By Rémi Parmentier, Director at The Varda Group

The failure of negotiators to finalize a new plastics treaty in Busan, Republic of Korea, in November came as no surprise. As we predicted, “[e]ven if negotiators work around the clock for the duration of the meeting, seven days is simply not enough time to resolve all remaining issues… .” On 1 December, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee’s fifth meeting (INC-5) was adjourned pending a resumed session at a date and venue to be determined.

Why has the process been so difficult? And – given the need for consensus for a global treaty to be adopted – what needs to take place before and during the resumed session of the talks?

The stakes were high in Busan, not only because of a 2024 deadline set in 2022 by the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA), but more importantly because we are losing the race against plastic proliferation. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastics Pollution by 2040, published in October, warned that in the absence of ambitious production reduction policies, annual plastic production will increase from 435 million tons in 2020 to 736 million tons in 2040. So, even with anticipated improvements in plastic waste management, business-as-usual policies would result in 300 million tons of additional plastic discharged into rivers, lakes, and the ocean. And this does not even take into account the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions originating from plastic production, which would amount to 2.8 gigatonnes, or 5% of global emissions, in 2040. Only some 6% of plastics are recycled, and this is expected to remain unchanged in 2040. 

Dialogue of the deaf

Disagreements continued to flare in Busan between the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) and the so-called like-minded group led by Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Russian Federation. Made up of 67 countries and co-chaired by Rwanda and Norway, the HAC seeks a treaty encompassing the need to reduce plastic production at the source, while the like-minded group advocates for a treaty restricted to waste management alone.

Instead of negotiating in earnest, delegations in Busan spent the week reiterating their respective positions, even during the so-called informals, restricted only to government representatives, which formed the majority of the week of talks – to the dismay of observers who were left outside. Even when the co-facilitators of the informal groups asked delegates to focus their interventions on their red lines in an effort to resolve the deadlock, most delegates continued to reiterate positions already well known to all.

A few hours before the closing plenary session, which agreed to adjourn the meeting, the Chair, Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso of Ecuador, tabled a Chair’s text to summarize where the negotiations had gotten so far. This was his fourth attempt since September 2024 to move the negotiations forward in this way. At 22 pages, the document showed some “progress,” having shrunk from the 73-page compilation draft text produced at the Ottawa session seven months earlier. But the like-minded group held firm, insisting the lengthy Ottawa text remain a basis for negotiations when they recommence in 2025.

Even if that had not been the case, it is difficult to see how the Chair’s text would have led to a breakthrough. It does not resolve any of the “make it or break it” issues which are considered treaty cornerstones by some and red lines by others. Even something as fundamental as the scope of the treaty was omitted, and the entire text was bracketed in line with the principle that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

Exemplifying the growing gap between the HAC and the like-minded group, during the final plenary, the Head of Mexico’s delegation Camila Zepeda read a long list of 95 countries (including the EU and its members) demanding a clear and legally binding obligation to phase out the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern. In response, on behalf of the like-minded group, a representative from Kuwait argued that their opposing views represented “more than 50% of humankind.”

A few hours before the closing plenary, representatives of the HAC held a press conference to reiterate their long-held position in front of a packed room, largely filled by advocates from environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in need of reassurance after having been left out of the talks most of the week. But unless the modalities of the talks change at the next session, it is hard to imagine a change in the dynamics observed in Busan.

Negotiating modalities

The current negotiating method has clearly reached its limits. The process is at a point where the main protagonists of the two opposing negotiating groups are talking to themselves and to their respective constituencies, not to the other side. Something different is needed, and the following ideas could be considered.

Ministerial participation:  During the closing plenary, Canada and the EU called for ministers to be invited to the next session. Civil servants are well trained to defend the position of their countries, but – unlike ministers – they generally lack the flexibility to move beyond internally established positions and dogma to negotiate compromises.

Ministerial Chair: If the resumed session takes place at ministerial level, Ambassador Vayas Valdivieso might wish to consider ceding the presidency to a current or former minister, so that the talks can be facilitated at ministers’ peer level. 

Friends of the Chair: In the meantime, Ambassador Vayas Valdivieso could act as facilitator of a Friends of the Chair group to assist the minister chairing the ministerial segment.

Negotiation format: The INC Chair and Secretariat would be well advised to adopt the so-called “Vienna setting” (or a similar format), used in 1999 and 2000 to resolve the deadlock of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Biosafety Protocol negotiations, and later during the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa. The deadlock experienced in 1999 in Cartagena, Colombia, during the biosafety negotiations was very similar to what transpired in Busan. The Cartagena Protocol (which was adopted in Montreal in January 2000) would not have been possible if negotiations had continued in a conventional setting.

The Vienna setting represented a radical change in the format of talks, with only one or two spokespersons per negotiating group and the Chair facing each other. They were seated around a large round table, while all other delegates and observers were seated behind in the room but not taking part in the discussion. (The negotiating groups were getting together with their respective spokesperson(s) during breaks.) At the same time, the Chair of the Biosafety negotiations, Minister Juan Mayr from Colombia, worked around the clock in private one-to-one consultations with every single Head of Delegation.

The advantage of such an approach was that no more than ten spokespersons were seated around the table with the Chair, which triggered a more conducive environment. They looked each other in the eye as they spoke and felt more compelled to achieve a result because they were on the spot. Meanwhile the presence of the rest of the delegations – as well as observers and the media – in the room supported transparency to build trust.

If all else fails: If the resumed session fails to reach a consensus agreement, the HAC should be prepared to announce a plurilateral agreement of the 95 countries named by Mexico at the final plenary in Busan, to start phasing out with no further delay the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern and set improved design and reuse targets. Given the transboundary nature of plastic pollution, and the need to continue to work toward a multilateral agreement, the plurilateral agreement could include liability and trade provisions affecting non-parties as an incentive for them to join.

Opt-in option: Another path for the multilateral or plurilateral options could be one or more opt-in provisions whereby the countries not yet ready to accept certain clauses would be committed to endeavor joining them in future and to report on their progress at regular intervals (for example, every three to five years).

Where there is a will…

At the end of the closing plenary, Ambassador Vayas Valdivieso recalled the words of the great Spanish poet Antonio Machado, Caminante, no hay camino, se hace camino al andar: Traveler, there is no road; you make your own path as you walk.

When the November meeting adjourned, numerous commentators and press reports emphasized the fact that the like-minded group was essentially formed by countries whose economies were largely dependent on the production and export of oil – the raw material of plastics.

While true, this is not the end of the story because the HAC also includes countries whose economies remain reliant on oil production and exports – Canada and Mexico, for example. Reducing plastic production is a question of political will. And where there is a will, there is a way – a way to eliminate polluting products and practices.

* * *

Rémi Parmentier has attended the last three INC sessions, including the first session of INC-5 in Busan, with support from PR3, the Global Alliance to Advance Reuse, and the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI).