Despite the exhaustion of long, sleepless nights, diplomats and observers were left pondering why the talks had broken down and what could prevent a similar outcome when countries reconvene next year to push the pact over the finish line.
One clear narrative that emerged was similar to those seen in past UN climate negotiations: a vocal minority of well-coordinated petrostates had blocked the majority's efforts to secure an ambitious agreement to end plastic pollution.
Petrostate Influence
More than 100 countries, ranging from wealthy Western nations to developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and the Pacific, supported proposals to cap plastic manufacturing in the new treaty. They argued that anything short of this would be a failure and a betrayal. "The time for the freedom to pollute is over," said European Union envoy Tony Agotha on Friday. "Mopping the floor when the tap is open is useless."
Currently, only about 9% of plastic is recycled globally, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD's October report stated that nearly eliminating plastic leakage by 2040 would require stringent policies to curb production and demand, alongside better waste management.
The production of nearly all plastic relies on fossil fuels, and with production set to double or triple in the next 25 years, this poses challenges both for combating global warming and tackling plastic waste, which is clogging oceans and littering the land.
However, a group of countries—led by Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran, with support from most Arab states and quiet backing from India—opposed the idea of capping plastic production. They argued that such provisions would lead to "economic disruption," trade restrictions, and shortages of essential materials.
Ghana's lead negotiator, Sam Adu-Kumi, expressed frustration, saying that some countries were prioritizing their economic interests over addressing the common "enemy" of plastic pollution and its devastating effects.
Economic Interests vs. Environmental Concerns
Fossil fuel-producing nations and industries see petrochemicals, including plastics, as vital to their economies, especially as demand for oil and gas declines with the global shift to cleaner energy. In 2023, China, the United States, India, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia were the top five producers of primary polymers, according to data from Eunomia.
Deadlock and Stalemate
The divisions between countries were stark during the marathon seven-hour closing plenary in Busan. Juliet Kabera, representing the High-Ambition Coalition (HAC), urged delegates to stand for ambition, condemning attempts by a minority of countries to dilute key binding provisions.
Russia's delegate argued against "production regulation models," while Kuwait, speaking on behalf of the Like-Minded group, expressed concerns about rushing to showcase progress. After the session was suspended without an agreement, Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), acknowledged that more time was needed to resolve "persisting divergence in critical areas."
Political Involvement Needed
Siddharth Singh of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) warned that the next round of talks would be challenging, especially with the U.S. negotiating under the Trump administration, which might strengthen the position of low-ambition countries.
Some negotiators hope China will play a key role in bridging the gap between the petrostates and other nations. Chinese Vice Minister Guo Fang urged countries to propose pragmatic solutions that balance national differences while addressing the entire lifecycle of plastics.
Need for Stronger Leadership
Campaigners are calling for stronger involvement from heads of state or ministers, a level of participation notably absent in Busan. Aleksandar Rankovic, co-founder of the Common Initiative, stressed the need for higher political engagement in the talks.
Voting Over Consensus?
As the talks progress, a growing number of voices advocate for a vote on contentious issues, rather than relying on the current consensus-based system. David Azoulay, from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), argued that ambitious countries must counter the "weaponization of consensus" by a few states. Eirik Lindebjerg, global plastics policy lead at WWF, added that a small group of countries was "holding the negotiations hostage" and called for a more decisive approach.
While the idea of a vote is technically allowed under the rules, some fear it could provoke backlash from the Like-Minded group and disrupt multilateral cooperation. In response, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chair of the INC, suggested that the next session would build on the progress made in Busan.
Governments agreed that the Chair's Text, compiled by Valdivieso, would serve as the basis for negotiations when the talks resume in 2025.