New UN plastic treaty is going backwards, experts say

UN Plastic Treaty Faces Criticism for Stagnation Amid Growing Environmental Crisis

Wanderstayfinder.com – Diplomatic efforts to establish a global framework for tackling plastic pollution appear to be losing momentum, with experts warning that the latest draft of the United Nations treaty falls short of what is needed. The document, which emerged from informal talks in Nairobi, shows little progress compared to its predecessor and leaves critical questions about production and human health unresolved.

A Year of Stalled Progress

It has been twelve months since negotiations in Geneva reached an impasse, with delegates unable to agree on binding limits for plastic production. The most recent gathering in Kenya brought together representatives from around the world between late June and early July, seeking to build a foundation for a comprehensive agreement. Julio Cordano, Chile’s ambassador to the United Nations, assumed leadership of the process in February with a mandate to create a legally binding instrument capable of addressing the global plastic crisis.

The newly published draft has been characterized by Cordano as a working document that continues to evolve. While he expressed optimism about member nations’ ongoing participation, the text reveals significant areas of disagreement. The document contains numerous brackets—markers that signal unresolved issues—which experts say undermine the treaty’s potential impact.

Expert Concerns Mount

Science and reality are not adapting to the geopolitical context.

Andrés del Castillo, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, emphasized that the current draft remains remarkably similar to the version released a year earlier. He noted that the text contains even more brackets than before, particularly concerning sections on production limits, health protections, and chemical regulations.

Fabienne McLellan, managing director of OceanCare, described the situation as essentially one large bracket. She pointed out that much of the content mirrors language that had already been rejected during the Geneva discussions. This repetition suggests that negotiators are circling back to positions that failed to gain traction previously.

From a public health standpoint, the situation raises serious concerns. Megan Deeney, a research fellow at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, highlighted that human health appears only nine times within the substantive articles of the draft. Seven of those references are bracketed, meaning they could be eliminated entirely during future negotiations. She warned that the protection of human health—and that of future generations—remains fragile within the current framework.

The Production Debate Continues

The central obstacle that derailed the Geneva negotiations was disagreement over production caps. Countries struggled to reach consensus on whether to curb the exponential growth of plastic manufacturing and implement global controls on toxic chemicals used in production. This deadlock reflected deeper divisions between nations seeking ambitious action and those prioritizing economic interests.

McLellan identified what she termed “the elephant in the room”: untamed plastic production driven by fossil fuel feedstock. She argued that the plastics and fossil fuel industries cannot be treated as separate policy challenges, particularly given the growing lobbying efforts from fossil fuel companies seeking to expand into plastics production as renewable energy demand increases.

There is a genuine risk that the final agreement could become merely a waste management treaty rather than addressing the root causes of plastic pollution. Such an outcome would fail to acknowledge that fossil fuel production lies at the heart of the crisis.

Looking Ahead

The United Nations consensus system, which requires unanimous agreement from all member states, has been pushed to its limits during these negotiations. Del Castillo suggested that an alternative mechanism may be necessary when consensus proves impossible, warning that without such options, the world risks repeating the inertia that has hampered climate action for decades.

During last year’s talks, several environmental organizations expressed diminished confidence in the process. While most countries favored production caps, a small but influential group of oil and plastic-producing nations maintained their opposition. Some critics described the consensus requirement as being “weaponized” to block meaningful progress.

The next round of negotiations is scheduled for March 2027, creating an unusually extended gap of eighteen months between sessions. Del Castillo emphasized that the text must ultimately focus on implementation—the “how” rather than simply the “what.” He stressed the continued importance of civil society engagement in maintaining accountability throughout the process.

As Europe endures its fifth consecutive heatwave, the urgency of addressing plastic pollution has only intensified. The treaty must now demonstrate whether it can move beyond symbolic gestures to deliver concrete protections for both human health and the environment against the growing threat of plastic contamination.