Experts have warned that the latest draft of the UN plastic treaty is even less ambitious than its predecessor, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the global response to plastic pollution. The draft, published this week, follows informal talks in Nairobi from 30 June to 3 July, where diplomats aimed to refine a new “no surprises” document after last year’s collapsed negotiations in Geneva.
Draft text criticised for lack of progress
Julio Cordano, the Chilean ambassador to the UN and chair of the process, described the new draft as “an informal, evolving reference document”. He said he was “encouraged by members’ continued engagement and commitment”, but acknowledged that work remained. However, environmental groups have expressed disappointment, noting that the text closely mirrors the previous version, with many contentious sections still bracketed.
Andrés del Castillo, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said: “Science and reality are not adapting to the geopolitical context.” He pointed out that the draft, released during the fifth consecutive heatwave in Europe, was “very similar, if not the same, to the last draft released one year ago, with more brackets – mainly everything related to production, health and chemicals”. Fabienne McLellan, managing director of OceanCare, agreed, stating: “It is basically one large bracket,” and noted that it contained text similar to that previously rejected in Geneva.
Human health commitments tenuous
Brackets in the text indicate disagreement, effectively putting the treaty’s objective to protect human health from the impacts of plastics up for debate. From a public health perspective, this is deeply concerning, according to Megan Deeney, a research fellow at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. She highlighted that “human health appears just nine times in the substantive articles of the text”, with seven of these instances bracketed, “meaning they could be lost altogether in further negotiations”. Overall, “the protection of our health and that of generations to come is tenuous in this treaty,” she added.
The draft’s narrow focus could also exclude critical issues such as microplastic pollution from UK waste in Turkey or microplastics in recycled food waste contaminating agricultural soils. A treaty that suggests “we only want to protect the environment” would not address these injustices, experts argue.
Production reduction remains a sticking point
The previous treaty collapsed because countries could not agree on whether to reduce plastic production. In Geneva last summer, negotiations ran past the deadline without breaking the deadlock on controlling the exponential growth of plastic production and placing global, legally binding controls on toxic chemicals used in plastics. The UN consensus system, which requires all countries to sign the final agreement, has been tested to its limits. Del Castillo said negotiations needed an alternative option when consensus could not be reached, as without it, “we risk the same inertia that has slowed climate action for decades”.
At last year’s talks, some NGOs reported losing faith in the process after most countries supported a cap on production, but a small yet powerful minority of oil and plastic-producing nations continued to reject the idea. Some argued the system was being “weaponised”. The next round of negotiations is scheduled for March 2027, an unusually long 18-month gap. Del Castillo stressed that the text ultimately needed to focus on the “how”.
Industry lobbying and the elephant in the room
Environmental groups are increasingly vocal about what McLellan calls “the elephant in the room” in ending plastic pollution: “Untamed plastic production based on fossil feedstock.” She argues that lobbying from the plastics industry is “particularly troubling because plastics and fossil fuels cannot be credibly treated as separate policy issues”. McLellan warned of the real risk that the treaty could become “essentially a waste-management treaty” that fails to acknowledge the ultimate source of plastic pollution – fossil fuel production. The plastics and climate crises have remained siloed, even as fossil fuel companies pivot to plastics in response to growing demand for renewables.
Despite these challenges, del Castillo emphasised the importance of civil society involvement to maintain accountability and ensure countries do not decrease ambition. “There’s still time for countries to deliver,” he said. The next negotiations in March 2027 will be a critical test of whether the treaty can meet its objective to end plastic pollution.
