The fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee session (INC-5) on ending plastic pollution through a global plastic treaty started on November 25. Here is a look at what happened on the second day of the meet. Also read the diary for November 25, November 27 and November 28.
November 26’s negotiations highlighted both the promise and the complexity of achieving a global consensus on a treaty to end plastic pollution.
While there were encouraging signs of ambition and systemic reform, significant obstacles remain, particularly in aligning priorities and ensuring meaningful inclusivity in the process.
In Group 1 (chemicals, supply, and products), several countries highlighted the importance of reuse, with a growing willingness to strengthen reuse and repair policies as part of systemic reforms. Some countries also highlighted the importance of product design, emphasising how it can have a bearing on both upstream as well as downstream measures.
Group 2 (plastic waste management, emissions, and just transition) saw delegates emphasising the significance of Just Transition measures, with positive references to the Basel Convention and sound waste management practices that align with existing trade regulations. However, countries still stand divided on fundamental principles such as the waste hierarchy.
In Group 3 (finance and means of implementation), there was notable support for a new dedicated financial mechanism, aligning financial flows and imposing fees on primary polymer and plastic producers. Close to 140 member states put forth textual proposals and conference room papers.
The Global North-South divide is very evident in the financing article where developing countries are demanding a dedicated fund while developed countries have been pushing for means of implementation from existing funds such as the Global Environment fund (GEF). Some countries continue to push for solutions such as plastic credits.
Meanwhile, Group 4 (objective, scope, principles, and preamble) included robust discussions advocating for provisions that uphold human rights, recognise indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, and emphasise biodiversity and ecosystems.
Despite these positive strides, the negotiations also faced notable challenges. Too much time was spent debating the treaty’s scope, which is already clearly defined under UNEA resolution 5/14, and introducing new, unagreed-upon text rather than advancing substantive discussions.
With inputs from Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) and Global Strategic Communications Council (GSCC)