Reflections on the UN Plastics Treaty negotiation from an After the Single Use delegate

I recently returned from two chaotic weeks in Geneva, where 184 countries of the United Nations failed once again to agree on a treaty to address plastic pollution. So, what happened? And what does it mean for the fight for planetary health?  

Since 2022, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has been coordinating negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty. A legally binding treaty, once in place, could in theory be a major turning point in the fight against plastic pollution. The latest round of treaty negotiations (Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee 5.2, or INC-5.2) took place in Geneva from 5-15 August. It should have been the final negotiation. And yet, just like at the previous “final” negotiation (INC-5.1) in Busan in November 2024, the session ended with no treaty agreed. 

I attended INC-5.2 as an Observer, together with a team from Health Care Without Harm (HCWH). An official partner of After the Single Use, HCWH is a civil society organisation working to reduce single-use plastics and other harmful and unsustainable practices in the healthcare sector. The group has been urging countries to stand up for a health-centred treaty which addresses the full life cycle of plastics, and to ensure that there is no blanket exemption for medical plastics.

Hope for an effective treaty 

As we arrived at the imposing Palais des Nations for the opening plenary on 5 August, hope remained alive that INC-5.2 could deliver an effective treaty, with vital measures including capping the production of plastics, banning harmful single-use products and chemicals of concern, and enshrining health protections and a just transition in the treaty text. But it didn’t take long for it to become apparent that a strong plastics treaty was further out of reach than ever. 

The rules of procedure state that the treaty should be agreed on by consensus, meaning that all 184 countries in attendance would have to be satisfied with the final text compiled from the negotiations. This was always an unrealistic prospect. The good news is that a sizeable majority of countries supported a strong plastics treaty which addresses the full life cycle of plastics, from petrochemical production to product use and disposal. There was also a high degree of support for embedding health protections throughout the treaty, and 130 countries supported a standalone article on health (Article 19).  

The petrochemical block

However, a minority of countries were strongly opposed to a treaty addressing the full lifecycle of plastics. These countries are primarily large petrochemical producers. The most vocal members of this group included the USA and the Arab Gulf States. They were adamant that the treaty should only address the management of plastic waste, and that plastic production and the health impacts of plastic were outside the scope of the treaty. As the negotiations unfolded, it became increasingly clear that there were irreconcilable views, including fundamental disagreements over what the treaty was even about. Consensus was therefore impossible. 

Procedural impasse

One pathway towards breaking the deadlock would have been allowing critical decisions to be made by vote. Many stakeholders have argued that voting is necessary and fair, whereas “consensus kills ambition” and gives a small handful of countries or even one single country the power to derail the negotiations. Unsurprisingly, the low-ambition countries have vehemently opposed voting, because they do not want to be overruled.

The final days of the negotiation were beset with lengthy delays and confusion, as the INC Chair made frantic attempts to convene countries behind closed doors to work out some form of compromise. Discussions overran late into the night and into Friday morning, the day after the official end of the session. Time had run out, everyone was exhausted, and there was still no agreement. 

No treaty is better than a weak treaty

Whilst this is a disappointing outcome in many ways, it is much better than coming away from Geneva with a weak treaty. A couple of days before the end of the negotiation, the INC Chair proposed a new version of the treaty which killed all its ambition. It was a transparent attempt to appease the petrochemical block by removing any reference to plastics production, toxic chemicals, indigenous rights and knowledge, and health protections. A treaty like this would have been a disaster for meaningful action to address the systemic harms of plastic. So, it is very encouraging that the high-ambition countries stood their ground and rejected it. A weak treaty could have locked the world into more decades of failure. But now, the fight for an ambitious, legally-binding, multilateral agreement to address the existential threats of plastic can continue. 

It is currently unclear what the next steps will be. No plan has been announced for resuming negotiations. Another INC under the same rules as all 6 previous INCs would be doomed to fail yet again. High-ambition stakeholders are pushing for a change in format to allow voting on matters which cannot be agreed by consensus. It is also possible that a “coalition of the willing” will come together to form their own plastics agreement, without the involvement of the petrochemical block.

Civil society leadership

Regardless of what comes next, something which has been particularly notable to me as a researcher at the INC is the role of civil society in pushing countries to take plastics seriously as a health threat. Since negotiations began, there has been a remarkable shift from viewing plastic primarily as an environmental issue, to viewing plastic as a health issue, which supports the case for ambitious measures including addressing production, chemicals of concern, single use products, and product design for toxic-free reuse. The civil society groups I engaged with have worked tirelessly to provide critical evidence to delegates. They have guided delegates to push for ambitious treaty measures and have encouraged them to hold the line and reject a weak treaty. Groups like HCWH, the independent Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Treaty, and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives will undoubtedly continue to play this important role. 

There are major challenges ahead for securing ambitious global policy action on plastic. But a new narrative is emerging. Plastic is a public and planetary health emergency. Strong actions must be taken to reduce exposure to the harms of plastic, and this can only be done by acting across the whole lifecycle of plastic and making fundamental changes to the way societies use material resources.  

Images courtesy of © HCWH Southeast Asia