The latest version of the long overdue plastic treaty is even less ambitious than the previous one, according to experts. A year after UN plastics treaty negotiations collapsed in Geneva in 2025, diplomats met informally in Nairobi between 30 June and 3 July, aiming to flesh out a new “no surprises” document. The chair of the process, Julio Cordano, the Chilean ambassador to the UN, took over in February with the objective “to deliver an effective response to end plastic pollution through an international legally binding instrument”.
A new draft text of the treaty was published earlier this week, which Cordano described as “an informal, evolving reference document”. While he said he was “encouraged by members’ continued engagement and commitment”, there was still work to be done. However, Andrés del Castillo, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said: “Science and reality are not adapting to the geopolitical context.” He said that in the middle of the fifth consecutive heatwave in Europe, the latest draft was “very similar, if not the same, to the last draft released one year ago, with more brackets – mainly everything related to production, health and chemicals”.
The managing director of the environmental NGO OceanCare, Fabienne McLellan, agreed. Brackets in the text indicate disagreement and in effect put the treaty’s objective to protect human health from the impact of plastics up for debate. From a public health perspective, this is of deep concern when “the science is clear”, according to Megan Deeney, a research fellow at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
A treaty that suggests “we only want to protect the environment” would not include in its scope the recent injustices of Turkey’s microplastic pollution from UK waste or microplastics in recycled food waste contaminating agricultural soils. The previous treaty collapsed because agreement could not be reached on the crucial issue of resolving to reduce production. At the conference in Geneva last summer, countries worked past the deadline but could not break the deadlock on whether to reduce exponential growth of plastic production and place global, legally binding controls on toxic chemicals used to make plastics.
The negotiations have tested to the limit the UN consensus system – which requires all countries to . Del Castillo said the negotiations needed an alternative option when consensus could not be reached, as without it, “we risk the same inertia that has slowed climate action for decades”. At the talks last year, some NGOs said they had “lost faith” in the process after most countries wanted a cap on plastic production but a small but powerful minority of oil and plastic producing nations continued to reject the idea.
Some argued the system was being “weaponised”. The next round of negotiations are scheduled for March 2027, marking an unusually long period of 18 months between the talks. Ultimately, the text needed to focus on the “how”, del Castillo said.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
