- In August, representatives of the world’s nations will meet in Geneva, Switzerland, to hopefully finalize a U.N. plastic treaty. But negotiators remain far apart, with an overwhelming number of nations wanting a legally binding treaty that limits plastic production, while a much smaller number want a voluntary agreement focused on waste management.
- With both sides deeply dug in, negotiators and observers are assessing diplomatic strategies for achieving a meaningful agreement that deals effectively with the rapidly escalating global plastic pollution crisis.
- While U.N. agreements are traditionally approved by consensus, there is the possibility of getting to a final agreement by majority vote. If neither approach allows for an accord to be reached, a group of countries could decide to make an agreement outside the U.N. process, then invite other nations to join later.
- With 11 billion tons of virgin plastics produced globally from 1950 to 2022, the production rate of virgin plastics increasing from 2 million tons annually in 1950 to 504 million tons annually in 2022 and production rates likely tripling by 2060, observers of the U.N. process say reaching an effective accord is more urgent than ever.
Historically, most United Nations agreements have been reached by consensus. But based on recent events, this no longer seems likely for achieving a fully effective global treaty on plastic pollution, according to many analysts. The fifth resumed session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC-5.2) will take place Aug. 5-14 in Geneva, Switzerland.
The impending summit’s outcome remains highly uncertain, with two groups of countries holding strongly opposing views on the agreement’s scope: The High Ambition Coalition, along with other nations, totaling 106 member states, is seeking a binding treaty with global caps on plastics production and a ban of the most toxic chemicals used in plastics. The so-called “Like-minded countries” (Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran, India) and other countries, including Brazil and the United States, want a voluntary treaty focused only on waste management, especially recycling.
Treaty negotiations began hopefully in 2022 and were scheduled to conclude with a final document by 2024 following UNEA Resolution 5/14. But at each new session, oil- and plastic-producing countries (including Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran, India, and Brazil) exploited unresolved procedural rules to delay negotiations, used obstructionist tactics to slow down progress and insisted on consensus for all decisions — effectively vetoing majority agreements, observers of the U.N. process say.
Tired of the lack of progress in negotiations, on Dec. 1, 2024, the last day of INC-5.1, more than 100 countries came together at a press conference as a coalition of the willing, declaring “No treaty is better than a weak one.”
“A lot is going to happen in Geneva, and it is premature to render any judgment,” Neil Tangri, science and policy director of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, a global NGO advocating for a strong treaty that prioritizes plastic reduction, told Mongabay. “INC-5.2 could yield a strong treaty, a weak treaty or frustration leading to a shift in negotiations outside UNEP [the United Nations Environment Programme]. Countries have differing red lines — some demand caps on production and bans on toxic chemicals, while others oppose any production reduction and want to focus on waste management only. If these stances remain, no treaty will be reached.”
Speaking in June 2025, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island took a pessimistic view of the upcoming meeting, predicting that the U.N. plastics treaty is likely to “fail and be inadequate,” adding that “the High Ambition Coalition countries need to stay engaged and prepare for action after INC-5.2.” Mongabay sought further comment from Sen. Whitehouse but received no response.
Procedural rules only accepted provisionally
Much of the uncertainty over the treaty’s future arose out of an early failure to agree on rules for the negotiations. INC draft rules of procedure should have been adopted at the preparatory meeting in Dakar, Senegal, in June 2022. But instead of proposing to use the same rules that had successfully governed the Minamata Convention on Mercury negotiations a decade earlier, UNEP suggested significant rule changes that many negotiators found puzzling. These changes gave rise to various disagreements — particularly between the U.S. and the EU over the EU’s voting rights as a regional economic organization — that blocked adoption.
“Disagreement in Dakar prevented the chair at INC-1 from presenting a clear text for the rules of procedure. This opened the door to ongoing debate and slowing of negotiations,” Magnus Løvold of the Norwegian Academy of International Law told Mongabay.
With the rule regarding the EU’s voting rights placed within brackets (meaning the issue remained unresolved in 2022 and it remains unresolved today), draft procedural rules were adopted provisionally. And though Rule 38.1 — which allows for two-thirds majority voting on substantive issues if all efforts to reach consensus fail — was not put in brackets in Dakar, negotiations continued to operate by consensus until INC-5.1 in Busan, South Korea.
“It is understood that under the provisionally applied rules of procedure, voting is permissible without any additional procedural step. If consensus proves unattainable, any country may request that the matter be put to a vote,” explains Sivendra Michael, permanent secretary for environment and climate change, Fiji.
At an informal webinar with observers held ahead of INC-5.2, Mongabay asked Luis Vayas Valdivieso, Ecuador’s ambassador to the U.K. and the INC chair, if he would propose applying Rule 38.1 to break deadlocks at INC-5.2. The chair did not respond but later stated that “most agenda items, including those on the draft rules of procedure, would not need reopening and would continue to apply provisionally.”
“The chair’s role is to do everything possible to reach consensus,” Løvold says. “If there is a motion to vote in Geneva, I expect it to come from a country or group of countries.” If no agreement is reached, nations could decide to go forward with an accord negotiated outside the U.N. process.
Growing support for a strong treaty
In the final plenary of INC-5.1 in 2024, Juliet Kabera of Rwanda, speaking for 85 countries (of which 71 belong to the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution), expressed support for a global treaty that limits plastic production, bans dangerous plastic products and chemicals, and ensures that future rule-making is decided by majority vote. Elimination of the consensus requirement could prevent future barriers being raised by a minority of nations.
“Upstream obligations to reduce extraction and production are vital and while mid- and downstream measures are important, they are effective and economically viable only if waste production is reduced and materials are designed for safer and more sustainable nontoxic circularity,” said Bethanie Carney Almroth, a professor at the University of Gothenburg, speaking for the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty at the informal INC webinar in July.
According to the latest estimates published in a 2024 study co-authored by Almroth, more than 11 billion tons of virgin plastics were produced globally from 1950 to 2022, with the production rate of virgin plastics increasing from 2 million tons per year in 1950, to 504 million tons annually in 2022. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates these rates will triple by 2060.
“More and more delegates talk in the media and informally about the need to utilize the voting mechanism if consensus can’t be reached. In June, nearly 100 ministers signed the “Nice wake-up call,” which calls for decision-making via regular U.N. procedures when consensus is exhausted. Although this refers to the treaty, not the INC process, it signals strong political will to prevent consensus from becoming a veto on ambition,” says Christine Dixon, leader of the ocean campaign for the Environmental Investigation Agency, an NGO headquartered in London.
“If consensus cannot be reached, the High Ambition Coalition should consider a push for a vote to secure an ambitious treaty,” Michael says. “A strong agreement would set higher global norms, attract early adopters and create market and political pressure on non-parties. While it risks alienating low ambition states, it avoids locking in a weak treaty that fails to address the root causes of plastic pollution and that lacks the capacity to be strengthened over time. The matter of voting on substance has not been put to the test in these negotiations and the reliance on consensus has led to a small number of countries effectively having a veto on ambition.”
Negotiating a treaty outside UNEP?
For Tangri, the intractable political divide now facing plastic treaty negotiators mirrors the struggles that have plagued the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — under which umbrella states negotiated the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement — which, after 33 years, still lacks agreed rules or procedures and where vetoes repeatedly hinder climate action. Tangri says a “plastic club” of ambitious countries outside UNEP “could produce a useful, if not universal, treaty.”
The Environmental Investigation Agency’s view, Dixon says, is “that it will be virtually impossible to resolve outstanding issues at INC 5.2 if countries do not more concretely link the binding commitments on reducing plastic production and addressing chemicals of concern in plastic products with firm commitments on the financial architecture that can support implementation.”
She urges INC-5.2 negotiators to resist diluting treaty ambition for the sake of expediency, especially since alternative pathways exist. “Many countries are considering alternatives if negotiations fail. Options include returning to the United Nations Environment Assembly [whose seventh session, UNEA-7, will take place Dec. 8-12] to establish a new expanding mandate, creating a convention outside the U.N. for committed countries to move forward, or adopting a protocol under an existing convention.”
“These are all tools available to negotiators, and the threat of packing up and going elsewhere should not be ignored as countries seek to find consensus on the most critical elements in the negotiations,” Dixon says.
“If a meaningful treaty can’t be reached at INC-5.2, alternative processes outside the U.N. can create stronger measures without requiring universal support,” Michael notes. “With key economic players involved and proper trade provisions, such efforts could set global standards for plastic production and design while allowing others to join later. … [However] we believe first and foremost that negotiators must come to Geneva ready to shift the dynamic, roll up their sleeves and get the job done.
“We have missed the aspirational 2024 deadline, but we’ve been given one more chance to deliver results from our years’ worth of work in the INC. It’s now or never, and we need to explore all tools available to build a comprehensive global agreement capable of addressing the crisis at hand,” Michael tells Mongabay.
Reducing plastic production is a legal obligation
Ahead of INC-5.2, Ocean Vision Legal, an international law firm, and the Gallifrey Foundation issued a policy brief outlining binding legal obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and human rights law to address plastic pollution.
“The obligation to prevent, reduce and control plastic pollution on the marine environment is a legally binding requirement under international law,” says Anna von Rebay, a litigation lawyer and CEO of Ocean Vision Legal. “According to the International Tribunal of the Law (ITLOS), a key element in preventing pollution is the obligation of states to adopt mitigation measures. Applied to plastics, this mainly means reducing its production.
In addition, “The recent advisory opinions from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights [July 2025] and the International Court of Justice [July 2025] reaffirm these obligations, with the ICJ confirming the 1.5° Celsius [2.7° Fahrenheit] climate limit as a legally binding target under the Paris Agreement. Non-compliance risks international and domestic legal accountability,” von Rebay says.
Today, plastic production accounts for 5.3% of CO2 emissions, but if unchecked, it could consume 25-31% of the global carbon budget by 2050. That makes plastic pollution not only an urgent planetary health issue, but also a dangerous source of carbon pollution demanding decisive action.
Banner image: Plastic washed up on a beach in Barcelona. Image by Angela Compagnone via Unsplash (Public domain).
Deadlocked plastic treaty talks will lead to renewed negotiations in 2025
Citations:
Olsen T, Tangri N, Almroth BC, Ghiglione J-F, Halle A ter, Fieber R, Syberg K, Baztan J and Wang M (2025) Legally binding reduction targets for primary plastics production: A necessity to end plastic pollution. One Earth 8(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2025.101282
Tangri, N. (2025). The entangled fates of plastics and climate change. Cambridge Prisms: Plastics. 2025;3:e13. doi:10.1017/plc.2025.10009
Villarrubia-Gómez, P., Almroth, B.C., Eriksen, M., Ryberg, M., and Cornell, S.E. (2024). Plastics pollution exacerbates the impacts of all planetary boundaries. One Earth 7, 2119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.10.017
FEEDBACK: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.
Credits
This story first appeared on Mongabay
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and Mongabay, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.