The global plastic pollution treaty negotiations in Busan that were held from November 25 to December 1, 2024, were billed as a historic opportunity to combat plastic pollution. The talks aimed to develop a legally binding agreement to address the plastic crises. Yet, after days of discussions, the talks ended in a deadlock and the world, still producing about 350 million metric tons of plastic annually – a number set to rise by 70% by 2040 – remains without a cohesive plan to tackle the crisis.
At its core, the failure of the treaty negotiations was a failure of balance. On one side were countries primarily from the Global South that were arguing for equity, time and resources to transition away from plastics. On the other hand, wealthier nations that were advocating for immediate and stringent regulations without adequately addressing the economic and technological gaps faced by the developing countries. Much like in the energy sector, where advanced technologies for renewable energy remain out of reach for many developing nations, the solutions to plastic pollution – such as biodegradable materials or advanced recycling methods – are often expensive and monopolized by wealthier countries. Hence, ensuring access to these technologies is not just fair, it is essential for the treaty’s success.
Despite the failure of the Busan negotiations, there is hope on the horizon as the fifth session was adjourned with an agreement on a “Chair’s Text”, which will serve as the starting point for negotiations at a resumed session, dubbed INC[1] 5.2, to be held in 2025. This additional round of talks provides an opportunity to address the divide that stalled progress this year and build a treaty that balances environmental urgency with economic realities. For the treaty to succeed, it must take into consideration the different starting points and capabilities of nations. The principle of a “just transition”, often discussed in the context of energy, is equally relevant here. Ensuring that the transition away from plastic is equitable will require significant technical and financial support, especially for countries like India.
For India, which is home to 1.4 billion people and is also one of the largest producers of plastic pollution, contributing 20% of the global waste, this is a challenging position to be in. The country faces mounting pressure to align with global calls for stringent regulations on all kinds of pollution. Like other developing nations, this issue is far from black and white. Plastic, for all its environmental costs, remains indispensable to India’s economy and daily life. Millions of small-scale manufacturers, traders and workers depend on plastic production and recycling for their livelihood. For instance, the informal recycling sector, often overlooked in policy discussions, plays a crucial role in managing India’s plastic waste. If abrupt regulations are put in place, it would mean job losses and economic hardship for these communities. This mirrors the challenges that India faces in its energy transition too, where coal-reliant communities are at risk of being left behind in the push for cleaner energy. Plastic production also supports several industries, including agriculture, where it is widely used for irrigation systems, greenhouse covers and packaging; in healthcare, for medical devices, syringes and sterile packaging and consumer goods, which relies heavily on plastics for affordable, lightweight, and durable packaging solutions that cater to a wide range of incomes and geographies. Alternatives to plastic are usually costlier, which poses significant challenges to affordability and accessibility. India’s goal, thus, is to ensure that global commitments do not disproportionately affect the poorest and most vulnerable communities.
While India advocates for nuanced approaches to plastic regulations in negotiations, it does not mean that the country is resistant to change. India has made significant progress in addressing plastic waste, from banning single-use plastics to promoting Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). India’s position highlights the need for tailored solutions that reflect local realities. For instance, promoting innovation in biodegradable plastics and investing in waste management infrastructure could yield better results than enforcing a one-size-fits-all global policy. Lessons from India’s energy transition does show that integrating economic and social considerations into environmental policies lead to more sustainable and just outcomes.
Central to the renewed negotiations at INC-5.2, scheduled for next year should be the principle of equity. An ideal treaty should recognize the varying capabilities of nations. The treaty should implement staggered timelines for achieving production caps and waste management goals. For example, high-income countries must commit to immediate reductions in single-use plastics and investing in alternatives, while middle-and low-income countries could focus on capacity building before adopting similar measures. It must also go beyond the punitive measures and focus on fostering global collaboration. It is also essential for the developed nations to commit to funding waste management systems in the Global South and sharing of technology without restrictive intellectual property barriers. The treaty can also promote reuse economies by mandating that a certain percentage of packing in global supply chains come from reusable systems. Through subsidies, tax incentives, and global certifications, nations and corporations would be encouraged to adopt refill and reuse technologies. Such measures would reduce waste at the source and foster international standards for reuse logistics.
The solutions to the global plastic crisis must be rooted in fairness and practicality. As the negotiations would begin again in INC-5.2, India would again have the opportunity to advocate for a more pragmatic and inclusive approach to plastic pollution. By emphasizing equity, technology transfer and local solutions, the treaty must balance environmental imperatives with the developmental needs of the developing countries. Wherever the diplomats meet for the INC 5.2, while deliberating over the finer details, they must remember that a solution that works for all is the only solution that works at all.
[1] Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee on Plastic Pollution
