On August 5, 2025, over 1,400 persons representing 183 countries arrived in Geneva, Switzerland to chalk out a consensus for a global treaty to tackle plastic pollution. The hope was that by August 14, an effective inter-governmental treaty would be signed that can significantly reduce the amount of plastics ending up in oceans and rivers.

Ten days of closed-door informal negotiations and five plenary sessions of formal, open debates proved as inconclusive as the previous five sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) talks that first started in 2022. There was nothing concrete to show; no consensus on even the scope of the treaty, its ambitions or even how discussions should proceed. What was on view was the same entrenched divisions, disappointments and disagreements.

During the negotiations--the longest of the six conducted so far--two draft treaties were presented by the Chair, an elected official who oversees the conduct of the negotiations. Both were rejected by powerful coalitions that held sway over the proceedings.

Entrenched divisions form

The inter-governmental negotiations began on March 2, 2022 after the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) adopted Resolution 5/14 to “End Plastic Pollution: Towards an International Legally Binding Instrument.” UNEA had estimated that 68 percent of plastic is landfilled or mismanaged, and nearly 23 million tonnes leaked into aquatic systems. The ambitious deadline set to solve these problems was 2024-end.

On one hand were a group calling themselves the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), comprising nearly 95 countries in Europe, Africa, Japan, Canada, Pacific Island nations and others. They call themselves “High Ambition” because their primary demand is to curb plastic production and prohibit certain types of plastics (“Chemicals of Concern”) entirely.

On the other side were a coalition calling themselves “Like-Minded Countries”, composed largely of oil and petrochemical-producing states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Kuwait that sought to emphasise management of plastic waste rather than restrictions on plastic production. While not part of this second grouping, the United States too rejected any treaty that would cap plastic production.

In this stalemate, India has thrown its weight firmly behind the “Like-Minded Countries”, which is often termed the “Low-Ambition Coalition”.

On the final night of the latest negotiations--August 15--a draft treaty was released that was a significantly weakened version of what the HAC wanted. It sought entirely voluntary action by countries, lacked controls on production, imposed no restrictions on problematic and unnecessary products, and had no accountability mechanisms.

The HAC rejected this treaty. The LMCs saw even this text as a product of an “uninclusive process” that prevented them from talking about the “scope” of the treaty and prevented consensus over the “definitions” of plastics.

Delays and diversions as tactics

In many ways, the treaty on plastics mirrors global experiences with chalking out the 2015 Paris agreement, a legally-binding climate change treaty that sought to limit emissions. Broadly, negotiations were stuck between a coalition of developed countries in Europe, Japan, Canada and small island nations demanding strong, wide-ranging measures to curb emissions, and ‘developing countries’ who believed that restrictions would stifle their economic growth.

For the developing countries, a sticking point was that any restriction should come with a financial commitment from ‘historical polluters’--that is, developed countries of the West who benefited from the emissions in earlier decades........

© newslaundry