Roughly six decades after synthetic plastic was pioneered in 1907, plastic pollution in the oceans first came to light in the late 1960s. Today, the same crisis surrounding excessive and persistent plastic waste remains one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time — and we may well be reaching its tipping point.
The world produces over 462 million tons of plastic annually. Experts call plastic waste a “poorly reversible pollutant,” which means that once plastic emissions exceed what the environment can naturally break down, any negative effects may be irreversible.
True enough, recent years have borne witness to the extent of plastic contamination. Between 9 and 14 million tons of plastic enter the oceans every year, trespassing on both marine ecosystems and food chains. This has resulted in the widespread presence of microplastics, now embedded in the deepest parts of the ocean and the very internal organs keeping us alive.
Because of these extensive effects on health, biodiversity, and even the economy, the financial cost of plastic pollution is now projected to be around $500 billion to $2.4 trillion per year.
Without countries across the globe coming together to resolve this ongoing crisis, plastic production and pollution will continue to grow unchecked, exacerbating climate change, biodiversity loss, and economic inequality, throwing us into the deep end of a looming future.
As a response to this fast-growing concern, the countries have initiated negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations for the Global Plastics Treaty. This is an effort to establish global, legally binding commitments that seek to address the entire lifecycle of plastics, from the extraction of plastic feedstock to production, use, and disposal.
What is the Global Plastics Treaty?
Unlike waste management-focused efforts, the Global Plastics Treaty is an opportunity to take a more comprehensive approach to the plastic crisis. With many hoping it will be a treaty that can end plastic pollution, it aims to deliver legally binding commitments that include:
- Phasing out the extraction of fossil fuels used to make plastic, which contributes to climate change and impacts neighboring communities
- Reducing plastic production to effectively control the source of new plastic waste
- Eliminating unnecessary plastics, especially single-use items
- Banning the use of chemicals that are hazardous to human health and the environment in plastic production
- Implementing product design standards that make products non-toxic, reusable, repairable, and easier to recycle
- Developing funding and investment strategies to support waste reduction, particularly in regions hit the hardest by plastic pollution
- Requiring manufacturers and companies to take financial and operational accountability for their products throughout their lifecycle
- Creating a legally binding, harmonized global framework to replace the fragmented national voluntary approaches that have failed to curb plastic pollution
- Embedding human rights protections, including the rights of informal waste workers and communities directly affected by plastic production, into treaty measures
A handful of these key proposals from the negotiation process — specifically measures focused on plastic production and chemical use — have faced strong opposition from oil- and gas-producing countries. But if we are to race against time to reverse the potentially catastrophic effects of plastic pollution, then an ambitious plastics treaty is essential.
The treaty, currently under negotiation, is a critical step towards a coordinated global response to the mounting environmental and socio-economic damage caused by plastic pollution. If successful, it could reshape how the world produces, uses, and disposes of plastic, which may just be the solution to plastic pollution and our key to ensuring a healthier planet for future generations.
The Progress So Far: How Global Plastics Treaty Negotiations Are Shaping Up
Negotiations for this United Nations plastics treaty have brought together nations from across the globe, each with different levels of ambition and stakes in the outcome. While some governments have emphasized downstream waste management, others — including Rwanda, Peru, and a group of aligned countries — have led the call for upstream measures, such as capping plastic production and phasing out toxic additives.
Meanwhile, major oil-producing nations such as the United States and Saudi Arabia have resisted global caps, favoring voluntary national action plans that allow continued plastic production.
The treaty's development has moved rapidly since it was first initiated, with the following key milestones:
- March 2022: The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) adopted a resolution giving the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) a mandate to develop a legally binding plastics treaty addressing the full lifecycle of plastics
- December 2022: Initial negotiations began in Punta del Este, Uruguay, with the first INC (INC-1), highlighting divisions between countries advocating for global commitments and those favoring national action plans.
- May to June 2023: INC-2 negotiations in Paris established the focus areas of the Global Plastics Treaty, including product design standards and financial support mechanisms.
- November 2023: The treaty's first framework was drafted at INC-3, though key disagreements over production limits remained unresolved.
- April 2024: INC-4 negotiations witnessed some progress in recognizing plastics' harmful effects, but the influence of the fossil fuel industry continued to stall efforts to reduce production.
- November 2024: INC-5, the final planned negotiation session, platformed a debate regarding the treaty's strength. More than 100 countries supported production cuts, but opposition from petrochemical interests threatened this ambitious action.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been key players in advocating for stronger regulations, as they emphasize the need for a just transition and environmental justice. However, negotiations have been notably plagued by corporate influence — particularly from the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries — which have worked against any production limits and shifted the focus to recycling and waste management solutions that do not address production as the root problem.
Another major shortcoming of the Plastics Treaty talks so far has been the apparent failure to include frontline and Indigenous communities in the process. Attendance caps, last-minute procedural delays, and limited speaking opportunities have excluded those most affected by plastic pollution. Meanwhile, industry representatives have had an outsized influence, shaping treaty language to favor corporate interests over environmental and human rights protection.
The Global Plastics Treaty is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stem the rising tide of plastic pollution. Its success will depend on how firmly it commits to reducing production rather than relying on industry-driven recycling schemes. As negotiations continue, global pressure must make sure that the treaty delivers real change, not just corporate greenwashing.
Strong Big Oil Lobbying as Treaty Advocates’ Biggest Challenge to Overcome
The influence of Big Oil in policy discussions has never been more apparent than at INC-5. Around 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists were registered, more than any single country delegation. Industry-friendly representatives infiltrated negotiations, pressuring government officials to weaken production limits and promote voluntary commitments instead of implementing global, binding regulations. Reports surfaced even of intimidation tactics, including lobbying national delegations to replace independent technical experts with industry-aligned representatives.
“Their strategy — lifted straight from the climate negotiations playbook — is designed to preserve the financial interests of countries and companies who are putting their fossil-fueled profits above human health, human rights, and the future of the planet,” says Delphine Levi Alvares, Global Petrochemical Campaign Coordinator at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
Big Oil and petrochemical companies have aggressively lobbied against strong plastic regulations, framing plastic production as essential for economic growth, particularly in the Global South. These industries argue that restricting plastic would threaten jobs, trade, and access to affordable goods, a narrative designed to stall ambitious policies.
However, data contradicts these claims. “Plastic markets are already oversupplied,” reveals CIEL. “The world simply cannot afford to continue producing more plastics as a means of sustaining fossil fuel dependency.” Plastic production accounts for only 0.6 percent of the global economy, making it an economically insignificant driver of growth.
Proponents of the Global Plastics Treaty also argue that the long-term costs of plastic pollution — degradation of the environment, emerging health crises, and economic strain — far outweigh the short-term benefits of continued production. Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and African nations emphasize that plastic pollution disproportionately harms their economies, ecosystems, and public health.
Juressa Lee, Co-Chair of the International Indigenous Peoples' Forum on Plastics, highlights this injustice: “For us to be competing with industry representatives in and outside of Member State delegations for space is a cruelty. For polluters' attendance to be marginalizing Indigenous Rights is a contradiction of the entire purpose of [the negotiations].”
To counter corporate capture, advocates are calling for stricter conflict-of-interest policies and increased transparency in negotiations, which should limit the power of industry lobbyists over the outcome of the Plastics Treaty talks.
“Allowing fossil fuel and petrochemical companies to exert their influence in these negotiations is like letting foxes guard the henhouse,” says Von Hernandez, Global Coordinator at Break Free From Plastic.
Other Possible Threats in Enforcing the Global Plastics Treaty
The challenge does not end in keeping industry influence from derailing the treaty’s ultimate goal. The Global Plastics Treaty’s success hinges largely on how nations will implement and comply with the commitments it entails. However, there are several barriers that may potentially hinder countries from effectively enforcing the treaty.
Many international agreements rely on voluntary compliance, which tends to reduce their impact. Although some existing treaties have legally binding provisions, enforcement still depends on national governments, some of which may lack the necessary resources or political will.
Without a unified global framework set in place, countries can also freely adopt varying regulatory standards, creating loopholes that make it challenging to ensure compliance. Some nations may impose strict bans on single-use plastics, while others may opt for lenient policies.
This is because different countries will always have different economic priorities. Those with booming plastic industries will often resist stringent regulations to protect their economic interests. On the contrary, countries facing severe pollution, often developing or underdeveloped, advocate for stronger measures.
This inconsistency may weaken the enforcement of the Global Plastics Treaty and open up opportunities for plastic waste dumping in regions with lax regulations. Without standardized penalties and a regulatory body in place, compliance across countries may remain inconsistent, depending on how aligned the treaty is with a nation’s interests.
A strong international cooperation, a structured decision-making process, differentiated responsibilities, and financial incentives may help address these challenges and bridge the divide.
How Can We Ensure the Treaty’s Effectiveness?
If we want the Global Plastics Treaty to yield the needful outcomes, certain steps must be undertaken, such as:
Setting country-level implementation measures
National policies must align with and implement the objectives of the future Global Plastics Treaty, incorporating binding commitments, clear targets, and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks. To aptly monitor the progress of each nation, transparent reporting and compliance tracking are essential.
Introducing procedural tools for responsiveness
Although it is important to strive for consensus to ensure broad support among member states, relying entirely on consensus alone can stall treaty progress, especially when an agreement cannot be reached.
To address this, the treaty should establish clear decision-making processes — such as a voting mechanism — that can be activated once all efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted. This also allows the treaty to remain responsive to updates rooted in scientific evidence and emerging challenges while preserving its core mission.
Strengthening global cooperation
International coordination is nothing without genuine cooperation. Enhancing accountability among nations starts with stronger cross-border partnerships, dedicated funding mechanisms, and international tracking systems. A global fund, financed by high-income nations and plastic producers, could support developing countries in meeting treaty obligations.
Representing frontline communities
Nations that are most affected by the plastic crisis, especially Indigenous communities and grassroots organizations, must have formal representation during negotiations. Their insights can guide equitable strategies and policy decisions.
Financially supporting diverse economies
Developing nations will need the most assistance in order to implement effective solutions. Financial aid, technology transfer, and capacity-building programs can enable them to realize treaty obligations, with mandatory reporting in place to keep them accountable for their progress.
What’s Next for the Global Plastics Treaty? What’s Next for Us?
While negotiations have made progress on key measures, there remains significant work to be done. The Global Plastics Treaty has the potential to drive a historic change in governance surrounding global plastic production, use, and waste — but only if it focuses on nipping the problem in the bud by targeting the reduction of plastic production.
Member States must agree on legally binding treaty provisions that ensure plastic production is reduced globally, with the goal of eventually phasing it out. The treaty should also promote reuse systems over downstream measures, regulate and eliminate hazardous chemicals and polymers, and guarantee a strong, equitable, and dedicated financial mechanism.
The push for this kind of ambitious treaty comes at a critical time. Plastic is nearly 99% fossil fuel, and its unchecked production is not only worsening the climate crisis but also threatening public health.
The upcoming round of negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland is an important opportunity to push back against industry lobbying and secure a treaty that protects the planet, not the polluters. This is why we should make sure that it is as ambitious and constructive as it can be.
To stay updated on the latest developments on the Global Plastics Treaty and other environmental policies around the world, visit this page.
