As negotiations for a global plastics treaty enter a crucial phase, the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), Julio Cordan, has sought to allay concerns that contentious issues such as plastic production and chemicals are being sidelined. Ahead of an informal meeting of Heads of Delegation in Nairobi from June 30 to July 3, Cordan said the gathering would not take decisions but would help restart negotiations, identify possible landing zones and pave the way for a new informal negotiating text before the next formal session (INC-5.4) in March 2027. Excerpts from the interaction:
Your proposed discussion clusters do not explicitly include plastic production. Has production been taken off the negotiating table?
Absolutely not. No topic is excluded from the negotiations. Members are free to raise any issue they consider important, including production. The clustering is only an organisational tool to facilitate discussions and keep the future treaty as concise and coherent as possible.
Chemicals also do not appear explicitly in the workflow. How will they be addressed?
Chemicals are closely linked to plastic products and will naturally arise under those discussions. There are thousands of chemicals used in plastics, making this one of the most complex issues before negotiators. Members remain free to bring proposals on chemicals.
What is the objective of the Nairobi Heads of Delegation meeting?
It is an informal, non-decision-making meeting. We want to restart substantive discussions, review progress across all issues, identify areas where convergence may be possible and explore potential solutions. The meeting will also help me prepare an informal reference document to guide future negotiations.
Critics say the proposed treaty architecture resembles the UN climate framework and could result in weak implementation. How do you respond?
I don’t think we are following the climate convention model. Plastic pollution is a unique challenge and requires its own institutional design. The treaty will be legally binding but must also provide flexibility for implementation. Members will ultimately decide its architecture.
Can limits on plastic production and hazardous chemicals still become part of the final treaty?
Those discussions are continuing. There are no obvious solutions because members have widely differing views. My responsibility is to listen carefully, understand concerns and help countries identify practical and durable solutions.
Several countries remain deeply divided on core issues. Are you optimistic that consensus is still possible?
Yes. I believe an ambitious treaty can be adopted through consensus. This is a universal environmental problem and the ambition should be to achieve a universal agreement supported by all members.
Some observers argue recent consultations have given greater visibility to less ambitious positions. How do you view that criticism?
As Chair, I cannot comment on individual country positions. My role is to ensure every member is heard equally and to help create space where common ground can emerge.
Given the complexity of negotiations, is INC-5.4 likely to produce a final agreement?
That is certainly our objective. We recognise the negotiations have gone beyond the original two-year timeline, but this is an extremely complex agreement. We should not rush into an outcome; it must be capable of delivering on the mandate.
Some civil society organisations have questioned the appointment of your scientific adviser, Dr Alex Godoy-Faúndez, alleging he has an industry background. How do you respond?
Those concerns are misplaced. Dr Alex Godoy-Faúndez is an IPCC scientist and reviewer, and a professor in Chile. He advises me solely on scientific aspects related to plastics. He has no role in shaping political positions, and all decisions remain my responsibility as Chair.
What message would you like countries to carry into Nairobi?
We need to move from repeating positions to finding solutions. The Nairobi meeting is an opportunity to understand each other’s concerns, develop creative ideas and prepare the ground for successful negotiations next year. Our goal is to leave Nairobi with greater unity and a clearer path towards a legally binding treaty.
