The ICCA team arrived in Geneva over the course of the weekend, in preparation for a busy two weeks of negotiations.  ICCA hosted three events in advance of the negotiations – two receptions and a high-level breakfast roundtable. The events were well attended, bringing together key government officials, ICCA members, and other key stakeholders. ICCA also organized and supported a series of bilateral meetings between executives and key governments, reiterating our positions and gathering information on government views for the upcoming negotiations. 

Tuesday, August 5, 2025

The resumed session of the 5^th Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) opened this morning with a short opening plenary, with opening remarks from UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen, the Swiss Minister of Environment, and the Chair of the INC. There were no interventions on substance by governments, though a few took the floor to raise procedural concerns. The Chair gave time to Observers to make statements and ICCA was one of three industry groups to make interventions, which you can watch here. Plenary ran over time, and each of the contact groups met once over the remainder of the day.

Highlights from Aug 5, 2025

Contact Group 1: Definitions (Art. 2), Potential Scope Art., Supply (Art. 6)

• Definitions (Art. 2):
  • There were divided views on whether to define terms like plastic, plastic waste, and plastic pollution, or to include other terms in this article
  • Russia, China, South Africa supported clear definitions based on Basel, ISO
  • U.S., Saudi Arabia: Opposed defining “plastic”
  • Countries recognized these discussions are technical in nature and will need to be revisited later in the week
• Scope (Art. 10):
  • There remains a split on whether a scope article is needed
    • Some countries maintained that a scope provision is needed and the scope should be limited to pollution from plastic waste.
    • Other countries maintained their positions that the agreement does not need a scope article, and that limits to scope will become apparent through the provisions of the text
    • The U.S. expressed an openness to considering a scope article
  • The discussion concluded with no agreement
• Supply (Art. 6):
  • Delegations interpret UNEA Resolution 5/14 differently with some arguing it calls for addressing production and sustainable consumption, while others insist it covers only plastic pollution and waste management. 
    • Some (Russia, Iran, Algeria) say it exceeds UNEA 5/14 mandate
    • Others (Panama, Peru, Micronesia) support global targets and sustainable production
• The co-chairs proposed, and eventually withdrew an offer to draft new, consolidated co-chair’s text due to concerns raised by member states on procedure and mandate

Contact Group 2: Releases and Leakages (Art. 7)

• This article was more contentious than expected, with fundamental disagreements over scope (lifecycle vs. waste), terminology (microplastics, pellets), and legal force (shall vs. should). Informal discussions may be necessary to reach consensus.
• Key Country Positions:
  • U.S., KSA: Want limited obligations, oppose lifecycle framing
  • UK, Canada, Costa Rica: Strongly support lifecycle and microplastics inclusion
  • Russia, China: Want narrower focus on waste only
  • Switzerland: Calls Article 7 essential
• In the end, there was no consensus. The cochairs proposed informal discussions but received significant push back from member states.

Contact Group 3: Finance (Art. 11)

As anticipated, there are deep divides between public financing advocates and the U.S.-led public private partnership (PPP) model. The US is supporting a new PPP financing paradigm, but other members question its equity, feasibility, and applicability to developing or vulnerable states. There is strong, unified support for the African Group CRP, with growing calls for bridging language to find consensus.

• U.S. Proposal:
  • Shift from GEF-only model to a public-private partnership (PPP) approach
  • Emphasizes innovation, private sector investment, and results-based financing that could be formalized at the first COP
• Concerns Raised:
  • Fiji/SIDS is skeptical of PPP model’s relevance for nations without private sectors
  • Brazil opposes private sector consultations by JAF and seeks clarity on “countries most in need”
  • Iran wants mostly public sources for financing
  • Ecuador: Private finance can complement, but not replace, public funding
• African Group CRP Support:
  • Backed by Brazil, Mali, Djibouti, and others, but calls for bridging language and clarity on differentiation remain

Contact Group 4: Objectives, Institutional Matters (Arts. 1, 1bis, 20–30)

Delegates continue to debate the objective of the ILBI with parties split over health and pollution vs. a focus on plastic pollution.

• The health vs. pollution framing and inclusion of life cycle, equity, and sustainability remain points of contention.
• Progress on institutional articles is procedural but steady, with transitional measures for developing countries gaining support.

• Article 1 (Objective):
  • Discussion of the Chair’s draft:
    • “Protect human health and environment via life cycle approach”
  • Iran prefers “address plastic pollution” rather than protect human health…
  • Chile, UK, and Indonesia want simple, aspirational goals to end plastic pollution
  • U.S., Argentina, Egypt prefer keeping the focus on pollution, not health
• Article 1bis:
  • Informal group to be led by KSA will meet to streamline options
• Articles 26–28 (Institutional):
  • Regional Integration: Iran and Russia oppose equal status for regional blocs
  • Annexes: Debate over ratification flexibility (Para 4); developing countries push for transitional periods (Para 3bis)
  • Way Forward: Articles 31 & 32 can go to plenary; others await synthesis from co-chairs