Assessing the Busan Negotiations: Was the Global Treaty on Plastic Pollution a Missed Opportunity?

A global treaty aimed at addressing plastic pollution is experiencing delays after delegates from over 170 countries failed to reach a consensus in Busan, South Korea. While the need for urgent action is clear, differing priorities among nations, particularly regarding production reduction and chemical regulation, complicate negotiations. Despite setbacks, a growing coalition supports a robust treaty, emphasizing the importance of avoiding a weak agreement. The next session is scheduled for 2025, as the urgency to combat rising plastic waste continues.

The Delay of the Global Plastic Pollution Treaty

The anticipated global treaty aimed at combating plastic pollution is facing delays. Delegates from over 170 nations convened in Busan, South Korea, and fell short of reaching a consensus on December 1st. According to the OECD, the global production of plastic surged from 243 million tons in 2000 to 460 million tons in 2019, highlighting the urgent need for action. While the inability to agree on the treaty is disheartening, many analysts were not surprised by the outcome.

As some observers noted, “A poor agreement is worse than no agreement at all.” They particularly emphasized the necessity of including the term ‘reduction’ concerning global plastic waste production. “From the outset, our goal has been to avoid a feeble text that merely addresses the disposal of plastics, which is often advocated by oil-producing nations,” explained Manon Richert, communication manager at Zero Waste France.

Challenges and Progress in Negotiations

Despite the setbacks, the journey toward an effective treaty is still ongoing. The coalition known as ‘high ambition,’ dedicated to ending plastic pollution, is facing challenges from producing nations, the ‘like-minded’ group led by Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and India. The draft treaty presented in Busan still exhibits some of the weaknesses found in previous proposals.

One key area of contention is the phrase ‘sustainable production and consumption of plastic,’ which holds different meanings for various parties involved. The high ambition coalition, spearheaded by Rwanda and Norway, seeks to enforce a reduction in the production of virgin plastics and eliminate all unnecessary items, such as single-use plastics. Conversely, major producers resist any binding reductions, arguing that the treaty’s focus should be on addressing plastic pollution rather than reducing plastic production itself.

Another major issue is the regulation of ‘problematic chemicals’ that pose risks to human health. The coalition advocates for a clear, legally binding obligation to minimize or eliminate these substances, but some countries refuse to support this initiative, citing existing international agreements and national laws. Additionally, financing remains a critical topic, as the costs associated with collecting, sorting, and recycling plastic waste are burdensome for developing nations. Discussions are underway to establish a dedicated multilateral fund to address these financial challenges.

On a positive note, the draft agreement has seen enhancements and a growing coalition of support. “A significant development during this week’s negotiations is the strong alignment among countries committed to high ambition, with 95 nations signing the declaration and approximately 130 countries backing this initiative, compared to just 9 ‘like-minded’ nations,” commented Henri Bourgeois-Costa, director of public affairs at the Tara Ocean Foundation.

During the summit in Busan, oil-producing countries faced criticism, leading to their isolation in negotiations due to their reluctance to agree on production reductions. Countries like Rwanda have publicly denounced these attempts to undermine the discussions.

Inger Andersen, the head of the UN Environment Programme, stated that the Busan summit should not be deemed a failure, emphasizing that the two-year timeline set for signing this critical global treaty is “very ambitious.” This sentiment resonates with numerous observers.

Looking ahead to 2025, many organizations commend the efforts of certain nations in advocating for a robust treaty. “France, under the leadership of Minister Delegate for Energy, Olga Givernet, has shown great commitment to these negotiations, which is commendable. We hope that France and Europe will maintain this momentum and resist settling for a subpar text,” Richert stated.

However, convincing several major powers, particularly the United States, remains a significant hurdle. Experts suggest that Washington’s stance is not leaning towards an ambitious treaty. Additionally, China’s ambiguous position during the Busan summit did not clearly endorse a reduction in plastic production. “We must absolutely avoid a treaty that merely focuses on the end-of-life of plastics to appease all parties. Such an outcome would lead to a downward spiral,” cautioned Richert.

While some advancements on an international scale are promising, they still fall short of facilitating the signing of a comprehensive treaty. With an alarming 353 million tons of plastic waste produced globally each year—a figure projected to escalate to 1,014 million tons by 2060—the urgency for action is undeniable. A new session is scheduled for 2025, although the specific date and location have yet to be announced. These details are expected soon, with the primary objective being to finalize a treaty text by 2025.

Latest