Negotiations to reach an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution including in the marine environment, concluded on August 14, 2025 without achieving a consensus. The International Negotiating Committee (INC 5.2) convened at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva where delegates from more than 180 countries came together to negotiate a treaty that placed legally binding caps on plastic production.
Several of these countries had also demanded action to limit the use of harmful chemicals used in the production of plastics. However, powerful oil and gas producing nations such as Russia, India, United States and Saudi Arabia have pushed back strongly arguing that the treaty should place more of an emphasis on recycling, reuse and redesign than production caps or a phase out of chemicals.
The negotiations were supposed to be the last round and produce the first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution but much like the negotiations in Busan last year, the talks ended with no agreement. The negotiations were also stalled due to procedural ambiguity , deliberate delay tactics from fossil fuel and petrochemical countries opposing an ambitious treaty as well as the complexity of the issues on the table.
Negotiations for a global plastics treaty remained deadlocked for the following reasons as well:
1. Chair’s efforts fell short – Despite the attempts of Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the INC chair who tried to accelerate progress with two draft treaty texts, both were seen as biased toward lower-ambition states and lacking key provisions like production limits, chemical controls, and financing, leading high-ambition countries to reject them.
2. Entrenched positions remain: Negotiations stalled as lower-ambition countries refused to compromise on core issues, while repeated debates over scope and purpose prevented constructive movement toward middle ground.
3. Reluctance to vote: Despite consensus proving ineffective, delegates avoided using the UN rule of voting to break deadlocks, fearing political fallout. This reluctance, combined with higher-ambition states not pressing the issue, allowed stalemates to persist.
While the treaty negotiations ultimately failed, the breakdown in talks had one positive aspect: it has prevented the adoption of an overly weak treaty that would have given states free rein to act, or not, within their own borders. Such an approach disregards the inherent transboundary nature of plastic pollution. Plastic products and waste routinely cross national boundaries, both as traded goods and as waste. Any treaty that ignores this reality would be fundamentally flawed. Equally overlooked in both versions of the Chair’s proposals, is the direct link between plastic product design and the infrastructure needed for waste management. Without global rules on design standards such as requirements for recyclability, durability, or chemical safety, waste management systems, especially in developing countries, will remain overwhelmed.
To conclude, the failure of the Geneva negotiations underscores the deep divisions within the international community on how to address plastic pollution. While high-ambition countries pushed for binding caps on production and stronger chemical controls, major fossil fuel and petrochemical producers successfully resisted, favouring a narrower focus on recycling and reuse. Procedural ambiguities, entrenched positions, and the reluctance to move beyond consensus left the process deadlocked. Yet, the collapse of talks also prevented the adoption of a weak treaty that would have legitimized minimal national action and ignored the transboundary nature of plastic pollution. Moving forward, meaningful progress will require addressing the link between product design and waste management, establishing global design standards, and finding mechanisms to overcome political gridlock—without which the world risks continued delay in tackling one of the most urgent environmental challenges of our time.