As plastic pollution continues to escalate worldwide, negotiations toward a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty remain at a critical juncture. Talks under the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) failed to reach agreement in late 2025, prompting the resignation of the former chair. The talks will now enter a pivotal phase, with the INC reconvening in Geneva on 7 February 2026 to appoint new leadership.
Two new research contributions – a report for Nature by European sustainability scientists and a major UK report from the Global Plastics Policy Centre at the University of Portsmouth – reach the same conclusion: the treaty’s prospects now depend less on ambition and more on reforming how negotiations are structured and led.
Structural weaknesses slowing progress
In their paper published in Nature, researchers from the Research Institute for Sustainability (RIFS), the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research point to fundamental procedural shortcomings within the INC framework.
They argue that the committee’s broad mandate to address the “full life cycle of plastics” – spanning production, chemical inputs, product design, waste management and environmental leakage – has resulted in fragmented debate and delayed decision-making. Key questions, including whether the treaty should regulate plastic production volumes, chemicals of concern or health impacts, continue to be debated in parallel rather than in a clear sequence.
Lead author Paul Einhäupl of RIFS notes that while a life-cycle approach reflects the interconnected nature of environmental and societal challenges, it also increases complexity. Without stronger prioritisation and clearer procedural rules, he argues, the mandate risks becoming an obstacle to progress rather than a pathway to agreement.
The authors also highlight how separating discussions on production caps from financing waste management infrastructure has reinforced familiar geopolitical fault lines. As Melanie Bergmann of AWI observes, increased plastic production inevitably drives greater infrastructure demand, yet treating these issues in isolation has tended to entrench division rather than support compromise.
Human dynamics
Complementing this structural analysis, the UK report focuses on how negotiations have unfolded in practice. Drawing on three years of direct observation, attendance at every negotiating round, 56 in-depth interviews with participants and multiple post-meeting focus groups, the research documents the lived experience of treaty negotiations rather than their formal design.
The report finds that outcomes are shaped as much by trust, leadership and political space as by technical drafting. Researchers warn that accelerating legal text development before sufficient common ground is established can undermine, rather than advance, effective multilateral decision-making.
Dr Antaya March, director of the Global Plastics Policy Centre, argues that the process to date has not consistently created conditions for agreement or prevented low-ambition positions from blocking progress. Capacity constraints in smaller delegations, gruelling negotiation schedules, and the sheer scale of the task all influence what is realistically achievable at the negotiating table.
“Our research also shows that these are not just technical negotiations, they are deeply human processes,” said Dr March
Converging evidence
Despite their different approaches, the European and UK research converge on a shared diagnosis. Both point to the need for: clearer prioritisation and sequencing of issues; stronger leadership and procedural discipline; greater emphasis on trust-building and political dialogue before legal drafting; and safeguards to prevent a small minority from indefinitely stalling progress.
Both studies also warn that failure to address these weaknesses risks undermining confidence in multilateral environmental governance more broadly, at a time when coordinated global action is increasingly critical across climate, biodiversity and pollution agendas.
Neither research effort suggests the treaty process has failed outright. The UK report notes that negotiations have already driven new research, heightened global awareness and strengthened networks of policymakers and practitioners focused on plastic pollution.
However, both sets of authors stress that the next phase of negotiations will be decisive. With new leadership about to be appointed, there remains an opportunity to reset the process, but only if procedural reform is treated as central rather than secondary.
“Understanding how decisions are made is just as important as what decisions are made,” said Professor Steve Fletcher, director of the Revolution Plastics Institute. “Well-designed and well-led processes offer the best chance of cooperation in a divided world.”
Combined, the findings send a clear signal: the success of a Global Plastics Treaty will hinge less on whether governments agree plastic pollution is a problem, and more on whether the negotiation process itself is capable of delivering agreement.
Ed's note: For packaging this matters because without a credible and functional treaty process, regulatory certainty around materials, chemicals, recycled content and production controls will remain elusive – complicating long-term investment and innovation decisions across the packaging value chain.
