Why in news?
The third round of negotiations for a global treaty on plastic pollution, held in Geneva in August 2025, ended without agreement for the second time in eight months. Countries were unable to agree on the scope and strength of measures to curb plastic production and pollution.
Background and need
The proposed global plastic treaty aims to tackle plastic pollution across the entire life cycle – from production to disposal. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee of the United Nations Environment Programme seeks a legally binding agreement that reduces plastic use, controls toxic additives, improves waste management and supports developing countries through finance and technology transfer. Plastic pollution is a global problem because plastics persist for centuries, enter food chains as microplastics, threaten marine life, and are linked to climate change through fossil‑fuel‑intensive production. The economic burden of waste management and the transboundary nature of plastic debris make collective action essential.
Why the talks failed
- Scope disagreement: Countries could not agree on whether the treaty should include limits on plastic production and measures covering the full life cycle.
- Divergent blocs: A high‑ambition coalition (Norway, the EU, the UK and allies) pushed for binding production cuts and chemical controls. Oil‑producing countries (including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia) with support from China and India opposed production caps, citing development needs.
- Contentious provisions: There was resistance to global phase‑out lists for single‑use plastics and binding rules on polymer production.
- Finance and equity: Disputes arose over how to fund the transition and whether historical responsibility should guide contributions.
- Consensus requirement: The process relies on consensus, allowing a small group to block progress.
- Weak draft: The initial draft focused on voluntary measures rather than strong commitments, leaving many dissatisfied.
Way forward
- Decision‑making reform: Adopt hybrid models where consensus is the goal but majority voting can break deadlocks.
- Balanced design: Combine ambitious environmental goals with flexible timelines and differentiated responsibilities to address development concerns.
- Science‑based targets: Set global limits on harmful plastics and chemicals, with mandatory design standards.
- Support for implementation: Ensure sufficient finance, technology transfer and capacity building for developing countries.
- Health focus: Include provisions addressing the human health impacts of plastics.
- Integration: Align the treaty with existing environmental agreements to avoid duplication and enhance coherence.
Conclusion
The Geneva impasse shows the difficulty of achieving global consensus on complex environmental issues. Without reforms that balance ambition and equity, the plastic treaty risks becoming ineffective. Immediate action is needed, as the environmental and health costs of plastic pollution continue to mount.