Q&A: What an ideal global plastics treaty would look like for Africa

From the newsletter

In the wake of failed global plastics treaty negotiations, Hellen Kahaso Dena, Project Lead for the Pan-African Plastics Project at Greenpeace Africa, says Africa’s focus must be on cutting plastic production, not just improving recycling. She warns that without production caps the continent will remain vulnerable to waste colonialism.

• According to Ms Dena, an ideal treaty for Africa would address plastics across their entire life cycle, combining production cuts, safer product design, the phasing out of toxic chemicals and support for refill-and-reuse systems.

• In an interview, the Greenpeace Africa campaigner says that to achieve this, the treaty must be backed by strong financial mechanisms and meaningful technology transfer, enabling countries to scale successful circular solutions already operating on the ground.

More details

In your opinion, why did the plastics treaty negotiations in Geneva fail to reach agreement?

The majority of the member states would want to have a strong, ambitious treaty, a treaty that will be fit for purpose, that will ensure that we reduce plastic production, we phase out toxic chemicals, and deal with the issue of plastic pollution across the entire life cycle. But then, on the other hand, a small group of countries has really been derailing the process because they don't agree with some of these key articles. So that has been really a challenge.  Some of the things that you've been seeing also in this negotiation since the beginning of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) is a lot of pressure from fossil fuel lobbies. For INC 5.2, there were around 234 fossil fuel lobbies. And these people have a lot of resources, they fly into the venues of this INC way before to try and lobby different member states, try and lobby different governments, just to influence and get ambitious countries to bow to their pressure.

Another issue is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The treaty text has around 33 articles. If 10 are agreed and one is not, then there is still no agreement. Getting 170 countries to agree on everything is very difficult and takes endless back and forth. I think the challenge now is for the chair and the member states to find a way forward without letting low-ambition countries derail the process. One solution could be to allow voting on certain articles instead of relying only on consensus, which lets a handful of countries block progress. Otherwise, the risk is more deadlock in future rounds.  

What have been the most contentious issues in the negotiations?

There have been a couple of articles in the treaty text that have been really contested by quite a few member states.  One of them is capping plastic production, a stand supported by most African countries. We are not calling for a complete stop to production. At Greenpeace, what we’ve been calling for is a 75% reduction in plastic production by 2040. It would be a phased approach. We realize there are industries, like the medical field, that use plastics which are necessary for daily operations. 

Addressing plastics across the full cycle is also a divisive issue. The definition of “life cycle” itself has been contentious. Some member states say it starts at production, not extraction. Others say it starts at use or only at waste management. Some argue the treaty’s mandate is to end plastic pollution, not plastic production. But the question is, how do you end pollution if you are still producing? Research shows only about 9% of plastics ever produced have been recycled. What happens to the other 90%? Some countries want to focus only on waste management. Others say product design is the answer. That could help, but the ultimate solution is to reduce production. 

We also need to look at the chemicals used. Around 16,000 chemicals are used in plastic manufacturing, with about 4,200 considered toxic. So how do we reduce their use? Plastic pollution is not only bottles and bags in landfills or the ocean. It happens across the chain: extraction, production, use, recycling, and disposal. Africa also suffers from waste colonialism, with plastic waste dumped into some countries despite producing very little itself. In some cases, African countries are influenced by external producers, which complicates unity.

Given these challenges, what would an ideal global plastics treaty look like for Africa?

An ideal treaty would first reduce plastic production, which means less plastic overall, including less being shipped to Africa for dumping. Second, it would push for product design aligned with the circular economy, avoiding single-use plastics. Third, it would phase out toxic chemicals to ensure plastics that remain are safe. Africa is already exploring alternative systems like refill and reuse. For example, in Kenya we have milk ATMs and water vending kiosks where people refill containers instead of buying single-use bottles. South Africa and other countries are also adopting similar systems.

The treaty should support and scale such approaches.A strong financial mechanism is also critical. Africa has pushed for this to ensure countries have resources to implement the treaty, whether investing in refill and reuse, managing legacy plastics already in the environment, or accessing appropriate technologies. By “technology transfer,” we don’t mean dumping outdated equipment, but meaningful, fit-for-purpose support. So, for Africa, the key elements of an ideal treaty are: reduced production, safer product design, alternative systems like reuse and refill, and a dedicated financial mechanism backed by real technology transfer.

 If and when we get a global plastics treaty, how do we ensure that the member countries comply?

That’s a good one. Even now, with different national plans, we’ve seen that in Africa many countries have passed laws to ban plastics. Some have implemented them, but others have passed laws without implementation. The real issue has been enforcement. The Global Plastics Treaty may not be any different. What could make it different is the structure. For example, after an agreed number of years, countries would need to show progress, say reducing plastic production from 100% to 80%, with the rest either reused or redesigned to avoid single-use. There will also be reporting mechanisms, backed by funding to support implementation. These reporting requirements should hold member states that ratify the treaty accountable. That is our hope that after the agreed timelines, countries will report back and demonstrate the progress they have made. 

In light of the setbacks in Geneva, what does the path forward look like for a treaty? 

I think the pathway forward is clear. Most member states still want to forge forward and give it another go while many countries expressed a lot of frustration and disappointment that a deal was not reached,we definitely had a sense that they desire to continue the process, to maintain the momentum of the negotiations. We as CSOs such as Greenpeace Africa, are really grateful that we did not get out of Geneva with a weak treaty, because that would have been detrimental not only to our environment, but also to human health. Despite the politics, there are some countries that have been able to hold the line in terms of not listening to these fossil fuel lobbies. As we got out of INC 5.2, there were about 120 countries that really wanted an ambitious treaty that would reduce plastic production. And that's huge because we're talking about the majority of these people really wanting to see that we don't just get a treaty for the sake of a treaty, because we would have wasted almost two and a half years. They want a treaty that would really solve this crisis.