The “hard-fought” negotiations to develop a landmark United Nations treaty to end plastic pollution closed on Friday without agreement and have been extended again
The “hard-fought” negotiations to develop a landmark United Nations treaty to end plastic pollution closed on Friday without agreement and have been extended again.
“This has been a hard-fought 10 days against the backdrop of geopolitical complexities, economic challenges and multilateral strains,” Inger Andersen, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep), said of the resumed fifth session of negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland, for the global plastic treaty, known as INC-5.2.
“However, one thing remains clear: despite these complexities, all countries want to remain at the table. While we did not land the treaty text we hoped for, we at Unep will continue the work against plastic pollution — pollution that is in our groundwater, in our soil, in our rivers, in our oceans and, yes, in our bodies.”
South Africa’s department of forestry, fisheries and the environment said the talks had collapsed because of “deep divisions between nations and the absence of a clear process to resolve the deadlock”.
“South Africa is disappointed by the outcome and concerned about the procedural failings that stalled progress. But our resolve remains unshaken. While the lack of agreement is frustrating, South Africa will not waver in our fight to end plastic pollution and create a fair, practical regulatory environment,” Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Minister Dion George said.
“We will keep driving action at home and pressing for solutions abroad.”
During the INC, George met South African industry, business, and civil society to strengthen partnerships for a circular economy.
“Collaboration with all stakeholders is vital. We must build a system where sustainable practices are the norm, not the exception,” the minister said.
South Africa opposed rigid caps on plastic production, calling instead for market driven solutions backed by incentives to push business toward sustainability. The country is also acting to close gaps in controls on imported plastics, ensuring they meet strict health and environmental standards.
George warned about toxic chemicals in plastics and the spread of microplastics into food systems and human bodies. “It is unacceptable that microplastics are found everywhere, including in our own bodies. We will act decisively to protect public health.”
South Africa’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations and the polluter pays principle are already holding producers to account for the full life cycle of their products.
“Our EPR framework is a cornerstone of our strategy, and we will keep strengthening it,” George said, adding that the country will keep working at home and with global partners to secure a meaningful, inclusive plastics treaty that protects our planet and future generations.
In the final days of negotiations, the draft text of the treaty “morphed into an appeal to corporate interests, with key elements like production reduction being gutted”, noted Friends of the Earth International.
In response, the majority of states effectively blocked what would have been a “hollowed-out, ineffective and non-binding agreement”, it said.
“As talks ended without a clear way forward, it is crucial to change the process to break the deadlock. We leave with disappointment yet determination for the fight against plastic pollution, for peoples and the planet.”
Pushing through a weak and destructive text, which was “driven by corporate interests”, would have presented no solutions to the plastics crisis, said Rico Euripidou of groundWork/Friends of the Earth South Africa.
“The movement against plastics will continue to grow stronger, pushing for ambition at the local and national level in solidarity with and centring those most affected,” he said. “From community-led zero waste initiatives to national campaigns for plastic bans, the pressure is mounting on governments to deliver the real solutions and a strong plastics treaty.”
No treaty is better than a bad treaty, noted Ana Rocha, the global plastics policy director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (Gaia).
“We stand with the ambitious majority who refused to back down and accept a treaty that disrespects the countries that are truly committed to this process and betrays our communities and our planet.
“Once again, negotiations collapsed, derailed by a chaotic and biased process that left even the most engaged countries struggling to be heard. A broken, non-transparent process will never deliver a just outcome. It’s time to fix it, so people and the planet can finally have a fighting chance.”
The majority of countries agreed on the need to cut plastic production, phase out harmful chemicals, ensure a just transition — particularly for wastepickers — establish a new dedicated fund to help developing countries implement the treaty, and make decisions through a two-thirds majority voting when consensus cannot be reached, among other ambitious measures.
But this was derailed by a small group of petro-states calling themselves the “Like-Minded Group”, which includes Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran, who “sabotaged each round of talks by insisting on consensus to block ambition, and threatening to trap negotiations in procedural debate, if member states ever called for a vote”.
Gaia said INC-5.2 had “left ambitious countries lost in process” with surprising changes in schedule, “blatant lack of transparency”, overnight meetings starting as late as 2am, and a final plenary that started with 40 minute notice at 5.30 am — less than four hours after the chair’s final draft was released and more than 14 hours after its scheduled time.
“Make no mistake, INC-5.2 has been an abject failure,” said the Centre for International Environmental Law‘s David Azoulay.
“When faced with a failure of this magnitude, it’s essential to learn from it. In the final days of the negotiations, we have clearly seen what many of us have known for some time — some countries did not come here to finalise a text, they came here to do the opposite: block any attempt at advancing a viable treaty.
“It’s impossible to find a common ground between those who are interested in protecting the status quo and the majority who are looking for a functional treaty that can be strengthened over time.”
France’s ecology minister, Agnes Pannier-Runacher, expressed disappointment that a handful of countries, guided by short-term financial interests rather than the health of their populations and the sustainability of their economies, had blocked the adoption of an ambitious treaty against plastic pollution.
“Plastic kills. It poisons our oceans, our soils, and ultimately, it contaminates our bodies … Oil-producing countries chose to look the other way. We choose to act.”
Graham Forbes, Greenpeace’s head of delegation to the global plastics treaty negotiations, said the inability to reach an agreement in Geneva must be a wakeup call for the world.
“The vast majority of governments want a strong agreement, yet a handful of bad actors were allowed to use process to drive such ambition into the ground. We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result.”
The Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty said a large group of countries dissatisfied with the proposed text refused to accept a weak agreement that falls short of protecting environmental and human health, as indicated by the science.
“In Geneva, negotiators could not agree on key provisions essential to protecting the environment and human health, including effective obligations to reach sustainable levels of plastic production, address health, and account for impacts across the full life cycle of plastics,” it said.
“While a small group of countries actively denied the scientific evidence, we were encouraged by the overwhelming majority who engaged constructively with it. Our scientists thank them for their hard work and courage, and we remain committed to providing robust, independent science to support the next steps in the negotiations.”
“This was never going to be easy but the outcome we have today falls short of what our people, and the planet, need,” noted Surangel Whipps Jr, the president of Palau, speaking as the chair of The Alliance of Small Island States.
“Still, even after six rounds of negotiations, we will not walk away. The resilience of islanders has carried us through many storms, and we will persevere because we need real solutions, and we will carve pathways to deliver them for our people and our planet.”
Azoulay said countries that want a treaty must now leave this process and form “a treaty of the willing”.
And that process must include options for voting that deny the tyranny of consensus we have watched play out here.”
INC chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso said that “failing to reach the goal we set for ourselves may bring sadness, even frustration. Yet it should not lead to discouragement.
“On the contrary, it should spur us to regain our energy, renew our commitments, and unite our aspirations. It has not happened yet in Geneva, but I have no doubt that the day will come when the international community will unite its will and join hands to protect our environment and safeguard the health of our people.”
Kate Lynch, Australia’s head of the circular economy division, department of climate change, energy, the environment and water, said: “We must acknowledge that hard line positions will not allow us to move ahead.
“Characterising any of our discussions in terms of winners and losers only makes us all ultimately losers. We really need to embrace the constructive spirit that we’ve seen in so many discussions here and in previous INC sessions and take some brave decisions to move forward together.”