These Negotiations are Getting Spicier than Korean Buldak

Buldak. Also known as Fire Chicken, a spicy South Korean chicken dish. Also available as a spicy Ramen noodle flavor.?

Things are heating up here in Busan. On Wednesday, I noted the fireworks and urgent calls for faster, more decisive action during the evening plenary. Delegates heard passionate pleas from the Indigenous community and the youth delegation, pushing not only for quicker action but for greater ambition.

Overnight, the situation developed further. INC Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso of Ecuador convened the Bureau late last night to strategize on advancing the treaty amid deadlocks and slow progress in the working groups. With limited time remaining, the urgency has escalated.

What is the Bureau? For those unfamiliar, a quick primer: in the INC process, the Bureau is a group of delegates elected from all global regions to coordinate the larger committees work. For the Global Plastics Treaty, the Bureau includes Chair Vayas Valdivieso and members from Rwanda, Senegal, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Estonia, Georgia, Peru, Antigua and Barbuda, Sweden, and the United States.

At the Bureau meeting, the chair set a mandate: treaty text on all articles must be submitted by 9:00 p.m. Busan time (12:00 p.m. UK, 7:00 a.m. New York) on Thursday, November 28, for compilation into a chair’s text.

As one might expect, this bold move sparked reactions. Erin Simon, Vice President of Business and Plastics at WWF, remarked, “This is a somewhat unprecedented and risky maneuver but also has the potential to be a forcing function for progress. These negotiations have shown that on an issue as complex and divisive as solving plastic pollution, depending on consensus alone will get us nowhere.”

Indeed, the step is risky. Given the snail’s pace of negotiations thus far, though, achieving consensus on a treaty ambitious enough to address the plastic pollution crisis was becoming increasingly unlikely.

The chair’s maneuver could lead to several scenarios between now and the end of negotiations on December 1. Here are some possibilities.

1. An Ambitious Treaty Backed by a Majority

If the chair’s text includes bold measures—such as reductions in virgin plastic production, addressing chemicals of concern, and phasing out certain plastics—opposition from the “like-minded” states and the Arab group is almost certain. However, this approach could garner strong support from the high-ambition coalition and other member states.

This outcome might alienate nations favoring traditional consensus-driven multilateralism, potentially leading to walkouts, failed votes, or a divided group.

2. A Watered-Down Text to Secure Consensus

To achieve consensus, the chair might propose less ambitious language, focusing on waste management over production, using "may" instead of "shall" to indicate flexibility, and promoting Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) instead of global commitments. While NDCs can work in some multilateral agreements, they’re unlikely to suffice against a challenge as complex as plastic pollution.

This strategy could placate low-ambition states but risks alienating the majority advocating for bold action. A split might ensue, with ambitious countries forming a separate coalition to pursue a stronger agreement.

3. A Breakdown of Negotiations

The chair’s high-stakes approach carries the risk of collapse. If talks fall apart, delegates could leave Busan in disarray, and the path forward would be uncertain. Only time will reveal the implications of such a failure.

The Current Mood in Busan

Today, the atmosphere here in Busan feels markedly different. The urgency—and a touch of brinksmanship—has shifted the tone of negotiations. Will this expedited process lead to a breakthrough? We’ll know more by the weekend.

As Erin Simon of WWF aptly summarized, “Now we wait to see if this expedited process delivers a treaty text that the progressive majority supports or one that continues to capitulate to the laggards. One thing is certain: it’s inexcusable not to address this crisis at the scale needed just because we can’t agree on how.”