The fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC5) on combating plastic pollution, which could have been the “Paris Agreement” for plastics, ended empty-handed. The failure to narrow the differences between oil-producing and non-oil-producing countries failed to produce a final agreement. Critics have criticized South Korea, the host country, for failing to play its role by remaining passive.

On December 2, the Environment Ministry said INC-5 ended at 3 a.m., one day after its deadline. “More time is needed to effectively resolve the issues,” Chair Luis Val Valdivieso said in a plenary session the previous day, adding that “we reached an overall agreement to resume the fifth round of negotiations to finalize it later on.” They failed to come up with a conclusion despite the extended discussion. As a result, countries have agreed to hold INC-5.2, a sort of “second INC-5,” next year.

The UN Environment Assembly (UNEP) had agreed in 2022 to finalize a binding international agreement on plastics by this year. The meeting in Busan was the last of five planned sessions that, if successful, would have resulted in the iconic “Busan Convention,” which would have joined the Paris Agreement and the Montreal Protocol.

Countries clashed over reducing plastic production right from the start. Chair Valdivieso proposed using the phrase “the need to recognize the management of the supply of primary plastic polymers to achieve sustainable levels of plastics production and consumption throughout the entire cycle is recognized” as a starting point for discussion, but oil-producing countries pushed back, arguing that even though ostensibly there is no such word “reduction,” it directly implied a de facto cut, making it impossible to agree.

On November 29, two days before the closing of the meeting, discussions appeared to be moving forward when the chairman used the word “cut” in his fourth proposal. China was also more forward-thinking than expected; however, Saudi Arabia remained adamant that it would never accept any wording that implied cuts, leading to another stalemate. The previous day's fifth proposal, which included the oil-producing countries' positions, presented the three words “reduction,” “maintenance,” and “management” as options, but the parties were unable to finally agree.

On the spot, there were voices that South Korea, the host country, did not play a proper role. South Korea did not join the “Bridge to Busan: Declaration on Primary Plastic Polymers,” which was released by 33 countries, including France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Peru, and Fiji, in connection with the international plastic convention in the lead-up to INC-5. Nor did Korea sign the statement of support for global reduction targets issued by more than 100 countries, led by Panama, on November 28, the fourth day of negotiations. It only joined a statement by a coalition of host countries that called for the inclusion of provisions to reduce plastic production to sustainable levels.

“South Korea had an opportunity to demonstrate international leadership as a host country, but it failed to do so,” criticized climate and environmental organization Climate Solutions. “During the negotiations, the South Korean government failed to take the initiative to provide clear and ambitious input, and even basic operations such as internet issues and lack of observer seats on the spot left much to be desired. Above all, the Korean government did not show a clear position on the goal of plastic production reduction and continued to take a passive stance, focusing only on waste management and recycling.”

Environment Minister Kim Wan-seop, who was appointed as the chief representative of the replacement, only spent three days, from the 24th to the 26th, before the opening and went back to Seoul. He didn't show up until the 30th, a day before the closing day, and came back to Busan at 4 p.m. to meet with the chief delegate of Saudi Arabia on the closing day.

As the host country and a member of the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) to End Plastic Pollution, the behavior of the South Korean government was also very disappointing,” said the Solutions for Our Climate, noting that “contrary to the minister of environment's statement that ‘we need to move towards production reduction,' the South Korean government was not named in a single proposal to reduce production during the negotiations.”