Tracing the global plastics treaty: ambition, deadlock, blurred vision

In March 2022, the world witnessed a historic moment for the plastics and packaging industry. At the fifth United Nations Environment Assembly in Nairobi, representatives from 175 nations agreed to develop the first-ever international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution. The mandate was clear and ambitious: address the full life cycle of plastics (from extraction and production to design, consumption and disposal), and complete negotiations by the end of 2024. 

The urgency was clear..  In 2024 alone, the world used over 500 million tonnes of plastic and , without intervention, projections suggest this could nearly triple to 1.2 billion tonnes by 2060. More than 1,000 civil society groups, hundreds of scientists, and millions of individuals had called for this moment. The resolution recognised that plastic pollution wasn't just an environmental crisis – it was a threat to human health, biodiversity, climate stability, and the very fabric of sustainable development. 

INC-4: ambition meets reality in Ottawa 

By April 2024, when delegates gathered in Ottawa for the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4), the initial optimism was met with hard realities. According to participants at the negotiations, there was a noticeable shift in energy from previous sessions. As Erin Simon from WWF reflected in a debrief webinar, member states arrived with a different, more collaborative spirit than had been present at INC-3, where progress had stalled and no mandate for intersessional work had been achieved. 

Yet the session revealed deepening fault lines. On one side stood the High Ambition Coalition for binding global measures to reduce plastic production, phase out problematic products, eliminate chemicals of concern, and establish robust financing mechanisms. On the other stood the like-minded countries, predominantly oil-producing nations, who advocated for a treaty focused on waste management and recycling, opposing any caps on plastic production. 

Despite these tensions, INC-4 made tangible progress on several fronts. Delegates engaged in productive discussions about Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), exploring how to create consistent methodologies while allowing flexibility for countries starting from different baselines. As Simon noted, this balance was crucial – some countries and even US states were ‘starting from zero’ in developing circular economy systems. 

Yet INC-4 closed with a critical compromise that would cast a long shadow. Member states were leaving with a mountain of unresolved work ahead of them. The progress had moved from ‘no movement to moving like at the speed of a turtle,’ as Simon characterised it. But at least it was moving. 

INC-5: the vision starts to blur in Busan 

The fifth session in Busan, South Korea, was supposed to be the culmination – the moment when nations would unite to deliver the treaty the world desperately needed. Instead, it became the first clear indication that achieving consensus would require more than goodwill and deadlines. 

The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, representing over 300 companies including Nestlé, Unilever, and PepsiCo, advocated that businesses needed harmonised global regulations to justify investments in sustainable solutions. As Jodie Roussell at Nestlé and the business coalition explained, ‘voluntary efforts are not enough, and the current fragmented regulatory landscape results in increased costs and complexity for business.’ 

The European Union emphasised that meaningful action required globally binding measures on production reduction. Pacific island nations, bearing the burden of plastic pollution despite contributing minimally to the crisis, called for an ambitious treaty with strong remediation mechanisms. 

Yet the like-minded countries, representing a significant portion of global plastic production capacity, maintained that production caps fell outside the treaty's mandate and insisted on national flexibility over global obligations. As Richard Wielechowski from Planet Tracker noted in the debrief webinar, petrochemicals are the ‘off-ramp for oil and gas,’ and these vested interests will fight hard to keep that road open. 

As midnight approached on 1st December, it became clear that delegates were looking at the treaty through different lenses – the vision that had seemed so sharp in Nairobi was now decidedly blurred. INC-5 adjourned without a treaty, with negotiators agreeing only to reconvene for a resumed session later. 

INC-5.2: Geneva and the fog of uncertainty 

The second part of the fifth session convened in Geneva, at the historic Palais des Nations. The fossil fuel industry's presence intensified. At least 234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered for INC-5.2 – up from 221 at INC-5.1 – while civil society organisations, indigenous groups, waste pickers, and youth activists held protests outside, creating art installations such as ‘the thinker's burden’ to symbolise the weight of plastic pollution on human health and the environment. 

Inside the Palais, negotiators worked through the Chair's text from Busan, scheduling ten days of nine-hour sessions to find common ground. As Carolyn Panzarella from PepsiCo observed from the floor, ‘in the room you really saw that negotiators were actually getting into conversations.’ Unlike previous sessions, delegates were ‘actually negotiating this time,’ engaging in closed-door breakout sessions that observers couldn't attend – sessions that indicated real efforts to work through differences. ‘They were unable to reach that agreement, but I think what we heard was in the end, some countries were even moving a little bit on their red lines and trying to really understand where they could land,’ Panzarella reflected. 

At 9am on 15th August, INC-5.2 adjourned without consensus. The Chair's revised text would serve as a basis for future negotiations, but no date was set for resumption. The meeting closed with expressions of commitment to continue the process, but also with recognition of ‘the significant difference of views between states.’ 

The business coalition expressed disappointment but maintained optimism, noting the alignment among over 100 countries on key elements including phase-outs, product design, and EPR. However, the coalition's calls for harmonised regulations to reduce business complexity had gone unrecognised – the very fragmentation they sought to avoid was now baked into the process itself. 

A future out of focus 

Three years and six negotiating sessions after that historic moment in Nairobi, the global plastics treaty remains aspirational rather than actual. The vision that once seemed clear has become progressively more obscured by national interests, industry influence, and disagreements over scope and ambition. 

The question is no longer just when a treaty will be finalised, but whether the treaty that eventually emerges will bear any resemblance to the initial ambitious vision that kickstarted everything. As UNEP executive director Inger Andersen noted when talks collapsed in Geneva, ‘we did not get where we wanted, but people want a deal. This work will not stop, because plastic pollution will not stop.’ Yet the fundamental question remains unanswered: can multilateralism deliver transformative change when powerful interests benefit from the status quo? 

Until delegations can bring into focus a shared understanding of what is necessary rather than merely what is politically feasible, the treaty's promise will remain just that. A promise. And with every day that passes, the consequences of that delayed clarity become harder to reverse. 

--- 

The challenges and opportunities surrounding sustainable packaging and circular economy solutions will be central themes at our Sustainable Packaging Innovation Forum(Amsterdam, 10-11 March 2026). Join the conversation on what's working, what's possible, and how businesses can move forward with or without a global treaty framework. Click here for information on how to get involved.

Photo by “UNEA 5.2_Dandora Visit Inger Andersen and UNEA President_20220224_DuncanMoore057” by UNEP, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.