December 2, 2024
4 min read
Global Plastic Pollution Treaty Talks Fail
A summit many hoped would yield a landmark treaty to tackle a global plastic pollution crisis ended in disappointment after oil- and gas-producing countries pushed back on limiting production
The photograph shows part of Canadian artist and activist Benjamin Von Wong’s 5-meter tall art installation the “PerpetualPlastic Machine.”
Bertrand Guay/AFP via Getty Images
CLIMATEWIRE | BUSAN, South Korea — United Nations members had meant to use this past week to work out how to end plastic pollution. Instead they return to their homes empty-handed from the coastal South Korean city of Busan.
Talks collapsed late Sunday after negotiators failed to resolve their differences and agree on a global plastic treaty. At the heart of the disagreement was a refusal by oil-rich nations led by Saudi Arabia to accept a deal that put limits on plastic production.
EU negotiator Hugo Schally expressed the “regret of many in the room this didn’t happen, despite the tireless efforts of so many of us including many stakeholders who worked until the morning hours in the hope of securing a successful result,” in his address to the final plenary.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The Busan summit was billed as the culmination of two years of talks, with U.N. countries having previously agreed to “forge an internationally binding agreement by 2024.” Greenpeace called it “the most important multilateral treaty” since the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
But in the end, differences proved irreconcilable between those countries wanting a comprehensive deal tackling the root cause of the plastic pollution crisis — production — and those countries whose economies are tied to continued demand for the ubiquitous fossil fuel-based material.
The stakes are high. Plastic waste is flowing into the world’s oceans at a rate of around 10 million tons a year and rising, threatening marine biodiversity. Global emissions from plastic production could triple and account for one-fifth of the earth’s remaining carbon budget by 2050, according to one study. Microplastics, meanwhile, are infiltrating everything from brain tissue to breast milk. On current trajectories, plastic production could nearly triple by 2050.
“While it is encouraging that portions of the text have been agreed upon, we must also recognize that a few critical issues still prevent us from reaching a comprehensive agreement,” said the chair presiding over the negotiations — Ecuadorian diplomat Luis Vayas — who proposed suspending the troubled talks until a later date.
The blame game
The EU, alongside more than 100 other countries that included the U.K., had on Thursday backed a new proposal spearheaded by Panama pushing for a global target to reduce plastic production to “sustainable levels,” drawing a clear battle line for the talks.
But three negotiators from countries in the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution — granted anonymity to discuss closed-door talks — told POLITICO that Saudi Arabia had coordinated a push from oil-rich and plastic-producing countries to block any proposals for the treaty that threatened to reduce plastic production. The vast majority of plastic is made from oil or natural gas.
At nearly every round of talks over the past two years, those countries — which also include Iran and Russia — have been accused of causing delays and obstructing progress on the talks.
The Saudi and Russian negotiators declined multiple requests for comment when approached by POLITICO in Busan.
“We … are worried by the continuing obstruction by the so-called like-minded countries; and we know definitely that it may be a minority, but still we have to be all together the most as we can to push [the talks] forward,” said French Energy Minister Olga Givernet at a press conference early Sunday.
Saudi Arabia and its fellow pro-plastic allies have refused to accept the blame.
“We entered into real discussions with some sincerity and honesty,” the representative for Iran said last week, complaining of other countries’ “discriminatory” and “selective approaches towards issues and discussions.”
Along with disagreements over plastic production, countries were also unable to agree on whether and how to target particularly polluting plastic products, and how to finance the treaty.
‘Stupid then, stupid now’
Two of the “high-ambition” negotiators referenced above suggested the talks were doomed to fail from the beginning, arguing that there was never going to be enough time given the scope of the mandate.
“I think the pressure on us to deliver that in 18 months … was kind of stupid then, and it’s still stupid now,” one said. “Usually these processes take a number of years — beyond what we are doing.”
“High-ambition” delegations had also hoped for more support from major plastic producers China and the U.S.
China, the world’s biggest plastic producer, has been seen as a constructive partner for the ambitious coalition in some respects. It has contributed to the debate on targeting the most polluting plastic products.
But Beijing has been far less keen on touching production levels. And while the U.S. this summer threw its weight behind reducing plastic production, some see the country as pulling back following the recent electoral victory of Donald Trump.
But many observers and some delegates said the summit’s collapse demonstrated the failure of consensus-based environmental multilateralism, arguing that requiring all countries to agree by consensus gave reluctant nations too much veto power. NGOs like the Center for International Environmental Law hope last week’s failed talks will serve as a lesson for future U.N. talks.
“What we saw in Busan was a weaponization of consensus by a small number of countries to stall progress and undermine the negotiations,” said David Azoulay, director of environmental health at CIEL. “At the next session, countries must once and for all clarify that they are ready to use all options, including voting, to deliver the treaty they continue to affirm is needed.”
Still, many countries and NGOs were optimistic that a treaty could still be reached.
“Let us be relentless,” said Panama’s head of delegation Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez at the final plenary. “We may have been delayed but we will not be stopped.”
The date and time of the next round of talks is yet to be announced.
Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.
