After a week of negotiations, INC-5 has come to a close with no agreement reached over a Global Plastics Treaty, and another session is now expected to take place in 2025 – an outcome many blame on ‘low-ambition countries’ stalling progress for their own ends.
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to Develop an International Legally Binding Instrument on Plastic Pollution, Including in the Marine Environment (INC-5), was held from 25th November – 1st December 2024. Over 3,800 participants registered, which UNEP says is the highest attendance of any of the meetings so far. Within this figure were 177 countries and 600 observing organizations.
Four contact groups were expected to convene, covering the following topics:
- Plastic products, the chemicals of concern used within them, product design, and topics related to the production and supply of plastics;
- The management of plastic waste, emissions, and releases; legacy plastics on land and in the marine environment, and achieving a just transition;
- International collaboration; establishing a financial mechanism, building capacity, technology transfer and technical assistance;
- Implementation and compliance; national plans; reporting, monitoring, and evaluating progress and effectiveness; exchanging information and increasing education, awareness, and research.
Various organizations spoke out about their visions of the final instrument. Willemijn Peeters and Emma Samson at Searious Business outlined the features they considered essential, dubbed the Foremost Four: capping new plastic production at 2020 levels and enforcing bans on substances and chemicals of concern; ‘slapping’ a fee on virgin plastic to encourage reduction and reuse; wrapping more products in recycled plastic, targeting a 40% minimum for post-consumer recycled material in line with circular design guidelines; and ‘trapping’ plastic waste with expanded waste management and Extended Producer Responsibility systems.
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation underlined the importance of resolving division between countries aiming for a global treaty and those that would prefer national guidelines. Its view was that upstream actions like restricting or phasing out avoidable plastic products, redesigning essential plastics, and expanding reuse models would make ‘the most meaningful impact’.
WWF supported the introduction of science-based criteria to inform global bans on the ‘most harmful’ plastic products and chemicals; binding product design and performance requirements and systems; and new systems to reduce, reuse, and safely recycle the remaining plastics, among other measures.
On another note, a joint statement signed by the Global Self-Care Federation, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), and the International Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association (IGBA) reminded negotiators that plastic medical packaging can be essential to ensuring patient safety – urging them to work with health regulators, environmental policymakers, and manufacturers ‘to avoid any conflicting requirements’.
Early days
As many hoped, the Chair’s third non-paper was used to frame initial negotiations as negotiations commenced. However, disagreements arose as early as the first day.
Members of the ‘Like-Minded Countries’ – and, within it, the ‘League of Arab States’ – were accused by WWF of ‘aiming to derail, or at the very least, slow down negotiations’ during the Plenary Session by employing ‘delay tactics’. Their criticisms lay in the contents of the non-paper and the treaty’s scope.
Nevertheless, the United States, United Kingdom, Norway, Brazil, Samoa, Rwanda, and the Republic of Korea were among the countries backing the non-paper and pushing for its adoption, at which point negotiations could commence.
While the non-paper was eventually upgraded into an official paper, the plenary overran its original timeframe and continued into the afternoon, leaving less time to negotiate the treaty itself.
Towards the middle of the week, concerns arose that negotiations to refine the treaty text were moving too slowly.
“The mid-week stocktake plenary session brought to light the slow progress we have made so far this week, as well as the urgent need for a decisive shift in negotiations to move away from business as usual to achieve the ambition set in Nairobi in 2022,” Eirik Lindebjerg, global plastics policy lead at WWF, commented on Wednesday. “The impassioned interventions from a broad range of countries once again shone a spotlight on the need to ensure a handful of countries must not get in the way of that.
“The relentless pursuit of consensus will only result in one outcome: a weak voluntary treaty focused on waste management that would hand down a death sentence to life on this planet and future generations. We came here to Busan to get a legally binding treaty with global rules across the entire lifecycle. Member states must now ensure they utilize all procedural options to achieve that outcome, including voting if necessary.”
On Thursday, the news broke that INC Chair Luis Vayas Valvidieso would compile the ongoing conversations held in contact groups into a revised treaty text as early as Friday 29th November, despite negotiators and attendees’ expectations that this would be released on Saturday 30th November. This revised text was set to form the basis for the final treaty when negotiations closed on Sunday 1st December.
“After days of complaints of agonisingly slow and unproductive discussions in Contact Groups, the Chair is responding to the frustration shown at yesterday’s plenary session where many negotiators made impassioned pleas that they needed to just get on with business in the face of ongoing delaying from spoiler states,” Eirik Lindebjerg commented. “And the business at hand is making sure that we leave Busan with a strong treaty that does not compromise on establishing global and binding rules across plastics’ entire lifecycle.”
The turning point?
WWF expressed its concerns about the revised text’s ‘low level of ambition’. It alleged that “countries that have professed high ambitions for the treaty have not weighed in strongly enough to prevent a weak and voluntary one from emerging.”
For example, the proposed measures on plastic products and the chemicals of concern within were believed to be too broad; they did not contain the global bans or phase-outs that most Member States had shown support for.
Chemicals of concern remained bracketed and were largely relegated to “a possible criteria for plastic products subject to national, voluntary measures”, WWF reported. It also criticised the text’s failure to include binding measures, meaning there was no concrete obligation to address harmful chemicals in plastics.
Criteria-based global requirements for product designs had been bracketed too, while the role of systems in product management and Extended Producer Responsibility were both said to be absent.
WWF went on to point out that the text lacked clear definitions of obligations to provide domestic, international, and private finance. The obligation for implementing the treaty apparently hinged on the availability of resources, “without clear reference to the obligation for mobilizing resources, and their respective sources.”
While it did establish a financial mechanism, the text was unclear as to whether this should be a new mechanism, an existing one, or a combination of the two. “Two distinct options remain for defining the responsible Parties to mobilize financial resources for the mechanism,” said WWF – and it went on to argue that the obligations of developed countries and producing countries with financial capabilities were “not defined clearly enough”.
Additionally, the proposal suggested that the Conference of Parties adopt its rules of procedure by consensus, which could result in disagreement over its decision-making rule. This has reportedly stalled other Multilateral Environmental Agreements in the past.
Amendments to the Convention and Adoption and Amendments of Annexes may be made by a majority vote of three-quarters, the text said. Yet, without a voting option, concerns arose that it would be more difficult to strengthen the treaty over time, resulting in a ‘rigid and unproductive instrument’.
At a press conference, a coalition of observer obligations made the following statement: “There are only 36 hours left of scheduled negotiations to secure a global treaty that can end plastic pollution. But right now, we see the usual low-ambition countries derailing the negotiations while the countries who have pledged ambition, such as members of the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) and who sit comfortably in the majority, are sleepwalking into a treaty that will not be worth the paper it will be written on.
“Negotiators are sticking with business as usual at such a crucial stage, abandoning their commitments, ignoring their principles, neglecting the science and economics in front of them, and failing those most impacted. All in the pursuit of consensus and finalizing any kind of treaty by the end of this week, regardless of how catastrophically futile it will be in addressing the worsening plastic crisis.
“Contrary to their excuses, ambitious countries have the power and the pathways to forge a treaty to end the global plastic crisis. What we are severely lacking right now, however, is the determination of our leaders to do what is right and to fight for the treaty they promised the world two years ago.
“The vast majority of governments know what now needs to be done. They know what measures we need and they know how they can be implemented. Negotiators have several procedural options available, including voting or making a treaty among the willing.
“In these final throes of negotiations, we need governments to show courage. They must not compromise under pressure exerted by a small group of low-ambition states and hinge the life of our planet on unachievable consensus. We demand a strong treaty that protects our health and the health of future generations.”
Indeed, over 80 countries issued an ultimatum on Sunday: they would not accept a global treaty on plastic pollution without binding global bans, phase-outs on harmful products and chemicals, and other ambitious measures. The Chair’s draft text was then updated to accommodate this demand.
While WWF felt that further negotiations were still in order – and that “this is where countries should have been earlier in the negotiations” – the new draft was hoped to serve as a “constructive turning point” as the final hours of negotiations loomed. This was especially important as, in the NGO’s opinion, the treaty text as it stood “show[ed] little promise of establishing strong and binding measures that can give humanity a chance at ending the scourge of plastic pollution.”
The wrap-up
Ultimately, though, the plenary session concluded with an agreement to use the Chair’s revised text as a general basis to resume negotiations at another INC session (INC-5.2).
“Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” Luis Vayas Valvidieso told the delegates, but this did not assuage the widespread disappointment among the ambitious majority and eager attendees.
While the EU stressed that “we are not leaving Busan discouraged”, Mexico joined a group of 95 countries emphasizing their refusal to accept a treaty that did not include binding global bans and phase-outs for harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern. Meanwhile, Juliet Kabera, lead negotiator for Rwanda, urged countries to symbolically support an ambitious and globally binding treaty covering the whole life cycle of plastic products.
A number of delegations felt that the draft text did not always reflect discussions held throughout the week, with certain “red lines” drawn by negotiators still absent. In particular, an article on scope is reportedly missing, as is any response to the African Group’s proposed text on the financial mechanism.
The Arab Group and the Russian Federation felt that discussions were better reflected in the non-paper containing the draft text of the Chair of the Committee, but expressed their willingness to continue discussions around the Chair’s text.
Responding to INC-5’s outcome, Christina Dixon, ocean campaign lead at the Environmental Investigation Agency, stated: “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. 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.
“In the face of this obstructionism, large groups of diverse countries led rallying calls for an ambitious treaty. 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.”
Similarly, WWF expressed its disappointment that no agreement was reached “despite a vast majority of governments demanding ambitious measures that science has shown can stop plastic pollution.”
“It’s disheartening to walk away from INC-5 without a meaningful treaty in hand,” said vice president and head of plastic waste and business Erin Simon. “Allowing a minority of actors to obstruct progress through the week, predictably resulted in breaking the promise made at the beginning of these talks.
“When Member states unanimously agreed to deliver a treaty the planet needs by 2024, the world believed them. Now, the price for inaction is far greater than wasted time, it puts both planetary and human health on the line and sets us up for a scenario where ambition could diminish over time.
“But we can’t ignore the progressive majority. From Rwanda’s statement on behalf of over 84 countries demanding binding action on elimination of products and chemicals of concern and a target to reduce production to Mexico’s proclamation for 95 countries, the overwhelming majority applauded in enthusiastic support. This sentiment cannot be ignored as we move forward.
“As we look ahead to 2025, and navigate what an INC 5.2 could look like, countries must come to the table ready to fight for our future. The current draft has some of the ingredients for success, but we can’t back down on delivering a legally binding text that finally puts us on a course to eliminate plastic pollution.”
As of right now, there is no set date for INC-5.2. Some feel that the session should be convened in the first half of 2025 in hopes of carrying over the ambition and energy from INC-5; others feel that there is too much work to be done and suggest that July or August 2025 are more realistic deadlines.
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