Packaging Waste and the Global Plastics Treaty: What Now?

Efforts to finalise a global plastics treaty at the INC-5 Summit in Busan, South Korea, have collapsed, leaving nations, businesses and environmental advocates frustrated.
The summit, involving representatives from 200 nations, ended without a binding agreement, fuelling concerns over the continued environmental damage caused by plastic waste.
But with negotiations now postponed, does this impasse spell disaster or is it an opportunity to build a stronger foundation?
Why the global plastics treaty stalled
The INC-5 summit was widely viewed as a critical step in the fight against plastic pollution, with environmental groups like Greenpeace calling it “the most important multilateral treaty” since the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
Yet, despite two years of negotiations, leaders failed to reach a consensus. Central to the breakdown was a stark divide between nations advocating for a comprehensive treaty to limit plastic production and those whose economies depend on plastics, primarily derived from fossil fuels.
More than 100 nations supported a proposal from Panama to cap plastic production at sustainable levels. However, resistance reportedly led by Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations blocked meaningful progress.
Most plastics are made from oil or natural gas and for these economies, reducing plastic production poses a significant economic threat.
Ecuadorian diplomat Luis Vayas, chairing the talks, proposed suspending discussions until a future date, acknowledging partial progress but highlighting unresolved issues.
He stated: “While it is encouraging that portions of the text have been agreed upon, we must also recognise that a few critical issues still prevent us from reaching a comprehensive agreement.”
The case for action
Despite the lack of a deal, businesses have continued to push for decisive action on plastic pollution.
The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, which includes more than 275 companies such as Unilever, Coca-Cola and SAP, has consistently lobbied for binding global rules.
Following the summit’s collapse, the coalition released a statement acknowledging progress but warning against further delays: "Despite tireless efforts by the INC Chair and government negotiators to finalise a global plastics treaty, it will not be agreed in Busan, as planned.
“We are encouraged by the increased alignment amongst over 100 countries on critical elements such as global phase-outs and sustainable levels of plastic production.”
However, the coalition criticised the postponement of key decisions, stressing that the delay hampers businesses’ ability to invest in solutions: “There’s no time to waste: we cannot afford this process sliding into unending negotiations."
Adam Elman, Sustainability Director at Google, expressed similar frustration, citing the alarming rise in plastic production: “The world produces more than 400 million tonnes of new plastic every year, while production could climb about 70% by 2040 without policy changes.
“Countries remained far apart on the basic scope of a treaty and could agree only to postpone key decisions and resume talks, dubbed INC 5.2, to a later date.”
The case for optimism
The failure to agree on a treaty has sparked criticism from environmental groups and representatives from the Global South, who argue that the negotiations have been unfairly influenced by powerful petrochemical interests.
Arpita Bhagat, Plastics Lead at GAIA Asia Pacific, accused the INC-5 Chair of favouring oil-producing states in the drafting process: “The Chair’s latest text is unacceptable to the majority of Global South countries and the billions of people they represent.”
But not everyone views the summit’s conclusion as entirely negative.
Anke Boykin, Senior Director of Global Environmental Policy at PepsiCo, highlighted the progress made in developing the treaty’s draft text and the growing alignment among nations.
“The momentum is strong. A vast majority of countries support ambitious global rules to address plastic pollution. The political will to take action exists,” she said.
Anke also pointed to the increasing sophistication of discussions around Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), a concept where manufacturers are held accountable for managing the waste their products generate.
She noted that further clarification of EPR principles is necessary to ensure consistent global implementation.
Despite the setback in Busan, the urgency of tackling plastic waste remains undeniable. With 10 million tonnes of plastic entering oceans annually, threatening marine life and ecosystems and microplastics found in everything from food to human tissues, the stakes are immense.
By 2050, emissions from plastic production could triple, consuming one-fifth of the planet’s remaining carbon budget.
As the world waits for INC 5.2 to resume, stakeholders are determined to keep the pressure on.
Dr Sam Adu-Kumi, a negotiator from Ghana, sums up the need for bold action: “The whole world is looking up to us – they are expecting something better that will protect the environment, human health, our brothers and sisters - and our young populations.”
With the groundwork laid and debates evolving, the next round of talks offers an opportunity to build a more inclusive and impactful treaty. The key question now is whether nations and industries will seize it.
Make sure you check out the latest industry news and insights at Scope 3 Magazine and be part of the conversation at our global conference series, Sustainability LIVE and Procurement & Supply Chain LIVE.
Discover all our upcoming events and secure your tickets today. Subscribe to the Scope 3 Magazine newsletter.
Scope 3 Magazine is a BizClik brand.