Daily report for 13 August 2025

Delegates convened for the resumed fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) to develop an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. In the morning, all the contact groups closed. Delegates then met in plenary and made general comments on the Chair’s Draft Proposal and discussed next steps. INC Chair Luis Vayas proposed to hold regional and other consultations in the evening, and to hold a Heads of Delegation meeting on Thursday morning, 14 August.

Contact Group 1

Co-chaired by Maria Angélica Ikeda (Brazil) and Axel Borchmann (Germany), the group met briefly in the morning to receive updates. The Co-Facilitators from Singapore and Argentina, on [sustainable consumption and production of] [product design] [problematic] plastic products (Article 3) and plastic product design (Article 5), respectively, reported that delegates were continuing discussions in bilateral and small group settings.

Co-Chair Ikeda informed delegates that the INC Chair would “offer an attempt at a compromise text” based on the current state of negotiations and announced that plenary would convene later in the day to discuss the way forward, including whether to reconvene further contact group sessions.

Many delegates raised concerns about the INC Chair’s proposed way forward, querying how the process will be conducted, what articles will be included, the basis for the new Chair’s text, and how the ongoing work in the contact, informal, and informal-informal groups will be reflected. Several delegates highlighted that there was still significant divergence on the articles under the contact group’s mandate. Others raised concerns about losing the work on the articles under their mandate, which were ongoing in informal and informal-informal settings, stressing that the process should remain member driven. One delegation reflected their understanding that the process for the new Chair’s text was a separate process that “sits outside” the work being conducted in contact groups and informal settings.

Another highlighted that the new Chair’s text must reflect members’ views and discussions, not those of the Chair or the INC Secretariat, with one delegate reflecting their understanding that there was broad support in previous plenaries and Heads of Delegation meetings that text should be verified by countries. The Co-Chairs noted that the process for the new Chair’s text is wider than the mandate of any contact group, and that the INC Chair would continue to have informal discussions with different groups, including delegates and contact group Co-Chairs. They assured delegates that they would do their utmost to ensure that the work conducted within the contact group and in various informal settings is conveyed to the Chair, along with the concerns heard regarding the process for preparing a new Chair’s text.

Contact Group 2

The group, co-chaired by Peter Justice Dery (Ghana) and Tuulia Toikka (Finland), met in the morning to hear reports from informals.

The UK and Kenya, as Co-Facilitators of the informal group on releases and leakages (Article 7), said that while the group was able to make progress and review the full article, further consultations were needed.

On plastic waste management (Article 8), Chile reported that the informal group was able to discuss the full article and streamline paragraph 2, which can be presented to the contact group. They also noted that an informal informal had engaged on elements of a streamlined text prepared by the Co-Facilitators on paragraphs 1, 3, and 4. They stressed that the Co-Facilitators would be ready to support further work on the article.

On [[existing][and][legacy] plastic [waste] pollution] [remediation of plastic pollution] (Article 9), Belgium, as Co-Facilitator, reiterated the areas on which delegates had found convergence. Dominican Republic, as Co-Facilitator, added that delegates disagreed on whether the article should address existing or legacy pollution, as well as on the proposed remediation mechanism. Several countries stressed they did not agree to refer to alignment with international law, with the Co-Facilitators confirming that the reference remains bracketed.

Regarding [just] transition[[s] [for workers]] (Article 10), the Co-Facilitators from Cameroon and Chile explained that the group only discussed the first paragraph and was able to delete some content expected to be covered in other articles. The Co-Facilitators noted they had prepared a streamlined version integrating and simplifying the core elements of the Chair’s Text and the textual inputs in the informal. One delegate stressed that the article should tackle the negative, not the positive, consequences of the just transition, while another reiterated their proposal to delete the article.

Others shared concerns that their views may be inadequately reflected in the status of work document sent to the INC Chair before the plenary in the afternoon. Co-Chair Dery assured them that the concerns raised in the session would be shared with the INC Chair.

Contact Group 3

Co-chaired by Kate Lynch (Australia) and Gwen Sisior (Palau), this group met in the morning to complete the first reading of [international cooperation] [cooperation in] capacity building, technical assistance and technology transfer [, including international cooperation] (Article 12).

On a provision mandating the first session of the conference of the parties (COP 1) to make recommendations on how capacity building, technical assistance, and technology transfer can be enhanced under the Article, one delegation proposed that the modalities of the mechanism for international cooperation must be assessed before the COP can make recommendations.

On the classification of countries, several delegations favored using agreed language from other multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) regarding small island developing states (SIDS) and least developed countries (LDCs). Several delegates called to delete language referencing other country groupings, including references to “parties most in need,” “geographically disadvantaged States,” “those with significant capacity constraints,” “coastal African States,” and others. Yet some delegates proposed including more groupings, such as: “developing countries vulnerable to plastic pollution;” “countries with economies in transition;” “developing country parties experiencing fiscal constraints;” and “developing upper middle-income countries.” Several delegations called to ensure consistency across the ILBI, while views diverged on whether to address cross-cutting language in the preamble. One delegate highlighted that it is beyond the mandate of the contact group to relitigate UN classifications of countries.

Views diverged on a provision specifying that international cooperation requires a fair and open international trade system conducive to economic growth in developing countries and that developed countries shall refrain from implementing unilateral trade measures. One delegation proposed adding refraining from “unilateral coercive measures.” Some countries called for the deletion of this provision, with one delegate highlighting that this is better addressed in other fora, such as the World Trade Organization. Others supported retaining the provision as a standalone paragraph in the Article, and yet others noted that the matter can be better addressed in other parts of the ILBI, including in the preamble or principles and possible approaches (Article 1bis).

The Co-Chairs then reported that they would forward to plenary the recent text for Articles 11 and 12, as the status of work, and that they would not forward a revised iteration of paragraph 1 of Article 12. They further noted that bilateral and informal consultations would continue, including with INC Chair Vayas, and that Chile was invited to undertake informal consultations on Article 11.

A couple of delegations stressed that the new Chair’s Text must retain the options for issues that remain divergent, particularly for Article 11, noting that discussions there are interlinked with those addressing Articles 3, 5, and 6. One delegate also highlighted that some issues should remain on the table, such as on a compensation fund, which had not been addressed in bilaterals with the INC Chair. Co-Chair Lynch stressed that they would report these concerns to the INC Chair.

Contact Group 4

Co-chaired by Go Kobayashi (Japan) and Linroy Christian (Antigua and Barbuda), the group met and heard a report from an informal informal on reporting (Article 15). As Co-Facilitator, Palau reported that the group had agreed on legally binding reporting measures, the details of which could be agreed by COP 1. They reported divergence on the content and periodicity of the reports. They noted convergence on addressing national [action] plans, reporting, and effectiveness evaluation (Articles 14-16) as a package.

In his closing remarks, Co-Chair Christian lauded the group for making progress, noted that the Co-Chairs would report on the group’s work to the plenary where delegates would consider a Chair’s text, and called on delegates to await further instructions on the working modalities going forward.

Delegations called for clarity on the way forward on articles that had not been sufficiently discussed or where there were critical divergences, such as Articles 14-16, 19, and 20. Others called for clarity on the status of informal-informal discussions, and on how this work would be integrated into a new text. Co-Chair Christian stated that the reports would be captured in the status of work document, noting that all articles still remain open for discussion. Others expressed hope that “a country-driven process” will lead to a compromise. Co-Chair Christian then closed the contact group.

Plenary

Opening the afternoon plenary, INC Chair Vayas noted that the main purpose of the meeting would be to take stock of the status of negotiations and decide on the way forward. Plenary then heard reports from contact group Co-Chairs and the Legal Drafting Group.

Cameroon reported on the status of work in the Legal Drafting Group, noting that they had completed their review of articles on depositary (Article 31) and authentic text (Article 32) with minor editorial corrections. The Committee took note of the output text and agreed to transmit the provision on withdrawal (Article 30) to the Legal Drafting Group.

Stating that “we have hours left to deliver on our mandate, and we have not been advancing at the speed needed to conclude by tomorrow,” INC Chair Vayas noted that he had circulated a Chair’s Draft Proposal for consideration by the Committee, based on discussions with members on Monday, 11 August, as an attempt to capture the elements that could lay the foundation for agreement this week and “deliver on our shared responsibility.” The text did not contain provisions on scope and on sustainable production.

General comments on the Chair’s Draft Text Proposal: Many countries stressed that the draft was unacceptable and could not be the basis of further negotiations. CHILE highlighted significant gaps and shortcomings in the draft, noting it lacks proper tools to tackle the scale of the crisis. PANAMA underscored that the goal is not to “close the treaty at any cost” but to end plastic pollution, which requires a provision on production.

COLOMBIA, with FRANCE, lamented that the text overlooked key proposals, including one by 120 countries on decision making in the COP. The EU underscored that the text falls short of UNEA resolution 5/14 and lacks binding or concrete commitments.

The US highlighted that the text crossed red lines, underlined the need to reflect concerns and red lines articulated throughout the process, and noted that a new text would need to be negotiated by the INC. Saudi Arabia, for the ARAB GROUP, with IRAN and MALAYSIA, highlighted the need for a clear scope and definitions, as well as respect for red lines and, with others, opposed the creation of new groups of countries under Article 11.

MALAYSIA lamented the non-inclusive and imbalanced nature of the text. ALGERIA argued that the text failed to address their concerns, including on scope, definitions, and means of implementation, stressing that the main burden will be on developing countries. KENYA lamented the absence of any global binding obligation, including on means of implementation, and called for the reintroduction of key provisions on the COP and secretariat, reiterating their request that UNEP headquarters serve as the seat of the secretariat.

CANADA, with NORWAY, called for a new ambitious text “tonight,” and, with HONDURAS and FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA, expressed disappointment on, among other things, the deletion of language on Indigenous Peoples. FRANCE called for the treaty to take into account scientists’ positions. FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA highlighted the absence of an article on plastics production.

Tuvalu, for PACIFIC SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES (P-SIDS), lamented that the text had overlooked key components and noted that many of the group’s red lines had been crossed.

NIGERIA said that the text does not address the full lifecycle of plastic(s), health, chemicals, and the needs of low middle-income countries, with UGANDA noting the absence of binding obligations on means of implementation.

Stating that the draft was akin to a waste management framework, BANGLADESH lamented that the text presented a weak outcome, excluding supply, emissions, production, chemicals of concern, waste hierarchy, and was entirely without ambition.

PARAGUAY stressed that the treaty should recognize the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and underlined that the treaty should not be used as a pretext to impose restrictions on international trade.

Kuwait, for the LIKE-MINDED COUNTRIES, with INDIA, IRAN, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, and BAHRAIN, highlighted the need for CBDR and voluntary measures to be reflected in the treaty; noted that the current text risks being a “trade agreement in environmental clothing;” and, with CHINA, did not support the new reference to “developing countries with financial capacity.”

URUGUAY underlined that the text lacks legally binding requirements, an appropriate financial mechanism, and a decision-making framework. Stressing that the ILBI must address global action on problematic products and product design and must provide for effective decision-making to ensure it is a “living treaty,” the UK called for a new text as the basis for negotiations.

The PHILIPPINES highlighted that the proposed draft contains no real obligations beyond waste management and lamented the lack of reference to archipelagic states and, with BRAZIL, further lamented the lack of a standalone article on health. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES underscored that they were unable to accept the categorization of countries, including in relation to capacity building, technical assistance, and technology transfer.

SWITZERLAND underscored that the national and global measures to identify and control problematic plastic products are not merely a “should” obligation.

CUBA called for the inclusion of a reparation fund and international cooperation, among others. HONDURAS highlighted the need to include sustainable development needs and national circumstances of countries.

Working modalities: INC Chair Vayas proposed that: after plenary, he would meet with regional groups and members to hear views and continue consultations on the proposed draft; he would prepare and circulate a further revised text on Thursday, 14 August, based on these consultations; and, if acceptable, the INC would forward the revised text to the Legal Drafting Group on Thursday. He noted that this approach would ensure that the process remains member driven.

Several delegations then raised points of order. The US requested clarification on the proposed way forward, highlighting that not all countries are part of a regional grouping and that this affects their ability to have adequate consultations with the Chair.

CHILE, with GRENADA and FIJI, expressed concern over the Chair’s proposal on work modalities, with CHILE stressing that it would be a “procedural trap.”

INC Chair Vayas clarified that his draft was merely a basis for regional consultations and meetings with Committee members. INDIA and CHINA expressed support for the way forward as proposed by INC Chair Vayas, with INDIA noting that the draft proposal, despite missing fundamental elements, was a “good enough” starting point.

COSTA RICA, supported by P-SIDS and URUGUAY, proposed convening an urgent Heads of Delegation meeting. MEXICO favored immediate consultations on the text in plenary, with a new text circulated on Thursday, 14 August. Working in plenary was opposed by EGYPT.

Palau, for the ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES (AOSIS), with FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA: expressed concern over the low level of ambition of the text; stressed the need to deliver on the UN Environment Assembly’s (UNEA) mandate; noted that the text was imbalanced, and the mode of work unclear; and underlined that regional groupings needed time to consult before engaging with the INC Chair.

BRAZIL called for the consultations to be transparent and inclusive, noting different levels of convergence in regional groups. Underlining that the current text would “entrench the status quo for decades to come,” GHANA did not accept proceeding to regional consultations on the basis of the draft and called for a new proposal that contains binding global goals.

PERU emphasized that the text lacks a comprehensive binding approach and urged the Chair to urgently prepare a new proposal reflecting a balance between the different positions, saying “we cannot leave here empty-handed.”

BRAZIL, supported by IRAQ, stressed that the current text should be discussed in more detail before another iteration is prepared. After a lengthy debate on the way forward, INC Chair Vayas proposed engaging with delegations during regional and other informal consultations later in the evening and convening a Heads of Delegations meeting on Thursday morning, 14 August. The Committee proceeded on this basis.

In the Corridors

Most delegates were caught flatfooted on Wednesday morning as the schedule of the day was released only an hour prior to contact groups convening. The phrases, “We are confused by…” and “we need clarity on…” were repeated ad infinitum during these final contact group meetings, when the Co-Chairs shared their understanding of the way forward as set out by INC Chair Vayas in a Bureau meeting. “We are all awaiting further instructions,” was the common response to procedural questions.

The much-anticipated Chair’s text and his proposed way forward stirred a heated, almost emotional debate in an afternoon plenary, with many of the opinion that the text was “completely unacceptable.” “I’ve never heard a text insulted so much in a formal negotiation,” gasped one participant, when a delegate took the floor to brand the text “repulsive.” The lamentations continued, with those countries seeking a higher ambition treaty underlining that “this text would entail surrender,” and urging the INC not to proceed on the basis of the “lowest common denominator.” “This text has disregarded our red lines.”

Following numerous points of order, delegates agreed to continue consultations, and yet the proposed path forward left many with more questions than answers. “So, are we proceeding with this Chair’s Draft Text Proposal or with the Chair’s Text we came to Geneva with?”, wondered one delegate walking out of plenary. “What about all our work so far here in Geneva, and the text we’ve been working on?” questioned another. “Do we have time to negotiate another version?” wondered many. Yet another was heard reflecting that, “how are we going to be able to start building those bridges to reach a balanced agreement?”

But with delegates pulling up their sleeves to work all night to continue discussions with the Chair, some were still hopeful that an outcome worth celebrating was possible. “The world is watching,” said one delegate, “we can still get it done.” Only time will tell whether delegations will leave Geneva with their heads held high.

The Earth Negotiations Bulletin summary and analysis of INC-5.2 will be available on Monday, 18 August 2025, here.