The Philippines should advocate for a robust plastics treaty.

The breakdown of global plastics treaty negotiations in Switzerland this August was not a quiet procedural pause. It was a public collapse, with the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) adjourning without consensus. For the Philippines, a country whose waterways and coastlines are visibly choked with plastic waste, the stakes could not be higher. The draft text released by INC chair Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso was widely criticised by delegates from nearly 200 countries for omitting essential provisions — including any mention of “chemicals” or “reuse systems,” and for excluding measures to cut plastic production. This means the current draft, if adopted, would do little to address the root of the problem.

Environmental justice organisation BAN Toxics, which was part of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives Asia-Pacific delegation, joined other groups in declaring that “no treaty is better than a weak treaty.” The group’s deputy executive director, Jam Lorenzo, noted that instead of meaningful progress, the process “fell into disarray as powerful fossil fuel and petrochemical interests — backed by like-minded petro-states — moved to derail negotiations and weaken the treaty.” According to the Center for International Environmental Law, at least 234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists were registered at INC-5.2, outnumbering the combined delegations of the 70 smallest participating nations. That imbalance alone helps explain why the draft text emerged so hollow. For a country like the Philippines, which has consistently played an active role in these negotiations, the question is no longer just about what the treaty contains — it is about whether the Philippines should push for a fundamentally different kind of agreement altogether. The country’s experience with the growing challenge of plastic pollution on land and in waterways makes this a deeply practical concern, not just a diplomatic one.

What a robust plastics treaty must actually deliver

The core of the debate comes down to what a treaty is supposed to do. BAN Toxics has laid out a clear set of requirements: a robust treaty must include production reduction at the source, removal of toxic chemicals from plastics, financial support for lower-income countries, and protection of vulnerable groups such as waste pickers, frontline communities, and Indigenous Peoples. These are not peripheral concerns. They are the difference between a treaty that changes the trajectory of plastic pollution and one that merely manages its symptoms. The draft text that emerged from INC-5.2 failed on all four counts. It removed provisions that would allow countries to vote when consensus cannot be reached during the Conference of the Parties, effectively giving a single veto power to any nation — or bloc of nations — that opposes strong regulation. That structural weakness matters because it means the treaty could be held hostage by the same petro-states that have already shown they are willing to block progress.

The Philippine context makes these requirements especially urgent. The country’s “sachet economy,” fueled by poverty and cheap single-use plastics, has become a major environmental challenge. This is compounded by imports of plastic waste from other countries and overstretched waste management systems. Back-to-back cyclones in July, worsened by the monsoon season, caused massive flooding — with plastic-choked waterways playing a significant role. The Department of Health also recorded a sharp increase in leptospirosis cases, underscoring the public health risks of plastic-related flooding. A weak global treaty would do nothing to address these interconnected problems. It would leave the Philippines to bear the burden of a crisis it did not create, while the countries and corporations that produce the vast majority of plastic continue business as usual.

How industry influence derailed the negotiations

The presence of 234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists at INC-5.2 — outnumbering the combined delegations of 70 nations — is not a footnote. It is the central fact that explains why the draft treaty text was so weak. Civil society coalitions warned that this industry influence threatens to weaken the treaty by blocking language on plastic production caps and chemical regulation. The draft text released by the INC chair did exactly that: it omitted mention of “chemicals” or “reuse systems,” excluded measures to cut plastic production, and contained weak language on human health, just transition, and human rights. For the Philippine delegation, which BAN Toxics commended for taking a strong stance on issues including production cuts, chemical transparency, toxics-free reuse systems, and a dedicated article on health, this outcome must have been deeply frustrating.

The implications for the Philippines are clear. If the treaty that eventually emerges is weak, it will not only fail to reduce global plastic production — it will also fail to provide the financial and technical support that countries like the Philippines need to transition away from the sachet economy and build circular waste systems. The country’s eco-friendly innovations in waste management are promising, but they cannot scale without international support and a regulatory framework that reduces the flow of new plastic into the system. A weak treaty would also fail to address the import of plastic waste from other countries, which continues to strain Philippine waste infrastructure.

What the Philippine delegation is doing right — and what still needs to happen

The Philippines has consistently played an active role in the negotiations toward a landmark, legally binding international instrument to address plastic pollution. At a recent webinar hosted by the National Plastic Action Partnership (NPAP) Philippines, DENR Undersecretary Jonas R. Leones stated that “the Philippines has always been a key player in these global discussions. Our participation at the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee in Geneva last month was a testament to the same. We were there because we want a global treaty that works.” The Philippine delegation has taken strong positions on production cuts, chemical transparency, toxics-free reuse systems, and a dedicated article on health — positions that align closely with what civil society groups like BAN Toxics are calling for.

→ Scroll right to see all columns

But taking a strong stance in negotiations is only half the battle. The other half is ensuring that the treaty that emerges is actually enforceable and that it includes mechanisms for accountability. Atty. Janice Regoso-Pammit, Chief of the Legal Division of the Environmental Management Bureau of DENR, acknowledged the impasse but noted a positive development: “One of the positives to come out of INC 5.2 is that coalitions have been formed and there is more global awareness of plastic pollution. We are much more aware what plastic pollution is and how to respond.” She also emphasised that while the country remains committed to a global framework, “for now, we can collaborate on initiatives and strengthen communication so that everyone can help.” This pragmatic approach makes sense, but it also carries a risk: if the treaty negotiations drag on or produce a weak result, the momentum for domestic action could stall.

Why mandatory disclosure and traceability matter

One of the most concrete measures BAN Toxics has called for is mandatory disclosure of chemicals in products and traceability of chemical origins. Citing data from the PlastChem report, the group highlighted that over 16,000 chemicals are used in plastic materials, with little public information on most of them. This lack of transparency has direct consequences for public health. When plastic products enter the Philippine market — often through imports — neither consumers nor regulators know what chemicals they contain. Some of these chemicals are known to be toxic, and their presence in food packaging, children’s toys, and household items poses a long-term health risk. Mandatory disclosure would change this by requiring manufacturers to list the chemicals used in their products, while traceability would allow regulators to track those chemicals back to their source. For the Philippines, which imports a significant portion of its plastic products and waste, these measures are essential for protecting public health.

The role of domestic platforms like NPAP

Atty. Rosette Ferrer, Chief of the Legal Research and Opinion Division of DENR, emphasised how locally driven platforms such as the NPAP could be utilised to encourage greater collaboration across sectors. She noted that the country’s Ecological Solid Waste Management Act is already 20 years old and implementation remains problematic. “We really need a whole of society approach, including civil society and LGUs to ensure action reaches until the grassroots. NPAP is a good avenue for all of us to collaborate,” she said. NPAP Philippines, which is led by the DENR and supported by the World Economic Forum’s Global Plastic Action Partnership, brings together government, business, development organisations, academe, and civil society. This kind of multi-stakeholder platform is valuable, but it cannot substitute for a strong international treaty. Domestic action and international regulation need to reinforce each other, not operate in separate tracks.

What happens if the next session fails

The next and potentially final session of negotiations is expected in 2026. If that session also fails to produce a strong treaty, the consequences for the Philippines would be severe. Without binding international commitments on production caps, chemical transparency, and financial support, the country would be left to address its plastic pollution crisis largely on its own. The sachet economy would continue to generate enormous volumes of non-recyclable plastic waste. Imports of plastic waste from other countries would continue. And the health and environmental costs — from flooding to leptospirosis to chemical exposure — would continue to mount. This is why BAN Toxics and other civil society groups are arguing that “no treaty is better than a weak treaty.” A weak treaty would create the illusion of progress while locking in the status quo. It would give cover to the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries while doing nothing to reduce the flow of plastic into the environment.

What the Philippines should push for in the next round

The Philippine position in the next round of negotiations should be clear and uncompromising. The country has already demonstrated leadership by taking strong stances on production cuts, chemical transparency, and health. But leadership needs to translate into concrete outcomes. Here is what the Philippines should advocate for in the next session.

Binding production reduction targets

The most important single measure the treaty can include is a binding target for reducing virgin plastic production. Without this, every other measure — recycling, cleanup, waste management — is fighting an uphill battle against an ever-increasing volume of plastic. The Philippines should push for a target that is ambitious, measurable, and enforceable, with clear timelines and penalties for non-compliance. The country’s own experience with the sachet economy shows that voluntary measures are not enough. Only binding targets will force the petrochemical industry to shift away from single-use plastics.

Mandatory chemical disclosure and traceability

As BAN Toxics has argued, mandatory disclosure of chemicals in products and traceability of chemical origins are essential for protecting public health. The Philippines should push for these measures to be included in the treaty text, with clear requirements for manufacturers to disclose the chemicals used in their products and to provide traceability data that allows regulators to track those chemicals back to their source. This is particularly important for a country like the Philippines, which imports a significant portion of its plastic products and waste. Without disclosure and traceability, regulators are flying blind.

Financial and technical support for lower-income countries

The treaty must include binding commitments from wealthier nations to provide financial and technical support to lower-income countries for transitioning to circular economies. The Philippines needs support for building waste management infrastructure, scaling up reuse systems, and providing alternatives to single-use plastics. Without this support, the burden of the transition will fall disproportionately on the poorest and most vulnerable communities. The treaty should establish a dedicated fund with clear disbursement mechanisms and accountability measures.

Protection of vulnerable groups

The treaty must include specific provisions for protecting vulnerable groups, including waste pickers, frontline communities, and Indigenous Peoples. These groups are often the most exposed to the health and environmental impacts of plastic pollution, yet they are also the least represented in the negotiations. The Philippines should push for a just transition framework that ensures these groups are not left behind in the shift away from plastics. This includes provisions for social protection, alternative livelihoods, and meaningful participation in decision-making.

Frequently asked questions about the plastics treaty and the Philippines

What comes next for the Philippines

The breakdown of INC-5.2 is not the end of the road. It is a setback, but it also clarifies what is at stake. The Philippines has a choice: it can accept a weak treaty that does little to address the root causes of plastic pollution, or it can continue to push for a robust, legally binding agreement that includes production caps, chemical transparency, financial support, and protections for vulnerable groups. The country’s delegation has already shown leadership by taking strong positions on these issues. The next step is to translate that leadership into a treaty that actually works. Domestically, platforms like NPAP can help sustain momentum and build the cross-sector collaboration needed to implement whatever treaty eventually emerges. But the ultimate goal must be a treaty that prioritises health, justice, and accountability over industry profits. If this was useful, you might also want to read how the Philippines is fighting back against environmental pollution.

Sources

Climate change and pollution: A Philippine crisis — Explores how overlapping environmental crises are affecting the country’s most vulnerable communities.

Philippines’ clean-up fight for the environment — A look at grassroots and national efforts to address pollution across the archipelago.

BAN Toxics: No treaty better than weak plastics pact. Philippine News Agency, 2024.

NPAP Philippines webinar explores next steps following global plastics treaty talks. UNDP Philippines, 2024.