Belgium remains fully committed to ambitious plastics treaty

The fifth session of negotiations in South Korea in late 2024 failed to result in an ambitious UN treaty on plastics, as a number of oil-producing countries opposed it. A further attempt is therefore due to take place this summer. The Belgian delegation – including our FPS – had a significant influence on the negotiations.

After all, it is abundantly clear that plastic poses an incredible problem. It is literally everywhere, often in the form of ‘micro-plastics’, tiny plastic particles: in the air, in rivers and seas, and in our soils. They can even be found inside the human body, including in the brain.

Every year, 6 million tons of plastic waste flow into the ocean and 12 million tons pollute the land. Unless our policies change, the quantity of plastic being used will be three times greater by 2060.

No agreement in Busan

The Belgian position – and that of the EU – is therefore clear: we MUST curb and put a stop to plastic pollution for the sake of the environment and our health. But because plastic is so ubiquitous, the problem can only be effectively addressed if all countries participate, which is why negotiations in international forums such as the United Nations (UN) are required.

In 2022, the news we brought was still hopeful. At the 5th session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), 175 countries agreed that a legally binding, far-reaching treaty to stop plastic pollution would be drawn up by 2024.

In the meantime, five negotiation sessions, known as the so-called Intergovernmental Negotiation Committees on Plastic Pollution or INCs, have taken place. The most recent of these was held at the end of 2024 in Busan, South Korea. Unfortunately, this INC-5 failed to conclude a sufficiently ambitious agreement. Indeed, since the agreed comprehensive approach of 2022, a limited number of countries have hardened their positions.

Given the fact that the amount of plastic pollution is increasing, that is not a good thing. On the other hand, the agreement under discussion does, in fact, have the same scope as the Paris climate agreement, in which case a two-year period of negotiation is fairly short. It is now crucial to continue making steady progress so that a sufficiently ambitious agreement can still be achieved.

Full life cycle

The original intention of the pre-agreement in 2022 was to address the full life cycle of plastics – from design and production to recycling, and including the management, reduction and prevention of waste. Because if we were to focus solely on recycling and waste management, while allowing production to continue as before, we would be mopping up while the tap was still running. Massive amounts of plastic would therefore continue to pollute our environment and affect our health.

Moreover, it is much cheaper to intervene ‘upstream’, that is, in an early stage within the life cycle. This way, not only is production regulated –lower quantities, less harmful chemicals – but the design can also be adjusted so that the products themselves can be reused or recycled much more easily. Examples of this include refillable packaging, repairable parts or simplifying the composition.

This, in turn, results in much less waste and pollution and it also means that at the same time you are laying the foundation of a well thought-out circular economy that above all generates lots of attractive jobs. On the other hand, if you only take action ‘downstream’, that is, at a late stage in the life cycle, and focus on cleaning up (incineration) and recycling, you face a huge, prohibitively expensive task with little added value and few additional jobs.
 

High Ambition Coalition & Standing up for Ambition

It was precisely with regard to these points that the positions became more entrenched. A limited group of oil-producing countries – the ‘like-minded’ ones – are adamant that they only want to take action at downstream stage. That way, they want to keep plastic production unaffected and keep their oil sales up. After all, plastic is made from oil.

Over 100 countries, however, wanted to go full steam ahead to achieve an ambitious agreement that regulates the entire life cycle of plastics. That is certainly one extremely positive outcome of the session in Busan. Most African and Latin American countries and small island states have aligned themselves with, among others, the European countries.

Not that they agree on everything, but they did realise that closing ranks was more effective. By coming out with a single proposal – containing the main points they agree on – they can have a much greater impact upon the negotiations.

Some examples of what we're talking about include strict conditions for the production of specific polymers – the base material of plastics – and restricting the use of chemical additives such as the carcinogen bisphenol A. Both of these are points that the like-minded are firmly opposed to.

The stubborn attitude adopted by the like-minded states meant that, in the end, no agreement could be finalised. The ambitious countries were not discouraged by this, however. They would rather have no agreement than a weak agreement. By the way, that does not mean that the negotiations themselves have now ended! The president in Busan decided to schedule an additional session – INC-5.2 – in the summer of 2025. That will provide a second chance to reach an agreement that can genuinely make a difference.

Hope

So the ambitious countries have certainly not lost all hope. Because with their 100-plus members, they can apply firm pressure on the like-minded countries that oppose the agreement. Something will have to change in any case.

The architecture of the final agreement can also be modified so that results can be achieved more easily. Therefore, the proposal that is on the table is to go for a solid core agreement that everyone can agree on (by consensus). More thorny issues – such as the precise toxic chemicals to be phased out – can be gradually added later in annexes that would no longer require a consensus.

After all, the like-minded countries are not a homogeneous group. A number of the major players are more willing to reach a compromise. For example, a country like China – which produces 35% of the world's polymers – has an interest in having clear standards for their products. Moreover, China is gradually evolving into a donor country that is willing to contribute more. The old division between OECD countries and the others no longer holds true today.
 

Keeping in touch

Pending an additional session this summer, the Belgian and European delegations will certainly not rest on their laurels. Right now, it is a matter of keeping in touch with everyone in order to consolidate the block of countries with high ambitions. Furthermore, a comprehensive package will need to be worked out that will allow a balanced agreement to be reached with the heavyweights that are prepared to compromise. In fact, they seem to want to distance themselves from the less constructive players.

If an agreement is reached this summer, the signatories to the treaty must then ratify it. This will be followed by the first Conference of the Parties or COP. We'll keep you posted!