New UN Global Plastics Treaty document omits accountability mechanisms, NGO warns

The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has released an informal “Aid to Negotiations” as part of efforts to develop a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty, and to help structure engagement in the next phase of informal meetings of Heads of Delegations (HODs), set to take place in Bangkok, Thailand, next month. 

In response to the publication, the Environmental Investigation Agency tells us there has not been a treaty text directly addressing plastic production for “quite some time,” adding that the Aid is not an exception. 

“All of the provisions that would tackle the scale of plastic production have been weakened, bracketed, or removed over the course of the negotiations; you’ll see the word ‘production’ has been met with brackets or removal in the Aid,” Amy Youngman, legal and policy specialist at the Environmental Investigation Agency, tells Packaging Insights.

“I am extremely concerned,” she adds. “The UNEP Secretariat and INC leadership are relying more heavily on informal consultations and closed-door discussions while making less information available to observers and the public.”

“That makes it increasingly difficult for civil society, scientists, Indigenous peoples, affected communities, and other stakeholders to understand how decisions are being made or whether publicly available texts accurately reflect the full range of options under discussion.”

The Aid document was prepared under the authority of Julio Cordano, the new Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) on Plastic Pollution, as the UN moves toward the fourth part of the INC (INC-5.4) in 2027. INC-5.3 took place in a day for “administrative purposes,” according to the UN. 

INC-5.2 was held in Geneva, Switzerland (August 5–14, 2025), with the final round of talks concluding without an agreement, which the Center for International Environmental Law referred to as an “abject failure” at the time.

This is the first in a series of Packaging Insights stories covering the next phase of informal meetings of HODs. Perspectives from the UN INC and the plastic industry will be explored in upcoming coverage. 

Ambiguity on plastic production 

The Aid reference document notes plastic pollution as an issue of concern, acknowledges the role of plastic in “human society,” as well as the importance of a circular economy. It further recognizes “the significant contribution” by all workers in the plastics sector and underlines the need for “science-based decision making.” 

Amy Youngman, legal and policy specialist at the Environmental Investigation Agency (Image creadit: Amy Youngman, LinkedIn).The informal document recalls the UN Declaration on the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. 

A key aspect of the Aid is that the following section is placed in brackets, which, according to Youngman, indicates a removal: “Recognizing that current levels of production and consumption of plastics are unsustainable, exceed current waste management capacities and are projected to increase further, thereby necessitating a coordinated global response to halt and reverse such trends.” 

Youngman states: “The most feasible solution is for the treaty to establish a shared global ambition to reduce the production and consumption of virgin plastics, for example, through a collective objective aligned with keeping production below projected growth trajectories and achieving significant reductions by 2040 and other future target dates.”

“The precise pathway to achieve that goal could remain flexible so that all Parties feel comfortable engaging; however, flexibility cannot come at the expense of accountability.” 

She adds that strong, harmonized reporting obligations, including consistent reporting on production, consumption, and trade data, are equally important. “If Parties are not reporting data in a comparable way, there is no meaningful way to evaluate progress. A target without reporting is symbolic. Reporting without a target is directionless. An ambitious treaty requires both.”

“The treaty should include enough flexibility for countries to determine how best to reduce the production and consumption of plastic based on their national circumstances,” Youngman continues. “For packaging, that means prioritizing the sectors and products driving the greatest volumes of unnecessary plastic use, while accelerating the transition to reuse, refill, and other waste prevention measures.”

Following the indecisive conclusion of INC-5.2, the EU industry representative organizations Plastics Europe and Plastics Recyclers Europe said that the setback highlights the need for the EU to maintain policy practices, investment, and cooperation.

Recently, the EU and China reaffirmed their commitment to tackling plastic and chemical pollution ahead of the renewed Global Plastics Treaty negotiations.

Reviving a rejected text 

INC’s informal Aid document features a late-stage working version from the INC-5.2 text. Youngman says that “it is deeply concerning that a selectively edited version of that rejected text is now being used as the basis for further discussions.”

“Countries across the ambition spectrum rejected the Chair’s text because it neither reflected the negotiations nor accurately captured the views expressed by governments.”

“At the same time, proposals and bridge-building ideas advanced since INC-5.2 remain largely out of public view, discussed in informal processes closed to observers and not reflected in publicly available negotiating documents. This creates significant transparency concerns and raises questions about why some interventions have been incorporated into the Aid while others have not.”

Meanwhile, Cordano states: “I would also like to recall that, in our last informal in-person HODs meeting in Nairobi, a number of ideas were shared that offered possible avenues for finding bridging solutions. In line with the approach I explained in the preparatory notes to that meeting, I have not attempted to insert those ideas into this first iteration of the [Aid] document.”

Youngman continues: “Among the substantive changes, the most troubling to me as a lawyer is the removal of ‘monitoring’ throughout the text and the edits to the effectiveness evaluation provision. ”

“It also removes requirements for the Conference of the Parties to consider evaluation outcomes and take action in response. What is particularly striking is that these are not simply bracketing exercises to reflect unresolved political differences. The Chair has made substantive editorial changes that remove key accountability mechanisms.”

She argues that such edits weaken the treaty’s ability to track whether measures are working, identify gaps in implementation, and ratchet up ambition over time. “The omission of production and consumption data is especially consequential.”

Julio Cordano, Chair of INC on Plastic Pollution (Image credit: Julio Cordano, X).“Plastic pollution is a function of the volume of plastic entering the economy, and even if there are no control measures on production, if Parties are unable or unwilling to assess those trends, they risk designing an effectiveness framework that obscures whether the treaty is addressing the drivers of the crisis or simply managing its consequences.”

Upcoming meeting in Bangkok

The next informal in-person HODs meeting will take place on 27–30 September 2026 at the UN Conference Centre in Bangkok. 

Cordano writes: “I hope that members will use the Aid to Negotiations during that meeting to consolidate areas of convergence, advance consideration of outstanding issues, and begin identifying possible bridging approaches and solutions.”

Youngman responds: “Parties should not give much weight to the Aid Document in Bangkok. Instead, governments should use Bangkok to get the negotiations back to basics and refocus on what is actually required to achieve the treaty’s objective of ending plastic pollution.” 

“The starting point should be identifying the core building blocks of an effective treaty: measures that address pollution across the full lifecycle of plastics, tackle problematic products and chemicals of concern, strengthen product design and reuse systems, and provide a credible pathway for reducing the scale of plastic production and consumption driving the crisis.” 

Meetings in Bangkok should not be limited to what countries can agree to today, Youngman continues. “The real question is whether we are building a treaty capable of solving the problem over the coming decades.”

“Ultimately, Bangkok is an opportunity to step back and ask not just what compromises are politically achievable, but what minimum foundations are required to fulfill the treaty’s objective of ending plastic pollution and what mechanisms are needed to ensure it becomes more ambitious and effective over time. A treaty designed only for adoption risks becoming obsolete; a treaty designed for continuous improvement has the potential to deliver lasting change.”

Exclusion of civil society

The Environmental Investigation Agency says that civil society organizations are being excluded from recent informal discussions surrounding the Global Plastics Treaty.

Youngman argues that taking negotiations to bilateral conversations not only reduces scrutiny but also creates a growing sense of isolation among ambitious blocs that have invested years of work in this process and whose contributions have helped shape many of the treaty’s strongest provisions.

“At a time when trust in multilateralism is already fragile, moving important discussions behind closed doors risks undermining confidence in the process and the outcome. If governments want an ambitious treaty, transparency and participation should be strengthened, not curtailed.”