The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC 5) in Busan, dedicated to developing an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, concluded with significant unresolved issues. The meeting, held with 175 parties, was marked by a high degree of disagreement over whether the treaty should address the entire lifecycle of plastics and provide financial support from developed nations to aid developing countries in transitioning away from plastics.
As the Sunday close to the closing plenary approached, it became evident that the draft “chair’s text” remained largely bracketed, indicating a clear lack of consensus on critical issues. The objective of the convention aimed at protecting human health and the environment from plastic pollution remained bracketed, suggesting ongoing debates over how best to approach the full life cycle of plastics—from raw material production to disposal.
Unresolved Details and Financial Challenges
The preamble of the treaty, however, was not contested and reflected a mutual agreement to address plastic pollution. It emphasized that increasing levels of plastic pollution, including in marine environments, presented serious environmental and human health problems that had adverse impacts on sustainable development from multiple angles. In spite of this, what constituted “plastic pollution” remained undefined and various meanings were left bracketed in the draft.
One of the most contentious issues was “Financial Resources and Mechanism,” which almost the entire section remained in brackets. This issue revolves around how developed countries would raise funds to finance plastic pollution mitigation and the implementation of the treaty in developing nations.
Disputes on Phasing Out Plastics
The delegates debated whether the treaty should include phase-out dates for single-use plastic products, such as those in toys and food contact materials. Though tentative phaseout dates were included, these provisions also remained bracketed, meaning their acceptance is uncertain.
Separate consultations led by the INC Chair, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, had already discussed issues about products and chemicals of concern in the manufacture of plastics, supply chain issues, and a financial mechanism.
The accusations were thrown about that Petro-states were playing games to resist the more inclusive measures, especially about the lifecycle from production.
Mixed Sentiments When the Negotiations Are Coming to a Close
The uncertainty of success in INC 5 was palpable. The observers were speculating whether the conference would end with “happy tears” or “weeping,” thus showing the thin line between progress and failure. The Mexican delegation expressed disappointment on the lack of progress, citing that the treaty must touch on production and hazardous chemicals. Panama and Fiji asked those blocking a strong treaty to step aside.
“Too many brackets, too many options. We’ve made significant progress from the previous draft to this, which could potentially be the final treaty text. However, we need to pole vault, not leapfrog, to finalize and reach agreement and consensus on critical areas. The treaty must go beyond waste management to address the entire lifecycle of plastics,” said Swati Singh Sambyal, Waste and Circular Economy Expert, GRID-Arendal.
ALSO READ: Seoul Metro Faces Delay As Korean Conductor Takes 4-Minute Toilet Break
