---

Then all hope was resting on a successful conclusion of the 5th and final round of negotiations held in Busan to reduce plastic pollutions, at the Inter-governmental Negotiating Committee INC-5. (25 November -1 December 2024)

Instead also in this case, at the end, it was a letdown because no consensus had emerged on some of the key elements of the negotiations. Yet, flopping this more gloomy and dark view, I am learning that activists for a strong treaty are not giving up.

They are not ready to concede defeat and, rightly so. The fight must go on.

At least at Busan, the gap between the parties involved in the discussions came at the fore, providing clarity on their own desired outcomes, this time, each showing their cards, without hesitancy. On the one hand, a diverse coalition of more progressive nations.

Within it, both members of the Global South and a part of the Global North worked very hard to press for the best possible outcome, a treaty that would also include targets to reduce plastic production, especially the most nefarious type of it.

On the other hand, governments representing strong petro-chemical establishments had the overt mission to trample and block any attempts of reducing plastic production. Their mantras were conveniently focused on recycling and circularity as the best remedy to reduce plastic pollution.

To have a better assessment of INC-5, I approached the Plastic Pollution Coalition, a US civil society organization advocating an ambitious treaty. The group has also pressurized Washington to take a bolder stance in the fight against plastic pollution.

The resulting conversation with members of the Coalition, carried out via e-mails, was also an opportunity to identify the next goalposts for future negotiations and what scenarios might emerge in the months ahead.

They key messages are that, despite the final outcomes of the negotiations were not what many had hoped for, those, who want bold actions towards reducing plastic pollution, should not despair.

First of all, my interest was on assessing the level of disillusionment among activists advocating for a strong and ambitious treaty.

“Plastic pollutes throughout its existence, and a strong globally binding treaty is critical for a healthy future for humanity. While we are disappointed with the outcome of INC-5—little to no progress on the treaty text—we remain hopeful and are very inspired by the growing collaboration and efforts of a majority of ambitious countries” said Dianna Cohen, Co-Founder and CEO of the Plastic Pollution Coalition.

The commitment from the members of the Coalition is not diminished but rather it is growing ad with it also a sense of optimism.

“The fight is far from over. Talks will resume in 2025, and Plastic Pollution Coalition and allies continue to call on the US government to adopt a stronger position in the treaty negotiations” said Jen Fela, Vice President, Programs and Communications at the Plastic Pollution Coalition.

“The work won’t be easy. While necessary to protect the planet and human health, there will likely be even less support for a strong and legally binding global treaty by the incoming US administration”.

“The good news is that the talks in Busan demonstrated that more and more countries are willing to be bold and tell the world to get on board with what UN Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen called a ‘once-in-a-planet opportunity’ for a treaty that will end the plastics age once and for all”, Fela further stressed.

But what next? Balancing realism with ambition, what activists should aim in the next negotiations?

“We will keep pushing for a treaty that caps plastic production and prioritizes health, centers frontline and fence-line communities, acknowledges the rights of Indigenous Peoples and rights holders, restricts problematic plastic products and chemicals of concern, and supports non-toxic reuse systems”, Cohen, the Co-Founder and CEO of the Coalition told me.

“We are proud to stand with our incredible community of allies and continue our work toward a more just, equitable, regenerative world free of plastic pollution and its toxic impacts”,

Indeed, signs of hope are not misplaced”.

“Despite Member States being unable to reach a deal at INC-5, there was promising ambition and growing collaboration among the majority of countries, and we’re hopeful for the additional round of talks at INC-5.2 next year”, she further added.

“Ultimately, a delay is better than settling for a weak agreement that fails to meaningfully address the problem now, and the silver lining is that in the meantime, we can gain even more support for a strong treaty that cuts plastic pollution”.

Moreover, it is important to remember that despite there was no agreement, a new consensus is emerging.

“Despite pressure from a handful of petrostates, the majority of countries are rallying together for a strong treaty, with more than 100 countries backing Panama’s proposal to reduce plastic production, 95 supporting legally binding targets to regulate harmful chemicals, and over 120 nations calling for a treaty with robust implementation measures” reads a summary of INC-5 published by the Coalition.

A new coalition got cemented in Busan with countries like Panama and Rwanda working with European nations and others in the so called High Ambition Coalition to end Plastic Pollution.

I also wanted to better understand the key elements that can either make a future treaty at least acceptable for those advocating for plastic reductions and which are the “red lines” for them.

“Signs of a weak Plastics Treaty include voluntary measures to address plastic pollution, failure to commit to a significant global reduction in the total production of plastics, failing to identify and cease production of “chemicals of concern” known to harm frontline communities—a major environmental justice issue, a focus on recycling plastic as a solution, and omitting a full and strong range of actions that address plastic pollution throughout its endless toxic existence—from the extraction of its fossil fuel ingredients through plastic and plastic chemical production, shipping, use, and disposal” explained Erica Cirino, Communication Manager at the Coalition.

“The key is a mandated and significant reduction in plastic and plastic chemical production”.

“Signs of a strong treaty include mandatory caps on plastic and plastic chemical production, identification and further regulation of especially hazardous chemicals of concern, and including a full and strong range of actions that work to end plastic pollution throughout its endless toxic existence, starting with the extraction of its fossil fuel ingredients through plastic and plastic chemical production, shipping, use, and disposal” she further said.

“A binding commitment that reduces especially “problematic” plastic products and chemicals of concern would not be acceptable without a cap in overall production. All plastics pollute, and all plastic production must be reduced”, Cirino further explained.

The point raised by Cirino is one of the most contentious. “Those of special concern must especially be eliminated and regulated, but taking action to mitigate their harm should only be expedited—and not stand in place of mitigating harm of all plastics”.

Would it be still acceptable, in case there will be no breakthrough at all in the next round of negotiations, the most progressive nations, say the members of The High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, would come up with their own, alternative binding agreement, even if not a fully-fledged global treaty as we are envisioning now?

Could this “extreme” and until now unimaginable ‘last” option make sense even if plastic polluters would continue with their “business as usual approach”?

“It’s certainly not an ideal solution, as plastic pollution is a global issue perpetuated by a global set of governments; investors; and industrial players, activities and infrastructure. That said, it potentially would be better than nothing if more progressive nations were to devise their own binding agreement, so long as it focused on curbing plastic pollution”, Cirino shared.

“The main issue is, many of the biggest plastic producers in the world (namely, the US and China) are absent from the high-ambition talks for now. It’s crucial that levels of plastic production drop globally. It would be all for naught if some countries reduce production, only for other nations to increase it”.

Meanwhile having some countries going “solo” carries risks and these they are crystal clear.

Indeed, there are palpable concerns in places like Europe on this regard.

There, the plastic lobbying is worried that a decline of plastic production in Europe means that other nations like China are taking advantage by ramping up their production.

We are in a conundrum. At this moment, I can’t imagine how the petro states will change their key negotiating positions. “If passed, hopefully an agreement among progressive nations would push other nations to also reduce their plastic production or, such an agreement may not help at all” concluded Cirino.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source