These self-described “like-minded nations” used procedural mechanisms to stall proposals supported by a broad majority, many of which aimed to significantly reform how plastics are produced and managed globally. The divide exposed the continued tension between environmental priorities and the economic interests of fossil fuel exporters and petrochemical producers.
In particular, production caps became the sticking point, with resistant countries effectively holding veto power. This paralysis undermined attempts to establish a binding agreement on plastic pollution, despite clear scientific consensus and growing public pressure worldwide.
Beyond the policy gridlock, procedural issues further eroded the effectiveness of the negotiations. Nearly three years into talks, basic frameworks—such as voting rules and decision-making protocols—remain unresolved. This lack of clarity allowed obstructive tactics to flourish and disadvantaged smaller delegations unable to participate in extended overnight sessions.
The final days of the conference were marked by chaotic scheduling and poor transparency. A concluding plenary was called with only 40 minutes’ notice at 5:30 AM, after marathon sessions that left many delegations fatigued and under-resourced.
Civil society groups, including the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, pointed to these conditions as symptomatic of a broader failure in the negotiation structure. Industry observers noted that fossil fuel and chemical sector lobbyists were significantly more represented than civil society groups—raising concerns about imbalance and stakeholder exclusion.
Despite these challenges, over 100 countries have already expressed support for some form of production control, and national-level policy activity continues. Meanwhile, the private sector is seeing mounting regulatory and consumer pressure to move toward reusable, recyclable, and lower-impact material systems.
