Negotiations for a global treaty to combat plastic pollution reached an impasse on December 2, 2024, as delegates from over 170 countries concluded their week-long meeting without reaching any consensus. The talks, held in Busan, South Korea, were intended to kickstart the process of establishing legally binding measures to address plastic waste comprehensively, yet disagreements over production caps led to significant divisions among participating nations.
The fifth meeting of the U.N. Environment Programme’s Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee (INC-5) was marked by debates surrounding the scope of the treaty—including proposals to curb plastic production alongside measures to improve recycling and waste management practices. The discussions have been particularly contentious due to the reluctance of several oil-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia and Russia, to endorse production reductions, as these nations primarily benefit from the fossil fuel and petrochemical sectors.
According to reports, over 100 countries supported proposals spearheaded by Panama, which advocated for limiting plastic production. This draft resolution aimed to outline specific targets for production cuts, though details were intended to be established at future meetings. Despite this momentum from many nations, significant resistance arose from delegates representing fossil fuel interests, who argued for focusing solely on managing existing plastic waste rather than limiting its production.
“The week has seen good progress, but it is clear there are significant differences to resolve,” stated Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chair of the INC-5 committee, highlighting the need for additional discussions. The urgency for such measures is underscored by alarming statistics from the U.N. Environment Programme, estimating around 23 million tons of plastic waste leak annually from land to marine waters, affecting wildlife and human health alike. Microplastics have been found contamininating not just our oceans, but also food, water, and even the human body.
Civil society and environmental advocacy groups expressed their dismay at the outcome of the talks. Activists criticized the outsized influence of the petrochemical industry over negotiations, raising concerns about the prioritization of industry profits over environmental health and human rights. Yuna Lee of the Our Sea of East Asia Network remarked, "This outcome reflects the prioritization of capital over human rights and the manipulation of scientific evidence for political gains." Activists vowed to continue pressuring for stronger and more inclusive measures against plastic pollution.
Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, Panama’s lead negotiator, labeled the stalled discussions as “a moral failure,” emphasizing the need for urgent action against plastic pollution. He lamented, “We came to Busan with the mission to define a global pathway to end plastic pollution, yet we did not achieve the binding treaty necessary to address the full life-cycle of plastics.” Nevertheless, Monterrey Gómez remained optimistic, noting the broad coalition of countries and NGOs backing the Panamanian resolution, which he described as "glimmers of hope" for future negotiations.
The United Nations Environment Assembly had previously called for the establishment of such a treaty by 2024 to comprehensively regulate plastic at all stages—from production and consumption to waste disposal. With nearly 70 nations forming the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, the spirit of cooperation appeared strong, though overshadowed by influential lobbying from fossil fuel and chemical industry representatives.
Record attendance of 220 representatives from the plastics industry at the Busan talks highlighted the growing conflict between environmental integrity and corporate interests. According to analysis from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), these industry lobbyists formed the largest single delegation at the negotiations, raising concerns over their potential impact on the treaty's shape moving forward.
Despite this setback, momentum remains for advocates pushing for binding agreements to manage plastic pollution. A coalition of 85 countries, including members of the EU and various Latin American nations, declared their commitment to maintain ambitious goals throughout the process. Juliet Kabera, director-general of Rwanda’s environment management authority, highlighted the need for binding provisions at the center of future discussions: “We voice our strong concerns about attempts to dilute the treaty’s ambition.”
Looking forward, the path toward resuming talks remains unclear, with no specific date set for the next session. Some countries openly suggested delaying negotiations until mid-2025, hoping additional time will allow for more constructive dialogue on contentious issues.
Meanwhile, the ecological and public health impacts of plastic pollution continue to escalate, calling for urgent action before the crisis deepens. Calls for strong frameworks to address plastic waste management are echoed throughout activism and advocacy groups, reiteraring the pressing need for international cooperation to safeguard both the environment and human health.
The stakes are high. Each year, millions of tons of plastic waste suffocate ecosystems and enter our bodies through food and water, raising alarm bells about the potential long-term consequences of unchecked pollution. It is clear: the world is watching, and the need for decisive action against plastic pollution has never been more urgent.
