Once again, we left the negotiations without a global plastic treaty.
Beneath this blank sheet lies a messy script. I’d heard of friends who stayed up overnight at the conference venue, waiting and waiting for an update on the plenary timing. I’d seen people sleeping on the grass outside the assembly hall. I’d heard of delegates falling asleep during the plenaries because they’d been up negotiating until 4am. But despite the sacrifices made, we all watched the treaty fall to pieces once again.
A thousand emotions have since been churning inside my head. I feel terrible for the Chair, who must feel like they will never be able to make anyone happy. I feel upset at the countries that prioritised selfish material interests ahead of justice, science, logic, and their obligations to future generations. I feel horribly defeated, just like I did last year when Singapore cheerfully announced the opening of a new plastic manufacturing plant just one week before the next round of treaty talks, Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee 5.1 (INC-5.1).
There is so much at stake. So many people and our planet’s health on the line. And yet there’s been no progress. And whose fault is it? That of a few, or of everyone? Have treaty negotiations stalled forever? What if INC-5.3 becomes a repetition of INC-5.2?
I’ve been trying to piece bits of the jigsaw puzzle together, and figure out what went wrong.
On one hand, I’m not comfortable with language that blames, finger-points, or perpetuates stereotypes about particular states. On the other, opacity in the negotiations is precisely what allows member states to keep blocking the treaty.
When states are still bringing up the same arguments they raised at INC-2, or are re-opening questions that have already been resolved, I think we can all agree: the INC process is broken.
So, what do we need to to do to break the treaty deadlock?
1. Reject global consensus
“Stop hiding behind consensus”. This was a repeated call from civil society and rights holders at INC. The debate over how to forge a treaty has been hanging ominously over almost every INC like a storm cloud. Yet without this cloud’s passing, procedural uncertainty will forever plague the negotiations.
At the last few INCs, it has been heartening to witness record levels of support for ambitious proposals on human rights, chemicals of concern, plastic products, production caps, and more. At the United Nations Ocean Conference in June, 95 countries supported the Nice Call for an Ambitious Treaty on Plastic Pollution – a declaration which called for a stronger Plastics Treaty that covers the full lifecycle of plastics including production and consumption, and contains legally binding obligations to phase out problematic plastics and chemicals of concern in plastic products.
By the second day of INC-5.2, an unprecedented 130 countries expressed support for the Switzerland/Mexico proposal on global control measures for plastic products. Such global unity for a strong treaty is hard-won and impressive – yet progress remains blocked by a minority of countries, as we were unable to reach a consensus.
Throughout INC we have seen a steady weakening of what should be considered the bare minimum of the treaty. We have seen a watering down of text to one that no longer fulfills the original UNEA 5/14 mandate.
The craziest thing is that it is just a small group of countries that will resolutely disagree to anything that will be effective in curbing plastic pollution.
It makes no sense that we should have a singular party blocking the interests of the majority, particularly when the very formation of an environmental treaty is built upon the notion that we are here to serve shared common interests not private narrow ones.
A Senegalese representative put it perfectly: “Let me tell you what I think consensus is. Consensus in fact kills democracy, it imposes unanimity. If only one or two countries are not in agreement, then the entire thing comes to a grinding halt. Under such circumstances, how can we make progress?”
History has repeatedly warned us that consensus kills effective rulemaking. No government around the world, no matter how democratic, can practice a system of true consensus, so why do we now expect international rulemaking bodies to do so?
2. Allow observer intervention
Beyond process, how can we ensure that the negotiations can reach a meaningful and substantive conclusion?
I heard one delegate say, in resignation: “We are discussing the same things as we did at INC-2.”
I heard another lament: “We are re-opening debates that we’d already settled in INC-1.”
These frustrations encapsulate the difficulty of trying to create spaces that are both inclusive and effective.
I met another youth who had conversed with a delegate from her home country, a state that is well-known for blocking progressive proposals. The delegate, who was also an economist, had shared that the position she had to carry was counter to the science – and yet she had to continue pushing it aggressively in the negotiations, all for the sake of her job in bearing her country’s position.
This single anecdote conveys a sombre reality: what countries perceive as their national interests can also be contrary to science, human rights, and justice. With this context, how can we realistically expect to negotiate an effective treaty?
Stuck in this quagmire, I believe the solution lies in allowing observer interventions.
Some delegations may be opposed to this, especially those already hostile to civil society. But while presently disallowed in the plastics treaty negotiations, this recommendation is hardly radical; it has been allowed in other multilateral agreements such as the Stockholm Convention.
Since it is not realistic to expect country delegates to always carry a position aligned with science, allowing room for observer intervention helps to boost the volume of independent voices in the room.
Observers may come from non-governmental organisations representing communities not in the negotiating room, such as wastepickers, fenceline and frontline communities, Indigenous peoples and youth. By elevating the voices of these communities most impacted by the treaty, and by distinguishing which policies are effective from those that are not based on ground experience, observers offer a crucial on-ground perspective that helps define what makes the treaty effective.
Observers would also include academics and experts, such as The Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. Amplifying their inputs will contribute to ongoing efforts to make a science-based Treaty rooted in data, not politicking.
The solutions are in front of us
We are so close to the finishing line. Yet everytime we outstretch our hands to touch it, the ground beneath our feet shifts.
But before we conclude that training for the marathon was a waste of time, money and resources, I have discovered gemstones on the running track. They are so small; you would miss them if you blink.
I remind myself again and again that we already have a record number of countries calling for a strong plastics treaty, and the core messages of the Plastics Treaty: cap plastic production, global control measures on chemicals – are all now stronger than ever.
My recommendations – voting and observer interventions – are not new; these have been the bedrock of other effective multilateral agreements. So let us pick up our running pace again. Let us grasp the solutions in front of us and push for a treaty that tackles the full lifecycle of plastics, from production to end of life.
Terese Teoh is the president of youth environmental group Singapore Youth for Climate Action (SYCA), where she co-leads the Plastics Treaty Working Group. She has tracked the Plastics Treaty since the beginning of 2024 and attended INC-5.2 in Geneva. Teoh is also a juris doctor law student at Singapore Management University. She has written this piece on behalf of the SMU Environmental and Sustainability Law Club.
