Countries deadlocked on plastic production and chemicals as talks on a global treaty draw to a close
A draft of the treaty released Wednesday wouldn't limit plastic production or address chemicals used in plastic products. Instead, it's centered on proposals where there's broad agreement — such as reducing the number of problematic plastic products that often enter the environment and are difficult to recycle, promoting the redesign of plastic products so they can be recycled and reused, and improving waste management.
It asks nations to make commitments to ending plastic pollution, rather than imposing global, legally-binding rules.
A new draft is expected Thursday afternoon, and the talks — involving representatives from 184 countries and more than 600 organizations — are likely to conclude Friday.
Andreas Bjelland Eriksen, Norway 's minister for climate and the environment, said the current text is unacceptable and the country's representatives won't leave Geneva with 'just any treaty.' Norway is helping to lead a coalition of countries called the High Ambition Coalition that want a comprehensive approach to ending plastic pollution, including reducing production.
'We are going to be flexible, but at the same time ambitious in our positions, and work with every single hour that we have left to bring this to a conclusion, a positive conclusion, because the world needs a plastics treaty now.'
Eriksen said he'll stay 'cautiously optimistic' until the bitter end.
Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tons of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70% by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production as well as tackle cleanup and recycling. Many have said it's essential to address toxic chemicals.
Powerful oil and gas-producing nations and the plastics industry oppose production limits. They want a treaty focused on better waste management and reuse. They have raised different concerns with the draft text, saying it doesn't have the scope they want to set the parameters of the treaty or precise definitions.
Camila Zepeda, from Mexico 's Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, said it doesn't seem feasible at this stage to get a limit on production. But, she said, they want to see something more in the treaty on sustainable production and consumption than the brief mention in the current preamble.
Mexico and Switzerland are also leading a push for an article to address problematic plastic products, including chemicals and single-use plastics.
'We are on the final stretch, but we remain hopeful and we remain committed to making sure that we're putting back in the text some provisions that will allow us to to strengthen it, to deliver, and to have an impact," she said. "That's what we want at the end.'
It's the sixth time nations are meeting and the 10th day of negotiations. Talks last year in South Korea were supposed to be the final round, but they adjourned in December at an impasse over cutting production and agreed to meet again.
Some in attendance wondered whether the outcome in Geneva will be the same.
Sivendra Michael, Fiji's permanent secretary for environment and climate change, emphatically rejected the idea of another meeting. It is costly, unfair, and tedious to travel so far to continuously restate positions, he said Thursday. He said he firmly believed this meeting should conclude with a formal treaty that will be acceptable to all.
However, Hiwot Hailu, chief of staff for the Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia, said Ethiopia supports meeting again if nations can't reach agreement on important articles for financing the accord and addressing the full lifecycle of plastics, including production, design and disposal.
It would be better to not have a treaty, rather than a weak one, Hailu said.
Jessika Roswall, the European commissioner for the environment, said the treaty must cover the full lifecycle of plastics and be able to evolve over time with science.
'A weak, static agreement serves no one,' she said in a statement. 'The next few hours will show whether we can rise to the moment.'
___
The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Countries urged to ‘hold the line' in Geneva plastics treaty negotiations
Talks between nations to hammer out a plastics treaty to end plastic pollution continued behind closed doors in Geneva on Thursday, the final day of negotiations, as civil society groups urged countries to 'hold the line' to secure a strong agreement. With time running out to seal a deal between 184 countries, environmental groups expressed concern that frontline communities, Indigenous people and others suffering the worst impacts of the world's growing plastic crisis were being 'sold out' in an effort to secure a treaty, without meaningful or legally binding measures that would address the scale of the problem, 'at any cost'. This week's negotiations towards a legally binding agreement to tackle plastic pollution are the latest in five rounds of talks over the past two and a half years, which have so far failed to seal a deal. Talks at the UN offices stalled on Wednesday after a consensus draft treaty, presented by the chair of the event, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, was rejected by 80 countries. The ambitious countries – who want curbs on production – described it as 'unacceptable', a 'lowest common denominator' and a toothless waste management instrument, because it did not include production caps nor address the chemicals used in plastic products. Countries from the 'like minded' group, chiefly oil-producing countries and including Saudi Arabia, who want the treaty to focus on recycling and voluntary measures, said it crossed too many of their red lines and did not do enough to pare down the scope of the treaty. Graham Forbes, Greenpeace's head of delegation, said: 'The entire day has been behind closed doors. All of civil society is on edge, waiting to see what the next move is going to be from the chair and from the secretariat. We are nervous, we are anticipating, and we're concerned that we're going to be sold out in an effort to get a treaty at any cost. 'Civil society, frontline communities, Indigenous peoples, everyone is united in wanting to see something meaningful here. And we're praying that these governments are going to do the right thing and put our collective health before short term profits for the petrochemical sector.' A rush for a weak treaty in Geneva, Forbes said, 'would be a disaster'. Some NGOs said they had 'lost faith' in a process with the need for consensus between a majority of countries who want production caps versus a small but powerful minority of oil- and plastic-producing nations who continue to reject production limits. Christina Dixon, a campaign lead at the Environmental Investigation Agency, said the need for consensus was being 'weaponised'. 'A lot of civil society have lost faith in the process, because we've consistently seen a majority of countries aligning around a vision for the type of treaty that we'd be happy with. Yet, because of the way that this is being weaponised, we're constantly bowing to a small but vocal minority who are holding it hostage,' she said. This system was allowing a majority of countries to be 'drowned out', Dixon said. She urged: 'What we need to see tonight is that the views of that majority reflected fairly.' Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Earlier on Thursday, Camila Zepeda, the director general for global affairs at Mexico's ministry of foreign affairs and a negotiator at the talks, said: 'If [the next treaty draft] is exactly the status quo, then we'll need to assess if it's better to then keep working and trying to find a better environment for this topic, but it's too early to tell … 'We understand it will be a very simple treaty at this stage. But if the key components are there and we can build it in time, then we will be signing. By now, we've given up bans, we've given up production limits. We've given up so much, so much. 'As ambitious countries, we want an outcome, and we see that if we don't get an outcome, we're risking a lot. But at the same time, we won't take just anything.' Ahead of this week's talks, an expert review published in the Lancet described plastics as 'a grave, growing and under-recognised danger to human and planetary health'. It estimated health-related damages globally added up to £1.1tn annually, with infants and children particularly vulnerable. However, some delegates were still hopeful. Sivendra Michael, the Fiji government's permanent secretary for the ministry of environment and climate change, said: 'There is still time. There are still processes that the chair can explore. There are many other innovative processes that have worked in other multilateral settings that can be explored. 'It's important for us to take a step back and reflect that we are negotiating at the edge of a planetary emergency.' The talks continue.
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Defenceless Europe is reliant on US power
When Vladimir Putin meets with Donald Trump in Alaska tomorrow, it will represent the best chance at peace in Europe in the three and a half years since Russia's invasion reignited the conflict in Ukraine. This does not mean that peace should be pursued at all costs. It is to Mr Trump's credit that he has indicated that no deal will be made without the consent of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. It is to his credit, also, that he has stated his willingness to impose sanctions if negotiations prove unsuccessful. Mr Trump must stand by this. Many will be disappointed by a potential deal that could leave Russia with a substantial portion of Ukrainian territory. It is not clear, however, that a viable alternative still exists. After over three years of warfare, Ukraine's armed forces do not appear to have the ability to expel Russian troops from its territory altogether, or Europe the capacity to sustain Kyiv's fight without American support. It is hard to overstate how woeful Europe's position is. Tomorrow, the security of its Eastern flank will be discussed at a summit where the Continent's leaders will be seen as an effective irrelevance. They will be seen as such because that is what they are. For all Sir Keir Starmer's bold words about a 'coalition of the willing' and the conditions this group has placed on talks, negotiation in this field is a matter of hard power. Russia has it; the United states has it. To paraphrase another Russian leader: 'Keir Starmer? How many divisions has he?' The answer to that question may well be 'effectively none'. The result is that Britain will watch on from the sidelines, along with other European nations which have failed to maintain their defensive capabilities. The modern history of British overseas adventures is one of optimistic attempts to gather allies followed by prolonged periods of embarrassed quiet. When the United States decided to withdraw from Afghanistan, Britain rapidly went from attempting to gather a coalition of 'like-minded' nations to maintain a presence in the country, to concluding that we couldn't hold Kabul airport. Even now, Sir Keir Starmer's 'coalition of the willing' will be dependent on American goodwill and assets to have a chance of functioning as an effective deterrent to future Russian aggression. This is an intolerable state of affairs that should never have come about, and which can never be permitted again. As has been clear since Putin's first military action in Ukraine in 2014, Europe needs to take responsibility for its own defence. We cannot assume that the American taxpayer will be endlessly willing or indeed able to bail us out. And we need to be realistic, too, about our economic links to potentially hostile nations. German diplomats laughed when Mr Trump warned in 2018 that Berlin could not take the risk of dependence on Russian energy. With high energy costs taking a heavy toll on German industry, this attitude is likely to be less widespread. The links, however, remain in attenuated form. The European Union still imports a considerable quantity of Russian oil and gas, with further legal purchases routed through India. When this war does eventually end, will Europe continue with its project to reduce this reliance, and to retain its economic freedom to manoeuvre? Will it stick with its plan to ramp up defence spending and strategic autonomy? Or will it instead attempt to use the 'peace dividend' to fund the staggering burden of its welfare systems? US vice-president JD Vance and secretary of defence Pete Hegseth's descriptions of the Continent as 'free-loading', and their expressions of exhaustion at 'bailing Europe out again', are uncomfortably accurate. Europe has spent on ploughshares when it should have spent on swords. It is not clear that it will not repeat this pattern. In Britain, where some level of capacity has been retained, the assumption that we will always work with allied partners looks like a flimsy justification for having built a force that isn't actually capable of achieving its basic goals. This, too, must be corrected, regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's talks. If there is peace in Ukraine, Europe must rearm to ensure it lasts. If the war continues, Europe must rearm so that it can continue to supply Ukraine in its conflict. The lessons of the past three years must be learnt. We should never again be so powerless to determine our own future.
Rhyl Journal
2 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Aid groups call on Israel to end ‘weaponisation' of aid in Gaza
A letter signed by organisations including Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders and Care accused Israel of 'weaponising aid' as people starve in war-torn Gaza and using it as a tool to entrench control. The groups were responding to registration rules announced by Israel in March that require organisations to hand over full lists of their donors and Palestinian staff for vetting. The groups contend that doing so could endanger their staff and give Israel broad grounds to block aid if groups are deemed to be 'delegitimising' the country or supporting boycotts or divestment. The registration measures were 'designed to control independent organisations, silence advocacy, and censor humanitarian reporting,' they said. The letter added that the rules violate European data privacy regulations, noting that in some cases, aid groups have been given only seven days to comply. COGAT, the Israeli military body in charge of humanitarian aid to Gaza, denied the letter's claims. It alleged the groups were being used as cover by Hamas to 'exploit the aid to strengthen its military capabilities and consolidate its control' in Gaza. 'The refusal of some international organisations to provide the information and co-operate with the registration process raises serious concerns about their true intention,' it said in a statement on Thursday. 'The alleged delay in aid entry … occurs only when organisations choose not to meet the basic security requirements intended to prevent Hamas's involvement.' Israel has long claimed that aid groups and United Nations agencies issue biased assessments. The aid groups stressed that most of them have not been able to deliver 'a single truck' of life-saving assistance since Israel implemented a blockade in March. A vast majority of aid isn't reaching civilians in Gaza, where tens of thousands have been killed, most of the population has been displaced and famine looms. UN agencies and a small number of aid groups have resumed delivering assistance, but say the number of trucks allowed in remains far from sufficient. Meanwhile, tensions have flared over Israel and the United States backing the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to serve as the main distributor of aid in the besieged territory. The American contractor, meant to replace the traditional UN-led aid distribution system in Gaza, has faced international condemnation after hundreds of Palestinians were killed while trying to get food near its distribution sites. Israel has pressed UN agencies to accept military escorts to deliver goods into Gaza, a demand the agencies have largely rejected, citing their commitment to neutrality. The stand-off has been the source of competing claims: Israel maintains it allows aid into Gaza that adheres to its rules, while aid groups that have long operated in Gaza decry the amount of life-saving supplies stuck at border crossings. Bushra Khalidi, an aid official with Oxfam in Gaza, said: 'Oxfam has over 2.5 million dollars worth of goods that have been rejected from entering Gaza by Israel, especially WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene) items as well as food.' Aid groups' 'ability to operate may come at the cost of their independence and ability to speak out,' she added. As European countries amplify their criticisms of Israel and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, some are expanding evacuations. Italy on Wednesday night received 114 Palestinian evacuees from Gaza, including 31 children in need of medical assistance, its foreign affairs ministry said. The young patients are suffering from either severe injuries and amputations or serious congenital diseases. Since the beginning of the war Italy has evacuated more than 900 Palestinians from Gaza, including those who have arrived as part of a family reunification programme.
