Daily report for 5 August 2025

Delegates convened for the first day of 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. After a morning plenary, they convened in contact groups for the rest of the day and into the evening, basing their discussions on the Chair’s Text circulated on 1 December 2024.

Opening

“The common good does not conflict with national interests, but requires a careful and courageous balance between them,” stressed INC Chair Luis Vayas in opening the resumed meeting. He urged delegates to demonstrate pragmatism to reach an agreement that is effective, inclusive, implementable, and capable of evolving.

Commending the Committee’s progress in the intersessional period to carve a path toward a possible agreement, Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UN Environment Programme (UNEP), urged delegates to “get it done” and to deliver an agreement that demonstrates “real strength” and provides hooks for future developments.

Katrin Schneeberger, Director of the Federal Office for the Environment of Switzerland, encouraged delegates to capitalize on the spirit of dialogue, cooperation, and commitment to multilateralism that the Palais des Nations embodies to deliver a treaty that is inclusive, science-based, and supports implementation on the ground.

Jyoti Mathur-Filipp, Executive Secretary, INC Secretariat, reflected on the symmetry between the resumed meeting of the fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA 5.2), where the historic process began with resolution 5/14 to end plastic pollution, and the INC 5.2. She commended the steadfast commitment shown by Committee members, valuable insights from observer organizations, and voluntary contributions made by donors.

Observer statements: The OFFICE OF THE UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS underlined, among other things, that the future ILBI must advance the right to a healthy environment and integrate human rights obligations in the provision on a just transition. A COALITION OF NGOS FROM WEST ASIA called for negotiations to be based on justice, solidarity, and cooperation. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF WASTE PICKERS emphasized that a just transition should be mandatory and accompanied by effective funding mechanisms.

LOCAL AND SUBNATIONAL GOVERNMENTS COALITION TO END PLASTIC POLLUTION urged maintaining and strengthening the role of local and subnational governments in the final treaty text.
YOUTH PLASTIC ACTION NETWORK called for a treaty that contains binding targets, provides for a strong financial mechanism, and embeds human rights and intergenerational equity.

WOMEN’S WORKING GROUP ON ENDING PLASTIC POLLUTION lamented the exclusion of gender equality and women’s rights in the Chair’s Text. THE INTERNATIONAL INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ FORUM ON PLASTICS said the lack of reference to the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Chair’s Text was a critical oversight.

SCIENTISTS’ COALITON FOR AN EFFECTIVE PLASTICS TREATY and SOCIETY OF PLASTICS ENGINEERS highlighted the need for the future treaty to cover the full lifecycle of plastics.

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHEMICAL ASSOCIATIONS urged delegates to promote circularity of plastics and invest in innovation and product design to accelerate the transition to a circular economy. INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE supported a fully circular approach, highlighting the importance of product design for circularity, reuse, and recycling.

#BREAKFREEFROMPLASTIC highlighted the interconnectedness of plastic pollution, racism, and colonialism; and urged delegates to take decisive action to ensure a just transition and end the harms experienced by Indigenous Peoples and frontline communities.

Organizational Matters

Rules of procedure: INC Chair Vayas recalled that delegates had agreed to the provisional application of the rules of procedure (UNEP/PP/INC.4/2), with the exception of those in brackets, including rule 38.1 (voting when no consensus is achieved), and reminded delegates of the interpretative statement agreed at INC-2 in this regard.

Adoption of the agenda: INC Chair Vayas recalled that the Committee had adopted the provisional agenda (UNEP/PP/INC.5/1) during INC 5.1, which is now set out in UNEP/PP/INC.5/1/Rev.1.

Organization of work: INC Chair Vayas drew attention to the Chair’s Text circulated on 1 December 2024, highlighting that it would be the starting point for negotiations, and pointed to the scenario note (UNEP/PP/INC.5/INF/13) and the proposed detailed schedule for days 1-4. He recalled the four contact groups established during INC 5.1, and proposed they continue their work. Delegates agreed to appoint Peter Justice Dery (Ghana) and Go Kobayashi (Japan) as new Co-Chairs of contact groups 2 and 4, respectively.

INC Chair Vayas called on each contact group to produce a draft by the evening of Friday, 8 August, and said that the Secretariat would then prepare an “assembled document” to be considered by the INC. He said that draft text reflecting convergence will be forwarded to the Open-ended Legal Drafting Group. INC Chair Vayas outlined that a stocktaking plenary would convene on Saturday, 9 August, and suggested that additional agenda items, including on other matters, be taken up in plenary on Thursday, 14 August.

Saudi Arabia, for the ARAB GROUP, supported by IRAN and IRAQ, requested informal group discussions of Article 6 ([supply][sustainable production]) rather than contact group discussions. Ghana, for the AFRICAN GROUP, reiterated an earlier request that contact groups 1 and 3 not be held simultaneously.

In response to a question from the US, SENEGAL noted that the African Group’s proposal had been raised in the Bureau, and, with BRAZIL, supported revising the contact group schedule. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO noted the late changes in schedule present logistical and strategic challenges.

INC Chair Vayas proposed, and delegates agreed, to amend the schedule so that contact groups 1 and 4, and 2 and 3, respectively, would meet simultaneously. Delegates further agreed the new schedule would be maintained throughout the meeting, and the contact groups would address the provisions in the order outlined in the scenario note.

Contact Group 1

Co-chaired by Maria Angélica Ikeda (Brazil) and Axel Borchmann (Germany), this group met in the afternoon.

On definitions (Article 2), discussions began with the Chair’s Text containing proposals for definitions on, among other things, plastic, plastic pollution, plastic product, and plastic waste. Several delegates underlined that definitions are critical to delimiting the scope of the agreement. Some delegates proposed that definitions be taken from other multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), including the Basel Convention, but one delegate cautioned that these may not be fit-for-purpose.

Some delegations underlined that plastic pollution is not limited to plastic waste, but also includes releases, emissions, and leakages from other sources and stages of the plastic lifecycle. While several delegates proposed text tying plastic pollution to “adverse effects on human health and the environment,” one delegate warned that such a framing may pose a high evidentiary burden to demonstrate adverse effects with certainty, conflicting with the precautionary principle. Delegates will consider this article again later in the meeting.

On scope, for which there was no proposed language in the Chair’s Text, some delegates preferred having no article, noting it is clearly provided under UNEA resolution 5/14 and expressing concern that a list of exclusions would have unintended consequences. Others disagreed, highlighting the importance of a standalone provision on scope to avoid the future ILBI exceeding the mandate of the INC and to provide legal clarity for implementation.

On [supply][sustainable production] (Article 6), for which the Chair’s Text includes a zero option as well as a draft article containing five heavily bracketed paragraphs, delegates expressed divergent views. Article 6, among other things, outlines a global target to ensure sustainable plastic production and consumption, mandates national measures toward achievement of the global target, and requires national reporting on consumption trends and measures taken. Many delegates supported including this article, noting that UNEA resolution 5/14 refers to provisions to “promote sustainable production and consumption of plastics.” Others opined that inclusion of a provision on supply or production would overstep the mandate of the INC, which, they said, is to combat plastic pollution, not to curtail plastic production. A few delegates proposed a way forward, including renaming the article to “Sustainable Consumption and Production,” to align with Sustainable Development Goal 12 and avoid the focus on production.

Following a protracted discussion on the way forward, the contact group did not agree to mandate the Co-Chairs to prepare revised text, deciding instead to resume discussions through line-by-line textual negotiations in the next session.

Contact Group 2

Co-chaired by Peter Justice Dery (Ghana) and Tuulia Toikka (Finland), the group met in the evening.

On releases and leakages (Article 7), two delegations introduced a joint proposal, supported by many, to include references to: the plastics lifecycle; plastic pollution from aquaculture activities; the livelihoods of fishers and fish workers in small-scale and artisanal fisheries and aquaculture; and the knowledge and cultural practices of Indigenous Peoples. Several delegates opposed references to the plastics lifecycle and microplastics, while another suggested focusing on releases and leakages from plastic products. A group of countries asked for the deletion of the article, arguing that there is no leakage from a plastic reactor and that the scope of this article overlaps with Article 3 (plastic products).

Discussions continued into the night, including on whether or not to establish an informal group on this issue.

Contact Group 3

This group was co-chaired by Kate Lynch (Australia) and Gwen Sisior (Palau). Noting the very limited time, delegates agreed to work past the agreed 9:00 pm cut off, but underlined this should not constitute a precedent. Several delegates urged discussing previously circulated submissions.

On financial [resources and] mechanism (Article 11), one delegation urged that the previously submitted African Group proposal, supported by several groups of developing countries, be the basis for negotiations, noting the Chair’s Text does not adequately reflect the views contained in the proposal. This submission contains a proposal for a new independent dedicated fund to provide adequate funding for implementing the treaty. Another delegation underscored the need for public-private partnerships to be embedded into the financial mechanism to achieve the treaty’s goals, including by centering private sector financing. They noted the details could be discussed after the treaty’s adoption. Discussions continued into the night.

Contact Group 4

This group was co-chaired by Linroy Christian (Antigua and Barbuda) and Go Kobayashi (Japan). Addressing the objective (Article 1), many delegations supported the Chair’s Text that the ILBI’s objective is to protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics. Delegates discussed whether to omit the reference to the full lifecycle of plastics, which was opposed by many who noted that it was part of UNEA resolution 5/14. Delegations alternately suggested that the ILBI “address” or “end” or “combat” plastic pollution, with a few opposing the notion of “ending” plastic pollution, opining that this cannot be achieved.

The Co-Chairs agreed to circulate a bridging proposal to allow for screen-based textual negotiations during the next meeting.

Delegates agreed to establish an informal group on principles and approaches (Article 1bis) led by Saudi Arabia to consider the four options outlined in the Chair’s Text, including deleting the article. On signature (Article 26) and ratification, acceptance, approval or accession (Article 27), one delegate asked to delete reference to regional economic integration organizations (REIOs) as potential signatories. Another delegation opposed, arguing REIOs are defined in Article 2 and underlining that this is standard language in most MEAs. Delegates also debated a proposal for a new Article 3bis to provide for a transitional period during which developing countries would not be bound by the ILBI’s obligations after the deposit of their instrument of ratification.

On entry into force (Article 28), several delegates called for additional work in the contact group. On reservations (Article 29), proposals included specific reservations on plastic products and a general exclusion for the protection of national security. One delegate objected to the inability to make reservations, while several others affirmed this is standard practice for MEAs. One delegation suggested reducing the period for withdrawal (Article 30) from three to two years after the ILBI’s entry into force.

The contact group agreed to send articles on depositary (Article 31) and authentic texts (Article 32) to plenary, with a view to forwarding them to the Open-ended Legal Drafting Group.

In the Corridors

On the final stretch of what has been a difficult climb, delegates were raring to go on Tuesday morning, hoping that no one would derail the timeline set out in the Chair’s scenario note. They quickly agreed to shuffle the contact group discussions to ensure that the “heaviest” discussions do not occur simultaneously. As they moved into contact groups, some hurdles soon appeared, with one group engaging in a circular procedural discussion, raising questions about when delegates would actually negotiate textual proposals.

Meanwhile, in the contact group addressing definitions, the lack of agreement in the room led one delegate to propose the future treaty should not contain any definitions at all. “It will take forever for us to agree on these definitions,” opined one delegate, “and we just don’t have the time.” Countering this, a seasoned observer noted the importance of definitions as a “grounding for the text and for future implementation.”

It was when discussions turned to more contentious articles (read: scope and Article 6) that the sticking points became all too clear. Following protracted discussions that disrupted the evening’s schedule, some delegates plainly rejected a suggestion to allow the Co-Chairs to develop text based on the afternoon’s discussions. This left many wondering what this portends for the rest of the week. “The imperative to adopt an agreement is real, but does the political will and trust needed even exist?” asked one delegate, leaving the room two hours later than expected. It is early days yet, but the pressure is on for delegates to “get it done.”