The head of the UN Environment Programme asserted that discussions surrounding a pivotal plastic pollution treaty were not unsuccessful, emphasizing that significant advancements were achieved even though negotiations ended without a consensus.
“It clearly did not fail,” Inger Andersen told AFP, describing the two-year timeline set in 2022 for the agreement as “highly ambitious.”
“What we do possess is substantial progress,” Ms. Andersen stated.
Nearly 200 nations gathered for a week of negotiations in Busan, South Korea, starting on 25 November, aiming to establish the world’s first treaty to tackle plastic pollution.
Nearly 200 countries took part in the South Korea talks
However, in the early hours of this morning local time, negotiators effectively acknowledged defeat, admitting that they could not resolve significant disagreements regarding the treaty’s objectives.
A number of “high ambition” countries were advocating for an agreement that would set targets to reduce new plastic production and phase out specific chemicals and single-use plastic items.
This proposal was strongly opposed by certain “like-minded” nations, including Saudi Arabia and Russia, which insisted that the text should not include any references to production.
This group mainly consists of oil-producing countries that supply the fossil fuels used in plastic manufacturing.
The division hindered progress through four rounds of discussions leading up to Busan, culminating in a draft treaty that exceeded 70 pages and was filled with contradictory language.
The diplomat chairing the negotiations attempted to simplify the process by consolidating perspectives into a revised draft, which Ms. Andersen stated marked progress.
The division hindered progress through four rounds of discussions leading up to Busan.
“We entered this with a 77-page document. We now have a cleaned-up, streamlined … treaty text,” she remarked.
“That advancement is significant and something I genuinely celebrate,” she added.
‘Meaningful discussions’
Yet, even the amended text is rife with conflicting opinions, and countries insisted that every section would remain open for renegotiation and alteration in any future rounds of talks.
This prompted environmental organizations to caution that prolonging the so-called INC-5 discussions into an INC-5.2 may merely replicate the stalemate observed in Busan.
Ms. Andersen recognized that substantial differences persist and that “some meaningful discussions” are necessary prior to any new meetings.
“I genuinely believe there’s no purpose in convening unless we can define a pathway from Busan to the ratified treaty text,” she emphasized.
The final plenary session of the discussions witnessed numerous countries supporting new production targets and the phase-out of chemicals considered or known to be harmful.
Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso announces an agreement to reconvene at a later date.
“A treaty devoid of these components and relying solely on voluntary measures would be unacceptable,” stated Rwanda’s Juliet Kabera.
Conversely, Saudi Arabia’s Abdulrahman Al Gwaiz suggested that production cuts remain a non-negotiable point for many countries.
“If you are addressing plastic pollution, there should be no issue with producing plastics, as the concern lies with the pollution, not the plastics themselves,” he asserted.
Ms. Andersen acknowledged the existence of “a group of countries that represent an economic sector,” but added that finding a way forward is achievable.
“That’s the essence of negotiations. Different interests are presented by countries, and discussions must occur to identify common ground,” she remarked.
No date or venue has yet been confirmed for the resumed negotiations, though Saudi Arabia and others indicated a preference to restart no sooner than mid-2025.
Ms. Andersen stated she remains “absolutely determined” to secure a deal next year.
“The sooner, the better because we are facing a massive issue,” she concluded.
