INC-5.2 – A Broken Process, but NOT a Broken Promise
Date:
“A promise made, must be a promise kept – so said the ambitious member states and civil society groups.”
By Merrisa Naidoo, GAIA’s Africa Plastics Program Manager
It’s beginning to feel a lot like Xmas Busan – Except this time, tarot tariff cards were drawn, the chair played fair favorites and the plastic oligarchy raised insulted the spirit of multilateralism!
With a roll call boasting three thousand seven hundred participants, one hundred and eighty-four member states, six hundred and nineteen observer organizations and three hundred and fifteen media outlets, the resumed session of the fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) convened in Geneva, Switzerland, from 5–14 August 2025. The mission: to “Get the Job Done”—deliver an international, legally binding instrument on plastic pollution.
It was not long before the opening sounds of traditional Swiss alphahorns wore off and INC-5.2 manifested into rerun reels from Busan —only this time without the comfort of steaming ramen, but instead once again under the heavy fondue-laden hand of the like-minded group of countries (LMC), whose time-wasting and intimidation tactics know no bounds. By the way, the LMC managed to secure a new player on the field – US delegates now “position themselves completely as like-minded.” Stalking the halls of the Palais with tariff threats in hand during the opening week, that found more than 60 countries in a complete scramble and one would say even used as a weapon to pick off the most ambitious states. However, the striker of the LMC takes the cake! The Saudis immediately raised their concerns about Article 6 (Supply/Production) during the opening plenary and insisted on the need for consensus. Calling for any discussions on plastic production measures to be entirely removed or discussed in unofficial meetings, given their long-standing disagreements and vested interests.
The Voices of Reason have finally been given an opportunity.
This futile request was powerfully drowned out by the interventions & voices from observer groups representing the International Alliance of Waste Pickers, Women & Children Major Groups, The Break Free From Plastic Movement, Youth Plastic Action Network, the Scientists Coalition and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics and many others. After forced into silence at previous INCs, observer groups were finally able take the floor at the opening plenary session and reaffirmed that; a just transition without waste pickers is garbage, unchecked production of plastics is accelerating a crisis that jeopardizes the climate, biodiversity, human health, and the planet’s ability to sustain life and the science which emerges on a daily basis is as undeniable as the flow of a river.
To whom it may concern, a kind reminder, two days prior, the leading medical journal, The Lancet, launched a new independent global monitoring system on health and plastics, which estimated that annual health-related economic losses due to plastic pollution exceeds $1.5 trillion.
Diplomatic Talks and bathroom huddles begin in an echo chamber.
What started out as formal negotiations in four well-constructed contact groups on upstream, mid & downstream measures, finance and compliance over the chair’s text was quickly paraded into exclusionary off-the-record “Informals” and even secret club Informal Informal [INF INF] meetings. This new “so-called” rite of passage gave way for text on substantive matters to be shaped out of sight and further sideline small delegations—particularly from the Global South—out in the cold, while observer groups were once again left peering through the keyhole. These bathroom huddles only multiplied because the LMC planted themselves firmly in place during the contact groups—refusing to budge an inch to the right or to the left and ensuring that any hope of progress in the formal negotiations was left circling the drain.
In fact, if INC-5.2 were a classroom, the Like-Minded Countries would be the unruly bunch in the back row—arms crossed, rolling their eyes, and kicking the legs of the desk in protest. True to form, they also debuted their latest album of obstruction at INC-5.2, with tracks dedicated to holding articles on supply, plastic products, and chemicals of concern hostage to any further discussion—simply because they didn’t like the subject matter.
This new playlist of obstruction was clearly inspired by delusion—so much so that one LMC member went as far as disputing the very definition of plastic in the treaty, arguing with a straight face that the agreement is about plastic pollution but not plastic itself.
One track the LMC just couldn’t get off repeat was their number 1 chart-topper since INC-2, ‘Consensus Blues.’ Orchestrated under the chair’s tired tune of “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” – once again, paralysed this INC from delivering a treaty that will protect people and the planet.
After five rounds of negotiations over two years, and a repeat performance of obstruction from minority countries over the first week of INC-5.2, tensions were at a boiling point. Civil society groups had finally had enough. They demanded action to break the consensus deadlock, greeting member states in the first stocktaking plenary with a deadly silence, a walk of shame, and signs urging them not to repeat Busan’s stalemate: “Fix the process, keep your promise, end plastic pollution.”
Reflecting on the Stock-taking plenary, the co-chairs of the Contact Groups presented their latest attempt at text streamlining: the so-called “Assembled Text.” In the words of the Contact Group 2 Co-chair from Ghana, it looked like a Christmas tree—riddled with over 1,488 brackets, a complex mix of progress and compromise.
On one hand, it contained strong, legally binding, and ambitious provisions that honor the UNEA 5/14 mandate: ending plastic pollution, phasing out the most hazardous chemicals and plastic products, and establishing a dedicated fund to implement core treaty obligations whilst ensuring an effective just transition. On the other hand, it was undermined by weaker language shaped by vested interests in maintaining unchecked plastic production, prioritizing profits over people, and advancing so-called “development” at the expense of fenceline communities, waste pickers, and Indigenous peoples—despite clear warnings from scientists and healthcare professionals. This document also mirrored a troubling pattern seen in previous INC sessions: expansion and contraction of commitments, where bold progress is repeatedly diluted by entrenched opposition.
The teeth of the “assembled text” was fostered stealthily through the tireless efforts of highly ambitious countries supported through civil society- ‘cough, cough’ – not to be confused with the so-called High Ambition Coalition, who despite meeting periodically throughout INC5.2 to “take stock,” somehow never managed to flip the script and, you know… actually be a little more ambitious.
Meanwhile, multiple groupings of determined countries continued to pave a path through strong text proposals on the most crucial treaty elements. We saw momentum building up for the Swiss-Mexico proposal on Article 3 (phasing out of the most problematic or harmful plastic products, including those containing chemicals of concern), which gained the support of 130 countries. Over 120 countries ( tracked by GAIA) have also demonstrated their support for a standalone article on health in the treaty text – recognising that plastics are toxic and pose grave health issues to human and environmental health. On product design, one hundred and eleven countries (tracked by GAIA), also stood firm with UK & Chile – The proposal recognizes the role of reuse targets and reuse systems in redesigning products in order to end plastic pollution. The African Group took this proposal a step further by way of their own submission on behalf of 54 African member states that specifically included language toxic-free reuse, refill, repair, and other reduction-enabling systems—plus transparency and traceability of prioritised chemicals along the plastic value chain.
More than 100 countries continue to fight for limits on unchecked plastic production, and 151 countries continue to be vocal with the African Group for a new dedicated independent multilateral fund. Because, let’s face it: if we want an ambitious treaty, then ambition on the Means of Implementation has to match. Otherwise, we’re all just humming along to yet another tired remix of “Consensus Blues.”
“At this level and rate of ambition, you would think we would have a treaty by NOW!!!” – 180 member states registered for INC5.2, a simple majority is 91, a two-thirds vote would require 120 states – You do the math – Consensus killed ambition at INC5.2!
However, a rat was among us – the #BrokenChair trapped us in a #BrokenProcess.
Countries put forward reasonable proposals for moving ahead: making the organisation of work more efficient, adopting real text negotiations, using informal settings more strategically, allowing co-chairs to streamline text, or even creating working groups to tackle cross-cutting items. Sensible, right?
Instead, the Chair swatted away these suggestions like pesky flies, marching everyone back into the swamp of INFINFs. And so, another week was consumed by endless circles of exclusionary “discussions,” while the treaty we so desperately need was left stranded in procedural quicksand.
Little did we know, the INC Chair had an ace tucked under his oil-stained hat. With less than 30 hours of negotiating time, on the 13th of August (yes, the day before INC-5.2 was meant to close), he suddenly unveiled a treaty text of his own—one that bore absolutely no resemblance to the “Assembled Text” that we had all received at the stocktaking plenary on the 9th. These dates matter, so pay close attention to what he does next. Can you tell I’m traumatized? Because I am.
If there’s one thing this chair knows how to do, it’s to bring out the ugly in all of us! – His “new text” sent a clear message to the world: we do not care about your health. We do not care about the science. We do not care about human rights. We do not care about your future. We only care about consensus.
It ignores the will of the vast majority of Member States and caters to the wishlist of the petro-states and the fossil fuel industry. To the Global South, especially, which has worked hard to fight for environmental justice, this text was an insult. What was meant to be a bold, binding agreement to end plastic pollution was gutted into a weak, voluntary waste management wishlist, riddled with loopholes that dump disproportionate burdens onto the Global South while shielding plastic producers.
This blatant backsliding betrays the UNEA 5/14 mandate and tramples on the world’s call for a treaty that addresses unchecked plastic production, plastic chemicals that poison the very first step of life and does little to nothing to protect our right to a clean and healthy environment.
He shook the room with this last-minute text drop, the lead single off his “Greatest Betrayal Album” and quickly found himself receiving a thorough backlash from member states, who completely and unequivocally rejected it. The LMC, of course, played their part too: rejecting the text not because it was weak, but because they wanted to remix it into something even worse, lowering ambition to somewhere below sea level—if not straight into the Earth’s core.
Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, Head of the Panama delegation stated on this new text, “Our redlines and redlines of the majority of countries represented in this room were not only stomped, they were spat on and they were burned…This is not about closing a treaty at any cost. It is about closing a wound that we’re leaving open in people’s lungs, in our rivers, in our oceans. But the text presented here makes that wound fatal, and we will not accept it. This is repulsive. It is not ambition, it is surrender, and we will not sell out future generations for a text as weak as this.”
On that note, with his tail firmly between his legs, the INC Chair had less than 24 hours to make peace with member states after that stunt!
The day was 14 August —what should have been the triumphant closing plenary of INC-5.2. But the odds of Chair Vayas gavelling a treaty that evening looked slimmer than Elvis making a comeback in the Palais… sequins and all.
The closing plenary was expected initially at 3pm. Then 6pm. Then 7pm. Then 8pm. Then… well, “indefinitely.” When his majesty, the chair finally arrived at 11:30pm after keeping member states and observers hungry, tired and at complete wits’ end, it was adjourned. After an hour of the world’s shortest plenary which lasted precisely 32 seconds, just before 1am this guy was on a roll and clearly did not learn his lesson, dropping yet another draft text – this one scrapping standalone articles on production/supply and health, and defers to consensus ONLY in the Conference of the Parties – man this obsession with consensus has got to stop, we get it “nothing is agreed until everything agreed.” But say that line in a room full of women in the 21st century, Vyas—I dare you.
Let’s rewind a little. At the time this latest draft text dropped, remember, Vyas had already adjourned the plenary, sending most Member States trudging out of the Palais after more than 11 hours of waiting. Hungry, exhausted, and done. But just as the majority finally escaped, he pulled the classic bait-and-switch—calling an impromptu meeting with whoever stuck around. And who might that be? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink—why yes, the LMC, the Chair’s favorite after-hours fan club.
In a frenzy, CSO groups scrambled through the early morning hours, rallying ambitious Member States back into the halls to stop this underhanded midnight business from snowballing any further.
By the time the “closing plenary” finally limped to life—at the mercy of an extended day—6:30 a.m. on 15 August, the exhaustion was palpable. And so was the verdict: there was little appetite for the Chair’s latest text, nor any intention of using it as the basis for future negotiations. In short, every text birthed in Geneva will be reduced to nothing more than a dusty set of footnotes—while the negotiations boomerang back to the Chair’s Busan draft. Progress? Please. More like déjà vu in a bad rerun.
However, one thing is for sure is that at the close of the plastics treaty negotiations (INC-5.2), ambitious Member States held strong under immense pressure and a broken process, and refused to end INC-5.2 with a weak treaty that would have failed to address the existential threat of plastic and repeated the fatal errors of the Paris climate negotiations.
The disappointment, negotiation fatigue and a clear crisis in multilateralism loomed over us. The Chair and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) failed to set the table for equitable and effective negotiations. Huge numbers of fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists swamped the talks while civil society was frequently shut out. The Chair played favorites with the low-ambition minority, while frequently ignoring high-ambition countries from the Global South. When powerful countries wielded their money, political muscle, and influence to bully these nations into retreat, the silence from the podium was deafening. This is not the spirit of multilateralism —it was coercion.
It is time to call the black sheep black (US, Saudi Arabia, Russia and bleats], those countries that do not want an ambitious treaty need to move aside and allow everyone else to get on with it!
“A treaty without production measures will be in the sand
A treaty without chemicals of concern will be soaked in denial
A treaty without addressing product design will be engineered to be a failure.”
Eat, Sleep, Negotiate and Repeat – what’s next?
Though an INC-5.3 seems the obvious next stop on this endless merry-go-round, the reality check is harsh. Budgets are shrinking, calendars are bursting. COP30 is set for Belém in November, UNEA-7 follows in December in Nairobi, and—lest we forget—The Economist warned back in May that the UN could literally run out of money within months. Another round of talks? Not exactly a foregone conclusion. At this rate, the only thing repeating is the déjà vu and the sounds of “Consensus Blues.”
The talks’ collapse attests to the strength of the movement that stood strongly with the ambitious bloc of countries in rejecting the weak texts.
The outcome of the INC process makes it clear that an undemocratic and non-transparent process, which bows to the tyranny of a few, cannot reap positive results. It is a symbol of the resilience of our members and rightsholders, especially Indigenous Peoples and Waste Pickers, who stood strong against the bullies. The UNEP process has failed! But the momentum we have built over the years, the shift in narratives, and the strong political ambition have been unleashed. The 100+ ambitious countries must strategise together to prevent petrostates from hijacking the process. It is time they explore alternative avenues to develop an international policy to effectivelyend plastic pollution across its life cycle.
