U.N. plastic treaty talks face deep divisions as deadline nears

GENEVA (AN) — Negotiations for a landmark United Nations treaty to combat plastic pollution are confronting significant obstacles, with progress described as insufficient and a critical deadline fast approaching.

The chair of the talks issued a frank assessment on Saturday, emphasizing the urgent need for a breakthrough in the final days.

The current session, INC-5.2, is scheduled to run for 10 days through Thursday, longer than previous sessions. This round follows an earlier, inconclusive part of the fifth session in Busan, South Korea, in late 2024.

The broader initiative originated from a March 2022 U.N. Environment Assembly resolution that mandated the creation of a comprehensive, legally binding instrument addressing the entire life cycle of plastic, from production to disposal. Despite nearly three years and multiple prior negotiating sessions across the globe, a clear consensus remains elusive.

Ecuadoran diplomat Luis Vayas Valdivieso, who chairs the proceedings, did not temper his message to the 184 nations gathered. "Progress made has not been sufficient," he said. "We have arrived at a critical stage where a real push to achieve our common goal is needed." He underscored Thursday's deadline as a date by which tangible results must be delivered.

The draft treaty text itself reflects the deepening divisions. It has expanded to dozens of pages, with the number of bracketed, unresolved clauses multiplying nearly five-fold to almost 1,500. This proliferation indicates considerable divergence among the approximately 3,700 participants, who include government delegates and representatives from over 600 organizations.

Valdivieso expressed frustration over the slow pace, noting that some key articles still show "little progress" toward a common understanding.

Stalemate over production controls and civil society's plea

At the heart of the contentious discussions in Geneva is a fundamental question: should the treaty impose binding limits on new plastic production, or should its focus remain primarily on "downstream" solutions such as improved waste management, enhanced recycling infrastructure, and broader reuse initiatives?

This distinction highlights a profound clash between economic interests and environmental priorities. Some countries, prioritizing swift agreement, suggested setting aside areas of deep disagreement. Others, however, condemned this approach as "brinkmanship," arguing it would compromise the treaty's essential ambition.

Kuwait, speaking on behalf of the "Like-Minded Group," a coalition largely composed of oil-producing nations, openly rejected production limits. The group advocates for the treaty to concentrate squarely on addressing plastic waste, contending its overall scope has not been adequately debated and "consensus must be the basis of all our decisions," effectively granting any single nation a potential veto over substantive elements.

Conversely, Uruguay firmly said adherence to consensus "cannot be used as a justification to not achieve our objectives." This position aligns with the original mandate for the talks to address plastic across its entire life cycle. Saudi Arabia, representing the Arab Group, suggested a more pragmatic path, urging consideration of which parts of the text "may not make it to the final outcome due to irreconcilable divergence." Riyadh cautioned against allowing "the perfect to be the enemy of the good."

Panama's negotiator, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, has emerged as a vocal critic of efforts to narrow the treaty's scope. He emphasized the alarming ubiquity of plastic pollution, noting that microplastics are now found "in our blood, in our lungs and in the first cry of a new-born child." He described this as "living proof of a system that profits from poisoning us" and dismissed the efficacy of recycling alone, stating, "we cannot recycle our way out of this crisis."

Civil society organizations are increasingly vocal, urging governments to overcome the deadlock. The Center for International Environmental Law, along with global partners, released a statement warning the negotiations are "not on track to deliver a treaty that will protect people and nature."

They called for governments to "step up. Fix the process, keep their promises, and finalize an effective treaty to end plastic pollution." CIEL drew a parallel to climate negotiations, observing "it’s the countries least responsible for the problem that are fighting hardest for an ambitious treaty, while producers are in a race to the bottom."

As host of the talks, U.N. Environment Program's Executive Director Inger Andersen offered a more tempered assessment at a press conference on Saturday. Her remarks suggested a belief that progress was indeed being made, albeit at a pace that requires acceleration.

While acknowledging the challenges, Andersen disputed the notion that the talks have reached a complete breakdown. "We are a lot further than when we stepped into this, she said. "I would not say there's basically no progress, but I am saying it is time to understand we need to ratchet this up in terms of speed, and that is what I'm calling for and, indeed, what the chair was imploring members to do."

The U.S. position and global stakes

The active involvement of the United States in these plastic treaty talks is particularly notable, given its general disengagement from other significant international environmental commitments under the Trump administration, such as the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Despite withdrawing from the Paris accord and opting out of certain U.N. climate and ocean initiatives, the U.S. remains deeply engaged in the plastic negotiations.

The U.S. position aligns with focusing on "downstream" solutions: emphasizing improved waste collection and management, better product design, and bolstering recycling and reuse programs. This stance resonates with the domestic plastics industry, a substantial economic sector that contributes over $500 billion annually to the U.S. economy and employs approximately 1 million people.

The United States, along with other major oil and gas-producing nations, explicitly opposes global production caps for plastics. They argue that plastics are integral across nearly all economic sectors. The U.S. State Department has also expressed its reluctance to support outright bans on specific plastic products or chemical additives, asserting a lack of "universal approach" to pollution reduction and suggesting that chemical regulations are more appropriately handled through existing frameworks.

These positions run counter to stark projections on plastic pollution. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates 22 million tons of plastic waste will leak into the environment this year, a figure that could escalate to 30 million tons annually by 2040 without intervention.

The OECD further warns that even if the treaty focuses exclusively on waste management, without addressing production and demand, an estimated 13.5 million tons of plastic would still escape into the environment each year.

Research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California indicates that even slight growth in plastic production could more than double associated greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, given that most plastic is derived from fossil fuels. The U.S. industry's argument that production caps could increase costs for essential plastic products underpins its resistance to such measures.

The pervasive nature of plastic pollution underscores the urgency of these negotiations. More than 400 million tons of plastic are produced globally each year, with half designated for single-use items, and overall production is projected to triple by 2060. The environmental and health consequences are increasingly evident, with microplastics now detected from the highest mountain peaks to the deepest ocean trenches, and even within the human body.