From Nairobi to Geneva: An Appraisal of the Global Plastic Treaty Negotiation Processes and the Road Ahead
By Dr Liu Yulu
Published on 17 September 2025
Plastic pollution has been found in places as high as the Himalayas and as deep as the Mariana Trench. Moreover, microplastics have been discovered in human bodies. Plastics can release toxic chemicals, enter food chains as microplastics, disrupt ecosystems and threaten biodiversity. In addition, plastic pollution poses serious transboundary threats, as it can easily cross borders through rivers, the sea, and global trade of plastic products and waste (see here and here). The ocean is the recipient of plastics that originate on land, with rivers acting as major conduits transporting mismanaged waste to coastal waters. While sea-based sources, including litter from ships and abandoned fishing gear (‘ghost gears’), also contribute, the majority of marine plastic pollution by volume derives from land-based sources (see here and here). The national and international legal frameworks regulating plastic pollution consist of a patchwork of domestic and international legal instruments that focus on different phases of plastic pollution and are insufficient for effective management of plastic pollution, which requires coordinated efforts at the international and regional levels (see here and here).
In light of this, in 2022, the global community came together and adopted the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) Resolution 5/14, to request the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director to convene an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastics. The INC began its work in the second half of 2022 and was originally expected to conclude a treaty by the end of 2024, with five INC sessions planned. The delegations at the last round of negotiations at INC-5.1 failed to reach an agreement and decided to resume negotiations in the second half of 2025. This commentary discusses the factors that led to the convening of the INC, the major challenges that have emerged in negotiations hindering the adoption of a global plastic pollution treaty, and lastly, what states need to do to cross the finish line.
The Rationale for a Global Plastic Treaty
There are existing regulations at both national and international levels which tackle specific aspects of plastic pollution. At the national level, many countries have banned or restricted certain plastic products, including single-use plastics and microbeads. Others have introduced extended producer responsibility schemes for end-of-life management and product design measures to increase recyclability and compostability. However, the details of instruments and enforcement vary widely.
For existing international legal instruments, there is no convention dedicated to the management of plastic pollution. Part XII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides the general obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment, and to prevent, reduce and control land-based pollution. The amendments to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal regulate hazardous plastic waste movements through the Prior Informed Consent procedures, which require notification from the exporting country, and consent from the importing country before any shipment takes place. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter and its Protocol regulate the disposal and dumping of plastic waste. Several legally-binding protocols under the UNEP Regional Seas Programmes tackle plastic pollution through their regulation on land-based pollution (see here and here).
It is also observed that, existing regulations on plastic pollution, both at the international and national levels, pay more attention to waste management, the end-of-life phase of plastic management, while neglecting upstream issues including primary processing, product design, and production, calling for a full life cycle approach in the management of plastics, and prompting the adoption of the UNEA Resolution in 2022 (see here and here).
INC Processes
The INC began its work in the second half of 2022 and was originally expected to finish by the end of 2024 after five sessions. INC-4 in Ottawa in April 2024 pushed forward the negotiations of the treaty text, yet left a substantial amount of stress on the last planned session of negotiations. INC-5.1 took place in Busan at the end of 2024, with the goal of concluding negotiations and finalising the treaty text. It has come to light that delegations at INC-5.1 failed to reach an agreement and decided to resume negotiations in the second half of 2025.
What states had before them when they arrived at the negotiation tables in Geneva in August 2025 was a Chair’s Text, covering thematic topics including the full life cycle of plastic, primary plastic polymers, chemicals and polymers of concern, problematic and avoidable plastic products, as well as micro- and nano-plastics, all of which have undergone intense discussions during the previous INC proceedings.
INC-5.2 took place from 5 to 15 August, with a one-day extension from the original plan. Despite extended and long hours of negotiations, delegates at INC-5.2 failed again to conclude a treaty. A decision to adjourn the meeting was announced on the last day, without an exact date for the next part of INC-5.
Divided Opinions
Among the heatedly debated issues during INC processes, it was extremely difficult for countries to agree on the issue of full life cycle approach. The inclusion or exclusion of the full life cycle approach, namely whether to tackle the plastic pollution from the sourcing of primary materials to waste management, or focus more on waste management, remained a contentious issue. The second issue that divides states concerns states’ obligations in treaty implementation, especially for some big producers of plastic products to provide more financial assistance in supporting the most vulnerable countries to meet their treaty obligations.
The High Ambition Coalition (HAC), co-chaired by Norway and Rwanda, with around 100 countries plus the European Union, supported the full life cycle approach. They adhered to the UNEA 5.2 resolution 5/14, which requested the INC to take ‘a comprehensive approach that addressed the full life cycle of plastic’. HAC also promoted measurable and time-bound targets for implementation, including a reduction in production and consumption of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels. Some other countries, represented as ‘like-minded countries’, including China, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arab, and the alignment from the US, expressed their preference for downstream solutions, especially enhancing waste management, recycling, and reuse, and they opposed capping plastic production (see group statements here and here). The established link between plastics and hydrocarbon feedstocks has arguably influenced negotiating preferences: oil-producing and manufacturing states wish to prioritise downstream approaches and oppose legally binding limits on primary plastic polymers and plastic production. In particular, against the backdrop of the clean energy transition, petrochemicals are viewed as a stable outlet for hydrocarbons.
For the negotiations on financial obligations, a new grouping of states, ‘parties with a capacity’, was proposed to discuss the obligations of developing countries that have production and export capacities and have benefited from plastic production and sale, to contribute to financing the implementation of the future treaty. On the other hand, some countries, including China, India, and Indonesia, expressed their support of applying the common but differentiated responsibilities principle, taking into account historical responsibility, and respect of national circumstances (see their statements here, here, and here).
It is worth noting that, despite divergences between different groups and differing opinions among individual states, there were also areas of convergence in their views. Achieving sustainability and circularity, ending plastic pollution and emphasising multilateralism and inclusiveness were widely recognised and upheld during the negotiations (examples see here and here).
INC Chair Luis Vayas worked on three new draft texts during INC-5.2, hoping to capture the discussions during the meeting (see here, here and here). However, the abrupt ending of INC-5.2 left the way forward for the negotiations unclear, as it adjourned without an agreement on which version of draft texts should be the starting point for the next INC session, adding to the uncertainty regarding the INC processes.
Stakeholders’ interventions played a notable role during the INC processes. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed that the future treaty must consider the right to a healthy environment, reflecting UN Human Rights Council’s recent resolution on the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, focused on ocean protection and plastic pollution. Stakeholder groups on youth, women, and indigenous peoples voiced their concerns about the lack of reference to specific rights of vulnerable groups (see here, here, here and here). The Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty firmly championed the deployment of a full life cycle approach, as well as an effective and evidence-based treaty. From the plastic industry, the International Council of Chemical Associations and the International Chamber of Commerce supported a circular approach, emphasising the importance of product design and innovation, and opposed measures on a simple cutting of plastic production (see here and here). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law published a joint statement on the analysis of the Chair’s Text Proposal on 13 August, providing an opinion on the insufficiency of the text, including on key issues like the scope of the treaty and financial arrangements.
Conclusion: The Road Ahead
The setback at INC-5.2 reminds the world of the struggles in tackling plastic pollution, as it is more than an environmental issue, but implicates complex questions about human health, the right to development, global supply chains, ocean governance, as well as a balance between environmental governance, economic interests, and social justice in the treaty negotiation and future implementation.
Looking ahead, it is imperative for delegations to seek common ground and to continuously strengthen convergence on articles or paragraphs that states have agreed upon, so that to have countries of different groups on board to combat plastic pollution. For the INC processes to mitigate the current division of opinion and reach an agreement, it is critical for countries to arrive at an implementation plan, covering employment and infrastructure, development for sustainable and safe alternatives, financial arrangements, and technological support, and for countries to act according to their national circumstances and capabilities. Furthermore, how the future global plastic treaty interacts with the current international framework remains crucial for state parties, for it can strengthen existing and future instruments and initiatives to achieve a more sustainable use of plastics and shape the coherence and effectiveness of global efforts to combat plastic pollution.
Liu Yulu is a Research Fellow at the Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore.