Global Plastics Treaty talks stall; industry calls for practical, science-based path forward 

“The plastics industry came to Geneva ready to work toward a practical, science-based agreement focused on the original purpose of these talks: keeping plastic out of the environment,” said Matt Seaholm, president and CEO of PLASTICS, based in Washington, D.C. “Unfortunately, significant gaps remain, and there was an unwillingness among some participants to focus on addressing plastic waste, instead pushing approaches that made it impossible to reach consensus. This was a missed opportunity.” 

Starting in March 2022, with a resolution to develop an international, legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, the INC has convened a series of talks to develop a Global Plastics Treaty. The adjournment came 10 days into the most recent session, dubbed INC-5.2, but the INC said it plans to resume negotiations at an as-yet unspecified future date.  

According to the INC, the goal of INC-5.2 was to agree on the Global Plastics Treaty text and highlight unresolved issues requiring further preparatory work ahead of a diplomatic conference. 

“This has been a hard-fought 10 days against the backdrop of geopolitical complexities, economic challenges and multilateral strains. However, one thing remains clear: Despite these complexities, all countries clearly want to remain at the table,” UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen said. “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.” 

Dispute slows recycling efforts

The lack of an international consensus hampers recycling efforts, according to James Kennedy, a technology analyst for IDTechEx, a Boston-based market intelligence firm that provides independent research on emerging technologies. 

Kennedy called the news Aug. 15 a “serious setback.” 
 
“These negotiations represented a chance to establish binding global rules on design standards, recycled content and waste management targets that could have created the scale and certainty needed to accelerate investment in circular solutions. Without that alignment, the shift away from virgin plastics will remain uneven, with some countries and regions introducing stringent regulations while others maintain business as usual. This fragmentation risks distorting trade flows, creating compliance complexity, and discouraging cross-border investment in recycling and alternative materials infrastructure.” 

The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), based in Berkeley, Calif., and Washington-D.C.-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) blamed a coalition of a minority of countries for blocking a treaty.  

In a press release, the NRDC said: “The majority of governments sought to reduce the quantity and toxicity of plastic production through globally applicable control measures. A minority of governments, including the United States, Saudi Arabia and Russia, preferred an extremely weak treaty relying solely upon national measures undertaken at the discretion of each country. These significantly divergent approaches could not be resolved.” 

However, the ACC praised U.S. efforts, with Chris Jahn, the organization’s president and CEO, saying, “ACC applauds the leadership of U.S. negotiators and their unrelenting efforts to bring governments together around a global agreement on plastic pollution that will help unleash American innovation to solve this global challenge.” 

Meanwhile, GAIA blamed what it calls “petro-states” and their allies for the breakdown. 

“No treaty is better than a bad treaty,” said Ana Rocha, global plastics policy director for the organization. “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.” 

Industry committed to sustainability

The ACC, based in Washington, D.C., defended plastics manufacturers’ efforts in the process. 

Jahn said, “America’s plastic makers remain committed to advancing a circular economy for plastics — designing products for reuse and recycling, collecting and sorting them at end of life, and remaking them into new products.” 

While expressing disappointment, Seaholm said the industry is committed to sustainability and called for a “workable solution.” 

“The plastics industry has been engaged from the start of these negotiations, and our companies have been — and continue to be — investing in sustainability, innovative technologies and circular design to keep plastic in use and out of the environment. Our oceans have no borders, which is why this must be a truly global effort. We know solutions exist, and we are working every day to eliminate plastic waste,” he said. 

The INC said the talks have involved more than 2,600 participants, including over 1,400 member delegates from 183 countries and close to 1,000 observers representing over 400 organizations.  

While not directly involved in the process, the Flexible Packaging Association (FPA), in Annapolis, Md., has been watching development, said Dani Diehlmann, VP of communications. 

“We appreciate those entities participating in the negotiations to ensure that any treaty that advances will support the existence and growth of the U.S. plastics industry that FPA members and the U.S. flexible packaging industry rely upon, while reducing plastic waste in the environment and enabling a circular economy for flexible packaging,” she said. 

Despite the snag, INC Chair Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso pledged work will continue.  

“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,” he said. “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.”