The ). While not perfect, it offered a practical starting point. However, its introduction revealed another divide: differing opinions among member countries.
As countries took the floor to share their views, the room seemed to split in two. Some nations firmly opposed the Chair’s proposal, while others expressed strong support. There was little dialogue to bridge the gap; instead, both sides presented their positions, amplifying the sense of division.
Finding a Way Forward
Despite these tensions, progress was made. After extensive debate, the Chair suggested a compromise: using the non-paper as a foundation for negotiations, while allowing countries to bring forward their textual proposals, including those from the original compilation document. This solution was met with mixed feelings—it provided a way to move forward but left the door open for potential delays and disagreements.
Bridging the Gap
As the day unfolded, I couldn’t shake the metaphor of “two worlds”—not just within the negotiating room but also in my own experience. On the one hand, the INC-5 represents a collective aspiration to address one of the most pressing environmental crises of our time. On the other hand, everyday choices and systemic challenges remind us how deeply ingrained plastic is in our lives.
The road to a robust plastics treaty is fraught with challenges, but today’s discussions showed that even in the face of division, progress is possible. It will take more than agreements on paper to solve the plastic crisis—it will take action from individuals, industries, and nations alike.
As I reflect on my morning, I’m reminded that real change starts with awareness. Tomorrow, I’ll buy different breakfast that doesn’t have plastic packaging. Small steps matter, even as we work toward global solutions.
Together, we must find a way to bridge these two worlds—for the sake of our planet, our oceans, and future generations.
IISD coverage:
https://enb.iisd.org/plastic-pollution-marine-environment-negotiating-committee-inc5