What is at stake for PH in global plastics treaty talks?

The global treaty could reshape plastics rules and influence how the Philippines tackles pollution, producer accountability and persistent waste leakage.

Part 1: Low consumption, high leakage: The Philippines’ plastic paradox

Part 2: From bin to ocean: How plastic waste escapes Philippine systems

Part 3: PH plastic waste laws exist, but gaps still drive leakage

Part 4: How Philippine cities, provinces are building local plastic solutions

(Part 6)

MANILA, Philippines — By the time a plastic sachet is thrown away, its story has already been written.

It begins with the extraction of raw materials, moves through retail shelves and households, and ends — more often than not — outside the systems meant to contain it.

Across this series, that journey has revealed a defining paradox of the Philippines’ plastic crisis: While Filipinos consume relatively little plastic compared with people in many wealthier nations, the country remains among those with the highest levels of plastic waste leakage.

Each year, more than half of the country’s plastic waste is left unmanaged. It is not recycled or safely contained. Instead, it is dumped, burned or carried by rivers into the sea.

The scale is visible in the numbers — millions of tons of waste and billions of sachets — but also in the system itself. Plastic is produced faster than it can be managed, designed in ways that make recovery difficult and embedded in an economy built on disposability.

As countries negotiate what could become the world’s first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution, that system is coming under unprecedented global scrutiny.

For the Philippines, the treaty represents more than an international negotiation. It could influence which plastics enter the market, how producers are held accountable and how one of the countries most polluted by plastic responds to a crisis that extends far beyond waste collection.

From waste to production

For decades, the Philippines has largely treated plastic pollution as a waste management problem — one of collection, segregation and disposal. But as countries negotiate a global treaty, that framing is increasingly being challenged.

“The plastic pollution issue really took prominence in 2015, when initial reports indicated the Philippines is one of the top 10 sources of marine plastic pollution. And then the framing was, it’s a failure of waste management,” said Froilan Grate, executive director of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives Asia Pacific.

“The reality is that even with the best waste management systems in the world, without seriously looking at plastic production as an issue, any waste management systems would be overwhelmed,” he added.

That dual reality — plastic production and waste management — runs through the country’s plastic crisis.

On one hand, local governments continue to grapple with funding, enforcement and infrastructure. On the other, many of the plastic products entering the market are designed in ways that make recovery difficult or economically unviable.

The problem is particularly evident in the country’s sachet economy.

At least 164 million sachets are discarded every day, many of them made from multilayer plastics that are difficult or impossible to recycle. Designed for durability rather than recovery, they leave local waste systems struggling to manage materials that were never intended to have a second life.

For Marian Ledesma, zero waste campaigner at Greenpeace Philippines, the problem extends far beyond consumer behavior.

“There are many factors why plastic production and use are up here in the Philippines and also across regions like Southeast Asia. And one of those factors is that our systems were really designed for one, disposability, and then the other is that these corporations that run these systems, they’re highly dependent on single-use plastics,” she said.

“With those choices already built in and made for consumers, it’s really quite difficult for them to shift away from plastics,” she added.

The system, she said, has been designed around consumption rather than reuse.

“All of it has been designed purely for consumption and disposability and not looking into alternative business models,” she said.

The result is a system in which local waste management is expected to absorb the consequences of decisions made far upstream — from how plastics are designed and marketed to how much is produced in the first place.

Those upstream decisions are now at the heart of negotiations for a global plastics treaty.

A global problem, negotiated globally

What happens in the Philippines, however, does not stay in the Philippines. Plastic pollution crosses borders through oceans, trade and global supply chains, linking local waste systems to decisions made far beyond the country’s shores.

That global connection prompted United Nations member states in 2022 to launch negotiations for what could become the world’s first legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution.

The proposed agreement, mandated under United Nations Environment Assembly Resolution 5/14, seeks to address plastic pollution across the entire life cycle of plastics — from the extraction of raw materials and production to consumption, waste management and remediation.

About 170 countries are part of the process.

“The negotiation for a Global Plastics Treaty is an opportunity of a lifetime,” wrote Dr. Jorge Emmanuel, an environmental scientist, chemical engineer and member of the Philippine delegation to earlier talks.

The urgency, he noted, is rooted not only in environmental damage but also in human health.

“We have been eating, drinking and breathing plastics so much so that we now have plastics in our bodies and are exposed to many of the 16,000-plus chemicals found in and leaking out of plastics, including thousands of chemicals known to be toxic.”

Studies cited by Emmanuel have found microplastics in fish, salt, drinking water and even human blood and breast milk — evidence of how deeply plastics have permeated ecosystems and daily life.

Globally, plastic production has surged from about 4 million tons in 1955 to about 400 million tons today. Yet only a small fraction is recycled.

Graphics by Ed Lustan/Inquirer.net

This imbalance between production and recovery lies at the core of treaty negotiations.

Civil society groups and many countries are pushing for binding measures to reduce plastic production, phase out problematic products and regulate chemicals. Others have resisted, favoring approaches focused on waste management and voluntary commitments.

Those competing visions have become one of the negotiations’ biggest fault lines.

While more than 100 countries now support measures to curb primary plastic polymer production and phase out problematic plastics and chemicals, other countries continue to argue that the treaty should focus primarily on downstream waste management and national actions.

Recent negotiations have exposed these tensions. Efforts to finalize the treaty during the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) stalled amid disagreements over plastic production, chemicals of concern, financing and whether decisions should be made by consensus or vote.

Rather than adopt a final agreement, delegates agreed to suspend the session and continue negotiations using the chair’s draft text released Dec. 1, 2024, as the basis for future discussions.

READ: No deal: Plastic treaty talks end in collapse, chaos, calls for change

Since then, the treaty process has entered a new phase. Following the resignation of the previous INC chair, delegates convened an organizational session in February 2026 to elect Chilean diplomat Julio Cordano as the committee’s new chair.

READ: Treaty in limbo: New chair takes over talks to end global plastic pollution

At stake is not just the strength of the agreement but whether it can meaningfully address the scale of the problem.

The Philippines at the negotiating table

For the Philippines, the treaty carries particular weight. The country has been identified as one of the largest contributors to marine plastic pollution — not because of high consumption, but because of systemic leakage.

That vulnerability has made the country an active participant in negotiations over what the treaty should contain.

According to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Philippines has consistently advocated for a legally binding global accord that addresses plastic pollution across its full life cycle.

“The Philippines has always been a key player in these global discussions,” DENR Undersecretary Jonas Leones said during a National Plastic Action Partnership webinar following INC-5.2.

“Our participation at the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee in Geneva was a testament to the same. We were there because we want a global treaty that works,” Leones added.

Although INC-5.2 ended without a finalized deal, Philippine negotiators said the country remained committed to the process.

“Right now, we have an impasse,” said Janice Regoso-Pammit, chief of the Legal Division and concurrent board secretary of the Pollution Adjudication Board of the DENR’s Environmental Management Bureau.

“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. … Our country remains committed to working with the international community to forge a legally binding instrument, and it is ideal to adopt a global framework. We still stand with that.”

The Philippines has also aligned itself with countries pushing for a more ambitious treaty.

Earlier this year, it joined 94 other governments in endorsing the Nice Call for an Ambitious Treaty on Plastic Pollution, which supports addressing plastics across their full life cycle.

Its provisions include reducing primary plastic polymer production, phasing out problematic plastic products and chemicals of concern, improving product design, and strengthening financing and technical support for implementation.

READ: Geneva showdown: High-stakes Global Plastics Treaty talks could shape PH future

DENR officials also acknowledged that international negotiations alone will not solve the country’s plastic crisis.

“Our Ecological Solid Waste Management Act is already 20 years old, and we still have a lot of problems in implementation,” said Rosette Ferrer, chief of the Legal Research and Opinion Division of the DENR.

Graphics by Ed Lustan/Inquirer.net

Flooding in Metro Manila, worsened by clogged waterways, has underscored the local consequences of plastic waste.

“We can’t keep cleaning up while turning a blind eye on plastic production,” Ledesma said in a statement during negotiations. “Floods are the symptom. The plastic crisis is part of the disease.”

Environmental groups say those positions have generally placed the Philippines among the more ambitious delegations in the region.

“We’re actually one of the most progressive and ambitious, especially in the Southeast Asia region and in the Asia-Pacific region as well,” said Ledesma of Greenpeace Philippines.

According to Ledesma, Philippine negotiators have consistently supported proposals to phase out problematic plastic products and eliminate harmful chemicals, although those positions have yet to be fully reflected in domestic policy.

“The Philippines would support phasing out certain plastic products. They would support eliminating harmful chemicals. But we haven’t seen those initiatives yet happen at a national level,” she said.

For Grate, the negotiations reflect a broader shift in how plastic pollution is understood.

“The reality is that even with the best waste management systems in the world, without seriously looking at plastic production as an issue, any waste management systems would be overwhelmed,” he said.

The treaty’s outcome will shape not only global policy but also national pathways, determining which materials enter the market, how they are designed and who is responsible for managing them.

Why the treaty matters — and what’s next

For many Filipinos, the Global Plastics Treaty may seem distant — a negotiation unfolding in conference rooms thousands of kilometers away. But experts say its implications extend far beyond diplomacy.

Plastic pollution affects fisheries, food systems, public health and disaster risk. Microplastics have been found in seafood commonly consumed in the Philippines.

Meanwhile, the open burning of plastic waste releases toxic pollutants such as dioxins, which can enter the food chain.

Waste systems, already under strain, are expected to manage low-value, nonrecyclable or hazardous materials. Without changes upstream, these pressures are likely to grow.

“Southeast Asia stands at a crossroads. If plastic production grows unchecked, we will see more petrochemical facilities that poison the water and the air. We will see more plastic waste flowing into our region, and more microplastics and chemicals in our blood and bodies,” said Punyathorn Jeungsmarn, plastics campaigner and researcher at the Environmental Justice Foundation.

Those concerns now carry added urgency as negotiators prepare for INC-5.4, the next substantive session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

After delegates were unable to finalize a treaty during INC-5, negotiations entered a new phase. Cordano has launched a series of consultations and preparatory meetings aimed at narrowing differences before governments return to the negotiating table.

In his first letter to member states, Cordano described the process as entering “a new chapter” and urged countries to pursue an outcome that is “both ambitious in vision and realistic in its implementation.”

He also called plastic pollution “one of the defining challenges of our time” that requires collective global action.

Whether governments can bridge their differences at INC-5.4 remains uncertain. Among the most contentious issues are global plastic production, chemicals of concern, financing for developing countries and how future decisions under the treaty should be made.

But even if countries succeed in adopting an ambitious treaty, experts say the agreement alone will not resolve the Philippines’ plastic crisis.

For Grate, the lesson from years of work on the ground is straightforward.

“Plastic is still very much a plastic production issue and a waste management issue. Both of those go hand in hand.”

That balance has been a recurring theme throughout this series.

Previous installments found that while the Philippines already has laws such as the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act and the Extended Producer Responsibility Act, implementation remains uneven.

Many local governments continue to face funding constraints, inconsistent enforcement, incomplete materials recovery facilities, gaps in segregation and collection systems, and limited capacity to expand reuse and refill initiatives.

READ: PH plastic waste laws exist, but gaps still drive leakage

At the same time, examples from Quezon City; San Fernando, Pampanga; and Siquijor demonstrate that sustained local action — from single-use plastic regulations and functioning materials recovery facilities to community participation and refill systems — can significantly reduce plastic leakage when consistently implemented.

READ: How Philippine cities, provinces are building local plastic solutions

A global treaty could help reduce the flow of problematic plastics entering the market, establish stronger international rules and provide greater support for countries confronting plastic pollution.

But in the Philippines, its success will also depend on what happens at home: whether existing laws are consistently enforced, local governments are adequately supported, extended producer responsibility is fully implemented, reuse and refill systems are expanded, and reliable waste data continues to guide policymaking.

For Emmanuel, the stakes extend beyond policy.

“Will the treaty save our children and future generations from the dangers of plastic pollution, or will the treaty become an instrument of greenwashing?” he asked.

As the world moves toward INC-5.4, the Philippines’ plastic crisis remains part of a much larger global system. The treaty could reshape how plastics are produced, designed and managed worldwide.

But whether those changes are ultimately felt in Philippine communities will depend not only on what negotiators agree to abroad but also on how consistently the country acts at home.

[This story was produced for the SEA vs. Plastics project of the Southeast Asia Editors Network, in partnership with AAJA-Asia and the Temasek Foundation.]