Plastic treaty talks open with longshot bid for consensus deal

GENEVA (AN) — After years of diplomatic wrangling, international delegates began what's expected to be the final and most critical round of negotiations to forge a landmark treaty on plastic pollution.

The 10-day meeting, scheduled to run from Tuesday through Aug. 14, is an attempt to create a legally binding instrument to tackle a crisis that infiltrates every ecosystem and human life on the planet.

The negotiations, the sixth round since 175 nations agreed in 2022 to pursue a treaty, have been mired in disagreement over a central question: whether the final agreement will mandate a cap on the production of new plastics.

As host city, Geneva hopes to add another global treaty to its portfolio, a move that could also secure the secretariat for the new body on Swiss soil.

A new negotiating text, based on a draft from the previous session, will form the starting point for discussions this week. At a minimum, environmental campaigners say, it must have a global ban on harmful plastics and toxic chemicals; product design features for safety and recycling; financial mechanisms to help developing countries; and the ability to fine-tune it.

Two camps emerge on production

The talks are sharply divided into two factions. On one side, a coalition of more than 100 countries, known as the High Ambition Coalition, is pushing for a legally binding treaty with a clear target to reduce the production of primary plastic polymers.

This group, which includes the European Union, Rwanda, Canada, and many nations from Africa, Latin America, and the Pacific, argues that focusing on waste management alone will not solve the problem. They believe that addressing the issue at its source is the only effective solution.

On the other side is a group of powerful oil-producing nations, backed by the plastics industry, which is fiercely resisting mandatory production cuts. The coalition, which includes Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and Iran, maintains the focus should be on improving recycling, redesigning products, and enhancing waste management.

The United States, while not officially part of this bloc, has also expressed its preference for nationally determined actions over global production limits, aligning it with this position. It contends a cap on production could have significant negative economic consequences.

Addressing the media, Katrin Schneeberger, director of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, attempted to bridge the divide: "Let me also clarify an important point: contrary to some media reports, this is no call for a production cap. ... Reaching a shared understanding that measures are needed on both the production and consumption sides can help unlock the negotiations."

A health and economic crisis

Beyond production, other significant hurdles remain. Delegates are divided on how to handle the thousands of chemicals used in plastic production, with some advocating for a legally binding phaseout of the most problematic substances, while others want to leave it to national regulations. There is also a major disagreement over financing.

Developing countries, which often lack the necessary infrastructure for advanced waste management, are calling for a dedicated, standalone multilateral fund to receive financial and technical assistance from wealthier nations.

In contrast, some developed countries, including the E.U., prefer to use existing financial mechanisms. The question of whether all countries, including developing nations that are also plastic producers, should contribute remains unresolved.

As the negotiations begin, the fundamental question remains whether nations will commit to a robust, legally binding treaty with mandatory measures, or settle for a less ambitious, voluntary framework that allows for nationally determined actions. The urgency of the talks is underscored by alarming data and a growing recognition of the crisis's broader impact.

Inger Andersen, the U.N. Environment Program’s executive director, encapsulated the stakes: "We cannot let this opportunity bypass us," she said. "We know that plastic is in our nature, in our oceans, and yes, even in our bodies. ... If we continue as we are under a business-as-usual scenario, plastic production is set to triple, and we have to make a gear change."

Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chair of UNEP's Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that oversees the talks and Ecuador's envoy to the U.K., added the negotiations are "not just a test of our diplomacy; it is a test of our collective responsibility to protect the environment, safeguard human health, enable sustainable economies, and stand in solidarity with those most affected by this crisis."

The scale of the problem is now being quantified in economic terms beyond the environmental. A report published in The Lancet earlier this week found plastic pollution poses a growing danger to human health, costing the global economy at least $1.5 trillion annually in related losses.

The talks are not taking place in a vacuum; industry lobbyists are present in force. "Our research shows that those with the most to lose from meaningful regulation are working hardest to obstruct it," said Anna Diski, a senior plastics campaigner with Greenpeace U.K. "We can’t allow the corporations who profit from plastic pollution to write the rules or we’ll end up with a toothless treaty."