Utterly disappointing. What was meant to be the culminating chapter of three years of intense global negotiation ended in failure. The negotiations over a United Nations (UN) treaty to fight plastic pollution ended last Friday without any agreement. This negotiation was only an extension of the failed summit in December in Busan, South Korea. The initial target of the UN was to come up with an agreement by 2024.
It will be recalled that in March 2022, the UN Environment Assembly adopted a resolution to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. An Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) was organized to develop "the instrument," which is to be based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design, and disposal. The INC began its work during the second half of 2022 with a target to complete the negotiations by the end of 2024. Five sessions later, no agreement was reached.
So, what happened? The oil producing group of nations led by Saudi Arabia and flanked by the United States, Russia, India, Malaysia and others, rejected all mentions of chemicals, production limits, health, climate emissions, and mandatory finance in the text of the agreement. On the other side is a group of more than 130 countries including the European Union and many developing states who are calling for a comprehensive treaty, with legally binding caps on plastic production, bans on harmful additives, and full life‑cycle controls.
The oil producing nations want to focus solely on waste management and recycling and not production cuts. 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%. A 2022 report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimated that only 9% of plastic waste is recycled, with another 19% being incinerated, and nearly 50% ending up in landfills. The remaining 22% is mismanaged, meaning it ends up in uncontrolled dumpsites, is burned in open pits, or leaks into the environment.
Another point of disagreement is the proposed inclusion of the health effect of plastics in the treaty. A report published in The Lancet, a medical journal, warns that plastics pose a threat at every stage of their lifecycle, from the extraction of fossil fuels used to make plastic, to the production, use, and disposal of plastic goods. Petrochemical states argued that health is outside the scope of the plastics treaty, insisting that regulation should be governed by the World Health Organization (WHO).
The breakdown of the negotiations marks a profound blow to global environmental governance. This reveals just how uphill this fight truly is. Strong economies, fossil-fuel interests, and powerful lobbies may slow global progress, but mounting scientific evidence and growing public concern remain unstoppable forces.
There is still hope. Advocacy groups underscore that one collapse doesn’t spell the end of the movement, emphasizing that global treaties often take years to mature. The Montreal Protocol, for instance, took nearly eight years to amend effectively. Further negotiations will reconvene at an undetermined date and location, based on the draft text from Busan.
The plastic crisis is a chronic emergency. The world cannot afford to let another negotiation fail while plastics inundate our ecosystems, bodies, and planet. The fight continues.
