December 2, 2024
4 minimum read
Negotiations on a global plastic pollution treaty end in failure
The summit, which many had hoped would lead to a landmark treaty to tackle the global plastic pollution crisis, ended in disappointment as oil and gas producing countries lifted production limits. Ta.
The photo shows part of PerpetualPlastic Machine, a five-metre-tall art installation by Canadian artist and activist Benjamin Von Wong.
Bertrand Guay/AFP via Getty Images
Climate wire | BUSAN, South Korea — United Nations member states intended to spend the past week considering ways to eliminate plastic pollution. Instead, they return home empty-handed from the South Korean coastal city of Busan.
Talks broke down late Sunday after negotiators were unable to resolve their differences and agree on a global plastics deal. The disagreement centered on oil-producing countries led by Saudi Arabia refusing to accept a deal that would place limits on plastic production.
In a speech, EU negotiator Hugo Charry said: “Despite the tireless efforts of many people, including many stakeholders who worked into the wee hours of the morning in the hope of achieving success, this “It is the regret of many who were present at the venue that this did not happen.” On to the final plenary session.
About supporting science journalism
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism. Currently subscribing. By subscribing, you help ensure future generations of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape the world today.
The Busan summit was touted as the culmination of two years of talks, with UN member states previously agreeing to “form an internationally binding agreement by 2024”. Greenpeace called it the “most important multilateral agreement” since the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
But ultimately, countries that want a comprehensive agreement to tackle the root causes of the plastic pollution crisis, production, and countries whose economies are tied to continued demand for ubiquitous fossil fuel-based materials. The differences between were found to be irreconcilable.
The stakes are high. Plastic waste is entering the world’s oceans at a rate of approximately 10 million tonnes per year and increasing, threatening marine biodiversity. Global emissions from plastic production could triple and account for a fifth of the planet’s remaining carbon budget by 2050, according to one study. Meanwhile, microplastics are invading everything from brain tissue to breast milk. On its current trajectory, plastic production could nearly triple by 2050.
“While it is encouraging that parts of the text have been agreed, we must also recognize that some important issues still prevent a comprehensive agreement from being reached,” said the Ecuadorian diplomat leading the negotiations. Luis Bayas said, proposing a suspension of negotiations. I’ll leave my troubles until a later date.
blame game
The EU on Thursday joined more than 100 other countries, including the UK, in backing a new Panama-led proposal that advances global goals to reduce plastic production to “sustainable levels”, drawing clear battle lines in negotiations. .
But three negotiators from countries in the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution (who have been granted anonymity due to private negotiations) told Politico that Saudi Arabia is not willing to accept any changes to the treaty. He said he was coordinating pressure from oil and plastic producing countries to block the proposal. They are threatening to cut back on plastic production. Most plastics are made from oil or natural gas.
At nearly every round of talks over the past two years, these countries, which also include Iran and Russia, have been accused of causing delays or obstructing progress.
Saudi and Russian negotiators declined multiple requests for comment when contacted by POLITICO in Busan.
“We are… concerned about continued interference by so-called like-minded countries,” French Energy Minister Olga Gibernet said at a press conference early Sunday. “There is no doubt that it may be a minority. “We understand that, but we still have to come together as much as possible to move the talks forward.”
Saudi Arabia and its pro-plastic allies refuse to accept responsibility.
Iran’s representative last week complained about other countries’ “discriminatory” and “selective approaches to issues and discussions,” saying: “We have entered into serious discussions with a degree of sincerity and sincerity.”
In addition to disagreements over plastic production, countries could not agree on whether and how to target particularly polluting plastic products or how to finance the treaty.
“I was stupid then, and I’m stupid now.”
Two of the “high ambition” negotiators mentioned above argued that there would never be enough time given the scope of the mission, suggesting that the negotiations were doomed from the start.
“I think the pressure to deliver it within 18 months was kind of stupid then, and it’s still stupid now,” said one person. “Typically these processes take years. It’s beyond what we do.”
The ‘highly ambitious’ delegation also expected further support from major plastics producers China and the US.
China, the world’s largest producer of plastics, is seen as a constructive partner in some aspects of the ambitious coalition. This has contributed to the debate surrounding the most polluting plastic products.
However, the Chinese government is not very keen on touching on production levels. And while the United States made efforts to reduce plastic production this summer, some believe the country will take a step back following Donald Trump’s recent election victory.
But many observers and some delegates said the summit’s collapse demonstrated the failure of consensual environmental multilateralism, saying that asking all countries to agree by consensus meant giving too much veto to reluctant countries. He claimed to be empowered. NGOs such as the International Environmental Law Center hope that last week’s failed negotiations will provide lessons for future UN negotiations.
“What we saw in Busan was a small number of countries trying to use the agreement as a weapon to slow progress and undermine negotiations,” said David Azoulay, director of environmental health at CIEL. “At the next meeting, countries must make it clear once and for all that they are prepared to use all options, including voting, to deliver the treaty they continue to say is necessary.”
Still, many countries and NGOs remained optimistic that a treaty could still be concluded.
“Let’s act without mercy,” Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, head of the Panamanian delegation, said at the final plenary session. “We may be late, but we can’t stop.”
The date and time of the next consultation has not yet been announced.
Reprinted from E&E News Published with permission of POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides news that matters to energy and environment professionals.
