Toward a legally binding global plastic treaty
From microplastics to waste-clogged coastlines, plastic pollution has become a planetary crisis. A new UN treaty offers hope, but only if it centres science over industrial interests
As global negotiations intensify toward a legally binding plastic treaty under the United Nations framework, policymakers and environmental experts are outlining key provisions that could determine the treaty's effectiveness for decades to come. With over 300 million tons of plastic waste generated each year—and millions of tons leaking into oceans, soils, and even human bodies—the need for a robust, enforceable global framework has never been more urgent.
At the heart of the proposed treaty are four foundational elements designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and scientific credibility across all member states.
Plastic pollution transcends national borders. From the depths of the Pacific Ocean to the peaks of the Himalayas, plastic debris has become a pervasive contaminant, endangering marine life, disrupting ecosystems, and threatening human health. Despite years of advocacy and numerous national bans and policies, global efforts remain fragmented, inconsistent, and insufficient to stem the tide.
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), mandated by the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), has been tasked with finalising the treaty by 2025. Since its first session in 2022, INC meetings have exposed significant divisions among participating nations. These fractures stem largely from differing economic interests, development priorities, and levels of responsibility for plastic production and pollution.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
This disparity in positions has hindered consensus, risking the creation of a weak, patchwork agreement that fails to deliver the urgent and unified action the crisis demands. Developed countries, particularly the European Union, are pushing for upstream interventions—reducing virgin plastic production, regulating plastic use at the source, and transitioning to circular economies. On the other hand, major plastic-producing nations such as the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia are resisting global restrictions. They prefer flexible national action plans, arguing that binding international rules could disrupt industrial growth and economic stability.
Meanwhile, Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and countries in the Global South, which suffer the most but are least responsible for the plastic crisis, are demanding strong global accountability mechanisms, financial support, and technology transfer. This has created a sharp policy divide. While some countries are advocating for robust global regulation, others insist on national sovereignty and economic freedom.
National success stories
Several countries have taken ambitious steps that demonstrate the feasibility and impact of strong plastic regulation. Bangladesh became the first country in the world to ban plastic bags in 2002, following devastating floods attributed to clogged drainage systems. This groundbreaking move inspired similar actions in more than 90 countries.
Kenya enacted one of the strictest bans in 2017, criminalising the use, manufacture, or import of plastic bags with penalties of up to four years in prison or hefty fines. The European Union adopted the Single-Use Plastics Directive, aiming to eliminate the most polluting single-use products and hold manufacturers accountable for waste management.
However, regulatory inconsistency remains a major hurdle. Wealthier nations often export plastic waste to low and middle-income countries, exploiting loopholes in the Basel Convention. This not only shifts the environmental burden but also undermines local waste management systems, creating a false sense of progress in exporting nations.
The perils of fragmentation
In the absence of a harmonised global framework, Multinational corporations face a confusing and uneven regulatory landscape, which incentivises adherence to the weakest standards. Illegal plastic trade flourishes in countries with limited enforcement capacity. Consumer misinformation is rampant due to unregulated marketing claims such as "biodegradable" or "compostable," terms that are often used without a scientific basis.
Fragmentation not only dilutes accountability but also undermines the integrity of global sustainability efforts. It enables regulatory arbitrage and facilitates greenwashing, where corporations appear environmentally responsible while continuing harmful practices.
The need for a dynamic and science-driven treaty
Plastic pollution is evolving rapidly. It now includes not just bags and bottles, but also microplastics—tiny particles that have been detected in drinking water, seafood, and even human blood. Emerging concerns include synthetic microfibers from clothing, released during washing. Plastics in e-waste contain hazardous additives such as brominated flame retardants and phthalates.
According to the OECD (2022), plastic production could triple by 2060 if current trends continue. Solutions that do not account for evolving materials, markets, and technologies will quickly become obsolete.
A successful treaty must be dynamic, equipped with built-in review mechanisms, scientific advisory panels, and adaptive legal tools. This flexibility will allow for adjustments based on the latest scientific evidence, technological advances, and policy innovations.
Core components of an effective treaty
To address the global nature and complexity of plastic pollution, the treaty must include the following foundational pillars:
Clear, standardised definitions to combat greenwashing
One of the most crucial components under discussion is the establishment of clear, scientifically validated definitions for terms such as "recyclable," "biodegradable," and "compostable." Environmental regulators and civil society organisations have long warned that vague or misleading labelling of plastic products confuses consumers and undermines effective regulation.
The treaty aims to include mandatory international standards for certification and labeling, alongside the creation of a global plastics terminology database, to prevent abuse and foster consistency across jurisdictions.
Quantifiable targets and global timelines
To turn pledges into action, the treaty proposes binding global targets. These include a 40% reduction in virgin plastic use by 2040, the elimination of problematic single-use plastics by 2030, and the achievement of a 90% global rate for plastic waste collection and environmentally sound disposal by 2040.
Countries will be required to submit detailed national action plans, updated every five years, with progress monitored through transparent reporting systems and third-party verification.
"Plastic pollution is a global crisis, and only measurable, time-bound targets can bring us closer to a solution," said Gail Krantzberg, a leading researcher on plastic pollution.
Legally binding obligations and enforcement mechanisms
In stark contrast to earlier voluntary frameworks, the new treaty is expected to carry legally binding obligations. These will include enforceable limits on plastic production, bans on toxic additives, and mandatory reporting on plastic flows. Countries that fail to comply may face sanctions, trade restrictions, or other penalties under a proposed dispute settlement mechanism.
A treaty compliance committee will also be established to monitor performance and mediate disputes, drawing inspiration from successful models used in climate and trade agreements.
"Voluntary commitments have failed us. This treaty must have teeth," said a negotiator from the Global South bloc, which has consistently demanded stronger accountability from wealthier, high-consuming nations.
Scientific and technical oversight: A permanent advisory body
Recognising the fast-changing landscape of materials science and environmental data, the treaty will also establish a Permanent Scientific and Technical Advisory Body (PSTAB). This independent panel of experts will be tasked with reviewing treaty effectiveness every 3–5 years and recommending updates based on emerging evidence.
It will also evaluate new materials, technologies, and health research related to plastic exposure, ensuring that the treaty remains adaptive and grounded in current science.
"Science must lead policy," said Professor Malik Reyes, a global materials toxicologist who advocates for stronger scientific oversight in treaty processes. "We cannot afford to lock in outdated assumptions in a 21st-century plastics treaty."
A treaty at a crossroads
As the final rounds of negotiations approach, there is growing consensus that only a dynamic and enforceable treaty—backed by data, deadlines, and discipline—can meaningfully address the escalating plastic crisis. Yet, challenges remain. Disagreements over financial responsibilities, technology transfer, and differentiated obligations continue to divide delegations.
Still, environmental groups remain cautiously optimistic. "If adopted in full, these provisions could change the global plastics economy forever," said one civil society leader. "But we must ensure the treaty does not get watered down by powerful industry interests."
The world now waits to see whether nations will seize this historic opportunity to chart a course toward a cleaner, safer, and more sustainable future.
Moving forward and recommendations for action
Negotiators and stakeholders should concentrate on immediate priorities:
Ensuring inclusive negotiations: Civil society organisations, indigenous peoples, waste picker communities, and representatives from the Global South must be allowed to participate in the formulation of treaty outcomes.
Mitigating undue influence: It is crucial to shield the negotiation process from the excessive influence of lobbyists associated with the petrochemical and plastics industries.
By addressing these priorities, we can work toward establishing a more equitable and effective treaty framework.
Investing in infrastructure and innovation is crucial; wealthier nations must invest in sustainable alternatives, build plastic-free supply chains, and fund waste management infrastructure in developing countries.
Capacity building and technology transfer are crucial to accelerate the process; equity must be embedded in treaty implementation. This includes financial support, technical training, and knowledge sharing to help lower-income nations meet treaty obligations.
A treaty for the future
The stakes are high. The Global Plastic Treaty offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to correct the course of a crisis that has spun out of control. To succeed, the agreement must be legally binding, globally uniform, and adaptively governed by science.
Anything less will be a failure not just of diplomacy, but of global responsibility. The success of this treaty is not about politics—it is about preserving life as we know it. For our oceans, our health, and our children's future, the world must choose unity, ambition, and courage.
Dr Shahriar Hossain is an environmental scientist, journalist, and Social Justice advocate, involved in plastic treaty negotiations, shahriar25@gmail.com
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
