Bid to reach world's first plastic pollution treaty ends in failure after 10-day UN conference
The consequence of the failed talks is devastating, as it leaves no clear path for nations to collectively address the mountains of plastic that are filling landfills, clogging oceans and showing up in chunks on beaches and other public places.
'Consensus is dead,' Bjorn Beeler, international coordinator for the International Pollutants Elimination Network, upon adjournment.
Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tons of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70 per cent by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production. Many have said it's also essential to address toxic chemicals used to make plastics.
The final decision, or lack there of, underscored the influence of the United States and other oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, which opposed any limit on the productions of plastics, made mostly from fuels like oil and gas.
Nations had worked for 11 days at the United Nations office in Geneva. But they were deadlocked over whether the treaty should reduce exponential growth of plastic production and put global, legally binding controls on toxic chemicals used to make plastics.
Environmentalists, waste pickers and Indigenous leaders and many business executives traveled to the talks to make their voices heard. Indigenous leaders sought a treaty that recognizes their rights and knowledge.
The Youth Plastic Action Network was the only organisation that spoke at the closing meeting Friday. Comments from observers were cut off at the request of the US and Kuwait after 24 hours of meetings and negotiating.
After the adjournment, some delegates tried to put a good face on the negotiations and expressed hope for future talks. Delegates did agree they would meet again at some point in the future.
Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said despite challenges, despite the disappointment, 'we have to accept that significant progress was made.'
This process won't stop, she said, but it's too soon to say how long it will take to get a treaty now.
The negotiations were supposed to be the last round and produce the first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution, including in the oceans. But just like at the meeting in South Korea last year, the talks ended with no agreement.
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, wrote and presented two drafts of treaty text in Geneva based on the views expressed by the nations. The representatives from 184 countries did not agree to use either one as the basis for their negotiations.
Valdivieso said Friday morning as the delegates reconvened in the assembly hall that no further action was being proposed at this stage on the latest draft.
After a three-hour meeting, he banged a gavel made of recycled plastic bottle tops from a Nairobi landfill, one of many symbols of the plastic problem that were visible during the talks.
European Commissioner Jessika Roswall said the European Union and its member states had higher expectations for this meeting and while the draft falls short on their demands, it's a good basis for another negotiating session.
'The Earth is not ours only. We are stewards for those who come after us. Let us fulfill that duty,' she said.
Representatives of Norway, Australia, Tuvalu and others nations said they were 'deeply disappointed' to be leaving Geneva without a treaty. Madagascar's representative said the world is 'expecting action, not reports from us.'
China's delegation said the fight against plastic pollution is a long marathon and that this temporary setback is a new starting point to forge consensus.
For any proposal to make it into the treaty, every nation must agree. India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Vietnam and others have said that consensus is vital to an effective treaty. Some countries want to change the process so decisions may be made by a vote if necessary.
Graham Forbes, head of the Greenpeace delegation in Geneva, urged delegates in that direction.
'We are going in circles. We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result,' he said as Friday's meeting ended.
The biggest issue of the talks has been whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic or focus instead on things like better design, recycling and reuse.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the US opposed cutting plastic production or banning chemical additives in the treaty. The US supported provisions to improve waste collection and management, improve product design and drive recycling, reuse and other efforts to cut the plastic dumped into the environment.
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, wrote and presented two drafts of treaty text in Geneva based on the views expressed by the nations
Saudi Arabia said both drafts lacked balance, and Saudi and Kuwaiti negotiators said the latest proposal gave more weight to the views of other nations.
That draft, released early Friday, did not include a limit on plastic production, but recognized that current levels of production and consumption are 'unsustainable' and global action is needed.
New language had been added to say these levels exceeded current waste management capacities and are projected to increase further, 'thereby necessitating a coordinated global response to halt and reverse such trends.'
The objective of the treaty was revamped to state that the accord would be based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics.
It talked about reducing plastic products containing 'a chemical or chemicals of concern to human health or the environment,' as well as reducing of single-use or short-lived plastic products.
It was a much better, more ambitious text, though not perfect. Each country came to Geneva with a lot of 'red lines,' said Magnus Heunicke, the Danish environment minister. Denmark holds the rotating presidency of the Council of Europe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
18 hours ago
- Times
Trump gave Putin the spotlight and left us all guessing
There was a rare sight on Friday: Donald Trump playing second fiddle. The US president seemed a little out of character as he shared a stage in Alaska with Vladimir Putin following three hours of talks. Rather than his usual bombastic self, Trump appeared rather demure, even a little shy, as he let Putin go first. As a Fox News anchor put it shortly after: 'There were a few things that were very unusual. You had Putin come out and address the press first. We are on US soil here.' Putin set the tone, switching to English to suggest that next time they met, they took the show to Mother Russia. The next thing: no questions. Usually, Trump cannot stop talking to the travelling press pack about anything and everything: world peace, Joe Biden, Jeffrey Epstein's staffing arrangements. But in the 12-minute press conference, and again later on Air Force One, he declined to stop for a group chat. Hacks had been told that if things went well, there would be an opportunity for a Q&A. Instead, 300 journalists travelled to Alaska to hear an uninterrupted history lesson from Putin. Trump wanted a breakthrough. Putin wanted a show. In the end, it seems it was Putin who got what he came for. The question is why Trump suddenly became camera-shy. Did he feel unprepared after the talks were cut short (closer to three hours than the planned six) and failed to lead to a breakthrough of a ceasefire? Or is this something else altogether: a new, more mature Trump who wanted to keep his cards close to his chest until he had spoken to President Zelensky and others? It was after he had left Alaska that Trump started to return to type. In a Truth Social post, he explained that after 'a great and very successful day' in Alaska he no longer wanted a ceasefire, despite talking about the need for one only a few hours before. Instead, he decided the bigger prize is Putin's own preference: a comprehensive peace deal. This is not, of course, the first time Trump has moved the goalposts or torn up a deadline. He has previously taken the view that US foreign policy ought to be unpredictable, leaving opponents guessing. But all the same, some of his closest allies are now guessing as to how this will all pan out. 'I took it as a display of strength towards a resolution,' says one Republican. While the public comments from European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, have been positive, there is growing pessimism about what that resolution may look like. 'The fear is that warm words on a security guarantee will be used to bully Zelensky into giving Putin what he wants,' says one figure close to the negotiations. 'Putin is currently claiming land that he has taken, plus more.' The audience that matters most to Trump politically is the one back home. Although there is less concern in the United States than in Europe about carving up Ukraine, Trump wants to show that he is a winner and a dealmaker. On that front, the trip was not immediately helpful. Even the usually friendly right-wing media have raised questions about the optics of gladhanding Putin — on a red carpet — while getting nothing material in the process. At least, not yet. 'This was the single worst American-Russian meeting in living memory,' says Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Obama administration. 'It was a far cry from summits of the past. It began as two equals and ended as a lopsided affair where the target coming in' — namely Putin — 'was the victor. The world now has no idea what Donald Trump wants. And apparently, neither does he.' A senior Republican is more positive: 'This outcome is the best, as we didn't go backwards on our commitment to Ukraine. Now let's see how hard Putin hits Ukraine this week and how Trump reacts.' Trump eventually declared it a successful meeting (a 'ten') where they agreed to 'go directly to a peace agreement' rather than 'a mere ceasefire agreement'. He sees himself as a peacemaker. 'President Trump has brokered, on average, about one peace deal or ceasefire per month during his six months in office,' said Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, last month. 'It's well past time that President Trump was awarded the Nobel peace prize.' JD Vance, the vice-president, has long opposed funding the Ukraine conflict and led opposition in Congress under Biden. His views have not changed, even if he has softened his tone when dealing with European counterparts. This was very in tune with the Maga base, which explains why they were the most enthusiastic audience for the Trump-Putin meeting, sharing pictures of four F-35s and a B-2 Spirit bomber over Putin's head when he stepped on to American soil. 'He displayed military power. He flexed hugely on Putin and he pulled him in for the handshake,' says one Maga figure with links to the administration. They view the meeting as a welcome route out of a conflict the US should never have been involved in and the beginning of a pivot closer to Russia. For some in the base, they admire Putin's crusade for 'traditional values' and see Ukraine as overly liberal in comparison. Others dislike Zelensky personally, sometimes for his fashion choices but also as they associate him with Trump's first impeachment in 2019. (It was an infamous conversation with Zelensky that triggered it.) Then there is the fact that Hunter Biden, a Maga enemy, had business dealings with Ukraine. Those happiest about Trump's Putin bromance are those who are the most relaxed about the conflict ending at any cost. As journalists and foreign policy specialists critiqued Trump's summit, a tribal instinct kicked in with his base. The Maga influencer Charlie Kirk is among those to quote Putin approvingly for saying he would not have started the war if Trump had been in office. Though one insider admits: 'It's easy for Putin to say that now.' A Republican staffer adds: 'The vibe is very positive. The general vibe is that for three years no progress was made, and now there might finally be some progress.' Over the past few months, Republican voters seemed warm to Ukraine's cause, perhaps as Trump's language towards Putin hardened. 'Americans tend not to have strong, fixed opinions on foreign policy,' the Republican pollster Daron Shaw notes. 'They often follow cues from their party's leaders.' A recent poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs showed that 51 per cent of Republicans now support continued military assistance to Ukraine, a big jump from 30 per cent only five months ago. Of Maga Republicans, 49 per cent support military aid, compared with 57 per cent of non-Maga Republicans. On economic aid, only 35 per cent of Maga Republicans support it, compared with 57 per cent of non-Maga Republicans. So far, no one in the party has come out hard against Trump since the meeting. But it is the old-school Republicans who harbour the greatest concern about where this all might lead. 'Trump clearly expects Ukraine to give up significant territory,' says one senior Republican. 'European countries are arguing against that, and that will give Zelensky the room to object to Trump's proposed deal.' Longstanding Ukraine supporters such as Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, stress that no deal is possible without Zelensky. 'This simple fact remains: true and lasting security can only be achieved with our allies, most importantly with Ukraine, at the table,' he says. 'Ukraine's sovereignty and freedom are not bargaining chips. They are principles that must be defended.' Lindsey Graham hedged his bets, saying the Russia-Ukraine war could end before Christmas — but only if Zelensky joins the next round of Putin-Trump talks. Graham, a Trump ally and staunch supporter of Ukraine, is viewed as a bellwether for the GOP. 'Make no mistake, this war is a war of aggression by Putin against Ukraine. However, I have always said Ukraine will not evict every Russian soldier and Putin is not going to take Kyiv,' Graham said in a post on social media platform X. 'The key to ending this war honorably and justly is to create an infrastructure of deterrence that Biden and Obama failed to do — which will prevent a third invasion.' In the end, Trump left Alaska with little beyond an extraordinary photo op: a Russian president on US soil, a stealth bomber overhead and a press corps denied its questions. Whether this becomes the start of a grand bargain or another dead end in US diplomacy depends on what he does next. For now, America's allies are left guessing. And so, perhaps, is Trump himself.
Daily Mail
18 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Sir Keir Starmer to meet with 'coalition of the willing' ahead of crunch Trump-Zelensky White House showdown as world leaders push for peace deal in Ukraine
Sir Keir Starmer is set to meet with Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz ahead of Zelensky and Trump's talks at the White House next week, as world leader push for a peace deal in Ukraine. The Prime Minister will hold talks with the European leaders in a meeting of the coalition of the willing on Sunday afternoon. A day later, on Monday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is scheduled to meet with Donald Trump in the Oval Office in Washington DC. The one-on-one in the Oval Office could pave the way for a three-way meeting alongside Russian leader Mr Putin, the US president has said. It comes as Ukraine's future as a sovereign nation hangs in the balance after the US President's meeting with Vladimir Putin yesterday, which left Kremlin delegates grinning. Critics have warned that other world leaders were powerless to prevent Zelensky from being caught 'with his head in a vice' by the American and Russian leaders when he visits Trump at the White House. Diplomatic sources said that Friday's summit in Alaska had paved the way for a deal in which Ukraine would be expected to surrender large swathes of the Donbas region in the east of the country, including areas currently controlled by Kyiv. Several news outlets have cited sources, which claimed Putin demanded full control of Donetsk and Luhansk, two occupied Ukrainian regions, and, in exchange he would give up other Ukrainian territories held by Russian troops. In return, president Zelensky would receive 'Nato-style' protection from Western countries for what remained of his territory. Elsewhere, the coalition of the willing, which is made up of over 30 nations, is prepared to deter Russian aggression by placing troops on the ground once the Ukraine war is over. The meeting, which is expected to take place at approximately 2pm UK time, comes on the heels of Mr Trump's summit in Alaska with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. And although Trump hoped to score a peace deal following talks at the military base in Anchorage, both he and Putin walked away without an agreement on how to bring the conflict to an end. In a press conference, Trump declared 'there's no deal until there's a deal', adding there were 'many, many points that we agreed on', however, they failed to yield an immediate result on one issue, he branded 'the most significant'. 'We didn't get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there,' he added, without divulging any specifics. There was no mention of a ceasefire from either Trump or Putin during the press conference which followed after their near three-hour meeting. Following the summit, the US president told Fox News it was now up to the Ukrainian to 'make a deal' to end the war. And while Sir Keir commended Trump's 'pursuit of an end to the killing' following a phone call with the US president, Zelensky and Nato allies on Saturday morning, he insisted the Ukrainian leader must not be excluded from future peace talks. The Prime Minister and European leaders appeared increasingly confident that Mr Trump will offer a 'security guarantee' of air support to back up allied troops on the ground in Ukraine. The Prime Minister welcomed 'the openness of the United States, alongside Europe, to provide robust security guarantees to Ukraine as part of any deal'. 'This is important progress and will be crucial in deterring Putin from coming back for more,' he added. But Mr Trump also appeared to have a change of heart on what he wants to achieve from the talks, indicating that he wants a permanent peace settlement rather than a ceasefire. Yesterday, President Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform: 'The best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up. 'President Zelensky will be coming to [Washington] DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with president Putin.' Writing on his Truth Social platform, the US president said: 'The best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which often times do not hold up.' Following the summit, Dr Neil Melvin, director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), said: 'Vladimir Putin came to the Alaska summit with the principal goal of stalling any pressure on Russia to end the war. 'He will consider the summit outcome as mission accomplished.' But, experts have warned the face-to-face summit has risked legitimising the Russian leader, after he has been made a pariah by the international community for years. Zelensky has also warned the Kremlin may ramp up airstrikes against Ukraine over the coming days in a bid 'to create more favourable political circumstances for talks with global actors'. Kyiv's troops are 'defending our positions along the entire front line', he added on social media site X. Mr Zelensky had earlier insisted a ceasefire must include an end to fighting on land, in the sea and the air, as well as the return of all prisoners of war and captured civilians, including children. Sanctions on Moscow 'should be strengthened if there is no trilateral meeting or if Russia tries to evade an honest end to the war', Mr Zelensky added. However, last night, former British defence minister Tobias Ellwood told The Mail on Sunday that he feared Mr Zelensky was walking into a trap in the White House. He said: 'He will be asked to put his head in a vice, with Vladimir Putin pushing from one side and Donald Trump from the other. 'The Ukrainian president will be presented with a 'take it or leave it' deal: surrender territory to Russia or face the blame for wrecking peace. 'And if Mr Zelensky refuses, Trump will walk away, declaring that America is done with the talks. 'It's the classic gangster deal – one you can't refuse. Except he must.' Mr Johnson, writing in today's MoS, describes the summit as 'the most vomit-inducing episode in all the tawdry history of international diplomacy'. He says: 'Imagine how it felt to be one of those embattled heroes in a dug-out near Pokrovsk, fighting for your country's freedom, and to hear the President of the United States – the ex officio team captain of the Free World – refer to Vladimir Putin as 'the boss'. Retch. 'Think of the tens of thousands of Ukrainian widows and orphans. 'Think of the maimed and mutilated; think of the Ukrainian civilians living in daily and nightly terror of Putin's bombs and missiles still raining down, even though the so-called negotiations were taking place in Alaska.' But he adds: 'Like so many of the most objectionable pieces of historic diplomacy, that meeting was also, of course, justifiable and even essential. 'Puke-making though it was, Trump was right to try. He was right to meet Putin, because if millions of Ukrainians were watching with horror at the red-carpet rehabilitation of the Russian tyrant, they were also watching with hope... One day this war will end with a peace that protects Ukrainian freedom; but as Trump said in Alaska, the Europeans – led by Britain – will have to step up.' The proposed deal was greeted with dismay in Ukraine. Volodymyr Dubovyk, a professor of international relations in Odesa, described it as 'a nothing-burger with a sour aftertaste'. He said: 'As a Ukrainian, it was pretty disgusting to see what was going on, all this red carpet, all this clapping and smiles and being chummy.' Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, a long-time ally of Trump, said of the US President: 'At least he is trying to find peace.' But former Tory defence secretary Ben Wallace hit out at the 1980's-style 'pantomime' of the summit between the two leaders. He said: 'Putin got what he wanted and I think President Trump got a trip to Alaska.'
Spectator
a day ago
- Spectator
Unesco status is killing Bath
Last month, the Trump administration announced that the United States would once again withdraw from Unesco, the Paris-based UN cultural agency responsible for World Heritage Sites, education initiatives, and cultural programmes worldwide. The official line? Unesco promotes 'woke, divisive cultural and social causes' and its 'globalist, ideological agenda' clashes with America First policy. Predictably, the Trump administration framed it as a culture-war grievance. But, set aside the politics, and it soon becomes clear that Trump might not be entirely wrong. Unesco – founded in 1945 with the lofty mission of promoting peace and global cooperation through culture, education, and science – has devolved into something far less edifying. Once led by artists, architects, and scholars, Unesco's World Heritage Committee has become the Fifa of culture: a fiefdom of bureaucrats, political journeymen and international grifters who drift between departments, NGOs and consultancies with no accountability, while the list of sites has ballooned to 1,248. Its $1.5 billion annual budget fuels a self-perpetuating treadmill of capacity-building workshops, unread reports and relentless reputation polishing. The consequences are not merely abstract for Bath, a Unesco World Heritage Site since 1987. Some World Heritage Sites are a single chapel, a medieval bridge, or a protected ruin; Bath's listing covers the entire city – all 94,000 residents, its suburban sprawl, its industrial remnants, and its everyday working streets. The designation treats the Georgian crescents and Roman baths as inseparable from the supermarkets, car parks, and 1970s infill, meaning almost any change anywhere must be weighed against the city's 'Outstanding Universal Value.' At the same time, the city is grappling with a record housing crisis: house prices are more than 13 times annual earnings, social housing demand is soaring, and temporary accommodation has reached a 20-year high. Homelessness services like Julian House's Manvers Street hostel operate far beyond capacity, providing nearly 97,000 bed spaces last year alone while struggling to secure their own roof. But Bath's heritage status means it is almost impossible to get anything built. Although Unesco status carries no direct legal force in the UK, it is woven into planning policy through the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, which bars development deemed harmful to the 'qualities justifying the inscription' or its setting. In practice, this gives opponents of change a powerful rhetorical weapon: they need only invoke 'Outstanding Universal Value' to wrap their case in the prestige of an international mandate. The result is a permanent, low-level threat – that almost any proposal, however modest, might be cast as an affront to world heritage and fought on those grounds. In 2024, residents were warned that the city's Unesco status was 'at risk' after the council approved the replacement of former industrial units on Wells Road with 77 'co-living' apartments. The planning committee split four to four, with the chair casting the tiebreaker vote in favour. Councillors raised concerns about the building's bulk and potential 'cumulative impact' on the World Heritage Site, with one declaring the city was 'sailing close to the wind with Unesco.' It is extraordinary: a city struggling to house its own people, yet officials can menace its international status over a modest block of flats. Meanwhile, residents in nearby Saltford – whose own Grade II* Saltford Manor dates to the 12th century and is thought to be Britain's oldest continuously inhabited house – watch as Bath's tight planning restrictions push the housing burden outwards. With 1,300 new homes proposed for its green belt, the village faces development on a scale it can't sustain, without the infrastructure or political protection to resist it. Phil Harding, head of the Saltford Environmental Group and a resident for more than 30 years, recently made headlines when he spoke out about the impact of Bath's World Heritage status on neighbouring communities. 'I'm not against new housing, I'm against putting housing in the wrong place,' he says. Bath, he notes, is already a fantastic city that draws tourists in its own right, and Unesco status 'makes no difference.' The real problem, he adds, is that World Heritage designation makes it 'incredibly hard to build in Bath,' pushing development into nearby villages. Much of the employment for new arrivals will still be in Bath, leaving Saltford to shoulder the burden – green belt land lost, congestion rising, local services stretched – without enjoying the benefits. 'Bath doesn't need World Heritage Status,' he concludes. 'It distorts planning priorities, forcing the city to preserve appearances while shifting the real costs onto neighbouring communities.' It may sound unthinkable, but losing that status is hardly fatal. Liverpool provides the example: once celebrated for its maritime mercantile cityscape, it was stripped of Unesco recognition in 2021 after the agency judged that recent and planned developments had caused an 'irreversible loss' of the site's Outstanding Universal Value. Among the contested projects was Everton FC's new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, which required filling in part of the historic dock to accommodate a 52,000-seat arena. Even the Guardian acknowledged it as 'the most striking, ambitious addition to the waterfront since the Three Graces were built in the early 1900s.' The £800 million stadium formed part of a broader £1.3 billion regeneration plan, projected to create over 15,000 jobs and attract more than 1.4 million visitors annually. The city did not crumble: regeneration pressed ahead, docks were revitalised, neighbourhoods transformed and tourism continued to flourish. The lesson is plain – Unesco's imprimatur is not the secret ingredient of urban vitality, and its objections can just as easily hinder development as they can protect it. If Unesco were merely symbolic, that would be one thing. But the status is far from meaningless: it exerts moral and political pressure, informs planning guidance, and lends weight to the opinions of advisory bodies like Historic England. For Bath, this translates into a city where development proposals are scrutinised through the lens of 'Outstanding Universal Value,' with councillors warned that new flats or infrastructure might unsettle international sensibilities. The result is a city frozen in amber, preserved more for the approval of tourists rather than for the people who actually live and work there. So when the America First brigade lashes out at Unesco, it is tempting to roll our eyes. But there is a logic to that disdain. World Heritage labels are increasingly badges for the international jet set, not the local people. The US may be leaving for its own vanity, but the reasoning – that Unesco is corrupt, politicised, and more interested in theatre than preservation – hits the mark. For cities like Bath, the real question isn't whether Unesco might disapprove, but why on earth they should care.
