INC-4: The Brink of the Plastics Problem
The fourth gathering of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4), aimed at reaching a global treaty to combat the plastics crisis, concluded on April 29 in Ottawa. The week-long negotiations as a whole failed to deliver, though the lack of ambition was unfortunately predictable due to the prevalence of fossil fuel interests at the negotiations. An analysis by CIEL of the UNEP list of INC-4 participants unveiled a stark reality: 196 lobbyists from the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry registered early in the week—seven times more than the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty and the Indigenous Peoples Caucus combined.
This represents a notable 37% increase compared to INC-3 just six months prior. “Despite mounting proof of plastics’ enormous harm to people and the planet, the petrochemical industry and the countries that put them first are ramping up efforts to water down this treaty,” commented Julie Teel Simmonds, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity.
Peru and Rwanda emerged as leaders by proposing intersessional action to address primary plastic polymers, aiming to reduce global usage by 40% from 2025 levels by 2040—a plan strongly endorsed by other delegations, including those from Malawi, the Philippines and Fiji. In addition to the Peru/Rwanda initiative, several nations initiated the Bridge to Busan Declaration on Plastic Polymers, which aims to retain provisions addressing primary plastic polymers in the treaty text and to generate momentum for the fifth (and final) round of negotiations scheduled for later this year in Busan, South Korea.
Despite mounting proof of plastics’ enormous harm to people and the planet, the petrochemical industry and the countries that put them first are ramping up efforts to water down this treaty.
Despite the efforts of Indigenous Nations, environmental advocates, public health experts and frontline organizations, negotiators found themselves in a deadlock over defining the scope and essential clauses of a treaty, due in large part to fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists who were aligned with the so-called Like-Minded Group of Member States, which included Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and others. These members peddled a false narrative that the issue was plastic pollution rather than plastics production, which is almost entirely reliant on oil and gas. The United States was notably quiet during the proceedings, choosing to support broad moves towards consensus rather than offering anything meaningful to the debate.
“Negotiating with the U.S. and other oil states has felt like trying to negotiate with industry, always prioritizing profit over the well-being of people and the planet,” said Frankie Orona, executive director of the Society of Native Nations. “In order to have an ambitious treaty, we need a fundamental shift. We need intersessional work with the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples—who are rights holders with traditional knowledge and a deep understanding of sustainable resource management—as well as frontline and fenceline communities—who, for generations, have borne the brunt of environmental damage from fossil fuels and petrochemical production.”
The choice to not address the production of primary plastic polymers makes it more challenging to incorporate extraction or production reduction targets into the final text of the treaty. This compromise dilutes the ambition of the process by sidelining the crucial role of plastics production in exacerbating climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. It’s not just a letdown—it’s also a missed chance to address the underlying issues comprehensively. In a significant step forward, though, the draft text still encompasses options aimed at tackling the removal of some of the toxic chemicals throughout the entire plastics life cycle.
In order to have an ambitious treaty, we need a fundamental shift. We need intersessional work with the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples as well as frontline and fenceline communities.
Plastic production must be curbed. Research shows that recycling and waste management simply isn’t keeping up with the amount of plastic being produced so that as plastic production increases, the quantity of plastic found in the environment increases. Toxic chemicals need to be eliminated from plastics, as they infiltrate not only the environment but also the bodies of humans and other animals. These debates and other pivotal matters (indicated by bracketed text in the treaty, signaling ongoing discussions toward reaching a final agreement) will continue to be argued in the intersessional work and again at INC-5 this November.
Countries opted to proceed with intersessional efforts focusing on the financial aspect, plastic products, chemicals of concern, product design, reusability and recyclability. Member States agreed to allow observers (members and organizations from civil society and NGOs) to participate in these endeavors. Furthermore, they established a legal drafting group tasked with reviewing the text and offering recommendations to the plenary. During the intersessional period leading up to INC-5, scientific and technical experts from Member States will convene to identify and analyze strategies for identifying hazardous chemicals in products, plastic product design and financing implementation.
Given the intimate relationship between the plastics and fossil fuel industries, there is little chance of achieving the Paris Agreement goal of 1.5°C of warming without significant reductions in plastics production. These negotiations provide a once-in-a-generation opportunity to curb plastics production and pollution. The intersessional work of the coming months will be critical in shaping the final negotiations in November.
