The Quiet Success of INC 5.2

This post was originally written on September 23rd, 2025

The sixth round of negotiations towards a global plastics treaty ended, yet again, without a treaty. Much ink has been spilled about how the talks “collapsed” or “failed”; and there is now widespread acknowledgement that the current process is incapable of producing an adequate treaty, given obstruction by a group of countries that won’t agree to any meaningful treaty. Amidst all the noise and blame, however, the negotiations produced a quiet triumph that has gone almost unremarked.

The aim of these negotiations is to produce a treaty text: agreed-upon language for a new, international law that will end plastic pollution. To produce that text, countries must propose, debate, compromise, and eventually settle on specific language. And this is precisely what they have been doing.

Even close observers can be forgiven for having missed this important development, for it has never been acknowledged by the chair. Discord, not agreement, was the order of the day in plenary sessions and contact groups alike. These formal negotiating sessions were dominated by a handful of petrochemical states that are clearly determined to prevent any meaningful treaty from emerging. Meanwhile, the majority of countries were busy negotiating text with each other, hammering out common positions on matters such as production caps, chemicals of concern, transparency, and finance. These common positions were presented as Conference Room Papers (CRPs) with dozens of nations — in some cases, over a hundred — lending their support. These CRPs represent a remarkable degree of convergence on the principal pillars of the treaty.

Simply assembling these CRPs together into one document forms a country-driven treaty text with extensive support and the ability to deliver a treaty that is fit for purpose: a “landing zone” in the jargon of treaty negotiations. Unlike the gormless texts offered by the chair, this version of the treaty reflects the discussions, positions, and ambition that countries have expressed over three years of negotiations.

To be sure, some gaps remain, but these are not major hurdles. The thorniest issues have already been tackled, with majorities signing on to ambitious CRPs. A week of solid negotiation should be enough to close the remaining differences between the countries negotiating in good faith. No amount of time will be enough to find common cause with bad faith negotiators, and too much time has already been wasted on them. By entertaining the obstructive tactics of the few spoiler nations, the chair has proven to be more of a hindrance than a help to the negotiations. A better process to finalize the text is still needed, but starting with the CRP compilation text as the basis for negotiations would ensure majority support for the options already on the table and put the final goal clearly within sight.

Photo Credit: Freepik