Negotiations aimed at securing a legally binding international treaty to combat the growing scourge of plastics pollution ended in division in the South Korean city of Busan at the weekend.
Governments will make a further effort early next year to reach agreement – though the challenges for achieving a better result in 2025 will require renewed commitment from all parties involved.
The Intergovernmental Negotiations Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC) had a clear mandate from the United Nations Environment Assembly in 2022 to conclude the negotiations by the end of 2024. However, the lengthy and complex process was marked by intense debates and competing national interests.
In the final phase, two major country blocs emerged. A larger group of over 100 nations supported a comprehensive approach to end plastic pollution.
That would include limiting upstream production of plastic polymer feedstocks and harmful chemicals used in plastics, while not restricting the treaty’s scope to the sustainable design of products and waste management.
A smaller but influential bloc, consisting of fossil-fuel producing countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, resisted efforts to include measures regulating upstream production. This division created significant tension and stalled progress.
Deadlock over production caps
A deadlock over the proposed Article 6 on production caps or reduction of primary plastics production has left the negotiations at an impasse that threatens meaningful progress.
Production caps have been identified by scientists as a key mechanism to reduce plastic pollution. Modelling by the University of California Berkeley shows that a cap on global virgin plastic production at 2020 levels would yield a reduction of mismanaged plastic waste in 2050 from 121 to 72 Mt.
Other scientific bodies such as the International Science Council have also emphasized the need for effective upstream measures.
The negotiations were characterized by deeply entrenched positions, with both sides showing limited willingness to compromise. During the final hours, the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution – which includes 64 countries including the UK and EU and advocates measures to end plastic pollution by 2040 – adopted a stance encapsulated by the phrase ‘step up or step aside.’
This language signalled refusal to dilute their demands for upstream production caps and systemic changes, prioritizing environmental integrity and ambition over consensus.
On the other side, plastic-producing countries called the ‘like-minded group’, particularly those reliant on fossil fuel industries, were not willing to move their rigid red lines, particularly around Article 6.
These nations view such measures as existential threats to their economies and have shown little flexibility, framing their resistance as a defence of sustainable development and economic security, and the right to produce as a matter of national sovereignty.
The lack of willingness to compromise on both sides and inability to find common ground poses a significant risk to the effectiveness of the negotiations. Without a pathway to reconcile differing priorities, the risk increases of a fragmented agreement or outright failure.
Such rigidity not only delays progress but also erodes the spirit of collaboration necessary to tackle global challenges such as plastic pollution, setting a dangerous precedent for future negotiations on critical environmental issues.
When politics trumps science
Throughout the negotiations, the misuse of scientific evidence became a key issue. Many negotiators selectively cited or distorted scientific findings to support their positions, often ignoring the consensus of the scientific community.
Some countries downplayed the ecological and human health risks of microplastics, despite mounting evidence of their harmful effects.
Arguments were made that recycling alone could solve the plastic pollution crisis, despite scientific studies showing the limitations of current recycling technologies and the need for upstream interventions.
This politicization of science has eroded trust in the negotiation process and has highlighted the challenges of proving the accuracy of evidence. The selective use of science undermined the credibility of the negotiations and weakened the treaty’s potential effectiveness.
Environmental organizations and scientists called out these inaccuracies, emphasizing the need for evidence-based decision-making to address the crisis comprehensively.
The road from Busan
The way forward to reach a legally binding agreement on plastics demands a renewed commitment to negotiations in good faith and constructive engagement from all parties.
Some countries must move beyond frustrating progress and instead contribute constructively to the shared goal of ending plastic pollution. If countries persist with delaying tactics, it may be time to re-evaluate the INC process.