A first consolidated draft text of the global plastics treaty is expected to emerge by Friday as the contact groups work around the clock to bridge entrenched differences. But behind closed doors, the definition of the treaty’s “scope” —particularly the interpretation of the “full life cycle of plastics” — remains a flashpoint in negotiations, according to sources privy to Contact Group 1 (CG1) discussions.
Speaking to this newspaper, on the sidelines of an informal meeting with Indian industry representatives on Wednesday, Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso, Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), maintained a diplomatic stand when asked whether the definition of the full life cycle was being revisited amid mounting tensions.
He replied: “Negotiations are going. You have seen what’s happening in the contact group... My job as Chair is to keep the negotiations on track... What the text will say on August 14 is up to the members.”
The Chair said he had requested a compiled text by Friday to serve as a working draft, while maintaining momentum in the contact groups.
“We are still negotiating. The idea is to assemble a text with provisions that have a high level of convergence, while continuing informal work on the more difficult issues,” he said, emphasising that the treaty must be forward-looking, credible, and flexible.
The stocktake, expected after the release of the draft, will help negotiators assess how far they have come and identify the remaining areas of divergence.
The ambiguity over the scope of the treaty stems from a fundamental disagreement: what constitutes the full life cycle of plastics?
14% of oil demand caters to manufacture of polymers
While UNEA Resolution 5/14 — the original mandate for the treaty — calls for addressing plastic pollution “through a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle”, negotiators have diverged sharply over its interpretation.
A briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) says that the lack of a legally defined scope has allowed some countries (petro countries) to push for a narrower definition — focusing mainly on downstream waste management — while excluding the upstream stages of raw material extraction, monomer production, and polymerization.
However, scientific consensus affirms that the plastics life cycle begins with fossil fuel extraction and runs through polymer production, use, disposal, and environmental leakage.
Plastic polymers, which form the backbone of all plastic materials, are produced through highly polluting processes.
According to the CIEL brief, 99% of plastic polymers are fossil-based, and their production already accounts for up to 14% of oil demand — a number set to rise in coming years. Moreover, these polymers are directly linked to the release of toxic chemicals and microplastics that affect both environmental and human health.
Critically, many of these polymers — especially polyethylene, polypropylene, PET, and polystyrene — are derived from a small group of monomers like ethylene and propylene, over 90% of which are used solely for plastics.
Excluding these from the treaty’s control mechanisms could undermine the goal of ending plastic pollution altogether. The Chair’s insistence on “credible rules” and a “flexible” treaty reflects the difficult balancing act between ambition and consensus. Whether the compiled draft on Friday can help close this gap remains to be seen.