Halfway into talks for global plastics treaty, consensus remains elusive

Halfway through what is intended to be the final round of the Plastics Treaty Negotiations, where around 180 countries are attempting an agreement to address plastic pollution, there’s been little headway on forging a consensus among countries.

In fact, countries aren’t even agreed upon the roadmap of evolving such consensus. There are those who say that without some form of voting mechanism, that accounts for the views of a majority, no progress is possible. On the other hand are those — primarily those who are reluctant to sign up to mandates on capping plastic production — who are insistent that the principle of one vote per country be upheld.

On Saturday, five days into a process that is officially expected to conclude on August 14, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) 5.2 Luis Vayas Valdivieso said, “The progress that we have made is not sufficient. We have had two-and-a-half years of opportunities for delegations to make proposals and express their views… There is no more time to continue having positions already stated.”

Also Read | Is the plastic industry trying to influence green policies?

Framework agreement

The expected outcome from the negotiations is a legal text that will set out a framework agreement under which countries can convene annually — similar to the climate conferences — to take concrete action, though incrementally, to address all aspects of plastic, including how it is produced and targets to reduce or even eliminate its use.

Currently, the draft version of this text consist of 32 Articles, every line of which must be agreed to by all countries. All countries who disagree with even a single line put forth their own views in ‘brackets’. At the beginning of the INC 5.2, on August 4, there were about 300 brackets and, as of Saturday, (August 9, 2025) the number had ballooned to 1,500 brackets. To streamline discussions, there are four ‘contact groups’ among whom these Articles are divided and the leaders of each contact group — who are also representatives of different countries — are expected to reduce the number of brackets to bring out a clean text.

While no group has reported success, the most divisive are those that deal with the ‘supply’ aspects of plastic. On Saturday, India voiced its opposition to text (Article 6) that seeks to place limits on plastic-polymer production. “ We need to ensure that we discuss on addressing plastic pollution only… our scope should be restricted to plastic pollution only. Separate Articles that deal with plastic polymer production has larger implications with respect to the right of development of member states. Such approaches should be avoided. Similarly phase-out dates (for plastic) should be avoided,” Vir Vikram Yadav, who is part of the Indian delegation and Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board, said, addressing the Chair.

Also Read | Plastics treaty draft overlooks key issue: limiting production 

Opposing views

Mr. Yadav added that India supported Kuwait and a coalition of ‘Like Minded Countries’ which include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Cuba. These countries generally oppose measures that would restrict the production of plastics or certain chemicals used in their manufacture. This view is the diametric opposite of the ‘High Ambition Coalition’ — that consist of several members of the European Union, several African countries, Australia and Pacific Island nations. There are anywhere from 80 to 106 members in this grouping and they are the ones pushing for an “ambitious” treaty that, among other things, considers cutting plastic production critical to addressing pollution.

Independent observers expressed disappointment at the pace of negotiations. “At the halfway mark we have made no real progress. Article 6 on production has not even had a first reading, much less negotiated. Chemicals of Concern, which is part of Article 3 continues to be bracketed. Without effective measures in these two crucial Articles, the curbing of plastic pollution across the full life cycle as defined in Resolution 5/14 will not be accomplished. A treaty without these provisions will only result in plastic proliferation,” said Swathi Seshadri, petrochemicals specialist, South Asia, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) and a long-time observer of INC deliberations.

“Plastic pollution is a global challenge, and global regulation is needed to effectively alleviate the situation. Harmonised regulations drive consistency across borders while supporting national ambitions and provide the lowest cost option to effectively address plastic pollution,” said Tove Andersen, Spokesperson, Business Coalition for Global Plastics Treaty.