The most recent iteration of the much-anticipated global plastic treaty has been widely criticized by experts for being even less ambitious than its predecessor. This setback comes a year after initial negotiations for a plastic treaty collapsed in Geneva in 2025. Following that breakdown, diplomats convened informally in Nairobi from June 30th to July 3rd, aiming to produce a new, more agreeable document, dubbed a “no surprises” text.
Julio Cordano, the Chilean ambassador to the UN, assumed the role of the process’s new chair in February, with the declared goal of delivering “an effective response to end plastic pollution through an international legally binding instrument.” However, a new draft text published recently, which Cordano described as an “informal, evolving reference document,” has drawn significant concern. While Cordano expressed encouragement regarding continued engagement and commitment from member states, the content of the draft suggests a considerable amount of work remains.
Andrés del Castillo, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, voiced his dismay, stating that “science and reality are not adapting to the geopolitical context.” He highlighted the troubling fact that, amidst the fifth consecutive heatwave in Europe, the latest draft closely mirrors the one released a year prior, but with an increased number of “brackets.” These brackets, which signify areas of disagreement, primarily concern crucial aspects such as production, health, and the chemicals used in plastics.
Fabienne McLellan, managing director of the environmental NGO OceanCare, echoed this sentiment, describing the document as “basically one large bracket” containing text previously rejected in Geneva. The proliferation of brackets is particularly alarming as it effectively reopens debate on the treaty’s fundamental objective: protecting human health from the pervasive impact of plastics. Megan Deeney, a research fellow at LSHTM, emphasized the gravity of this situation, asserting that “the science is clear” regarding the threat plastics pose to public health. She pointed out that “human health appears just nine times in the substantive articles of the text,” with seven of these instances being bracketed, indicating a high probability they could be removed entirely during future negotiations. Deeney concluded that, overall, “the protection of our health and that of generations to come is tenuous in this treaty.”
Furthermore, the narrow scope of the current treaty draft, which suggests an exclusive focus on environmental protection, fails to address the profound injustices stemming from plastic pollution. This includes issues such as the microplastic contamination from UK waste in Turkey or the presence of microplastics in recycled food waste that contaminates agricultural soils.
The collapse of the previous treaty stemmed from an inability to reach consensus on the critical issue of reducing plastic production. During the Geneva conference last summer, despite working beyond the set deadline, countries failed to break the deadlock on whether to curb the exponential growth of plastic production and impose global, legally binding controls on the toxic chemicals utilized in their manufacture.
The UN’s consensus system, which demands agreement from all participating nations, has severely tested the negotiation process. Del Castillo argues that an alternative mechanism is desperately needed when consensus remains elusive, warning that without it, “we risk the same inertia that has slowed climate action for decades.” Last year’s talks saw some NGOs expressing a loss of faith in the process, as a small but influential group of oil and plastic-producing nations continued to reject proposals for capping plastic production, despite the majority of countries supporting such measures. Some even accused the system of being “weaponized.”
The next round of negotiations is slated for March 2027, an unusually lengthy 18-month gap between talks. Del Castillo stressed that the text must ultimately pivot to focus on the “how” of addressing plastic pollution.
These developments unfold against a backdrop of escalating calls from environmental groups to confront what McLellan terms “the elephant in the room” in the fight against plastic pollution: “untamed plastic production based on fossil feedstock.” She asserts that lobbying from this industry is “particularly troubling because plastics and fossil fuels cannot be credibly treated as separate policy issues.” There is a “real risk” that the resulting agreement will merely be a “waste-management treaty,” failing to acknowledge the fundamental origin of plastic pollution, which is fossil fuel production. Disturbingly, the crises of plastics and climate have largely remained separate policy discussions, even as fossil fuel companies are increasingly shifting towards plastics production in response to growing global demand for renewables.
Despite these significant hurdles, del Castillo underscored the vital importance of civil society involvement in maintaining “accountability” and ensuring that countries do not diminish their ambitions, adding optimistically, “there’s still time for countries to deliver.”
