Felix Wertli is the Swiss Ambassador for the Environment and was the country’s lead negotiator at INC 5.2.

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