Global Plastic Pollution Treaty: Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee INC – 5.2

Global Plastic Pollution Treaty: Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee INC – 5.2

KAKALI DAS

In Geneva, representatives from 184 countries have gathered to work on a strong global treaty to stop plastic pollution.

The meeting, called the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2), aims to create an international, legally binding agreement that will address the problem of plastics throughout their entire life cycle.

A key goal is to design a high-ambition treaty that looks at how plastics are made, used, and disposed of.

The Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) have sent a strong delegation to ensure that their voices are heard, given that they are among the most vulnerable to plastic pollution. Some countries are urging for faster discussions so the treaty can be finalised sooner.

The International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics (IIPFP) has also made a clear demand to governments: respect and uphold the rights of Indigenous peoples in every aspect of the treaty, as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

RelatedPosts

Mising Indigenous Governance and Hydrological Resilience in the Brahmaputra Basin

April 18, 2026

First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels

April 17, 2026

What Is Area 51? America’s Truth behind UFOs, Roswell, and Alien Sightings

April 17, 2026

Indigenous communities are often directly impacted by plastic pollution in their lands and waters, and they want to ensure their knowledge and needs are not ignored.

At the same time, media reports reveal that many large industry lobbyists are also present at the talks, trying to influence the discussions. These lobbyists represent powerful sectors with a strong interest in keeping plastic production high.

According to the United Nations Trade and Development data, in 2023, global plastic production reached a massive 436 million metric tons. Trade in plastics was valued at over 1.1 trillion US dollars, making up 5% of all global merchandise trade. However, 75% of all the plastic ever made has already turned into waste. Much of this waste escapes proper disposal systems and ends up in oceans and natural ecosystems.

The UN warns that plastics are a serious danger to people and the planet. Our rivers, oceans, and even remote landscapes are filling with plastic, and the problem is getting worse each day. This imbalance threatens public health, food systems, marine life, and long-term development, especially in small island nations and coastal communities.

The world is now in the final stages of reaching an international agreement on how to control the pollution caused by plastic. Plastic has been called a “death plague” in our oceans and cities. Today, plastic waste can be found almost everywhere, from litter in streets to the deepest parts of the ocean.

The material itself is a human invention – highly convenient, cheap, and versatile. But it is also extremely durable, meaning it does not break down easily. This indestructible nature, once seen as a strength, has turned plastic into a global environmental crisis.

The question now is how to manage it, not just within our cities but on a global scale.

This treaty is part of a larger effort known as “ecological globalisation.” It is similar to past global environmental agreements where countries came together to address problems that cross borders. For example, the world agreed to phase out CFC chemicals to protect the ozone layer, leading to the Montreal Protocol.

Other examples include treaties on biodiversity and hazardous waste management under the Basel Convention. In each case, nations agreed to shared rules to live within the limits of the planet. The new plastics treaty aims to do the same for plastic pollution.

One of the key questions is whether the problem can be solved simply by managing litter and waste more effectively, or if it requires more fundamental action, such as reducing the production of plastic altogether. In many countries, especially in the Global South, cities are already struggling to manage mountains of garbage. Because plastic does not degrade, once it enters the environment, it stays there for decades or centuries.

Municipalities are trying measures like waste segregation, recycling, and reprocessing. These efforts reduce litter in streets, rivers, and waterways, but many cities still find they are fighting a losing battle. This is why the treaty aims to address plastic pollution at every stage of its life cycle.

Recycling has long been presented as the main solution to plastic waste, but it is not enough. Globally, only a small fraction of plastic is actually recycled. There are also challenges in the recycling process itself.

A study by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in India found that many plastic food packaging materials from major brands were present in city waterways and rivers, even though these companies are bound by laws under the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system. EPR is meant to make manufacturers responsible for collecting and processing the plastic they put into the market.

But the study shows that, in practice, this is not working well enough. If it were, we would not see so much branded plastic in landfills, oceans, and rivers. This proves that focusing only on recycling is insufficient.

The treaty under negotiation therefore takes a broader approach. First, it looks at “upstream” solutions – reducing the amount of plastic that is produced in the first place. This is controversial because plastic production is closely tied to the petrochemical and fossil fuel industries, which are powerful economic sectors.

The treaty discussions include difficult questions: Which types of plastic are truly essential? Which can be reduced or replaced? And how can production limits be set fairly? The goal is to minimise plastic production so waste can be managed more effectively.

Second, the treaty looks at “midstream” issues, the materials and chemicals used to make plastic. The design of plastic products, including the types of chemicals added, has a huge impact on whether they can be recycled or reused safely.

Plastics with high levels of toxic chemicals are harder to process and more dangerous to handle. Therefore, identifying and banning certain harmful chemicals is a crucial part of the treaty.

But agreeing on which chemicals to ban is challenging because there is no single global standard for measuring toxicity. Countries also worry about whether banned chemicals are those whose patents have expired, making way for newer, more expensive chemicals that could raise production costs.

Third, the treaty focuses on “downstream” solutions – managing plastic litter more effectively. This includes improving EPR systems globally, sharing best practices, and ensuring that countries, especially in the Global South, have the financial resources to implement solutions.

Many developing countries lack the funds and infrastructure to handle the plastic waste already overwhelming their cities. Without global support, even the best-designed treaty could fail in practice.

However, these negotiations are taking place at a time of deep global division. The world is more polarised and insecure than ever, and many countries approach international agreements with the primary aim of protecting their own national interests rather than working for the common good. Building trust is therefore one of the biggest challenges for the treaty process.

The issue of banning toxic chemicals highlights these difficulties. Without a clear and fair system for deciding which chemicals to ban, there is a risk of mistrust between countries.

Some may feel that restrictions are being set in ways that favour certain economies over others. To make progress, nations will need to engage in open dialogue and focus on the shared goal of protecting the planet.

The treaty may not end up being perfect. It is unlikely that every country will get exactly what it wants. But what matters is that the final agreement is built on strong “building blocks” that take into account the entire life cycle of plastics.

Countries in the Global South, in particular, know that they cannot simply clean up after pollution has happened, they must prevent it from happening in the first place. This means designing products that are easier to recycle, using safer materials, and moving towards a more circular economy where waste is minimised and resources are used efficiently.

Equity will also be a key principle. The treaty needs to bring together countries of the North and South in a way that is fair. No nation is the enemy here; the common enemy is plastic pollution itself. The goal is to protect both the environment and human health, ensuring that no community is left to bear an unfair share of the burden.

Ultimately, this treaty is about our shared future. Plastic pollution affects everyone, everywhere. It damages ecosystems, harms wildlife, and can even enter the human body through food and water. We cannot afford to put our health and the planet at further risk. While the negotiations in Geneva are complex and the road to agreement is full of challenges, the urgency is clear.

If the world can come together, just as it has in the past to address other environmental crises, it can create a strong, fair, and ambitious treaty that will make a real difference in the fight against plastic pollution.

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking.  You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com (For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.