• Civil Society groups made their presence felt through different creative actions. We saw a monumental march in Busan, a petition with 3 million signatures calling for production reduction delivered to delegates, and reuse solutions in action at the Rethinking Plastic Life exhibit.
• In the opening plenary, despite some hesitations from a minority of those present, countries agreed that the Chair’s proposed starting point for the work was a good basis for efficient negotiations instead of the long text that resulted from INC-4. Many also recognized the need for improvements and inclusions to the text.
• Some countries, including the Republic of Korea, Somalia, and Chile, expressed the importance of the treaty scope to encompass the full life cycle of plastics, starting with production.
• Some countries, including Rwanda, Alliance of Small Island States, Vanuatu, UK, Norway, and Vietnam, asked to move on promptly to contact groups (CGs) for substantial negotiations, which are based on the different sections of the treaty text. The Chair proposed that countries hold informal talks first to find common ground so that negotiations would be more effective. The goal is for CGs to reach an agreement by Friday and for the Legal Drafting Group to finish work by Saturday morning in time for plenary on Saturday afternoon and Sunday.
• In the evening, countries moved to two CGs (2 and 4). In Group 2, several delegates emphasized the need for the treaty to include measures on emissions and releases with clear definitions. In Group 4, countries exchanged their views, including, but not limited to, aligning the suggested text with other Multilateral Environmental Agreements, the need for additional details on rules of procedure, and the need for streamlining the text.

• In plenary, some delegations, including India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and Uganda, called for consensus as a decision-making process for the treaty, which could limit ambition by giving any country, including low-ambition countries, the power to veto effective treaty measures. Additionally, Iran considered supply, health, and chemicals of concern "irrelevant and beyond [the treaty] mandate."
• In Group 2, a minority of voices opposed provisions to cover emissions under the treaty scope. Additionally, we heard a remark denying the impact of microplastics on human health.
• Observers continued to experience logistical barriers that made it harder to engage in the process. For example, observers were not provided a chance to speak at plenary, even though many, including the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus, signed up, and rooms for CG discussions were far too small, with observers - and even country delegates - standing or sitting on the floor for hours.
• UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen was in the hot seat during the Observers' meeting on Sunday and today’s UNEP press conference when failing to directly respond to whether she had pressured some country delegations to lower their positions on production reduction measures.

Over the past three days, rights-holders' collective voices and actions have been loud and powerful. Starting on Saturday, movement and coalition members blanketed the city with ads, mobilized over 1,500 people to march through the streets of Busan, delivered nearly 3 million petition signatures, and united more than 500 individuals to form a human sign across Haeundae Beach.

Other creative actions included distributing Korean rice cakes, flyers, and local newspapers to engage delegates in the importance of an ambitious treaty that reduces plastic production and protects human health and the environment.

Multiple obstacles at INC-5 hinder observer participation. Observers were not provided an opportunity to speak at the opening plenary, despite many having signed up to speak. The Rethinking Plastic Life exhibit–which allows stakeholders to showcase their perspectives–is a 15-minute walk from where actual negotiations occur.

UNEP also failed to provide a dedicated meeting room for observers and for the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus. The latter group especially had to incur high expenses to find a place far from the venue. The contact group spaces were very small, with insufficient seating to adequately accommodate delegates and observers, raising concerns by several Member States and resulting in some observers being asked to leave. These logistical arrangements make it difficult for delegates and observers to effectively participate in and respond to the negotiations

Staying true to form with its predilection to employ delaying tactics and dilute the ambition of the treaty,  the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia deserves the distinction of SPOILER OF THE DAY!

In the opening plenary, KSA led the charge among the Like-Minded group to push for consensus for decision-making, which, while sounding noble, is a shield to push for the lowest common denominator in these talks.

Additionally, KSA showed resistance to using the Chair’s non-paper as the basis for the negotiations, which was intended to facilitate discussions and streamline negotiations. We expect to see more of the same foot-dragging tactics and stonewalling maneuvers from KSA and its supporting crew of petrostates throughout the week.

• Across the different negotiation groups, ambitious voices were heard encouraging the use of strong legal obligations and a full lifecycle approach that encompasses plastic production reduction measures.
• In Group 1 (chemicals, supply, and products), several countries positively mentioned reuse, with a few looking to strengthen their reuse and repair policies, embracing systemic measures.
• In Group 2 (plastic waste management, emissions and releases, existing plastic pollution, and just transition), several delegates emphasized the importance of Just Transition measures and provided positive references to the Basel Convention and environmentally sound waste management, which indicates that the text may complement existing waste trade regulations.
• In Group 3 (finance and means of implementation), some countries supported a new dedicated fund, aligning financial flows and having a financial mechanism that will impose fees on primary polymers and plastic producers.
• In Group 4 (objective, scope, principles, and preamble), several member states emphasized the need for provisions on human rights, Indigenous Peoples and local knowledge systems, biodiversity, and ecosystems.
• Indonesia youth activist Aeshnina Azzahra Aqilani handed a letter to the European Union delegate Sarah Nelen, demanding that high-income countries stop exporting plastic waste to low-income countries.

• Countries spent too much time questioning the treaty scope, which is already clearly indicated in the UNEA resolution 5/14, as well as adding text that has not been agreed upon, rather than moving forward to actual negotiations.
• In Group 1 (chemicals, supply, and products), low-ambition voices supported voluntary approaches instead of strong legal obligations and insisted that the lifecycle of plastics starts with product redesign in an effort to exclude plastic production reduction measures.
• In Group 2 (plastic waste management, emissions, and releases), there was no precise understanding of the term Just Transition, and discussions were further marred by a delegate questioning the relevance of including waste pickers in that context. Also, little progress was made on waste management despite it being a highly agreeable topic.
• In Group 3 (finance), some countries wanted the financial mechanism to focus on waste management and promotion of recycling and plastic credits, which do not effectively address the plastic pollution crisis.
• In Group 4 (objective, scope, principles, and preamble), one delegate stated that the scope of the treaty should not cover plastic polymers, while another delegate wanted to remove language that would have protected human health from the adverse impacts of plastics.
• Lack of space in negotiation rooms severely restricted access for delegates and observers. Some rooms’ capacity allows only 3% of the registered observers, which has severely undermined transparency and inclusivity principles.