Daily Mains Question - GS 3 - 25th August 2025
- TPP
- Aug 25
- 4 min read
Welcome to your Daily UPSC Mains Answer Writing Practice – GS Paper 3 (Environment, Pollution Control, Multilateral Agreements).
Today’s question examines the failure of the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations in Geneva (2025), with a focus on how consensus-based decision-making and the demand for legally binding provisions contributed to the deadlock. Plastic pollution has become a global environmental crisis, with production exceeding 400 million tonnes annually (UNEP, 2023) and nearly 11 million tonnes entering oceans every year, projected to triple by 2040. The treaty, first mandated by a historic 2022 UNEA resolution, was expected to produce the world’s first legally enforceable pact on plastics. Yet, the second portion of INC-5 in Geneva collapsed without agreement, exposing deep divisions among nations.
For UPSC aspirants, this topic is highly relevant under GS Paper 3 themes:
Environment and Pollution Control: Global efforts to tackle plastic waste and marine ecosystem degradation.
Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs): Role of consensus and binding commitments in ensuring treaty effectiveness.
Sustainable Development: Tensions between environmental imperatives and developmental rights of nations.
Case Studies in Environmental Governance: Lessons from Montreal Protocol, Kyoto Protocol, and climate agreements.
Understanding this issue helps aspirants critically evaluate why environmental multilateralism often struggles between inclusivity and enforceability, and why a balance between binding commitments and differentiated responsibilities is crucial for future treaties.
Click Here to read the Monthly Current Affairs Pointers (CAP).
QUESTION
The recent deadlock in the Global Plastics Treaty talks has highlighted the challenges of consensus-based negotiations and the demand for legally binding commitments. Examine how these factors contributed to the failure of the Geneva round of discussions.
Answer: In recent years, plastic pollution has emerged as one of the gravest environmental threats, with global plastic production exceeding 400 million tonnes annually (UNEP, 2023). To address this, a historic resolution was adopted in 2022 at the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) to develop an international, legally binding treaty on plastic pollution, including marine environments.
However, despite high expectations, the second portion of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) in Geneva (August 2025) ended in deadlock, marking the second failure in eight months to reach consensus. The breakdown highlights how consensus-based decision-making and the debate over legally binding provisions played pivotal roles in stalling progress.
1. Nature of Negotiations and Process Challenges
The INC negotiations follow the principle of “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”, making consensus critical. Even when a majority supported binding provisions, lack of voting mechanisms meant deadlocks persisted.
Disagreements arose over basic treaty elements — definitions of plastics, scope of coverage, and clauses on life-cycle management (from production to disposal).
Several countries, including India, Cuba, and Malaysia, raised concerns over the methods of implementation, especially support mechanisms for developing nations.
2. Divergence Between Country Blocs
High Ambition Coalition:
Led by Norway, Panama, EU, UK, etc.
Advocated for legally binding measures: reduction in plastic production, limiting hazardous additives, and explicitly recognising health and fossil fuel linkages.
Argued that cutting plastic production directly reduces fossil fuel demand, as over 99% of plastics are fossil-fuel derived.
Like-Minded Countries Group:
Included Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Russia, with support from China and India.
Representing major petrochemical producers, they opposed production cuts and argued plastics are vital for development and poverty alleviation.
Claimed draft pact favoured trade restrictions over developmental needs.
India emphasized the “right to development of member states” and opposed global product phase-out lists.
3. The Role of Consensus-Based Decision-Making
Consensus Mechanism: While designed to build inclusivity, in practice it gave veto power to a handful of states, blocking progress.
With entrenched blocs, consensus turned into gridlock, preventing intermediate agreements.
Some countries suggested voting mechanisms for faster resolution, but this was resisted, showing the limitations of consensus in complex, high-stakes negotiations.
4. Legally Binding Provisions – The Key Sticking Point
The High Ambition Coalition sought binding obligations on:
Global plastic production caps.
Lists of hazardous polymers and additives to be phased out.
Strong monitoring and compliance mechanisms.
Opposition centered around:
Developmental rights → India and others argued domestic bans (e.g., India’s ban on single-use plastics) already show willingness, but global mandates curtail sovereignty.
Economic dependency → Oil-exporting nations fear economic losses if petrochemical-based polymers are curtailed.
Flexibility vs. rigidity → Developing nations demanded voluntary approaches and more financial/technological support instead of rigid binding rules.
5. Broader Implications for Global Environmental Governance
Precedent of Multilateral Environmental Treaties (METs): Successes like the Montreal Protocol came from binding commitments, while failures like the Kyoto Protocol highlight the pitfalls of weak consensus.
The plastics treaty deadlock shows:
Difficulty of balancing environmental imperatives vs. economic development rights.
Tensions between Global North (pushing for binding reductions) and Global South (seeking equity and flexibility).
Meanwhile, plastic waste continues to rise: UNEP estimates 11 million tonnes leak into oceans annually, projected to triple by 2040 without urgent action.
The failure of the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations reflects the limitations of consensus-based decision-making when powerful blocs hold conflicting interests. While consensus ensures inclusivity, it can also lead to paralysis. Equally, without legally binding provisions, any treaty risks being reduced to symbolic declarations with little impact. For future progress, a balance must be struck between binding global standards (to ensure accountability) and flexible, differentiated obligations (to respect developmental rights).
For India, the challenge lies in reconciling its developmental priorities with its role as a responsible global environmental actor. As climate change and plastic pollution intensify, the credibility of multilateral environmental governance will depend on whether consensus can evolve into effective, enforceable action.
Previous Daily UPSC Mains Question
Click for UPSC CSE 2025 Question Papers
Click for Daily Current Affairs Summary
Click for Daily Prelims MCQs
Click for NCERTs Pdfs
Click for Daily Quotes
Stay updated with the latest news by joining our Telegram channel – The PRESS Pad , and follow us on Instagram and X
Comments