One thing quickly became clear: no matter how ambitious our plans to end plastic pollution, they will remain pipe dreams without a robust and responsive financial mechanism to match. The call from Egypt echoed a growing global majority supported by over 150 countries— from developing country parties to parties with economies in transition — for a new financial architecture anchored in a dedicated independent multilateral fund that can turn ambition into action.
A dedicated multilateral fund to support the implementation of a global plastics treaty is not just a financial convenience. For countries like Egypt, it is a necessity. Egypt faces deep-rooted structural challenges in its waste management system: underfunded municipalities, fragmented responsibilities, and an overwhelming volume of plastic waste that was never designed to be reused or recycled in the first place.
Waste management is costly. For Egypt, the transition to a toxic-free circular economy cannot begin with recycling — it must start with recognising that plastic pollution is, first and foremost, a public health issue, and that the cost of managing it safely far exceeds what is currently budgeted.
The Ministry of Environment has taken critical steps — introducing extended producer responsibility schemes, launching national strategies, and formalising collaboration with civil society. But these efforts are unfolding within the constraints of limited local capacity and a fragile economic context. For regulators, for example, capping plastic production remains a "red line" — unless a clear mechanism exists to ensure a just transition and to compensate local industries towards a post-plastics economy.
This is where a dedicated multilateral fund becomes transformative. Such a fund would provide grants — not loans — for enabling activities like public awareness, capacity-building, and national action plans. It would be governed equitably, allowing developing countries such as Egypt to access resources directly, transparently, and in alignment with their priorities. And it would do more than reduce plastic waste — it would support a just transition for all workers, especially waste picker groups, whose livelihoods are at stake.
Without such a mechanism, we risk locking countries into a future where the relevant parties do not agree to the treaty and pollution continues, not because there is a lack of will but a lack of means.
Global ambition regarding plastic pollution must be paired with the financial means that qualify the Global South to fulfil that ambition. If developing countries are expected to upgrade waste systems, shift to reuse and refill systems, cap plastic production, and invest in safer alternatives, then developed countries must provide the required means of implementation for this to become a reality.
This is not about charity — it is about fairness. It reflects the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. It also reflects the understanding that countries did not contribute equally to the problem and should not bear equal burdens in solving it. In the case of plastic, those who have benefited most economically — particularly developed countries with long histories of industrialisation, and home to fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies — have built entire economies on the mass production and export of plastic packaging and products.
An effective treaty means moving beyond reliance on private sector financing towards adequate, predictable contributions to a dedicated multilateral fund. As laid out in the proposal submitted by the Africa Group, the Latin American and Caribbean Group, and others, developed countries would commit to replenishing the fund based on assessed needs. On the other hand, other countries could contribute voluntarily, in line with their capabilities.
The divide between donor and recipient countries over how to finance the treaty is real but not insurmountable. Unity is possible and essential. A well-designed mechanism can meet the priorities of both sides: developed countries gain a credible path toward treaty success and global impact; developing countries gain the tools they need to act meaningfully, without sacrificing economic stability or social cohesion.
Meanwhile, many African countries are left to manage the consequences, including plastic waste that has accumulated over decades due to waste trade from the Global North to the Global South, poor and toxic product design, and limited waste management options. This waste continues to choke ecosystems, burden public health systems, damage infrastructure, and impose costs that were never included in the original price of production.
For the implementation of measures, including production caps or chemical restrictions, a robust financial mechanism must be in place to ensure a just transition for affected economies, local industries, and workers. Without this commitment, ambition will stall. Countries will default to the lowest common denominator — not because they lack vision, but because they lack the fiscal space to act.
This isn't a pipe dream. The Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol helped countries phase out ozone-depleting substances, and it worked. The fund was small but effective. It provided grants based on need and allowed countries to shape their national strategies directly. It also supported the hiring of national ozone officers — a model many now propose replicating through national plastics officers. Its structure was nimble, its oversight transparent, and its success widely recognised. That kind of design — focused, responsive, and collaborative is what the plastics treaty needs.
The proposed fund offers flexibility, with space for contributions from a range of sources — including voluntary contributions, private and philanthropic capital, and potentially even a global pollution fee on primary polymer producers. But public finance must lead. Relying on the private sector to shoulder the financial burden would deepen global inequities and shift responsibility away from the very systems that profited most from plastic.
Equally important is inclusive governance. A balanced Executive Committee, guided by the Conference of the Parties, can ensure transparency and build trust across regions and sectors. Civil society and frontline communities must also have a voice, not just in implementation, but in shaping the direction of the fund itself.
Bridging this divide is not about relitigating the past. It is about building a shared future — one in which all countries, regardless of economic standing, can commit to bold action because they know they will not face the cost alone.
As delegates prepare to meet again, the path forward is clear: commit to a dedicated fund, designed with equity at its core, and financed through binding contributions from those most able to pay. Invest in the transition, and we will see results. Refuse, and we risk yet another global pledge that fades into inaction.
*The writer is a civil society leader focused on environmental justice and civic engagement.
Short link: