Agnès Pannier Runacher, the French minister for Ecological Transition, urged on Wednesday that the proposed treaty text be rebalanced to better address the global plastics pollution challenge, as negotiations for the world’s first binding treaty on plastic pollution collapsed in Geneva just hours before the scheduled deadline. After nearly three years of talks and nine days of intense discussions by Lake Geneva, the chair announced a synthesis text consisting of 31 articles along with a consultative process designed to bridge very divergent positions. Instead of delivering momentum, the draft provoked anger or deep dissatisfaction among most delegates who did not accept it as a negotiating baseline. Colombia pressed for an ambitious text to curb plastic pollution and deemed the document unacceptable, calling for a new text. Chile, Mexico, Panama, Canada, and the European Union—including France—joined Colombia in signaling disapproval, as did several small Pacific Island nations.
Background: The Geneva talks, the synthesis text, and the collapse of consensus
For nearly three years, a wide array of governments, non-governmental organizations, and industry players engaged in negotiations aimed at concluding a global treaty to combat plastic pollution. The process was framed around ambitious objectives: to curb the production and use of virgin plastics, restrict problematic chemical additives, and foster a transnational cooperation framework capable of addressing pollution that transcends borders. The Geneva conference, planned to run for a fixed horizon, entered its final stretch with a last-ditch attempt to salvage progress through a synthesized text that would serve as the foundation for future negotiations. The chair presided over an approach that combined a draft text of 31 articles with a structured consultation mechanism intended to draw input from all stakeholders and create a viable path to consensus.
However, the reception to this synthesis was markedly negative. Delegates from a broad spectrum of countries argued that the document did not reflect their red lines, strategic priorities, or the realities of national capacities. In particular, major Latin American delegations led by Colombia described the draft as insufficiently ambitious and inadequately balanced. They contended that the text leaned too heavily toward national-level measures, with too little emphasis on binding international obligations or concrete mechanisms for cross-border cooperation—elements many parties view as essential for meaningful progress against plastic pollution on a global scale.
The delegation from Chile provided a pointed assessment, calling the text clearly unbalanced because it relegated crucial actions to the national realm and failed to carve out a space for international collaboration. They argued that without robust international cooperation provisions, the treaty would not create the necessary leverage to confront the transboundary nature of plastic pollution, including the movement of plastics through trade, supply chains, and waste management infrastructures that differ dramatically across regions. Other voices, including representatives from Mexico, Panama, Canada, and the European Union, echoed similar concerns, underscoring the need for stronger guarantees and a more credible framework that could mobilize global action beyond national commitments.
The Danish Environment Minister, Magnus Heunicke, who was presiding on behalf of the European Union, emphasized that the draft did not meet the urgency of the pollution crisis. He recalled the commitment made in 2022—to deliver a treaty that would eliminate plastic pollution and reduce reliance on chemical additives in plastics that threaten ecosystems and human health—and argued that the proposed text did not live up to that promise. Heunicke noted that achieving a compromise would necessarily require concessions from all sides, a process that could be arduous but is essential if a meaningful agreement is to emerge.
The Panamanian negotiator captured the mood of many delegates when he remarked that the text represented not ambition but capitulation. He argued that the draft’s existing balance and content risked closing off avenues for necessary progress and insisted that it did not reflect the level of ambition that the crisis demands. The sense of frustration extended to delegates from other countries as well, who warned that the proposed framework did not deliver the governance architecture needed to propel global action.
Beyond the country-specific critiques, there were pointed concerns about the absence of binding global obligations. Kenya’s representative highlighted this gap, stating that without universal, enforceable commitments on core issues—such as production limits, environmental safeguards, and accountability mechanisms—the treaty would lack demonstrable value and credibility. In this vein, environmental NGOs joined the chorus of discontent, arguing that the text failed to address the structural dimensions of plastics production and pollution, including the production of virgin plastic and the absence of binding constraints on industrial processes.
The draft also drew sharp criticism from environmental advocacy groups. Greenpeace described the proposal as a “gift to the petrochemical industry and a betrayal of humanity,” signaling wide disapproval from civil society that sees the text as insufficient to curb pollution or safeguard health and ecosystems. The concerns were not limited to non-governmental actors; some of the largest oil-producing countries and regions, traditionally wary of other environmental constraints, signaled dissatisfaction as well. Their criticisms largely centered on what they perceived as a missing framework and scope that would force real changes across the sector and impose enforceable rules across industries and jurisdictions.
China’s position reflected a nuanced approach: the country, as the world’s largest plastics producer, urged the president to focus on the most pressing issues in the remaining hours of negotiations rather than broadening divergences further. The call to concentrate on the core issues suggested a preference for a more targeted, perhaps shorter, set of provisions that could still anchor a credible outcome, should an agreement be possible. In parallel, negotiators from a spectrum of petrochemical-intensive economies felt that without a solid framework, the agreement would struggle to attract broader buy-in and effective implementation across diverse regulatory environments.
In parallel to the substantive debates, there were procedural questions about how to move forward. The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) issued a cautious statement, stopping short of endorsing or opposing the draft text outright. The ICCA warned against a reflexive push for an outright rejection of the text at the very end of the conference, noting that exiting Geneva without any agreement would deprive the world of the best chance it has ever had to address plastic pollution at a global scale. The ICCA’s position underscored the delicate balance many stakeholders sought between a comprehensive, ambitious framework and a pragmatic, achievable agreement that could be implemented across international borders.
As negotiations faltered, the sense of an unfinished business persisted. The synthesis text was seen as a potential foundation for future work, but the failure to secure broad acceptability signaled the likelihood of renewed rounds of negotiation. The unresolved tensions reflected the broader challenge of achieving a global agreement on a topic as complex and as broadly consequential as plastic pollution, where technical feasibility, economic interests, development priorities, and environmental protections often clash in ways that complicate consensus.
Reactions from major delegations: Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Panama, Canada, and the EU (including France)
In the wake of the synthesis proposal, several major delegations articulated their positions with a mixture of firmness and caution. Colombia’s delegation framed the draft as a non-viable path forward, insisting that any effective treaty must be ambitious enough to drive systemic change and climate-friendly, chemically safer practices across the plastics value chain. They argued that a robust text would create measurable obligations and accountability mechanisms that would translate into real reductions in pollution and healthier environments, especially in vulnerable communities most affected by plastic waste mismanagement.
Chile’s environment ministry, representing a key Latin American voice, described the draft as “clearly unbalanced,” asserting that the text’s emphasis on national measures fails to offer a sufficient platform for international cooperation. Chile’s stance underscored a broader regional concern: without binding transnational commitments and a credible, shared governance framework, the treaty would be unlikely to nudge major producers and consumers toward the systemic changes needed to curb pollution at the scale demanded by the crisis. The Chilean delegation insisted that the text must recalibrate to ensure a balanced mix of national responsibilities and international collaboration that could produce uniform standards and shared targets.
Mexico and Panama joined Chile in criticizing the text’s balance and scope. Both countries highlighted the need for a governance architecture that cannot be achieved through fragmented, country-by-country actions alone. They argued that a meaningful treaty would require clear, enforceable international obligations, a credible monitoring and reporting regime, and robust mechanisms to address cross-border pollution flows. Canada, another key player with significant stakeholder influence, aligned with those concerns and urged that any future draft should be anchored by enforceable commitments and transparent accountability.
The European Union, including France, signaled solidarity with Colombia and the Latin American delegations in pressing for a more ambitious instrument. The EU delegates argued that the proposal must do more to move beyond aspirational language and establish a pragmatic framework with binding obligations, timelines, and measurable outcomes. They called for stronger cooperation provisions that could leverage financial, technical, and regulatory support across borders, particularly for developing nations facing capacity constraints in waste management and pollution prevention.
France, within the EU cadre, voiced explicit support for a rebalanced text that would take into account all main points of the dossier. The French representative underscored the need for a ten-page document that could comprehensively address the major issues while remaining adoptable by all parties. The emphasis on “adoptability” highlighted a strategic consideration: a treaty that is excessively ambitious but politically unpalatable is unlikely to be implemented or even ratified by a broad coalition of states. France’s position also indirectly reflected its domestic stance as a country aiming to demonstrate leadership on environmental diplomacy, including the fight against plastic pollution, while balancing industrial and economic considerations.
The denouement of these reactions was a shared concern that the draft did not provide a credible pathway to universal compliance or enforced action, particularly on the critical questions surrounding the elimination or restriction of hazardous chemicals within plastics, reductions in virgin plastic production, and the creation of a truly cooperative, international framework that would permit both supply-side and demand-side interventions.
Denmark’s environment ministry, in collaboration with other EU members, argued that while the draft text presented a starting point, it did not reflect the urgency of the problem. He stressed that the promised end-state—a treaty capable of eliminating plastic pollution and reducing chemical usage in plastics—had not been realized in the proposed text. The willingness to acknowledge the need for compromise was tempered by a clear insistence that the text must be capable of mobilizing broad international buy-in and actual implementations on the ground.
Beyond the Union and the major economies, several smaller states and alliances echoed the sentiment that a more robust and balanced document was essential. The Pacific island nations, often the most vulnerable to climate and pollution threats, added their voices to the chorus calling for stronger international cooperation and binding commitments that would ensure support structures for adaptation and resilience in the most exposed communities. In this chorus of concerns, a consistent thread emerged: the need for a governance mechanism that would tie together national actions with international obligations in a way that is enforceable, transparent, and capable of delivering measurable progress.
The environmental NGOs, industry stakeholders, and the world’s oil producers: a spectrum of critical voices
While governments deliberated the text, environmental organizations and industry representatives offered a wide spectrum of critiques, reflecting the multifaceted character of plastics governance. Greenpeace, one of the most vocal environmental NGOs, issued a strongly critical assessment of the proposed framework, characterizing the text as a “betrayal” that would not deliver the necessary controls on plastic production, pollution, or chemical usage. The NGO community asserted that the document failed to impose binding restrictions on virgin plastic production, an omission that, in their view, makes it difficult to curb the availability of plastics that contribute to pollution across ecosystems and communities. The frustration among environmental groups was palpable, signaling that civil society would continue to push for stronger, more enforceable measures in subsequent negotiating rounds.
From the perspective of the oil and petrochemical sector, reactions were mixed but notable for their insistence on a clear framework and defined scope. Energy- and hydrocarbon-producing countries and their industry lobbies argued that any agreement lacking a precise framework would be impractical to implement and vulnerable to legal and regulatory challenges. They voiced concerns about potential overreach or the inclusion of prohibitive measures that could distort global markets without delivering commensurate environmental benefits. Countries such as those in the Gulf region, along with other major oil exporters, stressed that the absence of a defined scope and a robust governance mechanism would undermine the treaty’s enforceability and legitimacy. They advocated for a more precise set of responsibilities and a clear delineation of the areas within which international cooperation would operate.
China’s stance, while not aligning perfectly with any single bloc, captured the delicate balance between economic considerations and environmental objectives. The Chinese delegation urged negotiators to focus on the core issues that would drive the most meaningful improvements in global pollution levels while avoiding an escalation of divergences that could derail the process. This approach suggested a preference for targeted provisions that could yield practical results in the near term, potentially enabling a future agreement to expand its scope gradually as trust and capacity grow among states.
The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) offered a measured critique and a warning about the consequences of rejection of the draft. While not calling for an immediate endorsement, ICCA cautioned against a rush to dismiss the text, arguing that walking away from Geneva without any agreement would represent a lost opportunity to confront plastic pollution on a truly global scale. The ICCA’s position reflected the tension between industry concerns about the practicality and boundaries of regulation and civil society demands for stronger action and accountability.
The net effect of these diverse responses was a stark demonstration of the difficulty of reconciling diverse national interests, developmental imperatives, and environmental responsibilities within a single binding instrument. The negotiations thus faced a critical crossroads: either a path would be found to reconcile these divergent positions into a coherent framework, or the process would stall, undermining confidence that a global solution to plastic pollution could be achieved through treaty-level governance alone.
The French call for rebalancing and the question of ambition versus adoption
Against this backdrop, France’s minister of Ecological Transition, Agnès Pannier Runacher, articulated a clear call for rebalancing the treaty text. She asserted that the existing formulation needed adjustment to incorporate all major issues and to reflect the full scope of concerns expressed by participating states. Her emphasis on rebalancing signaled a strategic push to move away from a one-sided or overly national approach and toward a more integrated framework that could command wider support. She also acknowledged the political complexity of moving from consensus on principles to the adoption of a concrete text, noting that the final hurdle was not simply drafting a document but achieving its adoption—a process requiring careful alignment of interests, incentives, and commitments among a broad array of countries.
In communicating her perspective, Runacher suggested that it would be feasible to draft a document of around ten pages that would comprehensively cover the principal issues of the dossier. Her comment highlighted a pragmatic approach to advancing negotiations: distill the essential elements into a concise but comprehensive instrument that could gain the support of a critical mass of delegations. However, she also recognized the difficulty of obtaining broad agreement and emphasized that the most challenging phase would be securing buy-in and adoption by the negotiating parties. This candid assessment underscored the tension between ambition and feasibility, a central dynamic in treaty negotiations of this scale.
The French minister’s remarks also aligned with a broader sentiment among many delegations that the process needed to be rebalanced toward more actionable provisions and a clear path to adoption. The emphasis on a concise yet comprehensive approach was seen as an attempt to reduce the risk of reaching a stalemate by narrowing the scope of negotiation to a more manageable set of core issues while preserving enough breadth to address the critical dimensions of plastic pollution. In this light, Runacher’s statement can be read as a strategic invitation to recast the treaty effort in a way that would maintain momentum and maximize the potential for a tangible, worldwide impact on plastics governance.
Despite these calls for rebalancing, there remained a shared recognition that the path to adoption would be arduous. A plausible scenario was envisaged in which a shorter, more targeted draft might be negotiated, but it would still require broad political will, trust-building, and credible mechanisms for implementation and accountability. The tensions between the desire for ambitious, transformative change and the practicalities of achieving consensus among dozens of states with divergent capacities and interests would continue to shape the negotiations in the days—and perhaps years—ahead. In this sense, Runacher’s intervention encapsulated a crucial moment: a pivot toward a more balanced, pragmatic approach that could unlock the possibility of a future treaty, even if the immediate Geneva round did not produce a final instrument.
The International Council of Chemical Associations, while not issuing a hard stance on the content of the text, reiterated its caution about rejecting the draft too hastily. The ICCA’s message underscored a fundamental tension in environmental treaty-making: a perfect agreement is often less attainable than a viable agreement that can be implemented and strengthened over time. The organizations and governments who favored a more aggressive stance argued that the urgency of plastic pollution demands rapid, binding action, while others warned that hasty adoption of a flawed text could undermine credibility and create a fragile foundation for future improvements. It is this ongoing negotiation calculus—between ambition, practicality, and political feasibility—that will determine the next steps in the journey toward a global treaty.
The outlook: implications for global policy on plastic pollution, next steps, and possible pathways
What emerges from the Geneva episode is a clearer sense of the stakes and a refined understanding of what the negotiating parties need to achieve in order to reach a durable outcome. The central questions revolve around binding versus non-binding commitments, the role of international cooperation versus national autonomy, the scope of regulation across the plastics supply chain, and the mechanisms that would ensure compliance and accountability. A recurring theme is the need for a credible framework that can unify disparate national regimes, supply chains, and regulatory cultures into a coherent set of standards and expectations that can be implemented across borders.
One plausible path forward could involve a two-track approach that preserves momentum while allowing for iterative improvement. Track one might focus on a compact, high-impact instrument—perhaps a ten-page core treaty—that establishes essential elements: binding obligations on the production and use of virgin plastics, restrictions on certain additives known to be harmful to health or the environment, transparent reporting requirements for national inventories and emissions, and a centralized mechanism for monitoring, compliance, and dispute resolution. This core could then be complemented by a second track comprising a broader, optional framework that expands the treaty’s scope over time, including more detailed provisions on cross-border cooperation, technology transfer, capacity-building, financing for waste management, and actions addressing plastics throughout the value chain.
Another possible direction involves the adoption of sector-specific minimum standards and performance targets, coupled with an enforcement framework that includes periodic reviews and consequences for non-compliance. This would entail a pragmatic compromise: robust, enforceable obligations in the most critical areas, with phased milestones that countries can meet according to their capacities. The governance architecture could include a steering mechanism that coordinates international support for capacity building in lower-income regions, ensuring that every country can implement the treaty’s provisions through technical assistance, funding commitments, and knowledge-sharing platforms.
From a policy perspective, the treaty would need to address both supply-side and demand-side interventions. On the supply side, the agreement could promote circular economy principles, encourage the phasing out of problematic additives, and set standards for recycled and recyclable plastics. On the demand side, it could foster innovation in sustainable packaging, incentivize the reduction of unnecessary plastic use, and encourage consumer awareness campaigns that reduce reliance on single-use plastics. A balanced treaty would thus deliver concrete outcomes, while also offering a framework for ongoing governance and evolution as new scientific evidence emerges and as technological solutions advance.
Financing and implementation are crucial, as the most capable obligations mean little if countries lack the means to implement them. The negotiations would benefit from establishing dedicated funding streams, grants, and concessional loans to support waste management infrastructure, recycling capacity, and research into safer plastic alternatives. Technical support would be essential to help nascent economies meet new standards, adapt to evolving regulatory regimes in importing markets, and integrate international reporting requirements with existing national monitoring systems. The interplay between funding, capacity-building, and accountability would ultimately determine the treaty’s practical viability and longer-term credibility.
In terms of enforcement, credible mechanisms would be necessary to ensure that countries comply with core obligations. These could include independent verification processes, periodic progress reports, and transparent stakeholder oversight. Sanctions or corrective measures could be contemplated for persistent non-compliance, but such measures would need to be carefully calibrated to avoid undermining development objectives or triggering retaliatory dynamics in international trade. A governance structure that combines accountability with technical assistance could help to foster trust among participants and increase the likelihood of sustained, real-world impact.
The negotiations will also need to address the issue of global legitimacy. A treaty that is perceived as serving only the interests of a subset of industrialized economies risks becoming ineffective or unenforceable. To mitigate this risk, the drafting process should incorporate broad-based stakeholder engagement, transparent reporting, and inclusive decision-making that ensures the voices of developing countries, small island states, indigenous communities, and environmental organizations are meaningfully represented. Public participation, consistent with international norms, can contribute to a more robust, legitimate instrument that enjoys broad political support and durable implementation.
Finally, the political calendar remains fluid. If a consensus cannot be reached in Geneva within the originally intended window, negotiators may embark on a renewed cycle of sessions, potentially in a compressed form to capture the sense of urgency while allowing for recalibration of the text. In the intervening period, parties may pursue bilateral or regional agreements that address particular aspects of pollution reduction, data sharing, or waste management, thereby creating a de facto framework that could inform the design of a comprehensive global treaty in subsequent rounds. The path forward will require a combination of diplomatic finesse, technical clarity, and a shared recognition that plastics pollution constitutes a transboundary threat that demands collective action.
The role of the ICCA and the warning against premature rejection
The International Council of Chemical Associations, while refraining from pronouncing a definitive judgment on the specifics of the draft, issued a cautionary note to states facing the temptation to reject the agreement at this late stage. The ICCA’s message stressed that a premature withdrawal from Geneva without a final accord would deprive the international community of a rare opportunity to tackle plastic pollution on a global scale. The council underscored the value of preserving the possibility of a negotiated solution that could evolve and strengthen over time, rather than discarding the chance for even a preliminary instrument that could be built upon in future rounds of negotiations. The ICCA’s stance highlighted a pragmatic insistence on a path that maintains momentum and provides a credible framework to address the most urgent aspects of plastic pollution, with room for future improvement as both scientific understanding and technological capabilities advance.
The tension between a desire for a robust, ideal treaty and the political feasibility of adopting a more modest, implementable instrument was at the heart of the ICCA’s warning. The organization suggested that a functional agreement—one that begins to reduce pollution and steepen the curve toward safer plastics—could, in time, be enhanced and expanded to cover additional provisions. The sentiment reflected a common negotiation strategy: accept a baseline that can be implemented now, then negotiate enhancements in subsequent iterations rather than risking a collapse of the process by insisting on an unattainable, comprehensive ideal from the outset.
Conclusion
The Geneva round of negotiations on an international treaty to combat plastic pollution ended without a final agreement, highlighting the deep, structural differences among parties regarding the balance between national responsibilities and international obligations, the scope and enforcement of measures, and the urgency of adopting binding commitments that can deliver tangible reductions in pollution. France’s call for rebalancing, and Agnès Pannier Runacher’s emphasis on crafting a concise but comprehensive text that can be adopted, illustrate a pragmatic approach aimed at preserving momentum while ensuring the instrument can evolve to meet mounting scientific and environmental imperatives. The discussions underscored the critical need for a governance framework capable of bridging diverse regulatory cultures, capacities, and development trajectories, while delivering clear, measurable outcomes on plastic pollution, chemical usage in plastics, and the broader goal of safeguarding ecosystems and human health.
The coming weeks and months are likely to see renewed negotiations that would attempt to reconcile the demand for ambitious global action with the realities of political feasibility. The central question will be whether negotiators can converge on a core set of binding obligations—sufficiently robust to curb the most egregious practices and enable meaningful international cooperation—while preserving space for a staged, scalable, and inclusive approach that invites broad participation and sustained implementation. If successful, a future version of the treaty could establish a credible framework for reducing plastic pollution globally, promoting safer chemical practices in plastic production, and fostering international collaboration in waste management, recycling, and innovation. If not, the risk remains that the opportunity to address plastic pollution with binding, globally recognized standards dissolves, leaving a landscape in which progress continues to be piecemeal and uneven, and where the environmental and public health costs of plastic pollution continue to mount. In either case, the discussions have sharpened the understanding that the international community must confront plastics as a transboundary threat that requires coordinated, cooperative action, widely shared responsibility, and a commitment to a healthier, more sustainable future for people and the planet.