Efforts to forge a new legally binding international treaty to combat plastic pollution are facing significant criticism, with experts suggesting the process is moving backward. A recent draft text, discussed informally in Nairobi between June 30 and July 3, has raised alarms regarding the dilution of human health commitments and the potential influence of industry lobbying.
The treaty's objective to protect human health from the impacts of plastics is particularly precarious, according to environmental lawyers and researchers. "Human health appears just nine times in the substantive articles of the text," stated Megan Deeney, a research fellow at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. She noted that seven of these mentions are within brackets, indicating they are subject to disagreement and could be lost altogether in further negotiations. Overall, "the protection of our health and that of generations to come is tenuous in this treaty," Deeney added.
The current draft has been described as "one large bracket" by Fabienne McLellan, managing director of the environmental NGO OceanCare, suggesting that many key provisions remain unresolved. This situation echoes the collapse of previous negotiations in Geneva in 2025, where a deadlock persisted over the crucial issue of reducing plastic production. Some NGOs reported losing faith during those talks, citing a powerful minority of oil and plastic-producing nations that resisted capping production, leading some to feel the system was being "weaponised." The core disagreement revolved around whether to implement global, legally binding controls on the exponential growth of plastic production and the toxic chemicals used in its manufacture.
A treaty that suggests “we only want to protect the environment” would not include in its scope the recent injustices of Turkey’s microplastic pollution from UK waste or microplastics in recycled food waste contaminating agricultural soils.
Andrés del Castillo, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, expressed concern that "science and reality are not adapting to the geopolitical context." He emphasized that the treaty text needs to move beyond generalities and focus on the practical "how" of ending plastic pollution. Environmental groups are increasingly vocal about what they term "the elephant in the room": untamed plastic production rooted in fossil feedstock. McLellan highlighted the troubling link between the fossil fuel and plastic industries, arguing they cannot be credibly separated in policy discussions. She warned of a real risk that what emerged was “essentially a waste-management treaty” that does not acknowledge the ultimate source of plastic pollution, which is fossil fuel production. Yet, the plastics and climate crises have remained siloed, even as fossil fuel companies themselves are now turning to plastics production in the face of increased global demand for renewables.
The next round of formal negotiations is scheduled for March 2027, presenting an unusually long 18-month gap. Despite these challenges, del Castillo stressed the importance of continued civil society engagement to maintain accountability and prevent a reduction in ambition among nations. "There's still time for countries to deliver," he asserted, underscoring the ongoing opportunity for countries to commit to a robust and effective treaty.
The chair of the process, Julio Cordano, the Chilean ambassador to the UN, took over in February with the objective “to deliver an effective response to end plastic pollution through an international legally binding instrument”.
A new draft text of the treaty was published earlier this week, which Cordano described as “an informal, evolving reference document”. While he said he was “encouraged by members’ continued engagement and commitment”, there was still work to be done.
