https://www.ciel.org/news/ciel-staff-react-to-end-of-resumed-fifth-plast...
While the goal of INC-5.2 was to advance a clean text for adoption, Member States rejected two drafts presented by the chair, and the negotiations will now revert back to the draft text introduced by the chair at the conclusion of the negotiations in Busan in December 2024.
Even if those drafts had been accepted, they would have presented a significant setback in the negotiations. Both were based on voluntary measures that failed to address the scale of the plastics crisis adequately and appealed to the demands of both petrostates and the petrochemical industry. And yet, over twelve days, Member States submitted dozens of text proposals that gained broad support from the majority of Member States. But rather than being folded into the text, they were cast aside for draft texts by the chair that appealed to the lowest common denominator, appeasing petrostates and the industry representatives who overwhelmed the negotiations.
We watched as countries divided into two camps: plastic producers — largely petrostates and some developed countries — and plastic consumers — the European Union, Switzerland, Canada, and the vast majority of countries in the Global South.
The path forward is mired in uncertainty. During the closing plenary, multiple Member States asked the Chair for clarity on the next steps, but there was no reply. The INC is a Member-State-Driven process, and they will need to decide whether to stay within it, develop a treaty of their own outside the process, or introduce a mandate in another forum, such as the UN General Assembly.
The INC also failed to deliver on other key deliverables for the negotiation, including selecting the site for the diplomatic conference of the plenipotentiaries (DipCon), where the treaty will open for signature, the location of the secretariat, and the program of work between the end of the INC and the first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP).
At the conclusion of the negotiations, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) staff offered the following reflections:
Giulia Carlini, Senior Attorney and Environmental Health Program Manager
Toxics and microplastics are poisoning our bodies, causing cancer, infertility, and death, while corporations keep profiting from unchecked production. The science is undeniable. Yet here, it has been denied and downplayed. Despite this flawed process, the message remains clear: people and the majority of countries demand a drastic change. A treaty is still possible, but whatever comes next must be grounded in science and what is best for human health.
Helionor De Anzizu, Senior Attorney
A treaty to end plastic pollution must rise to the scale of the crisis. It must meet the standards of existing international law — under the Paris Agreement, the Law of the Sea, human rights treaties, and customary law — and go further, turning commitments into concrete, enforceable actions. The draft treaty fell short, with mainly voluntary measures. While a strong treaty to end plastic pollution is urgently needed, the Chair’s two proposed drafts would have left the world in a limbo of inaction and endless debate while the plastic crisis worsens.
Andrés Del Castillo, Senior Attorney
The plastics treaty negotiations are shaping not only the future of plastic governance but also the way future environmental negotiations will play out. This INC was doomed from the start. Poor time management, unrealistic expectations, lack of transparency, and a ministerial segment with no clear purpose — all of which undermined the ability to close the deal. If and when talks resume, it will be essential to change how and where the work is done. Geneva made it evident: A clear, step-by-step plan is essential, one that identifies who will steer the process, where the meetings will be held, and how the agenda will address the fact that this is not only a pollution crisis — but also a climate crisis.
Melissa Blue Sky, Senior Attorney
Multilateral treaty negotiations are incredibly difficult even under the best conditions, and the INC process has been far from that. A handful of countries continue to insist that the INC cannot vote and have threatened to derail negotiations if any country proposes a vote. The result is a negotiation in which the least ambitious countries regularly veto global obligations to address production and product phase-outs by insisting that there is no consensus, despite these measures having support from the majority of countries. Because of this, the weak proposed final text from the Chair, with a few token elements for the more ambitious countries, was rejected by blocking countries. If countries hope to ever achieve a treaty that meaningfully addresses plastics pollution, they will either need to vote at the INC or take the negotiation elsewhere.
Dharmesh Shah, Consulting Senior Campaigner (Plastics Treaty)
Let’s be clear, the plastic crisis is a health and a human rights crisis. This session ends without an agreement and without the health and human rights protections that millions urgently need. Once again, a small bloc of countries has obstructed progress on measures to curb toxic chemicals and limit production, steps that could have moved us closer to securing our human right to health and a clean, sustainable, and healthy environment. This failure comes as communities around the world are already breathing toxic air, drinking contaminated water, and carrying toxic chemicals in their bodies — the direct consequence of weak protections, poor access to information, and exclusion from environmental decision-making. The majority of governments, rights-holders, and civil society remain united: a plastics treaty without health and human rights is not only inadequate, it is an abdication of responsibility.
Delphine Levi Alvares, Global Petrochemicals Campaign Manager
This latest failed attempt at delivering a treaty that meets the urgency of the plastic pollution crisis bears the bloody fingerprints of Petrostates and their fossil fuel and petrochemical industry allies. UNEP and the Secretariat enabled a disastrous process that allowed industry interests to poison the proceedings and affect the outcomes of the talks. In Geneva, petrostates gaslit us in broad daylight, blocking meaningful progress against the will of a majority of countries while claiming to be doing so for the very future generations their petropatriarchal regimes doom. While the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry leaves with their financial interests safe, the frontline communities and Indigenous communities will continue paying the price.
Rachel Radvany, Environmental Health Campaigner
This round of negotiations saw record numbers of fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists — proof that industry is desperate to derail a treaty that could hold it accountable. But civil society and rights-holders met their presence with determination and clarity, calling for a treaty that safeguards health, communities, and human rights. For each of us, there is a community at home — for each of them, a CEO’s pocketbook. We are here to stay, and history is moving with us.
Ximena Banegas, Global Plastics and Petrochemicals Campaigner
Governments around the world are propping up a failing plastics industry with public money — then making us pay again to clean up the health and environmental damage caused by its pollution. This treaty is an opportunity to chart a path toward stable economies and real climate solutions. Petrostates showed their true colors by being more interested in their profits, choosing instead to further chain themselves to an industry riddled with growing risks.
