Negotiations surrounding the global plastics treaty reached another stalled point this past weekend, as delegates from 175 countries gathered in Busan, South Korea, to tackle one of the most pressing issues of modern environmental policy: plastic pollution.
Despite hopes for significant progress, the talks, which were slated to wrap up by December 1, ended without a formal agreement. Deep divisions among the nations became apparent as discussions delved deep behind closed doors, and negotiators pushed for consensus on various contentious issues, primarily surrounding limits on plastic production.
Each year, the world generates over 400 million tons of new plastic, with projections showing this number could surge by up to 70% by 2040 without significant policy changes. This alarming trend has sparked strong reactions from all sides of the negotiation process. Nations like Ghana voiced frustrations over the perceived weaknesses of the draft treaty, which they argue lacks enforceable measures to combat the plastic crisis.
Sam Adu-Kumi, Ghana’s lead negotiator, expressed his concerns during the discussions. He stated, "The draft is full of voluntary measures. We are here for a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution. If we are getting a treaty that's not addressing the issues head-on, then where are we heading?" Adu-Kumi emphasized the dire situation at home, where communities are suffocated by plastic debris and trash fires from dumped waste.
The draft proposal presented multiple options concerning the production limits and suggested potential targets could be decided at future conferences. This laid the groundwork for fierce debates, as some nations advocated for stricter controls, arguing for immediate commitments to reduce global plastic output, whereas others, particularly those tied to the oil and gas industries, resisted these demands.
At the core of the negotiations is the challenge of achieving consensus among nations. Each proposal requires unanimous agreement to be adopted, which has proven to be burdensome and often leads to deadlock. Erin Simon, from the World Wildlife Fund, pointed out the downsides of maintaining such stringent decision-making protocols. "Not having the threat of a vote means each country has a veto card," Simon said, highlighting how this disincentivizes meaningful action.
Discussions also dwelled on the possibility of voting on proposals when consensus seems unreachable. Proposals like these, aimed at streamlining decision-making, have garnered mixed reactions. Several nations like India and Saudi Arabia argue the current framework assures careful consideration of each country's stance, preventing hasty agreements.
Nevertheless, countries like Panama and Fiji rallied together with a coalition of Mexico and the European Union, affirming their commitment to pursuing more rigid and ambitious measures during the talks. These countries urged their counterparts to either unite for substantial progress or step aside. "This treaty must be bigger than all of us. It’s about saving this planet. It’s about saving humanity," declared Sivendra Michael, Fiji’s Secretary for the Environment and Climate Change, potent words from someone at the center of the negotiations.
The pressing need for transformation was echoed by many delegates who highlighted the increasing prevalence of microplastics, the dangers posed by toxic ingredients found within plastics, and the detrimental impacts these have on ecosystems.
At the conclusion of the negotiations, with no treaty concluded by the December deadline, delegates decided to set the stage for another round of talks, possibly slated for 2025. This creates both hope and frustration as nations brace for the complexity of global cooperation on environmental issues—a task riddled with differing interests and the ever-looming question of what constitutes effective action against plastic pollution.
While the prospect of productive dialogue remains, the urgency of the plastic crisis persists. With cities globally grappling with overwhelming plastic waste, the need for strong policies and collaborative efforts is as clear as ever. Countries must now reflect on their collective responsibility, and push for coherent strategies moving forward, ensuring future meetings yield productive results.
