On one side were a broad group of countries wanting an ambitious treaty, and on the other a smaller group of oil and plastics producing countries. The first group pushes for reducing plastic production and strict rules on harmful chemical additives. The second group opposes production limits and focuses on waste management, better packaging, reuse, and recycling.
The decision-making process was also under scrutiny. Proposals to allow voting in case of irreconcilable differences clashed with the demand that decisions must be made exclusively by consensus. This procedural gap contributed to the deadlock, despite prolonged informal consultations.
Disappointment came from Europe. The European Union had higher expectations and emphasized that work must continue toward a binding agreement that better protects health and the environment.
Many countries and environmental organizations reacted shocked by the outcome. They spoke of a missed opportunity, pointed to the urgency of the ever-growing plastic pollution, and called for more leadership. Organizations urged ambitious countries to act more decisively and not to lower the bar, especially since previous rounds had already yielded little tangible result.
The stalemate builds on previous failures. A prior negotiation round held last year in South Korea also ended without agreement. This pattern fuels fears that without a UN course change, the process will remain stuck between the desire to phase out new production and the plea to primarily improve collection and processing.