The latest round of UN negotiations on a global treaty to end plastic pollution came to a gruelling close on 15 August, without reaching an agreement. Yet the process is far from finished, as many observers have been keen to point out.
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution met for the sixth time (since negotiations began in 2022) on 5 August, in Geneva, finally failing to reach an agreement once again, in the early hours that followed the last scheduled day, amidst “exhaustion, anger and frustration”, as the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) described the mood at a plenary session “called out of nowhere at 5.30am”.1
This seemed to continue a pattern of previous rounds of talks, in which countries with fossil fuel interests have employed delay tactics to hobble proceedings. The CIEL cited problems such as a lack of transparency and clear guidance, as well as a lack of opportunities for observers to intervene or participate.
“Once again, the will of the many has been hijacked by the bullying tactics and financial interests of a few,” said a joint statement made by video on Twitter/X from the group’s Delphine Levi Alvares and David Azoulay.2
“Delay, distract, derail – we’ve seen this playbook before, but in Geneva it escalated.”
Progress on these negotiations seems to ultimately fail, as on this occasion, at an impasse between high-ambition countries – seeking mandatory caps on virgin plastic production – and oil-producing or petrochemical-dependent countries (including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) which instead advocate for better approaches to handling waste, with no mandatory curbs on production. The latter nations are also unwilling to agree to limits on the use of toxic or harmful chemicals such as bisphenols, phthalates and PFAS.
Companies in the oil industry will have been especially interested in the outcome of the talks, with the sector’s own extraction activities within the scope of a potential treaty. Similarly, the appearance of legally-binding caps on production would have a bearing on the production of a wide variety of consumer products. Such manufacturers, suggested financial services firm Hargreaves Lansdown, “are likely to view this as a signal that policy is not likely to change any time soon.”3
Although a clear picture is yet to emerge, a growing body of evidence seems to link plastic pollution with a range of health problems in humans, and the damage inflicted on a wide range of marine and other wildlife is vividly apparent.
Greenpeace conducted air sampling in Geneva during the talks, which revealed that the air contained a noticeable quantity of microplastics, findings that seemed to confirm just how pervasive the problem is, that in a country like Switzerland – ranked 8th in the world for waste management – plastic pollution can be sufficiently prevalent to cause air pollution.4
A structural problem
The briefest appraisal of the figures clearly dispels any notion that recycling offers a way out of the plastics crisis on its own (although it will be absolutely essential), with even the most advanced nations’ recycling capabilities currently handling only a small fraction of the waste being generated – around 5-6% of plastics are recycled in the US, and 15-30% in the EU, depending on the material. Meanwhile, plastic production is scheduled to triple by 2060.
Reconomy’s Diane Crowe lamented “a missed opportunity to tackle one of the greatest structural challenges of our time.”
“The world is extracting and consuming virgin resources faster than the world can regenerate them with too few plastics being circulated back into the economy. This dependence on virgin materials is placing unsustainable pressure on the earth’s ecosystems and is contributing significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions.
“A strong agreement could have accelerated the global shift to a circular economy with nations committing to make better use of existing materials which would lower carbon emissions and environmental harm and reduce costs for businesses.”
For environmental campaigners, the good news seemed to be that no deal was better than a weak deal, and the talks produced a number of encouraging signs of progress.
Of the 179 countries who participated, “120 countries coalesced [to] further strengthen the position that emerged in Busan, not just in principle but in actual text, advancing language we can build on for a meaningful agreement,” as the CIEL put it.
This would provide the basis for a further resumed session, “using the final text from Busan as the basis”, a prospect for which they seemed to reserve little hope since the current process appeared to be broken.
“So now we must push to fix this process or find another one.” Toward that end, they said, “countries that truly want a treaty must move forward together, even if that means breaking free from the tyranny of consensus that has paralyzed us here.”
Some believed there were grounds for investing hopes in further UN talks. The Guardian noted the eight years of talks that presaged an eventual decision to regulate hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) under the terms of the Montreal protocol, in 2016.5
Others saw much to be optimistic about in an apparent shift from China, now seemingly “inching closer and closer to issues they previously even refused to touch” said CIEL, including a “willingness to discuss the full life cycle of plastics from production to disposal”. China is one of the world’s largest producers of plastic, but “is less reliant on them” noted The Guardian, and they could foreseeably benefit from being seen to show leadership on this issue.
In any event, the impasse – displaying parallels with the failed Busan talks last November – seemed to confirm the fears of many observers that the era of international cooperation and consensus that produced a landmark moment like the Paris Agreement was very much a thing of the past.
In the meantime, suggested Hargreaves Landsdown, “investors that wish to encourage positive action on plastic should look beyond companies that only have recycling schemes and towards those that focus on phasing out single use and virgin plastics.”
“Engaging with companies to provide transparent reporting and progress on reduction plans will be key to encouraging progress.”
Notes
[1] Link to tweet: https://x.com/ciel_tweets/status/1956336879453790359.
[2] ibid
[3] “‘Paris-style treaty for plastic’ falls flat – what does it mean for investors?”, press release from Hargreaves Lansdown, 15 August 2025.
[4] “Greenpeace air sampling in Geneva finds microplastics in urban air”, Greenpeace press release. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/77817/greenpeace-air-sampling-in-geneva-finds-microplastics-in-urban-air/
[5] “The Guardian view on the collapse of environmental talks: petrostates blocked a global plastics deal, but we must not despair”, Editorial, The Guardian, 15 August.
