Ambitious global effort to create legally binding agreements The treaty on plastic pollution has collapsed Late November. A national conference in Busan, South Korea, failed to reconcile the competing national interests of countries producing fossil fuels and those facing a plastic waste crisis. Hopes for concerted international action to tackle the spiraling plastics crisis have been dashed, threatening ecosystems, wildlife and human health around the world.
Treaty negotiations are United Nations Environment Assembly in March 2022, aimed to conclude a legally binding agreement by this year intended Reduce plastic pollution from production to waste collection. The proposed treaty included:
- Provisions to reduce plastic production.
- Investments aimed at improving waste management systems.
- Phasing out harmful additives in plastics.
- The goal of developing a circular economy for plastics.
Supporters hoped that the treaty would reflect the success of the treaty. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layera milestone in global environmental governance that helped fill the hole in the Earth’s ozone layer. Plastic waste is expected to triple by 2040. The Convention was seen as an urgent response to one of humanity’s most pressing environmental problems.
road to busan
in spite of Optimism among environmental groupsthe negotiations leading up to Busan were fraught with conflict. Throughout the four sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), clear divisions emerged between countries advocating strong global rules and those favoring voluntary, country-specific measures. Naturally, the fossil fuel industry advocated regional rather than global regulation.
Supporters of a strong treaty, including the European Union and several African and Pacific island states, called for mandatory caps on virgin plastic production and legally enforceable waste reduction targets. These countries argued that systemic changes are needed to counter the widespread effects of plastic pollution, especially in fragile ecosystems.
Countries with petrochemical industries, such as the United States, Saudi Arabia, and China, resisted the global mandate. They advocated a more “flexible” framework that would allow countries to set policy. Industry groups echoed this position, emphasizing the economic importance of plastics and advocating innovations such as “advanced chemical recycling” to tackle pollution rather than accepting production cuts.
Busan stalemate
Expectations were high when negotiators gathered in Busan for final negotiations. Despite lengthy discussions, negotiations broke down over fundamental disagreements over the structure of the treaty.
The main issues are:
- Production limit: Opposing sides clashed over whether to impose global limits on new plastic production. The measure, seen as important by environmentalists, is fiercely opposed by oil-producing countries.
- Financial responsibility: Disputes over funding mechanisms to support low-income countries’ efforts to manage plastic waste and transition to greener economies have slowed progress, reflecting discussions at COP29 in Azerbaijan. .
- Enforcement mechanism: The potential effectiveness of the treaty remained in doubt as there was no agreement on a legally binding enforcement mechanism.
Ultimately, negotiators settled on a watered-down deal with non-binding recommendations, sparking protests from environmental groups and vulnerable countries.
Significant reaction to collapse
Environmentalists and advocacy groups expressed deep disappointment. Anja Brandon marine conservation organizations (Listen to her Earth911 podcast interview) She described the result as “a missed opportunity to stem the tide of plastic pollution at its source.” She criticized major producing countries for prioritizing economic profits over environmental health and equity.
Representatives from the Pacific Islands highlighted the disproportionate burden of plastic pollution borne by coastal and island states. They argued that the countries most responsible for the crisis had once again abandoned those most affected.
Meanwhile, industry groups hailed the result as a victory for “realism.” They argued that technological innovations such as advanced recycling could provide scalable solutions without disrupting the global economy.
Where do we go from here?
The Busan failure has left the world without a comprehensive strategy to tackle plastic pollution. as For this purpose As regional initiatives emerge, critics warn that fragmentation will hinder global progress. Without a binding agreement, voluntary measures may fall short of reversing the trajectory of plastic waste.
The breakdown in treaty negotiations highlights the enduring challenge of balancing economic interests and environmental imperatives in a divided world.
“Half of the plastics ever made were made in the last 20 years.” Anja Brandon wrote on LinkedIn:. “Yet, in this short period of time, plastic pollution has wreaked havoc on our oceans, our environment, and our communities. That’s why we need a global agreement. That’s why we at the Ocean Conservancy We won’t stop fighting until we reach that point.”
What can you do?
With the defeat of the international treaty, the responsibility to send a clear message to the plastics industry will be thrown back onto the public. Each of us can take action by refusing to buy single-use or short-lived plastic products and committing to recycling the plastic we actually use.
In the United States, several states have enacted the Extended Producer Act (EPR), which requires plastic packaging manufacturers to help build plastic recycling systems to ensure more material is recovered. You can make a difference by writing a letter to your elected officials urging them to pass EPR legislation.
