Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Time is running out on the second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment (INC-5.2), with less than three days left, as one delegate one delegate remarked, “We have a mountain of work left, and very little time to get through it.”

In its fifth and final negotiating session, the process aims to deliver a treaty that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics, from production and product design to waste management and legacy pollution.

If the INC succeeds, the treaty could become a landmark instrument on par with the Paris Agreement, but for plastics.

Failure, however, would risk locking the world into decades more of unmanaged plastic pollution and escalating harm to the planet’s systems.

The resumed INC-5.2 sessions in Geneva have entered what many delegates are calling “endgame” negotiations. Over the past days, key proposals have surfaced, especially around Article 3 (scope and definitions) and Article 11 (financial mechanisms).

Progress & Sticking Points

Plastic Products & Design: Negotiations remain split over whether to create a binding global list of restricted or banned plastic products, or to leave regulation to national governments. Some countries favor a science-based annex updated over time, while others see such lists as unfair to nations with limited production alternatives. Efforts to bridge the gap include embedding restrictions into Article 5 on product design, which could set criteria that naturally phase out harmful or non-recyclable products.

Production & Scope: Political tensions are high over whether the treaty should set global caps on virgin plastic production or limit itself to downstream pollution controls. Several delegations argue production caps are essential to tackling the root cause, while others say the mandate is to address pollution, not manufacturing levels. The question is tightly linked to the treaty’s scope and how far it can go without exceeding the INC’s original mandate.

Waste & Legacy Pollution: Delegates largely agree on the importance of a standalone article on plastic waste and legacy pollution. However, divisions remain on whether provisions should be mandatory or voluntary, how they should integrate the waste hierarchy, and whether to explicitly reference waste pickers, Indigenous knowledge systems, and fishing gear recovery. The relationship between these measures and the Basel Convention also remains unresolved.

Finance & Capacity Building: Finance is emerging as a make-or-break issue. While most agree that a strong financial mechanism is critical for implementation, there is no consensus on whether this should be a new dedicated multilateral fund, a role for the Global Environment Facility (GEF), or a hybrid model. Developing countries are clear that without predictable resources and technology transfer, ambitious commitments will be impossible to deliver.

Governance: Multiple procedural and structural articles remain bracketed, including voting rules, the role of regional economic integration organizations, and secretariat arrangements. Disputes over decision-making procedures, particularly when consensus fails, risk spilling into other substantive areas if left unresolved.

The Political Dynamics

At the heart of the friction is the balance between ambition and practicality, ensuring the treaty has teeth, without leaving behind countries with fewer resources to implement it.

The Geneva talks are being shaped as much by geopolitics as by science. A familiar North–South divide runs through the negotiations: developing countries are pressing for predictable finance, technology transfer, and flexibility in implementation timelines, while many developed nations resist open-ended funding obligations and insist that all parties share responsibility for reducing pollution.

Two powerful coalitions are steering the conversation. The High Ambition Coalition (HAC), a bloc of over 60 countries, including small island developing states and EU members, is pushing for strong, binding global measures that address the full lifecycle of plastics. On the other side, several major plastic-producing countries and petrochemical exporters are working to narrow the treaty’s scope, favoring national discretion and resisting production caps.

The result is a delicate balancing act between ambition and pragmatism. While the science demands aggressive targets and comprehensive controls, negotiators know that without broad buy-in, the treaty risks becoming politically toothless. Every compromise carries the danger of diluting ambition, but every hardline stance risks derailing consensus altogether.

One delegate said, “We’re already past the Chair’s Text; we need new proposals now.” And another asked, “If we can’t be bold here, where else can it happen?”

Read Also: Plastics Treaty Negotiations Struggle for Breakthroughs