August 6, 2025 | Wednesday
Member States spent the day in Contact Groups (a term for negotiating spaces). These spaces fall under Chatham House Rules, so while we cannot say explicitly which country said what, we can give some highlights of what was discussed and what the fault lines are. Across the board, there were attempts by a minority group to redefine what provisions are within the bounds of a plastics treaty, going against the central mandate that countries agreed upon at the inception of the plastics treaty negotiations— a legally binding instrument covering the entire life-cycle of plastic, from extraction to disposal, understanding that plastic is pollution at every stage of its existence.
Article 3: Plastic Products and Chemicals of Concern
Contact Group 1 spent hours hashing it out on Article 3, which is meant to address the most problematic plastic products, and the myriad chemicals in plastic itself. Chemicals of “concern” is an understatement–a recent study showed that more than 4,200 chemicals in plastic were persistent, bioaccumulative, mobile or toxic, and The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that approximately one quarter of all global deaths are attributable to environmental harm including chemicals, pollution and waste, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries.
Switzerland and Mexico submitted a Conference Room Paper (CRP),* which has gained significant traction with 77 countries signing on. The CRP calls for a global ban on trade of hazardous plastic products and chemicals of concern, and a requirement to reduce (and ban where feasible) harmful plastic products.
Despite its widespread support, several countries sought to weaken article 3, suggesting that global rules would threaten national economic development, that chemicals are covered by other environmental treaties, and that these issues should be addressed in subsequent COPs after a treaty is signed (which would effectively close the door to a legally-binding phase-out of harmful chemicals in plastics).
In contrast, Brazil and South Korea facilitated a CRP that has no legally binding language to phase out plastic products and chemicals of concern. This comes as no surprise given that Brazil has been exposed for backtracking on its positions due to internal conflict and influence from the petrochemical industry.
Rejecting Energy Recovery in Article 8
The Chair’s draft text that forms the basis of negotiations in INC-5.2 contains a reference to waste-to-energy in article 8, which covers plastic waste management. Burning waste in “waste-to-energy” incinerators has been shown to create toxic and climate emissions, essentially turning one form of plastic pollution into another. If it remains in the text, this could encourage further investment and build-out of incinerators worldwide. Fortunately, several countries made interventions asking for waste-to-energy to be removed from the final text. We’re crossing our fingers.
Article 11: The Need for a Dedicated Financial Mechanism
The African Group of Negotiators created a strong convergence around its CRP introduced at INC-5, which calls for a dedicated financial mechanism that includes mandatory contributions from high-wealth and top-plastic producing countries to support lower income countries to meet the agreement, especially Pacific Small Island Developing States. However despite this level of agreement between Member States, the Chair did not take up the proposed language in his draft text for INC-5.2. Whether donor countries can agree to come to the table and pay for the pollution they cause in other countries remains a question. We hope to see the discussion on finances driving agreement later this week.
Other Conference Room Papers to Note
- Article 20: Colombia and Peru have proposed COP voting if consensus cannot be reached. This is critical for preventing deadlock when adding further annexes to the treaty after its signed.
- Article 7: UK and Panama have proposed that the article on leakages cover the entire life cycle of plastic, recognizing that plastic is a source of waste pollution from extraction to disposal, including microplastics.
*Contact Groups are encouraging Member States to submit Conference Room Papers (CRPs) with suggested text additions, and whichever CRPs have the most convergence amongst the Member States will be integrated into the Chair’s draft, which still forms the basis for negotiations. There have been many submissions already, which can all be found on the UNEP website here.
For more information:
For more information, visit GAIA’s webpage
Break Free From Plastic POPLite
Plastics: The New and Final Colonizer
Global Press Contact:
Regional Press Contacts:
About GAIA
GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped.
Follow us on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, BlueSky, and LinkedIn for live updates during INC-5, and our regional accounts:
GAIA Africa: Instagram, Facebook
GAIA LAC: Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn
GAIA Asia Pacific: Instagram, Facebook, LinkedInGAIA US Canada: Instagram, Facebook, Twitter
