Summary: The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5), held in Busan, Korea, brought over 3,300 participants to tackle plastic pollution. While progress was made, debates over binding measures and transparency highlighted deep divisions. Advocacy groups demand stronger commitments as the world waits for the next session to shape a transformative treaty.

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committees (INCs) are pivotal international platforms established to address pressing global challenges through legally binding agreements. The INCs aim to foster collaboration among nations to tackle complex issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and now, plastic pollution. The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5), held from November 25 to December 1, 2024, in Busan, Republic of Korea, was convened to advance negotiations on a global treaty to combat plastic pollution. This session is part of an ongoing process initiated in response to the mounting crisis of plastic waste inundating ecosystems, harming wildlife, and impacting human health.

Despite the high stakes, the session concluded without a finalized agreement, leaving many concerned about the trajectory of these critical negotiations. Over 3,300 participants, including delegates from more than 170 countries and observers from over 440 organizations, attended the session, underscoring the global urgency to address the plastic crisis.

Progress and Challenges

While the INC-5 negotiations marked some advancements, including extensive discussions on key treaty components, the inability to finalize an agreement reflects deeper divisions among participating countries. Discussions revealed the complex and often competing interests of various stakeholders, making consensus difficult to achieve. Key topics such as reduction targets, lifecycle assessments, and financial mechanisms to support less developed nations dominated the agenda, but progress was marred by sharp disagreements.

The "Chair’s Text," shared on December 1, 2024, was agreed upon as a provisional basis for further discussions in the resumed session scheduled for 2025. This text outlines general principles and areas for binding commitments but stops short of including the detailed, enforceable measures many had hoped for. Environmental advocates criticized the text for its vagueness, noting that it lacked concrete mechanisms to address the lifecycle impacts of plastics, from production to disposal.

A delegate from a Small Island Developing State (SIDS) commented, "While we appreciate the effort to provide a framework, this text doesn’t go far enough. We need stronger commitments to protect our oceans and economies from the devastating impacts of plastic pollution."

Critics also pointed out the influence of lobbying by certain countries and industries, which appeared to weaken the language in critical sections. "There is a stark divide between ambition and reality," noted an observer from Greenpeace. "The treaty’s success depends on bridging this gap with genuine commitments."

Several contentious issues emerged:

• Scope of the Treaty: Countries remain divided on whether the treaty should include binding global rules to reduce plastic production and phase out harmful products and chemicals. A significant bloc of nations, led by the European Union and several island states, advocated for comprehensive measures addressing plastic production, use, and disposal. Conversely, countries with substantial petrochemical industries emphasized voluntary and national-level actions.

• Mandatory vs. Voluntary Measures: Some delegations pushed for mandatory reduction targets and bans on single-use plastics, while others highlighted the importance of flexibility, citing economic and technological disparities.

• Support for Developing Nations: The question of financial and technical support for less developed countries emerged as another point of contention. Developing nations demanded equitable mechanisms to ensure they are not disproportionately burdened by treaty requirements, while wealthier nations debated the scale and form of assistance.

Perspectives from Participants

Advocates for Ambition: Small Island Developing States (SIDS), among the most affected by plastic pollution, voiced frustration at the slow progress. A delegate from the Maldives stated, “The world’s oceans cannot afford more delays. Every year without action costs lives, biodiversity, and livelihoods.” The Pacific Islands Climate Action Network amplified this sentiment, emphasizing the existential threat plastic pollution poses to their economies and ways of life.

Non-governmental organizations also expressed disappointment. WWF released a statement highlighting the influence of low-ambition countries and industries: “We need a treaty that holds polluters accountable, not one shaped by their lobbying.” The organization further emphasized the need for concrete reduction targets and stronger enforcement mechanisms, urging negotiators to align treaty outcomes with scientific recommendations.

Dr. Anjali Prakash, an environmental scientist, noted in a published paper: “Comprehensive measures are essential to mitigate the cascade effects of plastic pollution on marine ecosystems and global fisheries. Incremental approaches will not suffice given the accelerating pace of damage.” Dr. Prakash’s research underscored how delayed action disproportionately impacts low-income coastal communities reliant on fishing and tourism.

Defenders of Incrementalism: Representatives from some petrochemical-heavy nations, including the United States and Saudi Arabia, argued that ambitious global measures could disrupt economies. A delegate remarked, “We support the fight against plastic pollution, but it must be balanced with economic realities and technological capabilities.” Delegates from these countries proposed a phased approach to reduction targets, emphasizing investment in recycling technologies and innovations as alternatives to outright production caps.

A research article in the Journal of Environmental Policy pointed out, “Countries with substantial petrochemical industries perceive binding targets as threats to economic stability and industrial competitiveness.” This perspective was echoed in comments by representatives from industry-heavy nations, who stressed the need for flexibility to adapt treaty commitments to national contexts.

Civil Society Observations: Observers noted the stark contrast between countries’ public commitments to addressing plastic pollution and their positions during negotiations. Environmental activists outside the venue carried banners reading, “Plastic is choking our planet. Where is the ambition?” This sentiment resonated strongly among civil society groups, which organized side events to draw attention to the human cost of inaction.

Many civil society organizations argued for the inclusion of Indigenous and community voices. A representative from the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network stated, “The lived experiences of frontline communities must inform the treaty.” Grassroots activists shared testimonies of how plastic waste has disrupted ecosystems, livelihoods, and cultural practices, stressing the importance of incorporating traditional ecological knowledge into global strategies.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) added that civil society input was critical to ensuring transparency and accountability in treaty implementation. An IUCN spokesperson remarked, “Public participation strengthens not only the legitimacy of the treaty but also its practical relevance to affected communities.”

The Role of Industry Industry groups, particularly from the plastics and petrochemical sectors, had a visible presence at INC-5. Critics accused these groups of undermining ambitious measures, lobbying for voluntary commitments rather than enforceable reductions. The Plastic Industry Association defended their position, stating, “Innovation and partnerships, not punitive measures, will drive solutions.” Industry representatives argued that technological breakthroughs, such as advanced recycling methods and biodegradable plastics, hold the key to addressing pollution without disrupting economies.

Greenpeace’s report titled “Corporate Lobbying and the Plastics Treaty” revealed that industry representatives have heavily influenced the treaty’s trajectory, urging for provisions that allow flexibility and innovation over strict regulations.

Environmentalists countered these arguments, pointing to studies showing that technological solutions alone cannot compensate for the continued growth in plastic production. “The narrative of innovation as a panacea delays the hard choices needed to curb production,” stated a Greenpeace analyst. Observers also noted the disparity in resources between industry groups and environmental NGOs, highlighting the challenge of ensuring equitable representation in negotiations.

What Happened Behind Closed Doors?

Leaked meeting notes from some sessions suggested heated debates over the inclusion of certain chemicals in the treaty’s restricted list. Some delegates pushed for immediate bans on chemicals such as bisphenols and certain microplastics due to their well-documented impact on health and ecosystems, while others advocated for phased restrictions citing industrial dependencies.

A delegate described the process as “a tug-of-war between ambition and obstructionism,” highlighting the stark divide between nations demanding rapid action and those seeking more lenient timelines to adjust.

Environmental groups criticized the opacity of these discussions, with several noting that key decisions appeared to be influenced heavily by lobbying from chemical and manufacturing industries. “The lack of transparency not only undermines public trust but also stalls progress on addressing critical threats,” remarked a representative from Break Free From Plastic.

Further compounding the controversy was the apparent exclusion of civil society voices in these closed-door debates. Organizations like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund called for mechanisms to allow independent observers in future sessions to ensure accountability.

“There is a glaring disconnect between the science presented during plenary sessions and the compromises made behind closed doors,” stated Dr. Elena Ramos, an environmental policy expert. “This raises concerns about whether the treaty will adequately address the urgency of the plastic crisis.”

What’s Next?

As we await the resumed session in 2025, the stakes have never been higher. The "Chair’s Text" provides a foundation, but it remains to be seen whether it will evolve into a transformative treaty. The path forward demands:

1. Strengthened Leadership: Countries advocating for ambitious measures must build coalitions and engage constructively with reluctant parties. The leadership of nations that have historically championed environmental treaties, such as the European Union, will be critical in rallying support and bridging divides. Stronger collaboration with Small Island Developing States and vulnerable nations could create a unified front to counterbalance low-ambition actors.

2. Enhanced Transparency: The influence of lobbying must be addressed to ensure the treaty serves global, not corporate, interests. Transparent negotiation processes, including the publication of detailed draft texts and open access to key sessions, would increase public trust and hold stakeholders accountable for their commitments.

3. Broader Inclusion: Civil society, scientists, and frontline communities must have a greater voice in shaping the treaty’s direction. This includes formal mechanisms for incorporating the perspectives of Indigenous peoples and affected communities into decision-making processes. Enhanced funding and logistical support for these groups will ensure their meaningful participation.

4. Focus on Implementation: Establishing robust mechanisms for monitoring and compliance will be crucial. Clear timelines, benchmarks, and accountability measures must accompany any commitments to avoid the pitfalls of vague, non-binding agreements.

5. Investment in Solutions: Scaling up funding for research and innovation in alternative materials, improved recycling infrastructure, and circular economy practices will help create viable pathways for reducing plastic dependency without economic disruption. Developed nations must commit to providing financial and technical support to less affluent countries to enable equitable transitions.

Call to Action

The time for half-measures is over. Plastic pollution is not just an environmental crisis; it is a public health, economic, and social justice issue. As stakeholders in this global challenge, we must amplify our voices, hold leaders accountable, and demand the bold action necessary to break the plastic wave. This includes grassroots activism, policy advocacy, and individual efforts to reduce plastic usage. The outcome of the resumed INC-5 session will determine whether the global community can rise to meet one of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time. The future of our planet depends on it.

PlasticBusters is an award-wining registered charity with over 5,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. Would you like to volunteer with us? Please visit our Get Involved site.