Plastic pollution talks at risk of ending with no deal
Countries scrambled to bridge deep divisions over the extent of future curbs on what was meant to be the final day of negotiations at the United Nations in Geneva.
But with just 30 minutes left in the scheduled meeting, the chair of the talks of the International Negotiating Committee (INC), Luis Vayas Valdivieso, told delegates the negotiations would run into Friday.
The INC is a group established by the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in 2022 with the mandate to develop a legally binding global treaty to address plastic pollution.
Late on Thursday night, countries had been awaiting a new text that could be the basis for further negotiations after delegations who want an ambitious plastics treaty threw out the one proposed on Wednesday.
States pushing for a comprehensive treaty, including Panama, Kenya, Britain and the European Union, shared frustration that key articles on the full life cycle of plastic pollution - from the production of polymers to the disposal of waste - as well as the harm to health had been removed entirely from the text.
Oil-producing nations are against curbs on the production of virgin plastics derived from petroleum, coal and gas, while others want it to be limited and to have stricter controls over plastic products and hazardous chemicals.
"You cannot reconcile these two positions, and so I think that the chair will keep on trying. I don't know if he can, and if he can't, it will be time to seriously think about how to move forward," David Azoulay, the managing attorney of the Center for International Environmental Law's Geneva Office, told Reuters.
EU Commissioner Jessika Roswall said a "weak, static agreement serves no one".
"A treaty that covers the full life cycle of plastics and can evolve with science is a vital step ... The next few hours will show whether we can rise to the moment," she said in a statement.
Panama described Wednesday's draft text as "repulsive" and called for a complete rewrite.
Saudi Arabia, which is resisting major curbs, said nothing could be agreed until the treaty's scope was clearly defined.
More than 1000 delegates have gathered in Geneva for the sixth round of talks, after a meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee in South Korea late last year ended without a deal.
Advocacy groups held a banner and chanted against a "weak treaty" on Thursday as they waited for delegates to arrive in the UN plenary hall in Geneva for further discussions.
The OECD warns that without intervention, plastic production will triple by 2060, further choking oceans, harming health, and exacerbating climate change.
COMPROMISE
Norwegian Minister of Climate and Environment Andreas Bjelland Eriksen, co-chair of the High Ambition Countries group, told Reuters that all parties need to compromise.
"We are willing to discuss all articles, three, six, for example, to be able to create the package that can be good enough for everyone," he said, pointing to potential openness to re-discussing restrictions on chemicals and production.
Ross Eisenberg, president of America's Plastic Makers, which is part of the American Chemistry Council, was optimistic.
"We think this can be really good for our industry, society, and for the environment," he told Reuters.
The council, which supports a deal without limits on plastic production, warned that the United States might not ratify a treaty containing provisions to ban chemicals or restrict plastic production.
However, Colombian lawmaker Juan Carlos Lozada urged that no deal would be better than a watered-down deal.
Some 300 businesses, including Unilever have pressed for an ambitious treaty that harmonises rules globally.
"If we don't get that degree of harmonisation, we risk further fragmentation ... and higher costs," Ed Shepherd, senior global sustainability manager at Unilever, told Reuters.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Nationwide pro-Palestinian protests call on government to sanction Israel
Photo: RNZ / Mary Argue Protesters across the country are calling on the government to place sanctions on Israel for its war in Gaza. This week the government announced it is considering whether to join other countries like France, Canada and Australia in recognising Palestinian statehood at a UN leader's meeting next month. But critics say the move is long overdue. Protesters have taken to the streets in about 20 cities and towns, waving flags, holding vigils, and banging pots and pans to represent what a United Nations-backed food security agency has called "the worst case scenario of famine". Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
The Arab, The Left And Those Who Remained Silent: History Will Not Forgive You
The consequences of the Israeli genocide in Gaza will be dire. An event of this degree of barbarity, sustained by an international conspiracy of moral inertia and silence, will not be relegated to history as just another "conflict" or a mere tragedy. The Gaza genocide is a catalyst for major events to come. Israel and its benefactors are acutely aware of this historical reality. This is precisely why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in a race against time, desperately trying to ensure his country remains relevant, if not standing, in the coming era. He pursues this through territorial expansion in Syria, relentless aggression against Lebanon, and, of course, the desire to annex all occupied Palestinian territories. But history cannot be controlled with such precision. However clever he may think he is, Netanyahu has already lost the ability to influence the outcome. He has been unable to set a clear agenda in Gaza, let alone achieve any strategic goals in a 365-square-kilometer expanse of destroyed concrete and ashes. Gazans have proven that collective sumud can defeat one of the most well-equipped modern armies. Indeed, history itself has taught us that changes of great magnitude are inevitable. The true heartbreak is that this change is not happening fast enough to save a starving population, and the growing pro-Palestinian sentiment is not expanding at the rate needed to achieve a decisive political outcome. Our confidence in this inevitable change is rooted in history. World War I was not just a "Great War" but a cataclysmic event that fully shattered the geopolitical order of its time. Four empires were fundamentally reshuffled; some, like the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman, were erased from existence. The new world order resulting from World War I was short-lived. The modern international system we have today is a direct outcome of World War II. This includes the United Nations and all the new Western-centric economic, legal, and political institutions that were forged by the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944. This includes the World Bank, the IMF, and ultimately NATO, thus sowing the seeds of yet more global conflicts. The fall of the Berlin Wall was heralded as the singular, defining event that resolved the lingering conflicts of the post-WWII geopolitical struggle, supposedly ushering in a new, permanent global realignment, or, to some, the "end of history." History, however, had other plans. Not even the horrific September 11 attacks and the subsequent US-led wars could reinvent the global order in a way that was consistent with US-Western interests and priorities. Gaza is infinitely small when judged by its geography, economic worth, or political import. Yet, it has proven to be the most significant global event defining this generation's political consciousness. The fact that the self-proclaimed guardians of the post-WWII order are the very entities that are violently and brazenly violating every international and humanitarian law is enough to fundamentally alter our relationship with the West's championed "rule-based order." This may not seem significant now, but it will have profound, long-term consequences. It has largely compromised and, in fact, delegitimized the moral authority imposed, often by violence, by the West over the rest of the world for decades, especially in the Global South. This self-imposed delegitimization will also impact the very idea of democracy, which has been under siege in many countries, including Western democracies. This is only natural, considering that most of the planet feels strongly that Israel must end its genocide and that its leaders must be held accountable. Yet, little to no action follows. The shift in Western public opinion in favor of Palestinians is astounding when considered against the backdrop of total Western media dehumanization of the Palestinian people and Western governments' blind allegiance to Israel. More shocking is that this shift is largely the result of the work of ordinary people on social media, activists mobilizing in the streets, and independent journalists, mostly in Gaza, working under extreme duress and with minimal resources. A central conclusion is the failure of Arab and Muslim nations to factor into this tragedy befalling their own brethren in Palestine. While some are engaged in empty rhetoric or self-flagellation, others subsist in a state of inertia, as if the genocide in Gaza were a foreign topic, like the wars in Ukraine or Congo. This fact alone shall challenge our very collective self-definition—what it means to be an Arab or a Muslim, and whether such definitions carry supra-political identities. Time will tell. The left, too, is problematic in its own way. While not a monolith, and while many on the left have championed the global protests against the genocide, others remain splintered and unable to form a unified front, even temporarily. Some leftists are still chasing their own tales, crippled by the worry that being anti-Zionist would earn them the label of antisemitism. For this group, self-policing and self-censorship are preventing them from taking decisive action. History does not take its cues from Israel or Western powers. Gaza will indeed result in the kind of global shifts that will affect us all, far beyond the Middle East. For now, however, it is most urgent that we use our collective will and action to influence one single historical event: ending the genocide and the famine in Gaza. The rest will be left to history, and to those who wish to be relevant when the world changes again. - Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His forthcoming book, ' Before the Flood,' will be published by Seven Stories Press. His other books include 'Our Vision for Liberation', 'My Father was a Freedom Fighter' and 'The Last Earth'. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
UN Nations plastics pollution talks a flop, some blame tough US stance
By Olivia Le Poidevin and Emma Farge , for Reuters A boy walks past an artwork by Canadian artist and activist Benjamin Von Wong titled "The Thinker's Burden" a 6m sculptural remix of Rodin's iconic Thinker, created for the Plastics Treaty Negotiations, in front of the United Nations Offices in Geneva on 15 August. Photo: AFP/ Fabrice Coffrini Analysis - The collapse on Friday of a sixth round of UN talks aimed at curbing plastic output has dimmed hopes of tackling a key source of pollution and left many advocates of restrictions pessimistic about a global deal during the Trump administration. A three-year global push to reach a legally-binding treaty to curb plastic pollution choking the oceans and harming human health now appears adrift, participants said. Many states and campaigners blamed the failure on oil-producers, including the United States, which they said hardened long-held positions and urged others to reject caps on new plastic production that would have curbed output of polymers. Debbra Cisneros, a negotiator for Panama, which supported a strong deal, told Reuters, the United States, the world's number two plastics producer behind China, was less open than in previous rounds conducted under Joe Biden's administration. "This time they were just not wanting anything. So it was hard, because we always had them against us in each of the important provisions," she said at the end of the 11-day talks. Anti-plastic campaigners saw little hope for a change in Washington's position under President Donald Trump, who in February signed an executive order encouraging consumers to buy plastic drinking straws. "The mentality is different, and they want to extract more oil and gas out of the ground," said Bjorn Beeler, International Coordinator at International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global network of more than 600 public interest NGOs. The US State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment about its positions and its role in the talks. US delegate John Thompson declined to respond to questions from a Reuters reporter on the outcome. A State Department spokesperson previously said that each party should take measures according to its national context, while Washington has expressed concerns that the new rules could increase the costs of all plastic products. The Trump administration has also rolled back various US climate and environmental policies that it says place too many burdens on national industry. Earlier this week, Washington also flexed its muscle in talks about another global environmental agreement when it threatened measures against states backing a proposal aimed at reducing shipping emissions. For a coalition of some 100 countries seeking an ambitious deal in Geneva, production limits are essential. Fiji's delegate Sivendra Michael likened excluding this provision to "mopping the floor without turning off the tap." For each month of delays, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) said nearly a million tons of plastic waste accumulates - some of which washes up on the beaches of island states. Some participants also blamed organisers, the International Negotiating Committee (INC), a UN-established body supported by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). A low point was a formal meeting an hour before the negotiations were set to conclude at midnight on Thursday which lasted less than a minute and was then adjourned until dawn, prompting laughter and jeering from delegates. "Everyone was in shock as no one understood," said Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director for environmental group GAIA. "It's almost like they were playing with small children." France's ecology minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher called proceedings "chaotic". Asked what went wrong, INC chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso blamed the rift between countries and called the negotiations complex. "But we have advanced and that's important," he said. UN provisional rules require all states to agree - a constraint that some see as unworkable, especially under a US administration that is retreating from multilateralism. "Consensus is dead. You cannot agree a deal where all the countries who produce and export plastics and oil can decide the terms of what the deal is going to be," said IPEN's Beeler. Some delegates and campaigners suggested introducing voting to break the deadlock or even for the UN-led process to be abandoned altogether. The WWF and others called on ambitious states to pursue a separate deal, with the hope of getting plastics-producing nations onboard later. Two draft deals emerged from the talks - one more ambitious than the other. Neither was adopted. It is unclear when the next meeting will take place, with states merely agreeing to reconvene at a later date. One positive development was that top plastics producer China publicly acknowledged the need to address the full-life cycle of plastics, said David Azoulay, Managing Attorney of the Centre for International Environmental Law's Geneva Office. "This is new, and I think this opens an interesting door." - Reuters
