Plastic crisis is real. Globally the annual plastic production exceeds 430 million tonnes, of which only 10% is recycled and 14 million tons end up in seas and oceans, according to the estimates of International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). This year alone, globally we are looking at over a billion tons of plastic waste. So, clearly there’s a need to do much more than what is being done currently. That is what the second part of the fifth INC session on the Global Plastic Pollution Treaty is addressing. The session aims to finalize and approve the text of the agreement and forward it for consideration and adoption at a future diplomatic conference. 

“This is a unique and historic opportunity for the international community to bridge differences and find common ground. It is not just a test of our diplomacy—it is a test of our collective responsibility to protect the environment, safeguard human health, enable sustainable economies, and stand in solidarity with those most affected by this plastic pollution crisis,” said Luis Vayas Valdivieso, Chair of the INC in a press statement. 

As of the opening day, more than 3,700 participants had registered to participate in INC-5.2, representing 184 countries and over 619 observer organizations. This points to a very visible urgency across the international community regarding plastic pollution.

Addressing the plastic problem

For several years now, plastic pollution has been a major issue. Researchers, environmentalists and scientists have been voicing their concern for a while now. Time and again the matter has been raised at the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) and other global forums. It was only in 2022 that UNEA took the resolution to create a legally binding global treaty to reduce and then end plastic pollution in every form. This led to the formation of Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) that brought together all the UN member states to negotiate the treaty. The INC is tasked with developing an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, which could include both binding and voluntary approaches, based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastic.

“Plastic pollution is already in nature, in our oceans and even in our bodies. If we continue on this trajectory, the whole world will be drowning in plastic pollution – with massive consequences for our planetary, economic and human health. But this does not have to be our future. Together, we can solve this challenge. Agreeing a treaty text is the first step to beating plastic pollution for everyone, everywhere,” said Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP.

Since March 2022, five INC sessions have been held to develop and agree upon legally binding resolutions. INC-5.2 follows INC 5, which took place in late 2024 in Busan, where negotiations were stalled due to no parties reaching any agreement. Currently, more than hundred countries support legally-binding resolutions meant to reduce plastic production globally and the phasing out of certain chemicals and single-use plastic products. However, nations with large fossil fuel industries such as Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and Iran oppose restrictions on plastic production. They are pushing for an agreement focused on better plastic management and recycling of waste. Last year in Busan, there were 220 fossil fuel, chemical industry representatives and plastic producers including 16 lobbyists from plastics industry, who put up arguments against production cuts. 

Purpose and structure of the plastic treaty

In March 2022, at the fifth session of UN Environment Assembly, a resolution was adopted to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. For the first time in history of environmental governance, the instrument was to be drafted based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design, and disposal.

The instrument called Chair’s Text was developed during INC-5 in Busan held in 2024. It is a draft non-paper released by the Chair of the INC as a basis for a Global Plastic Pollution Treaty. This is intended to serve as a starting point for final negotiations to establish a legally binding global treaty on plastics. 

The key issues it highlights include production caps on primary plastics, regulation of chemicals of concern in plastic manufacturing, financing mechanisms and equitable implementation, especially for developing countries. The countries are expected to adopt measures to prevent littering and ban open dumping and burning of plastic waste. The text also promotes Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies and economic instruments supporting safe, full-lifecycle waste management. 

“Recyclability and EPR should be non-negotiable aspects in the treaty. We should look at shift in packaging design in a meaningful way. There is a need for innovation in this. The treaty should throw more light on chemicals of concern – present a risk assessment on these. There is no way for the industry to get a risk assessment on chemicals of concern. The treaty should move forward where a framework for this is created. Disclosure on plastic, chemicals of concern and finance around plastic taxonomy should evolve into the framework, pushing businesses to take positive decisions in agreement with plastic pollution laws,” explained Ankit Gupta, General Manager Sustainability at ITC Ltd. 

The Chair’s Text introduced, for the first time, options for global bans and phase-outs of the most harmful plastics and chemicals. A move, if implemented will help clear up landfills. This time round, the Chair’s Text attempts to balance ambition with broad-based consensus. Many ambiguities have been made clearer with definitions of key terms like plastics, polymers, microplastics and plastic waste. The draft includes mention of a dedicated fund, blended finance options, and a primary plastic fee.

Ambiguity that dilutes purpose

Even then, the text leaves many points open to interpretation. For instance, Article 6 suggests global targets to reduce primary polymer production, but these are not mandatory, and there’s no interim moratorium language. It encourages non-toxic reuse systems and better designs to reduce microplastic release and includes provisions for banning open dumping and burning of waste, but the waste hierarchy is partially removed, and energy recovery (e.g., waste-to-energy) is allowed. According to the observers of the Treaty at INC5.2, compliance is largely voluntary which weakens the sustainability goals. Some ambiguous aspects of the Chair’s Text allow countries to apply for and renew exemptions from plastic pollution laws.

While the marine scientists and plastic pollution experts are pushing for top-down approach in plastic lifecycle: upstream which focuses on reducing raw material production, midstream which looks at design and manufacturing of plastic products, and downstream which looks at recycling and management; The Chair’s Text leans heavily toward downstream interventions with insufficient mechanisms to manage upstream functions. 

“The document represents considerable progress in the negotiation process. It also outlines the redline issues. The chair text indicates alignments on a number of issues from the plastic lifecycle like plastic production design, micro plastics, waste management, and release and leakages. However, the chair text also highlights issues where positions remain ambiguous. Issues like primary plastic polymers, sustainable consumption of plastic products and chemical of concern remain highly contested,” said Ieva Rucevska, Senior Expert, GRID Arendale. 

The objective of ending plastic pollution—including in marine environments is stated, but the absence of clear, enforceable targets weakens its impact. Moreover, key terms such as lifecycle, nanoplastics, primary polymers, and recycling remain undefined, creating potential loopholes. Notably, the Chair’s Text still lacks a stand-alone article on chemicals of concern; this dimension has instead been merged into broader product regulation language. 

“Regarding chemicals of concern, 95 countries supported its statement, calling for inclusion of a list of chemicals in the new agreement. Should the new convention pursue its goal of protecting human health and environment, then including unnecessary chemicals in the list for plastic pollution must become a major focus of the treaty’s key provisions,” added Rucevska. 

The treaty resolutions have National Action Plans (NAPs) but lack standardized formats, mandatory timelines, or enforcement measures. Similarly, governance via the Conference of the Parties (COP) is outlined but voting procedures remain insufficiently robust. This raises fears about future decision-making being stalled by vetoes. The Chair’s Text acknowledges human rights, linking control measures and COP mechanisms to human rights considerations. However, support for informal workers and frontline communities is limited, with no clear plan for a just, equitable transition.

“The treaty articles are open to interpretation, which can lead to close door policies and non-involvement of the affected parties. We find that informal workers have been marginalised and there are hardly any financial mechanisms to support them, who are key to managing plastic pollution. It needs to be community led, and the national level status needs to be kept in mind and take into account local realities,” explained Emmy Noklebye, Research Scientist, Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA)

Disclaimer: This blog article references and information originally published on Waste & Recycling. All credit for the primary reporting and statements belongs to the original source. We have curated and presented the content here solely for informational and educational purposes, without claiming ownership of the original reporting.

Source: Waste & Recycling