Everything you need to know about the latest round of Global Plastics Treaty negotiations

In a rush? Click here to read a short summary of this report

Introduction

The fourth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) meeting marked another milestone toward a Global Plastics Treaty. While some progress was made on key issues, significant disagreements remain, and the path to a robust, legally binding treaty is still uncertain.

Key Takeaways

• Draft treaty still lacks clarity and focus: The “zero draft” ballooned to over 80 pages, incorporating every country’s input without clear priorities, targets, or finalized annexes. Critics warn it’s becoming too unwieldy to be actionable.
• Progress on bans and EPR, but gaps remain: Proposals to phase out problematic plastics and hazardous chemicals gained traction. Encouragingly, major producers expressed support for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), though formal discussions on implementation remain pending.
• Divisions over treaty format and ambition: A rift persists between countries favouring a binding global agreement and those pushing for a voluntary, “Paris-style” model. Some low-ambition states and petrochemical interests continue to resist strong measures.
• Stakeholder conflicts underscore complexity: From petrochemical lobbyists to the informal sector, diverse interests are shaping the debate—highlighting the challenge of achieving consensus without diluting ambition.
• Reuse and bioplastics underdeveloped: Despite their potential, strategies for reuse models and scaling biodegradable alternatives saw minimal progress. Financing and infrastructure gaps remain unresolved.

Conclusion

INC-4 revealed both momentum and roadblocks on the path to a global plastics treaty. While some countries are stepping up, entrenched opposition and a sprawling draft threaten to stall progress.

Following the INC-4 negotiations, Victoria Hattersley speaks to some of those who were present to find out what has been achieved so far towards a Global Treaty and what the next steps might be.

INC-4 is now over, but whether or not it was a ‘success’ is not a question that can be answered clearly. There was progress in some areas, perhaps even a certain amount of clarification, but overall there is still much left undecided before INC-5, scheduled to take place in Busan from 25 November – 1 December 2024.

The ‘zero draft’ of the treaty following INC-3 had already met with some criticism, stemming mainly from its lack of transparency. Indeed, according to Yoni Shiran, Plastics Lead at SYSTEMIQ Ltd (whose ‘Towards Ending Plastic Pollution by 2040’ report sets out what it believes an ambitious treaty would look like). “The draft is now so long it is almost illegible. It ballooned from being a 15-20-page document to an 80-plus page document in which basically any position that any government suggested was included.

“Another weakness is it doesn’t have very concrete targets and the annexes are mostly placeholders. So it will say, for example, we will phase out chemicals of concern and to see the list of these refer to the annex, but that annex is an empty placeholder. There is still so much to decide before we get to Busan.”

The revised draft also lacked clarity on the proposal for a plastic pollution fee. During INC-4, Ghana proposed a fee to incentivize the development and adoption of alternatives, but this faced opposition from petrochemical interest groups and no clear resolution was reached.

On the other hand, going into Ottawa, it was positive that some intersessional work had been done at country-level towards what a final treaty might look like. The UK and Switzerland, for example, submitted proposals on how to implement global bans on high-risk and avoidable plastics; while Norway posited the banning of hazardous chemicals and phasing out of other chemicals of concern. Finally, new chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso, Ecuadorian ambassador to the UK, has been very clear about his intentions to find a solution.

Credit: UNEP

Diverse interest groups - Building stakeholder alignment

All parties within the process generally agree that plastic waste must be addressed. But the number of interest groups involved has inevitably caused friction along the way as to what this means (perhaps most notably, should we be looking to phase out fossil-based plastics entirely?).

There are also states advocating for a voluntary, Paris-style agreement which Ambrogio Miserocchi – Policy Manager Business Coalition for a Global Plastic Treaty, says “is concerning to see as we know that fragmentation of national policies will lead to a business-as-usual scenario and will not create the level playing field needed by businesses to scale solutions and spark action worldwide.”

To give some idea of the diversity of interest groups and how they are influencing proceedings so far, here are just a few examples:

• Petrochemical interests: According to the WWF, which sent regular updates during the process, banning high-risk plastic products and harmful chemicals ‘proved contentious for a small group of low-ambition states with deep petrochemical interests (who have now rebranded themselves as the ‘Like-Minded Countries’) and their corporate backers.’ Broadly speaking, these are the GCC countries including Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Iran and Iraq. Elements of the petrochemicals industry itself are also campaigning against any kind of plastic production cap. (ExxonMobil, for example, is increasing plastic production.)
• Business Coalition for a Plastics Treaty: We will of course be discussing their viewpoint throughout this report, but the group, comprising 200-plus members, has been highly vocal and coherent about what their priorities are and why. The three main goals for this group are: Reduction of plastic production and use through a circular economy approach; Circulation of all plastic items that cannot be eliminated; and Prevention and remediation of remaining hard-to-abate micro- and macro-plastic leakage.
• Informal sector: We hear that this group, largely from the global South, was heavily represented at INC-4. The main concern among these (which we will go into further down) is ensuring a ‘just transition’ that takes into account economic discrepancies so the burden for addressing plastic waste is shared equally, and how much investment will be needed to meet targets – concerns which Yoni Shiran remarked ‘everybody has empathy for’.
• The scientific angle: According to Yoni, a ‘pretty strong stance’ has been registered by the scientific contingent against chemical recycling, for example – although it is not believed that the treaty will get to that kind of detail when there are so many wider questions still to be addressed. Alongside this, many scientists still believe more emphasis should also be put on the health implications for the Treaty negotiations. The International Science Council has established an Expert Group on plastics pollution to help ensure that all policies decided upon are evidence-based.

Alongside the above, there is also unfortunately, as we heard from Eirik Lindebjerg, Global Plastic Policy Lead at WWF who was also present in Ottawa, “a small group of countries – maybe less than 10 – that, as I understand it so far, wouldn’t want a treaty at all in terms of legal global obligations. This is the aspect causing growing frustration, especially when other countries are becoming more and more open to finding consensus.”

On the other hand, there are countries that may previously have been skeptical about some of the broader ambitions of the treaty – Brazil, the US and China, for example – which Yoni Shiran says are “increasing their ambitions and I think exceeding people’s expectations relative to previous INCs.”

A clear question arises from all this: Is it better to exclude low-ambition countries to achieve a more ambitious treaty, rather than settle for an imperfect solution with all nations on-board?

We put this question to Eirik, who responded: “Broadly, yes: While it’s important to have the majority of the global market involved (it has little added value if just three countries agree to a treaty, right?), it’s best if it’s developed by those who have a genuine interest in making this work. Ultimately, I think we’ll actually get a simpler, leaner solution that way that provides clarity for businesses rather than an imperfect compromise that becomes too complex to enforce globally.”

Credit: UNEP

Progress on key metrics

Of the many factors to consider when building a legally binding treaty of this magnitude, there are a few key metrics that, as a packaging-focused organization, we are particularly interested in following. Here we give a summary of what these are and how our interviewees viewed the progress made in each during the INC-4 negotiations.

• Reducing or eliminating problematic plastics (flexibles, single-use sachets, plastic bags, etc.): This was perhaps the area in which most progress was made. The meeting saw further discussion on rules to prohibit problematic and avoidable plastic products, but did leave open whether the treaty would include measures to phase out production and consumption of fossil-based plastics.

According to Yoni Shiran, “A few versions of what this might look like were put on the table by countries such as the UK, Thailand and Switzerland. The UK proposal, which I think is gaining some traction, is to say we almost need two lists: one with a shorter global list of problematic plastics we can all agree need to be phased out; the second, a more complex country-by-country list with different options where countries can self-select what they need to do based on their individual situations.”

“We saw new proposals on both chemicals of concern as well as problematic and avoidable plastic products, which are some of the most controversial topics in the negotiations,” said Ambrogio Miserocchi. “It is now critical to advance discussions during inter-sessional work in order to create a common understanding of the issues.”

• Establishing mandatory extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes: This was another area that saw considerable advancements at the discussions. Significantly, according to Yoni, for perhaps the first time plastic producing companies – such as Dow, whose CEO was present at the negotiations – are openly saying they support EPR. “We would not have heard those kinds of statements from companies like Dow at CEO level three years ago, so I definitely think we are getting consensus here,” he remarked.

But while the general consensus seems to be that EPR is a vital mechanism to finance the transitions needed, Ambrogio did point out that “Unfortunately, there was no mandate to continue discussion in EPR through formal intersessional work. The definitions, principles, and minimum requirements of EPR will require further work to create a common understanding by the different parties.”

• Recycling and waste management infrastructure: Again, some headway was made but there are reservations. According to Ambrogio: “While there is general alignment that recycling and waste management infrastructure will play a key role in addressing plastic pollution, the interlinkage with more upstream provisions like product design, chemicals and polymers of concern, as well as problematic and avoidable plastic products, requires more attention. Also, environmentally sound collection, sorting, preparation for reuse, and recycling of plastic items is best achieved as part of a holistic waste management system and not in isolation from other materials and waste streams. It is worth noting that, in line with the waste management hierarchy, policy efforts should prioritize waste prevention and minimization.

Yoni, meanwhile, noted that the financing mechanisms to achieve all this are still unclear – particularly for the Global South, where far more investment is needed. For Eirik, “On waste management, it’s important that the treaty complements and does not overlap too much with treaties like the Basel Convention.”

• Establishment of reuse models and infrastructure: The WWF report ‘Unpackaging Reuse in the UN Plastics Treaty’ highlighted the most promising product groups for reuse and how this can be integrated into the treaty. Unfortunately, there was general agreement among those we spoke to that the conversation on how to develop the right infrastructure for reuse/refill to flourish did not advance greatly at INC-4. “Our research and modelling suggests you cannot solve this without proper upstream reuse interventions and I didn’t see enough focus on that from member states,” said Yoni Shiran.

The Business Coalition says it will be crucial to focus on reuse and refill models to curb plastic pollution and that the current text contains the right elements to continue the discussion. “However, it needs to be recognized that reuse is not just a product design issue, but design requirements must be complemented with additional regulatory support, as well as economic and financial incentives and the integration of reuse within EPR schemes.”

• Development of biobased/biodegradable plastics at scale: In short, this topic did not seem to be addressed in any great detail. One of the biggest questions here, according to Yoni, would be where the financing will come from to develop feasible biobased alternatives to fossil-based plastics – who will pay the bill and what that money will be used for. Until these are addressed there is little possibility of substantial progress in this area.

Credit: UNEP

The next steps towards a Global Treaty

Looking ahead to INC-5 in Busan, the urgency is growing to come up with a workable, legally binding solution. Since these meetings only last a few days, intersessional work is going to be crucial. There are many questions still to be answered, some of which are:

• How will the treaty be structured? In essence, will this be a ‘top-down’ (legally binding global rules) or a ‘bottom-up’ (voluntary and based on national plans) agreement? There doesn’t seem to be any more clarity on this point now than before INC-4 began, although most agree that this one of the questions that needs to be settled urgently.

But does it have to be one or the other? Eirik cautions against being too prescriptive on this. “I think in the end it might come down to every specific measure. If you’re trying to phase out a couple of applications at the global level then clearly it doesn’t make sense to make this a bottom-up, voluntary agreement.

But for EPR, for example, it doesn’t make sense to come up with specific global rules on how to implement it in a top-down way; here it may be better to have a general obligation with guidelines and best practices and then it’s up to countries how best to implement it for them. We need a mix in this treat and I think the discussion is moving in that direction, although some are still stuck to a more fixed position.”

• What does a ‘just transition’ look like? The phrase has been used a lot both between and during sessions – but what does it really mean in practice? “For contextualization,” says Ambrogio, “in the current text references to common but differentiated responsibilities are included across provisions and acknowledgment of national circumstances and capabilities was mentioned by many member states.”

Clearly, everybody involved recognizes that different regions have different needs and the Global South will need support from the Global North to fund infrastructure. But what form this will take and the mechanisms behind it have still not been agreed upon. It’s an important consideration as some countries – e.g. Brazil – are asking not to move forward with negotiations until it is clear what the means of implementation and financing will involve.

• Is there such a thing as a ‘final’ treaty? Almost everyone we spoke to said it’s important to remember that whatever the treaty agreed in Busan looks like, it is almost certain to be imperfect. This means there has to be room for fluidity in the years to come as science and our understanding of plastic pollution moves on.

“Some countries are afraid to commit to a treaty that may evolve so they have tried to put in barriers to changing it, for example by mandating a consensus rule which means every single country has a veto to change,” explains Eirik. “This can’t work. For the instrument to be useful it needs to be able to adapt to changing conditions.”

This, says Yoni Shiran, involves a COP-like process “but also a principle where the treaty has the targets/details in annexes that can be expanded/improved over time – such as the lists of chemicals or products to be phased out. It is also important that there is a monitoring and reporting mechanism to make it clear what countries need to disclose.”

Even a cursory glance at all the above makes it clear that, while many key topics have been addressed and there is greater consensus on the priorities for the next stage of negotiations, there are still far more questions than answers.

It is positive that formal intersessional work ahead of INC-5 has been agreed upon – including two Expert Groups: the first to analyse criteria and non-criteria-based approaches with regards to plastic products and chemicals of concern in their production and design; the second to analyse potential financial mechanisms and how investment can be mobilized to implement the objectives of the treaty. A proposal has also been accepted for a compilation document of five non-papers prepared by Sub-Groups at INC-4 to form the starting point for negotiations at INC-5.

However, says Eirik, “While there will be some stakeholder participation in the government-led Expert Groups we’re a little concerned that the meetings seem quite closed, which is a pity as it will limit the amount of input from non-government experts from civil society, academia, business and so on. Will enough information be fed into these group for them to be useful? We have 3700 brackets in the draft text right now and that’s supposed to be resolved during one week in Korea. There’s no way that’s going to happen if we’re not talking to each other between meetings.”

The WWF also say it is ‘unfortunate’ that none of the intersessional work agreed includes a mandate for discussing the reduction of primary plastic polymers. It has called on governments to ensure country-led technical meetings, ministerial conferences and information consultations are held to ensure all parties are prepared for the meeting in Busan. A ministerial conference to be hosted by Canada, Ecuador, Germany and Ghana was announced by Germany at Partnerships Day – a side event hosted by WWF and Canada.

Finally, the Bridge to Busan Declaration launched by 28 Member States during Ottawa to cement the goals of the treaty and underline its urgency. All interested Member States and other stakeholders are invited to sign this.

We will keep our readers updated on the progress of the treaty throughout the year, and our members can expect a follow-up report following INC-5.

If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:

How are the top brands progressing on packaging sustainability?

The ultimate guide to global plastic sustainability regulation

How bad is ‘greenwashing’ in fast fashion packaging?

A conversation with P&G’s Chief Sustainability Officer