Powerful bloc of petro-states and petro-chemical-producing countries is stalling progress on what could be a landmark global treaty to end plastic waste. At the ongoing negotiations in Geneva — the second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) — deep divisions have emerged. On one side are countries and experts calling for ambitious, binding commitments to curb plastic production at the source; on the other, oil-rich nations and chemical giants are fiercely resisting any attempt to regulate upstream activities.
A key point of contention is whether the treaty should include strong language on global cap or reduction on the production of virgin plastic feedstocks — the lifeblood of the plastics industry. Major oil-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia, are lobbying hard to strike this article from the draft, framing it as an overreach that threatens their economic interests. They argue that the treaty should focus only on waste management and recycling, not on limiting production — even though just seven countries account for two-thirds of global plastic production, according to recent data. In fact, just 18 companies are responsible for over half of all global polymer production.
This pushback is not limited to oil monarchies. Since returning to office in January 2025, US President Donald Trump has reversed many of his predecessor’s environmental policies. The US now stands alongside petro-states in supporting a watered-down treaty, devoid of hard production caps.
India, meanwhile, has taken a more nuanced position. In its formal submissions, India has emphasised the need for a nationally determined approach and opposes any provision on the supply and production of primary plastic polymers. India argues that polymer production falls outside the mandate given by the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) under Resolution 5/14, which it interprets narrowly. It also warns that overlapping provisions could interfere with existing treaties and international mechanisms. At the same time, India has demanded that the treaty include binding obligations for financial assistance and technology transfers from developed countries, underlining the importance of equity and capacity in any global framework.
However, experts point out that such a narrow interpretation of UNEA 5/14 undermines the very objective of the treaty. “UNEA Resolution 5/14 clearly mandates the development of an international legally binding instrument to address plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, and explicitly states that it should be based on a full life cycle approach,” said Swati Singh Sambyal, Principal Expert at GRID-Arendal told TNIE. “This inherently includes upstream measures such as addressing production volumes, chemical additives, and product design — not just downstream waste management. Excluding supply-side measures such as production volumes of primary polymers risks undermining the treaty’s effectiveness,” she said.
The resistance to upstream measures also flies in the face of scientific evidence. A report by GRID-Arendal and IPEN released a few days back during Geneva talks points out that many widely used polymers — including thermosets, fluoropolymers, and condensation polymers — cannot be recycled in an environmentally sound manner. Downstream solutions, such as mechanical and chemical recycling, remain largely unproven at scale.
Meanwhile, the petrochemical industry is expanding production at a rapid pace: China alone has added ethylene and propylene capacity equivalent to all of Europe, Japan, and South Korea combined. Saudi Aramco, in partnership with TotalEnergies, is building an $11 billion polyethylene facility, while ExxonMobil has integrated petrochemical expansion into its so-called “climate solutions” strategy.
Rachel Radvany, a campaigner with the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), argues that global obligations are crucial. “National-level obligations don’t work. We need a level playing field. A state that’s importing plastics doesn’t always have the capacity to test for chemical content. It should be on the producers. That’s why a dedicated article on chemicals would’ve been ideal,” she told this newspaper.
Meanwhile, the divide between blocs is bare. The High Ambition Coalition — comprising the EU, Australia, Canada, and others — wants binding obligations to restrain both plastic consumption and production. Brazil and Latin American countries have expressed conditional support for production restrictions if financial aid and just transition mechanisms are included. But petro-states remain defiant. Russia’s official submission warns against any “top-down approach” and stresses the sovereign right of states to manage their own resources. Iran has similarly pushed back against what it sees as “prescriptive” treaty language, instead proposing voluntary measures and broad exemptions. China, although did not make any official submission, is toeing the same line, sources privy to Contact Groups said.
Despite the stalemate, some pathways remain. Experts suggest a phased approach, with time-bound global targets that evolve alongside improvements in recycling infrastructure and circular economy capabilities. Addressing the nearly $43 billion in subsidies to plastic polymer production — mostly concentrated in Saudi Arabia — could also shift the economics of overproduction. According to the Quaker United Nations Office and consultancy Eunomia, removing these subsidies could reduce Saudi polymer feedstock production by 2.8 million tonnes by 2050.
But time is running out. The first draft text is scheduled to be released late on Friday night or Saturday morning and, in all likelihood, it is going to be a voluminous bloated text. The INC Chair’s December text itself contains over 370 brackets — areas with no agreement — spanning 22 pages. Without bold decisions in Geneva, many fear the world will be left with a treaty long on ambition and short on enforcement.