Why the global plastics talks collapsed — and what’s next
One significant sticking point: the refusal of plastic-producing nations, including the U.S., to agree to production limits. Read More
- Treaty negotiators sought to harmonize policies for recycling, chemical phaseouts and production.
- The possibility of future talks remains, but there is no date on the calendar.
- The only certainty: a growing patchwork of extended producer responsibility regulations.
Government negotiators failed to agree on a global treaty governing plastics after oil-producing countries balked at production limits and chemical phaseout timelines.
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that has shepherded the process through six meetings since March 2022 is promising to try again, but no date was set for future talks. First, it is up to the United Nations to identify a host country.
Given shifting geopolitics and the stalled progress on other major climate treaties — on emissions reductions, fossil fuels phaseouts and biodiversity preservation — the collapse surprised few.
“We are seeing all of these multilateral processes being stymied by the pinch point of overconsumption and production,” said Matthew Bell, climate change and sustainability services leader at consulting firm EY. “Everyone is willing to make efficiency gains, but when it comes to stopping industries in their tracks, there is pushback.”
No treaty means higher fees for brands
The failure to create a global treaty leaves businesses — both plastics producers and companies heavily dependent on the material — to face an emerging mosaic of national and subnational regulations aimed at addressing the life cycle of the more than 460 million tons of plastic produced annually.
The cumulative cost of the attendant fees is estimated to more than double between 2026 and 2040, surpassing $576 billion. That compares with approximately $279 billion under a global treaty, according to the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, convened by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and WWF.
“The downstream effects will be felt across the plastics value chain,” said James Kennedy, an analyst with research firm IDTechEx. “Brand owners will face a patchwork of requirements on packaging design, labeling and recyclability, complicating supply chains and increasing costs.”
“I’m extremely disappointed that countries couldn’t come together and at least get a framework that could be built upon in the future,” said H. Fisk Johnson, chairman and CEO of SC Johnson, the consumer products company behind cleanser and laundry brands including Fantastic, Shout and Windex.
SC Johnson sent a representative to observe the two-week negotiations as a member of the Business Coalition. With future talks uncertain, SC Johnson will continue to advocate for extended producer responsibility regulations that dictate how plastic producers handle the material at the end of life, Fisk Johnson said in a LinkedIn post.
Sticking point: production limits
The meeting in Geneva drew more than 2,600 participants, including more than 1,400 delegates from 183 countries and 1,000 observers. It was already an extension of the process made necessary when negotiators failed to agree on treaty text at another inconclusive gathering, in South Korea late last year.
The majority of the participating countries were in favor of, among other things, setting schedules for reducing the production of plastic made with petroleum and for phasing out chemicals with known negative health impacts. “It was heading in the right direction,” said Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business at WWF.
Toward the end of the process, though, these items were excluded from a treaty draft, surprising many participants. The clock ran out before negotiators could regroup, Simon said. “You want everyone to agree, but if there is no pressure to actually make a decision, this will continue to happen,” she said.
Plastic production limits and chemical phaseout timelines are opposed by industry groups and oil-producing nations that argue they are too complex and costly to implement. “The talks concluded without an agreement because the plastics treaty is fundamentally a fossil fuel treaty,” said Holly Kaufman, director of the Plastics & Climate Project. “There is a wide chasm between the petrostates and the countries who want to limit production of plastics — petrochemical products that are warming our planet, and poisoning people and the environment.”
Chemical and plastics industry producers would rather focus on managing waste than on decreasing what’s manufactured. An estimated 9 percent of plastic waste is currently recycled. The availability of recycled content for use in packaging and other applications will increase by 77 percent by 2040, according to the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty.
“America’s plastic makers remain committed to advancing a circular economy for plastics — designing products for reuse and recycling, collecting and sorting them at end of life and remaking them into new products,” said Chris Jahn, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council.
“Governments have been focused on the same core issues since this process began,” said Marco Mensink, council secretary of the International Council of Chemical Associations, which represents Global Partners for Plastics Circularity. “They must move past entrenched positions and work in a spirit of compromise to finalize an agreement that reflects shared priorities.”
With no date set for future United Nations-organized talks, some participants vowed to follow through with their own commitments and subnational agreements. “We are not backing down,” said Thais Carvajal with Allianza Basura Cero Ecuador. “The process and its challenges have made us stronger.”
Subscribe to Trellis Briefing
