JTA and other Justice-Aligned Groups celebrate our collective people power during an INC-5.2 press conference in Geneva, August 2025. Photo Credit: PSI/ITUC, Daria Cibrario

The 6th round of global plastic treaty talks, held in Geneva, made it clear that achieving a strong treaty to address the plastic pollution crisis is facing significant obstacles from petrostates and industries. Our fight must continue to make a just transition possible. We will not accept a watered-down treaty that fails to rise to the challenge. 

The plastics treaty talks continue to be marred by obstructions to observer participation. With limited badges to enter the negotiations, the largest share of observer badges was allocated to plastic industry lobbyists. Some observers were pushed into crowded spaces while others had reserved rooms. Despite these barriers to environmental justice group participation, JTA held press conferences with trade union, waste picker, Indigenous Peoples, and youth allies, calling attention to our priorities. These groups were the Indigenous Environmental Network, the International Alliance of Waste Pickers, the Youth Plastic Action Network, the International Trade Union Confederation, the Port Arthur Community Action Network, and the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics. 

Representatives from frontline groups share testimonies before a crowd of more than 100 people, during an INC-5.2 press conference in Geneva, August 2025. Photo Credit: Dylan Kava

Petrostates and industries were emboldened by the obstructions placed by the US. The US sought to protect industry interests and significantly dilute the treaty, blocking policies that would effectively address the crisis, such as measures to phase out plastic production and commitments to a just transition. Throughout the talks, the US expressed its desire to remove an article on just transition, or at the very least, remove the term “just” from the article. Evidently, the pursuit of justice is actively blocked by the US domestically and internationally. In seeking the removal of any mention of justice, the US seeks to render the just transition article meaningless and is undermining the very people its leaders claim to care about. Without justice, there are no measures guaranteeing the participation in decision-making of those impacted by efforts to transition away from fossil fuel-based economies. Meanwhile, other petrostates introduced poison pills meant to derail the progress made on the just transition article. For instance, one country with a long record of human rights violations introduced a paragraph-long block of text calling for respect for human rights, despite not supporting movement-generated demands for human rights language. Instead, many perceived this move as aiming to undermine the negotiation of the just transition article by delaying the process of arriving at treaty language that all countries could agree on.

The talks failed to raise ambition among countries. In that context, the presidency compiled a text that represented the lowest common denominator–that is, the least ambitious positions across all contentious issues. This approach is harmful, and it will not work. The lowest common denominator approach is no more likely to produce a treaty than an ambitious approach. If countries with the lowest ambitions dictate what measures can be included in the plastics treaty, the treaty will fail to achieve the mandate that negotiators were given by the United Nations Environmental Assembly to adopt measures addressing plastic production (typically known as upstream or supply-side measures), not just waste (typically known as downstream measures). This low ambition approach is also unacceptable to a large share of countries in the negotiation and social movements fighting for an ambitious treaty. The low ambition approach in the negotiations fails to achieve what negotiators were tasked with doing: adopt a treaty that ends the plastic pollution crisis. 

The gridlock observed during the plastics treaty negotiations further undermines hopes that international institutions and member countries are capable of delivering solutions to global problems. Despite the challenges we face, we came out of Geneva with greater alignment and solidarity across our movements and groups. 

The leadership of frontline workers and fenceline communities continues to grow stronger. Our hopes are in our solidarity, our shared struggle from the local to the global. This solidarity achieved the historic inclusion of our waste picker allies in various iterations of the treaty text. This process must continue making history by extending this recognition to our Indigenous Peoples allies and the adoption of strong measures to address the plastic pollution crisis.