It was supposed to be the final round of UN negotiations for a global plastics treaty. In the end, INC-5 wound up without an agreement – though not without progress.

The meeting was held in Busan, South Korea from 25 Nov to 1 Dec 2024, with almost 4,000 people in attendance. The Chair, Luis Vayas Valvidieso, was under intense pressure to seal a deal. He spent the week imploring countries to find common ground and “get it done”, even agreeing to closed door negotiations for almost three days – a flagrant disregard for transparency that left scientists, civil society groups and rights-holders most impacted by plastic pollution out in the cold.

But still a deal was not to be. The talks only highlighted the deep divisions among countries over three key issues: limiting plastic production (Article 6), regulating toxic chemicals (Article 3), and funding (Article 11).

A minority of so-called petrostates – major fossil fuel exporters – continued to block any attempts to cap or reduce plastic production, arguing this was irrelevant to the issue of pollution. They rejected scientific evidence of the harms of petrochemicals and claimed plastic was essential to progress, climate goals and the “right to development“.

However the majority of countries, covering both the Global South and Global North, were determined to include binding obligations to reduce plastic production, the phaseout of harmful plastic products and toxic chemicals, and a dedicated fund to support treaty implementation. They pointed to the UNEA resolution to take a full life cycle approach to plastic pollution and recalled the thousands of studies linking plastic chemicals with serious health issues.

With Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, the inspirational delegate from Panama.

Stand up for ambition

The emergence of this coalition of 100+ countries, led by Panama, Rwanda, Mexico and Fiji and backed by the EU, Switzerland, UK and Australia, was the high point of the talks. Appearing midweek, they swiftly gained the upper hand, using strong language – “if you’re not contributing constructively… then please get out” – that completely changed the energy and dynamics in the room.

At the closing plenary session, Juliet Kabera, the Director General of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority, received a thunderous standing ovation for her statement vowing to “stand up for ambition”.

For most observers, the failure to reach an agreement at INC-5 was a victory for courage over compromise. Instead of succumbing to the relentless petrostate bullying and watering down the text, progressive countries stood firm and opted for no treaty over a weak treaty. This leaves the door to real change very firmly open.

A failure of process

Indeed, the real failure at INC-5 was the process itself. Negotiations have gone much the same way over the last three rounds of talks: a text is proposed by the Chair with instructions to find an agreement or consensus. Countries then proceed to share their views, with the petrostates systematically vetoing whole articles and obfuscating every line with qualifications, additions and deletions. This results in an unintelligible and unusable document that has to be “streamlined” at the next round, before the process begins all over again.

Instead of switching up this failing formula at INC-5, the Chair simply increased the speed of the loop, bringing out two new streamlined proposals, one on Friday and one on Sunday, as each previous version was mangled within hours.

As Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director of GAIA, put it, “we cannot keep doing things the same way and expect different results – that is the definition of insanity. The ambitious majority needs to do whatever it takes to get these negotiations back on track and reclaim the spirit of multilateralism.” That might involve insisting on their right to vote on a text, instead of trying to find consensus, or even taking the whole process outside of the UN.

Broader implications

The divisions exposed in Busan have clear parallels with the challenges faced in the climate negotiations, where petrostates have been stalling progress for decades. Their orchestrated effort to obstruct and derail all multilateral environmental agreements needs to be recognised for what it is and seriously addressed by the UN. There are precedents for this, such as the conflict of interest policy used in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Failure to act decisively on plastic production will hinder broader environmental goals, including climate targets, as we know this sector alone could exceed the global carbon budget by 2060. Failure to act quickly will also intensify the looming public health crisis, as petrochemicals bioaccumulate and our exposure is growing every day.

A treaty in 2025?
INC-5 ended with negotiators agreeing to reconvene their session in 2025 – this will be known as INC-5.2, rather than INC-6, as it is a continuation of the same meeting. The date and venue is likely to be announced in January, and it is expected to take place within the first half of the year. This gives the new coalition of ambitious countries a few precious months to demonstrate strong leadership, intensify diplomacy and address the challenges of the process and vested interests to ensure we get a treaty that can truly end plastic pollution.

Trash Hero at the treaty talks
As a UNEP-accredited observer, Trash Hero is able to attend all INC meetings. We join our colleagues in the large civil society delegation that advocates for strong and just measures in the treaty and support the communications and advocacy work done in exhibition booths and side events around the meeting venue.

Forget COP 29, the plastics treaty is the most important environmental agreement in the world right now.

Is there anyone left – except the oil industry – who doesn’t roll their eyes at the mention of the climate COP? These conferences have become synonymous with blatant conflicts of interest, empty “blah, blah, blah” posturing of world leaders, and a frustrating inability to deliver real progress.

But next week in Busan, South Korea, there’s a glimmer of hope. UN member states are convening at INC-5, at what is expected to be the final round of negotiations for a global treaty to end plastic pollution. This is the chance for governments to show they are serious about tackling the harms of plastic overproduction and consumption. And a strong agreement, capable of addressing the interlinked crises of wildlife loss, chemical pollution and climate breakdown, could set in motion the fossil fuel phase-out that has eluded the climate convention for three decades.

The hidden driver of climate change
Plastic is not only a source of pollution choking oceans and poisoning ecosystems but also an important and overlooked driver of climate change. 99 percent of plastic is made from fossil fuels and, as production skyrockets, it’s become the world’s fastest-growing source of industrial greenhouse gases, pumping out more than double the emissions of the aviation industry.

Plastic also contains a staggering 16,000 chemicals. Less than 1 percent of these are regulated, most are untested, and around 4,000 are known hazards to human health. These are substances that bioaccumulate and are linked to cancers, respiratory and neurological problems and hormone disruption. Microplastics carrying these toxins permeate our air, water, soil, and even our bodies.

The plastic crisis impacts us all, but it’s felt hardest in poor communities, often in the Global South, where plastics are produced, burned, or dumped.

We can do better than the Paris Agreement
Since November 2022, countries have been going back and forth on what the plastics treaty should include, how to enforce it, and who will fund it. The good news is that the measures needed for meaningful change are all still on the table. Just as importantly, so are provisions for monitoring, compliance and transparency. These key elements were missing in the Paris Agreement: its voluntary approach has allowed emissions to climb year after year.

At INC-5 then, negotiators face a crucial question: will they learn from Paris or repeat its mistakes?

How to build an effective treaty

Binding commitments
Deep, rapid cuts in plastic production are required to avoid breaching the 1.5°C warming limit. Analysis shows a minimum reduction of 12% to 17% per year, starting now, will be necessary. This needs measurable targets, deadlines and penalties, not hollow pledges.

Global implementation
Treaty measures must apply universally, with no exemptions under “special national circumstances” – the excuse countries used in the Paris Agreement to sidestep action.

The principle they invoked – of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR) – was originally intended to recognise the differing roles of countries in causing environmental crises and their corresponding financial needs and obligations. It was never meant to allow countries to choose whether or not to pollute.

Issues like harmful chemicals in plastic are impossible to address if countries claim CBDR. Without transparency and strict regulation across the board, we end up with piecemeal bans that leave gaps in protecting public health.

Sufficient and predictable funding
Another critical lesson from the climate COPs is the need for a dedicated global fund to support developing countries and those hit hardest by plastic pollution. Here is where the principle of CBDR should be applied. Wealthier countries and the plastic industry itself must provide this funding, with investments in redesign, repair, and reuse – not just waste management.

Civil society and rights-holders
Those directly impacted by the plastic life cycle, from waste pickers to fenceline communities and Indigenous Peoples, must be involved in shaping the treaty and their needs reflected in the final text.

But there is a very real danger of their voices being drowned out. The UN still recognises business and industry reps as “stakeholders” in environmental fora. Like at the climate convention, they are officially invited to the talks, often as part of government delegations. This conflict of interest is a major hurdle for good faith negotiators in Busan.

The fight against Big Oil
More than 60 countries have already called for the treaty to include binding phasedown targets for fossil fuels, enforced through global caps on plastic and petrochemical production. Many more support a treaty grounded in environmental and climate justice, public health and human rights.

On the other side, a vocal minority of oil-producing countries insist that solving plastic pollution is just a matter of improving recycling and waste management. They downplay the harms of plastic as “unproven” and argue the benefits to society outweigh the risks.

It’s a bold position that ignores the UN Environment Assembly’s resolution that the treaty address the full life cycle of plastic – from fossil fuel extraction to disposal. It also flies in the face of tens of thousands of studies confirming plastic’s devastating impacts on health, ecosystems, and the climate.

Meanwhile, these same countries plan to triple plastic production over the next 30 years, investing in petrochemical plants and promoting flawed and dirty technologies like chemical recycling. At COP28, their promise to transition away from fossil fuels was carefully applied only to “energy systems” – not plastics.

If left unchecked, plastic production alone could exceed the global carbon budget by 2060, according to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

UN member states must now choose whether to stop this happening.

The world is watching
Can negotiators deliver an effective treaty in just one week, with industry lobbyists hovering and a “need for consensus” pressuring them to water down the text rather than risk a vote?

Yes – but only if the world is watching. Governments must feel the pressure to support an ambitious, effective treaty that serves science and public interest, not corporate agendas.

International agreements can and should be more than a stage for world leaders to claim progress without commitments. We deserve treaties that are fit for purpose.

So, all eyes on Busan: if negotiators get it right, the plastics treaty could become the world’s most impactful environmental agreement, offering a path to cap fossil fuel production, restore planetary health and build a fairer, safer and more sustainable future for all.

Seema Prabhu is programmes director at Trash Hero. Trash Hero World attends the plastics treaty talks as a UNEP civil society observer.