By AFP - Agence France Presse
Plastic pollution talks: The main sticking points
By Sara HUSSEIN
The nations meeting in Busan, South Korea, have a week to agree on the world's first treaty to reduce plastic pollution, a huge challenge given the great divisions that still exist.
Here's a look at the main sticking points:
The divisions between nations are so deep that they have yet to agree on how any decision will be adopted - by consensus or by majority vote.
Consensus is the standard for many UN agreements, but it has also hindered progress on other agreements, most notably the climate agreement.
In order not to disrupt the discussions, the negotiations are proceeding without resolving this issue.
But this creates a kind of landmine that could detonate at any time during the negotiations, especially if countries feel they are losing ground, warned Bjorn Beeler, executive director of the International Pollutants Elimination Network.
“Because of the consensus decision-making process, the oil countries could still destroy the possible final agreement,” he told AFP.
The resolution that started the talks called for a treaty that would “promote the sustainable production and consumption of plastics.”
But what that means is a key point of disagreement between the negotiators.
Some countries want the treaty to mandate a reduction in the production of new plastics and the phasing out of “unnecessary” items, such as some single-use plastics.
They note that many countries already limit items such as plastic bags or cutlery.
But other nations, led by some oil-producing countries such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, have opposed any mandatory reduction requirement.
They insist that nations should set their targets.
Saudi Arabia, representing the group of Arab nations, warned in its opening statement against “imposing rigid and exclusionary policies to address complex global issues.”
They called on members to focus on a treaty “that balances environmental protection with economic and social development.”
The alliance of countries called the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), led by Rwanda and Norway, is pushing for specific measures on so-called chemicals of concern.
These are components of plastic that are known or feared to be harmful to human health.
HAC wants “global criteria and measures” for phasing out or restricting these chemicals.
However, some countries also reject this approach.
The lists are also strongly contested by the chemical and petrochemical sector, which points to a number of existing international agreements and national regulations.
“A new global agreement to address plastic pollution must not duplicate these existing instruments and voluntary efforts,” warned the International Council of Chemical Associations.
The automobile industry claims that any comprehensive ban could affect its ability to comply with safety standards.
Implementing any treaty will cost money that, according to developing countries, they simply don't have.
India insists that the treaty should make it clear that compliance “should be linked to the provision of incremental cost” and supports the creation of a specific multilateral fund for this purpose.
This position may struggle to gain traction, especially after the uphill battle at the COP29 climate talks to get more funding from developed countries.
But this is unlikely to sway the countries advocating the funds.
Developed countries “have historically benefited from industrial activities related to plastic production,” noted Saudi Arabia, speaking on behalf of the Arab group.
They “have a greater responsibility in providing financial and technical support as well as capacity building for developing countries.”
Will the treaty create comprehensive global rules that bind all nations to the same standards, or will it allow each country to set its own goals and objectives?
This is likely to be another major sticking point, with the European Union warning that “a treaty in which each party would do only what it considers necessary is not something we are willing to support.”
On the other side are nations that argue that different levels of capacity and economic growth make common standards unreasonable.
“There should be no compliance regime,” says the text proposed by Iran for the treaty.
Instead, the text calls for an “evaluation committee” that monitors progress but “in no way” examines compliance or implementation.
sah/sco
Comments