Talks Over UN Plastic Pollution Stall in Busan Over Chemicals, Funding
The third round of the UN negotiations to control global plastic pollution held in Busan, South Korea, has exposed deep divisions among member nations. The INC5, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, issued a draft text of a treaty that is set to become a legally binding international instrument to curb plastic pollution. Though there exist major outstanding differences on some core issues-like whether or not to limit plastics production, how finance is to take their share of the deal, and even the coverage and depth of the provisions of the treaty.
The draft text presents the framework of the future treaty and comprises 32 proposed articles on subjects such as objectives, principles, definitions, and management of plastic products and chemicals of concern. Though the draft is elaborate in detail, many of the essential features of the treaty are yet to be agreed upon. The extent to which consensus is building on several issues remains unclear.
Overuse in Plastic Production and Chemical Level
One of the most contentious issues is binding obligations to reduce plastic production, for which some countries are pushing quite strongly, while other countries oppose it, fearing that such limitation of plastic production may somehow impair industrial growth and undermine economic interests. The draft text includes such possible measures to limit plastic production but do not give them legally binding status.
A similar divide has also emerged in the issue of how to treat chemicals used in the production of plastic. The draft paper indicates that some chemicals linked to plastics, especially those that poison the environment and human life, should be controlled through binding agreements. However, such provisions are still bracketed, indicating that nations are far from agreeing on which chemicals to control or prohibit.
The draft treaty considers the entire lifecycle of plastics, from the production to the use and subsequently to the waste management and disposal phases, to address plastic pollution. This draft therefore recognizes that plastic pollution requires a holistic approach in that not only is it an issue about waste entering the environment, but how plastics are produced and finally disposed of.
Conflicts over Scope and Meaning
Another point of contention is the definition of plastic itself. There are eight definitions of plastics in the draft, from “synthetic material containing a high polymer, insoluble and non-swellable in water” to very broad descriptions, such as “materials made of synthetic or semi-synthetic polymers which may contain additives or other chemicals.” These different definitions indicate the intricacy of dealing with plastic pollution, as different countries have different interpretations of what constitutes plastic under the treaty. The treaty further classifies plastic waste into three broad categories: micro-, meso-, and macro-debris. However, the system of categorization remains open for negotiation. The deal is to address plastic pollution at every step of the life cycle of plastics whether that is in their production or use, disposal, leakage into the environment from both legal and illegal sources.
Role of finance in addressing plastic pollution
Another issue not covered in the draft text is finance and how to solve plastic pollution. The world is debating hot topics regarding funding improved waste management systems, upgrading recycling efforts, and increasing trash collection infrastructure.
Some are demanding a high financial commitment to raising the management of waste, while others advocate for provisions in the treaty to force the private sector to contribute towards solving the plastic crisis.
This is crucial in funding as many countries, especially developing ones, do not have the resources to address the plastic pollution. In case such funding becomes insufficient, then it will be a bottleneck in the attempts of curbing plastic pollution and hence would be a setback in achieving the set goals of the treaty.
Positive Trends and Way Forward
Despite the disagreements that seem to fill the draft, there are a few bits of good news from the talks. The treaty draft contains areas which may make binding agreements on some chemicals used in plastic formation and caps on plastic production — currently bracketed, awaiting finalization but discussions involving financial mechanisms created to be in place in helping these countries to find better methods for waste disposal and mitigate plastic pollution are being held.
The last round of UN-brokered talks in Busan has exposed the complexity involved in managing plastic pollution globally. While some countries are pushing for sterner regulations on plastic production and use of chemicals, others are interested in funding more efficient waste management infrastructure. This divide has derailed the gains registered during the past two years aimed at a global deal to control plastic pollution.
Conclusion: There has not been a global agreement so far on capping plastic production or how to regulate plastic waste in spite of the negotiations going on at UN in Busan. Each group has its stand on various issues, such as how production would be controlled, chemical regulations, and funding mechanisms. It will determine the future of plastics within the global policy on environment and pollution-a development with important repercussions not only for the environment and health but also for economies.