Major Plastics Treaty Ends in Failure

This story was originally published by GRIT. Subscribe to the weekly newsletter of GRIST here.

Diplomats from all over the world concluded nine days of talks in Geneva – in addition to a marathon session overnight, which lasted in the early hours of Friday – with no agreement on a global plastic treaty.

During the closing plenary session that started on Friday at 6:30 am – more than 15 hours after it is scheduled to start originally – almost all countries opposed an updated draft of the United Nations Treaty presented by the Chairman of the negotiating committee, the Ecuadorian diplomat Luis Fayas Valdevizo. Many delegates said that the text did not reflect their mandate under the decision of the United Nations environmental to “end plastic pollution” by addressing the “full life cycle” of plastic.

“It is really sad to say that we will not have a treaty to end the plastic pollution here in Geneva,” said Andreas Bieland Erica. Valdivieso concluded the meeting after nine in the morning with the promise that they will continue at a later time.

The decision ends a controversial week and a half of discussions during the fifth “resumed” session of negotiations on a unified United Nations treaty, which started in Geneva on August 4. The delegates arrived in the city in the hope of putting the finishing touches on the treaty by Thursday, after they have already exceeded the deadline to complete the agreement by the end of 2024.

Logjam signs were clear even in the first few days of the conversations, as the two countries were heading to the same red lines that they held during the previous negotiations. The so -called “similar group of thinking” from the oil -producing countries said that it will not accept the obligatory obligations legally and contradict a wide range of provisions that other countries said are necessary, including controls on new plastic production, as well as mandatory disclosure and the operation of dangerous chemicals used in plastic.

During a year on August 9, three observers were told GRIST that the negotiations felt as if they were “the day of the earth”, as the countries repeated the familiar modern points. The criterion about making unanimous decisions led to the discourse of the settlement from all countries, although the similar group of thinking-which includes Bahrain, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Russia, among other countries-was particularly violent and understood can prevent proposals instead of changing their positions. Instead of getting rid of the draft treaty that was prepared late last year during the previous meeting in Busan, South Korea, the delegates added hundreds of suggestions to it, and reached a deal beyond hand.

Over the course of the Geneva talks, delegates rejected two new drafts of the treaty prepared by Valdivieso: one of them was issued on Wednesday, which is so unwanted that the two countries said they were “disgusting” and lacking “any value that can be clarified”; And the latest one was published a few hours ago from 6:30 am on Friday. Many have expressed their preference to return to Busan’s draft as a basis for future discussions.

Despite Friday’s results, the plastic treaty does not seem to have died yet. Almost, all countries have expressed interest in the ongoing negotiations – European Union delegate Jessica Roswal said it would not accept a “dead treaty” – and many used the microphone time during the final plenary session to remind others of what is at stake.

“We cannot ignore the seriousness of the situation,” said negotiator from Madagascar. “Every day, our oceans, environmental systems and societies suffer from the consequences of our inability to take decisive and united measures.” The delegate of Tuwalo, Latassi, said that failure in the enactment of a treaty means that “millions of tons of plastic waste will continue to throw our oceans, which affects our ecological system, food security, livelihoods and culture.”

However, without changing the coordination of negotiations-especially on decision-making-it is unclear whether the additional discussions will be fruitful. The criterion about “consensus -based decisions” means that the vote threatening cannot be used to push stubborn countries away from their red lines; Unless decisions are made by a majority vote, it is unlikely to change this dynamic. “This meeting has proven that the consensus has died,” said Belllen Biller, Executive Director of the International pollutant cancellation network, an alliance of health and environmental organizations. “The problem will not disappear.”

“The consensus is worth searching for whether we have pushed forward, and not if the operation stops,” said Senimili Nakora, one of Fiji delegates, during the closing plenary session. “This process needs a deadline,” said negotiator in Switzerland.

Other countries have raised broader concerns about the “operation” through which negotiations continued. The meetings were “non -transparent”, “non -transparent”, and “mysterious”, during the plenary session, they probably reference to the unclear instructions they received from the Secretariat, the bureaucracy body that organizes negotiations.

Ingren Andersen, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program, told reporters on Friday that it was at least useful to hear the two countries in a clearer expression of their red lines. “Everyone must understand that this work will not stop, because plastic pollution will not stop.”

The plastic industry, which has opposed control over plastic production and overcomes groups of dangerous chemicals, said it will continue to support the treaty “keeping plastic materials in the economy and outside the environment.” “Although a global agreement is not concluded to end plastic pollution, we will continue to support efforts to reach an agreement working with all countries and can be effectively implemented.”

Environmental groups, scientists and front lines organizations were disappointed to leave Geneva without an ambitious treaty. They said it would be worse, if countries decide to give up the main provisions such as human health and “fair transition” of those who are likely to be affected by changes in recycling and global waste management policies, including waste committed.

Under these circumstances, they applauded the delegates for not agreeing to the final version of the text of the chair. Joe Banner, the co -founder of the organization’s worshipers in a group of Louisiana, who calls for the preservation and culture of the slave descendants of blacks in a group of Louisiana, said,

“Our voices have been heard,” said Shayan Rendon, chief policy in the non -profit association for the original countries, which called for the treaty to include a specific language on the rights of indigenous peoples and the use of indigenous population.

In contrast, the voices of observers literally did not hear during the last moments of the closing plenary session in Geneva. After more than two hours of data from national delegations, Valdivieso divided the microphone into a procession of young attendees, indigenous peoples, waste forums, and others who were present throughout the week and a half. But only one speaker – from the Youth Plastic Network – was able to provide a statement to the United States and Kuwait asked the chair to cut them and conclude the meeting.

It is now up to the Plastic Treaty Secretariat to set an appointment and time for another round of negotiations, which are unlikely to happen until next year. Meanwhile, all eyes will be at the United Nations Environment Society meeting in December, when Andersen is expected to present a report on the progress of negotiations-or its lack-which can provide an opportunity for similar countries to think to reduce the ambition of the treaty authorization: the statement that the treaty is trying to achieve. Some environmental groups fear that Iran, Russia and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others try to change the mandate so that they no longer refer to the “full life cycle” of plastic, but just plastic pollution – thus converting the treaty into a waste management agreement instead of those that address a full set of damage in the field of health and the environment, including material production.

Banner said she was not defeated. In fact, it is “more passionate than ever” to continue fighting for legally binding restrictions on the amount of plastic that the world makes.

“I plan to survive,” she added, and to do this, “we have to stop the production of plastic.”

This article was originally appeared in GRIST on https://grrist.org/international/plastics-treaty-INC-5-2-gneva-consusus-kills-AMBITION/. Grist is a non -profit and independent media organization dedicated to the novel of climate solution stories and a just future. Learn more about Grist.org