The Geneva negotiations were meant to deliver a landmark Global Plastics Treaty. Instead, they ended in deadlock. Here’s what it means, why it matters, and where we go next.
Context
Three years after governments first pledged to act on plastic pollution, the world is still waiting. Six negotiating sessions have now taken place – including an additional round in Geneva this month (INC-5.2), yet no agreement has been reached.
We had high hopes for a breakthrough in Geneva. Instead, delegates left with draft texts still heavily bracketed, and what WRAP’s delegate Peter Skelton described as a “wide gulf” between nations pushing for binding lifecycle measures and those favouring voluntary, downstream-only approaches.
The difficulty is compounded by a decision-making process which favours consensus - leaving negotiations vulnerable to a stalemate. While a two-thirds majority vote is technically possible as a last resort, we haven't yet seen countries push for this.
Geopolitics have also played their part. The U.S. pivot under President Donald Trump dealt a major blow to hopes for a strong treaty, reversing the Biden administration’s late support for production limits and weakening leverage for ambitious countries.
It wasn’t to be. This round of negotiations failed to deliver the certainty needed to mobilise investment and scale solutions to address plastic pollution.
“The outcome of INC-5.2 is a missed opportunity and a setback for all of us pushing for progress on tackling plastic pollution. Without binding global rules, we will continue to fall short of the pace and scale of action needed. We do though see signs of progress: these negotiations have brought us closer to consensus than ever before, with a majority of governments, businesses, and civil society now aligned on the need for a full lifecycle approach. That common ground is a platform to build on, but what’s needed now is courage to turn alignment into action.”
Why this matters
The delay is more than procedural. Every year without a strong, binding treaty is a year of lost opportunity.
As WWF reminded negotiators in Geneva: “The world is watching. People and communities everywhere are already bearing the costs of plastic pollution. We cannot afford delay or half measures.”
Businesses, civil society, and more than 100 governments are aligned on the need for globally harmonised rules across the plastics lifecycle – from phase-outs and product design to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
As Unilever’s Rebecca Marmot put it: “Harmonised regulations are essential to reduce business complexity and cost, whilst also increasing confidence to invest in solutions.”
Voluntary action plays an important role in testing solutions and preparing markets, but it cannot, on its own, end plastic pollution. As WRAP’s Adam Herriott explains:
“Voluntary initiatives have a strong role in delivering ambition at pace, piloting solutions, building the evidence base and preparing markets for regulation. But voluntary initiatives alone cannot end plastic pollution; clear, enforceable global rules are needed to lock in progress and scale what works.”
Signs of progress
Despite the deadlock, there are positives. Negotiations have brought greater clarity and convergence on the essential elements of a meaningful treaty.
- Over 100 countries now back full lifecycle measures.
- There is growing recognition that EPR, harmonised design rules, and phase-outs of the most problematic plastics must be central if we are to create a truly circular economy for plastics.
In the meantime, initiatives like the Plastics Pact Network (co-convened by WRAP and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation) are already delivering treaty-aligned impact across 19 countries.
From eliminating problematic plastics in the UK and scaling reuse in Chile, to advancing design-for-recyclability in India and piloting EPR-ready systems in the Pacific, the Pacts show how collaboration can turn ambition into measurable action.
Next steps
The INC official statement shared “The Committee agreed to resume negotiations at a future date to be announced. The meeting adjourned with a clearly expressed desire by Member States to continue the process, recognising the significant difference of views between states.”
Failure to reach agreement at INC-5.2 should not mean pause. At WRAP, we will continue to advocate for a treaty with clear, time-bound lifecycle rules while demonstrating through the UK Plastics Pact and the global Plastics Pact Network – how voluntary action can build the evidence, align businesses, and prepare systems for rapid implementation.
But voluntary action alone isn’t enough. What’s needed now is political courage.
We remain optimistic that a coordinated global policy on plastics is still within reach – and we will continue pushing for a strong, binding treaty that unlocks investment, creates certainty, and scales proven solutions worldwide.
Voluntary action shows what’s possible. But only a robust treaty can lock in ambition, scale what works, and truly #TurnTheTideOnPlasticPollution.
Photo CREDIT©-Florian-Fussstetter-UNEP