The long-awaited INC 5.2 session in Geneva was meant to bring the world closer to a legally binding global plastics treaty after the five previous rounds failed to secure an agreement. However, the meeting ended once again in a stalemate. Rather than breaking new ground, the Geneva talks replayed the same dynamics that paralysed INC 5.1 in Busan.

For participants, the sense of déjà vu was inevitable. “Almost immediately, we saw brackets piling up in the text day after day, with no consolidated draft moving forward,” says Thais Vojvodic, director of partnerships at Common Seas, an environmental protection organisation. For the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), a formal group of over 70 countries, and the even larger Stand Up for Ambition group that emerged in Busan, falling short once again was deeply frustrating. They came seeking a comprehensive treaty that capped plastic production and addressed the full life cycle of plastics, a conclusion consistently supported by science. But across the table, the Like-Minded Group of Countries, led by major oil and gas producers, refused to budge even when compromises were made. “The high-ambition countries tried to engage with the other side’s demands while still meeting the minimum standards for a functional treaty, but the like-minded countries weren’t interested,” says David Azoulay, managing attorney at the Geneva office of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).

Attempts to reach a last-minute compromise in Geneva were ineffective. “Late in the negotiations, the chair tried presenting a text that met the demands of the like-minded countries, and they didn’t even accept that,” says Mr Azoulay. But the other side opposed this weakened draft too. It leaned heavily on voluntary national actions and did not include any measures to tackle plastic production, which was a non-starter for the HAC and their more than 30 allies supporting binding commitments across the plastics lifecycle. To some participants, this demonstrated a promising resolve. “In other negotiations, watered-down texts have often been rushed through at the final hour, when delegates are tired and eager to finish,” says Ms Vojdovic. “That didn’t happen here. Countries advocating for an ambitious treaty held the line and refused to accept a weak agreement.”

With science on their side, the ambitious countries refused to back down. They are determined to frame plastics as not merely as a waste management issue but a systemic threat across their life cycle. “The agreement that was on the table was not in alignment with science and evidence,” says Bethanie Carney Almroth, who is a professor of ecotoxicology and zoophysiology at the University of Gothenburg and co-lead of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, which provided an essential scientific voice for the talks. “There are more papers being published and more data becoming available on the impacts of plastics at every stage; that’s why so many countries rejected a weak version of the treaty that excluded upstream measures.” The human health dimension, too, was increasingly recognised, as research increasingly links plastic exposure to disease and premature death, particularly among vulnerable populations. “This issue is gaining traction, and I heard more countries discussing it in Switzerland than ever before,” says Professor Carney Almroth. Over 120 countries supported adding a standalone article on human health to the treaty text.

The Scientific Coalition has been pivotal in pushing for a full life-cycle approach, highlighting both environmental and human health impacts. Yet the disconnect between evidence and politics remains glaring: the stronger the science, the weaker the text that emerges from negotiations. The broader scientific and civil society context underscores this asymmetry. Even as more evidence emerges, government funding is shifting away from sustainability and development priorities, leaving scientists from the US to Sweden struggling. “The same problems that existed in Busan are still present, but the geopolitical situation has only become more difficult,” says Professor Carney Almroth. “From a scientific perspective, we’ve seen major shifts in national funding initiatives, and cuts to development aid have had a huge impact.”

One option is to abandon the INC process and embed plastics governance into other existing instruments, such as a protocol under the Basel Convention governing hazardous waste or other climate frameworks. But this is far from an ideal route, as the very reason the INC was launched was the inadequacy of existing mechanisms.

But if a treaty through the INC process is to be achieved, the process will need substantial change. The reliance on de facto consensus for INC votes has given obstructionist countries a disproportionate role. “The consensus rule creates zero incentives to build bridges; the other side has the power to stop anything from moving forward, and they don’t have to engage in good faith,” says Mr Azoulay at CIEL.

Therefore, one of the most promising reforms is to abandon consensus in favor of voting. The HAC discussed allowing decisions to be made by a two-thirds majority when consensus cannot be reached, which is in accordance with the INC’s provisional rules of procedure but currently only treated as a last resort. With more than 100 nations already aligned on binding global bans and phaseouts on harmful products and chemicals, moving to a voting procedure could allow meaningful provisions to pass. “Changing this is necessary for anything to emerge from the INC process,” says Mr Azoulay. A shift to voting would not guarantee immediate breakthroughs, but it would change the dynamics. A handful of obstructionist states would no longer be permitted to hold the process hostage, and would be forced to negotiate in good faith. But countries will need to push harder, emphasising that it is time to take extreme measures, to make it happen.

Another possibility is a “treaty of the willing” outside of the UN altogether, excluding the like-minded countries. This approach has precedent. The 1997 Ottawa Treaty banning landmines was negotiated outside of the existing UN conference on landmines after a similar deadlock occurred. Despite the absence of major powers like the US, China and Russia, landmine casualties were reduced by 95% in under two decades after the treaty was ratified by an initial 40 states. Applied to plastics, a “treaty of the willing” would likely begin with around 120 supportive countries. Although it would exclude some of the world’s largest producers, it would still encompass the majority of consumer markets. “Those 120 countries represent major markets, so their actions would ultimately reshape the plastics economy, even without full UN backing,” says Ms Vojdovic at Common Seas.

Market dynamics could support this approach. Companies producing for global supply chains would need to comply with ambitious standards in key markets, and some producers might be willing to align. For the first time, China signaled in Geneva a willingness to discuss chemicals and even limited production issues, marking a divergence from the petro-states. “This represents the first time China has opened up the scope of the treaty to include elements of production,” says Mr Azoulay at CIEL. “It shows their interests are not identical to those of the oil and gas producers. That’s an interesting opening for the future.”

A “consumers’ treaty” could create real momentum, even if incomplete. Over time, it could draw in powers like China, reshaping the global plastics economy from the outside in. In some cases, regulation may follow rather than lead, with market innovation setting new standards first. While a treaty is essential for global alignment, it is not a silver bullet. “No issue in the world has ever been solved only by a treaty,” warns Mr Azoulay.

The Geneva meeting was widely seen as rudderless. “We saw a ship with a general direction but no clear sense of how to get there,” recalls Mr Azoulay. Many countries left disappointed, voicing regret but also insisting on the need for a reset.

Despite the frustration, there is reason for cautious optimism in the fact that the HAC held firm, refusing to settle for a weak text. Science and public health evidence are gaining traction in the minds of delegates. The leadership of Small Island Developing States has also been inspiring. Facing disproportionate impacts due to plastics washing ashore and threatening their economies, they bring urgency and moral authority to the talks. “Despite often having extremely small delegations—St Lucia had only one delegate managing multiple contact groups at once—they made the most of their presence,” says Ms Vojdovic. Ongoing negotiations place heavy logistical and financial burdens on lower-income countries, both as delegates and hosts, only underscoring the need to achieve a resolution soon.

What unites all scenarios is the recognition that plastics cannot be managed without global rules. The question is not whether a treaty is needed, but if the high-ambition countries will change course in time. As science accelerates and markets evolve, the window for further action is closing, a fact that many at INC 5.2 recognised. “We are seeing encouraging things, because at least countries are not walking blindly towards the cliff,” says Mr Azoulay at CIEL. “They understand that something has to change. Will they have the courage to change it? We’ll see.”