At the heart of the collapse was a deadlock: whether a global treaty to stem plastic pollution should include measures to curb plastic production, which is set to triple by 2060.
The plastics treaty negotiations ended not with a pact but with an adjournment. After talks ran into overtime on Thursday night in Geneva, a final plenary early Friday morning ended abruptly with no agreement and no next steps. The chair, Ecuadorian diplomat Luis Vayas Valdivieso, suspended the 10-day meeting to be resumed “at a later date,” after the United States and Kuwait asked to cut the last session short—Kuwait citing that it had become “a health issue” as exhausted delegates struggled through the long hours.
RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE GOALS
A Split Over Plastic Production Caps
At the heart of the collapse was a deadlock: whether a global treaty to stem plastic pollution should include measures to curb plastic production, which is set to triple by 2060. Nearly 100 countries had sought a dedicated section on production. An opposing group of fossil fuel–producing nations—including Gulf states, Russia and the United States—vehemently rejected any provisions aimed at reducing output. The chair’s last-ditch draft text, still bracketed with options and lacking a production chapter, fell flat and failed to bridge the divide at the session known as INC-5.2.
Frustration with the process ran high. Several countries voiced disappointment with how the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) managed the talks at the UN’s Palais des Nations. The breakdown came nine months after what was originally meant to be the final round in December 2024 also failed to deliver a deal. France’s minister for ecological transition, Agnès Pannier-Runacher, said she was “disappointed and enraged,” calling the outcome “so chaotic.” “Oil-producing countries and their allies have chosen to look the other way. We choose to act,” she said.
Switzerland’s lead negotiator, Felix Wertli, called for “a time-out” and suggested countries consider whether plastic pollution could be tackled under existing UN conventions. UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen said everyone arrived intent on a deal, but acknowledged “we are living in an era of political complexity.” She argued “significant progress was made as red lines were clarified” and pledged the work “will not stop because plastic pollution will not stop.” In the corridors, bleary-eyed observers voiced bitter disappointment and urged a rethink.
Switzerland’s lead negotiator, Felix Wertli, called for “a time-out” and suggested countries consider whether plastic pollution could be tackled under existing UN conventions. UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen said everyone arrived intent on a deal, but acknowledged “we are living in an era of political complexity.” She argued “significant progress was made as red lines were clarified” and pledged the work “will not stop because plastic pollution will not stop.” In the corridors, bleary-eyed observers voiced bitter disappointment and urged a rethink.
Reset—or Push Ahead?
The split extended beyond policy to the very architecture of the talks. David Azoulay, director of environmental health at the Center for International Environmental Law, called Geneva “an abject failure,” accusing some countries of blocking “any attempt at advancing a viable treaty” and urging “a restart, not a repeat performance.” A diplomat from one developed country told Changemakr Asia it would be fruitless to continue while petrostates remain deeply entrenched and the United States appears dead set against creating any new global agreement.
Others pressed to power ahead within the existing process. Speaking for small island developing states, Palau’s Gwen Sisior said countries must “carve a path forward” and asked the chair to explore “additional avenues for political engagement” to reach a “true compromise.” Ghana’s Lydia Essuah, for the African group, demanded “a clear way forward” and another negotiating session to deliver a treaty reflecting “the high ambition that the world needs.” The European Union’s environment commissioner, Jessika Roswall, called the latest text “a step forward” and said the bloc would “continue to push for a stronger, binding agreement.”
Tensions had been building since Wednesday afternoon, when Valdivieso circulated a first proposed text. Country representatives variously labeled it “repulsive,” “entirely unacceptable” and “wholly inadequate.” Frantic talks stretched through Thursday and into the early hours of Friday, but the gap did not close. A civil-society push to put a stronger pact to a vote—departing from the usual consensus method—was never tested. In a statement, the chair acknowledged that failing to clinch a deal “may bring sadness, even frustration,” but urged delegates to “regain our energy, renew our commitments and unite our aspirations.”
“No Deal Is Better Than a Bad Deal,” Campaigners Say
Outside the negotiating rooms, some campaigners argued that a weak treaty would be worse than none at all. “No treaty is better than a bad treaty,” said Ana Rocha, global plastics policy director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. “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.”
Graham Forbes, global plastics campaign lead for Greenpeace USA, called the Geneva outcome “a wake-up call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head on.” He added, “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 time for hesitation is over.”
The session closed without a roadmap: no agreement, no schedule, and a draft text still riddled with brackets and missing a production section that nearly 100 countries had demanded. The chair has adjourned the meeting to be resumed later, on a date yet to be decided. Between calls for a reset and vows to push harder within the current track, the political lines are clearer than ever—even as the path forward remains unclear.
Editorial note: This story was updated after publication to add reactions from a range of countries and the INC-5.2 chair.
