The UN Plastics Treaty Negotiations: What Geneva Means for Nonwovens

By Wes Fisher, Director of Government Affairs, INDA

Introduction: A High-Stakes Process for Plastics and Policy

Plastic pollution has firmly taken its place in the global policy spotlight. At the same time, companies dependent on plastic inputs, including those in the nonwovens sector, face pressure from consumers, regulators, brand owners, and their own corporate sustainability goals to explore alternative inputs, lightweighting, and the use of bioplastics, among other efforts.

The United Nations’ ongoing negotiations for a global plastics treaty aim to address these pressures. The goal is a legally binding instrument that addresses plastics across their entire lifecycle, from production through design, use, and disposal, with a particular emphasis on Ocean litter. The process has spanned multiple negotiating sessions since 2022, culminating most recently in the INC-5.2 talks in Geneva, held from August 5 to 15, 2025. The recent INC-5.2 negotiations in Geneva, which were a continuation of a process intended to conclude in November 2024 in Busan, Korea, were billed as a watershed moment for global plastics regulation, but ended in yet another bitter stalemate.

How UN Treaties Are Made

To understand the negotiations on plastics, it is useful to step back and review how UN treaties are developed. Typically, a treaty begins with a UN resolution establishing a mandate to negotiate. The UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) adopted such a resolution in March 2022, tasking an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) with drafting the treaty by the end of 2025.

Negotiations proceed through multiple INC meetings. These sessions gather delegations from UN member states, supported by observers from industry, NGOs, and intergovernmental organizations. All UN member nations are able to attend these talks and decisions are traditionally made by consensus. Observers must be sponsored by an organization accredited with the United Nations Environment Program or another UN body (INDA and EDANA both gained UN accreditation in 2023 and have sent delegations to most sessions). Draft texts are circulated, amended, and debated—sometimes line by line. Because of the UN’s longstanding tradition of making decisions by consensus, any country can block proposals and request amendments; however, in some processes, voting mechanisms are eventually introduced to break deadlocks.

Once an agreed text is finalized, it is adopted at a diplomatic conference. Countries then sign the treaty and proceed to ratification through their domestic processes. The treaty enters into force after a specified number of ratifications.

This is a slow and sometimes frustrating process. Still, it is the mechanism through which the international community addresses cross-border challenges such as ozone depletion (Montreal Protocol), climate change (Paris Agreement), and biodiversity loss (Convention on Biological Diversity). The plastics treaty aims to be the next such instrument.

Looking Back: The INC Timeline

The Geneva session is best understood in the context of earlier negotiations:

• INC-1 (Uruguay, 2022): The first negotiating session, held in Uruguay in 2022, established the broad goals of the treaty and agreed on the rules of procedure for the process.

• INC-2 (Paris, 2023): The second session in Paris in 2023 was marked by disputes over process, particularly on whether decisions should be made by consensus or by voting.

• INC-3 (Nairobi, 2023): The third session in Nairobi in 2023 introduced the “zero draft” of the treaty, which highlighted key areas of divergence among participating countries, among them definitions, financing, and global production caps.

• INC-4 (Ottawa, 2024): The fourth session in Ottawa in 2024 saw debates sharpen over issues such as production caps and financial mechanisms, with negotiating blocs clearly beginning to form.

• INC-5 (Busan, early 2025): The fifth session in Busan in early 2025 continued to feature disagreements, but it also advanced technical discussions on design standards, chemicals of concern, and financing.

• INC-5.2 (Geneva, 2025): The follow-up session in Geneva in 2025 was expected to achieve significant progress, but consensus rules ultimately enabled continued deadlock.

While frustrating, this trajectory has clarified negotiating positions, making the dividing lines more transparent.

The Geneva Outcome

The Geneva session (INC-5.2) drew over 2,600 delegates from 183 countries. Expectations were high, as negotiators hoped to resolve differences before the December 2025 deadline. Instead, discussions revealed sharp divisions.

On one side, the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) – co-led by Norway and Rwanda and supported by the EU, Small Island Developing States, and over 60 countries – pressed for lifecycle obligations, including caps on virgin plastic production and restrictions on chemical additives deemed hazardous.

On the other hand, the Like-Minded Group, comprising India, China, Saudi Arabia, and other fossil-fuel-aligned states, argued for a narrower treaty that focused on downstream measures such as recycling and waste management. They resisted binding limits on production, citing economic growth and development priorities.

With consensus rules in place, these differences proved insurmountable. Geneva ended without a consolidated draft, leaving the future of the treaty uncertain.

A First-Hand Account of the Negotiations

I had the opportunity to attend several of the treaty negotiating sessions in person, representing INDA after we secured accreditation with the UN Environment Programme in 2023. Paris (INC-2) was my first UN negotiation, and it was an eyeopening introduction to the dynamics of multilateral environmental diplomacy. Much of that session was consumed by procedural debates – particularly over whether the treaty should proceed by consensus or allow voting – but it also revealed the geopolitical undercurrents that were at hand. For INDA, being in the room meant ensuring the nonwovens sector’s voice was present as governments debated how ambitious this treaty should be.

on additives, labeling, and extended producer responsibility could impact manufacturers across multiple sectors, including nonwovens.

By the time of Ottawa (INC-4), the process had matured into substantive debate. Negotiating blocs had clearly taken shape, and discussions on production caps and financing mechanisms underscored the growing divide between countries seeking sweeping lifecycle measures and those advocating a narrower waste-management focus. For me, Ottawa underscored how technical details – like financing for waste systems in developing countries – are inseparable from broader geopolitical questions.

In Busan (INC-5), the technical work advanced further. Delegates wrestled with text on product design standards, chemical restrictions, and financial frameworks. While disagreements persisted, the session highlighted the complexity and interconnectedness of the plastics lifecycle, as well as how regulations

Geneva (INC-5.2) carried the highest expectations yet. The room felt larger, the stakes higher, and the scrutiny more intense. Over 2,600 delegates crowded the Palace of Nations, the UN office in Geneva, but consensus rules meant that entrenched divisions prevented progress. It was striking to see both the ambition of coalitions pushing for binding production limits and the determination of countries that viewed such limits as unacceptable.

From Paris to Geneva, my first-hand view of the negotiations has been that while the pace is slow and often frustrating, the trajectory is unmisßtakable: governments, businesses, and civil society agree in broad terms on the need for some international mechanism to address plastic pollution, and I still feel that an agreement will eventually be made. For INDA and our members, being part of the process ensures that the realities of nonwoven manufacturing are understood as these historic negotiations unfold.

Industry Perspectives

Business voices were also present in Geneva. The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, convened by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and WWF, includes more than 300 companies ranging from consumer goods giants to financial institutions. The coalition advocates for harmonized global rules, arguing that consistent standards would reduce regulatory fragmentation and create clearer conditions for investment in new materials and technologies.

Simultaneously, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) released a statement commending U.S. leadership at INC-5.2. The ACC emphasized support for recycling, circular economy approaches, and “innovation that protects jobs and economic growth.” However, it did not endorse production caps or upstream restrictions.

Implications for Nonwovens

For the nonwovens industry, the treaty outcome has direct consequences. Nonwovens are central to hygiene products, wipes, medical supplies, and filtration media – applications that are essential yet heavily dependent on polymer feedstocks such as polypropylene and polyester.

The failure to achieve consensus means regulatory fragmentation is likely to persist. The European Union is expected to continue advancing its own measures on single-use plastics, extended producer responsibility (EPR), and labeling. Other regions may adopt less stringent rules. For global manufacturers, this creates compliance complexity and higher costs.

At the same time, consumer brands that purchase nonwoven products are demanding greater sustainability. Companies such as Unilever, Nestlé, and S.C. Johnson have publicly urged negotiators to establish strong global rules, citing the inefficiency of navigating dozens of overlapping frameworks. Nonwoven suppliers will need to align with these expectations to remain competitive.

Industry Response: Practical Steps

The Geneva stalemate does not mean industry should stand still. On the contrary, it underscores the need for proactive planning.

INDA has continually underscored that nonwoven manufacturers are investing in material innovation – including bio-based, compostable, or chemically recyclable inputs – that reduce reliance on virgin plastics. Advances in circular design, such as products engineered for disassembly or closed-loop recycling, will help companies anticipate future requirements.

Engaging in coalitions and trade associations also remains important. Groups like INDA and EDANA provide platforms for shaping discussions and ensuring that the technical realities of nonwoven production are taken into account in policymaking. Finally, supply chain transparency is increasingly valued. Demonstrating traceability of inputs and recyclability of outputs can strengthen relationships with brand owners and regulators alike.

Will the United States Sign the Potential Treaty?

Even if the plastics treaty reaches adoption at the UN level, the question of U.S. participation remains uncertain. Under the U.S.

Constitution, international treaties must be ratified by a twothirds vote in the Senate. This threshold has historically made treaty ratification challenging, particularly in periods of partisan division.

Many global environmental agreements have faced U.S. hesitation. The United States famously signed but never ratified the Kyoto Protocol (1997), citing concerns over economic competitiveness. More recently, the U.S. has remained outside the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), despite broad international acceptance of both frameworks.

There are, however, notable exceptions. In 2022, the U.S. Senate ratified the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which phases down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) used in cooling and refrigeration. The Kigali case illustrates that when a treaty aligns with domestic industry priorities – such as supporting U.S. chemical producers in transitioning to new refrigerants – bipartisan support is possible.

For the plastics treaty, much will depend on how obligations are framed. A treaty that emphasizes recycling, innovation, and infrastructure investment may be more acceptable to U.S. policymakers, as reflected in the American Chemistry Council’s position. A treaty with binding caps on production, by contrast, is unlikely to secure ratification under current political conditions.

For the nonwovens sector, this means U.S. participation cannot be assumed. Companies operating globally should anticipate a scenario where the U.S. remains outside the treaty, creating additional divergence in regulatory frameworks and compliance requirements. This will also likely create a scenario where some states decide to pass legislation implementing many of the tenets of the eventual treaty at the state level.

Conclusion: Preparing for What Comes Next

The UN plastics treaty negotiations remain unresolved, but the direction is clear: Pressure for stricter controls on plastics will continue to build, whether through a global treaty or through regional measures. As far as next steps for the treaty itself, most assume that another negotiating session will be held in December 2025 in conjunction with the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA 7) in Nairobi.

By advancing sustainable materials, engaging constructively in policy discussions, and preparing for a future of greater scrutiny, nonwoven manufacturers can position themselves not only to comply with regulations but to lead in innovation. Geneva may not have delivered a consensus, but it did clarify the stakes – and for nonwovens, the imperative is to adapt and prepare for a more circular future.

Wes Fisher is the Director of Government Affairs at INDA, Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry. Reach him, at wfisher@inda.org.