What transpired during INC 5 is the outcome of a process, which lacked leadership and courage needed to represent the mandate laid out in resolution 5/14 and address conflicts that emerged through the two years.
In 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly adopted resolution 5/14 to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. An Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee (INC) was established to negotiate the instrument, which is to be an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) with a scope spanning the full lifecycle of plastics. The INC was to work across five sessions between 2022 and 2024 ending with the Diplomatic Conference in 2025. The INC met for its fifth session in Busan from November 25 to December 1, 2024 where member states failed to achieve a conclusion of the process. Instead, a decision was taken to pause negotiations and resume in 2025, using the Chair’s Text released on December 1 as the basis for negotiations.
Outcome of postponing resolution
What transpired during INC 5 is the outcome of a process, which lacked leadership and courage needed to represent the mandate laid out in resolution 5/14 and address conflicts that emerged through the two years.
Right from INC 1 there was a divide among the membership largely around ambition in the room, which was manifested through conflicts on different parts of the proposed ILBI. Decision making via voting versus consensus and globally binding versus considering national circumstances were some of the areas of contestation that emerged in INC 1.
INC 2 saw the room locked around the issue of voting, with the scope and chemicals and polymers of concern added to the areas of divergence. Petro and petrochemical producing states attempted to redraw the scope by redefining plastic pollution as a waste management issue and refusing to accept the mandate of resolution 5/14, which encompasses feedstock and precursors.
The Chair’s Zero Draft was introduced in INC 3 with at least three options for each article. However, this INC saw a louder resistance on scope. Financial mechanism became another active point of discord with developed countries refusing to accept their role in contributing funds to the financial mechanism, a position not very different from the one taken in the climate COPs.
With the petro and petrochemical producing states locking horns with the rest of the states, INC 3 saw a ballooned Zero Draft, where instead of narrowing down options, more were added, including one on ‘No Text’ to some of the contentious articles.
INC 4 saw the consolidation of the areas of divergence – scope, articles on primary plastic polymers, chemicals and polymers of concern and the financial mechanism. Voting continued to be a redline for the petro and petrochemical producing states. INC 5 saw another hit with trade measures not finding any mention in the Chair’s Non-Paper 3, the basis of the negotiation in this session. Strong trade measures are necessary to regulate non-party states.
In terms of process, INC 5 added lack of transparency to the areas of concern. After working in Contact Groups for over three days, the process moved into informal consultations, which were closed to observers. This is pertinent since analysis by the Centre for International Environmental Law of participant data released by the INC Secretariat, revealed that at least 17 lobbyists were part of the national delegations, with direct access and ability to influence the outcome of the negotiations to favour their interests. As many as 220 lobbyists were registered to participate in INC 5, higher than in any other INC.
Right to vote denied to the member states
Finally, during INC 5, the room was clearly divided with those aiming for an ambitious ILBI centred around people and the planet represented by African, Latin American and Small Island Developing Nations on the one side and petro and petrochemical producing states standing for private profits and wealth accumulation on the other.
By the end of INC 5, more than 100 countries called for a reduction in plastic production, 95 called for legally binding obligations for harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern with phaseout dates, and more than 120 countries demanded strong means of implementation.
Clearly, majority of the member states stood for an ambitious treaty and yet found their hands tied. It is indeed ironic that the petro and petrochemical states constantly invoked the Right to Development as an excuse to keep producing and consuming plastics, but denied the membership their Right to Vote as enshrined in Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
What went down at INC 5 demonstrated that while plastics was birthed in chemistry laboratories, it has been promoted in the name of convenience and sustained by a global struggle for power and wealth accumulation. However, we head towards INC 5.2 inspired by member states who finally ‘Stood for Ambition’ and courageously held the line from the onslaught of private interests.
This article was originally published in The New Indian Express and can be read here.
Centre for Financial Accountability is now on Telegram and WhatsApp. Click here to join our Telegram channel and click here to join our WhatsApp channel and stay tuned to the latest updates and insights on the economy and finance.