What’s Next for the Global Plastic Treaty: A Complex Road Ahead
The next round of negotiations, INC-5.2, will be a crucial opportunity to build on the progress made in Busan
The recent negotiation round for the Global Plastic Treaty in Busan marked both progress and lingering challenges. Despite high hopes, delegates from 175 nations left the table without a consensus on key areas, emphasising the difficulty of creating a legally binding international instrument to address plastic pollution.
As I wrote in my preview to Busan back in October, “This treaty is something that many environmental enthusiasts, including myself, have awaited anxiously and excitedly. I believe it will be instrumental — a key to our long fight against plastic pollution. It will accelerate the transition to sustainable production and consumption, propelling progress forward.”
The meeting in Busan was to be the fifth and final (INC-5), heralded in advance as when “175 nations agree to develop a legally binding agreement on plastic pollution by 2024”.
Rather than fifth and final, however, the INC-5 text remained heavily bracketed, signalling unresolved disagreements on crucial issues, such as product bans, supply chain regulations, and financial support for developing nations. While it was disappointing not to see an agreement reached, this outcome was not entirely unexpected given the complexity of the issues at hand.
At a glance, it might seem like a setback, but if history has taught us anything, it is that major global agreements do not happen overnight. Instead, they are the result of long, difficult negotiations, filled with compromise, incremental progress, and perseverance. Busan is not the end of the road — it is just one stop in a long journey toward tackling the global plastic crisis.
The Sticking Points: What We Could Not Agree On
One of the biggest challenges in Busan was what we expected: the disagreement over how far the treaty should go in regulating plastics. While everyone acknowledges the need for action, countries remain divided over the specifics of what that action should look like. Here are some of the key areas of contention that I observed in the latest draft of the Chair’s Text, published on the first of December:
1. Prohibit vs Reduce
A fundamental debate emerged over whether the treaty should prohibit certain plastic products outright or merely aim to reduce them. The wording matters because it shapes the level of ambition the treaty demands:
“Each Party shall take [appropriate measures] to [prohibit [or reduce] the manufacture, export, or import] of [single-use or short-lived] plastic products [that are proven to pose a risk to the environment or human health].”
— Chair’s Text, pg.4
Some countries, particularly those with strong environmental commitments, pushed for global bans on plastics that are hazardous, likely to leak into the environment, or incapable of being reused or recycled. Others argued for a more flexible approach that allows countries to phase down problematic plastics based on their national circumstances and capacities.
This tension is understandable. For countries heavily reliant on plastic production or struggling to develop alternative materials, an outright prohibition could cause significant economic disruption. On the other hand, without strong global rules, the environmental damage caused by mismanaged plastics will only worsen.
2. Regulating Plastic Supply and Production
Article 6 of the draft treaty raises another contentious issue: should the treaty include global targets to reduce the production of plastics, particularly virgin polymers? Some countries advocate for ambitious supply-side targets, arguing that reducing production is key to tackling plastic pollution at its source. Others, however, are reluctant to commit to such measures, fearing economic losses and job impacts in plastic-producing industries.
The debate boils down to a simple yet hard-to-answer question: How do we balance environmental goals with economic realities? For nations with growing populations and developing economies, plastics remain an essential material. Phasing down production without adequate alternatives could have unintended consequences, such as disrupting essential industries or shifting environmental burdens elsewhere.
3. Financing the Transition
Perhaps the thorniest issue of all is the question of who pays for the transition to better plastic management systems. Article 11 of the draft treaty addresses this by proposing the establishment of a dedicated financial mechanism:
“Each [developed country] Party [shall] [undertakes to] [shall contribute funds and resources for the dedicated financial mechanism] provide, [within its capabilities,] resources [to developing country Parties] for activities intended to achieve the objectives of this [Convention] [instrument], taking into account national policies, priorities, plans, and programmes.”
— Chair’s Text, pg.12
Developing nations argue that they need financial and technical support to implement the treaty’s measures. After all, many of these countries bear the brunt of plastic pollution, even though they contribute far less to its production. Meanwhile, wealthier nations are hesitant to commit to large-scale funding without clear accountability mechanisms.
The debate reflects broader inequalities in global environmental governance. Developing nations rightfully demand fairness: they should not be expected to tackle a problem largely created by wealthier, high-producing countries without adequate resources. But reaching consensus on financial commitments is always difficult in multilateral negotiations.
Why Consensus Is So Hard to Reach
The difficulty in achieving consensus stems from the sheer complexity of plastic pollution and its intersection with economic, social, and environmental issues. Unlike climate change, which focuses on greenhouse gas emissions, plastic pollution spans the entire lifecycle of plastics: from extraction, production, and use to disposal, trade, and leakage into the environment. It affects countries in vastly different ways, which is why their priorities often clash:
- Wealthier countries are pushing for ambitious global controls on production, trade, and single-use plastics.
- Developing nations emphasise the need for flexibility, financial support, and technical assistance to manage plastic waste more effectively.
- Plastic-producing nations and industries resist measures that could disrupt their economies, especially without viable alternatives.
The most persistent issue remains the cap on plastic production. A proposal led by Panama, with the backing of over 100 countries, seeks to establish a global target for reducing plastic production. However, this proposal faces strong opposition from the “like-minded” bloc of petrochemical producers, led by Saudi Arabia and including Russia, Iran, and other Arab states, who argue against imposing production limits.
“There was never any consensus. There are a couple of articles that somehow seem to make it (into the document) despite our continued insistence that they are not within the scope.” — said Saudi Arabian delegate Abdulrahman Al Gwaiz
While this division seem irreconcilable, I think there is still hope for convergence. Plastic production has been widely recognised as a significant driver of climate change. Without decisive action, the growth in plastic production could derail global climate goals. Scientists estimate that to keep global warming within 1.5 degrees Celsius, a 75% reduction in plastic production is required by 2040. Without such cuts, plastic production alone could consume up to 31% of the world’s remaining carbon budget to stay under this critical threshold.
A strong global plastic treaty could complement the relatively robust Paris Agreement, creating pressure for the minority bloc of petrochemical-producing nations to align with the majority. Such a unified approach would not only limit plastic pollution but also boost efforts to combat climate change, reinforcing the interdependence of environmental and climate strategies. While consensus may remain difficult for now, the urgency of the issue and the mounting evidence of its global impact may eventually bridge the divide.
The Good News: What Has Been Agreed
Despite the disagreements, the Busan negotiations did see progress in several key areas:
- Plastic Product Design: Countries agreed on the need to improve plastic product design to support circular economy approaches. This includes fostering innovation, developing sustainable alternatives, and ensuring products are easier to reuse or recycle.
“Each Party shall, taking into account its national circumstances and capabilities, take appropriate measures to: (a) improve plastic product design, in pursuit of circular economy approaches, (b) foster research, innovation, development and use of sustainable and safer alternatives and nonplastic substitutes
— Chair’s Text, pg.8
- Plastic Waste Management and Existing Pollution: There is broad consensus on improving waste management systems, reducing plastic leaks into the environment, and addressing existing plastic pollution (Articles 7–9).
- Just Transition: It is encouraging to see that negotiators have agreed and included article 10 to explicitly addressing just transition. A dedicated article will allows nations to prioritise equity and inclusion throughout the treaty’s implementation.
“Each Party should take into account the situation of and engage workers in the formal and informal sectors, including workers in the plastic industry, waste pickers, artisanal and small-scale fishers, small and medium enterprises, as well as communities and groups disproportionately affected by such transition across the full life cycle of plastics, including Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women and children.”
— Chair’s Text, pg.11
These agreements matter because they lay a foundation for future progress. Even if the treaty is not finalised yet, these areas of consensus reflect a growing global commitment to tackling plastic pollution, and it is important.
History Repeats Itself: Lessons from Climate Agreements
While the stalemate in Busan may feel frustrating, it is worth reflecting on the history of climate negotiations to understand that global agreements take time. The journey toward the Paris Agreement, for example, spanned decades. It began with the adoption of the UNFCCC in 1992, which laid the foundation for international climate action. The Kyoto Protocol (1997) represented a significant milestone but faced challenges due to the lack of participation from major economies like the United States and the limited inclusion of developing nations.
It was not until the Paris Agreement (2015) that the world reached a comprehensive and inclusive framework. Even then, the agreement’s targets were aspirational, and its success depended on countries submitting progressively ambitious national commitments over time.
But important to note also, there is a notable difference in the pace of negotiations. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for Climate Change, which led to the UNFCCC, concluded within 15 months. By contrast, the INC for Plastic Pollution has struggled to reach consensus even after 24 months. This delay is concerning, as pollution continues to accumulate in our oceans, and public trust in the process risks further erosion.
The delay can be seen as a double-edged sword. On one hand, taking time could result in a robust treaty with meaningful obligations rather than a weak agreement that fails to address the crisis effectively. On the other hand, the difficulty in reaching initial consensus may signal even greater challenges for future Conferences of the Parties (COP) on plastic pollution.
Nonetheless, the key lesson here is that multilateral agreements evolve gradually, often through incremental progress and iterative negotiations. It is difficult and it is slow, but it is not impossible.
Why There Is Still Reason for Optimism
Despite the challenges, I am remain hopeful about the Global Plastic Treaty’s ability to drive meaningful change for the following reasons:
- Growing Global Momentum: More countries than ever are standing firm on the need to address plastic pollution at its core. There is broad recognition that this is not just a waste issue — it’s an environmental, economic, and social crisis that demands urgent action. This signals a growing commitment to systemic change rather than temporary fixes.
- Historical Precedent: The climate negotiations teach us that global agreements take time. It took decades to move from the UNFCCC to the Paris Agreement. The process was slow, but it worked. The same patience and perseverance will be needed to finalise the Global Plastic Treaty.
- Incremental Progress: The areas of agreement reached in Busan — on product design, waste management, and just transition — show that progress is happening. These agreements can serve as stepping stones toward more ambitious measures in the future.
- Ceaseless Pressure: Public awareness of plastic pollution is growing, and so is the pressure on governments to act. From scientific evidence to grassroots campaigns, the demand for a plastic-free future is stronger than ever. Nations cannot afford to ignore it.
The Road Ahead: INC-5.2 and Beyond
The next round of negotiations, INC-5.2, will be a crucial opportunity to build on the progress made in Busan and tackle the unresolved issues head-on. Countries will need to show greater willingness to compromise while keeping their eyes on the bigger picture: a world free from plastic pollution.
Yes, the road ahead is long, and yes, the negotiations will continue to be difficult. But if history has shown us anything, it is that persistence pays off. Just as the world eventually united to combat climate change, it can come together to reverse plastic pollution. We are already on the path, and while it will take time, the destination —a cleaner, more sustainable future— is worth every step.