EU Pushes for Global Plastics Treaty but Refuses to Compromise Core Goals

The European Union has announced that it is ready to agree to a historic global treaty to tackle plastic pollution, but it insists that a treaty should not conflict with its own key environmental aims. With negotiations due to wrap up in Geneva in just two days, things are entering a critical period with a lot of divisions still apparent between oil-producing countries and ambitious countries trying to achieve more on plastic pollution.

The UN-hosted talks in Geneva follow five rounds of negotiations over the past two and a half years with no deal reached in any of these meetings. Last year was an important final push in South Korea, which did not yield the deal that many had hoped could be a turning point in the battle against plastic pollution. The current round of negotiations started about a week ago and will end on Thursday, but there is a rising fear there is not enough time to resolve the huge differences between both sides of the table.

EU representatives have put forth that they recognise the contribution of materials like plastics to the modern world, but the growing problems of environmental destruction caused by the pollution of plastic is no longer tenable. They have pushed for a treaty that provides a clear, accepted framework across the globe to give companies clarity for regulations, investment choices and compliance standards.

The biggest point of contention has been between a group of oil-producing nations, which have labelled themselves the Like-Minded Group, and the other countries who are trying to push for more commitment from countries. The Like-Minded Group, which includes countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia and Iran, believes that the treaty should solely encompass waste management efforts. This puts the focus of intervention after the product has been used, rather than addressing the issue of production itself, while legal counsel for the EU and its allies in the fight against plastics want to see as strict measures as possible to at least limit the production of plastics, specifically in high-hazardous chemical processes.

The European position echoes the same warnings from science and environmental organizations that if present trends continue, plastic production could triple by 2060. This would vastly increase waste management challenges and worsen pollution in oceans, rivers and ecosystems. EU officials concede that, in order to achieve any meaningful results from a new international instrument, reduced plastic production at the source, combined with better recycling and waste management systems are ultimately required.

Negotiators recognize that the gap between the respective positions of the two sides remains too significant. The Danish Environment Minister has warned parties that the longer they delay making decisive proposals, the more difficult it will be to respond to the crisis effectively. He has called on all sides to reconsider their respective positions and find actions to compromise, recognizing that flexibility will be required on every side.

No nation is currently promoting a weak agreement, but all recognize the challenge lies with finding language that meets the demand for a legally binding treaty while maintaining sufficient political and economic acceptability to allow for ratification. The EU and other countries with ambitions are insisting any treaty include strong, enforceable provisions, so as to avoid a situation where lose the instrument risks becoming another paper document with limited real world impact.

Observers of the negotiations claim that the Geneva talks hold not only environmental but also economic weight. The plastics industry is a multi-billion-pound industry, complements of the oil and petrochemical industries, where attempts to reduce production could have huge implications, but provide room for alternative materials, circular economy, and green innovation. Advocates of strong measures believe the transition will build sustainable growth as well as create jobs, while explicitly accepting that short-term change may prove politically difficult in some producing countries.

Behind the scenes, delegates have been sorting through the technical elements of the treaty text. Areas of discussions have included timeframes for phase outs of certain products, funding waste management infrastructure in developing countries, and operational mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing targets. The Great Challenge remains achieving global standards while allowing the flexibility of national measurement, to ensure those measures are in sync with domestic contexts while achieving collective targets.

As the end of negotiations is drawing near, we feel tensions rising. Many delegates expect the upcoming days to bring increased debate, last-minute offers, and political wrestling. The EU has reiterated that it is looking for compromise, but it will not sign a deal that does not prompt meaningful action by all the parties to tackle plastic pollution at source. The bloc is also reminding everyone of the importance of making a precedent with the new deal - a weak outcome will negatively impact global credibility on climate and biodiversity.

There has been concern expressed by environmental groups observing the negotiations, insisting that what is needed is an ambitious treaty with measurable targets and concrete timelines with compliance mechanisms. Participants argued that a suite of voluntary measures and non-binding commitments has failed to stem the rapid growth of plastic waste, and only a strong international framework will coordinate the necessary changes between industries and jurisdictions.

The Geneva discussions' progress will be monitored closely by governments, industry leaders, and environmental advocates globally. An agreement will mark what could be the most important step to date in international efforts to address plastic pollution with principles that will guide policymakers, affect businesses, and change consumer behaviours for decades. An agreement failure, on the other hand, risks perpetuating the status quo of each country acting unilaterally, reducing global momentum toward solutions at a moment in time where scientists indicate, we are approaching the windows of opportunity for action.

While both sides have indicated a willingness to agree, the next few hours will be the ultimate test of the ability to work through major differences. The EU and associated partners will need to weigh the political costs of major compromises against the long-term benefits of an agreement addressing not only the waste on the planet, but more of the upstream causes of this crisis. If there is a final agreement, it will need to reconcile urgent environmental problems with practical economic and political realities.

At present, negotiators are continuing their conversation, knowing that the decisions made in Geneva could influence the global response to plastic pollution for a generation. Whether they are able to produce ambition and consensus in a treaty is yet to be determined, before the talks end on Thursday.