Background of the Treaty
- Global Context: Plastic pollution has become one of the most pressing environmental crises — affecting oceans, biodiversity, human health, and climate.
- Mandate: UN Environment Assembly Resolution 5/14 (2022) called for a legally binding treaty on plastic pollution covering the full life cycle of plastics (production, design, consumption, and waste).
- Expectation: Countries were supposed to finalise the draft treaty text this week in Geneva.
Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)
The Chair’s Draft Text (Controversial Version)
- Excludes Production Cuts: The draft does not mandate reduction in plastic production, which was a key demand from the majority of countries.
- Favours Minority Bloc: Text aligns with positions of India, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and several Arab states, which want focus only on downstream waste management, not production.
- No Binding Reuse/Refill Systems: Fails to promote circular economy mechanisms (reuse, refill, extended producer responsibility).
- Weak & Voluntary Provisions: Instead of legally binding commitments, the text pushes voluntary measures, heavily favouring petrochemical producers.
Positions of Different Stakeholders
- Minority Bloc (India, Arab States, Petrochemical Economies)
- Oppose binding restrictions on production.
- Advocate tackling plastic waste through waste management, recycling, and innovation rather than capping supply.
- India supported Kuwait’s approving statement.
- Majority Bloc (~80 Countries, including Colombia, Panama, many Latin American, African, European nations)
- Strongly opposed the draft text.
- Called it unacceptable, as it “spat upon red lines” like mandatory production cuts.
- Demand a new draft text that genuinely addresses lifecycle of plastics.
- Independent Experts/NGOs (IEEFA, CIEL, WWF)
- Criticise the draft as a mockery of the consultative process.
- Argue that the text ensures business-as-usual, protects industry interests, and undermines human health & rights.
- Say it betrays the vision of a full life-cycle treaty.
Key Arguments from Both Sides
- Pro-Production Cuts (Majority)
- Plastic waste is overwhelming — recycling cannot keep up (only ~9% globally recycled).
- Upstream solutions (reduce production, redesign products) are essential.
- Without capping production, waste management alone is ineffective.
- Anti-Production Cuts (Minority, incl. India)
- Plastic is vital for development — cheap, versatile, supports healthcare, food supply chains, industry.
- Production cuts may hurt economies still developing.
- Focus should be on better collection, recycling, innovation, alternative materials.
Geopolitical & Economic Dimensions
- Petrochemical Lobby: Countries with oil/gas-based economies (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.) see plastic demand as critical to future revenues (since fossil fuel use in energy is declining).
- India’s Position: Balances between development needs and environmental goals — reluctant to cap production but supports recycling/innovation.
- North-South Divide: Developed nations push stricter production controls, while some developing countries resist due to economic dependence on plastics.
Reactions at Geneva
- Strong Opposition: 80 countries, led by Colombia & Panama, rejected the draft outright.
- Support: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and India signaled approval (with room for improvements).
- Observers’ View: The Chair’s text is lopsided, undermines years of consultations, and does not meet UNEA’s mandate.
Broader Implications
- If treaty finalised in current form → Status quo continues, plastic production keeps rising (~400 million tonnes annually, projected to double by 2040).
- Weak treaty risks being symbolic rather than transformative.
- Failure to agree on stronger terms may deepen divisions between petro-states and environmental advocates.
Way Forward
- Negotiators must decide whether to:
- Reopen text negotiations → draft a stronger version addressing lifecycle.
- Or settle for weak treaty → risk losing credibility of multilateral environmental agreements.
- Likely outcome: Compromise framework treaty with voluntary measures now, stronger provisions phased in later (similar to Paris Climate Agreement model).
