In response to the concerns regarding plastic pollution in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems worldwide, a diverse assembly comprising national governments, international organisations, civil society entities, private sector representatives, and academia will convene in Geneva, Switzerland’s capital city, from 5 to 14 August for the second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee (INC-5.2) meeting on plastic pollution.
The primary objective of this assembly is to finalise an international, legally binding instrument to address plastic pollution, with particular attention to its impact on marine environments.
|
|
Background
According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), in March 2022, at the resumed fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2), a historic resolution was adopted to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.
The resolution (5/14) entitled “End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument”, requested the Executive Director of UNEP to convene an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to develop “the instrument,” which is to be based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design, and disposal.
|
|
|
|---|
Based on this, UNEP said the INC commenced its work during the second half of 2022, with an ambitious target to complete the negotiations by the end of 2024, but this did not happen.
The first session of the INC (INC-1) took place in Punta del Este, Uruguay, from 28 November to 2 December 2022, and was followed by a second session (INC-2) from 29 May to 2 June 2023 in Paris, France.
Again, the third session (INC-3), which the UNEP said marked the process’s midway point from 13 to 19 November 2023 in Nairobi, Kenya, was followed by the fourth session (INC-4) from 23 to 29 April 2024 in Ottawa, Canada.
Stay Ahead with Premium Times
Follow us on Google News and never miss breaking stories, investigations, and in-depth reporting.
Add as a preferred source on Google
The first part of the fifth session (INC-5.1) took place from 25 November to 1 December 2024 in Busan, Republic of Korea.
Now, expectations are high, as critical stakeholders worry if the second part of the fifth session (INC-5.2), scheduled to take place in Geneva, will deliver stringent regulations to address the impacts of plastic pollution globally due to alleged significant pushbacks from industry lobbyists, particularly those from fossil fuel and chemical industry states.
Plastic pollution concerns in Africa, Nigeria
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), annually, more than 400 million tons of plastic are produced globally. An estimated 19–23 million tons end up in lakes, rivers and seas. However, only less than 10 per cent of the world’s annual plastic production is recycled.
In Africa, which produces only 5 per cent and consumes 4 per cent of global plastic, a growing population and urbanisation are driving an increase in single-use plastic, exacerbating environmental pollution and health threats.
Meanwhile, Africa’s most populous nation, Nigeria, is among the countries facing a severe plastic pollution crisis, ranking as a top global polluter.
Annually, an estimated 2.5 to 3.5 million tons of plastic waste are generated across Nigeria, with a decimal fraction being recycled. This often leads to widespread environmental damage, since plastics do not decay (are non-biodegradable), impacting both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and posing risks to public health.
If one looks into major drainages and corners of major cities and communities in Nigeria, the chances of finding empty water sachets and plastic bottles, as well as takeaway plastic packages, are significantly high.
In the face of these growing concerns, several efforts are ongoing to address plastic pollution in Nigeria. One of the states leading this effort is Lagos, Nigeria’s commercial capital. Recently, the Lagos State Government announced that it has commenced full enforcement of its ban on certain single-use plastics (SUPs).
Similarly, in June, the UNEP explained that they are working with the Nigerian government to introduce a series of regulations that will make companies that produce and use plastic packaging responsible for countering plastic pollution.
“Extended producer responsibility as a strategy shifts the responsibility of waste management to the producers, adopting the polluter pays principle,” said Innocent Barikor, director-general of Nigeria’s National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA).
Over the past two decades, plastic production and import have increased in Nigeria, overburdening the country’s municipal waste management systems. Most plastic wastes in Nigeria are either burned, dumped in the open or tossed into water bodies, research suggests.
Major dividing issues among negotiating blocs at INC
As Parties seek to develop and finalise a legally binding international treaty on plastic pollution, a deep division has emerged over critical themes following the past four cycles of negotiations held.
According to the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), there are several concerns about whether the treaty should include caps on plastic production, inclusion of chemicals of concern and design standards for plastic products.
Also, parties do not agree on the structure of finance mechanisms, including a possible primary polymer fee and remediation fund and whether measures should be mandatory or voluntary, and applied globally or nationally.
Over the course of five rounds of negotiations of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), the CSE noted that member states have had ample opportunity to articulate their red lines, identify points of convergence, and highlight areas of substantive divergence.
These discussions, the centre said, have laid the groundwork for the adoption of an international, legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution. However, the group said progress remains hindered by a persistent divide between oil and plastic-producing countries, many of which have pushed for a narrow focus on downstream waste management and a larger group of countries advocating for an ambitious, full life-cycle approach to plastic pollution.
The experts said the current Chair’s text reflects this tension and that it presents a significantly diluted version of the treaty that was initially envisioned, shaped by the assertive positions and influence of fossil fuel-aligned states.
“As a result, several critical provisions, such as those related to plastic production limits, toxic chemical phase-outs, and financing mechanisms, remain heavily bracketed or intentionally ambiguous,” a fresh report by the CSE released on Sunday, noted.
Since the commencement of the fifth session, however, the report suggests there has been renewed momentum from parties after a number of countries submitted formal textual proposals on key articles of the draft treaty.
These proposals, it said, have emerged from active bilateral and multilateral consultations, signaling a growing appetite among member states to move the process forward in Geneva.
Meanwhile, in early July 2025, member states convened in Nairobi for consultations aimed at identifying potential landing zones, particularly for the more contentious articles of the draft treaty.
Several of these articles saw the submission of fresh textual proposals by member states, reflecting evolving positions and efforts to bridge critical divides.
Over 100 countries, including members of the “High Ambition Coalition,” backed binding reductions in plastic production. In contrast, the CSE said oil- and petrochemical-exporting nations, like Saudi Arabia and Russia, resisted such caps, emphasising waste management instead.
Groups like India, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia also opposed any changes to the consensus-based decision-making process, stalling agreement on procedural reforms.
At the negotiation, Nigeria falls under the Africa Group. So far, Parties have expressed divergent views and demands under the different articles (about 20) referenced in the initial draft texts.
For instance, deliberations around Article 1, dubbed as “Objectives” of the “Global Plastics Treaty”, reveal both a broad consensus on the need to end plastic pollution and divergent perspectives on the framing and ambition of this objective.
“Most countries agree that the treaty should explicitly aim to protect human health and the environment, with many emphasising the need for a comprehensive, full life-cycle approach to plastics,” the CSE noted.
It said countries such as Ghana (on behalf of the African Group), Rwanda, Bangladesh and Tuvalu (on behalf of PSIDS) advocate for a clear and strong reference to addressing plastic pollution throughout its entire life cycle from production to disposal.
The groups highlight the importance of tackling not only plastic waste, but also upstream drivers like production volumes and product design. These positions, the CSE said, often reference marine environments and biodiversity, recognising the global and transboundary nature of plastic pollution.
Brazil, Egypt and Indonesia also support the overarching goal of ending plastic pollution but tend to frame it within broader sustainable development or environmental protection narratives. Malaysia introduces circular economy considerations, suggesting that sustainable waste management and safer material cycles are integral to the treaty’s success.
On the other hand, countries such as Iran, Kazakhstan and Kuwait call for greater sensitivity to national contexts.
Iran emphasises legacy plastic pollution and the need for financial and technical support for developing countries. Kuwait and others express caution about expanding the treaty’s mandate too far, raising questions about overlap with other international health and environment frameworks.
Concerns and recommendations
Ahead of the negotiation starting on Tuesday, a group of scientists (Scientists’ Coalition) has expressed concerns that the treaty risks becoming ineffective if important evidence-based obligations are excluded.
In a statement issued on 31 July, the scientists said they are also concerned about a deliberate misrepresentation of the scientific evidence to manufacture “doubt and undermine” measures on chemicals of concern and plastic production.
READ ALSO: 7 million people die from air pollution annually – WHO
While these efforts may serve short-term business interests, the group said “they undermine the scientifically proven need to protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution”.
“Countries that are serious about ending plastics pollution will ensure the treaty is well supported by essential-use, hazard-based safety, sustainability, and transparency criteria,” said Trisia Farrelly of Cawthron Institute and Massey University, New Zealand.
The scientists said these criteria are crucial in identifying the most harmful plastic chemicals and products, and to inform globally harmonised standards to minimise monitoring and reporting costs, enhance supply chain transparency, guide national plans, and drive down hazardous plastics hyperproduction.
Also, Richard Thompson at the University of Plymouth, United Kingdom, said, “It is clear that business as usual is neither safe nor sustainable”.
To achieve its goal, Mr Thompson said the scientific evidence shows that the new instrument needs to mandate the development of essentiality, safety and sustainability criteria to ensure the plastics that are produced are essential to society and are far safer and more sustainable than they are today.
He argued that “Harmonised standards and labelling can support these criteria to enable safer and more sustainable plastics and alternatives to become the norm in international trade.”
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More News
