DAY-3 at INC-5 : A Critical Juncture in Plastics Negotiations—Hope, Frustration, and the Fight for Integrity

This treaty is not just a document—it is a lifeline for our oceans, ecosystems, and future generations!

The third day of the INC-5 negotiations in Busan has been a mix of determination, obstruction, and unsettling challenges to the integrity of the process. As an observer moving between contact groups and plenary sessions, I witnessed both the progress driven by determined parties and the calculated stalling by those unwilling to confront the plastics crisis with the urgency it demands.

But there’s a deeper issue at play, one that threatens the credibility of these talks: reports of scientists facing verbal abuse and online attacks by lobbyists ahead of these negotiations. This is beyond unacceptable—it’s an affront to the scientific foundations essential for crafting a treaty rooted in truth and solutions.

If the INC process is to succeed, it must be safeguarded from the influence of polluters and those prioritizing profit over planetary health.

High Points: Progress Against the Odds

Despite the challenges, Day 3 saw some critical advances:

1. Midweek Momentum from Key Advocates: Countries like Panama, Colombia, Switzerland, and the EU rallied for faster progress, emphasizing the need for trust, good faith, and the empowerment of co-chairs to counter obstructionist tactics. Their message was clear: we cannot afford to let the plastics crisis deepen while we waste time on procedural delays.
2. Observer Voices Amplified: The calls for inclusivity found champions in Ghana and Tuvalu. Ghana pushed for more space for observers in plenary, while Tuvalu ensured the Indigenous Peoples Forum on Plastics could address the floor. Alongside the Global Youth Coalition on Plastics, these voices brought much-needed perspectives to the table, reminding negotiators of the real-world stakes of their decisions.
3. Concrete Proposals for Production Reduction: The Cook Islands, representing PSIDS (building on efforts by Rwanda and Peru), proposed an ambitious provision for a 40% reduction in plastic production by 2040 (based on 2025 levels). This is a decisive step forward, supported by a growing majority of countries, signaling that production limits must be a cornerstone of the treaty.
4. Financial Mechanism Gains Support: A written submission from the African Group and GRULAC, endorsed by over 100 countries, called for a new, independent financial mechanism to support developing nations in fulfilling treaty obligations. This is a powerful move toward ensuring equity and shared responsibility in addressing the plastics crisis.
5. Chemical Transparency on the Agenda: Kenya tabled a detailed proposal for identifying harmful chemicals and problematic polymers, including transparency requirements with clear deadlines. This proposal is a step toward addressing the crisis at its chemical roots.

Low Points: The Forces of Delay and Distraction

Unfortunately, the progress was marred by deliberate efforts to derail meaningful outcomes:

1. Exclusion of Observers Amid Rising Industry Influence: While only four observer groups have spoken so far, a record-breaking 220 petrochemical and chemical lobbyists have been registered at INC-5 (according to a CIEL analysis). This disparity is alarming and poses a direct threat to the integrity of these negotiations.
2. Promotion of False Solutions: The halls of INC-5 are echoing with the same tired "solutions" that perpetuate the plastics problem: bioplastics, incineration, and plastic credits. These measures fail to address the root causes and merely shift the crisis rather than solving it.
3. Resistance to Ambition in Group 1 (Polymers, Chemicals, and Products): Certain countries openly rejected the inclusion of production limits and chemical measures in the treaty’s mandate. One delegate dismissed these critical measures as “beautiful ideas,” pushing instead for a narrower focus on waste management.
4. Gridlock in Group 3 (Finance): Discussions on financing were plagued by disagreements, with fears of producing yet another lengthy, non-agreed text. With so much at stake, the inability to find consensus on key financial mechanisms is deeply concerning.
5. Procedural Delays in Group 4: Instead of addressing substantive issues, precious hours were wasted debating the order of discussions—a stark example of low-ambition voices employing stalling tactics.

An Unacceptable Attack on Scientists

As if the challenges within the negotiation rooms weren’t enough, reports have surfaced that scientists advocating for robust treaty measures have faced harassment and online attacks from lobbyists. This reprehensible behavior undermines not just individuals but the very foundations of a treaty grounded in science and evidence.

Scientists are not negotiators—they are the truth-tellers. Their role is to ensure that decisions are informed by the best available knowledge, free from intimidation or manipulation. Such attacks serve only to protect polluters, distract from real solutions, and delay the action we so desperately need.

The world is watching. And it will remember not just what was decided, but who stood firm and who faltered when faced with this pivotal moment. The time for action is now—before the tides of plastic overwhelm us all.