No effort in the past has sought to tackle the world’s mounting plastic pollution crisis as extensively as the proposed Global Plastics Treaty, currently under negotiation by more than 170 countries through the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC). If put into action, it could provide legally binding measures for countries to cut back on plastic waste and regulate plastic production, use, and disposal — an effective solution to plastic pollution and the persistent havoc it wreaks.
Encouragingly, more than 100 countries have expressed support for bold measures to limit plastic production and phase out hazardous chemicals — a clear sign that momentum is building. Still, a minority of loud nations with strong fossil fuel and plastics industries continue to push back. This has left negotiators at an impasse, with the recent round of Plastics Treaty talks in Busan, South Korea, ending with no definitive conclusion.
Today, negotiations are far from done, despite the matter’s urgency of growing at exponential rates. But while progress is slow, understanding the top factors that contributed to this delay may hold the key to ensuring that any agreement reached will be properly implemented, and not diluted into a set of voluntary measures. This article takes a closer look at these major considerations.
5 Key Factors Delaying Progress in the Plastics Treaty Talks
Plastic pollution is a global crisis that has reached a tipping point — so why are efforts to tackle the issue comprehensively still being met by partial resistance?
The delay in the UN negotiations has laid bare the deep divisions among nations on how to address plastic waste, and it can be attributed to several critical factors, such as:
1. Disputes over binding requirements
Disagreements also arise regarding whether the treaty’s provisions should be legally binding or voluntary. “Low-ambition” countries tend to favor voluntary provisions that allow nations to set their own targets and measures without legal enforcement. This mirrors the approach taken in the Paris Agreement, where such flexibility has contributed to slow progress on climate action.
In contrast to this, ambitious countries as well as environmental groups argue that only a treaty with binding rules can deliver meaningful change. They stress that without clear mandates on production limits, product and chemical restrictions, and waste reduction, plastic pollution will continue to escalate unchecked. The tug-of-war surrounding this issue remains a key barrier to finalizing the United Nations’ plastics treaty.
2. Lack of agreement on the scope
One of the biggest hurdles to putting the Global Plastics Treaty into effect is how stakeholders cannot agree on what it covers in its entirety. Most countries argue that the treaty should address every stage of the plastic lifecycle — from how plastics are sourced, produced, and designed to how they are ultimately disposed of. They believe that by controlling production, we can tackle pollution at its very source.
On the other hand, a handful of nations with strong fossil fuel interests like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kuwait, and Qatar — often dubbed as “low-ambition” countries — contend that the treaty should focus solely on managing waste. These countries view plastic production as a vital economic driver and are reluctant to endorse measures that might restrict or ban harmful chemicals used in plastic production and products.
This fundamental divide has led to a fragmented negotiation process, stalling progress before any concrete policy measures can be fully discussed.
3. Disputes over bans and restrictions on single-use plastics
Another challenge is the question of which plastic products should be restricted or banned. Several agree that high-risk single-use items like lightweight bags, condiment sachets, and some food packaging significantly contribute to pollution. However, reaching a global consensus on specific bans at the global level has proven difficult, with many delegations arguing that the bans need to be tailored to country-specific contexts.
4. Impact of the plastics and fossil fuel industries
Corporate lobbying has largely shaped negotiations. For example, industry groups such as the American Chemistry Council advocate for solutions that focus on recycling, rather than cutting production. Many companies agree that better waste management is necessary, yet they oppose restrictions that could reduce their profits.
Although some multinational corporations, such as those in the Ellen MacArthur Foundation's Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, support legally binding measures, they have found themselves at odds with other powerful industry players who work to weaken or delay any new regulations.
This push and pull has shaped the development of the treaty text so far, including the chair’s text presented in Busan. While some options within the text show promise, campaigners have raised concerns that much of it reflects the influence of industry lobbying and could fall short of delivering the ambitious outcomes needed.
5. Geopolitical tensions and lack of political will
The broader political landscape also contributes to the treaty’s delays. Although most countries recognize the plastic crisis, some hesitate to commit to strict measures because of other economic and political priorities.
In the United States, for instance, the approach to plastic production has shifted with changes in administration. The Biden administration may have initially advocated for reducing single-use plastics to combat environmental damage, but Donald Trump’s reelection — and his apparent support for the plastic industry — likely means a drastic weakening of the U.S. position.
It may also lead to increased support for the Like-Minded Group, oil-rich countries including Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, which have actively blocked efforts to limit plastic production to economic reliance on fossil fuel and petrochemical industries.
Such geopolitical tensions create an environment where diluted commitments become the path of least resistance.
Overcoming the Stalemate: What Should the Plastics Treaty Talks Highlight?
To break the impasse and make sure that the treaty is ambitious and effective, negotiators must address key areas of contention with pragmatic solutions, such as the following:
Bridge the divide on plastic production limits
Reducing the production of primary plastic polymers (PPP) is one of the most contentious issues in the Plastics Treaty talks. To move forward, negotiators need a well-rounded strategy that takes decisive action to curb PPP production and manage plastic pollution throughout its lifecycle.
A promising approach is to implement a phased reduction plan, which would set clear, global targets aimed at steadily cutting down on plastic production.
In addition to this, imposing restrictions on the trade of plastic polymers and their precursors between treaty parties and non-parties can help close potential loopholes that might otherwise allow unchecked production. The treaty should also seek to redirect financial subsidies from virgin plastic production to sustainable alternatives, so that governments can incentivize innovation and help build markets that favor reuse and other eco-friendly practices over fossil fuel extraction and petrochemicals and plastic production.
Shift the debate from recycling to reuse
It has long been proven that recycling alone cannot solve the plastic crisis, and yet some stakeholders still call for ramping up single-minded efforts, effectively stalling negotiations.
The Plastics Treaty talks should set clear targets to support the development of reuse, refill, and repair systems as a priority, over recycling as per the waste hierarchy. Financial and logistical support must be provided to developing nations to make sure that reuse strategies are implemented equitably.
Creating an agreement on chemical bans
While many stakeholders agree on the need to eliminate hazardous chemicals in plastics, disputes remain over how best to define and regulate them. The Global Plastics Treaty should adopt a scientific, evidence-based framework for identifying harmful chemicals — and ultimately establish a globally recognized list of chemicals to be phased out, including widely used additives such as brominated flame retardants, phthalates, and bisphenols.
A global transparency standard for plastic ingredients must also be established and agreed upon by all parties. Such a standard would help uncover and prevent hidden risks, and allow for safer material choices.
On top of this, mandating transparency throughout the plastic lifecycle can enable regulators to monitor and systematically eliminate hazardous substances from production and use.
Support a just transition
For the treaty to truly make a difference, it must put human rights and environmental safeguards at the forefront. This means championing a just transition that recognizes the rights of Indigenous Peoples, informal waste pickers, marginalized and frontline communities, all of whom are disproportionately affected by plastic production, waste trade, and incineration.
While negotiations have stalled due to differing views on the implementation of such a just transition, there is a pressing need to develop a clear, globally accepted framework for it. Negotiators should work together to agree on essential safeguards to protect affected communities, while still allowing countries to be flexible in how support is provided. Backing these support programs with international funding and technical assistance is crucial to ensuring that practical, scalable solutions can be effectively implemented.
Secure financial commitments
A dedicated financial mechanism should be established to support developing nations through grants and equitable funding. In line with the waste hierarchy, funding should be allocated based on waste hierarchy, prioritizing upstream solutions — such as reducing plastic production and expanding reuse infrastructure — instead of focusing solely on downstream fixes like recycling.
On the other hand, setting up just transition funding is just as essential. This funding would support workers and communities impacted by the shift away from plastic production, making sure they’re not left behind.
Finally, it’s important to steer clear of relying on plastic credits, offsets, neutrality schemes, and other misleading “solutions” that only complicate the debate and perpetuate plastic production rather than confront it as the root problem.
Stay Updated on the Global Plastics Treaty and Other Environmental Policies
The Global Plastics Treaty presents a historic opportunity to curb plastic pollution and protect both people and the planet, and at this point, campaigners and advocates have established real momentum. With over 100 countries already supporting strong measures and civil society movements keeping up the pressure, we have a solid foundation for progress. Now is the time to build on that and ensure we don’t settle for half-measures.
The second part of the fifth round of the Plastics Treaty negotiations (INC-5.2), is scheduled to take place from 5 to 14 August 2025 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. To keep up with the latest developments in the Plastics Treaty talks, visit this page.
