The recent global talks in Busan, South Korea, aimed at curbing plastic pollution ended in failure to finalize a legally binding treaty. The discussions, held over a week, ended without an agreement on how to regulate plastic production. This was the fifth and final round of negotiations since March 2022, when the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) had set a goal to establish a treaty by the end of 2024. Though the treaty was not finalized, the talks will continue into next year.

Main Dispute: Production Cap Goals

Demand for Production Cap Goals

The primary reason for the collapse of the talks was the dispute over including production cap goals in the final treaty. Many countries, particularly in Africa, Latin America, and the European Union, pushed for clear goals to cap plastic production and to eliminate certain harmful plastic chemicals and products.

Opposition to Production Cuts

However, a coalition of countries—such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia, and Iran—opposed these provisions. They argued that regulating production cuts went beyond the mandate set in the 2022 resolution, which was focused on addressing plastic pollution. Kuwait, for example, stated that such measures were being used to advance trade restrictions and economic agendas under the guise of environmental concerns. India and China supported the stance of this coalition.

The Treaty’s Draft Text: Points of Consensus and Contention

Areas of Consensus

• Waste Management: The draft included provisions for banning open dumping and burning of plastics to promote sustainable waste management.
• Definitions: The draft provided clear definitions for plastics and plastic products.

Areas of Contention

• Microplastics and Recycling: The text did not define contentious issues such as microplastics, nanoplastics, primary plastic polymers, and recycling.
• Reduction Goals: Despite opposition from certain countries, the draft suggested setting a goal to reduce plastic after the treaty is finalized.
• Single-use Plastics: The draft also included references to tackling single-use plastics and short-lived plastics.

India’s Stance on the Treaty

Emphasis on Varying Responsibilities

India’s position centered on the varying responsibilities of countries in addressing plastic pollution, with a focus on the right to development for countries and the need for technical and financial assistance to manage plastic waste.

Concerns about Production Cuts

India strongly opposed any provisions related to curbing plastic production. It argued that defining a sustainable level of production at a global or national level was unclear and could become a way to impose caps on the production of products, chemicals, or primary polymers. India contended that the production of primary polymers was not directly linked to plastic pollution, and therefore, there should be no targets for polymer or plastic production.

Support for Developing Countries

India also emphasized that the treaty must recognize the need for support to developing countries through finance and technology transfer. It made it clear that the treaty’s scope should not overlap with existing multilateral environmental agreements.

Balancing Environmental Goals and Development

At the conclusion of the talks, India stressed that there needs to be a balance between preventing plastic pollution and safeguarding the sustainable development of developing countries.