Why global plastic treaty talks collapsed

Why did the talks fail?

The main dispute was regarding the demand for production cap goals in the final treaty along with clear language on the elimination of certain plastic chemicals and products. This demand was mainly pushed by a coalition of more than 100 countries which includes African nations, Latin American nations and most of the European Union.

However, a coalition of “like-minded countries” including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia, and Iran opposed the inclusion of provisions on plastic production cuts, arguing they were beyond the mandate of the 2022 resolution to end plastic pollution. For instance, Kuwait said in a bid to include such provisions in the final treaty, the mandate was being stretched for advancing trade restrictions, economic agendas, and commercial competition, under the guise of environmental action. India and China also supported the stand of this coalition.

What does the treaty’s draft text say?

The draft text reflected both points of consensus and contention.

Points of consensus included proposing a ban on open dumping and open burning for sustainable waste management. The draft text also provided clear definitions of plastic and plastic products, but it did not reflect definitions of contentious issues such as microplastics, nanoplastics, primary plastic polymers, and recycling.

Despite a pushback from the Arab group of countries led by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the draft text included options to include a goal to reduce plastic after the treaty is finalised. References to single-use plastics and short-lived plastics were also included.

This draft text, with all its issues and progress, will serve as the basis for the next session in 2025.

What was India’s stance?

India’s stance and interventions centred on issues such as the varying responsibilities of countries in addressing plastic pollution, keeping in focus the right to development of countries and the need for the provision of technical and financial assistance to manage plastic waste. It also stressed that the scope of the treaty should be well-defined to not overlap with existing multilateral environmental agreements.

India outlined its stance in the opening plenary. Its delegation said any legally binding treaty must recognise the need for support to developing countries through finance and technology transfer. At the outset it made clear it did not support any articles on “supply”, referring to the discussions surrounding curbing production. India said the sustainable level of production at a global or national level was not well-defined and may become a method for imposing a cap on the production of products, chemicals, or primary polymers.

It also said production of primary polymers was not directly linked to plastic pollution and there should be no targets concerning polymer or plastic production. Instead, it asked to focus on reducing plastic pollution. Further, it did not support a levy of a plastic pollution fee on the production of primary polymers.

At the end of the talks, India added that a balance has to be struck between preventing plastic pollution and protecting the sustainable development of developing countries.