Plastic Pollution Treaty – Significance & Challenges – Explained Pointwise

The rapidly increasing levels of plastic pollution represent a serious global environmental issue that negatively impacts the environmental, social, economic and health dimensions of sustainable development. To address the issue, a Global Plastic Treaty has been proposed by the UN, however, halfway into the talks, the consensus remains elusive because of the rift between two blocs.

What is the Plastic Pollution Treaty?

• In March 2022, the UN Environmental Assembly convened in Nairobi, Kenya, to debate the global plastic crisis. In a historic move, 175 nations voted to adopt a global treaty for plastic pollution—agreeing on an accelerated timeline so that the treaty could be implemented as soon as 2025.
• The UNEP has been spearheading the efforts to get countries to evolve, by consensus, a legally-binding treaty that commits them to address plastic pollution on land as well as in oceans.
• An Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) was formed to draft this treaty.

What is the need or significance of the Treaty?

1. Scale of Plastic Pollution: Over 460 million tons of plastic are produced annually; only 9% is recycled, with up to 14 million tons entering oceans every year. Without intervention, plastic production could triple by 2060.
2. Environmental & Health Impacts: Plastic pollution drives biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation, contributes to climate change, and poses threats to human health, especially the microplastics. Microplastics have contaminated drinking water, food, and air globally. These tiny particles can carry hazardous chemicals and are linked to serious health risks, including endocrine disruption and toxicity.
3. Economic Cost: Plastic pollution imposes massive costs on fisheries, tourism, and cleanup efforts, amounting to billions of dollars globally every year. It hampers sustainable development by damaging vital natural assets and increasing public health expenditures.
4. Climate Change: Plastics are produced from fossil fuels and the entire lifecycle—from extraction to production, disposal, and incineration—emits greenhouse gases. The plastics sector already contributes about 3–5% of global emissions, which are projected to rise steeply as plastic demand soars.
5. Need for global cooperation: Plastic pollution knows no borders, spreading across countries and continents via oceans, air, and trade in waste. A global treaty would provide a coordinated framework for international action—setting binding targets, harmonizing regulations, sharing best practices, and supporting countries (especially developing ones) with financial and technical resources.

What are the key focus areas of the Treaty?

1. Comprehensive Scope: The treaty covers the full plastic lifecycle, not just waste management, but also design, production, and hazardous chemicals in plastics.
2. Legally Binding Measures: Unlike voluntary or fragmented national actions, the treaty sets out binding commitments and targets, aiming to phase out high-risk single-use plastics, set design requirements, and enable robust implementation through compliance mechanisms.
3. Extended Producer Responsibility: Proposals include measures making producers accountable for plastic waste, with a shift towards better product design and circular economy principles.
4. Production: Addressing the upstream side of the problem by controlling the production of plastic, especially virgin (new) plastic. This could involve caps on production or a requirement for a certain percentage of recycled content.
5. Design: Promoting the design of plastic products that are easier to reuse and recycle. This includes eliminating problematic and unnecessary plastics.
6. Waste Management: Improving waste collection and recycling infrastructure, particularly in developing countries.
7. Circular Economy: Shifting from a linear “take-make-dispose” model to a circular one where plastic is kept in the economy and out of the environment for as long as possible.
8. Chemicals of Concern: Regulating hazardous chemicals used in plastic production, which can have negative impacts on human health. 

What are the challenges in the Plastic Treaty Negotiations?

1. Country Positions and Economic Interests: Ever since the negotiations have started, 2 broad coalitions have evolved over 4 sessions of INC. One is, the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) chaired by Norway & Rwanda – which is more organised & formal. The other group is called Like Minded Country (LMC), which includes Iran, Saudi Arabia, China & other – it is a smaller group of countries whose interests are aligned because they are all major petrochemical states. Under the current rules of negotiations, countries cannot pass a proposal by a majority vote, and near-unanimous agreement is required.
2. Lifecycle vs. Waste: There is strong disagreement over whether the treaty should tackle the entire life cycle of plastics (from design and production to disposal and recycling) or focus only on waste management. HAC countries seeks to impose cuts or caping the production of plastic & its constituent, polymer. While the LMC countries say that the plastic pollution can be addressed through waste management, and imposing production cuts would only cause disruptions in trade, rather than a meaningful reduction in plastic production & use. India has also shown support to LMC’s viewpoint & wants that the negotiations must be limited to plastic pollution & not production, which can affect the right of development.
3. Caps on Plastic Production: HAC countries advocate for mandatory caps on primary plastic production, believing limits are crucial to stem plastic proliferation. LMC, on the other hand, oppose production constraints, arguing they would hamper economic development and innovation.
4. Chemical of Concern: Negotiators remain divided over how the treaty should regulate hazardous chemicals found in plastics, such as phthalates, BPA, and persistent organic pollutants. There is debate about lists of banned or restricted chemicals and the mechanisms for reviewing and updating these lists for evolving risks.
5. Financial & Technical Support: Developing countries emphasize the need for fair and effective financing, arguing that implementing treaty requirements—such as plastic waste infrastructure upgrades or transitioning to safer alternatives—requires robust, accessible financial and technical support. Disagreements exist over sources of funding, financial mechanisms, and responsibilities of richer producers.
6. Pace of Negotiations: Independent observers have expressed disappointment at the pace of negotiations. For e.g. Article 6 (Plastic Production) has not even had a first reading & Article 3 (Chemicals of Concern) continues to be bracketed. Without effective measures in these two Articles, the curbing of plastic pollution across the full lifecycle will not be accomplished. A treaty without these provisions will only result in plastic proliferation.

What can be the way forward?

1. Parallel Progress: Encourage negotiation on contentious Articles (such as product standards, upstream controls, and scope) in parallel rather than blocking progress by linking them to other issues like finance or implementation. This avoids stalemates, brings all parties to engage, and maintains momentum.
2. Balanced Approach: Strive for a treaty that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics, not just waste management, but also design, production, and hazardous chemicals. At the same time, recognize practical limits, address the issue of plastic manufacturers in developing countries where any cap on production of primary polymers will do more harm than good in the absence of the alternatives & focus immediate action on the most harmful single-use plastics while creating pathways for extension to broader categories.
3. Binding Commitments & Flexibility: Blend binding obligations (especially for reduction of high-risk plastics and chemical use) with certain elements of voluntary or nationally determined measures for countries with unique capacities and realities. Build flexibility into implementation timelines and support mechanisms.
4. Financial & Technical Support: Ensure the treaty creates clear, accessible funding mechanisms—possibly beyond the Global Environment Facility—to support implementation, especially in developing countries facing disproportionate burden.
5. Recognition & Inclusion of Local Voices: Explicitly acknowledge the crucial role of local and subnational governments—who manage waste, public education, and land use—in both the legal text and financial arrangements.

Conclusion:
Ending plastic pollution is in our grasp, and the treaty negotiations are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do so. The world is watching and demands decisive, historic action to protect human health and the environment.