As the INC-5.2 negotiations in Geneva approach their first stock take plenary, delegates face deep divisions over the treaty to end plastic pollution.
While finance discussions show progress, other critical areas remain deadlocked, threatening the treaty's effectiveness.
With only five days left, the outcome will test the credibility of multilateral cooperation in addressing global environmental challenges.
With just one day remaining before the first stock take plenary, the atmosphere at the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) negotiations in Geneva still bears the weight of the ‘Busan hangover.’
Delegates from across the globe reconvened on August 8, 2025, to work on the long-overdue text for a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution, a deadline that formally expired in December 2024.
The opening plenary, following the Chair’s plan, proceeded smoothly, with delegations expressing their commitment to multilateralism. By the afternoon, attention shifted to the four contact groups tasked with finalising the treaty text.
The contact groups quickly revealed stark contrasts in pace and tone. While some were inundated with new proposals, others were able to start discussions on articles with relatively “clean” text. The start of line-by-line negotiations, however, exposed fault lines in areas previously assumed to have broad agreement.
Plastic waste management, seen by many low ambition member states as an accepted pillar of the treaty, became a flashpoint. While there was consensus that it should be included, disagreements emerged over whether obligations should be legally binding. Some pushed for voluntary measures and sought to soften the language by removing terms like “shall” from the text. Others attempted to redefine long-established universal concepts such as the waste hierarchy.
Certain delegations had worked between sessions (in Busan and Geneva) to produce streamlined proposals based on the Chair’s text. Yet others rejected these new submissions outright, insisting they lacked the same legal standing as the Chair’s text.
As of August 7, 2025, the INC portal listed 60 proposals for Contact Group 1, 35 for Contact Group 2, 21 for Contact Group 3, and 77 for Contact Group 4. The substance of these proposals varied widely — some sought to bridge the gap between opposing ends of the debate, while others served to reassert entrenched positions.
The advancement of any article depends on the stage of discussion in the negotiations. Typically, the process begins with general reflections, followed by exchanges on bridging ideas. If divergence remains, co-chairs encourage informal consultations before returning to discussions in contact groups.
To move forward, each contact group must deliver its agreed text to the plenary, the only forum that can decide whether a draft is ready for the legal drafting group (LDG). As of August 8, not a single article had reached that stage. The Chair has made clear that the principle of “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” will apply when passing text to the LDG.
The slow pace has raised concerns of repeating the drawn-out processes seen in previous INC sessions, where the text risked ballooning into an unwieldy compilation. The risk is compounded by line-by-line negotiations, which in some cases have consumed more than two hours on a single paragraph. Many see this as an intentional delaying tactic, but some also view it as an important step forward.
One notable exception to the impasse has been the finance discussions. Here, even delegations known for blocking progress in past sessions have shown greater flexibility. New ideas have surfaced, including the use of public private partnerships and proposals for compensation funds to address financial and economic losses arising from the treaty’s implementation.
The group on finance has given the co-chairs a mandate to refine a text for review before it is taken to the plenary. In contrast, several other contact groups dealing with equally or more critical issues remain deadlocked. Calls have been made for similar flexibility across all the contact groups dealing with contentious areas such as global bans and harmonised design.
Despite the slow pace, negotiators have made some headway. Yet key articles vital to the treaty’s effectiveness are still blocked. The August 9 stock take plenary, and the Chair’s ability to guide delegates through what is moving towards a stalemate, will be pivotal in shaping the remainder of the session.
With just five days of negotiations left, the talks remain far from producing the robust, implementable treaty mandated by the UNEA resolution 5/14. A treaty that the global community and the planet urgently needs. Whether the momentum can be shifted in the coming days will determine not only the fate of the plastic pollution treaty, but also the credibility of multilateral cooperation in addressing this transboundary crisis.