Global negotiators in South Korea fail to finalize a plastic pollution treaty; talks to resume in 2025.
After a week of intense negotiations in Busan, South Korea, negotiators working on a treaty to fight plastic pollution failed to reach an agreement. The talks aimed to create a legally binding treaty to address the global plastic pollution crisis, including in oceans, ended without a solution. The negotiators decided to continue their discussions next year. The negotiators announced that they would resume their discussions next year.
The primary goal of the negotiations was to finalize a treaty that would cover the entire lifecycle of plastic, from production to disposal. This treaty was meant to be the first of its kind, aimed at curbing the growing issue of plastic waste that has been harming ecosystems and marine life worldwide. However, the negotiations stalled over key issues, leaving the treaty unfinished as 2024 approaches.
Every year, over 400 million tons of new plastic are produced globally, and much of this ends up as waste, polluting oceans, rivers, and landfills. Without urgent action, plastic production is projected to increase by around 70% by 2040. Plastic pollution is choking waterways, harming marine ecosystems, and infiltrating the food chain.
Countries and regions most affected by plastic waste are demanding that the treaty include robust measures to limit plastic production, curb the use of harmful chemicals, and address the cleanup of existing waste. In Ghana, communities are overwhelmed by plastic waste, with bodies of water and farmlands clogged with debris. Sam Adu-Kumi, Ghana라이브 바카라 lead negotiator, voiced the frustration of many nations facing this environmental disaster, saying, “We want a treaty that will be able to solve it. Otherwise, we will go without it and come and fight another time.”
However, the negotiations stalled over key issues, leaving the treaty unfinished as 2024 approaches.
More than 100 countries supported the idea of a treaty that would include measures to limit plastic production and regulate the chemicals used in plastic manufacturing. For these nations, addressing the chemicals of concern in plastics was essential to tackling the broader plastic pollution crisis.
However, several major plastic-producing countries—many of which are also heavily invested in the oil and gas industry—resisted such proposals. For these nations, including production limits and chemical regulations in the treaty, was considered too disruptive to their economic interests. Countries like India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Kuwait argued that including these provisions would threaten their development goals and economic stability. Saudi Arabia라이브 바카라 negotiator, speaking on behalf of the Arab group, emphasized that addressing plastic pollution could be accomplished without controlling production, asserting that the treaty should focus only on mitigating pollution, not limiting plastic manufacturing.
The divisions between countries centered around whether the treaty should be narrow in scope or whether it should encompass the entire lifecycle of plastics—from production to disposal and recycling. Nations that opposed including production limits argued that such proposals went beyond the original scope of the treaty, which was intended to address the environmental impacts of plastic waste rather than its production.
A critical point of contention in the negotiations was the decision-making process. Under the current framework, any treaty provision requires the consensus of all participating nations, which proved challenging when nations were divided on key issues. Some negotiators pushed for a voting mechanism, which would allow decisions to be made without the need for unanimous agreement. However, this suggestion was met with opposition from countries that strongly believed that the treaty should be founded on a consensus-based approach to ensure its inclusivity and effectiveness.
India, Saudi Arabia, and several other nations opposed any proposal to introduce voting. They argued that any decision that bypassed consensus would undermine the legitimacy of the treaty. These nations insisted that the treaty process needed to remain transparent and reflective of the diverse needs and perspectives of all countries, particularly developing nations.
By the final scheduled day of talks on Sunday, the draft of the treaty still included multiple options for crucial sections of the document. For instance, negotiators were far apart on how to address the control of toxic chemicals in plastics, limits on plastic production, and how the treaty would be financed.
The treaty draft became a subject of significant criticism, with many environmental organizations and negotiators from Africa expressing dissatisfaction. Some African delegates even suggested that they would rather leave Busan without a treaty than accept a weak or ineffective one. Their concerns echoed broader criticisms that the treaty was becoming too watered down, with critical provisions left unresolved.
Juliet Kabera, Rwanda's lead negotiator, voiced the concerns of 85 countries that insisted the treaty should be ambitious and comprehensive. Kabera, speaking at the final meeting, emphasized the importance of creating a treaty that would be fit for purpose and truly address the crisis at hand. She urged countries to "stand up for ambition," and many delegates responded with applause, underscoring the urgency of finding a viable solution.
Despite the divisions between governments, environmental groups, and civil society organizations played a crucial role in shaping the discussions. Some negotiators and advocates criticized the closed-door nature of the negotiations, arguing that key stakeholders—such as scientists, indigenous communities, and public health experts—were not given adequate opportunities to contribute to the process.
Bjorn Beeler, international coordinator for the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), expressed his disappointment with the negotiations, saying that the voices of impacted communities had been ignored. He argued that the process had become “broken” and “hobbling along,” suggesting that the lack of transparency had contributed to the failure of the talks.
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, committee chair from Ecuador, acknowledged that while some progress had been made in Busan, the talks were far from complete. He noted that the negotiators were still "the furthest apart" on critical issues such as plastic production, the regulation of problematic chemicals, and financing mechanisms for the treaty. Valdivieso emphasized that the negotiations must be pragmatic and take into account the diverse needs and capacities of different nations. He proposed that the talks be suspended and resumed at a later date, allowing more time to resolve the remaining issues.
The negotiators agreed with Valdivieso's suggestion, and talks are set to continue next year. In the meantime, there will likely be renewed pressure from environmental groups, scientists, and affected communities to ensure that the treaty ultimately includes provisions that adequately address plastic pollution's root causes.
The failure to finalize the treaty in Busan is an obvious setback, which has brought forward the complexities of addressing a global environmental crisis that affects every nation worldwide.
With more than 400 million tons of plastic produced annually, the stakes could not be higher. If production continues unchecked, plastic pollution could rise to unmanageable levels by 2040.
For now, the world must wait and see how the next round of negotiations unfolds. While the talks in Busan were a critical step toward creating a global solution, the ultimate success of the treaty will depend on whether negotiators can find common ground on the issues that divide them. There is still time to craft a treaty that can effectively curb plastic pollution and create a more sustainable future for the planet. However, the window for action is closing rapidly, and the world must act decisively before it is too late.
There have been significant divisions between countries on how to best address plastic pollution, a global issue that impacts ecosystems, economies, and human health. Although the failure to reach an agreement at this point is disappointing, it is not the final outcome. The talks will continue next year, and with ongoing pressure from environmental groups and communities affected by plastic pollution, there is still hope for a strong, legally binding treaty to tackle the crisis.
Despite the impasse, the discussions have brought attention to the urgent need for international cooperation in addressing plastic waste. With the future of the planet at stake, the world must stay committed to finding a solution before it is too late.