Talks over a global UN pact to tackle plastic pollution will restart at a later date after bitter divisions stopped governments reaching an agreement at what was due to be the final round of negotiations in the South Korean city of Busan.
Despite proceedings going into overtime in the early hours of Monday, diplomats failed to break a stalemate over core issues under consideration for the treaty, including reductions in plastic production.
More than 100 developed and developing countries strongly pushed for measures to cap plastic manufacturing, but a handful of oil and gas-producing states – vocally led by Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kuwait and Iran – stonewalled their efforts, arguing the pact should only address consumption and recycling.
Negotiators failed to find common ground during the week-long discussions – and following numerous missed deadlines, the chair of the talks, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, released a new draft treaty text mid-afternoon on Sunday, the final day. But the document was littered with opposing options and hundreds of brackets around all contentious issues.
It looked unlikely to chart a path to an agreement in the handful of hours left on the schedule.
Production curbs needed for strong global pact on plastic pollution, campaigners say
Ultimately, countries decided to buy more time and suspend the session with a view to resume it – likely at some point next year.
“We have made significant progress in Busan – however, our work is far from complete,” said a bleary-eyed Vayas Valdivieso as he opened the closing plenary.
“Unresolved issues remain challenging and additional time will be needed to address them effectively. There is a general agreement to resume the current session at a later date to conclude our negotiations,” he added.
Interventions from country delegations laid bare, once again, the deep divisions standing in the way of an accord.
Applause for high ambition
Members of the so-called High Ambition Coalition (HAC) seized the opportunity to put on a public display of the widespread support for their treaty proposals, including the inclusion of a “global target” to reduce plastic production to “sustainable levels”.
Juliet Kabera from Rwanda, co-chair of the HAC, said the 85 countries in the coalition voiced their “strong concerns about ongoing calls by a small minority group of countries to remove binding provisions from the text that are indispensable for the treaty to be effective”.
After listing those key elements, she concluded by asking everyone who backed the statement to “stand for ambition”. The overwhelming majority of delegates present in the room rose to their feet and broke into a long round of applause punctuated by loud cheers.
After Rwanda’s statement called on all those supporting an ambitious treaty to stand, the plenary erupted in support at INC-5 in Busan, South Korea, December 1, 2024. (Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth)
Moments later, Camila Zepeda of Mexico began her intervention by reading out the names of the nearly 100 countries behind a ‘legally-binding” provision to “phase out” the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern used in their production.
Both Kabera’s and Zepeda’s statements were supported by many developing countries across Africa, Latin America and the Pacific and nearly all rich nations, with the notable exception of the United States.
Speaking for the European Union, Hugo Schally said the bloc was “disappointed” with the talks’ outcome, but felt “encouraged and empowered by a growing number of countries sharing the same ambitions”.
Saudis: Problem is pollution not plastic
Countries opposed to manufacturing curbs hit back. Saudi Arabia’s Abdulrahman Al Gwaiz complained about certain provisions, including production caps, that “continue to make it despite our continued insistence that they are not within the scope”.
“If you address plastic pollution, there should be no problem with producing plastic. The problem is the pollution, not the plastic,” he added.
Russia’s delegate spoke of “production regulation models” being imposed “purely for economic reasons”.
India’s negotiator said “we cannot deny the importance plastic plays in the development of society”, adding that the treaty needs to strike a “critical balance”.
Nearly all plastic is derived from fossil fuels – and many countries and companies see the petrochemicals sector as a lifeline, with demand for oil and gas in the energy sector projected to decline as the world shifts to cleaner sources.
Plastic production has been rising at an unrelenting pace over the last few decades and, according to some projections, could double or triple by 2050. A surge in production is expected to have a significant impact on the greenhouse gas emissions exacerbating the climate crisis.
Plastic production could consume around a quarter of the carbon budget remaining if global warming is to be limited to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, according to a study by the US-based Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Industry “capture”
Christina Dixon, ocean campaign lead at the Environmental Investigation Agency, said the negotiations had been “captured by plastic and petrochemical industries and their aligned countries, who have no intention to address plastic pollution or let others do so”.
But she added that the high-ambition coalition would “continue to fight in solidarity with those seeking real solutions to end the harms of plastic pollution”.
Graham Forbes, Greenpeace’s head of delegation in Busan, said “this delay comes with dire consequences” for the frontline communities affected by the plastic pollution crisis. “The ambitious majority must break through fossil fuel influence and the obstruction of a few to deliver an effective agreement,” he added.
Some negotiators and observers told Climate Home that China would need to play a decisive role in bridging the divide with the petrostates, if the world is to stand a chance of clinching an ambitious deal. Beijing gave a nod in that direction during the closing plenary.
Vice Minister Guo Fang said all countries should “propose more pragmatic and balanced solutions” that address the “entire life-cycle” of plastics, while taking into account national differences.
(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; editing by Megan Rowling)