By Sujit Bhar
The scene in Geneva this week is historic: delegates from 180 nations have gathered to negotiate the first-ever Global Plastics Treaty. The goal is clear—to tackle plastic pollution at its root, from production to disposal. But behind the official smiles and diplomatic language, fault lines are emerging. Countries such as India, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran—all heavily invested in petrochemical expansion—are scrambling to dilute the Treaty’s scope, especially clauses that would restrict the manufacturing of plastics and the chemicals used in them.
For India, the stakes are even higher than for most. According to a 2024 study published in Nature, India is now the world’s biggest plastic polluter, responsible for roughly 20 percent of global plastic emissions. This shocking figure is the by-product of India’s aggressive push to expand petrochemical production—not just for domestic needs, but for export markets. The growth of industrial zones like Dahej in Gujarat reflects this ambition: vast complexes producing petroleum, chemicals, and plastics feed both India’s manufacturing aspirations and its export ledger. However, they also pour microplastics and toxic effluents into rivers and seas, devastating marine life and coastal livelihoods.
With US President Donald Trump having imposed punitive tariffs—up to 50 percent—on India for buying cheap Russian crude, India is already navigating a trade minefield. If the Geneva talks produce a binding deal supported by 160 or more nations, ignoring or rejecting it could lead to new punitive trade measures, this time from a far broader coalition.
DAHEJ, A CASE STUDY
The industrial belt of Dahej—part of India’s Petroleum, Chemicals and Petrochemicals Investment Region (PCPIR)—is emblematic of the contradictions in India’s development model. On paper, Dahej is a success story: billions in foreign and domestic investment, world-class infrastructure, and a place on the global petrochemical map—other areas in the process are Kakinada, in Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (the east coast) and Paradeep in Odisha (also east coast).
On the ground, the story is grim. Fishermen in the region report collapsing catches of prawns, crabs, and fish, which they attribute to toxic effluent discharge from the petrochemical plants. Studies have shown that waste from such complexes introduces persistent organic pollutants and microplastics into the marine ecosystem, which bio-accumulate in the food chain, affecting both marine biodiversity and human health.
This isn’t just a local tragedy—it’s a microcosm of the environmental costs of India’s petrochemical surge. Similar stories are emerging from Mangaluru, Kochi, Paradeep, and other coastal industrial zones.
INDIA’S DIPLOMATIC POSITION
Indian negotiators are pushing to narrow the Treaty’s scope—arguing that it should focus on waste management, landfill clearance, and recycling, rather than production cuts. This stance is framed as pragmatic: India points to its growing population, industrialization needs, and existing recycling challenges.
However, for environmentalists and many other nations, this position is short-sighted. Limiting the Treaty to waste management would sidestep the core problem—that global plastic production is projected to triple by 2060 if unchecked, and that most plastic waste is either incinerated (adding to carbon emissions) or leaks into ecosystems.
If the majority of nations in Geneva sign onto a binding deal that covers production limits, India could face significant diplomatic isolation. Worse, in an era when environmental compliance is increasingly tied to trade policy, refusal to sign could lead to carbon border adjustments, plastic tariffs, and supply-chain exclusions. This would mirror the punitive logic of the Trump tariffs, but with far more global consensus behind it.
India’s manufacturing strategy—anchored in low-cost petrochemical inputs—is vulnerable to environmental trade restrictions. The European Union, for example, is already developing a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and similar frameworks could emerge for plastic-intensive goods.
If India is seen as a high-emissions, high-pollution manufacturing hub, its exports could face:
- Tariff barriers on plastic-derived products like textiles, packaging, and automotive components.
- Non-tariff barriers, such as environmental compliance certification requirements.
- Brand damage, with global buyers shifting supply chains to countries with cleaner reputations.
These risks could undermine India’s Make in India ambitions and erode the very export markets the petrochemical build-out was meant to serve.
THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE
Then comes into play India’s potholed legal landscape. If the Global Plastics Treaty produces binding commitments to reduce production, India’s current legal and regulatory framework would require a massive overhaul. Key areas needing reform include the following:
- The Plastic Waste Management Rules (2016, amended 2022): Currently focused on waste segregation, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and bans on certain single-use items. These would need to be expanded to include:
- Caps on total virgin plastic production.
- Restrictions on specific polymers and chemical additives.
- Mandatory recycled content quotas.
- The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Often used as a catch-all for pollution control, but weak on enforcement. Would require:
- Stronger penalties for industrial discharge violations.
- Real-time monitoring of effluent from petrochemical plants.
- Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notifications: Currently designed to limit construction and protect sensitive ecosystems, but poorly enforced in industrial coastal zones. Treaty compliance would demand:
- Strict zoning for petrochemical activities.
- Buffer zones to protect fisheries and mangroves.
- Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016: These would need explicit inclusion of microplastics and certain polymer additives as hazardous, triggering stricter handling and disposal requirements.
- The bureaucratic bottleneck: India’s environmental governance is often reactive rather than proactive. Even if a Treaty is signed, aligning domestic laws would require:
- Multiple ministries (Environment, Commerce, Petroleum, Fisheries, Law) to coordinate.
- Amendments to at least five major environmental regulations and dozens of state-level rules.
- Setting up new compliance mechanisms for industry monitoring.
Given the slow pace of legislative and bureaucratic change, this could take years, during which India could face sanctions or market loss.
THE WEST COAST AT THE EPICENTRE
The west coast—Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka and Kerala—is home to the bulk of India’s petrochemical and port infrastructure. The environmental degradation here has national implications.
Gujarat’s PCPIR zones leach pollutants into the Arabian Sea. Maharashtra’s Raigad and Ratnagiri coasts face heavy industrial and port expansion. Kerala’s Kochi industrial belt already suffers from declining fisheries.
If Treaty compliance demands production cuts or stricter effluent control, these regions would require costly retrofits and possible shutdowns—fuelling both economic and political backlash.
Ignoring a production-limiting plastics Treaty could trigger a global cascade of trade measures:
- EU, UK, and Canada could align tariffs with environmental performance.
- ASEAN buyers might diversify away from Indian suppliers to avoid being hit by downstream restrictions.
- Multinational brands—under shareholder and consumer pressure—could cut procurement from Indian factories using high levels of virgin plastic.
This is not hypothetical; similar dynamics are already playing out with deforestation-linked commodities like palm oil, and with carbon-intensive steel and cement.
INVESTMENT RISKS
Global capital is becoming environment-sensitive. Large institutional investors increasingly apply ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) screens. If India is perceived as resistant to plastics regulation, it could see:
- Divestment by sovereign wealth funds and pension funds.
- Higher borrowing costs for industrial projects.
- Reduced access to green finance instruments.
THE STRATEGIC CHOICE BEFORE INDIA
India now faces a pivotal decision. Align with the Treaty and use it to drive domestic industry towards cleaner alternatives—bioplastics, recycling innovation, polymer substitutes—or stand apart, protect short-term petrochemical gains, and risk long-term trade, investment, and environmental costs.
The Trump tariffs should serve as a cautionary tale: ignoring geopolitical and environmental currents can trigger punitive economic consequences that far outweigh the domestic benefits of defiance.
A WAY FORWARD
There could be a way forward, though. It would include pre-emptive domestic action. India could announce its own plastic production roadmap, signalling willingness to engage. Caps could start with the most polluting polymers and gradually expand. Petrochemical-dependent regions like Dahej need economic diversification strategies to protect jobs while scaling down harmful production.
Parallel to Treaty negotiations, India should launch restoration programmes for fisheries, mangroves, and coastal biodiversity—linking this to livelihood security for fisherfolk.
India should build alliances with other manufacturing nations to ensure Treaty provisions include flexible timelines for developing economies.
TIME IS LIMITED
Delay will carry a price tag. India’s position in Geneva—pushing for a waste-only Treaty—may appear defensible to protect manufacturing growth. But this stance risks undermining India’s credibility as a responsible global player, deepening its trade vulnerabilities, and inflicting lasting damage on marine ecosystems and coastal livelihoods.
If over 160 countries sign onto a plastics-limiting deal and India refuses, the consequences could be far more economically painful than the Trump tariffs. This is not just an environmental issue—it’s a strategic trade and economic survival challenge.
The question is not whether India can afford to commit to plastics reduction. It is whether India can afford not to.