Plastics Treaty Draft Leaves Out Production Cuts: What It Means for You and the Planet

Geneva, MMN Correspondent: The newest draft of the global plastics treaty has arrived, and it is missing something many countries consider essential. Chilean ambassador Julio Cordano, the diplomat chairing the United Nations talks, released the document as an informal reference text. It reads a lot like a formal treaty, and for governments, campaigners, and scientists, the most striking detail is what is not inside it: any concrete step to slow down the production of new plastics.

The text acknowledges that the world produces and consumes plastics at an unsustainable level. It does not offer measures to address that growth. A treaty meant to end plastic pollution without touching the source of that pollution is, in the eyes of many, a treaty that will struggle to do its job.

Environmental Investigation Agency campaigner Christina Dixon says the paper echoes a version rejected by most governments in Geneva a year ago, with key elements removed and repackaged as progress. "We’ve gone backwards rather than forwards," she says. French diplomats add that the text lacks concrete provisions on unsustainable production and consumption, and a majority of countries have kept calling for those provisions.

Scientists have made this point for years. Plastic pollution does not begin at the landfill. It begins with manufacturing. Governments across Europe, Latin America, Africa, and the Pacific islands have long asked for limits to plastic manufacturing at sustainable levels. They face strong opposition from fossil fuel producing countries, including Gulf states, the United States, and Russia. For those producers, plastics represent a growing market for oil and gas.

This is not a new battle. Initial drafts from 2024 included a standalone article that would have allowed negotiators to set a global target for reducing the production and consumption of primary plastics. That provision disappeared from successive drafts published in Geneva last year. The Geneva text did keep language suggesting that production data could be used in future assessments of whether the treaty was meeting its goals. Observers saw that as a doorway to a stronger pact over time. The new text walks away from that door. It mentions sustainable production only in the preamble, and it includes an article about improving plastic product design to support sustainable production. No target. No data loop. No obligation.

Micronesia’s negotiator Dennis Clare sees a slow-motion erosion of ambition. "There’s a war of attrition element," he says. "The countries that want to do less are dragging out discussions and gradually pressuring the more ambitious to compromise towards a lower common denominator."

The talks have already missed two deadlines. Formal sessions meant to close the deal ended without agreement in December 2024 and August 2025. New chair Julio Cordano has tried to reset the process through informal meetings. The next formal negotiating session is scheduled for early 2027.

His approach has drawn scrutiny. Some negotiators say production was kept off the agenda for a recent meeting in Nairobi, and that made it harder to discuss the treaty’s foundation. Cordano says countries were free to raise any issue and that Nairobi offered space for reaffirming positions and expressing new ideas. The informal talks happen behind closed doors, with no media or outside observers allowed.

Campaigners see a clear calculation. Dixon says the easiest path to a consensus agreement is to remove the more complex elements, including sustainable production and consumption. Cordano responds that he is guided by countries as they develop their own exchanges and work toward possible landing zones.

The stakes reach far beyond the negotiating room. Plastic production is a large and fast growing source of greenhouse gases. According to the OECD, plastics produced 1.8 billion tonnes of emissions in 2019, about 3.4 percent of the global total. Without policy change, that number could more than double by 2060. Because plastic relies on fossil fuels for both material and energy, this treaty is also a climate agreement.

Negotiators will gather in Bangkok at the end of September for another meeting of chief negotiators. A new version of the text is expected after that. French diplomats say the current draft should not be treated as an end product. They describe it as a starting point that can and should be improved. France, the European Union, and the High Ambition Coalition, a group of more than 70 countries from Europe, Latin America, Africa, and the Pacific, will keep pushing for stronger provisions. The HAC has consistently called for a treaty that covers the full lifecycle of plastics, including production and waste management.

Dennis Clare offers a sharp warning for the next phase. If the treaty leaves out essential elements of the solution, an apparent diplomatic success could become an environmental failure. Frontline countries may decide they do not want a weak pact that asks them to clean up someone else’s waste while producers keep expanding.

So the real question is about the quality of the final agreement. Once reached, will it actually solve the problem? Bangkok will be a key test of whether production returns to the table. The answer will shape the plastics economy and the planet for decades to come.