Stalemate in Plastic Pollution Treaty: Oil-Producing Nations Stand Firm

After two years of negotiations aimed at establishing a global treaty to combat plastic pollution, nations could not reach consensus in South Korea. The divide between high ambition countries seeking to phase out plastic production and oil-producing nations raising concerns about economic implications remains unbridged, postponing vital environmental action.

The international effort to address plastic pollution has hit a significant roadblock, with negotiators failing to finalize a key treaty after two years of discussions. Over 200 countries convened in Busan, South Korea, in what was anticipated to be the concluding round of talks aimed at tackling the growing crisis of plastic waste. However, stark divides persist between nearly 100 nations advocating for a gradual phase-out of plastic, and oil-rich countries cautioning against measures that could hinder global development.

In light of the staggering statistic that more than nine billion tonnes of plastic has been produced globally since 1950—less than 10% of which has been recycled—the urgency for a comprehensive international agreement is palpable. The United Nations warns that millions of tonnes of plastic debris end up in oceans, endangering marine life and ecosystems. Fish, birds, and marine mammals are at risk of injury or starvation from ingesting plastic or becoming entangled in waste.

The ambitious goal of establishing a treaty to curb plastic production was initially endorsed by world leaders in 2022; however, the crucial two-year deadline has now lapsed without a consensus. Central to the discord is Article 6 of the treaty negotiations, which proposes a legally binding commitment to reduce plastic production rather than merely enhancing recycling efforts.

The group of 95 nations—including the UK, the European Union, the African Group, and numerous South American countries—underscored the need for a binding pledge to curb production levels. Camila Zepeda, Mexico's chief negotiator, stressed the pressing obligation of leaders to respond to their citizens' demands for effective environmental protection.

Conversely, a coalition of oil-producing nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, and Russia, voiced strong opposition against such commitments, expressing concerns that phasing out plastic could exacerbate global economic disparity. This resistance aligns with the projected growth of the petrochemical industry, which views plastic production as a key revenue stream in the face of dwindling oil demand due to the shift toward renewable energy sources and electric vehicles.

The significance of these negotiations is further highlighted by the projected tripling of plastic entering aquatic ecosystems by 2040 if current production rates continue. Nations like India also raised alarms about the potential economic repercussions of committing to production cuts.

Following the breakdown of talks, environmental organizations expressed deep frustration with the influence of the fossil fuel sector on the negotiations. Research from InfluenceMap illustrated that the petrochemical industry has intervened multiple times to hinder commitments to cut production levels. Despite these challenges, some key plastic manufacturers, such as Unilever, Mars, and Nestlé, have indicated their support for consistent global regulations.

The hopeful outlook is that countries may reconvene in the next year to continue negotiations. Eirik Lindebjerg from the World Wide Fund for Nature advised that the group of 95 should pursue an independent treaty, emphasizing the global appetite for meaningful action against plastic pollution. As the urgency of this issue continues to mount, the world watches closely for the next steps in this crucial environmental debate.