Over the past two years of negotiations – from Uruguay to Paris, Nairobi, Ottawa and most recently Busan – much of the discussion has focused on renegotiating the mandate agreed by the United Nations (UN) Environment Assembly in March 2022.

At the heart of the debate is whether we should reduce the amount of plastics we produce or base the treaty on the myth of plastics recycling, which is one of the most effective corporate lies ever told. It simply doesn’t work. It shifts the costs from fossil fuel, petrochemical and manufacturing companies onto governments, local communities and taxpayers, who are left to clean up the mess these companies have made. To date, less than 10 per cent of all plastic ever produced has been recycled, and the oil and gas industry plans to triple plastic production by 2050. It’s clear that recycling alone will never solve this crisis.

In the run-up to Busan, much of the media framed the negotiations as a simple question: will there be a plastics treaty or not? But this is the wrong question. Instead, we should be asking whether the treaty will effectively reduce plastic production, eliminate toxic chemicals that harm people and finance the transition to move away from plastics and the fossil fuel economy, particularly in global south countries.

While some have called the Busan talks a failure, I disagree. We avoided the worst-case scenario – a weak agreement with no real solutions. We also saw more than 100 governments, representing billions of people, stand up for a strong agreement that reduces plastic production, eliminates toxic chemicals and includes fair financing for the transition. Busan marked a turning point in the negotiations and laid the foundation for a meaningful global plastics treaty.

We could classify states into three groups. The first could be called the High Ambition Coalition and is made up of countries including France, Germany, Mexico, Norway, Panama, Rwanda, the UK and several Pacific Island countries such as Fiji and Micronesia. These states push for significant reductions in plastic production and recognise the need for ambitious changes to tackle the global plastic pollution crisis. They came together for the first time in Busan. For a successful and ambitious global plastics treaty, it is essential that they continue to build on this momentum.

At the other end of the spectrum are countries including Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia, which have consistently blocked progress. They put short-term economic interests ahead of long-term sustainability, human health and the future of the planet. They won’t negotiate in good faith or consider the core principles necessary for a meaningful agreement. As this is a consensus-based process, their unwillingness to engage constructively has stalled progress. More ambitious states will need to explore alternative ways to overcome these obstacles.

Finally, there are states somewhere in between, such as Brazil, China, India and the USA. While not as ambitious as the first group, they negotiate in good faith and work towards an effective agreement. But for these states to play a decisive role, they must recognise a fundamental truth: to effectively tackle plastic pollution, we must drastically reduce plastic production. This must be at the heart of the negotiations. We need a clear global target to reduce production and a plan to phase out the amount of plastic we already produce. To secure an effective global agreement we need these middle-of-the-road states to shift their position.

These industries played a major role in influencing the negotiations. They flooded Busan with lobbyists to undermine a successful treaty. This was no surprise: they usually try to hijack regulatory processes and climate negotiations around the world. They are determined to sacrifice the future of humanity for short-term shareholder profits. This is unsustainable not only for people and the planet, but also for their own businesses. They are trying to make up for declining revenues from energy and transport by investing in petrochemicals and plastics production, but this is not sustainable in the long term. Global priorities are shifting towards sustainability, and these companies will inevitably have to adapt.

To counter this influence, ambitious and moderately ambitious states need to be assertive. The establishment of global rules and standards will be key to forcing the fossil fuel sector to adapt in a way that is consistent with the broader public interest and the health of the planet. The worst-case scenario is that the companies responsible for the plastic pollution crisis are the ones writing the rules for the fight against it. They fundamentally do not have the public interest at heart.

Greenpeace and the Break Free From Plastic movement, which represents thousands of environmental organisations, pushed for a treaty that would directly reduce plastic production. We made clear that this is the fundamental action needed for the treaty to be effective. We face the daunting challenge of taking on the fossil fuel industry and some of the world’s most powerful corporations. But we have the courage to do it.

Civil society groups brought diverse perspectives, with contributions from Indigenous peoples, frontline communities affected by petrochemical pollution and waste pickers advocating for basic rights and respect. I was impressed by everyone who came. Our activists risked their lives by boarding a tanker carrying toxic chemicals used to make plastic. They were arrested and are now facing criminal charges in South Korea.

By presenting a united front and refusing to accept false solutions or weak agreements, civil society made clear its commitment to a treaty that delivers real, lasting change. Now it’s up to governments to make it happen.

We must now prepare for the next rounds of negotiations, the exact venues and dates of which have yet to be determined. We are ready to keep fighting for a meaningful treaty. In the meantime, we will continue to engage with national governments to build momentum.

This treaty is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to comprehensively address the plastic pollution crisis. We have decades of experience in climate negotiations and we know what we need to do to solve this crisis.

Achieving it will depend on the commitment of the more than a hundred states that are pushing for a strong, actionable agreement. These states must refuse to settle for symbolic measures and continue to push for solutions that deliver real environmental and societal benefits. Civil society is determined to hold governments to account and prevent compromises that prioritise political wins over substantive action.

A strong treaty will determine the future of the plastic crisis, and also the future of multilateralism. A weak treaty would undermine the credibility of the UN Environment Programme and multilateral institutions in general. This is an opportunity to redefine what effective multilateralism can achieve in the face of global challenges. We can’t leave the future of international cooperation in the hands of regressive forces. We must take action now.