The much-anticipated fifth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) in Busan ended on December 1 without delivering a treaty to address the global plastic pollution crisis.
For many, this failure represents a profound setback, exposing the deep divisions among nations and the compromises made in pursuit of consensus. The Chair’s text, designed to reflect the voices of all parties, fell short of ambition, raising serious questions about whether the treaty process is truly equipped to tackle one of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time.
Observers, including major groups such as the scientific community, civil society organisations, indigenous peoples, women, children, and youth, were locked out of key negotiations over the past two days. The lack of transparency in these discussions sparked outrage, with many stakeholders questioning the legitimacy of decisions being made in closed-door settings. These decisions, after all, directly impact the lives of billions, particularly those in vulnerable communities. Yet, their voices were excluded in a process that seemed to prioritise political expediency over accountability.
The Chair’s fourth version of the non-paper, released on November 29, 2024, followed informal consultations with member states. While this draft offered a semblance of progress, the next two days of closed-door talks appeared to mark a turning point.
The Chair’s text, released on December 1, reflected significant dilution, with its ambition noticeably reduced compared to earlier versions. What was once a bold attempt to combat plastic pollution had been tempered into a document that secured broad agreement but lacked the teeth needed for real impact.
The plenary session, held on December 1, revealed the fractures within the committee. Countries like Rwanda, Mexico, and Panama advocated for a stronger treaty, particularly around contentious issues such as plastic production and the regulation of hazardous chemicals. Their interventions highlighted the need for a treaty that addresses the root causes of plastic pollution rather than merely treating its symptoms. These nations argued for meaningful action to curb production and hold industries accountable, emphasising that the stakes were too high for half-measures.
In stark contrast, nations such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, representing a coalition of like-minded countries, consistently pushed back against ambitious proposals. Saudi Arabia, in particular, played a pivotal role in resisting measures related to plastic supply (production), chemicals of concern, and health. Their opposition often centered around perceived economic threats to industries reliant on plastics. The influence of this coalition was evident throughout the negotiations, as the text shifted further away from bold commitments and toward a more diluted framework.
Adding to the uncertainty is the impending political shift in the United States, where a Trump administration is poised to take power. This change is likely to strengthen the low-ambition bloc, as the US delegation has already backtracked on several commitments, including production cuts. The shift in US policy, coupled with existing resistance from other nations, raises serious doubts about whether the treaty can achieve its intended goals in the current political climate.
Despite these challenges, the Chair’s December 1 text will serve as the basis for further negotiations. This text contains some positive elements, including a strengthened focus on human health and the lifecycle of plastics. It provides clear definitions for key terms such as plastic, plastic pollution, and plastic waste, offering a foundation for consistent interpretation and implementation. Additionally, the inclusion of annexes listing banned products and chemicals is a significant step toward coordinated global action. Provisions addressing single-use and short-lived plastics, with prescribed phase-out timelines, demonstrate a commitment to reducing the most harmful types of plastic pollution.
The text also emphasises transparency, mandating the reporting of statistical data and making publicly available a list of exemptions granted to Parties and Regional Economic Integration Organizations. These measures aim to ensure accountability and provide stakeholders with the tools to monitor progress. Furthermore, the document prohibits open dumping and burning of plastic waste—practices that contribute significantly to environmental degradation and public health hazards.
Sectoral focus is another strength of the text. It addresses emissions from fishing gear, plastic pellets, and microplastics from all sources, recognising their role as major contributors to marine pollution. The inclusion of artisanal and small-scale fishers, as well as alignment with other Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), ensures a more integrated approach to tackling these issues. The emphasis on non-toxic reuse systems, the reduction of microplastic releases, and adherence to the waste hierarchy reflect a broader commitment to sustainable product design and waste management.
Yet, these positives are overshadowed by significant gaps and weaknesses. The global criteria for product regulation have been diluted, with the requirement for ‘sufficient’ scientific evidence to prove threats to health or the environment introducing potential delays in action. The absence of strong provisions on plastic production, chemicals of concern, and financing further undermines the treaty’s potential impact. Exemptions remain another contentious issue, with the process for granting and extending them lacking the strict criteria needed to prevent abuse.
The location and timing of the next INC meeting remain undecided, with the Bureau tasked with determining these details. Meanwhile, the mandate to deliver a treaty by the end of 2024 has not been fulfilled.
However, there is still hope. Over 100 countries have rallied under the “Coalition of the Willing”, pledging to fight for a robust and ambitious treaty. This coalition represents a critical force in pushing for stronger provisions on contentious issues such as supply, chemicals of concern, and financial support for developing nations.
The Busan meeting underscores a stark reality: achieving consensus is not enough if it comes at the expense of ambition. A treaty that fails to address the root causes of plastic pollution will do little to alleviate the environmental, health, and socio-economic burdens this crisis imposes.
As negotiations continue, the global community must demand a framework that prioritises equity, accountability, and meaningful action. Anything less risks turning the plastic treaty into a hollow promise rather than the transformative solution the world so desperately needs.