As waves lapped at Busan’s shores, delegates inside INC-5 (25 November - 1 December 2024) faced a storm of their own - the task of negotiating a treaty that will shape the future of our planet’s relationship with plastics. Delegates from across the globe came together, grappling with the urgent need to address the escalating plastic crisis that threatens ecosystems, economies, and human health. From microplastics in our bloodstreams to mountains of waste in landfills, the repercussions of plastic pollution are undeniable. Yet, finding consensus on solutions proved as challenging as the problem itself. With competing interests at play, ranging from corporate lobbying to the plight of waste pickers, the outcomes of this meeting raise a vital question: can we design a treaty that’s both effective and equitable? Over 3,800 participants registered, which UNEP says is the highest attendance of any of the INC meetings so far. Within this figure were 177 countries and 600 observing organisations which shows the scale of importance and urgency to have a treaty that tackles plastics pollution. Did INC-5 deliver it, or did the fight against plastic remain mired in political and industrial deadlock?
On October 30, 2024, the Chair of the INC issued the third non-paper which served as a basis for discussions in Busan to support collaborative efforts in negotiating a legally binding agreement to address plastic pollution. This document incorporated inputs from governments, regional groups, expert submissions, observers, and international organisations experienced in multilateral environmental agreements.
The negotiations started with a plenary followed by the convening of four contact groups (CG’s) to discuss various articles from the non-paper 3.0, covering the following topics:
CG1: Plastic products, the chemicals of concern used within them, product design, and topics related to the production and supply of plastics;
CG2: The management of plastic waste, emissions, and releases; legacy plastics on land and in the marine environment, and achieving a just transition;
CG3: International collaboration; establishing a financial mechanism, building capacity, technology transfer and technical assistance;
CG4: Implementation and compliance; national plans; reporting, monitoring, and evaluating progress and effectiveness; exchanging information and increasing education, awareness, and research.
For the first three days, the non-paper was discussed in contact groups, following which a revised version was issued. The articles related to supply, chemicals of concern, and finance were the most discussed during the formal CG’s and it exposed the deep divisions among nations to agree to a text that addresses the whole lifecycle of plastics starting from extraction. Based on the formal consultations the Chair released a revised version of the non-paper on 29th November. The next two and half days were dedicated entirely to informal (closed-door) discussions among member states, leaving observers (which includes major groups such as the scientific community, civil society organisations, indigenous peoples, women, children, and youth) excluded from most meetings, raising questions about participation and inclusiveness.
The revised version of the non-paper had its ups and downs. There was introduction of global targets to reduce primary polymer production, which was missing in the previous non-paper. However, the text lacked any obligations for enforcement of the targets and reporting on current and planned production capacities per polymer was missing. A dedicated multilateral fund to support developing nations was introduced but specifics were not provided. But the biggest concern is the lack of a stand-alone article on chemicals of concern. It is a well-known fact that over 170 fracking chemicals that are used to produce the main feedstocks for plastic have known human health impacts, including cancer, neurological, reproductive, and developmental toxicity, impairment of the immune system, and more. And also using language like ‘address’ or ‘manage’ for chemicals of concern gives the impression that these are voluntary and not enforced.
While the revised version of the non-paper showcased a step forward, the next two days of ‘secluded’ negotiations appeared to signify a transformative moment. Based on the two and half days of ‘closed’ informal (closed-door) discussions among the delegates, the Chair released the “Chair’s Text” on December 1st. In its latest iteration, the Chair's text appears so diluted that it risks undermining the very issues the global treaty on plastic pollution was designed to confront. In any treaty, the definitions play an important role and in the latest iteration, the text misses the mark significantly. For example, lack of vital definitions for lifecycle, microplastics, nanoplastics, and primary plastic polymers creates significant gaps in the framework. To address plastic pollution, reducing production is our best bet and by replacing the words like ‘reduce” with ‘manage’ substantially undermines the treaty's commitment to reducing plastic production. In terms of waste management, the shift away from the waste hierarchy and the embrace of waste-to-energy technologies significantly undercuts the sustainability goals in waste management.
On the final day, the plenary exposed the internal divisions that exist within the committee. A clear bifurcation emerged in the room, with nations from Africa, Latin America, and Small Island Developing States advocating for a treaty centred on global well-being and environmental sustainability, contrasting sharply with petrochemical and oil-producing nations prioritising economic gain and private wealth. By the close of INC 5, more than 100 countries had called for a reduction in plastic production, 95 for binding obligations on harmful plastic products and chemicals, and over 120 for strong means of implementation. Yet, it was evident that, while the majority supported a far-reaching treaty, their efforts were constrained by political and industry lobbying and procedural limitations, which showed that politics, like plastic, is not easily biodegraded.
The INC in progress in Busan
The marathon session of INC-5 finally adjourned at 2:50 a.m. on Monday, December 2, with the resolution that the 'Chair’s Text' circulated on December 1 would serve as the starting point for the next round of discussions, slated for 2025. As we look ahead to 2025, and navigate what an INC 5.2 could look like, it is important to remind ourselves that health and environment are the most precious assets available to humanity. Projections show that plastic production is only going to increase year by year. It has now been over 1,000 days and five negotiation meetings since governments agreed to establish a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. Over this time, more than 800 million tonnes of plastic has been produced, over 30 million tonnes of which have leaked into our ocean, harming wildlife, poisoning ecosystems and destroying lives. This doesn’t include the plastics that are sent to landfill or burnt. It is imperative that governments take measures to prepare a legally binding instrument to reduce plastic production, to protect health and the environment by designing a process that is democratic, transparent and inclusive.
“Only when enough of us pull together, can the politically impossible become inevitable.”
Add new comment