Geneva Sparks the Global Plastics Treaty Negotiations — Will This Be Our Final Chance to Act?

Campaigners Demand Lobbyist Exclusion to Ensure Meaningful Outcomes

Background

During the recent round of policy discussions, a growing cohort of advocacy groups has called for a strict ban on industry lobbyists. Their argument hinges on the belief that removing corporate influence is essential for achieving genuine, impactful results.

Key Points Raised by the Campaigners

• Transparency – Lobbyists often operate with limited disclosure, creating opacity in decision‑making.
• Equity of Voice – Removing lobbyists would level the playing field for civil society and grassroots voices.
• Policy Integrity – The presence of powerful corporate actors can distort agenda setting toward narrow interests.
• Long‑Term Outcomes – Without lobbyists, negotiations are more likely to focus on sustainable, broader public benefits.

Opposition and Alternative Views

Some stakeholders argue that industry expertise is valuable for informed legislation. However, proponents of the ban suggest that alternative frameworks—such as public consultation panels and independent experts—can fill the void without compromising quality.

Implications for the Upcoming Talks

If the motion passes, the negotiation sessions will shift to:

• Exclusive participation by government officials and independent advisors.
• A mandatory schedule for public comment before any binding decisions.
• Structured oversight mechanisms to ensure accountability.

Conclusion

By banning industry lobbyists, campaigners aim to safeguard the integrity and relevance of policy outcomes, ensuring that the final decisions reflect the collective needs rather than the interests of a few powerful entities. The debate continues as negotiators weigh the merits of inclusion versus exclusion in shaping the future landscape.

Global Plastics Treaty Negotiations Resume in Geneva

Resolving Last Year’s Stalemate

On Tuesday, 5 August, delegates gathered in Geneva to restart talks aimed at forging a binding international agreement on plastic pollution. This renewal follows the collapse of negotiations in Bhusan, South Korea, during December. In the coming two weeks, national parties will work toward unanimous decisions on several pivotal issues.

Key Objectives for the INC‑5.2 Session

• Lifecycle Governance: Enforcement of limits on plastic production and the systematic phasing out of hazardous chemicals.
• Legally Binding Measures: Establishment of a framework that compels compliance across participating states.
• Scientific Guidance: Incorporation of evidence supporting urgent climate‑friendly policies.

Momentum from Global Consensus

During the recent UN Ocean Conference, representatives from more than 95 countries endorsed the “Nice Wake‑Up Call” declaration. This statement highlights the necessity for a comprehensive strategy, stressing that only a full lifecycle approach can truly address the multi‑dimensional impact of plastic waste.

Scientific Community’s Urgent Appeal

A collective letter issued by over 60 leading scientists, published in the Cambridge Prisms: Plastics journal, called upon governments to commit to robust, enforceable actions. “This isn’t merely a request for measures,” explained Professor Steve Fletcher, director of the Revolution Plastics Institute. “It is the scientific community’s testimony that a treaty capable of reflecting the crisis’s magnitude is essential.”

Circumstances Hindering Progress

Recent reports, including one by Greenpeace, shed light on obstacles faced by leaders. The analysis identifies:

• Industry Lobbying: Pushback from sectors with vested interests.
• Political Inertia: Nations that lack ambition or necessary political will.

These forces continue to challenge the advancement of a comprehensive global agreement on plastic governance.

What do scientists say is needed to solve the plastics crisis?

High Stakes at INC‑5.2: A Global Call to End Plastic Pollution

Scientists view INC‑5.2 as a crucial juncture—a unique opportunity to establish a binding treaty that confronts plastic pollution throughout its entire life cycle.

Petro‑State Focus on Waste Management

Some leading oil‑producing nations prefer concentrating on plastic waste alone, arguing that limiting production is unnecessary as long as the final product can be dealt with.

Whole‑Supply‑Chain Solution

The open letters outline an evidence‑based roadmap for negotiators, urging a comprehensive approach that includes every stage of the supply chain:

• Cap plastic production with science‑driven limits.
• Set clear targets to reduce overall output.
• Embed measures that span from raw materials to end‑of‑life disposal.

Health Safeguards for Humanity

There is mounting evidence that nano‑ and microplastics infiltrate all parts of the body, from the brain to breast milk, posing serious health risks.

Dr. Cressida Bowyer, deputy director of the Revolution Plastics Institute at the University of Portsmouth, says: “The treaty must place direct human‑health protections in its core obligations.” She notes that the approach to safeguarding health remains unsettled in current negotiations.

Alexandra Water Warriors Take Action on the Juksei River

Rising in the heart of Alexandra township, a dedicated group of volunteers from the Alexandra Water Warriors joined forces to rid the Juksei River of its growing plastic debris. The initiative, commemorated in November 2024, showcases local commitment to environmental stewardship, with a vivid photograph credited to Jerome Delay.

Trade’s Role in Shaping a Global Plastics Treaty

• Fossil fuels dominate plastic production: Nearly all plastic originates from nonrenewable resources, a statistic highlighted by the Center for International Environmental Law.
• Trade as the connective tissue: Experts argue that the global plastics framework must anchor itself in how trade circulates plastic worldwide.
• Transforming trade for good: Trade should not just sustain the crisis but also act as the vehicle for its resolution, according to Professor Maria Ivanova, Northeastern University.
• Demanding scientific integrity: Any treaty design should exclude corporate lobbying and greenwashing, ensuring independent oversight steers environmental ambition.

Related Context

Investigations have uncovered that major brands—including Coca-Cola and Unilever—are entwined with fracking operations in Texas, adding a broader dimension to the discussion on pollution and corporate responsibility.

Are plastic companies blocking action?

Petrochemical Lobbyists Dominate Global Plastics Treaty Discussions

During the fifth session of the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations held in Busan last December, representatives from fossil‑fuel interests outnumbered all other participants combined. According to data released by the CIEL research group, 220 lobbyists aligned with the petroleum and plastics sector attended these talks, eclipsing delegates from the European Union and the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty by a factor of three.

A Greenpeace UK Investigation

Greenpeace UK has published a fresh report that reveals the threat posed by petrochemical giants to the treaty’s ambitions. The study documents how companies such as Dow, ExxonMobil, BASF, Chevron Phillips, Shell, SABIC and INEOS have consistently lobbied against any reductions in plastic production, all while reaping growing profits from the plastics market.

Key Findings

• Since the commencement of the treaty process in November 2022, these firms have dispatched an estimated 70 lobbyists to the negotiation table.
• Lobbying efforts have been aimed at diluting policy ambition and steering discussions toward “false” fixes such as chemical recycling.
• Greenpeace estimates that the seven companies mentioned have since produced enough plastics to fill 6.3 million rubbish trucks – a volume measured at roughly five and a half trucks every minute.

Expert Perspectives

Anna Diski, senior plastics campaigner at Greenpeace UK, states: “Those with the most to lose from meaningful regulation are the ones most diligent in obstructing it. If corporations that profit from plastic pollution design the rules, we risk a treaty that fails to deliver.” She calls for the exclusion of lobbyists from future negotiations and urges UN Member States to commit to a robust agreement.

Professor Fletcher adds, “Scientific consensus is unmistakably clear: the treaty’s success hinges on avoiding voluntary pledges and reliance on technological fixes. Governments’ responsiveness will determine if this becomes a transformative policy.”

Implications for the Treaty

The report highlights the challenges the treaty faces, particularly the failure of INC‑5.1 to reach an agreement. It underscores the need for decisive action now, suggesting that the opportunity for significant change is fleeting.

For a detailed overview of the treaty’s evolution over the past three years and the factors behind key negotiation setbacks, readers can consult the comprehensive analyses provided by the treaty’s coordinating bodies.