Treaty far from guaranteed at final UN plastic pollution negotiations

Many climate experts and diplomats flew directly from the United Nations climate conference, COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan, to Busan, South Korea, last weekend to take on their next challenge: The fifth and ostensibly final round of negotiations to agree on a global treaty to end plastic pollution. The previous round of talks in Ottawa, Canada, in April highlighted a steep divide between a large group of countries wanting a legally binding framework to curb plastic production and a smaller one pushing for “plastic sustainability,” or plastic waste management. The smaller group, mostly composed of oil-reliant nations such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, disrupted the negotiations over procedural rules, leaving contentious issues to be negotiated in Busan. Meanwhile, long nights and tense negotiations in Baku over how to curb global warming highlighted the challenges of conducting climate talks in a polarized world, with many lower-income countries on the front lines of climate change criticizing the final COP29 finance deal as disappointing. As such, the hill appears steep for a deal in Busan, where 170 countries and over 600 observers have registered for the talks. The vision of the fifth meeting of the U.N. Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, or INC-5, is laid out in a resolution the United Nations Environment Assembly, or UNEA, adopted in 2022 mandating member states to draft a global instrument to end plastic pollution by 2040. To do so, delegates had five rounds of negotiations to develop a treaty adopted by consensus by the end of 2024. The UNEA resolution calls for an instrument “which could include both binding and voluntary approaches, based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastic.” However, many observers and delegates are concerned about the amount of work ahead to reach an agreement by the time the talks in Busan end on Sunday. After Ottawa, the draft treaty was over 70 pages and some perceived it as not workable because of its length and breadth. In a 17-page summary of delegations’ views shared before Busan, chair of the talks, Luis Vayas Valdivieso urged delegations to work on a consensus that “balances interests and reflects shared aspirations.” On Monday, some countries already expressed concerns about the document but Valdivieso insisted it is by no means final. “​​If anything, Baku shows the vulnerability of multilateralism,” Hirotaka Koike, a senior political and external affairs officer at Greenpeace Japan, told Devex. “We need to find a way to build trust and bridge the differences so that consensus can emerge. Also it showed that a few countries can stop the collective progress. [The meeting] needs to succeed to show the world that multilateralism with the UN at its core still is the best possible way forward.” During the negotiations, delegates still have to agree on capping plastic production; waste management of existing and future plastics; finance, including the potential establishment of a new financial mechanism to assist parties in implementing the treaty; and capacity building, technical assistance, and technology transfer for countries. “Deciding on these elements, which basically determine the ambition of the agreement, will take time, and even if they decide to draw from the compiled draft text, there are very many hurdles to overcome on these issues,” Tallash Kantai, writer and team lead with the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, an independent reporting service on U.N. environment and development negotiations, told Devex. The state of the negotiations is so dire that many attendees are talking about “if” there will be a treaty at the end of the week. Reconciling different visions The world produces 430 million metric tons of plastics a year — surpassing the weight of all human beings on Earth combined, according to the MIT Technology Review. This rate is set to triple by 2060 if nothing is done to reduce plastic production. As U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres put it, plastic is “everywhere — all around us and inside us — from our seas to our blood, to our brains.” Lower-income nations generally bear the brunt of plastic pollution. Over 99% of plastic is made from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels, and as such, the treaty has the potential to affect influential businesses and petrochemical-producing nations. They have pushed for a less ambitious document — mirroring the dynamics seen in other global climate negotiations. “There is a link to COP29 as both climate and plastic pollution are from fossil fuel, which is a huge contributor to climate change together with methane and nitric oxides. So climate and plastic pollution are linked to the hip,” Anthony Talouli, director of waste management and pollution control at SPREP, an intergovernmental regional organization that provides support to Pacific islands, told Devex. The question for this round of negotiations is whether drastically different visions for reducing or ending plastic pollution can be reconciled. “What do we need to see? Clear targets, clear pathway forward, transparency, a financing mechanism and, of course, a just transition so that everyone can be part of this agreement,” Inger Andersen, who leads the U.N. Environment Programme, said in a video on Sunday. This week, the task is to “get the deal done, be very clear, be very focused on what it is that we are here to do, which is to end plastic pollution,” she added. But from the beginning of the negotiations in Uruguay in 2022, diverging visions for the treaty emerged. On the one hand, the self-declared high-ambition coalition, a group of more than 60 countries led by Rwanda and Norway, is pushing for a treaty addressing the full life cycle of plastic. On the other, an alliance of mostly oil-producing countries such as Russia and Saudi Arabia is pushing for a document mostly focusing on plastic waste management — or what they call “plastic sustainability” — but that doesn’t curb production. As Kantai put it: “At this point, there are some states that would prefer a strong global treaty although this could mean that big producers would never sign on. Others prefer a plastic waste treaty with measures targeted at states and regions, which would get all states on-board but would be a ‘weaker’ treaty as it would exclude limits to production of virgin plastic.” The United States’ position has been unclear throughout the negotiations, and the White House recently signaled a potential backtracking on commitments to reduce plastic production, creating a possible list of chemicals, and setting global criteria on avoidable plastic products to phase out. “It is incredibly frustrating to watch this administration head into these negotiations, seemingly walking back its ambition,” said Brett Nadrich, U.S. and Canada communication officer at Break Free From Plastic. “We assume that a significant amount of that is due to the election results, but as we all know, President Biden is still currently in office, and that is who these negotiators are representing as they head to Korea.” Attendees in Busan said the return of Donald Trump to the White House also looms over the negotiations. However, for Graham Forbes, who leads Greenpeace’s delegation, the United States’ potential backtracking on climate issues under Trump should motivate other nations to do more. “The chaos that surrounds an incoming Trump administration creates an opportunity for other member states to step up, be the adult in the room and put human and planetary health before short-term profits for a dying industry," he said. Money talks While plastics industry representatives are not officially part of the negotiations, they have attended previous rounds of talks and have tried to shift the focus on redesigning and reusing plastic, instead of reducing production. In Ottawa, fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered national delegations, according to the Center for International Environmental Law. The treaty has the potential to directly affect these companies’ bottom line since it explores the private sector’s responsibility for plastic pollution. Coca-Cola, for example, produced 3 million tons of plastic packaging in 2017 — the equivalent of 200,000 bottles per minute. Given companies’ significant impact on production and pollution, the treaty explores notions such as extended producer responsibility, or EPR. It requires producers to pay a market fee to collect, sort, recycle, or dispose of plastic, which could be costly for plastic producers. PepsiCo Inc., which is part of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastic Treaty, called for a “well-designed” EPR. “Without clear definitions and harmonized principles to guide their implementation, this solution is not scaled to the level it could be,” Anke Boykin, senior director of global environmental policy at PepsiCo, wrote in an op-ed. Other voices from the private sector include the health care and pharmaceutical industries, whose work heavily relies on plastics for safety purposes — such as the packaging and manufacturing process for medical products. Just like in Baku, the big challenge will be reconciling the positions of countries, the private sector, and civil society. “Now, there is a possibility that there may not be consensus to use the chair's text and thus delegates would need to revert to the compiled draft text, which is heavily bracketed,” Kantai said, referring to the 70-page draft treaty which includes many items to be agreed upon. While attendees remain uncertain about what the week will look like, they hope Baku was a learning moment and not a preview of what awaits them in Busan. “Lessons [learned] from COP29 will be useful here for states to try to set a pathway so we avoid those mistakes,” Talouli said.