A fast track effort underway since 2022 aiming to forge a global Treaty to control plastic pollution by regulating all aspects of the life cycle failed at the fifth, and hoped for last, UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee Meeting (INC-5) held in Busan, South Korea, on 25 November – 1 December 2024 under the aegis of the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP). Much hope had been pinned on this Summit given the seeming ambition and determination displayed at its launch at the fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly which had resolved to develop and internationally binding instrument for the purpose, and the four rounds of negotiations till the previous INC-4 at Ottawa, Canada last year. However, it appears that the closer the negotiations neared their culmination, the clearer the actual details of the potential deal became, highlighting sharp differences between groups of countries. In some sense, these differing perspectives mirrored those at the climate negotiations at COP29 in Baku from where many tired delegations had arrived in Busan, carrying with them those disappointments and problems, but with important divergences.
The negotiations were called off after it became evident that some major, sharp differences could not be bridged. However, many UN officials, and even several delegations that had stood in the way of an agreement on proposals supported by more than 100 countries, seemed optimistic that an agreement could be thrashed out during the next year before the next Summit which has been named INC-5.2, rather than INC-6, so that procedural issues do not come up again, and to convey that it is about unfinished business not fresh talks. One indicator of potential agreement down the road was the adoption of a Chair’s Text which, although currently containing many bracketed phrases requiring to be debated and finalized, would form the basis for the next round of negotiations starting perhaps in May 2025.
THE PROBLEM
Production of plastics has increased exponentially in the past few decades, with nearly 50 percent of all plastic having been produced since the year 2000. Plastic use has shot up with increased use in packaged goods (about 36%, most of which ends up as waste) and the rest in textiles, sports goods, construction, furniture, vehicles and so on. Currently around 400 million tons (Mt) of plastic are produced globally of which around 280Mt end up as waste. Over 46 percent of plastic waste ends up in landfills which, in India and most developing countries, are simply dumps, and around 22 percent just lies around as litter over land and in water bodies, drains and rivers of which a significant proportion ends up in the oceans. As plastics slowly degrade or chemically react with other materials in dumps, they leach out several toxins which contaminate the land and groundwater. Plastic products and wastes also break up into small fragments called micro-plastics, classified as particles less than 5mm size, or even smaller particles which have been found even in the deepest oceans and in the bodies of the tiniest oceanic creatures, meaning that they are entering the food chain of humans and a of variety of animal life.
Around 3% or 11 million tons of plastic waste enter the oceans every year and it is estimated that 100-200 billion tons of plastics have accumulated in the oceans over the years. It is projected that there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050.
The term micro-plastics is also mistakenly used for tiny plastic materials added to a variety of products of daily human consumption. Such plastic additives are more correctly termed micro-beads and are of particular concern. Cosmetics such as face creams, lipsticks and even toothpaste use plastic to micro-beads as exfoliates other functions.
Many measures have been taken over the years to manage plastic waste in response to this mounting problem posed by plastic waste, including through international efforts. About 14% of plastic waste is incinerated, mostly in developed countries using advanced incineration facilities with filters to trap pollutants and high temperature processes which eliminate or reduce the quantity of toxins released. In India, incinerators are the latest trend in solid waste management as ‘waste-to-energy plants,’ being seen as a silver bullet to handle legacy waste accumulating in garbage mountains familiar in all metropolitan centres. However, incinerators in India have low operating temperatures resulting in release of toxins and have poor pollutant trapping systems. In many developing countries, plastic and other waste from dumps is often burned in the open, releasing dangerous toxins and other pollutants.
Plastic pollution is not the only problem posed by plastics. The production and use of plastics is also energy intensive and accounts for about 5% of greenhouse gas emissions, estimated to increase substantially by 2050, amounting to as much as 15-20 percent of the carbon budget at that point of time.
Recycling is clearly a major part of the answer to the problem of plastic waste. While recycling has picked up in the recent past, only about 10% is recycled worldwide. Recycling has also not kept pace with production, showing that the problem also needs to be tackled at the production, that is, by reducing the quantity of plastics produced in the first place. But that is precisely where the Busan talks collapsed.
TALKS BREAKDOWN
The major disagreement at INC-5 was about whether plastic production, especially the production of starting polymers and virgin plastic, should be covered or not under the binding agreement. The major holdouts were, as may be expected, Saudi Arabia which also represented 22 countries in West Asia, most being major oil-producing countries, and Russia. Brazil and India also objected to this, including related reporting provisions, but seemed open to negotiations.
The polymers which are the starting point of all plastic production are made at the stage of oil refining through distillation which separates out different fractions from which long-chain polymers are formed by addition of catalysts. Plastics are also made from cellulose such as from plant fibres, coal and natural gas, but oil refining is by far the main source. The most ambitious proposal had come from Rwanda at INC-4, to reduce plastic production by 40% from a baseline of 2025 levels.
The West Asian countries have obvious interests in preserving their petroleum-based industries and economies, as do Russia and Brazil. Although India is not a major producer of crude oil, it is a major producer and exporter of polymers from oil refineries. Saudi Arabia is well known as a major holdout in the climate talks on the issue of phasing out of fossil fuels with other major oil-producing nations, which was also evident at COP29 Baku where the Azeri President described petroleum as a “god-given resource.” This sticking point is the major issue needing to be resolved going forward.
An interesting observation was made by some observers who noted that if countries making or using plastic products took firm positions against new plastics and insisted on using only recycled plastic, then producing companies or countries would have no market for their virgin plastics!
A strong lobby of petroleum producers and chemical companies with interests in various additives used in the plastics industries is also actively involved in these negotiations, echoing a similar recent trend in the climate negotiations. At Busan too, as in recent climate COPs, over 200 lobbyists from these industries were present. These companies and related industrial associations are actively involved in pushing the idea that the treaty should focus on recycling and efficient waste management rather than on production.
There were other areas of disagreement as well.
Normally, all decisions in such international treaty negotiations are taken by consensus, meaning that even one strong holdout virtually holds a veto, even though COP29 at Baku saw the finance agreement being gaveled through by the Chair over the vocal and vociferous objections by India. At Busan, discussions veered to whether the final decisions on each provision should be taken by a two-thirds majority (120 countries) or by three-fourths (150 countries).
Many “chemicals of concern” such as pesticides, flame retardants etc are added to enhance properties of plastic products. These chemicals add to the toxin load of plastic wastes. Proposals to phase out such chemicals are also part of the discussions for the plastics treaty. While developed countries have or may soon have alternative additives, these may be covered by patents raising costs and non-tariff trade barriers for developing countries.
And finally there is, of course, finance. Who will bear the cost of making the transition away from plastics? How much will developed countries fund? Will such funding form part of existing obligations or form a new basket?
INDIA’S POSITION
India seemed to approach all these issues from a position lifted straight from the climate playbook. India spoke of common but differentiated responsibility, finance and technology transfer, and even architecture of voluntary targets and national circumstances. Some of these catchwords did make their way into the negotiations text. However, it is doubtful if they will all form part of a final agreement. Other international treaties, such as the Montreal Protocol to control ozone, have worked successfully without these climate treaty terms, but have incorporated differentiated timelines and financial assistance, and could be followed for plastics too.
Several observers in fact underlined the need to avoid voluntary actions given the poor record with the Paris Agreement. These experts said it was better to postpone the final decision by one, or perhaps even a few years, in order to get a strong binding agreement later, than push through a less effective but a generally more acceptable agreement as an easy way out now.