Summary report, 5–15 August 2025

“It’s now high time for Member States to get the deal over the line.” These were the words of United Nations Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen as the negotiations, which many hoped would lead to the adoption of a new treaty to end plastic pollution, commenced in Geneva. But try as they might, the finish line remained out of reach, and delegates were unable to reach consensus and could not adopt a new treaty.

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, presented delegates with their second chance to reach an agreement, given that they were unsuccessful at the fifth session in Busan, Republic of Korea, in December 2024. With ever-mounting levels of plastic waste, scientifically proven to be poisoning ecosystems and flooding human bodies, delegates met in Geneva hoping to overcome significant differences in order to stem the tide of plastic pollution and deliver on their mandate from the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA). Working in contact and informal groups for most of the meeting, they exchanged views and engaged in textual negotiations based on a Chair’s Text issued in December 2024.

The most intractable issues permeating the negotiations concerned whether or not the UNEA mandate covered issues related to sustainable production of plastic, the raw material used to make plastic products, and who would be responsible for financing the implementation of the future treaty. On financing, they debated the inclusion of a proposed new categorization of countries, singling out “parties with a capacity” to contribute finances for implementation in the most vulnerable countries. This group could include developing countries that have plastic production and/or manufacture plastic products and have benefitted from the profits from these sales.

Delegates were also torn about whether to use the UNEA language setting out the scope, which is the full life cycle of plastic, with many supporting this approach and a few insisting on “renegotiating.” Beyond this, in working to understand one another’s positions, they also expanded the original text, making limited progress toward a new treaty.

Perhaps the most significant feature of the meeting was the circulation of new texts by the INC Chair, which did not garner much support from states, Many also expressed disappointment about the lack of clarity and “untransparent” working modalities that plagued the meeting, particularly the development of the two Chair’s texts, which some felt were “imbalanced.” In the end, INC Chair Luis Vayas (Ecuador) had little choice but to adjourn the meeting, announcing that there would be a further resumed meeting at a date yet to be determined, although it was unclear which document they would base further negotiations on.

INC-5.2 was held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 5-15 August 2025, and was attended by over 2,600 delegates, representing 183 Member States and 400 observer organizations, including environmental groups, waste pickers, Indigenous Peoples, and youth, as well as fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists. Seventy Ministers and Vice Ministers, as well as 30 other high-level representatives, also attended and participated in informal roundtables on the margins of the session.

A Brief History of the INC

As plastic pollution becomes ever more visible both on land and in waterways, calls to tackle the mounting plastic waste crisis have reverberated around the world. Of the approximately 10 billion tonnes of plastic produced since the 1950s, studies show that over 8 billion tonnes are now waste, with between 10-15 million tonnes of plastic leaking into the marine environment each year. This number is expected to more than triple by 2050. 

Studies have linked unsustainable production and consumption patterns to the exponential growth in plastic pollution, which impacts human health as well as the health of terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In 2022 there were reports of plastic particles found in human lungs and in human blood, and a 2021 report found microplastics in human placenta. 

Origins of the INC 

In response to these growing concerns, UNEA passed several resolutions to discuss the best ways to address plastic pollution. In 2017, UNEA resolution 3/7 established an Ad Hoc Expert Group (AHEG) on marine litter and microplastics to identify, inter alia: a range of national, regional, and international response options, including actions, innovative approaches, and voluntary and legally binding governance strategies and approaches; and environmental, social, and economic costs and benefits of different response options.

In parallel, several other bodies conducted work related to marine litter and microplastics, including the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention), the former Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (now the Global Framework on Chemicals), the International Maritime Organization, the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, and various Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans. 

There are also numerous voluntary initiatives on marine litter, several public-private partnerships to address land-based sources of marine pollution, and other dialogues considering plastic pollution. However, gaps remain in regulatory frameworks addressing plastic and plastic pollution. 

Key Milestones

AHEG-1-4: The AHEG met four times from May 2018 to November 2020. Among other work, the Expert Group convened two workshops to better understand elements related to information, monitoring, and governance, and requested the Secretariat to produce reports on the financial and technical resources and mechanisms to address the issue, as well as on partnerships. At its fourth meeting, the Group concluded its work and forwarded a Chair’s Summary to UNEA-5. The Summary contained, inter alia, a non-exhaustive list of recommendations for future action on marine litter and microplastics. It reflected a growing consensus on the need to address plastic pollution more broadly. Some of the recommendations included strengthening existing instruments, including voluntary measures, and calling for UNEA to establish an INC toward a new global agreement. 

2021 Ministerial Conference: From 1-2 September 2021, the governments of Ecuador, Germany, Ghana, and Viet Nam co-convened the Ministerial Conference on Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) online and in-person in Geneva, Switzerland. At this meeting, Peru and Rwanda sought support for their resolution, which would be tabled at UNEA-5.2, to establish an INC. 

UNEA-5.2: Held at UNEP Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, from 28 February – 2 March 2022, UNEA-5.2 closed the circle on the discussions on marine litter and plastic pollution. Convening under the theme “Strengthening Actions for Nature to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals,” UNEA-5.2 vaulted itself into the history books by adopting resolution 5/14 to “End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument,” which established the INC and called for an Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) to lay the necessary groundwork. 

OEWG: Hosted by the Government of Senegal in Dakar from 29 May – 1 June 2022, the OEWG to prepare for the INC on plastic pollution addressed two core issues: the rules of procedure governing the INC’s work and decision-making, and the INC’s meeting schedule. They quickly agreed on the latter but were unable to conclude the draft rule on voting rights, due to lack of agreement on voting rights for regional economic integration organizations. The group agreed to forward this issue to INC-1. 

INC-1: During this session, which was held 29 November – 2 December 2022 in Punta del Este, Uruguay, delegates elected Gustavo Meza-Cuadra (Peru) as Chair for INC-1, -2 and -3, and decided that the role of Chair would shift to Ecuador after INC-3. Delegates were unable to elect all members of the Bureau and postponed this decision to INC-2. They also postponed discussions on the rules of procedure. The Committee decided to request the INC Secretariat to prepare a document ahead of INC-2 that would outline options for the instrument’s possible elements, based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastics, including possible objectives, substantive provisions including core obligations, control measures, and voluntary approaches, implementation measures, and means of implementation, and including both legally binding and voluntary measures. 

INC-2: From 29 May – 2 June 2023, delegates met in Paris, France, and despite some procedural hiccups, engaged in discussions based on an options paper, considering multiple elements that could eventually be included in the future treaty. INC-2 mandated the preparation of a “zero draft” for a new treaty for consideration at INC-3, and allocating time for a one-day pre-meeting event to discuss a synthesis report of elements that were not considered during INC-2. They were also able to elect the remaining members of the INC Bureau, through two votes, and to come to an understanding on the provisional application of the draft rules of procedure. 

INC-3: Convening in Nairobi, Kenya, from 11-19 November 2023, INC-3 delegates spent most of the meeting proposing textual submissions to be included in a revised draft text. They agreed on a mandate for the preparation of a revised draft text, based on the compilations of submissions by delegations throughout the meeting. After long discussions, however, they were unable to agree on a mandate for intersessional work to be done in preparation for INC-4. 

INC-4: Convening in Ottawa, Canada, from 23-29 April 2024, delegates based their discussions on a Revised Draft Text compiled after their deliberations at INC-3. Under new INC Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso (Ecuador), delegations’ preferences diverged on scope, financing, extended producer responsibility, whether to include any provisions on primary plastic polymers, how to address chemicals and polymers, and linkages to existing processes. They also engaged in intersessional work on financing options, and also discussed criteria and non-criteria-based approaches to plastic products, chemicals of concern in plastic products, and product design, focusing on recyclability and reusability of plastic products. 

INC-5: In what was supposed to be the final round of negotiations from 25 November – 2 December 2024 in Busan, Republic of Korea, delegates were unable to finalize a treaty. Delegates engaged in difficult discussions on whether plastic products and chemicals of concern and plastic supply and production were within the INC’s mandate. Limited progress was also made in discussions on finance. Overarching to all of this was whether the future treaty would include mandatory or voluntary measures, and whether the measures adopted would apply at the global or national levels. 

They agreed to base a resumed meeting of INC-5 on a Chair’s Text, issued on Sunday, 1 December 2024. This text was a culmination of efforts to revise an initial non-paper, circulated by INC Chair Luis Vayas weeks before INC-5 convened, to reflect discussions at the meeting. The Committee met in states-only meetings for a number of days, addressing most of the text. The Chair’s Text excluded an article on scope. 

During the intersessional period, Heads of Delegation convened for an informal meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, from 30 June – 2 July 2025, for states to better understand each other and to identify possible ways forward. At the meeting, delegates also considered the modalities and organization of work for INC-5.2. 

INC-5.2 Report

“The common good does not conflict with national interests, but requires a careful and courageous balance between them,” stressed INC Chair Luis Vayas as he opened the resumed fifth meeting on Tuesday, 5 August. He urged delegates to demonstrate pragmatism to reach an agreement that is effective, inclusive, implementable, and capable of evolving. 

Commending the Committee’s progress during the intersessional period to carve a path toward a possible agreement, UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen urged delegates to “get it done” and to deliver an agreement that demonstrates “real strength” and “also includes the hooks for further development.” 

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 UNEA, where the historic process began with resolution 5/14 to end plastic pollution, and 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. The INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF WASTE PICKERS emphasized that a just transition should be compulsory with effective funding mechanisms, otherwise it will not be implemented. 

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’ COALITION FOR AN EFFECTIVE PLASTICS TREATY and SOCIETY OF PLASTICS ENGINEERS highlighted the need for the future treaty to cover the full life cycle of plastics. 

The 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. The 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: On Tuesday, 5 August, 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: On Tuesday, 5 August, 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: On Tuesday, 5 August, 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 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 to the 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.  

Other Matters: In plenary on Saturday, 9 August, INC Chair Vayas noted that since UNEA resolution 5/14 mandated UNEP to convene a Diplomatic Conference, he had requested the Secretariat to prepare draft elements for a possible resolution on Monday, 11 August, noting that delegates would be informed of next steps in due time. In plenary on Wednesday, 13 August, the Secretariat pointed to possible elements for draft resolutions for consideration by the diplomatic conference (UNEP/PP/INC.5/CRP.2), stressing they took a “minimalistic approach,” only focusing on elements usually considered under any multilateral environmental agreement (MEA), irrespective of their subject matter. Delegates did not discuss this matter again at this session.

Preparation of an ILBI on Plastic Pollution, including in the Marine Environment

Delegates met in four contact groups until Wednesday, 13 August, to hear new proposals, and conduct textual negotiations initially based on the Chair’s Text issued on 1 December 2024 (which was annexed to the INC-5.1 report), and in some cases, based on proposals submitted by states. The Chair’s Text was entirely bracketed, with some articles so heavily bracketed, it was “difficult to decipher them,” according to many delegations.

Contact Group 1 was co-chaired by Maria Angélica Ikeda (Brazil) and Axel Borchmann (Germany). Contact Group 2 was co-chaired by Peter Justice Dery (Ghana) and Tuulia Toikka (Finland). Contact Group 3 was co-chaired by Kate Lynch (Australia) and Gwen Sisior (Palau). Contact Group 4 was co-chaired by Go Kobayashi (Japan) and Linroy Christian (Antigua and Barbuda). 

The contact group discussions led to “informal informals” (member-led informal, small group discussions) on specific issues, facilitated by one or two states. These informal informals reported any progress to the contact group. In Contact Groups 2-4, the Co-Chairs were able to provide status of work documents, to keep track of discussions on the articles under their mandate.  

Formal discussions in plenary and in contact and informal groups occurred on Tuesday, 5 August, Wednesday, 6 August, Thursday, 7 August, Friday, 8 August, Saturday, 9 August, Monday, 11 August, Tuesday, 12 August, and Wednesday, 13 August. 

Beginning on Saturday, 9 August, delegates mostly based their discussions on an Assembled Text (UNEP/PP/INC.5/CRP.15) prepared by the Secretariat, which reflected work done in the contact groups over the first week, and on proposals made by Co-Chairs, Co-Facilitators, and states on various articles. The Assembled Text was presented during a stocktaking plenary on Saturday, 9 August. INC Chair Vayas explained that the Assembled Text is for informational purposes only and represents a snapshot of discussions in the contact groups as of Friday afternoon, 8 August.

On process, he proposed reconvening the contact groups to review articles with an aim to forward text to the Legal Drafting Group, calling on delegates to work with and support the Co-Chairs to facilitate the finalization of the text. INC Chair Vayas noted that he would continue to work with the Co-Chairs to identify issues where divergence persists. At this stage of negotiations, many delegations called to revise the working modalities, including closed door meetings reporting back to plenary to make progress, but work proceeded in contact and informal groups, which mostly provided updates to the contact groups calling for more time for discussions.

On Wednesday, 13 August, all four contact groups closed in the morning, with the contact group Co-Chairs informing delegations that INC Chair Vayas was to circulate a new text for consideration during the day. Many were confused about the process, requesting clarification on whether the work of the contact groups would inform the new text, with the contact group Co-Chairs noting that they would report these concerns to INC Chair Vayas. The status of the work in the contact groups remains unclear.

This summary is organized according to the Chair’s Text from 1 December 2024 and reflects the main points of divergence that remained at the end of INC-5.2.

Preamble: The preamble was addressed by Contact Group 4. The group discussed whether the preamble should refer to: the full plastics life cycle; UNEA resolution 5/14; human and Indigenous Peoples rights; and the responsibilities of businesses. An informal, co-facilitated by Saudi Arabia and Colombia, further discussed this part during the second week, reporting that they were making progress. Several delegates supported reviewing the preamble once the substantive elements of the treaty are agreed upon, rather than in isolation.  

Article 1: The objective was discussed in Contact Group 4, with the Chair’s Text noting that the objective of this Convention is to protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution, including in the marine environment [based on a comprehensive approach that address the full life cycle of plastics]. Delegates were unable to agree on whether the ILBI should cover the full plastics life cycle and “address” or “end” or “combat” plastic pollution.  

Scope: On scope, for which there was no proposed language in the Chair’s Text, delegates in Contact Group 1 discussed: whether to include a standalone article on scope, and what the scope of the ILBI should be, with different interpretations of UNEA resolution 5/14 and divergence over whether the ILBI should include a list of exclusions.

Following the group’s consideration of scope at the beginning of the meeting, a placeholder for scope was included in the Assembled Text. Discussions thereafter continued in informal-informal settings, with a dedicated informal-informal facilitated by Saudi Arabia at the behest of the INC Chair. Delegates asked for more time to further discuss this matter in the informal setting, but contact group discussions were closed before they could continue their negotiations.

Article 1bis: The article on principles and approaches was addressed by Contact Group 4, with the Chair’s Text listing four options, three that listed specific principles and/or approaches and one “zero text” option, proposing the deletion of this article. An informal, co-facilitated by Saudi Arabia, discussed the article throughout the two weeks, at times jointly with discussions on the preamble. Views diverged on, among several other things, whether to include both principles and approaches, or only principles.  

Article 2: Definitions were addressed by Contact Group 1, with the Chair’s Text containing definitions for: party, plastic, plastic pollution, plastic product, plastic waste, and regional economic integration organization (REIO). Divergence ensued on whether the definition of “plastic pollution” should be: limited to plastic waste; extended to releases, emissions, and leakages from other sources and stages of the plastic(s) life cycle; and linked to “adverse effects on human health and the environment.”

Article 3: Contact Group 1 considered plastics products, which in the Assembled Text had been retitled “[sustainable consumption and production of] [product design] [problematic] plastic products,” focusing on different textual proposals for this article. Divergence ensued on whether the article should: be mandatory or voluntary; address national and/or global measures; and contain a global list of plastic products and chemicals of concern to be limited or phased out, along with an amendment procedure.

Delegates also debated the criteria, if any, with which to identify, reduce, or phase-out plastic products, including references to: likeliness of the product entering the environment; risks to human health or the environment; containing hazardous chemicals; the necessity of the product; and whether products are capable of being reused or recycled. Discussions also addressed reporting obligations, and the role, if any, of the future Conference of the Parties (COP), subsidiary bodies, and/or other committees.

Delegates continued textual work on this article in several informals, co-facilitated by Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Singapore, and New Zealand, and in informal-informal settings. Saudi Arabia reported that the informal group had completed a first reading of the article, with the text now reflecting members’ views. They noted, among others, some convergence on national measures, although views still diverged on the details. As the text had ballooned, they proposed providing a text that delegates can voluntarily use to facilitate informal informals.

Article 4: The article on exemptions was briefly considered in Contact Group 1, in conjunction with Article 3. A group of 85 countries, led by Mexico and Switzerland, made a joint proposal on phasing out certain plastic products, which contained a provision for extended phase-out periods with reference to the Chair’s Text on exemptions. The contact group did not conduct line-by-line negotiations on this article. 

Article 5: Contact Group 1 completed a full reading of provisions on plastic product design, with divergence on whether to establish mandatory or voluntary national measures, and the aims and considerations that would guide such measures. Proposals tabled included that design measures should:

• contribute to sustainable production and consumption, and/or circularity;
• facilitate reuse and recycling systems;
• meet toxic-free circularity design standards, or another set of criteria; and
• improve the availability of information on safe and sustainable use, repair, recycling, and waste management.

Delegates also debated the role, if any, of the COP in developing guidance for priority plastic products, with different views on whether this guidance should be developed through a sector- or product-specific design and/or performance criteria. Divergence further ensued on whether to include: a provision on ensuring that product design measures do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade and are not discriminatory; and references to safe and sustainable additives and chemicals, the waste hierarchy, and microplastics. Discussions continued on the text in several informals, co-facilitated by the Netherlands and Argentina, and in informal-informal settings. Delegates did not arrive at any areas of convergence and asked for more time to continue discussions in informal settings, which they were unable to do as contact groups were closed on Wednesday, 13 August

Article 6: In an initial exchange of views on [supply][sustainable production] in Contact Group 1 on Tuesday, 5 August, divergence ensued on whether to include the provision in the ILBI at all, with different views on whether it is encompassed within the mandate in UNEA resolution 5/14. Some delegates called for a global target to ensure sustainable production and consumption of plastics, along with national measures to contribute to the global target, and national reporting on measures taken and consumption trends. Others called to delete the article, noting that the ILBI should combat plastic pollution, not curtail plastic production. Following the group’s consideration of the article at the beginning of the meeting, an informal was convened, co-facilitated by New Zealand.

In their report back to the contact group, New Zealand noted that delegates continued to engage in conceptual discussions, such as on how to ensure global coordination of measures; and the role of a subsidiary body or any other body, expert group, or platform. They stressed that delegations could still find common ground and encouraged them to continue informal-informal discussions.

Discussions resumed in dedicated informal-informal settings toward the end of INC 5.2, facilitated by Japan. Noting that more discussions are needed, delegates asked for more time to meet in informal settings.

Article 7: This article on releases and leakages was discussed in Contact Group 2. In the Chair’s Assembled Text, the article’s title was entirely bracketed. An informal, co-facilitated by the UK and Kenya, met throughout the two weeks and was able to discuss the entire article. One point of contention was whether to refer to the full plastics life cycle in this article.  

Article 8: On plastic waste management, Contact Group 2 discussed the article at length early in the first week. Delegates shared divergent views on the mandatory or voluntary nature of the obligation to promote extended producer responsibility and to take measures to ensure that plastic waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner, as well as on the relationship between the ILBI and the Basel Convention. Informal discussions, co-facilitated by Chile and Switzerland, continued throughout the meeting. They reported that there was a need for more time to make progress.  

Article 9: Contact Group 2 discussed existing plastic pollution at length early in the first week and informal group discussions, co-facilitated by the EU and the Dominican Republic, were held throughout the meeting. Delegates disagreed on whether the article should address existing or legacy pollution, and whether implementation of the article would be mandatory or voluntary. One regional group, opposed by others, also proposed establishing a remediation mechanism. In the Chair’s Assembled Text, the article was retitled to [[existing][and][legacy] plastic [waste] pollution] [remediation of plastic pollution]. 

Article 10: On just transition, Contact Group 2 debates revolved around whether to: have a standalone article; split it into two articles, make it mandatory; and reference the positive impacts of the just transition. In the Assembled Text, the article was retitled [just] transition[[s] [for workers]]. Informal discussions, co-facilitated by Cameroon and Chile, were held from throughout the meeting. In their reports to the contact group, they called for more time to make progress, including on whether to split the article into two parts. 

Article 11: On financial [resources and] mechanism, delegates in Contact Group 3 discussed, among others, the establishment of a new independent dedicated fund, designation of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as the interim financial mechanism, the need for public-private partnerships, and a possibility for a hybrid approach that combines some of these elements.  

The Co-Chairs prepared a comparison document with a table, taking into account the Chair’s Text and the members’ proposals. An informal group was co-facilitated by Austria and Costa Rica to consider areas of convergence and divergence based on this comparison document. The Co-Chairs were then mandated to prepare a simplified iteration of the first seven paragraphs of this Article on the basis of the Chair’s Text and proposals and views expressed during INC 5.1 and INC 5.2. The contact group welcomed this as constructive text to move forward, while acknowledging that it does not encompass all views or reflect exhaustive discussions.

Article 12: Contact Group 3 was able to complete a first line-by-line consideration of the article on capacity building, technical assistance and technology transfer, including international cooperation, which in the Assembled Text was titled [international cooperation] [cooperation in] capacity building, technical assistance and technology transfer [, including international cooperation]. Delegates debated on whether technology transfer should be “voluntary” and/or “on mutually agreed terms,” and/or “on concessional and preferential terms.” Delegates also debated at length how to refer to those in the recipient country list, which sets out the recipients of the capacity building, technical assistance and technology transfer, with some calling to add terms such as “parties most in need,” “countries with significant capacity constraints,” “countries with economies in transition,” with others stressing the need to highlight Indigenous Peoples. Others opposed, noting the proposed terms’ ambiguity and that they were not standard language in other MEAs.  

Delegates also considered a proposal for a mechanism for cooperation, with some delegations supporting this separate mechanism, stressing the need for an entity to channel cooperation and to complement an ambitious text with “ambitious measures.” Others opposed, opining that the future secretariat can support cooperation activities, even without a dedicated mechanism, as such a mechanism can impose additional administrative and budgetary burdens on the future secretariat.

Article 13: Contact Group 4 addressed implementation and compliance, with the Chair’s Text establishing an implementation and compliance mechanism, including a committee, that is transparent, facilitative, non-punitive, non-adversarial and expert-based; and which may consider issues on the basis of written submissions from any party with respect to its own compliance, requests from the COP, and information provided by the Secretariat with respect to national reports. They discussed, among other things, linking compliance with the provision of adequate financial resources, and the membership of the implementation and compliance committee.

Article 14: On national plans, delegates in Contact Group 4 first considered the Chair’s Text, which reflected, inter alia, that each party [shall] [may] develop, a national plan that contains actions and measures to implement this convention, and that the extent to which developing country parties will effectively implement their national plans will depend on the effective implementation of the provisions related to means of implementation. Delegates debated whether national [action] plans should be mandatory and legally binding, with one regional group preferring that these are voluntary.

One delegation presented a proposal supported by 47 countries, seeking to align the new treaty with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) by, among others, adding “national stakeholder and partners” to facilitate the development, implementation, and updating of national plans.

One regional group noted linkages between this article and Articles 15 and 16 on reporting and effectiveness evaluation, respectively, with some delegates, opposed by others, supporting that the three be addressed together. The three articles were discussed in an informal, facilitated by Palau. In the contact group, Palau reported that the informal group had considered a streamlined text on Articles 14-16, and opened discussions on national [action] plans. They reported that divergence remained on, inter alia, the description of the plans, their starting date, and their legal status. They highlighted that the informal group had agreed to use the Co-Facilitators’ proposal for future discussions.

Article 15: On reporting, Contact Group 4 first considered the Chair’s Text, which reflected, among other things, that each party shall regularly report its actions and measures to implement the convention to the COP as outlined in the national plan, and that the extent to which developing country parties will effectively implement this article will depend on the effective implementation of the provisions related to means of implementation. This article was discussed in an informal, facilitated by Palau, which also addressed Articles 14 and 16.

Article 16: On effectiveness evaluation, Contact Group 4 first considered the Chair’s Text, reflecting that, inter alia, the COP shall regularly evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of the Convention, with the first evaluation being undertaken no later than six years after the date of entry into force and thereafter at intervals to be decided by the COP. Delegates proposed, among others, that the evaluation: not be used to impose new obligations or alter the existing objective, obligations, and scope of the ILBI; be conducted based on information on the extent to which developed countries have provided support pursuant to Articles 11 and 12; be limited to effectiveness, not implementation; assess the adequacy of obligations; and rely on data, information, and indicators across the entire plastics life cycle.

This article was discussed in an informal, facilitated by Palau, which also addressed Articles 14 and 15.

Article 17: On information exchange, Contact Group 4 considered the Chair’s Text which, among other things, encourages parties to facilitate information exchange on best practices and policies relating to: sustainable consumption and production of plastics, and associated relevant research, technologies and innovation; health and environmental risks of and impacts associated with plastic pollution; and scientific and technical knowledge, including traditional knowledge, and the knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Delegates considered whether adding text to address, inter alia, the need to identify sources of plastic pollution and procedures for the free, prior, and informed consent of knowledge holders. One delegate stressed that information on the health and safety of humans and the environment should not be regarded as confidential. Delegates continued discussions in an informal, which ended without conclusion upon the close of the contact groups. 

Article 18: On public information, awareness, education and research, the Chair’s Text reflected that parties are encouraged to advance scientific and technological research, development, innovation and cooperation, to address plastic pollution including by, among other things, incorporating traditional knowledge, knowledge of Indigenous Peoples, and local community knowledge and other cultural and socio-economic factors.

Contact Group 4 discussed whether: the advancement of scientific and technological research, development, innovation, and cooperation should be mandatory; to replace “knowledge of Indigenous Peoples” with “knowledges, sciences, and practices of Indigenous Peoples” and “local community knowledge” with “local knowledge systems;” and to take measures to enable businesses to share information and report on how their activities align with the objectives of the ILBI. Delegates continued discussions in an informal, which ended without agreement upon the close of the contact group. 

Article 19: The article on health was discussed in Contact Group 4, with the Chair’s Text containing two options: to incorporate health-related elements in other relevant articles, or to have a standalone article on health. Delegates considered a new proposal resulting from consultations held during the intersessional period, providing that “parties shall promote cooperation in scientific research and in the development of evidence-based policies to identify, assess, monitor and, where appropriate, prevent or mitigate the potential adverse effects of plastic pollution on human health and wellbeing.” They debated whether or not to include a standalone article on this issue throughout the duration of the session, meeting in informals co-facilitated by Brazil and Uganda. In the Assembled Text, the article was titled [Health][Cooperation in scientific research and technology development on health impacts of plastic [pollution]].

Article 20: The article on the COP was discussed in Contact Group 4, with the Chair’s Text reflecting, among other things, that COP 1 shall, by consensus, agree upon and adopt rules of procedure and financial rules for itself and any of its subsidiary bodies, as well as financial provisions governing the functioning of the secretariat. A group of 120 countries introduced a proposal resulting from the Heads of Delegation informal discussions held in Nairobi that if all efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted, decisions on questions of procedure shall be adopted by a majority of the parties present and voting, and decisions on questions of substance shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the parties present and voting. This proposal was opposed by others. Discussions continued in an informal, co-facilitated by EU and Peru, which ended without agreement upon the close of the contact group.  

Article 20bis: This article on subsidiary bodies was discussed in Contact Group 4, with the Chair’s Text reflecting that, among others, that COP 1 shall establish a subsidiary body or bodies to provide scientific and technical information and assessments to support informed decision-making. An informal discussion, co-facilitated by the EU and Palau, met during the first week, with the EU reporting that the article was entirely bracketed, but work was still progressing.

Article 21: The article on the secretariat was discussed in Contact Group 4, with the Chair’s Text reflecting the functions of the secretariat and noting that these be performed by the UNEP Executive Director unless the COP decides, by a three-fourths majority, to entrust the functions to one or more other international organizations. Delegates debated whether UNEP should be designated as the secretariat with some noting that this could be agreed at COP 1 and excluded from the treaty text.

Article 22: The article on the settlement of disputes was discussed in Contact Group 4, with language in the Chair’s Text reflecting, among other things that: parties shall cooperate to prevent disputes and shall settle disputes between them through negotiation or other peaceful means; parties recognize arbitration and/or submitting to the International Court of Justice as compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms; and that if parties to a dispute have not accepted the same means of dispute settlement and if they have not been able to settle their dispute through the means mentioned, the dispute shall be submitted to a conciliation commission, which shall render a report with recommendations. Delegates debated the inclusion of the conciliation commission, with many calling to delete reference to it.

Article 23: The article on amendments to the convention was discussed in Contact Group 4, with language in the Chair’s Text reflecting, inter alia, that: amendments may be proposed by any party and be adopted at a COP; and parties shall make every effort to reach agreement on any proposed amendment but that if all efforts at consensus are exhausted, the amendment shall as a last resort be adopted [by a three-fourths majority vote] of the parties present and voting. Delegates debated the inclusion of language on voting, with a number supporting a vote. This divergence was reflected in the Assembled Text.

Article 23bis: In Contact Group 4, one delegation introduced a proposal for an additional article, not contained in the Chair’s Text, on the relationship with other agreements, which stated, among other things, that implementation of the rights and obligations of the parties under the future treaty shall be without prejudice to their rights and obligations under other international agreements, including international trade agreements. Delegates supported discussions on this article, which was then included in the Assembled Text. Brazil and Colombia led informal discussion on this new article, with delegates debating whether the language could be incorporated into other articles.

Article 24: During discussions in Contact Group 4, delegates agreed to bracket the entire text on adoption and amendment of annexes in the Chair’s Text, agreeing that they would revisit this issue after discussions on annexes. The contact group did not discuss this further. 

Article 25: On right to vote, delegates in Contact Group 4 clarified the voting rights of REIOs, particularly whether each state party to the REIO should be “accredited and present at the time to vote” during voting procedures. In the group’s discussions, Co-Chair Christian highlighted that all articles referencing REIOs may need to be discussed together at a later stage, pointing to an article-by-article mapping chart.

Article 26: On signature, Contact Group 4 discussed whether to delete reference REIOs as potential signatories. 

Article 27: Delegations in Contact Group 4 also discussed whether to delete reference to REIOs as potential signatories on ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. 

Article 28: Contact Group 4 was mandated to negotiate the article on entry into force, but did not have time to do so.

Article 29: On reservations, delegates in Contact 4 discussed, among others, making specific reservations on plastic products, general exclusion for protection of national security, and the ability to make reservations. 

Article 30: Contact Group 4 considered the article on withdrawal, with discussions on the period for withdrawal following the ILBI’s entry into force and agreed to forward the article to plenary. In a plenary session on Wednesday, 13 August, delegates agreed to forward the article to the Legal Drafting Group. In plenary on Friday morning, 15 August, INC Chair Vayas requested the Committee to take note of this article submitted by the Legal Drafting Group, noting that it had been cleared without amendment.

Article 31: Contact Group 4 forwarded the article on depositary to plenary, following a first reading. In plenary on Saturday, 9 August, delegates agreed to forward the article to the Legal Drafting Group. In plenary on Wednesday, 13 August, the Committee took note of the of the output text of the Legal Drafting Group. 

Article 32: Contact Group 4 forwarded the article on authentic texts to plenary, following a first reading. In a plenary session on Saturday, 9 August, delegates agreed to forward the article to the Legal Drafting Group. In a plenary on Wednesday, 13 August, the Committee took note of the output text of the Legal Drafting Group. 

Chair’s Texts

On Wednesday, 13 August, INC Chair Vayas circulated a Chair’s Draft Text Proposal for consideration by the Committee, noting this was an attempt to capture the elements that could lay the foundation for agreement and “deliver on our shared responsibility.” The text did not contain provisions on scope or on sustainable production. He proposed that: 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. 

Dozens of delegations, including CHILE, PANAMA, the EU, the ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES, KENYA, the PHILIPPINES, BANGLADESH, NIGERIA, CANADA and NORWAY, expressed their disappointment with the Chair’s Draft Text Proposal and on the proposed working modalities.  

INDIA and CHINA expressed support for the Chair’s proposed way forward, with INDIA noting that the draft proposal, despite missing fundamental elements, was a “good enough” starting point. COSTA RICA proposed convening an urgent Heads of Delegation meeting.  

Delegates eventually agreed to INC Chair Vayas’ proposal that he would engage with delegations during regional and other informal consultations later on Wednesday evening and convene a Heads of Delegations meeting on Thursday morning. 

On Thursday, delegates spent the entire day in informal and small group discussions addressing the Chair’s Draft Text Proposal, with INC Chair Vayas opening and adjourning plenary after a quick update on the status of the talks. In the early morning hours on Friday, 15 August, a Heads of Delegation meeting convened to address the Chair’s revised text proposal, circulated at 12:48 am, which reflected the results of meetings with regional groups, small group consultations organized by the Chair, and numerous bilateral meetings.

When plenary convened at 6:12 am on Friday, INC Chair Vayas explained that he had carried out consultations with regional groups on Wednesday, 13 August, on the Chair’s Draft Text Proposal. He highlighted that a small working group, co-chaired by Chile and Japan, met during the day on Thursday, 14 August, to work on a package of issues that could serve as consensus text. He said the group had identified the need for consensus on four interconnected issues: production, finance, plastic products, and decision making. He shared that, informed by this group and by consultations, he had prepared a Chair’s revised text proposal, which was then considered in a Heads of Delegation meeting. He highlighted that this proposal represented his best attempt to capture delegations’ views, moving the INC closer to an ILBI, and noting that this proposal is a tool for the Committee to shape, mold, or improve. Noting that no action was taken after consultations on both his texts, INC Chair Vayas said that no further negotiations were being proposed at this stage and announced that the Committee had concluded its work.

In response to a request for clarification by BRAZIL, INC Chair Vayas confirmed that neither the Chair’s Draft Text Proposal of 13 August nor 15 August would be annexed to the meeting report.

Expressing “deep disappointment” about the way in which the work by the INC Chair and at INC 5.2 has been characterized, TUVALU noted that the two Texts were not “rejected” as they both received some support, and called for the meeting report to reflect the work in the contact groups and the two Texts prepared during INC 5.2, as well as for the Chair to develop text to be considered at a future session, based on these.

NORWAY thanked the Chair for a “more balanced” revised iteration of the Text, and, with CANADA and the UK, reiterated their “steadfast commitment” to explore options going forward to put in place a “powerful treaty.” They highlighted that the treaty must “at a minimum” address the full plastic life cycle, unsustainable consumption and production trends, include global measures and criteria on plastic products and chemicals, and ensure the treaty can evolve over time.

AUSTRALIA stressed that countries’ red lines and “hardline positions” were incompatible and “leave no pathway for agreement,” urged that, going forward, delegates must “take brave decisions and move forward together;” and stressed that the work undertaken at INC 5.2 and prior INCs have advanced toward a common understanding to help in future work.

Emphasizing that substantive obligations must be accompanied by means of implementation, CUBA: underlined that all texts and proposals from the INC process thus far “can be considered in future negotiations on equal terms;” did not support “pinpointing or singling out any document as the sole basis for negotiations;” and urged proceeding on the basis of consensus.

KENYA regretted that despite best efforts, the INC had failed to deliver a treaty but underlined that the revised draft text was an improvement from Busan. He said the text has not been rejected but has not received the consensus required; and, with UGANDA, noted that there was no discussion on the definitions, and Articles 18 and 20. He said that if an opportunity arises, delegates can identify the elements of a workable treaty, with the details left to be discussed at future COPs, opining that this is a win-win for all. He urged that the process remains transparent, noting that some of their views were never reflected in the draft texts.

CAMEROON expressed confidence in the future and noted that delegates could make suggestions on the structure of the draft report, with statements to be included in the annex of the report, cautioning against engaging in debates on contentious issues. He stated that all delegations have comments on the various texts, but called to look forward, noting that all the documents from this session could facilitate our understanding and in the drafting of a future text. He said a perfect agreement requires mutual compromise and underlined that they wanted to work on an ambitious yet realistic agreement. They said that it was time to start working on a common agreement and that this is necessary for building trust.

HONDURAS noted with concern the gaps that still exist in the current text, including the principle of proportionality. They called for clear references in the financial mechanism on links to other agreement, and for limits on plastic products. They regretted that common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) was not reflected in the operative text of the agreement.

UGANDA lamented that despite attempts, the revised text had not gained consensus as it had “veered off the mandate.” They remained optimistic that another session would be convened to continue discussions, based on the work of the contact groups at this session and including language on articles that had not been discussed at this session.

Urging further efforts to reach an ILBI, JAPAN noted it is “regrettable” that the results of the small group meeting were not adequately reflected in the revised draft text and highlighted concerns about accuracy and a clear procedure.

ETHIOPIA lamented that discussions remain heavily focused on process, and urged moving toward a results-oriented dialogue, calling for “every remaining moment to be used to press forward,” and for the treaty to provide a foundation for the future.

Kuwait, for the LIKE-MINDED COUNTRIES and supported by IRAN, stressed that their views were not reflected in either Text; lamented that states who had “rejected” the revised texts are now accepting them; warned that the mandate diverting from an environmental to a trade treaty; and urged proceeding on the basis of the Chair’s Text from Busan.

The PHILIPPINES noted real progress was made toward bridging differences at INC 5.2, and noted their readiness to continue work in any suitable forum or format.

SWITZERLAND, with many others, underlined that the text did not find consensus but was also not rejected, and highlighted a need to reflect on the changes needed to find pathways forward to establishing an agreement, including how to work with existing conventions such as the Basel, Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions.

SOUTH AFRICA underlined the need for a deadlock mechanism to address impasses. They noted that, as President of the G20, they would further the conversations and at any future sessions and supported Kenya’s bid to host the secretariat.

The UK highlighted that we cannot afford to waste a minute in the battle against plastic pollution and reiterated their commitment to reach agreement on a treaty and called on members to draw on the work from this session in a resumed session.

FRANCE stressed that the revised text constituted progress and underlined that they were “disappointed and enraged” that despite real efforts, no tangible results had been obtained and lamented the chaotic negotiations.

AZERBAIJAN lamented the attempts to go beyond the mandate of the resolution, expressed disappointment at the modalities of work, and opined that the Chair’s texts were unbalanced. They noted that if negotiations continue, the text should be balanced and reflective of all states’ positions.

CANADA stressed that the INC needed to build on our work, and called to include the work of the meeting in the meeting report. They committed to continuing negotiations in a resumed session to complete the work.

TÜRKIYE reflected on the fact that the longer we delay the higher the cost we apply to future generations. They underlined that an ILBI is a necessity to mobilize resources and share technologies, and called on delegations to use the setback as a call to intensify work.

IRAN emphasized that the process of addressing the latest text had excluded a large number of countries, and underlined that chemicals of concern are outside the mandate of the INC. He called to correct the approach and tactics of the process and urged to get back on the right track based on the areas of convergence.

REPUBLIC OF KOREA lamented that the momentum from Busan had not produced consensus at INC-5.2, but underlined that the revised text should be the basis of negotiations at a further resumed session. They called on delegations to use the time before the next meeting to continue to build bridges.

BANGLADESH said that a global plastics treaty represents humanity’s best hope of addressing plastic pollution and called for a rejection of fragmented and outdated practices.

ERITREA recognized improvements in the revised proposal and accepted it as a basis for future negotiations. They lamented the lack of global measures and dedicated financial resources in the text.

GEORGIA, also for MOLDOVA, supported the revised text as a basis for further negotiations, but expressed disappointment that consensus could not be reached, noting “we owe future generations not to leave this process unfinished.”

GUATEMALA underlined that the fight against plastic pollution protects both human health and the environment. They reiterated the need for building an ambitious agreement together, built on compromise language. They committed to continue to engage in the process to end plastic pollution.

NIGERIA expressed disappointment with the revised text, noting that it crossed their red lines by including global caps on production. They called for a clear and inclusive definition, recognition of national action plans as the implementation vehicle and an implementation framework that is supportive of national circumstances and supported Kenya’s bid to host the future secretariat. They called for further work on a balanced text.

PERU underlined their constructive participation and deeply regretted that despite best efforts convergence had not been achieved. They highlighted their commitment to the process, underlining the need to redouble efforts to achieve a treaty in the near future.

Saudi Arabia, for the ARAB GROUP, supported by QATAR, stressed that the text circulated on 15 August was rejected by many groups and not recognized as a basis for further negotiations. They required that the meeting report also specify that Member States rejected the Chair’s Draft Text Proposal, explaining that both texts “lack a balance between various views and positions” and lamenting that several issues and articles, such as recycling and waste management, were not given equal treatment.

URUGUAY, echoed by INDIA, clarified that neither text was “rejected”, but they did not receive consensus. They supported the Chair’s revised text proposal, arguing it is “in line with the mandate established by UNEA resolution 5/14” and “will be useful and should be duly reflected in the report for our future work in the negotiations.” They also called for finding a mechanism to enable the continuation of the negotiations, “not by establishing endless, inflexible options.”

The EU explained that they had higher expectations, nonetheless noted that “we have advanced significantly” and that “the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good.” They urged delegates to learn from the process to work better together at a resumed meeting.

GRENADA urged that the meeting report reflect: progress made at this meeting; expression of support and rejection on both texts; and lack of consensus on both. They echoed CAMEROON, TUVALU, and URUGUAY, saying that the meeting must serve to advance negotiations.

PALAU, supported by MAURITIUS and SAMOA, reiterated the need for: transparency, cooperation, and trust in the future process; taking into account lessons learned; and considering other avenues for political engagement. Lamenting returning home again with insufficient progress, they asked for the meeting report to capture constructive dialogue.

SENEGAL stressed that the last iteration of the text can serve as a sound basis for further work.

MALAYSIA reiterated the need for a pragmatic, honest, consensus-based, and practicable treaty with economically viable solutions and ambitious means of implementation.

FIJI drew lessons for the next session of the INC, including: time diverted by repeated, entrenched positions; overreliance on consensus, which led to delays; and the utmost importance of clarity in the process.

KAZAKHSTAN, for land-locked developing countries, emphasized that landlocked developing countries’ priorities, vulnerabilities, and special challenges were overlooked during the process and should be addressed in the future treaty.

CHINA stressed that plastic pollution is far more complex than expected, with great disparity among economies in terms of plastic dependencies, availability of technology for substitutes, and waste management capabilities.

MAURITIUS reiterated the need for a comprehensive treaty on the full plastics life cycle that provides for adequate financing resources, with priority access for small island developing states and least developed countries.

VIET NAM insisted that all decisions must be consensus-based.

SRI LANKA acknowledged that the current text improves the previous version, while lamenting that it still lacks: binding obligations, references to chemicals and health, and an adequate financial mechanism.

INDONESIA reiterated its proposal for a dedicated fund complemented by public-private partnerships. On the way forward, they: rejected the last iteration of the text as a foundation for future negotiations; suggested using the Chair’s Text from 1 December 2024 instead; proposed an intersessional meeting; and called for a new mandate to be established at UNEA.

Underlining that achieving agreement is “not impossible but requires a renewal of our collective will,” JAMAICA stressed that the future process must be just, equitable, and inclusive, enabling “talking to and not at each other,” and emphasized that the final treaty must be fit-for-purpose, containing global measures, robust means of implementation, and decisive decision-making provisions.

Noting that “the vast majority came to the negotiations with a constructive attitude,” COLOMBIA lamented that the negotiations were “consistently blocked by a small number of states who simply do not want an agreement,” and reaffirmed their commitment to continue work to achieve an ambitious, balanced, and effective ILBI.

BAHRAIN noted their disappointment on leaving Geneva “empty-handed after an opaque, ambiguous process;” underlined that the Chair’s Proposed Draft Text was imbalanced and steeped in red lines, and that the revised text multiplied them, and rejected both as the basis for further work, urging a consensus-based process. They stressed the need for precise definitions and clear scope in the treaty.

SYRIA emphasized that the texts did not reflect the necessary balance and urged foregrounding CBDR.

MEXICO appealed to delegates not to let the work achieved so far, including at INC 5.2, “go to waste.”

BOLIVIA emphasized that all proposals must continue to serve as the basis for further negotiations and stressed that the ILBI must contain greater protections for vulnerable populations, including Indigenous Peoples, as well as a financial mechanism ensuring capacity building, technical assistance, technology transfer, and a just transition.

Noting that they came to Geneva “to construct not to obstruct,” and to make concessions on their red lines, Tuvalu, for PACIFIC SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES, said these efforts were made toward global action and cooperation, not voluntary national action, and called for scaling up political momentum ahead of the next negotiating session.

NAMIBIA called for a more efficient and effective approach to future negotiations, indicated their flexibility on engaging toward delivery of a treaty in the near future, and emphasized that the ILBI must be a global instrument addressing the full life cycle of plastic.

Ghana, for the AFRICAN GROUP, reaffirmed their commitment to end plastic pollution through an ILBI containing clear obligations addressing the full plastic life cycle as well as adequate, stable, accessible, and predictable multilateral finance; and stated that the Chair’s text can serve as a basis for future work, provided it can be built upon; and requested clarity on the way forward.

PANAMA underlined that, in addition to the Chair’s Text resulting from INC 5.1, the results of contact groups and discussions held informally should be reflected in the outcome text; called for a different process going forward; and reiterated that the ILBI must address production, the sources of marine pollution, and integrate legally binding measures addressing health and just transition.

PARAGUAY lamented the lack of mention of land-locked developing countries, noting that they cannot be judged by the “same yardstick” as other developing countries.

MADAGASCAR stressed that delegates must act with genuine political will to find solutions, noting that they are not leaving empty-handed, but with strengthened determination to do better.

MONACO highlighted that delegates must continue to find a middle path to an effective ILBI to put an end to plastic pollution, including a life cycle approach.

THAILAND noted the value of the Chair’s revised text, but stressed the need to reconsider the non-transparent process and “poor” management of the negotiations.

PAKISTAN lamented that the text failed to address many technical issues and mention cooperation, which affects the implementation of the ILBI.

CAMBODIA reiterated their commitment to constructive engagement and consensus building.

TANZANIA proposed that for the continued consultations, nations with red lines should exercise caution and consider compromise, taking into account the mandate contained in resolution 5/14.

ALGERIA stressed the importance that the negotiations are member-driven and address the needs and concern of states in a balanced manner.

INDIA stressed the importance of consensus, including in the decision making, amendment, and amendment of annexes. They reminded delegates that global MEAs should be guided by the principles of equity, CBDR, historical responsibility, and consideration of national circumstances, and highlighted that a financial mechanism without these principles defeats the purpose of the ILBI. They noted that as the two draft texts prepared by the Chair did not find full support from members, the text negotiated in contact groups could be used for further deliberations.

TUNISIA urged delegates to postpone discussions in order to receive text that takes into account the needs and priorities of all parties, especially developing countries.

Adoption of the Report and Closure of the Meeting

Early in the morning on Friday, 15 August 2025, INC Rapporteur Asha Challenger (Antigua and Barbuda) introduced the meeting report for INC-5.1 (UNEP/PP/INC.5/8) and INC-5.2 (UNEP/PP/INC.5/L2). Delegates adopted the meeting reports without amendment.

INC Chair Vayas then opened the floor for observer statements. Emphasizing that “inaction is a decision with an intergenerational multiplier effect,” YOUTH PLASTIC ACTION NETWORK called for: a focused process with a concrete timeline to avoid “drifting without focus and losing momentum;” and clear path toward resolution, with inclusive and transparent observer participation, noting that the current modalities have “repeatedly proven insufficient” and risk failing again.

On a point of order, the US requested clarification regarding the agenda item under consideration, noting they needed clarity on the way forward for the INC. INC Chair Vayas noted that the Committee was currently considering agenda item 7, closure of the session, and that at the end of this item, his plan was to “adjourn and to resume the session at a later date.” The US called to “gavel that through now.” INC Chair Vayas indicated that he would make the announcement following the statements from observers. KUWAIT called to “please gavel now,” opining that due to the long hours of talks through the night and into the morning “… people are exhausted, and this is a real health issue now.”

At 9:11 am, INC Chair Vayas adjourned the Committee’s resumed fifth session to be further resumed at a later date.

A Brief Analysis of INC-5.2

“Set the world on a path to ending plastic pollution forever.”

This was the gist of UN Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen’s words during the opening plenary of the resumed fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. Her words were a reminder of the opportunity to make good on the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) mandate to end plastic pollution. Yet, as delegates left the city of multilateralism empty-handed, the mandate was still far from complete. The meeting was abruptly adjourned on Friday morning, 15 August, before observers could deliver statements, and with no clarity as to the next steps in the process.

INC-5.2 was not just another meeting. It was a second chance to adopt a treaty. Like an obstacle course, the path to a treaty was fraught with organizational, procedural, and substantive hurdles that delegates had to overcome during the two weeks in Geneva, Switzerland, only to stumble badly, with the end now far from sight.

This brief analysis explores the challenges faced at INC-5.2, from working modalities to the contentious issues of scope, production, financing, and plastic products, and considers the uncertain path forward. 

A Race We’ve Run Before

Many attending INC-5.2 experienced a strong sense of déjà vu, with the meeting hamstrung by familiar issues that some delegations called “procedural traps.” This was due not only to what some considered “poor organization” on the mode of work (both in plenary and contact group settings), but also to what some described as “issues of trust and transparency,” including concerns expressed by some about the Chair’s “ability to guide and facilitate the negotiations.” These concerns pervaded the entire INC process. With several INC sessions spent ensuring that the negotiation process and work on the text remained member driven, trust remained fraught as delegates arrived in Geneva. With the memory of the Chair’s Text circulated on the last day of the meeting in Busan in December still fresh, many had already opined that this text failed to reflect the work in contact group and informal settings over the course of INC-5.1 and lacked balance. 

Again, over the two weeks at INC-5.2, delegates engaged intensively in contact groups, informals, informal informals (member-led informal, small group discussions), bilaterals, and Heads of Delegation formats, working to advance the text. While progress was slow, the Co-Chairs of the various contact groups managed to maintain a delicate balance, preparing text when instructed to do so, and allowing a greater number of delegates to take ownership of the process by facilitating textual negotiations on particular articles or issues. However, the text ballooned in size, leaving delegates with what one Co-Chair called a “Christmas tree” text, with brackets everywhere, even in article titles.

During a mid-meeting stocktaking plenary, many called for different working modalities going forward, and stressed it is necessary to begin addressing cross-cutting issues across the treaty. This suggestion was not taken on board and contact groups resumed for another few days and more informal discussions were facilitated. When this did not produce the necessary results, and with two days remaining, the contact groups were abruptly closed and the INC Chair issued a new Chair’s Draft Proposal Text, which for many “disregarded” the work done in contact and informal groups over the course of INC-5.2. The lack of transparency and trust spilled over into the last hours of the meeting, when a small group of negotiators worked “all day” behind closed doors on a package of issues: production, finance, plastic products, and decision making. Having presented the delicately balanced package to the INC Chair, Japan noted in their intervention in the closing plenary that it was “regrettable” that the results of the small group meeting were not adequately reflected in the Revised Text Proposal.  

Stumbling to the Finish Line

In terms of substantive issues, many lamented “it would have been nice to make substantive progress; unfortunately, this did not happen.” While contact groups and informals were seen by many as constructive and a necessary part of the multilateral process, some articles were barely discussed, and, even for the ones that were, there were repeated calls for more discussion time throughout the ten days. Instead of moving toward the finish line, many felt that the contact group setting allowed red lines to be rehashed, with countries maintaining their well-entrenched national positions. It wasn’t until the final day, according to one delegate, that they really had “constructive conversations” within a small group of 15 countries, hammering out elements of a package.

UNEA resolution 5/14 provided a mandate to develop a treaty “based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastic.” Although this resolution is considered by many to provide clarity on the future treaty’s scope, interpretations of the language have diverged since the beginning of the INC process. Some countries have repeatedly called for a standalone provision to clarify and exclude certain matters, such as plastic production, from the scope. Others are adamant that the treaty must cover the full life cycle of plastic, including production, to be able to meaningfully address the plastic pollution crisis. As one delegate reiterated during the closing plenary, there is no use “mopping the floor while the plastic production tap is still running.” In this connection, some have pointed to the International Organization for Standardization, which defines the plastic life cycle as encompassing the stages from “raw material acquisition” to “final disposal.” Yet, others have reiterated throughout that the treaty cannot address production, and in frank informal-informal discussions, some admitted that their position on what is contained in the plastic life cycle is a legal and political, not scientific definition, recalling each country’s sovereign right to exploit their natural resources. The dividing lines on this issue remained intractable, and efforts toward compromise language, for instance through non-obligatory language on sustainable consumption and production, ultimately did not bear fruit. 

Members also diverged heavily on financial resources and mechanism, drawing their red lines early in the negotiations. Somewhat predictably, developed and developing countries “clashed,” with developed countries preferring the mechanism to comprise more of public-private partnerships, voluntary contributions, and existing funds such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF). On the other hand, developing countries called for a new independent, dedicated funding mechanism that requires regular contributions from developed country parties, among other sources, highlighting their historical responsibility for plastic pollution. Negotiations proceeded amicably on finance, with even a hybrid option including the GEF and the new dedicated mechanism, and delegates welcoming a version of the contact group Co-Chairs’ streamlined text, including options for a financial mechanism. This was considered as a good point to start line-by-line negotiations within the contact group, perhaps with the realization that no matter the outcome of the “substantive” issues of the treaty, financing is key to implementing the agreement.

Given the shifts in global financing priorities and some developing countries’ economies being reliant on the manufacture of plastic products, the categorization of donor and recipient countries was also a contentious issue. In their discussions, some developing countries were wary of being included among donors “just because we have plastic industries.” But some progress was made, and delegations better understood each other’s perspectives. As such, one seasoned delegate shared that it was “jarring” to have a text welcomed by members in the contact group to start line-by-line negotiations replaced by the Chair’s Draft Proposal presented in plenary, which “shook the trust” built by delegates while negotiating this article.

While most of the discussions on plastic products took place in informal informals, delegates found some convergence on the need for national measures to address plastic products. This, however, was not considered by many to be sufficient, but rather as representing the “lowest common denominator,” particularly because some countries still preferred such measures to be voluntary and did not support addressing hazardous chemicals, as these are under the mandate of the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions. Some delegates questioned the “point” of a provision that merely notes countries’ ability to take national measures; measures they can already take at their own initiative. Others went further, stating that such an approach would “entrench the status quo for decades to come,” arguing also that existing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) are limited in their scope.

Moreover, significant divergence remained, with a large group of countries calling for global measures to control and phase out certain plastic products and chemicals of concern. The Chair’s initial “attempt at a compromise text,” which proposed addressing plastic products in a voluntary manner and saw the deletion of references to chemicals of concern, was among the matters that led to outcries in plenary in the final days of INC-5.2. It was also one of the key differences that delegates were unable to fully hash out, and a matter that many saw as necessary for a treaty to be worthwhile at all. 

With so many hurdles still to overcome, and no compromise on core elements of a future agreement after nearly three years of negotiations, was the finish line ever within reach at this meeting?

Onto the Next Race: The Uncertain Path Forward

Even though no text was adopted at the end of INC-5.2, this was not for a lack of options. Delegates began the meeting in Geneva armed with the Chair’s Text circulated in Busan on 1 December 2024. By the end of the first week, an Assembled Text, which was significantly longer and heavily bracketed, was prepared to take stock of the work in contact groups. To the surprise of many, including, it seems, the contact groups’ Co-Chairs themselves, INC Chair Vayas then circulated a new Draft Text Proposal a few days later. Due to how “unpopular” the Draft Text Proposal was, and based on consultations and the work of a small group of countries, INC Chair issued a Revised Text Proposal just before 1:00 am on Friday, 15 August. Merely four hours later, in the early hours of Friday morning, it was announced that no agreement had been reached, and a plenary was hastily called. When the meeting adjourned, members technically had four iterations of the treaty text before them. This resulted in more confusion and uncertainty. 

The abrupt and haphazard conclusion of the meeting also left numerous questions unresolved. During the penultimate and closing plenaries, delegates diverged on which iteration of the text they preferred. Several called to revert to the initial text from Busan, while others considered the texts from 13 and 15 August as “improvements.” Still others questioned “Is the work we have done at this meeting lost?” Ultimately, delegates left the Palais des Nations without clarity on what text they would use going forward.  

Many also wondered when and where they would meet again, expressing concern about the busy schedule for the rest of the year. Some proposed holding an intersessional meeting, others mentioned the need to resume in an INC-5.3, while others considered returning to UNEA to get a new mandate, with some voicing deep concern that this would further reduce the INC’s scope to negotiate a treaty beyond plastic waste management. Another question on some lips was “Will the INC Chairmanship need to change hands for us to make progress?” The modalities for the next part of the journey are equally unclear, with many calls to learn lessons from INC-5.2 and adopt a different, inclusive, and more transparent process going forward.  

The goal of “ending plastic pollution forever” has suffered a setback but is not out of reach. It is now time to regroup, assess positions, and determine where there is common ground or room to compromise. The process remains in the balance, without clarity on key issues. Nevertheless, many are tempering expectations for an ambitious agreement and hope that, once adopted, it will be able to evolve and strengthen over time, like other MEAs. As delegates left Geneva, some clung to their determination that “we’ll get it next time.”