By Bunmi Yekini
The latest round of global plastics treaty negotiations ended in disarray, as ambitious countries stood firm against a deal they said would have failed to address the escalating crisis of plastic pollution.
At the close of the fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee meeting (INC-5.2), held under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), efforts to secure a binding global treaty were derailed by procedural deadlocks, late-night sessions, and the influence of powerful petrochemical interests.
Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), described the outcome as a missed opportunity.
“No treaty is better than a bad treaty,” Rocha said. “We stand with the ambitious majority who refused to back down and accept a treaty that disrespects the countries that are truly committed to this process and betrays our communities and our planet. A broken, non-transparent process will never deliver a just outcome. It’s time to fix it, so people and the planet can finally have a fighting chance.”
Despite broad agreement among more than 100 countries to cut plastic production, phase out toxic chemicals, and create a dedicated fund to support waste pickers and affected communities, a small coalition of petro-states—self-styled as “like-minded countries”, used consensus rules to block ambition. Observers say this allowed them to stall progress and trap talks in procedural disputes.
Civil society groups criticized the role of UNEP and the meeting’s Chair for what they called bias towards low-ambition states. Negotiators described chaotic schedules, a final plenary announced at 5:30 a.m. with less than four hours’ notice, and unresolved rules of procedure nearly three years into the process.
“We cannot confuse procedural agreement with meaningful ambition,” said Eskedar Awgichew Ergete of Eco-Justice Ethiopia. “For years, the Global South has been the driving force behind the most ambitious proposals, but consensus paralysis has prevented us from delivering the treaty the world urgently needs.”
Salisa Traipipitsiriwat of the Environmental Justice Foundation in Thailand echoed the frustration:
“The content is already difficult to agree on, but the broken process makes it worse. Two and a half years in, the rules of procedure are still not agreed upon. Another round of negotiation is welcome, but it won’t help if we don’t fix the process.”
Still, campaigners said momentum is on their side. Plastic pollution, once seen as a simple waste problem, is now widely understood as a systemic crisis linked to extraction, production, and toxic disposal. Strong alliances between governments and grassroots groups have pushed the issue to the top of the global agenda.
Thais Carvajal of Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador struck a defiant tone.
“There was no conclusion for the treaty, but we are not backing down,” Carvajal said. “The process and its challenges have made us stronger. We have changed the narrative and will keep fighting plastic pollution.”
As negotiations head into yet another round, activists insist the world cannot afford another failure. With plastic production projected to triple by 2060 and evidence mounting of health and environmental harms, they say only an ambitious treaty, or determined national action in its absence, can avert disaster.