In August 2025, the ten-day INC-5.2 negotiations on the Global Plastics Treaty concluded in Geneva. As a continuation of the 5th Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, this meeting aimed to negotiate a legally binding international instrument on plastic pollution. Over 2,600 delegates from 183 member states and more than 400 observer organizations attended. However, consensus was not reached as expected. Despite this, calls from governments, academia, environmental organizations, and industry have grown increasingly urgent: the world needs a robust global plastics treaty.
INC-5.2 ultimately failed to reach a global agreement. This results from a complex interplay of structural contradictions and divergent interests. Key reasons include:
Over 100 countries advocate for a full lifecycle management of plastics within the treaty, including limits on virgin plastic production to curb pollution at its source. However, some nations that heavily rely on the petroleum and petrochemical industries oppose such limits, citing potential harm to economic interests. This is one of the most difficult fundamental differences to reconcile in the negotiations.
Disagreements primarily center on the developed and developing countries. Developing nations argue that even if they accept plastic restrictions, they require stable financial, technological, and institutional support to bear the costs of industrial transformation and pollution remediation. Some developing countries advocate for developed nations to establish an independent fund and provide regular financing based on historical responsibility for plastic pollution. Developed countries, however, favor support through voluntary contributions, the Global Environment Facility, or private sector financing. Furthermore, there is also controversy over which countries are eligible for aid.
Parties remain divided over the procedure for adopting the final treaty: maintain a consensus mechanism, or introduce majority voting? Supporters of consensus fear that majority voting could undermine national sovereignty, while advocates of majority voting argue that consensus allows a minority of countries to block ambitious provisions. These procedural disagreements further impede progress on substantive negotiations.
Some reports indicate that during negotiations, stakeholders from the chemical, petrochemical, and plastics industries were highly engaged and strongly opposed provisions such as plastic production cuts and chemical regulation. Some nations, whose economic structures rely on these industrial chains, tend to maintain the status quo. Meanwhile, civil society, the scientific community, and communities affected by pollution lacked commensurate representation. This made it difficult to resolve the tension between environmental demands and industrial interests.
Although the INC-5.2 negotiations failed to produce a complete treaty draft as scheduled, this does not mean global efforts to govern plastic pollution have stalled. In fact, the differences revealed during the negotiations not only underscore the complexity of the issue but also further highlight the importance of advancing a high-standard convention.
“Failing to reach the goal we set for ourselves may bring sadness, even frustration. Yet it should not lead to discouragement. On the contrary, it should spur us to regain our energy, renew our commitments, and unite our aspirations.” “It has not happened yet in Geneva, but I have no doubt that the day will come when the international community will unite its will and join hands to protect our environment and safeguard the health of our people.”
“This outcome is deeply disappointing given the urgency of the crisis. However, it is reassuring that countries did not settle for a weak, watered-down treaty.”
“The outcome of INC-5.2 is a missed opportunity and a setback for all of us pushing for progress on tackling plastic pollution. Without binding global rules, we will continue to fall short of the pace and scale of action needed. We do though see signs of progress: these negotiations have brought us closer to consensus than ever before, with a majority of governments, businesses, and civil society now aligned on the need for a full lifecycle approach. That common ground is a platform to build on, but what’s needed now is courage to turn alignment into action.”
Despite setbacks in INC 5.2, the urgency of global plastic governance remains undiminished. Plastic production and waste are still growing far faster than recycling capacity, and are projected to triple by 2050 if left unregulated. Microplastics, single-use plastics, and non-degradable mixed plastics persistently threaten ecosystems and public health. A legally binding treaty could provide:
The treaty can establish international consensus at all stages of production, consumption, and recycling. This prevents fragmented national standards and makes cross-border trade and circular utilization more efficient and feasible.
By restricting virgin plastic production, chemical additive use, and high-risk plastic products, it encourages industrial upgrading and alternative material innovation to reduce plastic pollution at its source.
For resource recovery industries, the treaty means clear policy direction and market signals. This drives technological innovation, industrial upgrading, and the establishment of plastic recycling systems, fostering sustainable economic models.
A strong treaty can help developing countries build recycling and management systems through mechanisms such as technology transfer and financing. This advances fairer and more shared global governance.
As a leading force in resource recovery and plastic pyrolysis solutions, Beston Group believes the setback at INC-5.2 does not signify failure, but rather a phased adjustment following the exposure of plastic pollution management’s complexity. It serves as a reminder globally that more investment, more collaboration, and more advanced technological solutions are needed to end plastic pollution. We are confident that regardless of when the plastic treaty is finalized, the trend is clear: the importance and strategic value of the recycling sector are on the rise. Beston Group will follow the negotiation progress continuously and contribute to the circular economy through pyrolysis technology innovation and demonstration projects.