Urgent Plastics Treaty Talks Miss Mark as Deadline Looms!

In Busan, South Korea, as the final stages of the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations unfold, environmental and human rights groups are sounding the alarm. They claim that nations are on the brink of agreeing to a treaty that “won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on.”

The draft of the treaty, which was distributed to delegates on Friday, fails to incorporate crucial demands from civil society, including definitive caps on plastic production and a prohibition or gradual elimination of the most hazardous plastics and chemicals.

“Even though there is significant support for robust and enforceable measures against plastic pollution, the current draft falls dramatically short of what is necessary,” stated Erin Simon, WWF Vice President and leader in plastic waste and business, in a press release.

“A feeble treaty relying on voluntary actions will collapse under the plastic crisis’s burden, perpetuating a cycle of avoidable damage.”

A majority of the nations participating in the fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) for the plastics treaty are in favor of banning the most dangerous plastics and chemicals. They seek binding regulations on production methods to facilitate a shift to a circular economy, adequate financial backing to implement the treaty effectively, and a strong system for enhancing the treaty progressively. These countries are supported by almost 3 million individuals from over 182 nations who have signed a petition demanding a meaningful treaty.

Since discussions started on November 25, progress has been hindered by oil and gas producing countries like Saudi Arabia, which see limits on plastic production as unacceptable, as reported by The Associated Press. Moreover, lobbyists from the plastics industry form the largest group at the negotiation table.

“The solution to ending plastic pollution is simple: we need to cut down on plastic production,” Simon emphasized. “This requires enforceable global bans on certain harmful plastic products and chemicals. Despite the strong backing for such measures, the latest draft offers nothing useful.”

In an effort to address the issue of limiting plastic production before the talks end on Sunday or Monday, Panama proposed a plan on Thursday that would delay setting a specific limit on plastic production but would require signatories to agree on a cap at a future meeting. This proposal received support from over 100 countries and was included in the draft circulated on Friday, along with an option to remove the production cap article altogether.

Juan Carlos Monterrey, head of Panama’s delegation, viewed the inclusion of Panama’s proposal as a positive development.

“This is fantastic! It shows strong support from those countries seeking ambitious goals. It also demonstrates that reaching a consensus is still feasible,” Monterrey told the AP.

However, Monterrey admitted to Reuters that his proposal was a compromise.

“Many countries arrived here intent on setting a numerical target for plastic reduction, but our proposal has pushed beyond our own limits. Now, we’re asking other delegations that haven’t budged to meet us halfway.”

Environmental advocates and civil society organizations caution that delegates should not pursue consensus at the cost of ambition.

Graham Forbes, leader of Greenpeace’s delegation, described the draft as a “weak attempt to force a conclusion just to claim a treaty has been achieved,” although he acknowledged that including Panama’s proposal was a positive aspect.

Another contentious point is the absence of a ban on particularly harmful plastics and additives in the treaty text.

“What we have now isn’t a treaty with enforceable rules; it’s merely a collection of broad measures that are essentially ineffective,” explained WWF’s Simon. “For instance, instead of bans, we have suggestions. We list products and chemicals, but there’s no obligation to take substantive action. Without a commitment to enforce these articles, there’s no chance of resolving the plastic crisis, which is why we came to Busan.”

Some nations and representatives from the plastics industry argue that the treaty isn’t the right mechanism to regulate chemicals.

Simon further argued, “The progressive majority now faces a choice: either agree to a treaty among those willing to take strong action, even if it means leaving out some countries, or yield to countries that may never join, thereby failing the planet.”

WWF’s global plastics policy lead, Eirik Lindebjerg, emphasized: “We urge nations not to settle for the low ambition reflected in this draft as it lacks specific upstream measures like global bans on high-risk plastic products and chemicals, which are supported by the majority. Countries with high ambitions must ensure these measures are included in the final treaty text or pursue an ambitious treaty among the willing.”

On Friday, a coalition of observing civil society groups held a press conference, issuing a statement for a forceful treaty.

“Despite their claims, ambitious countries have the capability and options to create a treaty that ends the global plastic crisis,” the statement, signed by organizations including WWF, Greenpeace, Break Free From Plastic, and Friends of the Earth, declared. “What’s severely lacking now is the resolve of our leaders to do the right thing and fight for the treaty they promised two years ago.”

It continued: “A weak treaty based on voluntary measures will crumble under the plastic crisis and trap us in a continuous cycle of unnecessary harm. The overwhelming demand from affected communities, the majority of citizens, scientists, and businesses for binding global rules across the entire lifecycle of plastics is undeniable.”

The signatories also stated that ambitious nations should be prepared to walk away and draft their own, stronger treaty rather than compromise on a weak document.

“In these last moments of negotiation, governments need to show bravery. They must not yield to pressure from a minority of low-ambition states and risk the future of our planet on an unattainable consensus,” they concluded. “We demand a robust treaty that safeguards our health and the health of future generations.”