The global plastic treaty negotiations in Geneva ended in a deadlock, highlighting the challenges of consensus in multilateralism.
Despite prolonged discussions, no agreement was reached, with key issues like the treaty's scope and health impacts of plastics remaining unresolved.
The reliance on consensus has stalled progress, raising questions about the future of international environmental governance.
The latest round of negotiations for a global plastic treaty ended in stalemate, casting serious doubt on whether the principle of consensus still holds any relevance in modern multilateralism. In the early hours of August 15, 2025, after 10 days of closed-door deliberations, delegates emerged without an agreed text; a setback that has taken the process several steps back from where it stood in Busan earlier this year.
The mood in the final plenary was one of frustration. Member states, despite professing a “constructive spirit,” spent the last 24 hours digging their heels deeper in positions they had maintained since the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-2). This meeting came 250 days after the original deadline for delivering a legally binding text had already expired, underscoring the slow pace and growing fatigue of the process. The negotiations are being held under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to fulfil the mandate of the United Nations Environmental Assembly Resolution 5/14 — a commitment to produce a legally binding instrument that addresses the full life cycle of plastic.
On August 13, the INC Chair circulated a proposed text intended to break the deadlock. A majority of countries rejected it outright, claiming it’s a waste management treaty, and rightly so. In the final plenary, a new iteration was tabled, reflecting some of the “red lines” flagged by states, but it fared no better.
Key elements in this latest Chair’s proposal (August 15, 2025) included:
Explicit reference to the “full life cycle of plastics.”
Recognition of chemicals of concern.
Use of binding language such as “shall” alongside “should” in provisions on global bans for problematic plastic products and plastic product designs.
A mechanism for the future Conference of the Parties (COP) to take substantive decisions by a three-quarters majority vote, rather than relying solely on consensus.
The proposal was accused of not being able to capture the full range of views expressed in the regional meetings and the Head of delegations meeting, and thus, resistance persisted.
Countries opposing the revised text cited a series of omissions and weaknesses:
No agreed understanding of the treaty’s scope.
Absence of a dedicated article addressing the health impacts of plastics.
Voluntary, rather than binding language on just transition, despite earlier broad agreement on the need for such a provision.
Failure to recognise the special circumstances of small island developing states (SIDS), and least developed countries (LDCs).
All decisions relating to implementation under Article 10 (Financial Mechanisms) will be made by the COP only by consensus
Ironically, while a like-minded group of countries had been ready to move ahead with the Chair’s August 13 draft, they ultimately refrained from backing the final version released on August 15. As a result, the latest text was not adopted as the basis for further negotiations, a major disappointment for both the Secretariat and UNEP.
A small but powerful group of petrostates and major plastic-producing nations have, in effect, paralysed the process. Without a decision-making mechanism that allows progress in the face of entrenched opposition, the INC risks losing both momentum and credibility. The current reliance on consensus intended to encourage collective buy-in is increasingly being used as a veto tool, preventing even modest compromises.
This is not a new story in international environmental governance. Other multilateral agreements, from climate negotiations to chemical conventions, have witnessed similar deadlocks when consensus becomes a weapon rather than a bridge.
Paradoxically, the breakdown in talks has one positive aspect: it has prevented the adoption of an overly weak treaty that would have given states free rein to act, or not, within their own borders. Such an approach disregards the inherent transboundary nature of plastic pollution. Plastic products and waste routinely cross national boundaries, both as traded goods and as waste. Any treaty that ignores this reality would be fundamentally flawed.
Equally overlooked in both versions of the Chair’s proposals, is the direct link between plastic product design and the infrastructure needed for waste management. Without global rules on design standards such as requirements for recyclability, durability, or chemical safety, waste management systems, especially in developing countries, will remain overwhelmed.
As the negotiations are explicitly member-state led, the responsibility for determining the way forward rests squarely with the parties themselves. The Chair, the Secretariat, and UNEP can facilitate discussions, but they cannot dictate outcomes. The current impasse raises urgent questions: Can the process survive without a shift away from pure consensus decision-making? Or will it require a hybrid model striving for consensus but allowing majority voting when stalemates threaten the entire endeavour?
History suggests that other multilateral environmental agreements have found middle ground. For example, some conventions allow consensus as the default but permit voting when all else fails, creating a necessary pressure valve. Whether such a reform is politically palatable in the plastic treaty process remains to be seen.
What is clear is that the principle of consensus, once a cornerstone of trust in multilateralism, is showing its limits, and is being misused by a handful of powerful and rich petrostates hiding behind the UN categorization of “developing countries”. In an era where global challenges demand urgent and coordinated action, the ability of a small minority to block progress risks making multilateral diplomacy irrelevant.
If the INC cannot find a way to balance inclusivity with decisiveness, the global community may watch yet another opportunity slip away. And with every delay, the environmental, economic, and health costs of inaction grow heavier.