The second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee was held with the intent of creating the first global, legally binding agreement between more than 175 countries, yet no resolution was reached.
By Nerida Kelton FAIP, executive director AIP – vice president Sustainability & Save Food – WPO
With negotiations ongoing to formalise a Global Plastic Pollution Treaty aimed at becoming an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, the Australasian Institute of Packaging (AIP) wanted to better understand the treaty and why it has hit a roadblock.
In 2025, INC 5.2, the second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, was held with the intent of creating the first global and legally binding agreement between more than 175 countries. Unfortunately, there was no resolution as anticipated.
The development of the Global Plastic Pollution Treaty was designed to address the full lifecycle of plastics. This means not only looking at disposal and waste management, but starting with plastic design, production and consumption. However, this mandate was disputed by many countries and was a sticking point for many at the INC 5.2 meetings. Global targets and initiatives need to be matched with in country action plans tailored to each nation.
The AIP invited Conor Carlin, past president of the Society of Plastics Engineers (SPE) in the US; Shaun Lewis, general manager of Waste Systems and Operations, Ministry for the Environment in New Zealand; Rocky Pairunan, manager for the Ocean and Plastic Waste Programme, World Resources Institute in Indonesia; and Shannon Doherty-Andall, sustainability manager, the Australian Beverages Council, to find out what happened at INC 5.2, what the barriers and gaps were and the next steps for achieving a signed Global Plastic Pollution Treaty.
Improved packaging design and production must be matched with infrastructure capable of delivering outcomes.
Attending INC 5.2
When delegates gathered in Geneva for the resumed fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, the room reflected the breadth of interests shaping the Global Plastics Treaty. For Andall, representing the International Council of Beverages Associations and the Australian Beverages Council in its observer role, the focus was clear: ensure the treaty recognises the practical realities of food and beverage packaging.
“Our role is to provide technical clarity and to help make sure the treaty is workable for industry and regulators in every region,” she said.
Carlin brought polymer science into the conversation. SPE members had pushed for greater involvement at INC 5.2, concerned that negotiations lacked objective technical voices and grounding in polymer science.
“There was also a lack of grounding in polymer science specifically as it related to plastics and the different types of plastics and the effects that additives have on plastics,” he said.
From Indonesia, Pairunan represented the World Resources Institute Indonesia and its National Plastic Action Partnership (NPAP) network.
“WRI participation at the Global Pacific Treaty negotiation is focussing on observing the negotiation,” he said. “NPAP groups across the region would like to know what is being negotiated, what are the stumbling blocks in the negotiation process and how they can contribute to support international positions.”
For Lewis, representing New Zealand’s Ministry for the Environment alongside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the objective has been to advocate for an effective international framework to address transboundary plastic pollution.
Progress and outcomes
INC 5.2 did not conclude with a signed treaty. Yet participants describe incremental progress rather than failure. According to Andall, the week aimed to consolidate draft text and resolve political deadlocks carried over from Busan.
“In terms of learnings from the treaty not being signed, my biggest takeaway is that the disagreement isn’t about whether to act, but how,” she said.
Divisions remain over ambition levels and whether the treaty should include global production caps or focus primarily on downstream waste and chemicals management.
Lewis echoed a sense of gradual advancement. With each round, member states deepen their understanding of one another’s positions and of observer priorities.
“I think some progress has been made on consolidating texts, particularly around downstream measures,” he said.
However, some issues remain unresolved.
“We still have issues such as how to address plastic production, how to manage chemicals and products globally, how to finance implementation, and how decisions will be made under the treaty,” added Lewis.
Carlin observed the evolution of the chair’s text from Busan to Geneva, shrinking dramatically in length. While this reflected efforts to narrow differences, it ultimately did not deliver the level of compromise needed.
Discussions often revealed gaps in understanding around polymer chemistry and existing regulation, including what is already governed under frameworks such as the Stockholm Convention.
“There is always a risk of scope creep in this,” said Carlin. “The different national and super national perspectives perhaps from the high ambition countries or from the European Union made it difficult to find a lowest common denominator.”
Full lifecycle versus targeted waste management
A core debate running through INC 5.2 is whether the treaty should address the full lifecycle of plastics or concentrate on waste management. For the SPE, if a full lifecycle approach is adopted, education will be critical.
“We have the ability, with our sister associations across the globe to host educational round tables or build capacity with the groups that simply don’t have the same level of polymer processing expertise,” said Carlin.
Infrastructure is a recurring theme. Carlin pointed to the geographic and demographic realities of Australia and New Zealand, large landmasses, relatively small populations and distance from global markets. Ambition around improved packaging design and production must be matched with infrastructure capable of delivering outcomes.
Lewis agreed that scale and distance are ongoing challenges for New Zealand. Regional cooperation between Australia and New Zealand is already under discussion.
“Even now officials from both countries are trying to talk about how to design a regional circular economy,” said Lewis.
What comes next?
Looking ahead, the immediate procedural step is to appoint a new chair following the resignation after INC 5.2. A future INC 5.3 session is anticipated, with discussion about potentially convening again in Geneva.
Carlin noted that even without a finalised treaty, there is recognition that national and regional goals, whether voluntary or binding, will play a role.
“In some countries, even in the US, many seemed to be in favour of national targets to contribute to the broader goals, instead of relying on one universal set of goals,” he said.
Lewis said the groundwork laid in smaller groups and informal discussions at INC 5.2 has clarified bottom lines and may help negotiators move beyond non negotiables towards compromise.
“In INC 5.2 we saw different and innovative ways of working, like the shuttle diplomacy and Friends of the Chair, which actually I think helped progress discussions,” said Lewis.
For Andall, the absence of consensus reflects political dynamics rather than collapse. Countries seeking rapid progress are likely to continue advancing through regional blocs, coalitions and technical working groups. However, she cautioned against fragmented national rules that could undermine the very consistency a global treaty aims to create. Strengthening data, monitoring systems and alignment with international standards can proceed in parallel, but the priority should remain cohesive global rules.
INC 5.2 may not have delivered a treaty text, but it sharpened the contours of the debate. For the food and beverage sector, where packaging performance, safety and recyclability are non-negotiable, the path forward will depend on whether negotiators can bridge the gap between global ambition and on the ground practicality.