Among international treaties of global importance, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, the United Nations Charter, the Genocide Convention, and the Paris Agreement on climate change surely spring to mind.

Yet, one particular treaty that addresses global environmental concerns is missing from that list. I am referring to the Plastic Treaty.

The plastic crisis is caused by producing more plastic than we can recycle. The harmful effects of plastic on human health and the environment, from microplastic contamination to toxic pollution, highlight the urgent need for effective policies.

In December 2017, the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) established an expert group to explore potential global actions to support the long-term elimination of marine litter and plastic pollution. WWF, together with other environmental groups, put forward for the first time the idea of a global and binding agreement against plastic pollution.

The UNEA initially proposed the idea of a global plastics treaty in March 2022, intending to develop a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution. Peru and Rwanda then spearheaded the initiative, putting forward a detailed proposal for the treaty, which gained support from various countries and civil society groups.

The treaty had the aim of addressing the entire lifecycle of plastic, from extraction to disposal, and promoting circular economies.

But by last August, global talks in Geneva to reach an agreement on such a treaty collapsed, with no deal agreed and no clear path forward.

Consequently, the question remains whether to reduce the exponential growth of plastic production and place global, legally binding controls on toxic chemicals used to make plastics.

Global challenges, such as plastic pollution, require international cooperation. However, the political realities that shape the most pressing environmental issues cannot be ignored. Despite the hot subject being factual and based on science, regulation is fundamentally political. Translating scientific understanding into actionable policies is rarely straightforward.

Plastic pollution is not merely a matter of aesthetics; it poses a grave threat to public health and the welfare of our planet. Understanding these risks underscores the urgency of finding effective and sustainable solutions.

History has shown us that many well-intentioned environmental agreements have failed due to weak enforcement. For example, the Kyoto Protocol aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but failed because it lacked binding penalties and relied on self-reporting. International agreements cannot afford to keep repeating such mistakes. As we all know, regulations require compliance promotion initiatives and enforcement when necessary.

Some so-called 'PetroStates', such as Mexico, Venezuela and Kuwait, obstructed the Geneva treaty-negotiating discussions. Other states, like Saudi Arabia, argued that the draft lacked balance and addressed plastic production, which they considered to be outside the scope of the treaty. In reality, the draft did not include a limit on plastic production but recognised that current production and consumption levels were unsustainable and global action was needed.

Several countries expressed bitter disappointment, sadness and anger that these talks had, after the sixth and final round of negotiations, failed to reach a deal.

Despite the deadlock, they said they would carry on with a resumed session in the future.

So does this temporary setback represent a new starting point to forge a consensus? And will countries manage to work together to offer future generations a planet without plastic pollution?

What might have led to a stalemate and stumbling block is not so much the talks but the logic of continuing or concluding them in a forum with dedicated obstructionist states. It's next to impossible to reach a lasting agreement with almost 200 countries, and it will be extremely difficult if there is no meeting of the minds on what the goals are and should be.

A Global Plastic Treaty is necessary to provide a coordinated international framework to tackle plastic production, use, and disposal, promoting sustainable practices and reducing waste at its source.

Millions of tonnes of plastic waste enter the environment each year, with impacts felt across oceans, seas, and land. Malta, too, faces significant challenges with plastic waste due to inadequate infrastructure, inefficient recycling processes, and a high volume of single-use plastics. A large portion of plastic waste, including some bioplastics, is not recyclable in Malta's current facilities. Furthermore, the cost and quality of recycled plastic often make it less competitive than new plastic.

Be that as it may, Malta is actively involved in addressing plastic pollution, both at the national and international levels. We have a Single-Use Plastic Products Strategy 2021-2030, aligning with the EU Directive 2019/904, related to plastic waste and single-use plastics, and participating in global efforts, including in the last Geneva talks, to create a legally binding plastics treaty.

Moreover, we have implemented a deposit-return system (BCRS) for beverage containers, incentivising consumers to recycle.

Of course, this is not enough, and we continue to share societal concerns about the European plastics system's contribution to climate change, the challenge of plastic waste, and the need to foster the sustainable use of plastics.

Plastics remain irreplaceable for many applications and have a vital role to play in enabling the sustainability transitions and supporting the competitiveness of many sectors in Europe, not least Malta.

A potential and hopeful Global Plastic Treaty can reduce these harms, but, as with all forms of regulation, only if it is ambitious, equitable, and enforced.

Resuming talks to secure a global, binding, and enforceable agreement must remain a top priority. And that will only be one step in a long journey.