This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/15/plastic-pollution-talks-geneva-treaty

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Plastic pollution talks fail as negotiators in Geneva reject draft treaties Plastic pollution talks fail as negotiators in Geneva reject draft treaties
(about 5 hours later)
Countries deadlocked on whether legally binding deal should include curbs on production and toxic chemicals NGOs say deadlock over legally binding deal to curb production and toxic chemicals is ‘blow to multilateralism’
Once again negotiators will leave the plastic summit this week without a treaty, having failed to reach agreement in what was supposed to have been the final round of talks. Global talks to reach agreement on a treaty aimed at ending the growing scourge of plastic pollution have collapsed, with no deal agreed and no clear path forward.
The delegates, who were attempting to complete a crucial treaty to end the plastic pollution crisis remain deadlocked over whether it should reduce exponential growth of plastic production and put global, legally binding controls on toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Countries worked beyond Thursday’s deadline into the night and Friday morning, but remained deadlocked on the issue that has dogged talks since they were launched, amid fervent optimism, in 2022: whether to reduce exponential growth of plastic production and place global, legally binding controls on toxic chemicals used to make plastics.
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, wrote and presented two drafts of treaty text in Geneva based on the views expressed by the participants. The representatives from 184 countries did not agree to use either one as the basis for their negotiations. Several countries expressed bitter disappointment, sadness and anger that the Geneva talks had, after the sixth and final round of negotiations, failed to reach a deal. Despite the deadlock, they said they would carry on with a resumed session in the future.
Valdivieso said on Friday morning, as the delegates reconvened in the assembly hall, that no further action was being proposed at this stage on the latest draft. Delegates are still in talks but have not decided on the next steps. Some NGOs called the failed talks a “blow to multilateralism”, and there was reflection among some delegates on how best to move forward: for instance, without the participation of petrostates that had obstructed the talks.
Palau, speaking for 39 small island developing states (Sids), voiced frustration at repeatedly investing resources and personnel in such discussion and “repeatedly returning home with insufficient progress to show our people … It is unjust for Sids to face the brunt of yet another global environmental crisis we contribute minimally to.” Agnès Pannier-Runacher, France’s minister for ecological transition, said she was “disappointed” and “angry” that a handful of countries “guided by short-term financial interests” had bloked the adoption of an ambitious treaty.
Representatives of Norway, Australia, Tuvalu and other countries said they were deeply disappointed to be leaving Geneva without a treaty. France, the EU and more than 100 countries, from every continent, “did everything possible” to obtain an agreement to reduce plastic production, to ban the most dangerous products and to protect human health, she said.
The European commissioner Jessika Roswall said the EU and its member states had higher expectations for this meeting, but while the draft fell short of demands, it would be a good basis for another negotiating session. Emma Hardy, the UK’s head of delegation and marine minister, said: “I’m hugely disappointed that an agreement wasn’t reached, but am extremely proud of the way the UK worked tirelessly until the end to seek an ambitious and effective treaty.”
“The Earth is not ours only. We are stewards for those who come after us. Let us fulfil that duty,” she said. Colombia’s delegate, Sebastián Rodríguez, said: “The negotiations were consistently blocked by a small number of states who simply don’t want an agreement.”
Saudi Arabia said both drafts lacked balance, and Saudi and Kuwaiti negotiators said the latest proposal took other states’ views more into account and addressed plastic production, which they considered outside the scope of the treaty. Tuvalu, speaking for 14 Pacific small island developing states, said: “For our islands this means that without global cooperation and state action, millions of tonnes of plastic waste will continue to be dumped in our oceans, affecting our ecosystem, food security, livelihood and culture.”
That draft, released early on Friday, did not include a limit on plastic production but recognised that current levels of production and consumption were “unsustainable” and global action was needed. China’s delegation said the fight against plastic pollution was a long marathon and the temporary setback represented a new starting point to forge consensus. It urged countries to work together to offer future generations a planet without plastic pollution.
New language had been added to say these levels exceeded current waste management capacities and were projected to increase further, “thereby necessitating a coordinated global response to halt and reverse such trends”. Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, wrote and presented two drafts of treaty text based on the views expressed by the countries, but representatives from 184 countries rejected both as a basis for their negotiations.
The objective of the treaty was also revamped to state that the accord would be based on a comprehensive approach that addressed the full lifecycle of plastics. Saudi Arabia said both drafts lacked balance, and Saudi and Kuwaiti negotiators suggested the latest proposal, presented in the early hours of Friday, took other states’ views more into account. It addressed plastic production, which they considered to be outside the scope of the treaty.
The biggest issue of the talks has been whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic or focus instead on things such as better design, recycling and reuse. The Friday draft did not include a limit on plastic production but recognised that current production and consumption levels were “unsustainable” and global action was needed.
Powerful oil- and gas-producing countries and the plastics industry oppose production limits. They want a treaty focused on better waste management and reuse. There was little clarity on the way forward as delegates left the UN meeting on Friday morning. But there was acknowledgment that lessons needed to be learned and a new approach was needed.
Every year, the world makes more than 400m tonnes of new plastic, and that could increase by about 70% by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production. Many said it was also essential to address toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Jessika Roswall, the European commissioner for environment, said she saw the outcome of the talks as a good basis for a resumed session, but they must “be honest and learn from the process that has brought us here today”.
Thursday was the last scheduled day of negotiations, but work on the revised draft continued into Friday. Dennis Clare, of Micronesia, said: “What might have collapsed is not so much the talks but the logic of continuing or concluding them in a forum with dedicated obstructionists.”
Science showed what it would take to end pollution and protect human health, said Bethanie Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicology professor at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg who co-leads the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. While it is always difficult to negotiate shared goals in a multilateral forum with almost 200 countries, it is “especially difficult if there is no meeting of the minds on what the goals are,” he said.
The science supported addressing the full lifecycle of plastics, beginning with extraction and production, and restricting some chemicals to ensure plastics were safer and more sustainable, she added. “The science has not changed,” Almroth said. “It cannot be down negotiated.” Clare, who negotiated for Micronesia in the Montreal treaty to control ozone-depleting chemicals, a process that took eight years, said he had “deja-vu” from petrostates blocking principles back then.
Senior Lawyer and Policy Advisor at the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency Tim Grabiel said: “This time, the petrostates not only took the plastics treaty hostage but tried to strangle it in the bathtub and bury the body. “We need to consider how to approach this and whether to consider without [petrostates’] participation,” he said. “Many ambitious countries also have great hope in China, a country that not only has a much more diverse economy than some of its petrostate allies, but also has a demonstrated interest in showing leadership to solve global problems. This is the beginning of the beginning of the world’s attempt to address plastic pollution.”
“The petrostates used every dirty tactic in the multilateral playbook to delay and deceive, dither and destroy an effective plastics treaty.” Christina Dixon, of the Environmental Investigation Agency, said the failure to reach a deal was a “blow to multilateralism”. If talks resume they needed a “new dynamic, a new chair and empowerment for delegates to utilise the right to vote”.
Environmentalists, waste pickers, Indigenous leaders and business executives travelled to the talks to make their voices heard. Some used creative tactics but are leaving disappointed. Indigenous leaders sought a treaty that recognised their rights and knowledge. “Its going to be really difficult to keep doing the same thing again and expect a different result – that’s the definition of insanity,” she said.
“If countries hope to ever achieve a treaty that meaningfully addresses plastic pollution, they will either need to vote at the INC [Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee] or take the negotiation elsewhere,” said Melissa Sky, a senior lawyer at the Centre for International Environmental Law.
Valdivieso said the session had merely been adjourned rather than ended. Countries and the secretariat “will be working to try to find a date and also a place” for resuming the talks, he said.