Munich/Geneva, 15 August 2025

Negotiations in Geneva on a global agreement to end plastic pollution ended today without result.

The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) that aimed to draft the agreement ended in chaos after a haphazard process that was extended by one day: the talks collapsed in the early hours of the morning. The aim of the meeting was to adopt a revised text of the agreement. However, the member states rejected both drafts presented by the chair. The process now falls back on the text that the chair had already presented in December 2024 at the conclusion of the negotiations in Busan. In view of this deadlock, civil society, including WECF, is calling on heads of state and government worldwide to work steadfastly towards a strong, legally binding agreement that significantly reduces plastic production and effectively protects human health, human rights and the environment.

Even accepting the last-minute drafts would have been a significant step backwards. Both texts relied almost exclusively on voluntary measures that did not address the scale of the plastic crisis and largely served the interests of oil-producing countries and the petrochemical industry. Over the past twelve days, member states had submitted dozens of text proposals that were supported by a broad majority. Instead of taking these proposals into account, the Presidency resorted to drafts that served the lowest common denominator and with that primarily appeased oil-producing countries and industry representatives, who had a strong influence on the negotiations.

An analysis performed by the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) revealed that a record number of 234 registered lobbyists from the fossil fuel and chemical industries were present at INC-5.2. These estimates are likely to be conservative, as only those lobbyists who openly disclose their connections were counted.

A clear divide emerged during the talks: on one side were the plastic producers, mainly oil-producing countries and some industrialised countries, and on the other side were the plastic users, including the European Union, Switzerland, Canada and the overwhelming majority of countries in the Global South.

INC-5.2 also fell short of expectations on other important points. For example, there was no agreement on the venue for the diplomatic conference at which the agreement is to be signed, nor on the seat of the future secretariat, nor on a work plan for the period between the end of the INC and the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP).

There were repeated restrictions on access to the negotiations and a lack of space for intervention throughout the process for civil society. Despite this,  indigenous peoples, frontline communities, waste pickers, workers, scientists and civil society representatives repeatedly brought their perspectives to the negotiations. Their contributions were instrumental in shifting the focus of the debate away from a narrow view of plastic as solely marine litter to fostering the recognition that plastic causes pollution and health damage throughout its entire life cycle. Shortly before the end, the chair announced that he would close the session after contributions from observers, but did not follow through on this announcement. The trend of limited participation by civil society, scientists, waste pickers and indigenous representatives continued until the end.

The way forward is unclear. In the closing plenary session, several member states asked the chair for a statement on the next steps – but there was no response. Since the INC is a process determined by the member states, they must now decide whether to continue within this framework, develop their own agreement outside of it, or introduce a new mandate in another forum, such as the UN General Assembly.

Upon leaving the conference venue in Geneva, observers emphasised the urgent need for a clear, transparent and inclusive process so that the majority of countries can fulfil their mandate: to protect the world and future generations from plastic pollution.

While the negotiators continue to struggle to reach a strong agreement, communities around the world are carrying on their work to combat plastic pollution, often using legal means against harmful industrial facilities, incineration and waste colonialism. NGOs, local authorities and small businesses are simultaneously creating strong national and local regulations and focusing on zero-waste solutions such as reuse and refill systems.

“We, at WECF, find it bitterly disappointing that the international community was unable to agree on a strong plastics agreement that would truly protect people and the environment from plastic pollution. Nevertheless, it is better to have no agreement at all than a weak one, that follows the demands of the oil industry and ignores important aspects. We call on the international community to continue to work towards an agreement that focuses on key issues such as reducing production, regulating chemicals of concern, protecting health and human rights, global binding action plans, gender aspects, and stable financing for the implementation of the agreement, in a transparent process. This includes the application of the polluter pays principle.  It is regrettable that this further delay will not put a stop to the plastic crisis. The environment and people, especially indigenous groups, women and children, will continue to suffer most from the effects of the plastic crisis.”

– Sascha Gabizon, International Director, WECF

Contact

For WECF: Johanna Hausmann, Chemical Policy Expert, johanna.hausmann@wecf-consultant.org, Tel 0173/8010040

Women Engage for a Common Future, WECF, is an eco-feminist network with 250 partner organisations in 70 countries, based in Munich, Germany. WECF is one of the few German NGOs participating in the plastic negotiations.

WECF is a member of Exit Plastik and BreakFreeFromPlastic.