Negotiators are past the midway point of the fifth and final Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) meeting to ink a legally binding treaty on plastics pollution taking place in Busan, South Korea, this week – with not much to show for it.
To continue reading, subscribe to Eco‑Business.
There's something for everyone. We offer a range of subscription plans.
- Access our stories and receive our Insights Weekly newsletter with the free EB Member plan.
- Unlock unlimited access to our content and archive with EB Circle.
- Publish your content with EB Premium.
At a “stocktake” plenary hosted by INC-5 Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso on Wednesday meant for delegates to evaluate the progress made so far on negotiations, member states were instead seen trading highly charged comments.
There was visible frustration among some member states that no text for legal review has been agreed, with many parts of the agreement still in brackets – an indication in legal text that parties have not come to an agreement on language that could eventually either be retained or deleted.
A Fiji representative made an impassioned call for more progress, the speeding up of the talks, as well as for negotiators to not just “break free from plastics, but also… break free from brackets”, which prompted some laughter from delegates in a brief moment of levity in an otherwise intense plenary.
On Thursday morning, reports emerged that Valvidieso is expected to release a revised treaty text on Friday noon.
The Chair’s version will form the basis for the final treaty, which has a Sunday deadline. This text was previously expected by delegates to be published on Saturday.
WWF global plastics pollution lead Eirik Lindebjerg, said that after days of slow progress, the Chair is “responding to the frustration shown at yesterday’s plenary session where many negotiators made impassioned pleas that they needed to just get on with business in the face of ongoing delaying from spoiler states”.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) executive director Inger Anderson, speaking late on Wednesday, admitted that there was “a degree of impatience in the room”.
“It’s very clear that if we continue at this speed, we will not reach where we need to go,” she said.
Anderson, however, highlighted that some progress had been made, such as the adoption of the INC Chair’s non-paper as a basis for negotiations prior to the commencing of the talks. The paper deals with issues such as product design, emissions and releases, waste management and legacy pollution.
Delegates were also organised into four contact groups at the start of negotiations, and these groups “got into action on day one”, said Anderson.
The four contact groups focused on different outstanding issues – the first focused on upstream issues such as chemicals of concern and plastic production; the second on downstream issues such as waste management; while the third group looked at financing and the fourth on supportive provisions such as implementation and compliance.
Anderson noted: “It’s very simple - we have to deliver this treaty by Sunday, and the contact groups therefore must move out the sections that they can clear… to the legal drafting group. They have to clean that text, and they have to do so expeditiously.”
Some civic society observers at the talks expressed dismay that a small handful of countries appear to be stonewalling the negotiations. Iran, India, Saudi Arabia, and Russia were among the member states named by observers that have been resisting production caps and delaying discussions.
In response to Eco-Business at a media briefing after the plenary, Anderson said: “I would not say anyone is here in bad faith… We’ve heard (in some discussions) the economic factors that cause countries to have certain positions. I also think there is full understanding in all countries that plastic pollution has to end,” she said.
Referring to the same countries, she said that they had national legislation that “already deal with EPR and other dimensions”, and that these policy approaches are being discussed in the context of the treaty.
EPR, or extended producer responsibility, is legislation that ensures producers are responsible for the entire lifecycle of their products, especially for its take-back, recycling, and final disposal.
“
This treaty can land. It will take good will and the desired speed, as I mentioned, but I think we all understand that we want the deal. And if we want the deal, now is the time to move.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) executive director Inger Anderson
A global fund for plastics pollution?
Civic society groups have been critical of the consensus-led multilateral process. Lindebjerg noted that “the relentless pursuit of consensus will only result in one outcome: a weak voluntary treaty focused on waste management that would hand down a death sentence to life on this planet and future generations.”
He said: “Member states must now ensure they utilise all procedural options to achieve [a strong plastics treaty], including voting if necessary.”
On Wednesday, the Center for International Environmental Law said there were 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered at INC5 - more than the 196 at the previous meeting.
WWF noted that there were advances in some areas of the negotiations, such as finance, where a range of proposals have been submitted that includes important elements that could together contribute to a comprehensive financing and means of implementation package for countries affected by plastic pollution.
Umesh Madhavan, research director at non-profit The Circulate Initiative who has been tracking the finance contact group in Busan, told Eco-Business that the outcome could be a multilateral fund, or an independent body, or a hybrid set-up, and noted that “ensuring there is predictable, accessible and transparent funding for developing member states is critical”.
An estimated US$15.4 trillion in private sector investments and US$1.5 trillion in public expenditure are needed between 2025 and 2040 to reduce annual mismanaged plastic volumes by 90 per cent relative to 2019 levels, he said, citing a report by the Nordic Council of Ministers.
Current levels of private investment is at US$30 billion on average for the past six years, so there is a huge gap to be addressed, said Umesh. “You need to redirect money not from the point of view of just geographies, but also towards the solutions and the locations where it is needed the most,” he said.
With the Sunday deadline looming, Anderson said: “This treaty can land. It will take good will and the desired speed, as I mentioned, but I think we all understand that we want the deal. And if we want the deal, now is the time to move”.
