“The moment of truth is here to end plastic pollution”, declared Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), on Monday 25 November in Busan, South Korea, at the opening of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee responsible for drawing up an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution.
This fifth negotiating session should result in a ‘Global Plastic Pollution Treaty’. This is a “historic” moment, said Inger Andersen. However, no agreement has yet been reached and the 177 countries represented in Busan do not have the same objectives, warned the European Commission in September 2024 (see EUROPE 13496/2).
The major challenge is to reach agreement on a ‘plastics treaty’ that covers the entire life cycle of plastics, upstream by capping production and downstream by managing waste.
At the end of October, 130 NGOs criticised Mrs Andersen for having “a restrictive interpretation of the scope of the future instrument by focusing exclusively on single-use and short-life plastics, excluding extraction and production from the entire life cycle of plastics” (see EUROPE 13508/7).
There are other fears. Emerging economies such as India and Brazil do not want to see rules harmonised at a global level; the impact of restrictions on plastics on the processing industry poses a problem for polymer producers who are also major exporters of manufactured products (China); and the reduction in polymer production is a concern for countries that will have to find alternatives to fossil fuels, which are central to their economies (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia).
The first official statements. Initial statements and contributions to the Articles of the future ‘plastic treaty’ were made on the first day of negotiations in Busan.
In favour of an ambitious treaty, the EU warned in its opening statement that, in its view, “the production of plastics is a global problem, not a North/South issue”, as if to respond to the discussions at COP29, where the North was expected to participate in financing the fight against climate change in the countries of the South. With respect to plastic, “production and consumption figures show that responsibility for plastic pollution is much more complex”, said the Hungarian Presidency of the EU in Busan. While everyone must take part in the fight, the EU has added that “the needs of the most vulnerable” must be taken into account.
China, for its part, insisted from the outset on the importance of refocusing on what it considers to be the primary ambition of the future treaty, namely to prevent plastic waste from escaping into the environment. China has made “flexibility” one of its keywords, “so that the instrument is both ambitious and achievable” and asks “whether it is appropriate to apply certain actions universally”. Lastly, China believes that developing countries should “benefit from sufficient support in terms of financing, technology and capacity building”.
Proof that nothing is won, Saudi Arabia declared, on behalf of the group of Arab countries, that the informal note by the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, could not “serve as a basis for our negotiations”, contrary to what he had suggested (see EUROPE 13517/16), insofar as “many countries do not feel represented in this document”.
The financing mechanism. As at COP29 and COP16 on biodiversity, the issue of financing will be essential. India’s first proposals concerned the Article on the financing mechanism. India has added the terms “developed countries” and “developing countries” to emphasise the former’s responsibility in terms of funding, technology transfer and technical cooperation, and the latter’s need for financial support, autonomy in the use of funds and needs assessment. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)