Bad Treaties, Bad Futures: Why the Failed Plastic Treaty Talks Might Be a Temporary Win

“Some causes are so noble that failing while trying is a win in itself.”

Late on Thursday, 14 August 2025, at 23:30, the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) convened a plenary meeting. It was quickly adjourned and rescheduled for early the next morning, 15 August, at 05:30. When talks resumed, many delegates and observers were absent, but the room was full, and the negotiating deadlock remained. No treaty was adopted

Why the talks failed

Delegations came with differing priorities and expectations. Majority advocated for a treaty with binding measures covering the entire life cycle of plastics, in line with Resolution 5/14 of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEP_EA.5_RES.14-EN). Others preferred a more limited scope or a gradual approach. Stakeholders from across sectors, including the petrochemical industry, were active during the talks, reflecting the broad range of interests affected by such an agreement.

Some countries, such as Panama, Colombia and members of the European Union, indicated strongly that they could not support a text they felt did not meet the minimum requirements. Others stressed the need for flexibility and consensus to secure a final Agreement

Why failure might be better than a bad treaty

It’s tempting to see this as a defeat. But in the world of international agreements, a weak treaty can be worse than no treaty at all.

International treaty-making history shows that once an agreement is adopted, it often becomes a reference point for future negotiations and can influence how existing obligations are interpreted. This can be positive if the treaty is strong. But a weak agreement risks locking in low ambition for years.

For an issue as far-reaching as plastic pollution, it would be better to take more time than to adopt a framework that might not deliver the desired impact.

The temporary win

While the lack of agreement means the INC’s work continues, it has also maintained momentum on the issue. The differences in approach are now clearer, providing a basis for targeted discussions moving forward.

-Supporters of a more ambitious treaty still have the opportunity to advocate for stronger measures in the next negotiation round.

-Countries can implement or strengthen national and regional policies without waiting for a global text.

“Failing forward is still forward.” — George Randall