As the world grappled with the escalating crisis of plastic pollution, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) sessions—tasked with drafting a landmark Global Plastics Treaty—became a critical arena of debate.
Across multiple negotiation rounds culminating at the fifth session (INC-5) in Busan, South Korea, a rift deepened between countries pushing for ambitious reductions in plastic production and those defending the status quo.
Standing at the center of these talks were African nations, whose leadership and proposals sought to transform how the world addresses the plastic life cycle, from production to waste management and beyond.
From the outset, the African delegation stood out. During the earlier INC meetings, they championed bold proposals that targeted the root causes of plastic pollution, rather than focusing solely on “end-of-pipe” solutions like recycling.
Their stance reflected a continent-wide call for systemic changes. “The only way to truly tackle the plastic pollution crisis is to limit production,” said Hellen Kahaso, Project Lead for Greenpeace Africa’s Pan-African Plastics Project, echoing the sentiments of over 100 countries worldwide advocating for a cap on plastic production.
A joint statement from the African Group of Negotiators underlined this philosophy: “end-of-pipe solutions, such as recycling, are not sufficient without addressing the upstream drivers of pollution.”
Central to Africa’s agenda was the recognition of human and environmental justice. African negotiators demanded just transition measures for workers in waste management, who are often from marginalized communities.
As Kahaso observed, “We cannot have a treaty that ignores the people who’ve been holding up the system for decades.” The African bloc also insisted on eliminating hazardous chemicals in plastics.
A United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report shared during the negotiations indicated that over 4,000 chemicals are used in plastic production, many of which are classified as hazardous. Failing to address this chemical load, African delegates warned, would merely perpetuate toxic pollution cycles.
This emphasis on equity and justice resonated with other nations in the Global South. African negotiators insisted that the treaty acknowledge disproportionate burdens.
Vulnerable coastal and riverine communities suffer the worst impacts despite contributing least to global plastic production. “A global treaty cannot succeed if it ignores the unique challenges faced by nations in the Global South,” said Juliet Kabera, Director General of Rwanda’s environment management authority.
The African Group’s proposal for a Multilateral Fund , supported by 94 countries, aimed to ensure that developing nations would have financial resources to implement treaty commitments. Without it, they argued, ambitious promises would remain hollow.
Yet Africa’s bold vision faced significant resistance. Major plastic-producing countries—such as Saudi Arabia, India, and, in some respects, the United States—resisted efforts to cap production.
They preferred to emphasize waste management and recycling. As Ghana’s lead negotiator, Sam Adu-Kumi, put it, “We cannot accept a treaty that shifts the burden to the poorest countries while allowing polluters to continue business as usual.”
As talks moved toward INC-5 in Busan, observers hoped for a breakthrough. Instead, they confronted a stalemate proven by industry influence and entrenched national interests.
According to the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry representatives registered for the Busan conference—outnumbering even the host country’s delegation of 140 representatives.
This unprecedented corporate presence cast a long shadow over the proceedings. “These lobbyists are here to protect their profits, not the planet,” said Von Hernandez, global coordinator at the Break Free From Plastic movement.
Indeed, industry representatives lobbied against production caps and pushed for weaker measures, explaining waste-to-energy incineration and other downstream solutions that environmentalists argue amount to “greenwashing.”
A Chair’s “non-paper” at INC-5, intended to guide negotiations, removed critical language on production caps, reflecting industry-backed preferences. “This document represents a step backward,” said Pacific Island negotiators like Tonga’s Lupe Matoto, while Fiji’s Eleni Tokaduadua and Greenpeace’s Hellen Kahaso labeled it “a blueprint for greenwashing.”
The divisions at INC-5 were stark. On one side stood the High Ambition Coalition—led by nations like Rwanda and supported by over 100 countries—urging upstream measures, production caps, and the phasing out of toxic chemicals.
“We are here to safeguard the future of our planet, not to protect corporate profits,” said Rwanda’s Kabera. On the other side was a “like-minded group,” led by Saudi Arabia and supported by Russia, India, and Iran, which framed capping production as a threat to economic security and sovereignty.
This standstill had profound implications. Scientific studies show that global plastic production, currently over 400 million tons annually, could increase by 70% by 2040 without interventions.
Modeling by the University of California, Berkeley, indicates that production caps could reduce mismanaged plastic waste by nearly 40% by 2050.
A UNEP report presented during the negotiations estimated that tackling plastic pollution would require $1.64 trillion by 2040—far less than the long-term costs of inaction, such as cleanup efforts, health impacts, and loss of biodiversity.
Yet the stalemate persisted. Countries like the United States, while open to some restrictions, declined to endorse full production caps, citing economic concerns and job losses in petrochemical sectors.
Throughout these sessions, civil society organizations, including WWF, Greenpeace, and the Break Free From Plastic movement, repeatedly called on delegates to resist industry influence. “We cannot allow corporations to dictate the terms of a treaty that will determine the health of our planet for generations to come,” said David Azoulay, Director of Environmental Health at CIEL.
But industry representatives continued to argue that capping production would stifle innovation, harm growth, and disrupt global markets.
By the close of INC-5, negotiators left Busan with no consensus on key issues. Production caps remained bracketed and unresolved. Discussions on hazardous chemicals and financing mechanisms were similarly stalled.
“This was supposed to be a turning point,” said Hugo Schally, Director General for the environment at the European Commission. “Instead, we’ve taken a step back.” The credibility of the treaty hung in the balance, as observers warned that a watered-down agreement would be a missed opportunity.
Nonetheless, African nations and their allies in the High Ambition Coalition vowed to continue fighting. Rwanda’s early success in banning plastic bags and South Africa’s effective recycling initiatives showcased the continent’s leadership. African delegates also stressed the importance of transparency and inclusivity in future negotiations, criticizing the closed-door sessions that excluded civil society and Indigenous leaders.
“Africa is not just a victim of plastic pollution; we are also a leader in the fight against it,” said Kabera. Although the Busan talks concluded without the sweeping reforms that many had hoped for, the stage was set for further negotiations.
With entrenched interests still at play, the path to a global plastic treaty that prioritizes equity, justice, and genuine environmental protection remains uncertain.
Yet, as African negotiators and their global allies demonstrated, the struggle for meaningful solutions and accountability continues—undaunted, resilient, and resolved to shape a future free of plastic pollution.
