We’re drowning in plastic. It’s in our oceans, our landfills, and even our bodies. The plastic pollution crisis is a global emergency, and the world is looking to a new treaty to finally tackle this problem. But the road to a global plastic pollution treaty is proving to be a bumpy one, as the recent Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) meeting in Busan, South Korea, showed.
A Treaty in Limbo:
The Busan meeting, the fifth in a series of negotiations, ended without a deal. While this might seem like a setback, it’s actually a reflection of the complex and challenging nature of the negotiations. Countries are grappling with a range of issues, from limiting plastic production to managing hazardous chemicals and providing financial assistance to developing countries.
The Chairman’s Text: A Work in Progress:
The meeting did produce a Chairman’s Text, a document that reflects the views of all participating countries and serves as a basis for further negotiations. But this text has been watered down from earlier versions, lacking the strength needed for a truly impactful treaty.
The Battle Lines are Drawn:
One of the biggest points of contention is the issue of plastic production. Some countries are pushing for limits on production, while others are resistant to such measures. There’s also disagreement over how to manage hazardous chemicals used in plastic production and how to finance the implementation of the treaty in developing countries.
A Treaty in Need of Teeth:
The Chairman’s Text does define key terms and areas of focus, such as strengthening the focus on human health and the life cycle of plastics. However, critics argue that it’s too weak, lacking strong provisions on plastic production and chemicals. The text has been criticized for its weakened global product regulation standards, which some fear will allow the plastic crisis to continue.
A Long Road Ahead:
Despite the challenges, the international community must continue to negotiate and push for a framework that prioritizes fairness, accountability, and meaningful action. The world cannot afford for the plastic treaty to become an empty commitment. We need a treaty that will truly address the plastic pollution crisis and protect our planet for generations to come.
The fight against plastic pollution is a global effort, and it requires the commitment of every nation. We need a treaty that will hold countries accountable for their actions and provide the resources needed to tackle this crisis. The future of our planet depends on it.
The much-anticipated fifth meeting of the Busan Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) ended on December 1. More than 1,400 negotiators from 178 United Nations member states participated in the meeting and failed to Achieving a treaty to tackle the global plastic pollution crisis has exposed deep divisions between countries and compromises in search of consensus.
The CHAIR’S TEXT released on December 1 reflects the voices of all parties and has significantly lower goals than the earlier version, which was once a bold attempt to fight plastic pollution. It has been revised into a document that gained broad agreement but lacked the punch needed for real impact.
Deep disagreement: Limiting plastic production?
The most divisive issues include limiting plastic production , managing hazardous chemicals and financing to help developing countries implement the deal. More than 100 countries seek to limit plastic production, while oil and petrochemical-producing countries are only willing to manage plastic waste.
Countries such as Rwanda, Mexico and Panama advocate curbing plastic production, developing stronger treaties on plastic production and regulation of hazardous chemicals, and holding industries accountable.
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are among a coalition of like-minded countries that oppose curbs on plastic production. Saudi Arabia, in particular, is dependent on the plastics industry and curbing plastic production would threaten its economy. The alliance’s influence on the chairman’s text was evident, ultimately moving towards a more watered-down framework. According to data provider Eunomia, China, the United States, India, South Korea and Saudi Arabia are the five major polymer producers in 2023.
U.S. President-elect Trump is about to take power, adding uncertainty to the country’s policies as the U.S. delegation has abandoned several commitments, including production cuts . The shift in U.S. policy, combined with existing resistance from other countries, raises serious doubts about whether a global plastics treaty can achieve its intended goals in the current political climate.
The positive meaning of the Chairman’s text
Despite these challenges, the presidential text released on December 1 will serve as the basis for further negotiations. The text contains a number of positive elements, including increased focus on human health and the life cycle of plastics. It provides clear definitions for key terms such as plastic, plastic pollution and plastic waste, providing a basis for consistent interpretation and implementation. Furthermore, the inclusion of annexes listing banned products and chemicals is an important step towards coordinated global action. Regulations targeting single-use and short-lived plastics, along with set phase-out schedules, demonstrate a commitment to reducing the most harmful types of plastic pollution.
The text also emphasizes transparency, requiring reporting of statistics and publishing a list of exemptions granted to Parties and regional economic integration organizations. These measures are designed to ensure accountability and provide stakeholders with tools to monitor progress. Additionally, the document prohibits the public dumping and burning of plastic waste – practices that contribute significantly to environmental degradation and public health hazards.
Another highlight of the text is the clarification of focus areas. It addresses emissions from fishing gear, plastic particles and microplastics from all sources, recognizing that they are major contributors to ocean pollution. The inclusion of artisanal and small-scale fishers, as well as consistency with other multilateral environmental agreements, ensures a more integrated approach to addressing these issues. The focus on non-toxic reuse systems, reduction of microplastic emissions and adherence to waste hierarchies reflect a wider commitment to sustainable product design and waste management.
However, global standards for product stewardship have been watered down as “sufficient” scientific evidence is required to demonstrate a risk to health or the environment, which could lead to delays in action. The treaty’s potential impact is further undermined by the lack of strong provisions on plastics production, chemicals of concern and financing. Immunity remains another contentious issue, and the process for granting and extending immunity lacks the rigorous standards needed to prevent abuse.
The next negotiation (INC-5.2 ) is pending
At this point, the task of reaching an agreement by the end of 2024 has not yet been completed. Negotiations are set to resume at a later date, with the location and time of the next Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee meeting (i.e. INC-5.2 ) still to be determined, and the Bureau will be tasked with finalizing these details. The countries have now agreed to meet again next year to continue negotiations .
As negotiations continue, the international community must demand a framework that prioritizes equity, accountability and meaningful action. Failure to do so risks turning the Plastics Treaty into an empty promise rather than the transformative solutions the world desperately needs.