pathways to achieve them. Without structured mechanisms, these commitments risk being purely aspirational.
The Treaty as a Strategic Document Rather Than a Legal Framework
Compared to other legally binding agreements, such as the Montreal Protocol, Basel Convention, and UNFCCC, this draft often resembles a strategy or guidance document more than a legally enforceable framework for a few reasons. Unlike the Montreal Protocol, which set strict phase-out targets for ozone-depleting substances, this treaty lacks concrete obligations, for instance reducing plastic production or banning hazardous additives. Most commitments are left to national discretion, significantly weakening the treaty’s potential impact. The sections on education, capacity building, and financial assistance aligns more with non-binding frameworks designed to support voluntary national actions rather than impose obligations. While these elements are valuable, they should complement rather than substitute for strong regulatory commitments.
In contrast, the Basel Convention includes clear obligations on transboundary movement of waste and a compliance mechanism. Yet, this draft introduces potentially redundant provisions similar to that of the Basel Convention, instead of focusing on gaps in global plastic governance. The UNFCCC has a structured framework with reporting and national contributions. This draft lacks a comparable enforcement mechanism, making it more of a policy roadmap than a treaty with teeth.
Counterpoint: Could It Evolve Like the UNFCCC?
One could argue that the UNFCCC, in its early years, was also a broad framework that later evolved into stronger commitments under the Paris Agreement. However, the UNFCCC included nationally determined contributions (NDCs) that created a pathway for progressive strengthening. This treaty lacks an equivalent mechanism for driving ambition over time.
Key Overlaps and Redundancies with the Basel Convention
- Transboundary Movement of Plastic Waste: A major contention is the inclusion of transboundary waste movement provisions despite existing Basel Convention amendments regulating this area. Some options in the draft propose an informed consent procedure similar to Basel, raising questions about the need for duplication.
- Unclear Role of Harmonized Labeling Requirements: Although a standardized labeling system for plastics could improve waste tracking and management, placing it under transboundary trade regulations creates potential conflicts with Basel mechanisms. A more strategic integration is needed.
Last Chance to Fix the Treaty
The initial enthusiasm surrounding the treaty has not translated into a strong, unified effort to tackle plastic pollution. The draft text reflects significant fragmentation in priorities, with negotiators struggling to balance trade regulations, chemical safety, waste management, and economic concerns rather than forging a clear, focused strategy. The numerous bracketed sections and reliance on national discretion suggest a lack of collective political will to impose strong, legally binding obligations.
While the draft plastic waste treaty has the potential to strengthen global governance on plastics, it currently the treaty risks becoming a bureaucratic framework rather than a transformative legal instrument.
The upcoming negotiations must prioritize eliminating ambiguity and duplication. It should ensure that the treaty serves as a meaningful addition to global environmental governance rather than a redundant or ineffective agreement.
Final Words
Plastic pollution already clouds the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the bloodstreams of newborns. Negotiators in Geneva can either draft the paperwork for the next generation’s lawsuit against our complacency—or choose courage and write the rules that will make that lawsuit unnecessary. The choice is that stark.