GENEVA — Negotiations over a United Nations (UN) treaty to combat the plastic pollution crisis ended in failure early Friday morning, as 183 nations were unable to bridge vast divides over production limits, toxic chemicals and financing after three years of diplomacy.

Norway officially announced the failure at 7am Geneva time after a final overtime negotiation session lasting over 24 hours.

Denmark, co-chair of the High Ambition Coalition supported by around 100 countries, said it was “truly sad to see that we will not have a treaty to end plastic pollution here in Geneva”, adding that the coalition has “clearly and repeatedly stated that we need an international, legally binding instrument that effectively protects human health and the environment from plastic pollution.”

A treaty that is able to fulfil this mandate must “at a minimum address the full life cycle of plastics, the “unsustainable consumption and production of plastics” and include “global measures and criteria on plastic products and chemicals in products,” added Denmark, which also raised the possibility of voting.

The talks were themselves an extension following December’s failed summit in Busan, South Korea. Rules requiring unanimous agreement kept the process in stalemate throughout the 12-day session.

Both draft texts presented by negotiation chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso of Ecuador were rejected by all parties. The chair’s approach, predicated on placating the lowest-ambition nations, proved insufficient even for those countries.

The petrochemical producing bloc (which calls itself the “like-minded countries”) led by Saudi Arabia and flanked by the United States (US), Russia, India, Malaysia and others, rejected even hollowed-out texts that had angered high-ambition countries by removing all mentions of chemicals, production limits, health, climate emissions, and mandatory finance. 

Further negotiations will reconvene at an undetermined date and location, based on the draft text from Busan, leaving the agreement no closer to completion than six months ago. 

Many delegates questioned the purpose of the Geneva talks, as the outcome appeared predetermined with no apparent strategy to break the deadlock. If the rules of engagement requiring unanimous agreement remain unchanged, it is uncertain whether high-ambition nations or civil society will attend future talks.

Defeat for multilateralism

Speaking outside the assembly hall after the collapse, Inger Andersen, executive director of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) said: “Tell me of a treaty that has been done, in a shorter time, and then we can discuss. Would I have liked this in two years? Absolutely. 
At this point, it is critical that we take some time first to sleep and then to reflect and then to regroup. In the end, this is a member state’s lead process, and we from the United Nations are here to support it.

“I believe that everybody is very disappointed. However, multilateralism is not easy. What I can say about the future, I can’t say, we literally just walked off the floor.”

The breakdown represents a significant defeat for multilateralism at a time when its capital, Geneva, is facing mounting challenges to its value as a global diplomatic capital. 

It is also a blow for UNEP, which spent millions organising the talks but serves only as a mediator without the ability to sway outcomes, which are decided by nation-states.

“We cannot hide that the European Union and its member states had higher expectations,” EU Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall said in a statement. 

“We came to conclude a global plastics treaty here in Geneva. We have confidence in the science that impels us, confidence in the people that pushed us, confidence in a majority of countries of both developing and developed that are aligned.

“That is what we fought for. We have not managed to get there.” 

The failure exposes a fundamental rift in visions for global plastics governance between more than 130 countries seeking legally binding measures to curb plastic production and the powerful bloc of oil-producing states intent on protecting the financial benefits of the plastics boom.

With plastic production expected to triple by 2060, according to OECD projections, and 99% of plastics made from fossil fuels, the sector represents a crucial revenue stream for petrostates as traditional energy demand shifts toward renewables.

“I am disappointed, and I am angry,” said French Environment Minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher following the collapse. “A handful of countries, guided by short-term financial interests rather than the health of their populations and the sustainability of their economies, blocked the adoption of an ambitious treaty against plastic pollution.”

“This was never going to be easy – but the outcome we have today falls short of what our people, and the planet, need,” said Surangel Whipps Jr, President of Palau and chair of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), many of whom are overwhelmed by plastic pollution and stand to lose much of their territories to climate-related rising sea level.

“Still, even after six rounds of negotiations, we will not walk away. The resilience of islanders has carried us through many storms, and we will persevere – because we need real solutions, and we will carve pathways to deliver them for our people and our planet.”

The global petrochemical industry, valued at $638 billion in 2023, is expected to be worth $838 billion by 2030. Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil company, plans to channel about one-third of its oil production to plastics and petrochemicals by 2030. Petrochemicals make up 82% of Saudi foreign exports critical to its government budget. 

“The scientific and medical evidence is overwhelming: plastic kills. It poisons our oceans, our soils, and ultimately, it contaminates our bodies.”

Production off the table 

The central battle throughout negotiations centered on whether the treaty would address plastic production or focus solely on waste management and recycling, as advocated by the petrochemical bloc and its allies.

These nations insist that the plastics crisis can be solved through better waste management, despite technological limitations that have kept global recycling rates below 10% after decades of research and billions spent to improve recycling technologies. 

The nations pushing recycling as the solution have failed at it themselves. Saudi Arabia recycles just 3-4% of its plastic waste, Russia between 5-12%, and the US only 5-6%, according to OECD data.

The like-minded nations successfully blocked any mention of plastic production limits in the draft texts. They also removed references to climate change, emissions, fossil fuels, and petrochemicals, despite plastic production releasing more than two gigatons of CO2 annually.

If the plastics industry were a country, it would be the world’s fifth-largest greenhouse gas emitter. At projected growth rates, plastics alone could consume a quarter of the remaining carbon budget to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target.

Health impacts sidelined, science ignored 

The infiltration of plastics and microplastics into air, rain, oceans, ecosystems and human organs has been linked to cancer, infertility, cardiovascular disease and hundreds of thousands of premature deaths annually.

A Lancet study released during the talks estimated the cost of just three plastic chemicals at $1.5 trillion per year across 38 countries. One chemical of the 16,000 used in plastics, BPA, was associated with 5.4 million cases of heart disease and 346,000 strokes in 2015. 

“Toxics and microplastics are poisoning our bodies, causing cancer, infertility, and death, while corporations keep profiting from unchecked production,” said Giulia Carlini, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “The science is undeniable. Yet here, it has been denied and downplayed.”

Complete safety information is missing for more than two-thirds of the chemicals used in plastics. Three-quarters have never been properly assessed for human health impacts. Just six per cent of all plastic chemicals are regulated under multilateral environmental agreements.

Yet despite the science, petrochemical states continued to argue that health impacts fall beyond the treaty’s mandate, insisting that regulation should be governed by the WHO.

Many of the same countries arguing health is outside the scope of the plastics treaty, including Russia and Iran, held the opposite position at the latest World Health Assembly, contending chemicals should not be regulated by World Health Organization (WHO) due to UNEP’s mandate. 

“The inability to reach an agreement in Geneva must be a wakeup call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head on,” said Graham Forbes, head of the Greenpeace delegation to the treaty negotiations.

“The vast majority of governments want a strong agreement, yet a handful of bad actors were allowed to use process to drive such ambition into the ground,” Forbes added. “The plastics crisis is accelerating, and the petrochemical industry is determined to bury us for short-term profits.”

Petrochemical industry influence

At least 234 fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists attended the Geneva talks, exceeding the combined delegations of the EU and its 27 member states. They outnumbered expert scientists by three to one.

The process itself faced criticism for its opacity, with many meetings closed even to national delegations. Chair Valdivieso, Ecuador’s ambassador to the UK, was roundly criticised for his handling of negotiations, the vast majority of which occurred behind closed doors.

Civil society groups, including indigenous peoples, waste pickers and frontline communities who travelled from around the world, found themselves actively sidelined

In the closing plenary, only the Youth Plastic Coalition was allowed to speak before the US and Kuwait cut proceedings short, silencing the rest of civil society.

“This is the real health crisis,” Kuwait’s delegation said, alluding to the long night faced by negotiators as the clock struck 9am. 

Less developed nations stood up to industry and rich country pressure that had cornered them behind the scenes with economic threats, yet even this resistance could not break the deadlock.

The consensus requirement allowed low-ambition countries to “hold the entire process hostage,” as Ethiopia’s delegation put it.

“This INC was doomed from the start,” said Andrés Del Castillo, senior attorney at CIEL. “Poor time management, unrealistic expectations, lack of transparency, and a ministerial segment with no clear purpose.”

Image Credits: Stefan Anderson, Photo by Hermes Rivera on Unsplash, UNEP.