Global Plastics Treaty post-mortem – INC-5.2, petrostate obstruction and the way ahead

The scene: INC-5.2 negotiations collapse in Geneva

World leaders, negotiators, campaigners and corporate lobbyists assembled in Geneva’s Palais des Nations last month for what was intended to be the final, decisive round of talks to establish a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty.

INC-5.2, the extended fifth session of the UN’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, was intended to be the final opportunity to keep the treaty alive and on course for adoption.

The expectation was clear – negotiators had to deliver a strong, ambitious text capable of ending plastic pollution across its full lifecycle.

Instead, the session failed to make progress. Despite widespread international support and strong calls from civil society, negotiators could not agree on a draft text.

Discussions were hampered by procedural delays and vigorous industry lobbying. The Chair’s compromise text removed binding production caps, chemical controls and lifecycle measures, resulting in a hollow framework that many high-ambition countries rejected outright.

At the same time, there was significant effort and movement from high-ambition groups, including the EU, the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) and the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) who worked to maintain ambition and keep the treaty alive.

Cause of death: Petrostate obstruction

Our post-mortem examination reveals the precise cause of death – a small but powerful bloc of petrochemical-producing countries plus a small army of Big Oil lobbyists deliberately hampered progress.

Their tactics included procedural stalling, diluting ambitions and vetoing consensus, ensuring that negotiations ended without an outcome.

Left untreated, the treaty’s vital organs – production caps, chemical control and trade rules – were weakened beyond repair.

Symptoms observed: Decision-making on life support

Civil society acted as the pulse monitor of INC-5.2, recording warning signs throughout the session. Break Free From Plastic daily updates amplified the calls for courage: “Stop hiding behind consensus … show courage for future generations!” echoed outside the Palais des Nations.

One of the most apparent signs of a potential cure came from negotiations around the decision-making process. The Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), strongly supported by the EU, advocated for the ability to proceed to a vote when consensus was unattainable.

This proposal was crucial to prevent the treaty from being held hostage by the political will of petrostates such as Saudi Arabia, the US and Russia, which employed procedural tactics to undermine ambition.

Civil society and many countries saw this as a lifeline – without majority-based decision-making, the treaty risks endless paralysis. Yet petrostates resisted fiercely, exposing the fragility of the process and leaving the treaty in critical condition.

Other key symptoms observed:

• health at risk – more than 120 countries called for a dedicated health article, recognising chemical hazards as a life-threatening condition for people and ecosystems
• justice in jeopardy – the African Group (South Africa and The Gambia) proposed safeguards for the 40 million informal waste-pickers worldwide, the backbone of recycling but dangerously exposed without protection
• systemic weaknesses – loopholes in waste rules and the omission of binding trade provisions opened pathways for illegal exports, leaving frontline communities vulnerable to chronic exposure.

Hannah at the INC-5.2 talks in Geneva (c) EIA

Why the patient matters: Stakes remain high

The patient on the table is our planet and global public support for reducing production is overwhelming.

A Break Free From Plastic survey across 10 countries found that 84 per cent of respondents support production cuts, linking them to biodiversity protection and climate change mitigation.

Without binding caps, plastic production and waste levels remain dangerously unchecked, threatening ecosystems, human health and progress on global climate goals.

It is important to emphasise that petrostates and industry obstruction are keeping the world locked into a dangerous path, one that science shows is unsustainable. This is locking the world into a terminal trajectory.

Vital signs needed to revive the treaty

To resurrect the Global Plastics Treaty, it’s essential to restore its core ‘vital organs’. Each one, a necessary function, is revealed throughout the treaty post-mortem and informed by EIA’s essential elements analysis:

1. the heartbeat – production limits. The treaty requires science-based, time-bound caps on virgin plastic production, starting upstream at polymerisation. These caps must be grounded in rigorous monitoring and phased down over time, much like the way the Montreal Protocol managed controlled substances. This heartbeat must pulse through the treaty to reduce systemic oversupply of plastic
2. the lungs – midstream reuse systems. Reuse isn’t a cosmetic add-on, it’s a system-critical organ which sustains the circular economy by breathing new life into materials. Effective midstream, inclusive reuse systems (e.g., reusable packing with efficient take-back mechanisms) are essential for reducing both resource use and waste generation, preventing the treaty from flatlining into downstream recycling rhetoric
3. the immune system – health protections. A strong immune response is vital to protect people and ecosystems from toxic additives and chemical hazards hidden in plastics. A dedicated health article must embed into the treaty’s core chemical safety, transparency and the public’s right to know, preventing the spread of ‘false cure’ solutions which recycle pollutants instead of banning them
4. the backbone – worker justice. Protecting the 40 million informal waste-pickers, who are the backbone of the recycling system, is essential to ensure fairness and resilience. Legal protections, just transition mechanisms and recognition of their livelihoods must be incorporated into the treaty to support a fair and sustainable recovery
5. the liver – trade and waste control. The liver of the treaty must filter out toxins and prevent harmful flows. Binding trade rules and tighter waste export controls are needed to detoxify the global system. By closing loopholes, halting illegal dumping and processing waste responsibly, the treaty can protect vulnerable communities from chronic exposure and ensure pollutants are not passed down
6. the nervous system –compliance and decision-making. A functional nervous system guarantees responsiveness and coordination. Decision-making based on majority rule must be incorporated, preventing petrostate paralysis and enabling the treaty to prompt swift, collective action when consensus is not reached.

Waste pickers at Kenya’s notorious Dandora refuse site outside Nairobi (c) EIA

Why these vital signs matter

Without production limits, the treaty remains breathless; without reuse systems, it collapses back into disposability. Without health safeguards and worker justice, it ignores systemic inequities and threats that must be central to a true recovery. And without strong trade controls or reform of the decision-making process, it remains vulnerable to disease – namely, petrostate interests obstructing progress.

However, when these components work together, the treaty can be revived as a coordinated, living instrument capable of ending plastic pollution while promoting health, equity and planetary stability.

Prognosis: Reviving the treaty

The planet remains critically ill. INC-5.2 exposed how petrostate interests and industry pressures threaten the treaty’s core functions of production limits, chemical safety, trade regulations and protections for waste-pickers.

Without swift action, plastic pollution will persist in damaging ecosystems and communities around the world. To revive the treaty, negotiators must restore its vital functions with science-backed production caps, chemical safeguards, worker protections and enforceable trade and waste rules.

Only through decisive, majority-supported measures can the treaty be revived, securing a future where people, biodiversity and the environment can flourish.