Introduction

The 5th Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) on plastic pollution was recently held at Busan, South Korea from 25th November, 2024 to 1st December 2024 in which nearly 175 countries participated. It was mandated to establish a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. Informally, it is called the Global Plastics Treaty. In the end, the INC-5 failed to achieve its objective. In this context, it is to be noted that the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) passed a resolution in March 2022 to ‘end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment'. It agreed to develop such a treaty by the end of 2024. This was the fifth and final round of the talks since 2022. Over the last two years, countries have met and attempted to bridge divergent views in regard to ending the plastic pollution. But no solution could be found yet. The Chair of the INC-5, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, circulated a draft text called a ‘non paper'. Apparently, it appeared to be a synthesis of the views of all countries on managing plastic production. However, in the end it turned out that in spite of protracted negotiations, the chasm between countries having different viewpoints was too wide to bridge. On the one hand, there are countries who view plastic pollution as a waste management problem, and on the other hand, there are countries who see it as unachievable without cutting its production at source.1

The Plastic Pollution: A Fact Sheet

• According to a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) factsheet, the plastic waste generation has increased three times from 1970 and 1990. In the early years of 2000, the amount of plastic waste generated increased more in a single decade than in the last 40 years. Currently, the plastic waste production worldwide is about 400 million tonnes every year. If this unprecedented growth persists, global production of primary plastic is forecasted to reach 1,100 million tonnes by 2050. To add to existing woes, there is a discernible shift towards single-use plastic products, items that are normally thrown away after a short use.
• Approximately, 36% of all plastics produced are used for packaging purposes. That includes single-use plastic products for food and beverage containers, of which 85% are deposited in landfills or as unregulated waste. Furthermore, about 98% of single-use plastic products are produced from fossil fuel, or “virgin” feedstock.
• The level of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production, use and disposal of conventional fossil fuel-based plastics is expected to grow to 19% of the global carbon budget by 2040.
• So far seven billion tonnes of plastic waste has been generated of which less than 10% has been recycled. Millions of tonnes of plastic waste are lost to the environment. Further, this monumental waste is shipped to destinations thousands of kilometres away for burning or dumping. The estimated annual loss in the value of plastic packaging waste during sorting and processing alone amounts to $80-$120 billion.
• Cigarette butts, containing tiny plastic fibres, are the most common type of plastic waste found in the environment. To add to the list are food wrappers, plastic bottles, plastic bottle caps, plastic grocery bags, plastic straws, and stirrers which fall into the category of the next most common.6
• According to the UN & IUCN sources, 11 million tonnes of plastic are entering the ocean annually. 20 million tonnes of plastic litter end up in the environment every year.
• As per the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the annual global plastic production has witnessed two-times growth from 234 million tonnes in 2000 to 460 million tonnes in 2019. Nearly half of this was produced in Asia, followed by North America (19%) and Europe (15%). Plastic production is likely to touch 700 million tonnes by 2040.
• Much of the plastic waste leaks into the environment, especially into rivers and oceans, where it further breaks down into smaller particles (microplastic or nanoplastic). This has adversely impacted the environment and health of living beings.
• According to the scientific studies submitted to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), it has been found that exposure to chemicals in plastic can cause endocrine disruption and a range of human diseases including cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, and neurodevelopmental impairment. Plastic also harms species inhabiting marine, freshwater, and land ecosystems.
• Plastic contributes to climate change to a great extent. In 2020, it caused the generation of 3.6% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 90% of those quantifiable emissions came from plastic production using fossil fuels as raw material. The remaining 10% of emissions were released during plastic waste management and treatment. According to a recent report from the United States’ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, if current trends continue, emissions from the production could grow 20% by 2050.
• As per the study published in the journal Nature in September, 2024, India contributes to a fifth of global plastic pollution. It accounts for 20% of the world's global plastic pollution with emissions of 9.3 million tonnes, which is much higher than the countries next to India in the list i.e. Nigeria (3.5 mt), Indonesia (3.4 mt), and China (2.8 mt).

India's Stand During Negotiations

During negotiations, India submitted that the global plastics treaty should develop a clear scope and principle for the new treaty to be effective and workable at the international level. It should not overlap with other important multilateral environmental agreements such as the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. It was also proposed that the new international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution must follow the principles of the Rio Declaration of 1992. It laid emphasis on the principles concerning ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibilities’ (CBDR) and sustainable production and consumption. CBDR refers to the differing contributions of countries keeping in view their different contributions in regard to environmental degradation.

India also submitted suggestions on articles in the draft treaty related to plastic product design and plastic waste management, seeking to build provisions for financial and technical assistance, including technology transfer to developing countries. Draft treaty articles on plastic product design refer to the efficient and eco-friendly designs, which would help the product to be sustainable, and focus on its recyclability and its environmental impact at the time of discarding. On plastic waste management, India stressed that the efforts should be based on national plans of countries, national circumstances, their capabilities and relevant national regulations.11

India's delegation leader, Naresh Pal Gangwar, of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, said during the closing plenary session, “India would like to state its inability to support any measure to regulate production of primary plastic polymer as it has implications on larger rights to develop. We also did not support inclusion of any list with phaseout dates at this stage.”12 Elaborating further, it was stated that India had banned 22 kinds of single-use plastic and put in place an Extended Producer Responsibility regime. This implied that companies were bound to recycle a certain percentage of their plastic packaging waste. Also, the littering of some of the most common kinds of plastic waste was banned. However, as far as virgin polymer production is concerned, it is India’s one of major products and exports, with conglomerates such as Reliance, which have significant stakes in the industry. India viewed the proposals during negotiations to cut plastic production and regulate its supply as akin to introducing trade barriers. In that way, its position was closer to that of China, Saudi Arabia and several other oil and petrochemical-refining states.

Finally, India has strongly opposed proposals for countries to vote on propositions in draft texts that were produced at INC negotiations. In such negotiations, like the Conference of Parties climate talks, every single word and punctuation has to be agreed upon by all countries which more often than not, results in deadlocks and it takes years to resolve it.

The Presence and Impact of Lobbyists at Busan

At Busan negotiations, around 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists participated in the deliberations. Taken together, this was the single largest delegation at INC-5, significantly outnumbering the delegates of South Korea (140), the European Union (191), and the entire Latin American and Caribbean region (GRULAC) (165), among others. At INC-4, 196 lobbyists were identified. The Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL), reported intimidation, including industry pressure on scientists and delegations to favour industry-friendly representatives. Delphine Levi Alvares, Global Petrochemical Campaign Coordinator at CIEL, stated, “Since UNEA-5.UNEA-5.2, industry lobbyists have used familiar tactics of obstruction, distraction, intimidation, and misinformation. Their strategy, borrowed from climate negotiations, aims to protect the fossil-fuel profits of countries and companies at the expense of human health, rights, and the planet's future.”14 These words truly hit the nail on the time buzzer as we fail to realize that humanity is in grave danger and time is ticking off at its own pace. Here, it may be noted that over 99% of plastic is made from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels, and the fossil fuel and plastic industries are deeply connected.15

The Final Outcome

In the final outcome, the 5th Session of the International Negotiating Committee (INC) to Develop an International Legally Binding Instrument on Plastic Pollution in Busan, South Korea, failed to agree on developing a treaty and thus paved the way for another INC Session in 2025. Quoting the words of Luis Vayas Valdiveisco, the chair of INC-5, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The text still has brackets ... .we have made tangible moves and I hope the committee can agree to use the draft text as a starting point and basis of negotiation.” In this context, observers pointed out that petro states like Saudi Arabia and Russia strictly opposed production curbs, with Russia supporting the stand of India, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during the plenary session. However, high ambition countries such as Rwanda representing 85 nations, Panama, Mexico, and Norway, supported ending plastic pollution. Their sentiments are beautifully expressed in the words of Juan Carlos Monterrey, Panama's negotiator, “It is not about commas or brackets but it is about a child in a coastal village who will drink plastic water. It is about a fisherman who will catch plastic instead of fish...Delay is death, action is survival.” 16

The draft reflected no consensus on covering plastics’ full life cycle or the financing aspect of developed nations. Even it failed to cover the core goal of the global plastic treaty and didn't talk about how to protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.

Conclusion

The enormity of plastic pollution is a stark reality before humanity. This is indeed a question of survival of every living being. The menace of plastic pollution is increasing exponentially. But the irony of the situation is that we are still not ready to tackle this extremely dangerous problem of our times. The laudable effort by the United Nations Environmental Assembly in 2022 to prepare a global treaty on curbing plastic pollution has entered its fifth phase. But regretfully, no positive result has come out. From the deliberations so far, it appears that the main battle is between the countries that produce plastic at a large scale with the help of fossil fuel and the consumer countries that want their people to be protected from plastic pollution scourge. For plastic-producing countries and countries having vast reserves of fossil fuel, profits are everything, even at the cost of putting millions of people in danger worldwide. India is also one of the countries which resisted the provisions of the text on different grounds. In reality, the whole world looks at India with a hope of solving the impasse. So, a positive lead should be taken by India in this regard to forge a fruitful treaty to contain and curb global, plastic pollution. Time is running out fast and the danger to humanity is lurking in the atmosphere. It is time to act on behalf of the world community to save humanity from gradual extinction.

.    .    .

References:

1. Jacob Koshy, Why can't the world agree on a plastic ban?,The Hindu, Dec 8,2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Nikhil Ghanekar, Production cap, chemicals ban: Why global plastic treaty talks collapsed, The Indian Express, Dec 5, 2024.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Nikhil Ghanekar, India seeks clear principles and scope on global plastics treaty, The Indian Express, Nov 29, 2024.
12. Jayashree Nandi, Plastic pollution negotiations fail to reach landmark deal, Hindustan Times, Dec 2, 2024.
13. Jacob Koshi, Why can't the world agree on a plastic ban?, The Hindu, Dec 8, 2024.
14. Jayashree Nandi, Over 220 lobbyists shape plastic pollution treaty talks, Hindustan Times, Nov 28, 2024.
15. Ibid.
16. Jayashree Nandi, Plastic pollution negotiations fail to reach landmark deal, Hindustan Times, Dec 2, 2024.