INC-5.2 ends in “abject failure,” final round of plastic treaty talks conclude without agreement

The INC-5.2 negotiations in Geneva have failed to create an internationally binding UN Global Plastic Treaty. 

After 11 days of discussions aimed at reaching a consensus on ending the plastic pollution crisis, member states and delegations remain deadlocked on specific issues such as reducing production and controlling toxic chemicals.

David Azoulay, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) health program director and head of delegation, says: “Make no mistake, INC-5.2 has been an abject failure.”

“In the final negotiation days, we have seen what many of us have known for some time — some countries did not come here to finalize a text, they came here to do the opposite: block any attempt at advancing a viable treaty.”

On Wednesday, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chair of the INC-5.2 negotiations, released a draft of the treaty, which multiple countries and NGOs rejected as it excluded the article on reducing plastic production — ignoring the treaty mandate to address the full lifecycle of plastic. 

The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) stated that member states criticized the text’s low ambition for over three hours in the plenary session of the negotiations. 

Erin Simon, vice president of Plastic Waste and Business at WWF, tells Packaging Insights that “intense pressure” from a minority group cast doubt on the outcome of the talks. Simon explains that due to the failed treaty, local communities will continue to be disproportionately affected by plastic pollution. 

Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chair of the INC-5.2 negotiations, released a draft text on Wednesday, which was universally rejected.“We were supposed to finish this treaty 250 days ago in Busan. Those who lose the most are the local communities disproportionally impacted by plastic pollution and will continue to bear the burden,” says Simon.

Capitulation to big oil’s interest 

Sian Sutherland, co-founder at A Plastic Planet, tells us that what makes the failed talks “particularly grotesque” is that industry leaders recognize that plastic is economically unviable, but a small group, “driven by a pack of fossil fuel lobbyists,” disrupted the negotiations. 

She says: “The failure to reach agreement on the UN Global Plastic Treaty represents a devastating capitulation to big oil’s interests. After three years of unprecedented collaboration, a minority of governments have scuppered the opportunity for binding health and production commitments that were fundamental to the treaty’s effectiveness.”

“Back-handed maneuvers”

Simon outlines developments from the past two weeks. 

“The first few days of INC 5.2 were all about heads-down work. The chair moved delegates into various Contact Groups where they had the opportunity to submit new proposals and show support, or lack thereof, for measures that may end up in the final treaty.”

As of last Friday, WWF was happy about all the proposals put forward and gained country-level support for its key goals, which include global bans on harmful chemicals and binding global product design requirements. 

“While some elements for global alignment were on track, albeit slowly, others were not, notably, any discussion around production and harmonized design.” 

Many NGOs criticized the chair’s tactics that formed the new text, stating that while member states were kept busy in Contact Groups and informals, a new text was crafted, “moving the needle of ambition below the bare minimum that anyone expected to see,” according to GAIA. 

Member states and delegations remained deadlocked on issues of plastic production cuts.Wong SiPeng from the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism in Malaysia adds: “These back-handed maneuvers are undemocratic, and leave civil society and ambitious member states in the dark.”

Building the way forward 

Simon recounts that the treaty negotiations made some progress, but highlights that the same roadblocks that hindered previous INC talks remained present. 

She continues: “The vast majority of countries wanted an ambitious and binding treaty, but intense pressure from a small minority caused uncertainty around the outcome of the negotiations.”

Simon explains that during the talks, civil society organizations called on countries to stop the blocking tactics seen at past INC negotiations and called for countries and the chair to find a way to fix the process.

Nicholas Mallos, vice president of Ocean Conservancy’s ocean plastics program, says: “With plastic pollution at crisis levels globally, the chair’s draft text was completely unacceptable: it includes no mention of plastics reduction and any mention of ghost gear — the deadliest form of plastic pollution to marine life — has been scrubbed from the text.” 

For and against production caps

During the INC-5.2 negotiations, Simon states that the Business Coalition for a UN Global Plastic Treaty, representing more than 250 businesses, aligned with the NGO community that called for a “robust agreement with harmonized regulations.”

“The coalition has been influential in moving the treaty in the right direction. That said, there are certainly businesses, not part of the coalition, who were at the negotiations and advocated for a watered-down treaty that ensures production stays at pace and does nothing to solve the planet’s crisis.” 

However, there was also apparent resentment among civil society and NGOs that the text has low ambition and will not solve the ongoing plastics crisis.

What comes next?

Today, delegates are still meeting and have not decided on the next steps. 

Ciel’s Azoulay states that while there will be more negotiations, further talks will fail if the process does not change and solutions are not found.

He concludes: “We need a restart, not a repeat performance. Countries that want a treaty must leave this process and form a willing treaty. And that process must include options for voting that deny the tyranny of consensus we have watched play out here.”