The Ambuli Dialogues: The Plastics Treaty Prospects – Strategy Session 30 Days Before Busan

Background. On Tuesday, 22 October 2024, the Global Environmental Governance Project at the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University hosted the inaugural session of the Ambuli Dialogues: Prospects for the Plastics Treaty One Month Before INC-5 in Busan (5th session of the Inter-governmental Negotiating Committee).

Participants & Moderation. A diverse group of representatives from government, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, academia, science, and civil society participated, sharing perspectives on the current status of the plastics treaty and the outlook for INC-5 and thereafter. The Dialogue was held under Chatham House rules and moderated by Maria Ivanova, Director and Professor at the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University and Director of the Global Environmental Governance Project, and Joshua Lincoln, Senior Fellow at the Center for International law and Governance at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.

Purpose & Key themes. The Dialogue opened with a discussion of its purpose: 1) connecting individual and institutional actors working on a functional and effective treaty, 2) fostering a sense of community through cross-sectoral conversation, 3) encouraging knowledge integration and action-oriented thought leadership, and 4) supporting public, private and civic engagement and collaboration. Key themes included the importance of leadership, the challenge of balancing ambition with broad member-state participation, the role of academia and subnational actors, and opportunities for cross-sector collaboration and coalition-building.

Session I reviewed the INC’s progress to date and the work of the two intersessional Ad Hoc Working Groups. Participants discussed the Chair’s initiative to focus the negotiations, including a Non-Paper and Scenario Note to guide the work. They also reviewed the role of key state actors at this stage, including the United States, Rwanda, Norway, etc. The session also explored in detail the need for meaningful global obligations, the different circumstances and constraints faced by different actors, and the question of definitions and purpose. It also reviewed the room for flexibility in the negotiation process, the treaty’s design and eventual implementation, and questions about potential trade-offs to achieve consensus.

Session II examined how negotiations are shaping up on three critical and controversial upstream and midstream issues: primary production caps, chemicals of concern, and product design, as well as the implication of the polluter-pays principle (mandatory producer responsibility for end-of-life costs?). Participants discussed the impact of domestic politics on international negotiations and global actions. They also discussed the challenge of reconciling strong core obligations with economic realities (earlier government investments in petrochemical sectors or budgetary priorities of developing countries). The current state of scientific research on plastics (especially with respect to climate linkages, human health, and micro- and nano-plastics) was reviewed, as was the evolving position of business coalitions. The connection between the plastics and climate change agendas, along with the role of the climate change community at INC-5 and beyond, was identified as both contentious and potentially beneficial to the plastics negotiations. While leveraging lessons from climate negotiations was seen as valuable, concerns arose that aligning the plastics treaty too closely with climate efforts could reduce support for it. Sub-national actors—such as state and local governments and universities and hospital systems—were identified as crucial drivers of change, complementing national efforts to address plastic pollution through domestic policy changes. Finally, participants noted that the negotiations did not systematically apply a Just Transition approach.

Session III outlined possible scenarios after INC-5, including scenarios featuring a finalized text (which would, in any case, require further work on implementation language, etc.) but also those in which a text is not agreed upon and further time is needed. Key uncertainties included debates over the financial mechanism and the need for compliance, reporting, and monitoring functions. Discussions also addressed some final mile considerations like the INC interim rules of procedure, the challenge of consensus-based decisions, alternatives and options, as well as ways to build common ground. Participants reviewed opportunities for cross-regional collaboration, particularly between small states and middle powers. Building coalitions beyond national boundaries and fostering partnerships across sectors emerged as essential strategies for developing sustainable and innovative solutions. Participants underscored the importance of leadership not only from governments but also from businesses, civil society, and academia.

Concluding conversation. Participants exchanged ideas for future Dialogues as well as broader engagement to sustain momentum beyond INC-5. Ideas of communities of practice and multidisciplinary centers of excellence were discussed. In closing, the moderators shared their thinking with respect to a plastics consortium of universities that could combine scientific and health research; social sciences approaches like law, policy, and the arts; engineering and innovation and entrepreneurship while also leading as communities of practice (as large institutional consumers of plastics) and activism.