Analysis: INC-5 Takeaways

INC-5 Negotiations Conclude…for Now 

INC-5 brought together over 3,360 delegates, representing 170 Member States and over 440 observer organizations including business, academia and civil society – making it the largest INC gathering to date. 

After seven days of highly complex negotiations, the closing plenary of the session ended on Monday, December 2, at 2:50 a.m. The delegates reached the common conclusion that time had run out to resolve all outstanding issues and a resumed session of the Committee was necessary to afford additional time for further negotiations to develop a legally binding instrument to address plastic pollution.  In this regard, delegates agreed to use the Chair’s latest draft text circulated on Sunday, December 1, as a starting point for negotiations.  The date and location of the resumed session (INC5.2) will be determined in the coming months.   

Whilst INC-5 did not achieve the intended objective of concluding an agreement in Busan, it is broadly recognized that some important steps have been taken, with the opportunity to further build on these discussions and forge consensus towards an agreement that is fit for addressing plastic pollution. 

Key Issues and Contentious Points: 

• Scope and Definitions: Member States struggled to agree on a comprehensive definition of “plastic pollution” and the scope of the treaty. Disagreements arose over whether to include specific chemicals of concern and problematic plastic products within the instrument. Divergence also emerged on the agreed dimensions of microplastics. 

• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): While there was broad consensus on the importance of EPR, specific details regarding implementation and enforcement remained contentious. The current text calls on parties to improve plastic product design, in pursuit of circular economy approaches. 

• Production Caps: Proposed Article 6 aims to reduce plastic production and promote a circular economy. The proposal was viewed as being imperative in the instrument to address the full life cycle of plastics and address plastic pollution at its source. However, many countries opposed this, citing concerns over its impact on economic growth, innovation, and developing countries. They argued that the focus should be on managing plastic waste rather than restricting production. 

• Waste Management: Countries discussed a proposal to require nations to manage plastic waste responsibly. There was debate over whether this should be a mandatory or voluntary obligation, and whether it should consider the specific circumstances of different countries. 

• Health: There was disagreement on whether the treaty should specifically address health issues related to plastic pollution, stressing “lack of scientific evidence demonstrating health risks of microplastics.” Some argued that this was already covered by other organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), while others emphasized the importance of including health provisions in the treaty. 

• Financial Mechanisms: A significant divide emerged regarding the establishment and funding of a financial mechanism to support the implementation of the treaty. Developed and developing countries held differing views on the allocation of financial resources and the roles of public and private sectors. 

Key Takeaways and Salient Implications for the Private Sector: 

• Global Momentum: The strong global participation and consensus on the need for urgent action demonstrate the growing momentum behind addressing plastic pollution remains. 

• Chemicals of Concern and Problematic Plastics: There was a wide gap in views about whether to identify specific chemicals of concern and problematic plastics within the treaty itself. While member states agreed that both are indeed issues, there was disagreement related to the inclusion of lists that were not based on previous environmental multilateral agreements (EMAs) and the agreed scope of the treaty itself.  

• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): The increasing emphasis on EPR underscores the importance of corporate responsibility in managing the entire lifecycle of plastic products, from production to disposal. 

• Supply Chain Transparency: The focus on supply chain transparency and traceability reinforces the need for robust due diligence practices to ensure compliance with environmental and social standards. 

• Financial Mechanisms: Discussions on financial mechanisms and resource mobilization signal potential cost implications for industry. 

• Regulatory Uncertainty: The evolving regulatory landscape poses challenges for businesses, with potential impacts on product design, sourcing, and end-of-life management. 

• Increased Scrutiny: The focus on chemicals of concern and plastic pollution may lead to heightened scrutiny of supply chains and product formulations. 

• Potential Cost Implications: New regulations and standards could impose additional costs on businesses, affecting operational efficiency and profitability. 

• Opportunities for Innovation: The transition to a circular economy and the development of sustainable solutions can create new business opportunities and drive innovation. 

• Need for ongoing monitoring: Finalizing the treaty is only the beginning. Conference of the Parties (COP) processes will be established to develop detailed frameworks addressing key business-relevant issues. 

The Road Ahead: 

The outcomes of these negotiations will have far-reaching implications for the private sector. To navigate this evolving landscape, businesses should: 

• Stay Informed: Monitor the progress of negotiations and regulatory developments. 

• Engage with Policymakers: Participate in consultations and advocate for industry interests. 

• Strengthen Supply Chain Management: Implement robust due diligence processes to ensure compliance with environmental and social standards. 

• Invest in Sustainable Innovation: Support research and development of circular economy solutions and sustainable materials. 

• Collaborate with Industry Peers: Share best practices and address common challenges. 

• Assess Regulatory Impact: Evaluate the potential impact of new regulations on your business operations and develop strategies to mitigate risks. 

• Engage with NGOs and Civil Society: Build relationships with NGOs and civil society organizations to address shared concerns and collaborate on solutions. 

• Prepare for Potential Cost Increases: Consider the potential impact of new regulations on your business costs and explore opportunities to offset these costs through increased efficiency and innovation. 

By proactively addressing these issues and seizing opportunities for collaboration, the private sector can play a pivotal role in shaping a sustainable future for the plastics industry. 

About DGA Group

DGA Group is a global advisory firm that helps clients protect – and grow – what they have built in today’s complex business environment. We understand the challenges and opportunities in an increasingly regulated and interconnected world. Leveraging the expertise and experience of our team at Albright Stonebridge Group, a leader in global strategy and commercial diplomacy, and a deep bench of communications, public affairs, government relations and business intelligence consultants, we help clients navigate and shape global policy, reputational and financial issues. To learn more, visit dgagroup.com.

For additional information or to arrange a follow-up, please contact Melissa.Kopolow@dgagroup.com.