Subscribe
The talks in Geneva for a binding global treaty on plastics have hit rock bottom on the last day, August 14, with over 80 countries outrightly rejecting the Chair’s new proposed text.
It is an almost anti-climactic wind down to the negotiations which started with much hope on August 5, 2025.
Delegations from around the world had arrived with promises of “constructive engagement.” But nine days into the resumed Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) talks on a global treaty to end plastic pollution, and there seemingly has been zero progress made.
Countries seem clearly determined to protect their sovereignty, and business interests — not the environment.
The current round of talks was mandated by the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) resolution 5/14 to produce a legally binding text, a deadline that had already slipped past in December 2024. Member states agreed in Busan when the committee failed to deliver a draft treaty that the Chair’s text is going to be the basis of the negotiations.
Some delegations arrived eager to leverage the months since Busan, when member states worked together, informally, to streamline complicated articles. They brought bridging proposals that reflected compromise and attempted to reconcile opposing views.
But not all countries were willing to engage. A few insisted that only the Chair’s text had legal standing and refused to consider the intersessional proposals, no matter how widely consulted they were. Ironically, this scepticism persisted even when those proposals enjoyed support from over a hundred countries.
The pace of work varied across the four contact groups. Some began line-by-line negotiations with articles that were already relatively clean. Others waded through paragraphs laden with brackets and conflicting proposals. The proposals ranged from bridging texts that carefully balanced divergent views to restatements of firm red lines that had been voiced repeatedly in earlier sessions. In some cases, proposals from one group appeared to be strategic manoeuvres to lock in or influence outcomes in other groups.
Late on August 11, signs of real movement emerged. Delegations began making connections across the separate discussions in contact groups. When some countries refused to participate in informal talks on the contentious question of whether the treaty should include targets for reducing virgin plastic production, the ripple effect was immediate. In a separate contact group dealing with finance, a small group moved a motion to halt debate on funding mechanisms. Suddenly, what had been parallel conversations became entangled. Delegates huddled in corridors. Some argued that such cross-issue bargaining was inevitable in a negotiation of this complexity. Others saw it as a deliberate tactic to stall progress.
At 2.50 pm local time on August 13, 2025, the Chair dropped a new proposed text. This text marks the rock bottom of what has been on the table for negotiations. While countries like Saudi Arabia called the proposed text a ‘milestone’, like-minded countries expressed a deep desire to move ahead with the proposed text as the basis of negotiations. However, more than 80 countries outrightly rejected the new proposed text to be the basis of discussions as the last 24 hours of negotiations began.
The proposed text violates the mandate issued to the committee by the UNEA resolution 5/14. It does not take into consideration the “full life cycle of plastic” and severely lacks legally binding language that was enshrined in the (5/14) resolution that kickstarted this process of negotiations.
A quick review of the Chair’s draft suggests it would leave each country free to decide which problematic plastics to ban, offers no firm guidance on product design, insists on consensus-only decision making at future COPs, and treats measures like Extended Producer Responsibility as optional. In effect, it maintains the very status quo it was meant to challenge.
The Chair spent August 13 night consulting with regional groups and countries that are not well represented in these regional groups. Based on these discussions, the Chair and his team might consider developing a new text that captures the full range of views. It looked obvious that the Chair was hoping for the committee to agree with his proposed text to be the basis of further negotiations. Clearly, he was caught off guard without a solid plan of action for the final hours of the negotiations.
With the final plenary hours from now, a miracle text from the Chair seems unlikely. The process now faces a handful of possible outcomes, some of which are: it could stall entirely, shift outside United Nations Environment Programme’s framework, or continue to be dominated by countries unwilling to compromise.
These talks are not just about plastic and plastic pollution. They are about people, the planet, and a test of multilateralism’s ability to address a complex, transboundary crisis. Plastic pollution is not a localised problem; it moves through rivers, across coastlines and through the global economy. A patchwork of national policies cannot solve it. Yet, the talks repeatedly circle back to questions of sovereignty and flexibility—much of which exists. Even if we move ahead with a strong text, countries will get at least five years and at the most 15 years to start implementing stronger provision such as global bans on the most problematic plastics.
In the last few hours, the committee will face a choice: find common ground and deliver a draft treaty for the world to consider, or return home with little to show but frustration. The success of the negotiations depends on a delicate balance of ambition and compromise. Some countries have already stretched to meet others partway. If others remain inflexible, the talks may once again end without a text, leaving the problem of plastic pollution to fester.
Whether Geneva yet again becomes the birthplace of a historic agreement or another missed opportunity will depend on the willingness of our leaders and bureaucrats that people have put in power to negotiate on behalf of them and their children.