At the close of the plastics treaty negotiations (INC-5.2), ambitious Member States held strong under immense pressure and a broken process and refused to end INC-5.2 with a weak treaty that would have failed to address the existential threat of plastic and repeated the fatal errors of the Paris climate negotiations. 

Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) states, “No treaty is better than a bad treaty. We stand with the ambitious majority who refused to back down and accept a treaty that disrespects the countries that are truly committed to this process and betrays our communities and our planet. Once again, negotiations collapsed, derailed by a chaotic and biased process that left even the most engaged countries struggling to be heard. A broken, non-transparent process will never deliver a just outcome. It’s time to fix it – so people and the planet can finally have a fighting chance.”

Despite the fact that the vast majority of countries agreed on the need to cut plastic production, phase out harmful chemicals, ensure a Just Transition especially for waste pickers, establish a new dedicated fund, and make decisions through a 2/3 majority voting when consensus cannot be reached, among other ambitious measures, a small group of petro-states calling themselves the “like-minded countries” sabotaged each round of talks by insisting on consensus to block ambition, and threatening to trap negotiations in procedural debate if Member States ever called for a vote. 

The Chair and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) failed to set the table for equitable and effective negotiations. Huge numbers of fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists swamped the talks while civil society was frequently shut out. The Chair played favorites with the low-ambition minority, while frequently ignoring high ambition countries from the Global South. When powerful countries wielded their money, political muscle, and influence to bully these nations into retreat, the silence from the podium was deafening. This is not the spirit of multilateralism – it was coercion.

“We cannot confuse procedural agreement with meaningful ambition. For years, the Global South has been the driving force behind the most ambitious proposals, but the consensus paralysis has prevented us from delivering the treaty the world urgently needs,” states Eskedar Awgichew Ergete of Eco-Justice Ethiopia.

INC-5.2 left ambitious countries lost in process: surprising changes in schedule, blatant lack of transparency, overnight meetings starting as late as 2 am, and a final plenary that started with 40-minute notice at 5.30 am – less than four hours after the Chair’s final draft was released and more than 14 hours after its scheduled time.

“The content is already difficult to agree on, but the broken process makes it worse. Two and a half years in, the rules of procedure are still not agreed upon, and the voting mechanism is still in brackets. Another round of negotiation is welcome, but it won’t help if we don’t fix the process,” said Salisa Traipipitsiriwat of Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) Thailand.

The momentum that civil society and Indigenous Peoples built over the course of the plastics treaty process is undeniable. Not too long-ago plastic pollution was seen as a largely waste management problem. Now, the science is clearer than ever on what it will take to solve this crisis, public awareness and alarm is at an all-time high, and over 100 countries have declared their support for plastic production cuts–all because of a strong, global movement to stop plastic pollution from extraction to final disposal. 

Now more than ever, the conditions are set for deep transformative change, with or without a plastics treaty. Strong relationships forged between Member States and environmental justice groups will provide countries with the expertise to follow through on their commitments. Business models will be mandated to shift and align with reuse systems. The science is clear, the health impacts are indisputable, the path forward well-defined—and denial is no longer an option.

Thais Carvajal, Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador, said: “There was no conclusion for the treaty, but we are not backing down: the process and its challenges have made us stronger. We have changed the narrative and will keep fighting plastic pollution.”

Graham Forbes, Greenpeace Head of Delegation to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations and Global Plastics Campaign Lead for Greenpeace USA, said: “The inability to reach an agreement in Geneva must be a wakeup call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head on. The vast majority of governments want a strong agreement, yet a handful of bad actors were allowed to use process to drive such ambition into the ground. We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. The time for hesitation is over.

“The plastics crisis is accelerating, and the petrochemical industry is determined to bury us for short-term profits. Now is not the time to blink. Now is the time for courage, resolve and perseverance. The call from all of civil society is clear: we need a strong, legally binding treaty that cuts plastic production, protects human health, provides robust and equitable financing, and ends the plastic pollution from extraction to disposal. And world leaders must listen. The future of our health and planet depends on it.”

Hellen Kahaso Dena, Greenpeace Africa’s Pan-Africa Plastics Project Lead, said: “As governments put their political and economic interests before people and the planet, the planet burns, our oceans choke and our children breathe, drink and eat microplastics. This delay allows polluters to continue flooding the world with plastic, while frontline communities face the dire consequences of this crisis.

“The opportunity to secure a plastics treaty that protects our health, biodiversity and climate is still within reach. Member states need to up their game, step up with courage and deliver a treaty that cuts plastic production to alleviate our communities from the detrimental impacts of plastic pollution.”

Lisa Pastor, Advocacy Officer for Surfrider Foundation Europe: “The world has been waiting for strong leadership from Geneva, hoping for a plastic treaty that can truly end the global pollution crisis. Instead, a text quietly published in the middle of the night offers little more than voluntary promises disguised as progress. The slight changes since the last version may give the illusion of progress, but the reality is that of a weak text calling for national measures, with no possibility of strengthening it over time.

“Plastic pollution knows no borders; it requires collective and binding action, not concessions to the lowest common denominator. This process has not fulfilled its mandate, and the outcome serves the interests of industrial lobbies and a few blocking countries, rather than the majority of countries ready to adopt an ambitious treaty. This last session shows us one thing: the rules of the game must change.”

Manon Richert, Communications Manager of Zero Waste France: “We regret that the non-transparent and non-democratic process set up under INC 5.2 has not resulted in a binding treaty, aimed at combating plastic pollution at every stage of the life cycle. Although in the minority, the oil states and the fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbies have succeeded in dragging the text down. It is imperative that the continuation of discussions be carried out within a framework that allows for better consideration of countries in favour of a text based on science and the needs of the people on the front line.

“These countries are now in the majority: in this respect, we must pay tribute to the work carried out for more than two years by associations and scientists to bring the impacts of plastic on health and the environment to the attention of decision-makers and the public. We also welcome the diplomatic efforts led by France: we call on the government to continue these efforts at the international and European levels and to translate this commitment into concrete actions on the national territory.”

Sylvie Platel, head of the Health, Environment & Gender Advocacy Department (WECF): “The text proposed in questionable circumstances is largely insufficient. It will not solve the dramatic plastic crisis we are experiencing, which poses alarming health risks and requires immediate action. The key elements of controls on chemicals and substances, production, and the impact of plastic pollution on health are entirely voluntary or non-existent. There is also a need to address the disproportionate burden on marginalised groups, especially women and girls, whose health and livelihoods and rights are too often neglected.”

Steve Trent, Executive Director and Founder of the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF): “INC-5.2 was adjourned without a treaty or clear direction for the way forward, paralysed by bad faith actors and weak draft text from the Chair, which did little to advance previous work. It is becoming increasingly clear that the search for consensus is not appropriate: we must work towards a more effective solution. We salute the most ambitious countries for refusing to settle for a meaningless agreement and call on them to act quickly to chart a new course for people and the planet.”

Scientists Coalition said: “After 10 days of negotiations in Geneva, countries have not yet agreed on a new global plastics treaty. A large group of countries dissatisfied with the proposed text refused to accept a weak agreement that falls short of protecting environmental and human health, as indicated by the science. The current draft text would not fulfill the UNEA 5/14 mandate to end plastic pollution. The committee has now agreed to extend the negotiations into yet another meeting session with dates and location still to be determined.

“In Geneva, negotiators could not agree on key provisions essential to protecting the environment and human health, including effective obligations to reach sustainable levels of plastic production, address health, and account for impacts across the full life cycle of plastics. While a small group of countries actively denied the scientific evidence, we were encouraged by the overwhelming majority who engaged constructively with it. Our scientists thank them for their hard work and courage, and we remain committed to providing robust, independent science to support the next steps in the negotiations.”

Global Environment Facility (GEF) CEO and Chairperson, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez: “While it is disappointing that an agreement was not reached this week in Geneva, I was heartened to see the committed efforts by ministers and negotiators in pursuit of a new plastic pollution treaty that can underwrite meaningful, positive, long-term impacts.

“The Global Environment Facility is a committed and leading investor in plastic pollution solutions, and we stand ready to support implementation of an intended future treaty. In the meantime, we will continue our ambitious investments to address challenges across the full life cycle of plastic and will prioritise pollution control throughout our programming as a core priority for our next replenishment period.”

Surangel Whipps Jr, President of Palau, speaking as Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS): “This was never going to be easy – but the outcome we have today falls short of what our people, and the planet, need. Still, even after six rounds of negotiations, we will not walk away. The resilience of islanders has carried us through many storms, and we will persevere – because we need real solutions, and we will carve pathways to deliver them for our people and our planet.”

At the conclusion of the negotiations, Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) staff offered the following reflections:

Giulia Carlini, Senior Attorney and Environmental Health Programme Manager: “Toxics and microplastics are poisoning our bodies, causing cancer, infertility, and death, while corporations keep profiting from unchecked production. The science is undeniable. Yet here, it has been denied and downplayed. Despite this flawed process, the message remains clear: people and the majority of countries demand a drastic change.  A treaty is still possible, but whatever comes next must be grounded in science and what is best for human health.”

Helionor De Anzizu, Senior Attorney: “A treaty to end plastic pollution must rise to the scale of the crisis. It must meet the standards of existing international law – under the Paris Agreement, the Law of the Sea, human rights treaties, and customary law – and go further, turning commitments into concrete, enforceable actions. The draft treaty fell short, with mainly voluntary measures. While a strong treaty to end plastic pollution is urgently needed, the Chair’s two proposed drafts would have left the world in a limbo of inaction and endless debate while the plastic crisis worsens.

Andrés Del Castillo, Senior Attorney: “The plastics treaty negotiations are shaping not only the future of plastic governance but also the way future environmental negotiations will play out. This INC was doomed from the start. Poor time management, unrealistic expectations, lack of transparency, and a ministerial segment with no clear purpose – all of which undermined the ability to close the deal.

“If and when talks resume, it will be essential to change how and where the work is done. Geneva made it evident: A clear, step-by-step plan is essential, one that identifies who will steer the process, where the meetings will be held, and how the agenda will address the fact that this is not only a pollution crisis – but also a climate crisis.”

Melissa Blue Sky, Senior Attorney: “Multilateral treaty negotiations are incredibly difficult even under the best conditions, and the INC process has been far from that. A handful of countries continue to insist that the INC cannot vote and have threatened to derail negotiations if any country proposes a vote. The result is a negotiation in which the least ambitious countries regularly veto global obligations to address production and product phase-outs by insisting that there is no consensus, despite these measures having support from the majority of countries. 

“Because of this, the weak proposed final text from the Chair, with a few token elements for the more ambitious countries, was rejected by blocking countries. If countries hope to ever achieve a treaty that meaningfully addresses plastics pollution, they will either need to vote at the INC or take the negotiation elsewhere.”

Dharmesh Shah, Consulting Senior Campaigner (Plastics Treaty): “Let’s be clear, the plastic crisis is a health and a human rights crisis. This session ends without an agreement and without the health and human rights protections that millions urgently need. Once again, a small bloc of countries has obstructed progress on measures to curb toxic chemicals and limit production, steps that could have moved us closer to securing our human right to health and a clean, sustainable, and healthy environment.

“This failure comes as communities around the world are already breathing toxic air, drinking contaminated water, and carrying toxic chemicals in their bodies – the direct consequence of weak protections, poor access to information, and exclusion from environmental decision-making. The majority of governments, rights-holders, and civil society remain united: a plastics treaty without health and human rights is not only inadequate, it is an abdication of responsibility.”

Delphine Levi Alvares, Global Petrochemicals Campaign Manager: “This latest failed attempt at delivering a treaty that meets the urgency of the plastic pollution crisis bears the bloody fingerprints of Petrostates and their fossil fuel and petrochemical industry allies. UNEP and the Secretariat enabled a disastrous process that allowed industry interests to poison the proceedings and affect the outcomes of the talks.

“In Geneva, petrostates gaslit us in broad daylight, blocking meaningful progress against the will of a majority of countries while claiming to be doing so for the very future generations their petropatriarchal regimes doom. While the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry leaves with their financial interests safe, the frontline communities and Indigenous communities will continue paying the price.”

Rachel Radvany, Environmental Health Campaigner: “This round of negotiations saw record numbers of fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists – proof that industry is desperate to derail a treaty that could hold it accountable. But civil society and rights-holders met their presence with determination and clarity, calling for a treaty that safeguards health, communities, and human rights. For each of us, there is a community at home – for each of them, a CEO’s pocketbook. We are here to stay, and history is moving with us.”

Ximena Banegas, Global Plastics and Petrochemicals Campaigner: “Governments around the world are propping up a failing plastics industry with public money – then making us pay again to clean up the health and environmental damage caused by its pollution. This treaty is an opportunity to chart a path toward stable economies and real climate solutions. Petrostates showed their true colors by being more interested in their profits, choosing instead to further chain themselves to an industry riddled with growing risks.”

Virginie Dufour, Member of the Parliament of Canada for Mille-Îles, Official Opposition Critic for the Environment, and member of the Interparliamentry Coalition to End Plastic Pollution (ICEPP): “In order to meet our 2050 climate goals, a treaty to set a global reduction target, supported by ambitious national measures, starting with a moratorium on the creation of new production capacity, especially for the most polluting plastics, would have been excellent news. This failure is disappointing, but I am determined to continue my active involvement in ICEPP in order to contribute to the fight against plastic pollution, a real poison for human health and the environment. I hope to be able to count on the support of the CAQ Minister of the Environment in this process.”