Sign up to the Independent Climate email for the latest advice on saving the planet
Get our free Climate email
Get our free Climate email
Negotiations to draft a legally binding treaty to tackle the global plastic pollution crisis have ended without an agreement, as countries failed to agree on key issues like cutting plastic production.
Delegates agreed to meet again next year to continue talks after a week of negotiations between almost 200 countries in Busan, South Korea, failed to agree on core issues like production cap, finance and harmful chemicals.
Small island nations, who are the most affected by plastics pollution, and a group of African nations as well as several European and developing countries refused to accept a draft proposal released by the chair of the UN talks which was slammed by observers as weak.
“We did not accept a weak treaty here, and we never will,” Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, of Panama, said at the plenary, receiving a long round of applause from delegates.
Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso said progress had been made but he acknowledged “we must also recognise that a few critical issues still prevent us from reaching a comprehensive agreement.”
“There is a general agreement to resume the current session at a later date to conclude our negotiations,” he told delegates.
Sunday was the scheduled end of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) talks, but the plenary couldn’t start until 9pm after a draft text released by the presidency showed multiple unresolved provisions.
The text released late on Sunday ahead of the final plenary, was filled with brackets, providing multiple options on key issues such as binding targets to cut plastic production, regulating harmful chemicals, and funding support for developing nations, where no consensus had been reached.
Global South countries and campaigners said the proposal failed to address the root causes of plastic pollution, while campaigners said the text was “weak” and lacked ambition.
“The draft on the table does not yet provide a clear path to a successful outcome, drowning humanity in a sea of brackets,” Greenpeace said. “Chasing the lowest ambition will not deliver a treaty that the people and planet desperately need.”
Early on Sunday, Global South countries called out the lack of transparency in the process and threatened to walk out without a treaty.
“No text is better than bad text,” said, Cheikh Ndiaye Sylla, Senegal’s National Focal Point.
Dr Sam Adu-Kumi, Ghana’s lead negotiator, said: “The whole world is looking up to us… We are not here to accept anything short of an ambitious treaty.”
At the heart of the impasse was whether the treaty would include limits on plastic production. Over 100 nations, including small islands, African nations and several European and developing countries like Norway and Mexico, back a proposal to set a global target for reducing plastic production.
The amount of plastics the world is producing has been growing exponentially and could climb about 70 per cent by 2040 without policy changes.
Plastic waste is clogging beaches, polluting soil, air and water with microplastics seeping into human organs and even breast milk. Many chemicals associated with plastics have been known to cause harm to health.
However, key petrochemical-producing nations like Saudi Arabia oppose production caps, calling instead for a focus on waste management. Campaigners said heavy presence of fossil fuel lobbyists was also derailing the negotiations.
In the final days, delegates had already started preparing for an action plan beyond Busan, as it became obvious there was no chance of a consensus.
Some experts said, that even if a legally binding treaty is not created in Busan, there is still a chance of having a blueprint for future negotiations.
“There’s no way to finish the text here. The next step is agreeing on a process for beyond Busan,” Bjorn Beeler, executive director of the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), told The Independent after the draft proposal.
Global South delegates have raised particular concerns about the text’s treatment of chemicals of concern, which are linked to severe health and environmental risks.
Graham Forbes, head of delegation at Greepeace says a plastics treaty can only be succesful if tackles the toxic chemicals embedded in plastics.
“We’re seeing weak language where there should be binding measures to eliminate these hazards.”
Another key area of contention is financial support for developing nations. At least 126 countries have called for an independent, dedicated fund to assist with treaty implementation. However, the Chair’s draft weakens this demand, offering only optional language and failing to establish a polymer production fee, a widely supported mechanism for funding global action.
“The Chair’s text undermines the widely supported demand for an independent, dedicated fund with weak, optional language that fails to provide adequate resources, such as through a polymer production fee,” said GAIA’s Arpita Bhagat. “This is a matter of life and death, especially for Global South communities.”
As global south countries and civil society groups prepare for a battle beyond Busan, they have also expressed frustration over what they describe as an exclusionary and opaque negotiation process.
Some countries raised concerns over the absence of provisions in the draft treaty text that could allow countries to resolve disagreements through voting. Negotiations proceeded on the basis of consensus, meaning all countries must agree for decisions to move forward.
Senegal’s national delegate Mr Sylla called it “a big mistake” to exclude voting during the entire negotiations, an agreement made last year during the second round of talks in Paris.
This process, campaigners said, resulted in “the tyranny of the minority,” meaning a small group of nations, such as petrochemical-producing countries, could block progress simply by refusing to agree.
Fiji’s climate minister, Sivendra Michael, asked countries unwilling to participate to “get out”.
“If you’re not contributing constructively… then please get out,” he said on Sunday.
Campaigners also slammed “exclusivity” at the summit, saying key meetings have been labelled “informal” and closed to non-state actors, including NGOs and Indigenous representatives, effectively sidelining their input.
“This is the most exclusive INC I’ve ever attended,” Mr Forbes said. “Frontline communities and civil society are being locked out, while the fossil fuel industry, the very people responsible for this crisis, are being empowered to write the rules.”
This exclusion, critics argue, disproportionately affects developing nations that rely on civil society for technical expertise.
“By removing high-ambition actors, you lower the ambition of the conversation,” said Mr Beeler.
Some countries said they were preapred to push for a strong treaty in the next conference, while others, including Saudi Arabia, requested for the talks to not be held before the middle of 2025.
“This process is a marathon, not a sprint,” said Mexico’s head of delegation, Camila Zepeda.
“We have … a coalition of the willing, over a hundred countries that want this, and we can start working together” on a way forward, she said.
Mr Gomez of Panama said: “Postponing negotiation, do not postpone the crisis. We’re eating and drinking poison every single day.”
“Panama leaves Busan with fire in our hearts when we reconvene, the stakes will be higher, the devastation will be worse, and the opportunity to act will be even smaller.”
Source: independent.co.uk
