BUSAN, Republic of Korea, December 2, 2024 — Plastics treaty negotiations have concluded in Busan after a week of largely closed-door sessions. The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to advance a plastics treaty (INC-5) was meant to deliver what would be the final text of a future plastics treaty. Instead, negotiations were deferred to yet another session with a small bloc of petrostates stalling negotiations and trying to dilute ambitions towards the lowest common denominator.
While fossil-fuel producers once again succeeded in stalling progress, global momentum for a robust plastics treaty has only intensified. “In a remarkable show of strength, we saw more than 100 Member States unite in insisting the treaty include concrete measures to cut plastic production and ban the toxic chemical building blocks that fuel this crisis,” says Daniela Duran Gonzalez, Senior Campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
“We will enter the next round of negotiations with more strength than we brought to Busan,” says Andrés Del Castillo, Senior Attorney at CIEL. “Momentum is shifting. The understanding of the forces working to undermine progress has crystalized, and we have a renewed determination to deliver the treaty the world needs.
“What we saw in Busan was a weaponization of consensus by a small number of countries to stall progress and undermine the negotiations,” says David Azoulay, CIEL’s Director of Environmental Health. “We must resist the idea that this process is destined to remain paralyzed by obstruction. At the next session, countries must once and for all clarify that they are ready to use all options, including voting, to deliver the treaty they continue to affirm is needed.”
Bad state actors were bolstered by ever-increasing industry influence. More than 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered to attend INC-5—together, these lobbyists would represent the largest single delegation at the talks.
“While undeniable, the influence of the petrostates and their vested interests appear to be dwindling. We see their desperation through attempts to flip delegations, sow doubt through manufactured science, and intimidate scientists into silence,” says Delphine Lévi Alvarès, CIEL’s Global Petrochemical Campaign Manager.
Opportunities for observer participation—a critical component of transparency and accountability—all but vanished at INC-5. “This process is becoming increasingly exclusive and opaque, sidelining civil society and rights holders—often the conscience of this process,” says Dharmesh Shah, Senior Campaigner at CIEL. “Observers have been marginalized, and vital perspectives silenced. We must ensure that future sessions uphold open participation, as mandated.”
As petrostates dig their heels [in], the rest of the world is growing stronger in its determination to secure a treaty that addresses plastic pollution at its root, safeguards human rights, and protects future generations.
Additional Quotes
Melissa BlueSky, Senior Attorney
This week, we have seen consensus preventing us from making progress on substantive issues. As we head into INC-5.2, Member States must prioritize developing a strong, clear strategy for preventing the strong-arming and stalling that the shackles of consensus have enabled. On the heels of climate and biodiversity COPs that have failed to deliver results, people are questioning whether multilateralism is failing. But multilateralism is not failing—countries are failing to use all of the tools that multilateralism provides, including ones that ensure effective decision-making and could unlock countries’ ability to take the bold actions needed to address the plastics crisis.
Giulia Carlini, Senior Attorney and Environmental Health Program Manager
Despite wide convergence on the need for the plastics treaty to protect human health, this week, we saw countries dilute the most ambitious proposals to ban toxic plastic chemicals. We are now left with a text that focuses on what is visible—plastic products—but that neglects the invisible iceberg that threatens human health. Every week, we learn more and more about how toxics creep into people’s lives, slowly and invisibly making people sick. These are entirely preventable. If delegates are serious about protecting the health of current and future generations, they must get serious about re-introducing global toxics bans into the text.
Helionor de Anzizu, Senior Attorney
A troubling pattern has become evident over the INC process: a minority of members are using every tool in the playbook to dilute ambition and stall the bold action this crisis demands. From invoking unfounded claims about World Trade Organization rules to challenge control measures, to pushing for a voluntary treaty by design. Yet, Busan has shown an appetite for effective implementation tools, such as a plastic production fee, which would serve to close financial gaps and uphold the polluter pays principle. As we move to INC-5.2, we must ensure strong provisions to address trade in plastics and remove the economic incentives that drive and deepen the crisis.
Rachel Radvany, Environmental Health Campaigner
We knew coming into these negotiations that the United States would play a pivotal role.
Despite maintaining that production and chemicals were important measures for the treaty, they refused to push beyond voluntary measures and answer the call to join the more than 100 countries calling for legally binding measures. Voluntary measures would do little to effectively address the harms from plastic pollution. We need more than words on a page, we need bold measures that will solve the plastics crisis and protect communities in the US and around the world.
Source: “Consensus Fails Plastics Treaty Talks in Busan,” Dec. 2, 2024 Center for International Environmental Law press release.
Related: “Liquid refreshments in paper cartons: Why aren’t we seeing more of this?”
Corresponding, connected home-page-featured image: USEPA