Despite long negotiations, the treaty on stopping plastic pollution globally ended without resolution on the proposed text in the treaty during the the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5). Members of the session have agreed to resume at a later date in 2025.
Over 3,300 delegates, including members representing more than 170 nations, and observers from more than 440 organizations, converged in Busan, South Korea from November 25 to December 1, 2024, for INC-5 on plastic pollution, organized by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The session aimed to finalize the text of a landmark agreement to combat plastic pollution globally but failed to do as planned.
In March 2022, the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) adopted a historic resolution “End Plastic Pollution: Towards an International Legally Binding Instrument”, which recognized the severe environmental impact of plastic pollution. The resolution mandated UNEP to convene an INC tasked with developing a legally binding instrument to address the entire life cycle of plastics via a comprehensive approach. The goal was to establish a global plastics treaty by the end of 2024.
The INC is negotiating what is referred to as the “Zero Draft Text,” which aims to create the world’s first international treaty addressing plastic pollution, including in marine environments. The initiative is driven by increasing awareness of the plastic waste crisis and its harmful effects on ecosystems and human health.
The first session (INC-1) took place in Punta del Este, Uruguay, from November 28 to December 2, 2022. During the inaugural meeting, representatives and stakeholders, including civil society groups, discussed critical aspects of plastic pollution and laid the groundwork for future negotiations.
At INC-4, delegates reviewed a Revised Zero Draft prepared by the Secretariat, which included essential provisions to manage plastic throughout its lifecycle and mechanisms for implementation and tracking progress.
Following two ad-hoc intersessional expert groups’ work, INC-4 agreed to use a compilation of draft text prepared by sub-groups as the starting point for negotiations at INC-5.
However, the previous sessions faced procedural challenges which led to delays and frustration. A significant unresolved issue is whether decisions on substantive matters should be made by consensus or through voting. The debate has hindered the INC’s ability to adopt a treaty that effectively addresses plastic pollution and has impacted the timeline for reaching a legally binding instrument.
Concrete negotiations heat up but end in impasse
During the INC-5 opening speech, Inger Andersen, executive director of UNEP, said public and political pressure for action against plastic pollution has intensified, with waste pickers, civil society, businesses, indigenous people, and scientists advocating for change. The finance sector also took steps, while at the international level clear signals indicated that the deal was essential, including the G20 declaration which was “determined” to finalize a global treaty by the end of 2024.
“This is your chance to craft an instrument for the ages. One that could deliver thousands of years free from plastic pollution. At the end of this week, the gavel must come down on an instrument that represents an ambitious starting point,” she said. “Not everything will be as detailed as some may wish. But the broad contours and strokes must be there.”
“The world wants an end to plastic pollution, so I ask you to deliver an instrument that puts us on the road to delivering just that, for thousands of days, months and years to come,” Andersen urged.
While many delegates concurred with INC Chair Luis Vayas’ streamlined non-paper 3 (a document that guides negotiations for a legally binding agreement on plastic pollution), some said that there are elements from the compiled zero draft that have not been included and many delegates underlined that the compilation text could serve as a reference for discussions.
On the third day of the plenary, indigenous groups were seen standing with their fists held up, demanding their voices be heard. Lisa Bellinger, on behalf of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Plastics, emphasized the disproportionate impact of plastic pollution on indigenous communities. She called the global plastics treaty to prioritize indigenous rights and solutions, uphold their distinct rights as per UN Declaration, and ensure their active participation in decision-making.
“The treaty must actively promote indigenous peoples’ contributions, provide a culturally-safe platform for our full and effective participation in decision-making and implementation of the treaty as rights holders, not stakeholders,” she said. “A weak treaty is a failed treaty.”
Some delegates called for “inclusion of articles on the objective, scope and principles” and many agreed that it is crucial to achieve a meaningful International Legally-Binding Instrument (ILBI).
INC Chair Luis Vayas said the Non-Paper is a “starting point for deliberations”, and not a final outcome, stressing that the text is bracketed in its entirety and does not prejudge members’ positions. He added that the compilation text will be an authoritative reference and all issues will receive equal attention.
As the plenary continued, there was much disagreement and debates. Several delegates expressed frustration over the slow pace of discussions. They highlighted disagreements regarding the regulation of plastic products and hazardous chemicals, the management of primary polymer supplies and the establishment of a financial mechanism to assist developing countries in implementing the treaty. At the time, they said a strong treaty is needed to curb plastic pollution globally.
However, 220 lobbyists from the fossil fuel and chemical industry had registered to attend the INC 5, outnumbering the number of them in INC-4. Many were concerned that their presence would result in potential intimidation tactics and influence over treaty outcomes. Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) indicated that they would jeopardize efforts to address plastic pollution effectively and prioritize environmental health over corporate interests.
Over 99% of plastics are made from chemicals derived from fossil fuels, highlighting a significant reliance on these non-renewable resources for plastic production. This is concerning because fossil fuel-based plastics contribute heavily to greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating climate change and environmental degradation, while posing health risks through toxic chemical exposure.
It became clear that the negotiation would come to an impasse as two major blocs held different positions. The Low Ambition Coalition countries, informally referred to as the “Global Coalition for Plastics Sustainability,” consists of oil-producing countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and China were advocating for a less aggressive approach to the global plastic pollution treaty. These countries opposed production cuts and generally prefered negotiations to focus on recycling and managing waste to tackle pollution rather than committing to a binding international agreement aimed at significantly reducing plastic production by 2040.
It was in contrast with the High Ambition Coalition, a group of more than 60 countries led by Rwanda and Norway advocating for a more stringent treaty, which highlighted methods to tackle plastic pollution on a global scale, including chemicals and harmful materials added to plastics in their production.
Amid this gridlock, civil society groups in Busan delivered a statement on November 29, calling for “courage not compromise” and urged the ambitious cohort of countries to secure a global treaty in order to end the plastic crisis.
Fiji’s negotiator said it was “unfortunate that we have not made progress. It’s disastrous for countries on the frontline of the plastic pollution crisis”. “Let us engage on the main ideas of the text instead of procedural semantics,” Fiji stressed.
When there was only 24 hours left before the deadline to secure a global treaty, delegates met behind closed doors for two days straight for informal consultations. They concentrated on hot topics based on a non-paper containing the draft text of the INC Chair. Many believed that more time was needed.
On the final day of negotiations, the High Ambition Coalition held a press briefing, reiterating their commitment to push the intergovernmental negotiating committee for an ambitious treaty that addresses the full life cycle of plastics mandated by the UNEA, to protect human health and the environment.
“This is not a drill. This is a fight for survival, and let us remember where we study history […] Plastics are not a convenience. Plastics are poisonous,” a representative from Panama said.
“For those blocking progress, you are allowing this crisis to fester and it will kill us. This is just not a treaty about plastics […] If we don’t get an ambitious treaty out of Busan, it will be a global betrayal […] history will not forgive us,” he added. “This is the time to step up or get out.”
Following the Chair’s latest paper, anti-plastic movement Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) condemned it as “unacceptable”, arguing that it failed to represent the majority of member states’ advocacy for a robust, legally-binding treaty.
Their statement criticized the Chair for “bowing down” to petrochemical interests while sidelining broader demands in a non-transparent and exclusionary process.
Following a long plenary session, delegates agreed to use the Chair’s revised text as a basis for negotiations. INC Chair Vayas reassured delegates that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”.
“We have not yet reached the summit of our efforts.” This was the spirit conveyed by Vayas in his opening statement on the closing plenary day.
“The week’s meeting has made good progress towards securing the deal the world demands. Through the Busan talks, negotiators have reached a greater degree of convergence on the structure and elements of the treaty text, as well as a better understanding of country positions and shared challenges,” said UNEP’s Andersen. “But it is clear there is persisting divergence in critical areas and more time is needed for these areas to be addressed.”
GRID Arendal, a UNEP partner, issued a statement saying that the outcome of negotiation was “disappointing”. Despite widespread commitment by the nations to establish a strong, binding treaty, a small group of dissenting voices hindered progress, highlighting the “urgency for greater political will and global cooperation”.
Impacts of plastic on health and environment: How crucial is it to be addressed?
The world produces approximately 350 million to 400 million tonnes of plastic annually. This staggering amount reflects an increasing reliance on plastic in various industries, including packaging, construction and consumer goods.
A report called “Climate Impact of Primary Plastic Production” predicts that plastic production will double or triple by 2050 if no effective control is made, further impacting the environment and causing more health problems.
A significant portion of plastic waste ends up in the oceans. The UNEP indicates that over eight million tonnes of plastic are dumped into the ocean annually.
The issue of plastic pollution in oceans requires a global response due to its far-reaching environmental impacts. Plastic pollution poses severe threats to marine life, ecosystems, and human health. It disrupts food chains, harms wildlife through ingestion and entanglement, and contributes to the accumulation of microplastics in the food web. Additionally, plastics can take hundreds of years to degrade, leading to long-term ecological consequences.
Barak Ekshtein, Founder of TONTOTON, a social enterprise that turns trash into everyday items, said that plastics pose “extensive and alarming” problems as they break down into microplastics, polluting land, air, and oceans. These tiny particles have significant impacts on ecosystems and wildlife. In humans, microplastics have been found in bloodstreams, but the full extent of health risks is still being studied, he added.
“Plastic pollution also led to environmental injustice. It disproportionately impacts poorer communities that lack adequate waste management systems, compounding their struggles,” Barak said. “These communities, often overlooked and underfunded, bear the brunt of the effects of pollution.”
In Cambodia, plastic waste generation is a significant concern, with estimates indicating that the country produces approximately 213,356 metric tonnes of plastic waste annually in Phnom Penh alone. This figure represents about 21% of the total waste generated in the city, highlighting the extensive reliance on plastic, particularly single-use plastics. Thus, Cambodia seeks to mitigate the impacts of plastic pollution while promoting sustainable development and environmental health.
A June 2018 report by IGES Centre Collaborating with UNEP on Environmental Technologies (CCET) said Phnom Penh experiences significant waste management challenges due to rapid population growth, urbanization, and rising consumption. The capital struggles with increasing volumes of municipal solid waste, hazardous waste, and inadequate infrastructure for proper collection and treatment, leading to overflowing landfills and environmental degradation.
Kathrin Eitel, a cultural anthropologist and the author of “Recycling Infrastructures in Cambodia Circularity, Waste, and Urban Life in Phnom Penh”, stressed that Cambodia has to deal with a quickly expanding problem that truly needed immediate disposal solutions, while other nations were able to gradually adjust to the rise in plastic products and construct suitable garbage disposal infrastructures.
“A key challenge, therefore, is closing this gap while simultaneously raising awareness about plastic waste in general, and about waste segregation among residents. Because, and this brings me to another key challenge, recycling infrastructures can only be truly effective if waste is already separated at the household level,” she says.
Globally, 79% of the plastic produced has been discarded in landfills or the natural environment. This statistic highlights a significant issue in waste management, as only about 9% of plastic waste has been recycled, with a further 12% incinerated. In Cambodia, the situation mirrors global trends, with a substantial portion of plastic waste improperly managed.
In this regard, the plastic crisis has often been viewed as a problem of poor waste management and consumer choice, with solutions focusing mainly on recycling and consumer education efforts.
Kathrin points out that it is crucial for the world to adopt a robust treaty that can address plastic pollution. However, seeing the final negotiation of the INC-5 meeting were “unsuccessful” largely due to the contentious views from petrochemical lobbyists, she doubts that “ the treaty will have the broad, far-reaching impact that is needed”.
How hazardous are the chemicals inside plastic?
The plastic crisis is fundamentally transboundary as global supply chains and pollution extend across air, land, and waterways.
Plastic pollution cannot be ignored due to its profound impact on the environment and human health. Recent studies uncovered alarming evidence of microplastics and harmful chemicals in human placenta, breast milk, and blood, raising serious health concerns. These include endocrine disruption, reproductive issues, and raised risks of cancer and respiratory diseases. The presence of these pollutants highlights an urgent need for comprehensive action to mitigate plastic’s harmful effects on health and the environment.
A study titled “Plastic Waste Degradation in Landfill Conditions: The Problem with Microplastics, and Their Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects” emphasizes that plastic waste in landfills degrades into microplastics, which can persist in the environment for extended periods.
Most of the plastic disintegrates into particles smaller than five millimetres, known as microplastics, breaking down further into nanoparticles (less than 0.1 micrometre in size). The problem is that these particles enter the food chain.
Around the world, countless communities rely on scavenging from open dumps, where waste pickers sort and sell materials to survive. However, many are unaware of the severe health risks posed by plastics in landfills.
Exposure to hazardous substances, such as toxic fumes from burning plastic and microplastics contaminating food sources can lead to serious health issues, including respiratory problems and increased risk of disease.
Plastic products marketed these days are often made of polyester, polyurethane, PVC and more. But unknown to many, these products contain hazardous substances such as bisphenol A and phthalates as well as flame retardants. A study published in March this year revealed that more than 16, 000 chemicals were found in plastics, including raw ingredients and additives such as stabilizers and colorants.
When plastic is incinerated, it releases harmful substances into the air and environment, including tiny particles linked to lung and heart disease, as well as heavy metals like lead and mercury. Additionally, the incineration process generates dioxins, which are associated with immune system impairment and reproductive issues. Studies reveal that the recycling process can further complicate this issue, as recycled plastics often contain a toxic cocktail of chemicals, including pesticides and pharmaceuticals, posing risks to both human health and the environment.
Therefore, global efforts to raise awareness and tackle the full life cycle of plastics are crucial in addressing the dangers of plastic pollution.
Barak Ekshtein stressed that “funding” was critical because “waste management systems need substantial financial support from local and international sources to achieve higher rates of plastic collection and treatment”.
“Stopping plastic pollution is a global mission that requires more than just signing a treaty—it calls for immediate, coordinated action. First, we need to rethink how plastics are consumed, especially in packaging and everyday products,” he says. “World leaders must ensure that the regulations outlined in the treaty are strictly implemented, including limiting plastic production and use.”
This article was written with a grant from GRID-Arendal, a partner of the United Nations Environment Programme.
