Countries negotiating a global treaty to curb plastic pollution have failed to reach an agreement after a week of talks in Busan, South Korea.
The session failed to resolve deep divisions between “high-ambition” countries seeking to limit plastic production, and those wanting to focus on waste. With time running out early Monday morning, negotiators agreed to resume the talks next year.
The SMC asked experts to comment.
Professor Sally Gaw, School of Physical and Chemical Sciences, University of Canterbury, comments:
“Plastics and microplastics are of increasing environmental, human health and public concern due to their pervasiveness and the growing body of evidence of harm from the plastics and the chemicals that they contain.
“The failure to reach a binding international treaty on plastic pollution is a lost opportunity and will have far reaching consequences for ecosystem and human health. A sticking point was that not all countries agreed on a cap on production of new plastics. It will simply not be possible to reduce the global impacts of plastics solely through better management and recycling of waste plastics. Plastics have significant impacts on pollution including greenhouse gas emissions over their lifetime from extraction of raw materials through the manufacturing process, their use and ultimately their disposal.”
Conflicts of interest: None declared
Professor Trisia Farrelly, Senior Research Scientist, Cawthron Institute, & Coordinator of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, comments:
“Despite a large number of member states pushing for ambitious targets, we couldn’t reach an agreement by three o’clock this morning.
“New Zealand was part of two groups of member states calling for ambitious targets at the negotiations. Mexico led a coalition of 95 countries calling for plastic production reduction, which is a hugely ambitious piece of the puzzle that is desperately needed for an effective treaty. Rwanda read a statement on behalf of 85 countries calling for a really ambitious treaty, which received a standing ovation.
“Now that we’re seeing a majority of countries calling for high ambition and plastic production reduction, there’s hope that we’ll maintain that momentum at the next session.
“However, I do see it as a failure that member states were unable to negotiate a treaty this week. I see it as a failure of procedure. Observers, including independent scientists, were excluded from crucial informal meetings where most of the work took place this week. Many member states wanted to hear the voices of experts as well as communities with lived experience on the frontline of the plastics crisis.
“Sometimes having people who are not negotiating speak can cause delays. However, at crucial moments when the science is called into question, you need to have trusted, independent experts put the facts straight, and there were no opportunities for us to do that.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I’m the Co-ordinator of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, a body of independent experts who have been working on the Treaty Negotiations since the first negotiating session in Uruguay. Our role is to support member states by providing sound evidence based science.”
Our colleagues at the Science Media Centre Spain also gathered comments
Carmen Morales, Lecturer at the University of Cadiz, researcher at the Institute of Marine Research (INMAR) and Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty in Busan (South Korea), comments:
“Spain and Europe have positioned themselves within the high ambition group on the treaty, along with many others (over 100). Tonight we have heard some very powerful interventions from Panama, Rwanda and Mexico. Countries have moved forward and there is a base document, proposed by the chair, to work on in the future, under the principle of ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’. Researchers from the Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty have provided advice to delegations and observers, providing documentation and scientific data related to the provisions to be addressed.There is still work to be done, but we have seen more ambition to include the full life cycle of plastics, not just waste, and to include the management of associated chemicals among others. We have also seen in action, as in previous INC [Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee sessions], tactics by unambitious countries to slow down agreements.The next (extraordinary) phase of negotiations will take place soon”.
The author has not responded to our request to declare conflicts of interest
Ethel Eljarrat, director of the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Studies (IDAEA-CSIC), comments:
“Predictably, the fifth and final meeting of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee in Busan to develop a legally binding global treaty to curb plastic pollution has ended without reaching an agreement. Only a new date has been set for further meetings in 2025, thus postponing an agreement to start working now on reducing this serious pollution problem. And while countries are discussing how to tackle this problem, we continue to produce around 460 million tonnes of plastic per year and, if there is no change of course, it will reach 1.23 billion tonnes by 2060. This means that current pollution problems will continue to increase exponentially.This is the situation desired by the group of fossil fuel-producing countries that includes plastic producers, who are pushing for the agreement to focus solely on waste management, even though they know that currently only 5% of the total amount of plastic produced is recycled. They also know that the plastic that is not recycled, i.e. the vast majority, ends up in landfills, incinerated or polluting our aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.It is clear that the plastic problem should not be tackled from a single perspective, but that several measures must be combined. Focusing the solution to the problem solely on strengthening recycling without setting a cap on production is not the right strategy. It is clear that a cap on virgin plastic production should certainly be the first measure to be taken. All countries should agree on this and what should be decided at these meetings is what production cap is to be set.Unfortunately, we will have to keep waiting for the plastic producing countries to accept what the evidence indicates and this does not look like it is going to happen in the near future”.
The author has not responded to our request to declare conflicts of interest