“Just wait till next year!” goes the slogan often attributed to disappointed sports fans. Those same words could equally apply to proponents of an internationally binding U.N. agreement to phase out plastic pollution; they’ll now need to wait at least till next year to try and achieve that goal.

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution this month failed to meet its self-imposed deadline to approve final plastics treaty language by the end of 2024. Instead, at its fifth major session, known as INC-5, conducted Nov. 25 to Dec. 1 in Busan, South Korea, the parties remained deadlocked.

In the end, with the summit running into overtime, the great divide couldn’t be crossed. Oil- and plastics-producing nations (including Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran and India), refused to compromise on their demands for a voluntary accord only covering plastic reuse and recycling. The majority of nations — more than 100 in total — held out for a binding treaty mandating reductions in plastic production and restricting use of certain toxic chemicals.

The Busan meeting was the fifth major international negotiation session in a fast-tracked process that began in 2022 to address the global plastics pollution crisis. More than 3,300 participants attended the INC-5 summit, including delegates from more than 170 nations and 440 observers.

Environmentalists and delegates from the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution representing 68 nations (counting the European Union as one) headed home disappointed but hopeful for progress, and maybe a treaty breakthrough, in 2025. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has announced that negotiations will resume at an unspecified time and place next year, possibly in May.

“INC-5 has moved us closer to a Plastics Treaty,” UNEP executive director Inger Andersen stated on X at the summit’s end. “As ongoing divergence remains in critical areas, INC-5 has adjourned to allow for more time for these areas to be addressed.” She said she confidently expects a deal to be reached in 2025, at what has been dubbed INC-5.2 to avoid reopening procedural questions.

Progress in Busan

“You felt disappointment in not finishing, but we’re on the right path [toward a] treaty that will have teeth,” said Erin Simon, WWF’s head of plastic waste and business. “The worry was that we’d rush to finish [in Busan] and the treaty would be empty … filled with voluntary [measures].”

In a step forward, delegates agreed to a 22-page Chair’s Text, presented on the last day of INC-5 by INC head Luis Valdivieso of Ecuador. While strengthened from a previous 70-plus-page version, the revised text is still peppered with numerous brackets that delineate various options on which the delegates will have to eventually decide.

The Chair’s Text addresses many areas of concern, for example ensuring that plastic pollution policies “do not introduce trade distortions and constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction in international trade.”

There’s also a clause that would ensure “equal rights” and respect “non-interference in the domestic affairs of states, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.”

Issues to be voted on at INC-5.2 also include whether to phase out certain currently ubiquitous plastic products at a date to be determined during the 2030s, including plastic straws, single-use plastic cutlery, beverage stirrers, toys, and even “sticks to be attached to and to support balloons,” though not the balloons themselves. A clause would allow countries to apply for “exemptions from phase-out dates” for up to five years, but only once per product. Short of banning some products, the new draft suggests nations need to work on better plastic product design.

The text also states that nations “shall take measures to ensure that plastic waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner,” but notes that such measures can “tak(e) into account national circumstances and capabilities.” Measures include recycling and the banning of open burning and ocean dumping. Notably, the revised draft in many instances strengthened the earlier version to now read nations “shall” rather than nations “should.”

More than 100 nations endorsed creating a strong binding treaty that deals with the full life cycle of plastics; 85 nations, alphabetically from Angola to Zimbabwe, signed the Standing up for Ambition statement introduced by Rwanda. That document calls for “working constructively to find common ground and to conclude an urgently needed, effective treaty … We have made much-needed progress on a range of issues that will be critical for the treaty to achieve its goal of protecting human health and the environment from the adverse effects of plastic pollution.”

The statement also notes that “we voice our strong concerns about ongoing calls by a small group of countries to remove binding provisions from the text that are indispensable for the treaty to be effective.”

The unity and resolve among nations backing a tough binding treaty became stronger than ever in Busan, bringing together nations from “around the world, from Panama to Pacific islands to the European Union to African countries,” said Isabel Jarrett, senior manager for preventing ocean plastics at the Pew Charitable Trusts. “We really cannot underestimate the power of these champions who stood up for ambition. I am hopeful that this group of countries will maintain its commitment to reduction.”

The United States, while not one of the primary holdouts in Busan, never joined the High Ambition Coalition. And while the U.S. acknowledged the need in principle to deal with the entire plastic life cycle, it didn’t sign on to any measure to control production, nor did it use its leverage in the Arab world to influence producers such as Saudi Arabia, which blocked production caps and toxic chemical bans in Busan.

What might the Trump administration bring to INC-5.2 next year? The first Trump administration reduced environmental protections and withdrew from the Paris climate agreement. But environmentalists see one sign of hope: Trump’s nominee for secretary of health and human services (HHS), Robert Kennedy Jr., has a long history as an outspoken environmental activist, and he strongly acknowledges the danger plastics pose.

Kennedy was quoted last May in SURFER magazine, for instance, saying “There are things we need to do to control plastic pollution. There are some pretty obvious things that have worked in other countries … It’s a total crisis. There’s now 150 million metric tons of plastic pollution in the ocean. We’re adding 11 million more tons a day. By 2050 there is expected to be more pounds of plastic in the ocean than fish. Then there’s all the microplastics … They’re now in the fish that we’re eating and it’s really bad for you.” HHS is represented on the U.S. plastics treaty policy committee.

“On the plus side, even though the petrochemical industry sent 220 lobbyists [to Busan] to try to convince everyone to accept a treaty that would only focus on waste management, they failed to do that,” noted John Hocevar, oceans campaign director at Greenpeace USA.

The road to INC-5.2

The International Negotiating Committee has still not clearly determined how many votes will be needed to finalize treaty language next year. But some campaigners warn that there could be risks to not joining with the 100-plus nations pushing for a strong binding treaty. If oil-rich petrostates and plastic-producing nations decline to sign, they could lose their markets with those nations that do sign. Major producers, such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, India and Iran, could veto efforts to control chemicals or production. But “if there’s no one buying, there’s not much they can do about that,” Hocevar said.

One big unanswered question remains: Who will pay for the final agreement’s implementation? “This treaty will probably fail if donor nations like the U.S. fail to step up,” Hocevar noted. WWF’s Simon commented that “it will require a lot of money.” The Chair’s Text merely lists possibilities, such as “polymer fees (and) extended producer responsibility schemes.” It suggests that “donor” or “developed” countries may pay “recipient” or “developing” nations to help meet treaty goals.

One current draft paragraph offers this direction: “Parties, in particular those with the financial capacity to do so and high levels of [mismanaged plastic waste,] plastic production, or polymer production, are expected to contribute to the Mechanism, on a voluntary basis from their public funding.”

A levy of less than 1% of the price of plastics could go a long way toward financing implementation, suggested Bjorn Beeler, executive director and international coordinator at the International Pollutants Elimination Network.

Many who have been part of the treaty negotiation process weren’t surprised by the failure to get an agreement done by the end of 2024, and some say maybe UNEP expected too much too soon. “This is a very complex issue,” Beeler noted. “First it was about cleaning up the oceans and beaches.” Then delegates realized they had to deal with production and toxic chemicals. Also, much time was spent at earlier meetings dealing with procedural and structural matters instead of core treaty issues.

Beeler also believes a longer road lies ahead. “I don’t think we’ll get it done at INC-5.2.” he said. “My guess is there will be one or two more meetings before we know what things look like.”

Banner image courtesy of Seunghyeok Choi on assignment for Break Free From Plastic and Uproot Plastics Coalition.

Plastic pollution pushing Earth past all nine planetary boundaries: Report

FEEDBACK: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.