U.N. talks to curb global plastic pollution end without agreement

GENEVA (AN) — A pre-dawn marathon of negotiations over a landmark global treaty to rein in plastic pollution collapsed, with profound and persistent divisions still in place.

The talks, which were supposed to be the last round of negotiations, failed on Friday to produce a final, legally-binding treaty, just as a similar meeting in South Korea did last year.

Representatives from 184 countries meeting for an 11th day at the United Nations' European headquarters remained deadlocked on a central issue: whether the treaty would mandate a reduction in the exponential growth of plastic production or simply encourage nations to improve their waste management.

"Time is not on our side, and every delay risks more homes, more lives and livelihoods," said Senimili Nakora, Fiji's environment director. "We expect an instrument that reduces harm at source and repairs the damage already done. We are tired of repeating what it means to be at the very frontlines of the plastic crisis."

A revised draft treaty, unveiled in the early hours of the morning, was met with sharp criticism from nations on all sides. It revealed just how far apart countries remain, particularly on the core issue of production caps. The representatives of the 184 countries did not agree to use either of the two drafts presented by the chair as the basis for their negotiations.

The talks, held in Geneva, extended into an unscheduled extra day as negotiators struggled to bridge the chasm.

"The positions were simply too far apart," said Felix Wertli, Switzerland's ambassador for the environment, whose nation hosted the talks. "This process needs a time-out."

The 31-article proposal, presented by Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the U.N. Environment Program's Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, was an attempt to break a long-running deadlock. But it quickly became clear that the compromise text satisfied no one.

Convening an early morning plenary session, Valdivieso acknowledged to delegates that no further action was being proposed on the latest draft.

"Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed," he told delegates, underscoring the delicate balance required to forge a consensus amid competing national interests and stark economic realities.

At the heart of the divide is a "High Ambition Coalition" of more than 100 countries, including the European Union and Canada. This group advocates for a robust, legally binding instrument that addresses plastics across their entire life cycle, from the extraction of raw materials to manufacturing, consumption, and disposal.

Opposing this view is a bloc of major oil and gas-producing nations, including the United States and Saudi Arabia. These powerful nations, and the plastics industry, have resisted mandatory production caps, contending that the focus should remain on improving waste management and recycling infrastructure.

Saudi Arabia, a prominent voice in this group, said both drafts lacked balance, and along with Kuwait, contended that the latest proposal took other states’ views more into account and addressed plastic production, which they consider outside the scope of the treaty.

The revised draft text attempted to introduce more stringent measures through careful wording, frequently presenting delegates with a stark choice between "shall," which would create a legal obligation, and "should," which suggests a non-binding recommendation. The choice highlighted the ongoing struggle to define the treaty's enforceability.

"We cannot hide that the E.U. and its member states had higher expectations," said European Commissioner Jessika Roswall. "We have not managed to get there, but we have advanced significantly."

Roswall added that the European Union would not accept a "stillborn treaty" but viewed the draft as a good basis for another negotiating session. She also offered a more personal reflection, saying, "The Earth is not ours only. We are stewards for those who come after us. Let us fulfill that duty."

The urgency of the discussions was underscored by the sheer scale of the problem. Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tons of new plastic, a figure that could grow by about 70% by 2040 without policy changes.

Key points of contention

The disagreement extends across several core policy elements with direct economic and regulatory implications.

Production and chemicals: A primary point of contention is whether the treaty should impose caps on production or address chemicals used to make plastics. The latest draft did not include a limit on plastic production, but it did recognize that current levels of production and consumption are "unsustainable" and that global action is needed.

The draft added new language stating that these levels exceed current waste management capacities and are projected to increase further, "thereby necessitating a coordinated global response to halt and reverse such trends." It also revamped the objective of the treaty to state that the accord would be based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics.

Financial support: While a new multilateral fund is explicitly established, the debate over mandatory contributions from developed nations remains unresolved. The draft offers a choice on whether developed nations "shall" or "are invited to" contribute to the mechanism, a point that directly influences financial flows to developing economies for treaty implementation.

Institutional framework: While a three-fourths majority vote is proposed for most substantive issues, decisions related to the financial mechanism still require consensus, posing a potential bottleneck.

The financial implications of both action and inaction were highlighted by a recent report in The Lancet, which estimated that plastic pollution costs the global economy at least $1.5 trillion annually.

Despite the renewed ambition evident in the draft, skepticism persisted among some observers. David Azoulay of the Center for International Environmental Law expressed strong reservations, characterizing the text as a "take-it-or-leave-it" agreement.

He criticized the late-night release as a tactic to create undue pressure, arguing that the draft's predominantly voluntary nature and lack of enforceable measures on dangerous chemicals and production would be insufficient to address the crisis effectively.

"No treaty is better than a bad treaty," Azoulay cautioned, advising delegates against accepting the current text as the sole basis for future negotiation. "Do not fall into the trap."