The 5th session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to Develop an International Legally Binding Instrument on Plastic Pollution, Including in the Marine Environment (INC-5) is taking place in in Busan, Republic of Korea on 25 November – 1 December 2024. An IPCP Member is attending and providing daily summaries.
The day began under a sunlit sky but with a chill that mirrored the growing unease in the conference halls. The day was marked by moments of inspiration, deep frustration, and a lingering question: beyond hope, what else do we have to confront the plastic pollution crisis?
A Morning of Inspiration
The day’s energy was lifted early on during a side event where I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Joy Banner, a thought leader representing fenceline communities in Louisiana, U.S. Dr. Banner, a professor of business communications and marketing, delivered a compelling message. She reminded the audience that the fight against plastic pollution is not abstract but deeply personal for communities bearing its brunt.
Dr. Banner emphasized that low ambition has no place when fenceline communities are risking so much to hold plastic producers accountable, often through legal action. Drawing on her marketing expertise, she debunked the myth that consumer demand for plastics is immutable, pointing instead to how demand is often manufactured—and how societies have shown remarkable capacity for change when the will exists.
A representative from the Business Coalition also shared a personal journey of eliminating single-use plastics from their household. These exchanges highlighted the power of grassroots action, setting an optimistic tone for the day.
The Struggles in Contact Groups
However, the optimism was quickly tempered by the grinding pace of negotiations. Contact Group 1, tasked with addressing chemicals of concern and the reduction of primary polymer production among others, spent the morning and afternoon in deliberations that revealed a wide chasm of views. Positions ranged from advocating for decisive global action to calls for no intervention, leaving participants frustrated at the lack of convergence.
To make matters worse, some delegations misrepresented and distorted scientific findings to derail discussions. This misuse of science as a political tool not only hampered progress but also deepened the frustration among those pushing for evidence-based solutions.
A Plenary of Hope and Frustration
At 5:00 PM, the day’s tensions came to a head during the plenary session, intended as a stock-taking moment. Delegates from across regions voiced their exasperation with the slow progress of the negotiations.
For example, the delegate from Panama painted a sobering picture, stating: “Globally, 1 million plastic bottles are being produced every minute … Plastic pollution is not just a crisis. It is an assault on our planet, on our people, and on our future. And yet, here we are—tiptoeing around the truth, sidestepping ambition, and ignoring the urgency that demands action.”
This sentiment was echoed by others. The delegate from Fiji offered a poignant metaphor: “To break free from plastics, we need to break from brackets.”
Meanwhile, Mexico’s delegate called out the cyclical nature of the discussions, remarking: “As much as we support a circular economy approach, we cannot keep going on circular discussions.”
Each of these statements was met with applause, reflecting a room that was ready for high ambition. Yet, the divisions persisted. Delegations opposed to ambitious action remained entrenched, continuing blocking proposals aimed at moving forward.
A Question of Hope
The day ended with the same frustration that has plagued much of the negotiations. A delegate who has consistently stalled progress claimed to be “hopeful” for a treaty—if only others could be as “constructive” as they were. Yet, when the Chair proposed steps to advance the talks, this delegation and its allies actively blocked them, leaving the room mired in gridlock.
Day 3 at INC-5 was a stark reminder that the road to a global treaty on plastic pollution is fraught with challenges. As the plenary session adjourned, the question loomed: Beyond hope, what else do we have? The answer, perhaps, lies in science—if it can be reclaimed from political distortion. It also lies in the voices of those most affected by plastic pollution, the communities who continue to fight despite the odds, and us as citizens. And it lies in the growing recognition among many delegates that ambition, not inertia, is the only path forward.
IISD coverage:
https://enb.iisd.org/plastic-pollution-marine-environment-negotiating-committee-inc5