Why did the Global Plastics Treaty talks fail?

Talks to reach an agreement on how to tackle the epidemic of plastic waste have collapsed.

Countries spent the past week trying to create the first ever legally binding treaty on plastics pollution. But they could not agree on whether the treaty should reduce the total plastic on Earth and put global, legally binding limits on toxic chemicals used to make plastics.

Sian Sutherland, co-founder of A Plastic Planet and The Plastic Health Council, blamed the plastics and fossil fuel industries for the failure, saying they “threw everything possible at these negotiations…hundreds of lobbyists; expensive ad campaigns; buckets of misinformation, extraordinary delaying tactics. When you have limitless funding from fossil fuels, derailing the negotiations is small change.”

The negotiations, in Busan, South Korea, were supposed to be the fifth and final round to produce the first ever Global Plastics Treaty. Negotiators have agreed to resume the talks next year though no date has been set.

Read our full guide to the Global Plastics Treaty talks.

Why is a plastics treaty so vital?

Global plastic production has increased over 200-fold to almost 460 million tonnes annually since 1950, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Plastic production could climb about 70 per cent by 2040 without policy changes.

In March 2022, 175 nations agreed to make the first legally binding treaty on plastics pollution, including in the oceans, by the end of 2024. The resolution states that nations will develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastic.

Stewart Harris, a spokesperson for the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), said it was an incredibly ambitious timeline. He said the ICCA is hopeful governments can reach an agreement with just a little more time.

Speaking after the failure of the talks, Sian Sutherland of A Plastic Planet said, “We should be outraged that this one opportunity for a legally binding treaty that protects us has failed. 

“Plastic…has immeasurable impact on the biodiversity crisis and is the enabler of over-consumption – fast fashion is built on polyester plastic.”

She went on to explain the widespread and irreversible impacts of plastic,“It is a human health issue. Plastic and its 16,000 chemicals are toxic for humans, especially children.   

“Already found in placenta, blood, breast milk, testicles and brains, the irrefutable impact on human health from endocrine disrupting chemicals can already be seen with the sharp decline in fertility, increases in cancer in the young, Alzheimer’s, autism and heart disease.  

More than 100 countries want the treaty to limit production as well as tackle cleanup and recycling, and many have said that is essential to address chemicals of concern. But for some plastic-producing and oil and gas countries, that crosses a red line.

Why did the Global Plastics Treaty talks fail?

For any proposal to make it into the treaty, every nation must agree to it. Some countries sought to change the process so decisions could be made with a vote if consensus couldn’t be reached – India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and others opposed changing it, arguing consensus is vital to an inclusive, effective treaty.

On Sunday, the last scheduled day of talks, the treaty draft still had multiple options for several key sections. Some delegates and environmental organisations said it had become too watered down, including negotiators from Africa who said they would rather leave Busan without a treaty than with a weak one.

ADVERTISEMENT

In Ghana, communities, bodies of water, drains and farmlands are choked with plastics, and dumping sites full of plastics are always on fire, said Sam Adu-Kumi, the country’s lead negotiator.

“We want a treaty that will be able to solve it,” he said in an interview. “Otherwise we will go without it and come and fight another time.”

The treaty should be ambitious throughout, fit for purpose and not built to fail

At Sunday night’s meeting, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the committee chair from Ecuador, said that while they made progress in Busan, their work is far from complete and they must be pragmatic. He said countries were the furthest apart on proposals about problematic plastics and chemicals of concern, plastic production and financing the treaty, as well as the treaty principles.

Valdivieso said the meeting should be suspended and resume at a later date. Many countries then reflected on what they must see in the treaty moving forward.

ADVERTISEMENT

Rwanda’s lead negotiator, Juliet Kabera, said she spoke on behalf of 85 countries in insisting that the treaty be ambitious throughout, fit for purpose and not built to fail, for the benefit of current and future generations. She asked everyone who supported the statement to “stand up for ambition.” Country delegates and many in the audience stood, clapping.

Panama’s delegation, which led an effort to include plastic production in the treaty, said they would return stronger, louder and more determined.

Saudi Arabia’s negotiator said chemicals and plastic production are not within the scope of the treaty. Speaking on behalf of the Arab group, he said if the world addresses plastic pollution, there should be no problem producing plastic. Kuwait’s negotiator echoed that, saying the objective is to end plastic pollution, not plastic itself, and stretching the mandate beyond its original intent erodes trust and goodwill.

Were the talks in Busan transparent enough?

Most of the negotiations in Busan took place behind closed doors. Environmental groups, Indigenous leaders, communities impacted by plastic pollution and scientists who travelled to Busan to help shape the treaty said it should’ve been transparent and they felt silenced.

ADVERTISEMENT

“To a large degree, this is why the negotiation process is failing,” said Bjorn Beeler, international coordinator for the International Pollutants Elimination Network. “Busan proved that the process is broken and just hobbling along.”

South Korea’s foreign affairs minister Cho Tae-yul said that though they didn’t get a treaty in Busan as many had hoped, their efforts brought the world closer to a unified solution to ending global plastic pollution.