As countries and stakeholders prepare for the resumed fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)-coordinated Geneva Environment Network (GEN) hosted an online event that provided an update on where we stand after the last round of negotiations and explored ways forward.
Themed, ‘Plastics Treaty: State of Play and Priorities for an Ambitious Outcome,’ the dialogue served as an opportunity to review the progress made in the talks and discuss key priorities for an ambitious outcome. The dialogue highlighted what the negotiations must focus on and offered thoughts on key challenges – and ways to address them.
Diana Rizzolio, GEN Coordinator, offered opening remarks, noting the dialogue provides a platform for discussion to support those engaged in the negotiations.
Ambassador Tormod Cappelen Endresen, Permanent Representative of Norway to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva, said plastic pollution is the most rapidly escalating global environmental problem that requires a global solution. Without action to address plastic pollution, he warned, leakage of plastic into the environment will increase from 20 million tonnes in 2020 to 30 million tonnes in 2040, and the amount of plastic entering rivers and oceans will almost double in the same time period, to 300 million tonnes in 2040.
Endresen urged building on INC-5.1, which took place from 25 November to 1 December 2024 in Busan, Republic of Korea, where more than 100 countries supported the phasing out of the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern, and a similar number of countries supported reducing plastic production to sustainable levels. He urged INC members to find common ground on these issues ahead of INC-5.2.
Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso, Chair, INC Plastic Pollution, Ecuador, said the Chair’s text presented at the end of INC-5.1 will serve as a starting point for negotiations at INC-5.2. He pointed to “a high level of convergence” on the majority of provisions, and welcomed intersessional engagement, particularly on the more complex provisions. Noting time constraints, he called for “effective” organization of work.
Tallash Kantai, Team Leader/Writer, Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), said at INC-5.1, members “were closer to agreement than ever before.” She highlighted that: coalitions formed around important issues; work advanced on bridging proposals, including on finance; and members shared their “red lines.”
Kantai said substantive issues would still need to be “ironed out,” including product design, extended producer responsibility (EPR), leakages and releases, waste management, capacity building, and technology transfer. She also noted issues that some feel are not being adequately addressed in the Chair’s text, such as biodiversity and health.
Among points of contention, Kantai highlighted tensions around global versus national measures, and voluntary versus mandatory measures. Stressing the need to raise ambition even on “simpler issues,” she identified three “big ticket items that will require an enormous amount of political will to unlock”: plastic products and chemicals of concern; sustainable production; and financial resources and mechanism.
Recalling resolution 5/14, Kantai underscored that efforts to address the full life cycle of plastic need to be balanced against states’ duty to the people who make a living in the plastics industry, and acknowledged additional challenges presented by shifts in the global geopolitical and financial landscape. She further noted that “plastic touches many facets of our lives” and spans numerous multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), including the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) Conventions, the UN climate and biodiversity processes, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), with dedicated discussions also taking place at the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Magnus Løvold, Project Supervisor, Norwegian Academy of International Law, argued that while the talks failed to conclude in 2024, INC-5.1 marked a significant step forward, describing it as “the most productive session.” He said the Chair’s non-paper, prepared in the runup to INC-5.1, helped explore areas of convergence, and by “showing their cards” and red lines, countries and groups of countries engaged in “actual negotiations,” increasing an atmosphere of trust.
According to Løvold, INC-5.1 also marked “a moment of ascendancy of a progressive majority.” He cited Mexico’s statement on behalf of 95 states on the phaseout of the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern and Rwanda’s statement on behalf of 85 states on reducing production to sustainable levels.
Among aspects that will require further effort, Løvold highlighted:
- Technical and legal work to develop a treaty text for INC-5.2 with as many members behind it as possible;
- Procedural work to make a credible path towards the treaty’s adoption, noting that no country has the right to stop others from entering international agreements; and
- Political work to prepare for ministerial engagement.
Joshua Lincoln, Senior Fellow, Center for International Law and Governance, Fletcher School of Global Affairs, Tufts University, welcomed a shift to strategic negotiations at INC-5.1 but warned that “we went as far as we could” in light of substantial differences that could not be bridged in Busan. Noting additional uncertainties, including the position of the US, he outlined the need for a conceptual evolution of the process.
Lincoln called attention to a recent publication that outlined three options: a “treaty of the willing”; “no deal is better than a bad deal”; and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) treaty model, whereby all parties could sign up to the main treaty, with subsequent protocols bringing ambition. Emphasizing that it is too soon for any of these options, he encouraged INC members to focus on continuing to build on what was achieved in Busan, bridging proposals, building coalitions, and better understanding each other’s positions.
Lincoln highlighted the importance of working out procedural aspects, including provisions for national reports, a scientific body, an implementation committee, regular review of the treaty by the Conference of the Parities (COP), and a process to amend and upgrade the treaty, including annexes. He said the treaty could be further strengthened with respect to human rights, including the right to clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.
Lincoln called for:
- Carrying out work on modeling and statistical impacts of multiple provisions to improve our understanding of the consequences of what is being written into the treaty;
- Fostering a better understanding of other states’ interests in the short, medium, and long term; and
- Assessing and promoting the work of coalitions.
Elena Cima, Lecturer, International Environmental Law, University of Geneva, emphasized that providing financial support to less developed countries is an obligation under international environmental law that seeks to prevent environmental harm by facilitating compliance. It is also one of the most complicated elements of an MEA, she said, critical to its success, as it ensures countries’ participation.
While there is general agreement on the importance of good provisions on financing, Cima said, a lot of unanswered questions and points of disagreement remain. Among the issues presenting major challenges, she identified:
- The type of the financing obligation, including voluntary versus mandatory;
- Providers and recipients of financing;
- Sources of financing;
- The type of fund (independent or relying on an existing mechanism such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF)); and
- Prioritizing especially vulnerable countries.
Responding to questions from the audience, panelists offered their reflections on legal, procedural, and political issues relating to the negotiations, noting controversies surrounding the rules on voting.
Addressing the implications of some members’ inability to agree to a treaty that considers the full lifecycle of plastics, Lincoln said the plastics problem could be solved either through a global treaty, through regional markets, or at national level. He said if an issue is not included in the treaty now, it will find resolution through another mechanism where states would have a lot less control over it.
On overcoming challenges to achieving consensus in light of geopolitical shifts, Lincoln characterized discussions on treaty options as a distraction to a profound, serious, and sober next round of negotiations. He urged negotiators to explore the fundamental interests of states to genuinely understand each other’s positions and to innovate in bridging differences between coalitions.
Kantai hoped delegates would find opportunities to innovate. Cima said the option of a framework convention could be considered if negotiations find themselves at an impasse. Noting that consensus is highly sensitive to political shifts in different countries, Løvold said that to be effective, the treaty could go through a “universalization” process if some countries do not initially join.
On ensuring the participation of NGOs in future discussions, panelists agreed that the intersessional period is the time when NGOs can best affect the process. Løvold noted that many countries are open to hearing NGO perspectives and take them onboard.
On mechanisms that can strengthen the treaty overtime, Kantai underscored the need for the treaty to be flexible enough to take more issues into account as science develops. Løvold said decision-making rules need to be clear. Lincoln suggested that a scientific body be embedded in the treaty.
On lessons from other processes that should not be emulated, Lincoln emphasized that every treaty is sui generis, meaning it arises in response to a specific problem, at a certain time, with certain players involved. He said agility and creativity will be needed to build on lessons from other MEAs – and outside them.
Recognizing that consensus allows for significant ambiguity, Løvold said ambiguity gives rise to uncertainty, affecting implementation and monitoring.
Noting it is a different time geopolitically, Cima said something that did not work in another MEA may be helpful here. Drawing on the example of the BBNJ Agreement, she highlighted the importance of agreeing a treaty that countries would not only be able to sign but also to ratify.
Lincoln said the MARPOL model, with a core element with non-controversial elements and subsequent issue-specific protocols that introduce greater ambition, may not be an option in today’s “multilateral gestalt.” “We can only do what is doable today, understanding the moment we’re in,” he urged.
Panelists agreed that many countries would likely view limitations on plastic subsidies as a matter of domestic policy.
Michel Tschirren, Head, Global Affairs Section, Federal Office for the Environment, Switzerland, offered concluding remarks. Among the main takeaways, he highlighted the need for:
- Measurable and binding targets, including on plastic production, to drive meaningful change;
- Addressing difficult issues, such as the phaseout of chemicals of concern; and
- Functioning solutions, including on finance, given the need for the treaty to evolve.
He reiterated his country’s commitment to achieving a transformative global treaty that protects the environment and human health and fosters sustainable development.
The online discussion was held on 27 February 2025 under the umbrella of the Geneva Beat Plastic Pollution Dialogues – an initiative that aims to create synergies and coordinate actions on rethinking the way we manufacture, use, trade, and manage plastics. The third series of dialogues, which commenced in April 2022, is organized in collaboration with the BRS Conventions Secretariat, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Center for international Environmental Law (CIEL), the Forum on Trade, Environment and the SDGs (TESS), the University of Geneva, Norway, and Switzerland.
It has been announced that INC-5.2 will take place in Geneva, Switzerland, from 5-13 August 2025. [Plastics Treaty: State of Play and Priorities for an Ambitious Outcome] [Video Recording] [SDG Knowledge Hub Sources] [SDG Knowledge Hub Stories on INC-5.1, INC-4, INC-3, INC-2, and INC-1]
