The last and possibly final round of Global Plastics Treaty talks ended last week in Geneva, Switzerland. The 10-day negotiation at the United Nations Geneva campus sought to finalize a new global treaty to end plastic pollution, but despite round-the-clock efforts and extending the meeting by one day, no treaty emerged from the process.
For the Pacific Environment team attending the talks, it was disappointing that negotiators failed to come to an agreement. We have been actively supporting the process for two years, joining over 2,600 U.N. member state delegations, observers, rights holders, U.N. personnel and media in Geneva for a marathon of creative, exuberant, exhausting and challenging plastic diplomacy. With so much attention and hope pinned on this process, and with the global plastic crisis mounting every day, a global solution is already long overdue.
However, I still have reason for hope. Indeed, having no treaty at all may have been the best outcome we could have had coming out of INC-5.2.
But first, let’s take a look at why the talks failed. One reason is the negotiators simply did not have enough time. Crafting a treaty on an issue as complex as plastic pollution in two years was never very realistic (other multilateral environmental agreements have taken far longer to achieve). Meetings of the International Negotiating Committee (or INC) tasked with producing a treaty were meant to wrap up in 2024. This “resumed fifth session” (INC-5.2) in Geneva was added to extend the process, but even with the extra meeting, the timeline was ambitious.
Though the timeline was tight, the bigger and far more important reason for the failure of the talks was the continued lack of flexibility on the part of a handful of countries — mostly oil and gas and petrochemical producing countries — around provisions of the treaty that could seek to limit growth in plastic production. An unofficial body of these negotiators known as the “Like Minded Group” continued to oppose any provisions on production, chemicals and plastic products, despite the agreed upon U.N. mandate for the talks to produce a global agreement that addresses the full life cycle of plastic. Similar to climate negotiations, the plastics treaty talks have also been hampered by delay tactics deployed by these countries to slow down the process and weaken resolve.
Under new orders from the Trump administration, the U.S. decisively joined the list of treaty spoilers at INC-5.2. A pre-Geneva communique emailed to delegations stated that the U.S. would not support binding obligations in the treaty, including measures on production or lists of chemicals or problematic products to be phased out. It is unsurprising that the current administration would cater to fossil fuel interests. But since the current U.S. Congress is highly unlikely to ratify any environmental treaty, no matter how weakly worded, it was particularly frustrating to observe U.S. delegates working to drive down ambition among other member states who do plan to ratify.
While INC-5.2 was a failure due to the obstruction tactics of these spoilers, it is better to have no treaty at this point than a weak and meaningless one. A strong treaty would have been the best outcome of course, but a weak treaty could distract from allocating resources while accomplishing little. Lack of an outcome now means there is a greater possibility that something better can emerge in future negotiations.
There is good reason to expect that global diplomacy on plastic will continue and strengthen. Momentum has been growing for strong global measures on plastics throughout the INC process as more science, modeling and analysis has emerged on the many harms of plastics, from health to climate, as well as the solutions to these threats.
Increasingly, countries recognize plastic is a complex problem requiring policies that are on par with the scale of the crisis; globally coordinated action is necessary. Leading up to Geneva, environmental ministers and representatives from 96 nations reaffirmed their dedication to securing a strong plastics treaty in a declaration coordinated by France titled, “The Nice Wake-Up Call for an Ambitious Plastics Treaty” at the U.N. Oceans Conference in Nice, France, in June.
We observed vocal calls for ambition during INC-5.2 as well, where many countries —including Ghana, Panama, Colombia, European Union nations and others — continued to champion strong treaty provisions to address plastic pollution for the sake of our health, biodiversity, climate and the future of our planet. In a show of strong consensus for binding measures, 130 member states signaled support for a Switzerland-Mexico proposal for treaty language that would create obligations to limit problematic plastics and chemicals.
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) in particular held firm that the treaty must limit plastic production, as these countries disproportionately suffer from both plastic waste impacts and climate change impacts caused in part by plastic production. During the final days of the talks, revised treaty texts introduced by INC Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso were rejected by member states as unacceptable and weak, further demonstrating the growing resolve for ambition.
Despite the minority spoiler voices, the majority of countries worked hard and negotiated in good faith, making efforts to compromise when possible and showing flexibility to learn and consider new perspectives during the process. Though mostly quiet during this round of talks, in the final plenary China stated, “plastic pollution is far more complicated than we expected, as it runs through the entire plastic lifecycle…” and further acknowledged that, “plastic pollution and climate change and the biodiversity crisis are intertwined.”
With growing alignment on globally coordinated action on plastic there are several options for what happens next.
First, there is still an opportunity for a strong plastics treaty. Talks could productively continue at an “INC-5.3,” but the risk is that we would see a repetition of INC-5.2, with too much emphasis on consensus-based decision making, and spoiler countries continuing to stand in the way. While consensus is preferred in negotiations, it has so far resulted in little movement on redlines such as production. Relying on consensus alone makes convergence on a treaty unlikely and it may be necessary to take the step of pushing for voting to break the deadlock. However, seeking to call for a vote also carries the risk of reopening debates around the rules of procedure for voting, which have not been fully agreed to by all members.
Given these challenges, some have started to consider other options outside of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), including the possibility that ambitious parties could join to form regional agreements on plastics, or a broader “treaty of the willing.” As Neil Tangri, of the Global AlIiance for Incinerator Alternatives explains, universal adoption is not a requirement for effectiveness in multilateral environmental agreements nor is it generally the norm. Treaties with fewer parties can still have a major impact through leveraging global market standards, utilization of non-party measures, and funding incentives for good behavior. Plus, a strong, effective instrument could attract additional signatories over time, once some of the initial groundwork is in place and countries have a chance to see the instrument at work.
One thing is certain, whether through a Global Plastics Treaty or some other venue, Pacific Environment and our allies around the world will continue to work hard for a future free of plastic pollution. We take lessons learned and valuable knowledge from this process, our movement is stronger and more unified, and we are resolved to keep up efforts in the face of one the biggest emerging threats to climate, biodiversity and health of our time.
