PepsiCo, Zero Waste Europe, Reloop, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Greenpeace, WWF, and UNEP are among the industry players commenting on the lack of progress in a Global Plastics Treaty at INC-5. Generally, they commend the vast majority’s unity against alleged “obstructionism”, but highlight gaps in the draft text and express disappointment at further delays in negotiations.
The positives
According to Joan Marc Simon, founder of Zero Waste Europe, this round of negotiations “can be seen both as a success and as a failure.
“A failure because negotiators exhausted the allocated time and, whilst plastic pollution continues to increase, no agreement was found.
“A success because the process, as extremely slow and painful as it was, has delivered a text; and, more importantly, has raised enough awareness among the negotiators to draw a line of ambition and stand behind it.”
To the negotiators’ credit, he notes the steps forward in attitudes towards the plastic waste crisis. While the blame was previously placed on waste mismanagement in the Global South, the ongoing treaty negotiations represent efforts to address the whole life cycle of plastic products.
“The victims are no longer portrayed as aggressors and, today, the bad ones are those inundating the world with plastic,” he says. “We are finally having a conversation which goes to the root of the problem!”
In a similar vein, Anke Boykin, senior director global environmental policy at PepsiCo, notes “three key takeaways” from INC-5 in a LinkedIn post. She observes that “progress has been made. Not only in [the] form of a significantly evolved text but also the debate itself that has reached a new level of depth and nuance. The collective understanding of key issues and needed actions continues to grow.”
Similarly, she states that “the momentum is strong. A vast majority of countries [support] ambitious global rules to address plastic pollution. The political will to take action exists.”
Indeed, Daniela Duran Gonzalez, senior campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), commends the “remarkable show of strength” as 100+ Member States “[insist] the treaty include concrete measures to cut plastic production and ban the toxic chemical building blocks that fuel this [plastic waste] crisis”.
A further statement from the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty reads: “We are encouraged by the increased alignment amongst over 100 countries on critical elements such as global phase-outs and sustainable levels of plastic production. Never before have so many countries clearly articulated support for these obligations.
“The latest text from the INC Chair is also a step forward on product design and waste management as a basis for future negotiations.”
Graham Forbes also notices that “this week over 100 Member States, representing billions of people, rejected a toothless deal that would have accomplished nothing, and stood before the world committing to an ambitious treaty. Now, it’s time they stand by this promise and deliver.”
Differences in ambition
Most negotiators and attendees had hoped INC-5 would mark the final round of negotiations before a treaty could be formalized. As such, much of the criticism centres around ‘low-ambition countries’ – namely, their alleged efforts to stall the negotiation process and protect their interests as producers of plastics or oil.
“We have run out of time in Busan to land a global plastics treaty and have ultimately failed to live up to the mandate and opportunity handed to us,” added Christina Dixon, ocean campaign lead at the Environmental Investigation Agency. “These negotiations have been captured by plastic and petrochemical industries and their aligned countries, who have no intention to address plastic pollution or let others do so.”
According to CIEL, over 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered to attend INC-5, and they apparently ”represent[ed] the largest single delegation at the talks”.
“What we saw in Busan was a weaponization of consensus by a small number of countries to stall progress and undermine the negotiations,” says director of environmental health David Azoulay. “We must resist the idea that this process is destined to remain paralyzed by obstruction.”
“For too long, a small minority of states have held the negotiation process hostage,” Eirik Lindebjerg, global plastics policy lead at WWF, continues. “It is abundantly clear that these countries have no intention of finding a meaningful solution to this crisis and yet they continue to prevent the large majority of states who do.
“It is unjust that those who bear the greatest burden of plastic pollution are being denied the opportunity to forge a solution among themselves by those profiteering off the unregulated production and consumption of plastic.”
Similarly, Joan Marc Simon accuses the ‘low-ambition countries’ of “two years of filibustering and obstructionism” by exploiting “the old tactic of delay and derail” – “abusing the consensus rule, blocking intersessional work between INCs and boycotting discussion on content until the last minute”. Apparently, “their plan was to exhaust the time in order to force the majority of countries into a low-ambition treaty.”
In his view, basing negotiations around consensus “gives incredible power to a minority to block the process or drag the majority to the lowest common denominator.”
“Whilst plastic pollution continued to destroy ecosystems and pollute our bodies, us humans couldn’t even agree on how to agree,” he said.
Yet the 85+ countries he now refers to as the “coalition of the willing” reportedly negotiated “in good faith”, “drew a line on the ambition and held it”, and “prevented the process from closing with a weak treaty.”
“The blockers of this process openly talk against production cuts, plastic levies, and toxic chemicals,” he continues. “They are, thereby, accepting a framing which they neither control nor master, and which provides the conditions for the countries with ambition to draw a line behind which they stand together with civil society and progressive industry.”
Additionally, Delphine Lévi Alvarès, global petrochemical campaign manager at CIEL, notes: “While undeniable, the influence of the petrostates and their vested interests appear to be dwindling. We see their desperation through attempts to flip delegations, sow doubt through manufactured science, and intimidate scientists into silence.”
“In the face of this obstructionism, large groups of diverse countries led rallying calls for an ambitious treaty,” Christina Dixon concludes. “We have won the hearts and minds of the majority of the world and will continue to fight in solidarity with those seeking real solutions to end the harms of plastic pollution.”
Missed opportunities
In her third key takeaway from this round of negotiations, Anke Boykin argues that “there’s more to do. The draft text clearly requires more debate, and crucial concepts like Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) need clearer definitions and globally agreed principles to address vastly varying interpretations and accelerate EPR implementation.”
Similarly, Reloop CEO Clarissa Morawski observes in a LinkedIn post that “even the most obvious solutions – bans and phase-outs of harmful plastics and chemicals, mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and financing for the Global South – have been kicked down the road to next year.
“In regions where people have no access to basic waste management, the urgent need for technical capacity, infrastructure, collection and treatment systems cannot be overstated. Yet progress remains elusive.”
The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty expresses disappointment that “consensus among all nations remains elusive”, and that the treaty “fails to deliver the certainty that business needs to mobilize investments and scale solutions.”
This sentiment is backed by the International Chamber of Commerce; “The global business community has a critical role to play in providing the solutions that will be needed to address the challenge of plastic pollution.
“However, businesses need an agreement that provides the enabling frameworks and policies to drive innovation and accelerate business action across all sectors and geographies. This will be indispensable for businesses to effectively deliver on the objectives of the agreement and spur impactful change.”
On a wider scale, CIEL considers observer participation “a critical component of transparency and accountability” in the negotiation process, but argues that it “all but vanished” in Busan last week.
“This process is becoming increasingly exclusive and opaque, sidelining civil society and rights holders—often the conscience of this process,” says senior campaigner Dharmesh Shah. “Observers have been marginalized, and vital perspectives silenced. We must ensure that future sessions uphold open participation, as mandated.”
Further still, the production of new plastic has not slowed in the two years since the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee first convened.
“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,” says Eirik Lindebjerg. “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, to say nothing of the plastic that has been sent to landfill or burnt.”
Graham Forbes, head of delegation to the Global Plastics Treaty and global plastics campaign lead at Greenpeace USA, adds: “Every day that governments allow polluters to continue flooding the world with plastic, we all pay the price. This delay comes with dire consequences for people and the planet, ruthlessly sacrificing those on the frontlines of this crisis.”
It is in this vein that the Ellen MacArthur Foundation states: “An ambitious treaty provides a real chance to prevent plastic waste from being created in the first place. To do that, it must restrict or phase out problematic and avoidable plastic products and keep virgin plastic production at sustainable levels.”
Yet, as negotiations continue into 2025 and “the world now waits for INC-5.2”, Reloop asks: “How much longer can we wait for action?”
What comes next?
“This week’s meeting has made good progress towards securing the deal the world demands,” says Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in another LinkedIn post. “Through the Busan talks, negotiators have reached a greater degree of convergence on the structure and elements of the treaty text, as well as a better understanding of country positions and shared challenges. But it is clear there is persisting divergence in critical areas and more time is needed for these areas to be addressed.
“At UNEA 5.2, the world promised to tackle plastic pollution. Now, at the next round of talks, the world will have the opportunity to finally make that a reality. An opportunity we cannot afford to miss.”
Looking ahead to INC-5.2, Joan Marc Simon states that “we must transform our decision-making from consensus that paralyzes to collective action that liberates. The future of our civilization demands we move forward, with or without those who would obstruct progress.
“If both factions in the contest decide to hold their lines, then no treaty will be possible, no matter how many INCs they decide to organize. For the last round of negotiations, there are only two ways to deliver on the ambition we need: either low-ambition countries raise their ambition, or the majority of the parties should start a parallel process with those willing to address the roots of plastic pollution.”
On behalf of Greenpeace, Graham Forbes continues: “For the next meeting, the assignment for Member States is clear: the ambitious majority must break through fossil fuel influence and the obstruction of a few, to deliver an effective agreement with binding global targets and measures to reduce plastic production.
“They must fight for protections against dangerous chemicals, bans on single-use plastics, reuse targets, and an equitable financing plan. They must use their power to ensure the INC process is inclusive and just, [and] prioritize access for the communities most affected by plastic pollution.
“We stand at a historic crossroads. The opportunity to secure an impactful plastics treaty that protects our health, biodiversity and climate remains within reach. Strong political headwinds make this more challenging, but the lesson from INC-5 is clear: ambitious countries must not allow the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries, backed by a small minority of countries, to prevent the will of the vast majority. A strong agreement that protects people and the planet is our only option.”
Rob Opsomer, executive lead on plastics and finance at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, makes a similar call: “The clock is now ticking for governments to make a decisive choice at the next negotiating session in 2025. It’s encouraging to see such a strong majority of countries supporting global rules across the plastics lifecycle.
“We urge them to hold on to their ambition and agree to an impactful treaty that sets the global rules that business needs to unlock solutions at scale to end plastic pollution.”
The Business Coalition poses a similar ultimatum; governments “can continue negotiating a treaty with universal support but little impact. Or they can agree on a treaty based on strong global rules across the full lifecycle of plastics and with a comprehensive financing mechanism, confident in knowing that this is what the majority of governments, business and citizens want. There’s no time to waste: we cannot afford this process sliding into unending negotiations.”
On this note, David Azoulay argues that “countries must once and for all clarify that they are ready to use all options, including voting, to deliver the treaty they continue to affirm is needed.”
However, there is an enduring sense of optimism that a treaty could eventually come to fruition.
“We will enter the next round of negotiations with more strength than we brought to Busan,” says Andrés Del Castillo, senior attorney at CIEL. “Momentum is shifting. The understanding of the forces working to undermine progress has crystalized, and we have a renewed determination to deliver the treaty the world needs.”
Various organizations published their respective views on a Global Plastics Treaty throughout the course of INC-5, from the European Commission’s vision of a Polluter Pays Principle and ban and phase outs for ‘problematic’ substances; to a joint letter from various healthcare organizations reminding negotiators of the importance of plastics in patient-safe medical packaging.
To dig deeper into the negotiation process in its entirety, take a look at our comprehensive guide to INC-1 through to INC-4, followed by our recap of INC-5.
If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:
The ultimate guide to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation in 2024
How are the top brands progressing on packaging sustainability?
Sustainable Innovation Report 2024: Current trends and future priorities
Everything you need to know about global plastic sustainability regulation
No comments yet