The fifth and final session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) negotiations to agree on a global treaty addressing plastics pollution concluded without a deal. The draft text released on December 1st exposed deep divisions between the majority of nations advocating for comprehensive, legally binding regulations across the entire plastics lifecycle and a minority of countries resistant to such measures.

“They have a text now with a lot of brackets, including binding measures across the plastic lifecycle and voluntary targets for reducing plastic production and consumption … so there’s still no agreement on the core issues,” says Eirik Lindebjerg, global plastics policy lead at WWF. Without consensus, further negotiations—dubbed INC 5.2—have become the most likely possibility, but there is uncertainty over if and when this initiative will deliver on its goals. The INC process was always an ambitious goal on an aggressive timeline. However, the failure to reach an agreement has still dealt a blow to the many countries pushing for a binding treaty to be signed in South Korea.

Some felt that extending the timeline was necessary to avoid the worst-case scenario of an ineffective treaty. “The mandate established both a very ambitious timeline and a sense of very ambitious scope for what the treaty would be,” says David Azoulay, director of environmental health at the Center for International Environmental Law. “There was some concern that those two goals would conflict and that ultimately governments would prefer to comply with the timeline and abandon the scope, which would have resulted in a very weak treaty.”

After a positive start, as parties agreed to move forward with a streamlined version of a draft text, divisions soon emerged. “The first few days in Busan were extremely slow, which limited optimism among everyone,” says Marta Fiscina, CEO at Ocean Plastics Leadership Network. “It took a lot of energy out of the room.”

The text did not commit to more ambitious measures including capping production, eliminating chemicals of concern from the supply chain, and financial mechanisms to help lower-income countries. “Realistically speaking, we knew there was a possibility that things wouldn’t be finalized by the end of the week, but the first day was already disappointing,” says Thais Vojvodic, director of government and business partnerships at Common Seas, an organisation focused on working with the countries most affected by plastic pollution.

More than 100 “high-ambition” countries wanted to cap plastic production, but a small number of oil-producing countries insisted that the only focus should be on plastic waste. Any legislation of plastic production could significantly impact global oil markets, with projections indicating that plastic manufacturing and processing may consume 20% of global oil production by 2040. That explains why at least 220 petrochemical industry representatives participated in the negotiations. Oil-producing ‘like-minded countries’ including Saudi Arabia are strategically resisting production reduction measures, employing procedural delays to protect their economic interests, to the frustration of many other participants.

Back in INC-2 in Paris, oil-producing countries pushed for a consensus-based voting mechanism rather than a vote requiring a two-thirds majority, in line with the traditional UN rules of procedure, to pass the treaty. This intervention turned out to have long-lasting effects on subsequent negotiating dynamics.

“To understand what happened in Busan, we have to go back all the way to Paris because it’s very likely that the treaty could have passed this week if we had the two-thirds mechanism in place,” says Ms Fiscina. “Removing it was a strategic move from forces opposed to an ambitious treaty to ensure that the process would be difficult.” Given that the majority of countries want an ambitious binding treaty, a consensus-based vote is more likely to favour the less ambitious minority. “With this move, the like-minded countries established the power dynamic of the negotiations and made it very difficult to move forward because they essentially stopped any conversation that they don’t want to have,” says Mr Azoulay.

At Busan, the high-ambition countries refused to budge. In a statement led by Mexico, a group of 95 countries including the UK, the EU and the African Group called for a legally binding commitment to phasing out harmful plastic products and chemicals. “Major economies are saying that they are ready to ban plastic products and they won’t accept a treaty without it,” says Mr Lindebjerg. “This meeting saw the ambitious majority of countries unite around very clear and strong messaging.” Over 100 countries also backed a text suggestion from Panama that would create a global plastic production reduction target. “It’s the first time that we’ve seen this level of ambition translated into the text,” says Ms Vojvodic.

Small island and developing states showed resolve and commitment. This group, including the Dominican Republic, Fiji and Palau, have lobbied hard for an ambitious treaty: their demands include capping plastic production, improving product design for reuse, and securing financial support to address plastic pollution, which arrives on their shores through ocean currents, imports, and waste disposal in neighbouring countries. With minimal control over these inputs, they are disproportionately burdened by single-use plastic waste that accumulates with no infrastructure to handle it. “They have smaller delegations, but they’re really organised and well-articulated—and they’re the ones that are suffering the most from plastic pollution, so they have the moral authority in these talks,” says Ms Vojvodic. Despite their small size, these countries have been leaders in the growing group committed to addressing plastic production.

“It’s so clear that most countries in the world want these measures, and science is telling us that these measures are necessary, but only a few countries in the room are holding us back,” says Mr Lindebjerg. “This meeting was a bit of a wake-up call for the large majority that we should consider doing things differently.”

What might that look like? There are other ways to pass international treaties. One is through bilateral or multilateral agreements outside of the UN framework, but these are not necessarily as robust. Another method would be a ‘treaty of the willing’ signed by the high-ambition countries to avoid extending the process even further. “[The countries most at risk are] very keen to be part of the willing group and just get on with it, because we cannot be wasting time anymore,” says Ms Fiscina. Such a treaty is not without precedent in international law, and many have been successful. One example is the 1997 Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention, also known as the Ottawa Treaty. Although major powers including the US, China and Russia are not among the 164 parties to the treaty, it has resulted in a near-halt on the global production of landmines and a sharp decline in casualties. “It’s okay to have a treaty that 100 or 150 countries can get behind and let the others join at a later stage,” says Mr Azoulay. “It may happen within this process; an INC 5.2 or possibly a 5.3 could deliver that, but if it doesn’t, we can also move forward outside of this particular process.”

In international environmental law, the Convention on Biological Diversity operates without the ratification of the US. The US, as one of the five largest polymer-producing nations, is also one of the most influential nations in the plastics debate. While the Biden administration has expressed support for reducing plastic production, the incoming Trump administration believed to be likely to reverse this position or even abandon the process altogether, as the former president’s first administration did with the Paris Agreement.

But a few countries obstructing the process should not be an obstacle to achieving a result. “If the exact same countries are around the table, having the same discussion and following the same rules, it’s likely to lead to the same outcome, so something has to change,” says Mr Azoulay. “We know that a small number of countries don’t want a treaty, so continuing to negotiate with them will only lead to something that doesn’t include the core elements.”

While many delegates were clearly hoping for a signed treaty, a compromised and weak text could have been a worse outcome than no agreement at all. “The high-ambition countries refused to compromise, which was encouraging to see,” says Ms Vojvodic. “Having an additional session is better than ending this one with a downstream [focused only on recycling] treaty, but ideally, we would expect it to be done.”

The next key step will be scheduling the ‘INC 5.2’ talks. Despite the lack of a formal meeting date, stakeholders will continue preparatory work to advance the treaty’s objectives and lay the groundwork for more productive negotiations. “Nature and human health can’t afford to wait, so it’s concerning that it’s being kicked further down the road,” says Mr Lindebjerg. “This was a wake-up call for countries, and now they have to figure out how to deliver a treaty, whether through consensus, voting or a treaty among the willing, and do it.”

Public awareness on the connection between health and plastics has improved significantly over the course of five rounds of talks, another benefit to the INC process despite the lack of a deal yet. “It’s very important that the human health perspective is now fully acknowledged as a concern,” says Ms Fiscina. “In the two years [of the INC process], we’ve learned so much more about the health situation and we understand the full scope of the problem far beyond what we originally understood, which has been a success in a way. If we make sure that we have all the scientific evidence in hand, we can reach a solution sooner.”

Scientists, advocates and a majority of countries are now in agreement that something needs to be done. But this has caused even more frustration for the observers, who feel that this powerful movement is being held back.