The Brief: Everything you need to know about INC-5

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

This report tracks the high-stakes global negotiations toward a legally binding UN treaty to end plastic pollution. As talks near their final phase, the outcome could reshape the entire plastics economy – if nations can overcome political divisions and agree on actionable, enforceable rules.

• A global treaty is in progress, with broad support for a legally binding instrument covering the full life cycle of plastics from production to disposal – but many critical elements remain unresolved.
• Disagreements persist over whether rules should be globally mandated or nationally determined, particularly on key issues like phasing out ‘problematic’ plastics, limiting virgin polymer production, and implementing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
• Developing countries demand equity, including financial support via a multilateral fund and flexibility in implementing treaty measures, while wealthier nations push for stricter global standards.
• Definitions are still in flux, including what constitutes ‘problematic plastics’ and how to define the plastic life cycle – issues that impact the treaty’s scope and enforceability.
• Negotiations have faced repeated delays, with some delegations accused of stalling progress and civil society groups voicing concerns about limited participation and transparency.
• Despite gridlock, momentum continues, with most parties supporting reduction targets, just transition principles, and the urgent need for international cooperation ahead of the final round (INC-5).

The road to a global plastics treaty is fraught with complexity and compromise, but it’s not yet derailed. INC-5 will be the pivotal moment: negotiators must align on core principles, close outstanding gaps, and produce a workable final text. The clock is ticking; delivering an effective treaty in 2025 will require focus, flexibility, and political will.

On 25^th November – 1^st December 2024, the final round of negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty will be held at the Busan Exhibition and Convention Center in Busan, Republic of Korea. In this edition of The Brief, we revisit the four Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) meetings that have taken place so far and track the treaty’s progress in preparation for INC-5.

In the lead-up to the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-5) in Nairobi, seventy signatories – Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Nestlé, The Coca-Cola Company, Mondi, TOMRA, and more – backed a statement calling for the creation of an international, legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution, overseen by an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

Ultimately, their wishes came true. On 2^nd March 2022, UN Member State representatives, including Heads of State and Ministers of Environment, agreed on a UN resolution concerning a global plastic pollution treaty.

In theory, this would take the form of a harmonized, global framework covering the full life cycle of plastic, from design all the way to disposal, and implementing both binding and non-binding rules to tackle the plastic waste crisis.

Upon its completion, which is projected for the end of 2024, the draft agreement will be adopted, signed, and ratified at a diplomatic conference held by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Its executive director, Inger Andersen, warned at the time of the announcement that stakeholders should not consider the treaty a reason to stall their voluntary efforts to combat plastic pollution.

As long as negotiations were ongoing, she said, “UNEP will work with any willing government and business across the value chain to shift away from single-use plastics, as well as to mobilize private finance and remove barriers to investments in research and in a new circular economy.”

INC-1

Initial negotiations took place on 28^th November – 2^nd December 2022 in Punta del Este, Uruguay. Attended by over 2,300 delegates from 160 countries, this meeting focused on the instrument’s objective, scope, and structure.

It was generally believed that ‘form follows function’, meaning negotiations should focus on core obligations and control measures, then decide its model accordingly. The overall preference seemed to be a specific convention model with detailed annexes that could, over time, be amended; some members also suggested that adopting future protocols should remain a possibility.

Participants debated whether the treaty’s rules should be mandatory or voluntary – a disagreement that would persist into future negotiations. There were also questions as to whether the transboundary problem of plastic pollution should be tackled with a set of global rules or national action plans (NAPs) that acknowledged countries’ individual circumstances; however, some negotiators cautioned against the instrument replicating existing NAPs and making no further progress.

In any case, most delegations felt that the treaty should take a comprehensive, scientific, and technologically informed approach to the full life cycle of plastics, especially their impacts on human health and the environment. Exactly where this ‘life cycle’ begins and ends was up for debate.

However, it was widely agreed that the instrument should not eliminate plastics altogether, instead focusing on addressing plastic pollution wherever possible. So, too, was there widespread agreement that the means of implementation should be established first, with the specifics negotiated later down the line.

Various other considerations were raised throughout the discussion; leakage, legacy plastics, adverse effects on marine life, tackling harmful additives and chemicals, recycling, and upstream measures like polymerization and feedstock, to name a few.

There was some disagreement about the timeframes of the instrument’s targets. For example, multiple contributors felt that tackling plastic pollution is urgent enough to mandate an end to plastic pollution by 2040; others believed that overcoming plastic leakage within the same frame was more realistic.

Furthermore, differing opinions arose as to what should be prioritized between upstream plastics and single-use, so-called ‘problematic’ plastics.

Yet it was generally accepted that each delegate, especially developing countries, and all stakeholders should be recognized and included throughout the negotiation process. This included informal waste workers and members of disadvantaged groups, including women, children, young people, and indigenous peoples.

In the intermediate period before INC-2, the Committee requested that the INC Secretariat prepare a document of more detailed suggestions for specific regulations, such as core obligations, mandated and voluntary measures, and how the instrument would be implemented.

INC-2

The second INC was held in Paris from 29^th May – 2^nd June 2023. This was attended by 700 Member State delegates from 169 Member States and over 900 observers from NGOs.

It was alleged that certain delegations employed ‘delaying tactics’ to stall the negotiation process by a) challenging pre-agreed procedural rules; and b) requesting to bracket a rule to vote on substantive matters if a consensus could not be reached. Concerns were raised that such an outcome could enable a single country to veto the treaty in its own interest.

Furthermore, WWF argued that many scientists and civil society groups attending the summit could not observe or participate in negotiations, despite previous agreements that everyone should be involved in developing the rules.

Nevertheless, after a three-day delay in discussions, nearly 80% of Member States asserted that the global standards should be compulsory, as a voluntary instrument could lead to an assortment of national regulations rather than collaborative progress. Nearly half prioritized the phase-out or outright ban of ‘problematic’ polymers, chemicals, and high-risk plastic products worldwide.

The reduction and reuse of plastics should be encouraged with “reduce, reuse and repair” targets, most participants agreed. It was recommended that plastic production and consumption should be decreased globally, and that plastic waste should be responsibly managed.

Further talking points included action to reduce microplastics and other releases, and a call for clarity about plastic alternatives and the associated criteria.

Although it was generally agreed that legacy plastics should be counteracted urgently and awareness should be raised about their negative impacts, opinions still conflicted as to whether the instrument should focus on upstream or downstream measures.

There was also disagreement over the treaty taking a bottom-up approach or enforcing international, common but differentiated responsibilities.

Nevertheless, there was once again an overriding call for a just transition focused on alleviating poverty among the most vulnerable, including workers in the informal waste sector.

To close out the negotiations, the Committee requested that the Secretariat welcome submissions from observers and members to suggest talking points for INC-3, including the principles and scope of the instrument. Considerations such as substances of concern, ‘problematic’ or avoidable plastics, design, and potential substitutes for plastics and polymers were raised.

The INC Chair was also tasked with setting out a ‘Zero Draft’ for consideration at the next negotiation round.

INC-3

The third negotiation round occurred in Nairobi, Kenya, from 13^th – 19^th November 2023. Attended by over 1,500 physical participants and a further 1,000 via webcast, it centred around revisions to the Zero Draft.

Recommendations from delegates included a comprehensive life cycle approach to existing plastics, international cooperation, and the development of NAPs. Several negotiators advocated for environmentally sound substitutes for plastic materials and warned against duplicating existing restrictions.

Many argued that keeping extended producer responsibility (EPR) rules flexible – i.e., not mandatory – would maximize participation. Negotiators called for guidelines to be based on each country’s individual sovereign rights, capacities, capabilities, and national circumstances, and some suggested that EPR should be applied to the polluter pays principle.

Previously touched on at INC-1 and INC-2, a dedicated multilateral fund to support developing nations in a) preventing ozone-depleting substances and b) lowering greenhouse gas emissions arose again as a potential benefit.

Some favoured complete bans and phase-outs for ‘problematic’ and avoidable plastics; others cautioned that these could lead to unintended consequences. Nationally determined measures were also suggested as a possibility, but opinions differed over whether intentionally added microplastics should be controlled immediately or defined with concrete guidelines first.

It was suggested that a reduction target could be implemented for national plastic polymer production, which delegations would not be allowed to exceed. Alternatively, countries could be required to lower their production rates and achieve a global target, or they could be held to management and reduction standards laid out in NAPs.

Whether or not exemptions to phase-out deadlines should be allowed also came into question. Some parties felt that time-limited exemptions could be permitted if an appropriate application procedure was enforced, yet some opposed the concept of exemptions altogether.

Many negotiators wanted harmonized requirements and criteria surrounding chemicals and polymers of concern, based in both science and data. Others called for annexes of harmful substances or more flexible measures in line with each nation’s respective capacities.

In the end, disagreements over the scope and ambition of the text meant that no single draft was achieved, nor was any decision made on intersessional work. Still, the Secretariat was asked to complete a revised Zero Draft text by 31^st December 2023.

INC-4

Over 2,500 attendees arrived in Ottawa, Canada from 23^rd – 29^th April 2024 for the penultimate round of negotiations. Revisions to the Zero Draft and its scope were further discussed, revealing contrasting ideas about what a global instrument should cover.

The general consensus was that the treaty’s objective should be to end plastic pollution. Others raised the additions of protecting human health and the environment, both terrestrial and marine. It was suggested that the text should implement a principle of equity alongside common but differentiated responsibilities, as well as enable states to exploit their own resources.

Even at this stage, the definition of a plastic’s ‘full life cycle’ remained unclear. Indeed, the delegates sought clarification as to whether the instrument should start at a plastic’s production stage or narrow down to the management of plastic waste.

A significant chunk of the discussion surrounded ‘problematic’ and avoidable plastics. While some negotiators called for global mandates to ban or otherwise phase them down and out, others argued that these measures should be nationally determined, given that there is no universal definition of a ‘problematic’ plastic. It was argued that this definition could be established in the run-up to INC-5, but others disagreed.

Where and how restrictions would come to fruition also posed challenges. Delegates disagreed on whether they should appear in the common criteria or the annexes, and whether they should be used to guide national legislation.

Which substances should be banned and restricted; how much of the plastic life cycle this would cover; and what the cost, accessibility, and impact of alternative materials might be, all came into question.

There was further, specific dissent as to whether the text should include a mandatory provision on virgin plastic – or, as some delegates argued, whether it should forego provisions on primary plastic polymers.

In the same vein, the inclusion of globally binding provisions for chemicals and polymers of concern was discussed. Lists implemented into the treaty’s annexes could set blanket bans, or they could be separated into banned substances versus those that should be avoided. Some even felt that such provisions should be deleted altogether.

A global plastic pollution fee, paid by polymer producers, was offered up for consideration. These should be included in EPR provisions, some said, although most preferred the concept of a multilateral fund led by developed countries – or, alternatively, a hybrid approach.

On the subject of EPR, the overall takeaway was that the instrument’s governing body should produce guidelines from which delegates could develop their own rules in line with their unique circumstances. Still, some argued that an EPR scheme should involve international collaboration and introduce mechanisms for accountability and traceability.

There was, at least, general assent that all parties should be mandated to reduce their emissions. Many delegates felt that standards for reduction should be determined on a national basis, or at least consider that each country’s circumstances will differ.

Most backed the idea that standards should cover the sources and releases associated with the whole life cycle, from production to waste; to some, this included emissions from raw materials, production facilities, transportation processes, and microplastic leakage.

To conclude, intersessional work was split into two expert groups. One would weigh up the means of implementation for a financial mechanism; the other would consider criteria and non-criteria approaches to plastic products and chemicals of concern, focusing on recyclability and reusability.

INC-5…?

Everyone is bringing their own priorities and values to the table in Busan. For example, the European Union has signed the Bridge to Busan Declaration, which seeks to moderate primary plastic polymer production and overcome plastic pollution.

Meanwhile, WWF intends to hold the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution to its ‘ambitious and effective’ INC-5 Ministerial Statement; and civil society organizations like City To Sea, Plastic Pollution Coalition, Sociedad de Historia Natural Niparajá, and Objectif Zéro Plastique encourage negotiators to ‘strongly reduce’ plastic water bottle production.

Yet the question on everybody’s lips is whether there is enough time left to complete the mandate. Between ongoing disagreements over some of the basics and continual accusations of interference from industry lobbyists, some feel the negotiations are behind on their progress.

The draft text has also been locked since INC-4, so completing it on time might be challenging – however high each negotiator’s ambitions may (or may not) be.

All will be revealed in the next round of negotiations. It will require delegates to set their differences aside and establish a clearer, united vision for a plastics treaty; the task isn’t impossible, but every negotiator needs to maintain focus, accept compromise, and remain dedicated to a more responsible future for plastics.

If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:

The ultimate guide to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation in 2024

How are the top brands progressing on packaging sustainability?

Sustainable Innovation Report 2024: Current trends and future priorities

Everything you need to know about global plastic sustainability regulation