The UN Plastics Treaty failed, but there might be a silver lining
Inside the collapsed Geneva negotiations and why this setback could lead to a stronger global agreement
The United Nations Global Plastic Treaty- the international agreement that promised to end plastic pollution - has failed, talks have collapsed and countries are deadlocked. At least thats what you’d think by reading the news coverage. Articles published about the negotiation session held in Geneva this August have doomsday headlines like Plastics treaty fate exposes weakness of global resolve (sounds grim) and Geneva talks on global plastic pollution treaty collapse without a deal (yikes!). Skim the coverage, and you’d assume its game over.
So why do I, and many others working on the topic, remain hopeful? Perhaps we are naive optimists, or perhaps see dynamics unfolding that don’t always make the headlines. Let’s dive in.
A quick reminder of what’s at stake
The Global Plastics Treaty is meant to be the first legally binding international agreement to tackle the full life cycle of plastics, from production and product design to waste management and pollution. Without a strong treaty, plastic production is predicted to triple by 2060. For all the details on this process, see my previous article;
Arriving in Geneva
I arrived in sunny Geneva hopeful. There was a buzz in the air that first day: delegates and observers alike spoke with cautious optimism. People said they didn’t want to leave without a treaty. After the disappointment in Busan, many promised not to let history repeat itself. Some even framed the week as history-making, the moment the world would finally agree to end plastic pollution.
As the summer heatwave intensified, so did disagreements between countries. Should plastic production be capped or regulated? (Full lifecycle approach vs. waste management only.) Should measures be mandatory or voluntary? How would developing countries finance implementation? Even basic definitions - what counts as "plastic pollution"? - remained contested. The debates felt like endless ping pong matches: one country would argue that a full lifecycle approach was necessary, only for another to reiterate that the treaty should focus on waste management. Back and forth, back and forth, with no agreement, limited compromise, and minimal progress.
Though many countries continued to emphasize that this treaty must "end plastic pollution," it became clear there was no agreement on how to achieve that goal.
The final drama
Things escalated dramatically on August 13th. That afternoon, the Chair released a compromise text without prior consultation. It cut out standalone articles on health and supply and softened the language on financing. Delegates erupted in plenary. On both sides of the debate, negotiators said the Chair’s draft was unacceptable. The plenary meeting devolved into countries taking the floor to reject the text, over and over. Dejectedly, the chair adjourned the plenary, scheduling regional meetings to try and find compromise and a path forward.
This is not ambition, this is surrender -
Panama delegate Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez
Those regional meetings continued well into the evening, and then into the next day. On August 14th (the final day of negotiations), there was supposed to be a planned final plenary at 3 PM. In theory, this would be the meeting where an agreed upon plastics treaty was presented. This was clearly not going to happen. Instead, the plenary was moved to 7 PM, then 8 PM, 9 PM, and finally 11:30 PM. Just before midnight, the exhausted chair postponed the session to the morning, somehow managing to publish a new draft text at 1 am. New text in hand, heads of delegation met through the night, shuffling straight into a 5:30 a.m. plenary. Many delegates were visibly depleted, or missing entirely.
Then came the anticlimax: the Chair declared the text had been “rejected.” Several countries pushed back, clarifying that it hadn’t been formally rejected, only that consensus was absent. But before debate could continue, the United States requested adjournment and Kuwait concurred, stating continuing the discussion any further would become a health risk to the negotiators. And that was it.
From the hopeful sunshine of the opening day to the heavy, sleepless early hours of August 15, the session was over and in that moment, it felt there was nothing to show for it.
Failure or just a setback?
Many have categorized what happened in Geneva as a failure: a failure to deliver a treaty, a failure of international diplomacy, a failure of leadership. Others take a different stance. They believe no treaty is better than a weak treaty and know that multi-lateral agreements take time (often a very long time).
Nobody is cheering for this process to drag on forever, but there are important distinctions between failure and postponement, between collapse and continuation.
Here’s how I see arguments on both sides.
The case for despair
We’ve run out of time: The two-year timeline set in 2022 has expired and we are entering year three of negotiations. The original contract is broken and it is unclear where we go from here.
The financial strain: Tens of millions of dollars have already been spent on these negotiations. In today’s political climate, international financing for environmental negotiations is far from guaranteed.
Momentum is fragile: News cycles move on, politicians lose interest, and public attention wanes. Postponing the process will lead to a weaker treaty that gets less attention from politicians and the public.
The case for hope
Regroup and refresh: There is little room to argue that a treaty can be achieved by consensus, when consensus has clearly failed. This may open opportunities for refreshed negotiators to regroup and try to change tactics, for example at the UN Environment Assembly meeting in December. Majority vote, anyone?
The buzz grows: Every week it seems another scientific article or popular podcast covers the topic of plastic. The impacts of microplastics on health and the links to climate change are strengthening. Rather than lose steam, concern about plastic is going mainstream. Public interest can fuel political will and lead to a stronger treaty, in time.
Stakeholders take action: Businesses see the writing on the wall, regulation on plastic is coming, be it from the treaty, extended producer responsibility (EPR) or EU laws. NGOs, innovators and communities are keeping up the good fight, and will continue their on-the-ground work and advocacy. Just because talks stalled, doesn’t mean people have.
In conclusion, there is no conclusion
The truth is, we don’t know what comes next. In a way thats frustrating, but its also exciting. I’ve never had the chance to follow along a political cycle in any meaningful way. I didn’t study law or politics, my understanding of regulation has been generic and surface level. The first time I attended an INC negotiation process, I remember trying to follow along the diplomatic proceedings and being simultaneously confused and bored out of my mind. During the negotiations in Geneva, things were different. I could pick out delay tactics from petrochemical states and blocker countries, I could anticipate sassy come-backs from certain negotiators. I knew that the real progress would likely happen in the last 24-48 hours, and potentially run late into the evening (as it did). I had clear positions I was advocating for, in order to support innovators as part of my work with the Innovation Alliance for a Global Plastics Treaty, and could track progress throughout the weeks.
So yes, we left Geneva with no treaty. But we also didn’t leave with a weak treaty, and importantly we (the community of people tracking this progress closely), left with a crystal clear view that consensus can not work. My hope is that the UN Environment Assembly meeting is an opportunity to change the rules of procedure, to provide opportunities to break deadlocks and force compromise. If that happens, there is a chance some countries choose to leave the treaty process. However a lot of people agree its better to move forward with fewer countries towards a stronger treaty than all countries towards a weak treaty. We live in a globalized economy, even if a few countries bow out of the UN Plastics Treaty, they will be forced to reckon with the regulations through trade and import and export regulations.
Final Thought
We didn’t get a treaty in Geneva. But we also didn’t commit to a weak one. The next critical moment comes at December's UN Environment Assembly, where procedural rules could change to allow majority voting instead of consensus - potentially breaking the deadlock.
The path forward is uncertain, but uncertainty also opens the door to possibility. For the first time, I’m actually on the edge of my seat about a slow, bureaucratic diplomatic process. Stay tuned!
