An uncertain future for the UN Global Plastics Treaty

On the 15 of August 2025, the latest round of intergovernmental negotiations (INC 5.2) on the proposed UN Global Plastics Treaty, held in Geneva, failed to produce an agreed upon text for the Treaty. As countries reached a deadlock, progress now stands at 9 months past the original deadline of December 2024.  

The Treaty was first proposed in Kenya in March of 2022 in response to clear scientific evidence that plastic pollution is causing devastating harm to human health and the environment. It promised a future significantly de-burdened from plastics, specifically those single use plastics with a short life span of use. But as another round of discussions failed to produce a unified agreement, the future of the Treaty appears more and more uncertain, and parties are continuing to miss a historic opportunity to adequately tackle plastic pollution; an issue which is threatening to triple by the year 2040. Notably, previous drafts of the Treaty outlined requirements such as ensuring all necessary measures are taken to prevent/mitigate the potential adverse impacts of primary plastic polymers on human health and the environment, and eliminating the production, sale, distribution, import, or export of problematic or avoidable plastic products, including short lived and single use plastic products, as well as intentionally added microplastics.  

The failure of the INC 5.2 negotiations was met with resounding disappointment from those who comprehended the scale of the impact, around the globe. Most notably the delegation for Tuvalu, gravely threatened by rising tides as a result of climate change, expressed much felt frustrations, saying “for our islands, this means that without global cooperation and state actions, millions of tons of plastic waste will continue to be dumped in our oceans, affecting our ecosystem, food security, livelihood and culture”. Speaking on behalf of the island states, the northern Pacific nation of Palau stated: “we are repeatedly returning home with insufficient progress to show our people” and that it was unjust for the Global South and island states to “face the brunt of yet another global environmental crisis [they] contribute minimally to”. What must now be asked is why these negotiations once again failed and what the future looks like for some form of Global Plastics Treaty.  

Why plastics remains a challenge for industry

In a similar fashion to previous meetings, the Treaty negotiations once again failed due to the consistent dividing line of whether the Treaty should tackle plastic pollution at the source – by reducing production – or focus on the secondary issue of managing the pollution that comes as a result of its production. Primary oil and gas producing countries including Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia pushed back on the idea that plastic production should be capped and instead argued for a treaty which focused more on recycling, reuse and redesign requirements. It is also likely that sentiment surrounding the Treaty was largely affected by the presence of nearly 250 lobbyists from the oil, petrochemical and plastics industries, a figure which outnumbered the combined delegations of all 27 European Union members states, and the number of scientists and Indigenous people present at the negotiations. Consequently, the desire of more than 100 nations to see an ambitious treaty that includes global targets to reduce plastics, was once again toppled by the small yet powerful cohort that resist any form of production cap placed on plastics.  

This was further supported by the memo released by the US administration which urged countries to reject the plastic production cap. The memo indicated that the US delegation would not agree to any treaty that tackles the upstream production of plastic pollution, deeming it an ‘impractical global approach’ and stating it would ‘increase the cost of all plastic products that are used throughout our daily lives’. This marked a significant turnaround from the US position last year, when the world’s second-largest plastic producer said it supported production cuts. In addition, this year the US delegation chose to only meet with industry representatives rather than both industry and environmental NGO’s/scientists, as they had in previous years.  

Ultimately, many counties advocating for a reduction in plastic production felt the text was ‘too weak and cedes too much ground to oil producers’, whilst the previously mentioned cohort of nations in support of weaker plastic laws blocked any real attempt at reaching an agreement. Consequently, both drafts of the proposed Treaty which were presented by the Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso, were deemed not fit for purpose and “entirely unacceptable”, failing to reach consensus from all nations and continuing the deadlock. On the topic of consensus, Mathilde Crépy, head of environmental transparency for the Environmental Coalition on Standards NGO states that “consensus is killing this treaty, with a handful of countries able to block any whispers of ambition before they materialize”.  

The ambition for plastic regulations remains

Despite another failed round of negotiations, states, NGO’s and industry representatives remain hopeful that the Treaty will nonetheless be adopted. Marco Mensink of the International Council of Chemical Associations said that manufacturers remained “committed to supporting a treaty that keeps plastics in the economy and out of the environment by advancing a circular economy – designing products for reuse and recycling, collecting them at end of life, and remaking them into new products”. Additionally, a vast majority of governments still support and desire a strong agreement and INC Chair has reminded supportive states that this latest breakdown of negotiations should not “lead to discouragement” and should instead “spur us to regain our energy, renew our commitments, and unite our aspiration”. He went on to state that he has no doubt that the “day will come when the international community will unite its will and join hands to protect and safeguard the health of our people”. As aptly put by Inger Andersen, UNEP Executive Director, the “work will not stop, because plastic pollution will not stop”. 

The negotiations, following adjournment, will continue at a later session, with a date and location yet to be announced. EU Commissioner for the Environment, Jessika Roswall expressed a positive sentiment that the outcome of the talks will act as a “good basis for a resumed session”. Therefore, for now, plastic production can continue on a business-as-usual basis but with the knowledge that at some point in the not-too-distant future comprehensive and fair regulatory prohibitions on plastic will give the planet some more room to breathe.