INC-5 concludes without global agreement on plastics treaty

The fifth United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) meeting has come and gone without a legally binding global plastics treaty.

Held in Busan, South Korea, from Nov. 25-Dec. 1, the meeting was intended to be the finale, wrapping a two-year process to create a legally binding document to stop plastic pollution. Despite some progress, some familiar points of contention—namely the push to cap plastics production, establish a financial mechanism to implement the agreement and manage “chemicals of concern” found in plastic products—led to a weeklong stalemate. Participating countries adjourned the fifth session with agreement on a “Chair’s Text” that will serve as the starting point for negotiations at a resumed session, dubbed INC-5.2, to be held in 2025.

RELATED: Latest Global Plastics Treaty talks yield progress, frustration

According to the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), more than 3,300 delegates, including members representing more than 170 nations and observers from more than 440 organizations, met in Busan to take part in treaty talks. One of those organizations, the Washington-based Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), claims through its research that more than 220 fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists also attended.

“The world’s commitment to ending plastic pollution is clear and undeniable,” UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen says. “Here in Busan, talks have moved us closer to agreeing on a global legally binding treaty that will protect our health, our environment and our future from the onslaught of plastic pollution.

“This week’s meeting has made good progress towards securing the deal the world demands. 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.”

Ambassador for Ecudaor and INC Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso notes the mandate always has been ambitious, “but ambition takes time to land."

"We have many of the elements that we need, and Busan has put us firmly on a pathway to success," he adds.

Valdivieso calls on all delegations to continue engaging in dialogue and building bridges.

“Let us always remember that our purpose is noble and urgent: to reverse and remedy the severe effects of plastic pollution on ecosystems and human health," he says.

In his updated treaty text, Valdivieso includes measures that address product design and the development of a global list of chemicals and products of concern to eliminate but also leaves options open for countries wishing to participate on a more voluntary basis. Countries pushing throughout INC meetings to focus on managing plastic scrap rather than cap its production or eliminate certain chemicals have included China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and, until more recently, the United States.

During the final session, a majority group of more than 100 countries from various regions led by Mexico and Rwanda stated they would not accept a treaty without binding global bans and phaseouts of harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern.

Disappointment in the moment, hope for future talks

Chris Jahn, council secretary of the Arlington, Virginia-based International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) and the president and CEO of the Washington-based American Chemistry Council (ACC), released a statement on behalf of the Global Partners for Plastics Circularity (GPPC), saying that while it is unfortunate an agreement could not be reached within the two-year timeline, the outcome underscores the complexity of addressing plastic pollution on a global scale and the need for further deliberations to achieve and effective, inclusive and workable treaty.

“The plastics and chemical industries remain committed to constructive engagement in this process,” Jahn says. “Since the 2022 UNEA [United Nations Environment Assembly] resolution, we have provided expertise and solutions to tackle challenges such as high-leakage plastic products and transparency on chemicals in plastics. Tools like ICCA’s Plastics Additives Database and our proposed decision tree assessment tool are available to support countries in developing targeted, science-based solutions.”

RELATED: BIR Autumn 2024: A treaty in troubled waters

He says it is crucial the treaty stays focused on addressing mismanaged scrap, which he claims is the primary cause of plastic pollution. “With 2.7 billion people globally lacking access to waste collection systems, solutions must prioritize addressing this gap, rather than imposing provisions that could lead to greater environmental or economic harm, such as supply restrictions or duplicative measures on chemicals in plastics,” Jahn adds.

“There is a better way to end pollution—a circular economy for plastics where plastics are designed for reuse and recycling and collected and remade into new products at end of life,” he says. “The treaty can send the right signals, such as recycled plastic targets in national action plans and guidance to design plastics for reuse and recycling, that can accelerate our transition from a linear to circular economy. We are encouraged to see progress on these issues at INC-5.”

The nongovernmental organization (NGO) World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has expressed in a statement its disappointment with the failure to reach an agreement “despite a vast majority of governments demanding ambitious measures that science has shown can stop plastic pollution.”

The organization is calling on countries to unite on binding upstream measures to end plastic pollution, develop lists of products and chemicals to be banned and to conclude the negotiating process as soon as possible. Additionally, the WWF says essential measures of a future agreement must include global bans and phaseouts of harmful plastics and chemicals, global product design, a robust finance mechanism and means for strengthening the treaty over time.

“It’s disheartening to walk away from INC-5 without a meaningful treaty in hand,” says Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business for the WWF. “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.

“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.”

Negotiators representing the European Commission, considered members of the “High Ambition Coalition” along with the United Kingdom, Canada and other African, Latin American and Pacific countries, lament the inability to reach an agreement.

“I strongly regret that there is no agreement on a new global plastics treaty," says Jessika Roswall, commissioner for the environment, water resilience and a competitive circular economy for the EU. "If business as usual continues, plastic production will triple by 2060. The EU will remain firmly committed to finding a global solution. Our oceans, our environment and citizens around the globe need it.”

RELATED: Commentary: Let’s not miss a crucial moment to end plastic pollution

Representatives of the Washington-based Ocean Conservancy, an official U.N. observer organization, say they look forward to working with member states to finalize a treaty at INC-5.2. Despite a new presidential administration set to take office in the U.S. in January, Ocean Conservancy Director of Plastics Policy Anja Brandon notes that addressing plastic pollution is a nonpartisan issue, citing recent research claiming 78 percent of Americans view plastic entering the ocean is a pressing matter.

“We hope that any administration will respect the will of the people and recognize the responsibility and opportunity for the U.S. to be part of the solution,” Brandon says.

The desire for continued progress

The Brussels-based Bureau of International Recycling (BIR) has expressed its disappointment over the lack of a formal agreement after gathering in Busan and emphasizes the importance of maintaining momentum to achieve a comprehensive solution.

"We strongly advocate for an international legally binding treaty rather than a voluntary agreement," says BIR President Susie Burrage. "Global action is needed to tackle plastic pollution effectively, and we must seize this opportunity to create a robust framework."

In the BIR's view, the treaty's potential hinges on the involvement of key stakeholders, including the recycling industry. The organization's Director General Arnaud Brunet says, "Input from the recycling industry is indispensable. Our voices must be heard in these negotiations to ensure practical, sustainable solutions are implemented. This is not just an end-of-life issue; it's about addressing the life cycle of plastics from production to disposal."

The organization says negotiations remain stalled because of three main points of contention: the treaty's scope and the debate over whether it should address the entire life cycle of plastics, including production, or focus solely on postconsumer scrap; the definition of plastic pollution, where some nations believe it includes emissions and hazardous substances from production, while others believe it pertains only to end-of-life management; and a disagreement over whether the treaty should enforce binding commitments or remain voluntary, reflecting differing national priorities and capacities.

"We stand firm in supporting a legally binding agreement," says Alev Somer, BIR director of advocacy. "Voluntary measures, while a step forward, may not deliver the necessary impact. A binding treaty would ensure accountability and meaningful change."

The date and location for INC-5.2 has yet to be determined.

This story was updated Dec. 4 to include comments from the Bureau of International Recycling.