Plastic talks at an impasse

EDITORIAL: Pakistan’s proposal for a global plastic fund to create a marketplace for “plastic credits,” floated at the fifth session of the plastic treaty negotiations in Geneva, has underscored both the urgency of the problem and the paralysis of the system meant to address it.

Climate Change Minister Musadik Malik’s intervention drew support from several delegations because it raised a fundamental gap in the treaty text: there is no clear mechanism by which the principal polluters compensate those who bear the costs of plastic waste, often small states with minimal footprints but vulnerable ecosystems.

The minister also spoke directly to one of the recurring injustices in global environmental politics. Developed countries not only generate and consume the bulk of plastic but also receive the lion’s share of green financing. At the same time, they continue to export waste to countries like Pakistan, using them as dumping grounds.

This imbalance mirrors the broader climate debate, where those least responsible for emissions or waste carry the highest burden of managing the fallout. By drawing this parallel, Pakistan positioned itself squarely in the camp demanding equity in burden-sharing and a fair distribution of financing.

Yet the broader negotiations reveal how little progress is being made. Even after ten days of discussions, delegates from 184 countries could not agree on a basic definition of “plastic pollution.” Instead, talks remain bogged down in drafting technicalities, with bracketed clauses and disputed punctuation crowding the text. As the European Union’s environment chief remarked, there were “more square brackets in the text than plastic in the sea.” Civil society observers, too, noted that the process has stalled, with producers undermining ambition and some delegations even questioning the treaty’s scope.

For Pakistan, this stalemate is particularly disappointing. The country is both a victim of global plastic flows and a developing economy struggling with waste management at home. A workable treaty could help channel financing and technology into national recycling, collection, and circular economy initiatives. Without such commitments, however, the risk is that the treaty becomes another aspirational document, long on rhetoric but short on enforceable obligations. Malik’s frustration at “benign” statements with “not a single solution” reflects the concerns of many smaller states and NGOs that momentum is being lost.

The proposed marketplace for plastic credits raises its own questions. Market-based instruments, such as carbon credits, have had mixed results in curbing emissions. The risk is that plastic credits could become another tradable asset, satisfying paper requirements while doing little to reduce actual production and consumption. That is why the proposal, while innovative, will need careful design, transparency, and safeguards to avoid replicating the shortcomings of earlier financialised approaches. Still, it represents an attempt to break the deadlock and introduce a concrete instrument where none exists in the current draft.

The underlying lesson of Geneva is that global governance on environmental issues remains slow, fragmented, and hostage to competing commercial interests. For a treaty billed as the most important environmental agreement since Paris 2015, the failure to advance on core issues is troubling. Meanwhile, plastic production continues to rise, and waste continues to overwhelm landfills, rivers, and oceans.

Pakistan’s intervention therefore deserves attention. It called out systemic inequities, pointed to practical instruments, and voiced the frustration of many that global forums appear disconnected from ground realities. The treaty process must move beyond bracketed text to substantive obligations if it is to have meaning. Without concrete mechanisms – whether credits, compensation, or binding reduction targets – plastic will continue to accumulate, and the burden will continue to fall on those least responsible.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025