Why we couldn’t agree on a plastics treaty in Geneva – and what might happen next

Switzerland’s lead negotiator at INC-5.2 reflects on why the talks didn’t succeed – and the options now for getting an effective agreement

In 2022, the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) mandated the global community to negotiate a treaty to end plastic pollution. From August 5-14, 184 countries gathered in Geneva for the sixth round of talks, known as INC-5.2. Hopes were high for progress, but negotiations didn’t succeed.

The divide between the group of more than 100 ambitious countries on one side and the oil- and gas-producing nations, including the United States, on the other proved too wide to bridge.

Why the talks failed

The UNEA mandate is ambitious by design: it calls for “ending plastic pollution” through action across the entire plastics life cycle, promoting sustainable production and consumption, and strengthening international cooperation.

The failure of the INC-5.2 plastic talks was mainly down to the following three reasons:

1. It’s the economy, stupid: As one delegate from an oil-producing country put it, the UNEA resolution was negotiated by environment ministries, but the current talks are driven by energy ministries.

The shift in perspective was clear: the treaty is considered an economic treaty. This has led to a rejection of targets and measures for sustainable production and consumption of plastic, or restrictions on problematic plastic products. This stance directly opposed the 96 countries that had recently called for urgent measures to curb unsustainable production and consumption.

2. No global measures, please: 86 countries submitted a plan for tackling problematic plastics through a mix of global and national measures. Yet the US – having shifted its position before the talks – rejected global measures.

Negotiators tried to find flexibility, including proposals to regulate only the most problematic or hazardous products (such as children’s plastic toys containing toxic chemicals) and to allow countries to opt out, meaning they wouldn’t have to implement those restrictions on their territory. Still, resistance remained absolute, making it clear that the US position was political, not technical.

3. Flexibility over time – but only on solid foundations: All delegations agreed that consensus should be the norm, but 120 countries also supported a safety valve: if consensus proved impossible, decisions should be made by vote, without any single state holding veto power.

High thresholds were proposed – such as a three-quarters majority – to prevent abuse. But Brazil, Russia, India and China in particular rejected this option and insisted on consensus only for decision-making. Without the safeguard of voting as a last resort, many feared the treaty would be locked in paralysis without the possibility of strengthening over time.

While poor coordination among the INC-5.2 talks chair, bureau and secretariat didn’t help, it wasn’t the core issue. In the end, the breakdown came down to fundamentals: a large coalition of countries demanding effective measures versus a powerful minority, led by the Gulf states and the US, not being able to agree to such measures.

What next for the negotiations?

Plastic pollution remains a global challenge, and solutions will require cooperation. But the question now is not simply when to meet again – it’s how to avoid repeated failure. A few possible paths lie ahead:

1. More of the same: Negotiations could continue, but without a shift in positions, success seems unlikely. Narrowing the scope – by leaving out production issues – or lowering ambition could secure agreement, but at the cost of a weak treaty. Such an outcome would fall short of the UNEA’s vision.

The structural elements of the agreement would, for example, be weaker than those of the Paris Agreement on climate change, and its impact could therefore be limited. Another possibility is that ambitious states push through a treaty by vote – a scenario floated in Geneva, though still vague.

2. A coalition of the willing: If consensus is impossible, a smaller group of like-minded states could move ahead with their own agreement. Others could join later. This would allow progress, while respecting that not all countries can engage in such a treaty at this stage.

3. Building on existing agreements: The Basel Convention – often seen as a treaty on transboundary movements of waste – also covers waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and links to health and the environment.

A new protocol under Basel could incorporate many or even all of the measures under discussion at the plastics talks. Since protocols require ratification, each country could decide whether to take on the obligations, and again the door would be left open for those countries that want to join at a later stage.

INC-5.2 showed us how difficult it will be to achieve a truly global plastics treaty. But doing nothing is not an option. Plastic pollution continues to grow, and the world needs effective, cooperative solutions.

Whether through renewed global talks, a coalition of ambitious states, or existing frameworks like the Basel Convention, the next phase must be about moving beyond deadlock and providing an effective treaty to protect the environment and human health by substantially reducing plastic pollution.

Cover photo:  Felix Wertli, Swiss ambassador for the environment, speaking at a plenary meeting during INC-5.2 in Geneva. Photo: Florian Fussstetter - UNEP