The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution is set to hold its fifth session (INC-5) from November 25th to December 1st 2024 in Busan, South Korea. This meeting marks the committee’s final gathering before the looming end-2024 deadline to develop a legally binding international instrument addressing plastic pollution. With time running short, there is widespread uncertainty about whether the resulting agreement will be sufficient to address the global plastic crisis.

Some progress has been made across the four previous meetings, which have seen an emerging consensus around how to handle waste management, legacy plastic and certain elements of plastic product design. However, the most contentious issue continues to be the scope of the agreement, which revolves around defining the full lifecycle of plastic and whether it can include limits on production. Other unanswered questions are the issue of a financial mechanism to accompany the treaty, whether it will include a list of problematic chemicals, and if final decisions will be made through a consensus or majority vote.

Intersessional work was conducted in Bangkok, Thailand, in August 2024 to address some of these sticking points, focusing on financial mechanisms and chemicals of concern in preparation for INC-5. This had positive implications for the issue of chemicals, says Erin Simon, vice president of plastic waste and business at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), as even some countries that had initially opposed including a list of problematic chemicals in the treaty agreed upon the list discussed at the meetings. Still, whether this will turn into actual action remains to be sorted at the final session. “The key factor in actually getting it in the treaty text will be the political will shown at INC-5,” says Ms Simon.

There is optimism that many industry actors are aligned on the need for strong measures. The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, convened by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and WWF and supported by strategic non-government organisation (NGO) partners, brings together businesses and financial institutions committed to supporting the development of an ambitious, effective and legally binding instrument. “Businesses that use plastic are supportive of an ambitious treaty because they need the co-ordinated policy support that the treaty will provide in order to meet their pollution reduction targets,” says Ms Simon. “It was surprisingly easy to reach alignment with them and develop the business case for a global plastic treaty. They want one set of rules to follow globally, and then they’re willing to invest in following them.” Helen Bird, head of material systems transformation at WRAP, a global environmental action NGO partner of the business coalition, agrees. “Their work has been really helpful in showing governments that industry has an appetite for change, and just wants to create a level playing field for that change,” she says.

The recycling industry is also invested in defining the lifecycle of plastic to include the design and production phases. “Design and production are crucial for increasing recycling efficiency, so we can know what we’re recycling and implement effective collection systems,” says Alev Somer, trade and environment director at the global recycling federation the Bureau of International Recycling (BIR). BIR is one of many stakeholders supporting the Bridge to Busan declaration, a call for the treaty to address plastic production.

However, the businesses that remain opposed to an ambitious treaty are the producers of virgin plastic, who want the full lifecycle to exclude the production and design phase and only focus on post-consumer waste. “There seems to be a disagreement between downstream users, who are happy to have a treaty to help them meet recycling targets, and primary producers, who are more resistant due to the greater impact on their operations,” says Ms Somer. Lobbying and media pressure from chemical, oil and gas companies, who have become increasingly involved in the negotiations, have the potential to sway countries in their favour.

Implementing an effective treaty will inevitably impose costs on industries and governments, particularly for countries in the global South, which already shoulder a disproportionate international burden of waste management and have limited control over the materials entering their systems. Consequently, incorporating a financial mechanism like those associated with most major internal legally binding instruments (ILBIs) is crucial to the treaty’s success. “There’s no easy business model for recycling plastics, so we need financial incentives and mechanisms like recycled content targets, extended producer responsibility or green public procurement to ensure recycling policies can be implemented,” says Ms Somer.

There is growing momentum for private sector involvement in any funding mechanism. One key proposal is a ‘plastic tax’ on primary plastic producers, based on a polluter-pays principle that shifts the financial burden from the companies responsible for disposal to those at the source. However, governments are hesitant to adopt these measures for fear of alienating producers and investors within their jurisdictions. There are also questions revolving around the distribution of funds and eligibility criteria for financial support, and whether to utilise existing institutions like multilateral banks and the Global Environment Facility or establish a new, dedicated body. Despite these uncertainties, there is cautious optimism among stakeholders that a financial mechanism incorporating the polluter-pays principle can emerge at INC-5.

While the INC’s stated objective is to create a legally binding instrument, many fear that the looming deadline will motivate low-ambition countries to push for a voluntary one similar to the nonbinding Paris Agreement in order to get everyone on board. Following INC-4, WWF highlighted what it called the treaty’s most significant fault line: the unanswered question of whether the instrument will impose common global rules or rely on voluntary national plans.

Voluntary efforts have played a part in the process so far. The UK Plastics Pact, a voluntary public-private initiative led by WRAP to tackle plastic waste, has shaped the UK government’s approach to the treaty negotiations. “I’m really proud of how our voluntary framework has influenced the UK’s proposal,” says Ms Bird at WRAP. “We believe voluntary agreements are an opportunity to get ahead of the regulations and pave the way, as well as providing a platform to develop and scale solutions to deliver against them. But at this stage, a voluntary approach to the treaty will have significantly less impact, and we want to see legally binding rules.”

UN procedural rules remain a critical factor in shaping the outcome of the negotiations, with the decision-making process still under debate. “It’s still not decided whether decisions will be made by majority vote or consensus,” says Ms Somer at BIR. “The concern is that if consensus is required, a single country could block the entire effort, so we’re hoping that negotiations in Busan will result in the adoption of a majority voting system for procedural rules.” A consensus system could lead to a stalemate in which neither low- nor high-ambition countries would be satisfied with any possible outcome. The limited time remaining and the multitude of unresolved questions make it increasingly unlikely that a satisfactory agreement will be reached in this single meeting. Instead, many stakeholders are focusing on ensuring key issues such as the treaty’s scope are conclusively addressed and that the groundwork for future negotiations is established. “We would rather see another INC than see something ineffective passed at INC-5,” says Ms Bird.

Negotiators remain committed to seeing the process through, even if it extends beyond the initial timeline. However, they also stress the urgency of achieving results soon. The WWF underscores this urgency by noting that over 15 million tonnes of plastic have leaked into the ocean since the negotiations began, highlighting the escalating environmental cost of delays in implementing effective global measures to combat plastic pollution. “When it comes to plastic pollution, we win and lose together,” says Ms Simon. If an agreement can be reached, it must be reached soon.