UN Plastics Treaty: What to Watch for at INC-5.2

The next Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) 5.2 for the United Nations Global Plastics Treaty will take place in Geneva, Switzerland, August 5–14, 2025. These negotiations, originally scheduled to conclude in December 2024, were extended when countries remained gridlocked on many key components of the treaty text. In Geneva, delegates will be working off of the latest draft created by the Chair of the Negotiations (available in عربي | 中文版 | English | Français | Русский | Español). As talks resume in Geneva, the following drafted articles will be important to watch closely, as whether they are made legally binding or if compromises on the text’s ambition are made could determine if the Treaty effectively addresses the global plastic pollution crisis.

Article 3: Plastic Products

This article is focused on regulating plastic products, including the potential to prohibit or reduce their manufacture, export, or import based on yet-to-be-agreed-upon criteria. These criteria could include factors such as whether or not they are deemed to pose a risk to the environment or human health, or contain chemicals of concern. Aspects of this article are currently strong, and include the global responsibility of member states to regulate products listed in a global list in an Annex, the assembly of a scientific body to review products to be added to that list, and the requirement of transparency from producers regarding the chemicals used within plastic products and across the plastics supply chain. However, by focusing only on restricting certain chemicals in specific plastic products, the current approach fails to address the broader harms of those toxic chemicals and others used across the entire plastic life cycle and within products in other sectors. Experts agree that it would be far more effective to ban chemicals of concern altogether—regardless of which product they’re used in—to prevent their use and pollution during the extraction of base materials, production, and eventual waste management or pollution, where they continue to threaten human health and the environment.

Article 5: Plastic Product Design

The current text of Article 5 is focused on improving the design of plastic products to fit the circular economy approach, namely by fostering better research and innovation around sustainable and safer non-plastic alternatives in the economy. It currently highlights crucial tactics such as reuse and refill, and requires member states to consider environmental and human health concerns. While these are strong suits of the article, it still could perpetuate the myth that plastic has a role to play in the circular economy, and plastic was never made to be recycled. It additionally omits the qualifying term “non-toxic” as a necessary criteria for reuse systems, and undermines the article text by entrenching the idea that there are sustainable levels of producing and consuming plastics. Finally, while it references the knowledge of Indigenous Peoples, the Treaty lacks an explicit acknowledgement and protection of Indigenous rights—which are disproportionately undermined by plastic production and pollution.

Article 6: [Supply] OR [Sustainable Production]

The text, put forward by over 100 countries at INC-5.1 in Busan, South Korea, would require the Conference of the Parties (COP) to set a global target to reduce plastic production and for member states to report on their progress in achieving said target. While potentially a strong obligation for countries to take action in limiting plastic production—a critical measure for effectively addressing plastic pollution and its toxic impacts—it delays the responsibility of countries to act until the first COP. Additionally, it is possible the text could be further compromised and weakened to “maintain” or “manage” production, and it also misleadingly refers to achieving certain “sustainable” levels of plastic production. To end the plastic pollution crisis—especially as experienced firsthand by frontline and fenceline communities—no level of plastic production is “sustainable”—and thus plastic production must be rapidly reduced and eventually phased out.

Article 7: Releases and Leakages

This article seeks to “prevent, reduce, and, where possible, eliminate” the pollution of plastics into the environment, including microplastics, pellets and flakes, and fishing gear. While it legally binds member states to reduce these releases and leakages, parties may account for “national circumstances,” creating a dangerous loophole for reduced action. Further, the article title itself was diminished at INC-5.1 from “emissions and releases,” meaning the text no longer covers emissions, including those from air pollution that have been proven to have devastating impacts on surrounding communities. In addition to its now-limited scope, the article text was weakened from previous proposals to no longer address the full lifecycle of plastic, rendering an ambiguity of where in the plastic lifecycle this binding obligation will be applied. Finally, parties are not legally obligated to conduct or cooperate in researching the pollution of plastics into the environment. 

Article 8: Plastic Waste Management

This article outlines binding obligations—though weakened by caveats for national circumstances—to ensure plastic waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner, including by establishing infrastructure for recycling systems, and notably, by prohibiting open burning and dumping of plastic, including into the ocean. While it considers the global waste trade through the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, only Parties to this Convention have to stop exporting plastic to developing countries, leaving major exporters, like the United States, which has not ratified Basel, with less stringent responsibilities. Although the article encourages the development of extended producer responsibility programs and promotes a just transition for plastic waste management workers, it simultaneously leaves the door open to chemical recycling and incineration by including the term “energy recovery,” which are known as false solutions to plastic pollution as these end markets perpetuate the problem by incentivizing continued plastic production rather than stopping it at the source.

Article 11: Financial Mechanism

In order to aid developing countries with supporting the implementation of the Treaty—many of whom are facing the worst threats of plastic pollution despite their very minimal contribution to the issue—this article outlines various options for funding. However, the article remains highly contentious with a large amount of bracketed text regarding whether a new mechanism and fund ought to be created, or whether an existing mechanism with a new or existing fund should be utilized. Over 120+ countries support the position submitted by groups of countries representing Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and some Pacific Island States, to establish a new independent multilateral fund. Overall, member countries differ on who should pay and receive support, where the funding should originate, and who manages the fund. Finally, some red flags in the current text include that it still allows for plastic credits, another false solution, and risks the private sector only contributing to the waste management portion of the treaty rather than the entire lifecycle.

Article 20: Conference of the Parties

This article establishes the COP, which meets every two years to assess and make decisions regarding the Treaty’s implementation. However, the existing contention in this article is with the voting mechanism, specifically whether COP decisions must be made by consensus only or if a vote can be used if  consensus is not possible, hoping to circumvent issues of deadlock. Currently, a proposed text from Norway, with the support of 40 countries, allows for COP voting, but is not included in the Treaty Chair’s text, as COP Rules of Procedure must be adopted by consensus.

What to Expect at the Negotiations

In addition to these key article debates, we can also expect to see contention amongst countries on the rules of procedure regarding not only how the COP proceeds as in Article 20, but also how the current negotiations will proceed when countries are unable to reach an agreement.
A small minority of powerful petrostates have insisted on the negotiations being conducted through consensus-based decision making, which has allowed them to block progress and entrench reliance on plastics despite agreement from a large portion of countries. 

Following INC-5.1, where much of the negotiations were held behind closed doors and without observer participation, it will be important to watch how the Chair maintains transparency and observer rights, especially in light of growing fossil fuel and chemical lobby presence—some of which is engrained within country delegations. 

Despite sticking points, we can expect to see a strong presence of observers, Indigenous Peoples, scientists, and other rightsholders voicing their support for achieving a strong UN Plastics Treaty. Countries must stand up for ambition and negotiate an agreement that fulfills the mandate and addresses the plastic pollution crisis across its entire lifecycle—going beyond a “waste” focused treaty to effectively protect the health of people and the planet.