Story By: Linda Makau
Geneva, Switzerland – As delegates gather in Geneva for the resumed second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC5.2), the urgency surrounding a binding global plastics treaty has never been more palpable. Despite high-level declarations and sweeping commitments, the path toward a binding treaty that truly reduces plastic pollution remains deeply contested and crowded with corporate interests. The world is awash in plastic from urban streets to rural wetlands, from human bloodstreams to the deepest ocean trenches. The statistics are staggering: more than 450 million tonnes of plastic are produced annually, with production set to triple by 2060 if current trends persist.
Chemicals in plastics have been linked to detrimental health outcomes in humans and other species. Many of these chemicals are hazardous, posing risks such as endocrine disruption, cancer, and developmental disorders. The presence of these chemicals in everyday plastic products means that they can leach into food, water, and the environment, leading to widespread exposure.
Addressing the issue of chemicals of concern is therefore essential to protect public health and the environment.
For millions across Africa, particularly refugee women, displaced youth, and food-insecure households, plastic pollution is not merely an environmental issue. It’s a daily crisis linked to public health, food safety, and economic survival. In many communities, waste burning pollutes the air; plastic-clogged drains trigger urban floods; and microplastics contaminate the water supply. Africa has emerged as both a frontline victim of plastic pollution and a growing voice for justice in the negotiations. Countries like Rwanda, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa are pushing for upstream solutions that focus on reducing production, regulating toxic additives, and promoting a just transition for workers in the informal waste sector. The call for a clean, conserved, and stable environment is growing louder. Yet, the key question remains:
When will high-level policy commitments transform into real, measurable action?
According to Juliet Kabera , the Director General of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority, she expressed Rwanda’s firm commitment to achieving a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. Rwanda will continue to champion a strong treaty that addresses the root causes of plastic pollution and prioritize accountability by advocating for a treaty that considers the full life-cycle of plastic pollution, including a global target to reduce plastic production to sustainable levels, while also promoting sustainable alternatives and fostering vibrant circular economies. She expressed the need for the treaty to protect and empower the most affected communities and ensure a just transition for waste pickers and informal workers who play a vital role in managing plastic waste.
Since the plastics treaty negotiations began in 2022, fossil fuel and petrochemical companies have continued to profit immensely. Dow Chemical has made an estimated $5.1 billion, while deploying at least 21 lobbyists to influence the talks. ExxonMobil has raked in $5.3 billion from its chemical division, and Shell has pocketed over $1.2 billion from plastic production in the last two years alone. These companies are not just participating in the negotiations they are shaping them. At INC5.1 held in Busan in December 2024, a record 220 corporate lobbyists were present. This number dwarfed even the host country’s delegation of 140 and tripled the number of independent scientists. Industry representatives were even embedded within some national delegations, giving them access to closed-door sessions meant for government negotiators. Environmental watchdogs have flagged this as a serious breach of integrity. As one report by CIEL (Center for International Environmental Law) warned, “The participation of oil, gas, and petrochemical lobbyists poses a severe threat to the treaty’s objectives.” The industry, critics argue, is using its influence to derail ambition, distort science, and preserve the status quo.
What’s preventing progress? The core dispute centers around production.
More than 100 countries, supported by over 1,100 scientists, are calling for a legally binding cap on plastic production, particularly targeting single-use and short-lived plastics. These nations argue that no amount of improved recycling or waste management can keep pace with current and projected levels of plastic production.
However, according to the a guide to the global agreement report to end plastic pollution released by UNEP, it states that a powerful bloc led by Saudi Arabia, supported by other petrostates such as Russia and Iran, strongly opposes production caps. Their position? The focus should be on waste collection, recycling technologies, and voluntary measures. But recycling has failed to deliver on its promise. According to a 2022 OECD report, only 9% of plastic is recycled globally. Most ends up in landfills, incinerators, or polluting natural ecosystems. Critics say industry proposals for “advanced recycling” are expensive distractions that ignore the root cause: overproduction. Their argument: plastic plays a critical role in modern economies, and the focus should be on managing waste better, not restricting production itself. They cite innovation in recycling and circular economy strategies as the path forward.
From an effectiveness perspective, they’re not entirely wrong. A treaty that limits production on paper but lacks buy-in from the biggest producers could end up as symbolic rather than transformational. Implementation and compliance not just ambition will determine the treaty’s success. Delaying upstream interventions means perpetuating pollution downstream.
Another fundamental divide is whether waste management should be the backbone of the treaty or a supporting mechanism. The industry along with petro-states emphasizes recycling, improved collection infrastructure, and cleanup strategies. But many frontline nations, particularly from Africa and the Pacific, argue that this approach places the burden on the most affected, not the most responsible. For communities where plastic is burned in open-air pits or chokes urban waterways, focusing solely on downstream solutions is both insufficient and unjust. Still, completely excluding waste management from the treaty would ignore practical realities. For countries already grappling with plastic pollution, capacity-building, financing, and technology transfer are vital.
This is where middle-ground solutions are beginning to emerge. Some delegations advocate for a phased regulatory framework that begins with achievable goals, then strengthens over time a “start and strengthen” model.
One institution promoting this approach is Northeastern University, now participating in its third INC as an accredited observer. Led by Professor Maria Ivanova, the university’s delegation brings a unique perspective combining science, policy, and governance research. Through their newly established Plastics Center, co-directed by Professor Maria Ivanova and Professor Aron Stubbins, Northeastern University is advancing transdisciplinary solutions to the plastics dilemma, balancing ambition with political feasibility. Through flexibility measures, greater transparency, and phased regulation, Northeastern University supports a “start and strengthen” approach.
Although gaining observer accreditation for universities has been a challenging undertaking, Northeastern University’s delegation aims to contribute to the INC negotiations through research and analysis. With strict production limitation measures seeming more and more improbable in a final treaty, they are adding a fresh perspective on alternative methods of reaching a favorable final outcome for all.
Civil society organizations, including environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) , Institutions and advocacy groups, are among the most vocal supporters of a strong and comprehensive treaty. Key organizations such as the Center for International Environmental Law, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, the Environmental Investigation Agency , Minderoo Foundation, International Pollution Elimination Network, and World Wildlife Fund have been instrumental in pushing for ambitious provisions, including:
- Production caps on virgin plastics
- Human rights approaches to ensure rights of stakeholders and rights holders such as women, youth, and Indigenous People throughout the treaty process and into its implementation
- Phase-outs of harmful chemicals in plastics
- Strong waste management provisions to prevent leakage into the environment
Civil society organizations argue that a weak treaty focused solely on waste management would fail to address the root causes of plastic pollution. They emphasize the need for a life-cycle approach that includes upstream measures to reduce production and downstream measures to improve waste management.
Speaking to Social entrepreneur Nzambi Matee , a materials engineer and head of Gjenge Makers Ltd, she was frustrated by the level of pollution, and in 2017, she constructed a laboratory in her mother’s backyard. It was there that she used her self-taught engineering skills to convert plastic waste into bricks that are stronger and more eco-friendly than concrete. So far, Gjenge Makers has recycled over 20 tonnes of plastic waste into vibrant, high-quality bricks available in colors like red, blue, green, and brown. Gjenge is a a sustainable, alternative and affordable, building products manufacturing company, which produces low-cost construction materials made from recycled plastic waste and sand.
Who Has a Seat at the Table?
Perhaps the most contentious yet least visible point of tension is over who gets access to negotiations and how that access is managed. At INC5.1 in Busan, a record 220 industry lobbyists were present. That’s more than the entire delegation of the host country and three times the number of independent scientists. Some of these lobbyists were embedded within national delegations, granting them access to restricted sessions. Meanwhile, scientists from the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty (SCEPT) a network of 450 experts unaffiliated with industry reported being shut out of meetings. In February 2025, they wrote to UNEP to voice concerns about their lack of access and their inability to correct misinformation during the talks.
UNEP, for its part, has defended its role, stating it is committed to supporting an inclusive and effective process. But criticism has mounted over its handling of civil society access and scientific input. A 2023 UNEP report on pathways to end plastic pollution, for example, failed to include over 300 comments from SCEPT, which UNEP attributed to a “technical issue.”
The rise in participation of industry groups many of whom have direct financial interests in continued plastic production has raised alarms among observers. Critics say the absence of a conflict-of-interest policy is allowing vested interests to disproportionately shape the treaty’s direction. Still, any fair analysis must include the industry’s stated position. Industry groups argue that their involvement ensures technical feasibility and economic realism, warning that without them, the treaty could fail in implementation or lead to unintended economic consequences.
What’s Next: Geneva as the Tipping Point
INC5.2 is expected to mark a shift from conceptual discussions to actual drafting. Countries must begin negotiating actual treaty text, not just options or principles. There is growing pressure to finalize a draft by early 2026 meaning decisions made in the next few days could set the course for the treaty’s ambition. While UNEP maintains that it is “focused on facilitating an impactful treaty,” many fear that the overwhelming influence of industry could weaken the final outcome unless major reforms are made to ensure scientific integrity, equitable representation, and political courage. As 95 countries reaffirmed in a recent joint declaration at the UN Ocean Conference, the world needs a “strong, ambitious, and legally binding” plastics treaty. Anything less, they warned, would be a betrayal of the planet and future generations.
The world is watching Geneva. But perhaps more importantly, so are the families living beside open dumpsites, the fisherfolk in West Africa watching their waters turn toxic, and the displaced girls breathing in the fumes of burning plastic in India.
INC5.2 is not just another UN meeting – it’s a fight for a livable future.
The real test of this treaty will not be in the press releases or photo ops, but in whether it delivers justice for those most affected and accountability for those most responsible.
