Your support helps us tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to big tech, The Independent is where the stories are unfolding. Whether we’re investigating the finances of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing ‘The A Word,’ the latest documentary highlighting American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to analyze the facts. Messaging.
At such a critical moment in American history, we need reporters on the field. Your donations allow us to continue sending journalists to tell both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across politics. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to block Americans’ reporting and analysis with a paywall. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, and those who can afford it should pay for it.
Your support makes a big difference.
no way A week of tense negotiations to draft a legally binding treaty to tackle global plastic pollution ended in failure in Busan, South Korea, on Sunday night, weighing on global environmental diplomacy after disappointing results at the Cop29 and Cop16 biodiversity summits. It marked the latest setback.
The talks, which brought together about 200 countries under the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5), failed to resolve critical issues such as limiting plastics production, regulating hazardous chemicals, and financing mechanisms to support developing countries.
The countries most at risk from plastic pollution rejected the relaxed offer in the final hours, forcing negotiators to agree to reconvene next year. “We have not accepted and will not accept a weak treaty here,” Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez of Panama told the assembly, drawing long applause from delegates.
The failure to agree in Busan adds to a series of disappointments at recent global environmental talks. At Cop29 in Azerbaijan last November, countries managed a final deal on $300 billion in climate finance, well short of the $1 trillion target. Similarly, at Cop16 in Colombia in October, negotiations stalled due to unresolved gaps in biodiversity financing.
Despite high expectations and hopes for a strong treaty, the Busan talks began to falter early on. Slow pace in the boardroom, diverse views and the outsized influence of fossil fuel lobbyists loomed over a week at Busan’s sprawling Bexco exhibition centre. Observers and negotiators were rapidly discussing a path beyond Busan publicly, with many saying the talks would fail.
The draft treaty, released late Sunday ahead of the final plenary session, was full of parentheses. This is the UN’s shorthand for unresolved provisions. This included a range of options for the most important issues, including targeted binding to reduce plastic production.
In reality, the parentheses symbolize the failure to reach an agreement. This ambiguity has left countries hardest hit by plastic pollution and campaigners visibly frustrated. Because this means that a clear promise has not been made.
Describing the state of the final round of negotiations, Common Initiative director Aleksandar Rankovic said the talks resembled “a ballroom of conflicting partners stepping on each other’s toes and even breaking each other’s knees.”
The national group known as the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) called another meeting before the final plenary session on Sunday, saying it was impossible to reach agreement on important issues in one day.
Cheikh Sylla of Senegal said, “If you ask me… This will “give us time to bring our positions closer together, and at this meeting we can reach a balanced agreement.”
The biggest obstacle was the issue of production limitations. More than 100 countries, including HAC member states, have promoted a global goal to reduce plastic production and make this a legally binding feature of the treaty. The treaty was based on what activists said was to turn off the tap, i.e. stop plastic production, as plastic production is set to triple by 2050.
“A treaty without clear, legally binding rules is unacceptable,” said Camila Zepeda, head of the Mexican delegation, speaking on behalf of 100 countries.
But petrochemical-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, along with allies known here as “like-minded countries,” have strongly opposed such caps and advocated a focus on waste management instead. Several concerns, such as a just transition away from plastics and the historical responsibility of highly polluting countries to provide finance, were also subject to debate.
These countries were accused of holding the negotiation process ‘hostage’.
“It is clear that these countries have no intention of finding meaningful solutions to this crisis, yet the majority continue to prevent them from doing so,” said Eirik Lindebjerg, head of global plastics policy at WWF.
Greenpeace leader Graham Forbes described the summit as “a marathon of destruction by the very industries responsible for the crisis”.
“What we saw in Busan was the weaponization of agreements by a small number of countries to delay progress and undermine negotiations,” said David Azoulay, director of environmental health at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “We must resist the idea that this process will remain paralyzed by disruption.”
Others criticized it for lack of political leadership. Some HAC countries are also “almost completely passive in the contact group,” Rankovic said.
“These negotiations require the participation of internal, not external, ministers,” Rankovic said, adding, “It is up to them to find a compromise.”
The exclusivity of the talks also became another point of controversy. Meetings classified as ‘informal’ were closed to civil society, NGOs and indigenous groups. This has ignored key voices, especially from the Global South, which relies heavily on civil society for technical expertise and advocacy, activists said. independence.
“This is the most exclusive INC I have ever attended,” Forbes said. “Frontline communities are being shut out while fossil fuel lobbyists dominate the process.”
Bjorn Beeler, executive director of the International Pollution Elimination Network (IPEN), said the exclusion of civil society disproportionately disadvantages developing countries.
“If you remove a highly ambitious actor, the conversation becomes less ambitious,” he said. independence. “Countries in the Global South rely on NGOs for vital information and expertise. Blocking their access effectively silences them.”
As with the Cop29 and Cop16 talks, financial support for developing countries remained an obstacle. The Plastics Treaty was supposed to establish a financing mechanism for the transition away from plastics. The text recognizes that it is the polluter’s responsibility to pay the costs, but fails to provide such a framework.
At least 126 countries supported the creation of an independent, dedicated fund to implement the treaty, which would be funded by polymer production fees. However, the Chairman’s draft included only optional language and failed to establish a specific mechanism for funding.
“This is a life-or-death issue for communities in the Global South,” said Arpita Bhagat, head of plastics at GAIA Asia Pacific. “The Speaker’s text undermines these demands, depriving countries of the resources they need to address the crisis.”
Another important omission was binding action to regulate hazardous chemicals. Plastics contain more than 3,000 chemicals, many of which pose serious risks to human health and the environment. While activists pushed for stronger controls, the draft weakened provisions on this front.
“The draft text eliminates systematic controls on toxic chemicals,” Beeler said. “We are seeing weak language that there should be binding action to eliminate these risks.”
The consensus-driven nature of negotiations has made the negotiation process more complex. Unlike some multilateral agreements that allow voting, the plastics treaty negotiations relied on unanimous agreement. This gave a small number of countries allied with petrochemicals disproportionate power to block decisions. Senegal’s representative, Cheikh Sylla, said excluding the vote was a “big mistake.”
Despite the failure in Busan, many believe the process can still be salvaged. Lessons from other multilateral environmental agreements, such as the Rotterdam and Minamata Conventions (on hazardous chemicals and mercury), show that deadlines can be extended without deviating from the end goal.
“This is a marathon, not a sprint,” said Mexico’s Zepeda, adding that the delegation was preparing to return with even more momentum next year.
“We have a coalition of over 100 countries that want this. Together we can start the path forward.”
Gomez, who is from Panama, said, “Panama leaves Busan with fire in our hearts. “When we come together again, the risks will be greater, the damage will be more severe, and the opportunities for action will be even smaller.”
But for this coalition to succeed, many say the process must change. Activists are calling for greater transparency, greater inclusion of civil society, and decision-making mechanisms that prevent minority countries from holding the process hostage.
