UN Plastics Treaty: final negotiation round in Busan fails to deliver consensus

What was meant to be the fifth and final round of negotiations on a legally binding and universal plastic treaty, held last week in Busan, South Korea, concluded without an agreement.

While the treaty itself would not contain obligations on individual producers or users of plastics, it would constitute a general levelling up of global ambition and trickle through to producers and users through a host of implementing domestic measures, potentially including controls on production or the use of chemicals and producer liability for waste management.

However, talks between over 100 countries, including the "High Ambition Coalition" which includes the EU, the UK, Canada, as well as many African, Latin American and Pacific countries, and oil-producing nations led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, failed to resolve key divisions. With no consensus reached over critical sticking points, including limits on plastic production, the regulation of chemicals in plastics and financial support for developing countries, a sixth round of negotiations will be convened in 2025.

The agreement stalled in large part due to three main points of contention:

1. Cap on Plastic Production – With plastic production on track to triple by 2050, the "High Ambition Coalition" countries argued that a legally binding cap on the production of plastic was critical for reducing plastic and microplastic pollution. However, this faced opposition from several major oil-producing countries who are heavily reliant on plastic to maintain oil demand.  These countries argued instead for enhanced  strategies of waste management and the reuse, recycling, and collection of plastic waste. These strategies include discussions on enhanced producer responsibility ("EPR"), or the extent to which producers of plastic are made liable for its waste management
2. Managing Chemicals of Concern in Plastics – "Chemicals of concerns" are defined as additives in plastics recognised for their significant risk to human health and the environment during production, use and disposal. "High Ambition Coalition" countries pushed for stronger measures to identify and regulate these chemicals, as well as promote safer alternatives to reduce exposure and risk. However, some countries, including Russia and Saudi Arabia, have resisted these additional measures, citing existing international agreements and national regulations on toxins as sufficient to address chemical concerns in plastics.
3. Financing for Developing Countries – Almost 100 countries called for the creation of a dedicated multilateral fund for financing the obligations of any final deal, but developed countries argued that existing environmental funds, like the Global Environment Facility should be used to meet these financial needs. Disagreement over who should bear the financial burden, and how funds should be allocated, created barriers to reaching an agreement.  

However, although no final agreement was reached in Busan, some progress was made on several issues such as the need for plastic waste management, EPR, recycling and produce redesigns. A draft text was also agreed upon, which will serve as a basis for future discussions and negotiations.

Looking ahead, talks are expected to continue in 2025 for at least one further round. Hopes of reaching a treaty which provides global, legally binding regulation and targets (in the style of the Kyoto and Montreal Protocols) are dwindling and the expectation is that the outcome will be more akin to the Paris Agreement which creates a global obligation to report and raise ambition regularly, with no binding top-down targets. However, despite divergences, negotiations have also highlighted new areas of convergence such as support for (extended) producer responsibility, which producers of plastics should take note of.

The authors would like to thank Sonia Yin Tung Wong for her contribution.