Negotiators concluded ten days of intense discussions at INC-5.2 this summer in Geneva without agreement on a final treaty text. The Chair’s late draft proposals could not reconcile the competing demands of many delegations, and negotiations now revert to the broader INC-5.1 text. The revised draft contains thousands of brackets, each representing unresolved issues and differences in ambition. Major divisions persist on scope, production controls, chemical management, the interface with the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, and financing.
Across the scientific community, a recurring sentiment has emerged: no treaty is better than a weak treaty. For IMDOS, the return to the wider INC-5.1 language keeps essential monitoring and data provisions on the table while giving time to strengthen the global evidence base and harmonise methodologies.
Delegates at INC-5.2 continued to view the treaty through very different lenses:
The lack of consensus at INC-5.2 leaves several possible pathways open: extended timelines, the risk of weakened obligations, continued intersessional work to rebuild convergence, or…if stalemate persists…coalitions of the willing advancing outside the UN process. UNEA-7 (December 2025) is expected to serve indirectly as a political waypoint, signalling continued commitment and helping prepare the ground for the next steps. INC-5.3 will be held after UNEA-7, functioning primarily as an organisational and administrative session focused on the election of officers, including the new Chair. No substantive negotiations are expected during this resumed session, although it will be preceded by regional consultations on the same day.
Beyond INC-5.3, a clear pathway for further negotiations has not yet emerged. The next substantive negotiating round is unlikely before the summer of 2026, allowing time for consensus-building and for identifying additional resources, given that the negotiation process was originally planned to conclude by the end of 2024. In the meantime, interim discussions and intersessional work may continue, helping to maintain momentum and lay the groundwork for a more ambitious future meeting.
Although final decisions are pending, UNEP’s latest activities suggest three complementary monitoring streams aligned with a life-cycle approach:
For IMDOS, the third stream is the most directly relevant. However, environmental monitoring must be designed in coordination with economic and waste monitoring to ensure data interoperability throughout the full plastic life cycle. Harmonised indicators, comparable units and interoperable datasets will be essential.
In this period of political uncertainty, IMDOS has a clear and constructive role:
It is also important for IMDOS to prepare a concise document clearly stating our goals, ambition and expected contributions, while honestly acknowledging existing gaps, limitations and uncertainties in environmental marine monitoring. Being transparent about what monitoring can (and cannot) deliver will prevent overselling, help manage expectations and ensure credibility. At the same time, such clarity will allow IMDOS to focus on its strengths while outlining a realistic plan to address identified gaps in the coming months and years.
With UNEA-7 approaching and INC-5.3 to follow, IMDOS and the wider scientific community have an opportunity to maintain momentum and help ensure that the eventual treaty is ambitious, science-based and enforceable.