Negotiations Through the expert's perspective: Further Development of the Instrument to Combat Plastic Pollution

From 4 to 15 August 2025, the second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) was held in Geneva. The Committee is tasked with drafting a new international legal instrument to combat plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. The ICLRC participates in INC sessions as an observer to UNEA. Alexey Nikitin, a Researcher on Public International Law at Climate and Environment at the ICLRC, has prepared an analytical overview of the negotiations.

The meeting in Geneva took over from the previous meeting in Busan (INC-5.1, November–December 2024), where countries sought to finalize the text of the future treaty.

At INC-5.1, countries agreed to use the so-called Chair’s text of 1 December 2024 as a basis for further negotiations. The goal in Geneva was to revise this text and submit the final version for adoption at a diplomatic conference (DipCon).

INC-5.2, like INC-5.1 before it, did not result in consensus. While the outcome of INC-5.1 pointed to further revision of the Chair’s text as the path forward, INC-5.2 left participants with more questions than answers. Compromise texts presented by the Chair toward the end of the Geneva session were rejected by a significant number of countries — some even suggested returning to the Busan texts as the basis for future discussions.

Work Progress

During the first days of the session (5–8 August), countries worked mainly in contact groups, proposing amendments to the text — adding new provisions or removing existing ones. The result was an assembled text, which became significantly longer and more contentious than the previous version. Whereas the Busan Chair’s text was 22 pages long, the new version grew to 35 pages, largely due to new bracketed, disputed language.

As this routine drafting continued, the need to move to substantive negotiations became apparent: instead of “decorating” the text with new brackets, the aim should have been to reduce disagreements.

As a result, further work took place primarily in informal consultations (informals) and “informal-informals”, often convened spontaneously by countries and conducted without coordination.

This more flexible approach proved more productive: on some issues, disagreements were resolved, and several final provisions (Articles 30–32 — withdrawal, depositary, authentic texts) were sent to the legal drafting group. Still, countries held firm on the most complex issues.

Key Disagreements

The most contentious issues were inherited from previous INC sessions.

The central point of contention remains the scope of the future agreement: should it address the production of primary polymers, or focus mainly on the management of plastic waste? Most countries advocate for the broadest possible scope, including the initial stages of the plastic lifecycle, such as polymer production. In their view, this aligns with INC’s mandate to cover the entire life cycle of plastics. The like-minded group of countries — including Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, and others — reject any obligations regarding the early stages.

Another controversial issue is how to address chemicals of concern in plastic products. There is also no consensus on whether the implementation of core obligations under the future agreement should be coordinated internationally or left to national discretion.

Disagreements persist on the traditional issue in multilateral environmental diplomacy — support for developing countries. Debates concerned the scope of financial assistance obligations, the categories of eligible recipient countries, the terms of technology transfer, and the institutional mechanisms to support implementation.

The question of decision-making procedures under the future agreement’s governing body — the Conference of the Parties — also came to the fore in Geneva. Should decisions be taken by consensus only, or could voting be used in exceptional cases? INC has so far operated by consensus, but the deadlock in Geneva led many to call for a more flexible decision-making model. Following an intersessional Heads of Delegations meeting in Nairobi (June 2025), 120 countries proposed allowing two-thirds majority voting on substantive issues if all efforts to reach consensus fail. The like-minded group insists on maintaining consensus, noting its use in most other multilateral environmental fora.

Other divisive topics include the treatment of existing (“legacy”) plastic pollution, the role of public health (including cooperation with the World Health Organization), and the relationship with other international treaties, particularly in the environmental and trade fields.

A Dramatic Conclusion

In light of slow progress, on 13 August the Chair submitted a new text for delegates’ consideration. In his view, the text reflected convergence on some issues and continued stalemate on others.

The 13 August version contained no dedicated articles on production or scope. Many key provisions — on plastic products, legacy pollution, and support for developing countries — were vague and diluted.

Most delegations rejected the new draft and refused to treat it as a basis for further negotiations, finding it weak and unbalanced. After a three-hour debate on the text and on the path forward, the Chair began consultations with regional groups and individual countries to prepare a revised version by the morning of 14 August.

However, the revised text was not presented either in the morning or evening of 14 August — the official final day of the session. Around 23:30, the Chair announced that consultations were still ongoing. The new draft was circulated among delegations overnight on 15 August.

The revised draft somewhat strengthened articles on plastic products, plastic waste management, and support mechanisms. Nevertheless, for many delegations, it remained unacceptable.

Acknowledging the lack of consensus, the Chair officially adjourned the Geneva session on the morning of 15 August. The time, venue, and scenario of the next meeting will be announced later.