Geneva showdown: High-stakes Global Plastics Treaty talks could shape PH future

MANILA, Philippines—The plastic crisis is not an abstract problem. It’s in our floodwaters, in our food, in the air we breathe. Every year, the world churns out more than 462 million tons of plastic, and a staggering 90 percent of it ends up polluting the planet.

From 9 to 14 million tons of waste flowing into oceans each year to the 36.6 million tons already adrift, the numbers tell a sobering story. Plastic now reaches the deepest trenches, the most remote mountain peaks, and—increasingly—the inside of our bodies.

And it’s only getting worse. Without drastic action, global plastic pollution could triple by 2040. Despite a 60-percent rise in national and voluntary measures over the past five years, pollution has still climbed by 50 percent. For advocates, this is proof that tackling the crisis piecemeal does not work.

This is why, in Geneva this week, negotiators are attempting something the world has never done before: a legally binding global treaty to end plastic pollution.

READ: Time running out: SE Asia presses for ambitious plastics pact

 

The talks, officially called the second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2), are the culmination of a process launched three years ago in Nairobi—a process that many believe is humanity’s best, and possibly last, shot at turning the tide.

A mandate born in Nairobi

On March 2, 2022, the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) adopted Resolution 5/14, a landmark decision instructing the UN Environment Programme to draft “an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment,” based on a comprehensive approach that covers the full life cycle of plastics: from production and design to use and disposal.

The resolution is explicit about what the treaty must address: sustainable production and consumption; national action plans and progress reviews; coordination with other international agreements; scientific cooperation and technology transfer; financial support—including a possible dedicated fund—and compliance mechanisms to ensure countries follow through.

The goal: finish negotiations by end-2024 so the treaty could take effect as early as 2025.

How the treaty journey unfolded

2017 — The UN Environment Assembly creates an expert group to explore ways to eliminate marine litter and plastic pollution.

2018 — Governments meet twice, in Nairobi and Geneva. A majority of experts recommend exploring a legally binding agreement.

2019 — Momentum builds regionally. African ministers commit to a global deal; Pacific leaders pledge to stop ocean plastics; Caribbean and Nordic countries adopt their own declarations calling for a binding treaty.

2020 — Pressure mounts from business and diplomacy. Twenty-nine global companies release a manifesto backing a treaty. Fifty-five countries form a coalition at the UN to push for negotiations. EU member states commit to work for a global pact.

2021 — Civil society rallies. Over 700 NGOs from 113 countries sign a manifesto for a plastics treaty. Mediterranean nations declare support. The Alliance of Small Island States formally asks for negotiations.

March 2022 — In Nairobi, 175 UN member states adopt UNEA Resolution 5/14. The mandate: a legally binding treaty that addresses plastics across their full life cycle, with broad participation and support for developing countries.

August 2022 — Norway and Rwanda, joined by 18 other countries, launch the “High Ambition Coalition” to end plastic pollution by 2040.

 

November–December 2022: INC-1 — Punta del Este, Uruguay. More than 145 countries publicly back strong global rules.

June 2023: INC-2 — Paris, France. 134 governments call for common rules covering plastics from production to disposal. A mandate is secured for a “zero draft” of the treaty.

September 2023 — The much-anticipated zero draft is published.

November 2023: INC-3 — Nairobi, Kenya. Procedural wrangling delays substantive talks; delegates add more text to the draft.

April 2024: INC-4 — Ottawa, Canada. Progress is made on rules to prohibit certain problematic plastics, but whether to include binding measures to cut production remains unresolved.

November–December 2024: INC-5.1 — Busan, South Korea. Talks stall over whether the treaty will be binding or voluntary.

August 5–14, 2025: INC-5.2 — Geneva, Switzerland. The “final” scheduled round, widely seen as the last opportunity to deliver a strong treaty.

The fight over scope

As negotiations have progressed, two opposing visions have emerged.

On one side is the “full life-cycle” camp: countries, scientists, and civil society groups calling for binding global targets to reduce virgin plastic production, phase out single-use and high-risk products, ban or control toxic chemicals, set design requirements for reusability and recyclability, and ensure finance and technical support so all countries can comply.

On the other is the “waste-only” bloc: a smaller but powerful group, often aligned with fossil fuel and petrochemical interests, seeking to limit the treaty to downstream waste management and voluntary actions.

World Wildlife Fund Inc. (WWF), the world’s largest conservation organization, warns that a waste-only deal would lock in the structural inequities of the plastics economy.

 

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) consume less plastic per capita but bear far greater costs—about US$150 per kilo of plastic versus US$19 in high-income countries. They also account for 93 percent of recorded deaths linked to plastic production.

The Philippines has aligned itself with the high-ambition camp. In June, it signed the “Nice Call for an Ambitious Treaty on Plastic Pollution”, joining 94 other countries in supporting global production caps, phase-outs of problematic plastics and chemicals, and better product design.

At home, the public is overwhelmingly behind strong action. In a 19-country Greenpeace survey, Filipinos ranked among the strongest supporters of capping plastic production (94 percent), banning single-use packaging (88 percent), and requiring a shift to reuse/refill systems (97 percent, tied with Indonesia).

The urgency is visible on the streets. In July, heavy rains and floods swept through Metro Manila, bringing with them more than 600 tons of collected garbage. Environmental groups reminded the government:

“Floods are the symptom. The plastic crisis is part of the disease.”

Why it matters here

For the Philippines, the stakes in Geneva are not abstract.

As a coastal and archipelagic nation, the country is on the front line of ocean plastic pollution. Each year, millions of tons of waste enter the seas, damaging coral reefs and fisheries that feed millions and underpin local economies. Fisherfolk have long reported declining catches and broken propellers from debris entangled at sea.

On land, plastic waste is a disaster risk multiplier. When typhoons or monsoon rains hit, single-use plastics clog drainage systems and exacerbate flooding, turning heavy rainfall into weeks-long emergencies.

The floods that swamped Metro Manila this July — carrying more than 600 tons of garbage into streets and pumping stations — are only the latest reminder of how closely the plastic crisis is tied to climate and disaster resilience.

 

There is also a public health dimension. Microplastics and toxic additives seep into the food chain, and LMICs like the Philippines bear a disproportionate share of the burden. WWF estimates that the lifetime cost of one kilo of plastic here is about eight times higher than in wealthier countries, driven by the expense of mismanaged waste and damage to marine ecosystems.

Without binding global rules to cut production and remove the most harmful plastics, those costs will keep rising.

Ultimately, there is the question of whether the country will have the means to implement what is agreed. UNEA 5/14 includes provisions for financing and capacity-building—lifelines for countries that need technical assistance and funding to meet treaty obligations.

For the Philippines, those mechanisms could make the difference between a treaty that exists only on paper and one that transforms how the country produces, uses, and disposes of plastic.

What’s at stake in Geneva

Much of what will determine the treaty’s effectiveness will be decided in these final days.

One of the most contentious questions is whether there will be a quantified, time-bound cap on virgin plastic production — a measure many scientists see as essential to turning off the tap of pollution at its source. Without it, critics say, the treaty risks becoming a global clean-up plan rather than a prevention plan.

Another flashpoint is the scope of global bans and phase-outs. Delegates are debating which single-use products, polymers, and toxic chemicals should be on a binding list, and how quickly countries would be required to eliminate them. The outcome could determine whether certain plastics disappear from supermarket shelves in a few years or continue to circulate for decades.

Design standards are also on the table. Advocates want global requirements for reusability, repairability, and recyclability, arguing that without harmonized rules, businesses will hesitate to invest in large-scale reuse and refill systems.

Environmental advocates hold placards calling to “Fix the Process” and “End Plastic Pollution” during the plastics treaty talks in Geneva. Photo from GAIA

Others want to leave design choices to national governments—a looser approach that risks locking in the status quo.

Money is another sticking point. Many developing countries are pushing for a dedicated global fund to help them meet their obligations, while some wealthier states prefer to rely on existing aid channels. The question is whether financing will be reliable, adequate, and accessible enough to make ambitious targets achievable.

Finally, there is the matter of enforcement. The treaty will almost certainly require countries to report on their progress, but whether there will be a robust system to review that progress — and consequences for falling short — remains unresolved. Without such provisions, environmental groups warn, even the strongest commitments on paper could end up as broken promises.

‘The Plastics Treaty is under threat’

From Geneva, Marian Ledesma, Zero Waste Campaigner at Greenpeace Philippines, issued this warning:

“The Plastics Treaty is under threat. If governments do not ensure that measures for production reduction, phaseout of problematic single-use plastics, and hazardous chemical elimination are in the treaty, we will end up with a weak agreement that protects corporate profits over people’s health and the environment.”

She adds:

“Plastic pollution doesn’t start in our homes. It starts in boardrooms and factories. No amount of recycling or cleanup can undo the damage caused by relentless plastic production.”

READ: Global plastics treaty in peril after key talks deadlock

 

Their sharp critique echoes a broader wave of concern.

Globally, environmental groups are raising red flags about undue industry influence. The Guardian reports that 234 industry lobbyists—mostly from the petrochemical and plastics sectors—now attend the talks, outnumbering entire national delegations in some cases.

Nineteen of these lobbyists are even embedded in national delegations, raising real questions about transparency and leverage.

 

Meanwhile, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) is calling for procedural reform amid ongoing deadlock. GAIA’s Africa Plastics Program Manager Merrisa Naidoo warns:

“The Global Plastics Treaty must enable a process for effective decision-making. To avoid earnest negotiations amounting to nothing, negotiators must demonstrate courage, not compromise by calling for a majority vote when consensus cannot be reached.”

She and others suggest that insisting on consensus may be paralyzing progress. Rafael Eudes from Aliança Resíduo Zero Brasil adds:

“A strong treaty with majority support beats a weak treaty that caters only to the few. Governments need to hear civil society’s urgent demand for ambition.”

For WWF, the choice is stark: “Ending plastic pollution is in our grasp—and the treaty negotiations are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do so.”

It’s a powerful — and growing — collective critique: without bold commitments, transparent processes, and safeguards against influence, the Plastics Treaty risks becoming more spectacle than solution.

Whether that opportunity is seized in Geneva may determine if the Philippines and the rest of the world can look forward to a future free of plastic pollution, or one drowning in it.

(2025/08/13-15:45)

To read a full story, please click here to find out how to subscribe.