When the negotiations in Busan broke down without agreement in December 2024, 184 countries had to meet again – this time in Geneva, for ten new days of negotiations. Most of the time was spent in so-called “contact groups” – that is, less formal meetings without interpretation, photography or recording, precisely to allow room for open disagreement between countries. Time-consuming and highly detailed negotiations took place there, with countries repeating their positions without making much progress. The draft texts grew – not in terms of agreement, but in the number of brackets, which indicate the points on which countries do not agree.
Read on to learn more about the issues the countries are at odds over.
As the meeting drew to a close, there simply was not enough time to negotiate the key issues: plastic production, plastic products, financing, and whether in future it should be possible to vote onConference of Parties (CoP).
Why do some see this as a victory?
Although most are impatiently awaiting an ambitious, global and legally binding plastics agreement, the countries in Geneva could have chosen to unite around the “lowest common denominator” – in other words, a very weak agreement based only on the few points everyone could agree on. They did not. The countries therefore did not reach agreement merely for the sake of agreement – and many see that in itself as a victory. Questions are being raised as to whether such a compromise would in fact have fulfilled the mandate of the negotiations.
What is the mandate for the plastics negotiations?
- In March 2022, the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2) adopted a resolution (“End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument”) requesting the development of an international,legally binding instrumentagainst plastic litter.
- The task was assigned to a dedicated Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), with the aim of finalising a draft agreement of this kind by the end of 2024.
- Agreement was reached that the agreement should be:International in scopeLegally bindingCoverthe entire life cycle of plastic– from design and production to handling and disposal
Why was there no plastics agreement in Geneva?
On 13 August, the Chair, Luis Vayas, presented a new draft agreement text based on input from so-called contact groups and other delegations, in an attempt to get an agreement over the line. However, this draft was met with considerable dissatisfaction from several quarters, as it lacked clear, legally binding commitments — including the fact that no limits were introduced on plastic production, and chemicals in plastic products were not regulated either. The main focus was instead on voluntary national measures within improved design, increased reuse, recycling and waste management.
Several countries and environmental organisations rejected the draft as too weak and unbalanced — it was presented as an agreement that “only focuses on waste and recycling” without addressing the core issues: plastic production and harmful impacts.
See the images from the joint meeting, where it became clear that the negotiations would end without a global plastics treaty:
Just under 24 hours later, in the early hours of Friday 15 August, Vayas presented a revised draft text following an intensive round of extensive consultations. The draft was presented just before the joint meeting resumed early on Friday morning..
The draft sought to build a bridge between two dominant groups:
- High Ambition Coalition, led by Norway and Rwanda, which called for clear commitments to reduce plastic production, eliminate problematic chemicals and promote reuse.
- Oil and gas producers, including the USA and Saudi Arabia, which wanted the agreement to focus primarily on waste management and recycling without binding production limits.
Despite these efforts, the draft met with strong criticism:
- Ambitious countries and environmentalists concluded that the draft wastoo willing to compromise.They pointed out that it did not cover either the phasing out of plastic products or specific requirements for product design. In addition, they believed that the draft lacked requirements for clear commitments from countries, leaving the agreement impossible to implement and ineffective.
- Other delegates described it as a “middle-of-the-road solution” – neither good enough for the ambitious nor narrow enough for the oil groups.
Must all the countries agree?
If the agreement is to be adopted by consensus – meaning that all countries must agree – it is difficult to see how the so-called “hard lines” can be reconciled. Norway has made it clear that it will not contribute funding if the agreement is not ambitious enough, while several developing countries, for their part, say they cannot accept ambitious measures without a guarantee of sufficient funding. The chicken and the egg, in other words.
The requirement for consensus is important to many countries, not only those seeking a strong plastics agreement. If agreement proves impossible, the alternative may be for countries that share the same level of ambition to join forces on a separate agreement that they believe fulfils the mandate.
Is there hope?
New negotiations will follow – in the form of INC-5.3, the third part of the fifth meeting (which in practice will be the seventh). Where and when this will take place has not yet been decided. Several countries have already emphasised that the same processes cannot be repeated while expecting a different outcome. How the next round is organised will therefore be absolutely crucial.
