In early August, you were able to attend the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution at the United Nations as a conference support volunteer with the Federal Office for the Environment FOEN. Can you tell us what it was like to be behind the scenes at such an important conference as a student?
I felt immense gratitude to be part of the FOEN conference support team. It was a competitive role, and it felt like controlled chaos with purpose. My job consisted of the invisible work: In the plenaries, printing urgent documents for the Chair, Co-Chairs, and the Secretariat. I had to know the building inside out. Every delivered document felt like being part of history in the making. In the contact groups, my role was to track which delegation wanted to speak on which article and whether they wished to interject on another delegation’s point. It gave me a front-row seat to the choreography of multilateral negotiation, where every word of a text is weighed and where strategy and procedure are constantly in play.
The hardest part? Sometimes denying entry to activists, observers, and media who desperately wanted to contact groups. It highlighted the tension between transparency and process that defines these negotiations. But overall, it was a privilege. As a student, I had studied these systems in theory. At the United Nations, I saw the human side of multilateralism: the exhaustion, the humour, the fragile compromises. I also learned that even those working quietly in the background help move the process forward in meaningful ways.
What were some of the most inspiring and, on the other hand, most frustrating arguments you heard at the conference?
The most inspiring arguments came from Palau, Panama, and Colombia, small island states that kept pushing for justice despite visible exhaustion. When Panama reintroduced proposals on behalf of 89 countries calling for binding production targets, you could feel the urgency in the room. But the real negotiations happened in corridors, not contact groups. I watched alliances form over coffee breaks, delegates quietly building consensus away from microphones. Nicholas Niggli's negotiations workshop at the Institute suddenly made sense; multilateral consensus is built in side conversations.
The most challenging arguments to hear came from the like-minded group, who were consistently resisting production caps. Watching them refuse to budge while small island states pleaded for action was sobering. The divide was stark and frustrating.
Over 100 countries took part in the negotiations, but they were not able to come to an agreement. What was the disappointment like in person? What do you hope is next?
The disappointment built slowly. Energy dropped visibly the day before closing — you could hear it in the voices of some delegates with whom, over the week, I had built a small sense of friendliness as we saw each other every day. When I greeted them and asked how they thought things would go, many were unsure, confirming the unease that hung over the building. Instead of celebrating treaty adoption on 15th August, the 5:30 AM plenary delivered disbelief. After weeks of sleepless nights, there was no adoption. Delegates, organisations, and activists packed up in heartbroken silence.
But I do not see this as a failed negotiation — rather one that revealed structural divides. Being in the room taught me how painstaking the process is, how even a single sentence can take days of compromise, and how much courage it takes to bring conflicting priorities into one text. To paraphrase what the Swiss Ambassador Felix Wertli explained, “The US rejected global measures outright. Major producers opposed voting over consensus. These are fundamental splits, not procedural missteps”. What I hope now is that some of the suggestions voiced by delegates are taken seriously, particularly the idea of exploring voting rather than consensus or considering other institutional avenues beyond the United Nations. If the process is to succeed, it will require courage to adjust its methods, not only its content.
The disappointment of 15th August was real, but I take inspiration from Kiara Worth’s reflection on the session, “We wipe our tears. We grit our teeth. We pick up the pieces and we begin again… What we don’t do is give up hope.” That is the spirit I carried home from the Palais.
What are you studying at the Geneva Graduate Institute, and how has your time in Geneva affected your vision for the future?
This year, I am completing my MA in International and Development Studies, specialising in human rights and humanitarianism. Geneva has been a rollercoaster of dreams becoming reality — studying negotiation theory in class, then living it at INC-5.2 and last year's ICRC/IFRC conference.
My interests span education policy as a human right, AI innovation, and gaps between international law and implementation. The Graduate Institute's freedom to connect these diverse threads has been transformative. My vision is working with organisations focused on forward-looking education policies grounded in science and technology research. Ultimately, I want to bring this knowledge back to South Africa, strengthening education as both a right and a foundation for resilience.
