Negotiations that were supposed to be the final round of U.N. negotiations for a global plastics deal ended without an agreement on Sunday after delegations were unable to reconcile conflicting views on whether to impose caps on plastic production. did.

Another negotiating session, called INC-5.2 after this week’s INC-5, is scheduled to take place in 2025, but it remains unclear how countries will move forward if there are no changes to the treaty’s agreed-upon decision-making processes. It’s opaque. As it stands, any delegation can basically veto any proposal it doesn’t like, even if most of the world opposes it.

“If it weren’t for Saudi Arabia and Russia, we would have reached an agreement here,” said a European negotiator. told the Financial Times. These two countries, along with other oil-producing countries such as Iran and Kuwait, have agreed that the Plastics Treaty would leave production untouched and focus only on downstream measures, such as increasing plastic recycling rates and cleaning up existing plastic pollution. I hope.

kuwait delegation said on sunday “We’re not here to eliminate plastic itself, we’re here to eliminate plastic pollution.” The plastics industry has taken a similar position. Chris Jahn, council secretary of a petrochemical industry consortium called the International Council of Chemical Societies, said it was “vital” that the treaty focused solely on plastic pollution. “2.7 billion people around the world lack access to waste collection systems, and solutions must prioritize addressing this gap,” he said in the paper. statement.

Dozens of countries, supported by scientists and environmental groups, argue that this approach is wasteful, even as the plastics industry plans to significantly increase plastic production. “We can talk all we want about waste management, but this is not a silver bullet.” . “It’s no use mopping the floor when the faucet is open.”

Christina Dixon, marine campaign leader for the nonprofit Environmental Research Agency, attended INC-5 and told Grist that the meeting made it clear that “consensus is not working.” He said countries also seemed to recognize this, given the shortcomings of INC-5 and the low likelihood of unanimity on the treaty’s most important issues.

continuous disturbance” A Fijian negotiator said a “very small group” was “blocking the process” and told delegates at a weekend press conference that they were holding off on signing the treaty: said.please leave”

Technically, the treaty could continue without Saudi Arabia, Russia and their allies under the framework of the United Nations, or, in a more radical scenario, proceed in a new forum led by the withdrawing allies. There is. The latter is unlikely given the time and energy that countries have invested in the UN system. This is because countries still place emphasis on baselines. delegation Two years ago, they agreed to “end plastic pollution” by addressing “the entire lifecycle of plastics.” However, a smaller number of signatories could still have a global impact by indirectly influencing plastic production in non-signatories through import tariffs and other trade policies.

A delegation is likely to arrive at INC-5.2 with a proposal to change to a voting-based decision-making system. Cheikh Ndiay Sila, representative of Senegal, said that thisbig mistake” Don’t do that in the first place. The reason the vote was not discussed at INC-5 is because this topic wasted an entire week of negotiations last year.

“As production of plastics and their toxic chemicals expands, the process is broken and limps along,” said Pam Miller, co-chair of the nonprofit International Pollutant Removal Network, who attended the meeting. Ta.

Several delegates addressed these procedural issues during Sunday’s closing plenary. One of Fiji’s negotiators also lamented. Access issuesThis includes rules that prevent civil society from observing two full days of negotiations during the second half of INC-5.

“Although this is a member-state-led process, true multilateralism requires balanced and fair participation to ensure this treaty works for everyone,” he said.

[delegates]

Despite their frustrations, some participants said it was helpful to rally support at the Busan meeting around caps on plastic production and related proposals to ban certain types of plastics and plastic-related chemicals. said. Much of what they said was that Panamanian negotiator Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez called the treaty “fight to survive”

“For Panama, plastic is a weapon of mass destruction,” he said. said. “All the works we allow to be produced without restriction are a direct attack on our health, our nature, and our children. To those who are holding back progress, you We are allowing the crisis to worsen and it will destroy us.”

By the conference’s closing plenary session, around 100 countries had signed a statement saying they would not accept the treaty unless it included a binding global phase-out of plastic products and so-called “chemicals of concern.” Mexico representative spent 2 minutes Read the list of these signatories. And after that Almost all countries stood When Rwanda’s chief negotiator asked them: symbolically show their support for “ambition‘ is clearly stated in the treaty.

new manuscript paper Prepared by Luis Bayas Valdivieso, Chairman of INC-5.