Global treaty to end plastic pollution fails. What now?
Countries did not reach a final agreement at the fifth round of negotiations (INC-5) for a global plastics treaty, which closed on 1 December in Busan, South Korea. Team WhatPackaging? ruminates on the fallout.
12 Dec 2024 | 704 Views | By Dibyajyoti Sarma
Negotiations over the first legally binding UN treaty on plastic pollution collapsed in the final stage of discussions after oil-producing nations said no. The deal was too oily. Despite the determined efforts of the Chair and government representatives, countries did not reach a final agreement at the fifth round of negotiations (INC-5) for a global plastics treaty, which closed on 1 December in Busan, South Korea.
A draft text released on 1 December revealed continued division between the majority of countries calling for binding global rules across the full plastics lifecycle and a smaller number of countries opposing such measures.
While the date and place for INC-5.2 have not yet been announced, governments now face a pivotal choice: settle for a treaty with universal support but little impact or champion an ambitious agreement that enforces global rules across the full lifecycle of plastics, supported by comprehensive financing and a just transition — the clear preference of the majority of governments, businesses, and citizens.
The onus of responsibility
Plastics bosses say limiting plastic usage will have consequences (inflationary consequences) on consumers. This means, the sustainably-conscious Gen Z and Gen Alpha consumers. So, sustainability champions and plastic bosses need to target Gen Z and Gen Alpha with sustainability messaging. But what about the Boomers and Millennials? And, the ones who created plastic, Gen Plastic?
The fact is, everyone wants indestructible protective packaging. At the same time, everyone wants plastic packaging to be sustainable.
While reduce, reuse, and recycle are good old mantras, no one knows what one should prioritise. Meanwhile, the most sustainable packaging is shockingly old school.
Global treaty to end plastic pollution
In a message released on 26 November 2024, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, “Every year, we produce 460 million tons of plastic, much of which is quickly thrown away. Plastic waste is dumped into our waters, killing marine life — and by 2050, there could be more plastic than fish in the ocean. Microplastics in our bloodstream are creating health problems we’re only just beginning to understand. We must transform our consumption and production patterns.”
He added, “Through the recently adopted Pact for the Future, countries highlighted the need to accelerate efforts to achieve -- by the end of the year -- an international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution. This is why, in Busan, you must deliver a treaty that is ambitious, credible and just. An agreement that addresses the life cycle of plastics -- tackling single-use and short-lived plastics, waste management and measures to phase out plastic and promote alternative materials; that provides concrete solutions for all countries to access technologies and improve land and marine environments; and that leaves no one behind -- including some of the most vulnerable people, such as waste pickers.”
Guterres’s please fell into deaf years.
The negotiations fell apart over a clash between two different perspectives on how best to handle this waste. The first perspective holds that plastic pollution is largely a mismanagement problem. The second aims to reduce the number of plastics that will be produced in the future.
A total of 70 countries (the High Ambition Coalition) pushed for “a clear path to ending plastic pollution, including reducing production and consumption of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels.” To that end, they pushed for a cap on the future production of plastics. This was opposed by a coalition of oil- and gas-producing nations, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and Kuwait. (About 98% of new single-use plastics are manufactured out of crude oil and natural gas.)
10 things to take away from the Busan Treaty
1. The treaty sought to create a legally binding framework to address plastic pollution at all stages of its lifecycle: production, use and disposal. Its key goals included decreasing plastic production, banning toxic chemical additives and preventing leakage.
2. Despite intense discussions, the treaty failed to finalise points of agreement. A lack of consensus among member states largely due to resistance from petrochemical-producing nations resulted in the need for another round of negotiations.
3. Countries with strong petrochemical industries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait blocked ambitious proposals stating that they would have negative impacts on trade and a great economic impact. Instead, they advocated for weaker, small-scale proposals. These countries emphasised waste management as the main solution for plastic management.
4. The presence of over 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists raised concerns about undue corporate sway in the negotiations. Environmental groups criticised this undermining the process and prioritising profits over public health and environmental safety.
5. One of the powerful players in plastic production is the USA. The country has only recently changed its stance to now support production cuts. This is a significant move as the country produces 17% of the world’s plastic, behind only China.
6. Throughout the negotiations, the misuse of scientific evidence became a key issue. Many negotiators selectively cited or distorted scientific findings to support their positions, often ignoring the consensus among the scientific community.
7. The concept of a circular economy emerged as a prominent solution to plastic pollution, involving upcycling plastics rather than relying on a linear model of production and disposal. Several countries spoke about including upcycling targets, the details of which were not mentioned.
8. The outcome of the treaty will have wide effects on the global packaging industry which relies heavily on food, plastics and other consumer goods. As the treaty progresses, businesses may face stricter regulations leading to increased costs for compliance.
9. Microplastics and chemical additives were key topics at the meeting.
10. Since the countries came to a stalemate with regard to all serious issues, a meeting is expected to convene in 2025 to discuss the same issues.