Latest news with #INC-5.2
Time of India
15 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Policy experts, civil society from Asia Pacific discuss country positions ahead of plastics treaty talks
BATHINDA: Regional policy experts discussed country positions and negotiation dynamics of the Asia Pacific region, in a briefing by Break free from Plastic (BFFP), the global movement working to achieve a future free from plastic pollution, ahead of the INC 5.2 negotiations for the Global Plastic Treaty in Geneva, Switzerland from August 5-14, 2025. INC-5.2 refers to the second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC). It discussed how countries frame their priorities around economic development, environmental protection, and regional and international cooperation. Asia Pacific countries sit at the epicentre of both plastic production and pollution impacts; the region's diverse economies and environmental challenges make it a key battleground in the global treaty negotiations. The negotiations outcome will determine global standards for plastic production, waste management, and industry accountability. The briefing also identified key challenges, including procedural issues affecting civil society access, potential delaying tactics, watered-down commitments favouring waste management over production caps, and industry influence promoting circular economy narratives over substantive pollution reduction. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like When the Camera Clicked at the Worst Possible Time Read More Undo For more nuanced coverage of the treaty, the policy experts and researchers on the panel urged journalists to consider a human rights-centric, fossil-fuel-free development model for Asia Pacific. It was felt critical threats that could significantly weaken the treaty include chemical and plastic-producing countries challenging the treaty's scope to address the full plastics lifecycle, potentially removing obligations for primary plastic polymer production reduction and chemicals of concern from the final agreement. The most significant risk is that negotiations could result in a framework convention with voluntary measures rather than legally binding obligations, which would fundamentally undermine the treaty's ability to address global plastic pollution at the required scale and speed. A critical political obstacle to a strong, effective treaty is the decision-making process, which relies on a consensual decision-making process where all countries are not equal, instead of an equal voting process. With pressure to reach a consensus, countries may compromise on stronger provisions to secure a deal, with critical decisions on production reduction measures deferred to future COP processes. As diverse as the Asia Pacific region is, we are most impacted by plastic pollution, and often bear disproportionate blame. C Semee Rhee, Global Policy Advisor, BFFP said 'It's not about whether or not we will have a treaty. It's about how many countries will be courageous enough to say that we can no longer continue producing the amount of plastics we currently produce for the sake of the environment and human well-being.' Siddharth Ghanshyam Singh, Centre for Science & Environment (CSE) said 'The moment to push for ambition is now. Opportunities like this don't come often, and countries must remember who they are negotiating for; their people and our shared planet. We cannot allow a few vocal opponents to derail and delay progress. It's time to stand firm and take a decisive step toward ending plastic pollution.' Pinky Chandran, Asia Pacific Coordinator, BFFP said 'The plastic problem often resembles a kaleidoscope, with no single perspective illuminating the complete picture; in fact, each turn reveals a new representation. We must view the plastic problem as a tapestry, where every element is interconnected, interlinked, and interdependent. A fragmented, piecemeal approach simply won't suffice. And so there must be global binding measures to reduce plastic production, in order to tackle the plastic pollution problem, through just transition lens'. Siddika Sultana, Executive Director, Environment and Social Development Organization (ESDO) said "South Asia is both a significant hotspot for plastic pollution and a center of innovation. To address this issue effectively, the region must shift from isolated national initiatives to coordinated regional action. A united approach—supported by enforcement, investment, and inclusivity—can establish South Asia as a leader in developing an effective global treaty on plastic waste. " Punyathorn Jeungsmarn, Plastics Campaign Researcher, Environmental Justice Foundation said 'As a region, Southeast Asia is particularly affected by plastic pollution, and is increasingly becoming the dumping ground for plastic waste, misguided false solutions such as waste-to-energy technologies, and petrochemical expansion. It is therefore crucial for our representatives to stand up and put people and the planet over plastics and the petrochemical industry. Throughout the past rounds of negotiations, we have seen courageous stances from Southeast Asian countries. We hope to see those again in Geneva.'
Irish Examiner
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
A global treaty to limit plastic pollution is within reach — will countries seize the moment?
Representatives from 175 countries will gather in Geneva, Switzerland, in August for the final round of negotiations on a legally binding UN treaty to end plastic pollution. Non-governmental organisations, academics and industry lobbyists will also be in the room. They will all be hoping to influence what could be the world's first truly global agreement on plastics. The summit, known as 'INC-5.2', follows a failed attempt to reach agreement in Busan, South Korea, late last year. That meeting ended without resolving important issues, despite hopes that it would conclude the treaty process. Now, it's crunch time in Geneva. Either countries bridge their political divides, or risk the whole process falling apart. I've been researching the effects of plastic for more than a decade and have been involved in the UN treaty process since 2022. I've attended several of the negotiations and will be in Geneva next month. The science is clear: we need ambitious action which tackles every stage of the plastics lifecycle, from production through to disposal. But the question is, will countries deliver? CLIMATE & SUSTAINABILITY HUB In 2022, the UN Environment Assembly agreed to develop a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. Since then, progress has been slow. Negotiations have repeatedly stalled over issues such as whether the treaty should limit plastic production or regulate chemicals, how to define terms, and how to fund implementation. While scientists are only beginning to understand the long-term implications for human health, biodiversity and climate, studies show harmful effects of plastics and their chemicals on animals and ecosystems. Industry lobbying has also played a powerful role throughout. At the last round of talks, lobbyists for the petrochemical and plastics industries made up the single largest delegation. They outnumbered representatives from the EU, all of Latin America, the Pacific islands, independent scientists and Indigenous communities. This imbalance threatens to weaken the science-based action that is urgently needed. Although countries failed to reach agreement in Busan, a foundation was laid. They agreed to continue negotiations using the 'chair's text', which is a draft treaty with multiple options still on the table. That document forms the starting point in Geneva. But it remains uncertain whether enough common ground can be found to finalise the text. What's at stake? This treaty is a once-in-a-generation chance to tackle one of the world's most urgent environmental crises. More than 450 million tonnes of plastic are produced every year. That figure is expected to double by 2045 if current trends continue Only around 9% of plastic is ever recycled. The rest is landfilled, incinerated or ends up polluting the environment. An estimated 139m tonnes of plastics pollute marine and fresh water. But that could be significantly higher when considering leakages of plastics to land, and from microplastics, which are plastics smaller than 5mm in diameter. Plastic is found in the deepest oceans, the remotest mountains and inside the human body. While scientists are only beginning to understand the long-term implications for human health, biodiversity and climate, studies show harmful effects of plastics and their chemicals on animals and ecosystems. Plastic pollution doesn't respect national borders. It moves through rivers, oceans and air, and gets carried across continents. Global supply chains and waste exports have made this a problem no country can solve alone. That's why a global treaty is essential. Despite this growing urgency, a disparity in positions has hindered progress and continues to divide delegations. Some, such as members of the High Ambition Coalition, a group of countries committed to progressive climate action, want strong rules to cap plastic production, phase out toxic chemicals and hold polluters accountable. Others, often with prominent petrochemical industries, argue for a weaker, voluntary approach focused mainly on recycling and waste management. If these divisions aren't resolved, there's a real risk the treaty will end up being too watered down to make a difference A patchy, fragmented agreement would fail to curb rising plastic production and could undermine the integrity of global action. Between December's meeting in Busan and next month's talks, countries have been holding smaller meetings to try to find compromise. That momentum must now be carried into the final negotiations. Important articles in the draft treaty, including those on chemicals and products, plastic production and finance, remain contested. Whether those provisions are strengthened or diluted will shape the treaty's effects for decades to come. Flexibility will be needed. But leadership is also crucial. Countries that support an ambitious outcome must stand firm and bring others with them. As we approach what may be the final negotiating round, we're at a critical crossroads. The world has the chance to take meaningful action on plastic pollution. Let's not waste it. Winnie Courtene-Jones is a Lecturer in Marine Pollution at Bangor University. This article is reprinted courtesy of The Conversation Read More Government must stand firm on Israel's illegal occupation and genocide in Gaza Strip
New Indian Express
18-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Global plastic treaty negotiations: What's at stake in Geneva
What to expect INC-5.2 is the longest session yet. A 10 full negotiating days, organised into four contact groups clustered around contentious articles (production, chemicals, finance, and governance), with a legal drafting group charged with cleaning the text for final plenary adoption on August 14. Delegates will also hammer out the roadmap to the DipCon and sketch the work programme leading up to the first COP — guidance that countries will need to translate treaty obligations into national law once the agreement enters into force. More than 70 ministers are expected to arrive mid-session to close political gaps, but unresolved Rules of Procedure — including how to settle disputes if consensus collapses — could yet derail the finish. Imbalance in negotiations, threats Industry participation has surged across recent sessions; in Busan alone, more than 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered — outnumbering scientists by three to one and Indigenous representatives by almost nine to one. In fact, on July 8, Richard Thompson, a marine biologist from the University of Plymouth who has been working on plastic pollution for 30 years and co-coordinator of the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, expressed deep concern during the UK Parliament's Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee hearing about scientists facing threats in the context of the UN plastics treaty negotiations. He stated: 'Scientists I work with have been threatened on UN premises as part of these negotiations… threats to scientists are not a new issue. It has happened through many of these negotiations.' When asked to elaborate, he confirmed these were verbal threats from industry representatives, and that those responsible were ejected from the UN premises. Thompson said there was an imbalance in the negotiation process, where industry actors are well-funded and well-represented, while scientists are often self-funded observers with limited voice and protection. He added that almost what he would consider a fundamental right to science and to access science was being denied. Later, he shared that even in peer-reviewed publications, he had personally received legal threats from companies for naming specific products or findings. He acknowledged that these threats could discourage younger scientists from participating or speaking out. This testimony was a powerful call for the establishment of an independent, protected scientific evidence mechanism, as mandated by UNEA 5/14, to ensure fair and safe participation for scientists in treaty processes. Amy Youngman, legal and policy specialist at Environmental Investigation Agency, said: "When fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists outnumber not just scientists, but most national delegations, you have to ask: who is this treaty really being written for? In Busan, over 220 lobbyists had seats in the room, which is more than any other delegation and more than most low-income country delegations combined. That's not participation, it's capture. These are the very actors driving the plastics crisis, and they're not just shaping access, they're shaping the tone of negotiations and even influencing national positions, all while slowing ambition. Unless there's a course correction in Geneva, the treaty risks being forged under the shadow of the very industries it's meant to hold to account."
