Like most international treaties, even an issue as pressing as plastic pollution could not bring the nations to a consensus.
In the past week, delegates from 175 countries around the world deliberated on a legally binding agreement that would instate a global ban on plastics. Unfortunately, like most international treaties, even an issue as pressing as plastic pollution could not bring the nations to a consensus. The countries were unable to draft an agreement and could only agree to continue this discussion at a later date.
Organised in Busan, South Korea, the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) came just weeks after the underwhelming COP29 Conference. At the Summit, while climate finance was highlighted as the central focus, the countries and international organisations were unable to allocate the necessary resources to combat the climate crisis. Following this response, the INC-5 session has also failed to secure international cooperation to work towards halting pollution and climate crisis.
The previous INC session (INC-4) which was scheduled in May also failed to reach a conclusion on the global plastic pollution treaty. In the November session as well, there was a lack of agreement, as some countries known as the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) which includes Asian, European, and African countries want the treaty to address the entire ‘lifecycle’ of plastic. That includes regulating its production, sale, and disposal. Countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia, on the other hand only want regulations addressing the waste aspect of plastic products.
The HAC had announced ahead of time that the conference must focus on drafting a binding resolution without allowing vested interests to interfere with the deliberations. Due to the countries’ commitment to signing a resolution by hook or by crook, some environmental agencies were concerned that a diluted form of the treaty would be signed just for the sake of implementation. However, this lack of consensus is not entirely a bad omen, as it shows the dedication of certain countries and environmental lobbies towards ensuring a plastic ban treaty will be signed sans compromises.
With one group resolute on their decision to instate a ban, there was an opposing lobby, whose very presence was questionable. The presence of global financial corporations and business lobbies, which was the largest delegation, raised eyebrows as their allegiance to pocketing profits from fossil fuels is no secret.
With 460 million tonnes of plastic produced in 2019, that figure is estimated to increase by three-fold by 2060. Three percent of global emissions come from plastics which use fossil fuels for their production. Therefore, representatives from the oil and gas industries being present at the INC-5 was deemed as highly contentious, with certain lobbyists even sending representation with national delegations of China, Malaysia, and Iran.
The Independent reported that Delphine Levi Alvares, global petrochemical campaign manager, at the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) said the oil and gas industry is using textbook strategies to derail and obstruct discussions on a global ban to protect their profits.
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the Ecuadorian diplomat who chaired the talks even produced an alternative document so that discussions do not reach an impasse, but countries like Russia, India, and Saudi Arabia dismissed it saying they do not feel represented in these documents, and are therefore, unwilling to use it as a basis for negotiation.
Critics are expressing dissatisfaction with the INC-5 Summit, saying buying more time will not help their cause, as the countries are less likely to reach a consensus even when the treaty is discussed at a later date. The absence of China and the US, which are among the top five producers of polymer products screams the lack of will to engage in these discussions. Petro economies are also unlikely to accept a plastic ban.
With these countries prioritising their profit motive over human and environmental health, there is not much hope in the international community that the world will come together to place a ban on plastic. However, it goes without saying that while few will reap the profits of such inaction, the burden of the loss and destruction will befall the world collectively.
