Extra Accessibility Options
Posted by Alfiya Yermukasheva
19 May 2025Written by Max Kelly, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Plymouth
At the close of 2024, the world gathered in Busan, South Korea, for a pivotal moment in environmental diplomacy: the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to forge a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution.
As a marine scientist attending through the University of Plymouth, and as a core member of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastic Treaty, I had the privilege of contributing to this high-stakes process – supporting evidence-based advocacy at the heart of treaty negotiations.
Despite the energy and urgency driving the talks, INC-5 concluded without a finalised agreement. This outcome underscored both the immense complexity of crafting multilateral environmental accords and the deep divides between stakeholders.
As INC Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso reminded us throughout the week: “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
A Global Gathering with a Shared Purpose
INC-5 brought together over 3,300 delegates from more than 170 countries and representatives from over 440 organisations. The conference was marked by a strong sense of importance and commitment to developing a comprehensive treaty addressing the full lifecycle of plastics, from production to end of life.
In his opening remarks, President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea emphasized the global responsibility to tackle plastic pollution, stating, “The excessive reliance of humanity on the convenience of plastics has resulted in an exponential increase in plastic waste… jeopardizing the lives of future generations”.
Key Discussions and Points of Contention
Negotiations took place across multiple smaller ‘contact groups’ throughout the week to discuss technical and thematic areas covering all things plastic: primary polymers, problematic products, product design and performance, non-plastic substitutes and alternatives, extended producer responsibility, environmental emissions, waste management, legacy plastic, transparency, financing, implementation, capacity building, monitoring and more.
Several critical issues included:
One of the most powerful moments of INC-5 occurred during a plenary session, when the Indigenous Peoples Caucus stood in unison and demanded the floor to speak. Despite not being granted speaking time under the formal schedule, their act of collective resistance drew the attention of the entire room. Their message was clear: Indigenous communities are frontline defenders of ecosystems and must not be excluded from decisions that affect their lands and futures. Their interruption underscored a broader tension in the negotiations — the need for inclusivity, equity, and respect for all peoples.
Putting Science at the Centre
As part of the Scientists’ Coalition, our mission in Busan was clear: ensure that science informs policy. Comprised of over 400 independent scientists from more than 60 nations, the coalition is committed to providing peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support the treaty’s development in the form of fact sheets, policy briefs and hosting science-focused side events.
However, in the absence of a formal science-policy interface, this work continues to rely on volunteer efforts. A stark contrast to the juggernauts of industry lobbyists, including >220 fossil-fuel and chemical industry representatives, outnumbering the entire EU delegation and its member states.
The Overlooked Polluter – Textiles.
A growing area of focus at INC-5 was the environmental impact of synthetic textiles; a major yet often overlooked contributor to microplastic pollution. Delegates and civil society groups increasingly called for the treaty to address the textile sector explicitly.
Recommendations included:
The textile industry has often flown under the radar in plastic policy, yet it is a major contributor to both marine and airborne microplastic loads. A truly effective treaty must recognise that plastic pollution doesn’t only come in bottles or bags, it’s also in our clothes.
Collaboration Beyond the Plenary
Outside the main sessions, side events and informal gatherings offered opportunities for deeper dialogue. I attended technical workshops on lifecycle approaches and plastic alternatives. I also joined regional discussions involving East Asian coastal states, where researchers, policymakers, and NGOs tackled the challenges of marine debris and policy fragmentation. These collaborative forums, often more flexible than formal plenaries, were a reminder of how much innovation and action are already underway on the ground.
I also stumbled across a few of my photographs that had been featured as winning entries in the ‘Plastic and Health: Southeast Asia Unveiled exhibition’, on display at the INC-5 exhibition hall.
Looking Ahead: INC-5.2
While INC-5 concluded without final agreement, a foundation was laid. Delegates agreed to continue negotiations in 2025 using the “Chair’s Text” as a working draft. The treaty’s success hinges on continued scientific engagement, political will, and public demand.
A coalition of over 100 countries, led by Rwanda, Mexico, France, Fiji, and the EU, has vowed not to settle for anything less than a treaty that addresses the entire life cycle of plastics, including production and reduction targets.
Final Thoughts
Busan was a reminder that real change is messy, urgent, slow, frustrating and inspiring all at once. But it also reminded me why we show up: to defend ecosystems, elevate evidence, and ensure that every voice has a place at the table.
For scientists like myself, the work continues: publishing evidence, supporting negotiators, and ensuring that the treaty remains grounded in what the data tells us — that comprehensive action across the full plastic lifecycle is not just desirable, but essential.
