Who’s who at the plastics treaty talks, from delegates to lobbyists todayheadline

As delegates from around the world have negotiated a global plastics treaty over five sessions since 2022, alliances have emerged among nations, across civil society, and throughout the private sector. Some countries have banded together in support of an “ambitious” agreement that prioritizes reducing plastic production; others have stood firm against such a policy. Meanwhile, scientists and environmental advocates have attended the talks to push for production caps and phaseouts of hazardous chemicals — while representatives from the fossil fuel industry have pushed in the opposite direction. 

Here are the major coalitions and groups to watch during the treaty’s sixth negotiating session, which began on Tuesday and is scheduled to conclude on August 14 in Geneva, Switzerland.

Countries participating in the negotiations

The most important attendees at the plastics treaty negotiating sessions are delegates representing almost every country in the world. Here are the main alliances they’ve formed.

High Ambition Coalition

The “High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution” represents more than 70 countries that support an “ambitious, international, legally binding” agreement. Announced by Norway and Rwanda in August 2022, it’s now the largest coalition of countries at the global plastics treaty. Other members include Canada, Peru, Senegal, South Korea, and the U.K. 

One defining feature of the High Ambition Coalition is the way it interprets the phrase “full life cycle” of plastics, which was included in the United Nations resolution that kicked off negotiations. To coalition members, this means the treaty must address plastic production, curtailing it “to sustainable levels.” The High Ambition Coalition also supports eliminating “problematic” plastics via bans and restrictions, as well as achieving “environmentally sound management and recycling of plastic waste” and “enabling a circular economy for plastics.”

Like-minded group

During the plastic treaty’s third round of negotiations in Nairobi, Kenya, delegates from Iran announced the formation of a “like-minded group” of countries including Bahrain, China, Cuba, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. This bloc supports dramatically different priorities from those of the High Ambition Coalition. Instead of limiting plastic production, the group wants to focus on managing and preventing the pollution of plastic, including through better waste collection and recycling infrastructure. “Plastics are fundamental materials for sustainable economic growth,” Iran’s negotiator said in a statement. 

Critics have referred to this group as the “low-ambition” coalition. It has pushed for a “bottom-up” treaty structure in which countries voluntarily contribute to nonbinding global goals on waste management and prevention. To preserve the group’s outsize influence relative to its small membership, it has also fought to preserve rules that encourage consensus-based decision-making, urging other countries not to try to put decisions up to a vote.

The United States is not a member of the High Ambition Coalition or the like-minded group, but its positions are closer to those of the latter. After flip–flopping during the Biden administration, the U.S. delegation under President Donald Trump said last month that it would not support regulations on the production of plastic, and that any parts of the treaty without a “level of convergence” should be left to “country-level discretion.”

Regional and economic blocs

In addition to the High Ambition Coalition and the like-minded group are negotiating blocs organized by region or development status. These groups predate the plastics treaty negotiations — they’ve existed for decades to participate in multilateral treaty negotiations. They include the Arab Group, many of whose 22 members are either part of the like-minded group or aligned with it in its opposition to legally binding obligations and regulating plastic production. 

The 33-member Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, or GRULAC, has expressed support for binding measures to eliminate hazardous chemicals and “promote sustainable production and consumption” of plastics. Most of its members are part of the High Ambition Coalition, although some, like Brazil, are not. Only one GRULAC country, Cuba, is in the like-minded group. 

The European Union participates in the plastics treaty as a bloc and is a part of the High Ambition Coalition, along with 16 of its 27 member states. It backs legally binding treaty provisions on production, chemicals, and other issues, and has supported a proposal to require countries to submit national treaty implementation plans that get updated every four to six years.

The 39-member Alliance of Small Island States, or AOSIS, represents countries like the Bahamas, Fiji, and the Maldives that are uniquely vulnerable to marine plastic pollution. The group is largely aligned with the High Ambition Coalition in seeking obligatory measures addressing the “full life cycle” of plastics, but it doesn’t have a unified position on production limits. A 14-member subset of AOSIS called the Pacific Small Island Developing States, or PSIDS, has favored aggressive measures to curtail plastic production. 

AOSIS’s negotiators have emphasized the need to remediate existing plastic pollution — and to obtain financial assistance from the richer plastic-exporting countries that have caused the problem. That’s similar to some of the main priorities of the 54-member African Group of Nations, whose members often struggle to manage the massive amounts of plastic waste that they receive from the developed world. The African group has called for guaranteed access to financial and technical resources to help its members successfully implement the treaty. Thirteen of its members are in the High Ambition Coalition.

Declaration signatories

In the final hours of the most recent round of talks in Busan, South Korea, dozens of countries signed onto two declarations about what the final treaty should look like. The one on “plastic products and chemicals of concern” drew the most support and was endorsed by 94 countries, mostly from the High Ambition Coalition but also including Angola, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and others. It demanded that the treaty contain “a clear, legally binding obligation” to phase out some of the most worrisome plastic products and chemicals. The other declaration called for the treaty to include legally binding plastic production limits. It drew support from 85 countries, also mostly from the High Ambition Coalition. 

An estimated 151 countries also supported a proposal from the African Group of Nations, GRULAC, and three Pacific Island countries to finance the treaty with a dedicated fund, to which wealthy countries would be required to contribute.

Observers

In addition to the delegates who are actually negotiating the treaty, each round of plastics talks has attracted hundreds or thousands of other stakeholders, largely from the business or nonprofit world, hoping to influence the discussions. Here are the main categories.

Civil society

Environmental groups, public health nonprofits, and organizations of Indigenous peoples have played a prominent role at the plastics treaty negotiations. They overwhelmingly support the High Ambition Coalition and its efforts to incorporate production caps and mandatory phaseouts of hazardous chemicals into the treaty, and they often advocate for their priorities through “side events” during each round of negotiations. These events include panels, ceremonies, protests, and artistic installations meant to generate media coverage and attract attention from negotiators. 

Some organizations have formed umbrella alliances to amplify their voices and make joint submissions to the U.N. committee that organizes the talks. These alliances include the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics; a “just transition coalition” comprising Indigenous people, waste pickers, and frontline communities; the “Local and Subnational Governments Coalition to End Plastic Pollution”; and the “Global Youth Coalition on Plastic Pollution.” Existing networks of waste-related organizations, such as Break Free From Plastic, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, and the International Pollutants Elimination Network, also represent diverse organizations from around the world. 

Scientists

Many scientific and medical organizations have published position statements and open letters related to the plastics treaty, mostly urging negotiators to frame the agreement around human health and to incorporate stringent restrictions on the use of hazardous plastic chemicals. Last year, dozens of health organizations endorsed an open letter explicitly calling for “a significant reduction in plastic production.” 

The most vocal science group, however, is the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. It was formed in 2022 shortly after countries agreed to “end plastic pollution,” and has helped its members coordinate research specifically for the treaty negotiations, including a landmark analysis published last month in the journal Science identifying 16,325 chemicals used in plastic products.

The private sector

There are two large groups representing businesses at the plastics treaty talks. One of them, the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, was launched in 2022 under the aegis of the nonprofit Ellen MacArthur Foundation and WWF, and has been endorsed by dozens of large, multinational brands that make and sell plastics, including 3M, Amcor, Coca-Cola, Danone, Nestle, L’Oreal, and Walmart. The coalition’s three official priorities are to reduce plastic production through a “circular economy approach,” enhance the “circulation” of plastics through better product design and recycling infrastructure, and clean up and prevent plastic pollution. Plastic regulations that are consistent across borders will make it easier for companies to operate internationally, according to the coalition.

Last year, Greenpeace, Break Free From Plastic, and the Plastic Pollution Coalition launched another business network that they called Champions of Change. This group’s five priorities include setting a legally binding target to reduce plastic production by at least 75 percent by 2040, eliminating single-use plastic products, and setting global targets for reusable packaging. Some of its endorsers overlap with those of the Business Coalition, but most of them are smaller brands such as Dr. Bronner’s, Meliora Cleaning Products, and Sway.

The petrochemical industry

Petrochemical industry trade groups claim to be “championing” the global plastics treaty, but their vision for the agreement is dramatically different from that of environmental groups and the High Ambition Coalition. They say the plastics crisis is caused by waste mismanagement, not an oversupply of plastic products, and — like the like-minded group — would like it to leave plastic production untouched. Instead, they advocate for “plastics circularity”: designing plastic products to be more recyclable, for example, and increasing investments in plastic collection and recycling infrastructure.

Petrochemical industry groups are largely represented by the International Council of Chemical Associations, as well as national trade groups like Plastics Europe and the American Chemistry Council. These groups have sent dozens of lobbyists to negotiating sessions, often as part of oil-producing countries’ national delegations. More than 220 fossil fuel and chemistry lobbyists registered to attend the last round of talks in South Korea, outnumbering all of the European Union member states’ 191 delegates, the Pacific Small Island Developing States’ 165 delegates, and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries’ 165 delegates. This month, the nonprofit Center for International Environmental Law identified at least 234 fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists at the talks in Geneva — a new high.