INC5 | Plastics | Recycling | Recycling Policy ·
Back to Blog
INC-5, the fifth round of negotiations for the global plastics treaty, has concluded in Busan, South Korea. The event brought together more than 3,300 delegates, including representatives from more than 170 nations and observers from upwards of 440 organizations. AMBR had an increased presence at INC-5, adding AMBR executives Katie Drews, Co-Director of Eureka Recycling, and Alex Danovitch, Director of Business Development for Recycle Ann Arbor, to our existing representation by Martin Bourque, Executive Director of the Ecology Center in Berkeley, CA. As far as we know, we were the only industry group representing North American curbside collections and material recovery facility operators at the conference.
Unfortunately, the negotiations did not result in a final treaty, as was required under the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) 5/14 directive, forcing a reconvening and continuation of the work at what’s being referred to as INC-5.2 in 2025. Next year’s convening will use the “Chair’s Text” as the starting point for the next round of negotiations. This text is not as ambitious as it needs to be; it lacks binding commitments to reduce plastic production, fails to set specific targets or timelines, uses vague definitions that could allow industry loopholes, and presents too many options that may dilute the treaty’s effectiveness. This does, however, represent some incremental progress towards a final treaty, as even using this consolidated text as a starting point was heavily contested by a vague grouping of oil-producing nations, most prominently represented by Russia, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, and Iran, calling themselves the “Like-Minded Group.”
Many Countries Remained Steadfast in Their Support of an Ambitious Treaty
One notable outcome of the negotiations was that, despite persistent efforts by the petrochemical industry and certain petrostates and other oil-producing nations to derail the process and weaken the treaty’s provisions, many countries remained steadfast in their support of a robust and comprehensive strategy. These nations, most of whom are among the most burdened by the impacts of plastic pollution and loosely represented through the High Ambition Colation, emphasized the importance of establishing global targets that address the entire plastics lifecycle—from production and consumption to waste management and recycling (see Panama’s delegate Juan Carlos Monterrey’s impassioned declaration to the committee). This collective determination highlighted a strong international commitment to tackling the plastics crisis head-on, even amid considerable industry pressure to dilute the treaty’s effectiveness.
The new Chair’s Text, previously called the “non-paper,” includes options ranging from voluntary measures to mandatory requirements on everything from prohibiting the manufacture and sale of problematic and avoidable plastics to funding mechanisms, transparency, and enforcement. In other words, it could turn out to be a huge plastic nothing burger or utterly transformative in the relationship between people and the planet. The good news is that this text did not result in some of these important options being ruled out completely as we move forward.
AMBR’s Message to INC-5: Recycling is Not the Solution to the Plastics Crisis
AMBR’s focus is on the impacts this treaty might have on the range of consumer packaging that ends up on shelves and the claims made about the recyclability of those plastic formats. As shown in recent reporting from top news outlets (see the Guardian’s “They Lied: Plastic Producers Deceived Public About Recycling, Report Reveals“) and in recent lawsuits from California and Kansas, for decades, the petrochemical industry has known that recycling is not a real solution to the pollution it creates. Still, they have co-opted our movement, symbol, and consumer goodwill to greenwash their packaging. As the petrochemical industry continues to develop an ever-growing nexus of highly diverse packing formats and promote a litany of false “Advanced Recycling” solutions, recyclers are increasingly expected to clean up their mess.
We are attending the INC meetings as critical discussions about the future of recycling and the role it can play in addressing plastic pollution happen there and ripple out to our national, state, and local contexts. AMBR is there to set the record straight and ensure that real recyclers speak our truth, often countering false narratives from the petrochemical and other industry forces.
Throughout the week, the AMBR team was in constant motion, attending negotiation meetings, one-on-one meetings, state department briefings, and industry discussions. Our aim continues to be to reduce the impacts of our consumption systems on human and environmental health and ensure that a global treaty would benefit real recycling operations, markets, and economic viability. As non-profit recycling operators, we’ve been working at the intersection of these two areas of concern since the beginning of modern North American recycling (which makes sense since we started it).
A few highlights from AMBR on the negotiations include:
Speaking Our Truth: At a key moment during the meetings, AMBR released a statement on the lack of progress and the consequences of not taking bold action.
“We cannot accept a treaty that mislabels burning plastics as recycling or turns a blind eye to the unchecked growth in plastic production. Recycling, while essential, cannot bear the weight of solving the plastics crisis alone. The Global Plastics Treaty must prioritize reduction and reuse at its core, or it will fail the planet and future generations.”
Advocating with U.S. Leaders: AMBR met with Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), a leader in federal plastic pollution policies, to discuss issues like bottle bills, EPR for packaging, plastics’ impacts on recycling, and broader environmental harm. We encouraged him to pressure the U.S. delegation to get ambitious or get out of the way.
Inserting our “View From the Pile”: AMBR hosted a well-attended and well-received side event that included Dr. Anja Brandon from Ocean Conservancy. We presented AMBR perspectives formed through our mission-based recycling operations, the role of recycling, its limitations, and the dangers of false solutions while emphasizing the need to reduce production and material proliferation. Afterward, AMBR executive Martin Bourque was interviewed by PlasticsNews.
Amplifying Inspired Leadership: During a plenary session, Panama’s delegate, Juan Carlos Monterrey, delivered a powerful call for bold action, earning him hero status among many of us. Another important moment came when a representative from the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics, after a peaceful demonstration, was finally allowed to address the assembly – as they are not recognized as rights holders or delegate members in the negotiations. We supported and amplified these statements, reinforcing their potent content.
“I speak on behalf of the International Indigenous People’s Forum on Plastic Pollution to highlight the disproportionate impact of plastics on indigenous peoples. We bear the brunt of the triple planetary crisis, and plastic pollution is poisoning our lands, air, water, ice, food systems, bodies, and very existence. The Global Plastics Treaty must recognize our rights and prioritize our voices and solutions to this crisis. Indigenous rights are human rights.”
– Lisa Bellanger, International Indigenous People’s Forum on Plastic Pollution
Encouraging Ambition: We also met with members of the U.S. delegation to discuss the critical impacts of plastics on the U.S. recycling infrastructure. We highlighted the constraints and limitations of recycling in addressing the plastics crisis and emphasized the economic, financial, and operational challenges the sector faces. Our appeal focused on urging stronger commitments from the U.S. delegation—or, at the very least, ensuring they do not obstruct the ambitious efforts of other nations striving for bold action.