BUSAN, South Korea, November 29, 2024 — The air was electric outside the venue for the fifth Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee (INC-5), where dozens of environmental organizations held a press conference, fervently calling for decisive action on the global crisis of plastic pollution. With only hours left before the scheduled negotiations concluded, the outcome of potentially the world's first legally binding treaty targeting plastic waste hung precariously.
These organizations voiced their alarm, expressing concern over what they termed as "the usual low-ambition countries" undermining efforts led by nations committed to combating this pressing issue. The backdrop of this dramatic stand-off is stark: nations have pledged their intentions to reduce plastic pollution significantly, yet the reality shows negotiators seemingly drifting toward minimal agreements, jeopardizing the chance for meaningful change.
According to statements made during the press conference, there are just 36 hours remaining for negotiators to form what they hope will be groundbreaking treaty provisions. Yet, the evident lack of urgency raised eyebrows among environmental advocates, who warned against making any compromises just for the sake of reaching consensus. The loudest message coming from this coalition was clear: there must be no backpedaling on commitments made two years prior.
"A weak treaty based on mere voluntary measures will not withstand the mounting pressures of the plastic crisis," said one spokesperson. They emphasized the dire necessity of legally binding agreements throughout the entire lifecycle of plastics, urging negotiators not to cave under pressure from more complacent or opposing states.
Supporting organizations included 5 Gyres Institute, Greenpeace, and the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), among many others. They represented voices not just from environmental circles, but from communities hit hardest by plastic pollution, demanding action not only on paper but with substantial, enforceable commitments.
The overwhelming consensus among these activist groups is simple: nations have the tools and pathways needed to forge real change. They urged negotiators to do their duty and act with determination, particularly as they neared the end of this pivotal negotiation period.
The treaty discussions come at a time when plastic production and waste management continue to pose enormous challenges globally. With studies projecting plastic production could triple by 2060, even as demand appears to stagnate, the matter requires urgent intervention. According to the World Economic Forum, the plastics crisis can exacerbate existing climate issues, and without sweeping changes, we could find ourselves locked within destructive economic cycles catering to plastics.
The negotiations taking place are significant but laden with tensions. On one side, highly ambitious states sit, eager to discuss binding measures aimed at effectively reducing plastic use. On the other side, several nations are perceived as dragging their feet, focused instead on maintaining the status quo for their economic benefits.
Inside the negotiations, the most contentious proposal on the table has emerged as the idea of implementing global primary plastic reduction targets—most ambitiously set at 40% by 2040. This proposal aims at achieving significant reductions to curb the current trends driving the plastic crisis, emphasizing the need for global cooperation and well-thought-out binding agreements.
Environmental activists have pointed out the glaring discrepancy between necessity and action. They criticized the dominant narrative pushed by certain delegations, which has been leaning toward flexibility at the expense of accountability, emphasizing the importance of not sacrificing the integrity of the treaty with half-hearted measures.
Yet, the challenges extend beyond mere negotiation texts. Notably, the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists at such discussions continues to raise alarm among environmental advocates. A staggering count of about 220 lobbyists affiliated with the oil and gas sector were reported at the summit, outnumbering many national delegations present.
Critics suggest the involvement of industry representatives creates significant potential for conflicts of interest, undermining environmental initiatives. Von Hernandez, global coordinator of Break Free From Plastic, did not mince words: "Allowing fossil fuel and petrochemical companies to exert their influence is tantamount to letting foxes guard the henhouse." He warned their presence could dilute what could be strong commitments against plastic pollution, effectively turning negotiations from earnest discussions to mere window dressing.
Representatives contend their engagements are meant to lend expertise and innovative solutions to the treaty discussions, yet environmental groups voice concerns over the tactics used by these industry representatives, which many see as obstructive and driven solely by profit motives.
With many NGOs already reporting tensions and worries over compromises being made, advocates have been quick to demand not just discussions but documented outcomes: "Securing conflict-of-interest protections and strict lobbying disclosures is non-negotiable for the health of the treaty and the planet," stated Rachel Radvany, Environmental Health Campaigner with CIEL.
All Eyes on Busan
Globally, the spotlight is on Busan as these negotiations progress, reflecting the broader societal demand for action against plastic pollution. Countries cannot afford to ignore the pressing call for action from concerned citizens, scientists, and businesses alike. Activists maintain the time for half-measures has long passed; strong, actionable agreements are imperative.
When asked about the possibility of successful treaty negotiations, one activist summed it up: "It’s about courage, integrity, and commitment. The world is watching as these countries decide what kind of legacy they leave behind. There’s little room for mistakes, and the stakes couldn’t be higher." This sentiment encapsulates the drive for advocates who see this moment as fundamental to combating one of the most significant environmental issues of the 21st century.
Despite looming deadlines, the resolve expressed by environmental advocates highlights a persistent belief: hope remains alive for the world to achieve meaningful change against plastics. The question is whether world leaders will find the courage to make it happen amid mounting political, economic, and corporate pressures. Up until the last moment, they’ll be urging action, not just words, as the clock ticks down to potentially rescue our planet from plastic's looming grip.