A meaningful UN treaty to end plastic pollution edges closer

The fifth and final planned round of negotiations (INC5) on a UN treaty to end plastic pollution concluded last week in Busan, South Korea. While it didn’t result in the agreement that Unilever – and other businesses – wanted, we successfully avoided the worst scenario of a voluntary treaty.

Ed Shepherd was in Busan representing the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, which Unilever co-chairs. We caught up with him to find out what did – and didn’t – happen at the talks.

Ed, can you share some headlines from the meeting?

It was a real pleasure to be in Busan for the negotiations. My hopes were high, but the reality is that a deal wasn’t struck. The good news is that the decision was made to resume the session at an ‘INC5.2’ meeting in 2025, a pragmatic next step given where we stand.

Despite the lack of a deal, I was encouraged to see meaningful progress by the majority of countries on some critical topics and agreement to use the Chair’s text [for the prospective treaty] for the resumed session.

The process, however, remains fraught. A small group of nations continue to have a different vision for the treaty. There’s a risk of the process sliding into endless negotiations, failing to deliver the clear global rules that business and investors urgently need to help scale solutions.

Do governments agree with the need for global rules?

These negotiations have been running for a couple of years and this was the first time the majority of countries came together and agreed on an ambitious middle ground.

Mexico led a group of 95 countries on language related to Article 3, which is about the phase-out of problematic and avoidable plastic products and chemicals of concern. This described Article 3 as a cornerstone of the treaty, and I agree. When there are materials and chemicals that shouldn’t be used and there are viable alternatives, let’s not use them.

We also saw Panama lead a group of over 110 countries around Article 6 – related to production – calling for the treaty to achieve sustainable levels in line with the Business Coalition’s view. This was seen as the most controversial topic within the treaty, so I’m delighted to see the majority of countries working constructively together to try to make real progress.

Articles 3 and 6 are key to the treaty’s effectiveness, and the formation of these two groups is very encouraging. This is the leadership we need, and it’s a clear signal that most countries will not accept a low-ambition treaty.

How does this alignment turn into text for the treaty?

The process is usually less important than the outcome, although given how the previous INC meetings have played out there is a continued risk that we end up with a lowest common denominator treaty. This wouldn’t be good enough for business, nor the planet.

Again, for the first time in the process, we now have a streamlined text which has been accepted as the basis for the ongoing negotiations. While all of the critical elements are included, some areas aren’t strong enough to deliver the clarity and harmonisation that business needs.

One example is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which provides the most effective way to develop collection and processing infrastructure. The current text simply encourages governments to implement EPR – this must urgently be strengthened at INC5.2, not only do we need a mandatory assurance that EPR will be implemented, but it must also be implemented under the same core principles that we know work – for example to be government-regulated and industry-managed, and to have eco-modulated fees to drive up recyclability and improve material choices.