By Faridat Salifu
As negotiations for the global plastic treaty enter their final phase at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) in Busan, South Korea, environmental justice advocates and worker organisations have raised strong objections to the inclusion of plastic credits and bonds as financing mechanisms.
They argue that such market-based solutions could exacerbate the plastic pollution crisis rather than address it effectively.
“False Solutions” and Loopholes
Critics argue that plastic credits and bonds, which allow companies to offset their plastic pollution by paying for cleanup or recycling initiatives, create loopholes that encourage continued plastic production.
“Plastic credits and bonds incentivise pollution by putting a price on it, allowing companies to continue harmful practices while claiming environmental responsibility,” said Fernando Tormos-Aponte of the Just Transition Alliance.
“Funding to address the plastic crisis must be public, direct, and grant-based to ensure a meaningful shift.” he said.
Adrienne Aakaluk Titus of the Indigenous Environmental Network echoed these sentiments, describing the mechanisms as “false solutions backed by industry and developed nations.”
She warned that such schemes risk leaving Indigenous and frontline communities disproportionately affected by pollution and climate change.
Advocates from the International Alliance of Waste Pickers and other grassroots organisations highlighted the potential inequities of market-based solutions.
“Market mechanisms often marginalise waste pickers, prioritising corporate interests over the people most engaged in mitigating plastic waste,” said Indumathi of the alliance.
Frankie Orona of the Society of Native Nations criticised plastic credits and bonds as “colonial mechanisms” that commodify environmental destruction while leaving vulnerable communities to bear the brunt of pollution.
Demand for a Just Transition
Environmental groups at INC-5 are calling for the treaty to include a Just Transition framework that prioritises workers’ rights, occupational safety, and equitable financing mechanisms.
“The treaty must deliver clear, legally binding obligations to phase out harmful plastics and ensure financing is transparent, grant-based, and accessible to all,” said Repon Chowdhury of the International Trade Union Confederation.
Youth delegates at the negotiations also issued a strong plea for action, urging nations to reduce plastic production to safeguard future generations. “Plastic doesn’t go away; it pollutes our land and contributes to CO2 emissions,” they stated in a powerful intervention on the final day of discussions.
With the world watching closely, stakeholders emphasised the need for an ambitious treaty that avoids half-measures and prioritises systemic change.
Delegates called for phasing out the most harmful plastics and chemicals of concern, alongside protections for workers and communities impacted by pollution.
“Without bold action, the treaty risks becoming another missed opportunity to tackle a crisis threatening ecosystems, human health, and the planet,” the coalition of environmental groups concluded.
As the INC-5 negotiations draw to a close, the message from Busan is clear: plastic credits and bonds are not the solution, and the world needs a treaty that prioritises justice, equity, and genuine environmental stewardship.