Partnerblog
Since 2022, UN member states have been working toward a global treaty to tackle the growing problem of plastic pollution, following the adoption of a resolution at the United Nations Environmental Assembly (UNEA). From 5 to 15 August, delegates met in Geneva for the sixth round of negotiations, hoping to adopt a final treaty text. However, no agreement was reached.
The 2022 UNEA resolution emphasized the need for a comprehensive treaty covering the entire life cycle of plastics. Such an approach would not only address plastic waste but also tackle production and consumption, including design requirements, the use of chemical additives, and the phase out of single-use plastic products.
In Geneva, delegates tried to resolve three major points of contention that had stalled progress in earlier rounds.
1. Where the life cycle begins
The first debate concerned whether the treaty should also cover the production phase of plastics. Many delegations supported binding provisions to limit plastic (or “polymers”) production, which would require member states to impose restrictions on their domestic petrochemical industries.
2. Which stages of the life cycle to prioritize
The second issue was whether the treaty should place greater emphasis on certain phases of the plastic value chain. Measures can be categorized as upstream (production, design, and use – for example limiting microplastics) or downstream (waste management – for example, separate collection systems and stronger national recycling infrastructure).
3. Binding obligations vs. voluntary commitments
The third debate revolved around the level of legal obligation. A top-down model, similar to the 1987 Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances, would set binding reduction targets for all member states. A bottom-up model, similar to the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, would allow countries to set their own voluntary commitments based on national capacity.
No breakthrough was achieved in Geneva. The Chair of the negotiating committee presented a compromise, but too many Member States considered the text too unbalanced for a final adoption.
The European Union and its Member States strongly supported an ambitious treaty with binding limits on plastic production. Oil-producing countries and countries such as China and India opposed this, arguing the treaty should focus only on the waste phase.
From the EU perspective, the deadlock is particularly disappointing, given its recent legislation to regulate plastics, especially in the recycling phase. For instance, the European Packaging Regulation 2025/40 of 19 December 2024 requires plastic packaging to include a minimum content of recycled material from plastic waste. The Waste Shipment Regulation 2024/1157 of 14 April 2024 will ban the export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries for recycling purposes. The European Commission is also exploring end-of-waste criteria for plastic waste.
This recent European legislation will significantly impact EU import and export of plastic and plastic waste. For example, imported plastic waste will need to meet strict standards before it counts as recycled material under the Packaging Regulation. Meanwhile, exports to non-OECD countries will be prohibited unless those countries can demonstrate environmentally sound waste management of plastic waste and sufficiently robust legal frameworks. An international treaty against plastic pollution and its subsequent implementation, for example in relation to the adoption of standards for sustainable recycling processes, could therefore have really added value considering this recent EU legislation.
Whether UNEA will convene a seventh negotiation session remains uncertain. More likely, countries pushing for an ambitious treaty in scope and obligations may move forward outside the UNEA framework. To be continued!
Authors
Pieter-Jan Tuts, Kathleen De hornois
