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.
As Day 6 unfolded at INC-5, the sense of inertia was palpable among observers, with much of the action confined to closed-door informal consultations among member country delegates. For observers, it was another day of limited engagement.
However, amidst this quiet, a new draft text for Article 3, addressing chemicals of concern, began circulating via attendees’ phones. The initial reactions to the document were mixed. At first glance, the draft seemed to encapsulate many of the key elements needed, offering placeholders for future refinement. Yet, as is often the case with such negotiations, the text sparked divergent views, also among observers.
Ambition vs. Pragmatism: A Balancing Act
While some saw promise in the draft, others voiced concerns about its perceived lack of ambition. The text’s perceived compromises invite reflection, especially for scientists engaged in the science-policy interface.
- Where Does Science End, and Policy Begin?
The boundary between science and policy is often blurry. Scientists may push for policy solutions rooted in the ideal scenarios their research supports. However, policymaking, inherently a balancing act of competing interests, often involves compromises that deviate from the scientific ideal. - The Role of Pragmatism
Pragmatism is an essential element in treaty negotiations. Policies that are overly ambitious and unattainable risk alienating stakeholders and derailing progress. On the other hand, settling for less than science demands could lead to solutions that fail to address the gravity of the problem, such as the multifaceted challenges of plastic pollution.
A Call for Reflection
For scientists, especially those interested in supporting policy development, this dynamic prompts introspection. To what extent could scientists push for the highest ambition in policy? How much compromise is acceptable in the name of pragmatism?
These are not easy questions, but they are central to the success of initiatives like the global plastics treaty. As negotiations progress, maintaining an open dialogue between scientists, policymakers, and other stakeholders will be vital to crafting a robust, actionable, and inclusive framework.
Looking Ahead
Day 6 served as a reminder that the path to meaningful international agreements is rarely straightforward. While observers may sometimes feel sidelined, the ongoing deliberations underscore the complexity of crafting policies that are scientifically sound, politically feasible, and globally impactful. As the INC-5 negotiations continue, these reflections will remain central to shaping both the process and the outcome.
IISD coverage:
https://enb.iisd.org/plastic-pollution-marine-environment-negotiating-committee-inc5