Making sense of Article 6: Why plastic production measures are essential for a strong global treaty
Article 6 is central to the Global Plastics Treaty as it addresses upstream control of plastic production — the root cause of the crisis.
Downstream solutions alone (recycling, clean-ups) are insufficient if plastic production continues to rise; output could triple by 2060.
The current Chair’s Text offers a political compromise, focusing on supply transparency rather than binding caps — but is crucial for future action.
Capping production makes economic sense, restoring value to plastic and reducing public costs tied to health, waste and infrastructure damage.
Treaty progress now hinges on data and reporting, which will form the foundation for future global targets and national-level interventions.
In the race to finalise a legally binding global instrument to end plastic pollution, Article 6 is not merely one of many provisions, it is the linchpin. It targets a critical point in the plastic lifecycle that directly shapes the effectiveness of all other measures.
The second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC-5.2) for talks on an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, also known as the Global Plastics Treaty, is taking place from August 5 to 14, 2025 in Geneva, Switzerland.
Without upstream control of plastic production, efforts aimed at improving product design, waste management or microplastic control will be overwhelmed. Like mopping up an overflowing sink without turning off the tap, such efforts will remain reactive and ultimately insufficient.
United Nations Environment Assembly Resolution 5/14 mandates that the treaty adopt a full lifecycle approach. This is more than a procedural formality; it is the legal and scientific foundation agreed by all governments at the outset of negotiations. The Open-Ended Working Group that prepared for negotiations defines this as encompassing all impacts across the entire plastic lifecycle, including raw material extraction, refining and polymerisation, design and more.
By this definition, upstream activities are clearly within scope. Yet due to push back from a handful of high-volume plastic producers and fossil-aligned interests, what began as a call for production caps has been significantly diluted. The current Chair’s Text narrows the framing to “supply,” reflecting a political rather than scientific compromise.
Supply measures are non-negotiable
For decades, global efforts to tackle plastic pollution have focused on downstream responses: Recycling, clean-up efforts and landfill management. Science now confirms these efforts cannot succeed if production continues unchecked.
The problem is structural. Plastic production has more than doubled in the last two decades and is on track to triple by 2060 under business-as-usual conditions. Output could increase from 460 million tonnes in 2019 to over 1.2 billion tonnes by 2060. Even the wealthiest countries cannot recycle such high volumes — the United States recycles less than six per cent of its plastic waste — and most plastic products are not designed for circularity. These systems are overwhelmed by the scale and complexity of the waste generated.
Modellingdemonstrates that a 64 per cent reduction in plastic production over the next 25 years is the only pathway consistent with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C). This would prevent 7.1 billion tonnes of mismanaged plastic waste and avoid up to 47 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions.
Without upstream action, plastic production alone could consume nearly 20 per cent of the global carbon budget required to stay within 1.5°C. Even with renewable energy powering industry, emissions from fossil feedstocks would remain dangerously high.
The current text: A platform, not a ceiling
Rather than setting immediate limits, Article 6 in its current form provides two essential building blocks for future ambition: (i) A process to adopt an aspirational global target for reducing plastic production and consumption and (ii) A requirement for countries to report how much plastic they produce, import and export.
This reporting provision is critical. At present, there is no comprehensive, standardised data on global plastic production by country. Without it, policymakers cannot set targets, measure progress or determine whether other treaty provisions are working.
Retaining the Chair’s Text as it stands ensures that this baseline transparency is secured. It is the minimum necessary platform to operationalise the lifecycle mandate of Resolution 5/14 and should be understood as a major compromise by high-ambition countries such as Rwanda and Peru. Their previous proposals included binding global targets and tiered reduction schedules, echoing the architecture of multilateral treaties such as the Montreal Protocol.
While implementation does not impose hard limits, Article 6 would enable countries to begin establishing reliable national datasets on production and trade in plastic polymers; prepare for global targets that could be adopted in the future; and plan national supply-side interventions, including reducing unnecessary and short-lived plastics.
Why capping plastic supply makes economic sense
Controlling plastic production is not just a health and environmental imperative, it is a sound economic strategy. The unchecked expansion of virgin plastic production has flooded markets with low-value, short-lived products, devaluing the material and making sustainable alternatives economically unviable.
This overproduction drives pollution and undermines the viability of recycling and reuse systems by skewing cost structures and saturating waste streams with materials that have little or no downstream value.
Setting clear limits on production would restore scarcity and economic value to plastic. This approach mirrors the success of the Montreal Protocol, where capping and phasing down ozone-depleting substances not only delivered environmental benefits but also created regulatory certainty that accelerated investment in safer substitutes and fostered innovation.
Beyond market effects, the economic burden of plastic pollution driven by overproduction is staggering. Health systems are already incurring billions in hidden costs from toxic chemicals, additives and microplastics in air, water and food.
These are not theoretical risks: Microplastics are found in human blood, lungs, penile tissue and placentas, with early evidence pointing to links with inflammation, endocrine disruption and disease. Communities near production and waste sites are disproportionately exposed to carcinogens and fine particulate matter, creating long-term liabilities for governments.
Meanwhile, infrastructure and natural capital are also degrading under plastic’s weight. Drainage systems blocked by waste cause flooding and sanitation failures. Microplastics from mulch and sludge degrade soil quality, affecting food production. Tourism suffers from beach pollution and fisheries lose revenue to plastic-damaged ecosystems and contaminated stocks. These impacts are systemic, interconnected and intensifying.
Supply-side measures offer a preventative response. Capping plastic production, particularly low-value and short-lived applications, reduces public expenditure on clean-up, landfill expansion, disaster response and healthcare. It reduces reliance on polluting incineration and shrinking export markets. Instead, it redirects resources towards innovation, reuse infrastructure and value-added industries that support jobs and resilience.
For countries seeking economic security, competitiveness and lower fiscal pressure, regulating supply is a rational move. It increases the value of circulating materials, curbs liabilities and supports sustainable development. It is not a cost, it is an economic safeguard.
Meanwhile, infrastructure and natural capital are also degrading under plastic’s weight. Drainage systems blocked by waste cause flooding and sanitation failures. Microplastics from mulch and sludge degrade soil quality, affecting food production. Tourism suffers from beach pollution and fisheries lose revenue to plastic-damaged ecosystems and contaminated stocks. These impacts are systemic, interconnected and intensifying.
Supply-side measures offer a preventative response. Capping plastic production, particularly low-value and short-lived applications, reduces public expenditure on clean-up, landfill expansion, disaster response and healthcare. It reduces reliance on polluting incineration and shrinking export markets. Instead, it redirects resources towards innovation, reuse infrastructure and value-added industries that support jobs and resilience.
For countries seeking economic security, competitiveness and lower fiscal pressure, regulating supply is a rational move. It increases the value of circulating materials, curbs liabilities and supports sustainable development. It is not a cost, it is an economic safeguard.
Amy Youngman is a legal and policy specialist.
Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth.