The International Institute for Sustainable Development’s (IISD) Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) and Geneva Environment Network convened an online event to preview the upcoming fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to develop an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. Speakers provided updates on the negotiations, highlighting priorities and key challenges for ongoing efforts to forge convergence.

INC-5 is scheduled to convene from 25 November to 1 December 2024 in Busan, Republic of Korea.

Ecuador’s Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso, Chair, Plastic Pollution INC, said INC-4 took two important decisions: establishing an open-ended legal drafting group; and initiating formal intersessional work to restart textual negotiations, which resulted in a compiled text as the outcome. On the road to INC-5, he called attention to his proposal to work with heads of delegations and experts to identify specific elements that will facilitate the talks towards an effective ILBI with credible rules and effective implementation mechanisms.

Vayas indicated that meetings with heads of delegations, where discussions were held on the basis of a non-paper, provided an opportunity to seek common understanding and identify areas for negotiation in Busan. He said a scenario note with the organization of work will be released in October, stressing the need to formalize formal and informal intersessional work in a “constructive, efficient, and effective way.”

David Azoulay, Director of the Geneva Office and of the Environmental Health Program, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), highlighted production controls as the enablers of all measures to be adopted in the future treaty. Without effective measures and clear obligations to limit the current production rate and expected growth, he said the treaty “will fail to make a dent in our plastic crisis.”

Azoulay called for establishing:

  • Effective measures to globally phase out problematic and toxic chemicals to prevent the “circularity of harm”;
  • A functional, feasible, and innovative funding mechanism to support a just transition to an economy that respects human health and human rights, underscoring that incentives and voluntary approaches alone are insufficient for mobilizing adequate financial resources; and
  • A global playing field, while allowing flexibility to take national circumstances into account.

Bethanie Carney Almroth, Professor at Gothenburg University and Member of the Steering Committee of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, underscored the role of science in understanding the scale of the plastics problem – from resource extraction and production of monomers and polymers, to product manufacturing, transportation, trade, consumption, and waste management. She emphasized the harm plastic pollution and emissions cause to the environment, the climate, human health, human rights, and the economy, and called for focus on the plastics’ entire life cycle.

Among key elements to be include in the treaty, she emphasized:

  • Ambitious, legally binding global and national reduction targets, including incentives to reduce production;
  • Globally mandated regulatory provisions for hazardous chemicals found in plastics;
  • Global and national phase-out of non-essential use of plastic chemicals, polymers, and products;
  • Transparency criteria, with mandatory monitoring and reporting obligations throughout the entire supply chain;
  • Inclusion of micro- and nano-plastics; and
  • A scientific body to be mandated by the treaty, to ensure targets “remain scientifically informed and adaptive over time.”

Robert Hearty, Policy Advisor, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK; INC Focal Point; and Member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, warned that our current policy trajectory is unsustainable. Citing a recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), he said plastic production will increase by almost 70% by 2040, accompanied by a 50% rise in mismanaged plastic waste.

Hearty said a treaty that is effective, implementable, credible, and capable of ending plastic pollution needs to: promote sustainable production and consumption of primary plastic polymers; include upstream, midstream, and downstream measures; and spell out global common rules that address the full life cycle of plastics.

To support the implementation of the treaty’s objectives, he called for a mechanism to mobilize support from the widest possible variety of sources to where it is most needed, which, he said, would be crucial in closing the funding gap, estimated at between USD 350 billion and 500 billion.

Mohammed Khashashneh, Former Secretary-General, Ministry of Environment, Jordan, and Member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, stressed that “we are not against plastic, we are against plastic pollution.” He called for a balanced treaty that covers the entire life cycle and supply chain of plastics, includes strong articles on hazardous chemicals and product design, and reflects the social and economic aspects of extended producer responsibility (EPR).

Albert Magalang, Chief Environmental Management Specialist, Climate Change Service, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines, said it is important to reflect and build on lessons from the intersessional work by using a three-step process to consolidate conference room papers (CRPs):

  • Identification of problematic products by a dedicated committee using science-based criteria;
  • Assessment of control measures and potential exemptions; and
  • A decision by the Conference of the Parties (COP) on the Committee’s recommendations for inclusion in a periodically reviewed annex.

Magalang emphasized the role of product design in combating plastic pollution, calling for treaty provisions to combine design criteria and requirements. Globally harmonized design criteria, he said, should reflect the waste hierarchy, include the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities, and prioritize efficiency, material simplicity, and sustainability. Specific design requirements, he argued, could be developed in the packaging, textiles, and agricultural plastics sectors.

Recognizing differences among countries on whether to adopt voluntary or mandatory measures and on whether these measures should be global or national, Magalang said his government supports upstream measures to reduce primary plastic polymers, to prevent a tripling of plastic waste by 2050, and a hybrid financing mechanism, including a dedicated fund, to support early action and implementation. He drew attention to the Philippines’ EPR law, which he said promotes reusable product adoption and product redesign for reusability.

Allison Lin, Global Vice President of Packaging Sustainability and Chief Circularity Officer, Mars Inc, and Member of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, said the Business Coalition advocates for a legally binding global treaty that addresses the full life cycle of plastics and considers their social and environmental impacts. She said the treaty must include:

  • Mechanisms for a just transition throughout the plastic life cycle, ensuring fairness for workers, communities, and businesses;
  • Processes that ensure transparency and reporting throughout the supply chain;
  • Targets for collection, reuse, and recycling, based on harmonized EPR and deposit return systems;
  • Annexes with common principles and minimum requirements to guide the establishment of EPR systems and provide a clear framework for implementation across countries; and
  • A comprehensive implementation package.

Lin underscored that an ambitious and effective global treaty has the potential to create economic opportunities at global and local levels while delivering social and environmental benefits.

Among outstanding issues to be addressed by INC-5, Tallash Kantai, Team Leader, ENB, highlighted: the scope of plastic pollution and how far up the life cycle it extends; which measures of the future treaty will be mandatory and which will be voluntary; and the approach for eliminating problematic plastics and chemicals of concern.

Kantai said there has been insufficient discussion on key definitions, such as what constitutes plastic pollution, and identified the need for clear definitions around chemicals of concern as the treaty progresses. She said that: the treaty must include measures for global accountability for plastic producers and manufacturers; EPR is crucial and must be implemented globally in a holistic manner; and inter-ministerial collaboration as well as coordination, cooperation, and partnership with other multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), are needed.

Carolyn Deere Birkbeck, Executive Director, Forum on Trade, Environment & SDGs (TESS), formulated key questions for the final stage of negotiations, including:

  • Where do our collective efforts need to focus to address the urgency, scale, and complexity of the plastic pollution challenge?
  • What should we have in the treaty to drive the necessary changes and to catalyze international cooperation?
  • What is needed to ensure that we recognize and address wider socioeconomic considerations, as well as the effectiveness and progress of the treaty over time?

Summarizing the discussions, Deere Birkbeck said without global intervention, plastic pollution, caused by unsustainable production levels, a lack of global rules for products and chemicals, inadequate waste management, and insufficient financial resources, will continue to increase, leading to exacerbated environmental and health impacts. While everyone interacts with plastic products harmful to the environment and human health, she said women, children, and vulnerable communities are affected the most.

Deere Birkbeck emphasized the need for global rules and approaches to tackle the full lifecycle of plastics, given the complex and transboundary nature of plastic pollution. She called for a holistic financing approach that would align public and private funding with the treaty’s goals and leverage various financial sources, including overseas development assistance (ODA) and private sector finance.

Deere Birkbeck said an effective treaty requires integrity in discussions, grounded in scientific evidence, and a recognition of the urgency of the crisis that has real impacts on human health and the environment.

The online discussion was held on 4 October 2024, under the umbrella of the Geneva Beat Plastic Pollution Dialogues – an initiative that aims to create synergies and coordinate actions on rethinking the way we manufacture, use, trade, and manage plastics. The third series of dialogues, which commenced in April 2022, is organized in collaboration with the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) Conventions Secretariat, CIEL, the Global Governance Centre at the Geneva Graduate Institute, IUCN, Norway, Switzerland, TESS, and the University of Geneva.

The Dialogues engage stakeholders in the run-up to various global environmental negotiations, including at the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA), plastic pollution talks, BRS COPs, the UN Ocean Conference (UNOC), the International Conference for Chemicals Management (ICCM) and the Global Framework on Chemicals (GFC), and the World Health Assembly (WHA). The dialogues also address processes in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Human Rights Council (HRC), among others. [Road to Busan: Plastics Treaty Talks: Updates and the View to the Finish Line] [Event Recording] [SDG Knowledge Hub Sources]