The text released by the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on December 1, in its pursuit of reflecting the voices of all parties, seems to have diluted the language to such an extent that it risks failing to address the core issues the future global treaty on ending plastic pollution is supposed to resolve.
While this approach may bring all stakeholders to an agreement, one must question the value of a deal that does not effectively tackle the pressing problem of plastic pollution. After two days of excluding observers from negotiations, what has emerged is a text that feels unworthy of the time, effort, and resources poured into this process.
The text has been analysed extensively, examining the preamble and 13 critical articles to gauge the ambition and scope of the proposed treaty. Unfortunately, the results paint a picture of compromise over conviction, with crucial opportunities for meaningful action sacrificed at the altar of consensus.
The preamble sets the tone by replacing a specific acknowledgment of the special circumstances faced by developing nations, particularly Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), with a generalised reference to national circumstances. This shift undermines the focus on equity and fails to account for the disproportionate impacts of plastic pollution on vulnerable nations. By aiming for inclusivity, the text diminishes the tailored support required by those most affected.
On the surface, the inclusion of strengthened references to human health and the full lifecycle of plastics in the objectives of the treaty appears promising. However, the absence of specific actionable measures exposes the hollowness of this ambition. Without mechanisms to translate these objectives into tangible outcomes, the treaty risks becoming an exercise in rhetoric rather than resolve.
Definitions play a critical role in shaping the scope and enforceability of any treaty, yet the Chair’s text falters significantly here. While it provides clarity on terms like party, plastic, plastic product, and Regional Economic Integration Organization, it inexplicably omits vital definitions for lifecycle, microplastics, nanoplastics, primary plastic polymers, and recycling. The absence of these terms creates loopholes and ambiguity, especially in addressing emerging challenges like the proliferation of micro- and nanoplastics.
The provisions on products and chemicals offer some progress by introducing references to single-use and short-lived plastics, previously absent. The annex listing banned products signals a step toward global action. However, the diluted criteria for product regulation, which now hinge on ‘sufficient’ scientific evidence to prove threats to health or the environment, introduce unnecessary delays. The narrow focus on chemicals used in food contact applications, toys, and children’s products leaves other sectors inadequately addressed, hindering comprehensive action.
Exemptions remain a contentious area. The introduction of a publicly available list of exemptions promotes transparency, but the allowance for Parties to apply for and extend exemptions creates opportunities for prolonged inaction. Without strict criteria for granting or renewing exemptions, the treaty risks becoming a patchwork of inconsistencies, undermining its overall effectiveness.
In the realm of product design, the emphasis on non-toxic reuse systems and the reduction of microplastic releases through better design is a welcome inclusion. Specific guidance to be developed by the Conference of the Parties (CoP) offers flexibility for implementation. Yet, the failure to mandate stronger product redesigns to eliminate problematic plastics highlights a lack of ambition in this area.
The provisions on supply and production introduce mandatory reporting on statistical data, enhancing transparency. However, the language has been watered down, with terms like ‘maintain/manage’ replacing ‘reduce’, significantly weakening the treaty’s resolve to curb plastic production. The delay in deciding reporting formats and methodologies until the first CoP, combined with an infrequent five-year review cycle, reflects a missed opportunity to address the rapidly escalating crisis.
The sections on emissions and releases bring some sectoral focus, particularly on emissions from fishing gear, plastic pellets, and microplastics. Artisanal and small-scale fishers are also acknowledged. However, the removal of broader provisions for reducing emissions across the lifecycle diminishes the treaty’s ability to address the problem holistically.
On waste management, the prohibition of open dumping and open burning is a step forward. Yet, the removal of the waste hierarchy from the first paragraph and the inclusion of energy recovery options like waste-to-energy weaken the focus on sustainability. Financing provisions are heavily reliant on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and economic instruments, leaving too much to the discretion of national implementation without binding commitments.
Addressing existing plastic pollution remains a critical need. While the text highlights legacy pollution sites beyond national jurisdictions, it fails to provide funding mechanisms for developed countries to support this endeavor. The absence of the waste hierarchy further limits the scope for effective remediation.
The provisions for a just transition are perhaps the most glaring oversight. With no mention of dedicated funds or clear modalities to support informal workers and affected communities, the text risks sidelining critical stakeholders. The transition to sustainable systems must be equitable, yet the treaty offers no assurance of this.
The finance article introduces a dedicated fund alongside references to a primary plastic fee and financial flows from developed to developing countries. While these are positive additions, the lack of specific obligations undermines fairness and equity, leaving vulnerable nations without guaranteed support.
National Action Plans (NAPs) are envisioned, but the text lacks standardised formats, timelines, and mandatory requirements, raising concerns about the consistency and comprehensiveness of efforts by Parties. The possibility of voluntary NAPs further diminishes their potential impact.
Finally, the interlinkages between health and other provisions are acknowledged, which is a positive step. However, without concrete measures to link health and environmental action, this acknowledgment remains symbolic rather than substantive.
As Member States prepare for the plenary and the text is opened for comments, the critical question remains whether this diluted version will proceed to the legal drafting group or require another round of revisions.
Securing a deal is undoubtedly important, but it must not come at the expense of meaningful action. A treaty that fails to address the root causes of plastic pollution will only serve as a hollow victory.
The world deserves a robust, ambitious, and equitable agreement—one that goes beyond consensus and delivers real solutions to one of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time.