The stress of plastics worldwide increases – in seas, floors, air and even in the human body. In order to stop, more than 170 countries come together for the decisive sixth round of negotiations on a global plastic agreement from August 5 to 14, 2025. The goal is a binding contract that regulates the entire life cycle of plastic. But the fronts are still hardened – and a breakthrough remains uncertain.
Around 460 million tons of plastic are produced worldwide every year – the trend is rising. If there is no rethink, the global plastic waste could triple by 2060. According to current estimates, 27 million tons of microplastics drive in the North Atlantic alone. Plastic particles can be found in floors, in the deep sea, on glaciers, in the air – and in the human body. The load caused by plastics contributes to global warming, damages ecosystems and threatens health. “Studies show that we have already exceeded the planetary load limits for new fabrics,” explains Melanie Bergmann from the Alfred Wegener Institute.
Plastic as a global threat
Bergmann sits as part of the German delegation at the negotiating table about the so-called UN plastic agreement. Since 2022, representatives from over 170 countries as well as from science, industry and civil society have been advising on a legally binding agreement on the containment of global plastic pollution. The aim is to create uniform rules that apply along the entire life cycle of plastics – from raw material extraction to production to disposal and recycling. In the long term, the agreement should be on a level with other important environmental contracts such as the Paris climate agreement and the UN Convention on biological diversity.
There was no agreement on the fifth round of negotiations in December 2024 in South Korea. But for the first time, more than 100 states occurred in core questions such as production limits and chemical regulation. In Geneva, the next step is now from August 5th to 14th, 2025: the development of a specific contract text with binding measures. “In the best case, in Geneva, we reach that the global community, or at least large parts of it, are committed to a strong agreement that is based on scientific facts and recognizes how harmful plastic is for humans and nature,” emphasizes Bergmann. However, it is uncertain whether this actually happens. Because some central issues are still unsolved – such as the question of whether the plastic production will be limited in the future, how the use of dangerous chemicals should be regulated and whether decisions must be made unanimously or majority.
Different interests, hard negotiations
A sticking point in the previous negotiation rounds was the very different interests of the participating states. While a group around large oil producers such as Saudi Arabia primarily relies on improved waste management and recycling, it has so far rejected binding production boundaries. The aim of these states is to leave the economically lucrative plastic production largely untouched. This is opposed to the so -called “High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution”, led by Norway and Rwanda. Among other things, it also includes the EU and several Pacific island states – many of them are particularly affected by the consequences of plastic pollution. This coalition demands more extensive measures. These include upper limits for the primary production of plastic, a ban on particularly problematic disposable products and the regulation of dangerous ingredients.
There is also a lot to be scientifically spoken of for this approach: “Plastic should not only be regulated as a waste, because the problems are already starting in the environmentally harmful production,” emphasizes Dana Kühnel from the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research, which accompanies the negotiations scientifically. The agreement can only become effective if the entire life cycle of plastics is taken into account. Either way, an agreement should be made as soon as possible, emphasizes Kühnel: “The global community has to come into action. With every further delay, the problems grow bigger.”
Source: Alfred-Wegener-Institut, Helmholtz Center for Polar and Marine Research, Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research-UFZ
