Available in other translations:

ESPAÑOL | FRANÇAIS | PORTUGUÊS | DEUTSCH | 中文| 한국어 | BAHASA INDONESIA | KISWAHILI | हिंदी | ไทย | اللغة العربية

✅ Today, countries moved to negotiating specific elements of the treaty text. In discussions on waste management and leakage,  we observed members converging on an obligation for countries to commit go further than just cleaning up plastic pollution and include  ‘remediation’ of plastic pollution – a broader term that includes removal, restoration and rehabilitation of protected environments. 

✅ More than 120 countries support a proposal from Brazil to have a dedicated article on health in the treaty. In the negotiation room, countries mentioned the importance of making sure vulnerable communities, indigenous peoples, and wastepickers views are included. 

✅ We also heard diverse voices supporting measures for microplastics, with one delegation stating  “this article is absolutely relevant and necessary based on the evidence”. 

✅ Georgia, Peru, Rwanda, Switzerland and Thailand submitted a proposal for an initial and non-exhaustive list of plastic products that could be considered for elimination, helping add specificity to negotiations and build momentum towards enforceable global rules. 

✅ UK and Chile together with 24 countries  presented a proposal on product design which aims to support the improvement of reuse systems, minimize leaks, improve safety, etc. The proposal is gaining support among numerous countries, who spoke during the negotiations about the need for non-toxic reuse, and recognized the importance of Indigenous knowledge, and local production and consumption systems.

✅ In response to the blockers on Article 6 (plastic production), Panama quietly resubmitted their proposal from INC-5.1 on behalf of 89 countries, calling for binding global targets to reduce production of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels.

✅ Frontline groups representing Indigenous Peoples, waste pickers, and unionized workers across the plastics value chain demanded in a media statement a binding plastics treaty that centers justice, rights, and real solutions.

✅ The UN Women’s Major Group hosted a casual lunchbreak for women delegates, with speakers sharing a message of hope around the need to end plastic pollution–including toxics and microplastics–for the sake of women and girls around the world.

✅ Over 48 million health professionals from all over the globe, including the World Medical Association and the International Council of Nurses, called on world leaders to end plastic pollution—pushing for a just, equitable, and health-centered Global Plastics Treaty.

✖  A record 234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered for this round of plastics treaty negotiations, according to an analysis by Center for International Environmental Law. These lobbyists outnumber the combined delegations of all 27 European Union countries and the European Commission, with major companies like Dow and ExxonMobil heavily represented.

✖  The group focused on capacity building and finance spent 2 of their 3 hours on how to organise themselves before they were able to finally move to textual negotiations. 

✖ Some low-ambition countries argued against a health focused article, suggesting it be covered by the World Health Organization instead.  One delegation denied scientific evidence saying that the impacts of plastics on health are still at the “elementary stage”.

✖ The Chair has moved discussions to informal settings with over 100 seats for governments, yet observers were excluded. The International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) raised concerns in a letter to the Chair, emphasizing that these arrangements should not compromise transparency, integrity, or prevent the participation of essential scientists and experts in the negotiations.

234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists are registered to attend INC-5.2, the highest at any negotiation for the plastics treaty so far, and more than the previous high of 221 lobbyists identified at INC-5.1, according to a new Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) analysis.

•  Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumber the diplomatic delegations of all 27 EU countries and the European Commission delegation combined (233). 
• Lobbyists secured places in the national delegations of Egypt (6), Kazakhstan (4), China (3), Iran (3), Chile (2), and the Dominican Republic (1), including lobbyists from Dow (7), the American Chemistry Council (7), and ExxonMobil (6). 
• Note that these estimates are likely conservative/low due to relying on delegate self-disclosure of industry connections.

To call attention to industry's presence inside the negotiations, Greenpeace activists painted Geneva’s streets black to create a symbol trail of oil and demand the UN kicks out fossil fuel lobbyists. Activists created a symbolic trail of black oil and held massive banners above the entrance to the Palais des Nations to call out the undue influence of the fossil fuel industry in the negotiations.

Photo credit: Greenpeace

Observers are facing barriers to meaningfully participate in the negotiations. The International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) submitted a letter to the INC Chair and Bureau exposing its concerns and highlighting that arrangement for informal meetings should not compromise the transparency or integrity of the process, neither should prevent the participation of scientists and experts. IPEN is urging immediate action to ensure that informal meetings remain open, or that any decision to close such meetings is clearly justified, narrowly interpreted, and communicated transparently.

Available in other translations:

ESPAÑOL | FRANÇAIS | PORTUGUÊS | DEUTSCH | 中文| 한국어 | BAHASA INDONESIA | KISWAHILI | हिंदी | ไทย | اللغة العربية

✅ During discussions on plastic products, ambitious voices supported regulating toxic chemicals using the best available science, transparency measures, and global lists of chemicals and targets. A delegation later urged those opposing global regulations to step aside and not block the countries willing to deal with this global problem.

✅ A proposal led by Colombia and Perú, ensuring that future Conferences of the Parties (COP) can adopt decisions through voting if consensus cannot be reached, has gained support from 118 countries.

✅ A proposal prepared by Canada highlights the disproportionate burden Indigenous Peoples face from plastic pollution and criticizes the treaty text for not appropriately reflecting their rights, knowledge, and participation. 45 delegations support the proposal, although the EU is yet to endorse it. We hope to see Canada defending this position inside the negotiation rooms.

✅ A Switzerland/Mexico proposal supporting global control measures for plastic products and chemicals in products has the support of at least 130 countries. No other proposal has gained such significant support. 

✅ When discussing financial mechanisms, a mix of countries called for equity measures financed by developed country parties to support developing countries in implementation efforts. Other delegations reiterated the need for a robust and transparent review of the financial mechanisms for implementation, and proposed a new dedicated fund to be established by the second COP.

✅ During discussions related to plastic waste management, some delegations advocated for removing from the text so-called ‘energy recovery’ technologies –  a false solution that generates highly toxic substances and heavy metals, and more emissions than plastic itself.

✖ As if in an endless loop, a few low-ambition countries continue to argue that the regulation of toxic chemicals is outside of the treaty scope. 

✖  Saudi Arabia (on behalf of the  Arab Group) submitted a proposal outlining their position on the Conference of the Parties (COPs) that will follow the agreement on a Global Plastics Treaty. In this submission, it is proposed that all decisions at COPs are made by consensus, which could significantly slow processes, protect the interests of obstructionists, and lead to weakened outcomes. 

✖  Later in the evening, during the contact group negotiations, one delegation went as far as to suggest that participation of observers in the implementation process should also be decided by consensus, which would allow any country to exclude observers from the process. 

✖ Malaysia,  Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the Arab Group, reaffirmed their low-ambition position on  Article 6, which aims to regulate plastic production, by submitting formal proposals for the article to be struck in its entirety.

✖ Regarding financial mechanisms for treaty implementation, countries still cannot agree on the best way to ensure that the polluters are also paying for the impacts of plastic pollution.  

✖ Also, in financial mechanisms, there is a lack of attention on the issue of large subsidies given to the fossil fuels, petrochemical, and plastic industries, which are fueling the plastic crisis. 

✖ One of the contact groups was delayed by an extended conversation about how to proceed, with one delegation calling it procedural purgatory.

Today, it has become clear which delegations are willing to ensure countries can effectively make decisions during the implementation of the treaty and which ones just want to give veto power to low-ambition, plastic-producing countries.

At the low end of the scale, we have Saudi Arabia, which led a proposal calling for decisions on the implementation of the treaty (during the Conference of the Parties) to be made only by consensus, thereby giving any country veto power to block any ambitious measure.

Thankfully, high-ambition countries are rising to the occasion. Colombia and Perú led a proposal to allow countries to make decisions on substantial issues by majority vote when consensus fails, a rule with precedent in many multilateral environmental agreements.

Available in other translations:

ESPAÑOL | FRANÇAIS | PORTUGUÊS | DEUTSCH | 中文| 한국어 | BAHASA INDONESIA | KISWAHILI | हिंदी | ไทย | اللغة العربية

✅ CSOs organized by Greenpeace Switzerland, Gallifrey Foundation, and Break Free From Plastic brought together hundreds of people and organizations from around the world on Monday to demand an ambitious and legally binding treaty.

✅ The opening plenary started with a concert played on two traditional wooden alphorns. Observers were invited to speak and made strong calls for a plastics treaty that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics. Waste pickers demanded mandatory Just Transition measures. The International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics asked for a treaty that ensures the equitable and ethical participation of Indigenous Peoples and ancestral knowledge holders.

✅ Also in plenary, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Scientists’ Coalition echoed calls for a treaty that addresses the full plastic life cycle. The Commissioner also spoke to the need for a treaty that advances human rights, including the right to health, a healthy environment, and a just transition for those most impacted by plastic.

✅ The Break Free From Plastic movement and U.S. Environmental Justice Delegation spoke to how these negotiations have been captured by the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries, and reminded governments that when decisions cannot be reached by consensus, countries must have the ability to vote to ensure that deadlocks do not derail progress.

✖ In the opening plenary, apart from Saudi Arabia and Iran pushing back on production reduction measures, the majority of time was spent on procedural matters, such as scheduling the Contact Groups for negotiations.

✖ Even on Day 1, lack of access was already noticeable. Negotiation rooms have limited seats for observers, forcing most CSOs to watch the discussions via livestream in overflow rooms. 

✖ In a déjà vu to other INCs, some low-ambition countries wanted to narrow the scope of the treaty and continued to ignore that the 2022 UNEA 5/14 resolution mandates a treaty that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics. 

✖ Some spoiler countries wanted to narrow definitions and remove mentions of health and climate, ignoring that, without science-based definitions, the treaty will be unable to effectively protect human health and the environment.

✖ Furthermore, one delegation went so far as to suggest that the agreement isn’t about ‘plastics’. The assertion drew laughter from the overflow room, though the speaker wasn’t joking.

✖ Several negotiators supported a right for countries to entirely opt out of all future amendments to the treaty’s annexes. This would effectively prevent the treaty from updating controls on plastic products, chemicals, and plastic production as pollution worsens and science improves.

✖ Low ambition was felt in other discussions, as well, specifically when talking about leakages. Some countries tried to water down the text—either by denying that plastic production causes leakages of harmful chemicals, or even by suggesting deleting the article entirely.

✖ During the UNEP Opening Press Conference, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment stated that “contrary to some media reports, this is no call for a production cap”, signaling a lack of ambition at the beginning of negotiations.

The day before the start of the negotiations, civil society rallied together outside the Palais des Nations with a clear call: ‘Cut Plastic Production. Don’t Fuel Our Destruction. Strong Treaty Now’. The mobilization brought together hundreds of civil society organisations and members of the global public who wore red, yellow, and orange to symbolise the urgency of the crisis and the dangers posed by the unchecked production of plastic. 

On Day 1, rightsholders made their voices heard through different creative actions both outside and inside the negotiations. Outside the Palais des Nations stands ‘The Thinker’s Burden’, a sculpture depicting how this treaty affects both Mother Earth and future generations, a soap distribution encouraging delegates to vote for a #CleanPlasticsTreaty, and an installation displaying one million collected cigarette butts. Inside the plenary, observers braved the Geneva heat in woolen, brain-shaped hats decorated with plastic to help shine a light on the fact that even our brains are polluted by plastic.

As negotiations continued today at INC-5.2, low-ambition countries once again attempted to drag the treaty backward—arguing that this treaty isn’t about plastics, but rather only about plastic waste management. Déjà vu? We’re back to the same tired debates from INC-4 in Ottawa, as well as ignoring the 2022 agreements from UNEA 5.2 in Nairobi, when the world agreed to tackle plastic pollution across its entire lifecycle (UNEA resolution 5/14).

As one high-ambition country put it in today’s discussions:

“If this agreement is not about plastic, what is it about then?”  

We don’t need a time machine pulling us backward. We need a strong, future-looking treaty that addresses the root of this crisis: fossil fuel production and the production of plastics. The treaty’s power lies in its scope and comprehensive approach to prevent harm, hold polluters accountable, and protect the planet, our health, and future generations.