INC-5.2 was a failure of process, not of outcome

Billed as the make-or-break moment in a process launched in 2022, the sixth round of negotiations on a global plastics treaty (INC-5.2) ended on 15 August in Geneva without agreement, leaving the whole process in limbo.

To many of us involved it was a bitter blow, yet the collapse was far better than the alternative. Headlines proclaimed the talks a “failure”; but if there was a failure in Geneva, it was (again) one of process, not of outcome.

From the outset, the plastics treaty negotiations have been held hostage by a small but powerful group of petrostates, wielding a procedural rule as their weapon. This rule, favouring consensus-based decision making, has allowed them to veto any measures that would reduce plastic production – the key to addressing pollution, according to the majority of states.

At INC-5.2, the Chair, Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso, again struggled to break this deadlock and – at the eleventh hour – took the decision to table a weak compromise text. The hope was that countries present would accept it rather than leave with nothing.

But the treaty text read like an industry wishlist, and was rightly rejected by the ambitious majority. That refusal was a victory: it prevented the world being trapped in a hollow agreement and has kept open the possibility of negotiating something stronger.

Read our full report on INC-5.2 below.

Ambition meets obstruction

Hopes going into Geneva were tempered by the scale of the challenge. The procedural wrangling and stalled progress of the previous five rounds of talks had made it clear that a new approach would be needed if a treaty was to be finalised. Although a long shot, many observers remained cautiously optimistic that a call for a vote to override obstruction was possible.

A record 184 countries took part, joined by civil society organisations, scientists and Indigenous leaders. But industry presence was larger than ever: analysis from CIEL counted 234 officially accredited lobbyists from the fossil fuel and petrochemicals sector at the talks, many embedded within state delegations. Their influence was felt throughout: reinforcing the positions of oil-producing states; spreading disinformation; and even occupying limited seats in meeting rooms to keep rightsholders out.

They also succeeded in keeping the same dead end process in place. The vast majority of discussions were again held behind closed doors, denying rightsholders full and equitable participation. Even some member states complained of unclear scheduling, lack of seating and access to microphones.

These tactics only deepened the sense that the integrity of the talks was being compromised and undermined by well-coordinated obstruction. Calls for a conflict of interest policy have been consistently sidestepped by the INC secretariat.

In the face of this, civil society and rightsholder groups present in Geneva mobilised rapidly, staging several actions in- and outside the UN throughout the two weeks to remind negotiators to “fix the process, keep your promise and end plastic pollution.”

Parallel red lines

From the opening days, it was clear that the fundamental fault line – the relentless production of plastic and toxic petrochemicals – had not shifted, with countries putting their red lines firmly on either side. A broad coalition of more than 100 countries continued to press for binding measures to reduce production, regulate chemicals and mandate product redesign.

Opposing them were producer states, who insisted the treaty should focus only on downstream waste management and recycling, leaving production unaddressed.

As in previous rounds of negotiations, any proposals that might limit business as usual were systematically vetoed. Efforts to bridge the divide stalled, and whole sessions were taken up with procedural disputes rather than substantive progress.

At the midway “stock-taking” plenary session on 9 August, many delegates made clear their belief that seeking consensus was a futile endeavour. They were instructed to plough on regardless.

The Chair’s gambit

As the talks entered their final stretch, with progress nowhere in sight, the Chair took the unusual step of introducing a compromise text of his own making. The move was intended to salvage at least a minimal outcome and prevent the talks from collapsing entirely. Yet its timing – unveiled late in the process, with almost no time left for negotiation – and its content – stripped of articles on production, chemicals and health and any legally binding language – proved divisive.

Many ambitious countries saw the text as a capitulation to the lowest common denominator. Producer countries, meanwhile, were still unwilling to endorse even these watered-down obligations. The gamble backfired: rather than finding common ground, the move increased frustrations. Diplomatic niceties were abandoned, as state after state called the text a “betrayal”, a “surrender” and a “mockery” of majority wishes.

With only hours left, the Chair was under huge pressure to find a new solution.

Collapse but not erasure

By this time, more than 60 ministers had already flown in order to get the deal done. Yet after a marathon final session that lasted almost 30 hours, a new and only slightly improved Chair’s text failed to get an agreement. The session was brought to an abrupt close. No clear roadmap was adopted beyond a vague commitment to continue discussions.

The sense of anticlimax was overwhelming. After two and a half years and $40 million poured into negotiations, governments were no closer to resolving the core question of whether the plastics treaty will address the problem at its source, or simply manage waste at the margins.

Exhausted negotiators and observers could not disguise their deep disappointment.

Yet it was also clear that, had the compromise text been adopted, it would have locked us in to a weak treaty with no power to curb plastic pollution. Time, money and energy had certainly been wasted trying to reach unanimity, but valuable work had nonetheless been done. The foundations of a strong treaty are in place, ready to be revived when the political will emerges.

Where next?

Two main paths now lie ahead. The first is to continue negotiations at an INC-5.3, but currently there is no budget, nor any mandate for this. And, for ambitious countries to return, UNEP would need to provide assurances of procedural reform. Enforcing the rule that allows voting on substantive matters remains the only way for them to move forward within the INC framework. Doing this would however risk a walkout by producer states – and potentially then a wider crisis for UNEP and the multilateral system.

A more promising option is the formation of a “coalition of the willing”, as used to create the global treaty banning landmines in Ottawa in 1996. Ambitious states could negotiate an agreement outside the UN framework, setting binding production limits and chemical phase-outs. Obstructors would be left out, while still feeling the effects of the agreement through trade and market forces. UNEP could be involved in the treaty’s implementation, ensuring they remain relevant.

This option is made easier by the fact that, over the course of the negotiations, progressive states have already developed a series of conference room papers (CRPs). These are official proposals for text that could become the building blocks of a strong treaty. More than 100 countries signalled support for ambitious CRPs at INC-5.2.

This means that there is a solid shared foundation to return to when talks resume.

Civil society groups emphasise that political momentum can still be built. But pressure from outside the negotiating halls will be critical. Without stronger mobilisation to counterbalance industry lobbying, governments may continue to stall.

Less an ending than a reset

INC-5.2 was not the breakthrough many hoped for, but nor was it the disaster some feared. By refusing to endorse a toothless compromise, governments kept alive the chance for a treaty that can truly end plastic pollution.

The challenge now is to convert the foundation of existing CRPs into a finished text, whether through procedural reform at UNEP or a coalition of the willing elsewhere. The coming months will determine whether governments have the courage to deliver a treaty fit for purpose, or squander the chance to confront one of the defining environmental challenges of our time.

Trash Hero at the treaty talks
As a UNEP-accredited observer, Trash Hero is able to attend all INC meetings. We join our colleagues in the large civil society delegation that advocates for strong and just measures in the treaty and support the communications and advocacy work done in and around the meeting venue.

It was supposed to be the final round of UN negotiations for a global plastics treaty. In the end, INC-5 wound up without an agreement – though not without progress.

The meeting was held in Busan, South Korea from 25 Nov to 1 Dec 2024, with almost 4,000 people in attendance. The Chair, Luis Vayas Valvidieso, was under intense pressure to seal a deal. He spent the week imploring countries to find common ground and “get it done”, even agreeing to closed door negotiations for almost three days – a flagrant disregard for transparency that left scientists, civil society groups and rights-holders most impacted by plastic pollution out in the cold.

But still a deal was not to be. The talks only highlighted the deep divisions among countries over three key issues: limiting plastic production (Article 6), regulating toxic chemicals (Article 3), and funding (Article 11).

A minority of so-called petrostates – major fossil fuel exporters – continued to block any attempts to cap or reduce plastic production, arguing this was irrelevant to the issue of pollution. They rejected scientific evidence of the harms of petrochemicals and claimed plastic was essential to progress, climate goals and the “right to development“.

However the majority of countries, covering both the Global South and Global North, were determined to include binding obligations to reduce plastic production, the phaseout of harmful plastic products and toxic chemicals, and a dedicated fund to support treaty implementation. They pointed to the UNEA resolution to take a full life cycle approach to plastic pollution and recalled the thousands of studies linking plastic chemicals with serious health issues.

With Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, the inspirational delegate from Panama.

Stand up for ambition

The emergence of this coalition of 100+ countries, led by Panama, Rwanda, Mexico and Fiji and backed by the EU, Switzerland, UK and Australia, was the high point of the talks. Appearing midweek, they swiftly gained the upper hand, using strong language – “if you’re not contributing constructively… then please get out” – that completely changed the energy and dynamics in the room.

At the closing plenary session, Juliet Kabera, the Director General of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority, received a thunderous standing ovation for her statement vowing to “stand up for ambition”.

For most observers, the failure to reach an agreement at INC-5 was a victory for courage over compromise. Instead of succumbing to the relentless petrostate bullying and watering down the text, progressive countries stood firm and opted for no treaty over a weak treaty. This leaves the door to real change very firmly open.

A failure of process

Indeed, the real failure at INC-5 was the process itself. Negotiations have gone much the same way over the last three rounds of talks: a text is proposed by the Chair with instructions to find an agreement or consensus. Countries then proceed to share their views, with the petrostates systematically vetoing whole articles and obfuscating every line with qualifications, additions and deletions. This results in an unintelligible and unusable document that has to be “streamlined” at the next round, before the process begins all over again.

Instead of switching up this failing formula at INC-5, the Chair simply increased the speed of the loop, bringing out two new streamlined proposals, one on Friday and one on Sunday, as each previous version was mangled within hours.

As Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director of GAIA, put it, “we cannot keep doing things the same way and expect different results – that is the definition of insanity. The ambitious majority needs to do whatever it takes to get these negotiations back on track and reclaim the spirit of multilateralism.” That might involve insisting on their right to vote on a text, instead of trying to find consensus, or even taking the whole process outside of the UN.

Broader implications

The divisions exposed in Busan have clear parallels with the challenges faced in the climate negotiations, where petrostates have been stalling progress for decades. Their orchestrated effort to obstruct and derail all multilateral environmental agreements needs to be recognised for what it is and seriously addressed by the UN. There are precedents for this, such as the conflict of interest policy used in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Failure to act decisively on plastic production will hinder broader environmental goals, including climate targets, as we know this sector alone could exceed the global carbon budget by 2060. Failure to act quickly will also intensify the looming public health crisis, as petrochemicals bioaccumulate and our exposure is growing every day.

A treaty in 2025?
INC-5 ended with negotiators agreeing to reconvene their session in 2025 – this will be known as INC-5.2, rather than INC-6, as it is a continuation of the same meeting. The date and venue is likely to be announced in January, and it is expected to take place within the first half of the year. This gives the new coalition of ambitious countries a few precious months to demonstrate strong leadership, intensify diplomacy and address the challenges of the process and vested interests to ensure we get a treaty that can truly end plastic pollution.

Trash Hero at the treaty talks
As a UNEP-accredited observer, Trash Hero is able to attend all INC meetings. We join our colleagues in the large civil society delegation that advocates for strong and just measures in the treaty and support the communications and advocacy work done in exhibition booths and side events around the meeting venue.

Forget COP 29, the plastics treaty is the most important environmental agreement in the world right now.

Is there anyone left – except the oil industry – who doesn’t roll their eyes at the mention of the climate COP? These conferences have become synonymous with blatant conflicts of interest, empty “blah, blah, blah” posturing of world leaders, and a frustrating inability to deliver real progress.

But next week in Busan, South Korea, there’s a glimmer of hope. UN member states are convening at INC-5, at what is expected to be the final round of negotiations for a global treaty to end plastic pollution. This is the chance for governments to show they are serious about tackling the harms of plastic overproduction and consumption. And a strong agreement, capable of addressing the interlinked crises of wildlife loss, chemical pollution and climate breakdown, could set in motion the fossil fuel phase-out that has eluded the climate convention for three decades.

The hidden driver of climate change
Plastic is not only a source of pollution choking oceans and poisoning ecosystems but also an important and overlooked driver of climate change. 99 percent of plastic is made from fossil fuels and, as production skyrockets, it’s become the world’s fastest-growing source of industrial greenhouse gases, pumping out more than double the emissions of the aviation industry.

Plastic also contains a staggering 16,000 chemicals. Less than 1 percent of these are regulated, most are untested, and around 4,000 are known hazards to human health. These are substances that bioaccumulate and are linked to cancers, respiratory and neurological problems and hormone disruption. Microplastics carrying these toxins permeate our air, water, soil, and even our bodies.

The plastic crisis impacts us all, but it’s felt hardest in poor communities, often in the Global South, where plastics are produced, burned, or dumped.

We can do better than the Paris Agreement
Since November 2022, countries have been going back and forth on what the plastics treaty should include, how to enforce it, and who will fund it. The good news is that the measures needed for meaningful change are all still on the table. Just as importantly, so are provisions for monitoring, compliance and transparency. These key elements were missing in the Paris Agreement: its voluntary approach has allowed emissions to climb year after year.

At INC-5 then, negotiators face a crucial question: will they learn from Paris or repeat its mistakes?

How to build an effective treaty

Binding commitments
Deep, rapid cuts in plastic production are required to avoid breaching the 1.5°C warming limit. Analysis shows a minimum reduction of 12% to 17% per year, starting now, will be necessary. This needs measurable targets, deadlines and penalties, not hollow pledges.

Global implementation
Treaty measures must apply universally, with no exemptions under “special national circumstances” – the excuse countries used in the Paris Agreement to sidestep action.

The principle they invoked – of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR) – was originally intended to recognise the differing roles of countries in causing environmental crises and their corresponding financial needs and obligations. It was never meant to allow countries to choose whether or not to pollute.

Issues like harmful chemicals in plastic are impossible to address if countries claim CBDR. Without transparency and strict regulation across the board, we end up with piecemeal bans that leave gaps in protecting public health.

Sufficient and predictable funding
Another critical lesson from the climate COPs is the need for a dedicated global fund to support developing countries and those hit hardest by plastic pollution. Here is where the principle of CBDR should be applied. Wealthier countries and the plastic industry itself must provide this funding, with investments in redesign, repair, and reuse – not just waste management.

Civil society and rights-holders
Those directly impacted by the plastic life cycle, from waste pickers to fenceline communities and Indigenous Peoples, must be involved in shaping the treaty and their needs reflected in the final text.

But there is a very real danger of their voices being drowned out. The UN still recognises business and industry reps as “stakeholders” in environmental fora. Like at the climate convention, they are officially invited to the talks, often as part of government delegations. This conflict of interest is a major hurdle for good faith negotiators in Busan.

The fight against Big Oil
More than 60 countries have already called for the treaty to include binding phasedown targets for fossil fuels, enforced through global caps on plastic and petrochemical production. Many more support a treaty grounded in environmental and climate justice, public health and human rights.

On the other side, a vocal minority of oil-producing countries insist that solving plastic pollution is just a matter of improving recycling and waste management. They downplay the harms of plastic as “unproven” and argue the benefits to society outweigh the risks.

It’s a bold position that ignores the UN Environment Assembly’s resolution that the treaty address the full life cycle of plastic – from fossil fuel extraction to disposal. It also flies in the face of tens of thousands of studies confirming plastic’s devastating impacts on health, ecosystems, and the climate.

Meanwhile, these same countries plan to triple plastic production over the next 30 years, investing in petrochemical plants and promoting flawed and dirty technologies like chemical recycling. At COP28, their promise to transition away from fossil fuels was carefully applied only to “energy systems” – not plastics.

If left unchecked, plastic production alone could exceed the global carbon budget by 2060, according to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

UN member states must now choose whether to stop this happening.

The world is watching
Can negotiators deliver an effective treaty in just one week, with industry lobbyists hovering and a “need for consensus” pressuring them to water down the text rather than risk a vote?

Yes – but only if the world is watching. Governments must feel the pressure to support an ambitious, effective treaty that serves science and public interest, not corporate agendas.

International agreements can and should be more than a stage for world leaders to claim progress without commitments. We deserve treaties that are fit for purpose.

So, all eyes on Busan: if negotiators get it right, the plastics treaty could become the world’s most impactful environmental agreement, offering a path to cap fossil fuel production, restore planetary health and build a fairer, safer and more sustainable future for all.

Seema Prabhu is programmes director at Trash Hero. Trash Hero World attends the plastics treaty talks as a UNEP civil society observer.