Global Plastics Treaty – Is ‘No Deal’ the Worst Outcome?

Accusations fly as leaders from across the globe leave the INC-5 Summit in Busan, South Korea, without achieving a long-sought-after agreement on a global plastics treaty.

This crucial conference, involving 200 nations, concluded this weekend without a comprehensive plan to effectively address plastic waste, an outcome many feared was influenced by the world’s top oil producers.

A new meeting, satirically dubbed INC 5.2, is now set for next year to further debate the draft treaty text that has evolved from discussions during the recent gathering.

Stalled negotiations in Busan

Expectations were high for the Busan Summit, tipped to be a watershed moment in environmental diplomacy, anticipated to be on par with the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement in terms of global impact.

However, as the summit wrapped up, it was clear that a significant divide remains between nations advocating for strict controls on plastics and those whose economic interests are deeply intertwined with the continued use of fossil fuels for plastic production.

Despite notable support from more than 100 countries for a Panama-led initiative advocating for significant cuts in plastic production towards more sustainable levels, resistance was strong.

Saudi Arabia, representing oil-rich and plastic-manufacturing nations, reportedly led a coalition to thwart any treaty provisions that would curtail plastic production, which remains predominantly derived from oil and natural gas.

The operations to block impactful treaty terms underscored a complex mesh of economic and environmental tensions.

Luis Vayas, the Ecuadorian diplomat who chaired the negotiations, highlights the mixed outcomes of the discussions.

“While it is encouraging that portions of the text have been agreed upon, we must also recognize that a few critical issues still prevent us from reaching a comprehensive agreement," he says.

What has caused this outcome?

The INC-5 saw not just countries but also major corporations play an active role in pushing for a robust plastics treaty.

Entities such as Unilever, Coca-Cola, and SAP, under the umbrella of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty which includes over 275 member companies, advocated fervently for a binding agreement. 

More than 100 countries had backed a new proposal spearheaded by Panama pushing for a global target to reduce plastic production to “sustainable levels”.

Greenpeace was among organisations calling it “the most important multilateral treaty” since the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

The collapse of the treaty negotiations prompted a response from the coalition, expressing optimism about the alignment on key elements among countries, yet dismay over the failure to finalise a treaty.

The business case for a global plastics treaty

The coalition says: “Despite tireless efforts by the INC Chair and government negotiators to finalise a global plastics treaty, it will not be agreed in Busan, as planned.

"We are encouraged by the increased alignment amongst over 100 countries on critical elements such as global phase-outs and sustainable levels of plastic production.

“Never before have so many countries clearly articulated support for these obligations.”

The statement continues by calling the latest text from the INC Chair a “step forward on product design and waste management as a basis for future negotiations”.

But the Coalition says that the failure to agree a deal “further delays critical action to end plastic pollution” and “fails to deliver the certainty that business needs to mobilise investment and scale solutions”.

It adds: “There’s no time to waste: we cannot afford this process sliding into unending negotiations.”

According to Adam Elman, Sustainability Director at Google, the stakes had been set high.

"In March 2022, 175 nations agreed to make the first legally binding treaty on plastics pollution, including in the oceans, by the end of 2024," he says.

“The world produces more than 400 million tons of new plastic every year, while production could climb about 70% by 2040 without policy changes.

“However, countries remained far apart on the basic scope of a treaty and could agree only to postpone key decisions and resume talks, dubbed INC 5.2, to a later date.”

Chair’s draft text is strongly criticised

The breakdown of the treaty talks has ignited vigorous responses, especially from the Global South.

Critics argue that the proposed text from the Chair, Luis Vayas, prioritises the interests of petrochemical states over the environmental and health priorities of billions worldwide.

Activists and negotiators, including Arpita Bhagat from GAIA Asia Pacific and Ghana’s Dr Sam Adu-Kumi, dubbed the draft as overly concessionary.

Yet, despite these setbacks, some leaders remain hopeful and are taking a constructive stance.

Anke Boykin of PepsiCo lauds the strides made in the negotiations, stressing the steady support for robust global regulations to combat plastic pollution and the growing consensus on key issues which promise to shape future dialogues and expedite effective resolutions.

“The momentum is strong," she says. "A vast majority of countries support ambitious global rules to address plastic pollution. The political will to take action exists.”

“Progress has been made. Not only in the form of a significantly evolved text but also the debate itself that has reached a new level of depth and nuance. The collective understanding of key issues and needed actions continues to grow.

“There's more to do. The draft text clearly requires more debate, and crucial concepts like Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) need clearer definitions and globally agreed principles to address vastly varying interpretations and accelerate EPR implementation.”

Make sure you check out the latest edition of Energy Digital Magazine and also sign up to our global conference series - Sustainability LIVE

Energy Digital is a BizClik brand