Business Sectors
Business Sectors
Events
Contents
Register to read more articles.
Plastics talks break down, and treaty prospects are retreating
Division between a large camp of ambitious nations and a small group of petrochemical states is threatening to derail a legally binding instrument on marine plastic pollution
Agreement on a global plastics treaty, and along with it a maritime plastics treaty, has been jeopardised as negotiations that were expected to result in a treaty ended in an impasse over the ambition levels contained in the text.
Draft texts of the so-called ’international legally binding instrument’ that would form the treaty, if approved, were rejected as being too watered down, by a majority of member states. On the spot reports from the negotiations issued by IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin reveal a host of significant issues that remain divisive for the 184 countries involved in the negotiations.
History of the talks
In March 2022, at the resumed fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA‑5.2), member states adopted a resolution titled End plastic pollution: towards an international legally binding instrument, which mandated the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) executive director to convene an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to develop and adopt "a legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment” based on “a comprehensive approach that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics”.
The INC convened five sessions between late 2022 and 2024 – including in Punta del Este, Paris, Nairobi and Ottawa – and during its fifth session in Busan in December 2024, was unable to conclude negotiations; instead, delegates agreed the Chair’s text released on 1 December 2024 would serve as the basis for a resumed session in August 2025 in Geneva.
Overall trajectory towards an international legally binding instrument
Across the negotiations over several days, there has been steady drafting activity but few transmissions of agreed text to the legal drafting body.
Delegations have converged on the need for a standalone article addressing existing plastic pollution and kept live options for a financial mechanism and a co-operation mechanism for states, but the scope of the potential treaty has remained polarising.
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee chair Luis Vayas’ warning of “insufficient progress” at stocktaking encapsulates the week’s balance of effort and outcome.
Mr Vayas produced a draft proposal text for the treaty on 13 August, based on his consensus reading of inputs from the countries involved. Reactions to the draft were marked by frustration from both the high ambition coalition of countries who want curbs on plastic production and from the so-called ’like-minded group’ of mostly petrochemical producing nations who want a focus on recycling plastic waste and voluntary as opposed to compulsory measures.
The high ambition coalition of 80-plus countries forcefully rejected the draft proposal text and the ’like-minded countries’ took issue with the ambition of the scope of the text, leaving talks at an impasse. Mr Vayas proposed smaller, informal meetings of delegates, which continued through 14 August.
Per IISD’s reports, "INC Chair Luis Vayas (Ecuador) opened the plenary meeting initially scheduled at 3:00 pm at 11:36 pm. He reported that as consultations were still ongoing, plenary would reconvene on 15 August, at a time to be determined. He adjourned the meeting at 11:37 pm."
--Reporting by Craig Jallal and Jamey Bergman
Below is a summary of the previous daily negotiations.
12 August
Contact Group 1 continued conceptual work on Article 3 (how to ensure global co-ordination and whether to create a subsidiary or expert body) and sought “landing zones” on Article 5; views on Article 6 remained ’at a distance.’ Contact Group 3’s first reading of Article 12 exposed unresolved questions over whether COP-1 should be mandated to design a co-operation mechanism and over qualifiers for technology transfer (’safe,’ ’environmentally friendly and affordable,’ or ’environmentally sound’). Contact Group 4 advanced process issues, forwarding Article 30 (withdrawal) to plenary, but reported limited progress on the preamble and principles, with a zero-text option still on the table.
11 August
Closed-door consultations with Mr Vayas ran alongside informals. Contact Group 2 reported incremental text-work: edits on releases and leakages (Article 7), streamlined drafting on plastic waste management (Article 8), and convergence that plastic pollution merits a standalone article (Article 9), with differing views on scope and origins; just transition (Article 10) saw agreement on recognising those disproportionately impacted, including waste pickers, but division over legal form and reporting. Contact Group 3 recorded a first co-Chairs’ iteration on Article 11 and tabled a bridging proposal for a COP-mandated international co-operation mechanism under Article 12; several developing countries supported the mechanism, while some developed countries questioned administrative burden.
9 August
At stocktaking, Mr Vayas “lamented that, after 2.5 years of negotiations, insufficient progress has been made,” noting a “plethora of unresolved issues” in the assembled text and urging faster work to transmit clean articles to the Open-ended Legal Drafting Group. Several delegations decried the absence of an agreed scope article; small island states pressed for a full-lifecycle treaty and a central, robust financial mechanism; others argued to delete Articles 3 and 6 or to keep health matters under WHO. Two articles (depositary and authentic texts) were the only ones transmitted to legal drafting.
8 August
There was movement in Contact Group 3: delegates accepted a simplified co-Chairs’ text on Article 11 (financial mechanism) for line-by-line negotiation and agreed to forward it, bracketed, to stocktaking. Contact Group 2 prepared bracketed, streamlined text on releases and leakages (Article 7) with an explanatory footnote; work continued on plastic waste management (Article 8), existing/legacy plastic pollution (Article 9), and just transition (Article 10). Contact Group 1 could report only “little progress” on product design (Article 5), though discussions on national measures under Article 3 continued.
6 August
Contact Group 1 tabled a joint proposal backed by 78 countries to mandate national measures, define criteria, and create a global annex listing plastic products for phase-out with options for exceptions and opt-outs; others called this disproportionate and argued for nationally determined approaches. Contact Group 2 split over whether Article 8 duties ’shall’ or ’should’ apply and how far to rely on Basel Convention guidance, while Contact Group 3 debated the shape of a financial mechanism, with some favouring a new dedicated fund and others a hybrid model served by multiple entities including the GEF.
5 August Talks opened with Mr Vayas urging “pragmatism” to reach an agreement that is “effective, inclusive, implementable, and capable of evolving.” UN Environment Programme executive director Inger Andersen pressed delegates to “get it done” and deliver an agreement with “real strength.” Federal Office for the Environment director Katrin Schneeberger pointed to Geneva’s “spirit of dialogue” as a basis to “deliver a treaty that is inclusive, science-based, and supports implementation on the ground.” Discussions immediately exposed divergences on core issues including scope and Article 6 on [supply]/sustainable production.
Riviera’s next Marine Environmental Protection Webinar Week will be held 28-30 October. Use this link for more information and to register for these webinars.
Related to this Story
Events
Maritime Regulations Webinar Week
16 Dec 2025
GMT - ONLINE
Floating energy: successfully unlocking stranded gas using FLNGs and FSRUs
24 Feb 2026GMT - ONLINE
© 2026 Riviera Maritime Media Ltd.
