Negotiations on a draft of a legally binding treaty to tackle the global plastic pollution crisis ended without an agreement, with countries unable to agree on key issues such as reducing plastic production.
Delegates have agreed to meet again next year to continue talks after a week of negotiations between about 200 countries in Busan, South Korea, failed to reach agreement on core issues such as production caps, finances and toxic chemicals. We agreed.
Small island states and a group of African countries most affected by plastic pollution, as well as several European and developing countries, have refused to accept the draft proposal published by the United Nations Consultative Chair, which observers criticized for being weak.
“We did not and will never accept a weak treaty here,” Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez of Panama said during the plenary session, drawing long applause from delegates.
President Luis Bayas Valdivieso said progress had been made, but acknowledged that “we must also recognize that some important issues still prevent us from reaching a comprehensive agreement.”
“We have agreed in principle to resume this meeting at a later date to conclude the negotiations,” he told delegates.
Sunday was supposed to be the end of UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Commission (INC-5) talks, but the plenary session could not begin until 9 p.m. after a draft document released by the president’s office showed several unresolved clauses. .
The document released late Sunday ahead of the final plenary session is filled with parentheses, including binding targets to reduce plastic production, regulation of hazardous chemicals and funding for developing countries where no agreement has been reached. It offered multiple options on important issues such as support.
Global South countries and campaigners say the proposals fail to address the root causes of plastic pollution, while campaigners say the wording is “weak” and lacks ambition.
“The draft on the table still does not offer a clear path to success in submerging humanity in a sea of brackets,” Greenpeace said. “Chasing the lowest ambitions will not deliver the treaty that people and the planet so desperately need.”
Early Sunday, countries in the Global South threatened to leave without a treaty, accusing the process of lack of transparency.
“There is no better writing than bad writing,” said Cheikh Ndiay Sila, Senegal’s national representative.
Dr Sam Addo Kumi, Ghana’s chief negotiator, said: “The whole world is counting on us…We are not here to accept anything less than an ambitious agreement.”
The impasse centered on whether the treaty would include limits on plastic production. More than 100 countries, including small islands, African countries, some European countries and developing countries such as Norway and Mexico, support proposals to set global targets to reduce plastic production.
Global plastic production is increasing rapidly and could increase by around 70% by 2040 without policy changes.
Plastic waste is clogging beaches, polluting soil, air and water, and microplastics are even seeping into human organs and breast milk. Many chemicals associated with plastics are known to be harmful to health.
However, major petrochemical producers such as Saudi Arabia oppose caps on production and call for a focus on waste management instead. Activists said the heavy presence of fossil fuel lobbyists was also derailing negotiations.
By the final day, it was clear that there was no chance of an agreement, so participants were already preparing a plan of action beyond Busan.
Some experts said that even if no legally binding agreement was created in Busan, there was still a chance of obtaining a blueprint for future negotiations.
“We cannot end the sentence here. The next step is to agree on a process beyond Busan,” said Björn Boehler, executive director of the International Pollutant Elimination Network (IPEN). independent person After draft proposal.
Participants from the Global South expressed particular concern about the text’s treatment of chemicals of concern associated with serious health and environmental risks.
Graham Forbes, head of Greenpeace’s delegation, said the Plastics Pact could only be successful if it tackled the toxic chemicals embedded in plastics.
“We see weak language despite the need for binding measures to eliminate these risks.”
Another major issue is financial support for developing countries. At least 126 countries have called for the creation of an independent, dedicated fund to support implementation of the treaty. However, the Chair’s draft weakens this request, providing only optional language and failing to establish a polymer manufacturing fee, a widely supported mechanism for funding global action. .
GAIA’s Arpita Bhagat said: “The Chair’s language undermines widely supported calls for a separate, dedicated fund with weak discretionary language that fails to provide adequate resources, such as polymer production fees.” . “This is a matter of life and death, especially for communities in the Global South.”
Countries in the Global South and civil society groups are bracing for battles beyond Busan, but they are also expressing frustration with what they say is an exclusionary and opaque negotiation process.
Some countries expressed concern that the draft treaty lacked a provision that would allow countries to resolve differences through voting. Negotiations proceeded by consensus. This means that all countries must agree for the decision to proceed.
Senegal’s representative, Mr. Sylla, said it was a “big mistake” to exclude voting throughout the negotiations, as agreed in the second round of talks in Paris last year.
Campaigners said the process could lead to a “tyranny of the minority”, where progress could be thwarted simply by the refusal of a few countries, such as petrochemical producers, to give consent.
Fiji’s Climate Change Minister Shivendra Michael called on countries reluctant to participate to “stand down”.
“If you’re not contributing constructively, get out,” he said Sunday.
Activists also decried the “exclusivity” at the summit, with key meetings labeled “unofficial” and closed to non-state actors, including NGOs and indigenous representatives, effectively sidelining their opinions. He said he was being chased away.
“This is the most exclusive INC I’ve ever attended,” Forbes said. “The fossil fuel industries responsible for this crisis are empowered to write the rules, while frontline communities and civil society are shut out.”
Critics argue that this exclusion disproportionately affects developing countries, which rely on civil society for technical expertise.
““When you remove actors with high ambitions, you lower the ambition of the conversation,” Beeler said.
Some countries said they were ready to push for a strong treaty at the next meeting, while others, including Saudi Arabia, called for negotiations not to be held until mid-2025.
““This process is a marathon, not a sprint,” said Camila Zepeda, head of the Mexican delegation.
“We have a coalition of more than 100 countries that… want this and we can start working together going forward,” she said.
Panama’s Gomez said: “We must not postpone the crisis by postponing negotiations. We are eating and drinking poison every day.”
“When we come together again, Panama will leave Busan with a fire in its heart. The stakes will be even higher, the devastation worse, and the opportunity for action even smaller.”
