Like-Minded Countries need to collaborate, not isolate, for a robust plastic treaty at INC-5 in Busan

Stark divisions, rather than unity, are emerging among member states as negotiations for a global treaty to end plastic pollution approach the December 1 deadline in Busan, South Korea. This threatens the treaty’s ability to deliver on its objectives of protecting human health and the environment.

The fifth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) saw a flurry of submissions, with close to 140 member states putting forward textual proposals and Conference Room Papers (CRPs) on financing and implementation mechanisms.

While developed countries, led by the United States, submitted a unified proposal attributed to 37 nations — many of whom are members of the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) — developing countries appeared more fragmented.

Ninety nations from Africa, Latin America, and island states came together to propose a shared CRP, but Like-Minded Countries (LMCs) like Saudi Arabia chose to submit standalone proposals.

Overlaps in proposals

Despite their differences, the proposals submitted by developed nations and the African bloc exhibit several points of alignment.

First among them is the establishment of a financial mechanism. All parties recognise that such a mechanism — whether through a dedicated multilateral fund or leveraging existing entities like the Global Environment Facility (GEF) — is necessary to assist developing countries in meeting treaty obligations.

Each proposal has also acknowledged the specific needs of developing countries, particularly Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Special provisions for capacity-building, technology transfer, and incremental cost coverage are emphasised across the board.

Both developed and developing country proposals have urged mobilisation of private sector contributions to supplement public funding. Mechanisms such as blended finance and public-private partnerships have been commonly suggested.

The proposals have also converged on the need for robust governance under the authority of the Conference of the Parties (COP), ensuring transparency, accountability, and periodic reviews of the financial mechanism.

Divergences in details

However, despite the overarching goals’ alignment, significant differences have emerged in the specifics.

One such difference is whether the financial mechanism should be a dedicated fund or a broader mechanism.

African group, GRULAC and other countries have advocated for a new, independent multilateral fund to provide predictable and dedicated financial support. On the other hand, developed nations favour leveraging existing mechanisms like the GEF, emphasising flexibility and multi-source funding.

Another point of divergence is via-a-vis incremental costs.

Developing countries, including those in Africa, argue for full coverage of incremental costs — the additional expenses incurred by developing nations in meeting treaty obligations, such as adopting cleaner technologies or building waste management infrastructure.

Developed nations emphasise catalysing private investment and aligning financial flows but are less explicit about covering incremental costs.

A third point of disagreement is clearinghouse functions.

Developing country submissions highlight the importance of clearinghouse functions, which serve as centralised hubs for technical assistance, capacity-building, and information exchange. These functions aim to bridge knowledge and resource gaps for developing countries, facilitating smoother implementation of treaty obligations.

Developed nations place less emphasis on these functions, focusing instead on systemic financial alignment.

Collaboration is strength

Shared or unified proposals usually enable pooling of expertise and resources, leading to stronger, more coherent positions. Such proposals often carry more weight in multilateral negotiations, forcing other parties to engage seriously.

Standalone proposals can potentially benefit developed countries by making it easier for them to sideline unified demands by their developing nation counterparts.

LMCs aligning with the African bloc could have amplified demands for predictable funding and technology transfer. It could have allowed co-developing mechanisms like clearinghouse functions and incremental cost frameworks.

For other developing economies, divergence by LMCs highlights the challenges of achieving consensus, a demand made by LMCs at every INC. It underscores the importance of pre-negotiation dialogues to harmonise positions and avoid fragmentation.

To maximise their influence and secure favourable outcomes, LMCs should consider re-aligning with developing nations on issues such as finance, like those from the African bloc and others. This can enhance bargaining power and ensure a unified voice on financial mechanisms.

Leveraging commonalities across proposals — such as incremental cost coverage, clearinghouse functions, and governance under the COP — can build momentum toward consensus.

As the world inches closer to finalising a treaty to end plastic pollution, LMCs must prioritise collaboration over isolation. By aligning with other developing countries, they can ensure their interests are effectively represented while contributing to a strong, unified position.

A fragmented approach may serve short-term objectives but risks undermining the larger goal of a robust, equitable treaty. To truly benefit from this global initiative, LMCs must read the room and abandon the lone wolf strategy in favour of collective action.