-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
With plastic pollution set to triple by 2060, can the UN's treaty align its climate goals with economic interests and the principles of global equity?
Image Source: Getty
Plastic usage is projected to triple globally by 2060, with leakages reaching up to 44 million tonnes annually—posing grave ecosystem and health risks. The plastic lifecycle contributes over 3.4 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, prompting informal urban systems to revamp their classification, disposal, and local recycling practices. However, effective waste management demands mandated legislation, uniform standards, and a robust infrastructure.
In the absence of a dedicated global framework, the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) adopted resolution 5.2, launching negotiations for a UN Global Plastics Treaty in March 2022. The treaty’s negotiation phase, led by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), has been marred by deepening geoeconomic fractures. The latest round—INC-5—resumed in 2025, after failing to finalise the subsequent treaty text in November 2024, leaving key decisions on production limits and financing deferred.
The ‘Zero Draft’ of the UN Plastics Treaty proposes that state parties align with global controls and implement national measures to limit plastic polymer and microplastic production. This aims to restrict and eliminate the risk of recycling plastics doused with hazardous additives and replace them with safer, traceable designs. Recycling of such plastic products containing toxic chemicals is prohibited. Waste management practices are meant to align with existing agreements such as the Basel and Stockholm Conventions.
Plastic usage is projected to triple globally by 2060, with leakages reaching up to 44 million tonnes annually—posing grave ecosystem and health risks. The plastic lifecycle contributes over 3.4 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, prompting informal urban systems to revamp their classification, disposal, and local recycling practices.
The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty advances the notion of ‘Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)’, which inherently transfers the accountability onto the producers for end-of-life product management—including collection and recycling targets. The draft also covers and acknowledges human rights, mandating protections for vulnerable groups, indigenous communities, and sanitation workers. States must take measures to enhance public participation and elevate access to information and justice in environmental matters.
In this context, the zero draft succeeds at identifying actionable goals. It targets the prevention of toxic substances being recirculated under the guise of recycling, whilst balancing nationally determined measures with existing international standards.
Over time, two major camps have emerged from the INC-5 deliberations. On one side is the High-Ambition Coalition (HAC), comprising 60 states with key proponents—the European Union (EU), Rwanda, Peru, Japan, Canada and Panama—advocating for upstream controls such as binding production caps modelled on the Montreal Protocol, advocate the treaty to address the entire plastic lifecycle emissions. On the other side, oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia argue that such production caps and chemical restrictions go beyond the UNEA mandate and are economically punitive.
The ‘Bridge to Busan’ declaration, introduced at INC-4, and backed by over 40 countries, calls for the treaty to set quantitative and qualitative targets to curb the unsustainable production of primary plastic polymers. Such targets include production freezes or reductions aligning with the 1.5°C climate target. It represents the bloc’s focus on upstream plastic manufacturing rather than end-of-pipe waste solutions. Developing economies would require established concessional funding and technology transfer norms to be amenable to the uphill proposals, while the wealthier states resist binding financial commitments. Furthermore, countries remain divided over data transparency and disclosure mechanisms, such as the reporting of production data, stalling progress in the finalisation of the text.
More than 100 states—including multiple African and South American nations—have expressed support for binding caps on plastics production at INC sessions. When it comes to non-plastic substitution processes, Pacific Small Island Developing States, the EU, and Brazil have pitched safety, sustainability, and human health assessments as potential substitutes. Conversely, Russia has pushed back, urging focus on waste management systems instead.
Although synergies with the 2015 Paris Agreement and international environmental law are key growth engines, the US withdrawal from the treaty has instigated concerns over future cross-border cooperation.
Despite its sound objectives and pragmatic structures being considered laudable, the treaty is experiencing resistance over key mandates and upstream restrictions. The proposed caps on virgin plastic production pose supply chain risks, especially for oil exporters. At INC-5, the Global Partners for Plastics Circularity echoed concerns that production caps are premature and could drive up consumer prices. For corporations, this could also divert focus from recycling innovations, such as deploying technology that can turn plastic into fuel, to compliance checklists. A deeper concern arises about non-tariff barriers for exporters, as the potential ban on single-use plastic can drastically alter inventory and distribution networks. Production phaseouts may trigger investor-state disputes if they affect foreign petrochemical investments or infringe on trade expectations. A viable path and an effective recommendation paraphernalia must allow for technology transfer mechanisms and meaningful industry participation to foster a predictable business environment. Financing gaps must be bridged for effective capacity building for industries in developing economies, with enhanced capacity-building assistance for recycling and substitution practices. Though a global fund is envisaged for fostering waste management solutions in developing economies, streamlined avenues of concessional finance and private sector mandates remain unresolved and vague.
The ‘Zero Draft’ of the UN Plastics Treaty proposes that state parties align with global controls and implement national measures to limit plastic polymer and microplastic production. This aims to restrict and eliminate the risk of recycling plastics doused with hazardous additives and replace them with safer, traceable designs.
Furthermore, it is also feasible to recommend that the Conference of the Parties (COP) objectives integrate plastic reduction into nationally determined contributions (NDCs). A parallel/secondary carbon market for plastics can be carved out for plastic-related carbon allowances by aligning them with the emissions trading systems (ETS)—especially if virgin plastic production is indexed to its lifecycle emissions.
Plastic pollution is set to double at the current pace over 20 years, alarming the need for imminent mitigation strategies. Treaty mandates and periodic reporting will shape national and regional action plans, concretising urban systems with enforceable compliance. Global standards must realign and reaffirm their informal waste sector practices—a position echoed by India at INC-4—with the sector handling 90 percent of India’s recycling. India’s stance has resonated for consensus-based decisions and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). Regional frameworks such as the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) could prompt enforcement on corporate suppliers in congruence with phased due diligence.
While the plastics treaty initiative recognises how fossil-based plastics intersect with inequitable access, it also exposes a persistent North-South divide in climate diplomacy, owing to the asymmetrically stitched legal and financial frameworks across the globe.
While the plastics treaty initiative recognises how fossil-based plastics intersect with inequitable access, it also exposes a persistent North-South divide in climate diplomacy, owing to the asymmetrically stitched legal and financial frameworks across the globe. For the potential treaty to deliver meaningful results, the INC-5 negotiations must find common ground on fair financing, equitable technology access, and flexible rules that respect local Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) architecture. Without such consensus, the treaty may end up deepening the asymmetries of international environmental law instead of seeking a resolution.
Dharmil Doshi is a Research Assistant at the Centre for New Economic Diplomacy, the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dharmil Doshi is a Research Assistant at ORF’s Centre for New Economic Diplomacy, where his research spans international commercial law (encompassing treaties and conventions, foreign ...
Read More +
PREV
.jpg)